12/00123/FUL
AGENDA ITEM 7
ERECTION OF THREE-BLADED WIND TURBINE OF HEIGHT
TO CENTRE OF HUB 55.6m AND HEIGHT TO BLADE TIP OF
79.6m ON LAND AT BLAKELEY FARM, BLAKELEY LANE,
WHISTON FOR MR DAVID COTTON.
Parish: Kingsley
Case Officer: Mr. A. D. Swithenbank
Grid Reference: SK 053 469
Registration: 15/08/2012
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for a three-bladed wind turbine with a potential peak power output of
500kW mounted on a tapered tubular tower of height 55.6 metres, matt pale grey in
colour. The base diameter is not stated but measures from plan as in excess of 3.0m
tapering to approximately 2.0 metres. The blade length is 24.0m giving an overall
height to blade tip of 79.6 metres. Two equipment box units are required alongside the
tower base measuring 3.05m x 2.95m x 2.44m in height to eaves. A 350m long 4.0m
wide temporary access road across fields would be required to enable construction
access. Drawings with the application show this to be constructed by excavation to a
depth of 500mm and filled with aggregate, although accompanying documentation
refers to the use of removable temporary sectional road surface panels which, following
removal, would “leave no visual impact on the local landscape”. A levelled working area
of 1050m2 would be excavated at the turbine base involving removal of 364m3 including
the top soil. The latter would be retained on site for re-use to cover the operational site
area on completion of construction. Profile sections have not been provided and it is
therefore unclear precisely how the landform would be altered. Connection to the
electricity grid would be via underground cables using ducting laid along the access
routes. Although capable of running at a power output of up to 500kW, for reasons of
noise control the application proposes that the turbine would operate at a maximum of
300kW during the daytime and only at the full 500kW at night. The applicant has not
stated the expected actual power outputs of this proposal but refers to an estimated
annual carbon saving of 795 tonnes. By conversion at the rate of 0.543kg of carbon
saved for every kWh of wind energy generated this suggests a predicted power output
of 1.4MWh per annum. Using the OFGEM UK average annual household consumption
of 4,100kWh it appears this project could supply wind generated electricity equivalent to
the annual demands of 357 homes. The agent for the applicant was invited to confirm
the predicted power output along with certain other information but no additional details
have been forthcoming.
The application documents extend to more than 130 pages and include a Design and
Access Statement and a Planning Statement and Environmental Report with the
following appendices: Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Bat Activity Survey,
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Noise Data and a Shadow Flicker data
schedule.
SITE LOCATION /DESCRIPTION
The location is on a subsidiary but prominent ridge on the rising eastern flanks of the
7.1
AGENDA ITEM 7
Churnet Valley 600m north east of the hamlet of Moneystone, 1.6km east of Whiston,
1.7km north west of Cotton and 2km north of Oakamoor. The site is a 1.5 ha (less than
4 acre) field on steadily rising ground towards the summit crest of a generally north west
to south east ridge line of height generally 275m to 280m AOD. The base altitude of
the turbine would be at approximately the 275m contour. Immediately to the east of the
turbine ridge is the secluded shallow valley of the Cotton Brook with Cotton Dell to its
southern end and the hamlets and closely scattered houses and farmsteads of Upper
Cotton to the northern end lying within a 1km radius of the turbine site. The general
immediate surroundings are attractively varied in topography and land use with a
mixture of woodland, ponds, water courses, rough grassland, meadows and pastures
typically small in scale, some with walls others with hedgerow boundaries, all combining
with the scatter of mainly traditional stone properties to give a delicate and distinctly
rural feel to the landscape. In the wider setting the landscape generally rises to the
north east towards Windy Harbour and the higher Ipstones Edge 3km to the north. The
landscape falls away within 2km to the south west into the bottom of the Churnet Valley.
The recently discontinued Moneystone quarry lies immediately to the south west and
the Caldon Quarries are some 3km to the north east but neither of these impinge
directly on the visual qualities and character of the local setting of the application site.
A public footpath right of away which is also a link in one of the promoted Staffordshire
Moorlands Walks passes along the north west boundary of the field of the application
site within 20m of the blade reach. There is also a moderate density of interlinking
public rights of way within generally close range of the proposal. The ridge top land
bordering east and north of the site proposal field is open access land with a right of
public access on foot under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000).
Staffordshire Wildlife Trust own and manage land as part of their Cotton Dell Nature
Reserve southwards from the application site.
The nearest residential properties are at Blakeley Lane within 400m to the west and at
Cotton Lane a similar distance to the east. There is a wide scatter of some 50 further
properties within a half to 1.5km radius.
PLANNING HISTORY
The following relate to Blakeley Farm some 500m to the north west of the site location:
10/00949/FUL – agricultural building to house cattle – approved
11/00725/FUL – slurry lagoon – approved
REPRESENTATIONS
Expiry of:
Press notice: 12th September 2012
Site notice: 24th September 2012
Neighbour notices: 13th September 2012
20 letters of objection from local residents concerned principally by impacts on
landscape, wildlife, health and residential enjoyment, noise, shadow flicker, tranquillity,
misleading and inaccurate photo representations.
7.2
AGENDA ITEM 7
Staffordshire Wildlife Trust – ‘holding objection’ citing insufficient survey assessment for
bats and for birds; measures needed to ensure protection of Great Crested Newts.
CPRE Staffordshire – objection due to visual prominence and incongruity with rural
character, loss of tranquillity.
CONSULTATIONS
Kingsley, Cotton and Oakamoor Parish Councils
Awaited – the Clerk has confirmed that the above Parishes will consider the proposal at
their September meetings and responses are expected in advance of the Planning
Applications Committee date.
Local Highway Authority
Object – The access road leading to the site is substandard in that the junction of
Blakeley Lane with the A52 and the junction of Blakeley Lane and the farm access track
both appear to be of inadequate geometry to accommodate abnormal loads and
Blakeley Lane appears likely generally to be of inadequate construction to
accommodate abnormal loads and the use of such roads by abnormal loads would
result in an increase in the likelihood of danger to road users. This recommendation of
refusal will not prejudice consideration of a further application at a later date when:
information on the size, weight and number of proposed abnormal loads; information on
the size and weight of the large crane; ‘Autotrack’ runs of Blakeley Lane/A52 junction,
Blakeley Lane and Blakeley Lane/access track junction; proposals to jointly inspect the
condition of Blakeley Lane before and after construction and agreement of remedial
works or proposals for a smaller turbine or smaller components deliverable on smaller
vehicles are included in the application.
County Environmental Advice
Considers an appropriate methodology of landscape impact assessment to have been
followed. Considers insufficient information to have been provided to assess the
potential impact of the proposal on bird life.
Natural England
Awaited.
Ecology and Landscape Officer
Object – The landscape impacts are judged considerable and should be considered
grounds to refuse the application as being contrary to landscape policy. Bat survey and
assessment has been undertaken which has not revealed any evidence suggesting a
significant threat to bats. There is limited basis to assess the potential threat to birds of
a single wind turbine of this size despite its ridge location. In the event of approval a
monitoring regime should be agreed with the LPA to gather evidence as to any harm to
bird life. Subject, in the event of approval, to survey and mitigation as necessary with
regard to Great Crested Newts there is no grassland ecology concern.
7.3
AGENDA ITEM 7
Environmental Health Officer
Object – In order to accept the validity of the submitted noise data the relevant
accredited report as conducted under the international standard IEC 61400-11 should
be provided. This document has not as yet been provided although it has been
referenced in the day and night time noise calculations provided by the applicant under
a disclaimer paragraph in the applicant’s acoustic submission. There was also a
request for information relating to any tonality associated with the turbine but this too
has not been provided. In the absence of documentation to support the sound power
levels and predicted noise impact levels at the referenced wind speeds then the data
submitted cannot be considered as validated at this stage. The proposal to operate the
turbine at increased power and rotational level at night should also be explained as part
of any supplementary information in order to understand why it is appropriate to
increase the turbine noise threshold when background noise levels decrease. So in the
absence of the further supporting data which was requested the advice at this stage is
refusal on the grounds of insufficient information.
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. The application identifies three properties with the potential to be affected by
shadow flicker on a maximum of 22, 38 and 43 days respectively per annum though in
each case for only short spells of 6 minutes, 15 minutes and 18 minutes respectively.
As these are worst case predictions but amount to very short periods it may be judged
that the effects would not be unduly disruptive to the health, well-being and amenity of
the occupiers.
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)
N8
Special Landscape Area
N9
Special Landscape Area
B13
Built Environment
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan
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
7.4
Section 10
Section 11
PPS.22
AGENDA ITEM 7
Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion Guide to PPS 22.
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:
 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?
Policy
1. The location is within the Special Landscape Area and therefore Staffordshire
Moorlands Local Plan saved policies N8, N9 and B13 apply.
2. There are national policies to establish sources of renewable energy as supported by
section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 but the NPPF also
makes clear that approval should not follow where material considerations indicate
otherwise.
3. 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).
7.5
AGENDA ITEM 7
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 Dissected
Sandstone Highland Fringe landscape character type. The adopted landscape policy
for this location is ‘landscape maintenance’ indicating a high quality landscape, ranked
at four on a five point scale from very low to very high quality where five is highest. The
policy is for “substantial emphasis to be placed on ensuring the development blends
unobtrusively into the landscape and does not lead to the loss of features characteristic
of it”. 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.
Landscape and Visual Impact
4. Landscape topography, and the proportions of the proposed turbine in relation to it,
are key factors in the assessment of this proposal. The proposed turbine location is in
a prominent position raised up on a distinctive ridge line feature which is itself prominent
within the eastern flanks of the Churnet Valley. The structure would be visible and
would tend to be prominently visible from a wide arc of the surrounding countryside
particularly from within 2km and up to 3km distance away. Theoretical visibility extends
more widely still and subject to local details of topography, vegetation and buildings the
structure is likely to appear prominent in certain views at least in certain light conditions
from up to at least 5km. This is judged especially likely in views from the west and
south.
5. At almost 80m in height and with a rotating blade head of three rotors describing a
circle (in vertical plane) of 48m in diameter centred on a point 55.6m in the air the
turbine would be striking. The structure would present a complete contrast to any
currently established norm in the landscape and on this basis would be likely to be
considered alien and out of character. The closest comparable structures are perhaps
the masts on Ipstones Edge, between 3km and 4km to the north, the highest of which
are estimated at 50 metres.
6. The prominent location and large dimensions of the turbine would combine, often or
usually with the movement of the rotating blades, to make this a highly noticeable
structure unlikely to blend unobtrusively into the landscape. It will more likely be
regarded as incongruous and at odds with the delicate and generally tranquil setting of
its immediate environs. The applicant’s submitted Landscape Visual Impact
Assessment concludes that the proposal would have a “moderately adverse impact”.
However this conclusion has been drawn from a structured assessment in which it was
concluded that there was no cumulative impact, no impact on tranquillity, no incongruity
and that the people affected or ‘receptor’ impact was of low importance. Each of these
conclusions is readily contestable and if it is judged in relation to any one or all of the
following that in fact the turbine would present an incongruous structure in this
landscape; would disrupt tranquillity, which is not solely about noise but the movement
and sense of artifice in a natural setting are also factors; would interact cumulatively
with for example the Ipstones Edge masts and if it is judged that the receptor
implications are greater given the communities of properties affected and the
recreational importance of the immediate area the impact becomes greater than
moderately adverse.
7.6
AGENDA ITEM 7
7. Inevitably it is at very close quarters that the impacts of the proposal would be most
noticeable. With, in addition to the turbine, the requirement for landscape excavation to
create a level operational platform on the gently sloping field site and the erection of
two equipment cabins the character of the field location would be markedly altered and
in effect ‘urbanised’. It is less clear what lasting impact the provision of an access track
for construction purposes would have but there are risks of negative impacts from this,
certainly if built to the plan specifications as provided. The location as existing has an
intimate appeal. The proportions of the field and of the nearby topography generally
are quite small in scale. The shorter of the field boundaries north east of the proposal
site is only 100m and the longer field boundary around 150 metres. The height of the
woodland trees bordering two sides of the field is only in the order of 10metres. The
turbine at 55.6m to hub and almost 80m to blade tip would dominate this field and
appear very much out of proportion to this setting adding to its sense of incongruity.
8. Visual impact is about considering to what extent people’s experience of the
landscape could be affected by the proposal. This has already been considered in part
above but in addition particular reference needs to be made to the impacts for users of
the top road 1.5km to the north east especially between the Threelows junction at the
Ramshorn Common end and Windy Harbour, and to users of the main A52 particularly
when dropping down westwards from Windy Harbour towards Whiston. These are well
used routes and would give rise to views of the turbine over extended lengths. The
density of the local public rights of way network and the proximity of a block of open
access land bordering with the proposal field and the evidently well used nearby
footpaths tend to a conclusion of at least moderate impact levels not least because at
the close distances the noise impacts will be significant as well as the visual impacts.
Residential Amenity
9. The Environmental Health Officer assessment of noise impact is that further
validation of the data submitted needs to be provided. Further information is also
needed to allow consideration of any ‘tonality’ or low frequency noise which may be
caused. Shadow flicker, although a factor for consideration with this proposal, is judged
unlikely to be harmfully disruptive to the occupiers of the premises affected.
Highway Safety
10. The Highways Officer recommends refusal.
Ecology
11. As outlined above in the consultation responses section it is found that there are no
outright grounds for ecological rejection of the proposal but the implications for birdlife
are not established. In the event of approval various measures of mitigatory
management and observation would be recommended.
Heritage Assets
12. No Listed Building or Conservation Area issues identified in relation to this
application.
Public Footpaths and Bridleways
13. One public footpath passes within 20m and is a promoted Staffordshire Moorlands
Walk. As discussed in the opening description and at 4 and 8 above the users of a
7.7
AGENDA ITEM 7
moderately dense network of local public access routes will be affected by both noise
and visual impacts.
Grid Connection
14. This would be by underground cable. It is not known if additional improvement
works to any overhead lines would be necessitated potentially adding visual intrusion
elsewhere in the countryside.
Overall Balance and Conclusion
15. The application is for a 500kW turbine which it is estimated will produce 1.4MWh of
wind generated energy per annum, equivalent to the amount of energy consumed by
357 residential properties each year. The provision of this level of renewable energy is
a material consideration of significant weight in the determination of this application. It
will contribute in a significant way to regional and national energy targets. However a
balance must be struck between competing considerations. This is a large scale
proposal in a landscape of small scale features and as such is out of proportion. Along
with the extent of other associated development the proposal would bring a strongly
urbanising effect to an otherwise rural location. In direct conflict with the adopted
landscape policy this proposal would be obtrusive and would not blend with the
landscape. The development would disrupt the sense of tranquillity of the immediate
surroundings visually and through noise. The area is rich in its recreational appeal
owing to the quality of landscape and wildlife including a County Site of Biological
Importance and a Staffordshire Wildlife Trust nature reserve and owing to the extensive
opportunities of public access by means of rights of way and open access land
available close by. There are concerns from the Environmental Health Officer that the
potential disturbance to residential properties has not been fully evaluated and whilst it
is possible that with further information these concerns may be resolved it is essential
given the potential significance of the effects upon residents that these issues are fully
understood. Approval of the application would not be appropriate whilst there is doubt.
16. In this instance, taking account of all matters raised and which have been
discussed above, it is concluded that the balance is against this proposal. The
considerable harm that it would cause to the character and appearance of the area in
this particular case outweighs the benefit of producing renewable energy and
contributing towards Government targets. For these reasons a recommendation of
refusal is made. Therefore having regard to national and local planning policy and to
the information provided with the application the judgment is that this proposal is
inappropriate due to its significant and harmful landscape impact and harmful visual
impact on highly sensitive receptors. As such the proposal is contrary to Polices N8
and N9 of the Local Plan, Policies NC1, NC2 and D2 of the Structure Plan and to
national planning policy in the NPPF.
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The considerable harm that it would cause to the character, tranquillity and
appearance of the area which in this particular case substantially outweighs the benefit
7.8
AGENDA ITEM 7
of producing renewable energy and the contribution towards Government targets and
would be in clear breach of Saved Policies NC1, NC2 and NC4 of the Staffordshire and
Stoke on Trent Structure Plan and to national planning policy of the NPPF;
2. The unsuitability of the local road network to accommodate the abnormal loads that
would be necessitated by construction traffic for the proposal and consequent potential
risks to the safety of highway users;
3. Risks of unacceptable levels of noise intrusion for local residential properties.
7.9