WOLF HEDGE WINDFARM SCOPING REPORT
MAY 2014
Prepared By:
Arcus Consultancy Services
Suite 1C Swinegate Court East York North Yorkshire YO1 8AJ
T +44 (0)1904 715 470 l E [email protected] w www.arcusconsulting.co.uk
Registered in England & Wales No. 5644976
Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Scoping Report ...... 1 1.2 The Applicant ...... 1 1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment ...... 1 1.4 Cumulative Assessment ...... 2
2 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 3 2.1 Site Description ...... 3 2.2 Site Selection ...... 3 2.3 The Windfarm ...... 3 2.4 Turbines ...... 4 2.5 Access ...... 4 2.6 Grid Connection ...... 4 2.7 Operation and Decommissioning ...... 5 2.8 Scoping Layout and Design Iterations ...... 5
3 REVIEW OF PLANNING POLICY ...... 6 3.1 Policy Overview ...... 6 3.2 Energy Policy Context for Development ...... 6 3.3 National Planning Policy ...... 8 3.3.1 National Planning Policy Framework ...... 8 3.3.2 National Policy Statements on Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy (EN-3) ...... 9 3.4 National Planning Policy Guidance ...... 10 3.5 Development Plan ...... 10 3.5.1 Rugby Borough Core Strategy (2011) ...... 10 3.5.2 Rugby Local Plan (2006) (‘Saved’ policies) ...... 11 3.5.3 Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) ...... 11 3.5.4 Emerging Plan Making – Rugby Borough Local Plan ...... 11
4 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ...... 12 4.1 Introduction ...... 12 4.2 Landscape Methodology ...... 12 4.2.1 Designations and Capacity ...... 12 4.3 Visual Methodology ...... 13 4.4 Cumulative Assessment ...... 14
5 ECOLOGY ...... 15
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page i Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
5.1 Potential Effects of the Development ...... 15 5.2 Designated Sites ...... 15 5.3 Desk Study...... 17 5.4 Baseline Surveys ...... 17 5.4.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...... 17 5.4.2 Invertebrates ...... 18 5.4.3 Amphibians ...... 18 5.4.4 Reptiles ...... 18 5.4.5 Bats ...... 19 5.4.6 Otter and Water Vole ...... 20 5.4.7 Badgers ...... 20 5.4.8 Hazel dormouse ...... 21 5.4.9 Other species ...... 21 5.5 Ecological Assessment ...... 21
6 ORNITHOLOGY ...... 22 6.1 Statutory Designated Sites ...... 22 6.2 Baseline Surveys ...... 23 6.2.1 Flight Activity Surveys ...... 23 6.2.2 Breeding Bird Survey ...... 24 6.2.3 Breeding Raptor and Owl Survey ...... 24 6.2.4 Winter Walkover Survey ...... 24 6.3 Preliminary Results ...... 24 6.4 Ornithological Assessment ...... 25
7 HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITIONS ...... 26
8 CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY ...... 27
9 NOISE ...... 30 9.1 Introduction ...... 30 9.2 Construction Noise Limits ...... 30 9.3 Operational Noise Limits ...... 31 9.3.1 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97) ...... 31 9.3.2 Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for Wind Turbine Noise Assessment ...... 31 9.3.3 Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound ...... 34 9.3.4 Amplitude Modulation ...... 34
10 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 36
11 SHADOW FLICKER AND REFLECTIVITY ...... 37
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page ii May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
12 SOCIO-ECONOMICS, TOURISM AND RECREATION ...... 38
13 ACCESS AND TRAFFIC ...... 39
14 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ...... 40
FIGURES ...... 41
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page iii Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Scoping Report This report constitutes requests for both an Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion and a Scoping Opinion for the proposed Wolf Hedge Windfarm (the “Development”), which is to be located approximately 1.8 kilometres (km) southeast of Wolvey, Warwickshire. The site location is shown in Figure 1: Site Location and Layout. This Scoping Report has been prepared by Arcus Consultancy Services Ltd (“Arcus”) on behalf of ASC Renewables Ltd. An application for planning consent will be made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and it is anticipated that this application will require an Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) under Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 20111 (the “EIA Regulations”). The findings of the EIA will be presented within an Environmental Statement (“ES”). The Development is anticipated to have a generating capacity in the range 10 – 21 Mega Watts (MW). Consequently, the application for consent would be under the Town and Country Planning Act. This Scoping Report has been prepared with a view to providing a structure for consultation on the approach to the EIA and the content of the ES. It provides details on the key issues anticipated and outlines methodologies for the various technical assessments. Various bodies including Warwickshire County Council, Rugby Borough Council, the Environment Agency, Natural England, and English Heritage will be consulted to obtain their comments on the provisional scope set out in this report. Comments from the various consultees will be considered, and the scope of the EIA will be amended as appropriate.
1.2 The Applicant ASC Renewables is an independent renewable energy developer based in Manchester with operations focused on the onshore wind market in England. ASC Renewables is the wind development partner of Anglian Water and has recently delivered 6.9 MW of consented capacity at two projects, Newton Marsh in Lincolnshire and March in Cambridgeshire. In 2012, ASC Renewables submitted a planning application for an eight turbine windfarm in Lincolnshire. ASC Renewables also has an independent portfolio of over 70 screened projects across England currently at the pre-planning stage with a potential 150 MW total generation capacity of renewable energy. ASC Renewables is an ethical developer with the vision of delivering sustainable energy without compromise. For each of our projects, we carefully consider the balanced needs and perspective of local communities, landscapes and the natural and historical environment with the growing need for renewable energy.
1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a legal requirement for certain defined developments. For windfarms of the size proposed at the Development, local planning authorities have been delegated the decision on whether or not an EIA is required. EIA is an iterative process of assessment and design, during which prediction and assessment of effects will inform the evolving design of the windfarm proposal. The proposal can then be refined in order to avoid or reduce potential environmental effects where predicted.
1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. SI 2011/1824 Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1824/contents/made [accessed on 04/03/2014].
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 1 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
For the Development, ASC Renewables and Arcus have assumed that an EIA will be required and are proceeding on that basis. Through the EIA process, impacts arising during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases will be assessed and mitigated accordingly. This includes all temporary construction facilities and other buildings or structures which will be on-site for the duration of the windfarm, such as the control/metering building.
1.4 Cumulative Assessment New proposals for wind energy development have been stimulated by the policy support shown by the UK Government. Government guidance on renewable energy developments is now set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘NPPF’, 2012)2. The NPPF states that planning authorities should design their policies to maximise renewable energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts. Cumulative assessments will consider windfarms within the study area that are operating, consented or in the planning process and for which sufficient information is publicly available, including details of size, location and number of turbines. However the appropriate extent of cumulative work relevant to each environmental assessment will be agreed during the consultation process.
2 Department of Communities and Local Government, March 2012, “National Planning Policy Framework” Available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf [Accessed on 13/05/2014]
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 2 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
2 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Site Description The site is located approximately 1.8 kilometres (km) to the southeast of Wolvey, and approximately 1.5 km south of Copston Magna, Warwickshire (as shown on Figure 1: Site Location and Layout). The site boundary encompasses an area of approximately 187.5 ha and consists of a number of enclosed agricultural fields bound by Mere Lane in the northeast, a linear area of woodland known as ‘Withybrook Spinney’ along the southern boundary with further agricultural land to the north and west of the Site.
2.2 Site Selection The Development site was identified by ASC Renewables as part of a site selection process across England. Over 70 sites have been rigorously investigated against the following criteria for suitability for windfarm development: • National and local designations; • Local landscape character; • Planning policy and regional targets; • Wind resource; • Access; • Proximity to the electricity grid; • Airfield and Ministry of Defence (MoD) safeguarding; • Telecommunications; • Topography and appropriate ground conditions; and • Cumulative issues. Following this investigation, a number of potential site locations were identified, including the Development site, as being suitable for windfarm development. Identified sites were visited to ‘ground truth’ the desk based research. Landowners were identified and contacted to ascertain if there was interest in agreeing to a potential windfarm development. A number of sites were eliminated due to proximity to settlements, ornithological sensitivities and a range of other constraints. Further feasibility studies indicated that the Development site satisfies the following criteria: • Agreement with site landowners; and • Viable wind resource through the examination of ground terrain data and wind data. It was concluded, based on available information, that the site is suitable for the development of a windfarm, subject to obtaining relevant consents.
2.3 The Windfarm The purpose of the Development is to generate electricity from a renewable source of energy, the wind. Studies to date have suggested that the site could accommodate up to 7 wind turbines with associated infrastructure, although it is recognised that the number may change due to technical, environmental and commercial constraints. The windfarm infrastructure required will therefore include: • Up to 7 wind turbines and associated turbine foundations and crane hardstandings; • One meteorological mast and associated infrastructure; • One site entrance from a public road and on-site access tracks between turbines, including passing bays and corners. Existing access tracks will be utilised where appropriate; and • An on-site power collection system (turbine transformers, underground cables and control building).
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 3 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
Temporary works would include one or two construction compounds and laydown areas.
2.4 Turbines The layout will be developed as the EIA progresses, and will be particularly informed by further technical assessments including aviation, landscape and visual analysis and noise assessments. An indicative turbine layout is shown in Figure 1: Site Location and Layout. However as part of the scoping process various turbine dimensions will be considered within the limits detailed below: • Number of turbines: up to 7 • Hub height: up to 85 m • Rotor diameter: up to 101 m • Height to blade tip: up to 131 m • Generating capacity (per turbine): between 1.8-3.0 MW • Total wind farm generation capacity: up to 21 MW It is important to note that the most suitable turbine model for a particular location can change with time, as technology develops and wind data is gathered and analysed, and therefore a final choice of turbine for the Development has not yet been made. The most suitable turbine for the site would be chosen shortly before construction, subject to a procurement process, within the consented turbine parameters (e.g., tip height). For the purposes of the EIA, a precautionary approach will be taken and the largest prospective turbine will be assessed as the selected option. This allows a worst case scenario to be evaluated, for example, during the landscape and visual assessment and ornithology collision risk modelling.
2.5 Access Turbine components would be likely to be delivered to a suitable port with access to the trunk road network, likely an east coast port such as the Port of King’s Lynn. Turbine components are likely to approach the site via the A14, travelling westwards before joining the M1. From the M1, the turbine components would likely take the A4303 westwards to join the A5. From the A5 the B4455 may be taken southwards prior to taking Mere Lane and then onto the site via a new access point. Other construction traffic such as aggregate and concrete is likely to originate locally, and would utilise the motorway and trunk road network as far as possible before accessing the site via the new access point. Access routes would be confirmed or revised in consultation with the appropriate bodies. Indicative details of an access and traffic assessment are provided in Section 13 of this document. Within the site, existing access tracks will be utilised where appropriate with new tracks constructed where necessary. New tracks would be of a graded stone with a running width of approximately 5 m, or as appropriate for the ground conditions as identified through a geotechnical survey. Passing bays will be included in the site design where appropriate.
2.6 Grid Connection Each turbine will have a transformer, located either within the turbine tower or immediately adjacent to the base of the tower. On-site underground cabling, laid alongside the access tracks where practicable, will link the turbine transformers to a site control building located within a compound. It is anticipated at this stage that a sub- station will be required on site, but this will be confirmed through the EIA process.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 4 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
The Development will require a new grid connection, which will be subject to a separate design process and consent (such as under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989). A number of options are currently being explored to determine the most suitable option for connecting the Development into the electricity grid, and it is considered likely that the grid connection cable will be placed underground. A detailed environmental assessment of the effects associated with the grid connection has not been considered as part of the EIA for the Development, however a high level environmental review will be provided as necessary to understand the associated effects of the new grid connection requirements.
2.7 Operation and Decommissioning The Development will be designed to operate for a period of 25-30 years. A typical site is visited up to four times a month by a small maintenance crew. There will also be a requirement for maintenance of the access tracks and substation. At the end of the operating period, under the planning consent that will be applied for, the site will be decommissioned. All above ground equipment will be dismantled and removed from the site, cables and the turbine foundations will be cut off below ground level and covered with topsoil. Access tracks will be left for use by the landowners, or if appropriate, covered with topsoil.
2.8 Scoping Layout and Design Iterations The scoping layout is a preliminary layout that will be used as a starting point for design iterations. Baseline environmental and technical information will be used to assess potential effects and the design iterations will respond to these to minimise potential effects, in accordance with best practice. The specific principles that will guide the design process of the Development are as follows: • To develop a turbine layout which maximises the use of the wind resource at the site; • To create a windfarm of a size and density that respects the scale and nature of the landscape in which it is located; • To relate turbine layout to the particular landform of the site and surroundings; • To develop a turbine layout which minimises potential environmental impacts including ecological and ornithological considerations, noise, cultural heritage, hydrology and landscape character and visual amenity; and • To create a design that takes account of the relevant national, regional and local policies and guidance. These objectives will be considered throughout the assessment and iterative site design process, ensuring that the final layout is acceptable in landscape and visual terms while also complying with other environmental and technical constraints.
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 5 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
3 REVIEW OF PLANNING POLICY
3.1 Policy Overview There is a comprehensive range of legislation and policy which supports the development and implementation of decentralised low carbon and renewable energy. The ES will draw upon various policies and other material considerations relevant to the Development, against which the suitability of the proposal shall be assessed.
3.2 Energy Policy Context for Development Recent climatic research and reported changes in world weather systems have brought the issue of climate change to the forefront of the political agenda. In the Climate Change Act 20083, the United Kingdom (UK) Government, set a binding commitment to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050 and require that limits be set on the total amount of emissions in successive five year periods (carbon budgets), so that, by 2020, UK’s carbon emissions will have been cut by at least 34%, against a 1990 baseline. This makes the UK the first country in the world to introduce such a significant, long term legally binding carbon reduction target. The UK is currently responsible for the release of around 2% of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In March 2013, the Department of Energy and Climate Change issued a Statistical Release4 which estimates that, in 2012, 479 million tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) are estimated to have been emitted from the UK. It further states that CO2 emissions from electricity generation power stations are the largest single contributors to UK greenhouse gas emissions, contributing just under one third (156 MtCO2) of the total amount of CO2 emitted in the UK. In the same year, the main sources of UK CO2 emissions were estimated to be from the energy supply sector (40%), followed by transport (24%), Business (16%), Residential (15%) and other processes (4%). The Statistical Release states that estimated emissions in 2012 were 4.5% higher than the 2011 figure of 459 MtCO2. In December 2008, European Union (EU) leaders and the European Parliament agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% (compared to 1990 levels) by 2020 and by 30 % in the context of an international climate agreement. This EU 2020 Climate and Energy Package contains four parts, including the Renewables Directive5 which instructs member states to share the task of achieving the EU’s 20% renewable target by 2020. The UK’s national target is for 15% of all energy to come from renewables by 2020. This is equivalent to a seven fold increase in UK renewable energy consumption from around 2.25% in 2008. The Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics6 (“the Digest”) provides the most up to date Government statistics on electricity consumed from renewable energy resources. The Digest reports, using the methodology used by the Renewables Directive, that consumption of energy from renewable resources in 2012 was 4.1%, up from 3.8% in 2011. Across 2011 and 2012, the UK is reported to have achieved an average of 3.94%, below the 4.04% interim target set by the Renewables Directive for 2011/12. Although these figures do not include consented schemes which are not yet constructed, they do demonstrate that significant additional renewable generating capacity will be required to achieve the targets agreed for 2020.
3Climate Change Act 2008. London: HMSO. 4 Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) Statistical Release 28th March 2013. 2012 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Provisional Figures and 2011 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Final Figures by Fuel Type and End-User [online]. Available at: http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175540/ghg_national_statistics_release_2012_p rovisional.pdf [Accessed on 13/05/2014] 5Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. 6 DECC (2013) Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, TSO.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 6 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
The Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009)7 (part of the Government’s overall UK Low Carbon Transition Plan) states that renewables could provide more than 30% of our electricity by 2020. Wind energy is seen as the most significant renewable energy source for achieving these targets in the short and medium term, and the Government expects more than two-thirds of the target to come from onshore and offshore wind. Wind power does not create CO2 emissions during its operational life and displaces other fuel sources that generate greenhouse gas emissions. The DECC published the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (‘the Roadmap’) in July 20118. This document reiterates the UK Government’s commitment to renewable energy increases throughout the country, and states that “the UK can meet the target to deliver 15% of the UK’s energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020”. The Roadmap sets out a breakdown for technologies to contribute towards national targets. By 2020, onshore wind is expected to generate between 24 and 32 TeraWatt hours (TWh) of electricity. The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update (2013)9 (“the Roadmap Update”) sets out progress and changes delivered since the original Roadmap was published. The Roadmap Update re-emphasises that Central Government is committed to increasing the deployment of renewable energy across the United Kingdom, and that onshore wind has a key role to play as one of the most effective and proven renewables technologies, to ensure the 2020 renewable energy targets and wider decarbonisation ambitions are met. The Roadmap Update confirms that the UK is on track to meet the 2020 target, in respect of the “pipeline” of developments that are in or awaiting construction, or awaiting planning approval. However, the Roadmap Update also warns there is uncertainty because it is not known how much capacity in the pipeline will go forward, as not all projects will be consented and built. The Roadmap Update also reports on the economic benefits of renewable energy, stating that since 2010 that £31 billion worth of investment in renewable electricity has been announced, with the potential to support over 35,000 jobs in the UK. The Committee on Climate Change’s (CCC) latest progress report to Parliament10 (“the Progress Report”) notes that, whilst the UK has met its first carbon budget (2008-2012), the UK is not, based on current rates, likely to meet later carbon budgets, as planned trajectories increase towards 2020 and beyond. The Progress Report is clear that if the Government is to meet its legally binding targets, then there will be a necessity for Government to develop and implement further policy measures over the next two years and a need to increase the pace of delivery. The risk is also expressed that progress on carbon investment will not be sustained. The rate of approval of small scale projects, defined as those which would be determined at Local Authority level i.e. below 50 MW, is reported in England to be on a downward trend since 2007. The Progress Report also reports that the rate at which projects are entering construction is reported as slow and thus whilst there is significant capacity awaiting construction, there is uncertainty over rates of implementation. The CCC is reporting uncertainty over whether legally binding targets will therefore be met.
7 HM Government (2009) The UK Renewable Energy Strategy, July 2009. Surrey: OPSI 8 DECC (2011) UK Renewable Energy Roadmap [online]. Available at: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/renewable- energy-roadmap [Accessed 13/05/2014] 9 DECC (2013) UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update, 2013 [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255182/UK_Renewable_Energy_Roadmap_- _5_November_-_FINAL_DOCUMENT_FOR_PUBLICATIO___.pdf [Accessed 13/05/2014]. 10 Climate Change Committee (2013) Meeting Carbon Budgets – 2013 Progress Report to Parliament, 2013 [online]. Available at http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/2013-progress-report/ [Accessed 13/05/2014].
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 7 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
3.3 National Planning Policy
3.3.1 National Planning Policy Framework The NPPF was published on 27th March 2012 and must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. It sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied, and provides a framework within which local people and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans. The NPPF also identifies the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development (paragraph 6). Three dimensions are identified to sustainable development, namely economic, social and environmental. These three dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles. The environmental role includes “. . . mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy” (paragraph 7). The NPPF re-iterates that planning legislation requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. There is a clear presumption within the NPPF in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 15): “Policies in Local Plans should follow the approach of the presumption in favour of sustainable development so that it is clear that development which is sustainable can be approved without delay”. The NPPF is also clear that as regards decision making, the approach of Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should be positive to foster the delivery of sustainable development (paragraph 187): “Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision- takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.”
3.3.1.1 Renewable Energy A core planning principle of the NPPF is to encourage the use of renewable resources, including the development of renewable energy. The following core planning principle is relevant: “support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate…and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy)” This permissive approach to renewable energy is also reflected in Section 10 ‘Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change’ of the NPPF, which encourages local authorities to take a positive approach to renewable energy development. Paragraph 97 states: “To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources;” When determining a planning application for renewable energy development, LPAs should also not require the applicant to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy, and should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 8 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
3.3.1.2 Green Belt The NPPF also sets out that Central Government’s policies as regards Green Belt. The following core planning principle is relevant: “...protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting rural communities within it;” The NPPF sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belt land are identified as their openness and permanence. The purposes of including land within the Green Belt consist of checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. A presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt is set out, which by definition, is harmful to the Green Belt. Planning permission will only be granted for inappropriate development in “very special circumstances” (paragraph 87). Specific guidance is provided on renewable energy development in the Green Belt. The NPPF states that many elements of renewable energy projects would comprise inappropriate development, and that developers will need to demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’, if the project is to proceed. The NPPF does however identify that (paragraph 91): “Such very special circumstances may include wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources”.
3.3.2 National Policy Statements on Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy (EN-3) The NPPF also makes it clear that National Policy Statements also form part of the overall framework of national planning policy, and are a material consideration in decisions on planning applications. Both the National Planning Policy Statements on Energy (EN-1)11 and Renewable Energy (EN-3)12 are highly supportive of renewable energy development, and provide specific guidance for wind farms and their associated environmental assessments. Within Part 3 of EN-1, the document states that: “Government considers that, without significant amounts of new large-scale energy infrastructure, the objectives of its energy and climate change policy cannot be fulfilled.” EN-1 and EN-3 provide similar guidance to the NPPF in respect of renewable energy in the Green Belt and the need to assess ‘very special circumstances’, which may include the wider environmental benefits. EN-1 also identifies that the physical characteristics of a wind farm mean that it may be possible to demonstrate the wind farm has no adverse effects which conflict with the designation of land for Green Belt purposes.
11 Department of Energy and Climate Change, July 2011, Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) [online]. Available at http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/consents-planning/nps2011/1938-overarching- nps-for-energy-en1.pdf [Accessed 13/05/2014]. 12 Department of Energy and Climate Change, July 2011, National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN- 3)-Version for Approval [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/47856/1940-nps-renewable-energy-en3.pdf . [Accessed 13/05/2014].
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 9 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
3.4 National Planning Policy Guidance The National Planning Policy Guidance (“the NPPG”) was launched by Central Government as a planning practice based web resource13. The NPPG provides further advice on how the planning system is to deliver new renewable energy development in locations where local environmental impact is acceptable. A number of criteria are identified when considering planning applications in respect of cumulative impact, topography, heritage, designated areas and local amenity. The NPPG is clear there should not be inflexible rules on buffer zones or separation distances applied to renewable energy development. Whilst distance is identified as a consideration, so is local context, including factors such as topography, local environment and nearby land uses. The NPPG then goes onto provide particular considerations for each renewable technology. The NPPG does not constitute national planning policy which firmly remains the NPPF and the NPSs. Whilst the NPPG does require the consideration of planning issues that affect local communities, it does not introduce a ‘community veto’ over wind energy development.
3.5 Development Plan The Development Plan for the Site comprises of the: • Rugby Borough Council Local Development Framework (2011) (including Core Strategy); and • Rugby Local Plan 2006 (‘Saved’ policies). The relevance of Development Plan policies now depends on their degree of consistency with Central Government’s planning policies, as set out in the NPPF (paragraph 215). Whilst the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (2008) (“the RSS”) has been revoked, Central Government’s published Post Adoption Statement14, following the revocation of the RSS, makes it clear that it is still incumbent on LPAs to secure more renewable energy development.
3.5.1 Rugby Borough Core Strategy (2011) The Rugby Borough Core Strategy15 (“the Core Strategy”) sets out policies that are principally strategic in nature. The Core Strategy re-iterates the legally binding carbon emission targets which Central Government has set and states there is capacity for renewable energy development within the Council area. The Key Diagram, which forms part of the Core Strategy, does not allocate the Site for any particular purpose. The Proposals Maps shows the Site is in Green Belt and on the northern extreme of the airport safeguarding zone for Coventry Airport for structures over 90 metres. Policy CS 1: Development Strategy sets out the Core Strategy’s planning policy for the Green Belt. The policy states that: “new development will be resisted; only where national policy on Green Belt allows will development be permitted.”
13 Department of Communities and Local Government, May 2014, Planning Practice Guidance [online]. Available at http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/. 14 Department for Communities and Local Government, 2013 Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands Incorporating Phase 1 Changes Post Adoption Statement [online]. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192055/Strategic_Environmental_Assessment_ of_the_Revocation_of_the_West_Midlands_Regional_Strategy_-_Post_Adoption_Statement.pdf. [Accessed 13/05/2014]. 15 Rugby Borough Council, June 2011, Rugby Borough Council Local Development Framework Final version Core Strategy [online]. Available at http://www.rugby.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?fileID=5102. [Accessed 13/05/2014].
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 10 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
The Core Strategy also states that approximately two thirds of the Borough is in designated Green Belt. The Core Strategy also confirms there is relatively little installed renewable energy capacity in the Council area.
3.5.2 Rugby Local Plan (2006) (‘Saved’ policies) The Rugby Local Plan (2006) (“the Local Plan”) contains a number of ‘Saved’ policies that have not been superseded by the Core Strategy. Policy GP 5 Renewable Energy states: “The provision of renewable energy schemes will be encouraged where careful consideration has been given to design, layout and siting in the landscape. Planning permission will be granted where no material harm would result in relation to residential amenity and the environment.” The supporting text to the Policy GP 5 acknowledges the benefits of renewable energy, and states that benefits need to be carefully weighed against the need to protect the environment. There are no relevant ‘Saved’ policies relating to Green Belt. ‘Saved’ policy T 13 Airport Flight Paths safeguards the flight paths to Coventry Airport. The supporting text sets out where development encroaches upon the safety of the approach flight zones, the Civil Aviation Authority will be consulted.
3.5.3 Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) The Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2012)16 support requirements to create more sustainable development through building standards and sustainable construction. Whilst it does not set out any specific requirements for renewable energy development, it does contain a sustainability checklist which is required to be completed for development.
3.5.4 Emerging Plan Making – Rugby Borough Local Plan The Rugby Borough Local Plan (“the RBLP”)17, when adopted, is intended will provide a comprehensive up to date Development Plan. An RBLP Discussion Document (“the Discussion Document”) was published by the Council in July 201318 which sets out a number of options, including whether the RBLP will form a separate document, or will be incorporated into the Core Strategy. The Discussion Document considers the RBLP will need to provide a renewable energy policy, to ensure there is a sound approach to meeting renewables requirements and due to the recognition that wind energy is the most significant resource in the Council area. The Discussion Document also sets out whether the Core Strategy and ‘Saved’ Local Plan policies are consistent with the NPPF, in respect of the weight which can be attached to these policies in decision making on planning applications. The Discussion Document considers the Core Strategy polices are in general conformity and the ‘Saved’ Local Plan policies are “largely” in general conformity. Consultation on the next stage of the RBLP, the ‘Local Plan: Development Strategy Consultation Document’ is due to take place in May/June 2014.
16 Rugby Borough Council, 2012, Rugby Borough Council Local Development Framework Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document [online]. Available at http://www.rugby.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?downloadID=1930&fileID=5431. [Accessed 13/05/2014]. 17 Rugby Borough Council, 2006, Rugby Borough Local Plan. [online]. ‘Saved’ policies available at http://www.rugby.gov.uk/info/200297/development_strategy/1786/adopted_plan. [Accessed 13/05/2014]. 18 Rugby Borough Council, July 2013, Rugby Borough Local Plan Discussion Document [online]. Available at http://www.rugby.gov.uk/info/200297/development_strategy/1787/emerging_plan-making. [Accessed 13/05/2014].
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 11 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
4 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL
4.1 Introduction Landscape and visual effects are among the key environmental issues associated with windfarm development and their assessment forms a central component of the ES. Whilst utilising related information, the landscape assessment will be treated as two separate (but related) assessments for the purpose of the EIA, as recommended by the Landscape Institute. It is the combined assessment which is referred to as the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). • Landscape effects relate to the effects of the proposals on the physical and other characteristics of the landscape and its resulting character and quality; and • Visual effects relate to the effects on views experienced by visual receptors (e.g. residents, footpath users, tourists etc.) and on the visual amenity experienced by those people. A windfarm would add an additional visible landscape component within the general area. The significance of this will vary according to the distance from which it is observed and the character of the landscape. The study area for the landscape and visual assessment will be agreed with the local planning authority during the consultation process. A residential amenity study will be undertaken and all properties within 1 km of the turbine locations will be considered. Qualified and experienced landscape architects will be engaged to advise on potential landscape impacts and undertake the LVIA. The LVIA will follow an established procedure for determining impact significance. The sensitivity of the baseline landscape resource and visual amenity will be determined and cross-referenced against the magnitude of change caused by the development.
4.2 Landscape Methodology The appointed LVIA specialists will examine baseline conditions of the landscape character without the windfarm, for present and likely future situations. Reference will be made to relevant landscape character assessments and supported by field observations. Key characteristics of a landscape character are defined as those physical, ecological and aesthetic components that combine to make a distinct landscape type. The assessment of effect involves the identification of: • Landform and composition including type and rate of change; • Landscape character areas which would experience change as a result of the proposed windfarm; • Nature of these changes to landscape character areas; • Extent to which identified key characteristics of the affected landscape character areas would be changed; • Extent to which the overall landscape resource would be changed; • Effect on local communities; • Effect on transport routes; and • Effect on landscape and historic designations.
4.2.1 Designations and Capacity Figure 2: Landscape Designations, shows the Development in relation to landscape designations within 25 km of the Development site.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 12 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
There are no designated landscapes of national importance within 25 km of the Site. The closest Registered Park and Gardens (RPG) are Newnham Paddox (2.9 km southeast), Combe Abbey (6.4 km southwest) and Arbury Hall (9.5 km west). The Rugby Borough Landscape Study for Wind Energy Developments (2011)19 contains an analysis of landscape sensitivity and potential capacity within the Borough. The Landscape Study details the proposed sensitivity and capacity of the various landscape character areas within the Borough. The Site is shown in a landscape area known as High Cross Plateau – open plateau. This is identified as having least sensitivity to wind energy developments (medium) and of highest capacity for wind energy developments (2 clusters; one of 1-7 turbines; 1-4 turbines). The Landscape Study identifies a number of “less constrained areas” for wind energy development. The Site is identified as being partially within a ‘less constrained area’. The site is also adjacent to an ‘indicative wind turbine cluster location’ (1-7 turbines). The Site thus may be viewed moderately positive in respect of the Landscape Study, given its proximity to this area.
4.3 Visual Methodology Through the production and review of Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), the theoretical geographical extent of visibility will be established at hub and blade tip heights. This will help identify sensitive visual receptors in the surrounding area. Due to the extent of the ZTV, a series of representative viewpoints will be agreed with the appropriate local authorities and other relevant stakeholders. These viewpoints will represent different visual receptor types (e.g., observers from residential properties, footpaths, roads, tourist attractions, etc.) and also at different distances and directions from the scheme. The exact number of viewpoints that will be used will be determined in consultation with Rugby Borough Council. Of these, a number will be selected to be developed into photomontages with the remainder depicted as wireline diagrams. The preparation of ZTVs, wireframes and photomontages will comply with the SNH ‘Visual Representation of Wind Farms Best Practice Guidance’. A preliminary list of viewpoints is provided in Table 4.1 below and the viewpoints are shown in Figure 3: Preliminary Viewpoint Locations. Table 4.1: Preliminary Viewpoint Selection Viewpoint name and Approximate Distance Principal Visual Figure Label Approximate location from Site Receptor
Newham Paddox 2.9 km south east Visitors to RPG 1
Combe Abbey 6.4 km south west Visitors to RPG 2
Arbury Hall 9.5 km west Visitors to RPG 3
Monk Kirby 2.8 km south Residents 4
Leicestershire Round 2.6 km north east Users of Right of 5 Way
Centenary Way 3.7 km south west Users of Right of 6 Way
19 Rugby Borough Landscape Study for Wind Energy Developments (2011) [online] Available at: http://www.rugby.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=1594&categoryID=200294 [Accessed 20.05.14]
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 13 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
Viewpoint name and Approximate Distance Principal Visual Figure Label Approximate location from Site Receptor
Wolvey 1.4 km north west Residents 7
Withybrook 1.6 km south Residents 8
Ullesthorpe 4.3 km east Residents 9
Copston Magna 1.1 km north Residents 10
Ansty Golf Course 4.1 km south west Users of golf course 11
Burbage Common and 7.9 km north Users of Right of 12 Woods Way
4.4 Cumulative Assessment The cumulative landscape and visual assessment will be carried out in accordance with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) current guidance on cumulative assessment of windfarms, in the absence of specific, relevant English guidance. The cumulative assessment will consider windfarms that are operational, consented or in the planning / consenting process for which sufficient information including details of the size, location and number of turbines is publicly available. The final list of sites and cumulative study area to be considered will be agreed with Rugby Borough Council and Natural England. A series of cumulative visibility ZTV maps will be prepared to show the effect of the cumulative visibility of different windfarms in combination. The cumulative assessment will examine the same groups of landscape and visual receptors as the assessment for the main scheme. In addition, the effects on users of routes through the area, from which windfarms may be sequentially visible as one passes through the landscape are also considered. This assessment is based on the desk study of ZTVs and aerial photography, and site visits to travel along the routes being assessed. Wireframes and photomontages will be produced from agreed viewpoints to illustrate potential cumulative visual effects.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 14 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
5 ECOLOGY Climate change is recognised by Natural England as “…the most serious long-term threat to our natural environment”20. It is now widely acknowledged that appropriately sited wind farms can help to address the effects of climate change without presenting any significant risk or effect on local ecology. Furthermore, a 2009 report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy commissioned by the RSPB states that “Well conceived and planned windfarms can give rise to local offsite nature conservation benefits...”21. Natural England also states that “Each wind energy proposal should be subject to an evidence-based appraisal, considering individual and cumulative impacts on the natural environment and underpinned by appropriate monitoring to inform better future decision making.” Therefore, the key ecological issues to be addressed in detail as part of the EIA process are the potential of indirect and direct effects on species, habitats and ecological processes, as well as on sites designated for their nature conservation value. This section describes the study methods that will be followed to establish the ecological baseline relevant to the Development, as well as the methods and approach that will be followed to assess the potential effects of the Development on the ecological baseline. A discussion of ornithological methods and assessment is provided separately in Section 6.
5.1 Potential Effects of the Development The Development is located in the Trent Valley and Rises Natural Area and borders the Midlands Plateau Natural Area. The Development site consists entirely of arable fields and tracks for agricultural and recreational use. Hedgerows border many of the fields with small woodland tracts and ponds also present. The key issues for the assessment are likely to include: • Loss of, and disturbance to, terrestrial habitats due to land take by the wind turbines and associated infrastructure; • Loss of habitat important for the maintenance of species’ conservation statuses; • Direct disturbance of, and harm to, animals, including the displacement of species from the proximity of the Development; and • Potential legal offences, even when significant adverse ecological effects are unlikely.
5.2 Designated Sites A review of the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website identified a number of sites of nature conservation value within the area. A radius of 5 km was searched for statutory designated sites. This was extended to 10 km for any sites with designated bat interest. No statutory designated sites were identified within the above search radii. A search was also conducted through Warwickshire Biological Records Centre (WBRC) for non-statutory designated sites within a 2 km radius. This identified 6 Ecosites in the locality (Table 5.1, Figure 4).
20 Natural England (2010) Making space for renewable energy: assessing on-shore wind energy developments. Natural England. 21 Bowyer, C. et al. (2009), Positive Planning for Onshore Wind: Expanding onshore wind energy capacity while conserving nature. A report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy commissioned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP).
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 15 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
Table 5.1: Summary of non-statutory designated sites within 2 km Site Designation Approximate Description and Principal Interest Distance and
Direction
Withybrook Ecosite 08/48 Running along Identified as a potential Local Wildlife Site (pLWS). Spinney southern border of the A long deciduous woodland spinney of mainly oak Development Quercus robur, with some ash Fraxinus excelsior, site. hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and elder Sambucus nigra understorey. The spinney has a sparse ground flora, mainly with a carpet of ivy Hedra helix, as well as bramble Rubus fruticosus, male fern Dryopteris filix-mas, cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, lords and ladies Arum maculatum, tufted hair-grass Deschampsia caespitosa and rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium. The other woodland arm (running south west to north east) is very thin for most of its length and consists mainly of oak with a few dead elm Ulmus sp.
Hobley Furze Ecosite 14/48 1.5 km ESE Identified as a potential Local Wildlife Site (pLWS).
Deciduous woodland comprised of ash Fraxinus excelsior coppice. Some dead elms Ulmus procera are also present, as well as a number of small ponds and ditches. In 1954 the wood was completely clear felled and replanted. A 1982 survey identified the wood in compartments of derelict hazel Corylus avellana coppice, mature ash coppice and a mix of ash, oak Quercus robur, hazel, beech Fagus sylvatica and sweet chestnut Castanea sativa to the northwest of the site. There are also many water filled ditches and hollows. Flora of note includes wood bitter-cress Cardamine flexuosa, woodruff Galium odoratum, whilst the pale tussock moth Dasychira pudibunda has also been recorded.
Bridle track Ecosite 15/48 1 km N Identified as a potential Local Wildlife Site south of (pLWS). Copston Magna A small pasture paddock in a shallow valley used for grazing ponies. Much of the area has impeded drainage, particularly in winter. The grass is closely grazed with patches of yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, daisy Bellis perennis, selfheal Prunella vulgaris and creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens. A shallow ditch runs down the centre of the pasture. The bridleway leads into an overgrown green lane which is reverting to hawthorn Crataegus monogyna scrub. There are ditches along both sides of the track.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 16 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
Site Designation Approximate Description and Principal Interest Distance and
Direction
Withybrook, Ecosite 26/48 1.4 km S Nature conservation status ungraded. tributary of River Sowe A small stream with 1m high banks at SP428837. This site covers a large area as it includes the brook, its headwaters and tributaries. Fools watercress Apium nodiflorum and brooklime Veronica beccabunga have been recorded in a number of places (1998).
Copston Ecosite 28/48 1.3 km NE Nature conservation status unknown. Spinney A small deciduous wood of elm Ulmus procera (now dead), oak Quercus robur and ash Fraxinus excelsior, with hawthorn Crataegus monogyna in the understorey. The site is now somewhat isolated by the removal of various hedgerows, which has created large arable fields surrounding it.
Copston Ecosite 35/48 1.8km N Nature conservation status ungraded. Magna Churchyard Churchyard with heavily mown grass and a number of very big yews Taxus baccata.
5.3 Desk Study Key to the assessment process will be the collation of historical ecological records through a desk study and consultations. These records will inform on-going survey efforts and provide a historical and regional context for the assessment. In the first instance, data will be obtained or requested from the following sources: • Warwickshire Biological Records Centre (WBRC); • Warwickshire County Council; and • Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP). In light of initial requests and survey results, further information and data requests may be made to other sources, such as specialist species recorders.
5.4 Baseline Surveys Ecological surveys are necessary to provide an up-to-date baseline against which the potential effects of the development can be assessed. The limit of baseline surveys has been defined by the core study area, designed to encompass all areas in which development may take place. Where necessary and accessible, some surveys have extended beyond this boundary to provide the required baseline information. The majority of surveys were undertaken in 2013. Further surveys are ongoing during 2014 to reflect amendments to the core survey area since 2013.
5.4.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey A Phase 1 habitat survey was carried out in 2013 and updated in 2014 in order to classify and map semi-natural habitats present within and bordering the site. This followed JNCC (2010)22 methodology. As this method is mainly concerned with habitat mapping, the
22JNCC (2010) A Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A Technique for Environmental Audit. JNCC.
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 17 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
survey was ‘extended’23 to provide further information on the core study area and its potential to support notable or protected species. The Phase 1 habitat surveys will allow an assessment of the potential impact of habitat loss due to the construction of the Development and will also help to guide the scope of other ecological surveys. Habitats within the site are typical of lowland farmland communities consisting entirely of arable fields. Boundary features such as woodland and hedgerow provide the main semi- natural interest, alongside scattered ponds, small ditches and a stream. Mature and semi- mature trees are also present within hedgerows and forming avenues in parts of the site. The habitats present are common and widespread, however, hedgerows, ponds, ditches and woodlands have value in providing habitat corridors and stepping stones for wildlife across a mostly arable landscape and this will be taken into consideration within the impact assessment. All construction will be designed to minimise direct (e.g., habitat loss) and indirect (e.g., changes in hydrology) effects on sensitive habitats – some of which may qualify as UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) and LBAP priority habitats – and habitat enhancement will be considered, where appropriate.
5.4.2 Invertebrates Habitats will be assessed for their potential to support important invertebrate assemblages and appropriate avoidance or mitigation will ensure that high-value habitats are not adversely affected by the Development. Given the relatively small construction footprint and intensively managed arable habitats, detailed entomological surveys are not proposed.
5.4.3 Amphibians The great crested newt is a UKBAP and LBAP priority species and receives protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Great crested newts also receive strict protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the ‘Habitat Regulations’) (as amended) as a European protected species. A search for ponds and other water bodies within the 2013 core study area, where access permitted, identified seven ponds that are suitable to support populations of great crested newts. Of these, great crested newts were found to be present in very small numbers in two of these ponds. Further newt surveys in line with best practice guidance24 are being undertaken in 2014 to reflect amendments to the core study area since 2013. Observations of amphibians, including common toad (a UKBAP priority species), will also be made during the course of other surveys.
5.4.4 Reptiles The four common and widespread species of British reptile (i.e. grass snake, adder, common / viviparous lizard and slow-worm) are protected from deliberate harm by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Specially protected reptile species (i.e., smooth snake and sand lizard) are not known to occur in the region. Although the windfarm is a large-scale development, its effects will be localised in terms of habitat loss and disturbance and so a detailed reptile survey across the site is not considered necessary. Due to the intensive agricultural use of the site, it is considered unlikely to support reptile populations, although commoner reptiles such as grass snake
23 Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. 24 English Nature (2001) Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. Peterborough: English Nature.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 18 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
may occasionally occur on a transient basis. No reptiles have been directly observed during other surveys of the site, which commenced in autumn 2012. Appropriate avoidance or mitigation (during construction) will ensure that high-value habitats, if present, are not adversely affected by the Development.
5.4.5 Bats All British bats receive full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as well as strict protection under the Habitats Regulations as European protected species. Seven bat species are UKBAP priorities and all UK bats are covered under the Local Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Bats BAP. The Development site is situated in a central position within England and on the edge of the ranges of some of the rarer bat species (concentrated around the south-west of the country). As such, species diversity is considered likely to be moderate in a UK context. Thirteen species of bat have been recorded in Warwickshire25. The site is composed of arable land, considered to offer poor habitat for most bat species. These fields are bordered by a hedgerow network incorporating scattered trees; linear woodland tracts and freshwater features in the form of ponds, ditches and a stream. The latter features enhance foraging and commuting opportunities for bats across the site and provide habitat connectivity. With regard to potential roosting features on site, initial indications are that roosts, if present, are likely to support low numbers of commoner species (predominantly trees, with some potential within the farm buildings of Grove Farm, located over 250 m from proposed turbine locations). Considering the combination of these factors and applying a precautionary approach, the site was assigned a medium risk rating26. Surveys conducted to date suggest that the effort applied is appropriate. Bat activity at the site was surveyed according to Natural England27 and Bat Conservation Trust (BCT)7 guidance between April and September 2013 and included: • Activity transect surveys - a single transect route was designed to sample as broad a range of habitats as possible across the site. Transect surveys were undertaken once per month over the period April to September 2013 and incorporated 12, five-minute fixed listening points; • Static automated monitoring surveys – Song Meter 2 (SM2) bat detectors were deployed across the survey area. The locations of the monitoring stations were selected based on the turbine design iteration available at that time, but were distributed across the Study Area to provide a representative picture of bat activity and in relation to where turbines might feasibly be expected to be located. The monitoring stations were all situated on the edge of fields due to the rotational presence of arable crops within the fields. One monitoring station was positioned as a Control near to a potentially higher value bat habitat feature (Withybrook Spinney) to provide data relating to a location where greater bat activity levels might be expected. Detectors were deployed for a minimum of five consecutive nights on six separate occasions (April-September 2013); and • Roost assessments - A daytime assessment was made of trees and structures to determine their potential to support roosting bats. No further detailed roost activity surveys were recommended following the initial inspection.
Further surveys are ongoing in 2014 to reflect amendments to the core study area since 2013.
25 Information obtained from Warwickshire Bat Group website http://www.warksbats.co.uk/ (accessed 21st November 2013) 26 Hundt, L. (ed.) (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines (2nd Edition). Bat Conservation Trust 27 Natural England (2012) Bats and onshore wind turbines: Interim Guidance. Natural England Technical Information Note TIN051
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 19 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
5.4.5.1 Preliminary Results A minimum of seven species were confirmed during the surveys undertaken in 2013: common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule, Leisler’s, serotine, brown long-eared bat and at least one species from the genus Myotis. The highest levels of activity during the activity transect surveys and remote monitoring surveys were recorded in close proximity to woodland habitat towards the south of the site. • Activity Transect: activity recorded was low in general with low numbers of common pipistrelle and occasional passes of noctule and Myotis species recorded. The greatest activity levels were recorded in close proximity to woodland habitat; • Static Automated Monitoring: of the bat species recorded, four are considered to be low risk (common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Myotis species, brown long-eared) from wind turbine developments at the population level, one is considered to be at medium risk (serotine) and two are considered to be at high risk (noctule and Leisler’s). Overall, bat activity levels were highest during August; almost entirely attributed to low risk species and low numbers of occasional passes for high and medium risk species. The months during which activity levels were lowest were April, July and September. Levels of activity were low for common pipistrelle at all monitoring stations apart from that situated along semi-natural mixed woodland, where moderate levels of activity were recorded. This is likely to be due to the more favourable habitat present compared to the other monitoring stations. All other species were recorded with low levels of activity at all monitoring stations during the whole survey period. Very low levels of high risk species were recorded with the majority of activity during August and September. Very low levels of activity for medium risk species (serotine) were recorded during the entire survey period with activity recorded in July and August only; and • Roost Assessment: Accessible trees were assessed to have roost potential ranging from negligible to high. Those with highest potential were largely confined to woodland tracts or over 500 m from proposed turbine locations. No buildings offering roost potential are present within 250 m of proposed turbine locations.
5.4.6 Otter and Water Vole Otter and water vole receive full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are both UK and LBAP priority species. In addition, otter receives strict protection under the Habitats Regulations as a European protected species. Surveys for evidence of otter and water vole were undertaken in 2013 along the margins of suitable aquatic habitat features. Surveys were carried out in accordance with standard methods28,29 during optimum survey periods. These surveys are being updated in 2014 to reflect amendments to the core study area since 2013.
5.4.7 Badgers Badgers receive protection under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. All accessible areas within 50 m of the core study area will be surveyed for evidence of badgers following standard methods to record field signs and describe setts30,31. No evidence of badger was recorded during surveys conducted in 2013. These surveys will be updated in 2014 to reflect amendments to the core study area since 2013.
28Chanin, P. (2003) Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers. Monitoring Series No. 10. English Nature, Peterborough. 29Strachan, R. and Moorhouse (2011) The Water Vole Conservation Handbook (3rd ed.). Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. 30Harris, S., Cresswell, P.& Jeffries, D.(1991) Surveying for Badgers. Mammal Society. 31Neal, E. & Cheeseman, C. (1996) Badgers . Christopher Helm: London.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 20 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
5.4.8 Hazel dormouse The hazel dormouse receives full protection under the WCA 1981 and as a European protected species under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations.. Should potential for impact on dormouse habitat be identified, survey effort will be implemented in line with guidance presented in Natural England Interim Advice Note WML-G3732 and cover the range of habitats within the core study area.
5.4.9 Other species Surveys and subsequent assessment will also consider the likely presence of species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England, as identified under s.41 of the Natural Resources and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 and any potential for significant adverse effects to occur on such species as a result of the proposed development.
5.5 Ecological Assessment Information from the above survey work will be analysed and collated into technical reports detailing the baseline conditions at the site. The reports will include, as appropriate, data appendices, figures and confidential annexes. The assessment of potential effects on ecological interests will follow guidelines published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM)33 and will take into account the considerations of national legislation and planning policy and the aims of the European Habitats Directive. The assessment will include proposals for the avoidance and mitigation of potentially adverse effects and will consider enhancement measures to increase biodiversity in the area. Potential cumulative ecological effects with other nearby developments will also be assessed. Alternative solutions and mitigation will be identified where the assessment indicates that there is a potential significant impact on important habitats and species as a consequence of the Development.
32 Natural England Interim Advice Note WML-G37 accessed online at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/images/wmlg37_tcm6-29146.pdf in May 2014. 33IEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. IEEM
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 21 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
6 ORNITHOLOGY The RSPB considers climate change to be the greatest threat to bird life and therefore supports the development of windfarms in appropriate locations. The RSPB states that the available evidence shows that appropriately located windfarms do not pose a significant hazard for birds (Wind Farms and Birds leaflet, RSPB, 2005). Poorly sited windfarms can have adverse impacts on birds as a result of disturbance, habitat loss/damage or collision with the turbines and the potential for this is assessed through a rigorous programme of survey and assessment. The key ornithological issues to be addressed in detail as part of the EIA process are the potential for direct and indirect effects on bird populations and the habitats on which they depend. This scoping document sets out the proposed approach that will be taken in the assessment, together with a summary of information that is currently available. Consultations and data requests will be conducted with but not limited to: • Natural England; • RSPB; • Warwickshire County Council; • West Midlands Bird Club; and • Warwickshire Biological Records Centre (WBRC).
6.1 Statutory Designated Sites Good EIA practice includes identification of any statutory and non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation interest within a minimum of 2 km of the boundaries of a proposed development; although this may be extended if impacts could potentially extend over a wider area34. Birds may be susceptible to such widespread effects because they are highly mobile and travel widely between feeding and roosting areas, as well as on migration. A review of the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website identified one statutory designated site of ornithological importance (Table 6.1, Figure 4), considering SPA and Ramsar sites within 20 km of the Development site, SSSI and NNR (with ornithological interest) within 10 km of the Development site and non-statutory sites within 2 km of the Development site.
34Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995).Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. E & FN Spon. London.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 22 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
Table 6.1: Summary of statutory designated sites within search areas Site Designation Approximate Description and Principal Interest Distance and
Direction
Coombe Site of Special 8.4 km SW Combe Pool is one of the most important ornithological Pool Scientific Interest sites in Warwickshire for its herons Ardea cinerea, and (SSSI) other breeding birds, and for its wintering wildfowl. Combe Pool holds the largest heronry in the county and about twenty pairs breed regularly on a small island. Great crested grebes Podiceps cristatus breed in the reed beds with a few pairs of tufted duck Aythya fuligula, and shoveler Anas clypeata, the last being rare in Warwickshire. Kingfisher Alcedo atthis, water rail Rallus aquaticus, and grey wagtail Motacilla cinerea also breed regularly. The woodland supports a diverse breeding bird community with tits, corvids, three species of woodpecker, and a range of warblers including lesser whitethroat Sylvia curruca. In winter the pool holds good numbers of tufted duck, pochard Aythya ferina, gulls Laridae and nationally significant numbers of shoveler. The woodland is also an important winter roost particularly for blackbirds Turdus merula, but also for redwings T. iliacus, fieldfares T. pilaris and greenfinches Carduelis choltis.
6.2 Baseline Surveys Baseline survey coverage and methodologies were discussed with Natural England, Warwickshire County Council and the RSPB in October 2013. Natural England were not able to offer specific advice as the site was not in proximity to designated sites, however Warwickshire CC and the RSPB considered the survey effort to be satisfactory.
6.2.1 Flight Activity Surveys Vantage point (“VP”) watches commenced in September 2012 and completed in September 2013, constituting a full year of activity surveys at the site. Additional effort at the site has comprised breeding bird surveys (April to June 2013), winter walkover surveys (October 2012 to March 2013) and breeding raptor searches (April 2013 – September 2013). Additional effort is proposed for 2014 to reflect amendments to the core study area since 2013. This is likely to consist of breeding bird and raptor surveys only, as all other surveys provide sufficient coverage of the amended area. Surveys in Year 1 followed a standard methodology developed with reference to Natural England guidelines for onshore windfarms35. Vantage points (up to 2 during any one season) were selected to provide sufficient coverage of the core study area and surrounding area. Survey effort and coverage was agreed with the RSPB and the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Flight activity surveys were carried out at frequent intervals during the breeding and non-breeding seasons and autumn and spring migration periods, complying with or exceeding recommended minimum observation times during each season. VP watches covered a variety of weather conditions and provide good coverage of daylight hours, including periods at dawn and dusk. A minimum of 36 hours observation were carried out from each vantage point; with a minimum 36 hours observation achieved across each season (breeding and non-breeding).
35 Natural England (2010) Technical Advice Note 069 Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds. Natural England, Peterborough.
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 23 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
All target species were recorded, noting the duration, direction and height of flight activity. Target species were selected by reference to Appendix 1 of Natural England Technical Information Note TIN069 (2010)35. Secondary species were defined as commoner raptors, all gulls (excluding Mediterranean gull), mute swan, mallard and feral species, along with any large concentrations of commoner passerines. The flight lines of target species observed was recorded on appropriately scaled maps and the flight height of the birds recorded at 15 second intervals in one of seven height bands: <0-25 m, 25- 50 m, 50-75 m, 75-100 m, 100-125 m, 125-150 m and >150 m (to allow broad categorisation of flights approximately below, at and above rotor swept height). All flight activity data collected has been input into a database and flight lines digitised in a Geographical Information System (GIS) to allow collision risk to target species to be calculated.
6.2.2 Breeding Bird Survey Breeding bird surveys were undertaken across the study area, based-upon the Common Bird Census (CBC) as detailed in Gilbert et al. (1998)36. This involved walking the Study Area and noting species observed in order to enable an estimation of the number of breeding bird territories present. The land within the core study area was walked using tracks and field margins to ensure adequate coverage of all accessible fields within it. All species and their behaviour (singing, carrying food, etc.) were mapped in the field. All surveys were undertaken during daylight hours and in suitable weather conditions and consisted of 5 surveys over April to June 2013. Further breeding bird surveys (2014 breeding season) are being carried out between April and June 2014 to cover areas of the amended core study area that have not been previously covered by BBS surveys. These surveys will follow the same methodology as surveys conducted in 2013.
6.2.3 Breeding Raptor and Owl Survey A habitat assessment of all accessible areas within 2 km of the Development site was carried out in 2013 to establish whether or not any raptor species of conservation importance were likely to breed within or close to the site. Surveys for breeding raptors covered the period April to September 2013 and were undertaken on an approximately monthly basis (7 surveys over 6 months). Common raptors such as kestrel, sparrowhawk and buzzard were also recorded. Raptor surveys are being updated in 2014 to reflect amendments to the core study area since 2013 and cover habitats within 2 km of the site (access permitting), using similar methodologies to 2013.
6.2.4 Winter Walkover Survey Winter walkover surveys of the site commenced in October 2012 and were completed in March 2013. A total of nine surveys were carried out over this period. Based on consultation with Warwickshire County Council and the RSPB, additional winter walkover surveys were not considered to be necessary in 2014.
6.3 Preliminary Results Surveys undertaken over the period September 2012 to September 2013 recorded very low numbers of target species, with key species being waders such as golden plover, and lapwing. No evidence of breeding was recorded for these species within the Development
36 Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. & Evans, J. (1998) Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB, Sandy
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 24 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
site. Grey heron was recorded on 3 occasions. Single records of rarer raptors such as hobby, merlin and peregrine were returned, but again, no evidence of breeding was recorded. The site is consequently considered to be of low ornithological interest with species recorded being typical of the farmland and woodland habitats present and the geographical location.
6.4 Ornithological Assessment The ornithological assessment will follow the same principles as the ecology assessment. Information from the above survey work will be analysed and collated into technical reports detailing the baseline conditions at the site. Collision risk modelling, if required, will follow the method presented by Band et al.37. Reports will include, as appropriate, data appendices, figures and confidential annexes. The assessment of potential effects on ornithological interests will follow guidelines published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (2006)38 and will take into account the considerations of national legislation and planning policy and the aims of the European Habitats Directive. The assessment will include proposals for the avoidance and mitigation of potentially adverse effects and will consider enhancement measures for birds. Potential cumulative ecological effects with other nearby developments will also be addressed.
37 Band et al. (2007) Loc cit. 38IEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. IEEM
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 25 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
7 HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITIONS A hydrogeological survey will be undertaken in order to establish the baseline conditions and assess the potential effects of the Development, their significance, and the potential for mitigation. Two unnamed tributaries of the River Anker traverse the western and eastern sections of the Site. The River Anker has a Current Ecological Quality class of ‘Moderate’. A 50 m buffer zone for the location of turbines will be applied around all watercourses at the site during the layout design. Baseline hydrogeological surveys will include a records search and a desktop study, an appraisal of ground conditions at the site, as well as a survey of downstream hydrological processes. The desk study will include a review of geology, hydrogeology, aquifer classification and vulnerability, water quality, river classification and surface deposits. An assessment will also be carried out to identify and assess the potential risk to any public and private water supplies and any known fisheries resources. An initial baseline study shows the Development site lies outside EA groundwater Protection Zones. The EA and Severn Trent Water will be contacted to identify any licensed groundwater abstractions within or near the Development and Rugby Borough Council will be contacted to establish the locations of any known private water supplies. The EA Groundwater Vulnerability map defines bedrock underlying the Development as a ‘Secondary B aquifer’. Geotechnical and ecological work will be undertaken as part of the EIA process to understand whether groundwater would be encountered at depths of less than 15 m to inform the embedded design and suggested mitigation (if required) as appropriate. The Development site is located within an area which is classed as having the lowest flood risk (Flood Zone 1) and no on-site watercourses are prone to flooding. A flood risk assessment compliant with the requirements of the NPPF will be undertaken to assess any additional flood risk from fluvial sources due to the Development. Appropriate maps and existing records will be referenced including the British Geological Survey (BGS) website Geoscience Data Index, the Hydrogeological Map of England 1977, and groundwater vulnerability maps. The EA, Rugby Borough Council and Severn Trent Water will also be contacted to obtain further surface and groundwater data. Prior to commencement of the construction phase of the windfarm, a pre-Construction Method Statement will be agreed with the EA.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 26 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
8 CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY For the purposes of the assessment, cultural heritage interests are deemed to include both above ground (the built heritage) and below ground remains. The assessment will consider both direct and indirect (largely visual) effects upon the following cultural heritage receptors: • Archaeology - above and below ground, designated or not. Consideration will be given to the potential for currently unknown (buried) archaeological remains to exist within the Development site; and • Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and hedgerows that may qualify as historically important under the Hedgerow Regulations. A desk-based assessment (DBA) of cultural heritage records will be undertaken in order to establish the baseline against which the impact assessment will be carried out. Data will be gathered from the following sources: • English Heritage's datasets of nationally designated features; • The English Heritage Archives; • The Warwickshire Historic Environment Record (HER); • Aerial records of known sites and monuments; • OS 1st Edition 6" map coverage; and • Aerial photographs and other cartographic information on pre-recent land uses.
A study area of 1 km around the Development site boundary will be used to collect data to inform on the archaeological potential of the site. The DBA will be presented as a Technical Appendix to the ES. The DBA will be augmented by a walkover survey to provide information on the archaeological potential of the area, and to validate the documentary evidence. This fieldwork will be conducted to: • Assess and validate documentary data collected; • Identify the extent and condition of any visible archaeological monuments; and • Determine whether previously unrecorded historic features are visible.
Subject to the findings of the DBA, the requirement for the extent of any additional surveys will be agreed in consultation with Warwickshire County Archaeologist. It is currently expected that a programme of geophysics and trial trenching is likely to be required, however this would be confirmed following completion of, and consultation on, the DBA. For the purposes of this scoping document, designated heritage assets have been listed out to a distance of 5 km from the Developable Area. However the range for detailed assessment of designated heritage assets within the ES will be based upon the results of initial survey work and consultation. For purposes of indirect impact assessment, data on nationally designated cultural heritage features and Conservation Areas will be collected to a maximum of 15 km from the Development site centre. Preliminary desk studies indicate that there are no World Heritage Sites within 15 km of the site. There are however 12 Registered Parks and Gardens, situated within 15 km of the site, including the Grade II Newnham Paddox located approximately 2.7 km south- east of the site boundary. There is one Registered Battlefield the Battlefield of Bosworth (field) 1485, situated within 15 km.
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 27 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
There 77 Scheduled Monuments situated within 15 km of the Development site, of which 13 are within 5 km of the site. These are detailed in Table 8.1. Cultural Heritage Designations are shown in Figure 5. Table 8.1: Scheduled Monuments within 5 km of the site boundary National Scheduled Monument Name Approximate Heritage List Distance and
Entry Number Direction
1002566 Roman town at High Cross - Also in Warwickshire 2 km north east
1005731 Site of deserted village of Hopsford 2.3 km south west
1005732 Deserted village of Stretton Baskerville 4.8 km north west
1010191 Moated site, enclosure and trackway at Claybrooke Parva 3.5 km east
101097 Bowl barrow at Wigston Parva 2.7 km north east
1016849 Medieval settlement at Withybrook 1.4 km south west
1018261 High Cross 60 m north-west of Highcross House 2.3 km north east
1010200 Crop Mark of a bowl barrow at Wigston Parva 2.4 km north east
1016846 Bowl barrow 900 m north of Copston Farm 2.7 km north
1016845 Bowl Barrow 490 m north-west of Abbey Farm 3.3 km north west
1016847 Cistercian grange of Upper Smite, 200 m south-east of 3.4 km south west Mobbs Wood Farm
1012563 Bittesby deserted medieval village 3.8 km east
1010300 Moat, fishponds and shifted village earthworks at Ullesthorpe 3.9 km east
There are 1,283 Listed Buildings situated within 15 km. Of the Listed Buildings situated within 15 km, 86 Listed Buildings of all grades are located within 5 km of the site, of which three are Grade I and nine are Grade II*. These are detailed in Table 8.2. Table 8.2: Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings within 5 km of the site boundary. National Name Grade Approximate Heritage List Distance and Entry Number Direction
1116252 Church of St John the Baptist II* 1.6 km north west
1934860 Church of All Saints II* 1.7 km south west
1185719 Church of St John II* 2.4 km north east
1034855 Church of St Edith I 2.9 km south
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 28 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
National Name Grade Approximate Heritage List Distance and Entry Number Direction
1186169 Screen, gates and gatepiers I 3.3 km south east
1116337 Church of St Leonard II* 3.7 km south east
1209153 Church of St Peter I 3.7 km north east
1034857 Church of St Andrew II* 3.9 km south west
1034891 Church of St Botolph II* 4.4 km north west
1034889 Church of St James II* 4.5 km south west
1365084 Ansty Hall II* 4.5 km south west
1365054 Church of St James II* 4.9 km west
It is also noted that the roman road, Foss Way, is located adjacent to the south east boundary of the Site running in a north east to south west direction. An assessment will be made of the potential indirect effects upon the setting of cultural heritage features including historic landscapes. This assessment will be made against the same Zone of Theoretical Visibility used in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. This may also include visual representations such as photomontages and/or wirelines. The assessment will be supported by presentation of the data in assessment tables, with a gazetteer and location plan. The Cultural Heritage ES chapter will also include proposals for mitigation of any identified impacts where considered necessary.
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 29 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
9 NOISE
9.1 Introduction Sources of noise during operation of a wind turbine are both mechanical (from machinery housed within the turbine nacelle) and aerodynamic (from the movement of the blades through the air). Modern turbines are designed to minimise mechanical noise emissions from the nacelle through isolation of mechanical components and acoustic insulation of the nacelle. Aerodynamic noise is controlled through the design of the blade tips and edges. In most modern wind turbines, aerodynamic noise is also restricted by control systems which actively regulate the pitch of the blades. While noise from the wind turbines does increase with wind speed, at the same time ambient background noise (for example wind in trees) usually increases at a greater rate. Planning conditions are used to enforce compliance with specified limits. The effects of noise from the Development will be assessed in consultation with the Environmental Health Department of Rugby Borough Council.
9.2 Construction Noise Limits The following legislation and standards are of particular relevance to construction noise: • The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (CoPA 1974); • The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990); and • BS 5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites. CoPA 1974 provides Local Authorities in England, Scotland and Wales with powers to control noise and vibration from construction sites. Section 60 of the Act enables a Local Authority to serve a notice to persons carrying out construction work of its requirements for the control of site noise. Section 61 of the Act allows for those carrying out construction work to apply to the Local Authority in advance for consent to carry out the works. The EPA 1990 specifies mandatory powers available to Local Authorities in respect of any noise that either constitutes or is likely to cause a statutory nuisance, which is also defined in the Act. A duty is imposed on Local Authorities to carry out inspections to identify statutory nuisances, and to serve abatement notices against these. Procedures are also specified with regards to complaints from persons affected by a statutory nuisance. BS 5228 provides guidance on controlling noise and vibration from construction sites. It: • Refers to the need for the protection against noise and vibration of persons living and working in the vicinity of and those working on construction sites; • Recommends procedures for noise and vibration control in respect of construction operations; and • Stresses the importance of community relations, stating that early establishment and maintenance of these relations throughout the carrying out of site operations will go some way towards allaying people’s concerns. The acceptability of construction noise is likely to be affected by the location of the Development site relative to the noise sensitive premises; existing ambient noise levels; the duration and working hours of site operations; the characteristics of the noise produced and the attitude of local residents to the site operator.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 30 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
9.3 Operational Noise Limits
9.3.1 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97) The assessment methodology for operational noise is described in ETSU-R-97 ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’. The basic aim of ETSU-R-97 is to provide: “Indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or local authorities”. The report makes it clear from the outset that any noise restrictions placed on a Development must balance the environmental impacts of the Development against the national and global benefits which would arise through the development of renewable energy sources. The specific methodologies involved in applying ETSU-R-97 to a proposed new development will be detailed in full in the ES but, in summary, these provide recommendations for noise limits relating to the existing levels of background noise for quiet day-time and night-time periods. To carry out a noise assessment in accordance with ETSU-R-97, the following steps are required: • Specify the number and locations of the wind turbines; • Identify the locations of the nearest, or most noise sensitive, neighbours; • Determine the background noise levels as a function of site wind speed at the nearest neighbours, or a representative sample of the nearest neighbours; • Determine the quiet day time and night time criterion curves from the background noise levels identified at the nearest neighbours; • Specify the type and noise emission characteristics of the wind turbines proposed for the site; • Calculate the noise immission39 levels due to the operation of the wind turbines as a function of site wind speed at the nearest neighbours; and • Compare the calculated noise immission levels with the derived criterion curves and assess in the light of relevant planning requirements. A baseline noise survey will be carried out at properties situated close to the site, access permitting. Suitable locations will be selected by identifying those properties that are likely to be subject to noise levels in excess of the most stringent limit specified in ETSU- R-97 of 35 dB, LA90,10min, and in consultation with Rugby Borough Council. The Development layout and turbine selection will be subject to on-going assessment, and if necessary modified during the design process to ensure the Development will comply with the requirements of ETSU-R-97.
9.3.2 Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for Wind Turbine Noise Assessment The Good Practice Guide (GPG) was published by the Institute of Acoustics (IOA) in May 2013 and has been endorsed by the Scottish Government as current industry good practice. The guide presents current good practice in the application of ETSU-R-97 assessment methodology for wind turbine developments at the various stages of the assessment, divided into the main steps which should be followed in an assessment of wind turbine noise. These steps are:
39 ‘Immission’ refers to the noise at a receiver location, whereas ‘emission’ relates to noise produced by a source.
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 31 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
9.3.2.1 Determine a Study Area The guide specifies that the study area for background noise surveys should be the area within which noise levels from the proposed, consented and existing wind turbines may -1 exceed 35 dB, LA90,10min at up to a wind speed of 10 ms . Properties predicted to experience noise levels below this value are considered to be compliant with the ETSU-R-97 simplified assessment methodology, with no assessment against background noise required.
9.3.2.2 Identify Potentially Affected Receptors Of the properties identified within the study area, the GPG states that background noise monitoring locations should be selected on the basis of professional judgement, with the objective of collecting sufficient data to enable the background noise levels at each noise sensitive receptor to be characterised. Guidance is given on the number and position of monitoring locations, and the selection of representative locations where a number of properties are present. It is highlighted that when choosing a location that will serve as a proxy for others, it must be reasonably considered to be representative of the non-surveyed locations.
9.3.2.3 Undertaking a Background Noise Survey The GPG provides information on the duration and timing of surveys, the type of noise measuring equipment to be used, the siting of noise monitoring equipment, the measurement of wind speeds and rainfall, and the synchronisation of noise, wind and rainfall measurements. This advice supports the advice contained within ETSU-R-97 with regard to such matters, and offers additional clarity where appropriate. With specific regard to the measurement of wind speeds, the GPG recommends that rather than correlating measured background noise levels measured at 10 m AGL, as recommended by ETSU-R-97, measured background noise levels are correlated against wind speeds at 10 m AGL that have been standardised using a ground roughness length (zo) of 0.05 m from wind speeds at hub height. This process allows for the effects of variations between the wind shear characteristics of the site of the proposed turbine and the site on which noise emissions were measured to be eliminated and ensures that both background noise and turbine noise levels are correlated with the factor which controls the noise emissions of the turbines (hub height wind speeds) whilst maintaining consistency with the 10 m wind speed reference specified in ETSU-R-97. Wind speeds may be measured directly at hub height, or derived from measurements made at two lower heights. These are used to calculate the wind shear exponent for each measurement, this exponent is used to calculate hub height wind speeds, and then standardised to 10 m wind speeds calculated as described above.
9.3.2.4 Analysis of Data Data resulting from the background noise survey is analysed in order to determine a representative background level across a range of wind speeds during quiet daytime and night-time periods which can be used to define appropriate noise limits for a proposed wind energy development. Data is filtered into quiet daytime (amenity) and night time hours. Periods affected by rainfall, and any atypical events such as the dawn chorus or noise from water features/pumps, etc., are removed. Advice is provided with regard to traffic noise, wind speed, directional analysis and a limited data range, to ensure prevailing background noise levels are a typical
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 32 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
representation of the existing noise environment, and provides advice on the analysis of background noise data which may be affected by existing wind turbines, where relevant. The relationship between wind speed and background noise established for each location though the production of a scatter-plot, showing noise level against standardised wind speed for each valid data point, and a ‘best fit’ trendline is applied to determine the prevailing background noise level from which noise limits are established. The trendline may be a linear, or polynomial (up to 4th order) fit; the selection of trendline is subject to professional judgement with the intention being to allow a reasonable representation of the prevailing background noise levels at that location during the survey period.
9.3.2.5 Prediction of Wind Turbine Noise ETSU-R-97 does not describe a method to predict the immission levels at the nearest residential properties resulting from the operation of the wind farm. The GPG does however provide a summary of various studies on the prediction and propagation of wind turbine noise and recommends the use of the ISO 9613-240 method in calculating the levels of wind turbine noise at receptor locations (immission levels). The ISO 9613-2 method predicts noise levels at the receptor by taking the octave-band sound power level spectrum of the source, and applying a number of attenuation factors that determine the resulting sound pressure level. Noise predictions will be made using the ISO 9613-2 noise model, taking account of the attenuation factors recommended in the GPG. The specific data and parameters recommended in the GPG are summarised below: • The turbine sound power levels should be stated and these should include an appropriate allowance for measurement uncertainty. If the data provided contains no allowance for measurement uncertainty, or uncertainties are not provided, an additional 2 dB should be included; • Atmospheric conditions of 10°C and 70% relative humidity; • The ground factor assumed should be G=0.5 (mixed ground); • A receiver height of 4.0 m; • Barrier attenuation should not be included, unless there is no line of sight from the receptor, in which case a 2 dB barrier effect may be included; • An additional 3 dB should be added to noise immission levels at properties located ‘across a valley’ or with heavily concave ground between the property and the wind turbine(s); and • The predicted noise levels (LAeq,t) may be converted to the required LA90,10min by subtracting 2 dB. ISO 9613-2 provides a prediction of noise levels likely to occur under worst-case conditions; those favourable to the propagation of sound, i.e. down-wind or under a moderate, ground-based temperature inversion as often occurs at night (often referred to as stable atmospheric conditions). The specific measures recommended in the GPG have been shown to provide good correlation with levels of wind turbine noise measured at operational wind farms41.
9.3.2.6 Cumulative Assessment ETSU-R-97 and the GPG state that the noise limits that it recommends apply to the cumulative effect of noise from all wind turbines that may affect a particular location. Therefore a search will be undertaken, in consultation with Rugby Borough Council, to identify any wind energy developments either operational, consented or in planning which may require consideration in the assessment process.
40 ISO 9613-2:1996 Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors – Part 2: General Method of Calculation. 41 Bullmore et al. (2009). Wind Farm Noise Predictions and Comparison with Measurements, Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Aalborg, Denmark 17 – 19 June 2009.
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 33 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
9.3.3 Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound A study42, published in 2006 by acoustic consultants Hayes McKenzie on the behalf of the DTI, investigated low frequency noise from wind farms. This study concluded that there is no evidence of health effects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by wind turbines, but that complaints attributed to low frequency noise were in fact, possibly due to a phenomenon known as Amplitude Modulation (AM). Further, in February 2013, the Environmental Protection Authority of South Australia published the results of a study into in infrasound levels near wind farms43. This study measured infrasound levels at urban locations, rural locations with wind turbines close by, and rural locations with no wind turbines in the vicinity. It found that infrasound levels near wind farms are comparable to levels away from wind farms in both urban and rural locations. Infrasound levels were also measured during organised shut-downs of the wind farms; the results showed that there was no noticeable difference in infrasound levels whether the turbines were active or inactive. Bowdler et al. (2009)44 concludes that: “...there is no robust evidence that low frequency noise (including ‘infrasound’) or ground-borne vibration from wind farms generally has adverse effects on wind farm neighbours”. It is therefore not considered necessary to carry out specific assessments of low frequency noise or infrasound. However, further supporting information on these subjects will be provided in the ES.
9.3.4 Amplitude Modulation In its simplest form, Amplitude Modulation, by definition, is the regular variation in noise level of a given noise source. This variation (the modulation) occurs at a specific frequency, which, in the case of wind turbines, is defined by the rotational speed of the blades. There is a distinction between ‘normal’ AM of wind turbine noise, characterised as blade swish and increased AM, typically referred to as Enhanced AM (EAM) or Other AM (OAM). It should be noted that ETSU-R-97 describes and makes allowance for normal AM or blade swish. A study45 was carried out in 2007 on behalf of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) by the University of Salford, which investigated the incidence of noise complaints associated with wind farms and whether these were associated with AM. This report defined AM as aerodynamic noise from wind turbines with a greater degree of fluctuation than normal at blade passing frequency. Its aims were to ascertain the prevalence of increased AM (OAM) on UK wind farm sites, to try to gain a better understanding of the likely causes, and to establish whether further research into AM is required. The study concluded that OAM has occurred at only a small number (4 of 133) of wind farms in the UK, and only for between 7% and 15% of the time. It also stated that, the causes of OAM are not well understood and that prediction of the effect is not currently possible.
42The measurement of low frequency noise at three UK wind farms, Hayes Mckenzie, The Department for Trade and Industry, URN 06/1412, 2006. 43 Environment Protection authority (2013) Infrasound levels near wind farms and in other environments [online] Available at: http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Noise/Report/infrasound.pdf [Accessed 13/05/2014]. 44 Bowdler et al. (2009). Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise: Agreement about relevant factors for noise assessment from wind energy projects. Acoustic Bulletin, Vol 34 No2 March/April 2009, Institute of Acoustics 45 Research into aerodynamic modulation of wind turbine noise’. Report by University of Salford, The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, URN 07/1235, July 2007.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 34 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
This research has recently been supported by an in-depth study undertaken by Renewable UK46, which has identified that many of the previously suggested causes of OAM have little or no association to the occurrence of OAM in practice. The generation of OAM is based upon the interaction of a number of factors, the combination and contributions of which are unique to each site. With the current state of knowledge, it is not possible to predict whether any particular site is more or less likely to give rise to OAM, and the incidence of OAM occurring at any particular site remains low, as identified in the University of Salford study. The report includes a sample planning condition to address AM, however that has not yet been validated or endorsed by Government. It is therefore not considered necessary to carry out specific assessments of amplitude modulation. However, further supporting information on this subject will be provided in the ES.
46 Wind Turbine Amplitude Modulation: Research to improve understanding as to its Cause and effects, Renewable UK, 2013
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 35 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
10 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE Windfarms have the potential to interfere with electro-magnetic signals passing above ground or existing infrastructure buried below ground. Consultation with relevant infrastructure providers is a routine part of windfarm development. Consultees generally include: • Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); • Ministry of Defence (MoD); • Television and telecommunications providers; and • Water, gas and electricity utilities providers. Any aviation issues will be taken into account and suitable mitigation measures adopted where necessary. Any telecommunication links will be taken into account during the turbine layout design process to avoid effects. Alternatively effects will be mitigated or eliminated by proposals of alternative solutions to be agreed with link operators. Utilities specifications and codes of practice would be followed during design and construction in the vicinity of existing overhead or underground infrastructure on-site.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 36 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
11 SHADOW FLICKER AND REFLECTIVITY Reflectivity is the potential for the sun to ‘glint’ off structures which, in the case of wind turbines, can be an intermittent glint when the turbines are rotating. This effect will be minimised by selecting a matt or semi-matt coating for the wind turbines, designed to reduce the potential for reflection. Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (the Planning Practice Guidance)47 was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2014 to provide advice on the issues associated with the development of renewable energy in England. The Planning Practice Guidance (replaces the previous Planning for Renewable Energy, ‘A Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22)’48) describes the conditions in the UK under which flicker may occur and states: “Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at these latitudes in the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side”. It is also known that the effect is most likely to occur within 10 rotor diameters of wind turbines. Online planning guidance for onshore wind (Scottish Government, 201349) provides information for consideration surrounding shadow flicker. Although this guidance only applies in Scotland, it provides additional technical information on onshore wind power which is still applicable. It states: “where separation is provided between wind turbines and nearby dwellings (as a general rule 10 rotor diameters), "shadow flicker" should not be a problem.” An assessment will be undertaken to identify any potential shadow flicker effects in line with relevant guidance. Effects will be quantified using a computer model50 during the EIA process and mitigation, if required, will be outlined.
47 Department for Communities and Local Government (2013) Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy. Online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225689/Planning_Practice_Guidance_for_Rene wable_and_Low_Carbon_Energy.pdf [Accessed on 13/05/2014] 48 ODPM, (2004) ‘Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22’, pp 177 49 Scottish Government (2013) Onshore Turbines – online at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built- Environment/planning/National-Planning-Policy/themes/renewables/Onshore [Accessed on 13/05/2014] 50ReSoft Ltd. “Windfarm” software, release 4.1.1.7.
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 37 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
12 SOCIO-ECONOMICS, TOURISM AND RECREATION A desktop socio-economic assessment will consider the potential direct and indirect effects of the Development. Various existing surveys and assessments of socio-economic and visitor profiles, land-use and ownership, and public attitudes to windfarms will be collated to provide background information against which to assess the potential for significant effects. In respect of recreation and access, consultations will take place to inform assessments of any effects to users of the public rights of way network. Consultations will include Rugby Borough Council, the British Horse Society and other relevant organisations. Socio-economic effects will be considered based on the guidance from Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment51 and a Handbook for EIA52 and considered against: • An economic profile of the area; • Tourism and recreation; • Land-use and ownership; and • Public attitudes to windfarms. The potential impact of the Development on tourism is closely related to the perception of windfarms by those visiting the area. In the United Kingdom there have been numerous surveys to assess the public’s attitudes to windfarms which will be reviewed and incorporated into the ES. The general consensus of these surveys is that the majority of the general public believe that windfarm developments do not have a negative impact on their experience of an area; further detail on the findings of the surveys will be presented in the ES.
51 Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) (2004) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment 52 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (2003) A Handbook for Environmental Impact Assessment, Appendix 5: Guide to Outdoor Access Assessment, SNH.
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 38 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
13 ACCESS AND TRAFFIC Access to the site is dependent on the point of origin of the turbine components, but consideration will be given to shipping turbine components to a nearby port facility, capable of handling them, to minimise road haulage requirements. Turbine components would be delivered to a suitable port with access to a large road network, most likely from Port of King’s Lynn, leading onto the A47, A1139, A1(M), A14, M1, A4303, A5 and the B4455. Other construction traffic such as aggregate and concrete is likely to originate locally, and would utilise the motorway and trunk road network as far as possible to approach the site. It is anticipated, at this stage, that the preferred access to the site during construction would be taken from Mere Lane via a new site access point. Suitability of this access route to site and the proposed point of access will be confirmed through a detailed access assessment which will form part of the EIA, and which will include: • Consultations will relevant Highways bodies including the Highways Agency, the Local Highways Authority and other relevant bodies; • An assessment of weight restrictions, low bridges and an abnormal loads study along proposed route options; and • Swept-path analysis of pinch points to inform on the practicability of route options. The methodology will follow the Guidelines for the Environmental Impact of Road Traffic53. Site visits will be undertaken to inspect existing access and the local road network subject to a screening process using two broad rules outlined in the above guidelines to identify the appropriate extent of the assessment area. These are to: • Include highway links where traffic will increase by more than 30 % (or where the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles will increase more than 30 %); and • Include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows have increased by 10 % or more. Where the predicted increase in traffic flows is lower than the thresholds, the guidelines suggest the significance of effects can be stated to be low or insignificant and further detailed assessments are not warranted. The peak traffic generation resulting from the Development will be identified to assess a worst case scenario. Subject to the completion of this assessment, further consultation will be carried out with the Highways Authority and other relevant bodies as required. The assessment of effects will be based on baseline traffic flow data, the proposed access route and calculation of increased road traffic whilst identifying receptors and their sensitivity.
53Institute of Environmental Assessment (1993) Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, IEA.
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 39 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
14 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ASC Renewables is committed to working with local communities and aims to ensure that they are consulted and informed of developments during the EIA process, through public exhibitions, meetings and newsletters. Public consultation will be incorporated into the iterative design process and recorded within appropriate sections of the ES. In addition, a Statement of Community Involvement will be prepared, which will provide full detail of the community involvement that has taken place throughout the windfarm development process. In accordance with the requirements of Rugby Borough Council, the Scoping Report will be distributed directly by the Council to consultees. ASC Renewables welcome comments from the local community and other stakeholders on the project and on the ways that they would prefer to be consulted. Comments are specifically invited on: • The proposed content of the ES; • Assessment methods; • Additional data sources; and • Additional consultees. If you would like to discuss any issues raised within this report in more detail, or require any further information prior to responding to this Scoping Report, please contact Mike Bird at Arcus at: Arcus Consultancy Services Ltd Suite 1C Swinegate Court East 3 Swinegate York YO1 8AJ Tel: 01904 715 470 E-mail: [email protected]
Arcus Consultancy Services ASC Renewables Page 40 May 2014 Scoping Report Wolf Hedge Windfarm
FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location and Layout Figure 2 – Landscape Designations Figure 3 – Preliminary Viewpoint Locations Figure 4 – Ecology and Ornithology Designations Figure 5 – Cultural Heritage Designations
ASC Renewables Arcus Consultancy Services May 2014 Page 41 440000 445000 450000
! Proposed Turbine Location
Site Boundary 290000 290000
1 ! 3 5 ! ! ! 6 2 ! 4 7 ! ! 285000 285000
Grove Farm Site Location
Scale @ A3 1:1,000,000
1:50,000 Scale @ A3
0 1 2 km ¯ Produced: SC Ref: 1311/REP/001 Reviewed: LHu Approved: JT Date: 20/05/2014
Site Location and Layout Figure 1
Wolf Hedge Windfarm 280000 280000 Scoping Report Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2014. All rights reserved. License number 100048606 440000 445000 450000 P:\Projects\1311 Wolf Hedge Windfarm\Document Files\Reports\Scoping Report\Fig01 Site Location and Layout.mxd BRADGATE PARK AND SWITHLAND WOODS DONINGTON LE HEATH SENCE VALLEY BRADGATE BAGWORTH PARK HEATH WOODS SHEET BELGRAVE ! Proposed Turbine Location HEDGES HALL Abbey Park Site Boundary
POOLEY MARKET NEW WALK, Registered Park and Garden BOSWORTH LEICESTER PARK WELFORD VICTORIA Country Park ROAD PARK, CEMETERY LEICESTER SHENTON STATION SAFFRON HILL BROCKS BATTLEFIELD CEMETERY HILL OF BOSWORTH 300000 300000 MEREVALE HALL
BURBAGE KINGSBURY COMMON HARTSHILL WATER PARK AND WOODS HAYES
ARBURY HALL
BEDWORTH CEMETERY (COVENTRY ROAD CEMETERY) ! ! ! ! ! PACKINGTON ! ! HALL NEWNHAM PADDOX
STANFORD COOMBE LADY HALL ABBEY HERBERT'S 5 km GARDEN SWIFT STONEY ROAD LONDON ROAD VALLEY ALLOTMENTS CEMETERY, NEWBOLD COVENTRY QUARRY
War Memorial Park, 10 km Coventry RYTON HOUSE RYTON KENILWORTH POOLS BILTON CASTLE GRANGE
DUNCHURCH LODGE 15 km
STONELEIGH DRAYCOTE ASHBY ST ABBEY WATER LEDGERS GUY'S CLIFFE 1:225,000 Scale @ A3 NEWBOLD COMYN 0 5 10 km ¯ 20 km SPA GARDENS, Produced: SC Ref: 1311/REP/002 ROYAL DAVENTRY Reviewed: LHu LEAMINGTON SPA Approved: JT Date: 20/05/2014
25 km Landscape Designations Figure 2
Wolf Hedge Windfarm Scoping Report Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2014. All rights reserved. License number 100048606
P:\Projects\1311 Wolf Hedge Windfarm\Document Files\Reports\Scoping Report\Fig02 Landscape Designations.mxd ! Proposed Turbine Location
Site Boundary
@ Viewpoint 300000 300000
VP12 @
VP3 @ VP5 VP10 @ VP7 @ VP9 @ @ ! ! ! ! ! ! !
VP8 @ VP1 VP11 VP4 @ @ @ VP6 @
5 km VP2 @
10 km
15 km
1:225,000 Scale @ A3
0 5 10 km ¯ 20 km Produced: SC Ref: 1311/REP/003 Reviewed: LHu Approved: JT Date: 21/05/2014
25 km Preliminary Viewpoint Locations Figure 3
Wolf Hedge Windfarm Scoping Report Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2014. All rights reserved. License number 100048606
P:\Projects\1311 Wolf Hedge Windfarm\Document Files\Reports\Scoping Report\Fig03 Preliminary Viewpoint Locations.mxd ! Proposed Turbine Location
Site Boundary
10 km Study Area Site of Special Scientific Interest less then 10 km from site if designated for birds or bat interests Non Statutory Designation (Ecosite) within 2 km of the site
Ecosite 35/48 Ecosite 15/48 Ecosite 28/48
! ! ! !
!
! Ecosite ! 08/48 Ecosite 14/48
Ecosite 26/48
Note: there are no National Nature Reserves, Combe Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Pool Areas or Ramsar sites within the relevant search areas
1:90,000 Scale @ A3
0 2.5 5 km ¯ Produced: SC Ref: 1311/REP/005 Reviewed: LHu Approved: JT Date: 21/05/2014
Ecology and Ornithology Designations Figure 4
Wolf Hedge Windfarm Scoping Report Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2014. All rights reserved. License number 100048606
P:\Projects\1311 Wolf Hedge Windfarm\Document Files\Reports\Scoping Report\Fig04 Ecology and Ornithology Designations.mxd 1005732 Proposed Turbine Location Site Boundary E Grade I Listed Building Grade II* Listed Building 1034891 1016845 E 1016846 2 km Study Area 1010197 5 km Study Area 1010200 1003566 Registered Parks and Gardens
Scheduled Monument 1185719
1116252 1209153 1010191
1010300 Grade I Listed Buildings 1034855 Church of St Edith 1186169 Screen, Gates and Gatepiers 1209153 Church of St Peter 1365054 Grade II* Listed Buildings 1034857 Church of St Andrew 1034860 Church of All Saints 1034889 Church of St James 1034891 Church of St Botolph 1012563 1116252 Church of St John the Baptist 1116337 Church of St Leonard 1185719 Church of St John 1365054 Church of St James 1365084 Ansty Hall Scheduled Monuments 1003566 Roman town at High Cross 1005731 Site of deserted village of Hopsford 1116337 1010191 Moated site, enclosure and trackway at Claybrooke Parva 1016847 Cistercian grange of Upper Smite, 200m 1034857 1016849 south east of Mobbs Wood Farm NEWNHAM 1005732 Deserted village of Stretton Baskerville PADDOX 1010300 Moat, fishponds and shifted village 1005731 earthworks at Ullesthorpe 1034860 1365084 1010197 Bowl barrow at Wigston Parva 1034889 1016849 Medieval settlement at Withybrook 1186169 1016845 Bowl barrow 490m north west of Abbey Farm 1010200 Crop mark of a bowl barrow at Wigston Parva 1034855 1016846 Bowl barrow 900m north of Copston Farm 1016849 Medieval settlement at Withybrook 1012563 Bittesby deserted medieval village 1016847 1018261 High Cross 60m north west of Highcross House 1016849 Medieval settlement at Withybrook
1:50,000 Scale @ A3
0 1 2 km ¯ Produced: SC Ref: 1311/REP/005 Reviewed: LHu Approved: JT Date: 20/05/2014
Cultural Heritage Designations Figure 5
Wolf Hedge Windfarm Scoping Report Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2014. All rights reserved. License number 100048606
P:\Projects\1311 Wolf Hedge Windfarm\Document Files\Reports\Scoping Report\Fig05 Cultural Heritage Designations.mxd