application by national grid for an order granting ...... · en020017 – application by national...

Ms. Frances Fernandes Lead Member of the Panel of Examining Inspectors The Planning Inspectorate 3C Eagle Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

Environment, Planning and Enforcement Invicta House County Hall Maidstone ME14 1XX Phone: 03000 418827 Ask for: Katie Stewart Email: [email protected] 26

th October 2016

Dear Ms Fernandes,

Application by National Grid for an Order Granting Development

Consent for the Richborough Connection Project – Deadline 6

Further to actions arising from the Issue Specific Hearing on Landscape,

visual and biodiversity effects including alternatives held on Friday 30th

September, the County Council sets out its comments as below:

Agenda Item 2.1

Discuss Kent County Council (KCC) suggested non-planting landscape

opportunities as part of s106 agreement.

This matter was discussed at a meeting between Kent County Council (KCC)

and National Grid on Thursday 13th October 2016.

The County Council can confirm that it has not proposed any non-planting

landscape opportunities as part of the s.106 agreement and therefore no

further discussions are to be held on this matter in relation to the s.106

agreement.

As part of KCC’s submission in response to Deadline 5, proposals in relation

to embedded mitigation and/or enhancement measures, particularly in relation

to the Ash Level were raised. This matter is set out in the Statement of

Common Ground between National Grid and the Joint Council (Document

8.4.6(A)) which is to be submitted by the Applicant at Deadline 6.

2

Agenda Item 2.4

Provide Post Hearing Note on applicability of Wind Turbines and Pylons

Guidance Post Hearing Note

The County Council’s full response to Hearing Action Point 3 regarding

agenda item 2.4 is appended to this letter.

If you require any further information or clarification on any matter then please

do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Katie Stewart

Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement

EN020017 – Application by National Grid for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Richborough Connection Project

1

Appendix 1: Kent County Council’s response to Hearing Action Points List

The County Council’s response to Hearing Action 3 arising from the Issue Specific Hearing on Landscape, visual and biodiversity effects including alternative, held at Canterbury Cathedral Lodge, Canterbury on 30 September 2016 is set out below:

Agenda Item 2.4: Provide Post Hearing Note on applicability of Wind Turbines and

Pylons Guidance Post Hearing Note

Introduction

KCC considers that the guidance document Wind Turbines & Pylons - Guidance on the application of separation distances from residential properties [REP5-050], which is based on the professional guidance in GLVIA3, provides a useful and impartial evidence-based review of the techniques used in assessing the visual effects of pylons. A copy of the guidance document is appended to this Post Hearing Note.

The guidance document was prepared because of ‘a range of pressures relating to wind energy and 400 kV overhead line developments’ (paragraph 1.2). The Richborough Connection Project comprises a 400kV overhead line development. Whilst the focus of the guidance document is on ‘separation distances’ to avoid potentially very severe adverse visual effects, it does also review the generally accepted professional techniques employed in assessing residential visual impacts of pylons.

KCC recognises that the Applicant has submitted a visual impact assessment [REP2-011]

which includes all residential properties within 1 km of the scheme. However, KCC contends

that the Applicant has in general under-estimated the significance of the adverse effects, and

the independent guidance provides a useful ‘benchmark’ to assist the Examining Authority in

its own assessment of visual impacts and in reviewing the accuracy of the Applicant’s

assessment.

Professional recognition of the guidance

The guidance document was Highly Commended in the Landscape Institute Awards 2015

and the Institute’s web-site sets out the following comments:

‘Gwynedd Council, Isle of Anglesey County Council and Snowdonia National Park Authority

have been receiving an increasing number of applications for single or multiple wind turbines

that are not large enough to be considered a ‘wind farm’ but together or individually could

have a significant impact on views from residential properties. The councils and park

authority currently have little information to help inform their judgement when making

decisions on whether or not a development should be given consent. To address this issue,

they commissioned this study with the aim of achieving more robust, transparent and

consistent decisions.’

‘The judges said: An innovative project that provides a credible method for analysing the

visual impact of wind turbines and pylons.’

Visual Amenity

Visual Amenity is a recognised concept within GLVIA3 and referred to in the context of visual

effects in the following:

Views and visual amenity (page 21, paragraphs 2.20-2.22)


2

Professional judgement in LVIA (page 21, paragraphs 2.23)

Scope (page 98, paragraph 6.2)

Predicting and describing visual effects (pages 112-116, paragraphs 6.26, 6.29,

6.30, 6.31, 6.32, 6.35, 6.36, and 6.44)

Summary advice on good practice(1st bullet, page 116; 7th bullet, 8th bullet, page 117; 3rd bullet point, page 118)

Whilst the guidance document has a particular concern for situations where the adverse

effects on visual amenity are so high as to be unacceptable in planning terms, the

assessment of visual amenity effects can be applied at all scales of magnitude.

Assessing the sensitivity of residential receptors

Paragraph 3.2 of the guidance document states ‘when assessing the significance of visual

impacts of a wind turbine or pylon on a residential receptor the potential scale of impact or

change in a view is considered together with the sensitivity of the receptor. As noted in

GLVIA3, it is generally accepted in the landscape profession that residential receptors are

considered high sensitivity visual receptors so the only variable then becomes the scale of

impact.’

The County Council considers that this approach is not adopted in the Applicant’s visual

assessment where residential receptors are assigned a medium sensitivity. This is possibly

a result of assigning a ‘local’’ value to the private views. However, residential views are not

public views so that the value/importance of the view should not be based on public values

(e.g. a value based on a landscape designation), but on the importance to the occupant of

the property, which is likely to be high. This demonstrates the need to use careful judgement

in interpreting the methodology in a non-deterministic manner in order to reflect particular

circumstances. The professionally accepted and recognised approach put forward in the

guidance document in assessing residential sensitivity is therefore preferred to the

Applicant’s deterministic approach.

Assessing visual impacts

Whilst the sensitivity of all residential receptors has been under-estimated by the Applicant,

KCC recognises that there are a large number of factors which will influence the magnitude

of the adverse effects on views as a result of a new 400kV pylon. This is considered in the

guidance document (paragraph 3.4) which states that ‘the assessment of the likely scale of

impact will depend on the extent of changes in the composition of a view brought about by

the introduction of a wind turbine or pylon; taking into account proximity and the proportion of

the view occupied by the development and also their apparent prominence as determined by

a number of modifying factors (discussed further in the main report, paragraph 4.14 and

Table 4.4).’ KCC supports this approach as a useful aid to the very wide range of factors

which need to be considered in assessing adverse impacts. An extract of the table (relevant

to pylons) is set out overleaf:


3

Modifying Factors (based on Table 4.4 of the main report)

Factors that may contribute to a reduction in the assessed scale of visual impacts

Factors that may contribute to an increase in the assessed scale of visual impacts

Relevant to Wind Turbines and Pylons

Occupies a small proportion of the view

Well screened by vegetation/landform/other

Partial or glimpsed view

Oblique angle of view

Viewer looks down onto structure from an elevated position

Absence of visual clues/visual reference e.g. mature trees, buildings etc.

Urban situation

Scale of structure fits with scale of landscape (typically large)

Backclothed

Well accommodated within the view

Complex scene

Low contrast

Time of day

Season

Weather

Size and design of the wind turbine or pylon

Occupies a large proportion of the view

Lack of screening

In full view

Direct angle of view

Viewer looks up to structure from a low lying position

Visual clues/visual reference e.g. mature trees, buildings etc.

Rural situation

Scale of structure conflicts with scale of landscape (typically small)

Skylined

Poorly accommodated within the view

Simple scene

High contrast

Time of day

Season

Weather


Specific to Pylons

Pylon is seen backclothed against a solid background

Few pylons visible

Orientation of pylon(s)

Pylon is seen skylined

Other pylons or vertical structures and creation of ‘wirescape’

More than one pylon visible, particularly if seen ‘stacked’ or ‘fenced’ against one another


MAY 2014

WIND TURBINES & PYLONS

GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICATION OF SEPARATION DISTANCES

FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES

FINAL REPORT

Gillespies File Reference: M5082-1 Final Report 22 May 2014Final Report 22 May 2014

REV DATE BY CHKD STATUS REASONS FOR

REVISION/COMMENTS

ORIGINATOR

GILLESPIES LLP

REVISION

Final

Wind Turbines & Pylons: Guidance on the Application of Separation Distances from Residential Properties

FINAL REPORT

Contents Page No.

SECTION 1 : INTRODUCTION 1

SECTION 2 : EVIDENCE BASE 4

SECTION 3 : ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL IMPACTS 9

SECTION 4 : TESTING DISTANCES ON SITE 13

SECTION 5 : RECOMMENDATIONS 19

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS i

REFERENCES ii

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 : Summary Review of Legislation, Policy and Guidance

Appendix 2 : Summary Review of Appeal Decisions

Appendix 3 : Viewpoint Analysis Figures

Appendix 4 : Supplementary Pylon Viewpoint Photographs

Appendix 5 : Theoretical Apparent Height Model

Appendix 6 : Residential Visual Amenity Assessment Trigger Distances - Formula


FINAL REPORT Page 1

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Residential visual amenity refers to the visual amenity experienced by residential properties

including their gardens. It is a subset of residential amenity which also includes aspects such

as noise, light and vibration.1 In making judgements about residential visual amenity, it is

important to note that a potential significant adverse change to an outlook from a property

does not in itself result in material harm to living conditions – there needs to be a degree of

harm over and above this, for example undue obtrusiveness or overbearing effect, to warrant

a refusal2 or recommendation for refusal of a planning application.

Purpose of the Study

1.1 This study was commissioned by Gwynedd Council, Isle of Anglesey County Council (the

Councils) and Snowdonia National Park Authority (the ‘Park Authority’) to determine the

appropriateness of applying minimum separation distances between wind turbines or pylons and

residential properties, to protect residential visual amenity.

1.2 The Councils and Park Authority are experiencing a range of pressures relating to wind energy

and 400 kV overhead line developments. Local communities and Councillors are concerned

about the potential visual impacts of wind turbines or pylons on views from residential properties

within the study area, which is illustrated in Figure 1.

1 The approach taken by inspectors in England confirms that in planning, no individual has a right to a particular view. However

there may be a point when, by virtue of the proximity, size and scale of a development, a residential property would be rendered so unattractive a place to live that planning permission should be refused. Whilst the assessment of whether a change in outlook materially harms residential amenity or living conditions is ultimately a planning issue, a judgement on the visual component of residential amenity is often needed from a landscape architect to inform the planning judgement and this is increasingly being undertaken as part of a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). There is no published guidance that sets out the criteria for establishing whether or not the visual presence of a development impacts unacceptably on living conditions although the issue has been considered at a number of public inquiries, principally in England.

2 Knight R., ‘Residential Visual Amenity Assessment: Its Place in EIA’, IEMA, published by the Environmentalist Online (July 2012).


FINAL REPORT Page 2

Figure 1: Study Area

1.3 The study provides an evidence base to inform policies in the emerging Anglesey and Gwynedd

Joint Local Development Plan (JLDP) and any review of policy in the Eryri Local Development

Plan (ELDP); it may also be a material planning consideration for considering relevant planning

applications in the intervening period.

Study Approach

1.4 There is no nationally recognised method for establishing generic minimum separation distances

for wind turbines or pylons from residential properties based on potential visual impacts. As

stated in paragraph 2.6, Welsh Government advice is that each case should be judged

independently and on its own merits.


FINAL REPORT Page 3

1.5 As a starting point to establish whether or not minimum separation distances should be applied,

and if so what these should be, the following desk based research and analysis of the issues was

initially undertaken:

National, regional and local planning policy and guidance;

Other current related guidance;

Comparative studies; and

Planning appeal decisions (including liaison with Joint LDP officers and other Local

Authorities in Wales to identify relevant planning appeal decisions and any other relevant

data which could be used as evidence to back up the study).

1.6 The results of the desktop research were analysed and an appropriate range of distances

identified (from which to assess the likely scale of the visual impacts of existing wind turbines and

pylons) in order to test and/or back up the research.

1.7 GIS data (provided by the Councils and Park Authority) was used to identify a number of

accessible locations within the study area from which existing wind turbines and pylons could be

viewed in the landscape. One example from each wind energy height band and two pylons were

selected and field work undertaken.

1.8 Following the data gathering and field work a set of draft recommendations were presented to the

Steering Group for review and discussion before the final report was drafted.

Report Structure

1.9 The remainder of the report is structured as follows:

SECTION 2: Evidence Base

SECTION 3: Assessment of Visual Impacts

SECTION 4: Testing Distances on Site

SECTION 5: Recommendations


FINAL REPORT Page 4

SECTION 2: EVIDENCE BASE

Review of Legislation, Policy and Guidance

2.1 The table set out in Appendix 1 provides a catalogue of research into relevant UK legislation,

policy and guidance related to separation distances between wind turbines or pylons and

residential properties as of April 2014.

2.2 The review of the legislation, policy and guidance for wind turbines quickly revealed that the

establishment of separation distances between turbines and residential properties in respect to

residential visual amenity is not a straightforward matter. This is reflected in the wide variety of

separation distances recommended by both national and local planning guidance. The only

current national guidance on separation distance for visual amenity is the 2 km community

separation distance3 applied in Scotland. Local planning guidance varies greatly; for instance

guidance on separation distances between turbines of around 20 m - 25 m to blade tip and

residential properties ranges from 350 m (Milton Keynes Local Plan) to 1 km (Wiltshire Core

Strategy). It is important to note that the height bands/descriptions of turbines often varies in

national and local guidance and the establishment of minimum separation distances sometimes

takes into consideration other factors such as noise and shadow flicker. Some local authorities

apply relatively rigid separation distances from residential properties whereas others provide

more general guidance and acknowledge that factors such as topography and vegetation may

reduce impacts on residential visual amenity.

2.3 National policy and guidance is summarised in the following paragraphs.

National Policy and Guidance Context – Wind Turbines

2.4 In Wales there are currently no nationally prescribed minimum separation distances between

proposed wind turbines and existing residential properties based on potential adverse visual

impacts. National planning policy requires that local planning policy and guidance be based on

robust evidence.

2.5 Annex D of Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8: Planning for Renewable Energy, provides a potential

methodology for local planning authorities with Strategic Search Areas which suggests minimum

separation distances between wind turbines and residential properties, specifically in relation to

noise impacts, as follows:

3 Separation distance between communities and wind farms


FINAL REPORT Page 5

"500 metres is currently considered a typical separation distance between a wind turbine and residential property to avoid unacceptable noise impacts. However, when applied in a rigid manner it can lead to conservative results and so some flexibility is advised." 4

2.6 The Welsh Government response to the Petitions Committee (June 2012) confirmed ‘Welsh Government guidance in respect of separation distances contained in TAN 8 relates to methodological guidance for local planning authorities in refining the boundaries of Strategic Search Areas and remains unchanged.’ and stated ‘we would therefore expect separation distances to be determined locally based upon the rigorous assessment of local impacts. The Welsh Government believes that a rigid minimum separation distance could unnecessarily hinder the development of renewable energy projects in Wales. We have taken the consistent view that the issue of separation distances between residential premises and wind turbines is best determined locally on a case-by-case basis, taking on board locally sensitive issues such as topography, local wind speeds and directions as well as the important considerations of visual and cumulative impacts.’

2.7 In response to a written question to the National Assembly for Wales5, Jane Davidson

(Environment Sustainability and Housing Minister) confirmed that:

"The issue is less to do with distance than the need to limit noise from wind farms to 5 decibels above background noise for both day and night time. The separation distances between wind turbines and residential properties can be examined as part of the refinement work by local planning authorities and on a case by case basis, taking into account topography and orientation, when decisions on planning applications are taken”.

2.8 In Scotland, Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)6 provides the following guidance relating to

separation distances for wind farms in relation to visual impacts:

"Separation distance of up to 2km between areas of search and the edge of cities, towns and villages is recommended to guide developments to the most appropriate sites and to reduce visual impact, but decisions on individual developments should take into account specific local circumstances and geography. Development plans should recognise that the existence of these constraints on wind farm development does not impose a blanket restriction on development, and should be clear on the extent of constraints and the factors that should be satisfactorily addressed to enable development to take place. Planning authorities should not impose additional zones of protection around areas designated for their landscape or natural heritage value.”

4 Paragraph 3.4, Proximity to Residential Dwellings, Annex D of TAN 8

(http://wales.gov.uk/topics/planning/policy/tans/tan8/?lang=en) 5 National Assembly for Wales, Answers issued to Members on 21 January 2008, WAQ50841 6 Scottish Planning Policy, (February 2010) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/300760/0093908.pdf supplemented by online

renewables planning advice, Onshore Turbines (Dec 2013) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-

Environment/planning/National-Planning-Policy/themes/renewables/Onshore


FINAL REPORT Page 6

2.9 The Scottish Government recently consulted on a proposal to increase the community separation

distance guide for wind farms from “...up to 2km” (SPP February 2010, para 1907) to “...up to 2.5km” (Draft SPP for Consultation April 2013, paragraph 2188). Following consultation

responses, Scottish Government commissioned research on community separation distance to

inform the final SPP9. The research10 concluded that there was an absence of robust evidence

behind the 2 km separation distance but taking into account public acceptance of this there was

an argument for retaining the existing 2 km separation distance (with clearer definitions of

relevant terms). It also stated that another option was to remove the 2 km distance from SPP

altogether although retaining reference to visual impact as a criterion. The revised SPP is due to

be published in June 2014.

2.10 SNH published guidance Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice11 states that “Distance should not be used mechanistically to predict magnitude12 at a particular viewpoint because of the potential effects of other modifying factors”. However, a number of Local Authorities do provide

guidance on separation distances for wind turbines as part of Supplementary Planning Guidance

documents.

2.11 In England there are currently no separation distance guidelines for wind turbines.

National Policy and Guidance Context – Pylons

2.12 There is currently no published planning guidance within the UK relating to separation distances

between pylons and residential properties. However the Holford Rules13 with NGC (1992) and

SHETL (2003) notes refer to minimising impacts on people, residential areas etc. as follows:

‘a. Avoid routeing close to residential areas as far as possible on grounds of general amenity.

b. In rural areas avoid as far as possible dominating isolated houses, farms or other small-scale settlements’14

The Holford Rules are the current guidelines referenced in the National Planning Statements for

Nationally significant Infrastructure Projects.

7 Scottish Planning Policy, (February 2010) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/300760/0093908.pdf 8 Draft Scottish Planning Policy for Consultation (April 2013) - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/04/1027/downloads 9 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00441852.pdf 10 Research carried out by ClimateXChange and the University of Dundee, Sept 2013

http://www.climatexchange.org.uk/files/5313/8496/4510/CXC_Report_-_Separation_distances_for_Wind_Farms.pdf 11 University of Newcastle (2002) Visual Assessment of Windfarms Best Practice. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report

F01AA303A 12 The magnitude of the visual effects refers to not only the scale of the change of view (including the nature of the view, the degree

of visible contrast or changes in the landscape and the nature of the view) but also the geographical extent of the view (including

angle of view, distance from receptor and extent of the area over which changes would be visible) and the duration and

reversibility of visual effects. 13 Guidelines used by National Grid for the routeing of new overhead lines, the Holford Rules were originally set out in 1959 by

Lord Holford, which have been reviewed and supplemented and form the basis for the approach to routeing new overhead lines. 14 Further notes on clarification to Holford Rule 7


FINAL REPORT Page 7

Review of Planning Appeals and Applications

2.13 A summary of research into recent UK planning appeals and applications, in connection with wind

energy and 400 kV overhead line developments, is included in the following paragraphs.

Review of Planning Appeals – Wind Turbines

2.14 The table set out in Appendix 2 summarises the reviews of a number of planning appeals for

proposed wind energy developments (most cases dating from 2009). Each written appeal

decision was analysed; particularly key text relating to observations on residential visual amenity

and the distances of proposed turbines from residential properties. Details of the heights of

turbines and their distances from properties are included in the table together with resultant

conclusions/comments on whether or not the overall effect on residential visual amenity was

deemed to be unacceptable i.e. so unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable that it may

result in a material harm to living conditions to warrant a refusal of planning permission in

the public interest.

2.15 Although there is currently no published guidance on how impacts on residential visual amenity

should be assessed, unacceptable impacts on residential visual amenity have been defined by

Planning Inspectors, as follows:

‘…there is no right to a view per se, and any assessment of visual intrusion leading to a finding of material harm must therefore involve extra factors such as undue obtrusiveness, or an overbearing impact leading to a diminution of conditions at the relevant property to an unacceptable degree’ (paragraph 32 of the Sixpenny Wood decision notice; Appeal ref: APP/E2001/A/09/2101851; Decision 8 December 2009)

“...when turbines are present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden, there is every likelihood that the property concerned would become widely regarded as an unattractive and thus unsatisfactory (but not necessarily uninhabitable) place in which to live. It is not in the public interest to create such living conditions where they did not exist before.” (paragraph 66 of the Enifer Downs decision notice; Appeal ref: APP/X22201/A/08/2071880; Decision 16 March 2009)

2.16 In the case of the Burnthouse Farm appeal case (APP/D0515/A/10/2123739) the decision letter

on behalf of the Secretary of State, provided the following clarification on the Inspector’s Report,

reinforcing the fact that a judgement of a significant adverse visual impact is not enough to merit

refusal (IR):

‘For the reasons given at IR229-232, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that serious harm to living conditions which might lead to a recommendation for planning permission to be refused, in the public interest, is a more stringent requirement than the identification of a significant adverse impact. He further agrees that when assessing the effect on visual outlook, it


FINAL REPORT Page 8

is helpful to pose the question ‘would the proposal affect the outlook of these residents to such an extent, i.e. be so unpleasant, overwhelming and oppressive that this would become an unattractive place to live?’15

Review of Planning Applications – Pylons

2.17 There have been no recent planning appeals in connection with 400 kV overhead line

developments. However, one of the more recent 400 kV overhead line developments to receive

planning permission in the UK is the upgraded Beauly to Denny line in Scotland, which was

granted in 2010. Chapter 24 (Visual Effects) of the Beauly to Denny Environmental Statement

(ES) stated the following:

‘every effort has been made to maintain a minimum distance of 100 m between any residential property and the proposed line’ (paragraph 24.5.1.3)

‘The 100 m distance has been established as a general guide in order to address concerns relating to visual amenity. The 100 m distance has been proposed as, at this distance, for a property located on level ground and with a garden extending to 15 m from the house, a 10 m tall tree at the end of the garden will screen views of a 55 m tall tower located at 100 m from the property. However, not all properties will be on level ground or with gardens 15 m in length. The situation at each property close to the line has been assessed and the information relating to properties where a major adverse effect is anticipated, is included in Technical Annex 24.2.’ (paragraph 24.5.1.4)

2.18 Of the properties assessed within Technical Annex 24.2 (Proximity Survey) of the ES, all of the

properties where a major (very large) adverse impact was anticipated were within 400 m of the

proposed line and most were within 200 m. No specific residential visual amenity assessment

was carried out in support of the application.

15 11-07-06 3-in-1 Burnthouse Farm Fenland 2123739 (http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ShowDocuments.asp)


FINAL REPORT Page 9

SECTION 3 : ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL IMPACTS

Scale of visual impact refers to the following:

‘The scale of change in the view with respect to the loss or addition of features in the view

and changes in its composition, including the proportion of the view occupied by the

proposed development;

The degree of contrast or integration of any new features or changes in the landscape

with the existing or remaining landscape elements and characteristics in terms of form,

scale and mass, line, height, colour and texture; and

The nature of the view of the proposed development, in terms of the relative amount of

time over which it will be experienced and whether views will be full, partial or glimpses.’16

(GLVIA3, paragraph 6.39)

A very large scale of visual impact can be defined as a very large scale change in a view

that introduces new, non-characteristic or discordant or intrusive elements into the view which

may form the principal element of/or dominate the view and may overpower the viewer. This

may occur where a proposed development would be in close proximity to the viewer, in a

direct line of vision, or affecting a substantial part of the view and where it would be prominent

within, or contrasts with, the visual context, and detracts from its visual amenity.

3.1 Although there is currently no published guidance on how impacts on residential visual amenity

should be assessed there are common threshold criteria which have been applied by Inspectors

when considering the acceptability of impacts on residential visual amenity (whether or not a

development may be likely to cause a change in outlook which would materially harm residential

amenity or living conditions).

3.2 Following the review of recent planning appeals, and from experience in carrying out Landscape

and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA) and residential visual amenity assessments, it is

recognised that the threshold for unacceptable visual impacts may often be higher than the

point at which the scale of visual impact is assessed to be very large. However, for the

purposes of the consideration of separation distances between residential properties and wind

turbines or pylons, it is recommended that the threshold for considering whether there would be

an unacceptable impact on residential visual amenity would be from any property where the

visual impact is predicted to be very high.

16 Landscape Institute and Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (2013) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual

Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, Routledge


FINAL REPORT Page 10

The Assessment of Visual Impacts of Wind Turbines or Pylons on Residential Properties

3.3 Principles regarding the assessment of the potential visual impacts of wind turbines or pylons are

set out in the following guidance documents:

Landscape Institute (LI) and Institute of Environmental Management Assessment (IEMA)

(Third Edition 2013) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment (GLVIA3);

LANDMAP Guidance Note 3: Guidance for Wales, Using LANDMAP for Landscape and

Visual Impact Assessment of Onshore Wind Turbines (May 2013);

University of Newcastle (2002) Visual Assessment of Windfarms Best Practice. Scottish

Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA303A; and

Holford Rules - with National Grid Company (NGC) 1992 and Scottish Hydro Electric

Transmission Limited (SHETL) 2003 notes.

3.4 When assessing the significance of visual impacts of a wind turbine or pylon on a residential

receptor the potential scale of impact or change in a view is considered together with the

sensitivity of the receptor. As noted in GLVIA3, it is generally accepted in the landscape

profession that residential receptors are considered high sensitivity visual receptors so the

only variable then becomes the scale of impact.

3.5 Scale of impact is often described as high, medium, low or negligible (positive, negative or

neutral) but terminology such as very large, large, medium, small, very small and negligible

(positive, negative or neutral) can also be used.

3.6 The assessment of the likely scale of impact will depend on the extent of changes in the

composition of a view brought about by the introduction of a wind turbine or pylon; taking into

account proximity and the proportion of the view occupied by the development and also their

apparent prominence as determined by a number of modifying factors (discussed further in

paragraph 4.14 and Table 4.4).

3.7 The most significant adverse visual impacts are predicted where residential receptors

(residential properties) may experience a very large scale of impact (or change in their

view). Because this study is primarily concerned with establishing whether or not a minimum

separation distance should be applied to prevent unacceptable impacts on residential visual

amenity it is important to reiterate the fact that a significant adverse impact on a view from a

residential property does not in itself result in material harm to living conditions ‘there needs to be a degree of harm over and above this to warrant a refusal in the public interest’17

17 Knight R., ‘Residential Visual Amenity Assessment: Its Place in EIA’, IEMA, published by the Environmentalist Online (July 2012).



Wind Energy Development Height Bands

3.8 In order to assess the distances at which wind turbines of different heights may give rise to very

large scales of visual impact, the following five height bands18 are considered:

Up to 25 m

25.01 – 50 m

50.01 – 75 m

75.01 – 100 m

Over 100.01 m

3.9 These bands are broadly based on the heights set out in the wind energy development typologies

identified within the Isle of Anglesey, Gwynedd & Snowdonia National Park, Landscape

Sensitivity and Capacity Assessment19.

3.10 It is important to note that applications and enquiries for large scale wind energy developments

(typically turbines over 80 m high) are most commonly associated with TAN 8 SSAs. There are

no SSAs within Gwynedd, the Isle of Anglesey or Snowdonia National Park; however, there are

several large developments to the north of Anglesey (including three operational wind farms).

There are also three SSA’s within relatively close proximity to the National Park (SSA A, B and

D). There are currently no wind turbines over 100.01 m in the study area, therefore it was not

possible to make on site assessments of turbines over this height.

3.11 The Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Assessment20 study recommends that there is no further

capacity for wind energy developments comprising turbines above 50 m within the study area.

However, turbines above 50 m are included in this study for reference as these relate to some

operational/consented wind energy developments within the Isle of Anglesey and also within

neighbouring Authorities to Gwynedd and Snowdonia National Park.

18 All references to heights of wind turbines in this report refer to height to blade tip. 19 Gillespies (2014), Isle of Anglesey, Gwynedd & Snowdonia National Park, Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Assessment 20 Gillespies (2014), Isle of Anglesey, Gwynedd & Snowdonia National Park, Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Assessment



Pylons

3.12 Although pylons for 400 kV overhead line developments can vary in height from around 35 to 60

m, this study focusses on pylons ranging from 40 – 60 m as this is the height range most typically

found within the study area. It also only considers pylons of the traditional steel lattice tower

design.



SECTION 4 : TESTING DISTANCES ON SITE

Field Based Review

4.1 Following the desk top research, a field based review was undertaken to establish the range of

distances within which wind turbines or pylons may give rise to a very large scale of visual impact

(and therefore may give rise to unacceptable impacts in terms of residential visual amenity).

4.2 The results of the desktop research were compiled to identify an appropriate range of distances

to be tested on site (for various heights of wind turbines or pylons). The maximum distances

established for assessment purposes varied from around 2 km for turbines up to 100 m in height

down to 500 m for turbines up to 25 m in height. The 2 km distance was included as a

conservative distance as most of the desk based research revealed that a turbine of 100 m would

be highly unlikely to give rise to unacceptable harm on residential visual amenity from beyond 1

km.

4.3 It is important to note that the scope of this study is limited. One operational turbine example,

from within each of the height bands listed in paragraph 3.821, and two examples of pylons were

chosen within the study area in collaboration with the Steering Group (based on existing

operational wind turbine GIS data and OS data). In addition to height, the criteria for choosing

the turbines and pylons included accessibility in terms of the openness of views and public

accessibility for site assessment and photography. The two pylon examples were chosen to

illustrate the differences in scale of visual impacts and demonstrate the effects of modifying

factors such as whether the structure was seen against a solid background such as landform or

vegetation or skylined.

4.4 The height and co-ordinates of the wind turbines were provided by the Steering Group. The

locations of the pylons were based on 1:25,000 OS data and the heights of pylons provided by

National Grid.

4.5 Details of the turbines and pylons chosen and assessed on site are presented in Table 4.1

together with their corresponding Figures which are included in Appendix 3. The figures in

Appendix 3 illustrate the photographs taken on site, together with the viewpoint locations in

relation to the turbine(s) or pylon(s) being assessed.

21 Note: This is excludes turbines over 100.1 m as there are currently no operational turbines over this height in the study area.



Table 4.1: Details of Wind Turbines and Pylons Assessed on Site

Height* Corresponding Figures (Appendix 3)

Win

d T

urb

ine

s

17.8 m Figure A3-1.1 : Viewpoint Locations for Wind Turbine - 17.8 m High

Figure A3-1.2: Views to Wind Turbine - 17.8 m High

34.2 m Figure A3-2.1: Viewpoint Locations for Wind Turbine – 34.2 m High

Figure A3-2.2: Views to Wind Turbine – 34.2 m High

53 m Figure A3-3.1: Viewpoint Locations for Wind Turbine - 53 High

Figure A3-3.2: Views to Wind Turbine - 53 m High

93 m Figure A3-4.1: Viewpoint Locations for Wind Turbine - 93 m High

Figure A3-4.2: Views to Wind Turbine - 93 m High

Pylo

ns

50–59 m Figure A3-5.1: Viewpoint Locations for Pylons 50-59 m High

Figure A3-5.2: Views to Pylons 50-59 m High

55-59 m Figure A3-6.1: Viewpoint Locations for Pylons 55-59 m High

Figure A3-6.2: Views to Pylons 55-59 m High

*Height of wind turbine measured to blade tip

4.7 The viewpoint photographs were taken using the same camera and lens setting to obtain a like

for like comparison for illustration purposes (based on current guidance - The Landscape

Institute, Advice Note 01/11: Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact

assessment, March 2011); however, it is important to note that although photographs are useful

they are no substitute for the true experience of the receptor on site.

4.8 Supplementary photographs of the Pylons in the range of 55-59 m high are included in Appendix

4 for illustrations purposes. These photographs were re-taken by Gwynedd Council to illustrate

the effects of the pylons under different weather conditions; however, they have not replaced the

original study photographs as they were taken using a different camera/lens setting, and from

slightly different viewpoints. This is an interesting example which not only illustrates how the

pylons can appear differently under different weather conditions but also reinforces the point that

photographs can be deceptive and as stated above should not replace site based assessment.

4.9 The site based assessments of each of these examples established an indicative range of

distances from which such structures may start to give rise to a very large scale of visual impact.

Table 4.2 summarises the findings of the site based review.

http://www.landscapeinstitute.co.uk/PDF/Contribute/LIPhotographyAdviceNote01-11.pdf





Table 4.2: Results of Site Based Assessments

Height*

Indicative distances within which the structure may give rise to a very large

scale of visual impact W

ind

Tu

rbin

es 17.8 m c. 130 m

34.2 m c. 280 m

53 m c. 400 m

93 m c. 750 m

Pylo

ns

50-59 m c. 400 m

55-59 m c. 400 m


Theoretical Apparent Height Model in Support of Field Based Review

4.10 It can often be difficult to perceive the height of a wind turbine or pylon during a site assessment;

in particular when assessing the potential visual impacts of a proposed development. This is due

to a combination of a lack of reference e.g. mature trees or buildings close to potential sites, and

assessing viewpoints at some distance.

4.11 In support of the site based assessment a mathematical model was used to calculate the

apparent height of a turbine or pylon when its true height and distance from a viewer are known.

The apparent height of a turbine or pylon is defined as the height that the structure would

appear at arm’s length (61 cm) from the viewer (i.e. the structure would appear to be the same

height as an X cm high object held at arm’s length (61 cm) from the viewer).

4.12 The formulae presented in Appendix 5 are used to work out the apparent height of a structure at

arm’s length (61 m), when the true height and distance from the viewer are known.

4.13 The apparent heights of the wind turbines and pylons assessed on site have been worked out

(based on this model) and are shown alongside the viewpoints in Appendix 3 (for a comparison of

known distances and apparent height). Table 4.3 demonstrates that there is a correlation

between the apparent height of the structure and the indicative distances within which the

structures may give rise to very large scales of visual impacts.



Table 4.3: Results of Site Based Assessments

Height*

Indicative distances within which the structure may give rise to a very large

scale of visual effect

Apparent Height of Structure

(at arm’s length – 61 cm) W

ind

Tu

rbin

es 17.8 m c. 130 m 8.35 cm

34.2 m c. 280 m 7.45 cm

53 m c. 400 m 8.08 cm

93 m c. 750 m 7.56 cm

Pylons

50-59 m c. 400 m 7.63 - 9.00 cm

55-59 m c. 400 m 8.39 – 9.00 cm


4.14 When comparing the apparent height values in Table 4.3 it was observed that when a turbine or

pylon roughly appeared the same height (or more) as a 7.5 cm object held at arm’s length (61

cm) from the viewer then there was potential that such a structure may give rise to a very large

scale of visual effect due to its prominence in the view.

4.15 As discussed above and previously in paragraphs 2.10 and 3.6, in addition to the height of a

structure and its distance from a receptor there are a number of modifying factors which may

affect the assessment of the scale of visual impact by reducing or increasing it. These factors are

outlined Table 4.422:

22Based on Figure 2: Conceptual Model for Visual Impact Assessment, University of Newcastle (2002) Visual Assessment of

Windfarms Best Practice. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA303A



Table 4.4: Modifying Factors

Factors that may contribute to a reduction in the assessed scale of

visual impacts

Factors that may contribute to an increase in the assessed scale of

visual impacts R

ele

van

t to

Win

d T

urb

ine

s a

nd

Pylo

ns

Occupies a small proportion of the view

Well screened by vegetation/landform/other

Partial or glimpsed view

Oblique angle of view

Viewer looks down onto structure from an elevated position

Absence of visual clues/visual reference e.g. mature trees, buildings etc.

Urban situation

Scale of structure fits with scale of landscape (typically large)

Backclothed

Well accommodated within the view

Complex scene

Low contrast

Time of day

Season

Weather


Occupies a large proportion of the view

Lack of screening

In full view

Direct angle of view

Viewer looks up to structure from a low lying position

Visual clues/visual reference e.g. mature trees, buildings etc.

Rural situation

Scale of structure conflicts with scale of landscape (typically small)

Skylined

Poorly accommodated within the view

Simple scene

High contrast

Time of day

Season

Weather


Sp

ecif

ic t

o W

ind

Tu

rbin

es

Existing movement within the view

Speed of blade movement

Design of turbine (ratio of blades to tower height/width)

Few turbines visible

Turbines are skylined

Turbine layout relates well to landscape pattern

Small geographical spread

Poor weather/visibility

Lack of existing movement

Speed of blade movement

More than one turbine visible

Layout of turbines

Turbine layout relates poorly to existing landscape

Wide geographical spread

Good weather/visibility

Sp

ecif

ic t

o

Pylo

ns

Pylon is seen backclothed against a solid background

Few pylons visible


Pylon is seen skylined

Other pylons or vertical structures and creation of ‘wirescape’

More than one pylon visible, particularly if seen ‘stacked’ or ‘fenced’ against one

another




4.16 These modifying factors may rule out the potential of a wind turbine or pylon giving rise to

unacceptable impacts on residential visual amenity, even if a residential property falls within the

indicative distances shown in Table 4.3.

4.17 One example of how modifying factors can influence the scale of visual impact is illustrated in the

photographs below. The true heights, distances from the viewer and the apparent heights of

each of these pylons doesn’t vary dramatically, however the resultant scale of visual impacts

does. The photograph on the left illustrates how the scale of visual impacts of a pylon are

reduced when it is viewed against the backdrop of a mountain from a slightly more elevated

position; the bottom part of the structure is largely obscured by a stone wall field boundary and

topography which further reduces the impact. The scale of visual impacts of the pylon in the

photograph to the right are increased by the fact that it is viewed from a less elevated position

and is much more visible, because it is on the skyline (even though vegetation screens the very

bottom part of the structure).



SECTION 5 : RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Analysis of current guidance and case law indicates that there are a variety of distances within

which unacceptable impacts on residential visual amenity can occur and that this is by no means

entirely dependent on the relationship between the height and proximity of a turbine or pylon from

a residential property.

5.2 There is therefore no conclusive evidence to support the strict application of minimum separation

distances between residential properties and wind turbines or pylons in terms of visual residential

amenity. For this reason it is recommended that each proposed development should be

considered on its own merits, on a case by case basis.

5.3 Although rigid separation distances are not recommended, the use of indicative residential visual

amenity assessment trigger distances (within which there is potential for very large scale of visual

impacts) is considered a valuable tool to identify any locations where a visual residential amenity

assessment should be carried out to identify any potentially unacceptable impacts in terms of

residential visual amenity.

5.4 The proposed guide to ‘residential visual amenity assessment trigger distances’ for broad height

bands of wind turbines and/or pylons are presented in Table 5.1 below:

Table 5.1: Rough Guide to Residential Visual Amenity Assessment Trigger Distances for

Wind Turbines and Pylons

Height*

Residential Visual Amenity Assessment Trigger Distance

(Potential ‘Very Large’ Scale of Visual Impact)

Win

d T

urb

ine

Up to 25 m Within 200 m

25.01 - 50 m Within 400 m

50.01 – 75 m Within 600 m

75.01 – 100 m Within 800 m

Over 100.01 m Within 800 m

Pylo

n

Up to 40 m Within 350 m

40.01 – 60 m Within 500 m




5.5 These distances are based on the findings of Table 4.3 and paragraph 4.14 which conclude that

when a wind turbine or pylon would have an apparent height of around 7.5 cm (or more) it may

give rise to a very large scale of visual impact.

5.6 Using the mathematical formula in Appendix 5 it is possible to refine the above guidelines further

for each individual case to work out a more precise trigger distance for any height of wind turbine

or pylon (including structures higher than 100 m). When the proposed height of a wind turbine or

pylon is known, the distance at which its apparent height would be around 7.5 cm can be worked

out as illustrated in Appendix 6. This formula can be used to work out and agree trigger

distances for each individual scheme.

5.7 It is important to reinforce the fact that in addition to the above there are a number of modifying

factors which may affect the assessment of the scale of visual impact by reducing or increasing it

(refer Table 4.4). These will all need to be taken into consideration in the establishment of an

agreed offset distance for carrying out a residential visual amenity assessment.


FINAL REPORT Page i

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Backclothing When a structure such as a wind turbine or pylon is seen against a solid backdrop such as vegetation or landform

Background The background or backdrop against which a structure such as a wind turbine or pylon is viewed

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ES Environmental Statement

GIS Geographical Information System

GLVIA3 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, published jointly by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013.

LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

Magnitude* A term that combines judgements about the size and scale of the effect. The extent of the area over which is occurs, whether it is reversible or irreversible and whether it is short or long term in duration.

Receptor Physical or perceptual landscape resource, special interest, viewer group or individuals that may be affected by a proposal.

Residential Receptor

People living in a private residential property

Residential Visual Amenity*

A collective term describing the views and general amenity of a residential property, relating to the garden area and main drive, views to and from the house and the relationship of the outdoor garden space to the house.

Scale Indicators* Landscape elements and features of a known or recognisable scale such as houses, trees and vehicles that may be compared to other objects where the scale of height is less familiar, to indicate their true scale.

Scale of Visual Impact

The size of an impact

Skylined / Skylining

When a structure such as a wind turbine or pylon is seen against the sky

Sensitivity* A term applied to specific receptors, combining judgements of the susceptibility of the receptor to the specific type of change or development proposed and the value related to that receptor.

SSA Strategic Search Area

Susceptibility The ability of a defined landscape or visual receptor to accommodate the specific proposed development without undue negative consequences.

TAN 8 Technical Advice Note 8

Type or Nature of Effect

Whether an effect is direct or indirect, temporary or permanent, positive (beneficial), neutral or negative (adverse) or cumulative.

Visual Amenity* The overall pleasantness of the views people enjoy of their surroundings which provide an attractive visual setting or backdrop for the enjoyment of activities of the people living, working and recreating, visiting or travelling through an area.

Visual Impact Impacts on specific views and on the general visual amenity experienced by people (these can be adverse, neutral or beneficial)

Note: Descriptions marked with an asterisk are identical to those provided in the Third Edition Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment glossary or text.


FINAL REPORT Page ii

REFERENCES

ClimateXChange and the University of Dundee (Sept 2013) Review of the 2Km separation distance between areas of search for onshore wind farms and the edge of cities, towns and villages. Scottish Government Commissioned Report

Gillespies (2014) Isle of Anglesey, Gwynedd & Snowdonia National Park, Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Assessment

Holford Rules with National Grid Company (NGC) 1992 and Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Limited (SHETL) 2003 notes

Knight R. (July 2012) ‘Residential Visual Amenity Assessment: Its Place in EIA’, IEMA, published by the Environmentalist Online

Landscape Institute and Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (2013)

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, Routledge

Landscape Institute (March 2011) Advice Note 01/11: Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment

National Assembly for Wales (2008) Answers issued to Members on 21 January 2008, WAQ50841 http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-home/bus-chamber/bus-chamber-third-

assembly-written.htm?act=dis&id=71535&ds=1/2008

Scottish Government (February 2010) Scottish Planning Policy

Scottish Government (April 2013) Draft Scottish Planning Policy for Consultation

University of Newcastle (2002) Visual Assessment of Windfarms Best Practice. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA303A

Welsh Assembly Government (2005) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8: Planning for Renewable Energy

Welsh Assembly Government (June 2012) Response to Petitions Committee

Scottish and Southern Energy (November 2009) Proposed Beauly to Denny 400kV Overhead Transmission Line Environmental Statement (ES) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Infrastructure/Energy-

Consents/Beauly-Denny-Index/Environmental-Statement

Note: Other reference sources are included within Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.



http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-home/bus-chamber/bus-chamber-third-assembly-written.htm?act=dis&id=71535&ds=1/2008

http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-home/bus-chamber/bus-chamber-third-assembly-written.htm?act=dis&id=71535&ds=1/2008

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Infrastructure/Energy-Consents/Beauly-Denny-Index/Environmental-Statement

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Infrastructure/Energy-Consents/Beauly-Denny-Index/Environmental-Statement


Page 1

APPENDICES


Page 2

Appendix 1 : Summary Review of Legislation, Policy

and Guidance

Wind Turbines & Pylons Guidance on the Application of Separation Distances from Residential Properties

FINAL REPORT APPENDIX 1 – Page 1

Authority/Document/ Year/Reference

Development type

Recommended Separation Distances – Summary

Recommended Separation Distances – Detailed Guidance

Review of National Planning Policy and Guidance Wales: Technical Advice Note 8(iii)

Wind Turbines 500m on the grounds of noise

‘500 metres is currently considered a typical separation distance between a wind turbine and residential property to avoid unacceptable noise impacts. However, when applied in a rigid manner it can lead to conservative results and so some flexibility is advised.’

Welsh Government Response to Petitions Committee June 2012

Wind Turbines 500m maintained as guidance distance but reiterated should not be applied rigidly

‘Welsh Government guidance in respect of separation distances contained in TAN 8 relates to methodological guidance for local planning authorities in refining the boundaries of Strategic Search Areas and remains unchanged. In this context TAN 8 states that "500m is currently considered a typical separation distance between a wind turbine and residential property to avoid unacceptable noise impacts, however when applied in a rigid manner it can lead to conservative results and so some flexibility is advised", we would therefore expect separation distances to be determined locally based upon the rigorous assessment of local impacts. The Welsh Government expects decisions on planning applications to respect Welsh planning policy as set out in Planning Policy Wales (PPW) and TAN 8: Renewable Energy. The Welsh Government believes that a rigid minimum separation distance could unnecessarily hinder the development of renewable energy projects in Wales. We have taken the consistent view that the issue of separation distances between residential premises and wind turbines is best determined locally on a case-by-case basis, taking on board locally sensitive issues such as topography, local wind speeds and directions as well as the important considerations of visual and cumulative impacts.’

Scottish Planning Policy PAN 45, 2002 (Planning Advice Note) Subsequently revoked. See below

Wind Turbines 2km ‘Separation distance of up to 2km between areas of search and the edge of cities, towns and villages is recommended to guide developments to the most appropriate sites and to reduce visual impact, but decisions on individual developments should take into account specific local circumstances and geography. Development plans should recognise that the existence of these constraints on wind farm development does not impose a blanket restriction on development, and should be clear on the extent of constraints and the factors that should be satisfactorily addressed to enable development to take place. Planning authorities should not impose additional zones of protection around areas designated for their landscape or natural heritage value.’(Para 190) Effect of turbines Distance Effect Up to 2km Likely to be a prominent

feature 2-5km Relatively prominent 5-15km Only prominent in clear

visibility – seen as part of the wider landscape

15-30km Only seen in very clear visibility – a minor element in the landscape

Scottish Government Online Renewables advice: Onshore Wind Turbines (2013) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-Planning-Policy/themes/renewables/Onshore

Wind Turbines 2km Separation Distances: ‘Paragraph 190 of the SPP refers to a guideline separation distance of up to 2km between areas of search for groups of wind turbines and the edge of towns, cities and villages, to reduce visual impact. However, this 2km separation distance is a guide not a rule and decisions on individual developments should take into account specific local circumstances and geography.’ (page 7)

Scottish Planning Policy – Consultation Draft (2013)

Wind Turbines 2.5km

Consultation draft proposed increasing separation distance from 2km to 2.5km: ‘Community separation: a separation distance of up to 2.5 km is recommended between wind farms and cities, towns and villages identified in the local development plan. This is to




Development type



Review of National Planning Policy and Guidance

reduce visual impact but decisions on individual developments should take into account specific local circumstances and geography. The guidelines should not be used to mitigate against noise and shadow flicker that will normally be subject to separate development management considerations.’ (para 218) Following responses to the consultation, further research was commissioned (see University of Dundee report below) The revised SPP is due to be published in June 2014 which will set out the revised (if any) planning guidance in relation to separation distances.

Review of the 2 km Separation Distance Between Areas of Search for Onshore Wind Farms and the Edge of Cities, Towns and Villages Prepared for Scottish Government by University of Dundee (2013)

Wind Turbines Two options proposed – the first to retain the existing 2km separation distance or secondly to remove reference to it from Scottish Planning Policy Revised Planning Policy containing the outcome of this decision due 2014

‘While some conjectural allusion is made to the provenance of the 2km criterion in the SPP (Scottish Government, 2010), we nevertheless conclude that no definitive evidence was found to establish the provenance of the criterion; neither was a justification or rationale found for it being 2km; nor the precise size of wind turbines upon which the criterion was based. While a seemingly logical approach for increasing the separation distance to 2.5km exists… it is questionable to suggest that subjective aspects of visual impacts are directly proportional to physical distance.’ It is generally acknowledged that the existence of clear planning policies and guidelines is correlated to the successful deployment of wind turbines. There is thus an argument for either 1) given existing public acceptance, retaining the existing 2km separation distance as a criterion in identifying spatial frameworks for wind energy in Scotland but with clear definitions of relevant terms or; 2) removing the 2km distance from SPP altogether although retaining reference to visual impact as a criterion.’ (section 7)

Companion Guide to PPS22: Renewable Energy

Wind Turbines Height of turbine plus 10% ‘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 separation distance.’ (paragraph 51).

Northern Ireland: Planning Policy Statement: Related to wind farm development proximity to occupied dwellings. Wind Turbines: Planning and Separation Distances (2013)

10 times rotor diameter, but not less than 500m

In Northern Ireland, there is no statutory separation distances stipulated in legislation. Recommendations or suggestions for separation are made through planning policy and guidance. Planning policy and guidance influence and inform decisions made on applications, therefore it is good practice for a developer to adhere to the recommendations made, however, they are not obligated. Planning Policy Statement 18 (PPS18) suggests that turbines are a safe technology and that even in the rare event of structural damage occurring incidents of blade throw are most unlikely. Distances are calculated on the basis of noise levels so as to reduce nuisance: NIAR 767-13 Research Paper Northern Ireland Assembly, Research and Information Service. The minimum desirable distance between wind turbines and occupied buildings calculated on the basis of expected noise levels and visual impact will usually 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 separation distance. The Department of the Environment’s best practice guidance on PPS18 goes on to state that: As a matter of best practice for wind farm development, the Department will generally apply a separation distance of 10 times rotor diameter to occupied property (with a minimum distance of not less than 500m). (Section 2.1 - Wind Turbines: Planning and Separation Distances (2013))




Development type



Review of National Planning Policy and Guidance Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill [House of Lords] 2010-12

Wind Turbines Turbine height

Separation distance

Reached a Second Reading in June 2011 the Bill was discontinued and will make no further progress. Made provision for a minimum distance between wind turbines and residential premises according to the size of the wind turbine.

25-50m 1000m 50-100m

1500m

100-150m

2000m

>150m 3000m

Onshore Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation) Bill [House of Commons] 2010-12

Wind Turbines Ten turbine rotor diameters The Bill had its first reading in November 2010 but subsequently failed to complete its passage through Parliament before the end of the session and therefore will make no further progress. It sought to give powers to local authorities to specify in their neighbourhood development plans a 'recommended best practice set-back distance' between onshore wind turbines and habitations.

Wind Turbines (Minimum Distance from Residential Premises) Bill [House of Lords] 2012-13

Wind Turbines Re-introduction of the earlier Bill was given its first reading in May 2012.

‘It has been mooted that a private members bill may result in mandatory minimum distances between turbines and dwellings. However at the present time this does not form part of Government policy and whether such measures would be enshrined in legislation is not known. The matter cannot therefore carry weight […..]’ APP/U2615/A/10/2131105 (November 2010)

The Local Government Association (LGA) Feb 2011

Wind Turbines 600-800m for large wind turbines

‘a setback distance of at least 600 – 800 metres from residential properties for large wind turbines. This may be reduced for smaller projects. Other land uses, including non-residential buildings and agriculture, can still be accommodated in this zone’. Section titled: designated areas and approximate setback distances.

Planning For Renewable Energy – A Companion Guide to PPS22, 2004

Wind Turbines 350m on grounds of Noise Suggests separation distance of 350m




Development type



Review of Local Planning Guidance Aberdeenshire Local Plan (2012) http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/planning/finalised/

Wind Turbines Minimum of 400m on grounds of ice throw, shadow flicker, shadow throw and visual intrusion

Policy inf/7 (g): g) the proposal is sited to minimize adverse impact on the safety or amenity of any regularly occupied buildings and the grounds which they occupy - with regard to: ice throw in winter conditions, shadow flicker and shadow throw, visual intrusion, and the likely effect of noise generation. It is not anticipated that, taking into account all these factors, development would be less than 400m from the nearest dwelling and it is possible that a greater separation distance will be required;

Allerdale Wind Turbine Separation Distance Topic Paper

Wind Turbines 800m for turbines over 25m ‘…the policy sets out a minimum separation distance of 800m between wind turbines (over 25m) and residential properties.

Camarthenshire Local Development Plan 2006-2021 (2011) http://www.carmarthenshire.gov.uk/english/environment/planning/planning%20policy%20and%20development%20plans/local%20development%20plan/pages/localdevelopmentplanhome.aspx

Wind Turbines 1500m (for large scale wind farms of 25 MW and over)

j) proposals will not cause an unreasonable risk or nuisance to, and impact upon the amenities of, nearby residents or other members of the public and should be located a minimum of 1500metres away from the nearest residential property (Policy RE1 Large Scale wind Power) Turbines are required to be sited a minimum of 1500 metres from the nearest residential property and shall pay due regard to the amenities of the residents and occupants of nearby properties. This requirement should reduce the potential nuisance arising from wind turbine operation, noise, shadow flicker, safety risk, radio or telecommunications interference. No turbine should cause demonstrable harm to the amenity of any resident. Proposals that would result in unacceptable nuisance arising from wind turbine operation, noise, shadow flicker, safety risk, radio, telecommunications or aviation interference will not be permitted. (para 6.7.12)

Cherwell: Planning Guidance on the Residential Amenity Impacts of Wind urbine Development (2011)

http://modgov.cherwell.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=8812

Wind Turbines 800m or no less than 3 times turbine height (to tip).

‘Normally a minimum of 800m from dwellings. No less than 3 times turbine height (ground to blade tip). Settlements of more than 10 dwellings should not normally have turbines in more than 90 degrees of their field of view for a distance of 5km Individual dwellings should not normally have turbines in more than 180 degrees of their field of view for a distance of 10km

Fenland District Council Wind Turbine Development Policy Guidance Incorporating Revisions following Public Consultation (2009)

Wind Turbines 400m ‘Proposals within 400m of settlement are highly unlikely to be considered acceptable in visual terms, unless existing features can be proven to fully screen views of the turbines, which otherwise would be dominant features and overpower sensitive receptors including residential locations. Proposals within 2km of settlement will need to be carefully considered as turbines are highly likely to be prominent features and command/control views for sensitive viewers, including residential properties, within this range. Existing features including built form and vegetation may be able to locally reduce visual impacts of turbines within this range.’ (para 6.2)

Highland Renewable Energy Strategy (2006) http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourenvironment/planning/energyplanning/renewbleenergy/highlandrenewableenergystrategy.htm

Wind Turbines 1km S.1 Devices should be positioned far enough away from residential areas and working places to avoid direct nuisance and disturbance. S. 2 Devices should be positioned so as to maintain at least a one km separation zone between dwellings and wind turbines S.3 The positioning of devices should also reflect the aesthetics of particular views. Developments should not take place in widely acknowledged and particularly important views, i.e. those generally valued by residents for their lack of other development influences such as wires, poles, signs, buildings, vehicles, or commercial forestry.




Development type



Review of Local Planning Guidance Huntingdonshire District Council Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact of Wind Turbines in Huntingdonshire (2013)

Wind Turbines Guidance provided in relation to dominant, prominent, conspicuous, apparent, inconspicuous and negligible zones. First three categories reproduced over. (Para 4.25)

Magnitude of Impact/Height of Turbine

<30m 30-69m 70-99m 100-129m 130-c.150m

Dominant <400m <600m <800m <1km <1.2km Prominent <750m <1.5km <1.75km < 2km <2.5km Conspicuous 750m-

1.5km 1-5-3km 1.75 -4km 2-5km 2.5- 6km

Lincolnshire County Council Wind Energy Position Statement (2012) http://www.stopwestpinchbeckwindfarm.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Lincs-Wind-Farm-Position-Statement1.pdf

Wind Turbines 700m 2km if there are noise issues

‘No wind turbine developments shall be constructed in close proximity of a residential property (the accepted distance for separation is 700 metres) however, noise and amplitude modulation issues can be present up to 2km away. Therefore, unless through assessment, it can be demonstrated that there would be acceptable noise levels within the 2km radius of a residential property, the minimum distance should be 2km: No wind turbines shall be constructed within a distance of a factor of ten times the diameter of the blades of a residential property to mitigate against flicker, unless intervening topography/structures negates the impact.’

Milton Keynes Local Plan (2002)

Wind Turbines Local Plan: Turbines over 25m required separation distance of 350m, increasing to 1km if turbines over 100m. Revised to a sliding scale of approximately 10 times height within SPD

Rutland County Council Wind Turbine Developments Supplementary Planning Document (2012) Supported by Rutland Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study – Wind Turbines (The Landscape Partnership 2012)

Wind Turbines Turbines within ‘dominant’ zone of a property or ‘prominent’ zone of a settlement unlikely to be acceptable/require careful consideration respectively. Dependant on height of turbine, dominant zone ranges from within 320m to 920m and prominent zone ranges from 920m to 2.3km

WT2 – Visual impact: ‘Wind turbine proposals within the dominant zone of any property (see Appendix 2 of this document) are unlikely to be considered acceptable in visual terms, unless existing features can be proven to fully screen views of the turbines. Wind turbine proposals within the prominent zone of a settlement (see Appendix 2 of this document) will need to be carefully considered as turbines are highly likely to be prominent features and command/control views for sensitive viewers, including residential properties, within this range. Existing features including built form and vegetation may be able to locally reduce visual impacts of turbines within this range.’ Appendix 2 : Visual Impacts of Wind Turbines Extrapolated for Different Turbine Heights: Mag-nitude of impact

Distance from Turbines

Height of turbine

Up to 50m

50-70m

71-85m

86-99m

100-130m

131- c.150m

Domin-ant

Within 320m

Within 180m

Within 575m

Within 680m

Within 800m

Within 920m

Prom-inant

320-800m

480m-1.2km

575m-1.4km

680m-1.7km

800m-2km

920m-2.3km

Torridge District Council Wind Energy Policy (2010)

Wind Turbines 600m from residential settlements/dwellings, general settlements, villages, tourist development, campsites/caravan parks and isolated dwellings

‘Torridge District Council is aware of the restrictions placed by PPS22 with regards to separation distances from wind turbines but nevertheless it would like developers to consider the application of Torridge District Council's distance recommendations. These distance proposals should be seen as a starting point for discussions. The Council seeks to safeguard the amenity of residents and the minimisation of visual impact on the landscape. It recognises that noise and visual impact assessment might allow for wind turbine locations at distances of less than 500 [stipulated for designated landscapes] and 600m [stipulated for residential dwellings and tourist developments], as in some cases, lesser separation distances might be sufficient or not required for safeguarding purposes. Site-specific measurements will therefore determine separation distances from noise sensitive properties and distance to designated landscapes will be determined by landscape and visual impact assessment.’ (para 3.4)




Development type



Review of Local Planning Guidance Wiltshire Core Strategy core policy 42 proposed change (2012) http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/planninganddevelopment/planningpolicy/wiltshirecorestrategy/wiltshirecorestrategyfocussedconsultation.htm

Wind Turbines Turbine Height

Separation Distance

‘(vii) residential amenity, including noise, odour, visual amenity and safety. Add new paragraph after paragraph 6.38 to read: Additional guidance will be prepared to support the implementation of Core Policy 42 to identify appropriate separation distances between wind turbines and residential premises in the interests of residential amenity, including safety. In the interim period, prior to the adoption of the guidance, the following minimum separation distances [1] will be applied Shorter distances may be appropriate where there is clear support from the local community. ‘ Source: Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill [HL] 2010-12’

25-50m 1000m

50-100m 1500m

100-150m 2000m

>150m 3000m

Ynys Mon Onshore Wind Energy SPG (2013)

Wind Turbines 500m or 20 times tip height (metres) – whichever is greatest

‘In the absence of guidance, this document presents the local approach to be taken towards wind turbine development in Anglesey. To ensure that local residents or tourists onto the Island do not suffer from close proximity to Medium or Large Turbines (i.e. turbines higher than 20m to tip height) the Council has introduced Minimum Separation distances for residential and tourist receptors. Table 4 below set out the separation distances that will be applied to wind turbine developments: (para 7.9.8) Table 4 Typology of turbine Minimum Separation

distance from residential or tourism properties

Medium (i.e. between 20.1m – 65m tip height)

500m or 20 times tip height (in metres) (whichever is the greatest)

Large (i.e. between 65.1m – 135m + tip height)


Page 3

Appendix 2 : Summary Review of Appeal Decisions

FINAL REPORT APPENDIX 2 – Page


Sum

mar

y R

evie

w o

f App

eal D

ecis

ions

(Sep

arat

ion

Dis

tanc

es b

etw

een

Win

d Tu

rbin

es/P

ylon

s an

d R

esid

entia

l Dw

ellin

gs)

Cas

e/R

ef/D

ate/

Dec

isio

nD

evel

opm

ent

Dis

tanc

e of

Pr

oper

ty/P

rope

rtie

s fr

om T

urbi

ne(s

)

Ove

rall

Impa

ct o

n R

esid

entia

l Vis

ual

Am

enity

Ass

essm

ent C

omm

ents

Mod

ifyin

g Fa

ctor

s

(whe

re n

oted

)

Cas

e: M

ynyd

d y

Gel

li R

ef:

APP

/Y69

30/A

/12/

2181

883

D

ate:

201

3 D

ecis

ion:

Pla

nnin

g pe

rmis

sion

gra

nted

9 no

turb

ines

11

8m to

tip

Dis

tanc

es n

ot

know

n.

Num

ber o

f se

ttlem

ents

with

vi

ews

to

deve

lopm

ent

Not

ove

rbea

ring

’… a

ny im

pact o

n v

isual a

me

nity w

ou

ld

not b

e s

o

detri

men

tal t

hat t

he s

ettle

men

ts a

nd re

side

ntia

l pro

perti

es

with

in th

em w

ould

be

wid

ely

rega

rded

by

the

pub

lic a

s b

ein

g a

n u

natt

ractive p

lace

in w

hic

h to

liv

e.’ (

pa

ra 5

7)

S

ome

clea

r vie

ws,

oth

ers

conf

ined

by

val

ley

side

s

Sca

le a

nd d

ista

nce

Cas

e: T

re If

an, B

ryns

ienc

yn

Ref

:AP

P/L

6805

/A/1

2/21

9020

8

Dat

e: 2

013

Dec

isio

n: P

lann

ing

perm

issi

on re

fuse

d (e

ffect

s on

re

side

ntia

l am

enity

not

a fa

ctor

)

1 no

turb

ine

46.1

m to

tip

‘A n

um

ber’ o

f pr

oper

ties

look

to

war

ds th

e si

te a

t a

dist

ance

of 4

50m

or

grea

ter.

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘I d

o n

ot co

nsid

er

tha

t th

e p

rop

ose

d t

urb

ine, e

ve

n in

the

case

of T

y M

awr w

hose

sitt

ing

room

win

dow

face

s to

war

ds

the

site

at a

dis

tanc

e of

abo

ut 4

70m

wou

ld h

ave

such

a

dom

inan

t pre

senc

e as

to re

duce

livi

ng c

ondi

tions

to a

n u

na

ccepta

ble

le

ve

l.’ (p

ara

26

)

Cas

e: B

urnt

hous

e Fa

rm

Ref

:AP

P/D

0515

/A/1

0/21

2373

9

Dat

e: 2

011

Dec

isio

n: P

lann

ing

perm

issi

on g

rant

ed a

nd th

is

perm

issi

on s

ubse

quen

tly

uphe

ld b

y S

ecre

tary

of S

tate

(2

011)

3 no

turb

ines

10

0m to

tip

430-

470m

N

ot o

verb

earin

g ‘I c

onsid

er

that th

ey w

ou

ld n

ot b

e s

o d

omin

ant a

s to

rend

er

the

pro

pe

rty a

n u

nple

asan

t pla

ce

to liv

e.’ (

pa

ra 2

41

)

Turb

ines

app

ear t

o th

e si

de ra

ther

th

an in

the

mid

dle

of th

e vi

ew fr

om

the

gard

en/li

ving

room

Veg

etat

ive

scre

enin

g Tr

ees

in fo

regr

ound

wou

ld a

ppea

r la

rger

than

the

turb

ines

90

0mN

ot o

verb

earin

g ‘T

he w

ide a

nd o

pen v

iew

s o

f fe

nla

nd…

are

narr

ow

ed a

t g

rou

nd

le

vel…

by t

rees. T

he

se w

ou

ld f

ram

e v

iew

s o

f th

e

turb

ines

but

bec

ause

of t

heir

dist

ance

from

the

appe

al s

ite, I

co

nsid

er th

at th

ey w

ould

not

look

ove

rwhe

lmin

g. W

hils

t th

ere

wou

ldbe

a s

igni

fican

t im

pact

, thi

s w

ould

not

am

ount

to

it b

ecom

ing a

n u

natt

ractive p

lace

to

liv

e.’ (

pa

ra 2

46

)

D

ista

nce

930m

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘With o

pen, south

-faci

ng v

iew

s fro

m li

ving

room

s an

d a

front

en

tranc

e, th

e tu

rbin

es w

ould

cha

nge

the

visu

al o

utlo

ok fo

r o

ccu

pie

rs s

ubsta

ntially

… h

ow

ever,

I c

annot fin

d that th

e

turb

ines

wou

ld re

nder

the

cotta

ge a

n un

attra

ctiv

e pl

ace

to

live

.’ (

pa

ra 2

48

)

D

ista

nce

O

ccup

y sm

all p

ropo

rtion

of t

he

pano

ram

a

800-

900m

N

ot o

verb

earin

g ‘it

[is

conte

nd

ed] th

at th

ere

wo

uld

be s

igni

fican

t add

ition

al

cum

ula

tive im

pacts

fro

m th

e F

loo

d’s

Fe

rry t

urb

ine

s s

om

e

86

0m

to

th

e e

ast. A

s illu

str

ate

d o

n…

the p

ho

tom

onta

ge

, m

ost of

the

tu

rbin

es a

t F

lood

’s F

err

y …

would

be

prom

inen

tly s

een

with

in th

e sa

me

wid

e sc

ene

as a

ll th

e tu

rbin

es a

t Bur

ntho

use

Farm

. Nev

erth

eles

s, th

ey w

ould

be

sep

ara

ted b

y a

substa

ntial tr

act

of o

pe

n fa

rmla

nd

…In

my

opin

ion

[the

prop

ertie

s] w

ould

not

be

chan

ged

to a

n u

na

ttra

ctive p

lace to

liv

e.’ (

pa

ra 2

50

)

D

ista

nce

in v

iew

Dis

tanc

e be

twee

n di

ffere

nt

deve

lopm

ents

wou

ld re

duce

cu

mul

ativ

e im

pact

Gen

eral

Com

men

t ‘G

ive

n t

he s

ma

ll sca

le n

atu

re o

f th

e d

evelo

pm

ent, s

pacin

g

of th

e tu

rbin

es, d

ista

nces

invo

lved

, orie

ntat

ion

of p

rope

rties

an

d am

enity

spa

ce a

nd o

penn

ess

of v

iew

, any

effe

cts

on

outlo

ok w

ould

not

cro

ss th

e pu

blic

inte

res t

line

her

e at

B

urn

thouse.’ (

para

123)

S

cale

of d

evel

opm

ent

S

paci

ng o

f tur

bine

s

Dis

tanc

e

O

rient

atio

n

O

penn

ess

of v

iew



Cas

e/R

ef/D

ate/

Dec

isio

n D

evel

opm

ent

Dis

tanc

e of

Pr

oper

ty/P

rope

rtie

s fr

om T

urbi

ne(s

)

Ove

rall

Impa

ct o

n R

esid

entia

l Vis

ual

Am

enity

Ass

essm

ent C

omm

ents

Mod

ifyin

g Fa

ctor

s

(whe

re n

oted

)

Cas

e: K

elm

arsh

R

ef:

APP

/Y28

10/A

/11/

2154

375

D

ate:

201

1 D

ecis

ion:

Pla

nnin

g pe

rmis

sion

gra

nted

5 no

turb

ines

12

6.5m

to ti

p.

Dis

tanc

es u

nkno

wn.

R

evie

wed

a n

umbe

r of

pro

perti

es in

de

tail.

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘Overa

ll, w

hile

the

win

d turb

ine

s w

ou

ld h

ave

a v

isu

al im

pact

that

wou

ld c

hang

e th

e liv

ing

cond

ition

s of

nea

rby

resid

ents

…th

at change w

ould

not

be h

arm

ful. A

s s

uch, I see

no d

epar

ture

from

the

requ

irem

ents

of L

P P

olic

y G

N2

or th

e ‘test’ a

pplie

d b

y p

revio

us I

nspecto

rs.’ (

pa

ra 6

0)

Ex

tent

of t

urbi

nes

with

in v

iew

Veg

etat

ive

scre

enin

g

Deg

ree

of s

epar

atio

n

Cas

e: M

ynyd

d Pw

llyrh

ebog

R

ef:

APP

/L69

40/A

/11/

2147

835

D

ate:

201

1 D

ecis

ion:

Pla

nnin

g pe

rmis

sion

gra

nted

7 no

turb

ines

11

5m to

tip

Pro

perti

es o

utsi

de o

f 2k

mN

ot o

verb

earin

g ‘In m

y o

pin

ion s

om

e o

f th

e g

reate

st eff

ects

on r

esid

en

tial

amen

ity w

ould

be

expe

rienc

ed in

and

aro

und

the

terra

ce

know

n a

s ‘F

air V

iew

’… A

lthough F

air V

iew

is o

uts

ide t

he

2Km

stu

dy ra

dius

, thi

s te

rrace

is in

an

elev

ated

pos

ition

with

un

inte

rrupt

ed v

iew

s al

ong

the

stre

et a

nd fr

om g

arde

ns

tow

ard

s t

he …

win

d fa

rm.

Th

e o

rie

nta

tion

wo

uld

be s

uch

that th

e …

tu

rbin

es w

ould

exte

nd t

he fie

ld o

f vie

w o

ccupie

d

by tu

rbin

es to

incl

ude

an a

rea

that

wou

ld o

ther

wis

e be

see

n as

ope

n gr

assl

and.

Eve

n so

, the

pro

pose

d tu

rbin

es w

ould

b

e p

rom

ine

nt,

rath

er

than d

om

ina

nt.’ (p

ara

22

)

U

nscr

eene

d vi

ews

E

leva

ted

posi

tion

O

rient

atio

n

Pro

perti

es w

ithin

c2

km.

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘Th

ere

are

re

sid

ential a

reas t

hat

are

clo

se

r to

th

e a

pp

ea

l si

te

than

Fai

r Vie

w, i

nclu

ding

the

north

ern

end

of th

e H

igh

Stre

et

in G

ilfac

h G

och

and

parts

of C

lyda

ch V

ale.

How

ever

, in

thes

e ar

eas

ther

e w

ould

be

othe

r fea

ture

s in

the

stre

et

scen

e an

d la

ndsc

ape

that

wou

ld d

raw

they

eye

from

or

scre

en th

e pr

opos

ed tu

rbi n

es.’ (

para

22)

O

ther

feat

ures

with

in v

iew

to d

raw

ey

e

Scre

enin

g

Cas

e: L

angh

am

Ref

:AP

P/D

2510

/A/1

0/21

3053

9

Dat

e: 2

011

Dec

isio

n: P

lann

ing

perm

issi

on re

fuse

d (e

ffect

s on

re

side

ntia

l am

enity

not

a fa

ctor

)

6 no

. tur

bine

s 12

7m to

tip

530m

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘… A

lth

ou

gh

[th

e t

urb

ines]

wo

uld

dra

ma

tica

lly c

ha

ng

e t

he

view

from

this

pro

perty

, I d

o no

t con

side

r tha

t the

turb

ines

w

ould

hav

e a

dom

inat

ing

impa

ct th

at w

ould

har

m th

e liv

ing

con

ditio

ns o

f re

sid

ents

.’ (

pa

ra 6

6)

V

eget

atio

n

750m

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘Som

e lo

cal r

esid

ents

mig

ht fi

nd th

e vi

ew u

nple

asan

t, bu

t th

at w

ould

not

by

itsel

f mea

n th

at th

e tu

rbin

es w

ould

be

so

over

whe

lmin

g th

at th

ey h

ad a

n op

pres

sive

effe

ct th

at

harm

ed th

e re

side

ntia

l am

enity

and

livi

ng c

ondi

tions

of t

he

occupie

rs.’ (

para

65)

V

eget

atio

n

Slim

pro

file

of tu

rbin

es -

Occ

upy

smal

l par

t of o

vera

ll ou

tlook

Par

ts o

f set

tlem

ent

at c

1100

m to

130

0m

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘Th

e tu

rbin

es w

ou

ld b

e p

rom

ine

nt fe

atu

res f

rom

the

w

indo

ws

of m

any

dwel

lings

, and

from

the

valu

ed p

rivat

e am

enity

spa

ce a

nd g

arde

nsof

loca

l res

iden

ts. H

owev

er, a

t th

ese

dist

ance

s, a

nd g

iven

the

type

of s

truct

ures

invo

lved

, th

is w

ould

not

be

suffi

cien

t to

elev

ate

the

adve

rse

visu

al

impa

ct in

to a

con

side

ratio

n th

at w

ould

sig

nific

antly

har

m th

e liv

ing

cond

ition

s of

occ

upie

rs. (

para

70)

D

ista

nce

Ty

pe o

f stru

ctur

es

Cas

e: B

aum

ber

Ref

:A

PP

/D25

10/A

/10/

2121

089

Dat

e: 2

010

Dec

isio

n: P

lann

ing

perm

issi

on re

fuse

d (e

ffect

s on

re

side

ntia

l vis

ual a

men

ity

cont

ribut

ed to

war

ds d

ecis

ion)

8 no

turb

ines

, m

in ti

p he

ight

12

5m.

17 p

rope

rties

with

in

900m

of t

urbi

nes.

C

lose

st a

t c69

8m.

Effe

cts

on re

side

ntia

l vi

sual

am

enity

wer

e no

t si

mpl

y lin

ked

to

dist

ance

; for

inst

ance

m

odify

ing

fact

ors

redu

ced

visu

al e

ffect

s fro

m c

lose

st p

rope

rty.

How

ever

, effe

cts

on

‘In t

erm

s o

f th

e v

isual im

pacts

on local re

sid

ents

tw

o

dwel

lings

wou

ld e

xper

ienc

e se

rious

adv

erse

effe

cts

with

the

prop

osed

turb

ines

app

earin

g un

plea

sant

ly o

verw

helm

ing

in

rela

tion t

o e

ach p

rop

ert

y a

s a

wh

ole

…th

e c

onse

qu

en

ces

here

wou

ld a

mou

nt to

far m

ore

than

a lo

ss o

f a v

iew

; the

ou

tcom

e w

ould

inev

itabl

y be

the

crea

tion

of u

nacc

epta

ble

livin

g c

onditio

ns.’ (

para

97

)

P

rinci

pal v

iew

s fro

m h

ouse

E

ffect

of a

rriva

l and

dep

artu

re

poin

t of h

ouse

Occ

upy

larg

e ex

tent

of t

he

view

C

ontra

st in

sca

le o

f tur

bine

s to

su

rroun

ding

bui

ldin

gs

H

eigh

t and

spr

ead



Cas

e/R

ef/D

ate/

Dec

isio

n D

evel

opm

ent

Dis

tanc

e of

Pr

oper

ty/P

rope

rtie

s fr

om T

urbi

ne(s

)

Ove

rall

Impa

ct o

n R

esid

entia

l Vis

ual

Am

enity

Ass

essm

ent C

omm

ents

Mod

ifyin

g Fa

ctor

s

(whe

re n

oted

)

two

prop

ertie

s (d

ista

nces

of 7

39m

and

70

2m) w

ere

foun

dto

be

unpl

easa

ntly

ov

erw

helm

ing

and

cre

ate

‘un

acce

ptab

le

livin

g c

onditio

ns’.

Cas

e: C

arla

nd C

ross

R

ef:

APP

/D08

40/A

/09/

2103

026

D

ate:

201

0 D

ecis

ion:

Pla

nnin

g pe

rmis

sion

gra

nted

10 n

o.

turb

ines

with

tip

hei

ght

100m

.

Pro

perti

es o

ver 1

km

away

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘…[th

ese] I co

nsid

er

much

to

o d

ista

nt to

suff

er

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y liv

ing

cond

ition

s in

con

sequ

ence

of t

he

prop

osed

turb

ines

sim

ply

bein

g v

isib

le) (

para

24)

D

ista

nce

900m

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘Th

e q

ualit

y o

f liv

ing

co

ndi

tions

cur

rent

ly e

njoy

ed h

ere

wou

ld, I

con

side

r, in

con

sequ

ence

be

dim

inis

hed

and

the

pre

se

nt occupie

rs’ e

njo

ym

en

t of

the p

rop

ert

y w

ou

ld, I

acce

pt, b

e m

uch

less

ened

. How

ever

, alth

ough

the

prop

osed

tu

rbin

es w

ould

int

rude

sig

nific

antly

into

the

plea

sant

vie

ws

ac

ross

ope

n c

ount

rysi

de fr

om th

e pr

oper

ty, i

t wou

ld s

till i

n m

y es

timat

ion

be w

idel

y he

ld t

o be

an

attra

ctiv

ely

rura

l p

lace

in w

hic

h to

liv

e.’ (

pa

ra 2

5)

O

pen

aspe

ct

La

ck o

f veg

etat

ion

as

scre

enin

g

Sin

gle

win

dow

s – n

o al

tern

ativ

e ou

tlook

600m

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘ B

lad

e tip

s m

ight

be s

een r

ota

tin

g a

bo

ve

th

e t

rees f

rom

so

uth

faci

ng w

indo

ws

in P

enha

llow

and

obl

ique

ly fr

om th

e re

ar

gard

en o

f Illg

ram

…In

neither

case w

ould

liv

ing

cond

ition

s in

my

est

imat

ion

be s

igni

fican

tly a

ffect

ed. (

para

26

)

V

eget

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

O

bliq

ue v

iew

s

400m

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘The p

resent outlook w

ould

not

much change

and e

xis

ting

livin

g co

nditi

ons

here

wou

ld, I

con

side

r, re

mai

n as

now

and

b

e s

atisfa

cto

ry.’ (

pa

ra 2

6)

E

xist

ing

view

s ac

ross

con

cret

e fil

ling

stat

ion

Exi

stin

g m

ovem

ent e

vide

nt

from

pas

sing

traf

fic

700m

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘ T

he h

igh q

ualit

y o

f th

is v

iew

w

ou

ld

un

qu

estio

na

bly

be

m

uch

dim

inis

hed

by a

n ar

ray

of tu

rbin

es ro

tatin

g in

the

…B

ein

g effectively

sandw

iched b

etw

een the r

oad a

nd the

prop

osed

turb

ines

, it s

eem

s to

me

that

som

e m

ight

rega

rd

this

as

likel

y to

bec

ome

an

unat

tract

ive

plac

e in

whi

ch t

o liv

e, a

lthou

gh I

cons

ider

that

the

prop

osed

turb

ines

are

su

ffici

ently

dis

tanc

ed a

nd fa

r eno

ugh

spac

ed t

o av

oid

that

o

pin

ion b

ein

g h

eld

b

y m

ost.

’ (p

ara

27)

D

ista

nce

S

prea

d of

turb

ines

Cas

e: M

ynyd

d Y

Gw

air

Ref

:AP

P/B

6855

/A/0

9/21

1401

3

Dat

e: 2

010

Dec

isio

n: P

lann

ing

perm

issi

on re

fuse

d (e

ffect

s on

re

side

ntia

l am

enity

not

a fa

ctor

)

19 n

o tu

rbin

es

127m

to ti

p.

With

in 2

km

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘Turb

ines w

ould

be

visi

ble

from

mos

t of t

he d

wel

lings

with

in

abou

t 2k

of th

e ne

ares

t tur

bine

s, b

ut fo

llow

ing

my

visi

ts to

th

e vi

cini

ty o

f the

se d

wel

lings

, I d

o no

t con

side

r tha

t the

vi

sual

intru

sion

at a

ny d

wel

ling

wou

ld b

e un

acce

ptab

ly

harm

ful t

o th

e vi

sual

am

enity

of t

h e o

ccupie

rs’ (p

ara

64)

Cas

e: R

oos

Ref

:AP

P/E

2001

/A/0

9/21

1307

6

9 no

126

.5m

to

tip

turb

ines

80

0mN

ot o

verb

earin

g ‘I a

ccept th

at th

e c

hang

e o

f vie

w f

rom

resid

ential p

rope

rtie

s

wou

ld b

e ob

ject

iona

ble

for m

any

who

live

in th

e ar

ea.

How

eve

r… t

he tu

rbin

es a

re u

nlik

ely

to b

e s

o v

isua

lly

Tu

rbin

es s

een

with

in c

onte

xt o

f w

ider

land

scap

e an

d sk

ylin

e

Dis

tanc

e fro

m d

wel

lings



Cas

e/R

ef/D

ate/

Dec

isio

n D

evel

opm

ent

Dis

tanc

e of

Pr

oper

ty/P

rope

rtie

s fr

om T

urbi

ne(s

)

Ove

rall

Impa

ct o

n R

esid

entia

l Vis

ual

Am

enity

Ass

essm

ent C

omm

ents

Mod

ifyin

g Fa

ctor

s

(whe

re n

oted

)

Dat

e: 2

010

Dec

isio

n: P

lann

ing

perm

issi

on g

rant

ed

dom

inan

t or o

verw

helm

ing

as to

cau

se s

ever

e ha

rm to

the

visu

al a

men

ity c

ompo

nent

of r

esid

ential am

enity.’ (

para

35)

Ta

ll str

uctu

res o

f ‘li

ttle

mass’ -

occu

py s

mal

l pro

porti

on o

f vi

ew

Veg

etat

ion/

othe

r bui

ldin

gs g

ive

scre

enin

g

Cas

e: S

illfie

ld

Ref

:A

PP

/M09

33/A

/09/

2099

304

D

ate:

201

0 D

ecis

ion:

Pla

nnin

g pe

rmis

sion

refu

sed

(effe

cts

on

resi

dent

ial v

isua

l am

enity

co

ntrib

uted

tow

ards

dec

isio

n)

3 no

turb

ines

. H

eigh

t un

know

n.

Pro

perti

es o

ver 2

km

away

‘..b

eyo

nd

th

at

range th

e turb

ines m

ight

be p

rom

ine

nt

in th

e la

ndsc

ape

but i

t is

unlik

ely

that

they

cou

ld r

easo

nabl

y be

pe

rcei

ved

from

dw

ellin

gs a

s do

min

ant a

nd in

trusi

ve;

ther

e w

ould

be

a ch

ange

to th

e vi

ew b

ut n

o di

rect

, ser

ious

har

m

to li

ving

con

ditio

ns. (

para

45)

D

ista

nce

770m

‘[T

urb

ines] sig

nific

antly

de

tract

from

livi

ng

conditio

ns’

‘ Clo

ser t

o th

e si

te v

isua

l im

pact

wou

ld b

e bo

th m

ore

dram

atic

and

sev

ere.

[fro

m th

ese

prop

ertie

s] th

e th

ree

turb

ines

wou

ld b

e in

trusi

ve in

the

open

lan

dsca

pe a

nd

dom

inant

at clo

se r

ange…

I belie

ve t

hat th

e v

isual

impa

ct

on C

ross

land

s C

otta

ge, t

he p

rinci

pal e

leva

tion

of w

hich

di

rect

ly fa

ces

the

appe

al s

ite, w

ould

sig

nific

antly

det

ract

fro

m li

ving

con

ditio

ns th

ere.

(par

a 48

)

P

artly

scr

eene

d

Dire

ct o

rient

atio

n

50. T

he in

timid

atin

g ef

fect

of t

he tu

rbin

es w

ould

in m

y op

inio

n be

par

ticul

arly

evi

dent

from

the

gard

ens

of b

oth

thes

e pr

oper

ties

but i

t wou

ld a

lso

be fe

lt ar

ound

Sillf

ield

as

a w

hole

and

par

ticul

arly

by

resi

dent

s pa

ssin

g to

and

from

thei

r pr

oper

ties

or re

laxi

ng in

gar

dens

. A

s th

e ha

mle

t is

at

pres

ent g

ener

ally

pea

cefu

l, de

spite

its

prox

imity

to th

e m

otor

way

to th

e w

est,

the

scal

e an

d m

ovem

ent o

f the

tu

rbin

es w

ould

be

parti

cula

rly d

istu

rbin

g. T

he m

otor

way

is

larg

ely

scre

ened

from

vie

w a

nd o

nly

mak

es it

s pr

esen

ce fe

lt in

low

bac

kgro

und

nois

e w

here

asth

e tu

rbin

es w

ould

be

a cl

ose,

insi

sten

t and

sev

ere

visu

al in

trusi

on.

O

rient

atio

n

Ele

vatio

n

Scre

enin

g

4 no

pro

perti

es

with

in s

ettle

men

t (of

6)

at 7

45m

, 708

m,

692m

, 744

m:

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘…w

ou

ld e

ach b

e s

cre

ene

d f

rom

direct

vie

w to

a g

rea

ter

or

less

er e

xte

nt b

y b

uild

ings,

he

dges o

r tr

ee

s.’ (

pa

ra 4

9)

S

cree

ning

from

bui

ldin

gs a

nd

vege

tatio

n

2 no

pro

perti

es

with

in s

ettle

men

t (of

6)

at 6

70m

and

68

6m

‘…m

ark

edly

detr

act

from

enj

oym

ent o

f bot

h th

e ho

use

and

its o

pen

space.’

‘Bo

th [

pro

pe

rtie

s]…

are

on h

igh

er g

roun

d [a

nd] w

ould

be

muc

h m

ore

effe

cted

...In

my

view

the

app

eara

nce

and

heig

ht o

f the

turb

ines

at c

lose

qua

rters

and

on

elev

ated

gr

ound

, and

the

mot

ion

of th

e bl

ades

, wou

ld b

e in

trusi

ve

and

intim

idat

ing

and

wou

ld m

arke

dly

detra

ct fr

om

enjo

ymen

t of b

oth

the

hous

e an

d its

ope

n s

pace

. (p

ara

49)

O

rient

atio

n

Ele

vate

d po

sitio

n of

de

velo

pmen

t

Dis

tanc

e

Mov

emen

t of b

lade

s

Set

tlem

ent o

f 6

prop

ertie

s as

not

ed

in tw

o pr

evio

us

sect

ions

(at

dist

ance

s ra

ngin

g fro

m 6

70m

to 7

45m

). G

ener

al c

omm

ent

‘intim

idatin

g e

ffect

of

the tu

rbin

es’

The

intim

idat

ing

effe

ct o

f the

turb

ines

wou

ld in

my

opi

nion

be

par

ticul

arly

evi

dent

from

the

gard

ens

of b

oth

thes

e pr

oper

ties

[at 6

70m

and

686

m] b

ut it

wou

ld a

lso

be fe

lt ar

ound

[the

set

tlem

ent]

as a

who

le a

nd p

artic

ular

ly b

y re

side

nts

pass

ing

to a

nd fr

om th

eir p

rope

rties

or r

elax

ing

in

gard

ens.

As

the

ham

let i

s at

pre

sent

gen

eral

ly p

eace

ful,

desp

ite it

s pr

oxim

ity to

the

mot

orw

ay to

the

wes

t, th

e sc

ale

Ex

istin

g pe

acef

ul lo

catio

n of

se

ttlem

ent

S

cale

of d

evel

opm

ent

M

ovem

ent o

f tur

bine

s



Cas

e/R

ef/D

ate/

Dec

isio

n D

evel

opm

ent

Dis

tanc

e of

Pr

oper

ty/P

rope

rtie

s fr

om T

urbi

ne(s

)

Ove

rall

Impa

ct o

n R

esid

entia

l Vis

ual

Am

enity

Ass

essm

ent C

omm

ents

Mod

ifyin

g Fa

ctor

s

(whe

re n

oted

)

and

mov

emen

t of t

he tu

rbin

es w

ould

be

parti

cula

rly

dist

urbi

ng.

The

mot

orw

ay is

larg

ely

scre

ened

from

vie

w a

nd

only

mak

es it

s pr

esen

ce fe

lt in

low

bac

kgro

und

nois

e w

here

as th

e tu

rbin

es w

ould

be

a cl

ose,

insi

sten

t and

sev

ere

vis

ual in

trusio

n.’ (

pa

ra 5

0)

Two

prop

ertie

s at

62

9m a

way

.

‘do

min

an

t a

nd

overb

ea

ring’

‘[T

he p

rop

ert

ies] sta

nd

in isola

tio

n o

n h

igh

gro

un

d…

fro

m

whe

re th

e tu

rbin

es w

ould

be

in fu

ll vi

ew a

cros

s lo

wer

gro

und

in th

e m

iddl

e di

stan

ce.

Alth

ough

the

prop

erty

ow

ner

acce

pted

that

the

view

was

pan

oram

ic, a

nd th

e Ap

pella

nt

argu

ed th

at th

e tu

rbin

es w

ould

onl

y fe

atur

e in

par

t of t

hat

view

, it i

s an

impo

rtant

par

t and

they

wou

ld in

evita

bly

attra

ct

atte

ntio

n th

roug

h th

eir s

ize

and

blad

e m

ovem

ent.

The

latte

r w

ould

be

parti

cula

rly d

istu

rbin

g in

that

one

turb

ine

wou

ld

ap

pe

ar

eff

ective

ly “

sta

cke

d”

be

hin

d a

noth

er.

In m

y o

pini

on,

whi

lst s

cree

ning

from

hed

ges

and

par

ts o

f the

bui

ldin

gs

wou

ld l

arge

ly c

once

al t

he tu

rbin

es fr

om v

iew

fro

m th

e st

atic

car

avan

s be

hind

the

hous

es, t

hey

wou

ld b

e in

suffi

cien

t to

prev

ent t

hem

from

app

earin

g do

min

ant a

nd

over

bear

ing

whe

n s

een

from

bot

h th

e dw

ellin

gs a

nd th

eir

imm

edia

te s

urro

undi

ngs,

in a

way

tha

t wou

ld i

nevi

tabl

y cause s

ignific

ant

harm

to liv

ing c

onditio

ns.’ (

para

51)

E

leva

ted

prop

ertie

s S

mal

l par

t of a

pan

oram

ic v

iew

Siz

e an

d m

ovem

ent

S

tack

ing

effe

ct o

f mul

tiple

tu

rbin

es

S

ome

scre

enin

g bu

t in

suffi

cien

t

Cas

e: B

ailli

e R

ef: I

EC

/3/1

05/3

D

ate:

200

9 D

ecis

ion:

Pla

nnin

g pe

rmis

sion

gra

nted

21 tu

rbin

es,

tip h

eigh

t 11

0m

6 no

hou

ses

with

in

500m

from

turb

ines

. C

lose

st a

t 250

m a

nd

300m

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘… T

he issue t

hat a

rises

her

e is

whe

ther

the

sign

ifica

nt

adve

rse

visu

al im

pact

on

loca

l res

iden

ts w

ould

be

so g

reat

a

s t

o r

en

de

r th

e d

evelo

pm

en

t u

naccepta

ble

… H

ere

, th

e

view

from

nea

rby

hous

es w

ould

not

be

lost

or w

holly

ob

stru

cted

, but

wou

ld b

e dr

amat

ical

ly a

ltere

d. T

he h

eigh

t of

the

turb

ines

and

the

rota

ting

mot

ion

of th

e bl

ades

, com

bine

d w

ith th

eir p

roxi

mity

, wou

ld re

sult

in th

e w

ind

farm

bec

omin

g a

dom

inan

t ele

men

t in

certa

in v

iew

s pa

rticu

larly

whe

n th

e w

indo

ws

of th

e pr

inci

pal r

oom

s fa

ce to

war

ds it

. Th

is e

ffect

w

ould

be

redu

ced

to s

ome

exte

nt b

y th

e lim

ited

arc

whi

ch it

o

ccupie

s in t

he w

ide o

ve

rall

field

of

vie

w.’ (

pa

ra 8

.21

)

‘…I fin

d t

hat th

e issue to

be

ad

dre

sse

d is w

heth

er

the

adve

rse

effe

cts

whi

ch w

ould

be

expe

rienc

ed b

y so

me

of th

e re

side

nts

of th

e 60

or s

o h o

uses

whi

ch a

re w

ithin

two

kilo

met

res

of th

e ne

ares

t tur

bine

s is

suf

ficie

nt to

out

wei

gh

the

wid

er p

ublic

ben

efits

whi

ch th

e de

velo

pmen

t is

desi

gned

to

ach

ieve

. In

my

judg

emen

t, on

the

mer

its o

f thi

s ca

se,

I fin

d th

at th

ese

adve

rse

effe

cts

are

not s

o gr

eata

s to

be

un

accepta

ble

’. (

pa

ra 8

.26)

M

ain

room

s/ga

rden

s di

rect

ly

orie

ntat

ed to

war

ds

deve

lopm

ent

B

road

land

scap

e se

tting

Few

hou

ses

orie

ntat

ed

tow

ards

dev

elop

men

t

Sm

all n

umbe

r of h

ouse

s in

volv

ed

Sup

port

expr

esse

d by

som

e of

th

e re

side

nts

D

ista

nce

from

turb

ines

Com

pact

layo

ut o

f win

d fa

rmD

evel

opm

ents

pos

ition

with

in

an o

pen

land

scap

e C

apac

ity o

f the

land

scap

e to

ac

com

mod

ate

a w

ind

farm

Cas

e: B

eech

tree

R

ef:

APP

/K11

28/A

/08/

2072

150

D

ate:

200

9

3 no

win

d tu

rbin

es

100m

to ti

p.

500m

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘Th

e p

rop

osal w

ould

ha

ve a

sig

nific

an

t eff

ect

on the

ou

tlo

ok

fro

m th

e [p

rop

ert

y a

nd

] …

I h

ave

no d

ou

bt th

at th

is w

ould

fu

ndam

enta

lly c

hang

e th

e ou

tlook

from

this

pro

perty

. A

la

ndsc

apin

g sc

hem

e m

ight

hel

p to

am

elio

rate

par

ticul

ar

lines

of s

ight

from

cer

tain

win

dow

s, b

ut it

wou

ld n

ot s

cree

n ou

t vie

ws

of th

e tu

rbin

es w

ithou

t cre

atin

g a

shad

ed a

nd

To

p of

bla

des

110m

abo

ve

prop

erty

M

ain

elev

atio

n w

ould

dire

ctly

fa

ce th

e de

velo

pmen

t

Mai

n vi

ews

affe

cted

(liv

ing

room

, mai

n be

droo

m, g

arde

n)



Cas

e/R

ef/D

ate/

Dec

isio

n D

evel

opm

ent

Dis

tanc

e of

Pr

oper

ty/P

rope

rtie

s fr

om T

urbi

ne(s

)

Ove

rall

Impa

ct o

n R

esid

entia

l Vis

ual

Am

enity

Ass

essm

ent C

omm

ents

Mod

ifyin

g Fa

ctor

s

(whe

re n

oted

)

Dec

isio

n: P

lann

ing

perm

issi

on re

fuse

d (e

ffect

s on

re

side

ntia

l am

enity

not

a fa

ctor

)

cla

ustr

op

ho

bic

am

enity s

pa

ce f

or

th

e

occu

pie

rs…

Th

e

occu

pier

s of

this

pro

perty

wou

ld c

erta

inly

be

cons

tant

ly

awar

e of

the

pres

ence

of s

uch

high

, mov

ing

stru

ctur

es.

How

ever

, the

turb

ines

wou

ld b

e sl

ende

r stru

ctur

es, a

nd I

do

not b

elie

ve th

at th

ey w

ould

, at t

his

dist

ance

and

hei

ght,

have

an

over

bear

ing

or d

omin

atin

g im

pact

that

wou

ld h

arm

th

e re

side

ntia

l am

enity

that

the

occu

pier

s of

[the

pro

perty

] co

uld

reas

onab

ly e

xpec

t in

this

rura

l agr

icul

tura

l set

ting.

A

larg

e bu

lky

stru

ctur

e cl

ose

to a

dw

ellin

g, w

hich

gav

e it

an

encl

osed

feel

mig

ht h

ave

such

an

effe

ct, b

ut th

at is

not

the

case

her

e. M

y ju

dgem

ent i

s th

at th

e ap

peal

sch

eme

wou

ld

not h

ave

an u

nacc

epta

ble

effe

ct o

n th

e liv

ing

cond

ition

s of

th

e o

ccupie

rs o

f [t

he p

rop

ert

y]…

by r

ea

so

n o

f its a

dvers

e

vis

ual im

pact. ‘(p

ara

31)

C

onst

ant a

war

enes

s of

hig

h m

ovin

g st

ruct

ures

Sle

nder

stru

ctur

es

D

ista

nce

and

heig

ht

A

gric

ultu

ral s

ettin

g

Cas

e: E

nife

r Dow

ns

Ref

:AP

P/X

2220

/A/0

8/20

7188

0 D

ate:

200

9 D

ecis

ion:

Pla

nnin

g pe

rmis

sion

refu

sed

(effe

cts

on re

side

ntia

l vis

ual

amen

ity c

ontri

bute

d to

war

ds

deci

sion

)

5 no

. tu

rbin

es.

120m

to ti

p.

C 3

60m

‘U

nple

asa

ntly

over

whe

lmin

g an

d unavoid

able

’

‘ my

impr

essi

on is

that

the

visu

al e

xper

ienc

e of

the

occu

pier

s fro

m th

e m

ain

livin

g ro

oms

and

gard

en o

f the

ir pr

oper

ty w

ould

be

com

para

ble

to li

ving

act

ually

with

in th

e tu

rbin

e c

luste

r…I consid

er

that th

e lo

om

ing p

resence o

f ro

tatin

g tu

rbin

es o

f the

hei

ght p

ropo

sed

wou

ld b

e u

np

leasan

tly o

ve

rwh

elm

ing

an

d u

na

vo

ida

ble

…’ (p

ara

67

)

Tu

rbin

es s

prea

d fu

lly a

cros

s th

e ou

tlook

Upw

ard

tilt o

f the

hea

d re

quire

d to

see

the

blad

e tip

s

Pro

perti

es c

510

m to

80

0m‘U

nple

asa

ntly

overw

helm

ing’

‘The

occ

upie

rs o

f the

se p

rope

rties

too

wou

ld b

e fa

ced

with

th

e un

avoi

dabl

e an

d, in

my

estim

atio

n, u

nple

asan

tly

over

whe

lmin

g pr

esen

ce o

f rot

atin

g tu

rbin

es s

prea

ding

bot

h ho

rizon

tally

and

ver

tical

ly a

cros

s a

subs

tant

ial p

ropo

rtion

of

thei

r mai

n ou

twar

d fie

ld o

f vie

w. B

y co

mpa

ring

the

turb

ine

spac

ing

to th

e di

stan

ce fr

om th

ese

prop

ertie

s, I

agai

n lik

en

that

to c

onve

ying

the

impr

essi

on o

f liv

ing

in o

r at a

win

d fa

rm,

rath

er

tha

n s

imp

ly h

avin

g a

tu

rbin

e c

luste

r clo

se

by.’

(par

a 68

)

Tu

rbin

es s

prea

d fu

lly a

cros

s ou

tlook

Set

tlem

ent c

800

m

to 1

km‘V

isually

invasiv

e’

‘…th

e o

utlook f

rom

the w

hole

of th

is s

mall

com

munity w

oul

d be

dom

inat

ed b

y th

eir u

navo

idab

le p

rese

nce,

whe

ther

see

n as

a c

ompl

ete

clus

ter,

indi

vidu

ally

or j

ust i

n gl

imps

es o

f m

ovin

g bl

ades

. In

this

cas

e it

is th

e sp

read

of t

he tu

rbin

es

rath

er th

an th

eir h

eigh

t tha

t wou

ld, i

n m

y ju

dgm

ent,

be s

o vi

sual

ly in

vasi

v e a

s to

mak

e th

e se

ttlem

ent a

less

sa

tisfa

ctor

y pl

ace

in w

hich

to li

ve th

an it

is n

ow. (

para

69)

S

prea

d of

turb

ines

650m

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘Th

ere

are

som

e in

div

idua

l p

rop

ert

ies c

lose

r o

r e

qu

ally

clo

se

to tu

rbin

es th

at I

judg

e w

ould

be less a

ffecte

d…

[the tu

rbin

es

wou

ld] a

ppea

r muc

h m

ore

tight

ly g

roup

ed, a

nd th

us le

ss

intr

usiv

e in

th

e v

iew

.’ (

pa

ra 7

0)

G

roup

ing

of tu

rbin

es –

effe

cts

the

exte

nt o

f spr

ead

acro

ss

outlo

ok

Gen

eral

con

clus

ion

‘livin

g c

onditio

ns w

ould

be

dem

onst

rabl

y harm

ed’

‘…in

th

ose c

ases th

at I h

ave id

entifie

d w

here

th

e f

ull

heig

ht

and

max

imum

spr

ead

of tu

rbin

es in

the

num

bers

pro

pose

d w

ould

be

seen

at t

heir

grea

test

from

clo

sest

to (t

ypic

ally

at

up to

abo

ut 8

00 m

), an

d w

ith li

ttle

or n

othi

ng b

y w

ay o

f in

terv

enin

g sc

reen

ing,

it is

my

conc

lusi

on th

at li

ving

H

eigh

t and

spr

ead

of tu

rbin

es

with

in v

iew

Lack

of s

cree

ning



Cas

e/R

ef/D

ate/

Dec

isio

n D

evel

opm

ent

Dis

tanc

e of

Pr

oper

ty/P

rope

rtie

s fr

om T

urbi

ne(s

)

Ove

rall

Impa

ct o

n R

esid

entia

l Vis

ual

Am

enity

Ass

essm

ent C

omm

ents

Mod

ifyin

g Fa

ctor

s

(whe

re n

oted

)

cond

ition

s w

ould

be

dem

onst

rabl

y ha

rmed

by

sign

ifica

nt

and

over

-dom

inan

t vis

ual i

mpa

ct. T

here

wou

ld b

e co

nflic

t w

ith th

e re

leva

nt S

P a

nd L

P p

olic

ies

safe

guar

ding

aga

inst

un

-nei

ghbo

urly

dev

elop

men

t whe

ther

from

noi

se, f

licke

r or

visu

al im

pact

. (pa

ra 7

1)

Cas

e: G

orse

dd B

ran

Ref

:AP

P/R

6830

/A/0

8/20

7492

1

Dat

e: 2

009

Dec

isio

n: P

lann

ing

perm

issi

on re

fuse

d (e

ffect

s on

re

side

ntia

l vis

ual a

men

ity

cont

ribut

ed to

war

ds d

ecis

ion)

13 tu

rbin

es

125m

to ti

p 10

pro

perti

es,

dist

ance

s un

know

n ‘O

verb

ea

rin

g’

‘It

was s

uggeste

d th

at as t

urb

ines b

ecom

e ta

ller

the

appr

opria

te s

epar

atio

n di

stan

ce b

etw

een

turb

ines

and

dw

ellin

gs s

houl

d al

so in

crea

se. I

n m

y vi

ew th

ere

is n

o sp

ecifi

c di

stan

ce a

t whi

ch tu

rbin

es a

re to

o cl

ose.

It a

ll de

pend

s on

the

circ

umst

ance

s. In

my

view

they

are

too

clos

e w

hen

the

heig

ht, s

ize

of s

wep

t are

a, a

nd re

lativ

e el

evat

ion

of th

e tu

rbin

es is

suc

h th

at th

ey a

ppea

r un

acce

ptab

ly o

verb

earin

g w

hen

view

ed fr

om a

dw

ellin

g or

its im

med

iate

surr

ou

nd

ing

s.’ (

pa

ra 1

0)

‘…F

rom

at le

ast a

ll th

ese p

rop

ert

ies th

e v

iew

s o

f th

e

turb

ines

wou

ld b

e su

ch th

at th

e pr

esen

ce o

f suc

h la

rge

turb

ines

loca

ted

on th

e el

evat

ed a

ppea

l site

wou

ld b

e ov

erbe

arin

g. (p

ara

14)

S

ettin

g of

dw

ellin

g

Vis

ibilit

y of

turb

ines

from

ga

rden

and

app

roac

h to

hou

se

E

leva

tion

Cas

e: S

ixpe

nny

Woo

d R

ef:

APP

/E20

01/A

/09/

2101

851

Dat

e: 2

009

Dec

isio

n: P

lann

ing

perm

issi

on g

rant

ed

10 n

o tu

rbin

es

125m

tip

heig

ht

Gen

eral

Com

men

t ‘…

the

re is n

o r

igh

t to

a v

iew

pe

r se, a

nd

any

ass

essm

ent o

f vi

sual

intru

sion

lead

ing

to a

find

ing

of m

ater

ial h

arm

mus

t th

eref

ore

invo

lve

extra

fact

ors

such

as

undu

e ob

trusi

vene

ss,

or a

n ov

erbe

arin

g im

pact

, lea

ding

to a

dim

inut

ion

of

cond

ition

s at

the

rele

vant

pro

perty

to a

n un

acce

ptab

le

de

gre

e.’ (p

ara

32)

Min

imum

600

m

‘Th

e o

ccu

pa

nts

of

[th

e d

we

llin

gs c

losest to

th

e

de

velo

pm

en

t]…

wou

ld b

e t

he m

ost se

rio

usly

aff

ecte

d b

y t

he

de

velo

pmen

t. It

was

cle

ar to

me

that

the

turb

ines

wou

ld b

e ve

ry p

rom

inen

t in

view

s fro

m th

ose

prop

ertie

s...B

ut th

at

prom

inen

ce d

oes

not n

eces

saril

y eq

uate

to h

arm

. The

re

wou

ld, o

fco

urse

, be

a si

gnifi

cant

cha

nge

in th

e vi

ew fr

om th

ose

prop

ertie

s. T

he o

utlo

okw

ould

cha

nge

from

an

aspe

ct g

ener

ally

acr

oss

open

fiel

ds

to a

n ou

tlook

inw

hich

turb

ine

or tu

rbin

es w

ould

be

the

maj

or fe

atur

e w

ithin

th

e la

ndsc

ape.

Ica

n w

ell a

ppre

ciat

e th

at m

any

wou

ld fi

nd th

at a

ser

ious

di

min

utio

n of

thei

rou

tlook

, tho

ugh

acce

pt th

at o

ther

s w

ould

find

them

ac

cept

able

and

attr

activ

e.

…it is m

y judgem

ent th

at g

iven [th

e] spacin

g a

nd

co

nfig

urat

ion,

the

turb

ines

wou

ld n

ot b

e so

dom

inan

t tha

t th

ey w

ould

intro

duce

una

ccep

tabl

e ob

trusi

vene

ss, b

e ov

erbe

arin

g to

the

poin

t of o

ppre

ssiv

enes

s, o

r oth

erw

ise

lead

to v

isua

l int

rusi

on w

hich

wou

ld a

mou

nt to

sig

nific

ant

ha

rm t

o liv

ing

co

nd

itio

ns.’ (

pa

ras 3

3-3

5)

S

lim p

rofil

e of

turb

ines

Spa

cing

of t

urbi

nes

The

land

scap

e st

ill a

maj

or

horiz

onta

l com

pone

nt o

f the

vi

ew



Cas

e/R

ef/D

ate/

Dec

isio

n D

evel

opm

ent

Dis

tanc

e of

Pr

oper

ty/P

rope

rtie

s fr

om T

urbi

ne(s

)

Ove

rall

Impa

ct o

n R

esid

entia

l Vis

ual

Am

enity

Ass

essm

ent C

omm

ents

Mod

ifyin

g Fa

ctor

s

(whe

re n

oted

)

Cas

e: W

adlo

w– S

ecre

tary

of

Sta

te D

ecis

ion

Ref

:AP

P/W

0530

/A/0

7/20

5947

1

Dat

e: 2

009

Dec

isio

n: P

lann

ing

perm

issi

on g

rant

ed a

nd th

is

perm

issi

on s

ubse

q uen

tly

uphe

ld b

y S

ecre

tary

of S

tate

(2

009)

13 n

o tu

rbin

es

120m

to ti

p

Num

ber o

f se

ttlem

ents

, clo

sest

be

ing

2km

from

de

velo

pmen

t.

Exa

min

ed n

umbe

r of

prop

ertie

s, c

lose

st

bein

g 80

0 -82

0m

from

dev

elop

men

t.

Not

ove

rbea

ring

‘Vis

ual im

pact o

n in

div

idu

al bu

ildin

gs is

als

o un

likel

y at

di

stan

ces

of m

ore

than

1 k

m, w

here

resi

dent

ial a

men

ities

w

ill n

ot b

e af

fect

ed to

suc

h an

ext

ent t

hat o

ccup

atio

n of

dw

elli

ngs b

ecom

es im

possib

le for

a “

reasonable

pers

on”

…In

deed

, una

ccep

tabl

e vi

sual

dom

inan

ce is

unl

ikel

y to

occ

ur

at d

ista

nces

muc

h be

yond

650

-700

m w

here

as h

ere

the

two

near

est p

rope

rties

are

in th

e 80

0m-8

20m

rang

e. (P

AR

A 9.2

6)’

‘…Lik

ew

ise, I d

o n

ot consid

er

that sim

ply

bein

g a

ble

to

see

a tu

rbin

e or

turb

ines

from

a p

artic

ular

win

dow

or p

art o

f the

ga

rden

of a

hou

se is

suf

ficie

nt re

ason

to fi

nd th

e vi

sual

im

pact

una

ccep

tabl

e (e

ven

thou

gh a

par

ticul

ar o

ccup

ier

mig

ht fi

nd it

obj

ectio

nabl

e). N

onet

hele

ss, w

hen

turb

ines

are

pr

esen

t in

such

num

ber,

size

and

pro

xim

ity th

at th

ey

repr

esen

t an

unpl

easa

ntly

ove

rwhe

lmin

g an

dun

avoi

dabl

e pr

esen

ce in

mai

n vi

ews

from

a h

ouse

or g

arde

n, o

r are

lik

ely

to c

ause

ove

rsha

dow

ing

(and

par

ticul

arly

flic

ker

effe

cts)

, the

re is

eve

ry li

kelih

ood

that

the

prop

erty

co

ncer

ned

wou

ld c

ome

to b

e w

idel

y re

gard

ed a

s an

un

attra

ctiv

e (ra

ther

than

sim

p ly

less

attr

activ

e, b

ut n

ot

nece

ssar

ily u

ninh

abita

ble)

pla

ce in

whi

ch to

live

. It i

s no

t in

the

publ

ic in

tere

st to

cre

ate

such

livi

ng c

ondi

tions

whe

re

they

did

not

exi

st b

efor

e, a

nd it

is a

gain

st th

at th

resh

old

that

I

ha

ve a

ssessed th

e e

ffects

on o

utlo

ok.’(p

ara

12.3

4)

To

pogr

aphy

Ele

vatio

n

Veg

etat

ive

scre

enin

g

Vis

ibilit

y fro

m p

rinci

pal

resi

dent

ial w

indo

ws

La

rge

skyl

ines

Dire

ctne

ss o

f vie

w

Cas

e: S

t Joh

ns H

ill

Ref

: P/P

PN

110/

634

D

ate:

200

7 D

ecis

ion:

Pla

nnin

g pe

rmis

sion

gra

nted

9 no

turb

ines

10

0m to

tip

Clo

sest

c. 4

00m

N

ot o

verb

earin

g ‘ It is r

ecepto

rs to t

he n

ort

h a

nd w

est of

the s

ite a

nd

a fe

w

with

in th

e si

te w

hich

wou

ld b

e m

ost l

ikel

y to

rece

ive

sign

ifica

nt v

isua

l effe

cts,

incl

udin

g so

me

dire

ct v

iew

s of

the

win

dfar

m.

Thes

e ar

e lo

cate

d in

an

open

land

scap

e w

here

th

e tu

rbin

es w

ould

app

ear l

ess

dom

inan

t tha

n in

a m

ore

en

clo

se

d o

r in

tim

ate

scale

of

lan

dsca

pe

.’

M

ost p

rope

rties

orie

ntat

ed

away

from

dev

elop

men

t

Bui

ldin

gs a

ct a

s sc

reen

ing

O

pen

land

scap

e

Cas

e: L

leth

ercy

non

Win

d Fa

rm

Ref

:AP

P/T

6850

/A/0

3/11

2272

0

Dat

e: 2

004

Dec

isio

n: P

lann

ing

perm

issi

on re

fuse

d (e

ffect

s on

re

side

ntia

l vis

ual a

men

ity

cont

ribut

ed to

war

ds d

ecis

ion)

N.B

Old

er c

ase

but i

ts

definitio

ns o

f ‘p

rom

inent’ a

nd

‘dom

inant’ a

nd w

hat

constitu

tes a

n ‘overb

eari

ng’

6 no

turb

ines

76

m ti

p he

ight

2 no

pro

perti

es a

t 1k

m a

nd 6

80m

‘Do

min

atin

g’

Num

ber o

f pro

perti

es a

sses

sed

rang

ing

from

680

m to

c3

400m

.

Dis

tanc

e no

t the

onl

y fa

ctor

but

at t

wo

prop

ertie

s w

here

tu

rbin

es a

t 1km

and

680

m a

way

, im

pact

s fo

und

to b

e ‘d

om

inatin

g a

nd

‘d

om

inatin

g a

nd m

ajo

r’ r

esp

ective

ly.

(para

16

.33)

O

rient

atio

n

Land

form

Veg

etat

ive

scre

enin

g

Ele

vatio

n

Sta

ckin

g ef

fect

of b

lade

s

Scal

e

920m

‘Severe

im

pact’

‘…[th

e t

urb

ines]

would

be c

onsid

era

bly

ele

va

ted

ab

ove

the

le

vel o

f th

e ne

w fa

rmho

use

and

wou

ld b

e do

min

atin

g an

d in

trusi

ve b

ecau

se o

f the

ir sc

ale,

pro

xim

ity a

nd re

lativ

e el

evat

ion,

hav

ing

a se

vere

impa

ct o

n th

e ou

tlook

from

the

prop

erty

. Thi

s pr

oper

ty w

ould

be

the

mos

t affe

cted

and

I a

gre

e t

he

ap

pella

nt’s a

ssessm

ent

of

a m

ajo

r im

pa

ct.’ (p

ara

16

.33)

E

leva

tion

D

ista

nce

Sc

ale



Cas

e/R

ef/D

ate/

Dec

isio

n D

evel

opm

ent

Dis

tanc

e of

Pr

oper

ty/P

rope

rtie

s fr

om T

urbi

ne(s

)

Ove

rall

Impa

ct o

n R

esid

entia

l Vis

ual

Am

enity

Ass

essm

ent C

omm

ents

Mod

ifyin

g Fa

ctor

s

(whe

re n

oted

)

effe

ct a

re o

ften

quot

ed b

y in

spec

tors

Gen

eral

Com

men

t ‘In m

y o

pin

ion t

he v

isual im

pa

ct of

the p

rop

ose

d w

ind

fa

rm

on e

ach

indi

vidu

al re

side

nt li

ving

in th

e vi

cini

ty is

an

aspe

ct

of th

e pu

blic

inte

rest

. I fa

il to

see

how

the

publ

icin

tere

st c

an

be s

afeg

uard

ed b

y de

velo

pmen

t tha

t wou

ld b

e vi

sual

ly

harm

ful w

hen

seen

from

sev

eral

nei

ghbo

urin

g pr

oper

ties.

In

this

cas

e it

is n

ot m

erel

y th

e re

side

nts

of th

e pr

oper

ties

id

entif

ied

who

wou

ld b

e su

bjec

ted

to th

e ad

vers

e vi

sual

im

pact

of t

hese

turb

ines

but

all

the

peop

le w

ho v

isit

thos

e pr

oper

ties

on

busi

ness

or p

leas

ure

and

peop

le u

sing

the

road

s se

rvin

g th

ese

prop

ertie

s. A

nd in

the

case

of t

hose

liv

ing

in C

wm

Gw

ilym

I do

not

con

side

r tha

t it i

s in

the

publ

ic

inte

rest

to im

pose

on

them

the

seve

re im

pact

that

wou

ld

resu

lt if

this

pro

posa

l wen

t ahe

ad. T

he h

arm

ful e

ffect

on

resi

dent

s, b

oth

indi

vidu

ally

and

cum

ulat

ivel

y, w

eigh

s he

avily

a

ga

inst th

e w

ind fa

rm.’ (

pa

ra 1

6.3

5)


Page 4

Appendix 3 : Viewpoint Analysis Figures

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of Ordnance Survey® on be-half of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown copyright Licence No. EL273112

Key:

1M5082-1 Wind Turbines & Pylons - Site Visit Viewpoints (Final Report)

Turbine

Figure A3-1.1 Viewpoint Locations for Wind Turbine - 17.8m High)

View pointRefer to Figure 1.1

1:5,000

GILLESPIES

Westgate House, 44 Hale Road, Hale, Cheshi re, WA 14 2EXT: +44 ( 0)161 928 7715 E:desi gn.manchester@gi llespies .co.uk

www. gillesp ies.co.u k

Project:

Drawing Title:

Separation Distances - C11/0888/34LL &C11/0495/34/LL 34.2m v2

Turbines and Pylons

Drawing File Location:

Mxxxx Project title\DRAWINGS\LAYOUTS

Client:

CLIENT NAME/GRAPHIC

Drawn:

Checked:

Approved: Initial

Initial

Initial Sheet Size:

Date:

Scale: 1:xx,xxx

xx/xx/xxxx

A3 (420mm x 297mm)

Rev Date Detail Made Chk'd App'd

X xx/xx/xx description of revision xx xx xx

Key:

FiguRe A3-1.1

VieWPOiNT LOCATiONS FOR WiNd TuRbiNe - 17.8m HigH

View 1

View 2

View 3

View 4

View 5

View 6

m5082-1 140522 -TuRbiNeS & PyLONS VieWPOiNTS

2

View1 View 2 View 3

View 4 View 5 View 6

N.B All distances rounded to the nearest 5m* Apparent height of turbine/pylon at arms length of 61cm from viewer)M5082-1 Wind Turbines & Pylons - Site Visit Viewpoints (Final Report)

Distance to Turbine: 310m (apparent height* 3.5 cm)Distance to Turbine: 255m (apparent height* 4.26 cm)Distance to Turbine: 170m (apparent height* 6.39 cm)

Distance to Turbine: 130m (apparent height* 8.35 cm)Distance to Turbine: 105m (apparent height* 10.34 cm)Distance to Turbine: 95m (apparent height* 11.43 cm)

Figure A3-1.2 Views to Wind Turbine - 17.8m Highurbines - Site Sur


Key:

3

A

B

Turbine A

Turbine B

M5082-1 Wind Turbines & Pylons - Site Visit Viewpoints (Final Report)


1:10,000

GILLESPIES



Project:

Drawing Title:


Turbines and Pylons



Client:

CLIENT NAME/GRAPHIC

Drawn:

Checked:

Approved: Initial

Initial

Initial Sheet Size:

Date:

Scale: 1:xx,xxx

xx/xx/xxxx

A3 (420mm x 297mm)



Key:

Figure A3-2.1 Viewpont Locaitons for Wind Turbine - 34.2m High

FiguRe A3-2.1

VieWPOiNT LOCATiONS FOR WiNd TuRbiNe - 34.2m HigH

A

b

View 1View 2View 3 View 4

View 5

View 6


4

View1 View 2 View 3



Figure A3-2.2 Views to Wind Turbine - 34.2m Highd Turbines - Site Sur

Distance to Turbine A: 640m (apparent height* 3.26 cm)Distance to Turbine B: 685m (apparent height* 3.05 cm)




Distance to Turbine A: 145m (apparent height* 14.39 cm)Distance to Turbine A: 70m (apparent height* 29.8 cm)Distance to Turbine B: 170m (apparent height* 12.27 cm)

A A A

A A A

BB B

B

B


Key:

5

Turbine A


Figure A3-3.1 Viewpoint Locations for Wind Turbine - 53m High

A

b


Turbine b

Turbine C

Turbine d

1:10,000

FiguRe A3-3.1

VieWPOiNT LOCATiONS FOR WiNd TuRbiNe - 53m HigH

GILLESPIES



Project:

Drawing Title:

Separation Distances - 30c716A 27m

Turbines and Pylons



Client:

CLIENT NAME/GRAPHIC

Drawn:

Checked:

Approved: Initial

Initial

Initial Sheet Size:

Date:

Scale: 1:xx,xxx

xx/xx/xxxx

A3 (420mm x 297mm)



Key:

Pylon_site vist_buffer<all other values>

distance50100200300400500750

Ab

Cd

C

d

View 1

View 2

View 3

View 4

View 5

View 6


6N.B All distances rounded to the nearest 5m* Apparent height of turbine/pylon at arms length of 61cm from viewer)

Figure A3-3.2 Views to Wind Turbine - 53m High


View 2 View 3

Distance to Turbine A: 95m (apparent height* 34.03 cm)Distance to Turbine B: 190m (apparent height* 17.02 cm)Distance to Turbine C: 285m (apparent height* 11.34 cm)Distance to Turbine D: 380m (apparent height* 8.51 cm)

Distance to Turbine A: 390m (apparent height* 8.29 cm)Distance to Turbine B: 385m (apparent height* 8.4 cm)Distance to Turbine C: 390m (apparent height* 8.29 cm)

Distance to Turbine A: 135m (apparent height* 23.95 cm)

Distance to Turbine A: 510m (apparent height* 6.34 cm)Distance to Turbine B: 505m (apparent height*6.4 cm)Distance to Turbine C: 500m (apparent height*6.47 cm)Distance to Turbine D: 530m (apparent height* 6.1 cm)

Distance to Turbine A: 265m (apparent height*12.2 cm)Distance to Turbine B: 265m (apparent height* 12.2 cm)

Distance to Turbine A:750m (apparent height* 4.31 cm)Distance to Turbine B: 735m (apparent height* 4.4 cm)Distance to Turbine C: 710m (apparent height* 4.55 cm)Distance to Turbine D: 715m (apparent height* 4.52 cm)


View1

A

A A

B

AB C

A BC D A B C D

BC

D


Key:

7

A

B

Turbine A

Turbine B



Figure A3-4.1 Viewpoint Locations for Wind Turbine - 93m High

1:20,000

FiguRe A3-4.1

VieWPOiNT LOCATiONS FOR WiNd TuRbiNe - 93m HigH

GILLESPIES



Project:

Drawing Title:


Turbines and Pylons



Client:

CLIENT NAME/GRAPHIC

Drawn:

Checked:

Approved: Initial

Initial

Initial Sheet Size:

Date:

Scale: 1:xx,xxx

xx/xx/xxxx

A3 (420mm x 297mm)



Key:

A

b

View 1View 2

View 3

View 4

View 6

View 5


8

View1 View 2 View 3


N.B All distances rounded to the nearest 5m* Apparent height of turbine/pylon at arms length of 61cm from viewer)

Figure A3-4.2 Views to Wind Turbine - 93m High Turbines - Site Survey






Distance to Turbine A: 620m (apparent height* 9.30 cm)

A A

A A

A


A B

B

B B B


Key:

NTS

9M5082-1 Wind Turbines & Pylons - Site Visit Viewpoints (Final Report)


Figure A3-5.1 Viewpoint Locations for Pylons 50-59 m High

A

b Pylon b (50 m)

Pylon A (50 m)

FiguRe A3-5.1

VieWPOiNT LOCATiONS FOR PyLONS 50-59 m HigH

GILLESPIES



Project:

Drawing Title:


Turbines and Pylons



Client:

CLIENT NAME/GRAPHIC

Drawn:

Checked:

Approved: Initial

Initial

Initial Sheet Size:

Date:

Scale: 1:xx,xxx

xx/xx/xxxx

A3 (420mm x 297mm)



Key:

A

b

C

d

e

F

View 1View 2

View 3

View 5View 6

GILLESPIES



Project:

Drawing Title:


Turbines and Pylons



Client:

CLIENT NAME/GRAPHIC

Drawn:

Checked:

Approved: Initial

Initial

Initial Sheet Size:

Date:

Scale: 1:xx,xxx

xx/xx/xxxx

A3 (420mm x 297mm)



Key:

View 4

b

C

A

C

d Pylon d (59 m)

Pylon C (53 m)

e

F Pylon F (57 m)

Pylon e (56 m)

N.B All pylon heights are rounded to the nearest metre.


View1 View 2 View 3


* Apparent height of turbine/pylon at arms length of 61cm from viewer)M5082-1 Wind Turbines & Pylons - Site Visit Viewpoints (Final Report)

N.B All distances rounded to the nearest 5m

Distance to Pylon C: 990m (apparent height* 3.27 cm)Distance to Pylon D: 1190m (apparent height* 3.02 cm)Distance to Pylon E: 1460m (apparent height* 2.34 cm)

Distance to Pylon B: 535m (apparent height* 5.70 cm)Distance to Pylon B: 290m (apparent height* 10.52 cm)Distance to Pylon A: 530m (apparent height* 5.75 cm)

Distance to Pylon C: 195m (apparent height* 16.58 cm)Distance to Pylon C: 135m (apparent height* 23.95 cm)Distance to Pylon C: 105m (apparent height* 30.79 cm)

Figure A3-5.2 Views to Pylons 50-59 m High

B

BA

C C

C D E

C


Key:

11



Figure A3-6.1 Viewpoint Locations for Pylons 55-59 m High

A

b

C

Pylon A (56 m)

Pylon b (59 m)

Pylon C (55 m)


1:10,000

FiguRe A3-6.1

VieWPOiNT LOCATiONS FOR PyLONS 55-59 m HigH

GILLESPIES



Project:

Drawing Title:

Separation Distances - 30c716A 27m

Turbines and Pylons



Client:

CLIENT NAME/GRAPHIC

Drawn:

Checked:

Approved: Initial

Initial

Initial Sheet Size:

Date:

Scale: 1:xx,xxx

xx/xx/xxxx

A3 (420mm x 297mm)



Key:

A

b

C

d

View 2View 1

View 6

View 5

View 4

View 3

View 2

View 1 N.B All pylon heights are rounded to the nearest metre.


View1 View 2 View 3

Distance to Pylon A: 75m (apparent height* 45.55 cm)Distance to Pylon B: 450m (apparent height* 8.00 cm)Distance to Pylon C: 810m (apparent height* 4.14 cm)

Distance to Pylon A: 270m (apparent height* 12.65 cm)Distance to Pylon B: 625m (apparent height* 5.76 cm)






A

A

B

B

A

B

C

A

A A

BB

C B

C

Figure A3-6.2 Views to Pylons 55-59 m High


Page 5

Appendix 4 : Supplementary Pylon Viewpoint

Photographs

Note: Viewpoint distances from pylons are not shown as the accuracy of the data source has not been confirmed; however viepoint locations are broadly similar to those in Figure A3-6.1 (Appendix 3)M5082-1 Wind Turbines & Pylons - Site Visit Viewpoints (Final Report)

View1 View 2 View 3


A

A

B B

B

A

B

C

A

A A

BC

BC B

Refer to Appendix 3, Figure A3-6.2, View 1 for comparison






Figure A4 Supplementary Viewpoint Photographs to Pylons 55-59 m High

A


Page 6



FINAL REPORT Appendix 5 - Page 1


The apparent height of a turbine or pylon is defined as the height that the structure would appear

at arm’s length (61 cm) from the viewer (i.e. the structure would appear to be the same height as

an X cm high object held at arm’s length (61 cm) from the viewer).

The steps presented below are based on trigonometry1 and are used to work out the apparent height

of a structure at arm’s length (61 m), when the true height and distance from the viewer are known.

This example is based on a 100 m turbine viewed from a distance of 1000 km.

STEP ONE: Firstly work out the tan (angular height) by inserting the known true height and the

known true distance from the viewer into the formula below (i.e. In this example divide the height by

the distance to work out the angular height: 100 m ÷ 1000 m = 0.1).

Tan (angular height) = 100 metres (True Height)

100 metres (True Distance)

1 Trigonometry is a branch of mathematics that studies relationships involving lengths and angles of triangles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle



STEP TWO: Insert 61 cm (arm’s length) as the distance and 0.1 the Tan (angular height) worked

out in STEP ONE into the formula, as below:

0.1 (Tan (angular) height from STEP ONE) = X cm (Apparent Height)

61 cm (Arm’s Length Distance)

STEP THREE: To work out the apparent height of the turbine, rearrange the formula as below (i.e.

Multiply 61 cm (arm’s length distance) by 0.1 (Tan (angula height) taken from STEP ONE): 61 cm x

0.1 = 6.1 cm).

61 cm (Distance Arm’s Length) X 0.1 (Tan (angular height)) = 6.1 cm (Apparent Height)

In this example a 100 metre high turbine located 1 km away from the viewer would appear to

be the same height as a 6.1 centimetre object held at arm’s length (61 cm) from the viewer.


Page 7

Appendix 6 : Residential Visual Amenity Assessment

Trigger Distances - Formula



Appendix 6: Residential Visual Amenity Assessment Trigger Distances - Formula

When the proposed height of a wind turbine or pylon is known (in this example we assume 100 m

high turbine), the distance at which its apparent height would be around 7.5 cm can be worked out as

illustrated in the following steps.

STEP ONE: Firstly work out the tan (angular height) by inserting 7.5 cm as the apparent height and

61 cm (arm’s length distance) into the formula below (i.e. Divide the apparent height by the arm’s

length distance to work out the Tan (angular height): 7.5 cm ÷ 61 cm = 0.122950).

0.122950 (Tan (angular height)) =

7.5 cm (Apparent Height)

61 cm (Arm’s Length Distance)



STEP TWO: Insert true height (assumed to be 100 m turbine in this example) and 0.122950 (the

Tan (angular height) worked out in STEP ONE) into the formula below.

0.122950 (Tan (angular) height from STEP ONE) = 100 m (True Height)

X cm (True Distance)

STEP THREE: To work out the true distance at which the apparent height of the structure would be

7.5 cm, rearrange the formula from STEP TWO as below (i.e. Divide 100 m (Assumed True Height)

by 0.122950 (Tan (angular height) taken from STEP ONE): 100 m ÷ 0.122950 = 813 m (rounded to

the nearest metre)).

813 m (True Distance) = 100 m (True Height)

0.122950 (Tan (angular) height)

In this example, when the viewer is 813 metres away from a 100 metre high turbine it would

have an apparent height of 7.5 cm (i.e. appear to be the same height as a 7.5 centimetre

object held at arm’s length (61 cm) from the viewer).

Gillespies: Westgate House

44 Hale Road, Hale,

Cheshire, WA14 2EX

T: 0161 9287715

E: [email protected]

www.gillespies.co.uk