Siting of a 500 kW wind turbine with a hub height of 50 m, a maximum tip height of up to 77 m with three blades and a rotor diameter of up to 54 m with ancillary equipment and temporary access track.
Cornwall Council application number: PA12/12031
Response on behalf of Splatt, Tremaine and Tresmeer Action Against Turbines
March 2013
The Church of St Winwalo, Tremaine
1 Introduction
1.1 Splatt, Tremaine and Tresmeer Action Against Turbines was formed by a number of residents from the villages of Splatt, Tremaine and Tresmeer and the surrounding areas who were concerned over proposals to erect wind turbines in the area. Individual objections were submitted to Cornwall Council, but following increasing concerns over the effects that wind turbines in the area would have, it was decided to form a group and obtain professional advice. This report is the result of that advice.
2 Executive Summary
2.1 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has covered, in broad terms, the impacts on the two landscape character areas which border the site which are LCA CA31 Upper Tamar and Ottery Valleys and CA36 Delabole Plateau. The LVIA has also dealt with the sensitivity to turbines of the size proposed by reference to the report by LUC entitled An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to on‐shore wind energy & large scale photovoltaic development in Cornwall.
2.2 However the assessment of the impacts on the site and its immediate surrounding consist merely of two paragraphs. We consider that the landscape impacts have been considerably under assessed. At present the landscape around the proposed site has remained unchanged for generations, and most of the structures are of a traditional vernacular style. The introduction of a structure such as this turbine will have a dramatic impact on such a pleasant landscape. Appendix 1 is a photograph of an identical turbine to that proposed at Higher Churchtown Farm.
2.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 7 recognises that sustainable development has an environmental role ‘contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment’. This requirement is reinforced in paragraph 109: ‘the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: …protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.’ We believe that any assessment of landscape impact needs to test the development against these criteria.
2.4 The landscape around the site of the proposed turbine is very clearly one that is highly valued by the local people. As such paragraph 109 of the NPPF applies, and thus there is a need, in the words of the NPPF, to enhance and protect this landscape, something that this proposal will clearly fail to do.
2.5 The cumulative impact assessment within the LVIA identifies Significant cumulative effects when the Higher Churchtown turbine is considered in relation to the Cold Northcott wind farm, the Ashgrove Farm turbine, the Churchtown Farm turbine and the turbine at Tredown Farm. However it omits some wind turbines that are closer to the application site and with a greater tip height than some of those that have been considered in the assessment. The applicant must carry out a cumulative impact assessment of these additional turbines in relation to the proposed turbine at Higher Churchtown Farm.
2.6 The applicant has failed to assess the impacts on residential amenity at five nearby dwellings. Without an assessment of these dwellings then planning permission should be refused.
2.7 The effects on the settlements of Tresmeer are given as Substantial Adverse and the effects on the settlements of Splatt and Tremaine are similarly assessed as Substantial Adverse, but no indication is given as to the number of properties in each settlement. Nonetheless, the assessment of Moderate to Substantial effects on these three settlements is sufficient on its own to warrant refusal.
2.8 The effects on North Tregeare[1] are given as Moderate to Substantial Adverse along with Helson and also the effects on Westcott, which consists of five properties. Even ignoring the fact that three of the nearest properties have been omitted from the applicant’s assessment, the assessment of Moderate to Substantial effects on a total of at least seven properties, is sufficient on its own to warrant refusal.
2.9 It is abundantly clear that the effects of the Higher Churchtown proposal on the local community will be totally unacceptable.
2.10 The Shadow Flicker Assessment shows that two properties will experience shadow flicker, Coombelake for 51 days of the year and West Park for 36 days of the year. According to the calculations both properties would experience these effects for a maximum of 28 minutes on a given day. It is interesting to note that neither West Park nor Coombelake were included in the residential amenity assessment, meaning that the applicant has no idea of the visual impact that the turbine would have on the only two properties that would suffer from shadow flicker.
2.11 We note that the applicant assesses the impacts on users of the footpath that runs between Splatt and Tremaine as substantial adverse. We agree with this assessment which adds even more weight to our conclusion that the effects on the local community will be totally unacceptable.
2.12 The applicant’s Archaeological Assessment highlights the impacts on a number of historic assets, and the identified impacts on the Church of St Winwalo are crucial to the determination of this application. The church is Grade 1 listed and as such its protection is of national importance. The impact on the setting of the church is given as negative substantial. This substantial negative impact on the setting of the church must be classed as substantial harm in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
2.13 The NPPF is very clear that ‘Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent….’
2.14 We note that English Heritage has submitted a very strong objection which states that the impacts of this development would constitute substantial harm to the Church of St Winwalo and that ‘For these reasons, English Heritage opposes this proposal and recommends refusal.’
2.15 The impact on the Grade II Grove Cottage is given as Negative/Substantial. Again under the terms of the NPPF the Council must refuse consent for this proposal.
2.16 As set out in the main body of this submission we believe that a number of listed buildings in the area have been under-assessed by the applicant.
2.17 The ecological surveys carried out on behalf of the applicant seem remarkably sparse. None of the recommendations contained in Natural England guidance have been carried out in this case. Proper bat surveys should be carried out that comply both with the Natural England guidance and that provided by the Bat Conservation Trust.[2]
2.18 The planning application was accompanied by a noise assessment carried out by Eddie Jewell Acoustics dated 20 December 2012. This assessment contained a cumulative noise assessment which referred to a CF50 turbine at Ashgrove Farm. The application for this turbine had been withdrawn and a new application submitted for an Endurance E-3120 turbine. Consequently a revised noise assessment dated 22 January 2013 was submitted.
2.19 Subsequently the Splatt Tremaine and Tresmeer Action Against Turbines commissioned Robert Davis Associates to carry out a review of this revised noise assessment. This review is at Appendix 2. The conclusions drawn by this review were that:
· the background noise data presented in the noise assessment cannot be regarded as reliable and does not provide a robust basis for setting noise limits using the ETSU-R-97 procedure;
· there is a risk that noise levels at North Tregeare Farm and Grove Cottage could be rather higher than predicted, and therefore above 35dBLA90, because of the ‘across valley’ propagation paths from WT1 to these properties;
· I recommend that the applicant is asked to respond to these points. I suggest that with the current information it would not be safe for the Council to grant planning permission for the Higher Churchtown Farm turbine, because there is no robust basis for setting noise limits in planning conditions.
· Additional background noise data, and some clarification of points raised above, are required.
2.20 In order to assess the planning balance, the LPA requires accurate information from the applicant on the benefits of the scheme. Sadly in this case the applicant has grossly overstated the benefits in terms of renewable energy generation and the consequent emissions savings.
2.21 The Renewable Energy Roadmap to which the applicant refers sets out a target for onshore wind of 13GW[3] by 2020. This is equal to 13,000MW. As the installed capacity of this turbine would be 0.5MW it can be seen that the contribution it would make to meeting the national target would be miniscule.
2.22 Furthermore, the Roadmap made it very clear that at the time that it was published in 2011, there was sufficient onshore wind constructed, consented and in the planning system to meet the 2020 target. As this application was submitted long after the Government made that statement then there is clearly no need for this application.
2.23 The income from the turbine for the applicant is a private benefit, not a public one. As the Government has made clear on numerous occasions ‘Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must be related to the development and use of land in the public interest.’[4]
2.24 As the private benefits to the applicant cannot be regarded to be use of land in the public interest then they clearly cannot be regarded as material planning considerations and thus must not be taken into account by the decision maker
2.25 The Planning Statement then refers to a ‘Community Fund’. This is a private matter between the applicant and the community. Planning law remains that such arrangements are not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken into account by decision makers.
2.26 The proposal is contrary to national planning policy and to a whole raft of Structure Plan and Local Plan policies.
2.27 The benefits of the proposal are minimal and clearly do not outweigh the harm that the proposal would have. The planning balance in this case falls heavily in favour of refusal of planning consent.
2.28 Accordingly Splatt, Tremaine and Tresmeer Action Against Turbines requests that planning permission is refused.
3 Landscape Impacts
3.1 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has covered, in broad terms, the impacts on the two landscape character areas which border the site which are LCA CA31 Upper Tamar and Ottery Valleys and CA36 Delabole Plateau. The LVIA has also dealt with the sensitivity to turbines of the size proposed by reference to the report by LUC entitled An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to on‐shore wind energy & large scale photovoltaic development in Cornwall.
3.2 However the assessment of the impacts on the site and its immediate surrounding consist merely of two paragraphs which are:
‘5.2.5 The site is considered to be of medium value and moderate sensitivity to the proposed development, the magnitude of effects on the character of the site is assessed as medium and the significance as moderate adverse (not significant). This is because the turbine would be prominent and the landscape character of the site would be changed by the presence of the turbine, but the surrounding field areas and hedgerows would be retained around the turbine, therefore, the landscape character would not be totally changed and much of its key physical and perceptual characteristics would remain. Also there are no public rights of way running through the field of the site, therefore the perceptibility of the effects on the site itself would be limited.’ (Emphasis supplied)
3.3 We consider this to be an underassessment of the landscape impacts. At present the landscape around the proposed site has remained unchanged for generations, and most of the structures are a traditional vernacular style. The introduction of a structure such as this turbine will have a dramatic impact on such a pleasant landscape.
‘ 5.2.6 Table 10 summarise [sic] the potential effects upon Cornwall LCA CA31 Upper Tamar and Ottery Valleys and CA36 Delabole Plateau. In summary the proposed development would not significantly affect the whole of the landscape character of the LCAs it is within or the surrounding character areas due to the medium scale and simple land cover of the landscape baseline of the hills in the area, one of which the site is on. The site is on a skyline which currently includes Warbstow Bury, near Warbstow Cross and the existing wind farm at Cold Northcott and the turbine would become another prominent feature on this skyline in views from the local area, resulting in some adverse effects on the landscape character, but these effects would not be sufficiently adverse to result in significant effects on the landscape character of the LCAs as a whole.’
3.4 Again it can be seen that there has been no real assessment of the impacts that the turbine would have on the immediate surroundings.
3.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 7 recognises that sustainable development has an environmental role ‘contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment’. This requirement is reinforced in paragraph 109: ‘the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: …protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.’ We believe that any assessment of landscape impact needs to test the development against these criteria.
3.6 While landscape value can be denoted by national or local designation, such formal recognition is not the only means of ascribing value. Landscape Character Assessment[5] paragraph 7.8 describes a valued landscape thus: ‘In a policy context the usual basis for recognising certain highly valued landscapes is through the application of a local or national landscape designation. Yet a landscape may be valued by different communities of interest for many different reasons without any formal designation, recognising, for example, perceptual aspects such as scenic beauty, tranquillity or wildness; special cultural associations; the influence and presence of other conservation interests; or the existence of a consensus about importance, either nationally or locally.’