PLANNING STATEMENT PROPOSED THREE WIND ......PLANNING STATEMENT PROPOSED THREE WIND TURBINES ON LAND ADJACENT TO HAMELDON HILL WIND FARM May 2016 2 PLANING STATEMENT Contents 1.0 Introduction

1

PLANNING STATEMENT

PROPOSED THREE WIND TURBINES ON

LAND ADJACENT TO HAMELDON HILL WIND FARM

May 2016

2

PLANING STATEMENT

Contents

1.0 Introduction to the Proposal ...................................................................................................... 3

2.0 The Site Details and Background ................................................................................................ 4

3.0 Energy annd Planning Policy ....................................................................................................... 7

4.0 Consideration ........................................................................................................................... 37

5.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 60

3

1.0 Introduction to the Proposal

1.1 AAH Planning Consultants have been commissioned to prepare a planning application for three

wind turbines located adjacent to the existing turbines at Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. This Planning

Statement provides an overall assessment of the proposal and sets out our analysis of the relevant

planning policy principles which need to be considered in support of the application.

1.2 It is the purpose of this statement to bring together and provide an overarching assessment in light

of the National and Local Planning Policy Documents to identify the parameters that have dictated

the turbine’s scale, design and location.

1.3 Consultation is required for this application under the Town and Country (Development

Management Procedure and Section 62A Applications) (England) (Amendment) Order 2013. The

supporting Statement of Community Involvement describes the method and results of the pre-

application consultation. This report should also be read alongside the Environment Statement (ES)

(and appendices) and associated Non-Technical Summary which are submitted as part of the

application along with the Design and Access Statement (DAS).

1.4 It should be noted that the proposed development is operationally independent from the existing

wind farm with the developer FAB Energy Solutions not involved in the existing turbines.

Nevertheless the proposed development would still be perceived as an extension to the wind farm

despite there being no functional or financial link between the two.

4

2.0 The Site Details and Background

2.1 The key features of this development include:

3 additional wind turbines positioned to the east and south east of the existing wind turbines.

Each turbine would measure up to 100m tip;

The construction of associated infrastructure to include wind turbine foundations, crane

pads, new and upgraded access tracks, underground cabling to connect the wind turbines to

the National Grid, new substation/control buildings, drainage infrastructure and temporary

construction compound(s); and

Landscaping works including habitat management, improvement and restorative works.

2.2 The operational life of the development will be 25 years. In addition, 12 months would be required

for construction and, following the 25-year operational period, 12 months would be required for

decommissioning. Decommissioning would involve the removal of the turbines and all above

ground components of the development.

2.3 The proposed development site is located approximately 1 kilometres (km) south-west of the

outskirts of Burnley and 2km south of the M65 motorway, within Hapton County Parish, Lancashire.

The land available for development extends east and south from New Barn Farm. The proposed site

consists of an existing wind farm of three turbines (constructed in 2007) and three further turbines

(constructed in 2013 under planning permission APP/2009/0756).

2.4 The land extends south from New Barn Farm consists mainly of open moorland and grassland. The

existing vehicular access to the existing wind farm is via the track to the north-west of New Barn

Farm, running past Old Barn which connects with the A689 (Burnley Road). This provides good

access to the M65 to the north-east of the proposed development site. This track would be used for

the purposes of constructing the proposed development, although other access arrangements have

been considered as part of the EIA process.

2.5 The proposals seek a traditional three blade horizontal axis wind turbine. The appearance of the

wind turbines would be standardised and would include a tower, nacelle and three blades as per

the existing turbines in situ. The existing turbines comprise of three Repower MD70 (1.5MW

models) and three Senvion MM82 (2.05 MW models). The models have been installed at a range of

hub and tip heights as set out in Table 2.1.

5

Description X Y Hub

Height Tip

Height Turbine Model

MW

Original and Installed Turbine 1 380750 430105 50 90 Repower

MD70 1.5


MD70 1.5


MD70 1.5

Recently Installed Turbine 1 380730 429879 59 100 Senvion MM82

2.05


2.05


2.05

Table 2.1: Breakdown of Installed Turbines

2.6 Candidate turbines have therefore been selected to compliment the appearance and scale of these

existing turbines. These include the following:

Turbine Model Capacity

(MW) Hub Height

(M) Tip Height

(M) Rotor Diameter

(M)

Repower MM70 2.0 65 100 70

Enercon E70 2.35 57 92.50 71

Senvion MM82 2.05 59 100 82

Enercon E82 2.35 59 100 82

Table 2.2: List of Candidate Turbines

2.7 The proposed turbines will be constructed in the following locations subject to the application of a

proposed micro-siting allowance:

Description Grid Reference X Y Latitude Longitude

Proposed Turbine 1 SD 81207 29690 381207 429690 53.763219 -2.2865555


6


Table 2.3: Co-Ordinates for the Proposed Wind Turbines

2.8 Based on the indicated turbines it is estimated that enough electricity could be generated annually

to supply the equivalent of approximately 4,616 households. This could displace the equivalent of

up to approximately 6,690 tonnes of CO2 emission per year from conventional forms of electricity

generation.

7

3.0 Energy and Planning Policy

National Policy Statement

3.1 Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) was produced by the Department of

Energy and Climate Change in July 2011 and sets out the national policy for energy infrastructure.

The document is intended primarily to assist in determination of national infrastructure

developments. However, Paragraph 1.2.1 advises that the guidance can still be material in

consideration of planning applications.

3.2 The Overarching NPS for Energy is supported by the NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-

3), again produced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in July 2011.

3.3 EN-1 Paragraph 2.2.1 sets the national commitment to meeting the legally binding target of cutting

greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. Paragraph 2.1.2

identifies that energy is vital to the economic prosperity and social well-being and identifies that

the UK needs a secure and affordable provision of energy. This is further expanded upon in

Paragraph 3.2.1 stating: “Energy underpins almost every aspect of our way of life. It enables us to

heat and light our homes; to produce and transport food; to travel to work, around the country and

the world. Our businesses and jobs rely on the use of energy. Energy is essential for the critical

services we rely on – from hospitals to traffic lights and cash machines. It is difficult to overestimate

the extent to which our quality of life is dependent on adequate energy supplies. The major types of

energy that we use are: for generating electricity – fossil fuels, renewable energy and nuclear; for

heating and industry – fossil fuels used directly; and for transport – oil-based fuels”.

3.4 EN-3 establishes in Paragraph 2.7.1 that “Onshore wind farms are the most established large-scale

source of renewable energy in the UK. Onshore wind farms will continue to play an important role in

meeting renewable energy targets.” The guidance in EN-3 goes on to establish that the following

factors are key in selecting sites for windfarm development:

Predicted Wind;

Proximity of the site to dwellings;

Capacity of a site;

Electricity Grid Connection; and

8

Access.

3.5 EN-3 goes on to establish the areas of potential impacts outlining the considerations which should

apply. The headings included are:

Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Historic environment

Landscape and Visual

Noise and vibration

Shadow Flicker

Traffic and Transport

3.6 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation are addressed in Section 5.3 of EN-1 and from Paragraph

2.7.30 of EN-3.

3.7 Paragraph 5.3.1 of EN-1 provides the following definitions:

“Biodiversity is the variety of life in all its forms and encompasses all species of plants and animals

and the complex ecosystems of which they are a part.”

and

“Geological conservation relates to the sites that are designated for their geology and/or their

geomorphological importance.”

3.8 Paragraph 5.3.7 of EN-1 advises that “development should aim to avoid significant harm to

biodiversity and geological conservation interests, including through mitigation and consideration

of reasonable alternatives; where significant harm cannot be avoided, then appropriate

compensation measures should be sought”.

3.9 EN-1 identifies international sites such as Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar sites as areas

of particular protection along with Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). SSSI’s are protected to

the extent that where a proposal would have an adverse effect development should be resisted.

9

The only exceptions to this are when the proposal would result in benefits clearly outweigh both

the impacts likely to result on the SSSI and the broader network of SSSI’s.

3.10 Regional and Local Sites are to be protected as a source of biodiversity and for their contribution to

the quality of life and well-being of the community. Along with Ancient Woodlands, EN-1 seeks to

protect these designations through the need to appropriately consider the potential impacts upon

the designations and weigh the balance in the consideration.

3.11 Individual species and their habitats are also protected, many under the Wildlife and Countryside

Act 1981 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Decision making should

ensure that these protected species are protected from adverse impacts of any development.

Paragraph 5.3.17 advises that decisions should “refuse consent where harm to the habitats or

species and their habitats would result, unless the benefits (including need) of the development

outweigh that harm.”

3.12 In many cases, the impacts of a proposal can be suitably mitigated through appropriate measures.

Paragraph 5.3.18 of the ES-1 advises that applications should demonstrate that:

during construction, they will seek to ensure that activities will be confined to the minimum

areas required for the works;

during construction and operation best practice will be followed to ensure that risk of

disturbance or damage to species or habitats is minimised, including as a consequence of

transport access arrangements;

habitats will, where practicable, be restored after construction works have finished; and

opportunities will be taken to enhance existing habitats and, where practicable, to create

new habitats of value within the site landscaping proposals.

3.13 EN-3 provides detailed guidance for onshore wind power proposals identifying that there is

potential for the rotating nature of the blades to cause particular issues to birds and to bats. The

advice includes that consideration should be given to collision risk and that appropriate modelling

for certain species of bird and bats should be undertaken to estimate the mortality impacts.

10

3.14 Historic Environment is addressed from Paragraph 2.7.41 of EN-3 and Paragraph 5.8 of EN-1.

Paragraph 5.8.1 of EN-1 acknowledges the potential for energy infrastructure to “result in adverse

impacts on the historic environment”.

3.15 Designated Heritage Assets include: world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, protected wreck

sites, protected military remains, listed buildings, registered park and gardens, registered

battlefields and conservation areas. In addition, there are undesignated assets which can be of

similar importance.

3.16 NP-1 goes on to require that applications are supported by an assessment of impact upon heritage

assets. The guidance provided in Paragraph 5.8.8 advises that “The level of detail should be

proportionate to the importance of the heritage assets and no more than is sufficient to

understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset”.

3.17 Paragraph 5.8.9 goes on to require that “where a development site includes, or the available

evidence suggests it has the potential to include, heritage assets with an archaeological interest,

the applicant should carry out appropriate desk-based assessment and, where such desk-based

research is insufficient to properly assess the interest, a field evaluation”.

3.18 In considering the proposal, EN-1 advises that “When considering applications for development

affecting the setting of a designated heritage asset, the IPC should treat favourably applications

that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to, or better reveal

the significance of, the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, the IPC should

weigh any negative effects against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative

impact on the significance of the designated heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be

needed to justify approval”.

3.19 In considering proposals, EN-1 Paragraph 5.8.18 provides “When considering applications for

development affecting the setting of a designated heritage asset, the IPC should treat favourably

applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to, or

better reveal the significance of, the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, the

IPC should weigh any negative effects against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the

negative impact on the significance of the designated heritage asset, the greater the benefits that

will be needed to justify approval.”

11

3.20 EN-3 provides greater detail on the potential impacts upon designated and undesignated heritage

assets from onshore wind energy development. EN-3 acknowledges the time limited nature of wind

energy development. It is considered that this is an important aspect for the consideration of

proposals when assessing the indirect effects on heritage assets.

3.21 Landscape and visual impacts are addressed in Section 5.9 of EN-1. Paragraph 5.9.1 advises that the

“landscape and visual effects of energy projects will vary on a case by case basis according to the

type of development, its location and the landscape setting of the proposed development”.

3.22 The advice in EN-1 Paragraph 5.9.5 is that the Visual Assessment Report (VAR) should be

undertaken in accordance with the current best practice guides and that reference should be given

to any Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) and associated studies as a means of assessing the

landscape impacts of any proposal.

3.23 In considering proposals guidance in EN-1 Paragraph 5.9.8 states that “Projects need to be designed

carefully, taking account of the potential impact on the landscape. Having regard to siting,

operational and other relevant constraints the aim should be to minimise harm to the landscape,

providing reasonable mitigation where possible and appropriate”.

3.24 The proposal site is located outside of any national designation as such the guidance in Paragraph

5.9.14 is most applicable stating: “Outside nationally designated areas, there are local landscapes

that may be highly valued locally and protected by local designation. Where a local development

document in England or a local development plan in Wales has policies based on Landscape

Character Assessment, these should be paid particular attention. However, local landscape

designations should not be used in themselves to refuse consent, as this may unduly restrict

acceptable development”.

3.25 In assessing the visual impacts of energy proposals, EN-1 states (Paragraph 5.9.18) “All proposed

energy infrastructure is likely to have visual effects for many receptors around proposed sites. The

IPC will have to judge whether the visual effects on sensitive receptors, such as local residents, and

other receptors, such as visitors to the local area, outweigh the benefits of the project”.

3.26 Mitigation can often be provided in developments to limit the potential impacts in this respect the

guidance in EN-1 advises that care should be taken to ensure that the benefits of the development

are maximised. This is reflected in Paragraph 5.9.21 stating “Reducing the scale of a project can

help to mitigate the visual and landscape effects of a proposed project. However, reducing the scale

12

or otherwise amending the design of a proposed energy infrastructure project may result in a

significant operational constraint and reduction in function – for example, the electricity generation

output”.

3.27 Noise and vibration impacts can occur from renewable energy development both during the

construction and operation phases of the development. Paragraph 5.11 of ES-1 provides guidance

on these impacts and their consideration in determination of energy development proposals.

Paragraph 5.11.1 advises that “Excessive noise can have wide-ranging impacts on the quality of

human life, health (for example owing to annoyance or sleep disturbance) and use and enjoyment

of areas of value such as quiet places and areas with high landscape quality. “

3.28 Paragraph 5.11.4 of EN-1 advises that that “Where noise impacts are likely to arise from the

proposed development, the applicant should include the following in the noise assessment:

a description of the noise generating aspects of the development proposal leading to noise

impacts, including the identification of any distinctive tonal, impulsive or low frequency

characteristics of the noise;

identification of noise sensitive premises and noise sensitive areas that may be affected;

the characteristics of the existing noise environment;

a prediction of how the noise environment will change with the proposed development;

in the shorter term such as during the construction period;

in the longer term during the operating life of the infrastructure;

at particular times of the day, evening and night as appropriate;

an assessment of the effect of predicted changes in the noise environment on any noise

sensitive premises and noise sensitive areas; and

measures to be employed in mitigating noise.

The nature and extent of the noise assessment should be proportionate to the likely noise impact”.

3.29 ES-1 goes on to provide in Paragraph 5.11.9 that decision makers “should not grant development

consent unless it is satisfied that the proposals will meet the following aims:

13

avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise;

mitigate and minimise other adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; and

where possible, contribute to improvements to health and quality of life through the

effective management and control of noise.

3.30 EN-3 provides detailed guidance for onshore wind farm impacts and advises in Paragraph 2.7.54

that “the noise created by wind turbines in operation is related to wind speed and is different to

general industrial noise and an additional assessment of this noise should be made”. It goes on in

Paragraph 2.7.55 to advise that “The method of assessing the impact of noise from a wind farm on

nearby residents is described in the report, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’

(ETSU-R-97). This was produced by the Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines Final Report,

September 1996 and the report recommends noise limits that seek to protect the amenity of wind

farm neighbours. The noise levels recommended by ETSU-R-97 are determined by a combination of

absolute noise limits and noise limits relative to the existing background noise levels around the site

at different wind speeds. Therefore noise limits will often influence the separation of wind turbines

from residential properties”.

3.31 In determining applications, S-3 advises in Paragraph 2.7.58 “Where the correct methodology has

been followed and a wind farm is shown to comply with ETSU-R-97 recommended noise limits, the

IPC may conclude that it will give little or no weight to adverse noise impacts from the operation of

the wind turbines”, and goes on in Paragraph 2.7.59 to confirm that “Where a wind farm cannot

demonstrate compliance with the recommended noise limits set out in ETSU-R-97, the IPC will need

to consider refusing the application unless suitable noise mitigation measures can be imposed by

requirements to the development consent”.

3.32 Shadow flicker is also addressed within EN-3. Shadow flicker is described as the effect caused when

the turbines rotating blades fall between a receptor and the sun. The effect occurs due to the

moving blades casting a shadow which moves across the receptor building causing the light

intensity to fluctuate. Research has shown that shadow flicker effects can only occur within 10

times the rotor diameter from the siting of a turbine. In addition EN-3 Paragraph 2.7.65 advises that

“the occurance and duration a particular occupied building is dependent upon:

wind speed – wind speed will determine its frequency;

14

wind direction – must allow the rotor to be perpendicular to the dwelling for a shadow flicker

effect to take place; and

cloud cover – must be sufficiently thin to allow the sun to shine brightly enough for shadow

flicker to occur”.

3.33 Guidance in Paragraph 2.7.66 through to 2.7.6 and 2.69 advises that a study of the effects of

shadow flicker should be provided where there are properties which fall within the ten rotor blade

distance. The guidance acknowledges that modern turbines have the ability to inhibit operation

when there is potential to result in significant impacts of shadow flicker. The guidance concludes in

Paragraph 2.7.69 that where a turbine has a “mechanism to inhibit shadow flicker, the IPC should

be able to judge the shadow flicker impacts on that property to be of negligible significance”.

3.34 Traffic and transport impacts are considered EN-1 Section 5.13 and from Paragraph 2.7.73 in EN-3.

EN-1 Paragraph 5.13.1 advises that “The transport of materials, goods and personnel to and from a

development during all project phases can have a variety of impacts on the surrounding transport

infrastructure and potentially on connecting transport networks, for example through increased

congestion. Impacts may include economic, social and environmental effects. Environmental

impacts may result particularly from increases in noise and emissions from road transport.

Disturbance caused by traffic and abnormal loads generated during the construction phase will

depend on the scale and type of the proposal”.

3.35 For onshore wind farm development, the key considerations for transport assessment are often the

location being away from major road networks and also the size and scale of the structure to be

delivered. Guidance in Paragraph 2.7.75 of EN-3 provides that “the applicant should have assessed

the various potential routes to the site for delivery of materials and components where the source

of the materials is known at the time of the application, and selected the route that is considered to

be the most appropriate”. In addition, the suitability of the roads for the type of components to be

delivered should be assessed.

National Planning Policy Framework

3.36 The government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was adopted on 27 March 2012 and

represents the principal national guidance document and a material consideration which must be

taken into account, where relevant, in determining planning applications. This framework replaces

all previous national policy statements, which were superseded on its adoption. Statements

15

contained within cannot make irrelevant any matter which is a material consideration in a

particular case, but where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant

considerations, decision makers must have proper regard to them. One particular consideration

which will be teased out in this report is the weight which should be given to the appropriateness of

development within the countryside versus the weight associated with the wider environmental

benefits of additional wind turbines in this location.

3.37 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be

seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. Sustainable

development encompasses concepts of sustainable economic, social and environmental

development which run concurrent with the spatial approach to planning. Key to this application,

the following excerpts are applicable to the proposals for three wind turbines adjacent to the

existing wind farm at this site:

Renewable Energy

3.38 To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities

should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from

renewable or low carbon sources. They should:

Have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources;

3.39 When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:

Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for

renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a

valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and

Approve if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable

and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should also

expect consequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to

demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas.

Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

16

3.40 The government released further guidance in relation to renewable energy proposals in July 2013.

This guidance set out the main constraints relating to renewable energy proposals. The guidance

also states that inflexible buffer zones and separation distances should not be enforced.

Heritage Assets

3.41 When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated

heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the

asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or

destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are

irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to

or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss

of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected

wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and

gardens, and world heritage sites, should be wholly exceptional.

3.42 The NPPF sets out national guidance on planning policies; many Local Authorities have

development plans which were drafted prior to the introduction of the NPPF. The NPPF sets out

how and where these policies should be weighted in the determination of planning applications.

The following two paragraphs (214 and 215) taken from the NPPF establish where the weight

should rest:

“214. For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight

to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this

Framework.

215. In other cases and following this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant

policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer

the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be

given).”

National Planning Practice Guidance (2015)

3.43 In March 2014 the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was published. The NPPG is a living

web-based resource providing additional guidance to support the NPPF.

17

3.44 Paragraph reference ID: 5-001-20140306 advises of the need for additional supplies of renewable

energy stating “Increasing the amount of energy from renewable and low carbon technologies will

help to make sure the UK has a secure energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow

down climate change and stimulate investment in new jobs and businesses. Planning has an

important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations

where the local environmental impact is acceptable”.

3.45 Paragraph reference ID: 5-014-20150618 provides guidance on the particular planning

considerations that relate to wind turbines. In respect to noise impacts of wind turbines, the

guidance in paragraph reference ID: 5-015-20140306 reinforces the use of ETSU- R-97 as the correct

method for assessing noise impacts. The guidance also draws attention to the Good Practice

Guidance on Noise Assessment of Wind Farms from the Institute of Acoustics and endorses it as a

supplement to ETS-R-97.

3.46 With respect to the safety of wind farm developments, the PPG advises on the need to ensure that

there are sufficient separation distances to allow for topple distance of the turbine, plus 10%, the

need to obtain guidance from the National Grid on separation from power lines. Air Traffic Safety

(ATS) is addressed noting the potential risk of collision with low flying aircraft and the potential to

interfere with the operation of radar equipment. The guidance advises that the Civil Aviation

Authority and the National Air Control Transport Services be consulted. Likewise any turbine over

11m to tip should be consulted upon with the Ministry of Defence. Other impacts could occur upon

meteorological stations or interference with electromagnetic transmissions for radio, television and

phone signals. The Meteorological and OFCOM provide consultation services for the impact upon

these services.

3.47 Impacts upon ecology from turbines are advised to be raised with Natural England and impacts

upon heritage are advised as potentially being significant in terms of alterations to the setting of an

asset.

3.48 Shadow flicker is raised as a potential concern with a confirmation that only properties within 130

degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected. The guidance reinforces that

modern turbines can be controlled to avoid shadow flicker impacts.

3.49 With respect to visual impacts and the cumulative impacts alongside other renewable

developments; cumulative impacts are defined in Paragraph ID 5-022-20140306 as being “where

two or more of the same type of renewable energy development will be visible from the same

18

point, or will be visible shortly after each other along the same journey”. The information needed to

assess cumulative landscape and visual impacts is addressed in the following paragraph stating

“when assessing the significance of impacts a number of criteria should be considered including the

sensitivity of the landscape and visual resource and the magnitude or size of the predicted change.

Some landscapes may be more sensitive to certain types of change than others and it should not be

assumed that a landscape character area deemed sensitive to one type of change cannot

accommodate another type of change”.

3.50 The PPS also draws attention to Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Development

Management Procedure) (England) (Order) 2015. From it coming into force in the 15th April 2015

There is a legal requirement to carry out pre-application consultation with the local community for

planning applications for wind turbine development involving more than 2 turbines or where the

hub height of any turbine exceeds 15 metres. This is a responsibility of the applicant and the extent

of pre-application consultation will vary from proposal to proposal. Paragraph reference ID 5-027-

20150415 advises that an applicant must:

publicise the proposal in such a way as the applicant reasonably considers is likely to bring it

to the attention of a majority of the people who live at, or otherwise occupy, premises in the

vicinity of the land;

set out how persons may contact them regarding the proposal. The applicant must give

sufficient information about the proposed timetable to ensure that people wishing to

comment on the proposed development may do so in good time;

if they decide to go ahead with making an application for planning permission, have regard to

any responses received when finalising the application to be submitted;

when submitting their application explain how the local community has been consulted, what

comments have been received, and how account has been taken of those comments.

3.51 The guidance goes on to advise that “Where it is required, compulsory pre-application consultation

must meet the legislative requirements set out in Section 61W of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990. These require that applicants must publicise the proposal in such a way as the applicant

reasonably considers is likely to bring it to the attention of a majority of persons who live at or

otherwise occupy premises in the vicinity of the land”. (Paragraph reference ID:5-028-20140410)

19

Written Ministerial Statement – 18 June 2015

3.52 The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued a Written Ministerial

Statement (WMS) on the 18th June 2015, which provided considerations for decision makers

regarding onshore wind developments. The WMS requires that “When determining planning

applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning

authorities should only grant planning permission if:

- The development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a

Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and

- Following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by

affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their

backing.”

Local Planning Policy – Burnley Borough Council

3.53 The Local Planning Policy for Burnley Borough Council is formed by the Burnley Local Plan adopted

4th April 2006 and a suite of Supplementary Planning Documents. The policies within the Burnley

Local Plan (2006) were saved by direction from the Secretary of State on the 1st April 2009. As such,

these policies form the development in place at the time of submission.

3.54 Burnley Borough Council is preparing its replacement Local Plan. The timetable for this indicates

that the proposed submission document will be published in February 2016 with a target of

submission to the Secretary of State in May 2016. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF allows for emerging

policies to be afforded weight in the determination of proposals. The guidance advises that the

more advanced the preparation of the plan, the greater the weight that may be given to the

policies. As such, at this stage there are no policies published and the emerging Local Plan is not

considered to be at a sufficiently advanced stage to warrant any weight in the consideration of this

application.

3.55 The Local Plan identifies the following nine key challenges for Burnley Borough:

More sustainable forms development;

Better quality design and development;

20

Increased social inclusion and community cohesion;

Growth and diversification in the local economy;

Better quality housing and living spaces around them;

Urban and rural regeneration;

Improved roles and functions of Burnley and Padiham town centres;

Protection and enhancement of the Borough’s key environmental assets;

To retain and enhance Burnley’s position as a key town, regionally, in the north-west and

more locally, in East Lancashire.

3.56 These nine issues are used to create the following key aims for the Burnley Local Plan:

KEY AIM 1 – To secure urban and rural regeneration by promoting quality sustainable forms

of development

KEY AIM 2 - To promote growth and diversification in the local economy

KEY AIM 3 – Better quality housing and spaces

KEY AIM 4 – To protect and enhance the Borough’s key environmental assets

KEY AIM 5 – To help promote community cohesion

KEY AIM 6 – To improve the roles and functions of Burnley and Padiham town centres,

locally and regionally

3.57 The first policy of the Burnley Local Plan is GP1 which seeks to direct all development with the

exception of that which is appropriate to a rural area to the built areas of the existing settlements.

Policy GP2 provides for the types of development to be supported in a rural location and includes

within it ‘other uses appropriate to a rural area’ which would include onshore wind farm

development.

3.58 Policy E4 seeks to retain existing features of ecological interest including hedgerows, drystone walls

and watercourses/ponds. Policy E5 seeks to ensure that development dos not impact upon

21

protected species. It requires that adequate provision is made within the proposed development to

avoid disturbance to the species and habitat in question or that adequate provision is made to

facilitate the survival of the species in affected, reduce the disturbance to a minimum and provide

adequate alternative habitats to sustain viability of the local population of that species.

3.59 Policies E10, E12, E17 and E18 seek to protect the historical significance of listed buildings,

conservation areas, historic parks and gardens and scheduled ancient monuments respectively.

The key tests relate to the potential impact upon the setting of these features of heritage interest.

3.60 Policy E19 relates to archaeological remains and requires that proposals which may impact upon

known or potential sites for archaeological interest provide a suitable assessment. The assessment

should identify the character and condition of any archaeological monuments or remains, the

impacts of the development on any remains and mitigation measures possible.

3.61 Policy E27 relates to landscape character and seeks to ensure the protection, enhancement and

restoration of the Borough’s distinctive landscape character. Development should contribute to

these goals by providing for the following tests:

a) protecting critical environmental capital and key features in the landscape,

b) protecting the setting of rural and urban settlements;

c) protecting, enhancing and restoring archaeological and historical features;

d) protecting farmsteads, barns, mills and other prominent buildings, and man made features

such as ponds, lodges, and bridges;

e) protecting and enhancing historic field patterns, including walls and hedgerows;

f) seeking the use of local materials, or the nearest match, and vernacular styles in all new

buildings, walls, and fences, and by resisting urban style lighting, materials and standardised

detailing;

g) maintaining views and avoiding skyline development;

h) encouraging tree planting, woodland and afforestation of native species when appropriate

in the landscape setting;

22

i) protecting and restoring native species;

j) protecting, restoring, enhancing, and creating habitats;

k) reclaiming derelict land where appropriate; and

l) by conserving and enhancing river corridors.

3.62 The Local Plan has a key policy directly aimed at onshore wind farm proposals. Policy E31- Wind

Farms states:

The development of wind farms and related development will be approved, provided that:

(a) there is no unacceptable impact on the character of the landscape or on the visual amenity

of the area by reason of the siting, number, design, colour or layout of the wind turbines;

(b) there is no unacceptable effect on the setting of buildings and sites of architectural and

historic interest and sites of archaeological importance;

(c) there is no unacceptable effect on sites of nature conservation value or biodiversity action

plan priority habitats or species;

(d) there is no unacceptable effect on the amenity of local residents

(e) the proposal is close to the electricity distribution network and the length of any overhead

electricity connection cables is minimised;

(f) it does not adversely affect any recreational facilities and routes;

(g) any electromagnetic disturbance on existing transmitting or receiving systems is

minimised; and

(h) applications are accompanied by a scheme for removal of any associated structures, and

reinstatement of the site to its former use in the event of the site becoming non-operational.

Development that would have a negative cumulative impact in relation to existing wind turbines or

extant approvals for these will not be permitted.

Decision Making and the Weight to be Afforded to the Development Plan Policies

23

3.63 The NPPF was published in March 2012 and advises in Paragraph 215 that “due weight should be

given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this frame

work (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the framework, the greater the weight that

may be given)”.

24

3.64 In this respect the policies within the Development Plan should be considered against the guidance in the NPPF to establish the degree of

consistency and therefore the weight which the decision maker should afford each policy. The assessment of this is set down in Table 3.1:

Burnley Local Plan

Policy Policy Text NPPF Section and Aims Degree of Consistency

Weight to be

Afforded to

Policy

Objective GP1 To concentrate all new development,

other than that appropriate to a rural

area, within the urban boundary.

Section 3 – Supporting a Prosperous

Rural Economy. Criterion 1 requires

decision makers to “support the

sustainable growth and expansion of all

types of business and enterprise in rural

areas”.

The Development Plan

Policy seeks to restrict

development in the rural

areas of Burnley beyond

that established in the

NPPF. As such, there is a

limited degree of conflict

with the policy.

Limited Weight

E4 – Protection of

Other Features of

Ecological Value

Features of ecological value and

potential such as ponds, hedgerows, dry

stone walls and watercourses and their

associated corridors will be safeguarded

wherever possible by requiring their

retention in new development.

Proposals should take advantage of

Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing

the natural environment.

This section in Paragraph 114 first

criterion advises that local authorities

should “set out a strategic approach in

their Local Plans, planning positively for

the creation, protection, enhancement

These policies are in

accord with each other.

Significant

Weight

25

opportunities to create new wildlife

habitats where these can be included as

part of a site layout and landscaping

schemes. Where necessary, planning

agreements will be required to secure

appropriate management of such sites.

and management of networks of

biodiversity and green infrastructure”.

E5 – Species

Protection

The presence of a protected species will

be a material consideration in

determining any planning application.

Development that would affect sites

supporting species protected by law will

not be permitted unless

a. adequate provision is made

within the proposed development to

avoid disturbance to the species and

habitat in question; or

b. adequate provision is made, by

way of planning conditions or

agreements, to:

i. facilitate the survival of the individual

Section 11- Conserving and Enhancing

the Natural Environment. Paragraph

113 advises “Local planning authorities

should set criteria based policies

against which proposals for any

development on or affecting protected

wildlife or geodiversity sites or

landscape areas will be judged”.

These policies are in

accord with each other.

Significant

Weight

26

species affected;

ii. reduce the disturbance to a minimum;

and

iii. provide adequate alternative habitats to

sustain the viability of the local

population of that species.

E10 – Alteration,

Extensions, Change

of Use and

Development

Affecting Listed

Buildings

The council will not permit proposals

which adversely affect the character,

architectural or historic interest of a

listed building, or its setting. Proposals

will only be permitted where they:

a. retain and repair features of

architectural or historic interest;

b. use appropriate materials and

traditional working practices;

c. have no adverse effect on the setting

of the building, including trees, walls,

gardens, and any other structure or

object within the curtilage of the


the historic environment. Paragraph

131 states “In determining planning

applications, local planning authorities

should take

account of:

● the desirability of sustaining and

enhancing the significance of heritage

assets and putting them to viable uses

consistent with their conservation;

● the positive contribution that

conservation of heritage assets can

make to sustainable communities

These policies are

generally in accord with

each other.

Significant

Weight

27

building;

d. make provision for the appropriate

recording of any architectural or historic

features that are to be removed during

repair or alteration; and

e. are appropriate in terms of siting,

size, scale and design of any extension.

including their economic vitality; and

● the desirability of new development

making a positive contribution to local

character and distinctiveness”.

E12- Development

in or Adjacent to

Conservation Areas

The council will preserve and enhance

the character of the Borough’s

conservation areas, shown on the

proposals map.

Where permission for new development

and/or alterations to buildings in the

conservation areas is required,

permission will only be granted when

the following criteria are satisfied:

a. the proposal respects the character

of the conservation area in terms of

quality, siting, detailing, height, scale,

materials, landscaping and external


the historic environment.

Paragraph 131 states “In determining

planning applications, local planning

authorities should take account of:







make to

These policies are

generally in accordance

with each other.

Significant

Weight

28

appearance;

b. the proposal will enhance the

streetscape and retain historic street

patterns and materials, avoiding the

creation of a gap in an established

frontage, or the inclusion of

inappropriate buildings or features

which detract from the townscape

features that make the conservation

area special;

c. significant views into and out of the

conservation area are safeguarded;

d. the proposal does not lead to the

loss of open space, trees or other

landscape features which contribute to

the area; and

e. the proposal does not generate

levels of traffic and parking which would

be detrimental to the character or

appearance of the area.

sustainable communities including their

economic vitality; and




29

E18 – Scheduled

Ancient

Monuments

Scheduled ancient monuments should

be preserved where they are found.

Development which fails to preserve the

archaeological value and interest of

ancient monuments or their settings will

not be permitted.



Paragraph 131 states “In determining

planning applications, local planning

authorities should take account of:







make to sustainable communities

including their economic vitality; and




These policies are


with each other.

Significant

Weight

E19 – Development

and Archaeological

Remains

Before the council determines an

application for development that may

affect known or potential sites of

archaeological interest, applicants will

be required to make provision for an



Paragraph 128 advises “Where a site on

which development is proposed

includes or has the potential to include

These policies are


with each other.

Significant

Weight

30

archaeological assessment. This

assessment should define:

the character and condition of any

archaeological monuments or remains

within the application site;

the likely impact of the proposed

development on such features; and

the means of mitigating the effect of the

proposed development to achieve

preservation of the remains in situ, or

,where this is not feasible or justifiable,

provision for excavation and

archaeological recording prior to the

commencement of development.

heritage assets with archaeological

interest, local planning authorities

should require developers to submit an

appropriate desk-based assessment

and, where necessary, a field

evaluation”.

E20 - Views New development will be permitted

where:

a. it respects skylines, roofscapes and

views; and

b. it does not detract from the public

view of prominent or important

buildings, or affect views into and out of

Section 11 - Conserving and enhancing


Paragraph 109 among other areas

seeks to “enhance the natural

environment by … protecting and

enhancing valued landscapes”.

These policies are

generally in accord with

each other.

Significant

Weight

31

major open areas, by intruding into or

on their margins.

E27- Landscape

Character and Local

Distinctiveness in

Rural Areas and

Green Belt

All proposals for new development in

rural areas and the green belt will be

expected to contribute to the

protection, enhancement and

restoration of the Borough’s distinctive

landscape character by:

a. protecting critical environmental

capital and key features in the

landscape,

b. protecting the setting of rural and

urban settlements;

c. protecting, enhancing and restoring

archaeological and historical features;

d. protecting farmsteads, barns, mills

and other prominent buildings, and

man-made features such as ponds,

lodges, and bridges;

e. protecting and enhancing historic

field patterns, including walls and

Section 11 - Conserving and enhancing


Paragraph 109 among other areas

seeks to “enhance the natural

environment by … protecting and

enhancing valued landscapes”.

NB. The proposal site is not located

within the green belt and as such the

green belt guidance in the NPPF is not

applicable in this case.

These policies are


with each other.

Significant

Weight.

32

hedgerows;

f. seeking the use of local materials, or

the nearest match, and vernacular styles

in all new buildings, walls, and fences,

and by resisting urban style lighting,

materials and standardised detailing;

g. maintaining views and avoiding

skyline development;

h. encouraging tree planting, woodland

and afforestation of native species when

appropriate in the landscape setting;

i. protecting and restoring native

species;

j. protecting, restoring, enhancing, and

creating habitats;

k. reclaiming derelict land where

appropriate; and

l. by conserving and enhancing river

corridors.

33

E31 – Wind Farms The development of wind farms and

related development will be approved,

provided that:

a. there is no unacceptable impact on

the character of the landscape or on the

visual amenity of the area by reason of

the siting, number, design, colour or

layout of the wind turbines;

b. there is no unacceptable effect on

the setting of buildings and sites of

architectural and historic interest and

sites of archaeological importance;

c. there is no unacceptable effect on

sites of nature conservation value or

biodiversity action plan priority habitats

or species;

d. there is no unacceptable effect on

the amenity of local residents

e. the proposal is close to the electricity

distribution network and the length of

any overhead electricity connection

Criterion a refers to landscape and

visual amenity and replicates the tests

of Policy E27 this is covered in

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

Criterion b refers to the setting of

heritage assets and archaeological

sites. These are addressed by Policies

E10, E12, E18 and E19 and are covered

in Section 11 of the NPPF.

Criterion c refers to the conservation of

nature and biodiversity sites. These are

addressed by Policies E4 and E5 and

are covered in Section 11 of the NPPF.

Criterion d refers to the protection

afforded to residential amenity. The

NPPF within its core principles

(paragraph 17) seeks to secure “a good

standard of amenity for all existing and

These policies are


with each other, with the

exception of criterion e

which should only be

afforded limited weight.

Significant

weight with the

exception of

criterion e

which is only

afforded

limited weight.

34

cables is minimised;

f. it does not adversely affect any

recreational facilities and routes;

g. any electromagnetic disturbance on

existing transmitting or receiving

systems is minimised; and

h. applications are accompanied by a

scheme for removal of any associated

structures, and reinstatement of the site

to its former use in the event of the site

becoming non-operational.

Development that would have a

negative cumulative impact in relation

to existing wind turbines or extant

approvals for these, will not be

permitted.

future occupants of land and

buildings”.

Criterion e relates to the connection to

the grid. The connection of the wind

farm to the national electricity grid is

permitted development in accordance

with Part 15, Class B – electricity

undertakings of The Town and Country

Planning (General Permitted

Development) (England) Order 2015.

As such consent under this proposal is

not required. There is nothing within

the NNPF which supports this part of

the policy and therefore limited weight

should be afforded to it in

consideration of the proposal.

Criterion f requires that the proposal

does not impact upon recreational

facilities and routes. NPPF Core

Principles (Paragraph 17) advises that

decisions should “take account of the

different roles and character of

35

different areas”.

Criterion g requires that

electromagnetic disturbance is

minimised. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF

advises that ”when determining

planning applications local authorities

should… approve the application if its

impacts are (or can be made)

acceptable”.

Criterion h requires that application are

accompanied by a scheme for removal

of any associated structures in the

event of the site becoming non-

operational. This is not covered within

the NPPF, however it is something

which can reasonably be addressed

through the addition of a suitably

worded condition attached to any

approval granted.

Table 3.1: Table setting down the Degree of Consistency between Burnley Council’s Local Planning Policies and the NPPF

36

3.65 The majority of policies in the Burnley Local Plan (2006) are in general accordance with the NPPF

and therefore hold significant weight in the consideration of the proposal. As there are no suitable

areas for wind energy development allocated within Burnley’s Plan it is subsequently silent and

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF would take effect in that the application should be considered against the

presumption in favour of sustainable development and whether any adverse impacts would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the

framework taken as a whole. The policy requirements in relation to proximity and connection to the

distribution network are matters covered by separate legislation and therefore are not addressed

within the NPPF and should not be afforded significant weight in the consideration of the proposal.

3.66 The key areas for consideration of the proposal are considered to be:

The principal of the development in this location;

The impacts of the proposal upon the visual amenity and character of the area;

The impacts of the proposal upon the ecological interest of the area and biodiversity effects;

The impacts of the proposal of noise;

The impacts of the proposal on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Assets;

The impacts of the proposal on Traffic and Transportation;

The impacts of the proposal on Utilities Infrastructure and Telecommunications.

Material Considerations

3.67 As outlined the NPPF addressed in this chapter is one such material consideration in addition to the

NPPF there are also PPG, WMS and the National Energy Policy (NEP) which are applicable to the

consideration of this proposal and have been discussed. Case law suggests that WMS do not carry

the weight of National Planning Policy (NPP). Comparably PPG is simply a material consideration. It

does not alter the statutory status of the Local Plan, so as long as PPG is accorded sufficient weight

by councils, a determining authority can find that it is outweighed by other material considerations.

3.68 To the extent that the Development Plan policies are material to an application for planning

permission the decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are

material considerations that indicate otherwise (see Section 70(2) of the Town and Country

37

Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). The NPPF

stresses the importance of having a planning system that is genuinely plan-led. Where a proposal

accords with an up-to-date Development Plan it should be approved without delay, as required by

the presumption in favour of sustainable development at Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Where the

Development Plan is absent, silent or the relevant policies are out of date, Paragraph 14 of the

NPPF requires the application to be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of

sustainable development.

.

38

4.0 Consideration

4.1 As previously identified, there is a presumption in favour of renewable technologies and significant

weight should be attributed to this issue in line with government policy. This issue should be

balanced against other main considerations including the impact upon the character and

appearance of the area, archaeological and nature conservation issues and any adverse impact

upon the electromagnetic field. Each issue will be considered individually within this assessment.

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

4.2 The process of assessing the impact of this application has been guided by the document

‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment‘(2013). The LVIA section of the ES assess’

the impact on the landscape character of the area and the visual impact from the proposed

turbines.

Landscape Character Assessment

4.3 The development will introduce three large-scale turbines, along with ancillary substations and

access tracks. The presence of the six existing Hameldon Hill turbines 0.25 to 1.10km to the north-

west is considered to represent a precedent for such structures, which locally reduces sensitivity.

Nevertheless, the turbines will be dominant new features within the immediate site area. The most

appropriate study for the site and immediate area is the South Pennines Wind Energy Landscape

Study (SWELS). The methodology is comprehensive, the report is very recent and the assessment

specifically relates to wind energy development, including cumulative effects.

4.4 The site is found to lie within the Landscape Character Type (LCT) Enclosed Uplands (incorporating

LCT C1, Rossendale Hills). The edge of LCT E Rural Fringes lies around 250m to the north. As with all

boundaries between defined Landscape Character Areas, these boundaries usually reflect a gradual

change in character; areas along boundaries may display characteristics of more than one LCT or

LCA.

4.5 The overall sensitivity to large-scale (90-129m) wind energy development is considered to be

moderate-high, due to the enclosed landscape pattern and role as an elevated upland backdrop to

views from valley settlement. Within the commentary on turbine group size, it notes that the LCT is

‘highly sensitive’ to large (11-20 turbine) and very large (over 21) wind farm group sizes, whilst

being ‘occasionally less sensitive’ to small (4-5 turbine) wind farms and small clusters (2-3 turbines).

39

The lack of commentary on medium wind farms of 6-10 turbines would indicate an intermediate

level of sensitivity.

4.6 Effects arising from the turbines will almost wholly be through the presence of new, vertical

features in the landscapes. However, effects may be reduced through a number of mitigating

factors, aside from the precedent of the existing wind farm noted above. These include the lower

visible cultural heritage sensitivity of the site in comparison with other areas in LCT 2; the large-

scale landscape, proximity of transmission lines and masts on Hameldon Hill; local urban influences

that diminish the feeling of remoteness; large scale landscape; the greater distance from settlement

and the general appearance of a landscape in decline. Whilst the turbines are located at a slightly

higher elevation than the wind farm, they are not located on the high plateau and will only result in

a marginal increase in areas from which they will break the skyline; from many views they will

continue to be backclothed by Hameldon Hill, particularly from the more sensitive landscapes to the

north. In addition, the local skyline includes detractors in the form of the transmission masts. The

mass of Hameldon Hill will screen the vast majority of this area, with only a slight increase in

perception to the south of the LT, above Dunnockshaw and Crawshawbooth.

4.7 It is considered here that the qualities noted above would accord with those which the SWELS study

notes as offering “limited scope for large turbines or turbine clusters”. It should be noted, other

than some areas around Barnsley, LT C is the only LT that is indicated as being not of the highest

sensitivity to turbines of the proposed size within the study area. For the reasons noted above,

sensitivity is considered to be medium. The magnitude of impact is considered to be high for an

area up to 1km from the proposal site, but reducing rapidly with distance as topography limits

effects on perception. Overall, the effect on LT 2 Enclosed Uplands is considered to be slight.

4.8 Having regard to the above conclusions and more detailed assessment within Chapter 7 of the ES,

the scheme is considered to comply with Policy E27 - Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness

in Rural Areas and Green Belt and Policy E31 – Wind Farms of the Local Plan and in particular

criterion a) that “there is no unacceptable impact on the character of the landscape”. Criterion (a)

refers to landscape and visual amenity and replicates the tests of Policy E27, this is covered in

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF and in this respect the scheme is considered to comply with these policy

tests.

40

Visual Impact of the Proposed Turbines

4.9 An assessment of the visual effects of the proposed turbine has been made utilising photomontages

as guiding tools. These photomontages are attached as part of the submission. A ZTV was also

produced as part of the LVIA chapter of the ES (Chapter 7). The views points are selected as

representing a variety of views from around the proposal and taking into account the more

sensitive receptors. In total, 15 viewpoints have been selected and are considered to be

representative of the potential views from around the area. These can be found in Appendix 7.2 of

the ES.

4.10 Chapter 7 of the ES concludes that localised significant effects may arise for short sections of Public

Rights of Way (PWoW) (footpaths) close to the proposal site, where the turbines will extend the

influence of wind energy within relatively close-range views. There may also be localised significant

cumulative effects where combined and sequential views are at close range. These include routes

to the west around Barley Top, to the north-east around Lower Micklehurst Farm and to the south

on Nutshaw Hill. Some of these routes are relatively well used and offer amenity access for local

residents, including a section of the Burnley Way. Others were observed to be difficult to navigate

during site visits. The overall effect on the Burnley Way is considered to be moderate and not

significant. There may be marginally increased visibility from some walking trails in the

Dunnockshaw Community Forest and short sections of the Rossendale Way, but effects are

moderate at most and not significant.

4.11 No significant effects are expected for road receptors. Whilst some have open views towards the

site, the majority are considered to be of low sensitivity with limited recreational value.

4.12 An outline assessment of likely views for residential receptor was made in Chapter 7 of the ES, by

JBA Consulting from observations from publically accessible locations and aerial photography.

Based on this information, there is no reason to consider that the effects (including cumulative)

may be overbearing, inescapable or all-pervasive and that a property will be an unattractive place

to live. All the properties, other than those that belong to interested parties, are at a greater

distance than 900m. Where direct views are available, factors such as there being a limited

proportion of overall views alongside screening effects by localised building or vegetation are

mitigating factors.

41


the scheme is considered to comply with E20 – Views and Policy E31 – Wind Farms of the Local Plan

and in particular criterion a) that “or on the visual amenity of the area by reason of the siting,

number, design, colour or layout of the wind turbines”. Criterion (a) refers to landscape and visual

amenity and replicates the tests of Policy E27 this is covered in Paragraph 109 of the NPPF and in

this respect the scheme is considered to comply with these policy tests.

Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts

4.14 The development is likely to be perceived as intended, as an extension of the existing wind farm.

Although it will increase the presence of wind energy within LT2 and may in some cases be

perceived as infilling the gap with the single operational turbine at Higher Micklethwaite (around

1.1km east), it will not visually connect with the more distant large-scale wind farms such as

Todmorden and Scout Moor; it will remain as a discrete cluster. The similar scale and style of

turbine, as well as the generally regular pattern of up-slope (but not plateau) development should

result in a coherent pattern that reflects the wider topography. There will be an inevitable

cumulative effect through expansion of the wind farm, along with a slight increase juxtaposition in

relation to the smaller-scale and twin blade developments at Habergham Hall Farm and Crown

Point. The cumulative scale of effect is considered to be high within around 0.5km and the

significance is major, but reducing rapidly with distance. Overall the conclusions within Chapter 7 of

the ES conclude that the cumulative magnitude of change for LCT2 is low and the effect Moderate.


the scheme is considered to comply with Policy E27 - Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness

in Rural Areas and Green Belt and Policy E31 – Wind Farms of the Local Plan and in particular the

last criterion that “Development that would have a negative cumulative impact in relation to

existing wind turbines or extant approvals for these, will not be permitted.”

Visual Impact from Neighbours

4.16 In terms of visual impact from neighbouring properties, it is a well held planning principle that there

is ‘no right to a view’ from individual residential properties over land in someone else’s ownership.

However, any development that dominates an outlook to an unreasonable degree in that it harms

the amenity of residents could constitute an unacceptable impact. This has been confirmed in a

range of recent appeal decisions including, for example, APP/C3105/A/09/2116152 where the

42

inspector remarked ‘no protection exists for the benefit of a private view. Consequently, I do not

regard as unacceptable the situation in which a turbine is prominent in the view from a domestic

window’ (paragraph 55). This is a reference to the so-called lavender test (commonly referred to as

such following an appeal determined on behalf of the Secretary of State by Inspector David

Lavender) in which the distinction between private views and residential amenity were drawn

clearly. The test emphasized that outlook from a private property is a private matter, and that it

becomes a matter of public interest only at the point where the introduction of a new feature in

that view would result in a presence so overbearing, oppressive or overwhelming that it would

result in unsatisfactory living conditions, such that residential amenity is unacceptably affected.

This should be read alongside criterion (d) of Policy E31 – Wind Farms and Paragraph 17 of the

NPPF.

4.17 The property owners at New Barn and Lower Micklehurst are financially interested parties in the

proposed developments. The LVIA Chapter within the supporting ES (Chapter 7) provides an outline

assessment of the potential impacts on the nearest properties including New Barn, Lower

Micklehurst, Watson Laithe Farmhouse, Iron House, Further Barn, Thorny Bank, Barley Green,

Hillside Farm, Lower Oaken Eaves, the cluster of properties at Spa Wood Farm, Long Syke and Old

Barn. The assessment concludes that it is not expected the proposed turbines would represent an

oppressive or overbearing presence in the view from any nearby property.

4.18 In addition to the individual properties identified above the LVIA Chapter within the supporting ES

considers the potential impacts on properties within settlements within 3km of the proposal. This

assessment includes the properties at Hapton, the edge of Burnley and those at Love Clough. Views

from Hapton would be seen beyond the existing wind turbines at Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and

would not materially alter the outlook. From the edge of Burnley, the proposal would be seen in

front of the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Turbines and beyond the high voltage power lines

and pylons running along Rossendale Road. As such, there would not be a significant effect upon

this view. Love Clough falls outside of the ZTV and therefore has no views of the proposal.


the scheme is considered to comply with Policy E31 – Wind Farms of the Local Plan and in particular

criterion (d) that “there is no unacceptable effect on the amenity of local residents” and paragraph

17) seeks to secure “a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and

buildings”.

43

Shadow Flicker

4.20 This section provides a review of potential shadow flicker effects and safety issues relating to the

installation and operation of the proposed turbines – a detailed study is provided in Chapter 15 of

the ES. Shadow flicker is the name given to the effect that may arise when turbine blades rotate in

bright sunlit conditions, casting shadows over windows. As the blades rotate the shadow is seen to

flick on and off within a neighbouring property, as the blade shadows move past the window. It is

possible to accurately calculate when it would potentially occur years in advance. This aspect of the

development should be assessed against criterion (d) of Policy E31 – Wind Farms and Paragraph 17

of the NPPF.

4.21 The effect would only occur within a building if a wind turbine is located within a distance of 10

times the rotor diameter or less. It will not happen where there is intervening topography,

vegetation or other obstruction between the turbines and the house. The likelihood and duration of

the effect depends upon:

Orientation of the property’s windows relative to the turbine: in the UK, only properties

within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines, can be affected, as turbines

do not cast long shadows on their southern side;

Distance from the turbines: the further the observer is from the turbine, the less pronounced

the effect would be;

Turbine height and rotor diameter;

Time of year and day;

Weather conditions (cloudy days reduce likelihood, wind direction).

4.22 Shadow flicker is one of the potential constraints that have been considered in the selection of the

location of the proposals.

Potential Effects

4.23 Applying the matrix for classification of effects as outlined in the ES, Lower Micklehurst (which is

financially involved) would fall within the very low magnitude of effect and therefore have a Minor

classification of effect and New Barn Farm (which is financially involved) would fall within the high

44

magnitude of effect and therefore a Major level of effect. The property at New Barn is potentially

affected the most, and it remains above the 8 hours threshold established for realistic impacts

having taken account of the potential sunshine hours affect and therefore has a Major magnitude

of effect. There are however, further areas which will reduce the likelihood of shadow flicker

occurrence and the potential impacts of any shadow flicker experienced. The occupants of the

property at New Barn are financially involved with the proposals. Therefore the occupants have a

greater degree of control over their own level of amenity and expectations.

Mitigation

4.24 In the event that shadow flicker occurs and causes significant effects at any residential property,

then mitigation can be implemented. Shutting the causative turbine down is the most effective

mitigation measure. This can be achieved by installing a photocell and then programming the

turbine to shut down if the photocell indicates that the sun is bright enough to give rise to an effect,

that other operating conditions are in place and this corresponds to an identified period of

potential shadow flicker.

4.25 The study within Chapter 15 of the ES has confirmed that subject to a suitable condition for the

mitigation measures identified, there would be no significant impacts from shadow flicker upon

those sensitive receptors within the area of potential impact. As such, the scheme is considered to

comply with Policy E31 – Wind Farms of the Local Plan and in particular criterion (d) that “there is

no unacceptable effect on the amenity of local residents” and paragraph 17) seeks to secure “a

good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”.

Noise

4.26 The ETSU-R97 is a guidance note widely used by planners in assessing wind turbines and indicates

that a noise limit for night time operation of 43DB(A) is acceptable. This limit is derived from the

35DB(A) sleep disturbance criteria referred to in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG).

4.27 The Noise Working Group recommends that day time lower fixed limits can be higher than this at

45 DB(A). They also state that consideration should be given to increasing the permissible margin

above background where the occupier of the site has some financial involvement in the wind

turbine, meaning that it can be acceptable to have higher noise readings where the applicant’s

property is the primary affected residence.

45

4.28 The application is accompanied by a section within the ES (chapter 8). The key test with respect to

noise is provided by Planning Policy E31 which requires that there are no unacceptable effects on

the amenity of local residents. Chapter 8 of the ES provides detailed assessment and finds that the

proposal can be suitably controlled to ensure that no significant adverse impacts upon the noise

amenity of the neighbouring properties would occur.

4.29 Any noise associated with the construction of the proposal would be short lived and subject to

separate control under statutory nuisance powers. Noise generated during construction would be

controllable through good practice in the build phase and would not result in any notable impacts

upon neighbouring properties.

4.30 Based on the above the scheme is considered to comply with Policy E31 – Wind Farms of the Local

Plan and in particular criterion (d) that “there is no unacceptable effect on the amenity of local

residents” and paragraph 17) seeks to secure “a good standard of amenity for all existing and future

occupants of land and buildings”.

Proximity to Electrical Power Lines

4.31 As outlined in Chapter 3 the PPG, with respect to the safety of wind farm developments, advises on

the need to ensure that there are sufficient separation distances to allow for topple distance of the

turbine plus 10%, the need to obtain guidance from the National Grid on separation from power

lines. As can be seen on site there are no overhead power lines through the field and so the

proposals would be sufficiently detached to ensure that they would have no impact on the

distribution network.

Proximity to Airports and Flight Paths

4.32 The application has been supported by an assessment of the potential for impacts on aviation and

radar from leading consultants Pager Power to guide the location and height of the turbines. There

are two ways in which wind turbines can impact upon aviation operations. Turbines due to their

height can pose a physical obstruction to low flying aircraft, or turbines can impact on radar services

(either civilian or military).

4.33 The assessment work undertaken has found that 5 aviation and radar risks to the proposed

turbines, which are the following:

Causing interference to St Annes Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) operated by NATS;

46

Causing interference to Blackpool PSR operated by Blackpool Airport;

Causing interference to Warton PSR operated by the MOD;

Causing interference to Hameldon Hill Met Radar operated by the Met Office;

Being a physical obstruction to Rossendale (Lumb) unlicensed airfield.

Radar Risk Results

4.34 When determining the location of the proposed wind turbines initial Line of Sight (LOS) analysis was

completed for each radar installation. The overall results for each radar installation is presented

below:

St Annes PSR:

Based on the visibility of the proposed wind turbines and the distance from the radar, an

initial objection from NATS is likely. Further analysis may be required and it is possible that

the objection could be removed on cumulative grounds due to the existing Hameldon Hill

Wind Farm or through mitigation.

Blackpool PSR:

All of the proposed wind turbines are visible to the PSR however, based on the distance from

the radar, an initial objection from Blackpool Airport is not expected.

Warton PSR:

Based on the visibility of the proposed wind turbines and the distance from the radar, an

initial objection from the MOD is expected. Further consultation with the MOD will be

completed in conjunction with further analysis of the cumulative effects with the existing

turbines.

Hameldon Hill MET Radar:

Based on the visibility of the wind turbines and distance from the radar an initial objection

from the Met Office is possible. Further consultation has been undertaken which indicates

that mitigation is possible by capping the height of the turbines.

47

Airfield Risk Results:

4.35 The nearest identified airfield is Rossendale (Lumb) which is unlicensed and approximately 5km

south-east of the proposed development. Based on this distance, no objection from the airfield

would be expected. Consultation is being undertaken for completeness.

Mitigation:

4.36 As outlined in Chapter 3 the PPG addresses Air Traffic Safety noting the potential risk of collision

with low flying aircraft and the potential to interfere with the operation of radar equipment. The

guidance advises that the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Control Transport Services be

consulted. Likewise any turbine over 11m to tip should be consulted upon with the Ministry of

Defence. Other impacts could occur upon meteorological stations or interference with

electromagnetic transmissions for radio, television and phone signals. These aspects have been

considered in initial work and further evaluation of possible mitigation will be required during the

course of the planning application. Mitigation in the form of micrositing will reduce the visibility of

the proposed wind turbines to the identified radars however the maximum micrositing distance is

limited to 50m. Placing a cap on the tip height could also reduce or remove potential effects. Other

technical mitigation solutions such as blanking will also be considered during the course of the

planning application once consultation responses and further subsequent analysis can be

completed.

Electromagnetic Interference and Telecommunications

4.37 Whilst it is not unknown for the operation of wind turbines to interfere with television signals, it is

rare and where there is digital television coverage there is unlikely to be any interference. Chapter

14 of the ES assess’ the potential for impact upon Telecommunications and Utilities infrastructure.

This should be assessed against criterion (g) of Policy E31 – Wind Farms of the Local Plan and the

provisions within the NPPF (Paragraph 98).

4.38 The potential for effects to occur upon telecommunications signal has been assessed against the

formal guidance outlined in the NPPG and against the guidance published by OFCOM and the Joint

Radio Company. The telecommunications impacts of the proposal have been assessed within the

report by Pager Power consultants. The report finds that there would be potential for limited

impacts upon the telemetry links through the site. Mitigation options are to be discussed with the

48

operating body JRC and may result in measures for: the use of an alternative main scanner, re-

directing the potentially affected links, or use of an alternative technology.

4.39 The research and considerations of the options is ongoing with JRC and the proposed mitigation

measures will be updated as they are confirmed. With this in place it is considered that the scheme

would comply with criterion (g) of Policy E31 – Wind Farms of the Local Plan which requires that

“any electromagnetic disturbance on existing transmitting or receiving systems is minimized” and

Paragraph 98 of the NPPF which advises that ”when determining planning applications local

authorities should… approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable”.

Ecological Issues

4.40 The potential for ecological impacts is addressed within Chapter 9 of the ES. An initial Desk-Based

Assessment confirms that that the proposal site is not located within any designated Sites for

Special Scientific Importance (SSSI), Special Protection Areas (SPA) or Special Areas of Conservation

(SAC). The ecological issues that have been addressed as part of the ES include:

Direct and indirect impacts on ecologically designated sites (statutory and non-statutory)

located within the proposed development site or in the surrounding area e.g. temporary

disturbance, loss of habitat, fragmentation, pollution etc.

Direct and indirect impacts upon habitats of botanical or notable interest e.g. the removal of

trees, hedgerows, and any other notable habitats such as ground water dependant terrestrial

ecosystems (GWDTEs).

Direct and indirect impacts upon legally protected and notable species e.g. disturbance

during sensitive periods (breeding season/hibernation), injury/killing, operational

interference.

4.41 The following distances (Study Areas) were used for the various designated site/protected species

searches:

Ramsar sites, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) within

and up to 15 km beyond the Proposed Development Site boundary;

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves (NNRs) within and up

to up to 10km beyond the Proposed Development Site boundary;

49

Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) within and up to 5 km beyond the Proposed Development Site

boundary; and

Non – statutory designated sites (in Lancashire these are known as Biological Heritage Sites,

BHS) within and up to 2 km beyond the Proposed Development Site boundary; and

Species records within and up to 2 km beyond the Proposed Development Site boundary.

4.42 Internet searches were carried out to identify designated sites for wildlife on the Multi – Agency

Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC),

and Natural England (NE) websites.

4.43 In addition to the above, Lancashire County Council (LCC) has produced a Geographic Information

System (GIS) – based tool for identifying the sensitivity of specific areas to wind energy

development in terms of a range of geographic, geological, political and environmental

considerations. It is delivered through the MARIO (Maps and Relevant Information Online) portal,

which can be accessed at http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/agsmario/.

4.44 The following organisations were contacted for relevant ecological data:

East Lancashire Bat Group (ELBG);

The local biological records centre; Lancashire Environmental Records Network (LERN);

Lancashire Amphibian & Reptile Atlas (LARA) Project;

Lancashire Badger Group (LBG); and

Lancashire County Butterfly Recorder (LCBR).

Statutory and Non-Statutory Designations

4.45 The following statutory and non-statutory designated sites for wildlife have been identified within

their respective Study Areas (see paragraph 4.41 for definition of Study Areas):

One internationally designated site; South Pennine Moors SAC/SPA – 6.8 km east of the

proposed development site boundary;

50

Six nationally designated sites (all SSSIs), although only one of these is designated for wildlife

- South Pennine Moors SSSI, 6.8 km east of the proposed development site boundary. The

other five SSSIs are designated for geological interest features and will not be included in the

assessment;

Two locally designated LNR sites – Deer Pond LNR (4km east of the proposed development

site boundary) and Lowerhouse Lodges LNR (1.3km north of the proposed development site

boundary); and

Eleven non–statutory designated BHS sites, the closest of which is Thorny Bank Clough BHS,

0.6km west of the proposed development site boundary.

Online Information

4.46 The MARIO web–based GIS system administered by LCC shows that the following habitat/area

classifications exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development site boundary:

Moors and Marshland; and

Area of medium – high scope for increasing woodland cover.

Species Records

4.47 Species records were received from LERN, Lancashire Badger Group, LARA and the LCBR. East

Lancashire Bat Group provided no response. The data obtained helped to inform the scope of the

survey work and the overall Ecological Assessment of the proposed development site. These are

outlined in detail within the Ecological Chapter of the ES. An initial Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

was conducted in 2014 (AECOM, 2014) to identify key habitats within the proposed development

site and their potential to support protected and notable species. Initial assessments/surveys for a

number of protected species were also carried out during the survey including Badger Survey,

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Assessment of Ponds (ARG, 2010), and Bat Habitat Assessment.

4.48 The information obtained helped determine which targeted protected species surveys would be

required at the proposed development site due to the presence of certain habitat types. Based on

this, the desk study results and review of the likely layout of the proposed wind farm, the following

ecological surveys were proposed; the results of which will be used to determine the baseline

conditions of the proposed development site and in turn inform the EcIA.

51

Great Crested Newt Surveys – presence/likely absence survey on ponds confirmed as suitable

following the HSI assessment, followed by population assessment surveys if great crested

newts are identified;

Bat Surveys – daytime bat habitat assessment on New Barn Farm, dusk and dawn activity

surveys on New Barn Farm and individual trees with bat roost potential, climb and inspect

tree surveys, hibernation surveys of mines, static detector surveys and transect surveys

(based on a low risk site, as defined by the Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines (Hundt,

2012);

Otter Survey - on suitable watercourses identified during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat

Survey;

Water Vole Survey - on suitable watercourses identified during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat

Survey; and

Assessment for white clawed crayfish suitability in watercourses identified during the

Extended Phase 1

Habitat Survey - This has been scoped out as direct impacts on watercourses can be managed

through the construction practice.

Ornithology

4.49 A desk based study for all ecological receptors and an initial walkover of the proposed development

site was carried out in 2014 (AECOM, 2014). In 2015 a number of baseline ornithological surveys

were undertaken across the proposed development site, and a bird – specific desk based study is

underway to determine whether ornithological receptors (designated sites for ornithology and birds

that are partially or wholly dependent on the proposed development site) could potentially be

affected by the proposed development.

Desk Study

4.50 The following distances (study areas) were used for the various designated site/protected species

searches in 2014:

52

Ramsar sites, SACs and SPAs within and up to 15km beyond the proposed development site

boundary;

SSSIs and NNRs within and up to up to 10km beyond the proposed development site

boundary;

LNRs within and up to 5km beyond the proposed development site boundary; and

Non – statutory designated sites (in Lancashire these are known as Biological Heritage Sites,

BHS) within and up to 2km beyond the proposed development site boundary; and

Species records within and up to 2km beyond the proposed development site boundary.

4.51 Internet searches were carried out to identify designated sites for wildlife on the Multi – Agency

Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC),

and Natural England (NE) websites. The East Lancashire Ornithologists’ Club (ELOC) website

(http://www.eastlancsornithologists.org.uk/) has a searchable database of bird records throughout

the region. This was searched, by location, for bird records within each 1km grid square that occurs

wholly or partly within the study area. Searches were also undertaken for regional and local spatial

guidance relevant to onshore wind farms either specifically or through relevance to planning policy

in a more general context.

4.52 The following organisations have been contacted in 2015 to obtain bird specific records:

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB);

Lancashire County Bird Recorder; and

East Lancashire Ornithologists’ Club (ELOC).

4.53 The following statutory and non-statutory designated sites of ornithological interest have been

identified within their respective study areas:

One internationally designated site; South Pennine Moors SPA – 6.8km east of the proposed

development site boundary;

One nationally designated site; South Pennine Moors SSSI - 6.8km east of the proposed

development site boundary;

53

One locally designated LNR site; Deer Pond LNR – 4km east of the proposed development site

boundary; and

Two non–statutory designated BHS - Hameldon Scout (1.3km west) and Red Moss (1.1km

south-east).

Online Information

4.54 The nearest sensitive bird areas to the proposed development site identified in the guidance issued

by RSPB et al. (2008) are the ‘Fylde Peninsular’ to the north-west, and the ‘South West Lancashire

Mosses’ to the west and south-west, both of which are located more than 30km from the proposed

development site at their closest points.

4.55 The MARIO web–based GIS system administered by LCC (http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/agsmario/)

shows that the following habitat/area classifications exist within or immediately adjacent to the

proposed development site boundary:

Moors and Marshland; and

Area of medium – high scope for increasing woodland cover.

Third Party Species Records

4.56 Bird records were obtained both from LERN and from the online database held by ELOC in 2014.

The records are too numerous to list in full here, however, following a review of these records it

was concluded that the study area supports a varied avifauna, which includes a number of species

on one or more of the following: UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority List, Lancashire BAP

Priority List, RSPB Red List and Amber List, Schedule 1 and Annex 1 and that would be expected to

occur regularly within the proposed development site (house sparrow, dunnock, song thrush,

peregrine, skylark, curlew, lapwing, linnet, kestrel, meadow pipit, mistle thrush, reed bunting,

grasshopper warbler and snipe).

4.57 Notable species records within the LERN database that have been recorded in the study area but

would not be expected to occur regularly or frequently include hen harrier (two records at Hapton

Park and Hameldon Hill), red kite, hobby Falcon (Hapton and Burnley), and twite. There are

numerous records of waterfowl including waders, ducks, cormorants, grebes and geese, indicating a

regular presence of waterfowl within the study area at wetlands, such as Clowbridge Reservoir

http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/agsmario/

54

(approximately 1km south-east of the proposed site). However, there is no evidence within the

third party data to suggest that such species occur regularly within the proposed development site.

4.58 A significant record among these in relation to the potential constraint to a future wind farm

proposal, is the long term presence of peregrine, a Schedule 1 listed species, which is known to nest

in the area adjacent to the proposed development site and survey records are discussed in detail in

the ES. Surveys were carried out by AECOM in 2015 and include Common Bird Census and breeding

Vantage Point (VP) surveys within the proposed development site and up to 600m around it, all

carried out between and including April and July 2015. These have subsequently been assessed by

Delta Simons in the ES.

4.59 Based on the summary information provided above, the following additional work has been

undertaken to complete the ornithological baseline work:

Completion of consultation activity with RSPB;

Further consultation with RSPB and Natural England following establishment of a wind farm

design;

Wintering bird surveys including walkover bird counts and VP surveys between October and

March (inclusive) as a minimum; and

Completion of a CRM for target species, based on all VP data over a 12 month period. Target

species including peregrine, barn owl, curlew, snipe and lapwing. Short – eared owl flights

recorded to date would not put these species at risk of collision with turbines placed within

the proposed site. Collision risk for snipe and barn owl, based on the available data, would be

very low at worst.

4.60 The full assessment is undertaken by Delta Simons with the findings being that the proposals site

would not be significantly impacted upon in terms of its contribution to the local ecology. In this

respect the scheme would accord with the requirements of Policies E4 – Protection of Other

Features of Ecological Value and E5 – Species Protection of the Local Plan and Paragraph 113 of the

NPPF which advises “Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which

proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape

areas will be judged”.

55

Archaeological Implications

4.61 Archaeological remains are an important and irreplaceable heritage asset. National and local

planning policy seeks to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.

4.62 Paragraph 128 of the NPPF advises that “where a site on which development is proposed includes

or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning

authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate Desk-Based Assessment and, where

necessary, a field evaluation.

4.63 The application is supported by an appropriate assessment undertaken by Pre-Construct

Archaeological Services Ltd which finds that the only recorded heritage asset that may be impacted

on by the proposed development, is the late 19th century rifle range, depicted on the historic maps,

on the western side of the area of the proposed turbines. However, no earthworks associated with

the rifle range were noted during the site visit and according to the historic maps these lay some

distance to the west of the nearest turbine (Turbine 1). Other earthworks were however noted to

the south and east of proposed turbine 2 during the site visit. The exact nature of these earthworks

is undetermined, but they may relate to medieval/post-medieval ridge and furrow ploughing

and/or other agricultural practices similar to those recorded to the north-west of the proposed

turbines during the earlier extension in 2009.

4.64 The construction of the turbines would have no direct impact on any designated or previously

recorded non-designated heritage assets located within the proposed development area or wider

study area. However, earthworks were noted to the south and east of proposed turbine 2, and

depending on the final location of the turbine there may be a direct impact on these earthworks.

The significance of any such remains is currently unknown, but if when the final turbine locations

have been determined these features will be disturbed, archaeological monitoring is recommended

during construction phase.

4.65 Having regard to the above it is considered that the application would comply with the

requirements of Policy E19 – Development and Archaeological Remains of the Local Plan and

Paragraph 128 of the NPPF.

56

Heritage Assets

4.66 NPPF Paragraph 12.132 states that ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the

significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost

through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage

assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional.

Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably

scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I

and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.’

• The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

• The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

• The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

• The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales)

Regulations 1999.

• Local planning policy consists of the Burnley Local Plan (adopted 2006).

4.67 As with any application, consideration should be given to any impact on the character of heritage

assets, be they listed buildings or conservation areas. The NPPF requires applicants to supply

sufficient information and assessment to understand the impact of the proposal on the significance

of any heritage assets affected. The assessment undertaken by Pre-Construct Archaeological

Services Ltd submitted with this application provides the requisite level of detail.

4.68 The Heritage impacts assessment prepared by Pre-Construct Archaeological Services Ltd submitted

in support of the application within Chapter 10 of the ES finds that the main potential for impact

from the proposal is upon the setting of identified heritage assets. The assessment submitted

identifies the assets potentially affected and assess the impact upon their setting. The proposed

development is considered to have only limited visual impacts and would not result in any

significantly adverse effects on the setting of any of the assets identified.

57

4.69 The heritage baseline data identified a single designated heritage asset within the proposed

development area (Grade II listed Building of Barn and former farmhouse circa 50m east of New

Barn Farmhouse – listed building No. 1222601). Within the wider study areas there are 211

designated heritage assets within the visible zone (ZTV) of the 5km study area (3 scheduled

monuments, 3 Grade I listed buildings, 4 Grade II* listed buildings, 186 Grade II listed buildings, and

5 registered parks and gardens, and 10 conservation areas. All of the remaining designated heritage

assets within the wider 5km study area are screened from the area of the proposed turbines by

intervening topography, buildings, vegetation, and other landscape features.

4.70 This assessment has determined that there would be a Minor – Negligible indirect impact on the

setting of 37 out of the 211 designated heritage assets. There will be no indirect impact on the

setting of any of the scheduled monuments, Grade I & II* listed buildings or 3 of the registered

parks and gardens. Out of the 186 Grade II listed buildings within the 5km study area there will be a

Minor impact on the closest four Grade II listed buildings due to a slight impact to the immediate

setting of these assets. However, these impacts are not considered significant as the addition of

three turbines will not further detract from the significance of the assets any more that the

construction of the earlier turbines on Hamledon Hill. There will also be a Negligible impact on the

setting of a further 21 Grade II listed buildings within the wider study area. These impacts are

deemed to come from distant views of the turbines in the wider setting of these heritage assets.

The appearance of the turbines in these distance views will not interfere with any of the

relationships between these assets and their immediate or wider settings and are therefore not

considered significant.

4.71 As with the majority of the Grade II listed buildings it has been determined that there will be a

Negligible indirect impact on the setting of 2 registered parks and gardens and the conservation

areas lying within the wider study area. These impacts are not considered significant because views

of the turbines will not significantly impact on the immediate or wider settings of these assets and

will not interfere with the visual relationships between assets within the conservation areas. The

turbines will form a small overall element of the overall view of the surrounding landscape from

these assets.

58

Non-Physical Indirect Settings Impact - Non-Designated Heritage Assets

4.72 Out of the 91 non-designated heritage assets recorded within the study area, most either lie

beyond the visual zone or consist of find spots or cartographic and/or documentary descriptions

which are not sensitive to impacts on their setting. It has been determined during this assessment

that there would be a Negligible impact on the setting of the remaining 12 heritage assets. These

impacts are not considered significant as the construction of three additional turbines will not

further detract from the significance of these assets.

4.73 Having regard to the above the application is considered to comply with Policies E10 – Alteration,

Extensions, Change of Use and Development affecting Listed Buildings, E12- Development in or

Adjacent to Conservation Areas, E18 – Scheduled Ancient Monuments and E19 – Development and

Archaeological Remains of the Local Plan along with the core principles of the NPPF.

Loss of Agricultural Land

4.74 The entire local area is grazed, the lower slopes by mixed cattle and sheep, the higher southern

slopes by a few sheep only. There is a marked difference in character between the southern and

northern halves of the land ownership, which arises predominantly from the degree of agricultural

improvement and grazing.

4.75 A broad division can be drawn, following a line roughly between Hapton Tower in the west and

Lower Micklehurst Farm in the east (both of which are located just outside the application site),

south of which the habitats change from relatively improved to relatively unimproved, and from

superficially neutral and mostly dry to acidic and often wet.

4.76 The northern half of the land ownership is characterised by improved and semi–improved

grasslands, punctuated by occasional wetter marshy grasslands. There are numerous cloughs

draining through the landownership which tend to be bordered by scattered trees and scrub

(predominantly hawthorn and ash). The area of the application site is limited due to the diameter of

the turbines and consequently they would have a no more than negligible impact on the

agricultural use of the land which would, for the main part continue whilst the turbines are in

operation.

59

Installation of the Turbine and Access Arrangements

4.77 The proposed turbines and associated infrastructure would be delivered via the same route as the

existing turbines. This was transported from the M62 (Junction 18), onto the M66, and via the A56

and A679. Chapter 11 sets down in detail the transportation requirements and associated effects

however basically, the transport vehicles would not exceed the maximum axle load of 12t (usually

10t). Thus, a transport vehicle with an actual overall weight of 100t has at least nine axles (plus

towing vehicle). Approximately 20 transport cycles are required to deliver one wind turbine (incl.

tower) to the application site. Vehicles required would include low-loader trailers, flatbed trailers,

semi-trailers and adapter vehicles. Approximately 35 trucks would be required to transport the

crane equipment to the crane and the assembly of the jib.

4.78 The Traffic Management Plan sets down in detail the work required which is cross referenced in

Chapter 11 of the ES. Based on the conclusions there is nothing to suggest that the scheme would

be contrary to planning policy from a highway safety perspective.

Ice Throw/Tower Collapse/Blade Shedding

4.79 The PPS 22 Companion Guide previously concluded that the build-up of ice is unlikely to present

problems for the majority of sites in England and although the document has been superseded the

statement remains pertinent. Although the potential for icing may exist, there are existing

commercial turbines at the site and there appears to be no evidence that ice throws have occurred

there. The proposed turbines have been positioned to be detached so that they would not oversail

any public footpath or highway. Turbines of the scale proposed are an existing feature in the

landscape, and they are slow to start up. As such, road users in the general area would not be

surprised by its presence or activity. Whilst it is not unknown for a turbine to collapse or shed a

blade, this is very rare and there are no recorded examples of any injuries. In this context, the risk

to passers-by would be very small.

Equestrian Activities

4.80 Although it is not planning policy nor have they statutory force, there would be no breach of the

British Horse Society guidelines regarding the separation of the proposed wind turbine and any

bridleway.

60

Flood Risk

4.81 The application site lies outside of the designated flood zones for the area as shown in the following

map, and as such, the proposed turbine would not be at risk of flooding or result in an additional

risk.

Image 4.1: Flood Map of the Area

4.82 The submission is supported by a chapter within the ES which deals specifically with the ground

conditions of the site and the potential impacts upon surface water. The findings of this assessment

conclude that there would be no appreciable impacts upon flood risk from the proposal and the

scheme would therefore comply with the provisions of the NPPF and the Local Plan.

Community Benefit Fund

4.83 Currently the only situation in which financial arrangements are considered material to planning is

under the Localism Act, as amended (2011) which allows a local planning authority to take into

account financial benefits where there is a direct connection between the intended use of the funds

and the development. The PPG states that “Local planning authorities may wish to establish policies

which give positive weight to renewable and low carbon energy initiatives which have clear

evidence of local community involvement and leadership.” At present, the LPA does not have a

61

specific planning policy in relation to community benefits from wind turbines. There is also a strict

principle in the English planning system that a planning proposal should be determined based on

material planning considerations, as defined in law. Planning legislation prevents local planning

authorities from specifically seeking developer contributions where they are not considered

necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Within this context, community

benefits are generally not seen as relevant to deciding whether a development is granted planning

permission. Nevertheless the applicant is committed to offering community benefits beyond the

existing agreements with the properties at New Barn and Lower Micklehurst Farm which are

financially involved. The applicants propose a community benefit fund which would take the form

of an annual payment by the developer based upon the installed megawatt (MW) capacity of the

extended wind farm.

4.84 The fund would take the form of an annual sum paid per MW installed – in this case £5000. An

annual sum would be paid into a fund over the lifetime of the project, with the community

determining what the money in the fund can be used for. Annual payments would be index-linked.

There would be a clause in the agreement with the wind developer that if the project ceases

generating electricity for a given period for any reason, payments will temporarily cease. If planning

consent is granted the details of the community benefit package would be formalised through

negotiations between the developer and the local community directly by way of a legal contract

between the developer and the community body that has been chosen to be responsible for

managing the fund. The agreement would be linked to the development and maintain payment of

the community benefits even if the wind development changes ownership. The agreement would

typically cover the following elements in accordance with the Centre for Sustainable Energy et al

(2007, updated 2009), for the Renewables Advisory Board Delivering Community Benefits from

Wind Energy Developments: A Toolkit:

Parties to the agreement;

The payments that will be made and what, if anything, this depends on;

Any inflationary increases the payment will be subject to;

If the payment is related to electricity production rather than installed capacity, how this will

be confirmed, by whom and on what timetable each year;

When the payments will begin and cease;

62

How payment will be triggered and what happens if there are any problems;

What the fund may and may not be used for and who has liability/responsibility for its

management once the money has been paid by the developer;

Clarity on any other liabilities;

Whether or not the agreement is exclusively between the signatories;

How disputes should be dealt with;

What obligations the community has to the wind farm owner in relation to the funds, such as

reporting and auditing;

Mechanisms for binding future owners to the same terms;

Intended action if the recipient body ceases to operate;

How the agreement terminates.

4.85 Typically community benefit funds are administered through an open grant scheme which is likely

to be the preferential route here. In such a scenario individual projects in the community would

apply for funding and the applications undergo an objective assessment by a panel, usually

composed of local community representatives, who make the funding decisions. At £5000 per

MW this could lead to between £30-34,000 per year depending on the installed turbine which

would have the potential to make a significant contribution to the local community schemes.

63

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 In assessing this application in relation to policy and environmental context, it is considered that the

application should be granted for the following reasons:

Based on the indicated turbines it is estimated that enough electricity could be generated

annually to supply the equivalent of approximately 4,616 households. This could displace the

equivalent of up to approximately 6,690 tonnes of CO2 emission per year from conventional

forms of electricity generation.

Landscape Impacts are assessed within the relevant chapter of the supporting ES. In terms of

visual impacts, the proposed turbine would be visible from a number of vantage points.

Montages have been produced from the nearest most sensitive locations around the

proposed turbine. It is clear from these montages that the turbine would be visible from

some locations; however, there are few locations where the turbine would be seen as an

isolated structure. The intervening landscape features, gradient of the land and mature

vegetation all provide a level of mitigation and to a certain extent screening of the turbine.

Set in this context the turbine would not result in a significant adverse impact on individual

receptors or the amenity values of the area. Given the scale of the turbine and findings within

the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, it is clear that the effects are localised.

The nearest residential properties are a suitable distance from the proposal. The application

is supported by assessment to demonstrate that they would not result in any significant

impacts from noise upon the neighbouring properties. Furthermore to ensure protection

suitable conditions are proposed to ensure no significant impacts occur throughout the

lifetime of the development.

The application is supported by an extensive assessment of the ecological significance of the

site and the potential impacts of the proposal are considered. The report provided by Delta

Simons finds there to be no significant impacts upon the ecological interest of the site.

The proposed development would not have any direct impacts upon any designated heritage

asset. Any impacts are restricted to the respective asset’s setting and visual relationship with

the proposals. These visual impacts are addressed within the ES and are found to be less than

substantial. Heritage Assets are a finite resource and changes in climate have impacts upon

64

their conservation as such the proposal does offer some degree of inherent benefit to

Heritage Assets.

There are no identified archaeological records within the application site, however there are

in the broader area. The scale of required earthworks is limited to the temporary access

track and the installation of the turbine and appropriate mitigation can be offered in line with

good practice through the suggested condition which would ensure the preservation of any

records in the event of any finds.

The Transport Assessment finds that the site can be readily accessed by the types of vehicles

required and that there would be no significant impacts upon the highways in the locality.

The ground conditions of the site can accommodate the development type and would not be

significantly impacted for the drainage or geology by the proposal. The areas of highest

sensitivity such as the blanket bogs are not included and are therefore preserved.

Subject to suitable mitigation measures to ensure that the telemetry links through the site

would be retained/improved. Ensuring that the telecommunications would not be adversely

impacted.

The NPPF states that the wider economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy

projects at whatever scale are material considerations that should be given significant weight

in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission.

There are no other material planning considerations that would outweigh the overriding

benefits of this proposal in providing a renewable energy source and the long term

environmental benefits this brings.

5.2 Having regard to the above and all other matters, it is considered that the proposed development

meets the expectations of policies of the Development Plan and other policy guidance including

specifically the provisions of the NPPF. It is thus felt that this application should be granted subject

to reasonable and appropriate conditions.