Planning Services

COMMITTEE REPORT

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: CMA/1/51 FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION Erection of .two wind turbines with max blade tip

height of 86.5m, associated landscaping,creation of access roads and temporary hard standing

NAME OF APPLICANT Lanchester Properties Ltd SITE ADDRESS Land east of Greencroft Estates, Annfield Plain

Stanley ELECTORAL DIVISION Annfield Plain CASE OFFICER Grant Folley, Senior Planning Officer

03000 261392 grant.folley@durham.gov.uk

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSAL

The site 1. The application site is located on land approximately 1 km to the south of Annfield

Plain and 2.5km to the south west of Stanley. The planning application relates to part of the prestige Greencroft Industrial Park. The applicant company, Lanchester Wine Cellars’ occupy the area immediately to the west of the application site.

2. Tower Road runs directly to the south of the application site, which leads from

Maiden Law and Burnhope to the east to Leadgate to the north west. Directly to the east of the application site is Greencroft Park Way which links Tower Road to the A693 which runs east to west on the northern side of Greencroft Industrial Estate, linking Stanley and Consett.

3. The nearest towns and villages are Greencroft (0.5km north), Annfield Plain (1km

north), Stanley (2.5km north east), Leadgate (3km west), and Lanchester (2.5km south).

4. A number of individual residential properties lie within close proximity to the

application site, these include: Park Head to the south, properties on Gorecock Lane to the west, properties situated on the southern edge of Greencroft to the north, and a caravan site situated on Tower road to the east.

5. The application site does not include any area designated for its landscape or

ecological value. Further afield there are a number of designated sites of ecological, historic or landscape interest within the vicinity of the site.

6. Greencroft and Langley Moor SSSI is situated to the north and east of the industrial

estate (0.5km). The site is designated for the presence of important habitat areas of heathland and mire, habitats which are rare and fragmented in County Durham. It is known that small ponds within the SSSI support populations of great crested newts (a European Protected Species). Also to the north of the application site is Greencroft Heath Nature Reserve whilst further to the east is the Chapmans Well Local Nature Reserve. These nature reserves are also designated for their important areas of lowland hearth.

7. Although the application site is not within the designation, land to the south of the

site is land designated as an Area of High Landscape Value. Newhouse Burn AHLV is identified in the relevant local plan as being of district value.

8. The application site lies in an area where wind turbines are already features in the

landscape. The current situation is that there are three main clusters of wind turbine development in the area; the Tow Law complex to the south, a cluster of two approved sites at Kiln Pit Hill and Boundary Lane to the north-west, and a similar cluster of Langley and Holmside to the east with the Greenhouse turbine on its own just to the west of this.

The proposal 9. Planning permission is proposed for the erection of two wind turbines with ancillary

development including underground cabling and a control room/sub-station located within the adjacent existing Lanchester Wine Cellars building. The application site has an area of 3.3Ha.

10. The proposed turbines will be of a maximum height of 60m and maximum overall tip

height of 86.345m. The proposed wind turbines will have a generating capacity of approximately 1.5MW (2x 750KW). The turbine will operate at all times when wind speeds are suitable, with the exception of downtime for maintenance.

11. The turbine type will be of a typical modern design incorporating a tubular tower and

three blades attached to a nacelle housing the generator, gearbox and other operating equipment. The turbines will be off-white in colour with a low reflectivity finish.

12. The generated electricity of the proposed wind turbines is to be utilised in the existing

Lanchester Wine Cellars operations to the east of the application site.

13. Access to the application site will be taken off Tower Road, which is accessed from the A693 to the north. Access onto the site is to be provided by the existing access point on Greencroft parkway, therefore no highways works are rpopsoed.

14. The proposed development will also include the installation of a transformer to be

houses in a metal box, to be painted an appropriate colour, near to the base of each of the proposed wind turbines. The dimensions of each box will be approximately 4m by 2m, and be 2.5m in height. Electrical cables will be required to transfer power from the turbines to the existing sub-station within the Lanchester Wine Cellars building, the required cabling is to be laid in trenches and buried.

15. During the construction period various works will be required to facilitate installation of the wind turbines. Works could include: temporary cabins to be used as a site office and welfare facilities for site staff; parking for construction staff, visitors and construction vehicles; and, secure storage for tools, small quantities of fuels and small plant and equipment. Any temporary works to facilitate construction will be reinstated at the end of the construction period.

16. The proposed development will also require the creation of a crane pads to facilitate

installation of the proposed wind turbine. The required area of hardstanding will be located adjacent to each of the turbine bases and will measure 50m x 38m. The area of hardstanding will be retained on site so that it can be used in the event that maintenance work is required.

17. The main construction period is likely to last for several months, from

commencement of detailed site investigation, survey and design work, through to the installation and commissioning of the turbine and ending with the removal of any temporary construction works. It is normal practice for a Construction Method Statement to be required through the use of an appropriate planning condition.

18. The proposed development requires the removal of approximately 120 metres of tree

belt. The trees are required to be removed to allow adequate clear ground around the proposed wind turbines to ensure the development does not pose a risk to bats. To mitigate the loss of the trees, various landscaping and habitat enhancement works are proposed. A significant area of tree planting is proposed to the west of the turbines adjacent to Greencroft Parkway, areas of heath land are to be created around the proposed wind turbines, and trees are to be planted around the existing factory building to the east of the application site.

19. The wind farm has been designed with an operational life of 25 years. On a day to

day basis the turbines will operate automatically, responding by means of anemometry equipment and control systems to changes in wind speed and direction. These systems are designed to ensure the performance of the turbines and control issues such as rotor speed, direction and angle as well as generator temperature. At the end of the operational life of the wind farm, a decision will be taken whether to replace the turbines or decommission them and remove them from the site. Replacement of the wind turbines at this time would require a future planning application. Decommissioning the site will involve the complete removal of the turbines from the site, together with all surface infrastructures. The site will then be reinstated to its original appearance, unless otherwise agreed.

20. The application has been supported by a number of technical documents including: a

Design and Access Statement, Planning Assessment, Wind Energy Feasibility Study, Wind Turbine Technical Description Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Great Crested Newt Risk Assessment, Bat Risk Assessment + Bat Transect Report, Coal Mining Risk Assessment, Noise Assessment, Shadow Flicker Report, Assessment of Effects on Electromagnetic Interference, and a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Report.

21. The application is reported to committee as the application represents a major

development.

PLANNING HISTORY

22. 1/11/0124/DM – Erection of two wind turbines with a maximum overall tip-height of

86.45metres, associated landscaping, creation of access roads and temporary hard standing – Withdrawn May 2011

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY 23. Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development sets out the

Government’s overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system.

24. Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4)

outlines the Government’s objectives to help achieve sustainable economic growth including the positive approach to be taken to development that helps to build prosperous communities, promote regeneration and tackle deprivation.

25. PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment – explains Government policy in

respect of the conservation of the historic environment. 26. Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) sets out the Government's planning policies for

rural areas, including country towns and villages and the wider, largely undeveloped countryside up to the fringes of larger urban areas.

27. Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) sets out planning policies on protection of

biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. 28. Planning Policy Guidance Note 14: Development on Unstable Land - sets out the

broad planning and technical issues to be addressed in respect of development on unstable land.

29. Planning Policy Guidance 16 (PPG16) sets out the Secretary of State's policy on

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

30. Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) sets out the Government's policies for

renewable energy, which planning authorities should have regard to when preparing local development documents and when taking planning decisions.

31. Planning Policy Guidance 24 (PPG24) guides local authorities in England on the use

of their planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise. It outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which generate noise.

32. The emerging National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), currently in draft form, is

a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, and advances a presumption in favour of sustainable development to encourage economic growth.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant. The full text can be accessed at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements

REGIONAL POLICY 33. The North East of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) July

2008, sets out the broad spatial development strategy for the North East region for the period of 2004 to 2021. The RSS sets out the region's housing provision and the priorities in economic development, retail growth, transport investment, the environment, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. Some policies have an end date of 2021 but the overall vision, strategy, and general policies will guide development over a longer timescale.

34. In July 2010 the Local Government Secretary signalled his intention to revoke

Regional Spatial Strategies with immediate effect, and that this was to be treated as a material consideration in subsequent planning decisions. This was successfully challenged in the High Court in November 2010, thus for the moment reinstating the RSS. However, it remains the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies when the forthcoming Local Government Bill becomes law, and weight can now be attached to this intension. The following policies are considered relevant;

35. Policy 2 – Sustainable Development promotes sustainable development and

construction through the delivery of identified environmental, social and economic objectives.

36. Policy 3 – Climate Change requires new development to contribute towards the

mitigation of climate change and assist adaption to the impacts of climate change. 37. Policy 6 – Locational Strategy – places particular importance on the conservation

and enhancement of the Regions Biodiversity. 38. Policy 8 – Protecting and Enhancing the Environment seeks to maintain and

enhance the quality, diversity and local distinctiveness of the North East environment.

39. Policy 31 – Landscape Character –requires proposals to have regard to landscape

character assessments. 40. Policy 32 – Historic Environment – recognises that a number of elements constitute

the historic landscape, including particular landscapes, buildings, semi-natural and natural features.

41. Policy 33 - Biodiversity and Geodiveristy advises that planning proposals should

ensure that the Regions ecological and geological resources are protected and enhanced to return key biodiversity resources to a viable level.

42. Policy 35 - Flood Risk requires consideration to be given to the flood risk implications

of development proposals adopting the sequential risk based approach set out in PPS25.

43. Policy 37 – Air Quality - advises that planning proposals should contribute to

sustaining the current downward trend in air pollution throughout the Region. 44. Policy 38 – Sustainable Construction sets out the principles to support sustainable

construction in planning proposals that minimise energy consumption and achieve high energy efficiency.

45. Policy 40 – Planning for Renewables – states that in assessing proposals for renewable energy development significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, economic and social benefits arsing from higher levels of renewable energy.

46. Policy 41: Onshore Wind Energy Development – sets out broad areas of least

constraint for medium scale wind energy development. The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant. The full text can be accessed at: http://www.gos.gov.uk/nestore/docs/planning/rss/rss.pdf LOCAL PLAN POLICY: (Derwentside Local Plan) 47. Policy GDP1 – General Development Principles – outlines the requirements that new

development proposals should meet.

48. Policy TR2 – Development and Highway Safety – relates to the provision of safe vehicular access, adequate provision for service vehicle maneuvering, etc.

49. Policy EN6 – Development within Areas of High Landscape Value – for the various

areas of high landscape value as defined, development within these areas will only be permitted provided it pays particular attention to the character of the area.

50. Policy EN11 – Trees and Development – this policy seeks to retain trees within the

District of Derwentside and protect these against development, wherever possible. 51. Policy EN21 – Protection of National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific

Interest – this policy seeks to protect these designated area from inappropriate development.

52. Policy EN23 – Wildlife Corridors – consideration of development proposals is

required to have regard for the need to maintain the nature conservation value and integrity of strategic wildlife corridors.

53. Policy CF8 – Development of Wind Farms – development of two or more wind

turbines will be approved provided that a range of criteria are met. 54. Policy IN3 – Development within Prestige Industrial Parks – safeguards designated

areas for employment uses, providing criteria are met. 55. Policy IN6 – Development within Landscaped Areas – development affecting

landscaped or panted areas within or on the perimeter of an industrial estate will only be permitted if the site can be developed without adverse impacts on its surroundings and replacement planting is provided.

56. Policy RE4 – Protection of Public Footpaths – development directly affecting public

right of way, or other recreational route, will only be permitted if an acceptable route is provided.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=6617

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES: 57. Newcastle International Airport – Initial concerns were raised by the airport in relation

to the impact the proposed turbines would have on aviation safeguarding. Discussions have taken place between the Airport and the applicant and agreement has been reached in relation to ensuring the turbines will not impact on operations at the airport. No objections are raised subject to a condition requiring a scheme to protect the Airports radar system being agreed prior to works commencing on site.

58. One North East – The RDA is supportive of this application subject to the resolution

of any policy, environment, aviation safety, design and access issues. 59. Natural England – The additional bat survey work and revisions to the landscaping

proposals for this scheme including mitigation and enhancement works are welcome, and sufficient to overcome the objection raised to the previous application on this site.

60. Environment Agency – No objections. Advice provided regarding the adjacent

watercourse and protected species provided. 61. Northumbrian Water – No objections to the proposed development. 62. Coal Authority – The Coal Authority considers that the content, conclusions and

proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Coal mining Risk Assessment are sufficient for the purposes of the planning system and meet the requirements of PPG14 in demonstrating that the application is, or can be made, safe and stable for the proposed development. The Coal Authority has no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition requiring the implementation of the mitigation measure outline in the Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report submitted in support of the application.

63. English Heritage – No comments to be made on this occasion. 64. BT – The proposed wind project should not cause interference to BT’s current and

presently planned radio networks. 65. Greencroft Parish Council – The Parish Council object to the application as the wind

turbines are too large for the site, do not comply with Local Plans, and have an overall negative benefit to the local community. The Parish Council have raised concerns on the following grounds:

• Visual Impact – The proposed turbines are out of scale with the surrounding area and would have an adverse visual impact on the locality where many people live, work and play. Questions have been raised regarding the applicants visual impact assessment.

• Planning Policy – it is considered that the applicant has only considered policies which the application complies with. The Parish Council consider the application to be contrary to the Local plan, in particular policies which designate the area as a Prestige Industrial Park.

• Noise – The proposed turbines will produce noise, based on the applicant’s figures the night time noise will increase by an audible perception factor of four. The Parish Council do not consider the most recent World Health organisation recommendations for night time noise to have been taken into consideration.

• Interference with Television and Electronic Communications – The proposed wind turbines are close to Pontop Pike Transmitter and it is apparent that many homes may experience disrupted TV reception as a result of the development.

• Ecology – Concerns have been raised regarding the ecology survey and mitigation works submitted in support of the application. It is considered that if planning permission is to be approved all mitigation measure outlined in the submitted supports should be adhered to.

• Shadow Flicker – The whole of Greencroft Park Industrial Estate may be subject to shadow flicker conditions, so unless adequate mitigation is in place, both present and future employment could be considered at risk.

• Decommissioning – Lanchester Wine Cellars is a relatively small private company with an unknown future. Over 25 years, the life of the proposed turbines, personnel, and financial status can change. To ensure that decommissioning can take place at the appropriate time it is requested that a bond be put in place so that finance is ensured for the required works.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES: 66. Landscape - The proposals would lie within an area identified in RSS as a ‘broad

area of least constraint’. The proposals would be generally consistent with the findings of the Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind and the Wind Farm Development and Landscape Capacity Study. Although the proposed turbines would be prominent, and in places dominant, features in the local landscape, they would not be out of scale or out of keeping with the character of the local landscape, but would bring a considerable change to the immediate locality. The extent to which this conflicts with Policy CF8 is a matter of judgement, it is considered however that an objection on those grounds would be difficult to sustain in the current policy environment. The proposals lie sufficiently far from residential properties that they would not have an overbearing affect on residential amenity. The proposals lie relatively close to a number of settlements but would not dominate their visual environment. The proposals would have cumulative impacts with existing and approved wind farms on the landscape and visual environment of the area. However, it is not considered that such an impact would be sufficient to warrant refusals of the application. On balance no objections are raised to the scheme.

67. Spatial Policy – The proposed development could be considered to be contrary to

relevant local plan policies which aim to protect designated industrial land for employment purposes. However, it is considered that due to the scale of the proposals and the amount of employment land that will be retained for growth associated with the adjacent business (enabled by the turbine development), provided there is a link between the turbine development and employment creation, that the scheme would facilitate business growth on the site in line with Local plan aspirations. As such the proposed development would be in broad alignment with the aims of the emerging County Durham Plan.

68. Environmental Health – Subject to suggested noise conditions being attached to any

grant of planning permission no objections are raised to the scheme. 69. Ecology – No objections to the proposal provided the landscape design proposal and

mitigation section of the submitted Bat Survey are conditioned and adhered to.

70. Highway Authority – Concerns were initially raised regarding the proximity of one of the proposed wind turbines to the adjacent public highway. However following the receipt of an amended layout plans such concerns were overcome. The proposed access arrangements are considered to be acceptable. It is not considered that the proposed wind turbines offer a risk to driver on the nearby A693 by way of distraction. No objections raised to the scheme.

71. Archaeology – Following the submission of additional information during the

application process, relating to ground disturbance and the re-grading of land to facilitate the creation of the industrial estate, no objections are raised to the proposed development.

PUBLIC RESPONSES: 72. A letter has been received from Kevan Jones MP in relation to this application. The

letter outlines the concerns of a constituent, and the MP has requested to be kept informed of progress on the application.

73. The application has been advertised in the local press and by site notices;

neighbouring properties have also been consulted. A total of 13 no. letters of representation have been received in relation to this application. Concerns have been raised on the following grounds:

• The proposed wind turbines will have a negative visual effect on the local landscape and countryside.

• The proposed wind turbine is to be located too close to residential properties. Objectors have noted that a Private Members Bill currently progressing through parliament suggests a set back distance of 1500m for a turbine of this size, not 350m.

• Due to the location of the proposed wind turbines on Greencroft industrial Estate, the scheme will discourage local employment.

• Shadow Flicker will potentially impact on users of adjacent business premises on the industrial estate.

• Due to the proximity of the proposed wind turbine to residential properties the scheme will impact on local residents in terms of general amenity, outlook, overshadowing, noise and shadow flicker. The proposed development will also affect views from adjacent residential properties. Due to these concerns the proposed wind turbines will also have a negative effect on local house prices.

• Shadow flicker and noise and vibration associated with the wind turbines can cause health problems.

• Wind turbine developments are known to interfere with TV reception.

• Concerns that the proposed wind turbines could distract motorists on the adjacent A693 which could cause road traffic accidents.

• The proposed wind turbines will affect wildlife in the local area.

• The proposed wind turbine will impact on the users of an adjacent Cycleway and local footpaths.

• County Durham already has its fair share of this kind of development. Local residents should not have to endure more of the problems associated with wind farm development. County Durham has already exceeded its targets for renewable energy production; there is no need for more wind turbines.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT:

Business Brief

74. The Lanchester Group of companies is made up of three companies; Lanchester Wine Cellars Ltd, Lanchester Properties Ltd and Greencroft Bottling Company Ltd.

75. Lanchester Wine Cellars (LWC) is a wine importing and wholesale business and has

been trading for over thirty years, initially in Lanchester and now in its current location, just outside Annfield Plain.

76. Lanchester Properties (LP) was formed in late 2000 after the current site was

purchased, and it is an investment business renting site units to other local and national businesses.

77. Greencroft Bottling Company (GBC) was formed in 2003 after a niche in bespoke

bottling was identified. Since then GBC has gone from strength to strength, reaching an anticipated turnover of £15 million for the current trading year. It is now the fourth largest wine bottler, in terms of volume, in the UK.

Background

78. The Greencroft Estates site currently uses in the region of 1.6-1.7MWh of electricity per annum, which will increase steadily as anticipated production in GBC increases.

79. The Lanchester Group has been looking at ways to reduce energy costs through

efficiencies and renewable energy sources. After many false starts looking at technology that is unsuitable for this location, both in terms of meeting the needs of the company and being financially viable, it was agreed that wind energy would provide the best way of meeting the future energy needs of the group. The publication of the governments Feed in Tariffs meant that the construction of wind turbines, on land adjacent to our current site, would allow us to be almost self sufficient in terms of electricity requirements (while the wind blows), whilst also allowing us to assist the government in meeting their renewable obligation.

80. The driving objective of installing wind turbines is to become one of the greenest

wine companies in the world, with GBC being considered “Greenest Bottling Plant” in the world.

Consequences

81. It is hoped that as a consequence of constructing the turbines we will be able to develop the business with the income generated, through investment in new bottling lines and personnel; this will also allow the business to prosper well in the future without being hamstrung by ever increasing energy costs.

82. We aspire to becoming one of the top three wine bottlers in the UK, and this means

we will need to increase the scale of operations. We currently employ 110 full time employees, most of which live in an around Annfield Plain/Stanley area. We envisage this increasing to around 150 by 2014, if we develop in line with our strategic vision.

83. We would like to improve our export potential, and we see our green credentials going a long way to making this a reality. There are markets around he world that are particular sensitive to low carbon produced goods, Scandinavia and Canada being two of the larger, and we feel that wine labelled as being bottle by wind power will offer us a strong product in which to enter these markets.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at the office of the Strategic Team Development Management, County Hall, Durham

PLANNING CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSMENT

84. Having regard to the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase act 2004 ,the relevant development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material considerations including representations received it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to national, regional and local planning policies, landscape and visual impact, residential amenity issues such as noise and shadow flicker, impact on nature conservation, aviation, TV and other communication interference, economic benefits, and highway safety.

Planning Policy

85. The site subject of this application is currently undeveloped, located on the southern edge of the Greencroft Industrial Estate, adjacent to Tower Road. This industrial estate is designated as a Prestige Industrial Park in the Derwentside Local Plan. Policy IN3 of the Local Plan states that development on prestige sites will only be approved for business, general industrial or storage and distribution uses. Greencroft Industrial Estate is regarded as one of the main employment sites in the north Durham part of the County within the latest iteration of the emerging County Durham Plan Core Strategy (Policy Directions). Supported by the evidence in the latest version of the Employment Land Review, the aim is to retain the current extent of the estate to ensure sufficient supply of employment land is available to help towards improving the economy and provide good quality job opportunities with the county. The loss of the employment land in order to facilitate the wind turbine development is therefore an important consideration in determining this application. The loss of employment land to facilitate the wind turbines could therefore be considered to be contrary to the aims of the Local Plan.

86. In this instance the development of wind turbines on this site is linked to the

occupant of the adjacent industrial premises. The applicant has stated that the wind turbines represent the initial stage in the expansion of the existing company, with the energy cost savings associated with the proposed wind turbines used to develop the business, through investment in new bottling lines and personnel. It is not considered that the development of wind turbines in this location will not prohibit the future development of the northern section of the vacant plot for employment purposes. Therefore, as the proposed wind turbines are to be linked to an existing employment use on the industrial estate, the proposed scheme can be considered to accord with the general aims of the Local Plan.

87. Policy CF8 of the Derwentside Local Plan states that development of two or more

wind turbines will be approved provided that a range of criteria are met, including: separation from residential properties, visual amenity and character of the area, electromagnetic disturbance, and the topography of the site. Further consideration is given to these criteria, in the following sections of this report.

88. The proposals lie within an area identified in the North East of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 as a ‘broad area of least constraint for medium scale wind energy development’. The area is identified by a W symbol on the accompanying plan; it is understood that the W represents the whole of the East Durham Limestone Plateau resource area identified in the GIS constraints mapping and landscape sensitivity studies that informed the development of RSS policies.

89. The sub-regional renewable energy target for County Durham given in the RSS was

82MW installed renewable energy capacity by 2010. At the time of writing the County has around 165MW of renewable electricity operational or approved. This will meet around 55% of County Durham’s household electricity consumption or 22% of the County’s overall electricity. County Durham’s 2010 target has been exceeded by a substantial margin and the aspiration to double that target by 2020, included in the emerging County Durham Plan, has already been achieved.

90. While the targets in RSS are ‘thresholds’ and not ‘ceilings’, the performance to date

in Durham indicates that sufficient sites are being found to meet those targets and that there is no need to approve sites found to be environmentally unacceptable.

91. As stated previously the proposals lie within an area identified in the North East of

England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 as a ‘broad area of least constraint for medium scale wind energy development’. RSS identifies the area as having potential for medium scale development, which it identifies as being ‘up to 20-25 turbines’. At present the area contains 33 turbines in 8 separate developments (Tow Law, High Hedley, High Hedley II, Broomhill, West Durham, Langley, Holmside and the Greenhouse). The area is therefore already over the scale of development envisaged in RSS.

92. The suggested number of turbines given in RSS was not based on an assessment of

the capacity of the landscape of these broad areas. RSS makes reference elsewhere to the need for the location and design of proposals to be informed by landscape character and sensitivity assessments, particularly the Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development (GONE 2003). It also makes reference to development capacity studies then being undertaken, and identifies Local Development Frameworks, and the assessment of planning proposals, as being the ‘appropriate level’ at which to deal with the issue of the capacity of individual ‘broad areas of least constraint’.

93. Government guidance as contained within Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable

Energy (PPS22) supports onshore wind farms. The guidance states that renewable energy development should be accommodated in locations where it is technically viable and where the various impacts referred to above can be satisfactorily addressed. There is an acceptance that there will always be a compromise between maximising the capture of energy and the visual impact that will result.

94. Furthermore, the emerging National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out a

presumption in favour of sustainable development to encourage economic growth, particularly where it is supported by Local Plan policy. This draft guidance is a material consideration in determining planning applications, and this proposal is considered to be in general conformity with the NPPF.

Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development (GONE 2003) 95. The Landscape Appraisal identifies the area as belonging to the ‘Coalfield Upland

Fringe’ landscape type which it assesses as being of ‘low-medium’ sensitivity to wind energy development. Its findings in relation to location and typology in the area were as follows:

• Wind energy development should avoid areas where a smaller scale field enclosure pattern is prominent. It could be sited on ridges with a more open character and at the transition with the Rolling Uplands LCT and a small-medium scale typology should be adopted in such areas.

• Forestry and man-made features such as industry and masts create a complex visual composition in some areas and wind energy development should be sited to avoid competing with a plethora of elements and thereby causing visual confusion.

• Small-medium typology in certain places, but more likely to be in smaller clusters.

96. The Appraisal uses the terms small, medium and large to refer to turbines heights of

80m, 110m and 140m respectively rather than turbine numbers. The turbine proposed is within the small scale range. The area shows many of the characteristics that lead to the ‘low-medium’ sensitivity rating including a large scale and simple landform, a ‘blocky’ landscape pattern of settlements and plantations and the presence of existing masts and pylons. It does not lie in an area of smaller scale field patterns but does lie in an area where there is the potential for it to compound the visual confusion caused by existing features like masts and pylons; this issue is discussed further later in this report. In general terms it is considered that the location and scale of the proposals are broadly consistent with the findings of the Appraisal.

Wind Farm Development and Landscape Capacity Studies: East Durham Limestone and Tees Plain (NEA / ARUP 2008) and Addendum (ANEC / ARUP October 2009) 97. The proposals would lie in zone N2 which is assessed as being of medium sensitivity

and suited to a medium-small wind farm typology of 4-9 turbines. 98. Its suitability for further wind farm development is assessed as being ‘Very limited’

and described as follows: There could be some potential for further development associated with the Holmside turbines provided that the cluster did not exceed the typology assessed as appropriated (i.e. 4-9 turbines approx.). The zone theoretically has the capacity to accommodate additional small scale development elsewhere in the zone. However the zone exhibits poor performance in terms of visibility and the constraints map indicates that there is potentially little unconstrained land.

The separation distance from Holmside would be low or relatively low (typically <2.5km to 5km) and cumulative impacts might therefore be unacceptably high.

99. It is considered that the proposals are consistent with the ARUP report in terms of

the scale of the development and landscape capacity considered in isolation. The key issue raised by the study is potential cumulative impacts with other development, which is discussed in more detail later in this report.

Landscape and Visual Impact 100. Wind turbines by their scale and tendency to be formed in groups, will always have a

visual impact upon the landscape within which they are located and an impact on the amenities of people who live in the locality. The degree of impact depends on the form and character of the landscape and the perceptions of the public who are affected by the development.

101. The turbines will be visible over a wide area; however the fact that they are visible

does not necessarily mean that they are visually harmful to such an extent as to warrant refusing planning permission.

102. This part of the report will address the impact of the development on the local

landscape, nearby settlements, local residents and other more distant receptors. 103. The applicants have submitted a comprehensive Landscape Visual Impact

Assessment (LVIA) which attempts to describe the impacts of the development on a variety of locations using a basis of levels of sensitivity and magnitude of change ranging from negligible to high.

104. In order to assess the visibility of the turbines from both far and near, Zones of

Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) documents have been produced and are submitted as part of the planning application. The potential impact of the turbines has been assessed by producing photomontages of various viewpoints of the application site based on the ZTVs.

105. The assessment of the landscape impact has been assisted by the comprehensive

comments of the Durham County Landscape Architect. This section of the report will be split into six sections. The key issues to consider are considered to be:

• Physical Impacts

• Impacts on Landscape Character

• Impacts on Designated Landscapes

• Impacts on Residential Amenity

• Impacts on Settlements

• Cumulative Impacts

Physical Impacts

106. An area of established structure planting would be removed on the southern edge of the industrial estate and areas of scrub within the site would also be removed to avoid impacts on bats. These aspects of the proposals have been the subject of detailed discussions between the applicants and landscape and ecology officers. The current proposals show a sufficiently robust area of structure planting retained for it to substantially screen future development phases on the industrial estate in views from across the valley in combination with the existing woodland south of Tower Road. Views of future development in that parcel of land might be possible from Tower Road itself although the local topography would assist in screening it and views would be from a relatively short stretch along the road.

107. The proposed development includes various measures to mitigate the physical

impacts of the scheme. The proposal to develop a dry stone wall along the open section should assist in maintaining a reasonably high quality frontage to the estate while being in keeping with the character of the surrounding agricultural landscape.

The proposals to create and manage a substantial area as heathland would meet Bio-Diversity Action Plan objectives and would offset the loss of the relatively young planted woodland. The proposals also include the planting of an additional area of woodland to the east of the proposed wind turbines, and the planting of an avenue of trees along the currently open frontage adjacent to the existing Lanchester Wine Cellars building, of the estate further west along Tower Road.

108. With regard to the above, it is considered that the proposals are broadly consistent

with Policy EN11 of the Derwentside Local Plan, which aims to protect trees, in that while they would entail the removal of trees with landscape and amenity value, the proposals would provide for suitable replacement planting with the potential to offer increased ecological value.

109. The proposal is also considered to be broadly in accordance with Policy IN6, which

aims to specifically protect planted areas within industrial estates, in that while the scheme would entail the removal of tree planted areas in the perimeter of the industrial estate that would not in itself cause significant adverse effects on the surrounding area and replacement landscaping of similar quality but higher nature conservation value would be provided.

110. To ensure that the proposed landscaping provides for landscape amenity without

impacting on the exiting ecological value of the sites, it is suggested that a planning condition is used to require the agreement of a landscaping plan within six months of the works commencing on site.

111. Additionally, the proposed works include various habitat enhancement and

management works. The works include the removal of scrub on the application site and within the applicants wider land ownership – essential for the avoidance of impacts of bats, and the creation of a heathland habitat on the land to be cleared to make way for the proposed wind turbines. To ensure that these works take place, and to agree the future maintenance of the heathland and to keep the bat collision zone free of trees, it is suggested that a condition be attached to any grant of planning permission to the submission and agreement of a an environmental management plan within six months of works commencing on site.

Impacts on landscape character

112. Impacts on landscape character are described in the Landscape and Visual Assessment submitted in support of the application. The following section of the report provides a summary of these impacts.

113. The Zone of Theoretical Visibity study shows that the proposals would be widely

visible across the higher ground of the northern part of the West Durham Coalfield. They would also be visible at greater distances (12 – 17km) from the Wear Lowlands east of the River Wear and moorlands on the eastern edge of the North Pennines.

114. Views are typically wide panoramas taking in visually complex settled landscapes

with wind turbines, communication masts and overhead services prominent on skylines. The scale of the impact on the landscape would be strongly influenced by distance.

Longer distance views (>4 km) 115. In general the turbines would have low impacts where they were visible at distances

beyond around 4 km from the site, being relatively small features in visually complex views.

• In views from the northern flanks of the Derwent Valley at distances of 10 – 15km the turbines would have a very low impact being often only visible as rotor tips above the distant horizon.

• In views from the eastern moors of the North Pennines at distances of 10 – 17km the turbines would have low impacts being small features on a distant horizon which also contains existing turbines and other vertical elements.

• In views from the higher ridges of the coalfield at distances of 5 – 10km the turbines would similarly have low impacts as small features on a distant horizon already containing turbines and other vertical elements.

• In views from the Wear Lowlands to the east at distances of 12-15km the turbines would have low impacts as small features viewed on a skyline containing other vertical structures seen across a complex and visually cluttered lowland landscape.

Middle distance views (1.5 – 4 km) 116. In general the turbines would have moderate impacts at distances between around

1.5 and 4 km from the site.

• In views from the south and west they would be prominent features lying on a ridge that forms a strong skyline in views across the Newhouse Burn and Knitsley Burn valleys. The skyline already contains a number of vertical elements including the Langley wind farm, the Greenhouse turbine, the Burnhope and Pontop Masts, and electricity pylons. They would be generally visible throughout the Newhouse valley north of Lanchester, locally screened on lower ground by intervening woodlands.

• Views from the higher ground of the same ridge would be of a similar character with the turbines prominent on the skyline in shallower views along with existing vertical elements.

117. In all of these views there would be a tendency for the turbines to add to the clutter

of vertical elements in the view. This would be more pronounced in views looking east along the ridge where there various elements would have a tendency to ‘stack’ compared with views from the across the ridge where they would be more strung out. There are some views in which the turbines would clearly create the kind of visual confusion anticipated and cautioned against in the Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development. In other views existing features would help assimilate them into the view. Overall the proposed wind turbines are not considered to be out of scale or out of keeping with the character of the landscape.

Near views (<1.5 km) 118. Within around 1.5 km of the site the turbines would be prominent or dominant

features. Impacts on the character of the local landscape would be generally moderate or high. This level of impact is usually true for development of this nature wherever it occurs. The landscape to the south of the site has some sensitivity, being designated as an AHLV. Although it is not proposed to identify AHLVs in the emerging County Durham Plan, the designation is indicative of the relatively high scenic quality of the area and the value attached to that by local communities.

The adopted Landscape Strategy for much of that area is to ‘conserve and restore’ its character.

• In views from the south and west the turbines would be prominent skyline features although always seen in close association with the pylons of the two high voltage lines running along the slope below the proposed wind turbines, which in most views would be of a similar apparent scale. The turbines would be at their most dominant from Tower Road, the upper part of Gorecock Lane and footpaths to the north of Greencroft Park. They would be screened in varying degrees by mature woodlands in many views within this area and particularly views from the south and the east towards Maiden Law. The turbines would detract in some degree from the tranquil, attractive and unified character of the wooded farmland landscape.

• Views from the north would be more varied and would include views from within the urban fabric of Annfield Plain, which is covered in more detail later in this report, and from urban fringe area where visual impacts would be high but impacts on the character of the landscape would be lower given their diversity and general lack of coherence.

119. There would clearly be a high impact on the local landscape as is always the case

for development of this kind. Whether that would cause ‘demonstrable harm to the visual amenities and character of the area’ sufficient to bring it into conflict with Policy CF8 is a matter of judgement. However in this regard, it is considered that an objection on those grounds would be difficult to sustain in the current policy environment.

Impacts on designated landscapes North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 120. The proposals would be visible from parts of the AONB including tracts of land of an

upland fringe character west of the A68 and moorland ridges on Wolsingham Park Moor and Muggleswick and Edmondbyers commons at distances between 8 and 18 km.

121. The nearer vantage points are those along the A68 from landscapes of an upland

fringe character. Views towards the site are effectively views out from the AONB across the very different landscapes of the coalfield to the east in which the turbines would be small features on a distant horizon already containing turbines and other vertical elements.

122. Views towards the site from the moors, while taking in the AONB landscape in the

foreground, are also views out across the markedly different landscape of the coalfield in which the town of Consett is often conspicuous in the view along with other vertical elements: masts, pylons and wind turbines. The proposed turbines would be small features at these distance ranges, seen amongst other vertical elements, and would have a low impact.

123. While visible from the AONB the proposals would not have a substantial impact on

its special qualities. Saved Policy EN5 only deals with development within the AONB and makes no provision for impacts from development outside of the AONB. It is considered that the proposals are consistent with Policy 8c of NERSS which deals with protecting the special qualities of the environment in the AONBs

Area of High Landscape Value 124. The Theoretical Zone of Visibility study indicates that the turbines could be visible

from a number of areas designated as Areas of High Landscape Value (AHLV). The most significant impacts would fall on the Newhouse Burn AHLV. The proposals would lie immediately outside of the AHLV, the boundary of which runs along Tower Road, directly to the south of the application site.

125. AHLVs in this area are not entirely self-contained visually and views of them often

take in other, often less scenically attractive, areas or features nearby. In longer distance views across the AHLV it is not considered that the proposals would detract significantly from its special character which would remain an attractive part of a more visually complex landscape. In closer views, as noted previously, the proposals would detract in some degree from the tranquil, attractive and unified character of the wooded farmland landscape – although this is already undermined to some extent by the presence of prominent transmission lines on the skyline. From within the AHLV closer to the site this impact would be stronger – and particularly from those footpaths in the north that are not substantially screened from the development by woodland.

126. Impacts on the AHLV would be somewhat higher than the impacts of the Langley

wind turbines lower down the Browney Valley and in a similar relationship with the AHLV as in that situation the AHLV has a broader scale and lacks the finer grain of the Newhouse / Greencroft area with its scattered field and hedgerow trees.

127. However, as Policy EN6 of the Derwentside Local Plan, which deals with AHLV’s,

only deals with development within designated areas and doesn’t make any provision for the impacts of development outside of it. Therefore the proposed development is not considered to be in conflict with EN6. Any impact on the wide landscape has already been considered.

Historic Parklands 128. The proposals would have no significant impact on Registered Historic Parks &

Gardens. The nearest registered park is Gibside, from which the turbines would not be visible. The proposals could be visible in places from Lambton Castle or Lumley Castle but given the distances involved (>12km), the heavily wooded nature of the parks and the character of the intervening landscapes impacts would be very low.

129. Greencroft Park which lies adjacent to the site is identified in the Derwentside District

Local Plan and is the subject of saved Policy EN7 which states that it amongst others ‘will be protected from development which would harm their character’.

130. Greencroft Park is a ‘relic’ parkland in that it is currently managed as woodland and

farmland and no longer provides the setting for a grand house. It derives much of its character from the woodlands of Shoulder of Mutton Plantation, High Crow Wood and Tower Bank Wood and scattered parkland trees in the east and south. Views from within much of the park are contained by these woodlands and although the turbines would be visible in places they would not expect them to dominate its visual environment. The proposals would not intrude into any formal views of planned vistas, and therefore consider the proposals to conflict to a substantive degree with Policy EN7.

Impacts on residential amenity 131. The evidence of past appeal decisions suggests that while there may be a

consensus that turbines are likely to be overbearing at distances closer than four times the turbine height, and unlikely to be overbearing at distances of greater than around seven times their height, at distance ranges in between the acceptability or otherwise of their impacts is influenced by site-specific factors and by the judgements of individual decision-makers. There are few properties within that distance range of the proposed turbines.

132. Park Head lies approximately 340m (around 4 x tip height) to the south-west of the

turbines. The main aspect of the property is to the south-west although there are windows facing towards the site and there would be direct views from its curtilages. The woodland shelterbelt along Tower Road would create some sense of separation. Whether the effect of the turbines would be overbearing is a matter of judgement.

133. Terraced properties at Humber View lie approximately 450m (around 5 x tip height).

The front and rear elevations of the buildings don’t face towards the site although there would be direct views of the turbines from front gardens and the back lane over roadside vegetation. I would consider the impact of the turbines on these properties to be substantial but not overbearing.

134. The bungalow at Gorecock Hall Farm (490m or 5.5 x tip height) shares this

orientation but has French windows in the gable facing towards the site and direct views from the garden. In the context of views past Humber View and talking in the industrial buildings and lighting columns along Tower Road I wouldn’t consider the impact of the turbines to be overbearing at this distance.

135. There are a number of properties in the south of Greencroft (Loud View, Chirnside

Terrace, The Villas and The Avenue) lying at distances beyond 450m (5 x tip height) which would have views of the turbines from first floor windows and in some cases from ground level, gardens and streets. The distance from the turbines together with the screening effects of intervening vegetation and buildings are such that it is not considered the potential impacts to be overbearing.

Impacts on settlements 136. The site lies close to residential areas in Annfield Plain and Greencroft. It is difficult

to assess potential impacts within built up areas as views are obstructed in varying degrees by buildings and vegetation. The turbines would be prominent features in views from some properties and public spaces south of West Road. In addition to those areas mentioned above they would be visible from St Aidans, Cragside Court, Clavering Place, Scafell Court, Derwent Terrace, Douglas Court and Ambrose Court, from the football and cricket ground, and from Greencroft Heath Local Nature Reserve. North of West Road it is expected that intervening buildings and vegetation would generally obstruct views of the turbines. Although impacts in some cases would be high, at the distances involved (roughly 500-1000m), and considering the nature of the view in which the turbines would be screened or partially screened in places by buildings and vegetation it is not considered likely that they would be overwhelming or would dominate the visual environment of the community to an unacceptable degree.

137. The site lies relatively close to Maiden Law (around 1100m). It is likely that the upper parts of the turbines would be visible over intervening woodland from some properties, and particularly those on the on the western side of Lanchester Road. Impacts would be of a medium or medium-high magnitude but they would not be overbearing or dominate the visual environment of the settlement as a whole.

138. The site lies around 2km from Iveston which lies on an elevated site to the west. For

properties with open views to the east the turbines would be prominent features on the skyline along with the existing Greenhouse turbine. Impacts would be of medium or medium-high magnitude but they would not be overbearing or dominate the visual environment of the settlement as a whole.

139. The turbines would be visible in places from settlements at greater distances

(Stanley, Lanchester, Leadgate, Consett, Delves). Impacts on these settlements would be low.

Cumulative impacts 140. Cumulative Impacts on landscape character are described in the Landscape and

Visual Assessment submitted in support of the application. The following section of the report provides a summary of these impacts.

141. The current situation is that there are three main clusters of wind turbine

development in the area; the Tow Law complex to the south, a cluster of two approved sites at Kiln Pit Hill and Boundary Lane to the north-west, and a similar cluster of Langley and Holmside to the east with the Greenhouse turbine on its own just to the west of this.

142. In terms of their relationship with the clusters to the south and north-west, cumulative

impacts would be low. In areas close to those clusters, the proposed turbines would be small and relatively distant features on distant ridgelines where turbines are already present. Similarly in areas close to the proposed turbines, the distant clusters would be relatively small features. The effect from these areas and from areas between them would be for wind turbines to be slightly more prevalent in general views of the landscape where they are already present in some numbers. Such an impact would not be considered to be a significant or to cross any tangible threshold of the capacity of this landscape.

143. In terms of their relationship with the cluster to the east, there would be potential for

a cumulative effect, but in an area where the visual impacts of the Holmside turbines are relatively low due to an intervening area of high ground. The proposals would not be seen as leading to a continuous belt of ‘wind farm landscape’ between Stanley and Annfield Plain. They (Greencroft and Holmside) would read as two discrete clusters at some distance apart. The relationship with the southern group (Langley) would be more tangible as while the separation distances would be greater they would both feature prominently on the Browney Valley ridgeline in views from the south and one or the other would be prominent or dominant from much of the A691. However due to the separation distances between the groups of turbines it is not considered that collectively they would dominate views within and across the valley to an unacceptable degree.

144. In the area in between the clusters, the experience of wind turbines in the view would intensify (Burnhope / Maiden Law / Quaking Houses area) although the shallow nature of views across the ridge-top and the screening effect of plantations would reduce intervisibility. As such it is not considered that the scheme would bring development over the capacity of the local landscape.

145. In terms of their relationship with the Greenhouse turbine the three turbines would

coalesce to form a single group in all but the nearest views, although the disparity in scale and resulting differences in rotor speed etc. would lead to the group lacking unity and coherence. This would create more visual confusion than if all were the same type and would increase the intensity of visual impacts in closer views. However, it is not considered that the scheme would result in an overall level of impact that was unacceptable.

Impacts on Noise /Shadow Flicker.

Noise 146. Paragraph 10 of PPG24 asserts that much of the development which is necessary

for the creation of jobs and the construction of infrastructure will generate noise. It cautions that the planning system should not place unjustifiable obstacles in the way of such development but advises that local planning authorities should ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance.

147. The PPS22 Companion Guide states that well-specified and well-designed wind

farms should be located so that increases in ambient noise levels around noise-sensitive developments are kept to acceptable limits with regard to existing background noise. This will normally be achieved through good design of the turbines and through allowing sufficient distance between the turbines and any noise-sensitive development so that noise from the turbines will not normally be significant. The Guide also indicates that the noise levels from turbines are generally low and, under most operating conditions, it is likely that turbine noise would be completely masked by wind-generated background noise.

148. The Guide commends the use of ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind

Farms’ (ETSU-R-97). It describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours. Among other things, this document states that noise from wind farms should be limited to 5dB(A) above background noise for both day and night-time periods. PPS24 advises that a change of 3dB(A) is the minimum perceptible to the human ear under normal conditions. Thus it is not intended that with developments there should be no perceptible noise at the nearest properties, rather the 5dB(A) limit is designed to strike a balance between the impact of noise from turbines and the need to ensure satisfactory living conditions for those individuals who might be exposed to it.

149. The applicant in line with advice contained within PPS22 has assessed the potential

for noise impacts on nearby residential properties. Independent noise consultants, on behalf of the applicant, have undertaken noise modelling, based on the guidance and noise limits contained within ETSU-R-97 and combined with historic background noise measurements.

150. The background noise measurements and consultants modelling confirm that the proposed wind turbine will not exceed the relevant ETSU-R-97 day time or night time noise limits at any of the nearest residential dwellings. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have been consulted on the application and have raised no objections to the scheme, subject to appropriately worded planning conditions being attached to any grant of planning permission.

151. The question of infrasound and low-frequency sound is often raised as an issue in

relation wind turbine development. In this case representations received have reference such concerns. The PPS22 Companion Guide asserts that there is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise, caused by wind turbines, is at a sufficient level to be harmful to health. Following this review the Government re-stated that ETSU-R-97 should be used for the assessment and rating of noise from wind farms. The same advice pertains to the phenomenon of aerodynamic modulation.

152. It is considered that the development would comply with the noise levels established

in the ETSU-R-97 guidelines. Such compliance could be ensured by condition. It is not considered that any detrimental effect on local residents through noise associated with the proposed wind turbines would be sufficient to refuse planning permission.

Shadow Flicker 153. Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may

pass behind rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the effect is know as ‘shadow flicker’. It only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a window or narrow opening. Shadow flicker effects cannot therefore occur outside in open spaces. There will not be any adverse impact on users of public rights of way near the site.

154. A property must be within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine, some 529m in this case,

in order to experience shadow flicker. The applicant has identified 18 buildings, which could potentially experience shadow flicker. It is noted that the applicant has based this exercise on worst-case assumptions. The frequency and duration of shadow flicker would probably not be as intense as shown in the modelling work. If it does occur, it is considered that agreed measures would provide appropriate mitigation, the most suitable being computer programming of the turbine to cease operation at times when shadow flicker would occur.

155. Subject to the use of appropriate conditions, it is not considered that any detrimental

effect on local residents through incidences of shadow flicker would be sufficient to refuse planning permission.

Impact on Nature Conservation

156. PPS9 sets out the Government’s policy as it relates to the protection of biodiversity

and geological conservation, through the planning system. The PPS sets out key principles in order to ensure that the potential impacts of planning decisions on biodiversity are fully considered.

157. The proposed wind turbine development does no directly affect any designated sites of nature conservation interest, though there are sites in close proximity. As stated previously to the north of the site lies Greencroft & Langley Moor SSSI and Greencroft Heath Local Nature Reserve whilst further to the east is the Chapmans Well Local Nature Reserve. It is not considered that there would be any impact on these sites or their designated interests from the proposed development.

158. In support of the application as assessment has been undertaken of the ecological

interest of the site. This has considered the types of habitat present within the site. In addition, risk assessment was undertaken for the possible presence of great crested newt, and bats, within the site area. The proposal includes various landscaping and habitat enhancement works to mitigate the proposed impact of the wind turbines.

159. Initial concerns were raised by the Council’s Ecologist, regarding the impact the

proposed development would have on local wildlife and habitats. Following discussions with the applicant and the submission of information in support of the current application, these concerns have been overcome. No objections are raised in relation to the current proposal.

160. Although the proposed development would have potential for some locally significant

adverse effects on biodiversity and nature conservation, this would be compensated through the creation of new habitats and the provision of replacement tree and scrub planting.

161. Subject to the suggested conditions requiring the, submission of a landscaping plan,

the agreement of an environmental management plan within six months of works commencing on site, and adherence to the mitigation section of the submitted Bat Survey are conditioned, the proposed development can be considered to be in accordance with the requirements of PPS9.

Aviation 162. Due to the height of the turbines and their location on high ground, initial line of sight

investigations indicate that the proposed turbines are likely to be visible to Newcastle International Airports Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR). As the location of the proposed wind turbines are within an operationally important area of airspace, with the turbines proposed in close proximity to the Newcastle Airports departure and arrivals tracks; the proposed development has the potential to impact upon the safe operation of the airport. Newcastle International Airport therefore initially objected to the planning application.

163. Information was submitted during the planning application process to demonstrate

the effects that the proposed wind turbines would have on the safe operations at the airport. On this basis discussions have taken place between the applicant and Airport. Agreement has been reached between the two parties to ensure the safe operations of the airport are not affected. The solution requires an upgrade to Newcastle Airports Radar system to ensure that the proposed wind turbines are not visible, and do not pose a threat to aviation safeguarding. Subject to a condition requiring a scheme to protect the Airports radar system, being agreed prior to works commencing on site; no objections are raised to the proposed development by Newcastle International Airport.

164. Furthermore to Newcastle Airports’ comments, the MOD has been consulted regarding the proposed development. No objections have been raised on aviation grounds.

TV and other Communication Interference 165. Due to the operation and scale of wind turbines, schemes have the potential to

interfere with analogue TV signals. The applicant has carried out an assessment in accordance with adopted practice in this regard. The assessment has concluded that a large number of properties, based on a worst case scenario, could potentially have their TV signals affected by the proposed development.

166. It should be noted that loss of TV reception is most likely to be an issue for properties

using analogue signals. It is anticipated that roll-out of digital services will be complete in the area in 2012. For those houses currently using satellite or cable TV there will be no significant impacts to TV reception.

167. Should it be demonstrated that the wind turbine has an adverse effect on television

reception; the applicant will undertake suitable mitigation measures, at its expense, to return reception to its pre-development quality. Such measures will include re-aligning existing aerials, fitting a booster unit to the aerial, or supply of a cable or satellite service. The use of an appropriate planning condition will be attached to any grant of planning permission to ensure such mitigate occurs.

168. Also, it should be noted that concerns were raised by communication link operators

in relation to the previous planning application on this site (see relevant planning history). Following the concerns raised the proposed wind turbines were re-located within the site to ensure that they would not interfere with existing links. The relevant operators have confirmed that the current proposal will not interfere with exiting communications links.

Economic Benefits 169. In support of the application the applicant company has confirmed that they have

investigated ways to reduce energy costs through efficiencies and renewable energy sources. They consider that the construction of wind turbines, on land adjacent to their existing site, would allow the company to be almost self - sufficient in terms of electricity requirements (while the wind blows).

170. The applicant has stated that the driving objective of installing wind turbines is to

become one of the greenest wine companies in the world, with the Greencroft Bottling Company being considered “Greenest Bottling Plant” in the world. It is hoped that as a consequence of constructing the turbines the applicant company will be able to develop the business with the income generated, through investment in new bottling lines and personnel; this will also allow the business to prosper well in the future without being hamstrung by ever increasing energy costs.

171. The applicant company aspires to become one of the top three wine bottlers in the

UK, which will require an increase in the scale of operations at this site. The company currently employ 110 full time employees, most of which live in an around Annfield Plain/Stanley area. It is envisaged that employment will increase to around 150 by 2014, if the company develops in line with their strategic vision.

172. Therefore although the proposed development will not lead to direct job creation, it can be seen as being an important element in the applicants company’s plans for the future. The proposed development of wind turbines I this location would therefore have accepted local economic benefits.

Highways 173. Following comments made by Highways Authority Officers the layout of the proposed

development has been amended during the application process, to ensure that the proposed wind turbines do not over-fly the public highway.

174. The development proposals will generate abnormal load movements during the

construction phase. A range of traffic management measures will be employed to enable the safe movement of abnormal loads. Traffic impact has been assessed and it has been demonstrated that construction traffic will not create significant impact on the surrounding highway network.

175. It should be noted that concerns have been raised regarding the impact the

proposed development would have on highway safety, in particular for uses of the nearby A693. However, Highways Officers have raised no objection to the scheme on these grounds. The separation distance of 500m, and intervening buildings and landscaping would be considered to mitigate any impact the proposed turbines would have on road users.

Other Issues 176. Health – Concerns have been raised with regard to potential noise impacts and other

effects on residential amenity and the perceived wellbeing of nearby residents. As stated previously in this report, the applicant has assessed the impact of the development in terms of noise and shadow flicker and concluded that there will be no effects on adjacent residents.

177. Archaeology – Initial concerns were raised by the County Council Archaeologist,

however following additional information in relation to the past uses of the site, no objections are raised to the proposal.

178. Public Rights of Way – The proposed wind turbines are to be located a sufficient

distance from any public footpath or other right of way, to ensure there will be no impact on users sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

179. Other Representations – Various letters of representation have been received from

members of the public and the local Parish Council in relation to the proposed wind farm development. It is considered that the majority of issues raised by the Parish and public objectors have been covered in this report. However some representations received have raised issues that are not considered to be relevant to the determination of the planning application. Issues in relation to the economic viability, reliability, and success of wind turbines have not been discussed in any detail; this is because it is established Government policy that where all other environmental and social impacts are controlled, Councils should support wind turbine proposals.

CONCLUSION

180. The proposed wind farm would make a contribution towards the overall supply of

renewable energy, and contribute towards reaching regional and national targets in terms of energy production. There is very strong and consistent policy support for renewable energy projects. The scheme has significant benefits in this respect, and the key consideration in determining the application is whether or not this policy support for the proposal outweighs any adverse environmental or social impacts the proposal may have.

181. Various reports have been submitted in support of the application for planning

permission. The submissions provide information in relation to landscape and visual amenity, ecology, noise, traffic and transport, shadow flicker, TV/Telecoms, Aviation. The various reports also propose measures to mitigate any impacts identified. The various assessments conclude that the proposed development is essentially a benign project as it will have no predicted significant adverse environmental or amenity effects. It is considered that any impacts associated with the development can be adequately mitigated through the use of appropriate planning conditions.

182. In terms of visual impact, the proposed wind turbines due to their scale and design

will undoubtedly have an impact on the landscape, and will be highly visible features in the locality. The proposed wind turbines will be viewed alongside existing wind turbine development in the area. However, any impacts the proposed development will have on the wider landscape are considered to be commensurate with the benefits the turbine will provide in terms of the production of renewable energy. Any impact the proposed turbine will have on the landscape would not be considered sufficient to warrant refusal of the planning application.

183. In terms of the effect on residential amenity, it is considered that due to the location

of the proposed wind turbines and the orientation of the closest properties, and the screening provided by the existing trees, and with regard to recent appeal decisions and the strong planning policy support for wind turbine development, it is not considered that the impact on amenity would be sufficient to justify refusal of the planning application.

184. The proposed erection of the wind turbines is linked to an adjacent business on the

industrial park. Although then proposed wind turbines do not provide for direct employment opportunities, their importance to plans for future growth of the applicant company is accepted. The proposed scheme will have economic benefits for the local area by reducing the costs of an important existing employer. The applicant company has stated that cost saving associated with the wind turbines will allow future expansion of the business.

185. The proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant national,

regional and local planning policies. Subject to the suggested conditions it is recommended that planning permission be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be Approved subject to the following conditions;

Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved plans. Plan References:

• Lanchester Wine Cellars – Design and Access Statement (Wardell Armstrong) dated June 2011

• Lanchester Wine Cellars – Planning Assessment (Wardell Armstrong) dated June 2011

• Lanchester Wine Cellars – Landscape and Visual Assessment (Wardell Armstrong) dated February 2011

• Lanchester Wine Cellars - Landscape and Visual Assessment (Wardell Armstrong) dated June 2011

• Phase 1 Habitat Survey, prepared for Lachester Wine Cellars (argus ecology) dated 30/11/2010

• Great crested newt risk assessment, prepared for Alternative Energy Contracting Ltd (argus ecology) dated 09/12/2009

• Revised bat risk assessment, prepared for Lanchester Wine Cellars (argus ecology) dated 30/11/2010

• Bat Transect Survey Report, Report No 2481 (E3 Ecology Ltd) dated June 2011

• Lanchester Wine Cellars – Management of Vegetation on Site (Wardell Armstong) dated June 2011

• Lanchester Wine Cellars – Shadow Flicker Report (Wardell Armstrong) dated June 2011

• Lanchester Wine Cellars – Assessments of Effects on Electromagnetic Interference (Wardell Armstrong) dated June 2011

• Noise Assessement Proposed Wind Turbine, :and Adj to Lanchester Wines, Greencroft Industrial Estate (Acute Acoustics Ltd,) – dated 17/06/2011

• Lanchester Wine Cellars – Coal Mining Risk Assessment (Wardell Armstrong) dated February 2011

• Enercon E-53 – Technical Description and Plans of Proosed Wind Turbine

• Site Survey Report, lanchester Wines (AEC Ltd) dated 30/12/2008

• Wind Energy Feasibility Study (TNEI Services Ltd) dated 23/11/2008

• Site Location (NT10850/001) dated June 2011

• Site Boundary Plan (NT10850/002C) dated February 2011

• Existing Site Plan (NT10850/004B) dated March 2011

• Site Layout Plan (NT10850/006B) dated February 2011

• Wind Turbine Weights and Dimensions (NT10850/007) dated June 2011

• Existing Features Plan (NT10850/009B) dated March 2011

• Landscape Proposals (NT10850/005B) dated February 2011

Reason: To define the consent and ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained.

3. The planning permission is for a period from the date of this permission until the date

occurring 25 years after the date of Commissioning of the Development. Written confirmation of the date of Commissioning of the Development shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority no later than 1 calendar month after that event.

Reason: To define the consent.

4. All electrical cabling between the turbines and the on-site connection building shall

be located underground. Thereafter the excavated ground shall be reinstated to its former condition within 3 months of the commissioning of the wind turbine to the satisfaction of the Local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

5. The Company shall provide written confirmation of the following details to the Ministry of Defence/Civil Aviation Authority prior to commencement of development: i) Proposed date of Commencement of the Development ii) The maximum extension height of any construction equipment. Within 28 days of the commissioning of the turbines, the Company shall provide written confirmation of the following details to the Ministry of Defence/Civil Aviation Authority: i) Date of completion of construction ii) The height above ground level of the highest potential obstacle (anemometry mast or wind turbine). iii) The position of that structure in latitude and longitude iv) The lighting details of the site. Reason: To define the consent.

6. Prior to the commencement of any works, a Construction Method Statement shall be

submitted in writing to, and approved in writing by, the Local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in compliance with the approved Construction Method Statement.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

7. Not later than 12 months after the development hereby approved becomes

operational, a scheme for the restoration of the site, including the dismantling and removal of all elements above ground level, and the removal of the turbine bases to a depth of 1.0m, shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out and completed within 12 months from the date that the planning permission hereby granted expires, or from the date of any earlier cessation of use as required by Condition 8 below, whichever is the earlier.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

8. If, prior to the expiry of the temporary planning permission hereby approved, the wind turbine generators hereby permitted cease to operate for a continuous period of 6 months, then the works agreed under the terms of Condition 7 above shall be completed within 12 months of the cessation of operations.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

9. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme to investigate any potential

interference to terrestrial TV and Radio caused by the operation of the turbines shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include but not be limited to a baseline study to establish the existing situation as regards TV reception in the area, a method for identifying the properties potentially affected including survey distances, a list of all properties potentially affected, and details of proposed mitigation measures. Should any validated complaint be received within 12 months of the final commissioning of the turbines hereby approved, the approved mitigation measures shall be implemented within 1 month of the complaint being validated.

Reason: In the interests of preserving the amenity of residents in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

10. Before commencement of any work on site a statement and plans showing the

maximum length of loaded delivery vehicles and confirming the proposed access routes to the site shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the highway safety to comply with Policies GDP1and TR2 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

11. No development shall take place unless in accordance with the mitigation detailed

within the Lanchester Wine Cellars:Coal Mining Risk Assessment (Wardell Armstrong) dated February 2011.

Reason: To ensure a safe form of development in accordance with advice contained with PPG14: Development on Unstable Land.

12. Prior to the commencement of development or within 12 months of the date of this

decision whichever is earliest, a scheme to mitigate the effect of wind turbines on Newcastle International Airport’s Primary Surveillance Radar, in the form of a Radar Blanking Area, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Radar Blanking Area shall then be implemented in full for the life time of the development upon operation of the first wind turbine.

Reason To ensure the development does not impact on Aviation Safeguarding in accordance with advice contained with PPS22; Renewable Energy.

13. Within 6 months of works commencing on site a detailed landscaping scheme shall

be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No tree shall be felled or hedge removed until the landscape scheme, including any replacement tree and hedge planting, is approved as above. Any submitted scheme must be shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats.

The landscape scheme shall include accurate plan based details of the following:

• Trees, hedges and shrubs scheduled for retention.

• Details of hard and soft landscaping including planting species, sizes, layout, densities numbers.

• Details of planting procedures or specification.

• Finished topsoil levels and depths.

• Details of temporary topsoil and subsoil storage provision.

• Seeded or turf areas, habitat creation areas and details etc. Details of land and surface drainage.

• The establishment maintenance regime, including watering, rabbit protection, tree stakes, guards etc.

The local planning authority shall be notified in advance of the start on site date and the completion date of all external works. Trees, hedges and shrubs shall not be removed without agreement within five years. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and local ecology to comply with Policies GDP1, EN11 and IN6 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

14. All planting, seeding or turfing and habitat creation in the approved details of the

landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first available planting season following the practical completion of the development. No tree shall be felled or hedge removed until the removal/felling is shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats. Any approved replacement tree or hedge planting shall be carried out within 12 months of felling and removals of existing trees and hedges. Any trees or plants which die, fail to flourish or are removed within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Replacements will be subject to the same conditions. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and local ecology to comply with Policies GDP1, EN11 and IN6 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

15. No development shall take place unless in accordance with the mitigation detailed

within the protected species report, Bat Transect Survey Report (E3 Ecology Ltd) Site: Lanchester Wine Cellars Ltd – Report No 2481 – June 2011), including, but not restricted to adherence to timing and spatial restrictions; provision of mitigation in advance; adherence to precautionary working methods

Reason: To conserve protected species and their habitat in accordance with advice contained with PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

16. Within 3 months of works commencing on site, an environmental management plan

shall be submitted in writing to, and approved in writing by, the Local planning authority. This shall include details relating to:

• the removal of scrub around the wind turbines essential for the avoidance of impacts on bats

• the creation of the areas of heathland habitat

• the future management and maintenance of the heathland habitat and bat collision zones

Development shall be carried out in compliance with the approved management plan.

Reason: To conserve protected species and their habitat in accordance with advice contained with PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

17. The applicant shall have regard to BS 5228, 2009 Code of Practice for Noise and

Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites, during the construction phase of the proposed development.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

18. In relation to the development hereby permitted, construction machinery may be operated, construction processes may be carried out and construction traffic may enter or leave the site between the hours of 0800 hours and 1800 hours Monday to Friday and between the hours of 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no other times nor on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

19. The rating level of noise emissions from the wind turbines (including the application of any tonal penalty) when calculated in accordance with the attached guidance notes, shall not exceed the values set out in the attached Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Noise Limits between 23:00 and 07:00 hours

(Maximum Noise Level LA90, 10 min dB)

Property Standardised Wind Speed at 10m height, ms-1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Park Head Farm

43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0

Gorecock Hall Farm

43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0

Humber View

43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0

The Villas 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0

Table 2: Noise Limits at all other times (Maximum Noise Level LA90, 10min dB)

Property Standardised Wind Speed at 10m height, ms-1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Park Head Farm

37.5 38.8 39.0 39.4 42.2 43.1 43.5 47.0 47.0 47.0

Gorecock Hall Farm

37.5 38.8 39.0 39.4 42.2 43.1 43.5 47.0 47.0 47.0

Humber View

37.5 38.8 39.0 39.4 42.2 43.1 43.5 47.0 47.0 47.0

The Villas 37.5 38.8 39.0 39.4 42.2 43.1 43.5 47.0 47.0 47.0

Reason: In order to prevent noise disturbance in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

20. Subsequent to the commissioning of the wind turbines the operator shall, at its own expense, employ an independent noise consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to conduct a noise assessment of actual noise emissions from the wind turbine at nearby sensitive receptors to show compliance with the noise limits in Tables 1 and 2. A copy of this report shall be forwarded to the Local Planning Authority for consideration.

Reason: In order to prevent noise disturbance in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

21. Within 28 days from the receipt of a written request from the Local Planning

Authority, following a complaint to it, the wind turbine operator shall, at its own expense, employ an independent noise consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbines at the complainants property following the procedures described in the attached guidance notes entitled ‘Noise Conditions Guidance’ and in accordance with ETSU-R-97.

Reason: In order to prevent noise disturbance in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

22. Wind speed, wind direction and power generation data for the turbine shall be

continuously logged and provided to the Local Planning Authority at its request and in accordance with the attached guidance notes entitled ‘Noise Conditions Guidance’ within 28 days of such request. Such data shall be retained for a period of not less than 12 months.

Reason: In order to prevent noise disturbance in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

23. No development shall commence until there has been submitted to the Local

Planning Authority details of a nominated representative for the development to act as a point of contact for local residents together with arrangements for notifying and approving any subsequent change in the nominated representative. The nominated representative shall have responsibility for dealing with any noise complaints made during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind turbine development and liaison with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to prevent noise disturbance in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

24. At the request of the Local Planning Authority following a justifiable complaint to it,

the wind turbine operator shall at its expense investigate and where necessary implement appropriate controls to alleviate any shadow flicker effect to buildings within 10 rotor diameters of any turbine in the development area. These controls may include screening based mitigation, however technical constraints including operational restrictions shall be implemented if screening based mitigation is unsuccessful. Details of such controls to alleviate shadow flicker shall then be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for information.

Reason: In the interests of preserving the amenity of residents in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

i. The proposed development is considered acceptable having regard to PPS1 and

PPS 22, relevant RSS policies, and Saved Policies GDP1, EN6, EN11, EN21, EN23, CF8, IN3, IN6 and TR2 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.

ii. In particular the development was considered acceptable having regard to

consideration of issues of the location of the development, its visual impact, and effects on highways, the environment and amenity of adjacent occupants and uses.

iii. The stated grounds of objection concerning the impacts on landscape, residential

amenity , tv reception and highways were not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

- Submitted Application Forms and Plans. - Planning Statement - Design and Access Statement - Technical Reports Submitted in Support of the application - North East of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) July 2008 - Derwentside Local Plan - Wind Farm Development and Landscape Capacity Studies: East Durham Limestone

and Tees Plain (NEA / ARUP 2008) and Addendum (ANEC / ARUP October 2009) - Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development (GONE 2003) - Planning Policy Statements / Guidance, PPS1, PPS5 PPS7, PPS9, PPG13, PPG14,

PPS22, PPS25 - Consultation Responses

Planning Services

CMA/1/51

Erection of 2 No. Wind Turbines at Land to east of Greencroft Estates, Annfield Plain Stanley

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary

Office © Crown copyright.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding.

Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005

Comments

Date November 2011 1:5000

SITE BOUNDARY