Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2 PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................... 4 3 ISSUES ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 4 LANDSCAPE ........................................................................................................................................... 26 5 ECOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 29 6 CULTURAL HERITAGE ....................................................................................................................... 34 7 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY .................................................................................................................... 38 8 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS ........................................................................................................................ 42 9 HYDROGEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 45 10 NOISE ...................................................................................................................................................... 49 11 PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY ................................................................................................................... 62 12 SHADOW FLICKER .............................................................................................................................. 64 13 OTHER ISSUES ...................................................................................................................................... 65 14 BENEFITS ............................................................................................................................................... 67 15 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 70 APPENDIX 1 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY SURVEY ...................................................................................... 73 APPENDIX 2 LETTER FROM ENERTRAG ................................................................................................. 81 APPENDIX 3A POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MOTTEY MEADOW REPORT ............................................ 84 APPENDIX 3B ENVIRONMENT STATEMENT OBO WP - REBUTTAL ................................................... 90 APPENDIX 3C MOTTEY MEADOWS SUSTAINABILITY ......................................................................... 97 APPENDIX 4 REPORT ON PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (ROW) ............................................................... 109 APPENDIX 5 SHADOW FLICKER ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 118 APPENDIX 6 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC & ACCESS REPORT ............................................................ 119 APPENDIX 8 CONSULTATION PROCESS ................................................................................................ 129 APPENDIX 9 ECOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 132 APPENDIX 10 TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS AND CO2 IMPACT....................................................................... 1 APPENDIX 11 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS ROAD ......................................................... 1 2 STAG Consultation Response February 2011 1 Introduction 1.1 This Statement 1.1.1 This rebuttal document has been compiled by members of King Street STAG (Stop Turbines Action Group), a group of residents who came together in June 2009 to oppose the proposed King Street wind farm development. 1.1.2 We have been fully involved in all elements of the planning process creating a website, holding public meetings and events and meeting with both the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and a number of statutory consultees. 1.1.3 In addition to the professional expertise within the Group, we have engaged the services of consultants PJ Planning and LiZLake Associates (landscape consultants), Mike Barnard and an expert ecologist. 1.1.4 Because of this combined expertise and experience, the four parishes most directly affected by the proposal have asked the group to represent their interests by way of this document. The parishes concerned are Blymhill and Weston under Lizard, Wheaton Aston, Gnosall and Church Eaton which between them have a combined population of approximately 9,000 residents and all are within 5km of the wind farm site. 1.1.5 The statement sets out the detail of our arguments and explains the reasoning behind why STAG, as well as parishes representing thousands of local residents, oppose this particular wind farm application on this specific site. 1.2 Structure of the Statement 1.2.1 The statement begins by setting out, in Section 2, the planning policy framework within which the decision on this application is to be taken. 1.2.2 On the basis of that policy framework, Section 3 sets out the issues that need to be addressed: impact on the landscape and visual amenity of the area impact on ecology and biodiversity impact on heritage assets impact on the amenity of nearby residents traffic and access implications impact on hydrogeology and the water environment impact of noise on the amenity of local residents effect of the proposal on Public Rights of Way effect of shadow flicker 1.2.3 STAG‟s views on each of these are set out in Sections 4-13. 1.2.4 Accompanying the Statement is a Companion report prepared by Michelle Bolger of LiZLake Associates, which sets out in detail the reasoning behind STAG‟s visual impact objections. 1.2.5 The Statement concludes (Section15) by setting out a number of planning reasons why this proposal should be rejected. We believe that many of these on their own would constitute sufficient grounds for rejection. However, when considered together they constitute an overwhelming case for refusal of planning permission. 1.2.6 In particular we believe that the ES fails to properly and objectively assess and quantify the impacts, either through omission or underestimation. This must cast serious doubt about the rigour and thoroughness with which the application has been put together. Put simply, as a basis for a rational, fully informed decision it is significantly wanting. 3 STAG Consultation Response February 2011 2 Planning policy framework 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Section 38 (6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act requires decisions on planning applications to be taken in accordance with the Development Plan “unless material considerations indicate otherwise” 2.1.2 In this case, the Development Plan comprises: The West Midlands Regional Strategy 2008 The saved policies of the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan The saved policies of the South Staffordshire Local Plan 2.2 The West Midlands Regional Strategy 2008 Weight to be accorded 2.2.1 The courts have held that it is a material consideration that the Government intends to revoke the Regional Strategy through the impending Democracy and Localism Act, which is due to be in force in early 2012. Thus, although the Regional Strategy is legally a part of the Development Plan, its importance will diminish as the Localism Bill nears the statute book. 2.2.2 Having said that, in its emerging Core Strategy, South Staffordshire Council has confirmed that the principles and evidence base of the Regional Strategy remain valid and form the basis for the Core Strategy: 1.15 Despite plans to abolish the WMRSS, the principles upon which it is based of rural/urban regeneration and sustainability remain valid. The aims and objectives of South Staffordshire‘s local planning strategy is underpinned by these principles and are a national objective of national policy, including Green Belt policy. The robust and up to date evidence base which underpinned the WMRSS will still support the local planning strategy for South Staffordshire.‖ 2.2.3 Therefore, in taking a decision on this application, the local planning authority would be entirely justified in giving weight to the policies of, and the evidence supporting, the Regional Strategy. Climate change 2.2.4 The local planning authority has asserted that CC1 is relevant. However, although its principles clearly apply across the Region, the Regional Strategy makes it clear that the policy itself applies to the Black Country alone. It is not, therefore, referred to here. The Open Countryside 2.2.5 In Section 5, „Rural Renaissance‟, the Strategy stresses the special importance of protecting the rural environment: 5.3 It is important that activities to improve the quality of life in the rural areas protect and enhance their unique qualities including their environmental assets. The policies in the Quality of the Environment Chapter will be particularly important in this respect.‖ 2.2.6 The site is located in the open countryside. The Regional Strategy does not dwell on Countryside policies, deferring to central government policy in PPS7: 5.18 The open countryside consists of the whole of the rural area outside towns, villages and other small settlements. 5.19 The Rural Economy policies (PA14-15) in the Prosperity for All Chapter and many of