8
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21 OCTOBER 2009
APPLICATION NO DC/09/0491/FUL
LOCATION
Land At Former Airfield
Upper Holton
Holton
Halesworth
Suffolk
EXPIRY DATE
17 September 2009
APPLICATION TYPE
Full Application
APPLICANT
Bernard Matthews Green Energy (Halesworth) Ltd
PARISH
Holton
PROPOSAL
Installation of 5 wind turbines, with a maximum height to tip of 100m, a
permanent meteorological mast, substation, access and tracks and
associated infrastructure
DO NOT SCALE
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may
lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
SUMMARY
This application seeks consent for 5 wind turbine generators on land at the former airfield in
Holton. A comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment accompanies the application. The
main issues raised by the proposal concern Government and regional targets for renewable
energy generation, the visual effects of the proposal on the surrounding landscape, the impact on
residential properties in the locality, including noise and shadow effects, the impact on wildlife and
ecology and the traffic and highway implications.
25
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site covers an area of approximately 2.81 hectares and is located on the former World War II
airfield some 2km north of Holton and 1km east of the A144. A number of turkey sheds, currently
vacant, are housed on the old concrete runways and an established food processing factory is
located to the south, on part of the former airfield. Land between the runways is farmed on an
arable basis. A public right of way, consisting of a bridleway and a public footpath runs along part
of the southern boundary and along the eastern boundary of the site, between the proposed
development and Scalesbrook Wood.
As might be expected given its former use the site is flat and featureless apart from the existing
turkey sheds. It is however surrounded by largely undeveloped gently undulating farmland
interspersed with a scattering of isolated farmhouses, rural roads and hedgerows and small
woodlands. The site and surrounding landscape falls within two landscape character types,
namely Plateau Claylands and Ancient Estate Claylands – Suffolk Landscape Character Typology
– 2008.
The site does not form part of any local or national landscape designation. The nearest landscape
designations are the Broads National Park (9.4km) and the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (3.2km). The Special Landscape Area is a local designation which lies
some 2.3km of the nearest proposed turbine.
PROPOSAL
This planning application is for a wind farm consisting of 5 wind turbine generators, a metrological
mast, substation access tracks and hardstanding areas, underground power and
telecommunications cabling, and temporary construction/decommissioning compound. The
proposed operational lifetime of the project is 25 years. Each of the proposed wind turbines would
have a rated capacity of up to 2.3MW and the site would meet the equivalent average annual
electricity needs of over 5140 homes. The turbines would all be located on arable land between
the former runways within the central to eastern part of the site. Each has a height to the hub of
64.5m and a rotor diameter of 71m, giving an overall blade tip height of 100m. It is proposed to
finish the turbines in a semi matt grey colour. The metrological mast is a galvanised steel lattice
structure with an height of 65m. It would be located just south of the central part of the site,
adjacent to the former east-west runway. The proposed 11kV substation is a single storey
freestanding building measuring 5.6m x 4.6m and 3.5m high and located adjacent to the site
entrance. Access to the site would be gained via the existing access off Butt`s Road although
some minor modifications to it would be necessary to facilitate the delivery of components.
Where possible it is proposed to utilise existing tracks/runways within the site. New tracks will be
required up to each wind turbine and hardstandings at the bases. Other works include cabling
trenches and a temporary construction/decommissioning compound on former runway located
centrally within the site.
An Environmental Statement accompanies the application in accordance with the Town and
Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 1999.
An amendment to the position of turbine 4 move it 15m further away from the bridleway.
CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS
Neighbour consultation/representations
166 residential properties in the locality and surrounding area were notified.
99 responses received objecting for the following reasons:
- Unsightly and an eyesore
- Detrimental to outlook from residential property
- Unduly prominent/visual impact – will spoil the character of the countryside
- Generation of renewable energy does not outweigh the visual impact on the countryside
- Support principle but should be smaller/lower
- Inefficiency of wind turbines as an energy source
26
-
Harmful to wildlife/biodiversity, especially birds
Noise pollution, especially at quiet times eg night
Inappropriate scale dominates the surroundings
Could set a precedent for further wind turbines and industrial development
Detrimental effect on tourism
Harmful to health due to noise, shadow flicker, vibrations
Proximity to public footpath/bridleway
Wind turbines are more appropriately located off-shore
Danger to low flying aircraft
Will affect TV and mobile phone reception
6 responses support the proposal:
- Great green idea
- Replacement of some fossil-fuel based energy
- Would make a magnificent statement on a rather featureless ex-airfield
- The need to produce re-newable energy is urgent
Westhall Wind Watch
Westhall Wind Watch raise a number of issues with the proposal as follows:
- Viability of the site as a wind resource due to a lack of relevant data
- Landscape impact due to the written evidence being considerably underestimated, does
not match with the evidence in figures and photomontages and requires complete
reassessment.
- Rights of Way due to the close proximity to the adjacent bridleway which must be seen as
an obstruction. Anything that impedes the existing legal access is an obstruction. Our
understanding of `impedes’ covers anything that might render the use of the highway
unsafe for the user.
- Turbine separation distances. A separation distance of 4 times the overall height should be
the target for National Trails and Ride UK routes, as these are likely to be used by
equestrians unfamiliar with turbines, and a distance of 3 times the overall height from all
other routes, including roads with the 200m recommended in the Technical Guidance to
PPS22 being seen as the minimum, where it is shown in a particular case that this would
be acceptable. Horses may be frightened by moving blade shadow and may be disturbed
by the presence of moving blades.
- Noise, as no evidence is given as to why a 700m buffer zone to residential properties is
relevant and is an entirely arbitrary figure. The noise assessment at Moat Farm is invalid as
it is not the nearest property. The noise assessment should be repeated at Trewens Farm.
The effects of Vibroacoustic Disease, together with associated dangers to health, have not
been addressed.
- Holton Village Conservation Area as no photographic evidence has been provided to show
that the turbines will not have a visual impact nor affect the view from dwellings in the
Conservation Area.
- Impact on Listed Buildings. The applicant should be asked to re-visit all 21 properties on its
list, and make a determination of the visual impact upon them all, based on winter and
summer sightings.
In addition a petition signed by 72 people object to the proposal on the grounds of the impact on
the landscape, including the AONB, and the skyline within Westhall and surrounding parishes and
would degrade the quality of life for residents.
Consultees
Environmental Health - Environmental Protection
No adverse comments. The noise assessment has been undertaken by competent experts in the
field of WTG noise assessment in accordance with the most up to date relevant guidance. The
results indicate compliance at all times with the relevant limits recommended by the guidance.
The report deals with infrasound by pointing out that this was a feature of early designs of turbines
with down-wind blades, which caused interference between the aerodynamic noise of the blade
27
and the turbulent wake of supporting column. The turbines proposed for this development (in
common with most modern designs I am aware of) are equipped with up-wind blades, eliminating
this noise source. I do not regard this as an issue in this case.
The report also deals with ground borne vibrations very comprehensively. In short, studies have
been undertaken indicating that ground-borne vibration (if any) from wind turbines such as those
proposed in this location will be orders of magnitude below the threshold of human perception,
even at high wind speeds. I am satisfied there is no possibility of any impact to human health or
statutory nuisance from ground-borne vibrations from the turbines proposed under normal
operating conditions.
Conservation Officer
It is very clear that in gently undulating countryside such as within this area, any installation of
wind turbines of this height will be visible far and wide and certainly beyond 2km. Although there
are a number of historic sites in the area which will be little affected, the turbines will appear here
and there in views as one travels about the district. This very significant impact on the historic
landscape needs to be carefully weighed against the positives that such an installation will
certainly offer. Of the 21 listed buildings within 2km of the nearest turbine 10 are screened or
largely screened by topography and/or vegetation, 5 are considered to be moderately affected and
6 major/moderate. Having visited a number of the latter, I can confirm that the impact on these
would be severe, due largely to their proximity to the site but also to their orientation backing onto,
or side onto, the development site, which would lead to massive intrusion of the turbines within
their settings. This is an impact which will affect any similarly orientated building in sight of the
turbines, for many miles around.
The impact on the nearby conservation area of Holton is described in the environmental statement
as being moderate/minor, affecting views of the grade ii* listed church. The impact on Halesworth
conservation area has not been assessed as it is outside the 2km zone. There is no doubt that the
proposal will have an impact in views from the town from some areas, particularly from the south,
but this needs to be quantified in order for a full assessment of impact to be made.
English Heritage have drawn attention to the need for some further assessment of impact.
Whether this impact proves to be acceptable may depend on whether the turbines are seen as
being attractive, as it is clear they will be seen from far and wide. We know that the settings of at
least 6 listed buildings will be severely compromised; however this impact may be considered to
be acceptable when weighed against the greater good that this proposal offers.
Suffolk County - Rights Of Way
Turbines 4 and 5 are close to the Rights of Way network and in particular the bridleway. We would
recommend these are relocated further away, a distance of 200m as per the British Horse Society
guidance. As a minimum we would request that the distance between a wind turbine and the
public right of way is the fall over distance of the turbine and the blades should not be permitted to
over sail the routes.
The amended position of Turbine 4 will meet our minimum desired distance of the turbine from
Bridleway 16.
County Planning Officer
Suffolk County Council does not object to the proposal. It is concluded that due to the
overwhelming need for a more sustainable approach to development and the commitment we
must make to sourcing renewable energy, this site is considered appropriate for the location of
wind turbines, subject to conditions covering decommissioning and landscape restoration, a
programme of deliveries for all materials and components, archaeological work and landscape
improvements to offset visual intrusion.
Comments:
Turbine 4 is only 20m from the bridleway and turbine 5 50m away. SCC would therefore like the
applicant to investigate whether these could be relocated to increase separation.
28
Advice should be taken from the Environmental Health Officer regarding potential health impacts.
Ensuring the turbines rotate in the same direction may alleviate some concerns.
SCC recommend that evidence is provided to show that statutorily protected sites and species will
not be adversely affected and further recommend that all proposed mitigation measures are
enforced.
SCC would like the applicant to consider whether there is an opportunity to provide low cost green
energy to adjacent development directly.
SCC is pleased to see the applicant is prepared to support a community benefit scheme.
Suffolk County - Archaeological Unit
No objection subject to a condition to ensure that an accurate record is made of any
archaeological features or finds. No objection to amended position of turbine 4.
Suffolk County - Highways Department
The development can be accommodated satisfactorily. In order to minimise impact on the road
network a programme of deliveries for all materials and components is requested.
Broads Authority
The Authority does not wish to raise an objection on landscape grounds.
Suffolk Coastal District Council were consulted on the 9 June 2009.
Suffolk Coasts And Heaths Project
The AONB unit is sympathetic to the development of renewable power installations and are not
objecting to the proposal. However we are keen to ensure no negative impact on the AONB from
such installations. Concern is raised about the potential for seeing the turbines from the top
quarter of the AONB (Kessingland to Dunwich). It is suggested that further visualisations from
within the AONB are considered.
Following further visualisation work the 11 AONB points now give us the level of information we
need to make an informed decision, on behalf of the protected landscape.
Whilst there is no doubt that the wind farm will have a widespread visual impact on the AONB and
therefore should most definitely be considered as being in the AONB`s setting, the AONB Unit is
content that this impact is not significant at any of the locations, other than perhaps Point 6 & 7
Wenhaston, Bicker`s Heath & the A145 at Sotherton, respectively. These locations are however
on the very edge of the AONB.
As such, the AONB Unit raises no objection to the development proposal.
Natural England
Natural England has no objection to the proposal. Comments:
- Support the conclusion that the turbines and mast will result in a significant change in
character of site landscape within about 4km of the site but will not adversely affect the
special qualities of the AONB. Recommends further information on the visual impact from
the small part of the Ancient Estate Claylands LCT within the AONB designation.
- Recommends that Turbine 4 is repositioned further away from the bridleway, preferably
200m.
- Recommend a condition for post-construction monitoring of bird and bat impact.
Environment Agency – Drainage
Recommend a condition for the provision and implementation of pollution control.
29
Civil Aviation Authority
There may be a need to install aviation obstruction lighting to some or all of the wind turbines.
NATS
NATS has no safeguarding objection to the proposal or amended position of turbine 4.
Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds
The RSPB is supportive of renewable energy projects providing that adverse impacts upon wildlife
are avoided by appropriate siting and design. Renewables offer an opportunity to modify or
reverse the deleterious changes associated with climate change arising from an over-reliance
upon fossil fuels. Whilst the RSPB has no major concerns, we would to see the following
improvements undertaken prior to consent being given:
- an improved mitigation package for harriers, kestrel and barn owls
a comprehensive biodiversity enhancement package to mitigate for and
a commitment for on-going monitoring of waders, Barn Owls, raptors and other notable
species using the site, both during construction and post-construction.
Suffolk Wildlife Trust
The nesting season is more appropriately defined as being from the beginning of March to the end
of July. We are satisfied with the proposed mitigation and pleased to note the intended post
construction monitoring of bird and bat populations.
Suffolk Preservation Society
- Good application and congratulates the level of detail submitted but criticises the photo
montages being taken in summer when winter visibility would be greater with loss of leaf
cover, and the type of camera lens used.
- Believes the application should be refused for the following reasons:
- Visible over a large area and will impact on the AONB and other designated landscapes.
- It will adversely affect and impair the setting of many listed buildings and conservation
areas.
- There is an absence of vertical intrusions in the area, turbines would destroy the special
ambience.
- Aviation warning lights would inflict the night sky with light pollution.
- Noise
Go-East were consulted on the 9 June 2009.
Renewables East were consulted on the 9 June 2009.
Defence Estates
No objection. In the interests of air safety, the MOD requests that the turbines are fitted with
aviation lighting. All turbines should be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting at the
highest practical point.
OFCOM
There are currently no fixed link end(s) within fixed link path(s) that cross a 1800m radius
coordination area for the proposed turbine location.
National Grid
With respect to our operational electricity and gas transmissions networks the risk is negligible.
British Wind Energy Association were consulted on the 16 June 2009.
English Heritage
There are a number of listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments in the surrounding area
and conservation areas in Halesworth and Holton. By virtue of their height the turbines would be
highly visible within the predominantly flat landscape as is shown in the zone of theoretical
30
visibility. We have concerns that the assessment covers too small an area and does not take into
consideration the cumulative impact of the turbines on the cultural heritage. There are a number of
designated sites that lie beyond the 2km zone but still in relatively close proximity to the proposed
development where all five turbines would be visible. These include the scheduled site at
Brookhall Farm, St Peter`s Church and the Huntsman and Hound in Spexhall, Henhamgreen Farm
and Church Farm at Sotherton, Blyford Church and Slough Farm, Westhall Grade II*, St. Andrews
Church, Wissett and St. Peters Church, Brampton, Grade I, and Halesworth Conservation Area.
We recommend the study area is extended to consider the impact on these sites. Sites within 2km
of the nearest turbine that should be assessed are St Peter`s Church, Holton and St. Andrew`s
Church, Westhall and the setting of Blyford Church, Grade I, across the Blyth Valley. Beacon
Farmhouse is listed Grade II* and is situated in open landscape to the north-east of the site. Given
the visibility of the turbines in viewpoint 2, just to the west of the farmhouse, we recommend this is
properly assessed. There are other vulnerable views within the historic town of Halesworth that we
recommend warrant preparation of visualisations.
Following receipt of additional visualisations as requested, English Heritage comment as follows:
The analysis notes that there would be no impact on two of the sites, a moderate/minor impact on
five and a moderate impact on a further four. The analysis records that the turbines would be
visible to varying extents at all the sites except where no impact is identified.
The visualisations are annotated to note the extent of the proposed turbine view; however the
turbines themselves have not been depicted. This makes it difficult to gauge the precise
relationship of the turbines to the sites and to assess their impact.
An understanding of the relationship between the two in principle views, such as at the entrance to
and within the churchyard at Westhall, would enable your authority to assess whether there are
any unfortunate juxtapositions which would compromise the settings of the buildings, for example
a turbine seeming to rise from the church tower. We recommend your authority requests these
visualisations in relation to the churches at Blyford and Westhall. This would enable the
juxtaposition of the turbines and the churches to be considered and, if necessary, to mitigate the
impact by omitting or relocating individual turbines.
Spexhall Parish Council
- It would be better if the turbines were off-shore
- Some of the properties in the parish would be adversely affected by the line of sight and
possible noise. This will have an effect on the value of properties.
Other observations:
Should permission be granted, we feel the number of turbines on this site should be restricted to 5.
Halesworth Town Council
Support in principle subject to minimisation of impact on surrounding villages
Other observations:
Councillors note this issue is the concern of the surrounding villagers.
Westhall Parish Council
The Parish Council recommend refusal of planning permission on the following points.
- It is noted that on the Bernard Matthews site plan and map of the area adjacent to Holton
airfield they have omitted to show Westhall Village as a whole and their application only
refers to “Mill Common” which is only a part of Westhall that will be affected. All these
turbines will be within the parish boundary of Westhall.
- The turbines will have a huge impact on all areas of the village, both visually and with
noise. On reference to BM noise monitoring exercise the one comment that is constant is
that all you can hear is bird song (no noise). These turbines will affect the quality of life of
all residents and especially those living closest to the turbine. There are a number of Listed
Buildings within Westhall governed by rules to maintain such buildings, the wind turbines
will impact on their assessment as a listed building and as such destroy the history of the
31
-
-
-
-
surrounding area and landscape. Westhall Church is considered the second best example
of its kind in Suffolk and the wind farm will impact on its image.
There are health issues in that turbines also produce a low frequency thump which affects
the young and the elderly and can cause cardio logical problems; this has been researched
by the French National Academy of Medicine and the Portuguese National Centre for
Occupational Diseases. Stress induced illness will be caused by lack of sleep due to noise
when generating at night. The flicker caused by the blades has been known to affect
people who suffer with migraine or epilepsy.
There are Rights of Way issues in that some of the turbines are too close to bridleways and
footpaths and as such do not comply with the legal requirements to ensure the safety of
horse riders and walkers.
There is no RISK ASSESSMENT document, just a constant mention of in line with
government guidelines. The factory itself will be less than 700m from the turbines.
The turbines will be a hazard to military aircraft that regularly carry out training exercises in
the area. Both the MOD and CAA have admitted there will be a problem should wind farms
be erected in the area.
The planning application goes against WDC Local Development Core Strategy Document
in which it states that the peace and tranquillity of the countryside will be protected.
We are aware that to prevent global warming and carbon emissions it is necessary to employ
other means of generation as the world is dependant upon a constant supply of electricity; but this
should not be to the detriment of our quality of life, in particular the residents of Westhall Parish.
The Parish Council reiterates its objection in respect of the amended position of Turbine 4.
Waveney Byway and Bridleway Association
I cannot understand why they have sited turbines 4 and 5 in the vicinity of a public right of way.
Therefore I object on safety grounds. It is essential that horses and riders are encouraged to use
public bridleways to get them off increasingly dangerous roads. They do not need another hazard
on what should be an enjoyable route.
PUBLICITY
The application has been the subject of the following press advertisement:
Category
Published
Expiry
Publication
Major Application,
12.06.2009
02.07.2009
Lowestoft Journal
Public Right of Way
Affected,
Environmental
Impact Assessment,
Environmental
Impact Assessment,
12.06.2009
02.07.2009
Eastern Daily Press
Environmental
Impact Assessment,
12.06.2009
02.07.2009
East
Anglian
Times
Major Application,
Public Right of Way
Affected,
Environmental
Impact Assessment,
12.06.2009
02.07.2009
Beccles
Journal
and
Daily
Bungay
32
SITE NOTICES
The following site notices have been displayed:
WDC General Site Notice
Reason for site notice: Environmental Impact Assessment,
Major Application, In the Vicinity of Public Right of Way,
Potential Public Interest, Date posted 11.06.2009 Expiry date
01.07.2009
PLANNING POLICY
The UK Government, as a signatory to the Climate Convention, is actively seeking to achieve its
commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% below
1990 levels by 2012. In the Climate Change Bill 2007 the Government has set a target of reducing
CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050. To contribute to this reduction, 10% of all production should be
from renewable sources by 2015 and 20% by 2020. Running alongside this, suppliers of electricity
are required to provide 15% of the supply by 2015 from renewable sources.
The East of England Plan (see below) has set a target of 10% consumption from renewables by
2010 (with an additional 4% from offshore) rising to 17% by 2020 (with a total of 44% to include
offshore). Operationally, there is 2.75MW of installed capacity of onshore wind (Ness Point,
Lowestoft). There are three further consented onshore wind projects in Suffolk at Parham Airfield
(7.8MW), Kessingland (6MW) and Harrods (0.225MW). The total onshore wind capacity in Suffolk
is therefore 16.78MW.
PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development
PPS1 sets down the Governments commitment to ensuring new development is sustainable. Key
principles include the reduction of energy use and emissions and protection and enhancement of
the natural and historic environment. The supplement to PPS1 (Planning and Climate Change)
recognises that climate change represents a potentially catastrophic threat that must be
addressed. The Government believes that climate change is the greatest long-term challenge
facing the world today and that addressing it is the principal concern for sustainable development.
PPS7 – aims to promote more sustainable patterns of development by protecting the countryside
for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscape, heritage and
wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all. It advises that, in
determining planning applications, authorities should provide for the sensitive exploitation of
renewable energy sources in accordance with the policies set out in PPS22.
PPS9 – sets out the Governments objectives for nature conservation.
PPG15 – provides guidance in respect of development which will affect the historic and built
environment.
PPS22 – Renewable Energy
PPS22 and its Companion Guide contains the Government`s national planning policy advice
relating to renewable energy projects. PPS22 confirms that increased development of renewable
energy sources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Governments commitments on both climate
change and renewable energy. These include a target of generating 10% of UK electricity from
renewable energy sources by 2010 and 20% by 2020, and the suggestion that still more
renewable energy will be needed beyond that date. Key principles of PPS22 include:


Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout
England in locations where technology is viable and environmental, economic and social
impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.
The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy
projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant
weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission.
33

Small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of
renewable energy to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally. Planning authorities
should not therefore reject planning applications simply because the level of output is
small.
 Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social
benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised
through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.
The Companion Guide sets out information on wind turbines. It sets out that the principle of
harnessing wind energy by wind turbines is well established and that wind turbines make a
significant contribution to electricity supply in Europe and the UK. The Guide sets out a number of
issues specific to developments of this type that need to be considered when determining an
application for planning permission including noise, landscape and visual impact, listed buildings
and conservation areas, safety, proximity to roads and public rights of way, ecology, archaeology,
electromagnetic interference, shadow flicker and constructional and operational disturbance.
PPG24 – Planning and Noise
States that noise can be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
Development should not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance.
ENG2 - East of England Plan
Policy ENG2 states that the development of new facilities for renewable power generation should
be supported, with the aim that by 2010 10% of the regions energy and by 2020 17% of the
regions energy should come from renewable sources. These targets exclude energy from off
shore wind, and are subject to meeting European and international obligations to protect wildlife,
including migratory birds. Based on these estimates of energy consumption these targets equate
to the following targets for installed capacity:
- at least 1192 Megawatts by 2010 (820 MW excluding offshore wind); and
- at least 4250 Megawatts by 2020 (1620 MW excluding offshore wind.
Core Strategy – January 2009
One of the key sustainability issues in the Core Strategy (adopted January 2009) is climate
change and a recognition that there is a need to increase the use of energy from renewable
resources. It acknowledges that there may be isolated locations where less sensitive landscapes
accommodate onshore wind turbines.
Policy CS16 on the natural environment states that proposals for development are expected to
retain and add to local distinctiveness, retain tranquillity, avoid fragmentation of habitats and seek
to enhance wildlife corridors and networks. In addition, proposals should conserve and contribute
towards the enhancement of landscape character, biodiversity and geodiversity of the District. The
proposed development should not have an adverse impact on a number of sites including the
visual setting of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, habitats and species in the Suffolk Biodiversity
Action Plan and locally recognised sites of biodiversity and geodiversity importance, including
County Wildlife Sites and Local Nature Reserves.
Policy CS17 aims to protect and enhance the built and historic environment. Proposals for
development are expected to conserve or enhance the character and setting of conservation
areas, listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments sites of archaeological interest and their
settings and the local distinctiveness of existing non-designated built environments.
Waveney Local Plan: Policy ENV1 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage
Coast
States that proposals for development which would have a material adverse impact on the
landscape will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding national
need.
Policy ENV20 – Conservation Areas
Aims to protect the character of conservation areas.
34
Policy ENV23 – Listed Buildings
Aims to protect the character and setting of Listed Buildings.
Policy DC1 – Waveney Interim Local Plan
Aims to protect residential amenity.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
A members site visit was held on 31st July 2009 and members visited existing wind turbines at
Swaffham and north Pickenham on 6th August 2009. Minutes of these meetings are attached.
The main issues to take into account in the determination of this application are:
- Planning policies
- Landscape/visual impact
- Impact on wildlife and ecology
- Impact on the surrounding historic built environment
- Noise
- Shadow effect and residential amenity
- Electromagnetic interference
- Traffic and transportation
- Footpaths and bridleways
Planning Policy
Relevant planning policies are set out above. PPS22 sets out the national planning policy advice
relating to renewable energy and sets out targets for generation electricity from renewable energy
sources. PPS22 recognises that of all renewable technologies wind turbines are likely to have the
greatest visual and landscape effects. However, the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary
according to the size and number of turbines proposed and the type of landscape involved, and
these impacts may be temporary if conditions are attached to planning permissions which require
the future de-commissioning of the turbines. It is clear that the Government has a strong
commitment towards renewable energy and that the development of renewable energy resources,
including the erection of on-shore wind turbines, is an important element in facilitating this
commitment.
The impact of the proposal on the local environment has to be balanced against the supportive
nature of these policies and the wider environmental benefits of this proposal. The question that
needs to be answered is whether the impacts that would result from the proposal are so great to
warrant refusal having regard to the national policy position.
Landscape/Visual Impact
The ES accompanying the application states that a landscape and visual assessment was
undertaken to assess potential effects of the proposal on the landscape character and the visual
amenity of the locality over a 15 km radius study area.
A total of 15 viewpoints were selected to be representative of the main views of the site and
photomontages and wireframes are used to illustrate predicted views. A Zone of Theoretical
Visibility (ZTV) has also been created which indicates the areas where topography may permit
views of the turbines. The ZTV illustrates that the turbines would potentially be visible from much
of the study area. However the results of screening effects of vegetation and built structures would
greatly fragment and reduce actual visibility.
The viewpoint analysis identifies 4 villages where there would be limited views from some
properties. However, apart from Stoven, no significant change in view for residents would occur
due to the partial visibility of the turbines. Turbines would also be visible from properties in Cox
Common and Mill Common and Bacons Green Road where there would also be a significant
change in view. Some residents within parts of Halesworth with clear views of the turbines would
experience a significant change in their visual amenity. Beyond 4.5 km from the site the ES
considers that there would be no significant change in views.
35
There are 16 individual properties within 1km of the nearest turbine. The ZTVs suggests that the
hubs and tips of the proposed turbines would be visible from each of these properties. Due to the
proximity of the of the proposed windfarm to these properties this would result in a significant
change in view for these residents. However, it is unlikely that a wind farm proposal in any location
would not result in some significant effects on landscape character and visual amenity of the
immediate locality. However, it is considered that significant effects are not necessarily
unacceptably adverse. For the closest residential properties parts of the turbines will be clearly
visible, although the degree of visibility and effect on visual amenity will vary with the time of day
and year, different weather conditions, lighting and visibility conditions and different wind directions
resulting in the changing orientation of the blades.
The closest point of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB is approximately 3.2km from the site. It is
not anticipated that the proposed development would have any significant change in landscape
character beyond 4km and there are only limited views of the site from within the AONB. Most of
these views would be beyond 6km from the proposed turbines from only a small part of the AONB.
At its closest point the Broads National Park will be over 9.4km from the nearest proposed turbine.
At this distance the ES states that the proposal would not bring about a significant change in the
character of the Park.
The Special Landscape Area is a local landscape designation located approximately 2.3km south
of the nearest proposed turbine. It is not considered that the proposal would have any significantly
adverse impacts on the character or appearance of the SLA designation.
The ES states that for users of A Class roads there would generally be no significant change of
view except for those motorists using the route between Halesworth and Stone Street. On B Class
roads the main views of the turbines would occur along the parts of the B1124 and B1123.
Users of footpaths and bridleways close to the proposal would experience a significant effect on
their visual amenity due to the proximity of the proposed turbines. The definitive route of Bridleway
16 is closer to turbine 4 than the actual route on the ground. There is no statutory distance of
separation between a wind turbine and a public right of way. However the PPS22 companion
guide indicates that “fall over distance is considered an acceptable separation, and the minimum
distance is often to be taken to be that the turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a
public right of way”. An amended plan has been submitted relocating turbine 4 to ensure its blades
do not oversail the definitive route of the bridleway. Suffolk County Council Rights of Way raise no
objection to the amended position of turbine 4.
The ES acknowledges that it is unlikely that a proposal to site a new wind energy development in
the UK would not result in some significant effects on the landscape character and visual amenity
of the immediate locality. However, significant effects are not necessarily unacceptably adverse.
Whilst the proposal would become a defining characteristic of the landscape of the site and
immediate locality, wind turbines are a relatively recent addition to our environment and there is no
consensus of opinion on the most appropriate types of landscape in which to site the various
scales of wind energy development. The five proposed wind turbines will become a defining
characteristic of the landscape of the site and local area within 3.5-4km of the nearest turbine.
It is considered that any proposed wind farm, by its very nature, will inevitably have some impact
on landscape and visual amenity. However these effects have to be balanced against the
Governments firm commitment to renewable energy generation. National, regional and local
planning policies, whilst recognising the value of local landscapes, primarily seek to protect those
landscapes designated for their national importance, including National Parks and AONB`s. The
site does not lie within a National Park and the AONB is some 3.2km away at its nearest point. It is
worth noting that the two 125m high wind turbines at Africa Alive, Kessingland were only some
200m from the AONB boundary but nevertheless allowed by the Appeal Inspector. Should consent
be granted conditions could ensure the colour of the turbines is a white colour and that there is no
advertising upon them.
36
Ecology
The ES assesses the potential impacts of the proposal on ecological receptors comprising
ecological habitats, flora and fauna, including birds. Detailed surveys were undertaken for
breeding and wintering/migratory birds, bats, reptiles and amphibians (including great crested
newts), badgers and habitats (including plant species).
A number of species protected by legislation were found to be present on the site, namely
Schedule 1 (high concern) bird species, bat species, grass snake and great crested newt.
Impacts on the various species were considered, with potentially significant pre-mitigation impacts
identified. Therefore mitigation measures to avoid adverse impacts are proposed and can be
conditioned. These measures include mitigation during construction to avoid nesting farmland
birds and disturbance to important species.
Proposed enhancements include restoration of the pond in the south of the site to improve its
reptile and amphibian habitat and an ongoing management plan for the semi-improved grassland
and ponds on the site. It is proposed that existing farming activities would continue up to the wind
turbine foundations and hardstandings.
It is considered that no significant issues of concern on biodiversity issues have been raised to
warrant a refusal of planning permission. Natural England raise no objection to the application.
Natural England recommend that turbine 4 is re-positioned further away from the adjacent
bridleway, preferably a distance of 200m as recommended by the British Horse Society. As
mentioned above it is proposed to ensure that turbine 4 will not oversail the bridleway but that
there is no statutory distance of separation. Therefore it is considered that there is insufficient
justification to require a 200m separation. Natural England also request that comments made by
Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB for additional visualisation work are taken into account.
Natural England support the proposed mitigation measures for farmland breeding birds, kestrel,
brown hare reptiles and great crested newts and also recommends post-construction monitoring of
bird and bat impacts. If the proposal is considered acceptable these issues can be covered
adequately by conditions.
Impact on the surrounding historic built environment
The applicant has undertaken extensive assessment of the proposal on the historic environment.
The ES accompanying the application assesses the indirect visual impact of the proposal on
scheduled monuments, conservation areas, listed buildings within 2km of the nearest proposed
turbine. The potential effects on the wider historic landscape are also assessed.
There are 21 Grade I, II* and II listed buildings within 2km of the nearest proposed turbine. None
of these buildings fall outside the ZTV and therefore all have been assessed. It was found that 10
listed buildings are screened or largely screened by topography and/or vegetation such that the
proposed turbines would not affect key views from or of them. Of the remaining 11 the ES
considers that the predicted effect of the proposed turbines on 6 of them would be
major/moderate, which would be significant. The 6 listed buildings in question are Moat
Farmhouse, Laurels Farmhouse, Pastures Farmhouse, White House Farmhouse and its
associated barn and Red Barton. However a significant effect is not necessarily adverse. In each
case the Assessment of Effects states that only parts of some of the turbines/rotor sweeps will be
visible when viewing the buildings. None of them were considered to have important views from or
of them and the proposed turbines were not adjacent to them or within the immediate or wider
setting and so would not result in visual dominance when considering the listed building and its
setting.
Holton Conservation Area is located 1.8km south of the nearest proposed turbine. The ES states
that the turbines would not be adjacent to the Conservation Area or within the immediate or wider
setting and therefore would not be visually dominant.
37
There is only one Scheduled Monument, Moat Yards, within 2km of the nearest proposed turbine.
It is situated 1.3km north and the ES states that the proposed turbines would be clearly visible in
views from just beyond the vegetation surrounding the moat, looking south. However the ES states
that the proposed turbines would not result in visual dominance and therefore the predicted effect
is moderate which would not be significant.
It is clear from the consultation response above that English Heritage are not objecting to this
proposal. However in response to their comments the applicant undertook additional survey work
and visualisations in respect of all 11 listed buildings referred to, including 9 that lie beyond 2km
from the proposed turbines, and Halesworth Conservation Area (which also lies more than 2km
from the site).
English Heritage notes that the additional analysis shows no impact on 2 of the listed buildings, a
minor/moderate impact on 5 and a moderate impact on 4. On this basis English Heritage do not
raise any objection although it is recommended that further assessment is undertaken in respect of
the churches at Blyford and Westhall. However, after detailed consideration of the comprehensive
assessments submitted in the initial ES and further assessments undertaken, together with visits
to each of the sites, it is considered that further assessment of these two churches is not
warranted. A detailed assessment of Westhall church is provided in the ES which shows there is
potential for partial visibility of 1 or 2 turbine hub and blades obliquely from the church entrance in
winter months and partial visibility of all 5 turbines from limited parts of the churchyard, resulting in
a moderate effect that would not be significant. Whilst it is agreed that a slight change to the
understanding and appreciation of the church would occur as a result of the proposed turbines it is
considered that the extent of mature and dense tree cover surrounding the churchyard is such that
the impact on it would not be unduly harmful.
Blyford church has also been assessed in detail both in the original ES and in the further analysis
and found generally not to be visible in the wider landscape, except from the B1123 where the
turbines would be seen as separate to the church and its wider setting. It is agreed that from the
church itself and immediate setting, the proposed turbines would be visible from only a very limited
section of the churchyard and that these views would be limited by rising intervening farmland.
Accordingly it is considered that the impact on the church would not be significant and that further
assessment is not required.
The additional information also includes a cumulative impact assessment on the historic
environment as a whole as requested by English Heritage. By combining the Scheduled
Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas the following can be summarised:
i)
ii)
iii)
no significant effects predicted on the settings of two Scheduled Monuments
out of 29 listed buildings assessed a significant effect predicted on 6, each of which is
located approximately 1.2km of the nearest proposed turbine
No significant effect predicted on either Holton or Halesworth Conservation Areas.
Whilst it is accepted that the proposed windfarm will have some impact on the setting of some
listed buildings the issue to address is whether the impact undermines the special characteristics
of the reasons for the building being listed. Of the 6 listed buildings where the predicted effect is
considered in the ES to be significant, it is considered important to note that, in each case, there
would only be a moderate change to the understanding and appreciation of the building and its
setting. With the distances involved, the topography of the area and existing vegetation parts of
turbines and blades may well be seen from a number of listed buildings however their listing status
will not be significantly affected by the proposed development. Furthermore it is considered that
any impact that does result will be temporary given that the windfarm, if approved, would remain
for no more than 25 years as any consent would be subject to decommissioning which would
require the removal of the turbines. It is therefore considered that any limited impact upon listed
buildings is outweighed by the wider environmental benefits (including climate change) that will be
delivered by the proposed development.
38
Noise
Local residents have raised concerns about the noise implications and health concerns (in
particular vibroacoustic disease and wind turbine syndrome) in respect of the proposed
development. The ES includes an assessment of the potential noise impact based guidance as set
out in ETSU-R-97. This method of noise assessment is in accordance with guidance in PPS22.
The assessment indicates that baseline noise measurements were taken at six locations
representative of the nearest residential properties to the site. Predictions of wind turbine noise
were made based upon a warranted sound power level data for Enercon E70 2.3 mw wind
turbines. The assessment shows that the predicted noise levels meet the fixed night time limit and
lower day time limit described in ETSU-R-97, under all conditions.
Concern has been raised by some respondents about vibrations from wind turbines and the effect
this can have on health. The PPS22 Companion Guide states that there is no evidence that
ground transmitted low frequency noise from wind turbines is at a level to be harmful to human
health. A study of low frequency noise and vibration around a modern wind farm was carried out
by ETSU which found that vibration from wind turbines, as measured from 100m from the nearest
machine, was well below criteria for human exposure in critical working areas such as precision
laboratories. At greater distances from wind turbines vibration levels will be even lower.
The Councils Environmental Health Officer raises no objection and notes that the noise
assessment has been undertaken by competent experts and in accordance with the most up to
date relevant guidance. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with the relevant
guidance and an objection on noise/vibration grounds could not be justified. Appropriate conditions
could be applied to any grant of planning permission to ensure noise limits remain within
recommended guidelines.
Shadow Flicker
When the sun is specifically positioned with respect to a wind turbine or moving blade and the
window of a neighbouring property a shadow may be cast on the window. A shadow flicker
assessment was undertaken which identified 3 properties with the potential to experience shadow
flicker. The assessment has determined that shadows may be cast on the identified properties for
a maximum of 59 days a year and for no more than 27 minutes on any one day. The ES states
that the wind farm control system can be programmed to switch off the turbine during the times of
potential effect whenever the conditions for shadow flicker exist. It is therefore considered that any
issues in respect of shadow flicker and residential amenity can be adequately mitigated against by
an appropriate condition should consent be granted.
Traffic and Transportation
The ES gives consideration to access to the site and impact on the surrounding highway
infrastructure. It indicates that abnormal load vehicles will approach the site from the north along
the A144 and then Sparrowhawk Road and Butts Road to the site entrance. The total construction
period is estimated to be nine months with the most significant traffic volumes occurring during the
first four months with the most significant vehicular movement in any one day being associated
with the delivery of concrete for the turbine foundations. Each of the foundations will require
approximately 33 deliveries in one day, therefore there will be five days when peak traffic volume
will occur. With respect to turbine components there would be a total of 110 traffic movements.
During construction and decommissioning movements of exceptional loads will be restricted,
wherever possible to off-peak times to minimise disruption on the road network. It is considered
that traffic generated by the proposal will be restricted to a relatively short period and can be
adequately accommodated within the highway network. As noted above the Highway Authority
raise no objections to the proposal.
Proximity to Public Footpath/Bridleway
As will be noted above a public footpath/bridleway runs to the south of the proposed windfarm and
some objectors raise concern about the close proximity, particularly of turbines 4 and 5. On this
issue PPS22 Companion Guide states that the minimum distance is often taken to be that the
turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a public right of way. In the case of the proposed
39
windfarm this equates to a blade length of 35.5m. Turbine 4 has been relocated 56m north of the
actual route of the public right of way on the ground (and 35.5m of the definitive route) and turbine
5 is positioned 41m west of it. With regards to safety PPS22 Companion Guide notes that
experience indicates that wind turbines are a safe technology and that there has been no example
of injury to a member of the public. The British Horse Society`s recommended separation distance
(200m) is non-statutory. Turbines 4 and 5 exceed the minimum required oversail distance and
therefore it is considered that an objection on these grounds could not be justified.
Terrestrial Television Reception
Terrestrial television reception can be affected by turbine towers and the movement of the blades.
The ES states that 156 houses have been identified that may suffer interference to television
reception although it is not possible to accurately predict the exact number until all five turbines are
erected. To mitigate against any adverse effect the developer proposes to undertake a preconstruction terrestrial television survey. Any dwellings that do experience interference as a result
of the proposed development would be visited by a qualified engineer to resolve the issue.
Conclusion
The application raises many issues and has divided opinion both from the public and the various
consultees. The positioning of wind turbines in the open countryside has predictable and well
documented impacts, many of which are raised in this report. In determining this application
Members will need to balance up several conflicting issues. The balance to be struck between the
supportive nature of national, regional and local policies and the impact of the five proposed
turbines on the character of the wider countryside and the associated visual impacts represents
the biggest issue to address.
Central government is clearly supportive of renewable energy developments. It recognises that
tackling climate change and reducing greenhouse gasses is one of the biggest challenges ever
faced and one that cannot be ignored. PPS22 sets out the key principle that renewable energy
development should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where
the technology is viable and environmental and social impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.
Opinions on wind turbines in the landscape are very subjective, leading to a wide range of views
from the very negative to the very positive. The key material planning considerations which need
to be balanced against this policy context are the impact of the proposed turbines on the
surrounding landscape, listed buildings in the locality and residential amenity.
Wind turbines, by their very nature are modern industrial features that are atypical of Waveney
Districts landscape. The issue of impact of the proposal on the wider landscape has been made by
the majority of objectors.
In determining the application Members need to address the significance of these impacts. Whilst
the impacts are widely recognised it is a matter of judgement whether they are of sufficient nature
to justify refusal of the application. It is suggested that significant weight is given to the following
factors:
1. the application proposes the retention of the turbines for a period of 25 years and on
proposed decommissioning of the site the visual effects will be reversed, therefore there
will be little permanent impact on the wider landscape. Technological advancements are
such that there is every possibility that electricity will be generated in many different ways
over the time period.
2. The application site does not fall within any national landscape designation type. The
Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB (approximately 4km to the east of the site) is the nearest
such designation.
3. There is no overall agreed position on the significance of the impact of the proposed
turbines on the wider landscape.
4. The design and positioning of the proposed turbines will mitigate some of the impacts
40
On this basis and whilst recognising the nature of consultee responses and the level of local
objection it is considered that on balance greater weight should be afforded to national and
regional planning policies in respect of the generation of renewable energy. The five proposed
turbines would generate up to 24200 MWh of electricity per year, equivalent of the energy
requirements of some 5140 dwellings. This is a significant contribution that would offset up to
20,800 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.
Having taken detailed account of the varied issues it is considered that the various impacts are not
sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. Therefore it is considered that, on balance, the
proposal should be approved. The application is well detailed and the proposal accords with
national and regional policy and will generate a substantial amount of electricity from a renewable
source in accordance with the wider government agenda. Whilst there will be particular local
impacts in an area of surrounding countryside, these impacts are not considered to be so
significant as to warrant refusal of planning permission. Subject to appropriate conditions the
impact of the proposal can be mitigated to a satisfactory extent.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE subject to conditions covering: time limit of 25 years and notification to local planning
authority of first generation of electricity, amended position of turbine 4, height of the wind turbine
system and blade length, submission of construction management plan, removal of any turbines
that fail to produce electricity for a continuous period of 12 months, mitigation measures for
farmland breeding birds, kestrel, brown hare, reptiles and great crested newts, post construction
monitoring of bird and bat impacts, alleviation of shadow flicker, alleviation of electromagnetic
interference, archaeology, details of the design, colour and specification of the turbines, no logo or
adverts to be displayed, noise emissions, noise measurement protocol, aviation lighting, hours of
operation of construction phase, no external lighting, all blades to rotate in the same direction,
decommissioning programme and landscape restoration, details of materials and component
delivery.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
CONTACT
Case File DC/09/0491/FUL held in Planning Office, Customer
Service Centre, The Marina, Lowestoft
Phil Perkin, Principal Planning Officer, 01502 523073
41
Minutes of a site meeting held on Friday, 31 July 2009 at 10.00am
Members present: J Groom (Chairman), S Allen, G Elliott, P Flegg and M Ryland
Appendix
A
Officers present: R Cox (Committee Officer), P Perkin (Principal Planning Officer) and A Reynolds
(Principal Environmental Health Officer)
Others: Phil Richmond (Bernard Matthews Project Manager), Johny Rankin (Agent),
Representatives From Westhall, Holton and Spexhall Parish Councils and Mr Simpson-James
(Resident/Objector)
DC/09/0491/FUL – INSTALLATION OF 5 WIND TURBINES; LAND AT FORMER AIRFIELD
UPPER HOLTON, HALESWORTH
The Chairman welcomed Members to the site meeting. He reminded them that the visit was a fact
finding one and that any decision would be made at a future meeting of the Committee.
Phil Perkin, Principal Planning Officer outlined the proposal. He explained that each turbine would
be 64 metres high to the hub of the turbine, the maximum height to the tip of the blade would be
100 metres. The turbine would generate sufficient electricity for 5,000 houses for a year via the
national grid. The site for the proposed wind turbines was not within a national designated area
and the proposal was in line with the Government guidelines in reducing the carbon footprint. An
Environmental Statement/Assessment had been produced which detailed any listed buildings in
the area, which could be affected by the proposal.
The Project Manager confirmed that this particular site was one of three that had been
investigated. He confirmed that each turbines output would be 28% at full capacity.
The site visit moved around to several different locations within the village to gauge the potential
impact from different points surrounding the site.
Parish Councillors expressed serious concern about the size of the turbines and the visual impact
on the surrounding area. Also Members were informed that day-to-day operations on site could be
heard from neighbouring properties some distance away.
The meeting was concluded at 11.25pm
Chairman
42
Minutes of a site meeting held on Thursday, 6 August 2009 at 9.00am
Members present: J Groom (Chairman), S Allen, P Ashdown, M Cherry, G Elliott, P Flegg, I
Graham, S Keller, P Light and M Ryland
Officers present: R Cox (Committee Officer), P Perkin (Principal Planning Officer) and A Reynolds
(Principal Environmental Health Officer)
WIND TURBINES SITE VISIT TO SWAFFHAM AND NORTH PICKENHAM WIND FARM,
NORFOLK
The Chairman welcomed Members to the site meeting.
Firstly Members visited the EcoTech Visitor Centre at Swaffham and viewed the 100 metre high
wind turbine. The Manager of the Eco Tech Centre gave Members some vital statistics of the
turbine. Unfortunately the turbine was having essential maintenance undertaken and as a result
no tours up the turbine were running.
Prior to the site visit a national paper had printed an article on people suffering from health
problems as a result of living near wind turbines, particularly from low frequency components of
the noise they generate. Members asked for clarification of the arguments advanced in the article
and how it should influence their thinking on the subject. Andrew Reynolds explained that there
were various sources of noise from wind turbines and several conflicting opinions circulating about
the effects and likelihood of each type of noise. Research into these phenomena was being
undertaken across the world and the newspaper article seemed to be based at least in part, on
some of the recent research being carried out in Portugal. He explained that the current
government guidance on the subject was “Planning Policy Statement 22 - Renewable Energy”
(published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister). This in turn refers to a document entitled
“The Assessment and rating of Noise from Wind farms” (also referred to as ETSU-R-97) which
sets out in detail the methodology which should be followed in cases like this. Any other research
and any articles and objections based on it, is interesting, but we would need compelling reasons
to depart from the statutory guidance. The applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment had
been compiled by an acoustic consultant who were recognised experts in the field of wind turbine
noise assessment and they had specifically addressed the issues of low frequency noise and
vibration from the proposed development. As a result, there were no reasons to set aside the
assessment methodology set out in ETSU-R-97 and therefore, no reasons to disagree from the
overall conclusions presented by the applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment.
Members then visited the North Pickenham wind farm.
The meeting was concluded at 13.15pm
Chairman
43