PLANNING APPLICATIONS

PLANNING AGENDA

14 December 2011

LATE REPRESENTATIONS

BACKGROUND PAPERS

“The background papers relating to reports on planning applications and which are open to public inspection under Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 consist of all written responses to consultations made by the Local Planning Authority in connection with planning applications referred to in the reports.”

Members of the public should note that the applications are in numerical order unless applications are linked.

List of Planning Applications on this Agenda

Please note certain reports make reference to Regional Spatial Strategy and policies therein:

When relevant provisions of the Localism Bill take effect, the regional strategy will be revoked.  For the time being however, it is still part of the development plan.  As a result of recent litigation, the government’s intention to revoke the regional strategies may be regarded as a material consideration.  As with all other material considerations, the question of what weight to attach to this falls with the Council.

RECOMMENDATION – Approve

Summary

Tackling climate change continues to be a key Government priority for the planning system and its objective of securing sustainable development. National guidance sets the framework for addressing the issue and securing implementation of planning policies at regional and local level, which will contribute to the reduction in carbon emissions and other green house gases. A key approach to tackling climate change is the use of renewable energy production of which wind farm development is one well-tested solution.

Also key to the government’s policy on achieving sustainable development is the need to protect and enhance the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside and existing communities. Paragraph 17 of PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development sets out the Government’s commitment to protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural and historic environment in both rural and urban areas.

The planning system is intended to secure sustainable development in the right place and at the right time. A “plan led system” is at the core development decisions and planning applications should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As a result planning decisions should be based on up to date development plan policies.  In those cases where policies pull in opposite directions the planning application shall be determined on its planning merits in the light of all material considerations.

Wind farm development, which involves less than 50mw of falls to be determined by the Local Planning Authority. Such applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

In this case the development plan comprises the East Midlands Regional Plan  (March 2009) and “saved” policies of the Daventry District Local Plan (June 1997). Only Policy SDA1 of the Northamptonshire Structure Plan has been “saved” and is not considered relevant to the determination of the application. At a local level the Joint Core Strategy Pre Submission aimed at replacing the Daventry District Local Plan is at a very early stage and contains one policy S11  which allows for renewable energy projects subject to satisfying a number criteria .

Policy 40 (Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation) of the East Midlands Regional Plan establishes a supportive stance towards low carbon energy generation across the region. With respect to wind farms there is a recognition that “much of the region could be suitable for the location of wind turbines subject to criteria including visual impact and cumulative effect…” (Paragraph 3.3.86 East Midlands Regional Plan ).  The policy sets out the Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation . With respect to onshore wind energy proposals the policy advises LPAs on the need to establish criteria  which will give particular consideration to a number of issues including ; landscape and visual impact; effect on natural and cultural environment; effect of noise; number and size of turbines; cumulative impact; contribution towards regional renewals targets and contributions towards national and international objectives on climate change.

The Localism Act   makes clear the Government's intention to abolish Regional Plans but the order which enact this intention have yet to come forward. As such the Regional Plan still remains part of the development plan and should be accorded weight in development management decisions.

landscape and visual impact;

It is accepted that this structure will result in a significant change in the visual amenity of the area because of its height and the rotation of its blades. But a marked change in what people will see is not in itself a reason for withholding permission. I have judged the impact on the wider landscape (which includes landscape in other administrative boundaries ) to be acceptable I accept that for those properties closest to the development the turbine will be prominent and will impact on the amenity of the occupants. On balance I have judged the impact to be acceptable to the living conditions of these properties as I do not consider that these properties will become less attractive places to live as a direct result of this development.

effect on natural and heritage environment;

The ES and SEI have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on biodiversity in the locality of the application site. This approach is accepted by Natural England. Accordingly the impact of the proposal on the natural environment is judged to be acceptable  and can be secured by condition and  legal agreement.

With respect to impact on heritage assets the proposal has been reduced in height to mitigate its impact on the nearest heritage asset (Church of St John the Baptist at Boddington) the setting of which was  previously judged by the Conservation Officer and English Heritage to be substantially  harmed by the turbine when proposed at a height of 122m. This change in height has mitigated the impact of the development on the setting of the identified heritage asset  to be greatly reduced such that English Heritage are satisfied that there  is no need to further consult them. The Councils Conservation officer  also considers the impact on the setting of the Church of St John to be substantially reduced.

No other heritage assets have been identified as being substantially harmed  directly or indirectly by the reduced height of the turbine.  Accordingly the impact on heritage assets is judged to be acceptable.

effect of noise;

The impact of development on the amenities of nearby residential properties has been the subject of extensive discussions between the  applicants agent and the Council's EHO. The EHO has indicated that the proposal would, subject to conditions imposed, not result in unacceptable noise levels from the site in compliance with current ETSU guidance.

number and size of turbines;

This is an application for a single turbine which has been reduced in height to mitigate its impact on an identified heritage assets. It is this revised application which is before the Council for consideration. I have judged the proposal to be acceptable on its planning merits having regard to the provisions of the development plan and other material considerations. Although I do acknowledge third party representations about the visual impact of this proposal  I have no evidence  before me which justifies  an approach which would require a further reduction in the height  of the turbine to further mitigate its visual impact.

cumulative impact;

Although the District has seen the submission of a number of applications for wind farm developments these are some distance from the application site. I am also aware of schemes for wind farms in neighbouring local authorities which are currently in the planning system. Whilst these schemes will be determined on their individual merits and will no doubt impact on the wider landscape (if allowed) and implemented I do not consider that this proposal for a single turbine would result in a cumulative adverse effect on the wider landscape or amenity of the locality which would justify withholding planning permission.  I have had regard to the findings of the ES and third party representations but consider that there is no evidence to support a decision  to refuse permission on the basis that it  would  significantly add to cumulative landscape and visual effects in the locality.

contribution towards regional renewals targets and contributions towards national and international objectives on climate change.

The scheme will make a contribution towards the achievement of regional targets on renewable energy. Whilst I acknowledge comments made by third party representations on the efficiency of this type of energy production and the size of contribution I do not consider that this is sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission having regard to other planning considerations set out above.

planning policies and guidance

The report below considers the issues Policy 40 (Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation) seeks to address taking into account existing regional and local development plan policies as well as national guidance. It is officer’s view that the development satisfies the criteria listed in Policy 40 (Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation) with the exception of the effect on cultural environment, including the effect on historic assets and their settings, the built and natural environment

There are no saved policies in the Daventry District Local Plan, which specifically deal with the issue of renewable energy.  

Policy S11 of the emerging Joint Core Strategy expects renewable energy projects  contribute to national renewable energy targets; have no significant adverse impact on the historic and natural landscape, landscape character  or nature conservation interests; no significant adverse impact on the amenity of the area  in respect of flicker , glare , noise, dust  odour  and  traffic generation; provide for reinstatement of land upon cessation of the operational phase of the development.    Whilst the emerging core strategy is at a very early stage and little weight can be attached to it in planning decisions I am satisfied that the proposal would not conflict with the provisions of this draft policy.

The Council has adopted an "Interim Guidelines When Assessing Proposals For the Development of Wind Turbines” in March 2011. This document is not a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and does not form part of the Local Development Framework. Under planning legislation a SPD would need to link to a policy in the adopted development plan. The Daventry District Local Plan was adopted in 1997, but does not include a saved policy relating to climate change and renewable energy upon which an SPD can be based. It is consistent with national planning policy statements, development plan policies and other material considerations.

The aim of the document is therefore to provide clarification not set new policy. I am satisfied that the development accords with the provisions of this document.

In officer’s view there are specific policies within the development plan, which seek to protect and enhance the historic environment. These policies should be afforded significant weight in the determination of this application. Policy 26 (Protecting the Region's Natural and Cultural Heritage) requires the highest level of protection to the regions’ nationally designated historic assets and requires that damage to the setting of historic assets should be avoided wherever and as far as possible, unavoidable damage Unavoidable damage must be minimised and clearly justified by a need for development in that location which would outweigh the damage that would result

Policy 27 (Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment) sets out priorities for the historic environment, which should be understood, conserved and enhanced in recognition of its own intrinsic value and contribution to the Region’s quality of life.

Saved Policy GN2 (General) (E) of the Daventry District Local Plan allows for development provided it does not adversely affect  the setting of listed buildings.

It is clear from the initial responses of English Heritage and DDC conservation officer which have had regard to the advice and policies in PPS5 that  the proposal would have resulted in substantial harm  to the Church of St John the Baptist at  Boddington ,  The response of the applicants was positive in that they reduced the height of the proposed turbine to minimise the impact on the heritage asset. The revised submission was supported by evidence to demonstrate the impact of the development on this and other heritage assets. As a result both EH and DDC conservation officer reported that the impact on the Church would be substantially reduced.

It is considered that there is no conflict with the provisions of the development plan in respect of cultural heritage.  Whilst officers recognise the need to protect and enhance the built and natural environment the urgent need to tackle the effects of climate change by the promotion of renewable energy development is a national commitment and outweighs real or  perceived harm caused to    heritage assets, ecology, the wider landscape and amenity of local residents.

CONSULTATIONS

DDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER (COMMUNITY)-  

Initial comments  18/05/11

Further information is required from the applicant particularly in relation to the impact of noise at low wind speeds at Cherry Tree Farm. Wind speed/background noise plots have not been provided. These are essential to show the relationship between wind speed and background noise at each noise sensitive property. I will be conducting site visits to the noise monitoring locations shortly, this is likely to be in conjunction with the Environmental Health Officer from South Northamptonshire Council.My final comments will be based upon the extra information received and these site visits.

Comment 11th July 2011

The worst affected location is Cherry Farm at low wind speeds. At 4m/s wind speed at Cherry Farm the turbine noise is identified at 32.4dB this is almost 10dB above the background. A difference of 10dB is an indication that complaints are likely if assessed in accordance with BS4142 if an additional 5dB were added for tonal or characteristic components to the noise, such at beating, this would take it to approximately 15dB above the background. However the levels are well within the lower fixed limit of 43dB that ETSU describes. It is also apparent that ambient night time noise levels at this location are extremely low at 23.2dB. The turbine noise level of 32.4 dB at this wind speed is also lower than the 45dB WHO guideline level for external noise to protect against sleep disturbance.

I have been informed by South Northamptonshire District Council that there is an issue relating to the lawful occupation of the premises known as Cherry Tree Farm. 

I consider that Cherry Tree Farm should be afforded that same protection as any other residential property in the vicinity as should the issues surrounding the legality regarding this development be resolved in the residents favour, they should clearly be afforded the same protection of residential amenity. Whilst limits cannot be set for properties which do not currently exist or have planning permission, as it is unknown where they will be located, Cherry Tree Farm is in existence and therefore can be planned for. Setting limit values for Cherry Tree Farm is also a conservative approach to noise limits as it is the closest property to the turbine, meeting limits at this location is likely to ensure a lower level of turbine noise and therefore limits at properties further away are adhered to.

I therefore have no objection to the development, however should the committee be minded to grant the application I request that the following conditions are applied.

Suggested Noise conditions

1. Prior to the commencement of the development an acoustic report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the following requirements:

2.     The rating level of noise imissions from the combined effects of the wind turbine generators (including the application of any tonal penalty) when measured and calculated in accordance with “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97” published by ETSU for the (former) Department of Trade and Industry and in accordance with the attached guidance notes, shall not exceed the values set out in Tables 1 and 2 below. Where there is more than one dwelling (defined for the purposes of this condition as a building within Use Class C3 and C4 of the Use Classes Order)  at a location, the noise limits apply to all dwellings lawfully in existence at the time of granting this permission, at that location. Noise limits for properties which lawfully exist or have planning permission for construction at the date of this consent but are not listed in the tables attached, shall be those of the most representative location listed in Tables 1 and 2 suggested by the developer and submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

     Table 1: Daytime noise limit criteria 07:00hrs to 23:00hrs ( Noise Level LA90,10min dB)

     Table 2: Night-time noise limit criteria 23:00hrs to 07:00hrs ( Noise Level LA90,10min dB)

     Note to tables 1 and 2: The geographical coordinate references are provided for the purpose of identifying location of dwellings to which a given set of limits applies.

3.        Within 21 days from receipt of a written request from the Local Planning Authority, following a complaint to it alleging noise disturbance at a dwelling, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant to assess the level of noise imissions from the wind farm at the complainant’s property in accordance with the procedures described in the Guidance Notes.  

4        Prior to the commencement of any measurements by the independent consultant to be undertaken in accordance with condition 28, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval an assessment protocol stating:

Measurements taken by the independent consultant to assess compliance with the noise limits set out in the Tables attached to condition 27 or those limits approved by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with point III above shall be undertaken in accordance with the assessment protocol.

5.       The wind farm operator shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise imissions undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within two months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority made under condition 28 unless the time limit is extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be provided in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) of the Guidance Notes.

6     The wind farm operator shall continuously log wind speed and wind direction at 10 meters from the SCADA system and shall continuously log power production, nacelle wind speed, nacelle wind direction and nacelle orientation at each wind turbine all in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d).  This data shall be retained for the life of the planning permission.  The wind farm operator shall provide this information in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) to the Local Planning Authority on its request, within 14 days of receipt in writing of such a request.

Guidance Notes for Noise Conditions

These notes are to be read with and form part of the noise condition.  They further explain the condition and specify the methods to be deployed in the assessment of complaints about noise imissions from the wind farm.  The rating level at each integer wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level as determined from the best-fit curve described in Note 2 of these Guidance Notes and any tonal penalty applied in accordance with Note 3.  Reference to ETSU-R-97 refers to the publication entitled “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” (1997) published by the Energy Technology Support unit (ETSU) for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Measured noise imission levels from the turbines must be referenced to measured 10 metres height wind speeds.

Note 1

(a)     Values of the LA90,10-minute noise index should be measured at the complainant’s property, using a sound level meter of EN 60651/BS EN 60804 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1 quality (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to measure using the fast time weighted response as specified in BS EN 60651/BS EN 60804 or BS EN 61672-1 (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements).  This should be calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1997 (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements).  If required, measurements shall be undertaken in such a manner to enable a tonal penalty to be applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3.

(b)     The microphone should be mounted at 1.2 - 1.5 metres above ground level, fitted with a two-layer windshield or suitable equivalent approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and placed outside the complainant’s dwelling.  Measurements should be made in “free field” conditions.  To achieve this, the microphone should be placed at least 3.5 metres away from the building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground at the approved measurement location.  In the event that the consent of the complainant for access to his or her property to undertake compliance measurements is withheld, the wind farm operator shall notify the Local Planning Authority in writing that access has been denied.

(c)     The LA90,10-minute measurements should be synchronised with measurements of the 10-minute arithmetic average wind speed, measured at a height of 10 metres at the wind farm site, and with operational data logged in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d), including the power generation data from the turbine control systems of the wind farm.

(d))     To enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated, the wind farm operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean wind speed in metres per second (m/s), arithmetic mean wind direction in degrees from north in each successive 10-minute periods from the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system to enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated.  Wind speed data shall also be measured at 10 meters height.  It is this measured 10 metre height wind speed data which is correlated with the noise measurements determined as valid in accordance with Note 2(b), such correlation to be undertaken in the manner described in Note 2(c).  In addition, the wind farm operator shall continuously log the arithmetic mean power generated during each successive 10-minutes period for each wind turbine on the wind farm.  All 10-minute periods shall commence on the hour and in 10-minute increments thereafter synchronised with Greenwich Mean Time.

(e)     Data provided to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with   the noise condition shall be provided in comma separated values in electronic format.

Note 2

Note 3

(c )     For each of the 2-minute samples the tone level above audibility , shall be calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on pages 104 -109 of ETSU-R-97 or future equivalent guidance for wind farm tonal noise assessment.

Note 4

DDC LANDSCAPE OFFICER (COMMUNITY):

The following comments refer to the potential impact of the Boddington Wind Energy Development Proposal on not only existing Landscape Character, but also its wider visual implications. It is important to investigate how detrimental the turbine would be and endeavour to quantify the point, does the need outweigh the harm?

With regard the proposal for 1 Wind Turbine there are a number of landscape issues that should be referred to at this stage with an ultimate view to mitigating the proposed turbine should the application be approved.

Despite the proposal being for one turbine a structure that stands 80m to hub and 122m to blade tip is certainly likely to have an impact on the landscape character of the area a fact that is confirmed within Chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement Landscape and Visual Change.

In terms of regional landscape character using Natural England’s National Characters Map (2005) the site is located within the National Character Area 95 (NCA) Northamptonshire Uplands and many of the characteristics identified (table 10.9, page 176 of the ES) are readily visible and discernable in the surrounding landscape for example as rounded undulating hills with many long low ridgelines, wide views from the edges and across the ridgetops and mixed farming and open arable contrasts with pasture enclosed by good hedges with frequent hedgerow trees. It is also identified that three other NCA’s may be close enough to be effected by the proposed turbine namely to the south west 107 Cotswolds, to the south east 96 Dunsmore and Feldon and 89 Northamptonshire Vales to the south east. In light of the importance of this Regional Character Classification it is surprising that unlike the following Northamptonshire Landscape Character Assessment there is no Figure within the document to illustrate the extent of the various areas or their proximity to the location of the turbine. This information needs to be included in figure or map form in order to fully appreciate not only the position of the various designations but also these Character Classifications in the context of the written information provided.

Further designation refers to Local Landscape Character which due to the turbines size will be visible in what is described in the current Northamptonshire Landscape Character Assessment as Broad Unwooded Vale. Though this is the designated character type that it falls within there are a further 4 types within 2km of the position of the turbine which identifies this landscape as one that is influenced by a number of character types. These types are immediately east Undulating Hills and Valleys, south east Ironstone Hills, west Low Pastoral Hills and north Ironstone Fringe. The extent of the designations has been illustrated in figure 10.4 and this identifies their relationship and context to the site. The landscape setting as identified in the NLCA contains many of the character traits associated with that of Broad Unwooded Vale though as previously noted there are a further four character types within 2km of the turbine, two at less than 1km . Broad Unwooded Vale is referred to in the submitted Current Landscape Character Assessment: “a range of landform features are evident ranging from elevated hills and ridges rising to 180m ASL on ironstone geology and rolling lowlands bordering rivers and streams.” In addition   “the unity of character within the landscape type is derived from a consistent pattern of mixed agricultural land use and land cover and rural settlement, tied together by an intricate network of hedgerows and small copses and shelterbelts”. The ES makes reference in Point 10.3.19 to the “surrounding area is dominated by regular, medium sized fields either of arable or grazing use. These fields are bordered by mature field boundaries of hedgerow species with occasional mature individual trees. There are occasional copses consisting mainly of mixed deciduous tree, usually at the junction of fields.” This does sum up a landscape where the hedgerow field pattern is generally strong and well established and the native trees that are characteristically incorporated add a significant vertical element that is of specific note when considering views.

In terms of opportunities for mitigation measures it is important that the landscape features that exist should be protected, retained and suplimented where both appropriate and possible in order to limit views and where feasible added to strengthen the local landscape framework, for example further strengthening of hedgerows

It is also important to make reference to Landscape designations such as both national Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB’s) and local Special Landscape Area’s (SLA) and Areas of High Landscape Value. Firstly the AONB is the national designation and in this instance it is associated with the Cotswolds and the bulk of the designated area covered 30km or further away to the south west, but a linear finger extends to marginally less than 10km away at which distance the turbine is likely to be part of the wider landscape, see photomontage 13 (further discussion later).

Due to the proposed location of the site four separate district council boundaries incorporating three Country boundaries fall within 4km’s of the proposed position of the turbine leading to variations in the local designation. The turbine is located just within Daventry District (DDC) though the land is not within a SLA though directly south east within DDC is such a designation. To the immediate south and west in the adjacent South Northamptonshire the land is also designated with a SLA, from within both of which areas views will clearly be available to see the turbine at the nearest point if not further afield. The extent of the land associated with the two other councils is slightly further from the site, Stratford about 1.5km and Cherwell approximately 3.5km but as previously mentioned the turbine or at least part of it will be generally visible though the topography of the land and tree cover within the framework of the field pattern is likely to have a greater impact in intermittently and partially screening it.

The extent of the site is relatively small due to the proposal for 1 turbine rather than multiple turbines that by necessity would require a larger expanse of land. This will lead to less direct physical impact in terms of length of access track, in this it would appear to be in the region of 300m. The existing field access would need to be substantially widened, allowing direct views into the site from a short section of adjacent road and reservoir embankment footpath. This could be partially mitigated by undertaking landscaping generally in the form of native hedgerow planting with associated trees to tie into the existing strong field hedge. This cannot though hope to totally screen or prevent limited local views due to the turbines size, but it will reduce the opportunity for direct views of the whole structure.  

The highest point within the site is 117 AOD, and it is located within an arable field in a valley directly north of Boddington Reservoir. In light of the position of the turbine in a shallow valley that generally runs north south from which directions the best longer distance views are available. The land rises to the east and west toward the nearest villages of Byfield and Upper and Lower Boddington reducing the opportunity for clear views. Thus the implication of the geography on the perception of the turbines height and visibility when seen from the surrounding landscape will very much depends upon the direction of the view coupled with the obvious aforementioned geography.  I am aware that Zones of Theoretical Visibility have been provided, but no figure indicating the specific landform level changes (ridges and valleys) has provided. Given various references in the ES to views, datum points and the fact that the turbine has been located in a valley, such information would be very beneficial in order to help fully understand the potential impact upon the surrounding landscape. These colour annotated maps have proved invaluable in other Wind Farm applications thus I would request the provision of one here.

In addition reference has been made in the document to topography within the detailed study area being gently “undulating with rolling hills divided by small streams and rivers”, and this has been previously identified within the Northamptonshire Character Types, specifically located to the east of the site incorporating the village of Byfield. Reference is made to a “combination of undulating topography, streams, woodlands, and hedges give rise to an attractive, relatively enclosed landscape with few long distance views”. It is arguable regarding the term “few long distant views” as there are certainly opportunities to view the site from longer distance in particular from the north and south west.    

In terms of more immediate views from Boddington Road to the south of the site and to a lesser extent the footpath on the top of the reservoirs dam beyond have interrupted views to the north due to an established hedge with an extensive number of trees on the roadside which would be likely to partially screen the turbine. It is important to remember that as previously noted the access will be created through this boundary by widening an existing field gate that for that section it would be likely to open up views of the turbine if only for a short section, this is further discussed later with reference to the construction and vehicle access.

In terms of the characterisation of the site and the surrounding landscape, the 1843 to 1893 Ordinance Survey map indicates that over the prevailing years a number of hedges have been removed within the area though some of the fields were a reasonable size already. This appears to be a common occurrence historically elsewhere in the district. That said it appears that the likely impact of mechanisation has opened up this pattern further with the reorganisation and combination of a number of the small fields in order to create larger ones to maximise possible production as well as enable the use of larger machinery. The inclusion of the 1843 to 1893 Ordinance Survey Map would be a useful additional document to further illustrate the historical evolution and general development of the use of the landscape.

With regard to water related features in and immediately adjacent to the site, due to its location in a valley there is a canal feeder running along the sites eastern boundary into Boddington Reservoir directly south of the site separated only by the Boddington Road and dam. There are also a number of small ponds, drains and issues feeding south toward the reservoir. The well-established hedgerow lined field pattern as previously identified in this area including a high percentage of trees is certainly evident in and around the site with the watercourses providing additional opportunities for well-established linear bands of vegetation in particular trees.  The ES refers to national water features such as the Oxford Canal (Point 10.3.20) that “at its closest point it is around 4km from the site and not visible due to intervening hills”. This is certainly an inaccurate statement as illustrated by photomontage 10 that provides a view “From Boddington Road Bridge over the Oxford Canal north of Claydon”. The blades as well as the hub are clearly visible above the ridge and although the view is taken from the more elevated position of the bridge it is associated with the canal. The statement concerning views from the waterway thus needs to be clarified to remove this inconsistency. Obviously the nearest significant water feature is the adjacent man made Boddington Reservoir that not only provides water for the Oxford Canal but provides numerous water related leisure activities such as fishing and sailing. With limited tree cover and the size and proximity of the turbine those people who use and enjoy the reservoir will certainly be aware of this addition within the landscape as it will be framed at the northern end.

When considering the context of the site and its surrounding landscape there is one specific though man landscape feature referred to in the ES Point 10.3.16 as a landmark feature namely the Charwelton BT telecommunications mast located approximately 3.2km to the north east of the site. It is a substantial feature at over 118m high constructed of reinforced concrete and importantly located on an elevated position at 222m AOD compared with the turbine at approximately 117m AOD. This tower is a local landmark for miles around and would be visible when viewing the turbine should it be approved and built. Obviously the BT tower does not include moving elements such as the blades as on the turbine but it is a manmade tower of similar height to the turbine and in a far more elevated position, in fact over 100m higher than the turbine and equally importantly it already exists and over time has become incorporated within the immediate landscape. The turbine is also a single element on this occasion located in a valley; it could be argued that it too could become a landmark feature within the landscape in time.

The inclusion of one or a series of aerial photographs of the site itself and the immediate area would have been a useful addition within the Environmental Statement and would have helped to illustrate the physical and geographical features outlined above such as the field patterns as well as the tree cover and water courses. It would have helped to tie the selected viewpoints and their photomontages into the context of the surrounding landscape.

In light of the scale of the proposed turbine the views of them from various directions are discussed as follows in terms of the context of the landscape in which they are located:

Despite the fact that the turbine has been located in a shallow valley (as previously noted) it will be visible not only from nearby but from further away in particular to the north and south potentially outlined against and above the skyline. With regard the land immediately around the site it is through public Rights of Way and the surrounding roads that the turbine would generally be viewed and ultimately judged as to whether it will successfully sit within this landscape.

Firstly the national designations in particular the long distance routes are at their closest 4km from the site. The Oxford Canal Walk as previously noted lies the other side of a ridge of hills though as it loops round to the south west it would appear to have limited views all be it as indicated in photomontage 10 from a bridge over the canal. Whether it would be visible from the lower position of the tow path coupled with the associated canal side vegetation is another matter. It would be useful if there was an opportunity for a photomontage or ZTV view to be provided from a position on the tow path either in the vicinity of photomontage 10 or at the other closest point from the canal to the west to indicate if the turbine can be viewed from the height of the canal.

The other route at its closest point approximately 4km from the site is the Jurassic Way that appears to circumnavigate the site at a general distance of 5km from the south via the east to the north of the site. Though at its closest 4km it is an important footpath and though referred to in the ES (Point 10.3.8) no conclusion is made as to views nor have any viewpoint or photomontages been provided t prove one way or the other. I would suggest a photomontage from the Jurassic Way as it climbs the southern side of Hinton Hill north of Woodford Halse. In addition to determining views from this footpath it would provide a more elevated view from the direction of photomontage 7 with Byfield in the foreground.

In terms of public rights of way such as footpaths, bridleways and byways there is a well-established network associated with both Upper Boddington (generally spreading out to the north parallel with the site toward Priors Hardwick and Priors Marston) and Byfield (more evenly spread geographically) though the two villages are not directly connected. In addition to the photomontage viewpoints shown it would be useful for at least a further one from the north west from within the footpath network between Upper Boddington and  Priors Marston, one certainly within the 2km radius indicator and possibly one beyond. These would indicate visual impact for those heading south and or east on those routes.

Photomontage 5 and to a lesser extent 6 from south of the site indicate views of the turbine with the BT tower in the background. It indicates how visible the existing tower is (though that is on a far more elevated position so that the viewer sees it against the sky) and yet that is now a local landmark. In particular view 5 illustrates the gently undulating landscape with a strong field pattern certainly very open that allows a long distance view.

A further example of the impact of the BT tower is photomontage 9 from the Knightly Way in Fawsley where the tower is certainly visible against the skyline while the turbine at its lower position and almost 8km is not readily visible.     

This also highlights in terms of distant views the impact that hedgerows and trees can have in the wider landscape and their potential to screen or at least partially screen new elements such as a turbine. In light of the previously mentioned landscape character of hedgerows that includes native trees and intermittent small copses more distant views from roads specifically would (dependant on angle of view, general elevation and height of the maintained hedge) be limited.

The quality of the photomontages does vary in terms of clarity where the turbine is crisp but there are other views in particular the more distant views where the turbine disappears into the sky for example no 7 which is certainly not the furthest, but it is almost impossible to see it. Is there any way of improving the clarity, detail or contrast so these views are a more useful visual aid and in order to make an accurate judgement on the overall impact of the view?

In terms of the three closest villages of Byfield, Upper Boddington and Lower Boddington they are all effected to a greater or lesser degree by the valley that the turbine is located in. For Byfield see photomontage 14 the land slopes away to the west while majority of the village gently slopes away to the east leaving the north western edge of the village with the greatest opportunity to see the turbine. Despite the proximity given the way the land drops to the west established hedgerows and mature trees are likely to have an impact in providing partial screening leaving intermittent views. For example if the photomontage used was in summer and the trees were in full leaf those trees in the foreground would intermittently screen the turbine as any car travelled along the road. I would suggest an additional photomontage view from the A361 to the immediate south of Byfield. Both Upper and Lower Boddington are located on a ridge but, the villages  both  drops down to the south west leaving the north eastern edges of the villages with the clearest views while the rest of the two villages are generally screened by a combination of  adjacent buildings, mature trees and dropping levels. The nearest properties will certainly have views but as with Byfield the turbine is located in the valley and the intervening falling ground reduces the extent of the turbine that can be seen. Photomontage 4 from the north eastern edge of Upper Boddington shows the potential for trees and hedges to be of a scale to break up or even to screen the turbine at certain points creating intermittent views. The tree on the left of the view is of a height that in full leaf placed in front of the turbine would screen it and more importantly the foreground hedge if allowed to higher than shown could easily substantially screen the turbine from the road user, which due to the character of the area is the case with the well-established hedgerows. Additional photomontages positioned directly south west of both villages would useful to illustrate the combination of the impact of the locating of the turbine in the valley and the ridge that the two villages are on and how it affects views of the turbine.   

There is an omission on Figure 10.8 though the symbol to indicate the position of the turbine has been indicated on the figure it has not been shown on the map itself, this omission should be addressed.  

In landscaping terms one of the main concerns is that currently there is an element of inconsistency in that the photographs used for the photomontages have been taken at what appears to be a variety of times during the year. For example no’s 3,4,5,6.14 and 15 have been taken during the winter months when the trees are without leaves while the remaining  have been taken when the trees and hedgerows are in full leaf. It is true that this represents a mixture of times of year and some of the views show the worst case scenario, but there is no consistency, as views in roughly the 2km range to the south and west are the winter shots while to the north and east they are summer views.

In order to get a truly representative understanding of the impact of the turbines on the surrounding landscape and associated villages, the photographs should be produced during the winter months when there are no leaves on the tree and hedges. This would show the worse case scenario when greater views are available as vegetation provides less screening providing a representative view which is available for half of the year. In light of what has been produced with 6 out of 15 photomontages taken during the winter there are examples of the worst case scenario but if both are to be produced surely there should be a combination from all directions. I would suggest that this should be looked at ideally later in the year with additional winter views as more summer examples have currently been submitted.

Finally at this stage make reference to the access route and the identified problems along both the Twistle (along the south west of Byfield) and Boddington Road in terms of landscape related issues. If hedges or trees along the route are impacted by the vehicle and or its load provision needs to be made for replacement planting. I would appear from the route analysis indicates that the wheels may overrun the verge but no reference is made to conflict with hedge. I have no reason to doubt the information but given for example the 90 degree left hand turn into the Twistle off the A361 it is difficult to believe that the hedge will not be in the way on the inside corner. Pinch Point H also appear very tight with the vehicle being forced to run very close to the property boundaries on the outside of the bend which includes stone walls and telephone post. Finally the entrance into the site opposite the reservoir will require the removal of hedge and probably within that some associated trees. This is a point previously noted that if this is the case replanting of appropriate native species including replacement trees for any lost should be a priority as soon as all the large vehicle movements have been completed. These points are raised in advance as concerns due to how tight the access road is at certain points.  

The points made above are mainly general in terms of responses to the Environmental Statement, Chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Change, but there are a number of concerns at this stage which can only be understood upon looking at the ES. There are opportunities for additional visual representations from both national and local footpaths as well as additional figurative representations within the document to aid visualisation of the text. If the points raised are addressed it should help to aid the assessment of the degree of impact the turbine has, it is not just about indicating the views, it is also illustrating where there are no views or impact and it is to that end that the additional viewpoints, visual work ups and figures should be produced. It is also important that the photomontages are as clear as possible and if possible the clarity is improved to allow the viewer the best representation of the landscape with the inclusion of the turbine.  Further landscape comments will be forthcoming following the consideration of the points raised above.

DDC  CONSERVATION OFFICER (COMMUNITY):

Initial Comments

I have made an initial assessment of the proposals. I have not yet visited all viewpoints and photomontage locations identified in the Environmental Statement (ES), but would like to provide these initial observations on a couple of key issues, which I think are fundamental and should be addressed before commenting further. I anticipate that I will produce a detailed consultation response which may raise further objections, identify other areas of concern or points for clarification when I have completed my assessment. I may also respond to new information received from other bodies during the application process.

The colour quality and clarity of the photos appears to be generally good. The photos have generally been taken on bright days with good visibility over long distances. However, the representation of the turbine in many photos does not appear to create a true impression of what one would expect to see in such conditions. There are several examples where the turbine is very faint or blurred, almost to the point where it is indistinguishable – even on relatively close up views. In the same visual, other features such as masts and pylons, etc., which are at similar distances to the turbine, are very clear. Two examples of this are at figures10.9.8 and 10.9.10 (and especially the enlargement at 10.9.10b).

IMPACT OF PROPOSAL ON SIGNIFICANCE & SETTING OF CHURCH Of St JOHN THE BAPTIST, UPPER BODDINGTON

Listed grade I. Also note numerous individually listed headstones and chest tombs within the churchyard.

Chapter 7 of the ES relates to Cultural Heritage. Section 7.5.11 relates to the church at Upper Boddington. The introduction states that the assessment is made in accordance with PPS5 and the draft English Heritage guidance relating to the setting of heritage assets. However, there is only a very limited description of the special interest of the church, the nature and extent of its setting, the character and contribution of views, etc.

The photomontage at figure 10.9.16 shows just the blade of the turbine (in the fully upright position) to be visible immediately to the right of the church. In effect, during operation, the rotation of the three blades would be visible as an arc immediately to the side of the church. Each blade is some 38m in length. Even in the upright stationary position this single blade is substantially taller than the church tower and competes with the church for visual dominance. When rotating, the blades would certainly detract from and draw focus away from the building – especially given their relationship to the church, with the blades directly behind it.

Section 17 of the Planning Statement relates to Cultural Heritage.

Section 17.4.1 relating to the church at Boddington describes the impact of the turbine on this asset. It states that the prominence of the building would be diminished in views from some locations by the presence of the turbine behind – but that this will not be a major alteration to its setting. The impact is assessed as being “medium adverse change”. It goes on to explain how these conclusions relate to the terms “substantial” and “less than substantial” harm in PPS5. At section 17.4.7 it explains that not all views of the asset are affected  - the setting therefore remains for the most part unaffected.

I do not consider this is the case for Upper Boddington. The church is situated on the hillside and breaks the skyline between trees when viewed from the west. It would have been positioned on the high ground to be visually prominent and to overlook the original village. Even though it doesn’t have a pointed spire, the 14th century square tower is solid and impressive and clearly the most visually important building in the village. I have driven and walked around the village. I am not aware of many other locations where the church is highly visible, even from close to it, because of the layout of the village streets on the hillside and the position of buildings and trees, etc.  More distant views on the approach to the village from the east and north are, I think, largely obstructed by topography and vegetation.  There are good views of the church on the approach from the south along Church Road (although the modern agricultural sheds of Manor Farm detract somewhat from these views).  The views from the west are really the defining images of the building in its village and landscape setting. These views are obtained from several roads and they are sustained rather than mere glimpses. All will be affected by the turbine in the background.

Have the applicants considered the potential cumulative impact of other turbines on these views?

Should we consider the potential impact of future proposals for additional turbines on this site should permission be granted (remembering that the project originally considered 5 and then 3 turbines)?

The west front is the principal entrance to the church. It is approached via a relatively steep path from Church Road. The churchyard itself is quite open, with little vegetation. The church has a strong visual relationship with The Rectory, which lies to the north. There are agricultural fields immediately to the south and east of the churchyard. This creates an open visual setting for the church. The presence of turbine blades would substantially alter this view. However, there are good tree belts to the south. It is possible that these would screen the turbine in close up views of the church.  This needs to be investigated and assessed. I would therefore ask if the applicants could produce an additional visual to show whether views from close up to the church (at the entrance from Church Road) would include any part of the turbine.

Given that the ES identifies an adverse impact on the setting of this grade I listed building (a designated heritage asset of the highest status), the applicants should demonstrate what efforts have been made to eliminate or at least minimise this impact (in accordance with policy HE1 of PPS5 and paragraph 26 of the accompanying practice guide). As a single turbine development, have the applicants considered whether the turbine could be relocated or reduced in height in order to minimise its impact?

These options should be fully investigated. If they have already been considered and ruled out for good reason, this case should be made in support of the application

Comments on SEI

In response to the concerns of English Heritage and Daventry District Council relating to the impact of the proposed turbine on the setting of the grade I listed Church of St John at Upper Boddington, the scheme has been revised to allow for a turbine with reduced tip-height of 105m (from the original tip-height of 122m).  

Figure 15 (viewpoint 15) of the September 2011 SEI is a photograph taken from a position close to figure 10.9.16 of the original Environmental Statement.  I am a little confused why it is not exactly the same position, since there are 12 digit OS co-ordinates on the original submission, which should have made it possible to locate the same position on the ground for the purposes of comparison.  A wireframe has been placed over the new photograph. It is rather grainy and the turbine tip is indistinct. However, this visualisation indicates that the blade does not project above the tree line in the background of the village buildings at this point. At its new height the turbine is not likely to be visible behind the church during summer months when the trees are in full foliage (possibly the very tips of the blades may appear between or above trees in some views). In the winter the structure of the trees together with intervening distance is likely to result in the blades being barely detectable in this view.

The applicant refers to the new ZTV to demonstrate that the turbine will not be visible from close to the church (e.g. from the entrance off Church Street). The land rises up to the church from the street. The churchyard itself has quite an open character. It is my understanding from the applicant’s revised assessment that the turbine will not be visible from within the churchyard, either above or between the tree belts to the east.

On the basis of this information, I consider that the impact of the 105m high turbine on the setting of the grade I listed church is substantially reduced.  

I had anticipated that the reduction in height of the turbine would result in it no longer being visible from the registered parkland of Fawsley. However, figure 21 (viewpoint 9) shows a blade tip still projecting above the horizon.  Given its distance from the site and the presence of other features on the horizon the turbine is unlikely to be visually prominent for much of the time. However, movement of the blade will increase its impact on views from the Jurassic Way footpath when surveying this large and beautiful landscape (which is otherwise static - the sheep and cattle grazing in the parkland being the only moving objects in the view).  I accept this impact would be very minor and would not affect most people’s appreciation of the qualities of the historic parkland.          

The applicant refers to the new ZTV to demonstrate that the turbine would not be visible in relation to the designated heritage assets at Church Charwelton. From my original assessment I considered it likely that blades would be visible behind the church and house when viewing from the north-east. I am satisfied that the reduction of the tip height will minimise or eliminate any visual impact on these assets.

I conclude that the proposed single turbine development, of max. 105m to tip-height, would not have a significant impact on the setting of any designated heritage assets. I now have no objection to the scheme on cultural heritage grounds.

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

NCC RIGHTS OF WAY OFFICER - No response received

NCC ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICER-.

The applicant has undertaken a programme of archaeological investigation within the application area. This work comprised of geophysical survey and targeted trial trenching. The trial trenching was undertaken by Northamptonshire Archaeology in November 2010. Four trenches were placed within the footprint of the proposed turbine. The trenches did not identify any archaeological deposits within the trenches.

In light of the lack of archaeological activity identified by the evaluation I would not envisage requesting further archaeological investigation associated with the proposed development.

Therefore no archaeological mitigation will be required.

NCC (LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY) -

Initial comments

I have no objection in principle to this planning application however the following will need to be addressed prior to the local highway authority’s final comments on this application.

The gates at the access driveway must be positioned far enough back for the largest vehicle attracted to the site to be kept clear of the highway and not left waiting for access within the highway and so causing an obstruction.

A speed survey will be required to determine the appropriate visibility at the proposed access, reference TA22/81

Response to SEI:

PARISH COUNCILS

Byfield Parish Council:

Byfield Parish Council offers NO OBSERVATIONS as comment on this application.

If planning permission is granted the Council would wish to see conditions applied to satisfay the following concerns -

1.     Consultation with the Parish Council on a transport plan for those affected along the access route during construction.

2.     Reinstatement of road surfaces, verges and any adjacent land at The Twistle and Boddington Road where changes are made during the construction period to allow for access.  Consultation on the reinstatement to be undertaken with the Parish Council.

3.     Provision of a fund to be held for the total de-commissioning of the entire site at the end of the life of the development.

4.     Undergrounding of power cables from the site to connection with the National Grid.

Boddington Parish Council:   Objects to the applicaion on the folowing reasons:

Visual Amenity: Visual impact will be dramatic, the turbine will dominate the landscape being on of the tallest ever erected in the country. It will be close to existing dwellings and closest residential will be affected by shadow flicker.  The site is 1.5km from the Boddingtons and will be visible from many homes, public highways and public footpaths. The many users of the reservoir have grave reservations regarding the effect of a giant turbine will have on wonderful views across open water to the north. Photomontages are not good enough.

Environment

The site is adjacent to a Special Landscape Area protected by planning Policies  in particular Saved Policy EN1(D) of Daventry Local Plan.

The area is rich in wildlife and the reservoir attracts a wide variety of birds including large numbers of wildfowl. There are a number of protected species in the are including Badgers, Polecats, Great Crested Newts and Whiskered, Noctule, Duabentons and Pipistrel Bats.  The data submitted with the ES is flawed as highlighted by Mr Richardson’s (Northants Bat Group) submissions)

Government Targets

The East Midlands ha achieved its targets for 2010 and is expected to easily exceed its 2020 targets therefore wind power for Daventry is not required to meet targets.

Construction Activities:

These will extend to 6 months with an unacceptable nuber of vehicle journeys including approximately 10 abnormal loads necessitatin Road Closures. Boddington has experience of this road being closed due to flooding.

Blight

This corner of Warwickshire is under siege. Boddington is on HS2's preferred route. It is expected to be highly visible and extremely noisy as it slices through the Parish. Just announced, another wind farm (13 turbines) may be considered 1 mile away. The cumulative effect of these separate developments will affect school rolls, house prices and the well being of the Parish.

The proposal will cause division in he local community  especially regarding financial benefit. Although the site is in Byfield Parish it affects Boddington Parish more.

Adverse impact on Air Ambulance operations.

Great concern about impact on electromagnetic signals, communication networks, TV signals

Noise

Noise wil be an issue in such a quiet rural area.  The residents closet to the site are apprehensive about the level of noise that wil be emitted as are users of the reservoir, and local footpaths and bridleways. The UK Noise Association recommends that wind turbines are not sited within 1 mile (1.6km) of houses.

Decommissioning:

Should permission be granted the Council should impose a condition  to secure a sum of money sufficient to pay for dismantling the turbine and restoring the site to its previous condition.

Connection to the grid is to be the subject of a separate application. All electrical cabling to the nation grid from the site  shall be underground

Finally Boddington PC does not believe that a rural landscape adjacent to a SLA, a popular recreation area and numerous natural reserves is a suitable site for an industrial sized turbine installation. The massive changes to local infrastructure with all the side effects that this will entail for just one turbine is not justifiable.

Priors Marston PC:

I am writing on behalf of Priors Marston Parish Council to convey their collective opinion. The overwhelming majority of Priors Marston have little concern with this application. It would be fair to say about 3 of the properties within Priors Marston would be effected by this proposal. The effects are mainly down to the impact on their far reaching views. We have been approached by a local resident on several occasions who has explained his issues to us. We understand and sympathise with his views  but feel it would be unfair to portray them as the views of the village as a whole.

Response to SEI

Priors Hardwick PC: Object:

Fenny Compton PC:

Object to the application on the grounds of its impact on the local landscape.

Claydon with Clattercote Parish Council:

This is the most northerly Oxfordshire Parish and very fortunate to be living in an area of High Landscape Value Many residents enjoy the facilities and visual amenity of Boddington Reservoir and its surrounding environment.

We agree with Boddington Parish Council and fully support their objections to this application.. Note that an application for a met mast was refused by Stratford District Council and hope that DDC will refuse this application. on the same grounds. Namely :

*      no agricultural justification

SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL:

That South Northamptonshire Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

The proposal is contrary to Policies 31 and 40 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, and the provisions of PPS 22: Renewable Energy.

The proposed wind turbine by reason of its height and location and by reason that it would make only a limited and insignificant contribution towards meeting renewable energy needs, would result in an unjustified new skyline development that will be visible for many miles in all directions to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Special Landscape Area (South Northamptonshire Local Plan Policy EV7) and surrounding countryside, and to residents of Upper Boddington and Lower Boddington, in particular.

OTHER CONSULTEES

HIGHWAYS AGENCY -  

The proposed development is not expected to have a material impact on the closest strategic route, the M1 Motorway. However, I note from previous pre application discussions that all construction and abnormal loads will be routed from the M40. The developer is therefore advised to consult the Abnormal Load Contact for the M40. on 01536 413778 and email M40abloads@carillionwsp.com.

Therefore, under Article 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, the Highways Agency has no objections to the proposal and I enclose our TR110 form for your records.

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

-  no response received yet

HEALTH & SAFETY EXECUTIVE

HSE's principal concern is with  health and safety  of people  affected by work activities. HSE has no information  which would be useful in preparation of  an ES.

NATIONAL GRID

no comments received

EON CENTRAL NETWORKS .

No objection to the application

Response to SEI

No objection to the application

BRITISH GAS TRANSCO

No comments

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (Safeguarding etc) -  

No objections to the application

Response to SEI

No objections to the application but request that the turbine is fitted with aviation lighting to be fitted with 25 candela omni directional red lighting  or infra red light with an optimised flash pattern  of 60 flashes per minute at 200ms-500ms at the highest practical duration.

DIRECTORATE OF AIRSPACE POLICY CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY -