Valley Wind Co-operative: Planning application ref 2013/93683
Proposed Slaithwaite Moor Wind Energy Development
Valley Wind Co-operative: Supplementary application information/
Information for Planning Committee Members 18 September 2014.
Valley Wind Co-op have concerns regarding inaccuracies and omissions in
the Kirklees Planning Services Report before the Committee (‘the Report’).
These are:
Re 1.SUMMARY OF APPLICATION (please see p.20 in the Report)
The scheme is community-led and has very significant community
involvement –a key element of the proposal. This is not mentioned in the
summary.
Under ‘Other Issues, Pre-application advice’ (p20).

Correction. The Report stated that advice was given that the
‘significant negative environmental impacts…….would outweigh any
positive benefits’.

In Fact the advice given was that ‘it is considered likely that the
negative environmental impacts of the proposals will be too significant
to outweigh these positive aspects [noted as community benefits;
renewable energy benefits]’
Re ‘Comment on Application’ (p21)

Omission. There is no consideration at all of the community nature or
community benefits of the scheme.

Note.The Habitats Assessment Regulations procedure (under the
Birds Directive) has not been properly undertaken and is incomplete.

Correction. It is stated that no need for the development is
demonstrated (this refers to the Birds Directive ‘derogation procedure).

In Fact there is evidence that incorrect criteria have been used by
Kirklees Planning which could materially affect the outcome. There
is no evidence in the Report that this assessment has been properly
carried out.

Correction. The Report stated that there are ‘other suitable sites for
the development’.

In Fact no supporting evidence has been put forward in the
Report, or in previous discussions, and we can reasonably conclude
there are no such sites

Apparently Kirklees Planning Service has not made a formal
assessment of need or done the required assessment of the viability of
any alternative sites. Contrary to UK Govt guidance, the applicant has
not been engaged in the process.
Re 3. PROPOSAL/ SITE DESCRIPTION (p21)

Correction. Distance given to the nearest residential property from the
nearest turbine (325 m) is incorrect.

In Fact correct distances are in the Environmental Statement (ES) This
has been pointed out previously: based on the property grid references
in the Report, correct distance to the nearest property is 392 m
Re 4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY (p23)

The work by Valley Wind Co-op, over a 4 year period, in seeking
suitable alternative sites, all as set out in the ES, is entirely omitted
Re 8. ASSESSMENT
Impact on visual amenity and landscape character (p50)

The Report states (p53) that a ‘review of the LVIA [Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment], submitted as part of the ES, was carried
out by Julie Martin Associates [JMA] and is endorsed by officers’

Omission- Valley Wind Co-op, liaising with the landscape architect
who wrote the LVIA, submitted to Kirklees Planning a detailed
response including a rebuttal of significant aspects of the JMA report
and of its major conclusion that there is no capacity for a wind
development at this scale in the area. No mention is made of this VW
response.

Note -Valley Wind have presented evidence that there exists an
opportunity for a development of up to 5 wind turbines in the
locality. The arguments are based on the same principle reference
source as cited in the JMA report

Note The case officer informed Valley Wind that their response was
not put to JMA for comment.

Omission Valley Wind’s response and conclusions appear to have
been entirely disregarded and in our opinion it is highly unsatisfactory
that there is no evidence in the Report of any examination of the
arguments.

Omission Similarly with the response to the comments from the Peak
District National Park Authority.

Omission The Report quotes extensively (pp 53-59) from the Julie
Martin assessment. Many of these points are addressed in Valley
Wind’s response. They are not repeated here. As noted above, the
Valley Wind response appears to have been disregarded.
Recreational and amenity interests (p55)

Correction Again, distances to nearby dwellings are incorrect. Correct
distances are approximately 392 m to Watermans House, 395 m to
Reaps. Not 320m and 350m, as stated.
Visual effects (p57)

Corrrection Again, distances to nearby dwellings are incorrect, as
noted above
Effects on Ancillary Infrastructure (p 58)

Corrrection Factual errors in the JMA report are contained in this
section. The errors, notably the confusion of cable routes with access
track routes and consequent overstatement of possible impact, were
detailed in the Valley Wind Co-op response to the JMA report referred
to above
Summary (not headed, starts bottom of p58)

Disputed assertions of the JMA report are repeated without any
apparent assessment of the arguments. These are therefore opinions,
not evidence
Noise (p59)

Corrrection Distances to nearby dwellings are incorrect, as noted
above
Heritage and Archaeology (p60)

Corrrection Distance to a nearby dwelling is incorrect, as noted above

Note The Report states that ‘the impact to designated heritage
assets…….would not be significant’ and that ‘less than substantial
harm’ would be caused. It is then suggested that the harm ‘could be
offset by the public benefit provided by the development’.

Comment That is not a reasonable ‘allocation’ of the public benefit.
The public benefit is substantial, while the harm is acknowledged as
less than substantial. It is unusual for significant (or indeed any) offset
to be required where ‘less than substantial harm’ is caused
Ecology (p61)

Omission Valley Wind’s ecological consultants have presented
considerable evidence, both with the application and subsequently, to
support the position that there would be no ‘adverse impact on the
integrity’ of the South Pennines Special Protection Area ( SPA). This
was not cited in the Report

Comment Guidance over how to conduct the assessment under the
Birds Directive is contained in UK Government and EU documents and
would appear not to have been followed in some significant respects.
The process has also not been completed.

Comment Conclusions which appear to have been reached without
proper consideration of the facts are included in the Report.
Tourism and Leisure (p 64)

Backed up by study results and real-life examples, Valley Wind will put
forward oral evidence today that the development is not likely to have
a significant negative impact on tourism and leisure [in the event
consideration of the application was deferred to a later date so we did
not get an opportunity to speak. Valley Wind will submit this in writing]
Community Benefit (p65)

The Report states that, as Kirklees Council have not adopted a
suitable policy, no significant weight as a material planning
consideration is given to the fact that this is a community-led
initiative.

The Report states that the Community Fund is considered a
‘voluntary arrangement’, and therefore not a material planning
consideration, by the Report, and so given no weight in the
assessment of the application.

Comment Valley Wind Co-op have recently made a formal offer to
Kirklees Council of a Section 106 agreement to include the Community
and Neighbour Fund amounts, should the application be approved.
Please see separate spreadsheet ‘Planned Economic Benefit’ for detail

Note: The Fund amounts would therefore be binding on Valley
Wind Co-op

Correction Please note that returns to Kirklees and Colne Valley
investors referred to in the Report are, as Valley Wind have previously
indicated to Kirklees Planning, estimates only.
Conclusion (p 70)
Re the Green Belt
 It is stated in the Report that it is considered that the benefits from
renewable energy would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm to the
Green Belt.

A Wind turbine of around 30-35m high will have a very much lower
output of renewable energy (typically, only 3% to 4%) than each 100m
turbine on the Valley Wind application.

These smaller turbines, despite their very much lower output, have
previously been considered by Kirklees Planning to override harm to
the Green Belt, and have been approved (eg application nos
2012/90540 at Scammonden; 2011/90818 at Scapegoat Hill).

Therefore, in relation to previous planning decisions, the Report’s
recommendation appears inconsistent.
Re Landscape and Visual impact
 Valley Wind have submitted evidence that the conclusions of the Julie
Martin Associates report, relied on by Kirklees Planning, are, in some
material respects, not well-founded. Notably that the area is
necessarily ‘highly sensitive to wind development’ and that ‘it has no
capacity for wind turbines’, in the area of the proposal.

Valley Wind suggest there is in fact a ‘capacity opportunity’ for a
wind farm, of up to 5 turbines, in the area, as noted in the Julie
Martin Associates Landscape Capacity Study.
Re the South Pennines Special Protection Area
 Valley Wind Co-op have submitted extensive evidence from their
ornithological consultants to demonstrate that there would be no likely
significant adverse effect on the SPA’s integrity.

The derogation procedure under the Birds Directive, which the
‘competent authority’ (Kirklees council) has a duty to do, has not
been completed.
Re 9. RECOMMENDATION:-Refuse
Comment: The Report’s inaccuracies and omissions and other
points, as noted above, could materially affect all 5 reasons given for
refusal.
Valley Wind Coop 17092014 V2 19092014