Sustainable development Committee

29th June 2011

Sunny Desai

e-mail: sunny.desai@hounslow.gov.uk

References: P/2011/1001 00558/A/P40

Address: BSkyB, Harlequin Avenue, Brentford

Ward: Osterley and Spring Grove

Proposal: Installation of one wind turbine above the Harlequin 1 plant farm (instead of the two previously approved under planning permission 00558/A/P34 dated 30 December 2010)

Documents and drawings:

P-XB-30-260A, 550A, 560A P-XB-91-02A, SK 0006A, SK 0007A Design and Access Statement Environmental Statement (inc technical Summary) Received 11/4/11

Application Valid: 11/4/11

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The proposal involves the installation of one wind turbine (66.5m high above ground level (84.5m AOD), adjacent to the north-east facing elevation of the approved and now complete Harlequin 1 Building, part of the BSkyB campus, Osterley.

1.2 The application involves alterations to an approved application 00558/A/P34, for which planning permission was approved and s106 agreement signed in 2010 and involved the installation of two wind turbines 66.5m high (84.5m high AOD).

1.3 The subject application comes in light of further detailed design work between the applicant and the manufacturer which has demonstrated that aero-dynamic interference generated between the two turbine blades requires the downwind turbine to be shut down from a number of wind directions to prevent possible blade damage. This would mean that for significant periods only one of the two turbines would be able to be used, reducing the energy generated.

1.4 Following this conclusion, work by the applicant has demonstrated that the embodied energy (amount of energy used to create a turbine) inherent in creating two turbines is double that of one; for almost the same energy output and therefore the applicant has noted that it is not appropriate from a sustainability perspective to continue to erect two wind turbines when the additional energy return for investment does not justify this. Subsequently one wind turbine is now proposed.

1.5 This report presents the proposed scheme (00558/A/P40), a summary of representations received and an assessment of the implications of development.

1.6 Approval, subject to safeguarding conditions and completion of a s106 agreement including the below points, is recommended:

• Financial contribution towards additional planting and future tree maintenance in areas of affected views including Boston Manor House. A £10,000 contribution has been agreed to this effect.

• Monitoring fee of up to £10,000 over three years, with quarterly acoustic reports from nearest sensitive receptors. Ability of LPA to enforce mitigation measures or discontinue use if noise limits exceeded.

• Monitoring fee of up to £10,000 over three years, with yearly shadow Flicker reports - Ability of LPA to enforce mitigation measures or discontinue use if unacceptable shadow flicker results.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The site is part of the BSkyB Osterley Campus, which is located to the north west of Harlequin Avenue, 250m north of the Great West Road (A4).

2.2 The site has an area of 2.05 hectares and is situated between Harlequin Avenue and the Tesco and Harrods sites to the west.

2.3 The Harlequin 1 building is in the north-eastern part of the site. This is a mixed use media building which is part of the first phase of the approved Tactical Property Plan redevelopment of the BSkyB campus (see history).

2.4 To the north west, the site is bound by a Harrods depot and Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) in the form of private sports clubs.

2.5 Tesco (Syon Lane) and the Listed former Gillette factory are positioned to the south west of the site, with West Cross Business Park to the south east.

2.6 The north-eastern site boundary, close to the Harlequin 1 site is marked by a railway line, beyond is a waste transfer station on the opposite side.

2.7 Beyond the waste transfer station is more MOL land (Boston Manor Park), accommodating Boston Manor House (Grade 1 Listed and within a Conservation Area) and playing fields. The M4 is also located to the north.

3.0 HISTORY 3.1 000558/A/P/25 Principle of redevelopment of the existing site to create

up to 69, 581 square metres of floorspace on the site for a broadcasting facility (use class B1(b)), offices (use class B1(a)) and warehouse/storage uses (use class B8), landscaping, 1125 car parking spaces, access and highway improvements, together with ancillary works, plant and equipment (outline consent).

Approved 23/4/07

3.2 000558/A/P25 (1)

Following approval of the Outline application 00558/A/P25 on 23 April 2007, for the principle of redevelopment of the existing site to create up to 69, 581 square metres of floorspace on the site for a broadcasting facility (use class B1(b)), offices (use class B1(a)) and warehouse/storage uses (use class B8), landscaping, 1125 car parking spaces, access and highway improvements, together with ancillary works, plant and equipment, reserved matters submitted pursuant to condition 1 for siting, design and external appearance for a mixed use media building providing television studios, broadcast support facilities and office space (site area of 20,831 square metres) to be positioned adjoining Harlequin Avenue.

Approved 9/7/07

3.3 000558/A/P25 (1A)

Following approval for Outline application 00558/A/P25 on 23 April 2007, for the principle of redevelopment of the existing site to create up to 69,581 square metres of floorspace on the site for a broadcasting facility (use class B1(b)), offices (use class B1(a)) and warehouse/storage uses (use class B8), landscaping, 1125 car parking spaces, access and highway improvements, together with ancillary works, plant and equipment details submitted pursuant to condition 1 reserved matter (Landscaping) of permission approved.

Approved 18/04/07

3.4 00558/A/P27 Installation of a satellite dish (diameter 7.6m to 9.4m)

Approved 23/6/08

3.5 00558/A/P28 The installation and erection of two entrance/exit gates within existing boundary fences on either side of Grant Way

Approved 29/05/08

3.6 00558/A/P29 Installation of two wind turbines (85.5m high AOD)

Withdrawn 15/9/09

3.7 00558/A/P30 Alterations to existing site entrance facilities including the installation of new vehicle traffic barriers

Approved 4/11/08

3.8 00558/A/P31 Variation of Condition 34 of approval 00558/A/P25 to change the wording of the condition from 'prior development' to 'prior to occupation'

Approved 9/10/08

3.9 00558/A/P32 Erection of a building housing plant and equipment essential to the operation of the BSkyB Harlequin 1 development.

Approved 23/10/08

3.10 00558/A/P33 Alterations to site entrance including the installation of a vehicle traffic barrier.

Approved 03/2/09

3.11 00558/A/P34 Installation of two wind turbines 66.5m high (84.5m high AOD)

Approved and Legal agreement signed 30/12/10

3.12 00558/A/P35 Erection of a Combined cooling and heating Plant

Approved 30/9/10

3.13 00558/A/P36 Erection of single storey gate house and barrier system.

Approved 20/12/2010

3.14 00558/A/P37 Change of use from ancillary lorry park to staff car park for BSkyB incorporating surfacing, lighting, planting and access.

Approved 16/09/2010

3.15 00558/A/P38 Installation of a security gatehouse, vehicle barriers, pedestrian and cyclist gates with canopy, new boundary security fencing and related alterations to the carriageway alignment, pedestrian/cycle routes and landscaping.

Approved 21/01/2011

3.16 00558/A/P38 Alterations to an exiting car park including installation of an entrance barrier and landscaping to create a visitor car park.

Approved 13/05/2011

3.17 00558/A/P39 Alterations to an existing car park including installation of an entrance barrier and landscaping to create a visitor car park.

Approved 13/5/11

3.18 00558/A/P41 Erection of temporary 5 storey office accommodation comprising of 23310SQM B1 office and associated plant and infrastructure for a period of five years

Pending

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 Planning permission (00558/A/P34) was granted and a legal agreement signed on the 30/12/10, following resolution to grant at SDC on the 29th September 2010 and involved the erection of two 66.5m high wind turbines to the north of the Harlequin 1 Building, part of the BSkyB Campus.

4.2 The redevelopment of the overall campus was approved in 2007 (ref:00558/A/P25) for the following development:

Principle of redevelopment of the existing site to create up to 69, 581 square metres of floor space on the site for a broadcasting facility (use class B1(b)), offices (use class B1(a)) and warehouse/storage uses (use class B8), landscaping, 1125 car parking spaces, access and highway improvements, together with ancillary works, plant and equipment.

4.3 Phase 1 of that permission has been implemented and involves the Harlequin 1 Building (see figure 1). A requirement of the planning permission through the mechanism of a safeguarding condition was a requirement for each phase of the development to provide 20% of the sites energy from renewable sources (Condition 40):

Before occupation or commencement of broadcasting, which ever is the later, of each phase of development an on-site scheme to meet 20% of the sites energy needs from renewable sources for that phase shall be operational in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

4.4 The approved turbines (P34) and an approved CCHP (P35) were to form part of the energy strategy for the redeveloped campus and to satisfy condition 40 above and to provide a reduction in CO2 from renewable energy generation.

4.5 However following the approval further design development has been undertaken between the manufacturers and the applicant, which has resulted in the applicant deciding to omit the eastern turbine, leaving just the one turbine now proposed.

4.6 The Design and Access Statement notes that ‘the case for reduction to one

turbine is entirely technical to ensure that it provides the most efficient production of energy from wind and that the energy it offers is truly sustainable. Notwithstanding previous information provided by the manufacturer, detailed design with the same manufacturer has demonstrated that aero-dynamic interference generated between the blades requires the downwind turbine to be shut down from a number of wind directions to prevent possible blade damage’’.

4.7 The Design and Access Statement further comments that ‘as an organisation BSkyB is completely committed to efficient, viable sustainable energy sources. The embodied energy inherent in two turbine is double that of one; for almost the same energy output. Following this further work it is therefore not appropriate from a sustainability perspective to continue to erect two wind turbines when the additional energy return for investment does not justify this’.

4.8 Subsequently this application seeks planning permission for one of the previously approved two wind turbines to be erected. The proposed turbine is of exactly the same design and is of no difference to that previously approved, other than its eastern neighbour is omitted.

Figure 1 site context1

1 Environmental Statement Page 2

4.9 The proposed wind turbine will have a hub height of 56m high above ground level with a total height of 66.5m above ground level (84.5m AOD) for the turbine rotors. The turbine blades would have a diameter of 10.5m. In the context of the principal part of the Harlequin 1 building, the top of the turbine blades would extend approximately 30m higher than the roof of the building and 23.5m above the top of the chimney features. The turbine would be supported by a structure that would be integrated into the building structure of the plant room for Harlequin 1.

Location

4.10 The turbine is to be located in front of the north facing elevation of the Harlequin 1 Building (figure 1) facing towards the Waste Transfer Station and the M4 motorway. This is the same location as the previous P34, albeit one turbine is removed. The turbine would be positioned approximately 520m from the nearest residences in Oaklands Avenue (which are also partially shielded from the supporting trunks by the Harlequin 1 building itself) and over 550m from the nearest housing along Syon Lane (supporting structure also obscured by the H1 building). The nearest residential properties to the north are within the southern section of Boston Gardens and are positioned approximately 620m away and separated by the M4 and playing fields.

Figure 2: Projected image of the proposal2.

Number of turbines and energy output

4.11 The Design and Access Statement notes ‘that it has not been suitable to relocate the second turbine to mitigate the impacts of the aerodynamic interference given that the location was previously very carefully considered in terms of the Harlequin 1 project of which the turbine are a component. Consideration includes, for example, issues such as collapse radius on the railway line. There are no other suitable locations within the Harlequin 1 site, which is now fully developed, where it is appropriate or beneficial to BSkyB to locate a second turbine. This would also break with the architectural intent of the turbine which is to form a visual part of the Harlequin 1 building for which the energy is being generated’.

4.12 The western turbine has been chosen to remain for two clear reasons:

• The west turbine is in a slightly more exposed position, and is anticipated to encounter slightly less building generated turbulence in relation to the prevailing winds. This allows greater efficiency. A single west turbine has been calculated to generate 133,100 kWh in comparison to the 131,000 kWh generated by a single east turbine.

• The west turbine is closer to the heart of the campus that Sky intends to develop in due course, providing a visible symbol of sustainability as the campus expands.

4.13 The western turbine therefore generates the most energy and only provides 6% less energy than that, which would have been generated by the two approved turbines operating side by side (as a result of the need for one to be turned off for significant periods due to potential blade damage).

Height

4.14 The applicant notes that the turbine height has been determined by practical constraints. Generally, the higher the turbine, the more ‘clean’ air it receives as there is less interruption to air flow and the more efficient they are. The upper limit of the turbine is constrained by construction practicality and collapse radius.

4.15 The height of the single turbine is the same as the height of the approved turbines respectively.

Materials

4.16 The wind turbine would as previously approved, be constructed from tubular steel members, bolted and welded together and painted light grey. The structure would be clad in a light anodised aluminium mesh. The engine of the wind turbine is to be a white painted metal. The blades of the turbine are formed from a white coloured composite plastic material.

2 See Design and Access Statement page 25.

4.17 The base of the turbine is a braced steelwork structure, clad with perforated natural anodised aluminium panels at upper level, and precast concrete panels at lower level. This structure is known as the ‘plant farm’. It contains plant essential to the operation of the adjacent H1 building, and is already complete, having obtained planning approval simultaneously with the H1 Phase One development.

Additional Information

4.18 The height and position of the wind turbine proposed has been defined by

the site context and a need to achieve as high a level of efficiency as possible in terms of generating a significant amount of renewable energy.

4.19 An Environmental Statement (ES) has been submitted to support the application and contains the following chapters:

• Ecology and biodiversity

• Noise and vibration/shadow flicker

• Landscape and visual impact

• Aviation

• Construction

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to neighbouring sites and Local Resident Associations on the 20/4/11. This included residents of Syon Lane, Oaklands Avenue and Boston Gardens being consulted. Press and site notices were also posted. Two objections have been received to-date, commenting:

Comment

It is going to overpower the whole area and I am extremely uncomfortable with the fact that it will interfere with air traffic control’.

The scheme has been assessed in respect of the impact upon aviation and found to be acceptable. NATS, the MOD and BAA have no objection.

Visually obtrusive

See paragraph 7.13-7.21

The proposal notes the sightings of rare birds - the black redstarts. It is not acceptable that this rare bird should be

affected. Osterley is a special area with wonderful open spaces and the biodiversity that should not be spoiled in this manner.

The impact upon ecology has been assessed as part of the P34 scheme to ensure there would be no harmful impact. It should be noted that Natural England and the Environment Agency both have no objection to the proposals.

Harm to neighbours’ living conditions through noise

The Council instructed an independent external assessment of the noise implications, which were found to be acceptable subject to mitigation for the approved scheme.

Harm to neighbours and operation of adjacent waste transfer station through light/flicker

Impact found to be acceptable as part of P34 scheme, this current application involves only one turbine. Furthermore it should be noted that PPS 22 (Companion Guide) notes that light flicker only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening’.

5.2 As an EIA development the Secretary of State has been consulted and has

yet to comment. 5.3 The Mayor of London has been Consulted and Under Article 4 (2) of the

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As amended) and has no objection. 5.4 NATS (National Air Traffic Services) were consulted and have no objection,

subject to safeguarding condition. 5.5 BAA were consulted and have no objection. 5.6 The Civil Aviation Authority have yet to comment (previously no objection). 5.7 The Ministry of Defence (Defence Estates) have commented and have no

objection. 5.8 The Environment Agency have commented and have no objection. 5.9 Natural England have yet to comment. (Previously no objection). 5.10 The Highways Agency have no objection. 5.11 The London Borough of Ealing have no objection.

5.12 Transport for London have no objection. 5.13 The Council’s Land Quality Team have accepted, following further

discussion and reviewing the land quality mitigation as part of the overall campus development application, the removal of Condition 10 of the previous approval (P34).

5.14 The application was brought before Members of the Isleworth and Brentford

Area Committee for Comment on the 19th May, they commented:

• Members’ comments related to the construction costs and their relation to the value of the anticipated energy output of the amended scheme and whether the same level of S106 obligations was being sought from the applicant. Members also commented that this was an excellent site for the turbine and recommended that it be passed on to the Sustainable Development Committee for consideration

6.0 POLICY

NATIONAL AND STRATEGIC PLANNING POLICIES 6.1 The relevant national planning policies are:

• PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development

• PPS1: Supplement – Climate Change

• PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

• PPS12: Local Development Frameworks

• PPG13: Transport

• PPS22: Renewable Energy (Plus companion Guide)

• PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control

• PPG24: Planning and Noise 6.2 The Circulars of relevance to this planning application are:

• 11/95: Use of Planning Conditions in Planning Permission

• 05/05: Planning Obligations 6.3 PPS 22 Renewable Energy

• Planning Policy Statement 22 sets out national planning policy on Renewable Energy. This states that local planning authorities and developers should consider the opportunity for incorporating renewable energy projects such as wind turbines in all new developments. It also states that local planning authorities should specifically encourage such schemes through positively expressed policies in local development documents.

• PPS 22 also highlights the importance of assessing the landscape and visual effects of such schemes.

Regional and Local Policy

6.4 When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to the development plan, so far as is material, and to any other material considerations. In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.5 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the saved policies in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (‘UDP’), the Employment Development Plan Document, the Brentford Area Action Plan and the London Plan.

6.6 The London Plan (Consolidated with alterations since 2004) was adopted in February 2008. The UDP was adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007 by Direction from the Secretary of State.

Relevant policies of the London Plan

6.7 The following London Plan policies are of relevance to the applications:

The Mayor’s Objectives Policy 1 The Mayor’s Objectives The Overall Strategy Policy 2A.1 Sustainability criteria Working in London Policy 3B1 Developing London’s Economy Policy 3B.8 Creative Industries Enjoying London Policies Policy 3D.10 Metropolitan Open Land Policy 3D.14 Biodiversity and nature conservation London’s Metabolism Policies: Using and Managing Natural Resources Policy 4A.7 Energy efficiency and renewable energy Designs on London Policies Policy 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city Policy 4B.2 Promoting world class architecture and design Policy 4B.10 Large scale buildings – design and impact Delivering the Vision Policies Policy 6A.4 Priorities in planning obligations Policy 6A.5 Planning obligations

6.8 The most relevant of these London Plan policies are summarised below. 6.9 Policy 4A.7 (Renewable Energy) states that the developments will achieve a

reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on-site renewable energy generation. It supports the objective of increasing the proportions of

energy used generated from renewable sources by requiring the inclusion of renewable energy technology and design, including through wind power.

6.10 Policy 4B.10 (Large Scale buildings – design and impact) states that all large buildings including tall buildings should be of the highest quality design and be attractive city elements as viewed from all angles and where appropriate contribute to an interesting skyline.

Relevant policies of the UDP

6.11 The following UDP policies are of relevance to the applications.

Implementation Policies Policy IMP-1.1 Integrating patterns of land use and the provision of

transport Policy IMP-1.2 The re-use and recycling of urban land and buildings Policy IMP-6.1 Planning Obligations

Natural Environment Policies Policy ENV-N.1.7 Development near the Metropolitan Open Land

Boundary Policy ENV-N.1.5 Protection of Metropolitan Open Land Policy ENV-N.2.3 Species protection Policy ENV-N.2.4 Habitat protection Policy ENV-N.2.5 Habitat reconstruction Policy ENV-N.2.6 Landscape features Built Environment Policies Policy ENV-B.1.1 New Development Policy ENV-B.1.2 High Buildings or Structures Affecting Sensitive Areas Policy ENV-B.1.5 Environmental improvements Policy ENV-B.1.9 Safety and security Policy ENV-B 2.2. Conservation Areas Policy ENV-B.2.8 Views and Landmarks Environmental Protection Policies Policy ENV-P.1.1 Environmental sustainability: environmental impact

statements and sustainability checklist Policy ENV-P.1.5 Noise pollution Policy ENV-P.1.6 Air pollution Policy ENV-P.1.7 Light pollution Policy ENV-P.2.1 Waste management Policy ENV-P.2.4 Recycling facilities in new developments Transport Policies Policy T.1.2 The movement implications of development Policy T.1.4 Car and cycle parking and servicing facilities for

developments. Policy T.4.3 Traffic implications of new development Supplementary Planning Guidance

6.12 Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (April 2004) (London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance)

6.13 Sustainable design and construction (May 2006) (London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Other relevant documents

6.14 Green light to clean power: The Mayor’s Energy Strategy (February 2004).

6.15 Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002.

6.16 Employment Development Plan Document

E1 Maintaining Employment Capacity

E4 Diversity in Employment

6.17 Brentford Area Action Plan

BAAP1 Sustainable Development

BAAP2 Urban Design

BAAP4 The Great West Road

BE4 BSkyB, Centaurs Business Park, Syon Lane

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES

7.1 The main planning issues to consider are:

1. Principle of development and role of renewable energy

2. Visual impact

3. Noise and light

4. Biodiversity and Ecology

5. Aviation

6. Planning obligations

Issue 1: Principle of development and role for renewable energy

7.2 The principle of development of two wind turbines at the site was approved as part of the P34 application.

7.3 That application noted that wind power is now a viable and well established source of electricity generation, that creates no harmful emissions. As the

UK is the windiest country in Europe, it is well placed to exploit this never-ending resource. Consequently, the Government believes that wind power will play a major role in meeting policy targets for renewable energy generation over the next decade and beyond.

7.4 PPS 22 (Renewable Energy) states that local planning authorities and developers should consider the opportunity for incorporating renewable energy projects such as wind turbines in all new developments. The proposed wind turbines are an example of renewable technology.

7.5 Government’s guidance outlines a presumption in favour of renewable energy schemes, unless there are any exceptional and compelling reasons to suggest otherwise, is demonstrated.

7.6 The need to reduce Carbon emissions through renewable energy is also a specific requirement of Condition 40 and an obligation of the signed s106 agreement of the approved permission for the site.

7.7 The proposed wind turbine is therefore a key component to BSkyB’s proposals for renewable energy generation (as required by condition, s.106 and BSkyB’s own commitment to the environment) as part of the redevelopment of their campus and headquarters.

7.8 The proposed turbine has the potential to make a significant contribution towards an overall reduction in carbon emissions for Phase1 (Harlequin 1 Building) to be achieved through on-site renewables.

7.9 The applicant has conducted a further energy yield assessment, taking into account the revised operational requirements. This analysis has shown that the revised operating regime would reduce the combined output of the 2 turbines from 224,000 kWh to 141,000 kWh per year. The required shut down reduces the efficiency of the turbine to the point where the output from two turbines is estimated to be only 6% more than the output of a single turbine. The current proposal is for a single western turbine generating 133,100 kWh of energy per year.

7.10 Therefore whilst the amount of renewable energy produced would be less than the approved scheme, as a result of one wind turbine instead of two, the turbine and approved CCHP would still provide a significant amount of renewable energy and help achieve the 20% reduction in carbon emissions through the use of renewable energy required by safeguarding condition 40 and the s106 of the original consent. Furthermore the reduction to one turbine would result in a reduction overall of only 8,000KWh per year from the approved scheme (as a result of one turbine being required to be turned off for significant periods).

7.11 Indeed it should be noted that the annual CO2 emission offset by the one turbine now proposed is equivalent to the emission generated by:

• A petrol car (70 miles/gallon) traveling 370,000 miles – approximately 15 times around the world every year; or one and a half times the distance to the moon.

• The heating and electricity consumed by 74 typical 35m2 studio flats annually – enough heat and electricity to supply a five to six storey student residential block every year.

• The output will offset the same amount of CO2 that 5,600 trees absorb annually - somewhere between eight and fourteen acres of forest.

7.12 The principle of the development is in line with the underpinning aims of

planning policy and in the interests of sustainable development. Furthermore the turbine has the potential to produce a significant reduction in carbon emissions through the use of renewable energy. The wider impacts of the proposed wind turbines are discussed below.

Issue 2: Visual Impact

7.13 Policy ENV-B.1.1 states that new development should be compatible with, and seek to enhance the character of the area in terms of size, scale and material. Policy ENV-B 2.2 states that the Council will preserve and enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.

7.14 The proposed wind turbine would have a height of 66.5m and would project

approximately 30m above the main roof of the Harlequin 1 building. As a result of this height and scale the turbine would be visible from a significant distance away and would have an impact upon the surrounding landscape. Therefore its design and appearance is a key impact requiring assessment.

7.15 The turbine would be visible from areas of MOL land to the north of the site.

Policy ENV-N.1.5 states that the Council will safeguard the permanence and integrity of the Metropolitan Open Land, with special regard to conserving and enhancing its character, appearance, historic…whilst increasing access to and enjoyment of these large open spaces.

7.16 It was concluded as part of the P34 approved application for the two

turbines that whilst the turbines would be readily visible from certain viewpoints, that as a result of their design and position, when taking into account the immediate site context and what these structures represent, that the impact is acceptable and would result in visually distinct, elegant and legible additions to the area. Therefore there is not considered to be any harm to the appearance and character of adjacent Conservation areas, MOL land or historic buildings and views.

7.17 It is considered that one turbine, as is now proposed will have a reduced

visual impact compared with the two turbines. However it should be noted in terms of design impact that the two turbines were held to have a strong visual appearance when viewed from the M4 and that the symmetry in front of the north east facing elevation of the Harlequin 1 Building created by the two turbines would not now be created.

7.18 However the Design and Access Statement notes ‘that the striking twisted

spiral design of the retained turbine will still provide a distinctive and unique sculptural landmark on the M4’.

7.19 As with the P34 scheme it is recommended that a contribution to any

additional/replacement planting be provided for areas where historic views/buildings may be affected such as Syon Park and Boston Manor House site.

Figure 4 : Projected image of proposed turbine from the M4

7.20 It is considered that the design and appearance of the proposed turbine is acceptable and would have an acceptable impact upon the surrounding area, providing an elegant addition that is appropriate for this location and for the Harlequin 1 Building itself.

Issue 3: Noise and light pollution/flicker/Fall radius

Noise

7.21 PS 22 (Renewable Energy) states that noise from wind turbines should be assessed using The Assessment and Rating of Noise from wind turbines, ETSU-R-97. It should be noted that the nearest residential properties would be over 500m away from the proposed turbines, with various buildings and screening in between.

7.22 The impact in respect of noise from two wind turbines was considered acceptable, following independent review of the proposed impacts and assessment by the Council’s Pollution team, as part of the P34 scheme. It follows that one turbine would have a reduced impact and would also be acceptable in noise terms.

7.23 As with the approved scheme and in addition to a safeguarding condition recommended by the External Noise Consultant, a s106 agreement (see Issue 6) would again be required to provide a monitoring fee to the Council to review noise levels at sensitive receptors at agreed intervals for a period of three years. If at any point the noise levels exceed those deemed acceptable and indeed exceed the applicants predictions the Council would then be able to look to mitigation measures or even, if such measures, fail to address the situation permanently stop the turbines from operating.

7.24 Therefore it is considered that the wind turbine would not have a harmful impact upon neighbours’ living conditions in respect of noise disturbance.

Light/shadow Flicker

7.26 The issue of light/shadow flicker was raised during the assessment of the previous P34 application. Light/Shadow flicker is the term used to describe what happens when rotating turbine blades come between the viewer and the sun, causing a moving shadow3.

7.27 The assessment of the P34 scheme found that the impacts in respect of light flicker were acceptable, again following independent assessment and full modelling exercises. This was subject to safeguarding mitigation being provided to further ensure that the turbines do not harm neighbours’ living conditions or the operations at neighbouring sites. The s106 included monitoring arrangement for a 3 year period with the LPA able to require mitigation if problems arise (i.e. the turbines are shut off during periods of potential shadow flicker). These requirements would again form part of the s106 in relation to this application.

7.28 As with the noise impact the removal of one turbine would not result in any increase in flicker from the approved scheme and it is considered that the subject to mitigation as noted above the proposal would not result in any unacceptable impact in respect of light/shadow flicker.

Fall Radius

7.29 The position of the one turbine now proposed is the same as its position was In reply to: the approved scheme and therefore the fall radius is considered acceptable. This would again be subject to an asset protection agreement being required by condition involving details of the ‘collapse radius’ of a wind turbine if it were to fall across the adjacent railway line.

Issue 4: Biodiversity and ecology

7.30 Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) sets out the Governments planning policy on the protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. The key principles of PPS9 include the aim that planning decisions should prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. In respect of Species Protection, PPS9 places obligations on the planning authorities to ensure the protection of such species from the adverse effects of development, where appropriate, by using planning conditions or obligations permission should be refused where harm to the species or their habitats would result unless the need for, and benefits of the development clearly outweigh that harm.

3 Shadow flicker occurs in a building when the sun shining through a window passes through

the rotating blades of a wind turbine causing a flickering effect. A similar effect can also

occur when the gloss blades of a rotating turbine reflect the sun causing a flashing light.

Shadow flicker only happens when a certain combination of conditions coincide at particular

times of the day and year and is more common in the winter months when the sun is low in

the sky -Atmos.

7.25 Paragraph 14 of PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation4 states that “Development proposals provide many opportunities for building-in beneficial biodiversity or geological features as part of good design. When considering proposals, local planning authorities should maximise such opportunities in and around developments, using planning obligations where appropriate.”

7.26 As stated in London Plan Policy 3D.14, “The planning of new development and regeneration should have regard to nature conservation and biodiversity, and opportunities should be taken to achieve positive gains for conservation through the form and design of development. Where appropriate, measures may include creating, enhancing and managing wildlife habitat and natural landscape and improving access to nature.”

7.27 Whilst there is limited biodiversity value within the subject site, the surrounding areas, including the MOL, Conservation Areas, a site of Special Scientific interest (SSSI) and adjacent canal, have the potential to support wildlife. Therefore Natural England requested that a biodiversity impact assessment was included in the ES.

7.28 Natural England concluded in respect of the approved two turbine scheme that ‘after careful consideration of the information provided it is our opinion that this proposal does not significantly affect any priority interest areas for Natural England, therefore we do not object to the proposal. Natural England is pleased to see that the impact collision surveys have been undertaken and that the results indicate limited impact collision for this installation’.

7.29 The Environment Agency also had no objection to the two-turbine scheme or to this application.

7.30 It is considered that one turbine instead of two will reduce any impact upon biodiversity. This would be subject to safeguarding measures ensuring that no additional planting around the turbines so as not to attract wildlife to the immediate turbine area.

Issue 5: Aviation

7.31 The Wind Energy and Aviation Guidelines highlight the need for the development of wind energy in order to reach UK Government targets and aim to facilitate this whilst ensuring that the interests of both civil and military aviation are recognised’5.

7.32 A wind farm or wind turbine has the potential to impact upon aviation in the following ways:

• The physical obstruction caused by a tall structure; and

4 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, ODPM August 2005.

5 Para 4.5 Policies and Guidance Page 58 of Environmental Statement

• The effects that the supporting structure and rotating turbine blades can have on communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) systems (including radar) and other equipment, referred to as “technical sites”.

7.33 The previous scheme addressed the aviation issues and involved significant discussion with NATS and CAA.

7.34 The previous scheme concluded that that subject to safeguarding conditions (Conditions 8 and 9) the proposed development would not have a harmful impact upon aviation conditions. These conditions would again be placed on the subject application.

8 No turbine shall be erected until a detailed Operator Mitigation Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council following consultation with the Operator. "Operator" means NATS (En Route) pIc, incorporated under the Companies Act (4129273) whose registered office is 5th Floor, Brettenham House South, Lancaster Place, London, WC2E 7EN or such other organisation licensed from time to time under sections 5 and 6 of the Transport Act 2000 to provide air traffic services to the relevant managed area (within the meaning of section 40 of that Act). "Operator Mitigation Scheme" or "Scheme" means a detailed scheme agreed with the Operator which sets out the measures to be taken to mitigate at all times the impact of the Development on the primary radars of the Operator known as Heathrow 10cm and Heathrow 23cm and associated air traffic management operations of the Operator which reflects the requirements of the submitted Statement of Common Understanding. "Statement of Common Understanding" means the document agreed with the Operator and submitted to the Council dated 16 April 2010 and described as "Statement of Common Understanding relating to the Development of a radar mitigation scheme" which sets out the high level requirements of the Operator Mitigation Scheme and the principles which will govern the development and agreement of such a scheme.

9 No turbine shall be erected until the approved Operator Mitigation Scheme has been implemented and the development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with such approved Scheme.

7.35 The erection of one turbine of the same height and design does not raise any aviation issues that has not been addressed and the mitigation required as part of the P34 remain necessary.

Issue 6: Planning obligations

7.36 UDP policy IMP6.1 states that the Council will seek to ensure that a developer enters into a planning obligation to secure planning benefits related to the proposed development. A payment or other benefit offered pursuant to a section 106 agreement is not material to a decision to grant planning permission and cannot be required unless it complies with the provisions of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (regulation 122), which provide that the planning obligation must be:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Accordingly, it is mandatory that each criterion be satisfactorily addressed prior to granting planning permission subject to a section 106 agreement.

7.37 Government Circular 05/2005 provides guidance on the use of planning

obligations, which may impose a restriction or requirement, or provide for payment of money from the developer to make acceptable development proposals that might otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations (which was adopted in March 2008) contains guidance on the imposition of planning obligations in compliance with Circular 05/2005. These obligations may offset shortfalls in the scheme or mitigate the impacts of the development.

7.38 The previous P34 approval was subject to a S106 agreement that comprised of the following obligations:

• Financial contribution towards additional planting and future tree maintenance in areas of affected views including Boston Manor House. A £10,000 contribution has been agreed to this effect.

• Monitoring fee of up to £20,000 over three years, in respect of noise and shadow flicker monitoring. Ability of LPA to enforce mitigation measures or discontinue use if noise limits exceeded or unacceptable shadow flicker results.

7.39 All payments would be index linked and the phasing of the payments and

the construction programme subject to detailed negotiation (as it would be necessary to ensure delivery of the scheme as a whole and the full range of benefits).

7.40 It is considered that these obligations are still required to mitigate the impacts of the proposed scheme and would be secured as part of a s106 agreement.

8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

8.1 The Council has had due regard to its Equalities Duties and in particular with respect to its duties arising pursuant to the Equality Act 2010, section 149. Following a relevance test, which is available at http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/council_and_democracy/equality/eias/environment_eias.htm it is considered that there will be no specific implications with regard to the Council’s duty in respect of its equalities duties and that if approving or refusing this proposal the Council will be acting in compliance with its duties.

9.0 RECOMMENDATION

APPROVAL

1. That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and securing the abovementioned planning obligations by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment on the advice of the Borough Solicitor.

2. The satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above

shall be completed and planning permission issued by 29/8/11 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment or Borough Solicitor’s Office.

3. If the legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed by the date

specified above (or any agreed extended period), then the Director of Environment or Assistant Director - Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or Development Control Support Manager is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal should include planning obligations required to make the development acceptable in planning terms in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, development plan policies and the Planning Obligations SPD, as described in 7 of this Report.

4. If planning permission is refused (for the reasons set out above), the

Director of Environment or Assistant Director - Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or Development Control Support Manager (in consultation with the Chair of SDC) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission validated within 12 months of the date of refusal of planning permission, provided that it (a) duplicates the planning application, and (b) that there has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and (c) that a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the obligations set out in the Report is completed within any specified period of time.

Reasons and Conditions

With appropriate safeguarding conditions, the proposed erection of one wind turbine is, as a result of its design, position and potential to provide

renewable energy, considered acceptable and would have a satisfactory impact upon the appearance and character of the surrounding area, listed Buildings, Metropolitan Open Land, as well as having no harmful impact upon neighbours’ living conditions. The proposals are in accordance with PPS1 (Sustainable Development), PPS 22 (Renewable energy), Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), ENV-N.1.7(Development near the Metropolitan Open Land Boundary Policy) ,ENV-B 2.2.(Conservation Areas), Policy ENV-B.1.2 (High Buildings or Structures Affecting Sensitive Areas) and Policy ENV-P.1.5 (Noise pollution) of the adopted unitary development Plan and London Plan Polices 2A.1 (Sustainability criteria), Policy 4A.7(Energy efficiency and renewable energy) and Policy 4B.10 (Large scale buildings – design and impact).

1 A1a Time Limit – full permission.

2 B5 The proposed development shall be carried out in all respects in accordance with the proposals contained in the application and the following plan schedule or as shall have been otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the structures are erected.

Plan Schedule: P-XB-30-260, 550, 560, 020 received 23/10/09, Design and Access Statement Environmental Statement (inc technical Summary) Reason. To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the planning permission)

3 Noise levels from the operation of the proposed wind turbines shall not cause noise levels of more than 35 dB LA90,10min at the nearest permanent residential properties, when wind speed at 10m above ground level at the turbines location is 10 m/s or less. Reason: To safeguard neighbours’ living condition and in accordance with policy ENV-P.1.5.

4 If any wind turbine ceases to be operational for a continuous period of 12 months it shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA, be dismantled and removed from the site within a period of 9 months from the end of the 12 month period and the immediate location of the turbine shall be restored in accordance with reinstatement measures to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

Reason: To ensure the turbines are removed at the end of their operational life and that the development does not differ from the submitted proposal which has been subject to an environmental impact assessment.

5 No development shall take place until samples of the materials, and/or surface finishes(including colours) to be used on the external surfaces of the wind turbines hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LP A. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the structures is acceptable, having regard to Policy ENV-B.1.1 and ENV-B.2.2.

6 No construction traffic shall enter or leave the site before 0700 Mondays to Fridays or 0800 Saturdays or after 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 1600 Saturdays nor at any times on Sundays or Bank Holidays unless: (a) otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA; or (b) such work is an emergency. Reason: In the interest of protecting local amenity.

7 The Developer, prior to the use of the turbines commencing, shall put in place such technical solutions as are needed to avoid effects to television reception and broadcast infrastructure to the satisfaction of the BBC and National Grid Wireless. Reason: To protect television and radio signals for local properties.

8 No turbine shall be erected until a detailed Operator Mitigation Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council following consultation with the Operator. "Operator" means NATS (En Route) pIc, incorporated under the Companies Act (4129273) whose registered office is 5th Floor, Brettenham House South, Lancaster Place, London, WC2E 7EN or such other organisation licensed from time to time under sections 5 and 6 of the Transport Act 2000 to provide air traffic services to the relevant managed area (within the meaning of section 40 of that Act). "Operator Mitigation Scheme" or "Scheme" means a detailed scheme agreed with the Operator which sets out the measures to be taken to mitigate at all times the impact of the Development on the primary radars of the Operator known as Heathrow 10cm and Heathrow 23cm and associated air traffic management operations of the Operator which reflects the requirements of the submitted Statement of Common Understanding.

"Statement of Common Understanding" means the document agreed with the Operator and submitted to the Council dated 16 April 2010 and described as "Statement of Common Understanding relating to the Development of a radar mitigation scheme" which sets out the high level requirements of the Operator Mitigation Scheme and the principles which will govern the development and agreement of such a scheme.

9 No turbine shall be erected until the approved Operator Mitigation Scheme has been implemented and the development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with such approved Scheme.

10 No development shall take place until an asset protection agreement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard surrounding infrastructure and visitors to the site in accordance with policy ENV-B.1.1.

Background Papers:

Background Papers: The contents of planning file ref. 00558/A/P34 and 00558/A/P40 save for exempt or confidential information as defined in the Local Government Act 1972, Sch. 12A Parts 1 and 2. This report has been or is due to be considered by: IBAC