AGENDA ITEM NO. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 16 NOVEMBER 2009

APPLICATIONS REQUIRING REFERENCE TO DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL

(Reports by Planning Service Manager (Development Management) Case No: 0802296FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION) Proposal: ERECTION OF WIND FARM COMPRISING EIGHT WIND

TURBINES, SUBSTATION, ANEMOMETRY MAST, ACCESS TRACKS AND ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE

Location: LAND SOUTH OF GREAT PARLOW CLOSE, GRAVELEY

ROAD Applicant: NPOWER RENEWABLES (FAO MS K GAULD-CLARK) Grid Ref: 523582 264122 Date of Registration: 30.07.2008 Parish: OFFORD DARCY

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE 1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION 1.1 Cotton Farm extends to 179 hectares in size and is located to the

north of Toseland village and to the west of Graveley. The site was used as an airfield in World War 2 and is therefore flat with few natural features. The site is at an elevation of 50 metres AOD and forms part of the plateau east of the Ouse Valley. Toseland, the nearest village is also at 50 metres AOD, although Graveley, in South Cambs, is around 40 metres AOD. Great Paxton and the Offords are around 10 metres AOD. Parts of Yelling to the east are around 50 metres AOD. Several of the runway tracks including the perimeter track are still in evidence on the site. The site is farmed intensively with arable crops. There is one unnamed brook on the site flowing out of the south west corner of the site, and four small water bodies located in a small area of woodland in the south west of the site. On the site there is one dwelling, Cotton Farm, and a number of farm buildings. There are no public rights of way within the site boundary.

1.2 The application proposes the erection of 8 wind turbines with a total

generating capacity of between 16 and 24 megawatts. The main components of the scheme are:

• Installation of 8 wind turbines with a maximum height to blade tip of 127 metres;

• New site entrance off Toseland Road;

• Construction of 1.1 km of new on site access tracks and the upgrading of 4.6 km of existing access track;

2

• Construction of ancillary development including on site sub-station, crane hard standing areas, one external transformer adjacent to each turbine, connecting cabling and one permanent wind monitoring mast;

• Creation of one temporary construction compound close to site entrance 1 and erection of one temporary guyed wind monitoring mast which will be in place during the construction period; and,

• Proposals for habitat management. Description of Turbines 1.3 All the turbines would be a three bladed horizontal axis type. The

stated height of 127 metres represents the maximum height and a turbine of this height would typically have a hub height of around 82 metres and a rotor diameter of 90 metres. The tower would be constructed from steel and the turbines are generally semi-matt pale grey. The turbines operate at a variable speed but typically would range from 8-20 revolutions per minute. The turbines have been positioned in two rows of four with access to each turbine coming off the existing perimeter track.

Associated Works 1.4 Each turbine will be sited on concrete foundations. Crane hard

standing areas formed from semi-permeable crushed stone of a maximum area of 30 metres x 30 metres will be adjacent to each turbine. One temporary wind monitoring mast the same height as the hub of the turbines (approximately 80 metres) will be erected close to turbine 5 and this will comprise a single pole held in place with guy wires. This will be in place for a maximum period of 6 months during construction. A permanent wind monitoring mast consisting of a steel lattice mast and of a height of 80 metres and on a concrete foundation of 4 metres x 4 metres x 4 metres (64m3) will be erected near the southern boundary of the site. There will be one on site sub-station building 9 metres x 8 metres x 3 metres to eaves and 4.6 metres to ridge located quite close to Cotton Farm itself. Grid connection will be made by underground cabling and at this stage two potential routes for grid connection have been identified; either along Offord Road or north of Great Parlow Close. A total of 5.7 kilometres of underground cabling will be required and this will be buried in trenches of 1 metre depth and 1 metre width. The cable will be 33kV copper or aluminium conductors insulated with synthetic materials. These would be routed along the sides of the access tracks. Each turbine will need a transformer which could be either housed internally within the tower, or externally adjacent to the base of each turbine with a maximum measurement of 5.5 metres x 3 metres x 3 metres.

Access 1.5 Access to the site will be obtained via two site access points:

• Site Entrance 1 will be a newly created access at the south east corner of the site to be used for the delivery of the vast majority of the construction materials and turbine components.

3

• Site Entrance 2 is the existing access to Cotton Farm at the northern end of the site and will be used for equipment and material required for the construction of the sub-station and maintenance during the operation of the wind farm.

1.6 The stated preferred route for the delivery of the components of the

turbines would be A428 westbound, Toseland Road, Croxton Road and then Graveley Road to the site entrance No 1.

1.7 There are an existing 4.6km of existing tracks on the site; it is

proposed to create 1.1km of new track and to upgrade and widen where necessary the existing tracks to 5 metres width. The tracks will be made of crushed stone to a depth of up to 450mm.

Environmental Statement 1.8 The application has been accompanied by an Environmental

Statement which covers the following issues:

• Introduction

• Approach to EIA

• Scheme Description

• Rationale for Scheme and Site Selection

• Planning Policy

• Landscape and Visual Impacts

• Hydrology and Flood Risk

• Ecology

• Ornithology

• Traffic and Transport

• Noise and Vibration

• Cultural Heritage

• Aviation and Telecommunications

• Social and Economic Impacts

• Shadow Flicker 1.9 Photo Montages have also been submitted and a Non Technical

Summary. 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

For full details of government guidance visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

2.1 Climate Change Act 2008 became law on 26 November 2008 and

sets legally binding targets for reducing UK greenhouse Carbon Dioxide emissions for 2020 and 2050.

2.2 PPS1: “Delivering Sustainable Development” (2005) contains

advice on the operation of the plan-led system. 2.3 Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change -

Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (2007) sets out how planning, in providing for the new homes, jobs and infrastructure needed by communities, should help shape places with lower carbon

4

emissions and resilient to the climate change now accepted as inevitable.

2.4 PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, (2004) aims to

promote more sustainable patterns of development by protecting the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscape, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all (paragraph 1 (iv). It advises in paragraph 16 iv) that in determining planning applications authorities should provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources in accordance with the policies set out in PPS 22.

2.5 PPG8: Telecommunications (2001) gives guidance on planning for

telecommunications development - including advice on the potential for disturbance to television and other telecommunications signals and the need to investigate possible engineering solutions to such matters.

2.6 PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, (2005) sets out

Government’s objectives for ‘biodiversity and geological conservation’. Planning decisions should aim to maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Development proposals should be permitted where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity and geological interests. If significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

2.7 PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) sets out

Government policies for the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas, and other elements of the historic environment. Advice on the setting of listed buildings is included. It explains the role played by the planning system in their protection. Paragraphs 2.16 and 2.17 give advice on the setting of listed buildings and draw attention to Sections 16 and 66 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 which require local authorities to have regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building. It further states that the setting is often an essential part of the building’s character and that the setting should not be interpreted too narrowly and may often include land some distance from it.

2.8 PPS15: Planning Policy Statement for The Historic Environment

Consultation Draft 2009: updates planning policy for archaeology, historic areas, buildings and landscapes and will combine the existing PPG15 and PPG16.

2.9 PPS15: Planning Practice Guide Living Draft July 2009: is a guide

to be used in conjunction with the PPS and policies HE7 – 13 provide detailed advice on the Development Management process.

2.10 PPG16: Archaeology and Planning (1990) sets out the Secretary of

State's policy on archaeological remains on land, and how they should be preserved or recorded both in an urban setting and in the countryside.

5

2.11 PPG17: Planning For Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002) sets out the policies needed to be taken into account by regional planning bodies in the preparation of Regional Planning Guidance (or any successor) and by Local Planning Authorities in the preparation of Development Plans (or their successors); they may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications. It supports the enhancing of rights of way networks in the countryside.

2.12 PPS22: Renewable Energy 2004 has 8 key principles which are as

follows:

• Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.

• Regional spatial strategies and local development documents should contain policies designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources. Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should recognise the full range of renewable energy sources, their differing characteristics, locational requirements and the potential for exploiting them subject to appropriate environmental safeguards.

• At the local level, planning authorities should set out the criteria that will be applied in assessing applications for planning permission for renewable energy projects. Planning policies that rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies should not be included in regional spatial strategies or local development documents without sufficient reasoned justification. The Government may intervene in the plan making process where it considers that the constraints being proposed by local authorities are too great or have been poorly justified.

• The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission.

• Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should not make assumptions about the technical and commercial feasibility of renewable energy projects (e.g. identifying generalised locations for development based on mean wind speeds). Technological change can mean that sites currently excluded as locations for particular types of renewable energy development may in future be suitable.

• Small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution and planning authorities should not therefore reject planning applications simply because the level of output is small.

6

• Local Planning Authorities, regional stakeholders and Local Strategic Partnerships should foster community involvement in renewable energy projects and seek to promote knowledge of and greater acceptance by the public of prospective renewable energy developments that are appropriately located. Developers of renewable energy projects should engage in active consultation and discussion with local communities at an early stage in the planning process, and before any planning application is formally submitted.

• Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.

2.13 Advice is also given about appropriate policies to be included within

local policy documents. It also states that regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should set out in regional spatial strategies and local development documents the criteria based policies which set out the circumstances in which particular types and sizes of renewable energy developments will be acceptable in nationally designated areas. Care should be taken to identify the scale of renewable energy developments that may be acceptable in particular areas.

2.14 With regard to determining planning applications which may affect

nationally designated sites, such as National Nature Reserves, National parks, AONBs, SAMs, SSSIs, Conservation Areas or listed buildings, it states planning permission for renewable energy projects should only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the objectives of designation of the area will not be compromised by the development, and any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits.

2.15 Local landscape and local nature conservation designations should

not be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for renewable energy developments. Planning applications for renewable energy developments in such areas should be assessed against criteria based policies set out in local development documents, including any criteria that are specific to the type of area concerned.

2.16 It also states that the sequential approach e.g. favouring brownfield

sites should not be used for renewable energy projects. 2.17 In assessing planning applications, local authorities should recognise

that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to the size and number of turbines and the type of landscape involved, and that these impacts may be temporary if conditions are attached to planning permissions which require the future decommissioning of turbines. Planning authorities should also take into account the cumulative impact of wind generation projects in particular areas.

2.18 Local Planning Authorities should ensure that renewable energy

developments have been located and designed in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise levels. Plans may include criteria that set out the minimum separation distances between different

7

types of renewable energy projects and existing developments. The 1997 report by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry should be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development.

2.19 The Companion Guide includes a very detailed technical annex on

wind. It covers issues such as noise, low frequency noise, landscape and visual impact, driver distraction and shadow flicker. It states at Paragraph 5.4, that landscape and visual effects will only be one consideration to be balanced alongside the wider environmental, economic and social benefits.

2.20 PPG24: “Planning & Noise” (1994) guides planning authorities on

the use of planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise. 2.21 Circular 1/2003: ‘Safeguarding Aerodromes etc’, Paragraph 15 of

this circular gives advice on the safeguarding requirements for civil aerodromes.

2.22 English Heritage ‘Wind Energy and the Historic Environment

2005: aims to provide a strategic approach to the land-use planning system which will maximise the benefits of renewable energy projects, while minimising their adverse effects on the historic environment.

3. PLANNING POLICIES Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding

planning applications can also be found at the following website: http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building

and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live

3.1 East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy

(May 2008). Policies viewable at http://www.go-east.gov.uk then follow links to Planning, Regional Planning then Related Documents

• SS1: “Achieving Sustainable Development” – the strategy seeks to bring about sustainable development by applying: the guiding principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005 and the elements contributing to the creation of sustainable communities described in Sustainable Communities: Homes for All.

• ENV2: “Landscape Conservation” - Planning authorities and other agencies should recognise and aim to protect and enhance the diversity and local distinctiveness of the countryside character areas identified on Figure 6 by:

• developing area-wide strategies, based on landscape character assessments, setting long-term goals for landscape change, targeting planning and land management tools and resources to influence that change, and giving priority to those areas subject to most growth and change;

8

• developing criteria-based policies, informed by the area-wide strategies and landscape character assessments, to ensure all development respects and enhances local landscape character; and

• securing mitigation measures where, in exceptional circumstances, damage to local landscape character is unavoidable.

• ENV3: “Biodiversity and Earth Heritage” it should be ensured that the region’s wider biodiversity, earth heritage and natural resources are protected and enriched through conservation, restoration and re-establishment of key resources.

• ENV6: “The Historic Environment” - Within plans, policies, programmes and proposals local planning authorities and other agencies should identify, protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment of the region including Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings.

• ENG2: “Renewable Energy Target” – the development of new facilities for renewable power generation should be supported with the aim that by 2010 10% of the region’s energy and by 2020 17% of the region’s energy should come from renewable sources. These targets exclude off shore energy and are subject to meeting European and international obligations to protect wildlife. The onshore targets for installed capacity are for at least 820 MW by 2010 and 1620 MW by 2020 for the region.

• T9: “Walking, Cycling and other Non-Motorised Transport” – existing networks should be improved and developed as part of the Regional Transport Strategy.

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) Saved policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure

Plan 2003 are relevant and viewable at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk follow the links to environment, planning, planning policy and Structure Plan 2003.

• None relevant. 3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are

relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• R15: “Countryside Recreation” – will seek to improve access to the countryside, including the network of public rights of way with a view to modifying, extending and improving the network where appropriate.

• En2: “Character and setting of Listed Buildings” - indicates that any development involving or affecting a building of architectural or historic merit will need to have proper regard to the scale, form, design and setting of that building

9

• En5: “Conservation Area Character” - development within or directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character and appearance.

• En9: “Conservation Areas” - development should not impair open spaces, trees, street scenes and views into and out of Conservation Areas.

• En11: Planning permission normally refused for development that would have an adverse effect upon a scheduled ancient monument or an archaeological site of acknowledged importance.

• En12: “Archaeological Implications” – permission on sites of archaeological interest may be conditional on the implementation of a scheme of archaeological recording prior to development commencing.

• En17: "Development in the Countryside" - development in the countryside is restricted to that which is essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services.

• En20: Landscaping Scheme. - Wherever appropriate a development will be subject to conditions requiring the execution of a landscaping scheme.

• En22: “Conservation” – wherever relevant, the determination of applications will take appropriate consideration of nature and wildlife conservation.

• En23: “Conservation” – development within or which adversely affects, a site of special scientific interest, a national or local nature reserve or has a significant adverse effect on the interests of wildlife will not normally be permitted.

• En25: "General Design Criteria" - indicates that the District Council will expect new development to respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings in the locality and make adequate provision for landscaping and amenity areas.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002) Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are

relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• None relevant.

10

3.5 Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009

Policies from the Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development

Framework Core Strategy 2009 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning and then click on Planning Policy where there is a link to the Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

• CS1: “Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire” – all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues and including maximising opportunities for renewable and low carbon energy sources and on site renewable energy provision and improving energy efficiency. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development.

• CS9: “Strategic Green Space Enhancement” - coordinated action to safeguard existing and potential sites of nature conservation value, create new wildlife habitats and contribute to diversification of the local economy and tourist development through enhancement of existing and provision of new facilities.

3.6 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Policies from the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement

2007 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning, then Planning then Planning+Policy then Informal policy statements where there is a link to Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• G2 – Landscape Character - development proposals should respect and respond appropriately to the distinctive qualities of the surrounding landscape

• G3 – Trees, hedgerows and Other Environmental Features - development proposals should minimise risk of harm to trees, hedgerows or other environmental features of visual, historic or nature conservation value.

• G4 – Protected Habitats and Species – development proposals should not harm sites of national or international importance for biodiversity or geology. Proposals will not be permitted if they potentially damage County Wildlife Sites, Local Nature Reserves, Ancient Woodland, Important Species or Protected Roadside Verges, unless they significantly outweigh the harm.

• G5 – Historic Parks and Gardens – development only permitted if it would not have an adverse impact.

• G7 – Biodiversity – proposals that could affect biodiversity should: be accompanied by a suitable assessment of habitats and species; maintain and enhance biodiversity; provide appropriate mitigation measures; seek to achieve positive gain in biodiversity.

11

• B4 – Amenity - developments should not have an unacceptable impact upon amenity of existing or future occupiers.

• B7 – Listed Buildings – a development proposal affecting the fabric or setting of a listed building should demonstrate a clear understanding of the building's architectural and historic importance and not harm the overall character of the building or any features that contribute to its special interest and support the long term preservation of the building and its setting through sensitive restoration, adaption and re-use.

• B8 – Conservation Areas – retain where possible views into and out of the area.

• B9 – Sites of Archaeological Interest – a proposal that could affect a site or area of archaeological interest should; be accompanied by a suitable assessment of the nature and significance of any remains; not cause harm to remains or their setting which are recognised or identified as being of national importance (Scheduled Ancient Monuments) and allow for their preservation in situ; or make satisfactory arrangements for the physical preservation recording or removal of other remains, as appropriate.

• T3 – Rights of Way and Other Public Routes – a development proposal should maintain existing rights of way and exploit opportunities to extend, link or improve the quality of existing routes where this enables improved access to the countryside, or new circular routes and connections between local and long-distance footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes, or the provision of safe and convenient links to services and facilities or improved connections with public transport interchanges

• T5 – Renewable Energy – a proposal for generating energy from renewable resources should minimise adverse impacts upon amenity, not cause harm to sites of national or international importance for nature conservation, make provision for appropriate mitigation, and reinstate site should it become redundant.

3.7 Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development

Management Policies: Development of Options 2009

• S13: Proposals for large and small scale renewable and low Carbon Energy schemes will be considered favourably subject to careful siting to ensure no unacceptable impact, regard to the landscape as identified in the Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment, no harm caused to sites of international and national importance for Conservation, no harm caused to protected species or Biodiversity Action Plan, provision is made for mitigation and compensation measures and proposals are made for the removal of equipment and reinstatement of site.

• S1: all development proposals to demonstrate consideration of the character and appearance of surrounding environment.

12

• S3: all developments to take account of predicted climate change

• P8: development in the countryside restricted to certain categories including renewable energy generation schemes.

• E4: all development proposals that may affect heritage assets should demonstrate how historic environment will be protected and if impact significant secure appropriate mitigation measures through a condition or Section 106 agreement.

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents 3.8 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007)

– identifies the site as being within the South East Claylands where it is noted that it contains extensive areas of high quality landscape and the relative lack of settlement combined with the mature landscape creates an intimate and tranquil landscape which has a strong sense of history and feels remote. It also states that in areas most affected by visually intrusive development and where vegetation has been lost due to agricultural change the scale of the landscape becomes much larger and the sense of intimacy and tranquillity is lost. Small incremental changes have lead to a change in the landscape character and the key issues which are relevant to this proposal are identified as management of native woodlands and hedgerows including re-planting where appropriate, preservation and maintenance of medieval and other ancient features remaining within the landscape, protection of tall hedgerows and hedgerow trees which are a distinctive feature, and the planting of tree and woodland belts along major roads to screen visually intrusive development particularly to the edges of the main settlements, subject to the needs of highway maintenance, safety of motorists and the need to maintain verge biodiversity.

3.9 Huntingdonshire Wind Power (2006) - identifies the South East

Claylands area as having a high capacity to accommodate both a single turbine and a small scale group, (defined as 2-12), of turbines. Guidance in the form of 10 criteria should be taken into account:

• avoid the undulating, intact and enclosed landscape to the south;

• avoid those areas where is a large number of vertical elements e.g. Pylons to ensure does not result in visual confusion and clutter;

• relate to existing building clusters in the landscape;

• respond to geometric field patterns with turbines sited in a simple linear arrangement with consistent and repetitive spacing between the individual turbines;

• relate to the landform with turbines located along contour lines as opposed to across them;

• respect the site and settings of key valued landscape features, notably remnant historic features;

• respect the scale and setting of small intact villages and views to church towers and spires;

• respect the relationship with the Ouse Valley and hidden tributary valleys which cross the landscape;

13

• avoid introducing solid built structures where there is an absence of buildings, additional structures better accommodated in relation to existing buildings; and,

• seek opportunities to achieve wider landscape management objectives.

3.10 The SPD also states that the cumulative impact of more than 1 small

scale group should be considered. It also states that there is a moderate capacity to accommodate a medium scale group (defined as 13-25).

4. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 None. 5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Offords Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy attached). 5.2 Toseland Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy attached). 5.3 Great Paxton Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy attached). 5.4 Yelling Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy attached). 5.5 Graveley Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy attached). A

petition of objection with 136 signatures was also submitted (this is not attached).

5.6 Eltisley Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy attached). 5.7 Papworth St Agnes Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy

attached). 5.8 South Cambridgeshire District Council – OBJECT following

consideration at their meeting of the Planning Committee on 5 November and conclude:

‘Whilst an open and flat landscape may be able to assimilate the scale of wind farm proposed, the difficulty in this case is that the proposal is simply too close to Graveley village. These large structures sited in an elevated position relative to the village would completely dominate and overwhelm the outlook westwards from the village, the setting of St Botolph Church seen from the east and the outlook from residential properties on Toseland Road. It is not considered that this objection can be mitigated without a complete re-assessment of a revised and smaller scheme.’

5.9 Anglian Water Services – No Objection subject to applicant

entering into an agreement to implement technical mitigation measures to mitigate against interference to telemetry links.

5.10 English Heritage – OBJECTION on the ground of a detrimental

impact upon Toseland Hall and inadequate information on the effect upon the Scheduled Ancient Monument.

14

5.11 County Council Archaeology – site should be subject of a programme of further archaeological investigation secured through the inclusion of a negative condition.

5.12 Cambridgeshire County Council Countryside Access Team –

OBJECTION as application does not include for the re-instatement of rights of way across the former airfield.

5.13 County Council Highways – NO OBJECTIONS but detailed queries

regarding the construction and maintenance of the site which should be resolved before any permission granted.

5.14 Joint Radio Company Limited (on behalf of UK Fuel and Power

Industry) – NO OBJECTION based upon the details of the current application.

5.15 Council for the Protection of Rural England CPRE – OBJECTION

as the South East Claylands is adjacent to the Ouse valley which has a low capacity to absorb a small group of turbines.

5.16 RSPB – NO OBJECTIONS subject to conditions relating to post

construction monitoring, construction work to take place outside of the breeding season, good ecological management practice throughout construction, and a package of appropriate mitigation measures to be developed and approved before planning permission granted.

5.17 East of England Regional Assembly – whilst recognising the

benefits of the scheme in terms of the contribution to renewable energy, there is serious concern that the wind turbines will spoil the setting of nearby churches and Toseland Hall.

5.18 Environment Agency – NO OBJECTIONS subject to conditions

relating to surface water drainage and foul water drainage. 5.19 National Air Traffic Safeguarding – no safeguarding objections. 5.20 Cambridge Airport – NO OBJECTIONS. 5.21 The Wildlife Trust – NO OBJECTIONS subject to receiving details of

additional habitat enhancement and monitoring of birds to be agreed with Natural England.

5.22 Arqiva – responsible for UHF links between transmitter sites and this

proposal does not obstruct any of these lines and therefore they do not object.

5.23 Civil Aviation Authority – raises questions of clarification which

would need to be resolved if planning permission granted. 5.24 OFCOM – no OFCOM managed fixed links within 500 metres of any

of the turbines. 5.25 Natural England – NO OBJECTION subject to mitigation,

enhancement and monitoring measures. 5.26 HDC Environmental Health Officer – NO OBJECTIONS subject to

conditions.

15

5.27 Defence Estates – NO OBJECTIONS to the proposal. 5.28 Those Consultees who were notified of the application but have not

responded with any comments are the British Horse Society, the Ramblers Association and the Cambridgeshire Bat Group.

6. REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 The Cotton Farm Action Group was formed from villagers of The

Offords, Great Paxton, Toseland, Yelling and Graveley. The group is funded wholly by voluntary contributions and has a constitution. They have submitted a lengthy submission objecting on the grounds that it would have a detrimental impact on:

• the landscape of the SE and broader Cambridgeshire Claylands by its very close proximity to the Villages, and its dominating position above the Ouse Valley;

• the setting of listed buildings in each of the villages, and in particular on the Grade 2* Toseland Hall;

• the visual and recreational amenity of the area by the introduction of incongruous and intrusive elements into views from many viewpoints across a 20km radius of the area; and,

• residential amenity from the overbearing and oppressive relationship of the wind turbines to the Villages, compounded by shadow flicker, road safety concerns and increased levels of noise alien to the tranquillity of the area

6.2 Some 319 letters have been received in connection with the

application, of which 9 were in support of the proposal and 309 objected to the application. One letter, neither in support nor in favour, was also received. The main issues of objection raised, which have been listed with the most frequently raised issue at the top and the least frequently raised issue at the bottom of the list, were:

• Noise

• Adverse effect on wildlife

• Adverse visual impact

• Too close to houses or school

• Flicker effect

• Traffic and highway safety issues

• Safety issues

• Effect on landscape and rural setting

• Effect on historic buildings

• Too big and too high

• Loss of property value

• Effect upon environment and tranquillity

• Industrialisation of area

• Effect upon Radio and TV reception

• Effect upon footpaths

• Only financially viable with subsidies

• Offshore wind power more effective

• Visual eyesore

16

• Effectiveness of wind power not proven

• Construction impacts

• Cumulative impact with A14

• Wrong site and wrong area

• Just a money making exercise

• No local economic benefit

• Not enough wind

• Could set a precedent for more wind farms

• Effect on horses and riding

• Health issues

• Carbon footprint of the turbines not taken into account

• Access issues

• Objections outweigh benefits

• Cumulative effect with aircraft flight stacking

• Community concerns not taken note of

• Effect upon residential amenity

• Misleading information in application

• Adverse effect upon business

• Effect on aircraft safety

• No community benefit

• Pollution

• Spoil the Ouse Valley

• Contrary to planning policy

• Impact far greater than for small domestic proposals

• Impact upon trees

• Other renewables such as solar and water should be explored

• National renewable energy targets for Cambridgeshire have been met

• Inadequate landscaping

• Flooding/effect upon water table

• Manorial rights over land

• Immoral use of taxpayers money

• Rights of way should be re-opened

• Interfere with defence

• Infringe basic human rights

• Small amount of energy produced compared with Barford power station

• Insignificant impact upon greenhouse gas

• 12 years before carbon footprint of wind farm is recovered by power generated

• Combined heat and power from Little Barford would be more effective

• Trees should be planted

• Impact upon views

• Wind speeds low 6.3 The main points raised supporting the application were:

• It is sited well away from villages

• Public meetings were biased and designed to encourage opposition to the proposal

• It would create a sustainable energy supply

• Future benefit

• Urgent action needed to combat climate change

17

• Objections of Cotton Farm Action Group baseless and shock tactics employed.

• Most homes will not have a clear view of the turbines

• Noise will not be obtrusive

• Effect on wildlife will be less than overhead power lines

• The flicker effect will be minimal

• Replacing fossil fuels with clean energy is urgent

• Renewable targets will not be met if planning applications are consistently turned down

• If horses can cope with roads and traffic they would be able to cope with turbines

• Green party consistently supports renewable projects

• Hurry up and approve the application

• Fight against nimbyism

• Wind power is safer than nuclear power

• Better than using natural resources which will run out

• UK has commitment to Kyoto protocol

• It would make a significant contribution to targets and only 52% of the 2010 target has been met

• Wind produces no emissions, pollution or waste 6.4 A letter neither objecting nor in support has been received from the

registered charity The Friends of Paxton Pits who comment that they have considered the ES and in particular the monitoring of the flight lines of birds. They are of the view that the ES does not show any evidence to suggest that the wind farm will impact in any significant way on the flight lines of birds using Paxton Pits. Wintering flocks of lapwing and golden plover have been observed using the arable land within the proposed wind farm site and it may be that such flocks would use the islands and muddy margins at Paxton Pits. They note that turbine strikes for these species are minimal but that appropriate cropping regimes for the farmland would reduce such strikes. They therefore request that if planning permission is granted a condition is imposed to agree a mitigation package to determine landscaping, planting and cropping that would deter the use of the site by vulnerable species. The mitigation measures should be agreed before any works take place. A further neutral letter requests planning gain for local residents.

6.5 A letter from MP Jonathon Djanogly states that he has viewed the

proposals at the public exhibition and met with the Cotton Farm Action Group. He has received a significant amount of correspondence and would formally like to register his objection to the proposal. He appreciates the need for renewable energy but feels that there is not enough evidence to prove the viability of the project. There are also health and safety fears including noise, TV interference, and vibration as the windfarm is just 600 metres from the nearest house. The visual impact upon the Ouse Valley would detract from plans to improve the environment of the Ouse Valley. There would also be an adverse impact upon local road infrastructure during construction and upon house prices.

18

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES 7.1 The main issues to be considered for this application are central

government policy on renewable energy, renewable energy targets, landscape and visual impact, wildlife issues, historic built environment, residential amenity. Other issues to be addressed include traffic and highway safety, access including effect on footpaths and use of bridleways by horse riders, safety issues and aviation issues.

Environmental Statement 7.2 The Environmental Statement has been independently reviewed to

ascertain whether it is ‘fit for purpose’ and whether or not full descriptions have been provided, likely environmental trends have been considered, the magnitude and significance of potential impacts have been assessed, the scope of mitigation fully considered and the overall findings objectively presented. It has been reviewed based on advice contained in ‘Evaluation of Environmental Information for Planning Projects: A Good Practice Guide’. The aim of the review is not to check technical content, or necessarily agree with conclusions on matters of judgement, but to assess whether it is adequate or whether there are major omissions or inconsistencies.

7.3 The conclusion of the review is that while there are minor

inconsistencies and omissions, the ES is generally satisfactory and complete and meets the requirements of the Regulations.

Renewable Energy Policy 7.4 The thrust of central government policy on climate change is to help

counter the serious effects which are considered to be significant and include flooding, subsidence, water shortages and increased insurance associated with damage to buildings. The importance to Huntingdonshire District and Cambridgeshire as a whole cannot be underestimated since much of the area is low lying close to sea level. In addition Huntingdonshire’s residents have, on average, one of the highest annual per capita carbon footprints figures in the region at 9.2 tonnes of C02 (as calculated by DEFRA under the methodology for national indicator NI 186).

7.5 It is therefore imperative that the District takes all appropriate steps to

mitigate these impacts through maximising its contribution to carbon reduction as rapidly as possible. Huntingdonshire District Council is committed as a signatory to the Nottingham Declaration, to taking steps to mitigate the effects of climate change. Cotton Wind Farm will generate approximately between 16 and 24 megawatts which is estimated to meet the annual power needs of between 6,900 to 10,000 households, or between 11-16% of all households within Huntingdonshire. This would therefore make a significant contribution towards renewable energy.

Renewable Energy Targets 7.6 The latest up to date information is contained within the East of

England Renewable Energy Statistics December 2008 produced by Renewables East. The East of England now has 489MW of installed

19

renewable energy both on and off shore. The region’s adopted target is for 10% of electricity consumption to come from on shore sources by 2010 and 17% by 2020. Renewables East estimate that 8% currently comes from renewables both on and off shore. The report by Renewable East considers that it is now almost certain that the 2010 onshore target will not be met.

7.7 Delivery will, therefore, need to increase as the region refocuses on

the 2020 target and therefore significant contributions will be needed from the onshore wind sector. Significant weight will therefore need to be attached to this aspect of the proposal.

Landscape and Visual Impacts 7.8 The ES has assessed the landscape and visual impact of the

proposal using current best practice guidelines and in particular the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2002. The methodology establishes the current character, condition, and sensitivity of the landscape and the nature of existing views and visual amenity as a baseline against which the impacts of the proposal can be assessed. Pre-application advice was given on the view points to be considered and visualisations have been produced in the form of photo-montages from these viewpoints. The ES has considered a number of documents including The Countryside Agency’s Countryside Character, and CPRE study on Remoteness and Tranquillity, and the ES has concluded that the relevant landscape character area has a low sensitivity to wind turbine developments i.e. key landscape characteristics are unlikely to be affected by the introduction of turbines. The ES then goes on to predict the impact upon landscape character, upon landscape components and upon landscape designations. The ES also looks at predicted impacts upon views and visual amenity and of 29 viewpoints concludes that there would be Major impact upon 9 of the viewpoints:

• Viewpoint 1 - public footpath east of College Farm on the eastern edge of Great Paxton

• Viewpoint 2 – western edge of Graveley

• Viewpoint 3 – eastern edge of Graveley

• Viewpoint 5 – western edge of Yelling

• viewpoint 6 – public footpath north of Toseland Hall

• Viewpoint 7 – public footpath south of Toseland Hall

• Viewpoint 8 – eastern edge of Great Paxton

• Viewpoint 10 – public footpath at the edge of Diddington

• Viewpoint 12 – long distance footpath at Great Parlow 7.9 The ES concludes that there would be a Moderate Impact upon 9

viewpoints:

• Viewpoint 4 – footpath between Graveley and Yelling

• Viewpoint 9 – Graveley Road south of Offord D'Arcy

• Viewpoint 11 – Paxton Pits Nature Reserve and Ouse Valley Way

• Viewpoint 13 – north eastern edge of St Neots

• Viewpoint 15a – public footpath within Croxton Park

20

• Viewpoint 18 – riverside car park at Hartford Church on the eastern edge of Huntingdon

• Viewpoint 20 – southern edge of Hemingford Grey

• Viewpoint 22 – southern edge of Abbotsley village Green

• Viewpoint 23 – top of the dam at Grafham Water 7.10 In addition, the ES concludes a Minor impact upon 8 viewpoints and a

Negligible Impact upon 3 viewpoints. There is also a series of viewpoints considering cumulative impacts.

7.11 The ES also predicts the visual impact upon settlements during

operation. Market Towns up to 10km from the site are considered, villages up to 5km and villages 5-10km from the site. Those villages considered to experience a residual major significant visual impact are Toseland, Diddington, the western edges of Graveley, Yelling and Hilton, the eastern edge of Great Paxton, and some upper storeys on the southern edge of Offord D’Arcy.

7.12 The ES also considers cumulative impact in the light of advice in

PPS22 and its companion guide which suggests that cumulative visual effects concern the degree to which renewable energy development becomes a feature in particular views or a sequence of views, and the effect this has on people experiencing those views. The other wind farms which could contribute to cumulative impacts are Wood Green Godmanchester, Rockery Farm at Bourne, St Mary’s Road Ramsey, Red Tile Warboys, Glass Moor near Ponders Bridge, and Airfield Farm Northamptonshire. Both cumulative construction and operational impacts have been considered. Cumulative construction impacts are considered to be negligible, and there are considered to be impacts of a minor significance upon some landscape character areas, but no cumulative impacts upon viewpoints. There is also some minor impact upon key routes.

7.13 Natural England and The East of England Regional Spatial Strategy

shows that the site falls within the National Character Area 88 (NCA88) “Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Claylands” and policy ENV2 charges local authority to protect and enhance the diversity and local distinctiveness of the character area. Natural England has further detail on each NCA and mentions “harsh management and neglect of hedgerows, loss and fragmentation of habitats, including grassland, ponds, ditches, spinney’s and hedgerows. A further section of ‘Shaping the Future’ refers to the sensitive after-use of redundant airfield sites which would benefit from integrated landscape strategies.

7.14 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment SPD locate

the site within the South East Claylands Landscape Character Area. The Huntingdonshire Supplementary Planning Document: Wind Power 2006 sets out the capacity of the different landscape character areas within the District to accommodate different scales of Windfarm development. A group of between 2 – 12 turbines is defined in the document as a small scale group. The SPD states that the South East Claylands Area has a high capacity to accommodate a small scale group. It also states the cumulative impact should be considered. The CPRE have objected as the South East Claylands Area is adjacent to the Ouse Valley Area which only has a low capacity for a small group of turbines.

21

7.15 The information submitted in the ES has been considered against the

relevant policies and it is considered that the impact significance upon viewpoints 4, 9 and 11 (see above) should be major, rather than the stated moderate. Whilst this represents a disagreement over some of the conclusion reached it is not considered to change the overall impact in terms of visual impact.

7.16 The proposed wind turbine will undoubtedly have an impact upon the

landscape; however the proposal must be considered against all the relevant policies and guidance. The SPD Wind Power is a material planning consideration which should be afforded significant weight as it is a document which supplements the Development Plan. Its conclusion that there is a high capacity to accommodate a small group of turbines within the south east claylands area is important since the SPD criteria mean that in much of the area it would be difficult to achieve. The criteria are considered below:

• avoid the undulating, intact and enclosed landscape to the south – the site has avoided this area;

• avoid those areas where is a large number of vertical elements e.g. Pylons to ensure does not result in visual confusion and clutter - there are not a large number of vertical elements such as pylons on the site;

• relate to existing building clusters in the landscape - other than Cotton farm buildings and surrounding villages there are no building clusters; it would not be logical to re-position the turbines closer to any of the villages;

• respond to geometric field patterns with turbines sited in a simple linear arrangement with consistent and repetitive spacing between the individual turbines - the siting of the individual turbines have a regular spacing and relate to the existing tracks on the site as there is no regular field pattern on the site;

• relate to the landform with turbines located along contour lines as opposed to across them – much of the site is on the 50m contour line and forms a plateau and as such the turbines are at about the same height;

• respect the site and settings of key valued landscape features, notably remnant historic features – it is not considered that the proposal complies with this criterion and this is discussed later in the Cultural Heritage Section of the report;

• respect the scale and setting of small intact villages and views to church towers and spires – Graveley, Offord D’Arcy, Diddington and Great Paxton are relatively small villages although Toseland is a more scattered hamlet. It is considered that the scale and setting of these villages is respected as the turbines will only be seen in more distant views. Similarly views of church towers and spires will not be adversely affected as they are either a considerable distance away or inward looking with no main views through to the proposal;

22

• respect the relationship with the Ouse Valley and hidden tributary valleys which cross the landscape – two of the turbines are close to one of the tributaries of the Ouse, however they are located at a higher level and it is considered that this criterion is respected;

• avoid introducing solid built structures (transmission stations etc) into rural areas, which are generally characterised by the absence of buildings. Additional structures would be better accommodated in relation to existing farm/utility buildings – the substation is located close to the Cotton Farm buildings thus complying with this criterion;

• seek opportunities to achieve wider landscape management objectives – it is considered that the application has paid scant regard to this and the application does not therefore meet this criterion.

7.17 Consideration of the above criteria would lead to the conclusion that

the landscape criteria, apart from mitigation and historic features criteria have been largely met. It is relevant to note that the undulating intact landscape of the southern part of the area has been avoided and that the relationship with the Ouse Valley has been respected. Within the South East Claylands the application site is probably one of very few which are available taking into consideration the above criteria and the proposed improvements to the A14 which is a Highways Agency ‘published road project’ for which draft orders were published on 30 September 2009. This represents the start of the legal process and a Public Inquiry is due to commence in 2010. The route of the new line of the A14 will mean that much of the northern part of the South East Claylands would not be suitable for a wind farm development. This is a material planning consideration.

7.18 It is therefore considered that an objection on the grounds of impact

upon landscape cannot be raised in respect of this application. Given that the impact upon landscape, which it is accepted will result, must be weighed against all other issues and other material planning considerations; this balance is concluded within the conclusion of the report.

7.19 Officers do not, however, agree with the conclusion of the ES that

mitigation would not be worthwhile. It is considered that tree and hedge planting at the site perimeter or near to some of the closer viewpoints, (which could take 5 years growth to have some impact), would provide worthwhile mitigation and enhanced ecological potential. In addition, the scale of the on site mitigation measures is minimal and should be enhanced. Perimeter and on site planting must be seen in the light of environmental enhancement of what is stated in the ES as an ecologically rather barren site. This is also the view of the Wildlife Trust and Natural England and could be achieved by a condition for a scheme to be approved prior to the commencement of the development. The landscape mitigation measures proposed as part of this application are therefore not considered to be acceptable.

23

Wildlife Issues 7.20 There are four Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within the

vicinity of the site: Little Paxton Pits, Grafham water, Perry Woods and Little Paxton Woods. Little Paxton Pits is important for wintering wildfowl and migrating birds, and Grafham Water is important for wintering and breeding wetland birds. Natural England considers that the proposal is unlikely to have significant effects upon the wildlife interests of either Paxton Pits or Grafham Water SSSIs. Natural England has also looked at the impacts upon protected species and whilst they are satisfied with the impact upon bats they consider that post construction monitoring is required and that if planning permission were to be granted a condition should be imposed. Similarly whilst the impacts upon breeding birds are likely to be minor it is considered that post construction monitoring should be carried out and this should be controlled by the imposition of a planning condition. The RSPB consider that the development represents a low risk to farmland bird species and notes the presence of a pair of breeding barn owls, (a protected species) within 1km of the site. They welcome the habitat enhancement measures to deter breeding species from using the area under the turbines and also recommend that conditions be imposed upon any consent for post construction monitoring, construction works to take place outside the breeding season, good ecological management throughout the construction phase and a package of appropriate mitigation measures. The comments of the Wildlife Trust reflect those of Natural England and the RSPB in that they do not object but consider there should be enhanced mitigation agreed as part of any permission.

7.21 There is no fundamental objection to the proposal in terms of its

impact upon the SSSI’s or protected species, but it is considered that monitoring and mitigation measures should be enhanced to increase the acceptability of the scheme. This could be achieved by a condition the wording of which could be agreed with Natural England, the Wildlife Trust and RSPB.

Cultural Heritage 7.22 Central government advice in the form of PPS22 advises that

permission for renewable energy projects should only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation of the heritage asset will not be compromised. Further advice in PPG15 and the requirements of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act states local authorities should have special regard for the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building. It states that the setting should not be interpreted too narrowly.

7.23 The submitted ES has identified 191 Listed Buildings within the study

area and 8 Conservation Areas. The ES has considered all listed buildings and Conservation Areas within 5 km of the wind turbines, described their main features, defined their primary and secondary settings and then assessed the impacts of the proposal upon them. All the impacts, including those upon the Grade 2* buildings of Toseland Hall, Toseland Parish Church and St Botolph’s Church Graveley, which are the three (most important listed buildings) closest to the proposal, are considered by the ES to be negligible.

24

Impact upon Listed Buildings 7.24 Listed in 1951 Toseland Hall is a Grade 2* Listed Building, which,

taken together with Grade 1 listed buildings, is one of the top 8% of listed buildings in the Country. The main house is 950 metres from the nearest turbine which is sited almost due north of the Hall. The ES defines the primary setting as limited to its associated grounds and outbuildings as there are no planned landscapes or parkland associated with it. It states that the secondary setting extends to the northern, western and southern fields beyond the immediate grounds identified by historic maps as having some association with the building in the past, but now fully ploughed. It then goes on to state that the turbines would be visible from the primary setting of the Hall but that their presence would not alter the architectural or historic interest for which the Hall was designated.

7.25 Officers do not agree with the conclusion that the impact would be

negligible in that it is considered that the proposal will compromise the setting of this important Listed Building and harm its special character. English Heritage in the document Conservation Principles – Policies and Guidance April 2008 states at paragraph 76 that setting is an established concept that relates to the surroundings in which a place is experienced, its local context, embracing past and present relationships to the adjacent landscapes. Definition of the setting of a place will normally be guided by the extent to which material change within it could affect (enhance or diminish) the place’s significance. Documentary evidence dating back to 1861 record this as an important building dominating the local landscape, being at the heart of the local community and of a land holding of some 530 acres. Even after the building was listed in 1951 the property still managed some 400 acres of land. It is considered that the setting of the Toseland Hall has not been correctly established in the ES. The architectural language and design of Toseland Hall was intended to impress and visually command the surrounding landscape. The profile of the roof and the elaborate chimney stacks are visually prominent over a considerable distance.

7.26 It is, therefore, considered that the setting of the Hall extends beyond

its present day immediate curtilage to include land covered by this proposal. The visual impact of the eastern 4 turbines in terms of their height, siting and general appearance would in particular intrude into the setting devaluing the architectural and historic importance of the Grade 2* listed building. It is also relevant to note that English Heritage have stated that they are disappointed the applicant’s have decided not to amend the application and that they consider that the proposal as it stands would have a detrimental impact upon the setting of Toseland Hall.

7.27 The impact of the proposal upon the Grade 2* Church at Toseland is

not considered to be adverse as the church is nestled into the village and whilst prominent within its own curtilage does not exert influence outside its curtilage.

7.28 St Botolph’s Church in Graveley, (which is within South

Cambridgeshire District) is a Grade 2* listed building and the ES has assessed that the impact upon this building would be negligible as the building is surrounded by later residential development. The church is

25

1,140 metres from the nearest turbine. Officers consider that the impact of the proposal upon the church and the listed buildings within Graveley is not of such a magnitude that planning permission could be refused for this reason.

Impact upon Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and Gardens

7.29 The nearest Conservation Areas are at Yelling 2.2km, Offord Cluny

3km, Diddington 3.3km, Papworth St Agnes (South Cambs District) 3km, and Croxton (South Cambs District), Buckden, St Neots and Papworth Everard (South Cambs District) all at 4km or more. Yelling Conservation Area is inward looking without any major views out and the conclusion of the ES is agreed in that it is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon that Conservation Area. The next closest Conservation Area at Offord Cluny is a linear Conservation Area concentrated on the High Street. There are views of large scale rolling countryside and as the land rises up to the south east there may be glimpses of the turbines but it is not considered that these would adversely impact upon the character, setting or views into and out of the Conservation Area. Although Diddington Conservation is further away because of the land dropping down to the Ouse Valley the turbines will be visible across the Ouse Valley in the distance. However because of the distance involved it is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of Diddington Conservation Area. The only historic park and garden near the application site is Croxton Park and it is not considered that the proposal would have any significant impact upon that heritage asset.

Impact upon Scheduled Ancient Monument 7.30 There is a Scheduled Ancient Monument reference SAM 27925,

known as Moated site in Toseland Wood, comprising of a rectangular island surrounded by a substantial moat and historic fishponds one of which is known as lordship pond immediately to the south of the site. The nearest turbine is located 250 metres from the Monument and English Heritage consider that the impact of the development upon this Ancient Monument has not been fully considered in the ES and that the setting of the Monument should be more fully considered specifically to consider whether there is a significant difference between summer and winter impact. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that there is no adverse impact upon the SAM or that the benefits outweigh the harm in respect of this issue.

Residential Amenity and Noise 7.31 The ES has considered noise and vibration from the construction and

decommissioning phase and also from the operational phase. This concludes that the noise impact from both the operational windfarm and the construction and de-commissioning phases is acceptable. The data has been considered by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer and he has commented that the distances of the proposed turbines from residential properties are similar to those at Red Tile Windfarm. Noise allegations following the installation of the windfarm at Red Tile Windfarm have been investigated and no audible noise was observed. Although the 1.1dB margin is not very substantial the

26

assessment is robust and therefore there is no justification for allowing a greater margin of error. He concludes that subject to the imposition of planning conditions, which would place a limit on the noise level upon any consent granted, the proposal is acceptable from the noise impact.

7.32 The issue of TV reception has been considered in the ES and it has

concluded that interference with television reception cannot be accurately assessed prior to the installation of the wind farm. It states that the applicants are committed to rectifying TV reception at local properties where this is caused by the operation of the wind farm.

7.33 The visual impact upon homes also needs to be considered. The test

is whether the turbines are present in such numbers, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in the main views from a house or garden such that the property concerned would come to be widely regarded as an unattractive and thus unsatisfactory place in which to live. The ES has not specifically considered this issue, however since the nearest turbine to a residential property is 600 metres, and that is the distance from the properties in Graveley to the easternmost turbine, it is unlikely that the impact will be such that the amenity of the dwellings will be so adversely affected that this would constitute a specific reason for refusal in its own right.

Shadow Flicker 7.34 The ES has considered shadow flicker and advice in the Companion

Guide to PPS22. This states that about 0.5% of the population are epileptic and of these around 5% are photosensitive. It states that the extent of shadow flicker is in practice limited to the distance of 10 rotor diameters from the wind farm. This may therefore affect properties within a 900 metres radius from the wind turbines. There are 17 properties within this radius although it is important to note that not all these properties will experience shadow flicker. A total of 15 properties are located within Graveley, 1 in Toseland and 1 in Great Paxton parish. The ES has calculated the total number of hours per year each property would be affected and this ranges from zero for Green Farm Toseland, to the highest of 12.7 hours per year for 97 Toseland Road Graveley. The results show that for 11 of the properties there could be shadow flicker for between 3 and 6 hours per year. The ES concludes that there would be no adverse health affect. However, the ES also discusses mitigation and proposes consultation between the developers and residents and if disturbance to residential amenity occurs, available mitigation measures could include tree planting and the fitting of window blinds or curtains. In addition it states that the assessment has shown that 4 of the proposed 8 turbines could potentially cause shadow flicker and once operational these 4 turbines could be fitted with a mechanism which would inhibit the turbines at the predicted times. A condition to require monitoring and mitigation which could be turning off the turbines for the affected hours if necessary could be imposed upon any planning permission granted.

7.35 Whilst the ES shows that the proposal may result in some shadow

flicker for a limited period of time this will operate at frequencies outside the range which is said to affect epileptics and that therefore

27

there will be no adverse health effects as a result of the proposed wind farm.

Traffic and Highways Issues 7.36 The ES has considered the impacts of development generated traffic,

construction and operational. (The proposed access points are described in paragraphs 1.5 – 1.7 of the report above). It is considered that the construction impacts can be managed by means of a Traffic Management Plan to be agreed with the local highway authority. This is to minimise delay to other road users. Since there is little pedestrian activity along Toseland Road the impact is likely to be insignificant. All abnormal loads will be escorted and the movement of these vehicles will be programmed to avoid busy periods. Once operational the wind farm will generate no more than two vehicle movements, mainly light vans, per week for routine maintenance. The position, visibility and width of the access points have been considered by the Highway Authority and are satisfied that they are acceptable. The issue of driver distraction has been raised and advice in paragraph 54 of PPS22 is that wind turbines should not be treated any differently from other driver distractions and should be considered particularly hazardous. The local roads from which the wind turbines could be viewed are very lightly trafficked and the distance from the road where the wind turbines would be positioned is not particularly close and it is therefore considered that this should not constitute an objection to the proposal. In addition the County Council as Highway Authority have not objected to the proposal.

Footpaths and Bridleways

7.37 Concern has been expressed over the effect upon footpaths and bridleways. No public footpaths or bridleways cross the site and therefore there will be no direct impact. The British Horse Society recommends in their National Guidance a distance of 3 times the overall height of a turbine from roads and bridleways and technical guidance within PPS22 recommends 200 metres as a minimum separation distance between bridleways used by horses. The nearest bridleway to the south of Cotton Farm is approximately 500 metres from the nearest turbine which will meet the British Horse Society’s recommendation of having a separation distance of 3 times the turbine height.

Safety Issues

7.38 Third party representations have raised issues of safety, in particular

the proximity of the turbines to residential properties, and the possibility of structural collapse or ice collecting on the blades. The ES has considered this aspect and stated that no member of the public has been injured by a wind turbine despite there being 50,000 turbines globally (2001 figures). There have been some cases where a turbine has shed a part or all of their blade and these have occurred in extreme weather conditions. The build up of ice on the turbine blade has also been raised as an issue. However, ice can only form on a stationary rotor blade and therefore ice would only be thrown off when a turbine initially starts up with the risk being restricted to the area immediately beneath the turbine. PPS22 Companion Guide advises that the minimum distance between wind turbines and

28

occupied buildings is the height of the turbine plus 10%. This has been achieved in this case as the nearest building is 600 metres away. Modern wind turbines are equipped with a number of safety devices to ensure safe operation during their lifetime. These typically include vibrations sensors and brake systems to turn the turbines off in the event of malfunction. It should also be noted that the wind farm is proposed on private land and not close to any footpaths.

Aviation and Communications 7.39 The relevant Consultees with regard to aircraft safety include Defence

Estates, Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Control Service and Cambridge Airport and these bodies do not raise any objections to the proposal on the grounds of aircraft safety. The Civil Aviation Authority have advised that there may be the need to install aviation obstruction lighting, that there have been many Windfarm proposals and proliferation and future applications may result in an objection to future schemes and that there is a charting requirement if planning permission is granted. There is also a requirement that the rotor blades are painted white and either lighting or special paint colours. To conclude there is no objection form the aviation perspective.

Conclusion 7.40 Huntingdonshire is supportive of appropriate renewable energy

projects and recognises the wider environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy projects and the importance of meeting the targets for renewable energy. The granting of permission for the Red Tile wind farm at Warboys reflects that commitment.

7.41 Subject to conditions, there are no objections to the proposal in

relation to wildlife and nature conservation interests, the aviation industry, highways or on residential amenity grounds. The development will undoubtedly have an effect on the landscape but this must be weighed against the wider benefits of the development including the significant contribution to the renewable targets for the region. This site lies within the South East Claylands which is identified as having a high potential for a small scale group of turbines. This site is well located within this area for a wind turbine development as it is located away from the more intimate small scale landscape of the southern part of the South East Claylands area. Taking all material considerations into account, the wider benefits of the development are considered to outweigh the effect on the landscape. The benefits of the development must also be taken into account in assessing the impact on cultural heritage assets. In this regard, the wider benefits are considered to outweigh the effect of the 4 western turbines on the setting of Toseland Hall, but it is considered that the significant adverse effect of the proposed eastern 4 turbines on the setting of Toseland Hall is not outweighed by the benefits of the development. It is considered that the proposal could be amended and made more acceptable with the deletion of the four eastern turbines. However, the applicants do no wish to pursue this option. Whilst the advantages and benefits of this site for a Windfarm are recognised it is considered that the proposed eastern four turbines will have an unacceptable impact upon the setting of the Grade 2* listed Toseland Hall. Inadequate information has also been provided to properly assess the impact of the development on the

29

Moated site in Toseland Wood Scheduled Ancient Monument and therefore it cannot be concluded that the benefits of the development outweigh the effects on these remains of national importance.

8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE, for the following reason: 8.1 The development will have an adverse effect on the landscape and

the setting of the Grade 2* listed building of Toseland Hall. Whilst the wider environmental and economic benefits of this renewable energy project are considered to outweigh the effect on the landscape and the effect of the 4 western turbines on the setting of Toseland Hall, the significant adverse effect of the proposed eastern 4 turbines of the proposed wind farm on the setting of Toseland Hall as a result of their proximity and visually intrusion is not outweighed by the benefits of the development. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to PPG15, PPS22, Policy ENV6 of the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy, Policy En2 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, Policy B7 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007, Policy CS1 of the Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 and Supplementary Planning Document Huntingdonshire Wind Power 2006. The proposal also fails to provide adequate information to properly assess the impact upon the Moated site in Toseland Wood Scheduled Ancient Monument 27925 and it cannot, therefore, be concluded that the benefits of the development outweigh the effects on these remains of national importance. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to PPG15, PPS22, Policy ENV6 of the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy, Policy En11 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, Policy B9 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007, Policy CS1 of the Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 and Supplementary Planning Document Huntingdonshire Wind Power 2006.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or

an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference: 0802296FUL East of England Plan – Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy May 2008 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Adopted Core Strategy 2009 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Jennie Parsons Development Management Team Leader 01480 388409