environmental statement - Rotherham's Online Application for ...
environmental statement - Rotherham's Online Application for ...
environmental statement - Rotherham's Online Application for ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
PENNY HILL WIND FARM<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT<br />
JULY 2009
© The Banks Group. All rights reserved.<br />
This document has been provided <strong>for</strong> your reference by The Banks Group. No material from this<br />
document may be otherwise copied, altered, republished, transmitted or distributed in any way without<br />
permission.<br />
Aerial photographs are © Getmapping PLC and © AirFotos Ltd as indicated and are also subject to<br />
the conditions above.<br />
All map data is reproduced from Raster 10,000 and Raster 50,000 by permission of Ordnance Survey<br />
registered on behalf of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2001, 2002, 20003, 2004,<br />
2005. All Rights Reserved. AL 100017630.
PREFACE<br />
This Environmental Statement has been prepared to support an application by<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm Ltd <strong>for</strong> the construction and operation of the Penny Hill Wind<br />
Farm. Banks Developments Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of The Banks Group)<br />
will be acting as the agent on behalf of Penny Hill Wind Farm Ltd. The Penny Hill<br />
Wind Farm proposal is located east of the village of Ulley at Penny Hill Lane,<br />
Rotherham, South Yorkshire. Penny Hill Wind farm Ltd will be referred to as “The<br />
Applicant” <strong>for</strong> the remainder of this Environmental Statement. Banks Developments<br />
Ltd will be referred to as “The Agent” <strong>for</strong> the remainder of the Environmental<br />
Statement.<br />
The Environmental Statement (ES) reports the findings of the Environmental Impact<br />
Assessment (EIA) co-ordinated by TNEI Services Ltd, with specialist input from the<br />
following consultants:<br />
Pegasus Environmental - Landscape & Visual;<br />
Citrine - Landscape & Visual Photography;<br />
Faber Maunsell - Ecology, Ornithology and Traffic & Transport;<br />
Arcus Renewable Energy Consulting - Archaeology & Cultural Heritage;<br />
Collett Transport - Transport;<br />
SM Foster Associates - Flood Risk; and<br />
TNEI Services - Shadow Flicker and Noise.<br />
Although not part of the EIA, the ES also includes an assessment of the proposal‟s<br />
potential aeronautical effects undertaken by Airport Planning and Development<br />
(APD) Ltd.<br />
The ES comprises the following elements:<br />
Non-Technical Summary – describing the proposal and summarising the<br />
findings of the <strong>environmental</strong> impact;<br />
Main Text and Drawings – providing a detailed description of the proposal and<br />
its potential effects, reporting the findings of the EIA and providing other<br />
relevant background in<strong>for</strong>mation;<br />
Appendices - containing relevant detailed reports of the sub-contractors,<br />
including ecology, ornithology, noise, archaeology, landscape & visual, flood<br />
risk, traffic and shadow flicker; and<br />
Visualisations – containing the visualisations at A3 size prepared to<br />
accompany the landscape and visual assessment, including photomontage<br />
and wire frame diagrams from selected viewpoints.<br />
In addition, a Design & Access Statement and a Planning Statement in support of<br />
the application have been prepared. Copies of the <strong>statement</strong>s <strong>for</strong>m part of the<br />
planning submission, although they do not <strong>for</strong>m part of the <strong>for</strong>mal ES. A <strong>for</strong>mal set<br />
of planning application drawings are also provided to accompany the planning<br />
application, using selected ES Drawings, but also do not <strong>for</strong>m part of the ES.<br />
Project Name<br />
Document Type
The Non-Technical Summary, ES, ES Drawings, Appendices, Design & Access<br />
Statement and Planning Statement are presented in a single volume in an A4 sized<br />
ring bound folder. Printed copies of the ES may be purchased at a cost of £100<br />
including post and packing from Banks Renewables Ltd at:<br />
Inkerman Road<br />
Tow Law<br />
Bishop Auckland<br />
County Durham<br />
DL13 4HG<br />
E-mail: pennyhill@banksdevelopments.com<br />
Electronic copies of the documentation on CD are also available from the above<br />
address at a cost of £10 including post and packing.<br />
Cheques <strong>for</strong> either of these <strong>for</strong>mats should be made out to the National Fuel Poverty<br />
Charity, National Energy Action, and be sent to the above address, which we will<br />
then <strong>for</strong>ward as a charitable donation.<br />
The Non-Technical Summary is available free of charge from Banks Renewables at<br />
the above address.<br />
Copies of the Non-Technical Summary and the ES are available <strong>for</strong> public<br />
consultation during normal office hours at the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough<br />
Council Development Customer Service Centre. The address is provided below:<br />
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council<br />
Civic Building Walker<br />
Place<br />
Rotherham<br />
S65 1UF<br />
In addition, the planning application can be viewed in full on the following website:<br />
http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/graphics/Residents/Planning<br />
Project Name<br />
Document Type
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
PREFACE .................................................................................................................. 1<br />
PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................ 1<br />
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2<br />
2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 11<br />
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS ............................. 20<br />
4. SITE SELECTION AND DESIGN .................................................................. 30<br />
5. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND DECOMMISIONING ......................... 40<br />
PART 2: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................. 48<br />
6. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ......................................................................... 49<br />
7. ECOLOGY & NATURE CONSERVATION ................................................. 167<br />
8. ORNITHOLOGY .......................................................................................... 196<br />
9. NOISE ......................................................................................................... 209<br />
10. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ........................................ 221<br />
PART 3: DESCRIPTION OF OTHER EFFECTS ................................................... 248<br />
11. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ....................................................................... 249<br />
12. CIVILLIAN AND MILITARY AERONAUTICAL RADAR ............................. 275<br />
13. GROUND CONDITIONS AND HYDROLOGY ............................................ 281<br />
14. RADIO-COMMUNICATIONS AND TELEVISION ....................................... 289<br />
15. SHADOW FLICKER .................................................................................... 294<br />
16. OTHER ISSUES .......................................................................................... 300<br />
Project Name<br />
Document Type
PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION<br />
1<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
1. INTRODUCTION<br />
THIS DOCUMENT<br />
1.1 This document <strong>for</strong>ms the Environmental Statement accompanying<br />
the application <strong>for</strong> planning permission made by Banks Renewables Ltd<br />
(the Applicant) to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to develop the<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm. The proposal site is located on farmland to the<br />
west of the M1 and M18 interchange south of Rotherham, to the east of<br />
the village of Ulley.<br />
1.2 The preparation of the Environmental Statement has been co-ordinated on<br />
behalf of the Applicant by TNEI Services Ltd. Detailed assessments of<br />
potential <strong>environmental</strong> effects have been undertaken by TNEI Services<br />
Ltd and other specialised consultants.<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT STRUCTURE<br />
1.3 The Environmental Statement (ES) describes the proposal and reports the<br />
findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The ES consists<br />
of the following documents:<br />
Non-Technical Summary – describing the proposal and summarising<br />
the findings of the EIA;<br />
Main Text and Figures – providing a detailed description of the<br />
proposal and its potential effects, reporting the findings of the EIA and<br />
providing other relevant background in<strong>for</strong>mation;<br />
Appendices - containing in<strong>for</strong>mation on consultation and relevant<br />
detailed reports of the sub-contractors; and<br />
Visualisations – containing the visualisations at A3 size prepared to<br />
accompany the landscape and visual assessment, including<br />
photomontage and wire frame diagrams from selected viewpoints.<br />
1.4 In addition, a Design & Access Statement and a Planning Statement in<br />
support of the application have been prepared. Copies of these <strong>statement</strong>s<br />
<strong>for</strong>m part of the planning application submission, although they do not <strong>for</strong>m<br />
part of the <strong>for</strong>mal ES.<br />
1.5 The Non Technical Summary, ES, ES Drawings, Appendices, Design &<br />
Access Statement and Planning Statement are presented in a single<br />
volume in an A4 sized ring bound folder. The landscape and visual impact<br />
assessment visualisations are presented in a separate bound A3 volume.<br />
1.6 This ES is split into three parts:<br />
Part 1 – Describes the EIA process, the policy background, the site and<br />
the proposed development;<br />
2<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Part 2 – Summarises the findings of the EIA with regard to each of the<br />
following potential significant <strong>environmental</strong> effects:<br />
landscape and visual;<br />
ecology and nature conservation;<br />
ornithology;<br />
noise; and<br />
archaeology and cultural heritage.<br />
Part 3 – Provides a description of other potential effects:<br />
construction traffic;<br />
civilian and military aeronautical interests;<br />
radio-communications and television;<br />
ground conditions and flood risk;<br />
shadow flicker; and<br />
other issues (e.g. <strong>environmental</strong> management, health and safety).<br />
1.7 Details of the methodologies <strong>for</strong> each assessment are provided in the<br />
relevant sections.<br />
1.8 The approach taken in the EIA to the identification and assessment of<br />
potentially significant effects of the proposal is consistent with guidelines<br />
published by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment<br />
(IEMA). The standard <strong>for</strong>mat <strong>for</strong> each of these sections is as follows:<br />
a description of the methodology used to assess the impacts, including<br />
specific guidance documents used;<br />
a summary of the relevant consultation responses received, relating to<br />
that specific impact;<br />
a description of the baseline in<strong>for</strong>mation, including the relevant features<br />
of the site and a description of the available in<strong>for</strong>mation arising from<br />
the baseline monitoring undertaken;<br />
a description of the likely impacts of the development on the<br />
environment;<br />
a summary of proposed mitigation;<br />
an evaluation of the level and significance of residual impacts; and<br />
3<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
a summary of the assessment, including proposals to avoid or mitigate<br />
potential adverse effects, where they are identified.<br />
1.9 Throughout the document, reference is made to the Applicant‟s intention to<br />
produce, and adhere to the provisions of, both a Construction Method<br />
Statement (CMS) and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), prior to<br />
the commencement of construction. A draft EMP <strong>for</strong> the Penny Hill site is<br />
included as Appendix 12.<br />
1.10 It is envisaged by the Applicant that the scope of both the CMS and the<br />
final EMP will be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, in consultation<br />
with the Environment Agency, through appropriate planning conditions.<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
The Proposed Development<br />
1.11 The main elements of the proposal can be summarised as follows:<br />
Six wind turbines, with a maximum tip height of 132 metres, each with<br />
a maximum individual installed capacity of approximately 3.3<br />
megawatts (MW);<br />
Improvements to existing means of access from the public highway at<br />
Penny Hill Lane;<br />
approximately 3.5 km of new access tracks;<br />
underground electrical cabling;<br />
wind monitoring mast (permanent <strong>for</strong> the lifetime of the wind farm);<br />
site control building and substation;<br />
a temporary construction compound <strong>for</strong> the duration of the construction<br />
period; and<br />
hardstanding areas, fences and other associated infrastructure.<br />
1.12 The <strong>environmental</strong> effects of developing each of these elements are<br />
assessed in this ES.<br />
1.13 In parallel with the proposed development taking place, the Applicant will<br />
establish a Community Fund, which will receive money throughout the life<br />
of the proposed development. The fund will be available to assist local<br />
community projects and discussions will continue to take place between<br />
the Applicant and possible grant funding agencies and bodies with a view<br />
to the Community Fund being used to „lever in‟ additional grant funding <strong>for</strong><br />
local projects.<br />
4<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
1.14 The installed capacity of the proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm would be up<br />
to a maximum of 19.8 MW, based on the potential use of 3.3 MW turbines.<br />
The current approved regional renewable energy target <strong>for</strong> Yorkshire and<br />
Humber requires 708 MW of installed capacity by 2010 and 1,862 MW by<br />
2021. The target <strong>for</strong> the South Yorkshire sub-region is 47 MW, by 2010<br />
and 160 MW by 2021. The sub regional target is broken down further to<br />
Local Authority area, <strong>for</strong> Rotherham the 2010 target is 11 MW and the<br />
2021 target is 36 MW. To date five wind farms totalling 34.2MW of power<br />
is being generated in the Yorkshire and Humber region, which represents<br />
just 1.74% of the RSS 2021 target. Of the 34.2MW just 7.8MW is within<br />
the South Yorkshire sub-region. Within the Rotherham area, there is only<br />
one operational wind energy development at the Advanced Manufacturing<br />
Research Centre, with a 1.3MW capacity, although there is an extant<br />
planning permission <strong>for</strong> the development of a 3.9MW wind farm at Loscar.<br />
1.15 The Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal has been prepared following an<br />
extensive consultation process involving the distribution of over 2,000<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation leaflets, two public exhibition days at three separate venues<br />
and several meetings with a number of key stakeholders and consultees.<br />
Full details of the consultations undertaken and the feedback received,<br />
including the comments made by local residents at the public exhibition,<br />
are reported in Appendix 1 and summarised later in Section 3 of this ES.<br />
THE NEED FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY<br />
1.16 The UK, along with over 180 other countries has signed the Kyoto<br />
Protocol, which commits all signatories to significantly reduce greenhouse<br />
gas emissions by fixed targets, resulting in an initial UK target of reducing<br />
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 60% by 2050. The UK Government<br />
stated that renewable energy is an integral part of the Government's<br />
longer-term aim of reducing CO2 emissions, setting targets of 10% of<br />
electricity supply from renewable energy by 2010 and 20% by 2020.<br />
1.17 The European Union has committed to a target of 20% of all energy (not<br />
just electricity) coming from renewable resources by 2020. The UK share<br />
of this target is to have 15% of all energy coming from renewable<br />
resources by 2020.<br />
1.18 The UK Government published “The Energy White Paper: Meeting the<br />
Energy Challenge” in May 2007. This White Paper sets out the<br />
Government‟s international and domestic energy strategy to respond to<br />
these changing circumstances, address the long term energy challenges<br />
we face and deliver four energy policy goals:<br />
to put ourselves on a path to substantially cutting CO2 emissions;<br />
to maintain the reliability of energy supplies;<br />
to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond; and<br />
5<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
to ensure that every home is adequately and af<strong>for</strong>dably heated.<br />
1.19 Box 5.3.3 of the White Paper is a “Renewables Statement of Need”<br />
detailing the Government‟s current policy towards the development of<br />
renewables and the important role they have to play in helping the UK<br />
meet its energy policy goals.<br />
1.20 The Renewables Statement of Need states:<br />
„New renewable projects may not always appear to convey any particular<br />
local benefit, but they provide crucial national benefits. Individual<br />
renewable projects are part of a growing proportion of low carbon<br />
generation that provides benefits shared by all communities both through<br />
reduced emissions and more diverse supply of energy, which helps the<br />
reliability of our supplies. This factor is a material consideration to which<br />
all participants in the planning system should give significant weight when<br />
considering renewable energy proposals. These wider benefits are not<br />
always immediately visible to the specific locality in which the project is<br />
sited. However, the benefits to society and the wider economy as a whole<br />
are significant and this must be reflected in the weight given to these<br />
considerations by decision makers in reaching their decisions.‟<br />
1.21 The Government‟s “UK Renewable Energy Strategy – Consultation<br />
Document” was published in June 2008. This is a consultation document<br />
seeking views on how to drive up the use of renewable energy in the UK,<br />
as part of an overall strategy <strong>for</strong> tackling climate change and to meet the<br />
UK share of the EU target to source 20% of the EU's energy from<br />
renewable sources by 2020. Responses to the consultation will help shape<br />
the UK Renewable Energy Strategy which will be published in Spring<br />
2009, once the UK's share of the target has been agreed. The document<br />
rein<strong>for</strong>ces the two key energy policy challenges: to tackle climate change<br />
and ensure security of energy supply. It confirms that renewable sources<br />
of energy are vital as they provide low-carbon energy, increase diversity to<br />
the energy mix and bring key business and employment opportunities.<br />
1.22 Most recently, The Climate Change Act 2008, received Royal Ascent on<br />
26 th November 2008, and introduces the world‟s first long term legally<br />
binding framework to tackle the dangers of climate change. This<br />
legislation reiterates the UK government‟s commitment to the role of<br />
renewable energy as an important factor in the move to a low carbon<br />
economy.<br />
1.23 There are also strong socio-economic arguments in support of the<br />
development of renewable energy. Until recently the availability of<br />
relatively cheap supplies of oil and gas from countries such as Columbia,<br />
Russia and Poland led to increased levels of imports. International<br />
increases in the price of gas and oil, and increased instability in the<br />
availability of imports from some of these countries has led to a review of<br />
the country‟s future energy sources. Renewable energy seeks to redress<br />
the balance by delivering greater self-sufficiency in energy supply. There<br />
6<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
are also advantages in decentralised embedded electricity generation<br />
including a reduction in the amount of electricity lost during transmission<br />
and supply failures.<br />
1.24 Wind energy is an inexhaustible and indigenous energy source.<br />
Furthermore, the UK is the windiest country in Western Europe. As such,<br />
wind is currently recognised by the UK Government as the most<br />
economically viable source of green electricity in the UK and that it can<br />
reasonably be expected to be proposed in all regions of the country.<br />
1.25 The proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm should be considered in light of the<br />
above, which are the most recent expression of Government policy on<br />
renewable energy development. Of particular importance are the very<br />
clear targets that the UK has <strong>for</strong> substantially reducing CO2 emissions and<br />
significantly expanding the amount of electricity to be produced from<br />
renewable resources.<br />
THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE PROJECT<br />
1.26 The rationale <strong>for</strong> the proposed development can be summarised as<br />
follows:<br />
The UK, along with over 180 other countries, has signed the Kyoto<br />
Protocol which commits all signatories to significantly reduce<br />
greenhouse gas emissions by fixed targets;<br />
The decline in the finite indigenous energy supplies of the UK (mostly<br />
fossil based), and the need to provide a range of alternative sources;<br />
Wind energy is an inexhaustible and indigenous energy source (the UK<br />
is the windiest country in Western Europe) and is widely recognised as<br />
the most promising and economically viable source of green electricity<br />
in the country;<br />
Governmental guidance on tackling climate change recognises the<br />
needs to both develop renewable energy sources and promote energy<br />
efficiency. The opportunity exists at the Penny Hill site to deliver a<br />
local scale renewable energy proposal that would deliver up to a<br />
maximum of 19.8 Megawatts (MW). This would contribute significantly<br />
towards the Rotherham Borough the regional renewable energy target<br />
of 36 MW by 2021;<br />
The site has been comprehensively assessed by the Applicant, is<br />
relatively unconstrained and has been identified as being suitable <strong>for</strong><br />
the development of a wind energy proposal (discussed further in<br />
Section 4); and<br />
The site benefits from a viable wind resource (discussed further in<br />
Section 4).<br />
7<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
PROJECT OBJECTIVES<br />
1.27 The project is being proposed by the Applicant as a locally based initiative<br />
to utilise the on-site wind resource to contribute towards Rotherham‟s<br />
2021 renewable energy target and national renewable energy targets,<br />
while also providing local economic and <strong>environmental</strong> benefits. The<br />
Applicant has a main office in the area, at Barlborough, and this project<br />
has particular local significance to their business.<br />
1.28 The overall objectives of the Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal are as<br />
follows:<br />
To generate a locally significant amount of clean, renewable electricity<br />
thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions;<br />
To take a responsive approach to local constraints and by doing so, in<br />
visual terms, realise a scheme which achieves a coherent, balanced<br />
and logical impression when viewed from principal viewpoints and<br />
produces a scheme that is an acceptable scale and layout <strong>for</strong> the site<br />
and surrounding area;<br />
To produce a financial return to the Applicants and in turn, to the<br />
communities around the site, principally through the sale of electricity<br />
to the national electricity market and the establishment of the<br />
Community Fund (discussed above);<br />
To support the expanding renewable based industries in the region and<br />
beyond; and<br />
To support sustainable energy initiatives within the Borough.<br />
PROJECT BENEFITS<br />
1.29 The project would deliver the following benefits:<br />
A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by harnessing power from<br />
the wind as an alternative to the burning of fossil fuels;<br />
Produce an indigenous energy supply, reducing the UK‟s reliance on<br />
imported fossil fuels;<br />
Potentially create and sustain employment opportunities during the<br />
manufacturing and construction period of the project;<br />
Enhance the clean, green, sustainable image of Rotherham and the<br />
surrounding borough;<br />
Support farm diversification;<br />
Provide long term income to the agricultural businesses on the site;<br />
and<br />
8<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Establishment of a Community Fund with the aim of improving energy<br />
efficiency and reducing fuel poverty in Rotherham.<br />
The Applicant<br />
1.30 This application has been submitted by Banks Developments Ltd on behalf<br />
of Penny Hill Wind Farm Ltd, both a wholly owned subsidiary of the Banks<br />
Group.<br />
1.31 Since its foundation in 1976 the Banks Group operations have undergone<br />
carefully planned growth and diversification into new business areas. The<br />
Banks Group now operate in four business areas:<br />
renewable energy;<br />
mineral extraction;<br />
waste management; and<br />
land reclamation.<br />
1.32 The Group‟s renewable energy division operates from its offices in<br />
Barlborough in Bolsover and Tow Law in County Durham, and draws on<br />
the company‟s 30 years of experience in successfully developing<br />
significant projects in the minerals, waste and property sectors. The<br />
entrance into the Renewable Energy sector was a natural progression <strong>for</strong><br />
a developer with both experience in identifying and delivering successful<br />
projects, and an existing relationship with energy generators in the North<br />
East region and throughout the UK.<br />
1.33 The renewable energy division is exploring opportunities <strong>for</strong> generating<br />
green electricity throughout the UK and considers itself to be well placed to<br />
contribute towards the renewable energy targets set by the UK<br />
Government.<br />
1.34 The Banks Group‟s success in delivering major projects has largely been<br />
attributed to its „Development With Care‟ approach, which is central to the<br />
aims and objectives of the business. Their commitment to the local<br />
community is demonstrated by the way in which they strive <strong>for</strong> total<br />
satisfaction in all of their dealings. They also publish and adhere to best<br />
practice policies and especially in encouraging community participation in<br />
their projects. Banks are continually improving their per<strong>for</strong>mance and<br />
competitiveness, using exciting new ideas and have a real commitment to<br />
„Development With Care‟ in all of their work. The „Banks in the<br />
Community‟ brochure illustrating this concept is contained in Appendix 2.<br />
1.35 In 2004 the Banks Group won an award <strong>for</strong> its ef<strong>for</strong>ts in involving the local<br />
communities in the design of the restoration of its surface mine at<br />
Pegswood in Northumberland to a community park, providing community<br />
recreational facilities including fishing and boating, as well as protected<br />
9<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
and enhanced wildlife habitats. In the same year the Group won an award<br />
from the Noise Abatement Society <strong>for</strong> innovation through the use of the<br />
best, most up to date equipment and a deeper understanding of noise<br />
concerns. These awards demonstrate the range of expertise available<br />
within the Banks Group. This expertise has been applied to the design<br />
and assessment of the Penny Hill proposal and would be applied during<br />
the construction of the wind farm, should planning permission be granted.<br />
10<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
2.1 This section describes the principles and details of the proposed Penny<br />
Hill Wind Farm, as submitted. Included in this section are details of all<br />
elements of the proposed scheme covering the construction, operational<br />
and decommissioning periods.<br />
2.2 Prior to the commencement of construction activity, an Environmental<br />
Management Plan (EMP) and Construction Method Statement (CMS) will<br />
be prepared, covering details of each major item of work required and<br />
detailing in particular the final locations of the turbines, tracks and other<br />
infrastructure. A draft EMP <strong>for</strong> the Penny Hill site is included at Appendix<br />
12. It is envisaged that the agreed final version of these documents will be<br />
the subject of a planning condition and agreed in advance with the local<br />
planning authority.<br />
SITE LAYOUT OVERVIEW<br />
2.3 The total land take of the wind farm, including foundations, temporary<br />
crane pads, construction compound, access tracks, control building,<br />
substation and meteorological mast is estimated to be no greater than 6<br />
hectares during construction. This represents a maximum of 4.8% of the<br />
planning application area, which encompasses approximately 125.5<br />
hectares. Upon commissioning and the completion of site restoration<br />
works the actual footprint of the wind farm infrastructure would only be<br />
approximately 2.5 hectares, representing only 2% of the planning<br />
application area.<br />
2.4 Drawing HJB/681/PA05 depicts the proposed site layout and shows all<br />
elements of the operational wind farm including the locations of the six<br />
proposed turbines. It also illustrates the site tracks and highway access<br />
points, the on-site control building and substation, and the permanent<br />
meteorological monitoring mast. Drawing HJB/681/PA05 also shows the<br />
location of the temporary construction compound. At each turbine location<br />
a crane pad will be required adjacent to the foundation to provide<br />
adequate bearing <strong>for</strong> the cranes carrying out turbine erection, as illustrated<br />
by Drawing HJB/681/PA11.<br />
2.5 The main access to the site will be from Penny Hill Lane, with a crossing<br />
point to the two turbines in the north of the site across Brampton Lane.<br />
The access will be designed to allow the turbine delivery vehicles and<br />
other construction vehicles to leave the highway quickly and safely. The<br />
access junction is shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA14.<br />
11<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
2.6 The proposed turbines would be accessed by approximately 3.5km of onsite<br />
access tracks. These would have an average surface width of 5m and<br />
would be constructed of stone with a crushed stone running surface. The<br />
routes of these tracks are shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA05 and details of<br />
their construction are illustrated on Drawing HJB/681/PA12. Following the<br />
construction of the wind farm the site roads would be retained to<br />
accommodate maintenance traffic, consisting of visits by a light van.<br />
2.7 Trenching <strong>for</strong> cabling running between the proposed turbines will generally<br />
run parallel to the site roads connecting individual turbines to the electrical<br />
collection network. All the on-site circuits will converge at the site control<br />
building and substation from where the electricity generated by the<br />
turbines will be exported to the local grid.<br />
2.8 The layout of the wind farm has resulted from a process of design that has<br />
responded to a varied and diverse set of constraints. Principal aims were<br />
to achieve a layout that:<br />
Avoids constraints such as known overhead power lines,<br />
archaeological features, ecologically sensitive habitats and<br />
telecommunication links;<br />
Maintains an appropriate stand-off distance from residential properties<br />
in order to satisfy UK Government guidelines on wind turbine noise and<br />
disturbance; and<br />
Achieves a logical and balanced appearance from key viewpoints.<br />
2.9 These aims, combined with other practical considerations, have resulted<br />
in a compact layout of turbines on the site with a cohesive footprint. The<br />
design process is covered in more detail in Section 4 of this ES.<br />
2.10 The final layout has remained as specified within the Scoping Report with<br />
the inclusion of six turbines, due to the relatively unconstrained nature of<br />
the site the ability to maximise the potential <strong>for</strong> energy production could be<br />
realised. Since the submission of the Scoping Report the ability <strong>for</strong><br />
turbines with an increased generating power has progressed, there<strong>for</strong>e the<br />
submission seeks consent <strong>for</strong> the erection of turbines with a maximum<br />
height of 132m, which have a installed capacity of up to 3.3MW.<br />
2.11 It should also be noted that this application <strong>for</strong> planning permission seeks<br />
permission <strong>for</strong> a 50 metre „micro siting‟ allowance in order <strong>for</strong> an efficient<br />
construction process to be achieved. The contents of the ES and thus the<br />
individual assessments have been undertaken with this bore in mind,<br />
however in order <strong>for</strong> a practical assessment to have taken place fixed<br />
turbine locations have been cited within the assessment. Should planning<br />
permission be granted the final turbine locations will be submitted to the<br />
Local Planning Authority <strong>for</strong> consideration prior to turbine erection to<br />
12<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
ensure an acceptable scenario <strong>for</strong> both parties (The applicant and the<br />
LPA) is attained.<br />
Turbine Specification<br />
2.12 The six turbines would be of a modern design with three bladed rotors<br />
mounted on nacelles housing the generator, gearbox and other operating<br />
equipment.<br />
2.13 The six turbines would all be of the same height and specification, with a<br />
hub height of around 80 m and a maximum height to blade tip of up to<br />
132m. The nacelles would be mounted on a tubular tower, which allows<br />
access to the nacelle. A diagram of an indicative wind turbine is shown as<br />
Drawing HJB/681/PA10.<br />
2.14 The final choice of turbine and manufacturer would be made at the <strong>for</strong>mal<br />
tendering stage, following consent. At this stage however, <strong>for</strong> the<br />
purposes of this EIA the largest available turbines that the site could<br />
accommodate, which would provide the maximum benefits in terms of<br />
renewable electricity output, have been considered in the assessment of<br />
the proposal, where appropriate. It is envisaged that the final choice,<br />
specification and colour of the turbines would be agreed with the Local<br />
Planning Authority through appropriate planning conditions.<br />
2.15 The types of turbines considered <strong>for</strong> this proposal normally begin to<br />
generate electricity at wind speeds of approximately 3-5 metres per<br />
second (m/s) rising to their maximum output at around 12-18 m/s. At wind<br />
speeds of around 25 m/s or greater the turbines would automatically shut<br />
down <strong>for</strong> safety reasons. All the turbines on the site would rotate in the<br />
same direction as viewed from the windward side, and would typically<br />
operate at a variable rotational speed of between 9 and 19 rpm. It is<br />
proposed that the turbine tower, nacelle and blades be finished in a light<br />
grey colour with a semi-matt finish. It is proposed that should external<br />
trans<strong>for</strong>mers be considered necessary they will be finished appropriately<br />
<strong>for</strong> the background to the agreement of the Local Planning Authority.<br />
2.16 Once operational, the wind turbines would operate automatically, requiring<br />
occasional visits by technicians in a light commercial van or similar<br />
vehicle. Some longer servicing visits would be required, along with<br />
reasonable unscheduled maintenance as may be necessary. Occasional<br />
visits by larger vehicles, such as cranes or lorries similar to those used<br />
during construction, may be necessary during the operational lifespan of<br />
the wind farm, should there be a requirement to replace any major turbine<br />
components.<br />
13<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Meteorological Monitoring<br />
2.17 Wind farm per<strong>for</strong>mance would be remotely monitored using a permanent<br />
meteorological mast, the location of which is shown on Drawing<br />
HJB/681/PA05, together with a System Control and Data Acquisitions<br />
(SCADA) system that would monitor the individual turbines. Anemometry<br />
equipment including wind speed and direction measurement equipment<br />
would be positioned near the top of the mast on booms. The mast would<br />
be up to 80m tall and a typical specification is depicted on Drawing<br />
HJB/681/PA09. A slim-line lattice tower would be used. It is, however,<br />
envisaged that the final choice of anemometer mast type would be agreed<br />
through an appropriate planning condition, and presented in the CMS.<br />
Turbine Foundations<br />
2.18 It is proposed that rein<strong>for</strong>ced concrete gravity foundations would be used<br />
<strong>for</strong> the proposed turbines. This foundation type is typically an inverted T<br />
shape consisting of a large square pad with a protruding upstand that lies<br />
flush with the reinstated ground level. The excavation in which the turbine<br />
foundation is cast would be backfilled with suitable stone, placed and<br />
compacted over the foundation. The subsoil and topsoil stripped prior to<br />
foundation excavation would be retained and reinstated around the base<br />
of the turbine tower when backfilling has been completed. The turbine<br />
towers would be connected to the foundation by a „foundation ring‟ cast<br />
into the foundation, or alternatively by „holding down‟ bolts, again cast into<br />
the foundation. Stability <strong>for</strong> the turbine is provided through both the weight<br />
of the foundation and the material replaced and compacted over it. The<br />
final foundation design will depend on the results from detailed ground<br />
investigation, though it is currently expected that most turbines will not<br />
require piled foundations. Although considered unlikely, detailed ground<br />
investigation may reveal that piling or roch anchors may be necessary.<br />
2.19 A typical turbine foundation is shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA11. Detailed<br />
design specifications <strong>for</strong> each foundation would depend on site-specific<br />
factors such as ground conditions, the specific turbine model selected and<br />
various other engineering issues. Nevertheless, turbines of the size<br />
proposed typically require a square concrete base with dimensions of<br />
approximately 19 x 19 square metres. Including the protruding upstand,<br />
the overall depth of the foundation would be around 3.5 metres. Each<br />
turbine foundation would comprise up to 400 cubic metres (or 720 tonnes)<br />
of concrete and approximately 40 tonnes of rein<strong>for</strong>cing steel. Following<br />
construction of the foundation and the placing of the structural backfill, the<br />
layer of subsoil and topsoil originally excavated from the turbine foundation<br />
area would be reinstated.<br />
14<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
On-Site Tracks<br />
2.20 From the junction with the public highway at Penny Hill Lane and the<br />
crossing point over Brampton Lane, approximately 3.5km of site tracks<br />
would run through the site linking the turbines, meteorological mast, site<br />
control building and substation, construction compound and other site<br />
infrastructure.<br />
2.21 In designing the layout of the tracks and the location of the access point<br />
onto the public highway, the Applicant has attempted to limit the length of<br />
track required in order to: minimise the amount of roadstone to be used<br />
(and thus limit construction vehicle movements); minimise the loss of<br />
agricultural land; and minimise the likelihood of disturbing ground nesting<br />
birds during the construction period.<br />
2.22 The site tracks will be constructed to an average of 5m running width to<br />
accommodate wind farm construction vehicles and maintenance traffic<br />
during operation. It is proposed that the site tracks will be constructed<br />
using stone obtained from quarries located in the local area. The<br />
construction of the site roads shall be carried out using best practice<br />
methodologies used on previous wind farm developments. The location<br />
and route of the site tracks is illustrated in Drawing HJB/681/PA05.<br />
2.23 Typically, the construction of site tracks involves stripping the topsoil over<br />
the footprint of the track, and the laying of roadstone to achieve the<br />
required road make-up. The stripped subsoil and topsoil would be<br />
reinstated at the shoulders of the road and allowed to re-vegetate. The<br />
detailed method <strong>for</strong> constructing site tracks would be included in the CMS<br />
prior to construction commencing and would take into consideration key<br />
factors such as drainage and ground conditions.<br />
2.24 Drainage would be provided through the tracks permeability to ensure that<br />
the impact on local hydrology would be minimised. There may be a need<br />
<strong>for</strong> a small number of passing places at strategic points along the site<br />
tracks. The passing places would be suitable <strong>for</strong> a flat bed trailer and<br />
would be an additional 5m in width over the normal width of the access<br />
track. The position and final design of passing places would be included<br />
within the CMS prior to construction.<br />
2.25 Whilst every ef<strong>for</strong>t has been made to avoid surface water features, two<br />
crossings of streams within the site will be required. Culverts would be<br />
used to cross watercourses. A Flood Risk Assessment has been<br />
undertaken <strong>for</strong> the proposed development and has concluded that the site<br />
is located within Flood Zone 1 and is there<strong>for</strong>e at low risk of fluvial<br />
flooding. The proposed development is not considered to be at risk of<br />
flooding from groundwater, overland flow or local surface runoff and will<br />
not result in any net change in surface water runoff from the site. Further<br />
details are provided within Section 13 (Ground Conditions and Hydrology).<br />
15<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
2.26 Tracks between turbines are required during the operational period of the<br />
wind farm to allow <strong>for</strong> maintenance operations, particularly the<br />
replacement of turbine/electrical components if required.<br />
Crane Pads<br />
2.27 Two cranes would be required during the erection of each turbine, typically<br />
a 500 to 650 tonne crane and a smaller 100 to 250 tonne tailing crane. To<br />
provide stable, firm ground <strong>for</strong> cranes to stand on during the installation of<br />
turbines, hard-standing areas would be laid down adjacent to the<br />
foundation. These would be suitable <strong>for</strong> the outriggers of the respective<br />
cranes, leading to an area of approximately 20m by 40m in total.<br />
Typically, construction of the hard-standing areas would be similar to the<br />
construction of the site tracks, with the top 300mm of topsoil being stripped<br />
and stored adjacent to the sites, with the remaining topsoil removed down<br />
to the hard substrate. Geotextile material would be laid down and stone<br />
laid on top to a depth required <strong>for</strong> adequate bearing of the crane<br />
outriggers. The crushed stone would be sourced from local quarries.<br />
Following completion of the construction works, the crane hardstandings<br />
shall be left in-situ to allow any extraordinary maintenance such as major<br />
component replacement, and to also support cranes during eventual<br />
decommissioning. Following the commissioning of the site, however, the<br />
pads would be reinstated with the original topsoil replaced over the load<br />
bearing material and allowed to regenerate naturally. Drawing<br />
HJB/681/PA11 illustrates an indicative crane pad and its relationship to a<br />
turbine.<br />
On-Site Cabling<br />
2.28 The wind turbines to be used at the Penny Hill site would typically produce<br />
electricity at 690-1000 Volts. This would pass through a trans<strong>for</strong>mer<br />
typically located within the nacelle, the base of the tower or in a cabinet<br />
outside the tower, be<strong>for</strong>e being connected into the wind farm underground<br />
collection circuitry.<br />
2.29 The wind turbines would be connected to the on-site metering and control<br />
building and substation via 11 kV or 33kV underground cables placed in<br />
trenches. The cables would generally follow the route of the on-site tracks<br />
as described above. The route would be marked above ground with<br />
clearly identified posts, spaced at suitable intervals along the length. In all<br />
cases, the cables would be buried to a depth of approximately 1m.<br />
Rein<strong>statement</strong> would be in line with the general methods described<br />
previously (i.e. re-laying the previously stripped subsoil and topsoil over<br />
the top of the cable trench).<br />
2.30 Separate communication cables and earth tapes would also be laid in the<br />
trench. Cables would be laid in sand <strong>for</strong> protection, with warning<br />
tapes/boards placed above high voltage cables to mitigate the risk of<br />
unintentional excavation. Where trenches are located on downhill<br />
16<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
gradients, impermeable barriers (plugs) would be placed in the sand layer<br />
at regular intervals to prevent the trench acting as a water conduit.<br />
Site Control Building And Substation<br />
2.31 The underground cables routed from the turbines will come together at the<br />
site control building, located within a compound positioned just south of<br />
Brampton Lane. The location is detailed on Drawing HJB/681/PA05.<br />
2.32 The control building would have a footprint of approximately 12m by 10m<br />
and would be approximately 5.5m in height. An indicative design <strong>for</strong> this<br />
building is reproduced in Drawing HJB/681/PA13. The final configuration<br />
and layout of this building would be agreed with the planning authority as<br />
part of the CMS and would be of similar floor area to that specified above.<br />
The substation would be approximately 31m x 36.5m and about 5.5m in<br />
height.<br />
2.33 The control building and substation would house the wind farm switchgear,<br />
protection equipment, metering and control equipment, communication<br />
equipment and any other electrical infrastructure required to operate the<br />
wind farm. In addition, within the control building, there would be facilities<br />
provided appropriate to the work of the on-site technicians. Such facilities<br />
may include; a lavatory connected to an earth closet system or a septic<br />
tank and soakaway, washing facilities, a non-potable water supply initiated<br />
from a grey water collection system, mess and kitchen facilities, a store<br />
room, a meeting room and a small workshop. It is envisaged that the<br />
control building would be of a vernacular pitched roof and concrete block<br />
construction, and it is anticipated that wall finishes, roofing materials and<br />
detailed architectural design would be agreed with the local planning<br />
authority prior to construction, through an appropriate planning condition.<br />
2.34 The control building and substation would be located within a 40m x 40m<br />
compound area suitable <strong>for</strong> access by operations and maintenance<br />
vehicles and the storage of electrical equipment such as auxiliary<br />
trans<strong>for</strong>mers and standby generators.<br />
Site Access<br />
2.35 The Applicant commissioned an access study from specialist highway<br />
consultants Collett Transport. Details of the study are included in Section<br />
11 (Construction Traffic) and the full report is in Appendix 7. This study<br />
has concluded that access to the site <strong>for</strong> the delivery of turbine<br />
components is not anticipated to be a constraint to the development. All<br />
necessary road consents, abnormal load orders and precise traffic<br />
management methods could be satisfactorily dealt with in the post-consent<br />
and construction phases of the project including any potential s278<br />
agreements. The Applicant would address such issues in the proposed<br />
CMS in discussions with the relevant highways authorities (Highways<br />
Agency and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council), this will also<br />
17<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
include an appropriate control mechanism <strong>for</strong> the crossing point on<br />
Brampton Lane during both construction and operation of the wind farm.<br />
2.36 It is envisaged that turbine components would be delivered to the site via<br />
the public road network from a suitable port such as Immingham or Goole.<br />
The principal access route would utilitise the M18, leaving at Junction 1<br />
between Hellaby and Wickersley, then taking the A631 westbound to the<br />
roundabout, turning left onto B6060 through Wickersley, then right onto<br />
Hawk Hill Lane, be<strong>for</strong>e continuing westbound to the site.<br />
2.37 It is proposed that all other construction vehicles would use the M1 leaving<br />
at Junction 31 between Aughton and Todwick. They would turn left at first<br />
exit onto the A57, and then turn left at the crossroads onto B6463, turn left<br />
onto the unclassified road/Common road and finally left into Penny Hill<br />
Lane to continue to the site entrance.<br />
Site Grid Connection<br />
2.38 The grid connection <strong>for</strong> the Penny Hill Wind Farm would be the subject of<br />
a separate consenting procedure under Section 37 of the Electricity Act<br />
1989 if it utilises a new overhead line, or an application <strong>for</strong> planning<br />
permission (or use of a permitted development order by a statutory<br />
undertaker) <strong>for</strong> an underground connection. Following the commissioning<br />
of a grid connection study, a preferred potential connection point has been<br />
identified by the Applicant. The preferred option is to connect directly with<br />
the 66 kV overhead line that is located adjacent to the construction<br />
compound. Drawing HJB/681/PA23 shows the likely details of the grid<br />
connection.<br />
2.39 The connection to be used and the detailed specification of the connection<br />
will be subject to on-going negotiations with the Distribution Network<br />
Operator (YEDL) and a separate grid application process.<br />
EMISSIONS SAVINGS AND HOUSEHOLDER CALCULATIONS<br />
2.40 Every unit (kWh) of electricity produced through wind power can displace a<br />
unit of electricity which might otherwise have been produced by a power<br />
station burning fossil fuel. Nuclear power stations operate constantly at<br />
base-load such that the output from mainly coal-fired and, increasingly<br />
over time gas-fired plant, is adjusted to meet the increases in electricity<br />
demand above this base load on the system. As such, the electricity<br />
generated by wind turbines could effectively replace the output of coalfired<br />
or gas-fired power stations, unit <strong>for</strong> unit.<br />
2.41 The amount of gaseous emissions that wind energy can directly prevent<br />
being emitted from fossil fuel fired plant can be estimated on the basis of<br />
the figure provided by the British Wind Energy Association (following its<br />
discussions with the Advertising Standard Authority), of 430g CO2/kWh.<br />
Given the complexities of the UK electricity generation mix and the state of<br />
the UK energy market, the Advertising Standard Authority has<br />
18<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
acknowledged that it is likely that the agreed figure understates the actual<br />
displacement figure.<br />
2.42 The energy generated by the proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm has been<br />
calculated using:<br />
manufacturers wind speed curves <strong>for</strong> a range of wind turbines between<br />
2 and 3.3 MW that have a 90m – 104m rotor diameter;<br />
on-site wind speed data collected during a six month period from a<br />
60m high above ground level (AGL) mast located within the site<br />
boundary; and<br />
energy losses due to scheduled maintenance and other reasons that<br />
are inherent in the design and operation of the wind farm (<strong>for</strong> example<br />
turbine availability, turbulence etc).<br />
2.43 The Applicant has undertaken preliminary calculations <strong>for</strong> a number of<br />
suitable wind turbine models. These calculations have predicted that the<br />
wind farm will generate between 31,000 MWh and 45,700 MWh per<br />
annum, depending on the selected turbine model.<br />
2.44 On this basis, the CO2 saving of the proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm is<br />
estimated to be between 13,330 and 19,651 tonnes annually 1 . Based on<br />
an operational lifespan of 25 years and a generation of between about<br />
775,000 and 1,142,500 MWh, it can be estimated that the Penny Hill Wind<br />
Farm could offset between approximately 333,250 and 491,275 tonnes of<br />
CO2 over the proposed 25-year lifetime of the development 2 .<br />
2.45 The electricity generated annually from the proposed Penny Hill Wind<br />
Farm is predicted to be equivalent to the approximate annual domestic<br />
needs of approximately 6,596 to 9,723 average households in Britain,<br />
which is the equivalent of between approximately 6% - 10% of households<br />
within the Rotherham District. This calculation has been based on the<br />
BWEA recommended average annual UK household electricity<br />
consumption, 4,700kWh. This figure is viewed as conservative as the<br />
latest BERR regional and local electricity statistics indicate that the<br />
average UK household electricity consumption is 4,457 kWh 3 . However, it<br />
must be noted that the energy capture, capacity factor and there<strong>for</strong>e, the<br />
figure <strong>for</strong> the equivalent number of homes whose domestic needs would<br />
be met by the proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm may change as further site<br />
specific in<strong>for</strong>mation is gathered and advances in wind turbine technology<br />
are made.<br />
1 Based on fuel generating mix which may change over time.<br />
2 Included as per advice from the ASA to the BWEA (September 2008). The CO2 estimate <strong>for</strong> the<br />
lifetime of the development is an estimate and is subject to an approximate margin of error (5%).<br />
3 4,457 kWh is the average UK household electricity consumption (Regional and local electricity<br />
statistics, Department <strong>for</strong> Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Re<strong>for</strong>m (BERR), 2006).<br />
19<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT<br />
ASSESSMENT PROCESS<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
3.1 This section sets out the required stages that have been followed in the<br />
completion of this Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It describes<br />
the regulatory context <strong>for</strong> undertaking EIAs in general, the scoping and<br />
consultation processes which have been followed <strong>for</strong> the Penny Hill Wind<br />
Farm proposal and the assessment method applied and reported within<br />
this Environmental Statement (ES).<br />
3.2 The purpose of an EIA is to ensure that the <strong>environmental</strong> effects of a<br />
proposed development are fully considered be<strong>for</strong>e an application <strong>for</strong><br />
consent is determined. The EIA process collates in<strong>for</strong>mation and analysis<br />
regarding the <strong>environmental</strong> effects of a development, which are to be<br />
taken into account by the consenting authority, in this case the Local<br />
Planning Authority, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC),<br />
and other consultees.<br />
3.3 The Applicant presents the findings of the EIA within an ES. In this case<br />
the ES has been submitted with the application <strong>for</strong> planning permission<br />
which has been made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.<br />
The ES should outline the likely impact that the development is expected<br />
to have on the environment and the measures the developer proposes to<br />
take to minimise any adverse <strong>environmental</strong> impacts. Consultations with<br />
statutory consultees and other interested bodies must be undertaken to<br />
establish that all potentially significant issues are adequately covered in<br />
the EIA.<br />
3.4 The EIA process consists of the following key stages:<br />
Scoping - to establish significant <strong>environmental</strong> issues;<br />
Baseline Studies – to examine the <strong>environmental</strong> character of the area<br />
likely to be affected by the development;<br />
Predicting and Assessing Impacts – to predict and assess the possible<br />
effects, both negative and positive, of the development on the<br />
environment; and<br />
Mitigation – to introduce measures to avoid, minimise or mitigate any<br />
adverse effects.<br />
20<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
3.5 An EIA should be treated as an iterative process, rather than a one-off<br />
appraisal, so that feedback from stakeholder consultation and the results<br />
from baseline studies can be fed into the design process of the scheme in<br />
question. This has been the case with the Penny Hill proposal where the<br />
assessments undertaken by the various specialist consultants have fed<br />
into the design process, along with consultee feedback.<br />
EIA REGULATIONS<br />
3.6 With regard to the determination of applications <strong>for</strong> planning permission<br />
under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Town and Country<br />
Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales)<br />
Regulations 1999 4 provide the relevant guidance <strong>for</strong> <strong>environmental</strong> impact<br />
assessment. These Regulations represent the implementation in England<br />
and Wales of European EIA Directive (85/337/EEC as amended by<br />
97/11/EC).<br />
3.7 The EIA Regulations apply to two separate lists of projects:<br />
`Schedule 1 projects', <strong>for</strong> which EIA is required in every case; and<br />
`Schedule 2 projects', <strong>for</strong> which EIA is required only if the particular<br />
project in question is judged likely to give rise to significant<br />
<strong>environmental</strong> effects 5 .<br />
3.8 Wind turbine developments above a certain size and over a certain height<br />
are a Schedule 2 development. As such, at the project screening stage the<br />
determining authority provides an opinion as to whether the development<br />
may have significant effects on the environment and there<strong>for</strong>e whether a<br />
full EIA is required. Circular 02/99, published by the Office of the Deputy<br />
Prime Minister (ODPM) states that „EIA is more likely to be required <strong>for</strong><br />
commercial [wind farm] developments of five or more turbines, or more<br />
than 5 MW of new generating capacity‟ 6 .<br />
3.9 As the proposal was planned to have five or more turbines and would<br />
result in approximately 19.8 MW of new capacity, the Applicant decided to<br />
undertake an EIA <strong>for</strong> the proposal without obtaining an EIA Screening<br />
Opinion from the Local Planning Authority.<br />
4 Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 293. Available online at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19990293.htm<br />
5 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (1999) Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact<br />
Assessment. Published online at: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144396.<br />
6 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (1999) Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact<br />
Assessment. Annex A: Indicative Thresholds and Criteria <strong>for</strong> Identification of Schedule 2 Development<br />
Requiring EIA. Published online at: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144396.<br />
21<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
SCOPING AND CONSULTATION<br />
Submission of Request <strong>for</strong> Scoping Opinion<br />
3.10 The initial „Request <strong>for</strong> a Scoping Opinion‟, on the wind farm proposal was<br />
submitted to RMBC in May 2008. The request <strong>for</strong> a Scoping Opinion was<br />
made under Regulation 10 of the Town and Country Planning<br />
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations<br />
1999, under which developers may request an opinion from the<br />
determining authority, on the in<strong>for</strong>mation that should be supplied within the<br />
ES.<br />
3.11 The Applicant‟s scoping report stated that the following topic areas would<br />
most likely give rise to potentially significant effects:<br />
Landscape and visual;<br />
Archaeology and cultural heritage;<br />
Residential amenity (noise and shadow flicker); and<br />
Ecology and ornithology.<br />
3.12 The following were also outlined as secondary issues that would be<br />
discussed in the ES:<br />
Traffic and transport;<br />
Radio-communications, television and aeronautical Issues;<br />
Ground conditions and surface drainage;<br />
Safety; and<br />
Cumulative effects.<br />
The Local Planning Authority’s Scoping Opinion<br />
3.13 The Local Planning Authority‟s <strong>for</strong>mal response in the <strong>for</strong>m of a Scoping<br />
Opinion made in accordance with Regulation 10, sets out its opinion as to<br />
the in<strong>for</strong>mation that should be included within the ES. A draft Scoping<br />
Opinion was issued by RMBC on 3 rd September 2008, with the final<br />
Scoping Opinion dated 24 th September 2008. The key points identified<br />
within the scoping response, together with details on where these points<br />
are covered within the ES and application documentation, are set out<br />
under the following headings:<br />
Landscape & Visual: (including cumulative effects) considered in<br />
Section 6 of the ES;<br />
22<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Residential Amenity (noise and shadow flicker): considered in Sections<br />
9, 14 and 15 of the ES;<br />
Ecology / Ornithology: considered in Sections 7 and 8 of the ES;<br />
Archaeology & Cultural Heritage: considered in Section 10 of the ES;<br />
Traffic and Transport: considered in Section 11 of the ES;<br />
Radio-communications and Aeronautical Issues: considered in<br />
Sections 12 and 14 of the ES;<br />
Ground Conditions (including Flood Risk Assessment): considered in<br />
Section 13 of the ES; and<br />
Safety (including Driver Distraction, icing) considered in Sections 11<br />
and 16 of the ES.<br />
3.14 The Council‟s Scoping Opinion also included individual responses from a<br />
number of consultees:<br />
RMBC (planning and regeneration, <strong>environmental</strong> health,<br />
transportation, ecology and landscape design);<br />
Highways Agency (traffic);<br />
Natural England (ecology and landscape);<br />
Yorkshire Wildlife Trust (ecology);<br />
South Yorkshire Archaeology Service (archaeology);<br />
Environment Agency (flood risk assessment);<br />
South Yorkshire Mining (geology);<br />
Yorkshire Forward;<br />
National Grid (utilities);<br />
Yorkshire Water (utilities);<br />
English Heritage (archaeology and cultural heritage); and<br />
NHS Rotherham.<br />
3.15 The individual comments of all of the above consultees have been<br />
considered during the EIA process by the relevant consultants and<br />
assessors and in some cases meetings and specific discussions have<br />
been held with some of the consultees. Details of the consultation<br />
23<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
elevant to each assessment are included within the individual sections of<br />
this ES.<br />
ONGOING CONSULTATION<br />
3.16 During the EIA process both the Applicant and the appointed consultants<br />
have been undertaking consultation with relevant statutory and nonstatutory<br />
bodies. The following organisations have been consulted directly<br />
by the Applicant or by consultants and/or meetings have been held with<br />
regard to the proposal (other organisations have been contacted to<br />
request any relevant data on the site such as RSPB and local nature<br />
conservation groups):<br />
RMBC;<br />
Highways Agency;<br />
Environment Agency;<br />
Natural England;<br />
English Heritage;<br />
Ministry of Defence;<br />
Civil Aviation Authority;<br />
NATS En-Route;<br />
Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS);<br />
Ofcom; and<br />
Radio-communications link operators.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION<br />
3.17 In parallel with the statutory consultation process and in accordance with<br />
its „Development With Care‟ principle, the Applicant commenced a<br />
consultation process more locally with a view to in<strong>for</strong>ming and engaging<br />
the local communities at an early stage in the design process.<br />
3.18 Throughout the design process, comments received from local residents,<br />
local representative groups and statutory bodies have also been<br />
considered with regard to how the project should be changed, or any<br />
requirements <strong>for</strong> additional research or survey work prior to the finalisation<br />
of the project.<br />
3.19 The main comments and concerns arising from the responses received<br />
during the scoping process have been addressed under the relevant<br />
section headings of the ES.<br />
24<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
3.20 The proposals were the subject of public exhibitions held on 27 th May 2008<br />
at the Aston Parish Hall (Aston) and Holy Trinity Church (Ulley) and on<br />
28 th May 2008 at the Gordon Bennett Memorial Hall (Thurcroft) and Holy<br />
Trinity Church (Ulley). The exhibitions were publicised by the distribution of<br />
leaflets about the project to over 2,000 households in the locality, as well<br />
as press advertisements and radio announcements/interviews (see<br />
Appendix 1 <strong>for</strong> a full report on the public consultation undertaken).<br />
3.21 People who attended the exhibitions were asked to sign a visitor‟s book<br />
and invited to make written comments on the proposals. The Applicant<br />
sent a letter to those expressing an interest in the proposal after the<br />
exhibitions, which included an outline of the main issues expressed and a<br />
response to each one. A summary of the main issues expressed and the<br />
Applicant‟s response in provide in Table 3.1 below.<br />
Table 3.1: Summary of Issues from Public Exhibitions<br />
Issue<br />
Noise – Audible<br />
Visual Impact<br />
Impact on House<br />
Prices<br />
Loss of Amenity<br />
Area/Footpaths<br />
Height of<br />
Turbines a<br />
Concern<br />
25<br />
Response<br />
An assessment of the noise which would be created by the<br />
turbines during both daytime and night-time has been carried out<br />
in accordance with the appropriate Government guidance (ETSU-<br />
R-97) on wind farm noise and disturbance. The proposal would be<br />
fully compliment with this guidance. Noise levels from wind farms<br />
are on a par with rural background noise at night time and it is<br />
possible to have a normal conversation without raising your voice<br />
whilst standing directly underneath a turbine.<br />
A landscape and visual impact assessment is being carried out as<br />
part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. This assessment<br />
includes the preparation of photomontages and other visual<br />
assessment tools. The assessment has been undertaken by a<br />
professional landscape architect in accordance with Landscape<br />
Institute and other guidelines.<br />
A planning application <strong>for</strong> any new development can affect local<br />
house prices, but any negative impact diminishes as time goes on.<br />
Studies by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has<br />
shown that while prices may be affected when a proposal is first<br />
announced prices generally recover after the wind farm has been<br />
running. Most studies suggest that wind farms become more<br />
accepted as communities become used to their presence.<br />
No footpaths or other public rights of way are to be stopped as a<br />
result of the proposals.<br />
Larger, more modern turbines are proposed to maximise the<br />
potential generation from the least number of turbines. The<br />
greater the rotor diameter and the greater the height above ground<br />
level the more wind can be captured and converted to renewable<br />
energy. 132m is the maximum height envelope <strong>for</strong> the proposed<br />
turbines and smaller machines may be installed should permission<br />
be granted, depending on the availability of turbine models at the<br />
time of construction (The scoping submission identified a<br />
maximum height of 130m, however since the submission of the<br />
scoping report the ability <strong>for</strong> turbines with an increased generating<br />
power has progressed, hence the maximum height being<br />
increased to 132m to tip in order to maximise generation where<br />
possible).<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Impact on<br />
Landscape<br />
Impact on TV<br />
Reception<br />
Impact to Wildlife<br />
on or Around the<br />
Site<br />
Concern that the<br />
Proposals are too<br />
Close to Housing<br />
Concern About<br />
Construction<br />
Traffic Using<br />
Local Roads<br />
Does Not Comply<br />
with Existing<br />
Greenbelt Policy<br />
Noise – Low<br />
Frequency<br />
Wind Turbines<br />
Not Effective /<br />
Don‟t Produce<br />
Any Power<br />
Concerns About<br />
Grid Connection<br />
The landscape character and the potential impact of the<br />
development on it will be assessed as part of the landscape and<br />
visual impact assessment.<br />
An assessment of this will be included in the application. Should<br />
interference occur, there are options to provide alternative services<br />
to affected residents. A TV reception survey will be carried out<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e the wind farm becomes operational that can be used to<br />
monitor any effects. The Applicant will commit to rectifying any<br />
reception problems caused by the wind turbines at our expense.<br />
Ecological and Ornithological studies are being completed on the<br />
site to establish the presence of various <strong>for</strong>ms of habitats and<br />
wildlife. The details will be contained in the Environmental<br />
Statement.<br />
No turbines are to be located closer than 500m from any groups of<br />
residential property.<br />
[It is assumed that these broad comments relate mostly to<br />
potential <strong>for</strong> visual and noise impact – see above comments]<br />
The turbine components would be brought in by specialist<br />
contractors. The movement of these loads will be tightly controlled<br />
through permits with the Highways authority and the police.<br />
Regional guidance <strong>for</strong> renewable energy in Yorkshire envisages<br />
development of wind farms in pockets of suburban and green belt<br />
land. There are existing wind farm developments within the green<br />
belt in England and PPS22 states that: „Local landscape and local<br />
nature conservation designations should not be used in<br />
themselves to refuse planning permission <strong>for</strong> renewable energy<br />
developments.‟<br />
This issue has been examined in detail by the UK Government.<br />
The report concluded that wind turbines are not a significant<br />
source of low frequency noise. In<strong>for</strong>mation on this issue will be<br />
contained in the Environmental Statement.<br />
Wind power is one of the most widely used, commercially<br />
developed renewable energy technologies in the UK. Modern<br />
turbines are more powerful and reliable than early prototypes,<br />
capturing considerable amounts of clean energy. A turbine used<br />
in the UK is likely to produce useful power <strong>for</strong> around 85% <strong>for</strong> the<br />
year over a lifespan of 20-25 years. Wind power reduces<br />
greenhouse gases by displacing conventional power generation.<br />
The UK is the windiest country in Western Europe and as such<br />
wind turbines have a higher capacity in the UK than elsewhere in<br />
Europe.<br />
The application <strong>for</strong> a grid connection does not <strong>for</strong>m part of this<br />
planning application. This will be a separate consenting process<br />
under section 37 of the electricity act by the electricity network<br />
operator when the point of connection <strong>for</strong> the wind farm is<br />
determined. The connection would be on wooden poles or<br />
underground depending on the final route. The scale of this<br />
proposal means that no new metal pylons would be required to<br />
connect the wind farm into the grid.<br />
3.22 The comments arising from the exhibitions were fed back into the EIA<br />
process <strong>for</strong> the scheme be<strong>for</strong>e the proposals were finalised and<br />
incorporated in this planning application.<br />
26<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
3.23 The final <strong>for</strong>m of the submitted proposal as now assessed is the product of<br />
this iterative design process. It is, there<strong>for</strong>e, the considered view of the<br />
Applicant that the scheme represents the most <strong>environmental</strong>ly acceptable<br />
option <strong>for</strong> developing a wind farm on the site.<br />
Ongoing Community Liaison<br />
3.24 It is a fundamental part of the Applicant‟s „Development With Care‟<br />
approach that once a dialogue with a local community or interested party<br />
is commenced, it is continued throughout the development process. To<br />
ensure that there is continuing liaison with the community during the<br />
consenting, construction and operational phases of the proposal, a<br />
Community Liaison Manager is assigned to every project that the Banks<br />
Group develops, to provide on-going contact with the local community<br />
where required. This ensures that any issues raised are dealt with<br />
internally by the relevant member of the project team, whilst the<br />
community retain one point of contact.<br />
3.25 In addition, dialogue with the local community would continue if the wind<br />
farm is consented and begins construction through the establishment of<br />
the Penny Hill Wind Farm Liaison Committee. This will involve local<br />
residents, members of the various Parish Councils, officers from the Local<br />
Planning Authority and a representative from the operator. This will meet<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e construction of the wind farm begins to provide a programme of<br />
works and a contact <strong>for</strong> the local community and will continue to meet<br />
periodically thereafter.<br />
THE ASSESSMENT METHOD<br />
3.26 The EIA has been undertaken in accordance with the “The Town and<br />
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and<br />
Wales) Regulations 1999” and “Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact<br />
Assessment” (as described earlier).<br />
Significant Environmental Effects<br />
3.27 Paragraph 82 of Circular 02/99 provides advice on the general<br />
requirements with regards to the preparation and content of an ES, stating<br />
that:<br />
„Whilst every ES should provide a full factual description of the<br />
development, the emphasis of Schedule 4 is on the 'main' or 'significant'<br />
<strong>environmental</strong> effects to which a development is likely to give rise. In many<br />
cases, only a few of the effects will be significant and will need to be<br />
discussed in the ES in any great depth. Other impacts may be of little or<br />
no significance <strong>for</strong> the particular development in question and will need<br />
only very brief treatment to indicate that their possible relevance has been<br />
considered. While each ES must comply with the requirements of the<br />
27<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Regulations, it is important that they should be prepared on a realistic<br />
basis and without unnecessary elaboration.‟<br />
3.28 In defining the „significant‟ <strong>environmental</strong> effects to be considered within<br />
this ES, account has been taken of the Scoping Opinion, consultation<br />
responses from other organisations and previous experience of<br />
applications of this nature.<br />
Assessing the Impacts<br />
3.29 The methodology and terminology used to assess the <strong>environmental</strong><br />
effects in the ES are consistent with one another, in order that<br />
comparisons can be made between different sections. The sensitivity, or<br />
„value‟, of the resource/receptors, coupled with the magnitude of the<br />
impact (be<strong>for</strong>e and after mitigation measures) provides an indication of the<br />
level of significance of an effect. The assessment categories used in each<br />
of the assessments seek to define:<br />
the type of effect, i.e. whether it is positive, negative, neutral or<br />
uncertain;<br />
the probability of the effect occurring based on the scale of certain,<br />
likely or unlikely;<br />
the sensitivity/value of the resource/receptors (this could also be the<br />
„number of receptors‟ – e.g. population exposed to different effects);<br />
the magnitude of the impacts;<br />
the significance of the impacts; and<br />
where appropriate, if the effect is temporary.<br />
Mitigation of Impacts<br />
3.30 Where potentially adverse impacts are predicted, the magnitude of these<br />
impacts can be mitigated through a variety of positive interventions. Such<br />
intervention to address potentially negative effects can take place at all<br />
stages in the development of a proposal, from site selection through to<br />
operation and decommissioning and should be identified within the EIA.<br />
3.31 Proposals to mitigate against the potentially adverse effects of the<br />
proposed wind farm have been incorporated into virtually all elements of<br />
the site selection and design process and are also incorporated into<br />
proposed construction, operation and decommissioning plans <strong>for</strong> the site.<br />
References to proposed mitigation are there<strong>for</strong>e made throughout the ES.<br />
3.32 The individual assessments identify potential mitigation opportunities with<br />
regard to specific effects. Various <strong>for</strong>ms of mitigation, which are both<br />
proposed, and which have already been undertaken, are identified<br />
28<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
throughout Part 1 of this ES, particularly with regards to the site selection,<br />
design and construction of the proposal.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
3.33 Having assessed the <strong>environmental</strong> effects of this individual proposal it is<br />
also necessary to consider potential impacts of the proposed development<br />
in combination with existing, consented or other proposed developments<br />
currently being considered.<br />
3.34 There are no existing or proposed wind farms within close proximity to the<br />
proposal site. The only area <strong>for</strong> potential cumulative effects exists is in<br />
relation to landscape and visual amenity because effects can be<br />
experienced at greater distances. The Applicant does not consider that<br />
there are other types of new development in the vicinity which the proposal<br />
could have cumulative effects with.<br />
3.35 During the EIA process, and prior to submission, contact was made with<br />
planning authorities within 40km of the Penny Hill site with regards to<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation on other proposed or consented wind farm schemes. The<br />
consented and proposed wind farms at the time of submission are<br />
described in the landscape and visual assessment (Section 6).<br />
3.36 The Penny Hill Wind Farm has been assessed in combination with 13<br />
other wind farms either in operation, with planning permission, in the<br />
planning system or at scoping stage within 40km of the Penny Hill site.<br />
29<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
4. SITE SELECTION AND DESIGN<br />
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION SITE<br />
4.1 The centre of the proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm is located approximately<br />
900m east of Ulley and 1.25km west of Brampton en le Morthen. The<br />
proposed development area is positioned west of the M1 and M18<br />
interchange and to the east of Ulley, as illustrated by Drawing<br />
HJB/681/PA02. The existing features within the site are depicted on<br />
Drawing HJB/681/PA03, which also shows the planning application<br />
boundary. The development is described fully in Section 2 of this ES and<br />
illustrated on Drawing HJB/681/PA05.<br />
4.2 In total the application site area covers approximately 125.5 hectares (as<br />
outlined in red in Drawing HJB/681/PA03). However, the actual land take<br />
of the proposed wind farm would only directly affect around 2.5 hectares<br />
during operation (approximately 2% of the application area). The site<br />
varies in altitude between around 85m and 115m AOD and is located on<br />
arable farmland. There is no open access land within the development<br />
area; with the site accessed via Penny Hill Lane (and a crossing point over<br />
Brampton Lane) which passes through the site centre.<br />
SITE SELECTION<br />
4.3 The paragraphs below outline the process under which the Penny Hill site<br />
was identified and assessed against a range of constraint criteria by the<br />
Applicant, following the initial identification of the potential <strong>for</strong> wind<br />
development in Rotherham.<br />
4.4 The Applicant identified the Penny Hill site following a detailed evaluation<br />
of constraints to wind energy development in Rotherham (and several<br />
other areas in Yorkshire where they are progressing other proposals).<br />
4.5 A constraint mapping exercise focussed the Applicant‟s attention on a<br />
relatively small area located to the south of Rotherham, and following a<br />
series of site visits, the initial site area was identified. Drawing<br />
HJB/681/PA04 of the ES shows the Applicant‟s the constraint mapping of<br />
the Rotherham area.<br />
Constraint Mapping<br />
4.6 As noted above, the Applicant has prepared a constraint map <strong>for</strong> wind<br />
development <strong>for</strong> the whole of the RMBC area. This exercise identified a<br />
number of constraints to wind energy development and subsequently<br />
areas that were not constrained by the selected key criteria.<br />
4.7 These key constraints mapped include:<br />
30<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
the wind speed resource (areas above and below 6.5 m/s average<br />
wind speed at 45m AGL as predicted by the BERR wind speed<br />
database);<br />
Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS) radar vectoring area;<br />
Sites of Special Scientific Interest;<br />
Scheduled Ancient Monuments;<br />
Registered Parks and Gardens;<br />
Ancient woodland; and<br />
Local Nature Reserves.<br />
4.8 Other constraints such as international and national landscape<br />
designations were not considered, as there are no such designations<br />
within Rotherham. Engineering constraints such as standoffs from utility<br />
services, rail and highways infrastructure, watercourses and telecoms links<br />
were not included on the constraints plan as these are better dealt with at<br />
the detailed site investigation stage. Issues such as military radar and low<br />
flying have not been included as such issues are resolved through<br />
consultation rather than „mappable‟ constraints.<br />
4.9 This list represents a useful tool <strong>for</strong> identifying the finite nature of suitable<br />
sites <strong>for</strong> wind farms, and it also serves to illustrate the significant absence<br />
of development constraints in the case of the Penny Hill proposal.<br />
4.10 In identifying potential development opportunities, the Applicant has<br />
sought to identify sites outside all of the above constraints. Such<br />
unconstrained sites are limited in Rotherham, as demonstrated by Drawing<br />
HJB/681/PA04 of the ES. Although the Penny Hill proposal lies outside<br />
any such designations, these constraints are now described in more detail<br />
to emphasise the constraint they pose to identifying suitable sites and<br />
delivering renewable energy targets.<br />
The Wind Resource<br />
4.11 Wind energy proposals can clearly only be developed in areas where the<br />
existing wind resource can be converted into sufficient electrical output to<br />
provide a commercial return on the costs of installing and operating the<br />
wind turbine(s). The identification of the likely wind resource from existing<br />
available data is clearly an important first step in identifying potential areas<br />
of search, although specific on-site monitoring is usually required to give<br />
wind farm developers and their financial backers the necessary confidence<br />
to proceed with specific developments.<br />
4.12 The Applicant and indeed most developers within the UK generally regard<br />
sites with an annual mean wind speed of over 6.5 metres per second at<br />
31<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
45m AGL as viable (using the BERR UK wind speed database), subject to<br />
on site verification through wind monitoring. The site at Penny Hill has a<br />
predicted wind speed of 6.6 m/s per second at 45m AGL.<br />
4.13 Drawing HJB/681/PA04 illustrates that large parts of Rotherham‟s<br />
administrative area have wind speeds which fall below a predicted 6.5 m/s<br />
at 45m AGL. In such lower wind speed areas turbines would generally<br />
have a lower wind yield and would generate less electricity per MW<br />
installed, limiting their commercial viability. This in itself limits development<br />
potential <strong>for</strong> a large proportion of the northwest and western parts of the<br />
district leaving a remaining central belt which can be considered optimal.<br />
This is largely due to the valley around the River Rother. This area also<br />
coincides in large with a built environment constraint around Rotherham.<br />
Landscape Designations<br />
4.14 PPS22 does not encourage commercial scale development in areas of<br />
national importance designated <strong>for</strong> their landscape quality (National Parks<br />
or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and <strong>for</strong> the purposes of site<br />
selection the Applicant there<strong>for</strong>e considers these national designations as<br />
absolute constraints to wind development.<br />
4.15 There are no National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty<br />
(AONB) within the Rotherham administrative area.<br />
4.16 PPS22 does not rule out wind farm development in areas with local<br />
landscape designations. It is the view of the Applicant that the importance<br />
of local landscape designations will be determined by the relevant local<br />
development policy and the availability of a more detailed landscape<br />
character assessment of the area.<br />
4.17 The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan designates approximately half<br />
of the administrative area as an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV)<br />
which is defined as areas having high landscape value. The development<br />
plan does not preclude wind energy development within the AHLV and no<br />
detailed appraisal of the relative sensitivity of landscape character areas to<br />
wind energy development of the type envisaged by PPS22 has been<br />
undertaken in the Rotherham administrative area.<br />
4.18 The Penny Hill site is located within the Ulley – Whiston AHLV<br />
designation. It should also be noted that the previously consented Loscar<br />
Proposal is within an AHLV to the south east of the district,<br />
Greenbelt<br />
4.19 The Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal is located within the Green Belt.<br />
PPG2: Green Belts was published in 1995, almost a decade prior to the<br />
publication of PPS22 specific to renewable energy development. As such<br />
there is no reference made to renewable energy within the planning<br />
guidance. However, decisions taken by other local planning authorities<br />
32<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
and the Planning Inspectorate, reiterate what is outlined in PPS22; that the<br />
erection of wind turbines is not incompatible with Green Belt. The AEA<br />
Technology Report of 2004 “Planning <strong>for</strong> Renewable Energy Targets in<br />
Yorkshire and Humber” is a study to in<strong>for</strong>m the emerging RSS envisaged<br />
the erection of wind turbines in Green Belt areas within Rotherham.<br />
4.20 The Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal is the conclusion of a carefully<br />
designed and re<strong>for</strong>mulated layout resulting from a variety of<br />
comprehensive assessments including a landscape and visual impact<br />
assessment. This has concluded that the effect on the Green Belt would<br />
not be significant.<br />
National and International Ecological Designations<br />
4.21 Many areas of the UK have been designated as Sites of Special Scientific<br />
Interest (SSSIs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of<br />
Conservation (SACs) as a result of their ecological importance. The latter<br />
two are designated under the European Habitats Directive and are<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e protected under international law. To enhance the statutory<br />
protection of SSSIs, many are in the process of being designated as SPAs<br />
and/or SACs.<br />
4.22 As international designations, there is effectively a greater level of<br />
legislative protection <strong>for</strong> SACs and SPAs, than there is <strong>for</strong> national<br />
landscape designations such as National Parks and AONBs in the UK. It<br />
is the approach of the Applicant to exclude all areas designated under the<br />
Habitats Directive when seeking to identify potential wind farm sites.<br />
4.23 There are no such designations within or immediately adjacent to the<br />
Penny Hill site.<br />
The Historic Environment<br />
4.24 The potential effect of a wind farm development on the historic fabric of the<br />
countryside can be twofold; direct disturbance and indirect visual effects.<br />
4.25 In terms of finding suitable sites the latter is likely to be a key factor <strong>for</strong><br />
consideration on an individual proposal level while the <strong>for</strong>mer can usually<br />
be addressed through a higher level site finding exercise. Building on this<br />
approach, it has been the approach of the Applicant to gain an<br />
understanding of the potential intervisibility of the Penny Hill site from<br />
historic sites by using wireframes and photomontages as assessment<br />
tools, rather than by simply applying a buffer zone. Through this approach<br />
the Applicant seeks to identify potential sites and schemes which would<br />
not have a direct adverse effects or unacceptable indirect visual effects on<br />
designated archaeological and cultural heritage sites, listed buildings,<br />
historic parks and gardens and conservation areas. In the context of the<br />
proposal site and immediate surroundings these are illustrated on Drawing<br />
HJB/681/PA18.<br />
33<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
4.26 Again there are no scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings, historic<br />
parks and gardens or conservation areas within the site boundary.<br />
Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield Airport<br />
4.27 The nearest major civil airport to the Penny Hill site is Robin Hood Airport<br />
Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS), which is located approximately 20km away.<br />
The radar vectoring area surrounding the RHADS covers a large part of<br />
the administrative area of Rotherham and although it is not an absolute<br />
constraint <strong>for</strong> wind farm development, it provides a useful means of<br />
defining the important operational area <strong>for</strong> the airport. The initial sieve<br />
mapping exercise <strong>for</strong> the proposed development considered the radar<br />
vectoring area and the Penny Hill site falls outside of this.<br />
4.28 In order to protect the airport instrument flight procedures, the airport has<br />
submitted an application to the Civil Aviation Authority <strong>for</strong> the setting up of<br />
an area of “controlled airspace” around the airport within which only prenotified<br />
aircraft can enter. The effect of controlled airspace is that all<br />
aircraft operating in the designated area are “known” to the controllers<br />
thereby reducing the risk of a spurious radar return, as created by a<br />
turbine, being an unknown aircraft with the potential to become a<br />
confliction. The airport has received final authorisation <strong>for</strong> controlled<br />
airspace, all the procedures have been approved and are now in<br />
operation. The airport management have stated during consultation that it<br />
does not envisage any circumstances that could cause an objection to be<br />
raised in relation to the Penny Hill Wind Farm.<br />
Residential Amenity<br />
4.29 The Government stress that the protection of residential amenity is key to<br />
the delivery of successful wind energy projects. Key concerns relate to<br />
wind turbine noise and shadow flicker. Developers avoid sites where there<br />
could be an adverse effect on residential amenity, generally by seeking to<br />
achieve appropriate separation distances between noise sensitive<br />
properties and turbines. The Applicant applies a 500m buffer around all<br />
known occupied buildings (residential or otherwise) in areas where they<br />
are searching <strong>for</strong> appropriate sites.<br />
4.30 No turbine in the Penny Hill proposal lies within 500m of an occupied<br />
domestic property and it has been the approach of the Applicant to engage<br />
with the local community in order to identify other concerns or issues<br />
which may affect impact on residential amenity. The unoccupied property<br />
at Ulley Beeches, immediately adjacent to the M1 carriageway, is 350m<br />
from the closest turbine position. The property is owned by one of the<br />
wind farm site landowners. Special care was taken with this property with<br />
regards the siting of turbines, to ensure that it met the ETSU-R-97 noise<br />
guidelines, should it ever become occupied during the lifetime of the wind<br />
farm.<br />
34<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
4.31 Section 9 of the ES demonstrates that residential amenity will be protected<br />
from adverse noise impacts resulting from the operation of the scheme.<br />
Section 15 of the ES deals with shadow flicker. There would be no<br />
unacceptable shadow flicker effects, subject to appropriate mitigation<br />
where required.<br />
Ancient Woodland<br />
4.32 The Applicant does not select sites that include designated Ancient<br />
Woodland areas.<br />
Other Issues<br />
4.33 Although they cannot be illustrated simply by constraint mapping, the<br />
Applicant also considers whether potential sites can be accessed by<br />
construction traffic and whether there are options to connect to the local or<br />
national grid in the local area.<br />
4.34 In assessing sites, and estimating their potential to accommodate wind<br />
turbines of particular sizes, the availability of highway access <strong>for</strong><br />
construction traffic is an important consideration. The proposed turbines<br />
have large components with the proposed blades, <strong>for</strong> example, being up to<br />
52m long. The practicalities of transporting such large components along<br />
the UK‟s roads are one of the main factors limiting the size of onshore<br />
turbines and the sites that can accommodate them.<br />
4.35 In addition, the cranes required to erect wind turbines are, through<br />
necessity, large and can weigh several hundred tonnes. Again, local road<br />
infrastructure needs to be able to cope with such equipment.<br />
4.36 In assessing development opportunities, such as the Penny Hill site,<br />
developers there<strong>for</strong>e seek to identify sites with suitable access. The<br />
Applicant commissioned an access study which demonstrates that the<br />
Penny Hill site has suitable road access which can accommodate the<br />
delivery of the relevant turbine components and avoid local settlements.<br />
Potential traffic effects are specifically described in Section 11 of the ES.<br />
4.37 The availability of a suitable and economically deliverable grid connection<br />
point is, again, a significant factor in the deliverability of wind energy sites.<br />
As stated in Section 2 of the ES, a preferred grid connection point has<br />
been identified within the site.<br />
Analysis<br />
4.38 A key consideration in the assessment of wind energy proposals such as<br />
the Penny Hill development is the relative paucity of unconstrained sites,<br />
where development is both technically and <strong>environmental</strong>ly deliverable. At<br />
present there is a significant disparity between the rate at which such sites<br />
get through the planning process and can be developed in order to come<br />
close to delivering national, regional and sub-regional targets. In these<br />
circumstances a site which „falls through‟ all of the technical and<br />
35<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
<strong>environmental</strong> sieves must be considered positively given the limited<br />
nature of such opportunities.<br />
4.39 The Applicant‟s sieve mapping exercise is not the only technical appraisal<br />
of development opportunities in the Rotherham Borough area. The<br />
AEAT/Gillespies report “Planning <strong>for</strong> Renewable Energy Targets in<br />
Yorkshire and Humber” (December 2004), which played a major part in the<br />
preparation of the RSS, identifies that there are opportunities <strong>for</strong> small<br />
scale wind developments in Rotherham in suitable pockets of land within<br />
urban, suburban Green Belt locations. These findings led to the report<br />
recommending a 10 MW wind energy target <strong>for</strong> Rotherham <strong>for</strong> 2010 and<br />
15 MW <strong>for</strong> 2021, with overall renewable energy targets of 11 MW by 2010<br />
and 36 MW by 2021. This report <strong>for</strong>ms part of the evidence base <strong>for</strong> the<br />
renewable energy targets within the Yorkshire and Humber RSS, which<br />
has used the total figures expressed in the report as the adopted targets<br />
<strong>for</strong> the region. The Penny Hill scheme is of a scale which fits with this<br />
general approach. While taking differing approaches, the Applicant and the<br />
consultants acting on behalf of the Regional Assembly have reached<br />
complementary conclusions.<br />
4.40 The identification and assessment of the Penny Hill site has taken place<br />
after a detailed constraint mapping exercise which demonstrates that there<br />
are few parts of Rotherham that do not have constraints to wind energy<br />
development. In Rotherham the key constraints of low wind speed and<br />
built-up areas mean that only eight areas within the district were<br />
considered theoretically suitable by the Applicant <strong>for</strong> a wind farm of a<br />
commercial scale. These are identified on Drawing HJB/681/PA04.<br />
Following the constraint mapping exercise the areas identified have been<br />
examined in more detail. The reasons the Applicant has chosen to<br />
progress the Penny Hill site in preference to the others are discussed in<br />
detail below:<br />
Thurcroft Colliery Tip – A detailed site feasibility study has not been<br />
completed <strong>for</strong> Thurcroft Colliery Tip because of the immediate issue of<br />
made-up ground. It is likely that it would not be cost effective to build in<br />
this location. Furthermore there would be a risk of releasing<br />
contaminates.<br />
Maltby Colliery Tip – Similarly this site has not been considered in<br />
detail due to the unsuitable ground conditions.<br />
Beacon Hill – This site was considered alongside Penny Hill, but<br />
because the site lies within the RHADS Radar Vectoring Area it was<br />
determined less optimal. There is a reasonable chance that a proposal<br />
here could now be acceptable to RHADS following the authorisation of<br />
controlled airspace. Beacon Hill is also in relatively close proximity to<br />
scheduled monuments SSSIs and the registered garden and Grade I<br />
listed building at Sandbeck Hall.<br />
36<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Lamb Lane – This site was considered alongside Penny Hill but<br />
because the site lies within the RHADS Radar Vectoring Area it was<br />
determined less optimal. The Lamb Lane site is closer to the centreline<br />
of the runway than the other seven sites identified and is considered<br />
the most likely to concern the airport. Lamb Lane could also have an<br />
adverse impact on the views of the church spire at Laughton en le<br />
Morthen.<br />
Swinston Hill – This location would only have capacity <strong>for</strong> a small wind<br />
farm due to housing standoffs and the site is further constrained by<br />
roads and trees within the site. A wind farm proposal at Swinston Hill<br />
could potentially cause conflict with RHADS because of its proximity to<br />
the centreline of the runway.<br />
Harry Crofts – This site remains a working quarry and so is not<br />
considered suitable <strong>for</strong> a wind farm.<br />
Kiverton Park – The housing standoffs show that a small site could be<br />
developed at Kiverton Park. Appropriate buffers around the A57,<br />
Anston Brook, the bridleway and various ponds would further reduce<br />
the scale and viability of a wind farm site at this location.<br />
Consented Loscar Wind Farm – The sieve map shows that the<br />
consented wind farm at Loscar Common could be extended eastward<br />
onto Thorpe Common. However the Netherthorpe Airfield is<br />
immediately adjacent to Thorpe Common and so a conflict could be<br />
expected.<br />
4.41 At Penny Hill, the Applicant has identified a site that is not subject to<br />
international or national landscape, ecological or cultural heritage<br />
designations and which lies outside the radar vectoring area of Robin<br />
Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. In addition, the ES demonstrates that<br />
the site has suitable highway and grid access and is a sufficient distance<br />
from residential properties to protect residential amenity from<br />
unacceptable noise and shadow flicker effects.<br />
SITE DESIGN AND TURBINE LAYOUT<br />
4.42 Having undertaken a sieve mapping exercise to identify suitable sites, the<br />
overall scale and layout of the proposed development has been the<br />
subject of further review. The layout of the proposed wind farm, as<br />
submitted, is illustrated by Drawing HJB/681/PA05. The development of<br />
this final layout has followed a detailed development process, which has<br />
sought to:<br />
Maximise the generating power of the wind resource at the proposed<br />
wind farm on the site;<br />
37<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Achieve acceptable noise levels from the wind turbines at the nearest<br />
sensitive locations around and within the site and safeguard the<br />
interests and concerns of residents living in close proximity to the site;<br />
Ensure that predicted views of the turbines, particularly the alignment<br />
and grouping of the turbines from sensitive locations, takes account of<br />
the characteristics of the local topography;<br />
Ensure that sensitive habitats and species and designated sites <strong>for</strong><br />
both natural and cultural heritage are avoided, wherever possible; and<br />
Provide that adequate stand-offs are provided between turbines and<br />
radio-communication points, classified roads, electricity lines and other<br />
services; and<br />
Ensure there is adequate separation distance between individual<br />
turbines to achieve efficient operation.<br />
4.43 The constraints to the development of the site are shown on Drawing<br />
HJB/681/PA06 with the archaeological and ecological constraints<br />
specifically shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA18 and HJB/681/PA19<br />
respectively.<br />
Site Design<br />
4.44 Having identified a study area, the layout of the site was developed and<br />
refined over a ten month period preceding the submission of this<br />
application. The following paragraphs set out how various <strong>environmental</strong><br />
considerations, including those listed above, have influenced the<br />
development of the finalised layout over a number of key stages.<br />
4.45 The key objective in the design of the Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal has<br />
been to take a comprehensive and responsive approach to the<br />
assessment of local constraints i.e. those constraints and issues which<br />
cannot be so readily mapped at a regional or even sub regional scale. The<br />
Banks Group is committed to such an approach through it‟s „Development<br />
With Care‟ philosophy which ensures that the „feedback‟ received about<br />
development proposals, from whatever source, is taken into account in the<br />
design of the development. The „Development With Care‟ approach<br />
ensures that throughout the development of a proposal, and particularly<br />
during the design stages, opportunities are sought, tested and where<br />
practicable, implemented to address concerns expressed about a proposal<br />
or comments made that could lead to an improvement to the overall<br />
development package. The „Development With Care‟ approach seeks to<br />
ensure as full account as possible has been taken of the results of the<br />
consultation and publicity stages. This includes the production of the<br />
Scoping Report <strong>for</strong> the Penny Hill scheme, the widely publicised public<br />
exhibitions held in the local community and meetings with local<br />
representative bodies, as described in Section 3 and summarised in<br />
Appendix 1.<br />
38<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Analysis<br />
4.46 The main considerations that have influenced the identification of the site,<br />
and the design of the wind farm itself are summarised below:<br />
Landscape and Visual - Views and experiences of the wind farm<br />
including the optimisation of the alignment and grouping of the turbines<br />
from particularly sensitive locations;<br />
Community - The interests and concerns of residents living in close<br />
proximity to the site;<br />
Noise - Achieving noise levels that are consistent with the UK<br />
Government guidelines (ETSU-R-97, “The Assessment and Rating of<br />
Noise from Wind Farms”) at the relevant noise sensitive locations<br />
around the site;<br />
Key Habitats and Species - Reducing impacts on the flora and fauna of<br />
the application site;<br />
Wind Resource – Achieving a design of wind farm that is economically<br />
viable and <strong>environmental</strong>ly acceptable based on the available wind<br />
resource and taking into accounts the topography of the site;<br />
Health and Safety - Ensuring adequate provision <strong>for</strong> safety is included<br />
at the design stage of the wind farm;<br />
Individual Turbine Locations - Ensuring the spacing between individual<br />
turbines achieves safe and efficient operation and are consistent with<br />
manufacturers warranty requirements;<br />
Archaeology - The need to avoid adverse impacts on the<br />
archaeological resource;<br />
Hydrology - The need to avoid existing surface water features and<br />
abstraction points;<br />
Radar - the potential visibility of turbines to civilian and military<br />
aeronautical radars; and<br />
Radio-communications - the need to identify and stand-off radiocommunications<br />
links across the site.<br />
4.47 The final six turbine layout attempts to meet all of the objectives set out<br />
above and is a scheme which is a suitable scale <strong>for</strong> the area proposed, as<br />
set out in the report “Planning <strong>for</strong> Renewable Energy Targets in Yorkshire<br />
and Humber” (December 2004), i.e. a local scale scheme in a suitable<br />
pocket of land which fits with the target set <strong>for</strong> renewable energy in<br />
Rotherham <strong>for</strong> 2021.<br />
39<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
5. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND<br />
DECOMMISIONING<br />
CONSTRUCTION METHOD STATEMENT<br />
5.1 Prior to the commencement of construction, an Environmental<br />
Management Plan (EMP) and Construction Method Statement (CMS) shall<br />
be produced by the Applicant, in consultation with the local planning<br />
authority and other relevant statutory consultees.<br />
5.2 The CMS will set out in detail the individual items of works associated with<br />
the construction of the wind farm development to ensure that the activity is<br />
carried out in safety and in an <strong>environmental</strong>ly sensitive manner. Typically<br />
the documents would cover the following topics, providing full technical<br />
details of the various temporary and permanent components of the<br />
scheme:<br />
Location & Description of Project;<br />
Consent & Regulation Approvals;<br />
Pre-construction Survey Work Undertaken;<br />
Turbine Description;<br />
Construction Schedule;<br />
Public Highway Works;<br />
Site Tracks;<br />
Temporary Construction Compound;<br />
Crane Pads;<br />
Cable Trenches;<br />
Foundation Works;<br />
On-site connection building and switchgear compound;<br />
Wind Monitoring Mast;<br />
Concrete Batching – including any local water abstraction;<br />
Monitoring – Ecological, Hydrological, Geotechnical;<br />
Emergency Procedures; and<br />
Site Health & Safety.<br />
5.3 Other sections, relating to site-specific items identified during the preconstruction<br />
phase could also <strong>for</strong>m part of the CMS..<br />
40<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
5.4 In using this method of agreeing the construction methodology during the<br />
post consent/pre-construction stage, the most accurate and realistic<br />
method <strong>statement</strong>s are achieved. At the post consent stage, additional<br />
data is available <strong>for</strong> consultation in the <strong>for</strong>m of detailed site investigations.<br />
Furthermore, it is likely that the civil engineering contractor and the turbine<br />
supply contractor will have been chosen, enabling more detailed<br />
preparation of individual method <strong>statement</strong>s. During the preparation of the<br />
CMS, meetings with statutory authorities and the planning and highway<br />
authority will be undertaken to identify the working methods proposed and<br />
if necessary incorporate changes.<br />
5.5 The iterative process of preparing the CMS ensures that when<br />
construction commences, there is a clear picture of what should happen<br />
and the potential risks involved. This makes monitoring of the construction<br />
activities, either by the site representative or by the various bodies<br />
associated with the preparation of the document, more straight<strong>for</strong>ward.<br />
Timetable<br />
5.6 It is proposed that the wind farm will have an operational life of 25 years. It<br />
is common practice to apply planning conditions to any wind farm consent<br />
requiring the removal of the turbines and all surface features in<br />
accordance with a rein<strong>statement</strong> scheme to be agreed in advance with the<br />
local planning authority.<br />
5.7 Prior to becoming operational, the period <strong>for</strong> construction of the wind farm<br />
will last approximately 10 months, depending on weather and will consist<br />
of the following main stages:<br />
Upgrading the existing access track from the public highway and the<br />
upgrading of other public highways;<br />
Mobilisation to site and construction of the site compound;<br />
Construction of site road network, including <strong>for</strong>mation and upgrading of<br />
the access point onto the public highway;<br />
Site road rein<strong>statement</strong>;<br />
Construction of turbine foundations;<br />
Excavation of on site cable trenches and cable laying;<br />
Construction of switchgear compound and connection building;<br />
Installation of switchgear building electrical equipment;<br />
Construction of crane hardstandings;<br />
Erection of wind turbines;<br />
41<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Rein<strong>statement</strong> around turbines;<br />
Construction of grid connection;<br />
Commissioning and testing of turbines; and<br />
Site rein<strong>statement</strong> and restoration.<br />
5.8 Many of the operations outlined above will be undertaken concurrently in<br />
order to minimise the overall duration of the construction phase of the<br />
proposed development. A working programme <strong>for</strong> the construction phase<br />
is depicted on Drawing HJB/681/PA22.<br />
5.9 Construction periods will be restricted to the following:<br />
Monday to Friday: between 08:00 – 18:00;<br />
Saturdays: between 08:00 - 13.00; and<br />
Sundays and Bank Holidays: no work.<br />
5.10 The only exception to the above would be <strong>for</strong> the delivery of abnormal<br />
loads requiring police escort.<br />
5.11 In the case of turbine delivery and construction periods working hours will<br />
be restricted to:<br />
Monday to Friday: between 08:00 – 22:00;<br />
Saturdays: between 08:00 – 22:00<br />
Sundays and Bank Holidays: No work<br />
5.12 In the case of turbine commissioning working hours will be restricted to:<br />
Monday to Sunday (Including Bank Holidays) 08:00 – 22:00<br />
5.13 In the event that any other work needs to take place outside of these<br />
periods, this will be agreed in advance with the local planning authority<br />
and local residents will be notified.<br />
5.14 As stated above, construction activities will be undertaken in accordance<br />
with an EMP <strong>for</strong> the site. The aims of the EMP are to provide guidance on<br />
good working practices on site to minimise the potential impacts to soil,<br />
geology, hydrology and hydrogeology resulting from the construction of the<br />
wind farm. Additional procedures will be developed to cover ecological<br />
and noise impacts. Further details on the EMP are included in Section 16<br />
of this ES and the draft Penny Hill EMP is contained in Appendix 12.<br />
42<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Construction Compound & Facilities<br />
5.15 During the construction period a temporary compound and laydown area<br />
would be required. The construction compound is shown indicatively on<br />
Drawing HJB/681/PA08.<br />
5.16 The dimensions of the compound would be approximately 70m by 40m.<br />
The compound would house the temporary site offices, toilets and mess<br />
facilities. It would also provide sufficient capacity <strong>for</strong> private vehicles of<br />
site personnel to be parked. Toilets would be of a contained type with no<br />
discharge at the site. Water <strong>for</strong> the mess facilities and vehicle cleaning<br />
would be sourced from an on-site bowser/tank that would be housed within<br />
the compound. All fuels and oils would be securely bunded or stored<br />
within double skinned containers.<br />
5.17 The compound would be used, where necessary, <strong>for</strong> storage of the<br />
various components and materials that are required <strong>for</strong> construction.<br />
There may be a requirement <strong>for</strong> a concrete batching plant housed within<br />
the construction compound or at another suitable location identified in<br />
consultation with the local planning authority and consultees during the<br />
EMP and CMS preparation process.<br />
5.18 A settling pit and concrete washout bay would be provided adjacent to the<br />
construction compound. When concrete lorries have deposited their loads<br />
within the turbine foundations, there is a requirement to wash out the<br />
inside of the concrete drum. This requires a few gallons of water, which<br />
then would be washed out from the drum into a settlement pit. The size of<br />
this pit would depend upon the flow of concrete lorries up to the site (or<br />
within the site if an on-site batching plant is employed) but would typically<br />
be a trench around 10m long by 3m wide and 2m deep, lined with an<br />
impermeable sheet and granular fill to assist in the settling process. The<br />
settlement pit would be located away from watercourses with details<br />
included as part of the EMP and CMS following consultation with the<br />
Environment Agency. The washout bay shall be maintained as necessary<br />
by replacing the granular fill and replacing it with clean stone.<br />
Equipment Storage<br />
5.19 Equipment in use on the site would either be operational within the site<br />
boundary or when not required, would be stored within the construction<br />
compound.<br />
5.20 A number of other vehicles would bring loads to the site, but would not be<br />
stored on the site. These include lorries with flat bed extendable trailers<br />
carrying all turbine components including trans<strong>for</strong>mers, lorries carrying<br />
cabling, steel rods <strong>for</strong> concrete rein<strong>for</strong>cement and concrete lorries with<br />
revolving drums in the case that concrete is batched off-site. If concrete<br />
was batched on-site, lorries would be carrying water, cement and<br />
aggregate onto the site, to be mixed in an on-site batching plant.<br />
43<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
5.21 If necessary, to prevent mud entering the public road system, the wheels<br />
of all lorries leaving the site would be washed either using a manual spray<br />
or a wheel washing drive through unit. The entrances to the public<br />
highway network would have tarmac laid down to prevent unbound<br />
material reaching the public road and posing a hazard to motorists.<br />
Cabins/Welfare Facilities<br />
5.22 Due to the requirement under health and safety legislation and the<br />
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 <strong>for</strong> welfare<br />
facilities on site and the exposed nature of the site, a number of cabins will<br />
be needed in the construction compound. These will have offices,<br />
canteen, drying-rooms, toilets and washing facilities appropriate <strong>for</strong> the<br />
number of construction workers. The units shall be self-contained and no<br />
discharge of drainage shall be made to the surrounding land unless<br />
otherwise agreed with the Environment Agency and the local authority.<br />
Smaller, mobile self-contained units are likely to be required as work<br />
progresses throughout the site. These shall be placed at suitable<br />
locations to tie in with the work interfaces as required.<br />
Construction Materials<br />
5.23 A variety of materials are utilised during the construction of wind farms<br />
including, but not limited to; concrete, rein<strong>for</strong>cing steel, timber <strong>for</strong> joinery<br />
work and shuttering, stone and sand <strong>for</strong> road construction, general<br />
construction sundries and electricity cables. Wherever possible, the reuse<br />
of materials shall be carried out, i.e. <strong>for</strong>mwork would be re-used and<br />
excavated material from foundations would be re-used in the preparation<br />
of crane pads and road etc. An indication of the materials used and the<br />
amount of resources (plant and labour) is generally included in the<br />
preparation of the CMS. Handling of potentially hazardous materials shall<br />
be carried out in accordance with the Environment Agency‟s Pollution<br />
Prevention Guidelines, particularly: PPG6 which is concerned with the<br />
delivery, handling and storage of materials. For example, the preparation<br />
of contingency plans, and briefing operatives on the procedure to follow if<br />
a spillage occurs shall be covered by the appointed civil engineering<br />
contractor, displayed on site and contained within the CMS document prior<br />
to construction commencing. It is currently envisaged that water <strong>for</strong><br />
batching concrete on-site would be sourced on-site from existing or new<br />
boreholes. Alternatively, premixed concrete may be imported into the site,<br />
or water <strong>for</strong> the batching plant may similarly be tankered onto the site<br />
should it prove to be <strong>environmental</strong>ly unacceptable to use water from<br />
within the site.<br />
5.24 It is, however, intended that during the CMS preparation stage, if<br />
appropriate, calculations and methodologies may be agreed with the<br />
Environment Agency <strong>for</strong> abstraction from specified local watercourses to<br />
supply water <strong>for</strong> on-site concrete batching.<br />
44<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
5.25 It is estimated that approximately 15,000 cubic metres of aggregate will be<br />
obtained from local quarries to construct the site roads and compounds.<br />
Fuel & Chemical Storage<br />
5.26 Fuel will be required <strong>for</strong> the vehicles, generators and other equipment on<br />
site. This would be stored within the temporary site compound, with<br />
storage facilities typically consisting of a bunded concrete plinth containing<br />
a lockable, bunded fuel tank and a separate lockable housing <strong>for</strong> the<br />
storage of construction chemicals. In addition to this there will typically be<br />
a wheeled, bunded bowser <strong>for</strong> the transport of fuel to tracked vehicles.<br />
Drip trays shall be used when refuelling vehicles on the site. Emergency<br />
spill kits shall be kept on site adjacent to the fuel storage area and also<br />
provided in large items of plant and with the mobile bowser. The principal<br />
contractor shall have an emergency response company on standby in the<br />
event of a spillage incident. The bunds and other equipment associated<br />
with fuel and oil storage within the construction compound would be<br />
removed following the construction of the wind farm.<br />
Site Representative & Support Staff<br />
5.27 In order to monitor the progression, quality and health and safety of the<br />
construction, in tandem with ensuring the development is carried out in<br />
accordance with the CMS methodologies, a full-time client‟s site<br />
representative shall be employed on-site. The site representative shall be<br />
an individual with previous experience of construction and shall be<br />
supported on-site by relevantly experienced personnel where required.<br />
The site representative shall carry out daily checks on the site to monitor<br />
ongoing activities, particularly when sub-contractors are being used on<br />
site. In addition to this, the representative shall work with/act as the<br />
<strong>environmental</strong> clerk of works, with responsibility <strong>for</strong> <strong>environmental</strong> audits<br />
of the site operations, with these being undertaken on a regular basis,<br />
accompanied by the representatives of the relevant contractor.<br />
Employment During Construction<br />
5.28 During the construction period there would be between approximately 15<br />
to 30 construction workers employed on the site at any one time.<br />
OPERATIONAL PERIOD OF THE PROPOSED WIND FARM<br />
5.29 The day-to-day operation of the wind farm would be controlled remotely<br />
and each individual turbine would operate independently from the rest of<br />
the wind farm. Within the operational wind speed range the rotational<br />
speed of each individual turbine would be automatically adjusted by the<br />
turbines‟ control and monitoring system according to a measured and<br />
calculated rolling 10 minute average wind speed. Should the vibrometers<br />
or rotational speed sensors, placed within the nacelle of the turbine, detect<br />
any instability in the structure, any malfunction in operation, or should wind<br />
speeds increase over safe limits, then the braking system of the wind<br />
45<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
turbine would automatically be applied and the turbine would rapidly shutdown.<br />
5.30 If the cause of the shut down was due to high wind speeds then the<br />
turbine would automatically begin operation again once the average wind<br />
speed dropped below 25 m/s. Under other causes of shutdown, e.g.<br />
through malfunction or instability, the turbine would be „parked‟ in a safe<br />
condition (e.g. with the rotor blades orientated 90 degrees to the wind<br />
direction). It would remain parked until manually restarted by a member of<br />
the operations and maintenance team following inspection and, if<br />
necessary, repair.<br />
5.31 The lifetime of the project would be 25 years between commissioning and<br />
decommissioning. Turbines are generally designed with a warranty life of<br />
20-25 years. To ensure that turbines operate with acceptable availability,<br />
generally considered to be over 95% average availability, regular preplanned<br />
maintenance and servicing programmes are per<strong>for</strong>med on each<br />
turbine. A typical maintenance programme is outlined below.<br />
Maintenance Programme<br />
5.32 Commonly, maintenance regimes begin shortly after commissioning with a<br />
'post-construction' check of the torque levels of all bolts within the<br />
structure. This is normally per<strong>for</strong>med 10 days after commissioning and<br />
again at 3 months after commissioning.<br />
5.33 After this minor and major service regimes continue on a 6-monthly basis<br />
with both services being per<strong>for</strong>med annually throughout the lifetime of the<br />
turbine.<br />
5.34 Routine oil sampling and testing of lubricant maintains awareness of the<br />
integrity and condition of these lubricants. This allows cost-effective oil<br />
changes to be per<strong>for</strong>med as the oil quality degrades. Routine oil sampling<br />
and testing of trans<strong>for</strong>mer oils is also per<strong>for</strong>med in order to maintain<br />
awareness of the integrity of the electrical properties of these oils.<br />
5.35 Maintenance of high voltage switchgear is also per<strong>for</strong>med routinely, but<br />
the time periods between servicing routines is commonly 5 to 8 years<br />
when modern equipment is utilised.<br />
5.36 In the case of major component maintenance being required, such as a<br />
generator or blade replacement, large vehicles similar to those used<br />
during construction may be required to return to site. These will be subject<br />
to similar controls as were agreed <strong>for</strong> the initial construction period.<br />
5.37 All maintenance of any equipment item will be per<strong>for</strong>med according to the<br />
Original Equipment Manufacturer‟s stated schedules and procedures.<br />
46<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Storage and Use of Potentially Polluting Substances<br />
5.38 Storage of polluting substances at the site during the operational period of<br />
the wind farm would only take place where agreed with the relevant<br />
authorities. Generally, substances of this nature are transported in<br />
minimum quantities on an 'as required' basis - i.e. the technicians would<br />
only bring what they need <strong>for</strong> their day's work.<br />
5.39 Each turbine would contain lubricating and hydraulic oils. These are<br />
changed during regular maintenance operations. In the unlikely event of a<br />
lubricant leak from a turbine gearbox or the hydraulic system within the<br />
turbine nacelle, the turbine tower would itself act as a fully sealed bund<br />
containing the spillage until it could be cleaned up.<br />
Employment During Operational Period<br />
5.40 It is envisaged that a senior technician would be employed on a full-time<br />
basis to operate and maintain the Penny Hill Wind Farm. For the first few<br />
years of operation, whilst the turbines are likely to be under warranty,<br />
technicians from the wind turbine manufacturer would also be present on<br />
site carrying out routine commissioning and maintenance and training<br />
technicians who would ultimately be responsible <strong>for</strong> ongoing site<br />
operations. In addition, specialist personnel may be contracted in to cover<br />
some aspects of maintenance or bespoke troubleshooting/investigation<br />
work.<br />
DECOMMISSIONING<br />
5.41 At the end of the wind farm‟s useful life it is proposed that the turbines,<br />
trans<strong>for</strong>mers, control building, substation and compound would be<br />
removed. The upper sections of the turbine foundations would be removed<br />
and back filled with minimum 100-150 mm of appropriate material, with<br />
topsoil replaced, and the area restored to arable agricultural use. Tracks<br />
that are to be utilised <strong>for</strong> ongoing agricultural and land management<br />
operations would be left in-situ, other tracks would be allowed to revegetate<br />
or would be covered with soil and, again, restored to arable<br />
agriculture. At least six months prior to the decommissioning of the site a<br />
Decommissioning Method Statement would be prepared.<br />
47<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
PART 2: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
IMPACT ASSESSMENT<br />
Part 2 of this ES summarises the detailed assessments which have been undertaken<br />
on an individual basis of the potential significant <strong>environmental</strong> effects of the Penny<br />
Hill proposal.<br />
48<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
6.1 This section has been prepared by Pegasus Environmental. It comprises a<br />
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and has been prepared<br />
by Chartered Members of the Landscape Institute. The LVIA considers the<br />
potential effects of the Penny Hill Wind Farm upon:<br />
Individual landscape features and elements;<br />
Landscape character; and<br />
Visual amenity and the people who view the landscape.<br />
6.2 The main objectives of the LVIA are as follows:<br />
To identify, evaluate and describe the current landscape character of<br />
the site and its surroundings and also any notable individual landscape<br />
features within the site;<br />
To determine the sensitivity of the landscape to the type of<br />
development proposed;<br />
To identify potential visual receptors (i.e. people that would be able to<br />
see the development) and evaluate their sensitivity to the type of<br />
changes proposed;<br />
To identify and describe any impacts of the development in so far as<br />
they affect the landscape and/or views of it and evaluate the magnitude<br />
of change due to these impacts;<br />
To identify and describe mitigation measures that have been adopted<br />
to avoid, reduce and compensate <strong>for</strong> landscape and visual impacts;<br />
To identify and assess any cumulative landscape and visual effects;<br />
and<br />
To evaluate the significance of residual landscape and visual effects.<br />
6.3 In addition a detailed property assessment has been undertaken which<br />
analyses the impact upon the visual amenity of residential receptors in depth.<br />
6.4 All figures and visualisations referenced within this section are contained<br />
within the separate A3 volume submitted with this planning application.<br />
The only exceptions are Figures 6.34 – 6.42 which relate to the Property<br />
Assessment and are there<strong>for</strong>e contained in Appendix 13.<br />
49<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY<br />
Published Guidance Documents<br />
6.5 The LVIA has been undertaken in accordance with best practice, as<br />
outlined in published guidance:<br />
The Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd<br />
Edition (2002) Landscape Institute and the Institute <strong>for</strong> Environmental<br />
Management and Assessment;<br />
Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Landscape Character Assessment, (2002) Countryside<br />
Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH); and<br />
The Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Environmental Impact Assessment (2004) Institute<br />
<strong>for</strong> Environmental Management and Assessment.<br />
6.6 Consideration has also been given to the following documents:<br />
Landscape Appraisal <strong>for</strong> Onshore Wind Development, (2003)<br />
University of Newcastle;<br />
Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind farms and Small<br />
Scale Hydroelectric Schemes, (2001) Scottish Natural Heritage;<br />
Guidance <strong>for</strong> the Assessment of Cumulative Landscape and Visual<br />
Impacts Arising from Windfarm Developments (3rd Draft), (2004) SNH;<br />
Visual Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice Guidance,<br />
(March 2006), SNH commissioned report no. FO3 AA 308/2;<br />
Cumulative Effects of Wind Turbines: A Guide to Assessing the<br />
Cumulative Effects of Wind Energy Development (2000) Landscape<br />
Design Associates, DTI commissioned report ETSUW/14/00538/REP;<br />
PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas;<br />
PPS 22: Renewable Energy;<br />
PPS 22: Companion Guide; and<br />
Renewable Energy Developments: The Role of the Countryside<br />
Agency (AP 99/50) Annex 3.<br />
DISTINCTION BETWEEN LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS<br />
6.7 In accordance with published guidance, landscape and visual impacts are<br />
assessed separately although the procedure <strong>for</strong> assessing each of these<br />
is closely linked. A clear distinction has been drawn between landscape<br />
and visual impacts as described below:<br />
50<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Landscape impacts relate to the effects of the proposals on the<br />
physical and other characteristics of the landscape and its resulting<br />
character and quality.<br />
Visual impacts relate to the effects on views experienced by visual<br />
receptors (e.g. residents, footpath users, tourists etc) and on the visual<br />
amenity experienced by those people.<br />
TYPES OF EFFECT CONSIDERED IN THE LVIA<br />
6.8 The LVIA assesses both the long term effects relating to the operational<br />
lifetime of the wind farm and also the short-term impacts associated with<br />
its construction. Where appropriate, the LVIA also considers any residual<br />
effects once the wind farm has been decommissioned and removed.<br />
6.9 The LVIA not only assesses the impacts associated with the turbines but<br />
also any related impacts resulting from the meteorological mast, control<br />
compound, underground cabling, site tracks and access roads.<br />
6.10 Consideration has been given to seasonal variations in the visibility of the<br />
wind farm.<br />
6.11 The LVIA also assesses cumulative effects caused by the development of<br />
the site in conjunction with other existing or proposed wind developments.<br />
6.12 The cumulative impact of other wind farms within 40km of Penny Hill which<br />
are either operational, under construction, consented or the subject of a<br />
full planning application have been assessed. These sites have been<br />
identified in Appendix 13.1 and are illustrated in Figure 6.1. Best practice<br />
guidelines identify three types of cumulative visual impact:<br />
STUDY AREA<br />
Simultaneous (or combined) visibility – where two or more sites are<br />
visible from a fixed viewpoint in the same arc of view;<br />
Successive visibility – where two or more sites are visible from a fixed<br />
viewpoint, but the observer is required to turn to see the different sites;<br />
and<br />
Sequential visibility – where two or more sites are not visible at one<br />
location, but would be seen as the observer moves along a linear<br />
route, <strong>for</strong> example, a road or public right of way.<br />
6.13 The study area <strong>for</strong> the visual assessment was taken to have a radius of<br />
20km from the site in all directions.<br />
6.14 Scottish guidance suggests that <strong>for</strong> wind turbines of the size proposed, a<br />
30km radius may in some cases be appropriate. However, this guidance<br />
has been specifically prepared <strong>for</strong> the consideration of landscape and<br />
visual effects of turbines in Scottish landscapes.<br />
51<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.15 It is acknowledged that beyond 15km from the site, effectively the only<br />
possible scenario which could result in significant landscape and visual<br />
effects is where there are distant elevated views (e.g. from hill tops) over<br />
rural landscapes which exhibit minimal human influence. In the case of the<br />
Penny Hill site, it is noted that within 20km of the site, there are major<br />
urban centres in every direction and as such there are no distant elevated<br />
positions which enable views towards the site over landscapes untouched<br />
by modern built development.<br />
6.16 The 20km study area was selected as it extends out as far as the Peak<br />
District National Park enabling consideration of any elevated views from<br />
the west. This radius was there<strong>for</strong>e considered appropriate <strong>for</strong> the location<br />
of the development proposed.<br />
CONSULTATIONS<br />
6.17 Pegasus Environmental consulted Rotherham Metropolitan Borough<br />
Council (MBC) and proposed a selection of assessment viewpoints in a<br />
letter dated 28th July 2008. Following a series of discussions regarding<br />
these viewpoints, it was agreed to include an additional 4 viewpoints to the<br />
16 originally selected by the project Landscape Architect.<br />
6.18 Natural England commented on the Scoping Report in a letter dated 30th<br />
July 2008 and welcomed the inclusion of an LVIA in the ES. It noted that<br />
the Peak District National Park was just within the 20km study area of the<br />
site and requested that views to and from it be considered in the LVIA. It<br />
also requested that there be an analysis of views and vistas from any<br />
National Trails within the ZTV and requested that views from Public Rights<br />
of Way also be considered in the assessment. This report accommodates<br />
all of these requests.<br />
6.19 CPRE also provided comments on the Scoping Report and suggested a<br />
number of viewpoints <strong>for</strong> inclusion in the assessment. Of the 6 viewpoints<br />
selected, 3 have been adopted in this assessment. The remaining three<br />
viewpoints were very close to other viewpoints which had already been<br />
selected and so it is considered that these are represented by the<br />
viewpoints included in this assessment.<br />
LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY<br />
6.20 A baseline landscape assessment was carried out to determine the current<br />
features and character of the landscape within and surrounding the site.<br />
6.21 The baseline landscape assessment involved firstly a review of desk<br />
material including:<br />
Ordnance Survey maps at 1:50 000, 1:25 000 and 1:10 000 scales;<br />
Aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area;<br />
52<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Ecological survey plans;<br />
Datasets of heritage features;<br />
Geology and soil maps;<br />
Relevant planning policy; and<br />
National and regional scale landscape character assessments.<br />
6.22 Field visits were conducted in a variety of weather conditions and at<br />
different times of the year. Surveys were undertaken between May 2008<br />
and September 2008.<br />
6.23 The baseline assessment identified the existing landscape features on the<br />
site and in the immediate vicinity and how these elements combine to give<br />
the area a sense of landscape character.<br />
6.24 Plans, sections and construction details of the proposed scheme were<br />
used to determine the impacts of the scheme on landscape features and<br />
character.<br />
6.25 The LVIA firstly assesses how the proposed development would impact<br />
directly on any landscape features and resources (e.g. removal of trees).<br />
6.26 The LVIA then considers impacts on landscape character at two levels.<br />
Firstly, consideration is given to how the immediate landscape character<br />
surrounding the site is affected due to the removal or alteration of existing<br />
features and the introduction of new features. Secondly, the impacts of<br />
the development on the wider landscape are discussed with reference to<br />
regional landscape character areas identified in the relevant regional<br />
landscape character assessments.<br />
6.27 The significance of effects on landscape features and character is<br />
determined by cross referencing the sensitivity of the feature or landscape<br />
character with the magnitude of impact.<br />
VISUAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY<br />
6.28 Potential visual receptors of the scheme were identified by interpretation of<br />
digitally generated Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs) (see Table 6.1 <strong>for</strong><br />
an explanation of ZTVs and how they were produced). The ZTVs are<br />
presented in Figures 6.6 and 6.7.<br />
6.29 The assessment of visual effects was undertaken on the basis of viewpoint<br />
analysis as recommended by best practice guidelines (Visual<br />
Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice Guidance, SNH<br />
commissioned report FO3 AA 308/2). A selection of viewpoints was<br />
agreed with Rotherham Borough Council to represent the range of views<br />
likely to be experienced of the development.<br />
53<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.30 The viewpoints were selected to represent a range of views and viewer<br />
types as discussed in Table 7 of Visual Representation of Windfarms –<br />
Good Practice Guidance, SNH commissioned report FO3 AA 308/2. The<br />
viewpoints cover a variety of different character types, are in different<br />
directions from the site and are at varying elevations. The viewpoints are<br />
located at a range of distances from the development to illustrate the<br />
varying magnitude of visual impacts with distance from the site.<br />
6.31 All of the representative viewpoints were photographed at 1.7m above<br />
ground level. However, where relevant, assumed views from upper floors<br />
of buildings were considered in the assessment.<br />
6.32 For each of the viewpoints, a wireline model was generated to help identify<br />
the scale, arrangement and visibility of the turbines (see Table 6.2 <strong>for</strong> a<br />
description of how the wireline models were produced). These are<br />
presented in Figures 6.10 – 6.29. The images were proofed on site to<br />
assess how natural and built screening would affect visibility of the site.<br />
6.33 Six of the wireframe models were developed further into photomontages to<br />
help illustrate the predicted impact of the development (see Table 6.3 <strong>for</strong> a<br />
description of how the photomontages were generated and their<br />
limitations).<br />
6.34 Each of the representative viewpoints was visited on a number of<br />
occasions to understand the sensitivity of views. Furthermore, the entire<br />
extent of the study area was visited to appreciate visibility of the<br />
development as receptors move through the landscape.<br />
6.35 The viewpoints were used as the basis <strong>for</strong> determining the effects on<br />
visual receptors within the entire study area.<br />
6.36 The potential impact upon residential amenity was considered a key<br />
potential constraint to development in this location, it was there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
considered appropriate to undertake a further analysis upon the impact of<br />
residential amenity <strong>for</strong> those that have the potential to be most affected.<br />
This assessment has been done considering those properties within 2km<br />
of the site.<br />
6.37 It should be noted that it was beyond the scope of this study to gain<br />
access to individual dwellings or gardens and the nearest public access<br />
point was used <strong>for</strong> visual assessment purposes. The assessment can<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e be used only as an approximate guide. Defining the limits of<br />
private gardens was particularly challenging and considering the view from<br />
all corners of any individual garden was impossible. There<strong>for</strong>e, the score<br />
attributed to each property or cluster of properties is based first and<br />
<strong>for</strong>emost on the view from the property but where possible the view from<br />
the garden has also been taken into account.<br />
6.38 The assessment has been done on the basis of the following assessment<br />
methodology:<br />
54<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.39 A: Predicted Visibility of the Turbines<br />
The predicted view of the wind turbines from residential properties was<br />
assessed and scored on a scale of 1 to 3 as follows:<br />
1. A clear and direct view of the turbines from main ground floor windows<br />
or the garden;<br />
2. An oblique or semi screened (either by vegetation, buildings or<br />
land<strong>for</strong>m) view of the turbines from main ground floor windows or the<br />
garden or clear and direct views from upper windows;<br />
3. No view of the turbines from ground floor windows or the garden and<br />
only oblique or semi screened (either by vegetation, buildings or land<strong>for</strong>m)<br />
views from upper windows; or<br />
No view of the turbines from any windows or the garden (no score<br />
attributed).<br />
B: Extent to which the Current view is Influenced by Major Visual<br />
Detractors<br />
The existing view from residential properties was assessed and scored on<br />
a scale of<br />
1 to 3 as follows:<br />
1. No major visual detractors in the existing view (e.g. motorways,<br />
electricity pylons, industrial units, scrap yards);<br />
2. Minor view of major visual detractors in the existing view (e.g.<br />
motorways, electricity pylons, industrial units, scrap yards) but which are<br />
not highly prominent; or<br />
3. The existing view is heavily influenced by major visual detractors (e.g.<br />
motorways, electricity pylons, industrial units, scrap yards).<br />
6.40 An overall assessment rating <strong>for</strong> the significance of effects on the view<br />
from each property or cluster of properties has been established by<br />
multiplying the score <strong>for</strong> the predicted view of the turbines with the score<br />
concerning the prominence of major visual detractors in the view.<br />
6.41 The significance ratings <strong>for</strong> the combined scores are as follows:<br />
1-2 Substantial<br />
3-5 Moderate<br />
6-9 Slight<br />
55<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.42 The assessment records no effect <strong>for</strong> any problems with no view of any of<br />
its windows or from its garden.<br />
6.43 The conclusions of this assessment are considered in further detail later in<br />
this chapter with the complete assessment contained within Appendix 13.<br />
Table 6.1: Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs)<br />
A Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) illustrates the extents from which a feature or features<br />
(in this case several wind turbines) would theoretically be visible within a defined study area.<br />
It should be noted that the ZTVs <strong>for</strong> Penny Hill have been generated assuming a „bare<br />
ground‟ terrain model. This means that it is generated from topographical data only and<br />
does not take any account of vegetation or the built environment, which may screen views<br />
of the development. It is, as such, a „worst case‟ Zone of Visual Influence and considerably<br />
over-emphasises the actual visibility of the scheme. In reality trees, hedges and buildings<br />
may restrict views of the development from many of the areas rendered as within the ZTV.<br />
A further assumption of the ZTVs is that climatic visibility is 100% (i.e. visibility is not<br />
impeded by moisture or pollution in the air). In reality, such atmospheric conditions are<br />
relatively rare in the UK. Mist, fog, rain and snow are all common weather occurrences,<br />
which would regularly restrict visibility of the development from some of the areas within the<br />
ZTV. Atmospheric pollution is also still present and would also restrict actual visibility on<br />
certain days of the year. Climatic conditions inevitably reduce visibility with increasing<br />
distance from the development.<br />
The ZTVs <strong>for</strong> Penny Hill were generated using LSS v9.60 by McCarthy Taylor Systems Ltd.<br />
The programme used 3D height data (OS Land<strong>for</strong>m Panorama) to build a terrain model.<br />
The programme then renders the model using a square grid to illustrate how many turbines<br />
would be visible in each 200m x 200m square on the grid <strong>for</strong> a specified distance in every<br />
direction from the site.<br />
Digital ZTVs have been prepared to illustrate the theoretical visibility of the Penny Hill<br />
turbines <strong>for</strong> a radius of 20km around the site. Two sets of ZTVs have been produced, the<br />
first shows visibility of the turbines to the nacelle and the second shows visibility of the<br />
turbines to blade tip when one blade is at its highest possible position. These ZTVs are<br />
presented in Figures 6.6 and 6.7.<br />
Cumulative ZTVs have been produced to show locations where the ZTVs of two or more<br />
operational or proposed wind farm sites overlap. In the cumulative ZTVs one colour (yellow)<br />
has been used to illustrate the theoretical visibility of the Penny Hill site and a second colour<br />
(blue) to illustrate the visibility of a second site. Where the ZTVs of the two sites overlap a<br />
third colour (green) has been used to illustrate this potential cumulative visual influence.<br />
These ZTVs are presented in Figures 6.30 – 6.33.<br />
It should be noted that there are several limitations to the use of ZTVs. For a discussion of<br />
these limitations please refer to Visual Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice<br />
Guidance (SNH commissioned report FO3 AA 308/2). In particular, it should be noted that<br />
the ZTV plans simply illustrate theoretical visibility and do not imply or assign any level of<br />
significance to those areas identified as being within the ZTV. The ZTVs are a tool to assist<br />
the Landscape Architect to identify where the site would potentially be visible from. The<br />
assessment of landscape and visual effects in this section does not rely solely on the<br />
accuracy of the ZTVs. Professional judgement has been used to evaluate the significance of<br />
effects.<br />
56<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Table 6.2: Wireline Visualisations<br />
A wireline or wireframe visualisation is a computer generated 3D outline of a particular<br />
structure (in this case wind turbines) placed on top of a 3D ground terrain model, which again<br />
is represented by a wireframe. No rendering is given to any of the surfaces. The actual<br />
dimensions of the turbines were used to build a model of the turbines and the structures were<br />
placed in position over a ground terrain model generated from Ordnance Survey Land<strong>for</strong>m<br />
Panorama height data.<br />
The coordinates of the viewpoints were taken using a Global Positioning System (GPS) in the<br />
field. These coordinates were used to set up viewpoints in the model from which to view the<br />
turbines. The wirelines were generated using LSS v9.60 by McCarthy Taylor Systems Ltd.<br />
The wireline images are generated on a bare ground model and there<strong>for</strong>e do not take<br />
account of any vegetation or the built environment between the viewpoint and the<br />
development. As such, they represent a worst case view. Each of the wirelines was checked<br />
on site to ascertain whether there was any screening of the view caused by vegetation or<br />
buildings.<br />
A number of the wirelines are presented in Figures 6.10 to 6.29 where they have been<br />
positioned to scale beneath a baseline photograph to illustrate the actual view from each<br />
viewpoint. The wireline images only illustrate the anticipated scale and position of the<br />
turbines. They do not show any other features such as access tracks, the control compound<br />
or the meteorological mast. Whilst every ef<strong>for</strong>t has been made to ensure the accuracy of the<br />
images, it must be appreciated that no wireline image could ever claim to be 100% accurate<br />
as there are a number of technical limitations to the model. For a detailed discussion<br />
regarding the limitations of wirelines, please refer to Visual Representation of Windfarms –<br />
Good Practice Guidance (SNH commissioned report FO3 AA 308/2).<br />
It should be noted that wirelines are just a „snap shot‟ of the view from a single fixed location<br />
and the wirelines presented in this ES represent only a small number of locations where the<br />
development will be visible from. In reality views will change as receptors move through the<br />
landscape. There<strong>for</strong>e the wirelines are simply a tool to assist the Landscape Architect in<br />
his/her assessment of effects. The assessment of visual effects in this section does not rely<br />
solely on the accuracy of the wireline images. Professional judgement has been used to<br />
evaluate the significance of effects.<br />
57<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Table 6.3: Photomontages<br />
A photomontage is the superimposition of a rendered, photorealistic, computer generated<br />
model of a structure (in this case wind turbines and associated structures) on to a baseline<br />
photograph.<br />
Baseline photographs were taken using a Canon EOS 30D digital SLR camera using a high<br />
quality lens accurately calibrated to provide the equivalent of a 50mm lens on a traditional SLR<br />
camera. All pictures were taken using a levelled tripod and using a high quality setting of 8.2<br />
megapixel resolution. Each of the viewpoints presented in the ES is made up of several<br />
photographs which have been stitched together using Adobe Photoshop software. During the<br />
stitching process none of the photographs were distorted in terms of scaling.<br />
At the time the baseline photographs were taken, co-ordinates of the viewpoints were recorded<br />
using a GPS. Photographs were taken at 1.7m above ground level (i.e. approximately eye<br />
level).<br />
A 3D wireline model was generated of the development features, including turbines,<br />
meteorological mast, access tracks and the sub-station. LSS v9.60 by McCarthy Taylor<br />
Systems Ltd was used to generate the 3D model of the turbines and associated structures.<br />
The model of the structures was rendered and lighting was set appropriate to the date, time<br />
and orientation on which the photograph was taken.<br />
A digital ground terrain model was generated in LSS v9.60 by McCarthy Taylor Systems Ltd<br />
where the development was overlaid on top of it. Using world coordinates in the computer<br />
modelling programme the photographic viewpoints were replicated such that a view was set up<br />
looking at the structures from exactly the same location as where the baseline photograph was<br />
taken from. The view from the model was then superimposed over the original photograph and<br />
edited as necessary in Adobe Photoshop to give a final photomontage. Several known<br />
landmarks in the far distance of the baseline photographs were recorded on site using a GPS<br />
and used to check that the positioning and scale of the structures was correct.<br />
Whilst every ef<strong>for</strong>t has been made to ensure the accuracy of the photomontages, it must be<br />
appreciated that no photomontage could ever claim to be 100% accurate as there are a<br />
number of technical limitations in the model relating to the accuracy of in<strong>for</strong>mation available<br />
from Ordnance Survey and from the GPS. For a detailed discussion regarding the limitations of<br />
photomontages, please refer to Visual Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice Guidance<br />
(SNH commissioned report FO3 AA 308/2).<br />
In particular, it should be recognised that baseline photographs on which photomontages are<br />
based can, at best, only ever be a „flattened‟ 2D representation of what the eye sees in 3D on<br />
site. A photograph will never capture as much detail as the eye would see in the field, it<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e follows that a photomontage can never truly capture the sense of perspective and<br />
detail which would be possible in reality. Taking account of the inherent technical limitations in<br />
producing and presenting photomontages, the photomontages <strong>for</strong> Penny Hill have been<br />
produced according to best practice.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e the wirelines are simply a tool to assist the Landscape Architect in his/her<br />
assessment of effects. The assessment of visual effects in this section does not rely solely on<br />
the accuracy of the photomontages. Professional judgement has been used to evaluate the<br />
significance of effects.<br />
An interpretation of monocular perspective could be obtained by viewing the photomontages<br />
from a distance of 250mm curved through an appropriate radius.<br />
58<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA<br />
6.44 The ultimate purpose of the LVIA is to evaluate the likely significance of<br />
landscape and visual effects within the study area to assist the planning<br />
authority to determine the acceptability of the scheme.<br />
6.45 In accordance with the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment<br />
Guidelines, 2nd Edition (Landscape Institute and IEMA, 2002), the<br />
significance of effects is ascertained by cross referencing the sensitivity of<br />
the baseline landscape or visual receptor and the magnitude of change as<br />
a result of the development.<br />
LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY<br />
6.46 The sensitivity of an individual landscape feature reflects factors such as<br />
its quality, value, contribution to landscape character and the degree to<br />
which the particular element can be replaced. A particular feature may be<br />
more sensitive in one location than in another. There<strong>for</strong>e it is not possible<br />
to simply place different types of landscape feature into sensitivity bands.<br />
Where individual landscape features are affected, professional judgement<br />
has been used as far as possible to give an objective evaluation of its<br />
sensitivity. Justification is given <strong>for</strong> this evaluation where necessary.<br />
6.47 The sensitivity of landscape character is an expression of a landscape‟s<br />
ability to accommodate change, in this case the development of a wind<br />
farm. It varies depending on the existing land use, pattern and scale of the<br />
landscape, the degree of openness, scope <strong>for</strong> mitigation in keeping with<br />
the existing landscape character, condition, value placed on the landscape<br />
and any designations that may apply.<br />
6.48 Landscape character is considered at two levels. Firstly impacts are<br />
considered within the immediate landscape surrounding the site (a<br />
nominal radius of 2km surrounding the site).<br />
6.49 Secondly impacts on landscape character are considered at the wider<br />
landscape level by reference to the national Joint Character Areas within<br />
20km of the site. Based on early analysis of the landscape character within<br />
the study area, it was concluded that there would be no significant effect<br />
on landscape character beyond this distance. At any point beyond this<br />
distance, it is considered that the visual influence of a wind farm would be<br />
experienced in the context of any number of more prominent man made<br />
features and there<strong>for</strong>e the impact of the turbines would in no instance<br />
result in any greater than a slight effect on landscape character.<br />
6.50 With regards to the immediate landscape character area, a site-specific<br />
appraisal has been undertaken of the landscape within and immediately<br />
surrounding the site and an evaluation is made in the baseline section of<br />
this section regarding its sensitivity to wind energy development.<br />
59<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.51 With regards to the landscape character of the wider area, sensitivity has<br />
been determined <strong>for</strong> each Joint Character Area identified within 20km of<br />
the site.<br />
6.52 A visual receptor‟s response to landscape character is influenced by the<br />
physical and perceptual characteristics of their surroundings. In most<br />
cases, the landscape components in the immediate surroundings have a<br />
much stronger influence on the sense of landscape character than distant<br />
features. Occasionally at elevated viewpoints it is possible to feel a sense<br />
of exposure or remoteness and this is partially defined not only by<br />
immediate surroundings but the presence or absence of distant features in<br />
the landscape, and the level of human activity evident in the surrounding<br />
landscape.<br />
6.53 How sensitive a landscape character area is to a wind energy<br />
development more than a few kilometres away there<strong>for</strong>e reflects a number<br />
of factors including: the number of elevated locations which enable an<br />
appreciation of the wider landscape, the extent to which remoteness and<br />
wilderness are key features of the landscape, any sense of scale derived<br />
from proximity to other character areas, the importance of focal points in<br />
the surrounding area and the amount of movement and activity in the<br />
surrounding landscape.<br />
6.54 The judgement about how sensitive the character areas are has been<br />
made by extrapolating this in<strong>for</strong>mation from appendices to „Planning <strong>for</strong><br />
Renewable Energy Targets in Yorkshire and Humber‟, Government Office<br />
<strong>for</strong> Yorkshire and Humber.<br />
6.55 The sensitivity of landscape features and character has been described as<br />
high, medium or low.<br />
VISUAL SENSITIVITY<br />
6.56 Visual sensitivity cannot be easily quantified as different people have<br />
different viewing expectations. Representative viewpoints have been used<br />
in the assessment to represent different visual receptor groups at various<br />
distances and directions from the site. The sensitivity of the receptor<br />
groups to a wind farm depends on a number of factors such as the<br />
occupation of the viewer (e.g. resident, traveller passing by the scheme,<br />
someone at work), their viewing expectations, duration of view and the<br />
angle or direction in which they would see the site.<br />
6.57 As a general guide, however, residential receptors, tourists, recreational<br />
users of public rights of way and people at recognised vantage points such<br />
as mountain tops are considered to have a higher sensitivity to change in<br />
their view than people conducting their daily business (e.g. at their place of<br />
work) or travelling through a landscape (excluding people sightseeing).<br />
6.58 It should be noted that, in selecting the representative viewpoints <strong>for</strong> the<br />
assessment, there was a strong bias towards identifying the most sensitive<br />
60<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
visual receptor groups. Viewpoints of low sensitivity have been considered<br />
in the assessment but the focus of the study is centred on where impacts<br />
were likely to be most significant. On balance, there<strong>for</strong>e, the selected<br />
viewpoints are inherently more sensitive than the average visual receptor<br />
in the study area.<br />
6.59 It is important not to confuse the concept of visual sensitivity with the<br />
perception of wind turbines. Many people have a predisposition towards<br />
wind farms. It is acknowledged that some people consider wind turbines<br />
to be unattractive but many people also enjoy the sight of them. It is not<br />
the purpose of this section to influence personal opinion about the<br />
aesthetic appearance of wind farms.<br />
6.60 Visual receptor sensitivity has been described as high, medium or low.<br />
MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE IMPACTS<br />
6.61 Two types of landscape impact are considered:<br />
Physical changes to existing landscape features; and<br />
The impact on the landscape character (both direct impacts on the<br />
immediate landscape character area and indirect impacts on other<br />
landscape character areas within the study area).<br />
MAGNITUDE OF IMPACTS ON LANDSCAPE FEATURES<br />
6.62 Professional judgement has been used as appropriate to determine the<br />
magnitude of direct physical impacts on individual existing landscape<br />
features using the following criteria as guidance only:<br />
No Change - No loss or alteration to existing landscape features;<br />
Low Magnitude of Change - Minor loss or alteration to part of an<br />
existing landscape feature;<br />
Medium Magnitude of Change - Some loss or some alteration to part<br />
of an existing landscape feature; and<br />
High Magnitude of Change - Total or major loss or major alteration to<br />
an existing landscape feature.<br />
MAGNITUDE OF IMPACTS ON THE IMMEDIATE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER<br />
6.63 The magnitude of direct impacts on the immediate landscape character is<br />
influenced by a number of factors including: the extent to which existing<br />
landscape features are lost or altered, the introduction of new features and<br />
the resulting alteration to the scale, land<strong>for</strong>m, land cover and pattern of the<br />
landscape. Professional judgement has been used as appropriate to<br />
determine the magnitude using the following criteria as guidance only:<br />
61<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
No Change<br />
No notable loss or alteration to existing landscape features;No notable<br />
introduction of new features into the landscape; and<br />
Negligible change to the scale, land<strong>for</strong>m, land cover and pattern of the<br />
landscape.<br />
Low Magnitude of Change<br />
Minor loss or alteration to existing landscape features;<br />
Introduction of minor new features into the landscape; or<br />
Minor alteration to the scale, land<strong>for</strong>m, land cover and pattern of the<br />
landscape.<br />
Medium Magnitude of Change<br />
Some notable loss or alteration to existing landscape features;<br />
Introduction of some notable new features into the landscape; or<br />
Some notable change to the scale, land<strong>for</strong>m, land cover and pattern of<br />
the landscape.<br />
High Magnitude of Change<br />
A major loss or alteration to existing landscape features;<br />
Introduction of major new features into the landscape; or<br />
A major change to the scale, land<strong>for</strong>m, land cover and pattern of the<br />
landscape.<br />
MAGNITUDE OF IMPACTS ON THE WIDER LANDSCAPE CHARACTER WITHIN<br />
20KM)<br />
6.64 The magnitude of impacts on the wider landscape (within 20km) is<br />
discussed using the Joint Character Areas taken from the relevant national<br />
character assessment and identified in the baseline section of the<br />
assessment. The magnitude of the impacts reflects the extent to which<br />
aspects of the development are visible within the landscape character area<br />
and how this affects the overall appreciation of scale, remoteness, visual<br />
composition, pattern and land<strong>for</strong>m. The extent to which distant turbines<br />
would affect appreciation of these factors depends on how prominent they<br />
would appear from the character area.<br />
6.65 Professional judgement has been used as appropriate to determine the<br />
magnitude using the following criteria as guidance only:<br />
62<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
No Change – Site not visible or barely visible from the landscape<br />
character area;<br />
Low Magnitude of Change - Presence of the site marginally alters the<br />
appreciation of scale, remoteness, visual composition, pattern or<br />
land<strong>for</strong>m;<br />
Medium Magnitude of Change - Presence of the site notably alters<br />
the appreciation of scale, remoteness, visual composition, pattern or<br />
land<strong>for</strong>m slightly;<br />
High Magnitude of Change - Presence of the site fundamentally<br />
alters the appreciation of scale, remoteness, visual composition,<br />
pattern or land<strong>for</strong>m.<br />
MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL IMPACTS<br />
6.66 Visual impacts are caused by the introduction of new elements into the<br />
views of a landscape or the removal of elements in the existing view.<br />
6.67 Clearly justified professional judgement has been used to determine the<br />
magnitude of impacts using the following criteria as guidance only:<br />
No Change - No change or negligible change in views;<br />
Low Magnitude of Change - Some change in the view that is not<br />
prominent but visible to some visual receptors;<br />
Medium Magnitude of Change - Some change in the view that is<br />
clearly visible in the view and <strong>for</strong>ms an important but not defining<br />
element in the view;<br />
High Magnitude of Change - A major change in the view that has a<br />
defining influence on the overall view.<br />
6.68 Using these criteria, determining levels of magnitude clearly depends on<br />
how prominent the development would be in the landscape.<br />
6.69 For clarification, the use of the term „prominent‟ relates to how noticeable<br />
the features of the development would be. This is affected by how close<br />
the viewpoint is to the development but not entirely dependent on this<br />
factor. Other modifying factors include: the focus of the view, visual<br />
screening and the nature and scale of other landscape features within the<br />
view. Rather than specifying distances at which the turbines will be<br />
dominant, prominent or incidental to the view etc, the dominance of the<br />
turbines in each view is described in detail <strong>for</strong> each viewpoint taking all the<br />
variables into consideration. This approach is supported by best practice<br />
guidelines 7.<br />
7 University of Newcastle (2002) Visual Assessment of Wind farms Best Practice. Scottish Natural<br />
Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA303A.<br />
63<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE<br />
6.70 The ultimate purpose of the LVIA is to evaluate the significance of effects<br />
on the landscape and visual amenity surrounding the site.<br />
6.71 The significance of the landscape and visual effects is determined by<br />
cross-referencing the sensitivity of the landscape or view with the<br />
magnitude of change. In determining the significance of residual effects all<br />
mitigation measures are taken into account.<br />
6.72 The matrix in Table 6.4 demonstrates the general relationship between<br />
sensitivity and magnitude but is given <strong>for</strong> illustrative purposes only (i.e. it is<br />
not used to mechanically determine the significance of an effect upon any<br />
given receptor). At all times, professional judgement is used to determine<br />
the overall significance of effects (in<strong>for</strong>med by judgements made regarding<br />
sensitivity and magnitude). The significance of effects is described as<br />
Substantial, Moderate or Slight.<br />
6.73 Those effects identified as being of substantial and, in some cases,<br />
moderate significance may be regarded significant effects when discussed<br />
in terms of the Town and Country Planning (England and Wales)<br />
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999.<br />
Table 6.4: Matrix of Significance <strong>for</strong> Landscape and Visual Effects<br />
Sensitivity<br />
of<br />
Landscape/View<br />
High<br />
Medium<br />
Low<br />
RESIDUAL EFFECTS<br />
Magnitude of Change in the Landscape/View<br />
High Medium Low No Change<br />
Substantial<br />
Substantial/<br />
Moderate<br />
Moderate/<br />
Slight<br />
64<br />
Substantial/<br />
Moderate<br />
Moderate/<br />
Slight<br />
None<br />
Moderate Slight None<br />
Slight Slight None<br />
6.74 Best practice in the assessment of effects of a proposed development<br />
suggests that the significance of potential effects be assessed, mitigation<br />
proposals identified as appropriate and the residual effect (with mitigation<br />
in place) then re-assessed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the<br />
mitigation proposed.<br />
6.75 Landscape and visual mitigation <strong>for</strong> a wind farm development principally<br />
focuses on refinement of the site layout which is undertaken prior to a<br />
design freeze in the development. Following baseline studies, landscape<br />
and visual considerations were taken into account during the iteration of<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
the design. There<strong>for</strong>e the final design of the scheme incorporates<br />
landscape and visual mitigation and in this section there is no difference<br />
between assessed potential effects and residual effects.<br />
LANDSCAPE PLANNING POLICIES AND DESIGNATIONS<br />
6.76 The following planning documents were reviewed as part of the desk<br />
study:<br />
PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004);<br />
PPS 22 Renewable Energy and PPS22: Companion Guide (2004);<br />
PPG2 Green Belts (2001);<br />
Regional Spatial Strategy <strong>for</strong> Yorkshire and the Humber 2008,<br />
Government Office <strong>for</strong> Yorkshire and the Humber;<br />
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Unitary Development Plan (UDP)<br />
1999,Saved Policies 2007, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council;<br />
and<br />
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough emerging Local Development<br />
Framework (LDF) 2008, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.<br />
6.77 A full and detailed consideration of national, regional and local planning<br />
policy is contained in the Planning Statement accompanying this ES.<br />
However, this section reviews any policies of particular relevance to<br />
landscape and visual issues.<br />
NATIONAL POLICY: PLANNING POLICY GUIDELINES AND STATEMENTS<br />
6.78 PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas sets out the four key<br />
principles of sustainable development in paragraph 1. The second is the<br />
effective protection and enhancement of the environment while the third is<br />
prudent use of natural resources. Paragraph 21 deals with nationally<br />
designated areas and confirms that they have the highest level of<br />
protection in terms of landscape and scenic beauty. The implication is that<br />
less weight should be af<strong>for</strong>ded to areas outside nationally designated<br />
areas. Local landscape designations are dealt with in paragraphs 24 and<br />
25 which suggest that criteria based policies should provide sufficient<br />
protection without the need <strong>for</strong> rigid local designations.<br />
6.79 PPS 22 Renewable Energy provides guidance with regards to the<br />
national designations in the study area (Conservation Areas, Listed<br />
Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens,<br />
National Parks) and states that planning permission <strong>for</strong> renewable energy<br />
developments should only be granted where it can be demonstrated that<br />
the objectives of designated areas will not be compromised and any<br />
significant adverse effect on the qualities <strong>for</strong> which the area has been<br />
65<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
designated are clearly outweighed by the <strong>environmental</strong>, social and<br />
economic benefits.<br />
6.80 Paragraph 13 states that renewable energy development may impact on<br />
the openness of a Green Belt. It states that „Careful consideration will<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e need to be given to the visual impact of projects, and developers<br />
will need to demonstrate very special circumstances that clearly outweigh<br />
any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm if projects<br />
are to proceed.‟ However it also expressly states that „Such very special<br />
circumstances may include the wider <strong>environmental</strong> benefits associated<br />
with increased production of energy from renewable sources.‟<br />
6.81 Paragraph 15 states that „local landscape designations should not be used<br />
themselves to refuse planning permission <strong>for</strong> renewable energy<br />
developments.‟<br />
6.82 PPG2 Green Belts states that „the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is<br />
to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most<br />
important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. Green Belts can<br />
shape patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional scale,<br />
and help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in<br />
development plans. They help to protect the countryside, be it in<br />
agricultural, <strong>for</strong>estry or other use. They can assist in moving towards more<br />
sustainable patterns of urban development.‟<br />
6.83 Paragraph 3.15 states that the „visual amenities of the Green Belt should<br />
not be injured by proposals <strong>for</strong> development within or conspicuous from<br />
the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of<br />
including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of<br />
their siting, materials or design.‟<br />
REGIONAL POLICY: REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR<br />
YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER 2008<br />
6.84 A revised RSS (The Yorkshire and Humber Plan) was published by the<br />
Government Office <strong>for</strong> Yorkshire and the Humber in May 2008. The Plan<br />
sets out the broad development strategy <strong>for</strong> the region.<br />
6.85 ENV10: Landscape<br />
Policy ENV10 states that:<br />
„The Region will safeguard and enhance landscapes that contribute to the<br />
distinctive character of Yorkshire and the Humber. Plans, strategies,<br />
investment decisions and programmes should safeguard and enhance the<br />
following landscapes and related assets of regional, sub-regional and local<br />
importance:<br />
….Derelict and despoiled urban fringe landscapes, especially in the <strong>for</strong>mer<br />
coalfield and older industrial parts of South and West Yorkshire‟.<br />
66<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
LOCAL POLICY: ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH UDP<br />
1999, SAVED POLICIES 2007<br />
6.86 ENV1 Green Belt<br />
Policy ENV1 states that in the Green Belt:<br />
„Development will not be permitted except in very special circumstances<br />
<strong>for</strong> purposes other than agriculture, <strong>for</strong>estry, recreation, cemeteries and<br />
other uses appropriate to a rural area.‟<br />
6.87 ENV1.1 Areas of High Landscape Value<br />
ENV1.1 identifies four Areas of High Landscape Value within the study<br />
area, one of which extends across the development site.<br />
6.88 ENV1.2 Development in areas of high landscape value<br />
ENV1.2 states that:<br />
'In Areas of High Landscape Value, development other than <strong>for</strong> agriculture<br />
will only be allowed where it will not result in a significant, and permanent<br />
adverse impact on the landscape. … Strict control will be exercised over<br />
any development that does take place to ensure that the visual character<br />
of these areas is not affected.'<br />
6.89 ENV2 Conserving the Environment<br />
ENV2 states that:<br />
„In considering any development, the Council will ensure that the effects<br />
on … historic … resources of the Borough are fully taken into account.<br />
The Council will only permit development where it can be shown that:<br />
(i) development will not adversely affect any key <strong>environmental</strong> resources,<br />
(ii) development will not harm the character or quality of the wider<br />
environment, and<br />
(iii) where development will cause <strong>environmental</strong> losses, these are<br />
reduced to a minimum and outweighed by other enhancements in<br />
compensation <strong>for</strong> the loss.‟<br />
6.90 ENV2.1 Statutorily Protected Sites<br />
ENV2.1 states that:<br />
'Development or changes-of-use which would adversely affect the interest,<br />
fabric or setting of a statutorily protected site will not be permitted.'<br />
67<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.91 ENV2.2 Interest Outside Statutorily Protected Sites<br />
With regards to the setting of statutorily protected sites, ENV2 states that:<br />
'Proposals which would adversely affect, directly or indirectly, any …<br />
significant … archaeological feature, will only be permitted where it has<br />
been demonstrated that the overall benefits of the proposed development<br />
clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the interest of the site or feature.'<br />
6.92 ENV2.3 Maintaining the Character and Quality of the Environment<br />
ENV2.3 states that:<br />
'In considering any development or other proposals which would<br />
unavoidably damage an existing <strong>environmental</strong> interest, prior to<br />
determining a planning application, the Council will require the application<br />
to be supported by adequate survey, evaluation, recording and, where<br />
appropriate, details of renovation or repair of historic fabric and rescue or<br />
relocation of features or species of particular merit. Damage to the existing<br />
<strong>environmental</strong> interest should be reduced to a minimum and, where<br />
possible, the interest which is retained should be enhanced. In addition<br />
there must be adequate compensation <strong>for</strong> any significant losses through<br />
landscaping, habitat creation or other <strong>environmental</strong> enhancement.'<br />
6.93 ENV2.8 Settings and Curtilages of Listed Buildings<br />
ENV2.8 states that:<br />
„The Council will resist development proposals which detrimentally affect<br />
the setting of a listed building or are harmful to its curtilage structures in<br />
order to preserve its setting and historical context.'<br />
6.94 ENV2.12 Development Adjacent to Conservation Areas<br />
ENV2.12 states that:<br />
„In considering proposals <strong>for</strong> developments adjacent to Conservation<br />
Areas, special regard will be had to their effect on the Conservation Areas<br />
and, if necessary, modifications to ameliorate the effect will be required<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e approval is given.'<br />
6.95 ENV3 Borough Landscape<br />
ENV3 states that:<br />
„The Council recognises the vital importance of maintaining and enhancing<br />
the landscape of the Borough, pursuing and supporting this objective<br />
through positive measures or initiatives and, when considering<br />
development or other proposals, taking full account of their effect on and<br />
68<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
contribution to the landscape, including water resources and<br />
environments.‟<br />
6.96 ENV3.1 Development and the Environment<br />
ENV3.1 states that:<br />
„Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the<br />
environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard<br />
to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height,<br />
massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics,<br />
screening and landscaping, together with regard to the security of ultimate<br />
users and their property. Developers will be required to supply details of<br />
design and landscaping <strong>for</strong> approval by the Council and where<br />
developments adjoin or include a transport route or other important linear<br />
feature (e.g. a river, canal or stream) the Council will negotiate the creation<br />
or maintenance of a landscaped 'green corridor'. Developments which<br />
make a positive contribution to the environment through a reduction in<br />
harmful emissions, but cannot meet the design standards mentioned<br />
above, will be considered on their merits. Encouragement will be given to<br />
the inclusion of works of public art within the design of major<br />
developments.'<br />
6.97 Policy ENV3.2 Minimising the Impact of Development<br />
ENV3.2 states that:<br />
'In considering the scale, appearance, nature and location of development<br />
and infrastructure proposals, the Council will seek to minimise adverse<br />
impact on the environment, including water resources, and to conserve<br />
and improve its quality. It will permit development which results in a<br />
significant loss of trees, woodlands, hedgerows or field boundary walls<br />
only when there is compelling justification <strong>for</strong> doing so.'<br />
6.98 UTL3.4 Renewable Energy<br />
The Council will seek to ensure that the utility companies and agencies<br />
avoid or, where this is not possible, minimise the adverse landscape and<br />
<strong>environmental</strong> impacts of transmission lines, installations and other similar<br />
apparatus. UTL3.4 states that:<br />
'There will be a presumption in favour of proposals <strong>for</strong> the generation of<br />
power from renewable energy sources unless the proposed development<br />
would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.<br />
The Council will assess proposals <strong>for</strong> the development of renewable<br />
energy sources against the likely <strong>environmental</strong> costs and benefits arising<br />
in each particular case.'<br />
69<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
PLANNING DESIGNATIONS<br />
6.99 All relevant landscape and national heritage designations are illustrated in<br />
Figure 6.2.<br />
National / Regional Landscape Designations<br />
6.100 There are no national or regional landscape designations covering the site<br />
or in close proximity to the site. The nearest National Park is the Peak<br />
District National Park (approximately 19km to the west of the site).<br />
Local Landscape Designations<br />
Greenbelt<br />
6.101 Much of the undeveloped part of the 20km radius study area including the<br />
development site is designated Green Belt. Notably this includes the<br />
entirety of the undeveloped land in the Rotherham borough area.<br />
6.102 In this regard a recent appeal decision relating to a wind farm in green belt<br />
is of relevance to consideration of this application (namely Appeal<br />
Reference APP/D2320/A/08/2069152 Cliff Farm, Wood Lane, Mawdesley,<br />
Ormskirk L40 2RL).<br />
6.103 In the above appeal, the Planning Inspector determined that whilst the<br />
turbines would affect the openness of the Green Belt and would there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
fall within the definition of „inappropriate development‟ in PPG 2, he did not<br />
consider the loss of openness to be „anything but very modest in scale.‟<br />
The inspector concludes that „the areas of land to be built upon are small<br />
in size and have to be seen in the context of a large uninterrupted expanse<br />
of open land‟.<br />
6.104 The inspector concludes that the valuable contribution that the turbines<br />
would make to meeting the challenging target <strong>for</strong> the production of energy<br />
from renewable sources represents „the very special circumstances<br />
required to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, some<br />
limited impact on the Green Belt openness and a small encroachment on<br />
the countryside.‟<br />
6.105 It is also noted that the Loscar wind farm which has recently been<br />
approved is within the same Green Belt as the Penny Hill site.<br />
Area of High Landscape Value<br />
6.106 The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough UDP 1999, (Saved Policies 2007)<br />
defines five Areas of High Landscape Value (AHLV) within the Borough.<br />
The entire development site is located within the Ulley – Whiston AHLV.<br />
70<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.107 It should be noted that local landscape designations are no longer<br />
favoured by Government, especially with regards to restricting otherwise<br />
sustainable development. National planning guidance on local landscape<br />
designations is provided in PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural<br />
Areas (2004).<br />
6.108 Paragraph 24 of PPS 7 states:<br />
„The Government believes that carefully drafted, criteria based policies in<br />
LDDs (Local Development Documents), utilising tools such as landscape<br />
character assessment, should provide sufficient protection <strong>for</strong> these areas<br />
(landscapes which are highly valued locally), without the need <strong>for</strong> rigid<br />
local designations that may unduly restrict acceptable, sustainable<br />
development.‟<br />
6.109 Paragraph 25 of PP7 states that local landscape designations should only<br />
be maintained:<br />
„where it can be clearly shown that criteria-based planning policies cannot<br />
provide the necessary protection.‟<br />
6.110 There<strong>for</strong>e the fact that the proposed development is within an AHLV does<br />
not in itself compromise the ability of the site to accommodate wind<br />
energy. Paragraph 15 of PPS 22 confirms that „local landscape<br />
designations should not be used themselves to refuse planning permission<br />
<strong>for</strong> renewable energy developments.‟<br />
6.111 It is noted that the recently approved Loscar development is also within an<br />
AHLV and in this application, the AHLV designation was not considered a<br />
sufficiently good reason to refuse permission <strong>for</strong> the site.<br />
CONSERVATION AREAS<br />
6.112 There are five Conservation Areas within a 5km radius of the centre of the<br />
site and these are listed in the Archaeology & Cultural Heritage section of<br />
this ES.<br />
6.113 In the wider 20km study area there are several more Conservation Areas,<br />
however, at distances over 5km it is considered highly unlikely that<br />
turbines would be prominent enough to affect their setting.<br />
LISTED BUILDINGS<br />
6.114 Within a 5km radius of the centre of the site there are many listed buildings<br />
which are discussed further in the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage<br />
section. None of these are within 1km of the nearest turbine. The Grade I<br />
and Grade II* listed buildings within 5km of the site are listed within the<br />
Archaeology section.<br />
71<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.115 In the wider 20km study area there are numerous listed buildings,<br />
however, at distances over 5km from the site, it is considered highly<br />
unlikely that turbines would be prominent enough to affect their setting.<br />
SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENTS<br />
6.116 There are eight Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) within 5km of the<br />
site and these are listed in Section 10 on Archaeology & Cultural Heritage.<br />
None of these are within the site boundary or within a 1km radius of the<br />
site.<br />
6.117 In the wider 20km study area there are several more SAMs, however, at<br />
distances over 5km it is considered highly unlikely that turbines would be<br />
prominent enough to affect their setting.<br />
DESIGNATED PARKS AND GARDENS<br />
6.118 There are 28 registered Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes<br />
within 20km radius of the centre of the site. They are listed below by<br />
administrative district:<br />
Bolsover District Council<br />
1665 Bolsover Castle (17km south); and<br />
3255 Barlborough Hall (9km south).<br />
Bassetlaw District Council<br />
1543 Welbeck Abbey (14km south east);<br />
2081 Clumber Park (17km south east); and<br />
1318 Shireoaks Hall (10km south east).<br />
North East Derbyshire District Council<br />
1674 Renishaw Hall (10km south west).<br />
Barnsley Metropolitan Council<br />
1384 Wortley Hall (19km north west).<br />
Doncaster Metropolitan Council<br />
1255 Hickleton Hall (17km north);<br />
2260 Brodsworth Hall (19km north);<br />
1378 Cusworth Hall (17km north east); and<br />
72<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
4745 The Dell (17km north east).<br />
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council<br />
2167 Wentworth Woodhouse (10km north west);<br />
4744 Boston Park (6km north west).<br />
2165 Sandbeck Park and Roche Abbey (7km east);<br />
4747 Clifton Park (6km north west); and<br />
5170 Moorgate Cemetery (6km north west).<br />
Sheffield City Council<br />
5206 Beauchief Hall (16km south west);<br />
4746 Porterfield Parks (18km west);<br />
5172 City Road Cemetery (18km west);<br />
2166 Sheffield Botanical Gardens (18km west);<br />
2641 Weston Park (13km west);<br />
2336 Norfolk Park (11km west);<br />
4049 Sheffield General Cemetery (10km west);<br />
4186 Whinfell Quarry Garden (17km south west);<br />
1211 Monument Grounds (12km west);<br />
5082 Burngreave Cemetery (12km west); and<br />
2164 Oakes Park (12km south west).<br />
Chesterfield Borough Council<br />
4576 Queen‟s Park (19km south west).<br />
REGISTERED BATTLEFIELDS<br />
6.119 There are no Registered Battlefields within a 20km radius of the site.<br />
73<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
BASELINE CONDITIONS<br />
Site Specific Landscape Appraisal<br />
6.120 This section provides an objective and factual description of the landscape<br />
features and character of the landscape within and immediately<br />
surrounding the site boundary. The landscape context of the site is<br />
illustrated in Figure 6.3.<br />
Land<strong>for</strong>m & Topography<br />
6.121 The Penny Hill site straddles a ridge which extends westwards as a spur<br />
from the elevated limestone plateau in the east. It is characterised by an<br />
area of gently undulating, elevated ground divided by a shallow valley in<br />
the southern part and bounded by steep slopes to the north. The highest<br />
parts of the site are at an elevation of approximately 120m AOD in the<br />
eastern and south western parts of the site and the lowest part of the site<br />
is at an elevation of approximately 70m AOD in the valley base at the<br />
north west tip of the development boundary.<br />
6.122 Steep slopes falling towards the Ulley Brook valley and Ulley Reservoir<br />
beyond the development site characterise the immediate context to the<br />
west.<br />
6.123 Although steeply undulating, the region to the west is generally lower than<br />
the limestone plateau which is aligned in a north south direction to the east<br />
of the development site. Here land<strong>for</strong>m gently undulates although there<br />
are a number of high points located within approximately 4km radius at<br />
South Anston (129m AOD), Laughton en le Morthen (125m AOD), Carr Hill<br />
(150m AOD) and Lings Common (145m AOD).<br />
Watercourse & Drainage<br />
6.124 There are two main watercourses in the vicinity of the site; the northern<br />
and southern branches of the Ulley Brook. Both of these lie outside the<br />
site boundary itself.<br />
6.125 The first of these watercourses lies to the north of the site and flows<br />
westwards from the woods at Swallow Mill Ponds towards Ulley Reservoir.<br />
Water from land within the northern part of the site (north of Penny Hill<br />
Lane) drains into this watercourse.<br />
6.126 The second of these watercourses flows westwards from near junction 31<br />
of the M1 towards Ulley Reservoir. Water on land within the southern part<br />
of the site (south of Penny Hill Lane) drains into this watercourse and there<br />
are a few <strong>for</strong>ked tributaries through the southern part of the site which<br />
connect with this brook.<br />
6.127 The two branches of the Ulley Brook converge at Ulley Reservoir<br />
approximately 1km to the west of the site. This is the nearest large body of<br />
74<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
standing water and now <strong>for</strong>ms part of a Country Park. The outlet from the<br />
reservoir flows westwards towards the River Rother.<br />
6.128 The site itself is relatively well drained by agricultural field drains. There<br />
are no standing bodies of water within the site boundary. The nearest body<br />
of standing water is a series of small ponds at Swallow Mill Ponds some<br />
100m north of the site boundary.<br />
Buildings & Infrastructure<br />
6.129 There is only one group of buildings within the application boundary,<br />
namely at Ulley Beeches which comprises of a single dwelling and several<br />
out houses. Just outside the western boundary on Carr Lane there is a<br />
small telecommunications mast and a group of sheds, but generally there<br />
are few buildings in the immediate vicinity of the development site. The<br />
small village of Ulley located within 0.5km of the western development<br />
boundary is the closest settlement.<br />
6.130 A double wood pole line crosses the site in a north to south alignment but<br />
there are no other vertical man made elements on the site. In addition to<br />
the telecommunications mast located on Carr Lane, there is a more<br />
prominent mast to the south of the site, with a number of other masts<br />
visible in association with the M1 to the south east. The mast immediately<br />
south of the site <strong>for</strong>ms a local orientation landmark and is helpful in<br />
identifying the location of the site in longer views.<br />
6.131 The publicly adopted road Penny Hill Lane bisects the development site<br />
linking Ulley with the region to the east of the M1 via an over bridge. It is<br />
joined by Brampton Lane near the centre of the development site and this<br />
road links the site with Brampton en le Morthen to the east. Un-metalled<br />
tracks mark parts of the western and eastern boundaries and these are<br />
used by the public as part of a network of footpaths, bridleways and tracks<br />
in the local area.<br />
6.132 The site is bounded to the east by the curving course of the M1, its<br />
associated embankments and cuttings and the large junction with the M18.<br />
The nearest A or B roads to the site are the B6060 at Thurcroft 1.3km to<br />
the north east and the A618 1.4km to the west.<br />
6.133 The larger settlements of Thurcroft and Aston are located within 1km of<br />
the development boundary and the southern outskirts of Rotherham are<br />
located 2km to the north at Whiston.<br />
Vegetation<br />
6.134 The site and much of the surrounding area is dominated by arable farming.<br />
The broadly geometric pattern of field boundaries which characterise the<br />
more level and elevated parts of the site are a continuation of the<br />
landscape character patterns to the east beyond the M1. Fields are<br />
slightly larger than the surrounding average within the site and their<br />
75<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
oundaries are marked by hedges. On the steeper slopes in the northern<br />
part of the site and beyond to the west, field boundaries and sizes are<br />
governed by the alignment of land<strong>for</strong>m, tending to run perpendicular to the<br />
slope. Although there are no blocks of woodland on the site itself, there<br />
are tree groups located beyond its boundary to the south (Spring Wood),<br />
to the north (around Swallow Mills Pond) and on the road corridors of the<br />
M1 and M18 junction. Roads and tracks on the site tend to be adjacent to<br />
or are bound by hedgerows varying condition. A few hedgerows contain<br />
mature hedgerow trees. These trees tend to be deciduous and hedge<br />
boundaries tend to comprise deciduous species such as hawthorn,<br />
sycamore and ash. Some of the hedgerows on site are rather gappy<br />
whereas others are more intact. Field boundaries also comprise native<br />
herbaceous species and the fields themselves tend to contain grain crops.<br />
6.135 Further west, arable land use tends to be interspersed with deciduous<br />
woodlands and trees associated with Ulley Reservoir and Ulley village.<br />
HISTORICAL LANDSCAPE INTERPRETATION<br />
6.136 Aerial photographs show that the field structure of the site area was finer<br />
in the past and, as is typical of 20 th century farming practices, hedge<br />
boundaries have been removed to enlarge fields. This is particularly<br />
evident around Ulley Beeches which indicates that this was a working farm<br />
in the past.<br />
6.137 Aerial photographs indicate an underground service line has been laid<br />
across the site and beyond in the recent past.<br />
6.138 The title „Swallow Mills Ponds‟ next to a woodland block on the north<br />
eastern site boundary indicates that there was some earlier milling activity<br />
although there are no obvious historical references remaining on the<br />
surface.<br />
SENSORY EXPERIENCE<br />
6.139 The site is experienced by travelling the lanes or tracks and paths which<br />
cross the site or by viewing it from distant elevated vantage points. When<br />
on the site itself, long views across the site and the surrounding landscape<br />
tend to be intermittent due to the over grown hedgerows and these<br />
compartmentalise views. The site tends to be viewed in the two parts<br />
separated by Penny Hill Lane: To the north, the site is back-dropped by<br />
the steep slopes of the opposite valley with longer views to the southern<br />
districts of Rotherham; and to the south, views are dominated by the<br />
rolling land<strong>for</strong>m of the localised hills within the site and beyond. The<br />
telecommunications mast located just south of the boundary dominates<br />
these views. The development site is perceived as part of a broad<br />
undeveloped ridge line of elevated country side when viewed from the hill<br />
sides to the north and west which themselves tend to be characterised by<br />
urban development.<br />
76<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.140 The limited amount of built development on and close to the site, and the<br />
arable land use of the immediate context gives the site a sense of relative<br />
tranquillity although the landscape is certainly not remote or untouched by<br />
modern human influences.<br />
6.141 The M1/M18 motorway is ever present and the two motorways have an<br />
established effect on visual amenity. The noise from the motorway<br />
detracts from the otherwise tranquil nature of the site.<br />
6.142 From within the site there are long distance views to the extensive<br />
Sheffield/Rotherham conurbation to the north and west and in every<br />
direction there appear to be overhead electricity lines.<br />
PUBLISHED LANDSCAPE CHARACTER DESCRIPTIONS<br />
6.143 This section provides an objective and factual description of the character<br />
of the landscape within the study area.<br />
6.144 A review of the following landscape character assessments and landscape<br />
capacity studies was undertaken:<br />
Character Assessment of England, Volume 3: Yorkshire and Humber,<br />
1996, Countryside Commission and English Nature<br />
Barnsley Borough Landscape Character Assessment, Land Use<br />
Consultants and University of Sheffield (2002);<br />
Landscape Character and Capacity Assessment of Doncaster<br />
Borough, ECUS <strong>for</strong> Doncaster Metropolitan Council (2007);<br />
The Landscape Character of Derbyshire, Derbyshire County Council<br />
(2000);<br />
Nottinghamshire Landscape Guidelines, Nottinghamshire County<br />
Council (2003); and<br />
Peak District Landscape Character Assessment, Peak District National<br />
Park Authority (2008).<br />
6.145 At this point it is necessary to distinguish between two terms that are used<br />
throughout the section. They originate from the Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Landscape<br />
Character Assessment (Countryside Agency and SNH, (2002).<br />
Landscape Character Types (LCTs) are defined as tracts of<br />
landscape which have a generic unity of character due to the particular<br />
combinations of land<strong>for</strong>m, land cover, pattern and elements. The same<br />
landscape character type can occur at several different locations<br />
throughout a study area; and<br />
77<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) are defined as discrete<br />
geographical areas of a particular landscape character type and can<br />
only occur at a single location.<br />
6.146 These can be drawn at national, regional, district or even smaller local<br />
scales. Within the study area only Joint Character Areas (JCAs) have<br />
been mapped.<br />
6.147 A large part of the study area north and west of the site is classified as<br />
urban area and there<strong>for</strong>e not discussed in the published studies.<br />
REGIONAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS<br />
6.148 At a national level, the (<strong>for</strong>mer) Countryside Commission and English<br />
Nature have classified England into broadly homogenous landscape<br />
character areas referred to as Joint Character Areas (JCAs). The JCAs<br />
are described in eight volumes.<br />
6.149 Within the 20km study area there are six JCAs, which are listed below and<br />
shown in Figure 6.4.<br />
30 Southern Magnesian Limestone;<br />
37 Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe;<br />
38 Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield;<br />
39 Humberhead Levels;<br />
49 Sherwood; and<br />
50 Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower Derwent.<br />
6.150 The Penny Hill site falls within a single JCA, namely the „Nottinghamshire,<br />
Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfields‟, (JCA 38).<br />
6.151 The key characteristics of JCA 38 are summarised below although it<br />
should be noted that the JCA covers a large geographical area and some<br />
of these characteristics are not particularly evident within the site or its<br />
immediate surroundings.<br />
JCA 38 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, DERBYSHIRE & YORKSHIRE<br />
COALFIELD<br />
6.152 This JCA covers the site and much of the western half of the study area in<br />
a vertical band.<br />
6.153 Key characteristics of JCA 38 are as follows:<br />
78<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Widespread evidence of industrial activity including mine buildings,<br />
<strong>for</strong>mer spoil tips and iron and steel plants;<br />
Complex mix of built-up areas, industrial land, dereliction and farmed<br />
open country;<br />
Many areas affected by urban fringe pressures creating fragmented<br />
and downgraded landscapes;<br />
Substantial areas of intact agricultural land in both arable and pastoral<br />
use;<br />
Small, fragmented remnants of pre-industrial landscape and seminatural<br />
vegetation, including many areas of woodland, river valley<br />
habitats, subsidence flashes and other relict habitats;<br />
Ever-present urban influences from major cities, smaller industrial<br />
towns and mining villages;<br />
Widespread influence of transport routes, including canal, road (M1,<br />
M62) and rail, with ribbon developments emphasising the urban<br />
influence in the landscape;<br />
Rolling land<strong>for</strong>ms with hills, escarpments and broad valleys;<br />
Local variation in landscape character reflecting variations in<br />
underlying geology; and<br />
Strong cultural identity arising from history of coal mining and other<br />
heavy industry.<br />
DISTRICT LEVEL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES/AREAS<br />
6.154 Unlike several of the neighbouring local authorities which lie within the<br />
20km study area Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council has not<br />
undertaken a district level landscape character assessment. There<strong>for</strong>e<br />
there have been no more detailed studies of landscape character within<br />
the study area.<br />
SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE CHARACTER IMMEDIATELY<br />
SURROUNDING THE SITE<br />
6.155 The Government Office <strong>for</strong> Yorkshire and Humberside (GOYH) Planning<br />
<strong>for</strong> Renewable Energy Targets in Yorkshire and Humber Final Report<br />
assessed the region <strong>for</strong> its sensitivity to wind farm development in general<br />
terms.<br />
6.156 As part of this study it commissioned independent landscape consultants<br />
to undertake a landscape capacity study <strong>for</strong> wind energy in the Yorkshire<br />
and Humber Region. The study used the JCAs identified by the (<strong>for</strong>mer)<br />
79<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Countryside Commission and English Nature and determined the<br />
sensitivity of landscape character within each JCA to wind energy<br />
development.<br />
6.157 The independent consultants determined that JCA 38 (Nottinghamshire,<br />
Derbyshire & Yorkshire Coalfields) had a low sensitivity to wind energy<br />
development as is illustrated on Map 2 of Volume 3 of the Report.<br />
6.158 This was determined by considering the sensitivity of the JCA against<br />
various physical and perceptual criteria.<br />
6.159 Out of the 24 JCAs represented within the Yorkshire and Humber region, it<br />
was determined that JCA 38 had the lowest sensitivity to wind energy<br />
development apart from JCA 42 (Lincolnshire Coast and Marshes). It<br />
should be noted that JCA 42 is not represented either within the<br />
Rotherham borough or within the 20km study area of the site and there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
JCA 38 has been independently determined to have the lowest sensitivity<br />
to wind energy in the study area.<br />
6.160 It is acknowledged that JCA 38 covers a wide area and extends beyond<br />
the limits of the Rotherham Borough. The fact that the site is within a<br />
Green Belt does not in itself increase the sensitivity of the landscape<br />
character immediately surrounding the landscape. The Green Belt has not<br />
been designated <strong>for</strong> its particularly sensitive landscape character and is<br />
not necessarily a reflection of landscape quality. The functions of Green<br />
Belt are set out in PPG 2 and are outlined within the Landscape Planning<br />
Policies and Designations earlier within this section.<br />
6.161 It is also acknowledged that the site falls within an Area of High Landscape<br />
Value as designated in the Rotherham UDP saved policies. Although<br />
Government policy guidance no longer favours the use of local landscape<br />
designations the fact that this tract of landscape has been designated as<br />
such in a soon to be replaced development plan is an indication that it is of<br />
slightly higher landscape quality than other areas within the district.<br />
6.162 It is important to note that the concept of „landscape quality‟, as historically<br />
used to designate the AHLVs in Rotherham, is not the same as the<br />
concept of „landscape sensitivity to a particular type of development‟. This<br />
difference is discussed at length in Topic Paper 6 to the Guidelines <strong>for</strong><br />
Landscape Character Assessment, (2002) Countryside Agency and<br />
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH).<br />
6.163 Essentially a landscape can be of high quality but of low sensitivity to a<br />
particular type of development.<br />
6.164 There is no published justification available to support the designation of<br />
the Ulley-Whiston area as an AHLV. However based on field observations<br />
undertaken as part of the assessment, it is noted that the landscape<br />
immediately surrounding the site has a strong field pattern with good<br />
vegetation cover in the <strong>for</strong>m of mature hedgerows and tree groups which<br />
80<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
would justify the conclusion that within the context of the Rotherham<br />
District the landscape is of relatively high quality.<br />
6.165 However it is noted that wind turbines in any rural location can be<br />
designed so as not to affect these positive characteristics of a landscape.<br />
It is there<strong>for</strong>e concluded that the landscape character of the site and<br />
immediately surrounding area is of no greater sensitivity to wind energy<br />
development than other areas within the JCA which are not designated as<br />
an AHLV.<br />
6.166 Essentially, the landscape can be considered to be pleasantly rural but on<br />
the fringes of the urban conurbations of South Yorkshire and the character<br />
is strongly influenced by the external human influences in the surrounding<br />
landscape.<br />
6.167 The site and surrounding area is there<strong>for</strong>e considered to be of medium<br />
sensitivity to wind energy development when considered in the national<br />
and regional context.<br />
SENSITIVITY OF SURROUNDING JOINT CHARACTER AREAS TO<br />
WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT BEYOND THE EXTENTS OF THEIR<br />
OWN BOUNDARY<br />
6.168 The sensitivity of surrounding JCAs to wind energy development beyond<br />
the extents of their own boundary has been established by extrapolating<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation from the relevant landscape character assessment, capacity<br />
studies and from observations in the field.<br />
6.169 Essentially, JCA 37 (Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe) and JCA 50<br />
(Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower Dewent) are considered to be of<br />
medium sensitivity to wind energy development beyond the extents of their<br />
own boundaries as a key constituent element of their landscape character<br />
is derived from the long distance views over the surrounding landscape.<br />
JCA 30 (Southern Magnesian Limestone), JCA 39 (Humberhead Levels)<br />
and JCA 49 (Sherwood) are considered to be of low sensitivity to wind<br />
energy development beyond the extents of their own boundaries as the<br />
landscape character experienced within these JCAs is influenced very little<br />
by elements in the distant landscape.<br />
6.170 Table 6.5 summarises the sensitivity of surrounding JCAs to wind energy<br />
development beyond the extents of their own boundary.<br />
81<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Table 6.5: Sensitivity of Surrounding Joint Character Areas to Wind<br />
Energy Development Beyond the Extents of their own Boundary<br />
Joint Character Area Sensitivity<br />
JCA 30 Southern Magnesian Limestone Low<br />
JCA 37 Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe Medium<br />
JCA 39 Humberhead Levels Low<br />
JCA 49 Sherwood Low<br />
JCA 50 Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower<br />
Derwent<br />
Medium<br />
BASELINE VISUAL RECEPTORS<br />
6.171 Due to the height of the proposed wind turbines and the irregular<br />
topography of the surrounding area, there is potential <strong>for</strong> the development<br />
to be visible at some considerable distance in several directions. However,<br />
at an early stage in the assessment, it was determined that there was little<br />
potential <strong>for</strong> the development to result in any significant visual effects at<br />
distances over 20km from the site.<br />
6.172 Interpretation of the ZTVs (Figures 6.6 and 6.7) indicates that sensitive<br />
visual receptors with potential views of the development are located within<br />
major towns, villages, at isolated properties, on trunk roads and minor<br />
roads, along routes used <strong>for</strong> recreational purposes and within designated<br />
locations.<br />
6.173 The magnitude of change in the view of experienced by visual receptors<br />
will to some extent be affected by distance from the site. There<strong>for</strong>e,<br />
residential visual receptors have been identified below in bands of<br />
distance from the nearest turbine. It is however recognised that there<br />
would be views from individual properties and clusters of properties<br />
throughout the study area.<br />
6.174 The following bandings are measured from the centre of the development<br />
site.<br />
VILLAGES/HAMLETS WITHIN 1KM OF THE PENNY HILL SITE<br />
Ulley;<br />
Brampton-en-le-Morthen; and<br />
Morthen.<br />
82<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES AND SMALL CLUSTERS WITHIN 1KM OF<br />
THE PENNY HILL SITE<br />
Ulley Beeches;<br />
Brampton Villa;<br />
Brampton Gorse;<br />
The Ponds;<br />
Vessey Close Farm;<br />
Manor Farm;<br />
Lawns Farm;<br />
Double Acre;<br />
Wildfell;<br />
Old Wildfell; and<br />
Turnshaw Farm<br />
VILLAGES AND TOWNS WITHIN 5KM OF THE PENNY HILL SITE<br />
Upper Whiston;<br />
Moorgate;<br />
Whiston;<br />
Broom;<br />
Listerdale;<br />
Wickersley;<br />
Springvale;<br />
Morthen;<br />
Slade Hooton;<br />
Thurcroft;<br />
Brookhouse;<br />
Laughton en le Morthen;<br />
83<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Laughton Common;<br />
Todwick Grange;<br />
Todwick;<br />
Wales;<br />
Hardwick;<br />
Brampton Common;<br />
Aston;<br />
Swallownest;<br />
Aughton;<br />
Orgreave; and<br />
Treeton.<br />
TOWNS BETWEEN 5KM AND 10KM OF THE PENNY HILL SITE<br />
Bramley;<br />
Rotherham;<br />
Rawmarsh;<br />
Maltby;<br />
Dinnington;<br />
North Anston;<br />
South Anston;<br />
Harthill;<br />
Killamarsh;<br />
Norwood;<br />
Eckington; and<br />
Eastern Sheffield.<br />
84<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
LARGE RESIDENTIAL AREAS BETWEEN 10KM AND 20KM OF THE<br />
PENNY HILL SITE<br />
Northern, western and southern Sheffield;<br />
Hoyland;<br />
Darfield;<br />
Swinton;<br />
Mexborough;<br />
Bolton on Dearne;<br />
Thurnscoe;<br />
Consibrough;<br />
North east Doncaster;<br />
Harworth and Bircotes;<br />
Worksop;<br />
Bolsover;<br />
Clowne;<br />
Staveley; and<br />
Chesterfield.<br />
RECREATIONAL WALKING/CYCLING ROUTES<br />
6.175 Public Rights of Way within and immediately surrounding the site<br />
boundary are illustrated in Drawing HJB/681/PA24.<br />
6.176 There is one National Cycle Network (NCN) route in close proximity to the<br />
site. NCN 6, which runs between the Lake District and London, passes to<br />
the west of the site as it runs between Upper Whiston and Aston. The<br />
route is approximately 350m away at its closest point as it runs along<br />
Turnshaw Road and <strong>for</strong>ms part of the Trans Pennine Trail network of<br />
routes <strong>for</strong> walkers, cyclists and horse riders.<br />
6.177 Two long distance walking routes pass in close proximity to the site. The<br />
Trans Pennine Trail runs to the west of the site and at its closest point is<br />
800m away from the nearest turbine.<br />
85<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.178 The Rotherham Roundwalk passes to the north of the site as it runs<br />
between Wickersley and Upper Whiston, and at its closest point, is<br />
approximately 1.5km away from the nearest turbine.<br />
6.179 Further long distance routes occur within 20km of the site including the<br />
Sheffield Country Walk, Robin Hood Way, Cuckoo Way, Dearne Way and<br />
Barnsley Boundary Walk. Long Distance Walking and Cycling Routes<br />
within 20km of the site are illustrated in Figure 6.8.<br />
6.180 Two Rotherham Borough „Doorstep Walks‟ occur within close proximity of<br />
the site. The Village Walk (no. 6) runs around the village of Ulley and<br />
westwards to Ulley reservoir and at one point runs along the western<br />
boundary of the site.<br />
6.181 The Farmland Trail (no. 7) takes a circular route eastwards from Ulley from<br />
which it passes through the centre of the site as it runs in a north south<br />
direction.<br />
6.182 A further public footpath, running south eastwards from the village of Ulley,<br />
passes across the site and a public footpath also occurs in the northwest<br />
of the site. Several other footpaths and a bridleway run along the site<br />
boundary.<br />
6.183 The Rotherham Borough Doorstep Walks and other public rights of way in<br />
the immediate vicinity of the site are illustrated on Figure 6.3.<br />
ROADS AND RAILWAYS<br />
6.184 The site is located immediately to the southwest of the M1 Junction 32<br />
where it connects with the M18 motorway. Junction 32 consists of a<br />
triangle shaped interchange between the two motorways with their<br />
associated connecting sliproads covering an area approximately 1km².<br />
6.185 From Junction 32 the two motorways run in three different directions. The<br />
M18 runs in a north easterly direction away from the site towards<br />
Doncaster. The M1 changes direction at Junction 32, running in a northsouth<br />
direction to the south of the junction and an east-west direction to<br />
the north.<br />
6.186 The nearest „A‟ road to the site is the A618 which runs in a north-south<br />
direction between Rotherham and Aughton. At its nearest point to the site,<br />
the road passes approximately 1.5km to the west of the nearest turbine.<br />
The A57, which runs between Sheffield and Worksop, passes<br />
approximately 1.4km to the south of the site at its closest point near<br />
Junction 31 of the M1.<br />
6.187 As is typical of rural areas throughout the region there is a network of<br />
minor roads surrounding the site. A single minor road runs eastwards out<br />
of Ulley village and passes through the centre of the site. This road (Penny<br />
Hill Lane) splits in two at the centre of the site. Brampton Lane runs in a<br />
86<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
north easterly direction passing over the M1 and under the M18 towards<br />
Brampton en le Morthen. Penny Hill Lane continues south easterly and<br />
passes underneath the M1 towards Brampton Villa.<br />
6.188 The nearest railway to the site is the line which runs between Sheffield and<br />
Worksop which passes approximately 2.8km to the south. A further railway<br />
line also runs to the west of the site, passing approximately 3.5km away.<br />
IMPORTANT VANTAGE POINTS<br />
6.189 The only vantage point specifically identified on OS maps and within the<br />
20km study area of the site is at high ground in Shirecliffe, Sheffield, 12km<br />
to the west of the site. From this location there are panoramic southward<br />
and eastward views across the city of Sheffield and towards the site.<br />
6.190 The Peak District National Park begins 19km to the west of the site and<br />
extends westwards into Derbyshire. There are long distance views from<br />
the high ground in the east of the National Park across the city of Sheffield<br />
towards the site.<br />
HISTORIC AND TOURISM VIEWPOINTS<br />
6.191 The site is located approximately 1km to the east of Ulley Country Park, a<br />
popular tourist location which is centred on Ulley Reservoir. The country<br />
park includes large areas of woodland which obscure views towards the<br />
site from many of the walking routes around the park. The views from this<br />
location are discussed further in Assessment Viewpoint number 1.<br />
6.192 Rother Valley Country Park is located approximately 4km to the south of<br />
the site. However this is within a valley which is surrounded by mature tree<br />
belts and consequently there are no long distance views in the direction of<br />
the site.<br />
6.193 The remains of Roche Abbey and the grounds of Sandbeck Park, which<br />
together <strong>for</strong>m a Registered Park and Garden, lie 7km to the east of the<br />
site. There is limited visibility from these historic locations towards the site<br />
due to screening by local topography and large amounts of vegetation<br />
which occur in the intervening landscape.<br />
ASSESSMENT VIEWPOINTS<br />
6.194 The desk studies, site visits and interpretation of the ZTVs helped to<br />
identify 20 viewpoints that were regarded to be representative of the range<br />
of views within the study area. They are not intended to cover every single<br />
view possible but to be representative of a range of receptor types (e.g.<br />
residents, walkers, road users etc) in addition to a range of distances from<br />
the site. These viewpoints were chosen in consultation with the Local<br />
Planning Authority.<br />
87<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.195 Tables 6.6 identifies the viewpoints that were chosen and indicates which<br />
of the viewpoints are illustrated with wirelines or photomontages. The<br />
assessment viewpoints are illustrated in Figure 6.9.<br />
Viewpoint<br />
No.<br />
Table 6.6: Assessment Viewpoints<br />
Location OS<br />
Map<br />
Ref<br />
1 Ulley Country Park 45298<br />
87562<br />
2 Ulley Village 46627<br />
87414<br />
3 Ashton Cum Aughton 46643<br />
85442<br />
4 Aughton 45903<br />
86204<br />
5 Brampton en le Morthen 48520<br />
88062<br />
6 Upper Whiston 45939<br />
88929<br />
7 Bridge over M18 near 48960<br />
Thurcroft<br />
89538<br />
8 Bridge over M1 near 47330<br />
Wales Bar<br />
82915<br />
9 Laughton en le Morthen 51602<br />
88203<br />
10 South Anston 51183<br />
83187<br />
11 Worksop 58538<br />
81823<br />
12 Maltby 51862<br />
92547<br />
13 A631 Rotherham 46449<br />
91677<br />
14 A621 Houndkirk Moor 29546<br />
78160<br />
15 Shirecliffe, Sheffield 35007<br />
89686<br />
16 Wentworth Woodhouse 39995<br />
97374<br />
17 Conisbrough 49908<br />
97903<br />
18 A1 (M) junction at Blyth 62274<br />
88281<br />
19 Bolsover 49149<br />
71222<br />
20 B6056 west of Eckington 38586<br />
79296<br />
88<br />
Direction<br />
from the<br />
site<br />
Distance<br />
from the<br />
site (m)<br />
Photomontage or<br />
Wireframe<br />
Illustration<br />
West 1724 Photomontage<br />
West 412 Photomontage<br />
South 1325 Wireframe<br />
South<br />
west<br />
1090 Photomontage<br />
East 800 Wireframe<br />
North<br />
west<br />
1069 Photomontage<br />
North east 1576 Wireframe<br />
South 3762 Wireframe<br />
East 3607 Photomontage<br />
South<br />
East<br />
5010 Photomontage<br />
South<br />
east<br />
13403 Wireframe<br />
North east 5719 Wireframe<br />
North 3187 Wireframe<br />
South<br />
west<br />
19222 Wireframe<br />
West 12092 Wireframe<br />
North<br />
west<br />
11260 Wireframe<br />
North east 9619 Wireframe<br />
East 14412 Wireframe<br />
South 14643 Wireframe<br />
South<br />
west<br />
11051 Wireframe<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
PROJECT DESCRIPTION<br />
6.196 A detailed description of the project is given in Section 2 (The Proposed<br />
Development). However, this section briefly summarises the details of the<br />
scheme which have particular relevance to the landscape and visual<br />
impact assessment.<br />
6.197 The proposed development primarily consists of six turbines,<br />
meteorological mast, control building, substation, construction compound<br />
and a network of inter linking access tracks between the turbines. The<br />
proposed layout of the scheme is illustrated in Drawing HJB/681/PA05<br />
6.198 The proposed turbines would typically be 80m to the hub and a maximum<br />
height of 132m to the tip of the blade when in its highest position. The<br />
concrete foundations of the turbine would be covered in top soil and<br />
seeded to match the surrounding land cover. All components of the turbine<br />
would be housed within the tower itself and there would there<strong>for</strong>e be no<br />
external unit adjacent to the towers. Each turbine requires its own<br />
trans<strong>for</strong>mer. An external trans<strong>for</strong>mer may be required depending upon the<br />
final choice of turbine. If required, the external trans<strong>for</strong>mer will typically sit<br />
on a concrete plinth, housed within a small kiosk which will be sited within<br />
the existing crane pad hard standing area and coloured appropriately <strong>for</strong><br />
the background. Alternatively, the trans<strong>for</strong>mer may be internally housed<br />
within the turbine.<br />
6.199 The meteorological mast would be approximately 80m in height. This<br />
would be of a lattice construction and the foundations of the mast would<br />
also be covered with soil and seeded according to adjacent groundcover.<br />
6.200 The permanent control building would be approximately 12m by 10m and<br />
approximately 5.5m high. Details of an indicative control building are<br />
illustrated in Drawing HJB/681/PA13. The substation would be sited next<br />
to the control building and would be approximately 31m x 36.5m and about<br />
5.5m high.<br />
6.201 The only access into the site would be from Penny Hill Lane approximately<br />
100m west of the M1. From this location, access tracks would run north<br />
and south. This access point into the site would be widened to<br />
accommodate the swept path of abnormal load vehicles. South of Penny<br />
Hill Lane, the access track would run southwards towards Turbine 6 and<br />
the meteorological mast following existing field boundaries as far as<br />
possible. Two spurs would connect Turbines 4 and 5. North of Penny Hill<br />
Lane, the access track would service Turbine 3 be<strong>for</strong>e crossing over<br />
Brampton Lane and splitting to connect with Turbines 1 and 2.<br />
6.202 New access tracks between the turbines would be approximately 5m wide<br />
and be constructed of crushed stone/hardcore. The site compound during<br />
construction would be approximately 70m by 40m and include a site office,<br />
welfare facilities, lockable storage areas and parking <strong>for</strong> site personnel.<br />
89<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS<br />
EFFECTS ON EXISTING LANDSCAPE FEATURES<br />
6.203 A description of the main effects is given followed by a comment on the<br />
significance of the effect. All of the effects are direct in that they<br />
specifically affect a particular feature within the Penny Hill site.<br />
Construction Phase<br />
6.204 During the construction period there would be a temporary construction<br />
compound located just south of Penny Hill Lane adjacent to the main<br />
access into the site. This compound would be located on the discrete edge<br />
of a field. The compound would not require the removal of any existing<br />
landscape features.<br />
6.205 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional effect on landscape resources<br />
during the construction phase over and above those assessed as<br />
permanent under the heading of Operational Phase below.<br />
Operational Phase<br />
6.206 The turbines, meteorological mast, control building and substation are all<br />
proposed within open agricultural fields. There<strong>for</strong>e, even allowing <strong>for</strong> a<br />
50m radius around each turbine <strong>for</strong> micro-siting, the new structures would<br />
not interfere with any of the existing hedgerows or trees on site.<br />
6.207 Access into the site would be from Penny Hill Lane. The widened turning<br />
would necessitate the removal of a short section of hedgerow on both<br />
sides of the road (approximately 20m on either side). The proposed<br />
alignment of access tracks within the site is illustrated in Drawing<br />
HJB/618/PA05. Where possible the alignment of the access track has<br />
been designed to avoid any unnecessary breaks in hedgerows. However,<br />
a small number of breaks in hedgerows would be required to<br />
accommodate the access tracks. The breaks within the site would be a<br />
maximum of 5m wide.<br />
6.208 The alignment of the access tracks can be microsited on site to avoid any<br />
removal of trees (either individual specimens or within hedgerows). This<br />
can be secured through a condition on the planning consent.<br />
6.209 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a low magnitude of change to several<br />
hedgerows which are of high landscape sensitivity. The magnitude of<br />
change would be minimal and result in no greater than a slight adverse<br />
effect.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.210 There would be no additional effects on landscape resources during the<br />
decommissioning phase.<br />
90<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
EFFECTS ON IMMEDIATE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER<br />
Construction Phase<br />
6.211 It is recognised that there would be some additional effects during<br />
construction, over above those assessed as permanent effects under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase below, although the additional effects<br />
resulting from construction activities would be relatively incidental when<br />
viewed in the context of the turbines being erected. The effects on<br />
landscape character would increase incrementally as construction<br />
progresses and as more turbines are put into place.<br />
6.212 During the construction period, there would be earth movements<br />
associated with construction of the crane hard standing areas, the<br />
foundations <strong>for</strong> the turbines, the access tracks and underground cable<br />
routes. These activities would all result in soil disturbance. The impact on<br />
landscape character would arise there<strong>for</strong>e from the temporary stockpiling<br />
of soil, exposure of bare earth and the movement of construction vehicles.<br />
6.213 As the site is within an agricultural landscape, the exposure of bare soil<br />
and the movement of large vehicles in fields would not be entirely<br />
uncharacteristic although it is acknowledged that the scale of the<br />
movement would be slightly greater than on a typical farm.<br />
6.214 There would also be a temporary increase in personnel on site and a<br />
temporary construction compound just south of Penny Hill Lane. Topsoil<br />
would be stripped from the compound area and used to create mounds<br />
around the east, south and west sides to provide some screening of<br />
activities within the compound.<br />
6.215 The compound is proposed adjacent to an existing mature hedgerow so<br />
that it is partially screened by vegetation and there<strong>for</strong>e would have a<br />
limited influence on the landscape character of the surrounding area.<br />
6.216 The fenced compound consisting of cabins, car parking bays and lay down<br />
areas would result in a low magnitude of change and a temporary effect on<br />
the immediately surrounding landscape. It should be noted that, the<br />
temporary site cabins would not be entirely out of character as metallic<br />
sheds and barns are a common feature of many of the farms in the<br />
surrounding area.<br />
6.217 There would be cranes involved in the erection of the turbines but these<br />
would have less of an impact on the landscape than the turbines being<br />
erected.<br />
6.218 Overall, it is considered that there would be no more than a low magnitude<br />
of additional change during construction and there<strong>for</strong>e there would be only<br />
a slight effect on landscape character. The construction effects would be<br />
temporary in nature (scheduled to take approximately 10 months) and are<br />
unlikely to all occur at the same time during the construction phase.<br />
91<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Operational Phase<br />
6.219 As discussed above, there would be no significant effects on any existing<br />
landscape features. The primary impact on the landscape character of the<br />
immediately surrounding area would there<strong>for</strong>e arise from the introduction<br />
of six wind turbines, an meteorological mast, a control building, substation<br />
and access tracks within the site.<br />
6.220 The development has been designed to lie at grade with the existing<br />
ground levels across the site. In this regard the Penny Hill turbines would<br />
not affect the land<strong>for</strong>m of the surrounding landscape.<br />
6.221 Hedgerow removal would be limited to a very small number of breaks to<br />
accommodate access tracks. In the context of all the hedgerows in the<br />
surrounding agricultural landscape, these few breaks would be barely<br />
perceptible. Many of the hedgerows in the landscape have breaks in them<br />
where there are field access points and there<strong>for</strong>e there would be a low<br />
magnitude of change on field patterns and vegetation structure.<br />
6.222 Access tracks would be similar in width to typical farmland tracks which<br />
run across many of the fields in the surrounding landscape.<br />
6.223 The control building and substation would be located in a relatively<br />
discrete location behind mature hedgerows south of Brampton Lane.<br />
Additional mitigation planting would be planted around the southern and<br />
western sides of the control building to provide further screening. In this<br />
position, the control building and substation would be partially screened<br />
and softened by the established vegetation. The control building would be<br />
clad in local vernacular materials to assist with integrating it into the<br />
landscape. It would there<strong>for</strong>e not look out of place compared with<br />
agricultural buildings scattered throughout this landscape.<br />
6.224 The turbines would appear as tall structures in this gently rolling landscape<br />
which currently has an agricultural land cover. The height of the turbines<br />
would be greater than other vertical structures in the immediate area<br />
although there is notable precedent <strong>for</strong> manmade vertical features in the<br />
landscape including overhead electricity pylons, telecommunications<br />
masts and gantries on the M1 and M18. The movement of the turbine<br />
blades would also be evident in the surrounding landscape. However,<br />
there is already considerable movement in the landscape, notably along<br />
the M1 and M18 motorways and along the other minor roads in the vicinity<br />
of the site.<br />
6.225 Although the turbines would be large in size, the baseline landscape is<br />
also relatively large in scale. The design of the turbines would fit the<br />
landscape relatively well. Their structural <strong>for</strong>m would be simple and with<br />
clean straight lines which would fit well with the gently rolling landscape.<br />
6.226 The turbines would evidently be manmade structures. Although the<br />
landscape is predominantly agricultural, there is considerable evidence of<br />
92<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
human activity and there<strong>for</strong>e the development would not be introducing<br />
manmade features into a wild or untouched landscape. The spacing of the<br />
turbines would be such that they would not be too closely clustered and<br />
the overall layout would be a well-balanced composition.<br />
6.227 The turbines would there<strong>for</strong>e attract attention but would not prevent<br />
appreciation and visual comprehension of the underlying and surrounding<br />
landscape. There would be no impact on historic landscape field patterns<br />
which would remain intact below the turbines.<br />
6.228 It is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that the turbines would have a medium<br />
magnitude of impact on the immediate landscape but that this would not<br />
necessarily be detrimental to the character of it.<br />
6.229 As the immediate landscape has been assessed as being of medium<br />
sensitivity, overall it is considered that there would be a moderate effect<br />
on the character of the landscape immediately surrounding the site.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.230 The effect of the wind farm on landscape character would decrease<br />
incrementally as turbines are removed. The additional effects of<br />
decommissioning activities would be relatively incidental to the turbines<br />
being taken down. The impacts on landscape character would be the<br />
same as during the construction period but in reverse.<br />
6.231 Overall, it is considered that there would be no more than a low magnitude<br />
of change during decommissioning and there<strong>for</strong>e there would be only a<br />
slight effect on landscape character.<br />
6.232 Once decommissioned the site would be returned to agricultural use.<br />
Access tracks would be removed unless required <strong>for</strong> ongoing agricultural<br />
activities. The concrete foundations of the turbines would be broken up<br />
and removed or left in situ, covered with topsoil and reinstated with<br />
vegetation. All ancilliary structures such as the control building and<br />
substation would be removed and the ground restored. There<strong>for</strong>e there<br />
would remain only a slight residual effect on landscape character.<br />
EFFECTS ON SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS<br />
6.233 The effects on the wider landscape character are assessed using the<br />
National Joint Character Areas identified in the Character Assessment of<br />
England produced by the (<strong>for</strong>mer) Countryside Commission and English<br />
Nature.<br />
6.234 The magnitude of change to the landscape character in each national<br />
character area as a result of the Penny Hill development has been<br />
determined using professional judgement based on the following factors:<br />
The percentage of the overall character area from where the Penny Hill<br />
site would be theoretically visible;<br />
93<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
The distance between the character area and the Penny Hill site;<br />
The likely prominence of the turbines in the view; and<br />
The extent to which the sense of scale, remoteness, visual<br />
composition, pattern and land<strong>for</strong>m would be affected by views of the<br />
turbines in the distance.<br />
Construction Phase<br />
6.235 Beyond the immediate surroundings of the site boundary, none of the<br />
construction works at ground level would be visible. There<strong>for</strong>e the only<br />
additional effect over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase below, would arise <strong>for</strong> a short duration when<br />
the cranes are erecting the turbines. This would only be evident <strong>for</strong> a few<br />
days and in the context of the turbines being erected, they would be barely<br />
perceptible.<br />
6.236 There<strong>for</strong>e, there would be no additional effects on landscape character<br />
in the wider landscape during the construction phase above and above<br />
those assessed as permanent under the heading of Operational Phase<br />
below,.<br />
Operational Phase<br />
JCA 30 - Southern Magnesian Limestone<br />
6.237 This JCA lies approximately 2.5km east of the site at its nearest point. The<br />
ZTV suggests that the turbines would be visible to a greater or lesser<br />
extent from approximately half of this character area although in reality,<br />
once vegetation and buildings are taken into account, the actual visibility of<br />
the turbines would be considerably less than is suggested on the ZTV.<br />
6.238 The addition of the turbines onto the horizon at least 2.5km away, when<br />
experienced from within this character area, would be not be prominent<br />
and would be relatively incidental to other much closer and more<br />
prominent built structures in the landscape. When experienced from<br />
elevated positions within the character area, the turbines would result in no<br />
greater than a low magnitude of change to the sense of landscape<br />
character. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no greater than a slight effect on<br />
landscape character within this character area.<br />
JCA 37 - Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe<br />
6.239 This JCA is at least 15km from the site. The ZTV suggests that the<br />
turbines would be visible from approximately one quarter of the character<br />
area although, in reality, much of the area covered by the ZTV is within the<br />
built up suburbs of Sheffield from where the turbines would be screened<br />
by intervening buildings in Sheffield.<br />
94<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.240 Where there are unobstructed glimpses of the turbines, the view would be<br />
across a landscape which includes the urban centre of Sheffield and which<br />
is punctuated by significant evidence of human activity such as industrial<br />
development, motorways and overhead power lines. At this distance, the<br />
turbines would be barely perceptible resulting in no change to landscape<br />
character. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on landscape character<br />
within this character area.<br />
JCA 38 - Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield<br />
6.241 The Penny Hill site lies within this JCA which also extends over 20km to<br />
the north and south of the site and 15km to the west. The effects on<br />
landscape character in the immediate vicinity of the site are discussed<br />
above.<br />
6.242 The ZTV suggests that the turbines would be visible from approximately<br />
half of the character area although, in reality, much of the area covered by<br />
the ZTV is within the built up area such as Sheffield and Rotherham from<br />
where the turbines would be screened by intervening buildings.<br />
6.243 Beyond approximately 2km from the nearest turbine, and where visible,<br />
the turbines would be experienced as distant structures and would be<br />
incidental to other much closer and more prominent built structures in the<br />
landscape. The published description of this JCA states that there are<br />
„ever-present urban influences from major cities, smaller industrial towns<br />
and mining villages‟; there is „widespread evidence of industrial activity<br />
including mine buildings, <strong>for</strong>mer spoil tips and iron and steel plants‟ and<br />
that the ‟widespread influence of transport routes, including canal, road<br />
(M1, M62) and rail, with ribbon developments emphasises the urban<br />
influence in the landscape‟. As such, when experienced from distant<br />
elevated positions within the character area, the turbines would be just one<br />
of many built structures visible and there<strong>for</strong>e result in no greater than a low<br />
magnitude of change to landscape character.<br />
6.244 There<strong>for</strong>e, although it has been determined that there would be a<br />
moderate effect on the immediate landscape character surrounding the<br />
site, when considered as a whole, there would be no greater than a slight<br />
effect on landscape character on the Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and<br />
Yorkshire Coalfield character area.<br />
JCA 39 - Humberhead Levels<br />
6.245 This character area is at least 12km from the site. The ZTV suggests that<br />
the turbines would be visible from most of the character area although, in<br />
reality, vegetation and built structures would obscure them from most of<br />
the area highlighted on the ZTV. Where there are unobstructed glimpses<br />
of the turbines, the view would be across a landscape which includes the<br />
urban centres of Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield in the same angle of<br />
view as the site and is punctuated by significant evidence of human<br />
activity such as towns, motorways and overhead power lines. At this<br />
95<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
distance, the turbines would be barely perceptible resulting in no change<br />
to landscape character. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on landscape<br />
character within this character area.<br />
JCA 49 – Sherwood<br />
6.246 This character area is at least 12km from the site. The ZTV suggests that<br />
the turbines would be visible from approximately half of the character area<br />
although, in reality, vegetation and built structures would obscure them<br />
from much of the area highlighted on the ZTV. This includes in particular<br />
large areas of Sherwood Forest, from which the character area derives its<br />
name, and the town of Worksop.<br />
6.247 From the relatively few locations where there are unobstructed glimpses of<br />
the turbines, the view would be across a landscape which includes several<br />
towns and is punctuated by significant evidence of human activity such as<br />
motorways and overhead power lines. At this distance, the turbines would<br />
be barely perceptible resulting in no change to landscape character.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on landscape character within this<br />
character area.<br />
JCA 50 - Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower Derwent<br />
6.248 This character area is at least 18km from the site. The ZTV suggests that<br />
the turbines would be visible from just a few places within this character<br />
area. Where there are unobstructed distant glimpses of the turbines, the<br />
city of Sheffield would lie between the character area and the site. At this<br />
distance, the turbines would be barely perceptible resulting in no change<br />
to landscape character. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on landscape<br />
character within this character area.<br />
Table 6.7: Significance of Effects on National Landscape Character<br />
Areas within 20km of the site<br />
JCA<br />
Number<br />
National Character Area Significance<br />
of Effect<br />
30 Southern Magnesian Limestone slight effect<br />
37 Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe no effect<br />
38 Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield slight effect<br />
39 Humberhead Levels no effect<br />
49 Sherwood no effect<br />
50 Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower Derwent. no effect<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.249 Beyond the immediate surroundings of the site boundary, none of the<br />
decommissioning works at ground level would be visible. There<strong>for</strong>e the<br />
only additional effect would arise <strong>for</strong> a short duration when the cranes are<br />
taking down the turbines. This would only be evident <strong>for</strong> a few days and in<br />
96<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
the context of the turbines being removed, they would be barely<br />
perceptible.<br />
6.250 There<strong>for</strong>e, there would be no additional effect on landscape character in<br />
the wider landscape during the de-commissioning phase over and above<br />
those assessed as permanent under the heading of Operational Phase.<br />
EFFECTS ON LANDSCAPE DESIGNATIONS<br />
Construction Phase<br />
6.251 There would be no additional effect on landscape designations during<br />
the construction phase over and above those assessed as permanent<br />
under the heading of Operational Phase below.<br />
Operational Phase<br />
6.252 There are no national or regional landscape designations covering the site<br />
and there<strong>for</strong>e there would be no direct impact on any such designated<br />
landscapes.<br />
6.253 There is one national landscape designation just within the study area,<br />
namely the Peak District National Park, which at its closest point is located<br />
approximately 19km to the west of the site. Where there are unobstructed<br />
glimpses of the turbines from the eastern edge of the National Park, the<br />
view towards the site would be across the city of Sheffield with its<br />
extensive coverage of built structures. The view would be punctuated by<br />
significant evidence of human activity such as industrial development,<br />
motorways and overhead power lines. At this distance, the turbines would<br />
be barely perceptible in the landscape and there<strong>for</strong>e there would be no<br />
effect on the Peak District National Park.<br />
6.254 The site lies within the South Yorkshire Green Belt. It is acknowledged that<br />
the turbines would have a minor impact on the openness of the Green Belt<br />
in that the structures would all occupy land that has not previously been<br />
built upon. However this loss of openness is extremely modest in scale.<br />
The areas to be built upon are very small in size and have to be seen in<br />
the context of a large uninterrupted expanse of open agricultural land.<br />
Nevertheless there would be some loss in openness and, as such when<br />
assessed against paragraph 3.12 of PPG2, the wind farm would be<br />
„inappropriate development‟.<br />
6.255 The turbines would represent an encroachment of development into the<br />
countryside, one of the purposes <strong>for</strong> including land within a Green Belt.<br />
However this needs to be tempered by the requirement <strong>for</strong> wind turbines<br />
to be located within open areas well away from tall buildings and features<br />
which may impede or divert the flow of wind. It is also noted that the<br />
eastern boundary of the site is defined by the M1 motorway and as such<br />
this is a much greater encroachment into the countryside.<br />
97<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.256 There<strong>for</strong>e, it is considered that there would be no greater than a slight<br />
effect on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes <strong>for</strong> which it was<br />
designated.<br />
6.257 The site also lies within the Ulley-Whiston Area of High Landscape Value<br />
(AHLV). As previously discussed, local landscape designations are no<br />
longer favoured by Government, especially with regards to restricting<br />
otherwise sustainable development such as wind turbines. The AHLVs in<br />
Rotherham were originally designated on the basis of their high landscape<br />
„quality‟. There is no published justification available to support the<br />
designation of the Ulley-Whiston area as an AHLV. However based on<br />
field observations undertaken as part of the assessment, it is noted that<br />
the landscape immediately surrounding the site has a strong field pattern<br />
with good vegetation cover in the <strong>for</strong>m of mature hedgerows and tree<br />
groups which would justify the conclusion that within the context of the<br />
Rotherham District the landscape is of relatively high quality. It has been<br />
assessed that there would be no greater than a slight effect on the<br />
underlying structure and pattern of the landscape or on the hedgerows<br />
within the site. There<strong>for</strong>e the quality of the underlying landscape would not<br />
be compromised by the development.<br />
6.258 There would be no direct effects on any listed buildings, Scheduled<br />
Ancient Monuments or sites listed on the register of historic gardens and<br />
designed landscapes. Effects on the setting of listed buildings, Scheduled<br />
Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas are discussed in the<br />
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage section of this ES.<br />
6.259 There are several registered parks and gardens within the 20km study<br />
area of the site and the ZTV indicates that the turbines would theoretically<br />
be visible from several of these gardens. However, none of these parks<br />
and gardens are located within 5km of the site and there<strong>for</strong>e, even where<br />
visible from any of these landscapes, the turbines would not be prominent<br />
in the view and would in any case be visible in the context of other urban<br />
structure or features. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on the setting of<br />
any registered parks and gardens. Other potential effects on registered<br />
parks and gardens are discussed in the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage<br />
section of this ES.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.260 There would be no additional effect on landscape designations during<br />
the decommissioning phase over and above those assessed as<br />
permanent under the heading of Operational Phase.<br />
EFFECTS ON REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSMENT VIEWPOINTS<br />
6.261 For each of the representative viewpoints a short description is given of<br />
the baseline view followed by a description of the features of the<br />
development, which would be visible from that viewpoint. This includes a<br />
description of how many turbine hubs and blades would be visible. For<br />
98<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
each viewpoint there is a comment on how vegetation, buildings or<br />
topography would affect the actual visibility of the turbines. A comment on<br />
the significance of visual impacts is given <strong>for</strong> each viewpoint. Any potential<br />
cumulative effects are also discussed <strong>for</strong> each viewpoint.<br />
6.262 A summary of the sensitivity of the viewpoint, magnitude of change in the<br />
view and significance of effect is given in Table 6.8. Where a viewpoint is<br />
representative of more than one type of visual receptor, the significance<br />
rating carried <strong>for</strong>ward to Table 6.8 is the rating that represents the most<br />
sensitive receptor group represented by the viewpoint.<br />
VIEWPOINT 1 ULLEY COUNTRY PARK<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.263 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by visitors to Ulley<br />
Country Park as they look towards the eastern end of Ulley Reservoir,<br />
either whilst walking around the western edge of the reservoir or whilst<br />
using the western part of the reservoir <strong>for</strong> water sports.<br />
6.264 It should be noted that there is a considerable amount of vegetation along<br />
the south western edge of the reservoir which restricts views across the<br />
water from the visitor centre itself or the main car park. Vegetation along<br />
the south western side of the reservoir also filters the view from the<br />
footpath which runs around this part of the lake.<br />
6.265 The footpath around the reservoir crosses over a dam on the north west<br />
edge of the reservoir. At this point, the footpath is elevated above the<br />
water and there are unrestricted views directly down the reservoir in the<br />
direction of the site. During the period when this assessment was being<br />
completed, this section of the footpath was inaccessible due to restoration<br />
works being carried out on the dam however it was possible to get close to<br />
the footpath at both ends which enabled an appreciation of the view from<br />
this section of the path.<br />
6.266 From the western part of the reservoir and the footpath which runs around<br />
it, the view only extends as far as a hill which rises sharply towards Ulley<br />
village just beyond the eastern end of the reservoir. This area of higher<br />
ground is covered with deciduous woodland and arable farmland, and<br />
restricts the view further east so that the site is currently not visible.<br />
6.267 The photograph presented in Figure 6.10 was taken from the western<br />
corner of the lake, at the water‟s edge, near to the visitor‟s centre. The<br />
viewpoint is approximately 1.7km to the west of the site.<br />
6.268 Due to the importance of this viewpoint <strong>for</strong> recreation and the number of<br />
public footpaths passing through the Country Park the viewpoint is<br />
considered to be of high sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
99<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.269 From this viewpoint neither the construction compound nor the works at<br />
ground level would be visible during the construction phase. The only<br />
additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase below. would be a minor view of the cranes<br />
erecting the turbines but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period.<br />
The cranes would be barely perceptible in the context of the site being<br />
constructed. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional impact on the view<br />
during construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.270 There would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during construction<br />
over and above those assessed as permanent under the heading of<br />
Operational Phase below.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.271 From the western edge of Ulley Reservoir as represented by the<br />
photomontage in Figure 6.10, the rotating blade tips of all six turbines<br />
would be visible in an easterly direction. However, the turbines would be<br />
mainly screened by land<strong>for</strong>m which rises steeply at the eastern end of the<br />
reservoir and vegetation in the intervening landscape. There<strong>for</strong>e the hubs<br />
of only two turbines would be visible, namely the southernmost turbine and<br />
the third from southernmost turbine.<br />
6.272 It should be noted that views of the development as discussed above<br />
would only be possible from a relatively small part of Ulley Country Park,<br />
primarily from the point at which the footpath around the reservoir crosses<br />
over a dam on the north western edge of the reservoir and the western<br />
part of the reservoir itself.<br />
6.273 From the majority of the length of the paths around the reservoir there<br />
would be no view of the turbines. Notably there would be no views of the<br />
development from the path around the northern arm of the reservoir and<br />
no views from the southern path between the visitor centre and Ulley<br />
Lane.<br />
6.274 From the visitor centre and the main car park, there would be no view of<br />
the turbines due to vegetation along the south western edge of the<br />
reservoir which restricts views across the water.<br />
6.275 Where visible along the western edge of the reservoir, the blades of the<br />
nearest turbine would be approximately 2120m away. The very top of the<br />
meteorological mast would also be visible but the rising land<strong>for</strong>m and<br />
vegetation between the site and the Country Park would obstruct any view<br />
of the access tracks, control building or the substation.<br />
100<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.276 At this distance, where visible, the tips of the turbine blades would be<br />
visible but due to their relatively small number, good spacing and the fact<br />
that they would be largely screened by land<strong>for</strong>m and vegetation, they<br />
would not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of the underlying<br />
and surrounding landscape. The turbine blades would be no more<br />
prominent than the existing pylons which are visible beyond the northern<br />
arm of the reservoir.<br />
6.277 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a medium<br />
magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no change in<br />
the view experienced from the majority of the Country Park <strong>for</strong> the reasons<br />
outlined above.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.278 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a moderate effect on the visual amenity of a<br />
small number of locations on the footpaths which run around the Country<br />
Park. However, there would be no effect on the visual amenity<br />
experienced within the majority of the Country Park, including the view<br />
from the visitor centre and main car park.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.279 Beyond the immediate surroundings of the site boundary, none of the<br />
decommissioning works at ground level would be visible. There<strong>for</strong>e the<br />
only additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent<br />
would be when the cranes are taking down the turbines. This would only<br />
be evident <strong>for</strong> a few days and would be less prominent than the turbines<br />
being removed,<br />
6.280 There<strong>for</strong>e, there would be no additional effect on visual amenity during<br />
the decommissioning phase over and above those assessed as<br />
permanent under the heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.281 From this viewpoint, none of the other wind farms would be visible and<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on visual<br />
amenity.<br />
VIEWPOINT 2 ULLEY VILLAGE<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.282 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by properties on<br />
the eastern edge of Ulley village which have east facing windows or<br />
gardens. It is also representative of views from the Trans Pennine Way,<br />
the Rotherham Roundwalk route and the National Cycle Network Route 6,<br />
all of which pass through the village. Rotherham Borough Doorstep Walks<br />
numbers 6 and 7 also run through the village and are also represented by<br />
this viewpoint.<br />
101<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.283 It should be noted that a number of large farm buildings and mature trees<br />
at Turnshaw Farm and Ulley Hall Farm greatly restrict views towards the<br />
site from the western part of the village. Essentially only a small number of<br />
properties to the east of Turnshaw Road have views across the site and<br />
even these views are partially restricted by vegetation.<br />
6.284 The photograph presented in Figure 6.11 was taken from the junction<br />
between Turnshaw Road and a public right of way which runs eastwards<br />
from Turnshaw Farm towards Spring Wood. The viewpoint is on the Trans<br />
Pennine Way and National Cycle Route number 6. It is approximately<br />
800m west of the nearest turbine.<br />
6.285 The view towards the site from this location is across arable fields which<br />
are separated by mature hedgerows and small clusters of deciduous<br />
woodland. Several farm properties are visible in the view. In the mid<br />
distance, the M1, M18 and the junction between the two can be clearly<br />
seen cutting through the landscape with their associated traffic signs and<br />
moving vehicles. In the distance, pylons are also visible cutting across the<br />
landscape and on the horizon, the steeple of a church at Laughton en le<br />
Morthen is visible.<br />
6.286 Due to the residential nature of this viewpoint and the number of public<br />
footpaths in the area, the viewpoint is considered to be of high sensitivity<br />
to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.287 From this viewpoint the construction compound would be just visible<br />
although the temporary bund around it would screen the majority of<br />
activities taking place within it. Some temporary activities would be visible<br />
at the base of the turbine and there would also be a view of the cranes<br />
erecting the turbines but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period.<br />
These temporary works would be noticeable but ultimately far less<br />
prominent that the turbines being erected.<br />
6.288 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a low magnitude of additional impact over and<br />
above those assessed as permanent under the heading of Operational<br />
Phase below on the view during construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.289 There would be a slight additional effect on the viewpoint during<br />
construction over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase below.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.290 A visual representation of the predicted view from Ulley is presented in<br />
Figure 6.11.<br />
102<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.291 From this viewpoint on the eastern edge of the village, the hubs and the<br />
blade tips of all six turbines would be visible in an easterly direction. The<br />
nearest turbine would be visible within agricultural land approximately<br />
800m away. The meteorological mast would also be visible and the access<br />
track and crane hard standing area adjacent to Turbine 4 would also be<br />
visible. There would also be a very slight glimpse of the control building.<br />
6.292 It should be noted that clear views of the development from ground floor<br />
windows would be limited to the properties on the eastern side of the<br />
village, specifically those along Turnshaw Road and on Penny Hill Lane.<br />
6.293 From the western part of the village, views towards the development would<br />
be greatly restricted by a number of large farm buildings and mature trees<br />
at Turnshaw Farm and Ulley Hall Farm. Buildings and mature trees at the<br />
eastern end of Main Street and at its junction with Penny Hill Lane would<br />
screen any view of the turbines from within Main Street itself. A detailed<br />
assessment of the visual effects on residential properties within Ulley is<br />
presented in Appendix 13.2.<br />
6.294 The clearest views of the development would be obtained from the<br />
„doorstep walks‟ which run eastwards out of Ulley along Penny Hill Lane<br />
and from the footpath in the vicinity of where the baseline photograph <strong>for</strong><br />
this viewpoint has been taken.<br />
6.295 From this location the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the context of<br />
an established agricultural environment of gently undulating fields but also<br />
in the context of the M1 motorway which passes through the landscape.<br />
6.296 At this relatively close distance, where visible, the turbines would be<br />
prominent but would not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of<br />
the underlying and surrounding landscape.<br />
6.297 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a high<br />
magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no greater than<br />
a low magnitude of change in the view experienced from the majority of<br />
residential properties in the village <strong>for</strong> the reasons outlined above.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.298 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a substantial effect on the private visual<br />
amenity of 14 out of approximately 72 residential properties within the<br />
village of Ulley and on the footpaths which run around and through the<br />
village. However, there would be no greater than a slight effect on the<br />
visual amenity experienced within the main street of the village itself or by<br />
the majority of the properties west of Turnshaw Road. A detailed<br />
assessment of the visual effects on residential properties within Ulley is<br />
presented in Appendix 13.2.<br />
103<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.299 The only additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent<br />
would be some temporary activities visible at the base of the turbine and a<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines, but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. These temporary works would be noticeable but<br />
ultimately far less prominent that the turbines being removed.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e, there would be a slight additional effect on visual amenity<br />
during the decommissioning phase over and above those assessed as<br />
permanent under the heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.300 At this viewpoint the turbines at the AMRC and the windfarms at Hampole<br />
and Marr would not be visible. The turbines at Loscar would be just visible<br />
in the distance (approximately 8km away). At this distance they would not<br />
be prominent and would not increase the magnitude of change in the<br />
visual impact on Ulley Village.<br />
6.301 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 3 ASTON CUM AUGHTON<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.302 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by properties in<br />
the village of Aston cum Aughton which have north facing windows,<br />
gardens or elevated views in a northerly direction.<br />
6.303 It should be noted that properties in the northern part of the village restrict<br />
the availability of views towards the site from the remainder of the village.<br />
As such only a small number of properties on the northern side of the<br />
B6067 have uninterrupted views towards the site.<br />
6.304 There are only occasional glimpses towards the site from the B6067 as it<br />
passes through the village. These glimpsed views are experienced<br />
between gaps in the buildings which line the northern side of the road.<br />
6.305 Where uninterrupted views exist, the landscape north of the village can be<br />
seen to be rising to a hill east of Spring Wood at the top of which is a<br />
telecommunications mast.<br />
6.306 The photograph presented in Figure 6.12 was taken from the junction<br />
between the B6067 and one of the cul-de-sacs that extend off the northern<br />
side of the road, namely North Farm Court. The viewpoint is approximately<br />
1.3km to the south of the site.<br />
104<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.307 Due to the residential nature of the viewpoint it is considered to be of high<br />
sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.308 From this viewpoint the construction compound would not be visible. The<br />
works at ground level would also be screened during the construction<br />
phase. There would be a view of the cranes erecting the turbines but this<br />
would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period. These temporary works would<br />
be incidental to the turbines being erected.<br />
6.309 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a low magnitude of impact on the view during<br />
construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.310 There would be a slight effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.311 A visual representation of the predicted view from Aston-cum-Aughton is<br />
presented in Figure 6.12.<br />
6.312 From this viewpoint, the hubs and the blade tips of all six turbines would<br />
be visible in a northerly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible on a<br />
raised area of agricultural land 1540m away. The meteorological mast<br />
would also be visible but vegetation would obstruct any view of the access<br />
tracks, the control building or the substation.<br />
6.313 Views of the development from the majority of the village would be<br />
restricted by properties and vegetation on the northern edge of the village,<br />
particularly properties on the northern side of the B6067.<br />
6.314 There would be occasional glimpsed views of the development from the<br />
B6067 as it passes through the village. These views would be experienced<br />
between gaps in the buildings which line the northern side of the road,<br />
such as the location where the baseline photograph <strong>for</strong> this viewpoint has<br />
been taken.<br />
6.315 The clearest view of the development would be obtained from a small<br />
number of properties on the northern side of the B6067 which would have<br />
uninterrupted views towards the site. From this location the Penny Hill<br />
turbines would be seen in the context of an established agricultural<br />
environment of gently undulating fields. A detailed assessment of the<br />
visual effects on residential properties within Aston-cum-Aughton is<br />
presented in Appendix 13.2.<br />
6.316 At this distance, where visible, the turbines would be prominent but would<br />
not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of the underlying and<br />
surrounding landscape.<br />
105<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.317 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a high<br />
magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no greater than<br />
a low magnitude of change in the view experienced from the majority of<br />
residential properties in the village <strong>for</strong> the reasons outlined above.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.318 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a substantial effect on the private visual<br />
amenity of 20 out of approximately 90 properties within Aston-cum-<br />
Aughton, primarily those properties on the northern edge of the village.<br />
However, there would be no greater than a slight effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the majority of the village, including the view<br />
from the B6067. A detailed assessment of the visual effects on residential<br />
properties within Aston-cum-Aughton is presented in Appendix 13.2.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.319 The only additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent<br />
would be some temporary activities visible at the base of the turbine and a<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines, but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. These temporary works would be noticeable but<br />
ultimately far less prominent that the turbines being removed.<br />
6.320 There<strong>for</strong>e, there would be a slight additional effect on visual amenity<br />
during the decommissioning phase over and above those assessed as<br />
permanent under the heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.321 At this viewpoint the turbines at the AMRC and the windfarms at Hampole<br />
and Marr would not be visible. The turbines at Loscar would not be visible<br />
from any location within the village where the Penny Hill turbines would be<br />
visible. Where visible the Loscar turbines would be approximately 6km<br />
from Aston. At this distance they would not be prominent and would not<br />
increase the magnitude of change in the visual impact on Aston-cum-<br />
Aughton.<br />
6.322 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 4 AUGHTON<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.323 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by properties on<br />
the eastern edge of Aughton village which have north easterly facing<br />
windows or gardens. It is also representative of views from the B6067 and<br />
from a children‟s recreation area immediately to the north of the road.<br />
106<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.324 The view from the properties on the eastern edge of the village is across<br />
the B6067 along which regular vehicle movements are prominent. Beyond<br />
the road, and as viewed from the children‟s recreation area, the view is<br />
across an undulating arable landscape segregated by mature hedgerows<br />
and occasional tree groups. In the direction of the site, Spring Wood is<br />
prominent and at the top of a hill just to the west of this is a<br />
telecommunications mast.<br />
6.325 The village of Ulley is visible but partially obscured by vegetation. In the far<br />
distance the M1 and overhead electricity lines are visible.<br />
6.326 The photograph presented in Figure 6.13 was taken from the recreation<br />
area immediately to the north of the B6067 in Aughton, approximately<br />
1.6km to the southwest of the site.<br />
6.327 Due to the residential nature of this viewpoint and the children‟s recreation<br />
area, the viewpoint is considered to be of high sensitivity to a change in<br />
the view.<br />
Nature and Mmagnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.328 From this viewpoint the construction compound would not be visible and<br />
the works at ground level would be screened during the construction<br />
phase by intervening land<strong>for</strong>m and vegetation. The cranes would be<br />
visible as they erect the turbines but these temporary works would be<br />
incidental to the turbines being erected.<br />
6.329 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a low magnitude of additional impact on the view<br />
during construction over and above those assessed as permanent under<br />
the heading of Operational Phase below.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.330 There would be a slight additional effect on the viewpoint during<br />
construction over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase below.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.331 A visual representation of the predicted view from the eastern edge of<br />
Aughton is presented in Figure 6.13.<br />
6.332 From this viewpoint, all six turbines would be visible in a north easterly<br />
direction. The nearest turbine would be visible on a raised area of<br />
agricultural land 1620m away. The meteorological mast would also be<br />
visible but the rising land<strong>for</strong>m and vegetation would obstruct any view of<br />
the access tracks, control building or the substation.<br />
6.333 Views of the development from the majority of the village would be<br />
restricted by properties in the eastern part of the village, particularly those<br />
along the B6067.<br />
107<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.334 From properties on the eastern edge of Aughton village views of the<br />
development would be possible, however these would be across the<br />
B6067 along which vehicle movements are commonplace. A detailed<br />
assessment of the visual effects on residential properties within Aughton is<br />
presented in Appendix 13.2.<br />
6.335 The clearest view of the development would be obtained from the<br />
children‟s recreation area immediately to the north of the B6067 from<br />
which there would be uninterrupted views towards the site. From this<br />
location the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the context of an<br />
established agricultural environment of gently undulating fields but also in<br />
the context of the M1 motorway and overhead electricity lines which are<br />
already visible in the distance.<br />
6.336 At this distance, where visible, the turbines would be prominent but not<br />
dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of the underlying and<br />
surrounding landscape.<br />
6.337 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a high<br />
magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no change in<br />
the view experienced from the majority of residential properties in the<br />
village <strong>for</strong> the reasons outlined above.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.338 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a substantial effect on the private visual<br />
amenity of approximately 137 properties within Aughton out of<br />
approximately the 1,889 properties within 2km of the site. These properties<br />
are all located on the eastern edge of Aughton. There would also be a<br />
substantial effect on views from the children‟s recreation area on the<br />
eastern side of the B6067. However, there would be no effect on the<br />
visual amenity experienced by properties west of the properties which<br />
border the B6067. A detailed assessment of the visual effects on<br />
residential properties within Aughton is presented in Appendix 13.2.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.339 The only additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent<br />
would be some temporary activities visible at the base of the turbine and a<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines, but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. These temporary works would be noticeable but<br />
ultimately far less prominent that the turbines being removed.<br />
6.340 There<strong>for</strong>e, there would be a slight additional effect on visual amenity<br />
during the decommissioning phase over and above those assessed as<br />
permanent under the heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.341 Although the cumulative ZTVs suggest that the AMRC and Loscar sites<br />
would be visible at this location, in reality, due to intervening vegetation<br />
108<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
and structures, none of the other cumulative sites would be visible from<br />
this viewpoint.<br />
6.342 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 5 BRAMPTON EN LE MORTHEN<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.343 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced from properties<br />
on the western side of Brampton en le Morthen which have either westerly<br />
or south westerly facing windows or gardens.<br />
6.344 It should be noted that there are very few properties with uninterrupted<br />
views towards the site as views are restricted by a mature tree belt along<br />
the embankments of the M18 which passes directly to the west of the<br />
village. Where there are glimpses through this vegetation, fast moving<br />
vehicles can be seen on the raised M18 as it meets the M1.<br />
6.345 Farm buildings along the eastern side of Common Lane also restrict views<br />
from further west in the village. There are also very limited views from<br />
Brampton Road north of the village due to tall mature vegetation along the<br />
western side of the road.<br />
6.346 Views from the village of Thurcroft, slightly further north of Brampton en le<br />
Morthen, are restricted to a few properties on the western edge of the<br />
settlement. These properties are located on the eastern side of Brampton<br />
Road between Katherine Road in the south and Woodhouse Green in the<br />
north. These properties have views across Brampton Road and allotments<br />
on the opposite site of the road. Vehicles on the M18 are clearly visible<br />
and the site is visible beyond the motorway.<br />
6.347 The photograph presented in Figure 6.14 was taken from a small public<br />
seating area in the southern part of Brampton en le Morthen. At this<br />
location there are two public benches which are orientated away from the<br />
site. Behind them the vegetation has been kept low to enable views in a<br />
westerly direction where vehicles on the M18 are clearly visible. The<br />
viewpoint is approximately 700m to the east of the site.<br />
6.348 Due to the residential nature of the viewpoint it is considered to be of high<br />
sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.349 From this viewpoint the construction compound would not be visible as it<br />
would lie beyond the motorway embankment. Most of the works at ground<br />
level would also be screened during the construction phase. Views of the<br />
cranes erecting the turbines would be available but this would be <strong>for</strong> a<br />
relatively short time period and these temporary works would be incidental<br />
to the turbines being erected.<br />
109<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.350 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a low magnitude of additional impact on the view<br />
during construction over and above those assessed as permanent under<br />
the heading of Operational Phase below.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.351 There would be a slight effect on the viewpoint during construction over<br />
and above those assessed as permanent under the heading of<br />
Operational Phase below.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.352 A visual representation of the predicted view from the western edge of<br />
Brampton en le Morthen is presented in Figure 6.14.<br />
6.353 From this viewpoint, the hubs and the blade tips of all six turbines would<br />
be visible in a westerly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible<br />
beyond the M18 motorway, approximately 710m away. The top of the<br />
meteorological mast would also be visible but the embankment on which<br />
the motorway runs would obstruct any view of the access tracks, control<br />
building or the substation.<br />
6.354 From the majority of the village there would be no clear view of the<br />
development as views are heavily restricted by mature tree and vegetation<br />
on the embankments of the M18 which passes directly to the west of the<br />
village. Where there are glimpses through this vegetation, fast moving<br />
vehicles would be seen on the raised M18 and there<strong>for</strong>e the turbines<br />
would be no more prominent than the fast moving vehicles on the<br />
motorway.<br />
6.355 From further west in the village, views of the development would also be<br />
restricted by farm buildings along the eastern side of Common Lane.<br />
There would also be very limited views from Brampton Road north of the<br />
village due to tall mature vegetation along the western side of the road.<br />
6.356 Views from the village of Thurcroft, slightly further north of Brampton en le<br />
Morthen, would be restricted to a few properties on the western edge of<br />
the settlement, most notably the properties on the eastern side of<br />
Brampton Road between Katherine Road in the south and Woodhouse<br />
Green in the north. From these properties there would be views towards<br />
the development across Brampton Road, the allotments on the opposite<br />
side of the road and the M18 where vehicles would clearly be visible in<br />
front of the development.<br />
6.357 A detailed assessment of the visual effects on residential properties within<br />
Brampton-en-le-Morthen and within Thurcroft is presented in Appendix<br />
13.2.<br />
110<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.358 The clearest view of the development would be obtained from the small<br />
public seating area in the southern part of Brampton en le Morthen in the<br />
vicinity of where the baseline photograph <strong>for</strong> this viewpoint was taken. At<br />
this location the vegetation has been kept low to enable views in a<br />
westerly direction which in effect only enables a view of the M18/M1<br />
junction. The Penny Hill turbines would there<strong>for</strong>e be seen beyond the<br />
moving traffic on the M18 slip road.<br />
6.359 At this relatively close distance, and where there are unobstructed views,<br />
the turbines would be highly prominent but their location beyond a busy<br />
motorway running on an embankment means that they would not<br />
dominate the view or interrupt any long distant views westwards.<br />
6.360 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a medium<br />
magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no view of the<br />
development from the majority of residential properties in the village <strong>for</strong> the<br />
reasons outlined above.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.361 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a moderate effect on the private visual amenity<br />
of a small number of properties on edge of the village and from the public<br />
seating area at the southern edge of the village. However, there would be<br />
no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity experienced within<br />
the village itself. A detailed assessment of the visual effects on residential<br />
properties within Brampton-en-le-Morthen and within Thurcroft is<br />
presented in Appendix 13.2.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.362 The only additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent<br />
would be some temporary activities visible at the base of the turbine and a<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines, but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. These temporary works would be noticeable but<br />
ultimately far less prominent that the turbines being removed.<br />
6.363 There<strong>for</strong>e, there would be a slight additional effect on visual amenity<br />
during the decommissioning phase over and above those assessed as<br />
permanent under the heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.364 Although the cumulative ZTVs suggest that the AMRC and Loscar sites<br />
would be visible at this location, in reality, due to intervening vegetation<br />
and structures, none of the other cumulative sites would be visible from<br />
this viewpoint.<br />
111<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.365 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 6 UPPER WHISTON<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.366 This viewpoint is representative of properties in Upper Whiston with south<br />
facing windows or gardens. It is also representative of the view<br />
experienced by users of the National Cycle Network Route 6 and walkers<br />
on the Trans Pennine Trail and Rotherham Roundwalk, as they look<br />
southwards whilst travelling along Morthern Lane.<br />
6.367 It should be noted that as walkers and cyclists travel along the National<br />
Cycle Network in this area, views towards the site are interrupted by<br />
roadside hedgerows and mature trees.<br />
6.368 The view from this location towards the site is across gently undulating<br />
open arable farmland with large field sizes and some hedgerows. There<br />
are some small clusters of deciduous woodland and a small number of<br />
isolated properties are visible.<br />
6.369 The photograph presented in Figure 6.15 was taken from Morthern Lane<br />
at its junction with Upper Whiston Lane, approximately 1km to the<br />
northwest of the site.<br />
6.370 As this viewpoint represents both residential properties, long distance<br />
walking routes and the National Cycle Network, it is considered to be of<br />
high sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.371 From this viewpoint the construction compound would not be visible. Most<br />
of the works at ground level would also be screened during the<br />
construction phase. Some temporary activities would be just visible at the<br />
base of the nearest turbines and there would also be a view of the cranes<br />
erecting the turbines but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period.<br />
These temporary works would be noticeable but ultimately far less<br />
prominent that the turbines being erected. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a low<br />
magnitude of additional impact on the view during construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.372 There would be a slight effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.373 A visual representation of the predicted view from the southern edge of<br />
Whiston is presented in Figure 6.15.<br />
112<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.374 From this viewpoint, the hubs and the blade tips of all six turbines would<br />
be visible in a south easterly direction. The nearest turbine would be<br />
visible on a raised area of agricultural land 1670m away. The<br />
meteorological mast would also be visible but vegetation would obstruct<br />
any view of the access tracks, control building or substation.<br />
6.375 A small cluster of properties in the south eastern corner of Upper Whiston<br />
and with south facing windows or gardens would have views of the<br />
development although these would be partially screened by vegetation.<br />
Properties set back behind the southern most properties would be<br />
screened by farm buildings and vegetation. A detailed assessment of the<br />
visual effects on residential properties within Upper Whiston is presented<br />
in Appendix 13.2.<br />
6.376 Views of the development would also be experienced by users of the<br />
National Cycle Network Route 6 and walkers on the Trans Pennine Trail<br />
and the Rotherham Roundwalk, as they look southwards whilst travelling<br />
along Morthern Lane. However, these views would be intermittently<br />
interrupted by roadside hedgerows and mature trees.<br />
6.377 The clearest view of the development would be obtained from the point on<br />
Morthern Lane in the vicinity of where the baseline photograph <strong>for</strong> this<br />
viewpoint has been taken. From this location the Penny Hill turbines would<br />
be seen in the context of an established agricultural environment of gently<br />
undulating fields.<br />
6.378 At this distance, where visible, the turbines would be prominent but would<br />
not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of the underlying and<br />
surrounding landscape.<br />
6.379 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a high<br />
magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no greater than<br />
a low magnitude of change in the view experienced from most of the<br />
residential properties in Upper Whiston <strong>for</strong> the reasons outlined above.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.380 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a substantial effect on the private visual<br />
amenity of 1 property out of approximately 41 in Morthen and from a small<br />
section of the Trans Pennine Trail, Rotherham Roundwalk and National<br />
Cycle Network Route 6 in the vicinity of the viewpoint. However, there<br />
would be no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity<br />
experienced from the majority of properties in the village. A detailed<br />
assessment of the visual effects on residential properties within Upper<br />
Whiston is presented in Appendix 13.2.<br />
113<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.381 The only additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent<br />
would be some temporary activities visible at the base of the turbine and a<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines, but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. These temporary works would be noticeable but<br />
ultimately far less prominent that the turbines being removed.<br />
6.382 There<strong>for</strong>e, there would be a slight additional effect on visual amenity<br />
during the decommissioning phase over and above those assessed as<br />
permanent under the heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.383 Although the cumulative ZTVs suggest that the AMRC and Loscar sites<br />
would be visible at this location, in reality, due to intervening vegetation<br />
and structures, none of the other cumulative sites would be visible from<br />
this viewpoint.<br />
6.384 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 7 BRIDGE OVER M18 NEAR THURCROFT<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.385 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by users of the<br />
M18 motorway as they drive southwards towards the site, just be<strong>for</strong>e the<br />
motorway joins with the M1 at Junction 18.<br />
6.386 North of this location, <strong>for</strong> some distance, the M18 runs either in a cutting or<br />
is enclosed by mature roadside vegetation such that there is a limited view<br />
in the direction of the site. Passing underneath the bridge on top of which<br />
the photograph was taken, the M18 emerges from the cutting and roadside<br />
vegetation enabling views south westwards across landscape beyond.<br />
6.387 The photograph presented in Figure 6.16 was taken from the bridge over<br />
which the B6060 passes, immediately to the north of the village of<br />
Thurcroft. It is approximately 1.5km to the northeast of the site.<br />
6.388 The view towards the site from this section is directly along the M18.<br />
Vehicle movements are there<strong>for</strong>e the dominant element in the view. Either<br />
side of the M18, there are arable fields and tree belts.<br />
6.389 As this view is experienced primarily by transient vehicle users, the<br />
viewpoint is considered to be of low sensitivity to change in the view.<br />
114<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.390 From the majority of the M18, there would be no view of the construction<br />
compound or the works at ground level during the construction phase. The<br />
only additional impact would be a minor view of the cranes erecting the<br />
turbines but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period. There<strong>for</strong>e there<br />
would be no additional impact on the view during construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.391 There would be no effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.392 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.16.<br />
6.393 Driving southwards on the M18, the ZTV suggests that the Penny Hill<br />
turbines would be visible from the entire length of the M18 between north<br />
of Junction 1 and the site. In reality, north of the point at which the<br />
baseline photograph is taken, the M18 runs either in a cutting or is<br />
enclosed by mature roadside vegetation <strong>for</strong> several kilometres such that<br />
there is a limited view in the direction of the site.<br />
6.394 South of the bridge where the B6060 crosses over the motorway the M18<br />
emerges from the cutting and roadside vegetation enabling views south<br />
westwards towards the development. At this point the turbines would be<br />
sufficiently distant so that they were not dominant features in the view<br />
although they would be prominent when looking straight ahead.<br />
6.395 As the M18 approaches Junction 32 where it joins with the M1, the<br />
turbines would appear to become gradually larger in the view. The turbines<br />
would there<strong>for</strong>e be prominent <strong>for</strong> a length of approximately 3km of the<br />
M18. However, assuming an average speed of 70 miles per hour, this<br />
section of the motorway would be passed within just over a minute. Along<br />
this section of the motorway, roadside vegetation would partly obscure the<br />
lower parts of the turbines. There would then be a brief moment, lasting<br />
only a few seconds, where the motorway is on embankment adjacent to<br />
the site which would enable an unobstructed view to the west across the<br />
site.<br />
6.396 The top of the meteorological mast would also just be visible but the<br />
access tracks, control building and substation would be screened by<br />
intervening vegetation.<br />
6.397 Where visible, the turbines would not detract notably from the visual<br />
amenity experienced by the transient receptors using the route. Although<br />
prominent <strong>for</strong> a short stretch of the motorway, in the context of the other<br />
numerous built structures visible whilst driving southwest along any length<br />
115<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
of the M18, the turbines would result in a low magnitude of change in the<br />
views experienced by users of the motorway.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.398 It is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that the proposed development would result in<br />
no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity of the transient visual<br />
receptors using this route.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.399 The only additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent<br />
would be some temporary activities visible at the base of the turbine and a<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines, but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. These temporary works would be noticeable but<br />
ultimately far less prominent that the turbines being removed.<br />
6.400 There<strong>for</strong>e, there would be a slight additional effect on visual amenity<br />
during the decommissioning phase over and above those assessed as<br />
permanent under the heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.401 Although the cumulative ZTVs suggest that the AMRC and Loscar sites<br />
would be visible at this location, in reality, due to intervening vegetation<br />
and structures, none of the other cumulative sites would be visible from<br />
this viewpoint.<br />
6.402 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 8 BRIDGE OVER M1 NEAR WALES BAR<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.403 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by users of the<br />
M1 motorway as they drive northwards approaching Junction 32 where the<br />
motorway meets the M18. Views northwards towards the site are first<br />
gained from the M1 as it crosses over high land near Woodall Services.<br />
Between Woodall services and the point where the motorway passes the<br />
site, there are several locations along the M1 where there are<br />
uninterrupted views towards the site but there are also locations where<br />
views in the direction of the site are limited due to roadside vegetation<br />
along the motorway.<br />
6.404 The photograph presented in Figure 6.17 was taken from the overbridge<br />
where the B6059 passes over the M1 at Wales Bar, approximately 4km to<br />
the south of the site.<br />
116<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.405 The view towards the site from this section is directly along the M1.<br />
Vehicle movements are there<strong>for</strong>e the dominant element in the view. Either<br />
side of the M1 there are arable fields and tree belts.<br />
6.406 As this view is experienced primarily by transient vehicle users, the<br />
viewpoint is considered to be of low sensitivity to change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.407 From the majority of the M1, there would be no view of the construction<br />
compound or the works at ground level during the construction phase. The<br />
only additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent<br />
under the heading of Operational Phase would be a minor view of the<br />
cranes erecting the turbines but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time<br />
period. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional impact on the view during<br />
construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.408 There would be no effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.409 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.17.<br />
6.410 Driving northwards on the M1, views of the development would first be<br />
gained as the motorway crosses over high land near Woodall Services.<br />
Between Woodall Services and the point where the baseline photograph<br />
was taken on the overbridge of the B6059 there are several locations<br />
along the M1 where there would be uninterrupted views towards the<br />
development. At this point however, the turbines would be sufficiently<br />
distant so that they would not be prominent in the view considering that<br />
there is a considerable amount of roadside infrastructure which would be<br />
far more prominent in the view along the motorway.<br />
6.411 Continuing northwards between this overbridge and the development there<br />
are also locations where there would be uninterrupted views towards the<br />
development. However, the majority of views in the direction of the<br />
development would be limited due to roadside vegetation along the<br />
motorway. As the M1 approaches the junction with the M18, the turbines<br />
would become gradually more prominent in the view.<br />
6.412 However, assuming an average speed of 70 miles per hour, this section of<br />
the motorway would be passed within just over a few minutes. Along this<br />
section of the motorway, roadside vegetation would obscure the lower<br />
parts of the turbines. There would then be a brief moment, lasting only a<br />
few seconds, where the motorway would be adjacent to the site which<br />
would enable an unobstructed view westwards across the site.<br />
117<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.413 The top of the meteorological mast would also just be visible but the<br />
access tracks, control building and substation would be screened by<br />
intervening vegetation.<br />
6.414 Where visible, the turbines would not detract notably from the visual<br />
amenity experienced by the transient receptors using the route. Although<br />
prominent <strong>for</strong> a short stretch of the motorway approaching junction 32 of<br />
the M1, in the context of other numerous built structures visible whilst<br />
driving southwest along any length of the M1, the turbines would result in a<br />
low magnitude of change in the views experienced by users of the<br />
motorway.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.415 It is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that the proposed development would result in<br />
no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity of the transient visual<br />
receptors using this route.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.416 From the majority of the M1, there would be no view of the works at<br />
ground level during the decommissioning phase. The only additional<br />
impact over and above those assessed as permanent under the heading<br />
of Operational Phase would be a minor view of the cranes removing the<br />
turbines. However this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period and<br />
would be less prominent that the turbines being removed.<br />
6.417 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.418 Although the cumulative ZTVs suggest that the AMRC and Loscar sites<br />
would be visible at this location, in reality, due to intervening vegetation<br />
and structures, none of the other cumulative sites would be visible from<br />
this viewpoint.<br />
6.419 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 9 LAUGHTON EN LE MORTHEN<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.420 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by properties in<br />
the west of Laughton en le Morthen which have west facing windows or<br />
gardens. It is also representative of the view from the Scheduled Ancient<br />
Monument immediately to the west of the village and the two public<br />
footpaths which run to the west of the village.<br />
118<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.421 It should be noted that views from the majority of the residential area<br />
within the village towards the site are obscured by the raised area of<br />
ground in the western end of the village and is the site of the Castle Hill<br />
Scheduled Ancient Monument and which is also surrounded by mature<br />
vegetation. As such there are few properties within the village which have<br />
unrestricted views towards the site.<br />
6.422 The photograph presented in Figure 6.18 was taken from a public footpath<br />
immediately to the west of the village, approximately 3.7km to the east of<br />
the site.<br />
6.423 The view towards the site from this location is initially down the hillside<br />
across arable fields which are divided by mature hedgerows and small<br />
clusters of deciduous woodland. Several farm properties are visible in the<br />
view which also contains the built up area of Thurcroft and in the<br />
background the city of Sheffield. There is evidence of major infrastructure<br />
throughout the landscape including: railway lines, motorways and<br />
overhead electricity pylons.<br />
6.424 Due to the residential nature of the viewpoint and the presence of a<br />
Scheduled Ancient Monument and footpaths in the vicinity, the viewpoint is<br />
considered to be of high sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.425 From this viewpoint neither the construction compound nor the works at<br />
ground level would be visible during the construction phase. The only<br />
additional impact would be a minor view of the cranes erecting the turbines<br />
but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period. The cranes would be<br />
barely perceptible in the context of the site being constructed. There<strong>for</strong>e<br />
there would be no additional impact on the view during construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.426 There would be no effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.427 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.18.<br />
6.428 From this viewpoint, the hubs and the blade tips of all six turbines would<br />
be visible in an easterly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible on<br />
a lower lying area of agricultural land 3607m away. The meteorological<br />
mast would also be visible but vegetation would obstruct any view of the<br />
access tracks, control building or the substation.<br />
6.429 Views from the majority of the residential area within the village towards<br />
the development would be obscured by the raised area of ground in the<br />
western end of the village which is the site of the Castle Hill Scheduled<br />
Ancient Monument and which is also surrounded by mature vegetation. As<br />
119<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
such the only properties within the village which have unrestricted views<br />
towards the site are those at the western end of Church Corner.<br />
6.430 The clearest view of the development would be obtained from the two<br />
public footpaths which run to the west of the village in the vicinity of where<br />
the baseline photograph <strong>for</strong> this viewpoint has been taken. From this<br />
location the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the context of an<br />
established agricultural environment of gently undulating fields but also in<br />
the context of the urban fringe of Sheffield which would be visible in the<br />
distance.<br />
6.431 At this distance, where visible, the turbines would be relatively prominent<br />
but would not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of the<br />
underlying and surrounding landscape. They would not obstruct the long<br />
distance views available towards the Peak District.<br />
6.432 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a medium<br />
magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no change in<br />
the view experienced from the majority of residential properties in the<br />
village.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.433 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a moderate effect on the private visual amenity<br />
of a small number of properties on the western edge of the village and<br />
from the footpaths which run around the western edge of the village.<br />
However, there would be no effect on the visual amenity experienced<br />
within the village itself.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.434 From this viewpoint the works at ground level would not be visible during<br />
the decommissioning phase. The only additional impact would be a minor<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. The cranes would be barely perceptible in the context of<br />
the turbines being removed.<br />
6.435 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.436 At this viewpoint the wind farms at Hampole and Marr would not be visible.<br />
The cumulative ZTVs suggest that the turbines at the AMRC would be<br />
visible but based on site visits, it is clear that they are screened by<br />
intervening vegetation and buildings. The turbines at Loscar would be just<br />
visible in the distance (approximately 8km away). At this distance they<br />
would not be prominent and would not increase the magnitude of change<br />
in the visual impact.<br />
120<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.437 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 10 SOUTH ANSTON<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.438 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by properties on<br />
the western edge of South Anston and which have northwest facing<br />
windows or gardens. It is also representative of the view experienced by<br />
users of the A57 as they drive north westwards between South Anston and<br />
Todwick, the B6059 between South Anston and Kiveton Park Station and<br />
the network of footpaths west of South Anston. It should be noted that<br />
properties on the western edge of South Anston obscure any view in the<br />
direction of the site from the village centre or further east along the A57.<br />
6.439 Where visibility is unobstructed, the view is across open undulating arable<br />
fields in which there are few hedgerows or mature trees. In the distance<br />
the A57 can be seen winding through the landscape and vehicles can be<br />
seen travelling along the M1. Lines of pylons are also visible in the<br />
distance.<br />
6.440 The photograph presented in Figure 6.19 was taken from the B6059 just<br />
south of South Anston, approximately 5km to the southeast of the site.<br />
6.441 Due to the residential nature of the viewpoint and the number of footpaths<br />
also represented by the viewpoint, it is considered to be of high sensitivity<br />
to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.442 At this distance neither the construction compound nor the works at<br />
ground level would be visible during the construction phase. The only<br />
additional impact would be a minor view of the cranes erecting the turbines<br />
but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period. The cranes would be<br />
barely perceptible in the context of the site being constructed. There<strong>for</strong>e<br />
there would be no additional impact on the view during construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.443 There would be no effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.444 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.19.<br />
6.445 From this viewpoint, the hubs and the blade tips of all six turbines would<br />
be visible in a north westerly direction. The nearest turbine would be<br />
visible in an area of agricultural land 5.3km away. The meteorological mast<br />
121<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
would also be visible but at this distance the control building, substation<br />
and access tracks would not.<br />
6.446 Views towards the development from the majority of the residential area<br />
within the village, and from the A57 to the east of the village, would be<br />
obscured by properties on the western edge of South Anston. As such<br />
there are few properties within the village which have unrestricted views<br />
towards the site.<br />
6.447 The clearest views of the development would be obtained from a small<br />
number of properties on the western edge of South Anston, the network of<br />
footpaths to the west of South Anston, users of the A57 as they drive north<br />
westwards between South Anston and Todwick, and the B6059 between<br />
South Anston and Kiveton Park Station in the vicinity of where the baseline<br />
photograph <strong>for</strong> this viewpoint was taken. From these locations the Penny<br />
Hill turbines would visible in the distance and be seen in the context of an<br />
agricultural landscape of gently undulating fields but throughout which<br />
there is clear evidence of urban development<br />
6.448 At this distance, the turbines would be visible but not prominent in the<br />
context of the wider panoramic views available across the landscape from<br />
this location.<br />
6.449 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a low<br />
magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no change in<br />
the view experienced from the majority of residential properties in the<br />
village.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.450 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a slight effect on the private visual amenity of a<br />
small number of properties on the western edge of the village and from the<br />
footpaths which run around the western edge of the village. However,<br />
there would be no effect on the visual amenity experienced within the<br />
village itself.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.451 From this viewpoint the works at ground level would not be visible during<br />
the decommissioning phase. The only additional impact would be a minor<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. The cranes would be barely perceptible in the context of<br />
the turbines being removed.<br />
6.452 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase.<br />
122<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.453 At this viewpoint the turbines at the AMRC and the wind farms at Hampole<br />
and Marr would not be visible. The turbines at Loscar would not be visible<br />
from any location within the village where the Penny Hill turbines would<br />
also be visible. Where visible, the Penny Hill turbines would be over 5km<br />
from South Anston and not be prominent in the view. They would result in<br />
only a low magnitude of additional change to the baseline view.<br />
6.454 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no greater than a slight cumulative effect on<br />
the visual amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 11 WORKSOP<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.455 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by properties in<br />
the northern part of Worksop which have northwest facing windows or<br />
gardens. It should be noted that the location from which the photograph<br />
was taken is one of a very small number of locations in Worksop from<br />
which there are unobstructed long distance views in the direction of the<br />
site. The reason <strong>for</strong> this is that at this location in Worksop, the land<strong>for</strong>m<br />
rises relatively steeply enabling an elevated view across the land to the<br />
west. The properties on this estate there<strong>for</strong>e have a north westerly aspect.<br />
6.456 The vast majority of residential properties within Worksop do not have any<br />
long distance views towards the site. Properties and vegetation within the<br />
urban extents of the settlement obstruct the view. Industrial buildings and<br />
mature vegetation belts obstruct the view from the entire length of the A57<br />
between the A1 and South Anston.<br />
6.457 The photograph presented in Figure 6.20 was taken on Eddison Road<br />
which leads into a residential estate immediately to the west of the A60 at<br />
the northernmost part of Worksop known as Gate<strong>for</strong>d Hill. It is<br />
approximately 12km to the southeast of the site. The view from this<br />
location is shared with residents on the estate, and is particularly<br />
representative of the view from first floor windows of these houses. The<br />
view in the direction of the site is across the residential estate in the<br />
<strong>for</strong>eground. In the far distance, on the horizon, the high ground which<br />
<strong>for</strong>ms the site is visible.<br />
6.458 Due to the residential nature of the viewpoint it is considered to be of high<br />
sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.459 From this viewpoint, none of the construction activities would be visible.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional impact on the view during<br />
construction.<br />
123<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.460 There would be no effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.461 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.20.<br />
6.462 From this viewpoint, there would be only the slightest glimpse of a few<br />
blade tips on the horizon in a far north westerly direction. Land<strong>for</strong>m and<br />
woodland in the intervening landscape would screen the towers of the<br />
turbines and all but the very tips of the turbine blades. The nearest turbine<br />
would be visible over 12km away. The meteorological mast, access tracks,<br />
substation and the control building would not be visible.<br />
6.463 The vast majority of residential properties within Worksop would not have<br />
any views of the development as other properties and vegetation within<br />
the urban extents of the settlement obstruct the view. Views of the<br />
development from the entire length of the A57 between the A1 and South<br />
Anston would be obstructed by industrial buildings and mature woodland.<br />
The only views of the development would be obtained from the Gate<strong>for</strong>d<br />
Hill residential estate, immediately to the west of the A60 at the<br />
northernmost part of Worksop. Although, theoretically the turbines would<br />
just be visible, they would be barely perceptible on the horizon, and in the<br />
context of the existing environment they would not <strong>for</strong>m a prominent<br />
feature in the view.<br />
6.464 The development would result in no change in the baseline view.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.465 It is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that the proposed development would result in<br />
no effect on the visual amenity experienced from within Worksop.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.466 From this viewpoint none of the decommissioning works would be visible.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.467 As the Penny Hill turbines would result in no effect on this viewpoint, there<br />
can be no additional cumulative effects.<br />
124<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
VIEWPOINT 12 MALTBY<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.468 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by properties on<br />
the western edge of Maltby and which have southwest facing windows or<br />
gardens.<br />
6.469 It should be noted that there are few properties within Maltby which have<br />
unobstructed views towards the site. The land<strong>for</strong>m in the northern and<br />
eastern part of the town drops away from the high point where the<br />
photograph is taken from and properties in this part of the town are<br />
consequently orientated away from the site.<br />
6.470 Even within the western part of the town which does have a north westerly<br />
aspect towards the site, vegetation in gardens and the dense network of<br />
residential streets typically associated with an urban area greatly restricts<br />
long distance views in the direction of the site.<br />
6.471 The photograph presented in Figure 6.21 was taken from Addison Road (a<br />
residential distributor road) which links the A631 with the B6376. The<br />
photo is taken near the high point on the road near to its junction with Lilly<br />
Hall Road. It is approximately 6km to the northeast of the site.<br />
6.472 The view from this location towards the site is across the rooftops of<br />
properties in the south of Maltby and over the urban fringe landscape<br />
beyond. In the distance the undulating agricultural landscape is inter<br />
woven with industrial features such as overhead electricity lines,<br />
motorways and industrial units. The village of Carr is also visible on the<br />
side of Beacon Hill which rises in the mid distance and adjacent to which is<br />
a telecommunications mast.<br />
6.473 Due to the residential nature of the viewpoint it is considered to be of high<br />
sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.474 From this viewpoint neither the construction compound nor the works at<br />
ground level would be visible during the construction phase. The only<br />
additional impact would be a minor view of the cranes erecting the turbines<br />
but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period. The cranes would be<br />
barely perceptible in the context of the site being constructed. There<strong>for</strong>e<br />
there would be no additional impact on the view during construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.475 There would be no effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
125<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.476 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.21.<br />
6.477 From this viewpoint, the hubs and the blade tips of all six turbines would<br />
be visible in a south westerly direction. The nearest turbine would be<br />
visible in an area of agricultural land some 6km away. The top of the<br />
meteorological mast would also just be visible but at this distance the<br />
access tracks, substation and the control building would not.<br />
6.478 Views towards the development from the majority of the residential area<br />
within the northern and eastern part of Maltby would be obscured by<br />
land<strong>for</strong>m as land drops away from the point where the baseline<br />
photograph was taken from, and properties in the north and east of the<br />
town are consequently orientated away from the site. Even within the<br />
western part of the town which does have a north westerly aspect towards<br />
the site, views of the development would be greatly restricted by<br />
vegetation in gardens and the dense network of residential streets typically<br />
associated with an urban area.<br />
6.479 The clearest views of the development would be obtained from a small<br />
number of properties at the high point in the western edge of Maltby in the<br />
vicinity of where the baseline photograph <strong>for</strong> this viewpoint has been<br />
taken. From these locations the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the<br />
context of a mixed landscape containing established agricultural gently<br />
undulating fields and also industrial features such as overhead electricity<br />
lines, motorways and industrial units. At this distance, where visible, the<br />
turbines would not be prominent in the wider panoramic view available<br />
from this location.<br />
6.480 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a low<br />
magnitude of change in the view. However, there would be no change in<br />
the view experienced from the majority of residential properties in Maltby.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.481 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a slight effect on the private visual amenity of a<br />
small number of properties in the western edge of Maltby. However, there<br />
would be no effect on the visual amenity experienced from the majority of<br />
Maltby.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.482 From this viewpoint the works at ground level would not be visible during<br />
the decommissioning phase. The only additional impact would be a minor<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. The cranes would be barely perceptible in the context of<br />
the turbines being removed.<br />
126<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.483 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.484 At this viewpoint the turbines at the AMRC and the windfarms at Hampole<br />
and Marr would not be visible. The turbines at Loscar would be just visible<br />
in the distance (approximately 12km away). At this distance they would not<br />
be prominent and would not increase the magnitude of change in the<br />
visual impact.<br />
6.485 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 13 A631 ROTHERHAM<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.486 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by properties in<br />
the southern part of Rotherham specifically the residential areas of<br />
Whiston, Moorgate, Wickersley and Listerdale. It is also representative of<br />
the views from the footpaths and the golf club which lie between the M1<br />
and the A631 which runs around the southern part of Rotherham.<br />
6.487 It should be noted that the majority of the properties in Rotherham have no<br />
view in the direction of the site. A ridge in the land<strong>for</strong>m just north of the<br />
A631 restricts any view in a southerly direction from much of the town. In<br />
particular there are no views from the town centre in the direction of the<br />
site. Even from the residential areas south of the ridge, vegetation in<br />
gardens and the dense network of residential streets typically associated<br />
with an urban area greatly restricts long distance views in the direction of<br />
the site. There<strong>for</strong>e views from residential areas are largely restricted to the<br />
properties directly overlooking the fields south of the urban area.<br />
6.488 The photograph presented in Figure 6.22 was taken from the southern<br />
side of the A631 adjacent to property number 60, Hollin Hill Farm. It is<br />
approximately 3km to the north of the site. The view from this location<br />
towards the site is across urban fringe mixed farmland which is divided by<br />
mature hedgerows, containing large trees and several small clusters of<br />
deciduous woodland. Several overhead power lines pass through the view<br />
in an east west direction in front of the site and the vehicles are visible on<br />
the M1.<br />
6.489 Due to the residential nature of the viewpoint it is considered to be of high<br />
sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
127<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.490 From this viewpoint neither the construction compound nor the works at<br />
ground level would be visible during the construction phase. The only<br />
additional impact would be a minor view of the cranes erecting the turbines<br />
but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period.<br />
6.491 The cranes would be barely perceptible in the context of the site being<br />
constructed. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional impact on the view<br />
during construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.492 There would be no effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.493 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.22.<br />
6.494 From this viewpoint, the hubs and the blade tips of all six turbines would<br />
be visible in a southerly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible in<br />
an area of agricultural land 3.6km away. The meteorological mast would<br />
also be visible but vegetation and land<strong>for</strong>m would obstruct any view of the<br />
access tracks, substation or the control building.<br />
6.495 There would be no view of the development from the majority of the<br />
properties in Rotherham as a ridge in the land<strong>for</strong>m just north of the A631<br />
restricts any view in a southerly direction from much of the town. Notably,<br />
there would be no views of the development from the town centre. Even<br />
from the residential areas south of the ridge, vegetation in gardens and the<br />
dense network of residential streets typically associated with an urban<br />
area would greatly restrict long distance views in the direction of the<br />
development.<br />
6.496 The only properties within Rotherham which would have clear views of the<br />
development would be those on the southern edge of the residential<br />
estates on the southern side of the A631, essentially properties which<br />
currently overlook the fields south of the urban area in the vicinity of where<br />
the baseline photograph <strong>for</strong> this viewpoint has been taken.<br />
6.497 From these locations the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the context<br />
of an urban fringe landscape of gently undulating fields and also features<br />
such as overhead electricity lines and the M1 motorway.<br />
6.498 At this distance, where there are unobstructed views of the development,<br />
the turbines would be relatively prominent but would not dominate the view<br />
or prevent an appreciation of the underlying and surrounding landscape.<br />
The small number and simple structure of the turbines would not clutter<br />
the landscape.<br />
128<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.499 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a medium<br />
magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no change in<br />
the view experienced from the majority of residential properties in<br />
Rotherham or from the town centre <strong>for</strong> the reasons outlined above.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.500 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a moderate effect on the private visual amenity<br />
of a small number of properties in the southern edge of the town.<br />
However, there would be no effect on the visual amenity experienced<br />
within the majority of Rotherham.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.501 From this viewpoint the works at ground level would not be visible during<br />
the decommissioning phase. The only additional impact would be a minor<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. The cranes would be barely perceptible in the context of<br />
the turbines being removed.<br />
6.502 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.503 At this viewpoint the windfarms at Hampole and Marr would not be visible.<br />
The cumulative ZTVs suggest that the turbines at the AMRC would be<br />
visible but based on site visits, it is clear that they are screened by<br />
intervening vegetation and buildings. The turbines at Loscar would be just<br />
visible in the distance (approximately 12km away). At this distance they<br />
would not be prominent and would not increase the magnitude of change<br />
in the visual impact.<br />
6.504 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 14 A621 HOUNDKIRK MOOR (PEAK DISTRICT)<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.505 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced from the eastern<br />
edge of the Peak District National Park when looking eastwards and north<br />
eastwards in the direction of the site. It is also representative of the view<br />
experienced by users of the A621 as they drive north eastwards towards<br />
Sheffield and many scattered properties on the urban fringe of Sheffield.<br />
6.506 The photograph presented in Figure 6.23 was taken from the A621 near<br />
Owler Bar, inside the boundary of the Peak District National Park. It is<br />
approximately 19.5km to the southwest of the site.<br />
129<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.507 The view towards the site from this location is across the urban fringe of<br />
Sheffield and the lower lying land beyond. In the <strong>for</strong>eground the view is of<br />
moorland and sheep grazing is common as within much of the Peak<br />
District. As the land<strong>for</strong>m drops away, isolated farmsteads and individual<br />
properties become denser towards the outskirts of Sheffield. The city of<br />
Sheffield is prominent in the direction of the site and sprawls over several<br />
hills. Several tall buildings are visible in the city centre including the Arts<br />
Tower at Sheffield University, Hallam hospital and many new buildings<br />
which are popping up in the city centre. Beyond Sheffield the hills on which<br />
the Penny Hill site is located are visible.<br />
6.508 As this viewpoint is representative of the views from a National Park which<br />
is experienced by numerous tourists, it is considered to be of high<br />
sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.509 At this distance, none of the construction impacts would be visible.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no impact on the view during construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.510 There would be no effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.511 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.23.<br />
6.512 From this viewpoint, the hubs and blade tips of all six turbines would be<br />
just visible on the horizon in a far north easterly direction. The nearest<br />
turbine would be visible some 19.7km away beyond Sheffield. At this<br />
distance, the meteorological mast, access tracks, substation and the<br />
control building would not be visible.<br />
6.513 From any location within the Peak District National Park there would be no<br />
greater than a distant glimpse of the turbines.<br />
6.514 The clearest views of the development would be obtained from a very<br />
small number of locations on the National Park boundary and the A621<br />
near Owler Bar, in the vicinity of where the baseline photograph <strong>for</strong> this<br />
viewpoint has been taken. From this location the Penny Hill turbines would<br />
be seen in the context of the greater part of the urban area of Sheffield<br />
which is prominent in the middle distance.<br />
6.515 Although the turbines would be visible, they would be barely perceptible on<br />
the horizon of the view, and in the context of the existing urban<br />
environment they would not <strong>for</strong>m a prominent feature in the view.<br />
6.516 The development would result in no change in the baseline view.<br />
130<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.517 It is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that the proposed development would result in<br />
no effect on visual amenity experienced within the Peak District National<br />
Park.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.518 From this viewpoint none of the decommissioning works would be visible.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.519 As the Penny Hill turbines would result in no effect on this viewpoint, there<br />
can be no additional cumulative effects.<br />
VIEWPOINT 15 SHIRECLIFFE, SHEFFIELD<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.520 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced from elevated<br />
locations within the city of Sheffield. This includes residential properties on<br />
the hills within the city <strong>for</strong> example at Shirecliffe, Tapton, Fulwood and the<br />
Manor Estate. It is also representative of the view from the top of tall<br />
buildings within the city and public rights of way which cross over high<br />
points on the western edge of the city.<br />
6.521 It should be noted that Sheffield is a city of hills and valleys and that this<br />
complex land<strong>for</strong>m prevents any view in the direction of the site from many<br />
locations within the city. Furthermore, vegetation in gardens and the dense<br />
network of residential streets typically associated with an urban area<br />
greatly restricts long distance views in the direction of the site. There<strong>for</strong>e<br />
views from residential areas are largely restricted to the elevated<br />
properties with an eastern aspect.<br />
6.522 The photograph presented in Figure 6.24 was taken from the recreation<br />
ground at Shirecliffe just to the east of the Sheffield Ski Centre. It is<br />
approximately 12km to the west of the site.<br />
6.523 The long distance view from this location towards the site is across the<br />
city. In the <strong>for</strong>eground the view is across rooftops of residential properties<br />
as the land slopes downhill. In the middle distance, the industrial core of<br />
the Don Valley is visible with its many large industrial units. The site is<br />
visible on the rising area of mixed farmland beyond the city.<br />
6.524 As this viewpoint is representative of residential areas it is considered to<br />
be of high sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
131<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.525 From this viewpoint neither the construction compound nor the works at<br />
ground level would be visible during the construction phase. The only<br />
additional impact would be a minor view of the cranes erecting the turbines<br />
but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period. The cranes would be<br />
barely perceptible in the context of the site being constructed. There<strong>for</strong>e<br />
there would be no additional impact on the view during construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.526 There would be no effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.527 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.24.<br />
6.528 From this viewpoint, all six turbines would be just visible on the horizon in<br />
an easterly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible in an area of<br />
agricultural land some 12.4km away. The top of the meteorological mast<br />
would also just be visible but the access tracks, substation and the control<br />
building would not.<br />
6.529 There would be no views of the development from the majority of Sheffield<br />
as the complex land<strong>for</strong>m of hills and valleys in the city prevents several<br />
areas from having any view in the direction of the site.<br />
6.530 Views of the development from residential areas within the city would be<br />
largely restricted to properties in elevated locations with an easterly<br />
aspect. However, vegetation in gardens and the dense network of<br />
residential streets typically associated with an urban area would greatly<br />
restrict the number properties with a view and notably the ZTV greatly over<br />
exaggerates the extent of actual visibility within the city.<br />
6.531 In addition to properties in elevated positions such as at Shirecliffe,<br />
Tapton, Fulwood and the Manor Estate there are also a number of tower<br />
blocks within the city. From the upper floors of these buildings there would<br />
also be distant views across the city and of the turbines in the countryside<br />
beyond.<br />
6.532 The clearest views of the development would be obtained from the<br />
elevated recreation ground at Shirecliffe, just to the east of the Sheffield<br />
Ski Centre, in the vicinity of where the baseline photograph <strong>for</strong> this<br />
viewpoint has been taken. From this location the Penny Hill turbines would<br />
be seen beyond the urban limits of Sheffield. The view towards the<br />
development would be across industrial and residential areas and<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e the turbines, whilst visible, would not be as prominent as other<br />
modern structures in the intervening townscape. Although the turbines<br />
would be visible, they would not <strong>for</strong>m a prominent feature in the view.<br />
132<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.533 The development would result in a low magnitude of change in the<br />
baseline view.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.534 It is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that the proposed development would result in<br />
no effect on this viewpoint.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.535 From this viewpoint the works at ground level would not be visible during<br />
the decommissioning phase. The only additional impact would be a minor<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. The cranes would be barely perceptible in the context of<br />
the turbines being removed.<br />
6.536 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.537 The cumulative ZTVs suggest that the turbines at the AMRC would be<br />
visible as would the wind farms at Loscar, Hampole and Marr. However<br />
based on site visits, it is clear that the AMRC turbines are screened by<br />
intervening vegetation and buildings. The turbines at Loscar would be just<br />
visible in the distance (approximately 8km away) but the Hampole and<br />
Marr turbines would be barely perceptible as over 20km. At this distance,<br />
the Loscar turbines would not be prominent and would not increase the<br />
magnitude of change in the visual impact.<br />
6.538 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 16 WENTWORTH WOODHOUSE<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.539 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced from the grounds<br />
of Wentworth Woodhouse and by users of the public footpath which runs<br />
through the grounds of the house and <strong>for</strong>ms part of the Rotherham<br />
Roundwalk and the Trans Pennine Route long distance footpath. The view<br />
from this location is also similar to the view experienced from the southern<br />
edge of some of the villages in the vicinity of the parkland.<br />
6.540 It should be noted that a mature woodland south east of Wentworth House<br />
obstructs any distant view in the direction of the site from the house itself<br />
and that it is only from the Deer Park where there is any view in the<br />
direction of the site. Similarly, mature vegetation to the south of Wentworth<br />
village prevents any view in the direction of the site. Within the Deer Park,<br />
there are many individual and clusters of mature trees which limit the<br />
133<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
number of locations along the public footpath where there are<br />
uninterrupted views towards the site.<br />
6.541 The photograph presented in Figure 6.25 was taken from the public<br />
footpath which runs through the grounds of Wentworth Woodhouse at the<br />
point where the path kinks around the woodland south east of Wentworth<br />
House. It is approximately 11km to the northwest of the site.<br />
6.542 The view from this location towards the site is across the southern part of<br />
the Deer Park as the land<strong>for</strong>m drops steeply towards Kenel Pond. This<br />
view is across a historic parkland estate surrounded by woodland shelter<br />
belts. In the distance the town of Rotherham is visible with its residential<br />
houses and industrial buildings some of which have pluming chimney<br />
stacks. The rising land on which the site is located is visible in the far<br />
distance beyond Rotherham.<br />
6.543 As this viewpoint is representative of a long distance public footpath<br />
running through an area of historic parkland it is considered to be of high<br />
sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.544 From this viewpoint none of the construction impacts would be visible.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional impact on the view during<br />
construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.545 There would be no effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.546 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.25.<br />
6.547 The ZTV and wireframe view <strong>for</strong> this location suggest that all six turbines<br />
would be just visible on the horizon in a south easterly direction. These<br />
suggest that the nearest turbine would be visible some 12km away. In<br />
reality the woodland structure around the edges of the parkland would<br />
almost entirely obscure the turbines from every location within the park.<br />
6.548 There would be no view of the development from Wentworth Woodhouse<br />
as mature woodland in the parkland to its southeast obstructs any long<br />
distant views. Similarly, mature vegetation to the south of Wentworth<br />
would also prevent any views of the development from the village.<br />
6.549 There would be a small number of locations within the Deer Park where<br />
there would be slight glimpses of the tips of the turbine blades, most<br />
notably at the location on the Rotherham Roundwalk and the Trans<br />
Pennine Trail from which the baseline photograph was taken. At this point<br />
134<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
the tips would be barely perceptible above the moving branches of the<br />
trees.<br />
6.550 Where there are distant views of the development, there would be a low<br />
magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no change in<br />
the view experienced from the majority of the Rotherham Roundwalk and<br />
the Trans Pennine Trail in this area or from the village of Wentworth and<br />
the Woodhouse <strong>for</strong> the reasons outlined above.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.551 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no greater than a slight effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced by people visiting Wentworth Woodhouse or using<br />
the Rotherham Roundwalk and the Trans Pennine Trail through the Deer<br />
Park.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.552 From this viewpoint none of the decommissioning works would be visible.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.553 At this viewpoint the wind turbines at the AMRC, Hampole and Marr would<br />
not be visible. The cumulative ZTVs suggest that the turbines at Loscar<br />
would be visible but in reality they would not be visible due to screening<br />
from woodland belts around the parkland.<br />
6.554 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
VIEWPOINT 17 CONISBROUGH<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.555 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by properties on<br />
the south western edge of Conisbrough and which have south west facing<br />
windows or gardens.<br />
6.556 It should be noted that properties on the south eastern edge of<br />
Conisbrough (bordering A630) are not within the ZTV of the site and have<br />
no long distance view of the site. Furthermore, vegetation in gardens and<br />
the dense network of residential streets typically associated with an urban<br />
area greatly restricts long distance views in the direction of the site from<br />
much of the remainder of Conisbrough. Essentially there are only long<br />
distance views towards the site from a small number of properties which<br />
back directly onto open fields east of the town.<br />
135<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.557 The photograph presented in Figure 6.26 was taken from the end of<br />
Cypress Grove on the eastern edge of Conisbrough. It is approximately<br />
9.5km to the northeast of the site.<br />
6.558 The view from this location towards the site is across gently undulating<br />
arable farmland with gappy hedgerows and only a small number of mature<br />
trees. The site is visible in the far distance beyond an overhead electricity<br />
line and is partially obscured by the rising ground in the middle distance of<br />
the view.<br />
6.559 As this viewpoint is representative of a residential area it is considered to<br />
be of high sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.560 From this viewpoint none of the construction impacts would be visible.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional impact on the view during<br />
construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.561 There would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.562 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.26.<br />
6.563 From this viewpoint, the ZTV and wireframe suggest that the tips of all six<br />
turbines would just be visible on the horizon in a southerly direction,<br />
approximately 9.5km away. In reality vegetation on the horizon would<br />
effectively screen all but the very slightest glimpse of any turbine blades.<br />
At this distance and in the context of the wider panoramic views available<br />
from this location, the turbines would be barely perceptible.<br />
6.564 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no change in the view experienced from<br />
Conisbrough.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.565 There would be no effect on the visual amenity experienced from<br />
properties or footpaths in the vicinity of Conisbrough.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.566 From this viewpoint none of the decommissioning works would be visible.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning.<br />
136<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.567 As the Penny Hill turbines would result in no effect on this viewpoint, there<br />
can be no additional cumulative effects.<br />
VIEWPOINT 18 A1(M) JUNCTION AT BLYTH<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.568 This viewpoint is representative of the view intermittently experienced by<br />
users of the A1(M) whilst travelling north along the road between its<br />
junction with the A57 in the south and Tickhill in the north. It should be<br />
noted that views from much of this length of the A1(M) towards the site are<br />
restricted due to the road passing through cutting or due to roadside<br />
vegetation.<br />
6.569 The land to the west of the A1(M) is gently rising westwards and is well<br />
wooded which means that even in locations which are not in cutting or<br />
bordered by roadside vegetation, there are very few locations along the<br />
road which permit unobstructed long distance views towards the site.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e, although the ZTV suggests that the site is visible from a length<br />
of approximately 17km of the A1(M), in reality, clear distant views in the<br />
direction of the site are restricted to just a small number of very short<br />
lengths of the road.<br />
6.570 The photograph presented in Figure 6.27 was taken from the western<br />
edge of the A1(M) at the new Blyth roundabout. It is approximately 14km<br />
to the east of the site.<br />
6.571 The view towards the site from this location is a long distance view beyond<br />
a rising area of mixed farmland in the <strong>for</strong>eground which is divided by lines<br />
of fencing and some mature hedgerows. Several small areas of deciduous<br />
woodland are visible throughout the view.<br />
6.572 As this view is experienced primarily by transient vehicle users, the<br />
viewpoint is considered to be of low sensitivity to change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.573 There would be no view of the construction compound or the works at<br />
ground level during the construction phase. The view of the cranes<br />
erecting the turbines would be barely perceptible and be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. People using the A1(M) are used to road works and<br />
other construction activities and this will not detract from their visual<br />
amenity. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional impact on the view during<br />
construction over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase.<br />
137<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.574 There would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during construction<br />
over and above those assessed as permanent under the heading of<br />
Operational Phase.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.575 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.27.<br />
6.576 Driving northwards on the A1/A1(M), the ZTV suggests that the Penny Hill<br />
turbines would be visible from the entire length of the A1/A1(M) between<br />
its junction with the A57 near Worksop and the point at which it passes the<br />
village of Tickhill. In reality, It should be noted that views of the<br />
development from much of this length of the A1/A1(M) would be restricted<br />
due to the road passing through cutting or due to roadside vegetation.<br />
6.577 The land to the west of the A1/A1(M) is gently rising westwards and is well<br />
wooded which means that in, even in locations which are not in cutting or<br />
bordered by roadside vegetation, there would be very few locations along<br />
the road which would have unobstructed long distance views of the<br />
development. There<strong>for</strong>e, although the ZTV suggests that the site is visible<br />
from a length of approximately 17km of the A1/A1(M). In reality, glimpses<br />
of the turbines would be restricted to just a small number of very short<br />
lengths of the road.<br />
6.578 From the location where the viewpoint photograph was taken, woodland<br />
on the horizon would obstruct any view of the turbines.<br />
6.579 In the small number of locations where the development was visible, the<br />
turbines would not detract notably from the visual amenity experienced by<br />
the transient receptors using the route. In the context of other numerous<br />
built structures visible whilst driving northwards along any length of the<br />
A1/A1(M), the turbines would result in no change in the views experienced<br />
by users of the road.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.580 It is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that the proposed development would result in<br />
no effect on this viewpoint.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.581 From this viewpoint the works at ground level would not be visible during<br />
the decommissioning phase. The only additional impact would be a minor<br />
view of the cranes removing the turbines but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively<br />
short time period. The cranes would be barely perceptible in the context of<br />
the turbines being removed.<br />
138<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.582 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning over and above those assessed as permanent under the<br />
heading of Operational Phase.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.583 As the Penny Hill turbines would result in no effect on this viewpoint, there<br />
can be no additional cumulative effects.<br />
VIEWPOINT 19 BOLSOVER<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.584 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by users of the<br />
B6417 as they drive northwards from Bolsover towards Clowne. It is also<br />
representative of the views from several individual properties and small<br />
villages to the north and northeast of Bolsover and properties on the<br />
northern edge of Bolsover.<br />
6.585 It should be noted that the majority of properties within Bolsover have a<br />
south westerly aspect and are orientated away from the site. Only the<br />
properties on the very northern edge of Bolsover have distant views in the<br />
direction of the site. It is also noted that there is a considerable amount of<br />
vegetation in the intervening land between the site and this location which<br />
greatly restricts long distance views.<br />
6.586 The photograph presented in Figure 6.28 was taken on the minor road<br />
which runs from the B6417 towards Whaley and is approximately 16km to<br />
the south of the site. The view towards the site from this location is a long<br />
distance view across arable fields which are divided by mature hedgerows<br />
and small clusters of deciduous woodland. Several farm properties are<br />
visible in the view as are a number of low voltage electricity transfer lines.<br />
6.587 As this viewpoint is representative of a number of residential areas it is<br />
considered to be of high sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.588 At this distance, none of the construction activities would be visible.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional impact on the view during<br />
construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.589 There would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.590 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.28.<br />
139<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.591 The ZTV and wireframe suggest that from this viewpoint, all six turbines<br />
would be just visible on the horizon in a northerly direction and the nearest<br />
turbine would be visible some 16.2km away. In reality vegetation in the<br />
intervening landscape would obstruct any view of the development from<br />
this location. This is considered to be typical of the view from this general<br />
vicinity.<br />
6.592 There would be no view of the development from the majority of properties<br />
within Bolsover as they have a south westerly aspect and would be<br />
orientated away from the site. Only the properties on the very northern<br />
edge of Bolsover would have any distant view of the development,<br />
however there is a considerable amount of vegetation in the intervening<br />
land between Bolsover and the site which would greatly restrict these long<br />
distance views. There<strong>for</strong>e, these properties would only experience views<br />
from first floor windows.<br />
6.593 From these locations the distant Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the<br />
context of an established agricultural environment of gently undulating<br />
fields. The turbines would be barely perceptible and they would not <strong>for</strong>m a<br />
prominent feature in the view.<br />
6.594 The development would result in no change to the baseline view.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.595 It is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that the proposed development would result in<br />
no effect on this viewpoint.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.596 From this viewpoint none of the decommissioning works would be visible.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.597 As the Penny Hill turbines would result in no effect on this viewpoint, there<br />
can be no additional cumulative effects.<br />
VIEWPOINT 20 B6056 WEST OF ECKINGTON<br />
Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View<br />
6.598 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced from a ridge<br />
which runs between Eckington and Dronfield and over which the B6056<br />
and several footpaths cross. A number of isolated properties are scattered<br />
across the ridge.<br />
6.599 It should be noted that the town of Dronfield is outside the ZTV of the site<br />
and in reality dense woodland the north of Eckington obstructs any long<br />
distance view in the direction of the site from this town also.<br />
140<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.600 The photograph presented in Figure 6.29 was taken from the car park of a<br />
pub on the B6056 approximately 11km to the southwest of the site.<br />
6.601 The view from this ridge is across rolling farmland which drops away<br />
towards Sheffield. The farmland is interwoven with hedgerows and<br />
woodland belts. A number of farmsteads are visible in the mid distance<br />
and beyond this the urban fringe of Sheffield is visible. In the far distance<br />
the hills on which the site is located are visible.<br />
6.602 As this viewpoint is representative of a number of residential areas it is<br />
considered to be of high sensitivity to a change in the view.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts<br />
6.603 From this viewpoint neither the construction compound nor the works at<br />
ground level would be visible during the construction phase. The only<br />
additional impact would be a minor view of the cranes erecting the turbines<br />
but this would be <strong>for</strong> a relatively short time period. The cranes would be<br />
barely perceptible in the context of the site being constructed. There<strong>for</strong>e<br />
there would be no additional impact on the view during construction.<br />
Significance of Construction Effects on View<br />
6.604 There would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during construction.<br />
Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts<br />
6.605 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is<br />
presented in Figure 6.29.<br />
6.606 From this viewpoint, all six turbines would be just visible on the horizon in<br />
a far north easterly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible in an<br />
area of agricultural land some 11.5km away. The top of the meteorological<br />
mast would also just be visible but at this distance the access tracks,<br />
substation and the control building would not.<br />
6.607 There would be no view of the development from the town of Dronfield<br />
which is outside the ZTV of the site. Dense woodland to the north of<br />
Eckington would also obstruct any long distance views of the turbines from<br />
this town.<br />
6.608 The clearest views of the development in this area would be obtained from<br />
a small number of locations near to the B6056, in the vicinity of where the<br />
baseline photograph <strong>for</strong> this viewpoint has been taken. From this location<br />
the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the context of an established<br />
urban fringe landscape of gently undulating fields and small towns.<br />
Although the turbines would be visible, in the context of the much wider<br />
panoramic views available from this location, they would be not <strong>for</strong>m a<br />
prominent feature in the view.<br />
141<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.609 The development would result in a low magnitude of change in the<br />
baseline view.<br />
Significance of Operational Effects on View<br />
6.610 It is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that the proposed development would result in<br />
no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity experienced by<br />
properties and from footpaths in the vicinity of this viewpoint.<br />
Decommissioning Phase<br />
6.611 From this viewpoint none of the decommissioning works would be visible.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on the viewpoint during<br />
decommissioning.<br />
Cumulative Effects<br />
6.612 The cumulative ZTVs suggest that the wind farms at Loscar, Hampole and<br />
Marr would be visible from this viewpoint. However in reality the turbines at<br />
Marr and Hampole would be screened by intervening vegetation. The<br />
turbines at Loscar would be just visible in the distance (approximately<br />
12km away). At this distance, the Loscar turbines would not be prominent<br />
and would not increase the magnitude of change in the visual impact.<br />
6.613 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the village.<br />
142<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Table 6.8: Summary of Viewpoint Sensitivity, Magnitude of Change in View and Significance of Effects (During Operational Phase)<br />
Reference<br />
Number<br />
Viewpoint Location OS Grid<br />
Ref<br />
1 Ulley Country Park 45298<br />
87562<br />
2 Ulley Village 46627<br />
87414<br />
3 Ashton Cum Aughton 46643<br />
85442<br />
4 Aughton 45903<br />
86204<br />
5 Brampton en le Morthen 48520<br />
88062<br />
6 Upper Whiston 45939<br />
88929<br />
7 Bridge over M18 near Thurcroft 48960<br />
89538<br />
8 Bridge over M1 near Wales Bar 47330<br />
82915<br />
9 Laughton en le Morthen 51602<br />
88203<br />
10 South Anston 51183<br />
83187<br />
11 Worksop 58538<br />
81823<br />
12 Maltby 51862<br />
92547<br />
13 A631 Rotherham 46449<br />
91677<br />
14 A621 Houndkirk Moor 29546<br />
78160<br />
Distance<br />
to<br />
Nearest<br />
Turbine<br />
(m)<br />
Sensitivity<br />
of View<br />
143<br />
Number of<br />
Hubs Visible<br />
(wireframe)<br />
Number of<br />
Blade Tips<br />
Visible<br />
(wireframe)<br />
Magnitude<br />
of Impact<br />
Significance<br />
of Effect<br />
2120 High 4 6 Medium Moderate<br />
800 High 6 6 High Substantial<br />
1540 High 6 6 High Substantial<br />
1620 High 6 6 High Substantial<br />
710 High 6 6 Medium Moderate<br />
1670 High 6 6 High Substantial<br />
1760 Low 6 6 Low Slight<br />
3950 Low 6 6 Low Slight<br />
3770 High 6 6 Medium Moderate<br />
5310 High 6 6 Low Slight<br />
12050 High 4 6 No change No Effect<br />
6030 High 6 6 Low Slight<br />
3620 High 6 6 Medium Moderate<br />
19780 High 6 6 No change No Effect<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Reference<br />
Number<br />
Viewpoint Location OS Grid<br />
Ref<br />
15 Shirecliffe, Sheffield 35007<br />
89686<br />
16 Wentworth Woodhouse 39995<br />
97374<br />
17 Conisbrough 49908<br />
97903<br />
18 A1 (M) junction at Blyth 62274<br />
88281<br />
19 Bolsover 49149<br />
71222<br />
20 B6056 west of Eckington 38586<br />
79296<br />
Distance<br />
to<br />
Nearest<br />
Turbine<br />
(m)<br />
Sensitivity<br />
of View<br />
144<br />
Number of<br />
Hubs Visible<br />
(wireframe)<br />
Number of<br />
Blade Tips<br />
Visible<br />
(wireframe)<br />
Magnitude<br />
of Impact<br />
Significance<br />
of Effect<br />
12450 High 6 6 Low No Effect<br />
12070 High 6 6 Low Slight<br />
9810 High 6 6 No change No Effect<br />
14620 Low 6 6 No change No Effect<br />
16200 High 6 6 No change No Effect<br />
11580 High 6 6 Low Slight<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Effects on Visual Receptor Groups<br />
6.614 From analysis of the assessment viewpoints it is possible to draw some<br />
conclusions about the significance of effects on different receptor groups<br />
at different distances from the proposed development.<br />
Visual Effects on Residential Receptors<br />
6.615 The ground level elements of the development would only be visible from<br />
a small cluster of properties. There<strong>for</strong>e the effects on visual amenity<br />
experienced at most residential properties relate primarily to the six turbine<br />
structures and to a lesser degree the meteorological mast.<br />
6.616 It is acknowledged that there are many residential properties and isolated<br />
farmsteads within 2km of the site and that where these properties have<br />
unrestricted views towards the site, the proposed turbines would be highly<br />
prominent in the view. However it also noted that many of the properties<br />
within 2km of the site are orientated away from the Penny Hill site or have<br />
vegetation and buildings around them which restrict views in the direction<br />
of the site. It is also noted that the visual amenity experienced by several<br />
properties within 2km of the site is already heavily influenced by the<br />
presence of the M1/M18 junction, a major urbanising feature, and<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e the effects of the turbines on these views would be marginally<br />
less significant.<br />
6.617 It is considered that there would be substantial visual effects on residential<br />
properties within 2km of the site where either:<br />
There is a clear and direct view of the turbines from main ground floor<br />
windows or the garden and no view or only a minor view of major visual<br />
detractors in the existing view (e.g. the M1/M18); or<br />
There is an oblique or semi screened view of the turbines from main<br />
ground floor windows or the garden or clear and direct views from<br />
upper windows and there are no major visual detractors in the existing<br />
view (e.g. the M1/M18).<br />
6.618 There would be moderate visual effects on residential properties within<br />
2km of the site where either:<br />
There is a clear and direct view of the turbines from main ground floor<br />
windows or the garden but where the current view is heavily influenced<br />
by major visual detractors (e.g. the M1/M18);<br />
There is an oblique or semi screened view of the turbines from main<br />
ground floor windows or the garden or clear and direct views from<br />
upper windows and but there are minor views of major visual detractors<br />
in the existing view (e.g. the M1/M18); or<br />
145<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
There is no view from ground floor windows or the garden of the<br />
turbines and only oblique or semi screened views from upper windows<br />
from which there is no view of any major visual detractors (e.g. the<br />
M1/M18).<br />
6.619 There would be slight visual effects on residential properties within 2km of<br />
the site where either:<br />
There is an oblique or semi screened view of the turbines from main<br />
ground floor windows or the garden or clear and direct views from<br />
upper windows but where the current view is heavily influenced by<br />
major visual detractors (e.g. the M1/M18);<br />
There is no view from ground floor windows or the garden of the<br />
turbines and only oblique or semi screened views from upper windows<br />
from which there are minor views of major visual detractors in the<br />
existing view (e.g. the M1/M18); or<br />
There is no view from ground floor windows or the garden of the<br />
turbines and only oblique or semi screened views from upper windows<br />
and where the current view is heavily influenced by major visual<br />
detractors (e.g. the M1/M18).<br />
6.620 Overall it is considered that there would be a high magnitude of change<br />
and there<strong>for</strong>e a substantial effect on the private visual amenity of 174 out<br />
of approximately 3,353 properties within 2km of the site. This equates to<br />
approximately 5% of the total number of properties within 2km of the site.<br />
A detailed assessment of the visual effects on these properties is<br />
presented in Appendix 13.2.<br />
6.621 To summarise the detailed findings presented in Appendix 13.2, there<br />
would be a substantial visual effect on 14 out of a total of approximately 72<br />
properties within the village of Ulley (primarily on the eastern edge of the<br />
village), 2 properties out of a total of approximately 10 properties in the<br />
village of Upper Whiston, 1 property out of a total of approximately 41<br />
properties within Morthen and 157 out of approximately 1979 properties<br />
within Aughton and Aston-cum-Aughton (primarily along the northern edge<br />
of these two settlements).<br />
6.622 The majority of properties in the villages of Ulley, Upper Whiston, Aughton<br />
and Aston would not have any view of the turbines due to vegetation<br />
screening, their windows being orientated away from the site or due to the<br />
fact that there are other properties on the development side of these<br />
villages which obstruct the view.<br />
6.623 It is also acknowledged that there would be moderate visual effects at<br />
some properties in other settlements within 2km of the site, including<br />
Brampton-en-le-Morthen, Morthen and Thurcroft as well as at isolated<br />
properties elsewhere within 2km of the site.<br />
146<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.624 From each of the locations where substantial or moderate effects have<br />
been identified, the turbines would be prominent but not obstruct the view<br />
in any direction. They would not prevent an appreciation of the underlying<br />
and surrounding agricultural landscape.<br />
6.625 Between 2km and 5km of the site there are many villages and larger<br />
settlements, as well as numerous individual or isolated properties. At this<br />
distance and where there are unobstructed views of the turbines there<br />
would be a moderate effect on visual amenity experienced by residential<br />
properties. It should be noted however, that there would in reality be<br />
relatively few properties with unobstructed views of the site. For example<br />
within the villages of Todwick, Treeton, Laughton Common, Laughton enle-Morthen,<br />
Wickersley, Wales and Whiston, which all lie within this<br />
distance of the site, it would be only the properties on the very edges of<br />
these villages which experience any effect at all on visual amenity. The<br />
majority of properties within this distance of the site have at least some<br />
screening in the <strong>for</strong>m of either topography, vegetation or built structures<br />
and would experience no greater than a slight effect on visual amenity.<br />
6.626 Beyond 5km from the site, there would be numerous individual properties<br />
with distant glimpses of the turbines. However beyond this distance, the<br />
turbines would not <strong>for</strong>m a prominent component in the view and it is<br />
considered that the development would have no greater than a slight<br />
effect on visual amenity experienced by residential receptors at this<br />
distance.<br />
Visual Effects on Long Distance Trails and Public Rights of Way<br />
6.627 The Transpennine Trail Network (incorporating National Cycle Network<br />
Routes 6 and 67) and the Rotherham Roundwalk are the only long<br />
distance footpaths which run within 5km of the site and, at their closest<br />
point where they follow the same route, they pass approximately 800m to<br />
the west of the nearest turbine.<br />
6.628 The ZTV suggests that the Penny Hill turbines would be visible on these<br />
routes <strong>for</strong> much of their length within 5km the site. The ZTV however does<br />
not take account of the considerable extent of built development and<br />
vegetation (hedgerows, trees and woodlands) within the landscape which<br />
would screen or partially obstruct views of the turbines from much of this<br />
length.<br />
6.629 Although intermittently screened by field boundary vegetation, the turbines<br />
would be prominent in the view when experienced along the Transpennine<br />
Trail Network and the Rotherham Roundwalk between Aughton to the<br />
south and Whiston in the southern part of Rotherham. Along this section of<br />
these routes, they cross over the M1 motorway, and along this length<br />
there are constant views of built structures such as pylons and the M1<br />
motorway. As such, the Penny Hill turbines would not dominate the view or<br />
prevent an appreciation of the underlying and surrounding landscape.<br />
147<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.630 Beyond 5km any views of the Penny Hill turbines from these routes would<br />
be seen in the context of the wider developed area of Sheffield and<br />
Rotherham surrounding the site.<br />
6.631 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a high magnitude of change and consequently a<br />
substantial effect on the visual amenity experienced by people using the<br />
short section of the Transpennine Trail Network and the Rotherham<br />
Roundwalk between Aughton and Rotherham but no greater than a slight<br />
effect on the remainder of these routes. In the context of the routes as a<br />
whole the visual effects would only be experienced along a very short<br />
section of their overall length.<br />
6.632 Other long distance footpaths, the Cuckoo Way, Robin Hood Way,<br />
Sheffield Country Walk and Dearne Way/Barnsley Boundary Walk pass<br />
through the 20km study area but none are closer than 6km from the site.<br />
Although the ZTV suggests that the Penny Hill turbines would be visible<br />
from some sections of these routes, in reality views of the turbines would<br />
be limited to very short sections at elevated positions. At this distance and<br />
in the context of the wider panoramic views of the surrounding urban areas<br />
of Sheffield and Rotherham available from these high points, the turbines<br />
would not be prominent. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be no greater than a slight<br />
effect on the visual amenity experienced along any of these long distance<br />
trails.<br />
6.633 There are two Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Doorstep Walks<br />
(numbers 6 and 7) which pass through or immediately adjacent to the site,<br />
Doorstep Walk number 7 (The Farmland Trail) runs through the site. From<br />
these routes there would be largely unrestricted views of the Penny Hill<br />
turbines which would be prominent in the view. However, at no point would<br />
the development obstruct or prevent an appreciation of the underlying and<br />
surrounding landscape. There would be a high magnitude of change in the<br />
baseline view along these Doorstep walks resulting in a substantial effect<br />
on visual amenity experienced from them.<br />
6.634 There are also a small number of other public rights of way in the<br />
immediate vicinity of the site (including footpaths, bridleways and minor<br />
roads) from which there would be largely unrestricted views of the Penny<br />
Hill turbines. These include the following:<br />
A PROW which crosses the south of the site as it runs from Ulley to the<br />
edge of the M1;<br />
A bridleway which runs along the site boundary between Penny Hill<br />
Lane and Upper Whiston;<br />
A series of PROWs around the northern edge of Aston;<br />
A PROW which runs between Ulley and Aughton.<br />
6.635 Along each of the above public rights of way, the Penny Hill development<br />
would be prominent in the view. However, at no point would it obstruct or<br />
148<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
prevent an appreciation of the underlying and surrounding landscape.<br />
There would be a high magnitude of change in the baseline view along<br />
these public rights of way resulting in a substantial effect on visual<br />
amenity experienced from them.<br />
6.636 There would also be intermittent views of the turbines from several other<br />
public rights of way within the study area. With distance from the site, the<br />
effects on visual amenity would incrementally reduce. At locations where<br />
there would be unobstructed views of the turbines from public rights of way<br />
beyond approximately 2km of the site there would be no greater than a<br />
slight effect on visual amenity.<br />
Visual Effects on Major Roads<br />
6.637 The site is located immediately to the southwest of the M1 Junction 32<br />
where it meets with the M18 motorway. Junction 32 consists of a triangular<br />
shaped interchange between the two motorways with their associated<br />
connecting sliproads covering an area approximately 1km². From Junction<br />
32 the two motorways run in three different directions. The M18 runs in a<br />
north easterly direction away from the site towards Doncaster. The M1<br />
changes direction at Junction 32, running in a north-south direction to the<br />
south of the junction and an east-west direction to the north.<br />
6.638 As has been discussed within the assessment of effects on Viewpoints 7<br />
and 8, there is a considerable amount of roadside vegetation and urban<br />
development along both sides of the motorways which would greatly<br />
restrict or obstruct the view of the turbines from much of their length.<br />
Furthermore there are sections where the motorways run in cuttings which<br />
also restrict the available views.<br />
6.639 Driving southwards on the M1, the turbines would first become visible on<br />
the approach to Junction 33 but only be prominent in the view <strong>for</strong> the short<br />
section of the motorway at Junction 32 where it passes the site. Although<br />
the ZTV suggests that the turbines would be visible further north along the<br />
M1, in reality the buildings and vegetation alongside the motorway as it<br />
skirts around Sheffield would obstruct any view of the turbines.<br />
6.640 Driving northwards on the M1, views of the development would first be<br />
gained as the motorway crosses over high land near Woodall Services.<br />
Between Woodall services and Wales Bar there are several locations<br />
along the M1 where there would be uninterrupted views towards the<br />
development. At this point however, the turbines would be sufficiently<br />
distant so that they would not be prominent in the view considering that<br />
there is a considerable amount of roadside infrastructure which would be<br />
far more prominent in the view along the motorway.<br />
6.641 Continuing northwards between Wales Bar and the development there are<br />
also locations where there would be uninterrupted views towards the<br />
development. However, the majority of views in the direction of the<br />
development would be limited due to roadside vegetation along the<br />
149<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
motorway. As the M1 approaches the junction with the M18, the turbines<br />
would become gradually more prominent in the view.<br />
6.642 However, assuming an average speed of 70 miles per hour, this section of<br />
the motorway would be passed within just a few minutes. Along this<br />
section of the motorway, roadside vegetation would obscure the lower<br />
parts of the turbines. There would then be a brief moment, lasting only a<br />
few seconds, where the motorway would be adjacent to the site which<br />
would enable an unobstructed view westwards across the site.<br />
6.643 It is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that the proposed development would result in<br />
no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity of the transient visual<br />
receptors using the M1.<br />
6.644 Driving southwards on the M18, the ZTV suggests that the Penny Hill<br />
turbines would be visible from the entire length of the M18 between north<br />
of Junction 1 and the site. In reality, north of the B6060 the M18 runs<br />
either in a cutting or is enclosed by mature roadside vegetation <strong>for</strong> several<br />
kilometres such that there is a limited view in the direction of the site.<br />
6.645 South of the bridge where the B6060 crosses over the motorway the M18<br />
emerges from the cutting and roadside vegetation enabling views south<br />
westwards towards the development. At this point the turbines would be<br />
sufficiently distant that they were not dominant features in the view<br />
although they would be prominent when looking straight ahead.<br />
6.646 As the M18 approaches Junction 32 where it joins with the M1, the<br />
turbines would appear to become gradually larger in the view. The turbines<br />
would there<strong>for</strong>e be prominent <strong>for</strong> a length of approximately 3km of the<br />
M18. However, assuming an average speed of 70 miles per hour, this<br />
section of the motorway would be passed within just over a minute. Along<br />
this section of the motorway, roadside vegetation would partly obscure the<br />
lower parts of the turbines. There would then be a brief moment, lasting<br />
only a few seconds, where the motorway is on embankment adjacent to<br />
the site which would enable an unobstructed view to the west across the<br />
site.<br />
6.647 Where visible, the turbines would not detract notably from the visual<br />
amenity experienced by the transient receptors using the route. Although<br />
prominent <strong>for</strong> a short stretch of the motorway, in the context of the other<br />
numerous built structures visible whilst driving southwest along any length<br />
of the M18, the turbines would result in a low magnitude of change in the<br />
views experienced by users of the motorway.<br />
6.648 It is considered that the proposed development would result in no greater<br />
than a slight effect on the visual amenity of the transient visual receptors<br />
using this route.<br />
6.649 The nearest „A‟ road to the site is the A618 which runs in a north-south<br />
direction between Rotherham and Clowne. At its nearest point to the site,<br />
it passes 1.5km to the west of the nearest turbine. The turbines would be<br />
150<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
prominent from a short section between Aughton and Ulley Country Park<br />
car park. However there would be no greater than a slight effect on the<br />
visual amenity of people using the route.<br />
6.650 The A57, which runs between Sheffield and Worksop, passes<br />
approximately 1.4km to the south of the site at its closest point near<br />
Junction 31 of the M1. The Penny Hill turbines would generally only be<br />
visible from the section of the A57 between South Anston and Junction 31<br />
of the M1.<br />
6.651 Existing built development and intervening vegetation would limit views of<br />
the turbines from this section of the road. Where visible, the turbines would<br />
be seen in the context of a wider landscape which contains numerous built<br />
structures. There<strong>for</strong>e they would not be prominent and there would be no<br />
greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity of people using the<br />
route.<br />
Visual Effects on Vantage Points<br />
6.652 As discussed in Viewpoint 14, there would be no greater than a slight<br />
effect on any views from the Peak District National Park which at its<br />
closest point lies over 19km to the west of the Penny Hill site.<br />
Visual Effects on Historic and Tourism Viewpoints<br />
6.653 As discussed in detail <strong>for</strong> viewpoint number 1, the rotating blade tips of all<br />
six turbines would be partially from the western end of Ulley Country Park.<br />
6.654 It should be noted that views of the development would only be possible<br />
from a relatively small part of Ulley Country Park, primarily from the point<br />
at which the footpath around the reservoir crosses over a dam on the north<br />
western edge of the reservoir and the western part of the reservoir itself.<br />
6.655 From the majority of the length of the paths around the reservoir there<br />
would be no view of the turbines. Notably there would be no views of the<br />
development from the path around the northern arm of the reservoir and<br />
no views from the southern path between the visitor centre and Ulley<br />
Lane.<br />
6.656 From the visitor centre and the main car park, there would be no view of<br />
the turbines due to vegetation along the south western edge of the<br />
reservoir which restricts views across the water.<br />
6.657 The tips of the turbine blades would be visible but due to their relatively<br />
small number, good spacing and the fact that they would be largely<br />
screened by land<strong>for</strong>m and vegetation, they would not dominate the view or<br />
prevent an appreciation of the underlying and surrounding landscape. The<br />
turbine blades would be no more prominent than the existing pylons which<br />
are visible beyond the northern arm of the reservoir.<br />
151<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.658 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a moderate effect on the visual amenity of a<br />
small number of locations on the footpaths which run around the Country<br />
Park. However, there would be no effect on the visual amenity<br />
experienced within the majority of the Country Park, including the view<br />
from the visitor centre and main car park.<br />
6.659 The Penny Hill development would not be visible from Rother Valley<br />
Country Park and there<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on this resource.<br />
6.660 There would be no greater than a slight effect on visual amenity<br />
experienced from any historic viewpoints such as at Wentworth<br />
Woodhouse or Roche Abbey.<br />
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS<br />
6.661 At the time of preparing this report, there are 13 other wind farms either in<br />
operation, under construction, in the planning system or at scoping stage<br />
within 40km of the Penny Hill site. These are identified in Appendix 13.1<br />
and illustrated on Figure 6.1.<br />
6.662 It is noted that four of these sites (namely Royd Moor, Hazelhead, Spicer<br />
Hill and Blackstone Edge) are all clustered around the village of Crow<br />
Edge 30-35km from the Penny Hill site in a north westerly direction. These<br />
sites lie on the opposite side of Broomhead Moor (high land in the northern<br />
part of the Peak District). As such there is very little potential <strong>for</strong> the<br />
turbines at Penny Hill to be seen in conjunction with these four sites. The<br />
only potential location where both sites would be visible is on top of the<br />
moor itself from which the view towards the Penny Hill site is across the<br />
urban conurbations of Sheffield and Rotherham. These sites have<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e been scoped out of the cumulative impact assessment.<br />
6.663 A further three of the sites (namely Aire and Calder, Tweed Bridge and<br />
Westfield Lane) are located 30-35km north to north east of the site within<br />
the Wakefield and East Riding of Yorkshire Districts. Based on our site<br />
visits undertaken as part of this study, it is clear that the intervening land<br />
between Penny Hill and these three sites is relatively low lying with no<br />
notable high points which would enable a clear view in both directions at<br />
the same time. The sites have also there<strong>for</strong>e been scoped out of the<br />
assessment.<br />
6.664 Similarly, another of the sites (namely Lyndhurst) is located over 30km<br />
south east of the site on the southern side of Mansfield. For the same<br />
reasons outlined above this site has also been scoped out of the<br />
assessment.<br />
6.665 This leaves five sites which are considered further in the cumulative<br />
impact assessment. The first site is the Advanced Manufacturing<br />
Research Centre (AMRC), approximately 5km west of the proposed Penny<br />
Hill site, where two wind turbines are already operational and the third is<br />
about to be commissioned. Although originally submitted as two separate<br />
applications of two turbines and one turbine, both have been consented<br />
152<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
and consequently these two schemes have been considered in this<br />
assessment as a single wind farm consisting of three turbines.<br />
6.666 The second site is a recently consented but as yet not constructed site of<br />
three turbines at Loscar which is approximately 7km south of the Penny<br />
Hill site. The final two sites are both to the northeast of the site near to<br />
Doncaster approximately 17km and 21km away.<br />
6.667 Cumulative ZTVs have been produced <strong>for</strong> the following combinations of<br />
submitted and approved sites:<br />
Penny Hill and the three turbines at AMRC (Figure 6.30);<br />
Penny Hill and Loscar (Figure 6.31);<br />
Penny Hill and Marr (Figure 6.32); and<br />
Penny Hill and Hampole (Figure 6.33).<br />
Cumulative Effects on Landscape Character<br />
6.668 The nearest wind turbines to the Penny Hill site are the three turbines at<br />
the AMRC some 5km to the west. However, due to their relatively small<br />
size and their enclosure by industrial premises, these turbines have a very<br />
limited influence on landscape character beyond the industrial estate<br />
within which they are located. The combination of the AMRC turbines in<br />
association with the proposed turbines at Penny Hill would have no greater<br />
impact on landscape character than if the Penny Hill turbines were<br />
developed in isolation.<br />
6.669 The Loscar, Hampole and Marr sites are proposed 8km, 21km and 17km<br />
away from the Penny Hill site respectively. It has previously been<br />
determined that, whilst the proposed Penny Hill turbines would have a<br />
moderate effect on the character of the immediately surrounding<br />
landscape (i.e. within approximately 2km of the site), there would be no<br />
greater than a slight effect on landscape character when experienced<br />
from more than a few km away from the development. A similar conclusion<br />
can be drawn about the likely extent of impacts of the Hampole, Marr and<br />
Loscar turbines on landscape character.<br />
6.670 Essentially at any location within the study area where one or more of the<br />
cumulative sites are visible at the same time as the Penny Hill<br />
development, it is acknowledged that there would be a marginally greater<br />
overall impact on landscape character than if only one of these sites was<br />
developed in isolation. However, the various sites are sufficiently distant<br />
from one another that if all of the turbines were constructed, the resulting<br />
overall magnitude of change in landscape character as experienced at any<br />
location within the study area would be not be considerably greater than if<br />
any one of them was developed in isolation.<br />
153<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.671 The overall magnitude of change in landscape character within the study<br />
area would be low and there<strong>for</strong>e there would be no greater than a slight<br />
cumulative effect on landscape character within the study area.<br />
Cumulative Visual Effects<br />
Simultaneous and Successive Cumulative Visual Effects<br />
6.672 The cumulative ZTVs (Figures 6.30, 6.31, 6.32 and 6.33) suggest that<br />
there would be several locations within the study area where the Penny<br />
Hill development would be visible either simultaneously (i.e. in the same<br />
angle of view) or successively (i.e. by turning around on the spot) with<br />
views of the Loscar, Marr and Hampole wind farms, and the AMRC<br />
turbines. However, it should be noted that in reality the study area<br />
comprises both large urban areas and an agricultural landscape containing<br />
hedgerows, tree groups and buildings. There<strong>for</strong>e there are few locations<br />
with unobstructed views in more than one direction.<br />
6.673 Table 6.9 summarises the theoretical occurrence of simultaneous and<br />
successive impacts at each of the assessment viewpoints. It should be<br />
noted that this greatly over exaggerates the actual cumulative visibility<br />
from each of the assessment viewpoints.<br />
6.674 Figure 6.30 suggests that there would be a few places where the AMRC<br />
turbines would be visible at the same time as the Penny Hill development.<br />
However, site visits have clearly shown that the visibility of the AMRC<br />
turbines is greatly exaggerated by the cumulative ZTV. Essentially, the<br />
ZTV does not take account of the urban infrastructure in the vicinity of the<br />
AMRC turbines which greatly obstructs the views of the turbines. Based on<br />
extensive site visits to the areas highlighted as being within the cumulative<br />
zone of influence of the AMRC turbines and the Penny Hill development, it<br />
is considered that there would be only one location where both sites would<br />
actually be visible at the same time, namely at the Catcliffe junction of the<br />
A630 which is raised slightly enabling views across the surrounding<br />
landscape. The only people to experience this view would be transient<br />
receptors travelling along the A630. From this location the turbines would<br />
be seen in the context of industrial buildings and major development and<br />
consequently, even taking cumulative effects into account, there would be<br />
no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity of people travelling<br />
along this section of the road.<br />
6.675 Figures 6.32 and 6.33 suggest that there would be several places where<br />
the Marr and Hampole turbines would be visible at the same time as the<br />
Penny Hill development. However, these cumulative ZTVs do not take<br />
account of the vegetation and urban structures between Penny Hill and<br />
these sites. Based on extensive site visits to the areas highlighted as<br />
being within the cumulative zone of influence of the AMRC turbines and<br />
the Penny Hill development, it is considered that there would be very few<br />
locations where there would be any simultaneous or successive visibility<br />
between Penny Hill and either of these other two sites.<br />
154<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.676 The Marr and Hampole windfarms are 17km and 21km away from the<br />
Penny Hill site respectively. At any location within 5km of the Penny Hill<br />
site where there was also an unobstructed distant view of either the Marr<br />
or Hampole windfarms, these sites would be at least 12km or 16km away<br />
from the receptor‟s viewpoint. At this distance the Marr and Hampole<br />
turbines would themselves appear as only a minor element in the view and<br />
not notably increase the overall magnitude of visual impact.<br />
6.677 There<strong>for</strong>e it is considered that there would be no greater than a slight<br />
cumulative effect at any location within the study area as a result of Marr<br />
and Hampole wind farms being constructed at the same time as the Penny<br />
Hill development.<br />
6.678 There<strong>for</strong>e the only wind farm with any potential to result in simultaneous or<br />
successive visual effects is the Loscar application. This site is located<br />
approximately 7km to the south of the Penny Hill site. As is shown in<br />
Figure 6.31 and set out in Table 6.9, there are a small number of locations<br />
within the study area of the Penny Hill site where theoretically the Loscar<br />
development would be visible either simultaneously or successively with<br />
Penny Hill. It is noted that the cumulative ZTV greatly exaggerates the<br />
extent of this cumulative visibility as it does not take account of vegetation<br />
and buildings. As the two sites are over 7km apart, there would be no<br />
location within this distance where the two sites were visible<br />
simultaneously.<br />
6.679 It is acknowledged that there are a number of locations between the<br />
Penny Hill and Loscar sites where there may be successive views of the<br />
two sites from the same location, although the extent of this occurrence is<br />
likely to be considerably less than is indicated in the cumulative ZTV<br />
(Figure 6.31) which suggests that both sites will be visible from the<br />
majority of the land between the two sites. In reality the vegetation in the<br />
landscape, including that associated with the M1 motorway which runs<br />
between the two sites and buildings within villages would screen the view<br />
in one or other direction from much of this area.<br />
6.680 In particular it is noted that from within the main villages between the two<br />
sites, there are few locations which enable clear unobstructed views in the<br />
direction of both sites. This is the case at Harthill, Wales, Todwick, Kiveton<br />
Park, South Anston, North Anston and Aston.<br />
6.681 As the Penny Hill site is approximately 7km from the Loscar site, under no<br />
circumstance would there be any location where a visual receptor was less<br />
than 3.5km from both sites at any one time. There would however, be a<br />
small number of properties in the area between the two sites from which<br />
there would be successive views of both sites. There are also minor roads<br />
and public footpaths in the area between the two sites from which there<br />
would also be a few locations where there would be successive views of<br />
both sites.<br />
155<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.682 From these isolated locations, it is acknowledged that there would be a<br />
marginally greater impact on visual amenity than if either Penny Hill or<br />
Loscar wind farm were developed in isolation. However it is considered<br />
that as one or the other of these two sites would be at least 3.5km away<br />
from these locations, the cumulative effect would not be considerably<br />
greater than the moderate effect on visual amenity in these locations<br />
which would occur as a result of developing Penny Hill in isolation.<br />
Certainly it would not increase the significance of the effect to substantial.<br />
Sequential Effects<br />
M1 Motorway<br />
6.683 The main trunk road through the study area is the M1 motorway which<br />
passes almost directly adjacent to the Penny Hill site. It has already been<br />
assessed that the Penny Hill site would have no greater than a slight effect<br />
on the visual amenity of users of the M1. The same users of the M1<br />
motorway would also experience views of the proposed development at<br />
Loscar as they pass approximately 2km to its west and <strong>for</strong> just a brief<br />
moment the turbines at the AMRC which are approximately 1km to the<br />
south of the motorway.<br />
6.684 Although the theoretical cumulative ZTVs suggest that there would be long<br />
sections of the motorway where more than one of these sites would be<br />
visible at the same time, in reality views from the motorway of the<br />
surrounding landscape are greatly restricted by roadside vegetation and<br />
motorway embankments.<br />
6.685 Essentially, driving southwards along the M1 there would be glimpses of<br />
the AMRC and views of the Penny Hill turbines <strong>for</strong> a few brief moments<br />
either side of junction 33 of the motorway. The motorway then goes into a<br />
cutting and then the Penny Hill turbines would be visible on their own<br />
when passing the site. There would then be a short stretch of motorway<br />
south of the Penny Hill site where no turbines would be visible be<strong>for</strong>e the<br />
turbines at Loscar come into view. The same would apply in reverse<br />
travelling northwards along the motorway.<br />
6.686 It is noted that the M1 is one of the primary transport corridors in the UK<br />
and driving in either direction in this area that there are numerous large<br />
urban developments, particularly Sheffield and Rotherham, which<br />
surround the motorway. This section of the motorway is not particularly<br />
noted <strong>for</strong> its scenic qualities and the attention of most users of the<br />
motorway is on the road ahead. The sequence of turbines along the<br />
motorway will be noted by frequent users of the motorway but not result in<br />
a greater than a slight effect on visual amenity whilst driving along the<br />
route.<br />
A1/A1(M) Motorway and M18<br />
156<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.687 The A1/A1(M) runs to the east of the Penny Hill site on a north south<br />
alignment, passing close to the proposed Marr and Hampole sites located<br />
in the northeast of the study area. It is likely that some motorists will drive<br />
from the A1/A1(M) via the M18 to join the M1 and potentially experience<br />
views of Hampole, Marr, Penny Hill and then Loscar sequentially during<br />
their journey. These sites are relatively well spaced apart and interspersed<br />
between numerous other roadside structures.<br />
6.688 It is noted that driving in either direction in this area that there are<br />
numerous large urban settlements, particularly Sheffield, Rotherham and<br />
Doncaster, which surround these motorways. The motorways are not<br />
particularly noted <strong>for</strong> their scenic qualities and the attention of most users<br />
of the motorways is on the road ahead. The sequence of turbines along<br />
the motorways will be noted by frequent users of the motorway but not<br />
result in any greater than a slight effect on visual amenity whilst driving<br />
along the route.<br />
A57<br />
6.689 The A57 passes between the Penny Hill and Loscar sites as it runs<br />
between Sheffield and Worksop. There are a small number of locations on<br />
the A57 where both sites would be visible successively, the longest<br />
section being in the vicinity of Todwick Grange. There are also other<br />
locations where just the Penny Hill site would be visible from the road.<br />
6.690 It is noted that when driving in either direction on the A57 in this area that<br />
there are numerous large urban developments, particularly Sheffield and<br />
Worksop, which are visible. The road is not particularly noted <strong>for</strong> its scenic<br />
qualities and the attention of most users is on the road ahead, whilst the<br />
Penny Hill and Loscar sites would <strong>for</strong> the most part, not be in the eyeline<br />
of the driver. The sequence of the turbines along the road will be noted by<br />
frequent users but not result in a greater than a slight effect on visual<br />
amenity whilst driving along the route.<br />
157<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Table 6.9: Summary of Theoretical Simultaneous and Successive Cumulative Visual Effects by Viewpoint Location<br />
Visibility of Wind Farm Sites<br />
(Xkm) = Distance from Viewpoint<br />
Reference<br />
Number<br />
Viewpoint Location AMRC Loscar Marr Hampole<br />
1 Ulley Country Park Not Visible Not Visible Not Visible Not Visible<br />
2 Ulley Village Successive (4km) Successive (8.3km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
3 Ashton Cum Aughton Not Visible Successive (6.3km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
4 Aughton Not Visible Successive (7.8km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
5 Brampton en le Morthen Simultaneous (5.7km) Successive (8.2km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
6 Upper Whiston Successive (3.2km) Simultaneous (10km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
7 Overbridge of M18 near Thurcroft Simultaneous (6.2km) Successive (9.5km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
8 Overbridge of M1 near Wales Bar Successive (7.4km) Successive (4.5km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
9 Laughton en le Morthen Simultaneous (8.8km) Successive (8km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
10 South Anston Not Visible Successive (3.1km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
11 Worksop Eddison Drive Not Visible Simultaneous (3.1km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
12 Maltby Not Visible Successive (12.3km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
13 A631 Rotherham Successive (4.7km) Simultaneous (12.2km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
14 A625 Houndkirk Moor Not Visible Simultaneous (21.5km) Simultaneous Simultaneous<br />
(33.8km)<br />
(37.1km)<br />
15 Football field behind dry ski slope Simultaneous (7.8km) Simultaneous (18.5km) Successive (21.6km) Successive (24.5km)<br />
16 Wentworth Woodhouse Not Visible Simultaneous (21km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
17 Conisbrough Not Visible Not Visible Successive (6.9km) Not Visible<br />
18 A1 (M) junction at Blyth Not Visible Simultaneous (14km) Successive (20.2km) Successive (23.4km)<br />
19 Minor road east of B6417 between<br />
Bolsover and Clowne<br />
Not Visible Simultaneous (9.2km) Not Visible Not Visible<br />
20 B6056 west of Eckington Not Visible Simultaneous (12km) Simultaneous Simultaneous<br />
(28.2km)<br />
(31.8km)<br />
NB: The above table is based on the theoretical visibility of cumulative sites from each of the assessment viewpoints. In reality the<br />
cumulative sites may be screened by intervening vegetation or buildings. In fact this table greatly over exaggerates the actual<br />
visibility of other wind farm proposals in the study area.<br />
158<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
6.691 As discussed in best practice guidance <strong>for</strong> EIA, mitigation measures may<br />
include: avoidance of impacts, reduction in magnitude of impacts,<br />
compensation <strong>for</strong> impacts and remediation. The landscape and visual<br />
mitigation measures <strong>for</strong> the Penny Hill wind farm are ostensibly embedded<br />
within the design of the scheme and do not rely heavily on compensation<br />
or remediation. Mitigation adopted primarily relates to the consideration<br />
that was given to avoiding and minimising landscape and visual effects at<br />
the site selection stage and during the evolution of the turbine layout.<br />
6.692 At the site selection stage potential landscape impacts were given equal<br />
consideration alongside other engineering and <strong>environmental</strong> issues. The<br />
site was selected, amongst other reasons, because there are no national<br />
or regional landscape designations covering the site or the immediately<br />
surrounding area. The Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire & Yorkshire Coalfields<br />
character area was noted to have a low sensitivity to wind energy<br />
development as detailed in the Planning <strong>for</strong> Renewable Energy Targets in<br />
Yorkshire and Humber Final Report.<br />
6.693 The current use of the site <strong>for</strong> agriculture meant that there were large open<br />
fields in which turbines could be accommodated with minimal effect on<br />
sensitive landscape features such as hedgerows, woodlands and other<br />
vegetation of ecological and landscape value. The ground cover on site is<br />
primarily of commercial agricultural value and not of any particular<br />
landscape value. The location of the M1/M18 junction directly adjacent to<br />
the site also meant that the landscape character was of lower sensitivity<br />
than elsewhere within the same character area.<br />
6.694 The access tracks within the site were also designed with consideration<br />
given to the effects on landscape features and character. The tracks have<br />
been designed to minimise the number of breaks required in the<br />
hedgerows. They have also been designed, as far as possible to follow<br />
field boundaries to minimise the effect on field patterns. A number of<br />
options were considered <strong>for</strong> the access tracks be<strong>for</strong>e arriving at the final<br />
layout.<br />
6.695 Similarly, the control building and substation were specifically positioned to<br />
minimise their landscape and visual impact. The final position of the<br />
building and substation was selected as they would be adjacent to a<br />
section of mature dense hedgerow which would screen them from the<br />
north and west and provide a backdrop when viewed from the south and<br />
east. Mitigation planting is proposed around the southern and eastern side<br />
of the control building and substation to help integrate them into the<br />
landscape.<br />
6.696 Cabling between the turbines has been designed to run underground,<br />
hence minimising visual clutter on the site.<br />
159<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.697 An iterative design approach was adopted <strong>for</strong> the arrangement of<br />
structures on the site. Following baseline site work and the identification of<br />
the most important landscape features, the turbines were arranged to<br />
cause least disturbance to these features. Notably, the turbine locations<br />
have as far as possible avoided any disruption to hedgerows, clusters of<br />
trees and the alignment of watercourses.<br />
6.698 Taking all other engineering and <strong>environmental</strong> constraints into account,<br />
the proposed layout of the turbines on site was specifically designed to<br />
achieve a well spaced arrangement when viewed from the nearest<br />
villages. The resulting arrangement avoids unnecessary clustering of<br />
turbines or any overlapping of turbine blades when viewed from the most<br />
sensitive visual receptor locations.<br />
6.699 The turbines themselves would be painted a non-reflective semi matt pale<br />
grey colour (or similar as agreed with the local planning authority) thus<br />
helping them to merge into the skyline. Unlike some other <strong>for</strong>ms of<br />
development, it is neither possible nor considered appropriate to screen<br />
turbines.<br />
6.700 During construction, topsoil from the construction compound would be<br />
lifted and a mound created around the southern, eastern and western<br />
sides to provide some screening of activities within the compound.<br />
6.701 In the long term, when the wind farm is decommissioned, the turbines and<br />
other associated structures would be removed. The landscape would be<br />
restored to agricultural land. Thus the landscape and visual effects of the<br />
proposal are largely reversible.<br />
RESIDUAL EFFECTS<br />
6.702 The proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm is the result of an iterative design<br />
process whereby landscape and visual mitigation has fed into the<br />
development of the scheme proposals. Landscape and visual mitigation<br />
has been taken into account in the main assessment of effects section.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e, in this section, there is not a separate assessment of residual<br />
effects.<br />
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS<br />
Summary of Landscape Effects<br />
6.703 The Penny Hill development is proposed within a landscape of gently<br />
rolling farmland approximately 700m east of Ulley village in Rotherham,<br />
South Yorkshire. The turbines, meteorological mast, substation and control<br />
building are all proposed within open agricultural fields. There<strong>for</strong>e, even<br />
allowing <strong>for</strong> a 50m radius around each turbine <strong>for</strong> micro-siting, the new<br />
structures would not interfere with any of the existing hedgerows or trees<br />
on site.<br />
160<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.704 A small number of breaks would be required in hedgerows on site to<br />
accommodate the access tracks. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a low<br />
magnitude of change to several hedgerows which are of high landscape<br />
sensitivity. The magnitude of change would be minimal and result in no<br />
greater than a slight adverse effect.<br />
6.705 The Penny Hill site falls within a single Joint Character Area (JCA), namely<br />
the „Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfields‟, (JCA 38). The<br />
Government Office <strong>for</strong> Yorkshire and Humberside (GOYH) Planning <strong>for</strong><br />
Renewable Energy Targets in Yorkshire and Humber Final Report has<br />
assessed the region <strong>for</strong> its sensitivity to wind farm development in general<br />
terms.<br />
6.706 Out of the 24 JCAs represented within the Yorkshire and Humber region, it<br />
was determined that JCA 38 had the lowest sensitivity to wind energy<br />
development apart from JCA 42 (Lincolnshire Coast and Marshes).<br />
6.707 It is also acknowledged that the site falls within an Area of High Landscape<br />
Value (AHLV) as designated in the Rotherham UDP saved policies.<br />
Although Government policy guidance no longer favours the use of local<br />
landscape designations the fact that this tract of landscape has been<br />
designated as such in a soon to be replaced development plan is an<br />
indication that it is of slightly higher landscape quality than other areas<br />
within the district.<br />
6.708 Essentially, the landscape can be considered to be pleasantly rural but on<br />
the fringes of the urban conurbations of South Yorkshire and the character<br />
is strongly influenced by the external human influences in the surrounding<br />
landscape. The proximity of the M1 to the site with its moving traffic and<br />
associated infrastructure gives the landscape in the vicinity of the site a<br />
less than tranquil character. Overall, the landscape has a pleasant<br />
agricultural character but with prominent and established modern human<br />
influences. The site and surrounding area is there<strong>for</strong>e considered to be of<br />
medium sensitivity to wind energy development when considered in the<br />
national and regional context.<br />
6.709 The primary impact on the landscape character of the immediately<br />
surrounding area, broadly defined as within 2km of the site boundary,<br />
would arise from the introduction of six new turbines, meteorological mast,<br />
control building, substation and access tracks within the site. The control<br />
building and site compound would be located in a relatively discrete<br />
location adjacent to mature hedgerows. In this position, the compound<br />
would be partially screened and softened by the established vegetation.<br />
6.710 The turbines would appear as tall structures and be greater in height than<br />
other vertical structures in the immediate area although there is notable<br />
precedent <strong>for</strong> manmade vertical features in the landscape including<br />
overhead electricity pylons and gantries on the M1. The movement of the<br />
turbine blades would be evident in the surrounding landscape. However,<br />
161<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
there is already considerable movement in the landscape, notably along<br />
the M1.<br />
6.711 Although the landscape is predominantly agricultural, there is considerable<br />
evidence of human activity and there<strong>for</strong>e the development would not be<br />
introducing manmade features into a wild or untouched landscape. The<br />
spacing of the turbines would be such that they would not be too closely<br />
clustered and the overall layout would be a well-balanced composition.<br />
6.712 The turbines would attract attention but would not prevent appreciation<br />
and visual comprehension of the underlying and surrounding landscape. It<br />
is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that the turbines would have a medium magnitude<br />
of impact on the immediate landscape but that this would not necessarily<br />
be detrimental to the character of it.<br />
6.713 As the immediate landscape has been assessed as being of medium<br />
sensitivity overall it is considered that there would be a moderate effect<br />
on the character of the landscape immediately surrounding the site. It has<br />
also been assessed that there would be no greater than a slight effect on<br />
the landscape character of the wider landscape.<br />
6.714 The construction and decommissioning effects would be temporary in<br />
nature (scheduled to take approximately 10 months). It is considered that<br />
during these phases there would be no more than a slight additional<br />
effect on the landscape character of the immediately surrounding<br />
landscape.<br />
6.715 There are no national landscape designations within the study area and<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e there would be no effect on any such landscapes. There would<br />
be no effect on the Peak District National Park.<br />
6.716 The site lies within the South Yorkshire Green Belt. It is acknowledged that<br />
the turbines would have a minor impact on the openness of the Green Belt<br />
in that the structures would all occupy land that has not previously been<br />
built upon. However this loss of openness would be extremely modest in<br />
scale. There<strong>for</strong>e, it is considered that there would be no greater than a<br />
slight effect on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes <strong>for</strong> which<br />
it was designated.<br />
6.717 The site also lies within the Ulley-Whiston Area of High Landscape Value<br />
(AHLV). It has been assessed that there would be no greater than a slight<br />
effect on the underlying structure and pattern of the landscape or on the<br />
hedgerows within the site and there<strong>for</strong>e the quality of the underlying<br />
landscape would not be compromised by the development.<br />
6.718 There would be no direct landscape and visual effects on any listed<br />
buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments or sites listed on the register of<br />
historic gardens and designed landscapes. There would be no effect on<br />
the setting of any registered parks and gardens.<br />
162<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON VISUAL AMENITY<br />
6.719 The effects on visual amenity experienced throughout the study area<br />
relate primarily to the six turbine structures and to a lesser degree the<br />
meteorological mast. The ground level element of the development would<br />
only be visible from a small number of properties and from a few PROW<br />
which pass through or very close to the boundary of the site. Construction<br />
effects would also only be experienced from these locations.<br />
6.720 It is acknowledged that there are a number of residential properties and<br />
isolated farmsteads within 2km of the site and that where these properties<br />
have unrestricted views towards the site, the proposed turbines would be<br />
prominent in the view. However it is also noted that many of the properties<br />
within 2km of the site are orientated away from the Penny Hill site or have<br />
vegetation and buildings around them which restrict views in the direction<br />
of the site. A detailed assessment of the visual effects on residential<br />
properties within 2km of the site is presented in Appendix 13.2.<br />
6.721 It is considered that there would be a high magnitude of change and<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e a substantial effect on the private visual amenity of 174 out of<br />
approximately 3,353 properties within 2km of the site. This equates to<br />
approximately 5% of the total number of properties within 2km of the site.<br />
These properties are all located within the villages of Ulley, Upper<br />
Whiston, Aughton and Aston-cum-Aughton but it is noted that only a<br />
relatively small proportion of the properties within these villages would<br />
experience these effects. From these properties, the turbines would be<br />
prominent but not obstruct the view in any direction. They would not<br />
prevent an appreciation of the underlying and surrounding agricultural<br />
landscape.<br />
6.722 There are also properties on the eastern side of the M1 which also lie<br />
within 2km of the site. Any view of the turbines from these properties<br />
would be across the M1. A relatively small number of properties on the<br />
eastern edge of Brampton en le Morthen and Thurcroft and on the<br />
surrounding lanes would have views of the upper sections of the turbines<br />
beyond the motorway vegetation. Properties with a clear view of the<br />
turbines within 2km of the nearest turbine and on the eastern side of the<br />
M1 would experience a medium magnitude of change in the view and<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e a moderate effect on visual amenity.<br />
6.723 Between 2km and 5km of the site there are many villages, larger<br />
settlements as well as numerous individual or isolated properties. At this<br />
distance and where there are unobstructed views of the turbines there<br />
would be a moderate effect on visual amenity experienced by residential<br />
properties. It is the professional opinion of the Landscape Architects who<br />
undertook this assessment, that where moderate effects on residential<br />
properties have been identified, these effects are not likely to be<br />
considered significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.<br />
163<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.724 It is the professional opinion of the Landscape Architects who undertook<br />
this assessment, that where substantial effects on residential properties<br />
have been identified, these effects are likely to be considered to be<br />
significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. Where moderate effects on<br />
residential properties have been identified, these effects are not likely to<br />
be considered significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.<br />
6.725 Beyond 5km from the site, there would be numerous individual properties<br />
with distant glimpses of the turbines. However beyond this distance, the<br />
turbines would not be prominent in the view and it is considered that the<br />
development would have no greater than a slight effect on visual amenity<br />
experienced by residential receptors.<br />
6.726 The Transpennine Trail Network (incorporating National Cycle Network<br />
Routes 6 and 67) and the Rotherham Roundwalk are the only long<br />
distance footpaths which run within 5km of the site and, at their closest<br />
point where they follow the same route, they pass approximately 800m to<br />
the west of the nearest turbine.<br />
6.727 Although intermittently screened by field boundary vegetation, the turbines<br />
would be prominent in the view when experienced along these routes as<br />
they pass between Aughton to the south and Whiston in the southern part<br />
of Rotherham. There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a high magnitude of change and<br />
consequently a substantial effect on the visual amenity experienced by<br />
people using the short section of the Transpennine Trail Network and the<br />
Rotherham Roundwalk between Aughton and Rotherham but no greater<br />
than a slight effect on the remainder of these routes.<br />
6.728 There would be no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity<br />
experienced along the Cuckoo Way, Robin Hood Way, Sheffield Country<br />
Walk and Dearne Way/Barnsley Boundary Walk which all pass through the<br />
20km study area.<br />
6.729 There are two Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Doorstep Walks<br />
(numbers 6 and 7) which pass through or immediately adjacent to the site.<br />
From these routes there would be largely unrestricted views of the Penny<br />
Hill turbines which would be prominent in the view. However, at no point<br />
would the development obstruct or prevent an appreciation of the<br />
underlying and surrounding landscape. There would be a high magnitude<br />
of change in the baseline view along these Doorstep walks resulting in a<br />
substantial effect on visual amenity experienced from them.<br />
6.730 There are also a small number of other public rights of way in the<br />
immediate vicinity of the site (including footpaths, bridleways and minor<br />
roads) from which there would be largely unrestricted views of the Penny<br />
Hill turbines. There would be a high magnitude of change in the baseline<br />
view along these public rights of way resulting in a substantial effect on<br />
visual amenity experienced from them.<br />
164<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.731 There would also be intermittent views of the turbines from several other<br />
public rights of way within the study area. With distance from the site, the<br />
effects on visual amenity would incrementally reduce. At locations where<br />
there would be unobstructed views of the turbines from public rights of way<br />
beyond approximately 2km of the site there would be no greater than a<br />
slight effect on visual amenity.<br />
6.732 There would be no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity of<br />
the transient visual receptors using the M1 or the M18.<br />
6.733 There would be no greater than a slight effect on any views from the<br />
Peak District National Park which at its closest point lies over 19km to the<br />
west of the Penny Hill site.<br />
6.734 Views of the Penny Hill development would only be possible from a<br />
relatively small part of Ulley Country Park, primarily from the point at which<br />
the footpath around the reservoir crosses over a dam on the north western<br />
edge of the reservoir and the western part of the reservoir itself.<br />
6.735 From the majority of the length of the paths around the reservoir there<br />
would be no view of the turbines. Notably there would be no views of the<br />
development from the path around the northern arm of the reservoir and<br />
no views from the southern path between the visitor centre and Ulley<br />
Lane. From the visitor centre and the main car park, there would be no<br />
view of the turbines due to vegetation along the south western edge of the<br />
reservoir which restricts views across the water. The tips of the turbine<br />
blades would be visible but due to their relatively small number, good<br />
spacing and the fact that they would be largely screened by land<strong>for</strong>m and<br />
vegetation, they would not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of<br />
the underlying and surrounding landscape.<br />
6.736 There<strong>for</strong>e there would be a moderate effect on the visual amenity of a<br />
small number of locations on the footpaths which run around the western<br />
part of the Country Park. However, there would be no effect on the visual<br />
amenity experienced within the majority of the Country Park, including the<br />
view from the visitor centre and main car park.<br />
6.737 At the time of preparing this ES section, there are 13 other wind farms<br />
either in operation, under construction, in the planning system or at<br />
scoping stage within 40km of the Penny Hill site. Of these, only five are<br />
within 30km of the Penny Hill site and were there<strong>for</strong>e selected <strong>for</strong><br />
consideration of cumulative effects.<br />
6.738 It has been assessed that taking cumulative impacts into consideration,<br />
the Penny Hill Wind Farm would result in no greater than a slight effect<br />
on landscape character both within the Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and<br />
Yorkshire Coalfield character area or any other character area within the<br />
study area.<br />
165<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
6.739 It has also been assessed that there would be no greater than a slight<br />
cumulative effect either simultaneously, successively or sequentially on<br />
visual amenity.<br />
6.740 In terms of the EIA regulations there<strong>for</strong>e, it is acknowledged that there<br />
would be some localised significant effects on landscape and visual<br />
amenity. However, it is also acknowledged that this is likely to be the case<br />
<strong>for</strong> any commercial wind turbine development in the UK and the significant<br />
effects locally need to be balanced against the other benefits of the<br />
development.<br />
166<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
7. ECOLOGY & NATURE CONSERVATION<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
7.1 This section of the ES considers the potential ecological effects of the<br />
proposed wind farm (with the exception of ornithological effects which are<br />
summarised in Section 8). It summarises the findings of an assessment<br />
undertaken by Faber Maunsell, which is outlined in full in Appendix 3. Full<br />
reference should be made to the consultant‟s report <strong>for</strong> detailed findings of<br />
this assessment.<br />
7.2 The assessment is based on the results of consultation with statutory<br />
consultees, nature conservation groups, local naturalists and<br />
comprehensive ecological surveys.<br />
7.3 Micro-Siting of the turbines within 50m of the proposed turbine layout is<br />
not anticipated to increase the Ecological impact Significance on habitats<br />
and species, as long as the turbines are sited with suitable hedgerow,<br />
woodland and buildings buffer zones as identified within this <strong>environmental</strong><br />
<strong>statement</strong>. Natural England have in fact provided guidance in written <strong>for</strong>m<br />
relating to standoff from linear features such as hedgerows and woodlands<br />
(with guidance produced through a numerical equation providing<br />
recommended separation from turbine to feature) which the Penny Hill<br />
proposal adheres too; and actually provides a larger separation distance.<br />
The Penny Hill wind farm proposal will there<strong>for</strong>e adhere to these<br />
principles.<br />
LEGISLATION AND POLICY FRAMEWORK<br />
7.4 Nature conservation policy in England is implemented through a series of<br />
areas, habitats and species designated under legislation from an<br />
international to local level. Key legislation and policy relating to ecology<br />
and nature conservation <strong>for</strong> the proposed development is as follows:<br />
The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as<br />
amended);<br />
Bern Convention 1979;<br />
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);<br />
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;<br />
Protection of Badgers Act 1992;<br />
Hedgerow Regulations 1997;<br />
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; and<br />
167<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9: Biodiversity and Geological<br />
Conservation.<br />
7.5 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) was launched in 1994 with the<br />
main aim „To conserve and enhance biological diversity within the UK, and<br />
to contribute to the conservation of global biodiversity through all<br />
appropriate mechanisms‟. The UK BAP comprises a series of Action Plans<br />
<strong>for</strong> „priority‟ habitats and species, determined by the fact that they are<br />
either globally threatened or are rapidly declining in the UK. The action<br />
plans outline measures required to conserve these priority habitats and<br />
species. The national strategy <strong>for</strong> biodiversity is delivered at local level via<br />
Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs). The study area is covered by the<br />
Rotherham BAP. There are also a number of species and habitats <strong>for</strong><br />
which action plans have been prepared, relevant to the Penny Hill site.<br />
These are listed in the report included at Appendix 3.<br />
7.6 The Natural Area Profiles (NAP) concept sets out the objectives of Natural<br />
England <strong>for</strong> the conservation of wildlife and natural features over the area<br />
concerned and summarises the wildlife interest associated with the main<br />
habitats found within the Natural Area. There are no species-specific<br />
actions or objectives set out in the NAP, however a number of generic<br />
objectives are set out which could apply to some of the habitats<br />
encountered within the study area. The habitats/features highlighted in the<br />
Coal Measures NAP relevant to the study area are woodland, rivers &<br />
streams and mixed farming.<br />
CONSULTATION<br />
Scoping<br />
7.7 Both Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and the Applicant<br />
consulted a number of organisations who commented on the potential<br />
ecological impact of the proposal.<br />
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) stated the<br />
following specific points:<br />
(i) Habitat surveys should include a qualitative assessment of<br />
hedgerows affected by the proposed development to ensure<br />
identification of mitigation and enhancement measures; and<br />
(ii) Detailed year round bat survey should be incorporated into the<br />
EIA survey plans and any mitigation, in accordance with<br />
guidance from Natural England.<br />
Natural England stated that the assessment should address any<br />
impact on second tier biodiversity sites (locally designated) and provide<br />
clarity that there would not be any impact on internationally or<br />
nationally designated sites.<br />
168<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Yorkshire Wildlife Trust stated that there is ancient woodland<br />
adjacent to the proposed development site; and that it is essential that<br />
this site and its wildlife should not be disturbed during construction of<br />
the proposed development and won‟t be affected by the presence of<br />
the turbines. They suggested that potential impacts on Local Wildlife<br />
Sites near to the site, at Brampton Common and Ulley Country Park,<br />
should also be assessed. Where possible, the trust suggested that any<br />
opportunities to provide mitigation or to enhance the site <strong>for</strong> wildlife<br />
after construction, should be acted upon. They also stated that (as also<br />
included within the RMBC response):<br />
(i) Phase I habitat survey should be carried out prior to the<br />
herbaceous and annual vegetation dying back;<br />
(ii) Any ponds within 500m of the site should be checked <strong>for</strong> great<br />
crested newts and other wildlife; and<br />
(iii) Details should be included of the timings of protected species<br />
surveys.<br />
Other Consultation<br />
7.8 Faber Maunsell consulted the following organisations when gathering<br />
ecological data:<br />
METHODOLOGY<br />
Environment Agency;<br />
Natural England;<br />
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council;<br />
Sheffield Wildlife Trust;<br />
Sheffield City Ecology Unit;<br />
Sorby Mammal Group;<br />
Sorby Invertebrate Group;<br />
South Yorkshire Badger Group;<br />
Yorkshire Butterfly Conservation; and<br />
National Biodiversity Network.<br />
7.9 Faber Maunsell undertook the following assessments <strong>for</strong> the proposed<br />
wind farm development:<br />
Ecological Data Search;<br />
169<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Phase 1 Habitat Survey;<br />
Bat Surveys and Assessment;<br />
Badger Surveys and Assessment;<br />
Otter Surveys and Assessment;<br />
Water Vole Surveys and Assessment;<br />
White Clawed Crayfish Surveys and Assessment; and<br />
Great Crested Newt Surveys and Assessment.<br />
Ecological Data Search<br />
7.10 A request <strong>for</strong> ecological data <strong>for</strong> the site was sent to the statutory and nonstatutory<br />
consultees listed above. They were requested to provide<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation regarding protected species and habitats within 2km of the<br />
site. Data was also obtained from the „Multi-Agency Geographic<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> the Countryside‟ (MAGIC) website.<br />
Baseline Studies<br />
7.11 Ecological surveys were undertaken <strong>for</strong> a large area including the<br />
application site and surroundings. Baseline ecological data was gathered<br />
<strong>for</strong> the seven bespoke assessments as follows:<br />
Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken<br />
over two seasons in June 2007 and June 2008 of the Ecological<br />
Survey Area, which includes the application site and immediate<br />
surroundings. The methodology involved a site walkover mapping the<br />
habitats according to the Phase 1 classification system, as described in<br />
the NCC Handbook <strong>for</strong> Phase 1 Habitat Survey (1990). Target notes<br />
were made to summarise the habitats and their dependant species, to<br />
comment on their value and to describe the localities of any notable<br />
species encountered.<br />
Bat Surveys: A bat habitat assessment was undertaken in conjunction<br />
with the Phase 1 habitat survey and included a walkover of the<br />
Ecological Survey Area and adjacent habitat bordering the site in order<br />
to assess its value as bat habitat. This included an assessment of<br />
potential flightlines, roosts and <strong>for</strong>aging areas in order to target evening<br />
surveys. The woodland and individual trees within the Ecological<br />
Survey Area were assessed in terms of their potential <strong>for</strong> providing<br />
roosting habitat.<br />
Evening transect activity surveys were undertaken in June 2008 in ideal<br />
weather conditions. The field boundaries within the Ecological Survey<br />
Area and the potential bat habitat identified during the habitat<br />
170<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
assessment were the target areas of the evening activity surveys. The<br />
surveys began 30 minutes after sunset and lasted approximately two<br />
hours. The surveys utilised recognised bat detector equipment and<br />
followed recognised survey techniques.<br />
Roost surveys were undertaken on two trees and the buildings at Ulley<br />
Beeches. A dawn survey was undertaken on each of the trees during<br />
June 2008 respectively. The roost surveys undertaken on the buildings<br />
at Ulley Beeches, involved both a dusk and dawn survey, and were<br />
undertaken during August 2008. The conditions <strong>for</strong> all roost surveys<br />
were ideal, being mild, fine, with no or little breeze.<br />
Badger Survey: The badger survey was undertaken in June 2008 and<br />
involved a search of the field boundaries and woodland within the<br />
Ecological Survey Area. The purpose of the survey was to assess the<br />
suitability of the habitat <strong>for</strong> badgers and to determine<br />
presence/absence of the species. The survey was based on a search<br />
<strong>for</strong> the following recognised field signs <strong>for</strong> badger: setts, paths,<br />
excavations, hair, footprints, dung pits, feeding evidence and bedding<br />
trails. As the survey was undertaken in June, the vegetation present<br />
was at its most vigorous and it was there<strong>for</strong>e difficult to identify field<br />
signs indicative of activity. However, it is considered that setts would<br />
still be evident.<br />
Otter Survey: Watercourses considered suitable <strong>for</strong> otter were<br />
surveyed. The otter surveys were undertaken in May 2008 on two<br />
watercourses within the study area. These watercourses are branches<br />
of Ulley Brook, one which borders the northern extent of the study area<br />
(outside of the application site boundary) and one which borders the<br />
south west of the study area flowing south from Carr Lane. The<br />
purpose of the surveys was to assess the suitability of the<br />
watercourses <strong>for</strong> otter and ultimately to determine presence/absence of<br />
otter within the site. The survey was based on a search <strong>for</strong> the<br />
following recognised field signs <strong>for</strong> otter: spraints, anal jelly, footprints,<br />
paths, flattened vegetation, holts & „couches‟ and feeding remains.<br />
Water Vole Survey: Watercourses considered suitable <strong>for</strong> water vole<br />
were surveyed. The water vole surveys were undertaken in May 2008<br />
on two watercourses within the study area (the northern and southern<br />
branches of the Ulley Brook). The purpose of the surveys was to<br />
assess the suitability of the watercourses <strong>for</strong> water vole, and ultimately<br />
to determine presence/absence of water vole within the study area.<br />
The survey was based on a search <strong>for</strong> the following recognised field<br />
signs <strong>for</strong> water vole: faeces, latrines, feeding stations, burrows, lawns,<br />
nests, footprints, runways, and the distinctive sound of water voles<br />
hitting the water.<br />
White Clawed Crayfish Survey: Watercourses considered suitable <strong>for</strong><br />
white-clawed crayfish were surveyed. The survey was undertaken in<br />
May 2008 on two watercourses within the study area by suitably<br />
171<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
experienced ecologists, holding a current Natural England whiteclawed<br />
crayfish survey licence. These watercourses are the northern<br />
and southern branches of Ulley Brook. The survey involved firstly a<br />
habitat assessment of the watercourse, recorded on a Crayfish Survey<br />
Form. The <strong>for</strong>ms provide background and habitat in<strong>for</strong>mation, including<br />
an assessment of channel substrate, potential <strong>for</strong> refuges and water<br />
quality. The position of any potential crayfish burrows were also<br />
marked, as well as any significant physical features which could be<br />
considered barriers to crayfish movement. The second part of the<br />
survey followed the standardised field survey methodology within the<br />
Survey and Monitoring Protocol <strong>for</strong> the White-Clawed Crayfish (Peay,<br />
2002). This was undertaken to determine presence/absence of whiteclawed<br />
crayfish. This entailed manual searching; carefully lifting and<br />
turning over suitable stones and debris on the channel bed and in the<br />
banks, which crayfish may use as refuge sites. Areas of habitat that<br />
appeared to be the most favourable <strong>for</strong> crayfish and could be physically<br />
searched were searched. These were searched in upstream direction<br />
to avoid poor visibility.<br />
Great Crested Newt (GCN) Survey: A single pond was identified<br />
adjacent to the southern boundary of the study area in June 2007, at<br />
which time it contained a shallow depth (3-4cm) of standing water and<br />
was completely overgrown with grass, rosebay willowherb (Chamerion<br />
angustifolium), bur-reed (Sparganium sp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus)<br />
and patches of watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum). A Habitat<br />
Suitability Index survey (HSI) was undertaken in May 2008, according<br />
to HSI methodology produced by Oldham et al. (2000), which assumes<br />
that habitat quality determines GCN population size. The HSI provides<br />
a measure of habitat suitability and, whilst not being a substitute <strong>for</strong><br />
GCN surveys, is a useful tool in determining which ponds require GCN<br />
surveys. The HSI survey involved evaluating the pond against a<br />
number of key habitat criteria to derive a HSI index value between 0<br />
and 1, with 0 being highly unsuitable <strong>for</strong> great crested newt and 1 being<br />
an ideal pond <strong>for</strong> the species.<br />
Assessment of Significance<br />
7.12 The method of evaluation and assessment uses a combination of<br />
guidance from:<br />
Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact Assessment (Institute of Ecology and<br />
Environmental Management, 2006);<br />
Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Baseline Ecological Assessment (Institute of<br />
Environmental Assessment, 1995); and<br />
Handbook of Biodiversity Methods (RPS Group plc and Scottish<br />
Natural Heritage, 2005).<br />
172<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
7.13 The assessment of effects is based on determining firstly the value of the<br />
receiving site/feature/species and secondly the magnitude of the potential<br />
impact on the site/feature/species, in order to provide an overall impact<br />
score and there<strong>for</strong>e the predicted impact significance. The value of each<br />
site/feature/species of nature conservation interest is assessed using<br />
biodiversity evaluation methods detailed in the „Handbook of Biodiversity<br />
Methods‟ (RPS Group plc and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2005) and also<br />
incorporating advice within the „Ratcliffe Criteria‟ (1977) and „Guidelines <strong>for</strong><br />
Ecological Impact Assessment‟ (Institute of Ecology and Environmental<br />
Management, 2006).<br />
7.14 Firstly, each assessed site/feature/species is assigned a nature<br />
conservation value of the following:<br />
Very High (International);<br />
High (National);<br />
Medium (Regional/County);<br />
Low (Local); or<br />
Parish (Negligible).<br />
7.15 Secondly, the magnitude of potential impacts is described <strong>for</strong> each<br />
site/feature/species as follows:<br />
Major Negative;<br />
Intermediate Negative;<br />
Minor Negative;<br />
Neutral; or<br />
Positive.<br />
7.16 Based on the value of the site/feature/species and the predicted<br />
magnitude of the potential impact, the significance can be determined<br />
using the table below:<br />
Nature<br />
Magnitude of Potential Impact<br />
Conservation<br />
Value<br />
Major<br />
negative<br />
Intermediate<br />
negative<br />
Minor<br />
negative<br />
Neutral Positive<br />
Very high Very large Large Slight Neutral Large<br />
adverse adverse adverse<br />
beneficial<br />
High Very large Large Slight Neutral Large<br />
adverse adverse adverse<br />
beneficial<br />
Medium Moderate Moderate Slight Neutral Moderate<br />
adverse adverse adverse<br />
beneficial<br />
Low Slight Slight Slight Neutral Slight<br />
adverse adverse adverse<br />
beneficial<br />
Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral<br />
173<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
7.17 Residual effects of large adverse and very large adverse are considered to<br />
be significant <strong>for</strong> the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (EIA)<br />
Regulations (1999). Moderate adverse effects are also considered to be<br />
significant, but could be acceptable with design amendments, possible<br />
further survey and specific mitigation.<br />
BASELINE INFORMATION<br />
Ecological Data Search<br />
7.18 Data was received from a number of the organisations consulted. The<br />
Environment Agency highlighted the following:<br />
Three designated Sites of Scientific Interest (SSI) within 2km, although<br />
the EA does not hold in<strong>for</strong>mation on what they are designated <strong>for</strong>. No<br />
otter, water vole, GCN, white-clawed crayfish, or bat records within<br />
2km of the grid reference provided. There is a bat record within 3km.<br />
7.19 Rotherham Biological Records provided in<strong>for</strong>mation, including:<br />
Faunal records and ecological interest sites within 2km of the site.<br />
White letter hairstreak, grass snake and GCN records in the filter bed<br />
area at Ulley Country Park. Water vole records within Ulley Country<br />
Park. Locations and details of Natural History Heritage sites.<br />
7.20 Sheffield Wildlife Trust provided site reports <strong>for</strong> fields to the south of the<br />
study area. One report states that „mitigation works have been carried out<br />
<strong>for</strong> newts near the motorway‟ presumably as part of the motorway works in<br />
2007.<br />
7.21 South Yorkshire Badger Group provided Records of setts within 2km of<br />
the study area.<br />
7.22 Yorkshire Butterfly Conservation has no specific butterfly records <strong>for</strong><br />
this area. One UK BAP moth species was recorded at Ulley Country Park,<br />
Watsonalla binaria.<br />
7.23 The MAGIC website data confirmed that there are no statutory<br />
designated sites within 2km of the study area. Ancient and semi-natural<br />
woodland is located adjacent to the study area.<br />
7.24 Data from the National Biodiversity Network reveals badger and<br />
Japanese knotweed are within a 10km area which includes the study area;<br />
however the exact location is unknown. Pipistrelle bat is recorded within<br />
2km of the study area.<br />
7.25 There are a number of locally designated sites within 2km of the study<br />
area. Ulley Country Park lies within 2km of the central grid reference <strong>for</strong><br />
the study area. As in<strong>for</strong>med by RMBC, this site qualifies as a Candidate<br />
Local Wildlife Site under grassland, heathland, woodland, hedgerow, open<br />
174<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
water, fungi, protected mammal, breeding birds and rare/threatened<br />
invertebrate data, and is also registered as a Natural History Heritage Site<br />
(see below). Protected species records provided by RMBC which are<br />
within 2km of the Penny Hill site (GCN and water vole) are from the Ulley<br />
Country Park area. Spring Wood bounds the south west of the Penny Hill<br />
study area and is registered as a Natural History Heritage Site. Natural<br />
History Heritage site registrations include ancient woodlands, breeding<br />
birds, ancient/species-rich hedgerows, key habitats, presence of badgers<br />
and country parks. Morthen Brook is registered as a Natural History<br />
Heritage Site, this includes the area around Swallow Mills pond that is<br />
within the study area. Other Natural History Heritage Sites within 2km of<br />
the centre of the study area are M1-M18 link road verge, Pea Carr Wood,<br />
Sheep Dike, Lane Wood, RBG1, Turnshaw Plantation, Brampton Common<br />
(also a Candidate Local Wildlife Site) and Long Road, Brampton.<br />
Phase 1 Habitat Survey<br />
7.26 The study area comprises predominantly arable land dissected by<br />
species-poor but generally intact hedgerows. There are some „wildlife<br />
strips‟ and „grass field margins‟ between the crops and field boundaries,<br />
some small areas of improved and semi-improved grassland, and two<br />
small areas of woodland. There are a number of drainage ditches, with<br />
the two main flowing watercourses being the northern and southern<br />
branches of Ulley Brook. There is one farm, Ulley Beeches which is within<br />
the study area.<br />
7.27 Similar habitat surrounds the study area. Further to the north and east is<br />
the M1 which bounds the east of the Penny Hill study area. Further to the<br />
south are the villages of Aston and Aughton, with Ulley village, reservoir<br />
and country park further to the west.<br />
Bat Survey<br />
7.28 The habitat supported within the study area includes arable fields which<br />
are surrounded by predominantly intact hedgerows and as such the<br />
habitat overall is considered to be of low to medium quality <strong>for</strong> bats. There<br />
is some habitat suitable <strong>for</strong> roosting including standard trees, and some<br />
farm buildings. As the hedgerows are predominantly intact, their suitability<br />
as commuting routes is high, however the surrounding arable fields<br />
provide low quality <strong>for</strong>aging habitat. The presence of the two<br />
watercourses (also drainage ditches) will improve the limited <strong>for</strong>aging<br />
potential.<br />
7.29 Survey ef<strong>for</strong>t was determined using results from the habitat assessment<br />
and using Natural England Guidance (2008). Under this guidance the<br />
study area is likely to be a low to medium risk site, as the study area is<br />
small, has few potential roost sites, and was determined to present a low<br />
to medium likely threat to bats. The surveys would also in<strong>for</strong>m the site<br />
layout design process, such as implementing large buffers around<br />
potential roost sites to further reduce the risk level at this site.<br />
175<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
7.30 Two transects were surveyed which give an overview of activity across the<br />
habitats within the study area. A total of 15 bat passes were recorded<br />
over both surveys and comprised of 3 species. These were common<br />
pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle and brown longeared.<br />
Bat activity occurred throughout the study area with no<br />
concentrations of activity associated with particular features. The linear<br />
features that were followed did not show evidence during these surveys of<br />
being flightlines <strong>for</strong> large numbers of commuting bats.<br />
7.31 The trees identified during the Phase 1 Habitat survey are semi-mature<br />
oak, with mature ivy growing on the trunks and branches, with possible<br />
cracks in the upper branches. No bat roosts were detected within these<br />
trees. The buildings at Ulley Beeches consist of a house, stables, old<br />
stable block, hay/cow sheds and a small brick built out-building. The<br />
house consists of painted brickwork with no visible gaps, an intact tiled<br />
roof, and double glazed windows, and is considered to have low potential.<br />
The stables are brick built with a corrugated roof and are considered to<br />
have low potential. The old stable block is also brick built with a<br />
corrugated roof, but there are visible gaps in the brickwork and this<br />
building is much higher roofed. It is considered to have medium potential,<br />
but there is a bright security light on the northern side of this building which<br />
might discourage roosting bats. The hay/cow sheds are of metal<br />
construction and considered to have low potential. The small brick built<br />
out-building has a slate roof and has visible gaps in the brickwork, and is<br />
considered to have medium potential. Bats were recorded <strong>for</strong>aging along<br />
the hedgerow to the east of the buildings and around the buildings during<br />
the dusk survey. A smaller amount of commuting activity was recorded<br />
during the dawn survey. No bats roosts were detected in these buildings.<br />
Badger Survey<br />
7.32 The <strong>for</strong>aging and commuting habitat available within the study area is<br />
considered to be of average to good quality. Foraging habitat exists within<br />
the arable fields, along the field margins, in the small areas of grassland,<br />
and woodland. Few signs of territorial activity (latrines) and commuting<br />
were found throughout the study area, however detection was inhibited by<br />
the dense vegetation at the time survey. Two setts were found within the<br />
study area. These included a main sett and a outlier/subsidiary sett.<br />
Details of the location of the badger setts are confidential under the<br />
Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and are there<strong>for</strong>e not given in the main<br />
body of this report. Full details and the badger survey results map are<br />
given as a confidential annex, which should not be passed to third parties<br />
or be in the public domain.<br />
Otter Survey<br />
7.33 A number of drainage ditches were identified that were considered<br />
unsuitable <strong>for</strong> otter due to factors such as lack of water, pollution,<br />
stagnation, and being completely overgrown with vegetation or algal<br />
growth. Two watercourses were considered suitable <strong>for</strong> otter within the<br />
176<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
study area and were surveyed, these were the northern and southern<br />
branches of Ulley Brook. No otter signs were found during these surveys,<br />
however suitable features such as exposed roots and dead wood <strong>for</strong> holt<br />
locations were recorded. It is probable that otter would use these<br />
watercourses <strong>for</strong> commuting if they were present in the area.<br />
Water Vole Survey<br />
7.34 A number of drainage ditches were identified that were considered<br />
unsuitable <strong>for</strong> water vole due to factors such as lack of water, unsuitable<br />
banks, pollution, stagnation, and being completely overgrown with<br />
vegetation or algal growth. Two watercourses were considered suitable<br />
<strong>for</strong> water vole within the study area and were surveyed. No signs of water<br />
vole were found during these surveys. A small number of holes were<br />
noted at the bottom of the bank on southern branch of Ulley Brook,<br />
however due to an absence of other signs such as latrines and feeding<br />
stations, it was concluded that these were rat holes. This watercourse<br />
does, however provide suitable habitat along some of its length, and due<br />
to the presence of water vole in the wider area, the future colonisation of<br />
this watercourse cannot be ruled out.<br />
7.35 The second watercourse surveyed was the northern branch of the Ulley<br />
Brook (north of the site boundary). The upstream section where it flows<br />
west from the M1 culvert was considered sub-optimal <strong>for</strong> water vole as the<br />
banks were scrubby or supported semi-mature trees with no grassy<br />
vegetation. The downstream section was considered more suitable <strong>for</strong><br />
water vole as the banks become shallower and less wooded, however<br />
they are continuously lined with hawthorn and elder which overhang and<br />
shade the watercourse.<br />
White Clawed Crayfish Survey<br />
7.36 A number of drainage ditches on the site were considered unsuitable <strong>for</strong><br />
white-clawed crayfish due to factors such as lack of water, pollution and<br />
complete algal cover, stagnation, lack of suitable refuges, and being<br />
completely overgrown with vegetation. The northern and southern<br />
branches of the Ulley Brook were considered suitable <strong>for</strong> white-clawed<br />
crayfish and were surveyed. No white-clawed crayfish or signs of whiteclawed<br />
crayfish were found during these surveys. Suitable features such<br />
as heterogenous flow pattern, debris dams and tree roots were recorded.<br />
However, the substrate was silty and in-channel refuges were limited,<br />
which is unfavourable habitat <strong>for</strong> white-clawed crayfish. No burrows were<br />
identified and it is considered that white-clawed crayfish are not present in<br />
these watercourses.<br />
Great Crested Newt Survey<br />
7.37 At the time of survey the pond was completely overgrown with vegetation<br />
including soft rush, great willowherb, watercress and grasses, which have<br />
grown vigorously due to the influx of nutrients from agricultural drainage.<br />
177<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
No water was visible until the vegetation was trodden underfoot, from<br />
which water to a depth up to approximately 4cm became evident. Water<br />
has been diverted to the pond via a drainage ditch from the surrounding<br />
arable field, and consequently the water was very dark in colour. The desk<br />
study section of the HSI process revealed no other ponds within the study<br />
area or within 500m of this pond, and that the surrounding habitat is<br />
suboptimal <strong>for</strong> newts, being predominantly arable with little <strong>for</strong>aging<br />
habitat. The HSI score <strong>for</strong> this pond is calculated to be 0.39. Scores of<br />
less than 0.5 represent poor suitability <strong>for</strong> GCN, and 0.43 is the lowest<br />
score at which a site was known to support GCN (Oldham et al., 2000).<br />
7.38 After undertaking the HSI assessment, Phase 1 Habitat Survey and visual<br />
assessment of the pond it was determined that further GCN surveys were<br />
not necessary. It is concluded that this pond does not support breeding<br />
GCN.<br />
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS<br />
NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE<br />
Designated / Wildlife Sites<br />
7.39 There are no statutory designated sites within 2km of the site. There are a<br />
number of locally registered sites within 2km of the site, with only one of<br />
these, Morthen Brook (a section of which is referred to as the Ulley Brook)<br />
falling within the study area. This site is registered as a Natural History<br />
Heritage Site by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and as such it<br />
is considered to have a Nature Conservation Value of Low – Local<br />
Importance. Spring Wood is also a Natural History Heritage Site, and<br />
ancient and semi-natural woodland. It is adjacent to the southern<br />
boundary of the study area, and is considered to have a Nature<br />
Conservation Value of Low – Local Importance.<br />
Phase 1 Habitat Survey<br />
7.40 The arable habitat within the study area has low ecological value and is<br />
common and widespread within the local area. It has there<strong>for</strong>e been<br />
assigned a Nature Conservation Value of Parish – Negligible<br />
Importance. The majority of arable fields within the study area have<br />
grass field margins which are ecologically important in providing both<br />
wildlife corridors and important <strong>for</strong>aging habitat <strong>for</strong> a range of species.<br />
This type of habitat is listed both on the Rotherham LBAP and UKBAP and<br />
is there<strong>for</strong>e assigned a Nature Conservation Value of Low – Local<br />
Importance. The hedgerows within the study area, although species<br />
poor, are dominated by native species and are mostly intact. Hedgerows<br />
dominated by native species are listed on the UKBAP. These hedgerows<br />
provide important wildlife corridors and are considered ecologically<br />
important, in particular when combined with the grass field margins<br />
described above. They have there<strong>for</strong>e been assigned a Nature<br />
Conservation Value of Low – Local Importance<br />
178<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
7.41 There are some small areas of semi-natural broadleaved woodland within<br />
the study area. These areas are uncommon within the study area and<br />
provide important habitat <strong>for</strong> a range of flora and fauna. The area of<br />
woodland that bounds Ulley Brook is wet woodland, and this habitat is<br />
included on both the UKBAP and LBAP. It is considered that these areas<br />
of woodland are locally important and have been assigned a Nature<br />
Conservation Value of Low – Local Importance. There are some very<br />
small areas of improved and semi-improved grassland within the study<br />
area. These habitat types are predominantly used <strong>for</strong> grazing of<br />
cattle/sheep and are not listed on the UKBAP or LBAP. They are also<br />
common and widespread in the wider area, and there<strong>for</strong>e these habitat<br />
types have been assigned a Nature Conservation Value of Parish -<br />
Negligible Importance.<br />
7.42 There are a number of watercourses within the study area. These mainly<br />
consist of drainage ditches which offer poor water quality; however they do<br />
provide important wildlife corridors and refuges. There are two larger<br />
watercourses within the study area, which are branches of Ulley Brook.<br />
These watercourses differ from the others principally due to their greater<br />
volume of water, faster flow and better water quality. These watercourses<br />
also provide suitable habitat <strong>for</strong> protected species such as otter and water<br />
vole (although no signs of these species were found). They have<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e been assigned a Nature Conservation Value of Low – Local<br />
Importance. The pond adjacent to the study area appears to be a<br />
temporary drainage pond. Ponds and lakes are included on both the<br />
UKBAP and LBAP. This pond has there<strong>for</strong>e been assigned a Nature<br />
Conservation Value of Low – Local Importance.<br />
Bat Survey<br />
7.43 The most commonly recorded species recorded during the surveys was<br />
common pipistrelle which is common and widespread in the UK and in<br />
Yorkshire. Other species were recorded infrequently, in line with their<br />
status in Yorkshire. Furthermore, no bat roosts were identified. However,<br />
one of species recorded (brown long-eared) is a UKBAP priority species.<br />
The bat species recorded within the study area have been given a Nature<br />
Conservation Value of Medium – Regional Importance as they receive<br />
both European and British legal protection, one of these is a UKBAP<br />
species, and some of the species recorded are less common in Yorkshire<br />
such as natterer‟s and whiskered/brandt‟s.<br />
Badger Survey<br />
7.44 Badgers are found throughout mainland Britain and Ireland but are patchily<br />
distributed in the northern Highlands of Scotland (Woods, 1995). They are<br />
widespread throughout Yorkshire and Humberside, including across the<br />
Rotherham borough (Rotherham BAP, 2004). It is considered that up to<br />
two badger social groups could exist in the study area with one of the<br />
social group‟s main sett located within the study area. Badger is listed on<br />
the LBAP, but not on the UKBAP. The badger population within the study<br />
179<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
area is not considered to be a population of regional or county importance,<br />
and given the relatively high population of badgers in the UK, badgers<br />
within the study area are considered to have a Nature Conservation Value<br />
of Low – Local importance.<br />
Otter Survey<br />
7.45 No otter signs were found within the study area. Otter receive both<br />
European and British legal protection, and are listed on the UKBAP, but as<br />
no otter signs were found within the study area they have not been<br />
assigned a Nature Conservation Value at this time.<br />
Water Vole Survey<br />
7.46 No water vole signs were found within the study area. Water vole are<br />
British protected species and are listed on the UKBAP, but as no water<br />
vole signs were found within the study area they have not been assigned a<br />
Nature Conservation Value at this time.<br />
White-clawed Crayfish Survey<br />
7.47 No white-clawed crayfish were found within the study area. White-clawed<br />
crayfish receive both European and British legal protection, and are listed<br />
on the UKBAP, but as no white-clawed crayfish were found within the<br />
study area they have not been assigned a Nature Conservation Value at<br />
this time.<br />
Great Crested Newt Survey<br />
7.48 Great crested newt were not found within the study area, and there are no<br />
ponds or existing records within 500m of the surveyed pond. Great<br />
crested newt receive both European and British legal protection, and are<br />
listed on the UKBAP, but as no great crested newt were found within the<br />
study area, they have not been assigned a Nature Conservation Value at<br />
this time.<br />
CONSTRUCTION PHASE<br />
Impacts<br />
7.49 The construction phase is expected to last approximately 10 months.<br />
Impacts associated with construction are predominantly those of habitat<br />
loss and disturbance through removal of soils and vegetation to make way<br />
<strong>for</strong> the necessary infrastructure. Disturbance due to the movement and<br />
operation of heavy plant, and impacts from the use/storage of fuels and<br />
oils on site if spillages occur.<br />
180<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Designated/Wildlife Sites<br />
7.50 During construction there will be no direct impact on statutory and non<br />
statutory sites. A RMBC Natural History Heritage Site, Morthen Brook (a<br />
section of which is referred to as a branch of Ulley Brook in this report) is<br />
within and bounds the study area, however the nearest turbine is<br />
approximately 230m from the watercourse. Spring Wood is also a Natural<br />
History Heritage Site which bounds the southern boundary of the study<br />
area, however the nearest turbine is approximately 340m from the edge of<br />
the woodland. These distances are deemed to be of sufficient distances<br />
away to result in a neutral impact, which is there<strong>for</strong>e of neutral<br />
significance.<br />
Habitats<br />
7.51 The proposed turbine locations will impact on arable land which is<br />
generally considered to be of negligible conservation importance. Due to<br />
disturbance there will be a minor negative impact, however the impact<br />
significance is neutral. Short sections of hedgerows, and associated grass<br />
field margin, will need to be removed where the proposed access tracks<br />
cross them. As hedgerows and grass field margins provide locally<br />
important habitat <strong>for</strong> birds, mammals and invertebrates it is considered<br />
that the magnitude of impact without mitigation would be intermediate<br />
negative, leading to an impact significance of slight adverse. The<br />
access tracks will cross three watercourses of low ecological value. Due<br />
to the small loss of habitat, it is considered that this will be a minor<br />
negative impact, with an impact significance of slight adverse. Spillages<br />
of vehicle fuel, oils, cement and dust would have intermediate to major<br />
negative potential impacts on the habitats within the study area, through<br />
toxic effects on soil and vegetation, increases in pH of the soils, and<br />
pollution of watercourses which are of Local Importance. The impact<br />
significance is considered to be slight to moderate adverse. Trampling /<br />
damage of vegetation and erosion of soils might occur in places due to<br />
movement of vehicles, heavy plant and site staff. This would lead to minor<br />
damage of habitats of Low Importance, resulting in a minor negative<br />
impact. The impact significance is there<strong>for</strong>e neutral to slight adverse.<br />
Bats<br />
7.52 Disturbance impacts may arise at the points where tracks are constructed<br />
close to field boundaries such as hedges and tree lines. This may<br />
discourage use of these habitats by diverting bats from their usual<br />
flightlines. The impact of the construction of the access tracks in close<br />
proximity to hedgerows is considered to be minor negative - there<strong>for</strong>e the<br />
significance of impact is considered to be slight adverse. Impacts may<br />
also arise where access tracks breach hedgerows and sections are<br />
removed. Gaps in hedgerows/tree lines may make it difficult <strong>for</strong> bats to<br />
commute along these flightlines. As the number of hedgerows to be<br />
breached is minimal, the impact of creating gaps in hedgerows is<br />
181<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
considered to be minor negative - there<strong>for</strong>e the significance of impact is<br />
considered to be slight adverse. Invertebrate numbers may be affected if<br />
habitats are removed in place of stone or gravel tracks. However, the total<br />
area of land which will be removed in this way is minimal compared to the<br />
total study area and the arable habitat which will be affected is not<br />
particularly associated with invertebrates. The magnitude of impact is<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e considered to be minor negative, resulting in an impact<br />
significance of slight adverse.<br />
7.53 Light pollution is likely to occur during construction. Some high wattage<br />
security lights or working lights may be erected and may affect existing bat<br />
flightlines and may even prevent roosting in some areas or discourage<br />
emergence (no roosts were found but potential exists). Light can however<br />
benefit certain species such as pipistrelle as insect prey will often gather<br />
around artificial light, whereas Myotis species tend to be light shy and are<br />
discouraged by light. This will be a direct impact of minor negative<br />
magnitude there<strong>for</strong>e equating to a slight adverse ecological impact.<br />
There is little in<strong>for</strong>mation known about how noise and vibrations affect<br />
bats, however it is possible that that noise and vibrations from site<br />
machinery may interfere with bats echolocation calls. As the majority of<br />
the work will be carried out during the day the effect of this is likely to be<br />
minimal – giving an impact score of slight adverse. However, if works are<br />
required at night in special circumstances the magnitude of impact will<br />
increase to intermediate negative having a moderate adverse impact.<br />
Badgers<br />
7.54 Based on the proposed turbine layout and the access tracks, none of the<br />
known setts will be lost or disturbed by the proposed wind farm. Habitat<br />
loss will lead to a small decrease in food availability where arable land and<br />
other habitats are removed in place of stone or gravel tracks. However,<br />
the total area of construction land on the site is generally minimal<br />
compared to the study area. As such, this impact is predicted to be minor<br />
negative and there<strong>for</strong>e a significance of slight adverse. Disturbance to<br />
<strong>for</strong>aging areas and commuting routes may occur through an increase in<br />
human activity, which may affect badger movement. This is considered to<br />
have a minor negative impact and there<strong>for</strong>e a significance of slight<br />
adverse. High wattage security lights or working lights may be erected if<br />
night working is undertaken and are likely to affect badger commuting<br />
routes and may even prevent emergence from nearby setts. This will be a<br />
direct impact of minor negative to intermediate negative magnitude<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e equating to a slight adverse significance. If it is necessary <strong>for</strong><br />
site traffic to operate at night, this may lead to an increased risk of road<br />
related mortality <strong>for</strong> badgers. This is considered to have a direct impact of<br />
minor negative to intermediate negative magnitude there<strong>for</strong>e equating<br />
to a slight adverse significance.<br />
182<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Otter, Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish<br />
7.55 No otter, water vole or white-clawed crayfish were recorded within the<br />
study area, however suitable habitat exists. The watercourses within the<br />
survey area could potentially become polluted by the materials stored and<br />
used <strong>for</strong> construction, both during refuelling and during general use. Even<br />
where watercourses are considered unsuitable <strong>for</strong> otter, pollutants may be<br />
carried to connecting watercourses which are suitable. Pollutants such as<br />
oil or petrol will reduce the waterproofing properties of the otter and water<br />
vole‟s fur which will affect its ability to control its body temperature whilst<br />
swimming. Pollutants such as oil or petrol are likely to cause mortalities or<br />
<strong>for</strong>ce crayfish to vacate the area. As these species have not been<br />
assigned a Nature Conservation Value the impact magnitude and<br />
significance has not been assessed.<br />
Great Crested Newt<br />
7.56 No great crested newts were recorded within the study area, and the<br />
identified pond is considered unsuitable. As there are no ponds within<br />
500m of the study area, there are no <strong>for</strong>eseen impacts on great crested<br />
newt from the proposed construction activities.<br />
OPERATIONAL PHASE<br />
Impacts<br />
7.57 Assessment of the operation phase comprises impacts associated with<br />
maintenance activities and the physical presence of wind farm<br />
infrastructure. The operational life of the wind farm is expected to be 25<br />
years.<br />
Habitats<br />
7.58 There will be a small loss of habitat relative to the size of the study area<br />
throughout the operation period of the wind farm. The habitats that will be<br />
affected are arable land, grass field margins, hedgerows, and<br />
watercourses, and the loss is considered to be a minor negative impact,<br />
equating to a significance of neutral to slight adverse.<br />
7.59 Trampling/damage of vegetation and erosion of soils might occur in places<br />
due to movement of vehicles, heavy plant and site staff. This would lead<br />
to minor damage, resulting in a minor negative impact. The impact<br />
significance is there<strong>for</strong>e neutral to slight adverse.<br />
7.60 There may be some risk of pollution of soils and habitats through spillage<br />
of oils and fuel during routine maintenance operations or through seepage<br />
of lubricants and trans<strong>for</strong>mer oils to ground from the turbine structures<br />
themselves during normal operation. Depending on the scale of<br />
spillage/seepage and the type of vegetation/soils affected, this would have<br />
an impact rating of minor to major negative. However due to the low<br />
183<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
likelihood of this occurrence the impact significance is considered to be<br />
slight adverse.<br />
Bats<br />
7.61 Bats may suffer fatalities due to collision with turbines, or as recently<br />
discovered barotrauma (Baerwald et al, 2008) when bats come in to close<br />
contact with turbines and suffer lung injury. Natural England have<br />
produced tables in the „Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines: Interim<br />
Guidance‟ (2008) listing bat species likely to be at risk of impact with<br />
turbines, and populations likely to be threatened due to impacts with<br />
turbines. The bat species recorded at Penny Hill and their associated risk<br />
are shown below in Table 7.1:<br />
Table 7.1: Risk to different bat species of impacts with wind turbines<br />
(Natural England, 2008)<br />
Species Risk of impact with<br />
turbines<br />
Common pipistrelle Medium Low<br />
Soprano pipistrelle Medium Low<br />
Natterer‟s Low Low<br />
Brown long-eared Low Low<br />
Whiskered/Brandt‟s Low Low<br />
184<br />
Populations likely to be<br />
threatened due to impacts<br />
with turbines<br />
7.62 The turbines are not located along linear flight lines, being given a<br />
minimum of 50m buffer between such features and turbines as<br />
recommended by the Natural England guidance, and the amount of bat<br />
activity recorded was low. Also, the species of bat recorded are not of<br />
high risk of impact, and there is low risk of the populations of these<br />
species being threatened due to impacts with turbines. There<strong>for</strong>e this is<br />
considered to have a minor negative impact on the bat species recorded.<br />
As the Nature Conservation Value of this species within the study area is<br />
Medium – Regional importance, the impact significance is considered to<br />
be slight adverse.<br />
7.63 The disruption of flightlines by access tracks may have a minor negative<br />
effect on the distribution of bats and their use of such flightlines but is<br />
unlikely to affect roosts or the local population. The magnitude of impact<br />
is, there<strong>for</strong>e, considered to be minor negative with an impact significance<br />
of slight adverse.<br />
7.64 The emission of ultrasound noise emitted by the rotating turbines could<br />
disturb <strong>for</strong>aging bats. Some turbine types have been found to emit sound<br />
at frequencies of around 30 kHz at which some bats echolocate.<br />
Ultrasonic noise can detract and attract bats, the use of sonic lures works<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
in the same principal with bats being „lured‟ to the ultrasound. This is a<br />
poorly understood subject with little evidence to prove either attraction or<br />
detraction theories. However, noise emitted at this frequency may interfere<br />
with the echolocation calls of bats. This has been assigned a minor<br />
negative impact there<strong>for</strong>e a slight adverse significance is predicted.<br />
Badgers<br />
7.65 It is considered that there will be minimal impacts to badger during the<br />
operation of the wind farm. Impacts such as potential increased mortality<br />
of badgers caused by maintenance vehicles using access tracks are<br />
considered to be minor negative with an impact significance of slight<br />
adverse.<br />
Otter, Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish<br />
7.66 The watercourses within the study area could potentially become polluted<br />
by spillage of oils and fuel during routine maintenance operations. As<br />
these species have not been assigned a Nature Conservation Value the<br />
impact magnitude and significance has not been assessed.<br />
Great Crested Newt<br />
7.67 No great crested newt were recorded within the study area, and the<br />
identified pond is considered unsuitable. As there are no ponds within<br />
500m of the study area, there are no <strong>for</strong>eseen impacts on great crested<br />
newt from the operation of the wind farm.<br />
DECOMMISSIONING<br />
Impacts<br />
7.68 The life of the wind farm planning permission will be approximately 25<br />
years including construction and decommissioning. Decommissioning<br />
after closure of the wind farm would involve removal of turbines and<br />
associated infrastructure. The exact methods of decommissioning are not<br />
known at present. The main <strong>for</strong>eseeable impacts would result from<br />
removal of the upper parts of the turbine foundations.<br />
Habitats<br />
7.69 It is envisaged that disturbance of the existing vegetation would occur,<br />
though not of the scale or severity experienced during the construction<br />
phase. Any reseeding of these areas and of the decommissioned access<br />
tracks might result in establishment of vegetation that is not native to the<br />
site. Other potential impacts include pollution incidents caused by<br />
accidental spillages of vehicle fuels and oils, hydraulic fluids, lubricants<br />
and trans<strong>for</strong>mer oils associated with the turbines. These impacts have<br />
been assessed <strong>for</strong> the construction phase of the project and are not<br />
anticipated to be any worse during decommissioning.<br />
185<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Bats<br />
7.70 It is likely that there will be similar short term impacts on bats associated<br />
with decommissioning as are associated with construction.<br />
7.71 Light pollution is likely to occur during decommissioning. Some high<br />
wattage security lights or working lights may be erected and may affect<br />
existing bat flightlines and may even prevent roosting in some areas or<br />
discourage emergence (no roosts were found but potential exists). Light<br />
can however benefit certain species such as pipistrelle as insect prey will<br />
often gather around artificial light, whereas Myotis species tend to be light<br />
shy and are discouraged by light. This will be a direct impact of minor<br />
negative magnitude there<strong>for</strong>e equating to a slight adverse ecological<br />
impact.<br />
Badgers<br />
7.72 It is likely that decommissioning will lead to the same impacts <strong>for</strong> badgers<br />
as are associated with the construction phase although the impact period<br />
is likely to be shorter.<br />
7.73 In addition to this, disturbance may arise if new setts are excavated closer<br />
to the turbines and access tracks prior to decommissioning. This is<br />
considered to have an intermediate negative impact and there<strong>for</strong>e a<br />
significance of slight adverse.<br />
7.74 There will be a temporary loss of habitat caused through the disturbance<br />
of land during decommissioning. This will result in a minor negative<br />
impact and there<strong>for</strong>e a significance of slight adverse.<br />
7.75 High wattage security lights or working lights may be erected if night<br />
working is undertaken and are likely to affect badger commuting routes<br />
and may even prevent emergence from nearby setts. This will be a direct<br />
impact of minor negative to intermediate negative magnitude there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
equating to a slight adverse significance.<br />
7.76 If it is necessary <strong>for</strong> site traffic to operate at night, this may lead to an<br />
increased risk of road related mortality <strong>for</strong> badgers. This is considered to<br />
have a minor negative impact and there<strong>for</strong>e a significance of slight<br />
adverse.<br />
Otter, Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish<br />
7.77 It is likely that there will be similar short term impacts on otter, water vole<br />
and white-clawed crayfish associated with decommissioning as are<br />
associated with construction.<br />
7.78 No otter, water vole or white-clawed crayfish were recorded within the<br />
study area, however suitable habitat exists. The watercourses within the<br />
study area could potentially become polluted by the materials stored and<br />
used <strong>for</strong> decommissioning, both during refuelling and during general use.<br />
186<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Even where watercourses are considered unsuitable <strong>for</strong> otter, pollutants<br />
may be carried to connecting watercourses which are suitable. Pollutants<br />
such as oil or petrol will reduce the waterproofing properties of the otter<br />
and water vole‟s fur which will affect its ability to control its body<br />
temperature whilst swimming. Pollutants such as oil or petrol are likely to<br />
cause mortalities or <strong>for</strong>ce crayfish to vacate the area. As these species<br />
have not been assigned a Nature Conservation Value the impact<br />
magnitude and significance has not been assessed.<br />
Great Crested Newt<br />
7.79 No great crested newt were recorded within the study area, and the<br />
identified pond is considered unsuitable. As there are no ponds within<br />
500m of the study area, there are no <strong>for</strong>eseen impacts on great crested<br />
newt from the decommissioning activities.<br />
MITIGATION<br />
7.80 Four common <strong>for</strong>ms of mitigation are recognised:<br />
Avoidance - Avoidance and prevention of adverse impacts through the<br />
design of the scheme and sensitive programming of works, <strong>for</strong> example<br />
re-siting the proposed turbines and access tracks to retain key<br />
ecological features;<br />
Reduction - Mitigation to reduce the scale and severity of impacts, <strong>for</strong><br />
example restricting the working area in areas of ecological interest;<br />
Restoration - Rein<strong>statement</strong> to replace ecologically sensitive habitats<br />
through habitat re-creation, <strong>for</strong> example restoration of hedgerows<br />
crossed by access tracks; and<br />
Enhancement - Enhancement and improvement of existing conditions,<br />
<strong>for</strong> example planting species chosen to enhance the diversity and<br />
ecological interest of the reinstated area.<br />
7.81 The most effective way of mitigating against ecological impacts is<br />
avoidance by careful positioning of turbines and associated infrastructure<br />
to avoid areas of ecological importance. This has been addressed as far<br />
as possible by the wind farm design, using available field and desk based<br />
survey in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
HABITATS<br />
7.82 All site compounds and access tracks will be of the minimum size required<br />
<strong>for</strong> safe working. Stockpiling of materials will be kept to a minimum.<br />
Waste materials will be removed from the site and disposed of at the<br />
earliest opportunity.<br />
187<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
7.83 Where hedgerow sections are removed to allow <strong>for</strong> access tracks to be<br />
constructed, the remainder of the hedgerow will be gapped up to<br />
equivalent length (where necessary) using native hedgerow species local<br />
to the Rotherham area to provide alternative habitat <strong>for</strong> birds, mammals<br />
and invertebrates.<br />
BATS<br />
Legal Obligations and Guidance - Bats<br />
7.84 Legal obligations towards bats are generally concerned with roost<br />
protection. Planning Policy Statement Biodiversity and Geological<br />
Conservation 2004 (<strong>for</strong>mally PPG 9) makes it a legal obligation of<br />
developers to sustain, and where possible improve, the quality and extent<br />
of natural habitat and geological and geomorphological sites; the natural<br />
physical processes on which they depend; and the populations of naturally<br />
occurring species which they support. Bats there<strong>for</strong>e have to be<br />
considered as part of this proposed development.<br />
7.85 The Eurobats Resolution (2006) led to Natural England developing interim<br />
guidance regarding bats and wind farms (2008). This guidance advises<br />
that survey ef<strong>for</strong>t should aim to establish bat activity across the site, and<br />
good practice recommendations are made <strong>for</strong> development including<br />
buffer zones from habitat features such as hedgerows.<br />
Mitigation - Bats<br />
7.86 Bats are nocturnal and active at night. It is recommended that works be<br />
undertaken during daylight hours where possible to minimise disturbance<br />
during construction. During operation turbines will be running overnight,<br />
with potential direct impacts on bats. Following Natural England‟s Interim<br />
guidance regarding bats and wind turbines (2008), buffer zones of a<br />
minimum of 50m have been placed around features which may act as bat<br />
flightlines and <strong>for</strong>aging areas such as hedgerows and woodland.<br />
7.87 The layout of the access tracks minimises the need to cross field<br />
boundaries and there<strong>for</strong>e only a small amount of hedgerow and trees will<br />
be removed. Where trees are removed or if hedgerow removal is<br />
necessary replacement hedges/treelines will be planted and connected<br />
with other flightlines on the site and will be at a suitable distance from<br />
turbines. Planting would include native hedge species such as blackthorn<br />
(Prunus spinosa), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and spindle<br />
(Euonymus europaeus) and include occasional fast growing standards<br />
such as wild cherry (Prunus avium) or field maple (Acer campestre).<br />
7.88 The wind farm has been designed to avoid areas of woodland and<br />
buildings; there<strong>for</strong>e these habitats will be retained and left undisturbed. A<br />
buffer zone of 200m has been implemented around these areas as they<br />
provide good <strong>for</strong>aging habitat and potential roost sites.<br />
188<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
7.89 If any trees are to be removed which may provide potential roost<br />
opportunities <strong>for</strong> bats, then these must be felled be<strong>for</strong>e March to avoid the<br />
summer roosting season. This must always be done under extreme care<br />
in case hibernating bats are present and signs of bats must always be<br />
looked <strong>for</strong> by an ecologist immediately prior to removal. This is particularly<br />
the case <strong>for</strong> standing deadwood.<br />
7.90 Lighting can have a detrimental effect on bats (A.J Mitchell-Jones, 2004).<br />
It is recommended that where night lights or security lights are needed<br />
these should be pointed towards the ground and away from bat habitat<br />
such as flightlines.<br />
7.91 Site construction staff will be briefed regarding bats prior to any site<br />
clearance. It will be explained that bats could be present and particular<br />
attention should be paid to areas such as trees which could be inhabited<br />
by bats. In the event of bats being discovered in any part of the site,<br />
Natural England‟s Regional Team (Humber to Pennines) should be<br />
contacted on 01924 334500. Work must cease immediately if bats are<br />
found and Natural England will offer advice about how to proceed with<br />
work.<br />
Habitat Improvement - Bats<br />
7.92 Habitat connectivity is a valuable ecological asset and can be used to<br />
encourage bat flightlines away from turbine locations. In addition to the<br />
use of buffer zones around important bat habitat, it is proposed that the<br />
continuity of existing field boundaries is improved by gapping up<br />
hedgerows where required. This will increase the number of potential<br />
flight lines throughout the site that bats can use, and gapped up<br />
hedgerows will provide additional habitat <strong>for</strong> invertebrates, thereby<br />
enhancing the prey resource <strong>for</strong> bats.<br />
BADGERS<br />
Legal Obligations - Badgers<br />
7.93 The provisions of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 require developers to<br />
take care when carrying out any work near setts as offences could result<br />
from intentionally or recklessly interfering with a sett. There<strong>for</strong>e, if any<br />
works are necessary close to a known sett, it will be necessary to apply to<br />
Natural England <strong>for</strong> a development licence, dependant on the level of<br />
disturbance likely. As a general guide, the following distances can be<br />
used, and a licence would be needed if:<br />
there are plans to use very heavy machinery (generally tracked<br />
vehicles) within 30 metres of any entrance to an active sett;<br />
there are plans to use lighter machinery (generally wheeled vehicles),<br />
particularly <strong>for</strong> any digging operation, within 20 metres;<br />
189<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
there are plans <strong>for</strong> light work such as hand digging or scrub clearance<br />
within 10 metres;<br />
there are some activities which may cause disturbance at greater<br />
distances (such as using explosives or pile driving) and these should<br />
be given individual consideration.<br />
Mitigation - Badgers<br />
7.94 The proposed turbine layout ensures that turbines are at least 200m away<br />
from any woodland, there<strong>for</strong>e minimising disturbance to any setts which<br />
may be located in woodlands (including woodland outside of the study<br />
area).<br />
7.95 During construction, land take <strong>for</strong> new access tracks will be kept to a width<br />
of around 5m, ensuring minimum land take. Upon restoration the final<br />
track width will be around 3.5m.<br />
7.96 For safety reasons, it is proposed that a speed limit will be imposed on<br />
newly built access tracks which will reduce the likelihood of badger road<br />
kill.<br />
7.97 Night time working with its associated need <strong>for</strong> additional lighting will be<br />
avoided as far as possible to reduce disturbance to badger, and any<br />
trenches left open overnight will have a means of escape <strong>for</strong> any animals<br />
that might fall in.<br />
7.98 Contractors and site maintenance workers will be given clear instruction<br />
about where care needs to be taken not to cause damage to setts or<br />
disturbance to badgers.<br />
7.99 The proposed site compound will be located at a distance of greater than<br />
50m from any known badger sett, there<strong>for</strong>e minimising disturbance to<br />
badger in terms of noise, human activity and light.<br />
7.100 Badger paths will not be obstructed by fencing or machinery.<br />
Further Work - Badgers<br />
7.101 Although no known badger setts will be affected by the proposed wind<br />
farm layout, pre-construction surveys will be undertaken to ensure that no<br />
new setts have been excavated within 30m of the works (or other distance<br />
where it is considered that disturbance will occur), ensuring that the works<br />
do not result in contravention of the law.<br />
Ecological Input To Site Design And Selection<br />
7.102 Site selection and design has been an iterative process, whereby the<br />
ecologists have worked closely with the Applicant to achieve the optimum<br />
site layout, such that the impact on the ecology was minimised. Ongoing<br />
liaison has been a vital part in minimising the ecological impact of the wind<br />
190<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
farm be<strong>for</strong>e completion of the EIA. Turbine locations have been located at<br />
a distance of at least 200m from areas of woodland, there<strong>for</strong>e minimising<br />
impacts on this habitat and species which may use them <strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>aging.<br />
Turbines are located at a distance of at least 50m from hedgerows and<br />
watercourses, and tracks will avoid the field margin/hedge bottom habitat.<br />
RESIDUAL EFFECTS<br />
Construction<br />
7.103 After mitigation, all effects during construction would be slight adverse or<br />
less, and there<strong>for</strong>e not significant.<br />
Operation<br />
7.104 After mitigation, all effects during operation would be neutral to slight<br />
adverse or less, and there<strong>for</strong>e not significant.<br />
Decommissioning<br />
7.105 Decommissioning effects would be similar or less than those predicted to<br />
occur during construction. There<strong>for</strong>e after mitigation, all effects would be<br />
slight adverse or less, and there<strong>for</strong>e not significant.<br />
7.106 The assessment there<strong>for</strong>e concludes that all residual effects on ecological<br />
resources would be of slight adverse or less and there<strong>for</strong>e not significant.<br />
Effects of the proposed wind farm development on ecology and nature<br />
conservation are there<strong>for</strong>e assessed overall as not significant.<br />
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS<br />
Residual Impacts on Habitats with Mitigation<br />
Impact<br />
(Construction)<br />
Ecological<br />
Impact<br />
Significance<br />
Without<br />
Mitigation<br />
Mitigation Ecological Impact<br />
Significance With<br />
Mitigation<br />
Habitat loss (arable) Neutral All site compounds will be fenced<br />
and will be the minimum size<br />
required <strong>for</strong> safe working. Field<br />
margins will be retained where<br />
possible.<br />
Hedgerow removal Slight adverse Minimise number of hedgerow<br />
breaches in design process.<br />
Gap up hedgerows to equivalent<br />
length.<br />
Habitat loss<br />
(watercourses)<br />
Slight adverse Keep width of access tracks to a<br />
minimum.<br />
191<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Impact<br />
(Construction)<br />
Soil and water<br />
pollution<br />
Ecological<br />
Impact<br />
Significance<br />
Without<br />
Mitigation<br />
Slight to<br />
moderate<br />
adverse<br />
Disturbance Neutral to slight<br />
adverse<br />
Impact (Operation) Ecological<br />
Impact<br />
Significance<br />
Without<br />
Mitigation<br />
Habitat loss (arable,<br />
hedgerows and<br />
watercourses)<br />
Soil and water<br />
pollution from routine<br />
maintenance<br />
Neutral to slight<br />
adverse<br />
Disturbance Neutral to slight<br />
adverse<br />
Impact<br />
(Decommissioning)<br />
Habitat loss (arable<br />
and hedgerows)<br />
Soil and water<br />
pollution<br />
Mitigation Ecological Impact<br />
Significance With<br />
Mitigation<br />
This will be controlled as per<br />
Banks Renewables<br />
Environmental Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Soils will be protected from<br />
damage caused by heavy plant<br />
by using low ground pressure<br />
machinery and if necessary, by<br />
laying geotextile membranes<br />
over sensitive vegetation and<br />
soils.<br />
192<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral<br />
Mitigation Ecological Impact<br />
Significance With<br />
Mitigation<br />
As dealt with per mitigation in<br />
Construction phase.<br />
Slight adverse This will be controlled as per<br />
Banks Renewables<br />
Environmental Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Ecological<br />
Impact<br />
Significance<br />
Without<br />
Mitigation<br />
Soils will be protected from<br />
damage caused by heavy plant<br />
by using low ground pressure<br />
machinery and if necessary, by<br />
laying geotextile membranes<br />
over sensitive vegetation and<br />
soils.<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral<br />
Mitigation Ecological Impact<br />
Significance With<br />
Mitigation<br />
Slight adverse All site compounds will be fenced<br />
and will be the minimum size<br />
required <strong>for</strong> safe working.<br />
Slight adverse This will be controlled as per<br />
Banks Renewables<br />
Environmental Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Disturbance Slight adverse Soils will be protected from<br />
damage caused by heavy plant<br />
by using low ground pressure<br />
machinery and if necessary, by<br />
laying geotextile membranes<br />
over sensitive vegetation and<br />
soils.<br />
Residual Impacts on Bats with Mitigation<br />
Impact<br />
(Construction)<br />
Ecological<br />
Impact<br />
Significance<br />
Without<br />
Mitigation<br />
193<br />
Neutral<br />
Mitigation Ecological Impact<br />
Significance With<br />
Mitigation<br />
Disturbance Slight adverse Undertake construction during<br />
daylight hours where possible.<br />
Creation of breaches<br />
in hedgerows may<br />
affect flightlines<br />
Slight adverse Gap up hedgerows to the<br />
equivalent length, to provide<br />
alternative flightlines.<br />
Habitat loss Slight adverse Poor quality <strong>for</strong>aging habitat,<br />
and area to be lost is minimal.<br />
Light pollution Slight adverse Flightlines, <strong>for</strong>aging areas and<br />
likely roosting sites should not<br />
be floodlit. Necessary lights<br />
pointed groundwards and away<br />
from bat habitat.<br />
Noise and vibration Slight to moderate<br />
adverse<br />
Impact (Operation) Ecological<br />
Impact<br />
Significance<br />
Without<br />
Mitigation<br />
Collisions with rotor<br />
blades causing bat<br />
casualties<br />
Disruption of<br />
flightlines<br />
Ultrasound<br />
interference with bat<br />
echolocation or<br />
creating sonic lures<br />
Undertake construction during<br />
daylight hours only.<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral to slight<br />
adverse.<br />
Mitigation Ecological Impact<br />
Significance With<br />
Mitigation<br />
Slight adverse Turbines located a minimum of<br />
50m from <strong>for</strong>aging areas,<br />
commuting lines and potential<br />
roosting areas.<br />
Slight adverse Gap up hedgerows to provide<br />
alternative flightlines.<br />
Slight to moderate<br />
adverse<br />
Use of suitable buffers from<br />
flightlines, <strong>for</strong>aging areas or<br />
potential roosts. Buffers of<br />
200m from woodland and<br />
buildings, and 50m from<br />
hedgerows and watercourses.<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral to slight<br />
adverse<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Impact<br />
(Decommissioning)<br />
Ecological<br />
Impact<br />
Significance<br />
Without<br />
Mitigation<br />
Mitigation Ecological Impact<br />
Significance With<br />
Mitigation<br />
Disturbance Slight adverse Undertake decommissioning<br />
during daylight hours where<br />
possible.<br />
Light pollution Slight adverse Flightlines, <strong>for</strong>aging areas and<br />
likely roosting sites should not<br />
be floodlit. Necessary lights<br />
pointed towards the ground and<br />
away from bat habitat such as<br />
woodlands and hedgerows.<br />
Residual Impacts on Badgers with Mitigation<br />
Impact<br />
(Construction)<br />
Ecological<br />
Impact<br />
Significance<br />
Without<br />
Mitigation<br />
194<br />
Neutral<br />
Neutral<br />
Mitigation Ecological Impact<br />
Significance With<br />
Mitigation<br />
Habitat loss Slight adverse Minimise land take required. Slight adverse<br />
Disturbance during<br />
construction<br />
Light pollution<br />
Increased risk of road<br />
casualties<br />
Impact (Operation) Ecological<br />
Impact<br />
Significance<br />
without<br />
Mitigation<br />
Increased risk of road<br />
casualties<br />
Impact<br />
(Decommissioning)<br />
Slight adverse Working at least 30m away from<br />
known setts.<br />
Neutral<br />
Slight adverse Aim to avoid night time working. Neutral<br />
Slight adverse Impose speed limit <strong>for</strong> all traffic<br />
using new access roads.<br />
Neutral<br />
Mitigation Ecological Impact<br />
Significance with<br />
Mitigation<br />
Slight adverse Impose speed limit <strong>for</strong> all traffic<br />
using new access roads.<br />
Ecological<br />
Impact<br />
Significance<br />
Without<br />
Mitigation<br />
Neutral<br />
Mitigation Ecological Impact<br />
Significance With<br />
Mitigation<br />
Habitat loss Slight adverse Minimise land take required. Slight adverse<br />
Disturbance Slight adverse Working at least 30m away from<br />
known setts.<br />
Light pollution<br />
Increased risk of road<br />
casualties<br />
Neutral<br />
Slight adverse Aim to avoid night time working. Neutral<br />
Slight adverse Impose speed limit <strong>for</strong> all traffic<br />
using new access roads.<br />
Neutral<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Residual Impacts on Otter, Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish with Mitigation<br />
Impact<br />
(Construction,<br />
Operation and<br />
Decommissioning )<br />
Pollution of suitable<br />
habitat<br />
Ecological<br />
Impact<br />
Significance<br />
Without<br />
Mitigation<br />
Mitigation Ecological Impact<br />
Significance With<br />
Mitigation<br />
Slight adverse This will be controlled as per<br />
Banks Renewables<br />
Environmental Management<br />
Plan.<br />
195<br />
Neutral<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
8. ORNITHOLOGY<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
8.1 This section of the ES considers the potential ornithological effects of the<br />
proposed wind farm. It summarises the findings of an assessment<br />
undertaken by Faber Maunsell, which is outlined in full in Appendix 4. Full<br />
reference should be made to the consultants report <strong>for</strong> detailed findings of<br />
this assessment.<br />
8.2 The assessment is based on the results of consultation with statutory<br />
consultees, nature conservation groups and local naturalists and field<br />
surveys.<br />
LEGISLATION AND POLICY FRAMEWORK<br />
8.3 Birds are af<strong>for</strong>ded various levels of protection and conservation status on<br />
a species by species basis with the inclusion of a number of species on<br />
the following legislation:<br />
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); and<br />
EC Birds Directive 1979 (79/409/EEC).<br />
8.4 The most significant legislation <strong>for</strong> British birds lies within Part 1 of the<br />
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This legislation is the<br />
means by which the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife<br />
and Natural Habitats (the 'Bern Convention'), the EC Birds Directive and<br />
Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and<br />
of wild fauna and flora (the EC Habitats Directive) are implemented in<br />
Great Britain.<br />
8.5 The RSPB (2002) has compiled lists of Birds of Conservation Concern<br />
(BoCC). Red List species are those whose breeding population or range is<br />
rapidly declining and those of global conservation concern. Amber List<br />
species are those whose breeding population is in moderate decline, rare<br />
breeders, internationally important and localised species and those of<br />
unfavourable conservation status in Europe.<br />
8.6 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan [BAP] (UK Biodiversity Steering Group,<br />
1995) lists 59 bird species as priority species requiring conservation<br />
action, and consequently action plans have been developed <strong>for</strong> the<br />
conservation of these species. The UK BAP also lists a number of priority<br />
habitats that are of importance <strong>for</strong> birds, <strong>for</strong> which Habitat Action Plans<br />
(HAPs) have been produced.<br />
8.7 The national strategy <strong>for</strong> biodiversity is delivered at local level via Local<br />
Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs). The Study Area is covered by the<br />
Rotherham BAP. There are no bird species relevant to Penny Hill that<br />
196<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
have been assigned individual Species Action Plans (SAPs) under the<br />
Rotherham LBAP.<br />
8.8 The Natural Area Profile (NAP) concept sets out the objectives of Natural<br />
England <strong>for</strong> the conservation of wildlife and natural features over the area<br />
concerned and summarises the wildlife interest associated with the main<br />
habitats found within the Natural Area.<br />
8.9 There are no species-specific actions or objectives set out in the Natural<br />
Area Profile, however the following generic objectives are set out, which<br />
could apply to some of the habitats encountered within the Ornithological<br />
Survey Area at the Penny Hill site:<br />
CONSULTATION<br />
to maintain, expand and enhance the characteristic semi-natural<br />
habitats such as woodland, valley wetlands, heathland and unimproved<br />
grassland and to conserve species and geological features;<br />
to increase the Nature Conservation value of the wider countryside and<br />
urban green space within the Natural Area;<br />
to increase awareness and encourage appropriate use of the nature<br />
conservation resource; and<br />
to influence future land use of sites undergoing fundamental change.<br />
Scoping<br />
8.10 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council consulted a number of<br />
organisations who commented on the potential ornithological impact of the<br />
proposal.<br />
Natural England stated that the ES „should describe any flight paths of<br />
birds and the risk of impacts on bird populations through bird strike‟.<br />
Yorkshire Wildlife Trust stated that they would like an assessment of<br />
collision risk to be included in the EIA and an assessment of the<br />
potential impact on how migrating birds may be affected. They also<br />
recommend a bird monitoring programme be set up to provide data on<br />
how wind turbines affect bird populations.<br />
Rotherham MBC Environment & Development Services advised<br />
that Ulley Country Park is of interest nearby and „ornithological flight<br />
paths to and from this site will also require significant consideration‟.<br />
Other Consultation<br />
8.11 The following other organisations were consulted by Faber Maunsell when<br />
gathering ornithological data:<br />
197<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Sheffield City Ecology Unit;<br />
Sheffield Wildlife Trust;<br />
Environment Agency (Leeds);<br />
Natural England (Humber to Pennines Team);<br />
Sheffield Bird Study Group; and<br />
Rotherham Biological Records Centre.<br />
8.12 In addition, the RSPB was consulted by TNEI but did not provide any<br />
comments or data in relation to the site.<br />
METHODOLOGY<br />
8.13 Faber Maunsell used two survey methodologies in order to assess the<br />
potential impacts of the proposed wind farm on birds:<br />
Census of breeding birds - this shows the distribution of nesting,<br />
roosting and <strong>for</strong>aging birds and provides species composition and<br />
activity data <strong>for</strong> the Ornithological Survey Area, enabling the most<br />
sensitive parts to be identified with respect to breeding birds; and<br />
Vantage Point bird surveys - species-specific surveys that yield data<br />
regarding flight paths, flying times and heights of vulnerable soaring<br />
and over-flying birds. Specifically, this approach enables monitoring of<br />
vulnerable groups such as raptors, geese and waterfowl to be carried<br />
out more effectively than could be achieved using a transect or<br />
roaming methodology. This type of survey also yields data that can be<br />
fed into a Collision Risk Model (CRM) so that predictions of collisionrelated<br />
bird mortality can be made <strong>for</strong> particular species perceived as<br />
vulnerable to mid-air collision with rotating turbine blades.<br />
Baseline Studies<br />
8.14 Baseline ornithological data <strong>for</strong> the site were gathered by undertaking an<br />
ornithological data search, consulting the organisations listed above, and<br />
by carrying out breeding and wintering bird surveys. Full details of the<br />
methodologies used are contained in Appendix 4.<br />
8.15 Designated sites in<strong>for</strong>mation was obtained from an area of 2km<br />
surrounding the site.<br />
8.16 The breeding bird surveys were undertaken using the Common Birds<br />
Census (CBC) methodology. The Wintering birds VP Surveys were carried<br />
out following the guidance published by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)<br />
and involved extensive monitoring of target species from Vantage Points<br />
(VPs).<br />
198<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Breeding Bird Survey<br />
8.17 Four breeding bird survey visits were undertaken; a single visit was<br />
undertaken on 17 th June 2007 and three further visits were carried out on<br />
29 th April, 20 th June and 11 th July 2008. The visits undertaken in 2008<br />
involved recording all of the bird species observed, their locations and<br />
activity/behaviour on field maps of the survey area. When the visits were<br />
completed the survey maps were analysed to assess the breeding<br />
populations <strong>for</strong> each species (number of breeding pairs).<br />
Wintering Vantage Point Survey<br />
8.18 Wintering VP watches were carried out at two VPs between 12 October<br />
2007 and 31 March 2008 and amounted to 33.5 hours at VP1 and 35<br />
hours at VP2. The total time spent on VPs there<strong>for</strong>e fell slightly short of the<br />
required survey ef<strong>for</strong>t (36 hours per VP) and could not be recovered in the<br />
time available. This has been accounted <strong>for</strong> in the CRM calculations.<br />
8.19 All VP watches were of three hours duration (except where these were<br />
curtailed due to rapid deterioration in visibility and poor light) and were<br />
carried out at different times of the day between dawn and dusk to account<br />
<strong>for</strong> different levels of bird activity.<br />
8.20 The survey data were inputted into the CRM developed by W. Band and<br />
others (Band et al., in press; SNH, 2000).<br />
Assessment Of Significance<br />
8.21 The method of evaluation and assessment uses a combination of the<br />
following guidance:<br />
Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact Assessment (Institute of Ecology and<br />
Environmental Management, 2006);<br />
Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Baseline Ecological Assessment (Institute of<br />
Environmental Assessment, 1995); and<br />
Wind Farms and Birds: Calculating a Theoretical Risk Assuming No<br />
Avoiding Action (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2000).<br />
8.22 The assessment of effects is based on determining firstly the value of the<br />
receiving species and secondly the magnitude of the potential impact on<br />
the species, in order to provide an overall impact score and there<strong>for</strong>e the<br />
predicted impact significance. The value of each species of nature<br />
conservation interest is assessed based on the guidance listed above,<br />
incorporating additional advice within the Ratcliffe criteria (1977) and the<br />
IEEM Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact Assessment (2006).<br />
8.23 Firstly, each assessed species is assigned one of the following nature<br />
conservation values:<br />
199<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Very High (International);<br />
High (National);<br />
Medium (Regional/County);<br />
Low (Local); or<br />
Parish (Negligible).<br />
8.24 Secondly, the magnitude of potential impacts is assessed <strong>for</strong> each species<br />
independent of its value or designated status. Magnitude of potential<br />
impacts is described as follows:<br />
Major Negative;<br />
Intermediate Negative;<br />
Minor Negative;<br />
Neutral; or<br />
Positive.<br />
8.25 Based on the value of the species and the predicted magnitude of the<br />
potential impact, the significance of an effect can be determined using the<br />
matrix below:<br />
Nature<br />
Magnitude of Potential Impact<br />
Conservation<br />
Value<br />
Major<br />
negative<br />
Intermediate<br />
negative<br />
Minor<br />
negative<br />
Neutral Positive<br />
Very high Very large Large Slight Neutral Large<br />
adverse adverse adverse<br />
beneficial<br />
High Very large Large Slight Neutral Large<br />
adverse adverse adverse<br />
beneficial<br />
Medium Moderate Moderate Slight Neutral Moderate<br />
adverse adverse adverse<br />
beneficial<br />
Low Slight Slight Slight Neutral Slight<br />
adverse adverse adverse<br />
beneficial<br />
Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral<br />
BASELINE INFORMATION<br />
Data Search Results<br />
8.26 There are no International or European designated sites, such as Special<br />
Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs), or<br />
national designations, within 2km of the proposed wind farm.<br />
8.27 The only ornithological data received were from Sheffield Bird Study<br />
Group. They supplied in<strong>for</strong>mation on Ulley Reservoir Country Park<br />
200<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
(approximately 2km to the west of the proposed wind farm site) and<br />
Brampton Park (to the east). In winter, Ulley Reservoir Country Park<br />
supports locally important populations of dabbling and diving ducks (teal<br />
Anas crecca, mallard A. platyrhynchos, wigeon A. penelope, gadwall A.<br />
strepera, tufted duck Aythya fuligula and pochard Aythya farina). Flocks of<br />
golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria) and pink-footed goose (Anser<br />
brachyrhynchus) have also been recorded over-flying the site. There are<br />
several records of peregrine (Falco peregrinus) and a single record of<br />
merlin (Falco columbarius) and hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) during the<br />
non breeding season. The park also supports a small breeding population<br />
of waterfowl.<br />
8.28 At Brampton Park, there are historic records of breeding redshank, snipe<br />
and lapwing. Other breeding bird species include corn bunting (Miliaria<br />
calandra) and tree sparrow (Passer montanus), both of which are BoCC<br />
Red List and UK BAP species). Both Ulley Country Park and Brampton<br />
Park qualify as Candidate Local Wildlife Sites and Natural History Heritage<br />
Sites according to site designations adopted by Rotherham MBC.<br />
8.29 Rother Valley Country Park (approximately 5km to the south) supports<br />
large populations of wintering waterfowl (including wildfowl and waders)<br />
and a wide range of nationally scarce passage migrant species have been<br />
recorded over an extended period of time, usually in small numbers.<br />
Breeding Bird Survey<br />
8.30 A total of 41 species were recorded over the course of the three visits to<br />
the Ornithological Survey Area, of which 40 of these species were<br />
considered to be breeding within this area. There was a large degree of<br />
consistency between the four visits in terms of the bird species recorded<br />
and their numbers and locations. Full details of the results are included in<br />
the report in Appendix 4.<br />
8.31 No species listed on Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive or Schedule 1 of the<br />
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) were recorded. A number<br />
of species of high conservation concern that appear on the BoCC Red List<br />
were recorded during the survey visits. Breeding populations of eight<br />
BoCC Red List species were recorded within the Ornithological Survey<br />
Area.<br />
8.32 Six species of medium conservation concern that appear on the BoCC<br />
Amber List were also recorded during the survey visits.<br />
Wintering Vantage Point Survey<br />
8.33 A total of 33 non-target and 5 target (golden plover, kestrel, lapwing,<br />
buzzard and sparrowhawk) bird species were recorded over the course of<br />
the wintering bird vantage point survey.<br />
201<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
8.34 Of the five species, one is included in Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive<br />
1979 (79/409/EEC) (golden plover) and three appear on the BoCC Amber<br />
List (kestrel Falco tinnunculus, lapwing Vanellus vanellus and golden<br />
plover). Lapwing is also listed on one or more of the UK Habitat Action<br />
Plans. Two of the target bird species are not included within any of the<br />
three conservation and legislation status indicators mentioned above<br />
(buzzard Buteo buteo and sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus).<br />
8.35 A number of the non-target species recorded are included on the BoCC<br />
Red List. These included large flocks of Linnet (Carduelis cannabinat),<br />
which were frequently recorded, two reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus),<br />
small groups of yellowhammer (E. citrinella), skylark (Alauda arvensis),<br />
starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and grey partridge (Perdix perdix).<br />
8.36 Common passerines were recorded such as: blackbird (Turdus merula),<br />
chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs), carrion crow (Corvus corone), blue tit<br />
(Cyanistes caeruleus), dunnock (Prunella modularis, [BoCC Amber List],<br />
goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis, great spotted woodpecker (Dendropcopos<br />
major), great tit (Parus major), greenfinch (Carduelis chloris), jackdaw<br />
(Corvus monedula), jay (Garrulus glandarius), magpie (Pica pica),<br />
meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis [BoCC Amber List]), mistle thrush (Turdus<br />
viscivorus [BoCC Amber List]), pied wagtail (Motacilla alba), redwing<br />
(Turdus iliacus [BoCC Amber List]), robin (Erithacus rubecula), starling<br />
(BoCC Red List), stock dove (Columba oenas [BoCC Amber List]), wood<br />
pigeon (Columba palumbus) and wren (Troglodytes troglodytes).<br />
8.37 Flocks of fieldfare (Turdus pilaris) were also recorded. This species is<br />
included in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as<br />
amended).<br />
8.38 Other birds recorded include individuals and flocks of black headed gull<br />
(Larus ridibundus [BoCC Amber List]), common gull (Larus canus), grey<br />
partridge (BoCC Red List), herring gull (Larus argentatus [BoCC Amber<br />
List]), lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus [BoCC Amber List]),<br />
pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) and red legged partridge (Alectoris rufa).<br />
8.39 None of the non-target species are included in Annex 1 of EC Birds<br />
Directive 1979 (79/409/EEC).<br />
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS<br />
8.40 There are no statutory designated areas of natural heritage interest within<br />
the Study Area. There are two non-statutory sites within the Study Area,<br />
both of which are registered as Natural History Heritage Sites and<br />
Candidate Local Wildlife Site: Ulley Country Park and Brampton Common.<br />
Neither of these sites is likely to be affected either directly or indirectly by<br />
the construction and operation of the proposed wind farm.<br />
8.41 The vantage point surveys recorded one species listed in Annex 1 of the<br />
EC Birds Directive (golden plover). However, the recorded population of<br />
202<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
the golden plover is not sufficient to reach the qualifying threshold <strong>for</strong> any<br />
<strong>for</strong>m of national or international designation.<br />
8.42 The recorded populations of sparrowhawk, kestrel, buzzard and lapwing<br />
do not fulfil the criteria <strong>for</strong> conservation value greater than Low (local).<br />
Golden plover is listed on Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive and there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
the nature conservation value that has been assigned to this species is<br />
Medium (Regional/County); small numbers of this species were recorded<br />
fairly frequently at the site and this has been considered when assigning<br />
this nature conservation value.<br />
8.43 Non-target species of conservation importance recorded regularly within<br />
the Ecological Survey Area include: yellowhammer, linnet, reed bunting,<br />
house sparrow (Passer domesticus), skylark, grey partridge, starling, song<br />
thrush (Turdus philomelos) and tree sparrow. These species are<br />
considered to be of Medium (Regional/County) value.<br />
8.44 All other species recorded are considered to be of no more than<br />
Negligible (Parish) nature conservation value.<br />
CONSTRUCTION PHASE<br />
Disturbance<br />
8.45 Disturbance during construction (including noise, vibration and light<br />
pollution from heavy machinery and human activity) has been assessed as<br />
a slight adverse impact <strong>for</strong> four non-target species (skylark, grey<br />
partridge, reed bunting and yellowhammer). There were no records of<br />
nesting raptors or other particularly sensitive groups (ducks and waders)<br />
within 500m of the proposed wind farm and application boundary.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e the impact magnitude <strong>for</strong> disturbance is neutral-minor<br />
negative <strong>for</strong> all remaining species, including target species and nonground<br />
nesting species of medium conservation concern, resulting in an<br />
impact significance of neutral-slight adverse <strong>for</strong> all other species during<br />
the construction phase.<br />
Habitat Loss<br />
8.46 The wind farm will result in temporary loss of habitat during construction,<br />
which could have adverse effects on the availability of hunting/<strong>for</strong>aging,<br />
roosting and breeding territory <strong>for</strong> potentially all of the species recorded<br />
over the open habitats. However working areas and the site construction<br />
compound will be reinstated on completion of the wind farm, there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
habitat loss due to construction is anticipated to be a short term impact.<br />
The magnitude of impact <strong>for</strong> all birds recorded within this area is<br />
considered to be minor negative. The impact significance assessment <strong>for</strong><br />
all species determined to be of national and regional conservation concern<br />
and all target species using the land within the application boundary is<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e slight adverse. This includes skylark, linnet, yellowhammer,<br />
203<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
eed bunting, grey partridge, starling, song thrush, house sparrow, tree<br />
sparrow, golden plover and lapwing.<br />
8.47 The impact significance assessment <strong>for</strong> all other species is considered to<br />
be neutral <strong>for</strong> habitat loss due to the impact magnitude being neutral, the<br />
conservation value of each species being low/negligible, or both of the<br />
above.<br />
OPERATIONAL PHASE<br />
Disturbance<br />
8.48 Disturbance during operation (e.g. as a result of human activity and noise<br />
associated with maintenance visits), is expected to be considerably less<br />
than would occur during construction. There<strong>for</strong>e the impact magnitude <strong>for</strong><br />
disturbance is neutral-minor negative <strong>for</strong> all species, resulting in an<br />
impact significance of neutral-slight adverse <strong>for</strong> all other species.<br />
Displacement<br />
8.49 The presence and operation of the turbines may cause visual, noise and<br />
vibration-related effects that could deter target species from using the site<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>aging, hunting and breeding. The site is utilised by raptors and<br />
waders and these species groups are thought to be particularly sensitive<br />
to the effects of disturbance and barrier to movement. Low numbers of<br />
lapwing and golden plover were recorded <strong>for</strong>aging on arable land within<br />
the Ornithological Survey Area, however alternative habitat is readily<br />
available within the locality and region. There<strong>for</strong>e it is anticipated that the<br />
magnitude of the potential impact on golden plover and lapwing will be<br />
minor negative. The impact significance scores <strong>for</strong> lapwing and golden<br />
plover are there<strong>for</strong>e slight adverse.<br />
8.50 Alternative habitat <strong>for</strong> breeding and wintering raptors is readily available in<br />
the wider locality/region and there<strong>for</strong>e the effect of displacement is<br />
considered to be highly localised in this instance. The impact magnitude<br />
<strong>for</strong> displacement will there<strong>for</strong>e be minor negative <strong>for</strong> sparrowhawk,<br />
kestrel and buzzard. The impact significance values <strong>for</strong> sparrowhawk,<br />
kestrel and buzzard are there<strong>for</strong>e slight adverse.<br />
Collision Risk<br />
8.51 Wind turbines can create a risk of birds colliding with moving turbine<br />
blades. The degree of risk depends on the biometrics of the species (e.g.<br />
size, flight speed etc.), flight behaviour, age/maturity of target birds,<br />
population size, habitat quality, weather conditions, wind turbine<br />
dimensions, layout and spacing.<br />
8.52 Predicted collision mortalities <strong>for</strong> target species recorded within the<br />
Ornithological Survey Area are detailed in Table 11 of the ornithology<br />
report (Appendix 4) and these results indicate that the following mortality<br />
204<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
ates may occur, based on the results of the wintering VP survey and<br />
assuming a 95% avoidance rate: one lapwing could be killed every year, 2<br />
golden plovers could be killed every year, 4 kestrels could be killed every<br />
year, 1 sparrowhawk could be killed every 25 years and 1 buzzard could<br />
be killed every year.<br />
8.53 The impact magnitude values assigned <strong>for</strong> the target species (lapwing,<br />
golden plover, sparrowhawk and buzzard) are intermediate negative.<br />
The nature conservation value that has been assigned to lapwing,<br />
sparrowhawk and buzzard is low (local), there<strong>for</strong>e the impact assessment<br />
value <strong>for</strong> lapwing, sparrowhawk and buzzard is slight adverse. The<br />
nature conservation value that has been assigned to golden plover is<br />
medium (regional/county), there<strong>for</strong>e the impact significance <strong>for</strong> golden<br />
plover is moderate adverse.<br />
8.54 The predicted collision mortality <strong>for</strong> kestrel is high in comparison to the<br />
other target bird species. However it is considered that the Band Collision<br />
Risk Model inflates collision mortality predictions <strong>for</strong> kestrel; this is related<br />
to the type of flight behaviour unique to this species. Kestrels often spend<br />
long periods of time hovering and there<strong>for</strong>e the amount of flight-time<br />
recorded <strong>for</strong> this species is comparatively high. It is not possible to<br />
account <strong>for</strong> hovering flight time when applying the Band Model and<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e the collision mortality values <strong>for</strong> this species are considered to be<br />
inflated. The impact magnitude value that has been assigned <strong>for</strong> kestrel<br />
is intermediate negative, with an overall impact significance value of slight<br />
adverse.<br />
8.55 The impact magnitude value assigned <strong>for</strong> all other non-target species is<br />
minor negative, there<strong>for</strong>e the overall impact significance value <strong>for</strong> all other<br />
species is slight adverse.<br />
DECOMMISSIONING PHASE<br />
8.56 Decommissioning effects are predicted to be of similar or lesser<br />
significance than construction effects and there<strong>for</strong>e not potentially<br />
significant.<br />
MITIGATION<br />
8.57 Site selection and design has been an iterative process to achieve the<br />
optimum site layout. Turbine locations and access tracks have been<br />
located at a distance of at least 200m from areas of woodland and scrub,<br />
thereby minimising impacts on these habitats and the species which may<br />
use them.<br />
Disturbance<br />
8.58 To reduce the effect of construction noise and human disturbance on<br />
breeding birds, construction would begin (and as much of the early<br />
construction activity as possible should be completed) outside of the<br />
205<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
eeding season so that site compounds etc. will already be established<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e the breeding season commences. This will avoid contravention of<br />
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) by preventing<br />
disturbance of established nests. Ground nesting species that establish<br />
territories and nests after the onset of construction will be more tolerant of<br />
construction activities and human presence, however the working areas<br />
set up at the onset of construction would be strictly adhered to in order to<br />
prevent additional disturbance to nesting birds.<br />
8.59 Given the construction phase could take approximately 10 months to<br />
complete, it is likely that construction activity will occur during breeding<br />
and wintering seasons. Ground nesting species may be dissuaded from<br />
nesting in construction areas/access routes by removing the surface<br />
vegetation from the desired area be<strong>for</strong>e the breeding season commences.<br />
An ecologist would be present to check site working areas be<strong>for</strong>e works<br />
commence. Any works carried out during the breeding season would<br />
comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).<br />
Displacement<br />
8.60 Initial <strong>environmental</strong> scoping and the results from botanical and faunal<br />
surveys carried out were considered during the design of the wind farm<br />
layout. No further mitigation can be implemented <strong>for</strong> this potential impact.<br />
The impacts of displacement on birds are anticipated overall to be minor.<br />
Habitat Loss<br />
8.61 Post construction, the amount of habitat lost to the wind farm infrastructure<br />
will be reduced. The minimisation of land take has been considered in the<br />
design stage and it is considered unlikely that there can be any other<br />
significant mitigation <strong>for</strong> habitat losses on a small-scale development like<br />
the proposal. Upon decommissioning, the land <strong>for</strong>merly occupied by wind<br />
farm infrastructure should be reinstated as closely as possible to a habitat<br />
type typical of the locality. This is currently open arable land and<br />
grassland.<br />
Collision Risk<br />
8.62 Ecological considerations have been incorporated throughout the process<br />
of wind farm design. There are no further possibilities <strong>for</strong> effective<br />
mitigation on site.<br />
RESIDUAL EFFECTS<br />
Construction<br />
8.63 All residual effects on birds during construction would be neutral and<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e not significant.<br />
206<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Operation<br />
8.64 All residual effects on birds during operation would be slight adverse or<br />
less and not significant, with the exception of a moderate adverse impact<br />
significance <strong>for</strong> collision mortality <strong>for</strong> golden plover.<br />
Decommissioning<br />
8.65 Decommissioning effects would be similar to those or less than those<br />
predicted to occur during construction, there<strong>for</strong>e all residual effects would<br />
be neutral and not significant.<br />
8.66 With the exception of the collision mortality impact <strong>for</strong> golden plover, the<br />
impact of the proposed wind farm on ornithology is slightly adverse. The<br />
impact significance value <strong>for</strong> golden plover with respect to collision<br />
mortality is moderate adverse. This assessment relates to the medium<br />
nature conservation value that has been assigned to this species (because<br />
golden plover is listed on Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive), however the<br />
recorded population is unlikely to be of regional/county importance.<br />
8.67 The assessment concludes that all other residual effects on ornithological<br />
resources would be slight adverse or less and not significant.<br />
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS<br />
Potential Effect Significance without<br />
Mitigation<br />
Disturbance through<br />
increased human<br />
activity and<br />
construction noise.<br />
Displacement<br />
(presence of the<br />
turbines and barrier to<br />
movement)<br />
1. Slight adverse <strong>for</strong><br />
skylark,<br />
yellowhammer, reed<br />
bunting and grey<br />
partridge<br />
2. Neutral <strong>for</strong> all other<br />
species<br />
1. Slight adverse <strong>for</strong><br />
sparrowhawk, kestrel,<br />
buzzard, lapwing and<br />
golden plover<br />
Habitat Loss 1. Slight adverse <strong>for</strong><br />
skylark, linnet, song<br />
thrush, yellowhammer,<br />
reed bunting, starling,<br />
house sparrow, tree<br />
sparrow and grey<br />
partridge.<br />
2. Neutral <strong>for</strong> all other<br />
species<br />
207<br />
Mitigation Residual Effect With<br />
Mitigation<br />
1 Ecologist to check<br />
working areas <strong>for</strong><br />
ground nesting birds<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e onset of works.<br />
2. Adhere to working<br />
areas.<br />
3. Strip surface<br />
vegetation outside<br />
breeding season to<br />
discourage birds from<br />
nesting.<br />
1. Ecological<br />
considerations<br />
incorporated in wind<br />
farm design. No<br />
further mitigation.<br />
1. Minimisation of land<br />
take incorporated in<br />
wind farm design.<br />
2. Upon<br />
decommissioning,<br />
restoration of habitats<br />
to a habitat type<br />
suitable <strong>for</strong> the<br />
locality.<br />
1. Neutral <strong>for</strong> skylark,<br />
yellowhammer, reed<br />
bunting and grey<br />
partridge<br />
2. Neutral <strong>for</strong> all other<br />
species<br />
No change<br />
1. No change <strong>for</strong> the<br />
duration of the wind<br />
farm design life (25<br />
years).<br />
2. Neutral in the long<br />
term (i.e. beyond the<br />
design life of the wind<br />
farm).<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Potential Effect Significance without<br />
Mitigation<br />
Collision Mortality<br />
1. Moderate adverse<br />
<strong>for</strong> golden plover.<br />
2. Slight adverse <strong>for</strong><br />
lapwing, buzzard,<br />
kestrel and<br />
sparrowhawk.<br />
3. Neutral-slight<br />
adverse <strong>for</strong> all other<br />
species.<br />
208<br />
Mitigation Residual Effect With<br />
Mitigation<br />
Ecological<br />
considerations<br />
incorporated in wind<br />
farm design. No<br />
further possibilities <strong>for</strong><br />
effective mitigation on<br />
site.<br />
No change<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
9. NOISE<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
9.1 This chapter summarises the findings of the noise assessment undertaken<br />
by TNEI Services Ltd. The noise assessment report is included in full in<br />
Appendix 5.<br />
9.2 The noise monitoring locations and noise assessment locations are shown<br />
on Drawing HJB/681/PA16.<br />
METHODOLOGY<br />
9.3 The methods of assessment used the following combination of guidance<br />
and assessment methodologies:<br />
“ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms<br />
(1996)”; and<br />
“ISO9613-2, Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound during Propagation<br />
Outdoors”.<br />
9.4 ETSU-R-97 provides a robust basis <strong>for</strong> determining noise limits <strong>for</strong> wind<br />
farm developments and these limits should not be breached.<br />
Consequently, the test applied to operational noise is whether or not the<br />
calculated wind farm noise levels at nearby noise sensitive properties lie<br />
below the noise limits derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97.<br />
9.5 Limits differ between amenity hours and night-time periods. The amenity<br />
hours criteria apply to the „quiet periods of the day‟ comprising:<br />
All evenings from 18:00 to 23:00; plus<br />
Saturday afternoons from 13:00 to 18:00; and<br />
All day Sunday 07:00 to 23:00.<br />
Night-time periods are defined as 23:00 to 07:00 with no differentiation<br />
made between weekdays and weekends.<br />
9.6 ETSU-R-97 recommends that wind farm noise <strong>for</strong> amenity hours should be<br />
limited to 5 dB(A) above the prevailing background or a fixed minimum<br />
level within the range 35 - 40 dB LA90,10min, whichever is the higher. The<br />
precise choice of criterion level within the range 35 - 40 dB(A) depends on<br />
a number of factors, including the number of dwellings in the<br />
neighbourhood of the wind farm (relatively few suggests a figure towards<br />
the upper end), the effect of noise limits on the number of kWh generated<br />
(larger sites tend to suggest a higher figure), the duration and level of<br />
exposure to any noise.<br />
209<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
9.7 For night time periods the recommended limits are 5 dB(A) above<br />
prevailing background or a fixed minimum level of 43 dB LA90,10min,<br />
whichever is the higher.<br />
9.8 Properties with a direct financial interest with the project have fixed<br />
minimum level of 45 dB LA90,10min or the prevailing background noise LA90<br />
plus 5 dB, whichever is the greater <strong>for</strong> both amenity hours and night-time<br />
hours.<br />
9.9 Dwellings not associated with the development are subject to the Lower<br />
Amenity Hours Criterion of 35 – 40 dB(A).<br />
9.10 The aim of the noise assessment is there<strong>for</strong>e to derive the ETSU-R-97<br />
noise criteria and demonstrate that the proposed Penny Hill wind farm can<br />
achieve the criteria. Nevertheless, depending on the levels of background<br />
noise, the satisfaction of the criteria can, at times lead to a situation<br />
whereby, at some locations under some conditions and <strong>for</strong> a certain<br />
proportion of the time, the noise associated with the scheme may be<br />
audible, although, if it is within the noise criteria it is deemed to be at an<br />
acceptable level.<br />
Low Frequency Noise (Infrasound)<br />
9.11 Chapter 8 paragraphs 45 and 46 of “Planning <strong>for</strong> Renewable Energy: A<br />
Companion Guide to PPS22”, contains in<strong>for</strong>mation on Low Frequency<br />
Noise:<br />
“45. There is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise<br />
from wind turbines is at a sufficient level to be harmful to human health. A<br />
comprehensive study of vibration measurements in the vicinity of a<br />
modern wind farm was undertaken in the UK in 1997 by ETSU <strong>for</strong> the DTI<br />
(ETSU W/13/00392/REP). Measurements were made on site and up to<br />
1km away – in a wide range of wind speeds and direction.<br />
46. The study found that:<br />
- Vibration levels 100m from the nearest turbine were a factor of 10 less<br />
than those recommended <strong>for</strong> human exposure in critical buildings (i.e.<br />
laboratories <strong>for</strong> precision measurement).<br />
- Tones above 3.0 Hz were found to attenuate rapidly with distance – the<br />
higher frequencies attenuating at a progressively increasing rate.”<br />
9.12 Measurements contained within the report detail levels of low frequency<br />
acoustic energy which fall below recognised perception thresholds <strong>for</strong><br />
such a noise source. Despite the reference to ground borne noise, the<br />
conclusions apply equally to airborne noise.<br />
9.13 Furthermore, in 2004 the then Department of Trade and Industry<br />
commissioned Hayes McKenzie to report on claims that infrasound or low<br />
frequency noise (LFN) emitted by wind turbine generators (WTGs) were<br />
210<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
causing health effects. Of the 126 wind turbines operating in the UK, five<br />
have reported low frequency noise problems, there<strong>for</strong>e such complaints<br />
are the exception rather than a general problem which exists <strong>for</strong> all wind<br />
farms. Hayes McKenzie investigated the effects of infrasound and LFN at<br />
three wind farms <strong>for</strong> which complaints had been received, the results were<br />
reported to DTI in May 2006. The report concluded that:<br />
“infrasound associated with modern wind turbines is not a source which<br />
will result in noise levels which may be injurious to the health of a wind<br />
farm neighbour;<br />
low frequency noise was measurable on a few occasions but below the<br />
existing permitted Night Time Noise Criterion. Wind turbine noise may<br />
result in internal noise levels within a dwelling that is just above the<br />
threshold of audibility, however at all sites it was always lower that that<br />
of local road traffic noise;<br />
that the common cause of complaint was not associated with LFN, but<br />
the occasional audible modulation of aerodynamic noise especially at<br />
night. Data collected showed that the internal noise levels were<br />
insufficient to wake up residents at these three sites. However once<br />
awoken, this noise can result in difficulties in returning to sleep.”<br />
Amplitude Modulation (AM) Of Aerodynamic Noise<br />
9.14 The term AM indicates aerodynamic noise from wind turbines that is<br />
greater than the normal degree of regular fluctuation of blade swoosh. It is<br />
sometimes described as sounding like a distant train or distant piling<br />
operation.<br />
9.15 Following on from the report by the Hayes McKenzie Partnership on low<br />
frequency noise, DEFRA commissioned the University of Sal<strong>for</strong>d to<br />
conduct research in Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise. The<br />
final report was published in July 2007. The report concluded:<br />
“The term AM indicates aerodynamic noise from wind turbines, but with<br />
a greater than normal degree of regular fluctuation at blade passing<br />
frequency, typically once per second which makes it more noticeable.<br />
The aim of the study was to ascertain the prevalence of AM on UK<br />
wind farm sites, to try to gain a better understanding of the likely<br />
causes, and to establish whether further research into AM is required.<br />
The results showed that 27 of the 133 windfarm sites operational<br />
across the UK at the time of the survey had attracted noise complaints<br />
at some point. An estimated total of 239 <strong>for</strong>mal complaints have been<br />
received about UK windfarm sites since 1991, 152 of which were from<br />
a single site. The estimated total number of complainants is 81 over the<br />
same sixteen year period. This shows that in terms of the number of<br />
people affected, wind farm noise is a small-scale problem compared<br />
with other types of noise; <strong>for</strong> example the number of complaints about<br />
211<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
industrial noise exceeds those about windfarms by around three orders<br />
of magnitude. In only one case was the windfarm considered by the<br />
local authority to be causing a statutory nuisance. Again, this indicates<br />
that, despite press articles to the contrary, the incidence of windfarm<br />
noise and AM in the UK is low.<br />
AM was considered to be a factor in four of the sites, and a possible<br />
factor in another eight. Regarding the four sites, analysis of<br />
meteorological data suggests that the conditions <strong>for</strong> AM would prevail<br />
between about 7% and 15% of the time. AM would not there<strong>for</strong>e be<br />
present most days, although it could occur <strong>for</strong> several days running<br />
over some periods. Complaints have subsided <strong>for</strong> three out of these<br />
four sites, in one case as a result of remedial treatment in the <strong>for</strong>m of a<br />
wind turbine control system. In the remaining case, which is a recent<br />
installation, investigations are ongoing.<br />
The literature review indicated that, although there has been much<br />
research into the general area of aerodynamic noise it is a highly<br />
complex field, and whilst general principles are understood there are<br />
still unanswered questions. Regarding the specific phenomenon of AM<br />
there has been little research and the causes are still the subject of<br />
debate. AM is not fully predictable at current state of the art. The<br />
survey of wind turbine manufacturers revealed that, although there was<br />
considerable interest, few have any experience of AM.<br />
The low incidence of AM and the low numbers of people adversely<br />
affected make it difficult to justify further research funding in preference<br />
to other more widespread noise issues. On the other hand, since AM<br />
cannot be fully predicted at present, and its causes are not fully<br />
understood we consider that it might be prudent to carry out further<br />
research to improve understanding in this area.”<br />
9.16 Following the release of the report, the Government issued a robust advice<br />
note on this matter in July 2007. The note issued by the Department <strong>for</strong><br />
Business Enterprise and Regulatory Re<strong>for</strong>m was entitled “Government<br />
<strong>statement</strong> regarding the findings of the Sal<strong>for</strong>d University report into<br />
Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise”. The note states that the<br />
isolated circumstances in which the effects have been observed to occur<br />
were insufficient to change current noise assessment practices and that<br />
ETSU-R-97 should continue to be followed <strong>for</strong> the assessment of noise<br />
from windfarms.<br />
CONSULTATION<br />
9.17 Consultation took place with the Environmental Health Department at<br />
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council prior to the noise assessment to<br />
agree noise monitoring locations and methodology.<br />
212<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
9.18 Construction noise impacts would be temporary and can be minimised<br />
through careful construction practices and the effective control of these<br />
impacts can be achieved by way of a suitable planning condition.<br />
Consequently, construction noise has not been considered in this<br />
assessment.<br />
BASELINE CONDITIONS<br />
9.19 The noise survey to determine the existing background noise environment<br />
at dwellings neighbouring the proposed development followed the<br />
guidance contained within ETSU-R-97. Background noise monitoring was<br />
undertaken at the locations shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA16. In some<br />
instances background noise measurements were not undertaken at the<br />
closest properties to the wind farm due to issues with access at some<br />
properties and also in order to minimise the influence of the M1 and M18<br />
motorways. However predictions of turbine noise were made at the closest<br />
properties (defined as assessment locations) to ensure the assessment<br />
considers worst case. Sound power level data provided by a manufacturer<br />
was used to predict turbine noise at the closest properties.<br />
9.20 Initially background noise monitoring was undertaken at eight dwellings<br />
proximate to the wind farm site as detailed in Table 9.1 below. However<br />
the noise monitoring equipment at H6 was stolen on the first week of<br />
deployment there<strong>for</strong>e monitoring ceased at that location. Following<br />
discussions with the Environmental Health Officer at Rotherham<br />
Metropolitan Borough Council it was agreed that background noise data<br />
from another property (H2) would be used to determine noise limits at H6.<br />
Table 9.1 Noise Assessment Locations<br />
Receptor Easting (m) Northing (m) Elevation (m<br />
AOD)<br />
213<br />
Approximate<br />
Distance to<br />
Nearest Turbine<br />
(m)<br />
Morthen (H1) 447619 389029 96 720<br />
Brampton-enle-morthen<br />
(H2)<br />
448419 388174 119 660<br />
Thurcroft (H3) 448733 388726 123 1150<br />
Ulley (H4) 446893 387642 104 520<br />
Penny Hill<br />
(H5)<br />
Brampton Villa<br />
(H6)<br />
448004 387380 107 350<br />
448370 387492 111 645<br />
Aston (H7) 446510 386028 79 1185<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Receptor Easting (m) Northing (m) Elevation (m<br />
AOD)<br />
214<br />
Approximate<br />
Distance to<br />
Nearest Turbine<br />
(m)<br />
Hardwick (H8) 448166 386415 112 890<br />
9.21 The background noise survey was undertaken over the period 9th May<br />
2008 to 3rd July 2008. The sound level meters were set to log the LA90 and<br />
LAeq noise levels over the required ten minute intervals continuously over<br />
the deployment period.<br />
9.22 Simultaneous wind speed and direction measurements were measured<br />
using anemometry equipment located at 10 metres and 38m height<br />
respectively on a 60m mast located within the proposed wind farm site. A<br />
rain gauge was also installed at H5 to monitor rainfall over the duration of<br />
the noise monitoring survey.<br />
9.23 Wind speed/direction data and rainfall data were collected over the same<br />
time-scale, and averaged over the same ten minute periods as the noise<br />
data to provide the analysis of the measured background noise as a<br />
function of wind speed and direction. The clocks on the sound level meters<br />
were set to the BT Talking Clock (British Summer Time (BST)) and the<br />
anemometry mast was set up to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). The data<br />
from the anemometry mast data was converted to BST (GMT+1hr) to<br />
correspond with the noise data monitoring periods.<br />
9.24 The noise meters were calibrated on deployment. Calibration and battery<br />
changes took place at approximately weekly intervals. No drifts greater<br />
than 0.2 dB(A) in calibration were found to have occurred on any of the<br />
noise meters. This is within the normal tolerances <strong>for</strong> such measurements.<br />
9.25 Table 9.2 provides a summary of the range of background noise levels<br />
measured during the monitoring period. Background noise levels during<br />
periods of rainfall have been excluded from this data in order to provide an<br />
accurate account of the background noise levels.<br />
Table 9.2 Summary of Background Noise Levels (dB(A))<br />
Receptor Quiet Daytime LA90, 10 min Night-time LA90, 10 min<br />
Morthen (H1) 29.2 – 61.2 29.2 – 58.1<br />
Brampton-en-lemorthen<br />
(H2)<br />
28.0 – 67.6 24.9 – 57.1<br />
Thurcroft (H3) 26.1 – 58.2 22.3 - 57.3<br />
Ulley (H4) 31.7 – 62.5 26.4 – 56.3<br />
Penny Hill (H5) 45.2 – 63.5 37.2 – 58.8<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
MITIGATION<br />
Receptor Quiet Daytime LA90, 10 min Night-time LA90, 10 min<br />
Brampton Villa (H6) 28.0 – 67.6 24.9 – 57.1<br />
Aston (H7) 26.9 – 52.9 21.1 – 49.5<br />
Hardwick (H8) 28.4 – 60.3 25.0 – 54.9<br />
9.26 The exact model of turbine to be used at the site will be the result of a<br />
future tendering process. Achievement of the noise limits determined by<br />
this assessment will be a key determining factor in the final choice of<br />
turbines <strong>for</strong> the site. Predictions of wind turbine noise have been made,<br />
based upon sound power level data <strong>for</strong> the REpower 3.3M wind turbine<br />
and a noise prediction model procedure that can be considered to be<br />
worst-case. Full noise data <strong>for</strong> the REpower 3.3M is not yet available so it<br />
has been assumed <strong>for</strong> the purposes of this assessment that octave data<br />
<strong>for</strong> another REpower turbine, the MM92 2.0MW is comparable. The octave<br />
data has been increased uni<strong>for</strong>mly <strong>for</strong> each band so that the total sound<br />
power level is equal to that stated <strong>for</strong> the REpower 3.3M. For<br />
completeness the MM92 has also been modelled and it has been shown<br />
that the REpower 3.3M is louder at all windspeeds (as shown in Appendix<br />
5, Figures 5.1-5.8). All results tables have there<strong>for</strong>e been based on the<br />
REpower 3.3M noise data.<br />
PREDICTED EFFECTS<br />
9.27 Noise levels arising from the operation of the proposed wind farm were<br />
calculated using the propagation model contained within Part 2 of<br />
“International Standard ISO 9613-2, Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound<br />
during Propagation Outdoors”. The model uses as its acoustic input data<br />
the octave band sound power output of a turbine suitable <strong>for</strong> this<br />
development (in this case the Repower 3.3M 3.3MW machine) and<br />
calculates, on an octave band basis, attenuation due to geometric<br />
spreading, atmospheric absorption and ground effects. The noise model<br />
was set up to provide worst case noise predictions, including hard ground<br />
attenuation, no barrier effects, and low levels of atmospheric attenuation.<br />
Changes in wind shear between daytime and night-time periods were also<br />
included in the predictions.<br />
9.28 The assessment of the proposed wind farm noise is contained within<br />
Section 5 of the Noise Assessment (Appendix 5). This provides an<br />
assessment of the wind farm in accordance with the requirements of<br />
ETSU-R-97. The assessment is summarised in Tables 9.3 and 9.4.<br />
215<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Morthen (H1)<br />
Brampton-en-le-morthen<br />
(H2)<br />
Thurcroft (H3)<br />
Ulley (H4)<br />
9.29 Tables 9.3 and 9.4 detail the prevailing background noise, relevant criteria<br />
and predicted wind turbine noise levels <strong>for</strong> amenity hours and night-time<br />
operation. The tables also show the exceedance level which is the level of<br />
turbine noise relative to the noise criteria. A negative exceedance level<br />
indicates satisfaction of the noise criteria. Due to the lack of noise data<br />
during the night time at wind speeds >10.6ms-1, the background noise<br />
levels and hence noise exceedance levels could not be calculated and are<br />
left blank in Table 9.4. It is reasonable to assume that background noise<br />
levels will not decrease at windspeeds >10.6ms-1, there<strong>for</strong>e if turbine<br />
noise meets the noise limits at 10.6ms-1 (which it does at all receptors)<br />
there is a low likelihood of exceedance at windspeeds between 10.6 and<br />
12ms-1.<br />
Table 9.3 Exceedances of the ETSU-R-97 Derived Quiet Daytime Criterion<br />
Curves by the Predicted LA90 Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels at each of the<br />
Noise Assessment Locations<br />
Location<br />
216<br />
Wind Speed<br />
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Amenity Hours 46.5 47.8 49.1 50.4 51.7 53.0 54.3 55.6 56.9 58.2<br />
Lower Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 51.5 52.8 54.1 55.4 56.7 58.0 59.3 60.6 61.9 63.2<br />
Upper Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 51.5 52.8 54.1 55.4 56.7 58.0 59.3 60.6 61.9 63.2<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - - 36.1 39.9 40.7 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - - -18.0 -15.5 -16.0 -17.2 -18.5 -19.8 -21.1 -22.4<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Amenity Hours 43.3 45.1 46.7 48.2 49.6 50.9 52.1 53.2 54.1 55.0<br />
Lower Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.3 50.1 51.7 53.2 54.6 55.9 57.1 58.2 59.1 60.0<br />
Upper Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.3 50.1 51.7 53.2 54.6 55.9 57.1 58.2 59.1 60.0<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - - 38.0 41.8 42.6 42.7 42.7 42.7 42.7 42.7<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - - -13.6 -11.4 -12.0 -13.2 -14.3 -15.4 -16.4 -17.2<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Amenity Hours 42.8 44.2 45.7 47.3 49.0 50.6 52.1 53.4 54.5 55.3<br />
Lower Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 47.8 49.2 50.7 52.3 54.0 55.6 57.1 58.4 59.5 60.3<br />
Upper Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 47.8 49.2 50.7 52.3 54.0 55.6 57.1 58.4 59.5 60.3<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - - 33.1 36.9 37.7 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.8<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - - -17.6 -15.4 -16.3 -17.8 -19.3 -20.6 -21.7 -22.5<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Amenity Hours 42.2 43.3 44.3 45.3 46.3 47.2 48.2 49.1 50.1 51.2<br />
Lower Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 47.2 48.3 49.3 50.3 51.3 52.2 53.2 54.1 55.1 56.2<br />
Upper Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 47.2 48.3 49.3 50.3 51.3 52.2 53.2 54.1 55.1 56.2<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - - 40.7 44.5 45.3 45.4 45.4 45.4 45.4 45.4<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - - -8.6 -5.8 -6.0 -6.8 -7.8 -8.7 -9.7 -10.8<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Penny Hill (H5)<br />
Brampton Villa (H6)<br />
Aston (H7)<br />
Hardwick (H8)<br />
Location<br />
217<br />
Wind Speed<br />
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Amenity Hours 51.6 52.1 52.7 53.5 54.3 55.2 56.1 57.1 58.2 59.2<br />
Lower Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 56.6 57.1 57.7 58.5 59.3 60.2 61.1 62.1 63.2 64.2<br />
Upper Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 56.6 57.1 57.7 58.5 59.3 60.2 61.1 62.1 63.2 64.2<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - - 43.1 46.9 47.7 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.8<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - - -14.6 -11.5 -11.5 -12.3 -13.3 -14.3 -15.3 -16.4<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Amenity Hours 43.3 45.1 46.7 48.2 49.6 50.9 52.1 53.2 54.1 55.0<br />
Lower Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.3 50.1 51.7 53.2 54.6 55.9 57.1 58.2 59.1 60.0<br />
Upper Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.3 50.1 51.7 53.2 54.6 55.9 57.1 58.2 59.1 60.0<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - - 38.8 42.6 43.4 43.5 43.5 43.5 43.5 43.5<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - - -12.9 -10.6 -11.2 -12.4 -13.6 -14.6 -15.6 -16.5<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Amenity Hours 38.3 39.2 40.2 41.2 42.2 43.2 44.3 45.3 46.3 47.4<br />
Lower Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 43.3 44.2 45.2 46.2 47.2 48.2 49.3 50.3 51.3 52.4<br />
Upper Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 43.3 44.2 45.2 46.2 47.2 48.2 49.3 50.3 51.3 52.4<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - - 31.6 35.4 36.2 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - - -13.7 -10.8 -11.0 -12.0 -13.0 -14.0 -15.1 -16.1<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Amenity Hours 43.1 44.3 45.5 46.7 47.9 49.1 50.3 51.6 52.8 54.1<br />
Lower Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.1 49.3 50.5 51.7 52.9 54.1 55.3 56.6 57.8 59.1<br />
Upper Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.1 49.3 50.5 51.7 52.9 54.1 55.3 56.6 57.8 59.1<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - - 35.4 39.2 40.0 40.1 40.1 40.1 40.1 40.1<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - - -15.1 -12.5 -12.9 -14.0 -15.2 -16.5 -17.7 -19.0<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Morthen (H1)<br />
Brampton-en-lemorthen<br />
(H2)<br />
Thurcroft (H3)<br />
Ulley (H4)<br />
Penny Hill (H5)<br />
Brampton Villa<br />
(H6)<br />
Aston (H7)<br />
Hardwick (H8)<br />
Table 9.4 Exceedances of the ETSU-R-97 Derived Night-Time Criterion Curves<br />
by the Predicted LA90 Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels at each of the Noise<br />
Assessment Locations<br />
Location<br />
218<br />
Wind Speed<br />
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Night Time 43.8 44.5 45.3 46.2 47.3 48.5 49.8 51.3 - -<br />
Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.8 49.5 50.3 51.2 52.3 53.5 54.8 56.3 - -<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - 39.6 40.7 40.8 40.8 40.8 - - - -<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - -9.9 -9.5 -10.4 -11.5 -12.7 - - - -<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Night Time 43.8 44.2 44.4 44.8 45.7 47.1 48.6 49.9 - -<br />
Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.8 49.2 49.4 49.8 50.7 52.1 53.6 54.9 - -<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - 41.5 42.7 42.7 42.7 42.7 - - - -<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - -7.7 -6.7 -7.1 -8.0 -9.3 - - - -<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Night Time 43.7 44.0 44.5 45.3 46.6 48.0 49.2 49.5 - -<br />
Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.7 49.0 49.5 50.3 51.6 53.0 54.2 54.5 - -<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - 36.6 37.7 37.8 37.8 37.8 - - - -<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - -12.4 -11.7 -12.5 -13.8 -15.2 - - - -<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Night Time 40.3 40.5 41.5 43.4 46.1 49.2 52.0 53.5 - -<br />
Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 45.3 45.5 46.5 48.4 51.1 54.2 57.0 58.5 - -<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - 44.2 45.4 45.4 45.4 45.4 - - - -<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - -1.3 -1.1 -3.0 -5.7 -8.8 - - - -<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Night Time 48.3 48.5 48.7 49.1 49.8 50.9 52.5 54.6 - -<br />
Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 53.3 53.5 53.7 54.1 54.8 55.9 57.5 59.6 - -<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - 46.6 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.8 - - - -<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - -6.9 -5.9 -6.2 -6.9 -8.0 - - - -<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Night Time 43.8 44.2 44.4 44.8 45.7 47.1 48.6 49.9 - -<br />
Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.8 49.2 49.4 49.8 50.7 52.1 53.6 54.9 - -<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - 42.3 43.5 43.5 43.5 43.5 - - - -<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - -6.9 -5.9 -6.3 -7.2 -8.5 - - - -<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Night Time 35.2 35.1 35.4 36.3 37.9 39.7 41.3 41.8 - -<br />
Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.7 46.3 46.8 - -<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - 35.0 36.2 36.3 36.3 36.3 - - - -<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - -8.0 -6.8 -6.7 -6.7 -8.4 - - - -<br />
Prevailing Background Noise Level: Night Time<br />
43.5 43.4 43.4 44.0 45.5 47.5 49.2 49.4 - -<br />
Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.5 48.4 48.4 49.0 50.5 52.5 54.2 54.4 - -<br />
Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - 38.9 40.0 40.1 40.1 40.1 - - - -<br />
Exceedance Level LA90 - -9.5 -8.3 -8.9 -10.4 -12.4 - - - -<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
9.30 Predicted wind farm immission levels and measured background noise<br />
levels indicate that <strong>for</strong> dwellings neighbouring the proposed site, wind<br />
turbine noise will meet the Amenity Hours and Night-time Noise Criteria<br />
proposed within ETSU-R-97 <strong>for</strong> all dwellings.<br />
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS<br />
9.31 This noise assessment considered the impact of operational noise from<br />
the Penny Hill Wind Farm on the residents of nearby dwellings. The<br />
guidance contained within ETSU-R-97 was used to assess the potential<br />
noise impact of the proposed development.<br />
9.32 Eight residential properties neighbouring the wind farm were selected as<br />
being representative of the properties located closest to the wind farm.<br />
Initially background noise monitoring was undertaken at the eight locations<br />
however one set of noise monitoring equipment (at H6) was stolen during<br />
the first week of deployment and there<strong>for</strong>e monitoring was not continued at<br />
that location. Following discussions with the Environmental Health Officer<br />
at Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council it was agreed that<br />
background noise data from another property (H2) would be used to<br />
determine noise limits at H6.<br />
9.33 Analysis of the measured data has been per<strong>for</strong>med in accordance with<br />
ETSU-R-97 to determine the pre-existing background noise environment<br />
at these locations. Amenity hours and night-time criterion were established<br />
in accordance with ETSU-R-97.<br />
9.34 Predictions of wind turbine noise were made based upon a sound power<br />
level <strong>for</strong> a wind turbine suitable <strong>for</strong> the site and a noise prediction model<br />
procedure that can be considered to be worst-case. Full noise data <strong>for</strong> the<br />
REpower 3.3M is not yet available so it has been assumed <strong>for</strong> the<br />
purposes of this assessment that octave data <strong>for</strong> another REpower<br />
turbine, the MM92 2.0MW is comparable. For completeness the MM92<br />
has also been modelled and it has been shown that the REpower 3.3M is<br />
louder at all windspeeds (as shown in Appendix 5, Tables 5.1-5.8). All<br />
results tables have there<strong>for</strong>e been based on the REpower 3.3M noise<br />
data.<br />
9.35 Predicted levels and measured background noise levels indicate that <strong>for</strong><br />
dwellings neighbouring the proposed site, wind turbine noise will meet the<br />
Amenity and Night-time Noise Criteria proposed within ETSU-R-97.<br />
9.36 The assessment has considered the specified micro-siting allowance and<br />
found that the proposal can still adhere with ETSU-R-97 guidelines should<br />
turbine locations be altered. The assessment should be based on turbine<br />
locations specified within this ES. However, should micro-siting be<br />
considered necessary, the final turbine locations will be specified prior to<br />
the erection of turbines <strong>for</strong> agreement with the LPA. Appropriate noise<br />
limits should be specified through condition of planning permission to<br />
ensure adherence of ETSU regulations at the identified receptors.<br />
219<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
9.37 The manufacturer of the turbine selected <strong>for</strong> this site will be contractually<br />
required to guarantee compliance with the sound power levels <strong>for</strong> the<br />
turbine installed. It is recommended that should the proposal receive<br />
planning permission further data should be provided <strong>for</strong> the final choice of<br />
turbine to demonstrate compliance with the noise limits derived in this<br />
report.<br />
220<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
10. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL<br />
HERITAGE<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
10.1 This section of the ES evaluates the effects of the proposed Penny Hill<br />
Wind Farm on the cultural heritage resource. Cultural heritage resources<br />
include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, other<br />
archaeological sites recorded on the South Yorkshire Sites and<br />
Monuments Record, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered<br />
Historic Park and Gardens, and Registered Battlefields. The assessment<br />
and section have been prepared by Arcus Renewable Energy Consulting<br />
Ltd.<br />
10.2 The assessment is intended to identify cultural heritage sites that may be<br />
affected, either directly (e.g. through physical disturbance during<br />
construction) or indirectly (e.g. through changes to visual and<br />
archaeological setting) during construction, throughout operation or from<br />
de-commissioning of the proposed development. Further in<strong>for</strong>mation on<br />
the Penny Hill Wind Farm is given in Section 2: The Proposed<br />
Development.<br />
10.3 This section contains the following sections:<br />
Methodology - describing both the methods used in baseline surveys<br />
and in the assessment of the significance of effects;<br />
Baseline Description - a description of the condition of the site and its<br />
archaeological potential, as well as a listing of features of cultural<br />
heritage interest beyond the immediate site, resulting from surveys,<br />
desk in<strong>for</strong>mation and consultations carried out to in<strong>for</strong>m this section;<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation Gaps - a summary of the main uncertainties encountered in<br />
the assessment;<br />
Development Design Mitigation – a summary of “embedded mitigation”,<br />
designed into the proposed development;<br />
Assessment of Potential Effects - identifying the ways in which the<br />
cultural heritage resource of the site and its environs could be affected<br />
by the proposed development;<br />
Mitigation - a description of measures recommended to off-set the<br />
identified potential effects;<br />
Residual Effects - an assessment of the significance of the effects of<br />
the proposed development, after mitigation measures have been<br />
implemented;<br />
221<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Cumulative Effects – consideration of any cumulative effects arising<br />
from the addition of this proposed development to other similar<br />
development, whether already operational, consented or in the<br />
planning system;<br />
Summary of Effects; and<br />
Statement of Significance.<br />
All figures referenced within this section, as well as the desk-based<br />
assessment and geophysical survey reports are included in Appendix 6 of<br />
this ES.<br />
METHODOLOGY AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
10.4 This assessment has involved:<br />
consultation with the statutory and non-statutory authorities to gain<br />
data establishing the baseline conditions <strong>for</strong> the site and its<br />
surrounding area;<br />
desk-based studies and site visits to contribute to and validate data<br />
relevant to establishing the baseline conditions (presented as a Deskbased<br />
Assessment Report (A10.1) in Appendix 6 of this ES;<br />
geophysical survey of the proposed development footprint (presented<br />
as a Geophysical Survey Report (A10.2) in Appendix 6 of this ES;<br />
assessment of the effects expected from the proposed development<br />
and their potential effect upon the existing conditions;<br />
assessment of the significance of the effects taking into account the<br />
sensitivity of site (and selected features beyond the site), the<br />
magnitude of potential effects (both direct and indirect) and the<br />
likelihood of such effects occurring; and<br />
identification of means to mitigate and avoid, where possible, any<br />
potential effects, as well as the assessment of the residual effects<br />
which may exist after application of any mitigation.<br />
10.5 A detailed method <strong>statement</strong> <strong>for</strong> the assessment of effects and their<br />
significance is presented in paragraph 10.14.<br />
POLICY AND GUIDANCE<br />
10.6 The assessment has been undertaken taking into account the following<br />
legislation and guidance listed below. More detailed consideration of the<br />
222<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
planning background can be found in the accompanying Planning<br />
Statement.<br />
LEGISLATION<br />
10.7 Statutory protection <strong>for</strong> archaeology is principally outlined in the Ancient<br />
Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) as amended by the<br />
National Heritage Act (1983) and nationally important sites are listed in a<br />
Schedule of Monuments. Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) is<br />
required be<strong>for</strong>e any work affecting the fabric of a Scheduled Monument<br />
can be carried out.<br />
10.8 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas receive protection under the<br />
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Works that<br />
affect the character and appearance of such structures may require an<br />
approval from the Local Planning Authority via a procedure set out in the<br />
act.<br />
NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE<br />
10.9 Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 15 - Planning and the Historic<br />
Environment (1994) and PPG16 Archaeology and Planning (1990) provide<br />
guidance on proposed development and historic interests such as Listed<br />
Buildings and Conservation Areas, and on dealing with known and<br />
unknown archaeological remains through the planning system.<br />
OTHER<br />
10.10 The following guidance and advice was also considered during the<br />
assessment, although not all is specific to England:<br />
Standards and Guidance <strong>for</strong> Archaeological Desk Based Assessments<br />
(Institute of Field Archaeologists, 1999). This advises that the aim of a<br />
desk-based assessment is to gain in<strong>for</strong>mation about the known and<br />
potential archaeological resource within the proposed development site<br />
boundary and that from this an appraisal can be made on the presence<br />
or absence of archaeology;<br />
Planning Advice Note - Renewable Energy Technologies (PAN 45,<br />
Revised 2002, Scottish Executive) provides useful advice and<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> on-shore wind power, and contains guidance on the<br />
visual effects from wind turbines;<br />
Landscape Appraisal <strong>for</strong> Onshore Wind Development, University of<br />
Newcastle 2003;<br />
Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and Small<br />
Scale Hydroelectric Schemes, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2001; and<br />
223<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Visual Assessment of Wind Farms – Best Practice, University of<br />
Newcastle (<strong>for</strong> Scottish Natural Heritage), 2002.<br />
CONSULTATION<br />
10.11 Consultation was undertaken with both statutory and non-statutory<br />
consultees, both at the scoping stage and as part of the assessment<br />
process. The main responses are summarised in Table 10.1.<br />
Table 10.1 Consultation Responses<br />
Consultee Response<br />
South Yorkshire Archaeology<br />
Advisory Service<br />
Highlighted the potential <strong>for</strong> unknown archaeological<br />
remains to survive within the site. Emphasised the need<br />
to consider indirect (primarily visual) effects, and asked<br />
that cumulative effects be assessed. Asked <strong>for</strong> initial<br />
geophysical survey and reserved right to require<br />
additional (intrusive) pre-determination evaluation,<br />
dependant on the results of the geophysics survey.<br />
English Heritage Drew attention to the guidance contained in Wind<br />
Energy and the Historic Environment.<br />
DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT AND WALKOVER SURVEY<br />
10.12 A desk-based assessment was undertaken by Archaeological Services,<br />
West Yorkshire Archaeology Service (ASWYAS), which used readily<br />
available documentary, cartographic and photographic evidence, to in<strong>for</strong>m<br />
the baseline condition of the site. A site visit and walkover by an<br />
experienced archaeologist was undertaken in June 2008 to validate the<br />
data gained as part of the desk-based assessment, and to identify (and if<br />
appropriate, record) any previously unrecorded cultural heritage features<br />
within the boundary. The Desk-Based Assessment Report was completed<br />
in July 2008 and is presented as Technical Report A10.1 (Appendix 6 of<br />
this ES).<br />
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY<br />
10.13 A geophysical (magnetometer) survey was carried out over the footprint of<br />
the proposed development by ASWYAS. This was commenced in<br />
December 2008 and completed in January 2009. This included a 20m<br />
wide corridor over the access tracks, approximately 0.5ha coverage of the<br />
construction compound and substation control building location, and a 1ha<br />
area approximately centred at each turbine location (to allow <strong>for</strong> full<br />
coverage of a potential 50m micro-siting condition). The purpose was to<br />
allow a rapid scan of the whole proposed development footprint to in<strong>for</strong>m<br />
on the potential <strong>for</strong> unknown remains to survive and to determine the<br />
extent of any such remains. The in<strong>for</strong>mation obtained has also in<strong>for</strong>med<br />
the mitigation <strong>statement</strong> presented in paragraph 10.101 and subsequent<br />
text. The results are presented in a report presented as Technical Report<br />
A10.2 (Appendix 6).<br />
224<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS<br />
10.14 The assessment of effects on the cultural heritage is concerned with direct<br />
(physical) and indirect (largely visual) impacts.<br />
DIRECT (PHYSICAL)<br />
10.15 Assessment of physical effects considers direct effects upon features of<br />
cultural heritage interest, whether known sites or unknown buried<br />
archaeology, which are in danger of being disturbed or destroyed. Physical<br />
impacts are likely to occur during construction and decommissioning, and<br />
are permanent and irreversible. They are discussed in the section on<br />
Potential Construction Effects.<br />
INDIRECT (VISUAL, NOISE ETC.)<br />
10.16 This assessment will take account of the potential visual effects on the<br />
settings of Scheduled Monuments, monuments registered as nationally<br />
important and Listed Buildings that exist within the proposed development<br />
site and a 15km Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) around it. The setting<br />
of a national monument or Listed Building can be loosely interpreted as<br />
features, spaces and views that are historically and functionally related,<br />
and which can be considered to be vital to their intrinsic interest. Setting<br />
can be tangible, such as a defined boundary, or intangible, such as<br />
atmosphere or ambience. The main concern <strong>for</strong> visual effects on a<br />
cultural heritage setting is the potential <strong>for</strong> the proposed development to<br />
fragment the historic landscape, separate connectivity between historic<br />
sites and impinge on views to and from sites with important landscape<br />
settings. Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (English Heritage,<br />
2005) lists visual dominance, scale, intervisibility, vistas and sight-lines as<br />
well as noise, movement and light as potential effects upon features of<br />
cultural heritage interest that might be derived from wind farm projects.<br />
Indirect effects can occur during construction, operation and<br />
decommissioning. Wind farms can have a lifespan of up to 25 years, but<br />
the visual and any other indirect effects from this <strong>for</strong>m of development are<br />
considered temporary and easily reversible.<br />
10.17 In order to identify those cultural heritage features upon whose settings the<br />
proposed development may have the potential to have an effect, an initial<br />
search area was defined. Distance was used here as the principal<br />
criterion in determining the likelihood of a significant visual effect on<br />
setting. As the landscape and visual assessment was ongoing at the<br />
same time it was not possible to derive in<strong>for</strong>mation from that at the outset<br />
of this assessment. There<strong>for</strong>e, regard was had to the indicative distances<br />
given in the Scottish Planning Advice Note - Renewable Energy<br />
Technologies (PAN 45, Revised 2002) 8 . At paragraph 78 PAN 45 notes<br />
that: „visual effects will be dependent on the distance over which a wind<br />
8 Whilst recognising that document has no weight as planning advice in England, it nevertheless<br />
provides a useful starting point in identifying the parameters <strong>for</strong> the study area.<br />
225<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
farm may be viewed, whether the turbines can be viewed adjacent to other<br />
features, different weather conditions, the character of the development<br />
and the landscape and nature of the visibility‟. It goes on to state that:<br />
„The following is a general guide to the effect which distance has on the<br />
perception of the development in an open landscape.<br />
up to 2 km the wind farm is likely to be a prominent feature;<br />
within an area between 2-5 km from the wind farm it is likely to be<br />
relatively prominent;<br />
between 5-15 km, the wind farm will only be prominent in clear visibility<br />
and as part of the wider landscape; and<br />
between 15-30 km the turbines will only be seen in very clear visibility<br />
and then as a minor element in the landscape”.<br />
10.18 Drawing on this approach, and using an element of professional<br />
judgement, the following generalisations have been made:<br />
Within 2km or less the wind farm is likely to be a prominent feature<br />
and may cause severance, appear intrusive and have the potential to<br />
cause extensive change to the setting of a receptor (i.e. have high<br />
magnitude of effect);<br />
Within 2 to 5km the wind farm is likely to be relatively prominent and<br />
thus could cause intrusion or change the setting of a receptor (i.e. have<br />
medium effect on setting); and<br />
At >5km the wind farm is not likely to be visually prominent or perhaps<br />
only as part of the wider landscape and thus causing no change or<br />
slight change to setting of the receptor (i.e. low magnitude of effect).<br />
10.19 In summary, the most significant effects on setting will occur within a 0-<br />
5km study area, and that is what has been defined as the study area. This<br />
was born out by the results of the site specific assessments (discussed in<br />
more detail later within this section).<br />
10.20 The assessment has taken an approach in which the designation status<br />
(sensitivity) of a feature is set against the degree of intervisibility with the<br />
proposed development, based primarily on range, assuming that this will<br />
be a determinant in the degree of magnitude of any change that might be<br />
caused, as noted above. Simple intervisibility with turbines is not<br />
necessarily considered to be harmful.<br />
10.21 It is also important to consider existing screening of cultural heritage<br />
features from natural topography of the landscape. Forest and woodlands,<br />
as well as buildings, can also provide suitable visual screening to the<br />
cultural heritage. However, it is noted that in managed <strong>for</strong>ests the level of<br />
226<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
screening will alter and views may be opened up over time, which once<br />
were non-existent.<br />
10.22 No detailed consideration of potential impacts from noise or shadow flicker<br />
has been undertaken <strong>for</strong> Cultural Heritage features, since no significant<br />
above ground or built heritage features exist within or immediately<br />
adjacent to the site to receive any such impacts (see Sections 9 and 15 of<br />
this ES). The assessment of indirect (visual) effects is based on the final<br />
<strong>for</strong>m of the proposed development and is discussed in the paragraphs on<br />
Potential Operational Effects.<br />
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA<br />
10.23 This assessment proceeds from a consideration of the Sensitivity of a<br />
cultural heritage feature against the Magnitude of any potential impact, to<br />
arrive at the Significance of the effect.<br />
10.24 Sensitivity <strong>for</strong> the purposes of this assessment has been equated with<br />
designation status, as shown in table 10.2.<br />
Table 10.2 Sensitivity of a Cultural Heritage Receptor<br />
Level of Sensitivity Designation Status<br />
Very High World Heritage Sites, which are of international importance.<br />
High Scheduled Monuments (whether or not in State Care), Grade I<br />
Listed Buildings, Registered Battlefields, Registered Historic<br />
Gardens etc, which are considered of national importance.<br />
Medium Grade II* Listed Buildings, regionally important archaeological<br />
features and areas (as defined in the Sites and Monuments<br />
Record).<br />
Low Grade II Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, sites and<br />
features noted as Locally important in the Sites and<br />
Monuments Record.<br />
Negligible Badly preserved/damaged or very common archaeological<br />
features/buildings of little or no value at local or other scale.<br />
10.25 Listed Buildings are nationally designated and are subject to a grading<br />
process (Grade I, II*, II). Within the assessment this grading has been<br />
taken as indicative of a presumed level of importance, based on rarity,<br />
period, architectural style, completeness, degree of subsequent alterations<br />
and so on. This assessment has assigned the Grades to different levels of<br />
sensitivity <strong>for</strong> purposes of assessment of potential effects upon setting, as<br />
shown above on Table 10.2.<br />
10.26 Magnitude is a measure of the nature of the expected effect. It has been<br />
broken down, <strong>for</strong> direct and indirect impacts, as shown in Table 10.3<br />
below. For the purposes of visual assessment, proximity to the<br />
Development (within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility) has been taken as<br />
one of the determining attributes. Within the assessment distances are<br />
227<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
given to either the nearest turbine, or the nearest point on the proposed<br />
development boundary.<br />
Table 10.3 Magnitude of Effect<br />
Level of Magnitude Definition<br />
Very High Total loss of or major alteration to a site, building or<br />
other feature.<br />
(e.g. blocking or severance of key visual or other<br />
relationship).<br />
High Major damage to or significant alteration to a site,<br />
building or other feature. Loss of one or more key<br />
attributes.<br />
Extensive change to the setting of a Scheduled<br />
Monument, Historic Park Grade I, II* Listed<br />
Building or other feature e.g. loss of dominance,<br />
intrusion on key view or sightline.<br />
Medium Damage or alteration to a site, building or other<br />
feature. Encroachment on an area considered to<br />
have high archaeological potential.<br />
Change in setting to Monuments/buildings and<br />
other features e.g. intrusion on designed sightlines<br />
and vistas.<br />
Low Minor damage or alteration to a site, building or<br />
other feature. Encroachment on an area where it<br />
is considered that low archaeological potential<br />
exists.<br />
Minor change in setting of Monuments, site and<br />
other features (e.g. above historic skylines or in<br />
designed vistas).<br />
Negligible No Physical impact. No change in setting.<br />
10.27 The Significance of any potential effect can be arrived at by correlating<br />
Sensitivity against Magnitude in the following table;<br />
Table 10.4 Significance of Effect<br />
Magnitude<br />
Sensitivity<br />
Very High High Medium Low Negligible<br />
Very High Major Major Moderate Minor Minor<br />
High Major Major Moderate Minor Not<br />
Significant<br />
Medium Moderate Moderate Moderate Minor Not<br />
Significant<br />
Low Minor Minor Minor Not Not<br />
Negligible Minor Not<br />
Significant<br />
228<br />
Not<br />
Significant<br />
Significant<br />
Not<br />
Significant<br />
Significant<br />
Not<br />
Significant<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
10.28 A significant effect (in terms of the EIA Regulations) is considered to occur<br />
where the combination of sensitivity and magnitude results in a “major” or<br />
“moderate” effect.<br />
10.29 The assessment text (below) considers in detail only those features <strong>for</strong><br />
which a potential effect of “moderate” or higher significance is initially<br />
predicted upon the setting of the feature, based on the distance of the<br />
feature from the site and the feature‟s designatory status (in accordance<br />
with the matrix presented above), and considers the potential effect<br />
against a more defined explanation of the feature‟s setting. Where<br />
considered necessary, setting is defined in terms of the immediate<br />
physical surroundings and associations of the feature, or in wider terms,<br />
such as the presence of key long views to or from that feature which are<br />
important to its understanding.<br />
ZONE OF THEORETICAL VISIBILITY<br />
10.30 The ZTV used in this assessment has been calculated from turbine tip<br />
height to ground contours and does not allow <strong>for</strong> any vegetation (such as<br />
mature blocks of trees) or settlement. The ZTV is calculated to reflect<br />
visibility at approximately 2m above ground level. The ZTV is further<br />
explained in Section 6: Landscape and Visual Assessment of this ES.<br />
10.31 In considering effects using this methodology, the following points need to<br />
be borne in mind. Firstly, the ZTV is a theoretical construct, based upon a<br />
fairly crude base terrain modelling only, with no modelling of settlement<br />
and vegetation cover. Within each “band”, based on numbers of turbines<br />
theoretically visible, no distinction is made in how much of each turbine is<br />
visible. The ZTV there<strong>for</strong>e represents a “worst case scenario” and in reality<br />
visual effects may be substantially less than suggested. Secondly,<br />
mechanical application of the methodology will generate major and<br />
medium effects (simply based on distance and designatory status), <strong>for</strong><br />
which (in case of visual effects upon settings) no mitigation is proposed.<br />
Where this is the case, predicted medium or major effects are discussed in<br />
detail within the assessment text (in Potential Operational Effects) and any<br />
ameliorating conditions highlighted.<br />
BASELINE DESCRIPTION<br />
BASELINE ASSESSMENT<br />
10.32 A desk-based assessment was undertaken by ASWYAS to establish the<br />
baseline condition <strong>for</strong> the proposed development site, based on a study<br />
area (the initial proposed development area) and a 1km buffer around it.<br />
The report is included in Appendix 6. This was supplemented by the<br />
commissioning of a geophysical survey, also carried out by ASWYAS,<br />
over the footprint of the proposed development. The report is also included<br />
in Appendix 6. It is not proposed to repeat that in<strong>for</strong>mation here, but the<br />
following sections have drawn upon that work, supplemented by a<br />
separate consideration of cultural heritage features at a greater distance<br />
229<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
from the proposed development (which may be subject to indirect effects<br />
upon their settings).<br />
SITE CONDITION<br />
10.33 The site occupies an elevated position to the east of the village of Ulley,<br />
south-east of Sheffield, South Yorkshire, with the M1 in close proximity to<br />
its northern and eastern sides.<br />
10.34 The land is currently in agricultural use, primarily under arable crops.<br />
10.35 The site and development are described in Section 2: The Proposed<br />
Development and Section 4: Site Selection and Design.<br />
FEATURES WITHIN THE SITE<br />
10.36 There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments or Listed Buildings within the<br />
site, nor does any part of the site lie within a Registered Historic Park or<br />
Garden nor Registered Battlefield, in whole or in part.<br />
10.37 One feature is recorded on the South Yorkshire Sites and Monuments<br />
Record. This is the site of a World War II Anti-aircraft battery (SMR4712 –<br />
see feature 21 in the WYAS desk-based assessment, shown on Figure 2<br />
of that report). The battery was located to the north-east of Carr Lane,<br />
south east of Ulley and west of Penny Hill farm. Cropmark evidence <strong>for</strong><br />
prehistoric or Romano-British farming activity or settlement has been<br />
identified in and adjacent to the northern part of the study area, but outside<br />
the application boundary (NMR SK48NE 30, features 13 and 14 in the<br />
WYAS report).<br />
10.38 Changes in field boundaries crossing the site, possibly related to changes<br />
in agricultural practice, can be seen in the presence on the 1 st Edition<br />
Ordnance Survey 1854. These are gone by 1892.<br />
10.39 A geophysical survey carried out in December 2008 and completed in<br />
January 2009 recorded a number of magnetic anomalies, but these are<br />
interpreted as relating to boundaries and other features associated with<br />
the post-medieval and modern agricultural exploitation of the area. The<br />
survey did not provide evidence <strong>for</strong> the survival of significant<br />
archaeological remains of earlier periods (such as features associated with<br />
the cropmark enclosures and features noted in aerial photographs on land<br />
adjacent to the northern part of the site). However, the underlying wet<br />
clays across parts of the site may have reduced the contrast of features<br />
against the background signal, and it is possible that features were not<br />
revealed by the survey. The implications of this discovery are further<br />
discussed in the section on Potential Construction Effects, below.<br />
230<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
FEATURES BEYOND THE SITE BOUNDARY<br />
SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENTS<br />
10.40 There are approximately 92 Scheduled Ancient Monuments within 15km of<br />
the proposed development site, but only 8 of these lie within 5km, and<br />
none within 2km.<br />
10.41 Those within 5km are listed below, identified by their Monument ID<br />
number. They are assessed below under the section on Potential<br />
Operational Effects.<br />
Table 10.5 - Scheduled Monuments within 5km<br />
Monument Name<br />
13227 Castle Hill Motte And Bailey Castle<br />
13231 Manor House Moated Site<br />
13232 Blue Man's Bower Moated Site, Whiston<br />
23201 Hellaby: A Deserted Medieval Village House<br />
29948 Slade Hooton Medieval Settlement And Moated Site<br />
29948 Slade Hooton Medieval Settlement And Moated Site<br />
SY382 Canklow Hill Earthworks<br />
SY602 The Glassworks Cone<br />
LISTED BUILDINGS<br />
10.42 There are approximately 2145 listed buildings of all grades within 15km of<br />
the proposed development site. Of these 182 lie within 5km, and 49 within<br />
2km.<br />
10.43 Of the listed buildings within 5km, 5 are listed at Grade I and 13 at Grade<br />
II*, the remainder being Grade II.<br />
10.44 Of the listed buildings within 2km of the proposed development site, only 1<br />
is listed at Grade I, and 2 at Grade II*, the remainder being Grade II.<br />
10.45 The grade I and II* listed buildings within 5km are listed below, identified<br />
by their Unique Identifier. They are assessed below under Potential<br />
Operational Effects.<br />
231<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Table 10.6 - Grade I and II* Listed Buildings within 5km<br />
Lb_UID Name Grade<br />
335632 The Glassworks Cone I<br />
335724 Church Of St Helen I<br />
335729 Church Of St Mary Magdalene II*<br />
335733 Whiston Hall Barn II*<br />
335738 Morthen Hall II*<br />
335748 Dinnington Hall II*<br />
335754 Church Of St John I<br />
335842 Church Of St Peter And St Paul II*<br />
335853 Church Of St John The Baptist II*<br />
335876 Church Of All Saints I<br />
335896 Aughton Court II*<br />
335901 Hellaby Hall II*<br />
335972 Thurcroft Hall II*<br />
335984 Church Of All Saints I<br />
335999 Slade Hooton Hall<br />
Stable And Remains Of Attached Barn Immediately To South<br />
II*<br />
336000 West Of Slade Hooton Hall<br />
Wall Enclosing Front Garden To Slade Hooton Hall Including<br />
II*<br />
336001 Attached Gatepiers And Gateway II*<br />
458679 Church Of St Mary The Virgin II*<br />
REGISTERED HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS<br />
10.46 There are 19 registered historic parks within 15km of the proposed<br />
development site, although none lie closer then 5km. Many lie within the<br />
urban settings of Sheffield and Rotherham. All are registered at Grade II,<br />
with the exception of Wentworth Woodhouse, which is registered at Grade<br />
II*. They are listed in Table 10.7, and considered below, under the<br />
paragraphs on Potential Operational Effects.<br />
Table 10.7 Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 15km<br />
U_ID Name Grade<br />
2164 Oakes Park II<br />
5172 City Road Cemetery, Sheffield II<br />
5082 Burngreave Cemetery II<br />
1211 Monument Grounds II<br />
4746 Porter Valley Parks II<br />
2166 Sheffield Botanical Gardens II<br />
2167 Wentworth Woodhouse II*<br />
2641 Weston Park II<br />
5170 Moorgate Cemetery II<br />
3255 Barlborough Hall II<br />
5206 Beauchief Hall II<br />
232<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
U_ID Name Grade<br />
4049 Sheffield General Cemetery II<br />
4744 Boston Park, Rotherham II<br />
2165 Sandbeck Park And Roche Abbey II*<br />
4747 Clifton Park, Rotherham II<br />
1543 Welbeck Abbey II<br />
2336 Norfolk Park II<br />
1318 Shireoaks Hall II*<br />
1674 Renishaw Hall II*<br />
CONSERVATION AREAS<br />
10.47 There are five Conservation Areas within 5km of the site boundary. These<br />
areas are designated and controlled at the Local Planning Authority level,<br />
and <strong>for</strong> purposes of this assessment are considered to be of local<br />
importance and of “low” importance. The areas are in Aston, Brampton en<br />
le Morthen, Laughton en le Morthen, Treeton and Wickersley (see Drawing<br />
HJB/681/PA15: Planning and Landscape Designations).<br />
REGISTERED BATTLEFIELDS<br />
10.48 There are no registered battlefields in the study area (or within 15km of the<br />
proposed development site). These are not considered further within this<br />
assessment.<br />
HISTORIC LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISATION<br />
10.49 No part of the site lies within a larger area of preserved historic landscape,<br />
whether or not designated as a World Heritage Site, scheduled monument,<br />
historic park or garden or a registered battlefield.<br />
10.50 The wider area reflects a settlement pattern established in the medieval<br />
period. Limited traces of <strong>for</strong>mer medieval field boundaries remains (such<br />
as HSY3327, east of the M1), and place names such as Stocket Lane<br />
derive from that period. In the case of Stocket Lane this provides evidence<br />
that part at least of the local network of road and rights-of-way are of<br />
considerable antiquity. However, cartographic evidence demonstrates that<br />
the field patterns have undergone significant change over the last 150<br />
years, probably reflecting changes in technology and agricultural practice.<br />
10.51 The current character of the area is much altered by the nationally<br />
important transport corridors crossing it, in the <strong>for</strong>m of the M1 and M18<br />
motorways, developed in the second half of the twentieth century.<br />
10.52 It is not considered that the proposed development will affect an<br />
understanding of the historic development of the present landscape<br />
pattern (which is largely to be appreciated in plan), and that the turbines<br />
233<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
will add another layer to the record of exploitation and use that the historic<br />
landscape characterisation has recorded.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL<br />
10.53 The presence of cropmark evidence of linear features and possible<br />
enclosures of possible late prehistoric or Romano-British date adjacent to<br />
(but outside of) the north-western part of the site, suggests that further<br />
remains of this type may be present within the site. Finds of Roman<br />
pottery to the west of the site boundary confirm that the area was occupied<br />
at this period. Medieval occupation is attested by the local place names<br />
and settlement pattern, as well as traces of <strong>for</strong>mer field boundaries (such<br />
as the s-shaped boundary recorded on the South Yorkshire SMR as<br />
HSY3327, to the east of the site boundary). As a result of the above, it is<br />
considered that there is potential <strong>for</strong> unknown archaeological remains of<br />
all periods to remain within the site. It is likely that these will relate to later<br />
prehistoric and Romano-British agricultural settlement, as well as medieval<br />
and post-medieval agricultural practice. The evidence is likely to be in the<br />
<strong>for</strong>m of ditches and field boundaries, with the possibility <strong>for</strong> some evidence<br />
of domestic activity. These are likely to be encountered beneath topsoil cut<br />
into underlying strata. They are likely to be of local importance, but<br />
evidence <strong>for</strong> domestic activity may be regionally important. Evidence <strong>for</strong><br />
earlier prehistoric and early-medieval/post-Roman settlement is rarer in<br />
the area and if present (depending on type, extent, condition etc.) may be<br />
regarded as regionally important. It is unlikely that nationally important<br />
remains (i.e. remains that if found would be Scheduled) survive within the<br />
site.<br />
INFORMATION GAPS<br />
10.54 There are no known in<strong>for</strong>mation gaps.<br />
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN MITIGATION<br />
10.55 No specific mitigation <strong>for</strong> avoiding potential direct effects upon cultural<br />
heritage features has been incorporated into the design, although the<br />
application does include a 50m micro-siting area within which,<br />
infrastructure can be relocated away from archaeological features if<br />
required.<br />
10.56 The proposed development design does incorporate embedded mitigation<br />
aimed at the minimising of potential indirect, visual effects on landscape<br />
receptors beyond the site boundary, which will have a beneficial effect in<br />
terms of more distant cultural heritage receptors (such as Registered<br />
Parks and Gardens). Further details are given in Section 2: The Proposed<br />
Development and Section 6: Landscape and Visual Assessment of this<br />
ES.<br />
234<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS<br />
POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS<br />
10.57 Although there are no archaeological sites recorded on the South<br />
Yorkshire Historic Environment Record within the site boundary, the deskbased<br />
assessment has shown that there are cropmarks of possible<br />
prehistoric or Roman sites close to the northern boundary of the site. This<br />
indicates that there is some potential <strong>for</strong> sites of these periods to survive<br />
within the site. It is there<strong>for</strong>e considered that there is potential <strong>for</strong> impacts<br />
upon buried archaeological remains to arise from construction activities,<br />
such as the provision of access roads, turbine foundations and other<br />
infrastructure.<br />
10.58 All activities where topsoil is to be removed or where excavation is to be<br />
carried out across the development area are there<strong>for</strong>e considered likely to<br />
damage or possibly destroy underlying features and as such will require<br />
mitigation. It is considered that there is potential <strong>for</strong> remains of all major<br />
periods to survive, but the potential <strong>for</strong> significant remains (that is, remains<br />
that might be of national or regional importance) is considered to be low at<br />
this stage.<br />
10.59 Using the matrix in Table 10.4, the effect of major damage (high<br />
magnitude) or loss (very high magnitude) to a site of local (low) importance<br />
would be of “minor” significance at worst, be<strong>for</strong>e the implementation of<br />
any mitigation. For a site of regional (medium) importance, the effect<br />
would be of “moderate” significance at worst. The final effects would be<br />
determined following the completion of a second phase of archaeological<br />
evaluations post receipt of planning permission.<br />
10.60 There will be indirect effects upon the settings of some cultural heritage<br />
features beyond the site boundary <strong>for</strong> example resulting from the presence<br />
of cranes and other plant, as construction progresses. However, these are<br />
considered to be temporary only. The visual effect of the turbines<br />
themselves is considered below, based on the full operational status of the<br />
wind farm.<br />
POTENTIAL OPERATIONAL EFFECTS<br />
10.61 No direct effects are anticipated upon cultural heritage features are<br />
anticipated from the operational wind farm.<br />
10.62 There will be some indirect (visual) effects upon the settings of some<br />
cultural heritage features beyond the proposed development boundary.<br />
These are described and assessed below.<br />
235<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
SCHEDULE ANCIENT MONUMENTS<br />
10.63 The eight Scheduled Ancient Monuments within 5km have been<br />
considered to have potential to receive an effect on their settings from the<br />
proposed wind farm, based on their designation status and distance (see<br />
Table 10.4). All are considered nationally important and of “high” sensitivity<br />
by virtue of their designation. These features are discussed below, their<br />
settings defined, and the potential magnitude of change characterised in<br />
order to arrive at the significance of any potential effect.<br />
10.64 SAM13227 Castle Hill Motte and Bailey. This monument lies on Castle Hill<br />
on the western side of Laughton en Le Morthen, approximately 3.8km east<br />
of the nearest turbine. The monument covers an area immediately west of<br />
All Saints Church and consists of the Motte itself and surrounding ground.<br />
The monument is covered with mature trees, and is not visible at distance.<br />
Its setting is defined as its relationship, including its historic and<br />
archaeological associations, to the Church and western edge of the<br />
village. Although the turbines may be visible in views to the west from the<br />
monument, beyond the M1/M18 interchange, they are not considered to<br />
change the setting of the monument as defined above. This is there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
considered to constitute an effect of “negligible” magnitude on the setting<br />
of the monument, and the potential effect is assessed as “not significant”.<br />
10.65 SAM13231 Manor House Moated Site, Todwick. The monument consists<br />
of the remains of a moated manor house site, situated within the eastern<br />
part of Todwick, approximately 3.5km southeast of the nearest turbine.<br />
Part of the moat is still water-filled, and the site is still in occupation. The<br />
setting of the monument is defined by the interrelationship of the moat to<br />
the structures which occupy the site of the manor, and the situation within<br />
Todwick and the neighbouring residential properties to north, west and<br />
south. This setting is not considered to be changed by the proposed<br />
development (an effect of “negligible” magnitude), even if the turbines<br />
were to be visible above the structures within the village. The monument<br />
itself has no substantial presence in the landscape, and consequently the<br />
turbines will not affect views towards it. The potential effect of the<br />
proposed development upon the setting of the monument is assessed as<br />
“not significant”.<br />
10.66 SAM13232 Blue Man‟s Bower, Moated site, Whiston. The monument<br />
consists of the remains of a moated site situated in low pasture (used<br />
partially <strong>for</strong> flood alleviation) to the north of the M1, northeast of Junction<br />
33, with its associated slip roads and supporting infrastructure. It lies close<br />
to the River Rother, and is effectively surrounded by the M1 to its south,<br />
the A630 to its west and the A631 uphill to the north, with a minor road to<br />
its east. These roads define and limit the monument‟s setting, and this is<br />
not considered to be changed by the presence of turbines in views<br />
towards the southeast (an effect of “negligible” magnitude). Taking this into<br />
account the potential effect of the proposed development upon the setting<br />
of the monument is assessed as “not significant”.<br />
236<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
10.67 SAM23201 Deserted Medieval Village, Hellaby. This monument lies<br />
approximately 4.7km northeast of the closest turbine. It consists of the<br />
<strong>for</strong>mer medieval village site in land adjacent to Hellaby Hall, north-east of<br />
Junction 2 on the M18. The monument is partially covered with low<br />
vegetation and has no substantial above ground presence. Its setting is<br />
defined by the neighbouring hotel and associated access and car parks to<br />
its east, and to the large structures of an industrial estate to its west, with<br />
the A631 to its south. This setting is not considered to be affected by the<br />
presence of the turbines to the southwest (an effect of “negligible”<br />
magnitude), and the potential effect is assessed as being “not<br />
significant”.<br />
10.68 SAM29948 Slade Hooton Medieval Settlement and moated site (two<br />
separate areas). This monument consists of the remains of a <strong>for</strong>mer<br />
medieval settlement, with a moated site. The Scheduled area consists of<br />
two distinct areas under the same identification number, separated by a<br />
minor road. The monument is approximately 4.7km to the east of the<br />
nearest turbine. It‟s has no substantial above ground presence, and its<br />
setting is defined by its association with the buildings of the modern<br />
settlement of Slade Hooton. The monument‟s setting is not considered to<br />
be affected by the presence of the turbines even where these could be<br />
seen above the intervening structures in Thurcroft and the M1/M18<br />
interchange. The presence of the proposed development is considered to<br />
be an effect of “negligible” magnitude, which is assessed as “not<br />
significant”.<br />
10.69 SAMSY382 Canklow Hill Earthworks. This monument lies approximately<br />
4.5km (at its southern end) northwest of the nearest turbine. It consists of<br />
the remains of earthworks extending approximately 770m north-south on<br />
the top of Canklow Hill, on the outskirts of Rotherham. The monument<br />
preserves the low earthwork remains of enclosures, tracks and field<br />
boundaries <strong>for</strong>ming an extended prehistoric settlement. The monument is<br />
heavily wooded, and bordered to its immediate east by the rear gardens of<br />
residential properties. The presence of the proposed development to the<br />
southeast is not considered to affect the setting of the monument, which is<br />
here defined as the interrelationship of its constituent parts and their<br />
location on the hill, now covered by woodland, on the edge of a major<br />
urban area. The potential effect on the monument‟s setting is there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
assessed as “not significant”.<br />
10.70 SAMSY602 The Glassworks Cone. This monument is the remains of a<br />
brick glass kiln dating to the middle of the eighteenth century, and is<br />
located approximately 4.7km west of the closest turbine, in Catcliffe. It is<br />
also listed at Grade I (Listed Building Number 335632). It survives<br />
substantially intact to a height of approximately 23m, and remained in use<br />
into the early part of the twentieth century. It is located on its own<br />
landscaped plot within an area of residential housing approximately 100m<br />
from Catcliffe station, and from the River Rother and 200m south of the<br />
elevated A630. Its setting is defined and limited by the surrounding<br />
housing, and the railway to its south and railway to its north. The presence<br />
237<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
of the proposed development to the west will not affect this setting, nor the<br />
historical and archaeological associations of the kiln preserved within the<br />
immediately adjacent ground, nor its relation to the transport infrastructure<br />
which brought the raw materials a fuel to the kiln and removed its product.<br />
The proposed development is considered to have an effect of “negligible”<br />
magnitude, and the potential effect upon the monument‟s setting is<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e assessed as “not significant”.<br />
LISTED BUILDINGS<br />
Grade I and II*<br />
10.71 There are 18 buildings listed at Grade I or Grade II* within 5km. Grade I<br />
buildings are considered to be nationally important and of “high” sensitivity,<br />
and Grade II* buildings are considered regionally important and of<br />
“medium” sensitivity <strong>for</strong> purposes of this assessment (see Table 10.2).<br />
10.72 Listed Building (LB) 334632 The Glassworks Cone, Grade I. The Cone is<br />
also a Scheduled Monument and is considered above (Scheduling taking<br />
precedence over Listing). As noted above, the development is assessed<br />
as having a potential effect upon the Cone‟s settings that is “not<br />
significant”.<br />
10.73 LB335724 Church of St Helen, Treeton, Grade I. The Church lies within<br />
Treeton Village, approximately 4.1km west of the nearest turbine. Its<br />
immediate setting is defined as its place within the churchyard at the core<br />
of the village, which occupies an elevated position. The church is<br />
approached from the west, off a minor street through Treeton. The historic<br />
place of the church within its yard and its relationship with neighbouring<br />
properties and the wider village is not considered to be affected by the<br />
proposed development. The churchyard has substantial mature trees<br />
within it, which limit distant views towards the church (where these are<br />
possible taking into account surrounding properties) to its tower only. Local<br />
cover from buildings and trees will prevent views from the Church towards<br />
the turbines. The turbines will not be visible in any views to the Church<br />
from the Trans Pennine Trail or Sheffield Country Walk, to the west of the<br />
Church, as the hill on which the village is situated will screen the<br />
development from view. The magnitude of the effect is considered to be<br />
“negligible”, and the potential effect upon the church‟s setting is there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
assessed as “not significant”.<br />
10.74 LB335729 Church of St Mary Magdalene, Whiston, Grade II*. The church<br />
lies on the southeastern edge of Whiston, which itself <strong>for</strong>ms part of the<br />
southern extent of Rotherham. The nearest turbine is approximately 3.1km<br />
southeast of the Church. The church lies within its own grounds, and is<br />
approached from the west through a Lytch Gate. Its setting is defined as<br />
its place within the churchyard, and its relationship to neighbouring<br />
structures to north and south, and to the main settlement to the north. This<br />
immediate setting is not considered to be affected by the proposed wind<br />
farm, and views out from the environs of the church are limited to some<br />
238<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
extent by trees along the perimeter of the churchyard. Where views<br />
towards the proposed development are possible, they will include other<br />
modern infrastructure, including power transmission lines and<br />
infrastructure associated with the M1 and M18. Taking the above into<br />
account, the effect of the proposed wind farm upon the setting of the<br />
church is considered to be “negligible”, and this is assessed as “not<br />
significant”.<br />
10.75 LB335733 Whiston Hall Barn, Grade II*, Whiston. The Barn is located<br />
within Whiston, just off the A618 approximately 3.3km northwest of the<br />
closest turbine. Its setting is defined as its place within the urban<br />
environment of Whiston, and historic association with the Grade II Listed<br />
Whiston Hall and Stables to its immediate east. It is not considered that<br />
the proposed development will affect this setting (an effect of “negligible”<br />
magnitude), and there<strong>for</strong>e the potential effect of the Development is<br />
assessed as “not significant”.<br />
10.76 LB335738 Morthen Hall, Grade II*. The Hall is located to the north of the<br />
M1/M18 interchange, approximately 1.1km to the northeast of the closest<br />
turbine. It is closely surrounded by mature trees, which provide close<br />
screening to its south. This effectively limits the setting of the Hall to its<br />
gardens and to the associated Gate piers, Garden Wall and haha (listed<br />
together at Grade II), and to the neighbouring Mews (listed at Grade II) to<br />
its immediate west, along Morthern Hall Lane. These associations are not<br />
affected by the development, and taking into account the close screening<br />
to the south of the Hall, the proposed development is considered to cause<br />
an effect of “negligible” magnitude upon the setting and this potential effect<br />
is assessed as “not significant”.<br />
10.77 LB335748 Dinnington Hall Grade II*. The Hall lies approximately 4.9km<br />
southeast of the nearest turbine. It lies within the built-up area between<br />
North Anston and Dinnington. Its setting is defined as its place within this<br />
(sub) urban environment, and this is not considered to be changed by the<br />
proposed wind farm (an effect of “negligible” magnitude. The potential<br />
effect is there<strong>for</strong>e assessed as “not significant”.<br />
10.78 LB335754 Church of St John, Laughton en Le Morthen, Grade I. The<br />
church lies south of Laughton en Le Morthen, approximately 4.5km east of<br />
the closest turbine. It lies within a churchyard and is approached from the<br />
east (from the north-south road between Laughton en Le Morthen and<br />
Dinnington). The church‟s entrance faces south. The churchyard has<br />
mature trees along its perimeter. The setting of the church is defined by its<br />
place within its churchyard, and its historic and archaeological relationship<br />
to the road to its east and the farm buildings to its south, and to the village<br />
to its north. This immediate setting is not considered to be affected, and<br />
the presence of mature trees on the western perimeter will reduce the<br />
presence of turbines in views to the west. Other views towards the church<br />
from the west (Laughton Common), or on the approached along the road<br />
from the north (Laughton en Le Morthern) and south (Dinnington) will not<br />
feature the turbines (except possibly in the periphery). The effect is<br />
239<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
considered to be “negligible” in magnitude, and the potential effect upon<br />
the setting of the church is there<strong>for</strong>e assessed as “not significant”.<br />
10.79 LB335842 Church of St Peter and St Paul, Todwick, Grade II*. The church<br />
is located within the southeastern part of Todwick, approximately 3.6km to<br />
the southeast of the closest turbine. The setting of the church is defined as<br />
its position within the churchyard, which is bordered by mature trees. The<br />
churchyard is surrounded by residential properties. This setting is not<br />
considered to be changed by the proposed development (an effect of<br />
“negligible” magnitude) and the potential effect is there<strong>for</strong>e assessed as<br />
“not significant”.<br />
10.80 LB335853 Church of St John, Wales, Grade II*. The church is located<br />
approximately 4.2km south of the nearest turbine, on the eastern side of<br />
the M1, on the southern edge of Wales. The setting of the Church is<br />
defined as its place within its churchyard, and its relationship to the village<br />
as a whole. This not considered to be changed by the Development (an<br />
effect of “negligible” magnitude), which is unlikely to have any substantial<br />
intervisibility with the Church, due to intervening structures, and tree cover<br />
within the churchyard. The effect upon the setting of the church is<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e assessed as “not significant”.<br />
10.81 LB335876 Church of All Saints, Aston, Grade I. The church is located in<br />
the northern part of Aston, approximately 1.7km south of the southernmost<br />
turbine. The church is set within a small churchyard, on the edge of the<br />
village. Its immediate environs contains many mature trees, there are<br />
buildings in close proximity to south and west, and beyond a minor road to<br />
the north. The entrance to the church faces south. The church‟s immediate<br />
setting and historic association with the village is not considered to be<br />
affected by the proposed development (and effect of “negligible”<br />
magnitude), and the presence of mature tree cover and buildings close to<br />
it limit the availability of long views towards the church. Taking the above<br />
into account, the potential effect of the proposed wind farm upon the<br />
church‟s setting is assessed as “not significant”.<br />
10.82 LB335896 Aughton Court, Aughton, Grade II*. The Building is located<br />
approximately 1.8km west of the proposed development, in the northern<br />
part of Aughton. Its setting is defined by its location within the village, at<br />
the junction of the A618 and B6067, with residential properties to its north<br />
and east (between it and the development). This setting is not considered<br />
to be affected by the proposed wind farm (an effect of “negligible”<br />
magnitude), and views towards the building can only be obtained from<br />
along the roads (where vegetation permits) and the turbines will not<br />
feature in these. The potential effect upon the setting of the court is<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e assessed as “not significant”.<br />
10.83 LB335901 Hellaby Hall, Hellaby, Grade II*. The hall lies approximately<br />
4.7km northeast of the closest turbine, north-east of Junction 2 on the<br />
M18. The Scheduled remains of a medieval settlement lie in close<br />
proximity. It is currently used as a hotel and its setting is defined by this<br />
240<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
function, its place within its grounds (including the Scheduled remains) and<br />
to the associated access and car parks to south and east, as well as to the<br />
large structures of an industrial estate to its west, with the A631 to its<br />
south. This setting is not considered to be affected by the presence of the<br />
turbines to the southwest (an effect of “negligible” magnitude), and the<br />
potential effect is assessed as “not significant”.<br />
10.84 LB335972 Thurcroft Hall, Grade II*. The hall lies approximately 3.4km to<br />
the northeast of the closest turbine, and northeast of Thurcroft Village. The<br />
hall faces southeast (and turbines will not be visible in that direction), and<br />
is set within its own gardens. There is a working farm to its north, with<br />
associated outbuildings. A belt of trees to the north of the Hall screens it<br />
from opencast workings. These associations are considered to <strong>for</strong>m the<br />
Hall‟s setting. Although all of the turbines are predicted to be visible from<br />
the Hall, they are not considered to affect the setting as described above,<br />
and intervening presence of Thurcroft Village and the M1/M18 interchange<br />
are likely to reduce their presence in views to the south-west from the<br />
environs of the hall. There<strong>for</strong>e, the setting of the hall is not considered to<br />
be affected by the proposed development (an effect of “negligible”<br />
magnitude), and the potential effect upon it is there<strong>for</strong>e assessed as “not<br />
significant”.<br />
10.85 LB335984 Church of All Saints, Laughton en Le Morthen, Grade I. The<br />
church is located adjacent to Castle Hill (and the Scheduled Motte and<br />
Bailey castle) in Laughton en Le Morthern, approximately 3.8km east of<br />
the closest turbine. Its setting is defined as its place within its churchyard,<br />
its relationship to the village and its historic and archaeological<br />
associations with the motte to its west. The turbines may be visible in view<br />
to the west from the churchyard, where the mature trees along the western<br />
boundary of the churchyard permit, beyond the M1/M18 interchange. The<br />
presence of the turbines is considered to constitute an effect of “negligible”<br />
magnitude on the setting of the monument, as these principal relationships<br />
and the setting as defined above will not be affected. The tower is a<br />
prominent focal point, historically marking the village within its landscape.<br />
This is particularly noticeable approaching the village from the west, and<br />
the turbines will not affect this view. Views towards the tower from the east<br />
are limited by the presence of intervening structures within the village, and<br />
the road through the village is oriented east-north-east (away from the<br />
proposed development) and the turbines are unlikely to be visible in such<br />
views. Taking the above into account, the potential effect of the proposed<br />
development upon the setting of the Church is assessed as “not<br />
significant”.<br />
10.86 LBs 335999, 336000 and 336001 Slade Hooton Hall and associated<br />
features, Grade II*. These listings cover the Hall at Slade Hooton, the<br />
stable and remains of an attached barn immediately to the Hall‟s<br />
southwest and the wall enclosing the hall‟s front garden, including the<br />
gatepiers and gateway. The Hall lies approximately 4.7km to the east of<br />
the proposed wind farm site. The setting is defined as the interrelationship<br />
of the listed elements of the hall, and their association with the<br />
241<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
neighbouring properties of the settlement. There is also an archaeological<br />
and historic association with the Scheduled remains of the <strong>for</strong>mer<br />
medieval settlement to the north of the Hall. The hall is approached from<br />
the north, with its main entrance facing south. Matures trees line its<br />
western boundary. There is a possibility that part of some turbines could<br />
be seen from the Halls grounds in views to the west, but turbines will not<br />
be visible in views towards the Hall (to the north). This setting is not<br />
considered to be affected by the proposed development, an effect of<br />
“negligible” magnitude which is assessed to be “not significant”.<br />
10.87 LB458679 Church of St Mary, Beighton, Grade II*. The church lies<br />
approximately 4.6km to the southwest of the proposed development,<br />
within Beighton. It lies within its own churchyard, the perimeter of which is<br />
lined with mature trees. The church‟s entrance is on the south side, and it<br />
is approached from the east, along a path between residential properties<br />
along the high street. The church‟s setting is defined as its place within the<br />
churchyard, and relationship to the settlement. Local tree cover within the<br />
churchyard, and the structures within Beighton and the intervening<br />
settlements mean that the turbines are not likely to be visible from the<br />
environs of the church. This setting is not considered to be affected by the<br />
proposed development, an effect of “negligible” magnitude which is<br />
assessed to be “not significant”.<br />
Grade II<br />
10.88 46 listed buildings lie within 2km of the proposed development boundary<br />
and these are all listed at Grade II. They are considered to be only locally<br />
important of “low” sensitivity <strong>for</strong> purposes of this assessment (see Table<br />
10.2). The majority lie within the villages of Brampton-en-Le-Morthen,<br />
Morthern (both on the other side of the motorway from the proposed<br />
development) and Ulley, and in the larger settlement of Aston.<br />
10.89 None are considered to receive an effect upon their setting greater than<br />
“high” magnitude (which assumes an extensive change in setting), and<br />
following the matrix presented at Table 10.4, this equates to an effect of no<br />
more than “minor” significance. Detailed consideration of the settings is<br />
likely to reduce potential effects further in each case once the actual<br />
degree of intervening structural or vegetation cover is considered, or the<br />
relationships and associations of the buildings within their villages is<br />
considered.<br />
Registered Historic Parks and Gardens<br />
10.90 There are 19 registered historic parks and gardens within 15km of the<br />
Development. They are considered nationally important, and thus of “high”<br />
sensitivity.<br />
10.91 None of these Parks lies closer than 5km from the proposed development<br />
boundary. Many of these Parks have essentially urban settings in or<br />
adjacent to Rotherham and Sheffield. As noted in paragraph 10.15, at this<br />
242<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
distance they might be expected to receive an effect on their setting<br />
(where any effect is evident) of “low” magnitude, and following the matrix<br />
presented at Table 10.4, the significance of this effect is assessed to be<br />
“minor” only. This is not considered to be significant in terms of the EIA<br />
regulations, and this class of features has not been considered further.<br />
Conservation Areas<br />
10.92 Conservation Areas are designated and controlled at a Local Authority<br />
level, and <strong>for</strong> purposes of this assessment are considered locally important<br />
and there<strong>for</strong>e of “low” sensitivity.<br />
10.93 There are 5 areas within 5km of the development boundary. The two<br />
closest are at Brampton en Le Morthern (approximately 800m to the east<br />
of the M1/M18 interchange) and in the north-eastern part of Aston,<br />
approximately 1.6km to the south of the development.<br />
10.94 The turbines will be prominent in views from the edge of the Brampton<br />
conservation area, beyond the motorway. In the approaches from north<br />
and south the turbines will be visible in the periphery of views. They will be<br />
visible above the area when approached along the minor road from<br />
Thurcroft. The internal associations spaces and buildings within the area<br />
will not be affected by the proposed development, but the presence of the<br />
turbines is considered to affect the wider setting of the area, in particular<br />
when viewed <strong>for</strong>m the east. It is noted that the motorway interchange lies<br />
relatively close to the western edge of the village, and separates it from<br />
the proposed development. The magnitude of the effect is considered to<br />
be “medium” upon a heritage feature of “low” sensitivity, leading to an<br />
effect of “minor” significance upon the Area‟s setting. This is not<br />
considered significant under the EIA regulations.<br />
10.95 The Conservation area in Aston lies to the south of the B6067, and is<br />
centred on the Church of All Saints and Aughton Court. The internal<br />
relationship of the spaces and listed and non-listed structures within the<br />
area are not considered to be affected by the proposed development.<br />
There is considerable screening af<strong>for</strong>ded by mature trees within and<br />
adjacent to the area and by neighbouring buildings to the north. Although<br />
the turbines may be viewed in occasional glimpses from the edge of the<br />
conservation area, it is not considered that they will affect its immediate<br />
setting or character. The magnitude of the potential effect is considered to<br />
be “low”, and there<strong>for</strong>e the effect upon the area‟s setting is assessed to be<br />
“not significant”.<br />
10.96 The remaining areas (Treeton, Wickersley and Laughton en le Morthern)<br />
lie at between 2km to 5km of the proposed development site. The areas of<br />
Treeton and Wickersley are part of larger (sub)urban areas, or have<br />
industrial and/or transport infrastructure in close proximity. Following the<br />
matrix presented in Table 10.4, they are predicted to receive an effect of<br />
“medium” magnitude (at between 2-5km) and the significance of any<br />
potential effect upon their settings is of “minor” significance at worst this<br />
243<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
not being considered significant <strong>for</strong> purposes of the EIA regulations and<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e the areas are not considered further.<br />
POTENTIAL DECOMMISSIONING EFFECTS<br />
10.97 No direct impacts are anticipated from the decommissioning of the<br />
proposed wind farm. However, should alternative access be required or<br />
any disturbance of previously undisturbed ground be required, then an<br />
appropriate programme of archaeological work may be required and need<br />
to be agreed with the County Archaeologist. Any such work should take<br />
into account the results of any archaeological investigation undertaken in<br />
mitigation of the construction of the proposed development.<br />
10.98 The decommissioning of the wind farm will have the effect of removing any<br />
indirect, visual impacts upon the settings of cultural heritage features<br />
beyond the site boundary.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS<br />
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION<br />
10.99 The desk-based assessment has indicated that there is some potential <strong>for</strong><br />
unknown features of all periods to survive within the development site.<br />
Geophysical survey did not reveal significant archaeological features<br />
(although some anomalies relating to post-medieval and modern farming<br />
activities were detected), and as a result the potential <strong>for</strong> significant<br />
unknown remains to existing is considered to be “low”. It is considered that<br />
the implementation of a scheme of archaeological work leading to the<br />
preservation of any remains by record would constitute appropriate<br />
mitigation, and that this could be secured in response to a planning<br />
condition.<br />
10.100 The following represents an indicative scheme of archaeological<br />
mitigation, the details of which will be agreed in the <strong>for</strong>m of a Written<br />
Scheme of Investigation submitted to South Yorkshire Archaeology<br />
Advisory Service, and approved by the Local Planning Authority.<br />
10.101 An initial phase of trial trench evaluation will be undertaken within the<br />
development footprint, to be carried out in advance of construction (should<br />
planning permission be granted). This will target anomalies highlighted in<br />
the geophysical survey, as well as “blank” areas, in order to validate the<br />
results of the survey. The trial trench evaluation will also include the<br />
turbine base locations, and other areas of infrastructure where the ground<br />
surface will be subject to disturbance, such as the construction compound,<br />
control building location, access tracks and cranes bases.<br />
10.102 Depending on the results of the initial phase of trial trenching, an<br />
appropriate scheme of further investigation will be agreed (in the <strong>for</strong>m of a<br />
Written Scheme of Investigation submitted to SYAAS and approved by the<br />
Local Planning Authority). This may consist of a detailed excavation, strip,<br />
244<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
map and sample investigation (in advance of construction) and/or<br />
watching brief on construction. The programme of archaeological work will<br />
allow <strong>for</strong> adequate sampling and recording of features if encountered<br />
during any watching brief.<br />
10.103 The programme of archaeological work will include all post-fieldwork<br />
assessment and analysis of records and artefacts generate by the<br />
investigation to allow the creation of an “archive” suitable <strong>for</strong> long-term<br />
storage with an appropriate receiving body, and publication of the results<br />
in an appropriate journal or media, this being understood to constitute the<br />
“record” implied by preservation by record.<br />
10.104 The effect of the implementation of an agreed programme of<br />
archaeological work would be to provide mitigation <strong>for</strong> any potential<br />
physical damage to or loss of the archaeological features, by means of<br />
securing their preservation (by record). Although the possible physical<br />
effect would remain the same, the creation of a “record” of any<br />
archaeological remains will reduce the magnitude of the possible effect<br />
from “low” or “medium” to “negligible” or “low” (dependant on the type,<br />
period, nature of the remains potentially affected). This will reduce the<br />
significance of the predicted, unmitigated, effects (assessed as being of<br />
“minor” to “moderate” significance [see paragraphs 10.57 and following]),<br />
to being “not significant”.<br />
OPERATIONAL MITIGATION<br />
10.105 No mitigation is proposed as no significant direct impacts upon cultural<br />
heritage features are anticipated.<br />
10.106 No mitigation is proposed or considered practicable (beyond that<br />
embedded in the designed layout) in respect of potential impacts upon the<br />
settings of features beyond the study area.<br />
10.107 No residual direct impacts are anticipated during the operation of the<br />
proposed wind farm.<br />
DECOMMISSIONING MITIGATION<br />
10.108 No mitigation is proposed as no effects are anticipated. As stated in<br />
paragraph 10.99, if alternative access arrangements are made, requiring<br />
groundworks on previously undisturbed ground, then an appropriate<br />
programme of archaeological recording may need to be agreed (to be<br />
carried out in advance) with the relevant body.<br />
10.109 No residual direct impacts are anticipated from the decommissioning of the<br />
proposed wind farm.<br />
245<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT<br />
10.110 This section considers the potential cumulative effect on the settings of<br />
cultural heritage features from the addition of the Penny Hill wind farm. For<br />
purposes of this assessment, the baseline condition is assumed to include<br />
the three turbines at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre<br />
(approximately 5km to the west), the consented wind farm at Loscar<br />
(approximately 8km to the south) and the consented site at Marr near<br />
Doncaster (approximately 17km to the north-east). The proposed Hampole<br />
scheme (near Marr) has also been considered.<br />
10.111 The nearest wind turbines to the Penny Hill site are the three turbines at<br />
the AMRC some 5km to the west. These are relatively small in size and<br />
are enclosed by industrial premises. The Landscape and Visual<br />
Assessment notes that these turbines have a very limited influence on<br />
landscape character beyond the industrial estate within which they are<br />
located, and this is also considered to apply to cultural heritage features<br />
within the locality. It is considered that the combination of the AMRC<br />
turbines in association with the proposed turbines at Penny Hill would<br />
have no greater impact on landscape character than if the Penny Hill<br />
turbines were developed in isolation.<br />
10.112 The Marr and Hampole schemes are located at a considerable distance<br />
from the Penny Hill wind farm site and are unlikely to be directly<br />
intervisible with the proposed development, especially taking into account<br />
the intervening urban development. It is not considered that the addition of<br />
Penny Hill to a landscape in which these schemes were already present<br />
would cause any additional significant effect upon the settings of any<br />
archaeological, historic or other feature of cultural heritage interest.<br />
10.113 Loscar is situated closer to the south of Penny Hill, within 8km, but<br />
separated from it by the villages of Todwick, Wales, Kiveton and South<br />
Anston. Although a number of features of cultural heritage interest will be<br />
intervisible with both developments, they are not considered to receive any<br />
additional significant effect upon their settings from the addition of Penny<br />
Hill to a situation in which the Loscar site already existed.<br />
10.114 Further in<strong>for</strong>mation on cumulative effects can be found in the Landscape<br />
and Visual Impact Assessment in Section 6 of this ES on the landscape<br />
and visual impact assessment.<br />
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS<br />
10.115 No direct effects are anticipated upon any known cultural heritage<br />
features. There is potential <strong>for</strong> unknown archaeological remains to exist<br />
within the site that may be affected by construction works, although the<br />
potential <strong>for</strong> significant unknown remains to survive is assessed as “low”.<br />
The implementation of an agreed programme of archaeological works post<br />
receipt of planning permission, leading to preservation by record, is<br />
246<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
considered to constitute acceptable mitigation. Once the preservation of<br />
the archaeological remains has been secured (by record) the residual<br />
direct effect upon the cultural heritage remains will be considered “not<br />
significant”.<br />
10.116 No significant indirect (principally visual) effects are anticipated upon any<br />
features of cultural heritage interest.<br />
Table 10.8 Details the Summary of the Potential Effects, Mitigation<br />
and Residual Effects<br />
Potential Effect Mitigation Residual Effect<br />
Construction Effects<br />
Potential <strong>for</strong> damage or<br />
destruction of unknown<br />
archaeological remains<br />
(direct effects on features<br />
within the site boundary).<br />
The significance would be<br />
“minor” to “moderate”<br />
depending on the nature of<br />
any remains encountered.<br />
Indirect effects upon<br />
settings of some cultural<br />
heritage features beyond<br />
site boundary (e.g. from<br />
presence of cranes). These<br />
would be temporary and<br />
not significant.<br />
Operational Effects<br />
No significant direct effects<br />
are anticipated upon<br />
cultural heritage features.<br />
No significant effects are<br />
anticipated upon the<br />
archaeological and historic<br />
settings of any cultural<br />
heritage features.<br />
Decommissioning Effects<br />
No direct impacts are<br />
anticipated 2 .<br />
Removal of potential<br />
indirect, visual effects upon<br />
settings of some cultural<br />
heritage features beyond<br />
the site boundary.<br />
Implementation of an<br />
appropriate scheme of<br />
archaeological work,<br />
both in advance of and<br />
during construction,<br />
leading to preservation<br />
by record. Geophysical<br />
survey has already been<br />
undertaken.<br />
None proposed or<br />
considered practicable.<br />
None proposed. None.<br />
None proposed or<br />
considered practicable<br />
(beyond that embedded<br />
in the final designed<br />
layout).<br />
None proposed. None.<br />
247<br />
Not Significant.<br />
None (temporary effects).<br />
Indirect effects upon settings<br />
of some cultural heritage<br />
features, which are temporary<br />
and reversible and of minor<br />
significance.<br />
None proposed. Restoration of previously<br />
existing settings 9 .<br />
9 Notwithstanding other changes to their settings that may have occurred since the construction the<br />
proposed development, not relating to the proposed development.<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
PART 3: DESCRIPTION OF OTHER EFFECTS<br />
Part 3 of the ES undertakes the further assessment of other potential effects which<br />
have been identified by the Applicant as being material to the consideration of the<br />
proposal. These include:<br />
Construction traffic;<br />
Civilian and military aeronautical radar;<br />
Radio-communications and television;<br />
Ground conditions and hydrology;<br />
Shadow flicker; and<br />
Other issues (e.g. <strong>environmental</strong> management and health & safety).<br />
248<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
11. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
11.1 This section of the ES assesses the predicted road traffic that would be<br />
generated during the construction of the Penny Hill Wind Farm.<br />
Movements of abnormal load vehicles (ALVs), other heavy goods vehicles<br />
(HGVs) and lighter traffic, mainly consisting of construction workers driving<br />
to and from the site in cars and vans, are considered. The assessment has<br />
been undertaken by Faber Maunsell.<br />
11.2 As stated in Section 5 of this ES, it is proposed that roadstone <strong>for</strong> the<br />
construction of site roads would ideally be sourced from local quarries in<br />
proximity to the site. It is likely that concrete would be brought directly to<br />
site, <strong>for</strong> some wind farm sites it is possible that concrete could be batched<br />
on site within the construction compound, but this would be inappropriate<br />
<strong>for</strong> a development of this relatively small size. For the purposes of this<br />
assessment it has there<strong>for</strong>e been assumed that concrete will be delivered<br />
to the site.<br />
11.3 This section also considers access to the site <strong>for</strong> ALVs, the potential <strong>for</strong><br />
driver distraction and operational and decommissioning vehicle<br />
movements.<br />
CONSULTATION<br />
11.4 The Highways Agency and Transportation Service of RMBC both<br />
responded to the EIA Scoping Report submitted to RMBC in May 2008.<br />
Comments received from the RMBC Transportation Service are:<br />
„The Environmental Statement should include a transport<br />
assessment having regard <strong>for</strong> the type, number, frequency and<br />
timings of vehicles accessing the site during the construction and<br />
decommissioning periods, along with the traffic routes and an<br />
assessment of the impacts on the highway network, road users and<br />
residential amenity.<br />
Final details of permanent and temporary access should include a<br />
qualitative assessment of any affected hedgerows and landscape<br />
and includes an assessment of the impact and any necessary<br />
mitigation/rein<strong>statement</strong>/enhancement measures‟.<br />
11.5 The Scoping Opinion also confirmed that RMBC consider the routes<br />
proposed (Route A and C described later) to be acceptable.<br />
11.6 The following comments were also made in relation to safety which are<br />
relevant to the scope of the transport assessment:<br />
249<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
„The Environmental Statement should have regard <strong>for</strong> safety aspects,<br />
particularly in relation to the nearby motorway, and include<br />
consideration of topple distances, visibility, driver distraction…‟<br />
11.7 The Highways Agency responded to the Scoping Request by supplying a<br />
copy of their “Network Strategy Spatial Planning Advice Note: SP 04/07”<br />
which provides advice on „planning applications <strong>for</strong> wind turbines sited<br />
near to trunk roads‟.<br />
11.8 In addition, a meeting was held with the Highways Agency on 2 nd<br />
December 2008 in order to provide in<strong>for</strong>mation on the proposed<br />
development and the work carried out to date (e.g. the route access<br />
study), and to obtain advice and agreement on the scope of the<br />
assessment to be carried out.<br />
ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE<br />
11.9 The document “Guidance on Transport Assessments” (Department <strong>for</strong><br />
Transport (DfT), 2007) has been used <strong>for</strong> the construction traffic<br />
assessment.<br />
11.10 A Transport Assessment (TA) is a comprehensive and systematic process<br />
that sets out transport issues relating to a proposed development and<br />
identifies what measures will be taken to deal with the anticipated<br />
transport impacts of a scheme. For smaller developments and specialised<br />
cases with lesser transport impacts, a Transport Statement (TS), which is<br />
a simplified Transport Assessment, can be produced instead. The type of<br />
assessment used <strong>for</strong> the proposed development was decided once the<br />
scale of the construction traffic had been identified.<br />
METHODOLOGY<br />
11.11 Potential effects as a result of the construction, operation and<br />
decommissioning of the wind farm have been identified and assessed and<br />
where relevant, mitigation measures have been recommended. This<br />
assessment has been structured as shown in the “Guidance on Transport<br />
Assessment” and the significance of potential effects has been assessed<br />
in light of recognised thresholds stated in this guidance. This assessment<br />
has the following structure:<br />
Existing Site In<strong>for</strong>mation;<br />
Baseline Transport Data;<br />
Proposed Transport Data;<br />
Visual Distraction (Driver Distraction); and<br />
Mitigation and Residual Effects.<br />
250<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
EXISTING SITE INFORMATION<br />
EXISTING SITE INFORMATION SUMMARY<br />
11.12 Penny Hill Wind Farm is proposed on land to the west of the M1/M18<br />
interchange (Junction 32), to the east of the village of Ulley. Access to the<br />
site would be made via an existing field access along a rural road, Penny<br />
Hill Lane.<br />
11.13 Detailed in<strong>for</strong>mation on the characteristics of the site is contained within<br />
the various sections of this ES and is not repeated here.<br />
ASSESSMENT<br />
PROPOSED ROUTE AND SITE ACCESS<br />
11.14 The access study concluded that access to the site <strong>for</strong> the delivery of<br />
turbine components (using ALVs) is feasible along the preferred route<br />
proposed. Details on the route are contained in the Collett Transport<br />
report in Appendix 7 (described as „Route A‟). The report also states that<br />
all necessary road consents, abnormal load orders and precise transport<br />
management methods required to be satisfactorily dealt with in the postconsent<br />
and construction phases of the project. The Applicant would<br />
address such issues in the proposed CMS and EMP, in discussions with<br />
the Local Highways Authority and the Highways Agency.<br />
11.15 It is envisaged that turbine components would be delivered to the site via<br />
the public road network from a suitable port on the East Coast such as<br />
Immingham or Goole. The principal access route would utilise the<br />
southbound M18, leaving at Junction 1 between Hellaby and Wickersley,<br />
then westbound on the A631, a left turn onto the B6060 through<br />
Wickersley and Thurcroft be<strong>for</strong>e turning right onto Hawk Hill Lane and<br />
continuing westbound to the site entrance on Penny Hill Lane. The route<br />
access study has also confirmed that turbine components, with the<br />
exception of turbine blades could be delivered to the site along another<br />
route („Route C‟) if required. This is the same as the route that is proposed<br />
<strong>for</strong> all other construction vehicles, including HGVs and is described below.<br />
Should there be an alteration to the specified delivery routes then<br />
confirmation and consent will be sought from the relevant highways bodies<br />
and notification will be given to the Local Planning Authority.<br />
11.16 HGVs and other construction vehicles would use a separate route from<br />
Junction 31 of the M1, then eastbound on the A57, turning left onto the<br />
B6463, then turning left onto Common Road and continuing onto Long<br />
Road be<strong>for</strong>e turning left onto Penny Hill Lane to the site entrance. This<br />
route would minimise disruption by avoiding local settlements.<br />
11.17 It is proposed to construct one new access point onto the public highway<br />
at Penny Hill Lane and one crossing point linking the site across Brampton<br />
Lane. The new junction onto Penny Hill Lane will include road widening to<br />
251<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
oth lanes on the eastern approach to the junction, which will enable<br />
oversized vehicles to navigate the turns into the site. The crossing point<br />
would be subject to a suitable management practice during both<br />
construction and operation to ensure safe working. The ground would also<br />
be prepared to accept suitable axle loadings. The upgraded junction<br />
proposal is shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA14. Detailed swept path<br />
analysis drawings of the proposed site entrance are included in Appendix<br />
7.<br />
11.18 The Applicant and selected turbine delivery company would prepare a<br />
schedule of any street furniture requiring relocation or temporary removal,<br />
in consultation with the highway authorities, prior to the commencement of<br />
deliveries. The details of all modifications required would be included as<br />
part of the EMP and CMS prior to construction and would be subject to<br />
gaining the appropriate road construction consents and permits <strong>for</strong><br />
carrying out works to the public road network.<br />
11.19 There is a well-established procedure covering the movement of ALVs,<br />
such as turbine components, which is administered by the Highways<br />
Agency in consultation with various parties. Prior to deliveries<br />
commencing, the appropriate bodies such as the Police, the emergency<br />
services and local authorities will be consulted via established procedures<br />
to ensure that the timings, management and delivery routes are agreed<br />
and that appropriate permits are in place <strong>for</strong> the turbine component<br />
movements.<br />
11.20 The condition of the public roads would be surveyed and recorded prior to<br />
them being used by the heavy traffic required <strong>for</strong> the purpose of<br />
constructing the wind farm. To that end, video footage or a series of<br />
photographs would be recorded and supplied to the local highway<br />
authority. Repair and maintenance work would be carried out on these<br />
roads during and following the construction period to rectify any damage<br />
caused by the passing of heavy vehicles associated with the wind farm.<br />
All works would be carried out to the specification of the local highway<br />
authority.<br />
11.21 The Penny Hill Wind Farm would generate insignificant volumes of traffic<br />
once commissioned, as the only scheduled traffic movements would be<br />
occasional visits made by maintenance staff in light vehicles.<br />
BASELINE TRANSPORT DATA<br />
BASELINE TRANSPORT DATA SUMMARY<br />
11.22 Baseline traffic count data along the adjacent stretches of the M1 and M18<br />
was supplied by the Highways Agency.<br />
11.23 Baseline traffic count data <strong>for</strong> the local road network was obtained from<br />
RMBC. Traffic data was obtained <strong>for</strong> 12-hour traffic surveys with data<br />
252<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
eing recorded in 15 minute intervals between the hours of 07:00 and<br />
19:00 at the following junctions:<br />
A631 west of M18 J1 – Manual traffic survey on 21 st February 2008;<br />
A631/B6060 junction – Manual traffic survey on 13 th May 2003;<br />
B6060/Brampton Rd junction – Manual traffic survey on 10 th July 2007;<br />
and<br />
A57/Todwick Road junction – Manual traffic survey on 17 th October<br />
2007.<br />
11.24 Data was not available from RMBC <strong>for</strong> the following two junctions, so<br />
turning count surveys were undertaken by the company Count on Us Ltd:<br />
Todwick Road/Common Road; and<br />
Penny Hill Lane/Common Lane.<br />
11.25 The surveys were carried out on 26th February 2009. Survey hours were<br />
07:00 - 19:00. All in<strong>for</strong>mation was collected in 15 minute intervals and was<br />
tabulated with hourly and period totals. Details of site layouts and arm<br />
labelling are shown on Drawings 37940-01 and 37940-02 in the Count on<br />
Us report in Appendix 7.<br />
11.26 Vehicles were divided into the following categories: Car, Light Goods<br />
Vehicle (LGV), Other Goods Vehicle (OGV1), Other Goods Vehicle<br />
(OGV2); buses and coaches (PSV); motorcycles (MCL) and personal<br />
cycles (PCL). Further in<strong>for</strong>mation on these vehicle types is given in the<br />
report in Appendix 7.<br />
ASSESSMENT<br />
Strategic Road Network<br />
11.27 Based on data provided by the Highways Agency, the southbound<br />
average annual 12-hour traffic flow between September 2007 and August<br />
2008 on the M18 between Junctions 1 and 0 was 38,684 vehicles and<br />
northbound between Junctions 0 and 1 was 38,342 vehicles. The annual<br />
average 12 hour traffic flow northbound on the M1 between Junctions 31<br />
and 32 over the same period was 52,905 vehicles and southbound<br />
between Junctions 32 and 31 was 51,615.<br />
Local Road Network<br />
11.28 Based on data provided by RMBC and obtained from traffic counts<br />
undertaken by Count on Us Ltd, the 12-hour bidirectional traffic flow <strong>for</strong> the<br />
links on the ALV and the HGV loading routes are as follows <strong>for</strong> their<br />
respective survey years:<br />
253<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
A631 Bawtry Road, Hellaby - 25,442<br />
A631 Bawtry Road, Wickersley - 24,450<br />
Morthern Road, Wickersley - 9,368<br />
Morthern Road, Thurcroft - 10,777<br />
Green Arbour Road - 13,5604<br />
Hawk Hill Lane - 1,072<br />
A57 Worksop Road - 25,386<br />
B6463 Todwick Road - 9,685<br />
Common Road - 1,872<br />
Long Road - 3,152<br />
Penny Hill Lane - 1,617<br />
11.29 The increase in these baseline traffic numbers on both the SRN and local<br />
road network, based on the estimated year of construction (2010), is<br />
summarised in Table 11.1 below.<br />
254<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Table 11.1: Predicted Traffic Numbers <strong>for</strong> 2010 (All Vehicles)<br />
Direction of Travel Survey<br />
Year<br />
M18 northbound<br />
(between J0 and J1)<br />
M18 southbound<br />
(between J1 and J0)<br />
M1 northbound (between<br />
J31 and J32)<br />
M1 southbound (between<br />
J32 and J31)<br />
A631 Bawtry Road,<br />
Hellaby 11<br />
A631 Bawtry Road,<br />
Wickersley<br />
Morthern Road,<br />
Wickersley<br />
Morthern Road,<br />
Thurcroft 2<br />
Annual<br />
Average 12hr<br />
Traffic Flows<br />
255<br />
Central Growth<br />
Estimate 10 to<br />
2010<br />
One way flows on Strategic Road Network<br />
Predicted Annual<br />
Average 12hr Traffic<br />
Flows <strong>for</strong> 2010<br />
2008 38,342 3.06% 39,515<br />
2008 38,684 3.06% 39,867<br />
2008 52,905 3.06% 54,523<br />
2008 51,615 3.06% 53,194<br />
Bidirectional flows <strong>for</strong> Local Road Network<br />
2008 25,442 2<br />
3.06% 26,226 2<br />
2003 24,450 11.19% 27,222<br />
2003 9,368 11.19% 10,430<br />
2007 10,777 2 4.59% 11,277 2<br />
Green Arbour Road 2 2007 13,560 2 4.59% 14,189 2<br />
Hawk Hill Lane 2009 1,072 1.53% 1,088<br />
A57 Worksop Road 2007 25,386 4.59% 26,563<br />
B6463 Todwick Road 2009 9,685 1.53% 9,833<br />
Common Road 2009 1,872 1.53% 1,901<br />
Long Road 2009 3,152 1.53% 3,200<br />
Penny Hill Lane 2009 1,617 1.53% 1,642<br />
10<br />
Growth estimate obtained from National Road Traffic Forecasts data <strong>for</strong> years 2008 to 2009 and<br />
2009 to 2010 – All Traffic Central Forecast.<br />
11<br />
Annual Average 12 hour traffic flows not available, AADT estimated flows from Peak Hour Flows<br />
used instead using AADT = (PHF/2.63)*24 based on “Transport in the Urban Environment” (2 nd<br />
Edition, Institution of Highways and Transport).<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
PROPOSED TRANSPORT DATA<br />
Proposed Transport Data Summary<br />
11.30 An assessment has been carried out of the transport data during the<br />
periods of construction, operation and decommissioning and the impacts<br />
on the local and strategic road networks have been assessed against the<br />
baseline transport data.<br />
Assessment<br />
11.31 The proposed transport data has been analysed by phase and details the<br />
transport data <strong>for</strong> the construction, operation and decommissioning of the<br />
wind farm.<br />
CONSTRUCTION PHASE<br />
Trip Generation<br />
11.32 During the predicted 10 month construction period, the following traffic will<br />
access the site:<br />
HGVs, to deliver stone and concrete;<br />
flat-bed lorries, to deliver substation and trans<strong>for</strong>mer components;<br />
semi-low extendable trailers, to deliver turbine components (requiring<br />
escort);<br />
cranes, delivered as mobile units and on low-loaders; and<br />
construction personnel and deliveries, by private car, light van or<br />
minibus.<br />
11.33 The vehicles used to transport turbine components will constitute<br />
oversized vehicles / abnormal loads only on the delivery phase of the<br />
journey, as the trailers will be retracted during the return leg. Each delivery<br />
of turbine components there<strong>for</strong>e consists of one abnormal load movement<br />
on the outbound movement and one HGV movement on the return<br />
movement.<br />
11.34 Table 11.2 outlines the predicted traffic levels associated with the<br />
construction of the wind farm, over the 10-month, 10-hour working day<br />
construction period <strong>for</strong> standard HGVs, abnormal loads and light vehicles.<br />
This in<strong>for</strong>mation is shown as Total, Average Daily and Average Hourly<br />
movements.<br />
11.35 It will be endeavoured to source roadstone <strong>for</strong> the proposal from quarries<br />
in close proximity to the site, however this will be subsequent to availability<br />
and acceptability. All traffic movements bringing building materials to the<br />
site would have to approach the site from Junction 31 of the M1 and the<br />
A57 using the proposed access route into the site.<br />
11.36 It is hoped that local contractors would be employed wherever possible in<br />
the construction of the wind farm and they could approach the site from a<br />
variety of routes, depending on their point of origin, however the majority<br />
would be expected to approach the site from the M1. To assess a “worst-<br />
256<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
case” scenario it has been assumed that 100 percent of vehicles<br />
accessing the site would utilise the M1 and the A57.<br />
11.37 This transport assessment there<strong>for</strong>e considers increases in traffic on the<br />
M1 at its junction with the A57 (Junction 31) and the southbound M18 at its<br />
junction with the A631 (Junction 1). The assessment also considers<br />
increases in traffic westbound on the A631, southbound on the B6060 and<br />
westbound on Hawk Hill Lane near to the proposed site access <strong>for</strong> the<br />
transportation of turbine components and eastbound on the A57,<br />
northbound on the B6463 and Common Road and westbound on Penny<br />
Hill Lane <strong>for</strong> all other construction traffic.<br />
Table 11.2: Predicted Bidirectional Monthly Movements during Construction Phase:<br />
All Vehicles<br />
Activity<br />
257<br />
Month<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total<br />
Heavy Goods Vehicle Movements (HGV) including Abnormal Loads (ALV)<br />
Mobilisation to site 72 20 92<br />
Access tracks and<br />
crane pads<br />
560 560 560 560 2240<br />
Turbine foundations 190 190 190 190 760<br />
Metering building 30 30 60<br />
Electrical<br />
installation<br />
20 20 20 60<br />
Turbine<br />
trans<strong>for</strong>mers<br />
6 6 12<br />
Turbine & crane<br />
deliveries<br />
2 32 68 68 22 190<br />
Demobilisation and<br />
site clearance<br />
60 32 92<br />
Monthly Totals 632 580 782 800 216 248 68 68 82 32 3508<br />
Light Vehicle (LV) Movements (cars, minibuses and small vans)<br />
All light vehicles 440 660 880 880 880 880 660 660 660 660 7260<br />
All Vehicle Movements<br />
Monthly totals 1072 1240 1661 1680 1096 1127 728 728 742 692 10768<br />
Average Daily<br />
Movements (5-day<br />
working week)<br />
Average Daily HGV<br />
Movements (5-day<br />
working week)<br />
Average Hourly<br />
Movements (10-<br />
hour working day)<br />
Average Hourly<br />
HGV Movements<br />
(10-hour working<br />
day)<br />
49 56 76 76 50 51 33 33 34 31<br />
29 26 36 36 10 11 3 3 4 1<br />
5 6 8 8 5 5 3 3 3 3<br />
3 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
11.38 Based on the traffic levels in Table 11.2 above, a Transport Statement is<br />
the most suitable assessment <strong>for</strong> the proposed development as the<br />
development trip generation lies well below the indicators <strong>for</strong> a Transport<br />
Assessment. There<strong>for</strong>e this construction traffic assessment fulfils the<br />
requirements of a Transport Statement.<br />
11.39 The total number of vehicle movements generated during the construction<br />
of the proposed development is estimated as 10,768 over a 10-month<br />
period. This takes account of all vehicle movements generated by the<br />
above activities and includes site personnel. This total is broken down in<br />
Table 11.2 above. In summary:<br />
3,508 HGV (including abnormal loads) movements over 10 months;<br />
and<br />
7,260 cars / light vehicles movements over 10 months.<br />
11.40 As noted in Table 11.2, the predicted traffic movements are not uni<strong>for</strong>m<br />
throughout the construction period. The maximum number of vehicle<br />
movements (1,680) is predicted during month 4. The maximum average<br />
vehicle movements per day (assuming 22 working days per month) would<br />
comprise 76 vehicle movements during months 3 and 4 (of which 36 would<br />
be HGV movements).<br />
11.41 During the construction phase there would be on average a maximum of 8<br />
vehicle movements per hour (of which 4 would be HGV movements).<br />
11.42 Occasionally the site may be worked 6-days per week, which would<br />
reduce the average predicted vehicle movements per day. The maximum<br />
ALV movements would occur in months 7 and 8 and would comprise of 68<br />
movements a month or an average of 3 movements per day.<br />
11.43 As previously indicated, it is anticipated that wind turbine components<br />
would approach from the southbound M18 via Junction 1 to the A631, then<br />
B6060, Hawk Hill Lane and Penny Hill Lane. The majority of other vehicle<br />
movements are expected to approach the site from Junction 31 of the M1<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e travelling along the A57, B6463, Common Road and Penny Hill<br />
Lane.<br />
11.44 Tables 11.3 and 11.4 are based on a predicted construction year of 2010<br />
and detail whether the predicted peak traffic increase (76 daily vehicle<br />
movements, 8 hourly vehicle movements) are considered to be significant<br />
or not. The thresholds of significance have been taken from “Guidelines <strong>for</strong><br />
Traffic Impact Assessments” (Institution of Highways and Transportation,<br />
1994). Whilst this assessment of the threshold of significance could be<br />
considered outdated it is a useful tool when acting as a guideline to<br />
identify levels of significance in the assessment.<br />
258<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Table 11.3: Peak Increases in Traffic Along the ALV Route to Site – One way<br />
Movements to Site Only<br />
Location<br />
A631 Bawtry<br />
Road, Hellaby<br />
A631 Bawtry<br />
Road,<br />
Wickersley<br />
Morthern Road,<br />
Wickersley<br />
Morthern Road,<br />
Thurcroft<br />
Green Arbour<br />
Road<br />
Route<br />
(Abnormal<br />
Vehicles<br />
Only)<br />
2010 AADT<br />
ALV Only 13,113<br />
(26,226/2)<br />
ALV Only 13,611<br />
(27,222/2)<br />
ALV Only 5,215<br />
(10,430/2)<br />
ALV Only 5,639<br />
(11,277/2)<br />
ALV Only 7,095<br />
(14,189/2)<br />
Hawk Hill Lane ALV Only 544<br />
(1,088/2)<br />
Penny Hill<br />
Lane<br />
ALV Only 821<br />
(1,642/2)<br />
Peak Daily<br />
Construction<br />
(1-way) (100<br />
Veh/Day)<br />
259<br />
Peak Hourly<br />
Construction<br />
(1-way) (30<br />
Veh/Hour)<br />
Peak<br />
Percentage<br />
Increase 12<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement<br />
Significance<br />
3 0.3 (3/10)
Table 11.4: Peak Increases in Traffic Along the ALV and HGV Route to Site – One way<br />
Movements to Site Only<br />
Location<br />
M18<br />
Northbound<br />
(J0 to J1)<br />
M18<br />
Southbound<br />
(J1 to J0)<br />
Route<br />
(ALL =<br />
HGV, LV)<br />
2010 AADT<br />
Peak Daily<br />
Construction<br />
1-way) (100<br />
Veh/Day)<br />
260<br />
Peak Hourly<br />
Construction<br />
(1-way) (30<br />
Veh/Hour)<br />
Peak<br />
Percentage<br />
Increase<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement<br />
Significance<br />
ALL 39,515 38 (76/2) 3.8 (76/2/10)
Disruption and delay: The impact of this to other users of the road<br />
network is more likely to occur during the abnormal load movements;<br />
Increased risk of accidents: Any increase in traffic numbers has the<br />
potential to increase the risk of accidents. This risk will be minimised<br />
through the highway improvements and transport management plan<br />
outlined further in this section;<br />
Air pollution: Emissions from vehicles have the potential to impact on<br />
local and wider air quality. The distribution of traffic movements<br />
throughout the working day will minimise any local air quality impacts<br />
associated with congestion, as will other transport management actions<br />
implemented. The temporary nature of the traffic increases will mean<br />
that any impact will be short-term; and<br />
Dust and dirt: HGVs can potentially cause dust and dirt from the site<br />
to be carried onto the local road network.<br />
11.47 These impacts would not be significant and would be managed principally<br />
via an appropriate transport management plan (see section on Mitigation).<br />
Abnormal Loads<br />
11.48 As shown by Table 11.3, the numbers of abnormal loads will be relatively<br />
small in comparison to the existing levels of traffic on the local road<br />
network, and there<strong>for</strong>e insignificant in terms of the thresholds of<br />
significance. However, the impact of these vehicles is a result of their size<br />
and low speed rather than their numbers.<br />
11.49 As a result of their size and low speed, these vehicles have the potential to<br />
create the following <strong>environmental</strong> impacts, which are regarded as being<br />
potentially significant and will be minimised by the mitigation measures<br />
outlined later in the Mitigation section:<br />
Noise and vibration;<br />
Disruption and delay; and<br />
Increased risk of accidents.<br />
OPERATIONAL PHASE<br />
Trip Generation<br />
11.50 Maintenance of the site will take place on a year-round basis. The<br />
servicing of the site can be broken down into the following movements<br />
each year:<br />
Turbine Servicing – Two visits per year <strong>for</strong> each turbine. It is expected<br />
that servicing vehicles will consist of two car/van vehicles and one<br />
access plat<strong>for</strong>m vehicle <strong>for</strong> two days <strong>for</strong> each service.<br />
261<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Extended Servicing – One visit per year <strong>for</strong> each turbine. It is expected<br />
that servicing vehicles will consist of two car/van vehicles and one<br />
access plat<strong>for</strong>m vehicle <strong>for</strong> four days <strong>for</strong> each service.<br />
Access Track Maintenance – Two visits per year. It is expected that<br />
the visits will last <strong>for</strong> approximately 5 days, with each service being<br />
generating two car/van trips per day and one HGV trip per service.<br />
Additional Five-yearly Maintenance Servicing – Undertaken over two<br />
days once every five years <strong>for</strong> each turbine. It is expected that<br />
servicing vehicles will consist of two car/van trips per day, and one<br />
access plat<strong>for</strong>m vehicle.<br />
Additional Contingency Maintenance – While the servicing schedule<br />
above should cover all the required maintenance, allowance is made<br />
<strong>for</strong> an additional two-day service per turbine.<br />
11.51 Overall, the maximum annual servicing vehicle traffic would be<br />
approximately 190 cars/light vehicles and approximately 35 access<br />
plat<strong>for</strong>m vehicles/HGVs.<br />
11.52 The design life of the turbines is 25 years, and the warranted reliability of<br />
wind turbines is approximately 95%. There<strong>for</strong>e, it is considered unlikely<br />
that failure of any turbine will require its removal and replacement.<br />
DECOMMISSIONING<br />
Trip Generation<br />
11.53 Traffic generated during decommissioning of the wind farm is likely to be<br />
lower than the levels associated with construction and is there<strong>for</strong>e not<br />
expected to be significant. An appropriate decommissioning traffic<br />
assessment would be undertaken and a transport management plan<br />
prepared prior to the decommissioning of the wind farm.<br />
VISUAL DISTRACTION (DRIVER DISTRACTION)<br />
VISUAL DISTRACTION (DRIVER DISTRACTION) SUMMARY<br />
11.54 A driver distraction study is not required <strong>for</strong> a Transport Assessment.<br />
However, an assessment of driver distraction has been undertaken as a<br />
result of consultation with the Highways Agency and has been included in<br />
this construction traffic assessment.<br />
11.55 Visual distraction is where the presence of something close to the highway<br />
attracts the attention of drivers, leading to a potential safety issue. In order<br />
to maintain the safety of the strategic highway network, the Highways<br />
Agency is particularly careful to manage visual distraction given the high<br />
speeds involved.<br />
262<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
11.56 Faber Maunsell was commissioned by the Applicant to identify the<br />
likelihood of driver distraction occurring on the strategic network as a<br />
consequence of the proposed development. In assessing the potential <strong>for</strong><br />
driver distraction, on-site observations were taken of nearby Strategic<br />
Road Network (SRN) routes, along with an analysis of traffic flow data in<br />
the context of network capacity and an analysis of historical accident data<br />
<strong>for</strong> the SRN in the vicinity of the site.<br />
11.57 The Highways Agency “Network Strategy Spatial Planning Advice Note:<br />
SP 04/07” provides guidance on the considerations <strong>for</strong> the siting of wind<br />
turbines near to Highways Agency‟s SRN. The guidance is produced to<br />
assist in addressing the considerations at the planning application stage.<br />
The assessment was undertaken to address one of the main<br />
considerations of visual distraction, but also to address the consideration<br />
of „shadowing or flicker‟.<br />
11.58 A site visit was undertaken on 10th December 2008 in order to assess the<br />
potential <strong>for</strong> driver distraction in the <strong>for</strong>m of visual distraction (from a<br />
qualitative perspective). The assessment was based on the visibility of the<br />
wind farm within the drivers‟ line of sight. These visual ranges are referred<br />
to as the „foveal visual range‟ (which is the area around the central line of<br />
sight of the human eye and is generally within a 3° arc on either side of the<br />
direct line of sight) and the drivers‟ peripheral visual range (which ranges<br />
between 3° and approximately 60° on either side of the direct line of sight).<br />
These two ranges are referred to in the observations as the direct and the<br />
indirect visibility, to distinguish between the visual areas which the driver is<br />
focussed on and the areas which the driver can see, but not clearly focus<br />
on.<br />
ASSESSMENT<br />
11.59 The report “Visual Assessment of Wind farms: Best Practice” produced by<br />
Scottish Natural Heritage, provides a matrix table which suggests that<br />
turbines of the size proposed have the potential to have a dominant visual<br />
impact within a 4km radius. Sections of the M1, M18 and a number of<br />
local roads falls within this distance. A survey of the potential turbine<br />
visibility demonstrates that the turbines will be visible within 4km on the<br />
following routes:<br />
Route A - M1 Eastbound approaching Junction 33;<br />
Route B - M1 Northbound approaching Junction 31;<br />
Route 1 - M1 Junction 31 and M18 Junction 1;<br />
Route 2 - M18 Junction 1 and M1 Junction 31;<br />
Route 3 - M18 Junction 1 and M1 Junction 33;<br />
Route 4 - M1 Junction 33 and M18 Junction 1;<br />
263<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Route 5 - M1 Junction 33 to M1 Junction 31; and<br />
Route 6 - M1 Junction 31 to M1 junction 33.<br />
Routes 1 to 6 are illustrated on the Figures 11.1 and 11.2 below. Routes A<br />
and B are not shown separately as they are approaches to junctions and<br />
are represented by the other routes shown on the figures.<br />
11.60 An on-site route by route observation of likely wind turbine visibility from<br />
the nearby strategic and local highway network (as above) was<br />
undertaken. Evidence suggests that in instances where wind turbines are<br />
highly visible over a significant stretch of the network, drivers are able to<br />
anticipate the upcoming structures and as such are less likely to be<br />
distracted by them.<br />
11.61 Route A: For traffic travelling eastbound on the M1, as the motorway<br />
bends on a south-easterly direction there is a direct line of sight towards<br />
the wind farm site. As the motorway continues around the bend, the wind<br />
farm would remain indirectly visible until Junction 33.<br />
11.62 Route B: For vehicles travelling northbound on the M1 approaching<br />
Junction 31, the wind farm would be visible from a distance of 5km away.<br />
The motorway enters a cutting 2.2km south of Junction 31 which would<br />
reduce the number of turbines visible to two. These turbines would be<br />
seen along the visibility splay of the carriageway, with 1km of this length of<br />
motorway having the turbines directly visible to drivers‟ heading<br />
northbound. All turbines would again be visible once the traffic emerges<br />
from the cutting.<br />
11.63 Route 1: Travelling northbound between Junction 31 of the M1 and the<br />
M18 Junction 1, at least one or two turbines would remain directly visible<br />
at all times. North of Junction 31 the motorway runs inside a cutting <strong>for</strong><br />
1km after which the land on either side of the motorway is entirely clear<br />
which would allow <strong>for</strong> clear views of the turbines up to the diverge section<br />
<strong>for</strong> the M18 southern slip road. The wind farm would disappear from view<br />
as vehicles travel along the M18 slip road.<br />
11.64 Route 2: Between the diverge of M1 Junction 32 and the merge at M18<br />
Junction 1, the motorway is entirely straight. From the roundabout at<br />
Junction 1, all the way along the motorway up to the diverge at least one<br />
of the turbines would remain in direct view at all times with others being<br />
within the drivers‟ indirect view. When traffic is travelling southbound<br />
along the connector link from the M18 Junction 1 towards the M1 Junction<br />
31, the wind turbines to the south west will remain in view except <strong>for</strong><br />
fleeting periods when they are temporarily obscured by vegetation and on<br />
the western side of the carriageway, however at least one turbine would<br />
remain visible at all times on this connector. On approach to the M1<br />
merge, the southern half of the wind farm would emerge from indirect to<br />
direct view and then to indirect view again as traffic turns the bend and<br />
enters the merging section. The turbines would remain in indirect view <strong>for</strong><br />
264<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
approximately 1.1km towards Junction 31 and from that point on they will<br />
only be visible in the rear view mirror.<br />
Figure 11.1: The Penny Hill Site and Routes 1, 3 and 5<br />
11.65 Route 3: Between Junction 1 and Junction 32 at least one of the turbines<br />
would remain in direct view at all times with others being within the drivers‟<br />
indirect view. When traffic enters the connector onto the M1 Northbound<br />
(at Junction 32) the wind farm to the south west would move from being<br />
directly visible to being indirectly visible and would cease to be visible<br />
approximately 200m from the M1 under bridge. From this point onwards<br />
the wind farm would no longer be visible as the traffic moves in a westerly<br />
direction.<br />
265<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Figure 11.2: The Penny Hill Site and Routes 2, 4 and 6 (A & B)<br />
11.66 Route 4: Travelling eastbound between the M1 Junction 33 and the M18<br />
Junction 1, the motorway passes under an over bridge 1.5km east of<br />
Junction 33, prior to which the wind farm would be easily seen. At the<br />
over bridge, the motorway enters a deep and steep cutting which would<br />
occlude the view of all turbines <strong>for</strong> 800 metres until the motorway rises<br />
high enough to enter an undulating plateau. The wind farm would be<br />
indirectly visible after 800m but it would be partially obstructed by the<br />
presence of two sets of tall electricity pylons which are present at the<br />
southern edge of the motorway. As the motorway bends towards the north<br />
east as it diverges onto the two lane taper diverge the turbines will remain<br />
in indirect view <strong>for</strong> a further 400m and then they would no longer be<br />
visible.<br />
11.67 Route 5: Vehicles travelling on the stretch of motorway between M1<br />
Junction 33 and the M1 Junction 32 pass under an over bridge 1.5km east<br />
of junction 33, prior to which the wind farm would easily be seen. At the<br />
over bridge the motorway enters a deep and steep cutting which would<br />
prevent views of all turbines <strong>for</strong> 800 metres until the motorway rises high<br />
266<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
enough to enter an undulating plateau. The wind farm would be indirectly<br />
visible after 800m but it will be partially obstructed by the presence of two<br />
sets of tall electricity pylons which are present at the southern edge of the<br />
motorway. As the motorway proceeds past the diverge section the<br />
motorway bends towards the south and approaches the area which would<br />
have the three northernmost turbines to the south west. After the traffic<br />
passes under the M18 over bridge the turbines would be indirectly visible<br />
and would move into direct view as the traffic continues around the bend.<br />
They would then remain directly visible through the interchange and the<br />
merging section with the M18 and the various turbines would pass from<br />
direct to indirect view be<strong>for</strong>e becoming non-visible 1.1km from the<br />
beginning of the merging section.<br />
11.68 Route 6: The section of motorway from Junction 31 north to Junction 33,<br />
runs adjacent to and is at the same elevation as the wind farm site. North<br />
of junction 31 the motorway runs inside a cutting after which the land on<br />
either side of the motorway is entirely clear, which would allow <strong>for</strong> clear<br />
views of the wind farm and the surrounding farm land <strong>for</strong> a distance of<br />
1.3km up to the diverge section <strong>for</strong> the M18 southern slip road.<br />
11.69 Accident data <strong>for</strong> the period 2003 – 2008 was obtained from RMBC <strong>for</strong> the<br />
strategic road network in the vicinity of the proposed Penny Hill Wind<br />
Farm. In the majority of instances accidents occurred in areas where traffic<br />
and drivers would not be directly affected by wind farm visibility or where<br />
traffic was travelling away from the site with turbines outside of the field of<br />
view. It was there<strong>for</strong>e determined that the presence of turbines would not<br />
exacerbate factors attributing to such accidents.<br />
11.70 A review of the accidents at two wind farms close to the strategic highway<br />
network has been carried out to identify whether there is any notable<br />
increase in accidents occurring as a result.<br />
Lambrigg Wind Farm, Cumbria<br />
11.71 The wind farm is located approximately 600m to the North East of Junction<br />
37 of the M6. The wind farm was opened in 2000 and consists of five (1.3<br />
MW) turbines.<br />
11.72 Accident statistics were obtained <strong>for</strong> the period 1995-2005 <strong>for</strong> the M6 <strong>for</strong><br />
Junction 37 adjacent to the wind farm and approximately 3 miles in either<br />
direction to the North and South, to provide five years of data be<strong>for</strong>e and<br />
after implementation. Accidents were filtered to remove trips travelling<br />
away from the junction.<br />
11.73 During the five year period prior to the construction of the site (1995-1999),<br />
30 personal injury accidents occurred, consisting of 1 fatal, 9 serious injury<br />
and 20 slight injury accidents. In the five-year period following the<br />
construction of the site (2001-2005), 20 personal injury accidents<br />
occurred, consisting of 4 serious injury and 16 slight injury accidents.<br />
267<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
High Volts Wind Farm, Hartlepool<br />
11.74 The wind farm is located close to the A19(T) at Elwick, Hartlepool, and<br />
was opened in December 2003 and consists of three (2.75MW) turbines.<br />
11.75 Accident statistics were obtained <strong>for</strong> the period 2001-2006 <strong>for</strong> the A19 to<br />
at the Elwick junction and <strong>for</strong> approximately 3 miles in either direction to<br />
the North and South, to provide three years of data be<strong>for</strong>e and after<br />
implementation. Accidents were filtered to remove trips travelling away<br />
from the junction.<br />
11.76 During the 3 year period prior to the completion of the site, there were 13<br />
injury accidents which met the filter criteria, consisting of 3 serious injury<br />
and 10 slight injury accidents. During the following 3 year period there<br />
were 13 injury accidents, consisting of 2 fatal, 3 serious injury and 8 slight<br />
injury accidents. The fatal injuries were not attributed by police to driver<br />
distraction; one occurred when a driver swerved to avoid an animal in the<br />
road and the other was due to a collision between a driver and<br />
motorcyclist while overtaking.<br />
Conclusions of Review<br />
11.77 The evidence from existing sites above demonstrates that there is no<br />
demonstrable increase in the number of accidents occurring on the<br />
strategic highway network as a result of the construction of the wind farms.<br />
Neither wind farm suffered an increase in the number of personal injury<br />
accidents, and while the A19 adjacent to the High Volts wind farm<br />
experienced an increase in the number of fatal accidents, driver distraction<br />
was not highlighted as a cause of the accident.<br />
11.78 In summary, on site observations suggest that the turbines will be visible<br />
over a significant distance <strong>for</strong> vehicles travelling along strategic routed in<br />
all directions. Turbine heights and the size of the visual radius<br />
surrounding the wind farm will result in drivers travelling along the M1 or<br />
M18 being able to see it long be<strong>for</strong>e they are alongside the site. Turbines<br />
are either directly or indirectly visible <strong>for</strong> the majority of the time that<br />
drivers are within the interchange. All traffic movements are subject to a<br />
substantial lead in time where turbines are in direct view. There<strong>for</strong>e drivers<br />
will not need to take their direct focus off the road ahead to view the<br />
turbines. There is no evidence to suggest that the introduction of the<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm will have any effect on the accident rate and the<br />
causes of accidents on potentially affected routes. There<strong>for</strong>e, accident<br />
rates are not expected to be adversely affected.<br />
Shadow Flicker<br />
11.79 Shadow Flicker is caused when the rotor blades of the wind turbines move<br />
into and out of direct sunlight, creating a moving shadow which can lead to<br />
driver distraction.<br />
268<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
11.80 No evidence could be found of road traffic accidents on the strategic<br />
highway network which have been attributed to driver distraction caused<br />
by wind turbine flicker and as such flicker is not perceived to be an issue to<br />
the scheme. Previous considerations of visual disturbance and flicker<br />
have focussed on the impact <strong>for</strong> housing rather than moving vehicles. The<br />
potential effects of shadow flicker from the wind turbines in general are<br />
discussed later in this ES at Section 15.<br />
Network Stress<br />
11.81 The Highways Agency assesses stress on the SRN by comparing existing<br />
traffic flow with the theoretical capacity of the links and junctions. In cases<br />
where traffic levels exceed capacity, queuing can occur. Stress levels are<br />
displayed as a percentage of theoretical capacity, with four levels used:<br />
0% to 75%;<br />
75% to 90%;<br />
90% to 100%; and<br />
100% and above.<br />
11.82 The traffic flow in<strong>for</strong>mation shows links are currently predominantly<br />
operating below theoretical capacity (100%) and in many instances<br />
significantly less so, with the majority of stress levels recorded between<br />
30% and 90%. In general, the network under observation is at an average<br />
of 73.2% of operating capacity.<br />
11.83 The existing traffic conditions show that the links that are most stressed on<br />
the network are both directions between Junctions 33 and 32 and these<br />
have just over 100% network stress. The link from M1 J32 – J33 is less<br />
relevant and can be excluded as drivers at that point will be moving away<br />
from the wind farm site and the turbines will be behind them and<br />
subsequently out of view. The reverse link from the M1 J33 to J32 has a<br />
stress of 102% up to and including the diverge onto the M18. As drivers<br />
have visibility of the wind turbines <strong>for</strong> 1.5km up to an 800m long cutting<br />
and <strong>for</strong> up to 1.6km after the 800m stretch of motorway it is believed that<br />
there will not be risk of distraction to drivers using this section of the<br />
motorway.<br />
11.84 As a result of the above it is concluded that any driver distraction as a<br />
result of the proposed wind turbines would have a negligible (and there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
not significant) effect on the safety of the SRN within the study area.<br />
DECOMMISSIONING EFFECTS<br />
11.85 Prior to decommissioning, a further traffic assessment will be carried out<br />
and transport management procedures agreed with the appropriate<br />
authorities. The levels of traffic associated with decommissioning are<br />
269<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
MITIGATION<br />
however, likely to be lower than those required during construction. It is<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e expected that the traffic impacts are likely to be not significant<br />
based on the current baseline.<br />
MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS SUMMARY<br />
11.86 The impacts have been assessed with reference to the document<br />
“Guidance on Transport Assessments” published by the Department <strong>for</strong><br />
Transport (2007). This document provides guidance on the in<strong>for</strong>mation to<br />
be produced and assessed <strong>for</strong> a Transport Assessment or Transport<br />
Statement.<br />
11.87 “Guidance on Transport Assessments” provides the following indicators<br />
which will <strong>for</strong>m the basis of the assessment based on the transport impact<br />
and proposed trip generation:<br />
a) 30 or more two-way vehicle movements in any hour;<br />
b) 100 or more daily two-way vehicle movements; and<br />
c) Development which generates significant freight or HGV movements<br />
per day, or significant ALV movements per year.<br />
11.88 If the proposed trip generation exceeds any of these indicators, then a full<br />
transport assessment is required. If the trip generation is within these<br />
indicators, then a transport <strong>statement</strong> is required.<br />
11.89 The transport assessment will be assessed by route and these routes are<br />
the ALV route (M18 Junction 1, A631, B6060, Hawk Hill Lane and Penny<br />
Hill Lane) and the HGV and ALV route (M1 Junction 31, A57, B6463,<br />
Common Road, Long Road, Penny Hill Lane).<br />
ASSESSMENT<br />
11.90 In order to further reduce traffic impacts from construction of the proposed<br />
wind farm, construction personnel would be encouraged to car-share or<br />
utilise company shuttles where practicable. This would be estimated to<br />
increase the occupancy rate <strong>for</strong> construction personnel to an average of<br />
around 2.5 persons per vehicle, equivalent to reducing the number of<br />
vehicle movements associated with personnel by approximately 50%.<br />
11.91 A transport management plan would be drawn up by the Applicant and the<br />
relevant contractor, and agreed with the highways authorities. Potential<br />
management measures to mitigate against the impacts could include:<br />
Removal and replacement of street furniture such as lamp posts and<br />
road signs as identified by the Route Access Study and the highways<br />
authority. Appropriate temporary measures would be undertaken to<br />
ensure that road safety is not compromised;<br />
270<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Arrangements with Police <strong>for</strong> escort of turbine loads to the site;<br />
Advanced notification to the general public warning of turbine<br />
component transport movements;<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mative road signage warning other users of turbine components<br />
transport movements and construction traffic;<br />
Improvements and upgrades to the public highway;<br />
Arrangements <strong>for</strong> continual road maintenance and cleaning;<br />
Specific timing of deliveries outside of peak hours;<br />
Wheel cleaning / dirt control arrangements at key stages of<br />
construction; and<br />
Provision of temporary signs and traffic control where necessary.<br />
11.92 An appropriate police or contractor escort would accompany movement of<br />
turbine components from the port of entry, with timings agreed with the<br />
highways authorities.<br />
11.93 The route that would be used to transport turbine components to the site<br />
would utilise the nearest appropriate port approved by the selected turbine<br />
manufacturer and would be selected in order to minimise road upgrades<br />
and improvements.<br />
11.94 No specific mitigation measures would be required during operation of the<br />
wind farm, due to the low numbers of operational vehicle movements.<br />
11.95 A transport management plan would be prepared <strong>for</strong> the decommissioning<br />
process to ensure that traffic impacts at this time are minimised.<br />
11.96 The new junction onto Penny Hill Lane will include road widening to both<br />
lanes on the eastern approach to the junction, which will enable oversized<br />
vehicles to navigate the turns into the site. The ground would also be<br />
prepared to accept suitable axle loadings. The upgraded junction proposal<br />
is shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA14. Detailed swept path analysis<br />
drawings of the proposed site entrance are included in Appendix 7.<br />
RESIDUAL EFFECTS<br />
11.97 The mitigation measures described above and the short-term increase in<br />
traffic would ensure that there would be minimal residual <strong>environmental</strong><br />
impact. This is justified by the following:<br />
The effects associated with the traffic during the operational phase are<br />
insignificant as stated within the “Guidance on Transport<br />
Assessments”;<br />
271<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
The strategic road network will be used <strong>for</strong> the HGV and light vehicle<br />
access. Transport into the site will be programmed accordingly to<br />
reduce impacts on the strategic road network using the transport<br />
management plan;<br />
The local road network will be used <strong>for</strong> the heavy goods vehicle and<br />
light vehicle access. Transport into the site will be programmed<br />
accordingly to reduce impacts on the local road network using the<br />
transport management plan;<br />
The increase in traffic during construction would be temporary with the<br />
highest levels occurring during the first few of months of the<br />
construction period.<br />
11.98 The <strong>environmental</strong> effects identified would be managed through the<br />
mitigation measures discussed to ensure that all impacts are minimised.<br />
272<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS<br />
11.99 The table below summarises the residual effects once the mitigation<br />
measures have been implemented.<br />
Table 11.5: Summary of Effects<br />
Potential Effect Mitigation Residual Effect<br />
Construction<br />
Increases in traffic flow Transport management plan Insignificant, temporary<br />
Accidents and safety<br />
Operation<br />
Site entrance upgrade and<br />
transport management plan<br />
273<br />
Insignificant, temporary<br />
Visual Distraction None required Insignificant, long term<br />
Increase in traffic None required Insignificant, long term<br />
Decommissioning<br />
Potential increases in traffic<br />
Transport management<br />
plan to be prepared prior to<br />
decommissioning.<br />
Insignificant, temporary<br />
11.100 This construction traffic assessment/transport <strong>statement</strong> concludes that<br />
there would be a short term, insignificant increase in traffic levels <strong>for</strong> both<br />
of the access routes to the site. A transport management plan will be<br />
provided to minimise and control any minor impacts of the proposed<br />
construction traffic.<br />
11.101 Abnormal loads will be normally timed during off-peak periods in order to<br />
avoid delays to other road users at times to be agreed with the police and<br />
the highways authorities.<br />
11.102 Traffic generated during the operation and maintenance of the wind farm<br />
will be minimal and will not result in any significant impact.<br />
11.103 Traffic generated during decommissioning of the wind farm is likely to be<br />
lower than the levels associated with construction and is there<strong>for</strong>e not<br />
expected to be significant. An appropriate decommissioning assessment<br />
would be undertaken and a transport management plan prepared prior to<br />
the decommissioning of the wind farm.<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
11.104 It is not considered that visual distraction to drivers on the M1 and M18<br />
would be an issue.<br />
274<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
12. CIVILLIAN AND MILITARY<br />
AERONAUTICAL RADAR<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
12.1 Airport Planning and Development (APD) Ltd has conducted an<br />
Aeronautical Impact Assessment on the proposed wind farm at Penny Hill.<br />
12.2 The scope of the assessment was as follows:<br />
Undertake a review of the potential operational impact of the wind farm<br />
on a number of civil airfields;<br />
Assess the sensitivity of the turbine locations against any controlled<br />
airspace safeguarding and Instrument Flight Procedure implications<br />
and Ministry of Defence operations; and<br />
Review potential mitigation measures or operational changes which<br />
might be acceptable to the airport authorities and air traffic service<br />
providers.<br />
12.3 The scope of the assessment concentrated on the operational impact on<br />
aeronautical interests rather than a technical or mathematical approach.<br />
12.4 The assessment has been undertaken on the basis of six wind turbines<br />
with a maximum blade tip height of 132m AGL.<br />
12.5 Should the location of any of the turbines need to be micro-sited (by no<br />
more than 50 metres), the MOD and the CAA would be notified of the new<br />
latitude and longitude <strong>for</strong> charting purposes. This would be submitted in<br />
line with notification to the LPA of final turbine locations prior to turbine<br />
erection.<br />
SITE AND ASSESSMENT LOCATIONS<br />
12.6 The proposed site is located immediately west of the M18 junction with the<br />
M1.<br />
12.7 A site visit was undertaken on 6th May 2008 in excellent weather<br />
conditions. The site lies beneath Airway L26, the base level of which is<br />
Flight Level 85 (8,500 ft.). Whilst on site, no air traffic of any description<br />
was observed at the lower and middle airspace levels; there was some<br />
activity on the upper air routes above 19,000 ft.<br />
275<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Figure 12.1: Penny Hill Site and Civil Airfield Sites<br />
12.8 Civil airfield sites <strong>for</strong> assessment within 30 km radius of the Penny Hill site<br />
are:<br />
Walton Wood - Unlicensed ( 27 km north);<br />
Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS) - Licensed (21 km<br />
north-east);<br />
Gamston - Licensed (24 km south-east);<br />
Netherthorpe - Licensed (9 km south-east);<br />
Sheffield City - Unlicensed (6 Km west north-west); and<br />
Coal Aston - Unlicensed (13 km south-west).<br />
12.9 Other relevant aeronautical interests assessed are:<br />
Ministry of Defence (MOD);<br />
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); and<br />
National Air Traffic En Route Radars (NERL).<br />
276<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
ASSESSMENT OF ADJACENT CIVIL AIRFIELD SITES<br />
WALTON WOOD<br />
12.10 Walton Wood is on the A639 near the village of Thorpe Audlin. It is a<br />
private unlicensed airfield and has been in operation <strong>for</strong> over 20 years.<br />
The current owners use the airfield <strong>for</strong> predominantly helicopter training<br />
and maintenance. A ground to air service is used. A grass runway is<br />
identified at 700m x 16m wide.<br />
12.11 The airfield is not officially safeguarded. However, there is likely to be<br />
consultation between the local planning authority and the airfields owner<br />
where a potential development may impact on the airfield‟s operation. If<br />
the airfield was to be examined with a safeguarded area as applied to a<br />
Code 1 runway, the proposed wind farm site would be outside this area.<br />
12.12 It is assessed that there is no potential reason <strong>for</strong> the Walton Wood Airfield<br />
to be adversely affected and thus warrant an objection to the proposal<br />
from the airfield‟s operator.<br />
ROBIN HOOD AIRPORT DONCASTER SHEFFIELD<br />
12.13 RHADS is a new fully licensed commercial passenger and freight airport<br />
which opened in April 2005 and <strong>for</strong>ms part of the Peel Holdings airport<br />
group. The airport is equipped with a state of the art Raytheon aerodrome<br />
surveillance radar used <strong>for</strong> the guidance and vectoring of approaching,<br />
departing and transit aircraft within the airport‟s operational area.<br />
12.14 In general terms, the airport‟s operator has been concerned with the<br />
number of wind farm planning enquiries (currently numbering 101) that<br />
have been submitted in the last 3 years in locations adjacent to the aircraft<br />
approach and departure tracks. The applications are mostly <strong>for</strong><br />
developments of less than ten turbines which individually would not cause<br />
major interference to the radar but cumulatively, without effective<br />
mitigation, could have an adverse effect on an air traffic controller‟s ability<br />
to provide a safe radar service to aircraft.<br />
12.15 In order to protect the airport instrument flight procedures, the airport has<br />
submitted an application to the CAA <strong>for</strong> the setting up of an area of<br />
“controlled airspace” around the airport within which only pre-notified<br />
aircraft can enter. The effect of controlled airspace is that all aircraft<br />
operating in the designated area are “known” to the controllers thereby<br />
reducing the risk of a spurious radar return, as created by a turbine, being<br />
an unknown aircraft with the potential to become a confliction.<br />
12.16 The airport has received final authorisation <strong>for</strong> controlled airspace, all the<br />
procedures have been approved and have been in operation since 28 th<br />
August 2008. The airport operator has stated that it does not envisage<br />
any circumstances that could cause an objection to be raised to the<br />
proposed wind farm. Correspondence is contained in ES Appendix 8.<br />
277<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
GAMSTON<br />
12.17 Gamston is a licensed general aviation aerodrome operating in the flying<br />
training and executive jet roles with around 50 based aircraft. The<br />
aerodrome is safeguarded with the local planning authority <strong>for</strong> a Category<br />
1, metalled runway, however the proposed Penny Hill site is well outside<br />
the safeguarded distance.<br />
12.18 The airfield does not have a radar facility or any precision instrument<br />
approach equipment; aerodrome in<strong>for</strong>mation is provided by means of<br />
air/ground radio. However, an en-route VOR (VHF Omni-directional<br />
Radio) beacon is located on the airfield and this can be used an<br />
aerodrome location aid. Frequently, aircraft approaching Gamston in poor<br />
weather will call RHADS radar <strong>for</strong> traffic in<strong>for</strong>mation and radar vector.<br />
12.19 In consultation with the aerodrome‟s operating company, it became<br />
evident that it has long term plans to improve the air traffic control service,<br />
however the operating company‟s general manager advised that the<br />
development of Penny Hill Wind Farm would not have any adverse effect<br />
on their planned air traffic control navigation aids.<br />
NETHERTHORPE<br />
12.20 Netherthorpe is a small grass strip airfield, licensed <strong>for</strong> the purpose of<br />
flying training, operated by the Sheffield Aero Club. There are two grass<br />
runways, 24/06 length 553 m x 36 m and 18/36 length 382 m x 18 m.<br />
12.21 The aerodrome does not have a safeguarding map but an in<strong>for</strong>mal<br />
arrangement exists between the club and the local planning authority<br />
regarding any planning issues. In consultation with the Sheffield Aero<br />
Club, they stated that the construction of the proposed wind farm would<br />
have no consequences <strong>for</strong> the airfield‟s activities.<br />
SHEFFIELD CITY AIRPORT<br />
12.22 Sheffield City Airport was de-licensed and the single runway closed <strong>for</strong><br />
fixed wing aircraft use in early May 2008. The old runway is to be<br />
developed <strong>for</strong> more industrial units. The eastern end of the airfield has<br />
been retained by the airport operating company <strong>for</strong> use as an unlicensed<br />
heliport by the South Yorkshire Police, the Yorkshire Air Ambulance and<br />
one remaining tenant.<br />
12.23 The airport operating company and its users have all been in<strong>for</strong>med of the<br />
proposed Penny Hill development and no objections have been raised.<br />
COAL ASTON<br />
12.24 Coal Aston is a single runway grass airstrip, some 750 m long x 18 m<br />
width oriented 30/12. It is situated on privately owned farmland at Bentley<br />
Farm.<br />
278<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
12.25 The airfield is infrequently used by light company aircraft either visiting or<br />
based in Sheffield as well as two or three privately owned aircraft<br />
hangared at the aerodrome.<br />
12.26 In consultation with the airfield‟s owner, they stated that they had no<br />
concerns or objection to the proposed wind farm.<br />
REVIEW OF OTHER RELEVANT AGENCIES<br />
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE<br />
12.27 In their letter dated 15 th December 2008 the MOD indicated that they have<br />
no concerns with regards the proposed wind farm on the basis of 132m<br />
high turbines (included within Appendix 8).<br />
CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY<br />
12.28 The CAA advised that the developer should consult with both RHADS and<br />
Sheffield City Airports. This has been undertaken with details outlined<br />
above. The CAA also <strong>for</strong>warded the notification to NERL <strong>for</strong> comment.<br />
12.29 The full CAA response is included within ES Appendix 8.<br />
NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC EN-ROUTE RADARS<br />
12.30 NERL has not responded to the consultation notification of the proposed<br />
wind farm and it is unlikely that they will until a <strong>for</strong>mal planning application<br />
is submitted. This action is in accord with NERL policy to avoid<br />
unnecessary work on speculative enquiries.<br />
12.31 At the <strong>for</strong>mal planning application stage, it is possible that NERL will lodge<br />
a “holding” objection whilst they refer the details to their radar sites <strong>for</strong><br />
evaluation and comment.<br />
12.32 From the radar coverage maps lodged by NERL on the British Wind<br />
Energy Association website (www.bwea.com) it is possible that at a range<br />
of approximately 65km, the proposed Penny Hill turbines would be visible<br />
on the NERL Claxby radar in Lincolnshire. It is the opinion of APD Ltd that<br />
the level of clutter caused by six turbines situated 8,000 feet beneath the<br />
base level of the airway L26, clear of any major aircraft terminal<br />
manoeuvring area, would be sufficiently minimal to avoid any objection<br />
from NERL after they have undertaken suitable evaluation of the proposal.<br />
12.33 With regards the NERL Manchester Airport primary radar, the Penny Hill<br />
site lies in the shadow of the Pennine hills and is unlikely to be “seen” by<br />
the Manchester radar.<br />
279<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS<br />
12.34 It has been assessed that none of the six airfields surveyed within a 30 km<br />
radius of Penny Hill will have any substantive cause <strong>for</strong> objection, and<br />
many have confirmed this during in<strong>for</strong>mal consultation.<br />
12.35 The MOD Defence Estates has stated no concerns with the proposal.<br />
Because the site does not conflict with a military low level flying area, it is<br />
considered unlikely that the MOD would object once the planning<br />
application has been submitted.<br />
12.36 Any objection lodged by NERL would probably be based only on clutter<br />
interference to the Claxby primary radar in Lincolnshire. However, it has<br />
been assessed that any effects would be minimal and would unlikely result<br />
in a <strong>for</strong>mal objection to the planning application by NERL.<br />
12.37 The assessment by APD Ltd has found that the proposed wind farm at<br />
Penny Hill should not give rise to any objections from aeronautical<br />
interests.<br />
280<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
13. GROUND CONDITIONS AND<br />
HYDROLOGY<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
13.1 This section summarises the results of a desk study and walkover survey<br />
of the study area, including the application site and immediate<br />
surroundings. The study area covered in this assessment is<br />
approximately 170 hectares. This section also details the results of a<br />
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) undertaken by S M Foster Associates Ltd<br />
<strong>for</strong> the proposed development. The FRA was undertaken in response to a<br />
request from the Environment Agency as part of the EIA Scoping Opinion.<br />
The full FRA report is included in Appendix 9.<br />
13.2 The purpose of the assessment was to identify topographical, geological<br />
and hydrological constraints to the development of wind turbines within the<br />
study area. The main output of the study identified areas where turbine<br />
locations could be constrained due to geological faults, areas of potential<br />
collapse/subsidence and flooding. Such areas were mapped with other<br />
potential constraints at the site to ensure that no turbines or other site<br />
infrastructure were located within them.<br />
13.3 Drawing HJB/681/PA17 (Sheets 1 and 2) shows the ground conditions and<br />
related constraints within the study area and features relating to geology<br />
and hydrology.<br />
METHODOLOGY<br />
13.4 The primary sources of in<strong>for</strong>mation reviewed as part of the ground<br />
conditions study have included:<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation from Ordnance Survey (OS) plans;<br />
Geological in<strong>for</strong>mation including British Geological Survey Sheets<br />
295NE, 295SE, 296NW and 296SW at 1:10560 scale; and<br />
A British Geological Survey (BGS) detailed geological assessment<br />
report (dated July 2008). This report is included in Appendix 9.<br />
13.5 The FRA was prepared in accordance with the requirements of “Planning<br />
Policy Statement 25 - Development and Flood Risk”. As the site is situated<br />
in Flood Zone 1 the FRA is primarily focused on assessment of surface<br />
water management requirements and measures required to ensure that<br />
the proposed development does not result in increased flood risk in the<br />
surrounding area.<br />
281<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
13.6 The FRA has been based on a detailed review of existing hydrological<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation and new hydrological analysis. More specifically the study has<br />
incorporated the results of:<br />
A walkover hydrological site survey;<br />
Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) rainfall runoff analysis;<br />
Existing drainage modelling review; and<br />
Hydrological calculations to estimate the potential impact of the<br />
development on flood risk.<br />
BASELINE INFORMATION<br />
GEOLOGY<br />
13.7 The geology of the study area has been assessed by reference to the<br />
BGS Sheets detailed above. The sites eastern margin predominantly lies<br />
along the foot of the M1 motorway embankment. Apart from any made or<br />
landscaped ground associated with this embankment there is very little<br />
indication of previous development, other than around Penny Hill<br />
farmhouse and Ulley Beeches.<br />
13.8 No superficial deposits are shown on the geological map although there<br />
may be limited tracts of alluvium along the two stream courses that run<br />
within the site boundary (described within the hydrology section below).<br />
13.9 Bedrock is mapped at an outcrop across the whole site and it is likely that<br />
rockhead is within one metre of the surface beneath any unmapped<br />
superficial deposits or artificial ground. The study area is situated primarily<br />
on the Upper Pennine Middle Coal measures of carboniferous age. This<br />
strata consists of grey mudstones and siltstones with common beds of<br />
coal and locally thick beds of sandstone. The sequence is in excess of<br />
500m thick.<br />
13.10 The sandstone exposed across the site represents Mexborough Rock, a<br />
yellow-brown, medium-fine grained sandstone. This unit is estimated to<br />
be about 70m thick in this area and lies approximately at 40-80m beneath<br />
the higher ground in the central and eastern parts of the site. The outcrop<br />
of Mexborough Rock to the south-west which is brought about via a fault<br />
(see below) is estimated to be 4 - 7m in thickness. The beds of sandstone<br />
to the east of the site are also thin with estimated thicknesses of between<br />
1 - 5m. These sandstones commonly give rise to bench-like features on<br />
the ground, and are also revealed by a change in soil conditions, from clay<br />
soils to sandy soils strewn with sandy fragments.<br />
13.11 The Carboniferous strata generally dip towards the north-east at angles<br />
between 5 – 10 degrees. In the presence of faults these dips are variable<br />
282<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
and in the south-west area of the site they are locally reversed, with<br />
westerly directions indicated on the maps.<br />
13.12 Three geological faults are shown in the study area. All three trend in a<br />
north-west/south-east direction. The fault that passes through the southwest<br />
corner is the most significant structure with an estimated<br />
displacement of 100m down to the north-east. The fault in the north has a<br />
south-west throw of less than 3m. The downthrow sides of faults are<br />
shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA17 (Sheet 1).<br />
13.13 No outcropping coal seams are present within the site boundary although<br />
there are coal seams encountered deeper within the sequence.<br />
13.14 No geotechnical in<strong>for</strong>mation is available <strong>for</strong> the study area.<br />
13.15 Should the micro-siting of turbines be considered necessary due to the<br />
nature of the site there would be no implications upon the geology of the<br />
locality and the findings of this study will still stand true.<br />
HYDROGEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY<br />
13.16 The Pennine Middle Coal Measures <strong>for</strong>mation beneath the majority of the<br />
site is classified as a „Minor Aquifer‟, with low soil leaching potential. Whilst<br />
the Mexborough Rock at outcrop in the extreme south of the site is<br />
classified as a „Minor Aquifer‟ with high soil leaching potential.<br />
13.17 The site is located entirely within the catchment of Ulley Brook which<br />
drains westwards as two separate streams converging at Ulley Reservoir,<br />
approximately 1km west of the western site boundary. The local<br />
hydrological regime is shown on Drawing 049/04/01 in the FRA report<br />
(Appendix 9). The drainage areas of each branch of the brook are shown<br />
on Drawing 049/04/01 together with the location of any relevant control<br />
structures.<br />
13.18 It is apparent that the majority of the proposed development site currently<br />
drains to the southern branch of the Ulley Brook whilst the northern third of<br />
the site drains to the northern branch of the brook. Surface water drainage<br />
characteristics in each sub-catchment are summarised within the FRA<br />
report (Appendix 9).<br />
13.19 The site is located in Flood Zone 1, outside the limit of high or moderate<br />
fluvial flood risk. Environment Agency flood zone maps indicate that the<br />
site is not at risk of fluvial flooding from the Ulley Brook in response to<br />
either the 1 in 100 year or 1 in 1000 year flood event.<br />
MINING AND QUARRYING<br />
13.20 Historical plans and geological maps indicate no disused quarries within<br />
the study area.<br />
283<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
13.21 A Coal Authority Mining Report <strong>for</strong> the site identifies that the study area is<br />
within the likely zone of influence on the surface from workings in seven<br />
seams of coal at depths of between 230m and 820m. The last date of<br />
working is given as 1987 and there<strong>for</strong>e any ground movement from the<br />
workings should have ceased. There are no mine entries shown within the<br />
site boundary.<br />
13.22 The Coal Authority has not received a damage notice or claim <strong>for</strong> the<br />
property since 1 January 1984.<br />
TOPOGRAPHY<br />
13.23 The study area occupies an area of hilly topography with elevations<br />
ranging from 65m to 110m above Ordnance Datum (OD).<br />
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS<br />
GROUND CONDITIONS<br />
13.24 The possible presence of sandy or gravelly alluvium along the floors of the<br />
two stream courses described above, in combination with the<br />
characteristic steep valley sides of the site, could cause local instability in<br />
the <strong>for</strong>m of minor land slippage or soil creep. However features <strong>for</strong>med by<br />
such processes were not observed during previous surveys.<br />
13.25 Head deposits are commonly present on slopes or on the floors of valleys<br />
although they have not been indicated on the geological plan. They are<br />
variable in composition and are typically poorly stratified and poorly sorted.<br />
They may contain shear planes, which can be reactivated when undercut<br />
by excavations.<br />
13.26 A characteristic of the Upper Pennine Middle Coal measures mudstone is<br />
that they commonly weather to a sticky, yellow brown clay, which may<br />
exhibit shrink swell properties due to changes in soil moisture contents<br />
which can potentially cause structural damage.<br />
13.27 Faults have been mapped across the site as described above. The<br />
geological faults within this area are of ancient origin and are today mainly<br />
inactive. However they must still be regarded as planes of weakness<br />
whereby mining induced subsidence and severe subsidence effects may<br />
commonly be concentrated along them. The depths of previous old mine<br />
workings and the absence of damage notices or claims since 1984 within<br />
the scoping boundary indicate future ground movements are very unlikely.<br />
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT<br />
13.28 PPS25 suggests that consideration should be given to site vulnerability to<br />
other potential sources of flooding including:<br />
Flooding from groundwater;<br />
284<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Flooding via overland flow from adjacent land; and<br />
Flooding from surface water drainage.<br />
FLOODING FROM GROUNDWATER<br />
13.29 The proposed development site is underlain by Coal Measures strata of<br />
Carboniferous age consisting of inter-bedded sandstone, siltstones and<br />
mudstones with associated coal horizons. It is understood that overlying<br />
drift deposits are relatively thin and laterally inconsistent. The<br />
Mexborough Rock, one of the more significant sandstone units in the Coal<br />
Measures, outcrops in the Ulley area. Coal Measures sandstone typically<br />
<strong>for</strong>m poor aquifers with limited potential <strong>for</strong> groundwater storage or<br />
conveyance.<br />
13.30 Numerous springs and issues are present in the vicinity of the proposed<br />
development site suggesting the presence of shallow groundwater. Issues<br />
present within the site itself which are situated at a significantly higher<br />
elevation and <strong>for</strong>m part of the headwaters of Ulley Brook, appear to<br />
represent the outfall from field drainage systems that extend eastwards.<br />
There is no direct evidence to suggest the presence of shallow<br />
groundwater beneath the site. The occurrence of springs close to the<br />
route of the Ulley Brook e.g. directly due north of Ulley Village, is likely to<br />
be a consequence of near surface variation in drift deposits rather than<br />
emergence of deeper groundwater.<br />
13.31 Other springs in the area are located at a range of surface elevations with<br />
no clear trend. This is typical of Coal Measures derived groundwater<br />
systems where surface emergence of groundwater is generally related to<br />
the random distribution of geological discontinuities or man-made<br />
structures. It is considered likely that limited groundwater resources are<br />
present in Coal Measures sandstones beneath the site.<br />
13.32 The proposed development site incorporates higher ground than the<br />
surrounding area. The site is not a natural discharge point <strong>for</strong><br />
groundwater. Due to the topography of the site, any groundwater<br />
emerging at surface, either as a consequence of intensive recharge or<br />
groundwater flow from surrounding areas would drain rapidly to the<br />
surface water drainage channels and away from the site. On this basis it<br />
is considered that the site is not at risk of groundwater flooding.<br />
FLOODING VIA OVERLAND FLOW FROM ADJACENT LAND<br />
13.33 The surrounding land is all agricultural land with well established drainage<br />
pathways to the field drainage channels connected to Ulley Brook.<br />
Surface runoff from higher ground to the south of the southern part of the<br />
site currently drains into the site towards the southern branch of the brook.<br />
There is currently no evidence to suggest that such overland flow results in<br />
flooding of land within the site and hence no basis <strong>for</strong> assuming that there<br />
is any risk of flooding associated with overland flow.<br />
285<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
FLOODING FROM SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE<br />
13.34 Detailed assessment of the risk of flooding from surface water drainage<br />
and the impact of the proposed development on surface water runoff is<br />
included in the FRA report (Appendix 9). The site drainage system is<br />
designed to ensure that the site is not at risk of surface water flooding in<br />
response to rainfall events up to 1 in 200 years magnitude.<br />
13.35 The assessment of the impact of the proposed development on surface<br />
water runoff from the site demonstrates that as the development will not<br />
result in any change in the local surface water regime, it will have no<br />
adverse impact on flooding or flood risk within the site or the surrounding<br />
area. It is also demonstrated that as there are no above ground structures<br />
with the potential to impound surface water, which will continue to drain<br />
naturally to Ulley Brook, the site itself is not at risk of surface water<br />
flooding.<br />
13.36 The FRA has demonstrated that the proposed development area is<br />
located wholly in Flood Zone 1 and there<strong>for</strong>e the proposed development<br />
meets the requirements of the Sequential Test and Rotherham MBC<br />
spatial planning policy. Hydrological assessment has shown that the<br />
proposed development is at low risk of flooding from any other non-fluvial<br />
source and that the development will not result in any increase in flood risk<br />
at the site or the surrounding area. It is there<strong>for</strong>e concluded that the<br />
proposed development of six wind turbines and associated infrastructure<br />
at the Penny Hill site is fully compliant with the objectives of PPS25.<br />
MITIGATION<br />
13.37 Data from the desk study identifying areas which are likely to affect the<br />
location of the wind turbines, was used in designing the layout of the<br />
proposed wind farm. Locating turbines and other site infrastructure<br />
outside these areas was undertaken.<br />
GROUND CONDITIONS<br />
13.38 The proposed location of the six wind turbines on a relative topographical<br />
plateaux away from steep valley sides, significantly reduces the potential<br />
landslip effects of alluvial material/head deposits to a negligible level.<br />
13.39 The British Geological Survey and Coal Authority reports <strong>for</strong> the area<br />
explain that the potential of shrink swell clays to cause a significant<br />
problem are negligible, as the clays are classified as having „low plasticity‟<br />
and are on a level as to cause a hazard only in exceptional circumstances.<br />
13.40 The geological faults within the site are of ancient origin and are<br />
considered to present no threat no threat to property in terms of natural<br />
tectonic activity. The depth and age of old workings indicate that future<br />
ground movements are very unlikely. No notice of the risk of the land<br />
286<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
eing affected by subsidence has been given under section 46 of the Coal<br />
Mining Subsidence Act 1991.<br />
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT<br />
13.41 There is limited potential <strong>for</strong> considering the use of SUDS (Sustainable<br />
Drainage Systems) within the site due to the low hydrological impact of the<br />
proposed development. However, the proposed use of permeable<br />
surfacing <strong>for</strong> the access tracks across the site will help to promote<br />
infiltration and reduce peak runoff rates during lower magnitude storm<br />
events. This approach is consistent with the principles of SUDS.<br />
RESIDUAL EFFECTS<br />
13.42 No significant residual effects should occur.<br />
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS<br />
13.43 The ground conditions within the study area are considered to be suitable<br />
<strong>for</strong> wind farm development. Very few constraining factors relating to<br />
ground conditions are present on the site and it is likely that the majority of<br />
the study area would be suitable <strong>for</strong> construction of the turbines and<br />
associated infrastructure.<br />
13.44 The site is located in Flood Zone 1 and there<strong>for</strong>e at low risk of fluvial<br />
flooding. The proposed development satisfies the requirements of the<br />
Sequential Test with regard to development of essential infrastructure in<br />
Flood Zone 1. The proposed development is not considered to be at risk<br />
of flooding from groundwater, overland flow or local surface runoff. The<br />
site is currently undeveloped and there<strong>for</strong>e not at risk of flooding from<br />
sewers of stormwater drains. The proposed development will not result in<br />
any net change in surface water runoff from the site. The proposed<br />
development can be established in full compliance with “PPS25 -<br />
Development and Flood Risk”.<br />
13.45 No significant effects are predicted relating to effects on hydrology,<br />
geology and ground conditions.<br />
13.46 The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared <strong>for</strong> the proposed Penny Hill<br />
Wind Farm is based on assessment of flood risk and surface water<br />
management provision <strong>for</strong> six wind turbines sited at pre-determined<br />
locations as communicated through a site layout plan. Each turbine<br />
location may be subject to micro-siting to within 50m radius of the original<br />
location. Moving the turbine locations by up to 50m from the previously<br />
defined locations would have no impact on the assessment of flood risk or<br />
the analysis of surface water management requirements at the site. All<br />
turbine locations would remain in excess of 7m from the banks of any<br />
surface watercourse and minor variations in the proposed routing of<br />
access tracks would have no adverse effect on surface water runoff. It is<br />
concluded that if micro-siting of the turbines to a maximum of 50m is<br />
287<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
equired, there is no requirement to re-evaluate flood risk issues. The<br />
conclusions of the existing FRA would remain valid.<br />
288<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
14. RADIO-COMMUNICATIONS AND<br />
TELEVISION<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
14.1 “Planning Policy Statement 22 Renewable Energy – A Companion Guide”<br />
(2004) highlights that „a wind turbine can interfere with electromagnetic<br />
transmissions in two ways – by emitting an electromagnetic signal itself,<br />
and by interfering with other electromagnetic signals.‟ Wind turbines can<br />
potentially affect the latter by „blocking or deflecting line of sight radio or<br />
microwave links, or by the „scattering‟ of transmission signals.‟…<br />
„Specialist organisations responsible <strong>for</strong> the operation of the<br />
electromagnetic links typically require 100m clearance either side of a line<br />
of sight link from the swept are of turbine blades, though individual<br />
consultations would be necessary to identify each organisations<br />
safeguarding distances. Effects on such links can usually be resolved<br />
through careful siting of individual turbines‟. .<br />
14.2 Thorough consultation with relevant radio-communication and television<br />
operators and stakeholders in order to identify potentially affected links at<br />
an early and allow, where appropriate, mitigation through design should<br />
and has been undertaken. The basis of this section has there<strong>for</strong>e been<br />
consultation with a number of organisations known to have an interest in<br />
radio-communications and television in the area.<br />
METHODOLOGY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT<br />
RADIO-COMMUNICATION LINKS<br />
14.3 The design of the wind farm has undergone a series of iterations taking<br />
account of the different constraints across the site including telecoms links.<br />
Where responses were received from the relevant link operators, this<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation was used as much as possible in the design process. Drawing<br />
HJB/681/PA20 shows the communication links that cross over or near to<br />
the site. Exclusion zones <strong>for</strong> each of the links have been defined by the<br />
Applicant using known in<strong>for</strong>mation and the turbines have been located<br />
outside these zones.<br />
14.4 The Office of Communications (Ofcom) was contacted as the principal<br />
consultee. Ofcom are responsible <strong>for</strong> maintaining a comprehensive<br />
register of fixed links and are also the primary authority in the UK <strong>for</strong> the<br />
development of new links.<br />
14.5 Ofcom was contacted <strong>for</strong> initial comments that could be used in the<br />
constraints mapping process prior to finalisation of the turbine layout.<br />
14.6 A response from Ofcom was received on the 20.06.2006 (sent<br />
14.06.2006) advising of 2 Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd links, 5 MLL Telecom Ltd<br />
289<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
links, 3 T-Mobile links, 5 Vodafone links and 7 JRC links which are within<br />
proximity of the site. These links are identified within PA20. PA20 also<br />
identifies the Vodafone links identified within this initial consultation and<br />
thus the ef<strong>for</strong>t which has been made to mitigate against effect upon these<br />
lines through appropriate design of the wind farm proposal. PA06 also<br />
identifies this mitigation through design along with other potential site<br />
development constraints.<br />
14.7 Ofcom were further consulted once a variety of constraints had been<br />
considered and the design of the proposal had been furthered. A copy of<br />
the response, dated February 2008, is included in Appendix 10. Ofcom<br />
advised that Vodafone Ltd, Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd, Airwave Solutions Ltd,<br />
T-Mobile and Mll Telecom Ltd should be consulted. These companies<br />
were each contacted by the Applicant. In addition, CSS Spectrum<br />
Management Services Ltd (CSS) and the Joint Radio Company (JRC),<br />
who manage fixed link radio connections on behalf of electricity and gas<br />
utility companies, were also contacted.<br />
14.8 Once the turbine locations were fixed and following the site design works<br />
having been guided by the response giving by Ofcom, the relevant<br />
telecoms operators and service providers were in<strong>for</strong>med of the grid<br />
references and asked <strong>for</strong> final comments. This included repeating the<br />
consultation request with Ofcom. The Ofcom response (included in<br />
Appendix 10) included only one additional fixed link operator to be<br />
consulted (Orange Pcs).<br />
14.9 The most recent responses received from the relevant link operators and<br />
service providers are contained in Appendix 10 and a summary is provided<br />
below:<br />
Vodafone Ltd – Commented that some of the turbine locations<br />
proposed are not acceptable to Vodafone due to their microwave<br />
network in the area. The Applicant has assessed the locations of these<br />
links and concluded that one link is likely to be affected due to the<br />
proximity to one of the turbines. An investigation is underway to<br />
determine whether the other links could be affected by the proposed<br />
development and discussions will be held with Vodafone in due course;<br />
It should be noted that there has been some disparity in the in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
provided by Vodafone with initial correspondence having indicated only<br />
5 links passing across or near to the site (dated 02.08.2006). It should<br />
also be noted that the initial consultation with Ofcom identified only 5<br />
Vodafone links.<br />
PA25 indicates the location of the original 5 Vodafone links identified.<br />
PA26 identifies the location of the subsequent additional 5 Vodafone<br />
links identified.<br />
290<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
After this further consultation with Vodafone it was indicated that 10<br />
links pass across or near the site (27.02.2008), contradicting the<br />
previous indication.<br />
PA26 also illustrates the changing locations of links directed to the<br />
mast to the northeast of Aston, further illustrating the constant variety in<br />
responses being received from Vodafone and the difficult task being<br />
faced at the site design stage.<br />
Whilst this disparity in supply of in<strong>for</strong>mation has resulted in the<br />
proposal potentially affecting a Vodafone link Banks will endeavour to<br />
retain communication with Vodafone and seek a resolution as to the<br />
position regarding their potentially affected links and potential<br />
interference.<br />
However, and in summary the proposal took account of identified<br />
microwave links and mitigated appropriately and it is only with this<br />
indication of further links which has came <strong>for</strong>ward that potential affect<br />
has arisen.<br />
It is there<strong>for</strong>e unreasonable to expect significant design alterations at<br />
these latter stages with new, potentially inaccurate in<strong>for</strong>mation of<br />
additional links coming <strong>for</strong>ward with an expectation <strong>for</strong> the proposal to<br />
simply modify and avoid.<br />
Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd – Responded with in<strong>for</strong>mation on two of their<br />
links in the area to be avoided by constraints mapping; The level of<br />
standoff to the links and transmission sites identified will be<br />
interrogated with regard being given to previously requested separation<br />
distances <strong>for</strong> other wind farm proposals in varying localities.<br />
Airwave Solutions Ltd – A request has been made to undertake<br />
preliminary investigation as to the potential <strong>for</strong> any impact upon links<br />
operated by Airwaves Solutions, however Airwaves Solutions have not<br />
provided in<strong>for</strong>mation regarding link locations and potential effects,<br />
This is somewhat in opposition to the aims of national planning policy<br />
and its positive position on the promotion of renewable energy<br />
development. Again Banks will retain communications with Airwaves<br />
Solutions to stress the importance of finding a proposal which can be<br />
considered acceptable to both parties, however if Airwaves Solutions<br />
refuse to provide in<strong>for</strong>mation regarding their fixed links then the<br />
proposal cannot take account of its position through any potential<br />
design mitigation.<br />
T-Mobile – Responded stating that the windfarm has been „rejected by<br />
transmission‟. The Applicant has contacted T-Mobile to discuss this<br />
and subsequently T-Mobile have removed their objection;<br />
291<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Mll Telecom Ltd – Responded stating that the turbines should not affect<br />
any of their existing links based on the final co-ordinates provided to<br />
them;<br />
CSS Spectrum Management Services Ltd – Responded to confirm that<br />
they do not have any objections;<br />
The JRC – Objected on behalf of their clients YEDL and National Grid<br />
Gas; and<br />
Orange Pcs - Confirmed they do not have any objections.<br />
14.10 Following receipt of the JRC objections, JRC was commissioned by the<br />
Applicant to undertake a detailed co-ordination study to assess whether<br />
there was likely to be any significant interference to the scanning telemetry<br />
service operated by YEDL or National Grid Gas.<br />
14.11 This study has been completed. The report concludes that provided the<br />
suggested mitigation measures are taken, the proposed wind farm at<br />
Penny Hill and the operational radio telemetry link operated by YEDL and<br />
National Grid can co-exist. Mitigation has been achieved through careful<br />
siting of the turbines, however communication with YEDL will be<br />
maintained to ensure compatible co-existence.<br />
14.12 Should planning permission be granted, the developer would ensure that<br />
the mitigation measures agreed are carried out, prior to commencement of<br />
construction. Once the mitigation measures have been agreed, JRC will<br />
withdraw their objections on behalf of YEDL and National Grid Gas.<br />
14.13 This process with the JRC was undertaken in order to further adhere to the<br />
Banks „Development With Care‟ approach and engage with consultees<br />
and come to a level of co-operation and mitigation of effect where<br />
appropriate. Banks endeavour to retain communication with all interested<br />
or affected parties, however the balance of effect needs to be<br />
counterweighed by the undoubted benefit associated with the Penny Hill<br />
Wind Farm Proposal, as is the case <strong>for</strong> each faction of the <strong>environmental</strong><br />
impact assessment.<br />
TELEVISION<br />
14.14 Terrestrial television transmissions <strong>for</strong> domestic reception within the UK<br />
are the joint responsibility of the BBC and Ofcom. The BBC was there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
consulted on the potential effect on television reception in the area using<br />
its on-line “Windfarms Assessment Tool” 13 . The tool produces an estimate<br />
of populations that may suffer interference from the proposed wind farm.<br />
13 http://windfarms.kw.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/windfarms/index.shtml<br />
292<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
14.15 The consultation concluded the development would be likely to affect 57<br />
homes <strong>for</strong> which there is no alternative off-air service and up to 10,966<br />
homes where an alternative service will be required.<br />
14.16 The extent of interference on television reception will only become<br />
apparent following the commissioning of the wind farm. Effects from wind<br />
turbine blades affect analogue signals considerably more than digital<br />
signals. The switchover <strong>for</strong> terrestrial TV transmitters from analogue to<br />
digital service in Yorkshire is due to take place in 2011. If however<br />
unacceptable levels of interference are experienced following construction<br />
of the proposed development, a number of different mitigation measures<br />
are available, including:<br />
Reorientation of aerial to an alternative transmitter;<br />
Re-siting of aerial;<br />
Installation of higher quality aerial; or<br />
Switch to digital service or cable service.<br />
14.17 The Applicant will commit, by way of a planning condition, to appropriate<br />
mitigating options that are available, if unacceptable levels of interference<br />
are experienced as a result of the proposed wind farm.<br />
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS<br />
14.18 The proposed development has the potential to affect radiocommunication<br />
links operated by YEDL, National Grid Gas and Vodafone.<br />
The relevant studies have been undertaken and discussions are underway<br />
between the Applicant and the relevant link operators in order to agree any<br />
mitigation measures that may be required. Once mitigation measures<br />
have been agreed with YEDL and National Grid Gas, JRC withdraw their<br />
objections on behalf of these two companies.<br />
14.19 The wind farm has the potential to interfere with television reception in the<br />
area. The Applicant will accept suitable planning condition(s) to resolve<br />
any issues with affected services. Following such mitigation the residual<br />
impact would be negligible.<br />
293<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
15. SHADOW FLICKER<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
15.1 A shadow flicker assessment has been undertaken by TNEI Services<br />
Limited <strong>for</strong> the Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal.<br />
15.2 Under certain combinations of geographical position, times of day and<br />
year, wind speed and wind direction, the sun may pass behind the rotor<br />
and cast a shadow over neighbouring buildings‟ windows. When the<br />
blades rotate, and the shadow passes a window, to a person within that<br />
room the shadow appears to flick on and off; this effect is known as<br />
shadow flicker. It occurs only within buildings where the flicker appears<br />
through a window opening and only buildings within 130 degrees either<br />
side of north relative to a turbine can be affected. Narrow windows are<br />
affected to a lesser degree than wider windows as the length of time a<br />
shadow falls across narrow windows is less than <strong>for</strong> wider windows.<br />
15.3 This chapter summarises the findings of the shadow flicker assessment.<br />
The shadow flicker report is included in full in Appendix 11.<br />
METHODOLOGY<br />
15.4 In<strong>for</strong>mation specific to shadow flicker may be found in the companion<br />
guide to Planning Policy Statement PPS22 - Renewable Energy. The<br />
Companion Guide states:<br />
„Although problems caused by shadow flicker are rare, <strong>for</strong> sites where<br />
existing development may be subject to this problem, applicants <strong>for</strong><br />
planning permission <strong>for</strong> wind turbine installations should provide an<br />
analysis to quantify the effect.‟<br />
15.5 Within the UK there is no standard <strong>for</strong> the assessment of shadow flicker<br />
and there are no guidelines on what exposure levels would be acceptable.<br />
The Companion Guide states that:<br />
„Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the<br />
turbines can be affected at these latitudes in the UK – turbines do not cast<br />
long shadows on their southern side…. Flicker effects have been proven to<br />
occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine.‟<br />
15.6 The shadow flicker assessment has been based on a 104m rotor diameter<br />
Repower 3.3MW wind turbine. As such it represents a worst case<br />
scenario with the area potentially susceptible to shadow flicker a region up<br />
to 1040m from each turbine (10 x 104m) and 130 degrees either site of<br />
north. The „worst case‟ scenario is assumed due to the 104m rotor<br />
diameter being the largest span the planning permission would allow.<br />
294<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
BASELINE<br />
Within the assessment seven representative buildings satisfied both<br />
criteria and were chosen <strong>for</strong> analysis.<br />
15.7 The study area was surveyed and buildings potentially susceptible to<br />
shadow flicker were identified. The immediate area surrounding the site<br />
has a variety of land uses but predominantly comprises residential and<br />
agricultural areas. A desk based study followed by a site survey identified<br />
seven buildings which would be theoretically susceptible to shadow flicker.<br />
15.8 The orientations of the side(s) of the buildings, which face the wind<br />
turbines, were recorded, as well as all windows from which the proposed<br />
wind turbines may be viewed. Dimensions and elevations of the windows<br />
were estimated and aspects were measured using a handheld compass.<br />
15.9 Figure 15.1 shows the assessment locations in relation to the proposed<br />
wind turbine locations. The area potentially susceptible to shadow flicker<br />
is shown in red. The red line boundary has been produced by considering<br />
all areas which are within ten rotor diameters of any turbine whilst<br />
excluding areas which lie outside of 130 degrees from north.<br />
Figure 15.1 Shadow Flicker Assessment Locations<br />
295<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
PREDICTED EFFECTS<br />
15.10 Table 15.1 summarises the occurrence of shadow flicker at the most<br />
affected window at each assessment location.<br />
Table 15.1 Maximum Theoretical Shadow Flicker Occurrence at Each<br />
Assessment Location<br />
Assessment<br />
Location<br />
Theoretical<br />
Frequency of<br />
Shadow<br />
Occurrence<br />
(days/year)<br />
Theoretical<br />
Max Hours<br />
Shadow<br />
per Day<br />
15.11 The instances of shadow flicker will always be less than that predicted by<br />
the model as these are based on the worst case scenario. The<br />
occurrence of shadow flicker is only possible during the operation of the<br />
wind farm (i.e. when the rotor blades are turning) and when the sky is clear<br />
enough to cast shadows.<br />
15.12 It is important to consider the following facts when making an assessment:<br />
climatic conditions dictate that the sun is not always shining. Regional<br />
Met Office data gives actual sunshine hours <strong>for</strong> the „Midlands‟ region<br />
(which includes South Yorkshire) to be 32% of total daylight hours 14 .<br />
Cloud cover during other times may obscure the sun and prevent<br />
shadow flicker occurrence. While some shadow may still be cast under<br />
slightly overcast conditions, no shadow at all would be cast when<br />
heavy cloud cover prevails. It is considered that weather conditions<br />
will reduce actual occurrence of shadow flicker by at least half,<br />
compared to calculated levels;<br />
14 Met Office Data from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/<br />
1408 actual sunshine hours per year/4380 daylight hours per year = 32%<br />
296<br />
Theoretical<br />
Mean Hours of<br />
Shadow per<br />
Day<br />
Theoretical<br />
Total Hours<br />
per Year<br />
H1:Morthen 0 0 0 0<br />
H2:Brampton-en-le<br />
Morthen<br />
99 0.62 0.45 45<br />
H3:Ulley Beeches 179 1.15 0.71 126.9<br />
H4:Penny Hill Lane 234 0.71 0.45 104.9<br />
H5:Turnshaw Road 95 0.5 0.37 35.2<br />
H6:Vassey Close<br />
Farm<br />
84 0.48 0.4 34<br />
H7:Ulley 160 0.53 0.41 65.6<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
objects such as trees or walls may surround windows and obscure the<br />
view of the turbines and hence prevent shadow flicker;<br />
during operation, the turbine rotors automatically orientate themselves<br />
to face the prevailing wind direction. This means the turbine rotors will<br />
not always be facing the affected window, and in fact will sometimes be<br />
„side-on‟ to the window. Very little of the blade movement would be<br />
visible during such occurrences and there<strong>for</strong>e the potential <strong>for</strong> shadow<br />
flicker is reduced; and<br />
the turbines will not operate <strong>for</strong> 100% of daylight hours. During periods<br />
of very low wind speed or very high wind speed or maintenance shutdowns,<br />
the rotors do not turn. During such periods shadow flicker is<br />
not possible.<br />
15.13 When considering the above factors a greatly reduced level of impact<br />
occurs.<br />
15.14 If we consider that shadow flicker can only occur during daylight hours and<br />
times of sunshine the maximum occurrence is based upon all hours of<br />
daylight being sunny with clear skies.<br />
15.15 A maximum theoretical occurrence at Ulley Beeches of 125.9 hours per<br />
year can be reduced to 40.3 hours per year when considering that the<br />
Midlands Regional Met Office data gives actual sunshine hours to be 32%<br />
of daylight hours. This figure also does not consider potential marginal<br />
cloud cover diluting any effect.<br />
15.16 A maximum theoretical occurrence at Penny Hill Lane of 104.9 hours per<br />
year can be reduced to 33.6 hours per year when considering the same<br />
methodology.<br />
15.17 The properties at Ulley Beeches and Penny Hill Lane and a number of the<br />
other assessed properties also have a high level of vegetation surrounding<br />
the properties potentially obscuring affected windows when the turbine<br />
rotors are facing.<br />
15.18 Consideration of the above factors leads to the conclusion that the level of<br />
shadow flicker will be greatly less than the predicted levels.<br />
15.19 The possibility that shadow flicker could induce photosensitive epilepsy<br />
has also been considered. It has been demonstrated that the frequency at<br />
which shadow flicker would occur at this site (up to 0.7 hertz per turbine /<br />
cumulative frequency up to 1.4 hertz) is significantly less than the<br />
frequency at which photosensitive epilepsy is usually triggered (between 5<br />
and 30 hertz). While some people are sensitive at higher frequencies, it is<br />
uncommon to have photosensitivity below 2.5 hertz. Published in October<br />
2007, the Onshore Wind Energy Planning Conditions Guidance Note<br />
commissioned by BERR (the Department <strong>for</strong> Business, Enterprise and<br />
Regulatory Re<strong>for</strong>m) states:<br />
297<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
„health effects arising from shadow flicker will not have the potential to<br />
occur Unless the operating frequency of a particular turbine is between 2.5<br />
and 30 hertz and all other pre-conditions <strong>for</strong> shadow flicker effects to occur<br />
exist‟.<br />
15.20 Consequently shadow flicker caused by this development is predicted to<br />
have no adverse health effects.<br />
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS<br />
15.21 The potential <strong>for</strong> cumulative shadow flicker has been investigated. H3<br />
Ulley Beeches is the only receptor which has the potential <strong>for</strong> shadow<br />
flicker to occur from two turbines simultaneously. With the proposed<br />
turbines having a flash rate below 0.7 Hz, a combined flash rate of 1.4Hz<br />
<strong>for</strong> two turbines is well below the threshold of 3 Hz recommended by<br />
Harding et al. (2008) <strong>for</strong> cumulative shadow flicker effects.<br />
MITIGATION<br />
15.22 There are no UK guidelines which quantify what exposure levels of<br />
shadow flicker would be acceptable. Where shadow flicker is found to<br />
cause a nuisance and <strong>for</strong>m an unacceptable impact, mitigation measures<br />
can be implemented in order to reduce the occurrence of shadow flicker.<br />
Such measures include planting tree belts between the affected window<br />
and the turbines; though as previously stated a number of tree lines<br />
surround existing properties which have the potential to dissipate any<br />
occurrence, and shutting down the turbines using turbine control systems<br />
during periods when shadow flicker could theoretically occur. Any turbine<br />
control system would be developed in conjunction with a detailed<br />
monitoring programme and implemented subsequent to the granting of<br />
planning permission.<br />
15.23 No routine mitigation is proposed; this will be kept under review during the<br />
operation of the scheme in case particular combinations of circumstances<br />
arise that increase the potential <strong>for</strong> nuisance (particularly where rooms<br />
affected are in regular occupancy and the effect proves to be a frequent<br />
occurrence in reality). Where nuisance arises, mitigation measures can<br />
be incorporated into the operation of the wind turbines to reduce the<br />
instance of shadow flicker to lower levels.<br />
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS<br />
15.24 A shadow flicker assessment has been undertaken <strong>for</strong> seven buildings<br />
within 1040m of the proposed turbine locations; the theoretical range of<br />
effect. It has been shown that under worst case conditions, the maximum<br />
theoretical occurrence of shadow flicker amounts to 126.9 hours per year,<br />
experienced at Ulley Beeches. The second highest potential occurrence is<br />
104.9 hours per year at Penny Hill Lane, however as previously shown this<br />
has a far lesser potential occurrence when considering other factors such<br />
as actual average hours of sunlight. It is important however to note that<br />
298<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
these are the theoretical maximum number of shadow hours figures per<br />
year and are there<strong>for</strong>e considered „worst case‟ scenarios. They do not<br />
take into account weather conditions (i.e. no sun or partially cloudy), local<br />
visual obstructions (such as trees, hedges or other structures), turbine<br />
orientation and turbine operation. In reality, the amount of time when<br />
shadow flicker occurs will be less than what has been predicted. It is also<br />
important to note that affected windows may well be in rooms that are not<br />
generally in use at the times when the effect may occur.<br />
299<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
16. OTHER ISSUES<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
16.1 This section sets out the approach to <strong>environmental</strong> management and also<br />
addresses health and safety concerns related to the construction and<br />
operation of the proposed wind farm development, including potential<br />
effects on users of public footpaths and bridleways within the vicinity of the<br />
site.<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN<br />
16.2 The Applicant‟s environment team is responsible <strong>for</strong> the development of<br />
the company‟s <strong>environmental</strong> management system (EMS) that has been<br />
certified to the BS EN ISO 14001:2004 standard (since May 2005) and is<br />
subject to regular internal audit and independent external audit. A<br />
requirement of the EMS is the preparation of an Environmental<br />
Management Plan (EMP) setting out <strong>environmental</strong> per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
objectives and actions <strong>for</strong> each site. A draft EMP produced by the<br />
Applicant can be found in Appendix 12.<br />
16.3 The proposed EMP would identify the risks to the environment from all<br />
phases of the wind farm construction, operation and decommissioning. It<br />
will outline the <strong>environmental</strong> control measures that will be implemented to<br />
comply with the <strong>environmental</strong> quality objectives set <strong>for</strong> the Penny Hill site.<br />
16.4 In respect of the Penny Hill site, the main sources of <strong>environmental</strong><br />
objectives and commitments are likely to be:<br />
The company‟s <strong>environmental</strong> policy and code of practice;<br />
Planning conditions; and;<br />
Other <strong>environmental</strong> consents and authorisations.<br />
16.5 The EMP would address the following aspects of the development:<br />
Site management;<br />
Fencing and security;<br />
Drainage;<br />
Construction of the site compound;<br />
Concrete management;<br />
300<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Control of oil fuel and chemicals;<br />
Waste management;<br />
Transportation of abnormal loads;<br />
Control of general site vehicle movements;<br />
Prevention of fugitive dust emissions;<br />
Noise;<br />
Ecology and ornithology;<br />
Archaeology;<br />
Operational phase of works;<br />
Environmental auditing and monitoring; and<br />
Decommissioning phase works.<br />
16.6 It will also include any specific measures agreed by the Applicant with<br />
RMBC and other statutory consultees in the <strong>for</strong>m of mitigation measures,<br />
planning conditions and/or consents.<br />
STEWARDSHIP AGREEMENTS<br />
16.7 The majority of the land within the site boundary is managed as part of<br />
either the Countryside Stewardship Scheme or the Environmental<br />
Stewardship Agreement (Entry Level). Countryside Stewardship was<br />
introduced as a pilot scheme in England in 1991 by the then Countryside<br />
Commission and operates outside the Environmentally Sensitive Areas.<br />
Payments are made to farmers and other land managers to enhance and<br />
conserve English landscapes, their wildlife and history and to help people<br />
to enjoy them. The Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs<br />
(Defra) website 15 states:<br />
„Until the launch of Environmental Stewardship, Countryside Stewardship<br />
was the Government‟s main scheme <strong>for</strong> the wider countryside, aiming,<br />
through the payment of grants, to improve the natural beauty and diversity<br />
of the countryside, enhance, restore and re-create targeted landscapes,<br />
their wildlife habitats and historical features, and to improve opportunities<br />
<strong>for</strong> public access.‟<br />
16.8 Environmental Stewardship is a new agri-environment scheme which<br />
provides funding to farmers and other land managers in England who<br />
15 http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/css<br />
301<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
deliver effective <strong>environmental</strong> management on their land. The Defra<br />
website 16 provides the following description:<br />
„The scheme is intended to build on the recognised success of the<br />
Environmental Sensitive Areas scheme and the Countryside<br />
Stewardship Scheme. Its primary objectives are to:<br />
Conserve wildlife (biodiversity);<br />
Maintain and enhance landscape quality and character;<br />
Protect the historic environment and natural resources;<br />
Promote public access and understanding of the countryside; and<br />
Natural resource protection.‟<br />
16.9 The total land take of the wind farm, including foundations, temporary<br />
crane pads, construction compound, access tracks, control building,<br />
substation and meteorological mast is estimated to be no greater than six<br />
hectares during construction. This represents a maximum of 4.8% of the<br />
planning application area, which encompasses approximately 125.5<br />
hectares. Upon commissioning and the completion of site restoration<br />
works the actual footprint of the wind farm infrastructure would only be<br />
approximately 2.5 hectares, representing only 2% of the planning<br />
application area. There<strong>for</strong>e once constructed, the proposed development<br />
would only take up a small proportion of the site and it is not expected that<br />
this would have an adverse impact on the management of the site under<br />
the two agreements detailed above.<br />
PUBLIC SAFETY<br />
16.10 Wind turbine technology has a tried and tested track record in the UK.<br />
The companion guide accompanying “PPS22 - Renewable Energy”<br />
considers the safety issues raised by the emerging and existing renewable<br />
energy technologies in the country and states the following at paragraphs<br />
49 – 51:<br />
„Experience indicates that properly designed and maintained wind<br />
turbines are a safe technology. The very few accidents that have<br />
occurred involving injury to humans have been caused by failure to<br />
observe manufacturers‟ and operators‟ instructions <strong>for</strong> the operation of<br />
the machines. There has been no example of injury to a member of<br />
the public.<br />
The only source of possible danger to human or animal life from a wind<br />
turbine would be the loss of a piece of the blade, or in most exceptional<br />
16 http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/es<br />
302<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
circumstances, of the whole blade. Many blades are composite<br />
structures with no bolts or other separate components. Blade failure is<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e most unlikely. Even <strong>for</strong> blades with separate control surfaces<br />
on or comprising the tips of the blade, separation is most unlikely.<br />
The minimum desirable distance between wind turbines and occupied<br />
buildings calculated on the basis of expected noise levels and visual<br />
impact will often be greater than that necessary to meet safety<br />
requirements. Fall over distance (i.e. the height of the turbine to the tip<br />
of the blade) plus 10% is often used as a safe minimum separation<br />
distance.‟<br />
16.11 The turbine specifications <strong>for</strong> the Penny Hill Wind Farm will be designed<br />
and manufactured to meet international engineering design and<br />
manufacturing safety standards including the British Standard BS EN<br />
61400 – 1:1995 “Wind turbine generator systems – safety requirements”<br />
and the European Standard EN 50308: 2004 “Wind turbines. Protective<br />
measures. Requirements <strong>for</strong> design, operation and maintenance”.<br />
16.12 The proposed wind farm will comply with all relevant UK legislation (e.g.<br />
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974), as well as specific industry guidance<br />
such as the British Wind Energy Association‟s “Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Health and<br />
Safety in the Wind Energy Industry” (October 2008). The latter guidelines<br />
aim to safeguard the health and safety of those working in the industry and<br />
also the general public from project design through construction, operation<br />
and decommissioning.<br />
16.13 The public are sometimes concerned about the possibility of a turbine<br />
shedding a part, possibly a whole blade, and ice throw/shear. However,<br />
the public‟s perception of the risk from a catastrophic failure of the turbine<br />
structure is not borne out by the evidence of such events. There have<br />
been very few instances of this type of accident worldwide and there are<br />
no known cases where injury has resulted. Wind turbines have an<br />
excellent safety record. At the end of 2007 the Global Wind Energy<br />
Council (GWEC) estimated that onshore wind farms provided 94,112MW<br />
of installed capacity 17 and the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA)<br />
calculate that there are currently 2355 operational onshore turbines in the<br />
UK 18 with no record of a member of the public being hurt due to ice, blade<br />
throw or tower collapse.<br />
16.14 The public are also sometimes concerned about the possibility of „ice<br />
throw‟ and „ice shear‟, because in certain conditions ice may <strong>for</strong>m on the<br />
blades. „Ice throw‟ is the phenomenon of ice being thrown from the blades<br />
due to the blade movement, whereas „ice shear‟ is the phenomenon of ice<br />
17 GWEC Statistics 2007 [Available online at:<br />
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/statistics/gwec/stats2007.pdf]<br />
18 British Wind Energy Association website [http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/index.asp (accessed<br />
22.1.09)]<br />
303<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
falling from the blades and there<strong>for</strong>e affecting only the area directly under<br />
the turbine.<br />
16.15 In freezing conditions, ice <strong>for</strong>ming on the blades of the rotor may fall off as<br />
the rotor starts to turn. However, the PPS22 Companion Guide refers to<br />
the “Wind Energy Production in Cold Climates report” 19 which estimates<br />
that the particular weather conditions required <strong>for</strong> ice to build up occur in<br />
England <strong>for</strong> less than one day per year. The proposed wind turbines<br />
would be located in agricultural land and sited in fields which are fenced to<br />
prevent unauthorised vehicle access. The use of established protocols<br />
and procedures would mean that operational staff should be aware and<br />
take appropriate action when conditions likely to lead to ice accretion on<br />
the turbine are present, which could lead to the risk of ice falling from the<br />
rotor in areas of risk.<br />
16.16 All turbines will be fitted with vibration sensors so that if a blade is<br />
damaged or unbalanced they would automatically stop. In the event that a<br />
turbine starts to ice up when it is already turning, the turbines may<br />
continue to operate but will shut down if ice builds up and causes an<br />
aerodynamic or physical imbalance in the rotor assembly.<br />
PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY & PERMISSIVE ROUTES<br />
16.17 A number of Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and permissive routes cross<br />
the Penny Hill wind farm study area. RMBC was consulted in May 2008 to<br />
obtain a copy of the „definitive map‟ of PRoW and permissive routes <strong>for</strong> the<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm study area. Drawing HJB/681/PA24 shows the<br />
wind farm study area and all identified PRoWs and permissive routes.<br />
PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY<br />
16.18 PRoW within the immediate vicinity of the site are as follows:<br />
Public footpath from Field Lane north of the site, to Stoket Lane on the<br />
western boundary of the site. The footpath crosses the north-west<br />
corner of the site;<br />
Public bridleway running in a north-south direction along Stoket Lane,<br />
between Morthen Lane north of the site and ending at Penny Hill Lane<br />
along the site boundary; and<br />
Public footpath leading from Turnshaw Road crossing the south-west<br />
corner of the site (just north of Spring Wood).<br />
PERMISSIVE//PROMOTED ROUTES<br />
16.19 Permissive routes are when landowners allow members of the public to<br />
use paths and tracks which are not PRoW. Members of the public do not<br />
19 “Wind Energy Production in Cold Climates” (ETSU W/11/00452/00/REP)<br />
304<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
have a statutory right to use them and they are not covered by rights of<br />
way legislation. The Council do not maintain permissive paths and they<br />
are not featured on the „definitive map‟. There is often a notice at either<br />
end of the route explaining this and setting out any conditions which the<br />
owner has set. The notice may also state that the owner has no intention<br />
of dedicating the path as a PRoW. Permissive paths are usually<br />
waymarked with a white arrow.<br />
16.20 A number of permissive paths are present within the Penny Hill study area<br />
and they make up part of a circular route which is one of RMBC‟s<br />
„Doorstep Walks‟ (see section below).<br />
16.21 Part of the permissive route is adjacent to the western and north-west<br />
boundaries of the Penny Hill study area. However, a section just over a<br />
kilometre in length crosses the centre of the site in a north-south direction.<br />
To the north of Penny Hill Lane, the route follows the eastern boundary of<br />
the Halifax estate. The route to the south runs from Penny Hill Lane to<br />
Carr Lane, along field boundaries through the centre of the study area.<br />
THE DOORSTEP WALKS<br />
16.22 In addition to the above, RMBC have produced a series of leaflets of short<br />
circular walks in the Rotherham countryside, known as the „Doorstep<br />
Walks‟. RMBC are intending to expand the range of Doorstep Walk leaflets<br />
so that „everyone in Rotherham will have a local circular walk close to<br />
where they live.‟ They will also be producing a series of leaflets to offer<br />
horse riders and cyclists a number of circular routes.<br />
16.23 The RMBC website shows there to be two Doorstep Walks relevant to the<br />
Penny Hill site: The Farmland Trail at Ulley Village (Doorstep Walk No.7)<br />
and The Village Walk from Ulley Country Park (Doorstep Walk No.6).<br />
16.24 The Farmland Trail crosses the centre of the Penny Hill study area in a<br />
north-south direction and follows the permissive route described above.<br />
The western section of the trail is also adjacent to the western boundary of<br />
the study area. The only section of The Village Walk that coincides with<br />
the study area is the southern part of Stoket Lane, where it joins Penny Hill<br />
Lane. As mentioned above, Stoket Lane is a public bridleway.<br />
PUBLISHED GUIDANCE<br />
16.25 When considering exclusion zones around PRoW “Planning <strong>for</strong><br />
Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22” states at Paragraph<br />
53:<br />
„The British Horse Society, following internal consultations, has<br />
suggested a 200 metre exclusion zone around bridle paths to avoid<br />
wind turbines frightening horses. Whilst this could be deemed<br />
desirable, it is not a statutory requirement, and some negotiation<br />
should be undertaken if it is difficult to achieve this.<br />
305<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Similarly, there is no statutory separation between a wind turbine and a<br />
public right of way. Often, fall over distance is considered an<br />
acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be<br />
that the turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a public right<br />
of way.‟<br />
16.26 In addition, the latest British Horse Society (BHS) guidance on wind farms<br />
states the following:<br />
„As guidance to developers and planners, the Society recommends<br />
that, as a starting point when assessing a site and its potential layout, a<br />
separation distance of 4 times the overall height should be the target<br />
<strong>for</strong> any road or right of way that is part of a National Trail or Ride UK<br />
route, as these are likely to be used by equestrians unfamiliar with<br />
turbines, and a distance of 3 times overall height from all other routes,<br />
including roads, with the 200m recommended in the Technical<br />
Guidance to PPS 22 being seen as the minimum, where it is shown in<br />
a particular case that this would be acceptable. The negotiation<br />
process recommended above should indicate whether, in the particular<br />
circumstances of each site, these guidelines can be relaxed or need<br />
strengthening to minimise or eliminate the potential difficulties.‟ 20<br />
RMBC GUIDANCE<br />
16.27 The RMBC website contains the following advice:<br />
„Paths Affected by Development - Town & Country Planning Act 1990 -<br />
Section 257<br />
A public path can be diverted or extinguished to enable development to<br />
take place. In this context development consist of works which require<br />
planning permission.<br />
The first option should be to retain paths on their existing alignment.<br />
However, if this would prejudice an otherwise acceptable development<br />
or layout it may be acceptable to divert a path if an equally convenient<br />
and pleasant route can be found […]<br />
[…]The granting of planning permission does not give a developer any<br />
right to interfere with, obstruct or move a public right of way. Public<br />
paths can only be diverted or closed by legal order. These require a<br />
separate application and are not covered by any planning permission.<br />
The costs associated with the legal process are the responsibility of the<br />
developer.<br />
It is an offence to disturb or obstruct a public path. Any path across a<br />
development site should be kept clear until an order is legally<br />
confirmed and the diverted route is available.<br />
20 Guidance on the British Horse Society website [http://www.bhs.org.uk/]<br />
306<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
Even if a path is to be permanently retained, it may need to be<br />
disturbed while the development takes place. For instance, it may not<br />
be possible to safely keep the path open during building works. If so a<br />
temporary closure or diversion will be required <strong>for</strong> the duration of the<br />
works. The path must be fully reinstated at the end of the diversion.‟<br />
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PROWS AND PERMISSIVE ROUTES<br />
16.28 Each turbine has been located as far from the footpaths, bridleway and<br />
permissive routes within the site as is practicable. Drawing HJB/681/PA06<br />
shows the buffers applied to these routes during the design process.<br />
16.29 The nearest turbine to the section of bridleway (approximately 250m in<br />
length) along the site boundary to the northwest is Turbine 2, which is to<br />
be located at least 250m away. All five other turbines and associated<br />
infrastructure would be sited a minimum of 400m from the bridleway.<br />
16.30 The access tracks leading to Turbine 2 and to Turbine 4 will cross the<br />
route <strong>for</strong> Doorstep Walk No.7 (The Farmland Trail). The access track<br />
leading to Turbine 6 will cross the „other public access route‟ to the south<br />
of the site. The access track leading to the proposed meteorological mast<br />
will cross the public footpath in the southwest corner of the site.<br />
16.31 For health and safety reasons, the Applicant proposes to re-route the<br />
sections of The Farmland Trail which would otherwise be crossed by two<br />
proposed access tracks and the section of footpath which would otherwise<br />
be crossed by one proposed access track in the southwest corner of the<br />
site. Agreement on the diversions and appropriate signage etc. would be<br />
agreed with the PRoW team at RMBC and other relevant consultees as<br />
required, should planning permission <strong>for</strong> the development be granted.<br />
16.32 With the implementation of the above measures, it is considered that there<br />
would not be significant adverse effects on the public rights of way and<br />
permissive routes within the site boundary.<br />
16.33 Should micro-siting be considered necessary it will be ensured that this<br />
does not conflict with the parameters set out within the <strong>statement</strong>s above.<br />
SITE SECURITY<br />
16.34 In order to ensure that the site would be secure during the operation of the<br />
wind farm the following measures would be incorporated:<br />
All turbines and trans<strong>for</strong>mer enclosure doors would be locked;<br />
The wind farm would be remotely monitored using a System Control<br />
and Data Acquisitions (SCADA) system that would monitor the<br />
individual turbines and would immediately detect any acts of vandalism<br />
that would interfere with the operation of the site;<br />
307<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement
All fields containing turbines would be adequately fenced with locked<br />
gates to prevent unauthorised vehicle access;<br />
A wind farm technician would make regular visits to the site during<br />
normal working hours;<br />
The control building would have metal security doors to prevent<br />
unauthorised access; and<br />
An intruder alarm would be installed in the control / switchgear building<br />
and be connected to the remote control system.<br />
The substation will be securely fenced to exclude the public <strong>for</strong> health<br />
and safety reasons. This security fencing will be of the type typically<br />
found at YEDL substations.<br />
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS<br />
16.35 The potential <strong>for</strong> adverse effects on public safety during the construction,<br />
operation and decommissioning phases of the proposed Penny Hill Wind<br />
Farm is assessed as insignificant.<br />
OVERALL EIA CONCLUSIONS<br />
16.36 The predicted <strong>environmental</strong> impacts associated with the installation of the<br />
six wind turbines and associated infrastructure have been carefully<br />
considered throughout the design of the Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal.<br />
The <strong>for</strong>mation of the proposed development has, wherever possible, taken<br />
into account the views of statutory consultees, the local community and<br />
their representatives, as well as the views of other interested parties.<br />
16.37 It is considered that the proposed development which has emerged from<br />
the EIA and design iteration process, has ensured that the impacts<br />
associated with the project have been minimised wherever possible.<br />
Particular care has been taken in relation to sensitive receptors regarding<br />
noise and visual impact, whilst retaining a development of a scale that<br />
justifies the associated impacts.<br />
16.38 The proposed development is strongly supported in principle by national,<br />
regional and local planning policy which favour the development of<br />
renewable energy projects provided that the <strong>environmental</strong> impacts will be<br />
within acceptable limits. The EIA undertaken <strong>for</strong> the project is considered<br />
to have demonstrated that the project would have a relatively small<br />
number of significant effects, as would be expected from this type of<br />
development. The wind farm would make a positive contribution towards<br />
the national, South Yorkshire and Rotherham targets, <strong>for</strong> the generation of<br />
electricity from renewable sources.<br />
308<br />
Penny Hill Wind Farm<br />
Environmental Statement