Environmental Statement Volume 1: Written Textplanning.southkesteven.gov.uk/SKDC/S15-1764/929315.pdfAirfield (the “Site”). The Site is wholly located within the County of Lincolnshire,

Energiekontor UK Ltd

Environmental Statement Volume 1:Written TextApril 2015

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm

ES Volume 1

Chapter 1 Introduction

Energiekontor UK Ltd | April 2015

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 The Applicant – Energiekontor UK Ltd ....................................................................................... 1-1 The Proposed Development ...................................................................................................... 1-2 Background to the Environmental Statement (ES) ................................................................. 1-2 Conformance with EIA Regulations .......................................................................................... 1-3 Structure of the Environmental Statement ............................................................................... 1-3 Scoping Exercise .......................................................................................................................... 1-4 Contact for Further Information ................................................................................................. 1-4

2 APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2-1 EIA Process .................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Approach to Technical Studies Undertaken ............................................................................ 2-2 Structure of ES Technical Chapters ........................................................................................... 2-2 Consultation ................................................................................................................................. 2-8

3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN EVOLUTION 3-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3-1 Regulatory and Policy Context .................................................................................................. 3-1 The Site and Its Surroundings ...................................................................................................... 3-3 Description of Proposed Development .................................................................................... 3-4 Access ........................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Wind Farm Operation .................................................................................................................. 3-7 Site Selection Methodology ....................................................................................................... 3-8 Design Evolution ......................................................................................................................... 3-11 Summary of Design Evolution ................................................................................................... 3-13

4 CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY AND PROGRAMME 4-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Legislation and Policy Context .................................................................................................. 4-1 Planning Policy ............................................................................................................................. 4-1 Anticipated Construction Programme and Timescales ......................................................... 4-1 Construction Works ...................................................................................................................... 4-2 Pre-Construction Works ............................................................................................................... 4-3 Temporary Highway Works ......................................................................................................... 4-4 Construction Compound ........................................................................................................... 4-4 Site Access .................................................................................................................................... 4-4 Site Tracks ...................................................................................................................................... 4-4 Crane Hardstandings and Outrigger Pads .............................................................................. 4-5 Wind Turbine Foundations .......................................................................................................... 4-6 Wind Turbine Transformers .......................................................................................................... 4-8


ES Volume 1



Commissioning of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment ................................................... 4-10 Reinstatement and Removal of Temporary Works................................................................ 4-10

5 RENEWABLE ENERGY AND PLANNING POLICY 5-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5-1 Planning Policy ............................................................................................................................. 5-1 Supplementary Planning Guidance ....................................................................................... 5-12 National Planning Policy and Guidance ................................................................................ 5-12 Renewable Energy Policy Framework .................................................................................... 5-20

6 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL 6-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ............................................................................................. 6-4 Assessment Methodology ........................................................................................................... 6-7 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................... 6-19 Landscape and Visual Effects ................................................................................................. 6-29 Mitigation and Enhancement .................................................................................................. 6-52 Residual Effects .......................................................................................................................... 6-52 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 6-52 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 6-74

7 CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY 7-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7-1 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................... 7-15 Key Impacts and Likely Significant Effects.............................................................................. 7-25 Mitigation and Enhancement .................................................................................................. 7-33 Residual Effects .......................................................................................................................... 7-34 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 7-37 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 7-36 References .................................................................................................................................. 7-37 Glossary and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... 7-37

8 ORNITHOLOGY 8-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 8-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ............................................................................................. 8-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria .............................................................. 8-3 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................... 8-11 Identification and the Evaluation of Key Impacts................................................................. 8-19 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 8-34 Mitigation and Enhancement .................................................................................................. 8-37 Residual Effects .......................................................................................................................... 8-39 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 8-40 References .................................................................................................................................. 8-42


ES Volume 1



9 NON-AVIAN ECOLOGY 9-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ............................................................................................. 9-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria .............................................................. 9-2 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................... 9-12 Identification and the Evaluation of Key Impacts................................................................. 9-28 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 9-42 Mitigation and Enhancement .................................................................................................. 9-48 Residual Effects .......................................................................................................................... 9-52 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 9-53

10 NOISE 10-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ........................................................................................... 10-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ............................................................ 10-2 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................... 10-7 Identification and Evaluation of Key Impacts ..................................................................... 10-10 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................. 10-13 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................ 10-15 Residual Effects ........................................................................................................................ 10-16 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 10-16 References ................................................................................................................................ 10-17

11 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 11-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 11-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ........................................................................................... 11-2 Consultation Undertaken to Date ........................................................................................... 11-3 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ............................................................ 11-3 Assumptions and limitations ..................................................................................................... 11-4 Routing and Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................. 11-5 Identification and Key Evaluation of Impacts ..................................................................... 11-11 Cumulative Effects and Interaction of Effects ..................................................................... 11-13 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................ 11-14 Residual Effects ........................................................................................................................ 11-15 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 11-15 References ................................................................................................................................ 11-16 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 11-16 Glossary ..................................................................................................................................... 11-17

12 GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY 12-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 12-1 Legislation and Policy Context ................................................................................................ 12-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ............................................................ 12-5 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................. 12-10 Identification and the Evaluation of Key Impacts............................................................... 12-27 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................. 12-33 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................ 12-34 Residual Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 12-39


ES Volume 1



Summary ................................................................................................................................... 12-43

13 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND TOURISM 13-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 13-1 Legislation and Policy Context and Guidance ..................................................................... 13-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ............................................................ 13-3 Baseline Assessment .................................................................................................................. 13-6 Predicted Effects ...................................................................................................................... 13-20 Cumulative ............................................................................................................................... 13-31 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures .............................................................................. 13-32 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 13-32

14 INFRASTRUCTURE, AVIATION AND SAFETY 14-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 14-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ........................................................................................... 14-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ............................................................ 14-4 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................... 14-4 Identification and Key Evaluation of Impacts ....................................................................... 14-7 Cumulative Effects and Interaction of Effects ..................................................................... 14-11 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................ 14-12 Residual Effects ........................................................................................................................ 14-13 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 14-14 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 14-15

15 SHADOW FLICKER 15-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 15-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ........................................................................................... 15-2 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ............................................................ 15-5 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................. 15-11 Identification and Evaluation of Key Impacts ..................................................................... 15-11 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................ 15-13 Residual Effect .......................................................................................................................... 15-14 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 15-14 References ................................................................................................................................ 15-16

16 SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS 16-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 16-1 Summary of Residual Effects .................................................................................................... 16-1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 16-3


Environmental Statement

Chapter 1: Introduction

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 1 Introduction


i

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 The Applicant – Energiekontor UK Ltd ...................................................................................... 1-1 The Proposed Development ...................................................................................................... 1-2 Background to the Environmental Statement (ES) ................................................................. 1-2 Conformance with EIA Regulations .......................................................................................... 1-3 Structure of the Environmental Statement .............................................................................. 1-3 Scoping Exercise ......................................................................................................................... 1-4 Contact for Further Information ................................................................................................ 1-4

TABLES

Table 1.1: ES Contributors

FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Site Location

Appendices

Appendix 1.1: Scoping Report

Appendix 1.2: SKDC and NKDC Scoping Opinions

Appendix 1.3: Consultee responses on scoping



1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

Introduction

1.1 This Environmental Statement (ES) is submitted in support of a planning application by

Energiekontor UK Ltd (the “Applicant”) for ten wind turbines, each up to 110m in height

to blade tip and associated infrastructure (the “Proposed Development”) at Fulbeck

Airfield (the “Site”). The Site is wholly located within the County of Lincolnshire, however,

it straddles the administrative boundary of two local authorities, South Kesteven District

Council and North Kesteven District Council.

1.2 The Site has a countryside setting with a number of small settlements located nearby –

Stragglethorpe approximately 1.0km to the north east; Leadenham, Fulbeck and

Caythorpe approximately 4.0km to the east; Brandon 2km to the south; and

Beckingham, Sutton, Fenton and Stubton to the west. Access is provided to the strategic

highway network via the A17 road, located approximately 2.3km to the north of the Site.

1.3 This ES has been prepared on behalf of Energiekontor UK Limited and sets out the findings

of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Proposed Development that has

been carried out pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) Regulations 2011 (“the EIA Regulations”). The EIA was coordinated by both

the Applicant and Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL).

1.4 The ES includes a description of the Proposed Development, the Site and its design;

summarises the findings of a comprehensive study of potential environmental impacts;

and, where adverse effects are identified, measures to avoid, reduce, or remedy such

effects are described. At the time of the assessment for the Proposed Development, the

ES considers the likely significant effects on the environment, identified in the EIA, during

the, construction, operational and decommissioning phases. In addition, any likely

cumulative significant effects of the cumulative impact have also been considered by

the ES.

The Applicant – Energiekontor UK Ltd

1.5 Energiekontor UK Limited was founded in 1999 as a subsidiary to the German based

company Energiekontor Group. Since 1990, the Energiekontor Group has developed

over 90 wind farms across Europe with a combined capacity of almost 700MW.

1.6 The Applicant has developed six wind farms in the UK and is in the process of

constructing a further wind farm elsewhere in Lincolnshire.

1.7 Energiekontor UK Ltd is a complete service company, managing its projects from the

initial site identification, through planning, finance, construction to operation and

management of its wind farms.



1-2

The Proposed Development

1.8 The Proposed Development is described in detail in Chapter 3: Project Description. It

includes the following principal elements:

Installation of ten wind turbines, each up to 110m in height to blade tip;

turbine foundations and transformers;

hardstanding areas for erecting cranes at each turbine location;

site tracks;

underground cabling;

on-site substation; and

a temporary site entrance onto Stragglethorpe Lane.

1.9 The red line planning application boundary is known as the ‘EIA Planning Application

Boundary’, shown in Figure 1.1; the land edged blue is under the control of the applicant

for purposes of the planning application.

1.10 Planning permission is sought for 25 years of the operational phase of the wind farm.

After the expiration of this period, the turbines will be decommissioned and removed.

Any alternative course of action would require a fresh planning application to be

submitted.

1.11 In support of the planning application, the following documents have also been

submitted:

Planning Statement;

Design and Access Statement;

Statement of Community Involvement; and

Section 106 Heads of Terms.

Background to the Environmental Statement (ES)

1.12 The Proposed Development falls within Category 3 (i) of Schedule 2 of the EIA

Regulations and is defined as:

i) ‘Installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms)’.

1.13 The EIA is an important procedure aimed at ensuring that significant effects on the

environment, likely to be caused by a new development proposal, are taken into

account within the decision making process. Thus, this ES has been carried out pursuant

to the EIA Regulations and the National Planning Practice Guidance1.

1.14 Throughout each respective chapter of this ES, an overview of the methodology

adopted for each technical study is provided.

1 Department for Communities and Local Government, Environmental Impact Assessment, ID.4, Updated 6th March 2014



1-3

Conformance with EIA Regulations

1.15 Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations sets out information for inclusion within environmental

statements and the following points are examples of what is to be included:

a description of the development including, in particular: a description of the

physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements

during the construction and operation phases; a description of the main

characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and the quantity of

materials used; and an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and

emissions (water, air and soli pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation etc.)

resulting from the operation of the proposed development;

an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the

main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental

effects;

a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by

the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air,

climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological

heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors;

a description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment

which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short,

medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of

the development resulting from:

i) the existence of the development;

ii) the use of natural resources; and

iii) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste,

and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess

the effects on the environment;

a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible off-

set any significant adverse effect on the environment;

a non-technical summary of the information provided above; and

an indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how)

encountered by the applicant in compiling the information.

Structure of the Environmental Statement

1.16 The ES for the Proposed Development is presented in four volumes, as follows:

Volume 1: Written text (this documentary)

Volume 2: Application Drawings, Visualisations and Figures;

Volume 3: Technical Appendices; and

Volume 4: Non-Technical Summary (NTS).

1.17 The suite of ES documents, prepared by the Applicant, has benefitted from the

assistance of expert contributions from the specialist organisations shown in Table 1.1:



1-4

Table 1.1 ES Contributors

Technical Area Organisation

Planning Policy Context JLL

Landscape Character and Visual Amenity LDA Design

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology CGMS

Ornithology E3 Ecology

Ecology E3 Ecology

Noise Hoare Lea Acoustics

Highways and Transportation WSP

Geology, Hydrology and Geohydrology WSP

Shadow Flicker WSP

Scoping Exercise

1.18 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 13 of the EIA Regulations, in November 2013 the

Applicant submitted an EIA Scoping Report2 to both South Kesteven District Council,

herein referred to as SKDC (ref S13/3303/EIASP) and North Kesteven District Council herein

referred to as NKDC (ref 13/1445/EIASCO).

1.19 NKDC and SKDC both issued a Scoping Opinion3 on 2nd December 2013, and 30th

January 2014 respectively. These set out the topics to be addressed in the EIA and the

assessment methodologies to be employed. The comments of various statutory

consultees4, such as English Heritage and the National Trust, were also drawn to the

attention of the Applicant.

Contact for Further Information

1.20 A hard copy of this ES will be available for viewing during normal office hours at both

SKDC and NKDC. SKDC’s offices are Council Offices, St Peter’s Hill, Grantham,

Lincolnshire NG31 6PZ. NKDC’s offices are District Council Offices, Kesteven Street,

Sleaford, Lincolnshire NG34 7EF.

1.21 For additional copies, a charge of £15 will be made for a full electronic copy of the ES on

CD. Costs for paper copies are as follows:

Volume 1 – Written Text £100

Volume 2 – Application Drawings, Visualisations and Figures £400

Volume 3 – Technical Appendices £300

Volume 4 – Non-Technical Summary £20

2 The EIA Scoping Report is contained in Volume 3, Appendix 1.1.

3 The Scoping Opinion is contained in Volume 3, Appendix 1.2.

4 Appendix 1.3 provides details of which consultees provided comment in respect of the Scoping Report a summary of

the comments made and how those comments have been addressed within this ES.



1-5

1.22 Sections of the ES will also be made available on the project website, shortly after

submission to the local planning authority. The address is

www.fulbeckairfieldwindfarm.co.uk.

http://www.fulbeckairfieldwindfarm.co.uk/



Chapter 2: Approach to the Environmental

Impact Assessment

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 2 Approach to Environmental Assessment


CONTENTS

2 APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 EIA Process ............................................................................................................................. 2-1 Approach to Technical Studies Undertaken ..................................................................... 2-2 Structure of ES Technical Chapters ..................................................................................... 2-2 Consultation ........................................................................................................................... 2-8

TABLES

Table 2.1: Significance Matrix



2-1

2 APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Introduction

2.1 This chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) provides a detailed account of

the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) methodology used. The following key

information is included:

the approach taken to the assessment of the Proposed Development;

the consultant team, their individual responsibilities and how the EIA process, leading to

preparation of the ES has been co-ordinated;

the description of the EIA process;

the details of technical studies undertaken;

the approach to determining scale and significance of effects, and the basis upon

which predictions were made (e.g. professional knowledge and judgment, initial

studies, desktop exercises, preliminary survey work); and

what guidelines, methods and techniques have been used in the process of

determining significance of effects.

2.2 Subject specific methodology is outlined in each of the technical chapters;

Chapters 6 through to 15.

EIA Process

2.3 The purpose of the ES is to report on the assessments undertaken to identify the

likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed Development that are

predicted to occur during the complete development lifecycle. This, in turn,

provides the Local Planning Authority (LPA), in this case South Kesteven District

Council (SKDC) and North Kesteven District Council (NKDC) with the information it

requires to determine the application.

2.4 The main activities in the EIA process can be summarised as follows:

initial site selection and feasibility studies;

definition of the project to be assessed;

description of the ‘baseline’ environment (i.e. the conditions that are likely to prevail at

the commencement of the project);

definition of the scope of the assessment;

scoping and consultation with interested parties;

prediction of the likely effects of the Proposed Development;

evaluation of these effects in terms of their potential significance;

description of the nature and effectiveness of measures / design evolution which could

be adopted in order to mitigate significant adverse effects;



2-2

identification of residual impacts;

submission of ES and publicity;

review of adequacy of environmental information by the LPA;

decision; and

post decision monitoring if required.

2.5 The information which is required to be submitted in the EIA process is presented in

this ES. The scoping, preparation and production of this ES has been conducted in

accordance with the latest Government Regulations and published good

practice guidance including:

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011;

Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Planning Practice

Guidance ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ (updated 06.03.14); and

Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (Institute of Environmental

Management and Assessment, 2004).

Approach to Technical Studies Undertaken

2.6 The EIA studies commenced at an early stage in the evolution of the application

proposal. At the outset, with the objective of avoiding or minimising potential

environmental impacts, the findings of these baseline environmental studies

played an important role in the design evolution of the Proposed Development

(further details are contained within Chapter 3: Project Description). These studies

defined the environmental sensitivities and constraints associated with the

Proposed Development, the Site, and its surroundings.

2.7 The technical EIA studies have been undertaken in accordance with relevant

guideline and procedures. The majority of this guidance is specific to various key

EIA issues and is, therefore, referenced within the individual assessment chapters.

2.8 The majority of assessments involved consultations with statutory and non-statutory

bodies, desk based research, site inspections and surveys, impact prediction and

input of mitigation to the design, where appropriate.

2.9 The content and conclusions of the ES, which includes a clear, reasoned

description of any potential adverse or beneficial impacts of the Proposed

Development, which are based on a comprehensive assessment undertaken with

all information available at the time of writing. Further details of the structure and

content of the ES Chapters is presented below.

Structure of ES Technical Chapters

2.10 Each technical ES chapter follows the sub-heading structure set out below where

possible to ensure that the final document is transparent, consistent and

accessible:



2-3

Introduction and overview;

Legislation (where relevant), Policy and Guidance;

Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria;

Baseline Conditions;

Identification and Evaluation of Key Impacts;

Cumulative Effects and Interaction of Effects;

Mitigation Measures;

Residual Effects; and

Summary.

2.11 Each chapter sub-heading is explained in further detail below.

Introduction and Overview

2.12 This will introduce the assessment discipline and explain its purpose in the context

of the Proposed Development, the nature of receptors to be considered, and

how the Proposed Development might cause changes to baseline conditions.

Legislation, Policy and Guidance

2.13 This section includes a brief summary of policies of relevance to the environmental

discipline and assessment. Where applicable, relevant legislation is summarised.

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

2.14 This section provides an explanation of the methods used in undertaking the

assessment with reference to published standards, guidance and best practice.

2.15 The “application of significance” criteria used is discussed within this section.

Baseline Conditions

2.16 This section will include the following:

i) a description of the environment as it currently is and as it is expected to change if the

Proposed Development were not to proceed (i.e. ‘do-nothing’ scenario);

ii) the method (s) used to obtain this information are clearly identified; and

iii) baseline conditions will be set in context and that of the surroundings of the particular

subject area to be affected, so the effects of the proposed changes can be

predicted.

Identification and the Evaluation of Key Impacts

2.17 The EIA Regulations require consideration, throughout assessments, of all likely

significant environmental effects on: direct / indirect; secondary; cumulative;

positive / negative; short / medium / long-term; or permanent / temporary. In



2-4

terms of how likely significant environmental effects arise, the following will need to

be considered:

direct effects are readily identified because of the physical connection between some

element of the Proposed Development and an affected receptor;

indirect effects require some additional pathway for the effect to arise, for example, a

listed building may not be directly impacted by any elements of a development, but, if

a proposed development changed the setting of the listed building there would be an

indirect effect;

secondary effects would typically require pathway connections, for example, an

effect on receptor population A could have a secondary effect on receptor

population B, if B was itself dependant on A in some way, as, for example, a food

source; and

cumulative effects arise when the receptors affected by a proposed development are

also affected by other developments resulting in the aggregation of environmental

effects or the interaction of impacts.

2.18 Likely significant environmental effects will be considered in terms of their

character – either beneficial (representing environmental gain) or adverse. There

may also be cases where it is appropriate to identify the occurrence of change,

but to note that the potential change is either neutral – and neither specifically

beneficial nor adverse – or, is a matter of personal opinion. The likelihood of the

effect occurring will also be considered, being unlikely, uncertain or likely to

occur.

2.19 Likely significant environmental effects will also be considered in terms of their

duration. Effects can typically be:

Temporary – these effects are likely to last for a period of a few days to a few months,

they will be related to a particular activity and will cease immediately or soon after the

activity ceases;

Short-term - this would normally be considered to be between a period of a few

months to a few years depending on the effect being discussed and the

environment’s ability to recover from an impact;

Long-term – this would typically be a period of between a few years and the life of the

Proposed Development; and

Permanent – this would typically mean an effect resulting in an irreversible change in

the environment.

Temporal and Spatial Scope

2.20 The temporal scope of the EIA will cover the period from commencement of the

first phase of development (construction), through to operational phase

(operation), up to the completion of operations and restoration of the Site

(decommissioning). For ease of reporting the temporal scope will generally be

considered in relation to the following key stages of the development:



2-5

Construction – effects may arise from the construction activities themselves or from the

temporary occupation of land. The effects are often temporary and of limited

duration, although, there is the potential for construction activities to create

permanent change;

Operation – effects are typically permanent (subject to any future decommissioning),

though may also be related to operational emissions or effects that will stop if the

operation stops; and

Decommissioning – effects may arise from the decommission activities themselves or

from the temporary occupation of land. The effects would often be temporary and of

limited duration and additional permanent change (unless associated with restoration)

would normally be unlikely.

2.21 In its broadest sense, the spatial scope of an EIA is the area over which changes to

the environment may occur as a consequence of the development. In practice,

the EIA focuses on those areas where these changes may result in likely significant

effects on the environment.

2.22 The spatial scope varies between the environmental topics assessed. For example,

effects upon the landscape resource and visual effects are assessed within a

much larger zone from the site boundary when compared to ecology related

effects.

Assessment of Effects

2.23 There is much debate amongst practitioners and legal reviewers regarding pre

and post mitigation assessments of effects. One crucial point of discussion is

whether changes in design constitute mitigation or not. The approach taken here

is that the pre-mitigation assessment of effects takes account of scheme design

changes that relate to the number / location and scale of scheme elements and

it also takes account of the adoption of standard guidelines. The post-mitigation

assessment takes further account of specific / unusual controls on the method of

construction or operation – in most cases these should only relate to

circumstances where a potentially significant effect is being reduced.

Defining Levels of Effect and Significance

2.24 It is important that levels of effect and significance are clearly defined on the

basis on which effects are considered significant or not. The approach taken in

this ES emphasises the use of professional judgement within a structure that

combines receptor sensitivity (or importance) with magnitude of change arising

from the Proposed Development to define level of effect.

2.25 The EIA Regulations recognise that developments will affect environmental

elements to differing degrees and not all of these are of sufficient concern to

warrant detailed investigation or assessment through the EIA process. The EIA

Regulations identify those environmental resources that warrant investigation as

those that are ‘likely to be significantly affected by the development.’



2-6

2.26 The EIA Regulations do not define significance and it is, therefore, necessary to

state how this will be defined for the Proposed Development. In certain

circumstances it is possible for disciplines to use quantitative assessment

methodology to predict impact / values that can be compared against published

thresholds or an indicative criteria. However, it is not always possible to use

quantitative measurements / values and such assessments rely on professional

judgement and past experience. This could be reference to the development

description, available information about potential changes that are expected to

be caused by the Proposed Development, and the receptors that may be

affected.

2.27 Professional judgement (in combination with any published guidance) is used to

assess the interaction of a receptor’s sensitivity to change, and the magnitude of

potential changes caused by the development to identify a level of effect. The

Assessment methodology and Significance Criteria section within each Chapter

provides an overview of how this assessment has been conducted for each

discipline. Table 2.1 provides a general example of how the level of effect is

categorised from the interaction of a receptor’s importance / sensitivity and the

magnitude of change.


Magnitude of change

Se

nsi

tiv

ity

Substantial Moderate Slight Negligible

High Major Major/

Moderate

Moderate Moderate/

Minor

Medium Major/

Moderate

Moderate Moderate/

Minor

Minor

Low Moderate Moderate/

Minor

Minor Minor/

Negligible

2.28 Of course, in many cases, the divisions between categories of receptor sensitivity

and magnitude of change may not be as clearly delineated as shown in Table 2.1

and professional judgement is therefore applied. In certain cases a different

matrix may be considered appropriate by the discipline. If this is the case it will be

detailed within the Chapter.

2.29 As noted, the EIA Regulations guide the assessor to focus on effects that are likely

to be significant and, in its simplest form, the outcome of the assessment of a

given effect on a particular receptor would be that it is significant or not

significant. However, there may be instances where it is appropriate to further sub-

divide the category of ‘not significant’, regarding the level of effect, by use of the

category terms ‘slight’ and ‘negligible’. For example, the use of the category term

‘slight ‘could be used to acknowledge instances whereby there may be an

effect, albeit, an effect not likely to be significant - and this approach may better



2-7

facilitate assessment of cumulative effects, where cumulatively, several slight

effects could be significant.

2.30 While in general, effects are categorised as – major, moderate, minor and

negligible (or no effect), specific technical assessments, such as Landscape and

Visual as noted, may deviate from this. However, details of any variation in

assessment methodology and definitions of how the terms are derived for each

topic (e.g. using relevant guidance) will be set out in the methodology and

definitions of that particular chapter.

2.31 Having identified the level of effect, those environmental effects considered to be

significant in terms of the EIA Regulations are then determined using professional

judgement in combination with any published guidance on significance

evaluation.

2.32 For some of the topics that are assessed in this ES there is published guidance

about significance evaluation. Where such topic-specific guidance exists (even in

draft) it will be used to inform the development of the significance evaluation

methodologies used. For other topics, a major level of effect is generally of most

importance to the decision-maker and these effects are considered significant in

terms of the EIA Regulations. Where the level of effect is moderate or less, these

are generally not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. Moreover, depending

on the receptor being considered, it is possible that some potentially moderate

effects could be judged as significant in terms of the EIA Regulations, and where

this is judged to be the case, the rationale for this conclusion will be provided in

the technical assessments.

Mitigation Measures

2.33 The development of mitigation measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for any

significant adverse environmental effects of a project is an intrinsic part of the EIA

process. These measures can relate to site construction or the completed

development i.e. measures to be undertaken during the operation of the

development through appropriate site management or through the introduction

of specific design elements.

2.34 This section of the ES chapter describes the measures which would be

implemented to avoid or ameliorate potential adverse impacts and enhance the

potential beneficial impacts of the Proposed Development.

2.35 In many cases mitigation measures are inherent within the Development Proposal

(either through design or operation), whereby potentially significant adverse

impacts are avoided. Although, not all impacts can be avoided and there are

mitigation measures to reduce or compensate for these. In such instances, these

are proposed within the relevant technical chapter.



2-8

Residual Effects

2.36 This section describes the remaining effects of the Proposed Development

assuming implementation of the proposed mitigation measures have been

adopted. The methods used to make these estimates are clearly described and

the methods for treatment of any residual effects are identified where

appropriate. It may be the case that in particular circumstances it is not

considered that there are any likely significant residual effects as these have been

‘designed out’. In such instances, this is explained within the relevant technical

chapter.

Summary

2.37 Provides a summary of the findings of the Chapter.

Consultation

2.38 A consultation exercise has been undertaken to inform the design of the Proposed

Development and to seek agreement on the likely impacts that result from the

Proposed Development as well as the scope of any assessment work required as

part of this EIA.



Chapter 3: Description of the Site, the

Proposed Development and Design

Evolution

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 3 Proposed Development and Design Evolution


CONTENTS

3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN EVOLUTION 3-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 Regulatory and Policy Context ........................................................................................... 3-1 The Site and Its Surroundings ................................................................................................ 3-3 Description of Proposed Development .............................................................................. 3-4 Access .................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Wind Farm Operation ........................................................................................................... 3-7 Site Selection Methodology ................................................................................................. 3-8 Design Evolution .................................................................................................................. 3-11 Summary of Design Evolution ............................................................................................ 3-13

TABLES

Table 3.1: Proposed Wind Turbine Coordinates



3-1

3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN

EVOLUTION

Introduction

3.1 This chapter provides an outline description of the Site, its surroundings and the Proposed

Development. It also describes the issues and constraints that have influenced the layout

of the Proposed Development and the evolution of the design.

3.2 Details of the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the Proposed

Development are also considered, further information can be found in Chapter 4

Construction Methodology and Programme.

3.3 The Proposed Development will consist of the construction, 25 year operation and

subsequent decommissioning of up to ten wind turbines, each up to 110m in height to

blade tip, including associated development.

Regulatory and Policy Context

3.4 The EIA Regulations require an ES to include an outline of the main alternatives studied by

the applicant and an indication of the main reason for their choice, taking into account

the environmental effects (Schedule 4, Part 1, clause 2).

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

3.5 When examining broad areas within which to pursue proposals, the NPPF acknowledges

that renewable energy developments can be located only where there are sufficient

renewable energy resources, where the particular technology would be economically

feasible and in areas where the environmental, economic and social impacts can be

addressed satisfactorily.

3.6 The NPPF provides further guidance on the consideration of alternatives, in particular in

relation to limiting potential impacts on biodiversity. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF indicates

that if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating

on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort,

compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

3.7 Paragraph 97 sets out that to help increase the use and supply of renewable and low

carbon energy, local planning authorities should “recognise the responsibility on all

communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources”.

National Planning Policy Statement EN-1

3.8 The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) highlights at section 4.5 that,

as in any planning case, the relevance or otherwise to the decision-making process of the



3-2

existence (or the alleged existence) of alternatives to the Proposed Development is in the

first instance a matter of law, detailed guidance on which falls outside the scope of EN-1.

From a policy perspective EN-1 does not contain any general requirement to consider

alternatives or to establish whether the proposed project represents the best option.

However:

Applicants are obliged to include in their ES, as a matter of fact, information about the

main alternatives they have studied. This should include an indication of the main

reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental, social and

economic effects and including, where relevant, technical and commercial feasibility;

In some circumstances there are specific legislative requirements, notably under the

Habitats Directive, where alternatives should be identified and considered by the

applicant; and

In some circumstances, the relevant energy NPSs may impose a policy requirement to

consider alternatives.

3.9 Section 4.5 of EN-1 sets out the principles of good design that should be applied to all

energy infrastructure.

National Planning Policy Statement EN-3

3.10 Section 2.7 of EN-3 highlights the key considerations that are likely to influence the siting of

an onshore wind farm. These are predicted wind speed, proximity of a site to dwellings, the

capacity of a site, electrical grid connection and access.

Alternatives Considered – The Need for Alternatives

3.11 National planning policy makes it clear that there is no requirement for renewable energy

developments to demonstrate an overall need for new renewable generation or a need

to be located in a specific location. The 2007 Energy White Paper, for example, states:

“Recognising the particular difficulties faced by renewables in securing

planning consent, the Government is also:

Underlining that applicants will no longer have to demonstrate either

the overall need for renewable energy or for their particular proposal

to be sited in a particular location.”

3.12 This policy has been reiterated in the National Policy Statements on energy infrastructure

EN-1 and EN-3. EN-1 at paragraph 4.4.1 – 4.4.3 states:

“From a policy perspective this NPS does not contain any general

requirement to consider alternatives or to establish whether the proposed

project represents the best option…the IPC should not reject an

application for development on one site simply because fewer adverse

impacts would result from developing similar infrastructure on another



3-3

suitable site, and it should have regard as appropriate to the possibility

that all suitable sites for energy infrastructure of the type proposed may be

needed for future proposals…”

3.13 EN-3 at paragraph 2.5.36 states:

“As most renewable energy resources can only be developed where the

resource exists and where economically feasible, the IPC should not use a

sequential approach in the consideration of renewable energy projects for

example, by giving priority to the re-use of previously developed land for

renewable technology developments.”

3.14 The clear policy context is therefore that there is neither a requirement to justify the viability

of a wind energy proposal nor the need for it to be located in a particular location.

Nevertheless, this chapter describes the site identification process and design criteria. The

examination of alternatives in this ES is therefore restricted as appropriate to alternative

design solutions that were considered for the Site in terms of site layout/design/turbine

height and turbine numbers.

The Site and Its Surroundings

3.15 The Site is located on land at the former RAF Fulbeck. The wider site covers approximately

260ha and consists of the former airfield runways, tracks and buildings; agricultural land;

plantation and a go-kart track (Fulbeck Kart Track circuit). The red line planning

application boundary as shown on Figure 1.1 occupies a small proportion of this, limited to

an area of 33.2ha.

3.16 The Site is wholly located within the County of Lincolnshire, however, it straddles the

boundary of two local authorities, South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) and North

Kesteven District Council (NKDC). It has a countryside setting with a number of small

settlements located nearby – Stragglethorpe approximately 1.0km to the north east;

Leadenham, Fulbeck and Caythorpe approximately 4.0km to the east; Brandon 2km to

the south; and Beckingham, Sutton, Fenton and Stubton to the west. Access is provided to

the strategic highway network via the A17 road, located approximately 2.3km to the north

of the Site.

3.17 Hard-standings are present across the Site. These are mostly the former runways, taxi-ways

and parking locations associated with the former use of the Site as an RAF aerodrome. The

Site is currently under intensive arable cultivation and comprises large scale arable fields

with few hedgerows and limited woodland cover. Areas of plantation also exist alongside

parts of the extensive network of tracks and hard surfaced runways associated with the

previous aerodrome use.

3.18 By way of background, the airfield was initially opened in 1940 as a relief landing site for

the nearby RAF Cranwell before becoming fully operational in 1943. It was used during



3-4

1943 and 1944 as a World War II troop carrier station for the United States Air Force, before

reverting to RAF use as a base for Bomber Command No. 189 Squadron from 1944

onwards. A memorial reading “In memory of all who flew from RAF Fulbeck, never to

return” is located at the existing entrance to the Site, commemorating its war time use.

3.19 More recently straw has been stored on the airfield site in varying quantities by Eco2 Lincs

Ltd operates a straw burning plant in Sleaford (the Sleaford Renewable Energy Plant). It is

understood that the airfield is currently closed to additional straw imports pending the

preparation and submission of a planning application for the storage of straw at the

airfield, whilst the straw currently on the airfield is to be removed over the course of the

next 24 months.

3.20 The topography of the Site is very flat and open at around 16m Above Ordnance Datum

(AOD), although there are some artificial banks around former runways. The eastern

boundary of the Site follows the line of a watercourse named Sandy Beck for much of its

length; elsewhere the land is drained by ditches.

3.21 The majority of the Site is designated by SKDC as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance

(SNCI) due to the historical presence of high diversity old grassland. It is understood that

this designation originates from the 1970’s and was made on the basis of local knowledge

and without consideration of any formal criteria. It is further understood that the

designation has not been reviewed against the new Local Wildlife Site criteria published in

2006. This is considered further in Chapter 9. There are no statutorily designated ecological

sites within 10km of the Site.

3.22 As described in Chapter 6 the Site has a different character to the wider landscape due to

the presence of straight runways and tracks associated with its former use, the field

pattern which is determined by the former airfield layout, and the absence of any field

hedges on some boundaries. These factors serve to give the Site a different character to

the surrounding arable farmland which extends in all directions.

3.23 There are no statutorily designated landscapes within 10km of the Site. Within the locality

the land use is predominantly arable farmland. The field pattern is simple with a mix of

medium and large sized arable and pasture fields bounded typically by hedgerows with

some hedgerow trees. The landscape in the surrounding area (particular north, south and

west) is mostly flat or very gently undulating, with dispersed settlements, farm

developments and individual properties. To the north-east, east and south-east of the Site

the landform rises near Navenby, Welbourn, Leadenham, Fulbeck, Caythorpe and Hough-

on-the-Hill, creating a distinctive ridge (Belvoir Ridge) to the east and south-east.

Occasional woodland blocks can be found in the landscape, with horizons generally

appearing vegetated and limiting the extent of more distant visibility. Power stations, pylon

lines and other infrastructure including the A1, A17 and the East Coast Main Line are man-

made elements in the wider landscape.

Description of Proposed Development

3.24 The Proposed Development is illustrated on Figures 3.1 – 3.15 and would consist of the

following principal components:



3-5

ten turbines up to 110m in height (to blade tip);

associated turbine foundations and transformers,

hard-standing areas for erecting cranes at each turbine location,

a series of on-site tracks connecting each turbine,

underground cables linking the turbines to the substation,

an on-site substation, and

new temporary site access onto Stragglethorpe Lane.

3.25 In addition to the above infrastructure components, construction would involve the

installation of a temporary construction compound.

3.26 The Proposed Development would be time limited to 25 years from the first date of

electricity export to the grid network. The construction phase would last approximately ten

months and decommissioning would last approximately six months.

3.27 The Proposed Development would provide between 20MW and 25MW of installed

capacity, depending on the turbine model chosen. It is estimated that this installed

capacity could generate up to 55GWh of renewable electricity each year, again

depending on the turbine model chosen. It is also estimated that the candidate turbine

used for the purposes of assessment in this ES, the Senvion MM92 (2.05MW) model, could

operate with a capacity factor of approximately 30%. This compares favourably to the UK

average onshore capacity factor of 25.75% over the period 2009-2013.

3.28 The renewable electricity generated by the Propose Development could be equivalent to

powering the electricity needs of 13,120 homes on average each year1. This could save up

to 23,650 tonnes of CO2 each year2 of the operational life of the wind farm, which is

equivalent to total savings of up to 591,250 tonnes of CO2 over the 25 year lifetime of the

wind farm.

3.29 The planning application includes an allowance for micro-siting of the wind farm

infrastructure. If planning permission is granted, the Applicant will commission detailed

ground investigations and geotechnical surveys to determine the ground conditions. A

25m micro-siting allowance is sought for the wind turbines (with some restrictions in relation

to oversailing third party land and ecological buffers), whilst a 5m allowance is sought for

all other new elements of the Proposed Development.

3.30 The construction and decommissioning of the wind turbines, ancillary equipment and on-

site infrastructure are described in more detail in the following sections of this Chapter and

within Chapter 4: Construction Methodology and Programme. The principal elements

include:

1 Based on an average annual domestic electricity consumption figure of 4,192kWh as set

out in the DECC publication “Energy Consumption in the UK” (2014)

2 Based on DECC’s standard carbon dioxide savings figure of 430g/kWh



3-6

Wind turbines – ten wind turbines, each up to 110m to blade tip and with a generating

capacity of between 2.0MW and 2.5MW (see Figure 3.2 for a typical wind turbine

elevation). The co-ordinates of the turbines are given in Table 3.1 below;

Turbine foundations – the foundations of the turbines could be either reinforced

concrete gravity structures or piled foundations. This would be dependent on the

ground and hydrological conditions at the turbine location which would also

determine the overall size of the support structure. Typical foundations for the size of

turbine proposed are shown on Figure 3.3;

Site access – it is proposed to create a new temporary site entrance onto

Stragglethorpe Lane for the delivery of wind turbine components. This would be

removed and the land reinstated to its former condition on completion of the

construction phase. The majority of construction traffic and all of the operational traffic

would utilise the existing site entrance onto Stragglethorpe Lane which would not

require any alteration. Further details are provided on Figures 3.1 and 11.6;

Site tracks – to provide access for construction and maintenance vehicles from the site

access to the substation and wind turbines. A large network of existing concrete tracks

already exist on the Site but where additional tracks are required they would be

constructed at the commencement of the construction phase and would remain until

the end of the decommissioning phase. They would have a 5.0m running width, with

local widening on corners and would be surfaced with coarse aggregate (see Figure

3.4 for typical track cross sections). Existing tracks may require localised re-surfacing

work subject to detailed survey;

(Temporary) Construction compounds/storage areas – this would make use of an

existing compound area associated with the Site’s historical use as shown on Figures

3.1 and 3.5;

Crane hardstandings and outrigger pads – to provide a level and firm base for the

cranes at the location of each turbine. Each would be a maximum of 45m x 25m and

surfaced with coarse aggregate (see Figure 3.6 for a typical crane hardstanding

layout);

Transformer housings – the transformers to step-up the voltage exported from each

turbine (690V to 33kV) would either be placed within the wind turbines themselves, or in

a small secure external transformer housing placed next to each wind turbine tower,

depending on the final turbine choice (see Figure 3.7 for a typical transformer housing);

High voltage and control cables – to form power and control circuits linking each

turbine to the on-site substation, cables would be placed in trenches (dimensions to be

determined by the ground conditions but typically 0.5m by 1m deep) routed alongside

the tracks (see Figure 3.8 for typical cable trench construction details);

Substation / switchgear housing building – A 15m long x 10m wide single storey

substation building will house the switchgear and control equipment, in addition to

acting as a secure storage space (see Figures 3.9 – 3.10 for a typical substation /

switchgear housing);

New or upgraded water crossing – the existing water crossing over the Sand Beck

within the Site may require upgrading or replacing to accommodate wind turbine

component delivery. This would be subject to detailed survey as part of the pre-

construction process and final details could be secured via a planning condition; and



3-7

Ecology (Habitat) Management Plan – Habitat/ecological enhancement is proposed

and a habitat management plan would be undertaken in accordance with a

condition imposed upon the planning consent (see Figure 9.2).

Table 3.1 Proposed Wind Turbine Coordinates (subject to a 25m micro-siting

allowance)

Turbine Easting Northing

1 489,485 351,554

2 489,964 351,333

3 489,173 351,197

4 489,505 351,177

5 489,163 350,791

6 489,748 350,976

7 489,997 350,801

8 489,377 350,496

9 489,678 350,580

10 490,066 350,447

Access

3.31 A new temporary entrance would be constructed at the eastern boundary of the Site

onto Stragglethorpe Lane to allow the delivery of turbine components to the Site from the

public highway. This temporary access would be removed on completion of the

construction works and reinstated to its former condition in accordance with an approved

method statement.

3.32 The temporary site entrance has been designed to allow abnormal vehicles to access the

Site. Once abnormal vehicles deliver their load, they return as ‘normal’ vehicles with a size

typical of that of a standard Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV).

3.33 The new temporary site entrance would be located approximately 40m south of the

principal existing access to the Site. This existing access would be used for all other

construction vehicles apart from loaded turbine component delivery vehicles.

3.34 The proposed access point has been designed to ensure that highway safety will not be

compromised. Further details are provided in Chapter 11.

Wind Farm Operation

Operational Timescales



3-8

3.35 Following construction and commissioning, the Proposed Development would be

operational and generating electricity for a period of approximately 25 years, after which

it would be decommissioned and removed, or alternatively, a further planning application

could be made to extend the period of operation.

Maintenance

3.36 Wind farm maintenance would be carried out by the turbine supplier and later by suitably

qualified contractors who would visit the Site to carry out regular inspections and

maintenance activities. The following wind turbine maintenance would be carried out,

along with any other maintenance required by the supplier’s specifications:

initial trial and service;

routine and non-routine maintenance and servicing; and

blade inspection.

3.37 Routine maintenance and servicing would necessitate monthly visits to the Site by a

maintenance crew (if necessary), typically two persons in a small van or similar sized

vehicle. Maintenance staff would be able to park on the crane pad for each turbine and

would utilise the loading bay adjacent to the temporary construction compound for

maintenance visits to the substation.

3.38 Routine servicing would include the performance of tasks such as maintaining bolts to the

required torque, adjustment of blades and inspection of welds in the tower. In addition, oil

sampling and testing from the main gearbox would be required and oil and components

replaced at regular intervals.

3.39 In the event of any unexpected breakdowns on-site, such as the failure of a generator,

appropriate maintenance works would be carried out as soon as practicable. The

replacement of major components would require a crane and heavy transport vehicles.

3.40 On-going track maintenance would generally be undertaken in the summer months when

tracks are dry. Safe access for maintenance purposes would be maintained all year

round.

Site Selection Methodology

3.41 The overall approach to wind farm site selection is to identify areas of land where the siting

of a wind farm would result in minimal environmental effects, be free from overriding

technical constraint and be viable on an economic basis. This involves:

A review of the planning context for renewables in England and at the local

authority level;

A Geographical Information System (GIS) constraints analysis;

Analysis of Wind speed data;



3-9

Proximity to potential electricity connection points; and

Suitable Site access and transportation.

Review of Planning Context

3.42 Information on the planning context for renewables in SKDC and NKDC was reviewed as

part of the site search exercise, focusing on the relevant Development Plans, national

policy and other relevant material considerations.

GIS Constraints Mapping

3.43 A GIS ‘sieve mapping’ exercise was carried out in order to further inform the search

process. This involved identifying and mapping constraints to wind farm development in

order to identify potential sites. The various constraints considered as part of the site

selection exercise for the Proposed Development included:

Radio and Microwave signal – using known constraints to identify areas which could be

affected by existing radio and microwave signals;

Aviation interests – including MoD Low Flying Areas, local licensed aerodromes and

visibility to radars, both military and civilian;

Landscape designations – including National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural

Beauty and local landscape designations;

Ecological designations – including Ramsar sites, Special Protection Areas, Special

Areas of Conservation and Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

Cultural heritage designations – including Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered

Battlefields, World Heritage Sites, listed buildings, Conservation Areas and Scheduled

Ancient Monuments;

Potential Grid Connection points - the capacity of the local grid network to accept the

likely output from a proposed wind farm is critical to the technical feasibility of a

development. The connection voltage and the distance from the wind farm can have

a significant effect on the commercial feasibility of a development proposal; and

The pattern of settlement – with buffers provided around residential properties.

Wind Speed Data

3.44 The predicted wind resource in any given location is an important consideration in

identifying potentially suitable wind farm sites. The electricity that can be generated by a

wind farm is directly affected by the wind speed. Wind speed increases with height above

ground level and the amount of electricity generated increases disproportionately with

increases in wind speed. This is turn affects the carbon emission savings and the



3-10

commercial viability of a site. Potential wind farm sites are therefore reviewed in relation to

the NOABL wind speed database3.

Access Suitability

3.45 A desktop exercise was undertaken to ensure that appropriate access was available for

the transportation of wind turbine components.

Selection of the Site

3.46 Following a site search based on this methodology and criteria, the application Site was

selected due to a number of factors, including:

Previously developed land – the Site contains previously developed land

having been occupied by the former RAF Fulbeck. Significant opportunities

exist to re-use existing areas of hardstanding for a wind farm development,

reducing the amount of construction activity required to build a wind farm;

Energy capture – software modelling indicates that the Site offers a suitable

wind speed with few obstacles or areas of pronounced topography to

interrupt wind flow;

Environmental designations – the Site is sufficiently removed from any

important statutory wildlife designations which could have the potential to

constrain wind farm development;

Landscape – the Site is over 10km from any nationally or locally designated

landscapes;

Residential separation distances – the Site is able to provide 800m separation

distances from the nearest residential properties whilst having potential for a

high installed capacity;

Transport infrastructure – the Site benefits from suitable access to the strategic

highway network; and

Grid connection – the Applicant has consulted with the local Distribution

Network Operator and based on its initial assessment the existing substation at

Hawton, Newark-on-Trent would be suitable to accommodate the electricity

generated by the Proposed Development.

3 The NOABL wind speed database was created by the Department of Trade and Industry

and provides annual mean wind speeds on a kilometre grid square basis



3-11

Design Evolution

3.47 The design process can take place over a number of months and the Proposed

Development has been progressively revised and refined during this time to take account

of the information arising from pre-application consultation and the findings of the EIA. As

a result, the design and EIA process has been highly iterative and all aspects of the final

design, including the location of the wind turbines, crane hardstandings, the site access,

layout of the access tracks, the locations of the substation and construction compound

have been influenced by various technical, environmental and planning considerations.

3.48 The design of the Proposed Development has been optimised to produce a project which

balances the use of land available with the overall impact of the development. This is

based mainly on the following technical, economic and environmental considerations:

Ground conditions and existing land use – existing access tracks have been re-used

wherever possible, whilst new tracks have been designed to follow existing field

boundaries or existing crop orientations to minimise disruption to existing land use;

A residential buffer / stand-off distance of at least 800m from off-site properties;

Distance between turbines and proximity to ‘obstructions’. To minimise the turbulent

interaction between turbines they should be spaced in a suitable manner to minimise

wind wake effects;

Environmental constraints – Figure 3.11 provides a snapshot of some of the desktop

analysis that helped in the design evolution. The assessment chapters of this ES discuss

these considerations and issues; and

Landscape and Visual Amenity – Chapter 6 of this ES covers this in depth. The design of

the Proposed Development seeks to match the turbines and the overall development

with the scale of the landscape. Computer modelling was used as a tool to aid design

and a 3D model/wireframes were generated for views from key locations around the

Site.

3.49 The position of the turbines, through the design, has been altered to account for the

proximity of constraints as these have been assessed. This has included the following

iterations which are shown on Figures 3.12 – 3.16.

3.50 First Iteration: Thirteen wind turbines of up to 126.5m in height to blade tip. Based on land

considered to be potentially available and the following environmental and technical

constraints:

Residential buffer of at least 800m between wind turbines and non-involved residential

properties;

Provisional buffer of 50m between turbine blade tips and areas of plantation to protect

bat species;

Buffer provided between wind turbines and public highways; of tip height plus 10%;

Buffer provided between wind turbines and public bridleways of 200m;

Buffer provided between wind turbines and public footpaths, of 46m;

Telecommunication links plotted and avoided; and



3-12

Initial turbine ellipses used to position turbines.

3.51 Second Iteration: Ten wind turbines of up to 110m to blade tip with the same general

arrangement as the First Iteration. Turbines 1, 2 and 4 were omitted from the layout, whilst

the remaining turbines were reduced in height to 110m to blade tip. This iteration followed

initial consultations with stakeholders, in particular the MOD which revealed that the First

Iteration would affect six different military radars at nearby airfields, namely the Air Traffic

Control (ATC) and Precision Approach Radars (PAR) at RAF Waddington, RAF Cranwell

and RAF Coningsby.

3.52 Through consultation with the MOD it was established that the reduction in height from

126.5m to 110m would overcome the potential for effects on the ATC and PAR radars at

Cranwell and Coningsby. In addition, the omission of turbines 1, 2 and 4 would remove the

potential for effects on the PAR at Waddington, meaning the turbines would be visible

only to the ATC radar at Waddington for which a technical mitigation solution can be

proposed. Further details are set out in Chapter 14.

3.53 Third Iteration: Ten wind turbines based on the above constraints with the principal aim of

reviewing the turbine positions to achieve a wind farm design that is balanced, cohesive

in the landscape and appropriate in scale.

3.54 Consideration was given to designing a layout which is more of a cluster in nature whilst

being in proportion with, and not overwhelming, the scale of the landscape. In addition,

consideration was given to limiting the potential for visual stacking of turbine blades or

isolation of turbines, resulting in a layout which is fairly evenly spaced when viewed from all

directions. Consultation was carried out as part of this with the operator of one

telecommunication link that would be affected by the turbine layout which established

that mitigation would be available in the form of re-routing the link (as set out in Chapter

14).

3.55 Consideration was also given to the setting of heritage assets in the area, in particular

seeking to ensure that the Third Iteration would not adversely affect the hierarchy of

historic elements or landmark features in the landscape.

3.56 The Third Iteration also sought to relate the wind turbines as far as possible to the existing

fabric of the airfield. This would allow opportunities to re-use existing hardstandings and

minimise the length of new tracks to be introduced into the landscape, reducing the

amount of material imports and vehicle movements required during construction. The total

area covered by new tracks therefore reduced from 14,254m² in the Second Iteration to

9,557 m² in the Third Iteration, a saving of 4,697 m².

3.57 Fourth Iteration: Ten wind turbines based on the above constraints, but with the addition of

further ecological buffer areas along bat commuting/foraging routes following the

completion of detailed surveys, with further micrositing to improve park efficiency and

minimise the potential for stacking.

3.58 The total area covered by tracks increased slightly in the Fourth Iteration to 9,897m² to

account for the additional ecological buffers. To put that figure in context, if the Site was



3-13

greenfield and the Proposed Development included new 5m wide tracks following the

same network of tracks as shown on Figure 3.16, a total of approximately 49,300m² of new

track would be required to construct the wind farm. The total amount of track saved by

reusing the former airfield is therefore 40,806m², which is equivalent to five and a half

football pitches4.

3.59 The location of the substation was also amended in the Fourth Iteration to be sited on a

hard-surfaced part of the Site that was formerly occupied by a building and where existing

vegetation would screen the building from the wider area. A suite of habitat

enhancement measures was also proposed.

Summary of Design Evolution

3.60 The wind farm layout relates well to the local landscape and provides for a suitable

composition when observed from key viewpoints in the surrounding area.

3.61 The position of the turbines through the design has been altered to account for the

proximity of constraints as these have been assessed. This has included micro-siting to

mitigate anticipated impacts.

3.62 The overall design layout principle of the Proposed Development has been to achieve a

coherent compact design, whilst ensuring maximum benefits are provided.

4 Wembley Stadium football pitch is 105m by 69m



Chapter 4: Description of the Construction

Programme and Methodology

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 4 Construction Methodology and Programme


CONTENTS

4 CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY AND PROGRAMME 4-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4-1 Legislation and Policy Context ............................................................................................ 4-1 Planning Policy ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 Anticipated Construction Programme and Timescales ................................................... 4-1 Construction Works ............................................................................................................... 4-2 Pre-Construction Works ......................................................................................................... 4-3 Temporary Highway Works ................................................................................................... 4-4 Construction Compound ..................................................................................................... 4-4 Site Access ............................................................................................................................. 4-4 Site Tracks ............................................................................................................................... 4-4 Crane Hardstandings and Outrigger Pads ........................................................................ 4-5 Wind Turbine Foundations .................................................................................................... 4-6 Wind Turbine Transformers .................................................................................................... 4-8 Commissioning of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment ............................................ 4-10 Reinstatement and Removal of Temporary Works ......................................................... 4-10

TABLES

Table 4.1: Indicative programme of construction activities and their associated two-way

vehicle trips per month



4-1

4 CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY AND

PROGRAMME

Introduction

4.1 This chapter provides an outline description of the methodology and programme that

would be employed during the construction phase of the Proposed Development.


Planning Policy

4.2 Planning policy at the national and local level and its relevance to environmental design

and assessment is discussed in Chapter 5: Planning Policy Context. A summary of planning

policy relevant to this Chapter is summarised below:

The National Planning Policy Framework (2012);

National Planning Practice Guidance Online;

National Policy Statement EN-3;

The South Kesteven Core Strategy (2010), including the following policies relevant to

this Chapter:

o EN1: Protection and enhancement of the characters of the district; and

o EN3: Renewable energy generation.

Local Plan for South Kesteven – Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (June

2013);

The North Kesteven Local Plan, including the following policies relevant to this Chapter:

o C2: Development in the countryside;

o C5: Effects upon amenities;

o C17: Renewable energy; and

o C18: Design.

Anticipated Construction Programme and Timescales

4.3 It is estimated that the construction of the Proposed Development would take

approximately 10 months and would consist of the operations set out below in Table 5.1

and described later in this Chapter. Table 4.1 also shows the anticipated number of

vehicle trips associated with the works.

4.4 The programme of construction activities shown in Table 4.1 has taken into account all

that is currently known about the Site and Proposed Development. The precise duration



4-2

and timing of each activity would be modified, as necessary, to take into account the

findings of the pre-construction works and surveys.

Table 4.1: Indicative programme of construction activities and their associated

two-way vehicle trips per month

Activity Month

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Plant and equipment transport 12 6 2 4 4 2 4 4 6 12

Site track construction 140 98 98 98 98 98

Turbine foundations 120 120 120 120

Removal of temporary areas 48

Cabling and electrical systems 4 4 4 4 3

Turbine delivery and erection 12 12 12 12 12

Miscellaneous light vans 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Total 161 113 228 230 246 244 28 28 29 68

Construction Works

4.5 Construction works include:

Temporary highway modifications to enable vehicles to access the Site from the

strategic and local highway network;

Construction of a new temporary site access onto Stragglethorpe Lane on the eastern

boundary of the Site;

Possible upgrade or replacement of the existing bridge over the Sand Beck;

Localised resurfacing of existing concrete and hard surfaces associated with the Site’s

former use as an airfield;

Construction of new permanent site tracks;



4-3

Installation of a temporary construction compound / storage area for site office

facilities and storage of materials and components;

Installation of hardstandings and outrigger pads for the support of the cranes that

would be used for the erection of the turbines;

Construction of foundations for the support of the turbine structures;

Wind turbine delivery and erection;

Installation of transformers in separate housings alongside each wind turbine (if

required);

Installation of on-site High Voltage (HV) cabling, communication cabling and earthing;

Installation of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system;

Construction of substation;

Commissioning of site mechanical and electrical equipment; and

Reinstatement, landscaping, removal of temporary site offices, reseeding verges and

areas around turbine bases.

4.6 The works would mainly follow the order detailed above, but many would be carried out

concurrently to reduce the overall length of the construction programme. There would be

construction phasing, with civil engineering works progressing in some areas of the Site

whilst turbines are being erected elsewhere. In order to minimise disruption to land use, site

restoration would be undertaken as early as possible in development areas.

4.7 A detailed programme of works would be produced by the construction contractors prior

to the commencement of works on Site.

4.8 Should planning permission be granted then it is likely that construction hours would be

restricted via means of a planning condition imposed by the local planning authorities.

4.9 At this stage it is proposed that construction activities on site shall only take place between

the hours of 07:00 to 18:00 on Monday to Friday inclusive and 08:00 to 14:00 hours on

Saturday, with no construction works on Site on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Outside of these

hours, works would be limited to emergency works and dust suppression, unless otherwise

agreed in writing by the local planning authorities.

4.10 It is proposed that the delivery of any construction materials or equipment, other than

turbine blades, nacelles and towers, shall be restricted to the above hours, unless

otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authorities.

Pre-Construction Works

4.11 Prior to commencement of construction, detailed site surveys would be undertaken to

provide data for the final design of the civil and electrical engineering infrastructure for

the Proposed Development. These would comprise detailed topographical and

geotechnical surveys.



4-4

4.12 The geotechnical survey would incorporate the excavation and sampling of trial holes at

each turbine location and possibly boreholes to obtain information about the underlying

strata.

4.13 All intrusive investigations would be sited at turbine locations to minimise the impact of any

exploratory excavations.

Temporary Highway Works

4.14 Some enabling works would be required including the temporary removal or relocation of

street furniture, pruning/removal/replanting of shrubs/trees and the use of adopted

highway land. These enabling works are detailed in Figures 11.4 and 11.5 and would

require construction prior to the movement of abnormal loads. These works would then be

removed and reinstated as existing following all abnormal load movements, unless

otherwise agreed with the local highways authority.

Construction Compound

4.15 During the construction phase a site compound / storage area would be installed in the

location shown on Figure 3.1. A typical construction compound is shown in Figure 3.5.

4.16 The construction compound would be approximately 50m by 30m. It would make use of

an existing hard surfaced area associated with the Site’s former use as an airfield. Space

would be provided for ‘Portacabin’ style site offices; welfare and mess facilities; secure

containers for tool and equipment storage; an area for the storage of various materials

and small components; and car parking areas.

4.17 On completion of construction, the site compound would be removed and the area

reinstated to its former condition in accordance with an approved method statement.

Site Access

4.18 A new temporary entrance would be constructed at the eastern boundary of the Site

onto Stragglethorpe Lane to allow the delivery of turbine components to the Site from the

public highway. This temporary access would be removed on completion of the

construction works and reinstated to its former condition in accordance with an approved

method statement.

4.19 The new temporary site entrance would be located approximately 40m south of the

principal existing access to the Site. This existing access would be used for all other

construction vehicles apart from loaded turbine component delivery vehicles.

Site Tracks

4.20 The Site already contains a network of concrete and hard standings associated with its

former use as an airfield. Subject to the potential need for localised re-surfacing, these

tracks are suitable for re-use during the construction, operational and decommissioning



4-5

phases which significantly reduces the amount of new track that would be needed to

construct the Proposed Development.

4.21 Where new tracks are required to access turbine positions, a 5m wide running surface with

local widening at bends would be provided for all of the site tracks during the construction

phase. A typical new track cross section is shown on Figure 3.4.

4.22 The construction of the tracks would involve the stripping and storage of topsoil followed

by installation of geotextile. Mineral soil and subsoil excavated during cut track

construction would be set aside for re-use in site reinstatement at a later date. The crushed

stone track would be laid to a nominal depth of up to 300mm and aggregates required

for the access tracks would be obtained from local suppliers. The tracks would incorporate

swales to attenuate surface water flow in accordance with sustainable drainage

principles.

4.23 In order to prevent any fine, in-situ clayey, subsoil material from migrating into the free

draining granular fill of the site track, a geotextile layer would be laid on the underlying

subsoil beneath the site tracks. General ungraded, granular fill would then be placed on

top of the geotextile layer.

4.24 The fill would be placed to a depth corresponding with original ground level. This would be

levelled and compacted by compaction equipment and by the construction traffic that

uses the track for access to the various parts of the Site. On completion of the construction

of the wind farm, the general fill layer may be capped with a higher quality material to

form the running surface for operations and maintenance vehicles.

4.25 Cross drains would be designed to divert the water at various points along the track

alignment and to transmit it underneath the track. As far as is practicably possible, any

water collected would be re-distributed to replicate the original surface / sub-surface

flows.

4.26 On completion of construction the remaining excavated mineral soil and subsoil would be

levelled alongside the access tracks to a depth of no more than 150mm.

4.27 The access tracks will be retained throughout the operational life of the Development to

enable maintenance of the turbines.

Crane Hardstandings and Outrigger Pads

4.28 At the location of each turbine foundation a hardstanding would be constructed to

provide support for the cranes used for turbine erection. These hardstandings could also

be used for storing turbine components, such as the nacelle, until they are installed. When

not being used for turbine erection, the crane hardstanding may also be used as passing

places at each turbine location where appropriate.

4.29 The size of turbines proposed for this project would normally require the use of a main

crane of up to 500 tonnes capacity. A smaller tail crane would also be used to aid lifting of

the larger components. A typical main crane is shown on Figure 4.1.



4-6

4.30 The layout of the hardstandings for this project is shown on Figure 3.6. Each hardstanding

covers an area of maximum dimensions approximately 25m wide by 45m long.

4.31 The hardstandings would be constructed using the same criteria and methods as those

used for the site tracks. The thickness of stone fill in these areas is normally similar to the site

track construction, but may be increased due to the axle loading from the cranes. This

would depend on the characteristics of the vehicles used for the erection of the turbines.

4.32 The precise design of the crane hardstandings would be determined by the ground

conditions at the turbine locations in a similar way to the design of the site tracks

described above. The crane hardstanding would be of cut design.

4.33 On completion of construction the hardstanding areas at each turbine location would be

retained but allowed to re-vegetate naturally. Their retention is so that they are available

for use in the event of a major component replacement during the operation of the wind

farm and for decommissioning.

Wind Turbine Foundations

Design Principles

4.34 The design of the wind turbine foundations would be a function of the loads from the

turbine and the topographical, geotechnical and hydrological site conditions. For the

conditions typically encountered at the Site, the wind turbine foundations would be

designed as reinforced concrete gravity structures and be subject to a final design

depending upon ground conditions. A typical foundation for the size of turbine proposed

for this project is shown on Figure 3.3.

4.35 The loads from the turbine, combined with the ground and hydrological conditions at the

turbine location would also determine the overall size of the support structure. The

underside of the foundations would be located in subsoil at a maximum depth of

between 3.0 – 3.5m below ground level.

4.36 The bearing capacity of the ground is usually not critical to the design, which is often

driven by the groundwater conditions at the position of the tower.

4.37 Where the groundwater is below the bottom of the foundation, then the structure would

be designed for dry and drained conditions, i.e. with no water pressure on the bottom of

the foundation. Where there is a high groundwater table (above the underside of the

foundation) the foundation would be designed for buoyant conditions arising from water

pressure acting upwards on the underside of the structure.

Construction Methods

4.38 The first task in constructing each wind turbine foundation would be to remove any

mineral soil to the perimeter of the proposed foundation excavation. The underlying

subsoil would then be excavated to the required foundation depth, normally by

conventional construction equipment. Excavated materials would be set aside for re-use



4-7

as backfill around the foundation following completion of construction. Detailed method

statements for materials handling would be prepared in accordance with conditions

imposed by the planning authorities on the granting of a planning consent.

4.39 The foundation formation would then be prepared to receive concrete blinding by

placing timber shuttering around the edge of the excavation. Concrete blinding would be

poured on the foundation formation to level the area in preparation for fixing the steel

reinforcement bars. The blinding would be a weak mix of concrete with low slump and

would normally be placed fairly dry. Little if any loss of cement would therefore occur

during placement of the lean-mix levelling layer.

4.40 A bottom mat of reinforcement would be placed on the weak mix concrete blinding.

Additional reinforcement would be fixed to the bottom mat to form the main

reinforcement cage for the foundation. Starter bars would then be fixed to the main cage

to form the up stand, which would support the bottom tower section. Temporary shuttering

would be placed on the reinforcement cage to ensure that there would be sufficient

concrete cover to the top layer of steel. Side shuttering would also be positioned around

the cage to form the sides of the concrete slab and to prevent loss of concrete and

cement paste into the ground.

4.41 Concrete would then be poured to form the main slab either by a concrete pump or by

being placed in small hoppers / skips that would be lifted over the area being concreted

and then tipped. Conventional concrete lorries of approximately 8m³ capacity would be

used for each foundation. During the pour, the concrete would be compacted using

poker vibrators. As the concrete placements are completed, the temporary shuttering on

the top steel would be removed, and the concrete tamped and floated to a smooth

finish.

4.42 A curing compound is often used to stop the concrete drying out too quickly (which can

lead to hairline cracking of the top surface). This is sprayed onto the surface concrete.

Plastic sheeting or hessian may also be used to assist with curing of the concrete if

considered appropriate. This reduces evaporation of water at the surface of the concrete

and also assists in preventing shrinkage of cracking material.

Turbine Delivery and Erection

4.43 Mechanical installation would comprise the delivery and erection of turbine components

at the turbine locations. Delivery of the turbine components would be undertaken by

specialist contractors using purpose built vehicles, as described in more detail in Chapter

11: Transport. Erection of the turbine components is normally undertaken by the turbine

supplier using specialist heavy lifting subcontractors and cranes.

4.44 The connection of the tower to the foundation would be made by using holding down

bolts or with a short cylindrical steel section embedded in the foundation slab. The choice

of holding down system would depend on the wind turbine supplier. The sequence of

construction of the connection between the tower and foundation depends on which

system is used.



4-8

4.45 For a holding down bolt solution, the upstand foundation anchor bolt assembly would be

placed, along with additional reinforcement in the upstand following completion of the

base slab. At this stage, partial backfilling of the foundation would be undertaken to aid

access to the turbine location during the rest of the foundation construction. Once the

upstand reinforcement and anchor bolt assembly is complete, timer or steel shutters would

be placed to form the upstand of the turbine foundation.

4.46 If the tower is connected to the foundation by a steel cylindrical section then the upstand

reinforcement and holding down bolts would not be required. For this holding down

solution, there would be only one phase of concrete pour because the embedded

section would form a permanent shuttering for the mass concrete inside it.

4.47 Electrical ducts would then be placed through the shuttering and reinforcement (for the

holding down bolt solution), or the steel cylinder. These would include conduits for the high

and low voltage cables and earthing tapes. The configuration of the ducts and the

earthing tape would depend on the turbine model being used and the nature of the

electrical layouts. The holding down bolts are held in place within the shuttering by a

template which would be fixed to the shuttering. Concrete would then be poured to form

the foundation upstand. The upstand concrete would be compacted with poker vibrators

in a similar way to that described for the base slab.

4.48 The wind turbine earthing rund and tails would then be placed within the backfill. In some

cases, earthing rods would be needed around the foundations. The need for these would

depend on the ground conditions at the Site. If required, they would be installed as self-

boring rods, drilled into the ground, in contact with the weathered rock. The depth of the

rods would depend on the electrical characteristics of the ground. Once the earthing ring

is completed, the cable ducts would be extended to the edge of the foundation and

backfilling to the top of the upstand would commence.

4.49 The wind turbine foundation would then be backfilled. Weathered rock material from the

foundation excavation would be used for the bulk of the backfill. It would then be placed

in thin layers and compacted mechanically.

4.50 The bottom section of the wind turbine tower would be placed over the foundation bolts

and fixed to the foundation. Cementitious grout would be placed between the bottom

flange of the tower and the foundation. The grout would be retained in position by

temporary formwork, which would prevent it from spilling outside the foundation. The

material would be allowed to cure and the buts would be tightened to pre-tension the

bolts.

4.51 The area around each turbine tower and over the turbine foundations would be

reinstated by using topsoil stripped during the foundation construction excavation and

other surplus excavated material.

Wind Turbine Transformers

4.52 In order to carry the power generated to the local electricity network each turbine would

require a transformer to step up to a high voltage. Turbine transformers can either be



4-9

located within the nacelle, within the turbine tower or adjacent to the base of each

tower, depending on the wind turbine model selected and the supplier’s specification.

High Voltage Cabling

4.53 The turbines would be interconnected using armoured underground cables placed in

trenches forming a power circuit within the Site. The underground cables would be taken

into the on-site substation where the electrical control equipment would interface with the

local distribution network.

4.54 The design of the high voltage (HV) cable trenches would be a function of the electrical

rating of the cables, the ground conditions and the depth of protection required for the

cables. The electrical rating and the ground conditions would provide data to assess the

thermal performance of the cables. This would determine the likely spacing between

each electrical circuit and therefore the width of the trench. Typical cable trench

construction details are shown in Figure 3.8 for the single and double circuits which would

be used for this wind farm.

4.55 Cable trenches would be excavated using conventional construction equipment. The

mineral soil would be dug out and set aside for re-use in the reinstatement of the trenches.

The trench would then be excavated to the required overall depth. Subsoil material from

the excavation would be temporarily stockpiled alongside the trench, but kept separate

from any mineral soil. Detailed method statements for materials handling would be

prepared in accordance with a restoration and management plan.

4.56 The cable would be placed on a bed of previously dug stone free excavated soil material.

The trench would then be backfilled with excavated subsoil taken from the temporary

stockpile alongside the trench and the top of the excavation reinstated with topsoil.

Cable tiles or a warning marker tape would be laid in the trench during backfilling at a

pre-specified depth. Any surplus excavated material would be stockpiled at an agreed

location and used later in the reinstatement of the site.

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System

4.57 Monitoring and controlling the performance of the wind turbines would be achieved by

way of a sophisticated Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The

SCADA system would gather data from all of the turbines and provide the facility to

control them from a remote location. Communication cables connecting to each turbine

would be buried in the electrical cable trenches (described above) to facilitate this.

Site Substation

4.58 Wind farm substation buildings are typically of conventional masonry construction, on

concrete foundations with a pitched roof constructed of trussed rafters finished in slates or

tiles. A security slab of reinforced concrete can be incorporated into the roof construction.

In most cases, cable ducts and trenches are formed in the slab of the building. The

trenches can be up to 1.5m deep depending on the electrical requirements and the



4-10

layout of the site, and also on whether the switchgear in the control building utilises top or

bottom entry cables. A typical substation building is illustrated on Figures 3.9 – 3.10.

4.59 The proposed substation building would be constructed in the location shown on Figure

3.1. It would be a single storey building, a maximum of 15m long x 10m wide with a

standard ridge height. It would be constructed using locally sourced materials in a style to

complement the local vernacular. The external finishes to the substation building would be

subject to the approval of the local planning authority prior to construction. The substation

would house the switchgear and control equipment needed for the grid connection and

would also provide some secure storage space that may occasionally be required for the

wind farm. The building would not be permanently manned as the wind farm would be

controlled remotely from a central control facility.

Grid Connection

4.60 An off-site grid connection would be required to take the power generated from the wind

turbines into the local electricity distribution network. The final details of the grid

connection including the precise route and an assessment of any impacts on the

environment would be determined by the local Distribution Network Operator (DNO) at a

later date and may be subject to a separate design and consent process.

4.61 Initial discussions with the DNO have indicated that there is a potentially suitable grid

connection point at Hawton, south of Newark-on-Trent. Figure 4.2 shows three indicative

cable routes between the Site and potential point of connection at Hawton.

Commissioning of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment

4.62 The testing and commissioning of a wind farm is normally undertaken by the turbine

supplier. It involves a series of tests on the high voltage electrical network, the electrical

equipment in the turbines and control building and the SCADA system. No construction

activities are required and it only entails the use of small vehicles.

Reinstatement and Removal of Temporary Works

4.63 On completion of construction, all temporary fencing and the temporary construction

compound would be removed from Site and all areas disturbed by the works would be

reinstated.



Chapter 5: Renewable Energy and Planning

Policy

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 5 Renewable Energy and Planning Policy

JLL on behalf of Energiekontor UK Ltd | April 2015

CONTENTS

5 RENEWABLE ENERGY AND PLANNING POLICY 5-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 Planning Policy ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 Supplementary Planning Guidance ................................................................................ 5-12 National Planning Policy and Guidance ......................................................................... 5-12 Renewable Energy Policy Framework.............................................................................. 5-20

Tables

5.1: Relevant statutory Development Plan Policies



5-1

5 RENEWABLE ENERGY AND PLANNING POLICY

Introduction

5.1 This chapter reviews the national and local planning policies, guidance and other material

considerations of potential relevance to the Proposed Development.

5.2 To maintain the impartiality of the ES, this chapter does not assess whether the Proposed

Development would comply with the identified policies. A separate Planning Statement

which assesses the accordance of the Proposed Development with the Development Plan

and other material considerations will be submitted as part of the planning application.

The Planning Statement is separate from the ES.

5.3 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Section 70(2) states that:

"In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to the

provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,

and to any other material considerations”.

5.4 Section 38 (6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that:

"If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purposes of any

determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination

must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations

indicate otherwise”.

5.5 Accordingly, the relevant policy provisions of the Development Plan and other material

considerations are set out within this chapter of the ES.

Planning Policy

The Development Plan

5.6 The statutory Development Plan applicable to the site consists of:

South Kesteven Local Plan ‘saved polices’ (adopted April 1995);

South Kesteven Core Strategy Development Plan (adopted July 2010);

South Kesteven Site Allocation and Policies DPD (adopted April 2014); and

North Kesteven Local Plan ‘saved polices’ adopted (2007).



5-2

5.7 Many of the ‘saved’ polices in the South Kesteven Local Plan were superseded following

the adoption of the Core Strategy. Whilst there are a few policies which remain in use until

they are superseded by other emerging planning policy documents, there are no active

policies which are relevant to the Proposed Development.

5.8 The site is designated as a Site of Wildlife Interest on the adopted South Kesteven Core

Strategy proposals map dated July 2010.

5.9 The North Kesteven Local Plan will eventually be replaced by the emerging Central

Lincolnshire Local Plan. The Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee

(CLJSPC) was established in October 2009 and the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Team

(previously called the Joint Planning Unit) was established in May 2010 and covers the

combined areas of City of Lincoln, North Kesteven and West Lindsey.

5.10 Table 6.1 below sets out the most relevant Development Plan policies considered to be of

relevance to the Proposed Development.

Table 5.1: Relevant statutory Development Plan Policies for South and North

Kesteven

Policy Title

South Kesteven Core Strategy DPD Polices

EN1 Protection and Enhancement of the Character of

the District

EN2 Reducing Flood Risk

EN3 Renewable Energy Generation

EN4 Sustainable Construction and Design

SP1 Spatial Strategy

SP2 Sustainable Communities

SP3 Sustainable Integrated Transport

South Kesteven Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document

SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

North Kesteven Local Plan Polices

CS2 Development in the Countryside

CS5 Effects upon amenities

CS10 Flood risk

CS11 Pollution

CS14 Surface water disposal

CS17 Renewable energy

CS18 Design



5-3

CS19 Landscaping

LW1 Landscape conservation

LW7 Features of importance for wildlife

LW8 Protected species

HE1 Sites containing nationally important archaeological

remains

HE2 Archaeological assessment and evaluation

HE3 Sites containing archaeological remains

HE5 Development affecting the setting of a listed

building

HE7 Development in a conservation area

HE8 Historic parks and gardens

South Kesteven Core Strategy (2010) Policies

EN1 Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District

5.11 “Development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and

cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute

to its conservation, enhancement or restoration. All development proposals and site

allocations will be assessed in relation to:

1. statutory, national and local designations of landscape features, including natural and

historic assets

2. local distinctiveness and sense of place

3. historic character, patterns and attributes of the landscape

4. the layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces

5. the quality and character of the built fabric and their settings

6. the condition of the landscape

7. biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape

8. public access to and community value of the landscape

9. remoteness and tranquillity

10. visual intrusion

11. noise and light pollution

12. Conservation Area Appraisals and Village Design Statements, where these have been

adopted by the Council



5-4

13. impact on controlled waters

14. protection of existing open space (including allotments and public open space, and

open spaces important to the character, setting and separation of built-up areas)”

Policy EN2 ‘Reducing Flood Risk’

5.12 “Planning permission will not normally be granted, nor sites allocated for development, in

areas identified in the South Kesteven Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as at risk of

flooding from any source. Any proposals in these areas will need to demonstrate that there

are not any suitable sites at a lower risk of flooding available.

Exceptionally, where development is necessary in areas at risk of flooding, the developer

will be required to demonstrate that all the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25:

Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) have been met, including the application of the

sequential approach within the site.

In addition to the requirements of PPS25, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must be submitted

with planning applications as required by the SFRA. All FRAs must take into account the

SFRAs recommendations.

All planning applications should be accompanied by a statement of how surface water is

to be managed and in particular where it is to be discharged. On-site attenuation and

infiltration will be required as part of any new development wherever possible. The long-

term maintenance of structures such as balancing ponds must be agreed in principle prior

to permission being granted. Development which is likely to have a detrimental impact on

the natural features of rivers and stream corridors, ponds or wetland habitats will not be

permitted”.

Policy EN3 ‘Renewable Energy Generation’

5.13 “ The District Council will grant planning permission for proposals to generate energy from

renewable sources, subject to the proposals according with the other Core Strategy

policies, national guidance and complying with the following criteria:

The proposal can be connected efficiently to existing national grid infrastructure, unless it

can be demonstrated that energy generation would be used on-site to meet the needs of

a specific end user. The proposal should make provision for:

the mitigation of the real emissions/impacts arising from the installation of the

renewable energy generation



5-5

the removal of the facilities and reinstatement of the site, should the facilities cease to

be operational”.

Policy EN4 ‘Sustainable Construction and Design’

5.14 “Proposals for new development should consider and demonstrate how the design of

buildings and site layouts use energy, water, minerals, materials and other natural

resources appropriately, efficiently and with care and take account of the effects of

climate change in accordance with other core strategy policies. To meet these

requirements:

All new developments should maximise the use of energy efficiency and energy

conservation measures in their design, layout and orientation on site to reduce overall

energy demand.

All developments should minimise mains water use and demonstrate that water

conservation measures are incorporated so that predicted per capita consumption does

not exceed the appropriate levels set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes or BREEAM

standards.

These requirements may be relaxed if it can be clearly demonstrated by the applicant/

developer, that to require full compliance would not be economically viable for the

specific scheme”.

SP1 ‘Spatial Strategy

5.15 “The majority of all new development should be focused upon Grantham to support and

strengthen its role as a Sub-Regional Centre.

New development which helps to maintain and support the role of the three market towns

of Stamford, Bourne and the Deepings, will also be allowed.

In the settlements identified as Local Service Centres, preference will be given to

brownfield sites within the built-up part of settlements [which do not compromise the

nature and character of the village] and sites allocated in the Site Specific Allocations

and Policies DPD.

Where a Village Design Statement or Parish Plan has been prepared by the Parish Council

and adopted by the District Council, development should be in accordance with the

design principles established.

In all other villages and the countryside development will be restricted. Proposals will only

be considered acceptable if they are sites for:



5-6

A. affordable housing (rural exception or allocated sites)

B. agriculture, forestry or equine development

C. rural diversification projects

D. local services & facilities

E. replacement buildings (on a like for like basis); or

F. conversions of buildings provided that the existing building(s):

contribute to the character & appearance of the local area by virtue of their historic,

traditional or vernacular form;

are in sound structural condition; and

are suitable for conversion without substantial alteration, extension or rebuilding, and

that the works to be undertaken do not detract from the character of the building(s) or

their setting

In all cases planning permission will only be granted on a less sustainable site where it has

been proven that there are no other more sustainable options available or there are other

overriding material considerations. All cases will also be subject to all relevant policies

within the remainder of the core strategy or other relevant development plan

documents”.

SP2 ‘Sustainable Communities’

5.16 “Outside of the main towns of Grantham, Stamford, Bourne and the Deepings,

development will be directed to rural settlements where localised service use is already

strong.

In those villages, which have been identified as Local Service Centres, development will

be allowed in accordance with the Spatial Strategy and subject to the following:

Support will be given to proposals and activities that protect, retain or enhance existing

community assets, or that lead to the provision of additional assets that improve

community well-being. Proposals involving the loss of community facilities, including land in

community use* will not be supported. There will be a presumption against the change of

use of existing retail, service and employment premises”.

* including facilities such as community/village halls, village shops, post offices,

schools, health services, care homes, public houses, playing fields and allotments.



5-7

South Kesteven Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document (2014) Policies

Policy SD1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

5.17 When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that

reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National

Planning Policy Framework. It will always work pro-actively with applicants jointly to find

solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure

development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the

area.

Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant,

with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material

considerations indicate otherwise.

Where there are no policies relevant to the application, or relevant policies are out of

date at the time of making the decision, then the Council will grant permission unless

material considerations indicate otherwise - taking into account whether:

any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and ddemonstrably

outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning

Policy Framework taken as a whole; or

Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

North Kesteven Local Plan (2007) Policies

Policy C2 - Development in the countryside

5.18 Planning permission will be granted for development in the countryside (as shown on the

Proposals Map), provided that it:

1. Will maintain or enhance the environmental, economic and social value of the

countryside;

2. Will protect and, where possible, enhance the character of the countryside;

3. Cannot be located within or adjacent to a settlement; and

4. Will not attract or generate a large number of journeys, and is located to provide

opportunities for access by public transport, walking or cycling.

Policy C5 - Effects upon amenities

5.19 Planning permission will be granted for proposals, provided that they will not adversely

affect the amenities enjoyed by other land users to an unacceptable degree.



5-8

Policy C10 - Flood risk

5.20 Planning permission will be granted for proposals, only if they will not:

1. Be at an unacceptable risk of flooding

2. Unacceptably increase flood risk elsewhere

3. Affect the integrity of existing flood defences to the level where they would not

provide an acceptable standard of safety over the lifetime of the development.

Priority will be given in permitting sites for development in descending order of the

following flood zones:-

Flood Zone 1 – little or no risk – annual probability of flooding less than 0.1%;

Flood Zone 2 – low to medium risk – annual probability of river flooding 0.1% to 1.0%;

Flood Zone 3 – high risk – annual probability of river flooding 1.0% or greater.

Where possible, new developments should result in the overall reduction of flood risk. All

relevant planning applications must be accompanied by a flood risk assessment.

Policy C11 - Pollution

5.21 Planning permission will be granted for developments that may be liable to pollute

groundwater, a water body, a watercourse, air or soil, only if:

1.The occupiers or users of the development and the occupiers or users of other land are

not exposed to unacceptable risk.

2.The area’s flora or fauna will not be adversely affected; and

3.The quality of water, air or soil resources will not be adversely affected.

4.The general amenity of the area would not be unacceptably harmed.

Policy C14 - Surface water disposal

5.22 Planning permission will be granted for development, provided that it includes measures

designed to safely manage surface water run-off and, where feasible, minimise the

increase in surface water run-off.

Policy C17 - Renewable energy

5.23 Planning permission will be granted for development providing for, or associated with, the

generation and distribution of energy from renewable sources provided that:

1.the environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily;



5-9

2.the proposal minimises the landscape and visual effects of the development through

appropriate siting, design and landscaping schemes;

3.where the proposal would have an adverse effect on a site of international importance

for nature and heritage conservation, there is no alternative solution and there are

imperative reasons of overriding public interest;

4.where the proposal is in a nationally designated area, the objectives of the designation

of the area will not be compromised, and any adverse effects on the qualities of the area

are outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits.

Policy C18 - Design

5.24 Planning permission will be granted for development, only if it will:

1.Reinforce local identity and

2.Not adversely affect the character or appearance of its surroundings;

And

3.Existing site features that contribute positively to the character or appearance of the

area are retained, and satisfactorily incorporated into the design;

4.The proposal responds satisfactorily to its context in terms of its layout, scale, massing,

height, density, detailing, external appearance, and the use of materials, and

5.The proposal has a cohesive character, and adds interest and vitality to its surroundings

Policy C19 - Landscaping

5.25 Planning permission will be granted for development provided that appropriate provision

is made for high-quality landscaping which will:-

a. protect and enhance the existing landscape and townscape character;

b. satisfactorily integrate the development with its surroundings;

c. protect the amenities of occupiers of the development and nearby occupiers;

d. retain and incorporate key landscape features on the site;

e. provide appropriate levels of open space within the development.

Policy LW1 - Landscape Conservation

5.26 The Council will seek to protect the distinctive landscapes of the identified Landscape

Character Areas and any special features which contribute to that character. Where

development is acceptable, it will be required to contribute to the local distinctiveness of



5-10

the area, be well integrated into the local landscape character, protect any features of

importance to the local scene, and respect any important views.

Policy LW7 - Features of importance for wildlife

5.27 Planning permission will be granted for proposals that will directly or indirectly adversely

affect any habitat listed as a priority in the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan or an

existing landscape feature (such as a pond, reservoir, lake, gravel pit, disused railway,

road verge, river, canal or drain or their banks, building traditional field boundary (such as

a hedgerow or stone wall), linear tree belt/shelter, plantation or small woodland, larger

semi-natural or ancient woodland, heathland, parkland, semi-natural grassland or

unimproved pasture) that is important for wild flora or fauna, only if:

1.The need for the development clearly override the importance of the feature; and

2.Where appropriate, the implementation of measures to minimise, mitigate or

compensate for the harm, or to ensure the future management and enhancement of the

feature’s value, is assured by means of an agreement between the developer and the

Council, or by means of a condition upon the permission.

Policy LW8 - Protected species

5.28 Planning permission will be granted for proposals that will adversely affect protected

species or their habitat, only if:

1.The need for the development clearly override the importance of the protected species;

2.The proposed development could not feasibly be located in a less sensitive location;

and

3.An agreement between the developer and the Council or a condition upon the

permission will:

a. Facilitate the survival of individual members of the species;

b. Reduce disturbance to the minimum;

c. Provide adequate alternative habitats to sustain at least the current levels of population

of the species.

Policy HE1 - Sites containing nationally important archaeological remains

5.29 Planning permission will be granted for proposals that will not adversely affect the

archaeological value or interest, or the setting, of a Scheduled Ancient Monument (as



5-11

shown on the proposals map) or other site containing nationally important archaeological

remains.

Policy HE2 - Archaeological assessment and evaluation

5.30 Planning applications affecting a site where evidence suggests that archaeological

remains are likely to be present must be accompanied by an assessment identifying the

extent and importance of any remains, together with any proposals for their protection or

to mitigate adverse effects.

Policy HE3 - Sites containing archaeological remains

5.31 Planning permission will be granted for proposals that will affect locally or regionally

important archaeological remains or their setting, provided that:

1.The remains will be preserved in situ, and will not be damaged; or

2.Where preservation in situ is not justified, the recording and/or excavation of the remains

prior to and during development is assured (by means of an agreement between the

developer and the Council or by means of a condition upon the permission).

Policy HE5 - Development affecting the setting of a listed building

5.32 Planning permission will be granted for proposals that will not adversely affect the setting

of a listed building

Policy HE7 - Development in a conservation area

5.33 Planning permission will be granted for development (including new buildings, changes of

use, alterations and extensions) within or adjoining conservation areas provided that it

would preserve or enhance the area’s character, setting and appearance.

Policy HE9 - Historic parks and gardens

5.34 Planning permission will be granted for proposals, provided they will not adversely affect

the character, appearance, or setting of any park or garden of special historic interest (as

shown on the Proposals Map).



5-12

Supplementary Planning Guidance

South Kesteven Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document

(SPD)(2013)

5.35 The SPD supports the implementation of development plan policies EN1 (Protection and

Enhancement of the Character of the District) and Policy EN3 (Renewable Energy

Development). The SPD provides guidance on:

Key planning issues associated with wind energy developments during their

construction, operation and decommissioning;

Criteria that will be applied when determining applications for wind energy

developments;

Good siting and design of wind energy schemes including how potential

impacts can be minimised; and

Information that should be provided when submitting a planning application

5.36 The SPD is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for

onshore wind farms and as such a detailed appraisal of the proposal against it is

contained within the accompanying Planning Statement.

National Planning Policy and Guidance


5.37 The finalised version of the NPPF was issued and took force on 27 March 2012.

Achieving Sustainable Development

5.38 The NPPF promotes sustainable development: a definition of this is set out in Paragraphs 6

and 7 with regard to the economic, social and environmental roles of the planning system,

as follows:

an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and

competitive economy;

a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities; and

an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural,

built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve

biodiversity, use natural resources prudently…and mitigate and adapt to

climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.



5-13

5.39 To achieve sustainable development “…economic, social and environmental gains should

be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system” (paragraph8).

5.40 The document sets out the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and firstly

makes it clear (paragraph 11) that "…planning law requires that applications for planning

permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material

considerations indicate otherwise". Paragraph 12 adds that the NPPF does not change

the statutory status of the Development Plan as the starting point for decision making. The

NPPF is a material consideration in determining planning applications.

5.41 Paragraph 14 is the key part of the NPPF: it states that:

"…at the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of

sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread

running through both plan making and decision taking”.

For decision taking this means:

Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan

without delay; and

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of

date, granting permission unless:

- Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework

taken as a whole; or

- Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

5.42 Paragraph 15 adds that "…policies in Local Plans should follow the approach of the

presumption in favour of sustainable development so that it is clear that development

which is sustainable can be approved without delay".

Core Planning Principles

5.43 There is reference to ‘core planning principles’ and these are set out at paragraph 17.

These are to underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. In summary, those of

relevance to this Appeal are that planning should:

be genuinely plan-led;

not simply be about scrutiny;



5-14

proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver ...

infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs …;

secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity…;

recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside…;

support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate…and encourage

the use of renewable resources (for example by the development of renewable

energy);

contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing

pollution;

conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance; and,

Renewable energy generation is explicitly recognised as a specific core planning

principle.

Building a Strong, Competitive Economy

5.44 The first topic in the NPPF states that the Government is committed to (paragraph 19):

“…ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support

sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage

and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant

weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth

through the planning system”.

5.45 Paragraph 28 adds that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in

order to create jobs and prosperity “…by taking a positive approach to sustainable new

development”.

Meeting the challenge of Climate Change

5.46 Section 10 of the NPPF deals with climate change. Paragraph 93 states that planning has

a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in:

“…supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and

associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and

environmental dimensions of sustainable development”.

5.47 At paragraph 97 the NPPF states that:

“To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon

energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all



5-15

communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low

carbon sources”. They should:

Have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low

carbon sources;

Design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy

development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed

satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts; and

Consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy

sources and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the

development of such sources.

5.48 Planning Authorities are further advised at paragraph 98 that, when determining planning

applications, they should:

Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate overall need for

renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small scale projects

provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions;

Approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

5.49 The footnote No.17 (page 22) in the Framework confirms reliance on NPS EN-1 and 3 as

primary sources of guidance to planning decision makers addressing wind energy

proposals.

Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment

5.50 The ‘natural environment’ is addressed at section 11 where it states the planning system

should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, inter alia:

Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes;

Minimising impacts on biodiversity.

5.51 Local authorities are advised at paragraph 113 to set criteria based policies against which

proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife sites or landscape areas

will be judged.

5.52 Paragraph 113 states that Planning Authorities should set criteria based policies against

which proposals for any development on or affecting landscape areas will be judged.

5.53 Paragraph 115 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving

landscape and scenic beauty in “National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding

Natural Beauty…”.



5-16

Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

5.54 The historic environment is addressed in section 12. The NPPF states at paragraph 128 that

in determining planning applications, they should require an Applicant to describe the

significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their

setting. Such assessments are to be taken into account when considering the impact of a

proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s

conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

5.55 Paragraph 132 states that, when considering the impact of a proposed development on

the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the

asset’s conservation. It adds that:

“…the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be… As

heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear

and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed

building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss

of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably

scheduled monuments…….Grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II*

registered parks and gardens….should be wholly exceptional”.

5.56 Paragraph 133 states:

“…where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total

loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning

authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the

substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits

that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply …”(these

other matters relate to viable use of the asset etc. and are not particularly

relevant to this case).

5.57 Paragraph 134 states that:

“Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to

the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be

weighed against the public benefits of the proposal…”.

5.58 Paragraph 135 addresses non designated heritage assets and states that in determining

applications that affect directly or indirectly such assets, a balanced judgement will be



5-17

required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the

heritage asset in question.

5.59 Overall, the policy approach indicates that there is a need for a balanced and

considered approach to developments that will affect the setting of heritage assets.

Decision Taking and Determining Applications

5.60 Planning Authorities are advised to approach decision taking (paragraph 186) “…in a

positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development”.

5.61 Paragraph 187 adds that:

“Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems,

and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for

sustainable development where possible”.

5.62 Paragraph 196 of the NPPF refers to paragraph 38(1) of the 2004 Act and states:

“Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be

determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material

considerations indicate otherwise. This framework is a material

consideration in planning decisions”.

5.63 Paragraph 197 adds:

“In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning

authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable

development”.

National Policy Statements

5.64 The Overarching NPS for ‘Energy’ (EN-1) and the NPS for ‘Renewable Energy Infrastructure’

(EN-3) were approved in July 2011. The NPPF states at footnote 17 that in assessing

planning applications for wind energy development they “should follow the approach”

set out in the NPS documents.

Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1)

5.65 The document sets out the Government’s policy for delivery of major energy infrastructure.

Part 2 outlines the policy context for the development of nationally significant energy

infrastructure and Part 3 goes on to set out the need for new nationally significant

infrastructure projects and Part 4 deals with assessment principles. Part 5 addresses



5-18

generic impacts that may arise from major energy and infrastructure projects including

topics such as biodiversity and geological conservation and under each section there is

advice on assessment, decision making and mitigation principles.

5.66 A detailed analysis and appraisal of the relevance of the need case and policy context

outlined within EN-1 is set out in the accompanying Planning Statement.

NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)

5.67 EN-3 is the primary basis for decisions on renewable energy infrastructure with a proposed

installed capacity that exceeds 50MW. However, it reinforces footnote 17 of the NPPF and

explicitly states that the NPS is likely to be material consideration in decision making on

relevant applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

5.68 Section 2.7 sets out the factors influencing site selection for wind energy development as

well as technical considerations when determining onshore wind farms. Paragraph 2.7.17

makes it clear that the time limited nature of wind farms is likely to be an important

consideration when assessing landscape and visual effects and potential effects in

relation to heritage assets. The document states that such judgement should include

consideration of the period of time sought by an applicant for a development to operate

and the extent to which a site will return to its original state.

5.69 Paragraph 2.7.43 states that in terms of time limited consents, account should be taken of

the length of time for which consent is sought when considering any indirect effect on the

historic environment, such as effects on the setting of designated heritage assets.

5.70 Paragraph 2.7.24 of the NPS refers to micro-siting and states that whilst it is for an applicant

to specify a level of tolerance, a distance of between 30m and 50m of elements of the

required infrastructure is typical.

5.71 Paragraphs 2.7.30 – 2.7.83 set out the relevant technical considerations for onshore wind

proposals for the following topics:

Biodiversity & Geological Conservation

Historic Environment

Landscape and Visual

Noise & Vibration

Shadow Flicker

Traffic & Transport



5-19

5.72 For each of the topic areas the document sets out an introduction, factors to consider in

the applicant’s assessment, decision making principles, mitigation considerations and

suggestions for further surveys and monitoring, where applicable. Further detail on the

relevance and application of the guidance is addressed within the relevant chapters of

this ES and the accompanying planning statement.

Planning Practice Guidance

5.73 On 30th July 2013, the DCLG issued National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) entitled

‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’. The PPG stated

the Companion Guide to the former PPS 22 is cancelled. The document was cancelled

on 6th March 2014, but on the same date, it was replaced by the Government’s ‘Planning

Practice Guidance Suite’ (PPG) which is an online planning guidance resource.

5.74 The introductory section to the PPG (Para 001) poses the question - why is planning for

renewable and low carbon energy important? It states that:

“planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy

infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable”.

5.75 Paragraph 001 also gives four reasons why this is important namely in relation to:-

Increasing the amount of renewable energy;

Helping to make the UK have a secure energy supply;

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to slow down climate change; and

To stimulate investment in new jobs and businesses.

5.76 The PPG refers to technical considerations relating to renewable energy technologies and

cross refers to the NPS documents and states that:

5.77 “In shaping local criteria for inclusion in Local Plans and considering planning applications

in the meantime, it is important to be clear that:- (Para 007).

the need for renewable or low carbon energy does not automatically override

environmental protections;

cumulative impacts require particular attention, especially the increasing impact that

wind turbines and large scale solar farms can have on landscape and local amenity

as the number of turbines and solar arrays in an area increases;

local topography is an important factor in assessing whether wind turbines and large

scale solar farms could have a damaging effect on landscape and recognise that



5-20

the impact can be as great in predominately flat landscapes as in hilly or

mountainous areas;

great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner

appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views

important to their setting;

proposals in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and in areas

close to them where there could be an adverse impact on the protected area, will

need careful consideration;

protecting local amenity is an important consideration which should be given proper

weight in planning decisions.

5.78 The PPG sets out particular planning considerations that relate to wind turbines, which in

summary include:-

5.79 Paragraph 015 refers to noise impacts and states that report ‘The Assessment and Rating

of Noise for Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97) should be used by LPAs when assessing and rating

noise from wind energy developments;

5.80 Paragraph 016 refers to safety and provides guidance in relation to buildings, power lines

and air traffic and safety, defence, radar and the strategic road network;

Paragraph 017 refers to electromagnetic transmissions;

Paragraph 018 refers to ecology;

Paragraph 019 refers to cultural heritage

Paragraph 020 refers to shadow flicker and reflected light;

Paragraph 021 refers to cumulative landscape and visual matters.

5.81 All the above topics are already addressed in national planning policy and related

guidance and are standard matters when considering commercial scale wind energy

developments in an EIA approach.

Renewable Energy Policy Framework

5.82 The Planning Statement which accompanies this ES examines in detail the renewable

energy policy framework which includes a range of policy documents which will be

material considerations in the determination of the planning application. The documents

are as follows:



5-21

The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009)

The Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009)

National Policy Statements for Energy EN-1 and EN-3 (2011)

The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (2011)

The Roadmap Update (2012)

UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update (2013)

National Infrastructure Plan (2013)

The Annual Energy Statement 2014



Chapter 6: Landscape and Visual Effects

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 6 Landscape and Visual

LDA Design on behalf of Energiekontor UK Ltd | April 2015

iii

Contents

6 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL 6-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ............................................................................................. 6-4 Assessment Methodology .......................................................................................................... 6-7 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................... 6-19 Landscape and Visual Effects ................................................................................................. 6-29 Mitigation and Enhancement ................................................................................................. 6-52 Residual Effects .......................................................................................................................... 6-52 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 6-52 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 6-74

TABLES

Table 6.1 – Summary of Consultation Responses

Table 6.2- Landscape Sensitivity

Table 6.3 - Visual Sensitivity

Table 6.4 – Summary of scale of effect on viewpoints

Table 6.5 – Summary of Effects

Table 6.6 - Wind farms considered in cumulative assessment

Table 6.7 - Cumulative scenarios assessed

Table 6.8 - Total Combined Effects over the baseline of operational and

consented wind farms

Table 6.9 - Incremental Effects of adding the Proposed Development if the

planned developments in the scenario were already constructed

FIGURES

Plans and Graphs

Figure 6.1 Local Context and Public Rights of Way

Figure 6.2 Site Location and Landscape Policy Context

Figure 6.3 Local Landscape Character

Figure 6.4 Topography

Figure 6.5 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Study, Bareground and viewpoints

Figure 6.6 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Study, Including Woodlands and

Settlements, and viewpoints

Figure 6.8 Cumulative Schemes within 25km

Figure 6.9 Cumulative ZTV Study, Operational and Consented Wind Farms

Figure 6.10 Cumulative ZTV Study , Temple Hill and Sewstern Lane

Figure 6.11 Cumulative ZTV Study, Belle Vue, Top Farm and Langford

Figure 6.12 Cumulative ZTV Study, Proposed Wind Farm plus Hawton and Fox Covert



iv

Group

Figure 6.13 Visibility of Windfarms from A17

Diagrams

Diagram 6.1 Magnitude

Diagram 6.2 Significance

Visualisations

Figure 6.7 1 Viewpoint 1 Fenton

Figure 6.7 2 Viewpoint 2 Stragglethorpe

Figure 6.7 3 Viewpoint 3 Beckingham

Figure 6.7 4 Viewpoint 4 Brant Broughton

Figure 6.7.5 Viewpoint 5 Brandon

Figure 6.7 6 Viewpoint 6 Stubton

Figure 6.7 7 Viewpoint 7 Barnby in the Willows

Figure 6.7 8 Viewpoint 8 Claypole

Figure 6.7 9 Viewpoint 9 Caythorpe

Figure 6.7 10 Viewpoint 10 Leadenham

Figure 6.7 11 Viewpoint 11 Hough-on-the-Hill

Figure 6.7 12 Viewpoint 12 Houghton Road

Figure 6.7 13 Viewpoint 13 Carlton-le-Moorland

Figure 6.7 14 Viewpoint 14 Wellingore

Figure 6.7 15 Viewpoint 15 Woolsthorpe Road near Belvoir Castle

Figure 6.7 16 Viewpoint 16 Lincoln, West Common

Figure 6.7 17 Viewpoint 17 Normantan Heath

Figure 6.7 18 Viewpoint 18 Great Gonerby

APPENDICES

Appendix 6.1 – Assessment Methodology

Appendix 6.2 – National Planning Policy

Appendix 6.3 – Correspondence

Appendix 6.4 – Non-significant effects

Appendix 6.5 - Residential Amenity Assessment

Appendix 6.6 – Draft visualisation from specific viewpoint near Wellbourn

Appendix 6.7 – Sequential visibility – route graphs for A1 and Viking Way

Appendix 6.8 – Glossary

Appendix 6.9 - References



v



6-1

6 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

Introduction

Background

6.1 LDA Design was commissioned to carry out a landscape and visual assessment of the

proposed Fulbeck Airfield wind farm.

6.2 This assessment defines the existing landscape and visual baseline environments; assesses

their sensitivity to change; describes the key landscape and visual related aspects of the

Proposed Development; describes the nature of the anticipated change upon both the

landscape and visual environments; assesses the magnitude and significance of the

changes for both the construction, operational and decommissioning stages.

The Site and Proposals

6.3 Figure 6.1 places the proposed development within its local context. The proposed

development is for ten wind turbines with a maximum blade tip height of 110m and

associated ancillary infrastructure. Chapter 3 sets out in more detail the full extent of the

Proposed Development.

6.4 The Site is located on the former RAF Fulbeck Airfield comprising disused runways, tracks

and buildings, agricultural land, blocks of plantation and a go-kart track. It is set within a

wider landscape of largely medium sized arable fields mainly enclosed by mature

hedgerows. Small woodland blocks are a feature in the surrounding landscape. A

number of small settlements are located in the vicinity including Fenton located 1.1km

west, Stragglethorpe 1.4km north-east, and Beckingham, Stubton and Brandon located

around 2.5km north-west, south-west and south respectively. The A17 is located 1.7km to

the north and the Newark-on-Trent to Grantham railway line is located 3.6km to the

south-west.

The Study Area

6.5 It is accepted practice within landscape and visual assessment work that the extent of

the study area for a development proposal is broadly defined by the anticipated extent

of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) arising from the Proposed Development. In this

case a study area of 25km has been used, based on agreement with South Kesteven

District Council (SKDC) and North Kesteven District Council (NKDC) as being appropriate

to cover all potentially material landscape and visual impacts. Within this overall study

area, smaller sub-areas have been used for various receptors in order to focus on likely

significant effects, in accordance with best practice guidelines (GLVIA 3rd edition, 2013,

para. 1.17). The rationale for these areas is identified in the relevant sections of this

assessment. In summary they are:



6-2

10km for local landscape character, locally designated landscapes, promoted

scenic road routes and visitors to attractions or heritage assets for which landscape

and views contribute to the experience;

5.5km for most other visual receptors; and

2km for the assessment of effects on residential visual amenity (Appendix 6.4).

Chapter Structure

6.6 This Chapter is structured as follows:

Introduction;

Legislation, Policy and Guidance;

Assessment Methodology;

Baseline Conditions;

Landscape and Visual Effects;

Mitigation and Enhancement;

Residual Effects;

Cumulative Effects; and

Summary

6.7 Supporting appendices have been prepared which supplement the sections regarding

methodology, planning policy, and assessed effects. These appendices are important to

the assessment and should be read alongside this chapter. A glossary and references

are also provided within Appendices 6.8 and 6.9.

Consultation

6.8 A summary of responses are provided in the table below. A complete list all consultation

responses are provided within Appendix 6.3.

Table 6.1 – Summary of Consultation Responses

Consultee Date Summary of response

SKDC 30/01/14 Scoping Opinion:

Approach to LVIA generally acceptable

In addition to Local LCAs, National and Parish LCAs should also

inform ES

Viewpoints are a good starting point. Final list of viewpoints to

be agreed with SKDC and NKDC. Visualisations should be

included in the ES, in accordance with South Kesteven Wind

Energy SPD. Additional suggested viewpoints include:

Normanton Heath

Honington Heath

Welbourn

Fulbeck Low Fields



6-3


Study area and schemes for cumulative assessment to be

agreed with SKDC. List of current schemes provided by SKDC

and neighbouring councils.

Residential Visual Amenity Assessment to cover a 2km

study area as per South Kesteven Wind Energy SPD.

Stragglethorpe Land Gypsy and Traveller Site to be

included in RVIA.

Nottingham

shire

County

Council

19/12/13 Scoping Opinion:

LVIA to be set as follows:

Introduction

Legislation

Methodology

Description of Local Landscape

Local Landscape Character

Landscape Planning Context

Site Description and description of proposed development

Assessment of landscape and visual impacts

Conclusions

Figures to include topography, landscape character and

designations. Assessment to include photomontages.

Study Area of 25km (including cumulative assessment)

and 10km for landscape character are acceptable

Natural

England


LVIA should follow GLVIA3 and LCA guidance documents.

Cumulative assessment to be considered.

Reference to National Character Areas

Effects on PRoWs and Open Access Land to be

included.

Parish

Council

response to

Scoping

report

Consideration of Stubton and Hough-on-the-Hill landscape

character assessments, and SKDCs Wind Energy SPD.

Residential Amenity Assessment to include properties

within 2km of the proposed development

NKDC 02/12/13 Scoping Opinion:

Residential Visual Amenity Assessment should be a separate

document to the LVIA. A list of dwellings to be assessed is

provided by the Council.

Approach to Assessment is considered to be generally

acceptable.

Viewpoints are broadly acceptable subject to some

suggestions as specified by the Council.

All viewpoints to be supplied with wireframes and



6-4


photomontages.

List of cumulative schemes provided by the Council. Study area

and list of cumulative sites to be agreed with Council.

Newark

and

Sherwood

District

Council


Assessment Methodology is acceptable.

Viewpoint from Barnby in the Willows.

List of cumulative schemes provided by the Council to be

considered in the cumulative assessment.

Meeting

with SKDC

and NKDC

01/08/14 Refer to Minutes in Appendix 6.3.

SKDC 29/09/14 Recommended viewpoints from Normanton Heath and

Honnigton Heath.

Veto’s suggested viewpoints would not add anything more to

the agreed LVIA viewpoints.

Photomontage from 4 The Coppice in Fenton along with a

written assessment of properties in the Residential Visual

Amenity Assessment (RVIA).

The following properties to be included in the RVIA:

Stragglethorpe Grange

Court Leys Cottages and Farm

Gorse Lodge

Rectory Farm

Justification to be provided of any deviation from South

Kesteven’s Wind Energy SPD 75mm photography.

SKDC 24/10/14 Agreement of list of cumulative schemes. Addition of two

further schemes.

SKDC 19/1//14 Agreement of LVIA viewpoints (18) in the Refined viewpoints

document.

Agreement of omission of Honnington Heath viewpoint.

Agreement of Residential assessment criteria. LVIA visualisations

should demonstrate views from the edge of Fenton and

Stragglethorpe to show the potential impact.


National Planning Policy

6.9 Relevant national planning policy is set out in Appendix 6.2.



6-5

Local Planning Policy

6.10 Current local planning policy is described in the following adopted documents:

South Kesteven Local Plan (1995); and

Local Development Framework for South Kesteven, Core Strategy (2010).

6.11 Policies from the North Kesteven Local Plan 2007 are not included as there are no

landscape designations within North Kesteven and therefore no policies of any particular

relevance to the LVIA. Chapter 5, however, sets out the policies within North Kesteven

that relate to other chapters within the ES.

South Kesteven Local Plan (1995)

6.12 Many of the policies within this local plan have been replaced by policies within the Core

Strategy. This includes all of the policies which are of relevance to this assessment.

Local Development Framework for South Kesteven, Core Strategy (2010)

6.13 This is a key document within the new Local Development Framework (LDF), providing a

vision and set of spatial objectives for development in the district to 2026 which is

supported by a spatial policy framework. Of these policies 'EN1: Protection and

Enhancement of the Character of the District' is of particular relevance to this

assessment, stating:

‘South Kesteven's Landscape Character Areas are identified on the map

[following paragraph 4.1.10]. Development must be appropriate to the

character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features

of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation,

enhancement or restoration.’

6.14 The policy further identifies 14 criteria against which proposed development will be

assessed of which only some are relevant to this LVIA. These are:

‘1. statutory, national and local designations of landscape features, including

natural and historic assets

2. local distinctiveness and sense of place

3. historic character, patterns and attributes of the landscape

4. the layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces

5. the quality and character of the built fabric and their settings

6. the condition of the landscape

8. public access to and community value of the landscape

9. remoteness and tranquillity

10. visual intrusion

…

12. Conservation Area Appraisals and Village Design Statements, where these



6-6

have been adopted by the Council

…’

6.15 Paragraph 4.10 of the supporting text describes the Council’s detailed assessment:

‘A more detailed assessment of the District’s landscape character has been

undertaken (FPCR, January 2007). The study was carried out to ensure that

appropriate future development is successfully integrated within the

landscape. This has identified seven areas within the District: Kesteven Uplands,

Trent and Belvoir Vales, Southern Lincolnshire Edge, Harlaxton Denton Bowl,

Grantham Scarps and Valley, Fen Margin and the Fens. Each of these areas

displays distinct characteristics of topography, agricultural usage, field systems

and settlement patterns, as well as historic building styles. The assessment has

also highlighted which of the distinctive features of each area should be

protected or enhanced. This also includes such things as views and styles of

building….’

6.16 Other policies that are of particular relevance to this assessment include policy EN3:

Renewable Energy Generation

‘The District Council will grant planning permission for proposals to generate

energy from renewable sources, subject to the proposals according with the

other Core Strategy policies, national guidance and complying with the

following criteria:

…’

6.17 The criteria listed within the policy do not relate to landscape and visual matters.

Local Guidance

6.18 In addition to the policy documents identified above, there are key local guidance

documents as follows:

South Kesteven Wind Energy SPD (2013);

South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (2007); and

Stubton and Hough-on-the-Hill Parish Landscape Character Assessments (2013).

6.19 These form part of the documented baseline and are reviewed in paragraphs 6.79-6.87,

with accompanying commentary on the implications for the development siting and

design and the assessment methodology, as appropriate.

6.20 The landscape character assessments and Wind Sensitivity Study studies covering the

adjacent districts of North Kesteven, and Newark and Sherwood, and relevant historic

landscape character assessments are also referred to in respect of baseline information.



6-7

Assessment Methodology

Overview

‘Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is a tool used to identify and assess

the significance of and the effects of change resulting from development on

both the landscape as an environmental resource in its own right and people’s

views and visual amenity.’ (GLVIA, 3rd Edition, 2013, para 1.1)

6.21 Sections 2.20-2.22 of the same guidance indicate that the two components (assessment

of landscape effects, and assessment of visual effects) are ‘related but very different

considerations’.

Introduction

6.22 The assessment method draws upon the established Guidelines for Landscape and Visual

Impact Assessment, 3rd edition (LI & IEMA, 2013) and An Approach to Landscape

Character Assessment (Natural England, 2014) and other recognised guidelines, in

particular Scottish Natural Heritage’s ‘Visual representation of Wind Farms Best Practice

Guidance’ (2014).

6.23 The methodology has four key stages, which are described in more detail in subsequent

sections, as follows:

Baseline - includes the gathering of documented information; scoping of the

assessment and agreement of that scope with, relevant consultees and the planning

authority; site visits and initial reports to the client of issues that may need to be

addressed within the design;

Design - review of initial layout/ options, turbine choice(s), and mitigation options;

Assessment - includes an assessment of the landscape and visual effects of the

scheme, requiring site based work and the completion of a full report and supporting

graphics; and

Cumulative Assessment - assesses the effects of the proposal in combination with

other wind developments.

6.24 These stages are described in greater detail in Appendix 6.1.

Assessment Terminology and Judgements

6.25 A full glossary is provided in Appendix 6.8. The key terms used within assessments are:

Susceptibility and Value – which contribute to Sensitivity;

Scale, Duration and Extent - which contribute to the Magnitude of effect; and

Significance.



6-8

6.26 Susceptibility is assessed for both landscape receptors, such as designated areas and

landscape character areas, and for visual receptors (people). It indicates the ability of a

defined landscape or visual receptor to accommodate the Proposed Development

‘without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation and/or the

achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies.’ (GLVIA, 3rd version, para

5.40). A description of how susceptibility is evaluated for each receptor type is included

below. It is rated on the following scale:

High – undue consequences are likely to arise from the Proposed Development;

Medium – undue consequences may arise from the Proposed Development; and

Low - undue consequences are unlikely to arise from the Proposed Development.

6.27 Susceptibility of landscape character areas is influenced by their characteristics and is

frequently considered (though often recorded as 'sensitivity' rather than susceptibility)

within documented landscape character assessments and capacity studies.

6.28 Susceptibility of designated landscapes is influenced by the nature of the special

qualities and purposes of designation and/or the valued elements, qualities or

characteristics, indicating the degree to which these may be unduly affected by the

development proposed.

6.29 Susceptibility of accessible or recreational landscapes is influenced by the nature of the

landscape involved; the likely activities and expectations of people within that

landscape and the degree to which those activities and expectations may be unduly

affected by the development proposed.

6.30 Susceptibility of visual receptors is primarily a function of the expectations and

occupation or activity of the receptors (GLVIA 3rd version, para 6.32).

6.31 Landscape Value is ‘the relative value that is attached to different landscapes by

society’ (GLVIA, 3rd version, page 157). It is rated on the following scale:

National/International – Designated landscapes which are nationally or

internationally designated for their landscape value – including National Parks, Areas

of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), World Heritage sites; and Heritage Coast;

Local/ District – Locally or regionally designated landscapes (e.g. Area of High

Landscape Value, Regional Scenic Areas); also areas which local evidence (such as

tourism guides, landscape character assessments or other documentary information)

indicates as being more valued than the surrounding area;

Community – ‘everyday’ landscape which is appreciated by the local community,

but has little or no wider recognition of its value; and

Limited – despoiled or degraded landscape with little or no evidence of being

valued by the community.

6.32 Sensitivity is rated within the range of High-Medium-Low-Negligible and is assessed by

combining the considerations of susceptibility and value described above. Table 6.2

below illustrates the judgement process for landscape receptors, and Table 6.3 for visual

receptors:



6-9

Table 6.2 – Landscape Sensitivity

Susceptibility

High Medium Low V

alu

e

National/

International

High High-

Medium

Medium

Local/District High-

Medium

Medium Medium-

Low

Community Medium Medium-

Low

Low

Limited Low Low-

Negligible

Negligible

Table 6.3 – Visual Sensitivity

Susceptibility

High Medium Low

Va

lue

National/

International

High High-

Medium

Medium

Local/District High-

Medium

High-

Medium

Medium

Community High-

Medium

Medium Medium-

Low

Limited Medium Medium-

Low

Low

6.33 The two tables above are different to each other reflecting a slightly greater emphasis on

value in terms of the sensitivity of landscape receptors, and a slightly greater emphasis

on susceptibility in terms of the sensitivity of visual receptors.

6.34 For visual receptors; judgements of susceptibility and value are often interlinked

considerations; for example the most valued views are likely to be those which people

go and visit because of the available view – and it is at those viewpoints that their

expectations will be highest. The value attributed to visual receptors also relates to the

value of the view – for example a National Trail is nationally valued for its access, not

necessarily for its views. Views will be treated as valued where there is documentary

evidence of that value – such as recommendations to visitors; or reference within special

qualities of designated areas. The sensitivity of visual receptors is generally rated as

follows:

National value and High susceptibility - visitors to valued viewpoints or routes for

which people might visit purely to experience the view, e.g. promoted or well-known

viewpoints or routes from which views that form part of the special qualities of a

designated landscape can be well appreciated; key designed views; panoramic

viewpoints marked on maps;

Local value and High susceptibility - people in locations where they are likely to

pause to appreciate the view, such as from local waypoints such as benches; or at



6-10

key views to/from local landmarks. Visitors to local attractions, heritage assets or

public parks where views are an important contributor to the experience, or key

views into/out of Conservation Areas would also fall into this category;

Community value and High susceptibility - people in the streets around their home, or

using public rights of way, navigable waterways or accessible open space (public

parks, open access land);

Limited value and High susceptibility - people in their own homes;

National value and Medium susceptibility - users of promoted scenic rail routes;

Local value and Medium susceptibility - users of promoted scenic local road routes;

Community value and Medium susceptibility - users of cycle routes, local roads and

railways;

Limited value and Medium susceptibility - outdoor workers;

National or Local value and Low susceptibility - users of A-roads which are promoted

scenic routes;

Community value and Low susceptibility - users of sports facilities such as cricket

grounds and golf courses; and

Limited value and Low susceptibility - users of Motorways and A-roads; shoppers at

retail parks, people at their (indoor) places of work.

6.35 Scale of effect is assessed for all landscape and visual receptors and identifies the

degree of change which would arise from the development. It is rated on the following

scale:

Large – Total or major alteration to key elements, features, qualities or characteristics,

such that post development the baseline situation will be fundamentally changed;

Medium - Partial alteration to key elements, features, qualities or characteristics, such

that post development the baseline situation will be noticeably changed;

Small – Minor alteration to key elements, features, qualities or characteristics, such

that post development the baseline situation will be largely unchanged despite

discernible differences; and

Negligible – Very minor alteration to key elements, features, qualities or

characteristics, such that post development the baseline situation will be

fundamentally unchanged with barely perceptible differences.

6.36 Duration of effect is assessed for all landscape and visual receptors and identifies the

time period over which the change to the receptor as a result of the development

would arise. It is rated on the following scale:

Permanent – the change is expected to be permanent and there is no intention for it

to be reversed;

Long-term – the change is expected to be in place for 10-25 years and will be

reversed, fully mitigated or no longer occurring beyond that timeframe;

Medium-term – the change is expected to be in place for 2-10 years and will be

reversed, fully mitigated or no longer occurring beyond that timeframe; and



6-11

Short-term – the change is expected to be in place for 0-2 years and will be reversed,

fully mitigated or no longer occurring beyond that timeframe.

6.37 As for most wind farms, this Proposed Development is to be removed after a period of 25

years. Most effects will therefore be Long term, but not permanent; however Medium or

Short term effects may be identified where mitigation planting is proposed or local

factors will result in a reduced duration of effect (for example where maturing woodland

will screen views in future). The effects arising from the construction and decommissioning

of the Proposed Development will be Short term.

6.38 The Extent of effects is assessed for all receptors and indicates the geographic area over

which the effects will be felt. This is rated as follows:

Limited - Site, or part of Site, or small part of a receptor area (< approx. 10%);

Localised - Site and surroundings up to 2km, or part of receptor area (up to approx.

25%);

Intermediate - up to approx. 2-4km, or around half of receptor area; and

Wide - beyond 4km, or more than half of receptor.

Use of viewpoints in assessing scale, duration and magnitude of effects

on visual receptors

6.39 The representative viewpoints are used as 'samples' on which to aid judgements of the

scale of effects on visual receptors. As these viewpoints represent a range of different

types of visual receptors, duration and extent are not judged at representative viewpoint

locations. Thus, the scale of effect is assessed at representative viewpoints, but duration

and extent is judged only when assessing impacts on the visual receptors.

6.40 For specific viewpoints (chosen because they are key and sometimes promoted

viewpoints within the landscape), duration and extent are assessed, with extent

reflecting the extent to which the development affects the valued qualities of the view

from the specific viewpoint. For example a very distant wind farm would typically be

judged to have a Limited extent of effect on a 360 degree panoramic view; but might

be judged to have a greater extent if it appeared within the focal area of a channelled

or designed view.

6.41 The Magnitude of effect is rated within the range of High-Medium-Low-Negligible and is

informed by combining the scale, duration and extent of effect. The diagram below

illustrates the judgement process:



6-12

Diagram 6.1: Magnitude

6.42 Where the Scale of effect is judged to be Negligible the Magnitude is also assumed to be

Negligible and no further judgement is required.

6.43 Significance indicates the importance or gravity of the effect. The process of forming a

judgement of significance of effect is based upon the assessments of magnitude of

effects and sensitivity of the receptor to come to a professional judgement of how

important this effect is. This judgement is illustrated by the diagram below:



6-13

Diagram 6.2: Significance

(based on EIA significance evaluation matrix, IEMA Special report 2011)

6.44 The significance ratings indicate a ‘sliding scale’ of the relative importance of the effect,

with Major being the most important and Minimal being the least. Effects that are Major-

Moderate or Major are considered to be significant. Effects of Moderate significance or

less are "of lesser concern" (GLVIA, 3rd edition, para 3.35). It should also be noted that

whilst an effect may be significant, that does not necessarily mean that such an impact

would be unacceptable, or should necessarily be regarded as an "undue consequence"

(GLVIA, 3rd edition, para 5.40).

6.45 Where intermediate ratings are given, e.g. "Moderate-Slight", this indicates an effect that

is both less than Moderate and more than Slight, rather than one which varies across the

range. In such cases, the higher rating will always be given first; this does not mean that

the impact is closer to that higher rating, but is done to facilitate the identification of the

more significant effects within tables. Intermediate judgements may also be used for

judgements of Magnitude.



6-14

Positive/Adverse/Neutral

6.46 Effects are defined as adverse, neutral or positive based on professional judgement as

set out in more detail in Appendix 6.1. Neutral effects are those which overall are neither

adverse nor positive, but may incorporate a combination of both.

6.47 The decision regarding the significance of effect and the decision regarding whether an

effect is positive or adverse are entirely separate. For example, a rating of Major and

Positive would indicate an effect that was of great significance and on balance positive,

but not necessarily that the proposals would be extremely positive.

6.48 To summarise the end results of the detailed considerations discussed in Appendix 6.1;

effects on landscape receptors are assumed to be Adverse (reflecting the direction of

planning policy towards landscape character remaining unaltered and designated

landscapes not being affected by development). Effects on visual receptors are

presumed to be Neutral (as opinion on the appearance of turbines varies and there is no

equivalent policy direction in respect of views remaining unaltered). Effects that are

Negligible will typically be classed as Neutral given that it indicates a very limited

change. Detailed justification of judgements are only be provided where judgements

differ from these.

Landscape Character

6.49 Further detail regarding the considerations in respect of the susceptibility of landscape

character to effects from wind farm development, and considerations in respect of the

magnitude and extent of effects on character are provided within Appendix 6.1, and

briefly summarised below. The susceptibility of landscape character areas is judged

based on both the attributes of the receiving environment and the characteristics of the

proposed development as described above.

6.50 It is noted within An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (Natural England,

2014) (page 51) that “Key characteristics are particularly important in the development

of planning and management policies. They are important for monitoring change and

can provide a useful reference point against which landscape change can be

assessed.” Wind turbine developments are unusual in their effects upon landscape

character, as they primarily involve the addition of elements rather than any alteration

to, or removal of, existing features. The introduction of a windfarm into an existing

landscape adds a new feature which may strongly affect the ‘sense of place’ in its near

vicinity, but with distance, the existing characteristics reassert themselves. At its most

basic level, the magnitude of effect can best be understood by considering how one

might perceive a particular place post-construction; i.e. If the baseline perception is ‘I

am in a field’, then this may change to: ‘I am in, or at, a windfarm’ (Large Scale); ‘I am in

a field near a windfarm’ (Medium Scale); ‘I am in a field and I can see a windfarm over

there’ (Small Scale); or remain as ‘I am in a field’ (Negligible).

6.51 The judgement of magnitude therefore reflects the degree to which the key

characteristics and elements which form those characteristics will be altered by the

proposals. The size of the development, the nature and susceptibility of the receiving



6-15

landscape, as well as local ‘barriers’ in the landscape (such as breaks of topography,

woodlands, settlements, and roads or rivers) will determine the exact extent of effects for

each development. As noted at paragraph 6.144, for this development, the visual

effects reduce to below Medium scale at around 5-5.5km, and there is a reduction in

theoretical visibility beyond 6-10km, therefore the study of local landscape character

areas is limited to a 10km radius from the turbines, though the national landscape

character areas are reviewed up to a 25km radius in order to provide context.

Landscape Designations

6.52 In considering the effects on designated areas, a number of factors need to be

considered. The effects on the component landscape character areas and the effects

on views from within and towards the designated area need to be understood. These

effects are then considered in light of the documented "special qualities", valued

elements or characteristics, and the purposes of the designation in order to arrive at a

judgement of the effects on the designated landscape or landscape element.

6.53 Allowing for their lower value than nationally designated landscapes and therefore lower

sensitivity, significant effects on locally designated landscapes are highly unlikely to

occur beyond 10km from the turbines and the study area for local designations is limited

to that extent, whilst that for national designations extends to the full 25km study area.

Site

6.54 The effect of physical changes to the Site (and access route and grid connection

corridor where applicable) are assessed in terms of the effects on the physical fabric.

Factors such as the removal or planting of hedgerows and trees, the location and

materials of access tracks, and the potential effects arising from temporary construction

compounds and any control building or substation are described.

Viewpoints and Visual Receptors

6.55 A wide variety of visual receptors can reasonably be anticipated to be affected by a

proposed wind farm development. Within the baseline assessment, the ZTV plans and site

visits were used to determine which visual receptors were likely to be significantly

affected and therefore merit detailed assessment. In line with guidance (GLVIA, 3rd

Edition, 2013); both representative and specific viewpoints were identified to inform the

assessment. Viewpoints are representative - representing the visual receptors at the

distance and direction in which they are located and of the type(s) that would be

present at that location. The majority of viewpoints were selected in locations where

significant effects would be anticipated; though some were selected outside of that

zone - either to demonstrate the reduction of effects with distance; or to specifically

ensure the representation of a particularly sensitive receptor.

6.56 Generally for windfarms, the area of Medium scale visual effects extends to

approximately 5km, though may be more or less depending on the size and location of

the development and local factors including topography and vegetation patterns. For

this Site, as discussed at paragraph 6.144, the representative viewpoints indicated that



6-16

effects will typically be below Medium scale by a distance of around 5-5.5km and

therefore this area is likely to contain all significant visual effects. As a result a 5.5km

radius from the turbines is judged to be appropriate as the main focus for assessment

and adequate to cover all likely significant effects.

6.57 With the exception of specific viewpoints, each route, settlement or location will

encompass a range of possible views, which might vary from no view of the turbines to

very clear, close views. Therefore effects are described in such a way as to identify

where views towards the turbines are likely to arise and what the scale, duration and

extent of those views are likely to be. In some cases this will be further informed by a

nearby viewpoint and in others it will be informed with reference to the ZTVs, aerial

photography and site visits. Each of these individual effects are then considered

together in order to reach a judgement of the effects on the visual receptors along that

route, or in that place.

6.58 The assessment of effects on settlements focuses primarily on the visual amenity of public

spaces, though views from groups of dwellings will also be noted in the descriptions.

Effects on private residential visual amenity are a separate matter, as set out below.

6.59 Appendix 6.1 contains further detail regarding assessment considerations in respect of

visual effects and receptors.

Residential Visual Amenity

6.60 Wind farms are generally regarded as being a form of development for which it is

appropriate to undertake a residential visual amenity assessment, as the scale of

development is such that the turbines may lead to effects being perceived as

'overbearing' or 'overwhelming'.

6.61 For the Proposed Development a 2km study area was used for the residential visual

amenity assessment, and the methodology for that study and its results are set out in

Appendix 6.5.

6.62 As noted within Appendix 6.5, which provides further detail, dwellings may sometimes

also be used as 'representative viewpoints', and effects assessed to supplement the LVIA.

This is not done in this assessment, however cross references are made between the two

assessments as follows:

where viewpoints are located close to properties, this will be noted in the residential

visual amenity assessment;

the availability of views from properties towards the Proposed Development is noted

where relevant within the LVIA (for example in respect of effects on settlements); and

an overview of visual effects on the properties covered by the residential visual

amenity assessment is provided.



6-17

Cumulative Assessment

6.63 There is a common misconception that the multiple effects of a single development

could be ‘added up’ and considered ‘cumulatively’ and may thus become more

significant than the sum of their parts; however this is a misconception and the purpose

of cumulative assessment relates to the assessment of the effects of more than one

development.

6.64 A search area from the Site (typically of a similar scale to the study area) is agreed with

the local planning authority. In terms of selecting which wind turbine proposals within the

study area should be included, SNH Guidance ‘Assessing the Cumulative Impact of

Onshore Wind Energy Developments’, (March 2012) advises that:

‘An assessment of cumulative impacts associated with a specific development

proposal should encompass the effects of the proposal in combination with:

• existing development, either built or under construction;

• approved development, awaiting implementation; and

• proposals awaiting determination within the planning process with design

information in the public domain. Proposals and design information may be

deemed to be in the public domain once an application has been lodged,

and the decision-making authority has formally registered the application.’

[para. 26] – note that this category also includes recently refused applications

which may yet be appealed.

6.65 For each of these schemes agreement was reached with SKDC on 24th October 2014 as

to whether they should be included in the assessment. For this assessment, agreement

was reached with SKDC regarding the inclusion of cumulative sites (Appendix 6.3) and is

as set out at paragraph 6.206.

6.66 Schemes which are in scoping are also noted, but are not included within the assessment

unless they become active applications before the LVIA is submitted, with occasional

exceptions for schemes where reliable information is available with respect to the

scheme design, and the application is known to be imminent. For this assessment, this

includes Sewstern Lane wind farm and the proposed turbine at Staple Quarry as

applications for both are anticipated in early 2015 and reliable information is available to

inform assessment.

6.67 In March 2015, a further cumulative search was undertaken which identified an

additional proposed single turbine at Manor Farm. As this turbine was scoped out of the

detailed cumulative assessment (see paragraph 6.210) and was added after completion

of the wirelines, it has not been included on the wirelines. It is, however, illustrated on

Figures 6.8 and 6.11.

6.68 The cumulative assessment examines the same groups of landscape and visual receptors

as the assessment for the Proposed Development, though different viewpoints may be

used in order to better represent the likely range of effects arising from the combination

of schemes. The assessment is informed by cumulative ZTVs, showing the extent of visual

effects of the schemes in different colours to illustrate where visibility of more than one



6-18

development is likely to arise. Wirelines are prepared which show each of the

developments in different colours so that they are each readily identifiable.

6.69 In addition, the effects on users of routes through the area, from which wind farms may

be sequentially visible as one passes through the landscape are also considered. This

assessment is based on the desk study of ZTVs and aerial photography, and site visits to

travel along the routes being assessed, and may also make use of graphs indicating the

proximity and visibility of wind farms along the route.

6.70 It is important to note the following:

Operational and consented wind farms are treated as being part of the landscape

and visual baseline i.e. it is assumed that consented schemes will be built except for

occasional exceptions where there is good reason to assume that they will not be

constructed. For this assessment, no such developments were identified. Reflecting

this, the main LVIA assesses effects on the basis that these developments are in

place, and consented schemes are included in all wirelines. This is not necessary for

operational schemes which are included in existing view photographs where visible;

Schemes in planning are assessed via a series of scenarios involving one or several of

the other developments being consented along with (or before) the application

scheme. Two assessment ratings are provided for each scenario - one which

indicates the combined effects if all of the schemes in that scenario were consented

together (combined effects); and one which indicates the additional effects that

consenting the Proposed Development would have if the other schemes were

already consented (incremental effects);

For each assessed receptor, combined effects may be the same as for the Proposed

Development, or greater (where the influence of multiple schemes would increase

effects, or where schemes in planning other than the Proposed Development would

have the predominant effects); and

For each assessed receptor, incremental effects may be the same as for the

Proposed Development, or reduced (where the influence of other schemes in

planning would be such that were they consented and considered to be part of the

baseline, the incremental change arising from the addition of the Proposed

Development would be less).

6.71 The way in which the assessment is described and presented is varied depending on the

number and nature of scenarios which may arise. This variation is needed in order to

convey to the reader the key points of each assessment, in line with the SNH guidance

which emphasises that:

“The key principle for all cumulative impact assessments is to focus on the likely

significant effects and in particular those which are likely to influence the

outcome of the consenting process.” (para. 33, and similar directions at paras.

66 and 102)

6.72 For example, the three different cumulative combinations that may arise for an

assessment in which there are two existing undetermined applications each can be



6-19

assessed individually. A situation in which there are 10 applications cannot reasonably

be assessed in this way and the developments may need to be grouped for analysis.

6.73 The SNH guidance also encourages consideration of the composition and relationship of

the various developments within the landscape and in views, noting that:

“In presenting the findings of the assessment there is a risk of focussing on a

quantitative assessment of the effects. This will be helpful, but a qualitative

analysis of these is required to fully appraise the effects. The production of

extensive quantitative analysis alone is not sufficient.” [para. 99]

Distances

6.74 Where distances are given in the assessment, these are approximate distances between

the nearest turbine and the nearest part of the receptor in question, unless explicitly

stated otherwise.

6.75 Distances to residential properties are given to the dwelling (not the garden) and

rounded to the nearest 10m.

Baseline Conditions

Introduction

6.76 An overview of the baseline study results is provided in this section with the full baseline

description of the individual landscape and visual receptors being provided alongside

the assessment section for ease of reference.

6.77 This section provides a review of the key local guidance documents and identifies those

landscape and visual receptors which merit detailed consideration in the assessment of

effects, and those which are 'scoped out' from further assessment as effects ‘have been

judged unlikely to occur or so insignificant that it is not essential to consider them further’

(GLVIA, 3rd edition, para 3.19).

6.78 Both this baseline section and the effects section describe landscape character and

visual receptors before considering designated landscapes. It is common for

designations to encompass both character and visual considerations within their special

qualities or purposes of designation. It therefore makes a more natural reading sequence

to draw together those aspects of character and views which relate to the designation if

they have been described earlier in the chapter.

Key Local Guidance Documents

South Kesteven Wind Energy SPD (June 2013)

6.79 This document, although not part of the adopted development plan, is a material

consideration in applications for wind energy developments within the district. It is

intended to support the implementation of policies identified within the Core Strategy by



6-20

providing guidance on key planning issues, good siting and design of wind energy

developments, criteria that will be applied when determining applications and the

information which developers will need to provide when submitting an application.

Landscape and visual amenity is one of ten topics covered by the SPD with specific

guidance given on the content of LVIA, and in summary states that:

The LVIA should address the 'Key Planning Considerations' identified in section 3.2 of

the SPD;

Visualisations should be based on photography with a 70/75mm lens;

The LVIA should show how the site responds to landscape character and addresses

points on site selection identified in section 3.2 of the SPD;

A cumulative assessment shall be undertaken and shall consider wind turbine

developments that are ‘under construction, consented or the subject of a valid

planning application, or formally notified at the scoping stage.’; and

A residential visual amenity study of properties within 2km of any turbine should be

undertaken.

6.80 The SPD is referred to where relevant throughout the LVIA; the methodology used for

cumulative and residential visual amenity assessments is discussed in detail in Appendix

6.1. The SPD predates the SNH 2014 guidance on visualisations (Visual Representation of

Wind Farms, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2014) and as a result visualisations are produced

to 75mm equivalent, but taken with a 50mm lens as discussed in Appendix 6.1.

South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (2007)

6.81 The South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (SKLCA) identifies landscape

character at the district level. The assessment forms part of SKDC's evidence base and

aims to:

‘provide an understanding of the landscape, its history and future pressures

and is designed to provide guidance for future management strategies which

will help secure the unique qualities and subtle idiosyncrasies which make

South Kesteven special. This can then be used to ensure that sensitive areas

are protected and also that opportunities for improving the landscape

character are highlighted.

… It can also provide a tool to guide future development pressures and to

ensure that these are in harmony with prevailing landscape character, local

distinctiveness, and a sense of place.’

6.82 Following descriptions for each of the character areas the SKLCA presents an appraisal

of landscape sensitivity, including specifically in relation to wind proposals. This ‘assesses

how each character area could accommodate change without adverse impacts on

character. This mostly involves decisions about whether or not significant characteristic

elements of the landscape will be liable to loss, whether the characteristics could easily

be restored and whether important aesthetic aspects of character will be liable to

change. Consideration is also given to the addition of new elements. The assessment

considers three factors;



6-21

The elements that contribute to landscape character, their significance and

vulnerability to change.

The overall quality and condition of the landscape.

Aesthetic aspect of landscape character.’

6.83 The sensitivity judgements within this document are used to inform the assessment. The

SKLCA also provides management objectives for each character areas which are

reviewed within this assessment when considering the effects on the host character area.

It should be noted that the document predates GLVIA, 3rd edition, and does not take

value fully into account in judging sensitivity and the sensitivity judgements within the

document are thus equivalent to judgments of susceptibility. This point does not apply to

the Newark and Sherwood wind sensitivity study, as it does incorporate considerations of

value.

Stubton and Hough on the Hill Parish Landscape Character Assessments

(2013)

6.84 These documents form part of the evidence base which has informed policies in the

draft Stubton and Hough on the Hill Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDP). The

documents are yet to be formally adopted and therefore the weight to be accorded to

the LCA’s and the draft policies of the NDP’s is a matter that is dealt with in the Planning

Statement that accompanies the planning application for the Proposed Development.

6.85 The two LCA’s are complementary to the SKLCA and draw on the existing published

landscape character assessment for South Kesteven and on the Lincolnshire Historic

Landscape Characterisation Project. The SKLCA and Lincolnshire Historic Landscape

Characterisation Project documents are parts of the existing, adopted local planning

policy and have been important in the development of this parish based study which

seeks, where relevant, to further sub-divide the area into a finer grain of characterisation

of both Parishes. These parish studies, however, do not define landscape sensitivity and

capacity of the defined character areas, these are referred to where they provide

additional relevant information not provided by the SKLCA.

ZTV studies

6.86 Finalised ZTV plans were prepared based on the candidate turbine layout and size. These

are shown on Figures 6.5 and 6.6 and indicate areas of potential visibility for the hubs and

blade tips of the turbines. The analysis was carried out using a topographic model alone,

in accordance with SNH guidance (Figure 6.5); and including settlements and

woodlands (mapped in at heights derived from NEXTMAP 25 surface mapping data) as

visual barriers in order to provide a more realistic indication of potential visibility (Figure

6.6).

6.87 ZTV studies are used to aid the identification of receptors which are likely to be

significantly affected by the Proposed Development and those which may be scoped

out.



6-22

6.88 As can be seen from the ZTV for the Proposed Development (Figure 6.6), the turbines

would theoretically be widely visible within 5km, where woodland blocks do not obscure

the turbines from view. This area of relatively wide theoretical visibility also extends up to

10km+ to the north-east. Between 5-15km, visibility is patchy and strongly influenced by

terrain and vegetation with areas of high ground to the east, north-east and south-east

(the Belvoir Ridge) restricting visibility from about 7km+ from the proposed turbines.

6.89 Large areas of woodland and the settlement of Newark, and falling landform beyond

these areas to the north west, create areas of limited or no visibility beyond

approximately 5-8km in that direction. Beyond 15km, visibility reduces further and at

these distances the turbines would only be visible in clear conditions and even low level

vegetation would be likely to screen views.

6.90 The following points should be borne in mind in respect of the ZTV Plan (Figure 6.6):

Areas shown as having potential visibility may have visibility of the Proposed

Development screened by local features such as trees, hedgerows, embankments or

buildings; and

Since only the turbine hubs and blade tips have been modelled, this may be all that

is visible - rather than the turbine tower. This is particularly true of areas near the

edges of potential visibility.

Landscape Character

6.91 Paragraphs 5.13-5.15 of GLVIA, 3rd edition indicates that landscape character studies at

the national or regional level are best used to ‘set the scene’ and understand the

landscape context. It indicates that Local Authority Assessments provide more detail and

that these should be used to form the basis of the assessment of effects on landscape

character - with (appropriately justified) adaptation, refinement and interpretation

where required.

6.92 Only those character areas within 10km from the Site are included in this assessment, as

local character areas beyond 10km will not experience more than Negligible effects on

character. Thus, relevant assessments are:

National Character Areas (up to 25km);

East Midlands Regional Landscape Character Assessment (2010);

South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (2007);

Stubton and Hough on the Hill Parish Landscape Character Assessments (2013);

North Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (2007);

Newark and Sherwood Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development

(2014); and

Lincolnshire Historic Landscape Characterisation Project (2011).

Historic Landscape Character



6-23

6.93 The Lincolnshire Historic Landscape Character Assessment postdates and is

complementary to the SKLCA. It divides the county into a number of historic character

areas and provides information on the development of the landscape in the past; the

legibility of that past in the landscape seen today; and the drivers for change in the

future. It is referred to where it provides additional relevant information not provided by

the SKLCA.

National Landscape Character

6.94 There are seven national character areas (NCA) within the 25km study area:

NCA 48 – Trent and Belvoir Vales – Site located within;

NCA 47 – Southern Lincolnshire Edge – 5km, east;

NCA 74 – Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire Wolds – 14km, south-west;

NCA 75 – Lincolnshire and Rutland Limestone – 16km, south-east;

NCA 46 – The Fens – 20km, east;

NCA 45 – Northern Lincolnshire Edge with Coversands – 21.4km, north-east and

NCA 44 – Central Lincolnshire Vale – 22.5km, north-east.

6.95 The Trent and Belvoir Vales NCA (48) covers majority of the 10km study area and is

characterised by undulating, rural and predominantly arable farmland, centred on the

River Trent. It is described as a low-lying rural landscape with relatively little woodland

cover offering long, open views. Much of the pasture has been converted to arable use

and hedgerows have been removed to create larger fields. Rural tranquillity is described

as a feature over much of the area; however, significant residential and infrastructure

development pressures exist from the main settlements and major roads that traverse the

area. One of the key characteristics of this area refers to power stations, pylons and the

plumes of steam from cooling towers and the sugar beet factory at Newark, however this

relates primarily to the north of the NCA, whereas this Site is in the south and the only

notable local influence is from power lines.

Regional Landscape Character

6.96 With regards to regional landscape character, the Proposed Development is located

within the Unwooded Vales character type (4a) of the Lowland Vales Group (4). The key

characteristics of this character type are broadly similar to the local character area

within which the site is located; very gently undulating landform, arable and pastoral

fields lined with hedgerows, limited woodland cover, small villages and dispersed farms.

Other regional character types within 10km include:

Wooded Vales (4b) – 3.3km, north-west;

Limestone scarps and Dipslopes (6a) – 4.3km, east;

Clay Wolds (8a) – 8.4km, south; and

Forest Hills and Ridges (10a) – 8.5km, south-east.

6.97 The national and regional character provides the context for understanding the

landscape within the study area, but given the scale of the studies and character



6-24

areas/types, and the presence of more detailed landscape character areas at a local

level, the national and regional areas are not assessed in detail.


6.98 Local landscape character areas are shown on Figure 6.3. The South Kesteven

Landscape Character Assessment identifies the following character areas within the

10km study area:

Trent and Belvoir Vale – Site located within;

South Lincolnshire Edge – 4.5km, south-east; and

Grantham Scarps and Valleys – 8.3km, south-east.

6.99 Only a small part of the Grantham Scarps and Valleys character area is located within

10km and the ZTVs (Figure 6.5 and 6.6) indicate very limited visibility of the Proposed

Development; it is therefore excluded from further assessment on the basis that effects

are likely to be Negligible.

6.100 The North Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment identifies the following character

areas within 10km:

2 Terrace Sandlands – 2.8km, north-west;

5 Witham and Brant Vales – 0.25km, north;

6 Lincoln Cliff – 4.1km, east;

7 Limestone Heath – 6.2km, east; and

8 Rauceby Hills – 9.6km, south-east.

6.101 The ZTVs indicate very limited visibility of the Proposed Development from 7 Limestone

Heath and no visibility from 8 Rauceby Hills. These character areas are therefore

excluded from further assessment as effects are likely to be Negligible.

6.102 The Newark and Sherwood Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development

identifies the following landscape character areas within 10km:

East Nottinghamshire Sandlands - D1 Village Farmlands – 2.4km, north-west;

East Nottinghamshire Sandlands - D2 Village Farmlands with plantations – 9.6km,

north-west;

South Nottinghamshire Farmlands – E1 Meadowlands – 5.5km, west;

South Nottinghamshire Farmlands – E2 Village farmlands – 7.2km, west; and

Trent Washlands – C2 River Meadowlands – 9.6km, north-west.

6.103 Only a small part of D2 Village Farmlands with plantations, C2 River Meadowlands, E2

Village Farmlands are located within 10km; they are therefore excluded from further

assessment as effects are likely to be Negligible.

6.104 In summary, effects on the following landscape character areas are considered in detail

and assessed in Section 6.2:



6-25

South Kesteven

Trent and Belvoir Vale; and

South Lincolnshire Edge

North Kesteven

2 Terrace Sandlands;

5 Witham and Brant Vales; and

6 Lincoln Cliff.

Newark and Sherwood

East Nottinghamshire Sandlands - D1 Village Farmlands; and

South Nottinghamshire Farmlands – E1 Meadowlands.

6.105 The Site is situated in character area Trent and Belvior Vale of the SKLCA.

Visual Receptors

6.106 Visual receptors are ‘the different groups of people who may experience views of the

development’ (GLVIA, 3rd edition, para 6.3). In order to identify those groups who may

be significantly affected, the ZTV plans and baseline desk study and site visits have been

used.

6.107 The different types of groups encompass residents within settlements; people using key

routes such as roads, cycle ways or long distance paths; people within accessible or

recreational landscapes; people using public rights of way; or people visiting key

viewpoints. In dealing with public rights of way and local roads, receptors are grouped

into areas where effects might be expected to be broadly similar, or areas which share

particular factors in common (e.g. routes within an area of designated landscape).

6.108 Representative viewpoints have been selected to assess the effects on visual receptors.

Visual Environment of Existing Site

6.109 As shown on Figure 1, the Site is located on a disused airfield at between 15 and 20m

AOD. As shown on Figure 4, to the north-east, east and south-east of the site the

landform rises near Navenby, Welbourn, Leadenham, Fulbeck, Caythorpe and Hough-

on-the-Hill, from where there are panoramic views across the lower land to the west. This

elevated land serves to block visibility looking from the vicinity of the site to the east.

Hedgerows with some hedgerow trees with settlements (with their church spires creating

landmarks), farm developments occasional woodlands provide some enclosure, with

horizons generally appearing vegetated and limiting the extent of more distant visibility

(except when looking from the elevated land to the east and south east). Power stations

and pylon lines are visible features in the distance in clear conditions. The operational

Frinkley Farm turbine is also visible on the ridge to the south-east. Other infrastructure



6-26

including the A1, A17, the East Coast Main Line and occasional power lines are visible in

the surrounding area.

Settlements

6.110 Settlement within the 5.5km study area comprises mainly small villages or hamlets, with

the occasional large village and a number of individual or small groups of rural dwellings.

6.111 The following settlements lie within 5.5km of the Site:

Fenton (1.1km, west);

Stragglethorpe (1.4km, north-east);

Brandon (2.1km, south-east);

Stubton (2.4km, south-west);

Beckingham (2.7km, north-west);

Brant Broughton (2.7km, north-east);

Barnby in the Willows (3.2km, north-west);

Caythorpe (3.7km, south-east);

Claypole (4km, south-west);

Fulbeck (4.3km, east);

Hough-on-the-Hill (4.4km, south-east);

Leadenham (5km, east); and

Gelston (5.2km, south-east).

6.112 Effects on these settlements are assessed at paragraphs 6.172-6.179.

Roads and Rail

Key Routes

6.113 The following main road and rail routes pass within 5.5km of the Site:

A17 (1.7km, north);

A607 (4.4km, south-east); and

Newark to Grantham rail line (part of the East Coast Main Line) (3.7km, south-west).

6.114 Only a small part of the A607 is located within 5.5km, the majority of which lies outside the

ZTV, and is unlikely to afford views of the Proposed Development. It is therefore excluded

from further assessment.

6.115 Effects on the A17 and East Coast Main Line are assessed further below.

Local Roads

6.116 There is a network of local roads within 5.5km which provide access to isolated

farmsteads, groups of houses and connect settlements both within and beyond 5.5km.



6-27

The network of minor roads within 5.5km of the Site has been grouped as follows for the

purposes of assessment:

Local roads to the east of the Site from Stragglethorpe Lane to the A607

(Stragglethorpe Lane (up to Brandon), Brant Road & Gorse Hill Lane);

Local roads 1km – 5.5km south of the Site (Stragglethorpe Lane (from south of

Brandon to railway line south of Site), Brandon Road, Clensey Lane, Hough Road,

Grange Road, Doddington Lane & Goose Lane);

Local roads 1km – 5.5km west of the Site (Sutton Road, Long Lane, Newark Road,

Stubton Road, Oster Fen Lane, Barnby Lane & Holm Lane); and

Local roads 2.5km – 5.5km north of the Site: north of the A17 (Woodgate Lane, Mill

Lane, Welbourn Road & Lincoln Road).

6.117 Effects on these four groups of local roads are assessed at paragraphs 6.180-6.187.

Recreational Routes

Long Distance Walking Routes

6.118 There are no National Trails or long distance recreational routes situated within the 5.5km

study area. The nearest long distance route is the Viking Way which passes within 6.1km

to the south-east at its closest point and has some potential visibility of the Proposed

Development; however, the sections of the route with potential visibility are small sections

of the route and, review of the ZTV (Figure 6.6) illustrates that majority of the route within

the wider study area has limited potential visibility. It is therefore excluded from further

assessment, on the basis that overall effects on views from this route would not be

significant.

National and Regional Cycle Routes

6.119 No national and regional cycle routes lie within 5.5km of the Site, as can be seen from

Figure 6.2. The nearest routes are National Route 64, which lies 8km to the west, and two

Regional Routes through Newark on Trent. At these distances (and beyond) effects on

views from the routes would not be significant and would tend to be Negligible. They are

therefore excluded from further assessment.

Public Rights of Way

6.120 As shown on Figure 6.1, there are a number of Public Rights of Way (PRoW) within 5.5km

of the Proposed Development. They have been grouped as follows for the purposes of

assessment:

PRoW up to approximately 2.5km of the Site (north, south, east sand west); and

PRoW between 2.5-5.5km of the Site (north, south, east sand west).

6.121 Effects on these groups of PRoW are assessed at paragraphs 6.186-6.199.



6-28

Accessible and Recreational Landscapes

6.122 Within the 5.5km study area there is one area of Common Land/Open Access Land as

identified under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; Stapleford Wood, located

4.9km north-west as shown on Figure 6.1. It is on the edge of and mostly outside the

5.5km study area. As this area is located within woodland, it is unlikely to afford views of

the proposed development, and is therefore it is excluded from further assessment.

6.123 PFI Kart Racing Circuit is located approximately 0.4km south of the Site. As it is a private

receptor, it is excluded from further assessment.

6.124 Newark Golf Club is located 4.5km north-west of the Site whilst Fulbeck Waters caravan

and camping park is located 1.6km east of the Site. As they are both private receptors,

they are excluded from further assessment.

Specific Viewpoints

6.125 There are two specific viewpoints within the 25km study area:

Viewpoint on Pottergate Road, near Wellbourn, 8km north-east: Views from this layby

are through a small gap in the hedge and majority of the turbines would be screened

by intervening vegetation (see Appendix 6.6), and is therefore not assessed further;

and

Bellmount tower within Belton Park, located 13km south-east, is considered as a

specific viewpoint, however, due to long distance and limited visibility, it is excluded

from further assessment.

Landscape Designations and Value

Designated Landscapes

6.126 There are no national or local landscape designations within the study area.

Local Landscape Value

6.127 Within 10km of the proposed turbines there are a number of features that add to the

value of the local landscape, including heritage assets, long distance footpaths,

promoted cycling routes, Public Rights of Way and the occasional recreational areas.

6.128 The Site and its surroundings are not subject to any landscape designations. The

landscape character area assessments (local and parish level), historic landscape

character assessment, and planning policy covering the area within 10km of the Site’

and site observation, do not provide any indication of more than Community value.

Whilst some of the heritage assets may be more widely known and valued – it is in their

own right rather than conferring additional value to the surrounding landscape. Effects

on these assets and their settings are assessed within the Cultural Heritage chapter.



6-29

Landscape and Visual Effects

Proposed Development

6.129 Figure 6.1 places the Proposed Development within its local context. Chapter 3 provides

a description of the Proposed Development, including the layout of turbines, access

tracks and substation which are shown on Figure 3.1.

6.130 The Proposed Development is for ten wind turbines with a maximum height to blade tip

of up to110m. The application allows for the turbines to be micro-sited by up to 25 metres

from their indicated positions.

6.131 Access to the Site would be from Stragglethorpe Lane to the east. The majority of the site

tracks would comprise the existing hardstanding from former airfield runways and tracks

thereby reducing the amount of new tracks to be constructed.

6.132 Other infrastructure would comprise:

A temporary site compound situated, adjacent to the site track, surrounded by a

security fence and locked gates;

An area of crane hard-standing located adjacent to each of the proposed wind

turbines;

Transformers either placed within the wind turbines themselves or in a small secure

external transformer housing placed next to each wind turbine tower; and

Substation building – a 15m long x 10m wide single storey building, housing the

switchgear and control equipment, plus secure storage space.

6.133 Grid connection is the responsibility of the District Network Operator (DNO) and outside

the scope of this application, and is not addressed within this LVIA. The Applicant is,

however, continuing discussions with the DNO as regards grid connection options and

any necessary application(s) will be submitted for approval in due course.

Introduction

6.134 This section sets out the effects that the Proposed Development would have on both

landscape and visual receptors. The effects are reversible and after a period of 25 years

the Proposed Development would be removed. Whilst 25 years is regarded as long-term,

the effects of the Proposed Development on landscape are reversible.

6.135 The construction and eventual decommissioning of the wind turbines would be short-

term activities involving the movement of vehicles and the use of a large crane to erect

the turbines. The footprint of the turbines is relatively small and the ground works

associated with the base and track construction would be relatively minimal.

6.136 The only landscape receptor likely to experience construction and decommissioning

effects that are markedly different to the operational effects is the Site itself, which would

temporarily (in the short-term) take on the character of a construction Site. In terms of

visual receptors, residents of some of the nearby houses would be likely to see vehicle



6-30

movements and potentially some of the ground works during construction, as would

users of PRoW in the vicinity of the Site, and road users using Stragglethorpe Lane,

Brandon Road and Sutton Road. These effects would be different in nature to those

experienced once the Proposed Development is complete, similar in terms of their scale

but less in terms of their magnitude and significance due to their shorter duration.

6.137 Construction and decommissioning effects are assumed to be the same whilst standing

turbines or cranes are on site, and before and after the turbines are on site would be

restricted to localised, very short term, temporary views of construction activity, which

would not give rise to significant effects. Neither construction nor decommissioning

activities would give rise to notable landscape character or visual effects over and

above those of the operational Site. The primary effects arising would be from the

turbines and the assessment therefore only focusses on the operational effects.

6.138 In order to focus this chapter on the identification of significant effects, only those

receptors which are judged to receive significant effects (either locally or overall) are

reported on within the main chapter text. Effects on other receptors are set out within

Appendix 6.4. All identified effects included within this chapter and Appendix 6.4 are

summarised in Table 6.5 below.

Effects on Landscape Character

6.139 The Site is situated on a largely flat disused airfield. It has a different character to the

wider landscape due to the presence of straight runways and tracks associated with its

former use, the field pattern which is determined by the former airfield layout, and the

absence of field hedges on some boundaries. There are also some young woodland

blocks within corners of tracks and runways, and areas of hard standing which are used

for storage straw bales in large stacks. These factors serve to give the Site a different

character to the surrounding arable farmland which extends in all directions.

6.140 Within the locality, the landuse is predominantly arable farmland. The field pattern is

simple, with a mix of medium and large sized arable and pasture fields bounded

typically by hedgerows with some hedgerow trees. The landscape in the surrounding

area (particularly, north, south and west) is mostly flat or very gently undulating, with

dispersed settlements (with their church spires creating landmarks), farm developments

and individual properties. To the north-east, east and south-east of the Site the landform

rises near Navenby, Welbourn, Leadenham, Fulbeck, Caythorpe and Hough-on-the-Hill,

creating a distinctive ridge (Belvoir Ridge) to the east and south-east. Occasional

woodland blocks can be found in the landscape, with horizons generally appearing

vegetated and limiting the extent of more distant visibility. Power stations, pylon lines

and other infrastructure including the A1, A17, the East Coast Main Line are man made

elements in the wider landscape.

6.141 For this Proposed Development, the extent of Large scale effects would be limited to

around 500m to the south where the PFI kart racing circuit and Stubton Gorse provide a

sense of separation from the Site. To the east, woodland blocks between the edge of the

airfield and Leatherbottle Farm and Fulbeck Grange break up the open character of the

landscape limiting Large scale effects in this direction to approximately 0.5 – 0.75km. To



6-31

the west, Large scale effects would extend up to approximately 1km, however effects

would vary between the western site boundary and Stubton Road where small strips of

woodland break up the more open character of the landscape. To the north, Large

scale effects would arise up to approximately the bridleway and Stragglethorpe Grange

limited to around 1km from the turbines where small woodland blocks break up the

visibility.

6.142 Medium scale effects would occur to around 1.7-2.5km to the north, north-east and

north-west as far as the A17. To the south and south-west, medium scale effects would

extend to around 2 - 2.5km to the settlements of Stubton and Brandon, and Brandon

Road / Stubton Road running between the settlements. To the west, medium scale

effects would extend up to approximately 3 - 4km around River Witham and by the

settlement of Barnby in the Willows. To the east and south-east, effects would vary

between 1.5 (around the blocks of woodland at Wilsons Gorse) to 4km (on the elevated

Belvoir Ridge near Caythorpe).

6.143 Beyond these areas landscape effects would rapidly decrease to Low and then

Negligible scale as landform, vegetation and built form break up potential visibility, and

existing or proposed wind developments and other features such as pylons becomes

more dominant.

6.144 Descriptions for each of the assessed landscape character areas are briefly summarised

below, along with further observations from site based work.


South Kesteven

Trent and Belvoir Vale (Site located within)

6.145 Nearly half of the Trent and Belvoir Vale character area is located within the 10km study

area, as illustrated on Figure 6.3, and it extends beyond the south of the study area for

approximately 6km. The operational Frinkley Farm and Pasture Farm turbines and

consented Green Lane turbine are located within this character area. Viewpoints 1, 5, 6,

8, 9 and 11 lie within this character area.

6.146 The key characteristics as defined in the SKLCA are:

‘A relatively simple, medium to large-scale, open arable or mixed farming

landscape.

Flat or very gently undulating topography.

Simple regular fields enclosed by hawthorn hedges.

Relatively few hedgerow trees and virtually no woodland.

Small villages typically located on slightly rising land.

Church towers and spires visible across the landscape.

Buildings styles vary, but a high proportion of brick with dark red pantiles.’



6-32

6.147 The description of the character area at paragraphs 4.45 to 4.47 states:

‘The gentle landform, and open or arable or mixed farmland, creates a

strongly rural feel. The landscape is medium to large in scale, with relatively

simple regular fields, frequently enclosed by hawthorn hedgerows. The

hedgerows are in places fragmented. There are relatively few hedgerow trees

and virtually no woodlands. Tree cover is most noticeable around the villages,

which are typically situated on slightly rising ground.

The villages with their church towers and spires are noticeable in the views

across the landscape and provide character. The villages include a range of

traditional brick buildings and some more modern housing. Most however are

small in scale and are in keeping with the traditional form of the settlements.

Within South Kesteven the vale contains no power stations or major areas of

mineral extraction, helping to maintain a rural feel compared with the wider

Trent Valley to the north. The Trent Valley Power Stations are visible at a

distance in clear conditions.’

6.148 The above characteristics are also broadly similar to those of the Trent Valley Arable

character area (where the Site is located) of the Stubton and Hough-on-the-Hill Parish

landscape character assessments. The Hough-on-the Hill LCA however describes the

importance of views from three of its character areas which are broadly located within

the Trent and Belvoir Vale, and states:

‘The varied topography and extensive views out contribute to the character

and enjoyment of residents and visitors to the area.

…. there is a predominance of long distance views, often many miles beyond

the parish boundaries and the variation in topography results in the views

being a significant feature of the landscape. The escarpment itself, including

Loveden Hill, is prominent in views from the west when looking towards the

parish, and from many locations from some distance away, it forms the

horizon. From the lower levels, for example in and around Brandon, the

escarpment forms a significant feature in the views with the wooded areas,

villages and church towers and spires forming local landmarks.

From the higher ground along the escarpment ridge or from its slopes, the

views west are across many miles of the Trent valley, into Nottinghamshire and

beyond. From some vantage points, views across this landscape cover 180

degree views of fields, hedgerows and plantation woodland. In addition to the

numerous church towers and spires visible in the landscape a number of

historic buildings can be seen including Lincoln Cathedral, Belvoir Castle,

Newark Castle and Southwell Minster. There are very few modern manmade

structures visible.’

6.149 The immediate surroundings of the Proposed Development exhibit the key characteristics

of the SKLCA, with the Site being relatively flat and surrounded by large to medium-scale,

open arable fields. There are a number of small villages within the vicinity of the turbines

and within the character area, namely Fenton to the west, Stubton and Claypole to the

south-west, and Brandon to the south-east. The settlements of Fulbeck, Caythorpe and



6-33

Hough-on-the-Hill are located further to the east and south-east on the edge of the

Belvoir Ridge with their church spires and towers visible. Whilst the majority of the

character area maintains a rural feel, the nearby A17, East Coast Main Line, occasional

power lines, the recently built Frinkley Farm wind turbine and consented Green Lane

turbine to the south, and the different character and use of the former Fulbeck Airfield

add to the human influence.

6.150 Paragraph 4.44 of the LCA states, ‘….There are a few major urbanising influences in the

area. The A1 passes through the area and is locally noticeable. Major powerlines also

extend from the power stations (beyond the District) along the Trent Valley.’

6.151 The landscape sensitivity is outlined at paragraph 4.55 as follows:

‘Landscape sensitivity to wind energy proposals is likely to be medium. Whilst

there are few features of intrinsic landscape sensitivity the open visual

character of the landscape would ensure extensive visibility. Locations away

from sensitive settlements, and close to existing human influences such as the

A1 and power lines are likely to offer the more appropriate locations. The open

nature of the landscape would mean that the cumulative impact of any

proposals should be considered so that the character of the landscape does

not become dominated by any wind energy proposals.’

6.152 As discussed in paragraph 6.151 above, Medium sensitivity within the SKLCA is equivalent

to Medium susceptibility within this assessment. Combined with Community value, the

Sensitivity is judged to be Medium-Low.

6.153 As described in paragraph 6.141, Large scale effects would occur within a relatively

limited area, extending to 500m to the south, up to approximately 0.5 – 0.75km to the

east, 1km to the west, and a small area adjacent up to the northern boundary of the

character area to the north. Within the Trent and Belvoir Vale, Large scale effects would

only occur in a small area on the northern boundary, covering a Localised extent (the

Site and immediate surroundings). The duration of the effects would be Long-term.

Combining the scale, duration and extent of effect, effects would be of High magnitude,

Major-Moderate significance and Adverse that would result in a likely significant effect.

6.154 Beyond this area effects of a Medium scale would be experienced at a distance up to

around 4km as described in paragraph 6.142. These Long-term effects would be over a

Localised extent, and of Medium magnitude, Moderate significance and Adverse which

would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

6.155 Beyond this area, effects would reduce to Small and Negligible scale, particularly to the

south and south-west where the East Coast Main Line, the A1, pylons, and the

operational Frinkley Farm and consented Green Lane turbines become the more

dominant features of the landscape. Long-term, Small scale effects would be over an

Intermediate extent, and of Low-Negligible magnitude, Slight-Minimal significance and

Adverse which would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

6.156 Taken together this would result in effects of High, Medium and Low-Negligible

magnitude affecting the northern part of the character area. Overall effects on the



6-34

character area are judged to be of Medium-Low magnitude, Moderate-Slight

significance and Adverse which would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

North Kesteven

5 Witham and Brant Vales (0.25km, north)

6.157 This character area is part of the Trent and Witham Vales character type. It is located

within close proximity to the Proposed Development, with the southern boundary of the

character area within approximately 25m of the nearest turbine and adjoining Trent and

Belvoir Vale character area within SKDC which has similar characteristics. Approximately

half of this character area is located within the 10km study area and it extends north

beyond the study area by approximately 6km. No wind developments are located within

this character area. Viewpoints 3, 4 and 13 lie within this character area. The key

characteristics as defined in the North Kesteven LCA are:

‘Defined in the east by the base of the Lincoln Cliff scarp slope, to the south by the

district boundary, the Terrace Sandlands to the west, and the southern outskirts of

Lincoln City to the north.

Extensive low lying, generally flat valley of twin rivers Witham and Brant running from

the south to north east of the sub-area.

Pronounced landform or topographical variation absent from the sub-area.

Twin, small rivers generally present a very subtle influence on their presence often

only notable through riparian vegetation and flooded fields.

Across the sub-area tree cover is limited, but has a disproportionately high influence

on the landscape as the level terrain allows hedgerow and copse trees to

foreshorten views across the vale, often allowing a strong band of tree and hedge

between land and the large skies.

Settlement pattern is defined by attractive, small nucleated and sometimes linear

villages of red brick and pantile construction to the central and western extent of the

sub-area.

The impact of roads on the landscape is generally low once away from the A17 and

A46. As across the study area elsewhere, overhead high and low voltage transmission

lines can be prominent.

Pressures for change in the Vale predominately relate to minerals operations,

intensive agricultural practice and associated development, and to flood alleviation

works

There is widespread evidence of historic field boundary loss, particularly in the east.

Landscape strengthening and enhancement is evident through boundary

reinstatement and tree planting across the vale. Increased amounts of set-aside land

are also visible within the central and western bands which help soften the

landscape and have visibly enhanced biodiversity interest.

Development within and to the edge of the Vale's settlements has generally been

delivered having sound regard to local vernacular design and has integrated well

with the historic environment.



6-35

New development to the south of North Hykeham is prominent within the flat

landscape as the vale meets the city.’

6.158 The extent of the Witham and Brant Vales landscape character area that falls within the

10km study area mostly exhibits a the key characteristics described above.

6.159 The largely flat landscape, scale of the fields, relatively rectilinear field patterns, and

relatively simple open views of the character area with limited vegetation, and impact

of the A17 in the southern part of the character area suggest lower susceptibility to wind

turbine development. The characteristics are relatively similar to those of the Trent and

Belvoir Vale, particularly around the site. Taking these considerations into account, the

susceptibility to the proposed development is judged to be Medium. This area is judged

to be of Community value. Combining value and susceptibility, sensitivity is judged to be

Medium-Low.

6.160 As described in paragraph 6.141 above, the Proposed Development would have some

Large scale effects extending to about 1km to the north between the southern edge of

the character area and up to around the settlement of Stragglethorpe and south of

Stragglethorpe Grange, and would affect a Localised extent. The duration of the effects

would be Long-term. Combining the scale, duration and extent of effect for this part of

the character area, results in effects of High magnitude, Major-Moderate significance

and Adverse that would result in a likely significant effect.

6.161 In addition to these Large scale effects there would be some areas of Medium scale

effects as described in paragraph 6.142 above up to the A17. These Long-term effects

would be over a Localised extent, and of Medium magnitude, Moderate significance

and Adverse which would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

6.162 Effects beyond these areas would reduce to either Small or Negligible scale. Effects

would be of Negligible scale further to the north where the A46 and larger settlements

become the more dominant features of the landscape, and where there are forestry

plantations at Stapleford Wood and Stapleford Moor. Long-term Small scale effects

would be over an Intermediate extent, and of Low-Negligible magnitude, Slight-Minimal

significance and Adverse which would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

6.163 Taken together this would result in effects of High, Medium and Low-Negligible

magnitude affecting the southern part of the character area. Overall effects on the

character area are judged to be of Low magnitude, Slight significance and Adverse

which would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

Non-significant effects

6.164 No significant effects would arise on the following character areas or types. Effects are

assessed within Appendix 6.4:

South Kesteven

South Lincolnshire Edge



6-36

North Kesteven

2 Terrace Sandlands; and

6 Lincoln Cliff.

Newark and Sherwood

East Nottinghamshire Sandlands - D1 Village Farmlands; and

South Nottinghamshire Farmlands – E1 Meadowlands.

Visual Effects

Visual Aids

6.165 Wireline visualisations were used to aid the assessment. These were generated from a 3-

dimensional model of the candidate wind turbine, Site and surrounding topography,

using key landmarks and compass bearings to match the modelled views to the

photographs.

6.166 The photographs, wirelines and photomontages are shown on figures supporting this

LVIA. A detailed description of the methods by which wirelines and photomontages are

prepared is included in Appendix 6.1. The figures are numbered according to the

viewpoint that they show (e.g. Figure 6.7 1 for Viewpoint 1), with a suffix indicating the

type of visualisation (BP – baseline panorama and wireline (incl. cumulative schemes),

WL – wireline, PM – photomontage, VP – viewpoint pack).

6.167 The viewpoint description, description of effects and scale of effect for each viewpoint

(see Figure 6.5 for locations) is set out as part of the viewpoint pack data. The scale of

effect at each viewpoint is summarised below:



6-37

Table 6.4 - Summary of scale of effects on viewpoints

Viewpoint Direction,

distance

Scale of effect

VP1: Fenton 1.1km, west Large

VP2: Stragglethorpe 1.5km, north-east Large-Medium to Medium

VP3: Beckingham 2.2km, north-west Large to Large-Medium

VP4: Brant Broughton 2.9km, north-east Large-Medium

VP5: Brandon 2.1km, south-east Large

VP6: Stubton 2.9km, south-west Medium

VP7: Barnby in the Willows 3.2km, north-west Large-Medium

VP8: Claypole 4.1km, south-west Medium

VP9: Caythorpe 3.9km, south-east Medium

VP10: Leadenham 5.1km, north-east Medium

VP11: Hough on the Hill 4.7km, south-east Medium

VP12: Houghton Road 5.4km, south Medium

VP13: Carlton-le-Moorland 6.3km, north Small

VP14: Wellingore 9.6km, north-east Small

VP15: Woolsthorpe Road near

Belvoir Castle

17.8km, south-west Negligible

VP16: Lincoln, West Common 22km, north-east Negligible

VP17: Normanton Heath 7.1km, south-east Medium-Small

VP18: Great Gonerby 11.8km, south Small-Negligible

6.168 Each of the viewpoints is a 'sample' of the potential effects, representing a wide range of

receptors - including not only those actually at the viewpoint, but also those nearby, at a

similar distance and/or direction.

6.169 From these viewpoints it can be seen that:

The extent of Large scale visual effects, where the turbines would form a major new

element in the view, would generally be limited to around 2-2.5km, such as at VP1,

VP3 and VP5. Within this area the turbines would be a prominent feature within the

landscape, with intervening features such as buildings and vegetation limiting views

in some locations;

Beyond this area, the extent of Medium scale effects extends to around 5-5.5km

where views are open, or less when vegetation or development provides screening.

Views from the lower lying, flatter areas west of the Belvoir Ridge are affected by the

layering of intervening elements such as vegetation, overhead wires, roads and

buildings which frequently obscure or filter more distant views. Elevated locations on

the Belvoir Ridge may have views obscured by foreground elements but, where this

does not occur, such as at VP9, VP10 and VP11, open panoramic views are possible;

Small scale effects would extend up to around 10km in elevated locations on the

Belvior Ridge, but for lesser distances in the lower lying flatter landscape to the west

of the ridge where the layering of intervening elements would frequently obscure

and filter views of the Proposed Development; and



6-38

Beyond 10km, the Proposed Development would form a very limited change in views

where views are generally partially or completely obscured, or where the Proposed

Development would be a very small element in more open, elevated views.

Settlements

6.170 This assessment focuses primarily on effects on the settlement as a whole, and particularly

public areas. Residents and visitors within settlements are assessed to be of High-Medium

sensitivity.

Fenton (1.1km, west)

6.171 Fenton is a small, linear settlement located between Beckingham and Stubton. Main

Street passes north / south through the centre of the settlement with the greatest number

of properties on the eastern side of the road. The ZTV (Figure 6.6) indicates potential

visibility of the turbines from parts of Fenton, however, they would be more readily seen

from eastern and north-eastern parts of the settlement, including from parts of Coppice

Close (as illustrated in Appendix 6.5, Figure 6). Viewpoint 1 is on a bridleway east of the

settlement where views of the Proposed Development are more open than from the

settlement itself. The majority of the turbine bases would be screened by intervening

vegetation. From the Main Street and western parts of the settlement, visibility would be

limited due to screening by intervening vegetation and houses, and any views would be

glimpsed.

6.172 In more open views from the eastern parts of the settlement, Large scale effects would

be from a Localised extent of the village, Long-term, High magnitude and Major-

Moderate significance that would result in a likely significant effect. Elsewhere in the

settlement effects would tend to be of Small or Negligible scale. Overall Long-term

effects on the settlement, where visibility would generally be limited, would be of

Medium-Low magnitude and Moderate-Slight significance which would not give rise to a

likely significant effect.

Brandon (2.1km, south-east)

6.173 Brandon is a small settlement located between Stubton and Hough-on-the-Hill. Although

the ZTV (Figure 6.6) indicates potential visibility of the turbines from much of the

settlement, visibility is limited to the northern and western parts of the village along Hall

Road and Stragglethorpe Lane. The turbines would be visible in relatively open views

from these parts of the village with the bases and lower parts of the towers screened by

intervening vegetation. Viewpoint 5 illustrates an open view from Stragglethorpe Lane

west of the village. They be seen in the context of telegraph poles and overhead lines in

foreground to views. Elsewhere in the settlement, visibility would largely be limited due to

screening by vegetation and houses.

6.174 In open views from the northern and western parts of the settlement, effects would be

Localised, Long-term and tend to be of Large scale (such as at Viewpoint 5), although

the scale of effect would reduce where there is a greater degree of screening in the

view. These effects would be of High magnitude and Major-Moderate significance that



6-39

would result in a likely significant effect. Elsewhere in the settlement effects would tend

to be of Small-Negligible scale. Overall Long-term effects on the settlement would be of

Low magnitude and Slight significance which would not give rise to a likely significant

effect.

Barnby in the Willows (3.2km, north-west)

6.175 Barnby-in-the-Willows is a small settlement lying within a bend of the river Witham with no

through road through the village. Viewpoint 7 lies on a footpath south of the River

Witham, outside the village. The ZTV (Figure 6.6) indicates potential visibility of the

turbines from the edges of the settlement. In reality, visibility would be limited to the

south/ south-eastern edge of the settlement near All Saints Church, Pump Lane and the

southern part of Front Street with some potential glimpsed views between buildings and

vegetation from Dark Lane. Where the turbines would be visible in open views the bases

would be screened by intervening vegetation. Elsewhere in the settlement, visibility

would largely be limited due to screening by vegetation and houses.

6.176 In open views from the southern and south-eastern parts of the settlement, effects would

be Localised, Long-term and tend to be of Large-Medium scale (such as at Viewpoint 7),

although the scale of effect would reduce where there is a greater degree of screening

in the view. These effects would be of High-Medium magnitude and Major-Moderate

significance that would result in a likely significant effect. Elsewhere in the settlement

effects would tend to be of Small or Negligible scale. Overall Long-term effects on the

settlement would be of Low magnitude and Slight significance which would not give rise

to a likely significant effect.


6.177 No significant effects would arise on the following settlements. Effects are assessed within

Appendix 6.4:

Stragglethorpe;

Stubton;

Beckingham;

Brant Broughton;

Caythorpe;

Claypole;

Fulbeck;

Hough-on-the-Hill;

Leadenham; and

Gelston.



6-40

Roads and Rail

Local Roads

6.178 Local road receptors are assessed to be of Medium-Low sensitivity to the Proposed

Development.

Local roads to the east of the Site from Stragglethorpe Lane to the A607

(Stragglethorpe Lane – up to Brandon, Brant Road & Gorse Hill Lane)

6.179 Stragglethorpe Lane runs north-south connecting the A17 to Marston whilst Brant Road

and Gorse Hill Lane run east-west and connect from Stragglethorpe Lane to Leadenham

and Fulbeck respectively. To the east of the Site, Stragglethorpe Lane runs along lower,

flatter land from the A17 to Brandon, whereas the east-west roads run along the lower

land before rising as they run eastwards towards and up the Belvior Ridge. These roads

typically run through areas of large to medium sized fields allowing relatively open views

where roadside vegetation and houses offer limited screening, although roadside

hedges are common limiting open views from some sections. Views become more

fragmented and intermittent through Stragglethorpe, Fulbeck Grange and Court Leys

where there is some screening by houses and vegetation. Southbound and northbound

travellers on Stragglethorpe Lane, and westbound travellers on Brant Road and Gorse Hill

Lane would have potential visibility of the turbines.

6.180 The scale of effects on this group is wide ranging dependent on distance from the

turbines, and the overall degree to which they are visible. They would range from Large

scale approximately between Brandon and south of Stragglethorpe; through to Large-

Medium scale between the A17 and Stragglethorpe (such as at Viewpoint 2) and

between Stragglethorpe Lane and west of Five Acres on Brant Road; although effects

would be lower than this for many sections of road due to intervening vegetation and

buildings. Effects would reduce to Medium scale beyond these areas, further from the

Proposed Development, or less where views of turbines would be screened or filtered by

vegetation. Along Gorse Hill Lane, effects would be of Large-Medium to Medium scale

for the majority of the route due to open views of the turbines except a short section

near Stragglethorpe Lane where there is screening by mature vegetation. Considering

this group of roads as a whole then Long-term effects would be of Large-Medium scale

covering a Wide extent. Effects for those routes closest to the Site (up to approximately

2-2.5km) would be High magnitude and Major-Moderate significance that would result in

a likely significant effect. Overall effects on the routes would be High-Medium

magnitude and Moderate significance which would not give rise to a likely significant

effect.

Local roads 1km – 5.5km south of the Site (Stragglethorpe Lane – south of

Brandon to railway line south of Site, Brandon Road, Clensey Lane, Hough

Road, Grange Road, Doddington Lane & Goose Lane)

6.181 From this group of roads, visibility of the turbines would vary. They typically run through

areas of flat to gently undulating fields allowing relatively open views where roadside

vegetation and houses offer limited screening such as parts of Stubton Road; however



6-41

most roads are hedged which would limit views from some sections. Some of the other

roads including Stragglethorpe Lane (south of Brandon), Hough Road, Brandon Road,

Goose Lane and Grange Road also have outward views, however, they are more

intermittent and through gaps in vegetation. Doddington Lane and Clensey Lane are

largely lined with mature hedgerows limiting outward views to occasional glimpses.

Where there are open views, the proposed turbines would be visible with bases and

lower parts of the towers screened by intervening vegetation.

6.182 The scale of effects on this group is quite wide ranging dependent on distance from the

turbines, and the overall degree to which these are visible. They would be up to Large to

Large-Medium scale between Stubton and Brandon, such as at Viewpoint 5 and along a

small stretch of Goose Lane; up to Medium scale between Brandon and Hough-on-the-

Hill, along Stragglethorpe Lane between Brandon and the railway line, and along parts

of Doddington and Clensey Lanes. However, roadside hedgerows and other vegetation

and buildings would obscure views from many parts of these roads leading to Small or

Negligible scale effects. Considering this group of roads as a whole the Long-term effects

would be of Large-Medium to Medium scale covering a Localised extent. Effects for

those routes closest to the Site including parts of Stubton Road and Goose Lane (up to

approximately 2.5km) would be High-Medium magnitude and Major-Moderate

significance that would result in a likely significant effect. Overall effects on the routes

would be Medium magnitude and Moderate significance which would not give rise to a


Local roads 1km – 5.5km west of the Site (Sutton & Fenton Road, Long

Lane, Newark Road, Stubton Road, Oster Fen Lane, Doddington Lane,

Barnby Lane & Holm Lane)

6.183 Sutton and Fenton Road run north-south from Beckingham to Stubton via Sutton and

Fenton. Newark Road and Long Lane run east-west and north-south respectively,

meeting at Barnby-in-the Willows to the north-west. The remaining roads form a smaller

group around Claypole and Stubton to the west/ south-west. All of these roads typically

run through areas of flat, large to medium sized fields allowing relatively open views

where roadside vegetation and houses offer limited screening but become more

fragmented and intermittent through the settlements. Parts of these routes are also lined

with mature hedgerows limiting outward views including large parts of Fenton Road and

Stubton Road. The most affected views of the turbines would be from parts of Sutton

Road in close proximity to the Proposed Development, albeit heavily filtered by roadside

hedges for a large proportion of the route. From other routes, views would be intermittent

and more distant. The operational Frinkley Farm turbine will be visible on the Belvoir Ridge

for eastbound and southbound drivers of some sections of the south-western routes.

6.184 The scale of effects on this group is wide ranging dependent on distance from the

turbines, and the overall degree to which these are visible. They would range from Large

scale along parts of Sutton Road and Fenton Road, such as at Viewpoints 1 and 3;

through to Large-Medium scale around Barnby-in-the-Willows, such as at Viewpoint 7;

and to Medium scale to the south-west between Claypole and Stubton, such as at

Viewpoints 6 and 8. However, roadside hedgerows and other vegetation and buildings

would obscure views from many parts of these roads leading to Small or Negligible scale



6-42

effects. Considering this group of roads as a whole Long-term effects would be of Large-

Medium scale covering an Intermediate extent. Effects for those routes closest to the

Site (up to approximately 2-2.5km) would be High magnitude and Major-Moderate

significance that would result in a likely significant effect. Overall effects on the routes

would be High-Medium magnitude and Moderate significance which would not give rise

to a likely significant effect.


6.185 No significant effects would arise on the following routes. Effects are assessed within

Appendix 6.4:

A17;

East Coast Main Line; and

Local roads 2.5km – 5.5km north of the Site: north of the A17 (Woodgate Lane, Mill

Lane, Welbourn Road & Lincoln Road).

Recreational Routes

Public Rights of Way (PRoW)

6.186 PRoW users would have High-Medium sensitivity to the Proposed Development.

PRoW up to approximately 2.5km of the Site

PRoW north of Site

6.187 The ZTV (Figure 6.6) indicates that the turbines could potentially be visible along the

majority of the length of these routes, however mature hedgerows and trees along some

stretches, and where the paths pass near small woodland blocks and farms, would limit

visibility of the turbines further than illustrated by the ZTV. Where there are open views,

particularly along the PRoW between the Site and the A17, the turbines would be

prominent in views of users heading south, west and east. Where open views are

possible, the scale of Long-term effects would be Large, and affect an Intermediate

extent of the routes. These effects would be of High magnitude and Major-moderate

significance that would result in a likely significant effect.

6.188 Effects of Medium and Small scale would occur to some parts of the routes where views

are filtered or partially obscured, which are likely to occur from a Localised extent. These

effects would be of Medium and Low magnitude and Moderate and Slight significance

which would not give rise to a likely significant effect. Effects of Negligible scale and

Minimal significance would occur to the remainder of these routes, where the turbines

would be screened.

6.189 Overall effects on this group of PR0W would be of High-Medium magnitude and Major-

Moderate significance that would result in a likely significant effect.



6-43

PRoW south of Site

6.190 A number of PRoW are located within this group in different directions. The ZTV (Figure

6.6) indicates that the turbines could potentially be visible along the majority of the

length of these routes, however mature hedgerows and trees along some stretches, and

where the paths pass near small woodland blocks and farms, would limit visibility of the

turbines further than illustrated by the ZTV. Where there are open views, particularly near

the racing circuit and parts of Sand Beck, up to Brandon Road, the turbines would be

prominent in views of users heading north, west and east. Where open views are possible,

as represented by Viewpoint 5, the scale of Long-term effects would be Large, and

affect an Intermediate extent of the routes. These effects would be of High magnitude

and Major-moderate significance that would result in a likely significant effect.






would be screened.



PRoW east of Site

6.193 There are a number of PRoW within this group in different directions. The ZTV (Figure 6.6)

indicates that the turbines would be visible along the majority of these routes, however

mature hedgerows and trees along some stretches, and where the paths pass near small

woodland blocks and farms, would limit visibility of the turbines further than illustrated by

the ZTV. Where there are open views, particularly between Stragglethorpe Lane and

west and north of Waterloo Farm, and between Brant Road and Gorse Hill Lane, within 2-

2.5km, the turbines would be prominent in views. Where open views are possible, the

scale of Long-term effects would be Large, and affect an Intermediate extent of the

routes. These effects would be of High magnitude and Major-moderate significance

that would result in a likely significant effect.






would be screened.





6-44

PRoW west of Site

6.196 There are a number of PRoW within this group in different directions. The ZTV (Figure 6.6)

indicates that the turbines could potentially be visible along the majority of the length of

these routes, however mature hedgerows and trees along some stretches, and where

the paths pass near small woodland blocks and farms, would limit visibility of the turbines

further than illustrated by the ZTV. Where there are open views, particularly those

between the west of the Site and Fenton, those around Sutton and southern edge of

Beckingham, and those to the north of Stubton beyond the woodland blocks, all within

2.5km, the turbines would be prominent in views of users heading east, south and north.

Where open views are possible, as such represented by Viewpoints 1 and 3, the scale of

Long-term effects would be Large, and affect an Intermediate extent of the routes.

These effects would be of High magnitude and Major-moderate significance that would

result in a likely significant effect.






would be screened.




6.199 No significant effects would arise on the following routes. Effects are assessed within

Appendix 6.4:

PRoW between 2.5-5.5km of the Site.

Accessible and Recreational Landscapes

6.200 No significant effects would arise on the identified accessible and recreational

landscapes.

Designated Landscapes

6.201 There are no national or local landscape designations within the study area.

Summary of Landscape and Visual Effects

6.202 Effects on the receptors assessed above are summarised in Table 6.5 overpage.

Significant effects (Major or Major-Moderate) are bold and underlined. For receptors

where the significance of effects varies, the distribution of effects is summarised. Parts of

receptors that would experience no effects are not included in the table.



6-45

Table 6.5 - Summary of Effects

Receptor Comments Distance/

Direction

Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Positive/

Neutral/

Adverse

Landscape Character

South Kesteven

Trent and Belvoir

Vale

Up to approximately 500m to the

south, 0.5-0.75km to the east, 1km

to the west and a small area

adjacent to the northern

boundary of the Site

0km Medium-Low High Major-Moderate Adverse

Up to approximately 2-2.5km to

the south and south-west, 3-4km

to the west, and between 1.5-4km

to the east of the turbines

Medium Moderate Adverse

Parts of the character area

beyond the above areas

Low-Negligible Slight-Minimal Adverse

Overall effects on the character

area

Medium-Low Moderate-Slight Adverse

Southern

Lincolnshire Edge


area

4.5km, SE Medium-Low Negligible Minimal Neutral

North Kesteven



6-46


Direction


Neutral/

Adverse

2 Terrace

Sandlands


area

2.8km, NW Medium-Low Negligible Minimal Neutral

5 Witham and Brant

Vales

Up to 1km to the north of the

turbines between the southern

edge of the character area and

up to around the settlement of

Stragglethorpe and south of

Stragglethorpe Grange

0.25km, N Medium-Low High Major-Moderate Adverse

North up to the A17 Medium Moderate Adverse

Parts of the character area north

of the A17



area

Low Slight Adverse



6-47


Direction


Neutral/

Adverse

6 Lincoln Cliff Effects in the south and western

parts of the character area

around Leadenham

4.1km, E Medium Low Slight Adverse


area


Newark and Sherwood

East

Nottinghamshire

Sandlands - D1

Village Farmlands

Effects on the south-east edge of

this character area in the vicinity

of the River Witham

2.4km, NW High-Medium Low Slight Adverse

Effects on small parts of the

character area beyond these

areas



area


South

Nottinghamshire

Farmlands – E1

Meadowlands


area

5.5km, W Medium Negligible Minimal Neutral

Visual Receptors

Settlements



6-48


Direction


Neutral/

Adverse

Fenton Eastern parts of settlement 1.1km, W High-Medium High Major-Moderate Neutral

Overall effects on settlement Medium-Low Moderate-Slight Neutral

Stragglethorpe South-western edge of settlement 1.4km, NE High-Medium Medium-Low Moderate Neutral

Overall effects on settlement Low-Negligible Slight-Minimal Neutral

Brandon Northern and western parts of

settlement

2.1km, SW High-Medium High Major-Moderate Neutral

Overall effects on settlement Low Slight Neutral

Stubton Western and north-eastern edges

of settlement

2.4km, SW High-Medium Medium-Low Moderate-Slight Neutral


Beckingham Southern parts of settlement 2.7km, NW High-Medium Medium-Low Moderate-Slight Neutral


Brant Broughton Location from southern edge of

settlement

2.7km, NE High-Medium Medium-Low Moderate Neutral


Barnby in the

Willows

Southern and south-eastern parts

of settlement

3.2km, NW High-Medium High-Medium Major-Moderate Neutral


Caythorpe North-western and western edges

of settlement

3.7km, SE High-Medium Medium-Low Moderate Neutral

Overall effects on settlement Negligible Minimal Neutral

Claypole Northern and north-eastern edge

of settlement

4km, SW High-Medium Medium-Low Moderate-Slight Neutral




6-49


Direction


Neutral/

Adverse

Fulbeck Western, edge of settlement 4.3km, E High-Medium Medium-Low Moderate Neutral


Hough-on-the-Hill Northern and western parts of

settlement

4.4km, SE High-Medium Medium Moderate Neutral


Leadenham West, south-west and north-west

parts of settlement

5km, E High-Medium Medium Moderate Neutral


Gelston Northern edge of settlement 5.2km, SE High-Medium Medium-Low Moderate-Slight Neutral

Overall effects on settlement Negligible Minimal Neutral

Roads and Rail

A17

Stretch of route between

Beckingham and around the

Brant Broughton junction

1.7km, N Low High Moderate Neutral

Overall effects on route within

5.5km

High-Medium Moderate Neutral

East Coast Main

Line

Locations where the line is not

enclosed within 5.5km

3.7km, SW Medium Medium Moderate Neutral

Overall effects on route Low Slight Neutral

Local roads to the

east of the Site from

Route closest to the Site

(up to approximately 2-2.5km)

Varies Medium-Low High Major-Moderate Neutral



6-50


Direction


Neutral/

Adverse

Stragglethorpe

Lane to the A607

(Stragglethorpe

Lane - up to

Brandon, Brant

Road & Gorse Hill

Lane)

Overall effects on group High-Medium Moderate Neutral

Local roads 1km –

5.5km south of the

Site (Stragglethorpe

Lane – between

Brandon and

railway line,

Brandon Road,

Clensey Lane,

Hough Road,

Grange Road,

Brandon Road,

Doddington Lane &

Frieston Road)

Routes closest to the Site (up to

approximately 2.5km)

Varies Medium-Low High-Medium Major-Moderate Neutral

Overall effects on group Medium Moderate Neutral

Local roads 1km –

5.5km west of the

Routes closest to the Site (up to

approximately 2.5km)

Varies Medium-Low High Major-Moderate Neutral



6-51


Direction


Neutral/

Adverse

Site (Sutton Road,

Long Lane, Newark

Road, Stubton

Road, Oster Fen

Lane, Barnby Lane

& Holm Lane)

Overall effects on group High-Medium Moderate Neutral

Local roads 2.5km –

5.5km north of the

Site (Woodgate

Lane, Mill Lane,

Welbourn Road &

Lincoln Road)

Overall effects on group

Varies Medium-Low Medium Moderate Neutral

Recreational Routes


PRoW north of Site Overall effects on group 0-2.5km High-Medium High-Medium Major-Moderate Neutral

PRoW south of Site Overall effects on group 0-2.5km High-Medium High-Medium Major-Moderate Neutral

PRoW east of Site Overall effects on group 0-2.5km High-Medium High-Medium Major-Moderate Neutral

PRoW west of Site Overall effects on group 0-2.5km High-Medium High-Medium Major-Moderate Neutral

PRoW between 2.5-5.5km of Site

PRoW north of Site Overall effects on group 2.5-5.5km High-Medium Low Slight Neutral

PRoW south of Site Overall effects on group 2.5-5.5km High-Medium Low Slight Neutral

PRoW east of Site Overall effects on group 2.5-5.5km High-Medium Low Slight Neutral

PRoW west of Site Overall effects on group 2.5-5.5km High-Medium Low Slight Neutral



6-52

Mitigation and Enhancement

6.203 Due to the nature and scale of the Proposed Development, the potential for meaningful

mitigation measures is considered to be limited. Every opportunity has been taken at

design stage, with particular attention paid to the layout and design of ancillary

infrastructure, in order to mitigate potential landscape and visual impacts; with full details

provided in Chapter 3: Project Description.

Residual Effects

6.204 As no additional mitigation is proposed beyond that incorporated into the scheme

layout, residual effects are as assessed in the Landscape and Visual Effects section.

6.205 A micro-siting allowance of 25m radius in any direction is proposed for the turbines,

internal access tracks and other associated infrastructure. The result of micro-siting on

the findings of the LVIA would be very minor, limited to some very localised effects within

the Site. It would not alter the conclusion of the assessment of effects on any of the

identified receptors.

Cumulative Effects

Introduction

6.206 As indicated in the LVIA methodology, in agreement with SKDC (Appendix 6.3), the study

area and scope for potential cumulative effects of the Proposed Development includes

proposed wind turbine developments located within 25km, using the following criteria:

All wind farms, or single turbines above 90m tip height within the 25km study area;

All single turbines/ wind farms between 50m-90m tip height within 10km; and

All single turbines/ wind farms between 25m-50m tip height within 3km.

Table 6.6 - Wind farms considered in cumulative assessment

Wind Farm Distance,

direction

Status Number of

turbines

Size of turbines

(nacelle/blade tip)

Frinkley Farm 6.8km, SE Operational 1 50/66.7

Pasture Farm (outside

the criteria but

specifically requested

by SKDC)

11.4km, S Operational 1 24.6/34.2

Debdale Hill 14.4km, NW Operational 1 75/102

Little Carlton 14.7km, NW Operational 1 75/102

Stonish Hill 25km, NW Operational 5 60/100

Green Lane 9km, S Consented 1 50/74



6-53

Hawton 9km, W Consented 3 80/126.5

Brills Farm 9.1km, NW Consented 1 60/86.5

Caunton 15.2km, NW Consented 1 75/102

Temple Hill 2.8km, S Refused Locally 5 80/126.5

Belle Vue 6km, SE In Planning 1 30/49

Top Farm 8.3km, SW In Planning 1 60/86.5

Hawton Quarry 9.3km, W In Planning 1 50/66.7

Staple Quarry 9.6km, W In Planning 1 60/90

Langford 9.4km, NW In Planning 1 60/86.5

Fox Covert 9.8km, W In Planning 4 80/130

Sewstern Lane 11.4km, SW In Planning 6 64/110

Manor Farm 14km, NW In Planning 1 75/102

Assessment Scenarios

6.207 As is common practice for cumulative assessments including a number of schemes in

planning, this assessment considers a number of different scenarios which may arise. In

each scenario, the operational and consented schemes listed above form the baseline,

i.e. they are assumed to be operational. Scenarios which do not include the Proposed

Development are not assessed, as those are not material to this application.

6.208 It can also be seen from the table above that there are potentially a large number of

scenarios which may arise. In order to reduce this complexity, the following steps have

been taken:

The proposed schemes at Staple Quarry, Fox Covert and Hawton Quarry have been

excluded from the detailed cumulative assessment due to their close proximity to the

consented scheme at Hawton, and Figure 6.12 indicates that their overall visibility as

a group would be similar to Hawton; and

Belle Vue has been excluded from the detailed cumulative assessment due to its

relatively small-scale and distance from the Proposed Development. Langford,

Manor Farm and Top Farm have been also excluded from the detailed assessment

due to distance from the Proposed Development and their close proximity to

operational or consented turbines. Analysis of the wirelines and ZTVs indicates there

would be limited visibility of these schemes.

6.209 The schemes omitted from detailed assessment are not included in the text descriptions

below except where they are of particular relevance, but are shown on the wirelines in

order to provide contextual information. Manor Farm is not shown on the wirelines as it

was added after the wirelines were completed. For clarity given this section discusses

many proposed developments, the Proposed Development subject of this application

and assessment is referred to as ‘Fulbeck Airfield’ hence forth.

6.210 The assessed scenarios are shown in the table below:



6-54

Table 6.7 - Cumulative scenarios assessed

Scenario Description

Scenario 1 Fulbeck Airfield plus operational and consented schemes.

This is the same as the effects for Fulbeck Airfield on its own

and is provided within this section for comparison purposes.

Scenario 2T Fulbeck Airfield, operational and consented schemes and

Temple Hill

Scenario 2S Fulbeck Airfield, operational and consented schemes and

Sewstern Lane

Scenario 3 Fulbeck Airfield, operational and consented schemes, and

Temple Hill and Sewstern Lane

Receptors Assessed

6.211 Cumulative effects on the same groups of landscape and visual receptors as the

assessment for the main scheme are assessed. Landscape and visual receptors that are

considered to receive effects of Low-Negligible or Negligible magnitude (both localised

and overall) from Fulbeck Airfield are not included in this assessment, as an effect of such

low magnitude manifestly adds nothing or very little regardless of the distribution of other

developments. If significant cumulative effects arise on those receptors, they would be

as a result of other developments and as such are not relevant for consideration as part

of this application.

Presentation of Results

6.212 The assessment is considered on a receptor-by-receptor basis with the effects of the

proposed wind turbine described in combination. This textual description is followed by

two assessment tables which are provided at the end of this section, as follows:

Table 6.8 lists the total combined magnitude and significance of effect for each

receptor, reflecting the degree of change between the present baseline and

Fulbeck Airfield; and

Table 6.9 indicates for the receptor the incremental difference that adding Fulbeck

Airfield would make over and above the other Proposed Developments, indicating

the contribution that Fulbeck Airfield makes to the total effects.

ZTV Plans

6.213 The following cumulative ZTV plans have been prepared to aid this assessment as follows.

The text description below includes all wind farms shown on the ZTVs, whether or not they

are included in the detailed assessment.

6.214 The cumulative ZTV studies indicate areas of potential visibility for the hub of the

operational, consented and proposed wind developments. The analysis has been

carried out using a topographic model including settlements and woodlands (with



6-55

heights derived from NEXTMAP 25 surface mapping data) as visual barriers in order to

provide a more realistic indication of potential visibility.

Figure 6.9 – Fulbeck Airfield and the operational and consented wind developments,

which establishes the pattern of visibility for Scenario 1. The visibility of 3 or more

windfarms (including Fulbeck Airfield) is relatively widespread within 5km of the

proposed turbines. Beyond 5km, the pattern of visibility for 3 or more turbines extends

to the areas in the north and north-east, east of Brills Farm, in the west near Debdale

Hill, Caunton and Hawton and in the south near Frinkley Farm, Pasture Farm and

Green Lane turbines. To the far west, the potential visibility becomes more

fragmented and often consists of views of 2-3 turbines or less. To the north-east, east

and south-east, potential visibility is limited by the Belvoir Ridge with intermittent

visibility located on the ridge and little to no visibility beyond;

Figure 6.10 – Fulbeck Airfield and the proposed Temple Hill and Sewstern Lane

schemes which are assessed in detail below, establishes the pattern of visibility for the

three scenarios. The Belvoir Ridge to the north-east, east and south-east again acts as

a visual barrier to visibility of the proposed wind farms to land beyond. Areas of

elevated land running north-east from Newark and large forestry blocks limits visibility

within lower land in the Trent valley to the north-west, although there areas of

potential visibility at around 10-15km where the land rises west of the Trent valley. The

main areas where all three schemes considered in detail in this cumulative

assessment would potentially be visible are within 5km of Fulbeck Airfield where there

would be greater interaction between Fulbeck Airfield and Temple Hill. Beyond 5km,

whilst there would be some combined visibility, the interactions become fragmented

due to distance and intervening features, and visibility is limited to more open and

elevated areas within the study area, such as from the Belvoir Ridge to the east;

Figure 6.11 – Fulbeck Airfield and the proposed single turbines at Belle Vue, Top Farm,

Manor Farm and Langford. Similar to Figure 6.10, the Belvoir Ridge to the north-east,

east and south-east and the elevated land north east of Newark limits visibility of

some turbines beyond these landforms. Flatter land between these ridges allows for

visibility from this area. There are limited places where there would be any notable

interaction of all schemes due to the distance and scale of the single turbines. All four

single turbines are located near operational or consented schemes and unlikely to

extensively widen any extent of existing effects. There are only small areas where

Fulbeck Airfield would be visible on its own; and

Figure 6.12 – Fulbeck Airfield and the proposed schemes at Fox Covert including

Hawton, Fox Covert, Staple Quarry and Hawton Quarry. This establishes the pattern of

visibility for the schemes to be scoped out around the consented turbines at Hawton.

The overall pattern of visibility within the study area shows that the proposed turbines

in this area in general do not add largely to the overall visibility of the consented

windfarm at Hawton. In occasional localised areas, there is potential visibility of the

proposed turbines where the ZTV indicates that Hawton would not be visible, but

within the majority of the area, the schemes are seen in combination, and the

additional proposed turbines would not greatly widen the extent of effects.



6-56

Cumulative Effects on Landscape Character

6.215 The following landscape character areas are judged to receive Low magnitude or

greater effects (locally or overall) as a result of Fulbeck Airfield, and are therefore

assessed for cumulative effects:

South Kesteven

Trent and Belvoir Vale.

North Kesteven

5 Witham and Brant Vales; and

6 Lincoln Cliff.

Newark and Sherwood

East Nottinghamshire Sandlands - D1 Village Farmlands.

South Kesteven

Trent and Belvoir Vale

6.216 The proposed Temple Hill and Sewstern Lane wind farms are located to the south/ south-

west of the Site within the same character area. Operational and consented turbines

including Frinkley Farm, Green Lane and Pasture Farm are located within this character

area and already have an effect on this landscape as illustrated by Figure 6.9. The ZTV

(Figure 6.10) indicates that Fulbeck Airfield would more commonly be seen in

combination with Temple Hill rather than Sewstern Lane due to its closer distance to

Fullbeck Airfield.

6.217 The combined effects of Fulbeck Airfield and Temple Hill would result in Large and

Medium scale effects in the northern part of the LCT, covering a greater area than that

which would be caused by Fulbeck Airfield alone. However, the scale of effect by the

addition of Fulbeck Airfield if Temple Hill were already present would be less than if

Temple Hill was not present.

6.218 With regards to Sewstern Lane, the combined effects of Fulbeck Airfield and Sewstern

Lane would be no greater than Fulbeck Airfield alone, and the scale of effect by the

addition of Fulbeck Airfield if Sewstern Lane were already present would be less than if

Sewstern Lane was not present.

6.219 The current pattern of operational and consented development begins to establish a

pattern of wind development broadly following the A1 road and rail corridor through the

character area between Newark and Grantham. With the addition of Temple Hill and/or

Sewstern Lane wind farms, most of the character area would have wind farms as one of

the key characteristics, with only the area south of the Nottingham-Grantham rail route



6-57

largely unaffected by such development. If Fulbeck Airfield, Temple Hill and Sewstern

Lane were constructed, wind farms would be spread across the character area with

Temple Hill in the middle and the other two at opposite edges. This would result in parts of

the character area experiencing Large and Medium scale effects.

North Kesteven

5 Witham and Brant Vales

6.220 There are no wind farms identified within this character area. Operational and consented

schemes will have a very limited effect on this character area.

6.221 Fulbeck Airfield is closest scheme to the southern edge of this character area and the

other two schemes lie further south. Effects arising by the addition of Fulbeck Airfield if

Temple Hill and/ or Sewstern Lane were present also be no different than those of

Fulbeck Airfield alone.

6.222 Although the ZTV indicates combined visibility with Sewstern Lane, due to its distance,

effects would be no different than those of Fulbeck Airfield alone.

Newark and Sherwood

East Nottinghamshire Sandlands - D1 Village Farmlands

6.223 The proposed Langford turbine is located within this character area and would have the

greatest effects on it. The consented Brills Farm turbine and Hawton wind farm will have

some effects on this character area due to their proximity.

6.224 The ZTV indicates that Fulbeck Airfield would be visible in conjunction with Temple Hill

and/ or Sewstern Lane from a limited number of areas, however, there would be greater

visibility of Fulbeck Airfield alone due to its closer proximity to the character area. The

combined and additional effects would be no different than those of Fulbeck Airfield

alone.

Cumulative Visual Effects

6.225 The assessment considers two types of cumulative visual effect, namely effects arising

from combined and sequential views. This is in accordance with the document Assessing

the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments (SNH, March 2012). These

comprise:

Combined views which 'occur where the observer is able to see two or more

developments from one viewpoint. Combined visibility may either be in combination

(where several wind farms are within the observer's arc of vision at the same time) or

in succession (where the observer has to turn to see the various wind farms)'; and

Sequential views which 'occur when the observer has to move to another viewpoint

to see different developments.'



6-58

6.226 This section assesses the anticipated cumulative visual effects arising from Fulbeck Airfield

in combination with the operational and consented wind developments, and the

proposed wind developments. The main linear routes that share combined intervisibility

in the study area are then summarised to anticipate the likely sequential views.

Visual Aids

6.227 Baseline panorama and wireline visualisations (including cumulative schemes) were used

to aid the assessment. A detailed description of the methods by which wirelines and

photomontages are prepared is included in Appendix 6.1. The figures are numbered

according to the viewpoint that they show (e.g. Figure 6.7 1 for Viewpoint 1), with a suffix

indicating the type of visualisation (BP – baseline panorama and wireline (incl.

cumulative schemes), WL – wireline, PM – photomontage, VP – viewpoint pack). Note

that operational developments are shown on the baseline panorama and wireline, and

consented and proposed developments are shown on the baseline wireline.

6.228 The viewpoint description, description of effects and scale of effect for each viewpoint

(see Figure 6.5 for locations) is set out as part of the viewpoint pack data and

summarised in tables 6.7 and 6.8 below. Each of the viewpoints is a ‘sample’ of the

potential effects, representing a wide range of receptors – including not only those

actually at the viewpoint, but also those nearby, at a similar distance and/or direction.

Cumulative Effects on Settlements

6.229 The settlements discussed below are judged to receive Low magnitude or greater effects

(locally or overall) as a result of Fulbeck Airfield, and are therefore assessed for

cumulative effects.

6.230 The two wind energy developments in planning that are assessed (Temple Hill and

Sewstern Lane) are located south/ south-west of the Site. Villages to the north, north-

west and north-east of Fulbeck Airfield would not be affected by the two proposed

cumulative schemes to any material degree; Temple Hill and Sewstern Lane wind farms

would not increase the effects on those villages above those caused by Fulbeck Airfield

alone. This applies to:

Stragglethorpe;

Brant Broughton;

Beckingham; and

Barnby in the Willows.

6.231 Similarly, Temple Hill and Sewstern Lane wind farms would not increase the effects on two

settlements to the east along the Belvoir Ridge above those caused by Fulbeck Airfield

alone. This is because the wind farms are likely to be less visible and are at a greater

distance than Fulbeck Airfield which is closest to and has the greatest effects on these

settlements and applies to:

Leadenham; and



6-59

Fulbeck.

6.232 The following settlements are located south or west of Fulbeck Airfield and could

potentially be affected by the proposed cumulative schemes:

Fenton

6.233 Operational and consented schemes have little effect on this settlement due to very

limited visibility, as illustrated by Viewpoint 1. The ZTV (Figure 6.10) illustrates that Sewstern

Lane is unlikely to be visible from the village, but that Temple Hill and Fulbeck Airfield

could be. The two cumulative schemes would have very limited or no effects on this

settlement. Temple Hill is located 3km south-east and Sewstern Lane 10.6km south-west of

the settlement. Fulbeck Airfield would be the most visible from the village and would be

the primary cause of effects, unlikely to be seen in conjunction with Temple Hill or

Sewstern Lane, due to screening by mature vegetation. Overall cumulative effects

would be no different to those of Fulbeck Airfield alone.

Stubton

6.234 Operational and consented schemes have no effect on this settlement due to very

limited visibility, as illustrated by Viewpoint 6. The ZTV (Figure 6.10) illustrates that all three

wind farms could potentially be visible from parts of Stubton. However, in reality visibility

of Fulbeck Airfield and Sewstern Lane in particular would be less than illustrated due to

small scale vegetation not modelled on the ZTV. Sewstern Lane would have no effects

on this settlement due to its long distance over 8.8km to the south-west and screening by

intervening vegetation. Temple Hill would be largely screened by mature vegetation at

Viewpoint 6, and would be rarely seen in combination with Fulbeck Airfield due to them

being located in different directions, however, it may be visible, in succession, from the

eastern edge of the village and would have greater effects due to its closer proximity to

the village. Overall cumulative effects would be slightly greater to those of Fulbeck

Airfield alone due to the effects of Temple Hill.

Claypole


limited visibility, as illustrated by Viewpoint 6. Sewstern Lane would have no effects on this

settlement due to its distance over 8km to the south and screening by intervening

vegetation. Although Temple Hill would be visible in conjunction with Fulbeck Airfield

from eastern edge of the village, as illustrated by Viewpoint 8, some or parts of the

turbines would be screened by intervening vegetation. Fulbeck Airfield and Temple Hill

would cause a similar degree of effects on this settlement but, because of their limited

effects, overall cumulative effects would be no greater than those of Fulbeck Airfield

alone.



6-60

Brandon


limited visibility, as illustrated by Viewpoint 5. Sewstern Lane would have no effect on this

settlement due to its distance over 10km to the south-west and screening by intervening

vegetation. Temple Hill (1.4km south-west) would be seen in succession with Fulbeck

Airfield from western and north-western parts of the village. Both schemes would be

clearly visible from these locations and combined cumulative effects would be greater

than the effects of Fulbeck Airfield alone. Temple Hill would have the greatest effects

due to its closer proximity to, and greater potential visibility from the village. The addition

of Fulbeck Airfield if Temple Hill were already built, would be reduced compared to the

effects of Fulbeck Airfield alone.

Hough-on-the-Hill

6.237 The consented Hawton wind farm would be visible at 12.3km in the distance, however,

the operational and consented schemes would have little effect on this settlement due

to limited visibility and distance, as illustrated by Viewpoint 11. Sewstern Lane would have

no effect on this settlement due to screening by topography. Temple Hill would be visible

in conjunction with Fulbeck Airfield from western parts of the village. Temple Hill would be

the closer of the two schemes and would have the greatest effects on the settlement,

and the combined effect of both schemes would be greater than the effects of Fulbeck

Airfield alone. The addition of Fulbeck Airfield if Temple Hill were already built, would be

slightly reduced compared to the effects of Fulbeck Airfield alone.

Caythorpe

6.238 The consented Hawton wind farm would be visible at 13.3km in the distance, however,

the operational and consented schemes would have little effect on this settlement due

to limited visibility and distance, as illustrated by Viewpoint 9. Temple Hill would be visible

in conjunction with Fulbeck Airfield from western and north-western parts of the village.

Although Temple Hill would be the closer of the two schemes, the combined effect of

both schemes would be no different than those of Fulbeck Airfield alone. The addition of

Fulbeck Airfield if Temple Hill were already built, would be slightly reduced compared to

the effects of Fulbeck Airfield alone.

6.239 Sewstern Lane would potentially be visible in succession from western and south-western

parts of the village and would be distant compared to Temple Hill or Fulbeck Airfield.

Combined and incremental effects would be no greater than those of Fulbeck Airfield

alone.

Cumulative Effects on Roads and Rail

6.240 The roads and rail routes discussed below are judged to receive Low magnitude or

greater effects (locally or overall) as a result of Fulbeck Airfield, and are therefore

assessed for cumulative effects.



6-61

6.241 The A17 would not be affected by Temple Hill and Sewstern Lane to any material

change, and would not increase the effects above those caused by Fulbeck Airfield

alone. Fulbeck Airfield would cause the greatest effects on the route (Figure 6.13).

6.242 Local roads to the north and west of the Site would also not be affected by Temple Hill

and Sewstern Lane such that they would not increase the effects above those caused

by Fulbeck Airfield alone which is the greatest cause of effects on these routes.

East Coast Main Line (Grantham to Newark)

6.243 This route passes very close to Temple Hill and the operational Frinkley Farm turbine

Temple Hill is likely to cause localised Large scale effects. A number of other existing and

proposed wind turbines are located in close proximity including Belle Vue, Top Farm,

Green Lane and Pasture Farm. As rail passengers see views to the side of the direction of

travel, each wind farm would be experienced within a short stretch of the route, though

Temple Hill and Fulbeck Airfield would affect a similar stretch and would be seen from

the same side of the train with Temple Hill being the more noticeable. The combined

effects would be greater than those of Fulbeck Airfield alone. The effects of Fulbeck

Airfield if Temple Hill were already built would be lower than the effects of Fulbeck Airfield

alone.

6.244 Sewstern Lane would have limited cumulative effects on this route due to filtering by

intervening vegetation and because it would be seen 7.5km south-west in combination

with a number of single turbines, in the opposite direction to Fulbeck Airfield.

Local roads to the east of the Site from Stragglethorpe Lane (up to

Brandon) to the A607 (Stragglethorpe Lane, Brant Road & Gorse Hill

Lane)

6.245 Brant Road and Gorse Hill Lane would be largely affected by Fulbeck Airfield alone due

to their proximity and visibility. Stragglethorpe Lane would be the most affected route of

this group with Fulbeck Airfield and Temple Hill visible in close proximity from small

sections to the east and south-east up to Brandon. Where combined and sequential

views do arise, overall cumulative effects would slightly increase on Stragglethorpe Lane.

The effects of Fulbeck Airfield if Temple Hill were already built would be slightly lower than

the effects of Fulbeck Airfield alone.

6.246 Sewstern Lane would have limited effects on these routes due to filtering and screening

by intervening vegetation and built-development. Overall cumulative effects would be

no different to those of Fulbeck Airfield alone.

Local roads 1km – 5.5km south of the Site (Stragglethorpe Lane – Brandon

to railway line, Brandon Road, Clensey Lane, Hough Road, Grange Road,

Doddington Lane & Frieston Road)

6.247 The operational Frinkley Farm turbine is visible from a number of these southern routes.

These routes would have views of Temple Hill in close proximity, and Fulbeck Airfield. From



6-62

Brandon Road, Temple Hill and Fulbeck Airfield would be visible in succession with

Temple Hill being the closest to the route resulting in the greatest effects. Temple Hill

would cause the greatest effects. On Stragglethorpe Lane between south of Brandon

and the railway line, Temple Hill would cause the greatest effects. Temple Hill would

cause the greatest effects. The effects of Fulbeck Airfield if Temple Hill were already built

would be lower than the effects of Fulbeck Airfield alone.

6.248 Sewstern Lane would have limited effects on these routes due to distance and filtering

views by intervening vegetation and built-development. Overall cumulative effects of

the two schemes would be no different to those of Fulbeck Airfield alone. The effects of

Fulbeck Airfield if Sewstern Lane were already built would be the same as for Fulbeck

Airfield alone.

Cumulative Effects on Recreational Routes

Public Rights of Way

6.249 All groups PRoW are judged to receive Low magnitude or greater effects (locally or

overall) as a result of Fulbeck Airfield, and are therefore assessed for cumulative effects.


6.250 PRoW to the north, west and east up to 2.5km of the Site would not be affected by

Temple Hill and Sewstern Lane to a level that would increase effects over those caused

by Fulbeck Airfield alone.

PRoW south of Site

6.251 The PRoW between the Site and Brandon Road would have greater visibility of Fulbeck

Airfield than Sewstern Lane or Temple Hill. Temple Hill would also be visible from large

proportions of these routes at a distance of over 1.5km. Despite the increased views of

turbines, cumulative effects on these PRoW would be no different to those of Fulbeck

Airfield alone.

6.252 Sewstern Lane would have limited effects on these routes due to distance and screening



PRoW between 2.5-5.5km of the Site

6.253 PRoW to the north, west and east between 2.5-5.5km of the Site would not be affected

by Temple Hill and Sewstern Lane to a level that would increase effects over those

caused by Fulbeck Airfield alone.



6-63

PRoW south of Site

6.254 For PRoW south of Brandon Road and beyond 2.5km, Temple Hill would have the

greatest effects due to its closer proximity than Fulbeck Airfield and Sewstern Lane. The

operational Frinkley Farm turbine is also visible from some of these routes. Fulbeck Airfield

would also be visible at a greater distance than Temple Hill. Overall cumulative effects

would be greater than Fulbeck Airfield alone. The addition of Fulbeck Airfield if Temple

Hill were already built, would be slightly reduced compared to the effects of Fulbeck

Airfield alone.

6.255 Sewstern Lane would have limited effects on these routes due to distance and screening



Sequential Visibility on A1 and the Viking Way

6.256 Sequential visibility along the A1 and the Viking Way has also been considered as they

are key routes within the 25km study area. At their closest points, the A1 passes

approximately 6.4km west of the proposed turbines and the Viking Way passes

approximately 6.1km to the south-east. As can be seen on the visibility diagrams in

Appendix 6.7, a number of the operational, consented and proposed wind farms would

be more visible from, and would have greater effects on, these routes. Fulbeck Airfield

would have limited effects on both routes due to distance and intermittent visibility.

Temple Hill and Sewstern Lane would lie closer to both routes than Fulbeck Airfield and

would have greater effects on them.



6-64

Table 6.8 - Total Combined Effects over the baseline of operational and consented wind farms (significant effects underlined)

Receptor Sensitivity Scenario 1 Scenario 2T Scenario 2S Scenario 3

Viewpoints – note ratings indicate scale of effect

VP1: Fenton Large Large Large Large

VP2: Stragglethorpe Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium

VP3: Beckingham Large/ Large-

Medium

Large/ Large-

Medium

Large/ Large-

Medium

Large/ Large-

Medium

VP4: Brant Broughton Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium

VP5: Brandon Large Large Large Large

VP6: Stubton Medium Medium Medium Medium

VP7: Barnby in the Willows Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium

VP8: Claypole Medium Medium Medium Medium

VP9: Caythorpe Medium Medium Medium Medium

VP10: Leadenham Medium Medium Medium Medium

VP11: Hough on the Hill Medium Large Medium Large

VP12: Houghton Road Medium Large Medium Large

VP13: Carlton-le-Moorland Small Small Small Small

VP14: Wellingore Small Medium-Small Small Medium-Small

VP15: Woolsthorpe Road near

Belvoir Castle

Negligible N/A N/A N/A

VP16: Lincoln, West Common Negligible N/A N/A N/A

VP17: Normanton Heath Medium-Small Medium-Small Medium-Small Medium-Small



6-65


VP18: Great Gonerby Small-Negligible Medium-Small Medium-Small Medium

Effects (overall) on receptors – ratings indicate magnitude, significance and whether Positive, Neutral or Adverse

Landscape Character

South Kesteven

Trent and Belvoir Vale Medium-Low Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Adverse

Medium

Moderate

Adverse

Medium-Low

Moderate-Slight

Adverse

Medium

Moderate

Adverse

North Kesteven


Medium-Low Low,

Slight,

Adverse

Low,

Slight,

Adverse

Low,

Slight,

Adverse

Low,

Slight,

Adverse

Settlements

Fenton High-Medium Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Brandon High-Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

Barnby in the Willows High-Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Hough-on-the-Hill High-Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral



6-66


Stubton High-Medium Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Caythorpe High-Medium Negligible,

Minimal,

Neutral

N/A N/A N/A

Claypole High-Medium Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Roads and Rail

A17 Low High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

East Coast Main Line (Grantham to

Newark)

Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Local roads to the east of the Site

from Stragglethorpe Lane to the

A607 (Stragglethorpe Lane – up to

Brandon, Brant Road & Gorse Hill

Lane)

Medium-Low High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral



6-67


Local roads 1km – 5.5km south of

the Site (Stragglethorpe Lane –

from south of Brandon to railway

line), Brandon Road, Clensey Lane,

Hough Road, Grange Road,


Medium-Low Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Local roads 1km – 5.5km west of

the Site (Sutton Road, Long Lane,

Newark Road, Stubton Road, Oster

Fen Lane, Barnby Lane & Holm

Lane)


Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Local roads 2.5km – 5.5km north of

the Site (Woodgate Lane, Mill

Lane, Welbourn Road & Lincoln

Road)

Medium-Low Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Recreational Routes

PRoW up approximately 2.5km of the Site

PRoW north of Site High - Medium High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

PRoW south of Site High - Medium High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

PRoW east of Site High - Medium High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral



6-68


PRoW west of Site High - Medium High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

PRoW between 2.5-5.km of the Site

PRoW north of Site High - Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

PRoW south of Site High - Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

PRoW east of Site High - Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

PRoW west of Site High - Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral



6-69

Table 6.9 - Incremental Effects of adding the Proposed Development if the planned developments in the scenario were already constructed

(significant effects underlined)


Viewpoints – note ratings indicate scale of effect

VP1: Fenton Large Large Large Large

VP2: Stragglethorpe Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium

VP3: Beckingham Large/ Large-

Medium

Large/ Large-

Medium

Large/ Large-

Medium

Large/ Large-Medium

VP4: Brant Broughton Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium

VP5: Brandon Large Medium Large Medium

VP6: Stubton Medium Medium Medium Medium

VP7: Barnby in the Willows Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium Large-Medium

VP8: Claypole Medium Medium Medium Medium

VP9: Caythorpe Medium Medium-Small Medium Medium-Small

VP10: Leadenham Medium Medium Medium Medium

VP11: Hough on the Hill Medium Medium-Small Medium Medium-Small

VP12: Houghton Road Medium Small Medium Small

VP13: Carlton-le-Moorland Small Small Small Small

VP14: Wellingore Small Small Small Small

VP15: Woolsthorpe Road near Belvoir

Castle

Negligible N/A N/A N/A

VP16: Lincoln, West Common Negligible N/A N/A N/A



6-70


VP17: Normanton Heath Medium-Small Medium-Small Medium-Small Medium-Small

VP18: Great Gonerby Small-Negligible Negligible Small-Negligible Negligible

Effects (overall) on receptors – ratings indicate magnitude, significance and whether Positive, Neutral or Adverse

Landscape Character

South Kesteven

Trent and Belvoir Vale Medium-Low Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Adverse

Low,

Slight,

Adverse

Low,

Slight,

Adverse

Low,

Slight,

Adverse

North Kesteven


Medium-Low Low,

Slight,

Adverse

Low,

Slight,

Adverse

Low,

Slight,

Adverse

Low,

Slight,

Adverse

Settlements

Fenton High-Medium Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Brandon High-Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Barnby in the Willows High-Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral



6-71


Hough-on-the-Hill High-Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Stubton High-Medium Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Negligible,

Minimal,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Negligible,

Minimal,

Neutral

Caythorpe High-Medium Negligible,

Minimal,

Neutral

N/A N/A N/A

Claypole High-Medium Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Roads and Rail

A17 Low High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

East Coast Main Line (Grantham to

Newark)

Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Negligible,

Minimal,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Negligible,

Minimal,

Neutral

Local roads to the east of the Site

from Stragglethorpe Lane to the A607

(Stragglethorpe Lane – up to

Brandon, Brant Road & Gorse Hill

Lane)


Moderate,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral



6-72


Local roads 1km – 5.5km south of the

Site (Stragglethorpe Lane – south of

Brandon to railway line, Brandon

Road, Clensey Lane, Hough Road,

Grange Road, Brandon Road,


Medium-Low Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Medium-Low,

Moderate-Slight,

Neutral

Local roads 1km – 5.5km west of the

Site (Sutton Road, Long Lane, Newark

Road, Stubton Road, Oster Fen Lane,

Barnby Lane & Holm Lane)


Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Local roads 2.5km – 5.5km north of

the Site (Woodgate Lane, Mill Lane,

Welbourn Road & Lincoln Road)

Medium-Low Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Medium,

Moderate,

Neutral

Recreational Routes

PRoW up approximately 2.5km of the Site

PRoW north of Site High - Medium High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

PRoW south of Site High - Medium High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

PRoW east of Site High - Medium High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

PRoW west of Site High - Medium High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral

High-Medium,

Major-Moderate,

Neutral



6-73


PRoW between 2.5-5.km of the Site

PRoW north of Site High - Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

PRoW south of Site High - Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low-Negligible,

Slight-Minimal,

Neutral

PRoW east of Site High - Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

PRoW west of Site High - Medium Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral

Low,

Slight,

Neutral



6-74

Summary

6.257 This assessment defines the existing landscape and visual baseline environments; assesses

their sensitivity to change; describes the key landscape and visual related aspects of the

Proposed Development; describes the nature of the anticipated change upon both the

landscape and visual environments; and assesses the magnitude and significance of the

changes for the construction, operational and decommissioning phases (focussing

primarily on the operational phase). The key findings of the assessment are summarised

below.

6.258 There would be some localised significant effects on landscape character in the

immediate vicinity of the Site affecting South Kesteven’s Trent and Belvoir Vale and North

Kesteven’s Witham and Brant Vales landscape character areas. Effects on the remaining

character areas within 10km would result in no likely significant effects.

6.259 Parts of Fenton, Brandon and Barnby in the Willows would have notable visibility of the

Proposed Development resulting in significant (Major-Moderate) effects. Overall effects

on these settlements would not be significant. Other settlements within 5.5km would

experience effects of no greater than Moderate significance (as noted in Appendix 6.4)

to any parts of them and would result in no likely significant effects.

6.260 Views of the Proposed Development would be most notable for drivers on routes closest

to the Site resulting in significant (Major-Moderate) effects from some roads. These

include local roads to the east, west and south within approximately 2.5km of the Site.

Views from the A17, East Coast Main Line (Grantham to Newark), and local roads north

of the Site would experience effects of no greater than Moderate significance (as noted

in Appendix 6.4) and would result in no likely significant effects.

6.261 Significant (Major-Moderate) effects have been identified on PRoW within 2.5km of the

Proposed Development. Other PRoW beyond this distance (assessed in Appendix 6.4)

may also have open views of turbines at times, although these would be more limited

and would result in no likely significant effects.

6.262 The two identified specific viewpoints within the study area would result in no likely

significant effects.

6.263 There are no nationally or local designated landscapes within the study area.

6.264 As noted in Appendix 6.5, all residential properties are over 800m from the nearest

turbine. The closest property to the turbines are within the group 1-12 Lowfield Paddocks

at approximately 810m, and would be the most affected due to the close proximity and

relatively open views of turbines. The remaining properties within 1km would have some

views of turbines, however, a greater degree of visual screening, or less direct views,

would have a consequent reduction on likely effects. These include Gorse Lodge, The

Granary Cluster, Leather Bottle Farm, Bees Barn and The Poplars. Some properties

beyond 1km would also have some views of the turbines, however, they tend to have



6-75

greater screening and/or are oriented such that views of the turbines would be less

frequent so, combined with increased distance, would experience effects to a lesser

degree. None of the properties would be affected to the extent that the turbines are

sufficiently "oppressive" or "overbearing" that the property would be rendered an

unattractive place in which to live.

6.265 The cumulative assessment indicates primary interactions of the Proposed Development

would be with Temple Hill and Sewstern Lane. Of these, the greatest level of interaction

would potentially occur with Temple Hill. The assessment has identified that are some

notable (significant) interactions between the Proposed Development and the proposed

Temple Hill wind farm, such that the addition of Temple Hill on the following receptors:

Brandon;

Stragglethorpe Lane and minor roads east of the Site; and

Sections of PRoW between 2.5 and 5.5km south of the Site.

Statement of Significance

6.266 As set out in the assessment methodology, effects that are Major-Moderate or Major are

judged to be significant. Effects of Moderate significance or less are judged to be of

lesser concern. It should be noted that whilst an effect may be significant, that does not

necessarily mean that such an impact would be unacceptable.

6.267 The findings of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment indicate that significant

effects would arise locally as follows:

Trent and Belvoir Vale landscape character area;

Witham and Brant Vales landscape character area;

Fenton, Brandon and Barnby in the Willows villages;

Sections of local roads closest to the Proposed Development to the east, south and

west, approximately up to 2.5km; and

Sections of PRoW within 2.5km north, south, east and west of the Site..

6.268 The findings of the cumulative assessment indicate that there would be significant effects

on the following receptors if both Temple Hill and Fulbeck Airfield wind farms were

developed (Scenarios 2T and 3 in the cumulative assessment):

Brandon;

Stragglethorpe Lane and minor roads east of the Site; and

Sections of PRoW between 2.5 and 5.5km south of the Site.



Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage and

Archaeology

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 7 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

CgMs on behalf of Energiekontor UK Ltd | April 2015

CONTENTS

7 CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY 7-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7-1 Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................................. 7-15 Key Impacts and Likely Significant Effects ....................................................................... 7-25 Mitigation and Enhancement ........................................................................................... 7-33 Residual Effects .................................................................................................................... 7-34 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 7-34 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 7-36 References ........................................................................................................................... 7-37 Glossary and Abbreviations ............................................................................................... 7-37

TABLES

Table 7.1 - Criteria for assessing the sensitivity of receptors

Table 7.2 - Criteria for assessing magnitude of impact

Table 7.3 - Criteria for assessing significance of effect

Table 7.10 - Summary of Residual Effects

FIGURES

7.1 - Location of HER Records Mentioned in the Text & NMP Plot of Cropmarks

7.2 - Designated Assets within 5km (except Grade II Listed Buildings)

7.3 - Grade II Listed Buildings within 2km

7.4 - Registered Parks and Garden within 10km

APPENDICES

Appendix 7.1 – CgMs. 2013. Archaeological Desk Based Assessment: Fulbeck

Airfield Wind Farm

Appendix 7.2 – Stratascan. 2015. Archaeological Geophysical Survey: Fulbeck

Airfield.

Appendix 7.3 – Assessment of the significance and settings of designated

heritage assets and the impact of the Proposed Development upon them



7-1

7 CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Introduction

7.1 This chapter evaluates the impacts of the Proposed Development on the historic

environment. The historic environment includes a wide range of features resulting from

human intervention in the landscape, varying in scope from buried archaeological

remains up to late 20th century industrial structures. It can be divided into the following

two categories:

Archaeology

Scheduled Monuments (SMs)

Non-designated archaeological finds and sites

Built Heritage

Listed Buildings (Grades I, II*, and II)

Registered Parks and Gardens (Grades I, II* and II)

Conservation Areas.

Historic Battlefields

Shipwrecks

World Heritage Sites

7.2 The following key issues were identified at the scoping stage for consideration in the

assessment:

Impact of wind farm construction on archaeological remains located within the Site.

Impacts of wind farm construction and operation on the significance and setting of

scheduled monuments.

Impacts of wind farm construction and operation on the significance and setting of

listed buildings.

Impact of wind farm construction and operation on the significance and setting of

conservation areas.

Impacts of wind farm construction and operation on the significance of registered

parks and gardens and their settings including key vistas and sightlines.



7-2

Impacts of decommissioning on built and archaeological heritage.

7.3 References to the 'Site' within this chapter refer to the EIA Study Area Boundary, unless

otherwise stated. References to ‘study area' within this chapter reference the defined (km)

study areas for each type of cultural heritage asset, as listed in paragraph 10.2.1 below.

The chapter was prepared by Rob Bourn BA MA MIfA, Director CgMs Consulting who are a

leading heritage consultancy.

7.4 The chapter is supported by a heritage desk based assessment (Appendix 7.1) and an

archaeological geophysical survey (Appendix 7.2).

Legislation, Policy & Guidance

7.5 Legislation relating to archaeology and to SMs is contained in the Ancient Monuments

and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Legislation regarding buildings of special

architectural or historic interest is contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings and

Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 66 of the 1990 Act is of relevance in that it states

that special regard must be given by the decision maker in the exercise of planning

functions to the desirability of preserving a listed building and its setting. Section 72 of the

1990 Act provides protection for the character and appearance of conservation areas.

7.6 Government planning policy guidance is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF). Section 12 of the NPPF, entitled Conserving and enhancing the historic

environment provides guidance for planning authorities, property owners, developers and

others on the conservation and investigation of heritage assets. Overall, the objectives of

Section 12 of the NPPF can be summarised as seeking the:

delivery of sustainable development;

understanding the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits

brought by the conservation of the historic environment; and

conservation of England's heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their

significance.

7.7 Section 12 of the NPPF recognises that intelligently managed change may sometimes be

necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained for the long term. Paragraph 128 states

that planning decisions should be based on the significance of the heritage asset and that

level of detail supplied by an applicant should be proportionate to the importance of the

asset and should be no more than sufficient to review the potential impact of the proposal

upon the significance of that asset.



7-3

7.8 Heritage Assets are defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as: a building, monument, site, place,

area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting

consideration in planning decisions. They include designated heritage assets (as defined in

the NPPF) and assets identified by the local planning authority during the process of

decision-making or through the plan-making process.

7.9 Annex 2 also defines Archaeological Interest as a heritage asset which holds or potentially

could hold evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point.

Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the

substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.

7.10 A Designated Heritage Asset comprises a: World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument,

Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield

or Conservation Area.

7.11 Significance is defined as: The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations

because of its heritage interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic

or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also

from its setting.

7.12 Setting is defined as: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is

not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting

may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect

the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

7.13 Paragraph 129 outlines that LPAs are obliged to identify and assess the significance of any

heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal and should take this assessment into

account when considering the impact upon the heritage asset.

7.14 Paragraph 131 emphasises that local planning authorities should take account of the

desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and

distinctiveness. Paragraph 132 states that in assessing the effects of development on a

heritage asset, the weight given to an asset’s conservation should be proportionate to its

significance.

7.15 Paragraph 132 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on

the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the

asset’s conservation. It emphasises that the weight given to an asset’s conservation should

be proportionate to its significance, and that clear and convincing justification will be

required for loss and harm to heritage assets.



7-4

7.16 Paragraph 132 states that ‘substantial harm’ or loss to designated heritage assets of the

highest significance (i.e. Grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* parks and gardens,

scheduled monuments, wrecks, battlefields and World Heritage Sites) should be wholly

exceptional. It also states that substantial harm to grade II listed buildings and parks and

gardens should be exceptional. The NPPF does not define what is meant by substantial

harm.

7.17 Paragraphs 133 and 134 address the balancing of harm against public benefits. This

guidance lays down a clear dividing line between causing substantial harm or total loss of

significance on the one hand, and those cases where the harm is less than substantial on

the other. Proposals that would result in substantial harm or total loss of significance should

be refused, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to

achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. The guidance

emphasises that where less than substantial harm will arise as a result of a proposed

development, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal.

7.18 The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) states in relation

to the historic environment:

“The time-limited nature of wind farms, where a time limit is sought by an applicant as a

condition of consent, is likely to be an important consideration for the IPC when assessing

impacts such as landscape and visual effects and potential effects on the settings of

heritage assets. Such judgements should include consideration of the period of time

sought by the applicants for the generating station to operate and the extent to which

the site will return to its original state may also be a relevant consideration.”

7.19 EN-3 also states that visualisations may be required to demonstrate the effects of a

proposed onshore wind farm on the setting of heritage assets and that micro-siting should

be considered in order to reduce the risk of damaging known and unexpected

archaeological remains.

7.20 The NPPF is supported by the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) which includes a

dedicated section titled “Conserving the Historic Environment”. Under this guidance

paragraph 001 states that:

“Protecting and enhancing the historic environment is an important component of the

National Planning Policy Framework’s drive to achieve sustainable development (as

defined in Paragraphs 6-10). The appropriate conservation of heritage assets forms one of

the ‘Core Planning Principles’.”



7-5

7.21 Paragraph 002 makes a clear statement that any decisions relating to listed buildings and

their settings and conservation areas must address the statutory considerations of the

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as well as satisfying the

relevant policies within the National Planning Policy Framework and the Local Plan.

7.22 Paragraph 013 outlines that the assessment of the impact of a proposed development on

the setting of a heritage asset needs to take into account and be proportionate to the

significance of the asset being considered and the degree to which the proposed

development enhances or detracts from the significance of the asset and the ability to

appreciate the significance.

7.23 The NPPG outlines that although the extent and importance of setting is often expressed in

visual terms, it can also be influenced by other factors such as noise, dust and vibration.

Historic relationships between places can also be an important factor stressing ties

between places that may have limited or no intervisibility with each other. This may be an

historic as well as aesthetic connection that contribute or enhance the significance of one

or more of the heritage assets.

7.24 Paragraph 013 concludes:

“The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset does not

depend on there being public rights or an ability to access or experience that setting. This

will vary over time and according to circumstance. When assessing any application for

development which may affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities

may need to consider the implications of cumulative change. They may also need to

consider the fact that developments which materially detract from the asset’s significance

may also damage its economic viability now, or in the future, thereby threatening its

ongoing conservation.”

7.25 The key test in NPPF paragraphs 132 to134 is whether a proposed development will result in

substantial harm or less than substantial harm. However, substantial harm is not defined in

the NPPF. Paragraph 017 of the NPPG provides additional guidance on substantial harm.

It states:



7-6

“What matters in assessing if a proposal causes substantial harm is the impact on the

significance of the heritage asset. As the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear,

significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its

setting. Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision

taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the policy in the National

Planning Policy Framework. In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not

arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building

constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse

impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the

degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that

is to be assessed.”

7.26 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF outlines that where a proposed development results in less

than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset, the harm arising should be

weighed against the public benefits accruing from the proposed development.

Paragraph 020 of the NPPG outlines what is meant by public benefits:

“Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers

economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy

Framework (Paragraph 7). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development.

They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not

just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible

to the public in order to be genuine public benefits.”

7.27 Despite the adoption of the NPPF which superseded PPS5 and the publication of the

NPPG, the PPS 5: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide guidance document issued

by DCLG in collaboration with English Heritage and DCMS in 2010, remains valid and

provides important information on the interpretation of policy and the management of

the historic environment.

7.28 The Practice Guide acknowledges that the extent and importance of setting is often

based on visual considerations, but that it can also be influenced by other environmental

factors such as noise, dust and vibration; by spatial associations; and, by our

understanding of the historic relationship between places.

7.29 In short, government policy provides a framework which:

Protects nationally important designated Heritage Assets

In appropriate circumstances seeks adequate information (from desk based

assessment and field evaluation where necessary) to enable informed decisions



7-7

Provides for the excavation and investigation of heritage assets to be lost (wholly or

in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to

make this evidence publicly accessible.

7.30 The North Kesteven District Council Local Plan was adopted in 2007 (and its policies saved

in 2010). The policies relevant to the historic environment on the site are Policy HE1, HE2,

HE3, HE5, and HE7. The South Kesteven Core Strategy was adopted in 2010. Policy EN1

relates to the historic environment. Chapter 5 considers the planning policies in more

detail.

7.31 The South Kesteven Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document was adopted in June

2013. This outlines guidance for the assessment of proposed wind farms within the District

which has to be taken into account in this assessment. In relation to the historic

environment, it states:

Box 11- There will be a presumption in favour of preserving heritage assets intact

and in situ.

Box 12 - Developers shall provide detailed assessment of all heritage assets within

and close to the proposed site, including all heritage assets whose settings might

be affected by the development, in line with current best practice. Pre-

application consultation with the planning authority is essential in ensuring an

appropriate scope for an assessment is agreed.

Box 13 - The Council will expect heritage assets with theoretical visibility to or from

the proposed development within 5km to be assessed for potential impacts, this

to be applied flexibly in line with the proposed scale and likely visibility of the

scheme, and within 10km radius for large and medium scale wind energy

developments for significant heritage assets with particular sensitivity to visual

impacts.

Box 14 - Developers should consult the Lincolnshire Historic Landscape

Characterisation and the Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record to ensure their

proposals are informed by, and seek to conserve, the key characteristics of the

District’s historic landscapes.

Box 15 - Careful site selection is the most effective means of avoiding and

mitigating potential effects on the historic environment. Wind farm design shall be

an iterative process, responding to sensitivities as they are identified. The siting

principles outlined in paragraph 3.4.21 above shall be adhered to.

Box 16 - When considering the layout and design of turbines, alternative options

shall be investigated to determine the optimal layout and the layout and design

of the wind energy development taking into account the principles listed in

paragraph 3.4.23 above.

Box 17 - When considering the layout and design of ancillary features, developers

shall take into account the principles listed in paragraph 3.4.24 above.



7-8

Box 18 - It is expected that cumulative assessment of effects on the historic

environment would be undertaken in parallel with that required for landscape

and visual effects.

Guidance

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice In Planning Note Managing

Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (Historic England

2015)

7.32 The purpose of this document is to provide information to assist local authorities, planning

and other consultants, owners, applicants and other interested parties in implementing

historic environment policy in the NPPF and NPPG. It outlines a 7 stage process to the

assembly and analysis of relevant information relating to heritage assets potentially

affected by a proposed development.

1. Understand the significance of the affected assets;

2. Understand the impact of the proposal on that significance;

3. Avoid, minimise and mitigate impact in a way that meets the objectives of the NPPF;

4. Look for opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance;

5. Justify any harmful impacts in terms of the sustainable development objective of

conserving significance and the need for change;

6. Offset negative impacts on aspects of significance by enhancing others through

recording, disseminating and archiving archaeological and historical interest of the

important elements of the heritage assets affected.

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice In Planning Note 3 The Setting of Heritage

Assets (Historic England 2015)

7.33 English Heritage’s (now known as Historic England) Historic Environment Good Practice

Advice In Planning Note 3 provides guidance on the management of change within the

setting of heritage assets.

7.34 The document restates the definition of setting as outlined in Annex 2 of the NPPF and

quoted above (para 7.12). Setting is also described as being a separate term to curtilage,

character and context; while it is largely a visual term, setting, and thus the way in which

an asset is experienced, can also be affected by noise, vibration, odour and other factors.

The document makes it clear that ssetting is not a heritage asset, nor is it a heritage

designation, though land within a setting may itself be designated. Its importance lies in

what the setting contributes to the significance of a heritage asset.



7-9

7.35 The Good Practice Advice Note sets out a five staged process for assessing the

implications of proposed developments on setting:

1. Identification of heritage assets which are likely to be affected by proposals. The

guidance states that if development is capable of affecting the contribution of a

heritage asset’s setting to its significance or the appreciation of its significance, it can

be considered as falling within the asset’s setting. Importantly, it is distinguished that

an impact on setting does not necessarily equate with harm and may be positive or

neutral. This judgement of impact instead depends upon a detailed understanding of

the individual heritage asset’s significance, of which setting may form a greater or

lesser part.

In consideration of large or prominent development proposals, Local Planning

Authorities are advised to have due regard to proportionality of the assessment

required by the applicant and to minimise the need to analyse large numbers of

assets in detail.

2. Assessment of whether and what contribution the setting makes to the significance of

a heritage asset. This depends upon an understanding of the history and

development of the site, utilising historic mapping where possible. This assessment

should also be informed by the physical surroundings of the asset, including its

relationship with other heritage assets, the way in which the asset is experienced and

the asset’s associations and patterns of use. All this information will provide a baseline

for establishing the effects of a proposed development on the significance of a

heritage asset;

3. Assessing the effects of proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset.

With the baseline information gathered at Stage 2, it will be possible to identify a

range of effects development may have on setting, which will be evaluated as

beneficial, neutral or harmful to the significance of the heritage asset. The location

and siting, form and appearance, permanence and any other effects of proposals

will all inform the assessment process;

4. Maximising enhancement and reduction of harm on the setting of heritage assets.

Measures to reduce harm could include relocation of all or parts of a development,

changes to the layout, screening, etc. Where harm cannot be eliminated, design

quality of the proposed development may be one of the main factors in assessing the

balance of harm and benefit.



7-10

Where a development cannot be adjusted and where some harm to the setting of

heritage assets is unavoidable, appropriate screening may be required to reduce the

extent of the harm caused;

5. The final decision about the acceptability of proposals. This will depend on the range

of circumstances that apply to a heritage asset and the relative sensitivity to change.

Decisions are therefore made on a case by case basis, recognising that all heritage

assets are not of equal importance and the contribution made by their setting to their

significance also varies.

7.36 The guidance reiterates the NPPF in stating that where developments affecting the setting

of heritage assets results in a level of harm to significance, this harm, whether substantial or

less then substantial, should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (English Heritage, 2005)

7.37 The above guidance document has been archived and a new version is being devised by

Historic England (no publication date at the present time). However, this document

contains useful guidance and is therefore repeated here. , In summary, it recommends

that:

The impacts of wind energy proposals on the historic environment should be evaluated

in all levels of environmental impact assessments.

Consideration of the historic environment should include World Heritage Sites; marine,

coastal and terrestrial archaeology; historic buildings and areas.

Designated landscapes and the historic character of the wider landscape should be

considered.

The significance of internationally and nationally designated sites should be

safeguarded and physical damage to historic sites should be avoided.

The impact of wind energy developments on the setting and visual amenity of historic

places should also be considered.

Where wind energy developments affect historic sites, national planning policies

relating to the historic environment should be taken into account.

Consideration should always be given to the reversibility of wind energy projects.



7-11

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

7.38 The methodology comprises of the consideration of the effect that the proposed

development will have on the heritage significance of designated heritage assets within

5km-10km of the proposed turbines and non-designated heritage assets within 1km of the

red line of the proposed development. The precise study areas change depending on

the asset type being considered. The following approach is adopted:

i. Identify any visible or documented archaeological features within 1km of the

site boundary and assess the potential of the site to contain unknown

archaeological evidence.

ii. Identify and assess the effect on Scheduled Monuments within 5km of the

proposed turbines

iii. Identify and assess the effect on built heritage assets within the following

areas:

Grade I and II* listed buildings within 5km of the proposed wind

turbines.

Grade II listed buildings within 2km of the Proposed Development.

Grade II listed buildings between 2km-5km were considered so as to

identify any that may potentially be affected. Those within 2km were

assessed in detail.

Conservation Areas within 5km of the Proposed Development.

Registered Parks & Gardens within 10km of the Proposed Development.

Key designated heritage assets outside the 5km which could potentially

be affected by Proposed Development have been included in the

assessment.

iv. Assess the impacts of the operational wind farm on heritage assets, including

any impacts on their setting.

v. Identify measures for avoiding or mitigating potential impacts and detail any

residual impacts that cannot be mitigated.

vi. Production of archaeological heritage desk-based assessment in

accordance with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Standards and

Guidance for Heritage Desk-based Assessments (2014) (Appendix 10.1).

7.39 The following data sources have been used in this assessment:

Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record.

National Monuments Record.

Historic cartographic and documentary sources at the Lincolnshire Record Office.

British Library.

Unpublished material from recent nearby archaeological investigations.



7-12

National Heritage List for England.

Stratascan geophysical survey of the proposed turbine locations (Appendix 7.2).

7.40 The archaeological desk based assessment included a walkover survey undertaken in

October 2013 when the weather and visibility conditions were good. All designated

heritage assets were visited in December 2014. Designated heritage assets were

inspected from publically accessible areas.

Consultation

7.41 An EIA Scoping Report was submitted to South Kesteven and North Kesteven District

Council in November 2013. In response to this, the Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire (the South

and North Kesteven archaeological advisors) requested that fieldwork be undertaken in

support of the environmental statement and that the Lincolnshire National Mapping

Programme also be consulted.

7.42 English Heritage stated in response to the Scoping Report that designated assets within

5km radius should be assessed along with certain assets beyond 5km such as Caythorpe

Court Registered Park and Garden. They raised concern regarding the potential effects of

the churches in the valley or on the higher ground to the east (such as the churches at

Brant Broughton, Leadenham, Fulbeck, Caythorpe, Welbourn, Newark, Claypole, and

Fenton).

7.43 The National trust stated in their response that they required a detailed ZTV for Belton

House and Bellmount Tower to be produced. This was subsequently produced and

showed that it is likely that only the tips of turbines would be visible when standing on the

viewing platform at Bellmount Tower and that reference to the tower would be made in

the ES. The National Trust subsequently confirmed that this approach was proportionate

given the 12km separation between the turbines and the tower.

Significance Criteria

7.44 Potential effects are assessed by first considering the importance and sensitivity of

heritage assets and then the magnitude of the impact on the heritage asset as a result of

the construction or operation of the turbines.

Sensitivity of Receptors

7.45 The sensitivity of an asset is defined by its importance. Section 12 of the NPPF does not use

the term importance instead it uses the term significance which is defined in Annex 2.



7-13

7.46 In essence, the greater the significance of an asset, the greater the sensitivity of the asset.

For example, a Scheduled Monument is nationally significant and therefore, even small

amounts of change to the fabric of the monument and/or its setting may potentially

reduce its significance and therefore it is considered to be of high sensitivity. By

comparison, the significance of a non-designated below ground archaeological asset

may only be reduced by substantial physical change to its fabric and therefore, it is

considered to be of low sensitivity. Table 7.1 sets out the criteria for assessing sensitivity.

For the purposes of this assessment, the sensitivity of heritage assets was classified into

three categories: High, Moderate and Low.

Table 7.1: Criteria for assessing the sensitivity of receptors

Sensitivity Definition Relevant Heritage Assets

High The receptor has little ability to

absorb change without

fundamentally altering its present

character, is of high

environmental value, or of

international or national

importance.

SMs & Areas of Archaeological

Importance.

Archaeological sites of schedulable

quality & significance.

Listed buildings (all grades).

Registered Historic Parks and

Gardens (all grades).

Historic Battlefields

World Heritage Sites

Conservation Areas

Moderate The receptor has moderate

capacity to absorb change

without significantly altering its

present character, has some

environmental value, or is of

national importance.

Local Authority designated sites

Undesignated sites of demonstrable

regional importance.

Low The receptor is tolerant of

change without detriment to its

character, is of low

environmental value, or is of

local importance.

Sites with significance to local

interest groups.

Sites of which the significance is

limited by poor preservation and

poor survival of contextual

associations.

Magnitude of Impact

7.47 ‘Impacts’ are the predicted change to the baseline environment attributable to the

project. Table 7.2 below sets out the criteria for assessing the magnitude of impact on

heritage receptors.



7-14

Table 7. 2: Criteria for assessing magnitude of impact

Magnitude of Impact Definition

Major Total or considerable loss of the significance of a heritage asset.

Substantial harm to a heritage asset's setting, such that the

significance of the asset would be totally lost or substantially

reduced (e.g. the significance of a designated heritage asset

would be reduced to such a degree that its designation would

be questionable or the significance of an undesignated heritage

asset would be reduced to such a degree that its categorisation

as a heritage asset would be questionable).

Moderate Partial loss or alteration of the significance of a heritage asset.

Considerable harm to a heritage asset’s setting, such that the

asset's significance would be materially affected/considerably

devalued, but not totally or substantially lost.

Minor Slight loss of the significance of a heritage asset. This could

include the removal of fabric that forms part of the heritage

asset, but that is not integral to its significance (e.g. the

demolition of later extensions/additions of little intrinsic value).

Some harm to the heritage asset’s setting, but not to the degree

that it would materially compromise the significance of the

heritage asset.

Perceivable level of harm, but limited relative to the overall

interest of the heritage asset.

Negligible A very slight change to a heritage asset. This could include a

change to a part of a heritage asset that does not materially

contribute to its significance.

Very minor change to a heritage asset’s setting such that there is

a slight impact not materially affecting the heritage asset’s

significance.

7.48 Whether or not substantial harm exists is a subjective judgement for the decision maker.

However, broadly speaking in EIA terms the boundary between substantial and less than

substantial harm in terms of policies contained within the NPPF is more likely to occur at the

approximate boundary between major and moderate impact on the significance of an

asset.

Significance of Effect

7.49 The Proposed Development’s effects are the consequence of impacts on historic

environment receptors. This is evaluated by taking into account both the sensitivity

(heritage significance as defined in Section 12 and Annex 2 of the NPPF) of the receptor

and the magnitude of the predicted impact (see Table 7.3 below). Where in Table 7.3

there is scope for two levels of impact (e.g. major/moderate), professional judgement has

been used in the assessment as to the level of impact arising. It is the effects of a project



7-15

that are reported in the ES especially where these are deemed to be significant (the

greyed out parts of Table 7.3). Impacts of ‘major’ or ‘moderate’ significance are

considered to equate to significant impacts in the context of the EIA Regulations.

Table 7.3 Criteria for assessing significance of effect

Magnitude of change

Se

nsi

tiv

ity


High Major/

Moderate

Major/

Moderate

Moderate Moderate/

Minor

Medium Major/

Moderate

Moderate Moderate/

Minor

Minor


Minor

Minor Minor/Negligible

Assumptions and Limitations

7.50 It is assumed that the data obtained from the sources outlined above was correct at the

time writing. Designated heritage assets have been accessed from the nearest publically

accessible locations. The results of the geophysical survey have been confirmed as

having a high level of confidence by Stratascan. Due to local ground conditions, Turbine 3

was not possible to survey. The results of the survey can be taken as a reasonable

representation of archaeological remains potentially present within the areas surveyed.

Baseline Conditions

Archaeology

7.51 Technical Appendix 7.1 provides a detailed description of all known HER records within the

Site and the surrounding area. The following section summarises the findings of that report.

The location of each of the sites mentioned in the text is shown on Fig. 7.1.

7.52 All of the available arable land within the perimeter fence of Fulbeck Airfield was field-

walked by the Trust for Lincolnshire Archaeology in 1987. This recorded three Romano-

British small farms within the Site which were occupied during the 3rd-4th century AD

(MLI35104). An earlier fieldwalking survey in 1979 recorded an extensive scatter of Roman

pottery within the Site (MLI85976; Fig.1). It is not clear whether this equates with one of the

later records or not.

7.53 An assemblage of Palaeolithic animal bone thought to date to the Ipswichian interglacial

(130,000-114,000 years ago) was recovered during exploratory geological trenching within



7-16

Fulbeck Airfield (MLI98836). The HER entry notes that the asset is of considerable

importance and well-preserved.

7.54 It is concluded that the site has high potential to contain further faunal remains relating to

this period within a sub-strata of fluvial gravel.

7.55 There are no records of Mesolithic activity in the study area. Consequently the site is

concluded to have a low potential to contain remains from this period.

7.56 There are several records of cropmarks within the Site and study area that have been

provisionally dated to this period. Figure 7.1 includes a plot of these cropmarks taken (with

permission) from English Heritage’s National Monuments Programme for Lincolnshire.

Within the Site there are linear cropmarks related to tracks, enclosures and boundaries

(MLI35106). Immediately adjacent, to the southeast, are further linear ditches and

enclosures (MLI34083); one is a triple linear feature.

7.57 To the southwest of the Site is a concentration of further cropmarks, either broadly dated

to this period or undated, they include features interpreted as boundaries, tracks, pits and

enclosures (MLI30230, 30229, 34801, 34802, 35097, 35098, 35099, 35100, 88456, 88471).

7.58 Cropmarks of possible prehistoric tracks (MLI86016 & MLI86024) and an undated boundary

(MLI86029) have been recorded to the north and north west of the Site. To the west are

cropmarks of prehistoric ditches (MLI91061) and either prehistoric or Roman enclosures

(MLI91060).

7.59 Three Romano-British (3rd-4th century AD) small farms have been recorded within the site

(MLI13104).

7.60 Roman remains have been recorded within the wider study area. These are scatters of

Roman pottery recorded to the south east (MLI87586 & MLI30266) and to the north

(MLI84646, 85965 & 85966). The artefact scatter at MLI85965 is adjacent to cropmarks

which have been interpreted as relating to a Roman villa (MLI86025) and immediately

north are cropmarks interpreted as relating to Roman settlement (MLI60380).

7.61 No records relating to Anglo-Saxon/Early Medieval activity are present within the Site or

study area. The Historic Landscape Characterisation Project for Lincolnshire report noted

that within the zone the site occupies there is very little evidence for land-use prior to the

medieval period.

7.62 Fourteenth century medieval pottery has been recorded within the site (MLI35105). In the

wider study area, a settlement at Stragglethorpe is first recorded in the 13th century

(MLI85948). Remains relating to medieval ridge and furrow cultivation have been



7-17

recorded on the edge of the study area at Sutton (MLI83864). The Historic Landscape

Characterisation Project noted that there are few surviving medieval settlements in this

zone, though numerous areas of relict ridge and furrow cultivation survive, and suggest

that open fields related to settlements just outside the zone were quite numerous.

7.63 An historic map regression is contained in Appendix 7.1. In summary, this has established

that before the construction of RAF Fulbeck in 1940, the Site was occupied by a number of

regular rectangular or square agricultural fields. The Historic Landscape Characterisation

Project for Lincolnshire notes that the area is characterised by fields with long straight

boundaries defined by drainage ditches within a very flat, floodplain landscape (although

rising slightly to the west of the River Brant, where the Site is located). Fields in this area are

typically known as ‘low fields’. Ordnance Survey mapping of the Site in the late 19th

century and early 20th century shows no substantive changes to the Site.

7.64 RAF Fulbeck was opened in 1940 consisting of runways and temporary buildings used to

support RAF Cranwell for training purposes (MLI86642). By the end of 1941 it had been

decided to build a full-scale airfield for Bomber Command and in 1942 three concrete

runways and three hangers were built (two others were built later to house gliders). In 1943

it was allocated for use by the US Army Air Force, partly in preparation for use in the

airbourne assault on Normandy that supported D-Day. RAF bomber squadrons also flew

from Fulbeck for the last six months of the war. After the war the airfield was handed over

to Maintenance Command and in the 1950s housed the Air Historical Branch’s aircraft

collection. It was again used as a relief landing ground for Cranwell before being closed in

the late 1960s. The remains of the airfield are considered to be of local significance.

7.65 The airfield is not shown on Ordnance Survey maps surveyed during the war (OS 1946-50)

and the Site continued to be depicted as covered by agricultural fields. In 1956 the airfield

was shown but with no internal detail (OS 1956). It was not until the 1970s, after the

airfield’s closure, that any internal features were shown by Ordnance Survey (OS 1970-74).

7.66 The site contains upstanding features related to the airfield, principally hard-standing for

runways but also the remains of some buildings. However, the airfield is not well-preserved.

Geophysical Survey

7.67 A geophysical survey of nine of the ten turbine locations has been undertaken (Appendix

7.2). A 1ha survey block centred on each proposed wind turbine location was

undertaken. Turbine 3 was not able to be surveyed due to ground conditions at the time

of the survey. In summary, the results of the survey were as follows:



7-18

Turbine 1 No anomalies of archaeological origin.

Turbine 2 A linear feature identified as being associated with the airfield such as part

of a former runway. One short linear of possible archaeological origin.

Turbine 3 Not surveyed.



Turbine 6 Two short linear anomalies of possible archaeological origin.


of a former runway.

Turbine 8 Multiple anomalies of archaeological origin interpreted as a trackway,

enclosures and pits suggestive of prehistoric or Roman settlement remains.

These are considered to be of local interest and low sensitivity.



of a former runway.

Scheduled Monuments

7.68 There are six scheduled monuments within 5kms of the proposed turbines (Fig. 7.3). Of

these, the following scheduled monuments are outside of the ZTV for the Proposed

Development and therefore have not been assessed as there will be no impacts on their

settings or significance: Churchyard cross, All Saints' churchyard, Beckingham (100921);

Dovecote 250m north west of Barnby Hall (1016791); Churchyard cross, St Vincent's

churchyard, Barnaby in the Willows (1009225); Fulbeck village cross (1009223); and

Churchyard cross, St Peter's churchyard, Claypole (1011798).

7.69 An assessment of the significance of Castle Hill and its setting is presented in Appendix 7.3

Table 1.

Listed Buildings

7.70 There are 11 Grade II listed buildings within 2km of the proposed turbine locations. Of

these, 5 are within the ZTV and 6 are outside of the ZTV (Fig. 7.4). There are 10 Grade I and

13 Grade II* listed buildings within 5km of the proposed turbine locations (Fig. 7.5). Of

these, 3 Grade I and 4 II* listed buildings are within the ZTV. There are 5 Grade I listed



7-19

churches within 5kms of the proposed turbine locations that are outside of the ZTV but

have been assessed so as to be able to consider the potential effects of the Proposed

Development on the church’s towers within the wider landscape. An assessment of the

significance of these listed buildings and their setting is presented in Appendix 7.3 Table 2.

7.71 Stubton Hall is a grade II listed building which lies outside of the 2km study area for Grade II

listed buildings. This a large country house built between 1813-14 by Sir Jeffry Wyatville, in

Gault brick range with ashlar dressings and shallow hipped concrete tile roof with parapet

and four ridge stacks. Attached to north-west, is a small gault brick house with concrete

tile roof and single ridge stack attached to which is a late 18th century red brick service

wing with an earlier red brick service wing set further back. The significance of the house

lies in its architectural and historic interest.

7.72 Stubton Hall has previously suffered from unsympathetic alterations and extensions related

to its former use as a boarding school. It has been undergoing restoration to bring it closer

to its original form and is used as a wedding and event venue. The historic significance of

Stubton Hall is derived mainly from its historical and aesthetic qualities. It was designed by

the renowned architect Jeffry Wyatville, who also did work at nearby Belton House, along

with Windsor Castle and Kensington Palace. There are extensive landscaped grounds with

some modern additions such as ornamental ponds but the grounds retain many of its

original specimen trees and features and can be regarded as an undesignated heritage

asset. Its setting principally comprises the associated landscaped grounds that are on its

southern and south western sides and extends to include its immediate village context to

the south west, which includes views towards the Grade II* listed St Martin’s church and

the wider landscape to the east and south east. Stubton Hall and St Martin’s church both

contribute positively to each other’s setting, amplifying the significance. The Hall and

grounds were clearly designed to be seen within this context.

7.73 The effect on Bellmount Tower (II*) has also been considered at the request of the National

Trust even though it is 12km to the south. This is a vviewing tower in the form of a tall arch.

It is mid-18th Century in date, remodelled c.1780, damaged by fire 1841, restored c. 1989. It

was designed By Samuel Smith and the mason William Grey.

7.74 The effect on Belvoir Castle has also been considered. Belvoir Castle (Grade I) is a

Norman castle, which was rebuilt in the 16th Century, demolished 1649 and then rebuilt

1655-68 on a courtyard plan. It was remodelled 1801-30 by James Wyatt supervised by Sir

John Thoroton. A fire in 1816 destroyed the north and east wings which were rebuilt by

Thoroton. Thoroton completed Wyatt's standing wings. The Proposed Development is



7-20

located c. 18.2km to the north east of the castle and is considered to be outside of the

setting of the castle and so it has not been assessed.

Conservation Areas

7.75 There are 6 Conservation Areas within or just beyond 5km of the wind farm (Fig. 7.6). The

majority of each of the Conservation Areas are outside of the ZTV, although the edges

that face toward the wind farm are generally within the ZTV. The whole of the Caythorpe

part of the Caythorpe/Frieston Conservation Area is outside of the ZTV and therefore will

not be assessed as there will be no impact upon its significance.

7.76 Barnaby in the Willows is a small Conservation Area located 3.6km to the north west of the

Proposed Development. It is centred on Front Street with a small spur to the north east

along part of Long Lane. It stretches from the Church of All Saints (Grade I listed building)

at its south eastern end to the junction of Long lane and Newark Road at its north western

end. Long Lane is fronted by detached houses varying in date from the 18th century

onwards. Many houses front directly on to the road while others are set back within

gardens. There a number of grade II listed buildings within the Conservation Area. The

houses, trees and other vegetation in the village within gardens largely block views out

beyond the built up area although there are clear views out across the surrounding

countryside at the north western and south eastern end. The south eastern end includes a

grass field adjacent to the church from which there are clear views out across the

surrounding countryside. The setting of the Conservation Area comprises the countryside

within which it is located as this places it within a rural context and therefore has a positive

contribution to its significance. This contribution reduces with distance. All Saints Church

forms the key building within the village within the area where the Conservation Area is

within the ZTV. The setting of the church is considered in detail in Appendix 7.3 Table 2.

7.77 Brant Broughton Conservation Area is located 2.7km to the north east of the Proposed

Development. The Conservation Area is an approximately rectangular shape focussed on

High Street and the properties that front on to it, but extends as far west as West Street to

include the vast majority of the built up area of the village. The Church of St Helen is

located at the southern end of the Conservation Area. There are a number of Grade II

listed buildings within the village which are concentrated in the mid High Street, Church

Lane and Church Walk area. The core of the Conservation Area (High Street. Church

Lane, Church Walk, Meeting House Lane, Guildford Lane & Maltkiln Lane) is rather inward

looking with views out beyond the village being very limited. West Street is more outward

looking with views into the immediate countryside possible between modern houses. The



7-21

setting of the Conservation Area comprises the countryside within which it is located as this

places it within a rural context and therefore has a positive contribution to the significance

of the Conservation Area. This contribution reduces with distance. The key and most

prominent listed building is St Helen’s Church at the southern end of the area. Appendix

7.3 Table 2 presents an assessment of the church’s significance and setting. Views out

toward the Proposed Development from the edge of the conservation area are possible

but views of the wind farm will not be possible from within the vast majority of the

Conservation Area.

7.78 Caythorpe/Frieston Conservation Area comprises of two separate areas. The Caythorpe

part forms the bulk of the area and is located 3.7km to the south east of the Proposed

Development. The Frieston area lies to the south of Caythorpe and is c. 4.5km to the south

east of the Proposed Development. The Caythorpe element of the Conservation Area is

completely outside of the ZTV and therefore will not be considered any further. In relation

to the special character of the Conservation Area, the Conservation Area Appraisal

states:

“Frieston Green is the historic core and forms the focal point of the Conservation Area. The

large open green is enclosed on the north and east sides by buildings which date from the

17th–19th centuries. The green occupies a gently rising south-north incline which elevates

the buildings on the north side above those on the east. The buildings on the north side are

separated from the green by ironstone boundary walls capped with clay pantiles and are

partially screened from view by mature trees and vegetation in the private gardens. The

buildings on the east side front directly onto the green with the exception of Denver House

which is enclosed by a low brick boundary wall. The large mature trees contribute to the

visual interest of the green and frame attractive views of the buildings clustered around its

perimeter.

The buildings on the north side of Hough Road are set back from the roadside within large

grounds enclosed by stone or brick boundary walls. The buildings are partially screened

from view by tall, mature trees which frame attractive views along the street. Frieston

House on the south side of the road is set slightly back from the roadside and is enclosed

by decorative railings with stone piers and a boundary hedge.”

7.79 The Conservation Area Appraisal does not identify any important views out of the

Conservation Area toward the Proposed Development. The north western portion of the

Conservation Area is within the ZTV. This includes Frieston Old Hall (Grade II), of which

there is an important view from the road in the direction of the Proposed Development.

However, there a number of tall trees within this view which will block views of the



7-22

Proposed Development. Due to the topography, the layout of the village and the

presence of a large number of tall trees, the Conservation Area is essentially inward

looking. Its setting is considered to include the fields immediately adjacent to the village

but not the countryside beyond as it is only in close proximity that the setting provides a

positive contribution to the significance of the village as it places it within a rural context.

7.80 Hough on the Hill Conservation Area is 4.2km to the south east of the Proposed

Development. The majority of the built up area of the Conservation Area is outside of the

ZTV although the north eastern/northern and south western areas of the Conservation

Area are within the ZTV. The Conservation Area Appraisal defines the special interest as:

Former Brownlow estate village with picturesque quality derived from distinctive

architectural style and cohesive material palette.

Village core centred on an S bend in the road, with All Saints Church, The Brownlow

Arms, Hough House, and the Tudor Gothic School featuring strongly.

Striking and far reaching views out of the conservation area over the Trent and Belvoir

Vales.

Natural topography creating areas of visual dominance such as at All Saints Church.

High archaeological significance reflected by the scheduled monument status of the

Motte and Bailey at Castle Hill and a number of other archaeological sites such as

Hough Priory.

Trees and hedgerows contributing to a rural character and framing views.

Strong contribution of open space, particularly grazed fields.

A number of footpaths and back lanes traversing through the village offering

interesting scenes and views.

Traditional craftsmanship embodied in original building materials and architectural

features.

Visual harmony resulting from the use of a limited palette of natural building materials.

7.81 The village has an extensive setting due to its location over looking the Belvoir Vale to the

north, north west and west. The Appraisal states “The surrounding landscape is intrinsic to

the character of the conservation area, offering expansive views and contributing

towards a green and picturesque setting. There are extensive views northwards from

Lower Road and New Hill across the vale to the distant power stations whilst the scarp of

the Lincolnshire Edge contains the eastern view with the spire of St Vincent‟s Church at



7-23

Caythorpe forming a prominent landmark… Along Folly Lane there are also spectacular

panoramic views of the Belvoir Vale particularly in a northern direction where views

stretch as far as Lincoln Cathedral and beyond.”

7.82 The Appraisal notes two important panoramic views in the direction of the Proposed

Development. These are no.8 from Folly Lane (as described in the above quote) and no

15 which is a view across Belvoir Vale. Therefore, the setting of the Conservation Area is

extensive and includes the Proposed Development. The panoramic views provide a

positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area. However, these are

panoramic views that include many modern features and it is the totality of the views that

are important rather than anyone particular area within the views, although on a clear

day, the view of Lincoln Cathedral in the distance has been identified as being of

particular importance.

7.83 Fulbeck Conservation Area is c. 4.4km to the east of the Proposed Development. A large

part of the Conservation Area is outside of the ZTV. However, there are views out across

Belvoir Vale along a number of the east – west lanes within the area and from the western

boundary to the west of Fulbeck Hall and parts of the garden of Fulbeck Hall is within the

ZTV. The Conservation Area Appraisal defines the special interest as:

Prominent roofscapes contributing towards key views.

Steep and narrow lanes with views to the surrounding countryside.

Landscape setting of Fulbeck with the Lincolnshire Cliff edge to the east making a

significant contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Rectory Lane acting as a boundary between the open character to the north of the

village with a low density of development and the nucleated character to the south

with a higher density of development.

Four small country houses within close proximity of each other, Fulbeck Hall (Grade II*),

Fulbeck Manor (Grade II*), Fulbeck House (Grade II*) which are all 17th century in

origin and Ermine House (Grade II*), built circa 1700.

Fulbeck Hall with its landscaped parkland making a strong contribution, and forming

structured views both within and out of, the conservation area boundary.

Visual continuity created by boundary walls delineating boundaries and linking

buildings.

Visual harmony resulting from the use of a limited palette of natural building materials.



7-24

There are four greens within the boundary which enhance the setting of the adjacent

buildings and the rural character of the village.

Views of the Trent and Belvoir Vales can be appreciated from North End and also from

within the private grounds of Fulbeck Hall.

7.84 The landscape is an important part of the setting of the conservation area. There are

views out across Belvoir Vale along a number of the east – west lanes within the area and

from the western boundary to the west of Fulbeck Hall and parts of the garden of Fulbeck

Hall. The Appraisal states:

“The landscape is an important part of the setting of the conservation area and forms an

attractive backdrop to views within and outside of the boundary. The elevated position of

the village allows long ranging views westwards across the Trent and Belvoir Vale which

forms the backdrop to views from Rectory Lane, Scott’s Hill, North End Lane and Bulby

Lane. The eastward views from Cliff Road are curtailed by the tree belts on the rising scarp,

likewise the southern views along High Street are restricted by the rising topography and

tree lined ridges.

From outside the boundary, are some impressive views towards the conservation area

from Sudthorpe Hill and from the Lowfields where you can see both St Vincent’s spire,

Caythorpe and Fulbeck village in the same view. From Holywell on the rising escarpment

there are also attractive views of the conservation area. The views within the boundary

are constantly unfolding due to the curved alignment of the roads and are generally

constrained by the building frontages. “

7.85 Consequently, the Conservation Area has an extensive setting whose contribution to the

significance of the area diminishes with distance.

7.86 Leadenham Conservation Area is c. 5km+ to the north east of the Proposed Development.

It is a linear village orientated north east/south west with the Church and St Swithin and

Leadenham Hall being buildings of particular note at the southern end of the conservation

area. The village is rather inward looking with views out to the wider countryside very

restricted. As with Fulbeck, there are views out from the Conservation Area out to Belvoir

Vale from some of the east west orientated streets and from the edge of the conservation

area. Consequently, the Conservation Area has an extensive setting that has a positive

contribution to the village’s significance, which diminishes with distance.



7-25

Registered Parks and Gardens

7.87 There are three Registered Parks and Gardens within 10km of the Proposed Development

(Fig. 7.6). These are Caythorpe Court, Marston Hall and Newark Castle Gardens and all

three are Grade II. Of these three, Marston Hall and Newark Castle Gardens are both

outside of the ZTV and therefore will not be considered further as there will be no effects

upon them. Caythorpe Court , located 6km to the south east of the Proposed

Development, is almost entirely outside of the ZTV as it is enclosed within woodland in the

direction of the wind farm, apart from a very small section of the south western tip of the

park in the area of a tennis court. Due to the very restricted theoretical visibility, the very

small area where this theoretical visibility is possible and the distance of the Proposed

Development (6km to the north west), the Proposed Development is considered to lie

beyond the setting.

Key Impacts and Likely Significant Effects

Construction

7.88 Sources of impacts upon non-designated archaeological heritage assets include:

the erection of the turbines with the use of cranes.

the construction of a substation.

the construction of the access tracks (including laying of underground cabling).

7.89 The geophysical survey, walkover survey and baseline conditions survey has established

the following potential construction impacts on non-designated heritage assets:

Turbines 1, 4, 5 & 9

7.90 The geophysical survey failed to reveal any anomalies that could be interpreted as being

of archaeological origin at these proposed turbine locations. This, along with the lack of

archaeological remains recorded within the wider study area indicates that the turbine

construction will have no archaeological impacts. It is possible that isolated

archaeological features/finds could be present. If such remains were present, the

construction of the turbine would have a substantial magnitude of effect on features

located within the footprint of the turbine and its construction crane hardstanding. There

would be no impact on features outside of the development footprint. Therefore, there

will be less than an adverse impact of Slight magnitude which would not give rise to a

likely significant.



7-26

Turbines 2, 6, & 10

7.91 The geophysical survey recorded straight anomalies that have been interpreted as being

associated with the former airfield. However, it failed to reveal any anomalies that could

be interpreted as being of earlier archaeological origin at these proposed turbine

locations. It is possible that isolated archaeological features/finds could be present. If

such remains were present, the construction of the turbine would have a substantial

magnitude of effect on features located within the footprint of the turbine and its

construction crane hardstanding. There would be no impact on features outside of the

development footprint. There would be no impact on features outside of the

development footprint. Therefore, there will be less than an adverse impact of Slight

magnitude which would not give rise to a likely significant.

Turbine 8

7.92 The geophysical survey has revealed anomalies that have been interpreted as being

indicative of the presence of a prehistoric/Roman settlement, trackway and field system.

This is considered to be of local archaeological interest. It fits into the wider pattern of

prehistoric/Roman occupation indicated by the presence of the cropmarks and other

finds within the area of the airfield. The construction of Turbine 8 and its associated crane

hardstanding will impact upon features associated with this settlement that are located at

the turbine location. This will result in the removal of part of the remains. However, due to

the small area of ground disturbance required to build the turbine and hardstanding, the

majority of the remains will be not be impacted upon. Therefore, there will be an adverse

impact of minor magnitude on the prehistoric/Roman settlement which would not give rise

to a likely significant.

7.93 The layout of the Proposed Development has been devised to ensure that the surviving

fabric of RAF Fulbeck has been preserved and where feasible, re-used. Therefore, there

will be no effect on the remains of RAF Fulbeck.

7.94 Construction impacts on designated heritage assets will be of a comparable nature to

those at the operational stage, albeit of a much shorter duration. The nature of the

change in the views to or from the assessed assets will not be significantly different during

construction when compared with operation. Therefore, the predicted effects of

construction activities are broadly similar to those assessed in operational impacts and

have not been repeated for construction impacts.



7-27

Operational

7.95 The main potential operational impacts of the Proposed Development on designated

heritage assets once it is built would be as a result of:

the presence of the turbines (including rotating blades).

presence of the substation.

presence of access tracks.

Non-designated archaeological heritage assets

7.96 The Proposed Development will have no operational impacts on non-designated heritage

assets.

Designated Heritage Assets

7.97 There are no registered battlefields or World Heritage Sites within the study area and so

these are not considered any further within this assessment. The predicted operational

impacts upon scheduled monuments are assessed in Appendix 7.3 Table 1 and listed

bbuildings are assessed in Appendix 7.3 Table 2. Registered parks and gardens and

Conservation Areas are assessed below.

7.98 The assessment of operational effects takes into account the sensitivity of these assets (as

designated assets they are all of national importance), the assessment of the buildings’

settings as existing and its contribution to the significance of the designated asset and the

magnitude of impact predicted on the setting and its contribution to the significance of

the asset from the Proposed Development.

Scheduled Monuments

7.99 Churchyard cross, All Saints' churchyard, Beckingham (100921); Dovecote 250m north west

of Barnby Hall (1016791); Churchyard cross, St Vincent's churchyard, Barnaby in the Willows

(1009225); Fulbeck village cross (1009223); and Churchyard cross, St Peter's churchyard,

Claypole (1011798) are all outside of the ZTV and therefore, there will be no impact on

their settings or significance.

7.100 Castle Hill is the only scheduled monument within the study area which is within ZTV.

Despite the monument’s location on a hill overlooking Belvoir Vale, the monument is

enclosed by, and partially within, a block of woodland which restricts clear views across

the Vale. Therefore, although being theoretically within the setting of the monument, the



7-28

Proposed Development will have a negligible impact on the significance of the

monument.

Listed Buildings

7.101 As stated in paragraph 7.70, there are 11 Grade II listed buildings within 2km of the

proposed turbine locations. Of these, 6 are outside of the ZTV. There are 10 Grade I and 13

Grade II* listed buildings within 5km of the proposed turbine locations. Of these, 7 Grade I

and 9 II* listed buildings are outside of the ZTV. As these are outside the ZTV, the Proposed

Development will have no effects on their settings or significance.

7.102 An assessment of the significance of the listed buildings and their settings that are within

the ZTV is presented in Appendix 7.3 Table 2. Five Grade I listed churches that are outside

of the ZTV have been assessed as their spires/towers are considered to be landmark

features within the wider landscape and therefore, this element of their setting may be

potentially impacted by the Proposed Development.

7.103 A minor impact has been identified for the following assets; Church of All Saints, Fenton

(Grade I no 1062914), Church of All Saints, Beckingham (Grade I no 1360525), Church of St

Helen, Brant Broughton (Grade I (1147487), Church of All Saints, (Barnaby in the Willows

(Grade I 1302715), Church of St Vincent, Caythorpe (Grade I no 1317320), Church of St

Nicholas, Fulbeck (Grade I no 166164), Church of St Swithin, Leadenham (Grade I no

1147388), Brandon Old Hall (Grade II* no 1166332), Stragglethorpe Grange (Grade II no

1147761), Court Leys Farmhouse (Grade II no 1062404), Apricot Hall (Grade II no 1061927).

7.104 A negligible impact has been identified for the following assets; Castle Hill, Hough on the

Hill (SAM no 1003571), Church of St Michael, Stragglethorpe (Grade I no 1061900), Church

of All Saints, Hough on the Hill (Grade I no 1360316), Church of St Peter, Claypole (Grade I

no 1062912), Chapel Brandon (Grade II* no 1062416), Church of St Martin, Stubton (Grade

II* no 1360092), Stragglethorpe Hall (Grade II no 1147803), has been assessed for Longhills

Hall (LB57) (grade II), Halstead Hall and Barn (LB65 and 67) (grade I/II*), Church of St

Andrew, Timberland (LB66) (grade II*) and, Tattershall Castle (LB186) (grade I).

7.105 In the case of the assets where a minor or negligible impact has been assessed it is

concluded that the effects are not significant in EIA terms. Most of the effects relate to

singular views being affected that contribute to the setting, leaving the majority of the

asset’s heritage significance unchanged and an experience of its heritage values

unaffected.

7.106 Stubton Hall was assessed as it lies a short distance to the south of the Grade II listed

building study area. The setting of Stubton Hall is considered to comprise its landscaped



7-29

gardens on its southern and south western sides and also extends to include its immediate

village context to the south west, which includes views towards the Grade II* listed St

Martin’s church and the wider landscape to the east and south east. Stubton Hall and St

Martin’s church both contribute positively to each other’s setting, amplifying the

significance. The Hall and grounds were clearly designed to be seen within this context.

The Proposed development lies c. 2.2km to the north east of Stubton Hall and its setting. It

is considered to be located beyond the setting of the hall, although it will be visible in

places from the hall and its grounds. However, as it is considered to lie outside of the

primary aspects of the setting, the Proposed Development is considered to have a

negligible effect on the setting of the hall and its contribution to the significance of the

hall.

7.107 A ZTV for Bellmount Tower was produced which demonstrates that that only the tips of

turbines will be viewed when standing on the viewing platform at Bellmount Tower.

Therefore, given the very slight intervisibility and the distance (c. 12km to the south of the

proposed development, it is considered that there will be a negligible impact upon the

tower.

7.108 In summary, there are 6 Grade II listed buildings within the ZTV within 2km of the Proposed

Development. The Proposed Development will have a minor impact on the significance

of 4 buildings and a negligible impact on the significance of 1 grade II listed building.

There are 10 Grade I listed buildings within or have a spire/tower within the ZTV. The

Proposed development will have a minor impact on the significance of 5 of these

buildings and a negligible impact on 4 of these Grade I listed buildings. There are 3 Grade

II* listed buildings within the ZTV. The Proposed Development will have a minor impact on

the significance of 1 of these buildings and a negligible impact on the significance of 2 of

the Grade II* listed buildings.

Conservation Areas

Barnaby in the Willows

7.109 The vast majority of the Conservation Area is outside of the ZTV and therefore the

Proposed Development will have no effect within most of the area. The south eastern end

of the Conservation Area (this includes All Saints Church) is within the ZTV. As described in

paragraph 10.66, the setting of the Conservation Area comprises the countryside within

which it is located as this places it within a rural context and therefore has a positive

contribution to the significance of the conservation. This contribution reduces with

distance. All Saints Church forms the key building within the village within the area where



7-30

the Conservation Area is within the ZTV. The setting of the church is considered in detail in

Appendix 7.3 Table 2. As demonstrated in Viewpoint 7, which is located at the edge of

the Conservation Area, the Proposed Development will be visible in the distance within the

wider countryside with the limestone ridge visible beyond it. The Proposed Development is

therefore within the periphery of the setting of the village in an area that has positive

contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area. This is only one aspect of the

setting of the Conservation Area which extends out from the village in all directions. The

Proposed Development will therefore only affect one part of the setting. The Proposed

Development will be a change within one aspect of the setting but it will be within an

area that has a relatively limited contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area.

This will not have a material effect on the significance of the Conservation Area which

primarily derives from factors that will be unaffected by the presence of the Proposed

Development. Therefore, the Proposed Development is considered to have a minor

impact on the significance of Barnaby in the Willows Conservation Area.

Brant Broughton

7.110 Almost all of the Conservation Area is outside of the ZTV and therefore the Proposed

Development will have no effect within most of it. The southern edge of the Conservation

Area is within the ZTV. The setting of the Conservation Area comprises the countryside

within which it is located as this places it within a rural context and therefore has a positive

contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area. This contribution reduces with

distance. As demonstrated in Viewpoint 4, which is located a short distance to the south

of the southern boundary of the Conservation Area, the Proposed Development will be

visible in the distance within the wider countryside. The Proposed Development is

therefore within the periphery of the setting of the village in an area that has positive

contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area. This is only one aspect of the

setting of the Conservation Area which, where it does extend beyond the village, extends

out in all directions. The Proposed Development will therefore only affect one part of the

setting. The Proposed Development will be a change within one aspect of the setting but

it will be within an area that has a limited contribution to the significance of the

Conservation Area. This will not have a material effect on the significance of the

Conservation Area which primarily derives from factors that will be unaffected by the

presence of the Proposed Development. Therefore, the Proposed Development is

considered to have a minor impact on the significance of Brant Broughton Conservation

Area.



7-31

Caythorpe/Frieston Conservation Area

7.111 The Caythorpe part of the Conservation Area is entirely outside of the ZTV and therefore,

the Proposed Development will have no impact upon its setting or significance. The

majority of the Frieston block of the Conservation Area is also outside of the ZTV. The north

western portion of this block is within the ZTV. There are no identified important views out

of the Conservation Area toward the Proposed Development. The setting is considered to

include the fields immediately adjacent to the village but not the countryside beyond as it

is only in close proximity that the setting provides a positive contribution to the significance

of the village as it places it within a rural context. The Proposed Development will be

theoretically visible in the distance within the wider countryside. The Proposed

Development is therefore within the periphery of the setting of the Frieston block of the

Conservation Area in an area that has a very limited positive contribution to the

significance of the Conservation Area. This is only one aspect of the setting of the

Conservation Area which, where it does extend beyond the village, extends out in all

directions. The Proposed Development will be a change within one aspect of the setting

but it will be within an area that has a limited contribution to the significance of the



presence of the Proposed Development. Therefore, the Proposed Development is

considered to have a minor impact on the significance of Caythorpe/Frieston

Conservation Area.

Hough on the Hill Conservation Area

7.112 As discussed in paragraph 10.70-10.72, the majority of the Conservation Area is outside of

the ZTV and therefore the Proposed Development will have no effect within most of the

area. The north eastern/northern and south western potions of the Conservation Area are

within the ZTV. The Conservation Area Appraisal identifies two panoramic important views

across Belvoir Vale that are within the ZTV within which the Proposed Development will be

visible in the distance Important Panoramic Views no 8 and 15. Viewpoint 11 is located

just outside of the Conservation Area a short distance to the south west of the important

panoramic view from Folly Lane identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal (no 8). This

shows that the Proposed Development will be visible in the distance from this location, and

therefore also the important viewpoint. The same will be true for the other panoramic

view (no 15). The Proposed Development will not interfere with the views toward Lincoln

Cathedral or along the edge of the limestone ridge and the spires/churches that are

visible to the north/north east of the Conservation Area. The Proposed Development will



7-32

be a change within the panoramic views element of the setting of the Conservation Area.

This will not have a material effect on the significance of the Conservation Area which

primarily derives from factors that will be unaffected by the presence of the Proposed

Development. Therefore, the Proposed Development is considered to have a minor

impact on the significance of Hough on the Hill Conservation Area.

Fulbeck Conservation Area

7.113 A large part of the Conservation Area is outside of the ZTV and therefore, the Proposed

Development will have no impact upon the significance of most of the Conservation

Area. However, there are views out across Belvoir Vale along the lower parts of a number

of the east – west lanes within the area and from the western boundary to the west of

Fulbeck Hall and parts of the garden of Fulbeck Hall are within the ZTV. The landscape to

the west of the Conservation Area is an important part of the setting of the conservation

area with the views out across Belvoir Vale along a number of the east – west lanes within

the area and from the western boundary to the west of Fulbeck Hall and parts of the

garden of Fulbeck Hall. The views along the east-west orientated lanes are constrained

by the houses that front the lanes, which when combined with the topography and

alignment of the lanes means that the views out are framed and constrained by the built

form of the village and consequently, the wider landscape setting can only be

experienced in glimpsed views. Views are clearer from parts of Fulbeck Hall grounds. The

Proposed Development will be visible in the distance in some of these glimpsed views.

Therefore, it will be a change within this element of the setting of the Conservation Area.

In these views, there will be a moderate impact on the contribution to the significance of

the conservation area. However, this is only one element of the significance of the


presence of the Proposed Development. Therefore, the Proposed Development will not

have a material effect on the significance of the Conservation Area and consequently

the Proposed Development is considered to have a minor impact on the significance of

Fulbeck Conservation Area.

Leadenham Conservation Area

7.114 The majority of the Conservation Area is outside of the ZTV and therefore, the Proposed

Development will have no impact upon the significance of most of the Conservation

Area. In places the western edges of the Conservation Area are within the ZTV. The

village is rather inward looking with views out to the wider countryside being very

restricted. There are some limited views out from the Conservation Area out to Belvoir Vale



7-33

from some of the east - west orientated streets and from the edge of the conservation

area. Consequently, the Conservation Area has an extensive setting that has a positive

contribution to the village’s significance, which diminishes with distance. From the limited

places where the wind farm is theoretically visible, the Proposed Development will be a

change within this element of the setting of the Conservation Area. In these views, there

will be a moderate impact on the contribution to the significance of the Conservation

Area. However, this impact will be very limited in extent and furthermore, is only one

element of the significance of the Conservation Area which primarily derives from factors

that will be unaffected by the presence of the Proposed Development. Therefore, the

Proposed Development will not have a material effect on the significance of the

Conservation Area and consequently the Proposed Development is considered to have a

minor impact on the significance of Leadenham Conservation Area.

Registered Parks and Gardens

7.115 There are three Registered Parks and Gardens within 10km of the Proposed Development.

Of these, two are completely outside of the ZTV and one (Caythorpe Court) has only a

very small proportion of the south eastern edge of it within the ZTV. The Proposed

Development will have no impact on the two parks that are outside of the ZTV. As

discussed above, the Proposed Development is considered to be outside of the setting of

Caythorpe Hall. This, combined with the very limited part of the park that has any degree

of theoretical visibility with the Proposed Development, means that the Proposed

development will have no effect on the setting and significance of Caythorpe Court.


7.116 In accordance with national planning guidance and the Development Plan, any potential

direct and indirect effects upon heritage assets have been considered from the outset of

the project. Accordingly, the proximity to designated and non-designated heritage assets

was one of the factors taken into account in the site selection process. The mitigation of

any potential adverse effects upon heritage assets was addressed during the

development of the layout of the Proposed Development as part of the iterative design

and assessment process. Therefore, comprehensive mitigation is inherent within the final

design proposals in order to reduce or remove potential impacts on the significance of

designated and non-designated heritage assets.

7.117 The Proposed Development is located within an area that is considered to have moderate

potential for prehistoric/Roman remains. The geophysical survey has established that

Turbine 8 has anomalies of archaeological origin that are suggestive of prehistoric/Roman



7-34

settlement, trackway and field system. Therefore, the construction of the turbine and its

associated infrastructure will impact upon part of these remains. The remaining turbine

locations (except for Turbine 3 which was unable to be surveyed) do not appear from the

geophysical survey results to contain significant archaeological remains. It is proposed

that a programme of archaeological evaluation trenching will be undertaken on all of the

proposed turbine locations as a condition of planning permission. Should these evaluation

works have positive results (which is anticipated at Turbine 8), the evaluation will be

followed by a programme of archaeological excavation and recording and/or a

watching brief depending on the results from each turbine location. These works will be

undertaken in accordance with the CIfA Standards and Guidance for Field Evaluation,

Standards and Guidance for Excavation and/or Standards and Guidance for an

Archaeological Watching Brief (CIfA 2014).

Residual Effects

7.118 Residual effects are outlined in table 7.4.

Table 7.4 Summary of Residual Effects

Potential Impacts Significance Proposed Mitigation Residual Effect

Operational Impacts

Adverse impacts

on setting of

designated

archaeological

assets

Negligible None Negligible

Impacts on Listed

Buildings

Minor adverse or

negligible effect

None Minor adverse/

Negligible

Impacts on

Conservation

Areas during

construction and

operation

Minor adverse or

negligible effect

None Minor adverse or

negligible

Construction

Non-designated

heritage assets

Minor Archaeological evaluation

followed by excavation and/or

watching brief

Negligible

Cumulative Effects

7.119 There is potential for cumulative impacts arising from Temple Hill proposed wind farm. The

other wind farms considered in the cumulative effects section are considered to be at too

great a distance from the Proposed Development to lead to likely significant cumulative

effects on designated heritage assets. There will be no cumulative impacts on non-

designated heritage assets.



7-35

7.120 Temple Hill is located to the south of the Proposed Development and approximately mid

way between the villages of Stubton and Brandon. Both Temple Hill and the Proposed

Development lie within the wider landscape setting of a number of nearby church

towers/spires. These are All Saints, Fenton;; All Saints, Barnaby in the Willows; All Saints,

Hough on the Hill; St Nicholas, Fulbeck; St Peter, Claypole, Church of St Vincent,

Caythorpe and Church of St Swithin, Leadenham. The towers/spires of these churches act

as landmark features within the wider countryside to differing degrees. A number of the

towers/spires have at least some degree of intervisibility. The Proposed Development and

Temple Hill will have an effect on the landmark element of these spires in some views

where both will be visible in the same view as each spire. The two wind farms will be a

change within this element of the setting of the churches. However, in all cases there will

be a clear separation of the wind farms from each other. In all cases, the significance of

the churches primarily derives from factors that will be unaffected by the presence of the

wind farms. The contribution of the wider landscape setting to the significance of the

churches, while an important element, is a secondary contributor to the significance of

the churches. There will therefore be a cumulative change within this element of the

setting in of these churches. However, this will not have a material effect on the

significance of the designated assets which primarily derives from factors that will be

unaffected by the presence of the wind farms.

7.121 In the case of the view from All Saints, Barnaby toward the Proposed Development,

Temple Hill will be to the right of the spire of All Saints, Fenton and the Proposed

development will be to the left of the spire. Both schemes will have clear separation and

this will not have a material effect on the significance of All Saints, Fenton, which primarily

derives from factors that will be unaffected by the presence of the wind farms. Due to the

bracketing effect in this view, there will be a moderate cumulative effect on the

significance of All Saints church, Fenton when viewed from All Saints, Barnaby in the

Willows. However, this is one view within an extensive 3600 setting of both churches, and

therefore, the cumulative effect on the churches when considered in the round, is minor.

7.122 Both Temple Hill and the Proposed Development will be visible in the important panoramic

views (nos 8 and 15) from the edge of Hough on the Hill Conservation Area. Neither the

Proposed Development or Temple Hill individually or combined, will interfere with the

views toward Lincoln Cathedral or along the edge of the limestone ridge and the

spires/churches that are visible to the north/north east of the Conservation Area. There will

be a cumulative change within the panoramic views element of the setting of the




7-36


presence of the Proposed Development. Therefore, the Proposed Development

considered to have a minor cumulative impact on the significance of Hough on the Hill

Conservation Area.

Summary

7.123 The impact of the Proposed Development on the significance of designated and non-

designated heritage assets has been undertaken.

7.124 The archaeological potential of the wind farm site is considered to be moderate. A

geophysical survey of nine of the turbine locations has been undertaken (Appendix 7.2).

This failed to reveal any features that could be interpreted as being archaeological in

origin in eight of the turbine locations. Anomalies have been interpreted as being

indicative of a prehistoric/Roman settlement, field system and trackway at one of the

turbine positions.

7.125 The study area contains 6 scheduled monuments, 24 grade I and II* buildings listed

buildings and 6 conservation areas within 5km of the Proposed Development; 10 grade II

listed buildings within 2km of the Proposed Development; 3 grade II registered parks and

gardens within 10km of the Proposed Development.

7.126 The construction of the Proposed Development will have a negligible effect on below

ground archaeological remains within 8 of the turbines locations and a moderate effect at

Turbine 8.

7.127 The Proposed Development will have no direct (i.e. physical) effects on any designated

heritage assets. The Proposed Development will have no more than a minor effect on the

setting and significance of any of the designated heritage assets in the study area.

7.128 The assessment concludes that following the proposed mitigation measures, the Proposed

Development would result in no likely significant effects on non-designated and

designated heritage assets during the construction, operational or decommissioning

phases



7-37

References

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy

Framework

Department of Energy & Climate Change (2011) National Policy Statement for

Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)

English Heritage (2005) Wind Energy and the Historic Environment

English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance

English Heritage (2011) The setting of Heritage Assets

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014) Standards and Guidance for

Archaeological Desk-based Assessments

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014) Standards and Guidance for Field

Evaluation

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014) Standards and Guidance for Excavation

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014) Standards and Guidance for an

Archaeological Watching brief

Glossary and Abbreviations

Heritage Assets: a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified

as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. They

include designated heritage assets (as defined in the NPPF) and assets identified by the

local planning authority during the process of decision-making or through the plan-making

process.

Archaeological Interest: a heritage asset which holds or potentially could hold evidence

of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with

archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and

evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.

Designated Heritage Asset: World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building,

Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation

Area.

Significance: The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its

heritage interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic.



7-38

Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its

setting.

Non-Designated heritage Assets: Archaeological and built heritage assets that have not

been designated. These can be HER records, locally listed and non-listed buildings of

architectural/historical interest

HER Historic Environment Record

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

NPPG National Planning Policy Guidance



Chapter 8: Ornithology

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 8 Ornithology

E3 Ecology Ltd on behalf of Energiekontor UK Ltd |April 2015

CONTENTS

8 ORNITHOLOGY 8-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 8-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ....................................................................................... 8-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ........................................................ 8-3 Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................................. 8-11 Identification and the Evaluation of Key Impacts .......................................................... 8-19 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 8-34 Mitigation and Enhancement ........................................................................................... 8-37 Residual Effects .................................................................................................................... 8-39 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 8-40 References ........................................................................................................................... 8-42

Tables

Table 8.1 Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Bird Species

Table 8.2 Summary of Scoping Responses

Table 8.3 Magnitude of Potential Change

Table 8.4 Sensitivity of Resource or Receptor

Table 8.5 Value and Significance of Resource or Receptor

Table 8.6 Significance of Effects: Calculation Matrix

Table 8.7 Records of Protected or Otherwise Notable Bird Species (LERC) – 2km

Search Area

Table 8.8 Conservation Evaluation of Breeding Bird Population

Table 8.9 Winter Walkover Survey Results – Conservation Evaluation

Table 8.10 Target Species Recorded During Vantage Point Surveys

Table 8.11 Summary of Vantage Point Survey Results

Table 8.12 Summary: Receptor Importance

Table 8.13 Number of Breeding Pairs within Footprint of the Proposed

Development and 500m Buffer Zone around Proposed Turbines

Table 8.14 Target Species: Collision Modelling not warranted

Table 8.15 Estimated Collision Mortality for Target Species (Wildfowl and Waders)

Table 8.16 Estimated Collision Mortality for Target Species (Raptors)

Table 8.17 Predicted Mortality in Relation to Population Status and Natural

Mortality

Table 8.18 Type 1 Cumulative Effects

Table 8.19 Type 2 Cumulative Effects

Table 8.20 Summary of Residual Effects on Ornithology

Figures

Figure 8.1 Survey Area, Vantage Point Locations and Viewsheds

Figure 8.2 Breeding Bird Survey Results (2014) – West

Figure 8.3 Breeding Bird Survey Results (2014) – East

Figure 8.4 Breeding Bird Survey Results (2014) – East (Woodlands)



Appendices

Appendix 8.1 Vantage Point Survey Raw Data

Appendix 8.2 Breeding and Wintering Survey Methodologies and Results

Appendix 8.3 Collision Modelling



8-1

8 ORNITHOLOGY

Introduction

8.1 This chapter of the ES assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the

Proposed Development with respect to Avian Ecology. This chapter also

describes the methods used to assess the baseline conditions currently existing at

the Site and surrounding area; the effects of the Proposed Development; the

mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse

effects; and the likely residual effects after these measures have been adopted.

8.2 This chapter has been produced and the assessment within completed by Mark

Osborne MCIEEM and Becky White MCIEEM of E3 Ecology Ltd. It is supported by

the following appendices and figures:

Figure 8.1 Survey area, vantage point locations and viewsheds.

Figure 8.2 Breeding bird survey results (2014)

Appendix 8.1 Vantage point survey raw data

Appendix 8.2 Breeding and wintering survey methodology and results

Appendix 8.3 Collision modelling


Key Legislation

8.3 Key legislation referred to in relation to assessment included the following:

The Habitats Regulations (2010) (as amended)

Birds Directive (1979) (as amended)

The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar) (1971)

Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended)

National planning policy

8.4 Relevant national planning policy is detailed within Appendix 9.1



8-2

Local planning policy

8.5 The relevant policies detailed within the South Kesteven Core Strategy, the South

Kesteven Site Allocation and Policies document and the ‘saved’ policies of the

South Kesteven Local Plan and the North Kesteven Local Plan are detailed within

Appendix 9.1.

Local Biodiversity Action Plan

8.6 The habitats and species which are considered a priority within the Lincolnshire

Local Biodiversity Action Plan are summarised within Appendix 9.1. The table

below (Table 8.1) lists the bird species considered a priority.

Table 8.1 Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Bird Species

Skylark Linnet Bewick’s swan Yellowhammer

Reed bunting Black-tailed godwit Corn bunting Yellow wagtail

Curlew Tree sparrow Grey partridge Bullfinch

Turtle dove Starling Lapwing Dark-bellied brent

goose

Twite Herring gull Tree pipit Nightjar

Lesser redpoll Woodlark Grasshopper warbler Hawfinch

Lesser spotted

woodpecker Woodlark Spotted flycatcher Wood warbler

Willow tit Marsh tit Song thrush Swift

House sparrow Dunnock Scaup Bittern

Common cuckoo Arctic skua Ring ouzel

Guidance Documents

8.7 The following guidance documents have been referred to in the preparation of

this assessment:

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom, Institute of

Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM 2006)

Birds of Conservation Concern (Eaton, et al., 2009) - Several long-term

surveillance programmes are undertaken in the UK. The data from these

schemes allow the population status of Britain’s birds to be regularly reviewed.

Managing Natura 2000 Sites (Anon., 2000) - A document that gives guidance

on the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

Natural England Technical Information Note TIN069: Assessing the effects of

onshore wind farms on birds



8-3

Natural England Technical Information Note TIN008: Assessing ornithological

impacts associated with wind farm developments: surveying

recommendations

Scottish Natural Heritage Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of

onshore wind farms on bird communities (November 2005) (Revised August

2013)

South Kesteven District Council Wind Energy Supplementary Planning

Document (Adopted June 2013)

Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

Scope of assessment

8.8 The area of land addressed by the ornithology surveys can be divided into two

distinct sections; the Site and the survey area. The Site consists of the area that

would be occupied by the turbines, temporary site compound, substation and

existing and proposed access tracks. For assessment of potential collision

mortality and displacement, the site also incorporates an appropriate buffer

around the turbines. This is discussed in more detail in the relevant sections.

8.9 The survey area comprised a large area of land (approximately 260ha), which

was initially under consideration for the potential locating of turbines. All

ecological surveys covered the full extent of the survey area (as illustrated in

Figure 8.1).

8.10 An initial extended Phase 1 survey of the survey area was undertaken in

September 2012 during which habitats present within this area and adjacent land

were recorded and the potential of the wider survey area to support key species

was assessed.

8.11 This survey identified a requirement for specialist ornithological studies, which were

undertaken during the 2013/2014 survey season. Ornithological work comprised

three key elements;

breeding bird surveys

winter walkover surveys

vantage point surveys.



8-4

Summary of consultation responses

8.12 The table below provides an overview of the information obtained through EIA

scoping responses and other pre-app consultation. Copies of all responses are

provided in Appendix 9.2.

Table 8.2 Summary of Scoping Responses (ornithology)

Consultee Key Points

South Kesteven

District Council

(Scoping Opinion)

The ES should include an ecological impact assessment

(including any mitigation measures) in accordance with the

IEEM guidelines and boxes 6-10 of the South Kesteven Wind

Energy SPD.

The ES should also be informed by Natural England and Bat

Conservation Trust guidance.

Lincolnshire Wildlife

Trust

The ES should demonstrate options for enhancement of the

wider site for biodiversity and should demonstrate that all

efforts are to be made to retain existing habitats of nature

conservation value.

Natural England

(Scoping Opinion)

The proposal does not appear, from the information provided,

to affect any nationally designated ecological sites (Ramsar,

SPA, SSSI, NNR).

RSPB No response received.

Survey Methodology

Breeding Bird Surveys

8.13 Six breeding bird survey visits were made to the survey area in 2014 during the

period April to July.

8.14 The survey area covered all land under consideration for locating turbines and

associated infrastructure, and, in addition where access was available, a

minimum 1km buffer zone (see wider survey area - Figure 8.1). Survey visits were

undertaken on an approximately fortnightly basis from late April through to early

July. The dates and times of each visit and the weather conditions during surveys

are detailed within Appendix 8.2.

Winter Walkover Surveys

8.15 As with the breeding bird survey, the survey area for the winter walkover surveys

covered all land under consideration for locating turbines and associated

infrastructure, and, in addition where access was available, a minimum 1km buffer

zone (Natural England , 2007). This buffer distance follows current guidance and is



8-5

in excess of the distance at which studies have shown operational wind farms to

affect wintering birds (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013), (Bright, et al., 2009).

8.16 Surveys for wintering birds were undertaken over the whole of the survey area on

six dates between October 2013 and March 2014 (see Appendix 8.2 for full

details).

8.17 All points within the survey area were visited and the identity and numbers of all

birds encountered were recorded. The aims of this survey were to produce counts

of the species using the survey area to complement the winter vantage point

surveys.

Vantage Point Surveys

8.18 Two vantage point locations were selected, giving robust coverage of the survey

area, allowing for local topography. The vantage points were located to the

north of the proposed wind farm (Vantage Point 1 NGR SK 90080 51711) and to

the south (Vantage Point 2 NGR SK 89566 50575). The vantage point locations and

the associated viewsheds are illustrated in Figure 8.1.

8.19 Vantage point surveys were undertaken in order to obtain information regarding

the species and numbers of birds present within the survey area; their flight

patterns (including flight heights) and frequency of presence. This data will in turn

assist in assessing whether there is a significant risk of collision for particular species

with the Proposed Development.

8.20 Survey recorded all activity of the following target species groups (species

considered by Natural England/Scottish Natural Heritage to be at risk of collision

with operational turbines):

all wildfowl and waders

all raptors (including owls).

8.21 Weather was not a determining factor when undertaking the surveys. Surveys

were actively undertaken in bad weather since conditions of bad visibility, heavy

rain or strong winds may force birds to fly at lower than usual heights. Surveys were

also undertaken during the dawn and dusk periods when birds are leaving or

returning to roost sites.

8.22 Vantage point surveys have been completed during the period of June 2013 to

June 2014. A total of 144 hours of survey has been completed at a single vantage

point.



8-6

8.23 Detail of survey dates, times and weather conditions and full vantage point survey

methodology can be found within Appendix 8.1.

Desk-Study

8.24 Consultation has been carried out by E3 Ecology Ltd and the Applicant with a

variety of bodies including Natural England, the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and the

Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre (LERC).

8.25 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has also been consulted

however no response has been received.

8.26 A desk study has also been completed, assessing aerial photos and 1:25000

Ordnance Survey (OS) maps and reviewing relevant national and local

Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and information available from the Multi Agency

Geographic Information Centre (MAGIC) website. The relevant local BAP in this

case is the Lincolnshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP).

Assessment Criteria

8.27 The approach taken to assess ecological effects follows the guidance document

produced by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

(CIEEM). These guidelines set out the process for assessment through the following

stages:

describing the ecological baseline through survey and desk study;

assigning a value to key receptors - these are the sites, habitats and species of

highest ecological value;

identifying and characterising the potential effects on these receptors based

on the nature of construction, operation and decommissioning activities

associated with the development;

describing any mitigation, compensation and/or enhancement measures

associated with the development and assessing residual significance; and

identification of any monitoring requirements.

8.28 The magnitude of effects is predicted quantitatively where possible. The

assessment also takes into account whether the effect is beneficial or adverse,

short term (for example only during construction) or long term (throughout the



8-7

lifetime of the Proposed Development), reversible or permanent. The degree of

confidence in the assessment is provided where relevant.

8.29 The key terms used in the assessment of the significance of potential

environmental effects of the Proposed Development on specific features follow

the convention used in this Environmental Statement.

8.30 The significance of predicted environmental effects was determined through an

assessment of the magnitude and likelihood of change arising from the Proposed

Development, coupled with the sensitivity of the resource or receptor affected.

8.31 The magnitude of potential change is categorised against the definitions in Table

8.3. Effects can be either beneficial or adverse.

Table 8.3 Magnitude of potential change

Magnitude

of change

Criteria for assessing effects

Substantial Total loss or major/substantial alteration to key

elements/features of the baseline (pre-

development) conditions such that the post

development character/ composition/attributes

will be fundamentally changed.

Moderate Loss or alteration to one or more key

elements/features of the baseline conditions such

that post development

character/composition/attributes of the baseline

will be materially changed.

Slight A minor shift away from baseline conditions.

Change arising from the loss/alteration will be

discernible/detectable but not material. The

underlying character/composition/attributes of

the baseline condition will be similar to the pre-

development circumstances/situation.

Negligible Very little change from baseline conditions.

Change barely distinguishable, approximating to

a 'no change' situation.

8.32 The sensitivity of the resource or receptor will be categorised as detailed in Table

8.4.

Table 8.4 Sensitivity of resource or receptor

Sensitivity Examples of receptor

High The receptor/resource is of international or national

importance.

Medium The receptor/resource is of district, county or



8-8


Low The receptor/resource is of local or parish

importance.

Notes: The classification of sensitivity can be moderated in response to the

vulnerability of the receptor to the specific impact and its ability to

absorb/be tolerant to change of the nature predicted. i.e. a barn owl

breeding site a receptor of district importance, would not necessarily be

vulnerable to short-term disturbance of the site during the winter. As such,

the sensitivity would in this case be downgraded.

8.33 The value and significance of resources and receptors was assessed against the

following criteria developed from the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment


(Table 8.5).

Table 8.5 Value and significance of resource or receptor

Level of

value

Examples

International An internationally designated site or candidate

site.

A viable area of a habitat type listed in Annex I

of the Habitats Directive, or smaller areas of such

habitat, which are essential to maintain the

viability of a larger whole.

Any regularly occurring population of an

internationally important species, which is

threatened or rare in the UK.

Any regularly occurring, nationally significant

population/number of any internationally

important species.

National A nationally designated site.

A viable area of a priority habitat identified in the

UK BAP, or smaller areas of such habitat, which

are essential to maintain the viability of a larger

whole.

Any regularly occurring population of a

nationally important species, which is threatened

or rare in the region or county.

A regularly occurring regionally or county

significant population/number of any nationally

important species.

A feature identified as of critical importance in



8-9

Level of

value

Examples

the UK BAP.

Regional Viable areas of key habitat identified in the

Regional BAP or smaller areas of such habitat,

which are essential to maintain the viability of a

larger whole.

A regularly occurring, locally significant number

of a regionally important species.

County County/Metropolitan designated sites.

A viable area of a habitat type identified in the

County BAP.

Any regularly occurring, locally significant

population of a species which is listed in a

County “red data book” or BAP on account of its

regional rarity or localisation.


of a species important in a County context.

District Areas of habitat identified in a District level BAP.

Sites designated at a District level.

Sites/features that are scarce within the

District/Borough or which appreciably enrich the

District habitat resource.

A population of a species that is listed in a

District/Borough BAP because of its rarity in the

locality.

Parish Area of habitat considered to appreciably

enrich the habitat resource within the context of

the parish.

Local Nature Reserves.

Low to Local Habitats of poor to moderate diversity such as

established conifer plantations, species poor

hedgerows and un-intensively managed

grassland that may support a range of Local BAP

species but which are unexceptional, common

to the local area and whose loss can generally

be readily mitigated.

8.34 In addition to the examples provided within Table 8.5, the conservation value of

the bird populations using the survey area was determined using a number of

additional key criteria:

Presence of species that receive special protection by law or that are

associated with a protected area



8-10

Presence of a significant proportion of the population of a particular species

at a given geographic scale (using the standard 1% criterion i.e. >1% of the

national population = nationally important, >1% of regional population =

regionally important)

Presence of species listed on the red or amber list of Birds of Conservation

Concern

Presence of species listed on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan

Presence of species listed on the Local Biodiversity Action Plan

Species richness (diversity) of the bird assemblage.

8.35 The magnitude of change and rating of the sensitivity of the resource or receptor

were combined in the matrix set out in Table 8.6 to define the significance of

effect. Whilst the CIEEM guidance notes that matrices may down play local

effects on biodiversity, they have the benefit of allowing comparisons between

disciplines in the ES.

Table 8.6 Significance of effects: Calculation matrix

Magnitude of Change

Receptor

Sensitivity Substantial Moderate Slight Negligible

High Major Major/

Moderate

Moderate Moderate/

Minor

Medium Major/

Moderate

Moderate Moderate/

Minor

Minor


Minor

Minor Negligible

8.36 Effects which are major or major/moderate are deemed to be significant for the

purposes of the EIA regulations.

Limitations to the assessment

8.37 It is considered that sufficient survey and consultation has been undertaken in

order to identify all key ecological issues relating to the survey area and the

Proposed Development, and as such there are not considered to be any

significant information gaps.

8.38 Surveys were completed over the full extent of the survey area, as illustrated within

Figure 8.1. Access for survey could not be obtained for land outwith this area as it

lies under separate ownership.



8-11

Baseline Conditions

Data Search

8.39 The ornithological data search undertaken by LERC provided records of species

detailed within Table 8.7 within a search area comprising the survey area and a

3km buffer zone.

Table 8.7 Records of Protected or Otherwise Notable Bird Species (LERC) – 3km Search Area

Skylark Common cuckoo House sparrow Redwing

Common kingfisher Yellowhammer Tree Sparrow Song thrush

Greylag goose Reed bunting Grey partridge Fieldfare

Common swift Common snipe Bullfinch Barn owl

Common linnet Yellow wagtail Turtle Dove Lapwing

Hen harrier Curlew Starling

8.40 A search was made of the MAGIC website (www.magic.gov.uk) for internationally

protected areas designated for their ornithological interest and other areas of

significant ornithological interest within approximately 20km of the survey area.

This search returned the following information:

There are no Special Protection Areas (SPAs) within this search area

There are no RAMSAR sites within this search area

There are no Important Bird Areas (IBAs) within this search area

Ornithological Survey

8.41 A summary of survey results is provided in the following section of this Chapter,

with full details provided in Appendices 8.1 - 8.2.

Breeding Assemblage

8.42 Breeding bird survey was undertaken over the survey area in 2014 and the results

are summarised in Table 8.8. Full results are detailed within Appendix 8.2 and are

illustrated in Figures 8.2-8.4. As the site includes large release areas for red-legged

partridge and pheasant, these species have been excluded from the assessment.

http://www.magic.gov.uk/



8-12

Table 8.8: Conservation Evaluation of Breeding Bird Population

Sp

ec

ies1

No

. B

ree

din

g P

airs

>1%

re

gio

na

l

po

pu

latio

n2

An

ne

xe

1

(EU

Bird

s

Dire

ctive

)

Sc

he

du

le 1

(Wild

life

an

d

Co

un

trysi

de

Ac

t)

UK

BA

P P

rio

rity

Sp

ec

ies

Loc

al B

AP

Sp

ec

ies

Blackbird 44 -

Blackcap 26 -

Bullfinch 7 -

Black-headed gull 1 -

Barn owl 1 -

Blue tit 29 -

Buzzard 3 -

Carrion crow 8 -

Chiffchaff 9 -

Chaffinch 41 -

Coal tit 2 -

Dunnock 21 -

Goldcrest 5 -

Goldfinch 22 -

Greenfinch 6 -

Great tit 13 -

Garden warbler 7 -

Jay 1 -

Kestrel 1 -

Lapwing 8 -

Linnet 20 -

Long-tailed tit 5 -

Lesser whitethroat 3 -

Mistle thrush 5 -

Mallard 1 -

Magpie 7 -

Moorhen 2 -

Meadow pipit 1 -

Grey partridge 4 -

Pied wagtail 4 -

Robin 41 -

Reed bunting 14 -



8-13

8.43 The survey area supported an estimated total of 659 territories of 44 species in

2014. Of these, 22 (50%) were species of conservation concern.

8.44 The species of conservation concern recorded as breeding within the survey area

included 9 red listed species and 13 amber listed species. A single Schedule 1

species, barn owl, was recorded as breeding.

8.45 The general breeding bird assemblage is primarily considered to be of district

conservation value, supporting a good diversity of species in good numbers. The

survey area is however considered to be of up to county conservation value for

turtle dove, a red list species, known from few sites in the county and thought to

be a declining breeder (The Lincolnshire Bird Club, 2012). Breeding barn owl, a

Schedule 1 species, is also present.

8.46 The survey area supports a range of species typical of an arable landscape in this

area of Lincolnshire, a number of which are farmland specialists which have

undergone large declines, both nationally and locally (Fuller, et al., 1995).

8.47 Full breeding bird survey methodology and results can be found in Appendix 8.2

and are illustrated in Figure 8.2. In addition to those birds considered to be

breeding, Appendix 8.2 also details species recorded during the breeding bird

surveys as over flying or using, but not likely to be breeding within the survey area.

Wintering Assemblage

8.48 The wintering bird populations recorded within the survey area during the 2013 -

2014 winter walkover surveys are detailed in Table 8.9 with an assessment of the

conservation value of each species. Detailed results are provided in Appendix 8.2.

Skylark 32 -

Stock dove 4 -

Swallow 1 -

Song thrush 14 -

Turtle dove 6

Tree sparrow 1 -

Whitethroat 52 -

Wood pigeon 61 -

Wren 43 -

Willow warbler 36 -

Yellowhammer 33 -

Yellow wagtail 14 - Note: 1) Colour coded as per listing within Birds of Conservation Concern (RSPB 2014)

2) Region defined as Lincolnshire



8-14

This Appendix details the species recorded during each survey along with the

peak counts for each survey.

8.49 As the site includes large release areas for red-legged partridge and pheasant,

these species have been excluded from the assessment.

Table 8.9 Winter Walkover Survey Results – Conservation Evaluation

Species1 BTO Code

Pe

ak C

ou

nt

>1%

re

gio

na

l

po

pu

latio

n2

An

ne

xe

1

(EU

Bird

s D

ire

ctive

)

Sc

he

du

le 1

(Wild

life

an

d

Co

un

trysi

de

Ac

t)

UK

BA

P P

rio

rity

Sp

ec

ies

Loc

al B

AP

Prio

rity

Sp

ec

ies

Blackbird B. 24

Bullfinch BF 4

Black-headed Gull BH 130

Brambling BL 2

Blue Tit BT 17

Buzzard BZ 7

Carrion Crow C. 97

Chiffchaff CC 2

Chaffinch CH 23

Common Gull CM 235

Coal Tit CT 4

Dunnock D. 8

Fieldfare FF 298

Feral Pigeon FP 6

Green Woodpecker G. 1

Great Black-backed Gull GB 2

Goldcrest GC 4

Goldfinch GO 28

Greenfinch GR 22

Great Spotted Woodpecker GS 1

Great Tit GT 10

Herring Gull HG 8

Jay J. 3

Jackdaw JD 42

Kestrel K. 4

Lapwing L. 100

Lesser Black-backed Gull LB 24

Linnet LI 15

Little Owl LO 1

Lesser Redpoll LR 2



8-15

Species1 BTO Code

Pe

ak C

ou

nt

>1%

re

gio

na

l

po

pu

latio

n2

An

ne

xe

1

(EU

Bird

s D

ire

ctive

)

Sc

he

du

le 1

(Wild

life

an

d

Co

un

trysi

de

Ac

t)

UK

BA

P P

rio

rity

Sp

ec

ies

Loc

al B

AP

Prio

rity

Sp

ec

ies

Long-tailed Tit LT 12

Mistle Thrush M. 8

Mallard MA 2

Magpie MG 8

Moorhen MH 1

Merlin ML 1

Meadow Pipit MP 4

Grey Partridge P. 19

Peregrine PE 1

Pied Wagtail PW 9

Robin R. 13

Reed Bunting RB 5

Redwing RE 20

Rook RO 181

Skylark S. 85

Stock Dove SD 22

Starling SG 100

Sparrowhawk SH 1

Siskin SK 25

Song Thrush ST 5

Woodcock WK 4

Wood Pigeon WP 483

Wren WR 5

Yellowhammer Y. 50

1) Colour coded as per listing within Birds of Conservation Concern (RSPB

2014)

2) Region defined as Lincolnshire

Note: In addition to the above species, an incidental record of 60 golden

plover was obtained during a site visit in January 2015

8.50 A total of 54 species were recorded within the survey area during the winter

walkover surveys, 29 (54%) of which are of designated conservation concern.

8.51 The wintering assemblage is typical to this area of Lincolnshire and the farmland

habitats present and is considered to primarily be of parish conservation value,



8-16

supporting a wide range of species, of which over half are of designated

conservation concern.

Vantage Point Survey

8.52 The vantage point surveys recorded flight activity across the survey area during

the twelve-month period from June 2013 to June 2014.

8.53 A total of 144 hours survey has been completed, with surveys distributed through

the year to ensure a total of approximately 36 hours survey was completed per

vantage point during each of the summer and winter seasons.

8.54 Detail of survey dates, times and weather conditions along with full vantage point

survey methodology can be found within Appendix 8.1.

8.55 During the vantage point surveys a total of seventeen target species were

recorded with in addition a single record of a flock of ten unidentified ducks.

These species are detailed below within Table 8.10 with an assessment of their

conservation value.

Table 8.10: Target species recorded during vantage point surveys

Species1 BTO

Code

An

ne

xe

1

(EU

Bird

s D

ire

ctive

)

Sc

he

du

le 1

(Wild

life

an

d

Co

un

trysi

de

Ac

t)

UK

BA

P P

rio

rity

Sp

ec

ies

Loc

al B

AP

Prio

rity

Sp

ec

ies

Raptors

Barn owl BO

Buzzard BZ

Montagu’s Harrier MO

Kestrel K.

Merlin ML

Peregrine PE

Short-eared Owl SE

Sparrowhawk SH

Wildfowl and Waders

Bar-tailed Godwit BA

Cormorant CA

Canada Goose* CG

Greylag Goose* GJ

Golden plover GP



8-17

Species1 BTO

Code

An

ne

xe

1

(EU

Bird

s D

ire

ctive

)

Sc

he

du

le 1

(Wild

life

an

d

Co

un

trysi

de

Ac

t)

UK

BA

P P

rio

rity

Sp

ec

ies

Loc

al B

AP

Prio

rity

Sp

ec

ies

Heron H.

Lapwing L.

Mallard MA

Pink-footed Goose PG

1) Colour coded as per listing within Birds of Conservation Concern (RSPB

2014)

* Species considered to be feral in this location and of no conservation concern

8.56 Of the species recorded during vantage point surveys, the following were

recorded within the collision risk height band: buzzard, kestrel, peregrine, short-

eared owl, cormorant, Canada goose, greylag goose, golden plover, lapwing,

mallard and pink-footed goose. In addition, the flock of unidentified ducks also

were recorded within the collision risk height band.

8.57 The results of the vantage point surveys are summarised in Table 8.10. The raw

data are provided in Appendix 8.1 and flight lines are also illustrated within

Appendix 8.1. Table 8.11 also details the rate of activity for each key target

species (percentage of survey time active for raptors and individual birds/hour for

wildfowl and waders), total number of individuals recorded and the percentage

of flights at collision risk height (height band 30 - 140m).

8.58 It must be borne in mind that these figures reflect all activity recorded during

surveys over the full twelve month period and across the full survey area and are

not limited to activity within and immediately adjacent to the collision risk zone.

The collision risk zone is an area defined as the proposed turbine area inclusive of

a 200m buffer around the turbines, within the collision risk height band (30-140).

Table 8.11: Summary of vantage point survey results

Species Activity rate

(percentage of

survey time active)

Total no. individuals Percentage

individuals at

collision height (%)

Barn owl 0.19 8 0.00

Buzzard 3.80 201 24.38

Montagu’s harrier 0.02 1 0.00



8-18

Kestrel 2.04 133 5.26

Merlin <0.01 1 0.00

Peregrine 0.02 4 50.00

Short-eared owl 0.02 1 100.00

Sparrowhawk 0.12 22 9.09

Species Activity rate

(individual

flights/hour)

Total no. individuals Percentage

individuals at

collision height (%)

Bar-tailed godwit <0.01 1 0.00

Cormorant 0.03 4 100.00

Canada goose* 0.40 57 8.77

Greylag goose* 0.85 122 3.28

Golden plover 0.54 78 44.87

Heron <0.01 1 0.00

Lapwing 3.51 506 41.90

Mallard 0.06 9 33.33

Pink-footed Goose 1.46 210 100.00

Unidentified duck 0.07 10 100.00

*Species considered to be feral in this location and of no conservation

concern

Future Baseline

8.59 The predicted future baseline of the survey area is considered likely to be broadly

similar to that found during the survey period however it is understood that the

straw bales currently stored in a number of locations within the survey area are

likely to be removed or relocated at various stages (see Chapter 3).

8.60 Agricultural management of the survey area is considered unlikely to vary greatly

and as such, many of the ground nesting species currently present within the site

are likely to remain.

8.61 The straw bales have a high invertebrate abundance associated with them which

is currently providing a foraging resource for a number of species and both kestrel

and barn owl have been recorded nesting within the bales. The loss of this

resource will slightly reduce the value of the site to these species, though the

species are potentially likely to relocate to built structures within the Site.

8.62 However, the bales also currently provide a predator perch for raptors and the

removal of these features may also have a slight positive effect, reducing

predator pressure in the vicinity of current storage locations.



8-19

8.63 In a wider context, local species populations are likely to vary broadly in line with

regional populations with many species declining through habitat loss.

8.64 During the 25 year lifetime of the Proposed Development, the survey area may be

colonised by species that are increasing in range, however this is considered

unlikely to affect any future assessment of value.

8.65 Migratory and landscape-scale bird movements will be primarily determined by

the wider setting of the survey area and wider landscape which influence

migratory flight lines. These will remain unchanged, such that the current baseline

data will provide a reasonable assessment.

Summary of Baseline

8.66 The table below summarises the key receptors identified through consultation and

baseline survey.

Table 8.12: Summary: Receptor importance

Receptor Value and

significance

of resource

or receptor1

Sensitivity2

General breeding bird assemblage District Medium

Breeding turtle dove County Medium

Breeding barn owl District Medium

General wintering bird assemblage Parish Low

Notes:

1) As assessed against Table 8.3: Value and Significance of Resource or Receptor

2) As categorised in Table 8.2: Sensitivity of Resource or Receptor


Predicted effects of the scheme: construction

Habitat Loss (for the duration of the scheme)

8.67 The Proposed Development would result in the loss of up to 2.5 ha of habitat

consisting primarily of arable crop with some limited loss of coarse grassland and

tall ruderal vegetation and two 5m in length sections of species poor hedgerow

(total loss 10m), for the lifetime of the Proposed Development.



8-20

8.68 This loss is from a wider area of land (the survey area) that currently supports

breeding populations of district to county value (medium sensitivity) and wintering

bird populations of parish conservation value (low sensitivity).

8.69 Habitat lost, primarily arable land, will represent a small proportion of the most

common habitat type found in the wider landscape. Any effect on the bird

assemblage using the survey area is therefore predicted to be of only negligible

magnitude.

8.70 For wintering birds, given the low sensitivity of the receptor an impact of this

magnitude would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

8.71 With regard to the breeding bird assemblage (district to county value and

medium sensitivity), a negligible magnitude change through habitat loss would

not give rise to a likely significant effect.

Habitat loss (temporary)

8.72 During the construction phase of the Proposed Development the existing

compound area will be used for the temporary construction compound. This area

is currently hard standing and as such there will be no additional loss of habitat

during the construction phase.

Disturbance/displacement – construction period

Breeding Assemblage

8.73 The table below details the breeding pairs within the footprint of the Proposed

Development and a 500m buffer zone around the proposed turbine locations.

Table 8.13: Number of breeding pairs within footprint of the Proposed Development and 500m buffer zone around proposed turbines

Species BTO species code No. of breeding pairs

Blackbird B. 17

Blackcap BC 9

Bullfinch BF 1

Black-headed gull BH 1

Barn owl BO 1

Blue tit BT 12

Buzzard BZ 1

Carrion crow C. 3

Chiffchaff CC 1

Chaffinch CH 25

Coal tit CT 1



8-21

Species BTO species code No. of breeding pairs

Dunnock D. 11

Goldcrest GC 4

Goldfinch GO 8

Great tit GT 7

Garden warbler GW 2

Kestrel K. 1

Lapwing L. 8

Linnet LI 10

Long-tailed tit LT 1

Mistle thrush M. 2

Magpie MG 3

Meadow pipit MP 1

Grey partridge P. 4

Pied wagtail PW 2

Robin R. 18

Reed bunting RB 10

Skylark S. 28

Stock dove SD 3

Song thrush ST 3

Turtle dove TD 2

Tree sparrow TS 1

Whitethroat WH 26

Wood pigeon WP 38

Wren WR 15

Willow warbler WW 18

Yellowhammer Y. 21

Yellow wagtail YW 9

Total: 328

Discussion – General Assemblage

8.74 The general assemblage comprises a broad range of species, including both

those typical to arable landscapes and those associated with woodland and field

margin habitats. The assemblage is considered to be of medium sensitivity (district

to county value).

8.75 It is considered that these species will be largely unaffected by constructional

disturbance, with studies showing that some species such as skylark have shown

an increase in breeding density post construction (Pearce-Higgins, et al., 2009).



8-22

8.76 Given the abundance of similar habitat within the wider area, it is considered that

any displacement will have an effect of slight magnitude on populations of these

species and would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

Discussion – Schedule 1

8.77 Barn owl, a Schedule One species1, protected from disturbance, is present within

the survey area and during the 2014 season bred within the straw bales to the

south of the site. These lie within 150m of the proposed turbines. It is however

understood that these bales are to be removed from the site or relocated at

various stages such that this breeding location will no longer be present when

construction is underway. Alternatively construction works could be programmed

to avoid the bird breeding season.

8.78 Other potential breeding sites for barn owl are available within the survey area,

specifically a series of barns and other buildings present to the east, currently

utilised as roosting locations, all over 450m from the proposed turbines.

8.79 Barn Owls are considered a widespread common resident in Lincolnshire (The

Lincolnshire Bird Club, 2012) and are readily found in a variety of farmland habitats

(Barn Owl Trust, 2012).

8.80 The survey area and wider landscape provides abundant foraging opportunities

for this species with field edge habitats, roadside verges and areas of coarse

grassland/ruderal vegetation/game cover likely to support a good abundance of

small mammal prey.

8.81 Given the likely removal of the bales from the site and the distance from the

Proposed Development to all alternative nest sites, it is predicted that disturbance

during the construction phase will not affect breeding barn owl. Any minor

displacement from foraging areas in proximity to the construction zone is unlikely

to effect the local population as abundant similar habitat is present in the wider

landscape.

8.82 No effect on barn owl is predicted during the construction phase.

1These are rare or threatened breeding UK birds, such as peregrine or corncrake, which are

afforded special protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended). In addition to the protection from killing or taking that all birds, their nests and

eggs have under the Act, Schedule 1 birds and their young must not be disturbed at the

nest.



8-23

Discussion – Raptors

8.83 Two further raptor species were recorded breeding within the survey area during

the 2014 season; kestrel and buzzard.

8.84 Kestrel was recorded breeding within the straw bales to the south of the site. As

with barn owl, potential nest sites are present to the east of the survey area, within

a series of barns and other structures, which will provide alternative nest sites if and

when the bales are removed or relocated.

8.85 Given the distance of these alternative nest sites from the Proposed Development,

it is predicted disturbance would not give rise to a likely significant effect on this

species during the construction phase. Kestrel are noted as a common resident

within Lincolnshire (The Lincolnshire Bird Club, 2012) and any minor displacement

from foraging habitat within the vicinity of the construction zone would not be

predicted to effect the local population given the abundance of similar habitat in

the wider landscape.

8.86 Buzzard was recorded as a probable breeder in three locations within the survey

area in 2014. Of these nest sites, one lies within the woodland in the centre of the

site, within 150m of the proposed turbines and this nest site is considered likely to

be affected by constructional disturbance. Studies have shown a decrease in

breeding density for buzzard within 500m of turbines (Pearce-Higgins, Stephen,

Langston, Bainbridge, & Bullman, 2009).

8.87 The remaining two nest sites lie over 600m from the proposed turbine locations

and are not predicted to be effected by constructional disturbance.

8.88 Buzzard are considered a common breeding species in Lincolnshire (The

Lincolnshire Bird Club, 2012) and the displacement of a single breeding pair

through disturbance during the construction phase is not predicted to have an

effect on the local population. The surrounding agricultural landscape provides

abundant alternative nest locations with woodland blocks being a common

feature and it is considered highly likely that a displaced pair would be readily

accommodated.

8.89 No effect on buzzard is predicted during the construction phase.

Discussion – Waders and Wildfowl

8.90 The only wader recorded breeding within the survey area or on adjacent land

was lapwing, with eight pairs recorded within the survey area. Of these breeding



8-24

pairs, four lie to the east of the Proposed Development, over 400m from the

closest turbines. The remaining territories lie within 200m of the proposed turbines

(see Figure 8.2-8.4).

8.91 Research suggests some displacement of lapwing within the vicinity of wind farms,

both during construction and operation, however displacement distances are

relatively minor at around 150-200m (Hötker, 2006) (Pearce-Higgins, Stephen,

Douse, & Langston, 2012). Assuming a disturbance distance of 200m would at this

site result in the displacement of four breeding pairs within the vicinity of the


8.92 Lapwing are a common resident breeder in Lincolnshire (The Lincolnshire Bird

Club, 2012) and it is not considered that this level of displacement would have a

significant effect on the local population. The surrounding landscape and the

wider survey area provide abundant similar habitat, outwith the disturbance zone

such that any displacement is unlikely to effect the breeding success of the

individuals involved and therefore the local population. Construction disturbance

is therefore predicted to have no effect on lapwing.

8.93 A single pair of mallard was the only breeding wildfowl species recorded, with a

breeding pair identified immediately off site to the south. This breeding territory

lies over 500m from the closest proposed turbine (see Figure 8.2-8.4). Given the low

incidence of this species within the survey area and the distance between the

construction footprint and the only breeding pair, disturbance effects during

construction are predicted to have no effect on the local population.

Wintering Assemblage


8.94 Outside of the breeding season, many of the bird species using the survey area

will be ranging across a wider area of land and would therefore likely be more

tolerant of short-term disturbance and potential displacement from the survey

area. Disturbance through construction works is therefore predicted to be an

impact of slight magnitude on these populations.

8.95 The sensitivity of the general assemblage is considered to be low, due to the

receptor being of parish value. Construction works completed during the winter

are therefore predicted to not give rise to a likely significant effect on the general

wintering/migratory assemblage.



8-25

Predicted effects of the scheme: operation

Disturbance/displacement – site operation


8.96 The survey area supports a reasonable diversity of wintering and breeding bird

species which is not considered to be exceptional within a district context. The

wintering assemblage is considered to be of parish importance (low sensitivity)

with the breeding assemblage of district to county importance (medium

sensitivity).

8.97 In addition to studies that show displacement (Hötker, 2006), many studies carried

out at existing wind farm sites have shown that the potential disturbance effects of

operational wind farms do not generally affect bird distribution. A number of

studies at upland sites have demonstrated no significant adverse effects on the

distribution of breeding birds (Philips, 1994), (Williams & Young, 1997), (Dulas

Engineering Ltd. , 1995), (EAS , 1997), (Hawker, 1997), (Thomas, 1999) or wintering

birds (Still, et al., 1995), (SGS Environment Ltd, 1994) in the vicinity of the

operational turbines.

8.98 Many of the studies refer to upland locations. Although the survey area is not

within the uplands, a number of the species recorded within the survey area are

regularly found in upland habitats. As such, behaviour is considered likely to be

broadly similar, with birds likely to be less prone to disturbance, given the likely

acclimatisation to existing human activity (e.g. agricultural and sporting

operations).

8.99 The wintering assemblage comprised a number of granivorous birds, species for

which wind farms are unlikely to affect distribution (Devereux, et al., 2008).

8.100 Studies have shown a broad variety of species to exhibit no disturbance effects in

relation to operational turbines; including specifically geese, curlew, lapwing,

meadow pipit, skylark, red kite, peregrine, golden plover and oystercatcher. In

addition a recent study highlights that some species such as skylark and stonechat

have shown increases in density (Pearce-Higgins, et al., 2012)

8.101 Overall, it is most likely that there will be no more than a minor shift in baseline

conditions, an impact of slight magnitude. In relation to both the wintering



8-26

assemblage (low sensitivity) and the breeding assemblage (medium sensitivity)

this would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

Discussion – Schedule 1 Species

8.102 Disturbance to barn owl (medium sensitivity) from the operation of the proposed

turbines is likely to be of negligible magnitude, limited to foraging birds, and

therefore would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

8.103 The closest turbine lies approximately 450m from the buildings to the east of the

survey area which provide potential alternative roost sites (see Figure 8.1). Scottish

Natural Heritage Guidance (Ruddock & Whitfield, 2007) details disturbance

distances of 50-100m for this species indicating the proposed turbines are sufficient

distance from these buildings to preclude direct disturbance.

8.104 Barn owl in general forage close to the ground below the swept area, illustrated

by the vantage point surveys, and as stated by the Barn Owl Trust (Barn Owl Trust,

2012), ‘evidence of a significant effect, of windfarms, on barn owls in the UK simply

does not exist at the present time’.

Collision mortality – site operation

8.105 During the vantage point surveys, a total of seventeen target species were

recorded with, in addition, a single record of a flock of unidentified ducks. Of

these species, the following were chosen for more detailed assessment of

potential collision mortality on the basis of rarity, conservation concern, level of

activity within the vicinity of the proposed turbines and collision risk: buzzard,

kestrel, golden plover, lapwing and pink-footed goose.

8.106 Table 8.14 details the information recorded relating to the target species that

were not considered to warrant detailed assessment due to the low levels of

activity recorded within the collision risk zone2 and/or low conservation status of

the species.

Table 8.14: Target species: Collision modelling not warranted

Target

species

Records

Barn owl Eight records of individual birds, none within the collision risk

height band (all flights <10m)

2 Collision risk zone is defined as the proposed turbine area inclusive of a 200m buffer

around the turbines, within the collision risk height band (30-140)



8-27

Target

species

Records

Montagu’s harrier Single record of one individual flying beneath the collision risk

height band (flight at 5-10m height)

Merlin Single record of one individual flying beneath the collision risk

height band (flight at 5-10m height)

Peregrine Four records of individual birds. Of these, two records within the

collision risk height band but only one within the collision risk

zone.

Short-eared owl Only a single record of this species obtained in October 2013.

One individual flying west through the windfarm area.

Sparrowhawk Twenty one records of this species, with all but one record being

individuals flying beneath the collision risk height band (flights

being primarily <10m in height).

Bar-tailed godwit Single record of an individual flying west to the north of the

proposed wind farm, at a height below the collision risk height

band (flight height 10-30m).

Cormorant Two records, one of an individual the other of a flock of three.

Canada goose Ten records, flock size varying from individuals to a group of 18.

One record (flock of 5) within the collision risk height band.

Species considered to be feral and of no conservation concern.

Greylag goose Twenty two records, ranging from individuals to a flock of twenty

two. One record within the collision risk height band (flock of

four). In this location species considered to be feral and of no

conservation concern.

Heron Single record of one individual. Flight below the collision risk

height band (flight height 10-30m).

Mallard Five records ranging from individuals to a flock of three. Two

records within the collision risk height band (an individual and a

pair).

8.107 Tables 8.15 and 8.16 present the results of the collision risk modelling for the target

species selected for detailed assessment. Model calculations for each target

species are provided in the technical appendices.



8-28

Table 8.15: Estimated collision mortality for target species (wildfowl and waders)

Target

species

Number of

individuals

through

collision

area per

year

Risk of

collision with

no

avoidance

Avoidance

rate1

Estimated collision

mortality

Wind

Farm

Section Per year

Per 25

years

Golden Plover A 2231 10.11% 98%

1.56 39.00

B 209 0.14 3.50

WindFarm Total 1.70 42.50

Lapwing A 77 11.02% 98%

0.06 1.5

B 3229 2.33 58.25

WindFarm Total 2.39 59.75

Pink-footed Goose A 9761 11.39% 99.8%

0.58 14.50

B 4880 0.25 6.25

Windfarm Total 0.83 20.75

Notes: 1 Species specific avoidance rates are based on current Scottish Natural Heritage

guidance (Use of Avoidance Rates in SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk Model – Available at

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B721137.pdf and http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A916616.pdf)

Table 8.16: Estimated collision mortality for target species (raptors)

Target

species

Wind

Farm

Section

Predicted

passes

through

rotor per

annum

Risk of

collision

with no

avoidance

Avoidance

rate1

Estimated

collision

mortality

Per

year

Per 25

years

Buzzard A 2347.12 13.60% 98%

5.43 135.75

B 982.97 0.90 22.50

Wind Farm Total: 6.33 158.25

Kestrel A 131.27 14.31% 95%

0.80 20.00

B 166.66 1.01 25.25

Wind Farm Total: 1.81 45.25

Notes: 1 Species specific avoidance rates are based on current Scottish Natural Heritage

guidance (Use of Avoidance Rates in SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk Model – Available at

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B721137.pdf)



8-29

8.108 Table 8.17 provides an assessment of the predicted collision mortality in relation to

current population status and natural mortality rates.

Table 8.17: Predicted mortality in relation to population status and natural mortality rates

Target

species

Estimated

county

population

Natural

mortality

rate

(percentag

e of adult

population

per year1)

Natural

mortality –

birds per

year

(from

county

population)

Estimated

collision

mortality

(birds per

year)

Local

conservation

status3

National

population status

(Britain)4

Golden

Plover

12,175

(Mean

WeBs

count for

Humber

and Wash

Jan, Nov,

Dec 2012)3

27.0% 3,287.25 1.70 Very common

passage

migrant and

winter visitor,

occasional in

summer.

Migrant/resident

breeder,

passage/winter

visitor. 38,000-

59,000 pairs in

summer, 400,000

individuals in

winter. Amber list.

Lapwing Est 14,738

plus3

29.5% 4,347.71

2.39 Fairly common

resident and

very common

passage

migrant and

winter visitor.

Migrant/resident

breeder,

passage/winter

visitor. 130,000

pairs in summer,

620,000

individuals in

winter. Red list.

Pink-footed

Goose

4617

(5 year

mean –

WeBs

counts for

the

Humber

Estuary

06/07 –

10/11)3

17.1% 789.51 0.83 Common winter

visitor Sep-Apr,

mainly to the

Humber and

Wash but many

coastal and

inland

movements.

Winter visitor

360,000

individuals in

winter. Amber list.

Buzzard 200+

breeding

pairs

10.0% 40.00+ 6.33 Common

breeder,

passage

migrant and

winter visitor

Resident breeder,

passage/winter

visitor. 56 to

77,000 territories

in Britain



8-30

(summer). Green

list.

Kestrel Unknown

but >93

breeding

pairs

(2012)3

31% 28.83 1.81 Common

resident and

passage

migrant

Migrant/resident

breeder,

passage/winter

visitor. Estimated

GB breeding

population

45,000. Amber list.

Notes:

1 Information obtained from the British Trust for Ornithology Bird Facts website

(www.bto.org)

2 Waterbirds in the UK 2009-2010, Holt et al 2011 – Humber Estuary counts 2009/2010

3 Lincolnshire Bird Report 2012

4 Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Musgrove et al,

British Birds Vol. 106, February 2013.

8.109 These figures indicate that any additional mortality caused by the operational

turbines is unlikely to be significant on the regional or county populations of these

species (see discussion below).

Discussion - Raptors

Buzzard

8.110 Predicted collision mortality rates for buzzard are in the region of 6.33 birds per

year. However, this estimate is based on current levels of activity within the survey

area.

8.111 The majority of buzzard activity within the collision risk zone was recorded in the

month of April, a time when birds are exhibiting pre-breeding display flight activity.

Breeding bird surveys confirmed 3 pairs to be breeding within the woodland

blocks within the survey area during the 2014 season.

8.112 Studies have shown significant displacement of buzzards from the vicinity of

operational turbines, with Pearce Higgins (Pearce-Higgins, et al., 2009) indicating a

41% decrease in breeding density within 500m of operational turbines. For this site,

this could potentially result in the displacement of 1 pair from the central area of

woodland which lies within 200m of the turbines with an associated significant

reduction in flight activity in the vicinity of the turbines.



8-31

8.113 This would reduce the predicted mortality rates for this species. It is not considered

that such displacement would have a significant effect on the local population as

abundant similar habitat is present in the surrounding landscape.

8.114 The county population of this species is unknown but it is noted as rapidly

increasing in recent years (The Lincolnshire Bird Club, 2012) and the species is not

considered to be of conservation concern. The estimated breeding population of

200 pairs detailed within Table 8.17 is considered a ‘serious underestimate’ (The

Lincolnshire Bird Club, 2012) of the county population.

8.115 Given this, the predicted collision mortality rate is considered to be a slight

increase in relation to natural mortality rates and local conservation status and is

considered to be very much a worst-case scenario assessment.

8.116 This species is not of particular conservation concern and it is known that local

and regional populations of this species are increasing (The Lincolnshire Bird Club,

2012) and are therefore likely to show resilience to minor increases in mortality.

8.117 In this context, it is not predicted that operational collision mortality would have a

significant effect on the buzzard population. It is predicted that the impact of the

operational turbines through collision mortality would be of slight magnitude.

Buzzard is considered to be a receptor of low sensitivity, such that an impact of

this magnitude would not give rise to a likely significant effect in the context of the

local and county populations.

Kestrel

8.2 Predicted collision mortality rates for kestrel are 1.81 birds per year. However, this is

based on current rates of activity. Pearce Higgins et al (Pearce-Higgins, Stephen,

Langston, Bainbridge, & Bullman, 2009) concluded that kestrel may avoid turbines,

which would result in a decrease in the potential collision morality rate.

8.3 Rates of activity within the survey area are also likely to be altered by the likely

removal or relocation of the straw bales from the south of the site which this

species is currently nesting within. The closest alternative nest sites for this species

lie over 450m distant from the proposed turbine locations.

8.4 Kestrel are noted as being a common resident and passage migrant in

Lincolnshire. The breeding population is unknown, however a ringing study

recorded 93 broods during the 2012 season (The Lincolnshire Bird Club, 2012). The



8-32

extent of the ringing program is unknown but this is likely to be a significant

underestimate of the total county population.

8.118 In this context, it is not predicted that operational collision mortality would have a

significant effect on the kestrel population. It is predicted that the impact of the

operational turbines through collision mortality would be of negligible magnitude.

Kestrel is considered to be a receptor of low sensitivity, such that an impact of this

magnitude would not give rise to a likely significant effect in the context of the

local and county populations.

Discussion - Waders

Golden Plover

8.119 Predicted collision mortality rates for golden plover are 1.70 birds per year,

however this does not take into account likely displacement from the vicinity of

the turbines which will reduce the likely collision mortality rates. Studies have

indicated avoidance of habitat within 200m of turbines by this species (Pearce-

Higgins, et al., 2012), which if seen in this case could significantly reduce likely

collision rates.

8.120 Wintering golden plover are recorded through the majority of the lowlands in

Britain (Balmer, et al., 2013). The numbers recorded during winter waterbird

surveys, especially on eastern British estuaries, has increased significantly since the

mid-1980s, with a slight increase in densities noted in Lincolnshire and East Anglia

(Balmer, et al., 2013).

8.121 Golden plover in Lincolnshire are described as a very common passage migrant

and winter visitor (The Lincolnshire Bird Club, 2012).

8.122 Natural mortality rates for this species are approximately 27% of the adult

population. Based on a population estimate from the Humber and Wash of

12,175 individuals (based on the mean WeBs count for the Humber and Wash

during the months of January, November and December 2012 (The Lincolnshire

Bird Club, 2012), this natural mortality rate equates to 3,287.25 individuals annually.

This is an underestimate of the County wintering population for this species, as is it

does not include birds present in other areas.

8.123 In this context, the predicted additional mortality from collision with operational

turbines of 1.70 birds annually is not considered to be significant.



8-33

8.124 Studies up to 2004 in Europe concluded a low risk of golden plover collision with

turbines (4 records across Europe). These findings of low collision risk are in line with

the majority of studies and resulted in the classification of waders as species that

are not particularly vulnerable to collision in the RSPB/Bird Life review by Langston

and Pullan (Langston & Pullan, 2003).

8.125 Overall, the impact of collision mortality on local and county populations is

predicted to be of negligible magnitude. Given the low sensitivity of the receptor

(wintering population of parish value), this would not give rise to a likely significant

effect.

Lapwing

8.126 Predicted collision mortality rates for lapwing are low at 2.39 birds per year.

Natural mortality rates for this species are approximately 29.5%, which in relation to

the estimated county population equates to 4348 birds per year (based on 2012

population estimates (The Lincolnshire Bird Club, 2012).

8.127 This estimated population will under estimate the true county population as it is

based on regularly counted sites and does not include un-recorded sites such that

the actual natural mortality numbers will be higher.

8.128 In this context, the additional estimated predicted mortality from collision with the

operational turbines is of negligible magnitude. Given the low sensitivity of the

receptor (wintering population of parish value), this would not give rise to a likely

significant effect.

Pink-footed Goose

8.129 Predicted collision mortality rates for pink-footed goose are low at 0.83 birds per

year. Wetland Bird Census (WeBs) data indicates a long-term increase in the

numbers of this species wintering in the UK (Lincolnshire Bird Club, 2010).

8.130 The main wintering area for this species in the county is the Humber Estuary with a

5 year mean count based on WeBs data for the period 2006/2007 to 2010/2011 of

4617 birds. Natural annual mortality rates are high, in the vicinity of 17% for adult

birds. This equates to 790 of the Humber 5 year mean population per annum.

8.131 In this context, the predicted collision mortality of 0.83 birds per year associated

with the operational turbines is considered to be an impact of negligible

magnitude on the county population.



8-34

8.132 In this context, the additional estimated predicted mortality from collision with the

operational turbines is of negligible magnitude. Given the low sensitivity of the

receptor (wintering population within the survey area of parish value), this would

not give rise to a likely significant effect.

Predicted effects of the scheme: decommissioning

Disturbance – de-commissioning (temporary)

8.133 It is predicted that the de-commissioning phase of the Proposed Development

would have effects of similar magnitude on local bird populations as the

construction process. Impacts will, if anything, be slightly lower as some of the

infrastructure is likely to be left in place for continued farm use, for example

sections of the access tracks.

8.134 It is predicted that this phase will have a short-term effect of slight magnitude on

receptors that are of low to medium sensitivity. This would not give rise to a likely

significant effect.

Cumulative Effects

Type 1 Cumulative Effects

8.135 The table below details the key receptors, the predicted likely effects of each

stage of the Proposed Development and any likely cumulative effects of all stages

of the Proposed Development.

Table 8.18 Type 1 Cumulative Effects Key Receptors Stage of

Development

Predicted Effect Cumulative Effect

Breeding Birds

(General

Assemblage

Construction Loss of 2.5ha of habitat (long term) – effect of

negligible magnitude

Disturbance/displacement effect of slight magnitude

(short-term)

No significant cumulative effect

predicted.

The areas of habitat to be lost to the

development primarily lie within close

proximity to the turbines, within the zone

where the disturbance/ displacement

effects of the operational turbines are

likely to be seen, reducing/ precluding use

of the habitat by a number of key species.

As such, these two effects are not

considered to be strictly additive, as

operational disturbance/ displacement

would render the habitat unavailable to a

number of species whether it was also

being lost to the development or not.

Predicted levels of collision mortality are of

Operation Disturbance/displacement effect of slight magnitude

(long-term)

Collision mortality effects of slight magnitude on

buzzard and negligible magnitude on kestrel and

lapwing.

Decommissioning Disturbance/displacement effect of slight magnitude

(short-term)



8-35

slight to negligible magnitude and will be

further reduced by any displacement from

the vicinity of the turbines.

Breeding barn owl Construction No effect through habitat loss predicted.

No disturbance/displacement effect predicted.

Predicted effects limited to a

disturbance/displacement effect during

operation of negligible magnitude. No

cumulative effects predicted.

Operation Disturbance/displacement effect of negligible

magnitude (long-term)

Decommissioning No disturbance/displacement effect predicted.

Wintering Birds

(General

Assemblage)

Construction Loss of 2.5ha of habitat (long term) – effect of

negligible magnitude

Disturbance/displacement effect of slight magnitude

(short-term)

No significant cumulative effect

predicted.

The areas of habitat to be lost to the

development primarily lie within close

proximity to the turbines, within the zone

where the disturbance/ displacement

effects of the operational turbines are

likely to be seen, reducing/ precluding use

of the habitat by a number of key species.

As such, these two effects are not

considered to be strictly additive, as

operational disturbance/ displacement

would render the habitat unavailable to a

number of species whether it was also

being lost to the development or not.

Predicted levels of collision mortality are of

negligible magnitude and will be further

reduced by any displacement from the

vicinity of the turbines.

Operation Disturbance/displacement effect of slight magnitude

(long-term)

Collision mortality effects of negligible magnitude on

golden plover, lapwing and pink-footed goose.

Decommissioning Disturbance/displacement effect of slight magnitude

(short-term)


8.136 Type 2 effects (cumulative effects of multiple developments) on key receptors

have been considered over a 10km radius. Three multi-turbine renewables

schemes lie within this area: Hawton Wind Farm (3 turbine scheme - consented),

Fox Covert Wind Farm (in planning) and Temple Hill Wind Farm (5 turbine scheme -

in planning).

8.137 The table below identifies the predicted effects of each of these schemes on the

key receptors and discusses the potential in-combination effects of these schemes


Table 8.19 Type 2 Cumulative Effects Schemes

Effect Fulbeck Wind Farm Fox Covert Wind

Farm

Hawton Wind Farm Temple Hill Wind Farm Predicted Cumulative

Effect

Habitat loss Loss of 2.5ha of primarily

arable crop with some

loss of coarse grassland

Loss of 1.6ha of

habitat, primarily

Small scale habitat loss

predicted to have a

negligible effect on

Effects of habitat loss

predicted to be

Cumulative loss of

agricultural land

predicted to be of



8-36

and ruderal vegetation

and 10m of species poor

hedgerow.

agricultural fields. breeding and wintering

birds.

negligible. negligible significance

given the small scale of

loss at each site and the

extent of similar habitat

within the local and

regional area.

Constructional

disturbance

An impact of slight

magnitude on a breeding

assemblage of district to

county value and a

wintering assemblage of

parish value.

No effect predicted on

breeding raptors, wildfowl

or waders.

Constructional

disturbance

having very limited

temporary effect

on wintering GP,

foraging BO,

negligible effect

on general

farmland

assemblage

Constructional

disturbance potentially

causing the

displacement of a

single breeding pair of

lapwing – predicted to

be insignificant at the

county population level.

Construction

disturbance effects

predicted to be

negligible.

No significant cumulative

effect predicted.

The construction periods

of all schemes are

unlikely to coincide such

that disturbance effects

are unlikely to be

cumulative.

Predicted effects at all

schemes are slight or

negligible and displaced

individuals are likely to be

readily accommodated

into the surrounding

landscape given the

expanse of similar

habitat available.

Operational

disturbance

An impact of slight

magnitude predicted on

both the general

wintering and breeding

assemblages.

Negligible magnitude

effect predicted on

foraging barn owl

Operational

disturbance

having a

negligible effect

on golden plover,

barn owl and

general farmland

assemblage.

Operational

disturbance effects

considered unlikely.

Operational

disturbance effects

predicted to be

negligible

Collision

mortality

Collision mortality: 1.70

Golden plover per year,

2.39 lapwing, 0.83 pink-

footed goose, 6.33

buzzard, 1.81 kestrel

Collision mortality:

3.6 Lapwing per

year, 29.2 herring

gull per year,

Collision risk for

other species

considered

negligible.

Collision mortality: 26.2

lapwing per year, 14

mallard per non-

breeding season

Collision mortality:

Minor effects

predicted on red kite

(low risk of collision),

marsh harrier (0.16/yr),

peregrine (low risk of

collision), golden

plover (6.31/yr),

lapwing (17.85/yr),

kestrel (0.94 birds per

year), buzzard

(3.66/yr), greylag

goose (3/yr) and gulls

(8.81/yr common gull,

6.38/yr black headed

gull, 1.22/yr lesser black

backed gull.

Cumulative predicted

mortality for species

potentially effected at

Fulbeck:

Golden plover: 8.01 (21%

Fulbeck)

Lapwing: 50.04 (5%

Fulbeck)

Pink footed goose: no

additional mortality

predicted,

Buzzard: 9.99 (63%

Fulbeck)

Kestrel: 2.75 (66%

Fulbeck)

Note these are all worst-

case predicted mortality

rates that do not

account for likely

displacement from the

vicinity of the turbines

reducing the risk of

collision



8-37


8.138 The number and position of the proposed turbines has evolved in response to the

results of ecological survey. Turbines have been positioned to ensure appropriate

buffers between blades and key ecological features.

8.139 Vegetation clearance will not be undertaken during the nesting season unless an

appropriately qualified ecologist has confirmed active nests are absent.

Habitat Creation/Enhancement

8.140 The text below provides a broad overview of the proposed habitat creation and

enhancement works. Proposals are illustrated within Figure 9.2 and will be subject

to a detailed management plan to be agreed with key consultees post-planning.

Hedgerow Management

8.141 The following hedgerow management will be implemented over approximately

1.75km of existing hedgerow, benefiting a range of wildlife including small

mammals and breeding passerines.

i) Trim in January or February to avoid destruction of bird’s nests and to allow

any berry crops to be used by wintering birds

ii) Trim on a two or three year rotation to ensure thick nesting cover is

available somewhere on site every year and to boost the berry crop and

populations of overwintering insects

iii) Avoid trimming all hedges in the same year

iv) Trim hedges to varying heights – under two metres in height benefits species

such as partridge, and linnet while turtle doves prefer wide hedgerows over

4m in height – and aim to create a wide, dense base which provides cover

for nesting birds and other wildlife

v) Plant up gaps using native species, locally sourced

vi) Plant in early winter

vii) Use plastic tubes to protect young plants from grazing

viii) Retain a grass strip at least 1m wide between the hedge and adjacent

crop to buffer the hedge from ploughing and spray drift

Nectar Rich Flower Mix

8.142 Approximately 0.9ha of nectar rich flower mix would be created. This habitat type

is of value to a range of wildlife, in particular providing a pollen and nectar food



8-38

source for a range of insects during the spring and summer. The management for

nectar rich flower mix would be as follows:

ix) A mix of 80% fine grasses and 20% legumes (such as red clover, alsike clover

and bird’s foot trefoil) to be sown at a seed rate of 15-20kg/ha

x) Establishment in March/April or July/August

xi) Half of the area to be cut in June to stimulate late flowering and the whole

area to then be cut in September or October

xii) Mix may need to be re-established after three to four years if the flowering

plant component has become depleted.

Scrub Planting

8.5 Native scrub will be planted over an area of approximately 0.16ha, creating a

small scale mosaic with adjacent nectar rich flower mix. This will provide areas of

shelter and cover for a range of species and also a berry rich food source.

8.6 The species mix will include the following and all specimens will be locally sourced:

hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), bramble (Rubus

fruticosa agg), holly (Ilex aquifolium), hazel (Corylus avellana), elder (Sambucus

nigra), dog rose (Rosa canina), broom (Cytisus scoparius) and sweet briar (Rosa

rubiginosa)

xiii) The management for areas of scrub would be as follows:

xiv) Planting will be undertaken between November and March

xv) All stock will be of local provenance

xvi) Stands will be planted in clumps and will not be planted in rows as this can

create wind tunnels, edges of stands will be scalloped and species mixed

at random to maximise diversity.

xvii) Fencing or spiral guards or tubes will be used to prevent browsing during

establishment

xviii) Manage to prevent scrub encroachment into adjacent areas through

cutting in January - February

Wildlife Ponds

8.7 A series of wildlife ponds will be created. Design will seek to maximise benefit for a

range of wildlife including amphibians and insects. Details design to be agreed

with key consultees post-planning.



8-39

Field Margin Buffer Strips

8.143 Field margin buffer strips, 6m in width, will be created along approximately 780m

of arable field edge. Management of these areas will aim to create a tussocky

sward of benefit to both nesting birds and over-wintering insects.

xix) Margins to be established in autumn (August/September)

xx) Mix to include up to 30% cock’s foot or timothy grass and fine grasses such

as fescues and bents

xxi) In the first summer, cut the sward when it is approximately 10cm tall to

control weeds

xxii) Following first year of establishment, 3m width adjacent to the crop to be

cut annually, remaining 3m to be cut once every three years. Cutting to be

undertaken in the autumn.

Residual Effects

8.144 The table below summarises the predicted residual effects post-mitigation and

enhancement.

Table 8.20 Summary of residual effects on ornithology

Impact Receptor

Sensitivity

of

Receptor

Magnitude

of Impact

(Without

mitigation)

Significance of

Predicted

Impact*

(Without

mitigation and

compensation)

Proposed

Mitigation/

Compensation

Magnitude of

Impact (With

mitigation and

compensation)

Significance of

Predicted

Impact* (With

mitigation and

compensation)

Loss of 2.5ha of

habitat

Breeding Birds

(General

Assemblage)

Medium Negligible Minor

Habitat works to

include

creation of

nectar rich

flower mix,

wildlife ponds,

field margin

buffer strips,

scrub planting

and hedgerow

management

Slight Positive Moderate/Minor

Breeding Barn

Owl Medium No effect predicted Slight Positive Moderate/Minor

Wintering Birds

(General

Assemblage)

Low Negligible Negligible Slight Positive Minor

Disturbance/Displacement

(Construction Phase)

(Short-term)

Breeding Birds

(General

Assemblage)

Medium Slight

Adverse Moderate/Minor

Checking

surveys for

active nests

prior to

vegetation

clearance

works

Slight Adverse Moderate/Minor

Breeding Barn

Owl Medium No effect predicted No effect predicted

Wintering Birds

(General

Assemblage)

Low Slight

Adverse Minor - Slight Adverse Minor


(Operational Phase)

Breeding Birds

(General

Assemblage)

Medium Slight


Habitat works to

include

creation of

nectar rich

flower mix,

wildlife ponds,

field margin

buffer strips,

scrub planting

and hedgerow

management

Negligible Negligible

Breeding Barn

Owl Medium Negligible Minor Slight Positive Moderate/Minor

Wintering Birds

(General

Assemblage)

Low Slight

Adverse Minor Slight Adverse Minor

Collision Mortality

(Operational) Buzzard Low

Slight




8-40

Impact Receptor

Sensitivity

of

Receptor

Magnitude

of Impact

(Without

mitigation)

Significance of

Predicted

Impact*

(Without

mitigation and

compensation)

Proposed

Mitigation/

Compensation

Magnitude of

Impact (With

mitigation and

compensation)

Significance of

Predicted

Impact* (With

mitigation and

compensation)

Kestrel Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Lapwing Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Golden Plover Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Pink-footed

Goose Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible


(De-commissioning Phase)

Breeding Birds

(General

Assemblage)

Medium Slight


Checking

surveys for

active nests

prior to

vegetation

clearance

works

Slight Adverse Moderate/Minor

Breeding Barn

Owl Medium No effect predicted No effect predicted

Wintering Birds

(General

Assemblage)

Low Slight


*Negligible, Minor or Moderate/Minor effects are not deemed significant for the purposes of the EIA regulations

Summary

8.145 A suite of ornithological surveys have been undertaken in order to provide a robust

assessment of the conservation value of the breeding and wintering bird assemblages as

well as the species present.

8.146 There are no Special Protection Areas, Ramsar sites or Important Bird Areas within 20km of

the survey area.

8.147 The breeding assemblage of the survey area is primarily considered to be of district

conservation value, supporting a good diversity of species in good numbers. The area is

however considered to be of up to county conservation value for breeding turtle dove.

Breeding barn owl, a schedule 1 species, is also present.

8.148 The wintering assemblage of the Site is considered to be of parish conservation value,

considered to be typical to this area of Lincolnshire.

8.149 Vantage point surveys identified 17 target species overflying the Site during the survey

period. The majority of these were recorded in low numbers and at low frequency.

8.150 Potential collision mortality estimates were calculated for species recorded at a higher

level of frequency or those of particular conservation concern. Modelling predicted no

significant effects on populations.

8.151 It is predicted that short-term disturbance effects during the construction and de-

commissioning phases of the development will have at most an effect of slight magnitude

on the breeding bird assemblage, an effect of moderate/minor significance given the

value of this receptor. No effect is predicted on breeding raptors, wildfowl or waders.



8-41

8.152 Works during the winter period are predicted to have an adverse effect through

disturbance of minor significance on the wintering assemblage.

8.153 Disturbance/displacement during the operational phase of the development is predicted

to have at most a slight negative effect equating to an adverse effect of minor

significance in relation to the wintering assemblage and of moderate/minor significance in

relation to the breeding assemblage.

8.154 The potential effects of collision mortality are predicted to be negligible with regard to all

target species populations apart from buzzard where a maximum predicted mortality rate

of 6 birds per year has been estimated. This is however considered to be an overestimate

as it is based on current activity levels within the site. Studies have shown displacement of

breeding buzzard from the vicinity of operational turbines, which would reduce activity

levels and the associated risk of collision.

8.155 Buzzard are not a species of particular conservation concern and the effect of the

operational turbines on the local population is predicted to be of minor significance.

8.156 Habitat creation works will have a slight positive effect on a range of species.

8.157 The proposal would result in no likely significant adverse effects on birds during the

construction, operational or decommissioning phases.



8-42

References

Anon. (2000). Managing Natura 2000 Sites, the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats

Directive 92/43/EEC.

Balmer, D. E., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B. L., Swann, R. L., Downie, I. S., & Fuller, R. J. (2013). Bird

Atlas 2007-11: the breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland. BTO Books,

Thetford.

Barn Owl Trust. (2012). Barn Owl Conservation Handbook. Pelagic Publishing.

Bright, J. A., Langston, R. H., & Anthony, S. (2009). Mapped and written guidance in

relation to birds and onshore wind energy development in England. RSPB

Research Report No. 35. RSPB.

Devereux, C. L., Denny, M. J., & Whittingham, M. J. (2008). Minimal effects of wind turbines

on the distribution of wintering farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology, 1689-

1694.

Dulas Engineering Ltd. . (1995). The Mynyddy y Cemmaes wind farm impact study. Vol. IID

– Ecological Impact – Final Report. ETSU Report: W/13/00300/REP/2D. .

EAS . (1997). Ovenden Moor Ornithological Monitoring. Report to Yorkshire Windpower.

Keighley. Ecological Advisory Service. .

Eaton, M. A., Brown, A. F., Noble, D. G., Musgrove, A. J., Hearn, R., Aebischer, N. J., et al.

(2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the

United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Fuller, R. J., Gregory, R. D., Gibbons, D. W., Marchant, J. H., Wilson, J. D., Baillie, S. R., et al.

(1995). Population Declines and Range Contractions among Lowland Farmland

Birds in Britain. Conservation Biology, 1425–1441.

Hardey, J., H, C., Wernham, C., Riley, H., Etheridge, B., & Thompson, D. (2006). Raptors, a

field guide for surveys and monitoring. Scottish Natural Heritage.

Hawker, D. (1997). Windy Standard wind farm: Breeding bird survey .

Hötker, H. T.-M. (2006). The impact of renewable energy generation on biodiversity with

reference to birds and bats – facts, gaps in our knowledge, areas for further

research and ornithological criteria for the expansion of renewab.

Langston, R. H., & Pullan, J. D. (2003). Windfarms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of

windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site

selection issues. BirdLife.

Lincolnshire Bird Club. (2010). Lincolnshire Bird Report 2010.

Natural England . (2007). Technical Information Note TIN008: Assessing ornithological

impacts associated with wind farm developments: surveying recommendations.

Pearce-Higgins, J. W., Stephen, L., Douse, A., & Langston, R. H. (2012). Greater impacts of

wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation:

results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38.

Pearce-Higgins, J. W., Stephen, L., Langston, R. H., Bainbridge, I. P., & Bullman, R. (2009).

The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied

Ecology, 1323-1331.

Philips, J. F. (1994). The effects of a wind farm on upland breeding bird communities of

Bryn Tytli, Mid Wales. 1993-1994. RSPB.



8-43

Ruddock, M., & Whitfield, D. P. (2007). A Review of Disturbance Distances in Selected Bird

Species. Scottish Natural Heritage.

Scottish Natural Heritage. (2013). Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of

onshore wind farms on bird communities.

SGS Environment Ltd. (1994). Haverigg wind farm ornithological monitoring programme.

Still, D., Little, B., & Lawrence, S. (1995). The effect of wind turbines on the bird population

at Blyth Harbour. ETSU Report.

The Lincolnshire Bird Club. (2012). Lincolnshire Bird Report 2012.

Thomas, R. (1999). Renewable Energy and Environmental Impacts in the UK; Birds and

Wind Turbines. MRes thesis, University College, London.

Williams, I. T., & Young, A. J. (1997). Trannon Moor ornithological survey. RSPB.

Yorkshire Naturalists' Union. (2011). Yorkshire Bird Report. Yorkshire Naturalists' Union.



8-44



Chapter 9: Non-Avian Ecology

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 9 Non-Avian Ecology

E3 Ecology Ltd on behalf of Energiekontor UK Ltd | April 2015

CONTENTS

9 NON-AVIAN ECOLOGY 9-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 9-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ....................................................................................... 9-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ........................................................ 9-2 Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................................. 9-12 Identification and the Evaluation of Key Impacts .......................................................... 9-28 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 9-42 Mitigation and Enhancement ........................................................................................... 9-48 Residual Effects .................................................................................................................... 9-52 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 9-53

REFERENCES 9-55

Tables

Table 9.1: Summary of Scoping and Pre-App Consultation Responses

Table 9.2: Magnitude of Potential Change

Table 9.3: Sensitivity of Resource or Receptor

Table 9.4: Value and Significance of Resource of Receptor

Table 9.5: Significance of Effects: Calculation Matrix

Table 9.6: Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre – Data Search (3km Search

Area)

Table 9.7: Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre – Non-statutory Sites (3km

Search Area)

Table 9.8: Grassland Species List

Table 9.9: Summary: Receptor Importance

Table 9.10: Bat Species – Risk of Effect through Collision Mortality

Table 9.11: Type 1 Cumulative Effects

Table 9.12: Type 2 Cumulative Effects

Figures

Figure 9.1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results

Figure 9.2: Habitat Creation and Enhancement Proposals

Appendices

Appendix 9.1 – Ecology

Appendix 9.2 – Consultation

Appendix 9.3 – Bat Survey

Appendix 9.4 – Badger Method Statement

Appendix 9.5 – Otter Method Statement

Appendix 9.6 – Reptile Method Statement



9-1

9 NON-AVIAN ECOLOGY

Introduction

9.1 This chapter of the ES assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the

Proposed Development with respect to Non-Avian Ecology. This chapter

describes the methods used to assess the baseline conditions currently existing at

the Site and surrounding area; the effects of the Proposed Development; the

mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse

effects; and the likely residual effects after these measures have been adopted.

9.2 This chapter has been produced and the assessment within completed by Becky

White MCIEEM of E3 Ecology Ltd.


Key Legislation

9.3 Key legislation referred to in relation to site assessment included the following:

The Habitats Regulations (2010) (as amended)

Birds Directive (1979) (as amended)

The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar) (1971)

Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended)

EU Water Framework Directive (2000)

Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act (1975)

Protection of Badgers Act (1992)

Wild Mammals (Protection) Act (1996)

National planning policy

9.4 Relevant national planning policy is detailed within Appendix 9.1

Local planning policy

9.5 The relevant policies detailed within the South Kesteven Core Strategy, the South

Kesteven Site Allocation and Policies document and the ‘saved’ policies of the



9-2

South Kesteven Local Plan and the North Kesteven Local Plan are detailed within

Appendix 9.1.

Local Biodiversity Action Plan

9.6 The habitats and species which are considered a priority within the Lincolnshire

Local Biodiversity Action Plan are summarised within Appendix 9.1.

Guidance Documents

9.7 The following guidance documents have been referred to in the preparation of

this assessment:

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom, Institute of

Ecology and Environmental Management (Institute of Ecology and

Environmental Management, 2006)

Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust

(Hundt, 2012)

Natural England Technical Information Note TIN051: Bats and Onshore Wind

Turbines Interim Guidance (Natural England, 2012)

Great crested newt mitigation guidelines (Natural England August 2001)

South Kesteven District Council Wind Energy Supplementary Planning

Document (adopted June 2013)


Scope of assessment

9.8 The area of land addressed by the ecological surveys can be divided into two

distinct sections; the proposed wind farm site (the Site) and the wider survey area

(see Figure 9.1). The ‘Site' consists of the area that would be occupied by the

turbines, temporary site compound, substation and access tracks. The wider

survey area ‘the survey area’ comprised a larger area of land (260 ha) which was

initially under consideration for the location of turbines. All ecological surveys

covered the full extent of the survey area.

9.9 An initial extended Phase 1 survey of the survey area was undertaken in

September 2012 during which habitats present within this area were recorded and

the potential of the wider survey area to support protected species was assessed.



9-3

9.10 This survey identified a requirement for specialist studies addressing botanical

interests, bats, wintering birds and breeding birds. All surveys were completed by

E3 Ecology during the 2013 and 2014 seasons. A further walkover survey was

completed in January 2015 in order to ensure the phase 1 habitat survey

remained current and to undertake a further survey of the proposed

development footprint and an appropriate buffer with regard to otter, water vole

and badger.

Note Regarding Reptile Survey

9.11 Although the survey area includes areas of habitat suitable for use by reptiles, the

Site is primarily limited to intensively managed agricultural land. Given this,

detailed survey for reptiles was not considered necessary. An assessment of the

likely reptile population within the survey area has been made based on desk

study, habitat assessment and incidental records obtained from other on site

surveys.

Summary of consultation responses

9.12 The table below provides an overview of the information obtained through EIA

scoping responses relating to non-avian ecology. Copies of all responses are

provided within the Consultation Responses Appendix (Appendix 9.2).

Table 9.1 Summary of Scoping and Pre-App Consultation Responses


South Kesteven

District Council

(Scoping Opinion)

The ES should include an ecological impact assessment

(including any mitigation measures) in accordance with the

IEEM guidelines and boxes 6-10 of the South Kesteven Wind

Energy SPD.

The ES should also be informed by Natural England and Bat

Conservation Trust guidance.

North kesteven

District Council

(Scoping Opinion)

It is noted that Fulbeck Airfield Site of Nature Conservation

Importance (SNCI) has been identified. Any habitats which

are found to be of ecological value should be assessed

against the Local Wildlife Site (LWS) criteria for Lincolnshire.

Habitats which are found to be of interest, or which are found

to meet the LWS criteria, should be avoided during

development.

Bat surveys should meet the guidelines set out by the Bat

Conservation Trust in 'Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines

2nd Edition Surveying for onshore wind farms'.




9-4


wider site for biodiversity. The potential for the development

to provide nature conservation enhancements should be

clearly distinguished from measures to mitigate or

compensate for harm to nature conservation interests. The ES

should demonstrate that all efforts are to be made to retain

existing habitats of nature conservation value, and that

specific enhancement works are to be made for the benefit of

wildlife such as hedgerow planting, ditch enhancements,

species rich grassland or pond creation.

The Natural England advice notes TIN051 and TIN069 should be

referred to.

The Council's Tree Officer has confirmed that the impact of

development on trees should be assessed, including any

temporary access, hardstanding works etc.

Lincolnshire Wildlife

Trust

It is noted that Fulbeck Airfield Site of Nature Conservation

Importance (SNCI) has been identified and that botanical

surveys will be carried out to fully assess the site’s current value.

Any habitats found to be of ecological value should be

assessed against the Local Wildlife Site (LWS) criteria for

Lincolnshire. Habitats which are found to be of interest, or

which are found to meet the LWS criteria should be avoided

during development.

Bat surveys should meet the guidelnes set out by the Bat

Conservation Trust in Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines

2nd Edition.


wider site for biodiversity and should demonstrate that all

efforts are to be made to retain existing habitats of nature

conservation value.

The ES should contain details of post-construction monitoring

for bats.

Natural England

(Scoping Opinion)

The proposal does not appear, from the information provided,

to affect any nationally designated ecological sites (Ramsar,

SPA, SSSI, NNR).

Natural England

(Pre-App

Consultation)

Natural England were consulted with regard to the preliminary

bird survey results. See Chapter 8: Ornithology.



9-5

Survey Methodology

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

9.13 The initial phase 1 habitat survey of the survey area was completed by E3 Ecology

in September 2012. The area of land surveyed is illustrated within Figure 9.1. A

further habitat walkover survey was completed in January 2015 in order to ensure

assessment remained up to date.

9.14 The field survey was conducted using the methodology of the Joint Nature

Conservation Committee (JNCC) Phase 1 survey, as outlined in their habitat-

mapping manual (Joint Nature Conservancy Council, 2010).

9.15 Given the designation of the land within which the survey area lies as a Site of

Nature Conservation Importance, primarily due to the quality of the grassland

present at the time of designation, a further botanical survey was undertaken in

June 2014 during which a detailed species list was made for grassland areas in

order to allow assessment of the quality of the grassland.

9.16 Full details of surveys methods and results are provided within Appendix 9.1.

Initial Protected Species Assessment

9.17 As part of the initial Phase 1 habitat survey the risk of protected or otherwise

notable species being present was assessed from the consultation responses, field

signs and through professional judgement.

9.18 If present, any trackways regularly used by badger and deer were mapped and

any sett usage assessed by the presence of freshly dug earth and/or bedding at

the entrance. Wetlands, if present, were reviewed for their potential use by otter,

water vole and great crested newt. Potential bat usage of the survey area was

assessed from the semi-natural habitats and potential roost sites that are present.

9.19 Following these initial surveys, a requirement for further detailed survey with regard

to bats, badger, otter and water vole was identified.

Badger Survey

9.20 The aim of the badger survey was to locate any badger setts, to determine their

status and the extent to which they are currently used, and to identify those

existing badger paths and foraging areas that are most commonly used.



9-6

9.21 Initial survey work was undertaken in September 2012 with further detailed site

survey undertaken in January 2015. In addition, any records of badger activity

were noted during other survey work at the survey area, which included bat

surveys requiring surveyors to be on site at dusk. Full details of survey methods and

results are provided within Appendix 9.1.

Bat Survey

Survey Effort

9.22 Survey work has been completed during the 2013 and 2014 seasons and the level

of survey undertaken has taken account of the Bat Conservation Trust Good

Practice Survey Guidelines for surveying proposed wind farm sites (Hundt, 2012).

9.23 Based on an initial assessment of the site, the site was considered to be a ‘medium

risk’ site, as designated within the Guidance (p76 Table 10.1 Factors to consider

when determining survey effort and site risk) due to the location, nature of

habitats, limited availability of potential roost sites and number of turbines

proposed.

9.24 However, following initial surveys completed during 2013, which recorded both

Barbastelle (a comparatively rare species in this location) and species of the

Nyctalus genus (a species group considered to be at high risk of being affected

by operational turbines), as a precaution, the level of survey effort was increased

during the 2014 season to meet the guidelines in relation to a ‘high risk’ site. See

Appendix 9.3 for full details.

Roost Risk Assessment - Building/Tree Inspection

9.25 All trees and buildings/structures within or immediately adjacent to the survey

area were inspected and an assessment made as to the risk of bat roosts being

present. This survey was carried out during daylight hours and determined their

suitability as bat roost locations and recorded signs of use by bats. Binoculars and

a powerful torch were used where necessary to assist with the inspection. Full

details are provided within Appendix 9.3.

Dawn/Dusk Emergence/Re-entry Surveys

9.26 There are no permanent man-made structures or trees with a significant risk of

supporting roosting bats within 200m of the proposed turbine locations (see

Appendix 9.3). As such, no emergence/dawn swarming surveys have been

undertaken.



9-7

Transect Surveys

9.27 Transect surveys were undertaken by surveyors walking a fixed route over the

survey area, recording all bat activity and identifying potential roost sites, key

foraging areas and fly ways. In addition to recording all bat activity along the

route, the transect incorporated eight monitoring points, at each of which the

surveyor stopped for 3 minutes and recorded all bat passes. Surveys were initially

undertaken during the 2013 season on a monthly basis, however the level of

survey effort during the 2014 season was increased to two surveys per month. Full

details are provided within Appendix 9.3.

Remote Monitoring

9.28 Remote monitoring was carried out using an Anabat SD2 detector with the

module set up to record all activity from dusk till dawn.

9.29 Remote monitoring was undertaken at four monitoring points, initially during the

2013 season aiming to obtain five nights date per month with the level of effort

increased during the 2014 season to ten nights’ data per month. Full details are

provided within Appendix 9.3.

Otter Survey

9.30 It was identified from the initial extended phase 1 surveys that the drain network

within the wider survey area may be used by otter on an occasional basis. As

such, a survey for this species was completed in September 2012 and updated in

January 2015. Full details are provided within Appendix 9.1.

Water Vole

9.31 The initial extended phase 1 survey identified suitable habitat for this species within

and adjacent to the survey area. As such, detailed survey was undertaken in

September 2012 and updated in January 2015. Full details are provided within

Appendix 9.1.

Desk-study

9.32 Consultation has been carried out by E3 Ecology Ltd and EnergieKontor UK with a

variety of bodies including Natural England (NE), the Environment Agency (EA),

the Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre (LERC) and the Nottinghamshire

Biological and Geological Records Centre (NBGRC).



9-8

9.33 A desk study has also been completed, assessing aerial photos and 1:25000

Ordnance Survey (OS) maps and reviewing relevant national and local

Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and information available from the Multi Agency

Geographic Information Centre (MAGIC) website. The relevant local BAP in this

case is the Lincolnshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP).

Assessment Criteria

9.34 The approach taken to assess ecological effects follows the guidance document


(CIEEM) (Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 2006). These

guidelines set out the process for assessment through the following stages:

describing the ecological baseline through survey and desk study;

assigning a value to key receptors - these are the sites, habitats and species of

highest ecological value;

identifying and characterising the potential effects on these receptors based

on the nature of construction, operation and decommissioning activities

associated with the Proposed Development;

describing any mitigation, compensation and/or enhancement measures

associated with the Proposed Development and assessing residual

significance; and

identification of any monitoring requirements.

9.35 The magnitude of effects is predicted quantitatively where possible. The

assessment also takes into account whether the effect is beneficial or adverse,

short term (for example only during construction) or long term (throughout the

lifetime of the development), reversible or permanent. The degree of confidence

in the assessment is provided where relevant.

9.36 The key terms used in the assessment of the significance of potential

environmental effects of the Proposed Development on specific features follow

the convention used in this Environmental Statement.

9.37 The significance of predicted effects was determined through an assessment of

the magnitude and likelihood of change arising from the Proposed Development,

coupled with the sensitivity of the resource or receptor affected.



9-9

9.38 The magnitude of potential change is categorised against the definitions in Table

9.2. Effects can be either beneficial or adverse.

Table 9.2 Magnitude of potential change

Magnitude

of change

Criteria for assessing effects

Substantial Total loss or major/substantial alteration to key

elements/features of the baseline (pre-

development) conditions such that the post

development character/ composition/attributes

will be fundamentally changed.

Moderate Loss or alteration to one or more key

elements/features of the baseline conditions such

that post development

character/composition/attributes of the baseline

will be materially changed.

Slight A minor shift away from baseline conditions.

Change arising from the loss/alteration will be

discernable/detectable but not material. The

underlying character/composition/attributes of

the baseline condition will be similar to the pre-

development circumstances/situation.

Negligible Very little change from baseline conditions.

Change barely distinguishable, approximating to

a 'no change' situation.

9.39 The sensitivity of the resource or receptor will be categorised as detailed in Table

9.3.

Table9.3 Sensitivity of resource or receptor

Sensitivity Examples of receptor

High The receptor/resource is of international or national

importance.

Medium The receptor/resource is of district, county or


Low The receptor/resource is of low, local or parish

importance.

Notes: The classification of sensitivity can be moderated

in response to the vulnerability of the receptor to the

specific impact and its ability to absorb/be tolerant to

change of the nature predicted. i.e. a bat breeding roost,

an assemblage of district importance, would not

necessarily be vulnerable to short-term disturbance of the



9-10

site during the winter. As such, the sensitivity would in this

case be downgraded.

9.40 The value and significance of resources and receptors was assessed against the

following criteria developed from the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment

produced by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (Table 9.4).

Table 9.4 Value and significance of resource or receptor

Level of

value

Examples

International An internationally designated site or candidate

site.

A viable area of a habitat type listed in Annex I

of the Habitats Directive, or smaller areas of such

habitat, which are essential to maintain the

viability of a larger whole.

Any regularly occurring population of an

internationally important species, which is

threatened or rare in the UK.

Any regularly occurring, nationally significant

population/number of any internationally

important species.

National A nationally designated site.

A viable area of a priority habitat identified in the

UK BAP, or smaller areas of such habitat, which

are essential to maintain the viability of a larger

whole.

Any regularly occurring population of a

nationally important species, which is threatened

or rare in the region or county.

A regularly occurring regionally or county

significant population/number of any nationally

important species.

A feature identified as of critical importance in

the UK BAP.

Regional Viable areas of key habitat identified in the

Regional BAP or smaller areas of such habitat,

which are essential to maintain the viability of a

larger whole.


of a regionally important species.

County County/Metropolitan designated sites.

A viable area of a habitat type identified in the



9-11

Level of

value

Examples

County BAP.

Any regularly occurring, locally significant

population of a species which is listed in a

County “red data book” or BAP on account of its

regional rarity or localisation.


of a species important in a County context.

District Areas of habitat identified in a District level BAP.

Sites designated at a District level.

Sites/features that are scarce within the

District/Borough or which appreciably enrich the

District habitat resource.

A population of a species that is listed in a

District/Borough BAP because of its rarity in the

locality.

Parish Area of habitat considered to appreciably

enrich the habitat resource within the context of

the parish.

Local Nature Reserves.

Low to Local Habitats of poor to moderate diversity such as

established conifer plantations, species poor

hedgerows and un-intensively managed

grassland that may support a range of Local BAP

species but which are unexceptional, common

to the local area and whose loss can generally

be readily mitigated.

9.41 The magnitude of change and rating of the sensitivity of the resource or receptor

were combined in the matrix set out in Table 9.5 to define the significance of

effect. Whilst the IEEM guidance notes that matrices may down play local effects

on biodiversity, they have the benefit of allowing comparisons between disciplines

in the ES.

Table 9.5 Significance of effects: Calculation matrix

Magnitude of Change

Receptor


High Major Major/

Moderate

Moderate Moderate/

Minor

Medium Major/

Moderate

Moderate Moderate/

Minor

Minor


Minor

Minor Negligible



9-12

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Effects

9.42 The potential cumulative effect of all stages of the Proposed Development

(construction, operation and decommissioning) on all key receptors is considered

(Type 1 Cumulative Effect). The predicted effect of each stage is detailed and

any potential cumulative effect discussed. The likelihood of any significant

cumulative effect is determined through professional judgement and knowledge

of the ecology of the receptor in question.

9.43 Potential Type 2 cumulative effects (the potential cumulative effect of the

Proposed Development on key receptors when considered in conjunction with

other developments) are considered in relation to other multi turbine schemes

within a 10km radius. The predicted magnitude of change in relation to key

receptors is, where appropriate, summed across all relevant schemes and the

predicted significance of any cumulative effect determined as per the tables

above.


9.44 It is considered that sufficient site survey and consultation has been undertaken in

order to identify all key ecological issues relating to the wider survey area and the

Proposed Development, and as such there are not considered to be any

significant information gaps.

Baseline Conditions

Data Search

9.45 The table below summarises the results of the data search provided by the LERC.

Full details are provided within Appendix 9.2.

Table 9.6 Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre – Data Search (3km Search Area)

Taxon Species Number of Records Most Recent

Amphibian

Common toad 10 2009

Common frog 17 2009

Smooth newt 1 1995

Great crested

newt 1 1995

Insect -

Butterfly

Wall 227 1999

Dingy Skipper 1 1983

Small Heath 35 1998



9-13

Taxon Species Number of Records Most Recent

Insect -

Moth

Knot Grass 1 2005

Mouse Moth 1 1996

Mottled Rustic 1 2005

Dot Moth 1 2005

Cinnabar 1 2005

Reptile

Slow-worm 1 1977

Grass Snake 5 1977

Adder 6 1977

Common Lizard 6 1977

Mammal

Water Vole 3 1977

Hedgehog 31 2011

Brown Hare 31 2011

Otter 1 2004

Badger 10 2011

Harvest Mouse 1 1977

Flowering

Plan Bluebell 1 1987

The records centre also provided a number of bat records – these are

discussed in Appendix 9.3

9.46 The table below details the non-statutory wildlife sites which lie within 3km of the

survey area.

Table 9.7 Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre – Non-statutory Sites (3km Search Area)

Designation Site Reason for Designation Comment

Site of Nature

Conservation

Interest (SNCI)

Fulbeck Airfield Presence of grasslands

of regional importance

The survey area lies

wholly within the Fulbeck

Airfield SNCI

Woodgate House

(South)

Unknown – site noted

as being under

countryside

stewardship (1992)

1.1km north west of the

survey area

Woodgate House

(North)

2.4km to the north of the

survey area

Woodgate House

(East)

2km north of the survey

area

Woodgate House

(West)


area

Woodgate Farm

(Central)


area

Woodgate Farm

(East)


area

Woodgate Farm

(West)

3km north west of the

survey area

Stubton Hall Plantation mixed 1.4km south west of the



9-14

Woodland woodland survey area

Protection Woods Planted mixed

woodland

2.0km south east of the

survey area

Stubber Hill Plantation Broadleaved semi-

natural woodland

2.7km south west of the

survey area

Local Wildlife Site

(LWS) Beckingham Ranges

Presence of neutral

grassland with semi-

natural woodland,

scrub, river/drain/ditch,

pond and inland

grazing marsh.

2.4km north west of the

survey area

9.47 A search was undertaken of the MAGIC website (www.magic.gov.uk) in relation

to statutorily designated sites for nature conservation. There are no Local Nature

Reserves, National Nature Reserves or Sites of Special Scientific Interest within 5km

of the survey area. There are no Special Areas of Conservation or Special

Protection Areas or Ramsar sites within 20km of the survey area.

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

9.48 The text below provides a summary of the results of field survey with full details

provided within the technical appendices. Figure 9.1 illustrates the survey results.

Target notes are provided within Appendix 9.1.

Summary

9.49 The site comprises a disused airfield which now supports agricultural land use

including both arable cropping and game rearing (red-legged partridges and

pheasants). An operational go-kart track is present in the centre of the site and

the site is also used to store a large number of straw bales which are then taken

off-site and used as an industrial fuel source. A series of structures and buildings

associated with the previous military use of the site and current agricultural

operations are present along with a series of porta-cabin type structures at the go-

kart track.

Arable

9.50 Arable farmland is the dominant habitat within the survey area. The habitat is

intensively managed and during the initial September 2012 survey comprised a

cereal crop. At the time of survey the crop had been recently harvested. Small

areas of ephemeral vegetation were present at the margins of the crop. Survey in

January 2015 recorded the presence of areas of game cover and a variety of

http://www.magic.gov.uk/



9-15

wintering crops. Fields are generally large and subdivided by the hard standing

which previously formed runways and perimeter tracks when the site was an

operational airfield.

9.51 This habitat is considered to be of low value.

Improved grassland

9.52 Small sections of improved grassland were present toward the centre of the survey

area during the initial survey. These grasslands were very species poor comprising

predominantly of a rye grass and clover mix, suggesting the habitat is part of a

wider arable rotation. These areas were not apparent during the January 2015

survey. This habitat is of low value.

Coarse Grassland/Ruderal Vegetation

9.53 Further areas of grassland are present along track margins, around the margins of

plantation woodland blocks, along drain margins and associated with areas of

hard standing and spoil heaps, often forming a matrix with tall ruderal vegetation.

9.54 The table below provides a full species list for these areas. Detailed survey was

completed in June 2014.

Table 9.8: Grassland Species List

English

Name

Latin Name English

Name

Latin Name English

Name

Latin Name

Ribwort

plantain

Plantago

lanceolata Red fescue

Festuca

rubra

Yorkshire

fog Holcus lanatus

Cock’s foot Dactylis

glomerata

Hedge

woundwort

Stachys

sylvatica Comfrey Symphytum sp.

Tufted vetch Vicia cracca Hedge

bindweed

Calystegia

sepium

Red

Valerian

Centranthus

ruber

White clover Trifolium repens Hawkweed Hieracium

sp. Oxeye daisy

Leucanthemum

vulgare

Hoary

plantain Plantago media

Common

cat’s ear

Hypochaeris

radicata Foxglove Digitalis sp.

Sow thistle Sonchus

oleraceus Penny cress Thlaspi sp.

White

dead-nettle Lamium album

Ox tongue Picris sp. Redshank Persicaria

maculosa

Wavy hair

grass

Deschampsia

flexuosa

Black

medick

Medicago

lupulina

Common

fumitory

Fumaria

officinalis

Tufted hair

grass

Deschampsia

cespitosa

Scentless

mayweed

Tripleurospermum

inodorum

Common

poppy

Papaver

rhoeas

Black

knapweed Centaurea nigra



9-16

English

Name

Latin Name English

Name

Latin Name English

Name

Latin Name

Germander

speedwell

Veronica

chamaedrys

Oxford

ragwort

Senecio

squalidus

Herb

bennet Geum urbanum

Stork’s bill Erodium sp. American

willowherb

Epilobium

ciliatum

Pendulous

sedge Carex pendula

Dove's-foot

Crane's-bill Geranium molle

Thyme

leaved

speedwell

Veronica

serpyllifolia

Welsh

poppy

Meconopsis

cambrica

Ragwort Jacobaea

vulgaris Field pansy

Viola

arvensis Alexanders

Smyrnium

olusatrum

Common

tare Vicia sativa

Field forget-

me-not

Myosotis

arvensis

Red

campion Silene dioica

Common

Teasel Dipsacus fullonum

Bird’s foot

trefoil

Lotus

corniculatus Silverweed

Argentina

anserina

Sterile

brome Bromus sterilis

Scarlet

pimpernel

Anagallis

arvensis Weld Reseda luteola

White

stonecrop Sedum album

Meadow

cranesbill

Geranium

pratense Columbine Aquilegia sp.

Common

Groundsel Senecio vulgaris

Purple

loosestrife

Lythrum

salicaria Rush Juncus sp.

Common

chickweed Stellaria media

Common

mallow

Malva

sylvestris Dandelion

Taraxacum

officinale

Yarrow Achillea

millefolium Broom

Cytisus

scoparius Orache Atriplex sp.

Tutsan Hypericum

androsaemum Red clover

Trifolium

pratense Horsetail Equisetum sp.

Common

daisy Bellis perennis Eyebright

Euphrasia

nemorosa

Rosebay

willowherb

Chamerion

angustifolium

Ribbed

melilot Melilotus officinalis Spear thistle

Cirsium

vulgare Bramble Rubus fruticosa

Curled dock Rumex crispus Common

nettle Urtica dioica

Slender

thistle

Carduus

tenuiflorus

Red

deadnettle

Lamium

purpureum Cow parsley

Anthriscus

sylvestris

Creeping

thistle Cirsium arvense

Mugwort Artemisia vulgaris Creeping

buttercup

Ranunculus

repens

White

campion Silene latifolia

Coltsfoot Tussilago farfara Cleavers Galium

aparine

9.55 The Fulbeck Airfield SNCI citation details the results of a 1987 survey at which time

the site was described as supporting scattered scrub, semi-improved neutral

grassland, runways, tall herb vegetation, arable land and a dyke (see Appendix



9-17

9.2 for citation). It was noted that the grassland was relatively old and species rich

and thought to be of importance in a regional context.

9.56 However, based on current survey information, the grassland within the survey

area does not reach the necessary criteria to be classed as a LWS for neutral

grassland (Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership, 2013). The criteria include a list

of neutral grassland indicator species and eight of these are required to be

present for the site to be considered as an LWS. Site survey recorded only four of

the neutral grassland species listed. It is considered likely that agricultural

management of the site over the last twenty five years has resulted in a decrease

in the ecological value of the grasslands within the site and the grasslands are

now concluded to be of no more than low to local ecological value.

Scrub/Tall Ruderal/Broadleaved Trees

9.57 An extensive area of scrub and tall ruderal habitat with scattered broadleaved

trees is present close to the main access routes into the site. This area comprises a

canopy of semi-mature and some mature broadleaf trees and a sub-storey of

ruderal and scrub species. This mosaic of habitats is dense in composition, and

does not appear to be subject to any management. Species found within mosaic

include bramble (Rubus fructicosa agg.), rosebay willow herb (Chamerion

angustofolia), teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), elder (Sambus nigra), hawthorn

(Crateagus monogyna), dog rose (Rosa canina), sessile oak (Quercus petrea),

horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) and ash (Fraxinus excelsior).

9.58 This area of habitat is considered to be of local value.

Semi-mature Plantation Woodland

9.59 Extensive stands of semi-mature plantation are present across the survey area.

Plantation is primarily broadleaved with some extensive mixed broadleaf and

coniferous species blocks. Species include ash (Fraxinus excelsior), sessile oak

(Quercus petreaea), alder (Alnus glutinosa), hawthorn (Crateagus monogyna),

Scot’s pine (Pinus sylvestris), sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and silver birch (Betula

pendula).

9.60 These areas of habitat are considered to be of low to local value.

Waterbody

9.61 A small lake is present within an area of plantation to the east of the site (Target

Note 2). Aerial imagery suggests that the lake has been in situ for at least 10 years,



9-18

and signs adjacent to the waterbody indicate it is used as a course fishing venue.

The feature is man-made, steep sided and sparsely populated with any form of

aquatic vegetation.

9.62 This is considered to be a feature of low value.

Watercourses

9.63 A small beck (Sand Beck) runs along the eastern boundary of the site (Target Note

3). This is heavily clogged with vegetation and is culverted or bridged in a number

of places. The feature does however support a good variety of marginal plants.

This feature is considered to be of parish value.

9.64 Field drains are present adjacent to the western boundaries of the site and these

are similar in nature to the Sand Beck. Banksides vary in steepness but are close to

vertical in places. Coarse grass and ruderal species are dominant on the

banksides throughout the majority of the length. Aquatic vegetation is largely

absent, with some stands of water cress (Rorippa nasturtium) and brooklime

(Veronica beccabunga) present in places. These features are also considered to

be of parish value.

9.65 Further small drainage ditches are present running adjacent to the former runways

and perimeter tracks that run throughout the site. These held stagnant standing

water at the time of survey in January 2015 after a period of wet weather and are

likely to be dry during much of the spring and summer period. These features

generally lack aquatic or emergent vegetation. Terrestrial coarse grass species

and ruderal species are present on the banksides, where these are not of

concrete/stone construction, and in places clog the channel itself. Water quality

appears poor, likely heavily influenced by agricultural operations on the adjacent

agricultural land. These features are of low ecological value.

Hard-standings

9.66 Hard-standings are present across the site. These are mostly the former runways,

taxi-ways, perimeter tracks and parking locations associated with the former use

of the site as an RAF aerodrome. Substantial sections of hard standing are

currently being used for storage of straw bales (Target Note 1).

9.67 These features are of low ecological value.



9-19

Built Structures

9.68 A series of built structures are present in the site. These are described in detail

within Appendix 9.3, in relation to potential use by roosting bats. These structures

range from small corrugated sheet sheds to large modern agricultural sheds and

include a series of derelict brick out buildings. In addition, a series of porta-cabin

type structures are present associated with the Go-kart track.

Protected or Otherwise Notable Species

9.69 The text below provides a summary of the results of field survey with full details

provided within the technical appendices.

Badger

9.70 The survey area is considered to be of low value to the local badger population.

Field survey did not record any evidence of badger activity however the species

is known to be present in the wider landscape with a small number of records

provided by the local records centre. It is concluded that the site may be used by

foraging individuals at times with a low risk of outlier setts being created within

woodland areas in the future. Levels of disturbance in the site are likely to

preclude a significant resident population becoming established.

Bats

Nyctalus – Noctule and Leisler’s

9.71 Occasional records of the Nyctalus genus which were considered from call

analysis to most likely to be attributable to noctule were obtained during transect

surveys (a max. of 2 records on any one survey). Records were distributed through

the site. No records considered likely to be attributable to Leisler’s bat were

obtained during transect surveys.

9.72 A total of 163 Nyctalus records considered most likely to be attributable to noctule

were obtained during remote monitoring surveys (0.62% of all calls) and a further

16 records considered likely to be attributable to Leisler’s bat (0.06% of all calls).

Calls considered most likely to be attributable to noctule were recorded during

every survey month while calls most likely attributable to Leisler’s bat were

obtained during each of the months of May to September. Both species were

thought to be recorded at all four remote monitoring points (RMP) although the

rates of activity considered likely attributable to noctule were significantly greater

at RMPC and RMPD.



9-20

9.73 The data search provided 21 records of noctule from the 10km search area,

however none of these records were of roosts. A further single record of an

unidentified bat of the Nyctalus genus was provided. The closest of these records

lies over 6.5km from the survey area.

9.74 Noctule are primarily a tree roosting species; there are no potential tree roosts

within 200m of the proposed turbines and no trees considered to have a greater

than low risk of supporting roosts within the wider survey area. This species is a

strong fast flying species which can travel substantial distances from roost sites on

a given night. Areas of higher quality habitat including mature trees likely to

provide suitable roost locations and areas of woodland, parkland and pasture

providing a high quality foraging resource, are present to the north and east of

the survey area, associated with the villages of Stragglethorpe (800m to the

north), Fulbeck (3.7km to the east) and Leadenham (4km to the north east). These

areas provide more likely roost locations for this species.

9.75 Appendix 9.3 details the number of calls attributable to noctule recorded at each

remote monitoring point on each night that this species was recorded. It can be

seen that on the majority of nights only one or two passes were recorded, likely

indicating individual bats passing through the area. On only five nights were more

than 10 passes recorded. This data suggests that the survey area does not form

part of a key foraging area and that there are no significant roosts of this species

in close proximity.

9.76 Appendix 9.3 also details the calls recorded during remote monitoring attributed

to Leisler’s bat. Calls attributed to this species were recorded on 12 nights with only

individual calls recorded on all nights apart from one night in July when five passes

were recorded. Data indicates very infrequent use of the survey area by individual

bats. Similarly to noctule, the habitats to the north and east associated with the

villages of Stragglethorpe, Fulbeck and Leadenham will provide more suitable

habitat for this species.

9.77 Overall, these data indicate that these species are present within the survey area

very infrequently. Activity within the wider site indicates that individuals pass

through the area rather than remaining on site to forage. The calls of these

species are relatively loud with noctule potentially being recorded at over 100m

distance and Leisler’s bat at 60-80m distance ( (Rodrigues, et al., 2008)) and it

would be expected that any more regular use of the site, for example as part a



9-21

core foraging area, would have produced a greater number of records. The

survey area is concluded to be of low value to these species.

Nathusius’ Pipistrelle

9.78 Nathusius’ pipistrelle activity was recorded on 42 occasions during remote

monitoring surveys. Records were obtained from three of the four monitoring

points, with the majority of records obtained at RMPC (69%). Records were

obtained in each of the months from May through to October. Appendix 9.3

details the location and date of each record obtained.

9.79 A further three records were obtained during transect surveys, one during the

September 2013 survey and two during the May 2014 survey. No confirmed

records of this species within 10km of the survey area were provided through the

data search.

9.80 The level of activity recorded associated with this species indicates the survey

area is used very infrequently and most likely by individual bats. There are no

potential roost sites for this species within 200m of the proposed turbine locations,

however the records obtained during the core maternity period may indicate the

presence of a maternity roost of this species within the wider landscape. The

survey area is concluded to be of low value to this species.

Barbastelle

9.81 Consultation provided four records of this species within 10km of the survey area,

all records of sightings or the record type not specified. The closest of these

records lies approximately 4km from the survey area and is associated with the

village of Fulbeck.

9.82 This species was recorded on a single occasion during transect surveys; toward

the southern edge of the site during the May 2014 survey. A total of 267 passes of

this species were recorded during remote monitoring (1% of all bat passes

recorded) with records obtained during every survey month. The greatest

numbers of records were obtained in July 2014 (44.6% of all barbastelle records

obtained during this month).

9.83 This species was recorded at all remote monitoring points with the greatest rate of

activity recorded at RMPC (mean of 1.146 passes per night) and the lowest rate at

RMPA (mean of 0.045 passes per night).

9.84 The species was recorded on 79 out of the total of 528 night’s survey effort

completed across all four monitoring points. Appendix 9.3 details all barbastelle



9-22

passes recorded during remote monitoring surveys. It can be seen that on the

majority of nights when this species was recorded, less than ten passes were

recorded across all monitoring points. The exception to this was a three night

period in July 2014 when higher levels (max. count 38 passes per night) were

recorded at RMPC.

9.85 RMPC lies within a plantation woodland, at the cross roads of a series of tracks.

The location provides a sheltered feeding area with good levels of cover,

particularly suitable for this species which is generally found flying close to

vegetation. Detailed analysis of the data from this three night period indicates

records were obtained during a relatively short period during each night; a period

ranging in length from 1hr 31min. to 3hr 17 min. in length. It is possible this indicates

an individual foraging in the vicinity of the monitoring point for a period during the

night.

9.86 The timing of the first and last records during this period do not indicate a roost in

close proximity, with the first and last records of the species occurring between 2

and 4 hours after sunset and before sunrise. Emergence times for this species

typically occur between 30 and 60 minute of sunset (Russ, 1999) and as a strong

flying bat, this species can cover significant distances between roost site and

foraging area.

9.87 On seven occasions the species was recorded within the survey area within one

hour of sunset. On five occasions these early records of individual bats were

obtained at RMPB, once at RMPC and once at RMPD. Given the emergence

times for this species, these records may indicate bats emerging from roosts within

or in close proximity to the survey area. RMPB and RMP D lie adjacent to bale

storage areas and these records may indicate intermittent use of these transient

structures by individual bats.

9.88 Overall, the level of activity recorded is low, however the calls of this species are

very quiet (detectable distance in the region of 10-30m (Rodrigues, et al., 2008))

and as such this will be an underestimate of actual activity levels, particularly

when compared to the number of calls recorded of other species/species groups.

9.89 The site is however considered likely to be of only low value to this species, lacking

the interlinked high quality woodland habitats favoured by the species. All

potential roost sites within 200m of the proposed turbine locations, apart from the

stacked straw bales, are considered to have a negligible risk of use. Survey

indicates the straw bales may be used intermittently by individual bats, however



9-23

these structures are transient and regularly moved/disturbed as part of on-going

operations at the site.

Serotine

9.90 This species was recorded at very low frequency with a total of only 3 records

obtained through both transect and remote monitoring surveys. A single record

was obtained during the August 2013 transect survey, toward the north west of the

site. Two further records were obtained during remote monitoring, one in each of

the months of September and October, both at RMPB, toward the centre of the

site. No records of this species were provided within the data search.

9.91 This species is a moderately large bat and the calls of this species are relatively

loud and have a moderately high detectable distance of 30-50m (Rodrigues, et

al., 2008). This suggests the low number of calls obtained is a fair reflection of the

levels of use of the survey area by this species. Levels of activity recorded indicate

low level and intermittent use by individual bats with no evidence to suggest the

site is used as a core feeding area or that significant roosts lie in close proxiity.

9.92 The site is concluded to be of negligible value to this species.

Brown long-eared bat

9.93 This species was recorded on 73 occasions during the 528 nights of remote

monitoring undertaken, with records of this species only being obtained on twenty

nights. A maximum count of eleven passes was obtained in a single night, with the

majority of nights where this species was recorded seeing only single passes.

9.94 No records of this species were obtained during transect surveys. Consultation

provided 66 records of the species within 10km of the survey area, 33 of which

were roost records. Of these records, the closest are from the village of

Stragglethorpe, approximately 800m distant, although the nature of the records

(roost or field record) is not specified.

9.95 The records obtained through remote monitoring occurred in each month from

May to October with the greatest number of records occurring in the months of

May and July. All but one record was obtained at RMPC, the remaining record

being from RMPD.

9.96 RMPC lies at a crossroads within an area of plantation woodland and, of the four

monitoring points, is positioned in the most sheltered location with the greatest

level of available cover, most suitable for this slow flying species. However, the



9-24

survey area as a whole does not provide the well linked matrix of woodland

habitats that would be expected to support regular significant use by this species.

9.97 The level of activity recorded is very low, however the calls of this species are very

quiet (detectable distance in the region of 10m (Rodrigues, et al., 2008)) and as

such this will be an underestimate of actual activity levels, particularly when

compared to the number of calls recorded of other species/species groups.

9.98 However, given the nature of the habitats and lack of records obtained through

transect surveys it is concluded that the site is of only low value to this species.

Common and soprano pipistrelles

9.99 Over 95% of all records obtained during remote monitoring were attributable to

the common pipistrelle with a further 0.24% attributable to the soprano pipistrelle.

Both species have been recorded at all four remote monitoring points and during

transect surveys. These species were recorded in all habitat types; although

activity was generally focused on edge habitats including tree and hedge lines

and woodland edges. Occasional pipistrelle records were made within the open

fields where there is little cover.

9.100 The areas of the site most commonly used by these species appear to be the

hedge lined tracks, woodland edges and areas where the stacked straw bales

and adjacent ruderal and coarse grass habitats create sheltered feeding areas.

Although not specifically covered by survey, the fishing lake to the east of the site

is also likely to be of value.

9.101 The site provides some potential roost sites for these species, although the risk of

use of the built structures and trees within 200m of the proposed turbine position is

considered negligible. The stored bales may be used as an intermittent day roost

by these species but are unlikely to support significant roosts; these features are

not permanent and were re-built and moved around the site during the season.

9.102 The site as a whole is concluded to be of parish value to common pipistrelle, with

the woodland edge, fishing lake, hedge lines and bale storage areas being key

features. The open arable fields however are considered to be of low value to this

species. The site is considered to be of low value to soprano pipistrelle.

Myotis Species Group

9.103 A total of 434 records of Myotis bats were obtained during remote monitoring

surveys. Of these, 371 were considered to have the call attributes of the species

group WAB (whiskered/Alcathoe’s/Brandt’s), 42 Daubenton’s bat and 21



9-25

Natterer’s bat. Bat calls classified as WAB were recorded across all survey months

with the greatest number of calls obtained during the period June to October.

Records classified as Daubenton’s bat and those classified as Natterer’s bat were

obtained in each of the months from July to October.

9.104 No records of Myotis bats were obtained during transect surveys, likely reflecting

the low level use of the site by this species group.

9.105 Rates of activity for all three species/species groups were low across all monitoring

points with a maximum rate of 0.1 passes per night for both those classified as

Daubenton’s bat and those classified as Natterer’s bat, this maximum rate being

obtained at RMPC. The maximum rate of activity recorded for those classed as

the species group WAB was slightly higher, albeit remaining low (1.4 passes per

night) and was obtained at RMPB. Both these locations provide well linked,

sheltered foraging habitat.

9.106 The likelihood of any of these species/species groups roosting within the site is

considered low with the structures within the site considered to have at most a low

risk of use by roosting bats and trees generally being sound. All structures and all

trees considered to have a greater than negligible risk of use by roosting bats lie

more than 200m from the proposed turbines.

9.107 The stored bales may be used as an intermittent day roost by these species but

are unlikely to support significant roosts; these features are not permanent and

were re-built and moved around the site during the season.

9.108 The buildings off site to the east, associated with the hamlet of Fulbeck are of an

age likely to provide suitable conditions for these species to roost within and lie

within a landscape with abundant broadleaved trees, which would provide

suitable levels of cover for these species.

9.109 Consultation provided only a single roost record from this species group within 1km

of the survey area; a record of a Natterer’s bat roost within the village of

Stragglethorpe.

9.110 The site as a whole is concluded to be of local value to the species group WAB,

with the sheltered foraging areas provided by the straw bales, woodland areas

and interlinking hedgerows being particular features of importance. The open

arable fields however are considered to be of low value to this species group. The

site is considered to be of low value to Daubenton’s and Natterer’s bat, these

species recorded on a highly infrequent, low level basis.



9-26

Great Crested Newt

9.111 It is concluded that great crested newt are most likely absent from the survey

area. The local records centre provided a single record of the species within 2km

of the survey area, a record from 2km distant, dating from 1995. The only

potentially suitable wetland habitat within the site is a fishing lake stocked with fish

and used by wildfowl. This lake had a suitability score of 0.4 indicating below

average suitability for this species.

9.112 A small number of wetlands are present in the surrounding area, within 500m of

the survey area, however these are predominantly man-made with a number

used as fishing lakes. Only a single small garden pond is known within this 500m

buffer and this lies enclosed with the walled garden of a private house.

9.113 Given the low suitability of the only wetland present within the survey area and

the small number and general unsuitability or inaccessibility of the waterbodies in

the surrounding landscape, it is considered unlikely the species is present within

the survey area.

Otter

9.114 No definitive sign of otter activity was noted within the survey area however likely

use of an area of dense scrub adjacent to the Sand Beck has been identified and

it is considered likely this watercourse is used as a commuting route. The fishing

lake provides a good foraging resource and the larger field drains to the west of

the site will also provide potential movement corridors. Disturbance levels within

the site, associated with agricultural operations, the use of the site for bale storage

and the go-kart track, are however likely to limit the value of the site and to

preclude breeding within the site.

9.115 The site as a whole is considered to be of local value to the species.

Reptiles

9.116 The Proposed Development footprint comprises arable land with limited loss of

hedgerow, tall ruderal and coarse grass vegetation. Given the nature of these

habitats and the limited footprint of the development, detailed survey for reptiles

was not considered necessary. Common lizard, slow worm and grass snake are

likely to be present in the area and may be present within the proposed

construction footprint in very small numbers.



9-27

9.117 The residual risk of works affecting these species will be addressed through a

method statement to be adhered to during site clearance works. The survey

area, given the nature of the habitats and abundance of similar habitat in the

surrounding area, is likely to be of, at most, low value to reptiles.

Water Vole

9.118 No definitive evidence of water vole activity was recorded within the survey area

although the Sand Beck and larger field drains to the west provide some suitable

habitat. Given the lack of field signs indicating the presence of this species, the risk

of a resident population being present is low. The species is known to have

historically been present in the area with LERC providing records from the vicinity

dating from the 1970’s. The survey area is concluded to be of at most low value to

this species.

Additional Species

9.119 Brown hare, muntjac deer and roe deer are present within the survey area with a

number of individuals recorded during survey.

9.120 The survey area supports a diverse assemblage of butterflies with the matrix of

habitats providing good quality habitat for a range of species. The assemblage is

currently considered to be of parish to district value however without appropriate

future management, the value of the site is likely to decline as further scrub

encroachment occurs and grassland quality further declines through the effects

of agricultural practices.

Summary of Baseline

9.121 The table below summarises the key receptors identified through consultation and

baseline survey.

Table 9.9: Summary: Receptor importance

Receptor Value and

significance

of resource

or receptor1

Sensitivity2

Arable Land Low Low

Improved Grassland Low Low

Coarse Grassland/Ruderal Vegetation

Matrix

Low to Local Low

Scrub/Ruderal/Broadleaved Tree Matrix Local Low



9-28

Plantation Woodland Low to Local Low

Fishing Lake Low Low

Sand Beck and larger Field Drains Parish Low

Small Drainage Ditches Low Low

Hard Standing Low Low

Badger Low Low

Nyctalus: Noctule Low Low

Nyctalus: Leisler’s Low Low

Nathusius’ pipistrelle Low Low

Barbastelle Low Low

Serotine Negligible Low

Brown long eared Low Low

Common pipistrelle Parish Low

Soprano pipistrelle Low Low

Myotis: WAB Local Low

Myotis: Daubenton’s Low Low

Myotis: Natterer’s Low Low

Great crested newt Most likely absent

Otter Local Low

Reptiles Low Low

Water vole Low Low

Butterflies Parish to District Low to Medium

Notes:

1) As assessed against Table 9.2: Value and Significance of Resource or Receptor

2) As categorised in Table 9.3: Sensitivity of Resource or Receptor


Predicted effects of the scheme: construction

Habitat Loss (for the duration of the scheme)

9.122 The Proposed Development would result in (for the lifespan of the wind farm) the

loss of approximately 2.5ha of habitat considered to be of low to local

conservation value and low sensitivity, primarily intensively farmed arable land

with some limited loss of coarse grassland and tall ruderal vegetation and two 5m

in length sections of species poor hedgerow (total loss 10m).

9.123 It is not envisaged that any tree works will be required.

9.124 Design has maximised use of the existing runways, minimising the extent of

additional track to be constructed and therefore the associated habitat loss. The



9-29

habitats to be lost are common within the surrounding landscape which is

dominated by similar agricultural land.

9.125 Careful micro-siting of turbines and associated infrastructure will be undertaken to

ensure that a minimum six metre standoff is achieved where infrastructure is

located in the immediate vicinity of a drainage board and Environment Agency

maintained classified surface watercourse, considered to be all parts of the Site

with the exception of the bridge that crosses the Sand Beck.

9.126 The existing bridge over the Sand Beck will be subject to detailed survey at the

pre-construction stage. If necessary it will be upgraded or replaced.

9.127 Given the small area of habitat to be lost to the Proposed Development and the

low sensitivity of these habitats the Proposed Development is not predicted to

have a significant environmental effect on these receptors. The habitat to be lost

is considered to be of low sensitivity and the magnitude of change is considered

to be negligible and would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

Habitat Loss (temporary – during construction)

9.128 During the construction phase of the Proposed Development the existing

compound area will be used for the temporary construction compound. This area

is currently hard standing and as such there will be no additional loss of habitat

during the construction phase.

Habitat Effects in Relation to Protected/LBAP Species

Badger

9.129 The Proposed Development would cause the long-term loss of up to 2.5 ha of

agricultural land likely to be used as foraging habitat by badger resident in the

wider landscape. However the wider survey area and broader countryside

provides extensive foraging opportunities of similar value to badger and given the

small area of habitat to be lost, it is concluded that this habitat loss would have a

negligible effect on the local population. Habitat loss would be of negligible

magnitude acting on a receptor of low sensitivity and would not give rise to a


9.130 The limited extent of additional access track to be constructed and relatively

narrow width is such that this element of the Proposed Development is unlikely to

cause severance within the landscape with regard to this species and all

remaining currently available foraging habitat will remain accessible.



9-30

Bats

9.131 The Proposed Development would cause the long term loss of up to 2.5 ha of

habitat of low value to foraging or commuting bats comprising arable and limited

areas of tall ruderal and coarse grassland habitat and 10m of species-poor

defunct hedgerow.

9.132 Survey has indicated levels of use of these habitat types is low and limited to use

by small numbers of foraging bats, primarily common pipistrelle with very low levels

of activity by bats of the Myotis genus, noctule/Leisler’s, serotine, brown long

eared bat, barabstelle, soprano pipistrelle and Nathusius’ pipistrelle associated

with these habitat types.

9.133 All areas of higher value foraging habitat in the vicinity are located outside of the

construction area and would not be directly affected by the Proposed

Development. The Proposed Development would not result in the loss of any areas

of woodland and would not require any tree works.

9.134 Overall it is concluded that habitat loss caused by the Proposed Development will

result in a magnitude of change which is negligible, on receptors of low sensitivity,

and will not give rise to a likely significant effect.

Butterflies

9.135 The survey area is concluded to be of parish to district value to butterflies (low to

medium sensitivity). Although the Proposed Development will primarily result in the

loss of arable land, there will be some loss of tall ruderal and coarse grassland

habitats of particular value to butterflies. Given the current extent of this habitat

type within the survey area with extensive areas to remain unaffected present

around the margins of woodland and alongside the runways, this loss is

considered to be an impact of slight magnitude. This will not give rise to a likely

significant effect.

Otter

9.136 It is concluded that the survey area is of local value to otter with individuals likely

to commute through the survey area via the Sand Beck at times, potentially lying

up within an area of scrub adjacent and foraging within the fishing lake. However,

as habitat loss is limited to agricultural land and the closest area of habitat to be

lost lies over 500m distant from the Sand Beck, habitat loss is not predicted to

impact on this species and will not give rise to a likely significant effect.



9-31


pre-construction stage. If necessary it will be upgraded or replaced. Pre-

construction survey will include appropriate checking surveys in relation to otter.

Reptiles

9.138 It is considered that the wider survey area is likely to support common lizard, grass

snake and/or slow worm. However the Proposed Development will primarily effect

intensively managed agricultural land of little value to reptiles.

9.139 As such the Proposed Development is predicted to have an impact of negligible

magnitude of change on local populations of these species, which given the low

value of the development footprint and low sensitivity of this receptor, will not give

rise to a likely significant effect.

Water Vole



habitat. The survey area is concluded to be of at most low value to this species.

9.141 The Proposed Development primarily uses existing access tracks and drain

crossings. Careful micro-siting of turbines and associated new infrastructure will be

undertaken to ensure that a minimum six metre standoff is achieved where

infrastructure is located in the immediate vicinity of a drainage board and

Environment Agency maintained classified surface watercourse, considered to be

all parts of the Site with the exception of the bridge that crosses Sand Beck.

9.142 Given this, no potential water vole habitat will be lost to the proposals.



construction survey will include appropriate checking surveys in relation to water

vole.

9.144 Given the above, the Proposed Development is predicted to have a negligible

magnitude impact on the local population, which given the low value of the

development footprint and low sensitivity of this receptor will not give rise to a




9-32

Additional Species

9.145 Brown hare are present within the survey area however the average range of

individuals of this species is such that the limited scale of the habitat loss caused

by the Proposed Development would have a negligible magnitude of change on

the local population and will not give rise to a likely significant effect.

9.146 No other impacts on protected species or LBAP species are predicted through

habitat loss.

Disturbance – Construction Phase (Temporary)

9.147 The construction phase of the Proposed Development would cause short-term

disturbance of the development footprint and its immediate surroundings.

Badger

9.148 The construction phase of the Proposed Development could cause disturbance to

foraging individuals. No setts have been identified within 30m of the construction

footprint and as such no sett disturbance is predicted. A pre-construction

checking survey will be undertaken to confirm the location of any currently active

setts and any additional licensing or mitigation requirements agreed with the local

authority at this stage.

9.149 As the wider survey area and broader countryside provides habitats of a similar

nature and therefore foraging opportunities of similar value to badger, it is

considered that disturbance during the construction phase would have a

negligible magnitude of change on a receptor of low sensitivity and will not give

rise to a likely significant effect on the local badger population. It is likely that any

existing foraging activity can readily be absorbed by the abundant surrounding

farmland.

9.150 Given the presence of badger in the wider area, construction works will be

undertaken to a method statement (Appendix 9.4), detailing precautionary

working methods in order to further minimise the risk of badger being harmed

during works.

Bats

9.151 Site assessment has determined that the habitats within which the construction

footprint of the Proposed Development lies are of low value to bats with only low

levels of primarily common pipistrelle recorded, with soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius



9-33

pipistrelle, noctule/Leisler’s, serotine, barbastelle, brown long eared and Myotis

species also recorded at very low levels.

9.152 There are no permanent man-made structures or trees which provide potential

roost sites within 200m of the construction footprint of the Proposed Development.

9.153 A number of straw bale storage areas lie within 200m of the proposed turbines.

Survey data suggests that the bale stacks may at times be used by individual bats;

however these bale stacks are transient structures that are regularly moved and

disturbed as part of on-going works at the site and use of some or all of these

areas for bale storage is likely to cease prior to wind farm construction.

9.154 Construction works are likely to largely be limited to daylight hours such that the

majority of disturbance will occur out-with the bat activity period. Works may

potentially extend into the early evening potentially dissuading foraging activity

within the construction area during the early part of the night, however, it is not

considered that this would have a significant impact on local bat populations

given the limited extent of the construction area, extent of similar habitat in the

wider area and current low levels of use.

9.155 Overall it is predicted that the construction phase would as a worst-case scenario,

have a negligible magnitude impact on the local bat population through

potential displacement of foraging bats from the construction area. Given the low

levels of use and therefore low sensitivity of the receptor, this would not give rise to

a likely significant effect.

Otter

9.156 It is concluded that otter are likely to use the Sand Beck and adjacent scrub at

times and may forage within the fishing lake.

9.157 As the closest proposed turbine lies over 500m from these features and existing

runways and access roads are to be used closer to these features and as

construction works will primarily be limited to daylight hours significant disturbance

effects are unlikely. Otter are primarily active at dusk and dawn.



construction survey will include appropriate checking surveys in relation to otter.

No evidence of otter activity was recorded in the vicinity of this bridge during

survey,



9-34

9.159 Given the above, it is considered that the effect of constructional disturbance will

be of negligible magnitude, acting on a receptor of low sensitivity, and will not

give rise to a likely significant effect on the local otter population.

9.160 Given the potential presence of this species in the area, works will be undertaken

to a precautionary working method statement (Appendix 9.5), in order to address

the residual risk of individuals entering the construction area during works.

Reptiles

9.161 Site assessment has indicated that common lizard, grass snake and/or slow worm

are likely to be present in the survey area at low densities. However, the

construction footprint is primarily limited to arable land, where the risk of reptiles

being present and harmed or disturbed during construction works is low. In order

to address the residual risk of individuals being harmed or disturbed during

construction, vegetation clearance works will be undertaken to a method

statement (Appendix 9.6).

9.162 Overall it is considered that the construction phase would as a worst-case

scenario have only a negligible short-term magnitude of change and will not give

rise to a likely significant effect on the local reptile population.

Water Vole



habitat. The survey area is concluded to be of at most low value to this species.

9.164 The Proposed Development primarily uses existing access tracks and drain

crossings and careful micro-siting of turbines and associated new infrastructure will

ensure that a minimum six metre standoff to all drains with the exception of the

bridge that crosses Sand Beck.



construction survey will include appropriate checking surveys in relation to water

vole.

9.166 Given the above, the Proposed Development is predicted to have a negligible

magnitude impact on the local population through disturbance during the

construction phase, which given the low value of the development footprint and

low sensitivity of this receptor, will not give rise to a likely significant effect.



9-35

Additional Species

9.167 It is considered that the Proposed Development would not impact on any other

protected species or LBAP species through disturbance during construction. Brown

hare are likely to be present within the wider survey area on occasion, however

individuals of this species range on average over around 30 ha and as such, any

disturbance caused by the construction phase would not give rise to a likely

significant effect on the local population.

Predicted effects of the scheme: operation

Disturbance - Site Operation

Bats

9.168 Research has shown that bats may be affected by wind turbines in a number of

ways; through direct collision with the turbine blades, through barotrauma caused

by rapid air-pressure reduction near moving turbine blades, resulting in internal

haemorrhaging, and through disturbance causing bats to be displaced from the

vicinity of the turbines.

9.169 Survey data indicates that levels of bat activity within the wider survey area is

limited, with primarily common pipistrelle recorded, with low to very low levels of

activity attributable to soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, Myotis bats, brown

long eared, serotine, barbastelle and Nyctalus bats.

9.170 The layout of the Proposed Development is such that the risk of both direct

mortality through collision or barotrauma and disturbance by either ultrasound or

sound in the audible range has been minimised. As recommended by Natural

England, turbines have been located at least 50m from all high risk features

including all permanent man-made structures, hedgerows, significant drains and

woodland.

9.171 The buffer between the turbine locations and these key features minimises the risk

of collision and ensures that there is no risk of disturbance of these key areas from

either ultrasonic noise or that in the audible range. High frequency sound

attenuates rapidly with distance.

9.172 All turbines are to be positioned within arable habitat, a habitat type which is

generally less well used by bats than other habitat types such as the woodland



9-36

and wetland habitats and green corridors such as hedge lines and drainage

ditches.

9.173 Arable habitat is known to provide in general a poor quality foraging resource for

bats due the intensive management of the land, reducing the prey availability.

This assessment is supported by a range of research ( (Altringham, 2003), (Brandt,

et al., 2007), (Downs & Racey, 2006), (Ekman & De Jong, 1996), (Hundt, 2012),

(Walsh & Harris, 1996)) and the results of the bat surveys completed at this site.

9.174 Turbines will have a cut in speed of 4m/sec and at wind speeds below this level

the turbine blades will be stationary. This means that at low wind speeds or under

still conditions, the most optimal feeding conditions for bats, there will be no risk of

collision with moving blades. It is in still or low wind speed conditions when bats of

many species are most likely to be found foraging in the open, favouring sheltered

areas when wind conditions are higher.

9.175 In terms of displacement through disturbance, the worst case scenario is

considered to be the displacement of very small numbers of bats, primarily

common pipistrelle, from the immediate vicinity of the turbines, an area of poor

quality habitat where survey has recorded low levels of bat activity.

9.176 It is considered that any displacement, given the extent of similar habitat in the

surrounding landscape and lack of proven roosts in close proximity to the

proposed turbines, would equate to a negligible magnitude of change in relation

to local populations. The bat population using the wider survey area is concluded

to be of low value and therefore low sensitivity and as such an impact of this

magnitude would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

9.177 The table below details the risk of bat species being threatened at the population

level due to impacts from operational wind turbines as considered by Natural

England (Natural England, 2012).



9-37

Table 9.10: Bat Species – Risk of Effect at Population Level

High Risk Species – Nyctalus Genus: Noctule and Leisler’s

9.178 Survey and consultation data indicate that these species are present within the

survey area very infrequently. Activity within the wider site indicates that

individuals pass through the area rather than remaining on site to forage. The calls

of these species are relatively loud with noctule potentially being recorded at

over 100m distance and Leisler’s bat at 60-80m distance (Rodrigues, et al., 2008))

and it would be expected that any more regular use of the site, for example as

part a core foraging area, would have produced a greater number of records.

9.179 Both species are primarily tree roosting species; there are no potential tree roosts

within 200m of the proposed turbines and no trees considered to have a greater

than low risk of supporting roosts within the wider survey area. This species is a

strong fast flying species which can travel substantial distances from roost sites on

a given night. Areas of higher quality habitat including mature trees likely to

provide suitable roost locations and areas of woodland, parkland and pasture

providing a high quality foraging resource, are present to the north and east of

the survey area, associated with the villages of Stragglethorpe (800m to the

north), Fulbeck (3.7km to the east) and Leadenham (4km to the north east). These

areas provide more likely roost locations for this species.

9.180 These species are considered to be at a high risk from collision with operational

wind turbines with casualties having been recorded at wind farms in other

European countries (Rydell, et al., 2010). However the level of activity of this

species within the site is considered to be low and intermittent such that the risk of

individuals colliding with any individual turbine is considered to be low.

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Myotis species Serotine Noctule

Long-eared bats Barbastelle Leisler’s bat

Horseshoe bats Nathusius pipistrelle

Common pipistrelle

Soprano pipistrelle



9-38

9.181 The risk of collision is further reduced by the cut in speed of the turbine blades,

with optimal foraging conditions, when bats are most likely to be foraging in open

habitats, coinciding with low wind speed or still conditions when the turbines will

be non-operational.

9.182 Given the above, collision risk is not predicted to give rise to a likely significant

effect on the local population..

High Risk Species – Nathusius’ pipistrelle

9.183 The level of activity recorded associated with this species indicates the survey

area is used very infrequently and most likely by individual foraging bats. There are

no potential roost sites for this species within 200m of the proposed turbine

locations. The survey area is concluded to be of low value to this species.

9.184 This species is thought to be rare within Lincolnshire (Collop, 2011) and is

considered particularly vulnerable to collision with operational turbines if these are

positioned on key migration routes.

9.185 The very few records obtained of this species were spread throughout the survey

months with no particular peak during the autumn that would indicate migratory

activity.

9.186 Given the site design, including buffers between the turbine blades and all key

features such as woodland edge and hedgerows, the cut in speed of the turbines,

and the low level infrequent use of the site by this species, the likelihood of an

impact occurring on this species is considered to be low and not give rise to a


Medium Risk: Barbastelle

9.187 The site is considered likely to be of only low value to this species, lacking the

interlinked high quality woodland habitats favoured by the species. All potential

roost sites within 200m of the proposed turbine locations, apart from the stacked

straw bales, are considered to have a negligible risk of use. Survey indicates the

straw bales may be used intermittently by individual bats, however these

structures are transient and regularly moved/disturbed.

9.188 This species was recorded on a single occasion during transect surveys; toward

the southern edge of the site during the May 2014 survey. A total of 267 passes of

this species were recorded during remote monitoring (1% of all bat passes

recorded) with records obtained during every survey month. The species was



9-39

recorded on 79 out of the total of 528 night’s survey effort completed across all

four monitoring points.

9.189 On the majority of nights when this species was recorded, less than ten passes

were recorded across all monitoring points. The exception to this was a three night

period in July 2014 when higher levels (max. count 38 passes per night) were

recorded at the remote monitoring point which lies at a crossroads within a

plantation woodland. The location provides a sheltered feeding area with good

levels of cover, particularly suitable for this species which is generally found flying

close to vegetation. The recommended buffer of 50m has been implemented

between this woodland block and the blade tips of the turbines.

9.190 The timing of the first and last records during this period do not indicate a roost in

close proximity, with the first and last records of the species occurring between 2

and 4 hours after sunset and before sunrise.

9.191 On seven occasions the species was recorded within the survey area within one

hour of sunset. Given the emergence times for this species, these records may

indicate bats emerging from roosts within or in close proximity to the survey area.

Two of the remote monitoring points where this occurred lie adjacent to bale

storage areas and these records may indicate intermittent use of these transient

structures by individual bats. It is possible that use of these areas within 200m of the

proposed turbines for bale storage will cease prior to the construction of the wind

farm.

9.192 This species is thought to be widespread in Lincolnshire (Collop, 2011).

9.193 Given the apparent low value of the site to this species and implementation of

buffers to the key areas of activity, the likelihood of the proposed development

giving rise to a likely significant effect on this species is considered low.

Medium Risk: Serotine

9.194 This species was recorded at very low frequency with a total of only 3 records

obtained through both transect and remote monitoring surveys. The survey area is

concluded to be of negligible value to the species. Given this very low and

infrequent use of the area, the risk of collision with any individual turbine is

considered to be negligible and not predicted to give rise to a likely significant

effect on the local population.



9-40

Low Risk: Myotis Genus – WAB/Natterer’s/Daubenton’s

9.195 The site as a whole is concluded to be of local value to the species group WAB,

with the sheltered foraging areas provided by the straw bales, woodland areas

and interlinking hedgerows being particular features of importance. The open

arable fields however are considered to be of low value to this species group. The

site is considered to be of low value to Daubenton’s and Natterer’s bat, these

species recorded on a highly infrequent, low level basis.

9.196 Natural England consider species of the Myotis genus to have a low risk of being

affected at the population level by operational turbines due to the flight

characteristics of the species and the population sizes. The incorporation of

appropriate buffer between the turbine blade tips and key foraging habitat and

commuting features such as drains and hedgerows will further reduce the risk of

impact.

9.197 Based on this, potential collision risk is not predicted to give rise to a likely

significant effect.

Low Risk – Brown long eared bat

9.198 Activity associated with this species was recorded at very low levels and it is

concluded that the site is of only low value to this species. All but one record of

this species was obtained from the crossroads within the main woodland block

within the site. Appropriate buffers have been employed ensuring a 50m stand-off

between the turbine blade tips and the edge of this woodland.

9.199 As a slow flying species which is generally found in close proximity to vegetation,

given the low level use of the site, collision risk is not predicted to give rise to a


Low Risk: Common and Soprano Pipistrelle

9.200 Over 95% of all records obtained during remote monitoring were attributable to

the common pipistrelle with a further 0.24% attributable to the soprano pipistrelle.

These species were recorded in all habitat types; although activity was generally

focused on edge habitats including tree and hedge lines and woodland edges.

Occasional pipistrelle records were made within the open fields where there is

little cover.

9.201 The areas of the site most commonly used by these species appear to be the

hedge lined tracks, woodland edges and areas where the stacked straw bales



9-41

and adjacent ruderal and coarse grass habitats create sheltered feeding areas.

Although not specifically covered by survey, the fishing lake to the east of the site

is also likely to be of value.

9.202 The implementation of the recommended 50m buffer between the turbine blade

tips and the majority of the key features identified above including all woodland

edge and hedgerow combined with the proposed management of an area of

ruderal vegetation in proximity to T9 and T10 to reduce the foraging value of this

area will further reduce the risk of impact.

9.203 This, combined with the low risk of these species being affected at the population

level leads to the conclusion that collision risk will not give rise to a likely significant

effect on the local population.

Badger

9.204 It is considered that the operational phase of the Proposed Development will not

give rise to a likely significant effect on the local badger population.

9.205 A search of the literature has not identified any evidence that operational wind

farms have an impact on badgers, although concerns have been raised that the

motion of the turbines and noise during the operational phase may dissuade

badgers from using the habitat in the immediate vicinity of individual turbines.

9.206 Given the nature of the habitats within the areas where the turbines are to be

constructed and the abundance of similar habitats in the broader area, it is

considered that any displacement from the immediate vicinity would have be a

change of negligible magnitude in relation to the local population. An impact of

this magnitude would not give rise to a likely significant effect

Additional Species

9.207 It is considered that the operational phase of the wind farm would have no

impact on butterflies, otter, water vole, reptiles or brown hare, all either known or

likely to be present in the area, with there being no evidence of these species

being affected by the operation of wind turbines.



9-42

Predicted effects of the scheme: decommissioning

Disturbance – De-Commissioning (Temporary)

9.208 It is predicted that the de-commissioning phase of the Proposed Development

would have impacts of similar magnitude of change on local protected species

populations as the construction process. Impacts will, if anything, be slightly lower

as some of the infrastructure is likely to be left in-situ following decommissioning for

continued use by the landowner, for example sections of the proposed access

tracks.

9.209 Checking surveys will be completed prior to decommissioning, particularly with

respect to badger, water vole and nesting birds, in order to confirm appropriate

timings, working methods and licensing requirements.

9.210 It is predicted that this phase will have a negligible magnitude of impact on local

protected species populations, which coupled with the low sensitivity of these

receptors will not give rise to a likely significant effect.

Cumulative Effects


9.211 The table below details the key receptors, the likely environmental effects and the

likely environmental cumulative effects of all stages of the Proposed Development

when considered together.

Table 9.11 Type 1 Cumulative Effects Key Receptors Stage of Development Predicted Effect Cumulative Effect

Habitat – 2.5ha of primarily

agricultural land with limited

coarse grass and tall ruderal

vegetation loss and 10m of

species poor hedgerow

Construction

Long-term loss of 2.5ha – negligible

effect

No cumulative effect No short term loss – temporary

construction compound to use existing

hard standing

Badger

Construction

Habitat loss – negligible effect No significant cumulative effect

predicted. Negligible effect of

habitat loss and disturbance

during construction and

operation not predicted to

have a likely significant effect

on the local population with

extensive suitable habitat for this

species present in the wider

area.

Disturbance – negligible effect

Operation Disturbance – negligible effect

De-commissioning No effect predicted

Bats Construction Habitat loss – negligible effect All potential effects are

predicted to be of negligible to



9-43

Key Receptors Stage of Development Predicted Effect Cumulative Effect

Disturbance – negligible effect low magnitude and no likely

significant effects on the local

populations are predicted.

Site design has ensured no tree

loss, limited habitat loss to

habitats of low value to bats

and implemented buffers to

higher value habitats. In

addition, habitat management

is proposed around T9 and T10

reducing the value of this area

of ruderal vegetation to

foraging bats.

Operation

Potential displacement/mortality –

Low to Negligible effect


Otter

Construction

Habitat loss – no impact

No cumulative effect


Operation No effect predicted


Reptiles

Construction

Habitat loss – negligible effect No likely significant cumulative

effect. Negligible effect of


during construction not

predicted to have a likely

significant effect on the local

population, with suitable habitat

for reptiles present in the wider

area and unaffected by

proposals.




Water vole

Construction

Habitat loss – negligible effect No likely significant cumulative

effect. Negligible effect of


during construction not



populations of this taxa, with

extensive suitable habitat for

these species present in the

wider area and unaffected by

proposals.





9.212 Type 2 effects (cumulative effects of multiple developments) on key receptors

have been considered over a 10km radius. Three multi-turbine renewables

schemes lie within this area: Hawton Wind Farm (3 turbine scheme - consented),

Fox Covert Wind Farm (in planning) and Temple Hill Wind Farm (5 turbine scheme -

refused).



9-44

9.213 The table below identifies the predicted effects of each of these schemes on the

key receptors and discusses the potential in-combination effects of these schemes




9-45

Table 9.12 Type 2 Cumulative Effects Predicted Effect

Key receptor Temple Hill Wind Farm Fox Covert Wind Farm Hawton Wind Farm Fulbeck Wind Farm Cumulative Effect

Habitat –

Primarily

agricultural land

with limited tall

ruderal and

coarse grass

vegetation and

species-poor

hedgerow

2.62ha permanent loss of arable land

496m of species poor hedgerow loss,

449m to be re-instated

1.6ha of arable land lost

246m of hedgerow to be

removed

Loss of 1.16ha of arable land

and 0.13ha of improved

grassland

Loss of 40m of intact species-

poor hedgerow

Loss of 2.5ha of primarily arable

land with limited coarse grass

and ruderal vegetation loss.

Loss of 10m of species poor

hedgerow. Habitat

management proposed to

enhance 1.75km of existing

hedgerow (see below).

Cumulative loss of arable land not

predicted to have a likely significant

effect given the extent of similar

habitat within the surrounding

landscape and the generally low

ecological value of this intensively

managed habitat type.

Minor loss of species poor hedgerow

considered to be off-set by

enhancement proposals such that no

likely significant cumulative effect on

this receptor envisaged.

Badger Impacts on badger setts are not

predicted.

Potential trapping/injury during

construction phase – to be addressed

through mitigation

Limited loss of foraging

habitat

Minor disturbance during

construction to population

of district value

No impact predicted Negligible effect of habitat loss

and disturbance during

construction and operation not



population with extensive

suitable habitat for this species

present in the wider area.

No setts affected.

Cumulative loss of habitat not

predicted to be significant in context

of abundant similar habitat present in

wider landscape and low level

badger activity recorded across

majority of sites.

No likely significant cumulative effect

on local badger population

predicted.

Bats Potential loss of a noctule roost through

collision, an impact significant at a

local or district level

Risk of impacting on Nathusius pipistrelle

considered very low

Risk of impacting on barbastelle

considered low, any impact only

significant at most at a site level

Minor disturbance during

construction

Impacts of operational

turbines on common,

soprano and Nathusius

pipistrelle, brown long

eared bat and Nyctalus

species considered unlikely.

Impacts of operational

Effect of habitat loss

considered near certain to

be not significant. No roost

features or high value bat

habitats to be lost.

Potential effects of

construction related

disturbance considered near-

certain to be not significant.

All potential effects are

predicted to be of negligible to

low magnitude and no likely

significant effects on the local

populations are predicted.

Site design has ensured no tree

loss, limited habitat loss to

habitats of low value to bats

and implemented buffers to

higher value habitats. In

No likely significant effect through

habitat loss predicted.

Potential likely significant cumulative

effect during operational phase

considered unlikely.



9-46

Predicted Effect


Risk of impacting on Leisler’s bat

considered very low or negligible

Any impact on common and/or

soprano pipistrelle only significant at a

site level

Any impact on Myotis species and

brown long eared bat predicted to be

negligible at a site level

turbines on Myotis species

and barbastelle considered

extremely unlikely.

Operational impacts:

Nathusius pipistrelle - risk of

collision unlikely

Nyctalus species – individual

fatalities cannot be ruled out

but are unlikely to adversely

affect the population. Effect

of collision probably not

significant.

Common and soprano

pipistrelle: Risk of collision to

individuals unlikely.

Brown long eared bat,

Serotine, Myotis species:

Individuals and populations

unlikely to be adversely

affected.

addition, habitat management

is proposed around T9 and T10

reducing the value of this area

of ruderal vegetation to

Great crested

newt

No evidence of species within site No impact predicted No evidence of species

within site

No impact predicted. No impact predicted at any site

therefore no likely significant

cumulative effect predicted.

Otter No evidence of species within site Impact on otter predicted

to be neutral

No evidence of species

within site

Construction disturbance

predicted to have a negligible

effect. No other impact

predicted.

Impact on species only predicted at

Fulbeck (albeit negligible effect of

construction related disturbance),

therefore no likely significant

cumulative effect.

Reptiles Unlikely to be affected by the proposed

works

No impact predicted Risk of harming or disturbing

during construction

considered extremely

unlikely. No other impacts

predicted.

Negligible effect of habitat loss


construction not predicted to


on the local population, with

suitable habitat for reptiles

No impact on this taxa predicted or

impact considered unlikely or

extremely unlikely therefore no likely

significant cumulative effect.



9-47

Predicted Effect


present in the wider area and

unaffected by proposals.

Water Vole No evidence of species within site Impact on water vole

predicted to be neutral

No evidence of species

within site

Negligible effect of habitat loss


construction not predicted to


on the local populations of this

taxa, with extensive suitable

habitat for these species

present in the wider area and

unaffected by proposals.

Adverse impact on species only

predicted at Fulbeck (albeit negligible

effect of construction related

disturbance), therefore no likely

significant cumulative effect.

Fulbeck Airfield Extension Volume 1 Chapter 9 Non-Avian Ecology


9-48


9.214 The number and position of the proposed turbines has evolved in response to the

results of ecological survey. Turbines have been positioned to ensure appropriate

buffers between blades and key ecological features.

Badger

9.215 Two months prior to construction or decommissioning work commencing an

additional badger checking survey will be undertaken in order to confirm the

location of any currently active setts and any licensing requirements.

9.216 Based on current survey data, works will not result in either the loss or disturbance

of any setts.

9.217 As badgers are likely to be resident within the surrounding landscape and may

stray into the working area during the construction phase all works will be

undertaken in accordance with a Badger Method Statement (see Appendix 9.4).

Bats

9.218 No works affecting the man-made structures within the wider survey area are

proposed as part of the Proposed Development. No tree works are proposed. As

such there is no requirement for specific working methods relating to bats.

9.219 An area of ruderal vegetation in proximity to T9 and T10 (see Figure 9.2) is to be

managed to reduce the value of the area to foraging bats. Habitat will be

strimmed on a bi-monthly basis during the period March to September inclusive,

maintaining a sward height of 8-10cm.

9.220 Given the low levels of bat activity recorded within the survey area and the

location of the turbines within open arable land, it is not considered that post-

development monitoring of the bat population is warranted.

Otter

9.221 Otter may be present within the survey area and move through the survey area at

times. No resting sites or potential resting sites have been identified within 500m of

the closest proposed turbine and exiting runways and access roads are to be

used closer to the features that may be used by otter. Should the bridge over the

Sand Beck require upgrading or replacing, pre-construction checking surveys of

the working area and a 30m buffer zone will be completed within 2 months prior

to works commencing. Should a resting place be identified during this checking

survey in a location potentially affected by the proposed works an appropriate



9-49

mitigation scheme, including licensing if appropriate would be agreed with the

local authority prior to works commencing.

9.222 As with badger, individual otter may stray into the working area and as such all

works will be undertaken in accordance with the Otter Method Statement (see

Appendix 9.5).

9.223 Where the proposed access tracks cross the existing ditch system, water crossing

design will ensure no severance to the ditch system, allowing otter to continue to

move through the survey area.

Reptiles

9.224 The construction footprint is relatively small and primarily limited to areas of arable

land. Site assessment has indicated that only low populations of common lizard,

grass snake and/or slow worm are likely to be present within the survey area. It is

therefore not considered that trapping out the construction area prior to works is

justified. However, vegetation clearance works will be undertaken to a method

statement in order to address the residual risk of individual reptiles being present

within the construction area (see Appendix 9.6).

Water Vole

9.225 Field survey has not confirmed the presence of water vole although the Sand

Beck and larger field drains to he west provide some suitable habitat. If the

existing bridge over the Sand Beck required upgrading or replacing further

checking surveys will be undertaken three months prior to bridge works

commencing to determine the presence/absence of the species from the

proposed working area and a 10m buffer zone.

9.226 Should water vole be found to be present, either within the proposed construction

area or within a 10m buffer zone, an appropriate mitigation strategy will be

developed in liaison with Natural England. This will include, if necessary, trapping

and removal of voles from the construction area and enhancement of habitat

outwith the working area to ensure the long term conservation status of the local

population.

9.227 All works will be undertaken to Environment Agency guidelines, to ensure

protection of the watercourses within and adjacent to the survey area ensuring

no long term adverse impacts.

9.228 Good practice working methods will be implemented, ensuring the construction

area is minimised.



9-50

Habitat Creation/Enhancement

9.229 The text below provides a broad overview of the proposed habitat creation and

enhancement works. Proposals are illustrated within Figure 9.2 and will be subject

to a detailed management plan to be agreed with key consultees post-planning.

Hedgerow Management

9.230 The following hedgerow management will be implemented over approximately

1.75km of existing hedgerow, benefiting a range of wildlife including small

mammals and breeding passerines.

i) Trim in January or February to avoid destruction of birds nests and to allow

any berry crops to be used by wintering birds

ii) Trim on a two or three year rotation to ensure thick nesting cover is

available somewhere on site every year and to boost the berry crop and

populations of overwintering insects

iii) Avoid trimming all hedges in the same year

iv) Trim hedges to varying heights – under two metres in height benefits species

such as partridge, and linnet while turtle doves prefer wide hedgerows over

4m in height – and aim to create a wide, dense base which provides cover

for nesting birds and other wildlife

v) Plant up gaps using native species, locally sourced

vi) Plant in early winter

vii) Use plastic tubes to protect young plants from grazing

viii) Retain a grass strip at least 1m wide between the hedge and adjacent

crop to buffer the hedge from ploughing and spray drift

Nectar Rich Flower Mix

9.231 Approximately 0.9ha of nectar rich flower mix would be created. This habitat type

is of value to a range of wildlife, in particular providing a pollen and nectar food

source for a range of insects during the spring and summer. The management for

nectar rich flower mix would be as follows:

ix) A mix of 80% fine grasses and 20% legumes (such as red clover, alsike clover

and bird’s foot trefoil) to be sown at a seed rate of 15-20kg/ha

x) Establishment in March/April or July/August

xi) Half of the area to be cut in June to stimulate late flowering and the whole



9-51

area to then be cut in September or October

xii) Mix may need to be re-established after three to four years if the flowering

plant component has become depleted.

Scrub Planting

9.2 Native scrub will be planted over an area of approximately 0.16ha, creating a

small scale mosaic with adjacent nectar rich flower mix. This will provide areas of

shelter and cover for a range of species and also a berry rich food source.

9.3 The species mix will include the following and all specimens will be locally sourced:

hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), bramble, holly (Ilex

aquifolium), hazel (Corylus avellana), elder (Sambucus nigra), dog rose (Rosa

canina), broom (Cytisus scoparius) and sweet briar (Rosa rubiginosa)

xiii) The management for areas of scrub would be as follows:

xiv) Planting will be undertaken between November and March

xv) All stock will be of local provenance

xvi) Stands will be planted in clumps and will not be planted in rows as this can

create wind tunnels, edges of stands will be scalloped and species mixed

at random to maximise diversity.

xvii) Fencing or spiral guards or tubes will be used to prevent browsing during

establishment

xviii) Manage to prevent scrub encroachment into adjacent areas through

cutting in January - February

Wildlife Ponds

9.4 A series of wildlife ponds will be created. Design will seek to maximise benefit for a

range of wildlife including amphibians and insects. Details design to be agreed

with key consultees post-planning.

Field Margin Buffer Strips

9.232 Field margin buffer strips, 6m in width, will be created along approximately 780m

of arable field edge. Management of these areas will aim to create a tussocky

sward of benefit to both nesting birds and over-wintering insects.

xix) Margins to be established in autumn (August/September)

xx) Mix to include up to 30% cocksfoot or timothy grass and fine grasses such as

fescues and bents

xxi) In the first summer, cut the sward when it is approximately 10cm tall to

control weeds



9-52

xxii) Following first year of establishment, 3m width adjacent to the crop to be

cut annually, remaining 3m to be cut once every three years. Cutting to be

undertaken in the autumn.

Residual Effects

9.233 The table below summarises the predicted residual effects post-mitigation and

enhancement.

Table 9.13 Summary of residual effects on ecology

Impact Receptor

Sensitivity

of

Receptor

Magnitude of

Impact

(Without

mitigation)

Significance of

Predicted

Impact*

(Without

mitigation and

compensation)

Proposed

Mitigation/

Compensation

Magnitude of

Impact (With

mitigation and

compensation)

Significance of

Predicted

Impact* (With

mitigation and

compensation)

Habitat Loss (2.5ha)

Primarily arable

land with limited

loss of coarse

grass and tall

ruderal

vegetation and

10m of species-

poor hedgerow

Low Negligible Negligible Habitat

enhancement/

creation to

include

hedgerow

management,

creation of area

of nectar rich

flower, scrub

planting, wildlife

ponds and field

margin buffer

strips

Slight positive Minor

Badger Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Bats Low Negligible Negligible Slight positive Minor

Butterflies Low –

Medium Slight adverse

Moderate/Minor

- Minor Slight positive

Moderate/Minor

– Minor

Otter No Impact Slight positive Minor

Reptiles Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Water Vole Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Brown Hare Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Temporary

Disturbance

(Construction Phase)

Badger Low Negligible Negligible

Pre-construction

checking survey.

Construction

works to a

method

statement.


Bats Low Negligible Negligible None Negligible Negligible

Otter Low Negligible Negligible

Pre-construction

checking survey.

Construction

works to a

method

statement.


Reptiles Low Negligible Negligible

Works to a

method

statement


Water Vole Low Negligible Negligible

Pre-construction

checking survey.

Construction

works to a

method

statement if

appropriate.


Disturbance/Collision

(Operational Phase)

Bats Low Negligible Negligible

Site design has

ensured

appropriate

buffers to key

bat features.

Strimming of tall

ruderal

vegetation in

vicinity of T9 and

T10 will further

minimise value of

this area


Badger Low Negligible Negligible None Negligible Negligible

Temporary Badger Low Negligible Negligible Pre-works Negligible Negligible



9-53

Impact Receptor

Sensitivity

of

Receptor

Magnitude of

Impact

(Without

mitigation)

Significance of

Predicted

Impact*

(Without

mitigation and

compensation)

Proposed

Mitigation/

Compensation

Magnitude of

Impact (With

mitigation and

compensation)

Significance of

Predicted

Impact* (With

mitigation and

compensation)

Disturbance

(De-commissioning)

checking survey.

De-

commissioning

works to a

method

statement.

Bats Low Negligible Negligible None Negligible Negligible

Otter Low Negligible Negligible

Pre-works

checking survey.

De-

commissioning

works to a

method

statement.


Reptiles Low Negligible Negligible

Works to a

method

statement


Water Vole Low Negligible Negligible

Pre-works

checking survey.

De-

commissioning

works to a

method

statement if

appropriate.


*Negligible, Minor or Moderate/Minor effects are not deemed significant for the purposes of the EIA regulations

Summary

9.234 Habitats within the survey area primarily comprise arable land, improved

grassland and hard standing of low ecological value with areas of coarse

grassland and ruderal vegetation of low to local value. Features of greater value,

including The Sand Beck and areas of woodland are present but will not be

directly affected by the proposed development and will be protected from in-

direct effects through appropriate design and working methods.

9.235 The site was historically designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest,

designated primarily for the presence of grasslands thought at the time of

classification to be of importance in a regional context. However the site does

not now support grasslands of sufficient quality to meet the current criteria to be

classed as a Local Wildlife Site (the designation which has superseded SNCIs) and

it is considered likely that agricultural management of the site has resulted in a

decrease in the ecological value of the grasslands such that they are now of no

more than low to local ecological value.

9.236 Survey has identified use of the site at low levels by a range of bat species and

has also identified likely use at low levels by badger and otter and potential use

by water vole and reptiles such as slow worm, common lizard and/or grass snake.

The site is also concluded likely to be of up to district value for butterflies.



9-54

9.237 Site design has ensured potential impacts on protected or otherwise notable

species have been avoided as far as practical. The assessment concludes that

following the implementation of mitigation measures and habitat creation and

enhancement proposals, the proposed development would result in no likely

significant effects on key ecological receptors during the construction,

operational or decommissioning phases.



9-55

REFERENCES

Altringham, J., 2003. British Bats. s.l.:Collins New Naturalist Series.

Brandt, G. et al., 2007. Habitat associations of British bat species on

lowland farmland within the Upper Thames catchment area. Centre for

Wildlife Assessment & Conservation E-Journal, Volume 1, pp. 10-19.

Collop, C., 2011. Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan (3rd Edition), s.l.:

Lincolnshire Biodiversity Partnership.

Downs, N. & Racey, P., 2006. The use by bats of habitat features in mixed

farmland in Scotland. Acta Chiropterologica, Volume 8, pp. 169-185.

Ekman, M. & De Jong, J., 1996. Local patterns of distribution and resource

utilization of four bat species (Myotis brandtii, Eptesicus nilssoni, Plecotus

auritus and Pipistrellus pipistrellus) in patchy and continuous environments..

Journal of Zoology, Volume 238, pp. 571-580.

Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership, 2013. Local Wildlife Site Guidelines

for Greater Lincolnshire, s.l.: s.n.

Hundt, L., 2012. Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines. 2nd Edition ed.

s.l.:Bat Conservation Trust.

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 2006. Guidelines for

Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom, s.l.: IEEM.

Joint Nature Conservancy Council, 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat

Survey. s.l.:s.n.

Natural England, 2012. Technical Information Note TIN051: Bats and

onshore wind turbines interim guidance, s.l.: s.n.

Rodrigues, L. et al., 2008. Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm

projects, s.l.: UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Russ, J., 1999. The Bats of Britain and Ireland: echolocation calls, sound

analysis and species identification. s.l.:Alana Ecology Ltd.

Rydell, J. et al., 2010. Bat mortality at wind turbines in northwestern Europe.

Acta Chiropterologica, Volume 12, pp. 261-274.

Walsh, A. & Harris, S., 1996. Factors determining the abundance of

Vespertilionid bats in Britain: geographical, land class and local habitat

relationships. Journal of Applied Ecology, Volume 33, pp. 519-529.

Walsh, A. L. & Harris, S., 1996. Foraging habitat preferences of Vespertilionid

bats in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, Volume 33, pp. 508-518.



Chapter 10: Noise

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 10 Noise

Hoare Lea on behalf of Energiekontor UK Ltd | April 2015

CONTENTS

10 NOISE 10-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 10-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ..................................................................................... 10-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ...................................................... 10-2 Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................................. 10-7 Identification and Evaluation of Key Impacts ............................................................... 10-10 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................ 10-13 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 10-15 Residual Effects .................................................................................................................. 10-16 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 10-16 References ......................................................................................................................... 10-17

Tables

Table 10.1 – Free-field Noise Criteria against which Construction Noise Effects are

Assessed ..................................................................................................................................... 10-3

Table 10.2 – Summary of Consultee Comments ................................................................... 10-7

Table 10.3 – Assessment Properties in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development .......... 10-8

Table 10.4 – Day-time LA90,T Noise Limits Derived from the Baseline Noise Survey

According to ETSU-R-97 ............................................................................................................ 10-9

Table 10.5 - Night time LA90,T Noise Limits Derived from the Baseline Noise Survey

According to ETSU-R-97 .......................................................................................................... 10-10

Table 10.6 – Predicted Construction Noise Levels .............................................................. 10-11

Table 10.7 - Difference between the ETSU-R-97 Derived Day time Noise Limits and

the Cumulative Predicted LA90,T Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels at Each Noise

Assessment Location. Values are based on lower day time limit and negative

values indicate the noise immission level is below the limit. .............................................. 10-14

Table 10.8 - Difference between the ETSU-R-97 Derived Night time Noise Limits

and the Cumulative Predicted LA90,T Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels at Each

Noise Assessment Location. Negative values indicate the immission level is below

the limit ..................................................................................................................................... 10-14

Appendices

Appendix 10.1 – Environmental Assessment – Noise & Vibration



10-1

10 NOISE

Introduction

10.1 This chapter presents an assessment of the potential construction and operational

noise impact of the Proposed Development on the residents of nearby dwellings

and also the likely impact of its de-commissioning. The assessment takes into

account residential dwellings located in the vicinity of both the Proposed

Development and the proposed construction traffic routes. An assessment of the

potential cumulative impact of the proposed wind farm with other known wind

farms is also included. The assessment has been undertaken by Hoare Lea

Acoustics. Full details of the noise assessment can be found in the Hoare Lea

Acoustics Technical Report, included as Appendix 10.1. This chapter represents a

summary of the findings of that report.

10.2 The nature of works and distances involved in the construction of a wind farm are

such that the risk of significant impacts relating to ground borne vibration are very

low. Occasional momentary vibration can arise when heavy vehicles pass

dwellings at very short separation distances, but this is not sufficient to constitute a

risk of significant impacts. Accordingly, vibration impacts do not warrant detailed

assessment and have not been considered further as part of this EIA.


Legislative Context

10.3 In England there are two legislative instruments which address the effects of

environmental noise with regard to construction noise, vibration, and nuisance:-

the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) (HMSO 1990); and

the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (CoPA) (HMSO 1974).

Planning Policy and Guidance Relating to Noise

10.4 A number of relevant planning documents and standards have been referenced

in the assessment:-

the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Department for Communities

and Local Government 2012);



10-2

the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (Department for

Communities and Local Government 2014);

Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) (Department for Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs 2010);

National Policy Statement on Renewable Energy Infrastructure (Department

for Energy and Climate Change 2011);

ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (The Working

Group on Noise from Wind Turbines 1996);

A Good Practice Guide (GPG) to the Application of ETSU-R-97 (Cand et al

2013); and

BS 5228:2014 Noise control on construction and open sites, BS 5228-1 noise and

BS 5228-2 vibration (British Standards Institute 2009).


Vibration

10.5 The nature of the works and distances involved in the construction of a wind farm

are such that the risk of significant effects relating to ground borne vibration are

very low. Occasional momentary vibration can arise when heavy vehicles pass

dwellings at very short separation distances, but again, this is not sufficient to

constitute a risk of significant impacts in this instance. Accordingly, vibration

impacts do not warrant detailed assessment and hence are not discussed further

in this assessment.

10.6 Levels of vibration from operational wind farms are insignificant at the distances

considered in the present assessment (see Appendix 10.1, Appendix A for details)

and this aspect is therefore not considered any further in this Chapter.

Construction Noise

10.7 Analysis of construction noise has been undertaken in accordance with BS 5228

Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites,

2014 (British Standards Institute, 2014). This provides methods for predicting

construction noise levels on the basis of reference data for the noise emissions of

typical construction plant and activities. These methods include the calculation of

construction traffic along access tracks and haul routes, as well as construction

activities at fixed locations, including:-



10-3

the bases of wind turbines;

site compounds; and

substations.

10.8 The construction noise assessment has been based on indicative data for the

types of plant likely to be used during the construction works, as presented in BS

5228. Based on: the range of guidance values set out in BS 5228; and other

reference criteria; and the relatively low ambient noise typically observed in rural

environments, impact significance criteria have been derived (see Section 3.3 of

Appendix 10.1) and summarised in Table 10.1. Negligible or minor effects are not

considered to have a likely significant environmental effect, within the meaning of

the EIA Regulations.

Table 10.1 – Free-field Noise Criteria against which Construction Noise Effects are Assessed

Level of Effect Condition

Major

Construction noise is greater than 72 dB LAeq,T for any part of

the construction works or exceeds 65 dB LAeq,T for more than 4

weeks in any 12 month period

Moderate Construction noise is less than or equal to 65 dB LAeq,T

throughout the construction period.

Minor

Construction noise is generally less than or equal to 60 dB

LAeq,T , with periods of up to 65 dB LAeq,T lasting not more than

4 weeks in any 12 month period

Negligible

Construction noise is generally less than or equal to 55 dB

LAeq,T , with periods of up to 60 dB LAeq,T lasting not more than

4 weeks in any 12 month period

10.9 When considering the impact of short-term changes in traffic associated with the

construction activities on existing roads in the vicinity of the Site, reference should

be made to the criteria set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol 12

(DMRB) (The Highways Agency, 2008). A classification of magnitudes of changes

in the predicted traffic noise level calculated using the CRTN methodology is set

out. For short-term changes, such as those associated with construction activities:

changes of less than 1 dB(A) are considered negligible; 1 to 3 dB(A) are

considered minor; 3 to 5 dB(A) moderate; and changes of more than 5 dB(A) are

considered of major magnitude. Impacts of moderate or major magnitude i.e.

greater than 3 dB(A) are considered significant within the meaning of the EIA

Regulations. This classification can be considered in addition to the criteria of

Table 10.1.



10-4

Operational Noise

10.10 Assessment of operational noise impacts has been carried out in accordance with

the methodology set out in ETSU-R-97. ETSU-R-97 has become the accepted

standard for such developments within the UK and is commended in current UK

planning policy. To undertake the assessment of noise impact in accordance with

the methodology in ETSU-R-97, the following steps are required:-

i) specify the number and locations of the wind turbines;

ii) identify the locations of the nearest, or most sensitive, neighbours;

iii) measure the background noise levels as a function of site wind speed at

the nearest neighbours, or a representative sample of the nearest

neighbours;

iv) determine the day time and night time noise limits from the measured

background noise levels at the nearest neighbours;

v) specify the type and noise emission characteristics of the wind turbines,

including any tonal features;

vi) calculate noise immission1 levels due to the operation of the turbines of the

proposed development as well as the contribution to cumulative noise

immission levels from other nearby windfarms/turbines as a function of site

wind speed at the nearest neighbours; and

vii) Compare the calculated windfarm noise immission levels with the derived

noise limits and assess in the light of planning requirements.

10.11 This methodology has been adopted for the present assessment and is described

in more detail in Appendix 10.1. Technical guidance on best practice in the

application of the ETSU-R-97 methodology is detailed extensively in the GPG. The

acceptable limits for wind turbine operational noise are defined in ETSU-R-97. The

ETSU-R-97 assessment procedure specifies that noise limits should be set relative to

existing background noise levels at the nearest properties to the windfarm. These

limits should reflect the variation in both turbine source noise and background

noise with wind speed. The ETSU-R-97 limit is set as the greater of the predefined

lower fixed limit and 5 dB above the background noise level at each wind speed

interval of analysis.

10.12 The lower fixed portion of the limit during the day-time should lie within the range

from 35 dB(A) to 40 dB(A). In this instance, the lower fixed portion of the quiet day-

1 The term ‘noise immission’ relates to the sound pressure level (the perceived noise) at any

receptor location due to the combined operation of all wind turbines on the Development.



10-5

time limit is proposed to be 38 dB(A). This was based on a review of the relevant

factors set out in ETSU-R-97. In particular, the high power generating capacity of

the wind farm was considered in relation to the limited number of neighbouring

properties, and the effect on generating capacity of selecting a reduced limit. In

addition, the location of the Proposed Development is such that, based on the

south-westerly direction of the prevailing wind in the UK, the properties which

would be exposed to noise during the majority of the time are relatively distant or

already exposed to noise from traffic on Stragglethorpe Lane (Appendix 10.1).

The lower fixed portion of the night-time limit, on the other hand, is 43 dB.

Financially involved properties should be given a lower fixed limit of 45 dB, for both

day and night-time limits.

10.13 Consequently, the test applied to operational noise is whether or not the

calculated cumulative windfarm noise immission levels at nearby noise sensitive

properties are within the noise limits derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97. If

predicted noise levels are within the ETSU-R-97 criteria, operational noise is

considered acceptable; if predicted noise levels are above the ETSU-R-97 criteria,

operational noise is considered unacceptable. Unacceptable noise levels are

considered likely to have a significant environmental effect within the meaning of

the EIA regulations.

10.14 The study area covers the area predicted to be potentially subject to cumulative

noise levels in excess of 35 dB LA90 at wind speeds up to 10 m/s, as recommended

within the Institute of Acoustics Good Practice Guide (IOA GPG) (M Cand et. al.,

2013). These predictions were based on the preliminary proposed layout.

10.15 The candidate turbine is a Senvion MM92 2.05 MW turbine, with a 64m hub height

and a 92 m rotor diameter. This turbine was used, as it was considered to represent

the range of noise emissions from turbines which may be installed at the Site.

10.16 Noise predictions have been carried out using the ISO 9613-2 model (ISO, 1996),

using the following parameters in accordance with the IOA GPG:-

i) receiver height = 4 m;

ii) mixed ground, i.e. G = 0.5;

iii) air absorption based on a temperature of 10°C and 70% relative humidity;

iv) screening limited to 2 dB; and

v) +3 dB correction for propagation over concave ground.



10-6

10.17 It is assumed that the wind turbine noise will contain no audible tones. Where

tones are present a correction should be added to the measured or predicted

noise level before comparison with the recommended limits. The audibility of any

tones can be assessed by comparing the narrow band level of such tones with

the masking level contained in a band of frequencies around the tone called the

critical band. The ETSU-R-97 recommendations suggest a tone correction which

depends on the amount by which the tone exceeds the audibility threshold and

should be included as part of the consent conditions. The turbines to be used for

this Site will be chosen to ensure that the noise emitted will comply with the

requirements of ETSU-R-97 including any relevant tonality.

10.18 Full details of the operational noise assessment, including details of the noise

output of the candidate wind turbine that which has been assumed for this

project, and the calculation parameters on which predictions have been based,

can be found in Appendix 10.1.

Consultation

10.19 Prior to undertaking the background noise surveys, a summary of the proposed

monitoring locations and the approach to be used for the noise assessment were

forwarded to the Environmental Health Departments of both South Kesteven

District Council, herein referred to as SKDC, and North Kesteven District Council,

herein referred to as NKDC, for comment. Following advice from NKDC, that

background noise monitoring to the north of site should take place in the village

of Stragglethorpe, away from the A17, the suggested survey locations were

agreed to be representative of the background noise environment around the

Site for the purpose of an ETSU-R-97 assessment by NKDC. SKDC had no issues to

raise initially, although after seeking external advice had a number of queries

which were resolved in follow-up discussions. This consultation was based on a

preliminary layout which was of a similar form to the layout of the Proposed

Development.

10.20 Representatives from both NKDC and SKDC attended the initial site visit and

installation of noise monitoring equipment on 23/09/2014. Some noise monitoring

equipment was installed at locations seen by the representatives of both councils

at later dates. However, subsequent to pictures and descriptions being provided

via email, representatives from both councils confirmed satisfaction of the noise

monitoring locations selected. A summary of this is provided below in Table 10.2



10-7

Table 10.2 – Summary of Consultee Comments

Consultee Comment / Issue Raised Response

South Kesteven

District Council

Letter issued to give

notification of proposed

development, provide an

overview of noise

assessment methodology

and seek confirmation of

satisfaction with noise

assessment locations.

External advice sought by SKDC

and considered in assessment

North Kesteven

District Council

Advised location to the north is

changed and then confirmed

satisfaction of locations.

South Kesteven

District Council

Post attendance of site

inspection and noise

monitoring equipment

installation, details of final

noise monitoring locations

forwarded on via email.

Confirmed agreement with

monitoring locations.

North Kesteven

District Council

Confirmed agreement with

monitoring locations.

Baseline Conditions

10.21 The background noise monitoring exercise was conducted in two stages. During

the first stage of noise monitoring, measurements were made from 23/09/2014 to

23/10/2014, a period of just over four weeks, with a minimum of 29 days of

concurrent noise and wind speed measurements being obtained at each of the

following three survey locations:-

i) Stragglethorpe Hall (grid reference 491328, 352088);

ii) Bees Barn (grid reference ; and

iii) 2 Court Leys Cottages.

10.22 The second stage of monitoring was conducted at the following two locations,

from 10/11/2014 to 07/12/2014, a period of just under four weeks:-

iv) Gorse Lodge (grid reference 488920, 349634); and

v) Dunstan House (grid reference 488162, 350857).

10.23 Noise monitoring was conducted in two stages, as it was not initially possible to

gain access to Gorse Lodge. Dunstan House was originally included in the first

stage of monitoring; however, a logger failure made revised measurements

necessary at this location.

10.24 The total survey period is in excess of the minimum of one week required by ETSU-

R-97 at all locations. Full details of the monitoring locations and equipment used



10-8

can be found in Appendix 10.1. The survey was made in accordance with current

good practice (as set out in the GPG).

10.25 The results obtained from the noise survey have been used to represent the

background noise environment expected to occur at other nearby assessment

locations. This approach is consistent with the guidance provided by ETSU-R-97.

Locations where such representations have been made, and the source of the

representations, are given below in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3 – Assessment Properties in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development

Property Easting Northing Survey Location

Caravan Site 490808 351270 Bees Barn

Stragglethorpe Ln 490879 351180 Bees Barn

Grange Fm House 490929 351068 Bees Barn

Leatherbottle Fm 490780 350919 Bees Barn

Brant Rd 490942 350797 Bees Barn

Stragglethorpe Village 491204 352163 Stragglethorpe Hall

Gorse Lodge 489006 349712 Gorse Lodge

Court Leys Farm 490387 349254 2 Court Leys Cottages

Court Leys Cottages 490581 349448 2 Court Leys Cottages

Props North of Moor Fm 488399 349238 Dunstan House

Pump Ln 488200 350870 Dunstan House

Rectory Fm 488313 352128 Dunstan House

Stragglethorpe Grange 489975 352594 Stragglethorpe Hall

10.26 The noise measurement locations were chosen to minimise noise from other

sources in the area, as well as be representative of the amount of road traffic

noise and noise from natural noise sources such as wind through nearby trees and

bushes, that all the relevant assessment locations currently experience.

10.27 Wind speeds and noise measurements were performed using a 10 minute

measurement period (as required by ETSU-R-97). The average wind speed was

derived at 64m height, using measurements made at 50 and 60 m height using a

metrological mast, installed with the Site for the duration of the survey,

(approximate easting/northing 489689/351508). The measured hub height wind



10-9

speed has been expressed at a standardised height of 10 m, to provide the

required reference to determine the prevailing background noise level during the

quiet daytime and night-time periods. Therefore this method incorporates the

impacts of site-specific wind shear (i.e. the variation of wind speed with height:

see Appendix 10.1, Appendix F – Wind Speed Calculations) in accordance with

the GPG recommendations.

10.28 The noise limits derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97, are given for each

assessment location at each integer wind speed between 4 & 12 m/s for day-time

and night-time periods respectively in Table 10.4 & Table 10.5. These limits are

equal to the greater of: the respective background noise level recorded, + 5

dB(A); and the lower fixed portion of the limit, set as 38 dB(A) during the day-time

and 43 dB(A) during the night-time.

Table 10.4 – Day-time LA90,T Noise Limits Derived from the Baseline Noise Survey According to ETSU-R-97

Property

Standardised Wind Speed at 10 m Height, m/s

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Caravan Site 38.0 38.0 38.6 41.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5

Stragglethorpe Ln 38.0 38.0 38.6 41.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5

Grange Fm House 38.0 38.0 38.6 41.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5

Leatherbottle Fm 38.0 38.0 38.6 41.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5

Brant Rd 38.0 38.0 38.6 41.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5

Stragglethorpe Village 38.0 39.0 40.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1

Gorse Lodge 38.0 38.0 38.0 39.9 43.0 46.2 49.0 51.3 51.3

Court Leys Farm 38.0 39.0 40.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1

Court Leys Cottages 38.0 39.0 40.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1

Props North of Moor Fm 38.0 38.0 38.0 39.9 43.0 46.2 49.0 51.3 51.3

Pump Ln 38.0 38.0 38.0 39.9 43.0 46.2 49.0 51.3 51.3

Rectory Fm 38.0 38.0 38.0 39.9 43.0 46.2 49.0 51.3 51.3

Stragglethorpe Grange 38.0 39.0 40.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1



10-10

Table 10.5 - Night time LA90,T Noise Limits Derived from the Baseline Noise Survey According to ETSU-R-97

Property


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Caravan Site 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.0 48.3 48.3 48.3 48.3

Stragglethorpe Ln 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.0 48.3 48.3 48.3 48.3

Grange Fm House 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.0 48.3 48.3 48.3 48.3

Leatherbottle Fm 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.0 48.3 48.3 48.3 48.3

Brant Rd 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.0 48.3 48.3 48.3 48.3

Stragglethorpe Village 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 47.7 50.4 50.4 50.4 50.4

Gorse Lodge 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.1 48.1 50.9 50.9 50.9

Court Leys Farm 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 47.7 50.4 50.4 50.4 50.4

Court Leys Cottages 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 47.7 50.4 50.4 50.4 50.4

Props North of Moor Fm 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.1 48.1 50.9 50.9 50.9

Pump Ln 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.1 48.1 50.9 50.9 50.9

Rectory Fm 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.1 48.1 50.9 50.9 50.9

Stragglethorpe Grange 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 47.7 50.4 50.4 50.4 50.4

Identification and Evaluation of Key Impacts

Construction Phase

10.29 The noise levels at the closest noise sensitive receptors for each of the key

activities during construction of the Proposed Development are presented below

in Table 10.6. These assessments are based on the worst case predicted upper

day-time LP(A) noise levels resulting from construction.



10-11

Table 10.6 – Predicted Construction Noise Levels

Task Name Nearest

Receiver

Minimum Distance to

Nearest Receiver (m)

Predicted Upper

Day-time Noise

Levels LAeq,T dB(A)

Upgrade Access

Track

Leatherbottle

Farm 300 58

Construct

temporary site

compounds

Leatherbottle

Farm 450 53

Construct site

tracks

Leatherbottle

Farm 40-135 66-79*

Construct Sub-

Station

Leatherbottle

Farm 260 49

Construct crane

hardstandings

Leatherbottle

Farm 800 47

Construct turbine

foundations

Leatherbottle

Farm 800 47

Excavate and lay

site cables

Leatherbottle

Farm 800 37

Erect turbines Leatherbottle

Farm 800 47

Reinstate crane

bases

Leatherbottle

Farm 800 42

Reinstate road

verges

Leatherbottle

Farm 800 42

Lay cable to sub-

stations

Stragglethorp

e Lane 200 57

*Construction of the access track will quickly move away from the nearest noise sensitive receiver

10.30 Comparing the above predicted noise levels to the range of background noise

levels measured around the Proposed Development suggests that the noisier

construction activities would be audible at various times throughout the

construction phase. However, comparing the levels to the significance criteria

presented previously indicates that the majority of construction activities will have

effects of negligible to minor significance. For construction of the access track,

which is closest to Leatherbottle Farm, the worst case predicted noise levels are

likely to represent those for a very short period of term when activity is closest to

the receptor. Noise levels will quickly diminish as construction of the access path

progresses, moving the activity further from the property. The short term nature of

this activity is comparable to brief road maintenance works and consequently the

effects are deemed to be of minor significance.



10-12

10.31 Table 8 of Appendix 10.1 shows the predicted increases in the daytime average

traffic noise levels, calculated according to the information provided in Chapter

11 Traffic and Transportation. The maximum worst case potential increase in traffic

noise level is predicted to be 0.2 dB(A) LA10,18hour, along Stragglethorpe Lane, which

corresponds to a negligible magnitude of impact, based on the criteria set out in

the DMRB.

10.32 When taking into consideration the different phases and aspects of the proposed

construction programme, the temporary impacts of construction noises are

considered to be of negligible to minor magnitude in the majority of cases.

Construction noise is therefore not a likely significant environmental effect.

Operational Phase

10.33 Predicted noise immission levels for the Proposed Windfarm in isolation at each of

nine assessment locations and the prediction methodology are detailed in

Appendix 10.1 for each ten metre height wind speed from 4 m/s to 12 m/s

inclusive.

10.34 Senvion MM92 turbines are able to operate in various sound management modes

to reduce noise immissions levels. In this instance, turbine noise immission levels

predictions are based on turbines 2, 7 & 10 operating in mode “Sound

Management II – Type A” and the remaining 7 turbines operating in their standard

operation mode.

10.35 The predicted noise immission levels of the Proposed Development in isolation vary

between 24 and 38dB LA90 at low wind speeds (less than 7 m/s) and 33 to 40 dB

LA90 at high wind speeds (greater than 8m/s). Tables 15 and 16 in Appendix 10.1

show comparisons of the predicted noise levels against the ETSU-R-97 derived

noise limits. Graphical presentations of the predicted noise levels against the

derived noise limits are given in Figures E1 to E26 of Appendix 10.1

10.36 These results show that predicted wind farm noise immission levels from the

Proposed Development do not exceed the ETSU-R-97 criteria. Therefore, noise

impacts associated with the operation of the Proposed Development in isolation

are considered to be acceptable and to not have a likely significant

environmental effect.



10-13

Decommissioning Phase

10.37 Decommissioning is likely to result in less noise impact than during construction of

the Proposed Development, because the majority of the turbine foundations and

access ways would not be affected. Therefore, de-commissioning will, in the worst

case, have a negligible to minor noise effect and not have a likely significant

environmental effect.

Cumulative Effects

10.38 The guidance within ETSU-R-97 states that:

‘absolute noise limits and margins above background should relate to the

cumulative effect of all wind turbines in the area which contribute to the

noise received at the properties in question. (Page 58)’

10.39 Therefore, noise assessments have also been conducted on a cumulative basis.

10.40 Temple Hill Wind Farm is a nearby development, which has been included in the

cumulative assessment of wind farm noise serving the Proposed Development.

10.41 Table 11 & Table 12 of Appendix 10.1 shows the assumed noise emission levels of

the Vestas V90-2MW turbines, understood to be the current candidate turbine for

Temple Hill Wind Farm.

10.42 If the noise immission levels from any turbine are within 10 dB of those from the

Proposed Development at any noise sensitive receptor then, in accordance with

the GPG, that turbine is to be included within the cumulative assessment of the

Proposed Development. No other turbines fulfil this criterion. Consequently, the

cumulative case only considers noise from the Proposed Development and

Temple Hill Wind Farm, on the basis that no other turbines significantly contribute

to the cumulative turbine noise immission levels.

10.43 Table 10.7 shows the result of comparing the appropriate noise limits with the

respective day-time noise immissions at wind speeds between 4-12 m/s. Likewise

Table 9 shows the comparison with the night-time noise limits.



10-14

Table 10.7 - Difference between the ETSU-R-97 Derived Day time Noise Limits and the Cumulative Predicted LA90,T Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels at Each Noise Assessment Location. Values are based on lower day time limit and negative values indicate the noise immission level is below the limit.

Property


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Caravan Site -8.6 -3.4 -1.7 -2.0 -3.0 -3.0 -3.0 -3.0 -3.0

Stragglethorpe Ln -9.0 -4.8 -3.3 -2.6 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4

Grange Fm House -9.3 -4.1 -2.4 -2.7 -3.7 -3.7 -3.7 -3.7 -3.7

Leatherbottle Fm -7.8 -2.6 -0.9 -1.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1

Brant Rd -9.3 -4.1 -2.4 -2.6 -3.6 -3.6 -3.6 -3.6 -3.6

Stragglethorpe Village -13.9 -9.7 -8.3 -7.8 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6

Gorse Lodge -8.3 -3.0 -0.8 -0.7 -3.1 -5.9 -8.9 -12.0 -12.0

Court Leys Farm -11.9 -6.6 -4.7 -5.5 -6.8 -6.8 -6.8 -6.8 -6.8

Court Leys Cottages -11.6 -6.4 -4.5 -5.2 -6.5 -6.5 -6.5 -6.5 -6.5

Props North of Moor Fm -12.2 -6.9 -4.9 -5.0 -6.4 -6.4 -6.4 -6.4 -6.4

Pump Ln -8.9 -3.5 -1.8 -2.0 -3.6 -3.6 -3.6 -3.6 -3.6

Rectory Fm -11.5 -6.1 -4.4 -4.5 -6.1 -6.1 -6.1 -6.1 -6.1

Stragglethorpe Grange -11.3 -7.0 -5.8 -5.4 -5.3 -5.3 -5.3 -5.3 -5.3

Table 10.8 - Difference between the ETSU-R-97 Derived Night time Noise Limits and the Cumulative Predicted LA90,T Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels at Each Noise Assessment Location. Negative values indicate the immission level is below the limit

Property


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Caravan Site -13.6 -8.4 -5.8 -4.0 -5.2 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5

Stragglethorpe Ln -14.0 -8.8 -6.3 -4.5 -9.0 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6

Grange Fm House -14.3 -9.1 -6.5 -4.7 -5.9 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2

Leatherbottle Fm -12.8 -7.6 -5.0 -3.2 -4.3 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6

Brant Rd -14.3 -9.1 -6.5 -4.7 -5.8 -10.1 -10.1 -10.1 -10.1

Stragglethorpe Village -18.9 -13.7 -11.3 -9.6 -14.2 -16.8 -16.8 -16.8 -16.8

Gorse Lodge -13.3 -8.0 -5.8 -4.4 -4.3 -5.8 -7.5 -7.5 -7.5



10-15

Court Leys Farm -16.9 -11.6 -9.1 -7.6 -8.3 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6

Court Leys Cottages -16.6 -11.4 -8.9 -7.2 -8.0 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3

Props North of Moor Fm -17.2 -11.9 -9.5 -8.2 -8.0 -8.0 -8.0 -8.0 -8.0

Pump Ln -13.9 -8.5 -6.4 -5.2 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1

Rectory Fm -16.5 -11.1 -9.0 -7.7 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6

Stragglethorpe Grange -16.4 -11.0 -8.8 -7.3 -11.9 -14.5 -14.5 -14.5 -14.5

10.44 Tables 10.7 & 10.8 show that the predicted cumulative operational turbine noise

immissions do not exceed the noise limits derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97 in

any instance. Cumulative operational noise is therefore not considered a likely

significant environmental effect.

Mitigation Measures

Construction Phase

10.45 The majority of construction noise effects are considered not likely to have a

significant environmental effect. Therefore, mitigation of construction noise is not

an essential requirement in the most part. Nonetheless, the following types of

mitigation measures, which will be set out within the Construction Method

Statement, are proposed to reduce the potential effects of construction noise:

i) other than emergency turbine erection works, activities which may give rise

to audible noise at the surrounding properties and heavy goods vehicle

deliveries to the site would be limited to the hours 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to

Friday and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. Turbine deliveries would only take

place outside these times with the prior consent of Lincolnshire Council and

the Police. Those activities that are unlikely to give rise to noise audible at

the site boundary will continue outside of the stated hours;

ii) all construction activities shall adhere to good practice as set out in BS

5228;

iii) all equipment will be maintained in good working order and any

associated noise attenuation such as engine casing and exhaust silencers

shall remain fitted at all times;

iv) where flexibility exists, activities will be separated from residential

neighbours by the maximum possible distances;

v) a site management regime will be developed to control the movement of

vehicles to and from the Site; and



10-16

vi) construction plant capable of generating significant noise and vibration

levels will be operated in a manner to restrict the duration of the higher

magnitude levels.

Operational Phase

10.46 The selection of the final turbine and operating modes to be installed at the Site

would be made on the basis of enabling the relevant ETSU-R-97 noise limits to be

achieved at surrounding properties.

Residual Effects

10.47 Following the implementation of the mitigation measures set out above, there are

no significant residual effects with respect to noise and vibration.

Summary

10.48 Potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the Proposed Development

at Fulbeck Airfield have been assessed by Hoare Lea Acoustics, with full details of

this assessment included in Appendix 10.1. The potential noise impacts of

construction, operation and decommissioning meet accepted standards, or can

be mitigated where appropriate, with residual impacts not considered to be a

likely significant environmental effect.



10-17

References

i) A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and

Rating of Wind Turbine Noise 2013, M Cand, R Davis, C Jordan, M Hayes, R Perkins,

May 2013.

ii) BS 5228 1:2014 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction

and open sites – Part 1: Noise’.

iii) Control of Pollution Act, Part III, HMSO, 1974

iv) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, section 3, Part 7, Traffic Noise

and Vibration, The Highways Agency, Transport Scotland, Transport Wales, The

Department for Regional Development (Northern Ireland), 2008.

v) Environmental Protection Act, Part III, HMSO, 1990.

vi) ETSU R 97, the Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, Final ETSU-R-97

Report for the Department of Trade & Industry. The Working Group on Noise from

Wind Turbines, 1996.

vii) ISO 9613 2:1996 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors –

Part 2: General method of calculation’, International Standards Organisation,

1996.

viii) Noise Policy Statement for England, Department for Environment, Food and Rural

Affairs, March 2010.

ix) National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local

Government, March 2012.

x) National Planning Practice Guidance, Department for Communities and Local

Government, March 2014.

xi) The National Policy Statement on Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), Planning

for new energy infrastructure, Department of Energy and Climate Change, July

2011.



Chapter 11: Traffic and Transportation

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 11 Traffic and Transportation

WSP on behalf of Energiekontor UK Ltd | April 2015

CONTENTS

11 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 11-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 11-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ..................................................................................... 11-2 Consultation Undertaken to Date ..................................................................................... 11-3 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ...................................................... 11-3 Assumptions and limitations ............................................................................................... 11-4 Routing and Baseline Conditions ...................................................................................... 11-5 Identification and Key Evaluation of Impacts ............................................................... 11-11 Cumulative Effects and Interaction of Effects............................................................... 11-13 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 11-14 Residual Effects .................................................................................................................. 11-15 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 11-15 References ......................................................................................................................... 11-16 Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 11-16 Glossary .............................................................................................................................. 11-17

Tables

Table 11.1: Two-way trips per month

Table 11.2: Two-way commercial trips per day by month

Table 11.3: ATC two-way flow data

Table 11.4: Inherent mitigation table

Table 11.5: Summary of residual effects

Figures

Fig 11.1: Regional site location

Fig 11.2: Local site layout

Fig 11.3: Delivery vehicle routing plan

Fig 11.4: Enabling works 1

Fig 11.5: Enabling works 2

Fig 11.6: Abnormal vehicle site access proposal

Fig 11.7: Operational vehicle site access proposal

Fig 11.8: Traffic count locations



11-1

11 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

Introduction

11.1 This chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) considers the Traffic and Transportation

impacts of the Proposed Development, with a focus on the potential issues surrounding

the transportation of materials and components to and from the Site, mainly during the

construction phase of the Proposed Development for ten wind turbines at the former

Fulbeck Airfield.

11.2 A scoping exercise has been undertaken which involved discussions with North Kesteven

District Council (NKDC) Planning officers, South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) Planning

and Highways officers and specialist logistical operators. Further to this, a separate

Transport Statement has also been submitted with the planning application to SKDC

Highways in support of the Proposed Development, a copy of this document is provided in

Appendix 11.1

11.3 The Proposed Development has been fully assessed in line with both national highways

guidance and ES best practice guidance. The Highways Agency (HA) will be consulted as

a statutory consultee as part of the planning application process.

11.4 The construction phase of the Proposed Development will require significant quantities of

steel, concrete, hard core and other building materials, along with plant and equipment,

to be transported to Site using heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). The nacelle units and turbine

blades would necessitate the use of unusually large vehicles to transport them to Site.

11.5 Once completed, unlike other forms of energy generation which require fuel

deliveries, there would be no regular traffic to the operational wind farm, apart

from occasional requirements for maintenance. When operational, the Proposed

Development will require approximately one vehicle visit per month, therefore, the

operational implications have not been considered further within this chapter.

The cumulative effects of the Proposed Development with Temple Hill Wind Farm

are considered further in Paragraphs 11.63 to 11.67.

11.6 Decommissioning is anticipated to take place 25 years after commissioning of the

Proposed Development and it is likely that, insofar as it relates to transport movements,

impacts would be less onerous compared to the construction phase; site roads, turbine

bases and below-ground structures would remain in-situ whilst landscaping materials

would be sourced from within the Site as part of a restoration scheme.



11-2

11.7 At the end of the operational period of the proposed turbines, the ancillary infrastructure

would be decommissioned. This will involve the complete removal of the wind turbines,

transformers, substation, switchgear and other equipment over a period of approximately

six months.

11.8 The removal of the wind farm components would essentially be the reverse of the

construction process, but less onerous in highways terms than the construction process

with fewer construction vehicle movements. To ensure compliance with requirements, the

applicant will provide a decommissioning bank guarantee or insurance bond as part of a

Section 106 Agreement as part of any planning consent.

11.9 The access route would follow the A17 and then along Stragglethorpe Lane / Main Street /

Toll Bar Road between the A17 and the A1. This route was selected in consultation with

SKDC. Although the types of vehicles used to deliver turbines are large, the delivery route is

considered suitable as determined by the selecting of this preferred route for the Temple

Hill Wind Farm proposal.

11.10 Turbines would be delivered in sections and assembled onsite. Deliveries would be made

outside peak travel times, where possible, to minimise any traffic disruption. We would give

advance notice of any planned deliveries to the site.

11.11 This assessment looks at the route to Site from material/resource suppliers. The main focus

of this assessment is the predicted effects of the traffic generated during the construction

phase on the local road network, its users and adjacent land uses. This chapter of the ES

therefore focuses on the traffic generated by the construction phase of the Proposed

Development.


11.12 The principal guidance in compiling this chapter includes:

Department for Transport (2007) “Guidance on Transport Assessment”.

Institute of Environmental Assessment (Now known as the Institute of

Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) (1993) “Guidelines for the

Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic”.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) “National

Planning Policy Framework”

Secretary of State (2003) The Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types)

General Order



11-3

11.13 Planning policy relating to the Development Proposal is detailed within Chapter 5

of this ES.

Consultation Undertaken to Date

11.14 Consultation on traffic and transportation has been undertaken through the

scoping process with NKDC, SKDC and the HA. Both Local Authorities have

requested that this ES Chapter be undertaken in line with appropriate Legislation,

Policy and Guidance as detailed in the previous sub-section. The HA confirmed

that they would consider the submission as a statutory consultee following

submission of any planning application.

11.15 A meeting was held with the director of the Port of Boston to discuss the numerous

WTG component deliveries the port has handed in the past, understood to be up

to 48m in length, in excess of the scale of blades anticipated to be used for the



11.16 In order to predict and quantify the impacts that would result from the Proposed

Development on local highways, this assessment has considered:

Baseline conditions – a review of existing traffic and highways characteristics

and trends, including the nature of the highways affected, the proximity of

people and existing traffic levels.

Predicted effects and impacts - a description of the vehicle types, access

arrangements, routes, traffic volumes and timings.

Significance of the effects and impacts – an assessment of the impact of the

Proposed Development against the baseline conditions and assessment of the

cumulative impact of the Proposed Development with Temple Hill Wind Farm.

Mitigation measures – details of the proposed mitigation measures to be

incorporated into the Proposed Development that would be implemented to

avoid any significant impacts.

Residual Effects – details of any remaining effects, after mitigation measures.

Summary of Assessment.



11-4

11.17 To quantify the impact of the Proposed Development on local highways, it is assessed

against the methodology detailed in the Institute of Environmental Assessment’s (IEMA)

document “Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic”(1993) which

states that the following criteria should be adopted to determine the need for

environmental assessment of traffic impacts associated with a development:

“Include highway links where traffic flows will increase by more than 30% (or

the number of heavy goods vehicles will increase by more than 30%).

Include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows have

increased by 10%, or more”.

11.18 Increases in traffic flows of less than 10% have a negligible impact (or no likely significant

effects) as daily variance in traffic flows can be of equal magnitude.

11.19 The 30% threshold relates to the level at which assessment of the impacts should be

investigated in further detail. It is important to note that impacts above this level do not

suggest that there is a significant impact, only that further consideration is required.

11.20 To ensure robust assessment, the highest predicted daily traffic volumes have

been used; 11 two-way trips per day. These volumes are predicted to occur in

months three to six and would decrease rapidly in the following months. In

addition the total amount of construction traffic arriving (including abnormal

vehicles) has also been assessed and is detailed in this Chapter. Chapter 4 of this

ES sets out the detailed Construction Methodology and Programme for the


Assumptions and limitations

11.21 The assessment is based upon information obtained from a variety of sources as

detailed within this Chapter. WSP believes that information obtained from third

parties such as the DfT and independent traffic count companies is reliable (and

subject to appropriate quality assurance prior to the data being made available).

In preparing this chapter the following assumptions and potential limitations have

been identified:

Not all potential suppliers of construction materials have been identified prior

to the compilation of this report, but all have assumed access from the

motorway network for the bulkiest materials.



11-5

Suppliers may have limited capacity or other commitments and it may be

necessary to buy bulk materials from more than one supplier therefore

requiring more than one construction route.

11.22 When considering the routing of both abnormal and construction vehicles, for the

purposes of this assessment it is assumed that all HGVs will follow the same route. This

ensures a robust assessment of impact by assuming all construction related traffic

movements would occur on each individual route assessed.

Routing and Baseline Conditions

11.23 Port selection has not been considered in detail in this report, although it is

considered that the ports of Goole, Immingham and Boston have the potential to

receive wind turbine components. The Ports of Goole and Immingham have an

established track record of handling WTG components, including those of similar

dimensions to the turbines proposed for installation at the Fulbeck Airfield Wind

Farm.

11.24 Discussions were held with the Port of Boston which has handled numerous WTG

components in the past up to 48m in length, in excess of the scale of blades

anticipated to be used for the Proposed Development.

11.25 The director of the Port of Boston also confirmed that the local highway authority

recently upgraded the junction at the entrance to the port (Southern End), where

the route to the site would require a 90° turn, by installing demountable traffic

signals and pedestrian guard railing.

11.26 Abnormal loads and HGVs will use the A17 and then travel along Stragglethorpe

Lane / Main Street / Toll Bar Road between the A17 and the A1, close to the Site.

As the origins of these vehicles and associated issues are different however they

are considered separately in the following sections.

Abnormal Loads

11.27 The route, close to the site, set out above was selected as the preferred delivery

route in consultation with the HA for the Temple Hill Wind Farm development.

Although vehicles used to deliver turbines are large, the delivery route is

considered suitable for decommissioning of the Proposed Development.



11-6

11.28 A Transport Access Study was produced by Mott MacDonald to inform the Temple Hill

Wind Farm planning application. Within this document eleven route options were

identified between the principle road network and port and the site, which is located

approximately 2km to the south of the Proposed Development site. Of the eleven

identified only three were considered suitable for more detailed assessment. Following

more detailed assessment the following two routes were considered to have high

potential for use.

11.29 The preferred abnormal delivery routes from the port of Goole or Immingham are detailed

below and shown on Figure 11.3:

From Kingston upon Hull along the A63 the M62 onto the A1;

Exit the A1 at approx OS GR 481392, 355828;

Join the A17 (Long Holloway) and continue east towards Sleaford; and

Right turn onto Stragglethorpe Lane at approx OS GR 491520, 353249 and

continue south via Brandon to site.

11.30 The preferred abnormal delivery routes from the port of Boston are detailed below and

shown in Figure 11.3:

From Port of Boston, exit port onto A1138 (South End) northbound;

At traffic signals, join the A16 (John Adams Way) westbound;

At the roundabout take second exit onto the A52 westbound;

Continue west on the A52, until the Wyberton High Bridge roundabout, then

join A1121 westbound;

Follow A1121 (Boardsides) to junction with A17 (Station Road) at approx. OS

GR 521687, 343020;

Right turn onto A17 (Station Road) and continue westbound towards Newark

vis Sleaford; and

At approx. OS GR 491520, 353249, left turn onto Stragglethorpe Lane and

continue south vis Brandon to site.

11.31 The Transport Access Study undertaken by Mott MacDonald identified carriageway

widths, tight turns, street furniture or vegetation that may be considered to be an issue in

manoeuvring abnormally sized vehicles. It is not considered that there have been any

significant changes in the road layout or environment since the completion of that study,

nor has the Temple Hill wind farm been constructed. Therefore the abnormal /

construction traffic route previously agreed for the Temple Hill Wind Farm remains valid,



11-7

subject to appropriate routing and traffic management agreements with the highway

authorities. Suitable accommodation works have been identified for the Proposed

Development which includes the temporary removal or relocation of street furniture /

pruning / removal / replanting of shrubs / trees and the use of adopted highway land.

These enabling works are detailed in Figures 11.4 and 11.5 and would require construction

prior to the movement of abnormal loads. These works would then be removed and

reinstated as existing, following all abnormal load movements.

11.32 Elsewhere, where accommodation works are not required but traffic management

measures may be needed to accommodate abnormal loads movements. Where

required, temporary contraflow or sleeving is considered acceptable in principle for the


11.33 The anticipated abnormal loads fall into two broad categories; long vehicles and heavy

vehicles. Based upon the wind turbines selected for the Proposed Development a 35m

long trailer would be required to transport the loads to Site, with the overall trailer and

blade being approximately 46m in length with a potentially short overhang to the rear of

the trailer when transporting blades, this is fully accounted for in all vehicle tracking that

has been undertaken to ensure robustness and the suitability of identified

accommodation works. Those vehicles transporting nacelle units are of a normal length

but abnormally heavy.

11.34 The construction phase of the Proposed Development will generate 30 heavy loads and

60 abnormally long loads spread over months five to nine of the construction period as

referenced in Table 11.1. Once delivery is made to Site these vehicles will return as

‘normal’ length vehicles.

11.35 During pre-application for the Temple Hill Wind Farm, SKDC Highways were consulted with

respect to the strength of structures along the preferred abnormal route and potential

construction traffic routes to site and it is understood that weight was not considered to be

an issue with respect to structures. Therefore it is not anticipated that weight of vehicles

will be an issue for road structures utilised by vehicles during the construction of the

Proposed Development. This issue is not considered further within this assessment.

11.36 It should be noted that the movement of abnormal vehicles is controlled by The Motor

Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order 2003 and subject to management

and prior agreement with the Police, HA, NKDC and SKDC.

11.37 It is envisaged that all abnormal delivery vehicles would be escorted by a pilot car and

police escort and would be scheduled to travel during off-peak hours outside of the



11-8

standard network traffic peaks when traffic volumes and any disruption would be at its

lowest, programmed to be between months five and nine of construction as referenced in

Table 11.1. This would ensure the safety of other road users and result in minimal disruption.

11.38 In conclusion, abnormal loads for the Proposed Development could be accommodated

and delivered to Site safely with negligible disruption to local traffic or residents.

Heavy Goods Vehicles

11.39 In terms of volume of traffic, the principle vehicle movements during the construction

phase of the Proposed Development would be concrete deliveries and bulk tippers

carrying aggregates for turbine platform foundations.

11.40 The Site benefits from extensive existing hard standing and access roads throughout the

site which reduces the level of aggregate required to provide any additionally required

access roads. The construction traffic movements have assumed construction of new

access roads where they currently do not exist on the proposed layout.

11.41 A number of potential concrete and aggregate suppliers have been identified for the

purposes of this assessment. It is envisaged that that concrete would be brought from

Newark Concreate. With regard to aggregate there is potential to find aggregates from

within the wider Site by breaking up unnecessary areas of hardstanding and reducing the

width of the existing tracks / former runway, this would be subject to detailed investigation.

Should aggregates be required from offsite it is likely that these would be sourced from

Longwood Quarries.

11.42 A HGV routing agreement would be agreed with NKDC and SKDC prior to construction to

manage the flow of HGVs. The preferred HGV route as agreed for the Temple Hill Wind

Farm proposal, understood from NKDC and SKDC to be appropriate for the Proposed

Development, is shown on Figure 11.3 and described in brief below:

Exit the A1 at approx OS GR 481392, 355828;

Join the A17 (Long Holloway) and continue east towards Sleaford; and

Right turn onto Stragglethorpe Lane at approx OS GR 491520, 353249 and

continue south via Brandon to site.

11.43 For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that all HGVs will follow the same route.

This ensures a robust assessment by assuming all construction traffic would occur on each

individual route.

11.44 To determine the impact of the Proposed Development, traffic count data has been

obtained to assess the impact of construction traffic on the highway network.



11-9

11.45 Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) Data has been obtained for three locations from the

Department for Transport’s (DfT) traffic flow database for 2014 traffic flows. A fourth

location, in the vicinity of the Proposed Development where DfT counts are unavailable

and therefore required a count to be undertaken by an independent count company

(Sky High Count On Us) in November 2014 covering a seven day period. The data

collected provides Annual Average Daily Flows (AADF)

11.46 AADF can be used to provide baseline data to assess the road traffic impact of the

proposed site construction traffic on the identified route. AADF provides the total average

movements of traffic at the ATC locations over a 24 hour period. This means that the

construction traffic numbers will be compared against a lower hourly average during the

daytime as typically night time traffic numbers are usually lower than daytime road traffic

use. Using average 24 hour data therefore shows the proposed construction traffic usage

of the road during daytime hours against lower averages provided by AADF..

11.47 AADFs were obtained from the following locations, each is detailed in Figure 11.8:

Site 1 – A1 North of A1/A46 (Dft Ref 36086);

Site 2 – A17 North of Coddington (Dft Ref 18614);

Site 3 – A17 East of Beckingham (Dft Ref 18719); and

Site 4 – Stragglethorpe Lane (North of Site Access).

Vehicle Types and Trip Generation

11.48 Details of traffic generation are contained within the accompanying Transport Statement

and summarised below. The construction period for the Proposed Development is 10

months, Table 11.1 shows how traffic would be distributed over the construction period.



11-10

Activity Month

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Plant and equipment

delivery 12 6 2 4 4 2 4 4 6 12

Site track construction 140 98 98 98 98 98

Turbine Foundations 120 120 120 120

Removal of Temporary

Areas 48

Cabling and electrical

systems 4 4 4 4 3

Turbine delivery and

erection 12 12 12 12 12

Miscellaneous light vans 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Total 161 113 228 230 246 244 28 28 29 68

Table 11.1 : Two-way trips per month

11.49 Table 11.2 shows the number of two way trips per day for all Site activities. For the purposes

of this assessment, it is assumed that all construction traffic movements from suppliers will

be subject to a routing agreement with the LHA and will follow the same route.

11.50 It is estimated, based on previous experience, that a maximum of 20 workers would visit

the Site each day during the construction period, many potentially sharing transport,

however, the distribution of these trips is unknown and the movement of these light

vehicles would have a negligible impact on the wider network.

11.51 Table 11.2 provides details of the expected daily construction traffic movements by

factoring the total monthly construction trips in Table 11.1 on an average of 22 working

days per month, allowing for no deliveries at weekends. These numbers are to be used for

comparison with baseline data to determine the expected impact of the HGV

construction traffic.

Table 11.2: Two-way trips per day by month

Activity Month

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Total Trips 7 5 10 10 11 11 1 1 1 3

11.52 Based upon a standard day of construction operating from 0700 to 1900, these estimated

daily trips would result in less than one vehicle movement per hour either to and from the

Site.



11-11

Identification and Key Evaluation of Impacts

11.53 To assess the impact of the Proposed Development the respective count sites detailed in

section 11.47 are detailed in Table 11.3. These two-way flows provide weekday AADF

figures for car movements and HGVs (excluding buses).

Table 11.3: ATC two-way flow data

Location Cars HGVs Total

Daily

HGV

Increase

Increase

in HGV

Daily

Proportion

Site 1 - A1 North of A1 /

A46 30915 6798 37713 11 0.2%

Site 2 - A17 North of

Coddington 10499 1361 11860 11 0.8%

Site 3 - East of

Beckingham 11047 1685 12732 11 0.7%

Site 4 - Stragglethorpe

Lane 1270 47 1317 11 23.4%

Percentage Impact at Site 1 - A1 North of A1 / A46

11.54 Taking a worst case scenario, where all heavy traffic follows the same route, the

percentage increases on the A1 North of A1 / A46 would be in the order of 0.03% in total

traffic or 0.2% increase in total HGVs. Both increases are therefore considered to have no

likely significant effects.

Percentage Impact at Site 2 - A17 North of Coddington


percentage increases on the A17 North of Coddington would be in the order of 0.09% in

total traffic or 0.8% increase in total HGVs. Both increases are therefore considered to have

no likely significant effects.

Percentage Impact at Site 3 – A17 East of Beckingham


percentage increases on the A17 East of Beckingham would be in the order of 0.09% in

total traffic or 0.7% increase in total HGVs. Both increases are therefore considered to have

no likely significant effects.



11-12

Percentage Impact at Site 4 - Stragglethorpe Lane


percentage increases on Stragglethorpe Lane would be in the order of 0.84% in total

traffic or 23.4% increase in total HGVs. Both increases are therefore considered to have no


Site Access

11.58 Site access would be via a new site entrance onto Stragglethorpe Lane - to the east of the

Site - with suitable visibility and access splays for construction traffic. The entrance

would be gated and surfaced in bituminous macadam from the road.

11.59 Site tracks will provide access for construction and maintenance vehicles from the

site access to the substation and wind turbines. Access tracks already exist on site and

it is intended to use these to minimise the requirement for any new access track

construction. Any new access track required would be constructed at the

commencement of the construction phase and would remain until the end of the

decommissioning phase, they would have a 5.0m running width, with local widening on

corners and would be surfaced with coarse aggregate. For the purpose of assessing the

development, as detailed in Table 11.1, the construction traffic proposals assume wholly

new access track construction.

11.60 The site access point will cater for HGV movements and provide an overrun area for

abnormal vehicles. An indicative plan of the access arrangements can be seen in Figures

11.4 and 11.5.

Significance of Effects

11.61 Disturbance to local residents and other road users is likely to occur due to abnormal load

deliveries. However, given the low number of deliveries, the frequency of those deliveries

and the mitigation measures proposed, this disturbance is considered to be of negligible

significance and is therefore to have no likely significant effects.



11-13

11.62 HGV movements will also result in some disturbance to local road users and residents by

virtue of increased vehicle movements. The significance of effects is considered to be

negligible given the short duration of the works, the short-lived peak in traffic generation

and the existing levels of traffic along most of the route, and is therefore considered to

have no likely significant effects.

Cumulative Effects and Interaction of Effects

11.63 Based on previous experience, should the Temple Hill Wind Farm and Fulbeck Airfield Wind

Farm both become operational they will each require approximately one vehicle visit per

month for checking and general maintenance by a standard LGV sized vehicle.

11.64 Should both the Proposed Developments receive planning consent and be constructed,

this single visit per month would not increase and therefore this is considered to have no

likely significant effects upon the highway network during operation of both the Temple

Hill Wind Farm and Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm prior to decommissioning.

11.65 During Scoping with NKDC and SKDC it was requested that consideration be given to

construction of both the Temple Hill Wind Farm and Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm

simultaneously in order to reduce disruption to the highway network.

11.66 The Temple Hill Wind Farm proposal comprises of five wind turbines. Assuming construction

of the proposed development and the Temple Hill Wind Farm are undertaken in tandem,

based upon the routing of abnormal vehicles and HGV construction traffic, no routes

would experience an increase of HGV movements of over 30% against baseline conditions

and under EIA regulations do not require any further assessment to be undertaken.

11.67 Therefore based upon the robustly estimated construction movements and the limited

programme of construction the cumulative impact is considered to have no likely

significant effect and requires no further consideration.



11-14

Mitigation Measures

11.68 Following consideration and previous consultation with NKDC, SKDC and the HA in regard

to routing, in order to minimise potential impacts, a number of inherent measures have

been identified and agreed. These are summarised in Table 11.4.

Table 11.4: Inherent mitigation table

Issue Measure Extent of

mitigation

Monitoring

requirements

Planning

mechanism

Construction

vehicles

depositing

mud/debris

on the

carriageway

Wheel washing

facilities to be

installed

adjacent to the

Site entrance.

Full

Monitor

condition of

carriageway

throughout

construction

period.

Planning

condition

Abnormal

loads on

traffic flow

Police escorts

and delivery

programme

timed to cause

minimal

restriction.

Substantial

None.

Controlled by

existing

legislation.

Agreement

with Police,

HA, NKDC

and SKDC

required.

Abnormal

loads on

local

highway

Accommodation

works prior to

movement and

reinstatement

subsequent to

construction.

Full

Condition

surveys

before, during

and after

construction.

Agreement

with HA,

NKDC, SKDC

and statutory

undertakers.

Creation of

access from

existing highway.

Full None.

Agreement

with NKDC

and SKDC.

Increased

HGV traffic

on local

roads

Agree specific

HGV routes and

times of

operation.

Provide

information via

local press and

leaflet drops.

Place additional

signage in the

area as

necessary.

Substantial

Monitoring

regime to be

agreed with

NKDC and

SKDC for

period of

construction.

Condition

surveys

before, during

and after

construction.

Agreement

with HA, NKDC

and SKDC.

Leaflet drops,

additional

signage and

information

through the

local press.



11-15

Residual Effects

11.69 A summary of the predicted residual effects is provided in Table 11.5.

Table 11.5: Summary of residual effects

Potential

Effects

Significance of

primary effect

Proposed Mitigation Significance of

residual effect

Effect of

abnormal

loads on

traffic flow

No likely

significant

effect

Police escorts and delivery

programme timed to cause

minimal restriction.

No likely

significant

effect

Effects of

abnormal

loads on

highway

infrastructure

No likely

significant

effect

Accommodation works prior to

movement and reinstatement

subsequent to construction.

Initial and subsequent condition

surveys with agreement to

reinstate to original standard

subsequent to construction.

No likely

significant

effect

Summary

11.70 This traffic and transportation chapter has followed all relevant legislation, policy and

guidance in assessing the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding

highway network.

11.71 The assessment has quantified the estimated construction traffic volumes for the proposed

development including deliveries by both standard and abnormal vehicles. These

movements have been assessed against existing baseline traffic volumes and has

identified that there would be some temporary impacts on the surrounding road network.

11.72 In undertaking the assessment, it is concluded that the routing of abnormal vehicles and

HGV construction traffic would not result in any route experiencing an increase of HGV

movements of over 30% against baseline conditions and under EIA regulations therefore

does not require any further assessment to be undertaken

11.73 A package of mitigation measures is also proposed to minimise any of the temporary

adverse impacts. This results overall in the development proposal having no likely

significant effect on the highway network.



11-16

References

1. Department for Transport (2007) “Guidance on Transport Assessment”.

2. Institute of Environmental Assessment (Now known as the Institute of

Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) (1993) “Guidelines for the

Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic”.

3. Automatic Traffic Counter data received from DfT 2014.

Abbreviations

Acronyms

AADF Annual Average Daily Flow

ATC Automatic Traffic Count

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ES Environmental Statement

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

LGV Light Goods Vehicle



11-17

Abbreviations

DfT Department for Transport

HA Highways Agency

IEA Institute of Environmental Assessment

LHA Local Highway Authority(ies)

NKDC North Kesteven District Council

SKDC South Kesteven District Council

Units

km kilometre

m metre

Glossary

Effects The predicted change to the baseline environment

attributable to the project (e.g. areas of landtake, levels of

noise, degree of visual intrusion).

Impacts The consequences of the effects on environmental

resources or receptors of particular value or sensitivity (e.g.

sleep disturbance due to noise, loss of amenity due to visual

intrusion).

Swept Path Analysis Swept Path Analysis is the calculation and analysis of the

movement and path of different parts of a vehicle when

that vehicle is undertaking a turning manoeuvre.

Two Way Trips Two way trips are trips to and from a destination. i.e. 30 two

way trips is equal to 15 arrivals and 15 departures.



Chapter 12: Geology, Hydrology and

Hydrogeology

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 12 Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology


CONTENTS

12 GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY 12-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 12-1 Legislation and Policy Context .......................................................................................... 12-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ...................................................... 12-5 Baseline Conditions ........................................................................................................... 12-10 Identification and the Evaluation of Key Impacts ........................................................ 12-27 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................ 12-33 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 12-34 Residual Impacts ............................................................................................................... 12-39 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 12-43

Tables

12.1 – Summary of Relevant Consultation Undertaken to Date

12.2 – Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology Sensitivity Criteria

12.3 – Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology Impact Magnitude Criteria

12.4 – Significance Matrix

12.5 – Site Geological Sequence Summary

12.6 – On-site BGS Borehole Record Summary

12.7 – Hydrogeological Site Details Summary

12.8 – Summary of Surface Water Features

12.9 – Summary of Baseline Flood Risk

12.10 – Summary of Historical OS Maps and Aerial Photographs

12.11 – Petrol, Oil and Lubricant Storage Details from RAF Site Plans (1945)

12.12 – Receptor Sensitivity to Potential Contamination

12.13 – Potential Contamination Linkage Summary

12.14 – Summary of Effects for Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology

Figures

Figure 12.1 – Sensitive Surface Water Receptors

Appendices

Appendix 12.1 – Geo-Environmental Phase 1 Desk Study (WSP, 2015)

Appendix 12.2 – Flood Risk Assessment (WSP, 2015)

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology


12-1

12 GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY

Introduction

12.1 This Chapter has been completed by WSP UK Ltd (WSP) and considers the likely significant

environmental effects of the Proposed Development upon the geology, hydrology

(including the potential for flooding) and hydrogeology of the Site and wider environment.

12.2 Prior to assessing the likely significant potential effects this Chapter summarises pertinent

legislative and policy background, the methods used to determine likely significant

environmental effects and the baseline conditions currently present on Site. The likely

significant effects associated with the Proposed Development are then established when

compared to the baseline conditions, along with proposed mitigation measures and the

subsequent anticipated residual effects.

12.3 This Chapter (and its associated appendices) is not intended to be read as a standalone

assessment and reference should be made to the initial chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 –

15), as well as Chapter 16 – Summary.

12.4 This Chapter is also supported by the following reports:

Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study (WSP 2015); and,

Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (WSP 2015).

These reports are included within Appendix 12.1 and 12.2 respectively.

Legislation and Policy Context

Legislation

12.5 The applicable legislative framework documentation is provided as follows:

Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990 describes a regulatory role for Local

Authorities in dealing with contaminated land;

The Water Resources Act 1991 sets outs regulatory controls and restrictions that provide

protection to controlled waters through controls on abstraction, impounding and

discharges as well as identifying water quality and drought provisions;

Land Drainage Act 1994 adds environmental duties to the Land Drainage Act 1991. It

places on the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) and Local Authorities to further the

conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora,

fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and to take into



12-2

account any effects which the proposals would have on the beauty or amenity of any

rural or urban area or on any such flora, fauna or features;

Environment Act, 1995 creates a system whereby Local Authorities must identify and if

necessary, arrange for the remediation of contaminated sites. The provisions are set

out in Section 57, which inserts Part IIA into the Environmental Protection Act, 1990. In

addition to these requirements, the operation of the regime is subject to regulation

and statutory guidance;

Control of Hazardous Substances Hazardous to Human health 2002 (as amended)

provides an assessment of the risk to health created by work involving substances

hazardous to health;

Water Act 2003 amends the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Water Industry Act

1991 to formalise the Government’s commitment to the sustainable management and

use of water resources;

Dangerous Substances Directive (Amendment), 2006 controls the amount of

dangerous substances that are discharged into inland, coastal and territorial waters;

Construction (Design & Management) Regulations, 2007 make explicit duties that exist

under the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974 and the Management of Health and

Safety at Work Regulations, 1999. This requires clients to use their influence to ensure

that the arrangements made by other duty holders are sufficient to safeguard the

health and safety of those working or those affected by that work;

The Groundwater (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 implement parts of the WFD

that apply to groundwater and supplement the environmental permitting (England &

Wales) Regulation (2007) and existing water pollution legislation;

Environmental Damage and Liability (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations, 2009

aim to prevent serious environmental effects or ensure that remediation is carried out.

The duty to prevent or remediate falls on operators of activities. The Regulations

specifically define three types of environmental damage: biodiversity damage - to

European Union protected species and habitats, and Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

water damage; and land damage;

The River Basin Districts Typology, Standards and Groundwater Threshold Values (water

Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Directions 2010, establishes a framework for

protecting the water environment, with the aim of achieving chemical and ecological

water quality targets;

Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requires a lead local flood authority to

develop, maintain and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management within its



12-3

geographic remit. The Act also requires that lead local flood authorities strategies are

consistent with overall national strategies;

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations, 2010 replace those

parts of the Water Resources Act that relate to the regulation of discharges to

controlled waters. Under the Regulations, groundwater activities relate to inputs of

pollutants to groundwater. The Regulations also replace the Groundwater Regulations,

2009 which in turn replaced the Groundwater Regulations, 1998. The Regulations also

transpose the Groundwater Directive 1980, the Water Framework Directive and

Groundwater Daughter Directive 2006 into UK law;

Control of Asbestos Regulations, 2012 prohibit the importation, supply and use of all

forms of asbestos. If existing asbestos containing materials are in good condition, they

may be left in place; their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not

disturbed. The Control of Asbestos Regulations also include the ‘duty to manage

asbestos’ in non-domestic premises; and,

Contaminated Land (England) (Amendment) Regulations, 2012 provides a definition

of what constitutes ‘contaminated land’ and set out the responsibilities of the Local

Authority and the Environment Agency (the Agency) in the identification and

management of contaminated land.

Planning Policy


and assessment is discussed in (Chapter 5 – Planning Policy Context). A summary of

planning policy relevant to this Chapter is summarised below:


National Policy Statement EN3;

The South Kesteven Core Strategy (2010) The strategy includes the following

relevant policies relevant to this Chapter:

EN1: Protection and enhancement of the characters of the district;

EN2: Reducing the risk of Flooding; and,

EN3: Renewable Energy Generation.

Local Plan for South Kesteven – Wind Energy Supplementary Planning

Document (June 2013).



12-4

Consultation Undertaken to Date

12.7 Table 12.1 provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken in support of the

preparation of this Chapter.

Table 12.1: Summary of Relevant Consultation Undertaken to Date

Body Individual at

Body

Consultation Outcome Summary

Environment

Agency

Nicola Farr

(Planning

Advisor)

Letter dated

02.01.2014

The Agency stated that they generally agreed with the proposed

scope of the assessment outlined within the scoping document.

However, they made the following comments in relation to this

Chapter:

They note that the proposed site for the substation is outside of Flood

Zone 3 and support that approach.

They state a Flood Risk Assessment will be required as part of the

planning application and this should be considered within this Chapter.

They note that Sand Beck is a potential receptor with regards to

proposed development activities and the applicant should ensure that

there is no deterioration in the status of this water body resulting from

the Proposed Development.

They also note an intensive poultry unit is situated adjacent to the

eastern site boundary, which should be classified as a potential

receptor with regard to the proposed development activities.

SKDC

Mark Williets

(Lead Officer

Development

Management)

Letter dated

20.01.14

SKDC state that the ES should demonstrate that surface water runoff

into adjacent watercourses is not increased by the supporting

infrastructure, and that adequate attenuation will be provided for

potential increase in runoff from any new impermeable surfaces. They

also reiterate the comments made by the Agency.

Upper

Witham

Drainage

Board

Guy Hird

(Engineering

Services

Officer)

Email dated

28.11.14

The Upper Withham Internal Drainage Board made the following

pertinent comments in relation to the Proposed Development:

‘Surface water discharges from this Site should be flow regulated so as

not to exacerbate flooding problems elsewhere in the catchment.

Therefore no development should be commenced until a Scheme for

the provision, implementation and maintenance of a surface water

regulation system has been approved by and implemented to the

reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation

with the Internal Drainage Board.

Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act. 1991 and the Board's

Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Board is required for any

proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 6 metres of the top

of the bank of any watercourse.

SKDC Rowena Long

(EHO)

With regards to contamination SKDC have looked at their plans and

can confirm that they are unware of any known contamination issues



12-5

Email dated

05.01.2015

associated with the Site. No private groundwater abstraction located

within 3km of the Site.

NKDC

Dale Brian,

(EHO)

Email dated

12.01.2015

With regards to contamination NKDC have stated that there are no

sites within 250m of the Site on their Contaminated Land Register and

they hold no details of historic or recent contamination at the Site. They

hold no record of any private water supplies within 1km of the Site.


Scope of Assessment

12.8 An EIA scoping report outlining the assessment methodology was submitted in November

2013 by the Applicant to both South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) and North Kestevan

District Council (NKDC), as the Site straddles their administrative boundary. The report

outlined that the assessment will collate information to establish the baseline conditions

prior to considering the potential likely significant environmental effects associated with

the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Proposed Development. A

search radius of 3km was proposed for licenced/private water supplies and for

environmentally designated sites. Relevant scoping consultation responses are included

within Table 12.1.

Likely Significant Effects

12.9 The likely significant environmental effects that have been identified for inclusion in this

assessment are as follows:

Construction Phase

Potential increase in physical contamination (i.e. sedimentation) entering surface

water bodies and drainage features due to increased sediment loading;

Disturbance of contaminated ground and/or uncontrolled chemical discharges /

spillages during construction resulting in mobilisation of contaminants impacting

surface watercourses or groundwater;

Potential exposure to historical contamination and buried unexploded ordnance by

construction workers; and,

Potential increase in risk of flooding (groundwater, fluvial, pluvial and drainage) to

earthworks and construction workers.



12-6

Operational Phase

Potential increase in risk of flooding (groundwater, fluvial, pluvial and drainage) on-site

and to third parties; and,

Uncontrolled chemical discharges / spillages from maintenance works polluting

surface water and groundwater.

Guidance

12.10 Best practice guidance documents relevant to this assessment are as follows:

CIRIA C532 (2001) ‘Control of Pollution from Construction Sites’;

Environment Agency (2004) Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated

Land (CLR11);

Environment Agency (2012) ‘Flood Risk Standing Advice for England’ (version 3.1; and,

Environment Agency (2012) Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3), Parts

1-4.

Method of Baseline Data Collection

12.11 The assessment has utilised information collated through consultations, a detailed Geo-

Environmental Desk Study (Appendix 12.1), a walkover survey and Flood Risk Assessment

(FRA) (Appendix 12.2). This information has been utilised to establish the current baseline

conditions of the Site prior to identifying likely significant environmental effects of the

Proposed Development on geology, hydrology and hydrogeology.


12.12 The likely significant environmental effects are assessed based on consideration of the

sensitivity of receptors and the predicted magnitude of the potential effects. The

magnitude of the affected receptor/receiving environment is assessed as substantial,

moderate, slight or slight/no effect and the sensitivity is assessed on a scale of high,

medium and low. Example scenarios for sensitivity and magnitude of the likely significant

environmental effects are provided within Tables 12.2 and 12.3 respectively.



12-7

Table 12.2: Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology Sensitivity Criteria

Sensitivity Description

High Areas containing geological, hydrological or habitat features considered to be of

national or international interest, for example, SSSIs, SPAs.

Highly permeable superficial deposits allowing free transport of contaminants to

groundwater and surrounding surface waters.

Site located within a Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 1 or 2.

Potable groundwater abstractions located on-site.

Wetland/water body of Good Ecological and or Chemical Potential (WFD).

Highly sensitive ecological receptors.

High risk of flooding.

Medium Areas containing features of designated regional importance, for example

Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGS), considered

worthy of protection for their educational, research, historical or aesthetic

importance.

Site Located within an SPZ Zone 3.

Potable groundwater abstractions located within 3km of the Site.

Moderately permeable superficial deposits allowing some limited transport of

contaminants to groundwater and surrounding surface waters.

Wetland/watercourse of Moderate Ecological and / or Chemical Potential

(WFD).

Moderate risk of flooding.

Low Geological features not currently protected and not considered worthy of

protection.

Low permeability superficial deposits likely to inhibit the transport of

contaminants.

Site not located within an SPZ.

No groundwater abstraction located within 3km of the Site.

Wetland/watercourse of Poor Ecological and/or Chemical Potential or no WFD

classification.

Low risk of flooding.



12-8

Table 12.3: Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology Impact Magnitude Criteria

Magnitude Degree of Impact

Substantial Significant (greater than 50%), or total loss of a site of recognised geological

importance, or where there would be complete alteration of a site such as to

affect the value of the site to a major degree.

Total loss of, or alteration to, key features of the baseline hydrological resource

such that post development characteristics or quality would be fundamentally

and irreversibly changed e.g. watercourse realignment.

Significant contamination identified, in excess of relevant thresholds for

protection of Water Environment.

Significant increase in downstream flood risk.

Significant impact upon human health.

Moderate /

Substantial

Partial loss (between approximately 10% to 50%) of a site of recognised

geological importance, significant alternation, major effects to the setting, or

disturbance such that the value of the site would be affected, but not to a major

degree.

Loss of, or alteration to, key features of the baseline hydrological resource such

that post development characteristics or quality would be partially changed e.g.

instream permanent bridge supports.

Localised or marginal contamination or potential but not proven contamination.

Moderate increase in downstream flood risk.

Moderate impact on human health.

Moderate Minimal effect (a loss of up to 10%) on a site of recognised geological

importance or a medium effect on its setting, or minor alternation or disturbance

such that the value of the site would not be affected.

Small changes to the baseline resource, which are detectable but the underlying

characteristics or quality of the baseline situation would be similar to pre-

development conditions e.g. culverting of very small watercourses.

No significant contamination identified, or could reasonably be expected based

on desk study findings.

Minor/insignificant increase in downstream flood risk.

Minor/insignificant impact upon human health.

Slight Very slight change from baseline conditions. Change hardly discernible, e.g. short

term compaction from machinery movements.

No contamination above relevant thresholds identified, or could reasonably be

expected based on desk study findings.

Slight change to downstream flood risk.

No Effect /

Slight

No effects on baseline conditions or those that are beneath levels of perception,

with normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.



12-9

12.13 The following terms have been used to define the significance of the effects:

Major effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a very

significant environmental effect (either beneficial or adverse) on geology, hydrology

and hydrogeology;

Moderate effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a

noticeable environmental effect (either beneficial or adverse) on geology, hydrology

and hydrogeology;

Minor effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to result in a

small, barely noticeable environmental effect (either beneficial or adverse) on

geology, hydrology and hydrogeology; and,

Minor / Negligible: where no discernible effect is expected as a result of the Proposed

Development on geology, hydrology and hydrogeology.

12.14 The terms for potential magnitude and receptor sensitivity (importance) have been

applied using the following matrix (Table 12.4) to consistently identify the likely significant

environmental effects.


Magnitude of change

Se

nsi

tiv

ity


High Major Major / Moderate Moderate Moderate /

Minor

Medium Major /

Moderate

Moderate Moderate /

Minor

Minor

Low Moderate Moderate / Minor Minor Minor /

Negligible



12-10

12.15 Environmental effects considered to be greater than ‘Moderate/Minor’ (darker coloured

cells) are considered to be potentially significant within the context of the assessment,

which is based on professional judgement following review of the available information.

12.16 The length of time the effect is considered to endure has been quantified as short (<6

months), medium (one to two years) or long term (up to 25 years).

Mitigation Measures

12.17 As part of the assessment, where potential significant adverse environmental effects are

identified measures have been identified to avoid, minimise or mitigate those effects.

Cumulative Effects

12.18 The Proposed Development has the potential to cause effects to geology, hydrology and

hydrogeology that are cumulative with those caused by other nearby developments.

Cumulative effects have therefore been considered as part of the assessment.


12.19 The assessment is based upon information obtained from a variety of sources as detailed

within the Chapter. WSP believes the information obtained from third parties is reliable but

does not guarantee its authenticity. It should also be noted that the assessment is

predominantly desk based, supported by a site walkover survey, and has been

undertaken without the availability of the results of an intrusive site investigation.

12.20 The findings of a ground investigation, required as part of any planning conditions, will be

incorporated into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and

foundation designs to ensure that an appropriate level of mitigation is provided. Risk

assessments will be updated following receipt of further information.

12.21 It is assumed that the proposed temporary and design drainage strategies are

implemented appropriately.

Baseline Conditions

12.22 The following section outlines the current geological, hydrological and hydrogeological

environment at the Site, assuming no development was to take place. The baseline data

for this Chapter is based upon relevant findings of the Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk

Study (Appendix 12.1) and the FRA (Appendix 12.2).



12-11

Site Description

12.23 Land use observations were made during a site walkover survey undertaken by WSP on 9

December 2014. The Site was noted to be used primarily for agricultural use, with a go-

karting track located in the south and large straw bale stockpiles located on areas of

hardstanding across the Site. Infrastructure associated with the Site’s historical use as an

airfield was noted to include three former runways, a perimeter track, former hardstanding

aircraft dispersal areas and concrete foundations associated with a former technical area

located in the east of the Site. No buildings associated with the former use of the Site as an

airfield were noted. A detailed description of the Site is presented within Chapter 3.

12.24 The site topography generally falls from circa 20m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) in the

southwest to circa 14m AOD in the northeast. The Site was noted to be generally flat lying

with occasional earth mounds located immediately adjacent to sections of the former

runways and the airfield perimeter track.

Surrounding Land

12.25 The surrounding land largely comprises agricultural fields. Leatherbottle Farm, a large

poultry farm, is situated adjacent to the eastern boundary and Fulbeck Grange Farm is

also located adjacent to the eastern site boundary. The closest settlements are the small

village of Stragglethorpe, located approximately 450m to the northeast, and the village of

Brant Broughton located approximately 2km north northeast.

Soil Quality

12.26 Information on the soil quality of the Site has been obtained from the National Soil

Resource Institute1. The soils on site are described as slowly permeable seasonally wet,

slightly acid but base-rich loamy and clayey soils in the west and predominantly freely

draining lime-rich loamy soils in the east.

12.27 No sensitive soils (e.g. peats, heath) have been observed at the surface of the Site. Given

the agricultural nature of the Site they are considered unlikely to be present at shallow

depth and therefore are considered not to represent a potential receptor within the

assessment.

1 http://www.landis.org.uk/



12-12

Geology

12.28 British Geological Survey (BGS) Mapping (Sheet 127 Grantham 1:50,000) indicates the Site

is partially underlain by superficial deposits. Fulbeck Sand and Gravel is shown to be

present across the central and eastern parts of the Site and an area located along the

western boundary. No superficial deposits are shown across the remainder of the Site.

12.29 The underlying bedrock across the central and west is indicated to be associated with

Scunthorpe Mudstone Formation, which include mudstone beds with abundant ironstone

and limestone nodules and thin limestone beds. The formation belongs to the Lias Group

Parent Formation. The eastern area of the Site is underlain by the Brant Mudstone

Formation comprising mudstone.

12.30 The local underlying geological sequence generally comprises outcropping rock units as

shown in Table 12.5 (top to bottom of geological sequence) and is shown to dip to the

east on the BGS map.

Table 12.5 Site Geological Sequence Summary

Rock Formation

Rock Unit Description Location

Brant

Mudstone

Formation

Brant Mudstone Grey mudstone

(Rock unit shown to be

c. 120m thick)

Located along the

eastern site boundary.

Sand Beck Nodule

Bed

Nodular Ironstone

sedimentary bedrock.


c. 10m thick)

Band trending north to

south in the east of the

Site.

Scunthorpe

Mudstone

Formation

Foston Member Interbedded mudstone

and limestone including:

-Glebe Farm Beds;

-Stragglethorpe Grange

Limestone Beds;

-Highfield Farm

Limestone Beds; and

-Mill Lane Limestone

Beds.


c. 40m thick)

Central and western

part of the Site.



12-13

12.31 Two fault lines orientated east to west are located across the south of the Site.

12.32 The BGS Geoindex database2 identifies three available borehole records located in the

west of the Site. A summary of the borehole details is included within Table 12.6.

Table 12.6: On-site BGS Borehole Record Summary

Stratum Description Depth Encountered

Top (m) Base (m)

BGS Borehole ID SK955SW8 - located in the north of the Site

Lias Marl Dark grey Marl and little sand 0.0 35.5

Rhaetic Marl Mudstone (dark brown/red) 35.5 115.8

Bunter Sandstone Reddish sandstone 115.8 166.2

BGS Borehole ID SK85SE14 - located in the northwest of the Site

Topsoil Sandy loam 0.0 0.2

Residual soil Sandy silt – fine to medium grained

sand and silt

0.2 1.0

Brown silt 1.0 1.2

Mudstone Finely laminated purple and brown

mudstone

1.3 2.5

BGS Borehole ID SK85SE14 - located in the northwest of the Site

Mudstone Finely laminated purple grey and

brown mudstone. Stratum noted to

be very clayey within top 1m

0.0 2.5

Mining

12.33 The Site is not located in an area understood to be impacted by historical mining activities.

Hydrogeology

12.34 Pertinent hydrogeological details for the Site are summarised within Table 12. 7.

2 http://www.bgs.ac.uk/



12-14

Table 12.7: Hydrogeological Site Details Summary

Hydrogeological Aspect

Details

Superficial Geology Fulbeck Sands and Gravel are classified by the Agency as a

Secondary A Aquifer. Secondary A aquifers are defined as

permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local

rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an

important source of base flow to rivers.

Solid Geology Foston Member is classified as a Secondary B Aquifer. Secondary B

aquifers are predominantly lower permeability layers which may

store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised

features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering.

The Sand Beck Nodule bed is classified as a Secondary A Aquifer

and the Brant Mudstone Formation is classified as Unproductive

Stratum. Unproductive Stratum is defined as rock layers with low

permeability that has negligible significance for water supply or

river base flow.

Environment Agency

River Basin

Management Plan

The Site is located within the Agency defined Anglian River Basin

district, with current groundwater chemical quality defined as

‘Good’ and Quantitative Quality as ‘Good’.

Groundwater

Safeguard Zone

Drinking water safeguard zones are designated areas in which the

use of certain substances must be carefully managed to prevent

the pollution of raw water sources that are used to provide

drinking water.

The Site is not located within a groundwater safeguard zone as

defined by the Agency.

Groundwater

Protection Zone (GPZ)

GPZs are areas identified by the Agency as particularly sensitive to

groundwater contamination, as they are located around

groundwater abstraction boreholes.

No GPZs located within 1km of the Site.

Groundwater

Abstractions

No publically recorded groundwater abstractions are located

within 3km of the Site boundary.

Private Water Supplies No private recorded groundwater abstractions have been

identified within 3km of the Site. The closest abstraction is located

approximately 5.2km to the east, utilised by three residential

properties.



12-15

Hydrology

12.35 The Site was observed to be generally flat-lying and covered with agricultural fields during

the site walkover survey undertaken by WSP on 9 December 2014. A number of field drains

were noted around the perimeter of the agricultural fields along with redundant historical

drainage infrastructure in the form of infilled manholes and broken clay pipes adjacent to

the former runways in the south of the Site. Sand Beck was observed in the east of the Site

flowing north. A number of field drains were noted to flow into Sand Beck. An unnamed

pond was noted in the east of the Site and a large pond was also noted immediately to

the south of the Site. Figure 12.1 illustrates pertinent surface water features on and

surrounding the Site.

12.36 The Site is located within the Agency defined Anglian River Basin Management Plan and

Witham Catchment Area.

12.37 Sand Beck flows northwards through parts of the eastern section of the Site and is

maintained by the Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board (IDB). Sand Beck is also an

Agency classified surface watercourse.

12.38 Surface watercourse details that are present on or considered to be within the zone of

influence of the Site are included within Table 12. 8.



12-16

Table 12.8: Summary of Surface Water Features

Surface Water Feature

Location (approximate)

Flow Direction Current Quality*

Agency Watercourses/Main Rivers

Sand Beck

(Catchment

tributary of the

River Brant)

On-site and

along the

eastern site

boundary.

North

(joins the River

Brant c. 2km north

northeast of the

Site)

Ecological Quality Status:

Moderate Potential

(Does not require chemical

assessment)

Upper Witham IDB

maintained water course.

River Brant 450m north North (towards the

River Witham,

located

approximately

12km north of the

Site)

Ecological Quality Status:

Moderate Potential (reduces

to Low approximately 1.8km

downstream from the Site).

(Does not require chemical

assessment).

Upper Witham IDB


Other Drainage Board Mismanaged Watercourses

Little Sky Drain On-site – along

part of the

western site

boundary

North NC

Upper Witham IDB


Other Watercourses

Unnamed

field/network

drains across the

Site and

surrounding area.

On-site

throughout

and off-site to

1km+ from

boundary

Various (generally

be flowing towards

Sand Beck in the

east).

NC

Ponds

Unnamed pond

located adjacent

to eastern site

boundary

On-site - NC

Ponds located

within 1km of the

Site boundary

Closest

located c. 20m

south

- NC

*NC = Not Classified by the Environment Agency



12-17

Surface Water Abstractions

12.39 Two active surface water abstractions are located within 1km of the Site boundary. The

abstractions are located approximately 350m to the south associated with agriculture

spray irrigation obtained from a tributary of Sand Beck.

Flooding

12.40 Information within this section has been obtained from the FRA (Appendix 12.2).

Existing Flood Defences and other Structures

12.41 The Agency’s Flood Map for Planning shows flood defence structures downstream of the

Site on the River Brant. Flood defence structures are also shown on the River Witham for

the section of river flowing past the Site, approximately 3km to the west.

12.42 Landmark mapping shows the presence of two upstream sluices on a drain flowing from a

pond to the south of the Site.

12.43 The North Kesteven Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA, 2009) shows that there are no

flood storage areas within the vicinity (<50m) of the Site. The SFRA (2009) also contains

condition ratings for flood defences in the borough. The flood defences in the Upper

Witham System (the area containing the Site) are generally rated as fair or good.

Environment Agency Flood Zone

12.44 The eastern area of the Site adjacent to the banks of Sand Beck is shown on the Agency

flood maps to be within Flood Zone 3. Defined as having a 1% chance of flooding from

rivers annually. There is also an area in the east of the Site within Flood Zone 2, defined as

having 0.1% chance of flooding annually. The remainder of the Site is not shown to be at

risk from flooding (Flood Zone 1), with a less than 0.1% chance of flooding annually.

Fluvial Flood Risk

12.45 The Agency’s Flood Map for Planning3 indicates that the majority of the Site is located

within Flood Zone 1. However, there are areas of Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3 in the east

and south of the Site.

12.46 The Lincolnshire County Council Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA, 2011) records of

Historic Flooding Map shows no historical flooding from any source within the vicinity of the

Site.

3 http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/



12-18

12.47 The Lincolnshire County Council PFRA (2011) identified 0.5km squares where flood risk

required further investigation as part of the local strategy. The identification of these

squares is based on an assessment of the number of properties at risk with the lowest

threshold being 20 to 29 properties. The area containing the Site was not identified as

requiring investigation.

12.48 The Upper Witham IDB have confirmed that Sand Beck is known to flow to the upper bank

level at times and the poultry sheds near the main entrance have flooded in the past.

12.49 Based on the available information, the risk of fluvial flooding is considered to be low to

medium.

Tidal / Costal Flood Risk

12.50 The Site is located away from the coast (>40km) at an elevation around 16m AOD. The risk

from tidal and coastal flooding is considered to be negligible and therefore will not be

considered further in this assessment.

Groundwater Flooding

12.51 The Lincolnshire County Council PFRA (2011) does not identify the area within the vicinity of

the Site as one of the areas that has experienced a serious surface or groundwater flood

event in the past. However, the June/July 2007 floods are described to have affected

numerous houses “across the county” including 67 in North Kesteven District and 96 in

South Kesteven District. From the information provided, the effect of the June/July 2007

floods on the Site cannot be determined.

12.52 The Lincolnshire County Council PFRA (2011) Records of Historic Flooding Map shows no

flooding from any source in the vicinity of the Site.

12.53 The Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Flooding Map in the Lincolnshire County Council

PFRA (2011) shows the Site to be within an area which has <25% susceptibility to

groundwater flooding.

12.54 The BGS Groundwater Flooding Susceptibility Map indicates that the Site has potential for

groundwater flooding to occur at surface. The groundwater flooding susceptibility data

shows the degree to which areas are susceptible to groundwater flooding on the basis of

geological and hydrological conditions. It does not show the likelihood of groundwater

flooding occurring, i.e. it is a hazard based data set not a risk based data set.

12.55 Based on the available information, the risk from groundwater flooding is considered to be

low.



12-19

Surface Water (Pluvial) Flooding

12.56 The Lincolnshire County Council PFRA (2011) does not identify the Site or the area within

the vicinity of the Site as an area that has experienced a serious surface flood event in the

past. However, the June/July 2007 floods are described to have affected numerous

houses “across the county” including 67 in North Kesteven District and 96 in South Kesteven

District. From the information provided the effect that the June/July 2007 floods had on the

Site cannot be determined.



12.58 The Lincolnshire County Council Flood Investigations under Section 19 of the Flood and

Water Management Act 2010 found no flooding incidents in the immediate vicinity of the

Site. The following events were recorded:

Surface water flooding after intense rain 3.7 km southeast of the Site on Gorse

Hill Lane in Caythorpe; and

Overland flow 2.8 km south of the Site on Church Lane in Brandon.

12.59 The Agency’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water Map shows that areas of the Site are

susceptible to surface water flooding.

12.60 Risk Management Solutions (RMS) flooding data has been obtained which is a modelled

dataset that uses land height, predicted rainfall and other factors to predict flooding from

rivers and surface water flooding during a 75 (1.3%), 100 (1%) and 1000 (0.1%) year storm.

These indicate that during a 1 in 75 and 1 in 100 year storm the south, east and the area

near the northwestern boundary are susceptible to surface water flooding. In a 1 in 1000

year storm the majority of the southern section of the Site and large patches in the north

are shown to be susceptible to surface water flooding.

12.61 Based on the available information the risk of flooding from surface water is considered to

be low to medium.

Surcharged Sewer Flooding



12.63 As there are no public sewers in the vicinity of the Site the risk from surcharged sewers is

considered to be negligible.



12-20

Flooding from Other Sources

12.64 Non-natural or artificial sources of flooding can include reservoirs, canals and other

artificial sources. The potential effects of flood risk management infrastructure and other

structures also needs to be considered. The Agency website4 indicates that the Site is not

at risk from reservoir or canal flooding, therefore, flood risk from reservoirs, canals and other

sources is considered to be negligible.

Baseline Flood risk Summary

12.65 Table 12.9 presents a summary of the baseline flood risk based on the information within

the FRA (Appendix 12.2).

Table 12.9: Summary of Baseline Flood Risk

Potential Sources of Flooding Baseline Flood risk

Fluvial Low to Medium

Tidal/coastal Negligible

Groundwater Low

Surface Water / Pluvial Low to Medium

Sewer and Drainage Infrastructure Negligible

Other Sources Negligible

Existing Public Sewers

12.66 Records from Anglian Water (Appendix 12.2) indicate that there are no public sewers

within the site boundary. The only public sewers in the vicinity of the Site are foul sewers in

the village of Fenton, located approximately 0.6km to the west of the Site.

4 http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/



12-21

Existing Private Drainage

12.67 Records of the existing private site drainage have been compiled by Land Drainage

Services Ltd in 2014 (Appendix 12.2). There are several land drainage systems on site which

generally outfall to the surrounding Upper Witham IDB drains.

12.68 The runways and perimeter tracks were constructed with drains running down the sides to

drain the concrete/hardstanding areas.

12.69 Some of the drains on site are shown to be pipes whilst others are marked as open

channels and their condition varies. The pipes/manholes associated with the runways in

the south of the Site were observed to be filled with gravel/soil during the site walkover

survey.

Ecological Designations

12.70 No statutory ecological designated areas are located on site or within 1km of the site

boundary (Ref 12.)

12.71 Consideration of the physical impacts from the Proposed Development to ecology is

provided within Chapter 9.

Potential Sources of Contamination

Current Site Use

12.72 No potential sources of contamination were identified during the WSP site walkover survey.

However, it should be noted that internal areas of the go-karting track were not inspected.

The potential risks to human health from Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) within the

building fabric/surface fragments has not been considered further within this assessment

due to the specialised nature of qualifying the associated risks.

Historical Maps and Plans

12.73 A review of historical Ordnance Survey (OS) maps and historical aerial photography

obtained from English Heritage has been undertaken to identify potential former sources

of contamination at the Site. Table 12.10 provides a summary of the relevant observations.



12-22

Table 12.10 Summary of Historical OS Maps and Aerial Photographs

Dates Summary of on-site land uses Summary of Off-site land uses

1886

The Site is primarily shown to comprise

agricultural fields. A number of small

ponds are located across the Site and

Sand Beck is shown flowing south to

north across the east of the Site. A

small building is shown in the north.

The Site is generally surrounded by

agricultural land and small farmsteads.

East: Fulbeck Grange Farm is shown

located immediately to the east of the

Site.

West: a small sand pit is shown

immediately adjacent to the central

western site boundary.

1906 No significant changes observed.

West: the sand pit to the west of the Site

is no longer shown, presumed to have

been infilled.

1946

The Site is shown to be an airfield

consisting of three small interlinked

runways a cluster of small buildings in

the east forming the airfield’s

technical area and five aircraft

hangars. The three runways are

surrounded by numerous aircraft

dispersal areas.

East: additional small buildings have

been constructed, likely to be

associated with the airfield. The later

maps identify the buildings to be a part

of the ‘Camp’.

1956 The Site is shown to be an airfield. No significant changes observed to the

surrounding area.

1974

The Site is identified as ‘Fulbeck

Airfield’ comprising three

interconnected small runways and

many aircraft dispersal areas.

No significant changes observed to the

surrounding area.

1982/84

The Site is labelled as ‘Airfield

(disused)’. The former technical area

in the east is identified as ‘Camp

(disused)’, a substation is shown in this

area.

East: a number of poultry houses have

been constructed adjacent to the Site

boundary.

2014 A go-karting track is shown in the

south of the Site.

South: an International go-karting circuit

is shown approximately 300m from the

Site.

12.74 Given the size, date since it was infilled and location of the infilled sand pit it is not

considered to be a potentially insignificant contamination source within the context of this

assessment. The primary potential source of contamination observed from the historical

maps is considered to be the former use of the Ste as an Airfield.



12-23

Historical RAF Plans

12.75 Historical site plans (dated 1945) were obtained from the RAF Museum’s Research

Department (Appendix 12.1). A summary of the pertinent Site features is provided below.

12.76 A summary of on-site petrol, oil and lubricant storage sources identified on the RAF

historical plans is provided within Table 12. 11.

Table 12.11: Petrol, Oil and Lubricant Storage Details from RAF Site Plans (1945)

Storage Location Volume (L)

Comments

Bulk Petrol

Installation

East – Technical

Area adjacent to

main access track.

c. 91,000 Likely to have been used to fuel

aircraft during WWII. Area currently

overgrown, no evidence of fuel tanks

or associated infrastructure evident

during site walkover.

Fuel Store East – located to the

south of the

Technical Area.

- Relatively large building shown. The

area is currently located within

woodland, concrete foundations

remain in the area. Details of volumes

and contents not provided.

Military

Transport Petrol

Installation

East – Technical

Area, located

adjacent to bridge

crossing Sand Beck.

c. 3,800 No evidence of former structures

present during site walkover. Plans

indicate fuel storage tanks were

located below ground.

Bulk Oil

Installation

East – Technical

Area.

- Likely to be associated with vehicle

maintenance.

Bulk Oil

Installation

East – Located

immediately

adjacent to the

main access road to

the west of the bulk

petrol installation.

- Likely to be associated with vehicle

maintenance.

Bulk Petrol

Installation

Northeast – located

along a track joining

the perimeter track

with Stragglethorpe

Lane.

c.

275,000

Likely to have been used to fuel



evident during site walkover. Brick

buildings and mound remain. Plan

identified the fuel storage tanks were

located below ground.

Bulk Petrol

Installation

East – Technical

Area adjacent to

main access track.

c.

182,000

Likely to have been used to fuel



evident during site walkover.



12-24

12.77 The RAF plans show two substations in the Technical Area in the east of the Site, located to

the west of Sand Beck. Due to the age of the facility the substations may have historically

contained insulating oils containing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs).

12.78 The RAF plans show a large ‘Bomb Store’ located in the south of the Site consisting of:

Type D (high explosive) Bomb Store;

Component Store;

Incendiary Bomb Store;

Pyrotechnical Store;

Fusing Point; and,

Small Bomb Container Store.

12.79 A firing range is shown in the southeast of the Site. The wall associated with the range was

noted during the site walkover survey. Contamination is commonly associated with

historical firing ranges and is likely to be localised, primarily in the region of the stop-butts,

due to the potential presence of historical heavy metal deposition from rifle rounds

(largely lead).

12.80 Five Type 2 (large) and five Blister hangers are shown located around the perimeter of the

Site. During WWII the dials used on aircraft dash boards were luminised with Radium-226 (a

radioactive substance) to enhance visibility during poor lighting. Maintenance activities

would have predominantly been undertaken within hangers and luminised components

along with engine oil may have been discarded in the area historically.

Landfill Sites

No currently active or historical landfills were identified within 1km of the Site.

Unexploded Ordnance

12.81 An unexploded ordnance (UXO) desk based report was commission for the Site as part of

the Phase 1 Geo-environmental Desk Study (Appendix 12.1). The report identified that the

Site was used as a bomber command airfield during WWII and 8000 tonnes of high

explosive surplus ammunitions were sorted on the site after WWII. Due to a lack of good

practice associated with bomb storage at this type of site, along with the presence of a

bomb dump, the risk rating for the Site vary from low associated with the former runways;

medium associated with the former Technical Area in the east; to high associated with the

former bomb dump in the south. The reminder of the Site is classified as medium/high risk

rating of encountering UXOs.



12-25

Receptor Sensitivity

12.82 The sensitive receptors to contamination are summarised within Table 12.12.

Table 12.12 Receptor Sensitivity to Potential Contamination

Receptor Sensitivity Rationale

Underlying Secondary A

and B aquifers.

Low to Medium The Site is not located with a SPZ.

No groundwater abstractions are located

on or surrounding the Site (3km).

The Agency WFD classifies the underlying

aquifer quality as ‘Good’ for its current

Chemical Quality status.

Permeable superficial deposits allowing free

transport of contaminants to groundwater

and surrounding surface waters (where

present).

Surface water features

(Sand Beck, drainage

channels and unnamed

pond).

Medium Sand Back located in the east of the Site is

classified by the

Agency as having Moderate Ecological

Quality (WFD).

Off-site third party land

(inc. Poultry Farm)

Low to Medium Site primarily surrounded by agricultural

land and a poultry farm (identified by the

Agency as a sensitive receptor in the

context of this assessment).

Human health

(construction workers and

maintenance workers)

Low to Medium No on-site residents.

Construction workers/ future maintenance

workers only likely to be on site for relatively

short periods of time and wear personal

protective equipment (PPE).

12.83 The two licenced surface water abstractions located approximately 350m to the south of

the Site are considered unlikely to be impacted by the Proposed Development as they are

located up gradient of the on-site surface watercourses and are therefore not considered

further within this assessment.

Contaminant Linkage Summary

12.84 Based on the findings of the Geo-Environmental Desk Study (Appendix 12.1) the following

potential contaminant linkages are considered to be active, subject to further intrusive

investigation (Table 12. 13).



12-26

Table 12.13: Potential Contamination Linkage Summary

Potential Contamination Source

Pathway Receptor

Former on-site RAF Airbase

(historical fuel/oil storage,

made ground, substations,

radiological components

and explosive residues)

Ingestion of soil.

Dermal contact with

soil.

Inhalation of soil-

derived dust and

fibres.

Inhalation of vapours.

Ground workers and below ground

maintenance workers.

Infiltration and

migration of leachate

to groundwaters.

Secondary A and B aquifers.

Lateral migration via

permeable strata and

surface water run-off.

Surface Waters - Sand Beck and

surrounding land drainage/ponds.

Direct contact and

lateral migration.

Third party property (surrounding

land/poultry farm).

UXOs Direct contact. Construction workers involved in

ground works and below ground

maintenance workers.

Future Baseline

12.85 Should the Proposed Development not proceed, it is considered that the future baseline

conditions in relation to geology, hydrology and hydrogeology at the Site would remain

relatively unchanged. The volume and intensity of precipitation falling on the Site could

increase due to climate change. This could have a corresponding effect on flood risk

associated with the drainage channels and watercourses on-site and in the vicinity of the

Site.



12-27


12.86 The Proposed Development has the potential to alter the current baseline conditions as it

will introduce physical changes to the land which may alter the natural hydrodynamics of

the Site. During construction, and to a significantly lesser extent during operation, the

Proposed Development has the potential to also introduce/disturb potential sources of

pollution. Contaminants associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed

Development may be both chemical (e.g. accidentally released fuels, oils, and cleaning

chemicals, etc.) as well as physical (e.g. sediment transport and deposition).

Key Impacts Relating to Construction

12.87 The construction phase includes all activities prior to the operation of the proposed wind

farm development, i.e. up to the point at which the turbines begin generating electricity.

12.88 The following outlines the likely significant environmental effects posed by construction

related activities with respect to geology, hydrology (including flooding) and

hydrogeology.

Potential Increase in physical contamination (i.e. sedimentation) entering surface

water bodies and drainage features due to increased sediment loading

12.89 Key potential surface water receptors are Sand Beck, Little Sky Drain, surface water drains

and the unnamed ponds located both on and to the south of the Site.

12.90 During the construction phase there will be a number of on-site activities which could

potentially reduce surface water quality with respect to physical contaminants

(sedimentation and siltation). These are summarised as follows:

Movement and use of static and mobile plant/construction vehicles such as

excavators, dumper trucks and haulage trucks;

Materials handling, storage, stockpiling, spillage and disposal

Upgrading of the existing access bridge crossing Sand Beck;

Construction of drainage features; and

Installation of infrastructure and roads.

12.91 The construction activities stated above may lead to the disturbance and mobilisation of

physical contaminants (i.e. sediments, silt, dust and muds), particularly during periods of

heavy rainfall. Earthworks and vehicle movements resulting in damage to soil structure

may generate increased sedimentation within surface run-off. In addition, during periods

of dry, windy weather wind-blown dusts generated by the excavation and movement of



12-28

soils have the potential to directly reduce the quality of surface water features. Sediments

entering the watercourse via surface water run-off could cause increased sediment loads

potentially resulting in effects such as increased turbidity and a reduction in dissolved

oxygen.

12.92 Increased surface water sediment content has the potential to subsequently affect the

chemical and biological quality of surface water receptors. The biological quality could

be affected indirectly through sediment smothering feeding and breeding grounds and

physically altering the habitat.

12.93 Taking into consideration the location of the surface water bodies and development

areas likely to cause sedimentation, the sensitivity of the surface water bodies to physical

contaminants is considered to be medium and the magnitude of change, prior to

mitigation moderate. Therefore there is likely to be a direct and / or indirect, temporary,

short term effect on surface waters of moderate adverse significant effect to both on-site

and off-site surface water bodies prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.



12-29

Disturbance of contaminated ground and/or uncontrolled chemical discharge /


surface watercourses or groundwater

12.94 On-site controlled water receptors considered as being potentially susceptible to impact

from contaminants within disturbed ground as part of the assessment include on Site and

surrounding surface water courses (primarily Sand Beck) and the underlying aquifer

associated with the underlying superficial deposits and rock deposits.

12.95 The potential contaminant pathways include leaching from the unsaturated zone to

groundwater; surface water run-off, vertical and lateral migration within groundwater

resources off-site; and, towards surface water features.

12.96 There are areas of the Site which may have been impacted by potential historical sources

of contamination associated with the former use of the Site as an RAF airbase. The majority

of these areas are not located in the proximity of the Proposed Development structures.

However, the access road and bridge across Sand Beck are located immediately

adjacent to historical below ground fuel tanks. Earthworks are likely to be undertaken in

this area, associated with upgrading the access bridge, and potentially the track which

could potentially disturb and release mobile historical contamination (petroleum

hydrocarbons) located in this area and migrate towards Sand Beck/drainage channels.

12.97 The use of machinery and plant associated with construction activities (including the

establishment of a site compound and storage of chemicals or fuels) could give rise to a

contamination risk to soils, groundwater and surface water features through accidental

fuel / oil and chemical spills and leaks. Soils impacted by spills and leaks may represent a

future source of contamination to controlled waters via leaching.

12.98 There could also be a risk of contaminated runoff, including hydrocarbon contamination

and high-suspended solid loads, associated with the operation of vehicles. This has the

potential to create overland migration pathways.

12.99 The underlying Secondary A Aquifer is considered to have medium to low sensitivity given

the potential for contaminants to migrate through the strata and reach Sand Beck. Sand

Beck is an Agency classified surface watercourse which is also classified as having a

medium sensitivity.

12.100 The sensitivity of the controlled water receptors is medium and the magnitude of change,

prior to mitigation is moderate. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary short to

medium term effect on controlled waters of moderate adverse significance prior to the

implementation of mitigation measures.



12-30

Potential exposure to historical contamination or UXOs by construction workers

12.101 Potential sources of contamination have been recorded on site within the Geo-

Environmental Phase 1 Report (Appendix 12.1). Given the age of the potential

contamination sources, it is likely to be localised in nature and not widespread.

12.102 Given the historical use of the Site as a Bomber Command airfield during WWII, and the

presence of a large bomb store there is the potential for buried UXOs to be present on

Site.

12.103 The use of machinery and plant associated with site preparation, earthworks and

construction activities (including the establishment of a site compound) could give rise to

contamination risk to soils, through accidental fuel/oil spills and leaks, and storage of

chemicals or fuels. Soils impacted by fuel/oil spills and leaks may represent a future source

of contamination to both human health and controlled waters.

12.104 If human health receptors are exposed to contaminants above threshold concentrations

there is potential for both temporary and permanent health problems to arise dependent

on a number of factors including type of contaminant, characteristics of receptor and

duration of exposure.

12.105 Excavation of potentially contaminated soils (including hydrocarbons and asbestos) could

pose a health risk to site preparation and construction workers and third parties. Potential

pathways include dermal contact (i.e. direct skin contact with contaminated soils and

groundwater), ingestion (e.g. via the transfer of contaminated soils from unwashed hands

during eating) inhalation of dusts or fibres (i.e. breathing in contaminated dusts and

particulate matter generated by excavation activities, potentially including asbestos) and

inhalation of vapours (i.e. breathing in vapours from volatile contaminants in the soil and

groundwater).

12.106 Earthworks and related activities could potentially disturb historical UXOs, which could

potentially detonate leading to loss of life.

12.107 The sensitivity of human health receptors is medium and the magnitude of change, prior

to mitigation, slight to substantial (based on the potential risk of UXO detonation). In

selected areas (former bomb store, airfield) there is likely to be a direct, temporary and /

or permanent, short term effect on human health of major / moderate adverse

significance and a moderate / minor adverse significant affect associated with exposure

to historical sources of contamination.



12-31


construction workers and third party land

12.108 It is considered that the probability of the Site flooding from fluvial and pluvial sources is

low to medium, from groundwater sources low and negligible from all other sources.

12.109 Flooding from all sources has the potential to harm construction workers on-site and

impact third party land such as the adjacent poultry farm. In addition, groundwater has

the potential to ingress ground excavations and foundations creating health and safety

risks to construction workers.

12.110 During the construction phase there will be a number of on-site activities which could

potentially reduce infiltration rates leading to increased surface water run-off, or could

create slow drainage flows potentially leading to localised flooding. These include:

Earthworks leading to sedimentation blocking or slowing shallow drainage channels;

Infrastructure crossing surface water channels, leading to reduced surface water

drainage flows;

Increased low permeability surface cover, leading to increased surface runoff flows;

and,

Damage to subterranean field drains by below ground earthworks.

12.111 Surface water flooding, especially after extreme rainfall events, may affect the Proposed

Development Site if it is received in large volumes. Flooding would currently follow the line

of least resistance and follow natural topography to low spots within the Proposed

Development Site. The location of low spots within the Proposed Development Site could

change during the construction phase and surface water runoff volumes may increase

slightly due to a potential increase in impermeable areas.

12.112 Taking into consideration the probability of a flood event, the sensitivity of construction

workers/third party land is medium and the magnitude of change, prior to mitigation is

moderate. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, short to long term effect on

construction workers and third party land of moderate adverse significance prior to the




12-32

Operational

12.113 The full extent of the operational phase of the Proposed Development, as detailed within

Chapter 3, is considered to be long term. The following outlines the likely significant

environmental effects posed by operational related activities, with respect to geology,

hydrology, hydrogeology.


surface water and groundwater;

12.114 On site controlled water receptors considered as being potentially susceptible to impact

from contaminants within disturbed ground and spillages relating to operational activities

are Sand Beck, Little Sky Drain, unnamed surface water drains, the unnamed ponds

located both on and to the south of the Site and the underlying Secondary A and B

aquifers.

12.115 The potential contaminant pathways include leaching from the unsaturated zone to

groundwater; vertical and lateral migration within groundwater resources off-site; and,

towards surface water features.

12.116 During the operation and maintenance of the Proposed Development there will be the

need to use oils, greases and other substances bringing with them the potential for

accidental spillages and the potential pollution of surface water and groundwater.

12.117 There is the potential for fuel/oil leaks for vehicles using the access tracks, which may result

in pollution of surrounding surface water bodies.

12.118 There is also potential of pollution associated with track management in the form of

herbicides.

12.119 The sensitivity of controlled water receptors Sand Beck and underlying Secondary A and B

aquifers is low/medium to medium and the magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is

slight (as a potential uncontrolled release of contamination is likely to be localised and

migration limited due to the distance of the turbines from Sand Beck). Therefore, there is

likely to be a direct, temporary, long term effect on controlled water receptors of

moderate / minor adverse significance prior to the implementation of mitigation

measures.

Potential increase in risk of flooding (groundwater, fluvial, pluvial and drainage)

on-site and to third parties;

12.120 It is considered that the probability of the Site flooding from fluvial and pluvial sources is

low to medium, from groundwater sources low and negligible from all other sources.



12-33

12.121 Flooding could be caused by heavy periods of rainfall, flood risk management failures or

drainage management failure.

12.122 Flooding from all sources has the potential to harm maintenance workers on-site, as it

would significantly increase the potential for contact with swollen surface water bodies

potentially resulting in serious injury.

12.123 Flood waters may damage sensitive electrical equipment and assets located on third

party land (i.e. adjacent poultry farm).

12.124 During the operation and maintenance of the Proposed Development there may be an

increased flood risk due to the presence of foundation bases associated with the turbines,

substation and crane pads which will reduce infiltration rates locally, and increase surface

run-off volumes, potentially leading to localised flooding.

12.125 The drainage system, electrical infrastructure, third party land (poultry farm) and

maintenance workers are considered to be of medium sensitivity given the likelihood of

flooding and the magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is moderate. In selected areas

(those defined by the Agency as Flood Zone 2 and 3) there is likely to be a direct

temporary/permanent long term effect on sensitive infrastructure, third party land and

maintenance workers of moderate adverse significance.

Decommissioning

12.126 Decommissioning will occur at the end of the Proposed Development’s 25 year lifecycle.

The potential effects on the geology, hydrology and hydrogeology during such

decommissioning are similar to those during the construction phase, although the risks will

be lower as many elements of the Proposed Development will remain undisturbed, such as

turbine foundations, access tracks and underground cabling.

Cumulative Effects

12.127 The cumulative assessment considers potential effects from the Proposed Development in

combination with other proposed major development schemes in the area considered

likely to effect the geological, hydrological and hydrogeological environment when their

potential impacts are considered collectively.

12.128 It is considered unlikely that other proposed major development schemes within 2km of

the site will contribute to controlled water pollution related effects, due to attenuation and

dilution over that distance. Given the size and location of surrounding watercourses it is



12-34

considered that proposed schemes located over 5km from the Site are unlikely to impact

the flood risk regime and siltation levels of surface watercourses at the Site.

12.129 Currently we understand there to be one proposed major development scheme within

5km of the Site. The proposed scheme is identified as Temple Hill and located

approximately 3km to the south of the Site. The Temple Hill scheme will comprise the

construction of five wind turbines and associated infrastructure.

12.130 Sand Beck is located immediately to the west of the Temple Hill scheme flowing north

towards the Site. Therefore if the scheme was constructed concurrently with the Proposed

Development there is the potential for a cumulative impact from increased sedimentation

of Sand Beck and also an increased potential of flooding at the Site.

12.131 Adequate mitigation measures to minimise any potential increase in sedimentation of

Sand Beck will be incorporated into the Proposed Development. It is understood that the

Temple Hill scheme will also incorporate adequate mitigation measures to meet the

requirements of national and local planning authority. As such the cumulative effects on

the geological, hydrological and hydrogeological environment are considered to be slight

/ negligible.

Mitigation Measures

12.132 The following outlines suitable mitigation measures specific to each effect which are to be

implemented as part of the Proposed Development.

Construction



12.133 Prior to commencement of the construction phase, surface water run-off will be controlled

to mitigate both flood risks and sediment loading. It is assumed that a phased temporary

drainage network will be implemented to prevent sediment laden surface run-off from

leaving the Site or entering surface watercourses. The proposed temporary drainage

strategy for this phase of the Proposed Development will be developed during the

detailed design stage.

12.134 Good environmental site practices will also be implemented to avoid or minimise effects

at the source. Such measures include, but are not limited to, the following:

Working areas shall be clearly defined to ensure the disturbance of soils is

minimised, where possible;



12-35

Provision of environmental awareness training for site workers; and

Installation of systems such as silt traps and swales designed to trap silty water

including adequate maintenance and monitoring of these to ensure

effectiveness, particularly after adverse weather conditions.

12.135 The position and extent of working areas should reflect the sensitivity of surrounding areas

and works being carried out. The contractor should appraise the suitability of such working

areas in this respect as part of working method statements.

12.136 Stockpiling of materials will be kept to a minimum. Where essential, stockpiles will be

located as far away as possible from surface watercourses.

12.137 Movement of materials around the Site will be managed under an appropriate Earthworks

Strategy and CEMP undertaken in line with current best practice to minimise the potential

for sediments to be entrained in surface water runoff.

12.138 Where appropriate, earthworks and construction activities should also be undertaken in

accordance with CIRIA guidance ‘C532 – Control of Pollution from Construction Sites’.

12.139 Careful micro-siting of turbines and associated infrastructure will be undertaken to ensure

that a six metre standoff is achieved where infrastructure is located in the immediate

vicinity of drainage board maintained and Agency classified surface watercourses,

considered to be all parts of the Site with the exception of the of the bridge that crosses

Sand Beck.

12.140 The upgrading of the bridge that crosses Sand Beck will be undertaken in accordance

with the requirements of Upper Witham IDB and written approval.



12-36

Disturbance of contaminated ground and/or uncontrolled chemical discharges /



12.141 Prior to works beginning an intrusive ground investigation will be undertaken to target

potential areas of historical contamination which are located in the vicinity of proposed

development areas and infrastructure (primarily in the region of the bridge that crosses

Sand Beck). The results of the investigation will then inform suitable measures to mitigate

against potential significant environmental risks.

12.142 A CEMP will be produced and agreed with the regulator prior to works beginning on Site.

12.143 All equipment, materials and chemicals will be stored at a suitable distance away from

surface watercourses.

12.144 Chemicals, fuel and oil stores will be sited on bunded areas. Standing machinery will have

drip trays placed underneath to prevent oil or fuel leaks causing pollution. Refuelling of

vehicles and machinery will be carried out in one designated area with spill kits located

close by in the event of a spill on an impermeable surface a suitable distance away from

surface water bodies.

12.145 On-site welfare facilities will be adequately designed and maintained to ensure sewage is

disposed of appropriately.

12.146 The use of wet concrete around watercourses will be minimised and carefully controlled.

12.147 Formulation of a detailed incident response plan to mitigate potential risks should spill/

leaks occur during construction.

12.148 There will be a provision of spill kits and associated training.

12.149 Site workers will wear appropriate PPE.

12.150 Toolbox talks will be provided for site staff to advise on particular pollution risks.

12.151 Where necessary site works will be undertaken in accordance with the Agency’s PPG. In

particular, the following are considered relevant to this assessment:

PPG1 ‘General Guide to the Prevention of Water Pollution’;

PPG5 Works or Maintenance in or Near Water’;

PPG6 ‘Working at Construction and Demolition Sites’; and

PPG21 ‘Incident Response Planning’



12-37

Potential exposure to historical contamination/UXOs by construction workers

12.152 Ground investigation is required in areas where proposed infrastructure is located on or in

the close vicinity of historical sources of contamination to confirm whether or not

contaminants are present. Based on the findings of the ground investigation appropriate

mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce the potential of construction workers

coming into contact with contamination.

12.153 Site workers will wear appropriate PPE.

12.154 Toolbox talks will be provided for site staff to provide advice on any particular

contamination/UXO risks.

12.155 There will be a requirement to undertake a non-intrusive magnetometer survey ahead of

any intrusive works/breaking ground in order to assess for the presence of UXO in areas

identified as medium and medium high risk within the Geo-Environmental Phase One

Report (Appendix 12.1).


earthworks and construction workers

12.156 Prior to the commencement of the construction phase, surface water runoff will be

controlled to mitigate flood risk as part of a temporary drainage strategy.

12.157 Dewatering measures will be employed and managed appropriately if necessary.

12.158 Upgrading of the bridge crossing Sand Beck will be undertaken in accordance with the

requirements and written approval of the Upper Whitham IDB to ensure it does not restrict

future flows.

12.159 Where crossing Sand Beck, cables will either lie within suitable conduits to be placed

below Sand Beck or alternatively placed within the structure of the upgraded bridge

crossing Sand Beck. The laying of such conduits below ground or within the structure of

the bridge will be undertaken using construction industry best practice techniques.

12.160 It is recommended that flood risk is considered within the site-wide Health and Safety Plan

and linked to the Agency flood warning.

12.161 A flood plan / evacuation plan should be prepared so that if flooding were to occur,

appropriate actions could be taken to enhance the safety of workers on-site and to

minimise the pollution of flood water. It should also cover who should be notified once a

flood warning is received to prevent vehicles travelling into the affected area.



12-38

12.162 Good health and safety practices such as tool box talks should ensure that workers on-site

are made aware of risks and how to mitigate them during the construction phase.

Operational


surface water and groundwater

12.163 It is anticipated that proposed pollution control measures incorporated within the

drainage system will include trapped road and car park gullies, silt traps and oil

interceptors as required. These measures will ensure attenuation of contamination before

discharge. It is assumed that these facilities (and on-site drains that are used for pre-

treatment) will be subject to routine maintenance.

12.164 Throughout the operation of the Proposed Development measures to protect the

controlled waters will be taken by properly briefing site workers of the precautions

required when working near watercourses and by adopting recommendations set out in

the Agency PPG Notes.

12.165 Where necessary, a permanent drainage system will be installed. If areas of infrastructure

(i.e. access tracks) are identified in close vicinity to surface water receptors pollution

mitigation measures such as silt traps will be incorporated into the design.

12.166 Drainage channels will be inspected routinely and maintenance carried out where

necessary, to ensure adequate drainage flows are maintained.

12.167 There will be no control of weed growth by use of herbicides on access tracks or other

wind farm related infrastructure located within the close vicinity of Sand Beck and

associated drainage tributaries. This will minimise potential adverse impact on the water

quality of surface water and groundwater in the area.


on-site and to third parties

12.168 Measures to protect the Proposed Development Site from flooding and to ensure that

flood risk is not increased elsewhere are to be mitigated through the incorporation of a

permanent site drainage system, in accordance with best practice guidance.

12.169 A flood plan / evacuation plan should be prepared so that if flooding were to occur,

appropriate actions could be taken to enhance the safety of maintenance workers on-

site and to minimise the pollution of flood water. It should also cover who should be

notified once a flood warning is received to prevent vehicles travelling into the affected

area.



12-39

12.170 The wind turbines themselves are not considered to be sensitive to flood water, however

any sensitive equipment on or within the wind turbines and the electrical substation should

be raised at least 300 mm above surrounding ground levels.

12.171 Finished site levels should be engineered to provide positive drainage and prevent

ponding. The accumulation of standing water should therefore not occur and the pluvial

flood risk should not increase.

12.172 Finished site levels should be engineered to provide positive drainage and prevent

ponding. The accumulation of standing water would therefore not occur and thus not

pose a risk to the turbines.

Decommissioning

12.173 Similar mitigation to that described for the construction phase is likely to be required to

prevent contamination, such as from silt laden run-off arising from increased vehicle

movements, during the decommissioning phase. Any new legislation or guidelines

published prior to decommissioning will be adhered to and, if required, additional

mitigation will be incorporated into the design prior to any decommissioning taking place.

Residual Impacts

12.174 The residual impacts associated with each potential effect associated with the

construction and operation of the Proposed Development are outlined below taking into

consideration the proposed mitigation measures.

Construction



12.175 It is considered that, providing the measures described in the mitigation section are

implemented, the risk of increased sediment mobilisation to on-site and off-site surface

watercourses will be mitigated and there should not be a reduction in status of the WFD

RBMP chemical classification of Sand Beck (‘Moderate’ Ecological Potential).

12.176 The sensitivity of the surface water bodies is considered to be medium, and the magnitude

of change should this occur, following mitigation is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to

be a direct temporary, short term effect of minor significance to surface water bodies

following implementation of the mitigation measures.



12-40

Disturbance of contaminated ground and/or uncontrolled chemical discharge /




implemented, the risk of releasing pollutants to the ground will be mitigated and there

should not be a reduction in status of the WFD RBMP chemical classification of Sand Beck

or the underlying groundwater.

12.178 The sensitivity of the controlled water receptors is considered to be medium, and the

magnitude of change should this occur, following mitigation is negligible. Therefore, there

is likely to be a direct temporary, short to medium term effect of minor significance to

controlled waters following implementation of the mitigation measures.

Potential exposure to historical contamination or UXOs by construction workers


implemented, the risk of construction workers involved in earthworks coming into contact

with harmful contamination or UXO will be mitigated and there should be no detrimental

impacts to their health.

12.180 The sensitivity of the construction workers is considered to be medium, and the magnitude

of change should this occur, following mitigation is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to

be a direct temporary, short to long term effect of minor significance to construction

workers and third party land following implementation of the mitigation measures.


construction workers and third party land


implemented, the risk of construction workers and third party land being at risk of localised

flooding will be mitigated and there should be no detrimental impacts to their health or

asset value.

12.182 The maintenance workers and third party land are considered to be of medium sensitivity

given the likelihood of flooding, and the magnitude of change should this occur, following

mitigation is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a permanent, short to long term

effect of minor significance to construction workers and third party land (poultry farm)

following implementation of the mitigation measures.



12-41

Operational


surface water and groundwater;


implemented, the risk of releasing pollutants to the ground will be mitigated and there

should not be a reduction in status of the WFD RBMP chemical classification of Sand Beck

and the underlying groundwater.

12.184 The sensitivity of the controlled waters is considered to be low/medium to medium, and

the magnitude of change should this occur, following mitigation is negligible. Therefore,

there is likely to be a direct temporary, short to long term effect of minor significance to

controlled waters following implementation of the mitigation measures.


on-site and to third parties;


implemented, the risk of sensitive infrastructure, third party land and maintenance workers

being at risk of localised flooding will be mitigated and there should not be no detrimental

impacts/damage to their health or asset value.

12.186 The sensitivity of drainage system, electrical infrastructure, third party land (poultry farm)

and maintenance workers is considered to be medium, and the magnitude of change

should this occur, following mitigation is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct

temporary/permanent, long term effect of minor significance to construction workers and

third party land following implementation of the mitigation measures.

12.187 A summary of the likely significant environmental effects and residual impacts after the

incorporation of the mitigation measures is provided within Table 12.14.



12-42

Table 12.14 Summary of Effects for Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology

Description Pre-Mitigation

Significance

Post-Mitigation

Significance

Construction

Phase

Potential increase in physical

contamination (i.e.

sedimentation) entering surface

water bodies and drainage

features due to increased

sediment loading.

Moderate Minor

Disturbance of contaminated

ground and/or uncontrolled

chemical discharges / spillages

during construction resulting in

mobilisation of contaminants

impacting surface watercourses

or groundwater.

Moderate Minor

Potential exposure to historical

contamination/UXOs by

construction workers.

Moderate/ Minor to

Major / Moderate

Minor

Potential increase in risk of

flooding (groundwater, fluvial,

pluvial and drainage) to

earthworks and construction

workers.

Moderate Minor

Operational

Phase

Uncontrolled chemical

discharges / spillages from

maintenance works polluting

surface water and

groundwater.

Moderate / Minor Minor

Potential increase in risk of

flooding (groundwater, fluvial,

pluvial and drainage) on-site

and to third parties.

Moderate Minor



12-43

Summary

12.188 Superficial deposits comprising sand and gravel are shown to be present in the east of the

Site (primarily associated with Sand Beck) and along the western boundary. Where

present the superficial deposits are classified by the Agency as a Secondary A Aquifer. The

underlying bedrock comprises the Brant Mudstone Formation (Unproductive Strata) along

the eastern boundary, the Sand Beck Nodular Ironstone Formation (Secondary A Aquifer)

centrally east and the Foster Member (Secondary B Aquifer) across the central and west

of the Site.

12.189 The Site is not located within a SPZ and no publicly registered or private groundwater

abstractions have been identified on or within 3km of the Site,

12.190 One Agency classified surface watercourse is located on site, identified as Sand Beck. The

beck is classified by the Agency as having Moderate Potential for Ecological Quality and

is maintained by the Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board.

12.191 Parts of the Site adjacent to Sand Beck are located within Flood Zone 2 and 3. However,

the majority of the Site and infrastructure relating to the Proposed Development is located

within Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding).

12.192 A search of historical records has identified the Site was used as a WWII airfield. A number

of potential sources of contamination have been identified associated with the Site’s

historical use primarily in the east of the Site associated with historical below ground fuel/oil

storage and explosive storage.

12.193 Based on the available baseline data, it is considered that the following likely significant

effects may be associated with the Proposed Development:

Potential Increase in physical contamination (i.e. sedimentation) entering

surface water bodies and drainage features due to increased sediment

loading;

Disturbance of contaminated ground and/or uncontrolled chemical

discharges / spillages during construction resulting in mobilisation of

contaminants impacting surface watercourses or groundwater;

Potential exposure to historical contamination/UXOs by construction workers;

and,

Potential increase in risk of flooding (groundwater, fluvial, pluvial and

drainage) to earthworks during construction and maintenance workers during

the operational phase.



12-44

12.194 A CEMP will be prepared to ensure the adoption of safe working systems and good

environmental practices during the construction phase.

12.195 Prior to breaking ground on Site a magnetometer survey will be required to assess for the

presence of buried UXOs.

12.196 A ground investigation and environmental risk assessment will be required to obtain

regulatory approval and will ensure that the Site condition is suitable for the proposed

development and does not fall under the legal definition of Contaminated Land under

Part IIA.

12.197 An appropriate drainage management strategy will be implemented to ensure the risks

associated from flooding at the site are minimal both during the construction and

operational phases of the Proposed Development.

12.198 Similar mitigation to that described for the construction phase is likely to be required to

prevent contamination, such as from silt laden run-off arising from increased vehicle

movements, during the decommissioning phase. Any new legislation or guidelines

published prior to decommissioning will be adhered to and, if required, additional

mitigation will be incorporated into the design prior to any decommissioning taking place.

12.199 Following a ground investigation to further quantify the potential contaminated land

related risks and the incorporation of mitigation measures in accordance with best

practice and relevant guidance it is considered that residual effects associated with the

construction, operation and decommissioning of the Proposed Development will be of

minor significance.



Chapter 13: Socio-Economic and Tourism

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 13 Socio-Economic and Tourism


CONTENTS

13 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND TOURISM 13-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 13-1 Legislation and Policy Context and Guidance ............................................................... 13-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ...................................................... 13-3 Baseline Assessment ............................................................................................................ 13-6 Predicted Effects ............................................................................................................... 13-20 Cumulative ......................................................................................................................... 13-31 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures ....................................................................... 13-32 Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................ 13-32

Tables

Table 13.1 - Sensitivity of resource or receptor

Table 13.2 - Establishing the Level of Effect and Significance

Table 13.3 – Consultation Responses

Table 13.4 – Broad Age of Population

Table 13.5 – Employment Rates

Table 13.6 – Employment by Industry (2012)

Table 13.7 and 8 - Great Britain Tourism overnight domestic trips for NKDC and

SKDC

Table 13.9 – Viewpoints

Table 13.10 – Summary of Residual Effects

Appendices

Appendix 13.1 – Consultation Responses



13-1

13 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND TOURISM

Introduction

13.1 This chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) assesses the likely significant

effects of the Proposed Development with respect to socio-economic, tourism

and recreation issues. This chapter also describes the methods used to assess the

baseline conditions currently existing at the Site and surrounding area; the effects

of the Proposed Development; the mitigation measures required to prevent,

reduce or offset any significant negative effects; and the likely residual effects

after these measures have been adopted.

Legislation and Policy Context and Guidance

13.2 This section provides an overview of policy in relation to effects and also the

scope of the assessment. The Development Plan and other relevant planning

policies are discussed within Chapter 5: Renewable Energy and Planning Policy

and within the Planning Statement.


13.3 The NPPF provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development to assist

economic growth where proposals accord with the development plan or unless

adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of

the proposal.

13.4 The NPPF (paragraph 7) outlines that one of the key dimensions of sustainable

development is contributing to a strong, responsive and competitive economy. In

this theme, one of the core principles of NPPF (paragraph 17) is to:

“proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to

deliver the homes, business and infrastructure that the country needs”

13.5 Paragraph 28 states:

“Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order

to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable

new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and

neighbourhood plans should:



13-2

support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of

business and enterprise in rural areas…;

promote the development and diversification of agricultural and

other land-based rural businesses;

13.6 Section 5.12 of National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure EN-1 sets out the

requirements for socio-economic impact assessment and states that:

“This assessment should consider all relevant socio-economic impacts,

which may include:

i) the creation of jobs and training opportunities;

ii) the provision of additional local services and improvements to local

infrastructure, including the provision of educational and visitor facilities;

iii) effects on tourism;

iv) the impact of a changing influx of workers during the different

construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the energy

infrastructure. This could change the local population dynamics and could

alter the demand for services and facilities in the settlements nearest to

the construction work (including community facilities and physical

infrastructure such as energy, water, transport and waste). There could

also be effects on social cohesion depending on how populations and

service provision change as a result of the development; and

v) cumulative effects – if development consent were to be granted for a

number of projects within a region and these were developed in a similar

timeframe, there could be some short-term negative effects, for example

a potential shortage of construction workers to meet the needs of other

industries and major projects within the region.”

Local Planning Policy

13.7 With regard to Local Planning Policy the following policy or sections from relevant

policies are stated below, the full policies can be found in Chapter 5: Renewable

Energy and Planning Policy.



13-3

South Kesteven Core Strategy (2010) Policies

13.8 Policy EN3 of the Core Strategy outlines consideration of renewable energy

development within the district and this is supported by the Supplementary

Planning Document (SPD) in relation to wind energy, which is detailed below.

13.9 Policy SP2 has regard to proposals which protect, retain or enhance existing

community assets.

North Kesteven Local Plan (2007)

13.10 Policy C5 of the Local Plan states that permission will be granted for proposals

which do not adversely affect the amenities enjoyed by other land users to an

unacceptable degree.

13.11 In relation to Policy C17 of the Local Plan this states that energy from renewable

sources will be supported provided that the environmental, economic and social

impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.

South Kesteven Wind Energy SPD

13.12 The guidance which was adopted in 2013, requires that developers undertake an

assessment to quantify the potential employment that may be generated, this

can also include the other economic activity associated with the proposal.

13.13 With regard to tourism, the guidance requires that any potential direct and

indirect impact on tourism shall be identified and assessed.


13.14 The EIA Regulations themselves do not define significance and it is therefore

necessary to state how this will be defined for the Proposed Development, it is

inevitable that there will be a degree of subjectivity. In general, the conclusion

about significance is arrived at using professional judgement, with reference to

the development description, available information about potential changes that

are expected to be caused by the Proposed Development, and the receptors

that may be affected.

13.15 The adverse and beneficial effects of the Proposed Development on the baseline

situation, in terms of magnitude of change, are assessed, followed by the

identification of mitigation (where relevant) and an assessment on any residual

effects. Non-quantifiable effects are assessed using professional experience and

knowledge gained from other wind farm developments and previous studies.



13-4

13.16 The geographic distribution of effects will depend on a variety of factors such as

geographical sourcing of goods and services and demand for labour.

13.17 In respect of socio-economic effects, the sensitivity of a receptor to change is

considered as a function of the context within which the potential effects occur.

For example, in terms of an employment effect, the creation of 100 jobs could

represent a large magnitude of change in the context of the local economy but

a negligible magnitude of change when considered within the national context.

13.18 Effects are also considered in terms of their duration, as follows:

Temporary – these effects are likely to last for a period of a few days to a few

months, they will be related to a particular activity and will cease as soon as

the activity ceases;

Short-term – this would normally be considered to be between a period of a

few months to a few years depending on the effect being discussed and the

environment’s ability to recover from an impact;

Long-term – this would typically be a period of between a few years and the

life of the Proposed Development; and

Permanent – this would typically mean an effect resulting in an irreversible

change in the environment / receptor.

13.19 The sensitivity of the resource of sensitivity will be categorised as detailed in Table

13.1:

Table 13.1 - Sensitivity of resource or receptor

Sensitivity Examples

High The resource is of international or national

importance

Medium The receptor is of regional, county or district

importance

Low The receptor is of ward, parish or local

importance.

13.20 In establishing the level of effect and significance, Table 13.2 shows how the level

of effect is categorised from the interaction of a receptor’s sensitivity to change

and the magnitude of change.



13-5

Table 13.2 - Establishing the Level of Effect and Significance

Magnitude of change


High Major Major/

Moderate

Moderate Moderate/

Minor

Medium Major/

Moderate

Moderate Moderate/

Minor

Minor


Minor

Minor Minor/

Negligible

13.21 In many cases, the divisions between categories of receptor sensitivity and

magnitude of change may not be as clearly delineated as shown and

professional judgement is applied. A level of effect of major to moderate or

greater is generally of most importance to the decision-maker and so the cells

highlighted in Table 13.3 are considered to be significant in terms of the EIA

Regulations.

Limitations and Assumptions

13.22 Various assumptions have been made during the preparation of this chapter. The

assessment also has limitations. These are summarised below and referred to

throughout the chapter (where appropriate):

Baseline conditions have been established using available published

data/statistics at the time of writing.

Calculations are based on published formulae and guidance, where

available and using qualitative methods based on professional judgment and

experience.

People’s individual opinions are subjective and therefore It is difficult to assess

the visual impacts of the Proposed Development and the corresponding

impact with respect to people’s enjoyment of recreational activities and

tourism,

Some of the published data set out in the baseline section has not been

published recently and is up to ten years old. However, in these circumstances

the data is considered to be valid and the best available.

No published data is available which specifically states the number of

construction, decommissioning and operational jobs generated by onshore

wind energy developments.



13-6

Assumptions include the choice of study area, employment estimates and

multipliers. This is standard practice, for which direction is given in the

guidance. Assumptions are justified in the assessment as necessary.

Cumulative assessment has been undertaken using publicly available data on

the committed developments identified in Chapter 2: EIA Methodology.

Baseline Assessment

13.23 To identify the key components of the local economy, existing land use, tourism

and recreational facilities in the surrounding area, a desk-based study using

publically available information has been undertaken. The study area for this was

based on the administrative boundary for North and South Kesteven and, in

particular, the Bassingham and Brant Broughton, Heath, Cliff Villages and Loveden

wards in which the Proposed Development Site is located in or adjacent to.

13.24 The following sources of data have been used in the preparation of the

assessment:

BiGGAR Economics (2007) Review of Evidence on the Impact of Wind Farms

on Tourism and Recreation. Prepared on behalf of Novera Energy Ltd;

BiGGAR Economics (2012) Onshore wind: Direct & Wider Economic Impacts.

Prepared on behalf of Renewable UK and Department of Energy and Climate

Change (DECC);

DECC – Public attitudes tracking survey – Wave 12

(https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-attitudes-tracking-survey-

wave-12)

Association of Leading Visitor Attractions; 2014 Visitor Numbers

(http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=605)

Statistical information from NOMIS Official Labour Market Statistics

(www.nomisweb.co.uk);

Statistical information from Office for National Statistics Neighbourhood

Statistics (www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk);

Lincolnshire Research Observatory (http://shared.research-

lincs.org.uk/Home.aspx)

Business Register and Employment Survey, NOMIS 2011; and

2013 Great Britain Day Visits Survey (GBDVS 2013).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-attitudes-tracking-survey-wave-12

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-attitudes-tracking-survey-wave-12

http://shared.research-lincs.org.uk/Home.aspx

http://shared.research-lincs.org.uk/Home.aspx



13-7

Consultation

13.25 The approach to this chapter was detailed within the Scoping Report (see

Chapter 2: Approach to EIA and associated appendices) submitted to NKDC and

SKDC in December 2013. A scoping opinion was received from SKDC on the 30

January 2014 and stated in relation to this chapter:

‘…that an assessment should be included in the Society and Economic

section in accordance with Box 24 of The South Kesteven Wind Energy

SPD…There are a number of well used tourist and leisure attractions that

do contribute significantly to the local economy including Belton House,

Belvoir Castle, Caythorpe Court and Stubton Hall as well as various golf

courses, fishing lakes, equestrian centres and local public houses, hotels,

restaurants and events venues. The impact of these and other local

businesses where the character of the landscape and features within it is

integral to their success or otherwise should be considered. The assessment

could include the results of any relevant studies…’

13.26 NKDC confirmed within their Scoping response (dated 31 January 2014) that they

agreed with the views of SKDC on the potential impact of tourism and in addition

stating the following:

‘Within North Kesteven District this should also focus upon the Viking Way

walking route along the Lincoln Cliff.’

13.27 The consultation responses to the Scoping Report were also assessed to ensure

that any comments made were taken into consideration as part of this Chapter;

these include:

Lincolnshire Highways – confirmed the definitive rights of way around the Site;

and

National Trust – highlighted heritage assets for consideration; and

Natural England – confirmation that the Site does not affect any nationally

designated geological, ecological or landscape sites.

13.28 In addition to the above the following consultation was undertaken

independently of the Scoping Exercise:



13-8

Table 12.3 – Consultation responses

Consultee Consultation

request

Consultation

response

Action Taken

Lincolnshire

Chamber of

Commerce

Information in

relation to

tourism and

visitor economy

Referred to the

South

Kesteven DC

tourism team.

None –

followed up

with South

Kesteven DC

tourism team.

South Kesteven DC

Tourism team

As above None

received.

LCC Highways West Regarding the

current use of

bridleways

surrounding the

Site

Call and

discussion with

LCC Highways

established

they did not

hold any

information /

numbers on

their use.

No further

action.

English Heritage Visitor numbers

for Attractions /

Sites

Response

signposting –

documents

and links to

visitor numbers.

Included

relevant

information

within

Chapter.

National Trust Follow up from

Scoping

Response in

relation to

Belton House

and Bellmount

Tower.

Assessment

approach

agreed.

Relevant

information

contained

within

Chapter.

Belvoir Castle Visitor numbers

for Attraction.

Referred

enquiry to

Melton

Mowbray DC.

None –

followed up

with Melton

Mowbray DC.

Melton Mowbray DC Visitor Numbers

for Belvoir

Castle.

Referred

enquiry to

Belvoir Castle

as not

associated

with the

Council.

None



13-9

Population Overview

13.29 South and North Kesteven District have a lower population density than both the

regional (2.9 persons per hectare) and national average (4.1) of 1.4 persons per

hectare and 1.2 persons per hectare respectively. (ONS, 2011)

13.30 The Wards within the development area are even more sparsely populated than

the local authority average with the numbers of persons per hectare being

between 0.5 and 0.6.

13.31 The age of the population is summarised in Table 13.4 below:

Table 13.4 - Broad Age of Population

Resident Population

by Age Groups

Persons aged 0-19

(%)

Persons aged 20-64

years (%)

Persons aged 65

and over (%)

2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011

North Kesteven 24 22 58 57 18 21

South Kesteven 25 23 58 58 16 19

Lincolnshire 24 22 57 57 19 21

East Midlands 25 24 59 59 16 17

England 25 24 59 60 16 16

Source: Research Lincs (derived from Census 2011)

13.32 The population within both NKDC and SKDC is becoming older although this is in

line with the increase at county level, but higher than the regional and national

trends. The population trends for Lincolnshire indicate that the percentage of the

age categories over 50 will increase through to 2021. Overall NKDC has had

population growth between 2001 and 2011 higher than the national rate (14.6%

compared to the national rate of 10.4%), this is in part attributed to the growth of

the urban areas within the district and also the increased population around key

centres such as Lincoln.

13.33 SKDC population also increased in the period between 2001 and 2011 but this was

at a lower rate than the national average, 7.2%.



13-10

Overview of Economy and Employment

National Economy

13.34 A report issued by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in May

20121 shows onshore wind’s economic benefits at all levels. It found that in 2011

the total direct and supply chain impact of onshore wind supported 8,600 jobs

and was worth £548m to the UK economy. Of this figure 1,100 jobs were created

at the local level (i.e. local authority area), worth £84m.

13.35 The business and tourism effects of onshore wind development, which is based

upon the spending by employees in local businesses (for example on food and

accommodation) during the construction phase in 2011 contributed an estimated

£11 million to the UK economy, supporting around 300 jobs.

Regional Economy

13.36 Both NKDC and SKDC are members of the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise

Partnerships (GLLEP), other members include South Holland District Council, North

and North East Lincolnshire Councils, East Lindsey District Council, Boston Borough

Council and City of Lincoln Council.

13.37 The Ambition of the Greater Lincolnshire LEP is clearly stated in their Structural and

Investment Strategy (2014- 2020):

‘The GLLEP sees growth as:

Growth of business in greater Lincolnshire creating wealth, jobs,

and contributing to UK plc

Increasing skills leading to residents contributing to the growth of

their economy…’

13.38 Once this is broken down in actions, the ambition is clearly focussed on the

investment in the ports on the southern bank of the Humber, however it is clearly

recognised in the document that there is potential for significant further growth to

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/onshore-wind-direct-and-wider-economic-

impacts

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/onshore-wind-direct-and-wider-economic-impacts

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/onshore-wind-direct-and-wider-economic-impacts



13-11

serve the Humber wind farms and others, including the manufacturing of wind

turbine components.

13.39 The document also acknowledges the findings of the Low Carbon Energy in the

East Midlands report undertaken by the Land Use Consultants which shows that

Lincolnshire has the highest potential for low carbon electricity production through

onshore wind energy.

13.40 The report also recognises the importance of Tata Steel in Scunthorpe noting their

production of world-class steel which is used in wind turbines.

Local Economy

13.41 The Local employment rates within SKDC and NKDC (shown in Table 13.5) have in

the majority of years been above the East Midlands average and above the

national average. These have also reflected the regional and national trends

regarding decreasing employment rates during the recession and the recent

increase in employment.

Table 13.5 – Employment Rates

Employment Rate1 North

Kesteven (%)

South

Kesteven (%)

East

Midlands

(%)

GB (%)

12 months to Dec 2004 76.9 76.8 73.5 72.6

12 months to Dec 2005 78.1 77.2 73.9 72.6

12 months to Dec 2006 76.4 75.7 74.3 72.6

12 months to Dec 2007 72.9 74.7 73.7 72.5

12 months to Dec 2008 78.8 74.9 73.6 72.2

12 months to Dec 2009 80.1 76.9 72.2 70.7

12 months to Dec 2010 76.1 74.8 70.8 70.2

12 months to Dec 2011 72.7 77.6 70.8 69.9

12 months to Dec 2012 73.8 74.5 71.4 70.6

12 months to Dec 2013 75.9 76.2 71.5 71.3

Notes: Source: Nomis (accessed March 2015) from ONS annual population survey

1) numbers are for those aged 16 and over, % are for those of aged 16-64

13.42 The structure of the employment within NKDC and SKDC is demonstrated in Table

13.6. The table shows that SKDC and NKDC and the wider region have a diverse

range of employment. The comparison between the local authorities and the

wider region shows a clear correlation.



13-12

13.43 The public administration sector makes up the largest employment with both

SKDC and NKDC, these figures are higher than the Regional and GB figures.

Wholesale and retail is the second largest sector employing 18.3% and 19.8% in

NKDC and SKDC respectively.

13.44 The Primary Services sector is also higher than the regional and GB average and

reflect the rural nature of the authorities. The accommodation and food services

sector accounts for 7% and 8.5% in NKDC and SKDC respectively.

Table 13.6 – Employment by Industry (2013)

Employee jobs by industry North

Kesteven

(%)

South

Kesteven

(%)

East

Midlands

(%)

GB

(%)

Primary Services (A-B: agriculture and

mining)

1.1 0.2 0.3 0.3

Energy and Water (D-E) 1.9 2.3 1.6 1.1

Manufacturing (C) 14.7 13.8 13.4 8.5

Construction (F) 6.0 3.6 3.8 4.4

Services (G-S) 76.4 80.1 81.0 85.7

Wholesale and retail, including

motor trades (G)

18.3 19.8 16.8 15.9

Transport storage (H) 4.6 2.9 5.2 4.5

Accommodation and food

services(I)

7.0 8.5 6.3 7.0

Information and communication

(J)

2.6 2.8 2.7 4.0

Financial and other business

services(K-N)

13.6 12.8 18.3 21.8

Public admin, education and

health (O-Q)

28.1 28.7 27.6 28.0

Other Services (R-S) 2.2 4.6 4.1 4.5

Notes: Source: ONS business register and employment survey (accessed via

www.nomisweb.co.uk, 08 May 2014)

Recreation and Tourism

13.45 The SKDC Economic Development Strategy 2012-2016 states within the key

priorities that they intend to deliver by 2021 ‘a place which attracts visitors and

businesses’

13.46 Within the ‘State of the District’ section the document states:

http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/



13-13

‘The proportion of visitors to the district is growing but the challenge facing

the area is the ability to increase the number of visitors staying overnight

and attract broader customer base including business and conference

visitors’

13.47 The strategy outlines measures which it seeks to undertake that will improve the

urban realm of the main towns. This will increase their attractiveness to the visiting

population. Within the strategy there is also support for events, however, there is

no specific tourism measure that’s sole purpose is to increase tourism in a

particular area or through a particular measure.

13.48 The Great Britain Day Visit Survey (GBDVS) 2012 summarised in Table 13.8 and 9

below shows the number of overnight trips and total spend for SKDC and NKDC,

presented with 3 year averages for the period 2006 to 2012. This shows that there

has been a general increase in tourism to the area from the 2007 to 2009 period

across various categories with both districts showing a marked increase between

2009-2011 and 2010-2012. This demonstrates that the current operational turbines

which were commissioned in 2008 (Bicker Fen) and albeit of a different scale Jan

2012 (Frinkley Farm) for NKDC and SKDC respectively, did not decrease visitors or

spend during the period.

Table 13.8 Great Britain Tourism summary statistics for SKDC

Category 2006 -

2008

2007-

2009

2008-

2010

2009-

2011

2010-

2012

Total Trips (thousands) 222 188 189 216 252

Holiday Trips

(thousands) 56 54 68 89 87

Total Nights

(thousands) 554 448 444 521 663

Holiday Nights

(thousands) 171 161 197 293 296

Total Spend (£m) 25 20 21 31 39

Holiday Spend (£m) 10 7 7 14 17

Table 13.9 Great Britain Tourism summary statistics for NKDC

Category 2006 -

2008

2007-

2009

2008-

2010

2009-

2011

2010-

2012

Total Trips (thousands) 52 62 60 46 88

Holiday Trips

(thousands) 6 14 19 17 40

Total Nights 181 205 151 108 208



13-14

(thousands)

Holiday Nights

(thousands) 50 65 41 26 78

Total Spend (£m) 7 8 6 6 10

Holiday Spend (£m) 3 4 2 1 4

13.49 With regard to Public Rights of Way (PROW), there are no identified PROW within

the Proposed Development Site. There are a number in the wider area which are

used for recreational purposes.

13.50 The designated PROW are shown on Figure 6.1 – Local Context and Public Rights

of Way. The national cycle routes are shown on Figure 6.2 – Site Location and

Landscape Policy Context, there are no national cycle routes (or links) within 5km

of the Proposal.

13.51 The nearest long distance route is the Viking Way which passes within 6.1km to the

south east at its closest point. The route runs from Oakham in Rutland to Barton

Upon Humber in Humberside. In proximity of the Proposed Development the

footpath extends east-west from Long Bennington to the B6403 (High Dyke Road),

the route then runs north south along the former Roman Road.

13.52 Within 2km of the Proposed Development the following tourism / business

destinations have been identified; PFI Karting circuit and Gorse lodge. The

sensitivity of these receptors and their anticipated magnitude of change is

considered later in this chapter.

Specific Tourist / Business Destination

13.53 The following tourist destination have been defined, either through scoping or

knowledge of the area. Other recreational receptors are also outlined within

Chapter 6: Landscape and Visual Impact.

13.54 Belvoir Castle is situated to the west of Woolsthorpe in an elevated location and is

the ancestral home of the Duke and Duchess of Rutland.

13.55 The property is Grade I listed and situated in Grade II Gardens, with various

structures / properties that are also Grade II and Grade II* situated within the

extensive grounds. The castle itself is a Norman castle which was rebuilt in the 16th

Century and again remodelled in the 18th Century.

13.56 The castle and Gardens are open to the paying public for circa 20-25 days of the

year with the Gardens open for an additional 15-20 days of the year. The castle



13-15

also offers private hire, weddings and hunting parties with accommodation within

the castle available. The castle and grounds also hold events throughout the year.

13.57 Belton House is a Grade I listed property run by the National Trust, situated north of

Grantham. The house occupies the north eastern part of the estate, with formal /

pleasure gardens to the north and north east of the house and historic deer park

to the south and east. To the north and west of the house lies the village of Belton.

13.58 Bellmont tower situated to the East of the house on elevated ground was built to

take advantage of the views back towards the house, the landscaping from the

house creates a boulevard in which the house is framed.

13.59 The house itself is orientated to the south with a long drive connecting to

Grantham which now holds collections and is open to the public.

13.60 In addition to this, the estate has both a restaurant and garden centre for visitors,

along with playgrounds for children. The house is also licensed to hold weddings

using both the main house and the orangery situated to the north.

13.61 Belton House features in the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions top 100 of

visitor destinations in the UK for 2014, ranks the facility at number 91 attracting

319,886 visitors, an increase of 7% on the previous year’s figures. Given the

attraction value of the destination, its sensitivity is considered high given its

national importance.

13.62 Caythorpe Court is a family activity centre situated 6km from the Proposed

Development. The facility is based around a Grade II listed manor house and

former private school. The land around the buildings has been utilised for outdoor

activities and indoor sports. To the south of the main grounds they have created

purpose built lakes for water sport activity.

13.63 The grounds of the hall and the more modern buildings to the north are contained

within a mature landscaped grounds with the buildings being enclosed by large

mature tree belts.

13.64 The site is privately owned and offers family and activity holidays, with

accommodation being simple and functional. Given the anticipated popularity of

the tourism destination and the jobs which are supported it is considered that it is

of medium to low sensitivity.

13.65 Stubton Hall is a privately owned Grade II listed building originally built in the 17th

Century and rebuilt in 1813 by Sir Robert Heron using architect Sir Jeffry Wyatville



13-16

13.66 The property has undergone extensive renovation and extension since 2006

creating an exclusive hotel and wedding venue. Given the likely tourism and the

jobs which are supported, it is considered that it is of medium to low sensitivity.

13.67 Tourist facilities which are located within the surrounding villages are considered

as groups of facilities and further details of other heritage assets are provided in

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology.

13.68 Table 13.9 outlines the viewpoint numbers, grid reference and main receptors in

relation to socio- economic considerations, Figure 6.6 provides a plan of the

location of these viewpoints from the Site.

Table 13.9 – Viewpoints

Viewpoint Distance to

nearest turbine,

Direction.

Scale of effect Receptor

VP1: Fenton 1.1km, west Large PROW users and

Residents

VP2: Stragglethorpe 1.5km, north-east Large-Medium to

Medium

PROW users, Road

users and Residents

VP3: Beckingham 2.2km, north-west Large to Large-

Medium

PROW users, Road

users and Residents

VP4: Brant Broughton 2.9km, north-east Large-Medium PROW user and

Residents

VP5: Brandon 2.1km, south-east Large Road users and

Residents

VP6: Stubton 2.9km, south-west Medium Adjacent PROW

users , Road users

and Residents

VP7: Barnby in the

Willows

3.2km, north-west Large-Medium PROW user and

Residents

VP8: Claypole 4.1km, south-west Medium Residents, Road

and Rail users

VP9: Caythorpe 3.9km, south-east Medium Road users and

Residents

VP10: Leadenham 5.1km, north-east Medium PROW users and

Residents

VP11: Hough on the Hill 4.7km, south-east Medium PROW users

VP12: Houghton Road 5.4km, south Medium PROW and Road

users

VP13: Carlton-le-

Moorland

6.3km, north Small PROW and Road

users and Residents

VP14: Wellingore 9.6km, north-east Small PROW and Road



13-17

Viewpoint Distance to

nearest turbine,

Direction.

Scale of effect Receptor

users and Residents

VP15: Woolsthorpe

Road near Belvoir

Castle

17.8km, south-

west

Negligible Tourism

VP16: Lincoln, West

Common

22km, north-east Negligible Residents and

tourism and

recreation

VP17: Normanton

Heath

7.1km, south-east Medium-Small Road Users.

VP18: Great Gonerby 11.8km, south Small-Negligible Road users and

Residents

13.69 It is acknowledged that the viewpoints located on roads could also be used by

PROW users and cyclists. Views for these users would be moving and transitory. It

should also be noted that each of the viewpoints is a 'sample' of the potential

effects, representing a wide range of receptors - including not only those actually

at the viewpoint, but also those nearby, at a similar distance and/or direction.

Public Attitudes to Wind Farms in relation to Tourism and Recreation

University of West England Research

13.70 Professor Aitchison of the University of the West of England undertook research to

provide information for a public inquiry for a proposed wind farm development at

Fullabrook, North Devon in late 2006/January 2007 (Aitchinson, 2007). Part of this

research involved the interviewing of 379 visitors to areas around two wind farms in

Cornwall and two in mid-Wales. 87% of the people interviewed considered that

the development of a wind farm would neither encourage nor discourage them

from visiting the area. Of the remaining 13%, just over half thought that a wind

farm would encourage them to visit an area. The survey also found a broad

support for renewable energy schemes in general.

BiGGAR Economics (2007) Review of Evidence on the Impact of Wind

Farms on Tourism and Recreation.

13.71 The report found that the key drivers of tourism were either major geopolitical

events or more regional/local factors, with wind farms that have been developed

not considered to have an impact on tourism trends.



13-18

13.72 Results from the surveys reviewed were inconclusive with some suggesting that a

minority of visitors may be less likely to return to areas where wind farms are

developed with other surveys suggesting a positive response to wind farm

development with wind farms even becoming a tourist attraction in their own

right. The report reviewed research carried out by David Stewart Associates in

relation to a holiday centre in Kerrier District Cornwall, 2km from the Goonhilly wind

farm within an AONB. The report stated that the holiday centre had over 500 units

of accommodation and that each year a questionnaire was given out for visitor

comments on the park and its surroundings. Just under1,400 were received in 1995

and the report noted that the same exercise had been carried out each year

since, with the wind farm never raised in any of the responses.

13.73 The report stated that:

“There is no case study evidence that wind farm developments have a

negative impact on tourism” highlighting that “local visitor

accommodation businesses could benefit during the construction phase

and there could be longer term business opportunities associated with the

wind farm becoming an attraction in its own right and the opportunity to

market the area as a generator of renewable energy.”

Department of Energy and Climate Renewable Energy Awareness and

Attitudes Research

13.74 In 2009 the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) commissioned

independent research by GfK Social Research to explore public awareness and

attitudes towards renewable energy in Great Britain (DECC, 2009). The survey

results show that public support for renewables remains high, with 85% of the

general public supporting the use of renewable energy, and a high level of

general public support for the Government policy at the time, of generating 10%

of electricity from renewable energy by 2010 (78%).

13.75 The survey found that 81% of the general public are in favour of the use of wind

power, and 62% would be happy to live within 5km (3 miles) of a wind power

development. Those influenced by living near to a renewable energy

development were more likely to agree with this statement compared with those

who did not (79% compared to 58%).

13.76 In March 2012 the DECC began to run a survey on energy awareness and

attitudes four times a year. As part of this process, a subset of questions are asked



13-19

quarterly with the other questions asked annually. Data is collected via an

omnibus survey using face-to-face in-home interviews with households in the UK.

13.77 Of the questions asked on an annual basis, six in ten people (59%) said in March

2014 they would be happy to have a large scale renewable energy development

in their area, consistent with 56% in March 2013 and 55% in March 2012.

13.78 The latest version of this research was released February 2015 (from surveys carried

out in December 2014 and January 2015), more than two thirds of the public (76%)

said they supported the use of renewable energy to provide the UK’s electricity,

fuel and heat, this support for renewable energy has remained high since the

research was first undertaken (all results vary between 76 and 82%). With support

for on-shore wind as a technology being 68%, and comparable with other

technologies; Off-shore wind at 74% and Biomass at 65%.

Tourism and Wind Farms

13.79 The Scottish Government published a research report entitled ‘The Economic

Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism’ (widely known as “the Moffat Report”)

in March 2008 which is regarded as the definitive study on the likely economic

impact of wind farm developments on tourist destinations throughout Scotland.

13.80 The report included details of a survey that intercepted tourists, most of whom had

a recent experience of a wind farm primarily, to identify if the experience had

altered the likelihood of a return to Scotland. This survey clearly informs the issue of

whether wind farms will have significant adverse effects on the tourist industry. The

report states (p. 276):

“The survey sought to identify the impact of the actual and simulated wind

farm experiences on the likelihood of return. The vast majority (99%) of

those who had seen a wind farm suggested that the experience would

not have any affect. Indeed, there were as many tourists for whom the

experience increased the likelihood of return as decreased. Surprisingly,

there was no difference between those who had a close and extensive

experience and those who had a minimal experience. Those who had not

seen a farm were more likely to state a decrease in the likelihood of return,

which was even stronger when all tourists were faced with a potential

extension of the relevant wind farm. However, even then this only related

to a small minority of tourists.”



13-20

13.81 The report also includes a literature review which examines 40 studies of the

economic impact of wind farms on tourism in the UK, Ireland, Denmark, United

States of America, Sweden, German, Australian and Norway. This literature review

concludes (p.275):

“There is often strong hostility to developments at the planning stage on

the grounds of the scenic impact and the knock on effect on tourism.

However, the most sensitive locations do not appear to have been given

approval so that where negative impacts on tourism might have been a

real outcome there is, in practice, little evidence of a negative effect.

There is a loss of value to a significant number of individuals but there are

also some who believe that wind turbines enhance the scene. An

established wind farm can be a tourist attraction in the same way as a

nuclear power station. This of course is only true whilst a visit remains an

unusual occurrence. Over time hostility to wind farms lessens and they

become an accepted even valued part of the scenery. Those closest

seem to like them most.”

13.82 This research reveals that wind farms are not seen as having a detrimental effect

on tourists’ visits and would not deter them from visiting the area in the future.

Predicted Effects

Construction and Decommissioning

Population

13.83 The main effects of the construction and decommissioning phases on the local

population would be as a result of the construction and decommissioning traffic,

noise and vibration and the temporary visual effect of the construction site, rather

that the presence of workers.

13.84 Noise effects associated with the construction and decommissioning phases of

the Proposed Development are discussed in Chapter 10: Noise of the ES. It states

that the construction noise is expected to result in negligible effects on nearby

receptors.

13.85 There would be no job displacement resulting from the Proposed Development as

no employment uses will be lost.



13-21

13.86 Effects on the local population during construction and decommissioning phases

are considered to be of negligible magnitude, short term and not significant,

lasting for the construction and decommissioning phases only.

Economic Effects

13.87 The Proposed Development has the potential to generate a range of direct and

indirect economic benefits for local businesses as it is anticipated that a

reasonable proportion of the cost of the civil, electrical and grid connection work

will be spent locally or within the UK. Local businesses often benefit from supplying

a diverse range of services such as concrete, stone, civil engineering, fuel,

haulage of cranes, fencing, landscaping, security, accommodation, IT support

and secretarial support during the construction period.

13.88 The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in their Review of the

Generation Costs and Deployment Potential of Renewable Energy Technologies in

the UK (2011) estimated the level of investment for a wind farm of >5MW to be

between £1.18million and £1.82million per MW installed. Using the lower figure the

capital cost of the 20.5MW Proposed Development is estimated to be £24.19

million.

13.89 The Onshore Wind Direct & Wider Economic Impacts report (BiGGAR Economics

2012) noted that on average, 45% of construction costs were spent in the UK with

7% in the local area and 29% in the region based on data from the 18 case studies

examined in the report. Average construction costs for the 18 case studies was

£1.23 million per MW, which is towards the lower end of the DECC estimates of

£1.18 to £1.82 million, and therefore higher than the £1.18 million figure used in the

preceding paragraph in estimating costs for the Proposed Development at £24.19

million. Using the £24.19 million estimate (given this represents the worst case), the

Proposed Development would contribute £1.69 million to the local area and £7.02

million to the region.

13.90 Potential spending arising from the Proposed Development within the district and

region is likely to be a short term minor beneficial effect which is not significant.

Employment

13.91 The Proposed Development also has the potential to generate local employment.

The majority of jobs will be directly related to the wind farm investment, such as

track construction, foundation installation and turbine erection. Indirect and

induced employment will be created by expenditure via the supply chain and the



13-22

impact of wages and salaries on the local economy including increased hotel

occupancy rates. The baseline identified that the hotel and restaurant industry is

an important source of employment in the surrounding wards, and that

construction is another important employer especially within host and adjacent

wards, therefore based on the baseline employment industries there is good

reason to suggest that the local workforce will have the skills required to undertake

this work.

13.92 In the construction of other wind farms in the UK a number of local contractors

were used, this resulted in direct employment of labourers and in addition,

cleaners and secretarial services where sourced locally. In securing contracts for

the construction, local contractors will have utilised their existing workforce and

potentially enabled in-direct employment; these contractors have included Plant

Hire, Aggregates suppliers, land drainage contractors and concrete suppliers.

13.93 Most wind turbines erected in the UK to date have been manufactured in

Denmark or Germany. There has however been recent investment in the UK with

companies who assemble turbines or produce major turbine components. Those

firms that have invested are likely to be encouraged to tender for the work under

normal competition rules, with manufacturing jobs potentially retained and

created at UK manufacturing facilities as a result of the Proposed Development

going ahead.

13.94 The construction process is subject to a competitive tender, until any contracts are

let by the Applicant, it cannot be confirmed how many local jobs are likely to be

created although suitably qualified firms will be invited to bid. Indirect and

induced employment benefits will also be dependent on the extent to which

employees decide to spend their income on local goods and services. In light of

this it can be considered that there would be a minor / moderate beneficial short

term effect, which is not significant.


13.95 The construction and dismantling (after 25 years) of the Proposed Development

would result in short-term activities involving the movement of large vehicles and

the use of a large crane to construct each turbine. The footprint of each turbine is

relatively small and the ground works associated with the concrete base

construction would be relatively minimal. The most visible construction traffic will

be the large crane used to erect the turbines and the long vehicles delivering



13-23

turbine components, these are likely to be on-going for approximately one month

of the construction period. Neither construction nor decommissioning activities

would give rise to significant character or visual effects over and above those of

the operational site – the primary effects arising will always be from standing

turbines, and for this reason construction effects are the same in terms of

magnitude and significance as for the operational effects, except where explicitly

noted otherwise.

13.96 The construction of the Proposed Development will extend for up to 10 months but

any potential disturbance during this period is unlikely to impact on long term

visitor numbers to the surrounding wards.

13.97 The effects on tourism and recreation during the construction and

decommissioning phases are considered to be between negligible and minor

adverse but short term, lasting for the construction and decommissioning phases

only are not considered significant. It is also possible, given the evidence that a

proportion of people who consider wind turbines (and more generally support

renewable energy) will have a positive reaction to the Proposed Development,

particularly given the long term beneficial effects in respect of climate change.

Operational Phase

Population

13.98 Once operational, the Proposed Development would be less disruptive than the

construction and decommissioning phases. Vehicles would only be required to

access the Site for periodic maintenance.

13.99 Noise impacts are assessed in Chapter 10: Noise. Based on the findings of this

assessment, it is not anticipated that there will be an adverse socio-economic

impact on the population arising from noise.

13.100 Visual impacts are assessed in Chapter 6: Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment and within the Residential Visual Amenity Assessment which

accompanies the planning application. Based on the findings of this assessment, it

is not anticipated that there will be an adverse socio-economic impact on the

population arising from visual impacts.

13.101 It is considered that effects on population would be of negligible long-term

magnitude, which is not significant.



13-24

Economic

13.102 DECC, in their Review of the Generation Costs and Deployment Potential of

Renewable Energy Technologies in the UK (2011), estimate the level of operational

investment for a wind farm of >5MW to be between £30,200 and £73,400 per year

per MW installed. Using the lower figure (and therefore worst case) the operational

cost of the 20.5MW Development is estimated to be £619,100 per year.

13.103 Operating costs vary throughout the life of a wind farm. Following the first five

years of the project life, operational costs increase significantly born out of the

necessity for increased maintenance. DECC identify that the limited range of

operation and maintenance suppliers may also be causing a lack of competitive

pricing which is more likely to affect smaller developers than large utilities as they

do not have the same negotiating power when discussing contract renewals with

suppliers.

13.104 The Onshore Wind Direct & Wider Economic Impacts report (BiGGAR Economics

2012) estimated that 29% of operation and maintenance costs for onshore wind

farms were spent locally, with 65% of costs spent within the region of the scheme.

Over the 25-year operational period, this will represent £179,539 per year in a

beneficial contribution to the local economy of SKDC / NKDC and the identified

wards resulting in a long term beneficial effect which is not significant.

13.105 Wind farms are liable for business rates with the Valuation Office Agency (VOA),

part of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), allocating a rateable value for the

Proposed Development. Based on a typical rateable value for wind farms of the

type proposed of £25,000 per MW and a business rate of 48.2p (correct at April

2014 rates), based on the candidate turbine this would result in a rateable value

of £512,500 per year, the business rate payable being £247,025 per year. Over 25

years (assuming no rate increase or decrease) this would equate to a payment of

£6,175,625. It should be noted that these rates might be subject to relief or

supplements that are not known at this stage.

13.106 As of April 2013 a business rates retention scheme was introduced to provide a

direct link between business rates growth and the council spending power. The

scheme will allow councils to keep a proportion of the revenue from business rates

within their area as well as growth on the revenue, with the aim of promoting

economic growth. Business rates from renewable energy projects would be

retained in full by the local authority which means that the additional income from

the business rates applicable to the Proposed Development would be kept by



13-25

SKDC to be spent within the district area, this has been confirmed to remain in

place until 2020 providing councils with the certainty to plan and budget. This will

be a small magnitude of change at the SKDC level, resulting in a beneficial effect

that is not significant.

13.107 The Applicant will also be setting up a community fund to be administered by

local trustees or a representative body, this is anticipated to be arranged through

a legal agreement and paid into for the lifetime of the Proposed Development;

this is in line with the Industry Protocol and backed by DECC . The fund will provide

financial support to local groups and schemes for facilities or initiatives for the

benefit of the community. These could range from improvements to community

buildings, educational initiatives, improvements to footpaths or cycle ways,

biodiversity or habitat improvements. It is therefore considered a long term

beneficial effect which is not significant.

13.108 In addition to the above the Applicant has also committed to providing a scheme

of community shared ownership, should there be sufficient demand within the

local community.

13.109 The government’s approach to shared ownership was outlined in their paper ‘The

Community Energy Strategy’ which has been followed up with their response to

the Renewable UK lead taskforce, entitled Government Response to the Shared

Ownership Taskforce dated 27 February 2015.

13.110 This approach is supported by the Applicant and the scheme will be consulted

upon at key stages of the development in line with the guidance, accepting the

limitation that the best practice has been emerging during the development

process.

13.111 Overall it is considered that the economic benefits of the Proposal would result in

a long term beneficial effect, which is not significant.

Employment

13.112 The operational stage of wind farms requires staffing, but the majority of roles

supported consist of support staff employed directly by the Applicant. There will

be potential for some local employment creation through the requirement for

maintenance staff or alternatively some ongoing maintenance activities could be

contracted out to suitably qualified local businesses. Routine maintenance and

servicing inspections are anticipated to occur every six months with the main

service undertaken annually and a minor service in the intervening six months,



13-26

however, this is subject to final contract and turbine choice. There is also usually

an initial service three months after commissioning in the first year of operation.

13.113 Overall, the increase in employment is beneficial but expected to be of negligible

magnitude in terms of the overall employment quantum within South and North

Kesteven District Council. Therefore, the effect would be long term negligible and

not significant.


13.114 There have been a number of surveys which have been undertaken , which have

concluded that wind farms have no effect, and in some cases a positive effect,

on the tourism industry (see Baseline section).

13.115 As shown from Table 13.8 and 13.9 tourism visits and spend has continually

increased during the period 2006 - 2011, since a number of onshore wind turbine

schemes have been developed within SKDC and NKDC (operational wind farms

within the Landscape study area are shown on Figure 6.8). This suggests that wind

farm development to date has not had a negative effect on tourism in the area.

13.116 An assessment of road users, some of whom will be tourists visiting the tourism

assets in the area, has been conducted as part of Chapter 6: Landscape and

Visual Impact Assessment.

13.117 From the surrounding road network no significant landscape and visual impacts

are considered to occur and views if possible are generally intermittent and in

most cases screened by roadside hedges.

13.118 Landscape and visual effects on key viewpoints in relation to Outdoor recreation

and enjoyment of the landscape are provided within Chapter 6: Landscape and

Visual Impact Assessment and are summarised below.

13.119 With regard to the PROW in the local area, it is anticipated that the impact on the

PROWs within close vicinity to the Proposed Development 0-2.5km would be of

major-moderate significance but of neutral impact. The Proposed Development

would not impact on the use of these footpaths by the surrounding population for

recreational purposes.

13.120 The Viking Way which runs generally to the east of the Proposed Development,

the ZTV illustrates (Figure 6.6) that potential visibility is confined to small sections of

the route. This does not account.



13-27

13.121 Appendix 6.7 also provides sequential route graphs along Viking Way,

demonstrating the overall visibility of the Proposed Development and Cumulative

turbines.

13.122 The conclusion within Chapter 6: Landscape and Visual assessment is that the

overall effect on views from the route would not be significant.

Local Tourism / Business Destinations

13.123 The Karting Circuit to the south of the Site, whilst a private facility, has been

requested to be included within the assessment. The purpose of the circuit is to

provide a first class facility for racing karts. The Proposed Development will not

impact upon the enjoyment of this facility for this purpose. The facility is

surrounded by banking / bunding which is landscaped, this will mitigate any visual

impact experienced by the users of the Proposed Development incidental to the

main purpose of their visit.

13.124 Given the above there is no indication that the viability of the business will be

impacted upon.

13.125 Gorse lodge which is also located to the south of the Site, has been marketed in

the past for both a wedding venue and as a hunting lodge. The main complex is

situated to the south west of a mature group of trees which will screen any visual

effects of the Proposed Development from within the buildings.

13.126 The grounds around the buildings will experience a visual impact from the

turbines, as defined within Appendix 6.5. The ground to the north of the mature

trees which is currently landscaped for use as a shooting range would experience

a visual impact from the turbines, however given the nature of this use and its

specific purpose as a shooting range there is no indication that the facility would

be impacted upon by the Proposed Development or impact upon the

experience of the users of the facility.

Specific Tourism / Business Destination

Belvoir Castle

13.127 The viewpoint from the road approaching the castle (viewpoint 15) can be used

to illustrate the potential impact on the views as seen from Belvoir Castle.

13.128 The clutter within the landscape created by modern infrastructure in the relative

foreground such as pylons are more prominent than the turbines which are in the



13-28

far distance in comparison. It is considered that the scale of effect and

magnitude of change would be negligible.

13.129 Given the conclusion on the scale of effect, even without consideration of how

the view adds or detracts from the main purpose of the visit to the destination; it is

considered that the impact of the Proposed Development on the destination

would be long term minor adverse and not significant.

Belton House and Bellmount Tower

13.130 A detailed ZTV was presented to the National Trust in respect of Belton House and

Bellmount Tower as part of the pre-application consultation process, this was to

inform the requirement of visualisations from a landscape, heritage and tourism

perspective.

13.131 The detailed ZTV artificially increased the height to that of the tower’s viewing

platform, which is open to the public during events and by specific appointment.

This was required as the ground level ZTV (represented in Figure 6.6) from ground

level shows no visibility around the house and associated buildings and only very

limited visibility from areas within the deer park and elevated areas in proximity to

the tower.

13.132 It was agreed that in consultation with the National Trust that a visualisation was

not required from either the house roof or Bellmount Tower given the limited

visibility and the distance from the turbines (circa 12km).

13.133 The above ZTV assessment has demonstrated the very limited theoretical visibility

of the turbines, once the buildings and local landscaping is accounted for this

would reduce ensuring that visitors experiencing the House would not have

visibility of the turbines. It is considered that there may be a possibility of visibility of

the turbines from the tower viewing platform and areas within the estate. Given

the limited nature, and the distance, it is considered that there would be no

magnitude of change in the setting of the buildings or the wider estate.

13.134 There is potential for views of the tips of the Proposed Development from the

tower and the wider estate outwards, however, given the distance involved and

the context of these features within the wider landscape setting it is not

considered to have a detrimental impact upon the setting or the tourist

experience.



13-29

13.135 The Proposed Development will have no impact on other aspects of the tourism

offer of the Park and given this, it is considered that the overall magnitude of

change is negligible and the level of effect would be minor adverse long term

and not significant.



13-30

Stubton Hall

13.136 The Hall and associated buildings is situated over 2km to the south west of the Site.

13.137 The ZTV indicates that much of the grounds to the north of the property will be

screened from direct views of the wind turbines due to the woodland which

extends along the northern boundary of the Hall and then extends east forming

the boundary of adjacent agricultural fields.

13.138 Consideration has also been given to the orientation of the principal buildings and

their principal elevations and the views from the buildings:

With regard to the former Stables which is being converted to a Spa and

bedrooms, the principal elevations are facing west north west and east south

east. Given this and intervening vegetation / buildings, it is not anticipated

that occupation of rooms will have views of the Wind Farm;

Function Room / Orangery is on a similar orientation to the principal opening

of the Orangery which is overlooking the grounds to the south of the hall.

Given this, it is anticipated those using the building will not have views of the

wind farm;

The Hall, the views out from the northern orientated windows will have views of

the wind farm (offset to the east) broken by intervening vegetation, the

southern elevation will not have views of the wind farm.

13.139 It has also been published that the views from the house and towards the south

east are most sensitive to change, this correlates with the main rooms which are

used for weddings / corporate events which overlook the formal garden south of

the property.

13.140 It is considered from a heritage perspective (outlined in Chapter 7: Cultural

Heritage and Archaeology) the Proposed Development will have a negligible

effect on the setting of the Hall.

13.141 Given this, it is considered that the magnitude of change on the overall setting of

the destination will be moderate and the impact upon the business of a low

magnitude of change. The effect will be moderate / minor adverse and long

term, which is not significant.

Caythorpe Court

13.142 Caythorpe is a well enclosed complex of properties situated around the Grade II

listed building. The mature grounds and woodland that surrounds these buildings



13-31

ensure that the theoretical visibility of the turbines would be greatly reduced, as

demonstrated in Figure 6.6.

13.143 In light of this and the proximity of the Proposed Development, the impact upon

the destination is considered to be minor / negligible and not significant.

13.144 When considering the above visual impacts, the commentary has focused on

views towards the turbines, not the overall experience of the tourism destination or

destinations being experienced by the receptor. Users of these facilities will have

regard to their purpose and enjoyment of the overall experience.

13.145 Account also needs to be taken of those visitors who may consider the wind farm

aesthetically pleasing or not consider a view of a wind farm from a certain

receptor to have any consequence. Recent tourism numbers also indicate that

there has been no reduction of visitor numbers despite turbines becoming

operational within the district. It is considered that the Proposed Development will

not have a significant effect on tourism and recreation within the local or regional

area.

Cumulative

13.146 The cumulative wind farms schemes in the surrounding area are shown on Figure

6.8. These schemes are considered to have the potential to give rise to cumulative

socio-economic impacts. If all schemes listed on Figure 6.8 are constructed there

is likely to be a beneficial effect on the economy of both the local and regional

area as a result of the increased employment in the area and spending into the

local economy. There will also be an increase to the business rates retained by the

NKDC and SKDC.

13.147 Given the scale of these impacts the cumulative effect is considered beneficial

but not significant.

13.148 There is the potential for cumulative effects on tourism and recreation of the local

area as a result of the Proposed Development. Available evidence also confirms

continual tourism activity and spend in areas with wind farms.

13.149 Whilst the Proposed Development may result in significant cumulative visual

effects as outlined in Chapter 6, there is no substantiated evidence to indicate

that such cumulative effects will affect either visitor numbers or visitor spending

within the surrounding area, the recent figures suggest there is no bearing on



13-32

visitor numbers or spend. The magnitude of the cumulative effect is considered to

be negligible and not significant within the SKDC and NKDC areas.

Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

13.150 No additional mitigation measures are proposed, directly in relation to Socio-

economic, Tourism and Recreation impacts. Mitigation (both embedded and

explicit) and Enhancement measures proposed within other chapters may have

an incidental mitigation benefit.

Summary and Conclusion

13.151 The following table identifies the residual effect outlined in the above chapter:

Table 13.10 – Summary of Residual Effects

Potential

Receptor and

Effect

Magnitude of Change Receptor

Sensitivity

Level of Effect

(Significant / Not

significant)

Construction and Decommission

Population Negligible– short term Low Not significant

Economy Minor beneficial – short

term

Low Not significant

Employment Minor / Moderate

beneficial – short term

Low Not significant

Tourism and

Recreation

Negligible / Minor

adverse – short term

Low Not significant

Operational

Population Negligible – long term Low Not significant

Economy Minor Beneficial /

Negligible – long term

Low / Medium Not significant

Employment Negligible – long term Low Not significant

Tourism and

Recreation

Minor adverse /

Negligible – long term

Varies Not significant



Chapter 14: Infrastructure, Aviation and

Safety

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 14 Infrastructure, Aviation and Safety


CONTENTS

14 INFRASTRUCTURE, AVIATION AND SAFETY 14-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 14-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ..................................................................................... 14-1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ...................................................... 14-4 Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................................. 14-4 Identification and Key Evaluation of Impacts ................................................................. 14-7 Cumulative Effects and Interaction of Effects............................................................... 14-11 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 14-12 Residual Effects .................................................................................................................. 14-13 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 14-14 Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 14-15

Tables

Table 14.1 Summary of relevant consultation undertaken to date

Table 14.2 Summary of relevant telecommunication links

Table 14.3 Summary of relevant aviation interests

Figures

Figure 14.1 Fulbeck Airfield ‘shadow’ zone

Figure 14.2 Fulbeck Airfield and Temple Hill ‘shadow’ zones

Appendices

Appendix 14.1 – Lincolnshire County Council Definitive Map extract

Appendix 14.2 – Linesearch enquiry

Appendix 14.3 – Route of 11kV cable


Energiekontor UK Ltd |April 2015

14-1

14 INFRASTRUCTURE, AVIATION AND SAFETY

Introduction

14.1 This chapter has been completed by Energiekontor and considers the likely significant

effects of the Proposed Development upon infrastructure, aviation and safety interests of

the Site and wider environment.

14.2 Prior to assessing the likely significant effects this Chapter summarises the pertinent

legislative and policy background, the methods used to determine likely significant effects

and the baseline conditions currently present on the Site. The likely significant effects

associated with the Proposed Development are then established when compared to the

baseline conditions, along with proposed mitigation measures and the subsequent

anticipated residual effects.

14.3 This Chapter (and its associated appendices) is not intended to be read as a standalone

assessment and reference should be made to the initial Chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 – 5)

as well as Chapter 16 – Summary.


14.4 The applicable reference documentation is provided as follows:

Wind Farm Safety

British Standard BS61400-1:2004

Energy Review: HSE Expert Report (2006), Health and Safety Executive

Wind Turbines and Horses – Guidance for Planners and Developers (2014),

British Horse Society

Aviation

Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) CAP 168 Licensing of Aerodromes, July 2013;

CAP 764 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Policy and Guidance on Wind Turbines

Version 5, June 2013;

CAP 670 ATS Safety Requirements Version 3, June 2013;

CAP 774 UK Flight Information Services;

CAP 738 Safeguarding of Aerodromes;

CAP 793 Safe Operating Practices at Unlicensed Aerodromes, July 2010;



14-2

CAP 493 Safe Operating Practices at Unlicensed Aerodromes;

CAP 660 Parachuting;

Military Aviation Authority Traffic Management (3000 series) Instructions;

Military Aviation Authority Manual of Aerodrome Design and Safeguarding;

Military Aviation Authority Low Flying Manual;

UK Military Aeronautical Information Publication (MIL AIP);

UK Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP);

CAA 1:250,000 and 1:500,000 VFR Charts; and

Joint Ministry of Defence (MoD)/CAA Wind Farm Interim Guidelines.

Television Reception

Tall Structures and their Impact on Broadcast and other Wireless Services

(2009), Ofcom

Planning Policy


and assessment is discussed in (Chapter 5 – Planning Policy Context). A summary of

planning policy relevant to this Chapter is summarised below:


National Planning Practice Guidance Online;

National Policy Statement EN-3;

The South Kesteven Core Strategy (2010). The strategy includes the following

policies relevant to this Chapter:

EN1: Protection and enhancement of the characters of the district; and

EN3: Renewable energy generation.

Local Plan for South Kesteven – Wind Energy Supplementary Planning

Document (June 2013).

The North Kesteven Local Plan (2007). The Plan includes the following policies

relevant to this Chapter:

C2: Development in the countryside;

C5: Effects upon amenities;

C17: Renewable energy; and



14-3

C18: Design.

Consultation

14.6 In accordance with policy guidance the organisations listed in Table 14.1 have been

consulted to establish the baseline conditions relating to potential electromagnetic

interference, aviation interests, telecommunications and existing infrastructure issues.

Table 14.1: Summary of Relevant Consultation Undertaken to Date

Body Consultation Outcome Summary

Wind Farm Safety

South Kesteven

District Council

(SKDC)

The ES should include an assessment of the likelihood of horses being

frightened or ‘spooked’ by the proposal.

Lincolnshire County

Council (LCC)

Details of public rights of way (PRoW) provided in the vicinity of the Site

from the Definitive Map.

Telecommunications

SKDC An assessment of telecommunication effects should be carried out.

Ofcom Details provided of fixed telecommunication links operating in the area.

British Telecom (BT) Details provided of fixed telecommunication links operating in the area.

Potential effects and mitigation are discussed in detail below.

Everything

Everywhere Ltd Details provided of fixed telecommunication links operating in the area.

Vodafone Details provided of fixed telecommunication links operating in the area.

Joint Radio

Company (JRC) Details provided of fixed telecommunication links operating in the area.

Aviation

SKDC Advise to liaise with the CAA, NATS and MOD to ensure that the impact

on aviation interests are fully assessed.

North Kesteven

District Council

(NKDC)

Advise to liaise with the CAA, MOD and NATS. Recommend further

discussions with the MOD to establish whether its initial objection can be

resolved through mitigation.

CAA

The CAA has withdrawn from its voluntary involvement in the pre-

planning process due to diminishing requirements and resource

limitations.

MoD

Initial objection received in relation to potential effects on its ATC radars

at Coningsby, Cranwell and Waddington and its PAR radars at

Coningsby, Cranwell and Waddington. Further consultation was carried

out on different design iterations. Potential effects and mitigation are

discussed below.

National Air Traffic

Services (NATS)

Initial objection received in relation to potential effects on Claxby ATC

radar. Potential effects and mitigation are discussed in detail below.


SKDC An assessment of television effects should be carried out.



14-4

NKDC Include reference to the reduced potential for television interference

following digital switchover.

Buried Infastructure

Linesearch Details provided of any pipeline infrastructure crossing the Site.

Western Power

Distribution Details provided of electrical infrastructure in the vicinity of the Site.


14.7 In order to predict and quantify the impacts that would result from the Proposed

Development on infrastructure, aviation and safety, this assessment has considered:

Baseline conditions – a review of existing information in relation to existing

public rights of way, telecommunication links, aviation, television reception

and existing infrastructure on the Site and local area.

Significance of the effects and impacts – an assessment of the impact of the

Proposed Development against the baseline conditions and assessment of the

cumulative impact of the Proposed Development with any other existing,

consented or proposed wind turbine development in the area.

Mitigation measures – details of the proposed mitigation measures to be

incorporated into the Proposed Development that would be implemented to

avoid any significant impacts.

Residual effects – an assessment of any residual effects following the


Summary of Assessment.

Baseline Conditions

Wind Farm Safety

14.8 Information on PRoW is provided on LCC’s Definitive Map which is reproduced at

Appendix 14.1. The closest bridleway to the Site is located to the south east

(approximately 390m from turbine 10 at its closest point) which runs west from

Stragglethorpe Lane before turning south after the PFI karting circuit. A further bridleway to

the south west of the Site is located approximately 565m from turbine 5 at its closest point

which leads between Gorse Lodge and Fenton. The closest footpath to the Site is located

approximately 65m north west of turbine 5 which runs east from Fenton and terminates at

boundary of Fulbeck Airfield.



14-5

Telecommunications

14.9 A number of existing telecommunication links cross in the vicinity of the Site. Details of

these have been provided by the relevant link operators as detailed in Table 14.2 and

shown on Figure 3.11.

Table 14.2: Summary of Relevant Telecommunication Links

Telecommunication Link Operator / Organisation

Carlton Scroop BT RS to Balderton Bull Pit Lane BT

Carlton Scroop BT RS to Balderton Fen Pylon BT

Carlton Scroop BT RS to Coddington Drove Lane BT

JEEMAMS1 Waddington EME (Lincs) to JEEMAM026 Dry

Doddg Rd PMR (Stubton) JRC

JGTFDS1 Alma Wood NWG (Lincs) to LGTFD01 Eagle PSR

(Lincs) JRC

JEEMAMS1 Waddington EME (Lincs) to JEEMAM038

Melton Rd PMR (UBroughtn) JRC

JEEMAXS1 Waddington EME (Lincs) to JEEMAX049

Doddngtn La PMR (Claypole) JRC

JEEMAXS1 Waddington EME (Lincs) to JEEMAX051 Gt Nth

Rd PMR (Lg Bengtn) JRC

Aviation

14.10 The Site is located in the Military Air Traffic Zones for Cranwell, Waddington, Scampton and

Barkston Heath being located to the east and north of the Site. Royal Air Force (RAF)

Syerston, which is home to one of the RAF’s main gliding schools, is located to the west.

14.11 The MOD has produced a map which indicates areas in the UK where the MOD is more or

less likely to object to wind turbine planning applications on the ground of interference

with low flying operations. The map identifies the Site as being within a low priority military

low flying area which is less likely to raise concerns.

14.12 At Hougham there is a microlight site which is approximately 4.5km south of the Site.

Overlying the whole area is the Lincolnshire Area of Intense Aerial Activity.

14.13 CAP 764 sets out that the criteria for assessing the impacts on various types of airfield

include:

Airfield with a surveillance radar – 30km;

Non radar licensed aerodrome with a runway of more than 1,100m – 17km;

Non radar licensed aerodrome with a runway of less than 1,100m – 5km;



14-6

Licensed aerodromes where the turbines would be located within airspace

coincidental with any published Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP);

Unlicensed aerodromes with runways of more than 800m – 4km;

Unlicensed aerodromes with runways of less than 800m – 3km;

Gliding sites – 10km; and

Other aviation activity such as parachute sites and microlight sites within 3km –

in such instances developers are referred to appropriate organisations.

14.14 In accordance with CAP 764, Table 14.3 below sets out details of all relevant aviation

interests in the area along with their distance from the Site.

Table 14.3: Summary of Relevant Aviation Interests

Aviation Interest Distance

from Site

MOD Airfields

Cranwell 11km

Barkston Heath 12km

Waddington 16km

Syerston 17km

Scampton 29km

MOD Air Defence Radars

Staxton Wold 127km

NATS

Claxby ATC radar 49km

Civil Aerodromes, Unlicensed Aerodromes and Other Aviation Sites

There are none within the relevant distance criteria set

out in CAP 764


14.15 Given the topography of the area it is likely that the majority of receivers will be positioned

towards either the Belmont transmitter near Market Rasen or the Waltham transmitter near

Waltham on the Wolds.



14-7

Buried Infrastructure

14.2 A Linesearch enquiry has been undertaken which shows that there is no buried pipeline

infrastructure located across the Site. A short section of 11kV cable is present under part of

the Site leading to the former Fulbeck Army Training Camp electrical substation, however,

the Proposed Development would not affect the route of this cable. No adverse effects

on buried infrastructure are therefore anticipated and this issue is not considered further. A

copy of the Linesearch enquiry is provided at Appendix 14.2 and a plan showing the

location of the 11kV cable is Appendix 14.3.

Identification and Key Evaluation of Impacts

Wind Farm Safety

14.16 Modern wind turbines are designed and manufactured to withstand the most extreme

weather conditions which arise in the United Kingdom in terms of wind speeds, turbulence

and temperature. The structural parts of the turbines and all aspects relating to the

foundations and associated infrastructure would be designed to survive the worst weather

conditions that could be anticipated and would meet the relevant structural safety

legislation.

14.17 Turbine control and monitoring systems operate with several levels of redundancy to

protect the plant from damage. In the case of faults arising, including situations where the

speed of the blades or power production exceeds set parameters, or loss of grid

connection, turbines shut down automatically through the installation of failsafe braking

mechanisms. In addition, turbines are fitted with vibration sensors so that, if in the unlikely

event a blade is damaged or significantly ices, the turbines would automatically shut

down.

14.18 The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prepared an expert report in 2006 which examined

the potential risks relating to health and safety at work that might arise from some specific

energy development. This report ‘The 2006: Energy Review: HSE Expert Report’ states:

“The planning process also has an important role to play in helping identify and

address health and safety issues prior to development and construction, such as

turbine location”.

14.19 It also states:



14-8

“Full consideration of issues such as turbine location relative to other structures,

highways and areas where public have access will help ensure the continued

safe development and reputation of the wind industry. The application of

sensible risk assessment as an integral part of the planning process should help to

identify risks and highlight any measures require to reduce them to an

acceptable level”.

14.20 Several British Standards (including BS61400-1:2004) were identified within the HSE report

that apply to wind turbine generators and their safety requirements. These standards

specify requirements for safety of onshore wind turbine generator systems irrespective of

location or environment, including design, installation, maintenance and operation under

specified environmental conditions. They also cover all subsystems, including control and

protection mechanisms, internal electrical systems, support structures, foundations and the

electrical interconnection equipment. The standards are concerned with quality

assurance during design and manufacture and also with the adequacy of the assembly,

installation, maintenance and operational procedures.

14.21 The HSE report recognises that wind turbines are frequently located on land open to the

public, so account needs to be taken of hazards such as whole or partial blade failure,

falling ice, fire and lightning. The report also acknowledges that the history of the industry

indicates that the likelihood of occurrence of incidents from these hazards is low.

14.22 Properly designed and maintained wind turbines are a safe technology. The very few

accidents that have occurred involving injury to humans have been caused by failure to

observe manufacturers’ and operators’ instructions for the operation of machines. There

has been no record of injury to a member of the public.

14.23 In relation to equestrian use of bridleways in the area around the Site, the British Horse

Society document Wind Turbines and Horses – Guidance for Planners and Developers

(2014) recommends that a separation distance of 200m or three times blade tip height

(whichever is greater) should be provided between turbines and bridleways. The South

Kesteven Wind Energy SPD recommends a minimum separation distance of 200m. For the

Proposed Development the closest distance between a proposed turbine and a

bridleway is approximately 390m, which is in excess of the recommended minimum

distances. No likely significant effects on the safety of equestrian users are therefore

predicted.

14.24 Given the safety features and safety record of wind turbines, coupled with the separation

distances provided between the wind turbines and PRoW, no likely significant effects are

predicted in relation to wind farm safety.



14-9

Telecommunications

14.25 Ofcom holds a central register of all civil radio communications operators in the UK and

acts as a central point of contact for identifying specific consultees relevant to a site.

Ofcom has been consulted by the Applicant on the Proposed Development and details

of the link paths passing in close proximity to the proposed wind turbines have been

provided by the relevant link operators.

14.26 The link paths have been plotted by the Applicant and any requested separation

distances between link paths and turbine blade tips have been incorporated in the design

of the Proposed Development, therefore no adverse effects are predicted. The exception

to this is a BT link (Carlton Scroop BT RS to Coddington Drove Lane) where two of the

proposed wind turbines intrude into the requested separation distance. This will have a

likely significant adverse effect on the operation of the link.

Aviation

MoD

14.27 It is necessary to take into account the aviation and air defence activities of the MoD in

the area. The types of issues that need to be addressed include:

MoD Airfields, both radar and non-radar equipped;

MoD Air Defence Radars; and

MoD Meteorological Radars.

14.28 In relation to MoD airfields, pre-application consultation carried out with the MoD has

indicated that the only MoD airfield likely to be affected by the Proposed Development is

the Waddington, specifically the Air Traffic Control (ATC) radar. Here the proposed

turbines would be in line of sight of the ATC radar, potentially generating clutter in the form

of unwanted radar returns and adversely affecting the operation of the radar, resulting in

a likely significant adverse effect. No other MoD radars are predicted to be within line of

sight of the proposed turbines.

14.29 In relation to MoD Air Defence Radar, the UK maintains a network of radars around the

country to provide a policing and security service for the airspace for which it is

responsible under international agreements and for National Security. The nearest Air

Defence Radar is located at Staxton Wold in the East Riding of Yorkshire.



14-10

14.30 Radar line of sight modelling has been undertaken for the Proposed Development. The

line of sight results demonstrate that all proposed turbines would not be in line of sight to

the radar. No likely significant effects are therefore predicted on the operation of Air

Defence Radar.

14.31 In relation to Meteorological Radars, the Met Office safeguards its network of radars using

a European methodology known as OPERA. In general they will object to any turbine

within 5km in line of sight and will examine the impact of any turbines within 20km. There

are no radars which would be affected by the Proposed Development and no likely

significant effects are predicted.

14.32 In relation to MoD low flying, the Site is located within an area identified by the MoD as a

low priority military low flying area which is less likely to raise concerns. No likely significant

effects are therefore predicted on MoD low flying operations.

NATS

14.33 It is also necessary to take into account the possible effects of wind turbines upon the

NATS radar system – a network of primary and secondary radars and navigation facilities

around the country.

14.34 The Claxby radar has coverage in the area of the Site and the proposed turbines would

be in line of sight of the radar. This would generate unwanted radar returns and result in a

likely significant adverse effect.


14.35 Any structure will produce two zones of potential disruption to television reception. One

zone is where the development creates a ‘shadow’ and the other where it gives rise to a

‘reflection’. Shadowing occurs in an area behind the structure where the television

transmitter is effectively screened from the viewer and the strength of the signal is

reduced. In general there are three shadow zones behind a structure:

Shadow Zone A – close behind the structure (typically a few tens of metres)

there may be a large reduction in signal level with a possible complete loss of

reception;

Shadow Zone B – further away (typically a few hundred metres) the signal

reduction is less severe and the shadow will be smaller as diffraction effects

partially fill in the shadow. Depending on the size of the structure, some

locations could still lose reception completely; and



14-11

Shadow Zone C – some distance away (1-5km) the shadow will have

completely disappeared.

14.36 The second zone of potential interference is produced by ‘reflection’ or scattering of the

signal. Analogue reception is more likely to be affected than digital terrestrial reception,

which is more robust.

14.37 In practice rarely does a turbine tower or nacelle have any effect on television reception;

the impact on reception will typically be solely on account of the rotating turbine blades.

The size of the ‘shadow’ zone is dependent on the orientation of the blades and is at a

maximum when the axis of the rotor is in line with the direction of the transmitted signal.

The received signal strength varies in a cyclic manner, in time with the blades’ rotation.

‘Reflection’ effects vary with the rotation of the blades and the orientation of the nacelle.

To complicate matters further, the strength of the reflected signal is dependent on the

length and the area of the metallic component inside the blade. Normally the blades are

constructed of non-metallic material such as glass reinforced plastic, although they

invariably contain metallic components such as a strengthening member, lightning

conductor and balancing weights.

14.38 For the purposes of assessing the likelihood of interference, the location and extent of the

‘shadow’ zone and ‘reflection’ zone depend on the relative orientation of the transmitter,

receivers and wind turbines.

14.39 Figure 14.1 illustrates the areas that could, in a worst case scenario, potentially suffer

degradation in television signal due to a ‘shadowing’ effect. However, given the distance

between the transmitters and the Site and the strength of the digital signal transmitted, it is

not anticipated that the quality of television signal will be significantly affected within

these potential shadow zones. The ‘reflection’ zone consists of a circle with a radius of

approximately 500m around the wind turbines. There are no properties located within

500m of a proposed wind turbine, therefore no significant reflection effects are predicted.

Cumulative Effects and Interaction of Effects

14.40 There is no potential for significant cumulative effects in relation to wind farm safety,

telecommunications or buried infrastructure when considered alongside the proposed

Temple Hill wind farm. The potential for significant cumulative effects in relation to aviation

and television reception is considered below in relation to Temple Hill. No significant

cumulative effects are predicted when considered alongside other existing, consented or

proposed developments.



14-12

Aviation

MoD

14.41 The MoD originally objected to the Temple Hill planning application due to the potential

for it to generate false returns on the ATC radars at Cranwell and Coningsby. This objection

was subsequently removed subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring

mitigation measures to be agreed. As the ATC radars affected by the Temple Hill wind

farm and Proposed Development are different, no likely significant cumulative effects are

predicted over and above the solus effects of the Proposed Development.

NATSNATS objected to Temple Hill on the grounds of technical impact on the Claxby radar

which they deemed to be unacceptable. It is understood that NATS did not object to

Temple Hill at the pre-application stage and have indicated that there is a possibility that

this could be mitigated in a similar manner to the MoD objection, however, this has not

been demonstrated to date. There is therefore the potential for a likely significant

cumulative adverse effect on the operation of Claxby radar when the Proposed

Development is considered alongside Temple Hill.


14.42 Figure 14.2 shows the shadowing zone from the Proposed Development together with the

shadowing zone for Temple Hill. Given the distances between the transmitters and the two

wind farm sites and the strength of the digital signal transmitted, it is not anticipated that

the quality of television signal will be significantly affected within either of these potential

shadow zones.

Mitigation Measures

14.43 Mitigation measures are proposed specifically to address the potential adverse effects of

the Proposed Development in relation to telecommunications, aviation and television

reception as set out below.

Wind Farm Safety

14.44 As set out in Chapter 3 of this ES, the design iteration process has sought to ensure that

sufficient separation is provided between wind turbines and nearby PRoW and bridleways.

This is primary mitigation inherent within the design of the Proposed Development.



14-13

Telecommunications

14.45 The Applicant has entered into pre-application discussions with BT which have confirmed

that a solution is available to mitigate the adverse effects on the Carlton Scroop BT RS to

Coddington Drove Lane link. This will involve re-routing the link. The details of this mitigation

solution can be secured through the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition.

Aviation

MoD

14.46 In relation to the effects of the Proposed Development on the Waddington ATC radar, the

Applicant is willing to offer a technical mitigation solution for the impact on the radar. This

will be explored further through discussions with the MoD as part of the planning

application process and can be controlled through a suitably worded planning condition.

NATS

14.47 The Applicant has entered into discussions with NATS about providing mitigation to

overcome the effects on Claxby Radar. NATS has confirmed that the implementation of a

radar blanking scheme will be a suitable form of mitigation. Details of this scheme can be

secured through a suitably worded planning condition.


14.48 Prior to erecting any turbines the Applicant will undertake both a baseline and operational

study of television reception in the area.

14.49 Where it is proven that the operation of the Proposed Development could have an

impact on the level of television reception received then the Applicant will provide

mitigation or remedial work. This may involve repositioning receptor aerials or provision of

alternative receiver services. Such works can be controlled through the use of a suitably

worded planning condition.

Residual Effects

14.50 Following implementation of any necessary mitigation it is considered that there would be

no significant effects on infrastructure or safety as a result of the Proposed Development as

follows:



14-14

Telecommunications

14.51 A likely significant adverse effect is predicted on the operation of the BT Carlton Scroop BT

RS to Coddington Drove link. Mitigation involving the re-routing of the link will result in no


Aviation

MOD

14.52 A likely significant adverse effect is predicted on the operation of the Waddington ATC

radar. Mitigation involving a technical radar solution will result in no likely significant

effects.

NATS

14.53 A likely significant adverse effect is predicted on the operation of the Claxby radar.

Mitigation involving a radar blanking scheme will result in no likely significant effects.


14.54 No likely significant effects are predicted in relation to television reception, however, the

Applicant is proposing to undertake both a baseline and an operational study of television

reception in the area to inform a mitigation strategy, should any issues arise during the

operational phase.

Summary

14.55 Consideration has been given to the potential for significant effects on infrastructure and

safety. Following implementation of any necessary mitigation it is considered that there

would be no likely significant effects on infrastructure or safety arising as a result of the

Proposed Development or in combination with any other existing, consented or proposed

wind turbine developments in the local area.



14-15

Abbreviations

Abbreviations

ATC Air Traffic Control

BT British Telecom

CAA Civil Aviation Authority

CAP Civil Aviation Publication

HSE Health and Safety Executive

JRC Joint Radio Company

LCC Lincolnshire County Council

MoD Ministry of Defence

NATS National Air Traffic Services

NKDC North Kesteven District Council

PRoW Public rights of way

RAF Royal Air Force

SKDC South Kesteven District Council

SPD Supplementary Planning Document

Units

km kilometre

kV kilovolt

m metre



Chapter 15: Shadow Flicker

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 15 Shadow Flicker

WSP on behalf of Energiekontor UK Ltd|April 2015

CONTENTS

15 SHADOW FLICKER 15-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 15-1 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ..................................................................................... 15-2 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ...................................................... 15-5 Baseline Conditions ........................................................................................................... 15-11 Identification and Evaluation of Key Impacts ............................................................... 15-11 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 15-13 Residual Effect ................................................................................................................... 15-14 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 15-14 References ......................................................................................................................... 15-16

Tables

Table 15.1 – Consultation Responses

Table 15.2 – Turbine Locations

Table 15.3 – Sensitive Receptor Locations

Table 15.4 – Sunshine Hours

Table 15.5 – Significance Matrix

Table 15.6 – Shadow Flicker – Worst Case Scenario

Table 15.7 – Shadow Flicker – Realistic Scenario

Figures

Figure 15.1 – Shadow Flicker – Worst Case Scenario

Figure 15.2 – Shadow Flicker – Realistic Scenario

Appendices

Appendix 15.1 – Model Output



15-1

15 SHADOW FLICKER

Introduction

15.1 This chapter has been prepared by WSP UK Ltd on behalf of Energiekontor (the

“Applicant”) in respect of their Proposed Development at Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm.

15.2 This chapter describes and assesses likely shadow flicker effects resulting from the

Proposed Development on neighbouring sensitive receptors. This chapter is not intended

to be read as a standalone assessment; reference should also be made to the description

of the Proposed Development in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Statement (ES). This

chapter is supported by Figures 15.1 and 15.2, and Appendix 15.1.

15.3 Shadow flicker is an effect which can occur during periods of sunshine, when the sun

passes behind the rotating wind turbine blades casting intermittent shadows. When

experienced through window openings this has the potential to cause a nuisance and in

some cases has been thought to aggravate medical conditions. The effect of shadow

flicker varies with seasonality and is unlikely to occur in cloudy conditions.

15.4 Blade or tower glint can also occur when the sun strikes a blade or the tower at a

particular orientation. However, the development of an industry standard light grey semi-

matt colour and surface finish on the turbine blades has greatly reduced this issue. Where

this effect does occur, it is temporary and typically disappears within a few months of

operation, once the blades have become soiled; therefore, glint (from both blades and

towers) is not considered further in this assessment (DCLG, 2014).

Consultation

15.5 Consultation was undertaken through the Scoping stage of the assessment process.

During this stage, a Scoping Report was submitted to South Kesteven District Council

(SKDC) and North Kesteven District Council (NKDC) for their comment on the proposed

scope of works. SKDC and NKDC in turn then consulted with various other bodies, both

statutory and non-statutory for their opinions on the proposed scope of works. The

comments received in relation to shadow flicker are included in Table 15.1.



15-2

Table 15.1 Consultation Responses

Consultee Response Addressed

SKDC

The assessment should be undertaken in

accordance with Box 25 of South Kesteven

Wind Energy Supplementary Planning

Document (SPD).

The assessment has taken

cognisance of this.

NKDC

“We agree that all properties within ten

rotor diameters of any turbine should be

assessed for the incidence of shadow

flicker. Previous best practice guidance

stated that this should be applied to all

properties within 130 degrees of north,

which is the commonly accepted

approach. The duration (hours/minutes per

day) of any anticipated flicker effects

should be stated for the relevant months of

the year for any properties within the 10

rotor diameter / 130 degree area. This

should be in tabular format. We would

recommend that the results are discussed

in the context of the PB 'Review of Shadow

Flicker Evidence Base' final report, including

adopted maximum recommended flicker

exposure durations. Any required

mitigation such as timed turbine shut down

should be set out within this chapter.”

All properties within 10 rotor

diameters and130 degrees

of north from each of the

proposed turbines have

been included in the

assessment.

The results are included in

tabular format and are

discussed in relation to the

PB report.

The developer will fit shadow

flicker modules to those

turbines which could be

considered to have an

effect on properties.

Parish

Councils

“The (out of date) government guidance is

that shadow flicker is ‘unlikely to be

significant’ at greater than 10 rotor

diameters. This is not the same as ‘cannot

be significant’. The EIA should not scope

out assessment of properties just beyond the

10 x rotor zone.”

Properties outside of the 10

rotor diameter study area

have been included within

the assessment to

demonstrate no

unacceptable impacts on

the wider area.


15.6 No specific legislation relates directly to the assessment of shadow flicker; instead the

assessment is influenced by the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy

Infrastructure and several guidance documents as detailed below.



15-3

Policy

National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)

15.7 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recommends the use of this document

when assessing the likely impacts from wind energy developments. EN-3 provides details

regarding the definition of shadow flicker and details how the significance of the effect

should be determined. Factors which can affect the significance include:

The location of the building relative to the path of the sun and the turbines;

Size of window and orientation;

Turbine dimensions;

Intervening topography, buildings or vegetation;

Local climate conditions; and

Time of year.

15.8 It is recommended that where wind turbines are within 10 rotor diameters of an existing

occupied building a shadow flicker assessment should be undertaken.

15.9 It is pointed out that:

“Modern wind turbines can be controlled such that the operation of individual wind

turbines at the periods when shadow flicker has the potential to occur at a specific

property or group of properties can be inhibited on sunny days, for those properties,

for the specific times of the day, and on specific days of the year.

In circumstances where a wind turbine has the potential to affect a property, but is

fitted with a mechanism to inhibit shadow flicker, the IPC should be able to judge the

shadow flicker impacts on that property to be of negligible significance”

15.10 The document also confirms the position that shadow flicker frequencies in the UK are not

known to induce epileptic seizures.

Guidance

South Kesteven: Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (2013)

15.11 SKDC, produced a guidance document for wind energy developments, which whilst not

forming part of the Development Plan, is a material consideration for the determination of

wind energy planning applications. It is recommended that wind turbines should be

located further than 10 rotor diameters from any existing occupied buildings, otherwise a



15-4

shadow flicker assessment should be undertaken. Where shadow flicker effects are

deemed likely, mitigation measures will be required and it is suggested that these could

include:

Relocation of the turbine(s);

Screening through vegetation or the use of blinds; and

Shutting down turbines during periods when the effects are likely to occur.

15.12 Given the available evidence, SKDC were unable able to define a quantifiable limit for

what constitutes acceptable shadow flicker occurrence and recommends that each

development is considered on a case by case basis.

DCLG – Planning Practice Guidance – Renewable and Low Carbon

Energy (2014)

15.13 This document states that although issues caused by shadow flicker are rare, the impacts

should be quantified. It specifies that only properties within 130 degrees either side of north

of the turbines can be affected at UK latitudes.

“Modern wind turbines can be controlled so as to avoid shadow flicker when it

has the potential to occur. Individual turbines can be controlled to avoid

shadow flicker at a specific property or group of properties on sunny days, for

specific times of the day and on specific days of the year. Where the possibility

of shadow flicker exists, mitigation can be secured through the use of conditions.

Although problems caused by shadow flicker are rare, where proposals for wind

turbines could give rise to shadow flicker, applicants should provide an analysis

which quantifies the impact. Turbines can also cause flashes of reflected light,

which can be visible for some distance. It is possible to ameliorate the flashing

but it is not possible to eliminate it.”

DECC Update of UK Shadow Flicker Evidence Base (2011)

15.14 This document provides a review of international legislation and guidance relating to

shadow flicker assessment for wind energy developments. It concludes that the study area

should cover the area within 130 degrees either side of north from the turbine and 10 rotor

diameters from the turbine, something which is widely accepted across Europe. Several

time limits from other countries are detailed in this document, including the German limits

which are again widely accepted as the standard within European countries. The German



15-5

limits are set at 30 hours per year or 30 minutes per day (whichever is greater) for a worst

case scenario, and eight hours per year for a realistic scenario.


Scope of the Assessment

15.15 This shadow flicker assessment has been undertaken for the candidate turbine which is

referenced in the application; the Senvion MM92 turbine. The specifications of this model

are as follows:

Hub height: 64 m

Rotor diameter: 92 m

Swept area: 6,720.0 m2

Rotor Speed Range: 7.8 – 15.0 rpm (+12.5%)

15.16 The proposed locations of the turbines, upon which this assessment is based, are as shown

in Table 15.2.

Table 15.2 Turbine Locations (British National Grid)

Turbine

Identifier Easting Northing

Elevation

(m)

1 489485 351554 15.0

2 489964 351333 15.0

3 489173 351197 16.0

4 489505 351177 15.9

5 489163 350791 17.0

6 489748 350976 15.0

7 489997 350801 15.0

8 489377 350496 17.5

9 489678 350580 16.0

10 490066 350447 15.0

Extent of the Study Area and Identification of Receptors

15.17 The study area within which to determine the potential for receptors to be affected by

shadow flicker has been set at a distance of 10 rotor diameters from the turbine location

and 130 degrees either side of north from each turbine. For this development, the area



15-6

extends to 920 m from each turbine as illustrated in Figure 15.1 and 15.2. This figure also

shows the locations of the sensitive receptors detailed in Table 15.3.

15.18 A total of eight sensitive receptors have been considered within this assessment, as

detailed in Table 14.2. Only two of the receptors identified lie within the study area,

however in response to the comments raised during the scoping process it was decided to

also assess properties in the immediately surrounding area. Meaning that an additional

five properties and the village of Stagglethorpe, all of which lie just outside the study area,

were included in the assessment.

Table 15.3 Sensitive Receptor Locations

Sensitive

Receptor

British National Grid Elevation

(m)

Nearest

Turbine

Approx.

distance to

nearest

turbine (m)

Direction

from turbine Easting Northing

Residential

Caravan Site for

Gypsies

490768 351223 15.0 2 811.7 East

Letherbottle

Farm 490840 350873 15.0 7 846.9 East

Grange Farm

House 490918 351034 15.0 7 950.4 North-east

Fallows End 490901 351161 15.0 2 953.2 South-east

Bees Barn 490970 350790 15.0 10 967.2 North-east

Dunston House 488135 350826 19.0 5 10,28.4 West

Rectory Farm 488251 352062 16.0 3 1,263.9 North-west

Stragglethorpe

Village 491182 352168 15.0 2 1,485.8 North-east

Method of Baseline Data Collation

Desk Study

15.19 A desk based study was undertaken to identify the potential sensitive receptors using OS

mapping, Google Earth and was cross-referenced with those receptors identified within

the noise assessment (see Chapter 10). The characteristics of the local climate were also

determined through a desk based study of information held by the Met Office.



15-7

Site Visit

15.20 A site visit was undertaken in January 2015 to determine the size and orientation of the

windows within the identified sensitive receptors.

Assessment Modelling

15.21 To assess the likely significant effects from shadow flicker, the commercial software model

WindPro 2.8 was used to calculate the expected timeframes within which shadow flicker

could be experienced at each receptor location. This model takes into account the

movement of the sun relative to the time of day and time of year, predicting the time and

duration of expected shadow flicker at each affected receptor. The input parameters

used in the model are as follows:

Turbine locations;

Turbine dimensions;

Receptor locations;

Details of the windows on each receptor; and

Digital Terrain Model (DTM) of 10 m resolution.

15.22 Two model iterations were undertaken to demonstrate both the worst case scenario and a

realistic scenario.

15.23 The effect of shadow flicker is not calculated where the sun lies less than three degrees

above the horizon, due to atmospheric diffusion, low radiation (intensity of the sun’s rays is

reduced) and a high probability of natural screening. It is generally accepted that below

three degrees shadow flicker is unlikely to occur to any significant extent.

Worst Case Scenario

15.24 The worst case scenario gives an indication of the maximum level of shadow flicker effect

which could be experienced at each of the receptors. The output from this scenario is

given as both the maximum minutes per day and the maximum hours per year.

15.25 Assumptions regarding the modelling of the worst case scenario are detailed at

paragraph 15.38.

Realistic Scenario

15.26 In order to represent a more realistic scenario the model was re-run taking in to account

the local climate characteristics. In this scenario, for much of the year, the weather

conditions will be such that pronounced shadows will not be cast and therefore will not

give rise to shadow flicker effects. In order to make an allowance for the levels of sunshine,



15-8

the average annual sunshine hours were taken from the nearest Met office station,

Waddington (approximately 15.7 km north-east of the Site), for the period of 1981 to 2010

(Met Office, 2015) as shown in Table 15.4.

Table 155.4 Sunshine Hours

Month Average Monthly

Sunshine Hours

January 61.8

February 83.2

March 117.0

April 159.6

May 205.6

June 187.5

July 206.5

August 192.7

September 144.2

October 113.3

November 71.5

December 55.4

15.27 Ideally wind data collected by the on-site met mast would be used in this assessment;

however, the met mast has only been in place for four months and does not represent a

realistic situation of the wind conditions on site. Therefore, in the absence of specific wind

data for the site, a typical 12 degree sector wind rose for the UK was used which assumes

7,370 hours of wind per year, i.e. the wind blows for 84% of the year, in a predominantly

south-westerly direction.

15.28 The output for the realistic scenario is only given as the number of hours per year within

which shadow flicker is expected to be experienced.

15.29 Assumptions regarding the modelling of the realistic scenario are detailed at paragraph

15.39.

Cumulative Assessment

15.30 In order to assess the potential for cumulative effects from other wind energy

developments within the surrounding area, a search for cumulative schemes was

conducted over a 2 km search area. This area was deemed appropriate for this



15-9

assessment given the applied study area for the Proposed Development and the likely

rotor diameter for any cumulative development (i.e. no greater than 108 m).

15.31 No other wind energy developments were located within this search area; the closest is

located approximately 2.3 km from the Proposed Development. Therefore, there will be no

cumulative effects resulting from the addition of the Proposed Development.


15.32 Whilst there is no specific guidance or policy detailing the acceptable levels of shadow

flicker in England, this assessment will adopt the generally accepted maximum figure for

the worst case scenario of 30 minutes per day or 30 hours per year, whichever is greatest,

or the maximum figure of eight hours per year for the realistic scenario (DECC, 2011).

Should neither of these limits be exceeded the magnitude of change will be considered to

be negligible or slight. Where the limit is exceeded, professional judgement is used to

determine whether the magnitude of change is moderate or substantial.

15.33 The sensitivity of the receptors is based on professional judgement, with those deemed as

most likely to be affected classed as high sensitivity receptors.

15.34 Table 15.5 demonstrates how the magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the

receptors interact to determine the likely significance of the effect. Those effects which

are classed as major or major/moderate are deemed significant (grey cells in below

table).

Table 155.5 Significance Matrix

Magnitude of Change


Se

nsi

tiv

ity

High Major Major/

Moderate Moderate

Moderate/

Minor

Medium Major/

Moderate Moderate

Moderate/

Minor Minor


Minor Minor

Minor/

Negligible

Assumptions & Limitations

15.35 The assessment carried out is limited to the effects of shadows within buildings. Moving

shadows will also be apparent out of doors; however these do not result in flicker in the

same manner or to the same extent as the light entering windows.



15-10

15.36 Due to a lack of access to the site and the expected transient nature of the receptors

within the residential caravan site, this receptor has been modelled as a “greenhouse”

from the point on site which is closest to the Proposed Development. This represents a

worst case scenario as it is impossible to know the precise locations and directions of the

windows. In reality the impacts are likely to be reduced from those predicted in this

assessment given that windows will not be present to the same degree as a greenhouse

on a caravan, whatever orientation it is facing at a given time.

Worst Case Scenario

15.37 The following assumptions were made:

The turbine blades are constantly rotating;

The sun shines all day, from sunrise to sunset;

Eye height is 1.5 m;

The rotor plane is always perpendicular to the line from the turbine to the sun;

More than 20 % of the sun is covered by the blade (in practice, at a distance,

the blades do not cover the sun but only partly mask it, substantially

weakening the shadow);

The receptor is occupied at all times; and

No screening is present.

Realistic Scenario

15.38 The assumptions applied in the worst case scenario result in a highly conservative

assessment for the following reasons:

The turbine blades will not turn for 365 days of the year and will turn to face

into the direction of the wind rather than the sun, in order to maximise the

energy generating potential from the wind;

It is unlikely that there will be clear skies 365 days a year;

Receptors may be unoccupied at the time when the shadow flicker impact is

experienced; and

Screening between the receptor and the turbine, such as vegetation or

curtains which could prevent any shadows being cast through the window, is

not accounted for.



15-11

Baseline Conditions

15.39 As no other wind turbine developments are located within close proximity to the

sensitive receptors, none of the sensitive receptors will experience shadow flicker

impacts within the current baseline environment.

Future Baseline

15.40 The future baseline is envisaged to remain as described above; as there are no consented

wind energy development proposals in the study area. Likewise, existing vegetation within

the study area is unlikely to alter to a degree that would impact upon this assessment.

15.41 This assessment therefore considers the potential for the receptors to experience the

effects of shadow flicker arising from the Proposed Development in relation to the current

baseline conditions.

Identification and Evaluation of Key Impacts

Construction and Decommissioning

15.42 No shadow flicker will occur during construction or decommissioning phases of the

Proposed Development as the blades will not be rotating.

Operation

15.43 The results of the modelling exercise are presented in Appendix 15.1, with a summary

presented below.

Worst Case Scenario

15.44 The results presented in Table 15.6 below, show the maximum duration of shadow flicker

based on a worst case scenario with a visual representation in Figure 15.1.



15-12

Table 155.6 Shadow Flicker – Worst Case Scenario

Sensitive

Receptor

Shadow

Hours per

Year

Shadow

Hours per

Day

Limits

Exceeded

Magnitude of

Change

Residential

Caravan Site 43:53 0:26

Yes – yearly

limit

exceeded

Moderate

Letherbottle

Farm 22:18 0:25 No

Slight

Grange Farm

House 27:34 0:24 No

Slight

Fallows End 22:43 0:21 No Slight

Bees Barn 26:04 0:21 No Slight

Dunston House 6:41 0:15 No Negligible

Rectory Farm 9:56 0:16 No Negligible

Stragglethorpe

Village 1:46 0:10 No

Negligible

15.45 It can be seen that the predefined limits are only exceeded at one of the sensitive

receptors, the residential caravan site, based on the number of hours per year. With the

exception of the residential caravan site, it is considered that the adverse effects of Slight

and Negligible magnitude would not give rise to likely significant effects.

15.46 Appendix 15.1 shows that for the residential caravan site the effects are experienced

between August and April (inclusive) and between the hours of 14:00 and 20:00. The pre-

defined limit is exceeded by approximately 14 hours and is thereby considered to be an

adverse impact of Moderate magnitude that would result in a likely significant effect.

Since this receptor was modelled as a greenhouse, the assessment therefore overstates

the impact, as in reality the amount of windows will be less and the direction in which they

face may not be perpendicular to the proposed development.

Realistic Scenario

15.47 The realistic scenario includes indicative wind data and average sunshine hours, which

greatly reduces the potential for shadow flicker occurrence at all of the receptors as

shown in Table 15.7, with a visual representation in Figure 15.2.



15-13

Table 155.7 Shadow Flicker – Realistic Scenario

Sensitive

Receptor

Shadow

Hours per

Year

Limits

Exceeded

Magnitude of

Change

Residential

Caravan Site 8:07 Yes

Moderate

Letherbottle

Farm 4:27 No

Slight

Grange Farm

House 5:29 No

Slight

Fallows End 4:19 No Slight

Bees Barn 5:26 No Slight

Dunston House 1:15 No Negligible

Rectory Farm 1:17 No Negligible

Stragglethorpe

Village 0:18 No

Negligible

15.48 Again, the predefined limits are only exceeded at the residential caravan site. With the

exception of this sensitive receptor, it is considered that the adverse effects of Slight and

Negligible magnitude would not give rise to likely significant effects.

15.49 The pre-defined limit is exceeded at the residential caravan site by seven minutes,

however the model was based on a number of assumptions that require clarification, as

follows.

The receptor was modelled as a greenhouse, thus overstating the effect, as in

reality the amount of windows will be less and the direction in which they face

may not be perpendicular to the proposed development.

The model does not take account of any local screening from vegetation,

blinds or curtains, further reducing the effect in reality.

15.50 Given the above assumptions, it is considered that the adverse impact is of Slight

magnitude and would not give rise to a likely significant effect.

Mitigation Measures

15.51 As no significant effects are predicted during the operational phase of the Proposed

Development, there is no requirement for the application of mitigation measures.



15-14

15.52 Those turbines which could be considered to have an impact on properties under the

worst case scenario will be fitted with shadow flicker modules as a matter of course by the

Applicant. This will prevent shadow flicker from occurring.

Residual Effect

15.53 No likely significant residual effects are predicted during the construction, operation or

decommissioning of the Proposed Development.

Summary

15.54 This assessment has considered whether the effect known as shadow flicker caused by the

Proposed Development has the potential for impact on sensitive receptors. The study area

within which properties could potentially be affected by shadow flicker covers a distance

of 10 rotor diameters from the turbine; 130° either side of north. For the Proposed

Development, this area extends to 920 m from each of the proposed turbines and

encompasses two properties; the residential caravan site and Letherbottle Farm. An

additional five properties and the village of Stragglethorpe were identified as lying just

outside the study area and were included in the assessment process to demonstrate that

there will be no likely significant effects within the surrounding area.

15.55 As no shadow flicker impact can occur during construction and decommissioning of the

turbine while the blades are not rotating, this assessment focused on the likely effects

during the operational phase of the Proposed Development.

15.56 The effect of shadow flicker was modelled at all sensitive receptors surrounding the

Proposed Development site for a worst case scenario and a realistic scenario. Under both

scenarios the proposal would result in no likely significant effects on all sensitive receptors

with the exception of the residential caravan site. Examination of the worst case and

realistic scenarios have indicated that based on the number of hours per year, the

residential caravan site is likely to experience shadow flicker effects which exceed the

recommended limits, as summarised below:

Worst case scenario – yearly limit exceeded by approximately 14 hours,

resulting in a likely significant effect.

Realistic scenario – yearly limit exceeded by seven minutes, however taking

account of in-situ conditions would not result in a likely significant effect.



15-15

15.57 Whilst no likely, significant effects are predicted for the realistic scenario, preventative

shadow flicker modules will be fitted to those turbines which have the potential to cause

shadow flicker impacts during the worst case scenario.

15.58 The potential for blade and tower glint was not assessed on the basis that where the effect

does occur, it is temporary and typically disappears within a few months of operation,

once the blades and towers become soiled. Therefore there is no potential for likely

significant effects. In addition, any potential for blade or tower glint will be reduced by

covering components in industry standard non-reflective paint.



15-16

References

Department for Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework,

2012

Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Practice Guidance

Renewable and Low Carbon Energy, 2014

Department of Energy and Climate Change, National Policy Statement for Renewable

Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), 2011

Department for Energy and Climate Change, Update of UK Shadow Flicker Evidence

Base, 2011

Met Office, Waddington Climate Information,

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/gcrws0hwg accessed 14/01/2015

Local Plan for South Kesteven: Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document, Adopted

June 2013

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/gcrws0hwg



Chapter 16: Summary of Residual Effects

April 2015


+44 (0) 113 204 4850

[email protected]

Fulbeck Airfield Wind Farm ES Volume 1 Chapter 16 Summary of Residual Effects


i

CONTENTS

16 SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS 16-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 16-1 Summary of Residual Effects .................................................................................................... 16-1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 16-3

TABLES

Table 16.1: Summary of predicted residual effects



16-1

16 SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS

Introduction

16.1 This chapter presents a summary of the likely significant effects of the Proposed

Development and the conclusions to the ES as a whole.

Summary of Residual Effects

16.2 Table 16.1 summarises the predicted residual effects of the Proposed

Development, considering any proposed mitigation measures as outlined in the

technical chapters of the ES.



16-2

Table 16.1 – Summary of predicted residual effects

Topic Predicted Residual Effects

Landscape and Visual Impact

As no additional mitigation is proposed beyond

that incorporated into the scheme layout,

residual effects are as assessed in the

Landscape and Visual effects section of

Chapter 7.

Significant effects would arise locally as follows:

Trent and Belvoir Vale landscape

character area;

Witham and Brant Vales landscape

character area;

Fenton, Brandon and Barnby in the

Willows villages;

Sections of local roads closest to the

Proposed Development to the east,

south and west, approximately up to

2.5km; and

Sections of PRoW within 2.5km north,

south, east and west of the Site.

Cumulative significant effects would arise on

the following receptors if both Temple Hill and

Fulbeck Airfield wind farms were developed

(Scenarios 2T and 3 in the cumulative

assessment):

Brandon;

Stragglethorpe Lane and minor roads

east of the Site; and

Sections of PRoW between 2.5 and

5.5km south of the Site.

Ecology

The assessment concludes that following the

implementation of mitigation measures and

habitat creation and enhancement proposals,

that significant residual effects would not

occur.

Ornithology (await revised chapter) No significant residual effects would occur



16-3

Cultural Heritage

The construction of the Proposed Development

will not give rise to any significant effects upon

buried, designated or non-designated heritage

assets.

Noise

The potential noise impacts of construction,

operation and decommissioning meet

accepted standards, or can be mitigated

where appropriate. Therefore no residual

effects would occur.

Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology

No significant residual effects would occur.

Traffic and Transportation


Socio-Economic, Tourism and

Recreation


Infrastructure and Safety


Shadow Flicker


Conclusions

16.3 The design of the Proposed Development has been an iterative process, taking

into account the outcome of various environmental assessments, and

consultation responses. The layout of the turbines and associated infrastructure

has been designed to avoid or minimise any potential significant environmental

effects. Mitigation has been proposed to reduce or offset those effects which

cannot be avoided.

16.4 The ES demonstrates that the residual effects upon the majority of environmental

resources will not be significant in EIA terms.

16.5 Limited significant effects are predicted upon landscape character and visual

amenity, however these would be localised in extent. The changes arising from

the Proposed Development may engender beneficial or adverse responses

depending on individual perceptions regarding the merits of wind energy

development. The same project may be seen by some as an attractive,

acceptable and contributing to the wellbeing of the natural environment, while

others may take a negative stance, regarding the project as unattractive and



16-4

unacceptable. The assessment has taken a precautionary approach in

considering that all effects on the landscape and on which would result from the

construction and operation of the Proposed Development will be adverse,

noting that not all people will consider the effects to be adverse and this may

not be the case in every landscape situation.

16.6 The predicted significant effects are reversible; when the Proposed

Development is decommissioned, the turbines would be dismantled and

removed from Site and the Site fully restored.

4330 Park Approach | Thorpe Park | Leeds | LS15 8GB

COPYRIGHT The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Energiekontor