North Shropshire
CPRE Shropshire
Protecting Shropshire
Objection sent to North Shropshire District Council
Campaign to Protect Rural England, Shropshire Branch
The Bear Steps Office, St Alkmond's Square, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY1 1UH
From: Vivian Hancock (Vice-President, Minerals & North Shropshire representative)
To: Stuart Thomas (Development Control Manager).
Re: Application No. (NSDC); 08/00831/EIA; Application No. (NBC); 08/00360/FUL
Location - Lower Farm, Bearstone, Norton-in-Hales, Market Drayton, Shropshire.
Proposal - Formation of Wind Farm consisting of 7 wind turbines, ancillary buildings, estate road and vehicular access from B5026.
I write on behalf of Shropshire County Branch of CPRE to OBJECT to the above application. The grounds of our objection are given below.
Summary
(a) The type of turbine has not been specified. Approval of a proposal which is significantly unspecified in some way would set an undesirable precedent.
(b) Some aspects of the ways in which data is dealt with in the Environmental Statement. We contend that the treatment of the data underestimates the weight that at least some of it should be accorded when the Council makes its development control decision. If the Council has the necessary in-house skills to review the data handling methods themselves, then we ask that they should do so; otherwise we ask that they should consider getting independent professional advice.
(c) Excessive adverse effects on the environment and on nearby residents, especially (i) noise, particularly the impulsive noise of "blade swish", (ii) shadow flicker and (iii) landscape impacts, namely the introduction of strong verticals into a horizontal landscape, the introduction of movement into a still landscape, and the introduction of metallic engineered forms into a natural landscape.
(d) Inadequate treatment of within-project cumulative effects.
(e) An inadequate decommissioning process.
Note
That this branch of CPRE is not against development as such in North Shropshire or against renewable energy is demonstrated by our recent support for a proposed large housing development ( 08/00691/FUL) and for a renewable energy project (08/00456/DEEM). Moreover, we note that ES, paragraph 6.8.2 states "Opinions as to the visual effects of wind farms vary widely, resulting in subjective opinions as to whether a wind farm is a positive or adverse visual feature within the landscape". Opinions within our Executive Committee vary in this way. Nevertheless, we also follow ES, paragraph 6.8.2 when it says that it adopts a worst-case scenario and assumes that the visual changes will be interpreted as adverse.
Lack of specification of the turbines
It is noted that the type of turbine has not been specified (see ES, Vol 1, page 4-10, paragraphs 4.4.8 to 4.4.11. This introduces an unacceptable level of uncertainty especially concerning noise, as is noted in ETSU-R-97 "The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms" (Sept 1996), where it states on page 46 "The emitted sound power level (SWL) from different wind turbines may vary by several dB for the same wind conditions at hub height depending on the size and design features of the turbine". The uncertainty also applies to turbine height, shadow flicker effects and to the specification of the foundation works. We consider therefore that this application should be EITHER refused for this reason OR withdrawn and resubmitted when the turbine model has been finally decided. Approval of a proposal which is significantly unspecified in some way would set an undesirable precedent.
Comments on general matters in the ES
Difficulties involving subjectivity
At the highest level, the part of the EIA process that involves an element of subjective judgement is the decision whether an effect is significant or not. The EC document "Guidance on EIA Scoping" says in the "Checklist of Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Impacts":
"Those responsible for scoping often find difficulties in defining what is "significant". A useful simple check is to ask whether the effect is one that ought to be considered and to have an influence on the development consent decision."
This is not a rule; it is a "useful simple check", demanding a subjective judgement. However professionally the judgement is made, it is a human judgement from which other humans may differ. Moreover, the effect need not be such as of itself to invite refusal; it is simply one which would "have an influence" on the development consent decision. We therefore ask the Council to see whether they agree or disagree with these judgements of significance, and where necessary to take their own line.
In many of the sections of the ES, what is being assessed for significance is based on objective measurements, as in the case of noise. But in the cases of effects on the landscape itself or its visual perception, we have another level demanding, and necessarily so, subjective judgements. Once again, we look to the Council to make their own judgements on these matters. For instance, what can be "slight" to one judge can be seen as "moderate" by another.
Classification of sensitivity and magnitude and combinatorial rule for them to assess significance
In some of the cases, the assignment of levels of effect to magnitude classes is based on accepted texts; in others it is simply a classification for the specific purposes of this application. All are subjective judgements by humans. We ask the Council to examine each individual case to see whether they agree or disagree, and in the latter case to tender their own opinion. Similar considerations apply to the matter of sensitivity.
In particular, I (the writer) have read what seem to me the relevant parts of Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 293 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, and as far as I, as a layman, can see, no particular methodology of landscape or visual effect assessment is prescribed there. We ask the Council to check up on this matter.
Combinations of sensitivity and magnitude as used to assess significance
Again, the combinatorial matrix applied to the sensitivity and magnitude classes needs to be justified - is it from an accepted text on that subject, or is it simply taken over from another subject and used for the specific purposes of this application? Again, we ask the Council to examine each individual case to see whether they agree or disagree, and in the latter case to tender their own opinion.
Even if all these matrices are acceptable to the Council, we consider that the bar has been arbitrarily set much too high, and that more combinations should be regarded as significant, (such as high/low, medium/medium, low/high). In particular, we would ask the Council, when considering human receptors, to put themselves in that receptor's shoes and reconsider whether the effect, or combination of effects at that site, is significant or not.
What is the concept of significance determining?
Let us first examine paragraph 9 of "Environmental impact assessment: A guide to procedures" (January 2000), which states:
"For the much longer list of Schedule 2 projects, the issue turns on the likelihood of 'significant environmental effects'. For the different types of project described in column 1 of Schedule 2, the 1999 Regulations introduced a system of thresholds and criteria, shown in column 2,as a method of discounting development which is not likely to have significant effects on the environment. For development where the applicable threshold or criterion is not exceeded or met, EIA is not normally required..."
In this paragraph, the significant effect is that which causes a Schedule 2 project to require EIA; if it was such as to determine whether development should go ahead or not, EIA would be redundant. Hence significance for determining whether or not EIA is required differs from significance for development control purposes. This view is supported by paragraph 65 of Circular 02/99: "Environmental impact assessment" which states:
"Local planning authorities are reminded that in exercising their functions under the Regulations they are to determine the significance or otherwise of the likely environmental effects of the proposed development, rather than to judge its planning merits. ..."
Surely, the object of EIA is to allow the relevant planning authority to examine the whole range of adverse and beneficial effects of the project in the light of planning considerations to determine whether or not the project gains approval. Effects which would not individually invite a refusal, may as a group be sufficient cause of refusal.
Points we wish to raise concerning individual chapters of the ES
ES, Volume 1, Chapter 6, Landscape and Visual
We contend that the effect on the landscape of introducing a wind farm are systematically understated. A simple commonsense view of the matter is that the introduction of strong verticals into a horizontal landscape, the introduction of movement into a still landscape, and the introduction of metallic engineered forms into a natural landscape will have a great impact on it which decreases with distance from the site. The effect of the movement of the turbine blades will attract attention to itself, and so the decrease of effect with distance will not be as great as that of a static object.
ES, Volume 1, Chapter 6, Landscape and Visual, Section 6.3, Outline Methodology and General Approach
We ask that the Council considers this section most carefully, bearing in mind that landscape assessment is a matter of human judgement, and that humans can and do differ. In particular, we wish the Council to form its own opinion concerning which entries in Table 6.2 are "significant" in the consideration of the EIA for the development control process. As stated above, we ask the Council to make its own assessments.
ES, Volume 1, Chapter 7, paragraphs 7.8.23 to 7.8.28, Aerodynamic noise
It is noted that at some sites, aerodynamic noise is at such a level that, while it does not awaken, it nevertheless interferes with return to sleep (see paragraph 7.8.24). The DTI report "The Measurement of Low Frequency Noise at Three UK Wind Farms" (2006) says (its page 64):
"The internal noise level measurements, even when wind turbine noise is audible within a bedroom, falls in the range 22-24 dB LAeq with windows closed. With windows open, this rises to 27-29 dB LAeq . This indicates that internal noise associated with the wind farms is below the sleep disturbance threshold proposed within the WHO guidelines.
"The recordings of wind farm noise indicate that this noise does not result in the awakening of neighbours to the developments; other noise sources are the cause of this. However, once awake, it is found that returning to sleep is more problematic. As the sound contains an acoustic character which attracts attention of the listener, then this compounds the problems associated with returning to sleep for the individual.
"The increased period of returning to sleep of a room occupant is not a direct effect of the noise levels which are in themselves very low, but a response to the noise by the occupant. This response to the noise is what prevents a person falling to sleep. Some help to occupants may be provided by the development of coping strategies for such situations where wind farm noise is audible. One of the potential subject dwellings which were considered within the list of original wind farms which were considered for this study had developed such a strategy to distract them from the noise when audible within a bedroom at night and when trying to return to sleep after awakening at night. To avoid reducing or removing the benefits of this coping strategy, measurements were not performed at this location following discussion with Dr Geoff Levinthal."
ES, paragraph 7.8.26 quotes from the conclusions of the Salford University report (which, as far as I can see is a literature and questionnaire survey) stating that there is a low incidence of aerodynamic modulation, and small numbers of people involved. Nevertheless real people have real problems, as may be seen from the matter quoted above. No-one should be obliged to adopt "coping strategies". Moreover, if there is difficulty in returning to sleep, this necessarily implies difficulty in dropping off to sleep in the first place. We ask the Council to look into this matter very thoroughly indeed, despite the dismissive attitude of paragraph 42 of the guidance document accompanying PPS 22. We also ask the Council to bear in mind that the actual turbine model has not been specified, thus rendering any predicted values most unreliable.
ES, Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 7.9, Summary of Predicted Effects
Why are residential properties considered of medium sensitivity to noise (Vol 1, section 7.9, Table 7.9, asterisked note)? They are picked out for a full treatment in PPG24, which surely implies high sensitivity. We ask the Council to look into this matter, as in the method of significance assessment used in this ES (which we question) this predestines noise effects to be "not significant" unless the magnitude is high.
ES, Volume 1, Chapter 8, paragraphs 8.5.32 to 8.5.45, Ecology - Assessment methodology
We ask the Council to examine most carefully the criteria for the valuation of receptors, the criteria for magnitude of impact, and to form its own opinion on these matters. We also ask that they examine most carefully the "significance matrix" in Table 8.3, to see if some of the "significance values" are understated.
ES, Volume 1, Chapter 9, paragraphs 9.3.36 to 9.3.42 together with Section 9.9, Ornithology - Assessment methodology
We ask the Council to examine most carefully the criteria for the nature conservation importance, the criteria for magnitude of effect, and to form its own opinion on these matters. We also ask that they examine most carefully the "significance matrix" in Tables 9.4 and 9.11, to see if some of the "significance values" are understated.
ES, Volume 1, Chapter 10, Section 10.7, Transport - Evaluation of Effects
We ask the Council to examine most carefully Table 10.9, to see if some of the "significance values" are understated.
ES, Volume 1, Chapter 11, paragraphs 11.3.58 to 11.3.62, Cultural Heritage - Assessment of significance
We ask the Council to examine most carefully the earlier paragraphs on the valuation of receptors (paragraphs 11.3.14 to 11.3.20), taking note of Table 11.2, and also the criteria for magnitude of impact (Table 11.3), forming its own opinion on these matters. We also ask that they examine most carefully the "significance matrix" in Table 11.4, to see if some of the "significance values" are understated.
ES, Volume 1, Chapter 12, paragraphs 12.3.4 to 12.3.6 together with Section 12.10, Hydrology - Evaluation of Effects
We ask the Council to examine most carefully the criteria for the valuation of receptors, the criteria for magnitude of impact, and to form its own opinion on these matters. We also ask that they examine most carefully the "significance matrix" in Tables 12.4 and 12.9, to see if some of the "significance values" are understated.
ES, Vol 1, Chapter 13, section 13.9, Socioeconomics - Evaluation of Effects
We disagree with the significance level attached to "contribution towards renewable energy targets". The matter must be seen as a contribution towards the national requirement of electrical energy, which the BERR document "Electricity Supply and Consumption (DUKES 5.2)" gives as 405844 GWh in 2006. ES, paragraph 5.1.28 quotes the lower regional target of 50 MW, providing 130 GWh per year; the 14 MW of the proposal would provide 36.4 GWh per year, which is less than one ten thousandth of the total national requirement. The electricity production seems disproportionately small to set against the effects on the landscape and on the people residing in the vicinity. The significance level should be reduced accordingly. Please note that we are not here asking for any action in contravention of paragraph 1 (vi) of PPS 22. We are simply asking for a proper balance to be held between harm and benefit in making the overall development control decision.
ES, Volume 1, Chapter 15, paragraphs 15.8.4, Shadow Flicker - Evaluation of Effects
We ask the Council to form its own opinion on the significance of the shadow flicker effects predicted, noting that the actual turbine model has not been specified, thus making the geometry of the shadows uncertain.
ES, Vol 1, Chapter 2, section 2.5, Cumulative Effects
We disagree most profoundly with the opinion which states that only wind farm developments are considered in assessment of cumulative effects of the project and other developments (see ES Vol 1, paragraphs 6.1.8 to 6.1.10, paragraphs 6.3.16 to 6.3.17 and paragraphs 6.9.1 to 6.9.3). Circular 02/99, paragraph 46 states:
"However, in judging whether the effects of a development are likely to be significant, local planning authorities should always have regard to the possible cumulative effects with any existing or approved development..."
We consider the position adopted by the applicant to be unduly restrictive. While PPS 22 and its associated document seems only to consider cumulative impact between wind generation projects, nevertheless, the more general treatment implied by Circular 02/99 is not thereby excluded.
We contend that the applicant has been too dismissive of within-project cumulative effects, such as a combination of noise and shadow-flicker . In particular we contend that a combination of "not significant" effects can become a "significant" effect when considered as a combination (as, in fact does the applicant - see the first sentence of paragraph 2.5.1 - despite no such combination having been studied in this ES).
Not treated in the ES - Within-project cumulative effects at a sample of residential sites
As there are 118 sites shown on ES, Vol 2, Figure 6.49, we illustrate this matter by looking at those sites chosen for noise assessment (see ES, Vol 2, Figure 7.1), with the addition of "The Grove" in view of the special status of Bellaport Old Hall, as mentioned in ES, Vol 1, paragraph 7.3.24. We ask the Council to examine a wider sample of cases in this, or a similar, way.
The matter stated below is simply selected quotations from the Environmental Statement, despite (a) our reservations about human judgements and (b) the factor of uncertainty due to the failure to finalise the choice of a turbine model.
Lower Farm/Top Farm = Bearstone (A)
Noise - Minimum margin under noise limit = 4.2 dB
Visual assessment (Table 6.22) = "moderate / substantial, significant and adverse due to the scale and contrasting form of the operational turbines in some views."
Shadow Flicker (paragraph 15.7.17) - "The predicted effects at Top Farm show that shadow flicker may occur over a period of 74 days per year on the most affected window. These effects would be caused by turbine 5 during a period falling either side of the summer solstice (June 21) and are predicted to occur between 7pm and 8pm for an average of 30 minutes per day. The maximum duration that shadow flicker could be experienced in any day would be 34 minutes. Annually, the most affected window could experience a maximum of 37 hours of shadow flicker."
Orchard House Farm = Knighton (B)
Noise - Minimum margin under noise limit = 6.9 dB
Visual assessment (Table 6.22) = "moderate / substantial, significant and adverse due to the scale and contrasting form of the operational turbines in some views."
Shadow Flicker - not treated - we ask the Council to inquire concerning this one.
Dorrington Hall Farm (105)
Noise - Minimum margin under noise limit = 4.8 dB
Visual assessment (Table 6E4 in Appendix 6E) = "Due to the proximity of the turbines the extent of their array and the potential for views of ground level elements such as the access road the residents at Dorrington Hall Farm are assessed as being likely to sustain a high magnitude of visual change which would generate a substantial and significant visual effect."
Shadow Flicker (paragraph 15.7.8) - The predicted effects at Dorrington Hall Farm show that shadow flicker may possibly occur over a period of 116 days per year on the most affected windows (second storey windows on the south west elevation). These effects would be caused by Turbines 1 and 6 during a period of approximately 11 weeks falling either side of the winter solstice (December 21) and during periods of approximately two weeks each during February / early March and October. These effects are predicted to occur between 3pm and 5:30pm for an average of 22 minutes per day. The maximum duration that shadow flicker could be experienced in any day would be 28 minutes. Annually, the most affected window could experience a maximum of 42 hours of shadow flicker."
College Fields Cottages (2)
Noise - Minimum margin under noise limit = 4.9 dB
Visual assessment (Table 6.19) = "substantial, significant and adverse due to the proximity to the turbines, the extent of their array and their consequent scale within the residents' views."
Shadow Flicker (paragraph 15.7.5) - "The predicted effects at College Fields Cottages show that shadow flicker may possibly occur over a period of 86 days per year on the most affected windows. These effects would be caused by turbine 7 during a period falling either side of the winter solstice (December 21) and are predicted to occur between 3pm and 4pm for an average of 21 minutes per day. The maximum duration that shadow flicker could be experienced in any day would be 28 minutes. Annually, the most affected window could experience a maximum of 30 hours of shadow flicker."
College Fields (East) (71)
Noise - Minimum margin under noise limit = 2.5 dB
Visual assessment (Table 6E4 in Appendix 6E) = "Hence it is assessed that the scale of the turbines, their contrasting movement, the limited potential effectiveness of the tree cover and the extended array of the turbines would combine to give a high magnitude of visual change in any southern or southeastern views available to residential visual receptors. This would generate a substantial and significant visual effect for the residential receptors at College Fields East for the operational period."
Shadow Flicker (paragraph 15.7.1 ambiguous reference) - "The ... software predicts that there will be no shadow flicker effects ..."
College Fields (Middle) (70) (identified as College Fields (west) on Fig 6.49)
Noise - Minimum margin under noise limit = 2.9 dB
Visual assessment (Table 6E4 in Appendix 6E) = "Hence it is assessed that the scale of the turbines, their contrasting movement, the limited potential effectiveness of the tree cover and the extended array of the turbines would combine to give a high magnitude of visual change in any southern or southeastern views available to residential visual receptors. This would generate a substantial and significant visual effect for the residential receptors at College Fields West for the operational period."
Shadow Flicker (paragraph 15.7.1 ambiguous reference) - "The ... software predicts that there will be no shadow flicker effects ..."
Poplars Farm (109)
Noise - Minimum margin under noise limit = 5.0 dB
Visual assessment (Table 6E4 in Appendix 6E) = "As a consequence of the turbines proximity of the turbines (sic) and the low levels of screening close to this residential property it is assessed that the residents at Poplars Farm would be likely to sustain a high magnitude of visual change which would generate a substantial and significant visual effect."
Shadow Flicker - not treated
Bellaport Old Hall (100)
Noise - Minimum margin under noise limit = 0.5 dB (under raised ETSU limit)
Visual assessment (Table 6E4 in Appendix 6E) = "Due to the proximity, scale and array extent of the turbines as well as the likely wide availability of views to residents within and around the Hall and farm the likely magnitude of visual change would be high which would generate a substantial, significant and adverse visual effect."
Shadow Flicker (paragraph 15.7.1) - "The ... software predicts that there will be no shadow flicker effects ..."
The Grove (101)
Noise - Minimum margin under noise limit = not given, but could be noisy, given that Bellaport Old Hall is only 0.5 dB under a raised limit.
Visual assessment (Table 6E4 in Appendix 6E) = "Due to the proximity, scale and array extent of the turbines as well as the likely wide availability of views to residents within and around the Grove the likely magnitude of visual change would be high which would generate a substantial, significant and adverse visual effect."
Shadow Flicker (paragraph 15.7.11) - "The predicted effects at The Grove show that shadow flicker may possibly occur over a period of 36 days per year on all windows. These effects would be caused by turbine 3 during periods of approximately two weeks in April and two weeks in late August / early September. The effects are predicted to occur between 5am and 6am for an average of 20 minutes per day. The maximum duration that shadow flicker could be experienced in any day would be 26 minutes. Annually, the most affected window could experience a maximum of 12 hours of shadow flicker."
We ask the Council to look at more cases in this, or a similar, way. We further ask the Council to put themselves in each receptor's shoes and consider whether the burden of effects is tolerable or not.
ES, Vol 1, Chapter 4, Section 4.10, Matters relating to decommissioning
We consider that the provisions of paragraphs 4.10.1 to 4.10.2 are inadequate. What is proposed is: "the bases will be broken out to below ground level and all cables cut at depth below ground level and left in the ground. Roads will either be left for use by the landowner or covered with topsoil". No mention is made of the hardstandings for cranes. The proposed procedure does not restore the land to its original condition. In particular, merely covering the track with a few inches of topsoil does not restore it to ploughable land.
Moreover, if the decommissioning was instead to replace with larger turbines, the original bases would be inadequate. We note that the guidance document accompanying PPS 22 states in paragraph 22 "On-site tracks need to meet the weight and dimensional requirements detailed above. A developer may propose that they are left in this condition for the life of the wind farm". That implies removal at the end of the wind farm's life. The same document states in paragraph 23 "Larger hard standings are also required next to each turbine to act as bases for cranes during turbine erection and component lay down areas. These are generally treated as temporary features and are decommissioned after construction." This decommissioning should be specified. In paragraph 28, the same document states "When a wind farm reaches the end of its design life, the turbines can easily be removed and the foundations could be re-used for the installation of new turbines (subject to planning permission) or, if required, the land could be reinstated." The proposed treatment in the EIA would not reinstate the land.
Another way in which the decommissioning procedure proposed in the ES does not reinstate the land is that it is proposed to leave the large concrete bases behind. This may be thought by some to be harmless, but examination of a picture (page 15 of "Wind Turbines and the Landscape: Architecture and Aesthetics" by Birk Nielsens Tegnestue - Landscape Architects M.A.A. (ISBN 87-985801-1-6)) of a wind turbine from the air shows a crop-mark outlining the hidden base. We would suggest that it would be environmentally preferable to remove the bases entirely, despite the probable increased cost.
The matter is important, as although it is envisioned that the turbines will be there for 25 years, nevertheless the financial climate in the nearer future could become much less favourable to onshore wind, leading to possible abandonment. "Wind Power in the UK", by Sustainable Development Commission (May 2005), page 37 states: "In fact, the technology preferences of renewable energy investors can be seen as an indicator of lowest cost - because ROCs have a relatively stable value, these investors will tend to choose the cheapest technology available to maximise their profits. Therefore, the NAO expects the RO scheme to be providing wind power generators with subsidies that are above the level needed for project viability. The NAO report recognises that this in unavoidable in the medium term, but does recommend that onshore wind is eventually reassessed and possibly excluded from future RO targets, meaning it would not qualify for ROCs."
Further Information
Unitary Planning Consultation | Regional Planning | Housing | Towns | Litter | Clutter | Tranquillity | Wind Farms | AONB
CPRE Shropshire, 11 Chestnut Grove, Ludlow, Shropshire SY8 1TJ
07771 801681. cpre@cpreshropshire.org.uk
Web design by River Tree Ideas