Appendix 16
Appeal Decisions
Inquiry opened on 6 March 2012
Site visits made on 26 March, 17 April and 15 June 2012
by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 29 June 2012
Appeal A: APP/K0235/A/11/2160077
Chelveston Renewable Energy Park, Chelveston Airfield, Chelveston
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Chelveston Renewable Energy Ltd against the decision of
Bedford Borough Council.
The application Ref.10/00484/MAF, dated 24 February 2010, was refused by notice
dated 29 March 2011.
The development proposed was described as ‘construction and use of 4 (four) wind
turbines each 125m in height to blade tip and one anemometer mast 80m high,
including construction of access tracks, turbine bases, laying of underground cables and
visitor car park’.
Appeal B: APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
Chelveston Renewable Energy Park, Chelveston Airfield, Chelveston
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Chelveston Renewable Energy Ltd against the decision of East
Northants District Council.
The application Ref.EN/10/00415/FUL, dated 24 February 2010, was refused by notice
dated 7 March 2011.
The development proposed was described as ‘construction and use of 5 (five) wind
turbines each 125m in height to blade tip and one anemometer mast 80m high,
including construction of access tracks, turbine bases, laying of underground cables and
visitor car park’.
Preliminary Matters
1. The Inquiry sat between 6 - 9 and 12 - 16 March and again on 21 March 2012.
Submissions on the National Planning Policy Framework1 were dealt with in
writing, as were those on the UU2, and closing statements from all the main
parties, in accordance with a timetable set out and agreed on 21 March 2012.
The Inquiry was closed in writing on 15 May 2012.
2. The proposals are EIA development for the purposes of the Town and Country
Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations
1999 (as amended). The originating applications were accompanied by an ES3
that was subsequently expanded upon through an addendum issued in July
2010, and another in October 2010.
1
2
3
Referred to hereafter as the Framework
Unilateral Undertaking
Environmental Statement
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
16.1
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
3. Some concerns were raised about aspects of the ES, and especially the way it
approaches impacts on heritage assets. However, there has been no sustained
suggestion that the ES, as amended, does not meet the needs of the relevant
Regulations. On my analysis, the ES, as amended, meets those needs and,
along with all the other material presented to the Inquiry, I have taken it into
account in determining the appeals. While there are two schemes, the ES, as
amended, deals with them as one proposal. While the proposals are divisible, I
have dealt with the appeals in much the same way
4. I carried out accompanied site visits on 26 March 2012 in accordance with an
agreed itinerary. These were completed on 17 April 2012 when I visited the
appeal site itself and the industrial unit the appellant proposes to use for
fabrication purposes. Later that day, I carried out some unaccompanied site
visits, as set out in the same itinerary. I had intended to complete these on the
following day but had to abort because of inclement weather. These visits were
completed on 15 June 2012. During those unaccompanied visits, I also took the
opportunity to take in the large number of designated heritage assets identified
in the ES, the subsequent addenda, and the evidence.
5. In its decision notice, Bedford Borough Council amended the description of
development to read ‘construction and use of 4 (four) wind turbines, each
125m high to blade tip, and one anemometer mast (80m high) including
construction of access tracks, turbine bases and laying of underground cables’.
As reflected in the SoCG4, that is a more accurate description of what is
proposed and I have dealt with Appeal A on that basis. The description of
development used by East Northamptonshire District Council in its decision
notice refers to nine wind turbines, five of which are located within the district.
I find the reference to those wind turbines located in the adjoining borough
unnecessary and for the purposes of Appeal B have reverted to the description
of development from the originating application, with minor revisions in the
interests of consistency. There is also the issue around the anemometer mast
to be dealt with. I return to that below.
Decisions
Appeal A
6. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction and
use of 4 (four) wind turbines, each 125m high to blade tip, and one
anemometer mast (80m high) including construction of access tracks, turbine
bases and laying of underground cables at Chelveston Renewable Energy Park,
Chelveston Airfield, Chelveston in accordance with the terms of the application,
Ref.10/00484/MAF, dated 24 February 2010, subject to the conditions set out
in Annex A to these decisions.
Appeal B
7. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction and
use of 5 (five) wind turbines, each 125m in height to blade tip, including
construction of access tracks, turbine bases, laying of underground cables and
visitor car park at Chelveston Renewable Energy Park, Chelveston Airfield,
Chelveston in accordance with the terms of the application,
Ref.EN/10/00415/FUL, dated 24 February 2010, subject to the conditions set
out in Annex B to these decisions.
4
Statement of Common Ground agreed between the appellant and the Councils
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
2
16.2
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
Application for Costs
8. An application for costs was made by PRESERVE against the appellant. This
application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Main Issue
9. This is whether any benefits of the proposals are sufficient to outweigh any
harm they would cause to (1) the character and appearance of the surrounding
landscape, including any cumulative impact; (2) the setting of heritage assets;
(3) the living conditions of nearby residents through visual impact, noise,
shadow flicker, or anything else; and (4) other matters raised.
Reasons
Benefits
10. According to the figures put forward by the appellant, each wind turbine would
have an electricity generating capacity of up to 2.5 MW. This means that the
wind farm as proposed, with 9 wind turbines, would have a generating capacity
of up to 22.5 MW. The appellant predicts that the wind farm will generate
around 59,000 MWh per year, enough to supply the needs of about 12,500
households, and create savings of approximately 25,000 tonnes of carbon
dioxide per year.
11. These calculations drew some criticism because, it is said, they are based on an
optimistic capacity factor of 30% and fail to take account of reductions in
output efficiency due to the alignment and proximity of the proposed wind
turbines. However, according to the appellant, the figures put forward are
based on raw wind data gathered at the site between 2006 and 2008 and take
full account of the layout proposed. On that basis, I see no good reason to
suspect that the figures presented by the appellant are unduly optimistic.
12. The Localism Act has received royal assent, and the Government has made
clear its intention to revoke them but at the time of writing, Regional Spatial
Strategies remain part of the development plan. The scheme at issue under
Appeal A comes within the region covered by the RSS for the East of England5
and the scheme at issue under Appeal B by the RSS for the East Midlands6.
13. Policy ENG2 of the RSS for the East of England sets out that the development
of new facilities for renewable power generation should be supported, with the
aim that by 2010, 10%, and by 2020, 17% of the region’s energy should come
from renewable sources. Paragraph 9.6 of the RSS for the East of England
translates this to an installed renewable energy capacity, onshore, of 820 MW
by 2010, and 1620 MW by 2020.
14. Based on the DECC7 figures presented to the Inquiry by the Councils and the
appellant, as of 20 March 2012, the East of England Region had 1160 MW of
renewable energy technologies in operation, 581 MW awaiting or under
construction, and 181 MW as planning applications under consideration. While I
heard that the 2010 target in the RSS for the East of England was not met, it
appears that there is sufficient capacity in operation, and permitted, or under
consideration, to comfortably surpass the 2020 target.
5
6
7
East of England Plan: The Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England of May 2008
The East Midlands Regional Plan
Department of Energy and Climate Change
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
3
16.3
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
15. However, there is a complication. A significant proportion of the renewable
energy capacity in operation (750 MW) comes from the Tilbury B biomass
power station. There have been recent problems with a serious fire, but
notwithstanding that, the plant will only run until its scheduled closure under
the LCPD8, or the end of 2015, or the remainder of its permitted 20,000 hours
of operation under the LCPD have been used.
16. Whichever, the Council accepted that Tilbury B will not contribute anything in
2020. Clearly, the loss of such a significant contributor means that there must
be significant doubt about whether the 2020 target of 1620 MW will be met.
17. In terms of Appeal B, RSS for the East Midlands Policy 40 says that in
establishing criteria for onshore wind energy, amongst other things, the
contribution to national and international environmental objectives on climate
change and the regional renewables target, should be given particular
consideration.
18. Policy 40 refers to Appendix 5 to the RSS for the East Midlands that sets
regional targets for the production of renewable energy. The 2010 target for
onshore wind was 122 MW, rising to 175 MW in 2020. Again using the DECC
figures presented to the Inquiry, as of 20 March 2012, the East Midlands
Region has 135 MW of onshore wind in operation, 180 MW awaiting or under
construction, and 229 MW under consideration through planning applications.
On that basis, it seems that the 2020 regional target for onshore wind will be
comfortably exceeded.
19. However, proper analysis cannot focus on onshore wind alone. The 2010
regional target for all renewable energy technologies was 324 MW, rising to
3671 MW in 2020. The Council accepted that the 2010 target was not met. As
of 20 March 2012, the agreed DECC figures show a total for all renewable
energy technologies in the East Midlands Region of 221 MW in operation, 574
MW awaiting or under construction, and 247 MW as planning permissions being
considered. Even allowing for the time between now and 2020, the 2020 target
looks a long way off at the current rate of provision.
20. On top of that, the RSS for the East Midlands envisages that 3253 MW of the
2020 target will be secured through micro-generation wind and photo-voltaics.
That does seem optimistic at best. It seems that very little progress has been
made with micro-generation in the region and that is unlikely to change
quickly. It is obvious that more established commercial renewable
technologies, including onshore wind, will have to make up the significant
shortfall if the 2020 target for all renewable energy technologies is to be
meaningfully approached, let alone met.
21. In that overall context, the proposals would make a relatively small, given the
scale of the 2020 targets, but tangible contribution to renewable energy
generation required by RSS for the East of England Policy ENG2 and RSS for
the East Midlands Policy 40. However, despite the current status of Regional
Spatial Strategies as part of the development plan, given Government
intentions towards them, and the concern expressed in the Framework about
‘targets’ and an ‘unaccountable regional apparatus’, it seems more pertinent to
consider the national picture. This is most clearly expressed in the Roadmap9.
8
9
Large Combustion Plant Directive
The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
4
16.4
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
22. My attention was drawn to paragraph 2.20 of the Roadmap. This notes that the
pipeline for new plant across the UK is currently healthy, with around 22 GW of
potential new capacity in planning, consented, or under construction. When
taken together with existing capacity and accounting for historic consenting
rates, 29 GW could be in operation in 2020. In terms of onshore wind, the
relevant Minister has confirmed that 5 GW has been built, permission exists for
6 GW and permission is being sought for 7 GW, against an overall ambition of
13 GW. Viewed in that light, the national situation in relation to onshore wind
appears healthy too.
23. However, paragraph 2.21 of the Roadmap adopts a more cautionary tone
because, as it says, we cannot be certain that all the projects in the pipeline
will be consented or commissioned or that they will progress quickly enough to
contribute when needed. That is why EN-110 states that there is an urgent need
for new large scale renewable energy projects to come forward to ensure that
we meet the 2020 target and wider decarbonisation ambitions.
24. Those targets and ambitions are set out earlier in the Roadmap. Paragraph 1.1
sets out that the Coalition Government has made clear its commitment to
increase the amount of renewable energy deployed in the UK to make the
nation more energy secure, to protect consumers from fluctuations in the price
of fossil fuels, to help drive investment in new jobs and businesses in the
renewable energy sector, as well as keeping us on track to meet our carbon
reduction objectives for the coming decades. Paragraph 1.2 notes that the goal
is to ensure that 15% of all of our energy demand is met from renewable
sources by 2020 in the most cost effective way, with ambition equally strong
across all areas of the UK. Paragraph 1.3 looks beyond 2020 and cites advice
from the CCC11 that there is scope for the penetration of renewable energy to
reach 30-45% of all energy consumed in the UK by 2030.
25. Reflecting all that, paragraph 93 of the Framework says that planning plays a
key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions, minimising vulnerability, providing resilience to the impacts of
climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable energy. This, we are
told, is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of
sustainable development. Paragraph 97 suggests that to help increase the use
and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities12
should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy
generation from renewable or low carbon sources. Moreover, paragraph 98
notes that in determining planning applications, applicants should not be
required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy
and recognises that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to
cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
26. Against that background, the national pipeline to 2020, in terms of renewable
technologies overall and onshore wind specifically, may be healthy, but that
health depends, to a large extent, on proposals already in the planning
process, like those before me, coming to fruition, in time. It is also clear that
Government ambitions go well beyond 2020 and if those ambitions are to be
realised, the pipeline will need new projects to continue coming forward in
order to sustain supply.
10
11
12
Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy
Committee on Climate Change
I take that to include the Secretary of State and/or those acting on his or her behalf throughout the document
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
5
16.5
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
27. The Framework does not repeat the key principle, set out in PPS2213, that the
wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable
energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should
be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted
planning permission. But, supporting the transition to a low carbon future in a
changing climate is one of the key principles of the Framework. That, coupled
with what the Government has said in the Roadmap and EN-1 makes it clear
that the benefits of these proposals in terms of the generation of energy from a
renewable source, securing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, adding to
energy security, and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change,
must carry significant weight in the overall planning balance.
28. Another element of the proposals prayed in aid by the appellant centres on the
potential to create local employment opportunities, not just for operation and
maintenance but also during the design and construction phases. The appellant
intends to use a local firm to construct as much as possible of the development
proposed locally and that all of the civil engineering works and site
infrastructure will be managed with ‘in-house’ labour. To achieve that,
additional, suitably-skilled, labour will need to be recruited. It is also the aim of
the appellant to build the wind turbine towers locally (either at an industrial
unit in Higham Ferrers or at their Wymington base) bringing further direct
employment opportunities and the potential to exploit wider demand, in the
context of the relative lack of UK manufacturing capacity for turbine towers.
29. The Councils and PRESERVE suggest that little or no weight should be attached
to this aspect of the scheme given that there are no formal means of securing
it. That there are no means of ensuring that the potential to generate economic
activity and employment in the manner identified by the appellant comes to
fruition is correct. However, there is no good reason to suspect insincerity on
the part of the appellant. Moreover, as paragraph 18 of the Framework
confirms, the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order
to create jobs and prosperity and paragraph 19 says that significant weight
should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning
system. Paragraph 1.1 of the Roadmap is also supportive. None of these
documents suggest that weight can only be attached to the economic benefits
of development proposals if there is a formal delivery mechanism to ensure
those benefits are secured. Against that background, the potential of the
proposals to generate economic growth and create jobs must attract significant
weight in their favour.
30. As set out, these benefits of the proposals attract significant weight in their
favour. Whether these benefits are sufficient to outweigh any harmful
consequences identified is the crux of the cases.
Landscape Impact
31. As a precursor to an assessment of the impact of the proposals on the
character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, it is necessary to note
one of the core principles of the Framework; that the intrinsic character and
beauty of the countryside should be recognised. Paragraph 109 of the
Framework states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance,
the natural and local environment by, amongst other things, protecting and
enhancing valued landscapes.
13
Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (now cancelled)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
6
16.6
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
32. In terms of the approach of the development plan to the landscape, the context
is different for the two separate appeals. In terms of Appeal A, Bedford Local
Plan14 Policy BE30 sets out a range of considerations to be taken into account
in decision-making including, of relevance, the visual impact of proposals and
their contextual relationship, the contribution it makes to the landscape
qualities of the area and, where appropriate, the extent to which local
distinctiveness is reinforced or created.
33. BCSRIP15 Policy CP2 seeks to ensure that the character and quality of local
landscapes are preserved and, where appropriate, enhanced. Broadly, this
approach is repeated in BCSRIP Policies CP21, CP 23 and CP24.
34. In terms of Appeal B, RSS for the East Midlands Policies 26 and 31 suggest that
the Region’s landscapes should be protected and enhanced. Criterion (o) of
Policy 13 of the NNCSS16 requires proposals to conserve and enhance
landscape character.
35. Government advice in EN-1 is that landscape and visual assessment should
include reference to any landscape character assessment and associated
studies as a means of evaluating landscape impacts. The appeal site and its
more immediate surroundings lie within NCA17 91: Yardley-Whittlewood Ridge.
36. In simple terms, this NCA is defined as a broad plateau, elevated above
adjacent vales. The NCA 91 analysis points to the elevation of the plateau
making it suitable for airfields and, as set out in the SoCG, the appeal site is
part of what was an airfield, originally operated by the RAF, but later the
USAAF. The analysis also notes that from the plateau top the land slopes away
gently with long views over surrounding vales giving a feeling of being
elevated, of openness, and expansiveness.
37. The boundary between Bedford Borough and East Northamptonshire District
subdivides the appeal site. As such, the appeal site and its surroundings fall
within two separate LCAs18: Riseley Clay Farmland LCA (Bedford) and the
Chelveston and Caldecott Claylands LCA (East Northamptonshire). It is agreed
that despite the different classifications, the landscape characteristics of these
LCAs share similarities.
38. Bearing that out, the former is described as a rural, peaceful area with a
remote feel. Disused airfields are noted as a feature of the higher plateaux
where the absence of field boundaries emphasises an ‘empty’ character. Rural
villages with their Churches, and subtle tributary valleys and streams are
recognised as elements of high sensitivity along with sections of open elevated
ground at the crest of the subtle valleys and open, gently rolling landform.
Wider views of Church towers are highlighted as being particularly sensitive.
39. The latter is described as an expansive, flat or gently undulating landscape
where plateaux are divided by broad shallow valleys. It is highlighted that wide
views give the landscape an expansive and sometimes exposed character. It is
also noted that Church spires often provide important focal points and
punctuation marks in the landscape.
14
15
16
17
18
Bedford Local Plan
Bedford Borough Council Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan DPD
North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy
National Character Area
Landscape Character Areas
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
7
16.7
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
40. It is clear from the evidence and what I saw at my site visits that these wider
descriptions of relatively large areas are a little limited in that they fail to take
account of smaller areas within them that might exhibit different characteristics
and sensitivities. Nevertheless, an analysis of landscape impact must begin
with the appeal site itself, which is criss-crossed by a variety of PRoWs19.
41. The appeal site has the kind of exposed, open character typical of the LCAs.
There is little in the way of field boundaries and much of it is used for grazing
livestock. Remnants of the former use are still evident as are buildings and
structures associated with other activities on the site, notably the biofuel and
biomass plants and Heras fencing. There are wide views out from the site over
the surrounding countryside.
42. Notwithstanding all that, the sheer scale of nine turbines proposed, at a height
of around 125 metres, and the ancillary infrastructure, would dominate the site
itself, the PRoWs that pass through, and views out from, it. If as policy
nationally, regionally and locally dictates, the countryside is to be recognised
for its intrinsic character and beauty, and protected or enhanced, the
imposition of structures of such scale and height, along with their ancillary
infrastructure, can have nothing but a harmful impact on the character and
appearance of the landscape of the site itself, and areas immediately
surrounding it.
43. However, the open, exposed nature of the site, the wide scope of views
beyond, and the evident remnants of former uses, would ameliorate that
harmful impact to a large degree. The relatively wide spacing between the wind
turbines would also act as a dilutor of impact. The synergy between the wind
turbines and the other renewable energy-based activities relatively close-by
would give a functional logic to their location.
44. As acknowledged at the Inquiry, the Heras fencing that has been erected to
delineate the PRoWs that cross the site is utilitarian and unattractive in
appearance. I heard much complaint about it but there is no suggestion that it
is unauthorised in planning terms. The appellant is prepared to accept a
condition, if planning permissions are granted, to replace the fencing with
something that would perform the same function, but appear easier on the eye.
While this would do little or nothing to lessen the effect of the wind turbine
array on the landscape, it would lead to some localised visual improvement and
therefore offers some benefit, as part of the scheme overall.
45. The scale of the wind turbines proposed and their consequent landscape impact
would tend to reduce with separation distance but it is abundantly clear from
the various photo-montages presented to the Inquiry and my site visits that,
located on a plateau, the array would appear prominent on the skyline from all
around the site, including PRoWs like the Three Shires and Nene Ways.
46. Notwithstanding that the existing wind turbines at Burton Wold are visible from
various areas around the appeal site, the wind turbines proposed would appear
incongruous in their landscape setting. As previously indicated, if the intention
of policy is to ensure the landscape is protected or enhanced for its intrinsic
character and beauty, then they must have a harmful impact on the wider
landscape. The nub of the analysis of landscape impact is the extent of harm
that would be caused.
19
Public Rights of Way
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
8
16.8
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
47. There was some discussion about the virtues, or otherwise, of locating wind
turbines on the skyline. To my mind, there are distinct advantages to such a
position in a landscape with an exposed and expansive character like that
under consideration here. A careful choice of coloured finish can give the wind
turbines a recessive quality, when seen against the sky, in some weather
conditions. More importantly, leaving aside landscape and other impacts, welldesigned wind turbines can exhibit a sculptural quality, accentuated by their
movement. That quality is best appreciated when the simple background of the
sky is reflected in the simplicity of the landscape. The exposed skyline location
would not prevent the wind turbines proposed from appearing as incongruous,
large-scale, man-made impositions on the landscape, but it would have some
functional logic, and serve to reduce the resulting harmful impact.
48. Concerns raised about landscape impact by the Councils and PRESERVE
concentrated on a series of interrelated aspects. The first is the Til Valley. This
lies within the Riseley Clay Farmland LCA but clearly exhibits rather different
characteristics to the generality of the LCA. I agree that it, and the settlements
that lie along the course of the River Til, are of higher sensitivity. In views of
the valley from the south-east and east in particular, the wind turbine array will
appear as a prominent, incongruous feature on the skyline. They would appear
significantly higher than the depth of the valley and rise in a rather dominant
way above it. However, they would not be seen in these views as part of the
valley, but as elements located in a separate part of the landscape, with
different characteristics. This would tend to reduce the harmful impact on the
particular landscape of the valley, and the settlements within it.
49. There would be more distant views of the wind turbine array across the Nene
Valley. Again the array would be prominent in these views and an incongruous
element. However, these views would also take in large commercial buildings
and former gravel pits, amongst other things, so in that overall context, the
harmful impact of the proposals in these views would be limited.
50. The prominence of Churches as wayfaring landmarks is highlighted in the LCAs
and is clearly an important characteristic of the surrounding landscape, as
borne out by the Northamptonshire ‘Squires and Spires’ adage. Part of the
analysis of the proposals on this characteristic goes to the significance of the
Churches themselves, in cultural heritage terms, that I deal with below.
However, the punctuation provided by Church towers and spires is clearly an
important aspect of landscape character.
51. The wind turbines proposed would be much higher than the towers and spires
of the Churches. Notwithstanding that, those Church towers and spires would
still remain present in the landscape. Anyone travelling through the landscape
would not be prevented from using them as wayfaring landmarks by the
presence of the wind turbines proposed. Neither would the punctuation
provided by the Church towers and spires be lost.
52. In terms of cumulative impact, the position changed during the Inquiry with
the dismissal of the Bicton appeal20 and details of the high court challenge to
the Nun Wood decision21. As set out, the wind farm at Burton Wold is visible
from areas around the appeal site. However, it is too far away to cause a
cumulative impact, with the proposals before me, of any great import.
20
21
APP/H0520/A/11/2146394
APP/Y0435/A/10/2140401, APP/K0235/A/11/2149434 and APP/H2835/A/11/2149437
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
9
16.9
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
53. The CPRE made points about cumulative impact when walking along the Three
Shires Way from the serial experience of wind farms at Petsoe End,
Podington22, Nun Wood and the proposals at issue in these appeals. I visited
the suggested viewpoint near Oakley as suggested.
54. The wind farm at Petsoe End is operational. A decision on the redetermination
of the appeal relating to the Podington wind farm, following a successful high
court challenge, is awaited. Nun Wood is currently subject to a high court
challenge. In that context, it is not clear whether the entirety of the cumulative
impact envisaged by the CPRE will ever manifest itself. In any event, from what
I saw, there would be sufficient separation between them to prevent any
significant cumulative impact on the landscape.
55. In more general terms, footnote 17 on page 22 of the Framework sets out that
in assessing the likely impacts of potential wind energy development in
determining planning applications for such development the approach set out in
EN-323, read in conjunction with EN-1, should be followed.
56. The proposal is intended to endure for a period of 25 years and is reversible.
Paragraph 2.7.17 of EN-3 states that that the time-limited nature of wind farms
is likely to be an important consideration in assessing impacts of onshore wind
farms (albeit larger ones) on the landscape. As set out, there would be some
harm to the landscape and 25 years is a long time in human terms, if not in
terms of how landscapes evolve. However, harm is a product of impact and
duration, and the fact that the harm caused by the proposals would be
transient must lessen its impact, overall.
57. The appellant has also expressed a willingness to remove the existing Boxer
Mast if planning permission is granted for the proposals. This lattice structure,
a remnant of former uses of the site, and approximately 70 metres high, is
widely visible and as a significant man-made imposition, detracts from the
surrounding landscape. Its removal, which could be secured by condition,
would be a benefit of the proposals.
58. To summarise, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the landscape
whether viewed close-up or from further away. However, as set out, that
harmful impact would be mitigated, though not extinguished, by a series of
factors. Nevertheless, any harmful impact on the landscape renders the
proposal contrary to BLP Policy BE30, BCSRIP Policies CP2, CP21, CP23 and CP
24, RSS for the East Midlands Policies 26 and 31 and criterion (o) of Policy 13
of the NNCSS.
The Impact on Designated Heritage Assets
59. The proposals would have no direct impact on the fabric of any designated
heritage asset but issues have been raised about their impact on the settings of
a large number.
60. The Framework defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in
which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change
as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a
positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the
ability to appreciate that significance, or may be neutral.
22
23
APP/K0235/A/09/2108506
National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
10
16.10
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
61. EH24 guidance in ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’ says, in paragraph 2.2, that
setting embraces all of the surroundings (land, sea, structures, features and
skyline) from which an asset can be experienced or that can be experienced
from or within the asset. Setting does not have a fixed boundary and cannot be
definitively and permanently described as a spatially bounded area or as lying
within a set distance of a heritage asset. Of particular relevance, the guidance
notes that the construction of a distant but high building may extend what
might previously have been understood to comprise setting.
62. As the ES bears out, the nature of this definition, and its amplification, means
that the setting of a significant number of designated heritage assets would be
affected by the proposals. Notwithstanding that, the Councils and PRESERVE
limited their analyses in a manner proportionate to the significance of the
assets concerned, and the degree to which the proposals would affect their
significance and the ability to appreciate it. This follows advice in paragraph
122 of the still extant PPS5 Practice Guide25 reflected by EH in Section 4.2 of
‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’. The evidence of the appellant to the Inquiry
(which differs in approach to that of the ES) takes a similar tack. Having spent
no little time taking in the designated heritage assets identified in the ES, and
the evidence, I concur with the approach adopted by the parties at the Inquiry
and have concentrated my analysis in much the same way.
63. An assessment of the impact of the proposal on the setting of these designated
heritage assets must be made against the background of a series of statutory
and policy documents. First, Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that in considering whether to grant
planning permission for development which affects a listed building, or its
setting, the decision-maker shall have special regard to the desirability of
preserving the building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or
historic interest which it possesses.
64. In terms of the setting of those designated heritage assets affected by Appeal
A, RSS for the East of England Policy ENV6 states that local planning
authorities and other agencies should identify, protect, conserve, and where
appropriate, enhance the historic environment of the region, including
conservation areas and listed buildings, and their settings. BLP26 Policy BE21
states that the Borough Council will seek to preserve and enhance the setting
of listed buildings by appropriate control over the design of new development
in their vicinity and over the use of adjacent land. BCSRIP27 Policies CP21 and
CP23 also seek to preserve/protect and, where appropriate, enhance, amongst
other things, SAMs28, listed buildings and their settings
65. In terms of the setting of those designated heritage assets affected by Appeal
B, RSS for the East Midlands Policy 26 seeks to ensure the protection,
appropriate management and enhancement of the Region’s cultural heritage
through the application of a series of principles. Of relevance, the Region’s
internationally and nationally designated historic assets should receive the
highest level of protection; and damage to historic assets or their settings
should be avoided wherever and as far as possible, recognising that such
assets are usually irreplaceable.
24
25
26
27
28
English Heritage
PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide
Bedford Local Plan
Bedford Borough Council Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan DPD
Scheduled Ancient Monuments
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
11
16.11
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
66. RSS for the East Midlands Policy 27 sets regional priorities for the historic
environment. In particular, it calls for the historic environment to be
understood, conserved and enhanced, in recognition of its own intrinsic value,
and its contribution to the Region’s quality of life. Criterion (o) of Policy 13 of
the NNCSS29 requires proposals to conserve and enhance designated built
environment assets, and their settings. NNCSS Policy 5 also seeks to protect
and enhance historic assets.
67. The Framework deals with determining planning applications that affect
heritage assets in paragraphs 128 to 135. Paragraph 129 requires local
planning authorities to identify and assess the particular significance of any
heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development
affecting the setting of a heritage asset).
68. Paragraph 132 sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed
development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight
should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the
greater the weight should be. It goes on to note that significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or
development within its setting; substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II listed
building should be exceptional; and substantial harm to or loss of designated
heritage assets of the highest significance, notably SAMs, and Grade I and II*
listed buildings should be wholly exceptional.
69. Paragraph 133 goes on to note, of relevance, that where a proposed
development would lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a
designated heritage asset, consent30 should be refused unless it can be
demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve
substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss. Paragraph 134 says
that where a proposed development will lead to less than substantial harm to
the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed
against the public benefits of the proposal.
70. Before assessing impacts on the setting of individual designated heritage
assets in the context of statute, the policy background, and the Framework, it
is necessary to address the concept of significance. This is defined in the
Framework as the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations
because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological,
architectural, artistic or historic. As an addition to the previous definition in
PPS531, we are now told that significance derives not only from a heritage
asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.
71. On top of that, there is a need to make some sort of assessment of how the
concept of substantial and less than substantial harm can be calibrated. The
Framework is silent on the matter, as was PPS5 before it. If one looks to the
PPS5 Practice Guide for clarification, substantial harm, demolition or
destruction are dealt with under the same heading in paragraphs 91 to 95.
There is no specific guidance or example of where on a notional sliding scale of
harm, harm to a designated heritage asset might become substantial. The
Council’s witness maintained that substantial harm sits half-way between no
harm and total loss.
29
30
31
North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy
I take that term to be interchangeable with permission
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (now cancelled)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
12
16.12
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
72. However, a fair reading of paragraphs 91-95 suggests that the author(s) must
have considered substantial harm to be something approaching demolition or
destruction; otherwise there would little sense in dealing with them under the
same heading. On that basis, I adopt the position taken by the appellant’s
witness; that substantial harm lies further along that sliding scale, approaching
demolition or destruction. As set out, no part of the fabric of any of the
designated heritage assets identified would be affected by the proposals. As a
consequence, a good deal of their archaeological, architectural, artistic and
historic interest would remain intact despite any effect on their settings.
73. The Councils and PRESERVE criticised the approach taken by the Inspector in a
recent decision32 to the impact of the proposals on the setting of the
designated heritage assets affected therein. Obviously, I am aware of the
circumstances surrounding it. I have dealt with the proposals before me here
on the basis of the evidence presented. However, I would observe that the
definition of setting is based around an individual’s experience of heritage
assets. As the definition refers, appreciation is a fundamental part of that
experience. In this context, appreciation can be better informed by
understanding.
74. Similarly, the definition of significance revolves around the value we (as
people) place on heritage assets. As the thoughtful contribution to the Inquiry
made by Mrs Butter bore out, it is people’s attachment of value to certain
buildings and artefacts that gives them significance in cultural heritage terms.
But it is also fair to observe that people can, through the same thought
process, understand that some buildings or structures do not carry the same
sort of significance. In that context, it is not unreasonable to highlight the
obvious differences between heritage assets and wind turbines and question
why the presence of the latter necessarily prevents, or makes more difficult, an
understanding, or appreciation, of the former.
75. It is with all that in mind that I turn to consider the impact of the proposals on
the settings of the individual designated heritage assets referred to. Having
regard to the evidence of the parties, and what I observed at my site visits, the
designated heritage assets, and the impact of the proposals upon them, in
terms of the nature and degree of that impact, can be grouped together.
76. The first group is made up of the surrounding churches, buildings, and
archaeological remains that share a broadly similar relationship with the
surrounding landscape and something of a landmark quality. Nearest to the
site of the proposals, the Church of St Mary the Virgin at Yelden dates
predominantly from the 14th Century and is a Grade I listed building. It has a
visual, and, it seems, historical relationship, with the remains of the nearby
Motte and Bailey Castle (a SAM).
77. A little further away, the Church of St John the Baptist, Caldecott dates from
the 13th Century and is a Grade II* listed building. The Church of St Mary,
Shelton is a Grade I listed building. A little further away again, the Church of St
Peter, Newton Bromswold dates from the mid 13th to mid 14th Century and is a
Grade I listed building. The Church of All Saints, Hargrave dates from the late
12th Century and is a Grade II* listed building. Further away again, the Church
of St Margaret, Covington is a Grade II* listed building, the Church of All
Saints, Upper Dean is a Grade I listed building, as is the Church of St Mary
32
APP/G2815/A/11/2156757
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
13
16.13
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
Magdalene, in Melchbourne. To the north-west of Upper Dean is a windmill,
listed Grade II. Near the Church of St Mary Magdalene lies Melchbourne House,
a Grade II* listed building that lies within a designed parkland. More distant
still, the Church of St Mary, Higham Ferrers, is a Grade I listed building, as are
the Churches of St Lawrence, Stanwick and St Peter, Raunds.
78. All these listed buildings, and the SAM, are of national importance in terms of
their archaeological, architectural, artistic and historic values, clearly. On top of
that, though the degree varies because of their particular characteristics, their
status as landmarks, in their settings, is an important contributor to their
significance. Notwithstanding the existing presence of the Boxer Mast, and that
the wind farm at Burton Wold is visible from various locations in the area, the
relative lack of visual competition feeds their dominant or landmark status. In
that context, the removal of the Boxer Mast, as proposed by the appellant, if
the appeals are allowed, would represent a benefit.
79. It is fair to say that the effect of the proposals on the setting, and thereby the
significance, of the Church of St Mary the Virgin at Yelden, and the remains of
the Motte and Bailey Castle nearby, formed the primary focus of the cases
advanced by the Councils and PRESERVE on this issue. There are two aspects
to the effect of the proposals on the settings of these two designated heritage
assets. In the context of the village itself, the Church is a relatively large
building, with a tower and a (short) spire. Raised up on a plinth, it dominates
the buildings around it, and is easily visible from all around the village, acting
as a focal point. This position at the head of the village hierarchy is an
important element of the significance of the Church and one way in which its
setting contributes to that significance.
80. There would be points within, and on the borders of the village, where the wind
turbine array would be seen in juxtaposition with the Church. However,
notwithstanding the height of the wind turbines, the degree of separation
would mean that the Church would remain the dominant foreground element in
these views. It would be readily apparent to the observer that the wind
turbines were not part of the settlement. In that way, the position of the
Church as the focal point of the village, with primacy in the village hierarchy,
would not be undermined. The wind turbines would be a distracting presence in
some views towards the Church but not to the extent that the ability of an
observer to appreciate its significance, and the contribution its position in the
village hierarchy makes to that significance, would become unduly difficult.
81. The raised mound of the Castle, and the other earthworks around it, are
prominent (though secondary to the Church), particularly around the southeasterly parts of the village. Most views towards the Castle mound, and the
associated earthworks, from within the village, would not take in the wind
turbines proposed. There would be views of the wind turbines behind the Castle
mound (and indeed the Church) from points within the SAM but, because of the
degree of separation, along with the tower and spire of the Church, the Castle
mound and the earthworks around it would dominate the foreground.
82. The wind turbines proposed would not be perceived as part of the settlement
but as elements well beyond it. Again the wind turbines would be a distraction
but their presence would not prevent the significance of the SAM, or the
contribution its village setting, or the relationship with the Church, makes to
that significance, from being readily appreciated.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
14
16.14
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
83. From points further afield, the Church and, to a lesser extent, the Castle
mound are seen as the principal, defining elements of the village and the visual
relationship between the two is readily discernible. However, the Church, the
SAM, and the village around them are located in the valley of the River Til and,
as a consequence, set down in the landscape. From many points outside the
village, the Church tower and spire break the skyline to a limited extent or
from some points not at all. The Castle mound would be less prominent still. In
this way, while prominent in the landscape in views towards them, the
presence of the Church and the Castle mound as dominant elements in the
village is a more important contributor to their significance than their presence
in the landscape, overall.
84. Nevertheless, there are many places in the cone of view from south-west to
south-east of the Church, from the Three Shires Way, the footpath that
approaches and crosses the SAM, on the approach from Newton Bromswold,
and on the Swineshead Road, in particular, where the proposed wind turbine
array would be visible on the skyline, in juxtaposition with, and sometimes
behind, the Church and, in some instances, the Castle mound.
85. Given the height of the proposed wind turbines, they would appear much taller
than the Church, and the Castle mound, and supplant them as the dominant
element in these views. The movement of the blades would attract additional
attention. However, there would be a relatively significant degree of
separation, and because the wind turbines would be seen on the skyline, well
beyond the built form of the village, they would not be perceived as part of it.
As a consequence, while the presence of the wind turbines would act as a
significant distraction to the observer, and appear more prominent than the
Church and the Castle mound as elements in the landscape, they would not
supplant the more important positions of the Church and Castle mound as
dominant elements in the village. On that basis, while some harm would be
caused to the settings of the Church and the Castle mound, and thereby their
significance, the degree of harm would be less than substantial.
86. The Church of St Peter, Newton Bromswold lies further to the south-west of the
site of the proposals than the designated heritage assets in Yelden. Situated on
a ridge, and with a slender tower topped by an octagonal spire, it dominates
the village and acts as a prominent landmark in its wider surroundings. As with
the Church of St Mary in Yelden, both the area immediately around the Church
and the surrounding landscape contribute to its significance.
87. The wind turbines proposed would be visible from the churchyard and from
areas around the village. However, notwithstanding the height of the wind
turbines, their number and disposition, and kinetic characteristics, because of
the degree of separation, the Church of St Peter would remain the dominant
focus in these views. The wind turbines would not be seen as parts of the
village. In that way, the Church would retain its primacy, locally.
88. In some wider views of the Church, the wind turbines would be seen in
conjunction with it. From areas to the south of the Church, the wind turbines
would act as a backdrop to the Church, and its spire. Given their size and
movement they would compete with the spire for attention. However, the
Church and its spire would be much closer to the observer and remain the
dominant element in the foreground. The distraction caused by the wind
turbines would not be so great that the prominent landmark status of the
Church and its spire would be undermined to any great degree.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
15
16.15
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
89. As a consequence, while the proposals would cause some harm to the setting
of the Church of St Peter, and thereby its significance, that harm would be less
than substantial.
90. The Churches of St Mary, Higham Ferrers, St Lawrence, Stanwick and St Peter,
Raunds are all characterised by tall spires and are located on the eastern valley
side of the River Nene. The proposed wind turbine array would be located
between 3 and 4 kilometres to the east or south-east of these Churches on
higher ground. There are places where the wind turbine array would be visible
behind the spires in views across the valley of the Nene.
91. However, despite the height of the wind turbines proposed, the degree of
separation would allow the spires to remain the more dominant elements in the
foreground of these views, with the wind turbines seen well beyond them. The
obvious landmark quality of the Churches would not be undermined to any
great degree. As a consequence, the degree of harm caused to the setting of
these Churches, and thereby their significance, would be less than substantial.
92. Both the Church of St John the Baptist, Caldecott and the Church of St Mary,
Shelton lie within 2 kilometres of the proposed wind turbines. Both Churches
lack spires and are located in churchyards that are enclosed by mature trees.
As a consequence, they have little presence as landmarks in the wider
landscape and, of their settings, it is the area immediately around them that
contributes most to their significance.
93. About 2.5 kilometres from the appeal site, the Church of All Saints, Hargrave
has a relatively short spire but again it is largely screened by trees so rarely
appears as a prominent feature in the landscape. Again, of its setting, it is the
area close to this Church that contributes most to its significance.
94. There would be places around the fringes of these villages where the Churches
would be seen in juxtaposition with the proposed wind turbines. In these views,
the proposed wind turbines would distract the eye, especially when moving and
detract from what prominence these Churches have in the landscape. However,
from those parts of the settings, immediately around the Churches, that
contribute most to their significance, the wind turbines would be screened to a
significant degree by the trees.
95. On that basis, while some harm would be caused to the settings of these
Churches, and thereby their significance, that harm would be minimal, and
certainly less than substantial.
96. At a distance of between 3 and 4 kilometres from the proposals lie the
Churches of St Margaret, Covington, All Saints, Upper Dean, and St Mary
Magdalene, in Melchbourne. All these are buildings of relatively modest scale
and height that are best appreciated close-up, as dominant features in the
villages they serve. They do not have any great landmark qualities.
97. The wind turbines may well be visible from areas immediately around the
Churches but because of the separation distances involved, the Churches would
remain the principal elements in these views and their position as dominant
features in the settlements around them would not be undermined to any great
degree. As such, the harm that would be caused to their settings, and thereby
their significance, would be marginal, and less than substantial.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
16
16.16
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
98. Also in the village of Melchbourne is Melchbourne House, a former country
house (now apartments) that lies within a designed parkland, itself set within
the wider landscape. Neither the Councils nor PRESERVE raised concerns about
it but the appellant assessed the impact of the proposals upon its setting. My
site visit bore out the need to have regard to that impact. As the appellant sets
out, it is possible to discern two designed views that form part of the setting of
the house. Both contribute to the significance of the listed building. The first is
the open view from the front of the building over the parkland to the southeast. The wind turbines proposed would not impinge upon that view.
99. The second is the view of the house itself on the approach through the
parkland on the main drive from Riseley. The wind turbines proposed will
appear behind the house in some views from the drive. Given their scale and
movement, they would act as a distraction but given the degree of separation,
and the size and proximity of Melchbourne House in those views, its dominant
position in the foreground would not be supplanted. As such, while there would
be a harmful impact on the setting of Melchbourne House as a result of the
distracting effect of the wind turbines, and thereby its significance, the degree
of harm would be less than substantial.
100. To the north-west of the village of Upper Dean is a windmill, listed Grade II. It
is relatively tall and, sitting on a ridge, it is a distinctive feature in the
landscape, in views of it from the east in particular. Given the functional
reasons underpinning its situation on raised ground, the wider landscape is an
important contributor to its setting, and thereby its significance.
101. The wind turbines proposed would appear behind it in these views but because
they would be some way distant, despite their size and movement, they would
not replace the windmill as the primary focus in views towards it. They would
not prevent an appreciation of why the windmill was located in a position to
catch the wind. Indeed, there would be some synergy between the comparison
of older and more modern ways of harnessing energy from the wind. This
would tend to ameliorate the distracting effect of the wind turbines proposed.
On that basis, the degree of harm to the setting of the windmill would be
marginal, and clearly less than substantial.
102. The next class of designated heritage asset is made up of listed buildings that
have a rather different relationship with their surroundings. The Cottage,
Chelveston is a house that dates from the early 18th Century. It is a Grade II
listed building. Duchy Farmhouse, Caldecott dates from 1633, according to a
date-stone, and is a Grade II listed building. Manor Farmhouse, Caldecott dates
from early to mid 18th Century and is a Grade II listed building. The associated
Barn dates from a similar time and is also a Grade II listed building. Poplar
Farmhouse, Caldecott appears to date from the late 17th Century and is a
Grade II listed building. It has farm buildings associated with it. Wildacre,
Hargrave is a house that dates from the late 17th to the early 18th Centuries
and is listed Grade II. Finally, Hillstone Cottage, Hargrave dates from the mid
18th Century and is listed Grade II.
103. Obviously, these listed buildings are of national importance in terms of their
archaeological, architectural, artistic and historic values. However, they have
an intimate relationship with the settlements they form part of, and from what
I saw, derive little of their significance from the wider surroundings beyond
those settlements. The proposed wind turbine array would be visible from and
in conjunction with all these listed buildings. However, given the degrees of
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
17
16.17
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
separation involved, and the fact that the array would clearly be perceived as a
feature well beyond the settlements, their presence would in no instance be
dominant or overwhelming.
104. As a consequence, while the visible presence of the array might appear
somewhat distracting, it would not undermine the ability to appreciate the
significance of the designated heritage assets concerned, or the contribution
setting makes to that significance, to any great extent. In that light, while the
distracting presence of the wind turbine array would have a harmful impact on
their settings, the degree of that harm would be less than substantial.
105. My attention was also drawn to the Covington and Upper Dean Conservation
Areas. As conservation areas, these are of national importance in terms of their
archaeological, architectural, artistic and historic values. The way in which they
sit in the surrounding landscape (their settings) is a facet of it, but the major
extent of their significance is the intrinsic value of the areas themselves, and
the buildings within them. While the wind turbines proposed would be visible,
in views towards them, from various points within, and, more particularly, at
the western edges of the conservation areas, they would be between 3 and 4
kilometres away. With that degree of separation, their visual presence would
be no more than a largely peripheral diversion. Visibility would not make it
difficult to appreciate the significance of the conservation areas concerned, or
the limited contribution setting makes to that significance. As such, the degree
of harm caused would be marginal, and certainly much less than substantial.
106. Turning to general considerations, as previously set out in relation to landscape
impact, paragraph 2.7.17 of EN-3 outlines that the time-limited nature of a
wind farm is likely to be an important consideration in assessing impacts of
onshore wind farms (albeit larger ones) on the setting of heritage assets. This
is also acknowledged by EH in ‘Wind Energy and the Historic Environment’.
107. The proposals are intended to endure for 25 years. It has been suggested that
the appellant might seek to renew any planning permissions or that the wind
turbines might be replaced within the periods of permission sought. However, it
is highly likely that either course would mean further planning applications that
would need to be judged, on their merits, at the appropriate time. As far as the
proposals at issue are concerned, once the 25 year period has elapsed, the
wind turbines and ancillary infrastructure would be removed, and the harmful
impact on the settings of the designated heritage assets would be gone.
108. It is correct to acknowledge that 25 years is a long time in relation to the
human lifespan, but in terms of the age of the designated heritage assets
affected and, more importantly, the period that they can reasonably be
expected to endure, it is a relatively insignificant period. The degree of harm
that would be caused to the setting of the designated heritage assets identified
is a function not only of the impact of the proposals, but also of the time that
impact would persist. The degree of harm caused by proposals designed to
endure for twenty five years must be less than if the same proposals were
intended to endure for longer than twenty-five years.
109. The Councils raised issues about the manner in which Inspectors approach
questions about the temporal nature of wind farms and reversibility,
contrasting the approach in two recent decisions33. However, Government
33
APP/G2815/A/11/2156757 and APP/H0520/A/11/2146394
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
18
16.18
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
advice in EN-3 is quite clear, and EH acknowledges these factors to be material
considerations too. In that context, I take the view that the approach I have
set out above and indeed previously, is correct.
110. To summarise, for the reasons set out, the proposals would cause harm to the
settings, and thereby the significance, of a range of designated heritage assets.
The degree of harm would vary, but in no case would it reach the level of
substantial. The overall degree of harm would be reduced by the transient
nature of the proposals and their reversibility. Nevertheless, that there would
be some harm means that the proposals would not accord with RSS for the
East of England Policy ENV6, BLP Policy BE21, BCSRIP Policies CP21 and CP23,
RSS for the East Midlands Policies 26 and 27, and Policy 5 and criterion (o) of
Policy 13 of the NNCSS. Notwithstanding that, the balancing exercise implicit in
Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,
explicit in the Framework, and set out in Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act34 means
that this harm has to be balanced against other considerations. I return to that
exercise below.
The Living Conditions of Local Residents
111. As for those dwellings affected that lie in Bedford Borough, criterion i) of BLP
Policy BE30 says the visual impact of development and its relationship with its
context is something which will be taken into account when development
proposals are considered.
112. In terms of those within East Northamptonshire District, RSS for the East
Midlands Policy 40 tells that when assessing onshore wind energy schemes,
consideration should be given to, amongst other things, the number and size of
the wind turbines and their visual impact. On top of that, one of the core
principles of the Framework is to always seek a good standard of amenity for
existing occupiers of land and buildings.
113. Reference was made to the approach of another Inspector who set out that
when turbines are present in such number, size and proximity that they
represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main
views from a house or garden, there is every likelihood that the property
concerned would come to be regarded as an unattractive and thus
unsatisfactory (but not necessarily uninhabitable) place to live. He went on to
assert that it is not in the public interest to create such living conditions where
they did not exist before35. This approach offers a helpful, general guide.
114. I was also referred to a number of other appeal decisions36 where Inspectors
have found visual impact to be a significant issue. I find these more difficult to
apply, in general terms, given that the relationship between a wind turbine
array as proposed and dwellings, the topography, screening, and so on will be
different in each case. For that reason, I do not believe that separation
distances that might have been found unacceptable elsewhere, are
automatically unacceptable in the cases before me.
115. Manor Farm, Silcombe House, and Top Cottage are sited in relatively close
proximity to each other, to the south-east of the proposed turbine array. I
visited the group in the course of my site visits.
34
35
36
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
What has been termed the ‘Lavender Test’
For example APP/A3010/A/06/2107850 (Retford)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
19
16.19
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
116. Most or all of the turbine array would be visible from some points within the
interior of Manor Farm and its gardens with the closest turbine (BB4) about
485 metres away and others about 565 metres (BB5), 740 metres (BB3) and
900 metres (BB6). The remainder of the array would be set behind the closest
turbines but still visible. At a height of about 125 metres, given the degree of
separation, the wind turbines, especially the closest ones, would have a
significant visual impact in views towards them. I noted from my site visit that
the house is sunk down into the ground which would tend to accentuate the
height of the proposed wind turbines. It is also correct to note that the
movement of the wind turbines would accentuate their visual impact.
117. Notwithstanding that, the array would not appear dominant or overbearing.
The view to the north-west is not the primary outlook from Manor Farm and
there are lots of open views from Manor Farm and its grounds that would not
take in the wind turbines or, like the views in a south-westerly direction (the
direction in which the main frontage of the dwelling faces), in which they would
appear peripheral. As a consequence, the visual impact of the turbine array
would not have any significant deleterious impact on the living conditions of the
occupiers. Manor Farm would not become an unattractive or unsatisfactory
place to live.
118. It is also correct to note that those views directly towards the array from Manor
Farm would be filtered through existing boundary planting. In relation to that
boundary planting, the appellant, in the completed UU, has suggested that the
planting can be maintained and, where necessary, supplemented, during the
life of the planning permission. However, that is conditional upon my finding
that such an obligation is justified by or in accordance with the provisions of
Regulation 122 of the CIL37 Regulations and the Framework.
119. The CIL Regulations do not apply to wind turbine development38 but the
Framework, in paragraph 204, states that planning obligations need to be,
amongst other things, necessary to make the development acceptable in
planning terms. The planting maintenance and supplementation put forward in
the UU would help to screen the proposals but given that views in that direction
are not primary views, these measures are not necessary to make the
development acceptable in planning terms.
120. Silcombe House lies to the east of Manor Farm. Again, parts, or the whole, of
the turbine array would be visible from some rooms within the dwelling and
from its garden with the closest turbine (BB4) around 560 metres away,
another (BB5) about 600 metres distant, and others upwards of 800 metres
away. As with Manor Farm, in views towards them, the wind turbines would
have a significant visual impact, heightened by the movement of the turbine
blades.
121. Again though, the visual impact would not dominate or overpower the outlook
from the dwelling, overall. The principal open views from the house and its
garden are to the south and south-east; views in which the wind turbines
would at worst be peripheral. Views towards the wind turbines from within and
without the dwelling would have Manor Farm or the farm buildings to the north
as partial screening elements in the foreground.
37
Community Infrastructure Levy
As confirmed by paragraph 38 of the Department for Communities and Local Government publication CIL: An
Overview
38
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
20
16.20
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
122. As a consequence, the visual impact of the turbine array would not have any
significant detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers. Silcombe
House would not become an unattractive or unsatisfactory place to live as a
result of the proposals.
123. Top Cottage lies to the north-east of Manor Farm and is set about 3 metres
higher. It lies about 590 metres from the closest wind turbine (BB5) with
another 615 metres distant (BB4) and the remainder between 850 and 1440
metres away. With that degree of separation, the wind turbines, the closest
ones when moving especially, would have a significant visual impact in views
towards them, but this would be tempered by seeing them above and in the
context of the farm buildings that lie to the west of the dwelling. The primary,
open views from Top Cottage are to the east and south; views in which the
wind turbines proposed would have little presence.
124. Taking those points together, the visual impact of the wind turbines would not
have any significant detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers
of Top Cottage. It would not become an unattractive or unsatisfactory place to
live as a consequence.
125. There is a complex of around 52 dwellings, known as Chelston Rise, to the
south-west of the proposed array that I visited during my site visits. According
to the Council, the closest wind turbine (EN2) would be about 740 metres away
from the nearest dwelling, the next two (BB3 and EN8) in the order of 1200
metres away, with the remainder of the array beyond that. The proposals
include two anemometer masts (of which only one is required), one (ENMM)
would be 570 metres away and the other (BBMM) 910 metres away. Chelston
Rise sits about 3 metres lower than the ground level where the closest wind
turbine would be located.
126. My visits to Chelston Rise demonstrated that the Boxer Mast, a lattice structure
about 70 metres high, sited about 350 metres39 from the nearest dwelling, has
a significant presence in views from the complex in a north-easterly direction,
despite the screening effect of vegetation on the boundary. If the proposals
were built out as presented, the wind turbines and the anemometer masts
would obviously heighten the visual impact that the Boxer Mast already has on
Chelston Rise. However, the analysis is not as simple as that. The appellant has
made it clear that in the event Appeals A and B are allowed, only one
anemometer mast would be required. To that end, the one closest to Chelston
Rise (ENMM) could be deleted from the proposals by condition. Similarly, the
appellant is prepared to accept a condition requiring the removal of the existing
Boxer Mast in the event that planning permission is granted for the proposals.
127. If the proposals proceeded on that basis, residents of Chelston Rise would see
an array of wind turbines with the closest (EN2) about 740 metres away, the
next two (BB3 and EN8) about 1200 metres away and the remainder of the
array at greater distances beyond that. The remaining anemometer mast
(BBMM) would be 910 metres away. I recognise that the wind turbines and the
anemometer mast would be taller than the Boxer Mast, though further away,
and, in the case of the wind turbines, contain moving elements. In views
towards the array, the visual impact would be significant, and screening from
vegetation, even as it grows over the life of the proposals, would offer little in
the way of relief.
39
The SoCG refers
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
21
16.21
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
128. Again though, while significant, given the degree of separation, and the
relatively narrow field of view that the array would fill, the visual impact of the
proposals would not be dominant or overwhelming whether viewed from within
dwellings with facing windows, or from gardens, or from open areas within the
overall complex. The living conditions of occupiers at Chelston Rise would not
be significantly undermined; the dwellings would not become unattractive or
unsatisfactory places to live as a consequence of the proposals; and neither
would Chelston Rise as a settlement.
129. The appellant also offered to remove the closest turbine (EN2) from the
scheme under consideration through Appeal B by condition should I find the
impact on residents at Chelston Rise by reason of it in conjunction with other
elements unacceptable. Given my conclusions above, that is not necessary.
130. Concern was raised by other residents about the visual impact of the proposals,
notably those who live on the fringes of Yelden, facing the site of the proposed
wind turbines. I visited some of these properties during my site visits. At the
sort of separation distances involved, what will happen is that certain views
from within these properties, and their gardens, will change as a result of the
proposals. It is a long-established planning principle that the right to a view
from a property is not inviolable. There would be no dominant or overpowering
visual impact as a result of the proposals and no significant diminution in the
living conditions of the residents affected as a result. A similar situation would
arise at Lodge Farm, to the north-east of the proposals, in these terms.
131. Having regard to Government guidance in ETSU-R-9740, the Councils and the
appellant have agreed in the SoCG that subject to suitably worded conditions,
the living conditions of local residents would be sufficiently protected from
noise. There are differences, however, around day and night-time noise limits;
I refer to those below in dealing with the suggested conditions.
132. Some concern was also raised about the noise monitoring location that
informed the day-time and night-time limits for Lodge Farm in the draft
conditions. It is unfortunate that noise monitoring could not have been carried
out within the residential curtilage of Lodge Farm. Nevertheless, I inspected the
alternative noise monitoring location used during the course of my site visits,
and am content that it offers a reasonable comparator.
133. The occupier of Lodge Farm raised concern about the potential for shadow
flicker. Given the relative orientation of the wind turbine array and Lodge Farm,
and the degree of separation, it might be a possibility. However, the Councils
are content that this can be dealt with through a condition that sets out a
protocol for how this phenomenon could be dealt with, if a complaint about it is
made to the relevant Council. There is nothing unusual about that approach
and I agree that it offers sufficient security to the occupiers of Lodge Farm, and
indeed the occupiers of any other dwelling that might be affected in this way.
134. Taking all these points together, the visual impact of the proposals would have
no significant harmful impact on the living conditions of local residents. Subject
to suitably worded conditions, there would be no difficulties in terms of noise or
shadow flicker. On that basis, there would be no departure from criterion i) of
BLP Policy BE30, or Policy 40 of the RSS for the East Midlands, or the
Framework, as a result of the proposals.
40
ETSU-R-97: The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
22
16.22
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
Other Matters
135. There are a number of PRoWs that cross the site. The BHS41, and others,
expressed concern about the proximity of the turbines proposed to bridleways
and the potential for shadows cast by the moving wind turbine blades on those
routes, to cause difficulties, and indeed dangers, for horses and their riders.
The Companion Guide to PPS2242 that remains extant, notes in paragraph 56
that the BHS has suggested a 200 metre exclusion zone around bridle paths to
avoid wind turbines frightening horses and goes on to note that while desirable,
this is not a statutory requirement. Notwithstanding that, I heard that since the
Companion Guide to PPS22 was published, the BHS has modified its stance to
the extent that it now suggests a separation distance of three times the height
of the wind turbines which, in this case, would equate to about 425 metres.
136. Amongst other factors, the layout of the turbine array proposed has been
informed by the location of bridleways. None of the wind turbines would sit
within 200 metres of a bridleway. As such, the layout corresponds with what
the Companion Guide to PPS22 considers desirable. Some of the wind turbines
would sit well within the separation distance the BHS now favours. I recognise
that the BHS may have modified its guidance in response to the increased
height of more modern wind turbines but unless and until the Government
modifies its own guidance, a failure to meet current BHS stance is not a matter
to which I attach any significant weight.
137. The wind turbines would be visible to any approaching rider and their mount
from some distance away on the approaches so the potential for a horse to be
surprised by their sudden appearance is very limited. Nevertheless, it is clear
from the ES that the wind turbines could cast shadows on the bridleways for
much of the day in Winter. In Spring, Summer and Autumn, the incidence
would be less but there would be potential for shadows in the early evening,
which I am told is a popular time for riders. Horses can be temperamental
creatures and I have no good reason to doubt that some might be frightened
by moving shadows cast by the wind turbines, putting themselves, their rider,
and others in danger. However, this potential difficulty needs to be approached
in a proportionate fashion. Whether shadows would be cast on the bridleways
depends not only on the time of year, and time of day, but also, on particular
weather conditions. In that context, while the potential for shadows would act
as something of a constraint on the use of the bridleways by riders and their
horses that is insufficient, on its own, to warrant dismissing the appeals.
138. In the completed UU, the appellant has offered to provide a permissive
bridleway along the south-east boundary of the site which would allow riders to
follow an alternative route, unaffected by shadows from the wind turbines.
However, paragraph 204 of the Framework states that planning obligations
should only be sought where they are necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly
related in scale and kind to the development. Given my conclusions on this
particular issue, it is clear that the provision of the permissive bridleway would
not meet those tests. While it would be a welcome benefit to riders I am sure,
it is not something that is necessary to make the development acceptable in
planning terms.
41
42
British Horse Society
Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
23
16.23
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
139. There are also a series of footpaths that criss-cross the site. Neither the wind
turbines proposed nor the anemometer masts would be within topple over
distance of the footpaths and this arrangement would comply with the advice
set out in paragraph 57 of the Companion Guide to PPS22. The impact of the
proposals on the experience of riders and walkers using the PRoW across the
appeal site is something that is tied into the landscape impact of the proposals,
and dealt with previously.
140. Concerns were also raised about the potential for tension between the
proposals and the biomass renewable energy plant that has been approved for
the site in terms of air quality. The Councils raise no such concern and my
reading of their material, notably the ‘Temple’ Report, and the submission of
Mr Butter, strongly supports that as the correct view to take.
141. I also heard criticism of what are seen as over-generous Government subsidies
for on-shore wind farms. These, it is said, relegate cost and efficiency to a
secondary role and encourage schemes that might otherwise not have come
forward. That may or may not be the case but the manner in which
Government uses subsidies to encourage the development of on-shore wind
farms (or indeed, anything else) is a matter for them. It is not something that
an Inspector can take account of in dealing with site-specific proposals.
142. The SoCG outlines a series of other issues which the Councils accept as noncontentious, subject to conditions, and I have heard nothing convincing to
suggest that I ought to reach a contrary view. These include ecology,
archaeology, highway, aviation and general safety, and direct impacts on
PRoWs. I refer to some of these in dealing with conditions below.
143. As set out, the completed UU, submitted by the appellant, deals with several
matters. The additional landscaping and permissive bridleway have been dealt
with previously. However, it also makes provision for a Community Fund
Contribution to be made to local Parish Councils through what is termed a
Community Fund Delivery Vehicle.
144. The financial contributions involved could be expended by the Parish Councils
in line with the Community Fund Objectives set out in the UU. The appellant
maintains that this approach accords with the community benefit protocol
proposed by Renewable UK and endorsed by Government. That may be the
case but paragraph 204 of the Framework states that planning obligations
should only be sought where they are necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly
and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
145. The Community Fund Contribution is not necessary to make the proposals
acceptable in planning terms and it is not clear to me how it is directly related
to the development, or fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it. The
funding would be welcome, I am sure, but it is not something to which I can
attach weight to as a benefit of the proposals.
The Balancing Exercise
146. I am acutely aware of the degree of local opposition to the proposals through
the many written and oral submissions made to the Inquiry and the positions
adopted by the Councils and PRESERVE. I considered very carefully too, the
helpful contribution made by the local Member of Parliament.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
24
16.24
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
147. However, all that opposition is not determinative, in itself, and must be viewed
in the overall policy context. Like the Roadmap, paragraph 97 of the
Framework notes the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy
generation from renewable sources. Against that background, I turn to the
balancing exercise.
148. There is no specific provision for a balancing exercise in the development plan
regime for Appeal B. However BLP Policy BE7 which relates to Appeal A sets
out that in assessing proposals for renewable energy schemes, the Borough
Council will have particular regard to the following issues: i) the immediate and
wider impact of the proposed development on the landscape; ii) the need to
protect features and areas of natural, cultural, historical and archaeological
interest; iii) the measures that would be taken, both during and after
construction, to minimise the impact of the development on the landscape,
local land use and residential amenity; iv) the local and wider benefits that the
proposal may bring; v) certain renewable energy resources can only be
harnessed where the resource occurs; and vi) any requirements for future
restoration of the site.
149. This policy encapsulates the requirement to balance often conflicting factors, as
set out in Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, and also referred to in the
Framework, specifically in relation to the impact on designated heritage assets.
150. In making that assessment, the proposals would provide significant benefits in
terms of the generation of energy from a renewable source, securing
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, adding to energy security, and
providing resilience to the impacts of climate change. Allied to that is the
potential of the proposals to generate economic growth and create jobs.
151. On the other hand, the proposals would cause harm to the landscape, though
that would be ameliorated by a series of factors. The proposals would also
cause harm to the settings, and thereby the significance, of a range of
designated heritage assets. In all cases that harm would be less than
substantial but, obviously, Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the decision-maker to have special
regard to the desirability of preserving those settings. There would also be a
limited degree of harm caused in terms of the use of bridleways.
152. In terms of the development plan, the proposals would comply with RSS for the
East of England Policy ENG2 and RSS for the East Midlands Policy 40. However,
the failure to comply with BLP Policy BE30, BCSRIP Policies CP2, CP21, CP23
and CP 24, RSS for the East Midlands Policies 26 and 31 and criterion (o) of
Policy 13 of the NNCSS in landscape impact terms and RSS for the East of
England Policy ENV6, BLP Policy BE21, BCSRIP Policies CP21 and CP23, RSS for
the East Midlands Policies 26 and 27, and Policy 5 and criterion (o) of Policy 13
of the NNCSS, in terms of the impact on the setting of designated heritage
assets, means that the proposals, overall, fail to accord with the requirements
of the development plan
153. Nevertheless, paragraph 98 of the Framework tells us that planning
applications for schemes like those at issue should be approved (unless, of
course, material considerations indicate otherwise) if impacts are (or can be
made) acceptable. I take that as an acknowledgement that a degree of harm
can be accommodated if the benefits outweigh that harm.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
25
16.25
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
154. That is borne out by the acknowledgement in EN-3 that modern onshore wind
turbines used in commercial wind farms are large structures and there will
always be significant landscape and visual effects from their construction and
operation for a number of kilometres around a site.
155. On my analysis, the significant benefits provided by the proposals are material
considerations that clearly outweigh the limited harm caused to bridleway users
and the failure to accord with the development plan in terms of the less than
substantial harm that would be caused to the landscape, and the settings of
designated heritage assets. As a result, I conclude that planning permission
should be granted for the proposals, subject to conditions.
Conditions
156. I have considered the suggested conditions discussed and, in the most part,
agreed, between the appellant and the Councils in the light of advice in Circular
11/9543. In general terms I have made minor changes to ensure conditions
tally with the standard forms in the Circular and in the interests of precision.
Many of the suggested conditions apply to both appeals but a few do not. I
have identified the reasons behind that.
157. Commencement conditions are required, obviously, but there is a difference
between the parties in that the Councils believe the standard 3 years to be
sufficient while the appellant favours 5 years. Given the number of matters
that need to be agreed through conditions, pre-commencement, and difficulties
that may arise with procurement, I regard 5 years as a reasonable period.
158. In order to facilitate any subsequent application for a minor material
amendment, conditions are necessary to set out the approved plans. I have not
included those drawings that show elements that are ‘typical’. Details of these
elements are covered under other conditions. Given my findings in relation to
the effect of the proposals on the living conditions of residents at Chelston
Rise, Appeal B also needs a condition to clarify that despite being shown on the
plans, the anemometer mast (ENMM) shall not be constructed. The description
of development for Appeal B needs to be amended to reflect that too.
159. The proposals are presented on the basis that they will endure for 25 years.
Conditions are required to secure that and to deal with subsequent
decommissioning and site restoration. It is also necessary to apply conditions
to deal with the situation should any of the wind turbines fail to operate for a
continuous period of six months.
160. Clearly, the construction process and the delivery of components to the site
would be a complex exercise. It is reasonable therefore to require the
submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan and a Construction
Method Statement for the approval of the Councils. It is necessary to restrict
the hours when construction work and deliveries can take place. Given the
degree of separation between the site and dwellings, the wider range of times
put forward by the appellant seem reasonable. This ought to ensure the
construction work takes less time, overall. A number of highway related
conditions have been suggested but these are unnecessary given the
requirement to submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan.
43
Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
26
16.26
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
161. As indicated, the overall design of the wind turbines and the anemometer mast
are important factors. To that end conditions are required to secure details of
design, finishes and so forth. It is also necessary to control signage.
162. I recognise that the appellant may wish to have some signage on the wind
turbines to reflect the previous use of the site as an airfield in the interests of
the many veterans who visit. However, the use of a phrase like ‘unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority’ is not an acceptable
way around controls and it is best that any signage subsequently proposed is
dealt with through the appropriate channels.
163. Given the nature of the applications, it is reasonable to specify maximum
heights for the wind turbine blades and hubs. To prevent visual tension, it is
important to specify that the wind turbine blades rotate in the same direction.
164. It is necessary to control lighting on the wind turbines and anemometer mast
(save for those that might be required for air safety) and to ensure that all
cabling is laid underground. Archaeology needs to be covered by conditions.
165. A series of conditions are necessary to deal with ecological matters in
accordance with the mitigation requirements of Natural England and the ES.
Linked to that, and also a reflection of the ES, conditions are necessary to
secure landscaping. I see no reason in the latter conditions to specify additional
planting adjacent to rights-of-way crossing the site given that this is a
requirement of the planning permission relating to the biomass plant.
166. A condition has been put forward to deal with fencing adjacent to the rights of
way crossing the site. This is necessary because, as I have set out in assessing
impacts on the landscape and rights of way, better boundary treatment(s)
would represent a visual improvement over the existing Heras fencing. Points
were made about the clearance of this fencing from the rights of way but
rather than specifying a clearance it is best to allow this to be addressed, if
necessary, through the overall submission of a scheme.
167. As is generally the case in these matters, conditions are necessary to specify
the way in which the wind turbines and/or the anemometer mast can be microsited. A distance of 25 metres in any direction seems reasonable. Typically,
again, conditions are required to address what should happen in the event of
complaints about shadow flicker and interference with televisions. In terms of
the latter, I regard 18 months as a reasonable period for complaints to surface.
168. Conditions are required to address air safety and surface water drainage. Given
previous uses of the site, it is also necessary to deal with the potential for, and
possible repercussions from, contamination.
169. The removal of the Boxer Mast is an important facet of the finding that the
visual impact of the proposals would have no significant detrimental effect on
local residents. There is also benefit in landscape terms and in respect of the
setting of heritage assets. That removal needs to be secured by condition,
therefore. The suggested condition would require removal before the First
Export Date. That is not acceptable because it might mean residents would
suffer the visual impact of the wind turbines, the anemometer mast, and the
Boxer mast for a significant period. I have therefore modified the suggested
condition to require demolition before any of the wind turbines are erected.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
27
16.27
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
170. A series of conditions have been suggested to deal with noise. That designed to
address noise in general terms is agreed between the Councils and the
appellant save for the noise limits, set out in the tables, at nearby receptors.
The Councils, having regard to what they term the very quiet background noise
levels (and the reference to them in ETSU-R-97) suggest that the tables are
populated with noise limits 5dB below the ETSU derived limits. Background
noise levels might be very low in some locations but the forecasts submitted
show that the candidate turbines proposed would operate, in most conditions,
with significant headroom below the ETSU derived limits.
171. In that context, I see no reasonable justification to apply a reduction across the
board or depart from the orthodox ETSU approach. I have therefore used the
alternative tables put forward by the appellants and I am satisfied that the
noise limits therein provide a reasonable balance between the protection of
local residents’ living conditions and the need for the wind farm to operate with
a degree of freedom.
172. One of the other noise conditions suggested seeks to require the appellant to
submit details of the wind turbine to ensure that it will meet the same criteria
as those measured during monitoring and prediction models. I find that
unnecessarily restrictive. It is for the appellant to select the type of wind
turbine to be used and I cannot believe that they would be so reckless or
foolish to select a wind turbine model that would not operate within the noise
limits set out. In that context, the suggested condition is unnecessary.
173. Conditions have also been suggested to set out what the wind farm operator
must do to remedy any breach of the noise limits. Those are not necessary
either because the appellant is obliged to ensure the wind turbines operate
within the noise limits in any event. If there is a breach then the Councils have
enforcement powers available to ensure compliance and it is in the interests of
the appellant to ensure that the breaches do not occur. Notwithstanding the
lack of objection from the appellant to them, conditions along the lines
suggested are in no way necessary.
174. Amongst other conditions suggested, I have set out my approach to the
economic benefits that might arise if elements of the wind turbines are built
locally. In that context, it is not necessary to control that by condition.
Final Conclusion
175. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeals should be allowed.
Paul Griffiths
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
28
16.28
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES:
Robert Jameson LLB
Solicitor, Jameson and Hill
Instructed by Bedford Borough and East
Northamptonshire District Councils
He called
Jane Jarvis
Cooper Partnership Ltd
BSc(Hons) DipLD MA
CMLI
Roy M Lewis
Grover Lewis Associates
BA(Hons) MA (Arch
Cons) MRTPI IHBC
Peter White
Team Leader, Planning Appeals & Enforcement,
BA(Hons) MA DipTP
Bedford Borough Council
MRTPI
Abigail Morgan
Director, SustainEnable Ltd
DipUP MSc ABEng MRTPI
Bryn Hudson BSc(Hons) Env Health DipSIOA, Environmental Health Officer, took
part in the discussion on noise conditions on 21/03/12
FOR PRESERVE:
Tina Douglass of Counsel
She called
Michelle Bolger
BA(Eng) BA(LArch)
DipLA CMLI
Tanya Welton
Joelle Soul
Jinny Casey
Peter Laughton
Craig L Jones
BA MSc MRTPI
Instructed by Craig Jones of Treharne-Jones
Associates Ltd
Liz Lake Associates
Resident of Chelston Rise
Resident of Yelden
Resident of Yelden
Resident of Yelden
Treharne-Jones Associates Ltd
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Tom Hill QC
He called
David Henson
AMIMechE
Sarah ReynoldsKettlewell
BSc(Hons) DipLD MA
CMLI
Andrew R McKenzie
BSc PhD FIOA
Stephen Carter
BSc PhD MIfA FSAScot
Karl Cradick
MSc MRTPI
Instructed by Savills
Chelveston Renewable Energy Ltd
The Landscape Partnership
Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd
Headland Archaeology (UK) Ltd
Savills
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
29
16.29
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Alistair Burt
Cllr Adrian Dale
Dr John Casey
Peter Scott
Mark Weston
Keith Wyld
Cllr Andrew Phillips
Cllr Kate Gelder
Sue Butter
Peter Mommersteeg
MP for North-East Bedfordshire
Chairman of Chelvston-cum-Caldecott Parish
Council
Local Resident
Campaign for the Protection of Rural England
British Horse Society
Local Resident
Dean & Shelton Parish Council
Melchbourne & Yelden Parish Council
Resident of Upper Dean
Resident of Caldecott
DOCUMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Statement of Common Ground
Rebuttal Proof and Appendices by Sarah Reynolds-Kettlewell
Additional Appeal Decisions (PRESERVE)
Addendum and Update by Peter White (Councils)
Council’s Letters of Notification
Details about Architech Animation Studios (PRESERVE)
Extract from revised SPG: London Views Management Framework
(PRESERVE)
Note from Architech addressing various matters (PRESERVE)
Agreed Glossary of Terms for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Comparative Timeline for Chelveston Wind Farm Project and disposal of
Houses at Chelston Rise (Appellant)
Plan of Chelston Rise (PRESERVE)
Copy of Appeal Decision: APP/N2535/A/04/1166685 (PRESERVE)
Copy of Al Morrow’s E-Mail of 22 December 2011 (PRESERVE)
Statement of Alistair Burt MP
Statement of Cllr Adrian Dale
Statement of Dr John Casey
Submissions of Peter Scott (CPRE)
Submissions of Mark Weston (BHS)
Statement of Keith Wyld
Statement of Cllr Andrew Phillips
Statement of Cllr Kate Gelder
Material relating to relationship between the Anaerobic Digester and the Wind
Farm, including the ‘Temple’ Report (Councils)
Letter from David Butter CEng FRAeS BSc(Eng) MPhil
DECC National Renewable Energy Statistics as of 9 March 2012 (Councils)
Appeal Decision: APP/H0520/A/11/2146394 (PRESERVE)
Timeline to accompany e-mail correspondence regarding VVMs, CD list and
cultural heritage evidence (PRESERVE)
Appeal Decision: APP/G2815/A/11/2156757 (Councils)
Bundle of material relating to noise monitoring locations (Appellant)
Noise Conditions (working draft as of 13/03/12)
Errata of Karl Cradick
Background Note on Regional Renewable Energy Target Attainment
(Appellant)
Replacement Appendix 11, Page 1 to Michelle Bolger’s Evidence (PRESERVE)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
30
16.30
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Layout and Photomontages relating to APP/A3010/A/06/2017850 (Appellant)
Material relating to the Tilbury B Biomass `Power Station (Appellant)
Historic Maps (Sue Butter)
E-mail trail relating to DECC Restats
Grounds of High Court Challenge to Nun Wood
Copy of East of England Plan Policy ENG2: Renewable Energy Targets
Submissions of Peter Mommersteeg
Response to Peter Mommersteeg’s submissions from David Henson
Further comments from Peter Mommersteeg
Material relating to National Landscape Character Areas 88, 89/94 and 91
Objection from Anglian Water and associated material
DECC National Renewable Energy Statistics as of 20/03/12 (Councils)
DECC National Renewable Energy Statistics (Appellant)
Extract from Hansard 08/03/12
Details of Aveillant
Draft Unilateral Undertaking
Suggested Conditions (as discussed 21/03/12)
Site Visit Itineraries
Letter of 20/03/12 from Mark Weston BHS about permissive bridleway
Bundle of representations about the Framework
Bundle of material about the UU
UU (final, completed version)
Costs application, associated material and response
Opening and Closing Statements
APPEAL A PLANS: APP/K0235/A/11/2160077
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
CREL1052-A-BBC: Site Location Plan
CREL1014-P-BBC: Revised Wind Turbine Layout and Site Location Plan
CREL1014-P: Revised Wind Turbine Layout and Site Location Plan
CREL1008-B: Typical Wind Turbine Details
CREL1009-B: Typical Anemometer Mast Plan and Elevations
CREL1049-A: Typical Access Track and Cable Trench Cross Section
CREL1050-A: Typical Anemometer Mast Compound Layout
CREL1051-D: Typical Wind Turbine Compound Layout
CREL1056-0: Typical Turbine Foundation Details
CREL1057-O: Visitor Car Park, Access Tracks and Viewing Area
CREL1061-0: Extract from Oaks Survey 25.04.06 Showing Boxer Mast
APPEAL B PLANS: APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
CREL1052-A-ENDC: Site Location Plan
CREL1014-P-ENDC: Revised Wind Turbine Layout and Site Location Plan
CREL1014-P: Revised Wind Turbine Layout and Site Location Plan
CREL1008-B: Typical Wind Turbine Details
CREL1009-B: Typical Anemometer Mast Plan and Elevations
CREL1049-A: Typical Access Track and Cable Trench Cross Section
CREL1050-A: Typical Anemometer Mast Compound Layout
CREL1051-D: Typical Wind Turbine Compound Layout
CREL1056-0: Typical Turbine Foundation Details
CREL1057-O: Visitor Car Park, Access Tracks and Viewing Area
CREL1061-0: Extract from Oaks Survey 25.04.06 Showing Boxer Mast
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
31
16.31
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
Annex A: APP/K0235/A/11/2160077
1)
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than five years
from the date of this decision.
2)
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: CREL1052-A-BBC: Site Location Plan;
CREL1014-P-BBC: Revised Wind Turbine Layout and Site Location Plan;
CREL1014-P: Revised Wind Turbine Layout and Site Location Plan;
CREL1057-O: Visitor Car park, Access Tracks and Viewing Area; and
CREL1061-0: Extract from Oaks Survey 25 04 06 showing Boxer Mast.
3)
The permission hereby granted shall be limited to a period of 25 years
from the date when electricity is first exported from any of the wind
turbines to the electricity grid (the ‘First Export Date’). Written
notification of the First Export Date shall be given to the local planning
authority no later than 14 days after the event.
4)
Not later than 12 months before the expiry of this permission, a
decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall
make provision for the removal of the wind turbines, the associated
above ground equipment, and foundations to a depth of at least one
metre below ground and include details of the management and timing
of works, a traffic management plan to address likely traffic impact
issues during the decommissioning period, noise controls during
decommissioning, an environmental management plan to include details
of measures to be taken during the decommissioning period to protect
wildlife and habitats, identification of access routes, location of material
lay-down areas, restoration measures and a programme of
implementation. Decommissioning and site restoration shall be
completed in accordance with the approved details within 24 months of
the expiry of this permission.
5)
If any of the wind turbines hereby permitted fails to operate for a
continuous period of six months, a scheme for the repair or removal of
the relevant turbine(s) shall be submitted to the local planning authority
for its written approval, within three months of the end of that six month
period. The scheme shall include, as relevant, a programme of remedial
works where repair is required; or a method statement and timetable for
the dismantling and removal of the relevant wind turbine and associated
above ground works and foundations to a depth of at least one metre
below ground and subsequent site restoration. The scheme shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved details.
6)
No development shall take place until a Construction Traffic Management
Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The CTMP shall include details of the routing of
construction traffic; its scheduling and timing; the management of
junctions with and crossings of, the public highway and other public
rights of way; escorts for abnormal loads; temporary warning signs;
temporary removal and replacement of highway infrastructure/street
furniture; reinstatement of any signs, verges or other items displaced by
construction traffic; and banksmen. The CTMP, including any
improvements or works to accommodate construction traffic where
required shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
32
16.32
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
7)
No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement
(CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved CMS. The CMS shall address the following matters:
i)
Details of the phasing of all construction works;
ii)
Details of the construction and surface treatment of all hard
surfaces and tracks;
iii) Details of the proposed storage of materials and soils and the
disposal of surplus materials;
iv) Dust management;
v)
Details of wheel-washing facilities and their operation;
vi) Details of the temporary site compound for storage of materials and
machinery (including areas designated for car parking);
vii) Construction details of the site access and the creation and
maintenance of associated visibility splays;
viii) Cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and the adjacent public
highway and the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil or construction
materials to or from the site to prevent spillage or the deposit of
any materials on the public highway;
ix) Pollution control, protection of the water environment, bunding of
fuel storage areas, surface water drainage, sewage disposal, and
discharge of foul drainage;
x)
Proposals for post-construction restoration/reinstatement of the
temporary working areas, track shoulders and crane pads;
xi) Details of emergency procedures and pollution response plans;
xii) A site environmental management plan to include details of
measures to be taken during the construction period to protect
wildlife and habitats;
xiii) Site illumination during the construction period; and
xiv) Details of the routing of underground cables.
8)
Construction work shall only take place between the hours of 07:00 to
19:00 on Monday to Friday inclusive and 07:00-13:00 on Saturdays with
no such work on a Sunday or Public Holiday. Outside these hours, works
at the site shall be limited to dust suppression. Emergency works may be
carried out at any time provided that the operator retrospectively notifies
the local planning authority in writing of the emergency and works
undertaken within 48 hours.
9)
The delivery of any construction materials or equipment for the
construction of the development, other than wind turbine blades, nacelles
and towers, shall be restricted to the hours of 07:00 to 19:00 on Monday
to Friday inclusive and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. There shall be no
such deliveries on a Sunday or Public Holiday unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the local planning authority having been given a minimum of
two working days notice of the proposed delivery.
10)
The overall height of the wind turbines shall not exceed 125 metres
measured to the tip of the blades when the blade tip is at its highest
point and the hub height 80 metres, when measured from original
ground level immediately adjacent to the turbine base.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
33
16.33
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
11)
No development shall take place until details of the design, dimensions,
finish and colour of the wind turbines and any external transformer units
and of the anemometer mast have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. No name, sign, symbol or logo
shall be displayed on any external surface of the wind turbines, any
external transformer units or the anemometer mast other than those
required to meet statutory health and safety requirements. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
and retained as such thereafter.
12)
All wind turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction.
13)
Other than where required for the purposes of air safety, neither the
wind turbines nor the anemometer mast shall be illuminated and there
shall be no permanent external illumination relating to the proposal other
than any required during the construction period, maintenance
operations, or emergency lighting.
14)
All cabling between the wind turbines and between the wind turbines and
the sub-station shall be laid underground.
15)
No development shall take place until a written Archaeological Scheme of
Investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall include: i) a programme and
methodology of site investigation and recording; ii) a programme for
post-investigation assessment; iii) details of the provision to be made for
analysis of the site investigation and recording; iv) details of the
provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis
and records of the site investigation; v) details of the provision to be
made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site
investigation; and vi) nomination of a competent person(s) or
organisation to undertake the works set out in the written scheme of
investigation. The Archaeological Scheme of Investigation shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
16)
No development shall take place until details of checking surveys for
protected species or the nests of any breeding birds on the site have
been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority. The surveys shall be carried out by a suitability qualified
ecologist, in accordance with the approved details, in the last suitable
season prior to the commencement of site preparation and construction
work. No development shall take place until the results of the surveys,
along with details of, and a programme for, any mitigation works
required as a consequence, have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. Any mitigation works required
shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.
17)
No development shall take place until a Landscape/Habitat Management
Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall include a programme and details of
new tree and hedgerow planting, the enhancement of existing
hedgerows, the establishment of conservation headlands, and
replacement planting for trees and hedgerow plants that become
diseased or are destroyed or die within five years of the date of planting.
The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
34
16.34
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
18)
No development shall take place until an Ecological
Enhancement/Mitigation Scheme, including a programme of
implementation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. This scheme shall accord with the outline
commitments in the ES and include areas of more species rich grassland;
native woodland and hedgerow planting; pond enhancements; and
terrestrial habitat for newts. The Ecological Enhancement/Mitigation
Scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
19)
No development shall take place until a scheme for post-construction
monitoring of any impact of the proposals on birds and bats, specifying
the survey methodology; frequency of visits; and duration, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
20)
No development shall take place until a scheme of landscape works,
based around that referred to in the ES, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall
include: i) planting proposals including location, species, number, density
and size; ii) the relationship of new planting to buildings, roads,
footpaths, drains and the location of all services; iii) areas of grass
turfing or seeding and other surface materials; iv) depth of topsoil to be
provided where necessary; v) an implementation programme; and vi)
details of long-term management and maintenance for the new planting.
The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.
21)
No development shall take place until a scheme for the replacement of
the Heras fencing adjacent to the rights of way within the former airfield
site with an alternative form of security fencing, and an implementation
programme, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
22)
Notwithstanding condition no.2, the wind turbines and anemometer mast
may be micro-sited within 25 metres of the grid references set out in the
ES Addendum of July 2010. A plan showing the position of the turbines,
anemometer mast and tracks established on the site shall be submitted
to the local planning authority within one month of the First Export Date.
23)
Prior to the First Export Date a scheme setting out a protocol for the
assessment of shadow flicker in the event of any complaint being
received from the owner or occupier of a dwelling which lawfully exists or
had planning permission at the date of this grant of planning permission,
including the remedial measures to be taken, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. Operation of the wind
turbines shall accord with the approved protocol.
24)
Prior to the First Export Date a scheme providing for a baseline survey
and the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference
to television caused by the operation of the wind turbines shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
scheme shall provide for the investigation by a qualified independent
television engineer of any complaint of interference with television
reception at a lawfully occupied dwelling which lawfully exists or had
planning permission at the date of this permission, where such complaint
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
35
16.35
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
is notified to the developer by the local planning authority within 18
months of the First Export Date. Where impairment is determined by the
qualified television engineer to be attributable to the wind turbines
approved herein, mitigation works shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved scheme.
25)
The developer shall provide one month’s prior written notice to the local
planning authority of the anticipated date of erection of the first wind
turbine and prior to that erection, details of the height above ground level
of the highest structure in the development; and the position of each
wind turbine in terms of latitude and longitude.
26)
No development shall take place until an air safety lighting scheme for
the wind turbines and the anemometer mast, along with documentary
evidence that the scheme meets the requirements of the CAA, NATS and
MoD, and an implementation programme, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved details.
27)
No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme,
and a programme for its implementation, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
28)
No development shall take place until a scheme making provision for the
protection of the site from contamination has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be
implemented before the First Export Date and retained thereafter. No
other development shall take place until:
i)
A desk-top study has been carried out which includes the
identification of previous uses on the site and potential
contaminants that might be encountered and a diagrammatical
representation (Conceptual Model) for the site of all potential
contaminant sources, pathways and receptors;
ii)
A site investigation has been designed for the site using the
information from the desk-top study that enables a) a risk
assessment to be undertaken relating to human health, ground and
surface waters, and other ecosystems; b) refinement of the
Conceptual Model; and c) the development of a Method Statement
detailing the remediation requirements;
iii) The site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with the
approved details and a risk assessment undertaken;
iv) A Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements,
including measures to minimise the impact on human health,
ground and surface waters, and other ecosystems, using the
information obtained from the site investigation has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Remediation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
29)
If, during the course of the development, contamination not previously
identified, is found to be present at the site, then no further development
shall be carried out until the developer has submitted an addendum to
the Method Statement to the local planning authority and gained their
written approval of it. The addendum to the Method Statement must
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
36
16.36
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
detail how the previously unsuspected contamination will be dealt with.
Development shall then continue in accordance with the approved
details.
30)
Upon completion of the remediation detailed in the Method Statement, a
report shall be submitted to the local planning authority that provides
verification that the required works relating to contamination have been
carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement(s). Postremediation sampling and monitoring results shall be included in the
report to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully
implemented. Proposals for future monitoring and reporting shall also be
detailed in the report.
31)
The Boxer Mast shall be demolished before any of the wind turbines
approved herein are erected.
32)
The rating level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind
turbines (including the application of any tonal penalty) at any residential
property, when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance
Notes, shall not exceed the values for the relevant integer wind speed
set out in Tables 1 and 2 attached to these conditions and:
(A) No wind turbine shall generate electricity to the grid until the local
planning authority has approved in writing a scheme submitted by
the wind farm operator which details the measurement of noise
emissions from the wind turbines at the operator’s expense, to
demonstrate compliance with this condition. This noise
measurement study shall commence within one month of all the
turbines becoming fully operational and continue for a sufficient
period to obtain measured noise levels corresponding to wind
directions from the site to the measurement locations over a range
of operational wind speeds from cut-in to rated power. The
measurement locations shall comprise no more than five of those
listed below and shall be agreed with the local planning authority
prior to any measurements being carried out.
Hargrave Lodge
Hargrave Village
Lodge Farm
Silcombe House
Manor Farm
Yelden Village
USAAF Housing
Caldecott
Chelveston
The results of the noise measurement study shall be provided to the
local planning authority in order to discharge and demonstrate
compliance with this condition.
(B) Prior to the First Export Date, the wind farm operator shall submit
to the local planning authority for written approval a list of proposed
independent consultants who may undertake compliance
measurements in accordance with this condition. Amendments to
the list of approved consultants shall be made only with the prior
written approval of the local planning authority.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
37
16.37
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
(C) Within 21 days from receipt of a written request of the local
planning authority, following a complaint to it alleging noise
disturbance at a residential property, the wind farm operator shall,
at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the
local planning authority to assess the level of noise emissions from
the wind farm at the complainant’s property in accordance with the
procedures described in the attached Guidance Notes. The written
request from the local planning authority shall set out the
conditions described in Guidance Note 2(b) and shall include a
statement as to whether, in the opinion of the local planning
authority, the noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely
to contain a tonal component or noise exacerbated by amplitude
modulation as defined in Guidance Note 5. The wind farm operator
shall provide the information relevant to the complaint logged in
accordance with paragraph (F) to the local planning authority in the
format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) within 28 days of receipt in
writing of the local planning authority’s request.
(D) Where there is more than one property at a location specified in the
Tables attached to this condition, the noise limits set for that
location shall apply to all residential properties at that location.
Where a residential property to which a complaint is related is not
identified by name or location in the Tables attached to these
conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit to the local planning
authority for written approval proposed noise limits selected from
those listed in the Tables to be adopted at the complainant’s
residential property for compliance checking purposes. The
proposed noise limits are to be those limits selected from the Tables
specified for a listed location which the independent consultant
considers as being likely to experience the most similar background
noise environment to that experienced at the complainant’s
residential property. The submission of the proposed noise limits to
the local planning authority shall include a written justification of
the choice of the representative background noise environment
provided by the independent consultant. The rating level of noise
emissions resulting from the combined effects of the wind turbines
when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes
shall not exceed the noise limits approved in writing by the local
planning authority for the complainant’s residential property.
(E)
Prior to the submission of the independent consultant’s assessment
of the rating level of noise emissions, the wind farm operator shall
submit to the local planning authority for written approval the range
of meteorological and operational conditions to determine the
assessment of rating level of noise emissions. The proposed range
of conditions (which shall include the range of wind speeds, wind
directions, power generation and times of day) shall be those which
prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was
disturbance due to noise, having regard to the written request of
the local planning authority under paragraph C). The assessment of
the rating level of noise emissions shall be undertaken in
accordance with the assessment protocol approved in writing by the
local planning authority.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
38
16.38
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
(F)
The wind farm operator shall provide to the local planning authority
the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise
emissions undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within
2 months of the date of the written request of the local planning
authority made under paragraph (C) of this condition unless the
time limit is extended in writing by the local planning authority. The
assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of
undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be
provided in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) of the
Guidance Notes and shall, if required, include an assessment of the
level of amplitude modulation in line with the best available
guidance existing at the time of the complaint to be agreed with the
local planning authority. The instrumentation used to undertake the
measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note
1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the local
planning authority with the independent consultant’s assessment of
the rating level of noise emissions.
(G) Where a further assessment of the rating level of noise emissions
from the wind farm is required pursuant to Guidance Note 4(c) of
the attached Guidance Notes, the wind farm operator shall submit a
copy of the further assessment within 21 days of submission of the
independent consultant’s assessment pursuant to paragraph (F)
above unless the time limit for the submission of the further
assessment has been extended in writing by the local planning
authority.
(H) The wind farm operator shall continuously log nacelle wind speed,
nacelle orientation, power generation and nacelle wind direction for
each turbine and shall continuously log wind speed, wind direction
and wind direction data recorded at the permanent anemometer
monitoring mast (if erected) in accordance with this permission, all
in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d) of the attached Guidance
Notes. The data from each wind turbine, and the data from the
permanent anemometer mast, shall be retained for a the duration
of this permission. The wind farm operator shall provide this
information in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) of the
attached Guidance Notes to the local planning authority on its
request within 14 days of receipt in writing of such a request.
Note: For the purposes of this condition (A-H), a ‘residential
property’ is a building within Use Class C3 or C4 of the Use Classes
Order which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date
of this consent.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
39
16.39
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
Table 1: Between 07:00 and 23:00 - Noise level dB LA90, 10-minute
Location
Hargrave Lodge
Farm
Hargrave Village
Lodge Farm
Silcombe House
Manor Farm
Yelden Village
USAF Housing
Caldecott
Chelveston
Standardised wind speed at 10 metres height (m/s) within
the site averaged over 10-minute periods
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
LA90 Decibel Levels
37
35
35
35
36
35
38
36
40
37
35
35
35
36
35
38
36
40
37
35
35
35
37
35
38
36
40
37
36
35
36
38
35
38
36
40
38
37
35
39
41
36
39
37
41
41
40
39
42
43
38
41
39
43
43
44
44
46
46
41
44
42
45
46
46
48
49
49
44
46
45
47
48
48
50
51
51
46
48
46
47
50
48
50
51
53
47
49
46
47
51
48
50
51
53
47
49
46
47
51
48
50
51
53
47
49
46
47
Table 2: Between 23:00 and 07:00 - Noise level dB LA90, 10-minute
Location
Hargrave Lodge
Farm
Hargrave Village
Lodge Farm
Silcombe House
Manor Farm
Yelden Village
USAF Housing
Caldecott
Chelveston
Standardised wind speed at 10 metres height (m/s) within
the site averaged over 10-minute periods
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
LA90 Decibel Levels
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
45
45
43
43
43
43
44
43
43
49
49
43
45
43
43
48
46
48
52
52
46
49
45
45
51
50
51
54
56
49
52
47
47
Note to Tables 1 & 2: The standardised wind speed at
10 metres height within the site refers to wind speed at
10 metres height derived from those measured at hub
height, calculated in accordance with the method given in
the Guidance Notes.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
40
16.40
52
53
54
54
58
51
54
47
47
52
53
54
54
58
51
54
47
47
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
Annex B: APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
1)
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than five years
from the date of this decision.
2)
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: CREL1052-A-ENDC: Site Location
Plan; CREL1014-P-ENDC: Revised Wind Turbine Layout and Site Location
Plan; CREL1014-P: Revised Wind Turbine Layout and Site Location Plan;
CREL1057-O: Visitor Car park, Access Tracks and Viewing Area; and
CREL1061-0: Extract from Oaks Survey 25 04 06 showing Boxer Mast.
3)
The permission hereby granted shall be limited to a period of 25 years
from the date when electricity is first exported from any of the wind
turbines to the electricity grid (the ‘First Export Date’). Written
notification of the First Export Date shall be given to the local planning
authority no later than 14 days after the event.
4)
Not later than 12 months before the expiry of this permission, a
decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall
make provision for the removal of the wind turbines, the associated
above ground equipment, and foundations to a depth of at least one
metre below ground and include details of the management and timing
of works, a traffic management plan to address likely traffic impact
issues during the decommissioning period, noise controls during
decommissioning, an environmental management plan to include details
of measures to be taken during the decommissioning period to protect
wildlife and habitats, identification of access routes, location of material
lay-down areas, restoration measures and a programme of
implementation. Decommissioning and site restoration shall be
completed in accordance with the approved details within 24 months of
the expiry of this permission.
5)
If any of the wind turbines hereby permitted fails to operate for a
continuous period of six months, a scheme for the repair or removal of
the relevant turbine(s) shall be submitted to the local planning authority
for its written approval, within three months of the end of that six month
period. The scheme shall include, as relevant, a programme of remedial
works where repair is required; or a method statement and timetable for
the dismantling and removal of the relevant wind turbine and associated
above ground works and foundations to a depth of at least one metre
below ground and subsequent site restoration. The scheme shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved details.
6)
No development shall take place until a Construction Traffic Management
Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The CTMP shall include details of the routing of
construction traffic; its scheduling and timing; the management of
junctions with and crossings of, the public highway and other public
rights of way; escorts for abnormal loads; temporary warning signs;
temporary removal and replacement of highway infrastructure/street
furniture; reinstatement of any signs, verges or other items displaced by
construction traffic; and banksmen. The CTMP, including any
improvements or works to accommodate construction traffic where
required shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
41
16.41
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
7)
No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement
(CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved CMS. The CMS shall address the following matters:
i)
Details of the phasing of all construction works;
ii)
Details of the construction and surface treatment of all hard
surfaces and tracks;
iii) Details of the proposed storage of materials and soils and the
disposal of surplus materials;
iv) Dust management;
v)
Details of wheel-washing facilities and their operation;
vi) Details of the temporary site compound for storage of materials and
machinery (including areas designated for car parking);
vii) Construction details of the site access and the creation and
maintenance of associated visibility splays;
viii) Cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and the adjacent public
highway and the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil or construction
materials to or from the site to prevent spillage or the deposit of
any materials on the public highway;
ix) Pollution control, protection of the water environment, bunding of
fuel storage areas, surface water drainage, sewage disposal, and
discharge of foul drainage;
x)
Proposals for post-construction restoration/reinstatement of the
temporary working areas, track shoulders and crane pads;
xi) Details of emergency procedures and pollution response plans;
xii) A site environmental management plan to include details of
measures to be taken during the construction period to protect
wildlife and habitats;
xiii) Site illumination during the construction period; and
xiv) Details of the routing of underground cables.
8)
Construction work shall only take place between the hours of 07:00 to
19:00 on Monday to Friday inclusive and 07:00-13:00 on Saturdays with
no such work on a Sunday or Public Holiday. Outside these hours, works
at the site shall be limited to dust suppression. Emergency works may be
carried out at any time provided that the operator retrospectively notifies
the local planning authority in writing of the emergency and works
undertaken within 48 hours.
9)
The delivery of any construction materials or equipment for the
construction of the development, other than wind turbine blades, nacelles
and towers, shall be restricted to the hours of 07:00 to 19:00 on Monday
to Friday inclusive and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. There shall be no
such deliveries on a Sunday or Public Holiday unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the local planning authority having been given a minimum of
two working days notice of the proposed delivery.
10)
The overall height of the wind turbines shall not exceed 125 metres
measured to the tip of the blades when the blade tip is at its highest
point and the hub height 80 metres, when measured from original
ground level immediately adjacent to the turbine base.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
42
16.42
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
11)
No development shall take place until details of the design, dimensions,
finish and colour of the wind turbines and any external transformer units
and of the anemometer mast have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. No name, sign, symbol or logo
shall be displayed on any external surface of the wind turbines, any
external transformer units or the anemometer mast other than those
required to meet statutory health and safety requirements. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
and retained as such thereafter.
12)
All wind turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction.
13)
Other than where required for the purposes of air safety, neither the
wind turbines nor the anemometer mast shall be illuminated and there
shall be no permanent external illumination relating to the proposal other
than any required during the construction period, maintenance
operations, or emergency lighting.
14)
All cabling between the wind turbines and between the wind turbines and
the sub-station shall be laid underground.
15)
No development shall take place until a written Archaeological Scheme of
Investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall include: i) a programme and
methodology of site investigation and recording; ii) a programme for
post-investigation assessment; iii) details of the provision to be made for
analysis of the site investigation and recording; iv) details of the
provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis
and records of the site investigation; v) details of the provision to be
made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site
investigation; and vi) nomination of a competent person(s) or
organisation to undertake the works set out in the written scheme of
investigation. The Archaeological Scheme of Investigation shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
16)
No development shall take place until details of checking surveys for
protected species or the nests of any breeding birds on the site have
been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority. The surveys shall be carried out by a suitability qualified
ecologist, in accordance with the approved details, in the last suitable
season prior to the commencement of site preparation and construction
work. No development shall take place until the results of the surveys,
along with details of, and a programme for, any mitigation works
required as a consequence, have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. Any mitigation works required
shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.
17)
No development shall take place until a Landscape and Habitat
Management Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The scheme shall include a programme and
details of new tree and hedgerow planting, the enhancement of existing
hedgerows, the establishment of conservation headlands, and
replacement planting for trees and hedgerow plants that become
diseased or are destroyed or die within five years of the date of planting.
The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
43
16.43
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
18)
No development shall take place until an Ecological
Enhancement/Mitigation Scheme, including a programme of
implementation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. This scheme shall accord with the outline
commitments in the ES and include areas of more species rich grassland;
native woodland and hedgerow planting; pond enhancements; and
terrestrial habitat for newts. The Ecological Enhancement/Mitigation
Scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
19)
No development shall take place until a scheme for post-construction
monitoring of any impact of the proposals on birds and bats, specifying
the survey methodology; frequency of visits; and duration, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
20)
No development shall take place until a scheme of landscape works,
based around that referred to in the ES, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall
include: i) planting proposals including location, species, number, density
and size; ii) the relationship of new planting to buildings, roads,
footpaths, drains and the location of all services; iii) areas of grass
turfing or seeding and other surface materials; iv) depth of topsoil to be
provided where necessary; v) an implementation programme; and vi)
details of long-term management and maintenance for the new planting.
The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.
21)
No development shall take place until a scheme for the replacement of
the Heras fencing adjacent to the rights of way within the former airfield
site with an alternative form of security fencing, and an implementation
programme, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
22)
Notwithstanding condition no.2, the wind turbines and anemometer mast
may be micro-sited within 25 metres of the grid references set out in the
ES Addendum of July 2010. A plan showing the position of the turbines,
anemometer mast and tracks established on the site shall be submitted
to the local planning authority within one month of the First Export Date.
23)
Prior to the First Export Date a scheme setting out a protocol for the
assessment of shadow flicker in the event of any complaint being
received from the owner or occupier of a dwelling which lawfully exists or
had planning permission at the date of this grant of planning permission,
including the remedial measures to be taken, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. Operation of the wind
turbines shall accord with the approved protocol.
24)
Prior to the First Export Date a scheme providing for a baseline survey
and the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference
to television caused by the operation of the wind turbines shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
scheme shall provide for the investigation by a qualified independent
television engineer of any complaint of interference with television
reception at a lawfully occupied dwelling which lawfully exists or had
planning permission at the date of this permission, where such complaint
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
44
16.44
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
is notified to the developer by the local planning authority within 18
months of the First Export Date. Where impairment is determined by the
qualified television engineer to be attributable to the wind turbines
approved herein, mitigation works shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved scheme.
25)
The developer shall provide one month’s prior written notice to the local
planning authority of the anticipated date of erection of the first wind
turbine and prior to that erection, details of the height above ground level
of the highest structure in the development; and the position of each
wind turbine in terms of latitude and longitude.
26)
No development shall take place until an air safety lighting scheme for
the wind turbines and the anemometer mast, along with documentary
evidence that the scheme meets the requirements of the CAA, NATS and
MoD, and an implementation programme, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved details.
27)
No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme,
and a programme for its implementation, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
28)
No development shall take place until a scheme making provision for the
protection of the site from contamination has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be
implemented before the First Export Date and retained thereafter. No
other development shall take place until:
i) A desk-top study has been carried out which includes the
identification of previous uses on the site and potential contaminants
that might be encountered and a diagrammatical representation
(Conceptual Model) for the site of all potential contaminant sources,
pathways and receptors;
ii) A site investigation has been designed for the site using the
information from the desk-top study that enables a) a risk
assessment to be undertaken relating to human health, ground and
surface waters, and other ecosystems; b) refinement of the
Conceptual Model; and c) the development of a Method Statement
detailing the remediation requirements;
iii) The site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with the
approved details and a risk assessment undertaken;
iv) A Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements,
including measures to minimise the impact on human health, ground
and surface waters, and other ecosystems, using the information
obtained from the site investigation has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. Remediation shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
29)
If, during the course of the development, contamination not previously
identified, is found to be present at the site, then no further development
shall be carried out until the developer has submitted an addendum to
the Method Statement to the local planning authority and gained their
written approval of it. The addendum to the Method Statement must
detail how the previously unsuspected contamination will be dealt with.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
45
16.45
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
Development shall then continue in accordance with the approved
details.
30)
Upon completion of the remediation detailed in the Method Statement, a
report shall be submitted to the local planning authority that provides
verification that the required works relating to contamination have been
carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement(s). Postremediation sampling and monitoring results shall be included in the
report to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully
implemented. Proposals for future monitoring and reporting shall also be
detailed in the report.
31)
The Boxer Mast shall be demolished before any of the wind turbines
approved herein are erected.
32)
Notwithstanding condition no.2, the anemometer mast (ENMM) shown on
the approved plans referred to above shall not be erected.
33)
The rating level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind
turbines (including the application of any tonal penalty) at any residential
property, when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance
Notes, shall not exceed the values for the relevant integer wind speed
set out in Tables 1 and 2 attached to these conditions and:
(A) No wind turbine shall generate electricity to the grid until the local
planning authority has approved in writing a scheme submitted by
the wind farm operator which details the measurement of noise
emissions from the wind turbines at the operator’s expense, to
demonstrate compliance with this condition. This noise
measurement study shall commence within one month of all the
turbines becoming fully operational and continue for a sufficient
period to obtain measured noise levels corresponding to wind
directions from the site to the measurement locations over a range
of operational wind speeds from cut-in to rated power. The
measurement locations shall comprise no more than five of those
listed below and shall be agreed with the local planning authority
prior to any measurements being carried out.
Hargrave Lodge
Hargrave Village
Lodge Farm
Silcombe House
Manor Farm
Yelden Village
USAAF Housing
Caldecott
Chelveston
The results of the noise measurement study shall be provided to the
local planning authority in order to discharge and demonstrate
compliance with this condition.
(B) Prior to the First Export Date, the wind farm operator shall submit
to the local planning authority for written approval a list of proposed
independent consultants who may undertake compliance
measurements in accordance with this condition. Amendments to
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
46
16.46
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
the list of approved consultants shall be made only with the prior
written approval of the local planning authority.
(C) Within 21 days from receipt of a written request of the local
planning authority, following a complaint to it alleging noise
disturbance at a residential property, the wind farm operator shall,
at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the
local planning authority to assess the level of noise emissions from
the wind farm at the complainant’s property in accordance with the
procedures described in the attached Guidance Notes. The written
request from the local planning authority shall set out the
conditions described in Guidance Note 2(b) and shall include a
statement as to whether, in the opinion of the local planning
authority, the noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely
to contain a tonal component or noise exacerbated by amplitude
modulation as defined in Guidance Note 5. The wind farm operator
shall provide the information relevant to the complaint logged in
accordance with paragraph (F) to the local planning authority in the
format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) within 28 days of receipt in
writing of the local planning authority’s request.
(D) Where there is more than one property at a location specified in the
Tables attached to this condition, the noise limits set for that
location shall apply to all residential properties at that location.
Where a residential property to which a complaint is related is not
identified by name or location in the Tables attached to these
conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit to the local planning
authority for written approval proposed noise limits selected from
those listed in the Tables to be adopted at the complainant’s
residential property for compliance checking purposes. The
proposed noise limits are to be those limits selected from the Tables
specified for a listed location which the independent consultant
considers as being likely to experience the most similar background
noise environment to that experienced at the complainant’s
residential property. The submission of the proposed noise limits to
the local planning authority shall include a written justification of
the choice of the representative background noise environment
provided by the independent consultant. The rating level of noise
emissions resulting from the combined effects of the wind turbines
when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes
shall not exceed the noise limits approved in writing by the local
planning authority for the complainant’s residential property.
(E)
Prior to the submission of the independent consultant’s assessment
of the rating level of noise emissions, the wind farm operator shall
submit to the local planning authority for written approval the range
of meteorological and operational conditions to determine the
assessment of rating level of noise emissions. The proposed range
of conditions (which shall include the range of wind speeds, wind
directions, power generation and times of day) shall be those which
prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was
disturbance due to noise, having regard to the written request of
the local planning authority under paragraph C). The assessment of
the rating level of noise emissions shall be undertaken in
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
47
16.47
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
accordance with the assessment protocol approved in writing by the
local planning authority.
(F)
The wind farm operator shall provide to the local planning authority
the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise
emissions undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within
2 months of the date of the written request of the local planning
authority made under paragraph (C) of this condition unless the
time limit is extended in writing by the local planning authority. The
assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of
undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be
provided in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) of the
Guidance Notes and shall, if required, include an assessment of the
level of amplitude modulation in line with the best available
guidance existing at the time of the complaint to be agreed with the
local planning authority. The instrumentation used to undertake the
measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note
1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the local
planning authority with the independent consultant’s assessment of
the rating level of noise emissions.
(G) Where a further assessment of the rating level of noise emissions
from the wind farm is required pursuant to Guidance Note 4(c) of
the attached Guidance Notes, the wind farm operator shall submit a
copy of the further assessment within 21 days of submission of the
independent consultant’s assessment pursuant to paragraph (F)
above unless the time limit for the submission of the further
assessment has been extended in writing by the local planning
authority.
(H) The wind farm operator shall continuously log nacelle wind speed,
nacelle orientation, power generation and nacelle wind direction for
each turbine and shall continuously log wind speed, wind direction
and wind direction data recorded at the permanent anemometer
monitoring mast (if erected) in accordance with this permission, all
in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d) of the attached Guidance
Notes. The data from each wind turbine, and the data from the
permanent anemometer mast, shall be retained for the duration of
this permission. The wind farm operator shall provide this
information in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) of the
attached Guidance Notes to the local planning authority on its
request within 14 days of receipt in writing of such a request.
Note: For the purposes of this condition (A-H), a ‘residential
property’ is a building within Use Class C3 or C4 of the Use Classes
Order which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date
of this consent.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
48
16.48
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
Table 1: Between 07:00 and 23:00 - Noise level dB LA90, 10-minute
Location
Hargrave Lodge
Farm
Hargrave Village
Lodge Farm
Silcombe House
Manor Farm
Yelden Village
USAF Housing
Caldecott
Chelveston
Standardised wind speed at 10 metres height (m/s) within
the site averaged over 10-minute periods
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
LA90 Decibel Levels
37
35
35
35
36
35
38
36
40
37
35
35
35
36
35
38
36
40
37
35
35
35
37
35
38
36
40
37
36
35
36
38
35
38
36
40
38
37
35
39
41
36
39
37
41
41
40
39
42
43
38
41
39
43
43
44
44
46
46
41
44
42
45
46
46
48
49
49
44
46
45
47
48
48
50
51
51
46
48
46
47
50
48
50
51
53
47
49
46
47
51
48
50
51
53
47
49
46
47
51
48
50
51
53
47
49
46
47
Table 2: Between 23:00 and 07:00 - Noise level dB LA90, 10-minute
Location
Hargrave Lodge
Farm
Hargrave Village
Lodge Farm
Silcombe House
Manor Farm
Yelden Village
USAF Housing
Caldecott
Chelveston
Standardised wind speed at 10 metres height (m/s) within
the site averaged over 10-minute periods
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
LA90 Decibel Levels
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
45
45
43
43
43
43
44
43
43
49
49
43
45
43
43
48
46
48
52
52
46
49
45
45
51
50
51
54
56
49
52
47
47
Note to Tables 1 & 2: The standardised wind speed at
10 metres height within the site refers to wind speed at
10 metres height derived from those measured at hub
height, calculated in accordance with the method given in
the Guidance Notes.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
49
16.49
52
53
54
54
58
51
54
47
47
52
53
54
54
58
51
54
47
47
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
Guidance Notes for Condition 32 (Appeal A) and 33 (Appeal B)
These notes are to be read with and form part of the noise conditions. They
further explain the conditions and specify the methods to be employed in the
assessment of complaints about noise emissions from the wind farm. The
rating level at each integer wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the wind farm
noise level as determined from the best-fit curve described in Note 2 of these
Guidance Notes and any tonal penalty applied in accordance with Note 3 with
any necessary correction for residual background noise levels in accordance
with Note 4. Reference to ETSU-R-97 refers to the publication entitled ‘The
Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (1997) published by the
Energy Technology Support unit (ETSU) for the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI).
Note 1
(a)
Values of the LA90,10-minute noise statistic should be measured at the
complainant’s property, using a sound level meter of EN 60651/BS EN
60804 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1 quality (or the equivalent UK
adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to
measure using the fast time weighted response as specified in BS EN
60651/BS EN 60804 or BS EN 61672-1 (or the equivalent UK adopted
standard in force at the time of the measurements). This should be
calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1997
(or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the
measurements). Measurements shall be undertaken in such a manner to
enable a tonal penalty to be applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3.
(b)
The microphone shall be mounted at 1.2 - 1.5 metres above ground level,
fitted with a two-layer windshield or suitable equivalent approved in
writing by the local planning authority, and placed outside the
complainant’s residential property and be not more than 35 metres from
it. Measurements should be made in ‘free field’ conditions. To achieve
this, the microphone shall be placed at least 3.5 metres away from the
building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground at the
approved measurement location. In the event that the consent of the
complainant for access to his or her property to undertake compliance
measurements is withheld, the wind farm operator shall submit for the
written approval of the local planning authority details of the proposed
alternative
representative
measurement
location
prior
to
the
commencement of measurements and the measurements shall be
undertaken at the approved alternative representative measurement
location.
(c)
The
LA90,10-minute
measurements
should
be
synchronised
with
measurements of the 10-minute arithmetic mean wind speed and wind
direction data and with operational data logged in accordance with
Guidance Note 1(d) and rain data logged in accordance with Note 1(f).
(d)
To enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated, the wind farm
operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean nacelle wind speed (duly
corrected for the presence of the rotating blades) arithmetic mean nacelle
orientation, nacelle wind direction and arithmetic mean power generated
during each successive 10-minute periods for each wind turbine on the
site. The wind farm operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean wind
speed in metres per second and arithmetic mean wind direction in degrees
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
50
16.50
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
from north, at the permanent meteorological mast (if erected), such
measurements to be taken at the hub height of the wind turbines in each
successive 10-minute periods. The hub height wind speeds recorded from
the nacelle anemometers or as calculated from the power output of each
turbine, or at the permanent meteorological mast, shall be supplemented
by standardised ten metre height wind speed data calculated for each
10-minute period from those measured at hub height assuming a
reference roughness length of 0.05 metres and using the equation given
on page 120 of ETSU-R-97. All 10-minute periods shall commence on the
hour and in 10-minute increments thereafter synchronised with Greenwich
Mean Time and adjusted to British Summer Time where necessary.
Standardised 10 metre height wind speed data shall be correlated with the
noise measurements determined as valid in accordance with Note 2(b),
such correlation to be undertaken in the manner described in Note 2(c).
The records shall be kept for the duration of the planning permission.
(e)
Data provided to the local planning authority in accordance with
paragraphs (F) (G) and (H) of Condition 32/33 shall be provided in comma
separated values in electronic format.
(f)
A data logging rain gauge shall be installed within 3 m of any sound level
meter installed in the course of the independent consultant undertaking
an assessment of the level of noise emissions. The gauge shall record over
successive 10-minute periods synchronised with the periods of data
recorded in accordance with Note 1(d).
Note 2
(a)
The noise measurements should be made so as to provide not less than
20 valid data points as defined in Note 2.
(b)
Valid data points are those measured during the conditions specified by
the Local Planning Authority set out in paragraph (C) of Condition 32/33
but excluding any periods of rainfall measured in accordance with Note
1(f).
(c)
Values of the LA90,10-minute noise measurements and corresponding values of
the 10-minute standardised ten metre height wind speed for those data
points considered valid in accordance with Note 2(b) shall be plotted on an
XY chart with noise level on the Y-axis and wind speed on the X-axis. A
least squares, ‘best fit’ curve of an order deemed appropriate by the
independent consultant (but which may not be higher than a fourth order)
shall be fitted to the data points to define the wind farm noise level at
each integer speed.
Note 3
(a)
Where, in the opinion of the local planning authority as advised to the
wind farm operator in its written request under paragraph (C) of Condition
32/33, noise emissions at the location or locations where compliance
measurements are being undertaken contain or are likely to contain a
tonal component, a tonal penalty shall be calculated and applied using the
following rating procedure.
(b)
For each 10-minute interval for which LA90,10-minute data have been
determined as valid in accordance with Note 2, a tonal assessment shall
be performed on noise emissions during 2-minutes of each 10-minute
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
51
16.51
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
period. The 2-minute periods should be spaced at 10-minute intervals
provided that uninterrupted uncorrupted data are available (‘the standard
procedure’). Where uncorrupted data are not available, the first available
uninterrupted clean 2-minute period out of the affected overall 10-minute
period shall be selected. Any such deviations from the standard procedure
shall be reported.
(c)
For each of the 2-minute samples the tone level above audibility shall be
calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1
on pages 104 -109 of ETSU-R-97.
(d)
The tone level above audibility shall be plotted against wind speed for
each of the 2-minute samples. Samples for which the tones were below
the audibility criterion or no tone was identified, a value of zero audibility
shall be substituted.
(e)
A least squares ‘best fit’ linear regression shall then be performed to
establish the average tone level above audibility for each integer wind
speed derived from the value of the ‘best fit’ line fitted to values. If there
is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic mean shall
be used.
(f)
The tonal penalty is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone
according to the figure below derived from the average tone level above
audibility for each integer wind speed.
Note 4
(a)
If a tonal penalty is to be applied in accordance with Note 3 the rating
level of the turbine noise at each wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the
measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in
Note 2 and the penalty for tonal noise as derived in accordance with Note
3 at each integer wind speed within the range set out in paragraph (C) of
Condition 32/33.
(b)
If no tonal penalty is to be applied then the rating level of the turbine
noise at each wind speed is equal to the measured noise level as
determined from the best fit curve described in Note 2.
(c)
If the rating level at any integer wind speed lies at or below the values set
out in the Tables attached to the conditions or at or below the noise limits
approved by the local planning authority for a complainant’s residential
property in accordance with paragraph (D) of Condition 32/33 then no
further action is necessary. In the event that the rating level is above the
limit(s) set out in the Tables attached to the noise conditions or the noise
limits for a complainant’s residential property approved in accordance with
paragraph (D) of the Condition 32/33, the independent consultant shall
undertake a further assessment of the rating level to correct for
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
52
16.52
Appeal Decisions APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 & APP/G2815/A/11/2160078
background noise so that the rating level relates to wind turbine noise
emission only.
(d)
The wind farm operator shall ensure that all the wind turbines in the
development are turned off for such period as the independent consultant
requires to undertake the further assessment. The further assessment
shall be undertaken in accordance with the following steps:
i.
Repeating the steps in Note 2, with the wind farm switched off, and
determining the background noise (L3) at each integer wind speed
within the range set out in paragraph (C) of Condition 32/33.
ii.
The wind farm noise (L1) at this speed shall then be calculated as
follows where L2 is the measured level with turbines running but
without the addition of any tonal penalty:
[
L1 = 10 log 10 L2 /10 − 10 L3 /10
]
iii. The rating level shall be re-calculated by adding the tonal penalty (if
any is applied in accordance with Note 3) to the derived wind farm
noise L1 at that integer wind speed.
If the rating level after adjustment for background noise contribution and
adjustment for tonal penalty (if required in accordance with note (iii)
above) at any integer wind speed lies at or below the values set out in the
Tables attached to the conditions or at or below the noise limits approved
by the local planning authority for a complainant’s residential property in
accordance with paragraph (D) of Condition 32/33 then no further action
is necessary. If the rating level at any integer wind speed exceeds the
values set out in the Tables attached to the conditions or the noise limits
approved by the local planning authority for a complainant’s residential
property in accordance with paragraph (D) of Condition 32/33 then the
development fails to comply with the conditions.
Note 5
(a)
Amplitude modulation is the modulation of the level of broadband noise
emitted by a turbine at blade passing frequency.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
53
16.53