Ms. Frances Fernandes Environment, Planning and Lead Member of the Panel of Examining Inspectors Enforcement The Planning Inspectorate Invicta House 3C Eagle County Hall Temple Quay House Maidstone 2 The Square ME14 1XX Bristol BS1 6PN Phone: 03000 418827 Ask for: Katie Stewart Email: [email protected] 26th October 2016 Dear Ms Fernandes, Application by National Grid for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Richborough Connection Project – Deadline 6 Further to actions arising from the Issue Specific Hearing on Landscape, visual and biodiversity effects including alternatives held on Friday 30th September, the County Council sets out its comments as below: Agenda Item 2.1 Discuss Kent County Council (KCC) suggested non-planting landscape opportunities as part of s106 agreement. This matter was discussed at a meeting between Kent County Council (KCC) and National Grid on Thursday 13th October 2016. The County Council can confirm that it has not proposed any non-planting landscape opportunities as part of the s.106 agreement and therefore no further discussions are to be held on this matter in relation to the s.106 agreement. As part of KCC’s submission in response to Deadline 5, proposals in relation to embedded mitigation and/or enhancement measures, particularly in relation to the Ash Level were raised. This matter is set out in the Statement of Common Ground between National Grid and the Joint Council (Document 8.4.6(A)) which is to be submitted by the Applicant at Deadline 6. Agenda Item 2.4 Provide Post Hearing Note on applicability of Wind Turbines and Pylons Guidance Post Hearing Note The County Council’s full response to Hearing Action Point 3 regarding agenda item 2.4 is appended to this letter. If you require any further information or clarification on any matter then please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, Katie Stewart Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement 2 EN020017 – Application by National Grid for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Richborough Connection Project Appendix 1: Kent County Council’s response to Hearing Action Points List The County Council’s response to Hearing Action 3 arising from the Issue Specific Hearing on Landscape, visual and biodiversity effects including alternative, held at Canterbury Cathedral Lodge, Canterbury on 30 September 2016 is set out below: Agenda Item 2.4: Provide Post Hearing Note on applicability of Wind Turbines and Pylons Guidance Post Hearing Note Introduction KCC considers that the guidance document Wind Turbines & Pylons - Guidance on the application of separation distances from residential properties [REP5-050], which is based on the professional guidance in GLVIA3, provides a useful and impartial evidence-based review of the techniques used in assessing the visual effects of pylons. A copy of the guidance document is appended to this Post Hearing Note. The guidance document was prepared because of ‘a range of pressures relating to wind energy and 400 kV overhead line developments’ (paragraph 1.2). The Richborough Connection Project comprises a 400kV overhead line development. Whilst the focus of the guidance document is on ‘separation distances’ to avoid potentially very severe adverse visual effects, it does also review the generally accepted professional techniques employed in assessing residential visual impacts of pylons. KCC recognises that the Applicant has submitted a visual impact assessment [REP2-011] which includes all residential properties within 1 km of the scheme. However, KCC contends that the Applicant has in general under-estimated the significance of the adverse effects, and the independent guidance provides a useful ‘benchmark’ to assist the Examining Authority in its own assessment of visual impacts and in reviewing the accuracy of the Applicant’s assessment. Professional recognition of the guidance The guidance document was Highly Commended in the Landscape Institute Awards 2015 and the Institute’s web-site sets out the following comments: ‘Gwynedd Council, Isle of Anglesey County Council and Snowdonia National Park Authority have been receiving an increasing number of applications for single or multiple wind turbines that are not large enough to be considered a ‘wind farm’ but together or individually could have a significant impact on views from residential properties. The councils and park authority currently have little information to help inform their judgement when making decisions on whether or not a development should be given consent. To address this issue, they commissioned this study with the aim of achieving more robust, transparent and consistent decisions.’ ‘The judges said: An innovative project that provides a credible method for analysing the visual impact of wind turbines and pylons.’ Visual Amenity Visual Amenity is a recognised concept within GLVIA3 and referred to in the context of visual effects in the following: Views and visual amenity (page 21, paragraphs 2.20-2.22) 1 EN020017 – Application by National Grid for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Richborough Connection Project Professional judgement in LVIA (page 21, paragraphs 2.23) Scope (page 98, paragraph 6.2) Predicting and describing visual effects (pages 112-116, paragraphs 6.26, 6.29, 6.30, 6.31, 6.32, 6.35, 6.36, and 6.44) Summary advice on good practice(1st bullet, page 116; 7th bullet, 8th bullet, page 117; 3rd bullet point, page 118) Whilst the guidance document has a particular concern for situations where the adverse effects on visual amenity are so high as to be unacceptable in planning terms, the assessment of visual amenity effects can be applied at all scales of magnitude. Assessing the sensitivity of residential receptors Paragraph 3.2 of the guidance document states ‘when assessing the significance of visual impacts of a wind turbine or pylon on a residential receptor the potential scale of impact or change in a view is considered together with the sensitivity of the receptor. As noted in GLVIA3, it is generally accepted in the landscape profession that residential receptors are considered high sensitivity visual receptors so the only variable then becomes the scale of impact.’ The County Council considers that this approach is not adopted in the Applicant’s visual assessment where residential receptors are assigned a medium sensitivity. This is possibly a result of assigning a ‘local’’ value to the private views. However, residential views are not public views so that the value/importance of the view should not be based on public values (e.g. a value based on a landscape designation), but on the importance to the occupant of the property, which is likely to be high. This demonstrates the need to use careful judgement in interpreting the methodology in a non-deterministic manner in order to reflect particular circumstances. The professionally accepted and recognised approach put forward in the guidance document in assessing residential sensitivity is therefore preferred to the Applicant’s deterministic approach. Assessing visual impacts Whilst the sensitivity of all residential receptors has been under-estimated by the Applicant, KCC recognises that there are a large number of factors which will influence the magnitude of the adverse effects on views as a result of a new 400kV pylon. This is considered in the guidance document (paragraph 3.4) which states that ‘the assessment of the likely scale of impact will depend on the extent of changes in the composition of a view brought about by the introduction of a wind turbine or pylon; taking into account proximity and the proportion of the view occupied by the development and also their apparent prominence as determined by a number of modifying factors (discussed further in the main report, paragraph 4.14 and Table 4.4).’ KCC supports this approach as a useful aid to the very wide range of factors which need to be considered in assessing adverse impacts. An extract of the table (relevant to pylons) is set out overleaf: 2 EN020017 – Application by National Grid for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Richborough Connection Project Modifying Factors (based on Table 4.4 of the main report) Factors that may contribute to a Factors that may contribute to an reduction in the assessed scale of increase in the assessed scale of visual impacts visual impacts Relevant Occupies a small proportion of the Occupies a large proportion of the to Wind view view Turbines Well screened by Lack of screening and vegetation/landform/other In full view Pylons Partial or glimpsed view Direct angle of view Oblique angle of view Viewer looks up to structure from Viewer looks down onto structure a low lying position from an elevated position Visual clues/visual reference e.g. Absence of visual clues/visual mature trees, buildings etc. reference e.g. mature trees, Rural situation buildings etc. Scale of structure conflicts with Urban situation scale of landscape (typically Scale of structure fits with scale of small) landscape (typically large) Skylined Backclothed Poorly accommodated within the Well accommodated within the view view Simple scene Complex scene High contrast Low contrast Time of day Time of day Season Season Weather Weather Size and design of the wind Size and design of the wind turbine turbine or pylon or pylon Specific to Pylon is seen backclothed against Pylon is seen skylined Pylons a solid background Other pylons or vertical structures Few pylons visible and creation of ‘wirescape’ Orientation of pylon(s) More than one pylon visible, particularly if seen ‘stacked’ or ‘fenced’ against one another Orientation of pylon(s) 3 MAY 2014 WIND TURBINES & PYLONS GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICATION OF SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FINAL REPORT REASONS FOR REV DATE BY CHKD STATUS REVISION/COMMENTS ORIGINATOR REVISION GILLESPIES LLP Final Gillespies File Reference: M5082-1 Final Report 22 May 2014Final Report 22 May 2014 Wind Turbines & Pylons: Guidance on the Application of Separation Distances from Residential Properties Contents Page No.