Environmental Appraisal for a Single Wind Turbine at
Manor Farm, Newton, Staffordshire
Report by: Adam Shepherd
Chec ked by: Alison Parker
Date: February 2013
Prepared for: Prepared by: Caddick Renewables ADAS UK Ltd
4205 Park Approach Thorpe Park Leeds LS15 8GB
Copyright The proposed approach and methodology is protected by copyright and no part of this document may be copied or dis closed to any third party, either before or after the contract is awarded, without the written consent of ADAS. 0936648 4001349
NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
Introduction This Environmental Appraisal has been prepared by ADAS UK Ltd. on behalf of Caddick Renewables Ltd. to accompany the planning application for a proposed single turbine of maximum blade tip height of 74m at Manor Farm, Newton, Staffordshire, WS15 3PE.
Project Description The application site lies in a rural setting approximately 10km to the east of Stafford on land used for agricultural purposes.
This application does not specify a particular make and model of turbine as this will depend on the availability of models when the turbine is purchased. However, for the purposes of the assessments the Enercon 48 (E48) has been used as the candidate turbine. The E48 is the turbine which is most likely to be used, subject to availability at the time of order. The turbine would have a capacity of 500kW.
Supporting infrastructure would include:
• construction of a hardstanding area for cranes and parking;
• construction of a hardcore access track;
• construction of a collector substation and equipment housing cabinet; and
• grid connection works.
A temporary plant and equipment storage compound would be required during the duration of the construction works. The application also seeks permission for a temporary anemometry mast which may be installed temporarily in the proposed turbine location if more detailed wind data is required. However, given that current modelling shows the wind speed to be viable on the site, this may well not be developed.
Ecology
A desk study, a site ecological constraints survey, a review of habitats for birds and a bird survey have been undertaken by ADAS ecologists. The site does not lie within any areas that have statutory or non statutory designations for nature conservation. There are two international designations and three national designations within 5km of the site. The ecological constraints survey identified the site to be of some value at a parish/ neighbourhood level due to the presence of a species rich hedgerow and mature trees. The
mature trees will not be affected by the development and the hedgerows will be retained. The field that the turbine is to be located in comprise species poor improved grassland.
A bird survey, including a site survey of habitats for birds and vantage point surveys were carried out to provide further information of the potential impacts on birds, particularly wildfowl present at Blithfield Reservoir Site of Special Scientific Interest. The survey was carried out in autumn, because this is the period when the target species are likely to migrate. However, very few target species were recorded on the site and given the scale of the development and the flight patterns of birds recorded during the survey, the risk of collision is thought to be low, and the displacement or exclusion of birds would be negligible. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was consulted on the survey findings and confirmed that they were happy both the survey methodology and the conclusion.
The hedgerows bordering the field provide suitable habitat for a range of common bird nesting species. Minor pruning of hedgerows is likely to be required where the access road enters the side and, depending on the level of vegetation at the time of construction, trimming may be required at other points along the access road. Trimming works shrubs would be undertaken outside the main bird nesting season (considered to be March to August inclusive) or be preceded by an inspection for active nests. The small amount of relatively low quality habitat that will be directly lost as a result of the development is considered to be insignificant.
The application field is of low value for Great Crested Newts and the turbine would be located over 250m from the nearest pond. Therefore, negative impacts on newts are considered unlikely.
There are no features within 50m suitable for a bat roost or foraging routes and no significant impacts are predicted on bats.
Hydrology An assessment of the impact on hydrology has been undertaken through a desk study and a review of the proposed development.
The closest watercourses to the site are approximately 500m to the south east, west and north of the site although there are a few waterbodies, field ponds, within 500m. The nearest field pond is located 260m to the south west. The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone and it is located in a minor aquifer high vulnerability groundwater area. The closest borehole is 254m to the south. The site is in a low risk area of river or sea flooding (Flood Zone 1).
Due to the relatively small footprint of the total development, the effects associated with its construction are considered to be minor. To mitigate against the pollution of water resources the construction will adhere to the Pollution Prevention Guidance Notes published by the Environment Agency. All construction waste will be dealt with in accordance with best available techniques to ensure the risk of contamination to ground and surface waters is kept to a minimum. Construction activities will be scheduled to minimise the area and period of time that soil will be exposed, particularly if construction occurs on surface wetness soils during the winter months.
The turbine is not likely to require significant maintenance during its operation and best practice measures implemented during construction will continue to be followed. The potential effects on the water environment during decommissioning are likely to be very similar to those during the construction phase and similar protection/ mitigation measures will be used.
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment The assessment of the potential impact of the development on landscape character and visual amenity was carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines. Impacts of the proposed development have been identified and given a significance weighting.
The proposed erection of a single wind turbine at Manor Farm is in accordance with all national and local policy guidelines on landscape. There are no landscape designations within the 5km study area, although Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is located 5.1km south west of the proposed site and so was included in the assessment. At the closest points, visibility from the AONB would be predominantly screened by topography. From higher ground within the AONB further south, the turbine would be seen as a minor component of wide elevated landscape views and would not affect the key characteristics of the landscape.
Up to distances of approximately 1.7km, the turbine would become an additional characterising element of the landscape character. Direct effects on the landscape fabric will be limited in extent and fully reversible on decommissioning.
With regards to visual amenity, there would be some major and major/moderate effects with respect of the visual amenity of a limited number of farmsteads and scattered dwellings and on the periphery of settlements at distances of up to approximately 3km from the proposal. The potential for visual effects on settlements of a major and major/moderate level would be limited and subject to the level of screening by landform and tree cover.
There are no currently constructed wind turbines of a similar scale in the area, and so the addition of a turbine at Manor Farm would not result in any significant cumulative effects. If
the two single turbines in planning gain permission there would still be no significant cumulative landscape effects arising from the addition of Manor Farm.
The proposed design optimisation measures will go some way to minimising the impacts that the turbine and associated development will have upon the landscape character of the local area and ensure that residual impacts are kept to a minimum. When the proposed turbine reaches the end of its lifespan, it can be removed along with the substation and access track to leave no deviation from the baseline landscape and visual conditions.
Cultural Heritage A cultural heritage baseline assessment at Manor Farm was prepared by Headland Archaeology (UK) Ltd to inform the assessment of cultural heritage impacts associated with the development of a wind turbine upon the site.
There is one Schedule Monument and several Listed Buildings within 2km. The proposed turbine is not considered to affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The assessment identified one previously recorded cultural heritage asset, a 19th century out farm no longer visible on the ground, within the north east corner of the application field. The access track has been located to avoid the location of the undesignated asset as recorded in the Historic Environment Record.
There is a possibility that previously existing field boundaries or cultivation remains of post medieval date, considered to be of negligible significance, could be locally affected by earth works associated with constructing the development. However the works are unlikely to destroy or seriously degrade the overall system of such remains. There is also a low possibility of remains predating the post-medieval period to occur within the development area. Any earlier previously unknown archaeological remains would be directly affected where covered by the footprint of any earthworks.
It is concluded that the overall development footprint is likely to be relatively small and therefore any previously unknown heritage assets present will be affected in only a small area.
Noise A noise assessment was undertaken by Dragonfly Acoustics to assess the impact of noise from the proposed wind turbine on the nearest noise sensitive receptor. The noise assessment was undertaken in accordance with standard noise prediction methodologies and
assessed against the criteria of the ETSU–R 97 report ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ published in September 1996.
The nearest noise sensitive receptor is located approximately 530m from the turbine. At the nearest noise sensitive receptor, the calculated turbine noise level is within the daytime and below the night time noise criteria recommended by ETSU. The predicted noise levels from the proposed turbine would satisfy all of the noise limits specified by ETSU and the Local Authority.
Aviation and Telecommunications Large structures such as turbines can cause interference with the aviation operations and telecommunications. Aviation and telecommunications organisations were consulted to identify if the location of the proposed turbine was likely to cause any interference.
Aviation stakeholders were consulted and Tatenhill airfield confirmed that there would be no impact on their operations. The Ministry of Defence was also consulted but unfortunately did not provide a response.
Pager Power was commissioned to provide a map of microwave links. The microwave link chart from Pager Power shows that there are three links which cross and three links that pass near the proposed turbine site. Consultation with the telecommunications organisations did not identify any problems with the location of the proposed turbine.
The turbine has been sited over 500m from residential properties as advised by Ofcom to minimise the potential for television interference. Consultation was held with Arqiva, who is responsible for providing the BBC and ITV’s transmission network and therefore is responsible for ensuring the integrity of Re Broadcast Links. This determined that the proposed turbine is unlikely to affect any of their Re Broadcast Links.
Standard mitigation with regard to aviation lighting and plotting of the turbine on flying charts can be undertaken. In the event of television reception problems a number of standard mitigation measures can be employed.
Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is the flickering effect caused when rotating wind turbine blades periodically cast shadows through constrained openings such as narrow windows. None of the residences in the vicinity are within the distance that shadow flicker is likely to be a nuisance.
CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.2. The Applicant...... 1 1.3. Screening...... 1 1.4. Scope of the Environmental Appraisal...... 1 2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...... 3 2.1. Need for the Development ...... 3 2.2. Location and Site Description ...... 3 2.3. Designated Sites...... 5 2.4. Site Selection and Design Process...... 5 2.5. Project Description...... 6 2.6. Construction...... 10 2.7. Operation ...... 12 2.8. Decommissioning...... 12 3. ECOLOGY ...... 13 3.1. Introduction ...... 13 3.2. Legislation and Planning Policy ...... 13 3.3. Methodology ...... 15 3.4. Baseline Conditions ...... 20 3.5. Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 30 3.6. Conclusions ...... 33 4. HYDROLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS...... 34 4.1. Introduction ...... 34 4.2. Legislation and Planning Policy Context...... 34 4.3. Methodology ...... 35 4.4. Baseline Conditions ...... 36 4.5. Assessment of Impacts...... 39 4.6. Mitigation ...... 40 4.7. Residual Effects...... 42 5. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT...... 44 5.1. Introduction ...... 44 5.2. Guidance and Methodology ...... 46
5.3. Landscape Baseline...... 59 5.4. Design and Mitigation ...... 62 5.5. Visual Analysis...... 64 5.6. Construction Stage Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects...... 70 5.7. Operational Stage: Assessment of Landscape Effects ...... 71 5.8. Operational Stage: Assessment of Visual Effects...... 77 5.9. Cumulative Effects...... 85 5.10. Conclusions...... 85 6. CULTURAL HERITAGE ...... 88 6.1. Introduction ...... 88 6.2. Policy and Guidance...... 89 6.3. Regional Policy Framework ...... 90 6.4. Local Policy Framework...... 91 6.5. Guidance ...... 92 6.6. Research Frameworks...... 92 6.7. Objectives of this Document ...... 92 6.8. Scope...... 93 6.9. Study Areas ...... 93 6.10. Methods ...... 94 6.11. Heritage Assessment ...... 96 6.12. Scheduled Monuments Within and Around the Development Area...... 98 6.13. Built Heritage Assets in Study Area...... 99 6.14. Historic Landscape Character within the Study Area ...... 102 6.15. Identification and Significance of Heritage Assets Affected...... 103 6.16. Impact Assessment...... 104 6.17. Conclusion ...... 105 7. NOISE ...... 106 7.1. Introduction ...... 106 7.2. Site Description in the Context of Potential Noise Impacts ...... 106 7.3. Guidance ...... 106 7.4. Assessment ...... 110 7.5. Summary and Conclusion...... 111 8. AVIATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS...... 113 8.1. Introduction ...... 113
8.2. Consultation...... 113 8.3. Assessment of Potential Effects...... 114 8.4. Mitigation ...... 117 8.5. Summary ...... 117 9. SHADOW FLICKER...... 118 9.1. Introduction ...... 118 9.2. Planning Policy and Assessment Guidelines ...... 118 9.3. Potential Impacts ...... 118 10. REFERENCES...... 119 APPENDIX 1.1: EIA SCREENING OPINION ...... 124 APPENDIX 3.1: NATURE CONSERVATION LEGISLATION ...... 125 APPENDIX 3.2: ECOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY FORM...... 126 APPENDIX 5.1: LANDSCAPE VISUALISATIONS ...... 127 APPENDIX 5.2: LANDSCAPE CHARACTER DESCRIPTIONS...... 128 APPENDIX 5.3: LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS...... 129 APPENDIX 5.4: CUMULATIVE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 130 APPENDIX 5.5: CUMULATIVE LVIA VISUALISATIONS ...... 131 APPENDIX 6.1: LIST OF HERITAGE ASSETS ...... 132 APPENDIX 6.2: CULTURAL HERITAGE FIGURES...... 133 APPENDIX 7.1: GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY ...... 134 APPENDIX 7.2: LOCATION OF TURBINE AND NEAREST NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS...... 135 APPENDIX 8.1: CONSULTATION RESPONSES ON AVIATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ...... 136 APPENDIX 8.2: MICROWAVE LINK CHART ...... 137
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1.1. This Environmental Appraisal has been prepared by ADAS UK Ltd. on behalf of Caddick Renewables Ltd. to accompany the planning application for a proposed single turbine of maximum blade tip height of 74m at Manor Farm, Newton, Staffordshire, WS15 3PE. The candidate turbine is an Enercon 48 (E48).
1.2. The Applicant
1.2.1. The applicant is Caddick Renewables Ltd, a developer and operator of small and medium scale renewables projects delivered in partnership with farmers and landowners. The partnership approach means that Caddick Renewables’ schemes deliver economic benefits to the local
area in addition to renewable electricity and CO2 emission reductions.
1.3. Screening
1.3.1. The Town and County Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 state that wind turbines fall within Schedule 2 development and can require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) where the development:
• involves the installation of more than two turbines; or
• includes a structure where the height exceeds 15 metres.
1.3.2. As the hub height of the turbine would be above 15 metres, an EIA Screening Opinion was requested from East Staffordshire Borough Council and received on 2nd August 2012 (Appendix 1.1). The Screening Opinion stated that “the development does not comprise EIA development”.
1.3.3. Although a formal EIA has not been requested, environmental issues have been considered in the project design from the outset to minimise potential environmental impacts and the developer commissioned an Environmental Appraisal to assess the environmental implications.
1.4. Scope of the Environmental Appraisal
1.4.1. Pre application advice was sought from East Staffordshire Borough
1
Council and received on 2nd August 2012. This pre application advice has shaped the survey work carried out and the presentation of this Environmental Appraisal.
1.4.2. The topics covered in the Environmental Appraisal are:
• ecology;
• hydrology, geology and soils;
• landscape and visual impacts;
• cultural heritage;
• noise;
• aviation and telecommunications; and
• shadow flicker.
1.4.3. A visual route inspection was carried out to determine if there is a viable transport route to the proposed site. This is provided in a separate report accompanying the application (see Transport Note). The internal access within the site has also been developed in consultation with transport professionals and Enercon to ensure it is suitable for the vehicles required during construction and operation.
2
2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1. Need for the Development
2.1.1. Electricity generated by the proposed wind turbine will be exported to the grid where it will be eligible for payment under the feed in tariff payment scheme. The proposed development represents an opportunity to diversify income streams to the farm business.
2.1.2. Assuming a 30% capacity factor and using Ofgem data on average domestic electricity consumption of 3,300kWh, the wind turbine would generate electricity equivalent to the requirements of approximately 398 households. The development would therefore make an important contribution towards regional and national targets for the installation of renewable energy capacity.
2.2. Location and Site Description
2.2.1. The application site lies in a rural setting east of Stafford and approximately 1.5km to the south east of the village of Drointon. The National Grid Reference of the turbine is 403681, 326003. A location plan is shown overleaf in Figure 2.1, with a full size location plan submitted with this application (CEN4029/Location/V1).
3
Figure 2.1: Location Plan
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. ADAS Licence no. AL100020033 July 2012. For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made. 2.2.2. The site at Manor Farm is currently used for agricultural purposes, with arable crops grown on the proposed site. The site is mapped as Agricultural Land Classification Grade 2 and 3 land1. Outside the small development footprint, the land will remain in agricultural use, with the turbine having little impact on the use after the construction period.
2.2.3. The closest dwellings to the proposed turbine are at:
• Manor Farm, approximately 490m to the south east;
• Middle Farm, approximately 530m to the south;
2.2.4. There are a number of public rights of way within the application site, the nearest of which is approximately 155m to the south.
1 The provisional Agricultural Land Classification maps are accurate to 80 hectares and therefore land of other quality may occur within the associated Grade 2 area.
4
2.3. Designated Sites
2.3.1. The proposed development site does not lie within any areas that have statutory or non statutory designations for nature conservation or landscape interests.
2.3.2. There are two internationally designated sites within 5km of the proposed turbine, the boundaries of which overlap. These are the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site and the West Midland Mosses Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
2.3.3. There are also three national designations within 5km of the site. These are the Blithfield Reservoir Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Chartley Moss SSSI and Chartley Moss National Nature Reserve (NNR).
2.4. Site Selection and Design Process
2.4.1. The location was selected using a screening tool developed by ADAS on behalf of Caddick Renewables to assess potential wind sites against a suite of technical and environmental constraints. On completion of screening, a feasibility assessment was completed to further assess its potential against a range of constraints and to verify that a grid connection would be available. The full set of constraints assessed during the screening and feasibility process includes:
• windspeed;
• aviation and radar (civil and military);
• telecommunications;
• buffering from properties (to assess likely compliance with requirements relating to noise and shadow flicker);
• buffering from hedges, roads, overhead powerlines and rights of way;
• environmental designations (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), SSSI, National Park, SAC, Special Protection Area (SPA));
• flood risk;
• heritage assets;
5
• existing consented wind schemes; and
• grid connections.
2.4.2. The proposed site at Manor Farm passed these screening and feasibility stages and has therefore progressed to the planning stage.
2.4.3. The site selection process provides a rigorous filtering method and ensures that only the most viable sites proceed to the planning stage. For sites screened for Caddick Renewables to date, approximately 90% fail at either the screening or feasibility stage. The proposed site at Manor Farm has passed this pre planning assessment process and it can therefore be concluded with some confidence that the site is suitable for the development proposed and the site is not subject to fundamental constraints.
2.4.4. The initial design layout took into account the primary physical characteristics of the land within the landowner’s control, such as topography and wind regime, and factored in the objective of minimising the impact of the development (e.g. visual impact and impact on residential amenity).
2.4.5. The design process sought to minimise potential impacts, whilst selecting the optimum turbine location for electricity generation.
2.5. Project Description
2.5.1. The wind turbine would be a 3 bladed horizontal axis design of maximum height to blade tip of 74m, with a reinforced concrete base. Ancillary development would include a crane hardstanding pad, a collector substation and equipment housing cabinet, grid connection works, one temporary anemometry mast, a temporary plant and equipment storage compound and works to upgrade and extend the existing site access road.
2.5.2. The total area within the red line boundary including all ancillary works is approximately 0.53 hectares, with a significant proportion being the existing access road.
Layout
2.5.3. The layout of the turbine and ancillary development is shown in Figure 2.2, with a larger version supplied with this application
6
(CEN4029/Layout/V1). Figure 2.2: Layout Plan2
Turbine
2.5.4. Wind turbine design and specifications are evolving rapidly, with each manufacturer regularly making changes to available models and technical specifications. Turbine availability is also a key issue, with order wait times often being a key factor in determining what turbine should be used. Consequently it is not appropriate to specify in the planning application which make and model of turbine would be installed.
2.5.5. However, for the purposes of illustration and as a basis for the impact assessments, the specifications of the candidate turbine, the Enercon 48 (E48) have been used. The E48 is the turbine which at this time is most
2 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. ADAS Licence no. AL100020033 July 2012. For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made.
7
likely to be used subject to availability at the time of order. The turbine would have an output of 500kW.
2.5.6. The candidate turbine specifications are provided in Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Turbine Specifications Item Specification Turbine model: Enercon E 48 Rotor diameter: 48m Hub height: 50m Tip height: 74m Rated power: 500kW Swept area: 1,810 m2 Blade number: 3 Blade material: GRP (epoxy resin), built in lightning protection Rotational speed: Variable, 16 – 31rpm Cut-out wind speed: 28 – 34m/s 2.5.7. The turbine foundation would consist of reinforced concrete with dimensions depending on the detailed site investigations. Typically the base would be of approximate diameter of 10m, with a depth of 1.4m.
2.5.8. The finish and colour of the turbines and blades are likely to be off white/pale grey semi matt. Figure 2.3 shows an image of the proposed E48 turbine (indicative image, colouration may not exactly match the image) and a separate elevation for the turbine has been submitted with this application.
8
Figure 2.3: Image of an E48 (colouring may vary)
Crane Pad
2.5.9. A crane hardstanding platform will be required at the turbine base to construct the turbine and to provide access for maintenance. This area will also be used to provide a safe temporary storage and reception area for turbine components and for parking for maintenance vehicles.
2.5.10. The crane pad will measure approximately 20m x 30m, it will be constructed by excavating an appropriate area to a depth of about 1m and then back filling this with crushed hardcore. The hardstanding area will be kept in place during the operation of the turbine for maintenance purposes. If required, it could be grassed over for aesthetic purposes, but the hardcore must remain.
Substation
2.5.11. The development will include an equipment cabinet and substation which is required to facilitate a grid connection. This will be housed in a single storey building with dimensions of 5.6m x 4.6 x 3.8m. All electrical equipment would be enclosed within the building which will have secure doors to prevent unauthorized access. From the substation, a connection to the grid will be provided by underground electrical cables.
Access Track
2.5.12. Access to the site would be required during the construction period and
9
for regular maintenance visits. Maintenance visits are likely to take place a maximum of four times a year. To enable access to the site the proposal also involves extending and improving the existing access track from Newton Lane.
2.5.13. The road has been designed to ensure that vehicles will not need to travel across unmade areas, with the road surface formed by compacted hardcore. The total distance required to be travelled from the site entrance to the crane pad would be approximately 500m. Turning and waiting areas for construction vehicles will be provided on the crane pad.
Temporary Works
2.5.14. A temporary plant and equipment storage compound would be required for the duration of the construction period. The temporary compound would be established on the hardstanding area to avoid compaction and damage to adjacent agricultural land.
2.5.15. The application also seeks permission for one temporary anemometry mast in the location of the proposed wind turbine. The mast would be erected for a maximum of two years and if installed, would be removed after this period.
2.6. Construction
2.6.1. The construction works will entail:
• site survey;
• construction of access track;
• excavation of the cable trenches and cable laying;
• construction of crane pad;
• on site installation of the reinforced concrete turbine foundation;
• construction of substation;
• delivery and installation of turbine;
• testing and commissioning of the turbine; and,
• site re instatement.
2.6.2. The construction working hours are expected to be 8.00am to 18.00pm Monday to Friday, and 8.00am to 13.00pm on Saturdays. There would
10
be no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. The only exceptions to this would be during the turbine base foundation concrete pours where working to dusk to complete the pours may be required by exception.
Turbine Access Route
2.6.3. At this stage of development it is not known where the origin of the turbine components will be. It is most likely that the turbine components would be delivered by ship from the point of manufacture in Germany. Ports located on the Mersey are considered to be the likely ports from which the turbine components would be transported to the site. A visual route inspection was carried out by transport consultants to identify the most appropriate delivery route for the wind turbine. The assessment concluded that there is a feasible route to the application site, although some remedial works such as removal of street furniture, trimming back of vegetation would be required (see Transport Note).
2.6.4. The turbine blades would be delivered in one section (i.e. three blades on separate vehicles). There would be three parts to the tower on separate vehicles and the main nacelle. Two mobile cranes would be in attendance at any one site trip, which would offload the equipment from the transporter and then the transporter would leave the site. In total there would be 14 two way vehicle movements associated with the delivery of the turbine plus 4 two way mobile crane movements.
2.6.5. There would also be some additional vehicle movements associated with bringing construction staff to the site.
Contamination Control
2.6.6. The construction works would be undertaken in accordance with best practice and the Environment Agency (EA)’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines. In accordance with Pollution Prevention Guidelines 2, the oil and fuel storage area within the Contractors compound will be bunded to provide a minimum of 110% of stored volume. The bunded area would contain an impervious base to reduce the risk of contamination outside the area. Any run off arising from these areas would be stored and tankered off site.
2.6.7. Concrete would be supplied from an off site ready mix plant and transported to the turbine base using concrete lorries. Washing out of
11
residual concrete at the end of a pour will be carried out either in the excavation or in a lined wash out area back at the batching plant. Once set, the residual concrete would be disposed of off site at a licensed tip.
2.7. Operation
2.7.1. The turbine will operate for approximately 25 years. Within this time there will be a requirement to undertake periodic inspections of the structure and machinery. This is likely to consist of visits a maximum of four times a year.
2.8. Decommissioning
2.8.1. Following the lifetime of the turbine and subject to any future application for a replacement turbine, it will be decommissioned. The detail of such works will be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of decommissioning.
2.8.2. The decommissioning works would entail:
• dismantling and removal of the turbine’s blades, nacelle, tower and tower base which has been cast into the concrete foundation;
• turbine foundation removal to the plough depth and the resultant void backfilled with subsoil and top soiled over with sufficient depth to allow ploughing and future use of the affected area;
• subject to the requirements of the Local Planning Authority and environmental impacts, the access track may be removed to its full depth or retained in situ with appropriate downgrading;
• full reinstatement of the working areas utilising subsoil recovered from the areas in which it was originally spread;
• disconnection and abandonment of all underground cables;
• demolition and removal of the substation and crane pad; and,
• full reinstatement of the area making up with imported subsoil and topsoil as necessary.
12
3. ECOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
3.1.1. An ecological constraints survey and desk study was undertaken by ADAS to identify any potential ecological constraints and assess whether any additional surveys are required. This was followed by a bird survey to determine the use of the application site by birds during the autumn migratory period (i.e. wintering birds arriving during the autumn migratory period).
3.2. Legislation and Planning Policy
3.2.1. Nature conservation legislation is detailed in Appendix 3.1.
3.2.2. The Government’s Circular 06/2005 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ provides guidance on the application of nature conservation legislation to the planning system and is referenced in the National Planning Policy Framework.
3.2.3. The Government published a new White Paper on the Natural Environment ‘The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature’ in June 2011 which describes the protection and improvement of the natural environment as a core objective of the planning system as well as contributing to the objective of ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity.
National Planning Policy
3.2.4. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 11 details the Government’s policies for conserving and enhancing the natural environment. The policy presents the key principles that local planning bodies should follow when considering biodiversity. It addresses a number of provisions that proposed developments need to consider with regard to designated sites, non designated sites and species protection.
Regional Planning Policy
3.2.5. The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (henceforth the WMRSS) was published in 2008. The WMRSS emphasises the importance of natural environmental assets and ‘Policy QE1: Conserving and Enhancing the Environment’ and ‘Policy QE7: Protecting, Managing and Enhancing
13
the Region’s Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Resources’ provide specific policies on conservation and enhancements.
3.2.6. Local Planning Policy
3.2.7. Table 3.1 contains the relevant policies with regard to development within the ‘Adopted Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan 1996 2011’ (Staffordshire District Council, 2002). Table 3.1: Relevant Nature Conservation Policies in the Structure Plan
Policy Name Policy
Policy NC1 The countryside will be safeguarded for its own sake and nonrenewable and natural resources will be afforded protection. Protection of New building in the open countryside, away from existing the settlements or from areas allocated for development in Development Plans, will be strictly controlled. Development Countryside: which is acceptable with respect to other Structure Plan policies General should respect the character of the countryside and maintain or improve the environment. Where overriding economic or social Considerations interests outweigh the need for environmental maintenance or improvement, development proposals should include measures for adequate mitigation of, or compensation for, adverse environmental impacts. Policy NC6 In considering or formulating proposals for development or land use change, planning authorities will ensure, wherever Important possible, that damage to important semi natural habitats or other features or sites of significant nature conservation or Semi Natural geological value is avoided. Particular care will be taken to Habitats safeguard and consolidate the integrity of linear and other landscape features which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. Where damage is unavoidable, measures to mitigate or compensate through establishment of replacement habitat or features should be taken, wherever possible. Policy NC7 Proposals for development or land use change which are likely to have significant effects on an existing or proposed site of Sites of international importance for nature conservation will be subject International to the most rigorous examination. Proposals not directly Nature connected with or necessary to the management of the site, and Conservation which are likely (either individually or in combination with other Importance plans or projects) to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site, will not be permitted unless the planning authority is satisfied that there is no alternative solution, and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for the development or land use change.
Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, development or land use change will not be permitted unless the planning authority is satisfied that it is necessary for reasons of human health or public safety or for beneficial consequences of primary importance for nature conservation.
14
Policy Name Policy
Policy NC7B Proposals for development or land use change in or likely to Sites of affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest will be subject to National special scrutiny. Where such proposals are likely to have an Nature adverse effect, directly or indirectly, on the SSSI, they will not be Conservation permitted unless there are no reasonable alternative means of Importance meeting that development need and the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site itself and the national policy to safeguard the national network of such sites.
Where the site concerned is a National Nature Reserve (NNR) or a site identified under the Nature Conservation Review (NCR) or Geological Conservation Review (GCR), particular regard will be paid to the individual site’s national importance. Policy NC7C Development or land use change likely to have an adverse Sites of Local effect on a Local Nature Reserve or a Site of Local Nature Nature Conservation Importance will not be permitted, unless it can be Conservation clearly demonstrated that there are reasons for the proposal Importance which outweigh the need to safeguard the intrinsic nature conservation value of the site.
3.2.8. The ‘East Staffordshire Local Plan’ (ESLP) was adopted in July 2006, with a selection of policies saved by a Secretary of State Direction in July 2009. However none of the biodiversity policies were saved by the 2009 Direction.
3.3. Methodology
Guidance
3.3.1. The following guidance from Natural England on single or small scale wind energy developments with regard to bats and birds has been referred to:
• Natural England (2009). ‘Technical Information Note TIN059 Bats and Single Large Wind Turbines’: Joint Agencies Interim Guidance (Joint Agencies Publication). (TIN59)
• Natural England (2010). ‘Technical Information Note TIN069 Assessing the effects of onshore windfarms on birds’. This guidance identifies when and where detailed assessments of the potential impacts on birds resulting from wind farm developments are likely to be required. It also describes the data requirements and survey methodologies needed for such assessments. (TIN69)
15
3.3.2. Natural England’s TIN059 states that surveys should be undertaken where the proposed turbine is within 50m of suitable bat habitat features or sites designated for bats:
“A bat survey should normally be recommended for applications for turbines that will be located within 50m of the following features:
• buildings or other features or structures that provide potential as bat roosts, including bridges, mines etc;
• woodland;
• hedgerows;
• rivers or lakes; and
• within or adjacent to a site designated for bats (SSSI or SAC) (but please note more extensive work will be required at such sites than is recommended in this document).”
3.3.3. The proposed turbine is not located within 50m of any features suitable for bats and therefore no dedicated bat survey has been undertaken.
3.3.4. Natural England TIN069 states that:
“Some form of assessment is likely to be required for any proposed wind farm, although very small developments away from vulnerable bird species may only require a limited desk study to confirm the low likelihood of an impact.”
“Situations for which detailed assessments requiring surveys and monitoring are likely to be necessary include:
• Locations where Schedule 1 (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981) and/or Annex 1 (EU Birds Directive) species are present in significant numbers, especially those which may be sensitive to wind farm effects.
• Locations within, or in the vicinity of, designated or proposed Special Protection Area (SPAs), ornithological Ramsar Sites and ornithological SSSIs, again especially when used by species which may be sensitive to wind farm effects.
• Known bird migration routes and local flight paths, wetland sites and other locations where potentially vulnerable species occur in
16
relatively high concentrations.”
Desk Study
3.3.5. A desk study was carried out to identify statutory designated international and national sites within 5km and local statutory and non statutory designated sites within 1km. Records of any protected or otherwise notable species that exist within 1km of the site boundary were also obtained.
3.3.6. The following sources were consulted:
• Multi Agency Geographic information for the Countryside (MAGIC); and
• Staffordshire Ecological Record (SER).
Ecological Constraints Survey
3.3.7. The ecological constraints survey was undertaken on the 28th August 2012 by James Towers, a qualified ADAS ecologist.
3.3.8. The weather was mainly dry, sunny and warm.
3.3.9. The survey effort, methodology and hence results are likely to provide an accurate account of broad habitat types, potential presence or absence of protected species.
Bird Survey
Scope of the Study
3.3.10. The objective of the study was to determine the use of the application site by birds during the autumn migratory period (i.e. wintering birds arriving during the autumn migratory period), to assess their sensitivity to the proposals and finally to conduct a qualitative assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development on local and national populations of birds.
3.3.11. The scope of the study for birds was determined following preliminary site work and a review of the potential impacts of wind farm development on bird populations. Two primary pieces of specific guidance informed the scoping process. These were the recent review of the literature relating to birds and wind turbines (Langston and Pullan, 2003, conducted for the EU Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural
17
Habitats) and the guidance which is being developed between Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA). The current study has followed the guidance set out in the document as prepared by SNH (2005).
3.3.12. The above guidance documents state that there are three main potential effects of wind turbines on bird populations. These are:
• collision risks;
• the direct loss of habitat due to infrastructure and construction; and
• the indirect loss of habitat or feeding opportunities due to disturbance, either during construction of the turbines or during their operational phase.
3.3.13. The SNH/BWEA guidelines set out the species to be considered in terms of legislative status of the species (e.g. Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive) or the importance of the site in terms of regional or national populations. A criterion of greater than 1% of the regional or national population of a species is suggested as a threshold which would trigger the assessment of impacts on the species. In addition, the SNH/BWEA guidance notes the importance of migratory species.
3.3.14. Langston and Pullan (2003) list bird species or groups which are considered to be sensitive to and at risk of adverse effects from the development of wind farms. The proximity of Blithfield Reservoir, a large (324ha) water body known to harbour significant populations of wildfowl, prompted a survey methodology primarily focussed on this group in particular, although waders, raptors, all species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) and the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) (published by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO)) were also recorded as target species.
3.3.15. The scope of the study was therefore to assess the use of the application site and the immediate surrounding area by the target species during the autumn migratory period (October/November). A large part of this process was an assessment of movements of birds over the site (i.e. the presence of migration routes or regular flight paths) and it was for this reason that the surveys were concentrated in October and November,
18
during the period of peak migratory movement of the primary target species.
3.3.16. The study also sought to gain an understanding of the target species’ use of the land in terms of habitats present and land management. In order to fully determine the use of the application site, the study took into account the location of Special Protection Areas (SPAs).
Spatial Scope
3.3.17. The spatial scope of the study was concentrated almost exclusively on the current application boundary. Surveyors also recorded birds in the vicinity of the application boundary, where these appeared relevant or of conservation importance.
Data Gathering
3.3.18. A review of existing data regarding the nearby SSSI at Blithfield Reservoir was undertaken (see above). This discussion sought to place the data records from the proposed site into a local and regional context.
Surveys
3.3.19. Detailed field survey for autumn migratory period birds was conducted within the application site, and the area surveyed is shown by the grey dotted line in Figure 3.1.
3.3.20. Two survey methodologies were employed to gauge the autumn migratory period bird interest: walkover (WO) surveys and vantage point (VP) surveys. The surveys were conducted on the following dates:
• 18th October (VP);
• 26th October(VP);
• 30th October (WO); and
• 15th November (VP).
Walkover Survey
3.3.21. The survey methodology was largely based on that of Brown and Shepherd (1993), whereby the site is notionally divided into 500 x 500 m quadrants, and each area visited for the same length of time. The observer covers the survey area so that he/she passes within 100m of all
19 Proposed Wind Turbine Newton Manor Farm Admaston Rugeley Staffs WS15 3PE
Figure 3.1 Ecology Information
Proposed Wind Turbine Tree Location ? Existing Gateway Into Field ? Propsed Point of Access Bird Survey Area Water Pipe
T4 T3 ? T2
T1 ?
Feature Grid Ref Tree Drawn by L.Donnelly 03/08/2012, Verified by N.Rehm 03/08/2012 T1 SK 03769 25910 Mature Oak T2 SK 03761 25970 Mature Sycamore T3 SK 03742 26035 Mature Oak - T4 SK 03738 26063 Mature Oak 0 75 150 225 300 Proposed Access SK 03746 26010 Meters Water Pipe SK 03767 25981 Scale 1:40,000 at A3 size This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. ADAS Licence no. AL100020033 August 2012 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made
ADAS, Pendeford House Pendeford Business Park Wobaston Road, Wolverhampton, WV9 5HA Tel: 01902 271277 - www.adas.co.uk
Produced by ADAS Environment Group, Wolverhampton. WV6 8TQ.
points of the site. All target species using the application site or flying over were recorded, and their locations were noted.
Vantage Point Surveys
3.3.22. A single optimal vantage point was chosen, and 18 hours of survey time was accrued over the three visits (6 hours per visit). Due to the topography of the site, the only practicable vantage point was within the study area boundary. However, the use of camouflage and unobtrusive positioning maintained the efficacy of the survey, allowing very close views of normally shy species.
3.3.23. The surveyor noted target species flying over the site or feeding on the site, seen from the Vantage Point. Details of flight height and direction were recorded, as was the length of time the target species was viewed. In addition, the type of bird activity was noted. Vantage Point records were made on standard recording forms. Vantage Point methodology was entirely consistent with that detailed in SNH guidelines.
Consultations
3.3.24. General consultation took place with RSPB before work commenced, in order to ascertain the scope of survey work. This resulted in the standard SNH methodology being adopted (albeit with reduced hours). In addition, the results of the October and November Vantage Point surveys were sent to the RSPB, who confirmed they considered no further Vantage Point surveys would be required due to the low number of water birds recorded.
3.4. Baseline Conditions
Desk Study Results
3.4.1. The desk study identified that the proposed site does not lie within any areas that have statutory or non statutory designations for nature conservation. Table 3.2 details the designated sites identified through the desk study.
3.4.2. There are two international designations within 5km of the site, the boundaries of which overlap. These are the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site and the West Midlands Mosses SAC.
3.4.3. The Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site forms a geographically
20
discrete series of lowland open water and peatland sites in the north west Midlands. The 16 component sites incorporate a diverse range of habitats from open water to raised bog, which support a number of rare species of plants associated with wetlands, together with an assemblage of rare wetland invertebrates.
3.4.4. The West Midlands Mosses SAC supports the following habitats listed in Annex 1 of the EC Habitats Directive: Natural Dystrophic Lakes and Ponds; Transition Mires and Quaking Bogs. These include ‘Schwingmoor’ vegetation, an advancing floating raft of bog moss (Sphagnum spp.).
3.4.5. The proposed development would not have any impact on the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site, the West Midlands Mosses SAC or their qualifying features.
3.4.6. There are three national designations within 5 km of the site. These are Blithfield Reservoir SSSI, Chartley Moss SSSI and Chartley Moss NNR.
3.4.7. Blithfield Reservoir SSSI comprises Staffordshire’s largest area of standing water, situated in the valley of the River Blythe, and is of national importance for Goosander (Mergus merganser), regularly supporting more than 1% of the total British wintering population. Occasionally, flats of mud are exposed by drawdown and can attract large numbers of autumn passage wading birds, including Dunlin (Calidris alpina), Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) and Curlew (Numenius arquata). Twenty one species of waterfowl regularly use the site in winter, including Great Crested Grebe (Podiceps cristatus), Pochard (Aythya farina), Pintail (Anas acuta), Bewick’s Swan (Cygnus bewickii) and White fronted Goose (Anser albifrons albifrons). The site also supports sizeable wintering populations of Cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo). The concentrations of wintering and passage birds attracts predatory species such as Peregrine (Falco peregrinus) and Merlin (Falco columbarius), whilst Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are regular visitors on migration.
3.4.8. Chartley Moss SSSI, which incorporates Chartley Moss NNR, forms part of the Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site and the West Midlands Mosses SAC. It comprises a partially wooded basin mire occupying 2 depressions in glacial deposits and includes the largest ‘Schwingmoor’ in
21
Britain, a raft of oligotrophic peat floating above a deep water body. The habitats on the site support a number of nationally rare and threatened invertebrate species, and many others of very restricted occurrence in the Midlands, and Adders (Vipera berus) are unusually abundant.
3.4.9. It is anticipated that the proposed development will have no direct impacts on any of the nationally designated sites. However, on the basis of the desktop review, it was concluded that there was the potential for there to be an impact on birds utilising Blithfield Reservoir SSSI, including qualifying species that constitute reasons for its designation. Therefore, it was advised that a bird survey be carried out to investigate whether key species were present on the site at Manor Farm, with results of the bird surveys provided in the following section.
3.4.10. There are two non statutory Local Wildlife Sites within 1km of the site. These are Newton Farm Site of Biological Importance (SBI) and Booth Lane SBI. The main feature of the former site is 12 veteran oak trees, whilst the latter comprises diverse semi improved and marshy grassland with several ditches. It is anticipated that the proposed development will have no impact on these sites. Table 3.2: Designated Sites Site Comments
Ramsar Sites Based on MAGIC website, there is one Ramsar Site within 5km of the site. • Midlands Meres and Mosses – Phase 1 Ramsar Site 2.5km to the north west of the site. Special Areas of Conservation Based on MAGIC website, there is one SAC within 5km of the (SAC) site. • West Midlands Mosses SAC 2.5km north west of site. Special Protection Areas (SPA) Based on MAGIC website, there are no SPAs within 5km of the site. Sites of Special Scientific Interest Based on MAGIC website, there are two SSSIs within 5km of (SSSI) the site: • Blithfield Reservoir SSSI 1km to south east of site. • Chartley Moss SSSI 2.5km to north west of site. National Nature Reserves (NNR) Based on MAGIC website, there is one NNR within 5km of the site. • Chartley Moss NNR 2.8km to north west of site. Local Nature Reserves (LNR) Based on MAGIC website, there are no LNRs within 1km of the site. Marine Nature Reserves (MNR) Based on MAGIC website, there are no MNRs within 5km of the site.
22
Site Comments
Non-Statutory Sites Based on data from the SER, there are two non statutory sites within 1km of the site. • Newton Farm SBI. • Booth Lane SBI.
3.4.11. The site lies within Natural Area 40: Needwood and South Derbyshire Claylands, which is bounded by the Trent Valley and Washlands in the south east and the higher reaches of the River Trent and Cannock Chase to the south west. The general character of the area is rolling countryside. Parklands make a locally significant contribution to the landscape and have veteran trees of considerable ecological value to invertebrates and fungi. Areas of open water including Blithfield Reservoir are dominant features in the landscape and provide important habitats for wildfowl and wading birds. Key nature conservation features include semi natural woodland, parkland, reservoirs and lowland grassland. Key species include Otter (Lutra lutra), Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius), Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus), Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix), Skylark (Alauda arvensis), Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos) and Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus).
3.4.12. The following categories of protected species were searched for:
• European Protected Species (Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010); and
• Nationally Protected Species (WCA 1981 (as amended); Protection of Badgers Act 1992).
3.4.13. The following categories of notable species were searched for:
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Red and Amber list Species of High Conservation Concern;
• UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) Priority Species listed in the UK BAP; and
• Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) Priority Species listed in the Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire LBAPs.
3.4.14. The results are summarised in Table 3.3. Most of the species records are from Blithfield Reservoir, approximately 1km from the site.
23
Table 3.3: Protected and Notable Species (NS) recorded within 1km of Manor Farm (some records, indicated by * are from 1km square data so may lie outside search radius) Species and Status
Freshwater * Freshwater White clawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) S41, UKBAP invertebrates Terrestrial * Wall (Lasiommata megera) S41, UKBAP Invertebrates Vascular * Marsh Stitchwort (Stellaria palustris) S41, UKBAP plants Birds Hobby (Falco subbuteo) WCA1.1 Redwing (Turdus iliacus) WCA1.1, BoCC (Red) Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos) BoCC (Amber) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) BoCC (Amber) House Martin (Delichon urbica) RD2, BoCC (Amber) Willow Warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus) RD2, BoCC (Amber) Common Redshank (Tringa totanus) BoCC (Amber) Mistle Thrush (Turdus viscivorus) BDir22, RD2, BoCC (Amber) Yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella) S41, UKBAP, BoCC (Red) Black tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) S41, UKBAP, BoCC (Red) Barnacle Goose (Branta leucopsis) BoCC (Amber) Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) BoCC (Amber) Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria) BoCC (Amber) Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris) BoCC (Red) Green Sandpiper (Tringa ochropus) BoCC (Amber) Greylag Goose (Anser anser) BoCC (Amber) Little Egret (Egretta garzetta) BoCC (Amber) Mediterranean Gull (Larus melanocephalus) BoCC (Amber) Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) WCA1.1 Pintail (Anas acuta) BoCC (Amber) Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) WCA1.1 Bewick’s Swan (Cygnus columbianus subsp. bewickii) S41, UKBAP, BoCC (Amber) Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) S41, UKBAP, BoCC (Red) Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus) BoCC (Amber) Swallow (Hirundo rustica) BoCC (Amber) Black headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus) BoCC (Amber) Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) S41, UKBAP, BoCC (Red) Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) BoCC (Amber) Linnet (Carduelis cannabina) S41, UKBAP, BoCC (Red) Pochard (Aythya ferina) BoCC (Amber) Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) BoCC (Amber) Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) BDir22, S41, RD2, UKBAP, BoCC (Red) Common Swift (Apus apus) BoCC (Amber) Whitethroat (Sylvia communis) BoCC (Amber) Dunlin (Calidris alpina) BoCC (Red) Hedge Accentor (Prunella modularis) S41, RD2, UKBAP, BoCC (Amber) Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) BoCC (Amber) Teal (Anas crecca) BoCC (Amber) Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus) S41, UKBAP, BoCC (Red)
24
Species and Status
Gadwall (Anas strepera) BoCC (Amber) Great Black backed Gull (Larus marinus) BoCC (Amber) Grey Wagtail (Motacilla cinerea) RD2, BoCC (Amber) House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) S41, UKBAP, RD2, BoCC (Red) Jack Snipe (Lymnocryptes minimus) BoCC (Amber) Lesser Black backed Gull (Larus fuscus) BDir22, BoCC (Amber) Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis) BoCC (Amber) Shoveler (Anas clypeata) BoCC (Amber) Pink footed Goose (Anser brachyrhynchus) BoCC (Amber) Knot (Calidris canuta) BoCC (Amber) Reed Bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) S41, UKBAP, BoCC (Amber) Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) BoCC (Amber) Sand Martin (Riparia riparia) BoCC (Amber) Skylark (Alauda arvensis) BDir22, S41, UKBAP, BoCC (Red) Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos) BDir22, S41, RD2, UKBAP, BoCC (Red) Spotted Redshank (Tringa erythropus) BoCC (Amber) Stock Dove (Columba oenas) BoCC (Amber) Lesser Redpoll (Carduelis cabaret) S41, UKBAP, BoCC (Red) Tufted Duck (Aythya fuligula) BoCC (Amber) Whinchat (Saxicola rubetra) BoCC (Amber) * Common Bullfinch(Pyrrhula pyrrhula) S41, RD2, UKBAP, BoCC (Amber) * Black headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus) BoCC (Amber) * Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) BoCC (Amber) * Garganey (Anas querquedula) BoCC (Amber) * Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) BDir22, S41, UKBAP, BoCC (Red) * Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola) BoCC (Amber) * Little Grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollis) BoCC (Amber)
All wild birds receive a level of protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) Mammals Eurasian Badger (Meles meles) BA Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus) S41, UKBAP, LBAP
* European Otter (Lutra lutra) EPS, HDir, WCA5, S41, UKBAP, Bern, CITES, LBAP BA Protection of Badgers Act BDir EU Birds Directive Bern Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats BoCC Birds of Conservation Concern (Red or Amber list) Bonn Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna EPS European Protected Species HDir EU Habitat Directive LBAP Staffordshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan RD2 Red Data Book Species listing and rare species (not based on IUCN criteria) S41 National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Section 41 UKBAP UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority WCA1.1 Wildlife and Countryside Act Schedule 1 Part 1 WCA5 Wildlife and Countryside Act Schedule 5
* Denotes data that is from 1km square information, so may lie outside search radius 3.4.15. Bat records within 1km of the site are summarised in Table 3.4 below.
25
Table 3.4: Bat Records within 1km of Manor Farm (some records, indicated by *, are from 1km square data so may lie outside search radius)
Species and Status Bats Chiroptera (unidentified bat species) EPS, HDir, WCA5, Bonn, Bern
* Brown Long eared Bat (Plecotus auritus) EPS, HDir, WCA5, S41, Bonn, Bern, UKBAP * Noctule Bat (Nyctalus noctula) EPS, HDir, WCA5, S41, Bonn, Bern, UKBAP, LBAP * Soprano Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) EPS, HDir, WCA5, S41, Bonn, Bern, UKBAP * Daubenton’s Bat (Myotis daubentonii) EPS, HDir, WCA5, Bonn, Bern
Bern Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Bonn Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals EPS European Protected Species HDir EU Habitat Directive LBAP Staffordshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan S41 National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Section 41 UKBAP UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority WCA5 Wildlife and Countryside Act Schedule 5
* Denotes data that is from 1km square information, so may lie outside search radius
Ecological Constraint Survey Results
3.4.16. Results of the ecological constraint survey are provided in Appendix 3.2. A brief summary is provided below.
Habitats
3.4.17. The application site field comprised species poor improved (ley) grassland dominated by Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and Italian Ryegrass (L. multiflorum).
3.4.18. Adjacent land use largely comprised improved grassland and arable land.
3.4.19. There was a native species rich hedgerow with trees along the eastern boundary of the field adjacent to the proposed access track. Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) was abundant with Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) locally abundant and Elder (Sambucus nigra) frequent. Other components of the hedgerow included occasional Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) with Crab Apple (Malus sylvestris), Hazel (Corylus avellana) and Field Maple (Acer campestre). The ground flora was species poor and dominated by competitive species indicative of high nutrient levels such as Common Nettle (Urtica dioica) and Cleavers (Galium aparine), the latter sprawling over much of the hedge.
3.4.20. There were two mature Pedunculate Oaks (Quercus robur) and a single mature Sycamore tree along the hedgerow (see Figure 3.1 for tree
26
locations).
3.4.21. There were species poor intact hedgerows along the northern and western boundaries of the application site with a species poor defunct hedgerow along the southern boundary, the latter incorporating a mature Oak tree at its eastern end near to the existing gateway into the application site field.
3.4.22. A suitable access point through the hedgerow forming the eastern boundary of the application site field from the adjacent track was identified as a disused gateway that has now become overgrown with trailing Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and Cleavers. This would avoid the requirement for the removal of a section of the hedgerow, although some pruning of the mature Crab Apple shrubs either side of the gap would be required to enlarge it sufficiently to facilitate suitable access. Any pruning would take place outside of bird nesting season, or, where this is not possible, the adjacent sections of the hedgerow would be checked for nesting birds prior to the work being undertaken.
Non native Invasive Species
3.4.23. No record was made of any alien invasive species.
Protected Species
3.4.24. There were no records of Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) within 1km of the proposed location of the turbine, although the relatively high density of ponds in the area would suggest a likely presence.
3.4.25. Great Crested Newts utilise ponds for breeding and then disperse into suitable habitat where they spend most of the year. There were several field ponds within 500m of the proposed turbine and access route, which may have provided suitable breeding habitats for Great Crested Newts, although their suitability was not assessed. The nearest pond was about 260m to the south west from the site of the proposed turbine with another about 330m to the south east and the remainder at least 400m away to the north.
3.4.26. Natural England Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (2001) states that while Great Crested Newts can move over considerable distance (up to 1.3km from breeding sites) the vast majority inhabit an area much closer to the pond. With regard to terrestrial habitat use, the guidance
27
states that “as a general guide, suitable habitats within 250m of a breeding pond are likely to be used most frequently.” The Natural England licence application template further states that: “Newts tend to be present at increasingly low density the further one looks from ponds, and the task of detecting and capturing them becomes more problematic. Further from ponds, there is a corresponding reduction in the scale of impact on populations.” The turbine is located more than 250m from the nearest pond and therefore would not be in the area used most frequently by Great Crested newts, if present.
3.4.27. The application site field, comprising improved grassland, was considered to be of low value as a terrestrial habitat for resting or foraging. However, the hedgerows which form boundaries to the application site field could provide suitable terrestrial habitat for resting with natural debris and possible rodent burrows and crevices at the bases of woody stems. Therefore, assuming that they are present in the general area and that at least some of the ponds were suitable, then there is the potential for Great Crested Newts to be present on the site within the hedgerows, during the terrestrial phase of their lifecycle.
3.4.28. The hedgerows and associated mature trees on the application site provide suitable habitat for a range of common nesting bird species. However, apart from some minor pruning of the species rich hedgerow forming the eastern boundary of the application site field to facilitate access, these features will not be affected by the proposed development. There appeared to be no suitable nesting opportunities for Barn Owl (Tyto alba) in the mature trees along this hedgerow.
3.4.29. The two mature Oaks in the species rich hedgerow forming the eastern boundary of the application site field were considered to have some (medium) potential for bat roosts with a few cracks and cavities noted. However, in line with established guidance, the turbine is located more than the recommended stand off distance from the trees.
3.4.30. There were no Badger setts on the application site, either in the field in which the proposed turbine is to be located or along the species rich hedgerow forming the eastern boundary of the field adjacent to the access track. Several suspected Badger pathways were seen through both this hedgerow and that forming the northern boundary of the
28
application site field, with the presence of footprints in the immediate vicinity of the latter location confirming their use by this species.
Summary of Ecological Value
3.4.31. Due to the presence of a species rich hedgerow and associated mature trees, the application site is considered to be of some value at the parish/ neighbourhood level. This could be higher if the presence of bat roosts in any of these trees were to be confirmed. However, following established guidelines, the proposed turbine has been located over 50m from these trees and the hedgerow in which they are situated. With the exception of minor pruning and trimming works, there will be no impact on the features of value, with no impact on mature trees and no significant hedgerow removal proposed.
Bird Survey Results
3.4.32. The walkover survey of the Manor Farm study area produced very few records of the target species. No wildfowl or waders were observed, and relatively small peripatetic flocks of Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris), Redwing (T. Iliacus) and Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) were recorded (up to 40 recorded in one flock). Two Buzzard (Buteo buteo) and three Skylark (Alauda arvensis) flew overhead.
3.4.33. The Vantage Point surveys revealed a moderate amount of activity by the target species. Wildfowl observed included Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada Goose (Branta canadensis), Teal (Anas crecca) and Goosander (Mergus merganser), all of which flew straight through. The only wader recorded was a single Snipe (Gallinago gallinago).
3.4.34. Small and medium sized flocks of migratory thrushes and starlings (the largest flock recorded included approximately 150 individuals) were also recorded during these surveys. Some of these flocks flew straight through, while others stopped temporarily to forage in the hedgerows and fields.
3.4.35. A Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) and up to two Buzzard were both recorded in many of the two hour Vantage Point survey sessions, either perched in trees or foraging (hovering or soaring respectively). A single Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) was observed flying overhead, in an aggressive encounter with some corvids.
29
Legislative Requirements
3.4.36. Two species that were recorded in the application site are subject to legislative protection: Fieldfare and Redwing are listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), which prevents disturbance of the species or its nest and/ or eggs at any time.
Discussion and Evaluation of the Importance of the Study Area for the Target Species
3.4.37. The primary target group of these surveys was wildfowl, and these were found to be relatively rare on the site. All of their flights were from the south east or east (towards Blithfield Reservoir), probably indicating a regular flightpath, and all of the duck species were flying well above the proposed wind turbine rotor height. The small groups of Canada Goose often flew lower (either below or level with rotor height).
3.4.38. With regard to raptors, Buzzard and Kestrel are assumed to be resident on the site. Neither are particularly rare in this region (BTO, birdtrends) – the population of Buzzard is increasing, and the overall number of occupied Kestrel territories nationwide is estimated to be in the tens of thousands, although the population has undergone a slight decline in recent years.
3.4.39. The migratory Thrushes and Starlings observed in the study area are either protected and/or on the BOCC Red List. However, the numbers recorded during the surveys are relatively low, and would not constitute a significant percentage of the national or regional population.
3.4.40. Waders were very poorly represented. There are no SPAs within 20km of the study area.
3.4.41. For the above reasons, the site is deemed to be of low importance for the target species.
3.5. Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Habitats and Protected Species
3.5.1. The proposed development would lead to the loss of a relatively small area of species poor ‘improved’ (ley) grassland to accommodate the turbine and the access track into the field. However, this habitat is of
30
negligible ecological value and its loss is not considered significant.
3.5.2. Access from the existing track to the turbine in the field would require some relatively minor pruning of hedgerow shrubs either side of a disused gateway that has been identified as a suitable point of entry into the field, an impact of minor significance.
3.5.3. The application site field, comprising improved grassland, was considered to be of low value as a terrestrial habitat for Great Crested Newts. However, the hedgerows which form the boundaries to application site field were considered to provide suitable terrestrial habitat for this species. Therefore, it was considered that there was some potential for Great Crested Newts to be present on the site within the hedgerows during the terrestrial phase of their lifecycle. However, apart from some relatively minor pruning to facilitate access through the hedgerow forming the eastern boundary of the field, the hedgerows will not be affected. As there should be no need to grub out or remove sections of hedgerow, there will be no impact on Great Crested Newts from the proposed development.
3.5.4. Should amendments to the plans requiring the removal of sections of hedgerow, then the potential for impacts on Great Crested Newts will be considered further.
3.5.5. Natural England’s advice on bats contained in Technical Information Note TIN059 has been followed and the proposed turbine located over 50m from the hedgerows and hedgerow trees on the site. Natural England’s Technical Information Note TIN051 Bats and Onshore wind turbines Interim guidance (2012) states that: “the evidence in Britain is that most bat activity is in close proximity to habitat features. Activity was shown to decline when measured at fixed intervals up to 50 m away from treelines and at varying intervals up to 35 m from treelines. This decline occurred both when bats were commuting and when foraging, although the decline is greater when animals were commuting.”
3.5.6. Therefore there are no features within 50m suitable for a bat roost or foraging or commuting routes. Locating the turbine over 50m away will minimise the potential to impact on foraging or commuting bats.
3.5.7. Although there was some evidence of Badger utilising the application site
31
to move around the local area, no setts were found in the vicinity of any areas or features that might be affected by the proposed development. Therefore, there will be no impact on this species that would result in an offence being committed under the legislation.
Birds
3.5.8. A number of studies have been undertaken into the potential impacts of wind farms on bird populations. A review of the issues was undertaken on behalf of the EU Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats by the RSPB and Birdlife International (Langston and Pullan, 2003). This is the most recent review and provides a balanced view of the potential impacts of wind farms and birds.
3.5.9. Langston and Pullan (2003) identify four negative impact pathways that could affect bird populations. These are:
• Disturbance leading to displacement or exclusion of birds, including barrier effects;
• Collision mortality;
• Loss of or damage to habitat resulting from wind turbines and associated infrastructure; and
• Other potential effects (mainly related to offshore wind farms).
3.5.10. The SNH/BWEA guidelines also add an additional impact, this time a positive one, in that the use of non fossil fuels will assist in limiting the production of greenhouse gases which contribute to global climate change.
3.5.11. From the discussion above and using the SNH/BWEA guidance and the list provided in Langston and Pullan (2003), the populations of target species recorded in the study area would qualify as sensitive to wind farm development according to the thresholds listed in the SNH/BWEA document.
3.5.12. However, the presence of the target species in low numbers within the study area does not constitute a likely significant threat to their local or national populations.
3.5.13. Given the scale of the proposed development and the flight patterns of
32
birds recorded during the survey, the risk of collision is thought to be low, and the displacement or exclusion of birds will be negligible. The small amount of relatively low quality habitat that will be directly lost as a result of the development is also considered to be insignificant.
3.5.14. In summary, although the predicted impacts on migratory birds will be permanent (for the lifetime of the development), their overall magnitude will be negligible and no mitigation measures are considered to be necessary.
3.5.15. Access from the existing track to the turbine in the field would require some relatively minor pruning of hedgerow shrubs either side of a disused gateway that has been identified as a suitable point of entry into the field. This will be undertaken outside the main bird nesting season, considered to be March to August inclusive. If this cannot be done, then any hedgerow works will be immediately preceded by an inspection for active nests. If active nests are found, then they will be left undisturbed with 5m of cover around them (where possible) until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use.
3.6. Conclusions
3.6.1. ADAS carried out intensive bird surveys during the autumn migratory period at the Manor Farm application site. This comprised both Vantage Point surveys, conducted in line with the published best practice guidance, and a walkover survey.
3.6.2. These surveys revealed that the site is used by a range of bird species. Of these, five groups/ species were considered potentially sensitive to the impacts of wind turbines. These are wildfowl, raptors, waders, other Schedule 1 species and BOCC Red Listed species. The low numbers of these target species recorded using the site means that the adverse impacts of the development are considered to be negligible. No mitigation is thought to be necessary for these groups.
33
4. HYDROLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.1. Introduction
4.1.1. This chapter of the Environmental Appraisal presents an assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed turbine on hydrology, hydrogeology, geology and soils. This assessment considers the development impacts on the water environment in addition to drainage and flood risk.
4.1.2. An assessment of the potential hydrological, hydrogeological and geological impacts of this proposal is considered best practice, although given the nature of development and the distance from watercourses, the development is not considered to be a high risk development.
4.1.3. This chapter will set out the relevant guidance and legislation associated with these issues, the assessment methodology used and a baseline description of the site in terms of its hydrological, hydrogeological and geological characteristics. An assessment of the potential impacts will be presented and any mitigation measures considered appropriate will be suggested.
4.2. Legislation and Planning Policy Context
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
4.2.1. The NPPF published in 2012 requires planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development is appropriate for its location (para. 120), to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability. The NPPF states that the effects of pollution on health, the natural environment and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution should be taken into account.
4.2.2. The NPPF provides guidance on flood risk and when flood risk assessments are required in section 10. The guidance states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Further information is provided in the ‘Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework’ published in 2012.
34
Regional Policy
The Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands
4.2.3. The WMRSS (adopted in January 2008) emphasises the region’s commitment to sustainable development, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the predicted impacts of climate change. The guidance encourages renewable energy as a mechanism for responding to climate change, stating that “The Region should aim to contribute as far as possible towards the achievement of the national energy target.”
Local Policy Context
4.2.4. At the local level, the current key local planning policy document is the adopted ESLP, adopted in 2006. It will eventually be replaced by the new Local Plan, which is currently being prepared. There are no saved policies relating specifically to water, flooding, pollution or renewable energy.
4.3. Methodology
4.3.1. The assessment has been undertaken through a desk study and review of the proposed development. The desk study included a review of the following sources:
• EA interactive maps;
• MAGIC website;
• Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands, 2008;
• www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap; and
• British Geological Survey website.
• Land Information System (LandIS) website.
4.3.2. The Land Information System is the largest spatial mapping of soils of its kind in Europe, but is only used here as a guide.
Assessment Method
4.3.3. This section presents the general methodology used to assess the impact of the development on the hydrology, hydrogeology, geology and soils of the area. The following tasks were undertaken in order to complete the assessment:
35
• desktop study to obtain baseline and historical data;
• identification of the potential impacts from the development and assessment of their significance based on the magnitude of the impact and the sensitivity of the receiving environment; and
• identification of options for mitigation of potential impacts in accordance with relevant legislation, policies and guidance.
4.3.4. The baseline assessment is primarily a desk based study using the data sources listed in the Methodology. The desktop study identified:
• the location of the watercourses;
• on site ground conditions;
• the topography and character across the site and wider area; and
• other relevant features particularly the position of the proposed new tracks.
Assessment of Significance
4.3.5. The following criteria have been used in evaluating the significance of the effects of the proposed development:
• the type of effect, i.e. whether it is positive, negative, neutral or uncertain; and
• the probability of the effect occurring based on the scale of certain, likely or unlikely.
4.3.6. Professional judgement is used to assess the findings in relation to each of these criteria to give an assessment of significance for each effect.
4.4. Baseline Conditions
4.4.1. The site is located at Ordnance Survey Reference SK 03681 26003 on arable land at approximately 120AOD which slopes gradually downwards in all directions from the turbine site. The proposed turbine location lies on land off Newton Lane approximately 500m north west of Newton.
4.4.2. Soils of the area have been mapped by the Land Information System and classified as being, “loamy soils with naturally high groundwater” associated with wet acid meadows and woodland. These habitats are associated with arable, grassland and woodland types that have a low
36
fertility and a loamy texture.
4.4.3. The drainage of this type of soil is described as “naturally wet” which refers to permeable soils affected by high ground water that has drained from the surrounding landscape.
4.4.4. There are a number of waterbodies within 500m of the turbine location. The nearest are located 457m to the north, 412m to the north north east, 429m and 451m to the northeast, 325m to the south east and 260m to the south west. There are watercourses over 500m to the south east, west and north of the site. The ponds on the northern side of the site are slightly downhill of the proposed turbine.
4.4.5. Figure 4.1 below shows the location (red circle) of the turbine in the context of river and coastal flood risk. Figure 4.1: Turbine location on Risk of Flooding from Rivers and Sea Map – EA
© Environment Agency copyright and database rights 2012. © Ordnance Survey Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Environment Agency, 100026380. Contains Royal Mail data © Royal Mail copyright and database right 2012.
4.4.6. Based on the EA interactive groundwater maps the site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. It is located within a minor aquifer high vulnerability groundwater area. Aquifer designations are split into two categories:
• Superficial (drift) Deposits permeable unconsolidated (loose)
37
deposits e.g. sands and gravels; and
• Bedrock Deposits solid permeable formations e.g. sandstone, chalk and limestone.
4.4.7. The Superficial Deposits are classed as Secondary A which have permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers.
4.4.8. The Bedrock Deposits are classed as Secondary B which have predominantly lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering. These are generally the water bearing parts of the former non aquifers.
4.4.9. Based on the EA flood risk maps (Figure 4.1) the site is located within Flood Zone 1, which is land that has less than a 1 in 1,000 annual probability (<0.1%) of river or sea flooding in any year by a major flood. It is considered a low risk site due to the location and therefore does not require a full Flood Risk Assessment. All electrical equipment will be located 1m above ground meaning that if the site were to flood, this would not cause a problem to the equipment. The development will not be manned, meaning that any flooding would not impact an inhabited building.
4.4.10. The Agricultural Land Classification system allows agricultural land to be graded from best (grade 1) to worst (grade 5). The site is mapped as Agricultural Land Classification Grade 2, bordering an area mapped as Grade 3 very closely (60m). The provisional Agricultural Land Classification maps are accurate to 80 hectares and therefore land of other quality may occur within the associated Grade 2 area at the site.
4.4.11. There are approximately 11 recorded boreholes within a 2km radius. One is 0 10m depth, one at 10 30m depth and one at 30m+ depth. 8 are uncategorised depths. The closest borehole is uncategorised and is approximately 254m to the south of the application site.
38
4.5. Assessment of Impacts
4.5.1. The methodology of this assessment is based on the reviewing of data and information from the above guidance and legislation. Although issues associated with hydrology and hydrogeology are likely to be relatively minor at the site, the risk of pollution to watercourses, groundwater bodies and private water sources within or near the site needs to be assessed and appropriately mitigated where necessary.
Assessment of Potential Effects
4.5.2. The potential impact of the project on water quality is minimal. There is however potential for water pollution to occur. The potential risk to the water environment is from erosion of exposed ground and suspended pollution during construction. There is also a smaller risk from chemical pollution, for example from fuel spills or concrete spills.
Construction
4.5.3. All construction will be carried out in accordance with Best Available Techniques (BAT) and other relevant guidance.
4.5.4. The use of vehicles and machinery could lead to the compaction of soils from heavy loads and result in an increased rate of surface water run off.
4.5.5. To construct the access route to the turbine surface vegetation and soil will be stripped off and an impermeable surface laid down to allow the transportation of materials, equipment and personnel.
4.5.6. A very short length of cable from the turbine to the substation is included in the remit of the proposal. This will involve further disruption and possible compaction of soil around the site.
4.5.7. The construction process for the turbine’s foundation and crane pad will involve stripping off surface vegetation which will expose underlying soils and bedrock.
4.5.8. The above structures will increase total surface run off and will therefore increase the potential for erosion and transportation of sediment, especially during periods of heavy rain. Once construction is complete and the soil around the foundation has been replaced, the change to surface water run off and risk of pollution is considered to be very low.
4.5.9. Furthermore, concrete is highly alkaline. Any changes to the pH balance
39
could impact on the chemical water quality and the species that depend on the current baseline conditions. This could occur from leakage of liquid concrete during pours resulting in release of suspended solids. Due to the distance of the turbine from the closest watercourse, the risk of pollution is low.
4.5.10. Fuel and oil spillages are also potential sources of contaminates. Pollution of watercourses and groundwater could occur through leakage or leaching of chemicals. The nearest waterbody is a field pond located 260m south west of the proposed turbine. The risk of pollution to this watercourse is considered to be low.
Operation
4.5.11. The total footprint of the development is small; however, there could be a small increase in surface water run off if mitigation measures are not employed.
4.5.12. There will be some limited on site activities during the operational lifetime of the wind turbine, relating to maintenance or repair of the turbine. During these activities there will be the need to bring small quantities of oil and greases and other materials on to site. Therefore there is a small risk of chemical pollution arising from accidental spillages during these activities.
Decommissioning
4.5.13. The potential effects that the decommissioning of the wind turbine could have on the water environment are very similar to those detailed for construction.
4.6. Mitigation
4.6.1. Construction of the turbine has the potential to impact on nearby water resources if there are inadequate protection measures in place.
4.6.2. The use of vehicles and machinery could lead to the compaction of soils from heavy loads and result in an increased rate of surface water run off. The site consists of arable land and the surfaces of the access route, if impermeable, would further increase surface water run off. Operational site traffic will be restricted to the area of hardstanding to eliminate the impact of unnecessary soil compaction. Vehicle movements will also be
40
kept to a minimum.
4.6.3. Some of the equipment and materials have the potential to result in pollution through leakages and spills of chemicals, fuels and cements which could enter groundwater systems. To mitigate against the impacts on polluting water resources the construction will adhere to the Pollution Prevention Guidance Notes published by the EA on its website.
4.6.4. Where chemicals and fuels are required they will be stored in double skinned containers with an impermeable base and in accordance with EA guidelines. They will not be stored within 10m of any watercourse. Any cement will be stored and/or mixed in a designated impermeable area, located over 10m from any watercourse.
4.6.5. Equipment will be washed out in a designated area and conveyed to separation chambers where any contaminated waste water will be collected disposed of in accordance with the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) guidance.
4.6.6. A pollution incident plan will be put in place by the construction contractors to cover the actions to be undertaken in case of leakages or spillage and to contain and clean up the spill.
4.6.7. All construction waste will be dealt with in accordance with best available techniques (BAT) to ensure risk of contamination to ground and surface waters is kept to a minimum.
4.6.8. Construction activities will be scheduled to minimise the area and period of time that soil will be exposed, particularly if construction occurs on surface wetness soils during the winter months. The stockpiling of materials needed for the construction of the turbines, its foundations and the associated cable routes will be kept to a minimum and kept as far away as possible from the onsite groundwater courses. The area around the turbines foundation will be re vegetated at the earliest opportunity to minimise exposure of soils.
4.6.9. The change of land cover, predominantly due to the resurfacing and extension of the access road and the development of the crane pad would increase the flow rates that rainfall would discharge from the developed area. This has the potential to lead to an increased risk of flooding to nearby surface waters. Additional storage in the form of a
41
Sustainable Drainage System will be required to store the attenuated rainwater from the access route during and after storms, to regulate infiltration into the ground at its natural rate. These are likely to include vegetated swales and ditches, silt traps and may incorporate a geomembrane base.
4.6.10. During the operational phase of the turbine’s lifetime and where on site activities are required, best practice procedures will continue to be adopted. All electrical equipment will be located 1m above ground and will not be impacted by surface water.
4.6.11. The activities during decommissioning are broadly similar to those during construction. As such, similar mitigation methods to those employed during construction are likely to be appropriate.
4.7. Residual Effects
Construction
4.7.1. Due to the relatively small footprint of the total development, the effects associated with construction are considered to be minor. Mitigation measures such as those described above will be employed to ensure that disturbance to the ground is kept to a minimum.
4.7.2. Increased surface run off as a result of constructing the turbines foundation is considered to be negligible.
4.7.3. The risk of polluting groundwater and surface water during construction is minimal due to the small scale of development, the mitigation measures proposed and the distance to watercourses.
Operation
4.7.4. There could be a very modest increase in surface water run off due to the impermeable surface of the turbines foundation and ancillary development. The effect of this is considered to be minor.
4.7.5. Although there is potential for accidental spillages during the maintenance of the turbine, best practice procedures will be adopted to ensure the effect is minor.
Decommissioning
4.7.6. The potential effects on the water environment during decommissioning
42
are likely to be very similar to those during the construction phase. As such, effects on the water environment are considered to be minor.
43
5. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
5.1. Introduction
5.1.1. The appraisal of the landscape and visual effects of the turbine proposed at Manor Farm, East Staffordshire has been prepared by Stephenson Halliday Ltd, a firm of independent Environmental Consultants and Landscape Architects. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been undertaken to address the specific details of the proposal and its context, with the aim of identifying the predicted landscape and visual effects which would result from the construction and operation of the proposed wind turbine.
Consultation
5.1.2. East Staffordshire Borough Council was consulted on the scope of the LVIA study area, the location of viewpoints and the presence of other schemes for a cumulative impact assessment.
Scope of the Assessment
5.1.3. The potential landscape and visual effects of the proposed development are regarded as a key issue for assessment and are organised in the following sections: 1. Guidance and methodology – an outline of general methodology, with reference to established guidance.
2. Baseline description – to identify/confirm the fabric, character and quality of the landscape which would be affected by the proposal, including a review of the extent, purposes and special characteristics of any landscape planning designations within the Study Area.
3. Project description and mitigation – a description of the aspects of the proposed wind turbine 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 potential effects;
4. Landscape and Visual Effects:
a) Visual analysis –an identification of the visual effects of the
44
proposed development. Computer generated visibility maps were used to ascertain from where the development could be visible and to identify potential receptors that could be affected by changes in views. A viewpoint analysis was also completed to determine the magnitude of the changes in the view from a selection of viewpoint locations that represent the main landscape and visual receptors in the Study Area.
b) Assessment of landscape effects – an assessment of the effects arising from the proposed wind turbine on the landscape fabric, landscape character and quality of the landscape types and designated areas within the Study Area.
c) Assessment of visual effects – an assessment of the effects arising from the proposed wind turbine on the visual amenity, receptors and viewpoints in the Study Area.
5. 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 turbine when considered in combination with other operational, consented or proposed projects in the planning process.
6. Summary and conclusions – a summary of the assessment results.
5.1.4. The landscape assessment is based on a 5km radius Study Area and the visual assessment on a 7.5km radius Study Area as agreed with East Staffordshire Borough Council, the extent of which is shown in Figure 5.1. The assessment of landscape and visual effects is illustrated with reference to viewpoint photographs and photomontages (Visualisations 1a/b 7a) in Appendix 5.1.
45
NEWTON MANOR FARM WIND TURBINE 7.5km FIGURE 5.1 LANDSCAPE DESIGNATIONS
KEY
5km Newton Manor Farm Proposed Wind Turbine
5 and 7.5km Radii from Proposed Turbine
Administrative boundary
LANDSCAPE DESIGNATIONS
Cannock Chase AONB
Registered Parks and Gardens Stafford BC East Staffordshire BC 1 Shugborough I
Country Parks
A Cannock Chase
1
Litchfield
A
0km 2.5km 5km
NORTH A Date By Paper Scale Rev Jan. 2013 RH A3 1:75 000
A © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 Licence number 100020565 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012• Contains, or is based upon, English Heritage’s National Heritage List for England data © English Heritage.• © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012
5.2. Guidance and Methodology
Guidance
5.2.1. The assessment has been based on the best practice guidance document ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment’ 2nd Edition (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002). The report also takes account of guidance within the following documents:
• ‘Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland’. (The Countryside Agency and SNH, 2002);
• ‘Landscape Character Assessment Topic Paper 6 – Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity’, (Countryside Agency and SNH, 2004);
• ‘Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’, Version 1, (SNH, December 2009);
• ‘Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Assessment’, Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/2011 (2011);
• ‘Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice’, prepared by University of Newcastle. Commissioned Report F01AA303A (2002);
• ‘Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Good Practice Guidance’ (SNH, 2006);
• ‘Cumulative Effect of Windfarms’ (SNH, 2005);
• ‘Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Development’ (SNH, March 2012);
• ‘Planning for Landscape Change and Character Assessment’ (Staffordshire County Council, May 2001); and
• ‘Countryside Character Volume 5: West Midlands’ (Countryside Commission, 1999).
46
Methodology
5.2.2. The aim of the landscape and visual assessment is to identify, predict and evaluate potential key effects arising from the proposed development. Wherever possible, identified effects are quantified, but the nature of landscape and visual assessment is that it requires interpretation by professional judgement. In order to provide a level of consistency to the assessment, the prediction of magnitude and assessment of effects of the residual landscape and visual effects have been based on pre defined criteria.
5.2.3. 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.
5.2.4. Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape fabric which may give rise to changes in its character and how this is experienced.
5.2.5. 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
5.2.6. The starting point for any assessment is a desk based review of published landscape assessments.
5.2.7. The sensitivity of the landscape to change resulting from a proposed development 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 Character Assessment Topic Paper 6 – Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity’, Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2004). Accordingly, the concept of ‘sensitivity to change’ to new development as
47
described within the baseline published landscape character assessments is distinct from the consideration of landscape sensitivity to the specific development proposal.
5.2.8. The baseline for consideration of landscape effects is the established current landscape character and 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 where the proposed development may give rise to a different landscape character type or sub type.
5.2.9. In general terms, a distinctive landscape of acknowledged value (e.g. covered by a designation) and in good condition is likely to be more sensitive to change than a landscape in poor condition and with no designations or acknowledged value. The sensitivity would depend on the attributes of the landscape receiving the proposals and the nature of those proposals.
5.2.10. In addition, the following parameters are considered together with the nature of the proposals where appropriate:
• Landscape value: The importance attached to a landscape, often as a basis for designation or recognition, which expresses national or regional consensus because of its distinctive landscape pattern, cultural associations, scenic or aesthetic qualities. It should be noted that, in virtually all circumstances, landscapes are valued (frequently highly valued) in the local context by various if not all sectors of the community.
• Landscape condition: 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 key characteristics: The sensitivity to change of the key characteristics and the ability of a particular type of landscape
48
to accommodate change brought about by a wind development without material effects upon its integrity, reflecting key aspects of landscape character including scale and complexity of the landscape and degree of ‘wildness’ or ‘remoteness’.
5.2.11. Landscape sensitivity is based on the combination of value, condition and key characteristics and the overall sensitivity 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. 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/ degradation/erosion of features resulting in areas of more mixed character. Scenic quality and attractiveness may not be as high as for a ‘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.
5.2.12. The level of landscape effects is not absolute and can only be defined in relation to each development and its location. It is for each assessment to determine the assessment criteria and thresholds using well informed and reasoned judgements.
5.2.13. Initially it is necessary to establish if and to what extent the proposed change would exert a locally characterising effect. Would the introduced element be the principal element / feature which determined landscape character? In this situation the wind turbines would be dominant, with the
49
surrounding landscape elements sub dominant in comparison. Moving outwards and away from the proposed development, the wind turbine would exert a lessening effect on landscape character as distance increases, with the attributes of the surrounding landscape context increasing in influence and becoming co dominant in a mixed landscape sub type. Further afield the attributes of the surrounding landscape context would reassert their original dominance.
5.2.14. The level of effect in landscape character terms is then determined on the extent to which new landscape types and or landscape sub types would be established. This would be related to the key characteristics of the receiving landscape in combination with the extent to which the characteristics are felt to be affected over the broader landscape character area/type.
5.2.15. 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, including the:
• degree of loss or alteration to key landscape features/elements or characteristics;
• distance from the development;
• duration of effect;
• landscape backdrop to the development; and
• landscape context of other built development, particularly vertical elements.
5.2.16. In order to differentiate between different levels of magnitude, definitions are provided in Table 5.1.
50
Table 5.1: Landscape Magnitude of Change Definitions 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. 5.2.17. Having established where the observation of varying levels of change to the landscape baseline may occur, the geographical extent of the change can be identified and a judgement made on the level of effect in landscape character terms at varying scales.
5.2.18. 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). Table 5.2 sets out the main correlations between magnitude and sensitivity. Table 5.2: Landscape Effects Matrix
Magnitude of Change Substantial Moderate Slight Negligible Major/ Moderate/ High Major Moderate Moderate Minor Major/ Moderate/ Medium Moderate Minor Moderate Minor Moderate/ Minor/ Low Moderate Minor
Landscape Sensitivity Minor Negligible
51
Visual Effects
5.2.19. In order to identify the visual significance of a visual effect, it is necessary to establish the relative sensitivity of the viewers and the magnitude of the change. In this case sensitivity can be reasonably assumed in advance.
5.2.20. 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.
5.2.21. 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 5.3. Table 5.3: Visual Sensitivity Criteria High Residents; users of outdoor recreational facilities including sensitivity footpaths, cycle ways and recreational road users; people experiencing views from important landscape features of physical, cultural or historic interest, beauty spots and picnic areas. Medium Road users and travellers on trains experiencing views from sensitivity transport routes. People engaged in outdoor sport other than appreciation of the landscape Low Workers, users of facilities and commercial buildings (indoors) sensitivity experiencing views from buildings. 5.2.22. 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;
• background to the development; and
52
• extent of other built development visible, particularly vertical elements.
5.2.23. 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, definitions are provided in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4: Visual Magnitude of Change Definitions Substantial Substantial change, where the proposals would have a defining influence on the view. Change very prominent leading to substantial obstruction or complete change in character and composition of the baseline existing view. Moderate Moderate change in the view would occur where the proposals would be clearly noticeable and an important new element in the view. It may involve partial obstruction of existing view or 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. Change would be barely perceptible. The composition and Negligible character of the view would be substantially unaltered, approximating to little or no change. 5.2.24. The threshold for different levels of visual effects relies to a great extent on professional judgement. Criteria and local circumstances require close study and careful judgement.
5.2.25. Positive effects upon receptors may result from a change to a view by the removal of eyesores or through the addition of well designed elements which add to the sense of place in a positive manner. In the case of wind farm development it is not a clear cut matter to determine whether or not a change in the view should be regarded as adverse or positive because of the widely varying responses of individuals to wind farm development.
5.2.26. Table 5.5 sets out the main correlations between magnitude and sensitivity.
Table 5.5: Visual Effects Matrix Magnitude of Change
Substantial Moderate Slight Negligible High Major Major/ Moderate Moderate / Sensitivity Visual Visual Moderate Minor
53
Medium Major/ Moderate Moderate / Minor Moderate Minor Low Moderate Moderate/ Minor Minor/ Minor Negligible Level of Effects
5.2.27. The level of any identified landscape or visual effect has been assessed as 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. These categories have been based on combining viewer or landscape sensitivity and predicted magnitude of change, to determine the level of effects.
5.2.28. 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 host LCTs a notable 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, 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, landscape character effects may occur where the wind farm or turbine becomes a defining characteristic of those views. This will depend on the key characteristics of the landscape and the nature, extent and duration of the effects that would be brought about by the proposed development.
5.2.29. Within close proximity of the site, a turbine would give rise to a local landscape sub type where the turbine is a locally characterising element of the landscape. The sub type typically occurs within a kilometre or two of the single turbine depending on its size, the sensitivity of the landscape and the magnitude of change. Further from the site the wind turbine may still be a clearly noticeable element in the landscape, however, the baseline landscape character would increasingly reassert its influence so that the wind turbine becomes a new element in the landscape alongside the pre existing characteristics without altering them.
54
5.2.30. Landscape and Visual Effects are described with reference to type (direct, indirect, secondary or cumulative), timeframe (short, medium, long term, permanent, and temporary) and whether they are positive or negative. The various types of effect are described below.
Temporary/ Permanent Effects
5.2.31. 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 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 turbine should therefore be regarded as a long term reversible addition to the landscape, preserving the choice for future generations to decide whether or not to retain what might be regarded as the landscape fabric of today.
Direct/ Indirect
5.2.32. Direct and Indirect landscape and visual effects are defined in Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA 2002). Direct effects may be defined “ as an effect that is directly attributable to a defined element or characteristic of the proposed development, for example the loss or removal of an element or feature such as a hedgerow or a prominent group of trees ”. An indirect (or secondary) effect is an effect that is not a direct result of the proposed development but is often produced away from the site 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 a wind turbine seen in the context of the existing landscape and visual character of the view.
Positive/Negative (Beneficial/Adverse)
5.2.33. Landscape and visual effects can be negative or positive and in some instances may be considered neutral. The landscape impacts have been
55
compared with the landscape baseline, taking account of landscape strategies or objectives where such strategies or objectives 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. Accordingly in this assessment landscape effects are assumed to be adverse. Visual effects are more subjective in terms of their direction depending on whether people like or dislike what they see. To cover the worst case scenario visual impacts are generally assumed to be adverse unless otherwise specifically stated in the text.
Illustrative Tools
Visibility Maps
5.2.34. Computer generated Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Maps have been prepared to assist in viewpoint selection and to appreciate the potential influence of the development in the wider landscape.
5.2.35. The Visibility Maps indicate areas from which it might be possible to secure views to part of the proposed development. However, use of the Visibility Maps needs to be qualified on the following basis:
• There are a number of areas within the ZTV Maps from where there is potential to view parts of the proposal, but which comprise agricultural land where the general public do not appear to exercise regular access;
• The ZTV Maps do not account for the effects of screening and filtering of views as a result of intervening features, such as buildings, trees and hedgerows; and
• The ZTV Maps do not account for the likely orientation of a viewer – for example when travelling in a vehicle.
5.2.36. The combined effect of these limitations means that the ZTV Maps tend to over estimate the extent of visibility – both in terms of the land area from which the project is visible and also possibly the extent of visibility from a particular viewpoint.
5.2.37. In addition, the accuracy of the ZTV Maps has to be considered, in
56
particular:
• The ZTV Maps are generated from Ordnance Survey (OS) Landform Panorama digital data based on a gridded terrain model with 50m and 10m cell sizes. The resolution of this model cannot accurately represent small scale terrain features, which can therefore give rise to inaccuracy in the predicted visibility. This can lead to either underestimation of visibility – e.g. a raised area of ground permitting views over an intervening obstruction – or an overestimation of visibility – such as where a roadside embankment obscures a view. These effects are said to be “random”. However, over the extent of the ZTV Maps such errors will not be material in terms of this assessment.
• The use of this type of ZTV Map is considered good practice and should be considered as a tool to assist in assessing the visibility of the project. The ZTV Maps do not present an absolute measure of visibility and do not represent the “visual impact” of the proposed development.
Viewpoint Assessment and Visualisations
5.2.38. The assessment of landscape and visual effects is carried out from an agreed representative selection of viewpoints. The viewpoints were initially selected through professional judgement and the selection refined through consultation with East Staffordshire District Council.
5.2.39. The viewpoint analysis is accompanied by illustrative material, comprising photographs and photomontages. The photography was undertaken in accordance with accepted good practice and the Landscape Institute’s Practice Advice Note on the subject (Landscape Institute 2011). All photographs included in the assessment were taken with a digital SLR camera with a full size (35mm) sensor, using a 50mm focal length lens, mounted on a level panoramic head tripod. Panoramas were constructed using computer software, for example Adobe Photoshop and PTGui photo stitching software and are transformed for cylindrical projection.
5.2.40. For each viewpoint a wireframe diagram is prepared using ‘Windfarm’ computer software based on 1:50,000 scale OS Landform Panorama data incorporating 1:10,000 scale OS Landform Profile Data near the site
57
and using a 50m cell size for the wireframe grids. Curvature of the Earth, atmospheric refraction and transformation for a cylindrical projection are included in the wireframe generated. The outline of the turbine is generated in the wireframe based on generic models based on hub height and blade length. In the wireframes, the blades are set so that one blade is facing straight up and every turbine faces the same direction with the turbine in the centre facing directly towards the viewpoint.
5.2.41. A perspective match is achieved between the computer generated wireframe and the photographs by iteratively adjusting the perspective parameters until all the major features in the image are aligned satisfactorily.
5.2.42. Photomontages have been included for all viewpoints with views of the proposal. Photomontages are rendered in ‘Windfarm’ computer software based upon recorded viewpoint and camera details provided by the photographer. The turbine is rendered with random rotating blades and is matched to the photograph using the wireframe diagram. The turbine is tailored to match the lighting conditions in the photograph to provide a realistic image. In some cases, the contrast between the background and the turbine is increased to ensure that the portrayal of the potential effect is not underestimated and the ‘worst case scenario’ is shown. However, the visual character of elements of the scheme will undoubtedly be different under other weather and or lighting conditions. It must also be noted that there is an element of judgement inherent in the representation of the changes shown in a photomontage.
5.2.43. The existing photographs and wireframes have been produced to record a 75° horizontal angle of view, illustrating the full extent of view of the proposal within the local landscape context experienced at the viewpoint and photomontages have been enlarged to illustrate a 50° horizontal angle of view. In this assessment the visualisations (a combination of photomontages and wireframes), have been presented with a viewing distance of 300mm for existing views and wireframes and 450mm for photomontages, following the recommendations of the Visual Representation of Windfarms: Good Practice Guidance (SNH, 2006). The viewing distance is the distance between the page and your eyes in order to view the image at the same scale as they would appear if you
58
were at the viewpoint yourself.
5.2.44. SNH Guidance on viewing visualisations can be found in Technical Appendix B paragraphs B19 B21 of the SNH Guidance document:
“The ideal method of viewing a panorama would be with the image presented as part of a cylinder of the correct radius and then viewed from the centre of that cylinder.’ ‘In the case of a panorama laid flat, the eye point (which would be a single point if the panorama was presented as part of a cylinder), becomes spread out along an imaginary line parallel to the surface of the image and separated from it by the correct viewing distance for the panorama. So long as the gaze is kept perpendicular to the surface of the image, a view from any point along that line will be a good approximation to a correct view. Moving from one end of this line to the other is geometrically equivalent to standing at the middle of the cylinder and turning one's head to left or right.” (Visual Representation of Windfarms: good practice guidance (SNH, 2006).
5.2.45. In other words, the SNH guidance provides that the viewer need merely move their head (not just the eyes) from side to side to properly view the panorama correctly.
5.2.46. The information shown within the title block of the visualisations and within the Landscape and Visual Assessment text is produced using ‘Windfarm’ software or based on mathematical calculations. The tip and hub present within a viewpoint are produced in ‘Windfarm.’ The distance to the turbine is based on the 12 digit grid coordinates of the viewpoint and the centre of the turbine and the bearings to the turbine tower.
5.3. Landscape Baseline
5.3.1. The proposed site is located in an undulating landscape approximately 500m north of Newton and 7.8km south west of Uttoxeter. The site is located within an arable field in an area of mixed agriculture, with pastoral fields located around the periphery of the local villages. The field pattern is generally defined by hedgerows, and mature hedgerow trees are common. Woodland blocks are also a common feature across the landscape, with Newton Gorse being the closest located 400m west. Blithfield Reservoir is located approximately 1km to the south east.
5.3.2. The settlement pattern in the vicinity of the site is made up of small
59
villages, hamlets and scattered farmsteads, and the road pattern reflects this being comprised of minor roads and lanes. Overhead pylon routes are located to the west of the site.
Landscape Character
Regional Landscape Character
5.3.3. England has been divided into areas with similar landscape character, which are called National Character Areas (NCAs); previously known as Joint Character Areas (JCAs). The 'Character of England Landscape, Wildlife and Cultural Features Map' produced in 2005 by The Countryside Agency with support from English Heritage, was an update to a 1996 original. This map subdivides England into 159 NCA providing a picture of the differences in landscape character at the national scale.
5.3.4. The site is located within NCA 68: Needwood & South Derbyshire Claylands. The key characteristics are:
• Rolling, glacial till plateau rising to prominent wooded heights above the central valley;
• Wide, shallow central valley;
• Gently rolling landscape in the north, dissected by numerous small valleys;
• Frequent plantations and ancient woodland in former forest of Needwood;
• Varied hedgerow patterns: strongly rectilinear in Needwood Forest, irregular in the west, sub rectangular elsewhere;
• Predominantly pasture with good hedges but some areas of more open arable with low hedges;
• Red brick and half timber villages with sandstone churches; and
• Historic parks and country houses.
Local Landscape Character
5.3.5. The local Landscape Character Assessment, Planning for Landscape Change and Character Assessment (Staffordshire County Council May 2001) covers the 5km Study Area.
60
5.3.6. The proposed turbine is located within the Settled Plateau Farmland Slopes landscape character type. The key characteristics are described as follows:
• Hedgerow oak and ash trees;
• Broadleaved and conifer woodlands;
• Irregular hedged field pattern;
• Narrow lanes and hedge banks;
• Old villages and hamlets;
• Small streams and field ponds;
• Manors and parkland;
• Undulating, sloping landform;
• Extensive fencing;
• Busy roads;
• Electricity pylons;
• Agricultural intensification;
• Large modern farm buildings;
• Modernised dwellings and commuter properties; and
• Village expansion.
5.3.7. The key characteristics of the character of the other landscape character areas within the 5km Study Area are set out within Appendix 5.2, with a plan showing landscape character and the Study Area in Figure 5.2.
Landscape Planning Designations
5.3.8. There are no landscape designations within the 5km landscape study area. However, the Cannock Chase AONB is located approximately 5.1km south west of the proposed site and given that it is very close to 5km away, it was also included in the assessment.
61
NEWTON MANOR FARM WIND TURBINE 7.5km NCA 68 FIGURE 5.2 NEEDWOOD AND SOUTH DERBYSHIRE CLAYLANDS LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
KEY
5km Newton Manor Farm Proposed Wind Turbine
Fa 5 and 7.5km Radii from Proposed Turbine
National Character Area Boundary
NCA 67 Cannock Chase and Cank Wood NCA 68 Needwood and South Derbyshire Claylands
Planning for Landscape Change (2001) Landscape Character Types Fo Settled farmlands
Riparian alluvial lowlands
Sandstone hills and heaths
Sandstone estatelands
Settled plateau farmland slopes
Surveyor - enclosed plateau farmlands
E Gritstone uplands Fa Areas of built character Landscape Character Sub-Types E Estatelands Fa Farmland NCA 61 Fo Forest P Parkland SHROPSHIRE, Cannock Chase AONB Management Plan CHESHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE Designed Parkland PLAIN P Trent Valley Floodplain
Fa Sandstone Estatelands Fo Open Hills and Heathland Forestry
Fo
NCA 67 CANNOCK CHASE AND CANK WOOD 0km 2.5km 5km
NORTH NCA 69 Date By Paper Scale Rev TRENT VALLEY Jan. 2013 RH A3 1:75 000
WASHLANDS © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 Licence number 100020565 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012• © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012
5.4. Design and Mitigation
Introduction
5.4.1. This section identifies the aspects of the proposed development with the potential to cause an effect on landscape or visual amenity in the Study Area. The proposed development, including details of the proposed wind turbine, foundations, site access, hardstanding crane pad, substation, temporary meteorological mast and access track, is contained in Chapters 1 and 2.
Proposed Development
5.4.2. The development of the proposed wind turbine would comprise three distinct phases; a temporary construction phase, an operational phase and a temporary decommissioning phase. A description of each phase of development is included within Chapter 2. Those elements of the development with the potential to cause an effect on landscape character and visual amenity are described in the paragraphs below.
5.4.3. The wind turbine market is fast moving, with models being regularly updated. There are presently a number of models available within the 74m tip height envelope. As such, the applicant is confident that a turbine can be procured which fits this tip height. The exact make and model that will be procured cannot be specified at this time and the final model will be chosen from the open market.
5.4.4. The assessments for this environmental documentation have been based upon a candidate turbine, the Enercon E48 wind turbine which has a hub height of 50m, a rotor diameter of 48m and a maximum height to tip of 74m.
Construction Phase
5.4.5. The construction phase is expected to last for approximately two months. The activities and temporary features with the potential to cause an effect on the landscape and visual amenity include:
• Installation of the wind turbine, with an installed rated capacity of 500kW with a maximum tip height of 74m;
• Upgrading and extension to the existing access track. The access track from Newton Lane to the turbine would be
62
approximately 500m long, although most of this is the existing access road;
• Installation of a hardstanding crane pad adjacent to the wind turbine (20m x 30m); and
• Installation of a substation.
5.4.6. The temporary construction compound would be located on the crane pad and would only be required during the construction and decommissioning phases.
5.4.7. These works will be confined to the immediate surroundings of the site and the visual effects of the construction phase are considered below.
5.4.8. If an anemometry mast was to be erected, it would be erected for a period before the construction of the turbine, with a small landscape and visual impact during the very short construction period (likely to be less than a week).
Operational Phase
5.4.9. The proposed wind turbine is the main element of this development with the potential to affect the landscape and visual amenity of the Study Area during the operational phase.
5.4.10. There would also be a temporary landscape and visual impact associated with the anemometry mast, if it were to be erected, for its period of installation. Given that the period of installation would be for a maximum of 24 months, it would be in the same location as the turbine and there would be a lower impact, for shorter period of time than the impact of the turbine, the impact of the mast was not assessed separately.
5.4.11. The ancillary development is not anticipated to have any significant residual effects on the landscape and visual amenity of the area, as a result of appropriate siting and design, and thus have not been considered in any further detail in this assessment. The assessment has therefore been based on the potential residual effects of the wind turbine.
Decommissioning
5.4.12. The expected operational life of the turbine is approximately 25 years. When the wind turbine is decommissioned the turbine components and
63
substation would be removed. It is envisaged that conditions attached to any planning consent would stipulate that the work required to decommission the turbine would be agreed in advance with the Local Authority. The turbine could be decommissioned easily, rapidly dismantled and the land restored.
5.4.13. There would be a short term temporary impact associated with the removal of structures during the decommissioning stage of the project. However this would have a minimal effect on the locality and has not been considered further as part of this assessment.
5.4.14. In the circumstances that a development would result in an alteration to an environment whose attributes can be quickly recovered, then judgements concerning the level of effects should be tempered in that light. Landscape and visual effects can be reversed and following decommissioning there would be no residual effects.
Mitigation Measures
5.4.15. By its nature, the proposed wind turbine would result in visual effects which it would not be feasible to fully mitigate by adjusting the siting, or providing screening. The design of the turbine model to be used comprises a simple tubular tower with nacelle and three blades which provide a smoother sense of movement and more efficient power generation than two blades. The proposed colour of the upper parts of the turbines would be selected to blend with the predominant colour of the sky and have a semi matt finish to minimise reflectance.
5.5. Visual Analysis
Introduction
5.5.1. This section provides an overview of the identification of landscape and visual effects arising from the proposed development during the operational period having taken account of the in built mitigation measures.
5.5.2. The potential landscape and visual effects arising during the operational phase of the proposed development have been assessed in two ways:
• Analysis of the ZTV Maps to provide a general overview of the visibility of the proposed development from different distances
64
within the Study Area; and
• Assessment of the potential landscape and visual effects at the viewpoints agreed with East Staffordshire District Council.
Zone of Theoretical Visibility Analysis
5.5.3. Visibility mapping to turbine blade tip and hub height (50m using E48 elevation) has been prepared to a radius of 7.5km from the proposed turbine, as illustrated in ZTV plans shown in Figure 5.3, Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5. This ZTV analysis has been prepared on the basis of ‘bare ground’; not taking into account the screening effects of the built form of settlements or vegetation. The visibility mapping illustrates the maximum overall visibility of the proposed turbine.
Viewpoint Analysis
5.5.4. An assessment has been carried out on a selection of key viewpoint locations to assess the likely magnitude of landscape and visual effects arising as a result of the proposed turbine. A total of seven viewpoints have been selected as being representative of the main landscape and visual receptors in the Study Area, as agreed with East Staffordshire Borough Council:
• Viewpoint 1: View North West from Public Footpath North of Bag Lane: this view was selected to represent views from a public footpath, adjacent to dwellings in Newton;
• Viewpoint 2: View West from Junction of Booth Lane and Heath Lane, Dapple Heath: This view was selected to represent views from local roads, and be similar in nature to views experienced by nearby dwellings in Dapple Heath;
• Viewpoint 3: View East from Public Footpath, Lea Heath: This view was selected to represent views from a public footpath on the edge of Lea Heath, and be similar in nature to views experienced by nearby dwellings;
• Viewpoint 4: View North from Blithfield Church driveway: this view was selected to be similar in nature to views experienced from Blithfield Hall;
• Viewpoint 5: View North West from Blithfield Reservoir Car Park:
65
NEWTON MANOR FARM
7.5km WIND TURBINE FIGURE 5.3 Zone of Theoretical Visibility: 7.5km Radius
KEY
5km Newton Manor Farm Proposed Wind Turbine
5 and 7.5km Radii from Proposed Turbine
Viewpoints
6 Cannock Chase AONB
WIND TURBINE VISIBILITY
Hub and Tip Visible
Tip only Visible
3 2
1
4 5 Turbine Data:
The ZTV has been calculated on the following turbine dimensions and to layout LNMF001.WFL
Hub height (m) 50 Blade tip height (m) 74
NOTES: The calculations of this map are based on the ‘bare earth’ model of 7 the landform and does not allow for any effects of screening from obstacles such as buildings and vegetation. The landform data was taken from Ordnance Survey Land-Form Panorama 1:50,000 scale digital terrain model - gridded height data at 50m intervals. The visibility maps are calculated for a viewer’s eye height of 2m above ground height to upper blade tip or hub height using a calculation grid size of 50m.
0km 2.5km 5km
NORTH
Date By Paper Scale Rev Jan. 2013 RH A3 1:75 000
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 Licence number 100020565 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012
NEWTON MANOR FARM WIND TURBINE 7.5km FIGURE 5.4 Zone of Theoretical Visibility with Route Receptors
KEY
5km Newton Manor Farm Proposed Wind Turbine
5 and 7.5km Radii from Proposed Turbine
Route Receptors: Long Distance Footpaths
Stone Circles Challenge
Staffordshire Way and the Way for the Millenium Staffordshire Way
The Way for the Millenium
WIND TURBINE VISIBILITY
Hub and Tip Visible
Tip only Visible
Turbine Data:
The ZTV has been calculated on the following turbine dimensions and to layout LNMF001.WFL
Hub height (m) 50 Blade tip height (m) 74
NOTES: The calculations of this map are based on the ‘bare earth’ model of the landform and does not allow for any effects of screening from obstacles such as buildings and vegetation. The landform data was taken from Ordnance Survey Land-Form Panorama 1:50,000 scale digital terrain model - gridded height data at 50m intervals. The visibility maps are calculated for a viewer’s eye height of 2m above ground height to upper blade tip or hub height using a calculation grid size of 50m.
0km 2.5km 5km
NORTH
Date By Paper Scale Rev Jan. 2013 RH A3 1:75 000
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 Licence number 100020565 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012
NEWTON MANOR FARM WIND TURBINE 7.5km NCA 68 FIGURE 5.5 NEEDWOOD AND SOUTH DERBYSHIRE CLAYLANDS ZTV AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
KEY SPF 5km Newton Manor Farm Proposed Wind Turbine
5 and 7.5km Radii from Proposed Turbine
GU National Character Area Boundary
NCA 67 Cannock Chase and Cank Wood SPF NCA 68 Needwood and South Derbyshire Claylands Planning for Landscape Change (2001) SPF Landscape Character Types GU SEP SF Settled farmlands GU SEP RAL Riparian alluvial lowlands SHH Sandstone hills and heaths SE Sandstone estatelands GU SPFS Settled plateau farmland slopes SE SEP Surveyor -enclosed plateau farmlands SEP GU Gritstone uplands P U Areas of built character U SE SF Landscape Character Sub-Types E Estatelands Fa Farmland Fo Forest P Parkland Cannock Chase AONB Management Plan NCA 61 RAL SHROPSHIRE, DP Designed Parkland DP CHESHIRE AND TVF TVF Trent Valley Floodplain STAFFORDSHIRE DP SE Sandstone Estatelands PLAIN OHH Open Hills and Heathland RAL Forestry OHH SE TVF WIND TURBINE VISIBILITY
RAL Hub and Tip Visible OHH SHH Tip only Visible Turbine Data: SE The ZTV has been calculated on the following turbine dimensions and to layout LNMF001.WFL NCA 67 Hub height (m) 50 CANNOCK CHASE AND Blade tip height (m) 74 CANK WOOD 0km 2.5km 5km
NORTH NCA 69 Date By Paper Scale Rev TRENT VALLEY Jan. 2013 RH A3 1:75 000
WASHLANDS © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 Licence number 100020565 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012• © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012
this view was selected to be similar in nature to views experienced from the B5013;
• Viewpoint 6: View South from Blythe Bridge Bank: this view was selected to be similar in nature to views experienced from the road network within the study area and adjacent residents; and
• Viewpoint 7: View North from Bridleway, Cannock Chase AONB: this view was selected to represent views from the Cannock Chase AONB.
5.5.5. The method of assessment for the viewpoint analysis is described in Section 5.2 and is in accordance with current guidance for landscape and visual assessment (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 2002). The approach involves viewpoint analysis to predict the magnitude of change at each of the representative viewpoints based on fieldwork observations, computer modelling, measurement of parameters and professional judgement. This is then correlated with the sensitivity of the landscape or visual receptor to give an overall level of effect. The assessment takes into account the screening effect of intervening topography, vegetation and built form. It assumes clear weather conditions, although the influence of different weather conditions, sunlight and visibility are also considered.
66
Table 5.6: Viewpoint Analysis: Landscape and Visual Effects
Landscape Effects Visual Effects Predicted View Existing View (see Landscape Effect on Sub-type Receptor Magnitude Effects on Visualisations) type/ Landscape created? sensitivity of Change visual amenity Sensitivity Character Viewpoint 1: View North West from Public Footpath North of Bag Lane (510m from turbine) The view comprises a medium The turbine tower, Settled Yes Major to Public Turbine would Public Footpath sized pasture field enclosed by hub and blade Plateau Major/ Footpath be seen as a Users: mature gappy hedgerows with would be seen Farmland Moderate Users: prominent Major regular hedgerow trees. above landform. Slopes: High foreground High/ feature: Residents: Medium Residents: Substantial Major High Viewpoint 2: View West from Junction of Booth Lane and Heath Lane, Dapple Heath (756m from turbine) The view comprises a small The turbine tower, Settled Yes Major to Road Users: Turbine would Major/ pasture field enclosed by gappy hub and blade Plateau Major/ Medium be seen as a Moderate hedgerows, with an arable field would be seen Farmland Moderate prominent visible beyond. Housing on above landform. Slopes: foreground Booth Lane is visible to the High/ feature: south of the view. Medium Substantial Viewpoint 3: View East from Public Footpath, Lea Heath (842m from turbine) A linear pastoral field reaches The lower parts of Surveyor Yes Major/ Public Turbine would Major from the foreground to the the turbine tower Enclosed Moderate Footpath be seen as a horizon of the view, enclosed by would be Plateau Users: prominent hedgerows with regular screened by Farmlands: High foreground hedgerow trees. The land rises landform, with the Medium feature: to the east creating a horizon in upper tower, hub Substantial the middle distance, with only and blades visible the crowns of hedgerow trees above the visible beyond. horizon.
67
Landscape Effects Visual Effects Predicted View Existing View (see Landscape Effect on Sub-type Receptor Magnitude Effects on Visualisations) type/ Landscape created? sensitivity of Change visual amenity Sensitivity Character Viewpoint 4: View North from Blithfield Church driveway (1.85km from turbine) The view looks down Blithfield The turbine tower, Settled No Moderate Road Users: Turbine would Moderate Church driveway, with arable hub and blades Plateau (assuming Medium be partially and grassland fields on either would be Farmland winter filtered by side. The view is generally screened in Slopes: visibility) vegetation enclosed by mature trees, with summer months Medium (assuming a longer distance view across by vegetation, winter the landscape possible to the however would be visibility): north east. visible through Moderate vegetative screening in winter months. Viewpoint 5: View North West from Blithfield Reservoir Car Park (2.98km from turbine) The view looks north up the The turbine tower, Settled No Moderate Road users: Turbine would Moderate western shore of Blithfield hub and blade Plateau to Medium be seen Reservoir. Mixed farmland is would be seen Farmland Moderate/ clearly: visible surrounding the reservoir above landform. Slopes: Minor Moderate with the land pattern defined by Medium hedgerows and mature tree cover.
68
Landscape Effects Visual Effects Predicted View Existing View (see Landscape Effect on Sub-type Receptor Magnitude Effects on Visualisations) type/ Landscape created? sensitivity of Change visual amenity Sensitivity Character Viewpoint 6: View South from Blythe Bridge Bank (3.21km from turbine) The elevated view looks across The lower parts of Settled No Moderate Residents: Turbine would Residents: the mixed agricultural the turbine tower Plateau to High be a clearly Major/ landscape. Hedgerows and would be Farmland Moderate/ noticeable Moderate woodland blocks are notable screened by Slopes: Minor Road users: element of an landscape features. landform, with the Medium Medium elevated view: Road users: Communication masts are upper tower, hub Moderate Moderate visible in the distance. and blades visible above the horizon. Viewpoint 7: View North from Bridleway, Cannock Chase AONB (6.16km from turbine) The view is slightly elevated The turbine tower, Designed No Moderate/ Public Turbine would Moderate/ looking over the Trent Valley. A hub and blades Parklands: Minor to Footpath be screened: Minor mature tree avenue encloses would be High/ Minor Users: Negligible the view to the west. Pasture predominantly Medium High fields bounded by hedgerows screened by and trees comprise the landform, with the landscape. The land rises again blade tips in the north. screened by vegetation.
69
5.6. Construction Stage Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects
5.6.1. Whilst it is the operational stage of the wind energy scheme that would give rise to prolonged landscape and visual effects, temporary effects at the construction stage would occur and these are considered below.
5.6.2. Construction of the wind turbine would involve the following operations:
• Construction of crane hardstanding and substation;
• Upgrading and additional sections of access track;
• Excavation and construction of turbine base foundation;
• Excavations for underground cables;
• Installation and use of a temporary site compound;
• HGV deliveries to site and movement of vehicles on site;
• Erection of turbine using a crane; and
• Reinstatement works, including the removal of the temporary accommodation.
5.6.3. The works detailed above would give rise to some landscape and visual effects. These effects would however be temporary and would mainly arise through the erection of the turbines. The effects arising from other operations, including the vehicle movements, excavation of turbine foundations, cable runs and the construction compound would be localised, and would not be prominent in views from the surrounding areas. Construction operations would take place over a period of approximately two months. These effects would be limited in extent and duration.
Construction Landscape Effects (Fabric and Character)
5.6.4. The construction of the turbines would take place on agricultural land north west of Manor Farm. The construction activities would disrupt a limited area of existing agricultural land. Any disturbance of existing farmland to be retained on completion of construction would be reinstated accordingly. The effects of the construction phase of the turbine
70
development on the fabric of the landscape are considered to be Minor.
Construction Effects on Visual Amenity
5.6.5. The visual effects of the activities during the construction phase would be temporary and intermittent and slight in magnitude. Vehicle movements to and from the site would be confined to a short section of the local road network between the site and the M6 with the only noticeable effects arising from the delivery of the turbine towers and blades. The visual effects of the limited number of HGV and turbine delivery vehicle movements would be Minor.
5.6.6. Having regard to the assessment set out above and the temporary nature of the construction effects, it is considered that the proposal would result in Minor landscape and visual effects during the construction stage.
5.7. Operational Stage: Assessment of Landscape Effects
5.7.1. This section examines the landscape effects arising as a result of the proposed development with reference to:
• The potential operational effects on landscape fabric within the site; and
• The potential operational effects on landscape character, including consideration of any effects within designated areas.
Potential Operational Effects on Landscape Fabric
5.7.2. Changes to landscape fabric can occur where there would be direct or indirect physical changes to the landscape. In general, changes to landscape fabric only occur within the application boundary of a wind energy development.
5.7.3. There would be long term, but reversible effects on the landscape fabric of the site during the operational life of the development as a result of the wind turbine development, turbine base, substation and access tracks.
Site Tracks within the Site Boundary
5.7.4. The scheme design provides an access track which would be constructed with crushed stone. The sensitivity of the landscape is considered to be high/medium and the magnitude of change to the landscape fabric posed by construction would be moderate/slight resulting in a moderate effect.
71
5.7.5. In conclusion, the effects on landscape fabric would be long term and reversible and good site management will minimise the extent and duration of these effects.
Potential Operational Effects on Landscape Character
5.7.6. The effect of the proposed turbine on landscape character largely depends on the key characteristics of the receiving environment; the degree to which the turbine may be considered to be consistent with or at odds with it; and how the proposal 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 turbine.
5.7.7. It is acknowledged there is an overlap between perception of change to landscape character and visual amenity, but it should be remembered that 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 turbine on landscape character would arise from its relationship to these combinations and patterns. The following assessment is undertaken with reference to Figure 5.5, and the Landscape Character descriptions contained in the baseline section and Appendix 5.2. The sensitivity of the host landscape character type/ area is assessed in Appendix 5.3. The proposed turbine is located within the Settled Plateau Farmland Slopes character area.
Direct Effects
Settled Plateau Farmland Slopes
5.7.8. The Settled Plateau Farmland Slopes character type is assessed to be of high/medium sensitivity to wind farm development of the type proposed (See Appendix 5.3).
5.7.9. At distances up to approximately 1.7km from the turbine a new landscape character sub type: ‘Settled Plateau Farmland Slopes with Wind Turbine’ would be created where the turbine would become a key characteristic of the new landscape character sub type. There would be little physical loss or alteration of the components which currently characterise the
72
landscape, however the presence of the turbine would influence the character of this landscape (See Appendix 5.1 Visualisations 1a/b and 2a/b). Table 5.7 outlines the effect of the proposed turbine on the existing key characteristics.
Table 5.7: Effect upon the Settled Plateau Farmland Slopes key characteristics Key Characteristics Impact upon the key characteristics Hedgerow oak and ash trees No effect Broadleaved and conifer woodlands No effect Irregular hedged field pattern No effect Narrow lanes and hedge banks No effect Old villages and hamlets No effect Small streams and field ponds No effect Manors and parkland No effect Undulating, sloping landform No effect New key characteristic: The presence of the proposed turbine ‘Prominent presence of wind turbine’ would result in a new key characteristic within approximately 1.7km of the proposed turbine. Incongruous landscape features Impact upon incongruous landscape features Extensive fencing No effect Busy roads No effect Electricity pylons No effect Agricultural intensification No effect Large modern farm buildings The turbine would accord with larger scale buildings. Modernised dwellings and commuter No effect properties Village expansion No effect 5.7.10. The new sub type would extend approximately 1.7km north to the boundary with Stafford Borough, approximately 1.4km east to the woodland at Newton Hurst, and to the character type boundaries with the Settled Farmlands and Surveyor Enclosed Plateau Farmlands to the west.
5.7.11. This effect is considered to be of substantial magnitude to a distance of up to approximately 1.7km from the turbine. In the context of the high/ medium sensitivity of the landscape in which the turbine would be located, there would be a major to major/moderate effect upon landscape character.
5.7.12. At greater distances from the turbine, beyond approximately 1.7km, the turbine would be viewed in the context of the larger scale arable
73
landscape, and it would exert less influence upon the character of the landscape. At these greater distances the key characteristics of the landscape would not be affected.
Settled Farmlands
5.7.13. The Settled Farmlands character type is assessed to be of medium sensitivity to wind farm development of the type proposed (see Appendix 5.3).
5.7.14. At distances up to approximately 1.7km from the turbine a new occurrence of the landscape character sub type: ‘Settled Farmlands with Wind Turbine’ would be created. Although there would be little physical loss or alteration of the existing elements which together characterise the landscape, the turbine would become a key characteristic of the new landscape sub type (See Appendix 5.1 Visualisations 1a/b). Table 5.8 below outlines the effect of the proposed turbine on the existing key characteristics. Table 5.8: Effect upon the Settled Farmlands Key Characteristics Key Characteristics Impact upon the key characteristics Large numbers of hedgerow oak and No effect ash Strong irregular field pattern No effect Narrow lanes No effect And hedge banks No effect Traditional red brick buildings; No effect undulating sloping landform Steep wooded stream valleys No effect Broadleaved woodlands and conifer No effect plantations Ancient village settlements No effect Parkland No effect New key characteristic: The presence of the proposed turbine ‘Prominent presence of wind turbine’ would result in a new key characteristic within approximately 1.7km of the proposed turbine. Incongruous landscape features Impact upon incongruous landscape features Village expansion No effect Busy roads No effect Modern housing No effect Extensive fencing No effect Localised electrified railway line and No effect large scale industrial buildings
74
5.7.15. The new sub type would extend approximately 1.7km from the turbine; to the south and west; to Bullacre Pit wood in the south and Banks Covert and Drointon in the west, adjoining the ‘Settled Plateau Farmland Slopes with Wind Turbine’ sub type to the east.
5.7.16. This effect is considered to be of substantial magnitude to a distance of up to approximately 1.7km from the turbine. In the context of the medium sensitivity of the landscape in which the turbine would be located, there would be a major/moderate effect upon landscape character.
5.7.17. At greater distances from the turbine, beyond approximately 1.7km, the turbine would be viewed in the context of the wider landscape and its scale would generally correspond with the larger scale elements of the landscape. The turbine would also be seen in the context of pylons and overhead transmission lines crossing the landscape. At these greater distances the key characteristics of the landscape would not be affected.
Surveyor Enclosed Plateau Farmland
5.7.18. There are two small occurrences of this landscape type located approximately 0.5km north west at Drointon and 2.5km east at The Warren. Within approximately 1.7km of the proposed turbine between Lea Heath and Drointon the turbine would be clearly visible above the woodland block which encloses this occurrence of the Surveyor Enclosed Plateau Farmland. There would be little physical loss or alteration of the existing elements which together characterise the landscape, however the presence of the turbine would result in a new key characteristic, resulting in the creation of a new landscape sub type; ‘Surveyor Enclosed Plateau Farmland with Wind Turbine’. Table 5.9 below outlines the effect of the proposed turbine on the existing key characteristics.
Table 5.9: Effect upon the Surveyor-Enclosed Plateau Farmland Key Characteristics Key Characteristics Impact upon the key characteristics Straight wide roads with multiple No effect junctions 19th century estate farms and cottages No effect of red brick Evenly spaced and aged hedgerow No effect oaks Extensive woodland edges No effect Neatly trimmed hedges No effect Geometric hedgerow pattern No effect
75
Flat plateau landform No effect Arable and improved pasture farming No effect New key characteristic: The presence of the proposed turbine ‘Prominent presence of wind turbine’ would result in a new key characteristic within approximately 1.7km of the proposed turbine. Incongruous landscape features Impact upon incongruous landscape features Fencing No effect Roadside development No effect Electricity pylons No effect Airfield No effect 5.7.19. Beyond approximately 1.7km, the turbine would comprise a less prominent component of the view and would be seen in the context of pylons and overhead transmission lines. Woodland and tree cover across the landscape would also limit visibility of the turbine. At these greater distances the key characteristics of the landscape would not be affected.
Riparian Alluvial Lowlands
5.7.20. This character type runs along the Trent Valley to the south west of the site and the River Blithe valley to the south east of the site. From these areas towards the edges of the Study Area visibility of the turbine would be limited to a degree by landform, and further limited by vegetation and tree cover across the landscape. The key characteristics of the Riparian Alluvial Lowlands would not be significantly affected.
Gritstone Uplands
5.7.21. From these areas of higher ground, views towards the turbine would be limited by the degree of tree cover across the landscape type and intervening landscapes, including Bagot Forest and Charterley Moss. When visible the turbine would be seen as a relatively minor component of the view and would not affect the key characteristics of the landscape.
76
Potential Operational Effects on Landscape Designations
5.7.22. There are no landscape designations within the 5km study area. Cannock Chase is located 5.1km south west of the proposed site. As illustrated by Appendix 5.1 Visualisation 7a, from the closest points of the AONB along the north eastern edges, visibility of the turbine would be predominantly screened by topography. From higher ground within the AONB further south, the turbine would be seen as a minor component of wide elevated landscape views and would not affect the key characteristics of the landscape, and there would be no effect on the statutory objectives of the AONB in terms of conservation and enhancement of natural beauty or preventing opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the AONB by the public.
5.8. Operational Stage: Assessment of Visual Effects
5.8.1. This section draws on the results of the landscape context, review of the development proposal, viewpoint assessment and fieldwork observations. It considers the potential effects of the proposal on the visual amenity of the following groups of potential receptors:
• Residents and workers in towns, villages and isolated dwellings;
• Motorists and other road users on A class, B class and minor roads; and
• Walkers / cyclists and horse riders on National routes and local footpaths, cycle ways and bridleways.
5.8.2. The following assessment considers the extent of predicted and actual visibility, magnitude of change, sensitivity of the location for each receptor type and the overall effect on changes in views that would be experienced.
Effects on Visual Amenity
Residents Settlements
5.8.3. Within 5km of the proposal, potential visibility of the turbine may be experienced by some residents in parts of Newton, Dapple Heath, Lea Heath, Drointon, Hixon, Stowe by Chartlay, Kingstone, Abbotts Bromley, Great Haywood and scattered dwellings and hamlets within the study area.
77
5.8.4. At distances between 5km and 7.5km from the turbine the ZTV indicates theoretical visibility from parts of Rugeley, Colton and Weston.
5.8.5. It is relevant to note that for residents of all of these settlements, visibility would be in part restricted by the height of buildings, orientation of streets and density of adjacent development, and would not be experienced uniformly within these areas. Within urban areas and scattered villages, the most likely places for visibility would be from the edges of the settlements nearest the proposed turbine. Within these settlements, most views would be partially screened by adjacent dwellings and intervening buildings combined with the screening effect of field boundary trees and woodland cover. There may however be places within these settlements where glimpsed views of the turbine may occur beyond intervening buildings. It is important to note that the magnitude of visual effects arising from the presence of the turbine in views from within the built up areas would be greatly reduced in comparison with those experienced in open views from the edges of settlements, as illustrated in the visualisations. The sensitivity of all residential receptors is high.
Settlements within 5km
Newton (500m S)
5.8.6. Newton is a small linear village located c.500m south of the proposed turbine. From properties along Newton Lane, Bag Lane and Manor Lane, views would be possible towards the turbine in close proximity, as illustrated by Appendix 5.1 Visualisation 1a/b from the end of Bag Lane. Some views would be filtered to varying degrees by the mature tree cover in private gardens and around the periphery of the village. Views of the turbine between 500m – 850m north, whether open or filtered would result in a substantial magnitude of change and major significant effects upon visual amenity.
Dapple Heath (650m E)
5.8.7. Dapple Heath is a small dispersed hamlet east of the proposed turbine. Unrestricted views, often at oblique angles towards the turbine would be possible from the limited number of properties in the hamlet, as illustrated by Appendix 5.4 Visualisation 2a/b. Such views would result in a substantial magnitude of change and major significant effects upon visual
78
amenity.
Lea Heath (900m W)
5.8.8. Lea Heath is a small hamlet comprising a cluster of semi detached houses off Lea Road and a number of scattered surrounding farmsteads. From the cluster of semi detached properties which face east, open views would be possible towards the turbine which would be seen above intervening tree cover, similar in nature to the view illustrated in Appendix 5.1 Visualisation 3a/b. From the surrounding scattered farmsteads views would be filtered to varying degrees by mature tree cover around the farmsteads. Open views towards the turbine within 1km would result in a substantial magnitude of change and major significant visual effects.
Drointon (1.5km NW)
5.8.9. Drointon is a small nucleated hamlet comprising numerous farmsteads and houses. Views towards the turbine would be possible, seen beyond intervening woodland cover at Newton Gorse, resulting in a substantial magnitude of change and major significant visual effects. From properties to the western side of the hamlet, views would often be partially restricted by agricultural barns and filtered by associated mature tree cover, resulting in substantial/moderate magnitude of change and major – major/moderate significant effects upon visual amenity.
Hixon (2.8km W)
5.8.10. From Hixon, a compact settlement west of the proposed turbine, the ZTV indicates that only properties to the east of the settlement would experience theoretical visibility. From properties along the eastern edge of the settlement along Swansmoor Drive Puddle Hill and Ridgeway, views across the lower lying landscape along Bourne Brook would be possible towards the turbine between 2.8km – 3.1km east. Such views would result in a moderate magnitude of change and major/moderate significant effects upon visual amenity. From most of the properties in Hixon however, visibility of the turbine would be restricted by the built form of the settlement or topography.
Stowe by Chartley (3.5km NW)
5.8.11. Stowe by Chartley is a linear village south of the A518. From properties within the village, visibility towards the turbine would be partially restricted
79
by the rising ground east of the village, and further filtered by the extensive tree cover around the village and across the landscape in small woodland blocks and individual trees. Partially restricted and filtered views of the turbine 3.5km south east would result in a moderate/slight magnitude of change and major/moderate – moderate effects which would not be considered significant.
Abbotts Bromley (3.9km SE)
5.8.12. As illustrated by the ZTV, visibility towards the turbine would be restricted by topography from the south western parts of Abbotts Bromley. From the north eastern edge, properties backing onto Harley Lane would experience views towards the turbine just over 4km north west, partially filtered by intervening vegetation across the landscape. Such views would result in a slight magnitude of change and moderate effects which would not be considered significant.
Kingstone (4km NE)
5.8.13. As illustrated by the ZTV, from the majority of Kingstone visibility of the turbine would be restricted by topography. From properties at the southern and western edges of the settlement, visibility would be restricted by the extensive woodland blocks and well treed hedgerows around the periphery of the village. Consequently no significant visual effects would occur at Kingstone.
Settlements within 5km 7.5km
5.8.14. Due to the coalescence of tree cover and vegetative screening across the landscape, and the separation distance of over 5km, no significant effects upon visual amenity are predicted from the settlement beyond 5km, including Rugeley, Colton and Weston.
Road and Rail Users
5.8.15. Potential visibility may be experienced by motorists on the following roads and rail lines:
• A518 Weston to Uttoxeter
• B5013 Rugeley to Uttoxeter
• A51 Weston to Rugeley;
80
• West Coast Mainline; and
• Rugeley to Stone rail line.
5.8.16. The potential visual effects of the proposals experienced by those travelling on the road and rail network have been considered with reference to the viewpoint analysis and visual survey of key routes. The sensitivity of road and rail users is assessed to be medium unless otherwise stated.
A518
5.8.17. The A518 passes through the study area between Weston and Uttoxeter. Visibility of the turbine from the road corridor would be restricted at times by topography (refer to the ZTV, Figure 5.3) and the extensive woodland blocks and individual tree cover across the landscape, along the disused railway running parallel to the road to the south, and vegetation along the road corridor itself. For a short stretch west of Grindley as the road climbs onto higher ground views south over the intervening landscape would be possible. From this stretch, when travelling south west, the turbine would be visible c.3.5km south, resulting in a moderate/slight magnitude of change and moderate/minor effects, which would not be considered significant. Between Weston and Amerton the intervening tree cover is less dense and so when travelling east the turbine would be visible across the landscape c.5km south east. At this distance it would result in a slight magnitude of change and no significant effects.
B5013
5.8.18. The B5013 passes through the study area between Rugeley and Uttoxeter. Travelling northbound from Rugeley, the turbine would be seen across the landscape between 6.3km – 4km north, often screened by the coalescence of tree cover across the landscape, resulting in a slight magnitude of change and moderate/minor effects. On the approach to Admaston the ZTV illustrates that only the blade tips would be theoretically visible, which would often be screened by tree cover. Such views would not result in significant effects. Between Admaston and Bagot Forest the turbine would be seen more clearly across the landscape (with exception of the stretch passing Duckley Plantation which would screen views), generally perpendicular to the direction of
81
travel between 3 3.5km north – west (refer to Appendix 5.1 Visualisation 5a/b). Clear views of the turbine at these distances would result in up to a moderate magnitude of change and moderate effects upon visual amenity at the closer distances. Beyond Bagots Forest the turbine would be generally behind the direction of travel.
5.8.19. Travelling south bound from Uttoxeter the turbine would generally be screened by intervening tree cover and woodland until the road passes between Kingstone Wood and Bagots Forest, from where the turbine would be seen across the landscape c.3.5km west, resulting in a moderate/slight magnitude of change and moderate – moderate/minor effects. The turbine would be visible generally perpendicular to the direction of travel between 3 3.5km west – north (refer to Appendix 5.1 Visualisation 5a/b) until the road reaches Admaston, from where the turbine would be behind the direction of travel.
A51
5.8.20. The A51 passes through the study area between Rugeley and Weston, just over 4km west of the proposed turbine at its closest point. Views towards the turbine from the A51 would be restricted by topography around Little Haywood and Hixon (refer to the ZTV, Figure 5.3. From those lengths of the road where the ZTV identifies theoretical visibility, vegetation and tree cover along the road corridor and across the wider landscape would limit visibility of the turbine, and consequently no significant effects would occur from the A51.
Minor Roads
5.8.21. Visibility of the proposed turbine would be available from the network of minor roads within the vicinity of the turbine, including Lea Lane/Lea Road between Hixon and the B5013 (refer to nearby viewpoint shown in Appendix 5.1 Visualisation 3a/b), Newton Lane/Newton Hurst Lane between Newton and the B5013 and Booth Lane between Dapple Heath and The Blythe (refer to Appendix 5.1 Visualisation 2a/b). A substantial magnitude of change and major/moderate effects are predicted from minor routes up to approximately 1.6km from the proposed turbine, with effects reducing to a moderate level or less at a greater distance from the proposals.
82
West Coast Mainline and Rugeley to Stone Rail Line
5.8.22. There is intermittent theoretical visibility from the West Coast Mainline between Rugeley and Stafford, as illustrated by the ZTV (Figure 5.3). Between Stafford and Shugborough visibility towards the turbine would be restricted by the intervening settlement and tree cover around the northern edge of the Cannock Chase AONB. Between Colwich and Rugeley the turbine would be seen across the landscape at a distance of over 5km north, with views intermittently screened by tree cover across the landscape. Such views would not result in significant visual effects for rail users.
5.8.23. The Rugeley to Stone rail line splits from the West Coast Mainline south of Colwich and follows the Trent Valley to Stone. As it passes to the west of Colwich, Little Haywood and Great Haywood visibility towards the turbine would be restricted by topography and the built form of the settlement. As the line travels north of Great Haywood up the Trent Valley views towards the turbine over 4km south east from the low lying river valley would be limited by intervening tree cover across the rising ground to the east, and significant effects would not occur.
Recreation
5.8.24. The potential visual effects experienced by those using the recreational destinations within the study area have been considered with reference to viewpoint analysis and visual survey of key areas. These receptors are considered to be of high sensitivity.
Cannock Chase AONB
5.8.25. Cannock Chase AONB is located over 5km south west of the proposed turbine. From the closest points of the AONB with theoretical visibility of the turbine, visibility of would be restricted by topography and intervening vegetation across the landscape. From higher ground, the turbine would be seen at distances of 6.5km or greater, and would be seen as a minor component of wide landscape views. At these distances the turbine would result in up to a slight magnitude of change and moderate effects upon visual amenity, which would not be considered significant.
Recreational Routes
The Way for the Millennium
83
5.8.26. The Way for the Millennium runs through the study area between Shugborough Park and Rugeley. Visibility of the turbine from the Millennium Way would be limited by distance (the route runs over 5km south west of the proposed turbine), topography, the built form of Little Haywood, Colwich and Great Haywood, and tree cover within the Cannock Chase AONB. Significant effects are not identified for users of the Millennium Way.
Staffordshire Way
5.8.27. The Staffordshire Way runs through the study area between Uttoxeter and the Cannock Chase AONB. It passes through Abbotts Bromley and Colton coming within c.4.5km of the turbine to the south east at its closest point. As illustrated by the ZTV (refer to Figure 5.4), visibility towards the turbine would regularly be restricted by topography. When not screened by topography, woodland blocks, intervening settlement, tree cover across the landscape and the effects of distance would limit visibility of the turbine and consequently no significant effects would occur from the Staffordshire Way.
Stone Circles Challenge
5.8.28. The Stone Circles Challenge long distance recreation route passes briefly through the study area over 6km north west of the proposed turbine around Gayton. Visibility from this area would be predominantly restricted by extensive hedgerow trees in the vicinity of the route and across the wider landscape, and so significant effects would not occur from this recreational route.
Local Public Rights of Way
5.8.29. Significant effects would be experienced by users of the local footpath network in the vicinity of the proposed development including the public footpath between Newton and Lea Heath (refer to Appendix 5.1 Visualisation 1a/b), Newton and Booth Lane, and Booth Lane and Drointon. Views of the turbine in close proximity would result in a substantial magnitude of change and major effects. Significant effects would arise within approximately 3km of the turbine where visibility is unobstructed.
84
5.9. Cumulative Effects
5.9.1. The full cumulative assessment is included at Appendix 5.4 with visualisations in Appendix 5.5. The assessment is summarised below.
5.9.2. There are no baseline schemes in the study area, and so the addition of Manor Farm to the baseline alone would not result in any significant cumulative effects. There are two single turbine schemes within 10km currently in planning. Assuming the prior presence of the two proposals in the study area, there would be no significant cumulative landscape effects arising from the addition of Manor Farm.
5.9.3. Significant cumulative visual effects from settlements would be very limited due to vegetative screening across the landscape, and would only occur from a limited number of properties within Newton and Hixon, and scattered farmstead and dwellings to the south west of Manor Farm within approximately 3km of the proposed turbine.
5.9.4. Significant cumulative effects would occur from Lea Lane/Lea Road within approximately 1.6km of the proposed turbine, in association with views of Far Coley. No significant cumulative effects would occur from the A or B class roads within the study area.
5.9.5. To the south west of the proposed turbine, within approximately 3km significant cumulative effects would occur from local public rights of way between Newton and Moreton Lane.
5.9.6. No further significant cumulative effects are identified resulting from the addition of Manor Farm. It must be noted that as there would be no significant cumulative effects arising from the addition of Manor Farm to the baseline, there can be little certainty about the significant cumulative effects that are identified above as they relate to effects with undetermined proposals (or schemes at appeal).
5.10. Conclusions
5.10.1. The assessment has concluded that direct effects on the landscape fabric of the site during construction and operation will be limited in extent and fully reversible on decommissioning of the turbine.
5.10.2. The landscape sub types ‘Settled Plateau Farmland Slopes with Wind Turbine’, ‘Settled Farmlands with Wind Turbine’ and ‘Surveyor Enclosed
85
Plateau Farmland with Wind Turbine’ would be created at distances up to approximately 1.7km from the proposed turbine where the turbine would become an additional characterising element of the landscape. There would be no significant effects upon the Cannock Chase AONB, located over 5km south west of the proposed turbine.
5.10.3. There would be some major and major/moderate effects with respect of the visual amenity of a limited number of farmsteads and scattered dwellings and on the periphery of settlements at distances of up to approximately 3km from the proposals. The potential for visual effects on settlement of a major and major/moderate level would be limited and subject to the level of screening by landform and tree cover, but would include dwellings at the small villages of Newton, Dapple Heath, Lea Heath and Drointon, and a limited number of properties along the eastern edge of Hixon.
5.10.4. Significant visual effects from roads would be limited to the network of minor roads within approximately 1.6km of the proposed turbine. No significant visual effects would occur from any of the A or B class roads in the study area.
5.10.5. No significant effects would occur from the long distance recreational routes passing through the study area. From the local public rights of way within approximately 3km of the turbine, where unobstructed visibility is possible, major and major/moderate effects upon visual amenity would occur.
5.10.6. There would be no significant effects upon the users of the Cannock Chase AONB.
5.10.7. There would be no significant cumulative effects arising from the addition of the Manor Farm turbine to the baseline. There may be some significant cumulative effects with the two other proposed schemes in the area within a limited distance but there can be little certainty about the significant cumulative effects that are identified as they relate to effects with undetermined proposals (or schemes at appeal).
5.10.8. In conclusion, the proposed Manor Farm wind turbine would relate well to the existing local landscape character, respecting the scale and composition of the landscape. Inevitable landscape and visual effects of
86
a major to major/moderate level would occur, however these would be localised in extent and it is concluded that the landscape in the vicinity of the site has the capacity to accommodate the scale of development proposed.
87
6. CULTURAL HERITAGE
6.1. Introduction
Planning Background and Objectives
6.1.1. Headland Archaeology (UK) Ltd was commissioned by ADAS Ltd to produce a baseline cultural heritage assessment for a proposed wind turbine development site at Manor Farm. The baseline assessment is intended to establish the need or otherwise for further work pre consent and to form part of this Environmental Appraisal.
6.1.2. Cultural heritage is taken to include:
• Designated assets, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings, conservation areas, historic landscapes and parks and gardens; and
• Undesignated assets that are of value because of their archaeological or historical interest.
6.1.3. In general, the purpose of this chapter is to provide sufficient evidence for confident prediction of the impact of the proposal by establishing the extent, nature and importance of any heritage assets within the affected area, and assessing the effect of the proposed development upon the setting of any nearby heritage assets. This assessment has been prepared to be in line with the NPPF Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
6.1.4. More specific aims of the assessment were:
• to assess the potential for, and likely significance of, previously unrecorded sub surface archaeological remains in the proposed development area; and
• to identify assets in the surrounding area that may be subject to setting impacts.
Site Location in the Context of Cultural Heritage
6.1.5. The proposed turbine location is at SK 03681 26003 at an elevation of between 125 and 130m OD, in a level field currently under grass. The development and its immediate surroundings are managed agricultural
88
land, a mix of arable and pasture formed into fields by mature hedgerows. Access to the area is by farm track. The site occupies a position towards the centre of a reasonably prominent broad plateau – approximately 1km across with a maximum elevation of just over 130m OD. This plateau overlooks Blithfield Reservoir to the south east, the valley of the River Blithe to the east, and ranges of small hills of similar elevation in other directions. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility diagram (ZTV) indicates general visibility of the proposed turbine would be possible over a large part of the surrounding 5km – although sightlines to the turbine would be restricted locally by close horizons formed by hedgerows or similar features.
6.1.6. The solid geology of the site is the Mercia Mudstone Group, superficial deposits are characterised as Quaternary glacio‐fluvial sand and gravels (British Geological Survey website; http://www.bgs.ac.uk).
6.2. Policy and Guidance
National Planning Policy
6.2.1. National Planning Policy in England is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012. Guidance to help practitioners implement this policy, including the legislative requirements that underpin it, is provided in “Planning for the Historic Environment Practice Guide” produced to support the previous Planning Policy Statement 5 (2010). The NPPF replaced all previous planning policy documents including “PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment” (2010).
6.2.2. Planning policy refers to ‘heritage assets’ and the policies relating to designated heritage assets are intended to apply equally to all types of designation, including listed buildings and conservation areas. The policies in the NPPF are a material consideration that must be taken into account in development management decisions and in development of Local Plans, where relevant.
6.2.3. The NPPF supports a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and sets out the definitions of sustainability including protecting and enhancing the historic environment. P131 of the NPPF states that:
“In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should
89
take account of:
• The desirability of sustaining or enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation
• The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
• The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness”.
6.2.4. P132 states that “great weight” should be given to the conservation of the significance of designated heritage assets and that harm to this significance (either through alteration or destruction of the asset or through development within its setting) requires “clear and convincing justification”. The harm or loss needs to be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposed development and “substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and world heritage sites, should be wholly exceptional”.
6.3. Regional Policy Framework
6.3.1. The Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands – although intended for imminent revocation – contains several policies relevant to development proposals and the historic environment. In particular, Policy PA1 – Prosperity for all states:
“Any development proposed on the edge of the MUAs or on other greenfield sites should meet the following criteria:
iii) the development respects the natural environment, built environment and historic heritage in accordance with policies QE1 9.”
6.3.2. Policy EN1: Energy Generation states:
90
“Local authorities in their development plans should:
iii) identify the environmental and other criteria that will be applied to determining the acceptability of such proposals including:
a) impact on the landscape, visual amenity and areas of ecological or historic importance..”
6.3.3. With regard to the historic environment, Policy QE5: Protection and Enhancement of the Historic environment states:
“B. Of particular historic significance to the West Midlands are:
i) the historic rural landscapes and their settlement patterns;
ii) historic urban settlements, including market towns and cathedral cities;
iii) listed buildings, scheduled and unscheduled ancient monuments, conservation areas, historic parks and gardens, all in their settings, and battlefields;
iv) areas of industrial heritage such as the Birmingham Jewellery Quarter;’
v) the historic transport network;
vi) strategic river corridors (Severn, Wye, Trent and Avon); and
vii) Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site.”
6.4. Local Policy Framework
6.4.1. The ‘saved policies edition’ (2009) of the 2006 East Staffordshire Local Plan has not preserved any policies relevant to the impact of proposed developments upon listed buildings, conservation areas, or archaeological remains. A new local plan is in preparation and may address these areas. The content of the local plan will be directly informed by the NPPF.
91
6.5. Guidance
6.5.1. Guidance to help practitioners implement the NPPF, including the legislative requirements that underpin it, is provided in Planning for the Historic Environment Practice Guide (2010). English Heritage has issued guidance for developers of wind energy projects: Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (2005). This contains advice on evaluating the impact of onshore wind turbine projects (p.7). It also includes a list of factors relevant to the assessment of change within the setting of a heritage asset (p.8).
6.5.2. More recently English Heritage has issued detailed guidance on the Setting of Heritage Assets (2011), which is of particular relevance to onshore wind energy projects where change in setting is the principle means by which heritage assets are affected. This guidance is based on principles and guidance already issued by English Heritage in the Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (2010), Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (2008) and Wind Energy and the Historic Environment. It provides a framework for assessing impacts based on the identification of individual asset’s cultural significance and the relationship between that and its surroundings followed by assessment of the degree to which change in the surroundings affects significance.
6.6. Research Frameworks
6.6.1. The relevant research framework is The Archaeology of the West Midlands: A Framework for Research (Watt 2011).
6.7. Objectives of this Document
6.7.1. In general, the purpose of this document is to provide sufficient evidence for confident prediction of the impact of the proposal by establishing the extent, nature and importance of any heritage assets within the affected area, and assessing the effect of the proposed development upon the setting of the nearby scheduled monument (following Planning for the Historic Environment Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide 2010).
92
6.7.2. More specific aims of the assessment are:
• To establish the potential impact of the proposed wind turbine upon any buried archaeological remains.
• To establish the visibility of the proposed wind turbine from nearby designated heritage assets and the impact (if any) upon their settings.
6.8. Scope
6.8.1. This assessment comprises a baseline survey (documentary research and field survey) followed by an initial assessment of the potential direct and indirect impacts of the proposed wind turbine on the cultural heritage resource. Desk based work has been carried out in accordance with the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (2011). Cultural heritage assets are here defined as all Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Battlefields, Registered Parks & Gardens and relict man made assets pre dating the First Edition Ordnance Survey mapping (surveyed 1881 in this area) and selected features post dating this, such as wartime or industrial sites.
6.9. Study Areas
6.9.1. The assessment utilised the following study areas:
• Development area (See Appendix 6.2, Figure 1), consisting of the land parcel within which the proposed turbine would be located. The potential for previously unrecorded assets to be affected by the development was considered.
• Middle study area, extending 1km from the proposed turbine location. Non designated cultural heritage assets recorded in the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record (HER) were considered to further inform the assessment of the potential for previously unrecorded cultural heritage assets to exist within the Inner Study Area;
• Outer study area: This comprised a zone extending 2km from the
93
proposed turbine location. Within this area all designated assets were considered in relation to potential operational effects upon setting and to inform the potential for previously unrecorded cultural heritage assets within the Inner Study Area. Designated assets outside of the 2km boundary were included in the assessment if it was considered that they could be susceptible to impacts from the proposal.
6.10. Methods
6.10.1. The desk based study has been based on readily available and relevant documentary sources. The following sources were consulted:
• Databases of designated assets held by English Heritage;
• Staffordshire Historic Environment Record (HER);
• Records of archaeological sites and events held by the National Monuments Record
• (NMR);
• Historic mapping held by the Staffordshire Archive Service;
• Other readily accessible published and online sources.
6.10.2. A targeted walkover survey of the development area was carried out on the 5th September 2012 guided by modern mapping. The intention of this walkover was to assess the presence/absence, character, extent and condition of known assets and to identify any previously unrecorded assets.
6.10.3. Assets in the middle/outer study area where there was potential for effects upon setting were visited on 5th September 2012 in order to gather baseline setting data. Assets were selected following the desk based study and with reference to the ZTV, which was used to determine whether assets or view points relevant to their setting lay within the ZTV.
6.10.4. In carrying out this assessment, the cultural significance of assets has been considered in relation to the following categories of cultural value,
94
as provided by English Heritage (2008):
• Evidential Value deriving from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity;
• Historical Value deriving from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present;
• Aesthetic Value deriving from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place; and
• Communal Value deriving from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it; their collective experience or memory.
6.10.5. The overall cultural significance of any given asset relates to a combination of these values, though it is rare for all the values to be evident. This approach is in keeping with the principles that underlie the NPPF and that are expounded in the Planning Policy Practice Guide (English Heritage 2010). However, it should be noted that this approach is not a policy, but a tool to aid analysis.
6.10.6. The above values have been used to identify the overall cultural significance of assets. This may be:
• Very High: assets of exceptional significance that may be valued internationally;
• High: Assets that are of importance at a national scale; these are frequently designated, e.g. scheduled or listed, but may be undesignated;
• Moderate: Assets that are of importance at a regional scale;
• Low: Assets that are of importance at a local scale; and
• Negligible: Very poorly preserved or extremely common assets that are unlikely to be valued at any scale.
6.10.7. Effects are described in terms of the development’s affect on the asset’s cultural significance and the extent to which it will degrade or enhance the asset’s significance. Relevant assets and records are illustrated on
95
the accompanying plan (Figure 2 in Appendix 6.2).
6.11. Heritage Assessment
Archaeological and Historical Background of Study Area
Prehistory
6.11.1. There are no known heritage assets dating to the prehistoric period within 1km of the development area. Records of Mesolithic and Neolithic activity appear to be reasonably scarce in Staffordshire as a whole (Garwood 2011), those sites that are recorded appear to be located in the main around river valleys, or in the high lands of the Peak District. The picture is not much different for the Bronze to Iron Age (Hurst 2011).
Romano British
6.11.2. There are no known heritage assets of Romano‐British date within 1km of the development area. Most known Romano‐British activity in the county appears to have been south of the River Trent, the Roman fort at Rocester in the north east of the county is an exception.
Medieval
6.11.3. The settlement of Newton (HA01), approximately 600m south of the proposed turbine location, is attested in the Domesday Book as a small settlement of 8 villagers and 5 smallholders, and a mill. Prior to the conquest it was apparently held by one Godwin (Murray 1919). Settlement of the immediate area prior to the Norman Conquest was therefore probably sparse, although the discovery of the Anglo‐Saxon Staffordshire Hoard near Hammerwich in 2009 is a reminder that significant archaeological remains can and do show up in unexpected places.
6.11.4. The most significant medieval site in reasonable proximity to the proposed turbine (approx 1.2km) is the scheduled moated site and deserted medieval village at Lower Booth (HA02), documented from around 1175; and the associated Listed Grade II* farmhouse (HA03), dating to around the mid 15th century. The scheduled monument survives as the moat and platform (upon which the farmhouse is built), with
96
earthworks, platforms and a hollow way showing where the village lay.
6.11.5. Just over 2km to the south of the proposed turbine lies the Listed Grade I Norman church of St Leonard (HA04), adjacent to the later Blithfield Hall (HA27), and associated with the former medieval settlement of Blithfield. The Listed Grade II churchyard cross (HA05) to the south of the church is also probably medieval in origin, although much of the stonework above its base appears far more recent.
Post medieval and Modern
6.11.6. Leaving aside the isolated medieval survivors, the surviving historic character of the study area is generally post medieval in date. Although historical references exist to a 16th century Chapel of Ease at Newton (HA06), the earliest existing timber framed structures in the hamlet date generally from the 17th or 18th centuries (HA07 HA11) and many of the other farms and residences (HA12 HA18) are late 18th or 19th century in date. HA15 the closest of these to the development area appears on a map of Manor estate dated 1774 and is visible on aerial photographs until 1971, although it is now no longer visible on the ground.
6.11.7. Other post medieval farmsteads of 17th 18th century date smatter the study area and include both timber framed (HA21, HA22) and brick (HA24) buildings. Others are of 19th century date. Some are still extant (HA17, HA18); others appear to have been small outfarms, (HA19, HA20), appearing first on 19th century mapping and now no longer visible on the ground. HA19 appears first on a parish map dated to 1846, and lay within the north east corner of the field in which the turbine is proposed to be placed. No trace of this building was visible at the time of the site visit.
6.11.8. Two extensive areas of water meadow (HA25, HA26) give an indication of post medieval land use in at least part of the study area – comprising earthworks associated with drainage channels and sluices, largely located within the valley bottom to the east of the development area. It does not appear likely that this form of land use extended to the proposed turbine location – the land is too elevated. Indeed the earliest maps of the area (Slater of Bage, 1774) show that unlike the surrounding area it remained unenclosed into the late 18th century. To give a further flavour
97
of the area’s character at that time, the word “heath” is a common component of the neighbouring field names.
Cartographic and Photographic History of the Development Area
6.11.9. The mapping consulted spans the period between 1774 and 1924; whilst consulted aerial photographs covered the period 1948 to 1981. A full list of sources is given in the bibliography, for convenience they are here referenced by date of publication.
6.11.10. As previously stated, the development area was unenclosed in 1774, and formed part of a large area surrounded by smaller field systems. By 1846 the area had been enclosed, yet was configured slightly differently than at present – the development area was subdivided into two fields. Mapping of 1858 shows the field boundaries shifting closer to the present day configuration, an arrangement that persists on Ordnance Survey mapping until 1924. The sub dividing field boundary had been erased by 1948, when aerial photographs show the modern layout of the site.
6.12. Scheduled Monuments Within and Around the Development Area
6.12.1. There is one scheduled monument within 2km of the proposed wind turbine. This is the moated site and deserted medieval village (DMV) at Lower Booth (HA02), some 1.2km to the north east. The site is positioned just below the 110m contour; the land rises to above 120m immediately to its south and west. It is surrounded closely by mature hedgerows and modern farm buildings; being on private property the site itself was not directly accessible at the time of the site visit.
6.12.2. The site has considerable archaeological value relating to medieval settlement, with the potential for good preservation of organic materials being a significant part of this value. It also has historical value, being mentioned in documents dating back to the 12th century. The key component of this site’s setting is the relationship between Lower Booth farmhouse (HA03; built on the moated platform where formerly the manor house would have stood), and the village site to its east/south east. Beyond its immediate environs, the focus of the settlement is likely to have been upon the River Blithe to the west, rather than in the direction of the proposed wind turbine.
98
6.13. Built Heritage Assets in Study Area
6.13.1. There are several listed buildings within the 2km outer study area, or close enough to it to warrant inclusion in this assessment. In some instances the close association between groups of buildings renders it appropriate to consider the potential effect of the proposed wind turbine upon them as a group, rather than building by building.
HA03 – Lower Booth Farmhouse
6.13.2. Grade II listed building dating to c. 1450, timber framed in a T plan comprising east west aligned hall and north south cross wing at eastern end. Located within the moated enclosure of Lower Booth DMV (HA02). The value of this structure comes from its architectural style and its historical associations; its close association with the DMV contributes towards this value.
HA24 – Higher Booth Farmhouse
6.13.3. Grade II listed farmhouse made of red brick facing south, and surrounded by farm outbuildings of varying date. This structure derives its value from its architectural style; this is enhanced by the immediate association with the farmyard within which it is located.
HA21 – Old Hall Farmhouse, Drointon
6.13.4. Grade II listed brick and timber framed farmhouse. The structure’s primary value is evidential and aesthetic, its setting within the hamlet of Drointon and the surrounding structures and immediate managed landscape contributes towards this value. Although the proposed turbine would be visible from this building, its location in the middle distance behind belts of trees and hedgerows would not be relevant to the farmhouse’s setting.
HA22 & HA23 – Callowhill Hall and Gate Piers etc
6.13.5. Callowhill Hall (HA22) is fine Grade II* listed late 16th/early 17th century timber‐framed house built on a brick plinth, closely associated with a number of modern farm buildings and sheds. It draws considerable evidential value from its architectural features, particularly in some of the decorative detail on the timber framing, the stone built steps approaching
99
the porch, and in a number of internal features. It is also closely associated with, and benefits from, the Grade II listed gate piers and enclosing wall to its south east, 19th century in date although incorporating 17th century masonry. The house is on a prominent knoll on the western side of the River Blithe, and the wider setting of the immediate river‐valley contributes towards its aesthetic value ‐ the black and white timber framing of the house makes it prominent in the landscape even at a distance. The proposed turbine would be visible from the house, but would not impinge upon the appreciation of the structure from points in the surrounding landscape.
HA17 – Newton Hurst Farmhouse
6.13.6. This 19th century Grade II listed brick built farmhouse is listed by virtue of being a complete example of the type. Its value as a heritage asset is therefore primarily architectural. The farmhouse enjoys broad outlooks across the managed landscape of the Blithe Valley and beyond to the west and the proposed turbine would be visible, at a distance. The building undoubtedly draws aesthetic value from its immediate association with the farm buildings surrounding it, its prominence in the landscape is also a reasonably unique feature for the locality. The appreciation of this value is derived mainly from views towards the farmhouse from the surrounding area, and the proposed wind turbine will not interfere with these views.
6.13.7. It was not possible to visit the building directly during the site visit, but its visibility from a point close to the proposed turbine location was noted.
HA07 – The Woodlands, Newton
6.13.8. The Woodlands is a Grade II listed timber framed building of 17th century date located on Manor Lane, Newton. The building stands reasonably apart from neighboring structures on the south side of Manor Lane, with no structures directly opposite. It therefore enjoys broad views to the north; certainly the proposed turbine would be visible from the building at around 750m distant. Historic mapping from 1774, 1846 and 1858 indicates that at least in the late 18th/early 19th century this northward aspect would have been more constrained, showing the presence of at
100
least two buildings now no longer present on the north side of Manor Lane, as well as further buildings to either side of The Woodlands on the south side of the lane. In addition, the 1774 map shows a range of buildings running eastward from Dairy Cottage on the more recent Newton Lane, which would have interposed themselves in the view northwards from the Woodlands.
6.13.9. It appears likely that the historic setting of the Woodlands was rather more built up, and certainly ‘closer’ than its present day setting. Therefore, the structure cannot be said to receive significant historic value from its current open outlook and certainly the change in its horizon that would be caused by the erection of a wind turbine would not impact upon the evidential value of its architecture. The aesthetic qualities of the structure are perhaps best appreciated in the view southwards to it from Newton Lane; the presence of the proposed wind turbine to the north is not relevant to this viewpoint.
HA09 & HA11 – Vaughan’s Lane Farmhouse and Stable
6.13.10. Vaughan’s Lane Farmhouse (HA07) is a Grade II listed 17th century cottage, rebuilt in brick from timber‐framing, with a thatched roof. It is closely associated with its neighbouring Grade II listed stable and attached outbuilding, of 18th‐19th century date. The farmhouse lies below the 125m contour on the south west side of Newton, and is shielded from the proposed development area to the north by higher ground and the largely modern Newton Farm.
HA04, HA05 & HA29 – Church of St Leonard and Churchyard Cross, Gateway to Blithfield Hall
6.13.11. The church of St Leonard is a Grade I listed structure with Norman origins, closely enclosed in a churchyard hedged with mature trees. Its chancel was restored by Augustus Pugin in 1851. The Grade II listed cross (HA05) lies to its south, as does the Grade II listed wall and gateway (HA29) to Blithfield Hall. The church has a high value in the evidential, communal, historic and aesthetic categories. Its setting is primarily the bounds of its churchyard, combined with its proximity to Blithfield Hall to the south east, and the structure’s significance is
101
enhanced by the peaceful and enclosed nature of the churchyard. Views to the northward are mainly constrained by the mature trees on its northward boundary, although it is likely that the proposed turbine would be visible from the top of the church tower. Broad views from church towers are not atypical, and frequent alterations in the landscape visible from this tower will have been common.
HA27 28 & HA30 38 – Blithfield Hall and Associated Structures
6.13.12. Blithfield Hall is a Grade I listed manor house, with medieval origins but now mainly 16th century and later. Associated with it are 10 Grade II listed structures, both estate buildings, walls and enclosures, and decorative features. The hall and surrounding structures are well shielded from the proposed turbine on their northward aspect by mature trees. Their significance is enhanced by the associations between the structures, and by the formal gardens in which they sit, and with the association with St Leonard’s church. The main approach to the hall is from the south. The proposed turbine to the north, even if it were visible through or above the trees, would not impinge upon any of these relationships.
6.14. Historic Landscape Character within the Study Area
6.14.1. The historic landscape character of the study area is varied. At the proposed turbine location it is classed as Piecemeal Enclosure (post medieval).
Discussion
6.14.2. The proposed turbine will be located in an area of primarily post medieval character. While it is true that little archaeological fieldwork has been carried out in the immediate vicinity, there is no particular reason to suppose that the development area could contain archaeological remains dating to earlier than the post medieval period, other than the general and probably low background probability of prehistoric settlement or chance medieval finds occurring.
6.14.3. The proposed turbine will be visible across a wide area. However, the landscape and the features within it are not organised around sweeping
102
views and long sight lines. The landscape contains a high quantity of hedgerows, woodland and buildings which tend to fragment sight lines and introduce a degree of disorganisation into views across it. Therefore, for the heritage assets discussed above, the presence of an isolated turbine in a more or less prominent position on the horizon is simply not relevant to their intrinsic values, and the contribution towards it that is made by their settings.
6.15. Identification and Significance of Heritage Assets Affected
Known Heritage Assets
6.15.1. Appendix 6.1 lists the known Heritage Assets within the study area. The access road extension has been sited to avoid the small out farm (HA19) so, should any below‐ground remains survive, the location mapped would be unaffected. As this site appears to be already heavily degraded, it is unlikely to retain significant potential to further our understanding of life and society in the 19th century. Its evidential value is therefore limited and its significance is hence low. There will be no physical impact to any of the other known heritage assets, and no impact upon their setting.
Table 6.1: Relevant Known Heritage Assets Description of Heritage Asset Significance of heritage asset (High, Medium, Low, Negligible) HA19: Outfarm Low
Potential Heritage Assets
6.15.2. It is likely that remains relating to post medieval agricultural practice – primarily the previously existing field boundary noted on historic maps, and any associated cultivation remains could occur within the development area. These types of remains are widespread, and rarely contain information of archaeological value. Studies of historic maps are usually sufficient to capture relevant historic information associated with these land divisions. If present, their significance would be negligible.
6.15.3. There is a low possibility of remains predating the post medieval period to occur within the development area. The significance of these remains
103
would depend on their exact nature, however it is unlikely to be of more than medium significance.
Table 6.2: Potential Archaeological Assets Description of potential Significance of Potential for it to occur within heritage asset potential heritage the development area (High, asset (High, Medium, Medium, Low, Negligible) Low, Negligible) Previously existing post Negligible Medium medieval field boundary & cultivation remains Previously unknown Low Medium Low remains pre dating the post medieval period
6.16. Impact Assessment
Description of Proposed Development
6.16.1. The development will comprise the erection of a single wind turbine, 74m high to the tip. The turbine base will be stripped of topsoil prior to its erection. Access tracks to the development area are likely to require upgrading, and grid connections may necessitate some ground disturbing activity (grid connection is outside the scope of this application).
Setting Effects on Heritage Assets
6.16.2. The development will not affect the setting of any heritage assets.
Direct Effects on Heritage Assets
6.16.3. The development area and access track will not cross the location of the 19th century agricultural building/ outfarm HA19.
6.16.4. There is the possibility that previously existing field boundaries or cultivation remains of post medieval date could be locally affected by earthworks associated with constructing the turbine base and access tracks. These would be damaged or destroyed within the development footprint, but the works are unlikely to destroy or seriously degrade the overall system of such remains.
6.16.5. Any earlier previously unknown archaeological remains would be directly affected where covered by the footprint of any earthworks.
104
6.16.6. Archaeological monitoring of ground works during the construction phase of the development is proposed to enable the recovery and preservation by record of any archaeological material that may be present on the site.
Table 6.3: Potential Impacts Description of Significance of Negative impacts of Positive heritage asset potential heritage development on impacts of asset (High, heritage asset development Medium, Low, (None, on heritage Negligible) Low, Medium, High) asset (None, Low, Medium, High) HA19: Outfarm Low High None Previously existing Negligible Medium None post medieval field boundary & cultivation remains Previously unknown Low Medium High None remains pre dating the post medieval period
6.17. Conclusion
6.17.1. The development proposals are in line with the principles laid out in national and regional planning policy. They will not affect the significance of designated heritage assets and will have minimal impact upon the significance of undesignated heritage assets.
6.17.2. The overall development footprint is likely to be relatively small, and therefore any previously unknown heritage assets present will be affected in only a small area.
105
7. NOISE
7.1. Introduction
7.1.1. ADAS UK Ltd appointed Dragonfly Acoustics to carry out a noise assessment relating to the proposed installation of one 50m high (to hub) wind turbine on land forming part of Manor Farm.
7.1.2. The noise assessment is required to establish the noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptor due to the operation of the proposed turbine and to assess the impact of those noise levels against the requirements of ETSU R 97, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’.
7.1.3. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that this report is easy to understand, it is technical in nature; to assist the reader, a glossary of terminology is included in Appendix 7.1.
7.2. Site Description in the Context of Potential Noise Impacts
Site Conditions
7.2.1. From the manufacturer’s noise data, the candidate turbine (Enercon E48 Turbine) has a Sound Power Level of 100.0dB LW at a wind speed of 10m/s.
7.2.2. The proposed turbine location in the context of the nearest properties is shown in Appendix 7.2.
7.2.3. There is one financially interested (FI) residential property located approximately 490m from the proposed turbine location.
7.2.4. There is one residential property, with no financial interest in the proposed turbine, situated in the vicinity of the proposed location. This Noise Sensitive Receptor (NSR) is located approximately 530m from the proposed location of the turbine.
7.2.5. The FI property and the NSR are shown in Appendix 7.2.
7.3. Guidance
7.3.1. Dragonfly Acoustics has considered that the guidance detailed in ETSU R 97 should be taken as the appropriate guidance on the assessment of
106
noise impact for a noise source of this type, also taking account of the latest guidance published by the Institute of Acoustics.
7.3.2. The NPPF, published in March 2012, sets out the Government’s objectives with respect to renewable energy sources for England. With respect to wind farm noise it states, in Section 97:
“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;
design 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;*
support community led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy, including developments outside such areas being taken forward through neighbourhood planning
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co locating potential heat customers and suppliers.
*In assessing the likely impacts of potential wind energy development 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 (read with the relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure, including that on aviation impacts). Where plans identify areas as suitable for renewable and low carbon energy development, they should make clear what criteria have determined their selection, including for what size of development the areas are considered suitable.”
107
7.3.3. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure (EN 1), published in July 2011, states in Section 5.11.6 (Noise and Vibration):
“Operational noise, with respect to human receptors, should be assessed using the principles of the relevant British Standards and other guidance.
Further information on assessment of particular noise sources may be contained in the technology specific NPSs. In particular, for renewable (EN 3) and electricity networks (EN 5) there is assessment guidance for specific features of those technologies. For the prediction, assessment and management of construction noise, reference should be made to any relevant British Standards and other guidance which also give examples of mitigation strategies.”
7.3.4. The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN 3), published in July 2011, states in the following sections (Onshore Wind Farm Impacts – Noise and vibration):
Section 2.7.55
“The method of assessing the impact of noise from a wind farm on nearby residents is described in the report, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU R 97). This was produced by the Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines Final Report, September 1996 and the report recommends noise limits that seek to protect the amenity of wind farm neighbours. The noise levels recommended by ETSU R 97 are determined by a combination of absolute noise limits and noise limits relative to the existing background noise levels around the site at different wind speeds.
Therefore noise limits will often influence the separation of wind turbines from residential properties”.
Section 2.7.56
“The applicant’s assessment of noise from the operation of the wind turbines should use ETSU R 97, taking account of the latest industry good practice’.
This should include any guidance on best practice that the Government may from time to time publish.”
7.3.5. This provides clear guidance that the assessment of wind farm noise
108
should reference only ETSU R 97 and should take account of current best practice when undertaking assessments.
7.3.6. For the purposes of this desktop assessment it is assumed that the background noise levels are very low, and therefore the noise criteria for low noise environments are to be used. Noise source levels for the wind turbines should be taken from manufacturer’s noise data.
ETSU-R-97
7.3.7. ETSU provides 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.
7.3.8. ETSU recommends that noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptor should be limited to 5dB (A) above background noise levels.
7.3.9. For locations with low noise levels, ETSU recommends that noise levels be limited to the range 35dB (A) to 40dB (A) during the daytime and 43dB (A) during the night time.
7.3.10. It is considered that this site is subject to low noise levels, with background noise levels below 35dB (A) at all times.
7.3.11. Where a single wind turbine is to be installed, or where there are very large separation distances between the turbines and the nearest noise sensitive property, ETSU considers that an absolute noise limit for the
wind turbine of 35dB LA90, 10min offers sufficient protection to amenity such that no measurement of actual background noise is required. ETSU
considers that for the purposes of calculation the LA90, 10min can be
considered to be 1.5 to 2.5dB below the LAeq at the same position.
7.3.12. Where a property is under the ownership of persons considered to have a ‘financial interest’ in the development of the wind turbine the lower fixed limits at the property due to the operation of the turbine can be increased to 45dB daytime and night time, with consideration given to higher limits above background noise level where the occupier has a financial involvement.
ISO 9613
7.3.13. The noise level predictions have been undertaken in accordance with the noise prediction framework set out in ISO 9613 2 ‘Acoustics – attenuation
109
of sound during propagation outdoors Part 2 General method of calculation’.
7.3.14. The noise prediction model assumes that wind turbines act as elevated spherical point sources, with the noise level reducing by 6dB for every doubling of distance from the noise source. The model takes into account the distance between the turbine and the receptors and the amount of attenuation due to ground effect and atmospheric absorption.
7.3.15. The model assumes downwind propagation, i.e. a wind direction that assists the propagation of noise from the source to all receptors and that the ground type is a combination of soft and hard ground.
7.4. Assessment
Assessment of Noise from Proposed Wind Turbine
7.4.1. Predicted noise level calculations have been completed for the nearest noise sensitive receptors.
7.4.2. The manufacturer’s noise data indicates that the turbine is predicted to
produce a Sound Power Level of 100.0dB LW at a wind speed of 10m/s. Using this data the calculations within this assessment have been undertaken at a wind speed of 10m/s.
7.4.3. Given the proposed location of the turbine, it is considered that Financially Interested Property (FI) will be approximately 490m from the proposed location of the turbine in plan view. The Noise Sensitive Receptor (NSR) will be approximately 530m from the proposed location of the turbine in plan view.
7.4.4. The resultant noise levels (LAeq) have been calculated following the guidance in ISO 9613 and the guidance from the IOA Bulletin Mar Apr 2009. The calculated noise levels and comparison with the ETSU guidance are presented in Table 7.1.
110
Table 7.1: Noise Level from Proposed Wind Turbine (LAeq), free-field, dB Slant LAeq at L90 at ETSU Criteria Distance Nearest Nearest Distance Ground Single Receptor Between Noise Noise Day- Night Correction Absorption Turbine Turbine and Sensitive Sensitive time time Receptor in m Receptor Receptor (LA90,10min)
FI 492 61.8 1.5 36.7 34.7 45 45
35 NSR 532 62.5 1.8 35.7 33.7 43 35 40
7.4.5. For the FI property the calculated turbine noise level is below the daytime and night time noise criteria recommended by ETSU. It is considered that the predicted noise levels from the proposed turbine will satisfy all of the noise limits specified by ETSU and the Local Authority.
7.4.6. For the NSR the calculated turbine noise level is within the daytime and below the night time noise criteria recommended by ETSU. Furthermore when a 2dB correction is applied to convert the calculated noise level
from an LAeq to an LA90 value, the calculated LA90 is 1.3dB below the single turbine criteria of 35dB(A).
7.4.7. It is considered that the predicted noise levels from the proposed turbine will satisfy all of the noise limits specified by ETSU and the Local Authority.
7.5. Summary and Conclusion
7.5.1. Dragonfly Acoustics were appointed to carry out a noise assessment relating to the proposed installation of one 50m high (to hub) wind turbine on land forming part of Manor Farm.
7.5.2. The noise assessment is required to establish the noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptor due to the operation of the proposed turbine and to assess the impact of those noise levels against the requirements of ETSU R 97, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’.
111
7.5.3. For the Financially Interested property (FI) the calculated turbine noise level is below the daytime and night time noise criteria recommended by ETSU. It is considered that the predicted noise levels from the proposed turbine will satisfy all of the noise limits specified by ETSU and the Local Authority.
7.5.4. For the Noise Sensitive Receptor (NSR) the calculated turbine noise level is within the daytime and below the night time noise criteria recommended by ETSU. Furthermore when a 2dB correction is applied to
convert the calculated noise level from an LAeq to an LA90 value, the
calculated LA90 is 1.3dB below the single turbine criteria of 35dB(A).
7.5.5. It is considered that the predicted noise levels from the proposed turbine will satisfy all of the noise limits specified by ETSU and the Local Authority.
112
8. AVIATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
8.1. Introduction
8.1.1. Large structures such as turbines can cause interference with the aviation operations and telecommunications.
8.1.2. Turbines can affect aviation stakeholders in two ways. The height of the turbines can be a physical obstacle or hazard to passing aircraft and the rotating blades can interfere with radar systems used by the military, civilian aerodromes and air traffic control services.
8.1.3. A variety of methods are used to transmit signals but most systems require either a clear line of sight and/or radio communication. Large structures can interfere with the line of sight communications and cause interference. Wind turbines can interrupt television signals and cause ghosting of television pictures.
8.2. Consultation
8.2.1. Aviation and telecommunications organisations were consulted to identify if the location of the proposed turbine was likely to cause any interference. The responses from the consultees are summarised in Table 8.1 below, with full responses included in Appendix 8.1. Original consultations were on the basis of the Enercon 33 turbine, which is 7m shorter than the E48.
113
Table 8.1: Consultations
Consultee Response
Ofcom Identified two BT links and an Arqiva link which may be affected (consequently Arquiva and BT were consulted).
BT The project should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks.
The Joint Radio JRC does not foresee any potential problems Company Limited based on known interference scenarios. (JRC) (on behalf of behalf of the UK Fuel and Power Industry)
Arqiva (responsible for Their analysis showed that the proposed wind ensuring the integrity turbine is unlikely to affect any of their RBLs / of BBC and ITV Re microwave links. Broadcast Links (RBLs).
Ministry of Defence No response
Tatenhill Airfield Tatenhill does not foresee the proposal being an issue for their operations.
8.2.2. In addition, the BBC web based wind farm tool, provides a rough estimate, was used to identify if any transmitters are likely to be affected. This identified the Wrekin (CH5), Lichfield (CH5) and Sutton Coldfld transmitters may be affected and that up to 143 homes for which there may be an alternative off air service, may be affected. Potentially four homes would be affected for whom there is no alternative off air service.
8.3. Assessment of Potential Effects
Aviation
8.3.1. ADAS commissioned Pager Power to examine the potential aviation constraints on the site. The report identified that the
114
airfields in Table 8.2 as those with the largest potential to be affected. Table 8.2: Potential Aviation Constraints Site Name Site Type Approximate Distance (km) East Midland Airport Civil Airfield Radar 41.46 PSR Birmingham Airport Civil Airfield Radar 43.98 PSR Shawbury PSR Military Airfield ATC 49.43 Clee Hill PSR (NATS) NERL PSR 65.31 8.3.2. The Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 22 states that a 15km consultation zone, and a 30km or 32km advisory zone should be implemented around civilian and military air traffic radar respectively. None of the key radars above are within the consultation or advisory zones for aviation.
8.3.3. Tatenhill airfield has been identified within 20km of the proposed development, at 12.46m distance. Consultation was undertaken with Tatenhill airfield which identified that no problems were forseen to the operations at Tatenhill with the proposed installation of a turbine at Manor Farm (see Appendix 8.1).
8.3.4. The following unlicensed airfields and helicopter sites have been identified within 7km of the proposed development in Table 8.3.
Table.8.3: Unlicensed Airfields and Helicopter Sites within 7km
Site Name Approximate Distance (km) Yeatsall Farm 3.11 Abbots Bromley 3.84
8.3.5. Due to the nature of unlicensed airfields not all of the above will necessarily cause issue to the proposed development and may no longer be in operation or used frequently. Unlicensed airfields are considered to be of significant issue when turbines lie within 2km of the airfield. Yeatsall Farm and Abbots Bromley are both more than 2km from the proposed development.
8.3.6. It is not possible to assess with any certainty whether a turbine would have an impact on a radar system without knowing a great deal about the
115
installed radar. Information on Ministry of Defence radar systems, in particular, is confidential, making this assessment difficult. As the Ministry of Defence has not responded to the consultation request, it is also not possible to assess impacts through consultation. However, given that the location is beyond advisory consultation zones for all airports and radar systems assessed, no significant impacts are predicted on civil or aviation radar systems.
Telecommunications
8.3.7. Appendix 8.2 provides a Microwave Link Chart from Pager Power microwave links database. The chart shows that there are three communication links which cross the proposed turbine site, which matches the response received from Ofcom. There are also three communication links which pass near the assessed site boundary.
8.3.8. However, consultation with telecommunications organisations (BT, Arqiva and JRC) identified that no interference problems with communication links is expected from the location of the proposed turbine.
Television
8.3.9. The BBC web based wind farm tool identified that three transmitters may be affected. Consultation was also held with Arqiva, who is responsible for providing the BBC and ITV’s transmission network and therefore is responsible for ensuring the integrity of Re Broadcast Links (RBLs). This determined that the proposed turbine is unlikely to affect any of their RBLs (see Appendix 8.1).
8.3.10. The Ofcom report on ‘Tall structures and their impact on broadcast and other wireless services’ states that “digital television signals are much better at coping with signal reflections, and digital television pictures do not suffer from ghosting” (2009). While digital television signals could still be affected, particularly in areas where the digital signal is weak, the extent of the problem is less than for analogue transmission. The switchover to digital TV has been completed in all of the UK which should reduce the risk of television signals being affected.
8.3.11. The report also recommends that turbines are sited 500m from any viewers. The nearest property to the turbine that is not owned by the landowner is approximately 530m south. Therefore, all third party
116
residential properties are situated over 500m from the proposed turbine.
8.4. Mitigation
Aviation
8.4.1. Standard mitigation measures will be undertaken such as informing the MOD of the construction dates, maximum height of construction equipment and final grid reference of turbine to be plotted on flying charts.
Television
8.4.2. In the unlikely event of problems with television reception emerging, there are a number of technical solutions which are available to mitigate the effect. These include:
• change in aerial height;
• replacement of receiving aerials; and,
• provision of satellite or cable services to affected householders.
8.5. Summary
8.5.1. Based on the consultation responses received and with the proposed mitigation measures no significant impacts are anticipated.
117
9. SHADOW FLICKER
9.1. Introduction
9.1.1. Shadow flicker is the flickering effect caused when rotating wind turbine blades periodically cast shadows through constrained openings such as narrow windows. The magnitude of the shadow flicker varies both spatially and temporally and depends on a number of environmental conditions coinciding at any particular point in time, including, the position and height of the sun, wind speed, direction, cloudiness, and position of the turbine to a sensitive receptor.
9.2. Planning Policy and Assessment Guidelines
9.2.1. There are no standard UK guidelines on shadow flicker, although the ‘Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 22’ (PPS22) (ODPM, 2004) has often been used to provide guidance. PPS22 was replaced by the NPPF in March 2012 but its Companion Guide remains in force.
9.2.2. The Companion Guide to PPS22 states that for residential properties:
“ Flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine. Therefore if the turbine has 80 m diameter blades, the potential shadow flicker effect could be felt up to 800 m from a turbine” (Page 177)
9.2.3. The ten rotor diameter threshold is also cited by the National Policy Statement EN 3 (2011). Although this Policy Statement is aimed at large wind farms, the distance threshold also applies to single turbines.
9.3. Potential Impacts
9.3.1. The closest property to the proposed turbine is the landowners property, located approximately 490m from the proposed turbine. Therefore, the nearest property is further than 10 rotor diameters (480m) from the proposed turbine. Based on the Companion Guide to PPS22, at this distance, shadow flicker is unlikely to result in a significant impact and therefore no further assessment is considered necessary.
118
10. REFERENCES
References: Chapter 3
British Trust for Ornithology, (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern. BTO, Thetford.
Brown, A.F. & Shepherd, K.B., (1993). A method for censusing upland breeding waders. Bird Study, 40, 189 195.
Department for Communities and Local Government, (2012). National Planning Policy Framework.
East Staffordshire Borough Council, (2006). East Staffordshire Local Plan. ‘Saved’ Policies Extended Beyond 20 July 2009.
Government Office for the West Midlands, (2008). Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
HM Government, (2011). The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature.
IEEM (2006). Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom. IEEM, Winchester.
Langston, R.H.W. and Pullan, J.D. (2003). Windfarms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Birdlife International.
Natural England, (2012). Technical Information Note TIN051 Bats and onshore wind turbines Interim guidance. Second edition 29 February 2012.
Natural England, (2010). Technical Information Note TIN069: Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds. First edition 7th January 2010.
Natural England, (2009). Technical Information Note TIN059 – Bats and Single Large Wind Turbines: Joint Agencies Interim Guidance (Joint Agencies Publication).
119
Natural England, (2001). Great crested newt mitigation guidelines.
Natural England, (2012). WML A13 2 method statement. Version August 2012.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (2005). Circular 06/2005. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.
Staffordshire County Council, (2001). Adopted Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan 1996 2011 Explanatory Memorandum. As Adopted on 10th. May 2001 and Amended in Accord with the Ruling of the High Court on 5th. February 2002.
Scottish Natural Heritage and BWEA, (2005). Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of onshore windfarms on bird communities. Scottish Natural Heritage.
References: Chapter 4
British Geological Survey http://bgs.ac.uk/
Defra, MAGIC website http://magic.defra.gov.uk/
Department for Communities and Local Government, (2012). National Planning Policy Framework.
Communities and Local Government, (2012). Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
East Staffordshire Borough Council, (2006). East Staffordshire Local Plan. ‘Saved’ Policies Extended Beyond 20 July 2009.
Environment Agency, Interactive Maps http://maps.environment agency.gov.uk/
Environment Agency, Pollution Prevention Guidance Notes http://www.environment agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx
Government Office for the West Midlands, (2008). Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Land Information System (LandIS) website.
120
http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/
Ordnance Survey map
References: Chapter 5
The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, (2002) Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland.
Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, (2004). Landscape Character Assessment Topic Paper 6 – Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity.
Countryside Commission, (1999). Countryside Character Volume 5: West Midlands.
Countryside Agency and Scottish National Heritage (2004). Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity. Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland.
Landscape Institute, (2011). Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Assessment, Advice Note 01/2011.
Landscape Institute, Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, (2002). Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – second edition.
Scottish Natural Heritage, (2012). Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Development.
Scottish Natural Heritage, (2009). Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape. Version 1.
Scottish Natural Heritage, (2006). Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Good Practice Guidance.
Scottish Natural Heritage, (2005). Cumulative Effect of Windfarms.
Staffordshire County Council (2001) Planning for Landscape Change and Character Assessment.
University of Newcastle, (2002). Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice. Commissioned Report F01AA303A.
121
References: Chapter 6
British Geological Survey, http://www.bgs.ac.uk
Department for Communities and Local Government, (2012). National Planning Policy Framework.
Department for Communities and Local Government, (2010). Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.
Department for Communities and Local Government, (2010). PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide.
East Staffordshire Borough Council, (2006). East Staffordshire Local Plan. ‘Saved’ Policies Extended Beyond 20 July 2009.
English Heritage, (2011). The Setting of Heritage Assets.
English Heritage (2008). Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment.
English Heritage, (2005). Wind Energy and the Historic Environment.
Garwood, P., (2011). ‘The earlier prehistory of the West Midlands’ p9‐93 in (ed.) Watt 2011.
Government Office for the West Midlands, (2008). Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Hurst, D., (2011). ‘Middle Bronze Age to Iron Age: a research assessment overview and agenda’ p 101‐126 in (ed.) Watt 2011.
Murray, D. S., (1919) ‘Notes on the Early History of the Parish of Blyth’ in Collections for a History of Staffordshire. Third Series. William Salt Archaeological Society.
Watt, S., (ed.) (2011). The Archaeology of the West Midlands: A Framework for Research. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
122
References: Chapter 7
Bowdler, Davis, Hayes, Jiggins, Leventhall, McKenzie, (2009). Prediction and assessment of wind turbine noise: Acoustics Bulletin March/April 2009. Vol. 34, No. 2. IOA.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) The National Planning Policy Framework
Department of Energy and Climate Change, (2011). Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure (EN 1)
Department of Energy and Climate Change, (2011). National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN 3).
ETSU R 97, (1996). The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farm. Department of Trade and Industry.
ISO 9613 2 Acoustics – attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors Part 2 General method of calculation.
Reference: Chapter 8
Ofcom, (2009). Tall structures and their impact on broadcast and other wireless services.
References: Chapter 9
ODPM, (2004). Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22.
Department of Energy and Climate Change, (2011). National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN 3).
123
APPENDIX 1.1: EIA SCREENING OPINION
124
APPENDIX 3.1: NATURE CONSERVATION LEGISLATION
125