Garth Farm Wind Turbine

Ap

ril 20

15

Mr Alun Bowen

Garth Fawr Farm

Cilfynydd

Pontypridd

Mid Glam

CF37 4HP

Ap

ril 20

15

Mr Alun Bowen

Garth Fawr Farm

Cilfynydd

Pontypridd

Mid Glam

CF37 4HP

Preamble

This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared to accompany a planning application for the proposed Garth Farm Wind Turbine, located approximately 3km south east of Abercynon and 3.5km South West of Nelson in the County of Mid Glamorgan. The Ordnance Survey grid reference for the centre of the site is ST 09133 93800 and its location is shown in Figure 1‐1 of the Site Location Plan. The planning application is for 1 (one) wind turbine, with up to 500KW in capacity, ancillary equipment and on‐site infrastructure for a period of twenty years (20) for the purposes of generating renewable energy through wind power.The wind turbine design detailed in this ES comprises a three bladed rotor, nacelle and tower with a maximum tip height of 77 metres above ground level. The development will utilise the pre-existing track which will require widening and improvement to accommodate service and delivery vehicles all component of this can be found in in Access Widening parts 1, 2 and 3. The wind turbine will require a crane pad and an external transformer, from which the power would be exported along underground cables to an on‐site substation.

This Environmental Statement has been prepared and compiled by Constant Energy Ventures Limited, following the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the proposed wind turbine. The Environmental Impact Assessment team has been assembled to conduct a thorough objective assessment of all the significant environmental effects likely to arise as a result of the proposed development. The specialist advice and support was delivered by the following external, independent consultancies, each of which also has extensive experience in renewable energy planning and environmental assessments. This document should be read in conjunction with all the planning documentation and assessments that have been submitted to Rhondda Cynon Taf local authority separately under the planning application number 14/0440/10.

Prepared By Clayton Jones Bsc Msc

Checked By Melvyn Wharfe (Director)

Approved By Peter Lapczynsky (Director)

Garth Fawr 500 kW Wind Turbine Environmental Statement April 2015

Ecological Assessment JOHNS ASSOCIATES environmental consultants, Limpley Mill, Lower Stoke, Bath, BA2 7FJ Ornithological Assessment JOHNS ASSOCIATES environmental consultants, Limpley Mill, Lower Stoke, Bath, BA2 7FJ Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment Asbri Planning Ltd, Unit 9, Oaktree Court, Mulberry Drive, Cardiff Gate Business Park, Cardiff, CF23 8RS Hydrology and Geology Assessment JOHNS ASSOCIATES environmental consultants, Limpley Mill, Lower Stoke, Bath, BA2 7FJ Landscape and Visual Assessment The Ark Company, 7 The Highway, Hawarden, Flintshire, CH5 3DG

Civils, Transport and Traffic Assessment Acstro Ltd, Ty Penbryn, Salem, Llandeilo, Carmarthenshire, SA19 7LT Turbine Aviation Risk & Mitigation Assessment BUCCANEER CONSULTING LIMITED, 12 Biar Avenue, Euxton, Chorley, Lancashire, PR7 6BG Noise Assessment The Energy Workshop Limited, The Media Centre, 7 Northumberland Street, Huddersfield, West Yorks, HD1 1RL Shadow Flicker Overview The Energy Workshop Limited, The Media Centre, 7 Northumberland Street, Huddersfield, West Yorks, HD1 1RL EIA Coordinator Constant Energy Ventures Limited, Regus House, Thorpe Park, Leeds, LS15 8ZA,


Contents

1 Introducti 10.....................................................................Pageno

1.1 Introduction Foreword

2 Selection Site

2.1 Site Considerations

2.2 Site Design

2.3 Project Description

2.3.1 Site Layout

2.3.2 Infrastructure Area

2.4 Wind Turbine Specification

2.5 Turbine Foundations & Crane Hardstanding’s

2.6 Substation & Grid Connections

2.7 Site Access

2.8 Internal Access Track

2.9 Ancillary Works

3 Constructio 21.Page.................................................................n

3.1 Construction Programme

3.2 Construction Traffic & Transportation

3.2.1 Exceptional Loads

3.2.2 Conventional Construction Vehicles

3.2.3 Construction Staff Vehicles

3.2.4 Operation & Maintenance Vehicles

3.3 Pollution Prevention &Health & Safety

3.4 Site Reinstatement

3.4.1 Decommissioning


..................................................................Page 14

4 Socio-Economic Impact Assessme ........................Page 26nt

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Environmental Benefits

4.3 Economic Benefits

4.3.1 National Policy

4.3.2 Regional/Local

4.4 Fuel Poverty

4.5 National Policy &Targets

4.6 Local/Regional Targets & Policies

4.7 Community Benefits

4.8 Impacts of Global Warming & Climate Change

4.8.1 International Impact

4.8.2 UK Impact

4.9 Tackling Climate Change International, European, UK & Welsh Policy

4.10 International Policy

4.11 European Policy

4.12 UK Government Policy

4.12 Energy & Planning Policy in Wales

4.13 Tourism

4.14 Conclusion

5 Ecology ...............................................................................Page 41

5.1 Summary

5.2 Introduction

5.3 Policy, Legislation & Guidance

5.4 Methodology

5.5 Field Survey

5.5.1 Improved Grassland

5.5.2 Stone Walls


5.5.3 Defunct Hedges

5.5.4 Scattered Trees

5.5.5 Species-Poor Semi-Improved Neutral Grassland

5.5.6 Conifer Plantation

5.5.7 Surrounding Habitat

5.5.8 Habitat Adjacent to the Access Track

5.6 Mitigation

5.7 Conclusions

6 Ornithology .....................................................................Page 50

6.1 Summary

6.2 Introduction

6.3 Methodology

6.3.1 Desktop Survey

6.4 Bat Survey

6.4.1 Building Survey

6.4.2 Tree Survey

6.4.3 Limitations

6.5 Habitat Appraisal for Birds

6.6 Results: Bats

6.6.1 Desk Study

6.7 Bat Survey: Inspection of Features within 50 meters & Surrounding Areas…

6.8 Potential Commuting and Foraging Areas

6.9 Wider Landscape for Bats

6.10 Results: Birds

6.11 Designated Sites

6.11.1 Site Survey

6.12 Potential for Bird Migratory Rotes

6.13 Conclusions of the Risk Assessment

6.14 Mitigation Strategy


7 Cultural Heritage and Archaeolog ........................Page 63y

7.1 Summary

7.2 Introduction


7.3.1 National Guidance

7.3.2 Local Policy

7.4 Historic Background

7.5 Heritage Assets

7.6 Assessment of Proposals

8 Hydrological Impact ....................................................Page 78

8.1 Summary

8.2 Introduction


8.4 Flood Risk Assessment

8.5 Probability

8.6 Climate Change

8.7 Hydrological Modeling

8.8 Off-site Impacts

8.9 Flood Risk Mitigation Measures

9 Landscape & Visual Appraisal ...................................Page 93

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Methodology

9.3 Site Description

9.4 Landscape Quality

9.4.1 Geological Influence

9.4.2 Historical Influences


9.4.3 Cultural Influences

9.4.4 Ecological Influences

9.4.5 Sensory Influences

9.5 Landscape Quality Overview

9.6 Landscape Impact Assessment

9.6.1 National/International Policy

9.6.2 Regional Quality Effects

9.6.3 Local/ Site Level Effects

9.6.4 Heritage Effects

9.7 Visual Impact Assessment

9.7.1 Potential Visual Effects

9.8 Cumulative Effects

9.9 Landscape Mitigation

9.10 Summary and Conclusions

10 Traffic and Transpor .................................................Page 144t

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Methodology

10.3 Route

10.4 The Route Assessment

10.4.1 Delivery of Turbine Blades

10.4.2 Delivery of the Generator

10.5 Conclusion

11 Aviatio ..........................................................................Page 148n

11.1 Location

11.2 Line of Sight (LoS) Assessment

11.3 Identification of Relevant Affected Aviation Assets

11.4 Cardiff Airport


11.4.1 Discussions with Cardiff Airport

12.4.2 Cardiff Radar Tilt

11.5 Controlled Airspace & ATC Operations

11.6 Obstacle Clearance Limits

11.7 Met Office Radar

11.8 Mitigation Options

11.9 Recommendations

12 Noise Assessme ......................................................Page 157nt

12.1 Introduction

12.2 Noise Limits

12.2.1 Quiet Daytime Conditions

12.2.2 Night-time Noise Conditions

12.3 Baseline Conditions

12.4 Conclusions

13 Shadow Flic ............................................................Page 161ker

13.1 Summary

13.2 Introduction

13.3 Planning Policy & Guidance

13.4 Methodology & Baseline Description

13.5 Assessment of Potential Effects

13.7 Summary of Effects

13.8 Conclusions


CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION


10

1 Introduction

1.1 Foreword

Garth Fawr Farm lies on the eastern slopes of the Taff Valley, approximately 5km north of

Pontypridd and 2km north of Cilfynyd. The turbine is proposed to be installed at the southern

edge of the applicants land boundary. This location has been identified as having the least

potential impact on the surrounding landscape, ecological and heritage assets, in addition to

issues relating to residential and recreational amenity (noise, shadow flicker) It has also been

chosen with regards to the proposed access route, a pre-existing track owned by the Coal

Authority which comes from the north.

The preferred turbine model is the EWT Directwind turbine with a hub height of 50m. This turbine

has been chosen for its safety, reliability and efficiency. The turbine has a rated output of 500kW

and would be expected to generate 1,500,000 kW/hrs per annum. Based on NOABL wind speed

data, the site has a wind speed in excess of 6.7 m/per second, which is well above the national

average. The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) recommends that turbine sites

have a minimum wind speed of 6.0 m/per second at a height of 45m. This therefore confirms the

vitality of the proposed site location. Prior to the publication of this document an extensive

consultation process had taken place with all statutory bodies and interested parties responses

can be found in the ES Volume 2 Appendix.

This Environmental Statement (ES) supports an application to Rhondda Cynon Taf by Constant Energy Ventures Limited on behalf of Alun Bowen for consent under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for construction of a single wind turbine and associated ancillary development on land at Garth Fawr Farm. The proposed wind turbine is up to 77m to blade tip height. The candidate turbine that is used for this application is a EWT DW54, which has a tower height of 50m and a rotor diameter of 54m, and rated at 500kW installed capacity. Should planning permission be granted, the local planning authority may approve the turbine to be used by planning condition.

1.2 The Environmental Statement The ES has been prepared in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 2011 (the EIA Regulations). It describes all the elements of the wind development, its construction, operation and decommissioning, the nature of the site and its surroundings, the likely effects of the development, and measures proposed to mitigate any adverse impacts on the environment. In order to determine whether or not a Schedule 2 development is likely to be classified as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development by the relevant planning authority, a request can be made to the authority for a ‘screening opinion’ under Regulation 5 of the EIA Regulations. A request was made for a screening opinion for 1 x 77m tip turbine from Rhondda


11

Cynon Taf on 13th April 2012. A response was received on the 19 th April 2012, which concluded that an EIA was required. A copy of this response is contained in ES Volume 2 Appendix. In response to the screening opinion, a Scoping Request was submitted to the local authority via email in July 2012. An informal Scoping Opinion was provided by the Council via email on 16th July 2012 and a formal Scoping Opinion on the 29th October 2012, upholding the informal opinion of July which set out the scope of the ES. The purpose of the ES is to:

Explain the need for the proposals and describe the physical characteristics, scale and design of the wind development;

Examine the existing environmental character of the application site and the area likely to be affected by the wind development;

Predict the possible environmental impacts of the wind development;

Describe measures which would be taken to avoid, offset or reduce adverse environmental impacts; and,

Provide the public, the planning authority and other consultees with information on the proposals, which would assist the planning authority in the determination of the application.

The environmental effects and the impact of the proposal have been assessed using a combination of the sensitivity of the environment to change, and the degree of alteration or 'magnitude of change' which is predicted to arise as a result of the development. The significance of these effects is defined in relation to their magnitude, geographical extent, duration, frequency, reversibility and any regulatory standards that might apply. It does not necessarily follow, for example, that a high magnitude change will always be significant; conversely a low magnitude change will not necessarily always be insignificant. Where an assessment of significance cannot be determined (due to lack of information, unpredictable nature of an effect or uncertainty over magnitude of change) this is highlighted and discussed within the text.

1.3 Consultation The applicant has undertaken pre-application consultations with the County Council from May 2012 until the application submission, to discuss matters such as screening opinions, scoping opinions, viewpoint locations, cumulative impact from other wind turbines/farms and the methodology for the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The views of the Council and statutory and non-statutory consultation bodies have helped to define both the proposal and the aspects covered by the EIA. As part of the consultation process, scoping and/or pre-application consultation was undertaken with the following organisations listed below:


12

Electro-Magnetic Interference Joint Radio Company (JRC) (scanning telemetry) National Grid OFCOM Highways Air Safety Defence Estates / MOD NATs - Navigation, Spectrum & Surveillance Cardiff Airport Environment Natural Resource Wales (formally Countryside Council for Wales) Environment Agency Wales RSPB Government Rhondd Cynon Taf County Council – Planning Rhondda Cynon Taf County Council – Environmental Health Officer

1.4 Document Structure The ES for THE Garth Fawr Wind Turbine has been prepared in 2 volumes and the contents are described below: ES Vol. 1 contains the written text of the EIA, including site selection and project description, the planning context, and various technical studies and environmental assessments independently undertaken by experienced consultants. ES Vol. 2 Appendix contains the Appendices that support the assessments presented in ES Volume 1; The ES should also be read in conjunction with the Planning Application documentation and all of the assessment reports (submitted separately) which also contains the completed application forms and a design and access statement.

1.5 The Assement Team In the preparation of this ES, the specialists listed above in this document were commissioned to undertake the individual environmental impact assessments listed below, and to provide specialist advice in respect of the project design and mitigation measures: Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment Ecology & Ornithology Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Hydrology Aviation Noise Roads/Transportation Shadow Flicker Planning & Energy Policy, Environmental Statement Compilation – Constant Energy Ventures Ltd.


13

CHAPTER 2

SITE SELECTION


14

2 SITE SELECTION The national energy policy framework provides that renewable energy resources can only be developed where they occur, and where it is economically viable to harness them. The selection of an appropriate site with the potential to support a wind development is a complex and lengthy process. It involves examining and balancing a number of technical, environmental and planning issues. Only when it has been determined that a site is not subject to major known technical, economic or environmental restrictions is the decision made to invest further resources in the proposed project.

2.1 Site Considerations

Following an initial exercise to identify potentially suitable areas, a range of factors are considered, which might affect the suitability of an area for a wind turbine and which might potentially constrain development. Wind Sites are considered against the following criteria:

Wind resource - the output of a wind turbine, and hence the financial viability of the project, is determined by the power of the wind at the site;

The availability of a competitively priced grid connection. The electricity distribution system is a major consideration when siting wind energy developments.

Potential impact on any designated areas of national and local importance, and other landscape, nature conservation, archaeology and cultural heritage considerations;

Hydrology, geology and general ground conditions;

Proximity of residential properties;

Potential impact on aviation interests;

Potential impacts on telecommunications and microwave links;

Available access to and from the site;

Landowner participation i.e. availability of the land; Following an in depth analysis, numerous site visits are undertaken to verify information. Garth Fawr Farm was identified as a potential site because of the following primary attributes:

The mean annual wind speed across the majority of the site is commercially viable;

The site does not directly affect any statutory landscape designations;

The site does not directly affect any cultural heritage or archaeological interests;

The site does not directly affect any statutory nature conservation interests;

The development would not adversely affect any telecommunication, transmission or microwave links;


15

The development would not adversely affect any civilian or military aviation operations or safeguarding zones;

The site is sufficiently distant from properties to enable Government prescribed noise limits to be met;

There is no potential for shadow flicker;

There is potentially a feasible and economically viable connection to the electricity grid available;

Transportation routes to the site are suitable for the construction traffic; and

The landowners are fully engaged in the project and are delighted to be part of a renewable energy project of this kind. Their day to day operations of farming can continue unimpeded during the operation of the wind turbine.

The preliminary consultation process (i.e. scoping opinion received from the local planning authority and other key stakeholders) identified the issues requiring consideration and/or more detailed study as part of the formal EIA of the proposed development. The consultee responses received did not raise any issues which gave reasons to reject the site.

2.2 Site Design

Having identified the site as suitable in principle for a wind energy development, the layout and siting of turbine and associated infrastructure was determined through a dynamic site design process of iterations and refinement, the potential impacts of the proposal have been minimised. The final design, sites the turbine in order to capture the maximum wind energy whilst respecting the environmental and technical constraints. Potential environmental constraints were identified by consultation with relevant bodies and specialist studies for aspects such as landscape/visual, access / transport, ecology / ornithology and noise. These included ensuring upon adequate separation distances between turbine and neighbouring residential properties to ensure that the stringent noise emissions limits are met, and that any potential shadow flicker is minimised. Technical constraints were identified through the use of Garrad Hassan modelling software, wind speed data and many years of in-house wind farm design experience. The turbine has been separated from objects such as trees or buildings to avoid turbulence of the air stream, commonly referred to as the ‘wake effect’. From the outset, the primary goal of the project was to produce a site design that is visually sympathetic and environmentally sustainable, i.e. ensuring minimal impact to the local environment through the layout of turbine position, choice of turbine engineering specifications, route of site access roads, and location of ancillary structures. The site design was underpinned by a continuous and dynamic process of site evaluation, environmental appraisal, and consultation with various statutory and non-statutory organisations. The design has included balancing a mix of environmental, engineering, technical and landscape/visual considerations. Significant efforts have been made to ensure that the project design reflects the findings and recommendations of the extensive consultations and assessments undertaken. The results of


16

these consultations and assessments are contained in the individual chapters within this Environmental Statement. Reference is also drawn to the ‘Design and Access Statement’, which is part of the overall Planning Application documentation.

2.3 Project Description

2.3.1 Site Layout

The layout for the proposed site is shown in the plans submitted with the application. The plan indicates the position of the:

A single turbine, up to 77 m tip,

Vehicular entrance junction;

Route of the on-site access tracks;

Transformer Cabin; The red line planning application site area equates to around 0.598ha, the actual development footprint of the proposed site, including the turbine and associated infrastructure such as a crane hardstanding, (but excluding temporary features) equates to less than 0.1ha.

2.3.2 Infrastructure Areas

Infrastructure Area

Access Tracks

Crane Hardstanding

Swept Area of Turbine

Transformer Cabin Total development area 0.598ha The wind turbine is positioned to capture the maximum energy within the defined environmental and technical constraints. This is achieved through the use of wind flow modelling software and wind speed data. On-site and off-site constraints are determined by consultations and assessments undertaken as part of the planning and design process. While some engineering technical detail will only be finalised upon award of construction contracts, and may vary according to the specific turbine and contractors used, this would not have a material impact on the work undertaken. The descriptions used allow for an assessment of the maximum potential effect of the development within each assessment area. The final project layout and design is not expected to be significantly different from that described in this chapter.

2.4 Wind Turbine Specification

The proposal is for one turbine with a maximum height to blade tip of up to 77m when the blades reach their highest point. The wind turbine will be a three bladed, horizontal axis design, and


17

have a rated capacity of 500kW.The turbine will be mounted on a tapered tubular steel tower and consist of a nacelle containing the gearbox, generator and associated equipment to which are attached a hub and rotor assembly including three glass fibre-reinforced polyester blades. At its base, the turbine tower would be approximately 4m in diameter. A transformer, sited externally a few metres from the turbine tower, would boost the voltage of the turbine’s electricity output from 690 volts to 33,000 volts. The candidate turbine considered for both the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Chapter 9) and the Noise Assessment (Chapter 12) has been the EWT DW54, with a hub height of 50m, 54m rotor diameter, and tip height of 77m. An illustration of this indicative turbine type has been presented in planning application pack. At this stage the specific colour of the proposed turbine has not been decided. It is now almost standard across the industry for turbines to be coloured a pale grey/off-white with a semi-matt finish to reduce their contrast with the background sky, minimise reflections, and to present a clean appearance. The turbine will normally start operating when the wind speed reaches approximately 3 metres per second. When the wind speed sensors of the turbine determine there is a sufficient wind speed for operation, the yaw mechanism turns the turbine so that the blades face into the wind. The turbine is designed to withstand wind speeds in excess of 60 metres per second and have a failsafe shut down system that will stop the turbine even in the event of total power loss. The turbine is equipped with lightning protection, which protects the entire turbine from the tips of the blades to the foundation. In the event of a lightning strike, the system is designed to lead the lightning energy around the sensitive parts of the turbine and down into the ground minimising damage to equipment. Noise damping is also an integral part of the turbine design to ensure that noise emissions are kept within acceptable levels. The turbine is designed to work within a climatic range of minus 20 to plus 40 degrees centigrade and will be fitted with safety systems to detect the accumulation of ice.

2.5 Turbine Foundations & Crane Hardstanding’s

The foundation proposed for the turbine would be an inverted ‘T’ in section consisting of a reinforced central concrete pedestal approximately 3.6 metres square, together with a reinforced concrete slab approximately 12 metres square. The maximum intended depth of the foundations is approximately 3m. The tower will be attached to the foundation with 3m long foundation bolts embedded into the concrete. Plans and sections of the typical foundation design have been submitted. Actual turbine foundation design and dimensions will be specific to the site conditions as verified during the detailed site investigations, undertaken before commencing construction. Depending on the ground conditions encountered, it is possible that a piled foundation design may be required which involves installing a series of concrete piles, with each pile being bored or driven until the underlying bedrock is reached. The excavated area required for the turbine base will be approximately 20 metres square. A hardstanding area is required at the base of the turbine for cranes and other vehicles during erection and maintenance of the wind turbine. The hardstanding area would be formed from crushed stone and would be approximately 20m wide by 35m long. The hardstanding area would be left in place after


18

completion of the turbine construction, as it will provide access for maintenance, repairs and eventual decommissioning of the turbine.

2.6 Substation & Grid Connection

The electrical power produced by the turbine will be fed to an on-site substation by underground cables. The substation building will measure approximately 5.3m by 3.3m by 3.3m high and will be constructed and finished using materials that are in keeping with the area. The building will accommodate all of the equipment necessary for automatic remote control and monitoring of the wind turbine, together with the electrical switchgear, fault protection and metering equipment required to connect the wind turbine to the electricity distribution network. The cables where possible will be laid in trenches, typically up to 1m deep and 1m wide. The trenches will also carry earthing and communication cables for the operation of the wind turbine. The cables will be laid on a sand bed and backfilled using suitably graded material. From the on-site substation, a connection will be made into the existing Power network. It is likely, but not yet confirmed, that the connection will be made to the existing 11kV network running in close proximity of the site. The connection will be subject to a separate application under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. The project is currently awaiting a grid connection proposal from Western Power.

2.7 Site Access

The transportation routes and traffic impact are dealt with in Chapter 10 Transportation. The turbine components will be imported to the UK by sea. It is assumed that the components will dock at Swansea, which is known to have handled similar imports for wind farm developments in south and mid Wales. The assumed route from Swansea to the turbine site will be via the A465 to Merthyr Tydfil, south along the A470 to Abercynon and along the A4054 to Cilfynydd. The assumed route is shown in drawing 0549-002-A ES Vol 2. More locally the components will turn right from the A4054 near the Cilfynydd War Memorial and onto a minor road leading to Llanfabon. Deliveries will turn off the public highway approximately 600m along this minor road and travel to the turbine site via an existing track that passes Craig Leyshon Villas. Prior to construction, appropriate highways safety measures will be agreed with the County Council and necessary signage or traffic control measures implemented throughout the construction period.

2.8 Internal Access Track

The objective of the access tracks are to facilitate access by normal road going HGV’s and exceptional load vehicles carrying the blades from the highway to the wind turbine position during the construction period. The track will be temporary and approximately 5m wide.


19

2.9 Ancillary Works

A secure temporary storage compound will be required during the construction period. The proposed location of the compound is yet undecided. The compound will be used for the following purposes:

Temporary portable cabin type structures to be used for site offices and welfare facilities including toilet with provision for sealed waste storage and removal;

Storage and assembly of turbine components;

Parking for cars and construction vehicles; and

Containerised storage for tools and small parts.


20

CHAPTER 3

CONSTRUCTION


21

3 CONSTRUCTION

3.1 Construction Programme

The estimated on-site construction period for the development will be around 12 weeks and includes a programme to reinstate the temporary working areas. Normal hours of operations for construction purposes will be between 07:00-19:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00-18:00 on Saturdays to prevent disturbance to local residents outside of these times. The construction programme will consist of the following principal operations, listed sequentially wherever possible. The development will be phased so that certain activities will take place concurrently: - Construction of site entrance (whilst utilising existing); Construction of temporary site area and establishment of a storage area for wind turbine components and temporary site facilities;

o Track widening and laying of temporary track to the wind turbine location; o Construction of wind turbine foundation and hardstanding area; o Excavation of cable trench and cable laying; o Construction of Transformer Building; o Erection of wind turbine; o Connection of on-site electrical power and signal cables; o Construction of Substation o Commissioning of the site equipment; and o Site reinstatement and restoration.

The following main materials will likely be required in part or in total for the construction of the track, turbine and control building foundations, hardstanding areas, and cable trenches (many of which will be locally sourced):

Crushed stone

Geotextile

Cement

Sand

Concrete quality aggregate

Steel reinforcement

Electrical cable Excavations will be made initially by stripping back the topsoil from the area to be excavated. Soil will typically be stored separately either as a mound adjacent to the excavation area for backfill if required, or stored at a designated area on site for future use. Any stone extracted would be broken into suitable sizing upon excavation. Sufficient stone for backfilling would be stored alongside the excavation. Any surplus clean broken stone will be used for track construction.


22

Should groundwater or run-off enter the excavation during construction, appropriate pumping measures will be taken to ensure the works are safely carried out and the excavation is sufficiently dry to allow concrete placement. When concrete is cast, the excavated material will be used for backfill and compacted to the required design density. As soon as the backfill has been completed the hardstanding area will be constructed. As soon as is practical following completion of the turbine installation, the immediate construction area will be restored to its original profile, although the crane hardstanding area will be retained for future maintenance purposes. The topsoil will be replaced and reseeding undertaken as appropriate. Surplus excavated material will be removed from the site, or used for maintenance during construction, as appropriate.

3.2 Construction Traffic & Transportation

There will be three types of traffic during the construction of the proposed wind turbine:

Exceptional (heavy and/or large) loads that will deliver the turbine components (tower, hub, blades and nacelle unit) and cranes for turbine assembly and erection;

Conventional heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements, i.e. standard HGVs which have a maximum operating weight limit of 44 tonnes delivering stone, concrete, steel reinforcing etc.;

Ancillary vehicles, i.e. cars, minibuses and other Light Goods Vehicles used by construction staff and deliveries.

The developer will ensure that the vehicles will be routed as agreed with the Council’s Highways Department and/or Highways Agency to minimise disruption and disturbance to local residents.

3.2.1 Exceptional Loads

It is predicted that 12 (return trip) exceptional loads will come into the site which will deliver the tower sections, blades and components of the turbine. A further 2 loads with the delivery of the mobile cranes required for turbine erection. With the exception of the cranes, all of the long vehicles delivering the large loads will reduce in length for their return journey and this will therefore reduce their impact. With the exception of the vehicles for the cranes, the long vehicles will be articulated hydraulic low loaders with steerable rear wheel trailers. The low loaders will have overall length of between 16 to 30m. All of the exceptional load vehicles will be escorted to and from the site by the police or a pilot car in order to assist with traffic control and control oncoming traffic flow. The local police and County Council will be notified in advance of such movements. The transportation of exception loads will only last for very short periods within the overall construction period and thus inconvenience to road users will be short term and limited in effect.

3.2.2 Conventional Construction Vehicles

The majority of the HGV movements to the site will be by conventional lorries carrying construction materials such as crushed stone or readymixed concrete. There will be around 4


23

return lorry loads of steel reinforcing, ducting and foundation bolts. The concrete for the turbine foundation will be delivered from local batching plants in the ready-mixed form requiring approximately 76 return lorry loads. The foundation concrete will be high strength structural grade, which is not prone to significant leaching of alkalis. The vast majority of the crushed stone for track widening, crane hardstandings, cabling and temporary works will be sourced from local quarries. The number of HGV vehicles associated with this element of the development is estimated to be approximately 70 return deliveries. It is envisaged that there will also be various vehicular movements associated with the construction of the wind turbine made via LGV’s throughout the construction period. The number of these unscheduled movements are likely to be low (2 to 4 movements per day) and distributed across the construction period and are not expected to cause any disruption to the local road network and community.

3.2.3 Construction Staff Vehicles

There will be approximately 15 people working on site at any one time during the period of construction and there will be various deliveries in light vehicles. These vehicles will approach the site from various directions and will not create any noticeable impact during the construction period.

3.2.4 Operation & Maintenance Vehicles

Following completion of the wind turbine development, only site maintenance personnel vehicles will normally be required on the site. Monthly visits to the control building by maintenance personnel in four wheel drive or conventional passenger vehicles will occur following the commissioning phase.

3.3 Pollution Prevention Health and Safety

Diesel fuel will be stored in a bunded area and an oil interceptor will be installed to prevent pollution in the event of a spillage, in accordance with Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines 2 (PPG2) above ground oil storage tanks. The Environment Agency regulations for all site operations will be adhered to. Only sufficient diesel fuel for plant will be held on site and there will be no long-term storage of lubricants or petrochemical products. As with any development, there is the potential for threats to the quality of the water environment in streams and local ditches during the construction phase. These mostly arise from poor site practice and careful attention will be paid to including PPG 5 “Works and maintenance in or near water” and PPG6 “Working at construction and demolition sites”. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a pollution prevention strategy will be agreed with Environment Agency to ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to protect watercourses and the surrounding environment. High standards of health and safety will be established and maintained through all phases of the project. At all times activities will be undertaken in a manner compliant with applicable health and safety legislation and with relevant good practice as defined under applicable statutory approved codes of practice and guidance.


24

3.4 Site Reinstatement

Reinstatement will be carried out as soon as possible after each part of the project is completed or as temporary areas are no longer required. Wherever possible, the site will be reinstated back to its previous grade and condition. The verges of tracks will be re-graded with topsoil stored adjacent to each excavation, and then re-seeded or cultivated as appropriate. The temporary site office and construction compound area will be cleared of hardcore and re-graded with soil to a natural profile and restored.

3.4.1 Decommissioning

On cessation of wind turbine operations, all major equipment and structures will be removed from the site. This process will take approximately 2 to 3 months. Restoration normally covers the removal of the turbine (rotors, nacelle and tower), removal of the upper section of turbine foundation to a depth of 1m (to permit the continuation of current agricultural practices) followed by reinstatement of all affected areas. The substation control building will also be dismantled, all equipment removed from the site and the area reinstated as appropriate. All underground cables, typically located one metre below ground level, will normally be left in place. The crane hardstanding adjacent to turbine will be removed to below ploughing level and then reinstated and the land returned to agriculture. Decommissioning will be agreed in accordance with a pre-development planning condition, or via an undertaking to enter into a legal agreement, including measures to provide security of funding to cover the decommissioning costs.


25

CHAPTER 4

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT


26

4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT

4.1 Introduction

The planning system exists to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. It has to reconcile the benefits and need for development with the protection of interests of acknowledged importance, whilst contributing to sustainable development. In this particular case, the role of the planning system is to balance the national and local in favour of renewable energy schemes, and the wider benefits they bring to society, the economy and the environment, against any local impacts arising from the development. In appraising the need and benefits of the proposed development, the following issues are addressed: (i) The environmental, economic and community benefits of renewable and the proposed the wind turbine; and (ii) International, European and UK policy on climate change, energy and renewable energy;

4.2 Environmental Benefits

The background on the drive to increase the use of renewable sources of energy has its roots in the recognition that the burning of fossil fuels has an adverse effect on the climate of the world as a whole and that global measures are required to deal with it. The use of renewable resources as an increasing proportion of our energy requirements is seen as a key part of the ultimate sustainable energy solution, alongside energy efficiency and conservation. Once Garth Fawr wind turbine is operational, it emits no CO2 or other pollutants. Emissions associated with the manufacture and construction of wind energy developments are insignificant compared to the emission savings during operation. According to the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), over its 20-year life, a wind turbine will produce 80-120 times more energy than it consumes. Studies in Denmark have shown that the ‘payback’ time can be as little as 3 months and even on a conservative estimate would not be likely to exceed 9 months, by the time the wind turbine has been operating on site for half a year, it could be ‘in profit’ in terms of its energy balance, with only 2% of its life expectancy used up. From this date until the decommissioning of the wind turbine, the development will be a net contributor of environmentally clean electricity. This figure is dwarfed by the energy savings from reduced transmission losses for which no allowance is normally made in the calculations. This payback time compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months. A modern wind turbine is designed to operate for around 20-25 years and at the end of its working life, the area can be restored at low financial and environmental costs. Wind energy is a form of development which is essentially reversible, in contrast to fossil fuel or nuclear power stations.


27

The essential benefits of using wind energy for the generation of electricity are that it is renewable, safe and does not release any gaseous emissions into the atmosphere during operation. The electricity generated by wind turbines is connected into the national electricity grid and therefore will generally displace other sources of generation, and the nature of the system is that these will normally be fossil fuel sources. The installed capacity of a wind turbine is a measure of its maximum rated output, or installed capacity, which in the context of this proposal is to be a maximum of 500kW. Calculations of the likely electricity generation of the turbines are dependent on the ‘capacity factor’, which involves an assessment of the actual output of the development against its installed capacity. Using a capacity load factor of 26.4%, which takes into account the variable nature of wind frequency and speeds, it is calculated that on average around 1,600,000 kWh (1,6 MWh) of renewable electricity would be produced annually by the Garth Fawr Wind Turbine. Utilising updated figures of average UK household electricity consumption of 4,000 kWh per annum and a 26.4% capacity factor, computer based assessment calculates that the proposed wind turbine could each year supply the average annual domestic needs of at least 400 homes. There has been a debate for a number of years about the actual level of emissions savings that might arise from a wind farm development and it is very difficult to predict the exact benefit of a wind farm development over its expected 20 year operational lifecycle. However, one certainty is that over the course of its lifetime, every unit (kWh) of electricity generated by the Garth Fawr Wind Turbine will offset large amounts of carbon dioxide that would have otherwise been produced if that electricity had been generated using fossil fuels like coal and gas. The proposed wind turbine will therefore benefit the environment by reducing the demand for other sources of electricity, thereby replacing significant amounts of brown energy with green energy. The amount of CO2 savings made is a function of the fossil fuel displaced. The electricity industry matches the fluctuating daily and seasonal electricity demand with electricity supply from a variety of other generation sources, such as nuclear and CCTG. The large scale power plants generate at a constant base load, with the backup demand provided by smaller plants. It is the output from the smaller plants which is partly being replaced by wind energy. It is impossible to precisely quantify the emissions savings over the life period of the Garth Fawr 500 kW wind turbine however, it is estimated that the carbon dioxide emission savings alone could amount to anywhere between 10,300 and 25,400 tonnes over its lifetime of the wind turbine. Significant emission savings of NOx and SO2 will also result over the lifetime of the development. Once constructed, wind generation produces no carbon, nitrogen or sulphur emissions. In recent times, Renewable UK, the industry body, has decided to take a more conservative line by assuming an average of emissions across all grid-connected sources, of 430g per kWh. At planning inquiries, it has been known for Planning Inspector’s to adopt this figure as the “minimum savings figure” from the wind farm’s electricity production, and to conclude that the


28

savings of CO2 were still substantial. By using this static level of 430g of CO2 per kWh, the Garth Fawr Wind Turbine would offset some 12,400 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime. The proposed wind turbine will therefore make an important contribution to international, European and UK commitments to reduce greenhouse gases and tackle climate change. Further savings will accrue from reduced energy use, transportation, pollution and congestion, currently incurred in transporting fossil fuels to power stations.

4.3 Economic Benefits

4.3.1 National

Onshore wind energy development brings significant national economic opportunities. The recently published “Economic Opportunities for Wales from Future Onshore Wind Development” (January 2013) report jointly published by Regeneris Consulting and Economy Research Unit at Cardiff Business School was funded by the Welsh Government and the renewable energy industry in order to assess the economic opportunities from onshore wind development for Wales. The report used a board spectrum of information and data collected from the industry and key stakeholders together with case studies and focused on the core economic opportunities that would be created by the future development of the sector. The report concluded “that should 2,000MW of installed capacity be developed by 2015 and should Wales be able and prepared to capture its expected share of investment, there is the opportunity to secure £2.3 billion of Gross Value Added (GVA) between 2012 and 2050, with over 2,000 full time employed jobs per annum on average in this period”. It is therefore important that the onshore wind energy market is supported in order to ensure that long term economic opportunities are provided within Wales.

4.3.2 Regional/Local

Alun Bowen the owner of the Garth Fawr wind project has an ambition to develop renewable energy projects on Garth Fawr Farm, Cilfynydd Pontypridd area in order to create a sustainable asset base. This will not only enable his company and family farming business to continue to thrive, but will also enable Mr Bowen to invest the money which is required for the development of this type locally, instead of investing in other parts of the UK. This in turn will mean that other local Companies’ will also benefit from Mr Bowen’s investment. Significant sums of money are involved in the development, construction and operation of a wind turbine. The estimated cost to construct the turbine is approximately £1.2 million. This represents a major longterm investment decision for Mr Bowen and his family, and further highlights his commitment to invest in the future of his family business and the region.


29

The construction of the wind turbine will require the provision of site facilities, concrete foundations and access roads together with general civil engineering resources, site cabling expertise, and the physical provision of construction plant, machinery and materials, together with site surveying and other technical service skills. This part of the work amounts to around 20% of the total construction cost. The majority of the required skills, expertise and materials will be available from within the local area and through Mr Bowen’s own personal contacts. Moreover there will be additional indirect expenditure in local shops, hotels, service stations etc., to the further benefit of the local economy, albeit for a relatively transient duration. Over the last 3 years Mr Bowen’s vision has been to develop his own renewable energy project the Garth Fawr Wind Turbine, in order to gain an indirect electricity supply link from a renewable energy source, have higher security of electricity price, significantly reduce his carbon usage, theoretically creating a securer future for his family and farming business.

4.4 Fuel Proverty

Whilst there is some debate on the meaning of Fuel Poverty and how it is measured, it is generally defined as a household having to spend more than 10% of income (including housing benefit) on all household fuel use to maintain a satisfactory heating regime. Where expenditure on all household fuel exceeds 20% of income, households are defined as being in severe fuel poverty. Mr Bowen is committed to assist the Welsh Government to tackle fuel poverty and is happy to contribute a portion of earnings generated from the Garth Fawr wind turbine by contributing to charities such as the NEA, (National Energy Action) which help to eradicate fuel poverty and who campaign for greater investment in energy efficiency to help people who are poor and vulnerable. ‘NEA Cymru is the Welsh arm of NEA (National Energy Action) the UK's leading fuel poverty charity. In Wales, as in the rest of the UK, campaigning for an end to fuel poverty through affordable warmth for all’. This money could then be utilised by NEA Cymru to work with Councils, other charitable organisations, such as Age Cymru, and local agencies to target vulnerable people and households in fuel poverty within the local and wider vicinity of its proposed developments. Mr Bowen’s desire to reduce fuel poverty via funding from his future renewable energy development is supported by National and local statutory targets.

4.5 National Policies & Targets

Statutory targets for the eradicating fuel poverty in Wales were published in the Welsh Assembly Government’s ‘A Fuel Poverty Commitment for Wales’ in 2003. These targets committed the Government, as far as reasonably practicable, to eradicate fuel poverty;


30

Amongst vulnerable households by 2010; In social housing by 2012; and By 2018 there would be no-one in Wales living in fuel poverty. In 2010 the Welsh Government published the ‘Fuel Poverty Strategy 2010 which updated the 2003 strategy but kept the statutory targets. The 2010 strategy used the results of the ‘2008 Living in Wales survey’ to assess the scale of fuel poverty within Wales. It found that 332,000 or 26% of households in Wales were estimated to be in fuel poor. It also found that a further 530,000 were spending between 5 and 10 per cent of their total household income on energy and thus were considered to be at risk of becoming fuel poor if energy prices increased or their incomes dropped. Unfortunately, despite the target date of eradicating fuel poverty among vulnerable households by 2010 (including pensioners or children/people with a disability) the 2008 survey results indicated around 285,000 vulnerable households were still likely to be in fuel poverty in 2008. Furthermore, in 2010 there were still 59,000 social housing households in fuel poverty. The CSE and Consumer Focus published its 2011 ‘Now Cost’ of Fuel Poverty which estimated that the number of fuel poor households in Wales had increased to 425,161 or 33.5% of households in Wales. Taking the latest figures into account, it is clear that the Governments targets to eradicate fuel poverty amongst vulnerable and social housing households were not met by the representative target dates. The 2010 strategy included various measures that the Government would aim to do to tackle fuel poverty. These included;

To promote the co-ordination and joining up of support, not just of different providers who are helping to tackle fuel poverty but also by finding ways to enable other services and programmes to support action that will assist in alleviating fuel poverty.

To ensure the development of initiatives to tackle fuel poverty are coordinated with actions to tackle poverty across Welsh Assembly Government Departments.

To ensure that any new services are developed in partnership with, and complement, existing services provided by trusted local agencies, health and social services, Local Authorities and third sector organisations.

To provide high quality, well-co-ordinated advice and support services to ensure that all householders in Wales can access help to reduce their fuel bills, maximise their income, improve the energy performance of their homes and reduce their risk of becoming fuel poor.

To provide a demand led All-Wales Fuel poverty programme, complemented by area-based fuel poverty programmes.

To ensure that Welsh Assembly Government support and advice is inclusive and takes people’s needs into account (for example, ensure that advice meets accessibility standards and that programmes are delivered with cultural sensitivities in mind).

To ensure that Welsh Assembly Government funded energy efficiency measures provided through both demand led and area based programmes are targeted at those householders most in need and living in the most energy inefficient homes.

To review the eligibility criteria as and when new data on the severity and distribution of fuel poverty in Wales is available and to work with stakeholders to ensure programmes continue to be effective in identifying and targeting support to householders most in need.

To ensure that Welsh Assembly Government programmes are developed in a way that maximises the funding available from UK Government, energy supplier programmes and other potential sources of funding.


31

Various schemes set up either by or on behalf of the Welsh Government are currently in operation. The main organisation is Nest which is expected to provide advice and support for up to 15,000 householders in Wales each year. The Welsh Government are investing up to £100 million in this scheme over the 5 years that the contract runs and it is expected this will improve the energy efficiency of privately owned and privately rented properties. The main aims of the initiative are;

Saving energy

Money management

Making sure a household is on the best fuel tariff; and ensuring households are receiving any entitled benefits to boost income

The Government also promotes a ‘referral network’ which would provide easy access to advice so that householders can make the most of help available to reduce their energy bills and maximise their income. It includes;

Energy saving advice providers

Local support agencies.

Local Authorities.

National and local third sector organisations.

Health and Social Service organisations.

Energy companies.

Welsh Assembly Government fuel poverty and/or energy efficiency scheme managers. Electricity suppliers are also a key element of the drive to reduce fuel poverty through increased investment in energy efficiency schemes for the UK’s housing stock. This investment is a statutory requirement of all suppliers and includes funding cavity and loft insulation for a range of consumers. This funding was initially made available from both the energy suppliers themselves and by the UK Government’s Warmfront programme which was specifically set up to help households in fuel poverty reduce their energy bills. The Warmfront scheme closed on 19th January 2013 and was replaced by the UK Government’s Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation (ECO) programmes. It is expected that the electricity suppliers are expected to spend around 1.3 billion a year on energy efficiency measures via the schemes.

4.6 Local/Regional Targets & Policies

The latest fuel poverty strategy adopted within Rhondda Cynon Taf is contained within the RCT Affordable Warmth Strategy Action Plan (2007-2012) to address fuel poverty across all tenures, improve health and well-being and tackle energy conservation by bringing all partners and projects together to provide a co-ordinated approach to eradicating fuel poverty.


32

4.7 Community Benefits

In addition to the commitment of funds to help alleviate fuel poverty discussed above, Mr Bowen is committed to the principle that local communities and charitable organisations should benefit financially from the generation of local renewable energy. The Garth Fawr Wind Turbine proposal therefore could include a sum of money which would be paid to the local community on the commissioning of the turbine. This money would be in the control of the local community and could be spent on a range of initiatives to help improve the local community.

4.8 Impacts of Global warming and Climate Change

Within the global community, it is now widely accepted that climate change is one of the most significant threats confronting the world. This global climate change is attributed to the way in which energy is generated, principally through the combustion of fossil fuels. The energy supply sector is the biggest single contributor to the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions. The principal environmental impact from the burning of fossil fuels is the build-up of ‘greenhouse gases’. Of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is by far the most significant in terms of its effects on the earth’s climate since it acts to absorb infra-red radiation emanating from the earth’s surface thereby trapping the sun’s heat in our atmosphere and causing a warming effect.

4.8.1 International Impact

Economically, at an international level, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change warns that by doing nothing, global warming will drive the world into depression, shrinking the economy by 20% and costing £3.68 trillion unless the problem is tackled within a decade.

4.8.2 UK Impact

At the UK level, the Government’s 2005 sustainable development strategy, Securing the Future, predicts the following effects:

Relative sea level will continue to rise around most of the UK’s shoreline. By the 2080s sea levels in the Thames Estuary may have risen by as much as 86cm

Winters will become wetter and summers will become drier. By the 2050s average soil moisture in the summer may be reduced by up to 30% over large parts of England. By the 2080s this could be a loss of 40% or more

High summer temperatures will become more frequent and very cold winters will become increasingly rare. A very hot summer, such as that experienced across Europe in 2003, may occur as often as one year in two in the 2040s, and could be considered a ‘cold’ summer by the end of the century

Increased numbers of heat related deaths, cases of food poisoning and skin cancer and a higher risk of major disasters caused by severe winter gales and flooding.


33

4.9 Tackling Climate Change – International, European, UK & Welsh Policy

There is an environmental imperative and a strategic policy commitment at International, European and UK levels to tackle the causes of climate change and to increase the amount of renewable energy generation. By having 25% of Europe’s wind resource, the UK is in an important position to make a contribution to targets.

4.10 International Policy

The response to the issue of climate change was first addressed in the international arena at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, the Earth Summit, in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. At the Kyoto Summit in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol established legally binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by industrialised countries. The targets agreed at Kyoto expired in 2012. A United Nations (UN) conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 aimed to decide what the global targets and action will be after this time. The Copenhagen conference resulted in the Copenhagen Accord, signed by the majority of countries. The accord includes:

international backing for an overall limit of 2 degrees Celsius on global warming

agreement that all countries need to take action on climate change

financial help for the countries most at risk from climate change.

4.11 European Policy

European Union Directive 2009 promotes the use of energy from renewable sources, and requires 20% of overall energy to be produced from renewables by 2020 and 35% of electricity consumption, up from 16% in 2006. Wind energy is set to contribute the most - nearly 35% of all the power coming from renewables. The Directive sets out the contribution that each Member State is to make towards the overall energy target. The UK’s contribution is to produce 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020, up from around 1.5% in 2006. This equates to around 30% of electricity from renewable sources, a substantial rise from the previous target of 20%.

4.12 UK Government Policy

The UK is currently facing two key energy policy challenges: to tackle climate change and to ensure security of energy supply. To meet these challenges, the Government is seeking to develop a diverse low carbon energy mix including renewable, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage. Renewable sources of energy are a vital part of this strategy as they provide low-carbon energy, increase the diversity of the energy mix, and bring key business and employment opportunities. The UK response to climate change can be traced through a series of polices and measures since the Electricity Act of 1989. This Act created the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation and later the


34

Renewables Obligation, under which electricity supply companies have to purchase increasing amounts of electricity each year from renewable sources. Initial targets of 5% by 2005 and 10% by 2010 were followed by a target of 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 (this has since been substantially increased, as shown below). Energy White Paper of 2003, the UK Climate Change Programme of 2006 and the Energy Review of 2006. These set out the Government’s energy policy and proposals, with a target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050. Increasing the supply of renewable energy into the electricity market was identified as an important element of the proposals to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Energy Act 2008 strengthened the Renewables Obligation to increase the diversity of our electricity mix, improve the reliability of our energy supplies and help lower carbon emissions from the electricity sector. The Climate Change Act 2008 set legally binding targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emission of at least 80% by 2050, and reductions in CO2 emissions of at least 26% by 2020, against a 1990 baseline. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 sets out a range of measures to deliver the UK’s share of the EU’s Directive target, i.e. a legally binding target of 15% of energy to be produced from renewable sources by 2020. It expects that the majority (64%) of this will be from wind power, both on and offshore. These quantities equate to 26.3GW of wind, broken down into about 14GW of onshore and 12GW of offshore. The UK National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) was produced in June 2010 in response to Article 4 of the EU renewable energy Directive (2009/28/EC) which requires Member States to submit such a plan detailing how they will reach their legally binding 2020 target for the share of renewable energy in their final energy consumption. Summary of Renewable Energy Targets Targets under the 2009 EU Directive and UK Renewable Energy Strategy: 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 - 240 TWh 30% of electricity by 2020 - 117 TWh. The RES anticipated that approximately 64% of the 2020 electricity target will be from wind power, equating to 26.3GW, comprising of 14,000MW of onshore wind,12,000MW of offshore wind The NREAP anticipates that 73% of the 2020 electricity target will be provided by wind, equating to 27.8GW, comprising of: 14,890MW of onshore wind, 2,990MW of offshore wind The National Infrastructure Plan, released in October 2010, commits the UK to creating a low carbon supply base of energy and long-term reduction in the dependence on imported hydrocarbons by developing among other projects “a world-leading array of offshore wind


35

turbines, to exploit the UK’s abundant offshore wind-resources, supported by major investment in DC cables and manufacturing facilities at port sites and private sector investment in onshore wind turbines.” It sets out the infrastructure requirements and the economic investment that is needed to ensure sustainable growth in the UK over the coming decades. The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (July 2011) makes a clear commitment to increasing the deployment of renewable energy across the UK in the sectors of electricity, heat and transport. According to the Roadmap, renewables will be a key part of the decarbonisation of the energy sector necessary by 2030, alongside nuclear, carbon capture and storage, and improvements in energy efficiency. The main aim of the Roadmap is to better understand how much renewable energy can be deployed through to 2020, and to identify the current constraints which must be addressed to allow this rapid transformation. In relation to onshore wind, the Roadmap states “there is currently 4 GW of operational onshore wind capacity in the UK, generating approximately 7 TWh of electricity annually”. It goes on to state that “In capacity terms, this is the most deployed renewable electricity technology and is most established in Scotland (~2.5 GW), where over 60% of UK wind resource is found, followed by England (~0.9 GW), Wales (~0.4 GW) and Northern Ireland (~0.3 GW)”. When looking at the present and future deployment of onshore wind, the Roadmap indicates that there is potential for between 10 and 19 GW of capacity by 2020 with between 10 and 13 GW of capacity being used as the ‘central range’ whilst taking into account constraints such as planning consent success and turbine availability. When taking into account the deployment pipeline, the Roadmap states “there is currently over 11 GW of onshore wind capacity currently under construction, awaiting construction, or in planning in the UK”. It goes on to state “assuming historic consent rates the existing planning pipeline could deliver 8.9 GW which, taken with current capacity, would provide a level of growth consistent with the high end of the central range”. The roadmap then sets out the challenges to deployment, which include: “minimising investment risk; reforming the planning system; overcoming radar interference from windfarms; and ensuring cost-effective grid investment and connection”. A combination of these challenges could hinder the available capacity from onshore wind by 2020. This could in turn mean that those schemes currently consented or in planning may never come to fruition and additional schemes are therefore required to meet the capacity assumed within the central range. It is important to understand that the central range within the Roadmap is not a target, rather it is a range gathered as a result of historic build rates, availability of turbines and an assumption that other renewable energy technologies will contribute to the overall government’s target of renewable energy generation by 2020. It is also clear that Government ambitions go well beyond 2020 and if those ambitions are to be realised, the pipeline will need new projects to continue coming forward in order to sustain supply. The Roadmap sets out priority actions to help achieve the targets – these include: minimising investment risk; reforming the planning system in England and Wales, overcoming radar interference with wind farms; and ensuring cost effective grid investment and connection. With regard to reforming the planning system, the Roadmap states that the planning system


36

plays a central role in delivering the infrastructure needed to reduce carbon emissions, to ensure continued security of energy supply and help the economy to grow. It has a vital role in safeguarding the landscape and natural heritage and allowing individual communities the opportunity to shape their environment. It then sets out consent rates for onshore wind projects which “vary from around 60% in Scotland and Wales, to 80% in Northern Ireland and 54% in England”. It states that a high proportion of applications are ultimately determined at appeal and these factors increase cost, delay or risk revenue, and could deter developers from making applications in the first place or lead them to drop applications if initially rejected. It also states that “this risks both the 6GW of onshore wind currently awaiting determination in the UK and projects which have not yet come forward.”

4.13 Energy & Planning Policy in Wales

The planning system aims to regulate and provide the most efficient use of land in both urban and rural environments. In accordance with the principle set out in Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, determination of this application should be made in accordance with the Development Plan, “unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. The Welsh Government provides a national, over-arching framework for planning land-use issues set out in Planning Policy Wales (PPW)(Edition 5, 2012), Government Circulars and detailed guidance on specific topics/issues set out within Technical Advice Notes (TAN). For this scheme TAN8 – Renewable Energy is relevant. These are all material considerations. Hence, this section is structured hierarchically from the Wales-wide level down to Supplementary Planning Guidance where relevant. A Low Carbon Revolution – The Welsh Assembly Government Energy Policy Statement (March 2010). This policy statement sets out the Welsh Assembly Government’s ambitions for low carbon energy in Wales and which builds upon recent consultations including the Renewable Energy Route Map. The statement also reflects the UK policy position. The statement’s aim is to renewably generate up-to twice as much electricity annually by 2025 as used today and by 2050, at the latest, be in a position where almost all local energy needs, whether for heat, electrical power or vehicle transport, can be met by low carbon electricity production. The statement sets out actions to produce low carbon electricity on a large scale and which sets out the aims for low carbon renewables, including onshore wind. The aim is to have 4.5 kWh/d/p of installed onshore wind generation capacity by 2015/2017, which will be achieved by the following measures:

optimising the use of the existing strategic search areas set out in Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8 on Planning for Renewable Energy and keeping the TAN under review in the light of progress towards these targets;

ensuring that windfarms fully deliver wider community benefits, through our Forestry Commission-based schemes and through the planning system;

addressing any transportation concerns associated with larger wind turbines;


37

working closely with the grid company and the regulator to ensure that new grid connections are provided sensitively, including seeking that connections should run underground where they would otherwise impact on protected landscapes;

promoting further use of brownfield or local sites for smaller-scale projects appropriate to their locations;

supporting local authorities in dealing with applications. Planning Policy Wales (edition 5 – November 2012) contains current land use planning policy for Wales, and is a framework for the preparation of Development Plans by local planning authorities. In addition, PPW may be material to decisions on individual planning applications. Corresponding to its overall objective to promote sustainable development, a key stated objective of PPW is to support the development of renewable sources of energy (paragraph 4, within the chapter entitled ‘Planning for Sustainability’). Chapter 12 of PPW - ‘Infrastructure and Services’ – sets out objectives relating to energy production specifically, and is thus of most direct relevance to the current proposal. Noting that adequate and efficient infrastructure is ‘crucial for the economic, social and environmental sustainability of all parts of Wales’ (paragraph 12.1.1), a stated aim is: ‘to promote the generation and use of energy from renewable and low carbon energy sources at all scales’ (paragraph 12.1.4). Responding to the international, European, and UK-level context, PPW stresses that the Assembly Government is committed to renewable electricity production, noting Wales-specific targets. More specifically, paragraph 12.8.19 notes: ‘Feed-in Tariffs provide financial support for projects in the sub-local authority scale category by requiring energy suppliers to make regular payments to customers who generate their own electricity. The upper limit of Feed in Tariffs is currently 5MW. There is potential for communities and small businesses to invest in ownership of renewable energy projects or to develop their own projects for local benefit. The Welsh Assembly Government’s policy is to support community driven renewable energy projects where benefits from the projects are returned to the host community. Local planning authorities should ensure that development plan policies are supportive of projects benefitting from, or eligible for, Feed-in Tariffs. The scheme proposed at Garth Fawr is, in principle, a feed in tariff proposal which will benefit the local landowner in his rural diversification objectives and facilitate the development of renewable energy. TAN 8 – Renewable Energy (2005) sets out a policy approach intended to fulfil the Welsh Assembly Government’s target of 4 terawatt hours (TWh) per annum of electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2010, and 7TWh per annum by 2020. Whereas much of TAN 8 is concerned with designating SSAs, it provides significant guidance on smaller schemes proposed elsewhere, such as the present proposal for Garth Fawr. Key emerging points in the current context include that: Local planning authorities are best placed to assess detailed locational requirements within and outside SSAs (paragraph 2.3); When considering applications, local authorities should ‘encourage’ smaller schemes of less than 5 MW (paragraph 2.12).


38

TAN 8 notes that ‘most areas outside SSAs should remain free of large wind power schemes’ (2.13). However, it recognises also that there is a need for ‘balance’ between the objectives of landscape preservation and that of energy development, which ‘should not result in severe restriction on the development of wind power capacity’.

4.14 Tourism and Public Perception

The public perception of wind farms has been assessed in a large number of surveys. These have tended to demonstrate that wind turbine developments create a broad spectrum of responses from the public with the effects on locally valued landscapes prominent in objections. In a wide range of opinion surveys, renewable energy and wind farms in particular are recognised by three quarters of the public as being an appropriate response to the issues of climate change and global warming. Of the numerous opinion studies conducted all over the UK, it has been consistently shown that the majority of the public are in favour of such development. Research has shown that the minority who disapprove of wind farms tend to be relatively forceful in expressing their disapproval, thus giving a distorted view of public attitude. In March 2012 the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) launched a tracking survey to understand and monitor public attitudes to the Department’s main business priorities. The Public Attitudes Tracker consists of one annual survey every March and three shorter surveys, in June, September and December, which repeat a subset of questions where DECC think attitudes might shift quickly or be influenced by seasonal factors. New questions are generally piloted in the shorter surveys. The ninth wave of data was collected between 26 and 30 March 2014 using face-to-face in-home interviews with a representative sample of 2,040 UK households. The March 2014 questionnaire was in most respects the same as that used in March 2012 (wave 1). Support for onshore wind was at its highest level: 70% in favour and only 12% oppose. The increase between wave 8 and wave 9 is statistically significant (95% confidence). The previously highest level of support for onshore wind was 68%. In terms of impact on tourism, it is important that the aspects of an area which are significant in attracting visitors are not significantly undermined by insensitive developments. The landscape is clearly an important element contributing to that which attracts visitors to this area, but there is no evidence from any parts of the country that the presence of wind farms in open countryside, often with at least local landscape designations, has resulted in harm to the tourist industry of that area. In September 2009, a £2m purpose built, eco-friendly visitor centre opened at Scotland’s largest onshore wind farm, the 140 turbine Whitelee Wind Farm on Eaglesham Moor, south of Glasgow. In 2012, Scottish Power Renewables and Glasgow Science Centre, who manage the visitor centre at Whitelee, took the decision to join the ASVA as Europe’s largest onshore wind farm approaches the major milestone of welcoming quarter of a million visitors at Europe's largest onshore wind farm since 2009. In fact, experience within the UK shows that wind energy developments can


39

have a positive effect on tourism and can themselves be tourism destinations, the UK’s first commercial wind farm, at Delabole, Cornwall, for example received 60,000 visitors in the first year and total of 350,000 visitors in its first eight years. The University of St Andrews in December 2005 carried out research at several wind farms in the Scottish Borders and in Southwest Ireland. Tourism is economically important in both regions and they are renowned for their scenic beauty, so the prospect of an upsurge of wind farms was a cause for concern. However, Dr Charles Warren of the School of Geography and Geosciences established that, although people expected a range of negative impacts, these fears were not realised. In most cases, people found that their worries about landscape impacts and noise were unfounded, with surprising numbers even finding the wind farms a positive addition.

4.15 Conclusion

Global warming and climate change, primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is recognised as presenting one of the most serious problems facing the world. The UK has already started to experience significant changes to its normal weather patterns. There is an environmental imperative and a strategic policy commitment at International, European and UK levels to tackle the causes of climate change and to increase the amount of renewable energy generation. European Union Directive 2009 requires 20% of energy and 35% of electricity to be produced from renewables by 2020. Wind energy is set to contribute the most - nearly 35% of all the power coming from renewables. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 sets out a range of measures to deliver the UK’s share of the EU’s Directive target, i.e. a legally binding target of 15% of energy to be produced from renewable sources by 2020, and the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (July 2011) makes a clear commitment to increasing the deployment of renewable energy across the UK in the sectors of electricity, heat and transport. There is a clear strategic legislative and policy requirement in the UK and in Wales to tackle climate change and to increase renewable energy generation with the role of onshore wind being a key element of every strategy to attain these targets. Renewables (and especially onshore wind energy development) must be developed wherever and whenever the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. The proposed Garth Fawr turbine is in accordance with Government policy at all levels and will make a meaningful contribution towards achieving UK renewable energy targets. The proposed turbine is a sustainable form of development and will provide significant environmental, economic and social benefits to the local and wider community.


40

CHAPTER 5

ECOLOGY


41

5 Ecology

5.1 Summary

A phase 1 habitat survey was completed at the site in 2013, in order to determine the

conservation value of the site and allow an assessment to be made of the potential impacts of

the proposals upon such receptors. This included work on the habitats for species-specific

surveys for bats, great crested newts and reptiles; ornithological surveys are discussed separately

in Chapter 6. Habitats within the site were found to be dominated with arable grassland, a series

of shrubs which run along the site boundaries. Such habitats are considered to be of no more

than local botanical value, supporting a small range of locally common species typical of such

habitats, and being relatively easy to create over a short time period. The protected species work

identified the presence of a number of protected species within the site and surrounding area,

including small numbers of bats on site although some habitats were considered to have the

potential to support badger, no evidence indicating the presence of the species was recorded.

Based on the surveys and assessment completed, it is not considered that the proposals will

result in any significant impact upon features of ecological value or populations of protected

species. Appropriate working methods will be implemented throughout the construction period

to minimise any residual risk to protected species.

5.2 Introduction

A range of habitat and protected species surveys were undertaken at the site, where appropriate,

all survey and assessment work was completed unless otherwise stated. An overview of the

methods used, survey results and subsequent impact assessment and mitigation strategy are

included within this report, with more detailed information provided within the ES Vol 2

Appendix. This chapter should be read in conjunction with the assessments already submitted as

part of the planning application:

Extended Phase 1 Survey Report;

Bat Survey Report;

Great Crested Newt Report; and

Reptile Survey Report.

This chapter of the Environmental Report (ER) describes and evaluates the ecological interest of

the application site and the adjacent area. Potential impacts on the ecological receptors are


42

discussed and mitigation is suggested, where required. This chapter should also be read in

conjunction with Chapter 6 (Ornithology) which evaluates the impacts of the proposal on the

avian fauna of the site and surrounding area.


The National Planning Policy Framework outlines the government’s policies, including those

relating to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment (Chapter 11), in line

with existing wildlife legislation, through the planning process. Planning authorities must take

into account the principles detailed within the document when preparing regional spatial

strategies and assessing local development applications. The following key principles are

included within the document:

The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment

by recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services and minimising impacts on

biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the

Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by

establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future

pressures (Paragraph 109).

Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for

any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape

areas will be judged. Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international,

national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status

and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to

wider ecological networks (Paragraph 113).

Local planning authorities should set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans,

planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of

networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure (Paragraph 114).

To minimise impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity, planning policies should:

Plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale across local authority boundaries;

Identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of

international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife

corridors and stepping stones that connect them and areas identified by local

partnerships for habitat restoration or creation;


43

to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological

networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to

national and local targets, and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in

the plan;

where Nature Improvement Areas are identified in Local Plans, consider specifying the

types of development that may be appropriate in these Areas (Paragraph 117).

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to

conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: 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;

5.4 Methodology

A Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the site was undertaken in April 2013 by an ecologist experienced in

botanical and protected species survey work, during which the habitat types currently present

across the site and in immediately adjacent areas were recorded and mapped. The survey

followed the standardised system for classifying and mapping British habitats (JNCC, 1990,

Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat survey – a technique for environmental audit). The main output

of this survey was an annotated map and target notes (ES Vol 2 Appendix) together with

descriptions of the recorded habitat types. A botanical species list was compiled for each habitat

type with descriptive scores of abundance assigned to each species using the DAFOR scale:

Dominant (D);

Abundant (A);

Frequent (F);

Occasional (O);

Rare (R);

Local (prefix that can be applied to any of the above).

During the Extended Phase I Habitat Survey, the habitats were also assessed for the presence, or

potential presence of protected species. Subsequently, further information was made available

about the project, including slight modifications required to the existing access track and the

proposed connection point to the grid. A repeat visit was therefore made to the site on the 23rd

May 2013 to ensure that these additional areas had been included within the scope of the Phase

I habitat survey.


44

5.5 Field Survey

The extent of habitat types recorded within the site is shown on the map in Appendix A (target

notes are also provided in Appendix A) ES Vol 2 Appendix.

5.5.1 Improved Grassland

The two fields within the site comprised intensively sheep-grazed pasture. The dominant plant

species comprised rye-grass Lolium perenne with occasional white clover Trifolium repens,

creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, great plantain Plantago major and common bent Agrostis

capillaris also recorded. This grassland appears to have been reseeded with a rye-grass mix and

fertilised.

5.5.2 Stone Walls

Stone walls border the field edges in places. These were largely unvegetated, although occasional

lichens, bryophytes (particularly the moss Homalothecium sericeum) and common polypody

Polypodium vulgare were recorded.

5.5.3 Defunct Hedges

In places, short stretches of defunct hedgerow were recorded along the field boundaries,

dominated by wind-stunted hawthorn Crataegus monogyna with occasional blackthorn Prunus

spinosa and birch Betula sp. The defunct hedgerows were typically associated with a bank.

5.5.4 Scattered Trees

Four mature trees (larch Larix sp. and Scot’s pine Pinus sylvestris) were located adjacent to the

northern site boundary. In addition, a small area has been fenced off parallel to the eastern field

boundary; and young fruit trees have been planted in this area.

5.5.5 Species-Poor Semi-Improved Neutral Grassland

Two small areas of grassland have been enclosed by fencing along the site boundaries. The

grassland inside these areas has developed as rank and tussocky with dominant species

comprising cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata and Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus. Occasional species

recorded within this vegetation type included nettle Urtica dioica, sorrel Rumex acetosa, broad-

leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius, cleavers Galium aparine, soft rush Juncus effusus, bracken

Pteridium aquilinum and foxglove Digitalis purpurea.

5.5.6 Conifer Plantation

Conifer (spruce Picea sp.) plantation is present on a bund along the northern site boundary. Any

failures in the planting have been colonised by tall ruderal vegetation, including rosebay

willowherb Chamerion angustifolium, nettle, broad-leaved dock and bramble Rubus fruticosus

agg.


45

5.5.7 Surrounding Habitat

Land immediately to the south of the site has been previously disturbed due to coal mining

activity (see Target Notes 1 and 2 in Appendix A ES Vol2). The spoil heaps have now been partly

vegetated with an acid grassland and gorse Ulex europaeus mosaic, although the slopes of some

slag heaps remain bare. Farm buildings, including the newly-constructed farmhouse, agricultural

sheds and a the derelict remnants of the former farmhouse, lie immediately to the north of the

site.

Land further to the north, east and west of the site typically comprises intensively grazed sheep

pasture, characterised by stone wall and remnant hedge field boundaries with few mature trees.

Buildings associated with Garth Hall lie approximately 500m to the north east of the site.

5.5.8 Habitat Adjacent to the Access Track

Drawing nos 0549/013, 014 and 015 (ES Vol 2) show that the access track to the site will be

widened in places. This will require small amounts of land take on the corners of the track. These

areas were visited on 23rd May 2013 and in summary, widening will result in the following habitat

loss:

Loss of areas of bare gravel, particularly where vehicles are overrunning, resulting in a

degree of erosion;

Loss of small strips of species-poor semi-improved grassland, dominated by common bent

Agrostis capillaris with frequent sweet vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratum and

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus.

Track widening will not result in the loss of any trees, although it will be necessary to cut back

branches from overhanging hawthorn shrubs and birch trees. Both habitat types are common

and ubiquitous in the local area and are of low ecological value.

5.6 Mitigation

Undertake a detailed desk study to cover designated sites, bird and bat records within 2 km of

the site. Records should be sought from the the South East Wales Biodiversity Records Centre

(SEWBReC). See the submitted report (June 2013): Bird & Bat Risk Assessment relating to

proposals for a single wind turbine (Garth Fawr, Abercynon).

Undertake a repeat survey of the area immediately surrounding the site to assess whether there

are any potential bat roosts that may be affected by the turbine. This would include inspections

of mature trees; and would also require internal and external inspections of the farmhouse and

farm buildings (plus any other buildings or structures within 100m of the site). See the submitted

report (June 2013): Bird & Bat Risk Assessment relating to proposals for a single wind turbine

(Garth Fawr, Abercynon).

The results from 1 and 2 above were used to undertake a risk assessment covering the likelihood

of impacts to bat and bird populations arising from operation of the proposed wind turbine. The


46

results of the risk assessment were used to scope out the need for any detailed bat and bird

surveys. Details of the proposed construction access to the site plus details of any required

service connections to the site were also assessed. See the submitted report (June 2013): Bird &

Bat Risk Assessment relating to proposals for a single wind turbine (Garth Fawr, Abercynon)

5.7 Conclusions

The improved grassland within the site boundary is of low botanical diversity. Direct loss

of this habitat to construct a wind turbine and to construct the connection to the grid will

result in negligible non-significant ecological impacts.

Stone wall and defunct hedges along the field boundaries should be retained where

possible as these will provide corridors to allow wildlife to move through the landscape.

As such, the underground cable to connect the wind turbine to the grid should be routed

through gateways/ gravel tracks/ fencelines/ gaps in hedgerows wherever possible.

Comparison of the likely route for the cable with the Phase I habitat map in Appendix A

ES Vol 2 confirms that a sensitive route can be selected with no loss to hedgerow or stone

wall.

The ubiquitous nature of the affected habitats (bare gravel and species-poor semi-

improved grassland) combined with the very small extent of habitat loss will result in

negligible ecological impacts as a result of access track widening. Access track widening

will not require the loss of any trees or shrubs.

No suitable ponds or waterbodies have been identified within 500m of the site. As such,

the site is highly unlikely to support great crested newts.

Habitat within the site itself is of low value for birds. However, further work is required

to identify whether key / target species (particularly raptors and waders/ wildfowl) are

likely to regularly follow routes across the site (and therefore whether these species

would be impacted by the proposed wind turbine) (see below). See the recent submitted

report (June 2013): Bird & Bat Risk Assessment relating to proposals for a single wind

turbine (Garth Fawr, Abercynon).

Habitat within the site itself is of negligible value for roosting and foraging bats. However,

further work is required to assess whether any bat roosts are likely to be present in the

area immediately surrounding the site; whether bats are likely to travel across the site to

commute between roosts and foraging areas; and therefore whether the proposed wind

turbine would result in any impact to bat populations. See the recent submitted report


47

(June 2013): Bird & Bat Risk Assessment relating to proposals for a single wind turbine

(Garth Fawr, Abercynon).

Construction of the wind turbine would not result in any loss of potential habitat for other

protected species (e.g. reptiles or dormouse).


48

CHAPTER 6

ORNITHOLOGY


49

6 ORNITHOLOGY

6.1 Summary

This chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) describes and evaluates the ornithological

interest of the application site and the adjacent area. The requirement for this Study arose

following the initial Phase 1 habitat Survey that identified the need for further work on bats and

birds in order to assess the Potential impacts on these species.

6.2 Introduction

Ecology experts were commissioned to undertake a Bird and Bat assessment of the proposed

Wind Turbine site during 2013. A range of surveys and assessments have been undertaken at the

site, where appropriate; all survey and assessment work was completed by Johns Associates

unless otherwise stated. An overview of the methods used, survey results and subsequent impact

assessment and mitigation strategy are included within this report, with more detailed

information provided within the report:

Bird & Bat Risk Assessment relating to proposals for a single wind turbine as

previously submitted as part of the planning application 14/0440/10

6.3 Methodology

6.3.1 Desktop Study

Data on statutorily-designated sites for nature conservation (including Sites of Special Scientific

Interest, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar Sites) within 2km of the site was obtained

from the Natural Resources Wales website. An additional search was made to identify Special

Protection Areas (SPAs) within a wider area (extending to 10 km and beyond). Biological data,

specifically birds, bats and Sites Important for Nature Conservation (SINCs) were requested

from SEWBREC, within 2km of the proposed wind turbine. Assessments were made for target

bird species relevant to turbine proposals (specifically geese, waders, wildfowl and certain

raptors), bat activity and bat roosts and SINCs which may be impacted by the proposal.


50

6.4 Bat Survey

Detailed inspections of buildings and mature trees within 250m of the proposed turbine site were

undertaken.

6.4.1 Building Survey

The building survey was undertaken on the 23rd May 2013 by an experienced bat ecologist and

entailed a direct search for evidence of bats on both internal and external features of the

buildings, including inside loft spaces where accessible and underneath eaves. The inspections

were carried out from the ground and from a ladder where safe to do so, also using close-focusing

binoculars, a 1,000,000 candle power torch and an LED Lenser P7 torch. The buildings were

examined externally for features that could support roosting bats and features that could lead to

internal potential roost spaces.

The presence of roosting bats can be spotted through signs such as accumulations of moth or

butterfly wings or bat droppings and staining and/ or scratch marks around potential entrance

and exit points. However, the absence of droppings / evidence cannot be treated as conclusive

evidence that bats are not present, and therefore an assessment was made of the potential of

the buildings to support bats based on the following scale:

Table 1. Classification of bat roosts and critical used.


51

6.4.2 Tree Survey

Phase I inspections of mature trees within 250m of the site were undertaken by an experienced

bat ecologist on the 23rd May 2013. The tree inspections comprised of 8 ground surveys with the

use of binoculars and a high-powered torch. A ladder, endoscope and mirror were used to access

features on the tree where possible. The presence of features considered suitable for roosting

bats (i.e. cracks, fissures, holes etc) together with any evidence of bats were recorded. Trees

were assessed for their suitability for use by bats using a number of criteria, which are set out

below.

These criteria were adapted from those identified by the BCT (BCT, 2012).

Table 2. Criteria used to identify bat tree roosts (or potential roosts)

Based on this visual assessment, groups of trees and individual trees were assigned a value

relating to their potential for supporting roosting bats. The rating was based on a combination of

factors, including the presence of suitable features and the location of the tree/s in the

landscape. Ratings were also based on a combination of the surveyor’s experience of bat roosts

within trees and the number and type of suitable features recorded. Ratings were assigned from

high value i.e. the tree has a strong likelihood of supporting a bat roost, to negligible value, i.e.

the tree has no visible value to support bats. Intermediate values i.e. low - moderate were

assigned to those trees that were considered to fall between categories.

6.4.3 Limitations

Access into the loft spaces of the farm house was not entirely possible, due partly to the very

small nature of the access hatch and the low nature of the loft space. Access into the roof spaces

of the derelict farm building was not possible due to health and safety considerations: the

buildings were in a state of ruin and safe access was not possible.

6.5 Habitat Appraisal for Birds

The desktop study was undertaken as part of a scoping assessment in order to determine the

proximity of bird migratory routes, ornithological habitats and nesting sites in relation to the


52

proposed turbine site. On a wider landscape scale, the location of Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

and associated migratory routes over the proposed turbine site is assessed. The study therefore

focusses on bird species that are most likely to be affected by wind turbines such as geese,

wildfowl, raptors and waders (“target species”).

The specific aim of the desktop study is to assess the potential for bird strike during the

operational phases of the turbine in relation to the above factors and joint agencies’ standing

advice, to determine whether a full suite of surveys would or would not be required.

The desktop study comprises an assessment of on-site and surrounding habitats using current

aerial photography, Ordnance Survey maps. This was combined with a site visit by an experienced

ornithologist on the 23rd May 2013 to determine the location of suitable nesting habitat, foraging

habitat and migratory habitats within the local and wider area surrounding the proposed turbine

site. The site visit focused particularly on assessing the value of habitat for the identified target

species considered to be most at risk i.e. raptors, geese, wildfowl and waders.

6.6 Results Bats

6.6.1 Desk Study

Designated sites

There are no designated sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest, SSSI or Special Areas of

Conservation, SAC) within 2km of the proposed turbine location. There are also no SSSIs or SACs

within 2 km designated specifically for bats. There are 5 non-designated sites (Sites of Importance

for Nature Conservation [SINCs]), within or partly within 2km of the proposed turbine location.

All sites lie more than 1 km away from the proposed turbine location. To the north and adjacent

to the River Taff lie Lower Taf and Edwardsville Woods SINC and Whitehall Golf Course SINC. To

the north lies Cwm Afon Railway Line, West of Nelson SINC. To the east lies Land at Tair Waun

Uchaf Isaf and Cwmheldeg Farm SINC. To the south-east lies Mynydd Eglwysilan, North of

Senghenydd SINC. None of these SINCs have been notified for their interest for roosting, foraging

or commuting bats.

Bats SEWBREC provided 137 bat records located within 2km of the proposed turbine location: of

these, none were from Garth Fawr or indeed were from within 1 km of the site.

The majority of the records (95) were derived from Cardiff Bat Group/Valleys Bat Group’s Bikes

& Bats surveys, which were undertaken using Anabat SDIIs. Of these records the majority are

pipistrelle bat species (P. pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus) and are derived from surveys of river

corridors in the area. The remaining bat records are of miscellaneous records of grounded bats,

juvenile bat close to their roosts and household roosts etc. Whilst it is clear that the location of

many of the miscellaneous records correlates well with the location of people and recorders, the

distribution of records indicates that bat activity is highest along the river corridors and at lower


53

elevations around settlements. Higher elevations, such as Garth Fawr, produced few if any

records of either foraging/commuting bats or roosting bats.

6.7 Bat Survey: Inspection of Features within 50 Meters & Surrounding Areas

There are no features within 50 metres of the proposed turbine location that offer potential for

roosting bats; habitat features within 50 metres comprise improved pasture, dry stone walls and

short stretches of defunct “gappy” hedgerows.

Beyond 50 metres, the following buildings and trees in table 3 were assessed a more detailed

description of these can be found in the ornithological report:

Table 3. Summary Table: Roosts potential in all assessed features

No evidence of roosting bats, historic or present, was noted in any of the buildings or trees

assessed. Whilst some of the buildings or trees may offer some or limited potential for roosting

bats, e.g. the Ruin (Building 3), no evidence was recorded to suggest bats are indeed using these

opportunities. In addition, when placed in a wider landscape context, it should be noted that

most features assessed are located in windy exposed locations with poor connectivity to suitable

sheltered or wooded habitat (superior roosting sites are likely to be found in the nearby wooded

river valleys).

Building 3 located approximately 120m north east of the proposed turbine site, if maternity

roosts were present, some evidence of bats would be expected to be apparent, resulting from

the aggregation of a number of bats. No such evidence was noted. Maternity roosts are of

conservation significance as they support a significant proportion of the local population that

gather together to breed during the summer period. As such, although Building 3 has potential

to support small numbers of non-breeding bats, it is assessed as unlikely that this structure will

support significant numbers of bats such as a maternity roost.


54

6.8 Potential Commuting & Foraging Areas

No landscape features for commuting or foraging bats are located within 50 metres of the

proposed wind turbine location (see Figure 1 below); habitat within this zone comprises

improved pasture which is being intensively grazed.

Figure 1. Proposed turbine location, with 50 meter radii.

Beyond 50 metres from the proposed turbine location lie a number of features whose value for

commuting and foraging bats is described in Table 4 below. Their value is assessed firstly without

considering the value of potential roosting sites nearby, and then in conjunction with the findings of the

assessments of potential roost sites nearby. This is because some features may be used by commuting

and/or foraging bats (e.g. the windbreak conifers), but since little, if any, evidence of roosting bats was

found in the farm buildings of Garth Fawr, it is unlikely that significant numbers of bats are present to use

these commuting/foraging features. Overall it is considered that there are no features of significant value

for commuting or foraging bats within 50 metres of the proposed turbine location, or indeed, in the zone

50 to 250m from the site.


55

Table 4. Habitat Value for commuting and foraging bats, within and beyond 50 meters from the proposed turbine location.

6.9 Wider Landscape for Bats

The wider landscape of Garth Fawr and the surrounding area was also risk assessed for potential

significant impacts upon foraging, commuting and roosting bats.

Figure 2. Key Landscape features around Garth Fawr.


56

The proposed turbine location lies adjacent to, or close to, landscape features which may or may

not be attractive to feeding or commuting bats. The potential value of these features has been

assessed below.

A steep ridge line lies west of the proposed location, lying at a slightly higher elevation to the

proposed turbine location, before dropping steeply to the west.

This ridge line is very steep, rocky and exposed. The upper levels offer virtually no scrub or tree

cover and is an extremely bleak and exposed habitat. It is considered unlikely that significant

numbers of bats are regularly using this higher section of ridge for foraging or commuting. The

exposed nature of the ridgeline means that it is considered unlikely that significant numbers of

bats regularly cross the ridge line, i.e. fly over it, in order to move between roosts and foraging

areas. The lower section of the ridge line (the foot of the slope) lies close to, or adjacent to, the

river corridor of the River Taff. The river corridor will comprise good commuting and foraging

habitat for significant numbers of local bats, and it is likely that where weather conditions allow,

they will also use the foot of the ridge line too, especially where woodland and scrub offers good

foraging areas.

Foraging and commuting bats are likely to exclusively forage and commute along the river

corridor and foot of the ridge line since this area allows access to good foraging areas (e.g. the

River Taff, riparian woodland and adjacent woodlands) and it also allows easy access between

probable roosting sites in nearby towns and villages and these foraging areas (see Figure 3

above).

The land slopes more gently to the east of the proposed turbine location across a series of

improved (and largely species-poor) pastures within a network of dry stone walls, fence-lines and

occasional trees within boundary features. Within this area are small farmsteads that bats could

utilize for roosting. The nearest locations would be either Garth Hall (NGR ST 09533 94031,

approx. 410 metres to the east), Cefn-YGarth (NGR ST 08946 94400, 590 metres to the north), or

a settlement to the south (NGR ST 09209 93478, 346 metres south). In the event that bats are

roosting in these sites, it is likely that they will utilise the better-connected landscape found

immediately adjacent to these buildings for commuting and foraging; the landscape here has a

good network of hedgerows and mature trees that bats would find attractive for foraging and

commuting. It is unlikely that significant numbers of bats would commute due west from the

turbine site to forage on and around, and then cross, the steep and exposed ridge line thereby

crossing the proposed turbine location. This is because there is better foraging and commuting

habitat to the north and to the south. The landscape has sufficient features to guide bats around

the high and exposed ridge, adjacent to the proposed turbine location (see Figure 3 above).


57

6.10 Results: Birds

A total of 463 bird records were supplied by SEWBREC within 2km of the proposed turbine

location. Of these records, many were derived from high quality British Trust for Ornithology

(BTO) national atlas data collected 2008-2012 and so consequently included information about

the breeding status of birds recorded. The majority of records were for passerines characteristic

of upland habitats, e.g. stonechat, whinchat, meadow pipit etc. Historic records of waders such

as lapwing and curlew were noted form the 1970s but since none were more recent, they have

not been considered below. Appendix 1 of TIN069 (Natural England Technical Information Note

TIN069, Natural England 2010, Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds) outlines

those bird species most at risk from wind turbines. Those relevant species recorded within 2

km of the site have been extracted from the SEWBREC as follows:

Table 5. Target Species highlighted in Desk study

6.11 Designated Sites

No designated sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest, SSSI, or Special Protection Areas, SPAs)

designated specifically for birds are located within 5 km of the site. There are 5 non-statutory

designated sites, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), within or partly within

2km of the proposed turbine location. All sites lie more than 1 km away from the proposed

turbine location as described in Section 3.1 above. None of the SINCs described in Section 3.1

have been notified for their interest for wintering, breeding or migratory birds. Many of these

sites may support breeding, wintering or migratory waterbirds such as grey heron, geese and

waders such as lapwing. However, the turbine site is located over 1 km distance from these

wetland sites and waterbird populations associated with these SINCs are therefore not

predicted to be affected by the proposed turbine.


58

6.11.1 Site Survey

During the site visit on the 23rd May 2013, a number of bird species were recorded using the

site. The fields immediately surrounding the proposed turbine location comprise species poor

intensively grazed sheep pasture. The absence of sward or any structure renders these pastures

completely unsuitable for ground-nesting waders such as curlew (which require a moderately

long sward of tussocky grass for nesting) and lapwing (due to the uniform nature of the pastures,

absence of any sward structure or tussocks, and high stocking densities).

The pastures are typically small with field boundaries comprising short stretches of remnant

defunct and gappy hedgerows, or more typically, dry stone walls and post & wire fences.

The land to the south of the site rises to a ridge, beyond which are partially-vegetated spoil heaps

associated with former coal mining. Species such as meadow pipit, linnet and wheatear were

recorded nesting on top of the ridge and on the southwestern face of the adjacent coal spoil.

These species were likely nesting in short tussocky grass or in dry stone walls. Whilst the sward

may have been attractive to nesting waders, it is considered that the overall aspect of the area

rendered ground nesting waders at risk from mammalian and corvid predators, and

consequently, such waders are considered unlikely to be breeding close to the ridge.

The lower sections of the slope below the ridge beyond 300m from the turbine site may be

suitable for nesting waders, where the aspect is more open and sward is longer and more

structured. However, this habitat was assessed as sub-optimal for breeding waders and

consequently it is not expected that species such as lapwing and curlew would be breeding

nearby (although the possibility that low numbers of these species may breed in the locality in

some years cannot be entirely ruled out).

Due to the prevailing weather conditions on the day (strong blustery winds, showers, low

temperatures) raptors relevant to this assessment for a wind turbine proposal were not

recorded. A habitat assessment however indicated that although suitable conditions did not exist

on the development site, suitable conditions were present in nearby woodland to support

breeding and wintering red kite (as well as common buzzard, and potentially goshawk). The

nearest suitable woodland habitat that has the potential to support these species is located

approximately 1 km to the south of the site along the valley sides. It is possible that these species

would ride on thermals rising up the slope from the river valley to the south and south west,

riding the thermals vertically to soar above the ridge, with some potential to take them past the

proposed turbine site.


59

6.12 Potential for Bird Migratory Routes

The turbine site is located close to the peak of a ridge, within a broader landscape of typical South Welsh valleys and mountains, typically 230+ metres AOD. Although this ridge is typical of the region, it is one of many such upland features and does not comprise a regular continuous regionally-significant landscape feature. It is therefore not expected to be a significant migratory route for birds such as waterbirds, waders etc. although it is expected that it is regularly used on migration by passerines such as wheatear, whinchat, and meadow pipit etc. The pastures are not considered attractive to passage waders such as lapwing or dotterel.

To the west of the ridge and the proposed turbine location, lies the corridor of the River Taff. Due to the long, linear nature of this river, flowing south through the South Welsh Valleys, this is likely to be an important migration route for a variety of bird species, but in particular migrant passerines such as warblers, chats, finches and hirundines. Waterbirds may follow this river course north into the Welsh mountains, including waders destined to breed in the Welsh, English and Scottish uplands. Small numbers of passage raptors, including honey buzzard and osprey may use such river valleys for migration but numbers of such species will be incredibly low and with many such river valleys to utilize across South Wales, including larger rivers such as the Severn and Wye, it may be considered unusual for such species to migrate along this river corridor, particularly when the lower reaches are so urbanized. It is noteworthy that neither species featured in the data requested from SEWBREC.

Approximately 22 km to the south of the site lies the Severn Estuary (Wales) Ramsar site, SSSI and SPA; this SPA qualifies under several criteria, not least for supporting over 20,000 waterbirds each winter; during 1988/89 – 1992/93 it supported peak mean counts of 68,026 waterbirds (17,502 wildfowl and 50,524 waders).

Despite supporting vast numbers of wintering and migratory waterbirds, few of these birds would be expected to migrate overland, heading north past Garth Fawr, although a small fraction may comprise waterbirds moving along the river valley to breeding grounds in the Welsh Mountains.

Conclusions It is considered that very low numbers of target species (geese, wildfowl, waders, certain raptors) will migrate along the River Taff and that furthermore, negligible numbers will migrate over or adjacent to the proposed turbine location. The proposed turbine location is considered to have a low to negligible risk to migratory birds.


60

6.13 Conclusion of the Risk Assessment

Birds

Following assessment of the risks, this wind turbine proposal is considered to represent a Low

Risk to bird species normally considered by guidance set out in TIN069 to be at risk from wind

turbines, as identified in the desk study (peregrine falcon, red kite and grey heron). Although a

potential risk for birdstrike has been identified for other raptor species rising up the thermals

from the south and west, particularly common buzzard, this is not anticipated to comprise a

substantial risk to the local populations, and has therefore been recorded as low risk.

Bats

Following assessment of the risks, this wind turbine proposal is considered to represent a Low

Risk to bat species found on and around the proposal site.

Risk of mortality facing individual bats of different species, based on flight

characteristics etc.: With no known or suspected roosts within 100 metres of the

proposed location, and with no suspected significant commuting routes or foraging

areas within 100 metres, it is considered unlikely that significant numbers of bats

will forage or commute on or around the proposed turbine location.

Conclusion: Low risk to individual bats.

Risk faced by bat populations, based on the relative size of the populations of each

of the species: With no known or suspected roosts within 100 metres of the

proposed location, and with no suspected significant commuting routes or foraging

areas within 100 metres, it is considered unlikely that significant numbers of bats

will forage or commute on or around the proposed turbine location. Furthermore,

with richer feeding ground at lower elevations alongside the River Taff and

surrounding woodlands, it is unlikely that bats will regularly forage in the degraded

and exposed habitats surrounding the proposed turbine location.

Conclusion: Negligible risk to local bat populations

6.14 Mitigation Strategy

It is considered that this proposal will have a low impact on existing species and habitat resulting

from the low value for nature conservation that the site currently represents. Mitigation should

however include:

1. Siting of the proposed turbine in the centre of the field, to ensure that the impact upon

those individual bats that may move across the site on occasion using linear features such

as fence lines and dry stone walls is minimised.


61

In compliance with policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), some

enhancements to the nature conservation value of the site are recommended. These may

include:

2. Creation of field margins of low management grassland around half of the pastures, using

temporary electric fencing, to provide areas of longer sward for breeding passerines such

as linnet, meadow pipit, wheatear, skylark to feed and breed within. Such areas should

be grazed each year in late summer (to enable re-growth prior to the winter months to

provide a seed and insect source for wintering passerines, and to allow undisturbed

nesting in the spring and summer).


62

CHAPTER 7

CULTURAL HERITAGE & ARCHAEOLOGY


63

7 CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY

7.1 Summary

For much of its history, the locale of the application site has remained rural and in

farm use as distinct from the more urban focus exhibited by the town of Pontypridd

or other settlements focused on individual pits and mining. More recently and

probably as a result of its more remote location, this sparsely developed landscape

has been overlaid with power and telecommunications apparatus.

Concerning the many heritage assets identified within the locale it is considered

that visual impacts in terms of the setting of these would be negligible, if present at

all, despite the scale and elevated siting of proposals. This results from the location

of proposals and the distance between this and any heritage asset; the low-impact

design of the proposed turbine; the additional mitigating effect of intervening

and/or obscuring landscape or townscape features; and ultimately, the open and

substantive setting of the landscape into which it is to be set, diluting physical

presence commensurately.

In a more immediate sense, the proposal is to be located in what is a rural landscape

that has unarguably been superseded with layers of modern industrial plant, albeit

of a lightweight, visually permeable appearance. Within such a setting the turbine

cannot be considered out of place. Views from the site further confirm the

unlikelihood of identifying – and therefore affecting in any negative sense –

individual heritage assets and their setting. Again, this results from the substantive

intervening distance between any heritage asset and the application site, and the

more general obscuring function of wider development patterns into which most

of the assets are subsumed.

It is nevertheless worth reiterating that despite a hierarchy of merely potential

visual impact - the distinction of which is attributable to distance and falls into two

loose categories i.e. 4-5km from the application site and 2-3km from the application

site – any actual impact upon either the former or latter category is liable to

negligible at worst, and non-existent at best.


64

7.2 Introduction

Asbri Planning Ltd. was commissioned to undertake this Heritage Statement. The

document first considers a number of heritage assets identified by both CADW and the

author as being potentially relevant (ES Appendix 2 ), before going on to consider proposals

for the erection of a single wind turbine at Garth Fawr Llanfabon Farm and potential

impacts upon the significance of the aforementioned heritage assets (Figure 3 – Site

Boundary marked in Blue; Turbine Position marked in Red).

Figure 3. Location plan

Garth Fawr Llanfabon Farm, Graig-Evan-Leyshon Common Road, Abercynon – located around

4.5km north of Pontypridd - is a contemporary group of structures replacing a still extant but

ruined historic dwelling. Close by to the east is Garth Hall, a group of historic farm buildings. To

the north-east is Llechwen Hall. Now a hotel, this was formerly a seventeenth century Longhouse.

To the north is a further group of contemporary farm buildings named Cefn-Y-Garth. None are

either nationally or locally designated heritage assets.

The four sites occupy a sparsely populated, highly elevated area with wide ranging views. To the

west is the River Taff and to the south Pontypridd. To the east is a large electricity sub-station


65

and running on an east-west axis and flanking the electricity substation, are two lines of

electricity pylons. Immediately to the west is a communications mast. Whilst traditionally farmed

and remote from more dense settlement, the natural landscape in this location has more recently

been intensively utilised for energy supply and communications’ networks, with associated plant

and structures being prominent features in both short and long-range views.

The requirement for a heritage statement responds directly to correspondence from Merthyr

Tydfil County Borough Council (dated 19/10/2012 – Appendix 2 ES Vol2) and in particular,

recommendations made by the Heritage & Conservation Officer which read as follows: ‘NO

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT is required in cultural heritage terms. However an

assessment of the impact of the proposed development on cultural heritage assets, taking into

account English Heritage Guidance and Cadw’s Conservation Principles, must form part of the

submission of any planning application for this turbine’.

Proposals entail the erection of a single wind turbine located 230m to the south west of Garth

Fawr Llanfabon Farm. The height of the structure is c.50m and the span of its sails c.54m. A bund

surmounted by mature planting separates the application site – presently pasture or grazing land

- from the farm itself.

As directed by the Heritage & Conservation Officer, the Heritage Statement has regard for

relevant guidance set out in CADW’s Conservation Principles (for the sustainable management

of the historic environment in Wales)’ (2011); and English Heritage’s ‘The Setting of Heritage

Assets’ (2011).


7.3.1 National Guidance

Planning Policy Wales (November 2012) contains relevant guidance, summarised as follows.

Regarding Archaeology:

‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in

determining a planning application, whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled.

Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings

are likely to be affected by proposed development, there should be a presumption in favour of

their physical preservation in situ. In cases involving lesser archaeological remains, local planning

authorities will need to weigh the relative importance of archaeology against other factors,

including the need for the proposed development.’


66

Regarding Listed Buildings:

‘Where a development proposal affects a listed building or its setting, the primary material

consideration is the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving

the building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it

possesses.’

Regarding Conservation Areas:

‘Should any proposed development conflict with the objective of preserving or enhancing the

character or appearance of a conservation area, or its setting, there will be a strong presumption

against the grant of planning permission. In exceptional cases the presumption may be

overridden in favour of development deemed desirable on the grounds of some other public

interest. The Courts have held that the objective of preservation can be achieved either by

development which makes a positive contribution to an area’s character or appearance, or by

development which leaves character and appearance unharmed.’

Regarding Landscapes, Parks and Gardens:

‘Local planning authorities should protect parks and gardens and their settings included in the

first part of the ‘Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales’.

Cadw should be consulted on planning applications affecting grade 1 and II* sites and the Garden

History Society should be consulted on all parks and gardens on the Register. Information on the

historic landscapes in the second part of the Register should be taken into account by local

planning authorities in considering the implications of developments which are of such a scale

that they would have a more than local impact on an area on the Register. The effect of proposed

development on a park or garden contained in the Register of Landscapes, Parks and 6 Gardens

of Special Historic Interest in Wales, or on the setting of such a park or garden, may be a material

consideration in the determination of a planning application.’

7.3.2 Local Policy

The Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council’s Local Development Plan (March 2011) also

contains relevant policy, summarised as follows.

Policy AW7 – Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment

Development proposals which impact upon sites of architectural and / or historical merit and

sites of archaeological importance will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the

proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the site.

Other Relevant Guidance

Importantly, paragraph 30 of ‘Conservation Principles (for the sustainable management of the

historic environment in Wales)’, CADW (2011) states that:


67

‘The greater the range and strength of heritage values attached to a site, the less opportunity

there may be for change. However, few sites are so sensitive that they, or their settings, present

no opportunities for the addition of new work’.

Also of relevance is Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council’s Supplementary Planning

Guidance: The Historic Built Environment from March 2011.

7.4 Historic Background

The name Pontypridd is a derivation of Pont-y-ty-pridd meaning ‘bridge of the earthen house’.

This indicates an historic fording point due to the shallowness of the River Taff in this location.

Pontypridd is also sited on the confluence of the Rivers Taff and Rhondda. Whilst the wider area

is known to be active from the prehistoric period, early history in the locale is sparse and one of

the first indicators of emerging growth was with the construction of William Edward’s bridge in

1755-6 (Figure 4). At this point the town became known as Newbridge.

Figure 4. William Edward’s Bridge, 1755 (Pontypridd Town Council)

With the early nineteenth century the area remained largely rural. In 1801 the whole of the

Rhondda Valley had a population of only 542. Development of the town in more tangible terms

came with the opening of the 25 mile Glamorganshire Canal from Merthyr to Cardiff in 1794

(Figure 5). This followed the discovery of coal in Gyfeillion by a Dr. Richard Griffiths. Merthyr was

already considered central to the industrial revolution in Wales and by extension, Pontypridd was

conveniently placed to provide coal for Merthyr’s iron furnaces; a provision that accelerated with

the advent of deep seam coal mining. This coal was also used to fire the Royal Navy’s ships.

The first place of worship was built in 1810 in the form of the Carmel Baptist Chapel (Figure 6).

In addition, Pontypridd’s more significant establishment was to come with the founding of the

Brown Lennox Chainworks in 1818. A market is noted there by 1835 (albeit known to be present

since 1805), whilst the arrival of the Taff Vale railway between Merthyr and Cardiff assured this

rate of growth. The 1841 census recorded a population of 2,500. However, most villages


68

surrounding Pontypridd were originally 8 developed as pit villages. For instance Hopkinstown

was constructed around the Ty Mawr Colliery, opened in 1848. Six years previous the area was

open, undeveloped country, part of an estate owned by Evan Hopkin. More rapid change and

growth was to come with the Great Western or Gyfeillion Colliery (1851-1983). In 1857 the

famous 1755 bridge was added to with a three-arch bridge, the former being too steep for traffic.

Figure 5. Glamorganshire Canal, 1790 (Rhondda Cynon Taf Library Service)

In 1856 the postmaster of Pontypridd reverted what was by then Newbridge back to its older

name (albeit shortened), to avoid confusion with the many other Newbridges throughout Wales.

By 1861 the population stood at 6,000. The 1875 map (not reproduced) shows that by then the

town contained five collieries, three breweries, woollen factories, brickworks, mills and a

chemical works. Two other important companies facilitating public utilities included the

Pontypridd Gas and Light Company and the Pontypridd Water Works Company. Recognition of

the town’s rapid growth (without early foundations) became a point of pride and the end of the

nineteenth century saw the construction of St. Catherine’s Church (1868); the Town Hall and

Market buildings (1885); the Public Library and Town Hall Theatre (1895); and in 1905, the

Municipal building with its council chamber.


69

Figure 6: The 1810 Carmel Baptist Chapel (undated - Rhondda Cynon Taf Library Service)

Despite setbacks such as the explosion at Albion Colliery in 1894 (Figure 7), over the last two

decades of the nineteenth century the growth of Pontypridd was intensive. By 1881 the

population stood at 8,000. By 1891 it had increased to 13,000 and by 1901, to 20,000. When

opening the municipal buildings in 1906 the town’s Member of Parliament Alfred Thomas stated:

‘. . . fifty years ago Pontypridd was smaller than any of its suburbs. When we compare or rather

when we contrast the picture we draw in our mind’s eye with that which we see today we are

reminded more of the abnormal growth of some new world town say in the United States.’

Since 1921 the population has been noted via the census to be in steep decline, this being

particularly marked over the 1920s and 30s. Principally, this was attributable to the area’s

dependence on coal. Where south Wales had once supplied around one third of the world’s

supply, this now produced less than 3 percent. With other navies the British Navy turned from

coal to oil, proving disastrous to Welsh seam coal exports. The coalfield fell into crisis and the

number of collieries steadily diminished. Commensurate 10 with this decline, Pontypridd’s

prosperity shrank, resulting in widespread unemployment and migration to seek work.


70

Figure 7. Albion Colliery following explosion, 1894 Garth Fawr Farm

In Welsh, Garth means ‘promontory’ whilst Fawr means ‘large’ or ‘big’, the name obviously

deriving from the much-elevated position of the site. Map regression (not reproduced) shows all

properties in the vicinity and noted above at paragraph 1.2 to be present from at least 1875. The

only prominent change evidenced by mapping across these sites is in a number of names, albeit

the significance of this is not clear. Garth Hall has not changed, although Garth Fawr was formerly

known as Garth Fach. Llechwen Hall was known as Llechwen Lydan and Cefn-Y-Garth was named

Blaen-Ffrwd. Research has revealed little else concerning the history of any specific property.

Figure 8. 1898 map showing the historic distribution of development, urban and rural


71

Despite this relative gap in material, both Cefn-Y-Garth and Garth Fawr Farm are known to be

replacement dwellings, the latter of which stands adjacent the extant ruins of its predecessor. It

has already been noted Llechwen Hall was formerly a seventeenth century longhouse, the

earliest records for which date to 1720 and its purchase and use as a fairly high-status residence

by the Thomas family. This was converted to a hotel in 1990. What is clear from mapping etc., is

that - despite a number of historic quarries on its lower slopes - like the remainder of the locale,

the ‘Garth’ has for much of its history and up until the present day remained rural and in farm

use (Figure 8). Although this use has more recently been added to with power and

telecommunications apparatus, such an emphasis nevertheless remains clear and distinct from

town and village.

7.5 Heritage Assets

The relatively isolated location of the proposed wind turbine site renders the locale not only

sparsely developed, but by extension, without any designated heritage assets appearing within

its near vicinity. Illustrative of this fact is the map shown below (Figure 9, Rhondda Cynon Taf CBC

website), which marks the locations of identified designated assets in the area (in particular

conservation areas and listed buildings).

The site is marked with a house symbol set into a blue bubble whilst listed buildings are shown

by an ‘L’ set into a yellow square. In addition, a gazetteer of other key heritage assets located

within the near vicinity of the site and relevant to this exercise has been provided by CADW and

is included in Appendix 1 of the Heritage statement.

Figure 9. The Distribution of Heritage Assets (listed buildings and conservation areas)


72

Whilst the application site is located in relative isolation it is nevertheless accepted that it is

elevated and wide-ranging views are possible both to and from this. As such, considerations of

setting are key to an assessment of the potential impacts of proposals in this instance. This is

particularly so where no heritage assets reside in the near vicinity. The concept of setting is one

of the consistent threads to ‘Conservation Principles (for the sustainable management of the

historic environment in Wales)’, CADW (2011).

Here, setting is reckoned equal in importance to the physical presence or historic fabric of the

asset, and, forming the surroundings in which this is experienced, comprises a component part

of its significance in totality. At p.38 the document defines setting as: ‘The surroundings in which

an historic asset is experienced, its local context, embracing present and past relationships to the

adjacent landscape’.

English Heritage’s document ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’ from October 2011 – the other

guidance to which we are referred by the Heritage and Conservation Officer (see Appendix 2) –

defines the setting of a heritage asset as:

‘. . . the surroundings in which (the 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’.

Figure 10. Pontypridd (Town Centre) Conservation Area

Importantly, English Heritage’s Planning for the Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide

(originally produced as background to the now superseded PPS5 in 2010 but still current) is also

quoted by ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’ document. At p.5 the latter document reiterates the


73

point that, in addition to more common concepts of setting such as views ‘of or from an asset’,

that:

‘. . . setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration;

by spatial associations; and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places.

Given this aspect of guidance, whilst it is understood why the elevation of the application site

requires an area of consideration perhaps extending 5000m, it is first worth establishing the

spatial association and historic relationship between the locale of Garth Fawr Farm and

Pontypridd. The town lies some 4-5km to the south and although host to the majority of

identified heritage assets, it is considered that the validity or necessity of considering assets in

Pontypridd in this regard perhaps bears discussion.

Figure 11. Pontypridd (Taff) Conservation Area

As noted, the northern reaches of Pontypridd lie some 4-5km south of the application site. Its

centre, still further. Any noise, dust or vibration caused by the implementation of proposals at

the application site are therefore unlikely to affect heritage assets in, or even upon the edges of

town. In terms of spatial associations and/or the historic relationship between the two places it

is considered that these are also limited. By its very nature, the town and those heritage assets

located there are largely introspective and self-referential. They have not sought a combined or

tandem relationship with both town and country except perhaps in more peripheral, isolated

instances.

The urban landscape is distinct from the rural landscape, both spatially and historically, and any

connection between the two in this instance is superficial. The only shared quality is contrast. It

is accepted that long range views between the two are perhaps possible, and as such, that each


74

will lend sensory and cerebral inferences between one and the other. However, from the town

these would be merely glimpses (if at all) and from the site, perceptions of massed development

without detail or distinction (i.e. not individual heritage assets). From both locations, direct views

are tempered or obscured; mostly by distance, but also by the sinuous nature of the intervening

landscape, forestation and/or other features. This is particularly so given other high-ground in

long range views and the clustered density and enclosure of local townscape in short-range

views.

Figure 12. The Rhondda Landscape of Special Historic Interest

Further to this, there is only the extent to which the scale, mass or nature of the proposal is able

to imbalance, aggravate or impinge further upon the existing relationship between landscape

and townscape. Although discussed more fully below in the assessment of proposals, it is

understood that such further impact is not possible. It has already been noted above how the

formerly rural emphasis of the higher ground and its natural landscape has latterly assumed a

lightweight or semi-industrial aspect of electricity substations, pylons and telecommunication

masts. It is not considered that - being a finely engineered and visually lightweight structure

intrinsically – one single wind turbine would exacerbate this status quo in any appreciable sense.

In real terms this means that in addition to the many listed buildings contained in CADW’s

gazetteer, Pontypridd (Town Centre) and Pontypridd (Taff) Conservation Areas (Figures 10 & 11)

would not be either physically or visually affected, and neither would Pontypridd’s Grade II

Ynysangharad Park. In addition, neither would either the GelliGaer or Rhondda Landscapes of

Special Historic Interest (Figure 12). The former is some 3.14km to the north and would be

obscured by a combination of i) distance; ii) Garth Fawr Farm and its buffer-planting, and iii) the

escarpment ridge, where the proposed turbine would be located on the south rather than north

(and highest) side of this. The latter is some 4.56km to the west but runs out of Pontypridd to the

south of the application site, and is enclosed within its own deep valley and therefore visually

obscure. Each of these instances (listed buildings, conservation areas, parks & gardens, and


75

landscapes of special historic interest) have been verified by site visit (06/06/13) and confirmed

by desk-based assessment via mapping and theoretical sight-lines.

Concerning archaeology and therefore scheduled ancient monuments and/or buried deposits it

has been explicitly set out by the Curatorial Division of the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological

Trust that following their appraisal ‘. . . the impact of the turbine on the archaeological resource

is unlikely to be a material consideration in the determination of any planning application’.

However, in addition to those identified by CADW’s gazetteer, Figure 9 shows a number of other

heritage assets within closer proximity to the application site that will also require consideration.

These are situated between 2- 3km of the application site to its north, south and west and are as

follows:

a) Asset No. 15669, Lock House, Grade II listed building

b) Asset No. 80761, Memorial Clock, Grade II listed building

c) Asset No. 80763, Taff Vale Railway Bridge at Abercynon, Grade II listed building

d) Asset No. 80873, War Memorial, Grade II listed building

e) Asset No. 24853, Railway Viaduct, Grade II listed building

f) Asset No. 80762, Road Bridge, Grade II listed building

g) Asset No. 24854, Cilfynydd War Memorial, Grade II listed building

However, in each instance it is again considered that visibility and therefore overall impact is

likely to be almost entirely mitigated. This, by the enclosure of views within settlements,

distance, intervening and/or obscuring landscape features and the ultimately negligible physical

presence of the proposed turbine in contrast to the wide open and substantive setting of the

landscape into which it is to be set. A cluster or farm of turbines would render a significant

presence on the skyline and be more prominent on a number of levels. However, despite its

elevated position - with the sky behind this and views being obscured by the sinuous landscape

of river-bed and rising valley sides - a single turbine nevertheless has the potential to maintain a

low profile and therefore low impact upon heritage assets that in the final analysis, remain at

some remove.

In short, despite a hierarchy of merely potential visual impact - the distinction of which is

attributable to distance and falls into two loose categories i.e. 4-5km from the application site

and 2-3km from the application site –any actual impact upon either category is liable to negligible

at worst, and non-existent at best.

7.6 Assessment of Proposals

As noted, the proposals entail the erection of a single wind turbine located c.230m to the south

west of Garth Fawr Llanfabon Farm (Figure 13). The height of the structure is c.50m and the span

of its sails c.54m (Figure 14). A bund surmounted by mature planting separates the application

site – presently pasture or grazing land - from the farm itself.


76

Figure 13. Site Layout

It is acknowledged that the site is elevated and the structure of some scale. However, it has

already been established at length that the proposal is unlikely to have any direct or more than

negligible impact upon any heritage asset throughout the locale. This is principally by virtue of its

remote location and the distance between this and any other settlement or development other

than that identified as sharing the promontory (see paragraph 2, of the introduction).

It therefore remains only to establish the suitability of the proposal to its more immediate

surroundings. In general terms, impacts have been reduced as far as practicably possible. The

turbine is pale grey to assist with the absorption of the turbine into its open background where

this surmounts the skyline. The turbine, transformer and crane pad are contained within a 0.1

hectare boundary - which is not utilised or developed to its fullest extent – and the access track

is only temporary.

This minimisation of physical presence responds to what is a predominantly rural landscape, both

historically and at present. However, it has already been noted that in this location, such a

character has to a significant extent been superseded and overlaid with a later layer of accretions

serving the energy and telecommunications industries. As such, the turbine would not be

considered out of place in this regard.


77

CHAPTER 8

HYDROLOGICAL IMPACT


78

8 Hydrological Impact

8.1 Summary

The site is located on agricultural land in South Wales, on the fringes of the Brecon Beacons,

north of Cardiff. The farm is located approximately 2 miles outside Abercynon. Two locations

have been considered for the location of the turbine and these are at grid references ST 09133

93800 and ST 09254 93772. This chapter is a hydrological impact assessment, submitted as part

of Environmental Impact Assessment process (EIA), and does not constitute a formal Flood

Consequence Assessment (FCA). A formal FCA is not required as the development is in a zone of

little or no risk of flooding; there are no recorded evidence of a material flood risk; and the size

(less than 1Ha) and nature of the development are unlikely to increase flood risk (in accordance

with TAN15).

Hydrological modelling has been completed to assess the change in runoff associated with the

development such that there is no increase runoff above existing greenfield rates for the 1 in 100

year flood event in plus an allowance of 20% increase in flows to allow for climate change. Change

results from the development is a change in soil characteristics, the vegetation management,

inclusion of some impervious surfaces and an increase in the surface area of open water, and the

change in the future climate.

The principal issues demonstrated in this report are that the installation of the wind turbine will

not interfere with the existing hydrological system, and cause flooding to other property or

infrastructure, and that the site itself will be ‘safe’.

8.2 Introduction

This chapter sets out a flood risk baseline, derived from:

• a walkover assessment carried out on 16th April 2013;

• flood screening data for the site, provided by Envirocheck;

• data held on the Flood Estimation Handbook database;

• Professional judgement.

The chapter would identify potential project risks from the baseline (e.g. water courses, flood

zones, records of flooding, programme issues, cost) that may be associated with taking forward

the development proposals.

The chapter also identifies potential opportunities for reducing on-site and downstream flood

risk as a result of taking forward the development. It also confirms that the scheme does not

materially increase the volume or rate of runoff discharged downstream from the Site


79

The site is currently used for grazing sheep, and as such is pasture grassland. The field margins for each

field are demarcated predominantly by fencing, dry stone wall and banked hedges rather than ditching.

Figure 15. Current Land Use

The development proposal is to install a wind turbine, along with associated infrastructure such

as the transformer box and temporary access track.

Figure 16. Proposed Development

The study area has been established by considering both good practice and the location and

nature of the proposed development of the site. The focus of the study is the site itself, although

adjacent areas and the wider catchment associated with the Site has been taken into account,

through the use of the Flood Estimation Handbook and associated software. The conclusions of

this report are based on the assumption that the changes, additions or extensions are required

to the access route are of a minor nature only. The information provided by Constant Energy

based on plans drawn up by Acstro indicates that the widening will be by not more than 2m over

the 37m length of the track. The worst case scenario is that the 2m widening occurred along the

entire 37m. This would lead to an increase in track surface of 74m2 , or 0.0074Ha. This is not a

significant surface area in terms of flood risk, and the actual scope of the widening is likely to be


80

a small proportion of this. The above conclusion is based on the assumption that otherwise the

track will not be resurfaced, and that the widening does not directly constrain, block, or

otherwise interfere with any existing surface water channels.


TAN15 is the mechanism by which the Welsh Assembly and Natural Resource Wales provide

technical guidance to supplement the policy laid out in Planning Policy Wales (PPW). It seeks to

work with developers and land owners to avoid development that is inappropriate with respect

to flood risk. The site lies in the extreme south-east of the Rhondda Cynon Taf Northern Strategy

area. The Rhondda Cynon Taf Local plan has no policies that explicitly deal with flood risk.

8.4 Flood Risk Assessment Figure 17 illustrates the current water features and observed drainage network within the Site

Figure 17. Water features associated with the Site


81

Table 6 provides a summary description of the water features identified within the site during

the walkover survey.

The site walkover and the flood screening data confirm that no formal ‘Main’ river or ‘Primary’

River is present within or immediately adjacent to the development Site. Drainage across the site

appears to be within the soil and/or bedrock, as no evidence of significant fluvial erosion features

was seen. The development will therefore need to ensure that it does not interrupt these flow

paths.

Two trial pits were dug to give an indication of the soil depth.


82

Figure 18. Trial Pits to Indicate Soil Depth

As these are tests only at a point, it is recommended that further soil depth investigations are

undertaken prior to construction to confirm the depth of soil (from a construction method

perspective) at the exact location of the concrete turbine base construction. The development

associated with this planning application comprises the construction and operation of a wind

turbine. This development is considered to be consistent with national, regional and local

planning policy (see Section 9.3).

A review of the Environment Agency Flood Map (Figure 19, prepared on behalf of Johns

Associates by Envirocheck ref: 45756074_1) shows that the whole of the Site falls within Flood

Zone 1 (lowest level of flood risk – shown as the white area on the map).


83

Figure 19. Location of the Site (x is the Site centre point) relative to Flood Zones It can be seen

that the site has not been subject to historic flooding incidents.

Figure 20. Historic Flood Events


84

The flood screening data provided by Envirocheck confirms no flood risk from pluvial sources

(flooding caused by rain – e.g. from high intensity and sustained rainfall resulting in saturated

ground and surface water ponding or runoff). Data provided by Envirocheck identifies the extent

of pluvial flooding for a range of different flood return periods (75 year, 100 year and 1000 year

periods). These are shown by Figures 21 to 23. The centre of the Site is denoted by a X.

Figure 21. 75 yr return pluvial flood risk Figure 22. 100 yr return pluvial flood risk

Figure 23. 1000 yr return pluvial flood risk


85

British Geological Survey flood data provided by Envirocheck highlights the Site as having no

groundwater flooding susceptibility. The BGS data is reproduced in Figure 24.

Figure 24. BGS Flood Data for the Site (centre of the Site is denoted by X)

8.5 Probability

Flood Insurance Risk data provided by Envirocheck (from Aviva and Crawford and Company)

provides a postcode sector flood insurance claim rating of: “Medium Flood Insurance” (for

postcode CF37 4)

8.6 Climate Change

Accepted scientific evidence demonstrates that the global climate is changing as a result of

human activity. In the UK, it is expected that short-duration, high intensity rainfall events will

become more frequent with implications for river flooding and local flash flooding. These effects

will tend to increase the size of flood zones associated with rivers, and the amount of flooding

experienced from other sources. TAN 15 indicates that the wider Severn catchment could be

prone to flows up to 20% higher than currently, but makes no reference to climate change


86

impacts on rainfall (other than in general terms). However, the general indications are that

rainfall will increase in both intensity and quantity. Therefore the 20% climate change

precautionary factor applied to rainfall modelling in English catchments (e.g. through the PPS25

Practice Guidance) is applied here.

8.7 Hydrological Modelling

For planning purposes a return period of 100 years is used. As already noted the mean annual

rainfall (a critical input) is increased by a factor of 20% to make allowance for any changes due to

climate change.

The response of the study area to current and future runoff (post development with the effects

of climate change) has been modelled using both the IoH 124 method and the ADAS method.

Both these methods use statistical relationships between catchment parameters and observed

runoff to establish first the mean annual flood, and the “growth curve” to define flow rates for

longer return periods. In general, the IoH 124 method is preferred, but the use of the two

methods gives a check to ensure that the predicted direction of changes is indeed probable, and

not a quirk of one particular method.

For planning purposes a return period of 100 years is used. As already noted the mean annual

rainfall (a critical input) is increased by a factor of 20% to make allowance for any changes due to

climate change. This is considered sufficient as it allows for a site lifespan of up to 70 years, a

timescale beyond which it would not be appropriate to speculate on future use of the site.

The parameters used by the model to derive estimates are given in Table 7. In it those parameters

that are likely to differ between the two model runs are highlighted.


87

Table 7. Parameters Used for Run-off Modelling.

The changes to the parameters are in fact few. The majority of them (such as the site area and

the topographic constraints) cannot be altered. There are no plans to change the drainage of the

Site as a whole by the creation of new watercourses. Any changes, are thus found within the

calculation of the runoff potential. It is assumed that the site in its undeveloped state belongs

wholly to WRAP class I, which has a low runoff potential. The installation of the concrete turbine

base, transformer box and crane pad has led to the assignment of 0.03Ha as impermeable

(paved) ground (approx. 1%).

The results of the model runs have been summarised in Table 8 and Figure 25 illustrates the

variation in the modelled runoff between current and the developed (with climate change)

scenario.


88

Table 8. Estimated Run-off Rates (m³/s)

Figure 25. Runoff Estimates for the Development

Table 8 and Figure 25 show that the upper estimate of the effect of the proposed changes in land

use will be to increase the runoff from the development site by approximately 3% for all return

periods. (The fact this is a constant value is a consequence of the mathematics underlying the

result). As a matter of caution we use the upper estimate from the ADAS method, of 3%. For the

100-year flood, this amounts to an additional runoff of less than 1 l/s (identified as bold text in

table 3.4) that must be accommodated in the attenuation system. To accommodate this

additional runoff amount, attenuation must therefore be provided. This is described in the

following section.

The effects of the increase in peak runoff rate can be further analysed using the so called

“Rational Method”. (The name is derived from the fact the runoff is assumed to be a constant

ratio of the rainfall).


89

These calculations use FEH to derive a table showing predicted rainfall amounts for different

durations and return periods. Taking the return period of 100 years and then adding 20% to the

values gives the best estimate of climate change affected rainfall.

For each rainfall event it is possible to calculate the volume of runoff using the simple formula:

Runoff = Rainfall x Area x Runoff ratio

The runoff ratio is derived from the known catchment characteristics

Subsequent analysis assumes this runoff is all routed into a store, from which the water is allowed

to flow at a base rate, known as the Greenfield runoff rate (GFRR). The actual rate of flow from

the store is given simply by:

Outflow= Duration x Area x GFRR

The amount of water that is needed to be stored is then given by:

Storage = Runoff - Outflow

This quantity reaches a maximum for some duration, which then defines the maximum amount

of storage required to completely attenuate the storm flows. However the planning requirement

is for no increase in the storm runoff. The storage calculation is therefore run for both existing

and changed conditions, and the increase in attenuation storage is then identified.

The results of this calculation for the development site is shown in figure 27 and in which the

amount of storage that would be required to fully attenuate an event is plotted as a function of

the storm duration. The calculations are, in addition run for two sets of changed conditions, first

using conventional paving materials, and again assuming the use of SUDS techniques (notably

the adoption of permeable paving) to reduce the runoff and increase infiltration within the site.

The adopted Greenfield Runoff Rate (GFRR) is a precautionary rate of 4 l/s/ha.

Two results presented in figure 26, show the storage need for the site in its current condition and

after the proposed redevelopment. The effects of the redevelopment are modelled by assuming

the 1% paved area. The weighted mean soil run off rate thus moves from its initial value of 0.150

to 0.152. This then increases the runoff, and increases the amount of storage required.

The effect of the change of soil characteristics is to create an additional storage requirement of

1m3 to accommodate the effects of the development. This increase in storage can be

accommodated within a swale at the northern end the field.


90

Figure 26. Runoff Storage Required

Attenuation should be provided to protect the properties at the base of the slope on which the

turbine is to be sites. This should be designed with a minimum volume of approximately 1m3 . A

larger volume will provide additional attenuation and slightly reduce any issues associated with

current runoff during higher magnitude/duration rainfall events.

The construction of the turbine will lead to additional impacts due to the construction of addition

impermeable surface created through the access track. The temporary track has an area of

approximately 45m2 (depending on final scheme layout. This is equivalent to 0.0045Ha or 0.12%

of the site. The additional runoff to result from this has therefore been considered to be

negligible. Containment should be provided to prevent any runoff generated from the

construction area discharging directly offsite during the construction period. Further to this, this

water may be polluted (e.g. fuels, lubricants) and as such precautions should be taken to ensure

pollution does not enter the wider environment.

It is further recommended that a system of small French Drains or similar ephemeral small

channels are used to divert water flows around the concrete base, and to ensure that ponding

behind, or unexpected erosion does not occur.

8.8 Off Site Impacts

Flood risk management measures associated with the scheme that are likely to reduce

downstream flood risk include the following:

• Creation of retention/attenuation swale.

As such, it is considered that the development proposals deliver positive flood risk reduction and

reduced off site impacts from the current situation.


91

8.9 Flood Risk Mitigation Measures

Flood risk management measures incorporated into the scheme design include the following:

• Use of drainage features to reduce impact on water movement through the soil profile

and bedrock

• Attenuation to reduce flood risk to lower-lying properties


92

CHAPTER 9

LANDSCAPE VISUAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT


93

9 Landscape and Visual Appraisal

9.1 Introduction

This Chapter considers the likely effects upon the landscape character and visual amenity of the proposed wind turbine together with the potential cumulative effects. The assessment was undertaken by the Ark Company, and is referred to as the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). The Ark Company Landscape Architects were appointed in May 2012 to provide landscape and visual appraisal services in support of a proposed application for the siting of a single 500kW wind turbine on land to the south of Garth Fawr Farm, Cilfynydd, near Pontypridd for the landowner Mr Alun Bowen. The report was updated and an additional viewpoint added following pre-application discussions in July 2013.


94

9.2 Methodology The appraisal was carried out in accordance with methods and criteria set out within The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd edition (2002) which provides a widely accepted benchmark for professional purposes. Although, as stated at Section 1.12; “the guidelines are not intended as a prescriptive set of rules nor as an exhaustive manual of techniques” the methodology adopted (as detailed in Appendix 1 see ES Vol 2) is in fact taken directly from the various options available within the guidelines. A 4 point Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) was developed using Key Terra-Firma software

(version 7.12) with the ZTV module running in BricsCAD Pro version 12.1. Ground modelling was

developed using an Ordnance Survey Land-Form Profile Digital Terrain Model (DTM) which has a

10m level grid with no assumed visual barriers. In view of the relatively level surrounding

topography a study area of 10Km radius around the target point was assessed to determine a

topographical only ZTV which was used as the basis for further appraisal. Beyond this distance a

single turbine was not felt likely to represent a significantly detrimental feature in the wider view

and that the effect of any residual visibility would therefore be Negligible in the context of the

criteria set out at in Appendix 1 see ES Vol 2. The ZTV output was overlaid onto OS 1/50,000 scale

raster mapping using photo-editing software for presentation purposes and the individual ray

maps for each of the target heights used in the ZTV have been reproduced at Appendix 5 see ES

Vol 2.

The theoretical zone of visibility was tested in the field in May 2012, the site visit enabled an

assessment of the need for photo-montage to be assessed and a number of possible locations

identified around the target turbine site. The methodology for preparing the photo-montages is

set out in Appendix 2 see ES Vol 2 and the as existing / overlay and as proposed montage views

are presented as separate drawings A1-A3 as an accompaniment to the Assessment together

with a modified receptor drawing to identify montage locations.

The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) LandMap database was consulted in preparing a

baseline quality assessment of the site and its setting. LandMap assesses the diversity of

landscapes within Wales, it identifies and explains their most important characteristics and

qualities whether they are ordinary, but locally important, landscapes or Nationally recognised

spectacular landscapes. LandMap forms the basis for quality evaluation against which impact is

assessed. The relevant LandMap descriptions, maps and evaluations are provided at Appendix 4

see ES Vol 2.

In addition to the CCW LandMap data the assessment takes into consideration the provisions of

the Rhondda Cynon Taf Borough Council (RCTBC) Local Development Plan (2006-2021) which was

adopted in March 2011, the mapped planning constraints embraced by the LDP, the

Supplementary Planning Guidance notes on The Historic Built Environment and, in particular, the


95

site specific pre-screening guidance to the applicants agents provided by RCTBC, 19th April 2012,

as appended to this appraisal (Appendix 3 see ES Vol 2.)

9.3 Site Description

The application site (see Figure F1) comprises an open field unit lying just south of Garth Fawr

Farm at OS Grid Ref: SP 309133, 193800. The site location and application area are all shown on

Location Plan drawing Figures F1 / F2 and aerial photograph Figure F3 below.

F1

The proposed site occupies a prominent hilltop location north of Pontypridd just east of the A470

(linking Pontypridd to Merthyr Tydfil) and A4054 (linking Pontypridd to Cilfynydd and Treharris).

The A470 is an arterial north-south link to the M4 and Cardiff and the site location, just south-

east of Abercynon, marks the confluence of the Cynon and Taff rivers which flow southward

through the Taff Vale and Pontypridd down into Cardiff Bay. North-west of Abercynon the Cynon

River and A4059 flow up through the picturesque Cynon Valley to Mountain Ash to Aberdare

whilst the River Taff and A470 / A3054 continue north, past Aberfan, to Merthyr.

A number of rights of way lie within the immediate vicinity of the site (refer to Fig F2) including

one path which lies just west of the application site and a way-marked long distance footpath

running north-south to the east of the site.


96

The site lies close to the eastern administrative boundary of the Borough bordering Caerphilly

and just south of the boundary with Merthyr Tydfil Borough (see Fig F1a). These have also been

plotted onto the key receptor drawing (F8) and trans-boundary effects are taken into account

below.

Fig F1a - Site location relative to administrative boundaries


97

Fig 2 Ordnance Survey mapping of target site showing adjacent Public Rights of Way

(1/50,000) 1km grid


98

Ariel View of Proposed Garth Fawr Application Site

Oblique Elevate Inland View Towards The Application Site South East

The site lies approximately 4Km north of Pontypridd cresting the sharply rising strip of common

land known as Craig Evan Leyshon Common which forms the eastern slope of the Taff Vale just

south of Abercynon. The site lies approximately 19Km south of the nearest boundary of the

Brecon Beacons National Park and does not lie in or significantly close to an Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty or other Nationally or Regionally significant designated landscape but does fall

within an area of local landscape designation (see Fig F5a).


99

Fig F5a - Proximity to protected sites Source: CCW Interactive mapping

As well as lying close to Craig Evan Leyshon Common, as noted above, the application sites lies

within an area relatively rich in sites of historical significance (refer to Figs F5b & F5c) the most

proximal of which are noted below. Despite the rich cultural heritage relating to the area there

are relatively few Listed Buildings immediately nearby the nearest being two properties in the

valley bottom at Abercynon. The effect of development on the setting of sites of historical

significance as enhanced receptors is discussed at Section 6.4 (Heritage effects) below.


100


101

Fig 5c-Listed buildings close to application site.


102

9.4 Landscape Quality

9.4.1 Geological Influences

The application site falls within the CCW LandMap CynonGL015 Taff Valley aspect area which is

described as a north-south, valley glacially eroded into a high level plateau in dipping pennant

sandstones. There is boulder clay in hollows in high ground and beneath sand and gravel in the

valley floor There is extensive alluvium on valley terraces. The landscape has major colliery tips, a

number of closed mine shafts and a major working sandstone quarry. The aspect area is

characterised as Glacial Mountain Valley. There are not thought to be any areas of specific

geological interest within the aspect area generally or within significant proximity of the target

site specifically though the Taff valley is notable for its hydrological importance.

Evaluated overall as being of Moderate value (Low for historical significance and Rarity /

Uniqueness with no notable sites / landforms recorded and geology presumed to be

widespread). The most significant feature of concern would be the working sandstone quarry

which may be of at least regional importance.

In view of the Moderate aspect area evaluation, the lack of notable features and given the very

limited footprint of the proposed works the influence of Geological constraints are not

considered likely to restrict the proposals.

9.4.2 Historical Influences

The application site falls to the western fringe of the CCW LandMap CynonHL290 Llanfabon and

Llanbradach aspect area which is described as an enclosed agricultural landscape bounded ….to

the west by Pontypridd transport corridor (CynonHL977). A cairn cemetery and several possible

Bronze Age standing stones represent the prehistoric period within this aspect area. The Roman

presence is almost unrepresented; however one coin was recovered from Fid-Gelyn, near

Llanfabon. The house forms within the aspect area generally belong to the post-medieval period

with many later alterations. A genuine medieval hut platform survives to the far south of the

aspect area on the slopes of Graig Wyllt. . There are Listed Buildings and SMR (but not SAM) sites

in the wider aspect area which also does not have any other historic parks, gardens or other

registered landscapes of special value.

Evaluated overall as High based on the excellent preservation of the fieldscape and the diverse

multi-period nature of the archaeological resource. It should be noted that the proposed site falls

close the aspect areas western boundary beyond which the Taff Vale (but not the site itself) falls

within the Pontypridd / Afon Taff aspect area (CynonHL977) which is considered to be of

Outstanding value being: A heavily industrialised urban aspect area representing a transport and

communications corridor between the docks to the south, and the industrial valleys to the north.

The aspect area follows the Afon Tâf from Abercynon in the north to Taffs Well in the south. Much


103

of the valley was an enclosed field-scape during the early post-medieval period, with many

surviving houses. The town of Pontypridd stands at the confluence of the Rivers Taff and Rhondda,

and grew as communication routes developed up through the valleys. Foundation dates of

chapels chart the settlements growth. In 1841 the

Taff Vale Railway arrived. By the 1840s Pontypridd was the major market town for Rhondda. By

1870 the population was 8,000; twenty-five years later it had reached 31,000, reflecting the

mining boom that was taking place all along the Rhondda valleys over that period. Though ringed

by mines and other industry, the town attracted a substantial middle class. Their villas still adorn

the steep side of Coed-y-lan to the northwest of the town. The high point of Pontypridd''s urban

pride was reached in 1902 when a prestigious London architect was commissioned to design the

District Council Offices. Still today, the town''s architecture is predominantly late Victorian and

Edwardia.

The application site does not lie unduly close to recorded sites of major Historic value and given

the very limited footprint of the proposed works the influence of Historic constraints are not

considered likely to restrict the proposals which would not hinder visibility of the wider

landscape or its patterns.

9.4.3 Cultural Influences

The application site falls within the expansive CCW LandMap CynonCL056 Designated Landscape

Areas aspect area which is described as an area which is sufficiently expansive to be satisfactorily

covered by existing landscape and environmental planning designations. Within this aspect area,

despite its size, there are no recorded artistic expressions, notable people, movements or

institutions, folklore or legends, events or traditions and no technical or scientific discoveries

which might otherwise elevate its value.

Evaluated overall as being of High value (of regional value) the main thrust of the evaluation is

that existing other landscape and environmental designations are the key to its definition and

protection.

The proposed development is not considered likely to have a direct adverse effect on National or

Regional landscape or environmental designations and so the principal issue of concern would

be any impact upon more locally designated landscape or environmental features

9.4.4 Ecological Influences

The application site falls on the western fringe of the CCW LandMap CynonLH133 aspect area

which is described as an area of small field patterns, hedgerows with mature trees and patches


104

of mature broadleaf woodland which includes unimproved / semi-improved grassland and

marshy pastures.

Improved grassland forms 80% of the aspect area, semi-natural broadleaf woodland 3%, dense

scrub 2%, semi-improved neutral grassland 4% and marshy grassland 4%. The aspect area is

noted for habitat of international importance (Nelson Bog SSSI – see Fig F5d at >3Km to North-

East) and species of importance including Diptera (flies and midges), Great Crested Newts and

various birds. Approximately 11-20% of the aspect area falls within protected sites.

Figure F5d Proximity to Sites of National Conservation Value

Evaluated overall as being of High value the evaluation notes that the aspect area is

predominantly Low value improved grassland but within which there are pockets of much higher

value habitat which elevate its general quality. It should be noted that the proposed site falls

close the aspect areas western boundary beyond which aspect area CynonLH097 defines the

eastern slopes of the Taff valley (including the Craig-Evan Leyshon Common) which is considered


105

to be of Moderate value with areas of lower value amenity / improved grassland / bracken and

higher value areas of dry heath, woodland and marshy grassland.

The application site does not lie significantly close to recorded sites of Ecological value and given

the limited footprint of the proposed works the influence of Ecological constraints are not

considered likely to restrict the proposals.

9.4.5 Visual and Sensory Influences

The application site falls within the CCW LandMap CynonVS143 Llanfabon aspect area which is

described as a pleasant landscape, with some attractive rolling farmland away from the built

form urban edges of Nelson, Blackwood and Treforest. This incongruous mix of combination of

elements of rural field patterns, isolated settlements / farmsteads and built form urban edge and

pylons/masts leads to a complex overall character, essentially rural with upland feel. Broad views

across valleys and up to upland hills / outliers of Mynydd Eglwysias and Meio that dominate

inward views.. There are attractive inward and outward views from the aspect area but also built

features which detract from outward views. Sensory qualities suggest a pleasant rural in a

landscape of hills and valleys.

Evaluated overall as being of Moderate value the landscape is of intrinsically higher scenic and

integrity value but existing detractive features offset this significantly at a local site level.

Existing visual detractors within the rural landscape close to the target site


106

The siting of a moderately sized, single turbine within the wider receiving landscape would be a

potentially disruptive feature in local terms but, given the generally Moderate value of the

receiving landscape with existing detractive features this is not considered to be a highly sensitive

issue by comparison with other more highly valued and more visually distinctive locations in the

County.

At a National level the application site does not fall within a National Park or Area of Outstanding

Beauty but (refer to Figure F5 above) it does lie approximately 18Km south of the Brecon Beacons

National Park, Given the nature of the landscape between the National Park and the target site

it is considered that the introduction of a moderately sized turbine at this distance is unlikely

to have a significantly detrimental visual effect on inward or outward views.

At a Regional level, the site lies within a Special Landscape Area identified by RCTBC and is

therefore subject to elevated planning control as noted below (LDP Policy SSA 23 / 10 - Taff Vale

Eastern Slopes – Fig F5f) and eastwards, other than a localised area around the existing sub-

station complex nearby, the wide landscape in bordering Caerphilly is also a Special Landscape

Area identified by Caerphilly County Borough Council (CCBC) and is therefore subject to elevated

planning control as noted below (LDP Policy NH1.3 – Mynydd Eglwysilian – see Fig F5g).

Westwards the effects of development on the locally significant Craig-Evan Leyshon Common

also requires consideration.

There are a number of Public Rights of Way in the immediate vicinity of the target site and it is

noted that the Rhymney Valley Ridgeway Walk (a 45Km waymarked long distance footpath –

Fig F5e) lies to the south-east of the site ascending southwards from Nelson to the ridge west of

Senghenydd. Views from this footpath will elevate receptor sensitivity locally. As noted in the

CCW LandMap Cultural aspect area evaluation, above, there are not known to be any other

significant cultural influences which may also enhance receptor sensitivity. The influence of listed

building, schedule ancient monument or other heritage status on receptor sensitivity is

specifically addressed below.


107

Fig F5e – CCBC Rhymney Valley Ridgeway Walk


108

Fig F5f – RCTBC landscape planning constraints


109

Fig F5g – CCBC landscape planning constraints


110

At a site specific level the target location of the proposed turbine displays many of the typical

characteristics of the LandMap evaluations as described but no features of higher value such as

woodlands, hedgerows, wetlands or features of historic value would appear to lie sufficiently

close to the application site to be temporarily or permanently affected by the proposed works.

The pre-application screening opinion requested by the applicants agents (Appendix 3 as shown

in ES Volume 2 Appendix Chapter 10) also notes that the potential effects of development on

nearby sites of geological value (Graig Fach and West Navigation Quarry) require specific

consideration and also any potential effects on designated sites in the adjacent Caerphilly County

Borough.

The designation of the Special Landscape Area, as adopted by the RCTBC Local Development Plan

2006-2021, means that development falls under policy SSA 23 (10 - Taff Vale Eastern Slopes)

which states that:

Policy SSA 23: Special Landscape Areas (SLAs)

Development within the defined Special Landscape Areas will be expected to conform to the

highest standards of design, siting, layout and materials appropriate to the character of the area.

Special Landscape Areas (SLAs) have been designated to protect areas of fine landscape quality

within Rhondda Cynon Taf. The designation of these landscape areas has been undertaken at

local level using a regionally agreed methodology. The methodology used to identify the SLAs in

Rhondda Cynon Taf builds on the Countryside Council for Wales LANDMAP methodology and

considers factors such as:

Prominence

Spectacle-dramatic topography and views

Unspoilt area- preindustrial patterns of land use

Remoteness and tranquillity

Vulnerability and sensitivity to change

Local rare landscapes

Settings for special landscapes

In order to protect the visual qualities of each SLA, development proposals within these areas

will be required to conform to the highest possible design standards.

In the Southern Strategy Area SLAs have been identified to protect the distinctive landscape of

the area. Particular consideration has been given to the protection of the unspoilt low lying

farmland, common land and gentle valley slopes which form a visual backdrop to the settlements

of the area.


111

The designation of the Special Landscape Area, as adopted by the CCBC Local Development Plan

means that development falls under policy NH1.3 (Mynydd Eglwysilian) which establishes

criteria for the consideration of new development proposals in the short, medium and longer

terms. The policy is reproduced in full at Appendix 6 see ES Vol 2

Wales Tranquil Areas Map 2009


112

9.5 Landscape Quality ~ Overview

With regard for all the preceding landscape assessment evaluations, an appraisal of the site itself and the immediate setting of the proposed development, the overall landscape quality of the site and setting is considered, with specific respect to the criteria set out at Appendix 1, (See ES Volume 2 Appendix Chapter 9) to be of Medium / High Value.

9.6 Landscape Impact Assessment

The baseline assessment does not suggest significant proximity to any statutorily protected

areas, planning zones or other landscape features of National or International significance and

accordingly there are not felt to be any likely adverse, or beneficial, effects at this level. On

this basis landscape National / International impact is considered to be Negligible in respect

of the criteria adopted at Appendix 1.

9.6.1 National / International quality effects The baseline assessment does not suggest significant proximity to any statutorily protected areas, planning zones or other landscape features of National or International significance and accordingly there are not felt to be any likely adverse, or beneficial, effects at this level. On this basis landscape National / International impact is considered to be Negligible in respect of the criteria adopted at Appendix 1 ES Vol 2. 9.6.2 Regional quality effects No significant change in wider landscape features, characteristics or qualities of Regional quality are considered to arise from the proposed development. The receiving landscape is considered to be of Medium / High value and exhibits Moderate sensitivity to change. On this basis the wider Regional landscape impact is considered to be Medium adverse in respect of the criteria adopted at Appendix 1 ES Vol 2. 9.6.3 Local / Site Level effects Landform The compact footprint of the single proposed turbine base, associated infrastructure and crane platform, and the ability to fully reinstate the disruption caused by the temporary works required for construction suggests that long term physical effects arising through landform change is considered to be Negligible adverse. Land Use The compact footprint of the single proposed turbine base, associated infrastructure and crane platform, will allow continued, virtually uninterrupted use of the surrounding agricultural land, which the baseline assessment suggests is not a scarce commodity in the aspect area. On this basis Land Use impact is considered to be Negligible adverse. Land Cover The compact footprint of the single proposed turbine base, associated infrastructure and limited extent of the proposed crane platform, which safeguard the greater majority of the existing land


113

within the applicants ownership, which the baseline assessment suggests is not a scarce commodity in the aspect area. On this basis Land Cover impact is considered to be Negligible adverse. Landscape Features Grassland / Pasture Negligible adverse The compact nature of the proposal would incur a minimal reduction in the existing farm resource. Woodland No impact The siting of the turbine and temporary / permanent infrastructure would avoid any impact on exiting trees or woodland. Hedgerows Negligible adverse / No impact The siting of the turbine and temporary / permanent infrastructure would avoid any significant impact on exiting hedgerows. Wetland / Marsh Negligible adverse / No impact The siting of the turbine and temporary / permanent infrastructure would avoid any impact on exiting wetland or marsh. Archaeology Negligible adverse / No impact No known on-site features would be directly, or indirectly, affected by the proposed permanent or temporary works Landscape Character Wind turbines are, by their scale and nature, potentially discordant features to introduce into any landscape but nonetheless the accepted need for wind-power and the increasing presence of turbines in the rural landscape is making their presence more visually acceptable. In this wider context the overall effect of the introduction of a single, moderately sized turbine into a regionally important landscape with existing detractors a long history of change with few distinctive features which is not scarce within the wider region, in the context of the Appendix 1 see ES Vol 2 criteria, would be considered to be Medium adverse. Landscape Quality (short term) The proposed application works would not result in the any degree of loss or alteration to one or more key elements / features / characteristics of the baseline / pre-development landscape or view. A newly constructed single turbine would be a relatively prominent, but by no means unique, feature in such a landscape or indeed the wider region and so, given the relatively


114

Moderate sensitivity of the receiving landscape the overall effect in the context of the Appendix 1 ES Vol2 criteria would be considered to be Medium adverse. Landscape Quality (long term) The longer term implications of the proposal for which there can be few opportunities to mitigate the effects of suggests that the longer term effect would continue to be Medium adverse although an increasing number of such structures in the wider landscape in the future may arguably make the one applied for less uncharacteristic and, thereby, more a more visually acceptable feature. 9.6.4 Heritage Effects The potential effects of siting wind energy infrastructure within historically important landscapes or close to specific features of historic significance within the landscape are addressed, in England, by English Heritage, the Government’s adviser on the historic environment, in their guidance publication Wind Energy and the Historic Environment. The proposed Garth Fawr Farm development has therefore been reviewed in the context of this guidance which is felt to be equally applicable in Wales. Within 1-2Km of the target site the Heritage features of significant heritage interest are 2 Listed Buildings in Abercynon and a number of sites recorded by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales as illustrated at Figures F5b and F5c above. Direct Impacts The proposed development comprises a single turbine with a compact footprint requiring only a relatively modest foundation. As it does not fall within, or very significantly close to, any scheduled ancient monuments or a designated historic landscape it is not considered likely that the intrusive, below ground, construction works would have any detrimental impact.


115

Indirect Impacts Indirect effects on sites within 1-2Km of the application site should be considered and with reference to Figure F5b the nature of the sites to be considered would be as follows (using RCAHMW refs.)

NPRN 19201 Map Reference - ST09SE Grid Reference - ST09379434 Unitary (Local) Authority - Rhondda, Cynon, Taff Old County – Glamorgan Community - Abercynon Type of Site - House Broad Class - Domestic Period - Post Medieval

NPRN 19702 Map Reference - ST09SE Grid Reference - ST09119358 Unitary (Local) Authority - Rhondda, Cynon, Taff Old County - Glamorgan Community - Abercynon Type of Site - Dwelling Broad Class - Domestic Period - Post Medieval?

NPRN 19777 Map Reference - ST09SE Grid Reference - ST09239348 Unitary (Local) Authority - Rhondda, Cynon, Taff Old County - Glamorgan Community - Pontypridd Type of Site - Dwelling Broad Class - Domestic Period - Post Medieval?

NPRN 18709 Map Reference - ST09SE Grid Reference - ST095940 Unitary (Local) Authority - Rhondda, Cynon, Taff Old County - Glamorgan Community - Abercynon Type of Site - Farmhouse Broad Class - Domestic Period - Post Medieval?

NPRN 265702 Map Reference - ST09SE Grid Reference - ST0958494371 Unitary (Local) Authority - Rhondda, Cynon, Taff Old County - Glamorgan Community - Pontypridd

Unaltered landscapes The proposed target site falls within a landscape that has evolved continuously and continues to change. The introduction of a single new feature in the landscape is not felt to be an inappropriate or otherwise detrimental change in this context. Scale of development The proposed development comprises a single, relatively moderately sized, wind turbine which, in the context of wind energy development generally in the UK can be regarded as a small scale development in keeping with its landscape context. Effects on setting / visual amenity In historic terms the main features of interest within reasonable proximity of the target site are historic dwellings, a farmhouse and a garden now forming part of the curtilage to the commercial Lechwen Hall Hotel all of which occupy a landscape of moderate quality with more significant existing detractors nearby than the proposed new feature and in this context the proposed development is not felt likely to more adversely affect them.


116

Visual dominance The proposed turbine would occupy a prominent position and, given its height, would be significant new feature locally and will be likely then to become the dominant feature in the immediate landscape though the existing historic features are not, in themselves, visually dominant features and so despite its prominence the new development is not felt likely to draw attention away from them. Inter-visibility, vistas & long distance views The proposed turbine would occupy a prominent position and, given its height, would be significant new feature locally and will be likely then to become the dominant feature in the immediate landscape which will affect inward and outward views to, from and across the nearby sites of historic interest. Noise and Shadow Flicker Noise and Shadow Flicker are both specifically addressed elsewhere in this document but at almost 1Km from the nearest Listed Buildings neither are considered likely to have a significant adverse effect. Reversibility As noted above the short term disturbance resulting from construction work can largely be reinstated on completion and when, ultimately, the turbine is to be removed the site which it occupies can be restored to its former agricultural condition quite easily. In summary it is considered that given the intrinsically Medium / High value and Moderate sensitivity of the receiving landscape with very few significant natural or built features which would be directly affected and the very compact footprint of the single turbine development works would, overall, have no more than a Medium adverse impact on landscape character and quality. In respect of the siting of a moderately sized, single turbine in a rural landscape the visual effect on local character need not necessarily be considered adverse, particularly when largely viewed in isolation. In April 2009, for example, the Planning Inspectorate accepted on granting an Appeal that the proposed 126m, 2 MW, Dewlay Cheese wind turbine in Lancashire would not dominate the landscape, and from distant viewpoints, would actually have an “insignificant impact”. The official report stated: “In my view, it would be an exciting and elegant landmark symbolising the region’s commitment to renewable energy. Indeed, in time, I anticipate that it could become a symbol of the Fylde’s identity, and something which residents and visitors would come to value and enjoy.”


117

9.7 Visual Impact Assessment The siting of wind turbines is an emotive subject though they are perhaps becoming a more accepted feature in the landscape. In order to reconcile the level of intrusiveness in any given proposed location it is necessary to measure impact as quantitatively as possible and to define clear parameters for the determination of the remaining, more qualitative, aspects. To achieve this the extent of a theoretical limit of visibility, essentially a worst case scenario, for the existing topography is established using ZTV software (see methodology at section 2.0 above) to determine the maximum potential degree of visibility within an appropriate given study area established during preliminary fieldwork. The actual extent of visibility will inevitably actually be less than the theoretical worst case due to the presence of intervening visual barriers such as buildings and vegetation which the ZTV software disregards. The multi-point ZTV assessment identifies the extent and degree of visibility of the proposed target feature which, in the case of a single turbine, would be the extent of the study area from which parts of the turbine would be visible and, for any given point, the amount (in height terms) of turbine visible starting from the top downwards. The resulting analysis drawing shows the extent of visibility and grades the degree of visibility with the greatest degrees of visibility shown more prominently though this does not necessarily imply that the higher degrees of visibility necessarily equate to corresponding levels of visual impact. The ZTV assessment is based on a four-point analysis at target heights, as set out below, and is presented overleaf at Figure F7, the individual single point ray analyses for each specific height are also provided at Appendix 5. Visibility at 78m above ground level (77.9m is the highest tip of rotating blade) Visibility at 50m above ground level (being the height of the turbine hub) Visibility at 22m above ground level (22.1m corresponds to the lowest tip of a rotating blade) Visibility at 1m above ground level (base of turbine and any associated infrastructure / site activity) For practical purposes, given the well vegetated, but relatively open, incised landscape character of the target landscape, we have, following preliminary fieldwork, considered 10Km to be the limit beyond which, even if a significant portion of a single turbine is visible, it would not constitute a sufficiently significant feature in the wider view for its visual impact to be any more than slight / negligible adverse which we would consider reasonably acceptable without the need for further field evaluation. To refine the study area for fieldwork purposes the following assessment filters have been proposed and applied to the ZTV assessment in order to identify a significant working envelope within which specific receptors or groups of receptors can be more specifically determined for field assessment and beyond which, perhaps with some very local variation, the introduction of the proposed turbine would not constitute a sufficiently significant feature in the wider view for its visual impact to be any more than slight / negligible adverse which we would consider reasonably acceptable without the need for further field evaluation. Minimum ZTV severity (the occasionally rotating blade tip at 78m) is considered a potentially significant feature in the view upto a maximum of 1-2Km from the proposed target site beyond which it is not felt to constitute a sufficiently significant feature in the wider view for its visual impact to be any more than slight / negligible adverse.


118

Low ZTV severity (the upper blade down to and including the turbine hub at 50m) is considered a potentially significant feature in the view upto a maximum of 2-3Km from the proposed target site beyond which it would not constitute a sufficiently significant feature in the wider view for its visual impact to be any more than slight / negligible adverse. Moderate severity (the whole of the rotating blade structure down to 22m) is considered a potentially significant feature in the view upto a maximum of 3-4Km from the proposed target site beyond which it would not constitute a sufficiently significant feature in the wider view for its visual impact to be any more than slight / negligible adverse. Maximum severity (virtually the whole turbine down to 1m and associated ground level features or activity) is considered a potentially significant feature in the view across the whole study area upto a 5Km radius limit beyond which it would not constitute a sufficiently significant feature in the wider view for its visual impact to be any more than slight / negligible adverse. Beyond 10Km, as noted above, the effect of introducing a turbine into the wider view is not considered likely to have a seriously adverse impact but any potential detrimental effects on significant receptors just beyond the 10Km limit (such as instances of potentially maximum visibility encroaching towards potentially sensitive receptors) would be considered.

9.7.1 Potential visual effects The ZTV appraisal is based on a topographical model which does not take into account above ground natural or built features which might further constrain visibility but at a basic topographical level it can be seen from Figure F7, and the individual height appraisals at Appendix 5 see ES Vol2, that the greatest degree of potential visibility lies to the higher, more open, rural ground to the north and east of the target site (largely falling within Caerphilly Borough) whilst westwards visibility is likely to be less severe (confined to the upper portions of the turbine only) though much of the potential visibility zone extends across more populated areas particularly including Abercynon and Glyncoch whilst the majority of Pontypridd lies in a topographical shadow and is therefore unlikely to be significantly affected. Further west the higher slopes are well wooded in places which is likely to constrain visibility. To the south-east visibility is constrained topographically by the ridge at Mynydd Eglwysilan but here, given the potential severity of visibility and the sensitivity of the receiving landscape in the CCBC Special Landscape Area consideration of effects is material. The working envelope and the key potential receptor viewpoints arising from ZTV appraisal is provided at Figure F8 and summarised below but it should be noted that this is used as a guide rather than a strict limit. It is used as the basis for identification of the most significant potential receptors or groups of receptors for field review but any remaining potentially significant or borderline receptors lying just outside the identified envelope but still evident in the 4 point ZTV underlay are also reviewed on site where appropriate.


119

Potentially significant receptor viewpoints (refer to figure F8) V1 Views north from A4054 departing Cilfynydd northward (1300m) V2 Views south-east from eastbound A4059 north of Abercynon (2200m) V3 Views south-east from B4275 - Abercynon centre (1600m) V4 Views south from minor road / public rights of way east of A4059 leading to Craig Evan Leyshan Common (900m) V5 Views north from A4054 approaching Cilfynydd from south (2500m) V6 Views south from minor road near off B4255 north of Trelewis (4000m) V7 Views south from elevated minor road between Cwm Cothi and B4255 (4900m) V8 Views south-west from west bound B4254 west of Gelligaer (4800m) V9 Views west from minor road rising south from Nelson upto Mynydd Eglwysilan (3350m) V10 Views north-west from moorland road skirting Mynydd Eglwysilan (3300m) V11 Views north-west from moorland road skirting Mynydd Eglwysilan (2850m) V12 Views north from minor road leading down from Cefn Eglwysilan to A4054 (3000m) V13 Views east from high point at head of Well St. in Abercynon (1700m) V14 Views north-east from residential road in Glyncoch (1600m) V15 Views north-east from elevated minor road south of Pontypridd (6000m) Following ZTV assessment and subsequent field review it was determined that the locations for which key visual effects needed to be montaged were Viewpoints V1, V2, V4, V5, V9 and V11 which is not to suggest that these are necessarily more important or more severe than other viewpoints but that they would best represent the range of visual effects likely to arise from development. A representative assessment of each of the key viewpoints is provided below. Following preliminary review of the Draft LVIA by the local planning authority (Summer 2013) it was agreed that an additional viewpoint (V14) would be added to the report for montage purposes.


120

V1.0 Viewpoint V1 V1.1 Viewpoint description Views north from A4054 departing Cilfynydd northward (1300m)

V1.2 Receptors affected Urban road users, pedestrians, residents / occupiers V1.3 Description of views Upward view towards crest of hill on which turbine will appear prominently No other wind energy schemes appear to be jointly visible from this viewpoint V1.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V1.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed turbine would project above the skyline. V1.6 Construction impacts Possible minor visibility of construction activity during later stages of turbine assembly Negligible - Slight adverse impact V1.7 Impact on Completion Whole of turbine blade system prominently visible with few foreground filters Substantial – Severe adverse impact V1.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Substantial – Severe adverse impact V1.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Substantial – Severe adverse impact

Un-rendered model view of turbine wireframe from viewpoint at comparable field of view


121

V2.0 Viewpoint V2 V2.1 Viewpoint description Views south-east from eastbound A4059 north of Abercynon (2200m)

V2.2 Receptors affected Urban road users and some commercial occupiers / residents V2.3 Description of views Inward views from road largely screened by trees until approach to roundabout where eastward view opens up with turbine prominently visible on skyline No other wind energy schemes appear to be jointly visible from this viewpoint V2.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V2.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed turbine would project above the skyline. V2.6 Construction impacts Possible minor visibility of construction activity during later stages of turbine assembly Negligible - Slight adverse impact V2.7 Impact on Completion Whole of turbine blade system prominently visible though roadside vegetation limits visibility westwards of viewpoint Substantial adverse impact V2.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Substantial adverse impact V2.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Substantial adverse impact



122

V3.0 Viewpoint V3 V3.1 Viewpoint description Views south-east from B4275 - Abercynon centre (1600m)

V3.2 Receptors affected Urban road users, pedestrians, occupiers, residents V3.3 Description of views Prominent views of Craig Evan Leyshon Common but above which turbine is unlikely to project for majority of built up area. No other wind energy schemes appear to be jointly visible from this viewpoint V3.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V3.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed turbine would not project above the skyline. V3.6 Construction impacts No construction activities likely to be visible None V3.7 Impact on Completion At worst only very tip of blade likely to be visible – probably not visible generally Negligible - None V3.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Negligible - None V3.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Negligible - None

Un-rendered model view of turbine wireframe from viewpoint at comparable field of view; Turbine not Visible


123

V4.0 Viewpoint V4 V4.1 Viewpoint description Views south from minor road / public rights of way east of A4059 leading to Craig Evan Leyshan Common (900m)

V4.2 Receptors affected Rural road users, pedestrians, residents V4.3 Description of views Open views across rolling landscape with some trees with turbine visible above foreground ridge. Existing pylon / power-line detractors in foreground view. No other wind energy schemes appear to be jointly visible from this viewpoint V4.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V4.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed turbine would project above the skyline. V4.6 Construction impacts Possible visibility of construction activity during turbine assembly Slight – Moderate adverse impact V4.7 Impact on Completion Whole of turbine blade system prominently visible with few foreground filters Substantial – Severe adverse impact V4.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Substantial adverse impact V4.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Substantial adverse impact


124

V5.0 Viewpoint V5 V5.1 Viewpoint description Views north from A4054 approaching Cilfynydd from south (2500m)

V5.2 Receptors affected Urban road users, pedestrians, residents / occupiers V5.3 Description of views Upward view towards crest of hill on which turbine will appear prominently No other wind energy schemes appear to be jointly visible from this viewpoint V5.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V5.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed turbine would project above the skyline. V5.6 Construction impacts Possible minor visibility of construction activity during later stages of turbine assembly Negligible - Slight adverse impact V5.7 Impact on Completion Whole of turbine blade system prominently visible with few foreground filters Substantial – Severe adverse impact V5.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Substantial – Severe adverse impact V5.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Substantial – Severe adverse impact



125

V6.0 Viewpoint V6 V6.1 Viewpoint description Views south from minor road near off B4255 north of Trelewis (4000m)

V6.2 Receptors affected Urban fringe road users, pedestrians, residents / occupiers V6.3 Description of views Distant low-lying view across recreation ground towards skyline target site fragmented by intervening built and natural features No other wind energy schemes appear to be jointly visible from this viewpoint V6.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V6.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed turbine would project above the skyline. V6.6 Construction impacts Some construction activity may just be discernible but unlikely to be a significant component of the view Negligible adverse impact V6.7 Impact on Completion Relatively distant fragmented views in which turbine may be visible but not a dominating component of the view Slight – Moderate adverse impact V6.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Slight – Moderate adverse impact V6.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Slight – Moderate adverse impact

Un-

rendered model view of turbine wireframe from viewpoint at comparable field of view


126

V7.0 Viewpoint V7 V7.1 Viewpoint description Views south from elevated minor road between Cwm Cothi and B4255 (4900m)

V7.2 Receptors affected Rural road users, pedestrians, residents / occupiers V7.3 Description of views Occasional glimpsed views between intervening built and natural features in which new development may be discernible No other wind energy schemes appear to be jointly visible from this viewpoint V7.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V7.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed turbine would project above the skyline. V7.6 Construction impacts Construction activity unlikely to be visible at this distance Negligible adverse impact V7.7 Impact on Completion Relatively distant glimpsed views in which turbine may be just be discernible but not a very significant component of the view Slight adverse impact V7.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Slight adverse impact V7.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Slight adverse impact



127

V8.0 Viewpoint V8 V8.1 Viewpoint description Views south-west from west bound B4254 west of Gelligaer (4800m)

V8.2 Receptors affected Rural road users, pedestrians, residents / occupiers V8.3 Description of views Distant elevated view across rolling agricultural / woodland landscape towards target site fragmented by intervening built and natural features in places No other wind energy schemes appear to be jointly visible from this viewpoint V8.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V8.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed turbine would project above the skyline. V8.6 Construction impacts Construction activity unlikely to be visible at this distance Negligible adverse impact V8.7 Impact on Completion Relatively distant fragmented views in which turbine may be visible but not a dominating component of the view Slight – Moderate adverse impact V8.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Slight – Moderate adverse impact V8.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Slight – Moderate adverse impact



128

V9.0 Viewpoint V9 V9.1 Viewpoint description Views west from minor road rising south from Nelson upto Mynydd Eglwysilan (3350m)

V9.0 Viewpoint V9 V9.1 Viewpoint description Views west from minor road rising south from Nelson upto Mynydd Eglwysilan (3350m) V9.2 Receptors affected Rural road users, pedestrians V9.3 Description of views Middle distance elevated view across rolling agricultural / woodland landscape towards target site with existing visual detractors in foreground Windfarm just visible from Mynydd Eglwysilan on moorland to north of target site on a clear day. V9.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V9.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed turbine would project above the skyline. V9.6 Construction impacts Some construction activity may just be discernible but unlikely to be a significant component of the view Negligible adverse impact V9.7 Impact on Completion Middle distance view in which turbine may be visible but not a dominating component of the view with existing visual detractors Moderate adverse impact V9.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Moderate adverse impact V9.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Moderate adverse impact


129



130

V10.0 Viewpoint V10 V10.1 Viewpoint description Views north-west from moorland road skirting Mynydd Eglwysilan (3300m)

V10.2 Receptors affected Rural road users, pedestrians V10.3 Description of views Middle distance elevated view across rolling agricultural / woodland landscape towards target site with existing visual detractors in foreground Windfarm just visible from Mynydd Eglwysilan on moorland to north of target site on a clear day. V10.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V10.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed blade tip may just project above the skyline. V10.6 Construction impacts Some construction activity may just be discernible but unlikely to be a significant component of the view Negligible adverse impact V10.7 Impact on Completion Middle distance views in which turbine may be a relatively prominent component of a panoramic view with existing visual detractors Moderate adverse impact V10.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Moderate adverse impact V10.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Moderate adverse impact

Un-



131

V11.0 Viewpoint V11 V11.1 Viewpoint description Views north-west from moorland road skirting Mynydd Eglwysilan (2850m)

V11.2 Receptors affected Rural road users, pedestrians V11.3 Description of views Middle distance elevated view across rolling agricultural / woodland landscape towards target site with existing visual detractors in foreground Windfarm just visible from Mynydd Eglwysilan on moorland to north of target site on a clear day. V11.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V11.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed blade tip may just project above the skyline. V11.6 Construction impacts Some construction activity may just be discernible but unlikely to be a significant component of the view Negligible adverse impact V11.7 Impact on Completion Middle distance views in which turbine may be a relatively prominent component of a panoramic view with existing visual detractors Moderate adverse impact V11.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Moderate adverse impact V11.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Moderate adverse impact

Un-



132

V12.0 Viewpoint V12 V12.1 Viewpoint description Views north from minor road leading down from Cefn Eglwysilan to A4054 (3000m)

V12.2 Receptors affected Rural road users, pedestrians V12.3 Description of views Oblique, short-lived, middle distance, elevated view across rolling agricultural / moorland landscape towards target site with few intervening features Windfarms just visible from Mynydd Eglwysilan on moorland to north and west of target site on a clear day. V12.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V12.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed blade tip may just project above the skyline. V12.6 Construction impacts Some construction activity may just be discernible but unlikely to be a significant component of the view Negligible adverse impact V12.7 Impact on Completion Middle distance oblique view in which turbine may be a relatively prominent component of a view but only for a short duration between intervening topographic and natural features Slight - Moderate adverse impact V12.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Slight - Moderate adverse impact V12.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Slight - Moderate adverse impact

Un-



133

V13.0 Viewpoint V13 V13.1 Viewpoint description Views east from high point at head of Well St. in Abercynon (1700m)

V13.2 Receptors affected Urban road users, pedestrians, occupiers, residents V13.3 Description of views Prominent views of Craig Evan Leyshon Common but above which turbine is unlikely to project for majority of built up area. No other wind energy schemes appear to be jointly visible from this viewpoint V13.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V13.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed blade tip may just project above the skyline. V13.6 Construction impacts No construction activities likely to be visible None V13.7 Impact on Completion At worst only very tip of blade likely to be visible – probably not visible generally Negligible - Slight V13.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Negligible - Slight V13.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Negligible - Slight Turbine Blade Tip Just Visible

Un-



134

V14.0 Viewpoint V14 V14.1 Viewpoint description Views north-east from eastern end of Porcher Avenue, Glyncoch (1600m)

V14.2 Receptors affected Residential road users, pedestrians, residents / occupiers V14.3 Description of views Occasional glimpsed views between intervening built and natural features in which new development may be discernible No other wind energy schemes appear to be jointly visible from this viewpoint V14.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V14.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed turbine would project above the skyline. V14.6 Construction impacts Possible minor visibility of construction activity during later stages of turbine assembly Negligible - Slight adverse impact V14.7 Impact on Completion Whole of turbine blade system visible with intermittent foreground filters Substantial adverse impact V14.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Substantial adverse impact V14.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Substantial adverse impact

Un-



135

V15.0 Viewpoint V15 V15.1 Viewpoint description Views north-east from elevated minor road south of Pontypridd (6000m)

V15.2 Receptors affected Rural road users, pedestrians, residents / occupiers V15.3 Description of views Occasional glimpsed views between intervening built and natural features in which new development may be discernible No other wind energy schemes appear to be jointly visible from this viewpoint V15.4 Mitigation proposed No mitigation proposed V15.5 Impact on skyline From this viewpoint the proposed turbine would project above the skyline. V15.6 Construction impacts Construction activity unlikely to be visible at this distance Negligible adverse impact V15.7 Impact on Completion Relatively distant glimpsed views in which turbine may be just be discernible but not a very significant component of the view Slight adverse impact V15.8 Impact after 5 years Unlikely to change ~ Slight adverse impact V15.9 Impact after 10-15 years Unlikely to change ~ Slight adverse impact

Un-



136

9.8 Cumulative effects The visual influence of the proposed development may be exacerbated by its proximity to other constructed, approved or planned wind turbine developments nearby. The cumulative impact arising from such proximity may either by the result of the proposed structure being visible from locations from which other turbines, or similar tall structures, are also visible from or it may result from an accumulation of repeated sightings at significant frequency on a notable route passing the target site. A review of such developments has been undertaken commencing with an assessment of the online UK Wind Energy Database provided by RenewableUK (the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries) and from other online databases including www.renewables-map.co.uk and www.restats.decc.gov.uk. For the purposes of this assessment they are only considered to be potentially significant if they fall within or close to the 10km study radius beyond which there is not considered to be any significant issue of either simultaneous or sequential visibility given that this submission is for a single, moderately sized turbine at the lower end of the wind energy development scale. Where significant numbers of other existing, approved or planned developments fall within the study radius it may then be appropriate to undertake an assessment of the potential visibility of the combined site developments to provide a theoretical ZTV from an averaged centre-point between the sites to establish the extent to which the proposed schemes may be simultaneously visible from any given location. This model can then be expanded to include other approved or proposed wind development projects if required later. In addition to simultaneous views the importance of sequential views in the appraisal of cumulative impact is also relevant and so a review of the degree to which turbines, which are not necessarily simultaneously visible, might be visible sequentially from notable transport routes or other "journey scenarios" has also been considered. The applicant is not currently proposing to develop any other turbines in locations relevant to this application and so the other main developments likely to be of any significance (rotating clockwise from north of the site) are as follows (refer to Fig F6):


137

Fig 6


138

Fochriw Wind Energy Project Caerphilly County Borough Council Operator - Eco2 Generating Capacity - 1.7 MW 2 Turbines (Hub 60m, Tip 87m) 309946,207281 (13.5Km)

Pendragon Fach Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council Operator - Pennant Wind Energy Ventures Ltd Generating Capacity - 5.0 MW Dismissed at appeal

Oakdale Caerphilly County Borough Council Operator - Partnership for Renewables Generating Capacity - 5.0 MW 2 Turbines (130m blade tip) 319231,199866 (11.7Km)

Pen Rhiw Gwaith Farm Operator - EnergyTech Generating Capacity - 0.6 MW 2 Turbines 317247,197577 (9.0Km)

Mynydd Portref (Extension To Taff Ely) Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council Operator - Tegni Generating Capacity - 9.4 MW 11 Turbines (86m blade tip) Taff Ely comprises 20 turbines 297265,186039 (14.2Km)

Trane Renewable Energy Park Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council Operator - Gamesa Generating Capacity - 11.9 MW 14 Turbines 298633,189560 (11.3Km)

Fforch Nest Wind Farm Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council Operator - npower renewables Generating Capacity - 39.0 MW 11 Turbines (70m Hub, 115m blade tip) 297152,190159 (12.5Km)

Pant-Y-Wal Bridgend County Borough Council Operator - Pennant Wind Energy Ventures Ltd Generating Capacity - 25.0 MW 10 Turbines (70m Hub, 115m blade tip) 295921,191602 (13.3Km)

Ferndale Wind Farm Rhondda Cynon Taf CountyBorough Council Operator - Infinergy Generating Capacity - 10.4 MW 8 Turbines (50m hub 74m tip) 299074,196599 (10.3Km)

Maerdy Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council Operator - Renewable Energy Partnership Generating Capacity - 24.0 MW 8 Turbines (80m hub, 125m tip) 297153,197515 (12.5Km)

Hirwaun Re-Submission Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council Operator - Pennent Wind Energy Ventures Ltd Generating Capacity - 36.0 MW 12 Turbines (70m Hub, 115m blade tip) 294194,203626 (18Km)


139

With two exceptions the majority of developments are 10-15Km from the target site with one site at 9Km (2 turbines at Pen Rhiw Gwaith Farm) and one at 18Km (Hirwaun). At these distances the introduction of a modestly scaled, single turbine is not felt likely to cause significant cumulative visibility issues though it is noted in the preceding visual appraisal that northward views from Mynydd Eglwysilan (Viewpoints V10 / V11) in which the proposed turbine would lie in the middle distance, also extend to include a windfarm exceeding 10Km distant though this is only visible in fine conditions, and could be easily missed, suggesting that impact would be no greater than Slight adverse. In the vicinity of viewpoint V12 (west facing descent from Cefn Eglwysilan) views westward embrace a further windfarm on hills exceeding 10Km distant but this is very oblique to the target site which is, in turn, only briefly visible northward and so again any impact arising would be no greater than Slight adverse. In respect of sequential visibility the key routes within the 10Km study area which might, potentially, be affected are considered to be the arterial roads and railway lines running north from Cardiff to Abercynon (A470 and A4054) and then splitting north-westwards (A4058) and north-eastwards (A470 and A4054) however these are largely confined to the lower valley areas from which visibility is constrained and views to the longer distance windfarms which are visible from the higher vantage points is not possible and so, again, any impact arising in respect of the proposed development would be considered to be no greater than Negligible-Slight adverse. The proposed turbine would, from the majority of viewpoints, be seen in the context of a variety of power lines, pylons and radio masts which are not uncommon in the local landscape and given the scale and form of the proposed structure it is not felt that this would significantly exacerbate their detracting effect indeed the sculptural quality of a single turbine could possibly help diminish the adverse effect of such structures.


140

9.9 Landscape mitigation As a relatively tall, uncharacteristic structure in the landscape there is unlikely to be any significant mitigation that could be proposed that would adequately ameliorate the effects described above for the majority of receptors. The applicants do own significant amounts of land around the application site and in some very specific instances it may be possible to mitigate inward views by new tree and shrub planting. The proposed structure would have a relatively minimal effect on the physical landscape with any temporary, construction, impact mitigated by remedial works on completion on a like for like basis. In the longer term the proposed structure could be demounted and removed together with its associated infrastructure to fully restore the landscape to its former condition and character.

9. 10 Summary & Conclusions The proposed application comprises the siting of a single, moderately sized, 3 blade wind turbine with associated temporary and permanent infrastructure works on open farmland south of Garth Fawr Farm, Cilfynydd, Pontypridd. The proposed location is dictated by wind performance criteria. The proposed temporary and permanent development works would not adversely impact any significant features of ecological, historical or cultural value and any short term effects could largely be made good by remedial works. In the longer term the entire development could be removed and the land restored to its current condition. The target application site does not fall within or unacceptably near to a National Park / AONB or other Nationally significant landscape and is not likely to be adversely visible to receptors in such designated landscapes. The target application site does fall within a Special landscape Area of RCT County significance and is also overlooked by a further SLA in neighbouring Caerphilly which elevate receptor sensitivity and require special consideration in development terms but assessed views, whilst accepted to be adverse, are not considered to be unreasonably so given the existence of other visual detractors including pylons, power lines and radio masts against which a single, modestly sized, sculptural new feature could in fact have a more positive influence in the view. Views of the proposed development are more pronounced to the east, north-east and south-east and so the impact on the locally significant Craig Evan Leyshon Common is not considered to be a significant constraint.


141

Heritage effects arising from the proposals are confined to the possible effects on the setting of a number of sites of archaeological significance (rural buildings and a historical garden) but existing visual detractors are felt to have already compromised these to a degree that the proposed development is unlikely to have an increasingly adverse effect. Listed Buildings are unlikely to be adversely affected by development. A baseline assessment of the receiving landscape has been undertaken which suggests that it in the context of the regional generally it is pleasant, rural and largely unspoilt but not scarce, not rich in features of significant quality and relatively unremarkable overall which suggests that it is of no more than local value and, as such, has a greater capacity to accept the proposed development than other more highly valued landscapes. A Zone of Theoretical Visibility has been established digitally for the proposed development and this has been further reviewed in the field. The range of possible receptors has been established and the impact on these assessed. There are instances of potentially significant adverse visual effects but these need to be considered in the light of existing visual detractors and where relevant photomontages have been prepared to illustrate the likely effects. Opportunities to mitigate impact are limited but wherever possible are noted. The most pronounced effects are on panoramic northward views from Mynydd Eglwysilan (Caerphilly CBC), particularly where these coincide with the line of the Rhymney Valley Ridgeway Walk, but these views also include significant visual detractors and it is felt that the sculptural quality of a single modestly sized turbine could to a degree help mitigate these. Views northward from Cilfynydd are also significantly affected but the majority of properties do not face northwards and for transient views from roads and railway lines the sculptural quality of the single turbine might be argued to have a potentially positive effect on local identity (ref. Dewlay notes at 6.6) Cumulative effects have been assessed for planned and operational developments upto 20Km from the target site. Simultaneous visibility is likely for two operational wind farms but the effect is not considered to be significantly adverse whilst sequential impact is considered very unlikely. Taken overall the modest scope of the proposal, the relatively nominal effects on landscape character & quality together with the relatively restricted adverse effects on visual receptors the proposal, when taken as a whole, is considered to be an acceptable feature in the landscape.


142

CHAPTER 10

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT


143

10 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT

10.1 Introduction

Acstro was commissioned to assess the suitability of delivery routes to the site of a proposed

wind turbine at Garth Fawr Farm, Cilfyndd, Pontypridd, CF37 4HP. The site’s location is shown in

drawing 0549-001-A ES Vol2. The delivery of the large turbine components was assessed.

10.2 Methodology

Based on the proposed turbine which is a EWT 500kW model measuring 77m to blade tip.

The turbine components for delivery are as follows:

Tower (top section) 23.23m x 2.76m max. dia. -15,500kg

Tower (Bottom Section) 23.20m x 3.6m max. dia. – 30,500kg

Blades (Set of 3) 26.2m x 2.72m x 2.5m – 7,500kg

Nacelle 5.2m x 2.58m x 2.22m – 10,000kg

Hub 3.00m x 3.00m x 2.50m – 9,200kg

Generator 5.60m x 5.60m x 2.80m – 29,600kgs

The most demanding loads in terms of their transportation are considered to be the longest

(blades) and widest (generator).

Swept path analysis of access routes has been undertaken using Autotrack (v10.21) software. The

largest component/vehicle is anticipated to be associated with the delivery of the turbine blades

(26m long) and the generator (5.6m diameter). The dimensions of the vehicle models used within

the swept path analysis are shown in ES Vol 2 Appendix.

The report contains swept path diagrams that illustrate the minimum requirements at identified

‘pinch points’ based on ‘Automatic’ steering of tractor/trailer combinations. In reality the trailers

used for the delivery of long abnormal loads have the facility to be manually steered from the

rear of the trailer when required to do so. The swept paths presented within this report are

considered to be robust as they can be improved upon by manually steering the rear trailer.

Nevertheless it must be stressed that the software provides a guide as to the swept path of a

generic delivery vehicle. It is strongly recommended that the haulers appointed to deliver the

turbine components should first survey the route to identify any issues that might occur due to

their bespoke delivery vehicles.


144

The Highway Authority has requested that the haulier, prior to the delivery of the largest turbine

components, undertakes a dry run to test the route. In addition, a condition survey of the public

highway will be required before and after delivery in order that in the event that damage to the

highway is identified it can be ascertained whether this was caused by the delivery vehicles.

Swept Path Analysis Vehicle Templates


145

10.3 Route

The turbine components will be imported to the UK by sea. It is assumed that the components

will dock at Swansea, which is known to have handled similar imports for wind farm

developments in south and mid Wales.

The assumed route from Swansea to the turbine site will be via the A465 to Merthyr Tydfil, south

along the A470 to Abercynon and along the A4054 to Cilfynydd. The assumed route is shown in

drawing 0549-002-A.

More locally the components will turn right from the A4054 near the Cilfynydd War Memorial

and onto a minor road leading to Llanfabon. Deliveries will turn off the public highway

approximately 600m along this minor road and travel to the turbine site via an existing track that

passes Craig Leyshon Villas.

10.4 Route Assessment

The proposed route from Swansea Docks is largely along high quality, dual carriageway, roads

that are capable of accommodating abnormal loads. On leaving the A470m at Abercynon the

highway alignment and dimensions become more restrictive and have been considered in detail.

10.4.1 Delivery of Turbine Blades

The delivery of the 26.2m long blades has been considered in the first instance.

Drawing 0549-003-A ES Vol 2 shows the path of the delivery vehicle as it turns off the A470 and

onto the A4054. The swept path of the vehicle and load is contained entirely within the highway.

Drawing 0549-004-A ES Vol 2 shows the path of the delivery vehicle as it turns right from the

A4054 onto the minor road to Llanfabon. The swept path of the vehicle and load is contained

entirely within the highway.

Drawing 0549-005-B ES Vol 2 shows the path of the delivery vehicle as it turns from the public

highway onto the track that passes Craig Leyshon Villas and leads to the turbine site at Garth

Fawr. The swept path analysis suggests that the delivery vehicle’s path cannot be contained

within the existing access’ dimensions and that some widening will be necessary. This is described

in more detail later within this document.

Drawings 0549-006-B and 0549-007-B ES Vol 2 show the path of the delivery vehicle as it passes

Craig Leyshon Villas and travels along the existing track up to the turbine site. It can be seen that

the vehicle’s path cannot be contained entirely within the existing track and that sections of it

will need to be widened and improved. This is described in more detail later within this

document.


146

10.4.2 Delivery of the generator

The delivery of the 5.6m wide generator has also been considered. Drawings 0549- 008-A and

0549-009-A ES Vol 2 show that the path of the delivery vehicle and load is contained entirely

within the highway as it turns from the A470 onto the A4054 and onto the Llanfabon minor road.

Drawing 0549-010-B, 0549-011-B and 0549-012-B ES Vol 2 shows the path of the delivery vehicle

as it turns from the public highway onto the track that passes Craig Leyshon Villas and leads to

the turbine site at Garth Fawr. The swept path analysis shows that, in places, the delivery

vehicle’s path cannot be contained within the existing access track’s dimensions and that some

widening will be necessary. The wide load over-sails the land on each side of the existing track

for most of the length of the track. The land adjacent to the track will therefore need to be cleared

of obstructions (fence posts, gateposts, vegetation etc).

10.5 Conclusion

There is a good quality route to the turbine site from Swansea Docks that incorporates utilizes

high quality, dual carriageway roads for much of its length. Analysis of the section of public

highway between the A470 at Abercynon and the turbine site has been undertaken and has

shown that the largest turbine component delivery vehicles can manoeuvre adequately and

without obstruction within the limits of the public highway.

On turning from the public highway improvements to the access track will be necessary. The

areas of the access track that will need to be improved are shown on drawings 0549-013-B, 0549-

014-B and 0549-015-B ES Vol2. These drawings also identify the position of obstructions

(bollards, gates, gate posts) that need to be removed and reinstated following completion of the

deliveries.

The swept path analysis has found no significant barrier to the transport of the turbine

components to the site along the identified route.


147

CHAPTER 11

AVIATION


148

11 AVIATION

11.1 Location

Aviation Map Showing Turbine Location

The 1:500K CAA aviation map of the location and surrounding area is shown above.


149

OSGB map of Site

Of significance on the close-up OSGB map of the area is the large electricity sub-station and

associated pylons. These are likely to be close enough already to the site to provide, with the

terrain, significant desensitisation of the radar at low elevation such that the turbine has no

further impact and cannot be seen.

11.2 Line of Sight (LoS) Assessment

The LoS assessment is based on OSGB Panorama terrain-only data modified for earth curvature

and radar refraction (Cardiff radar frequency specific). The turbine is at 005°/27km from the

Cardiff Airport primary radar, at an elevation of 0.48°. The LoS diagram is below.


150

LoS Survey

The turbine is in the heart of the Cardiff radar range performance but at a low elevation. As an

ATC radar the Thales STAR2000 is designed to detect and control aircraft at medium to high levels

- 1500ft and above - except at very short ranges of a few km.

SRTM data/man-made obstructions have not been included in the detailed assessment as a brief

assessment has determined that the track is over entirely rural terrain. There is, therefore, no

shielding between the radar and the terrain.

It is assessed, therefore, that the radar will be most unlikely to detect and classify as a valid track

a relatively small turbine at that range and elevation, particularly with the capabilities of the very

modern Cardiff radar.

11.3 Identification of Relevant, Affected Aviation Assets

There are no MoD assets to consider.

While much of the UK is available for military low flying, the density of low flying is greater in

Wales than in many other parts. Partly this is because of the pilot training base at RAF Valley

(while the RAF is much smaller than it was, low flying is still a core skill), but more importantly

because one of only 3 areas available for low flying down to 100ft above ground level (called

tactical low flying) is in Wales. The turbine location is well clear of the Wales 100ft low flying area.

The MoD has not objected on low flying grounds but will require Infra-Red lighting to a particular

specification on the turbine should planning consent be granted.

Civil Airfields

The range/bearing of the TB from Cardiff IA is 005°/27km.

There are no Light Airfields, Glider Sites, etc within 10km

NATS Assets

There are no NATS assets - PSR, SSR or Communications sites - within or near to the required

consultation zones of the turbine. The Brecon VOR navigation beacon is 019°/10.6km from the

turbine - beyond the required safeguarding zone (the black circle around the beacon at the top

of the location map above). It is also some 200m lower than the beacon - again well below a

safeguarding elevation even if it were inside the 10km range. The turbine would lie under the

Cardiff Control Area, which has a base of 4000ft amsl. Above that, with a base of 5500ft, is the

N864 airway. The turbine location will also be close to a number of Cardiff's standard arrival and

departure routes, many of which route overheard the nearby Brecon VOR/DME.


151

11.4 Cardiff Airport

Radar

Cardiff Airport is equipped with one of the most modern and capable ATC radars available - the

Thales STAR 2000. The radar system (primary & secondary radars, and associated control/display

systems) is also used at Inverness and Belfast Airports. More pertinently, it is the same radar

introduced at Manston airport recently which is faced with 6 x large wind farms with a total of

circa 500 turbines.

The STAR2000 provides very advanced software process and a fully plot extracted solid state PSR

that will avoid the detection of the wind turbine returns. "The company’s advanced processing

now makes the installation of radars in the vicinity of wind farms possible and safe for air traffic".

In trials at Inverness the radar 'removed' 70-80 per cent of false plots caused by a nearby wind

farm with similar results for larger wind farms. The software also demonstrated the ability to

generate a new aircraft track over a wind farm, and to maintain it. That is, it was able to detect a

new aircraft target and track it successfully. Similar results were even achieved with a helicopter

operating around, over and behind a wind farm.

With the number of wind farms near Cardiff Airport, inc Taff Ely, Newport, Bristol Port, Neath,

Swansea, etc, it is presumable that the selection was because of radar's capabilities. If the radar

has such capabilities against wind farms then its capabilities against a single wind turbine - such

as that of this proposal - cannot be doubted.

Overall the new system will present a much clearer situational picture to the controllers, backed

up by automatic safety systems that will enhance the reliability and safety of the ATC operations

at Cardiff.

The belief that the Cardiff radar will not detect the turbine is borne out by evidence from another

modern ATC radar - the Selex ATCR-44 - which is also to discriminate between targets that do not

move over the ground and those that do. The Selex radar does not display those 'non-moving'

targets as valid ATC tracks. As the Thales STAR2000 is more modern than the Selex and has

advanced 'anti-turbine' processing the proposed turbine will not show on the Cardiff Airport

radar.

11.4.1 Discussions with Cardiff Airport

To enable a more complete assessment, e-mail discussions were held with Cardiff Airport and

NATS - under contract to the Airport NATS manages the ATC. Russell Clements, Head of Airfield

Operations was able to provide only basic details,. What Russ did say was

"I just have an OS map that provides an indication where the 30k radius sits. I don’t have a

policy either; however, from an obstacle point of view, I refer to CAP 738 Safeguarding of


152

Aerodromes for obstacle limitations. At Cardiff Airport we contract to NATS for technical

safeguarding and approve or object based on their findings."

NATS is usually unwilling to provide much of the data required and in response to BCL enquiries

it largely wanted to sell its own radar assessment services.

11.4.2 Cardiff Radar Tilt

Tilting upwards of the radar beam is often employed in hilly terrain to reduce the effects of

ground clutter, particularly where low elevation coverage at long range (as in an ATC radar) is not

required. According to the MoD it moves the part of the radar beam that is particularly good at

picking up signals away from returns produced by turbines, and it is one of the mitigation

techniques considered by the CAA.

So, any tilt applied to the Cardiff Airport radar so that it can 'see' better over the hills and

mountains to the N will reduce any impact from the turbine. It is not known if the radar at Cardiff

is tilted but it is quite possible that it is.

So, when combined with the tilt, the highly focussed and most effective part of the radar beam

will be well above the proposed turbine. As 1° equates to 15m at 1km range, any antenna tilt will

raise the highly focussed and most effective part of the radar beam some 200+m above this

turbine.

11.5 Controlled Airspace & ATC Operations

At its closest the turbine is c2km from one of the Airport Standard Instrument Arrival Routes

(STAR- Cardiff 1E - the 191° radial from Brecon VOR). On this procedure descent is directed by

ATC rather than being specified as part of the STAR but it will not be below 4000ft in the area of

the turbine and is likely at that range to be above 6000ft.

The turbine will have no impact on any of the Airport's instrument approach procedures for

landing.

11.6 Obstacle Clearance Limits

CAA document CAP168 prescribes the safeguarding criteria for airports with different lengths of

runway. It includes take-off and climb, transitional, conical and horizontal surfaces. A diagram

from CAP168 showing the OCL zones and resultant overall size is shown at Fig 2. The normal

maximum distance for consideration of vertical obstructions is just over 15km (15km plus a few

tens of metres) from the end of the runway. There is no indication that Cardiff Airport seeks to

extend its OCL considerations beyond that 15km boundary.


153

Figure ---. CAA CAP168 Safeguarding Dimensions for Vertical Obstructions

An assessment against the Obstacle Clearance Limits (OCL) for Cardiff Airport is, therefore,

unnecessary as the turbine is well beyond the OCL safeguarding range.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Document 8168 - Procedures for Air

Navigation – Operations (PANS-OPS) - is used for analysing the obstacle clearance figures for

instrument flight procedures. Obstacle protection for instrument flight procedures is only

required within a certain distance either side of the intended flight paths, and the most stringent

protection is applied closest to the intended flight paths. Even if the turbine were directly below

the flight path it would not create a hazard. The ICAO regulations specify a minimum height above

the obstacle for the flight path of 2000ft. At its closest vertically to the turbine the aircraft will be

over 4000ft amsl, while the turbine tip is less than 1600ft amsl. So even if the aircraft passed

overhead it will be more than 2000ft above the tip - more than the minimum required.

There will be no infringement of the obstacle clearance requirements for instrument flight

procedures.


154

11.7 Met Office Radars

The nearest Met Office radar is at Crug-Y-Gorwylln at 80+km range - well beyond any required

consultation range.

11.8 Mitigation Options

There are in effect only 3 broad options for mitigating any effects of turbine(s) on PSR, and even

then the MoD is sceptical of any being practical or successful. The 3 are:

Operational Mitigation. Changing ATC procedures around the turbine. If there are any

procedures in the area of this proposal they are already likely to have been modified to

take account of the 2 nearby wind farms. Operational mitigation is proven but is a very

lengthy process, and unlikely to be considered for a single turbine irrespective of size.

Technical Mitigation on Radar. Technical proposals for either changing the radar

processing software (mainly so the turbine is marked as a 'hazard' - called blanking), or

additional radar data is fed into and fused with that of the affected radar (infill radar,

mosaicing, etc). The process can be used for a single turbine as the only issue, normally,

is cost but the cost can be prohibitive - between £80+K and £500K per turbine for basic

mitigation (usually at higher end of range) to several £M for a new infill radar. Some of

the technologies are though proven at civil PSRs.

Technology Mitigation on Turbine. This involves 2 broad categories. The first category

involves physical changes to the location of the turbine to provide 'natural' shielding or

purpose built man-made obstructions. The second category would reduce the RCS (the

reflecting area of an object) of the turbine by using VAWT (much lower RCS than HAWT),

or by using RCS-reducing coatings/manufacturing materials on blades. Changing the

location is usually the most cost-effective mitigation while RCS coatings are as yet,

unproven. Since turbine RCS trials and measurements were made c2005 there have been

significant changes to the manufacturing materials and these changes are likely to lower

the RCS - making detection less likely. However, no trials have been undertaken to

confirm the values and, anyway, it is often the internal strengthening materials of the

blades which generate much of the radar return. The issue of 'building' man-made

obstructions to shield the radar is also unproven and likely to generate considerable

adverse comment from radar operators. Any obstruction would likely be large enough,

they would consider, to degrade low level radar performance.


155

11.9 Recommendations

The 30km radius around an airport has no technical basis and is essentially an arbitrary figure

selected by the CAA. Quite often turbines are sited much closer to airports will no ill-effects

whatsoever. Indeed, East Midlands airport has 2 on the airport and 2 more planned, while

Liverpool airport has 2 just outside the airport boundary.

Moreover, for this single turbine in the proposed location no mitigation is required or

recommended. The distance and low elevation diminish the possibility of the radar detecting the

turbine at all. When combined with any tilt applied to the radar so it 'sees' over the high terrain

that surrounds the airport in the Northern areas, and surrounds the turbine site completely, the

possibility is reduced much further.

More importantly, the Cardiff radar type has demonstrated capabilities against wind farms and

a single, smaller turbine should present no difficulty at all.

Overall, the position of the turbine almost on the 30km radius, its low elevation and the

capabilities of the Thales STAR2000 radar at Cardiff indicate that this proposed turbine is unlikely

to be detected and displayed by the radar as a track (an aircraft) and that it will have no impact

on the airport radar whatsoever.


156

CHAPTER 12

NOISE


157

12 NOISE ASSESSMENT

12.1 Introduction

The turbine specification and location has been carefully selected to avoid any potentially

unacceptable noise effects on surrounding residential properties. A combination of the

significant separation distance between the proposed turbine and dwellings, and the conclusions

of a desktop noise assessment, confirm that noise and vibration are not predicted to affect the

amenity of those closest to the wind turbine. The two nearest dwelling, (A & B), are at least 149

metres from the wind turbine and in the ownership of the landowner. The nearest non-financially

involved properties, at Garth Hall, lie 449m to the north east of the wind turbine.

12.2 Noise Limits

ETSU-R-97 specifies the adoption of a limit of 5 dB(A) above the prevailing wind varying

background noise level, modified by the use of fixed lower limits where background noise levels

are low. Separate noise limits apply for quiet day-time and night time, as outlined below.

12.2.1 Quiet Daytime Noise Limits

Quiet daytime is defined in ETSU-R-97 as 18:00 – 23:00 every day, as well as 13:00 – 18:00 on

Saturdays and 07:00 – 18:00 on Sundays. During these periods, the guidance prioritises the

protection of outdoor amenity for residents, by applying noise limits that would not significantly

affect the enjoyment of outdoor areas such as gardens.

In addition to the limit of 5 dB(A) above background, an allowance is included for a fixed limit to

be applied at wind speeds or locations where background noise levels are low. Where the quiet

daytime background noise level is less than 30-35 dB(A), the limit is defined as 35-40 dB(A). The

quiet daytime limit also applies to all other daytime periods, with the limits based on the quiet

daytime background noise level. As a conservative approach, a fixed lower limit of 35 dB(A) has

been adopted for this assessment.

The actual value chosen for the fixed lower limit within the 35-40 dB(A) range should depend

upon the number of dwellings affected, the effect of noise limits upon the amount of energy

generated and the duration and levels of exposure.

12.2.2 Night-time Noise Limits

Different standards apply at night, where sleep disturbance is the primary concern rather than

the requirement to protect outdoor amenity. Night-time is considered to be all periods between

23:00 and 07:00. A limit of 43 dB(A) is recommended for night-time at wind speeds or locations

where the background noise level is less than 38 dB(A). Where background noise levels exceed

38 dB(A) the limit is set to 5 dB(A) above the background noise level. There is also provision for

an increase in the fixed lower limit value where the occupier of the property has a financial

interest in the proposed wind turbine. In this situation, the limit for both daytime and night-time


158

becomes the higher of 45dB(A) or 5 dB(A) above the prevailing background noise level for the

relevant period.

The increased limits have been applied to property B and property A the closest two properties,

as the occupants will have a financial involvement in the proposed development.

12.3 Baseline Conditions

The Appendix ES Vol 2 reproduces a noise contour plot, showing noise levels for Garth Fawr wind

turbine as contours.

It has been assumed in the preparation of the noise contour plot that the turbine is downwind

of each calculation point thus providing a maximum noise scenario.

The lowest applicable noise limit under ETSU-R-97 is 35 dB, LA90, 10min. Therefore properties

where the noise level equals or is below this level are not considered to be impacted by the wind

turbine.

As can be seen by Table 7 the predicted noise levels at the nearest non-financially involved

properties at Garth Hall, are below 35dB(A) and as such no further assessment has been

undertaken.

The detailed technical noise assessment can be viewed in ES Vol 2 Appendix of the Noise

Assessment.

Table 7. Predicted receiver noise levels (L90) shown for each property.


159

12.4 Conclusion

An assessment of the operational noise impacts of the proposed EWT 54 wind turbine has been

carried out in accordance with appropriate guidance (ETSU-R- 97).

The conclusion of the operational noise assessment is that the noise levels at the nearest non-

involved properties to the proposed Garth Fawr turbine are below levels of assessment as

identified by ETSU. The absence of proximate dwellings leads to the conclusion that the local

amenity will not be adversely impacted.


160

CHAPTER 13

SHADOW FLICKER


161

13 SHADOW FLICKER

13.1 Summary

This assessment identifies and outlines the potential effects of shadow flicker on surrounding

residential properties (receptors) as a result of the operation of the Development.

13.2 Introduction

Wind turbines being large structures, can cast long shadows when the sun is low in the sky. Wind

turbines can cause ‘shadow flicker’ under certain circumstances. This happens when the sun

passes behind a moving blade and casts a shadow on the window of a neighbouring property the

likelihood of this occurring and the duration of such an effect depends upon the following:

The direction of the residence relative to the turbine(s);

The distance from the turbine(s);

The turbine hub height and rotor diameter;

The time of year;

The proportion of daylight hours in which the turbine operates;

The frequency of bright sunshine and cloudless skies (particularly at low elevations

above the horizon); and

The prevailing wind direction.

13.3 Planning Policy & Guidance

Within the UK there is no standard for the assessment of shadow flicker and there are no

guidelines on what exposure would be acceptable, therefore in accordance with Onshore Wind

Turbine information requirements this assessment seeks to quantify the effect.

Shadow flicker only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a

narrow window opening;

Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north of the turbines can be

affected at UK latitudes;

Shadow flicker has been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a

turbine position;


162

Less than 5% of photo-sensitive epileptics are sensitive to the lowest frequencies of

2.5-3 Hz; the remainder being sensitive to higher frequencies; and

A fast-moving three-bladed wind turbine will give rise to the highest levels of flicker

frequency of well below 2 Hz. The new generation of wind turbines is known to

operate at levels below 1 Hz.

13.4 Methodology & Baseline Description

The shadow flicker methodology utilised for this assessment presents a worse‐case

prediction of potential effects. In practice, shadow flicker effects would occur for

considerably less time than the worst‐case predictions as calculated by the shadow flicker

model. There are two principal reasons for this; firstly, in the UK sunshine typically occurs

for approximately 30% of daylight hours. At other times, the wind turbines are unlikely to

cast shadows sufficiently pronounced to cause shadow flicker effects to occur. Secondly,

during those times when wind turbine rotors are not orientated directly towards receptors,

i.e. the nacelle and blades are not face on to the receptors, the duration of the shadow

flicker effects would be reduced due to the elliptical shape of the shadow cast. Therefore

the widths of the shadow cast would range from the thickness of the blade when the blades

are in line with the sun and receptor to a width equal to the rotor diameter, at those times

when the rotor is perpendicular to the sun and receptor.

The objective of the study was to calculate the number of hours per year that the turbine

is likely to cause shadow flicker for at least one of the 5 receptors within the 540m zone.

This will allow the developer to estimate the maximum extent and revenue loss from any

required shut down mitigation that could be required. In order to compute the shadow

dates and times for dwellings within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine, the calculation was

run for all receptors within 540 metres of the turbine.The analysis was performed using the

following assumptions.

The Assessment Zone is within 540m of a turbine.

A representative window is 1m square, facing the proposed turbine, without any

intervening shade.

Bright sunny days account for from 40% in the summer to 20% in the winter.

Days when the turbine disc is at right angles to the receptor is 17%.

Days when the turbine is not rotating is 14%.

There is an absence of local shielding features such as trees and buildings (conservative

assumption). Terrain shielding, however, is modelled.


163

13.5 Assessment of Potential Effects

Figure 2

ANNUAL PERIODS SHADOW


164

SITE LOCATION AND NEAREST RECEPTORS Figure 1


165

13.6 Summary of Effects

The shadow “footprint” from the turbine is shown in Figure 2 above (Annual shadow Periods).

Areas within 540m that will receive shadow are shaded. Annual exposure contours are shown in

black are in 50 hour steps. Areas not shaded will not receive shadow flicker. The results of the

study are shown in the Table above (Shadow Statistics) Assuming:

That the sun is always shining between dawn and dusk.

That the turbine is always facing the receptors.

That the wind is always blowing.

That the turbine is not shut down.

The theoretical maximum hours per year where shadow flicker can occur at H1 is 121 hours. This

will only occur in the months of Late January to early March and October/November. Met Office

sunshine data indicates that in these Autumn/winter months the sun will on average shine for

only about 28% of the time. This will reduce the maximum annual hours to 34 hours. Other

meteorological and operational factors will reduce this figure still further. Shadow flicker requires

that the relevant room be facing towards the turbine and be occupied at that time of day.

Intervening buildings may also reduce the impact from shadow flicker.

SHADOW TABLE STATISTICS


166

13.7 Conclusions

A shadow flicker assessment was undertaken based on a 540m assessment zone, demonstrating

that three receptor locations may be exposed to shadow flicker. Mitigation should be considered

if complaints occur. The Maximum theoretical cumulative shadow flicker at the three affected

receptors is 121.5, 73 and 18 hours respectively. Allowing for winter sunshine hours of about

35%, this will reduce to practical level of 42, 25 and 6 hours per year. The shadow flicker

experienced at Garth Hall of 6 hours per year is negligible and considered to be within

recommended guidelines. Occupancy and intervening buildings will reduce this figure still

further.

If complaints concerning shadow flicker were to arise, mitigation measures such as installing

window blinds could be implemented. Ultimately, systems for stopping turbine rotation during

relevant periods on sunny days are available and should be deployed if complaints cannot

otherwise be resolved. This remedy removes the effect completely. This could be enforced by a

planning condition.

The frequency of any shadow flicker from the proposed turbines is outside of the range which is

said to affect epileptics. No adverse health effects from shadow flicker are therefore predicted.


167

Documents

Garth Farm Wind Turbine