COMMITTEE REPORT
Application 12/00330/FUL Reference
Land Between Bishops Itchington, Gaydon And Knightcote To The Site Address South East Of The B4451 Proposed erection of 4 wind turbines, up to a maximum tip height of 125 metres high, and other ancillary development including a new vehicular access off the Gaydon Road (B4451), access tracks, Proposals vehicular accesses, crane hard standing areas, a control building, underground cabling, construction compound and meteorological mast.
Case Officers Neil Hempstead and Tony Horton
Presenting Officers Neil Hempstead and Tony Horton
Applicant Broadview Energy Limited
Cllr Hamburger Ward Member(s) Cllr Mann Cllr Jackson Bishops Itchington Parish Burton Dassett (The application straddles the boundary between the two Parishes) Reason for Referral Scale of Development to Committee
Recommendation REFUSE
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Detailed application (as amended) comprising the following elements:
• Erection of 4 x maximum 125m high, horizontal axis wind turbines (typically 80m height to hub and 3 x 45m blade length) • Associated foundations for turbines (each approximately 18m x 18m x 3.5m depth) and construction crane hardstanding areas for turbines (40m x 20m x 5m depth) and meteorological mast (20m x 10m x 1m depth); • A lattice tower meteorological mast up to 80m in height; • A control building measuring approximately 14.7m x 5.7m and approximately 4m in height, materials to be agreed; • Site access from B4451 and crossing point over Knightcote Bottoms Road linking northern and southern parts of the site • Approximately 3.25km of stone access track, generally 5m wide leading to the wind turbines and meteorological mast; • Underground electrical cabling and communications cables buried in trenches running alongside the site access tracks (grid connection point to be later confirmed); • Temporary site storage and construction compound including parking area, site office and mess facilities (maximum 80m x 50m) area during the duration of the construction period • Operational lifetime of the proposed development anticipated to be 25 years, construction phase anticipated to be a maximum of 12 months.
The application was originally for 5 x 125m high wind turbines. However, during the course of the planning application the applicant amended the application by removing one of the proposed wind turbines (T1) from the scheme thereby reducing the number of wind turbines from 5 to 4. Some of the elements of the application are described in more detail below:
The Turbines
The final specification of the turbine would be the subject of a tendering process by the applicant as there are a number of different models available at this generating capacity. Each wind turbine would measure approximately 80m (262.5ft) from ground to the nacelle or hub. Each turbine would have 3 blades each measuring approximately 45m in length creating a swept/rotor diameter of around 90m. The maximum height of each turbine from ground to the tip of the blade when in an upright position would measure 125m (410ft).
The tower of the turbine would be a tapering conical steel design with a maximum diameter of approximately 4m at the base reducing to approximately 2m at the top (based on the plans of a typical wind turbine submitted with the application). The tower is brought onto the site in 3 components and assembled on site. Each turbine blade would be transported individually. Nacells and hubs would be delivered one per trailer. It is anticipated that the external surfaces of the turbines would be finished in an off white/ grey semi-matt colour. The blades are made of glass fibre.
Each turbine would have a subterranean concrete base measuring 18m by 18m at a depth of up to 3.5m reinforced with steel. The concrete will be brought onto the site in ready mix concrete trucks. An area of hard standing measuring approximately 800sqm (20m x 40m x 5m in depth) would be constructed for each turbine which would facilitate construction, maintenance and decommissioning. The hardstanding area is also necessary to accommodate the crane and turbine components during construction and outriggers which would be used to assemble the turbines.
The turbine is controlled by its own computer system, which provides both operational and safety functions. In addition to controlling blade angle and rotor speed, a wind turbine’s control system must also align the rotor with the oncoming wind. This is achieved by rotating the nacelle in relation to the tower top. The applicant has stated that each of the 4 turbines will have a 2-3MW generating capacity.
Location and Spacing of Turbines
The location of the 4 turbines is split between two parts of the application site with Knightcote Bottoms Road running between. The turbines would be spaced apart approximately as follows (not taking into account possible micrositing):- T1 (Deleted) T2 to T3 = 400m (east-west axis) T2 to T4 = 400m (north-south axis) T2 to T5 = 560m (NW-SE axis) T3 to T4 = 580m (NE-SW axis) T3 to T5 = 420m (north-south axis) T4 to T5 = 380m (east-west axis)
Site Access and Internal Access Tracks
A feasible route to the site has been identified from junction 12 of the M40 via the B4451. All construction traffic would use the B4451 to enter and leave the proposed development. A crossing point would also be provided across Knightcote Bottoms Road in order to construct the two turbines to the south of this road although no construction traffic is envisaged along Knightcote Bottoms Road.
Each turbine would be connected to a network of internal access tracks typically 5m wide, which would be required for the delivery of abnormal loads. A total of approximately 3.25km of tracks are proposed. The tracks would be excavated and then laid with crushed stone. Any field drains/streams will be culverted where necessary. The access tracks will be maintained throughout the operational life of the wind farm to allow maintenance. Special construction techniques and engineering proposals may be required for the access track in the vicinity of archaeological remains.
Micro-siting
The applicant has specifically requested that the final precise layout of the development including the siting of the turbines and the associated infrastructure be given scope to change through ‘micro-siting’. Effectively the applicant is seeking consent to reposition the turbines and other elements of the scheme up to 30m from the locations identified on the submitted plans. National Policy Statement EN-3 acknowledges that applicants are likely to need flexibility in a project’s consent to allow for any necessary micrositing of elements due to matters arising following more detailed ground investigations. The principle of micro-siting has also been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate in cases where appeals have been allowed. However, the extent of micro-siting varies depending on the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings.
However, some restrictions have been identified by the applicant as part of the application process where micro-siting would not take place as follows:
Wireless services - Turbines T2 and T4 would not be micro-sited any further west to maintain suitable separation distances from a Western Power Distribution link; Landscape and visual – The turbines would not be micro-sited closer to any dwellings within a 800m radius of the site; Ecology (bats) – The separation distances between turbines and the closest linear features (such as hedges) will be adhered to as per Natural England guidance.
All the buffer areas identified in the Environmental Statement would be adhered to including when microsited with the following four buffers specifically highlighted as those being the closest to the turbines: Hedgerow/Bat feature buffer: 55m; Tree buffer: 75m; Road Buffer: 125m (Knightcote Bottoms Road); and Boundary of land within which the applicant has a legal interest: 50m.
Construction Period
Construction is expected to last a maximum of 12 months depending on weather and ground conditions. It is anticipated that construction will be restricted between the hours of 07:00 and 19:00 Mondays- Fridays and 07:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays with no work taking place on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Decommissioning
At the end of the 25 year operational period or sooner should the development cease to become operational, the wind farm will be decommissioned, unless re- powering is approved. Decommissioning will remain the responsibility of Broadview Energy Limited (or any subsequent successors) and would have to be undertaken in accordance with the regulations and guidance in place at that time. It is expected that it would involve the removal of all above ground infrastructure including the tracks (where not needed) and the control building. In the interests of limiting environmental effects, all foundations will be ground down to below surface level before the ground is re-vegetated and reinstated. At present, it is generally accepted that removal of cable and electrical infrastructure is more damaging than leaving them in situ.
Recent appeal decisions have shown that Inspectors have considered this issue and are satisfied that a condition requiring the submission of a scheme for decommissioning and remediation works on the expiry of the permission to be undertaken without cost to the Local Planning Authority is appropriate.
Grid Connection
The development will be physically connected to the local electrical distribution network (the grid) from the on site substation. Three options have been put forward by the applicant:
1. New cable from the site to existing line (twin 33kV circuit approximately 2km to the north west of the site) 2. Connect at Harbury grid substation (approximately 4km away); or 3. Connect at Gaydon primary substation (approximately 5km away).
In the Environmental Statement (ES) the applicants have assessed connection of the proposed facility to the existing national grid based on the two scenarios of underground cables and overhead wooden pole lines. There is no mention of additional pylons as a means of grid connection and it is understood that such structures would not be required.
The preferred grid connection point would be confirmed should planning permission be granted for the proposed development. The exact route of this connection would be subject to a separate application under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 if it utilises a new overhead line or an application for planning permission (or use of a permitted development order by statutory undertaker) for an underground connection.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS (INCLUDING RELEVANT PLANNING CONSTRAINTS)
The application site (red line boundary) covers an area of approximately 17.96 hectares. The application site does not contain any statutory designations such as Green Belt, Conservation Area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Registered Park and Garden (RPG) and the site is not within a Flood Plain (i.e. zone 2 or 3). The site is classed as greenfield land and is currently used for arable farming. The site is located within the open countryside.
A detailed description of the local landscape character is outlined in the Landscape and Visual Impacts key issues section of this committee report. The site is located in a shallow low lying flat bottomed basin. The site and immediate surroundings are relatively open and comprise a medium scale field pattern with native hedgerows with occasional individual and small groups of trees. A small watercourse flows across the site in a south west to north east direction and connects to the River Itchen north east of the proposed development area at Bishop’s Itchington.
A minor road (Knightcote Bottom Road – D6396) passes through the southern part of the site between proposed turbines 2-3 and 4-5. The B4451 passes to the west linking Gaydon to the south west to Bishops Itchington and then Southam in the north with proposed turbine 2 approximately 1km from the road. A further minor rural road (Knightcote Lane - C51) runs in the east between Bishops Itchington and the village of Knightcote and is at its closest located approximately 0.7km from turbine 3. The B4451 and Knightcote Lane have individual rural residential properties intermittently positioned along their length with views across the proposed development site. The M40 motorway runs in a northwest- south east direction, with Junction 12 located just to the west of the site The closest settlements are the villages of Bishops Itchington at approximately 2 km to the north of turbines 2 and 3, Knightcote at approximately 0.9km to the east of turbines 3 and 5 with Northend 2km to the south from where the land rises up to the Burton Dassett Hills. Beyond the roads the land rises. In the north west is Christmas Hill with individual rural properties and public footpaths that link to Bishops Itchington, from which there are panoramic views across the proposed development site with the Burton Dassett Hills and Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Edge Hill scarp slope forming the backdrop. The most notable panoramic views across the proposed development site are from the Burton Dassett Hills which are a popular local recreational area. There are no public rights of way (PRoW) across the site but numerous rural PRoW surround the site linking the various settlements many of them on the elevated land which create the sides and ridges of the low lying basin. Of particular note is Centenary Way to the west and south, Macmillan Way in the south and the Oxford Canal Walk to the east. The closest railway line runs approximately 2km to the east and the nearest airport is Coventry Airport, approximately 20km due north. Turweston is a licensed aerodrome near Brackley in Northamptonshire approximately 29km to the southeast. Wellesbourne Mountford is a licensed aerodrome approximately 12km to the west of the site.
3. HISTORY/BACKGROUND
The Local Planning Authority issued a Scoping Opinion on the proposals in September 2009 following a consultation exercise with key stakeholders. An Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared and submitted with this application which contains chapters on, amongst others:-, The need for and benefits of the project; The proposed development; Planning policy context; Landscape and visual; Cultural heritage; Ecology and nature conservation; Ornithology; Ground conditions and hydrology; Noise; Traffic and transport; Shadow flicker; Aviation; Wireless services other effects; Mitigation and enhancement.
Subsequent to the scoping opinion being issued 2 applications for meteorological masts on the application site were determined as follows:
Reference Number Proposal Decision and date
10/01805/FUL Erection of a 60m meteorological mast Refused 19.11.2010 for a temporary period of two years (Committee decision). Appeal allowed 16.03.2011 09/01578/FUL Erection of a 60m meteorological mast Refused 27.11.2009 for a temporary period for two years (Committee Decision). Appeal dismissed 25.06.2010
A pre-application public consultation exercise was undertaken by the applicant that included local residents, local interest groups, local businesses, Parish Councillors and local Councillors. The consultation process included three rounds of drop in sessions at Knightcote Village Hall (September 2009 attended by approximately 130 people, July 2010 attended by approximately 120 people and December 2011 attended by approximately 110 people) where information and material was displayed and a questionnaire provided for comments and feedback. Two site visits to wind farms at Westmill Wind Farm near Watchford in South Oxfordshire (October 2009 attended by 17 people) and Low Spinney wind farm in Leicestershire (February 2012 attended by 35 people) were organised by Broadview for local people. Further consultation was conducted through the EIA scoping process and information has been made available through the applicants dedicated website.
The following documents have been submitted with the application:- − Application forms and plans − Design and Access Statement - Planning Statement - Addendum Planning Statement − Statement of Community Involvement − Environmental Statement − Technical Appendices − Non-technical Summary - Figures and Visualisations
In addition to this as part of the amendment/further environmental information requested by the District Council during the course of the planning application replacements, amendments and addendums to these documents were submitted:
4. RELEVANT POLICY CONTEXT
The Development Plan
West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy
CC1 (Climate Change) PA1 (Prosperity for All) PA10 (Tourism and Culture) PA14 (Economic Development in Rural Areas) PA15 (Agriculture and Farm Diversification) QE1 (Conserving and Enhancing the Environment) QE3 (Creating a High Quality Built Environment for all) QE5 (Protection of Historic Environment) QE6 (Conservation of Regions Landscape) QE7 (Biodiversity and Nature Conservation) QE9 (The Water Environment) EN1 (Energy Generation) T11 (Airports)
Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)
None of the saved policies are considered to be relevant to this application
Stratford–on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 (Saved Policies)
The following policies have been saved as per the letter dated 9 July 2009 from Government Office for the West Midlands on behalf of the Secretary of State.
PR.1 Landscape and Settlement Character PR.5 Resource Protection PR.6 Renewable Energy PR.7 Flood Defence PR.8 Pollution Control EF.1 Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty EF.4 Historic Landscapes EF.5 Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest EF.6 Nature Conservation and Geology EF.7 Nature Conservation and Geology EF.9 Trees, woodland and hedgerows EF.10 Trees, woodland and hedgerows EF.11 Archaeological sites (includes 11A & 11B) EF.13 Conservation Areas EF.14 Listed Buildings DEV.1 Layout and Design DEV.2 Landscaping DEV.4 Access DEV.5 Car Parking DEV.6 Services DEV.7 Drainage DEV.8 Energy Conservation DEV.9 Access for people with disabilities COM.8A Aviation COM.9 Walking and Cycling COM.17 Rural Employment CTY.1 Open Countryside IMP.1 Supporting Information IMP.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance IMP.4 Infrastructure Provision IMP.5 Infrastructure Provision IMP.6 Transport Assessments
The assessment of the Policies to assess whether they are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 215 of the NPPF) is undertaken within the relevant sections of the committee report.
Other Material Considerations
Central Government
National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 Technical Guidance Note Companion Guide to PPS 22 Planning for Renewable Energy (2004) Practice Guide to PPS 5 for the Historic Environment (2010) Department of Energy and Climate Change: National Policy Statement, Overarching Energy EN1 (July 2011) Department of Energy and Climate Change : National Policy Statement, Renewable Energy EN3 (July 2011) Circular 01/2009 - Rights of Way Circular 06/2005 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Circular 01/2003 - Safeguarding Aerodromes Circular 02/2002 - European Protected Species Circular 03/1999 - Use of Non-Mains Drainage Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 The Planning System: General Principles (ODPM 2005) The plan for growth produced by HM Treasury (March 2011) (Executive Summary) and Letter to Chief Planning Officers re the plan for Growth dated 31 March 2011 rd Ministerial Statement of Rt Hon Greg Clark – 23 March 2011 National Renewable Energy Policy
Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents
Stratford on Avon District Design Guide 2002 Cotswolds AONB Management Plan
Other Documents
District Council
Statement of Community Involvement 2006 Corporate Strategy 2011-2015 Sustainable Community Strategy 2009 Climate Change Strategy 2006 Draft Core Strategy 2012 CAMCO Warwickshire and Solihull Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Resource Assessment and Feasibility Study - April 2010 (Part of Draft Core Strategy Evidence Base) Renewable Energy Capacity Study for the West Midlands A final report to Telford and Wrekin Council (March 2011) (Part of Draft Core Strategy Evidence Base) Stratford-on-Avon Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - January 2008 (Part of Draft Core Strategy Evidence Base) Warwickshire sub-regional Water Cycle Study - Stratford-on-Avon District - March 2011 Water Cycle Study Update - September 2012(Part of Draft Core Strategy Evidence Base) Stratford on Avon Green Infrastructure Study (2010) (Part of Draft Core Strategy Evidence Base) Historic Environment Assessment of Proposed Historic Strategic Sites (2011) (Part of Draft Core Strategy Evidence Base) Landscape Sensitivity Study (2011) (Part of Draft Core Strategy Evidence Base)
County Council
Transport and Roads for Developments: The Warwickshire Guide 2001 Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2026) Rights of Way and Recreational Highway Strategy 2011-2026 Warwickshire County Council Sustainable Community Strategy 2006) Warwickshire Climate Change Strategy (2010) Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines 1993 Warwickshire Historic Landscape Characterisation Warwickshire Countryside Design Summary Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Sub-regional Green Infrastructure Study (2011)
Other s
Fenny Compton Parish Plan 2009 Bishops Itchington Parish Plan 2008 Fenny Compton Village Design Statement 1998 Burton Dassett Village Design Statement 2003 Knightcote Village Design Statement 2000
Other Legislation
Human Rights Act 1998 Equality Act 2010 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Localism Act 2011 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 UK Renewable Energy and Strategy and Climate Change Act 2008 Department of Energy and Climate Change -Energy Act (2008) EU Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC The Energy Act 2011 The Energy Bill 2012 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended in a 5 year (quinquennial) review and by the Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 Protection of Badgers Act 1992 The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive) Control of Pollution Act 1974 Environment Act 1995 EC Water Framework directive (2000/60/EC)
A list of some of the documents referred to by Officers and the applicant are detailed in Appendix A attached to this report.
5. APPLICANT’S COMMENTS
The applicant’s agent was invited to provide a summary of their extensive comments supporting the proposals. A similar invite to provide a summary of comments was given to the main opposition group to the proposals (FRAWT – Feldon Residents Against Wind Turbines) whose comments are in the third party section of this report. The applicant’s agent has provided the following summary:-
This is a nationally important element of renewable energy infrastructure. It is directed at increasing the amount of electricity generated in the UK from renewable sources, in line with UK Energy Policy. The proposed development would make a nationally important contribution towards meeting UK renewable energy targets as set out in the Renewable Energy Directive and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Climate Change Act 2008. Accordingly, it is a form of development which government policy states should be encouraged and for which the environmental benefits weigh markedly in favour of granting consent.
Of course, the proposed development would be visible and would result in change to local landscape character and this would also involve change to views within the local and wider environment. However, mere visibility does not necessarily equate with damage to the landscape and change is not of necessity to be deemed unacceptable. In these circumstances, the test must be whether key characteristics of this part of the local landscape would be sufficiently sensitive to be significantly impaired by the introduction of these turbines. This is essentially a working agricultural landscape, the large scale, open fields and the huge skies of which will accommodate the simple coherent lines and large scale of the turbines. Although the scheme would create a contrasting vertical focus, this will form an acceptable feature in the overall panoramas which are available and will remain due to the permeability of views between the turbines. It is precisely the fact that the scale of the structures and the scale of the landscape are commensurate that is important.
Further, whether regarded as positive or adverse, any significant effects on landscape character and visual amenity can be substantially reversed. The proposed development is the archetypal form of sustainable development from the perspective of safeguarding a landscape resource and from the perspective of long-term visual amenity.
Aside from landscape and visual effects, which NPS EN-1 recognises are inherent with development proposals of this type, there is a telling lack of substantive objection on key topic areas of wind farm development which would suggest to the decision maker that planning permission should be withheld. This can be summarised as follows:
• Noise – the Council’s own appointed and highly experienced expert recognises that there is no basis on noise grounds for a reason for refusal; • Cultural Heritage – English Heritage make no comments and do not object. This is significant, as in the large majority of wind farm cases in lowland England, even where they do not raise an objection, they still make detailed comments. The absence of such a commentary is telling. The Council’s own conservation officer makes detailed comments but does not find in any case harm to be anything more than ‘less than substantial’, as such the decision maker should weigh the benefits against the identified harm. • Ecology – It is a rarity once again in that no statutory consultee has objected and all other conservation bodies with ecological expertise do not raise an objection, it can therefore only be concluded that the proposal has a clean bill of health.
In relation to other topic matters it is considered that there is no substantive evidential basis for withholding planning permission in relation to other material considerations, namely:
• Shadow flicker • Impacts on radar or aviation interests • Impacts upon recreational amenity, including users of the Burton Dassett Country Park • The public safety of any motorists on the highway • The proposed access and the impact of development on the local highway network • Loss of agricultural land • Hydrology and hydrogeology, including flood risk and surface run off from the site during construction and operation • Contamination • The effects of electro-magnetic interference and telecommunications
In conclusion it must be emphasised that the proposed development would inevitably involve change, Government Policy is written in full knowledge of this. However, change in itself is not unacceptable. Change of this type and magnitude is an acknowledged impact of a policy of deployment of wind turbines in the English countryside.
As has been recognised in virtually every other wind farm decision, be that at the local level or at inquiry, development plan policies and other elements of guidance will pull in different directions at certain times. Literal reading of certain policies may mean that there is limited policy harm. However, the limited nature of such harm and the sheer weight behind the scheme afforded by the renewable energy elements within the development plan, the NPPF and other supportive material considerations means that planning permission should still be granted.
There is nothing so special or out of the ordinary here at Starbold to suggest that the likely significant environmental effects would be unacceptable in the public interest which the planning system is there to preserve. It is considered that the planning application and its associated material continues to demonstrate that the environmental, economic and social impacts of the proposed development would be acceptable within the meaning of paragraph 98 of the NPPF and that planning permission should be granted in the form in which it has been sought.
6. PARISH COUNCILS
The application site straddles two parish council boundaries and two ward boundaries.
Bishops Itchington Parish Council
Objections to the original application were received 12.6.12 and objections following the amended scheme were received 13.12.12. The Parish Council have provided the following précised version of their objections for the purposes of this report.
Bishops Itchington Parish Council (‘BIPC’) objects unanimously to the original and revised applications for this site on the following grounds.
Energy Resource - The main alleged justification for this wind farm is to produce energy. The proposed development relies on key assumptions as to its generating capability. One assumption is the load factor (% of max output achieved) which will be in excess of 25%. Publicly available information provided by Ofcom demonstrates the assumption to be considerably in excess of the average load factor for England and which is falling as more low output inland wind farms are developed, see fig 1. Reading University, another inland low altitude farm had a load factor of 17.1%. The assumption used to justify this application is clearly grossly inflated and therefore the application does not reflect the likely power output.
Figure 1:
A second assumption is that the wind speed will be sufficient to maintain generating capacity. The evidence shows that at 5.84 mts/s at 45 metres this site does not provide a consistent wind speed in excess of the publicly stated minimum requirement of 6 mts/s.
Planning Guidelines - The NPPF states a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However this application provides no local employment and meets no local need. Conversely there is a significant risk that the viability of one of the parish’s largest employers will be seriously damaged both by the proposed development and by its construction. Destroying local jobs for no local gain is not the way forward.
Health - The NPPF requires that planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life. Peer reviewed research has been published which provides strong evidence to support long-standing complaints from people living near turbines that the sound from their rotating blades disrupts sleep patterns and causes stress-related conditions. The research, in the journal Noise and Health, shows clear relationships between wind farms and “important clinical indicators of health, including sleep quality, daytime sleepiness and mental health”. Shadow flicker will also be a major effect.
Heritage - The NPPF requires great weight to be given to the preservation of heritage sites. The application makes no concession to the impact on local heritage sites. The proposed development will have a hugely significant impact on the local environment. Views from the Dassett Hills Country Park, the highly publicised and well attended local feature will still be destroyed along with the views from the Edgehill escarpment, the Iron Age forts of Nadbury and Grendenton Hill, The Grade One listed buildings and the footpaths and bridleways surrounding the valley
Further, the latest archaeological report on the site from Warwickshire County Council states: "The construction of the access track and associated works will result in direct damage to the regionally significant Romano British site which survives within the northern part of this site."
Flooding - The recent very heavy rains which caused flooding on roads adjacent to the site from tributaries of the Itchen demonstrate the susceptibility of this area to causing down-stream flooding. Any reduction in the ability of this area to absorb intense rainfall will increase the flood risk to local roads and possibly residential properties.
Road Safety - No provision has been made to lessen the potential danger of the turbines on people using the Knightcote Bottom Lane or Centenary Way. The associated documents supplied with the application appear to acknowledge a risk to drivers on the adjacent stretch of the M40 motorway.
Impact on Wildlife - According to research by the conservation group SEO/Birdlife, between 6 and 18 m birds and bats are killed annually by wind farms in Spain. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. Further research puts bird deaths per turbine as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden. This site is surrounded by nesting and feeding grounds on three sides. There has been no attempt to address the concerns about the impact of this major and destructive development on wildlife.
Landscape and Visibility - Natural England describes this Feldon site as one of open views and acknowledges the growing population density. That the applicant has suggested that this is a low density site and invents new landscape characterisations such as ‘Vale Farmland with Wind Turbines’ cynically demonstrates that there is no other way to describe the huge impact the turbines will have on the landscape.
Burton Dassett Parish Council
Objections to the original application were received 07.06.12 and objections following the amended scheme were received 13.12.12. The comments have been incorporated by Officers to produce the following précis:
Reference is made to the status of the NPPF and extracts omitted by the applicant particularly in reference to the following elements: Ministerial Foreword, Achieving Sustainable Development, Supporting Sustainable development, Supporting a prosperous rural economy , Supporting high quality communications infrastructure, Promoting healthy communities, Meeting the challenge of climate change, Flooding and coastal change; Conserving and enhancing natural environment; Conserving and enhancing the historic environment; Neighbourhood plans.
Community Communication: the dates of the documents submitted in respect of the planning application suggest that application was all but complete at the public exhibition in December 2011. No benefits to the community. Proposal does not meet any of the consultative requirements and fewer of the NPPF th requirements. No further consultations taken place since 8 December 2012.
Visual Impacts: reference is made to the harmful impact of the proposal on the character and visual amenity of the area and specifically the Burton Dassett Country Park. The applicant fails to take into account the Burton Dassett and Knightcote Village design Statements in their consideration of the application thereby ignoring both communities and their express environmental wishes. Application also fails to make reference as to whether the removal of 156m of established hedge forms part of the original enclosure hedging which has been protected.
Applicant makes reference to the fact that high sensitivity residents would experience significant effects on their visual amenity. However, applicant has failed to acknowledge that the ‘stakeholders most at risk are those whose lives, livelihoods and assets would be blighted by the development. The equine veterinarian practice in proximity to the application site is run by professionals who have a professional opinion regarding their clients and the animal susceptibilities that should be taken into account.
Technical Merits : Wind data taken by the applicant during an abnormally higher than average period is misleading and may encourage selection of inappropriate equipment. No final selection of the wind turbines appears to have been made and so cannot be entirely confident about a number of statements. Final selection will govern efficiency and noise. Question the generation capacity of the development.
Review of the Regional Strategy would indicate that the proposed site and surrounding area would be better deployed for biomass/biogas fuel production.
Evident that this technology is only viable by the pump prime payments and will add to the consumer’s bills. Estimate that the 5 turbines would provide power for 4,800 average households and this is the approximate number of objectors in nearby settlements all of whom oppose the application.
Environmental consideration : Noise output from the turbine is variable and a function of wind speed and orientation which can only be estimated from an undeclared turbine to which inhabitants reactions will vary.
Stroboscopic effect (flicker) is also a potential health issue. Also concerns about proximity of the turbines to public highways in terms of topple over distance, loss of blade, fire debris and ice shedding and increased flooding.
th Parish Council had a consultation meeting at Knightcote village hall on 29 May 2012 which raised a number of issues relating to impact on landscape, the Salt Road, Ecology, routing of the grid connection, farm chemical spray drift due to enhanced air movement; increase in construction traffic.
Harm caused to health and welfare and the spoiling of visual amenity in the local community not considered sufficient to override the existing planning policy let alone spoil the vista for 60,000 visitors to Burton Dassett and surrounding area.
Comments from other Parishes within the District
Avon Dassett Parish Council
Comments on original application (1.6.12):-
Object on the basis that the proposals would spoil the view from local tourist attractions, the Burton Dassett Hills and Edge Hill. The noise would also affect the enjoyment of the hills by walkers and cyclists. This could reduce the leisure use of the hills and impact on local commercial facilities such as the village pub and B&B accommodation. If loss of business resulted in closure of village facilities this would impact on house prices.
Comments on amended application (4.12.12):- Same as previous.
Chapel Ascote Parish Meeting
No representation. (14.5.12)
Fenny Compton Parish Council
Comments on original application (7.6.12):-
Object for the following reasons: 1. Contrary to Policy PR.1 as the proposed development fails to respect, and significantly fails to enhance the quality and character of the area. 2. Contrary to Policy PR.5 as the proposed development would have a significant detrimental effect on the environment and character of the local area, particularly in respect of visual impact, 3. Contrary to Policy PR.5 as the proposed development would have a significant unreasonable adverse effect on existing dwellings and business premises, 4. Contrary to Policy PR.8 as there are residential properties located closer than 700 m to the turbines and there would be significant adverse effect on the health of people living in the vicinity of the proposed development. (Evidence quoted from the British Medical Journal - Hanning and Evans BMJ 2012;344:e1527)
Comments on amended application (4.12.12):-
Objects and has not changed its views from those previously stated.
Gaydon Parish Council
Comments on original application (2.6.12):-
Object due to the unacceptable visual impact on the settings of the Burton Dassett outcrop and the associated Cotswold scarp (AONB) and also the visual impact on the northern vista of the Burton Dassett Country Park the public car parks of which are important viewing points especially for the aged and infirm. Unacceptable impact on the Burton Dassett hill top tower, the only surviving domestic building of the deserted medieval market town of Chipping Dassett and two historic hill top Iron Age earthworks.
Comments on amended application (4.12.12):-
Still object based on previous reasons.
Harbury Parish Council
Comments on original application (30.5.12):-
No representations.
Further comments (superseding previous) (2.7.12)
Object as the development is in the wrong place with not enough evidence that there is enough wind to make it a viable proposition. In addition consider the construction process would destroy the landscape, ecology and habitat of the surrounding area and the local archaeological heritage along with negative visual impacts on Harbury.
Comments on amended application (28.11.12):-
Previous objections still stand.
Kineton Parish Council
Comments on original application (23.5.12):-
Object - believe that the application should be rejected on the basis of non-compliance with District policies (existing or proposed) and adverse local impact, including the following:-
1) Conflict with SDC Core Strategy (as currently in draft form) with respect to Renewable Energy Generation due to:- a) Adverse impacts on visual amenity - both to those people living within sight of the turbines and also to the many tourists, local and from further afield, who are beneficiaries of the views from many vantage points on foot and in car. b) Adverse impacts on landscape - "significant impact" on landscape character occurs in more than 50% of the viewpoints analysed c) At least one dwelling appears to be on the limit of minimum separation. d) There are no direct benefits to the local area or community. After construction there are no employment opportunities, carbon reduction is a national, not local, gain and electricity costs rise.
2) Safety - The consultation response from NATS states that the proposed development conflicts with their safeguarding criteria. Concern also about impacts on low level flying through this corridor by MOD.
3) Potential loss in any customer demand from tourism within the area, visitors to the Dassett Hills or walkers of the major national and regional public footpath routes, must be prevented. If these numbers fall as a result of the substantial and significant impacts of the windfarm, then this would be contrary to Village and District objectives.
Ladbroke Parish Council
Comments on original application (17.5.12):-
Concerned that the turbines would have negative visual and noise impact on the surrounding countryside and that the proposals do not seem to comply with the Draft Core Strategy.
Napton-on-the-Hill Parish Council
Comments on original application (12.6.12):-
- Objection - The Parish Plan states that 'all planning decisions should take into account the impact on village views, specifically looking out across the valley from Vicarage Road'. The proposed development will be visible from the flanks of Napton Hill which look across the panoramic views of South Warwickshire. - The application fails to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas through the promotion of good quality, sustainable development. - Concerns about the cumulative impacts of other possible wind farm developments at Wormleighton and Shuckburgh, both of which would be hugely visible across the valley on South Warwickshire's horizon. - Harm to the peace and tranquillity of the Burton Dassett Country Park.
Radway Parish Council
Comments on original application (7.6.12):-
Object due to the visual impact on the settings of the Burton Dassett outcrop and the associated Cotswold Scarp (AONB) and also the visual impact on the northern side of the Burton Dassett hill top tower, the only surviving domestic building of the deserted medieval market town of Chipping Dassett and two historic hill top Iron Age earthworks. Also do consider there will be no economic benefit to the local community.
Shotteswell Parish Council
Comments on original application (7.6.12):-
Object and will provide grounds by separate communication.
Further comments (2.8.12)
Object on the following grounds: - Harm to views from the Burton Dassett Hills which are a special feature of this part of the county and a greatly treasured with high amenity value with vast numbers of people flocking to them. - Additionally the AONB is within clear vision of the proposal. - Question the safety aspect of siting turbines so close to such a busy M40 junction. - Harm to tourist trade. - This area is particularly busy with local aviation; the site is surrounded by airfields, airstrips and some occasional landing sites. It is know that industrial turbines are considered a safety issue for aircraft. - Insufficient distances proposed to protect residents from potential noise. Current noise, level limits have not been adequately reviewed.
Comments on amended application (5.12.12):-
Views remain unchanged, reduction of one turbine makes no difference to original objections.
Warmington & Arlescote Parish Council
Comments on original application (8.6.12):-
Object to this planning application for the following reasons. - The environmental impact of this development would be very large and damaging. - The close proximity to housing in Bishops Itchington, Gaydon and Knightcote would subject these properties to the known and well documented impact of noise, vibration and flicker. - The impact on and damage to wildlife in the area would be devastating. - The disturbance to the local communities during construction would be out of all proportion to any possible gain that might be claimed for the development. - The visual impact of the development would seriously and adversely impact both on local residents and on the view from surrounding areas of special interest and natural beauty, including the nearby Burton Dassett hills and country park. - Although the Government is committed to renewable energy in order to help meet its Climate Change obligations, it is clear that there is now serious doubt as to whether this should be achieved through on-shore windfarms. - It must be recognised that there are serious technical shortcomings in on- shore windfarms. The power generated is not reliable, being dependent on there being adequate wind to enable any power generation at all but requiring the shutdown of turbines if wind speed is excessive. This unreliability means that for every kilowatt of windfarm development there needs to be an equal capacity of conventional power generation to ensure adequate power is available at all times. This fact alone must be taken into consideration when assessing the supposed benefits claim for the development.
Wormleighton Parish Meeting
Comments on original application (7.6.12):-
Object as the benefits of the proposals are outweighed by the totality of the harm that would be caused by the environmental impact and adverse visual impacts to the surrounding areas from the Burton Dassett Hills to Wormleighton and the southern regions of the Feldon Valley.
Comments on amended application (6.12.12):-
The reduction of the turbines does not alter original comments.
7. WARD MEMBERS
The application site straddles two parish council boundaries and two ward boundaries.
Councillor Hamburger
Comments on original application (7.6.12):-
I object on the grounds set out below: PR.1 & CS.10, EF.1 and CS.8 & CS.10: Landscape & the Cotswold Escarpment. The hills above this proposed development site form part of an ancient escarpment that has given pleasure to thousands since the end of the last ice age. Much of the pleasure derived from this upland with its clear uninterrupted views across a large part of South East Warwickshire, would be dashed by the 5 wind turbines proposed that stand in the middle of a broad valley ending in the Itchington Holt Escarpment and the range of hills to North of Bishops Itchington. That view has been preserved for posterity by the purchase of the Burton Dassett Hills by the County Council in the recent past. We cannot be seen throwing that heritage away in the hope of gaining some small amounts of renewable energy from a fluky wind in the valley. The height the Turbines at some 400ft. would dash any hope of disguising the disturbed view, as would the turning of the turbines catch the eye of the beholder.
PR.6 & CS.1: Renewable energy and Sustainable development. Under the guise of climate change, a natural phenomenon, energy from renewable sources has become an all time critical issue. We cannot continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, without due reference to our small planet, its scarce resources and its hunger for energy however derived. The renewable industry is in its infancy and must take advantage of the currently very crude methods of gaining energy from the few sources we have currently available. Wind is a well-known universally available source that should be captured in the most appropriate manner possible. Government subsidies confirm and condone this method of extracting energy from the wind. However the results of tests in and around the proposed site, seems to confirm that the site in wind terms is at best marginal. Thus once the turbines have been erected the physical sum of the Electricity thus derived may be sufficient to power the population of Bishops Itchington, some 800 houses for 1 year. Sadly it is possible by means of extrapolation and figure distortion to maintain that the 5 turbines will produce sufficient energy for 4 times that number of homes. Yes they will on some days, when the wind is at optimum power. 80% of the generating capacity of the proposed Wind Farm has to found from other conventional power sources in order to cover for the periods when the wind is insufficient. Thus the net effect of a marginal Wind Farm like Starbold is that the country as whole gains almost nothing, but a massive carbon footprint in the construction phase.
CS.2 On sustainability, the operation is predicated on infant technology, requiring the industrialisation of 200 acres of prime farmland and effectively sterilising, much of the valley in which the turbines are to stand, from useful peaceful husbandry, due to noise and shadow flicker. It is proposed that there will in return be nobody employed locally on a permanent basis. So even long-term employment is not conducive. The local people will be driven away, property prices fall and the very desirability of the region will be gone for many years to come. That cannot be in any way sustainable development.
EF.6 Nature Conservation and Geology: The area envisaged is heavy loam soil and wetland. Not very well drained because of its relative flatness. It is therefore a haven for small reptiles and the vast array of animals and birds that live on and by this natural habitat. At the last count 86 different varieties of birds were found in the area, their habitat and flight paths would be irreparably damaged by such structures. That assumes that they have survived the industrial scale onslaught of the construction phase. 10,000 lorry movements, 7,500 tons of concrete. Not to mention the steel, the cranes, the diggers and equipment. Statistics show bird and bat populations declining where these turbines have been built in the past and we are opening up our own back yard to even greater slaughter because of the inopportune sighting of the farm.
CS.11 The Natural features of the valley below this historic hill will be lost, the eye will be taken away from the view and the deterioration of this eye-catching view across the valley will de lost for a generation.
CS.12 There is much history in this valley and it is the confirmed site for Roman and Saxon settlements, this is further confirmed by ancient Salt Road that winds its way through the centre of the site. Now, a narrow little roadway, but formerly the road for carters of salt from Droitwich to Towcester. Important, yes, its part of our heritage. Destroy this in the construction phase and it gone forever.
CS 25 The very distinctive nature of the villages of Bishops Itchington and Knightcote will be lost forever. The industrialisation of the valley with these massive turbines and their infrastructure together with their feeder roads and electrical distribution system, yet to come, will totally erode a way of life that is treasured by the local population. In the name of progress, surely the gain in a very small supply of intermittent electricity cannot be worth the sacrifice that the local population is being asked to make.
Comments on amended application (22.11.12):-
I further object to this application on the basis of the impact of this photograph that clearly demonstrates the visual devastation this application would cause in the area. The photo was taken with an inexpensive camera on a bright cold morning in Autumn. The dogs had a great walk and I got quite chilly. I hope you will be able to resist this application and the photo may be of assistance. Not one I am sure in Broadview's quiver.
Attached is a recent photograph of Broadview's met mast taken by a local resident from the Burton Dassett Country Park. Even this thin tin pole can well be seen over considerable distances and shows quite clearly the scale of the proposals that are currently before our planning authority. There is absolutely no doubt that this formidable array of industrial turbines will completely dominate the vista experiences of our important county hill top park.
Councillor Jackson
Comments on original application (9.6.12):-
Object on the following grounds:- 1. I consider the proposals to be in direct conflict with saved policies in the Local Plan, included but not limited to PR1, PR5, PR6, DEV1, EF7, CTY4. 2. Furthermore, the proposals fail to conform with the direction of travel of the Draft Core Strategy – specifically, the principles and measures for Wind Energy Development as included in Policy CS2. In addition, if the proposals were to be permitted, this will substantially undermine the Strategic Objectives underpinning Policy CS10.
Comments on amended application (12.12.12):-
Object. Notwithstanding the reduction in the number of proposed turbines from 5 to 4 and the further information and clarification submitted by the Applicants in response to SDC’s request for same, I see no reason to change my objection to the application based on the policy grounds set out in my previous submission. [Head of Service clarification point – SDC requested Further Environmental Information but did not request the amendment from 5 to 4 turbines]
Councillor Mann
Comments on original application (8.6.12):-
Object to the application for the following planning reasons:-
Landscape and Visual Impact - The development will result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area because of its scale and location being visually prominent in this attractive, tranquil landscape with its scattered villages and farmsteads.
Noise - I am very concerned with noise pollution and flicker effect from the Turbine Blades. With houses in very close proximity and with sound drifting in the evening I believe this will cause a noise nuisance for a great many residents who may experience sleep deprivation. (Example of problems encountered at Kessingland Suffolk given)
Tourism - The area of Feldon Vale is mainly residential but there are a number of holiday accommodations attracting clients in particular for the rural quiet countryside. The Feldon Vale and the Burton Dassett Country Park are noted for their far reaching stunning views which attract thousands of visitors a year not only from the local area but from tourists from other Countries who visit our shores to take in the history and stunning landscapes. The installation of five wind turbines will change the views from the Country Park of what is now an unrivalled panoramic view of this area. This view will be altered significantly for the worst.
Transport - I am concerned of what impact the construction of these turbines will have on the local road network. In particular the daily lorry movements of up to 130 lorry movements to and from the site using the B4451 Gaydon Road straight through the village of Bishops Itchington which will cause a considerable traffic problem for local traffic and residents.
Wildlife - The previous application for the Met. Mast was altered not only being moved away from hedge lines but also bird deflectors were attached to try to stop wildlife flying into the guide wires of the mast. The increased height and rotation of the turbines will not have any features to try to stop birds flying into the rotating blades. The Feldon Vale is noted for its wide variety of migrating birds and wildlife which will be at risk if this application is supported.
8. THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Third Party comments on Original application for 5 wind turbines
1459 letters have been received objecting to the proposal for the following reasons. (These letters are from third parties, planning consultants and a County Councillor). Comments are as follows:-
Element of proposal objected to:- No of objections
Detrimental impact on character and appearance of the 1269 local/surrounding landscape/open countryside/ Cotswold ANOB (includes impact of shadowing [as opposed to specific reference to shadow flicker] from blades on landscape and ancillary equipment),Edgehill Development would be contrary to National and Local 542 Policies Detrimental impact on surrounding public footpaths/public 9 rights of way/bridleways Detrimental impact on wildlife (including birds and bats) 1119 Potential hazard to low flying aircraft/gliders/general aviation 17 The turbines would spoil views from/to/the setting of Burton 1141 Dassett Country Park Highway safety hazard – Driver distraction 8 Unsafe access off B4451 10 Proximity of access off B4451 to surrounding dwellings 1 Noise from turbines (general (including amplitude 850 modulation) and impact on health including sleep) Shadow Flicker (general and impact on health) 535 Impact of a wind farm on health and wellbeing of local 42 residents (general health – where specific reference not made to noise and shadow flicker) Detrimental impact on leisure/recreation/tourism/ 185 No benefit for the local /surrounding communities 25 Turbines damage the environment given materials required 28 for their components/concrete foundations/not reduce net carbon output Physical/Environmental damage from construction 799 (concrete)/traffic implications (including highway safety) from increased number of construction vehicles/visual harm during construction phase Noise during construction process 3 Detrimental impact on hydrology 2 Loss of agricultural land 4 Against community wishes/Localism 293 Overbearing impact/visual harm on nearby properties/close 418 proximity Too close to/impact upon equine clinic/local businesses 385 Horse/Animal Welfare (including shadow flicker) 9 Ice throw from blades 11 Health and safety issues (fire and broken blades) 20 Impact on heritage (Listed buildings/SAMS) 419 Detrimental impact on archaeology 4 Cumulative impact with other wind turbines 8 Urbanisation/industrialisation of the countryside 28 No idea how the electricity would be removed from the site – 11 possible visual Lack of public consultation 10 Start decline of village life in Bishops Itchington 4 Ruin surrounding villages 6 Exacerbate flooding in area 8 Local quality of life will suffer 3 Impact on footpath running through the site 1 Detrimental impact on users of the Salt Road 9 Proposed lighting to top of mast will be visually intrusive 3 Scope of the Property Impact Assessment is flawed 1 Strobing Vibrations 360 Interfere with televisions/household appliances 3 Further archaeology needs to be undertaken 2 Question validity of noise report submitted 2 Submitted photomontages are misleading and poorly located 2
A number of objections were also received on the following non-planning grounds:-
Element of proposal objected to:- No of objections Harmful impact of a wind farm on property values 29 Lack of wind in the area 413 Net loss in employment due to subsidies 1 Not reduce carbon emissions 4 Harm private view 1 Wind power would not be cost effective (include increase 555 energy prices)/efficient/is outdated/would not outweigh the harm Not reduce dependence on fossil fuels 1 Erected for company profit only 137 Set precedent for future development 6 Alternative renewable energy is available 161 Pollution from heavy metals in turbine 1 Cost to tax payer of decommissioning the turbines after 25 5 years Decommissioning and remediation work will not be 2 appropriately carried out
Footnote: Individual letters are included even if multiple letters from same persons. Some letters are proforma.
Distribution of origin of objection letters received
Near to site (Bishops Itchington & Burton Dassett Parishes) 555 Surrounding Parishes (*see footnote) 242 Rest of Stratford District 161 Rest of Warwickshire 44 Oxfordshire 134 Northamptonshire 138 Leicestershire 4 Worcestershire 5 West Midlands 17 Other Counties 64 America 5 Republic of Ireland 2 Scotland 8 Australia 4 New Zealand 2 France 1 Wales 3 Belgium 1 Address not given/unclear 67 Planning Consultant 1 WCC County Councillor 1 TOTAL 1459
* Surrounding Parishes consist of: Ladbroke Harbury Chesterton and Kingston Chapel Ascote Watergall Gaydon Chadshunt Kineton Radway Warmington Avon Dassett Fenny Compton
12 letters have been received including a letter from Stratford upon Avon Friends of the Earth supporting the proposal for the following reasons:-
Element of proposal supported:- No in support Alternative to fossil fuels – environmental benefits 10 Turbines visually attractive 2 Will provide community funds for immediate neighbourhood 1
Will not have a detrimental impact on house prices 1 Will not be unacceptably harmful to wildlife 3 Will not have detrimental impact on landscape 2 Will not be detrimental to health 2 Not detrimental to the environment 1 Not detrimental to residents 1 Public support 1
A number of comments of support were also received on the following non- planning grounds:-
Element of proposal supported:- No in support Will provide community funds for immediate neighbourhood 1 Will not have a detrimental impact on house prices 1 Not inefficient/expensive 2
Distribution of origin of supporting letters received:-
Stratford District 6 Rest of Warwickshire 3 Leicestershire 2 Worcestershire 1 TOTAL 12
2 letters stating no representations also received.
Third Party Comments on Amended application (4 wind turbines)
A further consultation and notification exercise was undertaken following the amendment to the planning application to reduce the number of wind turbines from 5 to 4 and to provide Further Environmental Information as requested by the District Council. Whilst 97 letters of objection were received no further grounds of objection were raised by third parties that were not mentioned in the original objection letters received. However, reference was made to the recent flooding of Knightcote Bottoms Lane as a result of recent heavy rainfall and more detailed reference was made to the potential impact upon the equine clinic at Lower Spring Farm. A further 3 letters of support were received from third parties including a letter from West Midlands Friends of the Earth.
th Letter from Jeremy Wright MP dated 30 May 2012:-
Objects to the 5 wind turbines on the grounds that they would have a serious impact on the landscape and will be detrimental to the character of the area and have an adverse effect on the nearby heritage assets.
The cumulative impact of a proliferation of similar applications along the M40 corridor in this part of Warwickshire should also be considered.
Even in PPS 22, now overtaken to some degree by the removal of the Regional Spatial Strategies, it is recognised that landscape impacts are an important consideration and in this application those impacts would be considerable, particularly in their effect on the views from the Burton Dassett Hills, a landscape which has been protected and deserves to be in the future.
Broadview have also struggled to demonstrate any local community benefit.
Hope that these comments and constituent comments that are affected will be considered carefully.
Summary of Objections by Feldon Residents Against Wind Turbines (FRAWT):-
A collective group of persons opposing the proposals has been formed known as FRAWT. The group were invited to send of summary of their extensive objections to be included in this report. By way of balance, the applicants were also invited to do likewise and their comments are within the Applicant’s Comments section of this report.
Geoffrey Sinclair has produced this summary on behalf of FRAWT. He is Principal of Environment Information Services with experience of 300 wind power planning applications and almost 100 at Public Inquiry. He has examined the area affected by the application in detail and appraised the applicants’ Environmental Statement (ES) and comments as follows:-
“Wind turbines are a unique form of development with an individually small footprint contrasting with their huge zone of visibility. The proposed ‘Very Large’ Repower MM92 125m machines have a blade-sweep equal to one and two-thirds acres of sky, would revolve for 70 – 85% of the time, and reach a tip-speed of 162.5mph.
The applicants exaggerate output and CO 2 savings by up to 28%, and overclaim the equivalent number of households’ electricity consumption by up to 111% through using an irrelevant annual UK median figure much lower than the actual average consumption in Stratford District.
The site lies low in the Vale of Feldon - almost an amphitheatre - with views from nearby houses and villages focussing down onto the turbines. They would stand starkly in the much admired panorama from the Burton Dassett Country Park and the Centenary Way running from the crest of these popular hills to the ridgeline on the north of the site. By comparison the M40 is recessed and unobtrusive.
The large-format illustrations in the ES show proposed turbines clearly from 25 viewpoints but are too big to be viewed or printed at full scale from the Council’s web-site or CD Rom by the domestic computers of general public.
I assess the landscape shown in 5 viewpoints (VPs) as one ‘step’ more sensitive than claimed in the ES, while views from the Burton Dassett hills and Marston Hill are two steps more so.
At 10 of the 25 VPs the sensitivity of the people who would appreciate the views (the so-called ‘receptors’) is one step greater: . I also find greater levels of ‘magnitude’ at 14 of the 25 viewpoints. A greater still impact persists along the ‘Salt Road’ threading though the site with two turbines on each side predicted to throw blade shadows for 2.5km between the Knightcote cross roads and the B4451.
Combining all these factors in the final test of significance I find 11 - rather than the 9 viewpoints as in the ES - above and much further above the conventionally most significant threshold. All the remainder have greater impacts than in the ES. With the removal of Turbine 1 from the original 5-machine scheme, the difference between my assessment and that now provided has actually widened because the revised ES has reduced the magnitude of impact at five VPS closer to the deleted turbine, while I have judged it necessary to do so at only one.
The Residential Visual Amenity Survey only extends to a radius of 1km searching only for impacts so severe as to fail the so-called ‘Lavender Test’ to identify overbearing and unacceptable impacts. It concludes that none of the 21 houses do, even though all ‘ would experience significant major or major/moderate visual effects which are assumed to be adverse’.
This is a far too close radius, which I have extended to 2km in a house-by-house survey locating 82 affected properties in all. Even allowing for the removal of Turbine 1, I assess two homes (Lower Spring Farm and ‘Trotters’) as failing the Lavender Test and 60 more incurring independently significant impacts, notably including Piper’s Hill with a direct elevated view from its large open grounds over the turbines towards the Burton Dassett hills.
The character of Knightcote and Northend, and the edges of Bishops Itchington would also be adversely impacted.
Motorists walkers, cyclists and horse-riders would be affected when using the local network of minor roads, notably on the ‘Salt Road’ where two turbines are within the conventionally unacceptable ‘fall-over +10%’ distance, and all four are closer than the British Horse Society’s safety guidelines.
Views of the turbines would persist for a 20km length of the Centenary Way, other promoted routes, and the localised footpath network around Christmas Hill
Finally, and crucially, the revised ES acknowledges that despite the deletion of one turbine (furthest away) the large numbers of users of the Burton Dassett Hills Country Park would still experience a significant [and implied adverse] effect. I agree, though my analysis puts it more strongly.
In conclusion, the proposal would contravene the following policies:
Stratford-on-Avon Local Plan: Policy PR.6 Renewable energy Policy PR.1 Landscape and settlement character
The emerging Local Development Framework Policy CS1 Sustainable development - E. Wind energy development
The planning application should therefore be refused planning permission.”
9. CONSULTATIONS
Ministry of Defence – Defence Infrastructure
Comments on original application (Date received 3.7.12):-
No objection but in the interests of air safety the MOD requests that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting, either 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200 to 500ms duration at the highest practical point.
Civil Aviation Authority
Comments on original application (30.4.12):-
Give general advice on which bodies to consult in relation to aviation matters. State that there is an international civil aviation requirement for all structures of 300 feet (91.4 metres) or more to be charted on aeronautical charts and any structure of 150 metres or more must be lit in accordance with the Air Navigation Order and should be appropriately marked. Smaller structures may also be required to be lit by aviation stakeholders particularly if they fall under Section 47 of the Aviation Act. Clarify that the lack of a statement of objection or support from the CAA should not be taken to mean that there are no aviation issues, or that a comment from an operator lacks weight.
National Air Traffic Services (NATS) – NATS En-Route Plc (NERL) Safeguarding Office
Comments on original application (2.5.12):-
NATS is responsible for the safe and expeditious movement in the en-route phase of flight for aircraft operating in controlled airspace in the UK. To undertake this responsibility it has radar communication systems and navigational aids which could be compromised by a wind farm.
Object as based on preliminary technical findings the development conflicts with safeguarding criteria. Will carry out further assessment and withdraw objection if the impacts prove acceptable. Highlight that if recommendations made by NERL are not accepted by the Planning Authority then NERL and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) must be notified and given the chance to consider the matter further prior to any grant of planning permission.
Further comments (25.5.12):-
NERL’s technical and operational safeguarding teams have examined the proposal and find that whilst the wind farm is likely to impact on electronic infrastructure, NERL has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
Comments on amended application (15.11.12):-
NERL’s technical and operational safeguarding teams have examined the proposal and find that whilst the wind farm is likely to impact on electronic infrastructure, NERL has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
Coventry Airport Limited
Comments on original application (30.5.12):-
Object for the following reasons:- 1. The applicant confirms that all 5 wind turbines theoretically will be visible to the Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) at Coventry Airport. 2. Coventry Airport Limited and the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) at Coventry Airport do not accept the result of the hazard identification and risk assessment process which examines the scenario of unknown aircraft operating in the vicinity of the turbines. 3. The hazard identification and risk assessment process is fundamentally flawed in that there was no input from the ANSP. 4. CAP 760 (Guidance on the Conduct of Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and the Production of Safety Cases) describes the various methods for hazard identification. These are 'Historical', 'Systematic' and 'Brainstorming'. 5. The applicant's consultant could not successfully use the Historical method as it had no access to "existing hazard logs and accident/incident reports", which might be relevant. 6. The Systematic method advocated in CAP 760 is not required in order to produce a high level of confidence in the case of this proposed system change. 7. The Brainstorming method, which may be the most relevant in this case, could not have been used to produce the required level of confidence as it did not include experts from Coventry Airport Limited and the ANSP. 8. The brainstorming process carried out by the consultant is only valid for the development of the expected five turbines planned for the Starbold site. Proliferation of other turbine developments within line of sight of the Coventry Airport radar could cause an increase in safety risk but this has been given just a passing mention. 9. It is becoming increasingly impossible to provide the required 5nm separation in the area running from due south to north-north east of the PSR. The developer of the proposed Stoneton wind farm has shown proactive management since the Scoping Report was issued in March 2011 and has agreed a Condition that deals with the issue of mitigation. 10. Whilst strongly objecting to the proposed wind farm development Coventry Airport Limited will continue to try and find a suitable mitigation solution to the problem with the developer.
Comments on amended application (19.11.12):-
Similar comments made to those above.
Further comments (4.12.12):-
The report submitted by Broadview Energy has been compiled by Spaven Consulting without input from, or discussion with, the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) at Coventry Airport. Furthermore it is anonymous and unsigned.. The conclusions have been formulated without sufficient knowledge of the Air Traffic Service operation and the experience level of the various Air Traffic Control Officers at Coventry Airport.
Any change to an aviation system is subject to CAP 760 (Guidance on the Conduct of Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and the Production of Safety Cases). There is no mention of CAP 760 and there is no compliant hazard identification, risk assessment or Safety Case in the Spaven Report. It appears that Broadview Energy expect Coventry Airport Limited, the ANSP and the Planning Authority to accept the conclusions without carrying out due process.
The Senior Air Traffic Control Officer (SATCO) employed by the ANSP has the following comments: 1. It has been completed without reference to the ANSP. It is therefore flawed and based on several incorrect assumptions, some of which are listed below. 2. "The only aircraft that are affected are IFR". Incorrect: when providing radar service outside of controlled airspace (CAS) it is not predicated on Flight Rules. 3. "Departing aircraft will have been transferred to Birmingham or London Control well before any impacts on Coventry Radar…". Incorrect: not all departures join the airways system; Birmingham ATS is not in a position to offer radar services as a right to aircraft outside CAS. 4. The report assumes that all aircraft landing on runway 23 will be coming from an area other than the southwest. However, aircraft transiting to South Wales and the west of England commonly depart or arrive via the Gaydon area. 5. "Arriving aircraft for runway 05 could be kept inside CAS until 5nm past the site thus avoiding any effects". Incorrect: this shows a lack of understanding of the way Birmingham and Coventry air traffic is integrated to facilitate arrivals. 6. The report makes several references to NERL having no objection but this is simply because it would not be providing any radar service in that area. 7. The report refers to detailed assessments that conclude that no significant effects would occur to radar services. This statement is incorrect and no attempt to consult with either Coventry Airport Limited or the ANSP has been made by Spaven.
Coventry Airport Limited and the ANSP have representatives prepared to argue these points if required at a Public Inquiry. We do not feel that in this instance a proper approach to consultation has been taken and we respectfully suggest that Broadview Energy withdraw the Spaven Consulting report and obtain factual information on the ATS operation at Coventry Airport.
Birmingham Airport
Comments on original application (4.7.12):-
No objection as have examined the proposals with respect to Aerodrome Safeguarding and confirm that they do not conflict with the safeguarding criteria.
East Midlands Airport
Comments on amended application (14.12.12):-
No conflict with safeguarding criteria.
Wolverhampton Halfpenny Green Airport
Comments on original application (8.5.12):-
No objection.
Comments on amended application (23.11.12):-
No objection.
Wellesbourne Airfield
Comments on original application (4.7.12):-
Consider that whilst the proposal does not infringe the mandatory obstacle free zone around Wellesbourne Airfield, the turbines will be a potential hazard to aircraft approaching to land. State that Gaydon vehicle proving ground is a very recognised landmark and is frequently used as a reporting point by pilots descending to join the circuit from that direction.
Air Ambulance Service
Comments on original application (11.7.12):-
The Service does not generally comment on such planning matters and state that whilst they will be slightly affected they are always able to find somewhere to land for incidents.
Comments on amended application (15.11.12):-
No comments to add.
East Midlands Air Support Unit (Police)
Comments on amended application (26.11.12):-
Request that consideration is given to NVG (night vision) compatible visible lighting on the turbines for aviation safety reasons. Highlight that a large windfarm near their base have NVG lights but as these are non-visible to the human eye night vision goggles are required to see them. Point out that two other turbines in Northants have been fitted with red flashing lights.
Stratford Gliding Club
Comments on original application (4.7.12):-
Do not consider that the proposals will be an issue impacting their operation.
Shennington Gliding Club
Comments on original application (4.7.12):-
Consider that there will be no practical impact on the Club operations as proposals are sufficiently distant from their airfield and other aviation related matters are covered by Coventry Airport and NATS responses.
GlideSport UK
Comments on amended application (17.12.12):-
No representation.
Network Rail
Comments on original application (30.4.12):-
No objection in principle. Request applicants provide a plan for approval of turbine delivery route to ascertain if any bridges or infrastructure are impacted by the abnormal loads, with applicants being liable for any costs of mitigation works and Network Rail reserving the right to refuse access to its land or infrastructure.
Additional comments (14.5.12):-
Have reviewed the preferred routes for abnormal loads and these do not affect Network Rail road over rail bridges, therefore no objection raised. Whilst the alternative routes might affect road over rail bridges they note that such routes have been discounted by the applicants. Highlight that only load carrying capacity of Network Rail road over rail owned bridges has been checked and not other matters such as level crossings, bridge parapets, clearance under bridges and overhead rail wires.
Comments on amended application (16.11.12):-
Comment that the route to the site may impact on their infrastructure and if an Abnormal Load is required then it must abide by the Highway Agency’s regulations on such movements which may require notification to Network Rail or owners of structures affected.
Highways Agency
Comments on original application (16.5.12):-
Has no objection to the proposed development in principle but need the issue of abnormal loads for the delivery of turbine components to the site to be clarified post the grant of any planning permission. Advise that the applicant will need to liaise with their abnormal loads team which is based in their Birmingham office.
Will require provision of detailed indemnity from the developer against possible damage to Highways Agency assets and or claims by third parties during transportation of turbine components. Request that the coating used on the turbine blades minimises the risk of any dazzle to road users. Direct that any planning permission should be subject to a condition to ensure the safe and efficient movements of the abnormal loads.
Comments on amended application (4.12.12):-
The removal of one turbine does not alter previous response which remains extant.
WCC Highway Authority
Comments on original application (18.7.12):-
The Highway Authority notes concerns raised with regard construction traffic and acknowledges that during construction HGV movements will exceed the 30% threshold guide during the first two months of the construction programme. This translates to a peak of an additional 56 HGV movements per day but is unlikely to cause a Highway safety concern. However, in acknowledgment of the congestion associated with the existing Jaguar Land Rover site, it is considered a sensible approach to restrict HGV movements to outside peak hours. Therefore no objection subject to the conditions relating to provision of a Construction Traffic Management Plan; restricted hours of construction deliveries; Construction Method Statement, highway damage survey scheme and notes.
Comments on amended application (21.12.12):-
No objection subject to conditions relating to delivery hours, access details, Construction Traffic Management Plan, Construction Method Statement, highway damage survey scheme and notes.
Sustrans
Comments on amended application (28.11.12):-
Have looked at the location plan and can’t see that the proposals will affect their existing route of NCN 48 which runs east of the site.
WCC Rights of Way
Comments on original application (13.6.12):-
Note that whilst there are a number of public rights of way in the surrounding area there are none directly crossing the application site or within falling distance of any of the turbines. Therefore raise no objection. Do however comment that there will be a significant impact on visual amenity on some of the surrounding public rights of way and therefore suggest a contribution is made by the developer towards improvements in the surrounding public rights of way network.
Comments on amended application (28.11.12):-
No further observations to add to previous response.
WCC Rural Services
Comments on original application (20.8.12):-
State that Burton Dassett Hills is a popular Country Park visited by over 60,000 people per year and provides unique panoramic views across the Warwickshire Countryside. The visitor satisfaction survey demonstrates that the enjoyment of the views is the primary reason for visiting. Consider that the views will be interrupted by the tall, man made moving turbines that will be clearly visible and detract from the enjoyment of the Hills for visitors.
Ramblers Association
Comments on original application (2.7.12):-
Objection due to the adverse intrusion on the rural view across the Feldon from Burton Dassett Hills.
Comments on amended application (26.11.12):-
Object, consider that whether it is 5 or 4 turbines it makes no difference, the views from Burton Dassett Hills across the Feldon will still be adversely intruded and should be protected from intrusive developments.
Canal & River Trust (formerly British Waterways)
Comments on original application (1.5.12):-
No comments as site not within a notified area for consultation.
Comments on amended application (19.11.12):-
No comments as site not within a notified area for consultation.
Inland Waterways Association
Comments on original application (19.5.12):-
Are generally in favour of renewable energy schemes and consider the submission gives a fair estimation of generating capacity with minimal noise pollution in the immediate area. Consider the scheme to not be unduly disruptive of bird or bat flight routes and not unduly damaging to sensitive historical or ecological site but do have concern over the visibility of the scheme over a wide area.
Comments on amended application (16.11.12):-
Objections as originally stated still stand, not convinced that the scheme is correctly sited or energy supply predictions will be met.
Cotswolds Conservation Board
Comments on original application (18.6.12):-
Highlight that the supporting text to Local Plan policy PR.6 states: "It is unlikely that large-scale wind farms will be feasible or appropriate in the District." and that Policy EF.1 relating to the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty aims to protect and, where opportunities arise, enhance this area and where proposals, including outside the AONB, would have a detrimental impact they will not be permitted.
Refer to the statutory Cotswolds AONB Management Plan Landscape Policy LP1 which identifies the Cotswold Escarpment as a "special quality" of the AONB which it is important to protect the character and appearance of. Also highlight that Policy LK3 notes the surroundings of the AONB are also important to its landscape character and quality with views out from the AONB and into it from surrounding areas potentially being very significant.
Identify that no assessment is made of the impact of the proposal on views of the scarp slope of the Cotswolds AONB, where this forms part of the backdrop. Consider that the wind farm will be a discordant vertical feature in a landscape which is predominantly horizontal in character, including the skyline of the Cotswolds escarpment and the proposals will be harmful to a special quality of the AONB.
Draw attention to an Inspectors decision with respect to a proposal for a wind farm of four 127m wind turbines at Oldbury on Severn, South Gloucestershire (Appeal Ref: APP/P01l9/A/ll/2154175). "24. At a distance I am concerned about clear views of moving turbines against the backdrop of the Cotswolds from the Offa's Dyke National Trail (25) on the other side of the Severn and about the acknowledged theoretical visibility from various places on National Cycle Route 41." Highlight that in that case the proposed wind farm was some 10km from the boundary of the Cotswolds AONB and the viewpoints referred to were some 5km further away (15km total) and that in the current case the turbines are some 5km from the AONB boundary, and the viewpoint approximately 8Km away.
Consider that the substantial harm to a special quality of a designated landscape outweighs other considerations including the need to address climate change issues by the provision of renewable forms of energy.
Comments on amended application (19.12.12):-
Wishes for previous comments to still be taken into account. Has considered the new viewpoint 21 which clearly shows that from this viewpoint the four turbines will be in front of and break the skyline of scarp slope of the Cotswolds AONB in the Radway area. This is a highly sensitive and distinctive landscape feature, identified in the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan as a special quality of the AONB. Users of the public footpath will be highly sensitive to landscape change.
Draw attention to the Stinchcombe Appeal decision (APP/C1625/11/215593). In dismissing the appeal the Inspector set out in para 76 how the adverse impact on the AONB outweighs any benefits which might accrue from energy generation.
Consider that the proposal is contrary to the NPPF, Policies PR6 and EF1 of the Stratford-on-Avon Local Plan, and the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2008-13.
English Heritage
Comments on original application (31.5.12):-
State there are a large number of listed buildings and scheduled monuments from which the wind farm will be visible, as well as some registered landscapes and a registered battlefield. Consider that most of the assets seem to be beyond any meaningful level of impact upon their setting and whilst two of the scheduled monuments, the registered landscapes and the battlefield, have large fields of vision the presence of the turbines within that zone is assessed to be minimal by the consultants. This is corroborated by the visual analysis provided by the accompanying wire diagrams and photo montages.
Highlight that there have been cases of wind farms which are located within the line of site of a significant designed landscape feature, or within a zone of significance to the heritage asset where they have objected but consider that there seems to be no evidence that this is the case here. As for the listed buildings from which the turbines will be visible, and the views of which will include the turbines, a similar conclusion applies.
In terms of the impact of the scheme upon designated heritage assets English Heritage state that there is no reason for them to oppose this scheme.
Comments on amended application (29.11.12):- Do not wish to offer any comments.
National Trust
Comments on original application (29.6.12):-
State that the Trust strongly supports an increase in renewable energy generation nationally for heat and power in appropriate locations, and a significant expansion in microgeneration. Highlight that the location and design of all energy schemes should take account of the full range of environmental considerations at the site, including the protection of valued landscapes, biodiversity, the historic environment, and the need to safeguard local peoples' well-being.
Identify three Trust properties within 15km of the proposed turbines: Farnborough Hall, Upton House and Charlecote. Comment that Farnborough Hall comprises a grade I listed building set within a grade I registered historic park and garden. Agree with the Environmental Statement conclusion that there would be no impact on the setting of the Hall but that there might be visibility from parts of the park. No further comment regarding impacts on Upton House or Charlecote.
The Garden History Society
Comments on original application (30.4.12):-
No comments.
Comments on amended application (15.11.12):-
Have forwarded the consultation to the relevant County Gardens Trust.
WCC Archaeology
Comments on original application (16.7.12):-
Highlight that they were consulted by the applicant's archaeological consultant prior to the submission of this application. A geophysical survey found a number of features of archaeological interest including a probable settlement site defined by ditched enclosures and associated features. Are of the opinion that there is insufficient information at this stage to determine the significance of any archaeological features, the impact that the proposed development will have upon these, and whether or not the proposed programme of archaeological work will be an appropriate mitigation strategy. Therefore recommend an archaeological evaluation is undertaken before any decision on the planning application is taken. Recommend that if the Council is minded to refuse permission on other planning grounds, and the applicants have not carried out an archaeological evaluation, that this should be included as a reason for refusal.
Further comments (1.10.12)
Have viewed the application site from Gredenton Hillfort and do not consider that the windfarm will have a significant impact upon the setting of this Scheduled Ancient Monument.
Comments on amended application (7.1.13):-
Confirm that trial trenching has been undertaken which has established that features, including a series of structures, pits, gullies and boundary features, associated with a Romano-British farmstead survive within the northernmost portion of the application site of at least regional significance. Consider that the site has the potential to provide information which could significantly contribute to our understanding of rural settlements during the Romano-British period.
Advise that the construction of the access track and associated works will result in direct damage to the regionally significant Romano-British site which survives within the northern part of this site. Do not agree with the conclusion of the submitted report, i.e. that ‘the archaeological value of this site will be largely retained’ as the trial trenching has only examined a small proportion of the site, understanding of the wider site is limited and disturbance of this part of the site could result in a greater impact upon the significance of the site as a whole than is concluded by the applicants.
Consider that whilst the proposed excavation of the route of the access track may to a certain extent ‘preserve by record’ the affected archaeological features it will also result in their loss. Highlight that this is not in accordance with the NPPF, which places an emphasis upon the conservation of significant heritage assets and states that ‘the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted’.
Conclude that the proposal will have a significant negative impact upon a known archaeological site of regional significance and that the proposal is not sustainable with regard to the historic environment. Strongly recommend that the applicant redesigns the proposed access track to avoid having an impact, either by preserving significant archaeological remains ‘in situ’ or by relocating the track.
Consider that should the access not be amended and the LPA determine that the negative impacts (archaeological and non-archaeological) of this scheme outweigh any benefits then the harmful impact upon this known archaeological site should be included as a reason for refusal.
Satisfied that the archaeological impact of the proposal across the remainder of the site could be mitigated by a programme of archaeological fieldwork secured by a condition attached to any consent granted.
Environment Agency
Comments on original application (4.5.12):-
Have reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment. The site lies within the low risk Flood Zone 1 and so the issue to address is surface water drainage from hardstandings and turbine bases. Request a condition relating to approval of a scheme for surface water drainage.
Comments on amended application (20.11.12):-
No further comments to make.
Severn Trent Water
Comments on original application (8.5.12):-
Observations on sewerage – no objection or comment.
Comments on amended application (23.11.12):-
Observations on sewerage – no objection or comment.
Thames Water
Comments on original application (30.4.12):-
No comments as site falls outside their region (within Severn Trent area).
Comments on amended application (15.11.12):-
No comments as site falls outside their region (within Severn Trent area).
WCC Flood Risk Manager
Comments on original application (18.6.12):-
No serious flood related concerns identified.
Comments on amended application (14.12.12):-
Suggest surface water drainage condition and implementation of mitigation measures outlined in the flood risk assessment, particularly relating to repair of land drains disturbed during construction. Highlight that works to ordinary watercourses will require consent under the Land Drainage Act 1991.
The Coal Authority
Comments on original application (11.5.12):-
No comments as the application site does not fall within the defined coalfield and there is no requirement therefore to consider coal mining issues.
Comments on amended application (20.11.12):-
No additional comments or observations previous comments still stand.
Boddington Parish Council (South Northants)
Comments on original application (18.6.12):-
Object in the strongest possible manner for the following reasons.
Landscape and Visual Impact – State that many residents of Boddington visit the Country Park at Burton Dassett for varied recreational purposes, all enjoy the amazing views over beautiful Warwickshire countryside, views which would be totally spoilt by the presence of five industrial sized wind turbines at the very foot of the hills.
Noise & Disturbance – Consider that in such a quiet rural area wind turbines will be noisy their incessant whoosh, whoosh sound are known to be a source of sleep deprivation. Other sources of noise such as traffic, trains, and aeroplanes, reduce during the night. Identify that the UK Noise Association recommends that wind turbines are not sited within 1 mile (1.6km) of houses.
Impact upon Wildlife – Consider that Bats & Birds are at risk from the structure and guide wires, we would urge for a 5Om buffer zone from any hedgerow to protect bats. Identify an increase in numbers of birds of prey all along the M40 corridor.
Environmental Damage – Consider that the construction process will damage the environment due to large vehicles and the need for a new access road being built.
Shadows – Highlight that 125 metre high turbines with a rotor diameter of 90 metres will cast enormous moving shadows over the surrounding countryside. This will spoil the peace and tranquillity of the area and make it less enjoyable to walk and cycle.
Blight – Consider that this corner of Warwickshire, Oxfordshire & Northamptonshire is under siege from wind farms, the cumulative effect of which will affect school routes, house prices and the wellbeing of adjacent Parishes.
Decommissioning the turbine – Request that should planning permission be granted a planning condition requiring a sum of money (sufficient to pay for dismantling the turbines and restoring the site to pre-application condition) should be set aside for use once the 25 years has been reached if a further planning application is not applied for, or for removing the turbines if the wind farm is no longer a financially viable proposition and energy production ceases.
Cherwell District Council
Comments on original application (16.5.12):-
Taking the matter to Committee 21.6.12.
Additional comments (29.5.12):-
Will send comments within 21 days unless the matter is reported to the Council’s Area Planning Committee, in which case may request an extension of time to comment.
Further comments (25.6.12):-
The proposal was considered by the Planning Committee on 21.6.12 where it was resolved to raise no comments.
Cotswold District Council
Comments on original application (8.5.12):-
No observations.
Comments on amended application (23.11.12):-
No observations (officer response).
Daventry District Council
Comments on original application (5.7.12):-
Officers have considered the proposal and request consideration of the visual impact on the wider landscape including Daventry District’s area. Highlight the need to consider the proposal in line with paragraphs 14 and 98 of the NPPF and other material considerations.
Northamptonshire County Council
Comments on original application (4.7.12):-
Do not wish to comment.
Oxfordshire County Council
Comments on original application:-
None received.
Comments on amended application (4.12.12):-
State that the proposal does not raise any issues for Oxfordshire from a strategic policy perspective..
Rugby Borough Council
Comments on original application (11.6.12):-
No objections.
South Northamptonshire Council
Comments on original application (16.5.12):-
Acknowledged receipt of consultation.
Further comments (2.8.12):-
Considers the landscape in the area around the application site to be of high quality and unspoilt when viewed from South Northamptonshire and asks for the impacts on this to be fully taken into account.
Comments on amended application (23.11.12):-
Acknowledged receipt of consultation.
Further comments (12.12.12):-
Same as 2.8.12.
West Oxfordshire District Council
Comments on original application (30.4.12):-
Acknowledged receipt of consultation – no further comments received.
Warwick District Council
Comments on amended application (4.1.13):- No comments to make.
Warwickshire County Council (Policy)
Comments on original application (11.6.12):-
Highlight that the application is accompanied by an EIA and therefore the District Council should satisfy itself on matters relating to landscape impacts and cumulative impacts on amenity, shadow flicker, reflected light, potential noise, distances from residential dwellings, views from public footpaths, bridleways and the nearby (Burton Dassett Hills) Country Park that has public access.
Worcestershire County Council
Comments on amended application (20.12.12):-
No comments to make.
Wychavon District Council
Comments on original application (12.6.12):-
No objection but request routing agreement controlling lorry and materials movements to/from the site and for the principal road network to be used wherever possible, avoiding minor roads through Wychavon District.
Comments on amended application (19.11.12):-
Same as previous.
Health and Safety Executive
Comments on original application (6.7.12):-
The HSE advises on safety matters relating to major hazard sites and pipelines and does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case.
Met Office
Comments on original application (4.7.12):-
No concerns as the site does not fall within any safeguarded zones.
Comments on amended application (16.11 .12):-
No further observations to make.
Trinity House
Comments on amended application (20.12.12):-
Only concerned with wind farms that may affect mariner safety within England and Wales therefore no comment.
Arqiva Services Ltd (TV Transmission)
Comments on original application (2.5.12):-
No objection as consider there will be no adverse effect on operations, including TV broadcast links and microwave networks.
BBC
Comments on amended application (5.12.12):-
Using the BBC Wind Farm tool it is stated that zero homes likely to have TV transmission affected where there is no alternative off-air service in relation to all 4 turbines. Separate to this between 1,032 to 1,208 homes may be affected by the turbines for which there is an alternative off-air service. The transmitters likely to be affected are given as Lichfield CH5, Larkstoke, Oxford CH5 and Sutton Coldfield. State that TV reception difficulties caused by the erection of wind farms are the responsibility of the wind farm developer.
Further Comments by Lambert Smith Hampton on behalf of the BBC (12.12.12):-
Advise that the BBC is not in a position to determine the impact on TV or radio reception but request a survey by a professional body to identify potential impacts is undertaken. Suggest that a S106 is completed to fully refund the rectification of TV and radio receiver problems caused by the development.
Further Comments by Lambert Smith Hampton on behalf of the BBC (4.1.13):-
Confirm that a suggested planning condition would meet their concerns regarding TV interference.
Ofcom - Spectrum Licensing (Radio/Microwave Frequencies)
Comments on original application (2.5.12):-
General information about fixed link bands and frequency ranges given.
Comments on amended application (19.1112):-
General information about fixed link bands and frequency ranges given.
OFCOM
Comments on original application (5.7.12):-
OFCOM have assessed 18 Fixed Link radio wave bands and a range of frequencies. They have identified that Links relating to Everything Everywhere Ltd might be affected.
Joint Radio Company (JRC)
Comments on original application (24.5.12):-
JRC analyses proposals for windfarms on behalf of the UK Fuel and Power Industry together with the Water Industry to assess their potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies.
The proposals have been cleared by JRC on the date of response with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by Western Power Distribution (formerly Central Networks) and National Grid Gas Networks subject to agreed mitigation in respect of Western Power Distribution’s telemetry link between Berkeswell and N End PMR.
Comments on amended application (17.12.12):-
Request planning conditions to secure mitigation measures for impacts on telemetry link between Berkeswell and N End Pump Station operated by Western Power Distribution. No adverse impacts on National Grid Networks identified.
Atkins
Comments on original application (5.7.12):-
Atkins are contracted to respond to planning applications on behalf of certain Water Industry Members. None of their contracted members operate systems in the region as at May 2012 and they therefore have no comment other than to suggest contact with STW.
BT Radio Frequency Allocation & Network Protection
Comments on original application (16.5.12):-
Have studied to proposal with respect to electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and related problems to BT point-to-point radio links. Conclude that it should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks.
Orange
Comments on amended application (14.12.12):-
No Orange links affected.
Ericsson (Hutchinson 3G)
Comments on original application (5.7.12):-
Have previously commented on the proposals at Scoping stage (get from Appendix K Wireless Services).
Windfarms UK (Orange)
Comments on original application (25.7.12):-
Windfarms UK assess impacts on microwave links for Orange and state that there are 3 Orange microwave links which might be affected. Request further information to carry out further checks.
Natural England
Comments on original application (4.7.12):-
Object on the basis of the evidence set out in the Environmental Statement and recommend that further information is required to clarify the significance of the impact on the Cotswold ridge when viewed from outside the AONB.
Comments on amended application (2.1.13):-
Landscape- No Objection but a recommendation that the Cotswolds AONB Conservation Board's views are taken fully into account.
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSls)- No objection
Protected Species - No objection, satisfied with the proposed mitigation but concerned about where the ponds might be in relation to the access tracks. Highlight the need for licenses in relation to dealing with protected species and recommend consultation with appropriate bodies and wildlife trusts. Recommend that if Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species are on site that survey information should be requested.
WCC Ecology
Comments on original application (30.7.12):-
Acknowledge that the site has been subject to a Phase 1 Habitat Survey in 2009 and a detailed botanical survey in 2010. Accept that a full LWS survey of the highway verge is not required prior to determination of the application and that the proposed development will not impact on the integrity of the site's ecological value.
Agree that no statutory designated or non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the site boundary will be impacted on by the proposed development. Elsewhere within the site consider that the loss of hedgerow and field margins will be restricted to relatively narrow widths and only constitutes approximately 4.5% of the total hedgerow/field-margin length within the site, which is not considered to be a significant impact on the habitats present. Welcome the proposal to enhance two ponds and have no concerns about the removal of 125 squared metres of scrub. Satisfied with the proposed biodiversity enhancement.
Satisfied that sufficient bat survey work has been carried out and are in broad agreement that there will be no negative impacts on bats subject to the implementation of biodiversity enhancements and inspection of trees highlighted as having potential for bats. Do not consider there will be negative impacts on Great Crested Newts subject to appropriate conditions. Satisfied that sufficient bird survey work has been carried out and that there will be no significant negative impacts on birds. No evidence of badger setts has been found on site between surveys carried out from 2009 to 2011 and foraging patterns are unlikely to be disrupted. Consider the risk of harm to reptiles is very low. Satisfied with the dormouse survey work and agree that dormice are absent from the site.
Comments on amended application (30.11.12):-
Satisfied that this amendment will not cause any additional ecological issues and, accordingly, the ecology recommendations made in the original response still stand.
Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
Comments on original application (30.7.12):-
Concerned about the breach of a species-rich road verge (potential Local Wildlife Site - pLWS) to the south of the site to facilitate access between the turbine locations. Do however accept that surveying a 2.6km length of road-verge for a potential breach of 10 metres plus some minor vegetation management is onerous for the current application, particularly as any additional survey would be deemed unlikely to affect the value placed on this receptor. Therefore broadly accept the conclusions of the ES, subject to appropriate safeguards.
Have reviewed the potential impacts the proposal could have on protected species such as bats, birds, badgers, reptiles and great crested newts and broadly support the comments and conclusions formulated within West Midlands Natural England's response and recommend the use of planning conditions to mitigate against harm.
Comments on amended application (30.11.12):-
Advise that the amendment will not cause any additional ecological issues and accordingly previous recommendations still stand.
Woodlands Trust
Comments on original application (5.7.12):-
No comments to make.
Forestry Commission
Comments on original application (8.5.12):-
No comment as no woodland affected. Request that any trees lost via the development are replaced.
Warwickshire Badger Group
Comments on original application (9.5.12):-
Hold records of any badger setts known to the Group in Warwickshire. Concerned that the application has limited information about badger activity having been observed. Acknowledge that this could be because no other badger activity was present. Request further information about whether the ecological surveyors can confirm they found no evidence of any badger setts within the area they surveyed.
RSPB
Comments on original application (4.7.12):-
No comments to make.
Banbury Ornithology Society
Comments on original application (14.5.12):-
Have a number of records for the site but not for species that would give them cause to object on ornithological grounds.
West Midland Bird Club (WMBC)
Comments on original application (13.6.12):-
Submit a summary of the area under consideration, its ecology and biodiversity, primarily towards birds and their habitat. Consider that should the turbines be approved, the birds of the area that rely on the availability of open air space as part of their available habitat, would lose that facility, as would other species passing through, moving from one feeding area to another.
Highlight the WWF International 'Living Planet Report 2012’ which examines the natural state of the Planet Earth and which states:- "Nature is the basis of our well-being and prosperity." and that "Biodiversity has declined globally by 30% between 1970 and 2008". Consider that the proposals should not lead to any further loss of biodiversity or bird species (or any other taxa) in and around this site.
Comments on amended application (4.12.12):-
Pleased to note the reduction in the number of turbines but concerns remain about effects on birdlife within the area and for those that use it as part of any migratory pathway. If approved, request that the scheme should maintain the habitat and ecology of the area. Also understand the effects on the sensitivity of this landscape and on residents of the area.
Hawk and Owl Trust
Comments on original application (4.7.12):-
Unable to respond as have no knowledge of the area.
Barn Owl Conservation Network
Comments on original application (6.7.12):-
Make no comments but forward a Barn Owl Survey Methodology and Techniques document for use in Ecological assessments.
CPRE
Comments on original application (21.6.12):-
Have, in principle, no objection to onshore wind turbines but object to turbines that are situated where they would spoil the beauty of the countryside and this proposal would ruin one of the finest areas of natural countryside in the whole of Warwickshire.
Consider that views from the Burton Dassett Hills, over Feldon Vale, are almost certainly the most striking view that the county affords and would be harmed and that the village of Knightcote, in particular, would be dwarfed and humiliated.
Highlight that the site straddles the old salt road and consider that in order to bring the components of the turbines on to the site this road would be churned up and effectively destroyed. Also concerned as to how the electricity generated by these turbines will reach the National Grid particularly if above ground via a line of pylons.
Of the opinion that the Special Landscape Area designation should be reinstated and, as far as this area is concerned, extended northwards to cover the Feldon Vale.
Consider proposals contrary to Saved Local Plan Policies PR.1, PR6, CTY.1 and Paragraphs 17, 109, 123 and 126 of the NPPF together with Policies CS.10, CS.11, CS.13 of the Draft Core Strategy which relate to matters including heritage assets, tourism, ecology and impacts on local residents.
Comments on amended application (16.11.2012)
Original objections stand and understand that they will be given exactly the same consideration.
10. ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES
The determination of an application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which ‘indicate otherwise’. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority “shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations.” Other material considerations include (amongst others): - The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - The emerging Local Plan as expressed in the Draft Core Strategy (2012)
Policy and Principle
The Development Plan
The formal development plan comprises the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy 2004, which incorporated the Phase 1 revision (the Black Country Study) in 2008, the saved policies of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 (adopted in 2006) and the saved policies of the Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996-2011. Given the government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), through the Localism Act, the RSS remains a material consideration but only of very limited weight at this time.
Development Plan Policies relating to energy generation
In respect of the West Midland Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 policy EN1 ‘Energy Generation’ is considered to be the most relevant. Policy EN1 does not contain criteria to assess proposals. Instead it sets out the criteria that local planning authorities should consider in establishing renewable energy policies. It encourages the use of renewable energy resources and directs local planning authorities to define criteria for determining the ‘acceptability’ of a proposal.
In addition to this Policy CC1 ‘Climate Change’ states that the Joint Core Strategy, should exploit opportunities to both mitigate and adapt to the worst impacts of climate change by, amongst others, developing and using renewable energy. Policy QE3: ‘Creating a high quality built environment for all’ states that Development Plans and other strategies should promote the creation of high quality built environments as part of urban and rural renaissance and that particular attention should be given to, amongst others, incorporating sustainability considerations such as use of renewable energy,
At a local level saved adopted Policy PR.6 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 is the most material policy against which the application should be assessed. This states that the provision of renewable energy schemes, particularly from wind, solar and biomass resources will be encouraged. Proposals will be assessed against a number of criteria according to the scale and nature of the scheme including the visual impact and generation of emissions; sensitivity to the character of any buildings affected; impacts on transport routes or public rights of way and whether there will be unreasonable adverse effects on existing dwellings and business premises.
The reasoned justification for the policy states, inter alia, that whilst renewable wind energy will be encouraged it will be fully investigated with particular consideration being given to the creation of visual and noise impacts. It is also stated that it is unlikely that large scale wind farms will be feasible or appropriate in the District. I consider that due to the size of the turbines they represent a large scale form of development.
In addition to the specific policies relating to the generation of renewable energy there are a number of saved Local Plan Policies that relate to issues such as landscape, heritage assets and highways that will also have to be assessed in relation to the application. These policies are covered in more detail later in the committee report.
In addition to this reference is made in the emerging Draft Core Strategy, that has eight strategic objectives, one of which requires ‘Planning to meet the challenges of climate change’. This strategic objective is then transposed into planning policy within CS1 : Sustainable Development and CS2 : Climate Change and Sustainable Energy.
Whilst these policy preferences represent the District Council's emerging policy position they are not adopted planning policy and have not yet been subject to the policy making process specified in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and its associated Regulations. Whilst the Draft Core Strategy 2012 is a material consideration, officers consider that only very limited weight can be currently attributed to it. This view is further reinforced by the Secretary of State’s decision to give the emerging Core Strategy very little weight in the appeal on land west of Shottery. Weight will accrue to the Draft Core Strategy as it goes through key stages including submission to the Secretary of State and adoption.
The National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in determining planning applications. The ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF does not specifically define sustainable development, however Paragraph 6 states that the policies contained in paragraphs 18-219 of the NPPF taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice for the planning system. The NPPF goes on to state that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These roles should not be taken in isolation, because they are mutually dependant. Therefore to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.
A core principle of The Framework is that planning should support the transition to a low carbon future and encourage the use of renewable resources. Paragraph 93 provides for planning to play a key role in helping to shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the effects of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable energy and associated infrastructure. Paragraph 98 recognises that small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The Framework’s core principles recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and that development should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment.
Paragraph 14 states that, for decision-taking the presumption in favour of sustainable development means (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) that where the development plan is out-of-date permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole or where specific NPPF policies indicate that development should be restricted.
Paragraph 196 of the NPPF highlights that the planning system is plan-led and that applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and that the NPPF is a material consideration.
Annex 1 Paragraph 211 states that for the purposes of decision-taking, the policies in a Local Plan should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF.
Annex 1 Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states that the Council can still give due weight to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework. An assessment of the relevant policies of the development plan according to their consistency with the framework are undertaken in the relevant sections of this committee report.
National Policy and Targets
The Government recognises the need for renewable energy schemes and see them as a critical component in achieving a reduction in carbon emissions and to provide a viable alternative to finite fossil fuels. The use of renewable resources, alongside improvements in energy efficiency and conservation, to reduce both consumption and emissions are covered by both European Union law (in the European Directive 2009/28/EC) and UK law and policy.
National planning policy is set out in The National Planning Policy Framework, which came into force in March 2012 as detailed above. The Framework replaces a series of national policy statements, circulars and Guidance. Most of the supporting guidance has been retained including the Companion Guide to PPS22 and the PPS5 Historic Environment Practice Guide. National Policy Statements also form part of national planning policy and are a material consideration.
National Policy Statement on Energy (EN-1) advises that in order to meet emissions targets the consumption of electricity will need to be almost exclusively from low carbon sources. The implication is that, in the short-term, much of the new capacity would need to come from on- and off-shore wind generated electricity. To meet the 2020 target for energy from renewable sources, EN-1 highlights an urgent need to bring forward new renewable electricity generating projects as soon as possible. Whilst off-shore wind is expected to provide the largest single contribution to the 2020 target, on-shore wind is identified as the most well-established and currently the most economically viable source of renewable energy available for future large scale deployment. National Policy Statement on Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN- 3) reiterates the important role of on-shore wind and deals with issues including landscape, visual impact, noise, heritage assets, whilst recognising that there will always be significant landscape and visual impacts from such developments.
The Climate Change Act 2008 sets a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 and reductions in CO2 emissions of some 26% by 2020 against a 1990 base. EU Directive 2009/28/EC set the UK a target to produce 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. These targets, when taken together with the pathway identified in the Renewable Energy Strategy (RES), indicate that by 2020 the proportion of electricity consumed from renewable sources will need to be in the region of 30%. The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap of July 2011 shows the current position, provides an analysis of how deployment may evolve by 2020, and the actions required to achieve the deployment levels anticipated. Whilst the Road Map concludes that the UK can meet the 15% target by 2020 and the pipeline of renewable electricity projects is healthy, it highlights that significant uncertainties remain and new large scale renewable projects need to come forward. In March 2012, the national figure for installed capacity for on and offshore wind energy was 6,782MW compared to the RES and Roadmap expectation that by 2020 some 13-14,000MW of installed on-shore capacity alone will be required to meet targets.
In terms of a regional target, national planning policy guidance has set national targets, and the onus of determining the target for renewable energy to meet electricity demands lies with the region. The Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 (see above for current status of this document) proposes that the region should aim to contribute as far as possible towards the achievement of the national target of 10% electricity produced from renewable energy by 2010.
Due to the regions limited capacity for the deployment of some of the currently most cost effective technologies, such as off shore wind, the West Midlands Regional Energy Strategy sets targets for reducing carbon emissions with a target of emissions by sector along with a regional target for renewable energy equivalent to 5% of regional electricity consumption by 2010.
The most recent Annual Monitoring Report for the West Midlands Region was published in March 2010 and included data up until the end of 2009. The report found that the percentage of electricity from renewable energy sources at 2008 was 2.7% as against the target of 5%. As stated above The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 has since issued a revised target of 15% of all energy consumption (comprising 30% of electricity) from renewable sources by 2020.
As part of the evidence base for the Draft Core Strategy ,a Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Resource Assessment and Feasibility Study was produced by CAMCO on behalf of the local authorities of Stratford on Avon, Warwick, North Warwickshire, Nuneaton & Bedworth, Rugby, Solihull and Warwickshire County dated April 2010. The aim of the study was to inform the partner Authorities about the potential viability and the deliverability of the various renewable and low carbon options through the preparation of an evidence base. This includes onshore wind power. The findings demonstrated that the District has good technical capacity to generate local renewable energy up to 2026.
In respect of wind power, the results suggested that there is a technical capacity for 115-214 wind turbines to be developed by 2026 in Stratford-on-Avon District, supplying electricity equivalent to between 97% and 181% of the District’s predicted electricity demand. However, the study further recommended that the District Council should conduct a cumulative landscape impact study for wind energy, to inform a review the wind energy capacity in Stratford-on-Avon District.
The West Midlands Renewable Capacity Energy Study (March 2011) commissioned by Telford and Wrekin Council on behalf of the Local Planning Authorities in the West Midlands and other stakeholders, assessed the renewable energy potential in the region. It identified that the West Midlands region has a significant potential accessible capacity renewable resource, with an overwhelming majority of the potential renewable energy resource comprising wind (71%). The findings were disaggregated to local authority level, and revealed that Stratford-on-Avon District has potential capacity of 3547 MW for commercial wind and 211MW from smaller schemes
However, the study strongly emphasised it was important to understand from the outset that West Midlands Renewable Energy Capacity Study provides an assessment of the technical renewable energy potential and not the deployable renewable energy. The study should be viewed as a starting point. In line with the CAMCO study, it recommended that further work should be undertaken into landscape sensitivity, cumulative impact and overall environmental impact.
However, this potential for renewable energy generation needs to be balanced against the rural nature of the District, the character of its settlements and the importance of its landscape features, many of which are highly valued by residents and visitors to the area.
Tackling Climate Change – benefits of the development
The applicant has stated that this proposed development would confer substantial benefits in terms of reduced CO² (between 9,131 and 9,944 tonnes) and it would accord with the aims of national and international policies aimed at addressing climate change. The proposal would add to renewable energy generation capacity and it would be in line with the Government’s aim of safeguarding the reliability of our energy supplies. The applicant has stated that the electricity generated by the proposed development is predicted to be equivalent to the annual domestic needs of approximately 6,435 to 7,007 average households in Britain, based on a maximum rated output of 8-12MV. However, the applicant has also stated that this figure may change as further site specific information is gathered and advances in wind technology are made. It should also be noted that the applicants figures for CO2 reduction and energy output are considered to be significantly exaggerated by a collective of objectors under the banner of ‘Feldon Residents Against Wind Turbines’ (FRAWT) More details of FRAWT’s arguments are within the third party representations section of this report.
Other third Party comments have been received that wind farms are ineffective in addressing the need for low or zero emission energy production. Problems cited include intermittency of the wind resource, inefficiency of the turbines themselves, the difficulty of feeding an intermittent supply onto the grid and the minimal savings in emissions, which actually result from their development. However, over the planned 25 year lifetime of this development I believe that this proposal would produce significant energy. It is also important to note that Paragraph 98 bullet point 1 of the NPPF makes it clear that local planning authorities should: “not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions”
The debate relating to the efficiency of turbines produces strong opinions. The fact remains that the turbines would produce electricity at a rate of efficiency which attracts the investment required to develop the site. The output might be variable, but as a source of low carbon energy it has a value. Clearly if more efficient means of achieving the same ends comes forward investment is likely to be redirected, but at present time on shore wind is a nationally recognised means of harvesting renewal energy. In light of the national policy imperative to act now to tackle climate change I am of the opinion that any savings which can be achieved in the short to medium term, are to be welcomed.
I am of the opinion that based on current national, regional and local planning policy and guidance the principle of onshore wind farms is supported, subject to satisfactory compliance with other relevant policies and due regard to other material planning considerations. The national and international benefits of the proposals need to be weighed against any adverse impacts, including landscape and visual impacts, cultural heritage, ecology, noise, highways and residential amenity. Such impacts are assessed in this report and the weighing up process is undertaken in the conclusion section of this committee report.
Landscape and Visual Impacts
Policy
National Planning Statement EN-1 (Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy) highlights that significant energy infrastructure projects will have potential impact on the landscape and that in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB’s) the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should be given substantial weight. Proposals outside of AONB’s which may have impacts on them should also be carefully considered, although the fact that a project might be seen from an AONB is not in itself a reason for refusing permission according to this guidance. The guidance acknowledges that local landscapes may be highly valued, although the presence of a local landscape designation should not in itself be used as a reason for refusal. The guidance highlights that the duration and reversibility of impacts need also to be considered.
National Planning Statement EN-3 (Renewable Energy Infrastructure) acknowledges that modern wind farms will always have significant landscape and visual effects from their construction and operation for a number of kilometres and that mitigation in the form of reduction in scale may not be feasible.
In relation to landscape and natural environment issues the NPPF at paragraph 7 identifies that the environmental role of the planning system includes protecting and enhancing the natural environment whilst also moving towards a low carbon economy. Paragraph 9 highlights that pursuing sustainable development involves, amongst other things, seeking positive improvements in the quality of the natural environment and improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure. Paragraph 17 lists one of the core planning principles that should underpin decision taking as taking account of the different roles and characters of areas and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside as well as conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Paragraph 97 states that local authorities should promote energy from renewable sources but also design policies to ensure that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts. Footnote 17 to paragraph 97 states that in determining planning applications for wind energy development, the approach set out in EN-1 and EN-3 should be followed.
The NPPF chapter on ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ states at paragraph 109 that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other things, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Paragraph 115 states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, although the guidance appears to be silent on developments outside but affecting the setting of such areas. The Companion Guide to PPS22 remains extant and offers guidance about wind farms and assessments of landscape impacts.
Policy QE1: Conserving and enhancing the environment of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) seeks to protect and enhance the distinctive character of different parts of the Region as recognised by the natural and character areas and associated local landscape character assessments, and through historic landscape characterisation. Policy QE6: The conservation, enhancement and restoration of the Regions landscape of the RSS seeks to conserve, enhance and, where necessary, restore the quality, diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character throughout the Region’s urban and rural areas by, amongst other things, protecting and, where possible, enhancing natural, man-made and historic features that contribute to the character of the landscape and townscape, and local distinctiveness and by considering other factors that contribute to landscape character including tranquillity and the minimisation of noise and light pollution. Policy PA1 Prosperity for all of the RSS seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that the development respects the natural environment. Policy EN1 of the RSS relates to energy generation and encourages proposals for wind power but requires impacts on the landscape and visual amenity to be considered. I acknowledge that these policies have very limited weight given the status of the West Midlands RSS.
Saved Policy PR.1 of the Local Plan Review requires development to respect and where possible enhance the quality and character of the area with proposals that damage or destroy features which contribute to the distinctiveness of the area not being permitted unless significant public benefit would arise. The value attached to such features by local communities will also be taken into account. The applicants consider that the policy is consistent with the NPPF and I share this view.
Saved Policy PR.6 (part (a)) of the Local Plan Review relates to renewable energy schemes and encourages these set against various considerations, including, amongst other things, whether the scale and nature of the scheme will have a detrimental effect on the environment and character of the local area, including visual impact. The applicant argues that this criterion of the policy is not compatible with the NPPF as it does not allow the decision maker to consider whether adverse impacts have been addressed satisfactorily. I note however that the policy also states that adequate supporting information, which assesses the extent of possible environmental effects and how they can be satisfactorily mitigated should accompany the application. I consider that the submission of such information, and the subsequent assessment of this is in line with the NPPF guidance and that Policy PR.6 is therefore consistent with the NPPF.
Saved Policy EF.1 of the Local Plan Review relates to the Cotswolds AONB and states that its special qualities will be protected and where opportunities arise, enhanced. The policy requires development to be founded on a high degree of sensitivity towards the natural beauty of the landscape and towards the special qualities and features that contribute to the distinctive character of the area. Proposals which have a detrimental impact on the AONB, whether within or outside its designated area will not be permitted and cumulative impacts will also be taken into account. I consider the policy is consistent with the NPPF.
Saved Policy DEV.1 of the Local Plan Review requires development to have regard to the character and quality of the local area and requires decision takers to, amongst others, take account of the extent to which the characteristics that define the locality are shared by the proposals (principle (a); the manner in which the development is integrated (principle (b); the interrelationship between the development and the landscape (principle (c) and the effect of the development on the surrounding area in terms of its position, shape, size and height (principle (d). I consider that the policy is consistent with the NPPF.
The Cotswolds AONB Management Plan has been endorsed by the District Council as supplementary guidance. Landscape Policy LP1 identifies the Cotswold Escarpment as a "special quality" of the AONB which it is important to protect the character and appearance of. Policy LK3 notes the surroundings of the AONB are also important to its landscape character and quality with views out from the AONB and into it from surrounding areas potentially being very significant.
Draft core strategy Policy CS 1 ‘Sustainable Development’ states that all development must, amongst other things, contribute to a continuous and sustained improvement to Stratford-on-Avon District’s economic, social and environmental circumstances and protect, enhance and manage the character and appearance of the landscape, maintaining and strengthening the distinctiveness of special qualities, and protecting the integrity of the District’s countryside.
Draft Core Strategy Policy CS 2 ‘Climate Change and Sustainable Energy’ states, amongst other things that appropriate proposals for wind energy will be assessed taking into account certain factors including the impact of the scheme on landscape character taking into account its sensitivity and capacity to accommodate schemes. The policy also states that within and adjacent to the Cotswolds AONB large scale wind farms are unlikely to be appropriate. Policy CS 8 also relates to the AONB and makes reference to the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan. Policy CS 10 relating to landscape is also of relevance including that development should protect landscape character. I must however emphasise that very little weight can be afforded to the policies of the Draft Core Strategy at this point in time.
Background
The review of this aspect of the application has been carried out by Officers with the assistance of an external Landscape Architecture Practice based in Warwickshire (Barry Chinn Associates).
The landscape character is the distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a particular type of landscape, and how this is perceived by people. It reflects particular combinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, land use and human settlement. It creates the particular sense of place of different areas of the landscape.
Landscape Character Assessment is a tool for identifying the features that give a locality a sense of place and is used to sub-divide the landscape into areas of similar character. The process of landscape character assessment can increase appreciation of what makes the landscape distinctive and what is important about an area, and can also improve the understanding of change. It can therefore give general indications as to where, and how, new development can be sensitively accommodated in the landscape including determining the potential for landscape enhancement.
The site of the proposed development is located within National Character Area 96: Dunsmore and Feldon. At a local level it is situated within the Vale Farmland (Feldon) Landscape Character Area, identified within the Warwickshire Landscape Project and the Feldon Clay Vale as identified on the Character Map of the District which accompanies the District Design Guide.
The key characteristics of Character Area 96: Dunsmore and Feldon are farmland with large geometric fields divided by straight hedges with many hedgerow trees; generally well wooded appearance but also extensive open arable farmland; heathland character still evident in woodland clearings and roadsides; plateau landscape of open, flat, rather empty character, with long views; plateau fringes more enclosed, with rolling landform and woodland more dominant; large ancient woodlands of high nature-conservation value in the west; and strong urban influence in some areas. The southern part of National Character Area 95: Northamptonshire Uplands lies approximately 2km to the east of the site with Area 107: Cotswolds 12 km to the south.
In terms of the Vale Farmland (Feldon) local landscape character the key characteristics are broad flat vales with occasional small rounded hills; a medium to large scale geometric field pattern; pockets of permanent pasture often with well-preserved ridge and furrow; small nucleated villages consisting of an ‘open’ cluster of farmsteads and dwellings; wide roadside verges typically bounded by a thick hedge and ditch; deserted medieval village sites; and numerous hedgerow elm stumps.
To the west and north the local character changes to Lias Village Farmland (Feldon), in the east to Ironstone Fringe (Feldon) and in the south to Plateau Redlands and Edge Hill (Cotswolds) all of which are elevated above the site. Further to the east and south there are further local landscape assessments covered by the Northamptonshire County Landscape Character Assessment and The Cotswolds AONB Landscape Character Assessment.
The District Design Guide Character Map describes the site and surroundings in a similar manner to the Character Areas in the Warwickshire Landscape Project. The site is in the Feldon Clay Vale, to the west and north is the Lias Uplands (Feldon), to the east the Ironstone Uplands (Feldon) and to the south the Cotswold Fringe Scarp Foot and Slope.
There are no landscape designations on or immediately surrounding the site, however the Cotswolds AONB is located around 5.5km south of the proposal. There are numerous local landscape designations including Local Landscape Areas, Special Landscape Areas, Areas of High Landscape Value and Areas of Attractive Landscape located within Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire primarily on the higher land over 7km south east. There are 40 Registered Parks and Gardens within 30km of the proposed development with a total of ten located within 15km of the proposal.
The Applicant has recorded and described the landscape character of the area with reference to both National (to a 30km radius) and Local Landscape Character Areas (to a 15km radius). Assessment of the various landscape types has then been carried out to determine whether the proposals have any significant effects on landscape character. The assessment was aided by the visualisations described below.
Visual Effects
Visual effects relate to the 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 the overall effects with respect to visual amenity.
During pre-application discussions a series of viewpoints were agreed from which visualisations in the form of photographs / photomontages / wire diagrams were produced by the Applicant. These were added to following review of the application by Officers with additional viewpoints provided in the Further Environmental Information (FEI) submitted in October 2012.
With this additional information the numbers and locations of the viewpoints provided were considered to be generally representative of those within the agreed 30km radius of the study area and combined with the Zone of Theoretical Visibility maps and site visits provided sufficient information from which to assess the visual impact of the proposal.
For each of the viewpoints provided the Environmental Statement (ES) considers the existing view, the predicted view, magnitude of change, effects on landscape character and effects on visual amenity. The different phases of the proposed development are considered namely construction, operational and residual including decommissioning.
There has been much discussion in regard to the methodology and the visual representations and the accuracy thereof, particularly by way of reports and correspondence from FRAWT (Feldon Residents Against Wind Turbines).
The methodology adopted by the Applicant has however been reviewed and is considered to be in accordance with The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment (Second Edition 2002) published by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.
The approach follows the more commonly used three point assessment system for visual receptor sensitivity (high, medium and low) and for magnitude of effect a four point system (substantial, moderate, slight and negligible). This results in a 12 cell table which provides the main correlation between magnitude and sensitivity. In this case three cells fall in the major, major/ moderate classification which is the assessment threshold that results in a significant effect.
To be robust in the checking of the photomontages I commissioned an independent expert to recreate three viewpoint photomontages using the same data as that used by the Applicant. The viewpoints selected were from sensitive locations at varying distances namely R1 from the rear garden of residential dwelling Lower Spring Farm (791m from curtilage to the nearest turbine), Viewpoint 21 from PRoW near to Plough Lane, Bishops Itchington looking south with Burton Dassett Hills / AONB in the background (2.4km to nearest turbine) and Viewpoint 9 from Beacon Tower in Burton Dassett Hills looking north (2.7km to nearest turbine). The findings were that in relation to the three viewpoint photomontages the depiction of all turbines and the Met Mast was accurate. I am therefore satisfied that the applicants submissions relating to visual images have been carried out in an appropriate manner and, based on the independent findings, have no reason to question the accuracy of such submissions.
Effects on Landscape - Construction period effects on landscape
Whilst the operational stage of the proposed development described below would give rise to prolonged landscape and visual effects, effects would also occur during the construction period which will take place over an anticipated period of around 12 months. These effects would be temporary and mainly arise due to vehicle movements, construction of access tracks and erection of the turbines. The effects arising from other operations, including excavation of turbine foundations, cable runs and the construction compound would be localised, with attention being drawn to the area through vehicle movements and plant rather than physical changes. The temporary construction compound will be located north of the proposed turbines some 800m from the site access point on the B4451 and will be a maximum of 80 x 50m. In addition each turbine and the meteorological mast would have a hardstanding work area to accommodate the crane and components during construction.
During construction there would be a temporary loss of some 2.8 hectares of agricultural land the majority of which would be restored following completion of the works. The Applicant assesses the significance of the temporary construction effects on the character of the landscape to be significant adverse, but limited in extent and duration. The visual effects of the various aspects of the construction phase will be temporary and intermittent with the operational effects phased in during the process of development.
Operational effects on Landscape - Landscape Character
The ES and FEI describe the proposals as having a significant adverse effect on the landscape character of the site and surroundings with the presence of the proposed turbines resulting in a new key characteristic. This will however diminishes with distance as the turbines are viewed in the context of the wider landscape as explained below.
The 125m high turbines (and 80m meteorological mast if erected) would become the defining element of the site and the countryside immediately surrounding it, creating a new ‘Wind Farm’ landscape character. The Applicant states that this new landscape character type would have an approximate radius of 650-700m but I consider this is a little conservative.
Beyond this new wind farm landscape character type at distances of approximately 2km to the north and west and 2.5km to the south and east the Applicant predicts new landscape sub types namely ‘Vale Farmlands with Wind Turbines’, ‘Lias Village Farmlands with Wind Turbines’ and ‘Iron Stone Fringe with Wind Turbines’ (limited area only). Again I feel this distance is a little conservative given the physical size of the turbines and consider the defined edge will depend on intervening topography and landscape features.
Operational Effects on Landscape - Viewpoint Analysis from Public Locations
The ES and FEI describe the proposals as having a significant adverse effect from settlements and public areas up to 4 to 5km radius of the development site. This covers the majority of the low lying basin and inward facing elevated land and is in my opinion a reasonable distance to be assessed as significant adverse effects. It should however be noted that in many locations, particularly within the settlements, visibility is restricted by intervening buildings and tree cover.
The areas and users that will suffer from the significant adverse effects within the 4-5km radius are: • The settlements comprising localised parts of Knightcote, Northend, Fenny Compton and Bishop’s Itchington; • Numerous dispersed rural dwellings and access routes to them; • Public Rights of Way including Centenary Way to the south and west, the Oxford Canal Walk to the east and the local public footpaths that connect Christmas Hill / Piper’s Hill to Bishops Itchington and Bishops Itchington to Knightcote and Northend. • Elevated views from the north western end of the Burton Dassett Hills Country Park recreation area through which Centenary Way passes. • Motorists using short sections of the M40 motorway, A423 Banbury to Southam, B4451 Gaydon to Bishops Itchington, B4100 south of and parallel to the M40 motorway in addition to users of local minor roads linking Bishop’s Itchington, Knightcote, Northend, Fenny Compton and Gaydon.
Whilst the assessment does acknowledge the potential for significant visual effects from the fringes of the woodland on the northern elevated slopes of the Cotswolds AONB Edge Hill scarp slope it states they are, due to tree and vegetation cover, restricted which I would generally agree with. I do however have serious concerns about views towards the AONB Edge Hill scarp slope (and Burton Dassett Hills outside the AONB) from public areas to the west and south west of Bishops Itchington including the elevated PRoW link to Piper’s Hill where the turbines appear directly in front of the views of the Edge Hill scarp slope and Burton Dassett Hills. Whilst the turbines do not hide the scarp slopes their large scale combined with blade movement cutting across and breaking the skyline will be harmful to the setting of the Cotswolds AONB. The Applicant has assessed the effect on visual amenity from this viewpoint to be significant adverse but predict no significant effects on the special qualities of the Cotswolds AONB. This is an opinion that The Cotswold Conservation Board do not share.
The Cotswolds Conservation Board in their consultation response to the FEI state at Item 4 in reference to Viewpoint 21 that “The visualisation clearly shows that from this viewpoint the four turbines will be in front of and break the skyline of scarp slope of the Cotswolds AONB in the Radway area. This is a highly sensitive and distinctive landscape feature, identified in the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan as a special quality of the AONB. Users of the public footpaths will be highly sensitive to landscape change. The Board is therefore of the view that the proposed wind farm will cause a highly significant adverse visual effect, harmful to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cotswolds AONB.”. The Cotswolds Conservation Board objects to the proposals.
Operational Effects on Landscape - Residential Receptors
These effects are considered within the Impacts on Residential Dwellings section elsewhere in this report.
Operational Effects on Landscape – Registered Parks and Gardens
The closest Registered Historic Park is Compton Verney which is Grade ll* listed (designed by Capability Brown) and located 7km to the south west. There are no significant effects predicted on the qualities and characteristics of the Registered Historic Parks and Gardens due to distance and intervening topography, woodland, trees and hedgerow.
Operational Effects on Landscape – Other Matters
Access Roads - I have reviewed the access proposals for the site entrance off the B4451 and the crossing over Knightcote Bottoms Road. Whilst having an adverse impact when the sections of hedgerow are removed to allow construction including the visibility splays, with appropriate reinstatement secured via planning condition the medium to long term impact should be acceptable.
The loss to the fabric of the land within the application site would be small with the access road alignment laid out to minimise the impact on the expanse and use of the fields for agriculture and to minimise the impact on field hedgerows. The general siting of the access roads close to hedgerow boundaries will also help mitigate visual effects.
Control Building - The Control Building is located north of the turbines some 790m from the B4451 from which it is accessed. The building layout and elevations are shown as illustrative in the application with a 14.7 x 5.7m footprint and a height of 4m. Whilst the building is relatively small in relation to local agricultural buildings it is important that it is designed using materials typical of the local vernacular. Provision of this information should be a pre commencement Condition.
Micrositing - Provision for the micrositing of turbines, associated infrastructure and access tracks is a common element of wind farm applications. The Applicant considers that micro-siting to deal with any unknown issues identified during ground investigation will not result in any significant changes to the predicted effects described in the ES and FEI. I agree with this but approval of the final turbine sitings and access alignment should be a pre commencement Condition thereby ensuring the Council retains control of this matter.
Lighting – The MOD requests that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting, either 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200 to 500ms duration at the highest practical point. I do not consider that such lighting would be unduly harmful to the character or appearance of the landscape in the event that the turbines were erected.
Operational Effects on Landscape – Decommissioning
If the decision is taken to decommission the wind farm after the anticipated operational life of 25 years the turbines could be dismantled and removed from site with the site fully restored to agricultural use. There would be minimal evidence of the scheme remaining after decommissioning works although access tracks may be retained for agricultural use.
Operational Effects on Landscape - Cumulative Landscape and Visual Effects
The potential cumulative landscape and visual effects of the Starbold wind farm proposal have been considered by the Applicant in relation to other operational, consented and proposed projects within a 30km study area.
If only the operational and consented wind farms are considered, which are primarily located 20km plus distance from the Starbold site along the M1 corridor to the north east, the site would be seen as an isolated and localised wind farm landscape with no coalescence and there would therefore be no cumulative effect. The same conclusion is reached if all permitted schemes which have yet to be implemented were constructed.
However, when the proposed wind farm at Stoneton for 9no. 125m high turbines located approximately 6km to the east, close to the Oxford Canal, is taken into account this will result in some coalescence of landscape sub types between the two proposals which would lead to some significant adverse cumulative landscape effects at a local level.
The Stoneton site is located in the Ironstone Fringe (Feldon) local landscape character area which links with the Vale Farmlands (Feldon) on which Starbold is located. The two proposals would probably combine to create larger connected and therefore more significant ‘With Wind Farm’ landscape sub types. Users of the Oxford Canal Walk who are identified as suffering significant adverse visual effects from the Starbold proposal will also suffer significant adverse effects both in landscape and visual terms from Stoneton.
Conclusion on Landscape Matters
The Landscape and Visual evidence prepared by the Applicant and included in the ES and FEI provides a sound basis from which to consider the landscape and visual effect of the development proposed.
In simple terms the turbines will provide incongruous visually dominant vertical elements that break the skyline from many viewpoints within this attractive low lying basin which in landscape terms comprises a medium scale field pattern which currently has a horizontal emphasis. The scheme will be surrounded by and overlooked from many individual properties, villages, areas of outdoor recreation and recreational routes and will therefore have an adverse effect on many residents, visitors and persons passing through the area. If the scheme goes ahead it will as stated in the Landscape and Visual Chapter of the ES result in significant adverse effects in landscape and visual terms, covering an area within a radius of approximately 4 to 5km of the application site and will be harmful to views of the Cotswolds AONB where this special landscape provides the backdrop. The proposals will also be seen from a much wider area.
The scheme will create a new wind farm landscape character close to the turbines and beyond this, new landscape sub-types including Vale Farmland with wind turbines, Lias Village Farmland with wind turbines and Ironstone Fringe with wind turbines. The proposal will not safeguard or enhance the character of the site and its surroundings and is in landscape terms inappropriate and harmful.
In light of the above the proposal is considered in landscape terms to be contrary to saved adopted policies PR.1, PR.6 (a), EF.1, DEV.1 ((a), (b),(c) and (d) Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 of the , the NPPF –in particular paragraphs 7, 9, 17, 109 and 115, Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 – in particular paragraphs 5.9.9, 5.9.12, 5.9.15 and 5.9.17, National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 – in particular paragraph 2.7.49 and Policies EN1, PA1, QE1, and QE6 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Impacts on Residential Dwellings
Policy
The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1 considers visual impacts and at paragraph 5.9.18 identifies that all energy infrastructure is likely to have visual impacts for many receptors and that such impacts need to be judged to see whether they outweigh the benefits of the project.
National Planning Statement EN-3 (Renewable Energy Infrastructure) highlights at paragraph 2.7.6 that appropriate distances should be maintained between turbines and sensitive receptors to protect amenity. Paragraph 2.7.48 acknowledges that modern wind farms will always have significant landscape and visual effects from their construction and operation for a number of kilometres and therefore they should be arranged and designed to minimise effects on the landscape and visual amenity (whilst meeting technical and operational siting requirements and other constraints). EN-3 highlights that evidence from existing wind farms should be considered for impacts on residents and states that mitigation in the form of reduction in scale may not be feasible if output is not to be affected.
The Companion Guide to PPS22 at paragraph 5.4 highlights that visual impacts will only be one of the considerations to be taken into account along with wider environmental, economic and social benefits that arise from renewable energy projects. The document also offers guidance on visual impact assessments including consideration of cumulative impacts.
Paragraph 9 of the NPPF seeks positive improvements in people’s quality of life including improving the conditions in which people live. Paragraph 17 states that one of the core principles is to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Paragraph 97 states that local authorities should promote energy from renewable sources but also design policies to ensure that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including visual impacts. Footnote 17 to paragraph 97 states that in determining planning applications for wind energy development, the approach set out in EN-1 and EN-3 should be followed.
Policy EN1 of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) encourages proposals for wind power but requires, amongst other things, impacts on surrounding residents and other occupiers to be considered. I acknowledge that these policies have very limited weight given the status of the West Midlands RSS.
Saved Policy PR.6 (d) of the Local Plan Review states that renewable energy schemes should not cause an unreasonable adverse effect on existing dwellings. The policy has been assessed by the applicants who consider that in relation to residential amenity impact matters it is consistent with the NPPF. I agree with the applicants on this matter.
Saved Policy DEV.1 of the Local Plan Review requires development to have regard to the character and quality of the local area and requires decision takers to, amongst others, take account of the extent to which the general amenity of adjoining properties is protected and the effect of the development on the surrounding area in terms of its position, shape, size and height (principles (d) and (e). I consider that the policy is consistent with the NPPF.
Draft core strategy Policy CS 1 ‘Sustainable Development’ states that all development must amongst other things contribute to a continuous and sustained improvement to Stratford-on-Avon District’s economic, social and environmental circumstances and seek to improve the overall quality of life for the community through the safeguarding of amenities.
Draft Core Strategy Policy CS 2 ‘Climate Change and Sustainable Energy’ states, amongst other things that appropriate proposals for wind energy will be assessed taking into account certain factors including the impact of the scheme on visual amenity; evidence that the scheme has been designed and sited to minimise adverse impacts; any unreasonable adverse impact so residents of the local area. The policy expects a minimum separation distance of 700m between large scale turbines and dwellings. I must however emphasise that very little weight can be afforded to the policies of the Draft Core Strategy at this point in time.
Visual Intrusion
The impact on the amenity of the occupiers of residential dwellings in relation to overbearing impacts and visual harm is a material planning consideration. I should however clarify that the loss or interruption of a private view is not a material planning consideration although the associated negative impacts relating to overbearing and visual harm would remain material to the consideration of the proposals.
The perceived visual impacts of wind turbines on the amenity of residents may vary depending on a range of factors including distance from the turbines, orientation of views, the significance of the view to the resident, the availability of alternative views, the presence or otherwise of intervening screening structures and planting. Personal attitudes towards turbines may also vary depending on a range of matters including the person’s views and beliefs about renewable energy or whether they might benefit from energy produced or whether they perceive wider benefits to society. For example, a person living close to a turbine may attach different value judgements about their visual impact than someone standing to benefit from their energy production but who does not see the turbines from their home.
In order to try and rationally test whether the presence of turbines are unacceptably visually intrusive on a residential property a Planning Inspector, Mr Lavender, set out his approach in an appeal case relating to Carland Cross Wind Farm (St Newlyn East) in January 2010. This approach has subsequently become known as the ‘Lavender Test’ and has been widely copied in subsequent appeal decisions. A similar approach was adopted by Inspector Kingaby at the joint inquiries of Burnthouse Farm and Staffurth’s Bridge wind farms (July 2011).
Lavender considered that the fundamental test was not whether a person could see a turbine or turbines from a particular window or part of their garden (regardless of whether they found that objectionable) but whether the number, size and proximity of the turbines would represent an overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden that would render the property an unattractive (rather than simply less attractive) place to live. Lavender considered that properties over 1km away in his appeal case would be too distant to suffer unsatisfactory living conditions in consequence of the turbines simply being visible. I consider it reasonable to use the ‘Lavender Test’ to assess the visual intrusion impacts on properties in the vicinity of this application site.
The applicant’s initial submission, involving the 5 turbines, set a notional limit of around 1km to identify residential dwellings (referred to as residential receptors) that might be affected. This encompassed some 16 dwellings and a detailed record was carried out by the applicants of these properties including the distances to the turbines, orientation of the property frontage, direction to turbines, description of the dwelling and its rooms, windows, curtilage and garden. From these details an assessment was made of the magnitude of change to be experienced by the occupants, the visual effect and the significance.
The properties found to be most affected by the applicants initial assessment (i.e. having a ‘substantial’ magnitude of change; a ‘major’ visual effect and a ‘significant’ significance) were:- - Lower Spring Farm (Property Ref: P1) - Trotters (P2) - Woodcote (P3) - The High Barn (P4) - Upper Spring Farmhouse (P6) - Spring Paddocks (P7) - Glebe Farm Bungalow (P9) - Glebe Farmhouse (P11) - Meadow Farm (aka Bungalow Farm) (P12) - Knightcote Lodge (P14)
The applicants submitted visual assessment images in the form of photographs of existing views, Wireframe Visualisations and Photomontages with the turbines added to the views from key representative properties surrounding the site. These included Lower Spring Farm (Property Ref: P1) (Viewpoint Ref: R1), Upper Spring Farm (P6) (R2) and Glebe Farm Bungalow (P9) (R3).
Officers visited all of the assessed dwellings (accompanied by Barry Chinn, landscape consultant to most of these) and also visited in excess of 25 additional dwellings which lay beyond the 1km limit set by the applicants for their detailed assessment and which were considered by officers to have the potential for significant impacts from the proposals. A detailed recording of the dwellings following a similar approach to that of the applicants was undertaken. Officers also visited the wind farm site at Lower Spinney in Leicestershire developed by Broadview Energy with 4 turbines of a similar height to those proposed for Starbold and stood at similar distances from the turbines as proposed to be away from key residential properties in order to gain a clearer understanding of potential impacts. Officers considered that additional assessment work was required of the applicants in relation to a number of properties and thus requested this ‘Further Environmental Information’ (FEI).
The Applicant responded to the FEI request and at the same time unilaterally decided to amend the proposed scheme to delete Turbine 1. The applicant’s revised assessment of the visual impacts on residential dwellings found that the number of properties considered to be most affected (i.e. having a ‘substantial’ magnitude of change; a ‘major’ visual effect and a ‘significant’ significance) remained the same as with the 5 turbine scheme.
The applicant’s consider that whilst significant visual effects would be experienced none of the properties in the vicinity of the proposals would suffer an unreasonable adverse effect to the living conditions of their residents.
Having taken account of the amendments to the scheme to reduce the number of turbines from 5 to 4, I consider that the following properties are the worst affected in terms of visual intrusion and therefore warrant a detailed assessment:- - Lower Spring Farm (P1) - Trotters (P2) - Meadow Farm (aka Bungalow Farm) (P12) - Knightcote Lodge (P14)
Lower Spring Farm (P1) is a detached two storey farmhouse that lies to the NW of the application site with a large garden and patio area to the rear facing towards the site. The rear (SE) elevation has numerous windows looking towards the site and which serve key habitable rooms including kitchen/diner, main sitting room, second sitting room and four bedrooms (one with a balcony). The approximate distances to the turbines would be T2 – 831m, T4 - 1084m, T3 – 1193m and T5 1378m. There would be direct and unrestricted views of all four turbines and as a result a significant visual effect would be experienced. I consider that the turbines would be present in such number, size and proximity that they would represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in the main views from the house and garden to make the property an unattractive place in which to live.
Trotters (P2) is a single storey barn conversion that lies to the NW of the application site (adjacent to Lower Spring Farm) with a large garden and patio area to the rear facing towards the site. The rear (SE) elevation has windows serving key habitable rooms including 2 bedrooms and a kitchen. The approximate distances to the turbines would be T2 – 837m, T4 - 1097m, T3 – 1194m and T5 1387m. There would be direct and unrestricted views of all four turbines and as a result a significant visual effect would be experienced. I consider that the turbines would be present in such number, size and proximity that they would represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in the main views from the house and garden to make the property an unattractive place in which to live.
Meadow Farm (aka Bungalow Farm) (P12) is a bungalow that lies to the East of the application site with a wide garden to the rear facing towards the site. The rear (W) elevation has windows serving key habitable rooms including a conservatory, bedroom and lounge. The approximate distances to the turbines from the curtilage would be T5 – 980m, T3 - 1010m, T4 – 1350m and T2 1370m. There would be direct and unrestricted views of all four turbines and as a result a significant visual effect would be experienced. I consider that the turbines would be present in such number, size and proximity that they would represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in the main views from the house and garden to make the property an unattractive place in which to live.
Knightcote Lodge (P14) is a detached house that lies to the SE of the application site with a wide garden to the rear facing towards the southern section of the site. The rear (W) elevation has windows serving key habitable rooms including a lounge, kitchen and bedroom. The approximate distances to the turbines from the curtilage would be T5 – 1000m, T3 - 1140m, T4 – 1360m and T2 1460m. There would be direct and unrestricted views of all four turbines and as a result a significant visual effect would be experienced. I have however given consideration to the distances that the turbines are away and the fact that only the views from the property due west and north west would be significantly affected. On balance I therefore consider that the turbines would not be present in such number, size and proximity that they would represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in the main views from the house and garden to make the property an unattractive place in which to live.
I have carefully considered the visual impacts on other properties and whilst I have significant concerns about these impacts I do not consider that any other property would be adversely affected to such a degree as to make that property an unattractive place to live.
I have considered whether there are any mitigation measures that might be implemented by the applicants on land within their control that might lessen the visual impacts of the proposals on the three worst affected properties identified. However, given the sheer height of the turbines I do not consider that mitigation, for example by additional planting, would be achievable to an extent whereby my conclusions on the harm to these properties would be materially altered.
I recognise the harm of the proposed development to residential properties, causing some to be undesirable places to live when assessed against site specifics and the criteria of the Lavender Test and highlight that this may in turn have an impact on the Human Rights (Article 8) of occupiers of affected dwellings in relation to the right to respect for private and family life (including enjoyment of a home).
Noise and Disturbance
The impacts on the amenity of local residents from noise and disturbance relating to the construction and operation of the wind farm is discussed within the Noise section of this reports key issues. It is concluded that the proposals should not be refused on the basis of noise or disturbance.
Other Matters
Lighting – There will be a need for lighting of the compound area and potentially other areas of the site during the construction phase. Given the distances from dwellings from the light sources, the presence of intervening screening or filtering features and the anticipated lighting requirements I consider that any adverse impacts from lighting on local residents (and the general landscape) can be appropriately controlled via planning condition. The MOD requests that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting, either 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200 to 500ms duration at the highest practical point. I do not consider that this will be materially harmful to any local residents.
Shadow Flicker – This matter is dealt with elsewhere in this report.
In relation to impacts on residential amenity I therefore conclude that the proposals would cause significant unacceptable visual impacts on three residential properties in the vicinity of the site that would make those properties an unattractive place to live and must weigh such harm in the overall balance when considering the benefits and disbenefits of the scheme. The proposal is therefore considered to contrary to saved adopted policies PR.6 (d) and DEV.1 ((d) and (e)) of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, the NPPF – in particular paragraphs 9 and 17 Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 – in particular paragraph 5.9.18, National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 – in particular paragraph 2.7.49 and policy EN.1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Cultural Heritage
Policy
National Planning Statement EN-1 (Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy) acknowledges that the construction, operation and decommissioning of energy infrastructure has the potential to result in adverse impacts on the historic environment. Any harmful impact on the significance of a designated heritage assets (including its setting) should be weighed against the public benefit of the development, recognising that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset the greater the justification will be needed for any loss. EN-1 also states that a documentary record of our past is not as valuable as retaining the heritage and therefore the ability to record evidence of an asset should not be a factor in deciding whether consent is given or not. National Planning Statement EN-3 states that decision makers should take into account the length of time for which permission is sought when considering any direct impact on heritage assets such as effects on the setting. The ability to microsite specific elements of the proposed development during the construction phase should also be taken into account when assessing the risk of damage to archaeology.
The companion guide for PPG 22 ‘Renewable Energy’ states that special care will need to be taken if proposed sites for wind turbines are near listed buildings or conservation areas. In respect of archaeology the companion guide makes reference to the advice and procedures in PPG16 which is now superseded by the NPPF.
Paragraph 129 of the NPPF indicates that the significance of a heritage asset and its setting should be assessed and taken into account when considering the impact of a proposal on that asset so as to avoid or minimise conflict. When assessing the impact on the significance of a heritage asset great weight should be given to the assets conservation, on the basis that the more significant an asset is the greater the weight should be attached. It is made clear that significance can be harmed by development within the setting of a heritage asset. Where development would lead to substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, permission should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm. In the situation where development would result in less than substantial harm this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal (paragraph 134, NPPF).
In addition to paragraph 129 of the NPPF paragraph 135 of the NPPF states that the affect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
The Regional Spatial Strategy, although given limited weight due to its impending demise, seeks at Policy EN.1: Energy Generation, amongst other things, to direct local planning authorities to identify in their development plans the environmental and other criteria that will be used to determine the acceptability of renewable energy proposals in assessing the impact on areas of historic importance. Policy QE5: Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment advises local planning authorities to identify, protect, conserve and enhance the Region’s diverse historic environment and to manage change in such a way that respects local character and distinctiveness. Policy QE6: The conservation, enhancement and restoration of the regions landscape seeks, amongst other things, to protect and where possible enhance, natural, man-made and historic features that contribute to the character of the landscape and townscape and local distinctiveness. Policy PA1 :Prosperity for all seeks, amongst other things, that the development respects historic heritage. I acknowledge that these policies have very limited weight given the status of the West Midlands RSS.
In assessing the impact of the proposal on heritage assets the following policies of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan 1996-2011 are considered to be of relevance: PR:5 Resource Protection: PR.6; Renewable Energy; EF.4 : Historic Landscapes; EF.5 Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest; EF.11, EF11A and EF.11B :Archaeological sites; EF 13: Conservation Areas; and EF14: Listed Buildings. The majority of these policies have been assessed by the applicant who considers that with the exception of policy PR.5 these policies are not consistent with the NPPF as they do not allow a balance of considerations to be struck. The applicant considers that, with the exception of PR.5 these policies are ‘out of date’ as they prevent any fair assessment of the proposals acceptability in built heritage terms and do not present a positive strategy that would promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources. I understand the applicant’s argument on this matter but consider that the key thrust of the policies, to safeguard and protect heritage assets, remains crucial to the consideration of the proposals and in this respect the policies are consistent with the NPPF and continue to be an important material consideration to be weighed in the overall balance of the proposals.
Notwithstanding this I consider that Policy PR.6 is consistent with the NPPF for the reasons given in the main policy section of this report. PR.6 relates to renewable energy schemes and encourages these set against various considerations, including, amongst other things, whether the scale and nature of the scheme will have a detrimental effect on the environment and character of the local area, including visual impact.
The District Council’s Draft Core Strategy, although given very little weight at the present time, seeks at policy CS2 Climate Changes and Sustainable Energy Pat E (Wind Energy Development) to ensure that there is evidence that the scheme has been designed and sited to minimise any adverse impact on the surrounding area as far as is practical for its effective operation. With regards to listed buildings and conservation areas Policy CS2 E states that the objective of a designation must not be compromised by the development. Policy CS 12: Heritage Assets also seeks to ensure that priority will be given to the preservation and enhancement of heritage assets (CS12 A).
Heritage Assets – Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas
The ES submitted with the application identified a study area for the assessment of cultural assets. Assets within 1km, 5km and 10km distances of the application site have been considered in varying detail with regard to the potential effect on setting. At a distance of greater than 10km it is argued that the impact on historical heritage is likely to be negated through existing land form and vegetation. I consider that this methodology is acceptable.
The heritage assets detailed below are all within the 5km zone. Heritage assets beyond the 5km have been assessed but none are considered to be significantly affected by the proposed development.
Listed Buildings
There are 8 Grade I or II* listed buildings within 5 km of the wind turbines and 188 Grade II listed Buildings. My Conservation Officer has carefully assessed the impact of the proposed wind turbines on the significance of these heritage assets and has concluded that the following listed buildings will be impacted upon:- - the Burton Dassett Beacon Tower - the Grade II listed Knightcote Manor; and - the Grade II* listed Church of St Peter and St Clare, Fenny Compton.
The key conclusions from the detailed assessments that have been undertaken in respect of these three heritage assets by my Conservation Officer are that :-
Burton Dassett Beacon Tower – The key reason why my Conservation Officer assesses the Burton Dassett Beacon Tower to be impacted to a greater extent than other nearby assets lies in the nature of its significance, the consideration of which is fundamental to the assessments required. Impact on setting only carries real weight if the nature of this impact translates to the significance of the asset itself. The significance of the Burton Dassett Beacon Tower is reflected in its fundamental dual characteristics as both a landmark, viewed from a wide sweep of surrounding landscape, and also as a look-out from which the surrounding landscape is observed (this latter aspect of significance underlined by the nearby panel indicating various other landmarks in the wide visual panorama). These two specific characteristics and aspects of the significance of the Tower would be compromised and harmed by the proposed development.
My Conservation Officer considers that the impact of the proposals on the setting of the Burton Dassett Beacon Tower, a Scheduled Ancient Monument and grade II listed structure, would result in harm to the significance of the Tower. This harm, while narrowly failing to reach the level of ‘substantial’ required to trigger paragraph 133 of the NPPF (whereby consent should be refused unless the harm is proven necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm), would nevertheless be at a level which would require this very notable harm to be weighed most carefully in the balance against public benefit in line with paragraph 134 of the NPPF. My Conservation Officer recommends that if, in making this balancing judgment, either I and/or the Planning Committee consider that the negative aspects of the application significantly and demonstrably outweigh the positives, then the notable harm to the significance of the Burton Dassett Beacon Tower caused by the impact of the development on its setting should be cited as a reason for refusal.
I consider that the development would seriously compromise the setting of the Beacon, a major part of the significance of which is provided by its topographical location, giving it a dual role as a landmark and a viewpoint. It can be seen as a focal point from an extremely wide tract of surrounding and relatively low-lying land, and this same topographical context affords the Beacon panoramic views out over broadly low lying areas of countryside uninterrupted by competing tall structures.
While the fabric of the Beacon has significance in terms of its historical and architectural interest, its significance also derives substantially and fundamentally from its relationship with its surrounding landscape context, and particularly the way in which it can be visually appreciated within that landscape context. I consider that the ability to fully appreciate the heritage asset in its wide landscape setting would be harmed by the erection of the wind turbines in this landscape. From a number of viewpoints they would not only compete with the Beacon Tower as silhouettes against the skyline, but dominate in comparison with the Beacon Tower in terms of scale and, importantly, movement. In my opinion this would introduce a significant distraction and draw the eye away from the subtle, but highly significant, visual landmark of the Beacon Tower.
Knightcote Manor - The significance of Knightcote Manor derives both from its architectural and historic interest and from its setting. The architectural and historic interest inherent in the fabric of the building is not impacted by the development, and focus, as with other assets under consideration, is on its setting. The setting is one of rural tranquillity, the small settlement of Knightcote being positioned in an open agricultural landscape devoid of any large scale non- agricultural development. Knightcote Manor sits on the edge of the settlement and is set slightly apart from the main concentration of domestic dwellings. Views of the building in its setting are unencumbered by any large scale modern development.
At least one of the turbine blades would be visible beyond the Manor when viewed from the east , and this presence and visual distraction would be exacerbated by the rotating movement. There is undoubtedly some impact to the contribution that the existing setting makes to the significance of the listed building. While I am of opinion that this clearly does not amount to substantial harm, my assessment is that this change in setting does harm the significance of the Manor to a minor extent.
Church of St Peter and St Clare, Fenny Compton - The significance of the Church of St Peter and St Clare derives both from its architectural and historic interest and from its setting. The architectural and historic interest inherent in the fabric of the building is not impacted by the development, and focus, as with other assets under consideration, is on its setting. The immediate setting is the Conservation Area of Fenny Compton, the church being positioned on raised ground within the settlement, with restricted views over some of the roofs of nearby cottages. The setting affords a tranquil environment devoid of any visual or audible intrusion from any large scale modern development.
At least one of the turbine blades would be visible over the roofs of the cottages when viewed from the churchyard, and this presence and visual distraction would be exacerbated by the rotating movement. As well as the issue of impact on views out of the Conservation Area, which ties in to comments on the Fenny Compton Conservation Area as a heritage asset in its own right, there is undoubtedly some impact to the contribution that the existing setting makes to the significance of the listed building. While I am of the opinion that this clearly does not amount to substantial harm, my assessment is that this change in setting does harm the significance of the Church to a minor extent.
Although the conclusion in relation to harm of these two listed buildings is less than in relation to the Beacon Tower this harm needs to be taken into account alongside other harmful aspects of the proposal when weighing cumulative elements of harm in the balance against cumulative public benefit, in line with paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
Scheduled Ancient Monuments
There are 9 Scheduled Monuments within 5km from the wind turbines. My Conservation Officer has carefully assessed the impact of the proposed wind turbines on the significance of these heritage assets and has concluded that the Burton Dassett Beacon Tower Scheduled Ancient Monument will be impacted upon. The same comments apply as detailed above for the listed building in respect to the impact on the Burton Dassett Beacon Tower Scheduled Ancient Monument whereby the harm, while narrowly failing to reach the level of ‘substantial’ required to trigger paragraph 133 of the NPPF, would nevertheless be at a level which would require this very notable harm to be weighed most carefully in the balance against public benefit in line with paragraph 134 of the NPPF. No other Scheduled Ancient Monuments, including Gredenton Hill Fort and Nadbury Hill Fort are considered to be significantly affected due a combination of distance, orientation and screening.
Conservation Areas
There are 6 Conservation Areas wholly or partially within 5km from the proposed wind turbines. My Conservation Officer has carefully assessed the impact of the proposed wind turbines on the significance of these heritage assets and has concluded that the Fenny Compton Conservation Area will be impacted upon. The Fenny Compton Conservation Area’s significance has many facets, partly deriving from buildings within the settlement, patterns of development, and patterns of use, but also deriving from its relationships with its geographical and topographical contexts, and the links with the surrounding land. These contexts have both contemporary and historic dimensions. The importance and significance of these relationships is reflected in the legislative and policy imperative to consider views into and out of a conservation area when assessing the impact of any development. It is, in my Conservation Officer’s opinion equally relevant (as the English Heritage guidance document, ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’ explicitly notes) to consider views across a conservation area (as well as views into and out of the area), and this is the focus of his assessment of the impact of the turbines on the setting of the heritage asset, Fenny Compton Conservation Area (FCCA).
At present, the views across the FCCA show it as sitting in a landscape of agricultural activity, with scattered domestic and agricultural buildings sitting in almost exclusively rural countryside, such views being uninterrupted by any tall structures. The lack of visual distraction leads the eye naturally to focus on the main settlement in this landscape, namely Fenny Compton. Were the wind turbines erected, these would present a significant distraction in the landscape and the view across the FCCA from Mill Hill.
Whilst I am of the opinion that this clearly does not amount to substantial harm, my assessment is that this change in setting does harm the significance of the Fenny Compton Conservation Area to a minor extent. This harm needs to be taken into account alongside other harmful aspects of the proposal when weighing cumulative elements of harm in the balance against cumulative public benefit, in line with paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
Other Heritage Assets
Registered Battlefields - One Registered Battlefield – the battle of Edge Hill – is located within 5km of the wind turbines. My Conservation Officer has carefully assessed the impact of the proposed wind turbines on the significance of this heritage asset and has concluded that while there is some impact on the setting of this heritage asset it is very minor or negligible and has little direct input on its significance.
Registered Parks And Gardens - There are no registered parks and gardens within 5km of the wind turbines
Conclusion in respect of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments
I acknowledge that English heritage have not objected to the proposed development. However, my Conservation Officer has undertaken a detailed assessment of all the heritage assets within and beyond the outer study of 5km and has concluded that there is harm to 4 of the heritage assets. In assessing this harm the time period of 25 years for the proposed operation of the development has also been fully taken into account. The proposal is considered contrary to saved policies PR.6 (a), PR.5 (a) and (d), EF.13 and EF.14 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, The NPPF – in particular paragraphs 131, 132, Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 – in particular paragraphs 5.8.12, 5.8.13, 5.8.14, 5.8.15 and 5.8.18 National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 – in particular paragraph 2.7.43 and together with policies EN1, PA1, QE5 and QE6 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Whilst narrowly failing to reach the level of ‘substantial harm’ (in respect of the Beacon Tower),the harm would nevertheless be at a level which would require this very notable harm to be weighed most carefully in the balance against public benefit in line with paragraph 134 of the NPPF. The harmful impacts on other heritage assets, including Knightcote Manor, Fenny Compton Conservation Area and the Church of St Peter and St Clare, Fenny Compton must also be weighed in this overall balance.
Heritage Assets – Archaeology
The trial trenching undertaken across this site has established that features, including a series of structures, pits, gullies and boundary features, associated with a Romano-British farmstead survive within the northernmost portion of the application site. Of particular note is the unusual survival of structural features and surfaces, and that several phases of activity were identified.
The evaluation has also established that animal bones (from a range of stock of varying ages) and environmental remains (including charred plant remains), survive across the site. This site therefore has the potential to provide information which could significantly contribute to our understanding of rural settlements during the Romano-British period, including their buildings, development over time, Romanisation, and associated domestic and agricultural activity (e.g. animal husbandry, cereal processing, domestic waste disposal, food preparation etc.).
As such this site has the potential to significantly contribute to county, regional and national research priorities and themes and whilst only a small proportion of this site has been examined, Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice Team (WCC Archaeology), who are specialist advisors to this Council on archaeological matters, consider that this Romano-British farmstead is of at least regional significance.
WCC Archaeology has confirmed that the construction of the access track and associated works will result in direct damage to the regionally significant Romano- British site which survives within the northern part of this site. This is also acknowledged by the applicant in the ‘Further Information Report’ which was submitted in respect of this planning application.
The archaeological report concludes that the adverse impact is of only slight magnitude, on the basis that ‘the settlement site is clearly extensive [based on the results of the geophysical survey] and that the majority of the archaeological deposits will be left undisturbed’ and that ‘the archaeological value of this site will be largely retained’.
WCC Archaeology do not agree with this conclusion on the basis that an insufficient amount of the site has been examined by trial trenching to establish whether or not the building remains and surfaces which survive within the area examined, and which considerably contribute to the significance of this archaeological site as a whole, extend across the whole of this Romano-British site.
The applicant has also stated that the impact of the access track could be mitigated by a programme of archaeological excavation and recording. WCC Archaeology are concerned that the proposed excavation of only a relatively narrow ‘slice’ of this site could have implications for the understanding of the wider site, and that the part of the site to be disturbed by the track may have a greater impact upon the significance of the site as a whole than the applicant’s currently consider. WCC Archaeology have also stated that, whilst the proposed excavation may to a certain extent ‘preserve by record’ the archaeological features which will be directly disturbed by the proposed trackway, it will still result in the loss of these features. This is not in accordance with the NPPF which places an emphasis upon the conservation of significant heritage assets.
WCC Archaeology have recommended that the applicant redesign the proposed access track to avoid having an impact upon the significant Romano-British site. It may be possible to design the access track so that it follows the same route whilst preserving these significant remains in situ. If this is not possible it may be necessary to relocate the track. At the time of writing this committee report no further information had been submitted to the District Council by the applicant, although it is understood that the applicant has had penetrometer tests on the soil carried out to determine its strength and is investigating the possibility of a ‘floating track’ which would not disturb the archaeological remains. Any subsequent updates in relation to this will be reported to Committee Members in the committee update sheet.
Conclusion in respect of archaeology
Should the scheme not be amended so as to sufficiently reduce the impact upon this significant archaeological site and the District Council concludes that the negative impacts (archaeological and non-archaeological) of this scheme significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits WCC Archaeology have recommended that the impact of the proposed development upon this known archaeological site be included as a reason for refusal.
The proposal is considered contrary to saved policiesPR.6 (a), PR.5 (a) and (d), EF.11 and EF.11a of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, The NPPF – in particular paragraphs 131 and 132 Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 – in particular paragraphs 5.8.12, 5.8.13, 5.8.14 and 5.8.15, National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 – in particular paragraph 2.7.43 together with policies EN1, PA1, QE5 and QE6 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
In light of the above WCC Archaeology have stated that they do not consider that the proposal is sustainable with regard to the historic environment and that significant weight should be given to the importance of this archaeological site and the adverse impact that this proposal will have will have upon this when weighing up the negative impacts of this scheme against any benefits in accordance with paragraph 135 of the NPPF.
Impacts on Aviation
UK airspace is important for both civilian and military aviation and where proposed development may affect this an assessment of potential effects should be set out by applicants as per the guidance within the ‘Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)’. The guidance states that applicants should consult with the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and any aerodrome likely to be affected. EN- 1 states that the assessment should take account of matters including impacts on the operation of communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) infrastructure and aerodrome operational procedures.
EN-1 intimates that when making decisions on development the decision maker should be satisfied that the effects on civil and military aerodromes, aviation technical sites and other defence assets have been addressed by the applicant with appropriate assessment. EN-1 expects proposals to be designed to minimise adverse impacts and for reasonable mitigation to be carried out. EN-1 also states that it may be appropriate for aerodrome operators to make reasonable changes to operational procedures. Further guidance on such matters is contained within the CAA document CAP 764 ‘CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines’ (Amended January 2012). In the event that all reasonable mitigation and operational changes still result in, amongst other things, impacts on the safe and efficient provision of air traffic control services in particular through effects on CNS systems then EN-1 states that permission should not be granted.
Paragraph 33 of the NPPF states that when planning for airports, plans should take account of their growth and role in serving business, leisure, training and emergency service needs. Footnote 17 to paragraph 97 states that in determining planning applications for wind energy development, the approach set out in EN-1 and EN-3 should be followed, including that on aviation impacts.
The Companion Guide to PPS22 on Renewable Energy has not been revoked. The Guide highlights that turbines may affect air traffic via risk of collision or interference with radar. The Guide states that if an objection is raised by a civil aviation or Defence Estates consultee the onus is on the applicant to prove that the proposal will have no adverse effect.
The Regional Spatial Strategy Policy T11 states that Coventry Airport, as primarily a freight airport, provides a complementary service to those at Birmingham International Airport (BIA). Development plans for Warwick District and neighbouring authorities should include policies for the assessment of proposals for the expansion of Coventry Airport. Criteria should require the approach to environmental assessment and impacts set out for BIA; and any proposals for use of Coventry Airport by charter or scheduled passenger flights should be subject to the availability of public transport to serve the airport.
Saved Policy PR.6 of the Local Plan Review relates to the provision of renewable energy schemes. The policy has been assessed by the applicants who consider that in relation to aviation matters it is consistent with the NPPF. I agree with the applicants on this matter. Part (c) of the policy requires the location of a scheme to not impinge on airport flightpaths and expects adequate supporting information to assess effects and consider mitigation measures.
Consultation responses from the MoD and NATS state that the proposals will not cause unacceptable problems for either military aircraft or civil aircraft in controlled airspace, such as aircraft using Birmingham. A response from Coventry Airport (which has uncontrolled airspace i.e. not covered by NATS) has however raised concerns and objection. No other airports or aerodromes appear to be adversely affected including Birmingham International Airport. In addition the air ambulance and police have also raised no objections to the proposed development.
Coventry Airport lies around 20km (11 nautical miles) north of the wind farm site. The proposed turbines will appear on the primary surveillance radar (PSR) serving the airport. The presence of the turbines on the radar may lead to aircraft in the vicinity of the wind farm being masked by the on screen ‘clutter’ which in turn may have negative air safety implications.
The applicants initially carried out an aviation impact assessment by Osprey CSL and later followed this up with a more detailed assessment of impacts on Coventry Airport radar services by Spaven Consulting. The Osprey assessment concluded that the development would not lead to an unacceptable increase in the level of risk associated with air traffic services and that technical mitigation was not required or proportional. The reasons given for this were first that the area of clutter (associated with 5 turbines) at around 0.7 sq.km would mean that commercial aircraft would not be lost to the air traffic controller (although aircraft travelling at slower speeds might be lost for up to 40 seconds in the clutter). Second, that as the wind farm sits under Class A controlled airspace near to Birmingham Airport then the potential for “unknown traffic” to operate in the vicinity of the site is lessened thus making air traffic likely to be transitory and predictable in nature.
The Spaven assessment carried out for the applicants in response to initial concerns raised by Coventry Airport Limited found that departures from the airport would not be impacted by the turbines in relation to radar services. With regards to arrivals the assessment found that arrivals to runway 23 would be unlikely to be affected but arrivals to runway 05 could have radar affected. The assessment however states that such arrivals could remain within controlled airspace (by NATS rather than Coventry) until beyond 5 nautical miles (nm) from the turbines where they would no longer be affected by radar clutter issues. The assessment acknowledges that arrivals may however still arrive for runway 05 in uncontrolled airspace (i.e. not controlled by NATS but with a radar service by Coventry Airport) but contends that the air traffic controllers will be aware of the wind farm and be able to advise pilots of this and also will be able to take account of it when assessing the cause of radar clutter and deciding on what advice to give pilots.
The assessment considers other scenarios for aircraft to be impacted and takes account of potential cumulative impacts from other existing and potential turbines in the area and concludes that there are unlikely to be significant adverse impacts.
Coventry Airport Limited have considered both reports and maintain an objection to the proposals including for the following reasons. The Airport consider that the assessments do not follow the correct guidance stated in CAP 760 (Guidance on the Conduct of Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and the Production of Safety Cases). For example the hazard identification process did not involve the Airport staff and had no access to "existing hazard logs and accident/incident reports", which might be relevant.
The Airport states that it is becoming increasingly impossible to provide the required 5nm separation in the area running from due south to north-north east of the Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR). They highlight that the developer of the proposed Stoneton wind farm, which lies a relatively short distance away to the east of the Starbold site, has agreed to a planning condition that deals with the issue of mitigation for radar problems.
The airport also points to a number of errors in the assessment reports including that they have assumed that all aircraft landing on runway 23 will be coming from an area other than the southwest whereas aircraft transiting to south Wales and the west of England commonly depart or arrive via the Gaydon area. The Airport suggests that the Spaven report should be withdrawn and that the applicants obtain factual information on the Air Traffic Services (ATS) operation at Coventry Airport to assist in the completion of a CAP 760 hazard identification and risk assessment.
At the time of agenda preparation the dispute between the two parties had not been resolved and they were due to discuss the matter further in late January 2013 to discuss the outstanding matters. As things currently stand it would appear that there are likely to be potential adverse impacts on aviation safety due to the turbines causing clutter on the radar which might mask the movements of aircraft. Whilst the applicants consider such impacts to be minimal and not significant the Airport disagree. I consider that in the absence of a hazard identification and risk assessment that has clearly followed the guidance within CAP 760 I must take the precautionary principle given the importance aviation safety. I therefore consider that the proposals are likely to lead to unresolved aviation safety problems relating to aircraft traffic at Coventry Airport and must weigh such dangers in the overall balance when considering the benefits and disbenefits of the scheme.
In light of this I therefore conclude that in relation to aviation issues the proposal is contrary to saved adopted policy PR.6(c) and of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 and the requirements of the NPPF in particular paragraph 97 footnote 17, Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 – in particular paragraphs 5.4.2, 5.4.7, 5.4.11, 5.4.12, 5.4.14 and 5.4.17.
Noise
Policy
Government guidance in the form of EN-1 acknowledges the potential impacts of noise and states that consent should not be granted unless any adverse impacts can be mitigated against. Government guidance in the form of EN-3 makes specific reference to on-shore wind and states that the applicant’s assessment of noise should use ETSU–R-97, taking account of the latest industry good practice.
The companion Guide for PPS 22 ‘ Renewable Energy’ states that renewable energy developments should be located and designed in such a way as to minimise increases in ambient noise levels and states that ETSU-R-97 ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU) should be used for the rating and assessment of noise from wind farms. In order to assess the potential noise implications of the proposed development the District Council has employed independent consultants MAS Environmental Limited (MAS).
One of the core land use planning principles of the NPPF specified at bullet point 4 is that planning should always seek, amongst others, a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings The NPPF (paragraph 97 second bullet point), inter alia, advises local planning authorities to ensure that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily. At paragraph 123 (bullet point 1) the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions. Combining this advice paragraph 98 of the NPPF (bullet point 2) states, amongst others, that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should approve the application (unless other material considerations indicate otherwise), if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
The policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy that are considered to be relevant, although given very limited weight, are Policy EN.1 ‘Energy Generation’ that seeks, amongst others, to assess the acceptability of the proposal on surrounding residents and other occupiers; Policy QE3 ‘Creating a high quality built environment for all’ that seeks, amongst others, to minimise the impact of noise as result of the development and Policy QE6 ‘The Conservation, enhancement and restoration of the region’s landscape’ that seeks, amongst others, consideration of other factors that contribute to landscape character including the minimisation of noise.
In assessing the impact of the proposal in terms of noise the following saved policies of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 are considered to be of relevance: PR.6: ‘Renewable Energy’ (Criteria (a) and (d), and PR.8 ‘Pollution Control’. These policies have been assessed by the applicant who considers that Policy PR.6 (criterion a) is not consistent with the NPPF as it does not allow a decision taker to consider whether adverse impacts have been ‘addressed satisfactorily’ as required by the NPPF. As a result the policy prevents the fair assessment of the proposals acceptability in terms of its impact on the Environment and therefore is considered by the applicant to be ‘out of date’.
I do not agree with the applicant in respect to saved policy PR.6(a). I consider that Policy PR.6 is consistent with the NPPF for the reasons given in the main policy section of this report. PR.6 relates to renewable energy schemes and encourages these set against various considerations, including, amongst other things, the generation of emissions.
The applicant considers that policies PR.6 (criterion d) and PR.8 to be consistent with the requirements of the NPPF and I agree with the applicants on this matter.
The District Council’s Draft Core Strategy, although given very limited weight at the present time, also seeks at policy CS2 ‘Climate Changes and Sustainable Energy’ Part E (Wind Energy Development) to ensure that any unreasonable adverse impact on users and residents of the local area, including generation and emission of noise are fully assessed.
How is Noise Measured?
Developers are obliged to carry out noise predictions to evaluate the likely perception of noise from wind turbines on local residents and those working in the vicinity. They compare the predicted noise levels of turbines with the existing background level. The assessment should be able to demonstrate compliance with guidance.
Noise is measured in decibels and the scale employed (dBA) is weighted to the approximate range perceived by the human ear albeit this is recognised as a poor descriptor of low frequency noise impact. Furthermore, the decibel system is frequently misinterpreted as it is based on a logarithmic scale. A sound level of 100dBA, for example, contains twice the energy of a sound level of 97dBA.
Distance plays an important role in the perceived sound level. Sound levels decrease by approximately 6dBA every time the distance from most sources is doubled but in some cases the reduction can be as low as 3dBA. This lesser reduction can be a problem with wind turbine noise. There is also recent evidence that turbine noise levels can be increased when their low frequency noise content is in phase. This produces something termed “Heightened Noise Zones”. The noise from a wind turbine can reach moderate sound pressure levels (less than 50dBA) when the distance from the turbine to the receptor is between 200 and 300 metres. Typically, the source noise level of a modern wind turbine is between 100 and 106dBA, depending on the type of turbine and the wind speed at which the sound is measured (generally 8 metres per second).
Perceived noise from wind turbines is the sum of the ambient or background noise and the noise from the turbines. If turbines are located in an industrial or urban area for example, the ambient noise can mask turbine noise completely. Trees are often quoted as likely to mask wind turbine noise but this is only sometimes correct.
How do Wind Turbines Produce Noise?
Noise from wind turbines consists of the sound produced by the turning blades and from the gearbox (when present), generator and hydraulic systems within the nacelle. In modern large turbines the mechanical noise is generally less and most noise impact arises from aerodynamic sources caused by the blades passing through turbulent air. As with other impacts of wind energy, perception of the noise depends on local features (for example rural or urban area and topography), the number of residents and the distance they are from the site, and the type of community affected (residential, industrial, tourist). The interaction of these factors can either lessen or enhance the perception of sound from wind turbines.
Noise Assessment Methodology
The method of assessing the impact of the wind farm locally is described in ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’, ETSU-R-97, by the Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines (Final Report, September 1996). Since its publication, this report has been used to evaluate the noise from wind farms in the UK. MAS Environmental Limited in their response to the planning application have raised serious concerns as to the appropriateness of using ETSU in assessing the noise implications of wind farms. However despite these serious concerns (that have also been expressed by other acousticians) ETSU remains the guidelines by which the noise impacts of windfarms are assessed. Paragraph 44 of the Companion Guide to PPS 22 confirms this approach and MAS Environmental acknowledge that Inspectors in recent planning appeals invariably apply the ETSU guidelines.
Excess Aerodynamic Modulation (EAM)
EAM, sometimes referred to as blade swish or thump, is a recognised phenomenon and ETSU makes some allowance for it. However ETSU was unable to formulate an accurate measurement methodology or to establish the causes or the frequency and magnitude of its occurrence and left the matter for further investigation. There is some evidence of subsequent complaints about EAM including different acoustic characteristics. The Salford Report commissioned by the Government considered complaints that had been made about wind farm noise and concluded that the incidence of EAM was low and affected few people. The Government concluded that there was not a compelling case for further research. Renewables UK, the industry’s wind energy body is currently conducting further research.
MAS Environmental Ltd (MAS) consider that it is likely 15%-25% of wind farms cause EAM problems. In relation to the Starbold Site MAS Environmental have identified four primary factors indicating EAM at this site; the occurrence of wind shear; the spacing between the turbines, the bank of trees to the north west which affect wind shear and wind profiles in the atmosphere and the semi–ridge forms/raised topography to the south.
MAS have stated that should planning permission be granted that a condition to address EAM should be imposed despite the fact that Planning Inspectors have been reluctant to impose conditions in relation to this.
Wind Shear
Wind shear denotes increasing wind speed with height above ground and is known to be more common in flat landscapes. If high wind shear was to occur the actual turbine noise would be higher than that predicted by wind speeds at lower heights closer to ground level. For any location wind speed rises with elevation above ground level due to wind shear. The degree of wind shear is therefore dependent on surrounding conditions (vegetation and buildings) and the meteorological conditions.
MAS have expressed concern in relation to the data submitted to assess wind shear and this has resulted in MAS employing a precautionary approach in their assessment of wind shear in reaching an overall assessment in respect of noise from the 4 wind turbines.
Impact of the proposal MAS have stated that the dwellings likely to experience the highest sound energy are Lower Spring Farm (H1), Upper Spring Farm (H2), Bungalow Farm (H5) and Gaydon Fields Farm (H6). H1 and H2 will most commonly experience cross-winds in terms of the wind onto the turbines. This can be a worst case scenario in terms of the levels and character of noise impact. However, it is also a direction inducing relatively high M40 noise. Problems are only likely in locations at these dwellings which might be screened from road traffic noise but exposed to turbine noise. This is also a potential risk in some of the built up areas of Knightcote. The problems in the area of Knightcote (H7) are likely to be greatest under north-westerly winds. This is a relatively common wind direction. However, any High Noise Zone’s or “hot-spots” would be almost impossible to predict. This area may be sufficiently away from the M40 to experience a higher difference between the road traffic and turbine noise such that it is more of a problem. This is particularly difficult to judge and it remains merely an increased risk. Westerly winds may lead to periods of some screening of M40 noise due to the trees at Itchington Holt when considered in relation to properties H1 and H2. However, these winds will substantially reduce the turbine noise at H1 and H2 more than the background noise is reduced. The greatest risk from this wind direction is wind shear effects caused by Itchington Holt and generating EAM affecting Knightcote, Lower Farm and dwellings to the east. Many receptors are on land that is elevated compared to the wind farm site. This can have the same effect as turbines fitted to shortened towers as found at Deeping St. Nicholas (a different wind farm site), increasing the risk of EAM occurring. There is uneven and undulating topography with Itchington Holt elevated to the west and a higher semi-ridgeline of hills to the south at Northend and Burton Dassett. These are all factors affecting wind shear and turbulent airflow and thus can be expected to increase the risk of EAM. There is a risk that during the core sleep hours of 02:00-04:00 hours M40 noise may drop sufficiently such that turbine noise emerges to a greater extent and becomes dominant for significant periods. This is hidden in the averaging process within ETSU-R-97 where night time is averaged over 23:00-07:00 hours with noisier traffic periods between 23:00-01:00 and 05:00-07:00 hours significantly influencing the average levels. MAS has stated that this warrants the imposition of a condition reducing the night time limits to ensure that the resulting noise levels are not permitted to increase at night. The ETSU-R-97 daytime limit is considered to be suitable in this case. The directionally filtered background noise data indicates a risk of excessive noise at location H6 Gaydon Fields Farm. This risk appears to arise when the M40 is screened but the wind turbines are not. However, this is unlikely under the conditions leading to maximum propagation of the wind farm noise during high wind shear and thus is not considered an unacceptable risk. Furthermore the topography is considered likely to afford some attenuation and the comparison of decibel levels presented is not considered realistic. In general MAS has confirmed that the directional filtering exercise indicates there is higher background noise at properties to the east of the wind farm when they are downwind of the source and that this is as expected. MAS are of the opinion that when the proposed development is compared to the procedures most commonly accepted at public inquiries, using ETSU-R-97, the proposal is considered acceptable.
Cumulative Impact
The potential cumulative impact of the proposed development with the proposed wind farm at Stoneton (application not yet valid at time of writing the committee report). MAS have stated that given the separation distances and locations of the proposed wind farms and given that no property is downwind of both or suitably in a cross wind of both and at distances of concern that cumulative impact is not an area of concern.
Construction Noise
MAS has stated that construction noise is rarely a problem for onshore wind farms and in any event is short lived. Subject to the imposition of a condition relating to construction noise limits as suggested by MAS I do not consider that the proposal will have a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity in terms of construction noise. In assessing this I have given significant consideration to the impacts on occupiers of Upper Spring Farm that is the nearest property located to the access track and construction compound.
Third Party Objections
4 Papers were submitted on behalf of FRAWT commenting on specific noise (Starbold Noise Report, Starbold: LIDAR cf Mast, Starbold Ambient Noise Analysis and Starbold Frozen Vane). All of these papers have been fully assessed by MAS and taken into account in reaching their overall conclusion in relation to the application. MAS have concluded that whilst they agree with most of the analysis put forward by FRAWT, until there is a sea-change in the approach to ETSU-R-97 these methods are not commonly accepted and from experience would not be given weight at appeal. As such on the basis of ETSU-R-97 MAS consider that the current proposal is acceptable.
Assessment of the wind impact – MAS Environmental Ltd Recommendations
MAS has raised some criticisms in respect of the noise assessment undertaken by the applicant. Specific criticism has been raised with respect to the prediction method the applicant applies and consider that the background survey locations are likely to result in slightly increased limits. Additional information was requested to enable revision of limits and improve certainty. Some data and analysis requests have been met, some have identified errors and some requests have been refused.
Although I acknowledge that some uncertainty remains, MAS has stated that that there is adequate headroom between the predicted wind turbine noise levels and limits dictated by ETSU-R-97 as accepted by Planning Inspectors. Under these circumstances MAS has confirmed that the error factors applicable in this case would not lead to a change in recommendation from approval to refusal when the government approach to wind farm assessment is applied. In other words, there are grounds to conclude wind farm noise will be higher and background noise lower than predicted by the applicant, but as predicted levels are lower than below the limits specified in ETSU-R-97 with a reasonable margin the outcome would not change through the re-adjustment of the figures to take into account the perceived deficiencies in the data provided.
In addition to this MAS have also stated that there are two other elements in favour of approval of the wind farm in relation to noise :- 1. That the location of the wind turbines is such that for the majority of wind directions with a westerly component background noise will be elevated by the M40 road traffic noise at affected dwellings and it is significantly less common for strong winds to come from the east. 2. The noise assessment undertaken by the applicant has been assessed against ETSU-R-97 as originally written and as such does not include the 5dB shift in favour of wind farms as identified by more recent research and introduced by referencing limits to hub heights and wind speeds. MAS considers this to be a significant factor.
MAS have stated that if planning permission is granted for the scheme that conditions should be imposed covering the following:- - Operational noise (with reductions in the ETSU night time limits); - Prior approval of micrositing of the turbines; - Prior approval of selected turbine type; - Excess amplitude modulation; and - Construction site noise.
I therefore conclude that in relation to noise issues that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions I consider that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact in respect of noise and disturbance when assessed against the requirements of ETSU-R-97 and as such is in accordance with saved adopted Policies PR.6 (a) and (d) and PR. 8 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 . The proposal is also considered to be consistent with the NPPF in particular paragraphs 109 and 123 and the Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 in particular paragraphs 5.11.8 to 5.11.10 and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 in particular paragraphs 2.7.57 to 2.7.61 in relation to noise matters and in accordance with Policies EN.1, QE.3 and QE.6 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Other Health and Safety Issues
Government guidance in the form of EN-1 acknowledges that energy production has the potential to impact on the health and well-being of the population. EN-1 also recognises that that access to energy is also beneficial to society and to health as a whole. However, EN-1 does state that where the proposed project has an effect on human beings, the ES should assess these effects for each element of the project identifying any adverse health impacts, and identifying measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for these impacts as appropriate.
In respects of safety EN-1 states that the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcing a range of occupational health and safety legislation some of which is relevant to the construction, operation and decommissioning of energy infrastructure. Applicants should consult with the Health and Safety Executive on matters relating to safety. .
In addition to the issue of noise (described in the Noise section of this committee report) EN-3 makes specific reference to shadow flicker in respect of on-shore wind and states that where wind turbines are proposed within a distance equating to 10 x the rotor diameter from an occupied building a shadow flicker assessment should be carried out. EN-3 states that where the possibility of shadow flicker exists, mitigation can be enforced through the use of conditions. In respect of the rotating blades EN-3 states that as far as it technologically possible these should not be reflective.
According to the companion guide to PPS22 there have been no reported examples of injury to members of the public from wind turbines. The most likely source of danger to human or animal life from a wind turbine would be the loss of a piece of the blade or, in most exceptional circumstances, of the whole blade. The blades are however composite structures with no bolts or other separate components and failure is therefore most unlikely.
The companion guide to PPS22 also makes reference to specific issues relating to low frequency noise (infrasound); proximity to roads; railways, public rights of way and power lines; shadow flicker and reflected light; and icing and concludes that these can all be adequately addressed.
One of the core land use planning principles of the NPPF specified at bullet point 4 is that planning should always seek, amongst others, a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings The NPPF (paragraph 97 second bullet point), inter alia, advises local planning authorities to ensure that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily. At paragraph 123 (bullet point 1) the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from developments from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life. Combining this advice paragraph 98 of the NPPF (bullet point 2) states, amongst others, that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should approve the application (unless other material considerations indicate otherwise), if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
The policy of the Regional Spatial Strategy that is considered to be relevant, although given very limited weight, is Policy EN.1 ‘Energy Generation’.
In assessing the impact of the proposal in terms of health and safety the following policies of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 are considered to be of relevance: PR.6 ‘Renewable Energy’ (Criteria (a) and (d), and PR.8 ‘Pollution Control’. I consider that these policies are consistent with the NPPF.
The District Council’s Draft Core Strategy, although given very limited weight at the present time, also seeks at policy CS2 Climate Changes and Sustainable Energy to ensure that any unreasonable adverse impact on users and residents of the local area are fully assessed.
Wind Turbine collapse/safety
The minimum desirable distance between wind turbines and occupied buildings calculated on the basis of expected noise levels and visual impact will often be greater than that necessary to meet safety requirements. Fall over distance (i.e. the height of the turbine to the tip of the blade) plus 10% [which in this case equates to 139.7m] is often used as a safe separation distance. The nearest dwelling is well in excess of 139.7m from the nearest wind turbine and as such I consider that the proposal is acceptable in terms of wind turbine collapse and the nearest residential properties. Issues relating to the impact of possible wind turbine collapse and the nearest affected Road (Knightcote Bottoms Road) are covered in the Highway section of this committee report.
The applicant has confirmed that the turbine specification for the proposed development will be designed and manufactured to meet international engineering design and manufacturing safety standards including the British Standard BS EN 61400 – 1:2005 Wind Turbines Design Requirements and the European Standard EN 50308:2004 Wind Turbines. Protective Measures . Requirement for design, operation and maintenance. The applicant has also stated that all large commercial scale wind turbines can be fitted with vibration sensors so that if a blade is damaged or unbalanced that they would automatically stop. In light of the above I am satisfied that the proposal will not be likely to be harmful in terms of possible turbine collapse and safety.
Infrasound
Infrasound, sometimes referred to as low-frequency sound, is sound that is lower in frequency than 20Hz (Hertz) or cycles per second, the "normal" limit of human hearing. Hearing becomes gradually less sensitive as frequency decreases, so for humans to perceive infrasound, the sound pressure must be sufficiently high. The ear is the primary organ for sensing infrasound, but at much higher energy levels it is possible to feel infrasound vibrations in various parts of the body.
MAS Environmental Ltd (MAS) acting as consultants for the District Planning Authority have stated that that evidence in relation to infrasound effects was until recently considered as inconclusive. However, recent research has suggested that there are serious grounds for concern in relation to this issue as the infrasound modulates and is detected although not heard in the normal sense.
However, in the case of the Starbold Site MAS have stated that the effect of road traffic noise from the M40 may result in infrasound problems being prevented due to sufficient existing general infrasound and low frequency noise swamping the hearing mechanism and so masking the effect from the wind turbines. In light of this I do not consider that the proposed development will have a detrimental impact in terms of Infrasound. Full regard has been given to the proximity of the nearest residential dwellings in reaching this conclusion.
Shadow Flicker
I acknowledge that a large number of objections have been received on the grounds of shadow flicker. Shadow Flicker is a phenomenon that can occur in the proximity of wind turbines when, under certain conditions, a shadow is cast on to the windows of nearby properties. Rotation of the blades can result in this shadow appearing to flick on and off when viewed from within those properties.
Within the UK there is no standard for the assessment of Shadow Flicker and there are no guidelines which quantify acceptable levels of exposure. The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) states that research and computer modelling on flicker has demonstrated that there is unlikely to be significant impact at distances of greater than ten rotor diameters. EN-3 advises that where wind turbines are proposed within ten rotor diameters of an existing occupied building, a shadow flicker assessment should be carried out by the applicant. Beyond 10 rotor diameters the intensity of the shadow flicker is considered to be sufficiently diminished so as to have no significant impact on occupied buildings. In addition the companion guide to PPS22 advises that shadow flicker has been proven to occur only within 10 rotor diameters of a turbine and that only properties within 130 degrees either side of north relative to the turbines can be affected at latitudes in the UK.
A shadow flicker assessment has been undertaken by the applicant where four 92.5m rotor diameter wind turbines were modelled as part of the assessment undertaken by the applicant which provided a worst case scenario in terms of the potential area susceptible to shadow flicker. The Environmental Statement assessed 3 properties (Lower Spring Farm, Upper Spring Farm and Lower Farm) within the study area of up to 925m (10x 92.5m rotor diameter candidate wind turbine) and analysis concludes that under worse case conditions the maximum theoretical occurrence of shadow flicker amounts to 31.6 hours per year experienced at Lower Farm. The Environmental Statement concludes that the times of day when shadow flicker is likely to occur at Lower Farm are between 2.50pm and 3.30pm (GMT) during the months of January, November and December. These are the theoretical maximum number of shadow flicker hours per year and do not take into account weather conditions, local visual obstructions, turbine orientation and turbine operation. Shadow flicker is therefore likely to occur less than predicted and may also affect rooms that that are not generally in use at the time when the effect may occur.
The Environmental Statement has also investigated the potential for the occurrence of cumulative shadow flicker and has concluded that shadow flicker is not predicted to occur from more than one turbine at one location, and as such there are not predicted to be any cumulative effects.
If planning permission is granted and it is found that shadow flicker does cause a nuisance I consider that this can be addressed by the imposition of a condition detailing the implementation of a Shadow Flicker Protocol. Effectively this would ensure than when the control system in the wind turbines detects that it is both sunny and is at a time of potential shadow flicker that the respective turbine would shut down until there is no sun or the time for the potential shadow flicker passes.
I acknowledge the FRAWT have also expressed concern about the impact of shadow flicker on Knightcote Bottoms Lane. From the assessment undertaken in respect of this by the applicant it appears that parts of the lane will be impacted upon for up to 300 hours a year. However, this is a worst case scenario and in reality will be less than this based on factors such as weather conditions, local visual obstructions, turbine orientation and turbine operation. I am not convinced that any significant evidence has been provided by the applicants or any third party that can reasonably lead me to conclude that there will be unacceptable impacts on members of the public/vehicles using this route from shadow flicker. Issues relating to horses are covered in the public right of way section of the committee report.
Shadow flicker also has the potential to induce epileptic seizures through a condition known as photosensitive epilepsy. Around 1 in 130 people in the UK have epilepsy, although only 5% of these suffer from photosensitive epilepsy. The possibility that shadow flicker could induce photosensitive epilepsy has also been considered as part of the Environmental Statement which concludes that the frequency at which shadow flicker would occur at the site (up to 1.5 hertz) is significantly less than the frequency at which photosensitive epilepsy is usually triggered (between 5 and 30 hertz). The Environmental Statement concludes that whilst some people are sensitive at higher frequencies it is uncommon to have photosensitivity below 2.5 hertz and consequently shadow flicker caused by this develop is predicted to have no unacceptable health effects.
I acknowledge that a large number of objections have been received on the grounds that shadow flicker will have a detrimental effect on animals and a veterinary practice at Spring Paddocks. In reference to the veterinary practice at Spring Paddocks following the removal of proposed turbine T1 I am satisfied that given that the veterinary practice will be outside the 10 x rotor diameter area that there will not be any detrimental impact on this property in terms of shadow flicker. In addition Blue Barn Stables are also located outside the 10 x rotor diameter area.
In terms of the impact on the welfare of animals generally in the area I do not consider that the proposal will have a significantly detrimental impact on the welfare of animals in terms of shadow flicker. I also note that there is evidence from other wind farms that have been built where the farming of livestock exists in close proximity to turbines and where livestock have grazed beneath the rotor swept areas without adverse effects. I also take account of the fact that the majority of the land where the wind turbines are proposed to be located and which would potentially be most affected by shadow flicker is currently used for the planting of crops.
In light of the above I consider that the proposal will not have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents or businesses, nor on animals as a result of the impact of shadow flicker, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the formulation of a shadow flicker protocol to be approved by the District Planning Authority should planning permission be granted.
Light Reflection from the wind turbines
Turbines can cause flashes of reflected light, which can be visible over long distances. It is possible to ameliorate the flashing but it is not possible to eliminate it completely as stated in the companion guide to PPS 22. Careful choice of blade material and colour can significantly reduce this effect. The applicant proposes to use an off white/grey semi matt finish to reduce the amount of light reflection, which is a common colour/finish material accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. In light of the above I consider that the proposal will not have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents or businesses as a result of light reflection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the final details of the colour/finish of the turbines should planning permission be granted.
Ice Shedding
During periods of extreme cold weather a build up of ice on turbine blades can occur which can lead to instances of ice shedding when the turbine is started up. Most wind turbines are fitted with vibration sensors, which can detect any imbalance which might be caused by the icing of the blades and prevent the turbine from operating. Ice shedding can therefore be avoided.
It has been recognised by the Planning Inspectorate that a suitably worded condition requiring the fitting of sensors and the shutting down of the turbines should icing occur can be imposed and I consider that is a satisfactory way of overcoming this issue and preventing harm to public or animals should planning permission be granted.
In light of the above I consider that the proposal will not have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents or businesses as a result of ice shedding subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the details of sensors and an ice shedding protocol should planning permission be granted.
Emissions from Wind Turbines
The companion guide to PPS 22 states that as wind turbines contain electrical machines producing power that they will therefore also produce electromagnetic radiation. However, the companion guide states that this is at a very low level, and presents no greater risk to human health than most domestic appliances. I consider that this is acceptable and that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact in terms of emissions.
Other issues
The Health and Safety Executive Hazardous Installations Directorate (who cover issues such as pipelines etc) have been consulted in respect of the planning application and no objection has been raised in respect of this planning application.
In relation to health and safety issues I therefore conclude that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions that the proposal is acceptable and is in accordance with saved adopted policies PR.6 (a) and (d) and PR. 8 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 . The proposal is also considered to be consistent with the NPPF in particular paragraphs 7, 69, 120, 123, the Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 in particular paragraphs 1.7.3, 2.2.28, 4.10.2, 4.13.1 to 4.13.5, 5.11.1 and 5.11.9 and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 in particular paragraphs 2.7.60 and 2.7.68 to 2.7.70 in relation to health and safety issues and to be in accordance with policy EN.1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Highway Issues
Policy
Government guidance in the form of EN-1 states that the consideration and mitigation of transport impacts is an essential part of the Government’s wider objectives for sustainable development. EN1-also states that provided that the applicant is wiling to enter into planning obligations or requirements can be imposed to mitigate transport impacts then consent should not be withheld and appropriately limited weight should be applied to residual effects on the surrounding transport infrastructure. Government guidance in the form of EN-3 makes specific reference to on-shore wind and states that the decision maker should be satisfied that abnormal loads can be transported to minimise inconvenience to other road users and that the effect of this and other construction traffic, after mitigation, are acceptable.
The Companion Guide to PPS 22 on Renewable Energy states that the degree of disturbance caused by the construction phase of a wind farm will depend on the number of turbines and the length of the construction period and that Local Authorities may wish to control the number of vehicle movements and, where possible, the route of such movements.
One of the core land use planning principles of the NPPF is that planning should always seek, amongst others, a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. The NPPF at paragraph 35 highlights that developments should be located and designed where practical to create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians. The NPPF (paragraph 97 second bullet point) advises local planning authorities to ensure that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily. Combining this advice paragraph 98 of the NPPF (bullet point 2) states, that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should approve the application (unless other material considerations indicate otherwise), if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
The policy of the Regional Spatial Strategy that is considered to be most relevant to highway issues, although given very limited weight, is Policy EN.1 ‘Energy Generation’ which seeks, amongst other things, to assess the traffic implications and proximity to transport infrastructure of developments.
The following policies of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996- 2011 are considered to be of relevance to highway issues: PR.6: Renewable Energy (Criterion c), and DEV.4 ‘Access’ (criteria (a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and (i). These policies have been assessed by the applicant who considers them to be consistent with the requirements of the NPPF and I agree with the applicants on this matter.
The District Council’s, Draft Core Strategy, although given very limited weight at the present time, requires at Policy CS 2 : ‘Climate Change and Sustainable Energy’ for unreasonable adverse impact on users and residents of the local are, including generation of emissions and noise, to be taken into account in assessing wind energy development. Policy CS 28: ‘Transport and Communication’ states that proposals will only be permitted if the necessary mitigation is provided against any unacceptable transport impacts that may arise from that development.
Unlike most other developments, the main impact on highways associated with this development is during construction and decommissioning. The impact on highways during the operational lifetime of the development will also be considered but the overall impact is not considered to be as significant due to the low level nature of the traffic movements associated with the development.
Preferred Access Route to and from the Proposed development site
Access to the proposed development will be from the B4451 at a point where suitable visibility splays can be provided. The potential routes for construction traffic to and from the proposed development have been reviewed and assessed for their ability to accommodate both heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s) carrying construction materials and Abnormal Load Vehicles (ALV’s) carrying wind turbine components. A feasible route to the site has been identified from junction 12 of the M40 via the B4451. This proposed access will minimise the need for substantial highways upgrade works, third party land take and potential impacts on nature conservation interests. In order to erect turbines T4 and T5 to the south of the site a crossing point over Knightcote Bottoms Road is to be created.
Vehicle Trips - Construction phase
I acknowledge that a large number of objections have been received in respect of the impact of increased traffic generation particularly during the construction period which is anticipated to last up to 12 months. The submitted Environmental Statement predicts that the maximum number of vehicle movements (1586) will be during month 2 of the construction process when the maximum average vehicle movements per day is in the order of 72 vehicles. The maximum number of ALV movements would occur in months 6 and 7. Month 6 would comprise a maximum of 134 movements, and month 7 would comprise a maximum of 46 movements.
The existing data reported in the Environmental Statement shows that the typical traffic flow on the B4451 is 4,655 vehicles on the section immediately to the north of the slip roads to and from the southbound M40 during 0700 to 1900 on a weekday. An increase of 72 vehicles caused by wind farm construction related activity would represent an increase of around 1.5%. Warwickshire County Council Highways Authority (WCC Highways) and the Highways Agency have raised no objection to the increase of traffic movements. In light of this I do not consider that the increase in the total number of vehicles is unacceptable or would lead to significant highway safety or highway congestion issues.
I acknowledge that particular concern has been raised by third parties in respect of the increased number of HGV movements. The Environmental Statement reports that the peak number of HGV’s would be an average of 55 a day during month 1, with month 2 being similar at 52. The additional HGV’s estimated to be generated represents an increase of 38% in month 1, 36% in month 2 and 31% in month 3. In months 4 and 5 the increase would be 24% dropping to no more than 2% for the remaining months of the construction period.
The submitted Environmental Statement states that for three quarters of the construction period the increase in HGV traffic would be below the 30% limit suggested in the Institute for Environmental Assessment guidelines and that the average increase over a year long construction period would be around 14%. I acknowledge that during months 1, 2 and 3 the increase would be above the 30% threshold however neither WCC Highways or the Highways Agency have raised any objection to the increase on traffic movements in respect of HGV’s. WCC Highways have suggested the imposition of a condition restricting the delivery to the site of construction materials to between 09:00 and 19:00 on Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 16:00 on Saturdays in order not to exacerbate existing congestion at the junction of the B4451 and M40. Subject to the imposition of such controls I do not therefore consider that the increase in HGV movements would be unacceptable in the circumstances or would lead to significant highway safety or congestion issues.
I acknowledge the increase in HGV traffic has the potential to result in harmful environmental impacts such as traffic noise and vibration; disruption and delay; increased risk of accidents; air pollution; dust and dirt. However, I consider that these impacts could be satisfactorily addressed by the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan and a Construction Method Statement should planning permission be granted.
In addition WCC Highways have suggested the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a scheme to identify potential damage to the highways caused by the construction work undertaken and for subsequent works of repair that are needed to be undertaken. In the interests of highway safety I consider that the imposition of this condition is appropriate.
Abnormal Loads
The number of ALV’s would be relatively small in comparison to the existing levels of traffic on the local road network. However, the impact of these vehicles is as a result of their size and low speed rather than their numbers and can result in the environmental impacts such as noise and vibration; disruption and delay and; increased risk of accidents.
The Environmental Statement states that the movement of those turbine components which qualify as abnormal loads will be in accordance with all relevant regulations stipulated by the Department for Transport, the Highways Agency and the local highway authority. The exact traffic management procedures deployed during the movement of the abnormal loads will depend on advice from the traffic police and any other local factors prevailing at the time (such as roadworks or special events nearby) and ALV’s will travel in convoys with police escorts to minimise disturbance.
WCC Highways have suggested the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan that will include details relating to the escorts of abnormal loads. The Highways Agency has requested that the imposition of a condition requiring the comprehensive transport strategy to be agreed in relation abnormal load delivery on the Highway agency’s strategic road network. I consider that such an approach to the issue of ALV’s is acceptable should planning permission be granted.
Operational period
The Environmental Statement has confirmed that the proposed development will only generate approximately 6-10 vehicle movements each month when operational relating to occasional inspection and maintenance vehicles.
Visibility Splays
At the site entrance a 160m visibility splay in both directions is required which would result in the removal of approximately 70m of hedgerow from the southern verge of the B4451and trimming of approximately 130m of hedgerow on the southern verge of the B4451. A further 70m strip of grass would need to be mown on the northern road verge.
A visibility splay of 160m is also required in both directions for the Knightcote Bottoms Road crossing which would result in approximately 130m of vegetation needing to be trimmed and removal of approximately 10m of hedgerow.
WCC Highways has not raised any objections in respect of these visibility splays and have requested that details in respect of the accesses, site access road and associated visibility splays are secured by condition. I consider that this is appropriate to protect highway safety should planning permission be granted and consider that replacement planting behind the visibility splays where appropriate will reasonably maintain the rural character of the road.
The ecological impacts of the visibility splays on the hedgerow are covered in the Ecology and Landscape sections of this committee report.
Decommissioning
The proposed development is likely to operate for 25 years before decommissioning would be required. However, it is likely that traffic movements would be less during the decommissioning stage as not all materials will be removed from the site. An appropriate decommissioning traffic assessment would need to be undertaken and a Decommissioning Traffic Management Plan prepared. WCC Highways have requested a condition requiring such a Decommissioning Plan and I consider the imposition of the condition appropriate should planning permission be granted.
Distance separation from highway
Instances of turbine collapse are very rare and there is considered to be no greater risk of this occurrence than of the collapse of any other tall structure including electrical transmission or telecommunications infrastructure. Nevertheless, the Wind Farm has been designed to ensure that if a turbine suffers a catastrophic failure and collapse, a distance at least equal to the height of the turbine to tip blade (the topple distance) is maintained between each of the turbines and any public right of way or public highway.
The Highways Agency require a set back distance of 50m for turbines from the strategic road network. The nearest strategic road (M40) is well in excess of the 50m separation distance required. The nearest adopted public highway (Knightcote Bottoms Road) falls within the jurisdiction of Warwickshire County Council as Highway Authority. The information supplied in the Environmental Statement shows that (taking into account possible micrositing) in the worst case scenario (turbine T5) the appropriate topple distance is achieved. There are no Public Rights of Way (including Bridleways) within the topple distance.
WCC Highways have raised no objection in respect of the proximity of the wind turbines to Knightcote Bottoms Road and I consider that they are set back far enough to ensure that they are a safe distance from the highway to not have a detrimental impact on highway safety or for highway users. . Driver Distraction
Concern is often expressed over the effect of wind turbines on car drivers and in particular the distraction of the movement of the blades as they rotate. I do however take account that drivers face many distractions both within and outside of the car during any normal journey including roadside advertisements and in car technologies. There is no evidence to suggest that the siting of the turbines would cause undue alarm or distraction and neither the Highways Agency nor the Highway Authority have raised any concerns about this matter.
With regard to highway matters I therefore conclude that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and notes the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on highway safety/traffic generation and is in accordance with saved policies PR.6 (c) and DEV.4 (a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and (i) of the local plan. The proposal is also considered to be consistent with the NPPF in particular paragraph 35, the Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 in particular paragraphs 5.13.6 and 5.13.7 and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 in particular paragraphs 2.7.78 and 2.7.79 in relation to highway matters and policy EN.1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy.
Impacts on Footpaths/Public Rights of Way (PRoW)
The impacts of the wind farm on the amenity of users of local public rights of way (PRoW) and their enjoyment of the landscape is covered within the landscape impacts of this report. I note that the WCC Rights of Way officer requests a financial contribution is secured to upgrade footpaths in the vicinity of the site to compensate for adverse impacts of the development on users of the paths. I have considered this request under the terms of the CIL regulations and other guidance and do not consider that such a contribution is justifiable, necessary or required in this instance.
Paragraph 75 of the NPPF states that planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way and access.
The policy of the Regional Spatial Strategy that is considered to be relevant, although given very limited weight, is Policy PA.10 – Tourism and Culture that seeks, amongst other things, to encourage the both the improvement of existing provision as well the creation of new facilities for tourism and culture.
Saved Policy DEV.4 (d) of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan 1996-2011 states that the design of development should create a safe and attractive environment to promote cycling and walking. I consider this policy to be consistent with the NPPF.
The District Council’s Draft Core Strategy, although given very limited weight at the present time, also seeks at policy CS 2 ‘Climate Changes and Sustainable Energy’ Part E that wind energy development should not have unreasonable adverse impacts on users of the local area.
Guidance in the extant PPS22 Companion Guide states that there is no statutory separation distance between a turbine and a public right of way (PRoW) but the ‘topple over’ distance is often an acceptable separation. There are no PRoW within the application site and the nearest (a bridleway SM119 and a footpath SM85) are, according to the submission, over 600m away from the nearest turbine. Given that the ‘topple over’ distance is 125m then I do not consider there would be any physical dangers posed to users of the PRoW.
I acknowledge concerns raised about impacts of the turbines, including blade rotation, shadow flicker and noise on equestrian users of the bridleway. The British Horse Society suggests a minimum separation distance of 4 x tip height, which in this case would be 500m. I note that no bridleway is within this distance and am generally satisfied that due to the separation distances involved there are unlikely to be such harmful impacts to horses on local bridleways to warrant refusal of the proposals on such grounds.
I also note however that the Knightcote Bottoms Road (aka The Old Salt Road) runs through the middle of the wind farm site and that this route is open to walkers, cyclists, horse riders and other road users. Impacts may therefore be possible both during construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the scheme. I consider that disruption and safety can be appropriately managed via a Construction Traffic Management Plan during the construction phase and that similar measures would be carried out during decommissioning. This leaves the operational phase to consider.
Elsewhere in this report it is accepted that the topple over distance of the turbines to the public highway is acceptable in relation to highway safety from a falling turbine. I therefore conclude that this would also be the case for non- vehicular users of the road. With regard to distractions and other impacts on horses there may well be negative aspects that will have adverse effects. It is however very difficult to prove with any certainty that the turbines would have a negative impact on horses that would lead to significant dangers for horse riders. I must also take into account that Knightcote Bottoms Road is a public highway shared with vehicular traffic and not a designated bridleway in the immediate vicinity of the application site. I note that the Centenary Way includes a bridleway and that this runs to the west of the site utilising a short section of the Knightcote Bottoms Road at its western end where it crosses the B4451 to climb towards Christmas Hill. This section of the road that would be more likely to be used by horse riders is however around 700m from the nearest turbine (T4) and riders travelling west would have the turbines to their backs. Riders approaching from the west along the road would have views of the turbines significantly restricted due to the narrow enclosed nature of the road and hedgerow planting along this sinuous stretch. Given the distance from the turbines and the close presence of the M40 Motorway I do not consider that turbine noise will be particularly alarming and the instances of shadow flicker arising across the bridleway route will generally be between nil and a maximum of 50 hours per year. I am therefore not convinced that any significant evidence has been provided by the applicants or any third party that can reasonably lead me to conclude that there will be unacceptable impacts on horses or horse riders using this route. The matter of impacts on horses beyond the public rights of way is also discussed elsewhere in this report within the section below dealing with impacts on local businesses.
I therefore conclude that there are no objections to the proposals in relation to the impact on public footpaths/public rights of way and is therefore in accordance with saved adopted policy DEV. (d) of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 , Paragraph 75 of the NPPF, in relation to impact Impacts on Footpaths/Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and policy PA.10 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Impacts on Ecology
Government guidance in the form of EN-1 ‘Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy’ states that the applicant should show how the project has taken advantage of opportunities to conserve and enhance biodiversity and geological conservation interests. EN-1 states that the decision maker should ensure that appropriate weight is attached to designated species of international and local importance; protected species; habitats and other species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity and geological interest within the wider environment. EN-1 also highlights the importance of including appropriate mitigation measures and as an integral part of the proposed development. Government guidance in the form of EN-3 ‘National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy infrastructure’ makes reference to onshore wind farms and the fact that wind turbines should be laid out to minimise impacts on birds and bats.
A core planning principle of the NPPF (para 17, bullet point 7) is that the planning system should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. The NPPF states, inter alia, that minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contribute to the Governments commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity (para 109 bullet point 3). The NPPF also states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying a number of principles (para 118).
The policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy that are considered to be relevant, although given very limited weight are Policy EN.1 - Energy Generation that seeks, amongst other things to determine the impact of proposals on areas of ecological importance; Policy QE.1– Conserving and Enhancing the Environment that seeks, amongst other things to protect and where possible enhance specific wildlife habitats; Policy QE7 - Protecting, managing and enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity and Nature Conservation that seeks, amongst other things, to maintain and enhance the regions wider biodiversity resources ; Policy PA.1– Prosperity for all that seeks amongst other things to ensure development respects the natural environment and CC1 – Climate Change that seeks, amongst other things, to protect, conserve, manage and enhance environmental and natural assets
In assessing the ecological impact of the proposal the following policies of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 are considered relevant: PR.6: Renewable Energy (Criterion a); Policy PR.5: Resource Protection (criteria a & c); Policy EF.6: Nature Conservation and Geology and Policy EF.7: Wildlife Habitats and Geological Features. These policies have been assessed by the applicant who considers that Policy PR.6 (a) is not consistent with the NPPF as it does not allow a decision taker to consider whether adverse impacts have been ‘addressed satisfactorily’ and as a result the policy prevents the fair assessment of the proposals acceptability in terms of its impact on the Environment and therefore is considered by the applicants to be ‘out of date’.
I do not agree with the applicant in respect to saved policy PR.6(a). The policy relates to renewable energy schemes and encourages these set against various considerations, including, amongst other things, whether the scale and nature of the scheme will have a detrimental effect on the environment and character of the local area, including visual impact. The policy also states that adequate supporting information, which assesses the extent of possible environmental effects and how they can be satisfactorily mitigated, should accompany the application. I consider that the submission of such information and the subsequent assessment of this is in line with the NPPF guidance and that PR.6 is therefore compatible with the NPPF.
The applicant considers that policies PR.5 (a) and (c), EF.6 and EF.7 are to be consistent with the NPPF and I agree with the applicants on this matter.
The District Council’s, Draft Core Strategy, although given very limited weight at the present time, also requires at policy CS 2: ‘Climate Change and Sustainable Energy’ that, biodiversity will be taken into account in assessing wind energy development. Policy CS 11: ‘Natural Features’ seeks to, amongst others, safeguard existing habitats and also making provision, where appropriate, for the creation and management of additional habitats.
I acknowledge that a large number of objections have been received in respect of the possible impact of the proposed development on the ecology of the area particularly in respect of the impact on bats and birds.
The site largely comprises arable fields separated by hedgerows with trees, a number of ponds and a small ditch/watercourse running through the northern section. A potential Local Wildlife Site (pLWS), along Knightcote Bottoms Road, runs through the southern section of the site from east to west and is designated as such due to the floristic diversity of its road verges. This designation is pending further survey and consideration against a number of set criteria.
There is one statutory designated site within 2km of the site boundary: the River Itchen Geological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), located approximately 1.75m to the east of the site. There are also 23 non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the site boundary. Warwickshire County Council Ecology Department (WCC Ecology) have stated that they agree with the Environmental Statement’s conclusion that these areas will not be impacted on by the proposed development due to their distance from the site and the nature of the proposed development.
The permanent land take for the turbines and access tracks would amount to 1.9ha which is equivalent to 2% of the available habitat within the site boundary. The development will lead to the loss of approximately 158m of hedgerow across nine breaches due to the creation of access tracks. Field margins will also be removed at the same locations. However, WCC Ecology have confirmed that as the loss of hedgerow and field margins will be restricted to relatively narrow widths and only constitutes approximately 4.5% of the total hedgerow/field- margin length within the site, this is not considered to be a significant impact on the habitats present.
The ponds will not be directly impacted on by the proposal (the proposal seeks to enhance two of these ponds as part of biodiversity enhancement for the site). Whilst there is the potential for indirect impacts during the construction phase due to increased sedimentation run-off and possible pollution WCC Ecology have confirmed that this can be avoided via a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
The proposed biodiversity enhancement scheme includes 1.2 hectares of new planting, 300m of newly planted native species hedgerows and the enhanced management of field margins and two existing ponds. A habitat management plan is also proposed to ensure long-term management of hedgerows, ponds and the pLWS road verge over 25 years. This is considered to be acceptable by Warwickshire County Council Ecology Department subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a biodiversity enhancement plan to be submitted.
Bats
WCC Ecology have reported that noctule bats a species at high risk from wind turbines were recorded as flying ‘at height’ within the turbine zone. However, due to the low density of registrations they have confirmed that the proposal does not constitute a significant risk to the species. In addition barbastelle and Leisler’s bats were recorded (although not at ‘turbine height’) and which are both rare species in Warwickshire and of high conservation area concern. However, WCC Ecology has confirmed that given the low density of registrations the proposal is not considered to constitute a risk to these species.
The vast majority of the bats using the site are common pipistrelle (90%) with some soprano pipistrelle (6%). Although both species are considered to be at medium risk from wind turbines, overall populations for both species are considered to be at low risk and their activity is largely confined to the hedgerows and ponds area rather than the open fields where the turbines will be located.
The turbines are proposed to be located at least 50m from bat commuting, foraging and roosting features in accordance with best practice guidelines and should planning permission be granted the imposition of conditions requiring the inspection of trees highlighted as having the potential for bats; details of any proposed lighting and the submission of a biodiversity enhancement would mean that the proposed development will not have a significantly detrimental impact on bat species. Natural England and the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust have also considered the proposal in relation to bats and raise no objection.
Great Crested Newts
WCC Ecology have confirmed that as no ponds will be directly impacted on by the proposals, the terrestrial habitat on-site is sub-optimal for this species and will largely remain intact and given that the other ponds in the vicinity have a low potential for Great Crested Newts that the proposed method statement relating to amphibians will be sufficient to prevent disturbance of Great Crested Newts.
The proposal also seeks to enhance the aquatic habitat of two ponds within the site, which is welcomed and therefore subject to the implementation of a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and biodiversity enhancement plan I do not consider that the proposal will have a significantly detrimental impact on Great Crested Newts. Natural England and the Warwickshire wildlife Trust have both considered the proposal in relation to Great Crested Newts and raise no objection.
Birds
From the surveys undertaken Valued Ecological Receptor (VER) species for the site include lapwing, golden plover and farmland passerines. Other species of note recorded on site include barn owl, short-eared owl, kingfisher and possibly black kite (unconfirmed). WCC Ecology has confirmed that most of these species were not recorded flying at turbine height and/or were recorded at low densities and as such conclude that the proposed development will not threaten these species. Lapwing were recorded at turbine height for a longer cumulative period but WCC Ecology are satisfied with the results of the resultant collision risk modelling that show a minor risk of collision to this species. WCC Ecology acknowledge that nesting birds may be impacted on by the removal of field margin and hedgerow vegetation during the construction period but consider that a CEMP can address such matters should planning permission be granted.
Natural England, the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and the RSPB and the Banbury Ornithological Society have considered the proposal in relation to birds and raise no objection. I acknowledge that the West Midlands Bird Club have raised concerns but subject to the imposition of conditions recommended by WCC Ecology I do not consider that that the proposed development will have a significantly detrimental impact on Birds.
Badgers
No evidence of badger setts has been found on site surveys carried out from 2009 – 2011 and WCC Ecology consider that foraging patterns are unlikely to be disrupted and therefore it is unlikely that the proposed development will result in harm or disturbance to badgers subject to the imposition of a condition requiring an updated badger survey to be submitted before the commencement of any works on site. Natural England, Warwickshire Badger Group and the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust have considered the proposal in relation to badgers and raise no objection.
Reptiles
The extended Phase 1 habitat surveys carried out in 2009 and 2011 found that there was only very limited suitable reptile habitat within the site boundary, located around the edges of the arable fields. In addition the proposal seeks the provision of two refugia for use by amphibians and reptiles within the proposed biodiversity enhancements for the site. WCC Ecology consider the risk to reptiles is very low subject to the imposition of a condition should planning permission be granted requiring the removal of vegetation in suitable reptile habitat areas to form part of a CEMP. Natural England and the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust have both considered the proposal in relation to reptiles and raise no objection.
Other protected and notable species
WCC Ecology has confirmed that they agree with the conclusion of the Environmental statement that dormice are absent from the site and as such there is no risk to this species as a result of the proposed development.
Incidental sightings of brown hare have been made but given the mobility of the species and the prevalence of additional suitable habitat WCC Ecology are satisfied that there will be no significant impact on this species.
WCC Ecology consider that the site has low potential for otters and water voles and that the site’s invertebrate value is likely to be low. It is the duty of the Authority to have regard to conserving biodiversity, including in relation to living organisms or types of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. I am satisfied that appropriate regard has been given to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.
I therefore conclude that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and notes I consider that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on ecological species and is in accordance with saved adopted policies PR.6 (a), PR5 ((a) and (c)) and EF.6 and EF.7 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 . T The proposal is also considered to be in accordance with the NPPF in particular paragraphs 17, 109, 115 and 118 the Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 in particular paragraphs 5.3.5 to 5.3.8 and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 in particular paragraphs 2.7.37 in relation to in relation to ecological impacts and in accordance with policies QE1, QE7, EN1, PA1 and CC1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Flooding and Drainage
Government guidance in the form of EN-1 acknowledges the potential impacts of flooding and how this should be mitigated against with the preference being for development to be located in Flood Zone 1.
The NPPF states at paragraph 100 that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided and promotes sequential and exceptions tests where appropriate to do so. Further advice in relation to flooding is given in the NPPF Technical Guidance
The policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy that are considered to be relevant, although given very limited weight, are Policy EN.1 - Energy Generation QE3 – Creating a high quality built environment for all; Policy QE9 – The Water Environment.
In assessing the impact of the proposal in terms of flooding and drainage the following policies of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 are considered to be of relevance: PR.6: ‘Renewable Energy’ (Criterion a), PR.5 : ‘Resource Protection’ (Criteria (a) and (c))and PR.8 ‘Pollution Control’. I consider that these policies are consistent with the NPPF.
The District Council’s Draft Core Strategy, although given very limited weight at the present time, also seeks at policy CS 2 ‘Climate Changes and Sustainable Energy’ Part A that development should be located in areas of low flood risk. The policy also seeks to prevent adverse impact on users and residents of the local area. Policy CS 3 ‘Safeguarding the Water Environment’ seeks to introduce sustainable urban drainage systems to reduce the risk of flooding.
I acknowledge that a number of objections have been received on the grounds that the proposed development will exacerbate flooding in the general area and that there has been reported flooding of Knightcote Bottoms Road following recent heavy rainfall.
The development site is however outside any flood plain and is classed as Flood Zone 1. The Technical Guidance companion to the NPPF defines Flood Zone 1 as : areas with a low probability of flooding (annual probability less than 0.1% or 1 in 1000 years). The south east corner of the site is adjacent to but not within a flood plain area (Flood Zone 3).
The Environmental Statement states that construction of access tracks or compaction of soils during construction may result in greater areas of impermeable cover over the proposed development area which would have the potential to increase the surface water run-off from the site. However, as the total development area is only approximately 3 per cent of the site area during construction and 2 per cent during operation, it is anticipated that the likelihood of flooding will not increase significantly as a result.
In order to reduce the likelihood of flooding the submitted Flood Risk Assessment suggests that all ground works will be designed in a way which would not impact upon existing surface water drainage regime. For example foundations for the wind turbines and met mast, crane pad areas, control buildings and access tracks will incorporate permeable materials. In addition a small watercourse in the north of the site will need to be crossed by the access track and a new culvert created. Mitigation measures will be introduced (such as use of sedimentation mats) and best practice carried out to reduce the impact on the watercourse.
In order to prevent issues relating to pollution of the ground or water environments during the construction stage I consider that it would be appropriate to impose conditions requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan and Environmental Management Plan together with a Decommissioning Management Plan.
The Environment Agency, Warwickshire County Council Flood Defence Team and Severn Trent Water have considered the proposals and have raised no objections to the proposed development on ground of harmful flooding or surface water flows.
I therefore conclude that in relation to flooding and drainage matters, subject to appropriate conditions, proposed development would be unlikely to cause harmful impacts within or adjacent to the application site. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with saved policies PR.6 (a), PR.5 (a) and (c) and PR.8 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011. The proposal is also considered to be consistent with the NPPF in particular paragraphs 17, 100 and 103, the Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 in particular paragraphs 5.7.9 to 5.7.12 and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 in particular paragraphs 2.3.4 in relation to flooding and drainage issues and in accordance with policies EN.1, QE.3 and QE.9 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Impact on Local Businesses/Economy (Socio-Economic Effects)
Issues relating to potential loss of business due to a perceived reduction in tourism to the area as a result of the development are addressed in the section below relating to impacts on recreation and tourism. The economic, social and environmental benefits of the development itself are covered within the initial sections of the key issues part of this report.
Government guidance in the form of EN-1 acknowledges that the construction, operation and decommissioning of energy infrastructure may have socio economic impacts at regional and local level and states that the applicant should assess these as part of the ES. EN-1 also acknowledges that socio-economic impacts may have an impact on tourism and local businesses and this is discussed in a separate section in the committee report.
EN-1 also states that regard should be given to the potential positive and negative l socio-economic impacts of new energy infrastructure and also consider whether any mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate any adverse socio- economic impacts of the development.
In general terms the NPPF supports a prosperous rural economy and aims to build a strong and competitive economy.
The policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy that are considered to be relevant, although given very limited weight, are PA.14 – Economic Development and the Rural Economy that seeks, amongst other things, that development plans and other strategies should support the sustainable diversification and development of the rural economy through the creation of new enterprises and PA.15. Agriculture and Farm Diversification that seeks, amongst other things, to promote farm diversification.
Saved Policy PR.6 (d) of the Local Plan Review states that renewable energy schemes should not cause an unreasonable adverse effect on existing business premises. I consider that in relation to impacts on existing businesses the policy is consistent with the NPPF.
The District Council’s Draft Core Strategy, although given very limited weight at the present time, also seeks at policy CS 2 ‘Climate Changes and Sustainable Energy’ Part E that wind energy development should not have unreasonable adverse impacts on users of the local area.
Strong concerns have been raised that the proposals will have negative impacts on a particular local business, namely Spring Paddocks Equine Veterinary Clinic. The curtilage of the clinic lies approximately 950m away from the nearest possible siting of a turbine (T2) with the other turbines being further away at approximately 1130m (T3), approximately 1370m (T4) and approximately 1490m (T5). The clinic employs 13 staff and specialises in treating horses. The clinic’s proprietor highlights that horses are ‘flight’ animals when confronted with alarming situations and considers that horses attending the clinic may be alarmed by the presence of the moving turbines, the noise they generate and any associated shadow flicker. This alarm may result in the horses bolting with consequent dangers for animals and staff and the possibility of loss of clients and reduction in business as a result.
I am aware of an Advisory Statement on Wind Farms prepared by the British Horse Society (April 2010) which highlights that horses may react adversely to shadow flicker, blades that start to turn and noise. The submitted information with the application demonstrates that the clinic is wholly outside the possible zone where shadow flicker might be experienced. The distance between the clinic and the turbines leads me to conclude that noise from their operation will not be particularly startling to the horses. This leaves the movement of the blades to consider.
The British Horse Society recommend that a separation distance of four times the turbine height is achieved away from trails where horses would be unfamiliar with turbines, i.e. 500m in this case. The nearest turbine would be likely to be around double the recommended distance from horses being loaded/unloaded to the clinic. I am not aware that there are stables or paddock facilities at the clinic which are used to keep visiting horses at the site but understand that a trotting strip and lunge circle are available to be used in lameness examinations. The ‘lameness’ facilities are a further 70m away from the nearest turbine and there is a degree of intervening planting. Taking all of these factors into account I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that horses visiting the clinic will be significantly affected by the turbines and therefore conclude that there is little evidence to prove that the business would suffer as a result.
I have considered the impact on local agricultural operations and consider that whilst there will be disruption at the construction and decommissioning phases this will be time limited and during the operational phase a relatively small amount of land take up will be needed. I am not aware of any other businesses in the vicinity that would unduly suffer adverse impacts as a result of the proposals. I acknowledge that some positive socio-economic effects are likely to arise for the local economy during the construction phase (and decommissioning phase) via the increased business to local services such as shops and accommodation from construction personnel together with the possibility of local sourcing of materials and labour. During the operational phase there will be minimal benefits to the local economy and I therefore consider the overall benefits to the local economy will be marginally positive.
I therefore conclude that there are no objections to the proposals in relation to socio-economic factors and is therefore in accordance with saved adopted policy PR.6(d) of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, the NPPF in particular paragraphs 20, 21 and 28, the Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 in particular paragraphs 5.12.6 to 5.12.8 in relation to socio- economic factors and policies PA.14 and PA.15 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Impact on Recreation and Tourism
Impacts on recreation and tourism are linked to both socio-economic considerations and to a large degree by impacts on the character, appearance and function of the local landscape. In this respect the relevant Government guidance and Development Plan policies relating to socio-economic and landscape matters have a bearing on recreation and tourism considerations and as such the guidance and policies within those sections of the report are generally valid in relation here.
However, in respect of the Regional Spatial Strategy I consider that an additional policy to that referred to in the socio economic factors section is also appropriate PA.10 Tourism and Culture that seeks that seeks, amongst other things, to encourage the both the improvement of existing provision as well the creation of new facilities for tourism and culture.
I acknowledge that a large number of objections have been received on the grounds of the impact of tourism especially in relation to the Burton Dassett Country Park. Outdoor recreation and enjoyment of the landscape are important pursuits in the area and are relevant to the tourist industry which is important in the economic prosperity of this part of Warwickshire.
Burton Dassett Hills Country Park is located approximately 2km south of the proposed development site and is one of the key attractions in the area. The site was opened up as Country Park in 1971 and comprises a series of hilltops and a small woodland with a surfaced footpath, totalling approximately 40 hectares in size and attracts approximately 60,000 visitors a year.
The principle impact of the proposed development on tourists and recreational users would be its visual impact. Recreation and visitor interest focuses on the natural and historic environment with walking, horse riding and cycling representing the key activities. The visual impact of the proposal to persons using the landscape and the impact on heritage features are considered in more detail in their respective sections of the committee report.
I acknowledge that comments have been received from Warwickshire County Council Rural Services Manager stating that the visitor satisfaction surveys demonstrate that the enjoyment of the views from Burton Dassett Hills is the primary reason for visiting the hills and that the proposed turbines will detract from the enjoyment of the hills by visitors. I am however aware that there is currently limited information available regarding the impact of wind turbine developments on tourism and little research has been undertaken regarding the potential for such developments to affect the attractiveness of an area to tourists. The submitted Environmental Statement gives examples of reports undertaken in Scotland and Wales and opinion polls undertaken in the Lake District regarding the impact of wind farms on Tourism. These all suggest that a relatively low number of participants would be deterred from visiting an area due to the presence of wind turbines.
Whilst I accept that the proposal will have some significant visual effects (as discussed in other sections of the committee report) and that this may deter some visitors from the area I do not consider that there is compelling evidence to show that the proposal would have such a significantly detrimental impact on the level of tourism/visitors to the area to justify a refusal of planning permission.
With regards to other recreational uses/activities in the surrounding area such as play areas, sports pitches and equestrian uses, given the separation distances that can be achieved and the fact that these uses are not dependent on visual amenity I do not consider that the proposal will have a significantly detrimental impact on these uses.
I also acknowledge that in close proximity of the proposed wind turbines planning permission has been granted for use of the land as a radio controlled model car racing hobby club. However, this is in the same ownership as the land upon which the application is proposed and the location of the wind turbines will not prevent the continued use of this land for such purposes, at the discretion of the land owner.
I therefore conclude that there are no objections to the proposals in relation to tourism and recreation and is therefore in accordance with saved adopted policy PR.6(d) of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, the NPPF in particular paragraph 28, the Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 in particular paragraphs 5.12.6 to 5.12.8 in relation to recreation and tourism factors and policies PA.10 PA.14 and PA.15 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Interference with Electromagnetic Transmissions (Wireless services)
Government guidance within EN-1 and EN-3 appears to be ‘silent’ when it comes to the specific issues of interference with Electromagnetic Transmissions (wireless services). However, the companion guide for PPG 22 ‘ Renewable Energy’ provides guidance on the potential for wind turbines to interfere with radio communications or television transmissions. The companion guide recommends consultation with individual operators in the vicinity of the proposed development throughout the design process.
One of the core land use planning principles of the NPPF specified at bullet point 4 of paragraph 17 is that planning should always seek, amongst others, a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. The NPPF states (paragraph 97 second bullet point), inter alia, directs local planning authorities to ensure that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily. Combining this advice paragraph 98 of the NPPF (bullet point 2) states, amongst others, that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should approve the application (unless other material considerations indicate otherwise), if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
The policy of the Regional Spatial Strategy that is considered to be relevant, although given very limited weight, is Policy EN.1 - Energy Generation.
In assessing the impact of the proposal in terms of Interference with Electromagnetic Transmissions Saved Policy DEV.1(d) of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 appears to be relevant wherein the policy states that the effect of development on the surrounding area in terms of its position is a principle that can be considered when determining planning applications. I consider that the policy is consistent with the NPPF.
The District Council’s Draft Core Strategy, although given very limited weight at the present time, also seeks at policy CS2 Climate Changes and Sustainable Energy Part E (Wind Energy Development) to ensure that there is evidence that the scheme has been designed and sited to minimise any adverse impact on the surrounding area as far as is practical for its effective operation.
Wind farm developments have the potential to affect three main types of wireless services: broadcast services such as television; radio-communications; or point- to-point microwave fixed points. Wind turbines can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions by blocking or deflecting line of sight radio or microwave links, or by the ‘scattering’ of transmission signals. Line of sight links include radio and TV links to local transmitters, telecommunication links and police and emergency service links.
Generally, turbine siting can mitigate any potential impacts, as the separation distance required to avoid problems is generally a matter of a few hundred metres. Scattering of signals mainly affects domestic TV and radio reception. When this occurs it is of a predictable nature and can generally be alleviated by the installation or modification of a local repeater station or cable connection.
Specialist organisations such as OFCOM, the Joint Radio Company (JRC) and Arqiva along with network operators have been consulted and their responses are elsewhere within this report. Two areas of concern have arisen which are highlighted below.
The Joint Radio Company (JRC) analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel and Power Industry and parts of the water industry to assess their potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies. The proposals have been cleared by JRC subject to mitigation in respect of Western Power Distribution’s telemetry link between Berkeswell and North End. I consider that the imposition of a condition relating to this mitigation is acceptable and at the time of writing the committee report the applicant and JRC were working towards an acceptable wording in respect of this condition.
Agents acting on behalf of the BBC have raised concerns about possible interference with TV reception. A condition requiring a scheme to ensure that TV reception is maintained in the event that turbines interfere with transmission quality is a commonly adopted approach by the Planning Inspectorate. A condition dealing with mitigation measures to alleviate TV reception problems has been agreed in principle between the applicants and the BBC agents and I consider this would be appropriate.
No other operators, including mobile phone networks, the Meteorological office or Trinity House have raised any objection in respect of the planning application. I therefore conclude that there are no objections to the proposals in relation to impacts on electromagnetic transmissions subject to the imposition of the appropriate conditions and is in accordance with saved adopted policy DEV.1(d) of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 . The proposal is also considered to be consistent with the NPPF in particular paragraphs 17 in relation to Interference with Electromagnetic Transmissions (Wireless services) and policy EN.1the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands.
Other Matters
Localism/Local Opinion – Although a few interested parties (12 originally) have written in support of the proposed development there is very considerable opposition to the scheme (1459 originally) the majority of which is from the local area. Some opponents of the scheme have drawn attention to the Government’s localism agenda including the aim of strengthening local decision making. From my understanding of the Government’s Localism agenda it is clear that it is not designed to give local people an outright power of veto on development. I have also considered Inspector’s decision letters in relation to this matter and I am of the opinion that whilst the scale of local opinion is a material consideration it is a matter of limited weight to be weighed in the overall balance of considerations.
Community Fund – Wind Farm developers often set up local community funds on a unilateral basis that can pay for the provision and improvement of local services and facilities. The community fund is not however a requirement of the planning process and its presence or absence should not affect the consideration of the proposals and should not be treated as a material planning consideration.
Other Non- Material issues – Some objectors have raised the issue of the turbines affecting property values. This is however not a material consideration that the planning system should become involved in assessing or taking into account.
Some objectors have also raised the issue of lack of wind in the area to generate energy and also that wind energy is not cost effective. Objection has also been raised on the grounds that the proposal would not reduce carbon emissions or the dependence on fossil fuels and that alternative renewable energy is available. It is however not the role of the Local Planning Authority to determine whether the wind characteristics of an area would support a wind farm development and as such is not considered to be a material planning consideration. Regard must be given to the fact that the applicants would not pursue a planning application and invest a significant amount of time and money if the site was not physically suitable for a wind farm.
The applicant has outlined the technical reasons why this site has been deemed suitable for this development - The site is considered to be capable of generating sufficient megawatt (MW) capacity, the wind speed is considered to be appropriate, the site topography is suitable, there is adequate access to the site, grid connectivity is available and there is a willing land owner/s. It is not considered to be a material planning consideration as to whether the proposal would be cost effective or that alternative renewable energy is available.
Objection has been raised on the grounds that the proposal will result in a precedent for other wind farms should proposal be granted planning permission. However, each planning application is judged on its own merits and I do not consider that if planning permission was granted for this development that it would set a precedent for future wind farm development in the area.
Objection has also been raised on the basis that the decommissioning of the wind turbines will not be undertaken correctly. The decommissioning phase can however be controlled by the imposition of conditions to ensure that this is undertaken correctly. The cost of this is not a material consideration that the planning system should become involved in assessing or taking into account.
Objection has also been raised on the basis that the wind turbines are being erected for company profit only. Again, this is not considered to be a material planning consideration.
Conclusions/Balancing Assessment
There is a clear national and regional need for renewable energy which weighs heavily in favour of the development and is supported by Government, regional policy and the local development plan. The UK is legally obliged by the European Council to provide 15% of its energy requirements through renewable sources by 2020 and the Renewable Energy Strategy of 2009 also requires 30% of electricity to be supplied by renewable resources by 2020. Onshore Wind Farms are the most mature form of renewable technology, and will therefore inevitably play a substantial role in meeting these required targets.
At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as the golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking. Its core planning principles set out the approach of the transition to a low carbon future (paragraph 17 bullet point 6). For decision taking the NPPF makes it clear that this means granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF either taken as a whole or as specific policies (or unless material considerations indicate otherwise).
The Framework notes in Section 10 (Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change), the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources, and for local planning authorities to design their policies to maximise such development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily. The Framework goes onto explain that local planning authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy, and should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable (paragraph 98).
The proposal will, according to the figures produced by the applicant, provide a generating capacity of between 8-12 MW which represents a small but important contribution to the national target for installed renewable energy generation that would in turn contribute towards the Government’s aims of decarbonising the production of energy in the UK and increasing the security of Britain’s energy supplies through reducing the demand for fossil fuels such as coal and gas. The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap sets out actions that are intended to accelerate the delivery of renewable energy including onshore wind. These aims weigh heavily in support of the planning application. Wider economic and environmental benefits attached to all renewable energy schemes are significant material considerations that have to be given substantial weight.
However, the Governments intention is not that all renewable energy schemes should be supported irrespective of the harm they might cause. The benefits of producing renewable energy and assisting in meeting national obligations, aspirations and helping to reduce the impact of climate change have to be set against any identified harm. In this respect paragraph 14 states that, for decision-taking the presumption in favour of sustainable development means (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) that where the development plan is out-of-date permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole or where specific NPPF policies indicate that development should be restricted.
I acknowledge that any wind farm is likely to bring a change to the landscape. However, in this case the scheme will create a new wind farm landscape character close to the turbines and beyond this, new landscape sub-types including Vale Farmland with wind turbines, Lias Village Farmland with wind turbines and Ironstone Fringe with wind turbines. The proposal will also have a harmful impact on the setting of the nationally important Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal will not safeguard or enhance the character of the site or its surroundings and is in landscape terms inappropriate and harmful. I do not consider that this detrimental impact can be satisfactorily mitigated against. This landscape and visual harm counts against the proposal.
I also acknowledge that wind farms change the outlook from many homes and that this would certainly be the case with the proposed development. However, in respect of three properties Lower Spring Farm, Trotters and Meadow Farm (aka Bungalow Farm) I consider that the turbines would be present in such number, size and proximity that they would represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in the main views from theses houses and their gardens to make the properties an unattractive and unsatisfactory place in which to live. I do not consider that this detrimental impact can be satisfactorily mitigated against. This harm to residential amenity counts against the proposal.
In respect of aviation, Coventry Airport Limited have raised an objection due to potential adverse impacts on aviation safety from the turbines appearing on their radar and causing visual ‘clutter’ which might mask the movements of aircraft. Whilst the applicants consider such impacts to be minimal and not significant the Airport disagrees. A further meeting has been arranged between the applicant and Coventry Airport Limited to try and address these issues. The Airport advise that no proper hazard identification and risk assessment which follows the Civil Aviation guidance within CAP 760 has been undertaken and they question a number of the applicants assumptions. Given the national importance to aviation safety I must take the precautionary principle. I therefore consider that the proposals are likely to lead to unresolved aviation safety problems relating to aircraft traffic at Coventry Airport. This harm to aviation safety counts against the proposal although I acknowledge that the impacts may be able to be mitigated against should further information be submitted by the applicant.
In respect of the impact on heritage assets the proposal is considered to be harmful to 4 heritage assets within 5km of the application site: Burton Dassett Beacon Tower (Grade II and Scheduled Ancient Monument), Knightcote Manor (Grade II), Church of St Peter and St Clare, Fenny Compton (Grade II*) and Fenny Compton Conservation Area. Whilst narrowly failing to reach the level of ‘substantial’ required to trigger paragraph 133 of the NPPF (in respect of the Beacon Tower), the harm to these heritage assets would nevertheless be at a level which would require this to be weighed most carefully in the balance against public benefit in line with paragraph 134 of the NPPF. In assessing this harm I do not consider that the detrimental impact can be satisfactorily mitigated against. This harm to heritage assets counts against the proposal.
The Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice Team (WCC Archaeology) have confirmed that features, including a series of structures, associated with a Romano-British farmstead survive within the northernmost portion of the application site and that these have a regional significance. WCC Archaeology have recommended that the applicant redesign the proposed access track to avoid having an impact upon the significant Romano-British site and that if this is not possible it may be necessary to relocate the track. At the time of writing this committee report no further information to address this matter has been formally submitted by the applicant. This identified harm to archaeological remains therefore counts against the proposal, although I acknowledge that the impacts may be able to be mitigated against should further information be submitted by the applicant.
In respect of issues relating to highway safety/traffic generation, flooding, health and safety (including shadow flicker) and ecology I consider that any negative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed by the imposition of planning conditions. I have also taken into account that in respect of ecology the applicant has stated a number of limited enhancement measures that would be introduced in relation to bats, great crested newts, reptiles and habitats. I therefore consider the impacts on such matters to be neutral.
Overall, and taking into account all the positive and negative elements of the proposed development as detailed above, I consider that in relation to landscape and visual impacts, the harm is significant and demonstrable and the benefits of the proposals do not outweigh such harm. I consider that in relation to residential amenity impacts, the harm is significant and demonstrable and the benefits of the proposals do not outweigh such harm. I consider that in relation to aviation safety impacts, the harm is significant and demonstrable and the benefits of the proposals do not outweigh such harm. With regard to impacts on heritage assets, specifically listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas I consider that the harm is less than significant and the benefits of the proposals would outweigh this harm when taken in isolation. However when the harm to heritage assets is considered together with all other negative harmful impacts I consider that such harm is significant and demonstrable and the benefits of the proposals do not outweigh such cumulative harm. With regard to impacts on heritage assets, specifically archaeological remains, I consider that the harm is less than significant and the benefits of the proposals would outweigh this harm when taken in isolation. However when the harm to archaeological remains is considered together with all other negative harmful impacts I consider that such harm is significant and demonstrable and the benefits of the proposals do not outweigh such cumulative harm.
Having carried out the balancing exercise I have concluded that the proposal is unacceptable in planning terms and that planning permission should be refused. In undertaking this exercise I have taken into account the fact that discussions are ongoing with the applicant regarding issues relating to archaeology and aviation. However, I am of the opinion that even if these objections are overcome that the remaining negative impacts of harm from the proposal in respect of impacts on the landscape and residential amenity would still individually in their own right be significant and demonstrable and would not be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme and in relation to heritage assets the harm to these when considered cumulatively with the harm to the landscape and residential amenity would also be significant and demonstrable and would not be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.
In reaching this conclusion I have also taken into account the fact that the development would be in situ for a period of 25 years and is reversible. However, such an operational period would be a significant length for any perceived harm to be experienced and as such I consider that the fact that the development would be for a temporary period does not outweigh the significant and demonstrable harm identified above. In reaching this decision my officers have sought at both pre-application stage and during the consideration of this application to act in a positive way to try and foster the delivery of sustainable development, working proactively with applicants to try and secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
11. RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-
1. Landscape and Visual Amenity
The District Planning Authority acknowledge that any wind farm is likely to bring a significant change to the local landscape. However, in this case the District Planning Authority consider that the proposal will not safeguard or enhance the character of the site or its surroundings and is, in landscape terms, inappropriate and significantly and demonstrably harmful by reason of its scale, height, design, siting and operation. The District Planning Authority consider that the proposal would adversely affect local landscape character when viewed from publicly accessible locations and the wider area having regard to the sensitivity of the area. This would result in the creation of a new ‘wind farm’ landscape character close to the turbines and, beyond this, new landscape sub-types including ‘Vale Farmland with wind turbines’, ‘Lias Village Farmland with wind turbines’ and ‘Ironstone Fringe with wind turbines’. The District Planning Authority also considers that the proposal will have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the nationally important Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The District Planning Authority do not consider that these detrimental impacts to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area can be satisfactorily mitigated against and that the identified harm is significant and demonstrable and the benefits of the proposals do not outweigh such harm. In light of the above the proposal is considered in landscape terms to be contrary to saved adopted policies PR.1, PR.6 (a), EF.1, DEV.1 ((a), (b),(c) and (d) Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 of the , the NPPF – in particular paragraphs 7, 9, 17, 109 and 115, Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 – in particular paragraphs 5.9.9, 5.9.12, 5.9.15 and 5.9.17, National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 – in particular paragraph 2.7.49 and Policies EN1, PA1, QE1, and QE6 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands and Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of the Stratford on Avon District Design Guide and other guidance within the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines and the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan. The proposal should therefore be refused in line with Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. In reaching this decision the District Planning Authority have sought at both pre- application stage and during the consideration of this application to act in a positive way to try and foster the delivery of sustainable development, working proactively with applicants to try and secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
2. Residential Amenity
The District Planning Authority acknowledge that wind farms have the potential to change the outlook from many homes. However, in respect of three residential dwellings, Lower Spring Farm, Trotters and Meadow Farm (aka Bungalow Farm) the District Planning Authority consider that the proposed turbines would be present in such number, size and proximity that they would represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in the main views from these houses and their gardens to make the properties an unattractive and unsatisfactory place in which to live. The District Planning Authority do not consider that this detrimental impact can be satisfactorily mitigated against and that the identified harm to these residential properties is significant and demonstrable and the benefits of the proposals do not outweigh such harm.. In light of this the proposal is therefore considered to contrary to saved adopted policies PR.6 (d) and DEV.1 ((d) and (e)) of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, the NPPF – in particular paragraphs 9 and 17 Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 – in particular paragraph 5.9.18, National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 – in particular paragraph 2.7.49 and policy EN.1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands. The proposal should therefore be refused in line with Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. In reaching this decision the District Planning Authority have sought at both pre-application stage and during the consideration of this application to act in a positive way to try and foster the delivery of sustainable development, working proactively with applicants to try and secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
3. Aviation Safety
Coventry Airport Limited have raised an objection to the proposals due to potential adverse impacts on aviation safety from the turbines appearing on their radar and causing visual ‘clutter’ and masking the movements of aircraft. Coventry Airport Limited also advise that no proper hazard identification and risk assessment which follows the Civil Aviation Authority guidance within CAP 760 has been undertaken and question a number of the applicants assumptions. Given the national importance of aviation safety the District Planning Authority considers that it must take the precautionary principle in all matters relating to this. In light of this the District Planning Authority considers that the proposed development is likely to lead to unresolved aviation safety problems relating to aircraft traffic at Coventry Airport. In the absence of any agreed mitigation measures between the applicant and Coventry Airport Limited the District Planning Authority consider that the risk to aviation safety likely to be caused is significant and demonstrable and the benefits of the proposals do not outweigh such harm. In light of this the District Planning Authority therefore conclude that in relation to aviation issues the proposal is contrary to saved adopted policy PR.6(c) and of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 and the requirements of the NPPF in particular paragraph 97 footnote 17, Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 – in particular paragraphs 5.4.2, 5.4.7, 5.4.11, 5.4.12, 5.4.14 and 5.4.17. The proposal should therefore be refused in line with Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. In reaching this decision the District Planning Authority have sought at both pre-application stage and during the consideration of this application to act in a positive way to try and foster the delivery of sustainable development, working proactively with applicants to try and secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
4. Heritage Assets
In respect of the impact on heritage assets the proposal is considered to be harmful, by reason of its scale, height, design, siting and operation, to the setting if 4 heritage assets within 5km of the application site: Burton Dassett Beacon Tower (Grade II Listed Building and Scheduled Ancient Monument), Knightcote Manor (Grade II Listed Building), Church of St Peter and St Clare, Fenny Compton (Grade II* Listed Building) and Fenny Compton Conservation Area. In respect of the Burton Dassett Beacon Tower the harmful impact is considered to only narrowly fail to reach the level of ‘substantial’ required to trigger a refusal as stated in paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework whilst the impact on the setting of the other 3 heritage assets is considered to be less than substantial. However, when taken together the overall harm to heritage assets in the form of Listed Buildings, a Scheduled Ancient Monument and a Conservation Area is considered to be significant and adverse. The District Planning Authority do not consider that this identified harm can be successfully mitigated. The identified harm with regard to impacts on heritage assets, specifically Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas is assessed as being slightly less than substantial and therefore paragraph 134 of the NPPF applies. It is acknowledged that the identified harm is outweighed by the benefits of the proposals when taken in isolation. However when the harm to heritage assets is considered together with all other negative harmful impacts (i.e. to landscape and visual amenity, residential amenity, aviation safety and archaeological remains) it is considered that such harm is significant and demonstrable and the benefits of the proposals do not outweigh such cumulative harm. In light of this the proposal is considered contrary to saved policies PR.6 (a), PR.5 (a) and (d), EF.13 and EF.14 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, The NPPF – in particular paragraphs 131, 132, Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 – in particular paragraphs 5.8.12, 5.8.13, 5.8.14, 5.8.15 and 5.8.18 National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 – in particular paragraph 2.7.43 and together with policies EN1, PA1, QE5 and QE6 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands. The proposal should therefore be refused in line with Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. In reaching this decision the District Planning Authority have sought at both pre-application stage and during the consideration of this application to act in a positive way to try and foster the delivery of sustainable development, working proactively with applicants to try and secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
5. Archaeology
The trial trenching undertaken across this site has established that features, including a series of structures, pits, gullies and boundary features, associated with a Romano-British farmstead survive within the application site. The Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice team (WCCAIA) consider that this Romano-British farmstead is of at least regional significance. The access track as proposed will cross this archaeological site, and cause damage to the remains. The District Planning Authority in conjunction with WCCAIA are concerned that, in addition to the loss of this portion of the site, the proposed excavation of only a relatively narrow ‘slice’ of this archaeological site could have implications for the understanding of the wider site and could therefore have a significant negative impact upon the significance of the wider archaeological site. WCCAIA have recommended that the applicant redesign the proposed access track to avoid having an impact upon the archaeological remains and that if this is not possible it may be necessary to relocate the track. However, no further information has been formally submitted to demonstrate that the impact of the proposal can be successfully mitigated. In the absence of any successful mitigation it is considered that harm will be caused to significant archaeological remains. The identified harm with regard to impacts on archaeological remains, is acknowledged as being less than significant and is outweighed by the benefits of the proposals when taken in isolation. However when the harm to archaeological remains is considered together with all other negative harmful impacts (i.e. to landscape and visual amenity, residential amenity, aviation safety and heritage assets) it is considered that such harm is significant and demonstrable and the benefits of the proposals do not outweigh such cumulative harm. In light of this the proposal is considered to be contrary to saved policies PR.6 (a), PR.5 (a) and (d), EF.11 and EF.11a of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, the NPPF – in particular paragraphs 131 and 132, Overarching National Policy for Energy EN-1 – in particular paragraphs 5.8.12, 5.8.13, 5.8.14 and 5.8.15, National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 – in particular paragraph 2.7.43 together with policies EN1, PA1, QE5 and QE6 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands. The proposal should therefore be refused in line with Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. In reaching this decision the District Planning Authority have sought at both pre-application stage and during the consideration of this application to act in a positive way to try and foster the delivery of sustainable development, working proactively with applicants to try and secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
ROBERT WEEKS HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT & PLANNING