Stonewall Hill Conservation
Group
Objection to P/2012/0573
Site Access Track to Llanshay Lane and Highways
Improvements to the Reeves Hill Wind Farm
to accompany professional reports:
Initial Planning Objection
Ian Kelly
LVIA Review
Mark Steele
Impact on Stanage Park
Christopher Gallagher
Impact on Offa’s Dyke
Keith Ray
Ecology and Bats
Steve Lomax/Mytosmart
Energy contribution
John Constable
Drs C and S Hugh-Jones
Cooks House
Stonewall Hill
Norton
Presteigne
Powys
LD8 2HA
We are grateful for the generous help with the material in this report from many SHCG
supporters
17th October 2014
INDEX
1. INTRODUCTION
2. BRIEF PLANNING HISTORY
3. THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT
4. THE APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAYS CONSTRUCTION IN POWYS
4.1. The Windfarm conditions are not consistent with the Access application
4.2. The Access application omits some construction and some red-line planning
boundaries in Powys
4.2.1. Road Widening
4.2.2. Site entrances
4.2.3. Gradient problems
4.3. Windfarm Cable Trenches
4.4. The Grid Connection is not discussed
5. MSC LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT
6. CULTURAL HERITAGE
6.1. Stanage
6.2. Offa’s Dyke
7. PUBLIC ACCESS: PROWS AND MINOR ROADS
7.1. Stonewall Hill Road & Llanshay Lane
8. ECOLOGY
9. HYDROLOGY
10. NOISE
11. ACCESS & WINDFARM CONSTRUCTION
11.1. Before Permitted Windfarm Development begins
11.2. Trial run
11.3. Vehicle movements and duration of disturbance
12. PUBLIC OPINION
13. CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
1. List of SHCG Professional Reports
2. Conditons Attached to Herefordshire Permission
3. Ecological Constraint Timetable
4. Stanage Felling Licence
5. Survey of Support and Objection Letters on Powys Website
6. Abbreviations Used.
2
Photograph
1. View from Stonewall Hill Road, Site Entrance 3. to Skyrid 40 miles away
(Gareth Rees-Roberts)
2. July View from Llanshay Lane to Clee Hill (Gareth Rees-Roberts)
3. Springtime Verges of Stonewall Hill Road near Site Entrance
3
4. Files of Objection Letters to DCNW2008/1289/F
5. Cycling Group from all over England on Stonewall Hill by National Cycle
Route 825 with Site of Turbine 4 Behind (October 2014)
4
6. Rector Finds Solace on Stonewall Hill (Presteigne Parish Magazine
November 2012)
5
6b Readable Version
6
1. INTRODUCTION
This is a complex planning application with a 7-year history.
Stonewall Hill Conservation Group (SHCG) has always argued that both
Herefordshire Council (Herefordshire) and Powys County Council (Powys)
should have considered a single proposal for the whole development including
wind turbines, infrastructure, access construction works, and grid connection.
Instead the proposal was split into 'Windfarm' in Herefordshire and 'Access' in
Powys. This strategy to deprive Powys of any authority to decide about the wind
farm has also created discrepancies, confusion and gaping holes in the
information.
SHCG believes that Powys would suffer the greater negative impact of the wind
turbines due to the more open character of the Powys landscape, the location of
the immediate access on Stonewall Hill in Powys and the much greater local
population in Powys. In terms of common justice, Powys should still have the
opportunity to consider the impacts of the whole development even though
Herefordshire has granted permission for the parts in their area. However we
acknowledge that Powys is obliged to adopt an approach that can be defended at
appeal or in case of legal challenge.
If Herefordshire’s existing permission means that, in terms of planning law,
Powys can only consider this validated application for access construction as a
stand-alone development (even though any reasonable person would recognise
that it isn’t one), then Powys must consider the combined cumulative impacts on
Powys of Reeves Hill Wind Farm (RHWF) and the Access development. This is
the approach implicit in the Powys Scoping Opinion.
A Screening Direction from WAG emphasising Cultural Heritage has ensured
that P/2012/0573 requires an EIA. Powys has issued a wide-ranging Scoping
Opinion covering other topics besides Cultural Heritage. Powys has not yet
indicated how the impacts of the parts of the whole development (RHWF, access
arrangements and grid connection) will be given weight in the planning balance.
The Developer’s planning approach is muddled and inconsistent. He argues that:
 Herefordshire’s permission for the windfarm constrains Powys to
approve access,
but also
 positive impacts of the wind turbines justify permission for
access arrangements,
and yet
 negative impacts of the wind turbines are irrelevant in the
planning decision,
nevertheless
7

considerable effort is dedicated to proving that the turbines have
no significant negative impacts on cultural heritage (see revised
Access ES Ch. 6 on Cultural Heritage) .
SHCG has engaged professional Landscape and Planning experts. Their reports
identify ambiguities in both the WAG screening decision and the Powys scoping
advice but, faced with the description and content of the validated Planning
Application, they have addressed the Access as a stand-alone development.
Their full conclusions are set out in the LVIA Assessment Review and Planning
Objection. Their main points are:




this application is for highways works, which contravene Powys
UDP;
the highways works are not adequately described;
together with the permitted RHWF and grid access, these highway
works would also have significant negative cumulative landscape and
visual impacts in Powys;
the contribution of wind energy to national energy, emissions targets
and UK energy security as well as the Developer’s community
benefit donations are irrelevant to the determination of this
application.
SHCG has also commissioned professional reports from a Historic Landscape
Consultant and an Archaeologist specialising in Offa’s Dyke. These reports
address the combined impacts of the interdependent parts of the whole
development (Access and Windfarm) on the two outstanding local examples of
Cultural Heritage: Stanage Park and Offa’s Dyke (see Sections 6.1 & 6.2 below)
In the present report, SHCG:
 adds background information and significant detail to discussions in
the reports;
 extends the cumulative analysis to topics not considered in the reports;
 submits a further expert report from The Renewable Energy
Foundation (REF); about the contribution of RHWF to energy needs,
national emissions targets and UK energy security. The REF report
will be relevant only if Powys gives weight to energy policy in
determining the application for access.
2. BRIEF PLANNING HISTORY
2.1.
The application to Herefordshire was for four 105m turbines and
infrastructure. The turbine bases are just 105 metres from Stonewall Hill Road, in
Powys, which provides the only possible access. It was clear from the outset that
the Developer and Herefordshire would manoeuvre to avoid Powys getting any
opportunity to refuse the windfarm. As early as 2007, residents wrote to Powys
'We have major concerns about this project which seems to be by-passing Welsh
planning procedures.'
2.2
Powys Planning Committee voted (unanimous with one abstention) to
recommend refusal on the grounds of significant negative impacts on Powys.
8
Herefordshire refused the Powys Head of Regeneration and Development
permission to speak at the subsequent planning meeting for determination.
Herefordshire, no doubt eager to approve a wind farm conveniently situated on
the remote, sparsely populated Welsh border, advised their Planning Committee
that the need for renewable energy outweighed all negative impacts. The wind
farm was approved with conditional consent issued on 26th April 2012. The
Developer argues that the windfarm cannot be built without access in Powys and
so the existing permission for those parts of the development in Herefordshire
obliges Powys to approve the access.
2.3.
Before their first RHWF determination meeting in 2009, the Developer
and Herefordshire were well aware that the site entrance plans presented in May
2008 (Windfarm ES Vol. 3) would not be acceptable to Powys. This was
confirmed at their meeting with the Developer, Herefordshire and Powys in July
2008, and included in the 2008 version of the Royal Haskoning Construction
Traffic Management Plan (CTMP v.1) Appx A. Minutes of Meeting 17.7.08.
Nevertheless, 4 years later, Herefordshire approved an unacceptable site layout
plan. This plan does not match the plans in P/2012/0573. P/2012/0573 is a poorly
presented application submitted with the explicit intention of securing permission
for access and then altering the permission from Herefordshire via a Section 73
application. This would require changing conditions and changing the
Herefordshire 'approved plans'. We do not know whether this is legitimate
within the scope of a Section 73 application (See Appx. 2: Conditions).
2.4.
The Developer is under time pressure because construction of the
windfarm in Herefordshire must begin before Permission expires on 26th April
2015. Development cannot begin before Herefordshire approves new plans for
RHWF and access construction in Powys and a trial turbine delivery run is
completed.
3. THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT
3.1.
As noted by our consultants, the application is not transparent in
addressing the full extent of access works. These are:
 the new access track,
 road widening and passing places up Llanshay Lane and Stonewall
Hill Road,
 cable trenches over Stonewall Hill Road (possibly also down
Llanshay Lane for grid connection),
 site entrances 1 & 3 (possibly a portion of swept path for entrance
2).
Nor does the Developers discuss the combined impact with the full extent of
the windfarm works in Herefordshire which include- turbines, over 500m of
tracks to the turbines, substation, anemometer, cable trenches, temporary
construction compound, storage bund and parking. These impacts are
particularly devastating for highly sensitive receptors on Stonewall Hill
Road.
9
3.2.
Where convenient, the Developer treats the application as if it were
only for the new access road between the A4113 and Llanshay Farm. Thus
the Planning Statement claims 'the two parts of the site are in different
landscape character types', and 'the geographical relationship between the
access route and the wind turbine site is such that once the wind farm has
been built there is no longer any contextual relationship between the two main
elements of the development'. Again, Access ES 1.4.1 says 'the border with
England is located just a few kilometres away to the east of the proposed
development'. In fact a significant portion of the development is on the
England/Wales border contiguous with the windfarm site and functionally related
to it since the site entrances lead across the border directly into the turbine tracks.
3.3.
The assessment of road 'improvements' is piecemeal. The environmental
impact of each so-called passing place is considered in isolation. The sequential
impact of these over a 4 km stretch, together with the impact of site entrances
and the combined cumulative impact of industrial elements of the wind farm
project, is not properly addressed.
4. THE APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAYS CONSTRUCTION IN POWYS
4.1.
The Windfarm conditions are not consistent with the Access
application
4.1.1. Condition 1 of the RHWF Permission says:
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the
particulars of the development, plans, specifications constructed in
accordance with the following plans:
Site boundary plan dated September 2011 - date stamped Herefordshire
Council 9th September 2011……. and the Environmental Statement in
support of the application dated May 2008, Supplementary Environmental
Report dated October 2008 and Further Supplementary Environmental
Information dated October 2010.
The plan submitted to Powys with the Decision Notice (Powys web site (ws.)
reference 31076750) is not the original Approved Plan (i.e. the site boundary
plan date-stamped Herefordshire Council 9 Sept. 2011 mentioned in Condition 1
of this Decision Notice). The principle difference is that the 9 Sept. 2011 datestamped 'approved plan' erroneously includes land that has been withdrawn
within the site boundary. Neither plan shows the application site boundary
clearly outlined in red. Furthermore, neither plan shows the 'access, turning
area and parking facilities shown on the approved plan' referred to in
Condition 23.
4.1.2. There are no relevant plans of site entrances in Windfarm ES: those
in Vol. 3 figs 7, 8 and 9 are not perpendicular. The plan submitted to Powys,
dated simply 'September 2011' and with no Developer's plan reference,
10
shows the entrance to T3 moved into Herefordshire but much further from
the Stonewall Hill Road junction than the position shown in Accesss ES Fig.
5.14. Also this plan does not show that some site entrance development is in
Powys and oustide the Herefordshire site boundary. There is no detailed plan
showing the entrance to T3. The Access ES plans show perpendicular
entrances but not how these relate to the turbines.
4.1.3. Condition 19 requires 60m visibility splays. The site entrance
visibility splays shown in the Access ES are 45m in either direction.
4.2.
4.2.1.
The Access application omits some construction and some red-line
planning boundaries in Powys
Road Widening
4.2.1.1. The Access ES says nothing about widening although the Developer
knows full well that widening is needed: 'Widening will be required
primarily along some parts of Llanshay Lane with very little requirement for
widening on the Reeves Hill Road' (email 18.1.11 cited in EA site visit
report). Also, the 2011 version of the Royal Haskoning Construction Traffic
Management Plan (CTMP v.2) 4.3.5 says 'Highway improvement works are
required along nearly the full length of Llanshay Lane in order to enable the
AVLs to access the construction sites' (P/2012/0573, PWS ref. 2030443).
Here 'Llanshay Lane' means Stonewall Hill Road as well as Llanshay Lane
proper (see 7.1.1 below).
4.2.1.2. CTMP v.2 4.3.5 is wrong in describing 'Llanshay Lane' as 'a rural
minor road with a road width of 3.5m – 5.0m'. Parts of the Llanshay
Lane/Stonewall Hill Road access are under 3 metres wide (see detailed
measurements by Gareth Rees-Roberts (letter of 21.06.12; Powys ws. ref.
2090515)
4.2.1.3. CTMPv2011 differentiates between 'Widening and strengthening of
the carriage way with associated enabling works where necessary to
accommodate the turbine delivery vehicles' and 'The creation of passing
places to enable any other traffic that meets the ALVs to pass'.
4.2.1.4. Access ES 5.3.1 & 5.3.2 says: 'To accommodate two-way traffic
along what is a fairly narrow lane, 14 passing places will be constructed
alongside the existing road through slight widening of the existing highway.
During construction of the Reeves Hill Wind Farm, the passing places will
allow construction vehicles to give local residents priority of movement
along the highway'.
4.2.1.5. But the ALV 'passing places' shown in Access ES 2014 Figs 5.11,
5.12 & 5.13 are mainly road widenings and not there to accommodate twoway traffic. They allow the ALVs to manoeuvre narrow bends, the most
blatant examples being the amalgamation of CVPP 1 with ALVPP 5 and
CVPP 5 with ALVPP 7. Passing places should not be on bends and there is
no gain in tacking a CVPP onto an AVLPP, other than road widening.
11
4.2.1.6. In any case, CTMP v.2 4.2.8 makes it clear that the roads would be
closed to the public for ALV deliveries. 'On single two-way carriageways the
opposing traffic flows will only be able to pass a 5m wide AWLVs if a width
of more than 8m is available. For carriageways of less than 8m width it will
be necessary to close the road and divert opposing traffic flows. Likewise,
following traffic flows would not be able to overtake on carriage ways less
than 8m width'. Stonewall Hill Road and much of Llanshay Lane are too
narrow for any opposing vehicles to pass. Most of the ALVPPs only achieve
an 8m width for a 25m stretch and so are not long enough for most AVLs to
turn in and out (see CTMPv2011Appx E for transporter lengths). Therefore
the roads will have to be closed. There are three junctions (Reeves Lane,
Lingen Road, Killhorse Lane) between the bottom of Llanshay Lane and
Stocking Hill, and so through traffic would have to be diverted from points
much further afield.
4.2.1.7. If construction vehicles, including cranes with a wheelbase of 3m,
require the new access road and the turbine tracks to be 4.5m - 5m wide, how
can public road widths of less than 3m be considered sufficient for the same
traffic? By judicious placing of fictitious 'passing places' with discrete red
line boundaries on strategic bends in Access ES fig 5.11, the Developer has
sought to convince Powys that 'road widening' is not needed at all. But
CTMP v.2, which is also submitted as part of the application, shows the same
plans in fig. 4.2 with the application site boundary along the entire road
from Llanshay Farm to site entrance 3. This contradicts the application
site boundaries in the Access ES. But there may be even more road widening,
in addition to that applied for. CTMP v.2 6.4.7 says 'further small passing
places can be created at between (sic.) the three site accesses to ease the passing
of construction traffic between the site compound and the turbine sites if required
by the main contractor'.
4.2.1.8. There are no detailed swept path analyses for the turbine transporters
and cranes up Llanshay Lane and over Stonewall Hill. Indeed Access ES Vol. 2
Figs say '50m swept path to be checked'!. Swept path plans would no doubt
confirm that many so-called 'passing places' are just there to ease non-negotiable
pinch-points and reveal whether even these are enough to allow components of a
turbine model with 'worst case scenario' dimensions to pass.
4.2.1.9. In Access ES figs 5.12 & 5.13, the alterations and application site
extend beyond the plan-window for four of the 'passing places', so their
extent is unknown and the red-line boundaries cannot be quantified. For
those that are shown in full, the existing road and verge widths are not
quantified and the plans are marked 'do not scale'. We cannot see the proper
dimensions of the proposed alterations.
4.2.1.10.There are no details of drainage for the widened areas of road and
very possibly no verge space left to accommodate drainage (see Hydrology)
4.2.1.11. The Developer considers all the above to be 'less than 500 metres'
affected by 'very moderate widening' (Phillips Dulas to Powys 11 Sept. 2014.
12
Powys ws. 31263607). There are over 700m of alterations with lengths of
application site amounting to 1000m or more in which further damage may
be done. 14 areas of hard standing up to 60m or more long and up to 6m wide
on narrow country lanes over a distance of 4km are not 'minor alterations'
and they would have a devastating impact on the character of the lanes. The
application is deceitful in presenting road widening for the Developer’s
benefit as 'passing places' and accident prevention measures for the public
benefit. The Developer would evidently regard permission as carte blanche
to do whatever was expedient. SHCG considers it inevitable that much
widening and destruction of verges and banks would take place outside the
inadequate red-line areas shown.
4.2.2.
Site entrances
4.2.2.1. There are no swept path analyses for the site entrances, for the entrance
to the new access track from the A4113, or for its junction with Llanshay Lane.
Without these, the overrun areas cannot be calculated. The details of these site
entrances and overrun areas are vague with respect to materials, drainage and
reinstatement. If they were reinstated, once construction was complete, they
would have to be reconstructed in case of turbine replacements and
decommissioning.
4.2.2.2. Condition 8 says: 'The turbines shall be located in the positions shown
on the approved plans' therefore there is no micrositing allowance for the
turbines. This suggests that, to achieve a perpendicular entrance with the
track arriving at T4, site entrance 3 must be moved south. The information
does not show exactly where it would be, the width of the verge, or how
much stone wall would be destroyed.
4.2.3.
Gradient problems
4.2.3.1. Windfarm Permission Condition 22 says the access must be
constructed at a gradient not greater than 1 in 12. The gradient of the new
access road in the Access application exceeds this being 16% or 1 in 6.25.
4.2.3.2. CTMP v.1 6.4.7 cites 'banking works to enable the LVA’s to pass
unobstructed by the steep banks either side of the carriageway' and 'retaining
walls where necessary to accommodate the widening and banking works'.
These details have been edited out of the CTMP v.2 submitted to Powys.
The topography of Llanshay Lane has not changed between 2008 and 2011
and there are only two dimensions shown in 'passing place' plans. We can
only suppose that the Developer is anxious not to draw attention to any
cutting into banks.
4.2.3.3. For the new access road, Access ES Vol. 2 fig 5.1 shows there will
be at least 3 metres of cut and fill at chainage 470.000 (where some of the
values are conveniently missing) and it is not clear how a level entrance to
Llanshay Lane will be a achieved (chainage 570.000 onwards).
4.3.
Windfarm Cable Trenches
13
There is no indication of the 'internal windfarm' cable trenches that are part
of the windfarm infrastructure and which would be required for cables
connecting the turbines to the substation. The ES claims these would
probably run along the Powys road (Access ES 3.3.4.1) and, with withdrawal
of the middle parcel of site-land, cabling in Powys is the only option. The
cable trenches would require works on at least an extra 0.5m of eastern verge
for over 1km between Site Entrance 1 and Site Entrance 3. These cables and
trenches are an integral element in the 'site layout' and form part of 'the
Windfarm' rather than 'the Access'. They are in Powys and outside the
Herefordshire wind farm site boundary. They have not been applied for and
they make nonsense of the red application lines around discrete passing
places.
4.4.
The Grid Connection is not discussed
The Powys scoping request required discussion of the grid connection under
multiple headings. The fact that this is subject to separate application under
section 36 of the Electricity Act is no excuse for failing to consider the
cumulative impacts of the two options already identified. The most likely is
underground (or so the Developer promises) export down Llanshay Lane to
Knighton. This has implications for the current application because it needs
extra road verge allowance, which may not be available, and would involve
yet more incursion into verges and banks and habitat destruction. Cable is
laid at the end of construction and therefore the whole length of Llanshay
Lane and Stonewall Hill Road north of site entrance 1 would be disrupted
twice.
5. MSC LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT
The principle findings are in the MSC Report from Mark Steele BA DipLD
CMLI.
The report concludes (5.2) that the application should be refused because:



the Access ES 2014 LIVA does not properly address the WAG
screening direction or Powys scoping opinion;
The project would cause significant adverse effects directly on the
landscape fabric and on recreational users of Llanshay Lane and
Stonewall Hill road;
In combination with the other integral parts of the windfarm, there
would be significant and cumulative adverse effects on landscape
character, the settings of Offa’s Dyke and Stanage Park, and on the
recreational users of Llanshay Lane/Stonewall Hill Road, National
Cycle Route 825, Offa’s Dyke and Glyndwr’s Way National Trails
and other local PROWs.
6. CULTURAL HERITAGE
6.1. Stanage
14
6.1.1. Christopher Gallagher LMLI, Historic Landscape Consultant.
The principle findings are in his report which concludes that the assessment
is fundamentally flawed and deficient in a number of respects:





it is apparently based on an incorrect understanding of the extent of
the Cadw Registered Park & Garden at Stanage Park and its distance
from the development
in assessing the likely impacts of these developments on Stanage
Park, it utilises an inappropriate methodology and ignores the
specific and targeted guidance available
its conclusions are based on an over-reliance of the use of ‘matrices’
as an analytical tool
it relies on an inadequate and limiting interpretation of the concept of
setting
it fails properly to consider the cumulative effects of the two
proposed developments on Stanage Park.
6.1.2. Neither the ASIDOHL 2 (2007) methodology used in Access ES
Section 6 February version nor the methodology from the Design Manual of
Roads and Bridges (2009) Vol. ll which replaced it in Section 6 April version
is appropriate. The April version arrived at a decreased negative impact and
this would seem to be the motivation for the revision. Appropriate guidance
is published by CADW, English Heritage and GLIVA (2002 and 2013).
6.1.3
Keith Ray’s report (see below) also concludes that the effects on
Stanage Park are much more serious than indicated in the Access ES.
6.1.4. The Developer advised Powys (2.10.12 email M.Phillips of Dulas to G.
Davis, Powys Planning) that 'this listed park and garden were addressed in the
Reeves Hill WF application and EIA'. This is not true. The only reference to
Stanage Park is in the Windfarm ES Vol. 2. 4.5.6.5, which says: 'There are two
(registered parks and gardens) within a 10km radius. As views would not be seen
from either of these two parks and gardens, no further assessment work has
been undertaken'. Windfarm ES Appendix 11. Effects on Cultural Heritage
7.1.20 Table 4.2B Assessment of Indirect Effects on SAMs (sic) reproduced
below contains an entry which misnames Stanage and appears to confuse the
'setting' of Stanage Park House, which is the Park itself, with the 'setting' of the
Grade l listed Stanage Park, which is the rural countryside containing the wind
farm site. The conclusion is that there is 'no impact.
15
PGR
Distance and
direction
from the site
Strange
Park (sic)
2.4-.6km NE
Impact on views
Impact on Setting
Impact on Value
of Feature
No views of PGR
and turbines
from any
public vantage
point. Park
located in
tight valley.
PGR setting
contained within
woodland where
views of features
within the park
boundary are contained by trees
and
woodland.
Development
outside of setting.
No Impact
6.1.5. The reality us very different. Our consultants Mark Steele and
Christopher Gallagher point out that the ZTVs show that turbines, sometimes
all 4, will be visible from Stanage Park. The visibility will increase as
ornamental woodland is thinned or commercial woodland felled. Visibility
from Park Bank Wood has already increased during 2014. The current
Stanage Estate Woodlands Licence for 2011 to 2016 is included in Appx. 4
Stanage Felling Licences.
Offa’s Dyke
6.2.
6.2.1. Keith Ray MA PhD MBE FSA MIfA, Director Nexus Heritage has
provided a report on Offa's Dyke.
The principle findings are that the Developer's assessment:





presents a narrowly defined visibility analysis ignoring the
'setting' of Offa’s Dyke;
ignores significant sightlines from the Dyke outside Powys in
Shropshire and from important hill forts in Herefordshire;
claims, without evidence, that the important sightlines from the
Dyke look West, ignoring those looking East from the Dyke and
from the Welsh side, including those to the prominent Reeves Hill
ridge (demonstrated in the text and author’s photographs);
uses a mechanical reliance on distance to discount significant
negative visual impact on parts of Offa’s Dyke over 5km away
from Reeves Hill
underestimates the significant (major or considerable) impact of
the turbines on a stretch of Dyke around Hawthorn Hill where
there is also a designated picnic site from which windfarm site
entrances and turbine tracks would be highly visible;
16


neglects the historical continuity of the broader Offa’s Dyke
corridor in the Knighton – Presteigne area and the major negative
impact represented by an intrusive industrial project;
underestimates the negative impact on the amenity of Offa’s Dyke
National Trail.
6.2.2. Herefordshire did not give full consideration to the impact of the wind
farm on Offa’s Dyke. In 2008, the Herefordshire County Archaeologist
recommended refusal of application DCNW2008/1289/F for RHWF on the
grounds of the negative impact on the setting of Offa's Dyke. However, the
Herefordshire Case Officer's Report 4.38 argued that the section of Offa’s Dyke
closest to Reeves Hill Windfarm is not in Herefordshire therefore, 'in
relationship to the County of Herefordshire a recommendation for refusal could
not be argued on archaeological issues alone'.
7.
PUBLIC ACCESS: PROWS AND MINOR ROADS
The MSC report addresses Public Rights of Way, Public Roads, the sensitivity of
recreational users and residents, and the Developer’s cavalier dismissal of the
visual impact of road modifications in a traditional rural setting. The importance
of all these factors was emphasised in two recent Welsh Planning Inspector’s
Appeal reports. In 2013, Inspector Alwyn Nixon refused Pentre Tump
Windfarm, 3 turbines also located on an isolated ridge and, in 2014, Inspector
Kay Sheffield refused the 79m turbine on Llan Wen, 2 km from Reeves Hill
Windfarm site.
7.1.
Stonewall Hill Road & Llanshay Lane
7.1.1. Stonewall Hill Road was the elephant in the room throughout the
RHWF application. Even though the Developer is now applying for construction
on this very road, it is still the elephant in the room. In the application, Stonewall
Hill is 'Reeves Hill' and Stonewall Hill Road, synonymous with Stonewall Hill in
the public mind, is 'Llanshay Lane' or 'Reeves Hill Road'. Mention of the
character of the road and its value as public amenity is scrupulously avoided.
7.1.2. Windfarm ES Vol2 4.4.4.3 says 'the England/Wales border runs along
an unclassified road about 200m to the west of the turbines. This is contradicted
by Windfarm ES Vol3 fig 4 clearly showing the turbines only 105m from both
the border and road (which are actually separated by a verge of varying width).
This error is a typical example of the many that invariably overestimate distances
in order to diminish predicted impacts.
7.1.3. The Windfarm ES (2008) 3.2.2.4 misleadingly describes Stonewall Hill
Road as 'not a through route' that 'appears to serve the local farming
community'. This is a through road with no less than three junctions and both
17
farming and non-farming residents depend on the minor road network to get to
Presteigne, Knighton and elsewhere.
7.1.4. The public traffic on Llanshay Lane/Stonewall Hill Road was
recorded during a 2½ hour survey 10.00am to 12.30pm on Wednesday Feb
6th 2008 (Windfarm ES 2008 Appx 7). It is difficult to think of a less
representational period from which to estimate year-round residential,
farming, delivery, and recreational use from 2015 onwards and yet the
original CTMP has been resubmitted to Powys with only a few cosmetic
changes.
7.1.5. Powys asked the developer to assess the cumulative landscape and
visual impact of the access construction and RHWF. In the Access ES (2014),
the LVIA for road modification is limited to impacts of tree and hedgerow
alterations and, even then, only considers the visual impact on a moderate
sensitivity car-driver. Modifications to Llanshay Lane and Stonewall Hill Road
are omitted from the discussion of PROWs and the CTMP is limited to
construction traffic arrangements. The public use of Stonewall Hill Road and
Llanshay Lane overlaps with that of PROWs and part of Stonewall Hill Road is a
B.O.A.T. N1122 (Carlton Parry, Powys Rights of Way Officer 19.07.2012
Powys ws. 2112781). Stonewall Hill Road is the 'back road between Knighton
and Presteigne, an essential highway serving farm traffic and adjacent rural
settlements, but it is also the only way along this border ridge available to
walkers, horse riders, cyclists, sightseers and leisure motorists. National Cycle
Route 825 follows Stonewall Hill Road and Llanshay Lane. At site entrance 1, a
bridleway veers northwards off the road to meet Reeves Lane opposite the
junction with Pitts Lane.
7.1.6. Both Windfarm ES and Access ES completely ignore the magnificent
views and public amenity status of Stonewall Hill Road. The views are
(clockwise through 360°) to the Malvern Hills, Black Mountains, Brecon
Beacons, Radnor Forest, Offa’s Dyke on Hawthorn Hill, and turning into
Llanshay Lane, the upper Teme Valley with the Beacon and hills of the
Shropshire AONB, and the lower Teme valley with Clee Hill.
7.1.7. Stonewall Hill Road is a favourite walk for immediate residents and
local people from Presteigne, Stapleton, Norton, Knighton and beyond. Both
national and international visitors to the area come to enjoy it. A number of local
people have commented that this remote, tranquil road with its wide views is a
place of solace, visited at times of stress or personal loss to escape everyday life
and think things over. Older people say they come to remember the rural past.
The Powys 2008 Officer’s report to the Planning Committee recommending
refusal of the windfarm application applies equally to the ES before Powys in
2014.
18
'From the public response however it is clear that, for the majority of those who
have made representations, Reeves Hill is a special place, arguably unique on the
Welsh / English Border for having a road defining that boundary from which it is
possible to get extensive views of the Marches and into Wales. It is also a vantage
point which is accessible by car and therefore able to offer an experience to
young and old alike whatever their level of physical ability. In the view of the
writer the failure to address this in the Environmental Statement is a fundamental
flaw.
7.1.8. Astonishingly, National Cycle Route 825 is not even mentioned in
Access ES (2014) although the proposed highway works are along 5km of this
route, which will require closure during construction. NCR 825 'is almost
a circular cycle route around the old county of Radnorshire. The route follows a
mixture of country lanes, river valleys, traffic-free trails and mountain roads,
offering spectacular views of some of Mid Wales' most spectacular scenery'
(www.sustrans.org.uk/route/route-825). Offa’s Dyke is listed as a main attraction
along the route. Cycling is encouraged by both WAG planning guidance and
Powys UDP and in a new cycling initiative of the Walking with Offa project
designed to attract outdoor leisure tourism to the Offa’s Dyke corridor.
7.1.9. It is worth noting that, in her conclusion refusing the Bowdler Farm
turbine appeal (para 59), Inspector Kay Sheffield gave 'some limited weight' to
the impact of the Bowdler Farm turbine on riders using Llanwen Lane.
Horseriding carried some weight even though Lllanwen Lane is not a designated
bridleway (compare the designated B.O.A.T and bridleway on Stonewall Hill)
and only one much smaller turbine was at issue
7.1.10. The British Horse Society warns of the dangers of moving blades,
moving shadows on roads, and turbine noise and strongly recommends that
'normally a minimum separation distance of 200m or three times blade tip height
(whichever is greater) will be required between a turbine and any route used by
horses,' adding that 'The fewer alternatives available, the more the impact on the
affected route should be mitigated by increasing separation distances,' and
'routes should not be closed to equestrians so as to facilitate construction.
Alternative construction traffic routes may be required.' (BHS Advice on Wind
Turbines and Horses: Guidance for Planners and Developers 2013).
7.1.11. Windfarm ES Vol. 2. 10.3.9 says the separation for the road,
following PPS 22, is fall-over + 10% (116m) and separation for the
bridleway is 110m. Windfarm ES Vol. 3 fig 4, shows the actual separation
distances. The buffer zones for bridleway WE15 is 116m and for Stonewall Hill
Road only 105m, or minimal fall-over distance (assuming the turbines are not
106m as stated elsewhere).
7.1.12. The Developer acknowledges that Stonewall Hill Road is the
obligatory route for access to the stretch of bridleway from site entrance 1 to
19
Reeves Lane/Pitts Lane as noted in the Windfarm ES Vol. 2. 10.3.9 'there is no
continuation of the bridleway, users are expected to use the public road. The
recommended separation from highways (PPS 22) is fall-over +10m. It
would be nonsensical accommodate a greater separation distance from the
bridleway when turbines would only be fall-over +10m from the public road'.
Perversely, the ES uses the continuity between road and bridleway to justify
a reduced separation from the bridleway instead of an increased separation
from the road.
7.1.13. The turbines are too close to Stonewall Hill Road. The cumulative
impact on recreational users of Stonewall Hill and Llanshay Lane, whether
walkers, cyclists, horse-riders or car users, would be highly significant. They
would experience a whole series of unsightly highway constructions along
Llanshay Lane, and then along Stonewall Hill Road, with road widening,
compaction and loss of verges. Simultaneously, they would see the wide
industrial, gated site entrances, turbine tracks, substation and anemometer as well
as the overbearing proximity of the four turbines. Giant moving blade-shadows
would disturb the road for the early part of every sunny morning, as would the
flicker of reflected light (not to be confused with shadow-flicker) at other sunny
times. The turbines would be an overwhelming presence with their blade-tips
sometimes revolving only 70m away from the road, the gearbox and blade noise
and variable velocity of the blades adding to the disturbance.
7.1.14. During construction, there would be months of traffic disruption,
construction noise, obstructions, delays and closures impacting on recreational
users of Stonewall Hill Road, Llanshay Lane and other minor roads and PROWs
in the surrounding area.
8.
ECOLOGY
SHCG has submitted a report by Steve Lomax, with a professional bat survey, on
the implications of RHWF on bats and birds (Powys ws. 2997196 )
8.1.
The 2007 survey which identified the species present is now woefully
out of date. Since then, there has been a tragic decline in many UK species, with
habitat destruction playing a major role. The original data omitted many bird
species common in the area at the time and did not pay proper attention to bat
roosts. The suuplementary Autumn bat survey (Herefordshire Officer's Report
06.09.2012: 6.5.3) never reached the public domain. One positive change since
2007 has been the increase in red-kites but unfortunately these would be at risk
of blade-strike.
8.2.
There is insufficient information to gauge the likely loss of road-side
verges. The assessment in Access ES Ch. 8. is limited to the new track and
discrete so-called 'passing places' and confined to the season of the survey. You
would never guess, for instance, that these lanes are full of bluebells and there
are wild daffodils on Stonewall Hill Road. The cumulative ecological damage
resulting from access construction and the wind farm project will be significant.
Furthermore, the ecological damage and species displacement from heavy traffic
20
and ground disturbance during the extended construction period will impact on
the whole Access area as well as the Windfarm area.
8.3.
A compilation of the ecological constraints on the timing of
construction (see 11.1.4 below) shows that these important protective measures
would significantly delay the project. Given the developer’s time constraints and
the cost of compliance, it is likely that the prohibitions will be watered down to a
degree where they lose all effect or they will just be ignored.
9.
HYDROLOGY
9.1.
The developer has not considered drainage for any of the access works
apart from some of the new road. There is no evidence of consultation with the
Environment Agency / NRW. Local roads and tracks on any incline become
rivers in times of heavy rainfall: downstream flooding is common and tracks to
farms and settlements are regularly washed away. The increase in hard standing
from the road modifications, including the site entrances with run-over areas,
will increase the run-off and have a cumulative impact with the hard standing
and ground compaction on the wind farm site. The run-off will be on the Powys
flanks of the ridge and largely go into the tributaries of Norton Brook and thence
the Lugg.
9.2.
The developer has still not identified the private water supplies (PWS)
and springs which rely on the aquifer under the turbine site, in spite of two lacklustre attempts to do so. There is no excuse for this as residents submitted a
comprehensive survey of PWS on both sides of the border to Herefordshire and
many of the springs not identified are shown on the OS 1.250,000 map.
9.3
The developer has not yet investigated the depth of the aquifer to
establish whether it would be breeched by the turbine foundations. The
Environment Agency (EA) report (3.2.11. M. Davies EA to P.Mullineux,
Herefordshire Case officer) following a site visit says although the risks are not
large they should be avoided.
.
 The site overlies a Secondary (A) aquifer which is 'a permeable strata
capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic
scale and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to
rivers'
 The aquifer is of 'high importance': the impact is 'significant':
mitigation measures are 'necessary';
 The details of the SHCG resident’s report on PWS are more accurate
than those of the Developer’s Hydrology Consultant and should be
obtained by the Developer;
 The 2010 Supplementary Environmental Report (SER) commits to a
program to confirm that spring lines are below the foundation bases;
 The SER proposes observation boreholes suggesting the collection of
baseline information during Autumn through to Spring to establish a
seasonal maximum water level prior to construction;
 The site visit confirmed SHCG's photographic evidence of extensive
downhill flooding;
21



Quantitative analysis for managing surface run-off is missing from the
Windfarm ES;
The EA would expect a 10% increase for peak rainfall intensity instead
of the 3.33% 'inclusive of climate change' figure supplied by the
Developer;
The EA suggested a planning condition to protect the environment and
private water supplies.
9.4.
Condition 13 of the Planning Permission is not quite the same as the
EA’s suggested condition.
The EA suggests:
'No part of the development permitted by this consent shall take place until a
scheme to identify and monitor water features (including but not limited to
springs, boreholes, and wells) is submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, having regard to the Environmental Statement and
Supplementary Environmental Information dated October 2010'.
Condition 13 says:
'Development shall not commence until a Private Water Supply Protection Plan
has been submitted by the operator and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The submitted details shall include the following:a. the identification of appropriate water features (including but not limited to
springs, boreholes and wells ) and location of water features to be monitored
including the proposed observation boreholes adjacent to each turbine
foundation, that are to be used for the monitoring of water flows and water
quality;
b. the method and nature of monitoring with subsequent provision of baseline
data to adequately characterize the flow regime and quality and quantity of
water provided by any private water supply that might be affected by the
development;…..'.
It does not insist that the Developer has regard to the SER, where the monitoring
of pre-construction boreholes through an Autumn and Spring is promised.
9.5.




We include this laborious level of detail for four important reasons:
The Access ES 1.4.3 erroneously informs Powys that 'this is
considered to be a non-aquifer, as defined by the Environment
Agency'
Condition 13 does not explicitly bind the developer to the bore-hole
monitoring promised in the 2008 SER
If development commences in the permitted time, before 26th April
2015, the 'Autumn through Spring' monitoring of aquifer level/under
ground water flow to protect PWS will not take place before
development commences: it is already too late to meet this
requirement
There has been no proper consideration of the drainage implications of
the access proposal. There would be cumulative combined impacts
with the wind farm proposal on water run-off, especially adjacent to
the site. There is no quantification of drainage arrangements for the
22
windfarm proposal. Access should not be approved in the absence of
all this information.
9.6.
Given the carelessness over PWS identification so far, residents are
very concerned about their drinking water. We are aware of documented cases of
both pollution and drying up of springs due to wind farm construction. We trust
the EA will oversee the 'PWS Protection plan' and the 'surface water and ground
water management plan' mentioned in conditions 13 & 14.
10.
NOISE
10.1.
Herefordshire accepted the Hayes McKenzie noise assessments.
Background noise assessment was made during a period of snow melt, full
watercourses and low wind, resulting in unfairly high noise allowances and a
poor range of data to support these. In this exceptionally quiet rural area wind
farm noise levels at properties between 500m and 1000m will probably
exceed ETSU-R-97 allowances.
10.2.
Powys residents would suffer the noise of construction and
construction traffic over a prolonged period and then be subjected to wind
farm noise for up to 25 years. This cumulative impact of the two projects
would have a significant negative impact on residential amenity in Powys
and on saleability of houses.
11.
ACCESS & WINDFARM CONSTRUCTION
In determining the access proposal, Powys should consider the negative
impact of noisy traffic movements on users of Llanshay Lane, Stonewall Hill
Road and nearby residents on both sides of the border. This disturbance of
the local amenity due to Access construction and subsequent use of the
access will be cumulative with the disturbance from construction on the
Windfarm site.
11.1.
Before Permitted Windfarm Development begins
11.1.1. The construction timetable is subject to Conditions set by the
Herefordshire Permission, the legal Section 106 Highways Agreement, and
the various ecological constraints.
11.1.2. Condition 22 states: 'Before any other works hereby approved are
commenced, the construction of the vehicular access shall be carried out
in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in
writing by Herefordshire and Powys County Councils as Local Planning
Authorities, at a gradient not steeper than 1 in 12'.
The Highways Agreement (Schedule 3) also says that the Landowner(s) must
not 'commence Development or cause or permit the commencement of
Development' until:
23
'a suitable access road from the A4113 to the Development and public
highway improvements in the vicinity of the Development are completed to
the written satisfaction of the Council and the Authorities. ('The
Development' is defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 56(4)
and the Authorities are Powys and Shropshire) and a 'trial run of the
Transportation of the Abnormal Loads' is completed.
Permission Conditions 23 & 25 also require 'access, turning area and
parking facilities shown on the approved plan' and 'parking for site
operatives and visitors' to be complete before Development begins.
11.1.3. Therefore it would seem that first, all access in Powys must be
completed, then the trial run and on-site construction-related facilities must
be completed, before Development begins. Other obligations must be met
before development begins: scheme for interference (C5); scheme for
lighting (C10); PWS protection plan (C13); surface water and ground water
management plan (C14); method statement for timetable for protected
species (C16); scheme and timetable for long-term monitoring of protected
and/or notable species (C17); full habitat enhancement and management
scheme based on the ES and SER (C18); wheel cleaning apparatus scheme
and provision (C24); travel plan (C26); details of turbine model and
specifications (C27); scheme for avoiding any shadow flicker at nearby
properties (C30); appointment of a contact-person to liaise with the Authority
and local residents about nuisance and noise (C38); before 'turbine-related
construction' begins there must be visibility splays (C19).
11.1.4. Windfarm ES and Access ES also set out various ecological
constraints. Access ES 8.6.4 says 'For clarity, the mitigation measures referred
to above are now enshrined as conditions to the approved Reeves Hill Wind
Farm' implying that the Windfarm Permission Conditions governing ecology
should also be applied to Access construction in Powys. The prohibited
periods (red) and unconstrained periods (green) are summarised in Table
form, with details supplied in Appx. 3 Ecological Constraints.
Jan
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Bird Nesting
Newt Hibernation
Hedge Cutting
Hedge moving
Soil stripping
11.1.5.
Given the number and duration of tasks that have to be
completed before development commences, particularly access construction,
trial run, and bore-hole monitoring, together with the ecological constraints
on the construction timetable, it does not seem possible that the Development
could begin before permission expires on 26.4.15. This means Permission
depends on a successful application to Herefordshire for an extension period.
24
11.2. Trial run
11.2.1. The turbine model dimensions are unknown. The swept path
analysis performed by Collett’s suggest the blade loads can only just pass the
significant pinch points at Fiddlers Elbow and Leintwardine Bridge. These
are based on a 34m blade on a 31m trailer (Windfarm ES Vol.3 Appendix 8).
CTMP v.2 states that clearance is needed for vehicles up to 48m long and the
route has been 'verified' by Carazon Consulting. However the Carazon report
has not been submitted and is only mentioned in reference to junctions.
Presumably, it has no has swept path analyses because, for Fiddlers Elbow
and Lientwardine Bridge, CTMP refers to Collett’s swept path analyses
(CTMP v.2 4.2.28 (i) & (ii)) even though these are based on vehicles 17m
shorter than the stated requirement of 48m.
11.2.2. Application to Powys should have included swept path analyses
based on 'worst case scenario' dimensions. Approval in the absence of this
essential evidence carries a significant risk of finding the trial run cannot get
from Ludlow to the beginning of new access road. The problem is that this
would only be established after the irreversible road construction in Powys
had already been completed.
11.3. Vehicle movements and duration of disturbance
11.3.1. Total construction time is not clear. Windfarm ES says construction
will take approximately 4 - 6 months 'assuming no major disruption for bad
weather' (3.3.5.6); elsewhere it says 12 months (10.2.2.2). CTMP 5.1.2
estimates 4 – 6 months. All estimates exclude the new access road and the
majority of the ‘passing’ arrangements applied for in Powys.
11.3.2. The estimation of number of vehicle movements varies between
Windfarm ES with 2,234 HGV or ALV journeys to or from site and CTMP
with 2,835 HGV or ALV journeys and another 2,400 lighter vehicle
journeys. Quantification by vehicle type and number of journeys during
construction of the access is completely missing from the application.
11.3.3 Powys Police have said that any proposed closure of the A4113 is
unnacceptable because of need to access Knighton from the east and
Hereford A&E from Knighton (CTMP v.2 Appx A letter from Chief
Inspector 20.8.08) There is no information to show how the A 4113, with
<8m width, could be kept open.
11.3.4. CTMP v.2 6.2.1 says 'the access route for all standard construction
traffic (i.e. direct from the A 4113 via Llanshay Lane) will be used by all
construction vehicles'. Does this mean all will use the new access road or
only AVLs will use this road and others will use the public road route (which
seems likely: CTMP v.2 Appx A: Dulas to Powys 26.3.09 says potential use
of new road is minimal)? In either case, discussions between Powys
Highways, Developer and Planning Inspector Kay Sheffield at the Bowdler
Farm Public Hearing in May 2014, established that neither the Developer nor
the Highways Authority could guarantee that all construction vehicles and
25
site workers will use a recommended route. There is no mention of avoiding
Knighton / Knighton School, but either direction of approach from the North
along the A4113 would be a long and congested way round for many
vehicles. Some would doubtless come up Stocking Hill from the South. Half
the journeys using the A4113 would involve a right turn across oncoming
traffic.
11.3.5. Road closures of Llanshay Lane, Stonewall Hill Road, and the
A4113 all the way between Knighton to Ludlow during ALV movements
would cause chaos for essential services, commercial vehicles and the
general public on a wider network of roads for many miles around. The
volume of heavy traffic throughout construction would inevitably cause
major
inconvenience
and
delays
in
the
whole
Knighton/Presteigne/Leintwardine area.
12.
PUBLIC OPINION
12.1.
PPW (Version 7) 3.1.8 says that, 'the substance of local views must
be considered' and while decisions must be based on valid planning
considerations, 'the Courts have held that perceived fears of the public are a
material planning consideration that should be taken into account in
determining whether a proposed development would affect the amenity of an
area and could amount to a good reason for a refusal of planning
permission'.
12.2.
The principle fears of the public, expressed in letters of objection to
P/2012/0573 are that the access construction on its own, and also in
combination with Reeves Hill Wind Farm would be an unacceptable
industrial intrusion which would:




spoil the highly valued public amenity of Stonewall Hill Road;
have a negative impact on Powys landscape locally and for miles
around;
spoil enjoyment of Offa’s Dyke National Trail;
cause unacceptable disturbance to local amenity during
construction.
There are also many fears about cultural heritage, biodiversity and tourism.
Those living close to the site are particularly worried about noise and their
water supplies.
12.3.
The public is well aware of the Community Benefits, the opportunity
to invest in one turbine, the Landscape Enhancement Fund, and the energyrelated claims of the Developer. They do not consider these compensate for
despoiling this part of the Welsh Marches with the proposed development.
12.4.
The balance of public opinion is against this project.
Presteigne & Norton Council and Knighton Town Council each
voted against twice;
 Door-to-door survey of all Norton Parish residents:

26
93% of parishioners did not want Reeves Hill Wind Farm to be
built.
93% did not want Powys to approve access to Reeves Hill Wind
Farm;
1285 letters of objection to the Windfarm on the Herefordshire files
(See Photo 4. and CD submitted with this doc.);
439 letters of objection to the Access published on the Powys ws.
by 14 Oct. 2014 (See Appx 5: Survey of Support and Objection
Letters on Powys ws.);
13 organisations object to the Access application: only 1
organisation supports it.



12.5.
The public is understandably confused about which objections can
be taken into consideration. Whatever the niceties of proper planning
procedures, people do not understand how Powys can approve an access to a
wind farm which it unanimously opposed, or, if the access is taken in
isolation, how anyone could approve the wrecking of a much-loved remote,
narrow country road by clumsy adaptation for gigantic vehicles. It is not
surprising that those who were bitterly disappointed by Herefordshire’s
decision are voicing their objections to the Windfarm, especially since they
believe that the Screening and Scoping advice invited them to do so.
12.6.
The Developer has written to Powys and to Councillors, claiming
that the objectors are a vociferous minority and 93% of their letters focus
almost entirely on the Windfarm. Analysis of the letters on the Powys ws.
does not support these claims. It shows that, compared with the supporters,
objectors are more numerous, more likely to live locally (within 10 miles) or
have enjoyed visits to the area, more likely to write anything at all (rather
than just register 'objection' or 'support'), and more likely to address the
access arrangements in their letters. The letters speak for themselves.
No.
Local
Evidence
(<10 miles) of local tie
Support
70
15
21%
2
3%
Oppose
426
250
59%
90
21%
Total
496
13.
Non-local; Single
no tie
word
response
53
21
76%
30%
86
20%
17
5%
Wrote
only on
WF
18
26%
151
35%
CONCLUSION
13.1.
The Developer has chosen to split the whole development into
Windfarm and Access applications and so we are dealing with an Access
application which has combined cumulative impacts with the Windfarm.
27
Wrote about
Access
9
13%
227
53%
13.2.
The application takes a piecemeal approach to the Access
development. For some purposes (e.g. the Planning Statement) the
application is presented as if only for 500m of new road. The alterations to
Llanshay Lane and Stonewall Hill Road have a far greater negative impact
than the new road, especially given the sensitivity of the surrounding
landscape and other road users.
13.3.
The LVIA consistently underestimates the negative impacts of the
development on the landscape, visual receptors, and PROWs.
13.4.
The assessments of Stanage and Offa’s Dyke do not meet
professional standards and are both flawed and biased.
13.5.
The application ignores the character of Stonewall Hill Road as a
much valued public amenity, appreciated for its remoteness and magnificent
views. The turbines are unreasonably close to a public road (and B.O.A.T.)
used for recreational outdoor activity. The development of Access and
Windfarm would spoil this road, each it in its own right and more so in
combination.
13.6.
The roads themselves are poorly described, with vague dimensions,
as are the passing places and site entrances. Many of the 'passing places' are a
deceptive means of seeking approval for very significant road widening of up
to 6 metres and there is not sufficient swept-path evidence that even then
there will be sufficient widening. The road construction applied for will
involve over ¼ of the route between Llanshay Farm and the site entrance 3.
The Windfarm cable trenches would increase this proportion and the grid
connection would involve the entire stretch. Neither of these are discussed.
13.7.
The construction period and traffic management are not adequately
decribed and would involve unacceptable risks, disturbance and
inconvenience for road users and residents.
13.8. We trust that the Powys Officers will be considering the impacts of
the access construction and the combined cumulative impacts of the access
and wind farm. We hope that they will read all the letters of support and
objection carefully and take the substance of local views about the amenity of
the area into consideration, especially those of the people who stand to suffer
the worst impact of the interdependent developments. The words of the
Powys Officer’s report recommending refusal of the Windfarm in 2008 apply
equally to the Access application before Powys in 2014.
'From the public response however it is clear that, for the majority of those
who have made representations, Reeves Hill is a special place, arguably unique
on the Welsh /English Border for having a road defining that boundary from
which it is possible to get extensive views of the Marches and into Wales. It is
also a vantage point which is accessible by car and therefore able to offer an
experience to young and old alike whatever their level of physical ability. In the
view of the writer the failure to address this in the Environmental Statement is
28
a fundamental flaw'.
13.9.
SHCG submissions have demonstrated that the Access ES is full of
such fundamental flaws and contains insufficient information about the
proposed construction. Powys should refuse to consent an application with so
many inconsistent plans submitted on two sides of a national border. These
inconsistencies are the direct result of the Developer making a politically
motivated artificial split into 'Windfarm' and 'Access' and later having to
concede that the Wales/England border was further east than they had
supposed. This realisation meant that, by any common-sense understanding,
parts of the Windfarm as well as the Access are in Powys. They have been
ducking and diving with many changes of plan for site entrances ever since.
13.10. The Access on its own has no planning benefits and considerable
disbenefits. There is significant negative combined cumulative impact of the
Access and Windfarm, on the Powys landscape, PROWS, cultural heritage,
ecology and residential amenity. Energy and climate change impacts of the
Windfarm should be irrelevant to Access but, if they are to be taken into
consideration, they are insignificant by comparison with the substantial harm
caused by this Access development either alone or in combination with the
Windfarm (see REF Report).
On behalf of our supporters, SHCG urges Powys to refuse this
application
Dr. Stephen Hugh-Jones (Chair)
Dr. Christine Hugh-Jones
Stonewall Hill Conservation Group
17 Oct. 2014
29
Appendix 1.
List of SHCG Professional Reports
a. Ian Kelly MRTPI, Head of Planning, Graham and Sibbald, Perth.
Proposed Highway Works Application - Initial Planning Objection. 17 September
2014.
b. Mark Steele, BA DipLD CMLI: MSC Consultants.
Landcsape and Visual Impact Assessment Review P/2012/0573. 14 September
2014
c. Christopher Gallagher LMLI: Historic Landscape Consultant
Report on Impact of Reeves Hill Windfarm and Access Development on Stanage
Park, Knighton. 4 June 2014.
d. Keith Ray MA PhD MBA FSA MifA: Director Nexus Heritage
A Study of the Potential Impact of Construction upon the Historic Environment,
Landscape and Heritage Assets in the England/Wales Borderland, with Spevial
Reference to the Scheduled Monument, Offa's Dyke. 16 June 2014.
e. Stephen Lomax BVSc, MRCVS, OVS, PgDipL: Barrister
Letter with Myotosmart Wildlife Surveyors Bat Survey Report
f. John Constable PhD, Renewable Energy Foundation
Reeves Hill Wind Farm: Generation and Emissions Savings in Context
(& REF Information note: Analysis of Data from DECC’s Renewable Energy
Planning Database 5 May 2014)
30
Appendix 2.
Conditions Relating to Planning Permission for RHWF
1 The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars of the
development, plans, specifications constructed in accordance with the following plans:
' Site boundary plan dated September 2011 - date stamped Herefordshire Council 9th
September 2011. Sub-station floor plan dated March 2008 - date stamped
Herefordshire Council 19th May 2008. Sub-station elevations plan dated March 2008 date stamped Herefordshire Council 19th May 2008. Wind turbine generator details
plan dated March 2008 - date stamped Herefordshire Council 19th May 2008 and the
Environmental Statement in support of the application dated May 2008,
Supplementary Environmental Report dated October 2008 and Further Supplementary
Environmental Information dated October 2010.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to comply
with Policies DRl and DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
2 The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning
with the date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
3 The operational period of the turbines hereby permitted shall expire 25 years following
the first generation of electricity to the local electricity supply. The Local Planning
Authority will be informed by the developer/operator in writing within 28 days of the
date of the first generation of electricity to the local electricity supply.
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with
Policies DR4 and CF4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
4 All the above ground elements of the development and the turbine bases to a depth
of 1 metre below ground level shall be removed from the site within 6 months
immediately following the expiry of the operational period of the turbines referred to
in condition number 3 of these conditions. The land shall be reinstated in accordance
with a scheme to be approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme
for reinstatement shall be submitted for the approval of the local planning authority
not later than 20 years from the date of the first generation of electricity to the local
electricity supply. Details with regards to reinstatement of the works compound and
any other temporary works associated with construction shall be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority and approved in writing, within 3 months of
commencement of work on site, or prior to commencement of development.
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the surrounding area once the site has
ceased producing electricity and to comply with policy LA2 of the Herefordshire
Unitary Development Plan.
5 Before development commences the developer shall provide written notice of the
date of commencement of the development in writing to the local planning authority.
Reason: In order to comply with condition 3 and to comply with Policy CF4 & DR4
of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
31
6 Before the development is commenced a scheme to secure the investigation and
alleviation of any interference, to include a timetable of the works to be done, to any
form of electromagnetic transmission which may be caused by the operation of the
wind turbines shall be submitted by the developer/operator to the local planning
authority and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall
be implemented as approved.
Reason: To protect the amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with Policy
S11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
7 All the turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to comply
with Policies DR1 and DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
8 The turbines shall be located in the positions shown on the approved plans.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to comply
with Policies DRl and DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
9 If a wind turbine fails to produce electricity for supply to the grid for a continuous
period of 12 months, all of its above ground elements and the turbine bases to a depth
of 1 metre below ground level shall be removed at the request in writing of the local
planning authority within a period of six months from the end of the 12 month period.
Within the ensuing 12 months the land shall be reinstated in accordance with a
scheme that has been submitted by the developer/operator to the local planning
authority and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall
be submitted within two months of a request in writing by the local planning authority
under this condition.
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the surrounding areas and to comply with
Policies DR4 and CF4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
10 There shall be no external lighting of the turbines hereby permitted. Before
commencement of the development details of any other floodlighting/external lighting
including during the construction phase shall be submitted by the developer/operator
to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. Development shall be earned
out in accordance with the approved details and there shall be no other external
illumination of the development. There shall be no external illumination or lighting on
the turbines.
Reason: To protect the amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with Policies
DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
11 Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on
impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the
bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If
there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of
the largest tank, vessel or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks or vessels
32
plus 10%. All filling points, associated pipework, vents, gauges and sight glasses
must be located within the bund or have separate secondary containment. The
drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse,
land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and
protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank/vessels overflow pipe
outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Policy
DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
12 All foul drainage shall be contained within a sealed and water tight cesspool, fitted
with a level warning device to indicate when the tank needs emptying.
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Policy
DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
13 Development shall not commence until a Private Water Supply Protection Plan has
been submitted by the operator and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The submitted details shall include the following:a. the identification of appropriate water features (including but not limited to springs,
boreholes and wells ) and location of water features to be monitored including the
proposed observation boreholes adjacent to each turbine foundation, that are to be
used for the monitoring of water flows and water quality;
b. the method and nature of monitoring with subsequent provision of baseline data to
adequately characterize the flow regime and quality and quantity of water provided by
any private water supply that might be affected by the development;
c. the mitigation measures for the protection of such water features;
d. the system to ensure that upon notification to the developer of a concern about a
possible deterioration in water quality or quantity arising from the development, that
immediate provision of alternative suitable and sufficient water supplies takes place
(whether on a temporary or permanent basis) in the event of any interruption or
adverse change caused by the development in the quantity or quality of water
previously enjoyed;
e. the arrangements for undertaking sampling, measurement and analysis of private
water supplies, before during and following construction, (a period of up to 6 months
or as otherwise agreed as part of the private water supply protection plan).
f. the arrangements during and after construction should any water pollution or
interruption incident occur, to ameliorate such an impact. The above measures under
the Private Water Supply Protection Plan, as approved, shall thereafter be
implemented at the developers/operators own expense at all times whilst the
development hereby approved remains operational.
Reason: In order to protect the water environment which includes natural water
supplies and to comply with Policy DR6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development
Plan.
14 Before development is commenced a detailed surface water and ground water
management plan to include details of associated drainage and sediment control and
a timetable for implementation shall be submitted by the developer/operator to the
Local Planning Authority and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
33
Reason: To prevent impact on the groundwater environment and to comply with
Policy DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
15 An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works will be
appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological
monitoring, mitigation and enhancement work.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate level of protection for all species protected under
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats
and Species Regulations 2010 and policies NC1, NC6 and NC7 within Herefordshire
Unitary Development Plan 2007.
To ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed as they are protected under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and policies NCI, NC6 and NC7 within the
Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.
To conserve and enhance biodiversity and comply with Herefordshire Unitary
Development Plan 2007 Policies NCI, NC6, NC7, NC8 and NC9 in relation to Nature
Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of the National Planning
Policy Framework and the NERC Act 2006.
16 Before development is commenced, full working method statements and strategies
including a timetable for protected species (including bats, birds and great crested
newts) based upon the recommendations in the Environmental Statement (May 2008)
and the Supplementary Environmental Report (October 2008 & October 2010) shall
be submitted by the developer/operator to the Local Planning Authority for written
approval. These shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate level of protection for all species protected under
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats
and Species Regulations 2010 and policies NCI, NC6 and NC7 within Herefordshire
Unitary Development Plan 2007.
To ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed as they are protected under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and policies NCI, NC6 and NC7 within the
Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.
To conserve and enhance biodiversity and comply with Herefordshire Unitary
Development Plan 2007 Policies NCI, NC6, NC7, NC8 and NC9 in relation to Nature
Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of the National Planning
Policy Framework and the NERC Act 2006.
17 Before development is commenced, schemes for long-term monitoring of the
impact of the wind turbines upon protected and/or notable species (including bats,
birds and great crested newts), including a timetable for implementation shall be
submitted by the developer/operator to the Local Planning Authority for written
approval. The monitoring schemes shall be implemented as approved and the results
submitted annually to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate level of protection for all species protected under
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats
and Species Regulations 2010 and policies NCI, NC6 and NC7 within Herefordshire
Unitary Development Plan 2007.To conserve and enhance biodiversity and comply
34
with Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 Policies NCI, NC6, NC7, NC8
and NC9 in relation to Nature Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the
requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the NERC Act 2006.
18 Before development is commenced, a full habitat enhancement and management
scheme based upon the recommendations in the Environmental Statement (May
2008) and the Supplementary Environmental Reports (October 2008 & October
2010), including a timetable for implementation shall be submitted by the
developer/operator to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. This shall be
implemented as approved and maintained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate level of protection for all species protected under
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats
and Species Regulations 2010 and policies NCI, NC6 and NC7 within Herefordshire
Unitary Development Plan 2007.
To ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed as they are protected under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and policies NCI, NC6 and NC7 within the
Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.
To conserve and enhance biodiversity and comply with Herefordshire Unitary
Development Plan 2007 Policies NCI, NC6, NC7, NC8 and NC9 in relation to Nature
Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of the National Planning
Policy Framework and the NERC Act 2006.
19 Before any turbine related construction on site are commenced, visibility splays
shall be provided from a point 0.6 metres above ground level at the centre of the
access to the application site and 2.4 metres back from the nearside edge of the
adjoining carriageway (measured perpendicularly) for a distance of 60 metres in each
direction along the nearside edge of the adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be
planted, erected and/or allowed to grow on the triangular area of land so formed
which would obstruct the visibility described above.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of
Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
20 Any new access gates shall be set back 15 metres from the adjoining carriageway
edge and shall be made to open inwards only. At the end of the construction phase
the gates shall be relocated 5 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, in
accordance with detail to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of
Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
21 The approved detail referred to in condition number 20 above shall be fully
implemented to the written satisfaction of the local planning authority within one
month from the end of the construction phase of the wind farm.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to conform to the requirements of
Policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
22 Before any other works hereby approved are commenced, the construction of the
vehicular access shall be carried out in accordance with a specification to be
35
submitted to and approved in writing by Herefordshire and Powys County Councils as
Local Planning Authorities, at a gradient not steeper than 1 in 12.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of
Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
23 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access,
turning area and parking facilities shown on the approved plan have been properly
consolidated, surfaced, drained and otherwise constructed in accordance with details
to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these
areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for those uses at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using
the adjoining highway and to conform with the requirements of Policy T11 of
Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
24 Development shall not begin until wheel cleaning apparatus has been provided in
accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority, and which shall be operated and maintained during construction of
the development hereby approved.
Reason: To ensure that the wheels of vehicles are cleaned before leaving the site in
the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3
of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
25 Development shall not begin until parking for site operatives and visitors has been
provided within the application site in accordance with details to be submitted to and
approved by the local planning authority and such provision shall be retained and kept
available during construction of the development
Reason: To prevent indiscriminate parking in the interests of highway safety and to
conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development
Plan.
26 No development shall take place until a Travel Plan which contains measures to
promote alternative sustainable means of transport for staff and visitors with respect
to the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and be approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall be implemented, in
accordance with the approved details, on the first occupation of the development. A
detailed written record shall be kept of the measures undertaken to promote
sustainable transport initiatives and a review of the Travel Plan shall be undertaken
annually. All relevant documentation shall be made available for inspection by the
local planning authority upon reasonable request.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in combination with a
scheme aimed at promoting the use of a range of sustainable transport initiatives and
to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary
Development Plan.
27 No development shall begin until full details of the turbines including their make,
36
model, design, colour, finish, hub height, blade measurements and power rating shall
be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In consideration of the amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with
Policy DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
28 Prior to the erection of the wind turbines or installation of the transformer units,
any wind turbine generator not of the make, model and characteristics considered in
the Noise Assessment Chapter of the Environment Statement for the development
must first be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The following information
should be submitted:
a) An acoustic emissions report for the selected wind turbine. The report shall be in
accordance with BS En 61400-11, Wind Turbine Generator Systems Part 11:
Acoustic noise measurement techniques and shall include the A weighted sound
power levels, spectra and tonality at integer wind speeds from 6 to lO m/s.
b) A Noise prediction report from a suitably qualified and competent acoustic
consultant that demonstrates the sound levels from the wind farm will not exceed
those conditions set out in Condition 33 below. This should include measurements or
calculations that take into account wind shear. The modes of operations and the type
of turbine must be specified.
Reason: In consideration of the amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with
Policy DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
29 During the construction phase the hours during which working may take place
shall be restricted to 08:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 on
Saturdays. There shall be no such working on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties so as to
comply with Policy DR13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
30 No development shall take place until a scheme to avoid the incidence of any
shadow flicker at Folly Farm, The Gutters, Tipton Farm and Willey House or any
other dwelling considered reasonable by the Local Planning Authority, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
shall include details of the sighting of the photocells and measures to control or shut
down the turbine.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing, if shadow flicker during the operational period is
being caused at a dwelling, the turbine shall be shut down and the blades remain
stationary until the conditions causing such effects have passed. The above scheme
shall be implemented as approved for the duration of the authorised use.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of nearby properties and to comply with Policy
DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
31 At the request of the Local Planning Authority, upon receipt of a complaint considered
reasonable by the Local Planning Authority relating to noise from the turbines, the
operator of the development shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant
approved by the Local Planning Authority to measure and assess the level of noise
emissions from the wind turbines. The noise assessment must be undertaken whilst
operational conditions are representative of those appertaining to the periods of
37
operation giving rise to noise complaints. The noise assessment shall take place
within 60 days of a written request by the Local Planning Authority and shall be
undertaken following the procedures described in the Guidance Notes annexed to this
decision. Findings shall be reported to the Local Planning Authority within 30 days of
the completion of monitoring being undertaken.
]Reason: In the interest of the residential amenity of the surrounding area and to
comply with Policy DRl 3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
32 At the request of the Local Planning Authority the developer and/or site operator shall
carry out measurements to determine whether the turbines exhibit any tonality.
Tonality measurements shall take place within 30 days of a written request by the
Local Planning Authority and shall be undertaken in accordance with procedures
descried in the Guidance Notes annexed to this decision.
Reason: In consideration of the amenity of the surrounding environment and to comply
with Policy DR13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
33 The rating level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind turbines
when measured and calculated in accordance with the Guidance Notes annexed to
this decision shall not exceed the values set out in Tables 1 and 2 below. Where a
property is not listed, the rating of noise emissions shall not exceed the lowest value
shown for the relevant standardised wind speed.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of surrounding dwellings and to comply with
Policy DR13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
NB TWO TABLES SPECIFYING NIGHT TIME AND DAY TIME NOISE RATING
VALUES HAVE BEEN OMITTED HERE
34 Upon notification in writing of the existence of any tonality as identified using the
procedure in the guidance notes as referred to in condition 32 above, the
development operator shall within 30 days submit a scheme to include a timetable of
implementation of the remedy for approval to the Local Planning Authority to remedy
the breach to prevent future occurrence. The scheme shall be carried out in
accordance with the agreed timetable.
Upon notification in writing of an established breach of the noise limits as referred to
in Condition 33 above, the development operator shall within 30 days submit a
scheme to include a timetable of implementation of the remedy for approval to the
Local Planning to remedy the breach to prevent future occurrence. The scheme shall
be earned out in accordance with the agreed timetable.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with
Policy DRl 3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
35 From the date of commencement of the operation of the wind farm the operator
shall continuously log wind speed, wind direction and power generation data for each
wind turbine. The data shall be continuously recorded throughout the period of
operation of the wind farm and made available to the Local Planning Authority within
30 days of their written request. The wind data shall include the wind speed in metres
per second (ms - 1) at 10 metres in height and the wind direction in degrees from
north for each ten minute period. Where wind speed is measured at a height other than
10m, the wind speed data shall be converted to 10m height, accounting for wind shear
38
and with the associated methodology for this conversion also provided to the Local
Planning Authority. The data shall be retained for a period of not less than 12 months.
Reason: In the interest of surrounding amenity and to comply with Policy DRl 3 of
the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
36 Prior to the commencement of operation of the wind turbines a scheme shall be
submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority for monitoring noise levels
at no fewer than 5 selected residential boundary locations during the 6 months
following connection to the electricity grid and with the site fully operational. The
duration of such monitoring shall be sufficient to provide comprehensive information
on noise levels in a representative range of wind speeds and wind directions with all
turbines operating. Monitoring sites shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority
and monitoring shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to comply with Policy DRl 3 of the
Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
37 A noise management scheme shall be submitted and agreed in writing with the
Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of use of the turbines. The
monitoring and management of low frequency noise, blade swish, amplitude
modulation, mechanical defect noise, tonal noise, infrasound, vibration, day and
nighttime noise levels should be included in the scheme. The scheme shall be in use
for 2 years from the date of agreement. A new scheme should be agreed every two
years by the Local Planning Authority prior to the expiry of the previous scheme. A
scheme shall remain in force for the duration of the authorised use. No wind turbine
shall generate electricity in the absence of a current agreed noise management plan.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the surrounding environment and to comply
with Policy DR13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
38 No development shall take place until details of a nominated representative for the
development to act as a point of contact for Local Authority Officers and local
residents in relation to noise and nuisance issues shall have been submitted in writing
for approval by the local planning authority. Information shall also be provided
detailing the arrangements for notification of any change to the nominated
representative. The nominated representative shall have responsibility for dealing
with any noise complaints made during the construction, operation and
decommissioning of the wind farm and liaison with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In consideration of the amenity of the surrounding environment and to
comply with Policies DR4 and DR13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.
39
Appendix 3.
Reeves Hill Wind Farm and Accesss Time-Tabling Constraints
1. Time Contsraints Relating to Measures to Protect Fauna and Flora
ES 2008
6.6.3.2 re breeding birds: 'The construction effort involving any soil stripping must take place
after the breeding season preferably late summer and early autumn when great crested newts
may also be detected prior to hibernation'.
6.6.3.5. re breeding birds: 'Site preparation or construction activities which affect the habitat at
the time of nesting of any of the species on site would place the magnitude of the risk in the high
category. It is proposed that these activities all take place outside the nesting season to render
direct impacts of such risks of lower sensitivity in terms of impact upon population losses'.
6.6.3.6. Re skylarks, etc: '(Loss of habitat) can easily be mitigated for by providing an equivalent
supplementary area for breeding prepared in advance' (our emphasis). Note: the equivalent
supplementary breeding area involves the fencing off of 3 acres of the Warren (see SER 5.3.).
6.6.5.2. Re great crested newts: 'Licence application (to disturb GCNs) will require
substantiation by further survey work at the appropriate time of year (ie spring). This licence
requires population class sizes to be determined based on the numbers of adult newts during
optimum survey conditions'.
6.6.8.2. Re hedge cutting: 'If necessary cutting back (of hedges on Llanshay Lane) will only take
place between the months of September and January'.
ES 2014
8.4.9.
- Re GCNs: 'No work that could disturb hibernating newts should take place during their
hibernation period November to March'.
- Re Birds: 'work (on hedges) should not be carried out during the bird breeding season (March to
end of July)'.
8.5.5. Re Hedges 'Hedges should only be moved in the dormant season (November to March)'.
8.5.7. Hedge & tree clearing'No trees or hedges to be cleared during the bird breeding season,
March to end July'.
Note that ES 2014 states (8.6.4):
'For clarity, the mitigation measures referred to above are now enshrined as conditions to the
approved Reeves Hill Wind Farm'.
40
Jan
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Bird Nesting
Newt Hibernation
Hedge Cutting
Hedge moving
Soil stripping
2. Further Time Constraints
Prior to any development, the Devlopers must also:
- prepare a supplementary area breeding area for skylarks, etc (see ES 2008 6.6.3.6. above);
- conduct a survey of great crested newt population (see ES 2008 6.6.5.2. above);
- obtain a protected species licence from Natural England (see ES 2008 6.6.5.2. above).
- conduct a full badger survey at AVL2 -'A full badger survey will be required to ensure no setts
are close by (within 30m of any construction work)'. ES2014 8.4.9.
- Provide 'More detailed designs and specifications (of roa dworks re lati n g to a cce ss
t rack an d hi ghwa ys modi ficat ions) and full method statements relating to construction
activities'. (See ES 2014 5.2.3.)
- provide written notice of commencement (see Consent Notice condition 5);
- provide scheme for the investigation and amelioration of electromagnetic interference (see
Consent Notice condition 6);
- provide Private Water Protection Plan and identify, sample, measure and analyse private
water supplies (see Consent Notice condition 13);
- provide detailed surface water and ground water management plan (see Consent Notice
condition 14);
- provide working methods statement and timetable for protected species (bats birds, GCNs)
based on the reccomendation in the ES and SER (see Consent Notice condition 16);
- provide a scheme for long term monitoring of impact of turbines on protected and notable
species (bats birds, GCNs) (condition 17);
- provide a full Habitat Enhancement and Management Scheme including time table for
implementation - to protect birds, etc (see Consent Notice condition 18).
Prior to any wind farm construction, the Developers must:
- construct the access (see Consent Notice condition 22);
- provide wheel cleaning apparatus (see Consent Notice condition 24);
41
- submit a Travel Plan for sustainable transport (see Consent Notice condition 26);
- specify turbine make, model,height, colour etc (see Consent Notice condition 27);
- provide a Shadow Flicker Avoidance Scheme (see Consent Notice condition 30);
- nominate a point of contact for noise and nuisance issues (see Consent Notice condition 38).
42
Appendix 4. Stanage Estate Woodland Operation - Thinning Licence From 2011 For 5 Years (2011-2016)
Cpt.
Name
DESCRIPTION
24a
25a
Fronhir
Fronhir South
P.00 oak & P.24 EL, DF
P.57 DF,JL, RC
26a
27a
Fronhir Mid
Lower Woodhouse West
P.30 oak
P.00 oak; P.23 DF, JL, Be; P.5
28a
Lower Woodhouse East
P.00 oak
29a
Middle Pitts
P.00 oak, sycamore
30a
Middle Pitts
P.00 oak & well thinned DF, S
31a
Pitts Dingle west
P.50 oak, birch & P.71 western
32a
Pitts Dingle east
P.56 JL,DF,NF, WH,CC & occ
33a
Hendre west
P.56 DF & P.71 JL
35a
Hendre East
Mature oak
36a
37a
Lawn Nursery
Hendre Bank
P.57 & P.71 mixed conifers (J
P.57 conifers (DF,NS) & P.75
38a
39a
Knoll Mid
Knoll West
P.82 JL & P.83 SS
P.80 DF
40a
Little Knoll
P.56 DF, NS, WRC & P.00 SY
41a
Knoll Mid
P.56 DF,SS,JL,LC,SP
42a
The Knoll
Mature ash, oak, sycamore & P
44a
Park Bank west
Mature oak; P.70 DF & P.67
47a
Park Bank west
P.67 DF, JL, NS, CP, SP & Be
48a
Park Bank west
Mature beech; P.69 DF, SS, N
52a
Baynham Bank
P.68 JL, Seq
53a
54a
Park Bank
Dungeon Quarry
P.55 DF, SS,LC,BE,SC; p.62 J
Mature DF, SS & P.55 DF,JL,
54b
59a
Dungeon Quarry
West wood
P.56 ash & RO, SP, WH & LC
P.54 SS,DF,JL & P.64 LC,RC,
60a
Maryville
P.64 SS; P.84 WRC; scattered
61a
Maryville
P.48 EL,NR & beech; P.87 DF
62a
Long wood
P.53 JL,DF,SS, Be, ash
63a
Upper oaks
Mature oak, ash, beech; P.87 D
64a
Camp
P.52 DF, SP, JL, NF, SS
65a
The oaks
Mature oak; P.64 WH & P.81
66a
Lyons
P.71 SS & WRC; P.81 DF
67a
68a
Lyons East
Waterloo
P.49 JL, SS, DF, SP & Be
P.51 DF,SS,EL,SP & P.82 NS,
70a
73a
Cave wood
Milebrook
P.00 Be, oak & DF; p. 74-76 N
P.72 poplars & P.82 NS
7474a
River bank
P.00 oak, ash & P.68 NS
7575a
Milebrook Firs
P.81 EL, P.00 oak, ash
7676a
Old Pool wood
P.54 NS, ash & oak
7777a
Baynham cover
P.00 Be, birch, HC, ash, sycam
7878a
The Alders
P.30 alders, ash, hazel
43
FELL & RESTOCK (2014-15)
Restock ten compartments of size 0.1Ha in Cpts. 60a,
61a, 62a, 63a & 64a with 100% Douglas fir – grant of
£500/ha.
Appendix 5. Survey of Letters on Powys Planning
Portal Website
The survey covers all letters of objection to P/2012/0573
posted on the Powys Planning Portal website up to 14
October 2014.
This application has been under consultation since May
2012. Many people have made two or more responses,
some letters are signed by single individuals, some by two
partners, some by whole families, and some by a whole
group.
In this survey:
 letters written in joint name, in name of family or
signed by several different persons are counted a letter
from one individual.
 when each spouse / partner / sibling writes a separate
letter, each is counted as a letter from one individual
 organizations counted separately; not included in
detailed breakdowns
 'local': address within 10 miles of RHWF
 evidence of local tie: declared visitor to area and / or
has family in area
 wrote only on WF; wrote about access: here only
discussion was counted. Mere mention of the WF &
turbines or of Access (as in 'I favour WFs therefore favour
access' or 'I oppose turbines thus oppose access') not
counted. NB: Judgements about what to count as mention
vs. discussion are not precise. but bias applies roughly
equally to support and opposition.
1
Appendix 6.
Abbreviations Used.
Access E
Environmental Statement May 2014
submitted to Powys
Wind Farm ES
Environmental Statement May 2008 and
Supplementary Information Oct. 2008
and Oct 2010 submitted to Herefordshire
(DCNW2008/1289/F)
Royal Haskoning Construction
Traffic Management Plan 2008
version
Royal Haskoning Construction
Traffic Management Plan 2011
version
Environment Agency
CTMP v.1
CTMP v.2
EA
Herefordshire
Powys
Herefordshire Council or
Herefordshire County, depending
on context
Powys County Council or Powys
County, depending on context
Powys ws.
Powys web site
PPW
Planning Policy Wales
PWS
Private water supplies
REF
Renewable Energy Foundation
RHWF
Reeves Hill Wind Farm
SHCG
Stonewall Hill Conservation
Group
UDP
Unitary Development Plan
2
3