a) DOV/ 13/00914 – Erection of single wind turbine with a maximum tip height

of 100m and associated infrastructure comprising turbine foundation, crane hard standing, two electrical equipment kiosks, temporary construction compound and ancillary infrastructure

Land at Barville Farm, Barville Road, Tilmanstone, Deal, CT15 5BQ Reason for report: The level of public interest in the application. b) Summary of Recommendation

Planning permission be refused c) Planning Policy and Guidance Government Policy - Renewable Energy Directive 2009 requires UK to provide 15%

of energy consumption by renewable sources by 2020. By 2011 6.8% of electricity produced from renewable sources. UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 suggests UK has potential for renewables to provide over 30% of energy needs by 2020 with two thirds coming from onshore and offshore wind. Latest figures suggest 15% figure will be achieved but further targets will be required beyond 2020.

Guide issued by Department of Energy & Climate change May 2104, stresses

the continuing importance of role planning system has to play in delivering renewable energy and provides case studies of wind farms and solar farms.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – Para 14 – at heart of system is

presumption in favour of sustainable development. Para 98 – Local planning authorities (LPAs) should not require applicants to

demonstrate overall need for renewable or low carbon and recognise that even small scale projects provide valuable contribution to cutting gas emissions. Applications should be approved if impacts are or can be made acceptable.

Para 109 – Planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local

environment by, inter alia, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Paras 128-137 - LPAs should assess significance of any heritage asset which may be

affected by a proposal. Where proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, harm should be weighed against public benefits of proposal.

National Planning Practice Guidance – Introduced on 6 March 2014. Provides

guidance on a number of planning issues including wind turbines and the historic environment including the following:

Renewable and low energy carbon Para 001 - Planning has important role to play in delivery of new renewable and low

carbon energy infrastructure Para 003 – The UK has legal commitments to cut greenhouse gases and meet

increased energy demand from renewable sources.

Para 07 – Need for renewable does not automatically override environmental protections. Local topography important factor in assessing impact of wind turbines. Impact can be as great in predominantly flat landscapes as hilly areas.

Para. 10 – Renewable energy development should be acceptable for their proposed

location Para 14 – Advice in relation to wind turbines. Issues to consider include noise, safety

(including air safety), electromagnetic interference, ecology, heritage, shadow flicker, energy output, cumulative landscape and visual impact, and decommissioning.

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Para 09 - Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in

their setting. Para 19 - A clear understanding of the significance of a heritage asset and its setting is

necessary to develop proposals which avoid or minimise harm. Dover District Core Strategy (DS) – refers to national energy targets for renewable

with para 2.26 recognising the District’s potential for renewable energy production lying mainly in wind and biomass. Objective 11 of Strategy seeks to use natural resources more efficiently including, inter alia, land for energy.

Policy DM1 – Development will not be permitted outside urban boundaries and rural

settlements unless justified by other policies or it functionally requires such a location.

Policy DM15 – Seeks to protect countryside by resisting development which would

adversely affect its character or result in loss of countryside. Development will only be permitted if, inter alia, it cannot be accommodated elsewhere, does not result in loss of ecological habitats and measures incorporated to reduce harmful effects on countryside character.

Policy DM16 – Development which would harm character of landscape will only be

permitted if it can be sited to avoid or reduce harm and/or incorporate design measures to mitigate the impacts to an acceptable level.

Policy DM19 – Permission will not be given for development which would adversely

affect District’s Historic Parks and Gardens

d) Relevant Planning History

DOV/12/00917 – Screening Opinion issued 18 December 2012– Environmental Assessment required

DOV/13/00072 – Scoping Opinion issued 15 April 2013 to determine extent of

studies to be included within the Environmental Assessment.

e) Consultee and Third Party Responses

Manston Airport – Originally raised objections to proposal on grounds of interference to radar systems. Following further discussions with applicant, the airport recognises that impacts could be managed through technical/operational solutions. Prepared to withdraw objection subject to a condition requiring scheme for mitigation to be agreed before the turbine would become operational.

Note: Since receipt of further representation Manston airport has now closed. KCC Archaeology – Could result in harm to buried archaeological remains but limited

to footprint of built development and agrees that a suitable programme of archaeological mitigation could be achieved through suitable condition. Setting of historic landscape will change but character can still be appreciated. Also agrees that setting of heritage assets appears not to be substantial as a result of screening through vegetation, topography or intervening buildings.

English Heritage – Does not consider that any designated assets would be directly

affected but potential impact upon buried archaeological remains. Agrees ES methodology largely sound. Some impact on Dane Court and tower at Waldershare Park but less than substantial within terms of NPPF. Setting of Malmain farmhouse will be diluted and harm to its significance as a result but also less than substantial.

Kent Downs AONB Unit – May be visible from within AONB and requests viewpoints

from within to demonstrate that. MOD - Defence Infrastructure Organisation – No objections but requires aviation

lighting to be fitted and subsequent details of construction Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions relating to avoiding

contamination. Rural Planning Ltd. – Acknowledges that Council’s previous screening opinion did

not raise loss of agricultural land as an issue that needed to be addressed. Environmental Protection – Has considered proposal in light of detailed noise

assessment provided. Agrees with conclusions that if proposed example of turbine is installed, or a quieter model, then operational noise would not be an issue. Also accepts noise from construction acceptable subject to hours of operation. Recommends condition to be imposed to monitor noise output once operational.

NATS Safeguarding (responsible for navigation of air traffic) – No objection as

does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Natural England – No objections in terms of statutory nature conservation sites or

protected landscapes. KCC Higways – No objections in principle but clarification required on various matters

relating to routing arrangements; traffic movements; and detailed arrangements of proposed access and construction track. Visibility splays at proposed access satisfactory. Turbine consistent with Highways Agency guidance and unlikely to be an issue should it fall across Thornton Lane.

Unlikely to cause traffic distractions to road users in vicinity to warrant a refusal on such grounds.

Arqiva (Responsible for transmission network) – Considered whether likely to

impact upon operations and have concluded no objections. Highways Agency - No objections. KCC Footpaths – Objects on the grounds that the turbine would be within falling

distance plus 10% of footpath EE341 and that development would impact greatly upon the path.

Channel Gliding Club – Objects to proposal. Points out that powered motor gliders

operate from site as well. Concerned that pilots looking for thermals in vicinity of site could be compromised and that it would cause potential safety hazard in the event of cable break or engine failure requiring aircraft to land outside the airfield. Not practical to include recommended mitigation measures, particularly a left hand circuit. Now that Manston has closed, aircraft fly closer to site thus further compromising safety. Would reduce free flight around Waldershare Park, a privilege which has existed for 30 years.

British Gliding Association – Supports objection of Channel Gliding Club. Club is

one of oldest in UK and has recently developed operations despite earlier setbacks. Recognise need for renewable energy but considers safe flying will be compromised. Refers to CAA guidance and that aerodrome manager advice can be expert testimony. Concerned that turbine would create obstruction hazard.

Third Party Responses Eythorne Parish Council – Opposes application Eastry Parish Council – By virtue of siting, height and scale would result in

detrimental effect on visual amenity. Would also detract from heritage assets, residential amenity and highway safety. Concerns also about effect on protected species. Above would outweigh any public benefits.

Tilmanstone Parish Council – Objects to development for reasons relating to noise

on local residents including Falconsview meadows and nearby properties; impacts on bats and failure of monitoring equipment to inform assessment; impact on visual amenity; impact on residential amenity – other appeal decisions have supported this; safety concerns during construction; likely to result in additional turbines

Sutton by Dover Parish Council – Will be clearly seen and cause depravation of

surrounding countryside. Risk to air traffic in area. Noise would be significant in Sutton Parish as wind is prevalent from west. Risk to air traffic in area.

Shepherdswell with Coldred Parish Council – Objects. Unacceptable intrusion into

the countryside.

Langdon Parish Council – Raises same landscape issues as turbines dismissed on appeal at East Langdon. Would have unacceptable impact. Safety concerns still exist and need to demonstrate that there is no risk to aviation.

CPRE – Will be obtrusive to large area. Noise will not be contained. Developers at

Eastry hospital have been told to respect countryside. Govt. Now supports offshore wind farms.

Eythorne Wind Turbine Action Group (EWTAG) – Objects to proposal. Objection

based on 113 local persons of whom 97% objected for following reasons: no assessment of residential properties at Falcons view or Pike Road; Precedent for further turbines; hazards to road users through shadow flicker and impact. Areas has high accident rate at Barville roundabout and local road; safety concerns during construction; examples of catastrophic turbine failure elsewhere and problems with ice shards; impact upon air safety – navigational beacons and Manston airport; decommissioning will not remove turbine foundations; visual impact for local persons and cumulative impact with Thornton lane; impact upon ecology, particularly hobby birds; impact upon bats underestimated and lack of data collected during august; impact on living conditions of local persons – 25 years a long time to suffer problems; impacts on health; noise assessment standards out of date; impact of shadow flicker on residential amenity; turbines not efficient – very small contribution to energy demands; aviation references out of date; NATS view may have conflict of interest; other proposals have been refused on appeal with similar distances to residential properties.

58 individual objections have been received to the proposal for reasons which may

be summarised as following: • Blot on landscape, intrusion into natural area, visible for miles • Would be taller than Big Ben and on highest point locally • Precedent for further turbines – up to 3 turbines mentioned in some reports • Cumulative impact with Thornton Lane proposal • Adverse impact upon local tourism • Turbines at Richborough and DDC offices have failed. Not likely to be viable • Contravenes Policies DM15 and DM16 • Precedent for refusing turbines at East Langdon • Accuracy of photomontages questioned and no assessment from Boyes hill. Montages not taken during winter months. • Off shore wind farms produce more power • Community consultation superficial • Electricity fed into national grid – no benefits for local people • Air safety issues with gliding club and Manston airport • Too close to residential properties – noise and shadow flicker problems • Noise standards used to assess drawn up when turbines were smaller • Other appeal examples where dismissed on residential amenity • Evidence of catastrophic failures elsewhere and problems with ice shards falling off • Too close to footpath, particularly in event of failure. Scotland recommend greater setbacks • Loss of wildlife – impact upon hobby birds and bats • No bat data collected in august – has skewed results • Devaluation of property • Health problems – low frequency sound and suffers from Tinnitus

• Access road would be dangerous • Dangerous to road users – high accident rate on local roads and Barville Roundabout. • Adverse impact upon horse riders • Close to former dynamite store • Area has history of earthquakes • 25 years a long time for impact upon residential amenity

f) The Site and the Proposal 1.1 The site comprises just over 6 hectares of land to the south of Barville Road and

between the village settlements of Tilmanstone and Eythorne. Barville Road connects to the A256 a short distance to the East. The site is currently used as part of a larger area of ‘horse culture’ with a number of paddocks divided by post and wire fences. Access to these paddocks is via an unmade track from Barville Road which runs through Barville Farm itself. Immediately to the west is a public footpath connecting Eythorne with Barville Road. The nearest residential properties are farm cottages associated with Barville Farm itself, to the east of the site, and a mobile home site (known as Falcon View) for a traveller’s family a short distance to the north. Topography of the site is that it sits on a narrow ridge running broadly north/south with land gently sloping down towards the east and more steeply towards the west.

1.2 The proposal is to erect a single wind turbine which would be 60m in height to the hub and 100m to the tip of the 3 bladed rotor. Although intended to operate as much as weather conditions would allow, for energy production calculations, it is assumed that operating for 30% of the time it would provide 1.5 mw of electricity, which would provide enough electricity for just under 1000 households. The turbine would be operational for 25 years after which it would be decommissioned or refurbished, both of which would be subject of a new application. In addition to the turbine there would be 2 electrical equipment kiosks approximately 4m x 3.5m in area and 3m in height, a crane hard standing, and a temporary construction compound. Access to the site would be via a new access from Barville Road. Underground cabling would connect to the grid via the nearby wooden pylons.

1.3 Construction time would be approximately 6 months depending upon weather

conditions, involving approximately 14 two way vehicle movements per day. Abnormal loads, particularly for those carrying the blades would be managed in consultation with the Highway Authorities and an agreed Traffic Management Plan. The access route would be via the A2/A256.

1.4 Once operational the turbine would require only routine maintenance inspections

as it would be fitted with automatic controls in respect of start up/shut down etc. Following decommissioning if the turbine is to be removed, all turbine components, kiosks and crane hard standing would be removed. The access track would remain if the owner of the land required it.

1.5 The applicant has set out a number of benefits to the proposal which includes the

following: (i) Following changes by the Government, the Council would be able to retain 100% of the business rates paid by the project which would amount to a substantial sum over 25 years. It would also be within the Council’s powers to ring fence the rates for use in the local area if required; (ii) There is an opportunity by way of private agreement to provide electricity direct to local business. A number of companies have been identified which could benefit from such an arrangement.

(iii) Benefits to local firms during the construction phase. (iv) Non tangible benefits such as reduction in gas emissions, benefits to health by improving poor air quality and providing alternatives to fossil fuels.

1.6 The application is supported by a fully detailed Environmental Statement (ES)

which was prepared in consultation with officers following requests for formal Screening and Scoping opinions. Topics covered include the following: Landscape and Visual Impact; Ecology and Ornithology; Cultural Heritage; Noise and Vibration Environment; Aviation and electromagnetic interference; Human and Socio-economic factors; other environmental considerations; energy and climate change. Officers have fully considered all the contents of the ES but for practical reasons, this report does not summarise all the topic areas covered, but concentrates on key issues relevant to the merits or otherwise of the application. For the avoidance of doubt where issues are not specifically referred to below, officers have accepted conclusions within the ES. Copies of the ES are available for inspection by members if required.

2. Main issues 2.1 The main issues in the consideration of this application are:

• The principle of a Wind Turbine Use. • Landscape and Visual Impact. • Impact upon Heritage Assets. • Ecological Impacts. • Residential Amenity. • Air safety • Other Matters.

3 Assessment

Principle of Development

3.1 Members will be well aware that public reaction towards wind turbines tends to be very mixed with opinions varying from them being considered to be inappropriate in the landscape and making little contribution towards long term renewable energy targets at one end of the spectrum, to recognising the need for renewable energy and them being considered a necessary and perhaps an interesting addition to a landscape setting at the other. Whatever members personal feelings might be, it is important to consider the proposal in the light of Development Plan policy considerations and prevailing Government policy and guidance, which as set out above, is weighted heavily in favour of the principle of renewable energy and the part the planning system has to play in delivering such projects.

3.2 In the context of the above, there has been some press coverage recently about the UK having enough onshore wind power to hit its 2020 targets. However whilst that may or may not be the case, current Government policy remains clear. In particular members will note the NPPF makes it clear that authorities should not require applicants to demonstrate overall need and that even small projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting gas emissions. Additionally, as recent as May 2014 the Department of Energy and Climate Change has issued guidance pointing out that local authorities have a key role to assist in deploying renewable energy and includes several case studies in

relation to wind farms and solar farms. That does not suggest any immediate change in Government policy for the foreseeable future.

3.3 Following on from the above, a wind turbine, if only for its functional requirements to operate, is bound to have a visual impact in the landscape. It is not enough therefore to conclude that simply because a wind turbine has some impact it follows that planning permission should be refused. Nor can it be argued that a wind turbine in this part of Kent is unacceptable on the basis that there are no others in the District. That is not to say that environmental considerations should be set aside and as referred to in the National Practice Guidance above, the Government has made it clear that environmental issues remain important considerations in assessing the acceptability or otherwise of a wind turbine proposal.

3.4 Although Policy DM1 directs development away from land outside urban

boundaries and rural settlement confines, subject to exceptions, it is likely that the scale and form of such a proposal and its potential impact on residential amenity in particular, together with such practical constraints as accessibility to a grid connection, dictates that a location outside of a settlement needs to be considered. In that respect therefore there is not considered to be any conflict with Policy DM1 in this instance.

3.5 With the above in mind and having regard to Government policy and guidance

together with the Council’s own Core Strategy polices, it is considered there can be no objection in principle to the proposal. In reaching a decision Members will need to weigh up the extent of any harm and balance that against Government policy to support renewable energy, which includes wind energy.

Landscape and Visual Impact

3.6 A full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been prepared in support of the application in accordance with Best Practice methodology elsewhere such as the Institute of Environmental Management and the Landscape Institute’s Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment. It also follows guidelines set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPG). In particular officers are satisfied that photomontages submitted with the application represent an accurate representation of the visual impact of the turbine.

3.7 A number of representations have referred to the unacceptable impact of a turbine in this part of the District and have made reference to a previous appeal decision at East Langdon in support of that. Members may recall that case related to an application for up to 5 turbines (Ref no DOV/07/01148) which was dismissed on appeal in March 2009. The Inspector had concerns over a number of issues, including the impact upon cultural heritage issues and he was concerned in particular about what he described as ‘the quintessentially undisturbed rural setting of East Langdon’. However, elsewhere he considered that ‘I further observed that within the small intimate landscape of the valleys themselves, the contours and the vegetation lining large parts of the local network of rural lanes, and within the settlements, would in many places mask the turbines completely, or almost completely from sight. I accept therefore that the landscape has capacity to absorb a cluster of turbines, but in doing so I make two qualifications’.

3.8 The Inspector went on to consider the site specific issues but officers do not consider the decision necessarily sets a precedent to argue that turbines would be unacceptable in principle on landscape impact grounds in this part of the District.

3.9 The current application site is in some respects similar to the East Langdon

site and also the site for the proposed turbine at Thornton Lane that members recently considered, in that it is prominent in localised areas but largely screened from view from more distant vantage points. The site lies outside any nationally designated landscape area, the AONB being some 5km to the SW of the site and the LVIA concludes there would be minimal impact. Similarly the North Downs Way is 2.1km at its closest point but because of topography and intervening vegetation, the proposal would also have minimal impact. It would be visible from the Chillenden Windmill direction but at 2.8km away it would have limited impact. Overall, beyond 2km the analysis concludes that effects are likely to be minimal. Although the tips of the blades will be visible from other long distance vantage points, it would be a recessive feature and no more prominent than existing telegraph poles, pylons or other manmade structures. Officers agree with the above analysis and it is the immediate landscape where it would have the most impact.

3.10 With regard to landscape character, officers consider that the ES has

underplayed the importance and significance of the proposal on the local character in assessing it as low magnitude and slight significance only in accordance with the methodological approach adopted. The assessment is based with reference to the 2006 Dover District Landscape Character Assessment from which 2 character areas would be most affected, namely the ‘Eythorne Arable Mosaic with Parkland’ and the ‘Eastry Arable and Woodland Clumps’. The applicant’s conclusions are based on the average impact over the whole character area but given that these 2 areas comprise in the region of 40% of the district land area, that conclusion is not surprising. Officers take the view that the impact would be of greater significance on the immediate local character than the applicant has concluded which then carries greater weight in decision making. In particular, the character of the ‘Eythorne Arable Mosaic with Parkland’ is characterised in the Assessment as ‘The dominance of Parkland, with ancient and established woodland, gives the landscape a strong historic reference and a matured and much established character’. This is expressed through the nearby presence of Dane Court, Betteshanger Park, Waldershare Park and Malmains Farmhouse referred to above. In this context, it is difficult to see how a large modern structure such as is proposed could not detract from the character of that area.

3.11 In terms of visual impact, the applicant’s acknowledge that the submitted

viewpoints are samples only and therefore in reality the visual impact is similar from a number of vantage points. From local footpaths for example, although viewpoint 1 is taken from a particular footpath leaving the south of Tilmanstone, similar impacts would be experienced from several footpaths to the south of the village. Similarly, viewpoint 4 shows the impact from the footpath to the north of Eythorne but there would be similar impacts from the footpath running in a broadly northern direction close to Malmains farmhouse. From the Sustrans route adjacent to the A256, the proposal would also have a significant impact upon the skyline, albeit for a relatively short distance.

3.12 Visual impact from local roads is generally downplayed in the ES on the basis

that landscape assessment practice generally gives greater weight only to

roads which are specifically designated as scenic routes. Whilst this is acknowledged, the fact remains that the A256 is used daily by high numbers of local persons for business and leisure purposes, and also for tourists travelling to places such as Sandwich. Barville Road, Barfrestone Road, Kennel Hill and Pike Road are also used extensively by local residents and businesses gaining access to the Pike Road industrial Estate, Eythorne and Elvington. Similarly the approach to the Barville roundabout from the east over Boys Hill, is used as a frequent ‘rat run’ between Deal and the A2. The proposed turbine would be highly visible from all these approach roads as a matter of fact, notwithstanding whether landscape guidance attributes them as low visual receptors or not. In this respect it should be pointed out that such guidance is an aid to decision making rather than being definitive in its own right and officers attach greater weight to these receptors and their importance in the context of this proposal and the impact upon the local area.

3.13 In terms of impact from settlements there would be clear impacts from the

north side of Eythorne, from the south east side of Elvington and from the southern side of Tilmanstone. The ES concludes that the impact would be moderate or slight significance only on these settlements, but this is based on an average of the settlements as a whole where it is acknowledged that from some vantage points it would not be visible. It is considered that this distorts the significance somewhat and from key vantage points for residents in these settlements, the visual impact will be significant.

3.14 The ES provides an assessment on cumulative impact with other projects. In relation to the Thornton Lane turbine, members will be aware that has now been refused and therefore as it currently stands there would be no cumulative impact. Should members agree with the officer recommendation in relation to this proposal and an appeal should subsequently be made against both proposals, then it will be a matter for further consideration for members prior to such appeals proceeding. In terms of recent permissions approved for solar farms at Tilmanstone Brickworks and Knowlton Park officers are of the view that cumulative impact would not be an issue given distances involved and topography.

3.15 Summing up the above, it is considered that from longer distance views there

would be minimal to negligible impact and that landscape and visual impact is confined to within a 1-2km distance from the site. However within that area from local footpaths, roads and from nearby settlements, there would be a substantial visual impact on the countryside which would also adversely affect the local landscape character and would be harmful in the context of Policies DM15 and DM16. In this respect it is considered that such harm would be experienced greater locally than that of the Thornton Lane proposal given that the concerns identified above would impact upon a greater number of persons using local roads and footpaths between nearby settlements. Heritage Assets

3.16 The NPPF explains that in considering the impact of a development on the

significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given the the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. The NPPF also explains that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Members will also be aware that there is a statutory duty to have special regard to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of

Conservation Areas. Similarly in respect of Listed Buildings there is a need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. Additionally, the Dover District Heritage Strategy, which has been adopted by the Council to support objectives within the Core Strategy, highlights the important role that heritage assets play in shaping the District’s identity.

3.17 The ES has provided a careful analysis of heritage assets including 7 viewpoints supported by wireframes or photomontages. Officers agree with the ES conclusions in the following respects:

3.18 With regards to archaeology, there are 4 scheduled sites but these are all at a

distance of 2.5km to the north and there would be no adverse impact or change upon their setting. There is evidence of crop mark ditches within the site indicating potential for sub surface remains but such matters could have been covered by a suitable condition had the proposal been recommended for approval.

3.19 In terms of any impact upon Conservation Areas the nearest are those at

Tilmanstone which is 1.1km to the north and Eythorne which is 1.5km to the south. The latter is separated from the site by modern housing and there is no interaction or setting issues with the proposed site. Similarly in respect of Tilmanstone, whilst it may be possible to glimpse the blade tips from limited areas, those areas are not ones which contribute to the character of the Conservation Area itself which is largely appreciated within the village.

3.20 With regard to listed heritage assets, there are a number of listed buildings

within the locality but officers agree with the ES that their setting would be preserved in that they would continue to be appreciated in their village or immediate rural setting. Of those given further consideration, Dane Court is 1.3 km to the north of the site but its setting has significantly changed over time with significant woodland and other planting having taken place so that the setting is largely confined to immediately around the building itself. The vegetation would now largely obscure any significant views of the turbine and the setting would be preserved. Waldershare Park is some 1.5-3.5km to the south of the site and there would be a negligible effect apart from a Grade I listed tower within the park 3.1km away. Although the turbine would be visible from the top of the tower the landscape has also evolved over time so that it would be seen in the context of other manmade structures and settlement expansion. Furthermore there has been no public access to the tower for many years for safety reasons and no likelihood of it being brought back into use in the foreseeable future. Accordingly it is felt that the current setting would be preserved.

3.21 To the south of the site at a distance of 1.6km are Malmain Farmhouse and its

associated farm buildings. The original farmhouse dates from the late C15 and is Grade II* listed, whilst the adjoining red brick barn is Grade II listed. Their setting largely derives from their siting in a very open agricultural landscape when viewing the buildings from the south. Historically it was the principal seat of the Monins family and the manor house until Sir Henry Furnese purchased the estate and built Waldershare Park in the early C18. The Heritage Strategy also identifies the importance of historic farmsteads in shaping the character and local distinctiveness of the rural landscape. Malmains is identified as an isolated farmhouse with only partial loss of original buildings and makes a positive contribution in terms of its significance according to the strategy. The

farmstead is therefore important for historical, architectural and landscape reasons.

3.22 A photo wire view of the turbine shows that it would be a significant feature on

the skyline in the background to Malmain farmhouse when viewed from the south in the vicinity of the northern part of Waldershare Park, with no intervening screening. The applicant considers that the building would still be appreciated in its rural agricultural setting. However, a key part of the historical and landscape setting referred to above is the relationship between the historic farmstead and the open agricultural landscape. Although that relationship would not be removed, officers consider that the dominance of the turbine and its alien form in such a landscape, would be a visually jarring and discordant feature. It would also be exacerbated by the revolving motions of the rotors themselves. The result would detract from and fail to preserve the setting of the listed building. The NPPF also advises that the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be, which is an important consideration in this instance given that Malmain Farmhouse is Grade II* listed.

3.23 English Heritage agreed with the above analysis although concluding that overall harm of designated assets would be ‘less than substantial’ in the context of the NPPF. Officers agree with that assessment and in such situations the NPPF advises that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal which will be considered below in the section of the report headed ‘balancing of issues and conclusion’. However, in carrying out the balancing exercise the decision maker i.e. members of the Committee, will need to have special regard to the overarching statutory duty in respect of preserving the setting of Listed Buildings. Ecological Interests

3.24 A comprehensive assessment of ecological issues has been undertaken as

part of the ES including a detailed habitat survey which identified areas for further consideration. The study noted that there was no statutory designated site within 2km and no local wildlife site within 1.6km. Overall the site has low ecological value given the predominant horse culture and the main areas of ecological interest lie in the hedgerows to the north.

3.25 A detailed bat study was carried out with the assessment concluding that there is not a significant bat migration route through the site. Representations received have questioned these conclusions noting that there are ongoing debates about migratory bat species within the UK and that no data was collected during August because of malfunctioning equipment. In response, the applicants note that even if a precautionary approach was taken towards species potentially migrating, the numbers of passes were very low, amounting to 14 and 16 for the various species, from 70 nights of data collected. In response to the technical failure, it is pointed out that monthly walked transects were collected across the entire period and that static data was taken during June, July, September and October.

3.26 The analysis also revealed that there was evidence of hobby birds breeding within 2km of the site which are also a protected species. However nesting locations will typically be in woodland which is not within the site. Collisions have been recorded in studies throughout Europe although with a figure of 13 in the context of 41,000 to 60,00 pairs of birds, the incidence of recorded

mortality is considered very small. In the context of the application proposal, the risk of collision is also considered to be low given the open field location, the low likelihood of insect prey in close proximity, and the fact that the species is an aerobatic falcon. However even if there was a risk of collision there are 2200 pairs of hobby birds within the UK and 120-140 within Kent. The impact, whilst regrettable, would therefore be localised only and not put the species at risk.

3.27 Given that risk to wildlife could never be ruled out altogether the analysis demonstrates that levels of risk would be low and there would be some ecological advantages in terms of planting of local hedgerows and adding to biodiversity within the area. The ecological officer agrees with the conclusions within the ES in this respect. Residential Amenity

3.28 As previously mentioned, wind turbines attract strong reactions from the public depending upon one’s point of view. However the fact that a turbine is visible or audible from a residential property is not sufficient to demonstrate harm. In this respect, it may be helpful to members to show how an Inspector approached this issue in relation to an appeal near Newlyn, Cornwall (appeal ref APP/D0840/A/09/2103026.

3.29 ‘The planning system is designed to protect public rather than private interests, but both interests may coincide, where, for example, visual intrusion is of such magnitude as to render a property an unattractive place in which to live. This is because it is not in the public interest to create such living conditions where they did not exist before. Thus, I do not consider that simply being able to see a turbine or turbines from a particular window or part of a garden or house is sufficient reason to find the visual impact unacceptable (even though a particular occupier might find it objectionable). However, when turbines are present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden, that there is every likelihood that the property concerned would come to be regarded as an unattractive place to live (rather than simply less attractive but not necessarily uninhabitable) place to live.’

3.30 Representations received have pointed out that the analysis has taken no

account of 2 nearby residential properties at Falconsview Meadows, Barville Road, and at Pike Road.

3.31 Falconsview Meadows relates to a traveller’s site located short distance to the

north of the application site on the opposite side of Barville Road. A personal planning permission was granted on appeal in August 2008 (ref DOV/07/00315) on the basis that the personal needs of the gypsy family to have a permanent base outweighed the limited harm that would result. Solicitors acting for the owners of the site have confirmed that their clients have willingly entered into a private agreement with the current applicants to the effect that the they will vacate the site and guarantee vacant possession if planning permission for the wind turbine is forthcoming. Full title would then be transferred to the applicants. The details of the agreement remain confidential but the solicitors have confirmed the above in a letter which is on the public file.

3.32 The above situation is somewhat unusual in respect of whether the site should be regarded as a material residential use or not. Legal advice is that provided the authority can be assured that the wind turbine and the residential use would not co-exist, then it would be reasonable to give little weight to the fact that the use currently exists. A condition could be imposed to secure its removal as per the agreement i.e. that the turbine would not be operational prior to the cessation of the residential use. Such a condition would be reasonable and enforceable. The applicant accepts the need for such a condition. In those circumstances officers consider that for the purposes of assessing residential amenity it is acceptable to disregard the residential use of that site on the basis that it would cease to exist prior to the turbine being brought into use, assuming a permission was forthcoming.

3.33 With regard to Pike Road, an allegation was made in 2012 that a residential

use was operating from a unit on the industrial estate. A subsequent enforcement investigation revealed that it related to an ancillary security use which included a rest/mess room with a sleeping facility. As such it was regarded very much as an ancillary facility to the main industrial use rather than a residential dwelling in its own right. Officers believe that still to be the case and as a matter of fact there is no lawful independent residential use of the site.

3.34 With regard to turbine noise the standards used for assessment relate to 1997

standards known as ETSU-R-97. Representations have suggested that these are out of date and are not sufficient to assess modern turbines of greater height than when they were introduced. However, although of some age, Government advice through the recently issued National Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this remains the basis for local authorities to assess noise.

3.35 The ES has carried out a thorough assessment in respect of the above. The

nearest properties are 3 properties associated with Barville Farm, the closest of which is 606 metres to the east of the proposed turbine. There are also 3 properties to the north west on the west side of Pike Road which are within 783 metres. Although the noise standards suggest that if the occupants of a property have a financial interest the absolute acceptable noise levels may be increased, the applicants have not adopted that in the assessment. The assessment concludes that for all operational wind speeds the nearest properties will not experience noise during quiet waking or night time hours in excess of recommended limits in ETSU-R-97. Similarly for construction noise, limits will not be exceeded apart from a very limited period. The Environmental Protection Officer has considered the results of the assessment and agrees with the conclusions. Safeguarding conditions are recommended to ensure noise levels remain within predicted limits and mitigation measures are available should that not be the case.

3.36 In terms of reflected light, the applicants point out that that there are no known

reports of this being an issue at other wind power developments. It is unlikely to be significant because the turbine will have a semi matt surface and weather conditions and solar positions require a particular set of circumstances for it to be a factor in the first place. Officers agree with that assessment.

3.37 Shadow flicker is a phenomenon in sunny conditions when the sun is low and any shadow cast by the turbine will mirror the movement of the rotor. It is

only an issue indoors because outdoors light is reflected in all directions. Good practice guidance elsewhere suggests that it is only likely to be an issue for properties less than 10 rotor diameters away. This would equate to 800 metres in the case of the current proposal and a total of 6 properties would potentially be affected. An analysis has been carried out which demonstrates that in a worst case scenario all six may be affected by shadow flicker for limited times of up to 1 hour on days ranging from 48 – 96 days a year. The applicants argue that this would be a worst case scenario, would depend upon weather conditions, and is less than minimum requirements in Northern Ireland Best Practice Guidance. Three of the properties are occupied by either the landowner or members of his family, whilst the remaining three to the north west of the site are largely screened by heavy vegetation either side of Pike Road. In practice therefore it is most unlikely that shadow flicker affecting these properties would be an issue.

3.38 In terms of direct outlook from residential properties, the applicants carried out an assessment for all residential properties within 1600 metres of the turbine although pointed out that on the basis of appeal decisions elsewhere, visual effects of a turbine being ‘oppressive’ or ‘overbearing’ were unlikely over 800 metres. Only 5 properties would be within that distance and 3 are occupied by the landowner or his family. The analysis concludes that the majority of properties would have very limited or partial views which, in the main, would be obscured and filtered by intervening vegetation. The nearest affected properties on the southern edge of Tilmanstone would be between 950-1100m metres away whilst the nearest ones on the northern edge of Eythorne would be at least 1030 metres away. In these instances the turbine would be visible but in the main this would be partial views and filtered through vegetation screening. Officers concur with the applicant’s conclusions and do not consider any objection on the grounds of direct loss of amenity, based on criteria adopted in other appeal decisions, could be sustained in this case. Air Safety

3.39 Concerns had been expressed regarding potential interference to radar systems for Manston Airport; an issue which was also raised at the appeal for 5 wind turbines at East Langdon in 2009. However as will be noted above, upon reconsideration, Manston Airport acknowledged that there are technical solutions now available if it proved to be an issue from a single turbine, and accordingly recommended that a suitable condition be imposed. Since that time the airport has closed. However, given the ongoing efforts to reopen it, it is considered that had the proposal been recommended for approval, a suitably amended condition could have been imposed in order to prevent potential future issues arising.

3.40 Members will note that National Air Traffic Control Services (NATS) did not object to the proposal. Representations received question the impartiality of NATS given that it also provides consultancy services to wind farm developers. However NATS remains the official consultee for such proposals and upon further clarification sought by officers, NAT confirmed that no objections were raised following detailed assessment of the proposal. It is pointed out that at over 7km away it is not considered to have any impact upon the navigational beacon.

3.41 Channel Gliding Club based at Waldershare Park has expressed concerns that the turbine would pose a potential safety risk in the event that gliders, motor

gliders or microlights taking off in a north easterly direction had to make a forced landing as a result of a cable break or engine failure. Although the wind turbine would not be in a direct line with the airfield it would be within a 45 degree arc of the runway which is the normal extent of deviation in the event of an emergency landing. Additionally, the club is concerned that if gliders were searching for thermals in the vicinity of the turbine, they would have to abandon that below 1000’. Although aviation law dictates a minimum of 500’ the Club points out that good airmanship calls for 1000’. The Club is also concerned that if the turbine is marked on aviation charts, cross channel traffic is likely to pass closer to the airfield thus increasing safety issues.

3.42 In response to the Club’s concerns, which were backed by the British Gliding

Association (BGA), the applicants commissioned a further air safety assessment. It carried this out in accordance with guidance from the Civil Aviation Authority known as CAP 760 – ‘Guidance on the Conduct of Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and the Production of Safety Cases’. The report concludes that the risk would be ‘acceptable’ which is defined by the CAA as ‘the consequence is so unlikely or not severe enough to be of concern. The risk is tolerable and the Safety Objective has been met’. Amongst other issues the report identifies that there are other options for emergency landings, the presence of trees and hedgerows in close proximity to the Gliding Club probably represent greater risks, and that mitigation measures such as advice and information to pilots of known obstacles would reduce risk still further. It is also pointed out that all pilots at unlicensed aerodromes such as this operate under what is known as ‘visual flight rules’ i.e. all pilots are ultimately responsible for their own separation from other aircraft, obstacles and terrain. In this respect there are several examples around the country where turbines operate successfully close by aerodromes.

3.43 Whilst the Gliding Club is clearly genuinely concerned about the proposal, officers consider there is a distinction between inconvenience to the club and actual air safety. In respect of the former, the club has no particular ‘right’ as it were to the airspace in the surrounding area and the presence of a further obstacle which might cut short a glider seeking to exploit a thermal locally is not considered sufficient to justify a refusal of the application. Similarly, overflying aircraft is part and parcel of air activity and normal precautions in terms of visual flight rules.

3.44 Of greater importance is whether the proposal would actually result in genuine

air safety concerns. In this respect and in connection with rope/cable breaks, the BGA only recorded 101 winch incidents in the UK between 1974-2013 where accidents occurred (as opposed to cable breaks without incident) of which 2 were fatalities. The club advises that cable breaks happen 2-3 times per month. However in the last 5 years there were only two occasions where the pilot had to land outside of the airfield perimeter. The level of risk seems fairly low therefore considering the turbine would be 3.5km away from the airfield and 1.6km NW of the centreline of the grass runway. Even if a cable break or engine failure did occur necessitating an out of airfield emergency landing there would be several other options to provide safe landing areas well away from the turbine. The Club has confirmed that it would not have to close should the turbine go ahead, but more than likely would put procedures in place to cope with certain conditions. This accords with the conclusions of the air safety assessment in that mitigation measures could be put in place to reduce the minimal risk still further.

3.45 Weighing up the above and accepting that risk can never be eliminated totally in any walk of life, officers conclude that whilst there is sympathy with the concerns of the Gliding Club, the actual risk to air safety would be low and not sufficient to justify a refusal of permission on those grounds alone. Other Matters

3.46 Several other matters have been raised from representations received.

3.47 There are likely to be localised traffic disruptions from construction operations

particularly involving the transport of large blades. However routing arrangements will all be agreed with the Highway Authority beforehand and can be subject to a condition.

3.48 Concerns have been raised regarding distractions to motorists, and reference

has been made to an apparently high level of crash incidents adjacent to Barville roundabout. KCC Highways has examined the crash data but considers there are no particular issues relating to road geometry or speeding. Crashes recorded tended to be random with fog, snow and objects in the highway attributing to the number. The turbine would be approximately I km from the roundabout and 700 metres from the Pike Road junction. Drivers approaching from Boys Hill would also have a clear view of the turbine on the horizon. Advanced views of the turbine would also be apparent on the northbound and southbound approaches to the roundabout. Members will note that no highway objection was raised by the Highways Agency. KCC also comment that turbines are not now an uncommon sight in the landscape and unlikely to be a distraction to motorists. Driver distraction was also an issue raised in the East Langdon appeal for 5 turbines but not considered to be a high level of risk. That view is consistent with appeal decisions elsewhere. For these reasons it is not considered that any objection based on distractions to motorists or other highway safety considerations could be supported.

3.49 Land take will be minimal for the turbine itself and involves a minor loss of

agricultural land which is used primarily for horse culture. The proposed access would upgrade an existing track rather than involve new land take. Loss of agricultural land is therefore not considered to be an issue.

3.50 There is some evidence that turbines can cause interference to TV or radio transmissions in certain circumstances. The ES has assessed this and considers that whilst the risk is low isolated cases could not be ruled out. The proposed mitigation is a baseline survey prior to construction commencing which would provide a basis for future investigation. A variety of remedial action is available which the applicants would provide if necessary. A suitable planning condition could ensure delivery of this if permission was being recommended.

3.51 Concerns were expressed that the applicants intend to submit further

proposals for additional turbines in the future. Support for this comes from documents within the ES which indicate that initial scoping work was carried out for 3 turbines. The applicants have confirmed that was the case but for a variety of reasons proceeded with the current single turbine only. As members will be aware, an application can only be considered on its individual merits and cannot consider what may or may not happen in the future. Should subsequent proposals be received, that would be a matter to consider at that time.

3.52 Although concerns have been raised in connection with health and low

frequency sound issues arising from wind turbines, there is no specific evidence which support those concerns. Recent guidance from Government in the National Practice Guidance does not refer to such issues and officers’ advice is that an objection could not be sustained on those grounds.

3.53 Concerns have also been raised in respect of potential catastrophic failure of

the turbine, as a result of failures elsewhere. The applicants have advised that in 30 years of operation by the company involving operating/managing over 250 wind turbines, there have been no such catastrophic failures. In high winds or safety related issues, the turbines are designed to automatically shut down. Government guidance recommends that ‘fall over’ distance i.e. total height plus 10% is often used as a safe separation distance. In that respect, there are no residential properties within 110 metres of the turbine and it is over 100 metres from Barville Lane. Whilst the turbine adjoins a bridleway a short distance to the north which is within the ‘fall over’ distance, the likelihood of walkers or horse riders using that during inclement weather conditions when the turbine would be most likely at risk, is considered to be very low. The overall risk is therefore considered to be acceptable.

3.54 With regard to decommissioning at the end of a 25 year period, permissions

granted elsewhere have included conditions requiring full details of removal, dismantling and restoration at that time. A similar condition would have been proposed if a favourable recommendation was being made.

Balancing of Issues and Conclusion

3.55 The application proposal has carefully assessed the various issues in the ES

and officers are in general agreement with conclusions reached with the exception of landscape impact and heritage issues. In other respects most of the main issues, or other issues raised by representations, have either been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant as part of their application submission, are not of sufficient concern to justify a refusal of permission in their own right, or could be satisfactorily dealt with by means of a suitable condition.

3.56 In respect of landscape issues, the analysis demonstrates that because of the folding topography of the area longer distance views will either not be available or in those that are, the turbine will not be a prominent feature in the landscape. In shorter distance views however, particularly within a 1-2km radius of the site, the impact will be significant. There is little doubt that from some vantage points the turbine will appear as a dominant and somewhat incongruous feature in the landscape. In this respect officers attach greater weight to impacts from local roads and settlements than the ES analysis does. Given that this is a primary issue to consider, if members are not satisfied that they can fully appreciate the landscape issues either from the report, from officers presentation at Committee or their own local knowledge, then it may be appropriate to defer the proposal for a site visit in order to gain that full appreciation.

3.57 In view of the above, and when assessed against Policy DM15 and DM16 in

particular there would be some harm arising. However both polices contain

provisos that such harm may be acceptable if a proposal includes measures to mitigate the impact or it is sited to reduce the harm to an acceptable level.

3.58 In respect of the above, the applicants argue that the site selection procedure

has ensured that environmental factors are embedded into the scheme design. Thus the siting has taken account of such factors as being outside nationally designated landscape areas such as the AONB, the need to minimise impacts on ecology and heritage assets, the need to avoid direct pacts upon residential amenity and the need to have a convenient connection point to the Grid. In this respect, given that as previously mentioned the nature of a turbine is bound to have some visual impact, officers consider that significant care has gone into the proposed siting to reduce potential harm as much as possible. However for the reasons set out earlier it is considered that the residual harm arising would remain significant.

3.59 In respect of heritage assets, officers consider that the presence of the turbine

on the skyline to the rear of Malmains farmhouse when viewed from the south, would fail to preserve its setting given that part of that setting is the building sitting in an open historic and agricultural landscape. Members will note that is also a key part of the character of the ‘Eythorne Arable Mosaic with Parkland’ as noted above.

3.60 The NPPF advises that such harm needs to be weighed against public benefits

and in that respect the various benefits outlined earlier in the report are acknowledged together with the wider benefits in terms of generation of renewable energy. However, public benefits as defined by the National Practice Guidance includes economic, social and environmental roles and the NPPF says that such roles are mutually dependent. The environmental role includes protecting and enhancing of the natural and historic environment. Government guidance is also clear that environmental considerations should not be overridden. Additionally, the harm to the setting of the listed building carries significant weight in terms of the statutory duty to have special regard to preserving that setting, particularly given the fact that in this instance one of the assets is a Grade II* building.

3.61 Having regard to all of the above considerations, officers’ conclusion is that

the significant localised harm to the landscape in terms of both character and visual impact, together with the adverse affect on the setting of Malmains farmhouse outweighs the above benefits. Although the harm would be for a temporary period of 25 years, the Secretary of State, in deciding other recent appeal decisions, has determined that such a length of time is significant in terms of harm and should not therefore be an influential factor in determination. Accordingly it is recommended that permission be refused for the reasons set out below.

g) Recommendation I PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons: 1. The proposed wind turbine, by virtue of its height and prominent siting in the local

landscape, would result in an adverse visual impact and have an adverse effect upon the character of the landscape area of which it forms part. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies DM15 and DM16 of the Dover Core Strategy 2010 which seek to protect the countryside and the character of the landscape from harmful effects. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority,

such harm would not be outweighed by the wider benefits of renewable energy. The proposal would therefore also be contrary to paragraphs 07 and 010 (Renewable and low carbon energy) of the National Planning Practice Guidance and paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework in that the need for renewable or low carbon energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the impact of the wind turbine in this location would not be acceptable.

2. The proposed wind turbine would constitute a prominent and discordant feature on the skyline to the north of Malmains Farmhouse and its associated historic buildings which are Grade II* and Grade II listed. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the turbine would fail to preserve the setting of the listed buildings which is characterised by their historic setting in an open agricultural landscape and as such would be contrary to paragraph 019 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Practice Guidance and paragraphs 132 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Whilst such harm would be less than substantial in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, when weighed in conjunction with the harm identified pursuant to reason 1 above, it would not be outweighed by the wider benefits of renewable energy.

Case Officer – Kim Bennett