12/00435/FUL
AGENDA ITEM 12
ERECTION OF WIND TURBINE OF HEIGHT TO CENTRE OF
HUB 25.8m AND HEIGHT TO BLADE TIP OF 36m ON LAND
AT HATCHLEY FARM, BATE LANE, DILHORNE FOR MR
ANDREW MELLOR.
Parish: Dilhorne
Case Officer: Mr. A. D. Swithenbank
Grid Reference: SJ 982 458
Registration: 03/06/2012
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for a two bladed wind turbine with a nominal peak power output of
50kW mounted on a single pole of galvanised steel 24m high and grey in colour. The
rotor diameter is 20.4m and the overall maximum height to blade tip is 36m. The
blades and generator hub are white. The pole has a diameter of 1m in the lower half
and 0.8m in the upper section and is mounted on a 6.4m x 6.4m concrete block
foundation of less than 1m depth set flush with ground level. An underground cable
connection is required to link the turbine with the farm premises 250m to the south. The
total annual power output for this proposal is stated as 175,000kWh. This is based on
an assumed average wind speed of 6m/s for this location at a height of 25m derived
from the Department of Energy and Climate Change wind speed database. Based on
a conversion ratio of 0.543kg of carbon saved for every kWh of wind energy generated
there is a predicted carbon saving for this proposal of 95 tonnes per annum.
The applicant’s farming business at Hatchley Farm occupies 200 acres with 200 head
of cattle including a 110 cow milking herd. The farm’s own annual electricity
consumption is given by the applicant as approximately 50,000kWh. According to the
applicant’s data the proposal would therefore generate a surplus of 125,000kWh
equivalent to the annual electricity demand of 31 homes based on 4,000kWh
consumption per household. On the same basis, the proposal’s total capacity would be
equivalent to the consumption of approximately 44 homes.
The application documents include a detailed Design and Access Statement, a
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment with accompanying photographs and the
manufacturer’s noise assessment and technical data.
SITE LOCATION /DESCRIPTION
The location is a locally elevated and open position somewhat central in a rather
expansive area of large agriculturally improved grassland fields with sparse hedgerows
and rather few isolated hedgerow trees. The site is towards the south west edges of a
large 10 hectare field. More specifically the site position is 50m out from the western
edge of the field, measured at right angles to the field boundary, at a point 110m from
the southwest field corner. The wider setting is that of a basin landscape. The basin is
contained by a ridge line which reaches approximately 270m to 280m height within
1.5km to the west and generally higher ground of 230m to 280m height within a
kilometre to the north. To the east the land again rises but more gently to about 220m
and plateaus away. The site location has an altitude of approximately 200m to 205m
12.1
AGENDA ITEM 12
on ground gently rising from the south. The overall landscape setting is more open to
the south but again more distant higher ground maintains the contained basin feel.
There is a significant degree of openness and sense of exposure in the character of the
location at close quarters due to the large size of nearby fields and the sparse hedge
and tree vegetation of some of the field boundaries. This is likely to be felt most in
overlooking views of the site from the public footpath network to the west and north.
The site is typically at least 1km from the public road network save for the very minor
road of Bate Lane to within 0.5km on the east side but from which views would be
limited due to local topography and/or hedges and trees along the lane. The nearest
public access is along Dairy House Lane, some 300m to the north at its closest.
The nearest residential properties are all reasonably distant from the proposal site with
Kingfisher Cottage at Hatchley Farm the closest at 250m to the south; the applicant’s
property at Hatchley Farm is 330m to the south; The Bungalow, Dairy House Lane is
250m to the north; The Oaks, Dairy House Lane is 410m to the north west; Dairy House
Farm is 450m to the northwest; Lower Above Park Farm is 460m just north of east and
Little Beck and Bate Farm are 500m plus to the south east.
PLANNING HISTORY
There is no planning history associated with the application site. Pre-application advice
was sought from the Local Planning Authority in relation to the present proposal along
with a request for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion.
These were provided dated 8th March 2012. It was concluded that an EIA was not
required.
REPRESENTATIONS
Expiry of:
Press notice: N/A
Site notice: 4th July
Neighbour notices: 4th July – two objections based on landscape impact concerns
CONSULTATIONS
Dilhorne Parish Council
Awaited.
Local Highway Authority
No objection.
Policy Officer
Summarises a range of policy issues and concludes permission should be granted if the
scheme’s benefits are found to demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’ in
consideration of the Green Belt and that these benefits outweigh any negative impacts.
12.2
AGENDA ITEM 12
Ecology and Landscape Officer
There are no biodiversity protection or conservation concerns raised by this proposal.
The grassland of the field is recently agriculturally improved and recorded as such by
the Staffordshire Ecological Survey. There is therefore no significant nature
conservation importance associated with the grassland. Whilst bats are a particular
consideration with wind turbine applications due both to the very high level of legal
protection applying to all species of bat and due to evidence from research that in the
vicinity of wind turbines bats may die either through direct collision or through
‘barotrauma’ whereby air pressure waves induce lung collapse, Natural England has
issued guidance which recommends that generally the degree of risk can be brought
within acceptable limits if the turbine blade reach is in excess of 50.0m of bat conducive
habitat features such as wall lines, hedges, ponds and trees or woods etc.. In this case
the site is at 50m from the western field boundary, itself sparse and of limited value to
bats, and is otherwise at in excess of 100m from relevant features. On this basis the
proposal complies with the advice of the regulatory body. Birds are also sometimes
considered to be at risk from turbines. The concerns are greatest at locations near to or
associated with habitats for rare species, especially raptors, and where large turbines
and multiples of turbines are proposed. There are no specially protected priority sites
for birds in the vicinity, the nearest being the Leek Moors Special Protection Area.
Evidence of a threat to bird populations more generally appears limited especially in
respect of isolated individual turbines.
The implications for the protection of the landscape need to be considered in two parts.
Firstly, does the proposal harm the landscape character of the location and its
surroundings or setting? Secondly, what is the degree of impact of the proposal on
people’s visual enjoyment of the landscape? This is assessed chiefly by reference to
the numbers of people likely to view the structure and how they are likely to perceive it.
This in turn is related to the extent or duration of views, proximity and what people are
doing when they see the structure. Although the structure may be judged to be alien
and out of character with accepted or established present day countryside norms the
slight dimensions and expansive setting may allow the landscape in this case to
successfully contain and absorb the impacts. Coupled with low visual impacts it can be
concluded overall that in landscape terms the proposal is acceptable.
Environmental Health Officer
No objections but recommends two conditions in the event of approval. The Council’s
standard requirement for wind turbine applications is to consider guidance from the
Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU) and the British Wind Energy Association
(BWEA) taking account of the specific site. A report specific to the application site
fulfilling the following is required:
a) An assessment in accordance with The Assessment and Rating of Noise from
Wind Farms, ref. ETSU-R-97 published by the Energy Technology Support Unit
(ETSU) for the Department of Trade and Industry.
b) A description of the noise data in the form of a “Noise Label” as described in
section 3.2 of Small Wind Turbine Performance and Safety Standard 2008
published by the British Wind Energy Association BWEA.
12.3
AGENDA ITEM 12
c) Application of the above data to a site-specific assessment of the noise impact of
proposed development on the nearest noise sensitive properties.
Shadow Flicker implications must be considered for properties situated within an arc of
1300 either side of north and within a distance from the turbine of up to 10x the rotor
diameter.
British Coal
No objection.
British Pipeline Authority
No objection.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
No objection.
POLICIES
West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy
QE1
Conserving and Enhancing the Environment
QE6
The Conservation, Enhancement and Restoration of the Region’s
Landscape.
QE7
Protecting, Managing and Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity and Nature
Conservation Resources
EN1
Energy Generation.
Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (1998)
N2
Green Belt
N7
Green Belt
N8
Special Landscape Area
N9
Special Landscape Area
N11
Peak National Park
B13
Built Environment
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan
D5 A
Green Belt
D5 B
Green Belt
NC1
Protection of the Countryside
NC2
Landscape Protection and Restoration
D2
Design and Environmental Quality of Development
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Paragraphs 1 – 17
Section 3
Supporting a prosperous rural economy
Section 7
Requiring good design
Section 9
Protecting Green Belt Land
Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
PPS.22
Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion Guide to PPS 22.
12.4
AGENDA ITEM 12
Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Revised
Submission Document, December 2011)
SS1
Development Principles
SD2
Renewable and Low-Carbon Energy
SO2
Adapting to Climate Change – Spatial Objectives
SO8
Design and Conservation Policies - Spatial Objectives
SO9
Countryside, Landscape and Biodiversity - Spatial Objectives
DC1
Design Considerations
DC3
Landscape and Settlement Setting
NE1
Biodiversity and Geological Resources
OFFICER COMMENT
Main Issues
The main issues in respect of this turbine proposal are:
 Does the agricultural component of the proposal create an exception allowing
the development within the Green Belt?
 If not, are there any very special circumstances that outweigh the harm of a
new building in the Green Belt and any other harm linked with the proposal,
sufficient to enable its approval?
 What are the impacts of the proposal on the surrounding area in terms of
landscape character and visual effects for people in the area?
 What is the effect on the amenity of nearby occupiers both during
construction and in operation, particularly with respect to visual intrusion,
shadow flicker and noise and general disturbance?
 What are the benefits of the proposal, particularly the benefits of renewable
energy generation in addressing climate change, and are these sufficient to
outweigh any harm anticipated after consideration of the above issues?
 Do the economic benefits to the farm business help towards future
maintenance of the farmed landscape and also local employment by
securing greater viability in the farm business?
Policy
1. The location is within the Green Belt and Special Landscape Area and therefore
Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan saved policies N2, N7, N8, N9 and B13 apply.
2. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 states that the fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open
and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and
permanence. NPPF paragraph 80 sets five purposes of Green Belt: to check
unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging;
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting
and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration by
encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Paragraph 89 states that,
subject to certain exceptions, new buildings should be regarded by local planning
authorities as ‘inappropriate’ in the Green Belt. Included in the list of exceptions are
buildings for agriculture and forestry. The Town and Country Planning Act (1990)
defines ‘building’ as including any structure or erection. Paragraph 87 states that
12.5
AGENDA ITEM 12
inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be
approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 88 states that when
considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that
substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt and that ‘very special
circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt’ by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 91 states that when located in the Green Belt elements of many renewable
energy projects will comprise inappropriate development and developers will need to
demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Paragraph 91 also
states that “Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental
benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources”.
3. The proposed turbine would be a new building in the Green Belt and unless it is to be
regarded as being for agriculture it would by definition be inappropriate and therefore
harmful to the Green Belt. On this basis it could not be approved unless very special
circumstances are shown to exist. These very special circumstances would need to be
sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and
any other harm.
4. Several policies under the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan (2001)
apply. NC1, Protection of the Countryside, requires that the countryside be
safeguarded for its own sake, that new buildings be strictly controlled respecting the
character of the countryside and maintaining or improving the environment with
mitigation of, or compensation for, any adverse environmental impacts. NC2,
Landscape Protection and Restoration requires that development be informed by and
sympathetic to landscape character and quality and should contribute, as appropriate,
to the regeneration, restoration, enhancement, maintenance or active conservation of
the landscape. Informing this policy is the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure
Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Planning for Landscape Change (2001).
This provides a systematic evaluation of landscape quality and characteristics across
the county. In this county-wide context the proposal site is placed within the Ancient
Slope and Valley Farm Land landscape character type. The adopted landscape policy
for this location is ‘landscape enhancement’ indicating a moderate quality landscape,
middle ranked on a five point scale from very low to very high quality. The policy
recognises that the area has suffered some erosion of character and loss of condition
and seeks to encourage small-scale landscape conservation schemes to stem the
decline in quality. Structure Plan policy D2 is concerned with the design and
environmental quality of development and requires development to generally conserve
and where possible improve the quality of life and the environment.
5. Is the development agricultural and therefore exempt from Green Belt control? The
applicant states that the farm’s electricity consumption is in the order of 50,000kWh per
annum. As the turbine is predicted to generate 175,000kWh per annum, even allowing
for additional generating capacity to cover pay back on the set up investment and
running costs, it is clear that the turbine would generate significantly more than the
agricultural requirement. The purpose cannot be considered purely agricultural. The
proposal amounts to a new building in the Green Belt which national policy determines
is inappropriate and therefore harmful.
12.6
AGENDA ITEM 12
6. Does the proposal affect the openness or permanence of the Green Belt? The
characteristics of the Green Belt as determined in policy, most recently the NPPF, are
its openness and permanence. A consideration of whether the proposal affects the
openness of the Green Belt in part benefits from consideration of the landscape
impacts (below). However the structure is evidently built of discrete and slim sections.
The support column at not greater than 1m in diameter can have perhaps only a limited
effect on the overall openness; similarly, the rotator blade section. However, when
moving, the blade will describe a circle of 20.4m diameter but the impact on openness,
even then, is not absolute as the surrounding landscape will remain largely visible, not
blocked out. This all tends to the conclusion that any loss of openness may fairly be
judged as slight.
7. Does the development have any detriment towards the five purposes of the Green
Belt? Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment may be considered the only
relevant purpose for consideration in this case. A judgement as to the extent and
severity of this is again likely to be informed by the landscape impact assessment set
out below. However the modest scale and slightness of form of the structure, the
expansive openness of the setting and the remoteness from other structures tends to a
conclusion that any sense of encroachment is again only slight or, at most, slight to
moderate.
8. Are there very special circumstances that would justify approval in accordance with
the terms set out at (3) above? The very special circumstances would need to outweigh
the harm, to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, and also any other harm.
The NPPF allows the inclusion of renewable energy production as a special
circumstance. In the case of this application the circumstances are that this particular
farm has an annual energy demand for electricity of 50,000kWh. Doubtless there will
be substantial further fuel and energy demands contributing to the overall carbon
dioxide emissions linked to the business. Within the farm boundaries it has been found
possible to produce from the natural wind resource available not only enough energy to
meet the farm’s own electricity needs but to produce more than twice as much again. If
these points taken together are judged to amount to ‘very special’ circumstances and if
these in turn are judged to outweigh the deleterious effects or ‘harm’ in all its forms then
it is appropriate to approve the application.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9. Landscape topography, and the proportions of the proposed turbine in relation to it,
are key factors in the assessment of this proposal. The turbine location is somewhat
central on gently rising ground in a rather expansive area of large agriculturally
improved grassland fields with sparse hedgerows and rather few isolated hedgerow
trees. The wider setting is that of a valley or bowl. The land falls away gently to the
south and rises more markedly to the north and west to the containing slope crests or
ridgelines at 230m to 280m altitude. To the east the land again rises but more gently to
about 220m and plateaus away.
10. At 35m in height the turbine would be comparable in size to an electricity pylon
typically in the range of 30m to 50m. It would differ markedly in form having a solid
narrow support column as opposed to a broader open lattice construction and of course
having a rotating blade head, in this case with two blades giving rise to a total moving
12.7
AGENDA ITEM 12
sail diameter of 20.4metres. As such the structure is not directly comparable to any
currently established norm in the landscape and on this basis would be considered alien
and out of character.
11. Due to the open and expansive setting of the site location it could be considered
that a single structure of slight dimensions as proposed here would be to some
significant degree absorbed by the setting. The landscape policy for the location
focuses on retrieving lost qualities rather than safeguarding the landscape as it remains
and promotes compensatory landscape improvements such as hedgerow re-creation to
accompany developments. The contribution of such an improvement could be imposed
by a condition if the application were permitted.
12. Visual impact is about considering to what extent people’s experience of the
landscape could be affected by the proposal. The area in view of the site is sparsely
populated. The public road network is mainly at some distance from the proposal
following the high points of the containing defining ridge lines or crests of the
surrounding higher land. A series of some five public footpaths to the west and north
which converge on or close to Dairy House Farm would be likely to give rise to views of
the proposal. However, as the turbine would have a base altitude of circa 200m to
205m and with a top height of 35m, there will be few opportunities to view the structure
against a sky backdrop. It is likely that the modest size of the structure, seldom if at all
to be seen other than against a land backdrop, means that the impacts would be
generally discrete and un-obtrusive.
Residential Amenity
13. The applicant has indicated that the noise impacts reduce to 35dB(A) at 250m.
Noise is only a concern if there are properties within this distance. As the closest
property is at 270m there are no noise impact concerns. Nevertheless a condition is
advised, if permission is granted, that in the event of noise exceeding the 35dB(A) limit
in relation to any residential property the turbine would cease to operate until and
unless the noise level was returned to within the required tolerance. The Environmental
Health Officer recommends two further conditions in the event of approval. Within the
260 degree arc centered on north there are no properties within 10x the rotor diameter
ie. 240m and therefore shadow flicker is not a consideration. A ‘noise label’ has not
been provided.
Highway Safety
14. The highways officer has investigated the vehicle sizes that would need to be
involved during construction and is satisfied that even considering the very narrow
approach roads, particularly of Bate Lane, no concerns arise.
Ecology
15. As outlined above in the consultation responses section it is found that there are no
ecological implications to warrant refusal of the application.
Heritage Assets
16. No issues arising in relation to this application.
12.8
AGENDA ITEM 12
Public Footpaths and Bridleways
17. No direct implications. As discussed at 12 above some paths will overlook the
structure but at distance and the visual impact of the proposal is judged to be generally
discrete.
Grid Connection
18. This would be by underground cable to the main farm premises 250m to the south.
Overall Balance and Conclusion
19. There is an agricultural element to this proposal equating to approximately one third
of the expected electricity output of the project. This is not sufficient on its own to
consider the proposal as an allowable exception in the Green Belt though it is
considered a marker tilting a degree of support in favour of the application. As
principally therefore a non-exempt new building there is harm to the Green Belt.
However the degree of harm when considered against the two key characteristics and
five defined purposes of the Green Belt is found to be very limited (paragraphs 6 and 7
above). No harm has been found to arise in relation to ecology or residential amenity.
Some harm is identified in relation to landscape character and visual impact but these
effects are again judged to be limited. Policy advocates landscape improvements
alongside new developments as of greater relevance than preservation owing to a
history of past deterioration.
20. What then are the benefits of the scheme and do these amount to very special
circumstances sufficient to overcome the identified harms. The NPPF cites renewable
energy production as a factor which can be included as very special circumstances. At
this farm location the opportunity has been found that will allow a net export of windgenerated electricity equivalent to the annual consumption of 31 homes. This is in
addition to covering the farm’s own electricity needs. It can in turn be assumed that the
project will contribute to the farm economy helping to sustain its viability and maintain
rural employment and future landscape maintenance in the agricultural pattern. It is
only as a result of local wind characteristics and the ability of the farm business to make
the necessary investment that the proposal is possible. All considered these factors
may reasonably be judged to combine as very special circumstances sufficient to
overcome the limited harms identified and justify approval of this application for a wind
turbine development in the Green Belt.
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the
date of this decision.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Town and Country
Planning, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004.
2. The maximum height of the wind turbine hereby approved from base to rotating blade
tips shall be 34.2m.
12.9
AGENDA ITEM 12
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.
3. Prior to work beginning a plan shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning
Authority showing an alternative route for users of footpath 15 avoiding the turbine and
the approved route shall be marked by a sign at each end and provided with any
necessary stile or gate to allow users of footpath 15 the option to follow an alternative
course linking with footpath 44 and this provision shall be in place prior to the start of
site work.
Reason: In the interests of the safety and amenity of users of footpath 15.
3. The turbine, turbine base and any associated equipment hereby approved shall be
removed and the land restored to its former agricultural use at or before the expiry of 25
years from the date of this permission in accordance with a scheme which shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority not later than 12
months prior to the expiry of the said period of 25 years.
Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the landscape from inappropriate
development.
5. If the turbine fails to produce electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12
months it, and its associated ancillary equipment shall be removed from the site within a
period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period. The land shall be reinstated in
accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority, and implemented as approved. The scheme shall include the
management and timing of the works.
Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the Special Landscape Area.
6. The level of noise emissions from the wind turbine when measured at the nearest
noise sensitive property should be limited to 5 dB (A) above prevailing background
noise levels. In the event of complaint then measurements to ensure compliance should
be conducted in line with ETSU-R-97. These measurements should be undertaken by
the operator and the results submitted to the Local Planning Authority upon request.
Reason:- To ensure that the reasonable residential amenities of adjoining properties
are adequately protected from noise pollution.
Reason:- To ensure that the reasonable residential amenities of adjoining properties
are adequately protected from noise pollution.
7. No construction work shall be carried out, and no materials shall be delivered to the
site, other than between the hours of 07.30 and 19.00 hours on Mondays to Fridays and
between the hours of 07.30 and 14.00 hours on Saturdays, and no such operations
shall take place at any time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reason:- To ensure that the reasonable residential amenities of adjoining properties
are adequately protected from noise pollution.
Informatives:
1. The application has been determined in accordance with Policies QE1, QE6, QE7 and
EN1 of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy; Saved Policies NC1, NC2, D2 of
the Adopted Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan; Saved Policies D5A, D5B,
12.10
AGENDA ITEM 12
N2, N7, N8, N9, N11 and B13 of the adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan;
Policies: SO2, SO8, SO9, SS1, SD2, DC1, DC3 and NE1 of the Core Strategy
Development Plan Document (Revised Submission Document) and the National
Planning Policy Framework (including Saved PPS.22 Companion Guide). It is
considered that the proposed turbine, taking account of its scale and proportions in
relation to its setting would not result in wide reaching impact on the character of the
local landscape nor would it be unduly visually intrusive for people living in or visiting the
locality and surroundings. It is considered on balance that the benefits of deriving
renewable energy and the benefits to the economics of the farm business serve to
outweigh such harm as may be caused to the character and appearance of the Special
Landscape Area. It is not considered that the proposal will detract from the amenity of
neighbouring occupiers nor raise any highway safety issues nor does it raise any
ecological conflicts or concerns.
12.11
AGENDA ITEM 12
12.12