environmental statement - Rotherham's Online Application for ...

PENNY HILL WIND FARM 

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 

JULY 2009

© The Banks Group. All rights reserved. 

This document has been provided for your reference by The Banks Group. No material from this 

document may be otherwise copied, altered, republished, transmitted or distributed in any way without 

permission. 

Aerial photographs are © Getmapping PLC and © AirFotos Ltd as indicated and are also subject to 

the conditions above. 

All map data is reproduced from Raster 10,000 and Raster 50,000 by permission of Ordnance Survey 

registered on behalf of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2001, 2002, 20003, 2004, 

2005. All Rights Reserved. AL 100017630.

PREFACE 

This Environmental Statement has been prepared to support an application by 

Penny Hill Wind Farm Ltd for the construction and operation of the Penny Hill Wind 

Farm. Banks Developments Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of The Banks Group) 

will be acting as the agent on behalf of Penny Hill Wind Farm Ltd. The Penny Hill 

Wind Farm proposal is located east of the village of Ulley at Penny Hill Lane, 

Rotherham, South Yorkshire. Penny Hill Wind farm Ltd will be referred to as “The 

Applicant” for the remainder of this Environmental Statement. Banks Developments 

Ltd will be referred to as “The Agent” for the remainder of the Environmental 

Statement. 

The Environmental Statement (ES) reports the findings of the Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA) co-ordinated by TNEI Services Ltd, with specialist input from the 

following consultants: 

Pegasus Environmental - Landscape & Visual; 

Citrine - Landscape & Visual Photography; 

Faber Maunsell - Ecology, Ornithology and Traffic & Transport; 

Arcus Renewable Energy Consulting - Archaeology & Cultural Heritage; 

Collett Transport - Transport; 

SM Foster Associates - Flood Risk; and 

TNEI Services - Shadow Flicker and Noise. 

Although not part of the EIA, the ES also includes an assessment of the proposal‟s 

potential aeronautical effects undertaken by Airport Planning and Development 

(APD) Ltd. 

The ES comprises the following elements: 

Non-Technical Summary – describing the proposal and summarising the 

findings of the environmental impact; 

Main Text and Drawings – providing a detailed description of the proposal and 

its potential effects, reporting the findings of the EIA and providing other 

relevant background information; 

Appendices - containing relevant detailed reports of the sub-contractors, 

including ecology, ornithology, noise, archaeology, landscape & visual, flood 

risk, traffic and shadow flicker; and 

Visualisations – containing the visualisations at A3 size prepared to 

accompany the landscape and visual assessment, including photomontage 

and wire frame diagrams from selected viewpoints. 

In addition, a Design & Access Statement and a Planning Statement in support of 

the application have been prepared. Copies of the statements form part of the 

planning submission, although they do not form part of the formal ES. A formal set 

of planning application drawings are also provided to accompany the planning 

application, using selected ES Drawings, but also do not form part of the ES. 

Project Name 

Document Type

The Non-Technical Summary, ES, ES Drawings, Appendices, Design & Access 

Statement and Planning Statement are presented in a single volume in an A4 sized 

ring bound folder. Printed copies of the ES may be purchased at a cost of £100 

including post and packing from Banks Renewables Ltd at: 

Inkerman Road 

Tow Law 

Bishop Auckland 

County Durham 

DL13 4HG 

E-mail: pennyhill@banksdevelopments.com 

Electronic copies of the documentation on CD are also available from the above 

address at a cost of £10 including post and packing. 

Cheques for either of these formats should be made out to the National Fuel Poverty 

Charity, National Energy Action, and be sent to the above address, which we will 

then forward as a charitable donation. 

The Non-Technical Summary is available free of charge from Banks Renewables at 

the above address. 

Copies of the Non-Technical Summary and the ES are available for public 

consultation during normal office hours at the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough 

Council Development Customer Service Centre. The address is provided below: 

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council 

Civic Building Walker 

Place 

Rotherham 

S65 1UF 

In addition, the planning application can be viewed in full on the following website: 

http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/graphics/Residents/Planning 

Project Name 

Document Type

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PREFACE .................................................................................................................. 1 

PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................ 1 

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2 

2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 11 

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS ............................. 20 

4. SITE SELECTION AND DESIGN .................................................................. 30 

5. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND DECOMMISIONING ......................... 40 

PART 2: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................. 48 

6. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ......................................................................... 49 

7. ECOLOGY & NATURE CONSERVATION ................................................. 167 

8. ORNITHOLOGY .......................................................................................... 196 

9. NOISE ......................................................................................................... 209 

10. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ........................................ 221 

PART 3: DESCRIPTION OF OTHER EFFECTS ................................................... 248 

11. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ....................................................................... 249 

12. CIVILLIAN AND MILITARY AERONAUTICAL RADAR ............................. 275 

13. GROUND CONDITIONS AND HYDROLOGY ............................................ 281 

14. RADIO-COMMUNICATIONS AND TELEVISION ....................................... 289 

15. SHADOW FLICKER .................................................................................... 294 

16. OTHER ISSUES .......................................................................................... 300 

Project Name 

Document Type

PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

1 

Penny Hill Wind Farm 

Environmental Statement

1. INTRODUCTION 

THIS DOCUMENT 

1.1 This document forms the Environmental Statement accompanying 

the application for planning permission made by Banks Renewables Ltd 

(the Applicant) to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to develop the 

Penny Hill Wind Farm. The proposal site is located on farmland to the 

west of the M1 and M18 interchange south of Rotherham, to the east of 

the village of Ulley. 

1.2 The preparation of the Environmental Statement has been co-ordinated on 

behalf of the Applicant by TNEI Services Ltd. Detailed assessments of 

potential environmental effects have been undertaken by TNEI Services 

Ltd and other specialised consultants. 

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT STRUCTURE 

1.3 The Environmental Statement (ES) describes the proposal and reports the 

findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The ES consists 

of the following documents: 

Non-Technical Summary – describing the proposal and summarising 

the findings of the EIA; 

Main Text and Figures – providing a detailed description of the 

proposal and its potential effects, reporting the findings of the EIA and 

providing other relevant background information; 

Appendices - containing information on consultation and relevant 

detailed reports of the sub-contractors; and 

Visualisations – containing the visualisations at A3 size prepared to 

accompany the landscape and visual assessment, including 

photomontage and wire frame diagrams from selected viewpoints. 

1.4 In addition, a Design & Access Statement and a Planning Statement in 

support of the application have been prepared. Copies of these statements 

form part of the planning application submission, although they do not form 

part of the formal ES. 

1.5 The Non Technical Summary, ES, ES Drawings, Appendices, Design & 

Access Statement and Planning Statement are presented in a single 

volume in an A4 sized ring bound folder. The landscape and visual impact 

assessment visualisations are presented in a separate bound A3 volume. 

1.6 This ES is split into three parts: 

Part 1 – Describes the EIA process, the policy background, the site and 

the proposed development; 

2 



Part 2 – Summarises the findings of the EIA with regard to each of the 

following potential significant environmental effects: 

landscape and visual; 

ecology and nature conservation; 

ornithology; 

noise; and 

archaeology and cultural heritage. 

Part 3 – Provides a description of other potential effects: 

construction traffic; 

civilian and military aeronautical interests; 

radio-communications and television; 

ground conditions and flood risk; 

shadow flicker; and 

other issues (e.g. environmental management, health and safety). 

1.7 Details of the methodologies for each assessment are provided in the 

relevant sections. 

1.8 The approach taken in the EIA to the identification and assessment of 

potentially significant effects of the proposal is consistent with guidelines 

published by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 

(IEMA). The standard format for each of these sections is as follows: 

a description of the methodology used to assess the impacts, including 

specific guidance documents used; 

a summary of the relevant consultation responses received, relating to 

that specific impact; 

a description of the baseline information, including the relevant features 

of the site and a description of the available information arising from 

the baseline monitoring undertaken; 

a description of the likely impacts of the development on the 

environment; 

a summary of proposed mitigation; 

an evaluation of the level and significance of residual impacts; and 

3 



a summary of the assessment, including proposals to avoid or mitigate 

potential adverse effects, where they are identified. 

1.9 Throughout the document, reference is made to the Applicant‟s intention to 

produce, and adhere to the provisions of, both a Construction Method 

Statement (CMS) and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), prior to 

the commencement of construction. A draft EMP for the Penny Hill site is 

included as Appendix 12. 

1.10 It is envisaged by the Applicant that the scope of both the CMS and the 

final EMP will be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, in consultation 

with the Environment Agency, through appropriate planning conditions. 

BACKGROUND 

The Proposed Development 

1.11 The main elements of the proposal can be summarised as follows: 

Six wind turbines, with a maximum tip height of 132 metres, each with 

a maximum individual installed capacity of approximately 3.3 

megawatts (MW); 

Improvements to existing means of access from the public highway at 

Penny Hill Lane; 

approximately 3.5 km of new access tracks; 

underground electrical cabling; 

wind monitoring mast (permanent for the lifetime of the wind farm); 

site control building and substation; 

a temporary construction compound for the duration of the construction 

period; and 

hardstanding areas, fences and other associated infrastructure. 

1.12 The environmental effects of developing each of these elements are 

assessed in this ES. 

1.13 In parallel with the proposed development taking place, the Applicant will 

establish a Community Fund, which will receive money throughout the life 

of the proposed development. The fund will be available to assist local 

community projects and discussions will continue to take place between 

the Applicant and possible grant funding agencies and bodies with a view 

to the Community Fund being used to „lever in‟ additional grant funding for 

local projects. 

4 



1.14 The installed capacity of the proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm would be up 

to a maximum of 19.8 MW, based on the potential use of 3.3 MW turbines. 

The current approved regional renewable energy target for Yorkshire and 

Humber requires 708 MW of installed capacity by 2010 and 1,862 MW by 

2021. The target for the South Yorkshire sub-region is 47 MW, by 2010 

and 160 MW by 2021. The sub regional target is broken down further to 

Local Authority area, for Rotherham the 2010 target is 11 MW and the 

2021 target is 36 MW. To date five wind farms totalling 34.2MW of power 

is being generated in the Yorkshire and Humber region, which represents 

just 1.74% of the RSS 2021 target. Of the 34.2MW just 7.8MW is within 

the South Yorkshire sub-region. Within the Rotherham area, there is only 

one operational wind energy development at the Advanced Manufacturing 

Research Centre, with a 1.3MW capacity, although there is an extant 

planning permission for the development of a 3.9MW wind farm at Loscar. 

1.15 The Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal has been prepared following an 

extensive consultation process involving the distribution of over 2,000 

information leaflets, two public exhibition days at three separate venues 

and several meetings with a number of key stakeholders and consultees. 

Full details of the consultations undertaken and the feedback received, 

including the comments made by local residents at the public exhibition, 

are reported in Appendix 1 and summarised later in Section 3 of this ES. 

THE NEED FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY 

1.16 The UK, along with over 180 other countries has signed the Kyoto 

Protocol, which commits all signatories to significantly reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions by fixed targets, resulting in an initial UK target of reducing 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 60% by 2050. The UK Government 

stated that renewable energy is an integral part of the Government's 

longer-term aim of reducing CO2 emissions, setting targets of 10% of 

electricity supply from renewable energy by 2010 and 20% by 2020. 

1.17 The European Union has committed to a target of 20% of all energy (not 

just electricity) coming from renewable resources by 2020. The UK share 

of this target is to have 15% of all energy coming from renewable 

resources by 2020. 

1.18 The UK Government published “The Energy White Paper: Meeting the 

Energy Challenge” in May 2007. This White Paper sets out the 

Government‟s international and domestic energy strategy to respond to 

these changing circumstances, address the long term energy challenges 

we face and deliver four energy policy goals: 

to put ourselves on a path to substantially cutting CO2 emissions; 

to maintain the reliability of energy supplies; 

to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond; and 

5 



to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated. 

1.19 Box 5.3.3 of the White Paper is a “Renewables Statement of Need” 

detailing the Government‟s current policy towards the development of 

renewables and the important role they have to play in helping the UK 

meet its energy policy goals. 

1.20 The Renewables Statement of Need states: 

„New renewable projects may not always appear to convey any particular 

local benefit, but they provide crucial national benefits. Individual 

renewable projects are part of a growing proportion of low carbon 

generation that provides benefits shared by all communities both through 

reduced emissions and more diverse supply of energy, which helps the 

reliability of our supplies. This factor is a material consideration to which 

all participants in the planning system should give significant weight when 

considering renewable energy proposals. These wider benefits are not 

always immediately visible to the specific locality in which the project is 

sited. However, the benefits to society and the wider economy as a whole 

are significant and this must be reflected in the weight given to these 

considerations by decision makers in reaching their decisions.‟ 

1.21 The Government‟s “UK Renewable Energy Strategy – Consultation 

Document” was published in June 2008. This is a consultation document 

seeking views on how to drive up the use of renewable energy in the UK, 

as part of an overall strategy for tackling climate change and to meet the 

UK share of the EU target to source 20% of the EU's energy from 

renewable sources by 2020. Responses to the consultation will help shape 

the UK Renewable Energy Strategy which will be published in Spring 

2009, once the UK's share of the target has been agreed. The document 

reinforces the two key energy policy challenges: to tackle climate change 

and ensure security of energy supply. It confirms that renewable sources 

of energy are vital as they provide low-carbon energy, increase diversity to 

the energy mix and bring key business and employment opportunities. 

1.22 Most recently, The Climate Change Act 2008, received Royal Ascent on 

26 th November 2008, and introduces the world‟s first long term legally 

binding framework to tackle the dangers of climate change. This 

legislation reiterates the UK government‟s commitment to the role of 

renewable energy as an important factor in the move to a low carbon 

economy. 

1.23 There are also strong socio-economic arguments in support of the 

development of renewable energy. Until recently the availability of 

relatively cheap supplies of oil and gas from countries such as Columbia, 

Russia and Poland led to increased levels of imports. International 

increases in the price of gas and oil, and increased instability in the 

availability of imports from some of these countries has led to a review of 

the country‟s future energy sources. Renewable energy seeks to redress 

the balance by delivering greater self-sufficiency in energy supply. There 

6 



are also advantages in decentralised embedded electricity generation 

including a reduction in the amount of electricity lost during transmission 

and supply failures. 

1.24 Wind energy is an inexhaustible and indigenous energy source. 

Furthermore, the UK is the windiest country in Western Europe. As such, 

wind is currently recognised by the UK Government as the most 

economically viable source of green electricity in the UK and that it can 

reasonably be expected to be proposed in all regions of the country. 

1.25 The proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm should be considered in light of the 

above, which are the most recent expression of Government policy on 

renewable energy development. Of particular importance are the very 

clear targets that the UK has for substantially reducing CO2 emissions and 

significantly expanding the amount of electricity to be produced from 

renewable resources. 

THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE PROJECT 

1.26 The rationale for the proposed development can be summarised as 

follows: 

The UK, along with over 180 other countries, has signed the Kyoto 

Protocol which commits all signatories to significantly reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions by fixed targets; 

The decline in the finite indigenous energy supplies of the UK (mostly 

fossil based), and the need to provide a range of alternative sources; 

Wind energy is an inexhaustible and indigenous energy source (the UK 

is the windiest country in Western Europe) and is widely recognised as 

the most promising and economically viable source of green electricity 

in the country; 

Governmental guidance on tackling climate change recognises the 

needs to both develop renewable energy sources and promote energy 

efficiency. The opportunity exists at the Penny Hill site to deliver a 

local scale renewable energy proposal that would deliver up to a 

maximum of 19.8 Megawatts (MW). This would contribute significantly 

towards the Rotherham Borough the regional renewable energy target 

of 36 MW by 2021; 

The site has been comprehensively assessed by the Applicant, is 

relatively unconstrained and has been identified as being suitable for 

the development of a wind energy proposal (discussed further in 

Section 4); and 

The site benefits from a viable wind resource (discussed further in 

Section 4). 

7 



PROJECT OBJECTIVES 

1.27 The project is being proposed by the Applicant as a locally based initiative 

to utilise the on-site wind resource to contribute towards Rotherham‟s 

2021 renewable energy target and national renewable energy targets, 

while also providing local economic and environmental benefits. The 

Applicant has a main office in the area, at Barlborough, and this project 

has particular local significance to their business. 

1.28 The overall objectives of the Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal are as 

follows: 

To generate a locally significant amount of clean, renewable electricity 

thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions; 

To take a responsive approach to local constraints and by doing so, in 

visual terms, realise a scheme which achieves a coherent, balanced 

and logical impression when viewed from principal viewpoints and 

produces a scheme that is an acceptable scale and layout for the site 

and surrounding area; 

To produce a financial return to the Applicants and in turn, to the 

communities around the site, principally through the sale of electricity 

to the national electricity market and the establishment of the 

Community Fund (discussed above); 

To support the expanding renewable based industries in the region and 

beyond; and 

To support sustainable energy initiatives within the Borough. 

PROJECT BENEFITS 

1.29 The project would deliver the following benefits: 

A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by harnessing power from 

the wind as an alternative to the burning of fossil fuels; 

Produce an indigenous energy supply, reducing the UK‟s reliance on 

imported fossil fuels; 

Potentially create and sustain employment opportunities during the 

manufacturing and construction period of the project; 

Enhance the clean, green, sustainable image of Rotherham and the 

surrounding borough; 

Support farm diversification; 

Provide long term income to the agricultural businesses on the site; 

and 

8 



Establishment of a Community Fund with the aim of improving energy 

efficiency and reducing fuel poverty in Rotherham. 

The Applicant 

1.30 This application has been submitted by Banks Developments Ltd on behalf 

of Penny Hill Wind Farm Ltd, both a wholly owned subsidiary of the Banks 

Group. 

1.31 Since its foundation in 1976 the Banks Group operations have undergone 

carefully planned growth and diversification into new business areas. The 

Banks Group now operate in four business areas: 

renewable energy; 

mineral extraction; 

waste management; and 

land reclamation. 

1.32 The Group‟s renewable energy division operates from its offices in 

Barlborough in Bolsover and Tow Law in County Durham, and draws on 

the company‟s 30 years of experience in successfully developing 

significant projects in the minerals, waste and property sectors. The 

entrance into the Renewable Energy sector was a natural progression for 

a developer with both experience in identifying and delivering successful 

projects, and an existing relationship with energy generators in the North 

East region and throughout the UK. 

1.33 The renewable energy division is exploring opportunities for generating 

green electricity throughout the UK and considers itself to be well placed to 

contribute towards the renewable energy targets set by the UK 

Government. 

1.34 The Banks Group‟s success in delivering major projects has largely been 

attributed to its „Development With Care‟ approach, which is central to the 

aims and objectives of the business. Their commitment to the local 

community is demonstrated by the way in which they strive for total 

satisfaction in all of their dealings. They also publish and adhere to best 

practice policies and especially in encouraging community participation in 

their projects. Banks are continually improving their performance and 

competitiveness, using exciting new ideas and have a real commitment to 

„Development With Care‟ in all of their work. The „Banks in the 

Community‟ brochure illustrating this concept is contained in Appendix 2. 

1.35 In 2004 the Banks Group won an award for its efforts in involving the local 

communities in the design of the restoration of its surface mine at 

Pegswood in Northumberland to a community park, providing community 

recreational facilities including fishing and boating, as well as protected 

9 



and enhanced wildlife habitats. In the same year the Group won an award 

from the Noise Abatement Society for innovation through the use of the 

best, most up to date equipment and a deeper understanding of noise 

concerns. These awards demonstrate the range of expertise available 

within the Banks Group. This expertise has been applied to the design 

and assessment of the Penny Hill proposal and would be applied during 

the construction of the wind farm, should planning permission be granted. 

10 



2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

2.1 This section describes the principles and details of the proposed Penny 

Hill Wind Farm, as submitted. Included in this section are details of all 

elements of the proposed scheme covering the construction, operational 

and decommissioning periods. 

2.2 Prior to the commencement of construction activity, an Environmental 

Management Plan (EMP) and Construction Method Statement (CMS) will 

be prepared, covering details of each major item of work required and 

detailing in particular the final locations of the turbines, tracks and other 

infrastructure. A draft EMP for the Penny Hill site is included at Appendix 

12. It is envisaged that the agreed final version of these documents will be 

the subject of a planning condition and agreed in advance with the local 

planning authority. 

SITE LAYOUT OVERVIEW 

2.3 The total land take of the wind farm, including foundations, temporary 

crane pads, construction compound, access tracks, control building, 

substation and meteorological mast is estimated to be no greater than 6 

hectares during construction. This represents a maximum of 4.8% of the 

planning application area, which encompasses approximately 125.5 

hectares. Upon commissioning and the completion of site restoration 

works the actual footprint of the wind farm infrastructure would only be 

approximately 2.5 hectares, representing only 2% of the planning 

application area. 

2.4 Drawing HJB/681/PA05 depicts the proposed site layout and shows all 

elements of the operational wind farm including the locations of the six 

proposed turbines. It also illustrates the site tracks and highway access 

points, the on-site control building and substation, and the permanent 

meteorological monitoring mast. Drawing HJB/681/PA05 also shows the 

location of the temporary construction compound. At each turbine location 

a crane pad will be required adjacent to the foundation to provide 

adequate bearing for the cranes carrying out turbine erection, as illustrated 

by Drawing HJB/681/PA11. 

2.5 The main access to the site will be from Penny Hill Lane, with a crossing 

point to the two turbines in the north of the site across Brampton Lane. 

The access will be designed to allow the turbine delivery vehicles and 

other construction vehicles to leave the highway quickly and safely. The 

access junction is shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA14. 

11 



2.6 The proposed turbines would be accessed by approximately 3.5km of onsite 

access tracks. These would have an average surface width of 5m and 

would be constructed of stone with a crushed stone running surface. The 

routes of these tracks are shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA05 and details of 

their construction are illustrated on Drawing HJB/681/PA12. Following the 

construction of the wind farm the site roads would be retained to 

accommodate maintenance traffic, consisting of visits by a light van. 

2.7 Trenching for cabling running between the proposed turbines will generally 

run parallel to the site roads connecting individual turbines to the electrical 

collection network. All the on-site circuits will converge at the site control 

building and substation from where the electricity generated by the 

turbines will be exported to the local grid. 

2.8 The layout of the wind farm has resulted from a process of design that has 

responded to a varied and diverse set of constraints. Principal aims were 

to achieve a layout that: 

Avoids constraints such as known overhead power lines, 

archaeological features, ecologically sensitive habitats and 

telecommunication links; 

Maintains an appropriate stand-off distance from residential properties 

in order to satisfy UK Government guidelines on wind turbine noise and 

disturbance; and 

Achieves a logical and balanced appearance from key viewpoints. 

2.9 These aims, combined with other practical considerations, have resulted 

in a compact layout of turbines on the site with a cohesive footprint. The 

design process is covered in more detail in Section 4 of this ES. 

2.10 The final layout has remained as specified within the Scoping Report with 

the inclusion of six turbines, due to the relatively unconstrained nature of 

the site the ability to maximise the potential for energy production could be 

realised. Since the submission of the Scoping Report the ability for 

turbines with an increased generating power has progressed, therefore the 

submission seeks consent for the erection of turbines with a maximum 

height of 132m, which have a installed capacity of up to 3.3MW. 

2.11 It should also be noted that this application for planning permission seeks 

permission for a 50 metre „micro siting‟ allowance in order for an efficient 

construction process to be achieved. The contents of the ES and thus the 

individual assessments have been undertaken with this bore in mind, 

however in order for a practical assessment to have taken place fixed 

turbine locations have been cited within the assessment. Should planning 

permission be granted the final turbine locations will be submitted to the 

Local Planning Authority for consideration prior to turbine erection to 

12 



ensure an acceptable scenario for both parties (The applicant and the 

LPA) is attained. 

Turbine Specification 

2.12 The six turbines would be of a modern design with three bladed rotors 

mounted on nacelles housing the generator, gearbox and other operating 

equipment. 

2.13 The six turbines would all be of the same height and specification, with a 

hub height of around 80 m and a maximum height to blade tip of up to 

132m. The nacelles would be mounted on a tubular tower, which allows 

access to the nacelle. A diagram of an indicative wind turbine is shown as 

Drawing HJB/681/PA10. 

2.14 The final choice of turbine and manufacturer would be made at the formal 

tendering stage, following consent. At this stage however, for the 

purposes of this EIA the largest available turbines that the site could 

accommodate, which would provide the maximum benefits in terms of 

renewable electricity output, have been considered in the assessment of 

the proposal, where appropriate. It is envisaged that the final choice, 

specification and colour of the turbines would be agreed with the Local 

Planning Authority through appropriate planning conditions. 

2.15 The types of turbines considered for this proposal normally begin to 

generate electricity at wind speeds of approximately 3-5 metres per 

second (m/s) rising to their maximum output at around 12-18 m/s. At wind 

speeds of around 25 m/s or greater the turbines would automatically shut 

down for safety reasons. All the turbines on the site would rotate in the 

same direction as viewed from the windward side, and would typically 

operate at a variable rotational speed of between 9 and 19 rpm. It is 

proposed that the turbine tower, nacelle and blades be finished in a light 

grey colour with a semi-matt finish. It is proposed that should external 

transformers be considered necessary they will be finished appropriately 

for the background to the agreement of the Local Planning Authority. 

2.16 Once operational, the wind turbines would operate automatically, requiring 

occasional visits by technicians in a light commercial van or similar 

vehicle. Some longer servicing visits would be required, along with 

reasonable unscheduled maintenance as may be necessary. Occasional 

visits by larger vehicles, such as cranes or lorries similar to those used 

during construction, may be necessary during the operational lifespan of 

the wind farm, should there be a requirement to replace any major turbine 

components. 

13 



Meteorological Monitoring 

2.17 Wind farm performance would be remotely monitored using a permanent 

meteorological mast, the location of which is shown on Drawing 

HJB/681/PA05, together with a System Control and Data Acquisitions 

(SCADA) system that would monitor the individual turbines. Anemometry 

equipment including wind speed and direction measurement equipment 

would be positioned near the top of the mast on booms. The mast would 

be up to 80m tall and a typical specification is depicted on Drawing 

HJB/681/PA09. A slim-line lattice tower would be used. It is, however, 

envisaged that the final choice of anemometer mast type would be agreed 

through an appropriate planning condition, and presented in the CMS. 

Turbine Foundations 

2.18 It is proposed that reinforced concrete gravity foundations would be used 

for the proposed turbines. This foundation type is typically an inverted T 

shape consisting of a large square pad with a protruding upstand that lies 

flush with the reinstated ground level. The excavation in which the turbine 

foundation is cast would be backfilled with suitable stone, placed and 

compacted over the foundation. The subsoil and topsoil stripped prior to 

foundation excavation would be retained and reinstated around the base 

of the turbine tower when backfilling has been completed. The turbine 

towers would be connected to the foundation by a „foundation ring‟ cast 

into the foundation, or alternatively by „holding down‟ bolts, again cast into 

the foundation. Stability for the turbine is provided through both the weight 

of the foundation and the material replaced and compacted over it. The 

final foundation design will depend on the results from detailed ground 

investigation, though it is currently expected that most turbines will not 

require piled foundations. Although considered unlikely, detailed ground 

investigation may reveal that piling or roch anchors may be necessary. 

2.19 A typical turbine foundation is shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA11. Detailed 

design specifications for each foundation would depend on site-specific 

factors such as ground conditions, the specific turbine model selected and 

various other engineering issues. Nevertheless, turbines of the size 

proposed typically require a square concrete base with dimensions of 

approximately 19 x 19 square metres. Including the protruding upstand, 

the overall depth of the foundation would be around 3.5 metres. Each 

turbine foundation would comprise up to 400 cubic metres (or 720 tonnes) 

of concrete and approximately 40 tonnes of reinforcing steel. Following 

construction of the foundation and the placing of the structural backfill, the 

layer of subsoil and topsoil originally excavated from the turbine foundation 

area would be reinstated. 

14 



On-Site Tracks 

2.20 From the junction with the public highway at Penny Hill Lane and the 

crossing point over Brampton Lane, approximately 3.5km of site tracks 

would run through the site linking the turbines, meteorological mast, site 

control building and substation, construction compound and other site 

infrastructure. 

2.21 In designing the layout of the tracks and the location of the access point 

onto the public highway, the Applicant has attempted to limit the length of 

track required in order to: minimise the amount of roadstone to be used 

(and thus limit construction vehicle movements); minimise the loss of 

agricultural land; and minimise the likelihood of disturbing ground nesting 

birds during the construction period. 

2.22 The site tracks will be constructed to an average of 5m running width to 

accommodate wind farm construction vehicles and maintenance traffic 

during operation. It is proposed that the site tracks will be constructed 

using stone obtained from quarries located in the local area. The 

construction of the site roads shall be carried out using best practice 

methodologies used on previous wind farm developments. The location 

and route of the site tracks is illustrated in Drawing HJB/681/PA05. 

2.23 Typically, the construction of site tracks involves stripping the topsoil over 

the footprint of the track, and the laying of roadstone to achieve the 

required road make-up. The stripped subsoil and topsoil would be 

reinstated at the shoulders of the road and allowed to re-vegetate. The 

detailed method for constructing site tracks would be included in the CMS 

prior to construction commencing and would take into consideration key 

factors such as drainage and ground conditions. 

2.24 Drainage would be provided through the tracks permeability to ensure that 

the impact on local hydrology would be minimised. There may be a need 

for a small number of passing places at strategic points along the site 

tracks. The passing places would be suitable for a flat bed trailer and 

would be an additional 5m in width over the normal width of the access 

track. The position and final design of passing places would be included 

within the CMS prior to construction. 

2.25 Whilst every effort has been made to avoid surface water features, two 

crossings of streams within the site will be required. Culverts would be 

used to cross watercourses. A Flood Risk Assessment has been 

undertaken for the proposed development and has concluded that the site 

is located within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore at low risk of fluvial 

flooding. The proposed development is not considered to be at risk of 

flooding from groundwater, overland flow or local surface runoff and will 

not result in any net change in surface water runoff from the site. Further 

details are provided within Section 13 (Ground Conditions and Hydrology). 

15 



2.26 Tracks between turbines are required during the operational period of the 

wind farm to allow for maintenance operations, particularly the 

replacement of turbine/electrical components if required. 

Crane Pads 

2.27 Two cranes would be required during the erection of each turbine, typically 

a 500 to 650 tonne crane and a smaller 100 to 250 tonne tailing crane. To 

provide stable, firm ground for cranes to stand on during the installation of 

turbines, hard-standing areas would be laid down adjacent to the 

foundation. These would be suitable for the outriggers of the respective 

cranes, leading to an area of approximately 20m by 40m in total. 

Typically, construction of the hard-standing areas would be similar to the 

construction of the site tracks, with the top 300mm of topsoil being stripped 

and stored adjacent to the sites, with the remaining topsoil removed down 

to the hard substrate. Geotextile material would be laid down and stone 

laid on top to a depth required for adequate bearing of the crane 

outriggers. The crushed stone would be sourced from local quarries. 

Following completion of the construction works, the crane hardstandings 

shall be left in-situ to allow any extraordinary maintenance such as major 

component replacement, and to also support cranes during eventual 

decommissioning. Following the commissioning of the site, however, the 

pads would be reinstated with the original topsoil replaced over the load 

bearing material and allowed to regenerate naturally. Drawing 

HJB/681/PA11 illustrates an indicative crane pad and its relationship to a 

turbine. 

On-Site Cabling 

2.28 The wind turbines to be used at the Penny Hill site would typically produce 

electricity at 690-1000 Volts. This would pass through a transformer 

typically located within the nacelle, the base of the tower or in a cabinet 

outside the tower, before being connected into the wind farm underground 

collection circuitry. 

2.29 The wind turbines would be connected to the on-site metering and control 

building and substation via 11 kV or 33kV underground cables placed in 

trenches. The cables would generally follow the route of the on-site tracks 

as described above. The route would be marked above ground with 

clearly identified posts, spaced at suitable intervals along the length. In all 

cases, the cables would be buried to a depth of approximately 1m. 

Reinstatement would be in line with the general methods described 

previously (i.e. re-laying the previously stripped subsoil and topsoil over 

the top of the cable trench). 

2.30 Separate communication cables and earth tapes would also be laid in the 

trench. Cables would be laid in sand for protection, with warning 

tapes/boards placed above high voltage cables to mitigate the risk of 

unintentional excavation. Where trenches are located on downhill 

16 



gradients, impermeable barriers (plugs) would be placed in the sand layer 

at regular intervals to prevent the trench acting as a water conduit. 

Site Control Building And Substation 

2.31 The underground cables routed from the turbines will come together at the 

site control building, located within a compound positioned just south of 

Brampton Lane. The location is detailed on Drawing HJB/681/PA05. 

2.32 The control building would have a footprint of approximately 12m by 10m 

and would be approximately 5.5m in height. An indicative design for this 

building is reproduced in Drawing HJB/681/PA13. The final configuration 

and layout of this building would be agreed with the planning authority as 

part of the CMS and would be of similar floor area to that specified above. 

The substation would be approximately 31m x 36.5m and about 5.5m in 

height. 

2.33 The control building and substation would house the wind farm switchgear, 

protection equipment, metering and control equipment, communication 

equipment and any other electrical infrastructure required to operate the 

wind farm. In addition, within the control building, there would be facilities 

provided appropriate to the work of the on-site technicians. Such facilities 

may include; a lavatory connected to an earth closet system or a septic 

tank and soakaway, washing facilities, a non-potable water supply initiated 

from a grey water collection system, mess and kitchen facilities, a store 

room, a meeting room and a small workshop. It is envisaged that the 

control building would be of a vernacular pitched roof and concrete block 

construction, and it is anticipated that wall finishes, roofing materials and 

detailed architectural design would be agreed with the local planning 

authority prior to construction, through an appropriate planning condition. 

2.34 The control building and substation would be located within a 40m x 40m 

compound area suitable for access by operations and maintenance 

vehicles and the storage of electrical equipment such as auxiliary 

transformers and standby generators. 

Site Access 

2.35 The Applicant commissioned an access study from specialist highway 

consultants Collett Transport. Details of the study are included in Section 

11 (Construction Traffic) and the full report is in Appendix 7. This study 

has concluded that access to the site for the delivery of turbine 

components is not anticipated to be a constraint to the development. All 

necessary road consents, abnormal load orders and precise traffic 

management methods could be satisfactorily dealt with in the post-consent 

and construction phases of the project including any potential s278 

agreements. The Applicant would address such issues in the proposed 

CMS in discussions with the relevant highways authorities (Highways 

Agency and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council), this will also 

17 



include an appropriate control mechanism for the crossing point on 

Brampton Lane during both construction and operation of the wind farm. 

2.36 It is envisaged that turbine components would be delivered to the site via 

the public road network from a suitable port such as Immingham or Goole. 

The principal access route would utilitise the M18, leaving at Junction 1 

between Hellaby and Wickersley, then taking the A631 westbound to the 

roundabout, turning left onto B6060 through Wickersley, then right onto 

Hawk Hill Lane, before continuing westbound to the site. 

2.37 It is proposed that all other construction vehicles would use the M1 leaving 

at Junction 31 between Aughton and Todwick. They would turn left at first 

exit onto the A57, and then turn left at the crossroads onto B6463, turn left 

onto the unclassified road/Common road and finally left into Penny Hill 

Lane to continue to the site entrance. 

Site Grid Connection 

2.38 The grid connection for the Penny Hill Wind Farm would be the subject of 

a separate consenting procedure under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 

1989 if it utilises a new overhead line, or an application for planning 

permission (or use of a permitted development order by a statutory 

undertaker) for an underground connection. Following the commissioning 

of a grid connection study, a preferred potential connection point has been 

identified by the Applicant. The preferred option is to connect directly with 

the 66 kV overhead line that is located adjacent to the construction 

compound. Drawing HJB/681/PA23 shows the likely details of the grid 

connection. 

2.39 The connection to be used and the detailed specification of the connection 

will be subject to on-going negotiations with the Distribution Network 

Operator (YEDL) and a separate grid application process. 

EMISSIONS SAVINGS AND HOUSEHOLDER CALCULATIONS 

2.40 Every unit (kWh) of electricity produced through wind power can displace a 

unit of electricity which might otherwise have been produced by a power 

station burning fossil fuel. Nuclear power stations operate constantly at 

base-load such that the output from mainly coal-fired and, increasingly 

over time gas-fired plant, is adjusted to meet the increases in electricity 

demand above this base load on the system. As such, the electricity 

generated by wind turbines could effectively replace the output of coalfired 

or gas-fired power stations, unit for unit. 

2.41 The amount of gaseous emissions that wind energy can directly prevent 

being emitted from fossil fuel fired plant can be estimated on the basis of 

the figure provided by the British Wind Energy Association (following its 

discussions with the Advertising Standard Authority), of 430g CO2/kWh. 

Given the complexities of the UK electricity generation mix and the state of 

the UK energy market, the Advertising Standard Authority has 

18 



acknowledged that it is likely that the agreed figure understates the actual 

displacement figure. 

2.42 The energy generated by the proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm has been 

calculated using: 

manufacturers wind speed curves for a range of wind turbines between 

2 and 3.3 MW that have a 90m – 104m rotor diameter; 

on-site wind speed data collected during a six month period from a 

60m high above ground level (AGL) mast located within the site 

boundary; and 

energy losses due to scheduled maintenance and other reasons that 

are inherent in the design and operation of the wind farm (for example 

turbine availability, turbulence etc). 

2.43 The Applicant has undertaken preliminary calculations for a number of 

suitable wind turbine models. These calculations have predicted that the 

wind farm will generate between 31,000 MWh and 45,700 MWh per 

annum, depending on the selected turbine model. 

2.44 On this basis, the CO2 saving of the proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm is 

estimated to be between 13,330 and 19,651 tonnes annually 1 . Based on 

an operational lifespan of 25 years and a generation of between about 

775,000 and 1,142,500 MWh, it can be estimated that the Penny Hill Wind 

Farm could offset between approximately 333,250 and 491,275 tonnes of 

CO2 over the proposed 25-year lifetime of the development 2 . 

2.45 The electricity generated annually from the proposed Penny Hill Wind 

Farm is predicted to be equivalent to the approximate annual domestic 

needs of approximately 6,596 to 9,723 average households in Britain, 

which is the equivalent of between approximately 6% - 10% of households 

within the Rotherham District. This calculation has been based on the 

BWEA recommended average annual UK household electricity 

consumption, 4,700kWh. This figure is viewed as conservative as the 

latest BERR regional and local electricity statistics indicate that the 

average UK household electricity consumption is 4,457 kWh 3 . However, it 

must be noted that the energy capture, capacity factor and therefore, the 

figure for the equivalent number of homes whose domestic needs would 

be met by the proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm may change as further site 

specific information is gathered and advances in wind turbine technology 

are made. 

1 Based on fuel generating mix which may change over time. 

2 Included as per advice from the ASA to the BWEA (September 2008). The CO2 estimate for the 

lifetime of the development is an estimate and is subject to an approximate margin of error (5%). 

3 4,457 kWh is the average UK household electricity consumption (Regional and local electricity 

statistics, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), 2006). 

19 



3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

ASSESSMENT PROCESS 

INTRODUCTION 

3.1 This section sets out the required stages that have been followed in the 

completion of this Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It describes 

the regulatory context for undertaking EIAs in general, the scoping and 

consultation processes which have been followed for the Penny Hill Wind 

Farm proposal and the assessment method applied and reported within 

this Environmental Statement (ES). 

3.2 The purpose of an EIA is to ensure that the environmental effects of a 

proposed development are fully considered before an application for 

consent is determined. The EIA process collates information and analysis 

regarding the environmental effects of a development, which are to be 

taken into account by the consenting authority, in this case the Local 

Planning Authority, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC), 

and other consultees. 

3.3 The Applicant presents the findings of the EIA within an ES. In this case 

the ES has been submitted with the application for planning permission 

which has been made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

The ES should outline the likely impact that the development is expected 

to have on the environment and the measures the developer proposes to 

take to minimise any adverse environmental impacts. Consultations with 

statutory consultees and other interested bodies must be undertaken to 

establish that all potentially significant issues are adequately covered in 

the EIA. 

3.4 The EIA process consists of the following key stages: 

Scoping - to establish significant environmental issues; 

Baseline Studies – to examine the environmental character of the area 

likely to be affected by the development; 

Predicting and Assessing Impacts – to predict and assess the possible 

effects, both negative and positive, of the development on the 

environment; and 

Mitigation – to introduce measures to avoid, minimise or mitigate any 

adverse effects. 

20 



3.5 An EIA should be treated as an iterative process, rather than a one-off 

appraisal, so that feedback from stakeholder consultation and the results 

from baseline studies can be fed into the design process of the scheme in 

question. This has been the case with the Penny Hill proposal where the 

assessments undertaken by the various specialist consultants have fed 

into the design process, along with consultee feedback. 

EIA REGULATIONS 

3.6 With regard to the determination of applications for planning permission 

under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Town and Country 

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) 

Regulations 1999 4 provide the relevant guidance for environmental impact 

assessment. These Regulations represent the implementation in England 

and Wales of European EIA Directive (85/337/EEC as amended by 

97/11/EC). 

3.7 The EIA Regulations apply to two separate lists of projects: 

`Schedule 1 projects', for which EIA is required in every case; and 

`Schedule 2 projects', for which EIA is required only if the particular 

project in question is judged likely to give rise to significant 

environmental effects 5 . 

3.8 Wind turbine developments above a certain size and over a certain height 

are a Schedule 2 development. As such, at the project screening stage the 

determining authority provides an opinion as to whether the development 

may have significant effects on the environment and therefore whether a 

full EIA is required. Circular 02/99, published by the Office of the Deputy 

Prime Minister (ODPM) states that „EIA is more likely to be required for 

commercial [wind farm] developments of five or more turbines, or more 

than 5 MW of new generating capacity‟ 6 . 

3.9 As the proposal was planned to have five or more turbines and would 

result in approximately 19.8 MW of new capacity, the Applicant decided to 

undertake an EIA for the proposal without obtaining an EIA Screening 

Opinion from the Local Planning Authority. 

4 Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 293. Available online at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19990293.htm 

5 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (1999) Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact 

Assessment. Published online at: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144396. 

6 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (1999) Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact 

Assessment. Annex A: Indicative Thresholds and Criteria for Identification of Schedule 2 Development 

Requiring EIA. Published online at: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144396. 

21 



SCOPING AND CONSULTATION 

Submission of Request for Scoping Opinion 

3.10 The initial „Request for a Scoping Opinion‟, on the wind farm proposal was 

submitted to RMBC in May 2008. The request for a Scoping Opinion was 

made under Regulation 10 of the Town and Country Planning 

(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 

1999, under which developers may request an opinion from the 

determining authority, on the information that should be supplied within the 

ES. 

3.11 The Applicant‟s scoping report stated that the following topic areas would 

most likely give rise to potentially significant effects: 

Landscape and visual; 

Archaeology and cultural heritage; 

Residential amenity (noise and shadow flicker); and 

Ecology and ornithology. 

3.12 The following were also outlined as secondary issues that would be 

discussed in the ES: 

Traffic and transport; 

Radio-communications, television and aeronautical Issues; 

Ground conditions and surface drainage; 

Safety; and 

Cumulative effects. 

The Local Planning Authority’s Scoping Opinion 

3.13 The Local Planning Authority‟s formal response in the form of a Scoping 

Opinion made in accordance with Regulation 10, sets out its opinion as to 

the information that should be included within the ES. A draft Scoping 

Opinion was issued by RMBC on 3 rd September 2008, with the final 

Scoping Opinion dated 24 th September 2008. The key points identified 

within the scoping response, together with details on where these points 

are covered within the ES and application documentation, are set out 

under the following headings: 

Landscape & Visual: (including cumulative effects) considered in 

Section 6 of the ES; 

22 



Residential Amenity (noise and shadow flicker): considered in Sections 

9, 14 and 15 of the ES; 

Ecology / Ornithology: considered in Sections 7 and 8 of the ES; 

Archaeology & Cultural Heritage: considered in Section 10 of the ES; 

Traffic and Transport: considered in Section 11 of the ES; 

Radio-communications and Aeronautical Issues: considered in 

Sections 12 and 14 of the ES; 

Ground Conditions (including Flood Risk Assessment): considered in 

Section 13 of the ES; and 

Safety (including Driver Distraction, icing) considered in Sections 11 

and 16 of the ES. 

3.14 The Council‟s Scoping Opinion also included individual responses from a 

number of consultees: 

RMBC (planning and regeneration, environmental health, 

transportation, ecology and landscape design); 

Highways Agency (traffic); 

Natural England (ecology and landscape); 

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust (ecology); 

South Yorkshire Archaeology Service (archaeology); 

Environment Agency (flood risk assessment); 

South Yorkshire Mining (geology); 

Yorkshire Forward; 

National Grid (utilities); 

Yorkshire Water (utilities); 

English Heritage (archaeology and cultural heritage); and 

NHS Rotherham. 

3.15 The individual comments of all of the above consultees have been 

considered during the EIA process by the relevant consultants and 

assessors and in some cases meetings and specific discussions have 

been held with some of the consultees. Details of the consultation 

23 



elevant to each assessment are included within the individual sections of 

this ES. 

ONGOING CONSULTATION 

3.16 During the EIA process both the Applicant and the appointed consultants 

have been undertaking consultation with relevant statutory and nonstatutory 

bodies. The following organisations have been consulted directly 

by the Applicant or by consultants and/or meetings have been held with 

regard to the proposal (other organisations have been contacted to 

request any relevant data on the site such as RSPB and local nature 

conservation groups): 

RMBC; 

Highways Agency; 

Environment Agency; 

Natural England; 

English Heritage; 

Ministry of Defence; 

Civil Aviation Authority; 

NATS En-Route; 

Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS); 

Ofcom; and 

Radio-communications link operators. 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 

3.17 In parallel with the statutory consultation process and in accordance with 

its „Development With Care‟ principle, the Applicant commenced a 

consultation process more locally with a view to informing and engaging 

the local communities at an early stage in the design process. 

3.18 Throughout the design process, comments received from local residents, 

local representative groups and statutory bodies have also been 

considered with regard to how the project should be changed, or any 

requirements for additional research or survey work prior to the finalisation 

of the project. 

3.19 The main comments and concerns arising from the responses received 

during the scoping process have been addressed under the relevant 

section headings of the ES. 

24 



3.20 The proposals were the subject of public exhibitions held on 27 th May 2008 

at the Aston Parish Hall (Aston) and Holy Trinity Church (Ulley) and on 

28 th May 2008 at the Gordon Bennett Memorial Hall (Thurcroft) and Holy 

Trinity Church (Ulley). The exhibitions were publicised by the distribution of 

leaflets about the project to over 2,000 households in the locality, as well 

as press advertisements and radio announcements/interviews (see 

Appendix 1 for a full report on the public consultation undertaken). 

3.21 People who attended the exhibitions were asked to sign a visitor‟s book 

and invited to make written comments on the proposals. The Applicant 

sent a letter to those expressing an interest in the proposal after the 

exhibitions, which included an outline of the main issues expressed and a 

response to each one. A summary of the main issues expressed and the 

Applicant‟s response in provide in Table 3.1 below. 

Table 3.1: Summary of Issues from Public Exhibitions 

Issue 

Noise – Audible 

Visual Impact 

Impact on House 

Prices 

Loss of Amenity 

Area/Footpaths 

Height of 

Turbines a 

Concern 

25 

Response 

An assessment of the noise which would be created by the 

turbines during both daytime and night-time has been carried out 

in accordance with the appropriate Government guidance (ETSU- 

R-97) on wind farm noise and disturbance. The proposal would be 

fully compliment with this guidance. Noise levels from wind farms 

are on a par with rural background noise at night time and it is 

possible to have a normal conversation without raising your voice 

whilst standing directly underneath a turbine. 

A landscape and visual impact assessment is being carried out as 

part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. This assessment 

includes the preparation of photomontages and other visual 

assessment tools. The assessment has been undertaken by a 

professional landscape architect in accordance with Landscape 

Institute and other guidelines. 

A planning application for any new development can affect local 

house prices, but any negative impact diminishes as time goes on. 

Studies by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has 

shown that while prices may be affected when a proposal is first 

announced prices generally recover after the wind farm has been 

running. Most studies suggest that wind farms become more 

accepted as communities become used to their presence. 

No footpaths or other public rights of way are to be stopped as a 

result of the proposals. 

Larger, more modern turbines are proposed to maximise the 

potential generation from the least number of turbines. The 

greater the rotor diameter and the greater the height above ground 

level the more wind can be captured and converted to renewable 

energy. 132m is the maximum height envelope for the proposed 

turbines and smaller machines may be installed should permission 

be granted, depending on the availability of turbine models at the 

time of construction (The scoping submission identified a 

maximum height of 130m, however since the submission of the 

scoping report the ability for turbines with an increased generating 

power has progressed, hence the maximum height being 

increased to 132m to tip in order to maximise generation where 

possible). 



Impact on 

Landscape 

Impact on TV 

Reception 

Impact to Wildlife 

on or Around the 

Site 

Concern that the 

Proposals are too 

Close to Housing 

Concern About 

Construction 

Traffic Using 

Local Roads 

Does Not Comply 

with Existing 

Greenbelt Policy 

Noise – Low 

Frequency 

Wind Turbines 

Not Effective / 

Don‟t Produce 

Any Power 

Concerns About 

Grid Connection 

The landscape character and the potential impact of the 

development on it will be assessed as part of the landscape and 

visual impact assessment. 

An assessment of this will be included in the application. Should 

interference occur, there are options to provide alternative services 

to affected residents. A TV reception survey will be carried out 

before the wind farm becomes operational that can be used to 

monitor any effects. The Applicant will commit to rectifying any 

reception problems caused by the wind turbines at our expense. 

Ecological and Ornithological studies are being completed on the 

site to establish the presence of various forms of habitats and 

wildlife. The details will be contained in the Environmental 

Statement. 

No turbines are to be located closer than 500m from any groups of 

residential property. 

[It is assumed that these broad comments relate mostly to 

potential for visual and noise impact – see above comments] 

The turbine components would be brought in by specialist 

contractors. The movement of these loads will be tightly controlled 

through permits with the Highways authority and the police. 

Regional guidance for renewable energy in Yorkshire envisages 

development of wind farms in pockets of suburban and green belt 

land. There are existing wind farm developments within the green 

belt in England and PPS22 states that: „Local landscape and local 

nature conservation designations should not be used in 

themselves to refuse planning permission for renewable energy 

developments.‟ 

This issue has been examined in detail by the UK Government. 

The report concluded that wind turbines are not a significant 

source of low frequency noise. Information on this issue will be 

contained in the Environmental Statement. 

Wind power is one of the most widely used, commercially 

developed renewable energy technologies in the UK. Modern 

turbines are more powerful and reliable than early prototypes, 

capturing considerable amounts of clean energy. A turbine used 

in the UK is likely to produce useful power for around 85% for the 

year over a lifespan of 20-25 years. Wind power reduces 

greenhouse gases by displacing conventional power generation. 

The UK is the windiest country in Western Europe and as such 

wind turbines have a higher capacity in the UK than elsewhere in 

Europe. 

The application for a grid connection does not form part of this 

planning application. This will be a separate consenting process 

under section 37 of the electricity act by the electricity network 

operator when the point of connection for the wind farm is 

determined. The connection would be on wooden poles or 

underground depending on the final route. The scale of this 

proposal means that no new metal pylons would be required to 

connect the wind farm into the grid. 

3.22 The comments arising from the exhibitions were fed back into the EIA 

process for the scheme before the proposals were finalised and 

incorporated in this planning application. 

26 



3.23 The final form of the submitted proposal as now assessed is the product of 

this iterative design process. It is, therefore, the considered view of the 

Applicant that the scheme represents the most environmentally acceptable 

option for developing a wind farm on the site. 

Ongoing Community Liaison 

3.24 It is a fundamental part of the Applicant‟s „Development With Care‟ 

approach that once a dialogue with a local community or interested party 

is commenced, it is continued throughout the development process. To 

ensure that there is continuing liaison with the community during the 

consenting, construction and operational phases of the proposal, a 

Community Liaison Manager is assigned to every project that the Banks 

Group develops, to provide on-going contact with the local community 

where required. This ensures that any issues raised are dealt with 

internally by the relevant member of the project team, whilst the 

community retain one point of contact. 

3.25 In addition, dialogue with the local community would continue if the wind 

farm is consented and begins construction through the establishment of 

the Penny Hill Wind Farm Liaison Committee. This will involve local 

residents, members of the various Parish Councils, officers from the Local 

Planning Authority and a representative from the operator. This will meet 

before construction of the wind farm begins to provide a programme of 

works and a contact for the local community and will continue to meet 

periodically thereafter. 

THE ASSESSMENT METHOD 

3.26 The EIA has been undertaken in accordance with the “The Town and 

Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and 

Wales) Regulations 1999” and “Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact 

Assessment” (as described earlier). 

Significant Environmental Effects 

3.27 Paragraph 82 of Circular 02/99 provides advice on the general 

requirements with regards to the preparation and content of an ES, stating 

that: 

„Whilst every ES should provide a full factual description of the 

development, the emphasis of Schedule 4 is on the 'main' or 'significant' 

environmental effects to which a development is likely to give rise. In many 

cases, only a few of the effects will be significant and will need to be 

discussed in the ES in any great depth. Other impacts may be of little or 

no significance for the particular development in question and will need 

only very brief treatment to indicate that their possible relevance has been 

considered. While each ES must comply with the requirements of the 

27 



Regulations, it is important that they should be prepared on a realistic 

basis and without unnecessary elaboration.‟ 

3.28 In defining the „significant‟ environmental effects to be considered within 

this ES, account has been taken of the Scoping Opinion, consultation 

responses from other organisations and previous experience of 

applications of this nature. 

Assessing the Impacts 

3.29 The methodology and terminology used to assess the environmental 

effects in the ES are consistent with one another, in order that 

comparisons can be made between different sections. The sensitivity, or 

„value‟, of the resource/receptors, coupled with the magnitude of the 

impact (before and after mitigation measures) provides an indication of the 

level of significance of an effect. The assessment categories used in each 

of the assessments seek to define: 

the type of effect, i.e. whether it is positive, negative, neutral or 

uncertain; 

the probability of the effect occurring based on the scale of certain, 

likely or unlikely; 

the sensitivity/value of the resource/receptors (this could also be the 

„number of receptors‟ – e.g. population exposed to different effects); 

the magnitude of the impacts; 

the significance of the impacts; and 

where appropriate, if the effect is temporary. 

Mitigation of Impacts 

3.30 Where potentially adverse impacts are predicted, the magnitude of these 

impacts can be mitigated through a variety of positive interventions. Such 

intervention to address potentially negative effects can take place at all 

stages in the development of a proposal, from site selection through to 

operation and decommissioning and should be identified within the EIA. 

3.31 Proposals to mitigate against the potentially adverse effects of the 

proposed wind farm have been incorporated into virtually all elements of 

the site selection and design process and are also incorporated into 

proposed construction, operation and decommissioning plans for the site. 

References to proposed mitigation are therefore made throughout the ES. 

3.32 The individual assessments identify potential mitigation opportunities with 

regard to specific effects. Various forms of mitigation, which are both 

proposed, and which have already been undertaken, are identified 

28 



throughout Part 1 of this ES, particularly with regards to the site selection, 

design and construction of the proposal. 

Cumulative Effects 

3.33 Having assessed the environmental effects of this individual proposal it is 

also necessary to consider potential impacts of the proposed development 

in combination with existing, consented or other proposed developments 

currently being considered. 

3.34 There are no existing or proposed wind farms within close proximity to the 

proposal site. The only area for potential cumulative effects exists is in 

relation to landscape and visual amenity because effects can be 

experienced at greater distances. The Applicant does not consider that 

there are other types of new development in the vicinity which the proposal 

could have cumulative effects with. 

3.35 During the EIA process, and prior to submission, contact was made with 

planning authorities within 40km of the Penny Hill site with regards to 

information on other proposed or consented wind farm schemes. The 

consented and proposed wind farms at the time of submission are 

described in the landscape and visual assessment (Section 6). 

3.36 The Penny Hill Wind Farm has been assessed in combination with 13 

other wind farms either in operation, with planning permission, in the 

planning system or at scoping stage within 40km of the Penny Hill site. 

29 



4. SITE SELECTION AND DESIGN 

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION SITE 

4.1 The centre of the proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm is located approximately 

900m east of Ulley and 1.25km west of Brampton en le Morthen. The 

proposed development area is positioned west of the M1 and M18 

interchange and to the east of Ulley, as illustrated by Drawing 

HJB/681/PA02. The existing features within the site are depicted on 

Drawing HJB/681/PA03, which also shows the planning application 

boundary. The development is described fully in Section 2 of this ES and 

illustrated on Drawing HJB/681/PA05. 

4.2 In total the application site area covers approximately 125.5 hectares (as 

outlined in red in Drawing HJB/681/PA03). However, the actual land take 

of the proposed wind farm would only directly affect around 2.5 hectares 

during operation (approximately 2% of the application area). The site 

varies in altitude between around 85m and 115m AOD and is located on 

arable farmland. There is no open access land within the development 

area; with the site accessed via Penny Hill Lane (and a crossing point over 

Brampton Lane) which passes through the site centre. 

SITE SELECTION 

4.3 The paragraphs below outline the process under which the Penny Hill site 

was identified and assessed against a range of constraint criteria by the 

Applicant, following the initial identification of the potential for wind 

development in Rotherham. 

4.4 The Applicant identified the Penny Hill site following a detailed evaluation 

of constraints to wind energy development in Rotherham (and several 

other areas in Yorkshire where they are progressing other proposals). 

4.5 A constraint mapping exercise focussed the Applicant‟s attention on a 

relatively small area located to the south of Rotherham, and following a 

series of site visits, the initial site area was identified. Drawing 

HJB/681/PA04 of the ES shows the Applicant‟s the constraint mapping of 

the Rotherham area. 

Constraint Mapping 

4.6 As noted above, the Applicant has prepared a constraint map for wind 

development for the whole of the RMBC area. This exercise identified a 

number of constraints to wind energy development and subsequently 

areas that were not constrained by the selected key criteria. 

4.7 These key constraints mapped include: 

30 



the wind speed resource (areas above and below 6.5 m/s average 

wind speed at 45m AGL as predicted by the BERR wind speed 

database); 

Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS) radar vectoring area; 

Sites of Special Scientific Interest; 

Scheduled Ancient Monuments; 

Registered Parks and Gardens; 

Ancient woodland; and 

Local Nature Reserves. 

4.8 Other constraints such as international and national landscape 

designations were not considered, as there are no such designations 

within Rotherham. Engineering constraints such as standoffs from utility 

services, rail and highways infrastructure, watercourses and telecoms links 

were not included on the constraints plan as these are better dealt with at 

the detailed site investigation stage. Issues such as military radar and low 

flying have not been included as such issues are resolved through 

consultation rather than „mappable‟ constraints. 

4.9 This list represents a useful tool for identifying the finite nature of suitable 

sites for wind farms, and it also serves to illustrate the significant absence 

of development constraints in the case of the Penny Hill proposal. 

4.10 In identifying potential development opportunities, the Applicant has 

sought to identify sites outside all of the above constraints. Such 

unconstrained sites are limited in Rotherham, as demonstrated by Drawing 

HJB/681/PA04 of the ES. Although the Penny Hill proposal lies outside 

any such designations, these constraints are now described in more detail 

to emphasise the constraint they pose to identifying suitable sites and 

delivering renewable energy targets. 

The Wind Resource 

4.11 Wind energy proposals can clearly only be developed in areas where the 

existing wind resource can be converted into sufficient electrical output to 

provide a commercial return on the costs of installing and operating the 

wind turbine(s). The identification of the likely wind resource from existing 

available data is clearly an important first step in identifying potential areas 

of search, although specific on-site monitoring is usually required to give 

wind farm developers and their financial backers the necessary confidence 

to proceed with specific developments. 

4.12 The Applicant and indeed most developers within the UK generally regard 

sites with an annual mean wind speed of over 6.5 metres per second at 

31 



45m AGL as viable (using the BERR UK wind speed database), subject to 

on site verification through wind monitoring. The site at Penny Hill has a 

predicted wind speed of 6.6 m/s per second at 45m AGL. 

4.13 Drawing HJB/681/PA04 illustrates that large parts of Rotherham‟s 

administrative area have wind speeds which fall below a predicted 6.5 m/s 

at 45m AGL. In such lower wind speed areas turbines would generally 

have a lower wind yield and would generate less electricity per MW 

installed, limiting their commercial viability. This in itself limits development 

potential for a large proportion of the northwest and western parts of the 

district leaving a remaining central belt which can be considered optimal. 

This is largely due to the valley around the River Rother. This area also 

coincides in large with a built environment constraint around Rotherham. 

Landscape Designations 

4.14 PPS22 does not encourage commercial scale development in areas of 

national importance designated for their landscape quality (National Parks 

or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and for the purposes of site 

selection the Applicant therefore considers these national designations as 

absolute constraints to wind development. 

4.15 There are no National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 

(AONB) within the Rotherham administrative area. 

4.16 PPS22 does not rule out wind farm development in areas with local 

landscape designations. It is the view of the Applicant that the importance 

of local landscape designations will be determined by the relevant local 

development policy and the availability of a more detailed landscape 

character assessment of the area. 

4.17 The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan designates approximately half 

of the administrative area as an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) 

which is defined as areas having high landscape value. The development 

plan does not preclude wind energy development within the AHLV and no 

detailed appraisal of the relative sensitivity of landscape character areas to 

wind energy development of the type envisaged by PPS22 has been 

undertaken in the Rotherham administrative area. 

4.18 The Penny Hill site is located within the Ulley – Whiston AHLV 

designation. It should also be noted that the previously consented Loscar 

Proposal is within an AHLV to the south east of the district, 

Greenbelt 

4.19 The Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal is located within the Green Belt. 

PPG2: Green Belts was published in 1995, almost a decade prior to the 

publication of PPS22 specific to renewable energy development. As such 

there is no reference made to renewable energy within the planning 

guidance. However, decisions taken by other local planning authorities 

32 



and the Planning Inspectorate, reiterate what is outlined in PPS22; that the 

erection of wind turbines is not incompatible with Green Belt. The AEA 

Technology Report of 2004 “Planning for Renewable Energy Targets in 

Yorkshire and Humber” is a study to inform the emerging RSS envisaged 

the erection of wind turbines in Green Belt areas within Rotherham. 

4.20 The Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal is the conclusion of a carefully 

designed and reformulated layout resulting from a variety of 

comprehensive assessments including a landscape and visual impact 

assessment. This has concluded that the effect on the Green Belt would 

not be significant. 

National and International Ecological Designations 

4.21 Many areas of the UK have been designated as Sites of Special Scientific 

Interest (SSSIs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of 

Conservation (SACs) as a result of their ecological importance. The latter 

two are designated under the European Habitats Directive and are 

therefore protected under international law. To enhance the statutory 

protection of SSSIs, many are in the process of being designated as SPAs 

and/or SACs. 

4.22 As international designations, there is effectively a greater level of 

legislative protection for SACs and SPAs, than there is for national 

landscape designations such as National Parks and AONBs in the UK. It 

is the approach of the Applicant to exclude all areas designated under the 

Habitats Directive when seeking to identify potential wind farm sites. 

4.23 There are no such designations within or immediately adjacent to the 

Penny Hill site. 

The Historic Environment 

4.24 The potential effect of a wind farm development on the historic fabric of the 

countryside can be twofold; direct disturbance and indirect visual effects. 

4.25 In terms of finding suitable sites the latter is likely to be a key factor for 

consideration on an individual proposal level while the former can usually 

be addressed through a higher level site finding exercise. Building on this 

approach, it has been the approach of the Applicant to gain an 

understanding of the potential intervisibility of the Penny Hill site from 

historic sites by using wireframes and photomontages as assessment 

tools, rather than by simply applying a buffer zone. Through this approach 

the Applicant seeks to identify potential sites and schemes which would 

not have a direct adverse effects or unacceptable indirect visual effects on 

designated archaeological and cultural heritage sites, listed buildings, 

historic parks and gardens and conservation areas. In the context of the 

proposal site and immediate surroundings these are illustrated on Drawing 

HJB/681/PA18. 

33 



4.26 Again there are no scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings, historic 

parks and gardens or conservation areas within the site boundary. 

Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield Airport 

4.27 The nearest major civil airport to the Penny Hill site is Robin Hood Airport 

Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS), which is located approximately 20km away. 

The radar vectoring area surrounding the RHADS covers a large part of 

the administrative area of Rotherham and although it is not an absolute 

constraint for wind farm development, it provides a useful means of 

defining the important operational area for the airport. The initial sieve 

mapping exercise for the proposed development considered the radar 

vectoring area and the Penny Hill site falls outside of this. 

4.28 In order to protect the airport instrument flight procedures, the airport has 

submitted an application to the Civil Aviation Authority for the setting up of 

an area of “controlled airspace” around the airport within which only prenotified 

aircraft can enter. The effect of controlled airspace is that all 

aircraft operating in the designated area are “known” to the controllers 

thereby reducing the risk of a spurious radar return, as created by a 

turbine, being an unknown aircraft with the potential to become a 

confliction. The airport has received final authorisation for controlled 

airspace, all the procedures have been approved and are now in 

operation. The airport management have stated during consultation that it 

does not envisage any circumstances that could cause an objection to be 

raised in relation to the Penny Hill Wind Farm. 

Residential Amenity 

4.29 The Government stress that the protection of residential amenity is key to 

the delivery of successful wind energy projects. Key concerns relate to 

wind turbine noise and shadow flicker. Developers avoid sites where there 

could be an adverse effect on residential amenity, generally by seeking to 

achieve appropriate separation distances between noise sensitive 

properties and turbines. The Applicant applies a 500m buffer around all 

known occupied buildings (residential or otherwise) in areas where they 

are searching for appropriate sites. 

4.30 No turbine in the Penny Hill proposal lies within 500m of an occupied 

domestic property and it has been the approach of the Applicant to engage 

with the local community in order to identify other concerns or issues 

which may affect impact on residential amenity. The unoccupied property 

at Ulley Beeches, immediately adjacent to the M1 carriageway, is 350m 

from the closest turbine position. The property is owned by one of the 

wind farm site landowners. Special care was taken with this property with 

regards the siting of turbines, to ensure that it met the ETSU-R-97 noise 

guidelines, should it ever become occupied during the lifetime of the wind 

farm. 

34 



4.31 Section 9 of the ES demonstrates that residential amenity will be protected 

from adverse noise impacts resulting from the operation of the scheme. 

Section 15 of the ES deals with shadow flicker. There would be no 

unacceptable shadow flicker effects, subject to appropriate mitigation 

where required. 

Ancient Woodland 

4.32 The Applicant does not select sites that include designated Ancient 

Woodland areas. 

Other Issues 

4.33 Although they cannot be illustrated simply by constraint mapping, the 

Applicant also considers whether potential sites can be accessed by 

construction traffic and whether there are options to connect to the local or 

national grid in the local area. 

4.34 In assessing sites, and estimating their potential to accommodate wind 

turbines of particular sizes, the availability of highway access for 

construction traffic is an important consideration. The proposed turbines 

have large components with the proposed blades, for example, being up to 

52m long. The practicalities of transporting such large components along 

the UK‟s roads are one of the main factors limiting the size of onshore 

turbines and the sites that can accommodate them. 

4.35 In addition, the cranes required to erect wind turbines are, through 

necessity, large and can weigh several hundred tonnes. Again, local road 

infrastructure needs to be able to cope with such equipment. 

4.36 In assessing development opportunities, such as the Penny Hill site, 

developers therefore seek to identify sites with suitable access. The 

Applicant commissioned an access study which demonstrates that the 

Penny Hill site has suitable road access which can accommodate the 

delivery of the relevant turbine components and avoid local settlements. 

Potential traffic effects are specifically described in Section 11 of the ES. 

4.37 The availability of a suitable and economically deliverable grid connection 

point is, again, a significant factor in the deliverability of wind energy sites. 

As stated in Section 2 of the ES, a preferred grid connection point has 

been identified within the site. 

Analysis 

4.38 A key consideration in the assessment of wind energy proposals such as 

the Penny Hill development is the relative paucity of unconstrained sites, 

where development is both technically and environmentally deliverable. At 

present there is a significant disparity between the rate at which such sites 

get through the planning process and can be developed in order to come 

close to delivering national, regional and sub-regional targets. In these 

circumstances a site which „falls through‟ all of the technical and 

35 



environmental sieves must be considered positively given the limited 

nature of such opportunities. 

4.39 The Applicant‟s sieve mapping exercise is not the only technical appraisal 

of development opportunities in the Rotherham Borough area. The 

AEAT/Gillespies report “Planning for Renewable Energy Targets in 

Yorkshire and Humber” (December 2004), which played a major part in the 

preparation of the RSS, identifies that there are opportunities for small 

scale wind developments in Rotherham in suitable pockets of land within 

urban, suburban Green Belt locations. These findings led to the report 

recommending a 10 MW wind energy target for Rotherham for 2010 and 

15 MW for 2021, with overall renewable energy targets of 11 MW by 2010 

and 36 MW by 2021. This report forms part of the evidence base for the 

renewable energy targets within the Yorkshire and Humber RSS, which 

has used the total figures expressed in the report as the adopted targets 

for the region. The Penny Hill scheme is of a scale which fits with this 

general approach. While taking differing approaches, the Applicant and the 

consultants acting on behalf of the Regional Assembly have reached 

complementary conclusions. 

4.40 The identification and assessment of the Penny Hill site has taken place 

after a detailed constraint mapping exercise which demonstrates that there 

are few parts of Rotherham that do not have constraints to wind energy 

development. In Rotherham the key constraints of low wind speed and 

built-up areas mean that only eight areas within the district were 

considered theoretically suitable by the Applicant for a wind farm of a 

commercial scale. These are identified on Drawing HJB/681/PA04. 

Following the constraint mapping exercise the areas identified have been 

examined in more detail. The reasons the Applicant has chosen to 

progress the Penny Hill site in preference to the others are discussed in 

detail below: 

Thurcroft Colliery Tip – A detailed site feasibility study has not been 

completed for Thurcroft Colliery Tip because of the immediate issue of 

made-up ground. It is likely that it would not be cost effective to build in 

this location. Furthermore there would be a risk of releasing 

contaminates. 

Maltby Colliery Tip – Similarly this site has not been considered in 

detail due to the unsuitable ground conditions. 

Beacon Hill – This site was considered alongside Penny Hill, but 

because the site lies within the RHADS Radar Vectoring Area it was 

determined less optimal. There is a reasonable chance that a proposal 

here could now be acceptable to RHADS following the authorisation of 

controlled airspace. Beacon Hill is also in relatively close proximity to 

scheduled monuments SSSIs and the registered garden and Grade I 

listed building at Sandbeck Hall. 

36 



Lamb Lane – This site was considered alongside Penny Hill but 

because the site lies within the RHADS Radar Vectoring Area it was 

determined less optimal. The Lamb Lane site is closer to the centreline 

of the runway than the other seven sites identified and is considered 

the most likely to concern the airport. Lamb Lane could also have an 

adverse impact on the views of the church spire at Laughton en le 

Morthen. 

Swinston Hill – This location would only have capacity for a small wind 

farm due to housing standoffs and the site is further constrained by 

roads and trees within the site. A wind farm proposal at Swinston Hill 

could potentially cause conflict with RHADS because of its proximity to 

the centreline of the runway. 

Harry Crofts – This site remains a working quarry and so is not 

considered suitable for a wind farm. 

Kiverton Park – The housing standoffs show that a small site could be 

developed at Kiverton Park. Appropriate buffers around the A57, 

Anston Brook, the bridleway and various ponds would further reduce 

the scale and viability of a wind farm site at this location. 

Consented Loscar Wind Farm – The sieve map shows that the 

consented wind farm at Loscar Common could be extended eastward 

onto Thorpe Common. However the Netherthorpe Airfield is 

immediately adjacent to Thorpe Common and so a conflict could be 

expected. 

4.41 At Penny Hill, the Applicant has identified a site that is not subject to 

international or national landscape, ecological or cultural heritage 

designations and which lies outside the radar vectoring area of Robin 

Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. In addition, the ES demonstrates that 

the site has suitable highway and grid access and is a sufficient distance 

from residential properties to protect residential amenity from 

unacceptable noise and shadow flicker effects. 

SITE DESIGN AND TURBINE LAYOUT 

4.42 Having undertaken a sieve mapping exercise to identify suitable sites, the 

overall scale and layout of the proposed development has been the 

subject of further review. The layout of the proposed wind farm, as 

submitted, is illustrated by Drawing HJB/681/PA05. The development of 

this final layout has followed a detailed development process, which has 

sought to: 

Maximise the generating power of the wind resource at the proposed 

wind farm on the site; 

37 



Achieve acceptable noise levels from the wind turbines at the nearest 

sensitive locations around and within the site and safeguard the 

interests and concerns of residents living in close proximity to the site; 

Ensure that predicted views of the turbines, particularly the alignment 

and grouping of the turbines from sensitive locations, takes account of 

the characteristics of the local topography; 

Ensure that sensitive habitats and species and designated sites for 

both natural and cultural heritage are avoided, wherever possible; and 

Provide that adequate stand-offs are provided between turbines and 

radio-communication points, classified roads, electricity lines and other 

services; and 

Ensure there is adequate separation distance between individual 

turbines to achieve efficient operation. 

4.43 The constraints to the development of the site are shown on Drawing 

HJB/681/PA06 with the archaeological and ecological constraints 

specifically shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA18 and HJB/681/PA19 

respectively. 

Site Design 

4.44 Having identified a study area, the layout of the site was developed and 

refined over a ten month period preceding the submission of this 

application. The following paragraphs set out how various environmental 

considerations, including those listed above, have influenced the 

development of the finalised layout over a number of key stages. 

4.45 The key objective in the design of the Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal has 

been to take a comprehensive and responsive approach to the 

assessment of local constraints i.e. those constraints and issues which 

cannot be so readily mapped at a regional or even sub regional scale. The 

Banks Group is committed to such an approach through it‟s „Development 

With Care‟ philosophy which ensures that the „feedback‟ received about 

development proposals, from whatever source, is taken into account in the 

design of the development. The „Development With Care‟ approach 

ensures that throughout the development of a proposal, and particularly 

during the design stages, opportunities are sought, tested and where 

practicable, implemented to address concerns expressed about a proposal 

or comments made that could lead to an improvement to the overall 

development package. The „Development With Care‟ approach seeks to 

ensure as full account as possible has been taken of the results of the 

consultation and publicity stages. This includes the production of the 

Scoping Report for the Penny Hill scheme, the widely publicised public 

exhibitions held in the local community and meetings with local 

representative bodies, as described in Section 3 and summarised in 

Appendix 1. 

38 



Analysis 

4.46 The main considerations that have influenced the identification of the site, 

and the design of the wind farm itself are summarised below: 

Landscape and Visual - Views and experiences of the wind farm 

including the optimisation of the alignment and grouping of the turbines 

from particularly sensitive locations; 

Community - The interests and concerns of residents living in close 

proximity to the site; 

Noise - Achieving noise levels that are consistent with the UK 

Government guidelines (ETSU-R-97, “The Assessment and Rating of 

Noise from Wind Farms”) at the relevant noise sensitive locations 

around the site; 

Key Habitats and Species - Reducing impacts on the flora and fauna of 

the application site; 

Wind Resource – Achieving a design of wind farm that is economically 

viable and environmentally acceptable based on the available wind 

resource and taking into accounts the topography of the site; 

Health and Safety - Ensuring adequate provision for safety is included 

at the design stage of the wind farm; 

Individual Turbine Locations - Ensuring the spacing between individual 

turbines achieves safe and efficient operation and are consistent with 

manufacturers warranty requirements; 

Archaeology - The need to avoid adverse impacts on the 

archaeological resource; 

Hydrology - The need to avoid existing surface water features and 

abstraction points; 

Radar - the potential visibility of turbines to civilian and military 

aeronautical radars; and 

Radio-communications - the need to identify and stand-off radiocommunications 

links across the site. 

4.47 The final six turbine layout attempts to meet all of the objectives set out 

above and is a scheme which is a suitable scale for the area proposed, as 

set out in the report “Planning for Renewable Energy Targets in Yorkshire 

and Humber” (December 2004), i.e. a local scale scheme in a suitable 

pocket of land which fits with the target set for renewable energy in 

Rotherham for 2021. 

39 



5. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND 

DECOMMISIONING 

CONSTRUCTION METHOD STATEMENT 

5.1 Prior to the commencement of construction, an Environmental 

Management Plan (EMP) and Construction Method Statement (CMS) shall 

be produced by the Applicant, in consultation with the local planning 

authority and other relevant statutory consultees. 

5.2 The CMS will set out in detail the individual items of works associated with 

the construction of the wind farm development to ensure that the activity is 

carried out in safety and in an environmentally sensitive manner. Typically 

the documents would cover the following topics, providing full technical 

details of the various temporary and permanent components of the 

scheme: 

Location & Description of Project; 

Consent & Regulation Approvals; 

Pre-construction Survey Work Undertaken; 

Turbine Description; 

Construction Schedule; 

Public Highway Works; 

Site Tracks; 

Temporary Construction Compound; 

Crane Pads; 

Cable Trenches; 

Foundation Works; 

On-site connection building and switchgear compound; 

Wind Monitoring Mast; 

Concrete Batching – including any local water abstraction; 

Monitoring – Ecological, Hydrological, Geotechnical; 

Emergency Procedures; and 

Site Health & Safety. 

5.3 Other sections, relating to site-specific items identified during the preconstruction 

phase could also form part of the CMS.. 

40 



5.4 In using this method of agreeing the construction methodology during the 

post consent/pre-construction stage, the most accurate and realistic 

method statements are achieved. At the post consent stage, additional 

data is available for consultation in the form of detailed site investigations. 

Furthermore, it is likely that the civil engineering contractor and the turbine 

supply contractor will have been chosen, enabling more detailed 

preparation of individual method statements. During the preparation of the 

CMS, meetings with statutory authorities and the planning and highway 

authority will be undertaken to identify the working methods proposed and 

if necessary incorporate changes. 

5.5 The iterative process of preparing the CMS ensures that when 

construction commences, there is a clear picture of what should happen 

and the potential risks involved. This makes monitoring of the construction 

activities, either by the site representative or by the various bodies 

associated with the preparation of the document, more straightforward. 

Timetable 

5.6 It is proposed that the wind farm will have an operational life of 25 years. It 

is common practice to apply planning conditions to any wind farm consent 

requiring the removal of the turbines and all surface features in 

accordance with a reinstatement scheme to be agreed in advance with the 

local planning authority. 

5.7 Prior to becoming operational, the period for construction of the wind farm 

will last approximately 10 months, depending on weather and will consist 

of the following main stages: 

Upgrading the existing access track from the public highway and the 

upgrading of other public highways; 

Mobilisation to site and construction of the site compound; 

Construction of site road network, including formation and upgrading of 

the access point onto the public highway; 

Site road reinstatement; 

Construction of turbine foundations; 

Excavation of on site cable trenches and cable laying; 

Construction of switchgear compound and connection building; 

Installation of switchgear building electrical equipment; 

Construction of crane hardstandings; 

Erection of wind turbines; 

41 



Reinstatement around turbines; 

Construction of grid connection; 

Commissioning and testing of turbines; and 

Site reinstatement and restoration. 

5.8 Many of the operations outlined above will be undertaken concurrently in 

order to minimise the overall duration of the construction phase of the 

proposed development. A working programme for the construction phase 

is depicted on Drawing HJB/681/PA22. 

5.9 Construction periods will be restricted to the following: 

Monday to Friday: between 08:00 – 18:00; 

Saturdays: between 08:00 - 13.00; and 

Sundays and Bank Holidays: no work. 

5.10 The only exception to the above would be for the delivery of abnormal 

loads requiring police escort. 

5.11 In the case of turbine delivery and construction periods working hours will 

be restricted to: 

Monday to Friday: between 08:00 – 22:00; 

Saturdays: between 08:00 – 22:00 

Sundays and Bank Holidays: No work 

5.12 In the case of turbine commissioning working hours will be restricted to: 

Monday to Sunday (Including Bank Holidays) 08:00 – 22:00 

5.13 In the event that any other work needs to take place outside of these 

periods, this will be agreed in advance with the local planning authority 

and local residents will be notified. 

5.14 As stated above, construction activities will be undertaken in accordance 

with an EMP for the site. The aims of the EMP are to provide guidance on 

good working practices on site to minimise the potential impacts to soil, 

geology, hydrology and hydrogeology resulting from the construction of the 

wind farm. Additional procedures will be developed to cover ecological 

and noise impacts. Further details on the EMP are included in Section 16 

of this ES and the draft Penny Hill EMP is contained in Appendix 12. 

42 



Construction Compound & Facilities 

5.15 During the construction period a temporary compound and laydown area 

would be required. The construction compound is shown indicatively on 

Drawing HJB/681/PA08. 

5.16 The dimensions of the compound would be approximately 70m by 40m. 

The compound would house the temporary site offices, toilets and mess 

facilities. It would also provide sufficient capacity for private vehicles of 

site personnel to be parked. Toilets would be of a contained type with no 

discharge at the site. Water for the mess facilities and vehicle cleaning 

would be sourced from an on-site bowser/tank that would be housed within 

the compound. All fuels and oils would be securely bunded or stored 

within double skinned containers. 

5.17 The compound would be used, where necessary, for storage of the 

various components and materials that are required for construction. 

There may be a requirement for a concrete batching plant housed within 

the construction compound or at another suitable location identified in 

consultation with the local planning authority and consultees during the 

EMP and CMS preparation process. 

5.18 A settling pit and concrete washout bay would be provided adjacent to the 

construction compound. When concrete lorries have deposited their loads 

within the turbine foundations, there is a requirement to wash out the 

inside of the concrete drum. This requires a few gallons of water, which 

then would be washed out from the drum into a settlement pit. The size of 

this pit would depend upon the flow of concrete lorries up to the site (or 

within the site if an on-site batching plant is employed) but would typically 

be a trench around 10m long by 3m wide and 2m deep, lined with an 

impermeable sheet and granular fill to assist in the settling process. The 

settlement pit would be located away from watercourses with details 

included as part of the EMP and CMS following consultation with the 

Environment Agency. The washout bay shall be maintained as necessary 

by replacing the granular fill and replacing it with clean stone. 

Equipment Storage 

5.19 Equipment in use on the site would either be operational within the site 

boundary or when not required, would be stored within the construction 

compound. 

5.20 A number of other vehicles would bring loads to the site, but would not be 

stored on the site. These include lorries with flat bed extendable trailers 

carrying all turbine components including transformers, lorries carrying 

cabling, steel rods for concrete reinforcement and concrete lorries with 

revolving drums in the case that concrete is batched off-site. If concrete 

was batched on-site, lorries would be carrying water, cement and 

aggregate onto the site, to be mixed in an on-site batching plant. 

43 



5.21 If necessary, to prevent mud entering the public road system, the wheels 

of all lorries leaving the site would be washed either using a manual spray 

or a wheel washing drive through unit. The entrances to the public 

highway network would have tarmac laid down to prevent unbound 

material reaching the public road and posing a hazard to motorists. 

Cabins/Welfare Facilities 

5.22 Due to the requirement under health and safety legislation and the 

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 for welfare 

facilities on site and the exposed nature of the site, a number of cabins will 

be needed in the construction compound. These will have offices, 

canteen, drying-rooms, toilets and washing facilities appropriate for the 

number of construction workers. The units shall be self-contained and no 

discharge of drainage shall be made to the surrounding land unless 

otherwise agreed with the Environment Agency and the local authority. 

Smaller, mobile self-contained units are likely to be required as work 

progresses throughout the site. These shall be placed at suitable 

locations to tie in with the work interfaces as required. 

Construction Materials 

5.23 A variety of materials are utilised during the construction of wind farms 

including, but not limited to; concrete, reinforcing steel, timber for joinery 

work and shuttering, stone and sand for road construction, general 

construction sundries and electricity cables. Wherever possible, the reuse 

of materials shall be carried out, i.e. formwork would be re-used and 

excavated material from foundations would be re-used in the preparation 

of crane pads and road etc. An indication of the materials used and the 

amount of resources (plant and labour) is generally included in the 

preparation of the CMS. Handling of potentially hazardous materials shall 

be carried out in accordance with the Environment Agency‟s Pollution 

Prevention Guidelines, particularly: PPG6 which is concerned with the 

delivery, handling and storage of materials. For example, the preparation 

of contingency plans, and briefing operatives on the procedure to follow if 

a spillage occurs shall be covered by the appointed civil engineering 

contractor, displayed on site and contained within the CMS document prior 

to construction commencing. It is currently envisaged that water for 

batching concrete on-site would be sourced on-site from existing or new 

boreholes. Alternatively, premixed concrete may be imported into the site, 

or water for the batching plant may similarly be tankered onto the site 

should it prove to be environmentally unacceptable to use water from 

within the site. 

5.24 It is, however, intended that during the CMS preparation stage, if 

appropriate, calculations and methodologies may be agreed with the 

Environment Agency for abstraction from specified local watercourses to 

supply water for on-site concrete batching. 

44 



5.25 It is estimated that approximately 15,000 cubic metres of aggregate will be 

obtained from local quarries to construct the site roads and compounds. 

Fuel & Chemical Storage 

5.26 Fuel will be required for the vehicles, generators and other equipment on 

site. This would be stored within the temporary site compound, with 

storage facilities typically consisting of a bunded concrete plinth containing 

a lockable, bunded fuel tank and a separate lockable housing for the 

storage of construction chemicals. In addition to this there will typically be 

a wheeled, bunded bowser for the transport of fuel to tracked vehicles. 

Drip trays shall be used when refuelling vehicles on the site. Emergency 

spill kits shall be kept on site adjacent to the fuel storage area and also 

provided in large items of plant and with the mobile bowser. The principal 

contractor shall have an emergency response company on standby in the 

event of a spillage incident. The bunds and other equipment associated 

with fuel and oil storage within the construction compound would be 

removed following the construction of the wind farm. 

Site Representative & Support Staff 

5.27 In order to monitor the progression, quality and health and safety of the 

construction, in tandem with ensuring the development is carried out in 

accordance with the CMS methodologies, a full-time client‟s site 

representative shall be employed on-site. The site representative shall be 

an individual with previous experience of construction and shall be 

supported on-site by relevantly experienced personnel where required. 

The site representative shall carry out daily checks on the site to monitor 

ongoing activities, particularly when sub-contractors are being used on 

site. In addition to this, the representative shall work with/act as the 

environmental clerk of works, with responsibility for environmental audits 

of the site operations, with these being undertaken on a regular basis, 

accompanied by the representatives of the relevant contractor. 

Employment During Construction 

5.28 During the construction period there would be between approximately 15 

to 30 construction workers employed on the site at any one time. 

OPERATIONAL PERIOD OF THE PROPOSED WIND FARM 

5.29 The day-to-day operation of the wind farm would be controlled remotely 

and each individual turbine would operate independently from the rest of 

the wind farm. Within the operational wind speed range the rotational 

speed of each individual turbine would be automatically adjusted by the 

turbines‟ control and monitoring system according to a measured and 

calculated rolling 10 minute average wind speed. Should the vibrometers 

or rotational speed sensors, placed within the nacelle of the turbine, detect 

any instability in the structure, any malfunction in operation, or should wind 

speeds increase over safe limits, then the braking system of the wind 

45 



turbine would automatically be applied and the turbine would rapidly shutdown. 

5.30 If the cause of the shut down was due to high wind speeds then the 

turbine would automatically begin operation again once the average wind 

speed dropped below 25 m/s. Under other causes of shutdown, e.g. 

through malfunction or instability, the turbine would be „parked‟ in a safe 

condition (e.g. with the rotor blades orientated 90 degrees to the wind 

direction). It would remain parked until manually restarted by a member of 

the operations and maintenance team following inspection and, if 

necessary, repair. 

5.31 The lifetime of the project would be 25 years between commissioning and 

decommissioning. Turbines are generally designed with a warranty life of 

20-25 years. To ensure that turbines operate with acceptable availability, 

generally considered to be over 95% average availability, regular preplanned 

maintenance and servicing programmes are performed on each 

turbine. A typical maintenance programme is outlined below. 

Maintenance Programme 

5.32 Commonly, maintenance regimes begin shortly after commissioning with a 

'post-construction' check of the torque levels of all bolts within the 

structure. This is normally performed 10 days after commissioning and 

again at 3 months after commissioning. 

5.33 After this minor and major service regimes continue on a 6-monthly basis 

with both services being performed annually throughout the lifetime of the 

turbine. 

5.34 Routine oil sampling and testing of lubricant maintains awareness of the 

integrity and condition of these lubricants. This allows cost-effective oil 

changes to be performed as the oil quality degrades. Routine oil sampling 

and testing of transformer oils is also performed in order to maintain 

awareness of the integrity of the electrical properties of these oils. 

5.35 Maintenance of high voltage switchgear is also performed routinely, but 

the time periods between servicing routines is commonly 5 to 8 years 

when modern equipment is utilised. 

5.36 In the case of major component maintenance being required, such as a 

generator or blade replacement, large vehicles similar to those used 

during construction may be required to return to site. These will be subject 

to similar controls as were agreed for the initial construction period. 

5.37 All maintenance of any equipment item will be performed according to the 

Original Equipment Manufacturer‟s stated schedules and procedures. 

46 



Storage and Use of Potentially Polluting Substances 

5.38 Storage of polluting substances at the site during the operational period of 

the wind farm would only take place where agreed with the relevant 

authorities. Generally, substances of this nature are transported in 

minimum quantities on an 'as required' basis - i.e. the technicians would 

only bring what they need for their day's work. 

5.39 Each turbine would contain lubricating and hydraulic oils. These are 

changed during regular maintenance operations. In the unlikely event of a 

lubricant leak from a turbine gearbox or the hydraulic system within the 

turbine nacelle, the turbine tower would itself act as a fully sealed bund 

containing the spillage until it could be cleaned up. 

Employment During Operational Period 

5.40 It is envisaged that a senior technician would be employed on a full-time 

basis to operate and maintain the Penny Hill Wind Farm. For the first few 

years of operation, whilst the turbines are likely to be under warranty, 

technicians from the wind turbine manufacturer would also be present on 

site carrying out routine commissioning and maintenance and training 

technicians who would ultimately be responsible for ongoing site 

operations. In addition, specialist personnel may be contracted in to cover 

some aspects of maintenance or bespoke troubleshooting/investigation 

work. 

DECOMMISSIONING 

5.41 At the end of the wind farm‟s useful life it is proposed that the turbines, 

transformers, control building, substation and compound would be 

removed. The upper sections of the turbine foundations would be removed 

and back filled with minimum 100-150 mm of appropriate material, with 

topsoil replaced, and the area restored to arable agricultural use. Tracks 

that are to be utilised for ongoing agricultural and land management 

operations would be left in-situ, other tracks would be allowed to revegetate 

or would be covered with soil and, again, restored to arable 

agriculture. At least six months prior to the decommissioning of the site a 

Decommissioning Method Statement would be prepared. 

47 



PART 2: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Part 2 of this ES summarises the detailed assessments which have been undertaken 

on an individual basis of the potential significant environmental effects of the Penny 

Hill proposal. 

48 



6. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL 

INTRODUCTION 

6.1 This section has been prepared by Pegasus Environmental. It comprises a 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and has been prepared 

by Chartered Members of the Landscape Institute. The LVIA considers the 

potential effects of the Penny Hill Wind Farm upon: 

Individual landscape features and elements; 

Landscape character; and 

Visual amenity and the people who view the landscape. 

6.2 The main objectives of the LVIA are as follows: 

To identify, evaluate and describe the current landscape character of 

the site and its surroundings and also any notable individual landscape 

features within the site; 

To determine the sensitivity of the landscape to the type of 

development proposed; 

To identify potential visual receptors (i.e. people that would be able to 

see the development) and evaluate their sensitivity to the type of 

changes proposed; 

To identify and describe any impacts of the development in so far as 

they affect the landscape and/or views of it and evaluate the magnitude 

of change due to these impacts; 

To identify and describe mitigation measures that have been adopted 

to avoid, reduce and compensate for landscape and visual impacts; 

To identify and assess any cumulative landscape and visual effects; 

and 

To evaluate the significance of residual landscape and visual effects. 

6.3 In addition a detailed property assessment has been undertaken which 

analyses the impact upon the visual amenity of residential receptors in depth. 

6.4 All figures and visualisations referenced within this section are contained 

within the separate A3 volume submitted with this planning application. 

The only exceptions are Figures 6.34 – 6.42 which relate to the Property 

Assessment and are therefore contained in Appendix 13. 

49 



ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 

Published Guidance Documents 

6.5 The LVIA has been undertaken in accordance with best practice, as 

outlined in published guidance: 

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd 

Edition (2002) Landscape Institute and the Institute for Environmental 

Management and Assessment; 

Guidelines for Landscape Character Assessment, (2002) Countryside 

Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH); and 

The Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (2004) Institute 

for Environmental Management and Assessment. 

6.6 Consideration has also been given to the following documents: 

Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development, (2003) 

University of Newcastle; 

Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind farms and Small 

Scale Hydroelectric Schemes, (2001) Scottish Natural Heritage; 

Guidance for the Assessment of Cumulative Landscape and Visual 

Impacts Arising from Windfarm Developments (3rd Draft), (2004) SNH; 

Visual Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice Guidance, 

(March 2006), SNH commissioned report no. FO3 AA 308/2; 

Cumulative Effects of Wind Turbines: A Guide to Assessing the 

Cumulative Effects of Wind Energy Development (2000) Landscape 

Design Associates, DTI commissioned report ETSUW/14/00538/REP; 

PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; 

PPS 22: Renewable Energy; 

PPS 22: Companion Guide; and 

Renewable Energy Developments: The Role of the Countryside 

Agency (AP 99/50) Annex 3. 

DISTINCTION BETWEEN LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS 

6.7 In accordance with published guidance, landscape and visual impacts are 

assessed separately although the procedure for assessing each of these 

is closely linked. A clear distinction has been drawn between landscape 

and visual impacts as described below: 

50 



Landscape impacts relate to the effects of the proposals on the 

physical and other characteristics of the landscape and its resulting 

character and quality. 

Visual impacts relate to the effects on views experienced by visual 

receptors (e.g. residents, footpath users, tourists etc) and on the visual 

amenity experienced by those people. 

TYPES OF EFFECT CONSIDERED IN THE LVIA 

6.8 The LVIA assesses both the long term effects relating to the operational 

lifetime of the wind farm and also the short-term impacts associated with 

its construction. Where appropriate, the LVIA also considers any residual 

effects once the wind farm has been decommissioned and removed. 

6.9 The LVIA not only assesses the impacts associated with the turbines but 

also any related impacts resulting from the meteorological mast, control 

compound, underground cabling, site tracks and access roads. 

6.10 Consideration has been given to seasonal variations in the visibility of the 

wind farm. 

6.11 The LVIA also assesses cumulative effects caused by the development of 

the site in conjunction with other existing or proposed wind developments. 

6.12 The cumulative impact of other wind farms within 40km of Penny Hill which 

are either operational, under construction, consented or the subject of a 

full planning application have been assessed. These sites have been 

identified in Appendix 13.1 and are illustrated in Figure 6.1. Best practice 

guidelines identify three types of cumulative visual impact: 

STUDY AREA 

Simultaneous (or combined) visibility – where two or more sites are 

visible from a fixed viewpoint in the same arc of view; 

Successive visibility – where two or more sites are visible from a fixed 

viewpoint, but the observer is required to turn to see the different sites; 

and 

Sequential visibility – where two or more sites are not visible at one 

location, but would be seen as the observer moves along a linear 

route, for example, a road or public right of way. 

6.13 The study area for the visual assessment was taken to have a radius of 

20km from the site in all directions. 

6.14 Scottish guidance suggests that for wind turbines of the size proposed, a 

30km radius may in some cases be appropriate. However, this guidance 

has been specifically prepared for the consideration of landscape and 

visual effects of turbines in Scottish landscapes. 

51 



6.15 It is acknowledged that beyond 15km from the site, effectively the only 

possible scenario which could result in significant landscape and visual 

effects is where there are distant elevated views (e.g. from hill tops) over 

rural landscapes which exhibit minimal human influence. In the case of the 

Penny Hill site, it is noted that within 20km of the site, there are major 

urban centres in every direction and as such there are no distant elevated 

positions which enable views towards the site over landscapes untouched 

by modern built development. 

6.16 The 20km study area was selected as it extends out as far as the Peak 

District National Park enabling consideration of any elevated views from 

the west. This radius was therefore considered appropriate for the location 

of the development proposed. 

CONSULTATIONS 

6.17 Pegasus Environmental consulted Rotherham Metropolitan Borough 

Council (MBC) and proposed a selection of assessment viewpoints in a 

letter dated 28th July 2008. Following a series of discussions regarding 

these viewpoints, it was agreed to include an additional 4 viewpoints to the 

16 originally selected by the project Landscape Architect. 

6.18 Natural England commented on the Scoping Report in a letter dated 30th 

July 2008 and welcomed the inclusion of an LVIA in the ES. It noted that 

the Peak District National Park was just within the 20km study area of the 

site and requested that views to and from it be considered in the LVIA. It 

also requested that there be an analysis of views and vistas from any 

National Trails within the ZTV and requested that views from Public Rights 

of Way also be considered in the assessment. This report accommodates 

all of these requests. 

6.19 CPRE also provided comments on the Scoping Report and suggested a 

number of viewpoints for inclusion in the assessment. Of the 6 viewpoints 

selected, 3 have been adopted in this assessment. The remaining three 

viewpoints were very close to other viewpoints which had already been 

selected and so it is considered that these are represented by the 

viewpoints included in this assessment. 

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 

6.20 A baseline landscape assessment was carried out to determine the current 

features and character of the landscape within and surrounding the site. 

6.21 The baseline landscape assessment involved firstly a review of desk 

material including: 

Ordnance Survey maps at 1:50 000, 1:25 000 and 1:10 000 scales; 

Aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area; 

52 



Ecological survey plans; 

Datasets of heritage features; 

Geology and soil maps; 

Relevant planning policy; and 

National and regional scale landscape character assessments. 

6.22 Field visits were conducted in a variety of weather conditions and at 

different times of the year. Surveys were undertaken between May 2008 

and September 2008. 

6.23 The baseline assessment identified the existing landscape features on the 

site and in the immediate vicinity and how these elements combine to give 

the area a sense of landscape character. 

6.24 Plans, sections and construction details of the proposed scheme were 

used to determine the impacts of the scheme on landscape features and 

character. 

6.25 The LVIA firstly assesses how the proposed development would impact 

directly on any landscape features and resources (e.g. removal of trees). 

6.26 The LVIA then considers impacts on landscape character at two levels. 

Firstly, consideration is given to how the immediate landscape character 

surrounding the site is affected due to the removal or alteration of existing 

features and the introduction of new features. Secondly, the impacts of 

the development on the wider landscape are discussed with reference to 

regional landscape character areas identified in the relevant regional 

landscape character assessments. 

6.27 The significance of effects on landscape features and character is 

determined by cross referencing the sensitivity of the feature or landscape 

character with the magnitude of impact. 

VISUAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 

6.28 Potential visual receptors of the scheme were identified by interpretation of 

digitally generated Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs) (see Table 6.1 for 

an explanation of ZTVs and how they were produced). The ZTVs are 

presented in Figures 6.6 and 6.7. 

6.29 The assessment of visual effects was undertaken on the basis of viewpoint 

analysis as recommended by best practice guidelines (Visual 

Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice Guidance, SNH 

commissioned report FO3 AA 308/2). A selection of viewpoints was 

agreed with Rotherham Borough Council to represent the range of views 

likely to be experienced of the development. 

53 



6.30 The viewpoints were selected to represent a range of views and viewer 

types as discussed in Table 7 of Visual Representation of Windfarms – 

Good Practice Guidance, SNH commissioned report FO3 AA 308/2. The 

viewpoints cover a variety of different character types, are in different 

directions from the site and are at varying elevations. The viewpoints are 

located at a range of distances from the development to illustrate the 

varying magnitude of visual impacts with distance from the site. 

6.31 All of the representative viewpoints were photographed at 1.7m above 

ground level. However, where relevant, assumed views from upper floors 

of buildings were considered in the assessment. 

6.32 For each of the viewpoints, a wireline model was generated to help identify 

the scale, arrangement and visibility of the turbines (see Table 6.2 for a 

description of how the wireline models were produced). These are 

presented in Figures 6.10 – 6.29. The images were proofed on site to 

assess how natural and built screening would affect visibility of the site. 

6.33 Six of the wireframe models were developed further into photomontages to 

help illustrate the predicted impact of the development (see Table 6.3 for a 

description of how the photomontages were generated and their 

limitations). 

6.34 Each of the representative viewpoints was visited on a number of 

occasions to understand the sensitivity of views. Furthermore, the entire 

extent of the study area was visited to appreciate visibility of the 

development as receptors move through the landscape. 

6.35 The viewpoints were used as the basis for determining the effects on 

visual receptors within the entire study area. 

6.36 The potential impact upon residential amenity was considered a key 

potential constraint to development in this location, it was therefore 

considered appropriate to undertake a further analysis upon the impact of 

residential amenity for those that have the potential to be most affected. 

This assessment has been done considering those properties within 2km 

of the site. 

6.37 It should be noted that it was beyond the scope of this study to gain 

access to individual dwellings or gardens and the nearest public access 

point was used for visual assessment purposes. The assessment can 

therefore be used only as an approximate guide. Defining the limits of 

private gardens was particularly challenging and considering the view from 

all corners of any individual garden was impossible. Therefore, the score 

attributed to each property or cluster of properties is based first and 

foremost on the view from the property but where possible the view from 

the garden has also been taken into account. 

6.38 The assessment has been done on the basis of the following assessment 

methodology: 

54 



6.39 A: Predicted Visibility of the Turbines 

The predicted view of the wind turbines from residential properties was 

assessed and scored on a scale of 1 to 3 as follows: 

1. A clear and direct view of the turbines from main ground floor windows 

or the garden; 

2. An oblique or semi screened (either by vegetation, buildings or 

landform) view of the turbines from main ground floor windows or the 

garden or clear and direct views from upper windows; 

3. No view of the turbines from ground floor windows or the garden and 

only oblique or semi screened (either by vegetation, buildings or landform) 

views from upper windows; or 

No view of the turbines from any windows or the garden (no score 

attributed). 

B: Extent to which the Current view is Influenced by Major Visual 

Detractors 

The existing view from residential properties was assessed and scored on 

a scale of 

1 to 3 as follows: 

1. No major visual detractors in the existing view (e.g. motorways, 

electricity pylons, industrial units, scrap yards); 

2. Minor view of major visual detractors in the existing view (e.g. 

motorways, electricity pylons, industrial units, scrap yards) but which are 

not highly prominent; or 

3. The existing view is heavily influenced by major visual detractors (e.g. 

motorways, electricity pylons, industrial units, scrap yards). 

6.40 An overall assessment rating for the significance of effects on the view 

from each property or cluster of properties has been established by 

multiplying the score for the predicted view of the turbines with the score 

concerning the prominence of major visual detractors in the view. 

6.41 The significance ratings for the combined scores are as follows: 

1-2 Substantial 

3-5 Moderate 

6-9 Slight 

55 



6.42 The assessment records no effect for any problems with no view of any of 

its windows or from its garden. 

6.43 The conclusions of this assessment are considered in further detail later in 

this chapter with the complete assessment contained within Appendix 13. 

Table 6.1: Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs) 

A Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) illustrates the extents from which a feature or features 

(in this case several wind turbines) would theoretically be visible within a defined study area. 

It should be noted that the ZTVs for Penny Hill have been generated assuming a „bare 

ground‟ terrain model. This means that it is generated from topographical data only and 

does not take any account of vegetation or the built environment, which may screen views 

of the development. It is, as such, a „worst case‟ Zone of Visual Influence and considerably 

over-emphasises the actual visibility of the scheme. In reality trees, hedges and buildings 

may restrict views of the development from many of the areas rendered as within the ZTV. 

A further assumption of the ZTVs is that climatic visibility is 100% (i.e. visibility is not 

impeded by moisture or pollution in the air). In reality, such atmospheric conditions are 

relatively rare in the UK. Mist, fog, rain and snow are all common weather occurrences, 

which would regularly restrict visibility of the development from some of the areas within the 

ZTV. Atmospheric pollution is also still present and would also restrict actual visibility on 

certain days of the year. Climatic conditions inevitably reduce visibility with increasing 

distance from the development. 

The ZTVs for Penny Hill were generated using LSS v9.60 by McCarthy Taylor Systems Ltd. 

The programme used 3D height data (OS Landform Panorama) to build a terrain model. 

The programme then renders the model using a square grid to illustrate how many turbines 

would be visible in each 200m x 200m square on the grid for a specified distance in every 

direction from the site. 

Digital ZTVs have been prepared to illustrate the theoretical visibility of the Penny Hill 

turbines for a radius of 20km around the site. Two sets of ZTVs have been produced, the 

first shows visibility of the turbines to the nacelle and the second shows visibility of the 

turbines to blade tip when one blade is at its highest possible position. These ZTVs are 

presented in Figures 6.6 and 6.7. 

Cumulative ZTVs have been produced to show locations where the ZTVs of two or more 

operational or proposed wind farm sites overlap. In the cumulative ZTVs one colour (yellow) 

has been used to illustrate the theoretical visibility of the Penny Hill site and a second colour 

(blue) to illustrate the visibility of a second site. Where the ZTVs of the two sites overlap a 

third colour (green) has been used to illustrate this potential cumulative visual influence. 

These ZTVs are presented in Figures 6.30 – 6.33. 

It should be noted that there are several limitations to the use of ZTVs. For a discussion of 

these limitations please refer to Visual Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice 

Guidance (SNH commissioned report FO3 AA 308/2). In particular, it should be noted that 

the ZTV plans simply illustrate theoretical visibility and do not imply or assign any level of 

significance to those areas identified as being within the ZTV. The ZTVs are a tool to assist 

the Landscape Architect to identify where the site would potentially be visible from. The 

assessment of landscape and visual effects in this section does not rely solely on the 

accuracy of the ZTVs. Professional judgement has been used to evaluate the significance of 

effects. 

56 



Table 6.2: Wireline Visualisations 

A wireline or wireframe visualisation is a computer generated 3D outline of a particular 

structure (in this case wind turbines) placed on top of a 3D ground terrain model, which again 

is represented by a wireframe. No rendering is given to any of the surfaces. The actual 

dimensions of the turbines were used to build a model of the turbines and the structures were 

placed in position over a ground terrain model generated from Ordnance Survey Landform 

Panorama height data. 

The coordinates of the viewpoints were taken using a Global Positioning System (GPS) in the 

field. These coordinates were used to set up viewpoints in the model from which to view the 

turbines. The wirelines were generated using LSS v9.60 by McCarthy Taylor Systems Ltd. 

The wireline images are generated on a bare ground model and therefore do not take 

account of any vegetation or the built environment between the viewpoint and the 

development. As such, they represent a worst case view. Each of the wirelines was checked 

on site to ascertain whether there was any screening of the view caused by vegetation or 

buildings. 

A number of the wirelines are presented in Figures 6.10 to 6.29 where they have been 

positioned to scale beneath a baseline photograph to illustrate the actual view from each 

viewpoint. The wireline images only illustrate the anticipated scale and position of the 

turbines. They do not show any other features such as access tracks, the control compound 

or the meteorological mast. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

images, it must be appreciated that no wireline image could ever claim to be 100% accurate 

as there are a number of technical limitations to the model. For a detailed discussion 

regarding the limitations of wirelines, please refer to Visual Representation of Windfarms – 

Good Practice Guidance (SNH commissioned report FO3 AA 308/2). 

It should be noted that wirelines are just a „snap shot‟ of the view from a single fixed location 

and the wirelines presented in this ES represent only a small number of locations where the 

development will be visible from. In reality views will change as receptors move through the 

landscape. Therefore the wirelines are simply a tool to assist the Landscape Architect in 

his/her assessment of effects. The assessment of visual effects in this section does not rely 

solely on the accuracy of the wireline images. Professional judgement has been used to 

evaluate the significance of effects. 

57 



Table 6.3: Photomontages 

A photomontage is the superimposition of a rendered, photorealistic, computer generated 

model of a structure (in this case wind turbines and associated structures) on to a baseline 

photograph. 

Baseline photographs were taken using a Canon EOS 30D digital SLR camera using a high 

quality lens accurately calibrated to provide the equivalent of a 50mm lens on a traditional SLR 

camera. All pictures were taken using a levelled tripod and using a high quality setting of 8.2 

megapixel resolution. Each of the viewpoints presented in the ES is made up of several 

photographs which have been stitched together using Adobe Photoshop software. During the 

stitching process none of the photographs were distorted in terms of scaling. 

At the time the baseline photographs were taken, co-ordinates of the viewpoints were recorded 

using a GPS. Photographs were taken at 1.7m above ground level (i.e. approximately eye 

level). 

A 3D wireline model was generated of the development features, including turbines, 

meteorological mast, access tracks and the sub-station. LSS v9.60 by McCarthy Taylor 

Systems Ltd was used to generate the 3D model of the turbines and associated structures. 

The model of the structures was rendered and lighting was set appropriate to the date, time 

and orientation on which the photograph was taken. 

A digital ground terrain model was generated in LSS v9.60 by McCarthy Taylor Systems Ltd 

where the development was overlaid on top of it. Using world coordinates in the computer 

modelling programme the photographic viewpoints were replicated such that a view was set up 

looking at the structures from exactly the same location as where the baseline photograph was 

taken from. The view from the model was then superimposed over the original photograph and 

edited as necessary in Adobe Photoshop to give a final photomontage. Several known 

landmarks in the far distance of the baseline photographs were recorded on site using a GPS 

and used to check that the positioning and scale of the structures was correct. 

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the photomontages, it must be 

appreciated that no photomontage could ever claim to be 100% accurate as there are a 

number of technical limitations in the model relating to the accuracy of information available 

from Ordnance Survey and from the GPS. For a detailed discussion regarding the limitations of 

photomontages, please refer to Visual Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice Guidance 

(SNH commissioned report FO3 AA 308/2). 

In particular, it should be recognised that baseline photographs on which photomontages are 

based can, at best, only ever be a „flattened‟ 2D representation of what the eye sees in 3D on 

site. A photograph will never capture as much detail as the eye would see in the field, it 

therefore follows that a photomontage can never truly capture the sense of perspective and 

detail which would be possible in reality. Taking account of the inherent technical limitations in 

producing and presenting photomontages, the photomontages for Penny Hill have been 

produced according to best practice. 

Therefore the wirelines are simply a tool to assist the Landscape Architect in his/her 

assessment of effects. The assessment of visual effects in this section does not rely solely on 

the accuracy of the photomontages. Professional judgement has been used to evaluate the 

significance of effects. 

An interpretation of monocular perspective could be obtained by viewing the photomontages 

from a distance of 250mm curved through an appropriate radius. 

58 



ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 

6.44 The ultimate purpose of the LVIA is to evaluate the likely significance of 

landscape and visual effects within the study area to assist the planning 

authority to determine the acceptability of the scheme. 

6.45 In accordance with the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 

Guidelines, 2nd Edition (Landscape Institute and IEMA, 2002), the 

significance of effects is ascertained by cross referencing the sensitivity of 

the baseline landscape or visual receptor and the magnitude of change as 

a result of the development. 

LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY 

6.46 The sensitivity of an individual landscape feature reflects factors such as 

its quality, value, contribution to landscape character and the degree to 

which the particular element can be replaced. A particular feature may be 

more sensitive in one location than in another. Therefore it is not possible 

to simply place different types of landscape feature into sensitivity bands. 

Where individual landscape features are affected, professional judgement 

has been used as far as possible to give an objective evaluation of its 

sensitivity. Justification is given for this evaluation where necessary. 

6.47 The sensitivity of landscape character is an expression of a landscape‟s 

ability to accommodate change, in this case the development of a wind 

farm. It varies depending on the existing land use, pattern and scale of the 

landscape, the degree of openness, scope for mitigation in keeping with 

the existing landscape character, condition, value placed on the landscape 

and any designations that may apply. 

6.48 Landscape character is considered at two levels. Firstly impacts are 

considered within the immediate landscape surrounding the site (a 

nominal radius of 2km surrounding the site). 

6.49 Secondly impacts on landscape character are considered at the wider 

landscape level by reference to the national Joint Character Areas within 

20km of the site. Based on early analysis of the landscape character within 

the study area, it was concluded that there would be no significant effect 

on landscape character beyond this distance. At any point beyond this 

distance, it is considered that the visual influence of a wind farm would be 

experienced in the context of any number of more prominent man made 

features and therefore the impact of the turbines would in no instance 

result in any greater than a slight effect on landscape character. 

6.50 With regards to the immediate landscape character area, a site-specific 

appraisal has been undertaken of the landscape within and immediately 

surrounding the site and an evaluation is made in the baseline section of 

this section regarding its sensitivity to wind energy development. 

59 



6.51 With regards to the landscape character of the wider area, sensitivity has 

been determined for each Joint Character Area identified within 20km of 

the site. 

6.52 A visual receptor‟s response to landscape character is influenced by the 

physical and perceptual characteristics of their surroundings. In most 

cases, the landscape components in the immediate surroundings have a 

much stronger influence on the sense of landscape character than distant 

features. Occasionally at elevated viewpoints it is possible to feel a sense 

of exposure or remoteness and this is partially defined not only by 

immediate surroundings but the presence or absence of distant features in 

the landscape, and the level of human activity evident in the surrounding 

landscape. 

6.53 How sensitive a landscape character area is to a wind energy 

development more than a few kilometres away therefore reflects a number 

of factors including: the number of elevated locations which enable an 

appreciation of the wider landscape, the extent to which remoteness and 

wilderness are key features of the landscape, any sense of scale derived 

from proximity to other character areas, the importance of focal points in 

the surrounding area and the amount of movement and activity in the 

surrounding landscape. 

6.54 The judgement about how sensitive the character areas are has been 

made by extrapolating this information from appendices to „Planning for 

Renewable Energy Targets in Yorkshire and Humber‟, Government Office 

for Yorkshire and Humber. 

6.55 The sensitivity of landscape features and character has been described as 

high, medium or low. 

VISUAL SENSITIVITY 

6.56 Visual sensitivity cannot be easily quantified as different people have 

different viewing expectations. Representative viewpoints have been used 

in the assessment to represent different visual receptor groups at various 

distances and directions from the site. The sensitivity of the receptor 

groups to a wind farm depends on a number of factors such as the 

occupation of the viewer (e.g. resident, traveller passing by the scheme, 

someone at work), their viewing expectations, duration of view and the 

angle or direction in which they would see the site. 

6.57 As a general guide, however, residential receptors, tourists, recreational 

users of public rights of way and people at recognised vantage points such 

as mountain tops are considered to have a higher sensitivity to change in 

their view than people conducting their daily business (e.g. at their place of 

work) or travelling through a landscape (excluding people sightseeing). 

6.58 It should be noted that, in selecting the representative viewpoints for the 

assessment, there was a strong bias towards identifying the most sensitive 

60 



visual receptor groups. Viewpoints of low sensitivity have been considered 

in the assessment but the focus of the study is centred on where impacts 

were likely to be most significant. On balance, therefore, the selected 

viewpoints are inherently more sensitive than the average visual receptor 

in the study area. 

6.59 It is important not to confuse the concept of visual sensitivity with the 

perception of wind turbines. Many people have a predisposition towards 

wind farms. It is acknowledged that some people consider wind turbines 

to be unattractive but many people also enjoy the sight of them. It is not 

the purpose of this section to influence personal opinion about the 

aesthetic appearance of wind farms. 

6.60 Visual receptor sensitivity has been described as high, medium or low. 

MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE IMPACTS 

6.61 Two types of landscape impact are considered: 

Physical changes to existing landscape features; and 

The impact on the landscape character (both direct impacts on the 

immediate landscape character area and indirect impacts on other 

landscape character areas within the study area). 

MAGNITUDE OF IMPACTS ON LANDSCAPE FEATURES 

6.62 Professional judgement has been used as appropriate to determine the 

magnitude of direct physical impacts on individual existing landscape 

features using the following criteria as guidance only: 

No Change - No loss or alteration to existing landscape features; 

Low Magnitude of Change - Minor loss or alteration to part of an 

existing landscape feature; 

Medium Magnitude of Change - Some loss or some alteration to part 

of an existing landscape feature; and 

High Magnitude of Change - Total or major loss or major alteration to 

an existing landscape feature. 

MAGNITUDE OF IMPACTS ON THE IMMEDIATE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 

6.63 The magnitude of direct impacts on the immediate landscape character is 

influenced by a number of factors including: the extent to which existing 

landscape features are lost or altered, the introduction of new features and 

the resulting alteration to the scale, landform, land cover and pattern of the 

landscape. Professional judgement has been used as appropriate to 

determine the magnitude using the following criteria as guidance only: 

61 



No Change 

No notable loss or alteration to existing landscape features;No notable 

introduction of new features into the landscape; and 

Negligible change to the scale, landform, land cover and pattern of the 

landscape. 

Low Magnitude of Change 

Minor loss or alteration to existing landscape features; 

Introduction of minor new features into the landscape; or 

Minor alteration to the scale, landform, land cover and pattern of the 

landscape. 

Medium Magnitude of Change 

Some notable loss or alteration to existing landscape features; 

Introduction of some notable new features into the landscape; or 

Some notable change to the scale, landform, land cover and pattern of 

the landscape. 

High Magnitude of Change 

A major loss or alteration to existing landscape features; 

Introduction of major new features into the landscape; or 

A major change to the scale, landform, land cover and pattern of the 

landscape. 

MAGNITUDE OF IMPACTS ON THE WIDER LANDSCAPE CHARACTER WITHIN 

20KM) 

6.64 The magnitude of impacts on the wider landscape (within 20km) is 

discussed using the Joint Character Areas taken from the relevant national 

character assessment and identified in the baseline section of the 

assessment. The magnitude of the impacts reflects the extent to which 

aspects of the development are visible within the landscape character area 

and how this affects the overall appreciation of scale, remoteness, visual 

composition, pattern and landform. The extent to which distant turbines 

would affect appreciation of these factors depends on how prominent they 

would appear from the character area. 

6.65 Professional judgement has been used as appropriate to determine the 

magnitude using the following criteria as guidance only: 

62 



No Change – Site not visible or barely visible from the landscape 

character area; 

Low Magnitude of Change - Presence of the site marginally alters the 

appreciation of scale, remoteness, visual composition, pattern or 

landform; 

Medium Magnitude of Change - Presence of the site notably alters 

the appreciation of scale, remoteness, visual composition, pattern or 

landform slightly; 

High Magnitude of Change - Presence of the site fundamentally 

alters the appreciation of scale, remoteness, visual composition, 

pattern or landform. 

MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL IMPACTS 

6.66 Visual impacts are caused by the introduction of new elements into the 

views of a landscape or the removal of elements in the existing view. 

6.67 Clearly justified professional judgement has been used to determine the 

magnitude of impacts using the following criteria as guidance only: 

No Change - No change or negligible change in views; 

Low Magnitude of Change - Some change in the view that is not 

prominent but visible to some visual receptors; 

Medium Magnitude of Change - Some change in the view that is 

clearly visible in the view and forms an important but not defining 

element in the view; 

High Magnitude of Change - A major change in the view that has a 

defining influence on the overall view. 

6.68 Using these criteria, determining levels of magnitude clearly depends on 

how prominent the development would be in the landscape. 

6.69 For clarification, the use of the term „prominent‟ relates to how noticeable 

the features of the development would be. This is affected by how close 

the viewpoint is to the development but not entirely dependent on this 

factor. Other modifying factors include: the focus of the view, visual 

screening and the nature and scale of other landscape features within the 

view. Rather than specifying distances at which the turbines will be 

dominant, prominent or incidental to the view etc, the dominance of the 

turbines in each view is described in detail for each viewpoint taking all the 

variables into consideration. This approach is supported by best practice 

guidelines 7. 

7 University of Newcastle (2002) Visual Assessment of Wind farms Best Practice. Scottish Natural 

Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA303A. 

63 



IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE 

6.70 The ultimate purpose of the LVIA is to evaluate the significance of effects 

on the landscape and visual amenity surrounding the site. 

6.71 The significance of the landscape and visual effects is determined by 

cross-referencing the sensitivity of the landscape or view with the 

magnitude of change. In determining the significance of residual effects all 

mitigation measures are taken into account. 

6.72 The matrix in Table 6.4 demonstrates the general relationship between 

sensitivity and magnitude but is given for illustrative purposes only (i.e. it is 

not used to mechanically determine the significance of an effect upon any 

given receptor). At all times, professional judgement is used to determine 

the overall significance of effects (informed by judgements made regarding 

sensitivity and magnitude). The significance of effects is described as 

Substantial, Moderate or Slight. 

6.73 Those effects identified as being of substantial and, in some cases, 

moderate significance may be regarded significant effects when discussed 

in terms of the Town and Country Planning (England and Wales) 

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999. 

Table 6.4: Matrix of Significance for Landscape and Visual Effects 

Sensitivity 

of 

Landscape/View 

High 

Medium 

Low 

RESIDUAL EFFECTS 

Magnitude of Change in the Landscape/View 

High Medium Low No Change 

Substantial 

Substantial/ 

Moderate 

Moderate/ 

Slight 

64 

Substantial/ 

Moderate 

Moderate/ 

Slight 

None 

Moderate Slight None 

Slight Slight None 

6.74 Best practice in the assessment of effects of a proposed development 

suggests that the significance of potential effects be assessed, mitigation 

proposals identified as appropriate and the residual effect (with mitigation 

in place) then re-assessed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the 

mitigation proposed. 

6.75 Landscape and visual mitigation for a wind farm development principally 

focuses on refinement of the site layout which is undertaken prior to a 

design freeze in the development. Following baseline studies, landscape 

and visual considerations were taken into account during the iteration of 



the design. Therefore the final design of the scheme incorporates 

landscape and visual mitigation and in this section there is no difference 

between assessed potential effects and residual effects. 

LANDSCAPE PLANNING POLICIES AND DESIGNATIONS 

6.76 The following planning documents were reviewed as part of the desk 

study: 

PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004); 

PPS 22 Renewable Energy and PPS22: Companion Guide (2004); 

PPG2 Green Belts (2001); 

Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber 2008, 

Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber; 

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 

1999,Saved Policies 2007, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council; 

and 

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough emerging Local Development 

Framework (LDF) 2008, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. 

6.77 A full and detailed consideration of national, regional and local planning 

policy is contained in the Planning Statement accompanying this ES. 

However, this section reviews any policies of particular relevance to 

landscape and visual issues. 

NATIONAL POLICY: PLANNING POLICY GUIDELINES AND STATEMENTS 

6.78 PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas sets out the four key 

principles of sustainable development in paragraph 1. The second is the 

effective protection and enhancement of the environment while the third is 

prudent use of natural resources. Paragraph 21 deals with nationally 

designated areas and confirms that they have the highest level of 

protection in terms of landscape and scenic beauty. The implication is that 

less weight should be afforded to areas outside nationally designated 

areas. Local landscape designations are dealt with in paragraphs 24 and 

25 which suggest that criteria based policies should provide sufficient 

protection without the need for rigid local designations. 

6.79 PPS 22 Renewable Energy provides guidance with regards to the 

national designations in the study area (Conservation Areas, Listed 

Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens, 

National Parks) and states that planning permission for renewable energy 

developments should only be granted where it can be demonstrated that 

the objectives of designated areas will not be compromised and any 

significant adverse effect on the qualities for which the area has been 

65 



designated are clearly outweighed by the environmental, social and 

economic benefits. 

6.80 Paragraph 13 states that renewable energy development may impact on 

the openness of a Green Belt. It states that „Careful consideration will 

therefore need to be given to the visual impact of projects, and developers 

will need to demonstrate very special circumstances that clearly outweigh 

any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm if projects 

are to proceed.‟ However it also expressly states that „Such very special 

circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated 

with increased production of energy from renewable sources.‟ 

6.81 Paragraph 15 states that „local landscape designations should not be used 

themselves to refuse planning permission for renewable energy 

developments.‟ 

6.82 PPG2 Green Belts states that „the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is 

to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most 

important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. Green Belts can 

shape patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional scale, 

and help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in 

development plans. They help to protect the countryside, be it in 

agricultural, forestry or other use. They can assist in moving towards more 

sustainable patterns of urban development.‟ 

6.83 Paragraph 3.15 states that the „visual amenities of the Green Belt should 

not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from 

the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of 

including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of 

their siting, materials or design.‟ 

REGIONAL POLICY: REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR 

YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER 2008 

6.84 A revised RSS (The Yorkshire and Humber Plan) was published by the 

Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber in May 2008. The Plan 

sets out the broad development strategy for the region. 

6.85 ENV10: Landscape 

Policy ENV10 states that: 

„The Region will safeguard and enhance landscapes that contribute to the 

distinctive character of Yorkshire and the Humber. Plans, strategies, 

investment decisions and programmes should safeguard and enhance the 

following landscapes and related assets of regional, sub-regional and local 

importance: 

….Derelict and despoiled urban fringe landscapes, especially in the former 

coalfield and older industrial parts of South and West Yorkshire‟. 

66 



LOCAL POLICY: ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH UDP 

1999, SAVED POLICIES 2007 

6.86 ENV1 Green Belt 

Policy ENV1 states that in the Green Belt: 

„Development will not be permitted except in very special circumstances 

for purposes other than agriculture, forestry, recreation, cemeteries and 

other uses appropriate to a rural area.‟ 

6.87 ENV1.1 Areas of High Landscape Value 

ENV1.1 identifies four Areas of High Landscape Value within the study 

area, one of which extends across the development site. 

6.88 ENV1.2 Development in areas of high landscape value 

ENV1.2 states that: 

'In Areas of High Landscape Value, development other than for agriculture 

will only be allowed where it will not result in a significant, and permanent 

adverse impact on the landscape. … Strict control will be exercised over 

any development that does take place to ensure that the visual character 

of these areas is not affected.' 

6.89 ENV2 Conserving the Environment 

ENV2 states that: 

„In considering any development, the Council will ensure that the effects 

on … historic … resources of the Borough are fully taken into account. 

The Council will only permit development where it can be shown that: 

(i) development will not adversely affect any key environmental resources, 

(ii) development will not harm the character or quality of the wider 

environment, and 

(iii) where development will cause environmental losses, these are 

reduced to a minimum and outweighed by other enhancements in 

compensation for the loss.‟ 

6.90 ENV2.1 Statutorily Protected Sites 


'Development or changes-of-use which would adversely affect the interest, 

fabric or setting of a statutorily protected site will not be permitted.' 

67 



6.91 ENV2.2 Interest Outside Statutorily Protected Sites 

With regards to the setting of statutorily protected sites, ENV2 states that: 

'Proposals which would adversely affect, directly or indirectly, any … 

significant … archaeological feature, will only be permitted where it has 

been demonstrated that the overall benefits of the proposed development 

clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the interest of the site or feature.' 

6.92 ENV2.3 Maintaining the Character and Quality of the Environment 


'In considering any development or other proposals which would 

unavoidably damage an existing environmental interest, prior to 

determining a planning application, the Council will require the application 

to be supported by adequate survey, evaluation, recording and, where 

appropriate, details of renovation or repair of historic fabric and rescue or 

relocation of features or species of particular merit. Damage to the existing 

environmental interest should be reduced to a minimum and, where 

possible, the interest which is retained should be enhanced. In addition 

there must be adequate compensation for any significant losses through 

landscaping, habitat creation or other environmental enhancement.' 

6.93 ENV2.8 Settings and Curtilages of Listed Buildings 


„The Council will resist development proposals which detrimentally affect 

the setting of a listed building or are harmful to its curtilage structures in 

order to preserve its setting and historical context.' 

6.94 ENV2.12 Development Adjacent to Conservation Areas 


„In considering proposals for developments adjacent to Conservation 

Areas, special regard will be had to their effect on the Conservation Areas 

and, if necessary, modifications to ameliorate the effect will be required 

before approval is given.' 

6.95 ENV3 Borough Landscape 

ENV3 states that: 

„The Council recognises the vital importance of maintaining and enhancing 

the landscape of the Borough, pursuing and supporting this objective 

through positive measures or initiatives and, when considering 

development or other proposals, taking full account of their effect on and 

68 



contribution to the landscape, including water resources and 

environments.‟ 

6.96 ENV3.1 Development and the Environment 


„Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the 

environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard 

to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, 

massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, 

screening and landscaping, together with regard to the security of ultimate 

users and their property. Developers will be required to supply details of 

design and landscaping for approval by the Council and where 

developments adjoin or include a transport route or other important linear 

feature (e.g. a river, canal or stream) the Council will negotiate the creation 

or maintenance of a landscaped 'green corridor'. Developments which 

make a positive contribution to the environment through a reduction in 

harmful emissions, but cannot meet the design standards mentioned 

above, will be considered on their merits. Encouragement will be given to 

the inclusion of works of public art within the design of major 

developments.' 

6.97 Policy ENV3.2 Minimising the Impact of Development 


'In considering the scale, appearance, nature and location of development 

and infrastructure proposals, the Council will seek to minimise adverse 

impact on the environment, including water resources, and to conserve 

and improve its quality. It will permit development which results in a 

significant loss of trees, woodlands, hedgerows or field boundary walls 

only when there is compelling justification for doing so.' 

6.98 UTL3.4 Renewable Energy 

The Council will seek to ensure that the utility companies and agencies 

avoid or, where this is not possible, minimise the adverse landscape and 

environmental impacts of transmission lines, installations and other similar 

apparatus. UTL3.4 states that: 

'There will be a presumption in favour of proposals for the generation of 

power from renewable energy sources unless the proposed development 

would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. 

The Council will assess proposals for the development of renewable 

energy sources against the likely environmental costs and benefits arising 

in each particular case.' 

69 



PLANNING DESIGNATIONS 

6.99 All relevant landscape and national heritage designations are illustrated in 

Figure 6.2. 

National / Regional Landscape Designations 

6.100 There are no national or regional landscape designations covering the site 

or in close proximity to the site. The nearest National Park is the Peak 

District National Park (approximately 19km to the west of the site). 

Local Landscape Designations 

Greenbelt 

6.101 Much of the undeveloped part of the 20km radius study area including the 

development site is designated Green Belt. Notably this includes the 

entirety of the undeveloped land in the Rotherham borough area. 

6.102 In this regard a recent appeal decision relating to a wind farm in green belt 

is of relevance to consideration of this application (namely Appeal 

Reference APP/D2320/A/08/2069152 Cliff Farm, Wood Lane, Mawdesley, 

Ormskirk L40 2RL). 

6.103 In the above appeal, the Planning Inspector determined that whilst the 

turbines would affect the openness of the Green Belt and would therefore 

fall within the definition of „inappropriate development‟ in PPG 2, he did not 

consider the loss of openness to be „anything but very modest in scale.‟ 

The inspector concludes that „the areas of land to be built upon are small 

in size and have to be seen in the context of a large uninterrupted expanse 

of open land‟. 

6.104 The inspector concludes that the valuable contribution that the turbines 

would make to meeting the challenging target for the production of energy 

from renewable sources represents „the very special circumstances 

required to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, some 

limited impact on the Green Belt openness and a small encroachment on 

the countryside.‟ 

6.105 It is also noted that the Loscar wind farm which has recently been 

approved is within the same Green Belt as the Penny Hill site. 

Area of High Landscape Value 

6.106 The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough UDP 1999, (Saved Policies 2007) 

defines five Areas of High Landscape Value (AHLV) within the Borough. 

The entire development site is located within the Ulley – Whiston AHLV. 

70 



6.107 It should be noted that local landscape designations are no longer 

favoured by Government, especially with regards to restricting otherwise 

sustainable development. National planning guidance on local landscape 

designations is provided in PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural 

Areas (2004). 

6.108 Paragraph 24 of PPS 7 states: 

„The Government believes that carefully drafted, criteria based policies in 

LDDs (Local Development Documents), utilising tools such as landscape 

character assessment, should provide sufficient protection for these areas 

(landscapes which are highly valued locally), without the need for rigid 

local designations that may unduly restrict acceptable, sustainable 

development.‟ 

6.109 Paragraph 25 of PP7 states that local landscape designations should only 

be maintained: 

„where it can be clearly shown that criteria-based planning policies cannot 

provide the necessary protection.‟ 

6.110 Therefore the fact that the proposed development is within an AHLV does 

not in itself compromise the ability of the site to accommodate wind 

energy. Paragraph 15 of PPS 22 confirms that „local landscape 

designations should not be used themselves to refuse planning permission 

for renewable energy developments.‟ 

6.111 It is noted that the recently approved Loscar development is also within an 

AHLV and in this application, the AHLV designation was not considered a 

sufficiently good reason to refuse permission for the site. 

CONSERVATION AREAS 

6.112 There are five Conservation Areas within a 5km radius of the centre of the 

site and these are listed in the Archaeology & Cultural Heritage section of 

this ES. 

6.113 In the wider 20km study area there are several more Conservation Areas, 

however, at distances over 5km it is considered highly unlikely that 

turbines would be prominent enough to affect their setting. 

LISTED BUILDINGS 

6.114 Within a 5km radius of the centre of the site there are many listed buildings 

which are discussed further in the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 

section. None of these are within 1km of the nearest turbine. The Grade I 

and Grade II* listed buildings within 5km of the site are listed within the 

Archaeology section. 

71 



6.115 In the wider 20km study area there are numerous listed buildings, 

however, at distances over 5km from the site, it is considered highly 

unlikely that turbines would be prominent enough to affect their setting. 

SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENTS 

6.116 There are eight Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) within 5km of the 

site and these are listed in Section 10 on Archaeology & Cultural Heritage. 

None of these are within the site boundary or within a 1km radius of the 

site. 

6.117 In the wider 20km study area there are several more SAMs, however, at 

distances over 5km it is considered highly unlikely that turbines would be 

prominent enough to affect their setting. 

DESIGNATED PARKS AND GARDENS 

6.118 There are 28 registered Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes 

within 20km radius of the centre of the site. They are listed below by 

administrative district: 

Bolsover District Council 

1665 Bolsover Castle (17km south); and 

3255 Barlborough Hall (9km south). 

Bassetlaw District Council 

1543 Welbeck Abbey (14km south east); 

2081 Clumber Park (17km south east); and 

1318 Shireoaks Hall (10km south east). 

North East Derbyshire District Council 

1674 Renishaw Hall (10km south west). 

Barnsley Metropolitan Council 

1384 Wortley Hall (19km north west). 

Doncaster Metropolitan Council 

1255 Hickleton Hall (17km north); 

2260 Brodsworth Hall (19km north); 

1378 Cusworth Hall (17km north east); and 

72 



4745 The Dell (17km north east). 

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council 

2167 Wentworth Woodhouse (10km north west); 

4744 Boston Park (6km north west). 

2165 Sandbeck Park and Roche Abbey (7km east); 

4747 Clifton Park (6km north west); and 

5170 Moorgate Cemetery (6km north west). 

Sheffield City Council 

5206 Beauchief Hall (16km south west); 

4746 Porterfield Parks (18km west); 

5172 City Road Cemetery (18km west); 

2166 Sheffield Botanical Gardens (18km west); 

2641 Weston Park (13km west); 

2336 Norfolk Park (11km west); 

4049 Sheffield General Cemetery (10km west); 

4186 Whinfell Quarry Garden (17km south west); 

1211 Monument Grounds (12km west); 

5082 Burngreave Cemetery (12km west); and 

2164 Oakes Park (12km south west). 

Chesterfield Borough Council 

4576 Queen‟s Park (19km south west). 

REGISTERED BATTLEFIELDS 

6.119 There are no Registered Battlefields within a 20km radius of the site. 

73 



BASELINE CONDITIONS 

Site Specific Landscape Appraisal 

6.120 This section provides an objective and factual description of the landscape 

features and character of the landscape within and immediately 

surrounding the site boundary. The landscape context of the site is 

illustrated in Figure 6.3. 

Landform & Topography 

6.121 The Penny Hill site straddles a ridge which extends westwards as a spur 

from the elevated limestone plateau in the east. It is characterised by an 

area of gently undulating, elevated ground divided by a shallow valley in 

the southern part and bounded by steep slopes to the north. The highest 

parts of the site are at an elevation of approximately 120m AOD in the 

eastern and south western parts of the site and the lowest part of the site 

is at an elevation of approximately 70m AOD in the valley base at the 

north west tip of the development boundary. 

6.122 Steep slopes falling towards the Ulley Brook valley and Ulley Reservoir 

beyond the development site characterise the immediate context to the 

west. 

6.123 Although steeply undulating, the region to the west is generally lower than 

the limestone plateau which is aligned in a north south direction to the east 

of the development site. Here landform gently undulates although there 

are a number of high points located within approximately 4km radius at 

South Anston (129m AOD), Laughton en le Morthen (125m AOD), Carr Hill 

(150m AOD) and Lings Common (145m AOD). 

Watercourse & Drainage 

6.124 There are two main watercourses in the vicinity of the site; the northern 

and southern branches of the Ulley Brook. Both of these lie outside the 

site boundary itself. 

6.125 The first of these watercourses lies to the north of the site and flows 

westwards from the woods at Swallow Mill Ponds towards Ulley Reservoir. 

Water from land within the northern part of the site (north of Penny Hill 

Lane) drains into this watercourse. 

6.126 The second of these watercourses flows westwards from near junction 31 

of the M1 towards Ulley Reservoir. Water on land within the southern part 

of the site (south of Penny Hill Lane) drains into this watercourse and there 

are a few forked tributaries through the southern part of the site which 

connect with this brook. 

6.127 The two branches of the Ulley Brook converge at Ulley Reservoir 

approximately 1km to the west of the site. This is the nearest large body of 

74 



standing water and now forms part of a Country Park. The outlet from the 

reservoir flows westwards towards the River Rother. 

6.128 The site itself is relatively well drained by agricultural field drains. There 

are no standing bodies of water within the site boundary. The nearest body 

of standing water is a series of small ponds at Swallow Mill Ponds some 

100m north of the site boundary. 

Buildings & Infrastructure 

6.129 There is only one group of buildings within the application boundary, 

namely at Ulley Beeches which comprises of a single dwelling and several 

out houses. Just outside the western boundary on Carr Lane there is a 

small telecommunications mast and a group of sheds, but generally there 

are few buildings in the immediate vicinity of the development site. The 

small village of Ulley located within 0.5km of the western development 

boundary is the closest settlement. 

6.130 A double wood pole line crosses the site in a north to south alignment but 

there are no other vertical man made elements on the site. In addition to 

the telecommunications mast located on Carr Lane, there is a more 

prominent mast to the south of the site, with a number of other masts 

visible in association with the M1 to the south east. The mast immediately 

south of the site forms a local orientation landmark and is helpful in 

identifying the location of the site in longer views. 

6.131 The publicly adopted road Penny Hill Lane bisects the development site 

linking Ulley with the region to the east of the M1 via an over bridge. It is 

joined by Brampton Lane near the centre of the development site and this 

road links the site with Brampton en le Morthen to the east. Un-metalled 

tracks mark parts of the western and eastern boundaries and these are 

used by the public as part of a network of footpaths, bridleways and tracks 

in the local area. 

6.132 The site is bounded to the east by the curving course of the M1, its 

associated embankments and cuttings and the large junction with the M18. 

The nearest A or B roads to the site are the B6060 at Thurcroft 1.3km to 

the north east and the A618 1.4km to the west. 

6.133 The larger settlements of Thurcroft and Aston are located within 1km of 

the development boundary and the southern outskirts of Rotherham are 

located 2km to the north at Whiston. 

Vegetation 

6.134 The site and much of the surrounding area is dominated by arable farming. 

The broadly geometric pattern of field boundaries which characterise the 

more level and elevated parts of the site are a continuation of the 

landscape character patterns to the east beyond the M1. Fields are 

slightly larger than the surrounding average within the site and their 

75 



oundaries are marked by hedges. On the steeper slopes in the northern 

part of the site and beyond to the west, field boundaries and sizes are 

governed by the alignment of landform, tending to run perpendicular to the 

slope. Although there are no blocks of woodland on the site itself, there 

are tree groups located beyond its boundary to the south (Spring Wood), 

to the north (around Swallow Mills Pond) and on the road corridors of the 

M1 and M18 junction. Roads and tracks on the site tend to be adjacent to 

or are bound by hedgerows varying condition. A few hedgerows contain 

mature hedgerow trees. These trees tend to be deciduous and hedge 

boundaries tend to comprise deciduous species such as hawthorn, 

sycamore and ash. Some of the hedgerows on site are rather gappy 

whereas others are more intact. Field boundaries also comprise native 

herbaceous species and the fields themselves tend to contain grain crops. 

6.135 Further west, arable land use tends to be interspersed with deciduous 

woodlands and trees associated with Ulley Reservoir and Ulley village. 

HISTORICAL LANDSCAPE INTERPRETATION 

6.136 Aerial photographs show that the field structure of the site area was finer 

in the past and, as is typical of 20 th century farming practices, hedge 

boundaries have been removed to enlarge fields. This is particularly 

evident around Ulley Beeches which indicates that this was a working farm 

in the past. 

6.137 Aerial photographs indicate an underground service line has been laid 

across the site and beyond in the recent past. 

6.138 The title „Swallow Mills Ponds‟ next to a woodland block on the north 

eastern site boundary indicates that there was some earlier milling activity 

although there are no obvious historical references remaining on the 

surface. 

SENSORY EXPERIENCE 

6.139 The site is experienced by travelling the lanes or tracks and paths which 

cross the site or by viewing it from distant elevated vantage points. When 

on the site itself, long views across the site and the surrounding landscape 

tend to be intermittent due to the over grown hedgerows and these 

compartmentalise views. The site tends to be viewed in the two parts 

separated by Penny Hill Lane: To the north, the site is back-dropped by 

the steep slopes of the opposite valley with longer views to the southern 

districts of Rotherham; and to the south, views are dominated by the 

rolling landform of the localised hills within the site and beyond. The 

telecommunications mast located just south of the boundary dominates 

these views. The development site is perceived as part of a broad 

undeveloped ridge line of elevated country side when viewed from the hill 

sides to the north and west which themselves tend to be characterised by 

urban development. 

76 



6.140 The limited amount of built development on and close to the site, and the 

arable land use of the immediate context gives the site a sense of relative 

tranquillity although the landscape is certainly not remote or untouched by 

modern human influences. 

6.141 The M1/M18 motorway is ever present and the two motorways have an 

established effect on visual amenity. The noise from the motorway 

detracts from the otherwise tranquil nature of the site. 

6.142 From within the site there are long distance views to the extensive 

Sheffield/Rotherham conurbation to the north and west and in every 

direction there appear to be overhead electricity lines. 

PUBLISHED LANDSCAPE CHARACTER DESCRIPTIONS 

6.143 This section provides an objective and factual description of the character 

of the landscape within the study area. 

6.144 A review of the following landscape character assessments and landscape 

capacity studies was undertaken: 

Character Assessment of England, Volume 3: Yorkshire and Humber, 

1996, Countryside Commission and English Nature 

Barnsley Borough Landscape Character Assessment, Land Use 

Consultants and University of Sheffield (2002); 

Landscape Character and Capacity Assessment of Doncaster 

Borough, ECUS for Doncaster Metropolitan Council (2007); 

The Landscape Character of Derbyshire, Derbyshire County Council 

(2000); 

Nottinghamshire Landscape Guidelines, Nottinghamshire County 

Council (2003); and 

Peak District Landscape Character Assessment, Peak District National 

Park Authority (2008). 

6.145 At this point it is necessary to distinguish between two terms that are used 

throughout the section. They originate from the Guidelines for Landscape 

Character Assessment (Countryside Agency and SNH, (2002). 

Landscape Character Types (LCTs) are defined as tracts of 

landscape which have a generic unity of character due to the particular 

combinations of landform, land cover, pattern and elements. The same 

landscape character type can occur at several different locations 

throughout a study area; and 

77 



Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) are defined as discrete 

geographical areas of a particular landscape character type and can 

only occur at a single location. 

6.146 These can be drawn at national, regional, district or even smaller local 

scales. Within the study area only Joint Character Areas (JCAs) have 

been mapped. 

6.147 A large part of the study area north and west of the site is classified as 

urban area and therefore not discussed in the published studies. 

REGIONAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS 

6.148 At a national level, the (former) Countryside Commission and English 

Nature have classified England into broadly homogenous landscape 

character areas referred to as Joint Character Areas (JCAs). The JCAs 

are described in eight volumes. 

6.149 Within the 20km study area there are six JCAs, which are listed below and 

shown in Figure 6.4. 

30 Southern Magnesian Limestone; 

37 Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe; 

38 Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield; 

39 Humberhead Levels; 

49 Sherwood; and 

50 Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower Derwent. 

6.150 The Penny Hill site falls within a single JCA, namely the „Nottinghamshire, 

Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfields‟, (JCA 38). 

6.151 The key characteristics of JCA 38 are summarised below although it 

should be noted that the JCA covers a large geographical area and some 

of these characteristics are not particularly evident within the site or its 

immediate surroundings. 

JCA 38 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, DERBYSHIRE & YORKSHIRE 

COALFIELD 

6.152 This JCA covers the site and much of the western half of the study area in 

a vertical band. 

6.153 Key characteristics of JCA 38 are as follows: 

78 



Widespread evidence of industrial activity including mine buildings, 

former spoil tips and iron and steel plants; 

Complex mix of built-up areas, industrial land, dereliction and farmed 

open country; 

Many areas affected by urban fringe pressures creating fragmented 

and downgraded landscapes; 

Substantial areas of intact agricultural land in both arable and pastoral 

use; 

Small, fragmented remnants of pre-industrial landscape and seminatural 

vegetation, including many areas of woodland, river valley 

habitats, subsidence flashes and other relict habitats; 

Ever-present urban influences from major cities, smaller industrial 

towns and mining villages; 

Widespread influence of transport routes, including canal, road (M1, 

M62) and rail, with ribbon developments emphasising the urban 

influence in the landscape; 

Rolling landforms with hills, escarpments and broad valleys; 

Local variation in landscape character reflecting variations in 

underlying geology; and 

Strong cultural identity arising from history of coal mining and other 

heavy industry. 

DISTRICT LEVEL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES/AREAS 

6.154 Unlike several of the neighbouring local authorities which lie within the 

20km study area Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council has not 

undertaken a district level landscape character assessment. Therefore 

there have been no more detailed studies of landscape character within 

the study area. 

SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE CHARACTER IMMEDIATELY 

SURROUNDING THE SITE 

6.155 The Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside (GOYH) Planning 

for Renewable Energy Targets in Yorkshire and Humber Final Report 

assessed the region for its sensitivity to wind farm development in general 

terms. 

6.156 As part of this study it commissioned independent landscape consultants 

to undertake a landscape capacity study for wind energy in the Yorkshire 

and Humber Region. The study used the JCAs identified by the (former) 

79 



Countryside Commission and English Nature and determined the 

sensitivity of landscape character within each JCA to wind energy 

development. 

6.157 The independent consultants determined that JCA 38 (Nottinghamshire, 

Derbyshire & Yorkshire Coalfields) had a low sensitivity to wind energy 

development as is illustrated on Map 2 of Volume 3 of the Report. 

6.158 This was determined by considering the sensitivity of the JCA against 

various physical and perceptual criteria. 

6.159 Out of the 24 JCAs represented within the Yorkshire and Humber region, it 

was determined that JCA 38 had the lowest sensitivity to wind energy 

development apart from JCA 42 (Lincolnshire Coast and Marshes). It 

should be noted that JCA 42 is not represented either within the 

Rotherham borough or within the 20km study area of the site and therefore 

JCA 38 has been independently determined to have the lowest sensitivity 

to wind energy in the study area. 

6.160 It is acknowledged that JCA 38 covers a wide area and extends beyond 

the limits of the Rotherham Borough. The fact that the site is within a 

Green Belt does not in itself increase the sensitivity of the landscape 

character immediately surrounding the landscape. The Green Belt has not 

been designated for its particularly sensitive landscape character and is 

not necessarily a reflection of landscape quality. The functions of Green 

Belt are set out in PPG 2 and are outlined within the Landscape Planning 

Policies and Designations earlier within this section. 

6.161 It is also acknowledged that the site falls within an Area of High Landscape 

Value as designated in the Rotherham UDP saved policies. Although 

Government policy guidance no longer favours the use of local landscape 

designations the fact that this tract of landscape has been designated as 

such in a soon to be replaced development plan is an indication that it is of 

slightly higher landscape quality than other areas within the district. 

6.162 It is important to note that the concept of „landscape quality‟, as historically 

used to designate the AHLVs in Rotherham, is not the same as the 

concept of „landscape sensitivity to a particular type of development‟. This 

difference is discussed at length in Topic Paper 6 to the Guidelines for 

Landscape Character Assessment, (2002) Countryside Agency and 

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). 

6.163 Essentially a landscape can be of high quality but of low sensitivity to a 

particular type of development. 

6.164 There is no published justification available to support the designation of 

the Ulley-Whiston area as an AHLV. However based on field observations 

undertaken as part of the assessment, it is noted that the landscape 

immediately surrounding the site has a strong field pattern with good 

vegetation cover in the form of mature hedgerows and tree groups which 

80 



would justify the conclusion that within the context of the Rotherham 

District the landscape is of relatively high quality. 

6.165 However it is noted that wind turbines in any rural location can be 

designed so as not to affect these positive characteristics of a landscape. 

It is therefore concluded that the landscape character of the site and 

immediately surrounding area is of no greater sensitivity to wind energy 

development than other areas within the JCA which are not designated as 

an AHLV. 

6.166 Essentially, the landscape can be considered to be pleasantly rural but on 

the fringes of the urban conurbations of South Yorkshire and the character 

is strongly influenced by the external human influences in the surrounding 

landscape. 

6.167 The site and surrounding area is therefore considered to be of medium 

sensitivity to wind energy development when considered in the national 

and regional context. 

SENSITIVITY OF SURROUNDING JOINT CHARACTER AREAS TO 

WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT BEYOND THE EXTENTS OF THEIR 

OWN BOUNDARY 

6.168 The sensitivity of surrounding JCAs to wind energy development beyond 

the extents of their own boundary has been established by extrapolating 

information from the relevant landscape character assessment, capacity 

studies and from observations in the field. 

6.169 Essentially, JCA 37 (Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe) and JCA 50 

(Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower Dewent) are considered to be of 

medium sensitivity to wind energy development beyond the extents of their 

own boundaries as a key constituent element of their landscape character 

is derived from the long distance views over the surrounding landscape. 

JCA 30 (Southern Magnesian Limestone), JCA 39 (Humberhead Levels) 

and JCA 49 (Sherwood) are considered to be of low sensitivity to wind 

energy development beyond the extents of their own boundaries as the 

landscape character experienced within these JCAs is influenced very little 

by elements in the distant landscape. 

6.170 Table 6.5 summarises the sensitivity of surrounding JCAs to wind energy 

development beyond the extents of their own boundary. 

81 



Table 6.5: Sensitivity of Surrounding Joint Character Areas to Wind 

Energy Development Beyond the Extents of their own Boundary 

Joint Character Area Sensitivity 

JCA 30 Southern Magnesian Limestone Low 

JCA 37 Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe Medium 

JCA 39 Humberhead Levels Low 

JCA 49 Sherwood Low 

JCA 50 Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower 

Derwent 

Medium 

BASELINE VISUAL RECEPTORS 

6.171 Due to the height of the proposed wind turbines and the irregular 

topography of the surrounding area, there is potential for the development 

to be visible at some considerable distance in several directions. However, 

at an early stage in the assessment, it was determined that there was little 

potential for the development to result in any significant visual effects at 

distances over 20km from the site. 

6.172 Interpretation of the ZTVs (Figures 6.6 and 6.7) indicates that sensitive 

visual receptors with potential views of the development are located within 

major towns, villages, at isolated properties, on trunk roads and minor 

roads, along routes used for recreational purposes and within designated 

locations. 

6.173 The magnitude of change in the view of experienced by visual receptors 

will to some extent be affected by distance from the site. Therefore, 

residential visual receptors have been identified below in bands of 

distance from the nearest turbine. It is however recognised that there 

would be views from individual properties and clusters of properties 

throughout the study area. 

6.174 The following bandings are measured from the centre of the development 

site. 

VILLAGES/HAMLETS WITHIN 1KM OF THE PENNY HILL SITE 

Ulley; 

Brampton-en-le-Morthen; and 

Morthen. 

82 



INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES AND SMALL CLUSTERS WITHIN 1KM OF 

THE PENNY HILL SITE 

Ulley Beeches; 

Brampton Villa; 

Brampton Gorse; 

The Ponds; 

Vessey Close Farm; 

Manor Farm; 

Lawns Farm; 

Double Acre; 

Wildfell; 

Old Wildfell; and 

Turnshaw Farm 

VILLAGES AND TOWNS WITHIN 5KM OF THE PENNY HILL SITE 

Upper Whiston; 

Moorgate; 

Whiston; 

Broom; 

Listerdale; 

Wickersley; 

Springvale; 

Morthen; 

Slade Hooton; 

Thurcroft; 

Brookhouse; 

Laughton en le Morthen; 

83 



Laughton Common; 

Todwick Grange; 

Todwick; 

Wales; 

Hardwick; 

Brampton Common; 

Aston; 

Swallownest; 

Aughton; 

Orgreave; and 

Treeton. 

TOWNS BETWEEN 5KM AND 10KM OF THE PENNY HILL SITE 

Bramley; 

Rotherham; 

Rawmarsh; 

Maltby; 

Dinnington; 

North Anston; 

South Anston; 

Harthill; 

Killamarsh; 

Norwood; 

Eckington; and 

Eastern Sheffield. 

84 



LARGE RESIDENTIAL AREAS BETWEEN 10KM AND 20KM OF THE 

PENNY HILL SITE 

Northern, western and southern Sheffield; 

Hoyland; 

Darfield; 

Swinton; 

Mexborough; 

Bolton on Dearne; 

Thurnscoe; 

Consibrough; 

North east Doncaster; 

Harworth and Bircotes; 

Worksop; 

Bolsover; 

Clowne; 

Staveley; and 

Chesterfield. 

RECREATIONAL WALKING/CYCLING ROUTES 

6.175 Public Rights of Way within and immediately surrounding the site 

boundary are illustrated in Drawing HJB/681/PA24. 

6.176 There is one National Cycle Network (NCN) route in close proximity to the 

site. NCN 6, which runs between the Lake District and London, passes to 

the west of the site as it runs between Upper Whiston and Aston. The 

route is approximately 350m away at its closest point as it runs along 

Turnshaw Road and forms part of the Trans Pennine Trail network of 

routes for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. 

6.177 Two long distance walking routes pass in close proximity to the site. The 

Trans Pennine Trail runs to the west of the site and at its closest point is 

800m away from the nearest turbine. 

85 



6.178 The Rotherham Roundwalk passes to the north of the site as it runs 

between Wickersley and Upper Whiston, and at its closest point, is 

approximately 1.5km away from the nearest turbine. 

6.179 Further long distance routes occur within 20km of the site including the 

Sheffield Country Walk, Robin Hood Way, Cuckoo Way, Dearne Way and 

Barnsley Boundary Walk. Long Distance Walking and Cycling Routes 

within 20km of the site are illustrated in Figure 6.8. 

6.180 Two Rotherham Borough „Doorstep Walks‟ occur within close proximity of 

the site. The Village Walk (no. 6) runs around the village of Ulley and 

westwards to Ulley reservoir and at one point runs along the western 

boundary of the site. 

6.181 The Farmland Trail (no. 7) takes a circular route eastwards from Ulley from 

which it passes through the centre of the site as it runs in a north south 

direction. 

6.182 A further public footpath, running south eastwards from the village of Ulley, 

passes across the site and a public footpath also occurs in the northwest 

of the site. Several other footpaths and a bridleway run along the site 

boundary. 

6.183 The Rotherham Borough Doorstep Walks and other public rights of way in 

the immediate vicinity of the site are illustrated on Figure 6.3. 

ROADS AND RAILWAYS 

6.184 The site is located immediately to the southwest of the M1 Junction 32 

where it connects with the M18 motorway. Junction 32 consists of a 

triangle shaped interchange between the two motorways with their 

associated connecting sliproads covering an area approximately 1km². 

6.185 From Junction 32 the two motorways run in three different directions. The 

M18 runs in a north easterly direction away from the site towards 

Doncaster. The M1 changes direction at Junction 32, running in a northsouth 

direction to the south of the junction and an east-west direction to 

the north. 

6.186 The nearest „A‟ road to the site is the A618 which runs in a north-south 

direction between Rotherham and Aughton. At its nearest point to the site, 

the road passes approximately 1.5km to the west of the nearest turbine. 

The A57, which runs between Sheffield and Worksop, passes 

approximately 1.4km to the south of the site at its closest point near 

Junction 31 of the M1. 

6.187 As is typical of rural areas throughout the region there is a network of 

minor roads surrounding the site. A single minor road runs eastwards out 

of Ulley village and passes through the centre of the site. This road (Penny 

Hill Lane) splits in two at the centre of the site. Brampton Lane runs in a 

86 



north easterly direction passing over the M1 and under the M18 towards 

Brampton en le Morthen. Penny Hill Lane continues south easterly and 

passes underneath the M1 towards Brampton Villa. 

6.188 The nearest railway to the site is the line which runs between Sheffield and 

Worksop which passes approximately 2.8km to the south. A further railway 

line also runs to the west of the site, passing approximately 3.5km away. 

IMPORTANT VANTAGE POINTS 

6.189 The only vantage point specifically identified on OS maps and within the 

20km study area of the site is at high ground in Shirecliffe, Sheffield, 12km 

to the west of the site. From this location there are panoramic southward 

and eastward views across the city of Sheffield and towards the site. 

6.190 The Peak District National Park begins 19km to the west of the site and 

extends westwards into Derbyshire. There are long distance views from 

the high ground in the east of the National Park across the city of Sheffield 

towards the site. 

HISTORIC AND TOURISM VIEWPOINTS 

6.191 The site is located approximately 1km to the east of Ulley Country Park, a 

popular tourist location which is centred on Ulley Reservoir. The country 

park includes large areas of woodland which obscure views towards the 

site from many of the walking routes around the park. The views from this 

location are discussed further in Assessment Viewpoint number 1. 

6.192 Rother Valley Country Park is located approximately 4km to the south of 

the site. However this is within a valley which is surrounded by mature tree 

belts and consequently there are no long distance views in the direction of 

the site. 

6.193 The remains of Roche Abbey and the grounds of Sandbeck Park, which 

together form a Registered Park and Garden, lie 7km to the east of the 

site. There is limited visibility from these historic locations towards the site 

due to screening by local topography and large amounts of vegetation 

which occur in the intervening landscape. 

ASSESSMENT VIEWPOINTS 

6.194 The desk studies, site visits and interpretation of the ZTVs helped to 

identify 20 viewpoints that were regarded to be representative of the range 

of views within the study area. They are not intended to cover every single 

view possible but to be representative of a range of receptor types (e.g. 

residents, walkers, road users etc) in addition to a range of distances from 

the site. These viewpoints were chosen in consultation with the Local 

Planning Authority. 

87 



6.195 Tables 6.6 identifies the viewpoints that were chosen and indicates which 

of the viewpoints are illustrated with wirelines or photomontages. The 

assessment viewpoints are illustrated in Figure 6.9. 

Viewpoint 

No. 

Table 6.6: Assessment Viewpoints 

Location OS 

Map 

Ref 

1 Ulley Country Park 45298 

87562 

2 Ulley Village 46627 

87414 

3 Ashton Cum Aughton 46643 

85442 

4 Aughton 45903 

86204 

5 Brampton en le Morthen 48520 

88062 

6 Upper Whiston 45939 

88929 

7 Bridge over M18 near 48960 

Thurcroft 

89538 

8 Bridge over M1 near 47330 

Wales Bar 

82915 

9 Laughton en le Morthen 51602 

88203 

10 South Anston 51183 

83187 

11 Worksop 58538 

81823 

12 Maltby 51862 

92547 

13 A631 Rotherham 46449 

91677 

14 A621 Houndkirk Moor 29546 

78160 

15 Shirecliffe, Sheffield 35007 

89686 

16 Wentworth Woodhouse 39995 

97374 

17 Conisbrough 49908 

97903 

18 A1 (M) junction at Blyth 62274 

88281 

19 Bolsover 49149 

71222 

20 B6056 west of Eckington 38586 

79296 

88 

Direction 

from the 

site 

Distance 

from the 

site (m) 

Photomontage or 

Wireframe 

Illustration 

West 1724 Photomontage 

West 412 Photomontage 

South 1325 Wireframe 

South 

west 

1090 Photomontage 

East 800 Wireframe 

North 

west 


North east 1576 Wireframe 


East 3607 Photomontage 

South 

East 


South 

east 

13403 Wireframe 


North 3187 Wireframe 

South 

west 


West 12092 Wireframe 

North 

west 



East 14412 Wireframe 


South 

west 




PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

6.196 A detailed description of the project is given in Section 2 (The Proposed 

Development). However, this section briefly summarises the details of the 

scheme which have particular relevance to the landscape and visual 

impact assessment. 

6.197 The proposed development primarily consists of six turbines, 

meteorological mast, control building, substation, construction compound 

and a network of inter linking access tracks between the turbines. The 

proposed layout of the scheme is illustrated in Drawing HJB/681/PA05 

6.198 The proposed turbines would typically be 80m to the hub and a maximum 

height of 132m to the tip of the blade when in its highest position. The 

concrete foundations of the turbine would be covered in top soil and 

seeded to match the surrounding land cover. All components of the turbine 

would be housed within the tower itself and there would therefore be no 

external unit adjacent to the towers. Each turbine requires its own 

transformer. An external transformer may be required depending upon the 

final choice of turbine. If required, the external transformer will typically sit 

on a concrete plinth, housed within a small kiosk which will be sited within 

the existing crane pad hard standing area and coloured appropriately for 

the background. Alternatively, the transformer may be internally housed 

within the turbine. 

6.199 The meteorological mast would be approximately 80m in height. This 

would be of a lattice construction and the foundations of the mast would 

also be covered with soil and seeded according to adjacent groundcover. 

6.200 The permanent control building would be approximately 12m by 10m and 

approximately 5.5m high. Details of an indicative control building are 

illustrated in Drawing HJB/681/PA13. The substation would be sited next 

to the control building and would be approximately 31m x 36.5m and about 

5.5m high. 

6.201 The only access into the site would be from Penny Hill Lane approximately 

100m west of the M1. From this location, access tracks would run north 

and south. This access point into the site would be widened to 

accommodate the swept path of abnormal load vehicles. South of Penny 

Hill Lane, the access track would run southwards towards Turbine 6 and 

the meteorological mast following existing field boundaries as far as 

possible. Two spurs would connect Turbines 4 and 5. North of Penny Hill 

Lane, the access track would service Turbine 3 before crossing over 

Brampton Lane and splitting to connect with Turbines 1 and 2. 

6.202 New access tracks between the turbines would be approximately 5m wide 

and be constructed of crushed stone/hardcore. The site compound during 

construction would be approximately 70m by 40m and include a site office, 

welfare facilities, lockable storage areas and parking for site personnel. 

89 



ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS 

EFFECTS ON EXISTING LANDSCAPE FEATURES 

6.203 A description of the main effects is given followed by a comment on the 

significance of the effect. All of the effects are direct in that they 

specifically affect a particular feature within the Penny Hill site. 

Construction Phase 

6.204 During the construction period there would be a temporary construction 

compound located just south of Penny Hill Lane adjacent to the main 

access into the site. This compound would be located on the discrete edge 

of a field. The compound would not require the removal of any existing 

landscape features. 

6.205 Therefore there would be no additional effect on landscape resources 

during the construction phase over and above those assessed as 

permanent under the heading of Operational Phase below. 

Operational Phase 

6.206 The turbines, meteorological mast, control building and substation are all 

proposed within open agricultural fields. Therefore, even allowing for a 

50m radius around each turbine for micro-siting, the new structures would 

not interfere with any of the existing hedgerows or trees on site. 

6.207 Access into the site would be from Penny Hill Lane. The widened turning 

would necessitate the removal of a short section of hedgerow on both 

sides of the road (approximately 20m on either side). The proposed 

alignment of access tracks within the site is illustrated in Drawing 

HJB/618/PA05. Where possible the alignment of the access track has 

been designed to avoid any unnecessary breaks in hedgerows. However, 

a small number of breaks in hedgerows would be required to 

accommodate the access tracks. The breaks within the site would be a 

maximum of 5m wide. 

6.208 The alignment of the access tracks can be microsited on site to avoid any 

removal of trees (either individual specimens or within hedgerows). This 

can be secured through a condition on the planning consent. 

6.209 Therefore there would be a low magnitude of change to several 

hedgerows which are of high landscape sensitivity. The magnitude of 

change would be minimal and result in no greater than a slight adverse 

effect. 

Decommissioning Phase 

6.210 There would be no additional effects on landscape resources during the 

decommissioning phase. 

90 



EFFECTS ON IMMEDIATE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 


6.211 It is recognised that there would be some additional effects during 

construction, over above those assessed as permanent effects under the 

heading of Operational Phase below, although the additional effects 

resulting from construction activities would be relatively incidental when 

viewed in the context of the turbines being erected. The effects on 

landscape character would increase incrementally as construction 

progresses and as more turbines are put into place. 

6.212 During the construction period, there would be earth movements 

associated with construction of the crane hard standing areas, the 

foundations for the turbines, the access tracks and underground cable 

routes. These activities would all result in soil disturbance. The impact on 

landscape character would arise therefore from the temporary stockpiling 

of soil, exposure of bare earth and the movement of construction vehicles. 

6.213 As the site is within an agricultural landscape, the exposure of bare soil 

and the movement of large vehicles in fields would not be entirely 

uncharacteristic although it is acknowledged that the scale of the 

movement would be slightly greater than on a typical farm. 

6.214 There would also be a temporary increase in personnel on site and a 

temporary construction compound just south of Penny Hill Lane. Topsoil 

would be stripped from the compound area and used to create mounds 

around the east, south and west sides to provide some screening of 

activities within the compound. 

6.215 The compound is proposed adjacent to an existing mature hedgerow so 

that it is partially screened by vegetation and therefore would have a 

limited influence on the landscape character of the surrounding area. 

6.216 The fenced compound consisting of cabins, car parking bays and lay down 

areas would result in a low magnitude of change and a temporary effect on 

the immediately surrounding landscape. It should be noted that, the 

temporary site cabins would not be entirely out of character as metallic 

sheds and barns are a common feature of many of the farms in the 

surrounding area. 

6.217 There would be cranes involved in the erection of the turbines but these 

would have less of an impact on the landscape than the turbines being 

erected. 

6.218 Overall, it is considered that there would be no more than a low magnitude 

of additional change during construction and therefore there would be only 

a slight effect on landscape character. The construction effects would be 

temporary in nature (scheduled to take approximately 10 months) and are 

unlikely to all occur at the same time during the construction phase. 

91 




6.219 As discussed above, there would be no significant effects on any existing 

landscape features. The primary impact on the landscape character of the 

immediately surrounding area would therefore arise from the introduction 

of six wind turbines, an meteorological mast, a control building, substation 

and access tracks within the site. 

6.220 The development has been designed to lie at grade with the existing 

ground levels across the site. In this regard the Penny Hill turbines would 

not affect the landform of the surrounding landscape. 

6.221 Hedgerow removal would be limited to a very small number of breaks to 

accommodate access tracks. In the context of all the hedgerows in the 

surrounding agricultural landscape, these few breaks would be barely 

perceptible. Many of the hedgerows in the landscape have breaks in them 

where there are field access points and therefore there would be a low 

magnitude of change on field patterns and vegetation structure. 

6.222 Access tracks would be similar in width to typical farmland tracks which 

run across many of the fields in the surrounding landscape. 

6.223 The control building and substation would be located in a relatively 

discrete location behind mature hedgerows south of Brampton Lane. 

Additional mitigation planting would be planted around the southern and 

western sides of the control building to provide further screening. In this 

position, the control building and substation would be partially screened 

and softened by the established vegetation. The control building would be 

clad in local vernacular materials to assist with integrating it into the 

landscape. It would therefore not look out of place compared with 

agricultural buildings scattered throughout this landscape. 

6.224 The turbines would appear as tall structures in this gently rolling landscape 

which currently has an agricultural land cover. The height of the turbines 

would be greater than other vertical structures in the immediate area 

although there is notable precedent for manmade vertical features in the 

landscape including overhead electricity pylons, telecommunications 

masts and gantries on the M1 and M18. The movement of the turbine 

blades would also be evident in the surrounding landscape. However, 

there is already considerable movement in the landscape, notably along 

the M1 and M18 motorways and along the other minor roads in the vicinity 

of the site. 

6.225 Although the turbines would be large in size, the baseline landscape is 

also relatively large in scale. The design of the turbines would fit the 

landscape relatively well. Their structural form would be simple and with 

clean straight lines which would fit well with the gently rolling landscape. 

6.226 The turbines would evidently be manmade structures. Although the 

landscape is predominantly agricultural, there is considerable evidence of 

92 



human activity and therefore the development would not be introducing 

manmade features into a wild or untouched landscape. The spacing of the 

turbines would be such that they would not be too closely clustered and 

the overall layout would be a well-balanced composition. 

6.227 The turbines would therefore attract attention but would not prevent 

appreciation and visual comprehension of the underlying and surrounding 

landscape. There would be no impact on historic landscape field patterns 

which would remain intact below the turbines. 

6.228 It is therefore considered that the turbines would have a medium 

magnitude of impact on the immediate landscape but that this would not 

necessarily be detrimental to the character of it. 

6.229 As the immediate landscape has been assessed as being of medium 

sensitivity, overall it is considered that there would be a moderate effect 

on the character of the landscape immediately surrounding the site. 


6.230 The effect of the wind farm on landscape character would decrease 

incrementally as turbines are removed. The additional effects of 

decommissioning activities would be relatively incidental to the turbines 

being taken down. The impacts on landscape character would be the 

same as during the construction period but in reverse. 

6.231 Overall, it is considered that there would be no more than a low magnitude 

of change during decommissioning and therefore there would be only a 

slight effect on landscape character. 

6.232 Once decommissioned the site would be returned to agricultural use. 

Access tracks would be removed unless required for ongoing agricultural 

activities. The concrete foundations of the turbines would be broken up 

and removed or left in situ, covered with topsoil and reinstated with 

vegetation. All ancilliary structures such as the control building and 

substation would be removed and the ground restored. Therefore there 

would remain only a slight residual effect on landscape character. 

EFFECTS ON SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS 

6.233 The effects on the wider landscape character are assessed using the 

National Joint Character Areas identified in the Character Assessment of 

England produced by the (former) Countryside Commission and English 

Nature. 

6.234 The magnitude of change to the landscape character in each national 

character area as a result of the Penny Hill development has been 

determined using professional judgement based on the following factors: 

The percentage of the overall character area from where the Penny Hill 

site would be theoretically visible; 

93 



The distance between the character area and the Penny Hill site; 

The likely prominence of the turbines in the view; and 

The extent to which the sense of scale, remoteness, visual 

composition, pattern and landform would be affected by views of the 

turbines in the distance. 


6.235 Beyond the immediate surroundings of the site boundary, none of the 

construction works at ground level would be visible. Therefore the only 

additional effect over and above those assessed as permanent under the 

heading of Operational Phase below, would arise for a short duration when 

the cranes are erecting the turbines. This would only be evident for a few 

days and in the context of the turbines being erected, they would be barely 

perceptible. 

6.236 Therefore, there would be no additional effects on landscape character 

in the wider landscape during the construction phase above and above 

those assessed as permanent under the heading of Operational Phase 

below,. 


JCA 30 - Southern Magnesian Limestone 

6.237 This JCA lies approximately 2.5km east of the site at its nearest point. The 

ZTV suggests that the turbines would be visible to a greater or lesser 

extent from approximately half of this character area although in reality, 

once vegetation and buildings are taken into account, the actual visibility of 

the turbines would be considerably less than is suggested on the ZTV. 

6.238 The addition of the turbines onto the horizon at least 2.5km away, when 

experienced from within this character area, would be not be prominent 

and would be relatively incidental to other much closer and more 

prominent built structures in the landscape. When experienced from 

elevated positions within the character area, the turbines would result in no 

greater than a low magnitude of change to the sense of landscape 

character. Therefore there would be no greater than a slight effect on 

landscape character within this character area. 

JCA 37 - Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe 

6.239 This JCA is at least 15km from the site. The ZTV suggests that the 

turbines would be visible from approximately one quarter of the character 

area although, in reality, much of the area covered by the ZTV is within the 

built up suburbs of Sheffield from where the turbines would be screened 

by intervening buildings in Sheffield. 

94 



6.240 Where there are unobstructed glimpses of the turbines, the view would be 

across a landscape which includes the urban centre of Sheffield and which 

is punctuated by significant evidence of human activity such as industrial 

development, motorways and overhead power lines. At this distance, the 

turbines would be barely perceptible resulting in no change to landscape 

character. Therefore there would be no effect on landscape character 

within this character area. 

JCA 38 - Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield 

6.241 The Penny Hill site lies within this JCA which also extends over 20km to 

the north and south of the site and 15km to the west. The effects on 

landscape character in the immediate vicinity of the site are discussed 

above. 

6.242 The ZTV suggests that the turbines would be visible from approximately 

half of the character area although, in reality, much of the area covered by 

the ZTV is within the built up area such as Sheffield and Rotherham from 

where the turbines would be screened by intervening buildings. 

6.243 Beyond approximately 2km from the nearest turbine, and where visible, 

the turbines would be experienced as distant structures and would be 

incidental to other much closer and more prominent built structures in the 

landscape. The published description of this JCA states that there are 

„ever-present urban influences from major cities, smaller industrial towns 

and mining villages‟; there is „widespread evidence of industrial activity 

including mine buildings, former spoil tips and iron and steel plants‟ and 

that the ‟widespread influence of transport routes, including canal, road 

(M1, M62) and rail, with ribbon developments emphasises the urban 

influence in the landscape‟. As such, when experienced from distant 

elevated positions within the character area, the turbines would be just one 

of many built structures visible and therefore result in no greater than a low 

magnitude of change to landscape character. 

6.244 Therefore, although it has been determined that there would be a 

moderate effect on the immediate landscape character surrounding the 

site, when considered as a whole, there would be no greater than a slight 

effect on landscape character on the Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and 

Yorkshire Coalfield character area. 

JCA 39 - Humberhead Levels 

6.245 This character area is at least 12km from the site. The ZTV suggests that 

the turbines would be visible from most of the character area although, in 

reality, vegetation and built structures would obscure them from most of 

the area highlighted on the ZTV. Where there are unobstructed glimpses 

of the turbines, the view would be across a landscape which includes the 

urban centres of Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield in the same angle of 

view as the site and is punctuated by significant evidence of human 

activity such as towns, motorways and overhead power lines. At this 

95 



distance, the turbines would be barely perceptible resulting in no change 

to landscape character. Therefore there would be no effect on landscape 

character within this character area. 

JCA 49 – Sherwood 


the turbines would be visible from approximately half of the character area 

although, in reality, vegetation and built structures would obscure them 

from much of the area highlighted on the ZTV. This includes in particular 

large areas of Sherwood Forest, from which the character area derives its 

name, and the town of Worksop. 

6.247 From the relatively few locations where there are unobstructed glimpses of 

the turbines, the view would be across a landscape which includes several 

towns and is punctuated by significant evidence of human activity such as 

motorways and overhead power lines. At this distance, the turbines would 

be barely perceptible resulting in no change to landscape character. 

Therefore there would be no effect on landscape character within this 

character area. 

JCA 50 - Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower Derwent 


the turbines would be visible from just a few places within this character 

area. Where there are unobstructed distant glimpses of the turbines, the 

city of Sheffield would lie between the character area and the site. At this 

distance, the turbines would be barely perceptible resulting in no change 

to landscape character. Therefore there would be no effect on landscape 

character within this character area. 

Table 6.7: Significance of Effects on National Landscape Character 

Areas within 20km of the site 

JCA 

Number 

National Character Area Significance 

of Effect 

30 Southern Magnesian Limestone slight effect 

37 Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe no effect 

38 Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield slight effect 

39 Humberhead Levels no effect 

49 Sherwood no effect 

50 Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower Derwent. no effect 



decommissioning works at ground level would be visible. Therefore the 

only additional effect would arise for a short duration when the cranes are 

taking down the turbines. This would only be evident for a few days and in 

96 



the context of the turbines being removed, they would be barely 

perceptible. 

6.250 Therefore, there would be no additional effect on landscape character in 

the wider landscape during the de-commissioning phase over and above 

those assessed as permanent under the heading of Operational Phase. 

EFFECTS ON LANDSCAPE DESIGNATIONS 


6.251 There would be no additional effect on landscape designations during 

the construction phase over and above those assessed as permanent 

under the heading of Operational Phase below. 


6.252 There are no national or regional landscape designations covering the site 

and therefore there would be no direct impact on any such designated 

landscapes. 

6.253 There is one national landscape designation just within the study area, 

namely the Peak District National Park, which at its closest point is located 

approximately 19km to the west of the site. Where there are unobstructed 

glimpses of the turbines from the eastern edge of the National Park, the 

view towards the site would be across the city of Sheffield with its 

extensive coverage of built structures. The view would be punctuated by 

significant evidence of human activity such as industrial development, 

motorways and overhead power lines. At this distance, the turbines would 

be barely perceptible in the landscape and therefore there would be no 

effect on the Peak District National Park. 

6.254 The site lies within the South Yorkshire Green Belt. It is acknowledged that 

the turbines would have a minor impact on the openness of the Green Belt 

in that the structures would all occupy land that has not previously been 

built upon. However this loss of openness is extremely modest in scale. 

The areas to be built upon are very small in size and have to be seen in 

the context of a large uninterrupted expanse of open agricultural land. 

Nevertheless there would be some loss in openness and, as such when 

assessed against paragraph 3.12 of PPG2, the wind farm would be 

„inappropriate development‟. 

6.255 The turbines would represent an encroachment of development into the 

countryside, one of the purposes for including land within a Green Belt. 

However this needs to be tempered by the requirement for wind turbines 

to be located within open areas well away from tall buildings and features 

which may impede or divert the flow of wind. It is also noted that the 

eastern boundary of the site is defined by the M1 motorway and as such 

this is a much greater encroachment into the countryside. 

97 



6.256 Therefore, it is considered that there would be no greater than a slight 

effect on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes for which it was 

designated. 

6.257 The site also lies within the Ulley-Whiston Area of High Landscape Value 

(AHLV). As previously discussed, local landscape designations are no 

longer favoured by Government, especially with regards to restricting 

otherwise sustainable development such as wind turbines. The AHLVs in 

Rotherham were originally designated on the basis of their high landscape 

„quality‟. There is no published justification available to support the 

designation of the Ulley-Whiston area as an AHLV. However based on 

field observations undertaken as part of the assessment, it is noted that 

the landscape immediately surrounding the site has a strong field pattern 

with good vegetation cover in the form of mature hedgerows and tree 

groups which would justify the conclusion that within the context of the 

Rotherham District the landscape is of relatively high quality. It has been 

assessed that there would be no greater than a slight effect on the 

underlying structure and pattern of the landscape or on the hedgerows 

within the site. Therefore the quality of the underlying landscape would not 

be compromised by the development. 

6.258 There would be no direct effects on any listed buildings, Scheduled 

Ancient Monuments or sites listed on the register of historic gardens and 

designed landscapes. Effects on the setting of listed buildings, Scheduled 

Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas are discussed in the 

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage section of this ES. 

6.259 There are several registered parks and gardens within the 20km study 

area of the site and the ZTV indicates that the turbines would theoretically 

be visible from several of these gardens. However, none of these parks 

and gardens are located within 5km of the site and therefore, even where 

visible from any of these landscapes, the turbines would not be prominent 

in the view and would in any case be visible in the context of other urban 

structure or features. Therefore there would be no effect on the setting of 

any registered parks and gardens. Other potential effects on registered 

parks and gardens are discussed in the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 

section of this ES. 


6.260 There would be no additional effect on landscape designations during 

the decommissioning phase over and above those assessed as 

permanent under the heading of Operational Phase. 

EFFECTS ON REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSMENT VIEWPOINTS 

6.261 For each of the representative viewpoints a short description is given of 

the baseline view followed by a description of the features of the 

development, which would be visible from that viewpoint. This includes a 

description of how many turbine hubs and blades would be visible. For 

98 



each viewpoint there is a comment on how vegetation, buildings or 

topography would affect the actual visibility of the turbines. A comment on 

the significance of visual impacts is given for each viewpoint. Any potential 

cumulative effects are also discussed for each viewpoint. 

6.262 A summary of the sensitivity of the viewpoint, magnitude of change in the 

view and significance of effect is given in Table 6.8. Where a viewpoint is 

representative of more than one type of visual receptor, the significance 

rating carried forward to Table 6.8 is the rating that represents the most 

sensitive receptor group represented by the viewpoint. 

VIEWPOINT 1 ULLEY COUNTRY PARK 

Nature and Sensitivity of Baseline View 

6.263 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by visitors to Ulley 

Country Park as they look towards the eastern end of Ulley Reservoir, 

either whilst walking around the western edge of the reservoir or whilst 

using the western part of the reservoir for water sports. 

6.264 It should be noted that there is a considerable amount of vegetation along 

the south western edge of the reservoir which restricts views across the 

water from the visitor centre itself or the main car park. Vegetation along 

the south western side of the reservoir also filters the view from the 

footpath which runs around this part of the lake. 

6.265 The footpath around the reservoir crosses over a dam on the north west 

edge of the reservoir. At this point, the footpath is elevated above the 

water and there are unrestricted views directly down the reservoir in the 

direction of the site. During the period when this assessment was being 

completed, this section of the footpath was inaccessible due to restoration 

works being carried out on the dam however it was possible to get close to 

the footpath at both ends which enabled an appreciation of the view from 

this section of the path. 

6.266 From the western part of the reservoir and the footpath which runs around 

it, the view only extends as far as a hill which rises sharply towards Ulley 

village just beyond the eastern end of the reservoir. This area of higher 

ground is covered with deciduous woodland and arable farmland, and 

restricts the view further east so that the site is currently not visible. 

6.267 The photograph presented in Figure 6.10 was taken from the western 

corner of the lake, at the water‟s edge, near to the visitor‟s centre. The 

viewpoint is approximately 1.7km to the west of the site. 

6.268 Due to the importance of this viewpoint for recreation and the number of 

public footpaths passing through the Country Park the viewpoint is 

considered to be of high sensitivity to a change in the view. 

99 



Nature and Magnitude of Construction Impacts 

6.269 From this viewpoint neither the construction compound nor the works at 

ground level would be visible during the construction phase. The only 

additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent under the 

heading of Operational Phase below. would be a minor view of the cranes 

erecting the turbines but this would be for a relatively short time period. 

The cranes would be barely perceptible in the context of the site being 

constructed. Therefore there would be no additional impact on the view 

during construction. 

Significance of Construction Effects on View 

6.270 There would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during construction 

over and above those assessed as permanent under the heading of 

Operational Phase below. 

Nature and Magnitude of Operational Impacts 

6.271 From the western edge of Ulley Reservoir as represented by the 

photomontage in Figure 6.10, the rotating blade tips of all six turbines 

would be visible in an easterly direction. However, the turbines would be 

mainly screened by landform which rises steeply at the eastern end of the 

reservoir and vegetation in the intervening landscape. Therefore the hubs 

of only two turbines would be visible, namely the southernmost turbine and 

the third from southernmost turbine. 

6.272 It should be noted that views of the development as discussed above 

would only be possible from a relatively small part of Ulley Country Park, 

primarily from the point at which the footpath around the reservoir crosses 

over a dam on the north western edge of the reservoir and the western 

part of the reservoir itself. 

6.273 From the majority of the length of the paths around the reservoir there 

would be no view of the turbines. Notably there would be no views of the 

development from the path around the northern arm of the reservoir and 

no views from the southern path between the visitor centre and Ulley 

Lane. 

6.274 From the visitor centre and the main car park, there would be no view of 

the turbines due to vegetation along the south western edge of the 

reservoir which restricts views across the water. 

6.275 Where visible along the western edge of the reservoir, the blades of the 

nearest turbine would be approximately 2120m away. The very top of the 

meteorological mast would also be visible but the rising landform and 

vegetation between the site and the Country Park would obstruct any view 

of the access tracks, control building or the substation. 

100 



6.276 At this distance, where visible, the tips of the turbine blades would be 

visible but due to their relatively small number, good spacing and the fact 

that they would be largely screened by landform and vegetation, they 

would not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of the underlying 

and surrounding landscape. The turbine blades would be no more 

prominent than the existing pylons which are visible beyond the northern 

arm of the reservoir. 

6.277 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a medium 

magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no change in 

the view experienced from the majority of the Country Park for the reasons 

outlined above. 

Significance of Operational Effects on View 

6.278 Therefore there would be a moderate effect on the visual amenity of a 

small number of locations on the footpaths which run around the Country 

Park. However, there would be no effect on the visual amenity 

experienced within the majority of the Country Park, including the view 

from the visitor centre and main car park. 



decommissioning works at ground level would be visible. Therefore the 

only additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent 

would be when the cranes are taking down the turbines. This would only 

be evident for a few days and would be less prominent than the turbines 

being removed, 

6.280 Therefore, there would be no additional effect on visual amenity during 

the decommissioning phase over and above those assessed as 



6.281 From this viewpoint, none of the other wind farms would be visible and 

therefore there would be no additional cumulative effect on visual 

amenity. 

VIEWPOINT 2 ULLEY VILLAGE 


6.282 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by properties on 

the eastern edge of Ulley village which have east facing windows or 

gardens. It is also representative of views from the Trans Pennine Way, 

the Rotherham Roundwalk route and the National Cycle Network Route 6, 

all of which pass through the village. Rotherham Borough Doorstep Walks 

numbers 6 and 7 also run through the village and are also represented by 

this viewpoint. 

101 



6.283 It should be noted that a number of large farm buildings and mature trees 

at Turnshaw Farm and Ulley Hall Farm greatly restrict views towards the 

site from the western part of the village. Essentially only a small number of 

properties to the east of Turnshaw Road have views across the site and 

even these views are partially restricted by vegetation. 

6.284 The photograph presented in Figure 6.11 was taken from the junction 

between Turnshaw Road and a public right of way which runs eastwards 

from Turnshaw Farm towards Spring Wood. The viewpoint is on the Trans 

Pennine Way and National Cycle Route number 6. It is approximately 

800m west of the nearest turbine. 

6.285 The view towards the site from this location is across arable fields which 

are separated by mature hedgerows and small clusters of deciduous 

woodland. Several farm properties are visible in the view. In the mid 

distance, the M1, M18 and the junction between the two can be clearly 

seen cutting through the landscape with their associated traffic signs and 

moving vehicles. In the distance, pylons are also visible cutting across the 

landscape and on the horizon, the steeple of a church at Laughton en le 

Morthen is visible. 

6.286 Due to the residential nature of this viewpoint and the number of public 

footpaths in the area, the viewpoint is considered to be of high sensitivity 

to a change in the view. 


6.287 From this viewpoint the construction compound would be just visible 

although the temporary bund around it would screen the majority of 

activities taking place within it. Some temporary activities would be visible 

at the base of the turbine and there would also be a view of the cranes 


These temporary works would be noticeable but ultimately far less 

prominent that the turbines being erected. 

6.288 Therefore there would be a low magnitude of additional impact over and 

above those assessed as permanent under the heading of Operational 

Phase below on the view during construction. 


6.289 There would be a slight additional effect on the viewpoint during 

construction over and above those assessed as permanent under the 

heading of Operational Phase below. 


6.290 A visual representation of the predicted view from Ulley is presented in 

Figure 6.11. 

102 



6.291 From this viewpoint on the eastern edge of the village, the hubs and the 

blade tips of all six turbines would be visible in an easterly direction. The 

nearest turbine would be visible within agricultural land approximately 

800m away. The meteorological mast would also be visible and the access 

track and crane hard standing area adjacent to Turbine 4 would also be 

visible. There would also be a very slight glimpse of the control building. 

6.292 It should be noted that clear views of the development from ground floor 

windows would be limited to the properties on the eastern side of the 

village, specifically those along Turnshaw Road and on Penny Hill Lane. 

6.293 From the western part of the village, views towards the development would 

be greatly restricted by a number of large farm buildings and mature trees 

at Turnshaw Farm and Ulley Hall Farm. Buildings and mature trees at the 

eastern end of Main Street and at its junction with Penny Hill Lane would 

screen any view of the turbines from within Main Street itself. A detailed 

assessment of the visual effects on residential properties within Ulley is 

presented in Appendix 13.2. 

6.294 The clearest views of the development would be obtained from the 

„doorstep walks‟ which run eastwards out of Ulley along Penny Hill Lane 

and from the footpath in the vicinity of where the baseline photograph for 

this viewpoint has been taken. 

6.295 From this location the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the context of 

an established agricultural environment of gently undulating fields but also 

in the context of the M1 motorway which passes through the landscape. 

6.296 At this relatively close distance, where visible, the turbines would be 

prominent but would not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of 

the underlying and surrounding landscape. 

6.297 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a high 

magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no greater than 

a low magnitude of change in the view experienced from the majority of 

residential properties in the village for the reasons outlined above. 


6.298 Therefore there would be a substantial effect on the private visual 

amenity of 14 out of approximately 72 residential properties within the 

village of Ulley and on the footpaths which run around and through the 

village. However, there would be no greater than a slight effect on the 

visual amenity experienced within the main street of the village itself or by 

the majority of the properties west of Turnshaw Road. A detailed 

assessment of the visual effects on residential properties within Ulley is 


103 




6.299 The only additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent 

would be some temporary activities visible at the base of the turbine and a 

view of the cranes removing the turbines, but this would be for a relatively 

short time period. These temporary works would be noticeable but 

ultimately far less prominent that the turbines being removed. 

Therefore, there would be a slight additional effect on visual amenity 

during the decommissioning phase over and above those assessed as 



6.300 At this viewpoint the turbines at the AMRC and the windfarms at Hampole 

and Marr would not be visible. The turbines at Loscar would be just visible 

in the distance (approximately 8km away). At this distance they would not 

be prominent and would not increase the magnitude of change in the 

visual impact on Ulley Village. 

6.301 Therefore there would be no additional cumulative effect on the visual 

amenity experienced within the village. 

VIEWPOINT 3 ASTON CUM AUGHTON 


6.302 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by properties in 

the village of Aston cum Aughton which have north facing windows, 

gardens or elevated views in a northerly direction. 

6.303 It should be noted that properties in the northern part of the village restrict 

the availability of views towards the site from the remainder of the village. 

As such only a small number of properties on the northern side of the 

B6067 have uninterrupted views towards the site. 

6.304 There are only occasional glimpses towards the site from the B6067 as it 

passes through the village. These glimpsed views are experienced 

between gaps in the buildings which line the northern side of the road. 

6.305 Where uninterrupted views exist, the landscape north of the village can be 

seen to be rising to a hill east of Spring Wood at the top of which is a 

telecommunications mast. 

6.306 The photograph presented in Figure 6.12 was taken from the junction 

between the B6067 and one of the cul-de-sacs that extend off the northern 

side of the road, namely North Farm Court. The viewpoint is approximately 

1.3km to the south of the site. 

104 



6.307 Due to the residential nature of the viewpoint it is considered to be of high 

sensitivity to a change in the view. 


6.308 From this viewpoint the construction compound would not be visible. The 

works at ground level would also be screened during the construction 

phase. There would be a view of the cranes erecting the turbines but this 

would be for a relatively short time period. These temporary works would 

be incidental to the turbines being erected. 

6.309 Therefore there would be a low magnitude of impact on the view during 

construction. 


6.310 There would be a slight effect on the viewpoint during construction. 


6.311 A visual representation of the predicted view from Aston-cum-Aughton is 

presented in Figure 6.12. 

6.312 From this viewpoint, the hubs and the blade tips of all six turbines would 

be visible in a northerly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible on a 

raised area of agricultural land 1540m away. The meteorological mast 

would also be visible but vegetation would obstruct any view of the access 

tracks, the control building or the substation. 

6.313 Views of the development from the majority of the village would be 

restricted by properties and vegetation on the northern edge of the village, 

particularly properties on the northern side of the B6067. 

6.314 There would be occasional glimpsed views of the development from the 

B6067 as it passes through the village. These views would be experienced 

between gaps in the buildings which line the northern side of the road, 

such as the location where the baseline photograph for this viewpoint has 

been taken. 

6.315 The clearest view of the development would be obtained from a small 

number of properties on the northern side of the B6067 which would have 

uninterrupted views towards the site. From this location the Penny Hill 

turbines would be seen in the context of an established agricultural 

environment of gently undulating fields. A detailed assessment of the 

visual effects on residential properties within Aston-cum-Aughton is 


6.316 At this distance, where visible, the turbines would be prominent but would 

not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of the underlying and 


105 





a low magnitude of change in the view experienced from the majority of 

residential properties in the village for the reasons outlined above. 



amenity of 20 out of approximately 90 properties within Aston-cum- 

Aughton, primarily those properties on the northern edge of the village. 

However, there would be no greater than a slight effect on the visual 

amenity experienced within the majority of the village, including the view 

from the B6067. A detailed assessment of the visual effects on residential 

properties within Aston-cum-Aughton is presented in Appendix 13.2. 







6.320 Therefore, there would be a slight additional effect on visual amenity 





and Marr would not be visible. The turbines at Loscar would not be visible 

from any location within the village where the Penny Hill turbines would be 

visible. Where visible the Loscar turbines would be approximately 6km 

from Aston. At this distance they would not be prominent and would not 

increase the magnitude of change in the visual impact on Aston-cum- 

Aughton. 



VIEWPOINT 4 AUGHTON 



the eastern edge of Aughton village which have north easterly facing 

windows or gardens. It is also representative of views from the B6067 and 

from a children‟s recreation area immediately to the north of the road. 

106 



6.324 The view from the properties on the eastern edge of the village is across 

the B6067 along which regular vehicle movements are prominent. Beyond 

the road, and as viewed from the children‟s recreation area, the view is 

across an undulating arable landscape segregated by mature hedgerows 

and occasional tree groups. In the direction of the site, Spring Wood is 

prominent and at the top of a hill just to the west of this is a 

telecommunications mast. 

6.325 The village of Ulley is visible but partially obscured by vegetation. In the far 

distance the M1 and overhead electricity lines are visible. 

6.326 The photograph presented in Figure 6.13 was taken from the recreation 

area immediately to the north of the B6067 in Aughton, approximately 

1.6km to the southwest of the site. 

6.327 Due to the residential nature of this viewpoint and the children‟s recreation 

area, the viewpoint is considered to be of high sensitivity to a change in 

the view. 

Nature and Mmagnitude of Construction Impacts 

6.328 From this viewpoint the construction compound would not be visible and 

the works at ground level would be screened during the construction 

phase by intervening landform and vegetation. The cranes would be 

visible as they erect the turbines but these temporary works would be 

incidental to the turbines being erected. 

6.329 Therefore there would be a low magnitude of additional impact on the view 

during construction over and above those assessed as permanent under 

the heading of Operational Phase below. 


6.330 There would be a slight additional effect on the viewpoint during 


heading of Operational Phase below. 


6.331 A visual representation of the predicted view from the eastern edge of 

Aughton is presented in Figure 6.13. 

6.332 From this viewpoint, all six turbines would be visible in a north easterly 

direction. The nearest turbine would be visible on a raised area of 

agricultural land 1620m away. The meteorological mast would also be 

visible but the rising landform and vegetation would obstruct any view of 

the access tracks, control building or the substation. 

6.333 Views of the development from the majority of the village would be 

restricted by properties in the eastern part of the village, particularly those 

along the B6067. 

107 



6.334 From properties on the eastern edge of Aughton village views of the 

development would be possible, however these would be across the 

B6067 along which vehicle movements are commonplace. A detailed 

assessment of the visual effects on residential properties within Aughton is 


6.335 The clearest view of the development would be obtained from the 

children‟s recreation area immediately to the north of the B6067 from 

which there would be uninterrupted views towards the site. From this 

location the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the context of an 

established agricultural environment of gently undulating fields but also in 

the context of the M1 motorway and overhead electricity lines which are 

already visible in the distance. 

6.336 At this distance, where visible, the turbines would be prominent but not 

dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of the underlying and 




the view experienced from the majority of residential properties in the 

village for the reasons outlined above. 



amenity of approximately 137 properties within Aughton out of 

approximately the 1,889 properties within 2km of the site. These properties 

are all located on the eastern edge of Aughton. There would also be a 

substantial effect on views from the children‟s recreation area on the 

eastern side of the B6067. However, there would be no effect on the 

visual amenity experienced by properties west of the properties which 

border the B6067. A detailed assessment of the visual effects on 

residential properties within Aughton is presented in Appendix 13.2. 











6.341 Although the cumulative ZTVs suggest that the AMRC and Loscar sites 

would be visible at this location, in reality, due to intervening vegetation 

108 



and structures, none of the other cumulative sites would be visible from 




VIEWPOINT 5 BRAMPTON EN LE MORTHEN 


6.343 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced from properties 

on the western side of Brampton en le Morthen which have either westerly 

or south westerly facing windows or gardens. 

6.344 It should be noted that there are very few properties with uninterrupted 

views towards the site as views are restricted by a mature tree belt along 

the embankments of the M18 which passes directly to the west of the 

village. Where there are glimpses through this vegetation, fast moving 

vehicles can be seen on the raised M18 as it meets the M1. 

6.345 Farm buildings along the eastern side of Common Lane also restrict views 

from further west in the village. There are also very limited views from 

Brampton Road north of the village due to tall mature vegetation along the 

western side of the road. 

6.346 Views from the village of Thurcroft, slightly further north of Brampton en le 

Morthen, are restricted to a few properties on the western edge of the 

settlement. These properties are located on the eastern side of Brampton 

Road between Katherine Road in the south and Woodhouse Green in the 

north. These properties have views across Brampton Road and allotments 

on the opposite site of the road. Vehicles on the M18 are clearly visible 

and the site is visible beyond the motorway. 

6.347 The photograph presented in Figure 6.14 was taken from a small public 

seating area in the southern part of Brampton en le Morthen. At this 

location there are two public benches which are orientated away from the 

site. Behind them the vegetation has been kept low to enable views in a 

westerly direction where vehicles on the M18 are clearly visible. The 

viewpoint is approximately 700m to the east of the site. 




6.349 From this viewpoint the construction compound would not be visible as it 

would lie beyond the motorway embankment. Most of the works at ground 

level would also be screened during the construction phase. Views of the 

cranes erecting the turbines would be available but this would be for a 

relatively short time period and these temporary works would be incidental 

to the turbines being erected. 

109 



6.350 Therefore there would be a low magnitude of additional impact on the view 

during construction over and above those assessed as permanent under 

the heading of Operational Phase below. 


6.351 There would be a slight effect on the viewpoint during construction over 

and above those assessed as permanent under the heading of 

Operational Phase below. 


6.352 A visual representation of the predicted view from the western edge of 

Brampton en le Morthen is presented in Figure 6.14. 


be visible in a westerly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible 

beyond the M18 motorway, approximately 710m away. The top of the 

meteorological mast would also be visible but the embankment on which 

the motorway runs would obstruct any view of the access tracks, control 

building or the substation. 

6.354 From the majority of the village there would be no clear view of the 

development as views are heavily restricted by mature tree and vegetation 

on the embankments of the M18 which passes directly to the west of the 

village. Where there are glimpses through this vegetation, fast moving 

vehicles would be seen on the raised M18 and therefore the turbines 

would be no more prominent than the fast moving vehicles on the 

motorway. 

6.355 From further west in the village, views of the development would also be 

restricted by farm buildings along the eastern side of Common Lane. 

There would also be very limited views from Brampton Road north of the 

village due to tall mature vegetation along the western side of the road. 

6.356 Views from the village of Thurcroft, slightly further north of Brampton en le 

Morthen, would be restricted to a few properties on the western edge of 

the settlement, most notably the properties on the eastern side of 

Brampton Road between Katherine Road in the south and Woodhouse 

Green in the north. From these properties there would be views towards 

the development across Brampton Road, the allotments on the opposite 

side of the road and the M18 where vehicles would clearly be visible in 

front of the development. 

6.357 A detailed assessment of the visual effects on residential properties within 

Brampton-en-le-Morthen and within Thurcroft is presented in Appendix 

13.2. 

110 



6.358 The clearest view of the development would be obtained from the small 

public seating area in the southern part of Brampton en le Morthen in the 

vicinity of where the baseline photograph for this viewpoint was taken. At 

this location the vegetation has been kept low to enable views in a 

westerly direction which in effect only enables a view of the M18/M1 

junction. The Penny Hill turbines would therefore be seen beyond the 

moving traffic on the M18 slip road. 

6.359 At this relatively close distance, and where there are unobstructed views, 

the turbines would be highly prominent but their location beyond a busy 

motorway running on an embankment means that they would not 

dominate the view or interrupt any long distant views westwards. 


magnitude of change in the view. However there would be no view of the 

development from the majority of residential properties in the village for the 

reasons outlined above. 


6.361 Therefore there would be a moderate effect on the private visual amenity 

of a small number of properties on edge of the village and from the public 

seating area at the southern edge of the village. However, there would be 

no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity experienced within 

the village itself. A detailed assessment of the visual effects on residential 

properties within Brampton-en-le-Morthen and within Thurcroft is 
















111 





VIEWPOINT 6 UPPER WHISTON 


6.366 This viewpoint is representative of properties in Upper Whiston with south 

facing windows or gardens. It is also representative of the view 

experienced by users of the National Cycle Network Route 6 and walkers 

on the Trans Pennine Trail and Rotherham Roundwalk, as they look 

southwards whilst travelling along Morthern Lane. 

6.367 It should be noted that as walkers and cyclists travel along the National 

Cycle Network in this area, views towards the site are interrupted by 

roadside hedgerows and mature trees. 

6.368 The view from this location towards the site is across gently undulating 

open arable farmland with large field sizes and some hedgerows. There 

are some small clusters of deciduous woodland and a small number of 

isolated properties are visible. 

6.369 The photograph presented in Figure 6.15 was taken from Morthern Lane 

at its junction with Upper Whiston Lane, approximately 1km to the 

northwest of the site. 

6.370 As this viewpoint represents both residential properties, long distance 

walking routes and the National Cycle Network, it is considered to be of 

high sensitivity to a change in the view. 


6.371 From this viewpoint the construction compound would not be visible. Most 

of the works at ground level would also be screened during the 

construction phase. Some temporary activities would be just visible at the 

base of the nearest turbines and there would also be a view of the cranes 


These temporary works would be noticeable but ultimately far less 

prominent that the turbines being erected. Therefore there would be a low 

magnitude of additional impact on the view during construction. 


6.372 There would be a slight effect on the viewpoint during construction. 


6.373 A visual representation of the predicted view from the southern edge of 

Whiston is presented in Figure 6.15. 

112 




be visible in a south easterly direction. The nearest turbine would be 

visible on a raised area of agricultural land 1670m away. The 

meteorological mast would also be visible but vegetation would obstruct 

any view of the access tracks, control building or substation. 

6.375 A small cluster of properties in the south eastern corner of Upper Whiston 

and with south facing windows or gardens would have views of the 

development although these would be partially screened by vegetation. 

Properties set back behind the southern most properties would be 

screened by farm buildings and vegetation. A detailed assessment of the 

visual effects on residential properties within Upper Whiston is presented 

in Appendix 13.2. 

6.376 Views of the development would also be experienced by users of the 

National Cycle Network Route 6 and walkers on the Trans Pennine Trail 

and the Rotherham Roundwalk, as they look southwards whilst travelling 

along Morthern Lane. However, these views would be intermittently 

interrupted by roadside hedgerows and mature trees. 

6.377 The clearest view of the development would be obtained from the point on 

Morthern Lane in the vicinity of where the baseline photograph for this 

viewpoint has been taken. From this location the Penny Hill turbines would 

be seen in the context of an established agricultural environment of gently 

undulating fields. 

6.378 At this distance, where visible, the turbines would be prominent but would 

not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of the underlying and 




a low magnitude of change in the view experienced from most of the 

residential properties in Upper Whiston for the reasons outlined above. 



amenity of 1 property out of approximately 41 in Morthen and from a small 

section of the Trans Pennine Trail, Rotherham Roundwalk and National 

Cycle Network Route 6 in the vicinity of the viewpoint. However, there 

would be no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity 

experienced from the majority of properties in the village. A detailed 

assessment of the visual effects on residential properties within Upper 

Whiston is presented in Appendix 13.2. 

113 



















VIEWPOINT 7 BRIDGE OVER M18 NEAR THURCROFT 


6.385 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced by users of the 

M18 motorway as they drive southwards towards the site, just before the 

motorway joins with the M1 at Junction 18. 

6.386 North of this location, for some distance, the M18 runs either in a cutting or 

is enclosed by mature roadside vegetation such that there is a limited view 

in the direction of the site. Passing underneath the bridge on top of which 

the photograph was taken, the M18 emerges from the cutting and roadside 

vegetation enabling views south westwards across landscape beyond. 

6.387 The photograph presented in Figure 6.16 was taken from the bridge over 

which the B6060 passes, immediately to the north of the village of 

Thurcroft. It is approximately 1.5km to the northeast of the site. 

6.388 The view towards the site from this section is directly along the M18. 

Vehicle movements are therefore the dominant element in the view. Either 

side of the M18, there are arable fields and tree belts. 

6.389 As this view is experienced primarily by transient vehicle users, the 

viewpoint is considered to be of low sensitivity to change in the view. 

114 




6.390 From the majority of the M18, there would be no view of the construction 

compound or the works at ground level during the construction phase. The 

only additional impact would be a minor view of the cranes erecting the 

turbines but this would be for a relatively short time period. Therefore there 

would be no additional impact on the view during construction. 


6.391 There would be no effect on the viewpoint during construction. 


6.392 A visual representation of the predicted view from this location is 


6.393 Driving southwards on the M18, the ZTV suggests that the Penny Hill 

turbines would be visible from the entire length of the M18 between north 

of Junction 1 and the site. In reality, north of the point at which the 

baseline photograph is taken, the M18 runs either in a cutting or is 

enclosed by mature roadside vegetation for several kilometres such that 

there is a limited view in the direction of the site. 

6.394 South of the bridge where the B6060 crosses over the motorway the M18 

emerges from the cutting and roadside vegetation enabling views south 

westwards towards the development. At this point the turbines would be 

sufficiently distant so that they were not dominant features in the view 

although they would be prominent when looking straight ahead. 

6.395 As the M18 approaches Junction 32 where it joins with the M1, the 

turbines would appear to become gradually larger in the view. The turbines 

would therefore be prominent for a length of approximately 3km of the 

M18. However, assuming an average speed of 70 miles per hour, this 

section of the motorway would be passed within just over a minute. Along 

this section of the motorway, roadside vegetation would partly obscure the 

lower parts of the turbines. There would then be a brief moment, lasting 

only a few seconds, where the motorway is on embankment adjacent to 

the site which would enable an unobstructed view to the west across the 

site. 

6.396 The top of the meteorological mast would also just be visible but the 

access tracks, control building and substation would be screened by 

intervening vegetation. 

6.397 Where visible, the turbines would not detract notably from the visual 

amenity experienced by the transient receptors using the route. Although 

prominent for a short stretch of the motorway, in the context of the other 

numerous built structures visible whilst driving southwest along any length 

115 



of the M18, the turbines would result in a low magnitude of change in the 

views experienced by users of the motorway. 


6.398 It is therefore considered that the proposed development would result in 

no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity of the transient visual 

receptors using this route. 

















VIEWPOINT 8 BRIDGE OVER M1 NEAR WALES BAR 



M1 motorway as they drive northwards approaching Junction 32 where the 

motorway meets the M18. Views northwards towards the site are first 

gained from the M1 as it crosses over high land near Woodall Services. 

Between Woodall services and the point where the motorway passes the 

site, there are several locations along the M1 where there are 

uninterrupted views towards the site but there are also locations where 

views in the direction of the site are limited due to roadside vegetation 

along the motorway. 

6.404 The photograph presented in Figure 6.17 was taken from the overbridge 

where the B6059 passes over the M1 at Wales Bar, approximately 4km to 

the south of the site. 

116 



6.405 The view towards the site from this section is directly along the M1. 

Vehicle movements are therefore the dominant element in the view. Either 

side of the M1 there are arable fields and tree belts. 




6.407 From the majority of the M1, there would be no view of the construction 

compound or the works at ground level during the construction phase. The 

only additional impact over and above those assessed as permanent 

under the heading of Operational Phase would be a minor view of the 

cranes erecting the turbines but this would be for a relatively short time 

period. Therefore there would be no additional impact on the view during 

construction. 






6.410 Driving northwards on the M1, views of the development would first be 

gained as the motorway crosses over high land near Woodall Services. 

Between Woodall Services and the point where the baseline photograph 

was taken on the overbridge of the B6059 there are several locations 

along the M1 where there would be uninterrupted views towards the 

development. At this point however, the turbines would be sufficiently 

distant so that they would not be prominent in the view considering that 

there is a considerable amount of roadside infrastructure which would be 

far more prominent in the view along the motorway. 

6.411 Continuing northwards between this overbridge and the development there 

are also locations where there would be uninterrupted views towards the 

development. However, the majority of views in the direction of the 

development would be limited due to roadside vegetation along the 

motorway. As the M1 approaches the junction with the M18, the turbines 

would become gradually more prominent in the view. 

6.412 However, assuming an average speed of 70 miles per hour, this section of 

the motorway would be passed within just over a few minutes. Along this 

section of the motorway, roadside vegetation would obscure the lower 

parts of the turbines. There would then be a brief moment, lasting only a 

few seconds, where the motorway would be adjacent to the site which 

would enable an unobstructed view westwards across the site. 

117 



6.413 The top of the meteorological mast would also just be visible but the 

access tracks, control building and substation would be screened by 

intervening vegetation. 



prominent for a short stretch of the motorway approaching junction 32 of 

the M1, in the context of other numerous built structures visible whilst 

driving southwest along any length of the M1, the turbines would result in a 

low magnitude of change in the views experienced by users of the 

motorway. 




receptors using this route. 


6.416 From the majority of the M1, there would be no view of the works at 

ground level during the decommissioning phase. The only additional 

impact over and above those assessed as permanent under the heading 

of Operational Phase would be a minor view of the cranes removing the 

turbines. However this would be for a relatively short time period and 

would be less prominent that the turbines being removed. 

6.417 Therefore there would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during 

decommissioning over and above those assessed as permanent under the 

heading of Operational Phase. 








VIEWPOINT 9 LAUGHTON EN LE MORTHEN 



the west of Laughton en le Morthen which have west facing windows or 

gardens. It is also representative of the view from the Scheduled Ancient 

Monument immediately to the west of the village and the two public 

footpaths which run to the west of the village. 

118 



6.421 It should be noted that views from the majority of the residential area 

within the village towards the site are obscured by the raised area of 

ground in the western end of the village and is the site of the Castle Hill 

Scheduled Ancient Monument and which is also surrounded by mature 

vegetation. As such there are few properties within the village which have 

unrestricted views towards the site. 

6.422 The photograph presented in Figure 6.18 was taken from a public footpath 

immediately to the west of the village, approximately 3.7km to the east of 

the site. 

6.423 The view towards the site from this location is initially down the hillside 

across arable fields which are divided by mature hedgerows and small 

clusters of deciduous woodland. Several farm properties are visible in the 

view which also contains the built up area of Thurcroft and in the 

background the city of Sheffield. There is evidence of major infrastructure 

throughout the landscape including: railway lines, motorways and 

overhead electricity pylons. 

6.424 Due to the residential nature of the viewpoint and the presence of a 

Scheduled Ancient Monument and footpaths in the vicinity, the viewpoint is 





additional impact would be a minor view of the cranes erecting the turbines 

but this would be for a relatively short time period. The cranes would be 

barely perceptible in the context of the site being constructed. Therefore 

there would be no additional impact on the view during construction. 







be visible in an easterly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible on 

a lower lying area of agricultural land 3607m away. The meteorological 

mast would also be visible but vegetation would obstruct any view of the 

access tracks, control building or the substation. 

6.429 Views from the majority of the residential area within the village towards 

the development would be obscured by the raised area of ground in the 

western end of the village which is the site of the Castle Hill Scheduled 

Ancient Monument and which is also surrounded by mature vegetation. As 

119 



such the only properties within the village which have unrestricted views 

towards the site are those at the western end of Church Corner. 

6.430 The clearest view of the development would be obtained from the two 

public footpaths which run to the west of the village in the vicinity of where 

the baseline photograph for this viewpoint has been taken. From this 

location the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the context of an 

established agricultural environment of gently undulating fields but also in 

the context of the urban fringe of Sheffield which would be visible in the 

distance. 

6.431 At this distance, where visible, the turbines would be relatively prominent 

but would not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of the 

underlying and surrounding landscape. They would not obstruct the long 

distance views available towards the Peak District. 




village. 



of a small number of properties on the western edge of the village and 

from the footpaths which run around the western edge of the village. 

However, there would be no effect on the visual amenity experienced 

within the village itself. 


6.434 From this viewpoint the works at ground level would not be visible during 

the decommissioning phase. The only additional impact would be a minor 

view of the cranes removing the turbines but this would be for a relatively 

short time period. The cranes would be barely perceptible in the context of 

the turbines being removed. 





6.436 At this viewpoint the wind farms at Hampole and Marr would not be visible. 

The cumulative ZTVs suggest that the turbines at the AMRC would be 

visible but based on site visits, it is clear that they are screened by 

intervening vegetation and buildings. The turbines at Loscar would be just 

visible in the distance (approximately 8km away). At this distance they 

would not be prominent and would not increase the magnitude of change 

in the visual impact. 

120 





VIEWPOINT 10 SOUTH ANSTON 



the western edge of South Anston and which have northwest facing 

windows or gardens. It is also representative of the view experienced by 

users of the A57 as they drive north westwards between South Anston and 

Todwick, the B6059 between South Anston and Kiveton Park Station and 

the network of footpaths west of South Anston. It should be noted that 

properties on the western edge of South Anston obscure any view in the 

direction of the site from the village centre or further east along the A57. 

6.439 Where visibility is unobstructed, the view is across open undulating arable 

fields in which there are few hedgerows or mature trees. In the distance 

the A57 can be seen winding through the landscape and vehicles can be 

seen travelling along the M1. Lines of pylons are also visible in the 

distance. 

6.440 The photograph presented in Figure 6.19 was taken from the B6059 just 

south of South Anston, approximately 5km to the southeast of the site. 

6.441 Due to the residential nature of the viewpoint and the number of footpaths 

also represented by the viewpoint, it is considered to be of high sensitivity 

to a change in the view. 


6.442 At this distance neither the construction compound nor the works at 












be visible in a north westerly direction. The nearest turbine would be 

visible in an area of agricultural land 5.3km away. The meteorological mast 

121 



would also be visible but at this distance the control building, substation 

and access tracks would not. 

6.446 Views towards the development from the majority of the residential area 

within the village, and from the A57 to the east of the village, would be 

obscured by properties on the western edge of South Anston. As such 

there are few properties within the village which have unrestricted views 

towards the site. 

6.447 The clearest views of the development would be obtained from a small 

number of properties on the western edge of South Anston, the network of 

footpaths to the west of South Anston, users of the A57 as they drive north 

westwards between South Anston and Todwick, and the B6059 between 

South Anston and Kiveton Park Station in the vicinity of where the baseline 

photograph for this viewpoint was taken. From these locations the Penny 

Hill turbines would visible in the distance and be seen in the context of an 

agricultural landscape of gently undulating fields but throughout which 

there is clear evidence of urban development 

6.448 At this distance, the turbines would be visible but not prominent in the 

context of the wider panoramic views available across the landscape from 

this location. 

6.449 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a low 



village. 


6.450 Therefore there would be a slight effect on the private visual amenity of a 

small number of properties on the western edge of the village and from the 

footpaths which run around the western edge of the village. However, 

there would be no effect on the visual amenity experienced within the 

village itself. 










122 




6.453 At this viewpoint the turbines at the AMRC and the wind farms at Hampole 

and Marr would not be visible. The turbines at Loscar would not be visible 

from any location within the village where the Penny Hill turbines would 

also be visible. Where visible, the Penny Hill turbines would be over 5km 

from South Anston and not be prominent in the view. They would result in 

only a low magnitude of additional change to the baseline view. 

6.454 Therefore there would be no greater than a slight cumulative effect on 

the visual amenity experienced within the village. 

VIEWPOINT 11 WORKSOP 



the northern part of Worksop which have northwest facing windows or 

gardens. It should be noted that the location from which the photograph 

was taken is one of a very small number of locations in Worksop from 

which there are unobstructed long distance views in the direction of the 

site. The reason for this is that at this location in Worksop, the landform 

rises relatively steeply enabling an elevated view across the land to the 

west. The properties on this estate therefore have a north westerly aspect. 

6.456 The vast majority of residential properties within Worksop do not have any 

long distance views towards the site. Properties and vegetation within the 

urban extents of the settlement obstruct the view. Industrial buildings and 

mature vegetation belts obstruct the view from the entire length of the A57 

between the A1 and South Anston. 

6.457 The photograph presented in Figure 6.20 was taken on Eddison Road 

which leads into a residential estate immediately to the west of the A60 at 

the northernmost part of Worksop known as Gateford Hill. It is 

approximately 12km to the southeast of the site. The view from this 

location is shared with residents on the estate, and is particularly 

representative of the view from first floor windows of these houses. The 

view in the direction of the site is across the residential estate in the 

foreground. In the far distance, on the horizon, the high ground which 

forms the site is visible. 




6.459 From this viewpoint, none of the construction activities would be visible. 

Therefore there would be no additional impact on the view during 

construction. 

123 








6.462 From this viewpoint, there would be only the slightest glimpse of a few 

blade tips on the horizon in a far north westerly direction. Landform and 

woodland in the intervening landscape would screen the towers of the 

turbines and all but the very tips of the turbine blades. The nearest turbine 

would be visible over 12km away. The meteorological mast, access tracks, 

substation and the control building would not be visible. 

6.463 The vast majority of residential properties within Worksop would not have 

any views of the development as other properties and vegetation within 

the urban extents of the settlement obstruct the view. Views of the 

development from the entire length of the A57 between the A1 and South 

Anston would be obstructed by industrial buildings and mature woodland. 

The only views of the development would be obtained from the Gateford 

Hill residential estate, immediately to the west of the A60 at the 

northernmost part of Worksop. Although, theoretically the turbines would 

just be visible, they would be barely perceptible on the horizon, and in the 

context of the existing environment they would not form a prominent 

feature in the view. 

6.464 The development would result in no change in the baseline view. 



no effect on the visual amenity experienced from within Worksop. 


6.466 From this viewpoint none of the decommissioning works would be visible. 

Therefore there would be no effect on the viewpoint during 

decommissioning. 


6.467 As the Penny Hill turbines would result in no effect on this viewpoint, there 

can be no additional cumulative effects. 

124 



VIEWPOINT 12 MALTBY 



the western edge of Maltby and which have southwest facing windows or 

gardens. 

6.469 It should be noted that there are few properties within Maltby which have 

unobstructed views towards the site. The landform in the northern and 

eastern part of the town drops away from the high point where the 

photograph is taken from and properties in this part of the town are 

consequently orientated away from the site. 

6.470 Even within the western part of the town which does have a north westerly 

aspect towards the site, vegetation in gardens and the dense network of 

residential streets typically associated with an urban area greatly restricts 

long distance views in the direction of the site. 

6.471 The photograph presented in Figure 6.21 was taken from Addison Road (a 

residential distributor road) which links the A631 with the B6376. The 

photo is taken near the high point on the road near to its junction with Lilly 

Hall Road. It is approximately 6km to the northeast of the site. 

6.472 The view from this location towards the site is across the rooftops of 

properties in the south of Maltby and over the urban fringe landscape 

beyond. In the distance the undulating agricultural landscape is inter 

woven with industrial features such as overhead electricity lines, 

motorways and industrial units. The village of Carr is also visible on the 

side of Beacon Hill which rises in the mid distance and adjacent to which is 

a telecommunications mast. 












125 







be visible in a south westerly direction. The nearest turbine would be 

visible in an area of agricultural land some 6km away. The top of the 

meteorological mast would also just be visible but at this distance the 

access tracks, substation and the control building would not. 

6.478 Views towards the development from the majority of the residential area 

within the northern and eastern part of Maltby would be obscured by 

landform as land drops away from the point where the baseline 

photograph was taken from, and properties in the north and east of the 

town are consequently orientated away from the site. Even within the 

western part of the town which does have a north westerly aspect towards 

the site, views of the development would be greatly restricted by 

vegetation in gardens and the dense network of residential streets typically 

associated with an urban area. 

6.479 The clearest views of the development would be obtained from a small 

number of properties at the high point in the western edge of Maltby in the 

vicinity of where the baseline photograph for this viewpoint has been 

taken. From these locations the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the 

context of a mixed landscape containing established agricultural gently 

undulating fields and also industrial features such as overhead electricity 

lines, motorways and industrial units. At this distance, where visible, the 

turbines would not be prominent in the wider panoramic view available 

from this location. 

6.480 Where there are clear views of the development, there would be a low 

magnitude of change in the view. However, there would be no change in 

the view experienced from the majority of residential properties in Maltby. 


6.481 Therefore there would be a slight effect on the private visual amenity of a 

small number of properties in the western edge of Maltby. However, there 

would be no effect on the visual amenity experienced from the majority of 

Maltby. 







126 








and Marr would not be visible. The turbines at Loscar would be just visible 

in the distance (approximately 12km away). At this distance they would not 

be prominent and would not increase the magnitude of change in the 

visual impact. 



VIEWPOINT 13 A631 ROTHERHAM 



the southern part of Rotherham specifically the residential areas of 

Whiston, Moorgate, Wickersley and Listerdale. It is also representative of 

the views from the footpaths and the golf club which lie between the M1 

and the A631 which runs around the southern part of Rotherham. 

6.487 It should be noted that the majority of the properties in Rotherham have no 

view in the direction of the site. A ridge in the landform just north of the 

A631 restricts any view in a southerly direction from much of the town. In 

particular there are no views from the town centre in the direction of the 

site. Even from the residential areas south of the ridge, vegetation in 

gardens and the dense network of residential streets typically associated 

with an urban area greatly restricts long distance views in the direction of 

the site. Therefore views from residential areas are largely restricted to the 

properties directly overlooking the fields south of the urban area. 

6.488 The photograph presented in Figure 6.22 was taken from the southern 

side of the A631 adjacent to property number 60, Hollin Hill Farm. It is 

approximately 3km to the north of the site. The view from this location 

towards the site is across urban fringe mixed farmland which is divided by 

mature hedgerows, containing large trees and several small clusters of 

deciduous woodland. Several overhead power lines pass through the view 

in an east west direction in front of the site and the vehicles are visible on 

the M1. 



127 







but this would be for a relatively short time period. 

6.491 The cranes would be barely perceptible in the context of the site being 

constructed. Therefore there would be no additional impact on the view 

during construction. 







be visible in a southerly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible in 

an area of agricultural land 3.6km away. The meteorological mast would 

also be visible but vegetation and landform would obstruct any view of the 

access tracks, substation or the control building. 

6.495 There would be no view of the development from the majority of the 

properties in Rotherham as a ridge in the landform just north of the A631 

restricts any view in a southerly direction from much of the town. Notably, 

there would be no views of the development from the town centre. Even 

from the residential areas south of the ridge, vegetation in gardens and the 

dense network of residential streets typically associated with an urban 

area would greatly restrict long distance views in the direction of the 

development. 

6.496 The only properties within Rotherham which would have clear views of the 

development would be those on the southern edge of the residential 

estates on the southern side of the A631, essentially properties which 

currently overlook the fields south of the urban area in the vicinity of where 

the baseline photograph for this viewpoint has been taken. 

6.497 From these locations the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the context 

of an urban fringe landscape of gently undulating fields and also features 

such as overhead electricity lines and the M1 motorway. 

6.498 At this distance, where there are unobstructed views of the development, 

the turbines would be relatively prominent but would not dominate the view 

or prevent an appreciation of the underlying and surrounding landscape. 

The small number and simple structure of the turbines would not clutter 

the landscape. 

128 





the view experienced from the majority of residential properties in 

Rotherham or from the town centre for the reasons outlined above. 



of a small number of properties in the southern edge of the town. 

However, there would be no effect on the visual amenity experienced 

within the majority of Rotherham. 











6.503 At this viewpoint the windfarms at Hampole and Marr would not be visible. 

The cumulative ZTVs suggest that the turbines at the AMRC would be 

visible but based on site visits, it is clear that they are screened by 


visible in the distance (approximately 12km away). At this distance they 

would not be prominent and would not increase the magnitude of change 

in the visual impact. 



VIEWPOINT 14 A621 HOUNDKIRK MOOR (PEAK DISTRICT) 


6.505 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced from the eastern 

edge of the Peak District National Park when looking eastwards and north 

eastwards in the direction of the site. It is also representative of the view 

experienced by users of the A621 as they drive north eastwards towards 

Sheffield and many scattered properties on the urban fringe of Sheffield. 

6.506 The photograph presented in Figure 6.23 was taken from the A621 near 

Owler Bar, inside the boundary of the Peak District National Park. It is 

approximately 19.5km to the southwest of the site. 

129 



6.507 The view towards the site from this location is across the urban fringe of 

Sheffield and the lower lying land beyond. In the foreground the view is of 

moorland and sheep grazing is common as within much of the Peak 

District. As the landform drops away, isolated farmsteads and individual 

properties become denser towards the outskirts of Sheffield. The city of 

Sheffield is prominent in the direction of the site and sprawls over several 

hills. Several tall buildings are visible in the city centre including the Arts 

Tower at Sheffield University, Hallam hospital and many new buildings 

which are popping up in the city centre. Beyond Sheffield the hills on which 

the Penny Hill site is located are visible. 

6.508 As this viewpoint is representative of the views from a National Park which 

is experienced by numerous tourists, it is considered to be of high 



6.509 At this distance, none of the construction impacts would be visible. 

Therefore there would be no impact on the view during construction. 






6.512 From this viewpoint, the hubs and blade tips of all six turbines would be 

just visible on the horizon in a far north easterly direction. The nearest 

turbine would be visible some 19.7km away beyond Sheffield. At this 

distance, the meteorological mast, access tracks, substation and the 

control building would not be visible. 

6.513 From any location within the Peak District National Park there would be no 

greater than a distant glimpse of the turbines. 

6.514 The clearest views of the development would be obtained from a very 

small number of locations on the National Park boundary and the A621 

near Owler Bar, in the vicinity of where the baseline photograph for this 


be seen in the context of the greater part of the urban area of Sheffield 

which is prominent in the middle distance. 

6.515 Although the turbines would be visible, they would be barely perceptible on 

the horizon of the view, and in the context of the existing urban 

environment they would not form a prominent feature in the view. 

6.516 The development would result in no change in the baseline view. 

130 





no effect on visual amenity experienced within the Peak District National 

Park. 








VIEWPOINT 15 SHIRECLIFFE, SHEFFIELD 


6.520 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced from elevated 

locations within the city of Sheffield. This includes residential properties on 

the hills within the city for example at Shirecliffe, Tapton, Fulwood and the 

Manor Estate. It is also representative of the view from the top of tall 

buildings within the city and public rights of way which cross over high 

points on the western edge of the city. 

6.521 It should be noted that Sheffield is a city of hills and valleys and that this 

complex landform prevents any view in the direction of the site from many 

locations within the city. Furthermore, vegetation in gardens and the dense 

network of residential streets typically associated with an urban area 

greatly restricts long distance views in the direction of the site. Therefore 

views from residential areas are largely restricted to the elevated 

properties with an eastern aspect. 

6.522 The photograph presented in Figure 6.24 was taken from the recreation 

ground at Shirecliffe just to the east of the Sheffield Ski Centre. It is 

approximately 12km to the west of the site. 

6.523 The long distance view from this location towards the site is across the 

city. In the foreground the view is across rooftops of residential properties 

as the land slopes downhill. In the middle distance, the industrial core of 

the Don Valley is visible with its many large industrial units. The site is 

visible on the rising area of mixed farmland beyond the city. 

6.524 As this viewpoint is representative of residential areas it is considered to 

be of high sensitivity to a change in the view. 

131 















6.528 From this viewpoint, all six turbines would be just visible on the horizon in 

an easterly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible in an area of 

agricultural land some 12.4km away. The top of the meteorological mast 

would also just be visible but the access tracks, substation and the control 

building would not. 

6.529 There would be no views of the development from the majority of Sheffield 

as the complex landform of hills and valleys in the city prevents several 

areas from having any view in the direction of the site. 

6.530 Views of the development from residential areas within the city would be 

largely restricted to properties in elevated locations with an easterly 

aspect. However, vegetation in gardens and the dense network of 

residential streets typically associated with an urban area would greatly 

restrict the number properties with a view and notably the ZTV greatly over 

exaggerates the extent of actual visibility within the city. 

6.531 In addition to properties in elevated positions such as at Shirecliffe, 

Tapton, Fulwood and the Manor Estate there are also a number of tower 

blocks within the city. From the upper floors of these buildings there would 

also be distant views across the city and of the turbines in the countryside 

beyond. 

6.532 The clearest views of the development would be obtained from the 

elevated recreation ground at Shirecliffe, just to the east of the Sheffield 

Ski Centre, in the vicinity of where the baseline photograph for this 


be seen beyond the urban limits of Sheffield. The view towards the 

development would be across industrial and residential areas and 

therefore the turbines, whilst visible, would not be as prominent as other 

modern structures in the intervening townscape. Although the turbines 

would be visible, they would not form a prominent feature in the view. 

132 



6.533 The development would result in a low magnitude of change in the 

baseline view. 



no effect on this viewpoint. 











6.537 The cumulative ZTVs suggest that the turbines at the AMRC would be 

visible as would the wind farms at Loscar, Hampole and Marr. However 

based on site visits, it is clear that the AMRC turbines are screened by 


visible in the distance (approximately 8km away) but the Hampole and 

Marr turbines would be barely perceptible as over 20km. At this distance, 

the Loscar turbines would not be prominent and would not increase the 

magnitude of change in the visual impact. 



VIEWPOINT 16 WENTWORTH WOODHOUSE 


6.539 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced from the grounds 

of Wentworth Woodhouse and by users of the public footpath which runs 

through the grounds of the house and forms part of the Rotherham 

Roundwalk and the Trans Pennine Route long distance footpath. The view 

from this location is also similar to the view experienced from the southern 

edge of some of the villages in the vicinity of the parkland. 

6.540 It should be noted that a mature woodland south east of Wentworth House 

obstructs any distant view in the direction of the site from the house itself 

and that it is only from the Deer Park where there is any view in the 

direction of the site. Similarly, mature vegetation to the south of Wentworth 

village prevents any view in the direction of the site. Within the Deer Park, 

there are many individual and clusters of mature trees which limit the 

133 



number of locations along the public footpath where there are 

uninterrupted views towards the site. 

6.541 The photograph presented in Figure 6.25 was taken from the public 

footpath which runs through the grounds of Wentworth Woodhouse at the 

point where the path kinks around the woodland south east of Wentworth 

House. It is approximately 11km to the northwest of the site. 

6.542 The view from this location towards the site is across the southern part of 

the Deer Park as the landform drops steeply towards Kenel Pond. This 

view is across a historic parkland estate surrounded by woodland shelter 

belts. In the distance the town of Rotherham is visible with its residential 

houses and industrial buildings some of which have pluming chimney 

stacks. The rising land on which the site is located is visible in the far 

distance beyond Rotherham. 

6.543 As this viewpoint is representative of a long distance public footpath 

running through an area of historic parkland it is considered to be of high 



6.544 From this viewpoint none of the construction impacts would be visible. 


construction. 






6.547 The ZTV and wireframe view for this location suggest that all six turbines 

would be just visible on the horizon in a south easterly direction. These 

suggest that the nearest turbine would be visible some 12km away. In 

reality the woodland structure around the edges of the parkland would 

almost entirely obscure the turbines from every location within the park. 

6.548 There would be no view of the development from Wentworth Woodhouse 

as mature woodland in the parkland to its southeast obstructs any long 

distant views. Similarly, mature vegetation to the south of Wentworth 

would also prevent any views of the development from the village. 

6.549 There would be a small number of locations within the Deer Park where 

there would be slight glimpses of the tips of the turbine blades, most 

notably at the location on the Rotherham Roundwalk and the Trans 

Pennine Trail from which the baseline photograph was taken. At this point 

134 



the tips would be barely perceptible above the moving branches of the 

trees. 

6.550 Where there are distant views of the development, there would be a low 


the view experienced from the majority of the Rotherham Roundwalk and 

the Trans Pennine Trail in this area or from the village of Wentworth and 

the Woodhouse for the reasons outlined above. 


6.551 Therefore there would be no greater than a slight effect on the visual 

amenity experienced by people visiting Wentworth Woodhouse or using 

the Rotherham Roundwalk and the Trans Pennine Trail through the Deer 

Park. 






6.553 At this viewpoint the wind turbines at the AMRC, Hampole and Marr would 

not be visible. The cumulative ZTVs suggest that the turbines at Loscar 

would be visible but in reality they would not be visible due to screening 

from woodland belts around the parkland. 



VIEWPOINT 17 CONISBROUGH 



the south western edge of Conisbrough and which have south west facing 

windows or gardens. 

6.556 It should be noted that properties on the south eastern edge of 

Conisbrough (bordering A630) are not within the ZTV of the site and have 

no long distance view of the site. Furthermore, vegetation in gardens and 

the dense network of residential streets typically associated with an urban 

area greatly restricts long distance views in the direction of the site from 

much of the remainder of Conisbrough. Essentially there are only long 

distance views towards the site from a small number of properties which 

back directly onto open fields east of the town. 

135 



6.557 The photograph presented in Figure 6.26 was taken from the end of 

Cypress Grove on the eastern edge of Conisbrough. It is approximately 

9.5km to the northeast of the site. 

6.558 The view from this location towards the site is across gently undulating 

arable farmland with gappy hedgerows and only a small number of mature 

trees. The site is visible in the far distance beyond an overhead electricity 

line and is partially obscured by the rising ground in the middle distance of 

the view. 

6.559 As this viewpoint is representative of a residential area it is considered to 

be of high sensitivity to a change in the view. 


6.560 From this viewpoint none of the construction impacts would be visible. 


construction. 


6.561 There would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during construction. 




6.563 From this viewpoint, the ZTV and wireframe suggest that the tips of all six 

turbines would just be visible on the horizon in a southerly direction, 

approximately 9.5km away. In reality vegetation on the horizon would 

effectively screen all but the very slightest glimpse of any turbine blades. 

At this distance and in the context of the wider panoramic views available 

from this location, the turbines would be barely perceptible. 

6.564 Therefore there would be no change in the view experienced from 

Conisbrough. 


6.565 There would be no effect on the visual amenity experienced from 

properties or footpaths in the vicinity of Conisbrough. 





136 






VIEWPOINT 18 A1(M) JUNCTION AT BLYTH 


6.568 This viewpoint is representative of the view intermittently experienced by 

users of the A1(M) whilst travelling north along the road between its 

junction with the A57 in the south and Tickhill in the north. It should be 

noted that views from much of this length of the A1(M) towards the site are 

restricted due to the road passing through cutting or due to roadside 

vegetation. 

6.569 The land to the west of the A1(M) is gently rising westwards and is well 

wooded which means that even in locations which are not in cutting or 

bordered by roadside vegetation, there are very few locations along the 

road which permit unobstructed long distance views towards the site. 

Therefore, although the ZTV suggests that the site is visible from a length 

of approximately 17km of the A1(M), in reality, clear distant views in the 

direction of the site are restricted to just a small number of very short 

lengths of the road. 

6.570 The photograph presented in Figure 6.27 was taken from the western 

edge of the A1(M) at the new Blyth roundabout. It is approximately 14km 

to the east of the site. 

6.571 The view towards the site from this location is a long distance view beyond 

a rising area of mixed farmland in the foreground which is divided by lines 

of fencing and some mature hedgerows. Several small areas of deciduous 

woodland are visible throughout the view. 




6.573 There would be no view of the construction compound or the works at 

ground level during the construction phase. The view of the cranes 

erecting the turbines would be barely perceptible and be for a relatively 

short time period. People using the A1(M) are used to road works and 

other construction activities and this will not detract from their visual 

amenity. Therefore there would be no additional impact on the view during 



137 




6.574 There would be no additional effect on the viewpoint during construction 

over and above those assessed as permanent under the heading of 

Operational Phase. 




6.576 Driving northwards on the A1/A1(M), the ZTV suggests that the Penny Hill 

turbines would be visible from the entire length of the A1/A1(M) between 

its junction with the A57 near Worksop and the point at which it passes the 

village of Tickhill. In reality, It should be noted that views of the 

development from much of this length of the A1/A1(M) would be restricted 

due to the road passing through cutting or due to roadside vegetation. 

6.577 The land to the west of the A1/A1(M) is gently rising westwards and is well 

wooded which means that in, even in locations which are not in cutting or 

bordered by roadside vegetation, there would be very few locations along 

the road which would have unobstructed long distance views of the 

development. Therefore, although the ZTV suggests that the site is visible 

from a length of approximately 17km of the A1/A1(M). In reality, glimpses 

of the turbines would be restricted to just a small number of very short 

lengths of the road. 

6.578 From the location where the viewpoint photograph was taken, woodland 

on the horizon would obstruct any view of the turbines. 

6.579 In the small number of locations where the development was visible, the 

turbines would not detract notably from the visual amenity experienced by 

the transient receptors using the route. In the context of other numerous 

built structures visible whilst driving northwards along any length of the 

A1/A1(M), the turbines would result in no change in the views experienced 

by users of the road. 










138 









VIEWPOINT 19 BOLSOVER 



B6417 as they drive northwards from Bolsover towards Clowne. It is also 

representative of the views from several individual properties and small 

villages to the north and northeast of Bolsover and properties on the 

northern edge of Bolsover. 

6.585 It should be noted that the majority of properties within Bolsover have a 

south westerly aspect and are orientated away from the site. Only the 

properties on the very northern edge of Bolsover have distant views in the 

direction of the site. It is also noted that there is a considerable amount of 

vegetation in the intervening land between the site and this location which 

greatly restricts long distance views. 

6.586 The photograph presented in Figure 6.28 was taken on the minor road 

which runs from the B6417 towards Whaley and is approximately 16km to 

the south of the site. The view towards the site from this location is a long 

distance view across arable fields which are divided by mature hedgerows 

and small clusters of deciduous woodland. Several farm properties are 

visible in the view as are a number of low voltage electricity transfer lines. 

6.587 As this viewpoint is representative of a number of residential areas it is 



6.588 At this distance, none of the construction activities would be visible. 


construction. 






139 



6.591 The ZTV and wireframe suggest that from this viewpoint, all six turbines 

would be just visible on the horizon in a northerly direction and the nearest 

turbine would be visible some 16.2km away. In reality vegetation in the 

intervening landscape would obstruct any view of the development from 

this location. This is considered to be typical of the view from this general 

vicinity. 

6.592 There would be no view of the development from the majority of properties 

within Bolsover as they have a south westerly aspect and would be 

orientated away from the site. Only the properties on the very northern 

edge of Bolsover would have any distant view of the development, 

however there is a considerable amount of vegetation in the intervening 

land between Bolsover and the site which would greatly restrict these long 

distance views. Therefore, these properties would only experience views 

from first floor windows. 

6.593 From these locations the distant Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the 

context of an established agricultural environment of gently undulating 

fields. The turbines would be barely perceptible and they would not form a 

prominent feature in the view. 

6.594 The development would result in no change to the baseline view. 











VIEWPOINT 20 B6056 WEST OF ECKINGTON 


6.598 This viewpoint is representative of the view experienced from a ridge 

which runs between Eckington and Dronfield and over which the B6056 

and several footpaths cross. A number of isolated properties are scattered 

across the ridge. 

6.599 It should be noted that the town of Dronfield is outside the ZTV of the site 

and in reality dense woodland the north of Eckington obstructs any long 

distance view in the direction of the site from this town also. 

140 



6.600 The photograph presented in Figure 6.29 was taken from the car park of a 

pub on the B6056 approximately 11km to the southwest of the site. 

6.601 The view from this ridge is across rolling farmland which drops away 

towards Sheffield. The farmland is interwoven with hedgerows and 

woodland belts. A number of farmsteads are visible in the mid distance 

and beyond this the urban fringe of Sheffield is visible. In the far distance 

the hills on which the site is located are visible. 

6.602 As this viewpoint is representative of a number of residential areas it is 














6.606 From this viewpoint, all six turbines would be just visible on the horizon in 

a far north easterly direction. The nearest turbine would be visible in an 

area of agricultural land some 11.5km away. The top of the meteorological 

mast would also just be visible but at this distance the access tracks, 

substation and the control building would not. 

6.607 There would be no view of the development from the town of Dronfield 

which is outside the ZTV of the site. Dense woodland to the north of 

Eckington would also obstruct any long distance views of the turbines from 

this town. 

6.608 The clearest views of the development in this area would be obtained from 

a small number of locations near to the B6056, in the vicinity of where the 

baseline photograph for this viewpoint has been taken. From this location 

the Penny Hill turbines would be seen in the context of an established 

urban fringe landscape of gently undulating fields and small towns. 

Although the turbines would be visible, in the context of the much wider 

panoramic views available from this location, they would be not form a 

prominent feature in the view. 

141 



6.609 The development would result in a low magnitude of change in the 

baseline view. 



no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity experienced by 

properties and from footpaths in the vicinity of this viewpoint. 






6.612 The cumulative ZTVs suggest that the wind farms at Loscar, Hampole and 

Marr would be visible from this viewpoint. However in reality the turbines at 

Marr and Hampole would be screened by intervening vegetation. The 

turbines at Loscar would be just visible in the distance (approximately 

12km away). At this distance, the Loscar turbines would not be prominent 

and would not increase the magnitude of change in the visual impact. 



142 



Table 6.8: Summary of Viewpoint Sensitivity, Magnitude of Change in View and Significance of Effects (During Operational Phase) 

Reference 

Number 

Viewpoint Location OS Grid 

Ref 

1 Ulley Country Park 45298 

87562 

2 Ulley Village 46627 

87414 

3 Ashton Cum Aughton 46643 

85442 

4 Aughton 45903 

86204 

5 Brampton en le Morthen 48520 

88062 

6 Upper Whiston 45939 

88929 

7 Bridge over M18 near Thurcroft 48960 

89538 

8 Bridge over M1 near Wales Bar 47330 

82915 

9 Laughton en le Morthen 51602 

88203 

10 South Anston 51183 

83187 

11 Worksop 58538 

81823 

12 Maltby 51862 

92547 

13 A631 Rotherham 46449 

91677 

14 A621 Houndkirk Moor 29546 

78160 

Distance 

to 

Nearest 

Turbine 

(m) 

Sensitivity 

of View 

143 

Number of 

Hubs Visible 

(wireframe) 

Number of 

Blade Tips 

Visible 

(wireframe) 

Magnitude 

of Impact 

Significance 

of Effect 

2120 High 4 6 Medium Moderate 

800 High 6 6 High Substantial 





1760 Low 6 6 Low Slight 

3950 Low 6 6 Low Slight 


5310 High 6 6 Low Slight 

12050 High 4 6 No change No Effect 






Reference 

Number 

Viewpoint Location OS Grid 

Ref 

15 Shirecliffe, Sheffield 35007 

89686 

16 Wentworth Woodhouse 39995 

97374 

17 Conisbrough 49908 

97903 

18 A1 (M) junction at Blyth 62274 

88281 

19 Bolsover 49149 

71222 

20 B6056 west of Eckington 38586 

79296 

Distance 

to 

Nearest 

Turbine 

(m) 

Sensitivity 

of View 

144 

Number of 

Hubs Visible 

(wireframe) 

Number of 

Blade Tips 

Visible 

(wireframe) 

Magnitude 

of Impact 

Significance 

of Effect 

12450 High 6 6 Low No Effect 



14620 Low 6 6 No change No Effect 





Effects on Visual Receptor Groups 

6.614 From analysis of the assessment viewpoints it is possible to draw some 

conclusions about the significance of effects on different receptor groups 

at different distances from the proposed development. 

Visual Effects on Residential Receptors 

6.615 The ground level elements of the development would only be visible from 

a small cluster of properties. Therefore the effects on visual amenity 

experienced at most residential properties relate primarily to the six turbine 

structures and to a lesser degree the meteorological mast. 

6.616 It is acknowledged that there are many residential properties and isolated 

farmsteads within 2km of the site and that where these properties have 

unrestricted views towards the site, the proposed turbines would be highly 

prominent in the view. However it also noted that many of the properties 

within 2km of the site are orientated away from the Penny Hill site or have 

vegetation and buildings around them which restrict views in the direction 

of the site. It is also noted that the visual amenity experienced by several 

properties within 2km of the site is already heavily influenced by the 

presence of the M1/M18 junction, a major urbanising feature, and 

therefore the effects of the turbines on these views would be marginally 

less significant. 

6.617 It is considered that there would be substantial visual effects on residential 

properties within 2km of the site where either: 

There is a clear and direct view of the turbines from main ground floor 

windows or the garden and no view or only a minor view of major visual 

detractors in the existing view (e.g. the M1/M18); or 

There is an oblique or semi screened view of the turbines from main 

ground floor windows or the garden or clear and direct views from 

upper windows and there are no major visual detractors in the existing 

view (e.g. the M1/M18). 

6.618 There would be moderate visual effects on residential properties within 

2km of the site where either: 

There is a clear and direct view of the turbines from main ground floor 

windows or the garden but where the current view is heavily influenced 

by major visual detractors (e.g. the M1/M18); 



upper windows and but there are minor views of major visual detractors 

in the existing view (e.g. the M1/M18); or 

145 



There is no view from ground floor windows or the garden of the 

turbines and only oblique or semi screened views from upper windows 

from which there is no view of any major visual detractors (e.g. the 

M1/M18). 

6.619 There would be slight visual effects on residential properties within 2km of 

the site where either: 



upper windows but where the current view is heavily influenced by 

major visual detractors (e.g. the M1/M18); 



from which there are minor views of major visual detractors in the 

existing view (e.g. the M1/M18); or 



and where the current view is heavily influenced by major visual 

detractors (e.g. the M1/M18). 

6.620 Overall it is considered that there would be a high magnitude of change 

and therefore a substantial effect on the private visual amenity of 174 out 

of approximately 3,353 properties within 2km of the site. This equates to 

approximately 5% of the total number of properties within 2km of the site. 

A detailed assessment of the visual effects on these properties is 


6.621 To summarise the detailed findings presented in Appendix 13.2, there 

would be a substantial visual effect on 14 out of a total of approximately 72 

properties within the village of Ulley (primarily on the eastern edge of the 

village), 2 properties out of a total of approximately 10 properties in the 

village of Upper Whiston, 1 property out of a total of approximately 41 

properties within Morthen and 157 out of approximately 1979 properties 

within Aughton and Aston-cum-Aughton (primarily along the northern edge 

of these two settlements). 

6.622 The majority of properties in the villages of Ulley, Upper Whiston, Aughton 

and Aston would not have any view of the turbines due to vegetation 

screening, their windows being orientated away from the site or due to the 

fact that there are other properties on the development side of these 

villages which obstruct the view. 

6.623 It is also acknowledged that there would be moderate visual effects at 

some properties in other settlements within 2km of the site, including 

Brampton-en-le-Morthen, Morthen and Thurcroft as well as at isolated 

properties elsewhere within 2km of the site. 

146 



6.624 From each of the locations where substantial or moderate effects have 

been identified, the turbines would be prominent but not obstruct the view 

in any direction. They would not prevent an appreciation of the underlying 

and surrounding agricultural landscape. 

6.625 Between 2km and 5km of the site there are many villages and larger 

settlements, as well as numerous individual or isolated properties. At this 

distance and where there are unobstructed views of the turbines there 

would be a moderate effect on visual amenity experienced by residential 

properties. It should be noted however, that there would in reality be 

relatively few properties with unobstructed views of the site. For example 

within the villages of Todwick, Treeton, Laughton Common, Laughton enle-Morthen, 

Wickersley, Wales and Whiston, which all lie within this 

distance of the site, it would be only the properties on the very edges of 

these villages which experience any effect at all on visual amenity. The 

majority of properties within this distance of the site have at least some 

screening in the form of either topography, vegetation or built structures 

and would experience no greater than a slight effect on visual amenity. 

6.626 Beyond 5km from the site, there would be numerous individual properties 

with distant glimpses of the turbines. However beyond this distance, the 

turbines would not form a prominent component in the view and it is 

considered that the development would have no greater than a slight 

effect on visual amenity experienced by residential receptors at this 

distance. 

Visual Effects on Long Distance Trails and Public Rights of Way 

6.627 The Transpennine Trail Network (incorporating National Cycle Network 

Routes 6 and 67) and the Rotherham Roundwalk are the only long 

distance footpaths which run within 5km of the site and, at their closest 

point where they follow the same route, they pass approximately 800m to 

the west of the nearest turbine. 

6.628 The ZTV suggests that the Penny Hill turbines would be visible on these 

routes for much of their length within 5km the site. The ZTV however does 

not take account of the considerable extent of built development and 

vegetation (hedgerows, trees and woodlands) within the landscape which 

would screen or partially obstruct views of the turbines from much of this 

length. 

6.629 Although intermittently screened by field boundary vegetation, the turbines 

would be prominent in the view when experienced along the Transpennine 

Trail Network and the Rotherham Roundwalk between Aughton to the 

south and Whiston in the southern part of Rotherham. Along this section of 

these routes, they cross over the M1 motorway, and along this length 

there are constant views of built structures such as pylons and the M1 

motorway. As such, the Penny Hill turbines would not dominate the view or 

prevent an appreciation of the underlying and surrounding landscape. 

147 



6.630 Beyond 5km any views of the Penny Hill turbines from these routes would 

be seen in the context of the wider developed area of Sheffield and 

Rotherham surrounding the site. 

6.631 Therefore there would be a high magnitude of change and consequently a 

substantial effect on the visual amenity experienced by people using the 

short section of the Transpennine Trail Network and the Rotherham 

Roundwalk between Aughton and Rotherham but no greater than a slight 

effect on the remainder of these routes. In the context of the routes as a 

whole the visual effects would only be experienced along a very short 

section of their overall length. 

6.632 Other long distance footpaths, the Cuckoo Way, Robin Hood Way, 

Sheffield Country Walk and Dearne Way/Barnsley Boundary Walk pass 

through the 20km study area but none are closer than 6km from the site. 

Although the ZTV suggests that the Penny Hill turbines would be visible 

from some sections of these routes, in reality views of the turbines would 

be limited to very short sections at elevated positions. At this distance and 

in the context of the wider panoramic views of the surrounding urban areas 

of Sheffield and Rotherham available from these high points, the turbines 

would not be prominent. Therefore there would be no greater than a slight 

effect on the visual amenity experienced along any of these long distance 

trails. 

6.633 There are two Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Doorstep Walks 

(numbers 6 and 7) which pass through or immediately adjacent to the site, 

Doorstep Walk number 7 (The Farmland Trail) runs through the site. From 

these routes there would be largely unrestricted views of the Penny Hill 

turbines which would be prominent in the view. However, at no point would 

the development obstruct or prevent an appreciation of the underlying and 

surrounding landscape. There would be a high magnitude of change in the 

baseline view along these Doorstep walks resulting in a substantial effect 

on visual amenity experienced from them. 

6.634 There are also a small number of other public rights of way in the 

immediate vicinity of the site (including footpaths, bridleways and minor 

roads) from which there would be largely unrestricted views of the Penny 

Hill turbines. These include the following: 

A PROW which crosses the south of the site as it runs from Ulley to the 

edge of the M1; 

A bridleway which runs along the site boundary between Penny Hill 

Lane and Upper Whiston; 

A series of PROWs around the northern edge of Aston; 

A PROW which runs between Ulley and Aughton. 

6.635 Along each of the above public rights of way, the Penny Hill development 

would be prominent in the view. However, at no point would it obstruct or 

148 



prevent an appreciation of the underlying and surrounding landscape. 

There would be a high magnitude of change in the baseline view along 

these public rights of way resulting in a substantial effect on visual 

amenity experienced from them. 

6.636 There would also be intermittent views of the turbines from several other 

public rights of way within the study area. With distance from the site, the 

effects on visual amenity would incrementally reduce. At locations where 

there would be unobstructed views of the turbines from public rights of way 

beyond approximately 2km of the site there would be no greater than a 

slight effect on visual amenity. 

Visual Effects on Major Roads 

6.637 The site is located immediately to the southwest of the M1 Junction 32 

where it meets with the M18 motorway. Junction 32 consists of a triangular 

shaped interchange between the two motorways with their associated 

connecting sliproads covering an area approximately 1km². From Junction 

32 the two motorways run in three different directions. The M18 runs in a 

north easterly direction away from the site towards Doncaster. The M1 

changes direction at Junction 32, running in a north-south direction to the 

south of the junction and an east-west direction to the north. 

6.638 As has been discussed within the assessment of effects on Viewpoints 7 

and 8, there is a considerable amount of roadside vegetation and urban 

development along both sides of the motorways which would greatly 

restrict or obstruct the view of the turbines from much of their length. 

Furthermore there are sections where the motorways run in cuttings which 

also restrict the available views. 

6.639 Driving southwards on the M1, the turbines would first become visible on 

the approach to Junction 33 but only be prominent in the view for the short 

section of the motorway at Junction 32 where it passes the site. Although 

the ZTV suggests that the turbines would be visible further north along the 

M1, in reality the buildings and vegetation alongside the motorway as it 

skirts around Sheffield would obstruct any view of the turbines. 

6.640 Driving northwards on the M1, views of the development would first be 

gained as the motorway crosses over high land near Woodall Services. 

Between Woodall services and Wales Bar there are several locations 

along the M1 where there would be uninterrupted views towards the 

development. At this point however, the turbines would be sufficiently 

distant so that they would not be prominent in the view considering that 

there is a considerable amount of roadside infrastructure which would be 

far more prominent in the view along the motorway. 

6.641 Continuing northwards between Wales Bar and the development there are 

also locations where there would be uninterrupted views towards the 

development. However, the majority of views in the direction of the 

development would be limited due to roadside vegetation along the 

149 



motorway. As the M1 approaches the junction with the M18, the turbines 

would become gradually more prominent in the view. 

6.642 However, assuming an average speed of 70 miles per hour, this section of 

the motorway would be passed within just a few minutes. Along this 

section of the motorway, roadside vegetation would obscure the lower 

parts of the turbines. There would then be a brief moment, lasting only a 

few seconds, where the motorway would be adjacent to the site which 

would enable an unobstructed view westwards across the site. 



receptors using the M1. 

6.644 Driving southwards on the M18, the ZTV suggests that the Penny Hill 

turbines would be visible from the entire length of the M18 between north 

of Junction 1 and the site. In reality, north of the B6060 the M18 runs 

either in a cutting or is enclosed by mature roadside vegetation for several 

kilometres such that there is a limited view in the direction of the site. 

6.645 South of the bridge where the B6060 crosses over the motorway the M18 

emerges from the cutting and roadside vegetation enabling views south 

westwards towards the development. At this point the turbines would be 

sufficiently distant that they were not dominant features in the view 

although they would be prominent when looking straight ahead. 

6.646 As the M18 approaches Junction 32 where it joins with the M1, the 

turbines would appear to become gradually larger in the view. The turbines 

would therefore be prominent for a length of approximately 3km of the 

M18. However, assuming an average speed of 70 miles per hour, this 

section of the motorway would be passed within just over a minute. Along 

this section of the motorway, roadside vegetation would partly obscure the 

lower parts of the turbines. There would then be a brief moment, lasting 

only a few seconds, where the motorway is on embankment adjacent to 

the site which would enable an unobstructed view to the west across the 

site. 



prominent for a short stretch of the motorway, in the context of the other 

numerous built structures visible whilst driving southwest along any length 

of the M18, the turbines would result in a low magnitude of change in the 

views experienced by users of the motorway. 

6.648 It is considered that the proposed development would result in no greater 

than a slight effect on the visual amenity of the transient visual receptors 

using this route. 

6.649 The nearest „A‟ road to the site is the A618 which runs in a north-south 

direction between Rotherham and Clowne. At its nearest point to the site, 

it passes 1.5km to the west of the nearest turbine. The turbines would be 

150 



prominent from a short section between Aughton and Ulley Country Park 

car park. However there would be no greater than a slight effect on the 

visual amenity of people using the route. 

6.650 The A57, which runs between Sheffield and Worksop, passes 

approximately 1.4km to the south of the site at its closest point near 

Junction 31 of the M1. The Penny Hill turbines would generally only be 

visible from the section of the A57 between South Anston and Junction 31 

of the M1. 

6.651 Existing built development and intervening vegetation would limit views of 

the turbines from this section of the road. Where visible, the turbines would 

be seen in the context of a wider landscape which contains numerous built 

structures. Therefore they would not be prominent and there would be no 

greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity of people using the 

route. 

Visual Effects on Vantage Points 

6.652 As discussed in Viewpoint 14, there would be no greater than a slight 

effect on any views from the Peak District National Park which at its 

closest point lies over 19km to the west of the Penny Hill site. 

Visual Effects on Historic and Tourism Viewpoints 

6.653 As discussed in detail for viewpoint number 1, the rotating blade tips of all 

six turbines would be partially from the western end of Ulley Country Park. 

6.654 It should be noted that views of the development would only be possible 

from a relatively small part of Ulley Country Park, primarily from the point 

at which the footpath around the reservoir crosses over a dam on the north 

western edge of the reservoir and the western part of the reservoir itself. 





Lane. 

6.656 From the visitor centre and the main car park, there would be no view of 

the turbines due to vegetation along the south western edge of the 

reservoir which restricts views across the water. 

6.657 The tips of the turbine blades would be visible but due to their relatively 

small number, good spacing and the fact that they would be largely 

screened by landform and vegetation, they would not dominate the view or 

prevent an appreciation of the underlying and surrounding landscape. The 

turbine blades would be no more prominent than the existing pylons which 

are visible beyond the northern arm of the reservoir. 

151 




small number of locations on the footpaths which run around the Country 

Park. However, there would be no effect on the visual amenity 

experienced within the majority of the Country Park, including the view 

from the visitor centre and main car park. 

6.659 The Penny Hill development would not be visible from Rother Valley 

Country Park and therefore there would be no effect on this resource. 

6.660 There would be no greater than a slight effect on visual amenity 

experienced from any historic viewpoints such as at Wentworth 

Woodhouse or Roche Abbey. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

6.661 At the time of preparing this report, there are 13 other wind farms either in 

operation, under construction, in the planning system or at scoping stage 

within 40km of the Penny Hill site. These are identified in Appendix 13.1 

and illustrated on Figure 6.1. 

6.662 It is noted that four of these sites (namely Royd Moor, Hazelhead, Spicer 

Hill and Blackstone Edge) are all clustered around the village of Crow 

Edge 30-35km from the Penny Hill site in a north westerly direction. These 

sites lie on the opposite side of Broomhead Moor (high land in the northern 

part of the Peak District). As such there is very little potential for the 

turbines at Penny Hill to be seen in conjunction with these four sites. The 

only potential location where both sites would be visible is on top of the 

moor itself from which the view towards the Penny Hill site is across the 

urban conurbations of Sheffield and Rotherham. These sites have 

therefore been scoped out of the cumulative impact assessment. 

6.663 A further three of the sites (namely Aire and Calder, Tweed Bridge and 

Westfield Lane) are located 30-35km north to north east of the site within 

the Wakefield and East Riding of Yorkshire Districts. Based on our site 

visits undertaken as part of this study, it is clear that the intervening land 

between Penny Hill and these three sites is relatively low lying with no 

notable high points which would enable a clear view in both directions at 

the same time. The sites have also therefore been scoped out of the 

assessment. 

6.664 Similarly, another of the sites (namely Lyndhurst) is located over 30km 

south east of the site on the southern side of Mansfield. For the same 

reasons outlined above this site has also been scoped out of the 

assessment. 

6.665 This leaves five sites which are considered further in the cumulative 

impact assessment. The first site is the Advanced Manufacturing 

Research Centre (AMRC), approximately 5km west of the proposed Penny 

Hill site, where two wind turbines are already operational and the third is 

about to be commissioned. Although originally submitted as two separate 

applications of two turbines and one turbine, both have been consented 

152 



and consequently these two schemes have been considered in this 

assessment as a single wind farm consisting of three turbines. 

6.666 The second site is a recently consented but as yet not constructed site of 

three turbines at Loscar which is approximately 7km south of the Penny 

Hill site. The final two sites are both to the northeast of the site near to 

Doncaster approximately 17km and 21km away. 

6.667 Cumulative ZTVs have been produced for the following combinations of 

submitted and approved sites: 

Penny Hill and the three turbines at AMRC (Figure 6.30); 

Penny Hill and Loscar (Figure 6.31); 

Penny Hill and Marr (Figure 6.32); and 

Penny Hill and Hampole (Figure 6.33). 

Cumulative Effects on Landscape Character 

6.668 The nearest wind turbines to the Penny Hill site are the three turbines at 

the AMRC some 5km to the west. However, due to their relatively small 

size and their enclosure by industrial premises, these turbines have a very 

limited influence on landscape character beyond the industrial estate 

within which they are located. The combination of the AMRC turbines in 

association with the proposed turbines at Penny Hill would have no greater 

impact on landscape character than if the Penny Hill turbines were 

developed in isolation. 

6.669 The Loscar, Hampole and Marr sites are proposed 8km, 21km and 17km 

away from the Penny Hill site respectively. It has previously been 

determined that, whilst the proposed Penny Hill turbines would have a 

moderate effect on the character of the immediately surrounding 

landscape (i.e. within approximately 2km of the site), there would be no 

greater than a slight effect on landscape character when experienced 

from more than a few km away from the development. A similar conclusion 

can be drawn about the likely extent of impacts of the Hampole, Marr and 

Loscar turbines on landscape character. 

6.670 Essentially at any location within the study area where one or more of the 

cumulative sites are visible at the same time as the Penny Hill 

development, it is acknowledged that there would be a marginally greater 

overall impact on landscape character than if only one of these sites was 

developed in isolation. However, the various sites are sufficiently distant 

from one another that if all of the turbines were constructed, the resulting 

overall magnitude of change in landscape character as experienced at any 

location within the study area would be not be considerably greater than if 

any one of them was developed in isolation. 

153 



6.671 The overall magnitude of change in landscape character within the study 

area would be low and therefore there would be no greater than a slight 

cumulative effect on landscape character within the study area. 

Cumulative Visual Effects 

Simultaneous and Successive Cumulative Visual Effects 

6.672 The cumulative ZTVs (Figures 6.30, 6.31, 6.32 and 6.33) suggest that 

there would be several locations within the study area where the Penny 

Hill development would be visible either simultaneously (i.e. in the same 

angle of view) or successively (i.e. by turning around on the spot) with 

views of the Loscar, Marr and Hampole wind farms, and the AMRC 

turbines. However, it should be noted that in reality the study area 

comprises both large urban areas and an agricultural landscape containing 

hedgerows, tree groups and buildings. Therefore there are few locations 

with unobstructed views in more than one direction. 

6.673 Table 6.9 summarises the theoretical occurrence of simultaneous and 

successive impacts at each of the assessment viewpoints. It should be 

noted that this greatly over exaggerates the actual cumulative visibility 

from each of the assessment viewpoints. 

6.674 Figure 6.30 suggests that there would be a few places where the AMRC 

turbines would be visible at the same time as the Penny Hill development. 

However, site visits have clearly shown that the visibility of the AMRC 

turbines is greatly exaggerated by the cumulative ZTV. Essentially, the 

ZTV does not take account of the urban infrastructure in the vicinity of the 

AMRC turbines which greatly obstructs the views of the turbines. Based on 

extensive site visits to the areas highlighted as being within the cumulative 

zone of influence of the AMRC turbines and the Penny Hill development, it 

is considered that there would be only one location where both sites would 

actually be visible at the same time, namely at the Catcliffe junction of the 

A630 which is raised slightly enabling views across the surrounding 

landscape. The only people to experience this view would be transient 

receptors travelling along the A630. From this location the turbines would 

be seen in the context of industrial buildings and major development and 

consequently, even taking cumulative effects into account, there would be 

no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity of people travelling 

along this section of the road. 

6.675 Figures 6.32 and 6.33 suggest that there would be several places where 

the Marr and Hampole turbines would be visible at the same time as the 

Penny Hill development. However, these cumulative ZTVs do not take 

account of the vegetation and urban structures between Penny Hill and 

these sites. Based on extensive site visits to the areas highlighted as 

being within the cumulative zone of influence of the AMRC turbines and 

the Penny Hill development, it is considered that there would be very few 

locations where there would be any simultaneous or successive visibility 

between Penny Hill and either of these other two sites. 

154 



6.676 The Marr and Hampole windfarms are 17km and 21km away from the 

Penny Hill site respectively. At any location within 5km of the Penny Hill 

site where there was also an unobstructed distant view of either the Marr 

or Hampole windfarms, these sites would be at least 12km or 16km away 

from the receptor‟s viewpoint. At this distance the Marr and Hampole 

turbines would themselves appear as only a minor element in the view and 

not notably increase the overall magnitude of visual impact. 

6.677 Therefore it is considered that there would be no greater than a slight 

cumulative effect at any location within the study area as a result of Marr 

and Hampole wind farms being constructed at the same time as the Penny 

Hill development. 

6.678 Therefore the only wind farm with any potential to result in simultaneous or 

successive visual effects is the Loscar application. This site is located 

approximately 7km to the south of the Penny Hill site. As is shown in 

Figure 6.31 and set out in Table 6.9, there are a small number of locations 

within the study area of the Penny Hill site where theoretically the Loscar 

development would be visible either simultaneously or successively with 

Penny Hill. It is noted that the cumulative ZTV greatly exaggerates the 

extent of this cumulative visibility as it does not take account of vegetation 

and buildings. As the two sites are over 7km apart, there would be no 

location within this distance where the two sites were visible 

simultaneously. 

6.679 It is acknowledged that there are a number of locations between the 

Penny Hill and Loscar sites where there may be successive views of the 

two sites from the same location, although the extent of this occurrence is 

likely to be considerably less than is indicated in the cumulative ZTV 

(Figure 6.31) which suggests that both sites will be visible from the 

majority of the land between the two sites. In reality the vegetation in the 

landscape, including that associated with the M1 motorway which runs 

between the two sites and buildings within villages would screen the view 

in one or other direction from much of this area. 

6.680 In particular it is noted that from within the main villages between the two 

sites, there are few locations which enable clear unobstructed views in the 

direction of both sites. This is the case at Harthill, Wales, Todwick, Kiveton 

Park, South Anston, North Anston and Aston. 

6.681 As the Penny Hill site is approximately 7km from the Loscar site, under no 

circumstance would there be any location where a visual receptor was less 

than 3.5km from both sites at any one time. There would however, be a 

small number of properties in the area between the two sites from which 

there would be successive views of both sites. There are also minor roads 

and public footpaths in the area between the two sites from which there 

would also be a few locations where there would be successive views of 

both sites. 

155 



6.682 From these isolated locations, it is acknowledged that there would be a 

marginally greater impact on visual amenity than if either Penny Hill or 

Loscar wind farm were developed in isolation. However it is considered 

that as one or the other of these two sites would be at least 3.5km away 

from these locations, the cumulative effect would not be considerably 

greater than the moderate effect on visual amenity in these locations 

which would occur as a result of developing Penny Hill in isolation. 

Certainly it would not increase the significance of the effect to substantial. 

Sequential Effects 

M1 Motorway 

6.683 The main trunk road through the study area is the M1 motorway which 

passes almost directly adjacent to the Penny Hill site. It has already been 

assessed that the Penny Hill site would have no greater than a slight effect 

on the visual amenity of users of the M1. The same users of the M1 

motorway would also experience views of the proposed development at 

Loscar as they pass approximately 2km to its west and for just a brief 

moment the turbines at the AMRC which are approximately 1km to the 

south of the motorway. 

6.684 Although the theoretical cumulative ZTVs suggest that there would be long 

sections of the motorway where more than one of these sites would be 

visible at the same time, in reality views from the motorway of the 

surrounding landscape are greatly restricted by roadside vegetation and 

motorway embankments. 

6.685 Essentially, driving southwards along the M1 there would be glimpses of 

the AMRC and views of the Penny Hill turbines for a few brief moments 

either side of junction 33 of the motorway. The motorway then goes into a 

cutting and then the Penny Hill turbines would be visible on their own 

when passing the site. There would then be a short stretch of motorway 

south of the Penny Hill site where no turbines would be visible before the 

turbines at Loscar come into view. The same would apply in reverse 

travelling northwards along the motorway. 

6.686 It is noted that the M1 is one of the primary transport corridors in the UK 

and driving in either direction in this area that there are numerous large 

urban developments, particularly Sheffield and Rotherham, which 

surround the motorway. This section of the motorway is not particularly 

noted for its scenic qualities and the attention of most users of the 

motorway is on the road ahead. The sequence of turbines along the 

motorway will be noted by frequent users of the motorway but not result in 

a greater than a slight effect on visual amenity whilst driving along the 

route. 

A1/A1(M) Motorway and M18 

156 



6.687 The A1/A1(M) runs to the east of the Penny Hill site on a north south 

alignment, passing close to the proposed Marr and Hampole sites located 

in the northeast of the study area. It is likely that some motorists will drive 

from the A1/A1(M) via the M18 to join the M1 and potentially experience 

views of Hampole, Marr, Penny Hill and then Loscar sequentially during 

their journey. These sites are relatively well spaced apart and interspersed 

between numerous other roadside structures. 

6.688 It is noted that driving in either direction in this area that there are 

numerous large urban settlements, particularly Sheffield, Rotherham and 

Doncaster, which surround these motorways. The motorways are not 

particularly noted for their scenic qualities and the attention of most users 

of the motorways is on the road ahead. The sequence of turbines along 

the motorways will be noted by frequent users of the motorway but not 

result in any greater than a slight effect on visual amenity whilst driving 

along the route. 

A57 

6.689 The A57 passes between the Penny Hill and Loscar sites as it runs 

between Sheffield and Worksop. There are a small number of locations on 

the A57 where both sites would be visible successively, the longest 

section being in the vicinity of Todwick Grange. There are also other 

locations where just the Penny Hill site would be visible from the road. 

6.690 It is noted that when driving in either direction on the A57 in this area that 

there are numerous large urban developments, particularly Sheffield and 

Worksop, which are visible. The road is not particularly noted for its scenic 

qualities and the attention of most users is on the road ahead, whilst the 

Penny Hill and Loscar sites would for the most part, not be in the eyeline 

of the driver. The sequence of the turbines along the road will be noted by 

frequent users but not result in a greater than a slight effect on visual 

amenity whilst driving along the route. 

157 



Table 6.9: Summary of Theoretical Simultaneous and Successive Cumulative Visual Effects by Viewpoint Location 

Visibility of Wind Farm Sites 

(Xkm) = Distance from Viewpoint 

Reference 

Number 

Viewpoint Location AMRC Loscar Marr Hampole 

1 Ulley Country Park Not Visible Not Visible Not Visible Not Visible 

2 Ulley Village Successive (4km) Successive (8.3km) Not Visible Not Visible 

3 Ashton Cum Aughton Not Visible Successive (6.3km) Not Visible Not Visible 

4 Aughton Not Visible Successive (7.8km) Not Visible Not Visible 

5 Brampton en le Morthen Simultaneous (5.7km) Successive (8.2km) Not Visible Not Visible 

6 Upper Whiston Successive (3.2km) Simultaneous (10km) Not Visible Not Visible 

7 Overbridge of M18 near Thurcroft Simultaneous (6.2km) Successive (9.5km) Not Visible Not Visible 

8 Overbridge of M1 near Wales Bar Successive (7.4km) Successive (4.5km) Not Visible Not Visible 

9 Laughton en le Morthen Simultaneous (8.8km) Successive (8km) Not Visible Not Visible 

10 South Anston Not Visible Successive (3.1km) Not Visible Not Visible 

11 Worksop Eddison Drive Not Visible Simultaneous (3.1km) Not Visible Not Visible 

12 Maltby Not Visible Successive (12.3km) Not Visible Not Visible 

13 A631 Rotherham Successive (4.7km) Simultaneous (12.2km) Not Visible Not Visible 

14 A625 Houndkirk Moor Not Visible Simultaneous (21.5km) Simultaneous Simultaneous 

(33.8km) 

(37.1km) 

15 Football field behind dry ski slope Simultaneous (7.8km) Simultaneous (18.5km) Successive (21.6km) Successive (24.5km) 

16 Wentworth Woodhouse Not Visible Simultaneous (21km) Not Visible Not Visible 

17 Conisbrough Not Visible Not Visible Successive (6.9km) Not Visible 

18 A1 (M) junction at Blyth Not Visible Simultaneous (14km) Successive (20.2km) Successive (23.4km) 

19 Minor road east of B6417 between 

Bolsover and Clowne 

Not Visible Simultaneous (9.2km) Not Visible Not Visible 

20 B6056 west of Eckington Not Visible Simultaneous (12km) Simultaneous Simultaneous 

(28.2km) 

(31.8km) 

NB: The above table is based on the theoretical visibility of cumulative sites from each of the assessment viewpoints. In reality the 

cumulative sites may be screened by intervening vegetation or buildings. In fact this table greatly over exaggerates the actual 

visibility of other wind farm proposals in the study area. 

158 



MITIGATION MEASURES 

6.691 As discussed in best practice guidance for EIA, mitigation measures may 

include: avoidance of impacts, reduction in magnitude of impacts, 

compensation for impacts and remediation. The landscape and visual 

mitigation measures for the Penny Hill wind farm are ostensibly embedded 

within the design of the scheme and do not rely heavily on compensation 

or remediation. Mitigation adopted primarily relates to the consideration 

that was given to avoiding and minimising landscape and visual effects at 

the site selection stage and during the evolution of the turbine layout. 

6.692 At the site selection stage potential landscape impacts were given equal 

consideration alongside other engineering and environmental issues. The 

site was selected, amongst other reasons, because there are no national 

or regional landscape designations covering the site or the immediately 

surrounding area. The Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire & Yorkshire Coalfields 

character area was noted to have a low sensitivity to wind energy 

development as detailed in the Planning for Renewable Energy Targets in 

Yorkshire and Humber Final Report. 

6.693 The current use of the site for agriculture meant that there were large open 

fields in which turbines could be accommodated with minimal effect on 

sensitive landscape features such as hedgerows, woodlands and other 

vegetation of ecological and landscape value. The ground cover on site is 

primarily of commercial agricultural value and not of any particular 

landscape value. The location of the M1/M18 junction directly adjacent to 

the site also meant that the landscape character was of lower sensitivity 

than elsewhere within the same character area. 

6.694 The access tracks within the site were also designed with consideration 

given to the effects on landscape features and character. The tracks have 

been designed to minimise the number of breaks required in the 

hedgerows. They have also been designed, as far as possible to follow 

field boundaries to minimise the effect on field patterns. A number of 

options were considered for the access tracks before arriving at the final 

layout. 

6.695 Similarly, the control building and substation were specifically positioned to 

minimise their landscape and visual impact. The final position of the 

building and substation was selected as they would be adjacent to a 

section of mature dense hedgerow which would screen them from the 

north and west and provide a backdrop when viewed from the south and 

east. Mitigation planting is proposed around the southern and eastern side 

of the control building and substation to help integrate them into the 

landscape. 

6.696 Cabling between the turbines has been designed to run underground, 

hence minimising visual clutter on the site. 

159 



6.697 An iterative design approach was adopted for the arrangement of 

structures on the site. Following baseline site work and the identification of 

the most important landscape features, the turbines were arranged to 

cause least disturbance to these features. Notably, the turbine locations 

have as far as possible avoided any disruption to hedgerows, clusters of 

trees and the alignment of watercourses. 

6.698 Taking all other engineering and environmental constraints into account, 

the proposed layout of the turbines on site was specifically designed to 

achieve a well spaced arrangement when viewed from the nearest 

villages. The resulting arrangement avoids unnecessary clustering of 

turbines or any overlapping of turbine blades when viewed from the most 

sensitive visual receptor locations. 

6.699 The turbines themselves would be painted a non-reflective semi matt pale 

grey colour (or similar as agreed with the local planning authority) thus 

helping them to merge into the skyline. Unlike some other forms of 

development, it is neither possible nor considered appropriate to screen 

turbines. 

6.700 During construction, topsoil from the construction compound would be 

lifted and a mound created around the southern, eastern and western 

sides to provide some screening of activities within the compound. 

6.701 In the long term, when the wind farm is decommissioned, the turbines and 

other associated structures would be removed. The landscape would be 

restored to agricultural land. Thus the landscape and visual effects of the 

proposal are largely reversible. 


6.702 The proposed Penny Hill Wind Farm is the result of an iterative design 

process whereby landscape and visual mitigation has fed into the 

development of the scheme proposals. Landscape and visual mitigation 

has been taken into account in the main assessment of effects section. 

Therefore, in this section, there is not a separate assessment of residual 

effects. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

Summary of Landscape Effects 

6.703 The Penny Hill development is proposed within a landscape of gently 

rolling farmland approximately 700m east of Ulley village in Rotherham, 

South Yorkshire. The turbines, meteorological mast, substation and control 

building are all proposed within open agricultural fields. Therefore, even 

allowing for a 50m radius around each turbine for micro-siting, the new 

structures would not interfere with any of the existing hedgerows or trees 

on site. 

160 



6.704 A small number of breaks would be required in hedgerows on site to 

accommodate the access tracks. Therefore there would be a low 

magnitude of change to several hedgerows which are of high landscape 

sensitivity. The magnitude of change would be minimal and result in no 

greater than a slight adverse effect. 

6.705 The Penny Hill site falls within a single Joint Character Area (JCA), namely 

the „Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfields‟, (JCA 38). The 

Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside (GOYH) Planning for 

Renewable Energy Targets in Yorkshire and Humber Final Report has 

assessed the region for its sensitivity to wind farm development in general 

terms. 

6.706 Out of the 24 JCAs represented within the Yorkshire and Humber region, it 

was determined that JCA 38 had the lowest sensitivity to wind energy 

development apart from JCA 42 (Lincolnshire Coast and Marshes). 

6.707 It is also acknowledged that the site falls within an Area of High Landscape 

Value (AHLV) as designated in the Rotherham UDP saved policies. 

Although Government policy guidance no longer favours the use of local 

landscape designations the fact that this tract of landscape has been 

designated as such in a soon to be replaced development plan is an 

indication that it is of slightly higher landscape quality than other areas 

within the district. 

6.708 Essentially, the landscape can be considered to be pleasantly rural but on 

the fringes of the urban conurbations of South Yorkshire and the character 

is strongly influenced by the external human influences in the surrounding 

landscape. The proximity of the M1 to the site with its moving traffic and 

associated infrastructure gives the landscape in the vicinity of the site a 

less than tranquil character. Overall, the landscape has a pleasant 

agricultural character but with prominent and established modern human 

influences. The site and surrounding area is therefore considered to be of 

medium sensitivity to wind energy development when considered in the 

national and regional context. 

6.709 The primary impact on the landscape character of the immediately 

surrounding area, broadly defined as within 2km of the site boundary, 

would arise from the introduction of six new turbines, meteorological mast, 

control building, substation and access tracks within the site. The control 

building and site compound would be located in a relatively discrete 

location adjacent to mature hedgerows. In this position, the compound 

would be partially screened and softened by the established vegetation. 

6.710 The turbines would appear as tall structures and be greater in height than 

other vertical structures in the immediate area although there is notable 

precedent for manmade vertical features in the landscape including 

overhead electricity pylons and gantries on the M1. The movement of the 

turbine blades would be evident in the surrounding landscape. However, 

161 



there is already considerable movement in the landscape, notably along 

the M1. 

6.711 Although the landscape is predominantly agricultural, there is considerable 

evidence of human activity and therefore the development would not be 

introducing manmade features into a wild or untouched landscape. The 

spacing of the turbines would be such that they would not be too closely 

clustered and the overall layout would be a well-balanced composition. 

6.712 The turbines would attract attention but would not prevent appreciation 

and visual comprehension of the underlying and surrounding landscape. It 

is therefore considered that the turbines would have a medium magnitude 

of impact on the immediate landscape but that this would not necessarily 

be detrimental to the character of it. 

6.713 As the immediate landscape has been assessed as being of medium 

sensitivity overall it is considered that there would be a moderate effect 

on the character of the landscape immediately surrounding the site. It has 

also been assessed that there would be no greater than a slight effect on 

the landscape character of the wider landscape. 

6.714 The construction and decommissioning effects would be temporary in 

nature (scheduled to take approximately 10 months). It is considered that 

during these phases there would be no more than a slight additional 

effect on the landscape character of the immediately surrounding 

landscape. 

6.715 There are no national landscape designations within the study area and 

therefore there would be no effect on any such landscapes. There would 

be no effect on the Peak District National Park. 

6.716 The site lies within the South Yorkshire Green Belt. It is acknowledged that 

the turbines would have a minor impact on the openness of the Green Belt 

in that the structures would all occupy land that has not previously been 

built upon. However this loss of openness would be extremely modest in 

scale. Therefore, it is considered that there would be no greater than a 

slight effect on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes for which 

it was designated. 

6.717 The site also lies within the Ulley-Whiston Area of High Landscape Value 

(AHLV). It has been assessed that there would be no greater than a slight 

effect on the underlying structure and pattern of the landscape or on the 

hedgerows within the site and therefore the quality of the underlying 

landscape would not be compromised by the development. 

6.718 There would be no direct landscape and visual effects on any listed 

buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments or sites listed on the register of 

historic gardens and designed landscapes. There would be no effect on 

the setting of any registered parks and gardens. 

162 



SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON VISUAL AMENITY 

6.719 The effects on visual amenity experienced throughout the study area 

relate primarily to the six turbine structures and to a lesser degree the 

meteorological mast. The ground level element of the development would 

only be visible from a small number of properties and from a few PROW 

which pass through or very close to the boundary of the site. Construction 

effects would also only be experienced from these locations. 

6.720 It is acknowledged that there are a number of residential properties and 

isolated farmsteads within 2km of the site and that where these properties 

have unrestricted views towards the site, the proposed turbines would be 

prominent in the view. However it is also noted that many of the properties 

within 2km of the site are orientated away from the Penny Hill site or have 

vegetation and buildings around them which restrict views in the direction 

of the site. A detailed assessment of the visual effects on residential 

properties within 2km of the site is presented in Appendix 13.2. 

6.721 It is considered that there would be a high magnitude of change and 

therefore a substantial effect on the private visual amenity of 174 out of 

approximately 3,353 properties within 2km of the site. This equates to 

approximately 5% of the total number of properties within 2km of the site. 

These properties are all located within the villages of Ulley, Upper 

Whiston, Aughton and Aston-cum-Aughton but it is noted that only a 

relatively small proportion of the properties within these villages would 

experience these effects. From these properties, the turbines would be 

prominent but not obstruct the view in any direction. They would not 

prevent an appreciation of the underlying and surrounding agricultural 

landscape. 

6.722 There are also properties on the eastern side of the M1 which also lie 

within 2km of the site. Any view of the turbines from these properties 

would be across the M1. A relatively small number of properties on the 

eastern edge of Brampton en le Morthen and Thurcroft and on the 

surrounding lanes would have views of the upper sections of the turbines 

beyond the motorway vegetation. Properties with a clear view of the 

turbines within 2km of the nearest turbine and on the eastern side of the 

M1 would experience a medium magnitude of change in the view and 

therefore a moderate effect on visual amenity. 

6.723 Between 2km and 5km of the site there are many villages, larger 

settlements as well as numerous individual or isolated properties. At this 

distance and where there are unobstructed views of the turbines there 

would be a moderate effect on visual amenity experienced by residential 

properties. It is the professional opinion of the Landscape Architects who 

undertook this assessment, that where moderate effects on residential 

properties have been identified, these effects are not likely to be 

considered significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

163 



6.724 It is the professional opinion of the Landscape Architects who undertook 

this assessment, that where substantial effects on residential properties 

have been identified, these effects are likely to be considered to be 

significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. Where moderate effects on 

residential properties have been identified, these effects are not likely to 

be considered significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

6.725 Beyond 5km from the site, there would be numerous individual properties 

with distant glimpses of the turbines. However beyond this distance, the 

turbines would not be prominent in the view and it is considered that the 

development would have no greater than a slight effect on visual amenity 

experienced by residential receptors. 

6.726 The Transpennine Trail Network (incorporating National Cycle Network 

Routes 6 and 67) and the Rotherham Roundwalk are the only long 

distance footpaths which run within 5km of the site and, at their closest 

point where they follow the same route, they pass approximately 800m to 

the west of the nearest turbine. 

6.727 Although intermittently screened by field boundary vegetation, the turbines 

would be prominent in the view when experienced along these routes as 

they pass between Aughton to the south and Whiston in the southern part 

of Rotherham. Therefore there would be a high magnitude of change and 

consequently a substantial effect on the visual amenity experienced by 

people using the short section of the Transpennine Trail Network and the 

Rotherham Roundwalk between Aughton and Rotherham but no greater 

than a slight effect on the remainder of these routes. 

6.728 There would be no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity 

experienced along the Cuckoo Way, Robin Hood Way, Sheffield Country 

Walk and Dearne Way/Barnsley Boundary Walk which all pass through the 

20km study area. 

6.729 There are two Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Doorstep Walks 

(numbers 6 and 7) which pass through or immediately adjacent to the site. 

From these routes there would be largely unrestricted views of the Penny 

Hill turbines which would be prominent in the view. However, at no point 

would the development obstruct or prevent an appreciation of the 

underlying and surrounding landscape. There would be a high magnitude 

of change in the baseline view along these Doorstep walks resulting in a 

substantial effect on visual amenity experienced from them. 

6.730 There are also a small number of other public rights of way in the 

immediate vicinity of the site (including footpaths, bridleways and minor 

roads) from which there would be largely unrestricted views of the Penny 

Hill turbines. There would be a high magnitude of change in the baseline 

view along these public rights of way resulting in a substantial effect on 

visual amenity experienced from them. 

164 



6.731 There would also be intermittent views of the turbines from several other 

public rights of way within the study area. With distance from the site, the 

effects on visual amenity would incrementally reduce. At locations where 

there would be unobstructed views of the turbines from public rights of way 

beyond approximately 2km of the site there would be no greater than a 

slight effect on visual amenity. 

6.732 There would be no greater than a slight effect on the visual amenity of 

the transient visual receptors using the M1 or the M18. 

6.733 There would be no greater than a slight effect on any views from the 

Peak District National Park which at its closest point lies over 19km to the 

west of the Penny Hill site. 

6.734 Views of the Penny Hill development would only be possible from a 

relatively small part of Ulley Country Park, primarily from the point at which 

the footpath around the reservoir crosses over a dam on the north western 

edge of the reservoir and the western part of the reservoir itself. 





Lane. From the visitor centre and the main car park, there would be no 

view of the turbines due to vegetation along the south western edge of the 

reservoir which restricts views across the water. The tips of the turbine 

blades would be visible but due to their relatively small number, good 

spacing and the fact that they would be largely screened by landform and 

vegetation, they would not dominate the view or prevent an appreciation of 

the underlying and surrounding landscape. 


small number of locations on the footpaths which run around the western 

part of the Country Park. However, there would be no effect on the visual 

amenity experienced within the majority of the Country Park, including the 

view from the visitor centre and main car park. 

6.737 At the time of preparing this ES section, there are 13 other wind farms 

either in operation, under construction, in the planning system or at 

scoping stage within 40km of the Penny Hill site. Of these, only five are 

within 30km of the Penny Hill site and were therefore selected for 

consideration of cumulative effects. 

6.738 It has been assessed that taking cumulative impacts into consideration, 

the Penny Hill Wind Farm would result in no greater than a slight effect 

on landscape character both within the Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and 

Yorkshire Coalfield character area or any other character area within the 

study area. 

165 



6.739 It has also been assessed that there would be no greater than a slight 

cumulative effect either simultaneously, successively or sequentially on 

visual amenity. 

6.740 In terms of the EIA regulations therefore, it is acknowledged that there 

would be some localised significant effects on landscape and visual 

amenity. However, it is also acknowledged that this is likely to be the case 

for any commercial wind turbine development in the UK and the significant 

effects locally need to be balanced against the other benefits of the 

development. 

166 



7. ECOLOGY & NATURE CONSERVATION 

INTRODUCTION 

7.1 This section of the ES considers the potential ecological effects of the 

proposed wind farm (with the exception of ornithological effects which are 

summarised in Section 8). It summarises the findings of an assessment 

undertaken by Faber Maunsell, which is outlined in full in Appendix 3. Full 

reference should be made to the consultant‟s report for detailed findings of 

this assessment. 

7.2 The assessment is based on the results of consultation with statutory 

consultees, nature conservation groups, local naturalists and 

comprehensive ecological surveys. 

7.3 Micro-Siting of the turbines within 50m of the proposed turbine layout is 

not anticipated to increase the Ecological impact Significance on habitats 

and species, as long as the turbines are sited with suitable hedgerow, 

woodland and buildings buffer zones as identified within this environmental 

statement. Natural England have in fact provided guidance in written form 

relating to standoff from linear features such as hedgerows and woodlands 

(with guidance produced through a numerical equation providing 

recommended separation from turbine to feature) which the Penny Hill 

proposal adheres too; and actually provides a larger separation distance. 

The Penny Hill wind farm proposal will therefore adhere to these 

principles. 

LEGISLATION AND POLICY FRAMEWORK 

7.4 Nature conservation policy in England is implemented through a series of 

areas, habitats and species designated under legislation from an 

international to local level. Key legislation and policy relating to ecology 

and nature conservation for the proposed development is as follows: 

The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as 

amended); 

Bern Convention 1979; 

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); 

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; 

Protection of Badgers Act 1992; 

Hedgerow Regulations 1997; 

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; and 

167 



Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9: Biodiversity and Geological 

Conservation. 

7.5 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) was launched in 1994 with the 

main aim „To conserve and enhance biological diversity within the UK, and 

to contribute to the conservation of global biodiversity through all 

appropriate mechanisms‟. The UK BAP comprises a series of Action Plans 

for „priority‟ habitats and species, determined by the fact that they are 

either globally threatened or are rapidly declining in the UK. The action 

plans outline measures required to conserve these priority habitats and 

species. The national strategy for biodiversity is delivered at local level via 

Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs). The study area is covered by the 

Rotherham BAP. There are also a number of species and habitats for 

which action plans have been prepared, relevant to the Penny Hill site. 

These are listed in the report included at Appendix 3. 

7.6 The Natural Area Profiles (NAP) concept sets out the objectives of Natural 

England for the conservation of wildlife and natural features over the area 

concerned and summarises the wildlife interest associated with the main 

habitats found within the Natural Area. There are no species-specific 

actions or objectives set out in the NAP, however a number of generic 

objectives are set out which could apply to some of the habitats 

encountered within the study area. The habitats/features highlighted in the 

Coal Measures NAP relevant to the study area are woodland, rivers & 

streams and mixed farming. 

CONSULTATION 

Scoping 

7.7 Both Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and the Applicant 

consulted a number of organisations who commented on the potential 

ecological impact of the proposal. 

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) stated the 

following specific points: 

(i) Habitat surveys should include a qualitative assessment of 

hedgerows affected by the proposed development to ensure 

identification of mitigation and enhancement measures; and 

(ii) Detailed year round bat survey should be incorporated into the 

EIA survey plans and any mitigation, in accordance with 

guidance from Natural England. 

Natural England stated that the assessment should address any 

impact on second tier biodiversity sites (locally designated) and provide 

clarity that there would not be any impact on internationally or 

nationally designated sites. 

168 



Yorkshire Wildlife Trust stated that there is ancient woodland 

adjacent to the proposed development site; and that it is essential that 

this site and its wildlife should not be disturbed during construction of 

the proposed development and won‟t be affected by the presence of 

the turbines. They suggested that potential impacts on Local Wildlife 

Sites near to the site, at Brampton Common and Ulley Country Park, 

should also be assessed. Where possible, the trust suggested that any 

opportunities to provide mitigation or to enhance the site for wildlife 

after construction, should be acted upon. They also stated that (as also 

included within the RMBC response): 

(i) Phase I habitat survey should be carried out prior to the 

herbaceous and annual vegetation dying back; 

(ii) Any ponds within 500m of the site should be checked for great 

crested newts and other wildlife; and 

(iii) Details should be included of the timings of protected species 

surveys. 

Other Consultation 

7.8 Faber Maunsell consulted the following organisations when gathering 

ecological data: 

METHODOLOGY 

Environment Agency; 

Natural England; 

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council; 

Sheffield Wildlife Trust; 

Sheffield City Ecology Unit; 

Sorby Mammal Group; 

Sorby Invertebrate Group; 

South Yorkshire Badger Group; 

Yorkshire Butterfly Conservation; and 

National Biodiversity Network. 

7.9 Faber Maunsell undertook the following assessments for the proposed 

wind farm development: 

Ecological Data Search; 

169 



Phase 1 Habitat Survey; 

Bat Surveys and Assessment; 

Badger Surveys and Assessment; 

Otter Surveys and Assessment; 

Water Vole Surveys and Assessment; 

White Clawed Crayfish Surveys and Assessment; and 

Great Crested Newt Surveys and Assessment. 

Ecological Data Search 

7.10 A request for ecological data for the site was sent to the statutory and nonstatutory 

consultees listed above. They were requested to provide 

information regarding protected species and habitats within 2km of the 

site. Data was also obtained from the „Multi-Agency Geographic 

Information for the Countryside‟ (MAGIC) website. 

Baseline Studies 

7.11 Ecological surveys were undertaken for a large area including the 

application site and surroundings. Baseline ecological data was gathered 

for the seven bespoke assessments as follows: 

Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken 

over two seasons in June 2007 and June 2008 of the Ecological 

Survey Area, which includes the application site and immediate 

surroundings. The methodology involved a site walkover mapping the 

habitats according to the Phase 1 classification system, as described in 

the NCC Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (1990). Target notes 

were made to summarise the habitats and their dependant species, to 

comment on their value and to describe the localities of any notable 

species encountered. 

Bat Surveys: A bat habitat assessment was undertaken in conjunction 

with the Phase 1 habitat survey and included a walkover of the 

Ecological Survey Area and adjacent habitat bordering the site in order 

to assess its value as bat habitat. This included an assessment of 

potential flightlines, roosts and foraging areas in order to target evening 

surveys. The woodland and individual trees within the Ecological 

Survey Area were assessed in terms of their potential for providing 

roosting habitat. 

Evening transect activity surveys were undertaken in June 2008 in ideal 

weather conditions. The field boundaries within the Ecological Survey 

Area and the potential bat habitat identified during the habitat 

170 



assessment were the target areas of the evening activity surveys. The 

surveys began 30 minutes after sunset and lasted approximately two 

hours. The surveys utilised recognised bat detector equipment and 

followed recognised survey techniques. 

Roost surveys were undertaken on two trees and the buildings at Ulley 

Beeches. A dawn survey was undertaken on each of the trees during 

June 2008 respectively. The roost surveys undertaken on the buildings 

at Ulley Beeches, involved both a dusk and dawn survey, and were 

undertaken during August 2008. The conditions for all roost surveys 

were ideal, being mild, fine, with no or little breeze. 

Badger Survey: The badger survey was undertaken in June 2008 and 

involved a search of the field boundaries and woodland within the 

Ecological Survey Area. The purpose of the survey was to assess the 

suitability of the habitat for badgers and to determine 

presence/absence of the species. The survey was based on a search 

for the following recognised field signs for badger: setts, paths, 

excavations, hair, footprints, dung pits, feeding evidence and bedding 

trails. As the survey was undertaken in June, the vegetation present 

was at its most vigorous and it was therefore difficult to identify field 

signs indicative of activity. However, it is considered that setts would 

still be evident. 

Otter Survey: Watercourses considered suitable for otter were 

surveyed. The otter surveys were undertaken in May 2008 on two 

watercourses within the study area. These watercourses are branches 

of Ulley Brook, one which borders the northern extent of the study area 

(outside of the application site boundary) and one which borders the 

south west of the study area flowing south from Carr Lane. The 

purpose of the surveys was to assess the suitability of the 

watercourses for otter and ultimately to determine presence/absence of 

otter within the site. The survey was based on a search for the 

following recognised field signs for otter: spraints, anal jelly, footprints, 

paths, flattened vegetation, holts & „couches‟ and feeding remains. 

Water Vole Survey: Watercourses considered suitable for water vole 

were surveyed. The water vole surveys were undertaken in May 2008 

on two watercourses within the study area (the northern and southern 

branches of the Ulley Brook). The purpose of the surveys was to 

assess the suitability of the watercourses for water vole, and ultimately 

to determine presence/absence of water vole within the study area. 

The survey was based on a search for the following recognised field 

signs for water vole: faeces, latrines, feeding stations, burrows, lawns, 

nests, footprints, runways, and the distinctive sound of water voles 

hitting the water. 

White Clawed Crayfish Survey: Watercourses considered suitable for 

white-clawed crayfish were surveyed. The survey was undertaken in 

May 2008 on two watercourses within the study area by suitably 

171 



experienced ecologists, holding a current Natural England whiteclawed 

crayfish survey licence. These watercourses are the northern 

and southern branches of Ulley Brook. The survey involved firstly a 

habitat assessment of the watercourse, recorded on a Crayfish Survey 

Form. The forms provide background and habitat information, including 

an assessment of channel substrate, potential for refuges and water 

quality. The position of any potential crayfish burrows were also 

marked, as well as any significant physical features which could be 

considered barriers to crayfish movement. The second part of the 

survey followed the standardised field survey methodology within the 

Survey and Monitoring Protocol for the White-Clawed Crayfish (Peay, 

2002). This was undertaken to determine presence/absence of whiteclawed 

crayfish. This entailed manual searching; carefully lifting and 

turning over suitable stones and debris on the channel bed and in the 

banks, which crayfish may use as refuge sites. Areas of habitat that 

appeared to be the most favourable for crayfish and could be physically 

searched were searched. These were searched in upstream direction 

to avoid poor visibility. 

Great Crested Newt (GCN) Survey: A single pond was identified 

adjacent to the southern boundary of the study area in June 2007, at 

which time it contained a shallow depth (3-4cm) of standing water and 

was completely overgrown with grass, rosebay willowherb (Chamerion 

angustifolium), bur-reed (Sparganium sp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus) 

and patches of watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum). A Habitat 

Suitability Index survey (HSI) was undertaken in May 2008, according 

to HSI methodology produced by Oldham et al. (2000), which assumes 

that habitat quality determines GCN population size. The HSI provides 

a measure of habitat suitability and, whilst not being a substitute for 

GCN surveys, is a useful tool in determining which ponds require GCN 

surveys. The HSI survey involved evaluating the pond against a 

number of key habitat criteria to derive a HSI index value between 0 

and 1, with 0 being highly unsuitable for great crested newt and 1 being 

an ideal pond for the species. 

Assessment of Significance 

7.12 The method of evaluation and assessment uses a combination of 

guidance from: 

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (Institute of Ecology and 

Environmental Management, 2006); 

Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (Institute of 

Environmental Assessment, 1995); and 

Handbook of Biodiversity Methods (RPS Group plc and Scottish 

Natural Heritage, 2005). 

172 



7.13 The assessment of effects is based on determining firstly the value of the 

receiving site/feature/species and secondly the magnitude of the potential 

impact on the site/feature/species, in order to provide an overall impact 

score and therefore the predicted impact significance. The value of each 

site/feature/species of nature conservation interest is assessed using 

biodiversity evaluation methods detailed in the „Handbook of Biodiversity 

Methods‟ (RPS Group plc and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2005) and also 

incorporating advice within the „Ratcliffe Criteria‟ (1977) and „Guidelines for 

Ecological Impact Assessment‟ (Institute of Ecology and Environmental 

Management, 2006). 

7.14 Firstly, each assessed site/feature/species is assigned a nature 

conservation value of the following: 

Very High (International); 

High (National); 

Medium (Regional/County); 

Low (Local); or 

Parish (Negligible). 

7.15 Secondly, the magnitude of potential impacts is described for each 

site/feature/species as follows: 

Major Negative; 

Intermediate Negative; 

Minor Negative; 

Neutral; or 

Positive. 

7.16 Based on the value of the site/feature/species and the predicted 

magnitude of the potential impact, the significance can be determined 

using the table below: 

Nature 

Magnitude of Potential Impact 

Conservation 

Value 

Major 

negative 

Intermediate 

negative 

Minor 

negative 

Neutral Positive 

Very high Very large Large Slight Neutral Large 

adverse adverse adverse 

beneficial 

High Very large Large Slight Neutral Large 


beneficial 

Medium Moderate Moderate Slight Neutral Moderate 


beneficial 

Low Slight Slight Slight Neutral Slight 


beneficial 

Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 

173 



7.17 Residual effects of large adverse and very large adverse are considered to 

be significant for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) 

Regulations (1999). Moderate adverse effects are also considered to be 

significant, but could be acceptable with design amendments, possible 

further survey and specific mitigation. 

BASELINE INFORMATION 

Ecological Data Search 

7.18 Data was received from a number of the organisations consulted. The 

Environment Agency highlighted the following: 

Three designated Sites of Scientific Interest (SSI) within 2km, although 

the EA does not hold information on what they are designated for. No 

otter, water vole, GCN, white-clawed crayfish, or bat records within 

2km of the grid reference provided. There is a bat record within 3km. 

7.19 Rotherham Biological Records provided information, including: 

Faunal records and ecological interest sites within 2km of the site. 

White letter hairstreak, grass snake and GCN records in the filter bed 

area at Ulley Country Park. Water vole records within Ulley Country 

Park. Locations and details of Natural History Heritage sites. 

7.20 Sheffield Wildlife Trust provided site reports for fields to the south of the 

study area. One report states that „mitigation works have been carried out 

for newts near the motorway‟ presumably as part of the motorway works in 

2007. 

7.21 South Yorkshire Badger Group provided Records of setts within 2km of 


7.22 Yorkshire Butterfly Conservation has no specific butterfly records for 

this area. One UK BAP moth species was recorded at Ulley Country Park, 

Watsonalla binaria. 

7.23 The MAGIC website data confirmed that there are no statutory 

designated sites within 2km of the study area. Ancient and semi-natural 

woodland is located adjacent to the study area. 

7.24 Data from the National Biodiversity Network reveals badger and 

Japanese knotweed are within a 10km area which includes the study area; 

however the exact location is unknown. Pipistrelle bat is recorded within 

2km of the study area. 

7.25 There are a number of locally designated sites within 2km of the study 

area. Ulley Country Park lies within 2km of the central grid reference for 

the study area. As informed by RMBC, this site qualifies as a Candidate 

Local Wildlife Site under grassland, heathland, woodland, hedgerow, open 

174 



water, fungi, protected mammal, breeding birds and rare/threatened 

invertebrate data, and is also registered as a Natural History Heritage Site 

(see below). Protected species records provided by RMBC which are 

within 2km of the Penny Hill site (GCN and water vole) are from the Ulley 

Country Park area. Spring Wood bounds the south west of the Penny Hill 

study area and is registered as a Natural History Heritage Site. Natural 

History Heritage site registrations include ancient woodlands, breeding 

birds, ancient/species-rich hedgerows, key habitats, presence of badgers 

and country parks. Morthen Brook is registered as a Natural History 

Heritage Site, this includes the area around Swallow Mills pond that is 

within the study area. Other Natural History Heritage Sites within 2km of 

the centre of the study area are M1-M18 link road verge, Pea Carr Wood, 

Sheep Dike, Lane Wood, RBG1, Turnshaw Plantation, Brampton Common 

(also a Candidate Local Wildlife Site) and Long Road, Brampton. 

Phase 1 Habitat Survey 

7.26 The study area comprises predominantly arable land dissected by 

species-poor but generally intact hedgerows. There are some „wildlife 

strips‟ and „grass field margins‟ between the crops and field boundaries, 

some small areas of improved and semi-improved grassland, and two 

small areas of woodland. There are a number of drainage ditches, with 

the two main flowing watercourses being the northern and southern 

branches of Ulley Brook. There is one farm, Ulley Beeches which is within 


7.27 Similar habitat surrounds the study area. Further to the north and east is 

the M1 which bounds the east of the Penny Hill study area. Further to the 

south are the villages of Aston and Aughton, with Ulley village, reservoir 

and country park further to the west. 

Bat Survey 

7.28 The habitat supported within the study area includes arable fields which 

are surrounded by predominantly intact hedgerows and as such the 

habitat overall is considered to be of low to medium quality for bats. There 

is some habitat suitable for roosting including standard trees, and some 

farm buildings. As the hedgerows are predominantly intact, their suitability 

as commuting routes is high, however the surrounding arable fields 

provide low quality foraging habitat. The presence of the two 

watercourses (also drainage ditches) will improve the limited foraging 

potential. 

7.29 Survey effort was determined using results from the habitat assessment 

and using Natural England Guidance (2008). Under this guidance the 

study area is likely to be a low to medium risk site, as the study area is 

small, has few potential roost sites, and was determined to present a low 

to medium likely threat to bats. The surveys would also inform the site 

layout design process, such as implementing large buffers around 

potential roost sites to further reduce the risk level at this site. 

175 



7.30 Two transects were surveyed which give an overview of activity across the 

habitats within the study area. A total of 15 bat passes were recorded 

over both surveys and comprised of 3 species. These were common 

pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle and brown longeared. 

Bat activity occurred throughout the study area with no 

concentrations of activity associated with particular features. The linear 

features that were followed did not show evidence during these surveys of 

being flightlines for large numbers of commuting bats. 

7.31 The trees identified during the Phase 1 Habitat survey are semi-mature 

oak, with mature ivy growing on the trunks and branches, with possible 

cracks in the upper branches. No bat roosts were detected within these 

trees. The buildings at Ulley Beeches consist of a house, stables, old 

stable block, hay/cow sheds and a small brick built out-building. The 

house consists of painted brickwork with no visible gaps, an intact tiled 

roof, and double glazed windows, and is considered to have low potential. 

The stables are brick built with a corrugated roof and are considered to 

have low potential. The old stable block is also brick built with a 

corrugated roof, but there are visible gaps in the brickwork and this 

building is much higher roofed. It is considered to have medium potential, 

but there is a bright security light on the northern side of this building which 

might discourage roosting bats. The hay/cow sheds are of metal 

construction and considered to have low potential. The small brick built 

out-building has a slate roof and has visible gaps in the brickwork, and is 

considered to have medium potential. Bats were recorded foraging along 

the hedgerow to the east of the buildings and around the buildings during 

the dusk survey. A smaller amount of commuting activity was recorded 

during the dawn survey. No bats roosts were detected in these buildings. 

Badger Survey 

7.32 The foraging and commuting habitat available within the study area is 

considered to be of average to good quality. Foraging habitat exists within 

the arable fields, along the field margins, in the small areas of grassland, 

and woodland. Few signs of territorial activity (latrines) and commuting 

were found throughout the study area, however detection was inhibited by 

the dense vegetation at the time survey. Two setts were found within the 

study area. These included a main sett and a outlier/subsidiary sett. 

Details of the location of the badger setts are confidential under the 

Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and are therefore not given in the main 

body of this report. Full details and the badger survey results map are 

given as a confidential annex, which should not be passed to third parties 

or be in the public domain. 

Otter Survey 

7.33 A number of drainage ditches were identified that were considered 

unsuitable for otter due to factors such as lack of water, pollution, 

stagnation, and being completely overgrown with vegetation or algal 

growth. Two watercourses were considered suitable for otter within the 

176 



study area and were surveyed, these were the northern and southern 

branches of Ulley Brook. No otter signs were found during these surveys, 

however suitable features such as exposed roots and dead wood for holt 

locations were recorded. It is probable that otter would use these 

watercourses for commuting if they were present in the area. 

Water Vole Survey 

7.34 A number of drainage ditches were identified that were considered 

unsuitable for water vole due to factors such as lack of water, unsuitable 

banks, pollution, stagnation, and being completely overgrown with 

vegetation or algal growth. Two watercourses were considered suitable 

for water vole within the study area and were surveyed. No signs of water 

vole were found during these surveys. A small number of holes were 

noted at the bottom of the bank on southern branch of Ulley Brook, 

however due to an absence of other signs such as latrines and feeding 

stations, it was concluded that these were rat holes. This watercourse 

does, however provide suitable habitat along some of its length, and due 

to the presence of water vole in the wider area, the future colonisation of 

this watercourse cannot be ruled out. 

7.35 The second watercourse surveyed was the northern branch of the Ulley 

Brook (north of the site boundary). The upstream section where it flows 

west from the M1 culvert was considered sub-optimal for water vole as the 

banks were scrubby or supported semi-mature trees with no grassy 

vegetation. The downstream section was considered more suitable for 

water vole as the banks become shallower and less wooded, however 

they are continuously lined with hawthorn and elder which overhang and 

shade the watercourse. 

White Clawed Crayfish Survey 

7.36 A number of drainage ditches on the site were considered unsuitable for 

white-clawed crayfish due to factors such as lack of water, pollution and 

complete algal cover, stagnation, lack of suitable refuges, and being 

completely overgrown with vegetation. The northern and southern 

branches of the Ulley Brook were considered suitable for white-clawed 

crayfish and were surveyed. No white-clawed crayfish or signs of whiteclawed 

crayfish were found during these surveys. Suitable features such 

as heterogenous flow pattern, debris dams and tree roots were recorded. 

However, the substrate was silty and in-channel refuges were limited, 

which is unfavourable habitat for white-clawed crayfish. No burrows were 

identified and it is considered that white-clawed crayfish are not present in 

these watercourses. 

Great Crested Newt Survey 

7.37 At the time of survey the pond was completely overgrown with vegetation 

including soft rush, great willowherb, watercress and grasses, which have 

grown vigorously due to the influx of nutrients from agricultural drainage. 

177 



No water was visible until the vegetation was trodden underfoot, from 

which water to a depth up to approximately 4cm became evident. Water 

has been diverted to the pond via a drainage ditch from the surrounding 

arable field, and consequently the water was very dark in colour. The desk 

study section of the HSI process revealed no other ponds within the study 

area or within 500m of this pond, and that the surrounding habitat is 

suboptimal for newts, being predominantly arable with little foraging 

habitat. The HSI score for this pond is calculated to be 0.39. Scores of 

less than 0.5 represent poor suitability for GCN, and 0.43 is the lowest 

score at which a site was known to support GCN (Oldham et al., 2000). 

7.38 After undertaking the HSI assessment, Phase 1 Habitat Survey and visual 

assessment of the pond it was determined that further GCN surveys were 

not necessary. It is concluded that this pond does not support breeding 

GCN. 


NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE 

Designated / Wildlife Sites 

7.39 There are no statutory designated sites within 2km of the site. There are a 

number of locally registered sites within 2km of the site, with only one of 

these, Morthen Brook (a section of which is referred to as the Ulley Brook) 

falling within the study area. This site is registered as a Natural History 

Heritage Site by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and as such it 

is considered to have a Nature Conservation Value of Low – Local 

Importance. Spring Wood is also a Natural History Heritage Site, and 

ancient and semi-natural woodland. It is adjacent to the southern 

boundary of the study area, and is considered to have a Nature 

Conservation Value of Low – Local Importance. 

Phase 1 Habitat Survey 

7.40 The arable habitat within the study area has low ecological value and is 

common and widespread within the local area. It has therefore been 

assigned a Nature Conservation Value of Parish – Negligible 

Importance. The majority of arable fields within the study area have 

grass field margins which are ecologically important in providing both 

wildlife corridors and important foraging habitat for a range of species. 

This type of habitat is listed both on the Rotherham LBAP and UKBAP and 

is therefore assigned a Nature Conservation Value of Low – Local 

Importance. The hedgerows within the study area, although species 

poor, are dominated by native species and are mostly intact. Hedgerows 

dominated by native species are listed on the UKBAP. These hedgerows 

provide important wildlife corridors and are considered ecologically 

important, in particular when combined with the grass field margins 

described above. They have therefore been assigned a Nature 

Conservation Value of Low – Local Importance 

178 



7.41 There are some small areas of semi-natural broadleaved woodland within 

the study area. These areas are uncommon within the study area and 

provide important habitat for a range of flora and fauna. The area of 

woodland that bounds Ulley Brook is wet woodland, and this habitat is 

included on both the UKBAP and LBAP. It is considered that these areas 

of woodland are locally important and have been assigned a Nature 

Conservation Value of Low – Local Importance. There are some very 

small areas of improved and semi-improved grassland within the study 

area. These habitat types are predominantly used for grazing of 

cattle/sheep and are not listed on the UKBAP or LBAP. They are also 

common and widespread in the wider area, and therefore these habitat 

types have been assigned a Nature Conservation Value of Parish - 

Negligible Importance. 

7.42 There are a number of watercourses within the study area. These mainly 

consist of drainage ditches which offer poor water quality; however they do 

provide important wildlife corridors and refuges. There are two larger 

watercourses within the study area, which are branches of Ulley Brook. 

These watercourses differ from the others principally due to their greater 

volume of water, faster flow and better water quality. These watercourses 

also provide suitable habitat for protected species such as otter and water 

vole (although no signs of these species were found). They have 

therefore been assigned a Nature Conservation Value of Low – Local 

Importance. The pond adjacent to the study area appears to be a 

temporary drainage pond. Ponds and lakes are included on both the 

UKBAP and LBAP. This pond has therefore been assigned a Nature 

Conservation Value of Low – Local Importance. 

Bat Survey 

7.43 The most commonly recorded species recorded during the surveys was 

common pipistrelle which is common and widespread in the UK and in 

Yorkshire. Other species were recorded infrequently, in line with their 

status in Yorkshire. Furthermore, no bat roosts were identified. However, 

one of species recorded (brown long-eared) is a UKBAP priority species. 

The bat species recorded within the study area have been given a Nature 

Conservation Value of Medium – Regional Importance as they receive 

both European and British legal protection, one of these is a UKBAP 

species, and some of the species recorded are less common in Yorkshire 

such as natterer‟s and whiskered/brandt‟s. 

Badger Survey 

7.44 Badgers are found throughout mainland Britain and Ireland but are patchily 

distributed in the northern Highlands of Scotland (Woods, 1995). They are 

widespread throughout Yorkshire and Humberside, including across the 

Rotherham borough (Rotherham BAP, 2004). It is considered that up to 

two badger social groups could exist in the study area with one of the 

social group‟s main sett located within the study area. Badger is listed on 

the LBAP, but not on the UKBAP. The badger population within the study 

179 



area is not considered to be a population of regional or county importance, 

and given the relatively high population of badgers in the UK, badgers 

within the study area are considered to have a Nature Conservation Value 

of Low – Local importance. 

Otter Survey 

7.45 No otter signs were found within the study area. Otter receive both 

European and British legal protection, and are listed on the UKBAP, but as 

no otter signs were found within the study area they have not been 

assigned a Nature Conservation Value at this time. 

Water Vole Survey 

7.46 No water vole signs were found within the study area. Water vole are 

British protected species and are listed on the UKBAP, but as no water 

vole signs were found within the study area they have not been assigned a 

Nature Conservation Value at this time. 

White-clawed Crayfish Survey 

7.47 No white-clawed crayfish were found within the study area. White-clawed 

crayfish receive both European and British legal protection, and are listed 

on the UKBAP, but as no white-clawed crayfish were found within the 

study area they have not been assigned a Nature Conservation Value at 

this time. 

Great Crested Newt Survey 

7.48 Great crested newt were not found within the study area, and there are no 

ponds or existing records within 500m of the surveyed pond. Great 

crested newt receive both European and British legal protection, and are 

listed on the UKBAP, but as no great crested newt were found within the 

study area, they have not been assigned a Nature Conservation Value at 

this time. 

CONSTRUCTION PHASE 

Impacts 

7.49 The construction phase is expected to last approximately 10 months. 

Impacts associated with construction are predominantly those of habitat 

loss and disturbance through removal of soils and vegetation to make way 

for the necessary infrastructure. Disturbance due to the movement and 

operation of heavy plant, and impacts from the use/storage of fuels and 

oils on site if spillages occur. 

180 



Designated/Wildlife Sites 

7.50 During construction there will be no direct impact on statutory and non 

statutory sites. A RMBC Natural History Heritage Site, Morthen Brook (a 

section of which is referred to as a branch of Ulley Brook in this report) is 

within and bounds the study area, however the nearest turbine is 

approximately 230m from the watercourse. Spring Wood is also a Natural 

History Heritage Site which bounds the southern boundary of the study 

area, however the nearest turbine is approximately 340m from the edge of 

the woodland. These distances are deemed to be of sufficient distances 

away to result in a neutral impact, which is therefore of neutral 

significance. 

Habitats 

7.51 The proposed turbine locations will impact on arable land which is 

generally considered to be of negligible conservation importance. Due to 

disturbance there will be a minor negative impact, however the impact 

significance is neutral. Short sections of hedgerows, and associated grass 

field margin, will need to be removed where the proposed access tracks 

cross them. As hedgerows and grass field margins provide locally 

important habitat for birds, mammals and invertebrates it is considered 

that the magnitude of impact without mitigation would be intermediate 

negative, leading to an impact significance of slight adverse. The 

access tracks will cross three watercourses of low ecological value. Due 

to the small loss of habitat, it is considered that this will be a minor 

negative impact, with an impact significance of slight adverse. Spillages 

of vehicle fuel, oils, cement and dust would have intermediate to major 

negative potential impacts on the habitats within the study area, through 

toxic effects on soil and vegetation, increases in pH of the soils, and 

pollution of watercourses which are of Local Importance. The impact 

significance is considered to be slight to moderate adverse. Trampling / 

damage of vegetation and erosion of soils might occur in places due to 

movement of vehicles, heavy plant and site staff. This would lead to minor 

damage of habitats of Low Importance, resulting in a minor negative 

impact. The impact significance is therefore neutral to slight adverse. 

Bats 

7.52 Disturbance impacts may arise at the points where tracks are constructed 

close to field boundaries such as hedges and tree lines. This may 

discourage use of these habitats by diverting bats from their usual 

flightlines. The impact of the construction of the access tracks in close 

proximity to hedgerows is considered to be minor negative - therefore the 

significance of impact is considered to be slight adverse. Impacts may 

also arise where access tracks breach hedgerows and sections are 

removed. Gaps in hedgerows/tree lines may make it difficult for bats to 

commute along these flightlines. As the number of hedgerows to be 

breached is minimal, the impact of creating gaps in hedgerows is 

181 



considered to be minor negative - therefore the significance of impact is 

considered to be slight adverse. Invertebrate numbers may be affected if 

habitats are removed in place of stone or gravel tracks. However, the total 

area of land which will be removed in this way is minimal compared to the 

total study area and the arable habitat which will be affected is not 

particularly associated with invertebrates. The magnitude of impact is 

therefore considered to be minor negative, resulting in an impact 

significance of slight adverse. 

7.53 Light pollution is likely to occur during construction. Some high wattage 

security lights or working lights may be erected and may affect existing bat 

flightlines and may even prevent roosting in some areas or discourage 

emergence (no roosts were found but potential exists). Light can however 

benefit certain species such as pipistrelle as insect prey will often gather 

around artificial light, whereas Myotis species tend to be light shy and are 

discouraged by light. This will be a direct impact of minor negative 

magnitude therefore equating to a slight adverse ecological impact. 

There is little information known about how noise and vibrations affect 

bats, however it is possible that that noise and vibrations from site 

machinery may interfere with bats echolocation calls. As the majority of 

the work will be carried out during the day the effect of this is likely to be 

minimal – giving an impact score of slight adverse. However, if works are 

required at night in special circumstances the magnitude of impact will 

increase to intermediate negative having a moderate adverse impact. 

Badgers 

7.54 Based on the proposed turbine layout and the access tracks, none of the 

known setts will be lost or disturbed by the proposed wind farm. Habitat 

loss will lead to a small decrease in food availability where arable land and 

other habitats are removed in place of stone or gravel tracks. However, 

the total area of construction land on the site is generally minimal 

compared to the study area. As such, this impact is predicted to be minor 

negative and therefore a significance of slight adverse. Disturbance to 

foraging areas and commuting routes may occur through an increase in 

human activity, which may affect badger movement. This is considered to 

have a minor negative impact and therefore a significance of slight 

adverse. High wattage security lights or working lights may be erected if 

night working is undertaken and are likely to affect badger commuting 

routes and may even prevent emergence from nearby setts. This will be a 

direct impact of minor negative to intermediate negative magnitude 

therefore equating to a slight adverse significance. If it is necessary for 

site traffic to operate at night, this may lead to an increased risk of road 

related mortality for badgers. This is considered to have a direct impact of 

minor negative to intermediate negative magnitude therefore equating 

to a slight adverse significance. 

182 



Otter, Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish 

7.55 No otter, water vole or white-clawed crayfish were recorded within the 

study area, however suitable habitat exists. The watercourses within the 

survey area could potentially become polluted by the materials stored and 

used for construction, both during refuelling and during general use. Even 

where watercourses are considered unsuitable for otter, pollutants may be 

carried to connecting watercourses which are suitable. Pollutants such as 

oil or petrol will reduce the waterproofing properties of the otter and water 

vole‟s fur which will affect its ability to control its body temperature whilst 

swimming. Pollutants such as oil or petrol are likely to cause mortalities or 

force crayfish to vacate the area. As these species have not been 

assigned a Nature Conservation Value the impact magnitude and 

significance has not been assessed. 

Great Crested Newt 

7.56 No great crested newts were recorded within the study area, and the 

identified pond is considered unsuitable. As there are no ponds within 

500m of the study area, there are no foreseen impacts on great crested 

newt from the proposed construction activities. 

OPERATIONAL PHASE 

Impacts 

7.57 Assessment of the operation phase comprises impacts associated with 

maintenance activities and the physical presence of wind farm 

infrastructure. The operational life of the wind farm is expected to be 25 

years. 

Habitats 

7.58 There will be a small loss of habitat relative to the size of the study area 

throughout the operation period of the wind farm. The habitats that will be 

affected are arable land, grass field margins, hedgerows, and 

watercourses, and the loss is considered to be a minor negative impact, 

equating to a significance of neutral to slight adverse. 

7.59 Trampling/damage of vegetation and erosion of soils might occur in places 

due to movement of vehicles, heavy plant and site staff. This would lead 

to minor damage, resulting in a minor negative impact. The impact 

significance is therefore neutral to slight adverse. 

7.60 There may be some risk of pollution of soils and habitats through spillage 

of oils and fuel during routine maintenance operations or through seepage 

of lubricants and transformer oils to ground from the turbine structures 

themselves during normal operation. Depending on the scale of 

spillage/seepage and the type of vegetation/soils affected, this would have 

an impact rating of minor to major negative. However due to the low 

183 



likelihood of this occurrence the impact significance is considered to be 

slight adverse. 

Bats 

7.61 Bats may suffer fatalities due to collision with turbines, or as recently 

discovered barotrauma (Baerwald et al, 2008) when bats come in to close 

contact with turbines and suffer lung injury. Natural England have 

produced tables in the „Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines: Interim 

Guidance‟ (2008) listing bat species likely to be at risk of impact with 

turbines, and populations likely to be threatened due to impacts with 

turbines. The bat species recorded at Penny Hill and their associated risk 

are shown below in Table 7.1: 

Table 7.1: Risk to different bat species of impacts with wind turbines 

(Natural England, 2008) 

Species Risk of impact with 

turbines 

Common pipistrelle Medium Low 

Soprano pipistrelle Medium Low 

Natterer‟s Low Low 

Brown long-eared Low Low 

Whiskered/Brandt‟s Low Low 

184 

Populations likely to be 

threatened due to impacts 

with turbines 

7.62 The turbines are not located along linear flight lines, being given a 

minimum of 50m buffer between such features and turbines as 

recommended by the Natural England guidance, and the amount of bat 

activity recorded was low. Also, the species of bat recorded are not of 

high risk of impact, and there is low risk of the populations of these 

species being threatened due to impacts with turbines. Therefore this is 

considered to have a minor negative impact on the bat species recorded. 

As the Nature Conservation Value of this species within the study area is 

Medium – Regional importance, the impact significance is considered to 

be slight adverse. 

7.63 The disruption of flightlines by access tracks may have a minor negative 

effect on the distribution of bats and their use of such flightlines but is 

unlikely to affect roosts or the local population. The magnitude of impact 

is, therefore, considered to be minor negative with an impact significance 

of slight adverse. 

7.64 The emission of ultrasound noise emitted by the rotating turbines could 

disturb foraging bats. Some turbine types have been found to emit sound 

at frequencies of around 30 kHz at which some bats echolocate. 

Ultrasonic noise can detract and attract bats, the use of sonic lures works 



in the same principal with bats being „lured‟ to the ultrasound. This is a 

poorly understood subject with little evidence to prove either attraction or 

detraction theories. However, noise emitted at this frequency may interfere 

with the echolocation calls of bats. This has been assigned a minor 

negative impact therefore a slight adverse significance is predicted. 

Badgers 

7.65 It is considered that there will be minimal impacts to badger during the 

operation of the wind farm. Impacts such as potential increased mortality 

of badgers caused by maintenance vehicles using access tracks are 

considered to be minor negative with an impact significance of slight 

adverse. 


7.66 The watercourses within the study area could potentially become polluted 

by spillage of oils and fuel during routine maintenance operations. As 

these species have not been assigned a Nature Conservation Value the 

impact magnitude and significance has not been assessed. 


7.67 No great crested newt were recorded within the study area, and the 



newt from the operation of the wind farm. 


Impacts 

7.68 The life of the wind farm planning permission will be approximately 25 

years including construction and decommissioning. Decommissioning 

after closure of the wind farm would involve removal of turbines and 

associated infrastructure. The exact methods of decommissioning are not 

known at present. The main foreseeable impacts would result from 

removal of the upper parts of the turbine foundations. 

Habitats 

7.69 It is envisaged that disturbance of the existing vegetation would occur, 

though not of the scale or severity experienced during the construction 

phase. Any reseeding of these areas and of the decommissioned access 

tracks might result in establishment of vegetation that is not native to the 

site. Other potential impacts include pollution incidents caused by 

accidental spillages of vehicle fuels and oils, hydraulic fluids, lubricants 

and transformer oils associated with the turbines. These impacts have 

been assessed for the construction phase of the project and are not 

anticipated to be any worse during decommissioning. 

185 



Bats 

7.70 It is likely that there will be similar short term impacts on bats associated 

with decommissioning as are associated with construction. 

7.71 Light pollution is likely to occur during decommissioning. Some high 

wattage security lights or working lights may be erected and may affect 

existing bat flightlines and may even prevent roosting in some areas or 

discourage emergence (no roosts were found but potential exists). Light 

can however benefit certain species such as pipistrelle as insect prey will 

often gather around artificial light, whereas Myotis species tend to be light 

shy and are discouraged by light. This will be a direct impact of minor 

negative magnitude therefore equating to a slight adverse ecological 

impact. 

Badgers 

7.72 It is likely that decommissioning will lead to the same impacts for badgers 

as are associated with the construction phase although the impact period 

is likely to be shorter. 

7.73 In addition to this, disturbance may arise if new setts are excavated closer 

to the turbines and access tracks prior to decommissioning. This is 

considered to have an intermediate negative impact and therefore a 

significance of slight adverse. 

7.74 There will be a temporary loss of habitat caused through the disturbance 

of land during decommissioning. This will result in a minor negative 

impact and therefore a significance of slight adverse. 

7.75 High wattage security lights or working lights may be erected if night 

working is undertaken and are likely to affect badger commuting routes 

and may even prevent emergence from nearby setts. This will be a direct 

impact of minor negative to intermediate negative magnitude therefore 

equating to a slight adverse significance. 

7.76 If it is necessary for site traffic to operate at night, this may lead to an 

increased risk of road related mortality for badgers. This is considered to 

have a minor negative impact and therefore a significance of slight 

adverse. 


7.77 It is likely that there will be similar short term impacts on otter, water vole 

and white-clawed crayfish associated with decommissioning as are 

associated with construction. 

7.78 No otter, water vole or white-clawed crayfish were recorded within the 

study area, however suitable habitat exists. The watercourses within the 

study area could potentially become polluted by the materials stored and 

used for decommissioning, both during refuelling and during general use. 

186 



Even where watercourses are considered unsuitable for otter, pollutants 

may be carried to connecting watercourses which are suitable. Pollutants 

such as oil or petrol will reduce the waterproofing properties of the otter 

and water vole‟s fur which will affect its ability to control its body 

temperature whilst swimming. Pollutants such as oil or petrol are likely to 

cause mortalities or force crayfish to vacate the area. As these species 

have not been assigned a Nature Conservation Value the impact 

magnitude and significance has not been assessed. 


7.79 No great crested newt were recorded within the study area, and the 



newt from the decommissioning activities. 

MITIGATION 

7.80 Four common forms of mitigation are recognised: 

Avoidance - Avoidance and prevention of adverse impacts through the 

design of the scheme and sensitive programming of works, for example 

re-siting the proposed turbines and access tracks to retain key 

ecological features; 

Reduction - Mitigation to reduce the scale and severity of impacts, for 

example restricting the working area in areas of ecological interest; 

Restoration - Reinstatement to replace ecologically sensitive habitats 

through habitat re-creation, for example restoration of hedgerows 

crossed by access tracks; and 

Enhancement - Enhancement and improvement of existing conditions, 

for example planting species chosen to enhance the diversity and 

ecological interest of the reinstated area. 

7.81 The most effective way of mitigating against ecological impacts is 

avoidance by careful positioning of turbines and associated infrastructure 

to avoid areas of ecological importance. This has been addressed as far 

as possible by the wind farm design, using available field and desk based 

survey information. 

HABITATS 

7.82 All site compounds and access tracks will be of the minimum size required 

for safe working. Stockpiling of materials will be kept to a minimum. 

Waste materials will be removed from the site and disposed of at the 

earliest opportunity. 

187 



7.83 Where hedgerow sections are removed to allow for access tracks to be 

constructed, the remainder of the hedgerow will be gapped up to 

equivalent length (where necessary) using native hedgerow species local 

to the Rotherham area to provide alternative habitat for birds, mammals 

and invertebrates. 

BATS 

Legal Obligations and Guidance - Bats 

7.84 Legal obligations towards bats are generally concerned with roost 

protection. Planning Policy Statement Biodiversity and Geological 

Conservation 2004 (formally PPG 9) makes it a legal obligation of 

developers to sustain, and where possible improve, the quality and extent 

of natural habitat and geological and geomorphological sites; the natural 

physical processes on which they depend; and the populations of naturally 

occurring species which they support. Bats therefore have to be 

considered as part of this proposed development. 

7.85 The Eurobats Resolution (2006) led to Natural England developing interim 

guidance regarding bats and wind farms (2008). This guidance advises 

that survey effort should aim to establish bat activity across the site, and 

good practice recommendations are made for development including 

buffer zones from habitat features such as hedgerows. 

Mitigation - Bats 

7.86 Bats are nocturnal and active at night. It is recommended that works be 

undertaken during daylight hours where possible to minimise disturbance 

during construction. During operation turbines will be running overnight, 

with potential direct impacts on bats. Following Natural England‟s Interim 

guidance regarding bats and wind turbines (2008), buffer zones of a 

minimum of 50m have been placed around features which may act as bat 

flightlines and foraging areas such as hedgerows and woodland. 

7.87 The layout of the access tracks minimises the need to cross field 

boundaries and therefore only a small amount of hedgerow and trees will 

be removed. Where trees are removed or if hedgerow removal is 

necessary replacement hedges/treelines will be planted and connected 

with other flightlines on the site and will be at a suitable distance from 

turbines. Planting would include native hedge species such as blackthorn 

(Prunus spinosa), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and spindle 

(Euonymus europaeus) and include occasional fast growing standards 

such as wild cherry (Prunus avium) or field maple (Acer campestre). 

7.88 The wind farm has been designed to avoid areas of woodland and 

buildings; therefore these habitats will be retained and left undisturbed. A 

buffer zone of 200m has been implemented around these areas as they 

provide good foraging habitat and potential roost sites. 

188 



7.89 If any trees are to be removed which may provide potential roost 

opportunities for bats, then these must be felled before March to avoid the 

summer roosting season. This must always be done under extreme care 

in case hibernating bats are present and signs of bats must always be 

looked for by an ecologist immediately prior to removal. This is particularly 

the case for standing deadwood. 

7.90 Lighting can have a detrimental effect on bats (A.J Mitchell-Jones, 2004). 

It is recommended that where night lights or security lights are needed 

these should be pointed towards the ground and away from bat habitat 

such as flightlines. 

7.91 Site construction staff will be briefed regarding bats prior to any site 

clearance. It will be explained that bats could be present and particular 

attention should be paid to areas such as trees which could be inhabited 

by bats. In the event of bats being discovered in any part of the site, 

Natural England‟s Regional Team (Humber to Pennines) should be 

contacted on 01924 334500. Work must cease immediately if bats are 

found and Natural England will offer advice about how to proceed with 

work. 

Habitat Improvement - Bats 

7.92 Habitat connectivity is a valuable ecological asset and can be used to 

encourage bat flightlines away from turbine locations. In addition to the 

use of buffer zones around important bat habitat, it is proposed that the 

continuity of existing field boundaries is improved by gapping up 

hedgerows where required. This will increase the number of potential 

flight lines throughout the site that bats can use, and gapped up 

hedgerows will provide additional habitat for invertebrates, thereby 

enhancing the prey resource for bats. 

BADGERS 

Legal Obligations - Badgers 

7.93 The provisions of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 require developers to 

take care when carrying out any work near setts as offences could result 

from intentionally or recklessly interfering with a sett. Therefore, if any 

works are necessary close to a known sett, it will be necessary to apply to 

Natural England for a development licence, dependant on the level of 

disturbance likely. As a general guide, the following distances can be 

used, and a licence would be needed if: 

there are plans to use very heavy machinery (generally tracked 

vehicles) within 30 metres of any entrance to an active sett; 

there are plans to use lighter machinery (generally wheeled vehicles), 

particularly for any digging operation, within 20 metres; 

189 



there are plans for light work such as hand digging or scrub clearance 

within 10 metres; 

there are some activities which may cause disturbance at greater 

distances (such as using explosives or pile driving) and these should 

be given individual consideration. 

Mitigation - Badgers 

7.94 The proposed turbine layout ensures that turbines are at least 200m away 

from any woodland, therefore minimising disturbance to any setts which 

may be located in woodlands (including woodland outside of the study 

area). 

7.95 During construction, land take for new access tracks will be kept to a width 

of around 5m, ensuring minimum land take. Upon restoration the final 

track width will be around 3.5m. 

7.96 For safety reasons, it is proposed that a speed limit will be imposed on 

newly built access tracks which will reduce the likelihood of badger road 

kill. 

7.97 Night time working with its associated need for additional lighting will be 

avoided as far as possible to reduce disturbance to badger, and any 

trenches left open overnight will have a means of escape for any animals 

that might fall in. 

7.98 Contractors and site maintenance workers will be given clear instruction 

about where care needs to be taken not to cause damage to setts or 

disturbance to badgers. 

7.99 The proposed site compound will be located at a distance of greater than 

50m from any known badger sett, therefore minimising disturbance to 

badger in terms of noise, human activity and light. 

7.100 Badger paths will not be obstructed by fencing or machinery. 

Further Work - Badgers 

7.101 Although no known badger setts will be affected by the proposed wind 

farm layout, pre-construction surveys will be undertaken to ensure that no 

new setts have been excavated within 30m of the works (or other distance 

where it is considered that disturbance will occur), ensuring that the works 

do not result in contravention of the law. 

Ecological Input To Site Design And Selection 

7.102 Site selection and design has been an iterative process, whereby the 

ecologists have worked closely with the Applicant to achieve the optimum 

site layout, such that the impact on the ecology was minimised. Ongoing 

liaison has been a vital part in minimising the ecological impact of the wind 

190 



farm before completion of the EIA. Turbine locations have been located at 

a distance of at least 200m from areas of woodland, therefore minimising 

impacts on this habitat and species which may use them for foraging. 

Turbines are located at a distance of at least 50m from hedgerows and 

watercourses, and tracks will avoid the field margin/hedge bottom habitat. 


Construction 

7.103 After mitigation, all effects during construction would be slight adverse or 

less, and therefore not significant. 

Operation 

7.104 After mitigation, all effects during operation would be neutral to slight 

adverse or less, and therefore not significant. 

Decommissioning 

7.105 Decommissioning effects would be similar or less than those predicted to 

occur during construction. Therefore after mitigation, all effects would be 

slight adverse or less, and therefore not significant. 

7.106 The assessment therefore concludes that all residual effects on ecological 

resources would be of slight adverse or less and therefore not significant. 

Effects of the proposed wind farm development on ecology and nature 

conservation are therefore assessed overall as not significant. 


Residual Impacts on Habitats with Mitigation 

Impact 

(Construction) 

Ecological 

Impact 

Significance 

Without 

Mitigation 

Mitigation Ecological Impact 

Significance With 

Mitigation 

Habitat loss (arable) Neutral All site compounds will be fenced 

and will be the minimum size 

required for safe working. Field 

margins will be retained where 

possible. 

Hedgerow removal Slight adverse Minimise number of hedgerow 

breaches in design process. 

Gap up hedgerows to equivalent 

length. 

Habitat loss 

(watercourses) 

Slight adverse Keep width of access tracks to a 

minimum. 

191 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Neutral 



Impact 


Soil and water 

pollution 

Ecological 

Impact 

Significance 

Without 

Mitigation 

Slight to 

moderate 

adverse 

Disturbance Neutral to slight 

adverse 

Impact (Operation) Ecological 

Impact 

Significance 

Without 

Mitigation 

Habitat loss (arable, 

hedgerows and 

watercourses) 


pollution from routine 

maintenance 

Neutral to slight 

adverse 

Disturbance Neutral to slight 

adverse 

Impact 

(Decommissioning) 

Habitat loss (arable 

and hedgerows) 


pollution 



Mitigation 

This will be controlled as per 

Banks Renewables 

Environmental Management 

Plan. 

Soils will be protected from 

damage caused by heavy plant 

by using low ground pressure 

machinery and if necessary, by 

laying geotextile membranes 

over sensitive vegetation and 

soils. 

192 

Neutral 

Neutral 



Mitigation 

As dealt with per mitigation in 

Construction phase. 

Slight adverse This will be controlled as per 



Plan. 

Ecological 

Impact 

Significance 

Without 

Mitigation 

Soils will be protected from 






soils. 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Neutral 



Mitigation 

Slight adverse All site compounds will be fenced 

and will be the minimum size 

required for safe working. 




Plan. 

Neutral 

Neutral 



Disturbance Slight adverse Soils will be protected from 






soils. 

Residual Impacts on Bats with Mitigation 

Impact 


Ecological 

Impact 

Significance 

Without 

Mitigation 

193 

Neutral 



Mitigation 

Disturbance Slight adverse Undertake construction during 

daylight hours where possible. 

Creation of breaches 

in hedgerows may 

affect flightlines 

Slight adverse Gap up hedgerows to the 

equivalent length, to provide 

alternative flightlines. 

Habitat loss Slight adverse Poor quality foraging habitat, 

and area to be lost is minimal. 

Light pollution Slight adverse Flightlines, foraging areas and 

likely roosting sites should not 

be floodlit. Necessary lights 

pointed groundwards and away 

from bat habitat. 

Noise and vibration Slight to moderate 

adverse 


Impact 

Significance 

Without 

Mitigation 

Collisions with rotor 

blades causing bat 

casualties 

Disruption of 

flightlines 

Ultrasound 

interference with bat 

echolocation or 

creating sonic lures 

Undertake construction during 

daylight hours only. 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Neutral 


adverse. 



Mitigation 

Slight adverse Turbines located a minimum of 

50m from foraging areas, 

commuting lines and potential 

roosting areas. 

Slight adverse Gap up hedgerows to provide 

alternative flightlines. 

Slight to moderate 

adverse 

Use of suitable buffers from 

flightlines, foraging areas or 

potential roosts. Buffers of 

200m from woodland and 

buildings, and 50m from 

hedgerows and watercourses. 

Neutral 

Neutral 


adverse 



Impact 


Ecological 

Impact 

Significance 

Without 

Mitigation 



Mitigation 

Disturbance Slight adverse Undertake decommissioning 

during daylight hours where 

possible. 

Light pollution Slight adverse Flightlines, foraging areas and 

likely roosting sites should not 

be floodlit. Necessary lights 

pointed towards the ground and 

away from bat habitat such as 

woodlands and hedgerows. 

Residual Impacts on Badgers with Mitigation 

Impact 


Ecological 

Impact 

Significance 

Without 

Mitigation 

194 

Neutral 

Neutral 



Mitigation 

Habitat loss Slight adverse Minimise land take required. Slight adverse 

Disturbance during 

construction 

Light pollution 

Increased risk of road 

casualties 


Impact 

Significance 

without 

Mitigation 


casualties 

Impact 


Slight adverse Working at least 30m away from 

known setts. 

Neutral 

Slight adverse Aim to avoid night time working. Neutral 

Slight adverse Impose speed limit for all traffic 

using new access roads. 

Neutral 


Significance with 

Mitigation 



Ecological 

Impact 

Significance 

Without 

Mitigation 

Neutral 



Mitigation 

Habitat loss Slight adverse Minimise land take required. Slight adverse 

Disturbance Slight adverse Working at least 30m away from 

known setts. 

Light pollution 


casualties 

Neutral 

Slight adverse Aim to avoid night time working. Neutral 



Neutral 



Residual Impacts on Otter, Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish with Mitigation 

Impact 

(Construction, 

Operation and 

Decommissioning ) 

Pollution of suitable 

habitat 

Ecological 

Impact 

Significance 

Without 

Mitigation 



Mitigation 




Plan. 

195 

Neutral 



8. ORNITHOLOGY 

INTRODUCTION 

8.1 This section of the ES considers the potential ornithological effects of the 

proposed wind farm. It summarises the findings of an assessment 

undertaken by Faber Maunsell, which is outlined in full in Appendix 4. Full 

reference should be made to the consultants report for detailed findings of 

this assessment. 

8.2 The assessment is based on the results of consultation with statutory 

consultees, nature conservation groups and local naturalists and field 

surveys. 

LEGISLATION AND POLICY FRAMEWORK 

8.3 Birds are afforded various levels of protection and conservation status on 

a species by species basis with the inclusion of a number of species on 

the following legislation: 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); and 

EC Birds Directive 1979 (79/409/EEC). 

8.4 The most significant legislation for British birds lies within Part 1 of the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This legislation is the 

means by which the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife 

and Natural Habitats (the 'Bern Convention'), the EC Birds Directive and 

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and 

of wild fauna and flora (the EC Habitats Directive) are implemented in 

Great Britain. 

8.5 The RSPB (2002) has compiled lists of Birds of Conservation Concern 

(BoCC). Red List species are those whose breeding population or range is 

rapidly declining and those of global conservation concern. Amber List 

species are those whose breeding population is in moderate decline, rare 

breeders, internationally important and localised species and those of 

unfavourable conservation status in Europe. 

8.6 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan [BAP] (UK Biodiversity Steering Group, 

1995) lists 59 bird species as priority species requiring conservation 

action, and consequently action plans have been developed for the 

conservation of these species. The UK BAP also lists a number of priority 

habitats that are of importance for birds, for which Habitat Action Plans 

(HAPs) have been produced. 

8.7 The national strategy for biodiversity is delivered at local level via Local 

Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs). The Study Area is covered by the 

Rotherham BAP. There are no bird species relevant to Penny Hill that 

196 



have been assigned individual Species Action Plans (SAPs) under the 

Rotherham LBAP. 

8.8 The Natural Area Profile (NAP) concept sets out the objectives of Natural 

England for the conservation of wildlife and natural features over the area 

concerned and summarises the wildlife interest associated with the main 

habitats found within the Natural Area. 

8.9 There are no species-specific actions or objectives set out in the Natural 

Area Profile, however the following generic objectives are set out, which 

could apply to some of the habitats encountered within the Ornithological 

Survey Area at the Penny Hill site: 

CONSULTATION 

to maintain, expand and enhance the characteristic semi-natural 

habitats such as woodland, valley wetlands, heathland and unimproved 

grassland and to conserve species and geological features; 

to increase the Nature Conservation value of the wider countryside and 

urban green space within the Natural Area; 

to increase awareness and encourage appropriate use of the nature 

conservation resource; and 

to influence future land use of sites undergoing fundamental change. 

Scoping 

8.10 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council consulted a number of 

organisations who commented on the potential ornithological impact of the 

proposal. 

Natural England stated that the ES „should describe any flight paths of 

birds and the risk of impacts on bird populations through bird strike‟. 

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust stated that they would like an assessment of 

collision risk to be included in the EIA and an assessment of the 

potential impact on how migrating birds may be affected. They also 

recommend a bird monitoring programme be set up to provide data on 

how wind turbines affect bird populations. 

Rotherham MBC Environment & Development Services advised 

that Ulley Country Park is of interest nearby and „ornithological flight 

paths to and from this site will also require significant consideration‟. 

Other Consultation 

8.11 The following other organisations were consulted by Faber Maunsell when 

gathering ornithological data: 

197 



Sheffield City Ecology Unit; 

Sheffield Wildlife Trust; 

Environment Agency (Leeds); 

Natural England (Humber to Pennines Team); 

Sheffield Bird Study Group; and 

Rotherham Biological Records Centre. 

8.12 In addition, the RSPB was consulted by TNEI but did not provide any 

comments or data in relation to the site. 

METHODOLOGY 

8.13 Faber Maunsell used two survey methodologies in order to assess the 

potential impacts of the proposed wind farm on birds: 

Census of breeding birds - this shows the distribution of nesting, 

roosting and foraging birds and provides species composition and 

activity data for the Ornithological Survey Area, enabling the most 

sensitive parts to be identified with respect to breeding birds; and 

Vantage Point bird surveys - species-specific surveys that yield data 

regarding flight paths, flying times and heights of vulnerable soaring 

and over-flying birds. Specifically, this approach enables monitoring of 

vulnerable groups such as raptors, geese and waterfowl to be carried 

out more effectively than could be achieved using a transect or 

roaming methodology. This type of survey also yields data that can be 

fed into a Collision Risk Model (CRM) so that predictions of collisionrelated 

bird mortality can be made for particular species perceived as 

vulnerable to mid-air collision with rotating turbine blades. 

Baseline Studies 

8.14 Baseline ornithological data for the site were gathered by undertaking an 

ornithological data search, consulting the organisations listed above, and 

by carrying out breeding and wintering bird surveys. Full details of the 

methodologies used are contained in Appendix 4. 

8.15 Designated sites information was obtained from an area of 2km 

surrounding the site. 

8.16 The breeding bird surveys were undertaken using the Common Birds 

Census (CBC) methodology. The Wintering birds VP Surveys were carried 

out following the guidance published by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) 

and involved extensive monitoring of target species from Vantage Points 

(VPs). 

198 



Breeding Bird Survey 

8.17 Four breeding bird survey visits were undertaken; a single visit was 

undertaken on 17 th June 2007 and three further visits were carried out on 

29 th April, 20 th June and 11 th July 2008. The visits undertaken in 2008 

involved recording all of the bird species observed, their locations and 

activity/behaviour on field maps of the survey area. When the visits were 

completed the survey maps were analysed to assess the breeding 

populations for each species (number of breeding pairs). 

Wintering Vantage Point Survey 

8.18 Wintering VP watches were carried out at two VPs between 12 October 

2007 and 31 March 2008 and amounted to 33.5 hours at VP1 and 35 

hours at VP2. The total time spent on VPs therefore fell slightly short of the 

required survey effort (36 hours per VP) and could not be recovered in the 

time available. This has been accounted for in the CRM calculations. 

8.19 All VP watches were of three hours duration (except where these were 

curtailed due to rapid deterioration in visibility and poor light) and were 

carried out at different times of the day between dawn and dusk to account 

for different levels of bird activity. 

8.20 The survey data were inputted into the CRM developed by W. Band and 

others (Band et al., in press; SNH, 2000). 

Assessment Of Significance 

8.21 The method of evaluation and assessment uses a combination of the 

following guidance: 

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (Institute of Ecology and 

Environmental Management, 2006); 

Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (Institute of 

Environmental Assessment, 1995); and 

Wind Farms and Birds: Calculating a Theoretical Risk Assuming No 

Avoiding Action (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2000). 

8.22 The assessment of effects is based on determining firstly the value of the 

receiving species and secondly the magnitude of the potential impact on 

the species, in order to provide an overall impact score and therefore the 

predicted impact significance. The value of each species of nature 

conservation interest is assessed based on the guidance listed above, 

incorporating additional advice within the Ratcliffe criteria (1977) and the 

IEEM Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (2006). 

8.23 Firstly, each assessed species is assigned one of the following nature 

conservation values: 

199 



Very High (International); 

High (National); 

Medium (Regional/County); 

Low (Local); or 

Parish (Negligible). 

8.24 Secondly, the magnitude of potential impacts is assessed for each species 

independent of its value or designated status. Magnitude of potential 

impacts is described as follows: 

Major Negative; 

Intermediate Negative; 

Minor Negative; 

Neutral; or 

Positive. 

8.25 Based on the value of the species and the predicted magnitude of the 

potential impact, the significance of an effect can be determined using the 

matrix below: 

Nature 

Magnitude of Potential Impact 

Conservation 

Value 

Major 

negative 

Intermediate 

negative 

Minor 

negative 

Neutral Positive 

Very high Very large Large Slight Neutral Large 


beneficial 

High Very large Large Slight Neutral Large 


beneficial 

Medium Moderate Moderate Slight Neutral Moderate 


beneficial 

Low Slight Slight Slight Neutral Slight 


beneficial 

Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 


Data Search Results 

8.26 There are no International or European designated sites, such as Special 

Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs), or 

national designations, within 2km of the proposed wind farm. 

8.27 The only ornithological data received were from Sheffield Bird Study 

Group. They supplied information on Ulley Reservoir Country Park 

200 



(approximately 2km to the west of the proposed wind farm site) and 

Brampton Park (to the east). In winter, Ulley Reservoir Country Park 

supports locally important populations of dabbling and diving ducks (teal 

Anas crecca, mallard A. platyrhynchos, wigeon A. penelope, gadwall A. 

strepera, tufted duck Aythya fuligula and pochard Aythya farina). Flocks of 

golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria) and pink-footed goose (Anser 

brachyrhynchus) have also been recorded over-flying the site. There are 

several records of peregrine (Falco peregrinus) and a single record of 

merlin (Falco columbarius) and hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) during the 

non breeding season. The park also supports a small breeding population 

of waterfowl. 

8.28 At Brampton Park, there are historic records of breeding redshank, snipe 

and lapwing. Other breeding bird species include corn bunting (Miliaria 

calandra) and tree sparrow (Passer montanus), both of which are BoCC 

Red List and UK BAP species). Both Ulley Country Park and Brampton 

Park qualify as Candidate Local Wildlife Sites and Natural History Heritage 

Sites according to site designations adopted by Rotherham MBC. 

8.29 Rother Valley Country Park (approximately 5km to the south) supports 

large populations of wintering waterfowl (including wildfowl and waders) 

and a wide range of nationally scarce passage migrant species have been 

recorded over an extended period of time, usually in small numbers. 

Breeding Bird Survey 

8.30 A total of 41 species were recorded over the course of the three visits to 

the Ornithological Survey Area, of which 40 of these species were 

considered to be breeding within this area. There was a large degree of 

consistency between the four visits in terms of the bird species recorded 

and their numbers and locations. Full details of the results are included in 

the report in Appendix 4. 

8.31 No species listed on Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive or Schedule 1 of the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) were recorded. A number 

of species of high conservation concern that appear on the BoCC Red List 

were recorded during the survey visits. Breeding populations of eight 

BoCC Red List species were recorded within the Ornithological Survey 

Area. 

8.32 Six species of medium conservation concern that appear on the BoCC 

Amber List were also recorded during the survey visits. 

Wintering Vantage Point Survey 

8.33 A total of 33 non-target and 5 target (golden plover, kestrel, lapwing, 

buzzard and sparrowhawk) bird species were recorded over the course of 

the wintering bird vantage point survey. 

201 



8.34 Of the five species, one is included in Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive 

1979 (79/409/EEC) (golden plover) and three appear on the BoCC Amber 

List (kestrel Falco tinnunculus, lapwing Vanellus vanellus and golden 

plover). Lapwing is also listed on one or more of the UK Habitat Action 

Plans. Two of the target bird species are not included within any of the 

three conservation and legislation status indicators mentioned above 

(buzzard Buteo buteo and sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus). 

8.35 A number of the non-target species recorded are included on the BoCC 

Red List. These included large flocks of Linnet (Carduelis cannabinat), 

which were frequently recorded, two reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus), 

small groups of yellowhammer (E. citrinella), skylark (Alauda arvensis), 

starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and grey partridge (Perdix perdix). 

8.36 Common passerines were recorded such as: blackbird (Turdus merula), 

chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs), carrion crow (Corvus corone), blue tit 

(Cyanistes caeruleus), dunnock (Prunella modularis, [BoCC Amber List], 

goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis, great spotted woodpecker (Dendropcopos 

major), great tit (Parus major), greenfinch (Carduelis chloris), jackdaw 

(Corvus monedula), jay (Garrulus glandarius), magpie (Pica pica), 

meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis [BoCC Amber List]), mistle thrush (Turdus 

viscivorus [BoCC Amber List]), pied wagtail (Motacilla alba), redwing 

(Turdus iliacus [BoCC Amber List]), robin (Erithacus rubecula), starling 

(BoCC Red List), stock dove (Columba oenas [BoCC Amber List]), wood 

pigeon (Columba palumbus) and wren (Troglodytes troglodytes). 

8.37 Flocks of fieldfare (Turdus pilaris) were also recorded. This species is 

included in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as 

amended). 

8.38 Other birds recorded include individuals and flocks of black headed gull 

(Larus ridibundus [BoCC Amber List]), common gull (Larus canus), grey 

partridge (BoCC Red List), herring gull (Larus argentatus [BoCC Amber 

List]), lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus [BoCC Amber List]), 

pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) and red legged partridge (Alectoris rufa). 

8.39 None of the non-target species are included in Annex 1 of EC Birds 

Directive 1979 (79/409/EEC). 


8.40 There are no statutory designated areas of natural heritage interest within 

the Study Area. There are two non-statutory sites within the Study Area, 

both of which are registered as Natural History Heritage Sites and 

Candidate Local Wildlife Site: Ulley Country Park and Brampton Common. 

Neither of these sites is likely to be affected either directly or indirectly by 

the construction and operation of the proposed wind farm. 

8.41 The vantage point surveys recorded one species listed in Annex 1 of the 

EC Birds Directive (golden plover). However, the recorded population of 

202 



the golden plover is not sufficient to reach the qualifying threshold for any 

form of national or international designation. 

8.42 The recorded populations of sparrowhawk, kestrel, buzzard and lapwing 

do not fulfil the criteria for conservation value greater than Low (local). 

Golden plover is listed on Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive and therefore 

the nature conservation value that has been assigned to this species is 

Medium (Regional/County); small numbers of this species were recorded 

fairly frequently at the site and this has been considered when assigning 

this nature conservation value. 

8.43 Non-target species of conservation importance recorded regularly within 

the Ecological Survey Area include: yellowhammer, linnet, reed bunting, 

house sparrow (Passer domesticus), skylark, grey partridge, starling, song 

thrush (Turdus philomelos) and tree sparrow. These species are 

considered to be of Medium (Regional/County) value. 

8.44 All other species recorded are considered to be of no more than 

Negligible (Parish) nature conservation value. 


Disturbance 

8.45 Disturbance during construction (including noise, vibration and light 

pollution from heavy machinery and human activity) has been assessed as 

a slight adverse impact for four non-target species (skylark, grey 

partridge, reed bunting and yellowhammer). There were no records of 

nesting raptors or other particularly sensitive groups (ducks and waders) 

within 500m of the proposed wind farm and application boundary. 

Therefore the impact magnitude for disturbance is neutral-minor 

negative for all remaining species, including target species and nonground 

nesting species of medium conservation concern, resulting in an 

impact significance of neutral-slight adverse for all other species during 

the construction phase. 

Habitat Loss 

8.46 The wind farm will result in temporary loss of habitat during construction, 

which could have adverse effects on the availability of hunting/foraging, 

roosting and breeding territory for potentially all of the species recorded 

over the open habitats. However working areas and the site construction 

compound will be reinstated on completion of the wind farm, therefore 

habitat loss due to construction is anticipated to be a short term impact. 

The magnitude of impact for all birds recorded within this area is 

considered to be minor negative. The impact significance assessment for 

all species determined to be of national and regional conservation concern 

and all target species using the land within the application boundary is 

therefore slight adverse. This includes skylark, linnet, yellowhammer, 

203 



eed bunting, grey partridge, starling, song thrush, house sparrow, tree 

sparrow, golden plover and lapwing. 

8.47 The impact significance assessment for all other species is considered to 

be neutral for habitat loss due to the impact magnitude being neutral, the 

conservation value of each species being low/negligible, or both of the 

above. 


Disturbance 

8.48 Disturbance during operation (e.g. as a result of human activity and noise 

associated with maintenance visits), is expected to be considerably less 

than would occur during construction. Therefore the impact magnitude for 

disturbance is neutral-minor negative for all species, resulting in an 

impact significance of neutral-slight adverse for all other species. 

Displacement 

8.49 The presence and operation of the turbines may cause visual, noise and 

vibration-related effects that could deter target species from using the site 

for foraging, hunting and breeding. The site is utilised by raptors and 

waders and these species groups are thought to be particularly sensitive 

to the effects of disturbance and barrier to movement. Low numbers of 

lapwing and golden plover were recorded foraging on arable land within 

the Ornithological Survey Area, however alternative habitat is readily 

available within the locality and region. Therefore it is anticipated that the 

magnitude of the potential impact on golden plover and lapwing will be 

minor negative. The impact significance scores for lapwing and golden 

plover are therefore slight adverse. 

8.50 Alternative habitat for breeding and wintering raptors is readily available in 

the wider locality/region and therefore the effect of displacement is 

considered to be highly localised in this instance. The impact magnitude 

for displacement will therefore be minor negative for sparrowhawk, 

kestrel and buzzard. The impact significance values for sparrowhawk, 

kestrel and buzzard are therefore slight adverse. 

Collision Risk 

8.51 Wind turbines can create a risk of birds colliding with moving turbine 

blades. The degree of risk depends on the biometrics of the species (e.g. 

size, flight speed etc.), flight behaviour, age/maturity of target birds, 

population size, habitat quality, weather conditions, wind turbine 

dimensions, layout and spacing. 

8.52 Predicted collision mortalities for target species recorded within the 

Ornithological Survey Area are detailed in Table 11 of the ornithology 

report (Appendix 4) and these results indicate that the following mortality 

204 



ates may occur, based on the results of the wintering VP survey and 

assuming a 95% avoidance rate: one lapwing could be killed every year, 2 

golden plovers could be killed every year, 4 kestrels could be killed every 

year, 1 sparrowhawk could be killed every 25 years and 1 buzzard could 

be killed every year. 

8.53 The impact magnitude values assigned for the target species (lapwing, 

golden plover, sparrowhawk and buzzard) are intermediate negative. 

The nature conservation value that has been assigned to lapwing, 

sparrowhawk and buzzard is low (local), therefore the impact assessment 

value for lapwing, sparrowhawk and buzzard is slight adverse. The 

nature conservation value that has been assigned to golden plover is 

medium (regional/county), therefore the impact significance for golden 

plover is moderate adverse. 

8.54 The predicted collision mortality for kestrel is high in comparison to the 

other target bird species. However it is considered that the Band Collision 

Risk Model inflates collision mortality predictions for kestrel; this is related 

to the type of flight behaviour unique to this species. Kestrels often spend 

long periods of time hovering and therefore the amount of flight-time 

recorded for this species is comparatively high. It is not possible to 

account for hovering flight time when applying the Band Model and 

therefore the collision mortality values for this species are considered to be 

inflated. The impact magnitude value that has been assigned for kestrel 

is intermediate negative, with an overall impact significance value of slight 

adverse. 

8.55 The impact magnitude value assigned for all other non-target species is 

minor negative, therefore the overall impact significance value for all other 

species is slight adverse. 

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE 

8.56 Decommissioning effects are predicted to be of similar or lesser 

significance than construction effects and therefore not potentially 

significant. 

MITIGATION 

8.57 Site selection and design has been an iterative process to achieve the 

optimum site layout. Turbine locations and access tracks have been 

located at a distance of at least 200m from areas of woodland and scrub, 

thereby minimising impacts on these habitats and the species which may 

use them. 

Disturbance 

8.58 To reduce the effect of construction noise and human disturbance on 

breeding birds, construction would begin (and as much of the early 

construction activity as possible should be completed) outside of the 

205 



eeding season so that site compounds etc. will already be established 

before the breeding season commences. This will avoid contravention of 

the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) by preventing 

disturbance of established nests. Ground nesting species that establish 

territories and nests after the onset of construction will be more tolerant of 

construction activities and human presence, however the working areas 

set up at the onset of construction would be strictly adhered to in order to 

prevent additional disturbance to nesting birds. 

8.59 Given the construction phase could take approximately 10 months to 

complete, it is likely that construction activity will occur during breeding 

and wintering seasons. Ground nesting species may be dissuaded from 

nesting in construction areas/access routes by removing the surface 

vegetation from the desired area before the breeding season commences. 

An ecologist would be present to check site working areas before works 

commence. Any works carried out during the breeding season would 

comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). 

Displacement 

8.60 Initial environmental scoping and the results from botanical and faunal 

surveys carried out were considered during the design of the wind farm 

layout. No further mitigation can be implemented for this potential impact. 

The impacts of displacement on birds are anticipated overall to be minor. 

Habitat Loss 

8.61 Post construction, the amount of habitat lost to the wind farm infrastructure 

will be reduced. The minimisation of land take has been considered in the 

design stage and it is considered unlikely that there can be any other 

significant mitigation for habitat losses on a small-scale development like 

the proposal. Upon decommissioning, the land formerly occupied by wind 

farm infrastructure should be reinstated as closely as possible to a habitat 

type typical of the locality. This is currently open arable land and 

grassland. 

Collision Risk 

8.62 Ecological considerations have been incorporated throughout the process 

of wind farm design. There are no further possibilities for effective 

mitigation on site. 


Construction 

8.63 All residual effects on birds during construction would be neutral and 

therefore not significant. 

206 



Operation 

8.64 All residual effects on birds during operation would be slight adverse or 

less and not significant, with the exception of a moderate adverse impact 

significance for collision mortality for golden plover. 


8.65 Decommissioning effects would be similar to those or less than those 

predicted to occur during construction, therefore all residual effects would 

be neutral and not significant. 

8.66 With the exception of the collision mortality impact for golden plover, the 

impact of the proposed wind farm on ornithology is slightly adverse. The 

impact significance value for golden plover with respect to collision 

mortality is moderate adverse. This assessment relates to the medium 

nature conservation value that has been assigned to this species (because 

golden plover is listed on Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive), however the 

recorded population is unlikely to be of regional/county importance. 

8.67 The assessment concludes that all other residual effects on ornithological 

resources would be slight adverse or less and not significant. 


Potential Effect Significance without 

Mitigation 

Disturbance through 

increased human 

activity and 

construction noise. 

Displacement 

(presence of the 

turbines and barrier to 

movement) 

1. Slight adverse for 

skylark, 

yellowhammer, reed 

bunting and grey 

partridge 

2. Neutral for all other 

species 


sparrowhawk, kestrel, 

buzzard, lapwing and 

golden plover 

Habitat Loss 1. Slight adverse for 

skylark, linnet, song 

thrush, yellowhammer, 

reed bunting, starling, 

house sparrow, tree 

sparrow and grey 

partridge. 


species 

207 

Mitigation Residual Effect With 

Mitigation 

1 Ecologist to check 

working areas for 

ground nesting birds 

before onset of works. 

2. Adhere to working 

areas. 

3. Strip surface 

vegetation outside 

breeding season to 

discourage birds from 

nesting. 

1. Ecological 

considerations 

incorporated in wind 

farm design. No 

further mitigation. 

1. Minimisation of land 

take incorporated in 

wind farm design. 

2. Upon 

decommissioning, 

restoration of habitats 

to a habitat type 

suitable for the 

locality. 

1. Neutral for skylark, 

yellowhammer, reed 

bunting and grey 

partridge 


species 

No change 

1. No change for the 

duration of the wind 

farm design life (25 

years). 

2. Neutral in the long 

term (i.e. beyond the 

design life of the wind 

farm). 



Potential Effect Significance without 

Mitigation 

Collision Mortality 

1. Moderate adverse 

for golden plover. 


lapwing, buzzard, 

kestrel and 

sparrowhawk. 

3. Neutral-slight 

adverse for all other 

species. 

208 

Mitigation Residual Effect With 

Mitigation 

Ecological 

considerations 

incorporated in wind 

farm design. No 

further possibilities for 

effective mitigation on 

site. 

No change 



9. NOISE 

INTRODUCTION 

9.1 This chapter summarises the findings of the noise assessment undertaken 

by TNEI Services Ltd. The noise assessment report is included in full in 

Appendix 5. 

9.2 The noise monitoring locations and noise assessment locations are shown 

on Drawing HJB/681/PA16. 

METHODOLOGY 

9.3 The methods of assessment used the following combination of guidance 

and assessment methodologies: 

“ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms 

(1996)”; and 

“ISO9613-2, Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound during Propagation 

Outdoors”. 

9.4 ETSU-R-97 provides a robust basis for determining noise limits for wind 

farm developments and these limits should not be breached. 

Consequently, the test applied to operational noise is whether or not the 

calculated wind farm noise levels at nearby noise sensitive properties lie 

below the noise limits derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97. 

9.5 Limits differ between amenity hours and night-time periods. The amenity 

hours criteria apply to the „quiet periods of the day‟ comprising: 

All evenings from 18:00 to 23:00; plus 

Saturday afternoons from 13:00 to 18:00; and 

All day Sunday 07:00 to 23:00. 

Night-time periods are defined as 23:00 to 07:00 with no differentiation 

made between weekdays and weekends. 

9.6 ETSU-R-97 recommends that wind farm noise for amenity hours should be 

limited to 5 dB(A) above the prevailing background or a fixed minimum 

level within the range 35 - 40 dB LA90,10min, whichever is the higher. The 

precise choice of criterion level within the range 35 - 40 dB(A) depends on 

a number of factors, including the number of dwellings in the 

neighbourhood of the wind farm (relatively few suggests a figure towards 

the upper end), the effect of noise limits on the number of kWh generated 

(larger sites tend to suggest a higher figure), the duration and level of 

exposure to any noise. 

209 



9.7 For night time periods the recommended limits are 5 dB(A) above 

prevailing background or a fixed minimum level of 43 dB LA90,10min, 

whichever is the higher. 

9.8 Properties with a direct financial interest with the project have fixed 

minimum level of 45 dB LA90,10min or the prevailing background noise LA90 

plus 5 dB, whichever is the greater for both amenity hours and night-time 

hours. 

9.9 Dwellings not associated with the development are subject to the Lower 

Amenity Hours Criterion of 35 – 40 dB(A). 

9.10 The aim of the noise assessment is therefore to derive the ETSU-R-97 

noise criteria and demonstrate that the proposed Penny Hill wind farm can 

achieve the criteria. Nevertheless, depending on the levels of background 

noise, the satisfaction of the criteria can, at times lead to a situation 

whereby, at some locations under some conditions and for a certain 

proportion of the time, the noise associated with the scheme may be 

audible, although, if it is within the noise criteria it is deemed to be at an 

acceptable level. 

Low Frequency Noise (Infrasound) 

9.11 Chapter 8 paragraphs 45 and 46 of “Planning for Renewable Energy: A 

Companion Guide to PPS22”, contains information on Low Frequency 

Noise: 

“45. There is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise 

from wind turbines is at a sufficient level to be harmful to human health. A 

comprehensive study of vibration measurements in the vicinity of a 

modern wind farm was undertaken in the UK in 1997 by ETSU for the DTI 

(ETSU W/13/00392/REP). Measurements were made on site and up to 

1km away – in a wide range of wind speeds and direction. 

46. The study found that: 

- Vibration levels 100m from the nearest turbine were a factor of 10 less 

than those recommended for human exposure in critical buildings (i.e. 

laboratories for precision measurement). 

- Tones above 3.0 Hz were found to attenuate rapidly with distance – the 

higher frequencies attenuating at a progressively increasing rate.” 

9.12 Measurements contained within the report detail levels of low frequency 

acoustic energy which fall below recognised perception thresholds for 

such a noise source. Despite the reference to ground borne noise, the 

conclusions apply equally to airborne noise. 

9.13 Furthermore, in 2004 the then Department of Trade and Industry 

commissioned Hayes McKenzie to report on claims that infrasound or low 

frequency noise (LFN) emitted by wind turbine generators (WTGs) were 

210 



causing health effects. Of the 126 wind turbines operating in the UK, five 

have reported low frequency noise problems, therefore such complaints 

are the exception rather than a general problem which exists for all wind 

farms. Hayes McKenzie investigated the effects of infrasound and LFN at 

three wind farms for which complaints had been received, the results were 

reported to DTI in May 2006. The report concluded that: 

“infrasound associated with modern wind turbines is not a source which 

will result in noise levels which may be injurious to the health of a wind 

farm neighbour; 

low frequency noise was measurable on a few occasions but below the 

existing permitted Night Time Noise Criterion. Wind turbine noise may 

result in internal noise levels within a dwelling that is just above the 

threshold of audibility, however at all sites it was always lower that that 

of local road traffic noise; 

that the common cause of complaint was not associated with LFN, but 

the occasional audible modulation of aerodynamic noise especially at 

night. Data collected showed that the internal noise levels were 

insufficient to wake up residents at these three sites. However once 

awoken, this noise can result in difficulties in returning to sleep.” 

Amplitude Modulation (AM) Of Aerodynamic Noise 

9.14 The term AM indicates aerodynamic noise from wind turbines that is 

greater than the normal degree of regular fluctuation of blade swoosh. It is 

sometimes described as sounding like a distant train or distant piling 

operation. 

9.15 Following on from the report by the Hayes McKenzie Partnership on low 

frequency noise, DEFRA commissioned the University of Salford to 

conduct research in Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise. The 

final report was published in July 2007. The report concluded: 

“The term AM indicates aerodynamic noise from wind turbines, but with 

a greater than normal degree of regular fluctuation at blade passing 

frequency, typically once per second which makes it more noticeable. 

The aim of the study was to ascertain the prevalence of AM on UK 

wind farm sites, to try to gain a better understanding of the likely 

causes, and to establish whether further research into AM is required. 

The results showed that 27 of the 133 windfarm sites operational 

across the UK at the time of the survey had attracted noise complaints 

at some point. An estimated total of 239 formal complaints have been 

received about UK windfarm sites since 1991, 152 of which were from 

a single site. The estimated total number of complainants is 81 over the 

same sixteen year period. This shows that in terms of the number of 

people affected, wind farm noise is a small-scale problem compared 

with other types of noise; for example the number of complaints about 

211 



industrial noise exceeds those about windfarms by around three orders 

of magnitude. In only one case was the windfarm considered by the 

local authority to be causing a statutory nuisance. Again, this indicates 

that, despite press articles to the contrary, the incidence of windfarm 

noise and AM in the UK is low. 

AM was considered to be a factor in four of the sites, and a possible 

factor in another eight. Regarding the four sites, analysis of 

meteorological data suggests that the conditions for AM would prevail 

between about 7% and 15% of the time. AM would not therefore be 

present most days, although it could occur for several days running 

over some periods. Complaints have subsided for three out of these 

four sites, in one case as a result of remedial treatment in the form of a 

wind turbine control system. In the remaining case, which is a recent 

installation, investigations are ongoing. 

The literature review indicated that, although there has been much 

research into the general area of aerodynamic noise it is a highly 

complex field, and whilst general principles are understood there are 

still unanswered questions. Regarding the specific phenomenon of AM 

there has been little research and the causes are still the subject of 

debate. AM is not fully predictable at current state of the art. The 

survey of wind turbine manufacturers revealed that, although there was 

considerable interest, few have any experience of AM. 

The low incidence of AM and the low numbers of people adversely 

affected make it difficult to justify further research funding in preference 

to other more widespread noise issues. On the other hand, since AM 

cannot be fully predicted at present, and its causes are not fully 

understood we consider that it might be prudent to carry out further 

research to improve understanding in this area.” 

9.16 Following the release of the report, the Government issued a robust advice 

note on this matter in July 2007. The note issued by the Department for 

Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform was entitled “Government 

statement regarding the findings of the Salford University report into 

Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise”. The note states that the 

isolated circumstances in which the effects have been observed to occur 

were insufficient to change current noise assessment practices and that 

ETSU-R-97 should continue to be followed for the assessment of noise 

from windfarms. 

CONSULTATION 

9.17 Consultation took place with the Environmental Health Department at 

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council prior to the noise assessment to 

agree noise monitoring locations and methodology. 

212 



9.18 Construction noise impacts would be temporary and can be minimised 

through careful construction practices and the effective control of these 

impacts can be achieved by way of a suitable planning condition. 

Consequently, construction noise has not been considered in this 

assessment. 

BASELINE CONDITIONS 

9.19 The noise survey to determine the existing background noise environment 

at dwellings neighbouring the proposed development followed the 

guidance contained within ETSU-R-97. Background noise monitoring was 

undertaken at the locations shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA16. In some 

instances background noise measurements were not undertaken at the 

closest properties to the wind farm due to issues with access at some 

properties and also in order to minimise the influence of the M1 and M18 

motorways. However predictions of turbine noise were made at the closest 

properties (defined as assessment locations) to ensure the assessment 

considers worst case. Sound power level data provided by a manufacturer 

was used to predict turbine noise at the closest properties. 

9.20 Initially background noise monitoring was undertaken at eight dwellings 

proximate to the wind farm site as detailed in Table 9.1 below. However 

the noise monitoring equipment at H6 was stolen on the first week of 

deployment therefore monitoring ceased at that location. Following 

discussions with the Environmental Health Officer at Rotherham 

Metropolitan Borough Council it was agreed that background noise data 

from another property (H2) would be used to determine noise limits at H6. 

Table 9.1 Noise Assessment Locations 

Receptor Easting (m) Northing (m) Elevation (m 

AOD) 

213 

Approximate 

Distance to 

Nearest Turbine 

(m) 

Morthen (H1) 447619 389029 96 720 

Brampton-enle-morthen 

(H2) 

448419 388174 119 660 

Thurcroft (H3) 448733 388726 123 1150 

Ulley (H4) 446893 387642 104 520 

Penny Hill 

(H5) 

Brampton Villa 

(H6) 

448004 387380 107 350 

448370 387492 111 645 

Aston (H7) 446510 386028 79 1185 



Receptor Easting (m) Northing (m) Elevation (m 

AOD) 

214 

Approximate 

Distance to 

Nearest Turbine 

(m) 

Hardwick (H8) 448166 386415 112 890 

9.21 The background noise survey was undertaken over the period 9th May 

2008 to 3rd July 2008. The sound level meters were set to log the LA90 and 

LAeq noise levels over the required ten minute intervals continuously over 

the deployment period. 

9.22 Simultaneous wind speed and direction measurements were measured 

using anemometry equipment located at 10 metres and 38m height 

respectively on a 60m mast located within the proposed wind farm site. A 

rain gauge was also installed at H5 to monitor rainfall over the duration of 

the noise monitoring survey. 

9.23 Wind speed/direction data and rainfall data were collected over the same 

time-scale, and averaged over the same ten minute periods as the noise 

data to provide the analysis of the measured background noise as a 

function of wind speed and direction. The clocks on the sound level meters 

were set to the BT Talking Clock (British Summer Time (BST)) and the 

anemometry mast was set up to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). The data 

from the anemometry mast data was converted to BST (GMT+1hr) to 

correspond with the noise data monitoring periods. 

9.24 The noise meters were calibrated on deployment. Calibration and battery 

changes took place at approximately weekly intervals. No drifts greater 

than 0.2 dB(A) in calibration were found to have occurred on any of the 

noise meters. This is within the normal tolerances for such measurements. 

9.25 Table 9.2 provides a summary of the range of background noise levels 

measured during the monitoring period. Background noise levels during 

periods of rainfall have been excluded from this data in order to provide an 

accurate account of the background noise levels. 

Table 9.2 Summary of Background Noise Levels (dB(A)) 

Receptor Quiet Daytime LA90, 10 min Night-time LA90, 10 min 

Morthen (H1) 29.2 – 61.2 29.2 – 58.1 

Brampton-en-lemorthen 

(H2) 

28.0 – 67.6 24.9 – 57.1 

Thurcroft (H3) 26.1 – 58.2 22.3 - 57.3 

Ulley (H4) 31.7 – 62.5 26.4 – 56.3 

Penny Hill (H5) 45.2 – 63.5 37.2 – 58.8 



MITIGATION 

Receptor Quiet Daytime LA90, 10 min Night-time LA90, 10 min 

Brampton Villa (H6) 28.0 – 67.6 24.9 – 57.1 

Aston (H7) 26.9 – 52.9 21.1 – 49.5 

Hardwick (H8) 28.4 – 60.3 25.0 – 54.9 

9.26 The exact model of turbine to be used at the site will be the result of a 

future tendering process. Achievement of the noise limits determined by 

this assessment will be a key determining factor in the final choice of 

turbines for the site. Predictions of wind turbine noise have been made, 

based upon sound power level data for the REpower 3.3M wind turbine 

and a noise prediction model procedure that can be considered to be 

worst-case. Full noise data for the REpower 3.3M is not yet available so it 

has been assumed for the purposes of this assessment that octave data 

for another REpower turbine, the MM92 2.0MW is comparable. The octave 

data has been increased uniformly for each band so that the total sound 

power level is equal to that stated for the REpower 3.3M. For 

completeness the MM92 has also been modelled and it has been shown 

that the REpower 3.3M is louder at all windspeeds (as shown in Appendix 

5, Figures 5.1-5.8). All results tables have therefore been based on the 

REpower 3.3M noise data. 

PREDICTED EFFECTS 

9.27 Noise levels arising from the operation of the proposed wind farm were 

calculated using the propagation model contained within Part 2 of 

“International Standard ISO 9613-2, Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound 

during Propagation Outdoors”. The model uses as its acoustic input data 

the octave band sound power output of a turbine suitable for this 

development (in this case the Repower 3.3M 3.3MW machine) and 

calculates, on an octave band basis, attenuation due to geometric 

spreading, atmospheric absorption and ground effects. The noise model 

was set up to provide worst case noise predictions, including hard ground 

attenuation, no barrier effects, and low levels of atmospheric attenuation. 

Changes in wind shear between daytime and night-time periods were also 

included in the predictions. 

9.28 The assessment of the proposed wind farm noise is contained within 

Section 5 of the Noise Assessment (Appendix 5). This provides an 

assessment of the wind farm in accordance with the requirements of 

ETSU-R-97. The assessment is summarised in Tables 9.3 and 9.4. 

215 



Morthen (H1) 

Brampton-en-le-morthen 

(H2) 

Thurcroft (H3) 

Ulley (H4) 

9.29 Tables 9.3 and 9.4 detail the prevailing background noise, relevant criteria 

and predicted wind turbine noise levels for amenity hours and night-time 

operation. The tables also show the exceedance level which is the level of 

turbine noise relative to the noise criteria. A negative exceedance level 

indicates satisfaction of the noise criteria. Due to the lack of noise data 

during the night time at wind speeds >10.6ms-1, the background noise 

levels and hence noise exceedance levels could not be calculated and are 

left blank in Table 9.4. It is reasonable to assume that background noise 

levels will not decrease at windspeeds >10.6ms-1, therefore if turbine 

noise meets the noise limits at 10.6ms-1 (which it does at all receptors) 

there is a low likelihood of exceedance at windspeeds between 10.6 and 

12ms-1. 

Table 9.3 Exceedances of the ETSU-R-97 Derived Quiet Daytime Criterion 

Curves by the Predicted LA90 Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels at each of the 

Noise Assessment Locations 

Location 

216 

Wind Speed 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

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 

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 

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 

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - - 36.1 39.9 40.7 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 

Exceedance Level LA90 - - -18.0 -15.5 -16.0 -17.2 -18.5 -19.8 -21.1 -22.4 


















Penny Hill (H5) 

Brampton Villa (H6) 

Aston (H7) 

Hardwick (H8) 

Location 

217 

Wind Speed 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 























Morthen (H1) 

Brampton-en-lemorthen 

(H2) 

Thurcroft (H3) 

Ulley (H4) 

Penny Hill (H5) 

Brampton Villa 

(H6) 

Aston (H7) 

Hardwick (H8) 

Table 9.4 Exceedances of the ETSU-R-97 Derived Night-Time Criterion Curves 

by the Predicted LA90 Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels at each of the Noise 

Assessment Locations 

Location 

218 

Wind Speed 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Prevailing Background Noise Level: Night Time 43.8 44.5 45.3 46.2 47.3 48.5 49.8 51.3 - - 

Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 48.8 49.5 50.3 51.2 52.3 53.5 54.8 56.3 - - 

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - 39.6 40.7 40.8 40.8 40.8 - - - - 

Exceedance Level LA90 - -9.9 -9.5 -10.4 -11.5 -12.7 - - - - 

























Prevailing Background Noise Level: Night Time 

43.5 43.4 43.4 44.0 45.5 47.5 49.2 49.4 - - 






9.30 Predicted wind farm immission levels and measured background noise 

levels indicate that for dwellings neighbouring the proposed site, wind 

turbine noise will meet the Amenity Hours and Night-time Noise Criteria 

proposed within ETSU-R-97 for all dwellings. 


9.31 This noise assessment considered the impact of operational noise from 

the Penny Hill Wind Farm on the residents of nearby dwellings. The 

guidance contained within ETSU-R-97 was used to assess the potential 

noise impact of the proposed development. 

9.32 Eight residential properties neighbouring the wind farm were selected as 

being representative of the properties located closest to the wind farm. 

Initially background noise monitoring was undertaken at the eight locations 

however one set of noise monitoring equipment (at H6) was stolen during 

the first week of deployment and therefore monitoring was not continued at 

that location. Following discussions with the Environmental Health Officer 

at Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council it was agreed that 

background noise data from another property (H2) would be used to 

determine noise limits at H6. 

9.33 Analysis of the measured data has been performed in accordance with 

ETSU-R-97 to determine the pre-existing background noise environment 

at these locations. Amenity hours and night-time criterion were established 

in accordance with ETSU-R-97. 

9.34 Predictions of wind turbine noise were made based upon a sound power 

level for a wind turbine suitable for the site and a noise prediction model 

procedure that can be considered to be worst-case. Full noise data for the 

REpower 3.3M is not yet available so it has been assumed for the 

purposes of this assessment that octave data for another REpower 

turbine, the MM92 2.0MW is comparable. For completeness the MM92 

has also been modelled and it has been shown that the REpower 3.3M is 

louder at all windspeeds (as shown in Appendix 5, Tables 5.1-5.8). All 

results tables have therefore been based on the REpower 3.3M noise 

data. 

9.35 Predicted levels and measured background noise levels indicate that for 

dwellings neighbouring the proposed site, wind turbine noise will meet the 

Amenity and Night-time Noise Criteria proposed within ETSU-R-97. 

9.36 The assessment has considered the specified micro-siting allowance and 

found that the proposal can still adhere with ETSU-R-97 guidelines should 

turbine locations be altered. The assessment should be based on turbine 

locations specified within this ES. However, should micro-siting be 

considered necessary, the final turbine locations will be specified prior to 

the erection of turbines for agreement with the LPA. Appropriate noise 

limits should be specified through condition of planning permission to 

ensure adherence of ETSU regulations at the identified receptors. 

219 



9.37 The manufacturer of the turbine selected for this site will be contractually 

required to guarantee compliance with the sound power levels for the 

turbine installed. It is recommended that should the proposal receive 

planning permission further data should be provided for the final choice of 

turbine to demonstrate compliance with the noise limits derived in this 

report. 

220 



10. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL 

HERITAGE 

INTRODUCTION 

10.1 This section of the ES evaluates the effects of the proposed Penny Hill 

Wind Farm on the cultural heritage resource. Cultural heritage resources 

include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, other 

archaeological sites recorded on the South Yorkshire Sites and 

Monuments Record, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered 

Historic Park and Gardens, and Registered Battlefields. The assessment 

and section have been prepared by Arcus Renewable Energy Consulting 

Ltd. 

10.2 The assessment is intended to identify cultural heritage sites that may be 

affected, either directly (e.g. through physical disturbance during 

construction) or indirectly (e.g. through changes to visual and 

archaeological setting) during construction, throughout operation or from 

de-commissioning of the proposed development. Further information on 

the Penny Hill Wind Farm is given in Section 2: The Proposed 

Development. 

10.3 This section contains the following sections: 

Methodology - describing both the methods used in baseline surveys 

and in the assessment of the significance of effects; 

Baseline Description - a description of the condition of the site and its 

archaeological potential, as well as a listing of features of cultural 

heritage interest beyond the immediate site, resulting from surveys, 

desk information and consultations carried out to inform this section; 

Information Gaps - a summary of the main uncertainties encountered in 

the assessment; 

Development Design Mitigation – a summary of “embedded mitigation”, 

designed into the proposed development; 

Assessment of Potential Effects - identifying the ways in which the 

cultural heritage resource of the site and its environs could be affected 

by the proposed development; 

Mitigation - a description of measures recommended to off-set the 

identified potential effects; 

Residual Effects - an assessment of the significance of the effects of 

the proposed development, after mitigation measures have been 

implemented; 

221 



Cumulative Effects – consideration of any cumulative effects arising 

from the addition of this proposed development to other similar 

development, whether already operational, consented or in the 

planning system; 

Summary of Effects; and 

Statement of Significance. 

All figures referenced within this section, as well as the desk-based 

assessment and geophysical survey reports are included in Appendix 6 of 

this ES. 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 

INTRODUCTION 

10.4 This assessment has involved: 

consultation with the statutory and non-statutory authorities to gain 

data establishing the baseline conditions for the site and its 

surrounding area; 

desk-based studies and site visits to contribute to and validate data 

relevant to establishing the baseline conditions (presented as a Deskbased 

Assessment Report (A10.1) in Appendix 6 of this ES; 

geophysical survey of the proposed development footprint (presented 

as a Geophysical Survey Report (A10.2) in Appendix 6 of this ES; 

assessment of the effects expected from the proposed development 

and their potential effect upon the existing conditions; 

assessment of the significance of the effects taking into account the 

sensitivity of site (and selected features beyond the site), the 

magnitude of potential effects (both direct and indirect) and the 

likelihood of such effects occurring; and 

identification of means to mitigate and avoid, where possible, any 

potential effects, as well as the assessment of the residual effects 

which may exist after application of any mitigation. 

10.5 A detailed method statement for the assessment of effects and their 

significance is presented in paragraph 10.14. 

POLICY AND GUIDANCE 

10.6 The assessment has been undertaken taking into account the following 

legislation and guidance listed below. More detailed consideration of the 

222 



planning background can be found in the accompanying Planning 

Statement. 

LEGISLATION 

10.7 Statutory protection for archaeology is principally outlined in the Ancient 

Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) as amended by the 

National Heritage Act (1983) and nationally important sites are listed in a 

Schedule of Monuments. Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) is 

required before any work affecting the fabric of a Scheduled Monument 

can be carried out. 

10.8 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas receive protection under the 

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Works that 

affect the character and appearance of such structures may require an 

approval from the Local Planning Authority via a procedure set out in the 

act. 

NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE 

10.9 Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 15 - Planning and the Historic 

Environment (1994) and PPG16 Archaeology and Planning (1990) provide 

guidance on proposed development and historic interests such as Listed 

Buildings and Conservation Areas, and on dealing with known and 

unknown archaeological remains through the planning system. 

OTHER 

10.10 The following guidance and advice was also considered during the 

assessment, although not all is specific to England: 

Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Desk Based Assessments 

(Institute of Field Archaeologists, 1999). This advises that the aim of a 

desk-based assessment is to gain information about the known and 

potential archaeological resource within the proposed development site 

boundary and that from this an appraisal can be made on the presence 

or absence of archaeology; 

Planning Advice Note - Renewable Energy Technologies (PAN 45, 

Revised 2002, Scottish Executive) provides useful advice and 

information for on-shore wind power, and contains guidance on the 

visual effects from wind turbines; 

Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development, University of 

Newcastle 2003; 

Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and Small 

Scale Hydroelectric Schemes, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2001; and 

223 



Visual Assessment of Wind Farms – Best Practice, University of 

Newcastle (for Scottish Natural Heritage), 2002. 

CONSULTATION 

10.11 Consultation was undertaken with both statutory and non-statutory 

consultees, both at the scoping stage and as part of the assessment 

process. The main responses are summarised in Table 10.1. 

Table 10.1 Consultation Responses 

Consultee Response 

South Yorkshire Archaeology 

Advisory Service 

Highlighted the potential for unknown archaeological 

remains to survive within the site. Emphasised the need 

to consider indirect (primarily visual) effects, and asked 

that cumulative effects be assessed. Asked for initial 

geophysical survey and reserved right to require 

additional (intrusive) pre-determination evaluation, 

dependant on the results of the geophysics survey. 

English Heritage Drew attention to the guidance contained in Wind 

Energy and the Historic Environment. 

DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT AND WALKOVER SURVEY 

10.12 A desk-based assessment was undertaken by Archaeological Services, 

West Yorkshire Archaeology Service (ASWYAS), which used readily 

available documentary, cartographic and photographic evidence, to inform 

the baseline condition of the site. A site visit and walkover by an 

experienced archaeologist was undertaken in June 2008 to validate the 

data gained as part of the desk-based assessment, and to identify (and if 

appropriate, record) any previously unrecorded cultural heritage features 

within the boundary. The Desk-Based Assessment Report was completed 

in July 2008 and is presented as Technical Report A10.1 (Appendix 6 of 

this ES). 

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 

10.13 A geophysical (magnetometer) survey was carried out over the footprint of 

the proposed development by ASWYAS. This was commenced in 

December 2008 and completed in January 2009. This included a 20m 

wide corridor over the access tracks, approximately 0.5ha coverage of the 

construction compound and substation control building location, and a 1ha 

area approximately centred at each turbine location (to allow for full 

coverage of a potential 50m micro-siting condition). The purpose was to 

allow a rapid scan of the whole proposed development footprint to inform 

on the potential for unknown remains to survive and to determine the 

extent of any such remains. The information obtained has also informed 

the mitigation statement presented in paragraph 10.101 and subsequent 

text. The results are presented in a report presented as Technical Report 

A10.2 (Appendix 6). 

224 



ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 

10.14 The assessment of effects on the cultural heritage is concerned with direct 

(physical) and indirect (largely visual) impacts. 

DIRECT (PHYSICAL) 

10.15 Assessment of physical effects considers direct effects upon features of 

cultural heritage interest, whether known sites or unknown buried 

archaeology, which are in danger of being disturbed or destroyed. Physical 

impacts are likely to occur during construction and decommissioning, and 

are permanent and irreversible. They are discussed in the section on 

Potential Construction Effects. 

INDIRECT (VISUAL, NOISE ETC.) 

10.16 This assessment will take account of the potential visual effects on the 

settings of Scheduled Monuments, monuments registered as nationally 

important and Listed Buildings that exist within the proposed development 

site and a 15km Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) around it. The setting 

of a national monument or Listed Building can be loosely interpreted as 

features, spaces and views that are historically and functionally related, 

and which can be considered to be vital to their intrinsic interest. Setting 

can be tangible, such as a defined boundary, or intangible, such as 

atmosphere or ambience. The main concern for visual effects on a 

cultural heritage setting is the potential for the proposed development to 

fragment the historic landscape, separate connectivity between historic 

sites and impinge on views to and from sites with important landscape 

settings. Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (English Heritage, 

2005) lists visual dominance, scale, intervisibility, vistas and sight-lines as 

well as noise, movement and light as potential effects upon features of 

cultural heritage interest that might be derived from wind farm projects. 

Indirect effects can occur during construction, operation and 

decommissioning. Wind farms can have a lifespan of up to 25 years, but 

the visual and any other indirect effects from this form of development are 

considered temporary and easily reversible. 

10.17 In order to identify those cultural heritage features upon whose settings the 

proposed development may have the potential to have an effect, an initial 

search area was defined. Distance was used here as the principal 

criterion in determining the likelihood of a significant visual effect on 

setting. As the landscape and visual assessment was ongoing at the 

same time it was not possible to derive information from that at the outset 

of this assessment. Therefore, regard was had to the indicative distances 

given in the Scottish Planning Advice Note - Renewable Energy 

Technologies (PAN 45, Revised 2002) 8 . At paragraph 78 PAN 45 notes 

that: „visual effects will be dependent on the distance over which a wind 

8 Whilst recognising that document has no weight as planning advice in England, it nevertheless 

provides a useful starting point in identifying the parameters for the study area. 

225 



farm may be viewed, whether the turbines can be viewed adjacent to other 

features, different weather conditions, the character of the development 

and the landscape and nature of the visibility‟. It goes on to state that: 

„The following is a general guide to the effect which distance has on the 

perception of the development in an open landscape. 

up to 2 km the wind farm is likely to be a prominent feature; 

within an area between 2-5 km from the wind farm it is likely to be 

relatively prominent; 

between 5-15 km, the wind farm will only be prominent in clear visibility 

and as part of the wider landscape; and 

between 15-30 km the turbines will only be seen in very clear visibility 

and then as a minor element in the landscape”. 

10.18 Drawing on this approach, and using an element of professional 

judgement, the following generalisations have been made: 

Within 2km or less the wind farm is likely to be a prominent feature 

and may cause severance, appear intrusive and have the potential to 

cause extensive change to the setting of a receptor (i.e. have high 

magnitude of effect); 

Within 2 to 5km the wind farm is likely to be relatively prominent and 

thus could cause intrusion or change the setting of a receptor (i.e. have 

medium effect on setting); and 

At >5km the wind farm is not likely to be visually prominent or perhaps 

only as part of the wider landscape and thus causing no change or 

slight change to setting of the receptor (i.e. low magnitude of effect). 

10.19 In summary, the most significant effects on setting will occur within a 0- 

5km study area, and that is what has been defined as the study area. This 

was born out by the results of the site specific assessments (discussed in 

more detail later within this section). 

10.20 The assessment has taken an approach in which the designation status 

(sensitivity) of a feature is set against the degree of intervisibility with the 

proposed development, based primarily on range, assuming that this will 

be a determinant in the degree of magnitude of any change that might be 

caused, as noted above. Simple intervisibility with turbines is not 

necessarily considered to be harmful. 

10.21 It is also important to consider existing screening of cultural heritage 

features from natural topography of the landscape. Forest and woodlands, 

as well as buildings, can also provide suitable visual screening to the 

cultural heritage. However, it is noted that in managed forests the level of 

226 



screening will alter and views may be opened up over time, which once 

were non-existent. 

10.22 No detailed consideration of potential impacts from noise or shadow flicker 

has been undertaken for Cultural Heritage features, since no significant 

above ground or built heritage features exist within or immediately 

adjacent to the site to receive any such impacts (see Sections 9 and 15 of 

this ES). The assessment of indirect (visual) effects is based on the final 

form of the proposed development and is discussed in the paragraphs on 

Potential Operational Effects. 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

10.23 This assessment proceeds from a consideration of the Sensitivity of a 

cultural heritage feature against the Magnitude of any potential impact, to 

arrive at the Significance of the effect. 

10.24 Sensitivity for the purposes of this assessment has been equated with 

designation status, as shown in table 10.2. 

Table 10.2 Sensitivity of a Cultural Heritage Receptor 

Level of Sensitivity Designation Status 

Very High World Heritage Sites, which are of international importance. 

High Scheduled Monuments (whether or not in State Care), Grade I 

Listed Buildings, Registered Battlefields, Registered Historic 

Gardens etc, which are considered of national importance. 

Medium Grade II* Listed Buildings, regionally important archaeological 

features and areas (as defined in the Sites and Monuments 

Record). 

Low Grade II Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, sites and 

features noted as Locally important in the Sites and 

Monuments Record. 

Negligible Badly preserved/damaged or very common archaeological 

features/buildings of little or no value at local or other scale. 

10.25 Listed Buildings are nationally designated and are subject to a grading 

process (Grade I, II*, II). Within the assessment this grading has been 

taken as indicative of a presumed level of importance, based on rarity, 

period, architectural style, completeness, degree of subsequent alterations 

and so on. This assessment has assigned the Grades to different levels of 

sensitivity for purposes of assessment of potential effects upon setting, as 

shown above on Table 10.2. 

10.26 Magnitude is a measure of the nature of the expected effect. It has been 

broken down, for direct and indirect impacts, as shown in Table 10.3 

below. For the purposes of visual assessment, proximity to the 

Development (within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility) has been taken as 

one of the determining attributes. Within the assessment distances are 

227 



given to either the nearest turbine, or the nearest point on the proposed 

development boundary. 

Table 10.3 Magnitude of Effect 

Level of Magnitude Definition 

Very High Total loss of or major alteration to a site, building or 

other feature. 

(e.g. blocking or severance of key visual or other 

relationship). 

High Major damage to or significant alteration to a site, 

building or other feature. Loss of one or more key 

attributes. 

Extensive change to the setting of a Scheduled 

Monument, Historic Park Grade I, II* Listed 

Building or other feature e.g. loss of dominance, 

intrusion on key view or sightline. 

Medium Damage or alteration to a site, building or other 

feature. Encroachment on an area considered to 

have high archaeological potential. 

Change in setting to Monuments/buildings and 

other features e.g. intrusion on designed sightlines 

and vistas. 

Low Minor damage or alteration to a site, building or 

other feature. Encroachment on an area where it 

is considered that low archaeological potential 

exists. 

Minor change in setting of Monuments, site and 

other features (e.g. above historic skylines or in 

designed vistas). 

Negligible No Physical impact. No change in setting. 

10.27 The Significance of any potential effect can be arrived at by correlating 

Sensitivity against Magnitude in the following table; 

Table 10.4 Significance of Effect 

Magnitude 

Sensitivity 

Very High High Medium Low Negligible 

Very High Major Major Moderate Minor Minor 

High Major Major Moderate Minor Not 

Significant 

Medium Moderate Moderate Moderate Minor Not 

Significant 

Low Minor Minor Minor Not Not 

Negligible Minor Not 

Significant 

228 

Not 

Significant 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 



10.28 A significant effect (in terms of the EIA Regulations) is considered to occur 

where the combination of sensitivity and magnitude results in a “major” or 

“moderate” effect. 

10.29 The assessment text (below) considers in detail only those features for 

which a potential effect of “moderate” or higher significance is initially 

predicted upon the setting of the feature, based on the distance of the 

feature from the site and the feature‟s designatory status (in accordance 

with the matrix presented above), and considers the potential effect 

against a more defined explanation of the feature‟s setting. Where 

considered necessary, setting is defined in terms of the immediate 

physical surroundings and associations of the feature, or in wider terms, 

such as the presence of key long views to or from that feature which are 

important to its understanding. 

ZONE OF THEORETICAL VISIBILITY 

10.30 The ZTV used in this assessment has been calculated from turbine tip 

height to ground contours and does not allow for any vegetation (such as 

mature blocks of trees) or settlement. The ZTV is calculated to reflect 

visibility at approximately 2m above ground level. The ZTV is further 

explained in Section 6: Landscape and Visual Assessment of this ES. 

10.31 In considering effects using this methodology, the following points need to 

be borne in mind. Firstly, the ZTV is a theoretical construct, based upon a 

fairly crude base terrain modelling only, with no modelling of settlement 

and vegetation cover. Within each “band”, based on numbers of turbines 

theoretically visible, no distinction is made in how much of each turbine is 

visible. The ZTV therefore represents a “worst case scenario” and in reality 

visual effects may be substantially less than suggested. Secondly, 

mechanical application of the methodology will generate major and 

medium effects (simply based on distance and designatory status), for 

which (in case of visual effects upon settings) no mitigation is proposed. 

Where this is the case, predicted medium or major effects are discussed in 

detail within the assessment text (in Potential Operational Effects) and any 

ameliorating conditions highlighted. 

BASELINE DESCRIPTION 

BASELINE ASSESSMENT 

10.32 A desk-based assessment was undertaken by ASWYAS to establish the 

baseline condition for the proposed development site, based on a study 

area (the initial proposed development area) and a 1km buffer around it. 

The report is included in Appendix 6. This was supplemented by the 

commissioning of a geophysical survey, also carried out by ASWYAS, 

over the footprint of the proposed development. The report is also included 

in Appendix 6. It is not proposed to repeat that information here, but the 

following sections have drawn upon that work, supplemented by a 

separate consideration of cultural heritage features at a greater distance 

229 



from the proposed development (which may be subject to indirect effects 

upon their settings). 

SITE CONDITION 

10.33 The site occupies an elevated position to the east of the village of Ulley, 

south-east of Sheffield, South Yorkshire, with the M1 in close proximity to 

its northern and eastern sides. 

10.34 The land is currently in agricultural use, primarily under arable crops. 

10.35 The site and development are described in Section 2: The Proposed 

Development and Section 4: Site Selection and Design. 

FEATURES WITHIN THE SITE 

10.36 There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments or Listed Buildings within the 

site, nor does any part of the site lie within a Registered Historic Park or 

Garden nor Registered Battlefield, in whole or in part. 

10.37 One feature is recorded on the South Yorkshire Sites and Monuments 

Record. This is the site of a World War II Anti-aircraft battery (SMR4712 – 

see feature 21 in the WYAS desk-based assessment, shown on Figure 2 

of that report). The battery was located to the north-east of Carr Lane, 

south east of Ulley and west of Penny Hill farm. Cropmark evidence for 

prehistoric or Romano-British farming activity or settlement has been 

identified in and adjacent to the northern part of the study area, but outside 

the application boundary (NMR SK48NE 30, features 13 and 14 in the 

WYAS report). 

10.38 Changes in field boundaries crossing the site, possibly related to changes 

in agricultural practice, can be seen in the presence on the 1 st Edition 

Ordnance Survey 1854. These are gone by 1892. 

10.39 A geophysical survey carried out in December 2008 and completed in 

January 2009 recorded a number of magnetic anomalies, but these are 

interpreted as relating to boundaries and other features associated with 

the post-medieval and modern agricultural exploitation of the area. The 

survey did not provide evidence for the survival of significant 

archaeological remains of earlier periods (such as features associated with 

the cropmark enclosures and features noted in aerial photographs on land 

adjacent to the northern part of the site). However, the underlying wet 

clays across parts of the site may have reduced the contrast of features 

against the background signal, and it is possible that features were not 

revealed by the survey. The implications of this discovery are further 

discussed in the section on Potential Construction Effects, below. 

230 



FEATURES BEYOND THE SITE BOUNDARY 

SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENTS 

10.40 There are approximately 92 Scheduled Ancient Monuments within 15km of 

the proposed development site, but only 8 of these lie within 5km, and 

none within 2km. 

10.41 Those within 5km are listed below, identified by their Monument ID 

number. They are assessed below under the section on Potential 

Operational Effects. 

Table 10.5 - Scheduled Monuments within 5km 

Monument Name 

13227 Castle Hill Motte And Bailey Castle 

13231 Manor House Moated Site 

13232 Blue Man's Bower Moated Site, Whiston 

23201 Hellaby: A Deserted Medieval Village House 

29948 Slade Hooton Medieval Settlement And Moated Site 

29948 Slade Hooton Medieval Settlement And Moated Site 

SY382 Canklow Hill Earthworks 

SY602 The Glassworks Cone 


10.42 There are approximately 2145 listed buildings of all grades within 15km of 

the proposed development site. Of these 182 lie within 5km, and 49 within 

2km. 

10.43 Of the listed buildings within 5km, 5 are listed at Grade I and 13 at Grade 

II*, the remainder being Grade II. 

10.44 Of the listed buildings within 2km of the proposed development site, only 1 

is listed at Grade I, and 2 at Grade II*, the remainder being Grade II. 

10.45 The grade I and II* listed buildings within 5km are listed below, identified 

by their Unique Identifier. They are assessed below under Potential 

Operational Effects. 

231 



Table 10.6 - Grade I and II* Listed Buildings within 5km 

Lb_UID Name Grade 

335632 The Glassworks Cone I 

335724 Church Of St Helen I 

335729 Church Of St Mary Magdalene II* 

335733 Whiston Hall Barn II* 

335738 Morthen Hall II* 

335748 Dinnington Hall II* 

335754 Church Of St John I 

335842 Church Of St Peter And St Paul II* 

335853 Church Of St John The Baptist II* 

335876 Church Of All Saints I 

335896 Aughton Court II* 

335901 Hellaby Hall II* 

335972 Thurcroft Hall II* 

335984 Church Of All Saints I 

335999 Slade Hooton Hall 

Stable And Remains Of Attached Barn Immediately To South 

II* 

336000 West Of Slade Hooton Hall 

Wall Enclosing Front Garden To Slade Hooton Hall Including 

II* 

336001 Attached Gatepiers And Gateway II* 

458679 Church Of St Mary The Virgin II* 

REGISTERED HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS 

10.46 There are 19 registered historic parks within 15km of the proposed 

development site, although none lie closer then 5km. Many lie within the 

urban settings of Sheffield and Rotherham. All are registered at Grade II, 

with the exception of Wentworth Woodhouse, which is registered at Grade 

II*. They are listed in Table 10.7, and considered below, under the 

paragraphs on Potential Operational Effects. 

Table 10.7 Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 15km 

U_ID Name Grade 

2164 Oakes Park II 

5172 City Road Cemetery, Sheffield II 

5082 Burngreave Cemetery II 

1211 Monument Grounds II 

4746 Porter Valley Parks II 

2166 Sheffield Botanical Gardens II 

2167 Wentworth Woodhouse II* 

2641 Weston Park II 

5170 Moorgate Cemetery II 

3255 Barlborough Hall II 

5206 Beauchief Hall II 

232 



U_ID Name Grade 

4049 Sheffield General Cemetery II 

4744 Boston Park, Rotherham II 

2165 Sandbeck Park And Roche Abbey II* 

4747 Clifton Park, Rotherham II 

1543 Welbeck Abbey II 

2336 Norfolk Park II 

1318 Shireoaks Hall II* 

1674 Renishaw Hall II* 

CONSERVATION AREAS 

10.47 There are five Conservation Areas within 5km of the site boundary. These 

areas are designated and controlled at the Local Planning Authority level, 

and for purposes of this assessment are considered to be of local 

importance and of “low” importance. The areas are in Aston, Brampton en 

le Morthen, Laughton en le Morthen, Treeton and Wickersley (see Drawing 

HJB/681/PA15: Planning and Landscape Designations). 

REGISTERED BATTLEFIELDS 

10.48 There are no registered battlefields in the study area (or within 15km of the 

proposed development site). These are not considered further within this 

assessment. 

HISTORIC LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISATION 

10.49 No part of the site lies within a larger area of preserved historic landscape, 

whether or not designated as a World Heritage Site, scheduled monument, 

historic park or garden or a registered battlefield. 

10.50 The wider area reflects a settlement pattern established in the medieval 

period. Limited traces of former medieval field boundaries remains (such 

as HSY3327, east of the M1), and place names such as Stocket Lane 

derive from that period. In the case of Stocket Lane this provides evidence 

that part at least of the local network of road and rights-of-way are of 

considerable antiquity. However, cartographic evidence demonstrates that 

the field patterns have undergone significant change over the last 150 

years, probably reflecting changes in technology and agricultural practice. 

10.51 The current character of the area is much altered by the nationally 

important transport corridors crossing it, in the form of the M1 and M18 

motorways, developed in the second half of the twentieth century. 

10.52 It is not considered that the proposed development will affect an 

understanding of the historic development of the present landscape 

pattern (which is largely to be appreciated in plan), and that the turbines 

233 



will add another layer to the record of exploitation and use that the historic 

landscape characterisation has recorded. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 

10.53 The presence of cropmark evidence of linear features and possible 

enclosures of possible late prehistoric or Romano-British date adjacent to 

(but outside of) the north-western part of the site, suggests that further 

remains of this type may be present within the site. Finds of Roman 

pottery to the west of the site boundary confirm that the area was occupied 

at this period. Medieval occupation is attested by the local place names 

and settlement pattern, as well as traces of former field boundaries (such 

as the s-shaped boundary recorded on the South Yorkshire SMR as 

HSY3327, to the east of the site boundary). As a result of the above, it is 

considered that there is potential for unknown archaeological remains of 

all periods to remain within the site. It is likely that these will relate to later 

prehistoric and Romano-British agricultural settlement, as well as medieval 

and post-medieval agricultural practice. The evidence is likely to be in the 

form of ditches and field boundaries, with the possibility for some evidence 

of domestic activity. These are likely to be encountered beneath topsoil cut 

into underlying strata. They are likely to be of local importance, but 

evidence for domestic activity may be regionally important. Evidence for 

earlier prehistoric and early-medieval/post-Roman settlement is rarer in 

the area and if present (depending on type, extent, condition etc.) may be 

regarded as regionally important. It is unlikely that nationally important 

remains (i.e. remains that if found would be Scheduled) survive within the 

site. 

INFORMATION GAPS 

10.54 There are no known information gaps. 

DEVELOPMENT DESIGN MITIGATION 

10.55 No specific mitigation for avoiding potential direct effects upon cultural 

heritage features has been incorporated into the design, although the 

application does include a 50m micro-siting area within which, 

infrastructure can be relocated away from archaeological features if 

required. 

10.56 The proposed development design does incorporate embedded mitigation 

aimed at the minimising of potential indirect, visual effects on landscape 

receptors beyond the site boundary, which will have a beneficial effect in 

terms of more distant cultural heritage receptors (such as Registered 

Parks and Gardens). Further details are given in Section 2: The Proposed 

Development and Section 6: Landscape and Visual Assessment of this 

ES. 

234 



ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 

POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS 

10.57 Although there are no archaeological sites recorded on the South 

Yorkshire Historic Environment Record within the site boundary, the deskbased 

assessment has shown that there are cropmarks of possible 

prehistoric or Roman sites close to the northern boundary of the site. This 

indicates that there is some potential for sites of these periods to survive 

within the site. It is therefore considered that there is potential for impacts 

upon buried archaeological remains to arise from construction activities, 

such as the provision of access roads, turbine foundations and other 

infrastructure. 

10.58 All activities where topsoil is to be removed or where excavation is to be 

carried out across the development area are therefore considered likely to 

damage or possibly destroy underlying features and as such will require 

mitigation. It is considered that there is potential for remains of all major 

periods to survive, but the potential for significant remains (that is, remains 

that might be of national or regional importance) is considered to be low at 

this stage. 

10.59 Using the matrix in Table 10.4, the effect of major damage (high 

magnitude) or loss (very high magnitude) to a site of local (low) importance 

would be of “minor” significance at worst, before the implementation of 

any mitigation. For a site of regional (medium) importance, the effect 

would be of “moderate” significance at worst. The final effects would be 

determined following the completion of a second phase of archaeological 

evaluations post receipt of planning permission. 

10.60 There will be indirect effects upon the settings of some cultural heritage 

features beyond the site boundary for example resulting from the presence 

of cranes and other plant, as construction progresses. However, these are 

considered to be temporary only. The visual effect of the turbines 

themselves is considered below, based on the full operational status of the 

wind farm. 

POTENTIAL OPERATIONAL EFFECTS 

10.61 No direct effects are anticipated upon cultural heritage features are 

anticipated from the operational wind farm. 

10.62 There will be some indirect (visual) effects upon the settings of some 

cultural heritage features beyond the proposed development boundary. 

These are described and assessed below. 

235 



SCHEDULE ANCIENT MONUMENTS 

10.63 The eight Scheduled Ancient Monuments within 5km have been 

considered to have potential to receive an effect on their settings from the 

proposed wind farm, based on their designation status and distance (see 

Table 10.4). All are considered nationally important and of “high” sensitivity 

by virtue of their designation. These features are discussed below, their 

settings defined, and the potential magnitude of change characterised in 

order to arrive at the significance of any potential effect. 

10.64 SAM13227 Castle Hill Motte and Bailey. This monument lies on Castle Hill 

on the western side of Laughton en Le Morthen, approximately 3.8km east 

of the nearest turbine. The monument covers an area immediately west of 

All Saints Church and consists of the Motte itself and surrounding ground. 

The monument is covered with mature trees, and is not visible at distance. 

Its setting is defined as its relationship, including its historic and 

archaeological associations, to the Church and western edge of the 

village. Although the turbines may be visible in views to the west from the 

monument, beyond the M1/M18 interchange, they are not considered to 

change the setting of the monument as defined above. This is therefore 

considered to constitute an effect of “negligible” magnitude on the setting 

of the monument, and the potential effect is assessed as “not significant”. 

10.65 SAM13231 Manor House Moated Site, Todwick. The monument consists 

of the remains of a moated manor house site, situated within the eastern 

part of Todwick, approximately 3.5km southeast of the nearest turbine. 

Part of the moat is still water-filled, and the site is still in occupation. The 

setting of the monument is defined by the interrelationship of the moat to 

the structures which occupy the site of the manor, and the situation within 

Todwick and the neighbouring residential properties to north, west and 

south. This setting is not considered to be changed by the proposed 

development (an effect of “negligible” magnitude), even if the turbines 

were to be visible above the structures within the village. The monument 

itself has no substantial presence in the landscape, and consequently the 

turbines will not affect views towards it. The potential effect of the 

proposed development upon the setting of the monument is assessed as 

“not significant”. 

10.66 SAM13232 Blue Man‟s Bower, Moated site, Whiston. The monument 

consists of the remains of a moated site situated in low pasture (used 

partially for flood alleviation) to the north of the M1, northeast of Junction 

33, with its associated slip roads and supporting infrastructure. It lies close 

to the River Rother, and is effectively surrounded by the M1 to its south, 

the A630 to its west and the A631 uphill to the north, with a minor road to 

its east. These roads define and limit the monument‟s setting, and this is 

not considered to be changed by the presence of turbines in views 

towards the southeast (an effect of “negligible” magnitude). Taking this into 

account the potential effect of the proposed development upon the setting 

of the monument is assessed as “not significant”. 

236 



10.67 SAM23201 Deserted Medieval Village, Hellaby. This monument lies 

approximately 4.7km northeast of the closest turbine. It consists of the 

former medieval village site in land adjacent to Hellaby Hall, north-east of 

Junction 2 on the M18. The monument is partially covered with low 

vegetation and has no substantial above ground presence. Its setting is 

defined by the neighbouring hotel and associated access and car parks to 

its east, and to the large structures of an industrial estate to its west, with 

the A631 to its south. This setting is not considered to be affected by the 

presence of the turbines to the southwest (an effect of “negligible” 

magnitude), and the potential effect is assessed as being “not 

significant”. 

10.68 SAM29948 Slade Hooton Medieval Settlement and moated site (two 

separate areas). This monument consists of the remains of a former 

medieval settlement, with a moated site. The Scheduled area consists of 

two distinct areas under the same identification number, separated by a 

minor road. The monument is approximately 4.7km to the east of the 

nearest turbine. It‟s has no substantial above ground presence, and its 

setting is defined by its association with the buildings of the modern 

settlement of Slade Hooton. The monument‟s setting is not considered to 

be affected by the presence of the turbines even where these could be 

seen above the intervening structures in Thurcroft and the M1/M18 

interchange. The presence of the proposed development is considered to 

be an effect of “negligible” magnitude, which is assessed as “not 


10.69 SAMSY382 Canklow Hill Earthworks. This monument lies approximately 

4.5km (at its southern end) northwest of the nearest turbine. It consists of 

the remains of earthworks extending approximately 770m north-south on 

the top of Canklow Hill, on the outskirts of Rotherham. The monument 

preserves the low earthwork remains of enclosures, tracks and field 

boundaries forming an extended prehistoric settlement. The monument is 

heavily wooded, and bordered to its immediate east by the rear gardens of 

residential properties. The presence of the proposed development to the 

southeast is not considered to affect the setting of the monument, which is 

here defined as the interrelationship of its constituent parts and their 

location on the hill, now covered by woodland, on the edge of a major 

urban area. The potential effect on the monument‟s setting is therefore 

assessed as “not significant”. 

10.70 SAMSY602 The Glassworks Cone. This monument is the remains of a 

brick glass kiln dating to the middle of the eighteenth century, and is 

located approximately 4.7km west of the closest turbine, in Catcliffe. It is 

also listed at Grade I (Listed Building Number 335632). It survives 

substantially intact to a height of approximately 23m, and remained in use 

into the early part of the twentieth century. It is located on its own 

landscaped plot within an area of residential housing approximately 100m 

from Catcliffe station, and from the River Rother and 200m south of the 

elevated A630. Its setting is defined and limited by the surrounding 

housing, and the railway to its south and railway to its north. The presence 

237 



of the proposed development to the west will not affect this setting, nor the 

historical and archaeological associations of the kiln preserved within the 

immediately adjacent ground, nor its relation to the transport infrastructure 

which brought the raw materials a fuel to the kiln and removed its product. 

The proposed development is considered to have an effect of “negligible” 

magnitude, and the potential effect upon the monument‟s setting is 

therefore assessed as “not significant”. 


Grade I and II* 

10.71 There are 18 buildings listed at Grade I or Grade II* within 5km. Grade I 

buildings are considered to be nationally important and of “high” sensitivity, 

and Grade II* buildings are considered regionally important and of 

“medium” sensitivity for purposes of this assessment (see Table 10.2). 

10.72 Listed Building (LB) 334632 The Glassworks Cone, Grade I. The Cone is 

also a Scheduled Monument and is considered above (Scheduling taking 

precedence over Listing). As noted above, the development is assessed 

as having a potential effect upon the Cone‟s settings that is “not 


10.73 LB335724 Church of St Helen, Treeton, Grade I. The Church lies within 

Treeton Village, approximately 4.1km west of the nearest turbine. Its 

immediate setting is defined as its place within the churchyard at the core 

of the village, which occupies an elevated position. The church is 

approached from the west, off a minor street through Treeton. The historic 

place of the church within its yard and its relationship with neighbouring 

properties and the wider village is not considered to be affected by the 

proposed development. The churchyard has substantial mature trees 

within it, which limit distant views towards the church (where these are 

possible taking into account surrounding properties) to its tower only. Local 

cover from buildings and trees will prevent views from the Church towards 

the turbines. The turbines will not be visible in any views to the Church 

from the Trans Pennine Trail or Sheffield Country Walk, to the west of the 

Church, as the hill on which the village is situated will screen the 

development from view. The magnitude of the effect is considered to be 

“negligible”, and the potential effect upon the church‟s setting is therefore 


10.74 LB335729 Church of St Mary Magdalene, Whiston, Grade II*. The church 

lies on the southeastern edge of Whiston, which itself forms part of the 

southern extent of Rotherham. The nearest turbine is approximately 3.1km 

southeast of the Church. The church lies within its own grounds, and is 

approached from the west through a Lytch Gate. Its setting is defined as 

its place within the churchyard, and its relationship to neighbouring 

structures to north and south, and to the main settlement to the north. This 

immediate setting is not considered to be affected by the proposed wind 

farm, and views out from the environs of the church are limited to some 

238 



extent by trees along the perimeter of the churchyard. Where views 

towards the proposed development are possible, they will include other 

modern infrastructure, including power transmission lines and 

infrastructure associated with the M1 and M18. Taking the above into 

account, the effect of the proposed wind farm upon the setting of the 

church is considered to be “negligible”, and this is assessed as “not 


10.75 LB335733 Whiston Hall Barn, Grade II*, Whiston. The Barn is located 

within Whiston, just off the A618 approximately 3.3km northwest of the 

closest turbine. Its setting is defined as its place within the urban 

environment of Whiston, and historic association with the Grade II Listed 

Whiston Hall and Stables to its immediate east. It is not considered that 

the proposed development will affect this setting (an effect of “negligible” 

magnitude), and therefore the potential effect of the Development is 


10.76 LB335738 Morthen Hall, Grade II*. The Hall is located to the north of the 

M1/M18 interchange, approximately 1.1km to the northeast of the closest 

turbine. It is closely surrounded by mature trees, which provide close 

screening to its south. This effectively limits the setting of the Hall to its 

gardens and to the associated Gate piers, Garden Wall and haha (listed 

together at Grade II), and to the neighbouring Mews (listed at Grade II) to 

its immediate west, along Morthern Hall Lane. These associations are not 

affected by the development, and taking into account the close screening 

to the south of the Hall, the proposed development is considered to cause 

an effect of “negligible” magnitude upon the setting and this potential effect 

is assessed as “not significant”. 

10.77 LB335748 Dinnington Hall Grade II*. The Hall lies approximately 4.9km 

southeast of the nearest turbine. It lies within the built-up area between 

North Anston and Dinnington. Its setting is defined as its place within this 

(sub) urban environment, and this is not considered to be changed by the 

proposed wind farm (an effect of “negligible” magnitude. The potential 

effect is therefore assessed as “not significant”. 

10.78 LB335754 Church of St John, Laughton en Le Morthen, Grade I. The 

church lies south of Laughton en Le Morthen, approximately 4.5km east of 

the closest turbine. It lies within a churchyard and is approached from the 

east (from the north-south road between Laughton en Le Morthen and 

Dinnington). The church‟s entrance faces south. The churchyard has 

mature trees along its perimeter. The setting of the church is defined by its 

place within its churchyard, and its historic and archaeological relationship 

to the road to its east and the farm buildings to its south, and to the village 

to its north. This immediate setting is not considered to be affected, and 

the presence of mature trees on the western perimeter will reduce the 

presence of turbines in views to the west. Other views towards the church 

from the west (Laughton Common), or on the approached along the road 

from the north (Laughton en Le Morthern) and south (Dinnington) will not 

feature the turbines (except possibly in the periphery). The effect is 

239 



considered to be “negligible” in magnitude, and the potential effect upon 

the setting of the church is therefore assessed as “not significant”. 

10.79 LB335842 Church of St Peter and St Paul, Todwick, Grade II*. The church 

is located within the southeastern part of Todwick, approximately 3.6km to 

the southeast of the closest turbine. The setting of the church is defined as 

its position within the churchyard, which is bordered by mature trees. The 

churchyard is surrounded by residential properties. This setting is not 

considered to be changed by the proposed development (an effect of 

“negligible” magnitude) and the potential effect is therefore assessed as 


10.80 LB335853 Church of St John, Wales, Grade II*. The church is located 

approximately 4.2km south of the nearest turbine, on the eastern side of 

the M1, on the southern edge of Wales. The setting of the Church is 

defined as its place within its churchyard, and its relationship to the village 

as a whole. This not considered to be changed by the Development (an 

effect of “negligible” magnitude), which is unlikely to have any substantial 

intervisibility with the Church, due to intervening structures, and tree cover 

within the churchyard. The effect upon the setting of the church is 


10.81 LB335876 Church of All Saints, Aston, Grade I. The church is located in 

the northern part of Aston, approximately 1.7km south of the southernmost 

turbine. The church is set within a small churchyard, on the edge of the 

village. Its immediate environs contains many mature trees, there are 

buildings in close proximity to south and west, and beyond a minor road to 

the north. The entrance to the church faces south. The church‟s immediate 

setting and historic association with the village is not considered to be 

affected by the proposed development (and effect of “negligible” 

magnitude), and the presence of mature tree cover and buildings close to 

it limit the availability of long views towards the church. Taking the above 

into account, the potential effect of the proposed wind farm upon the 

church‟s setting is assessed as “not significant”. 

10.82 LB335896 Aughton Court, Aughton, Grade II*. The Building is located 

approximately 1.8km west of the proposed development, in the northern 

part of Aughton. Its setting is defined by its location within the village, at 

the junction of the A618 and B6067, with residential properties to its north 

and east (between it and the development). This setting is not considered 

to be affected by the proposed wind farm (an effect of “negligible” 

magnitude), and views towards the building can only be obtained from 

along the roads (where vegetation permits) and the turbines will not 

feature in these. The potential effect upon the setting of the court is 


10.83 LB335901 Hellaby Hall, Hellaby, Grade II*. The hall lies approximately 

4.7km northeast of the closest turbine, north-east of Junction 2 on the 

M18. The Scheduled remains of a medieval settlement lie in close 

proximity. It is currently used as a hotel and its setting is defined by this 

240 



function, its place within its grounds (including the Scheduled remains) and 

to the associated access and car parks to south and east, as well as to the 

large structures of an industrial estate to its west, with the A631 to its 

south. This setting is not considered to be affected by the presence of the 

turbines to the southwest (an effect of “negligible” magnitude), and the 

potential effect is assessed as “not significant”. 

10.84 LB335972 Thurcroft Hall, Grade II*. The hall lies approximately 3.4km to 

the northeast of the closest turbine, and northeast of Thurcroft Village. The 

hall faces southeast (and turbines will not be visible in that direction), and 

is set within its own gardens. There is a working farm to its north, with 

associated outbuildings. A belt of trees to the north of the Hall screens it 

from opencast workings. These associations are considered to form the 

Hall‟s setting. Although all of the turbines are predicted to be visible from 

the Hall, they are not considered to affect the setting as described above, 

and intervening presence of Thurcroft Village and the M1/M18 interchange 

are likely to reduce their presence in views to the south-west from the 

environs of the hall. Therefore, the setting of the hall is not considered to 

be affected by the proposed development (an effect of “negligible” 

magnitude), and the potential effect upon it is therefore assessed as “not 


10.85 LB335984 Church of All Saints, Laughton en Le Morthen, Grade I. The 

church is located adjacent to Castle Hill (and the Scheduled Motte and 

Bailey castle) in Laughton en Le Morthern, approximately 3.8km east of 

the closest turbine. Its setting is defined as its place within its churchyard, 

its relationship to the village and its historic and archaeological 

associations with the motte to its west. The turbines may be visible in view 

to the west from the churchyard, where the mature trees along the western 

boundary of the churchyard permit, beyond the M1/M18 interchange. The 

presence of the turbines is considered to constitute an effect of “negligible” 

magnitude on the setting of the monument, as these principal relationships 

and the setting as defined above will not be affected. The tower is a 

prominent focal point, historically marking the village within its landscape. 

This is particularly noticeable approaching the village from the west, and 

the turbines will not affect this view. Views towards the tower from the east 

are limited by the presence of intervening structures within the village, and 

the road through the village is oriented east-north-east (away from the 

proposed development) and the turbines are unlikely to be visible in such 

views. Taking the above into account, the potential effect of the proposed 

development upon the setting of the Church is assessed as “not 


10.86 LBs 335999, 336000 and 336001 Slade Hooton Hall and associated 

features, Grade II*. These listings cover the Hall at Slade Hooton, the 

stable and remains of an attached barn immediately to the Hall‟s 

southwest and the wall enclosing the hall‟s front garden, including the 

gatepiers and gateway. The Hall lies approximately 4.7km to the east of 

the proposed wind farm site. The setting is defined as the interrelationship 

of the listed elements of the hall, and their association with the 

241 



neighbouring properties of the settlement. There is also an archaeological 

and historic association with the Scheduled remains of the former 

medieval settlement to the north of the Hall. The hall is approached from 

the north, with its main entrance facing south. Matures trees line its 

western boundary. There is a possibility that part of some turbines could 

be seen from the Halls grounds in views to the west, but turbines will not 

be visible in views towards the Hall (to the north). This setting is not 

considered to be affected by the proposed development, an effect of 

“negligible” magnitude which is assessed to be “not significant”. 

10.87 LB458679 Church of St Mary, Beighton, Grade II*. The church lies 

approximately 4.6km to the southwest of the proposed development, 

within Beighton. It lies within its own churchyard, the perimeter of which is 

lined with mature trees. The church‟s entrance is on the south side, and it 

is approached from the east, along a path between residential properties 

along the high street. The church‟s setting is defined as its place within the 

churchyard, and relationship to the settlement. Local tree cover within the 

churchyard, and the structures within Beighton and the intervening 

settlements mean that the turbines are not likely to be visible from the 

environs of the church. This setting is not considered to be affected by the 

proposed development, an effect of “negligible” magnitude which is 

assessed to be “not significant”. 

Grade II 

10.88 46 listed buildings lie within 2km of the proposed development boundary 

and these are all listed at Grade II. They are considered to be only locally 

important of “low” sensitivity for purposes of this assessment (see Table 

10.2). The majority lie within the villages of Brampton-en-Le-Morthen, 

Morthern (both on the other side of the motorway from the proposed 

development) and Ulley, and in the larger settlement of Aston. 

10.89 None are considered to receive an effect upon their setting greater than 

“high” magnitude (which assumes an extensive change in setting), and 

following the matrix presented at Table 10.4, this equates to an effect of no 

more than “minor” significance. Detailed consideration of the settings is 

likely to reduce potential effects further in each case once the actual 

degree of intervening structural or vegetation cover is considered, or the 

relationships and associations of the buildings within their villages is 

considered. 

Registered Historic Parks and Gardens 

10.90 There are 19 registered historic parks and gardens within 15km of the 

Development. They are considered nationally important, and thus of “high” 

sensitivity. 

10.91 None of these Parks lies closer than 5km from the proposed development 

boundary. Many of these Parks have essentially urban settings in or 

adjacent to Rotherham and Sheffield. As noted in paragraph 10.15, at this 

242 



distance they might be expected to receive an effect on their setting 

(where any effect is evident) of “low” magnitude, and following the matrix 

presented at Table 10.4, the significance of this effect is assessed to be 

“minor” only. This is not considered to be significant in terms of the EIA 

regulations, and this class of features has not been considered further. 

Conservation Areas 

10.92 Conservation Areas are designated and controlled at a Local Authority 

level, and for purposes of this assessment are considered locally important 

and therefore of “low” sensitivity. 

10.93 There are 5 areas within 5km of the development boundary. The two 

closest are at Brampton en Le Morthern (approximately 800m to the east 

of the M1/M18 interchange) and in the north-eastern part of Aston, 

approximately 1.6km to the south of the development. 

10.94 The turbines will be prominent in views from the edge of the Brampton 

conservation area, beyond the motorway. In the approaches from north 

and south the turbines will be visible in the periphery of views. They will be 

visible above the area when approached along the minor road from 

Thurcroft. The internal associations spaces and buildings within the area 

will not be affected by the proposed development, but the presence of the 

turbines is considered to affect the wider setting of the area, in particular 

when viewed form the east. It is noted that the motorway interchange lies 

relatively close to the western edge of the village, and separates it from 

the proposed development. The magnitude of the effect is considered to 

be “medium” upon a heritage feature of “low” sensitivity, leading to an 

effect of “minor” significance upon the Area‟s setting. This is not 

considered significant under the EIA regulations. 

10.95 The Conservation area in Aston lies to the south of the B6067, and is 

centred on the Church of All Saints and Aughton Court. The internal 

relationship of the spaces and listed and non-listed structures within the 

area are not considered to be affected by the proposed development. 

There is considerable screening afforded by mature trees within and 

adjacent to the area and by neighbouring buildings to the north. Although 

the turbines may be viewed in occasional glimpses from the edge of the 

conservation area, it is not considered that they will affect its immediate 

setting or character. The magnitude of the potential effect is considered to 

be “low”, and therefore the effect upon the area‟s setting is assessed to be 


10.96 The remaining areas (Treeton, Wickersley and Laughton en le Morthern) 

lie at between 2km to 5km of the proposed development site. The areas of 

Treeton and Wickersley are part of larger (sub)urban areas, or have 

industrial and/or transport infrastructure in close proximity. Following the 

matrix presented in Table 10.4, they are predicted to receive an effect of 

“medium” magnitude (at between 2-5km) and the significance of any 

potential effect upon their settings is of “minor” significance at worst this 

243 



not being considered significant for purposes of the EIA regulations and 

therefore the areas are not considered further. 

POTENTIAL DECOMMISSIONING EFFECTS 

10.97 No direct impacts are anticipated from the decommissioning of the 

proposed wind farm. However, should alternative access be required or 

any disturbance of previously undisturbed ground be required, then an 

appropriate programme of archaeological work may be required and need 

to be agreed with the County Archaeologist. Any such work should take 

into account the results of any archaeological investigation undertaken in 

mitigation of the construction of the proposed development. 

10.98 The decommissioning of the wind farm will have the effect of removing any 

indirect, visual impacts upon the settings of cultural heritage features 

beyond the site boundary. 

MITIGATION MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS 

CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION 

10.99 The desk-based assessment has indicated that there is some potential for 

unknown features of all periods to survive within the development site. 

Geophysical survey did not reveal significant archaeological features 

(although some anomalies relating to post-medieval and modern farming 

activities were detected), and as a result the potential for significant 

unknown remains to existing is considered to be “low”. It is considered that 

the implementation of a scheme of archaeological work leading to the 

preservation of any remains by record would constitute appropriate 

mitigation, and that this could be secured in response to a planning 

condition. 

10.100 The following represents an indicative scheme of archaeological 

mitigation, the details of which will be agreed in the form of a Written 

Scheme of Investigation submitted to South Yorkshire Archaeology 

Advisory Service, and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 

10.101 An initial phase of trial trench evaluation will be undertaken within the 

development footprint, to be carried out in advance of construction (should 

planning permission be granted). This will target anomalies highlighted in 

the geophysical survey, as well as “blank” areas, in order to validate the 

results of the survey. The trial trench evaluation will also include the 

turbine base locations, and other areas of infrastructure where the ground 

surface will be subject to disturbance, such as the construction compound, 

control building location, access tracks and cranes bases. 

10.102 Depending on the results of the initial phase of trial trenching, an 

appropriate scheme of further investigation will be agreed (in the form of a 

Written Scheme of Investigation submitted to SYAAS and approved by the 

Local Planning Authority). This may consist of a detailed excavation, strip, 

244 



map and sample investigation (in advance of construction) and/or 

watching brief on construction. The programme of archaeological work will 

allow for adequate sampling and recording of features if encountered 

during any watching brief. 

10.103 The programme of archaeological work will include all post-fieldwork 

assessment and analysis of records and artefacts generate by the 

investigation to allow the creation of an “archive” suitable for long-term 

storage with an appropriate receiving body, and publication of the results 

in an appropriate journal or media, this being understood to constitute the 

“record” implied by preservation by record. 

10.104 The effect of the implementation of an agreed programme of 

archaeological work would be to provide mitigation for any potential 

physical damage to or loss of the archaeological features, by means of 

securing their preservation (by record). Although the possible physical 

effect would remain the same, the creation of a “record” of any 

archaeological remains will reduce the magnitude of the possible effect 

from “low” or “medium” to “negligible” or “low” (dependant on the type, 

period, nature of the remains potentially affected). This will reduce the 

significance of the predicted, unmitigated, effects (assessed as being of 

“minor” to “moderate” significance [see paragraphs 10.57 and following]), 

to being “not significant”. 

OPERATIONAL MITIGATION 

10.105 No mitigation is proposed as no significant direct impacts upon cultural 

heritage features are anticipated. 

10.106 No mitigation is proposed or considered practicable (beyond that 

embedded in the designed layout) in respect of potential impacts upon the 

settings of features beyond the study area. 

10.107 No residual direct impacts are anticipated during the operation of the 

proposed wind farm. 

DECOMMISSIONING MITIGATION 

10.108 No mitigation is proposed as no effects are anticipated. As stated in 

paragraph 10.99, if alternative access arrangements are made, requiring 

groundworks on previously undisturbed ground, then an appropriate 

programme of archaeological recording may need to be agreed (to be 

carried out in advance) with the relevant body. 

10.109 No residual direct impacts are anticipated from the decommissioning of the 

proposed wind farm. 

245 



CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

10.110 This section considers the potential cumulative effect on the settings of 

cultural heritage features from the addition of the Penny Hill wind farm. For 

purposes of this assessment, the baseline condition is assumed to include 

the three turbines at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre 

(approximately 5km to the west), the consented wind farm at Loscar 

(approximately 8km to the south) and the consented site at Marr near 

Doncaster (approximately 17km to the north-east). The proposed Hampole 

scheme (near Marr) has also been considered. 

10.111 The nearest wind turbines to the Penny Hill site are the three turbines at 

the AMRC some 5km to the west. These are relatively small in size and 

are enclosed by industrial premises. The Landscape and Visual 

Assessment notes that these turbines have a very limited influence on 

landscape character beyond the industrial estate within which they are 

located, and this is also considered to apply to cultural heritage features 

within the locality. It is considered that the combination of the AMRC 

turbines in association with the proposed turbines at Penny Hill would 

have no greater impact on landscape character than if the Penny Hill 

turbines were developed in isolation. 

10.112 The Marr and Hampole schemes are located at a considerable distance 

from the Penny Hill wind farm site and are unlikely to be directly 

intervisible with the proposed development, especially taking into account 

the intervening urban development. It is not considered that the addition of 

Penny Hill to a landscape in which these schemes were already present 

would cause any additional significant effect upon the settings of any 

archaeological, historic or other feature of cultural heritage interest. 

10.113 Loscar is situated closer to the south of Penny Hill, within 8km, but 

separated from it by the villages of Todwick, Wales, Kiveton and South 

Anston. Although a number of features of cultural heritage interest will be 

intervisible with both developments, they are not considered to receive any 

additional significant effect upon their settings from the addition of Penny 

Hill to a situation in which the Loscar site already existed. 

10.114 Further information on cumulative effects can be found in the Landscape 

and Visual Impact Assessment in Section 6 of this ES on the landscape 

and visual impact assessment. 


10.115 No direct effects are anticipated upon any known cultural heritage 

features. There is potential for unknown archaeological remains to exist 

within the site that may be affected by construction works, although the 

potential for significant unknown remains to survive is assessed as “low”. 

The implementation of an agreed programme of archaeological works post 

receipt of planning permission, leading to preservation by record, is 

246 



considered to constitute acceptable mitigation. Once the preservation of 

the archaeological remains has been secured (by record) the residual 

direct effect upon the cultural heritage remains will be considered “not 


10.116 No significant indirect (principally visual) effects are anticipated upon any 

features of cultural heritage interest. 

Table 10.8 Details the Summary of the Potential Effects, Mitigation 

and Residual Effects 

Potential Effect Mitigation Residual Effect 

Construction Effects 

Potential for damage or 

destruction of unknown 

archaeological remains 

(direct effects on features 

within the site boundary). 

The significance would be 

“minor” to “moderate” 

depending on the nature of 

any remains encountered. 

Indirect effects upon 

settings of some cultural 

heritage features beyond 

site boundary (e.g. from 

presence of cranes). These 

would be temporary and 

not significant. 

Operational Effects 

No significant direct effects 

are anticipated upon 

cultural heritage features. 

No significant effects are 

anticipated upon the 

archaeological and historic 

settings of any cultural 

heritage features. 

Decommissioning Effects 

No direct impacts are 

anticipated 2 . 

Removal of potential 

indirect, visual effects upon 

settings of some cultural 

heritage features beyond 

the site boundary. 

Implementation of an 

appropriate scheme of 

archaeological work, 

both in advance of and 

during construction, 

leading to preservation 

by record. Geophysical 

survey has already been 

undertaken. 

None proposed or 

considered practicable. 

None proposed. None. 

None proposed or 

considered practicable 

(beyond that embedded 

in the final designed 

layout). 

None proposed. None. 

247 

Not Significant. 

None (temporary effects). 

Indirect effects upon settings 

of some cultural heritage 

features, which are temporary 

and reversible and of minor 

significance. 

None proposed. Restoration of previously 

existing settings 9 . 

9 Notwithstanding other changes to their settings that may have occurred since the construction the 

proposed development, not relating to the proposed development. 



PART 3: DESCRIPTION OF OTHER EFFECTS 

Part 3 of the ES undertakes the further assessment of other potential effects which 

have been identified by the Applicant as being material to the consideration of the 

proposal. These include: 

Construction traffic; 

Civilian and military aeronautical radar; 

Radio-communications and television; 

Ground conditions and hydrology; 

Shadow flicker; and 

Other issues (e.g. environmental management and health & safety). 

248 



11. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC 

INTRODUCTION 

11.1 This section of the ES assesses the predicted road traffic that would be 

generated during the construction of the Penny Hill Wind Farm. 

Movements of abnormal load vehicles (ALVs), other heavy goods vehicles 

(HGVs) and lighter traffic, mainly consisting of construction workers driving 

to and from the site in cars and vans, are considered. The assessment has 

been undertaken by Faber Maunsell. 

11.2 As stated in Section 5 of this ES, it is proposed that roadstone for the 

construction of site roads would ideally be sourced from local quarries in 

proximity to the site. It is likely that concrete would be brought directly to 

site, for some wind farm sites it is possible that concrete could be batched 

on site within the construction compound, but this would be inappropriate 

for a development of this relatively small size. For the purposes of this 

assessment it has therefore been assumed that concrete will be delivered 

to the site. 

11.3 This section also considers access to the site for ALVs, the potential for 

driver distraction and operational and decommissioning vehicle 

movements. 

CONSULTATION 

11.4 The Highways Agency and Transportation Service of RMBC both 

responded to the EIA Scoping Report submitted to RMBC in May 2008. 

Comments received from the RMBC Transportation Service are: 

„The Environmental Statement should include a transport 

assessment having regard for the type, number, frequency and 

timings of vehicles accessing the site during the construction and 

decommissioning periods, along with the traffic routes and an 

assessment of the impacts on the highway network, road users and 

residential amenity. 

Final details of permanent and temporary access should include a 

qualitative assessment of any affected hedgerows and landscape 

and includes an assessment of the impact and any necessary 

mitigation/reinstatement/enhancement measures‟. 

11.5 The Scoping Opinion also confirmed that RMBC consider the routes 

proposed (Route A and C described later) to be acceptable. 

11.6 The following comments were also made in relation to safety which are 

relevant to the scope of the transport assessment: 

249 



„The Environmental Statement should have regard for safety aspects, 

particularly in relation to the nearby motorway, and include 

consideration of topple distances, visibility, driver distraction…‟ 

11.7 The Highways Agency responded to the Scoping Request by supplying a 

copy of their “Network Strategy Spatial Planning Advice Note: SP 04/07” 

which provides advice on „planning applications for wind turbines sited 

near to trunk roads‟. 

11.8 In addition, a meeting was held with the Highways Agency on 2 nd 

December 2008 in order to provide information on the proposed 

development and the work carried out to date (e.g. the route access 

study), and to obtain advice and agreement on the scope of the 

assessment to be carried out. 

ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE 

11.9 The document “Guidance on Transport Assessments” (Department for 

Transport (DfT), 2007) has been used for the construction traffic 

assessment. 

11.10 A Transport Assessment (TA) is a comprehensive and systematic process 

that sets out transport issues relating to a proposed development and 

identifies what measures will be taken to deal with the anticipated 

transport impacts of a scheme. For smaller developments and specialised 

cases with lesser transport impacts, a Transport Statement (TS), which is 

a simplified Transport Assessment, can be produced instead. The type of 

assessment used for the proposed development was decided once the 

scale of the construction traffic had been identified. 

METHODOLOGY 

11.11 Potential effects as a result of the construction, operation and 

decommissioning of the wind farm have been identified and assessed and 

where relevant, mitigation measures have been recommended. This 

assessment has been structured as shown in the “Guidance on Transport 

Assessment” and the significance of potential effects has been assessed 

in light of recognised thresholds stated in this guidance. This assessment 

has the following structure: 

Existing Site Information; 

Baseline Transport Data; 

Proposed Transport Data; 

Visual Distraction (Driver Distraction); and 

Mitigation and Residual Effects. 

250 



EXISTING SITE INFORMATION 

EXISTING SITE INFORMATION SUMMARY 

11.12 Penny Hill Wind Farm is proposed on land to the west of the M1/M18 

interchange (Junction 32), to the east of the village of Ulley. Access to the 

site would be made via an existing field access along a rural road, Penny 

Hill Lane. 

11.13 Detailed information on the characteristics of the site is contained within 

the various sections of this ES and is not repeated here. 

ASSESSMENT 

PROPOSED ROUTE AND SITE ACCESS 

11.14 The access study concluded that access to the site for the delivery of 

turbine components (using ALVs) is feasible along the preferred route 

proposed. Details on the route are contained in the Collett Transport 

report in Appendix 7 (described as „Route A‟). The report also states that 

all necessary road consents, abnormal load orders and precise transport 

management methods required to be satisfactorily dealt with in the postconsent 

and construction phases of the project. The Applicant would 

address such issues in the proposed CMS and EMP, in discussions with 

the Local Highways Authority and the Highways Agency. 

11.15 It is envisaged that turbine components would be delivered to the site via 

the public road network from a suitable port on the East Coast such as 

Immingham or Goole. The principal access route would utilise the 

southbound M18, leaving at Junction 1 between Hellaby and Wickersley, 

then westbound on the A631, a left turn onto the B6060 through 

Wickersley and Thurcroft before turning right onto Hawk Hill Lane and 

continuing westbound to the site entrance on Penny Hill Lane. The route 

access study has also confirmed that turbine components, with the 

exception of turbine blades could be delivered to the site along another 

route („Route C‟) if required. This is the same as the route that is proposed 

for all other construction vehicles, including HGVs and is described below. 

Should there be an alteration to the specified delivery routes then 

confirmation and consent will be sought from the relevant highways bodies 

and notification will be given to the Local Planning Authority. 

11.16 HGVs and other construction vehicles would use a separate route from 

Junction 31 of the M1, then eastbound on the A57, turning left onto the 

B6463, then turning left onto Common Road and continuing onto Long 

Road before turning left onto Penny Hill Lane to the site entrance. This 

route would minimise disruption by avoiding local settlements. 

11.17 It is proposed to construct one new access point onto the public highway 

at Penny Hill Lane and one crossing point linking the site across Brampton 

Lane. The new junction onto Penny Hill Lane will include road widening to 

251 



oth lanes on the eastern approach to the junction, which will enable 

oversized vehicles to navigate the turns into the site. The crossing point 

would be subject to a suitable management practice during both 

construction and operation to ensure safe working. The ground would also 

be prepared to accept suitable axle loadings. The upgraded junction 

proposal is shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA14. Detailed swept path 

analysis drawings of the proposed site entrance are included in Appendix 

7. 

11.18 The Applicant and selected turbine delivery company would prepare a 

schedule of any street furniture requiring relocation or temporary removal, 

in consultation with the highway authorities, prior to the commencement of 

deliveries. The details of all modifications required would be included as 

part of the EMP and CMS prior to construction and would be subject to 

gaining the appropriate road construction consents and permits for 

carrying out works to the public road network. 

11.19 There is a well-established procedure covering the movement of ALVs, 

such as turbine components, which is administered by the Highways 

Agency in consultation with various parties. Prior to deliveries 

commencing, the appropriate bodies such as the Police, the emergency 

services and local authorities will be consulted via established procedures 

to ensure that the timings, management and delivery routes are agreed 

and that appropriate permits are in place for the turbine component 

movements. 

11.20 The condition of the public roads would be surveyed and recorded prior to 

them being used by the heavy traffic required for the purpose of 

constructing the wind farm. To that end, video footage or a series of 

photographs would be recorded and supplied to the local highway 

authority. Repair and maintenance work would be carried out on these 

roads during and following the construction period to rectify any damage 

caused by the passing of heavy vehicles associated with the wind farm. 

All works would be carried out to the specification of the local highway 

authority. 

11.21 The Penny Hill Wind Farm would generate insignificant volumes of traffic 

once commissioned, as the only scheduled traffic movements would be 

occasional visits made by maintenance staff in light vehicles. 

BASELINE TRANSPORT DATA 

BASELINE TRANSPORT DATA SUMMARY 

11.22 Baseline traffic count data along the adjacent stretches of the M1 and M18 

was supplied by the Highways Agency. 

11.23 Baseline traffic count data for the local road network was obtained from 

RMBC. Traffic data was obtained for 12-hour traffic surveys with data 

252 



eing recorded in 15 minute intervals between the hours of 07:00 and 

19:00 at the following junctions: 

A631 west of M18 J1 – Manual traffic survey on 21 st February 2008; 

A631/B6060 junction – Manual traffic survey on 13 th May 2003; 

B6060/Brampton Rd junction – Manual traffic survey on 10 th July 2007; 

and 

A57/Todwick Road junction – Manual traffic survey on 17 th October 

2007. 

11.24 Data was not available from RMBC for the following two junctions, so 

turning count surveys were undertaken by the company Count on Us Ltd: 

Todwick Road/Common Road; and 

Penny Hill Lane/Common Lane. 

11.25 The surveys were carried out on 26th February 2009. Survey hours were 

07:00 - 19:00. All information was collected in 15 minute intervals and was 

tabulated with hourly and period totals. Details of site layouts and arm 

labelling are shown on Drawings 37940-01 and 37940-02 in the Count on 

Us report in Appendix 7. 

11.26 Vehicles were divided into the following categories: Car, Light Goods 

Vehicle (LGV), Other Goods Vehicle (OGV1), Other Goods Vehicle 

(OGV2); buses and coaches (PSV); motorcycles (MCL) and personal 

cycles (PCL). Further information on these vehicle types is given in the 

report in Appendix 7. 

ASSESSMENT 

Strategic Road Network 

11.27 Based on data provided by the Highways Agency, the southbound 

average annual 12-hour traffic flow between September 2007 and August 

2008 on the M18 between Junctions 1 and 0 was 38,684 vehicles and 

northbound between Junctions 0 and 1 was 38,342 vehicles. The annual 

average 12 hour traffic flow northbound on the M1 between Junctions 31 

and 32 over the same period was 52,905 vehicles and southbound 

between Junctions 32 and 31 was 51,615. 

Local Road Network 

11.28 Based on data provided by RMBC and obtained from traffic counts 

undertaken by Count on Us Ltd, the 12-hour bidirectional traffic flow for the 

links on the ALV and the HGV loading routes are as follows for their 

respective survey years: 

253 



A631 Bawtry Road, Hellaby - 25,442 

A631 Bawtry Road, Wickersley - 24,450 

Morthern Road, Wickersley - 9,368 

Morthern Road, Thurcroft - 10,777 

Green Arbour Road - 13,5604 

Hawk Hill Lane - 1,072 

A57 Worksop Road - 25,386 

B6463 Todwick Road - 9,685 

Common Road - 1,872 

Long Road - 3,152 

Penny Hill Lane - 1,617 

11.29 The increase in these baseline traffic numbers on both the SRN and local 

road network, based on the estimated year of construction (2010), is 

summarised in Table 11.1 below. 

254 



Table 11.1: Predicted Traffic Numbers for 2010 (All Vehicles) 

Direction of Travel Survey 

Year 

M18 northbound 

(between J0 and J1) 

M18 southbound 

(between J1 and J0) 

M1 northbound (between 

J31 and J32) 

M1 southbound (between 

J32 and J31) 

A631 Bawtry Road, 

Hellaby 11 

A631 Bawtry Road, 

Wickersley 

Morthern Road, 

Wickersley 


Thurcroft 2 

Annual 

Average 12hr 

Traffic Flows 

255 

Central Growth 

Estimate 10 to 

2010 

One way flows on Strategic Road Network 

Predicted Annual 

Average 12hr Traffic 

Flows for 2010 

2008 38,342 3.06% 39,515 

2008 38,684 3.06% 39,867 

2008 52,905 3.06% 54,523 

2008 51,615 3.06% 53,194 

Bidirectional flows for Local Road Network 

2008 25,442 2 

3.06% 26,226 2 

2003 24,450 11.19% 27,222 

2003 9,368 11.19% 10,430 

2007 10,777 2 4.59% 11,277 2 

Green Arbour Road 2 2007 13,560 2 4.59% 14,189 2 

Hawk Hill Lane 2009 1,072 1.53% 1,088 

A57 Worksop Road 2007 25,386 4.59% 26,563 

B6463 Todwick Road 2009 9,685 1.53% 9,833 

Common Road 2009 1,872 1.53% 1,901 

Long Road 2009 3,152 1.53% 3,200 

Penny Hill Lane 2009 1,617 1.53% 1,642 

10 

Growth estimate obtained from National Road Traffic Forecasts data for years 2008 to 2009 and 

2009 to 2010 – All Traffic Central Forecast. 

11 

Annual Average 12 hour traffic flows not available, AADT estimated flows from Peak Hour Flows 

used instead using AADT = (PHF/2.63)*24 based on “Transport in the Urban Environment” (2 nd 

Edition, Institution of Highways and Transport). 



PROPOSED TRANSPORT DATA 

Proposed Transport Data Summary 

11.30 An assessment has been carried out of the transport data during the 

periods of construction, operation and decommissioning and the impacts 

on the local and strategic road networks have been assessed against the 

baseline transport data. 

Assessment 

11.31 The proposed transport data has been analysed by phase and details the 

transport data for the construction, operation and decommissioning of the 

wind farm. 


Trip Generation 

11.32 During the predicted 10 month construction period, the following traffic will 

access the site: 

HGVs, to deliver stone and concrete; 

flat-bed lorries, to deliver substation and transformer components; 

semi-low extendable trailers, to deliver turbine components (requiring 

escort); 

cranes, delivered as mobile units and on low-loaders; and 

construction personnel and deliveries, by private car, light van or 

minibus. 

11.33 The vehicles used to transport turbine components will constitute 

oversized vehicles / abnormal loads only on the delivery phase of the 

journey, as the trailers will be retracted during the return leg. Each delivery 

of turbine components therefore consists of one abnormal load movement 

on the outbound movement and one HGV movement on the return 

movement. 

11.34 Table 11.2 outlines the predicted traffic levels associated with the 

construction of the wind farm, over the 10-month, 10-hour working day 

construction period for standard HGVs, abnormal loads and light vehicles. 

This information is shown as Total, Average Daily and Average Hourly 

movements. 

11.35 It will be endeavoured to source roadstone for the proposal from quarries 

in close proximity to the site, however this will be subsequent to availability 

and acceptability. All traffic movements bringing building materials to the 

site would have to approach the site from Junction 31 of the M1 and the 

A57 using the proposed access route into the site. 

11.36 It is hoped that local contractors would be employed wherever possible in 

the construction of the wind farm and they could approach the site from a 

variety of routes, depending on their point of origin, however the majority 

would be expected to approach the site from the M1. To assess a “worst- 

256 



case” scenario it has been assumed that 100 percent of vehicles 

accessing the site would utilise the M1 and the A57. 

11.37 This transport assessment therefore considers increases in traffic on the 

M1 at its junction with the A57 (Junction 31) and the southbound M18 at its 

junction with the A631 (Junction 1). The assessment also considers 

increases in traffic westbound on the A631, southbound on the B6060 and 

westbound on Hawk Hill Lane near to the proposed site access for the 

transportation of turbine components and eastbound on the A57, 

northbound on the B6463 and Common Road and westbound on Penny 

Hill Lane for all other construction traffic. 

Table 11.2: Predicted Bidirectional Monthly Movements during Construction Phase: 

All Vehicles 

Activity 

257 

Month 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 

Heavy Goods Vehicle Movements (HGV) including Abnormal Loads (ALV) 

Mobilisation to site 72 20 92 

Access tracks and 

crane pads 

560 560 560 560 2240 

Turbine foundations 190 190 190 190 760 

Metering building 30 30 60 

Electrical 

installation 

20 20 20 60 

Turbine 

transformers 

6 6 12 

Turbine & crane 

deliveries 

2 32 68 68 22 190 

Demobilisation and 

site clearance 

60 32 92 

Monthly Totals 632 580 782 800 216 248 68 68 82 32 3508 

Light Vehicle (LV) Movements (cars, minibuses and small vans) 

All light vehicles 440 660 880 880 880 880 660 660 660 660 7260 

All Vehicle Movements 

Monthly totals 1072 1240 1661 1680 1096 1127 728 728 742 692 10768 

Average Daily 

Movements (5-day 

working week) 

Average Daily HGV 

Movements (5-day 

working week) 

Average Hourly 

Movements (10- 

hour working day) 

Average Hourly 

HGV Movements 

(10-hour working 

day) 

49 56 76 76 50 51 33 33 34 31 

29 26 36 36 10 11 3 3 4 1 

5 6 8 8 5 5 3 3 3 3 

3 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 



11.38 Based on the traffic levels in Table 11.2 above, a Transport Statement is 

the most suitable assessment for the proposed development as the 

development trip generation lies well below the indicators for a Transport 

Assessment. Therefore this construction traffic assessment fulfils the 

requirements of a Transport Statement. 

11.39 The total number of vehicle movements generated during the construction 

of the proposed development is estimated as 10,768 over a 10-month 

period. This takes account of all vehicle movements generated by the 

above activities and includes site personnel. This total is broken down in 

Table 11.2 above. In summary: 

3,508 HGV (including abnormal loads) movements over 10 months; 

and 

7,260 cars / light vehicles movements over 10 months. 

11.40 As noted in Table 11.2, the predicted traffic movements are not uniform 

throughout the construction period. The maximum number of vehicle 

movements (1,680) is predicted during month 4. The maximum average 

vehicle movements per day (assuming 22 working days per month) would 

comprise 76 vehicle movements during months 3 and 4 (of which 36 would 

be HGV movements). 

11.41 During the construction phase there would be on average a maximum of 8 

vehicle movements per hour (of which 4 would be HGV movements). 

11.42 Occasionally the site may be worked 6-days per week, which would 

reduce the average predicted vehicle movements per day. The maximum 

ALV movements would occur in months 7 and 8 and would comprise of 68 

movements a month or an average of 3 movements per day. 

11.43 As previously indicated, it is anticipated that wind turbine components 

would approach from the southbound M18 via Junction 1 to the A631, then 

B6060, Hawk Hill Lane and Penny Hill Lane. The majority of other vehicle 

movements are expected to approach the site from Junction 31 of the M1 

before travelling along the A57, B6463, Common Road and Penny Hill 

Lane. 

11.44 Tables 11.3 and 11.4 are based on a predicted construction year of 2010 

and detail whether the predicted peak traffic increase (76 daily vehicle 

movements, 8 hourly vehicle movements) are considered to be significant 

or not. The thresholds of significance have been taken from “Guidelines for 

Traffic Impact Assessments” (Institution of Highways and Transportation, 

1994). Whilst this assessment of the threshold of significance could be 

considered outdated it is a useful tool when acting as a guideline to 

identify levels of significance in the assessment. 

258 



Table 11.3: Peak Increases in Traffic Along the ALV Route to Site – One way 

Movements to Site Only 

Location 

A631 Bawtry 

Road, Hellaby 

A631 Bawtry 

Road, 

Wickersley 


Wickersley 


Thurcroft 

Green Arbour 

Road 

Route 

(Abnormal 

Vehicles 

Only) 

2010 AADT 

ALV Only 13,113 

(26,226/2) 


(27,222/2) 


(10,430/2) 


(11,277/2) 


(14,189/2) 

Hawk Hill Lane ALV Only 544 

(1,088/2) 

Penny Hill 

Lane 

ALV Only 821 

(1,642/2) 

Peak Daily 

Construction 

(1-way) (100 

Veh/Day) 

259 

Peak Hourly 

Construction 

(1-way) (30 

Veh/Hour) 

Peak 

Percentage 

Increase 12 


Environmental Statement 

Significance 

3 0.3 (3/10)

Table 11.4: Peak Increases in Traffic Along the ALV and HGV Route to Site – One way 

Movements to Site Only 

Location 

M18 

Northbound 

(J0 to J1) 

M18 

Southbound 

(J1 to J0) 

Route 

(ALL = 

HGV, LV) 

2010 AADT 

Peak Daily 

Construction 

1-way) (100 

Veh/Day) 

260 

Peak Hourly 

Construction 

(1-way) (30 

Veh/Hour) 

Peak 

Percentage 

Increase 


Environmental Statement 

Significance 

ALL 39,515 38 (76/2) 3.8 (76/2/10)

Disruption and delay: The impact of this to other users of the road 

network is more likely to occur during the abnormal load movements; 

Increased risk of accidents: Any increase in traffic numbers has the 

potential to increase the risk of accidents. This risk will be minimised 

through the highway improvements and transport management plan 

outlined further in this section; 

Air pollution: Emissions from vehicles have the potential to impact on 

local and wider air quality. The distribution of traffic movements 

throughout the working day will minimise any local air quality impacts 

associated with congestion, as will other transport management actions 

implemented. The temporary nature of the traffic increases will mean 

that any impact will be short-term; and 

Dust and dirt: HGVs can potentially cause dust and dirt from the site 

to be carried onto the local road network. 

11.47 These impacts would not be significant and would be managed principally 

via an appropriate transport management plan (see section on Mitigation). 

Abnormal Loads 

11.48 As shown by Table 11.3, the numbers of abnormal loads will be relatively 

small in comparison to the existing levels of traffic on the local road 

network, and therefore insignificant in terms of the thresholds of 

significance. However, the impact of these vehicles is a result of their size 

and low speed rather than their numbers. 

11.49 As a result of their size and low speed, these vehicles have the potential to 

create the following environmental impacts, which are regarded as being 

potentially significant and will be minimised by the mitigation measures 

outlined later in the Mitigation section: 

Noise and vibration; 

Disruption and delay; and 

Increased risk of accidents. 



11.50 Maintenance of the site will take place on a year-round basis. The 

servicing of the site can be broken down into the following movements 

each year: 

Turbine Servicing – Two visits per year for each turbine. It is expected 

that servicing vehicles will consist of two car/van vehicles and one 

access platform vehicle for two days for each service. 

261 



Extended Servicing – One visit per year for each turbine. It is expected 

that servicing vehicles will consist of two car/van vehicles and one 

access platform vehicle for four days for each service. 

Access Track Maintenance – Two visits per year. It is expected that 

the visits will last for approximately 5 days, with each service being 

generating two car/van trips per day and one HGV trip per service. 

Additional Five-yearly Maintenance Servicing – Undertaken over two 

days once every five years for each turbine. It is expected that 

servicing vehicles will consist of two car/van trips per day, and one 

access platform vehicle. 

Additional Contingency Maintenance – While the servicing schedule 

above should cover all the required maintenance, allowance is made 

for an additional two-day service per turbine. 

11.51 Overall, the maximum annual servicing vehicle traffic would be 

approximately 190 cars/light vehicles and approximately 35 access 

platform vehicles/HGVs. 

11.52 The design life of the turbines is 25 years, and the warranted reliability of 

wind turbines is approximately 95%. Therefore, it is considered unlikely 

that failure of any turbine will require its removal and replacement. 



11.53 Traffic generated during decommissioning of the wind farm is likely to be 

lower than the levels associated with construction and is therefore not 

expected to be significant. An appropriate decommissioning traffic 

assessment would be undertaken and a transport management plan 

prepared prior to the decommissioning of the wind farm. 

VISUAL DISTRACTION (DRIVER DISTRACTION) 

VISUAL DISTRACTION (DRIVER DISTRACTION) SUMMARY 

11.54 A driver distraction study is not required for a Transport Assessment. 

However, an assessment of driver distraction has been undertaken as a 

result of consultation with the Highways Agency and has been included in 

this construction traffic assessment. 

11.55 Visual distraction is where the presence of something close to the highway 

attracts the attention of drivers, leading to a potential safety issue. In order 

to maintain the safety of the strategic highway network, the Highways 

Agency is particularly careful to manage visual distraction given the high 

speeds involved. 

262 



11.56 Faber Maunsell was commissioned by the Applicant to identify the 

likelihood of driver distraction occurring on the strategic network as a 

consequence of the proposed development. In assessing the potential for 

driver distraction, on-site observations were taken of nearby Strategic 

Road Network (SRN) routes, along with an analysis of traffic flow data in 

the context of network capacity and an analysis of historical accident data 

for the SRN in the vicinity of the site. 

11.57 The Highways Agency “Network Strategy Spatial Planning Advice Note: 

SP 04/07” provides guidance on the considerations for the siting of wind 

turbines near to Highways Agency‟s SRN. The guidance is produced to 

assist in addressing the considerations at the planning application stage. 

The assessment was undertaken to address one of the main 

considerations of visual distraction, but also to address the consideration 

of „shadowing or flicker‟. 

11.58 A site visit was undertaken on 10th December 2008 in order to assess the 

potential for driver distraction in the form of visual distraction (from a 

qualitative perspective). The assessment was based on the visibility of the 

wind farm within the drivers‟ line of sight. These visual ranges are referred 

to as the „foveal visual range‟ (which is the area around the central line of 

sight of the human eye and is generally within a 3° arc on either side of the 

direct line of sight) and the drivers‟ peripheral visual range (which ranges 

between 3° and approximately 60° on either side of the direct line of sight). 

These two ranges are referred to in the observations as the direct and the 

indirect visibility, to distinguish between the visual areas which the driver is 

focussed on and the areas which the driver can see, but not clearly focus 

on. 

ASSESSMENT 

11.59 The report “Visual Assessment of Wind farms: Best Practice” produced by 

Scottish Natural Heritage, provides a matrix table which suggests that 

turbines of the size proposed have the potential to have a dominant visual 

impact within a 4km radius. Sections of the M1, M18 and a number of 

local roads falls within this distance. A survey of the potential turbine 

visibility demonstrates that the turbines will be visible within 4km on the 

following routes: 

Route A - M1 Eastbound approaching Junction 33; 

Route B - M1 Northbound approaching Junction 31; 

Route 1 - M1 Junction 31 and M18 Junction 1; 




263 



Route 5 - M1 Junction 33 to M1 Junction 31; and 

Route 6 - M1 Junction 31 to M1 junction 33. 

Routes 1 to 6 are illustrated on the Figures 11.1 and 11.2 below. Routes A 

and B are not shown separately as they are approaches to junctions and 

are represented by the other routes shown on the figures. 

11.60 An on-site route by route observation of likely wind turbine visibility from 

the nearby strategic and local highway network (as above) was 

undertaken. Evidence suggests that in instances where wind turbines are 

highly visible over a significant stretch of the network, drivers are able to 

anticipate the upcoming structures and as such are less likely to be 

distracted by them. 

11.61 Route A: For traffic travelling eastbound on the M1, as the motorway 

bends on a south-easterly direction there is a direct line of sight towards 

the wind farm site. As the motorway continues around the bend, the wind 

farm would remain indirectly visible until Junction 33. 

11.62 Route B: For vehicles travelling northbound on the M1 approaching 

Junction 31, the wind farm would be visible from a distance of 5km away. 

The motorway enters a cutting 2.2km south of Junction 31 which would 

reduce the number of turbines visible to two. These turbines would be 

seen along the visibility splay of the carriageway, with 1km of this length of 

motorway having the turbines directly visible to drivers‟ heading 

northbound. All turbines would again be visible once the traffic emerges 

from the cutting. 

11.63 Route 1: Travelling northbound between Junction 31 of the M1 and the 

M18 Junction 1, at least one or two turbines would remain directly visible 

at all times. North of Junction 31 the motorway runs inside a cutting for 

1km after which the land on either side of the motorway is entirely clear 

which would allow for clear views of the turbines up to the diverge section 

for the M18 southern slip road. The wind farm would disappear from view 

as vehicles travel along the M18 slip road. 

11.64 Route 2: Between the diverge of M1 Junction 32 and the merge at M18 

Junction 1, the motorway is entirely straight. From the roundabout at 

Junction 1, all the way along the motorway up to the diverge at least one 

of the turbines would remain in direct view at all times with others being 

within the drivers‟ indirect view. When traffic is travelling southbound 

along the connector link from the M18 Junction 1 towards the M1 Junction 

31, the wind turbines to the south west will remain in view except for 

fleeting periods when they are temporarily obscured by vegetation and on 

the western side of the carriageway, however at least one turbine would 

remain visible at all times on this connector. On approach to the M1 

merge, the southern half of the wind farm would emerge from indirect to 

direct view and then to indirect view again as traffic turns the bend and 

enters the merging section. The turbines would remain in indirect view for 

264 



approximately 1.1km towards Junction 31 and from that point on they will 

only be visible in the rear view mirror. 

Figure 11.1: The Penny Hill Site and Routes 1, 3 and 5 

11.65 Route 3: Between Junction 1 and Junction 32 at least one of the turbines 

would remain in direct view at all times with others being within the drivers‟ 

indirect view. When traffic enters the connector onto the M1 Northbound 

(at Junction 32) the wind farm to the south west would move from being 

directly visible to being indirectly visible and would cease to be visible 

approximately 200m from the M1 under bridge. From this point onwards 

the wind farm would no longer be visible as the traffic moves in a westerly 

direction. 

265 



Figure 11.2: The Penny Hill Site and Routes 2, 4 and 6 (A & B) 

11.66 Route 4: Travelling eastbound between the M1 Junction 33 and the M18 

Junction 1, the motorway passes under an over bridge 1.5km east of 

Junction 33, prior to which the wind farm would be easily seen. At the 

over bridge, the motorway enters a deep and steep cutting which would 

occlude the view of all turbines for 800 metres until the motorway rises 

high enough to enter an undulating plateau. The wind farm would be 

indirectly visible after 800m but it would be partially obstructed by the 

presence of two sets of tall electricity pylons which are present at the 

southern edge of the motorway. As the motorway bends towards the north 

east as it diverges onto the two lane taper diverge the turbines will remain 

in indirect view for a further 400m and then they would no longer be 

visible. 

11.67 Route 5: Vehicles travelling on the stretch of motorway between M1 

Junction 33 and the M1 Junction 32 pass under an over bridge 1.5km east 

of junction 33, prior to which the wind farm would easily be seen. At the 

over bridge the motorway enters a deep and steep cutting which would 

prevent views of all turbines for 800 metres until the motorway rises high 

266 



enough to enter an undulating plateau. The wind farm would be indirectly 

visible after 800m but it will be partially obstructed by the presence of two 

sets of tall electricity pylons which are present at the southern edge of the 

motorway. As the motorway proceeds past the diverge section the 

motorway bends towards the south and approaches the area which would 

have the three northernmost turbines to the south west. After the traffic 

passes under the M18 over bridge the turbines would be indirectly visible 

and would move into direct view as the traffic continues around the bend. 

They would then remain directly visible through the interchange and the 

merging section with the M18 and the various turbines would pass from 

direct to indirect view before becoming non-visible 1.1km from the 

beginning of the merging section. 

11.68 Route 6: The section of motorway from Junction 31 north to Junction 33, 

runs adjacent to and is at the same elevation as the wind farm site. North 

of junction 31 the motorway runs inside a cutting after which the land on 

either side of the motorway is entirely clear, which would allow for clear 

views of the wind farm and the surrounding farm land for a distance of 

1.3km up to the diverge section for the M18 southern slip road. 

11.69 Accident data for the period 2003 – 2008 was obtained from RMBC for the 

strategic road network in the vicinity of the proposed Penny Hill Wind 

Farm. In the majority of instances accidents occurred in areas where traffic 

and drivers would not be directly affected by wind farm visibility or where 

traffic was travelling away from the site with turbines outside of the field of 

view. It was therefore determined that the presence of turbines would not 

exacerbate factors attributing to such accidents. 

11.70 A review of the accidents at two wind farms close to the strategic highway 

network has been carried out to identify whether there is any notable 

increase in accidents occurring as a result. 

Lambrigg Wind Farm, Cumbria 

11.71 The wind farm is located approximately 600m to the North East of Junction 

37 of the M6. The wind farm was opened in 2000 and consists of five (1.3 

MW) turbines. 

11.72 Accident statistics were obtained for the period 1995-2005 for the M6 for 

Junction 37 adjacent to the wind farm and approximately 3 miles in either 

direction to the North and South, to provide five years of data before and 

after implementation. Accidents were filtered to remove trips travelling 

away from the junction. 

11.73 During the five year period prior to the construction of the site (1995-1999), 

30 personal injury accidents occurred, consisting of 1 fatal, 9 serious injury 

and 20 slight injury accidents. In the five-year period following the 

construction of the site (2001-2005), 20 personal injury accidents 

occurred, consisting of 4 serious injury and 16 slight injury accidents. 

267 



High Volts Wind Farm, Hartlepool 

11.74 The wind farm is located close to the A19(T) at Elwick, Hartlepool, and 

was opened in December 2003 and consists of three (2.75MW) turbines. 

11.75 Accident statistics were obtained for the period 2001-2006 for the A19 to 

at the Elwick junction and for approximately 3 miles in either direction to 

the North and South, to provide three years of data before and after 

implementation. Accidents were filtered to remove trips travelling away 

from the junction. 

11.76 During the 3 year period prior to the completion of the site, there were 13 

injury accidents which met the filter criteria, consisting of 3 serious injury 

and 10 slight injury accidents. During the following 3 year period there 

were 13 injury accidents, consisting of 2 fatal, 3 serious injury and 8 slight 

injury accidents. The fatal injuries were not attributed by police to driver 

distraction; one occurred when a driver swerved to avoid an animal in the 

road and the other was due to a collision between a driver and 

motorcyclist while overtaking. 

Conclusions of Review 

11.77 The evidence from existing sites above demonstrates that there is no 

demonstrable increase in the number of accidents occurring on the 

strategic highway network as a result of the construction of the wind farms. 

Neither wind farm suffered an increase in the number of personal injury 

accidents, and while the A19 adjacent to the High Volts wind farm 

experienced an increase in the number of fatal accidents, driver distraction 

was not highlighted as a cause of the accident. 

11.78 In summary, on site observations suggest that the turbines will be visible 

over a significant distance for vehicles travelling along strategic routed in 

all directions. Turbine heights and the size of the visual radius 

surrounding the wind farm will result in drivers travelling along the M1 or 

M18 being able to see it long before they are alongside the site. Turbines 

are either directly or indirectly visible for the majority of the time that 

drivers are within the interchange. All traffic movements are subject to a 

substantial lead in time where turbines are in direct view. Therefore drivers 

will not need to take their direct focus off the road ahead to view the 

turbines. There is no evidence to suggest that the introduction of the 

Penny Hill Wind Farm will have any effect on the accident rate and the 

causes of accidents on potentially affected routes. Therefore, accident 

rates are not expected to be adversely affected. 

Shadow Flicker 

11.79 Shadow Flicker is caused when the rotor blades of the wind turbines move 

into and out of direct sunlight, creating a moving shadow which can lead to 

driver distraction. 

268 



11.80 No evidence could be found of road traffic accidents on the strategic 

highway network which have been attributed to driver distraction caused 

by wind turbine flicker and as such flicker is not perceived to be an issue to 

the scheme. Previous considerations of visual disturbance and flicker 

have focussed on the impact for housing rather than moving vehicles. The 

potential effects of shadow flicker from the wind turbines in general are 

discussed later in this ES at Section 15. 

Network Stress 

11.81 The Highways Agency assesses stress on the SRN by comparing existing 

traffic flow with the theoretical capacity of the links and junctions. In cases 

where traffic levels exceed capacity, queuing can occur. Stress levels are 

displayed as a percentage of theoretical capacity, with four levels used: 

0% to 75%; 

75% to 90%; 

90% to 100%; and 

100% and above. 

11.82 The traffic flow information shows links are currently predominantly 

operating below theoretical capacity (100%) and in many instances 

significantly less so, with the majority of stress levels recorded between 

30% and 90%. In general, the network under observation is at an average 

of 73.2% of operating capacity. 

11.83 The existing traffic conditions show that the links that are most stressed on 

the network are both directions between Junctions 33 and 32 and these 

have just over 100% network stress. The link from M1 J32 – J33 is less 

relevant and can be excluded as drivers at that point will be moving away 

from the wind farm site and the turbines will be behind them and 

subsequently out of view. The reverse link from the M1 J33 to J32 has a 

stress of 102% up to and including the diverge onto the M18. As drivers 

have visibility of the wind turbines for 1.5km up to an 800m long cutting 

and for up to 1.6km after the 800m stretch of motorway it is believed that 

there will not be risk of distraction to drivers using this section of the 

motorway. 

11.84 As a result of the above it is concluded that any driver distraction as a 

result of the proposed wind turbines would have a negligible (and therefore 

not significant) effect on the safety of the SRN within the study area. 

DECOMMISSIONING EFFECTS 

11.85 Prior to decommissioning, a further traffic assessment will be carried out 

and transport management procedures agreed with the appropriate 

authorities. The levels of traffic associated with decommissioning are 

269 



MITIGATION 

however, likely to be lower than those required during construction. It is 

therefore expected that the traffic impacts are likely to be not significant 

based on the current baseline. 

MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS SUMMARY 

11.86 The impacts have been assessed with reference to the document 

“Guidance on Transport Assessments” published by the Department for 

Transport (2007). This document provides guidance on the information to 

be produced and assessed for a Transport Assessment or Transport 

Statement. 

11.87 “Guidance on Transport Assessments” provides the following indicators 

which will form the basis of the assessment based on the transport impact 

and proposed trip generation: 

a) 30 or more two-way vehicle movements in any hour; 

b) 100 or more daily two-way vehicle movements; and 

c) Development which generates significant freight or HGV movements 

per day, or significant ALV movements per year. 

11.88 If the proposed trip generation exceeds any of these indicators, then a full 

transport assessment is required. If the trip generation is within these 

indicators, then a transport statement is required. 

11.89 The transport assessment will be assessed by route and these routes are 

the ALV route (M18 Junction 1, A631, B6060, Hawk Hill Lane and Penny 

Hill Lane) and the HGV and ALV route (M1 Junction 31, A57, B6463, 

Common Road, Long Road, Penny Hill Lane). 

ASSESSMENT 

11.90 In order to further reduce traffic impacts from construction of the proposed 

wind farm, construction personnel would be encouraged to car-share or 

utilise company shuttles where practicable. This would be estimated to 

increase the occupancy rate for construction personnel to an average of 

around 2.5 persons per vehicle, equivalent to reducing the number of 

vehicle movements associated with personnel by approximately 50%. 

11.91 A transport management plan would be drawn up by the Applicant and the 

relevant contractor, and agreed with the highways authorities. Potential 

management measures to mitigate against the impacts could include: 

Removal and replacement of street furniture such as lamp posts and 

road signs as identified by the Route Access Study and the highways 

authority. Appropriate temporary measures would be undertaken to 

ensure that road safety is not compromised; 

270 



Arrangements with Police for escort of turbine loads to the site; 

Advanced notification to the general public warning of turbine 

component transport movements; 

Informative road signage warning other users of turbine components 

transport movements and construction traffic; 

Improvements and upgrades to the public highway; 

Arrangements for continual road maintenance and cleaning; 

Specific timing of deliveries outside of peak hours; 

Wheel cleaning / dirt control arrangements at key stages of 

construction; and 

Provision of temporary signs and traffic control where necessary. 

11.92 An appropriate police or contractor escort would accompany movement of 

turbine components from the port of entry, with timings agreed with the 

highways authorities. 

11.93 The route that would be used to transport turbine components to the site 

would utilise the nearest appropriate port approved by the selected turbine 

manufacturer and would be selected in order to minimise road upgrades 

and improvements. 

11.94 No specific mitigation measures would be required during operation of the 

wind farm, due to the low numbers of operational vehicle movements. 

11.95 A transport management plan would be prepared for the decommissioning 

process to ensure that traffic impacts at this time are minimised. 

11.96 The new junction onto Penny Hill Lane will include road widening to both 

lanes on the eastern approach to the junction, which will enable oversized 

vehicles to navigate the turns into the site. The ground would also be 

prepared to accept suitable axle loadings. The upgraded junction proposal 

is shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA14. Detailed swept path analysis 

drawings of the proposed site entrance are included in Appendix 7. 


11.97 The mitigation measures described above and the short-term increase in 

traffic would ensure that there would be minimal residual environmental 

impact. This is justified by the following: 

The effects associated with the traffic during the operational phase are 

insignificant as stated within the “Guidance on Transport 

Assessments”; 

271 



The strategic road network will be used for the HGV and light vehicle 

access. Transport into the site will be programmed accordingly to 

reduce impacts on the strategic road network using the transport 

management plan; 

The local road network will be used for the heavy goods vehicle and 

light vehicle access. Transport into the site will be programmed 

accordingly to reduce impacts on the local road network using the 

transport management plan; 

The increase in traffic during construction would be temporary with the 

highest levels occurring during the first few of months of the 

construction period. 

11.98 The environmental effects identified would be managed through the 

mitigation measures discussed to ensure that all impacts are minimised. 

272 




11.99 The table below summarises the residual effects once the mitigation 

measures have been implemented. 

Table 11.5: Summary of Effects 

Potential Effect Mitigation Residual Effect 

Construction 

Increases in traffic flow Transport management plan Insignificant, temporary 

Accidents and safety 

Operation 

Site entrance upgrade and 

transport management plan 

273 

Insignificant, temporary 

Visual Distraction None required Insignificant, long term 

Increase in traffic None required Insignificant, long term 


Potential increases in traffic 

Transport management 

plan to be prepared prior to 


Insignificant, temporary 

11.100 This construction traffic assessment/transport statement concludes that 

there would be a short term, insignificant increase in traffic levels for both 

of the access routes to the site. A transport management plan will be 

provided to minimise and control any minor impacts of the proposed 

construction traffic. 

11.101 Abnormal loads will be normally timed during off-peak periods in order to 

avoid delays to other road users at times to be agreed with the police and 

the highways authorities. 

11.102 Traffic generated during the operation and maintenance of the wind farm 

will be minimal and will not result in any significant impact. 

11.103 Traffic generated during decommissioning of the wind farm is likely to be 

lower than the levels associated with construction and is therefore not 

expected to be significant. An appropriate decommissioning assessment 

would be undertaken and a transport management plan prepared prior to 

the decommissioning of the wind farm. 



11.104 It is not considered that visual distraction to drivers on the M1 and M18 

would be an issue. 

274 



12. CIVILLIAN AND MILITARY 

AERONAUTICAL RADAR 

INTRODUCTION 

12.1 Airport Planning and Development (APD) Ltd has conducted an 

Aeronautical Impact Assessment on the proposed wind farm at Penny Hill. 

12.2 The scope of the assessment was as follows: 

Undertake a review of the potential operational impact of the wind farm 

on a number of civil airfields; 

Assess the sensitivity of the turbine locations against any controlled 

airspace safeguarding and Instrument Flight Procedure implications 

and Ministry of Defence operations; and 

Review potential mitigation measures or operational changes which 

might be acceptable to the airport authorities and air traffic service 

providers. 

12.3 The scope of the assessment concentrated on the operational impact on 

aeronautical interests rather than a technical or mathematical approach. 

12.4 The assessment has been undertaken on the basis of six wind turbines 

with a maximum blade tip height of 132m AGL. 

12.5 Should the location of any of the turbines need to be micro-sited (by no 

more than 50 metres), the MOD and the CAA would be notified of the new 

latitude and longitude for charting purposes. This would be submitted in 

line with notification to the LPA of final turbine locations prior to turbine 

erection. 

SITE AND ASSESSMENT LOCATIONS 

12.6 The proposed site is located immediately west of the M18 junction with the 

M1. 

12.7 A site visit was undertaken on 6th May 2008 in excellent weather 

conditions. The site lies beneath Airway L26, the base level of which is 

Flight Level 85 (8,500 ft.). Whilst on site, no air traffic of any description 

was observed at the lower and middle airspace levels; there was some 

activity on the upper air routes above 19,000 ft. 

275 



Figure 12.1: Penny Hill Site and Civil Airfield Sites 

12.8 Civil airfield sites for assessment within 30 km radius of the Penny Hill site 

are: 

Walton Wood - Unlicensed ( 27 km north); 

Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS) - Licensed (21 km 

north-east); 

Gamston - Licensed (24 km south-east); 

Netherthorpe - Licensed (9 km south-east); 

Sheffield City - Unlicensed (6 Km west north-west); and 

Coal Aston - Unlicensed (13 km south-west). 

12.9 Other relevant aeronautical interests assessed are: 

Ministry of Defence (MOD); 

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); and 

National Air Traffic En Route Radars (NERL). 

276 



ASSESSMENT OF ADJACENT CIVIL AIRFIELD SITES 

WALTON WOOD 

12.10 Walton Wood is on the A639 near the village of Thorpe Audlin. It is a 

private unlicensed airfield and has been in operation for over 20 years. 

The current owners use the airfield for predominantly helicopter training 

and maintenance. A ground to air service is used. A grass runway is 

identified at 700m x 16m wide. 

12.11 The airfield is not officially safeguarded. However, there is likely to be 

consultation between the local planning authority and the airfields owner 

where a potential development may impact on the airfield‟s operation. If 

the airfield was to be examined with a safeguarded area as applied to a 

Code 1 runway, the proposed wind farm site would be outside this area. 

12.12 It is assessed that there is no potential reason for the Walton Wood Airfield 

to be adversely affected and thus warrant an objection to the proposal 

from the airfield‟s operator. 

ROBIN HOOD AIRPORT DONCASTER SHEFFIELD 

12.13 RHADS is a new fully licensed commercial passenger and freight airport 

which opened in April 2005 and forms part of the Peel Holdings airport 

group. The airport is equipped with a state of the art Raytheon aerodrome 

surveillance radar used for the guidance and vectoring of approaching, 

departing and transit aircraft within the airport‟s operational area. 

12.14 In general terms, the airport‟s operator has been concerned with the 

number of wind farm planning enquiries (currently numbering 101) that 

have been submitted in the last 3 years in locations adjacent to the aircraft 

approach and departure tracks. The applications are mostly for 

developments of less than ten turbines which individually would not cause 

major interference to the radar but cumulatively, without effective 

mitigation, could have an adverse effect on an air traffic controller‟s ability 

to provide a safe radar service to aircraft. 

12.15 In order to protect the airport instrument flight procedures, the airport has 

submitted an application to the CAA for the setting up of an area of 

“controlled airspace” around the airport within which only pre-notified 

aircraft can enter. The effect of controlled airspace is that all aircraft 

operating in the designated area are “known” to the controllers thereby 

reducing the risk of a spurious radar return, as created by a turbine, being 

an unknown aircraft with the potential to become a confliction. 

12.16 The airport has received final authorisation for controlled airspace, all the 

procedures have been approved and have been in operation since 28 th 

August 2008. The airport operator has stated that it does not envisage 

any circumstances that could cause an objection to be raised to the 

proposed wind farm. Correspondence is contained in ES Appendix 8. 

277 



GAMSTON 

12.17 Gamston is a licensed general aviation aerodrome operating in the flying 

training and executive jet roles with around 50 based aircraft. The 

aerodrome is safeguarded with the local planning authority for a Category 

1, metalled runway, however the proposed Penny Hill site is well outside 

the safeguarded distance. 

12.18 The airfield does not have a radar facility or any precision instrument 

approach equipment; aerodrome information is provided by means of 

air/ground radio. However, an en-route VOR (VHF Omni-directional 

Radio) beacon is located on the airfield and this can be used an 

aerodrome location aid. Frequently, aircraft approaching Gamston in poor 

weather will call RHADS radar for traffic information and radar vector. 

12.19 In consultation with the aerodrome‟s operating company, it became 

evident that it has long term plans to improve the air traffic control service, 

however the operating company‟s general manager advised that the 

development of Penny Hill Wind Farm would not have any adverse effect 

on their planned air traffic control navigation aids. 

NETHERTHORPE 

12.20 Netherthorpe is a small grass strip airfield, licensed for the purpose of 

flying training, operated by the Sheffield Aero Club. There are two grass 

runways, 24/06 length 553 m x 36 m and 18/36 length 382 m x 18 m. 

12.21 The aerodrome does not have a safeguarding map but an informal 

arrangement exists between the club and the local planning authority 

regarding any planning issues. In consultation with the Sheffield Aero 

Club, they stated that the construction of the proposed wind farm would 

have no consequences for the airfield‟s activities. 

SHEFFIELD CITY AIRPORT 

12.22 Sheffield City Airport was de-licensed and the single runway closed for 

fixed wing aircraft use in early May 2008. The old runway is to be 

developed for more industrial units. The eastern end of the airfield has 

been retained by the airport operating company for use as an unlicensed 

heliport by the South Yorkshire Police, the Yorkshire Air Ambulance and 

one remaining tenant. 

12.23 The airport operating company and its users have all been informed of the 

proposed Penny Hill development and no objections have been raised. 

COAL ASTON 

12.24 Coal Aston is a single runway grass airstrip, some 750 m long x 18 m 

width oriented 30/12. It is situated on privately owned farmland at Bentley 

Farm. 

278 



12.25 The airfield is infrequently used by light company aircraft either visiting or 

based in Sheffield as well as two or three privately owned aircraft 

hangared at the aerodrome. 

12.26 In consultation with the airfield‟s owner, they stated that they had no 

concerns or objection to the proposed wind farm. 

REVIEW OF OTHER RELEVANT AGENCIES 

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 

12.27 In their letter dated 15 th December 2008 the MOD indicated that they have 

no concerns with regards the proposed wind farm on the basis of 132m 

high turbines (included within Appendix 8). 

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY 

12.28 The CAA advised that the developer should consult with both RHADS and 

Sheffield City Airports. This has been undertaken with details outlined 

above. The CAA also forwarded the notification to NERL for comment. 

12.29 The full CAA response is included within ES Appendix 8. 

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC EN-ROUTE RADARS 

12.30 NERL has not responded to the consultation notification of the proposed 

wind farm and it is unlikely that they will until a formal planning application 

is submitted. This action is in accord with NERL policy to avoid 

unnecessary work on speculative enquiries. 

12.31 At the formal planning application stage, it is possible that NERL will lodge 

a “holding” objection whilst they refer the details to their radar sites for 

evaluation and comment. 

12.32 From the radar coverage maps lodged by NERL on the British Wind 

Energy Association website (www.bwea.com) it is possible that at a range 

of approximately 65km, the proposed Penny Hill turbines would be visible 

on the NERL Claxby radar in Lincolnshire. It is the opinion of APD Ltd that 

the level of clutter caused by six turbines situated 8,000 feet beneath the 

base level of the airway L26, clear of any major aircraft terminal 

manoeuvring area, would be sufficiently minimal to avoid any objection 

from NERL after they have undertaken suitable evaluation of the proposal. 

12.33 With regards the NERL Manchester Airport primary radar, the Penny Hill 

site lies in the shadow of the Pennine hills and is unlikely to be “seen” by 

the Manchester radar. 

279 




12.34 It has been assessed that none of the six airfields surveyed within a 30 km 

radius of Penny Hill will have any substantive cause for objection, and 

many have confirmed this during informal consultation. 

12.35 The MOD Defence Estates has stated no concerns with the proposal. 

Because the site does not conflict with a military low level flying area, it is 

considered unlikely that the MOD would object once the planning 

application has been submitted. 

12.36 Any objection lodged by NERL would probably be based only on clutter 

interference to the Claxby primary radar in Lincolnshire. However, it has 

been assessed that any effects would be minimal and would unlikely result 

in a formal objection to the planning application by NERL. 

12.37 The assessment by APD Ltd has found that the proposed wind farm at 

Penny Hill should not give rise to any objections from aeronautical 

interests. 

280 



13. GROUND CONDITIONS AND 

HYDROLOGY 

INTRODUCTION 

13.1 This section summarises the results of a desk study and walkover survey 

of the study area, including the application site and immediate 

surroundings. The study area covered in this assessment is 

approximately 170 hectares. This section also details the results of a 

Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) undertaken by S M Foster Associates Ltd 

for the proposed development. The FRA was undertaken in response to a 

request from the Environment Agency as part of the EIA Scoping Opinion. 

The full FRA report is included in Appendix 9. 

13.2 The purpose of the assessment was to identify topographical, geological 

and hydrological constraints to the development of wind turbines within the 

study area. The main output of the study identified areas where turbine 

locations could be constrained due to geological faults, areas of potential 

collapse/subsidence and flooding. Such areas were mapped with other 

potential constraints at the site to ensure that no turbines or other site 

infrastructure were located within them. 

13.3 Drawing HJB/681/PA17 (Sheets 1 and 2) shows the ground conditions and 

related constraints within the study area and features relating to geology 

and hydrology. 

METHODOLOGY 

13.4 The primary sources of information reviewed as part of the ground 

conditions study have included: 

Information from Ordnance Survey (OS) plans; 

Geological information including British Geological Survey Sheets 

295NE, 295SE, 296NW and 296SW at 1:10560 scale; and 

A British Geological Survey (BGS) detailed geological assessment 

report (dated July 2008). This report is included in Appendix 9. 

13.5 The FRA was prepared in accordance with the requirements of “Planning 

Policy Statement 25 - Development and Flood Risk”. As the site is situated 

in Flood Zone 1 the FRA is primarily focused on assessment of surface 

water management requirements and measures required to ensure that 

the proposed development does not result in increased flood risk in the 

surrounding area. 

281 



13.6 The FRA has been based on a detailed review of existing hydrological 

information and new hydrological analysis. More specifically the study has 

incorporated the results of: 

A walkover hydrological site survey; 

Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) rainfall runoff analysis; 

Existing drainage modelling review; and 

Hydrological calculations to estimate the potential impact of the 

development on flood risk. 


GEOLOGY 

13.7 The geology of the study area has been assessed by reference to the 

BGS Sheets detailed above. The sites eastern margin predominantly lies 

along the foot of the M1 motorway embankment. Apart from any made or 

landscaped ground associated with this embankment there is very little 

indication of previous development, other than around Penny Hill 

farmhouse and Ulley Beeches. 

13.8 No superficial deposits are shown on the geological map although there 

may be limited tracts of alluvium along the two stream courses that run 

within the site boundary (described within the hydrology section below). 

13.9 Bedrock is mapped at an outcrop across the whole site and it is likely that 

rockhead is within one metre of the surface beneath any unmapped 

superficial deposits or artificial ground. The study area is situated primarily 

on the Upper Pennine Middle Coal measures of carboniferous age. This 

strata consists of grey mudstones and siltstones with common beds of 

coal and locally thick beds of sandstone. The sequence is in excess of 

500m thick. 

13.10 The sandstone exposed across the site represents Mexborough Rock, a 

yellow-brown, medium-fine grained sandstone. This unit is estimated to 

be about 70m thick in this area and lies approximately at 40-80m beneath 

the higher ground in the central and eastern parts of the site. The outcrop 

of Mexborough Rock to the south-west which is brought about via a fault 

(see below) is estimated to be 4 - 7m in thickness. The beds of sandstone 

to the east of the site are also thin with estimated thicknesses of between 

1 - 5m. These sandstones commonly give rise to bench-like features on 

the ground, and are also revealed by a change in soil conditions, from clay 

soils to sandy soils strewn with sandy fragments. 

13.11 The Carboniferous strata generally dip towards the north-east at angles 

between 5 – 10 degrees. In the presence of faults these dips are variable 

282 



and in the south-west area of the site they are locally reversed, with 

westerly directions indicated on the maps. 

13.12 Three geological faults are shown in the study area. All three trend in a 

north-west/south-east direction. The fault that passes through the southwest 

corner is the most significant structure with an estimated 

displacement of 100m down to the north-east. The fault in the north has a 

south-west throw of less than 3m. The downthrow sides of faults are 

shown on Drawing HJB/681/PA17 (Sheet 1). 

13.13 No outcropping coal seams are present within the site boundary although 

there are coal seams encountered deeper within the sequence. 

13.14 No geotechnical information is available for the study area. 

13.15 Should the micro-siting of turbines be considered necessary due to the 

nature of the site there would be no implications upon the geology of the 

locality and the findings of this study will still stand true. 

HYDROGEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY 

13.16 The Pennine Middle Coal Measures formation beneath the majority of the 

site is classified as a „Minor Aquifer‟, with low soil leaching potential. Whilst 

the Mexborough Rock at outcrop in the extreme south of the site is 

classified as a „Minor Aquifer‟ with high soil leaching potential. 

13.17 The site is located entirely within the catchment of Ulley Brook which 

drains westwards as two separate streams converging at Ulley Reservoir, 

approximately 1km west of the western site boundary. The local 

hydrological regime is shown on Drawing 049/04/01 in the FRA report 

(Appendix 9). The drainage areas of each branch of the brook are shown 

on Drawing 049/04/01 together with the location of any relevant control 

structures. 

13.18 It is apparent that the majority of the proposed development site currently 

drains to the southern branch of the Ulley Brook whilst the northern third of 

the site drains to the northern branch of the brook. Surface water drainage 

characteristics in each sub-catchment are summarised within the FRA 

report (Appendix 9). 

13.19 The site is located in Flood Zone 1, outside the limit of high or moderate 

fluvial flood risk. Environment Agency flood zone maps indicate that the 

site is not at risk of fluvial flooding from the Ulley Brook in response to 

either the 1 in 100 year or 1 in 1000 year flood event. 

MINING AND QUARRYING 

13.20 Historical plans and geological maps indicate no disused quarries within 


283 



13.21 A Coal Authority Mining Report for the site identifies that the study area is 

within the likely zone of influence on the surface from workings in seven 

seams of coal at depths of between 230m and 820m. The last date of 

working is given as 1987 and therefore any ground movement from the 

workings should have ceased. There are no mine entries shown within the 

site boundary. 

13.22 The Coal Authority has not received a damage notice or claim for the 

property since 1 January 1984. 

TOPOGRAPHY 

13.23 The study area occupies an area of hilly topography with elevations 

ranging from 65m to 110m above Ordnance Datum (OD). 


GROUND CONDITIONS 

13.24 The possible presence of sandy or gravelly alluvium along the floors of the 

two stream courses described above, in combination with the 

characteristic steep valley sides of the site, could cause local instability in 

the form of minor land slippage or soil creep. However features formed by 

such processes were not observed during previous surveys. 

13.25 Head deposits are commonly present on slopes or on the floors of valleys 

although they have not been indicated on the geological plan. They are 

variable in composition and are typically poorly stratified and poorly sorted. 

They may contain shear planes, which can be reactivated when undercut 

by excavations. 

13.26 A characteristic of the Upper Pennine Middle Coal measures mudstone is 

that they commonly weather to a sticky, yellow brown clay, which may 

exhibit shrink swell properties due to changes in soil moisture contents 

which can potentially cause structural damage. 

13.27 Faults have been mapped across the site as described above. The 

geological faults within this area are of ancient origin and are today mainly 

inactive. However they must still be regarded as planes of weakness 

whereby mining induced subsidence and severe subsidence effects may 

commonly be concentrated along them. The depths of previous old mine 

workings and the absence of damage notices or claims since 1984 within 

the scoping boundary indicate future ground movements are very unlikely. 

FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT 

13.28 PPS25 suggests that consideration should be given to site vulnerability to 

other potential sources of flooding including: 

Flooding from groundwater; 

284 



Flooding via overland flow from adjacent land; and 

Flooding from surface water drainage. 

FLOODING FROM GROUNDWATER 

13.29 The proposed development site is underlain by Coal Measures strata of 

Carboniferous age consisting of inter-bedded sandstone, siltstones and 

mudstones with associated coal horizons. It is understood that overlying 

drift deposits are relatively thin and laterally inconsistent. The 

Mexborough Rock, one of the more significant sandstone units in the Coal 

Measures, outcrops in the Ulley area. Coal Measures sandstone typically 

form poor aquifers with limited potential for groundwater storage or 

conveyance. 

13.30 Numerous springs and issues are present in the vicinity of the proposed 

development site suggesting the presence of shallow groundwater. Issues 

present within the site itself which are situated at a significantly higher 

elevation and form part of the headwaters of Ulley Brook, appear to 

represent the outfall from field drainage systems that extend eastwards. 

There is no direct evidence to suggest the presence of shallow 

groundwater beneath the site. The occurrence of springs close to the 

route of the Ulley Brook e.g. directly due north of Ulley Village, is likely to 

be a consequence of near surface variation in drift deposits rather than 

emergence of deeper groundwater. 

13.31 Other springs in the area are located at a range of surface elevations with 

no clear trend. This is typical of Coal Measures derived groundwater 

systems where surface emergence of groundwater is generally related to 

the random distribution of geological discontinuities or man-made 

structures. It is considered likely that limited groundwater resources are 

present in Coal Measures sandstones beneath the site. 

13.32 The proposed development site incorporates higher ground than the 

surrounding area. The site is not a natural discharge point for 

groundwater. Due to the topography of the site, any groundwater 

emerging at surface, either as a consequence of intensive recharge or 

groundwater flow from surrounding areas would drain rapidly to the 

surface water drainage channels and away from the site. On this basis it 

is considered that the site is not at risk of groundwater flooding. 

FLOODING VIA OVERLAND FLOW FROM ADJACENT LAND 

13.33 The surrounding land is all agricultural land with well established drainage 

pathways to the field drainage channels connected to Ulley Brook. 

Surface runoff from higher ground to the south of the southern part of the 

site currently drains into the site towards the southern branch of the brook. 

There is currently no evidence to suggest that such overland flow results in 

flooding of land within the site and hence no basis for assuming that there 

is any risk of flooding associated with overland flow. 

285 



FLOODING FROM SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE 

13.34 Detailed assessment of the risk of flooding from surface water drainage 

and the impact of the proposed development on surface water runoff is 

included in the FRA report (Appendix 9). The site drainage system is 

designed to ensure that the site is not at risk of surface water flooding in 

response to rainfall events up to 1 in 200 years magnitude. 

13.35 The assessment of the impact of the proposed development on surface 

water runoff from the site demonstrates that as the development will not 

result in any change in the local surface water regime, it will have no 

adverse impact on flooding or flood risk within the site or the surrounding 

area. It is also demonstrated that as there are no above ground structures 

with the potential to impound surface water, which will continue to drain 

naturally to Ulley Brook, the site itself is not at risk of surface water 

flooding. 

13.36 The FRA has demonstrated that the proposed development area is 

located wholly in Flood Zone 1 and therefore the proposed development 

meets the requirements of the Sequential Test and Rotherham MBC 

spatial planning policy. Hydrological assessment has shown that the 

proposed development is at low risk of flooding from any other non-fluvial 

source and that the development will not result in any increase in flood risk 

at the site or the surrounding area. It is therefore concluded that the 

proposed development of six wind turbines and associated infrastructure 

at the Penny Hill site is fully compliant with the objectives of PPS25. 

MITIGATION 

13.37 Data from the desk study identifying areas which are likely to affect the 

location of the wind turbines, was used in designing the layout of the 

proposed wind farm. Locating turbines and other site infrastructure 

outside these areas was undertaken. 

GROUND CONDITIONS 

13.38 The proposed location of the six wind turbines on a relative topographical 

plateaux away from steep valley sides, significantly reduces the potential 

landslip effects of alluvial material/head deposits to a negligible level. 

13.39 The British Geological Survey and Coal Authority reports for the area 

explain that the potential of shrink swell clays to cause a significant 

problem are negligible, as the clays are classified as having „low plasticity‟ 

and are on a level as to cause a hazard only in exceptional circumstances. 

13.40 The geological faults within the site are of ancient origin and are 

considered to present no threat no threat to property in terms of natural 

tectonic activity. The depth and age of old workings indicate that future 

ground movements are very unlikely. No notice of the risk of the land 

286 



eing affected by subsidence has been given under section 46 of the Coal 

Mining Subsidence Act 1991. 

FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT 

13.41 There is limited potential for considering the use of SUDS (Sustainable 

Drainage Systems) within the site due to the low hydrological impact of the 

proposed development. However, the proposed use of permeable 

surfacing for the access tracks across the site will help to promote 

infiltration and reduce peak runoff rates during lower magnitude storm 

events. This approach is consistent with the principles of SUDS. 


13.42 No significant residual effects should occur. 


13.43 The ground conditions within the study area are considered to be suitable 

for wind farm development. Very few constraining factors relating to 

ground conditions are present on the site and it is likely that the majority of 

the study area would be suitable for construction of the turbines and 

associated infrastructure. 

13.44 The site is located in Flood Zone 1 and therefore at low risk of fluvial 

flooding. The proposed development satisfies the requirements of the 

Sequential Test with regard to development of essential infrastructure in 

Flood Zone 1. The proposed development is not considered to be at risk 

of flooding from groundwater, overland flow or local surface runoff. The 

site is currently undeveloped and therefore not at risk of flooding from 

sewers of stormwater drains. The proposed development will not result in 

any net change in surface water runoff from the site. The proposed 

development can be established in full compliance with “PPS25 - 

Development and Flood Risk”. 

13.45 No significant effects are predicted relating to effects on hydrology, 

geology and ground conditions. 

13.46 The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared for the proposed Penny Hill 

Wind Farm is based on assessment of flood risk and surface water 

management provision for six wind turbines sited at pre-determined 

locations as communicated through a site layout plan. Each turbine 

location may be subject to micro-siting to within 50m radius of the original 

location. Moving the turbine locations by up to 50m from the previously 

defined locations would have no impact on the assessment of flood risk or 

the analysis of surface water management requirements at the site. All 

turbine locations would remain in excess of 7m from the banks of any 

surface watercourse and minor variations in the proposed routing of 

access tracks would have no adverse effect on surface water runoff. It is 

concluded that if micro-siting of the turbines to a maximum of 50m is 

287 



equired, there is no requirement to re-evaluate flood risk issues. The 

conclusions of the existing FRA would remain valid. 

288 



14. RADIO-COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TELEVISION 

INTRODUCTION 

14.1 “Planning Policy Statement 22 Renewable Energy – A Companion Guide” 

(2004) highlights that „a wind turbine can interfere with electromagnetic 

transmissions in two ways – by emitting an electromagnetic signal itself, 

and by interfering with other electromagnetic signals.‟ Wind turbines can 

potentially affect the latter by „blocking or deflecting line of sight radio or 

microwave links, or by the „scattering‟ of transmission signals.‟… 

„Specialist organisations responsible for the operation of the 

electromagnetic links typically require 100m clearance either side of a line 

of sight link from the swept are of turbine blades, though individual 

consultations would be necessary to identify each organisations 

safeguarding distances. Effects on such links can usually be resolved 

through careful siting of individual turbines‟. . 

14.2 Thorough consultation with relevant radio-communication and television 

operators and stakeholders in order to identify potentially affected links at 

an early and allow, where appropriate, mitigation through design should 

and has been undertaken. The basis of this section has therefore been 

consultation with a number of organisations known to have an interest in 

radio-communications and television in the area. 

METHODOLOGY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

RADIO-COMMUNICATION LINKS 

14.3 The design of the wind farm has undergone a series of iterations taking 

account of the different constraints across the site including telecoms links. 

Where responses were received from the relevant link operators, this 

information was used as much as possible in the design process. Drawing 

HJB/681/PA20 shows the communication links that cross over or near to 

the site. Exclusion zones for each of the links have been defined by the 

Applicant using known information and the turbines have been located 

outside these zones. 

14.4 The Office of Communications (Ofcom) was contacted as the principal 

consultee. Ofcom are responsible for maintaining a comprehensive 

register of fixed links and are also the primary authority in the UK for the 

development of new links. 

14.5 Ofcom was contacted for initial comments that could be used in the 

constraints mapping process prior to finalisation of the turbine layout. 

14.6 A response from Ofcom was received on the 20.06.2006 (sent 

14.06.2006) advising of 2 Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd links, 5 MLL Telecom Ltd 

289 



links, 3 T-Mobile links, 5 Vodafone links and 7 JRC links which are within 

proximity of the site. These links are identified within PA20. PA20 also 

identifies the Vodafone links identified within this initial consultation and 

thus the effort which has been made to mitigate against effect upon these 

lines through appropriate design of the wind farm proposal. PA06 also 

identifies this mitigation through design along with other potential site 

development constraints. 

14.7 Ofcom were further consulted once a variety of constraints had been 

considered and the design of the proposal had been furthered. A copy of 

the response, dated February 2008, is included in Appendix 10. Ofcom 

advised that Vodafone Ltd, Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd, Airwave Solutions Ltd, 

T-Mobile and Mll Telecom Ltd should be consulted. These companies 

were each contacted by the Applicant. In addition, CSS Spectrum 

Management Services Ltd (CSS) and the Joint Radio Company (JRC), 

who manage fixed link radio connections on behalf of electricity and gas 

utility companies, were also contacted. 

14.8 Once the turbine locations were fixed and following the site design works 

having been guided by the response giving by Ofcom, the relevant 

telecoms operators and service providers were informed of the grid 

references and asked for final comments. This included repeating the 

consultation request with Ofcom. The Ofcom response (included in 

Appendix 10) included only one additional fixed link operator to be 

consulted (Orange Pcs). 

14.9 The most recent responses received from the relevant link operators and 

service providers are contained in Appendix 10 and a summary is provided 

below: 

Vodafone Ltd – Commented that some of the turbine locations 

proposed are not acceptable to Vodafone due to their microwave 

network in the area. The Applicant has assessed the locations of these 

links and concluded that one link is likely to be affected due to the 

proximity to one of the turbines. An investigation is underway to 

determine whether the other links could be affected by the proposed 

development and discussions will be held with Vodafone in due course; 

It should be noted that there has been some disparity in the information 

provided by Vodafone with initial correspondence having indicated only 

5 links passing across or near to the site (dated 02.08.2006). It should 

also be noted that the initial consultation with Ofcom identified only 5 

Vodafone links. 

PA25 indicates the location of the original 5 Vodafone links identified. 

PA26 identifies the location of the subsequent additional 5 Vodafone 

links identified. 

290 



After this further consultation with Vodafone it was indicated that 10 

links pass across or near the site (27.02.2008), contradicting the 

previous indication. 

PA26 also illustrates the changing locations of links directed to the 

mast to the northeast of Aston, further illustrating the constant variety in 

responses being received from Vodafone and the difficult task being 

faced at the site design stage. 

Whilst this disparity in supply of information has resulted in the 

proposal potentially affecting a Vodafone link Banks will endeavour to 

retain communication with Vodafone and seek a resolution as to the 

position regarding their potentially affected links and potential 

interference. 

However, and in summary the proposal took account of identified 

microwave links and mitigated appropriately and it is only with this 

indication of further links which has came forward that potential affect 

has arisen. 

It is therefore unreasonable to expect significant design alterations at 

these latter stages with new, potentially inaccurate information of 

additional links coming forward with an expectation for the proposal to 

simply modify and avoid. 

Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd – Responded with information on two of their 

links in the area to be avoided by constraints mapping; The level of 

standoff to the links and transmission sites identified will be 

interrogated with regard being given to previously requested separation 

distances for other wind farm proposals in varying localities. 

Airwave Solutions Ltd – A request has been made to undertake 

preliminary investigation as to the potential for any impact upon links 

operated by Airwaves Solutions, however Airwaves Solutions have not 

provided information regarding link locations and potential effects, 

This is somewhat in opposition to the aims of national planning policy 

and its positive position on the promotion of renewable energy 

development. Again Banks will retain communications with Airwaves 

Solutions to stress the importance of finding a proposal which can be 

considered acceptable to both parties, however if Airwaves Solutions 

refuse to provide information regarding their fixed links then the 

proposal cannot take account of its position through any potential 

design mitigation. 

T-Mobile – Responded stating that the windfarm has been „rejected by 

transmission‟. The Applicant has contacted T-Mobile to discuss this 

and subsequently T-Mobile have removed their objection; 

291 



Mll Telecom Ltd – Responded stating that the turbines should not affect 

any of their existing links based on the final co-ordinates provided to 

them; 

CSS Spectrum Management Services Ltd – Responded to confirm that 

they do not have any objections; 

The JRC – Objected on behalf of their clients YEDL and National Grid 

Gas; and 

Orange Pcs - Confirmed they do not have any objections. 

14.10 Following receipt of the JRC objections, JRC was commissioned by the 

Applicant to undertake a detailed co-ordination study to assess whether 

there was likely to be any significant interference to the scanning telemetry 

service operated by YEDL or National Grid Gas. 

14.11 This study has been completed. The report concludes that provided the 

suggested mitigation measures are taken, the proposed wind farm at 

Penny Hill and the operational radio telemetry link operated by YEDL and 

National Grid can co-exist. Mitigation has been achieved through careful 

siting of the turbines, however communication with YEDL will be 

maintained to ensure compatible co-existence. 

14.12 Should planning permission be granted, the developer would ensure that 

the mitigation measures agreed are carried out, prior to commencement of 

construction. Once the mitigation measures have been agreed, JRC will 

withdraw their objections on behalf of YEDL and National Grid Gas. 

14.13 This process with the JRC was undertaken in order to further adhere to the 

Banks „Development With Care‟ approach and engage with consultees 

and come to a level of co-operation and mitigation of effect where 

appropriate. Banks endeavour to retain communication with all interested 

or affected parties, however the balance of effect needs to be 

counterweighed by the undoubted benefit associated with the Penny Hill 

Wind Farm Proposal, as is the case for each faction of the environmental 

impact assessment. 

TELEVISION 

14.14 Terrestrial television transmissions for domestic reception within the UK 

are the joint responsibility of the BBC and Ofcom. The BBC was therefore 

consulted on the potential effect on television reception in the area using 

its on-line “Windfarms Assessment Tool” 13 . The tool produces an estimate 

of populations that may suffer interference from the proposed wind farm. 

13 http://windfarms.kw.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/windfarms/index.shtml 

292 



14.15 The consultation concluded the development would be likely to affect 57 

homes for which there is no alternative off-air service and up to 10,966 

homes where an alternative service will be required. 

14.16 The extent of interference on television reception will only become 

apparent following the commissioning of the wind farm. Effects from wind 

turbine blades affect analogue signals considerably more than digital 

signals. The switchover for terrestrial TV transmitters from analogue to 

digital service in Yorkshire is due to take place in 2011. If however 

unacceptable levels of interference are experienced following construction 

of the proposed development, a number of different mitigation measures 

are available, including: 

Reorientation of aerial to an alternative transmitter; 

Re-siting of aerial; 

Installation of higher quality aerial; or 

Switch to digital service or cable service. 

14.17 The Applicant will commit, by way of a planning condition, to appropriate 

mitigating options that are available, if unacceptable levels of interference 

are experienced as a result of the proposed wind farm. 


14.18 The proposed development has the potential to affect radiocommunication 

links operated by YEDL, National Grid Gas and Vodafone. 

The relevant studies have been undertaken and discussions are underway 

between the Applicant and the relevant link operators in order to agree any 

mitigation measures that may be required. Once mitigation measures 

have been agreed with YEDL and National Grid Gas, JRC withdraw their 

objections on behalf of these two companies. 

14.19 The wind farm has the potential to interfere with television reception in the 

area. The Applicant will accept suitable planning condition(s) to resolve 

any issues with affected services. Following such mitigation the residual 

impact would be negligible. 

293 



15. SHADOW FLICKER 

INTRODUCTION 

15.1 A shadow flicker assessment has been undertaken by TNEI Services 

Limited for the Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal. 

15.2 Under certain combinations of geographical position, times of day and 

year, wind speed and wind direction, the sun may pass behind the rotor 

and cast a shadow over neighbouring buildings‟ windows. When the 

blades rotate, and the shadow passes a window, to a person within that 

room the shadow appears to flick on and off; this effect is known as 

shadow flicker. It occurs only within buildings where the flicker appears 

through a window opening and only buildings within 130 degrees either 

side of north relative to a turbine can be affected. Narrow windows are 

affected to a lesser degree than wider windows as the length of time a 

shadow falls across narrow windows is less than for wider windows. 

15.3 This chapter summarises the findings of the shadow flicker assessment. 

The shadow flicker report is included in full in Appendix 11. 

METHODOLOGY 

15.4 Information specific to shadow flicker may be found in the companion 

guide to Planning Policy Statement PPS22 - Renewable Energy. The 

Companion Guide states: 

„Although problems caused by shadow flicker are rare, for sites where 

existing development may be subject to this problem, applicants for 

planning permission for wind turbine installations should provide an 

analysis to quantify the effect.‟ 

15.5 Within the UK there is no standard for the assessment of shadow flicker 

and there are no guidelines on what exposure levels would be acceptable. 

The Companion Guide states that: 

„Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the 

turbines can be affected at these latitudes in the UK – turbines do not cast 

long shadows on their southern side…. Flicker effects have been proven to 

occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine.‟ 

15.6 The shadow flicker assessment has been based on a 104m rotor diameter 

Repower 3.3MW wind turbine. As such it represents a worst case 

scenario with the area potentially susceptible to shadow flicker a region up 

to 1040m from each turbine (10 x 104m) and 130 degrees either site of 

north. The „worst case‟ scenario is assumed due to the 104m rotor 

diameter being the largest span the planning permission would allow. 

294 



BASELINE 

Within the assessment seven representative buildings satisfied both 

criteria and were chosen for analysis. 

15.7 The study area was surveyed and buildings potentially susceptible to 

shadow flicker were identified. The immediate area surrounding the site 

has a variety of land uses but predominantly comprises residential and 

agricultural areas. A desk based study followed by a site survey identified 

seven buildings which would be theoretically susceptible to shadow flicker. 

15.8 The orientations of the side(s) of the buildings, which face the wind 

turbines, were recorded, as well as all windows from which the proposed 

wind turbines may be viewed. Dimensions and elevations of the windows 

were estimated and aspects were measured using a handheld compass. 

15.9 Figure 15.1 shows the assessment locations in relation to the proposed 

wind turbine locations. The area potentially susceptible to shadow flicker 

is shown in red. The red line boundary has been produced by considering 

all areas which are within ten rotor diameters of any turbine whilst 

excluding areas which lie outside of 130 degrees from north. 

Figure 15.1 Shadow Flicker Assessment Locations 

295 



PREDICTED EFFECTS 

15.10 Table 15.1 summarises the occurrence of shadow flicker at the most 

affected window at each assessment location. 

Table 15.1 Maximum Theoretical Shadow Flicker Occurrence at Each 

Assessment Location 

Assessment 

Location 

Theoretical 

Frequency of 

Shadow 

Occurrence 

(days/year) 

Theoretical 

Max Hours 

Shadow 

per Day 

15.11 The instances of shadow flicker will always be less than that predicted by 

the model as these are based on the worst case scenario. The 

occurrence of shadow flicker is only possible during the operation of the 

wind farm (i.e. when the rotor blades are turning) and when the sky is clear 

enough to cast shadows. 

15.12 It is important to consider the following facts when making an assessment: 

climatic conditions dictate that the sun is not always shining. Regional 

Met Office data gives actual sunshine hours for the „Midlands‟ region 

(which includes South Yorkshire) to be 32% of total daylight hours 14 . 

Cloud cover during other times may obscure the sun and prevent 

shadow flicker occurrence. While some shadow may still be cast under 

slightly overcast conditions, no shadow at all would be cast when 

heavy cloud cover prevails. It is considered that weather conditions 

will reduce actual occurrence of shadow flicker by at least half, 

compared to calculated levels; 

14 Met Office Data from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/ 

1408 actual sunshine hours per year/4380 daylight hours per year = 32% 

296 

Theoretical 

Mean Hours of 

Shadow per 

Day 

Theoretical 

Total Hours 

per Year 

H1:Morthen 0 0 0 0 

H2:Brampton-en-le 

Morthen 

99 0.62 0.45 45 

H3:Ulley Beeches 179 1.15 0.71 126.9 

H4:Penny Hill Lane 234 0.71 0.45 104.9 

H5:Turnshaw Road 95 0.5 0.37 35.2 

H6:Vassey Close 

Farm 

84 0.48 0.4 34 

H7:Ulley 160 0.53 0.41 65.6 



objects such as trees or walls may surround windows and obscure the 

view of the turbines and hence prevent shadow flicker; 

during operation, the turbine rotors automatically orientate themselves 

to face the prevailing wind direction. This means the turbine rotors will 

not always be facing the affected window, and in fact will sometimes be 

„side-on‟ to the window. Very little of the blade movement would be 

visible during such occurrences and therefore the potential for shadow 

flicker is reduced; and 

the turbines will not operate for 100% of daylight hours. During periods 

of very low wind speed or very high wind speed or maintenance shutdowns, 

the rotors do not turn. During such periods shadow flicker is 

not possible. 

15.13 When considering the above factors a greatly reduced level of impact 

occurs. 

15.14 If we consider that shadow flicker can only occur during daylight hours and 

times of sunshine the maximum occurrence is based upon all hours of 

daylight being sunny with clear skies. 

15.15 A maximum theoretical occurrence at Ulley Beeches of 125.9 hours per 

year can be reduced to 40.3 hours per year when considering that the 

Midlands Regional Met Office data gives actual sunshine hours to be 32% 

of daylight hours. This figure also does not consider potential marginal 

cloud cover diluting any effect. 

15.16 A maximum theoretical occurrence at Penny Hill Lane of 104.9 hours per 

year can be reduced to 33.6 hours per year when considering the same 

methodology. 

15.17 The properties at Ulley Beeches and Penny Hill Lane and a number of the 

other assessed properties also have a high level of vegetation surrounding 

the properties potentially obscuring affected windows when the turbine 

rotors are facing. 

15.18 Consideration of the above factors leads to the conclusion that the level of 

shadow flicker will be greatly less than the predicted levels. 

15.19 The possibility that shadow flicker could induce photosensitive epilepsy 

has also been considered. It has been demonstrated that the frequency at 

which shadow flicker would occur at this site (up to 0.7 hertz per turbine / 

cumulative frequency up to 1.4 hertz) is significantly less than the 

frequency at which photosensitive epilepsy is usually triggered (between 5 

and 30 hertz). While some people are sensitive at higher frequencies, it is 

uncommon to have photosensitivity below 2.5 hertz. Published in October 

2007, the Onshore Wind Energy Planning Conditions Guidance Note 

commissioned by BERR (the Department for Business, Enterprise and 

Regulatory Reform) states: 

297 



„health effects arising from shadow flicker will not have the potential to 

occur Unless the operating frequency of a particular turbine is between 2.5 

and 30 hertz and all other pre-conditions for shadow flicker effects to occur 

exist‟. 

15.20 Consequently shadow flicker caused by this development is predicted to 

have no adverse health effects. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

15.21 The potential for cumulative shadow flicker has been investigated. H3 

Ulley Beeches is the only receptor which has the potential for shadow 

flicker to occur from two turbines simultaneously. With the proposed 

turbines having a flash rate below 0.7 Hz, a combined flash rate of 1.4Hz 

for two turbines is well below the threshold of 3 Hz recommended by 

Harding et al. (2008) for cumulative shadow flicker effects. 

MITIGATION 

15.22 There are no UK guidelines which quantify what exposure levels of 

shadow flicker would be acceptable. Where shadow flicker is found to 

cause a nuisance and form an unacceptable impact, mitigation measures 

can be implemented in order to reduce the occurrence of shadow flicker. 

Such measures include planting tree belts between the affected window 

and the turbines; though as previously stated a number of tree lines 

surround existing properties which have the potential to dissipate any 

occurrence, and shutting down the turbines using turbine control systems 

during periods when shadow flicker could theoretically occur. Any turbine 

control system would be developed in conjunction with a detailed 

monitoring programme and implemented subsequent to the granting of 

planning permission. 

15.23 No routine mitigation is proposed; this will be kept under review during the 

operation of the scheme in case particular combinations of circumstances 

arise that increase the potential for nuisance (particularly where rooms 

affected are in regular occupancy and the effect proves to be a frequent 

occurrence in reality). Where nuisance arises, mitigation measures can 

be incorporated into the operation of the wind turbines to reduce the 

instance of shadow flicker to lower levels. 


15.24 A shadow flicker assessment has been undertaken for seven buildings 

within 1040m of the proposed turbine locations; the theoretical range of 

effect. It has been shown that under worst case conditions, the maximum 

theoretical occurrence of shadow flicker amounts to 126.9 hours per year, 

experienced at Ulley Beeches. The second highest potential occurrence is 

104.9 hours per year at Penny Hill Lane, however as previously shown this 

has a far lesser potential occurrence when considering other factors such 

as actual average hours of sunlight. It is important however to note that 

298 



these are the theoretical maximum number of shadow hours figures per 

year and are therefore considered „worst case‟ scenarios. They do not 

take into account weather conditions (i.e. no sun or partially cloudy), local 

visual obstructions (such as trees, hedges or other structures), turbine 

orientation and turbine operation. In reality, the amount of time when 

shadow flicker occurs will be less than what has been predicted. It is also 

important to note that affected windows may well be in rooms that are not 

generally in use at the times when the effect may occur. 

299 



16. OTHER ISSUES 

INTRODUCTION 

16.1 This section sets out the approach to environmental management and also 

addresses health and safety concerns related to the construction and 

operation of the proposed wind farm development, including potential 

effects on users of public footpaths and bridleways within the vicinity of the 

site. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

16.2 The Applicant‟s environment team is responsible for the development of 

the company‟s environmental management system (EMS) that has been 

certified to the BS EN ISO 14001:2004 standard (since May 2005) and is 

subject to regular internal audit and independent external audit. A 

requirement of the EMS is the preparation of an Environmental 

Management Plan (EMP) setting out environmental performance 

objectives and actions for each site. A draft EMP produced by the 

Applicant can be found in Appendix 12. 

16.3 The proposed EMP would identify the risks to the environment from all 

phases of the wind farm construction, operation and decommissioning. It 

will outline the environmental control measures that will be implemented to 

comply with the environmental quality objectives set for the Penny Hill site. 

16.4 In respect of the Penny Hill site, the main sources of environmental 

objectives and commitments are likely to be: 

The company‟s environmental policy and code of practice; 

Planning conditions; and; 

Other environmental consents and authorisations. 

16.5 The EMP would address the following aspects of the development: 

Site management; 

Fencing and security; 

Drainage; 

Construction of the site compound; 

Concrete management; 

300 



Control of oil fuel and chemicals; 

Waste management; 

Transportation of abnormal loads; 

Control of general site vehicle movements; 

Prevention of fugitive dust emissions; 

Noise; 

Ecology and ornithology; 

Archaeology; 

Operational phase of works; 

Environmental auditing and monitoring; and 

Decommissioning phase works. 

16.6 It will also include any specific measures agreed by the Applicant with 

RMBC and other statutory consultees in the form of mitigation measures, 

planning conditions and/or consents. 

STEWARDSHIP AGREEMENTS 

16.7 The majority of the land within the site boundary is managed as part of 

either the Countryside Stewardship Scheme or the Environmental 

Stewardship Agreement (Entry Level). Countryside Stewardship was 

introduced as a pilot scheme in England in 1991 by the then Countryside 

Commission and operates outside the Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 

Payments are made to farmers and other land managers to enhance and 

conserve English landscapes, their wildlife and history and to help people 

to enjoy them. The Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs 

(Defra) website 15 states: 

„Until the launch of Environmental Stewardship, Countryside Stewardship 

was the Government‟s main scheme for the wider countryside, aiming, 

through the payment of grants, to improve the natural beauty and diversity 

of the countryside, enhance, restore and re-create targeted landscapes, 

their wildlife habitats and historical features, and to improve opportunities 

for public access.‟ 

16.8 Environmental Stewardship is a new agri-environment scheme which 

provides funding to farmers and other land managers in England who 

15 http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/css 

301 



deliver effective environmental management on their land. The Defra 

website 16 provides the following description: 

„The scheme is intended to build on the recognised success of the 

Environmental Sensitive Areas scheme and the Countryside 

Stewardship Scheme. Its primary objectives are to: 

Conserve wildlife (biodiversity); 

Maintain and enhance landscape quality and character; 

Protect the historic environment and natural resources; 

Promote public access and understanding of the countryside; and 

Natural resource protection.‟ 

16.9 The total land take of the wind farm, including foundations, temporary 

crane pads, construction compound, access tracks, control building, 

substation and meteorological mast is estimated to be no greater than six 

hectares during construction. This represents a maximum of 4.8% of the 

planning application area, which encompasses approximately 125.5 

hectares. Upon commissioning and the completion of site restoration 

works the actual footprint of the wind farm infrastructure would only be 

approximately 2.5 hectares, representing only 2% of the planning 

application area. Therefore once constructed, the proposed development 

would only take up a small proportion of the site and it is not expected that 

this would have an adverse impact on the management of the site under 

the two agreements detailed above. 

PUBLIC SAFETY 

16.10 Wind turbine technology has a tried and tested track record in the UK. 

The companion guide accompanying “PPS22 - Renewable Energy” 

considers the safety issues raised by the emerging and existing renewable 

energy technologies in the country and states the following at paragraphs 

49 – 51: 

„Experience indicates that properly designed and maintained wind 

turbines are a safe technology. The very few accidents that have 

occurred involving injury to humans have been caused by failure to 

observe manufacturers‟ and operators‟ instructions for the operation of 

the machines. There has been no example of injury to a member of 

the public. 

The only source of possible danger to human or animal life from a wind 

turbine would be the loss of a piece of the blade, or in most exceptional 

16 http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/es 

302 



circumstances, of the whole blade. Many blades are composite 

structures with no bolts or other separate components. Blade failure is 

therefore most unlikely. Even for blades with separate control surfaces 

on or comprising the tips of the blade, separation is most unlikely. 

The minimum desirable distance between wind turbines and occupied 

buildings calculated on the basis of expected noise levels and visual 

impact will often be greater than that necessary to meet safety 

requirements. Fall over distance (i.e. the height of the turbine to the tip 

of the blade) plus 10% is often used as a safe minimum separation 

distance.‟ 

16.11 The turbine specifications for the Penny Hill Wind Farm will be designed 

and manufactured to meet international engineering design and 

manufacturing safety standards including the British Standard BS EN 

61400 – 1:1995 “Wind turbine generator systems – safety requirements” 

and the European Standard EN 50308: 2004 “Wind turbines. Protective 

measures. Requirements for design, operation and maintenance”. 

16.12 The proposed wind farm will comply with all relevant UK legislation (e.g. 

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974), as well as specific industry guidance 

such as the British Wind Energy Association‟s “Guidelines for Health and 

Safety in the Wind Energy Industry” (October 2008). The latter guidelines 

aim to safeguard the health and safety of those working in the industry and 

also the general public from project design through construction, operation 

and decommissioning. 

16.13 The public are sometimes concerned about the possibility of a turbine 

shedding a part, possibly a whole blade, and ice throw/shear. However, 

the public‟s perception of the risk from a catastrophic failure of the turbine 

structure is not borne out by the evidence of such events. There have 

been very few instances of this type of accident worldwide and there are 

no known cases where injury has resulted. Wind turbines have an 

excellent safety record. At the end of 2007 the Global Wind Energy 

Council (GWEC) estimated that onshore wind farms provided 94,112MW 

of installed capacity 17 and the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) 

calculate that there are currently 2355 operational onshore turbines in the 

UK 18 with no record of a member of the public being hurt due to ice, blade 

throw or tower collapse. 

16.14 The public are also sometimes concerned about the possibility of „ice 

throw‟ and „ice shear‟, because in certain conditions ice may form on the 

blades. „Ice throw‟ is the phenomenon of ice being thrown from the blades 

due to the blade movement, whereas „ice shear‟ is the phenomenon of ice 

17 GWEC Statistics 2007 [Available online at: 

http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/statistics/gwec/stats2007.pdf] 

18 British Wind Energy Association website [http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/index.asp (accessed 

22.1.09)] 

303 



falling from the blades and therefore affecting only the area directly under 

the turbine. 

16.15 In freezing conditions, ice forming on the blades of the rotor may fall off as 

the rotor starts to turn. However, the PPS22 Companion Guide refers to 

the “Wind Energy Production in Cold Climates report” 19 which estimates 

that the particular weather conditions required for ice to build up occur in 

England for less than one day per year. The proposed wind turbines 

would be located in agricultural land and sited in fields which are fenced to 

prevent unauthorised vehicle access. The use of established protocols 

and procedures would mean that operational staff should be aware and 

take appropriate action when conditions likely to lead to ice accretion on 

the turbine are present, which could lead to the risk of ice falling from the 

rotor in areas of risk. 

16.16 All turbines will be fitted with vibration sensors so that if a blade is 

damaged or unbalanced they would automatically stop. In the event that a 

turbine starts to ice up when it is already turning, the turbines may 

continue to operate but will shut down if ice builds up and causes an 

aerodynamic or physical imbalance in the rotor assembly. 

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY & PERMISSIVE ROUTES 

16.17 A number of Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and permissive routes cross 

the Penny Hill wind farm study area. RMBC was consulted in May 2008 to 

obtain a copy of the „definitive map‟ of PRoW and permissive routes for the 

Penny Hill Wind Farm study area. Drawing HJB/681/PA24 shows the 

wind farm study area and all identified PRoWs and permissive routes. 

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY 

16.18 PRoW within the immediate vicinity of the site are as follows: 

Public footpath from Field Lane north of the site, to Stoket Lane on the 

western boundary of the site. The footpath crosses the north-west 

corner of the site; 

Public bridleway running in a north-south direction along Stoket Lane, 

between Morthen Lane north of the site and ending at Penny Hill Lane 

along the site boundary; and 

Public footpath leading from Turnshaw Road crossing the south-west 

corner of the site (just north of Spring Wood). 

PERMISSIVE//PROMOTED ROUTES 

16.19 Permissive routes are when landowners allow members of the public to 

use paths and tracks which are not PRoW. Members of the public do not 

19 “Wind Energy Production in Cold Climates” (ETSU W/11/00452/00/REP) 

304 



have a statutory right to use them and they are not covered by rights of 

way legislation. The Council do not maintain permissive paths and they 

are not featured on the „definitive map‟. There is often a notice at either 

end of the route explaining this and setting out any conditions which the 

owner has set. The notice may also state that the owner has no intention 

of dedicating the path as a PRoW. Permissive paths are usually 

waymarked with a white arrow. 

16.20 A number of permissive paths are present within the Penny Hill study area 

and they make up part of a circular route which is one of RMBC‟s 

„Doorstep Walks‟ (see section below). 

16.21 Part of the permissive route is adjacent to the western and north-west 

boundaries of the Penny Hill study area. However, a section just over a 

kilometre in length crosses the centre of the site in a north-south direction. 

To the north of Penny Hill Lane, the route follows the eastern boundary of 

the Halifax estate. The route to the south runs from Penny Hill Lane to 

Carr Lane, along field boundaries through the centre of the study area. 

THE DOORSTEP WALKS 

16.22 In addition to the above, RMBC have produced a series of leaflets of short 

circular walks in the Rotherham countryside, known as the „Doorstep 

Walks‟. RMBC are intending to expand the range of Doorstep Walk leaflets 

so that „everyone in Rotherham will have a local circular walk close to 

where they live.‟ They will also be producing a series of leaflets to offer 

horse riders and cyclists a number of circular routes. 

16.23 The RMBC website shows there to be two Doorstep Walks relevant to the 

Penny Hill site: The Farmland Trail at Ulley Village (Doorstep Walk No.7) 

and The Village Walk from Ulley Country Park (Doorstep Walk No.6). 

16.24 The Farmland Trail crosses the centre of the Penny Hill study area in a 

north-south direction and follows the permissive route described above. 

The western section of the trail is also adjacent to the western boundary of 

the study area. The only section of The Village Walk that coincides with 

the study area is the southern part of Stoket Lane, where it joins Penny Hill 

Lane. As mentioned above, Stoket Lane is a public bridleway. 

PUBLISHED GUIDANCE 

16.25 When considering exclusion zones around PRoW “Planning for 

Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22” states at Paragraph 

53: 

„The British Horse Society, following internal consultations, has 

suggested a 200 metre exclusion zone around bridle paths to avoid 

wind turbines frightening horses. Whilst this could be deemed 

desirable, it is not a statutory requirement, and some negotiation 

should be undertaken if it is difficult to achieve this. 

305 



Similarly, there is no statutory separation between a wind turbine and a 

public right of way. Often, fall over distance is considered an 

acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be 

that the turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a public right 

of way.‟ 

16.26 In addition, the latest British Horse Society (BHS) guidance on wind farms 

states the following: 

„As guidance to developers and planners, the Society recommends 

that, as a starting point when assessing a site and its potential layout, a 

separation distance of 4 times the overall height should be the target 

for any road or right of way that is part of a National Trail or Ride UK 

route, as these are likely to be used by equestrians unfamiliar with 

turbines, and a distance of 3 times overall height from all other routes, 

including roads, with the 200m recommended in the Technical 

Guidance to PPS 22 being seen as the minimum, where it is shown in 

a particular case that this would be acceptable. The negotiation 

process recommended above should indicate whether, in the particular 

circumstances of each site, these guidelines can be relaxed or need 

strengthening to minimise or eliminate the potential difficulties.‟ 20 

RMBC GUIDANCE 

16.27 The RMBC website contains the following advice: 

„Paths Affected by Development - Town & Country Planning Act 1990 - 

Section 257 

A public path can be diverted or extinguished to enable development to 

take place. In this context development consist of works which require 

planning permission. 

The first option should be to retain paths on their existing alignment. 

However, if this would prejudice an otherwise acceptable development 

or layout it may be acceptable to divert a path if an equally convenient 

and pleasant route can be found […] 

[…]The granting of planning permission does not give a developer any 

right to interfere with, obstruct or move a public right of way. Public 

paths can only be diverted or closed by legal order. These require a 

separate application and are not covered by any planning permission. 

The costs associated with the legal process are the responsibility of the 

developer. 

It is an offence to disturb or obstruct a public path. Any path across a 

development site should be kept clear until an order is legally 

confirmed and the diverted route is available. 

20 Guidance on the British Horse Society website [http://www.bhs.org.uk/] 

306 



Even if a path is to be permanently retained, it may need to be 

disturbed while the development takes place. For instance, it may not 

be possible to safely keep the path open during building works. If so a 

temporary closure or diversion will be required for the duration of the 

works. The path must be fully reinstated at the end of the diversion.‟ 

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PROWS AND PERMISSIVE ROUTES 

16.28 Each turbine has been located as far from the footpaths, bridleway and 

permissive routes within the site as is practicable. Drawing HJB/681/PA06 

shows the buffers applied to these routes during the design process. 

16.29 The nearest turbine to the section of bridleway (approximately 250m in 

length) along the site boundary to the northwest is Turbine 2, which is to 

be located at least 250m away. All five other turbines and associated 

infrastructure would be sited a minimum of 400m from the bridleway. 

16.30 The access tracks leading to Turbine 2 and to Turbine 4 will cross the 

route for Doorstep Walk No.7 (The Farmland Trail). The access track 

leading to Turbine 6 will cross the „other public access route‟ to the south 

of the site. The access track leading to the proposed meteorological mast 

will cross the public footpath in the southwest corner of the site. 

16.31 For health and safety reasons, the Applicant proposes to re-route the 

sections of The Farmland Trail which would otherwise be crossed by two 

proposed access tracks and the section of footpath which would otherwise 

be crossed by one proposed access track in the southwest corner of the 

site. Agreement on the diversions and appropriate signage etc. would be 

agreed with the PRoW team at RMBC and other relevant consultees as 

required, should planning permission for the development be granted. 

16.32 With the implementation of the above measures, it is considered that there 

would not be significant adverse effects on the public rights of way and 

permissive routes within the site boundary. 

16.33 Should micro-siting be considered necessary it will be ensured that this 

does not conflict with the parameters set out within the statements above. 

SITE SECURITY 

16.34 In order to ensure that the site would be secure during the operation of the 

wind farm the following measures would be incorporated: 

All turbines and transformer enclosure doors would be locked; 

The wind farm would be remotely monitored using a System Control 

and Data Acquisitions (SCADA) system that would monitor the 

individual turbines and would immediately detect any acts of vandalism 

that would interfere with the operation of the site; 

307 



All fields containing turbines would be adequately fenced with locked 

gates to prevent unauthorised vehicle access; 

A wind farm technician would make regular visits to the site during 

normal working hours; 

The control building would have metal security doors to prevent 

unauthorised access; and 

An intruder alarm would be installed in the control / switchgear building 

and be connected to the remote control system. 

The substation will be securely fenced to exclude the public for health 

and safety reasons. This security fencing will be of the type typically 

found at YEDL substations. 


16.35 The potential for adverse effects on public safety during the construction, 

operation and decommissioning phases of the proposed Penny Hill Wind 

Farm is assessed as insignificant. 

OVERALL EIA CONCLUSIONS 

16.36 The predicted environmental impacts associated with the installation of the 

six wind turbines and associated infrastructure have been carefully 

considered throughout the design of the Penny Hill Wind Farm proposal. 

The formation of the proposed development has, wherever possible, taken 

into account the views of statutory consultees, the local community and 

their representatives, as well as the views of other interested parties. 

16.37 It is considered that the proposed development which has emerged from 

the EIA and design iteration process, has ensured that the impacts 

associated with the project have been minimised wherever possible. 

Particular care has been taken in relation to sensitive receptors regarding 

noise and visual impact, whilst retaining a development of a scale that 

justifies the associated impacts. 

16.38 The proposed development is strongly supported in principle by national, 

regional and local planning policy which favour the development of 

renewable energy projects provided that the environmental impacts will be 

within acceptable limits. The EIA undertaken for the project is considered 

to have demonstrated that the project would have a relatively small 

number of significant effects, as would be expected from this type of 

development. The wind farm would make a positive contribution towards 

the national, South Yorkshire and Rotherham targets, for the generation of 

electricity from renewable sources. 

308

environmental statement - Rotherham's Online Application for ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?