Upload
keith-heywood
View
218
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
http://www.thmcf.org/downloads/PoEFinal.pdf
Citation preview
1
T&HMCF/01
Section 36 Electricity Act 1989 and Section 90 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
PI Ref.: GDBC/003/00025C/1 and GDBC/003/00025C/2
Thorne & Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum
Proof of Evidence
In respect of proposals to develop wind farms at
Tween Bridge, Thorne near Doncaster,
South Yorkshire
and Keadby, North Lincolnshire.
December 2006
2
Thorne & Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum
Proof of Evidence
CONTENTS
1. Summary 3
2. Introduction 4
3. The Forum’s case 5
3.1 Main
3.1.1 Impact upon SAC 6
3.1.2 Impact upon SPA 7
3.1.3 Harrier spp. 14
3.2 Other aspects of concern 19
3.2.1 Landscape 19
3.2.2 Demonstration of need 19
3.2.3 Planning context 20
3.2.4 In combination and cumulative impact 21
3.2.5 Other nature conservation interest 21
4. References 22
Appendix I Abridged Curriculum Vitae of the Executive Committee.
Appendix II Forum’s Constitution.
Appendix III T&HMC Forum leaflet.
Appendix IV English Nature Research Report 704.
3
1 SUMMARY
1.1 T&HMC Forum (hereafter referred to as ‘the Forum’) provide argument
herein which demonstrates the failure of the developers to have taken due and
appropriate account of European legislation (the two EU Directives enacted in UK
law as Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994) which clearly requires
them to provide assurances that the development, both alone or in combination, will
not have a significant impact upon the interest features of a European site.
1.2 The Inspectorate will be aware that the precautionary principle in European
law is now enshrined in Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty. The Environmental
Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC, as amended) makes express reference to the need
to assess the environmental impacts of development projects within the context of the
precautionary principle.
1.3 The Forum is a strong advocate of the precautionary principle underpinned by
the belief that affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio should apply (‘The burden of
proof lies with him who affirms, not with him who denies’). The Forum offer that the
EIAs have not provided a reasoned justification for their conclusions of ‘no adverse
effect’, nor have they demonstrated sufficient regard to the precautionary principle.
The Forum asserts that the developers have failed to provide evidence that would
satisfy the legal requirement that the development would not have a significant impact
upon the interest features of the Natura 2000 site.
1.4 The Forum also believes that the data provided by the developers do not
permit the construction of an adequate carbon budget, from which it would be
possible to assess whether the proposal contributes positively to the UK’s sustainable
energy supply. The engineering specifications of the turbines, especially their
foundations, are insufficiently detailed to determine the mass of concrete required.
And no accurate figures are provided on the direct and indirect impacts on the peat
deposits in the area. Damage to these latter could result in their oxidisation, and the
release of large quantities of carbon dioxide.
4
In view of these arguments, we respectfully request that the Inspector dismiss the
appeal.
Please note that the Forum reserve the right to provide further evidence and or
rebuttal, if and as necessary, as the Inquiry proceeds.
5
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The Forum’s specialist area is, as defined in our Constitution … The
conservation of Thorne and Hatfield Moors, their biodiversity, and their geological,
palaeoecological, archaeological and historic features, seeking to sustain and where
possible to improve, their environmental quality.
2.2 See also the Forum’s general information leaflet (Appendix III) and Section 3
of the Forum’s Constitution (Appendix II) and reference to the Humberhead Levels.
2.3 By way of qualification of interest as a Rule 6 party please see our Abridged
Curricula Vitae of the Executive Committee, Appendix I.
6
3 THE FORUM’S CASE
3.1 The Forum objects to the proposed developments at Tween Bridge and
Keadby, primarily on the grounds that their proximity to three sites with statutory
nature conservation designations, which poses significant threats to the designated
features of these sites. These are:
Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moor
Site of Special Scientific Interest – designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 (as Amended).
Special Area of Conservation – registered under the Conservation (Natural Habitats
&c) Regulations 1994.
Hatfield Moor
Site of Special Scientific Interest – designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 (as Amended).
Special Area of Conservation – registered under the Conservation (Natural Habitats
&c) Regulations 1994.
These two sites are together classified as The Thorne and Hatfield Moors Special
Protection Area, under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994.
Parts of Hatfield Moors, Thorne Crowle and Goole Moor are declared as the
Humberhead Peatlands National Nature Reserve (various dates and additions).
Humber Estuary
Site of Special Scientific Interest – designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 (as Amended)
possible Special Area of Conservation (pSAC) - under the Conservation (Natural
Habitats &c) Regulations 1994
potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) - under the Conservation (Natural Habitats
&c) Regulations 1994
7
The nature conservation features of the above sites, for which they received their
Natura 2000 status are:
• Raised mire habitats on Hatfield Moors, Thorne Crowle and Goole Moors
SSSI and SAC;
• Breeding Nightjar on Thorne and Hatfield Moors SPA;
• Breeding Marsh Harrier and wintering Hen Harrier on the Humber Estuary
pSPA
These features are the primary focus of the Forum’s objection.
Details of the European Directives under which these sites were created as Natura
2000 are available in the Core Documents (X/6), as are the site citations. We believe
that these documents are not contested and are effectively accepted as matters of fact
and as such regarded as common ground.
3.1.1 SAC and the potential impact upon the hydrological integrity of the peat
body forming Thorne Moors.
The Forum believes that there has been insufficient information/data submitted in
respect of the impact upon the hydrological integrity of the peat body.
Thorne and Hatfield Moors are notable as having developed in an area of low
rainfall(510 mm/yr), warm temperature and high evapotranspiration potential, they
are effectively at the margins of viable raised mire development.
This is a view acknowledged and recognised by statutory agencies, authorities and
academics.
"Most mire research has been conducted in areas where there is high precipitation,
where bogs are frequent (Moore, 1997). However, mires also form in areas where
precipitation is low. Thorne and Hatfield Moors are located in a climatically
marginal area for the development of raised mire
8
(Money, 1995). "
Recognising the above and acknowledging that the peat bodies of Hatfield, Thorne,
Crowle and Goole Moors are all surrounded by intensive agriculture, added to which
the major development of Finningley Airport and its associated infrastructure, is in
itself a serious threat in terms of emissions and chemical deposition to the condition
assessment for the SSSI. The cumulative impact of additional industrial
developments close to the sensitive hydrological unit at Thorne Moors places
unacceptable levels of uncertainty to safeguard the SAC integrity.
There is also uncertainty relating to the impact of groundwater abstraction upon the
SAC. A clear relationship between abstraction and the sensitive hydrology of the peat
body has yet to be established. Investigations are currently ongoing and being
undertaken by both statutory agencies, authorities and the water companies to provide
an accurate assessment.
It is therefore crucial that the hydrological integrity of the peat body is not impacted
upon. Structures in excess of 400’ need substantial foundations: it has been estimated
(CD 16) that they will require approximately 376m3 / 902 tons of high CO2 producing
cement as well as metal piles driven into the underlying geology. To date the
developers have not provided any detail of the depth, material etc. which will be
required to stabilise such structures. Without the provision of such data the Forum is
not assured of safeguard to the SAC interest. Further, in the absence of data on
engineering specifications for the foundations, nor on direct and indirect peat losses, it
is impossible to construct a carbon budget for the developments. Water loss from peat
can be either lateral or vertical through the damaged mineral. The depth required for
the piles has not been given, it may be that it will breach the Lake Humber clays:
these provide an almost impermeable lining to the basin within which the raised mires
originally formed. The Quaternary geology of the Humberhead Levels has recently
been summarized by Gaunt et al. (2006), and it is apparent that, in the past, systems
have been entirely supported by freshwater, perched above the membrane provided by
the Lake Humber clays. Any unsealed breach of this, in the present environment of
extensive pumping of groundwater, would lead to water loss and consequent
9
oxidation of the peat. If the peat body is dewatered the peat will oxidise, CO2 will be
released and the carbon sink will be lost as a resource for future generations.
Whilst we would not suggest that there is a direct comparable situation between
Thorne Moors and the Derrybrien bog burst in County Galway, Ireland there are
equally serious issues which the developers and indeed the statutory agencies should
consider.
It should be noted that, as a consequence of failing to consider (in the EIA) fully the
implications of a major development (wind farm) upon the peat body at Derrybrien,
the European Union is prosecuting the Irish Government in the European Court of
Justice.
3.1.2 SPA and the likely significant impact upon the nightjar interest of the
Thorne & Hatfield Moors population.
The Humberhead Peatlands population of nightjar represents c.1.9% of the UK
breeding population (see site citation).
In March 2004, the Forum provided within the document T&HMC Forum, Response
to: Tween Bridge Wind Farm Environmental Statement a model drafted by Brian
Eversham which has subsequently been re-examined and by application of Berry &
Bibby (1981) recalculated by Dr T Melling of the RSPB:
Average fledging of Nightjars is 0.93 young per pair per year, taking into account the
existence of some second broods.
Let us assume that the Thorne population is c. 20 pairs, based on average figures
taken from annual Thorne Moors Bird Reports. (Note that censuses are all based on
counts of churring males. No data appear to be available on the presence and
behaviour of non-breeding males. There is some evidence of additional males feeding
young birds at the nest, which may imply that there are unpaired males in the
territory. Hence, the count of churring males may over-estimate the numbers of pairs
somewhat.)
10
20 pairs producing 0.93 fledglings each = 18.60 young per year
Little information is available on longevity, but the oldest recorded ringed bird was 8
years old. That, coupled with first breeding generally at age of 1 year, suggests that
they are not very long-lived. (For comparison, another seldom-ringed bird, the Twite,
has a maximum age recorded as 6yrs 1 month; this compares with tits with maximum
age (on much bigger samples) of 8-11 yrs, which have 50% survival annual from
maturity, and much larger clutch sizes).
If average lifespan of adults is 4 years (perhaps an over-estimate), 20 pairs (c. 40
birds) need to recruit 10 replacements a year to sustain the population.
So, at present, 10 of the 18.6 fledged birds (53.8%) would need to survive migration
to and from sub-Saharan Africa, and over-wintering, which sounds precarious.
However, most mortality from turbines will be of foraging adults gathering insects to
feed their chicks. This therefore results in loss of reproductive output for the year, and
a loss of breeding adults which needs to be made good. For example:
If 4 birds are killed by turbines in a year, it is likely that 4 pairs will fail to reproduce,
which reduces chick numbers from 18.6 to 14.9 (4 x 0.93 chicks = 3.72 fledglings)
Adult mortality would be 4 birds higher, so the loss to be made up that year would be
14 rather than 10.
So, whereas without turbines, 10 out of 18.6 chicks (53.8%) must survive migrations
and over-wintering, with 4 adult deaths in the year, 14 out of 14.9 (94.0%) need to
survive in order to maintain a constant population.
If 5 adults die, and those pairs do not reproduce, 4.65 chicks are lost, so productivity
falls to 13.95 birds, and the required recruitment is now 10 + 5 = 15 out of 13.95 =
108% must survive migration and wintering.
If 6 adults die, and those pairs do not reproduce, 5.58 chicks are lost, so productivity
11
falls to 13.02 birds, and the required recruitment is now 10 + 6 = 16 out of
13.02 = 123% must survive migration and wintering.
Note that, if all the current and proposed turbine applications were approved, 4
nightjar deaths per year would represent 1 bird per 63 turbines per year (assumes
250 turbines total); 5 deaths represent one bird per 50 turbines.
With this sort of population structure, longevity, and reproductive capacity, loss of
even a handful of birds each year to turbines would be gravely damaging to the
population, and thus to the SPA designation.
There is no real fact base to discount the potential impact of turbines, especially when
a nightjar population will be increasingly crowded into a strip of drier habitat around
the edge of the moors as the centre of the Moors is gradually wetter through EN
management for the SAC interest features. Noise may well be a problem, either by
disrupting the establishment of territories, or by disrupting feeding behaviour in
addition to direct killing of birds which forage off the moors.
The recalculation shows that the risk is far greater than initially presented. If Murison
(2002) were to be used in the same model above, then the risk would be even greater.
Any one of the three models is clear in conclusion, i.e. that the SPA nightjar
population is placed beyond sustainability of retaining a viable breeding population.
In recent years annual surveys have shown an increase in churring males. It is a
recognised fact that whilst accepted methodology, it does not provide an accurate
picture of breeding or success: it is neither an accurate estimate of the number of
mated pairs holding territories, nor of the reproductive success of those pairs . The
Forum offer, that a developer who was sincere in environmental concerns would have
initiated a series of scientific surveys which would over a number of seasons (three
were suggested) establish the breeding success of the Humberhead population, not
merely the presence of churring males early on in the breeding season.
12
The DTI were provided with a project proposal in April 2004 which clearly explained
the need for more than a single breeding season’s data and had the proposal been
implemented it would have given the developers a minimum of two seasons data, not
the few days offered in the ES, then the eight days radar work of 2005, selectively
interpreted in the Supplementary Planning Statement of January 2006.
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Thorne 33 27 32 30 45 35 30 24 29 29
Hatfield 29 29 32 37 29 21
Total 56 61 62 82 64 51
Table showing numbers of churring males over a ten year period.
What the table does illustrate is the fluctuating fortunes of a migratory species. It also
shows the potential a major industrial development could have on an already unstable
population, this in conjunction with the recalculated model is unacceptable.
Palmer (2002) records that the Humberhead population is an anomalous one and
therefore for E-On to offer comparisons with southern heaths is unwise and
unscientific. See also Palmer’s response to E-On’s ES March 2004 and appended in
its whole to the Forum’s Statement of Cases.
Natural England (previously English Nature) report in their Statement of Case that
they have been in discussions with the developers about radar data. Whilst we
understand that a nightjar ‘rule set’ has been proposed we further understand that this
is not conclusive. As this material has not been made available to the Forum we have
been unable to examine it and therefore we may in due course ask for an adjournment
so that we can analyse it and if necessary offer rebuttal.
What we have seen is the Supplemental Planning Statement (January 2006) and we
have noted the conclusions made by the consultants on behalf of the developers.
13
What we are unable to locate is the information obtained through rigorous and
conclusive research required for them to arrive at such conclusions.
For example, Appendix 1 Monitoring European Nightjar.
alludes to the initial aims agreed with English Nature (now Natural England), which
were subsequently revised without a detailed rationale as to the benefit of this reduced
protocol.
Section 2 provides an explanation of the CSL equipment and its capabilities.
Equipment limitations are acknowledged in so far as birds can be blocked by
landscape clutter and more importantly the consultants acknowledge that “The
equipment used by CSL is unable to identify individual bird species based on radar
echo alone”. They then go on to propose that “in conjunction” with observers field
skills the findings are acceptable, without qualifying observer competencies or
experience etc. As the inferences are not supported by conclusive research they are
therefore reduced to unscientific predictions which the Forum assert are not
acceptable for this SPA species.
We note in Volume 1, Section 4 Ecology such admissions as low visibility when the
work was being undertaken, but then CSL add that there were few movements and
heights were low. We offer that such statements are contradictory and unscientific, if
visibility is poor then it is likely that little will be observed especially movements or
height. However, when one examines the amount of ornithological activity shown on
the aerial photographs included in the Appendices it is considerable, particularly
given they only undertook eight evening sessions. More importantly, we further offer
that no valid clarification has been provided which establishes/differentiates the
species logged. Returning to Section 4 and the ‘collision risk calculation’ and the
reason given for concluding a low risk (‘insignificantly small proportion’) was the
low level of activity within the windfarm area throughout the breeding and migration
period and low flight heights. Elsewhere in the report one reads that the radar
detected seven flights between 35 and 125m but they were “considered unlikely” to
be nightjar, again we would require reliable evidence of the identity of the species.
Activity is logged up to 450m from the boundary of the SPA, all below 6m yet later
again they report nightjar flying over 15m birch.
14
Clearly, there are numerous contradictory statements within the consultants’ report.
Selective interpretation has no place in a situation which involves a Natura 2000 site.
Even though there were only eight nights spent gathering data, sufficient data were
gathered to place considerable doubt as to the level of impact which would result if
the proposal were approved.
The proposed turbines are a mere 250m from the SPA boundary, CSL logged flight
activity 450m from the boundary which would bring birds well within range of the
blades given that seven flights were again within blade range.
The consultants also promote the view that nightjars do not fly at any great height.
Whilst this may have an element of fact, it is not a rule. Forum officers have
personally observed nightjars ascend in excess of 40m on areas of Hatfield Moor.
Forum officers are also aware of a local report relating to nightjar hawking insects
around Thorne Colliery security lighting, suggesting that birds will fly high if the prey
species is available and as such could be at risk from collision if feeding within blade
height path.
The Forum do not believe that adequate data was gathered over a sufficient time
period, one season does not provide confidence for the subjective conclusion drawn.
3.1.3 Marsh and Hen Harrier use of the Humberhead Peatlands
Marsh and Hen Harrier are protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 (General Protection, Schedule 1(1) and Schedule 4). It is also protected in
Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive 1979.
JNCC lists current threats to Marsh Harrier as including the loss and drying out of
wetland habitats. They also detail the UK’s SPA for Marsh Harrier suite as
supporting, on average, 116 females (as males commonly pair with more than one
female, the UK SPA population is expressed as numbers of females). This amounts to
about 74% of the British breeding population, which was 157 females (Stone et. al.
15
1997). This total is contained within 10 sites where they have been listed as a
qualifying species. The Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast are one of these sites and
are estimated to support 7% of the national population (11 females).
It is therefore reasonable to promote the area as an important one for both Marsh and
Hen Harrier.
A number of surveys have been carried out on behalf of both E-On and RES. Both
developers through their consultants conclude there is little Harrier spp activity and
their proposed wind farm development would have no significant impact upon either
species population.
To ensure that Harriers are deterred from utilising the wind farm area it has been
proposed that all set-aside and game cover would be removed. Inference within the
developers reports suggests that English Nature found this acceptable.
The Forum finds it surprising that such changes in agricultural land use would be
supported by the government’s statutory conservation advisor (and now, as Natural
England, the body responsible for grant aid to agriculture). Indeed, in areas adjacent
to SPAs and SACs, the conditions of the government’s Single Payment Scheme,
Entry Level Scheme and Higher Level Schemes of environmental stewardship, would
generally be targeted to encourage farmers to provide habitats which would support
the species for which the Natura 2000 sites were designated. No evidence is presented
on the contents of any Farm Environment Plans in the vicinity of the areas proposed
for the turbines, nor of the longer term plans of local land-owners with regard to
agricultural support schemes. So, it is possible that larger areas of ‘game cover’ and
species-rich field margins would be created in the area in the near future.
Even if all environmentally friendly measures were to be removed from local farming
to accommodate the proposed ‘mitigation’, this would NOT stop Harrier spp. (nor
indeed Nightjar) from coming across over the peat body and woodland fringe of
Thorne Moors and entering the wind farm site and risking death. The Forum are
unable to find case study examples of this kind which prove that such negative
‘mitigation’ (=habitat destruction) is successful, but it is NOT for the objectors to
provide such evidence: the onus of proof lies with the advocates of such measures i.e.
16
the developers. We therefore request that such evidence be provided before any
confidence can be placed on the contradictory advice of either Natural England (the
Rural Development Service are now part of the new organisation) or the advocates of
the scheme.
Further, it should be noted that there has already been a change of land ‘occupier’
within the area of the proposed wind farm. The Walker land holding, which includes
the SSI Whittaker’s Plantation will no longer be intensively farmed but in a manner
which will actively encourage wildlife use. (J P Walker, pers. comm.) Effectively
this change of land use will negate the removal of other holdings game cover etc. as a
mitigation measure. In view of the possibility that areas termed ‘game cover’ will be
providing habitat for other species, particularly invertebrates which may also be liable
to protection, can the developers assure us that the necessary surveys have been
carried out before destruction?
Merely because the proposed game cover habitat loss lies outside the Natura 2000
sites does not mean that it should be ignored. The Planning Inspector in the case of
Dibden Bay SPA (2004) gave weight to habitat loss outside the designated sites. So, if
the removal of set-aside and game cover represents a loss of feeding habitat for
harriers, and if it would occur solely as a consequence of the wind turbine
development, the Inspector’s decision in the case of Dibden Bay SPA is relevant: in
that case, referring to habitat loss outside of the designated site, the Inspector
commented that “No part of this area is within the boundary of any European site.
Nevertheless, it provides a feeding resource for various fish-eating birds which are
part of the assemblage for which the SPA is classified.”-
The data provided herein are easily available to anyone undertaking even a cursory
desk top analysis and are available in the form of annual bird reports collated and
compiled by experienced and competent volunteer observers and printed by English
Nature.
The tables provide details of the number of birds seen in each month of the year over
an arbitrary ten year period. However it should be recognised that the sightings are
likely to reflect the number of days available to and spent in the field by the
17
ornithologists. Where no records are logged for a month, it is just as likely to mean
no observer out on the moor, as no Marsh Harrier presence.
J F M A M J J A S O N D
1994 44 5 3 3 22 9 7 1
1995 3 8 7 15 20 9 3 11 14 1 1
1996 3 3 4 8 2 3 12 17 3
1997 1 10 10 2
1998 4 12 18 15 3 21 21 7
1999 4 9 19 16 11 32 41 2
2000 3 7 22 16 12 14 23 50 7
2001 8 22 8 10 26 20 10 2
2002 4 6 11 2 6 31 33 7
2003 2 3 5 17 3 1 24 25 9 6 4
2004
Numbers of Marsh Harrier records over a ten year period.
(Source: Thorne Moors Annual Bird Reports, EN)
J F M A M J J A S O N D
1994 9 1 2 1 4 14 3
1995 5 4 3 6 6 2
1996 9 5 7 4 4 4
1997 4 1 11 4 2 1 3
1998 6 1 6 6 1 6 2 3
1999 7 1 7 3 8 4 9
2000 9 6 11 2 1 1 6 6
2001 5 1 7 1 2 3 13
2002 1 1 9 2 5 6 5
2003 11 9 5 5 1 4 5 3
2004
Numbers of Hen Harrier records over a ten year period.
18
(Source: Thorne Moors Annual Bird Reports, EN)
Harrier Records
Date Species Sex
21.02.2004 Hen Harrier Male
Flew over pylon north west of Sunset Cottage.
Flying north-south. Height approximately 50m
over wires.
04.04.2004 Marsh Harrier Hunting over eastern side of Thorne Moors.
15.06.2004 Marsh Harrier
Hunting east of Jaques Bank near Barkers
piggery.
01.05.2005 Hunting to west Sunset Cottage.
24.05.2005 Marsh Harrier
Hunting over mineral line approximately 1pm.
Flying north to south.
05.06.05 Marsh Harrier Female
Hunting over field to west of Jaques Bank
behind Brown's Farm.
06.06.05 Marsh Harrier Female
Spotted on Lovers Ground/Marsh Road. Flying
south to north.
25.06.05 Marsh Harrier Female
Sighted on Jaques Bank next to nissan hut.
Hunting. 2-10m.
25.07.05 Marsh Harrier
Hunting over pea filed east of Jaques Bank 2-
10m.
21.08.05
Common
Buzzard
Spotted over Sunset Cottage flying west to east
(high).
27.08.2005 Marsh Harrier
Hunting north of Sunset Cottage. Erratic flight
due to mobbing by Kestrel.
29.08.2005 Marsh Harrier
Four Marsh Harriers to north east of Sunset
Cottage over Albone's land. Spit into 3 and 1.
06.09.2005 Marsh Harrier
Hunting over M. Ella's field east of Jaques
Bank.
01.02.2006 Marsh Harrier
To west of Sunset Cottage. Flew over pylon
wires approximately 50m. Descended to point
19
on moors.
02.02.2006 Marsh Harrier
To east of Pilfrey Bridge, Keadby. To east of
pylon line. Height 30-40m (being harassed by
Crow).
10.02.2006 Marsh Harrier
Sighted to west of Jacques Bank. Height 20-
25m.
12.02.2006 Marsh Harrier
Sighted flying east to west. Height 40m.
Headed to point.
18.02.2006 Marsh Harrier Female
Flying just west of Sunset cottage. Travelling
north to south. Flew through pylon wires.
02.04.2006 Marsh Harrier
Spotted east of Groves Farm flying north to
south. Height approximately 40m.
10.04.2006 Marsh Harrier
Spotted flying north east to south west over
signal box. Flew over pylon wires.
20.04.2006 Marsh Harrier
Sighted flying west to east along canal. Turned
south at Sunset cottage. Height 4-6m.
03.09.2006 Marsh Harrier
Hunted over garden and pond (Sunset Cottage).
Flew south to north at approximately 10m.
Late pm.
04.09.2006 Marsh Harrier
Flew over garden of Sunset Cottage. North to
south. Height under main power line - 30m
approximately. Harassed by Kestrel.
14.10.2006 Marsh Harrier
Seen flying north to south over filed to east of
Sunset Cottage. Flew over pylon wires.
Approximately 40-45m.
14.11.2006 Marsh Harrier
Seen in field east of Sunset Cottage flying
south to north. 3.40pm. Height approximately
40m.
Table: Casual observations of harrier activity including the period surveyed by
commercial consultants. (Source: Peter Hart.)
20
3.2 Other aspects of concern to the Forum include:
3.2.1 Landscape impact by virtue of loss of wilderness value.
The Forum recognise that the issue of wilderness value and impact thereon is a
subjective analysis, ideally a quantifiable method would be available.
However in an endeavour to assist the discussion we would cite for example
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council who recently as part of their Local
Development Framework research commissioned ECUS to undertake a
Landscape Character Capacity Study (see Core Document 123: DMBC
Landscape Character Assessment of Doncaster), which showed that Thorne &
Hatfield Moors had zero to low capacity for wind farm developments.
A number of studies undertaken by statutory agencies and authorities have
also established that visitors to Thorne and Hatfield Moors value the unspoilt
wilderness.
3.2.2 Demonstration of need.
Volume 3 of the Supplementary Environmental Information, 4.12 Discusses
need for the development. There is a distinct failure to acknowledge the
importance of peat as a climate change regulator and carbon sink. There has
been no work undertaken to provide assurances that the hydrological integrity
of the surviving surface peat bodies within Hatfield, Thorne, Crowle and
Goole Moors SAC will not be impacted upon. Identification of the extent and
proximity of the peat underlying the agricultural land through which the
foundations of the turbines will make large holes, and the likely potential of
disruption to the wider peat body will cause oxidisation of the peat and the
release of carbon dioxide. It is possible that the carbon dioxide liberated from
peat oxidisation may exceed that ostensibly ‘saved’ by power generation over
the life of the turbines. This would be a direct contradiction to the reputed
purpose of wind turbines i.e. to generate carbon free electricity.
Failure by the developers to provide raw data from survey work undertaken
belatedly. Preferring simply to submit selective and subjective reports
unsubstantiated by the provision of sound science.
21
E-On particularly but also RES have failed to submit wind speed data which
would demonstrate the viability of the sites. The nominal map included in the
initial ES only shows borderline viability.
The developers have failed to include all data in the emission savings claim.
Energy is required to produce cement, a necessary component in the
construction of wind power stations such as this proposed for Tween Bridge
and indeed Keadby.
3.2.3 Planning context.
Much is made by the developers of planning context, however nowhere are we
able to identify discussion nor more importantly evidence which would satisfy
the criteria on the investigation, identification and consideration of alternative
sites. The recent decisions in the matter of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and
Dibden Bay confirms that the requirement for alternative sites, within the UK
and elsewhere in the European Union, needs to be thoroughly explored, before
planning permission can be awarded. Hoskins & Tyldesley (2006) also
acknowledge that no guidance exists which provides assistance in quantifying
impact in terms of internationally important sites. The Forum believe that
there is insufficient evidence presented by the developers of Tween Bridge in
particular that other potential alternative sites have been examined, and that
baseline studies have been undertaken at each alternative site (a standard
requirement of EIA). There has also been a failure to demonstrate need
(‘imperative reasons of over-riding pubic interest’) in the terms defined above
which might make the application eligible for consideration.
The Habitats Directive, Regional Spatial Strategy, Unitary Development Plans
all accept that Natura 2000 sites are afforded European protection and, to
quote the most recent, the RSS reaffirms that developments will only be
allowed “if in the absence of alternatives, there is an over riding public interest
and compensatory measures are provided”. This same quote is even used by
the developers but has not been discussed, explored and, of more importance,
evidenced.
22
3.2.4 The in combination and cumulative impact of the various
applications (see Fig. 3.1 CD 17 P2) which effectively create a ‘ring of steel’
around the Humberhead Peatlands. The Forum offer that it is an inescapable
conclusion that the in combination effects of the two applications being dealt
with by this Inquiry, the proposal for Goole Fields and Twin Rivers,
Finningley Airport and the issue of water abstraction will have a significant
adverse impact upon the Natura 2000 sites. In light of these the precautionary
principle is invoked and it is not for the competent authority to demonstrate
that the project(s) would be harmful to the international sites, but to ascertain
that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site(s). In assessing
whether it can be ascertained, we promote that it is necessary to look beyond
the boundaries of the site(s) as well as within the site(s).
3.2.5 Other nature conservation interest
Although of less weight than SSSI interests and not imposing the same
statutory considerations in respect of European legislation, the following
matters are nevertheless material to the secretary of State’s decision:
• SSIs (ten were identified by UUGEL/E-On on the southern periphery
of Thorne Moor alone).
• UK BAP habitats and species (Lowland Raised Mire, Lowland Heath ,
Curimopsis nigrita, Large Heath, Woodlark to name but five
examples).
• Other species protected by law.
• Red data book and other rare and threatened species.
23
4 REFERENCES
Documents referred to in the Proof of Evidence and their sources.
Birds of the Western Palearctic (referred to in the Forum’s March 2004 submission) is
available as CD 179.
Berry, R. & Bibby, C.J. (1981) A breeding study of Nightjars. Brit. Birds 74: 161-9.
(Cited and appended by Natural England and RSPB.)
Cresswell, B. (1996) Nightjars some aspects of their behaviour and conservation.
British Wildlife Vol. 7: 297 – 304. (Cited by CSL, so assumed to have been
submitted as supportive paper.)
Gaunt, G. D., Buckland, P. C. & Bateman, M. D. (2006). The geological background
to the development and demise of a wetland - the Quaternary history of the
Humberhead Levels. Yorkshire Naturalist' Union Bulletin 45 Suppl.: 6-46.
* Hoskin, R., & Tyldesley, D. 2006. How the scale of effects on internationally
designated conservation sites in Britain has been considered in decision making: A
review of authoritative decisions. English Nature Research Report 704.
Money, R. P. 1995. Re-establishment of a Sphagnum-dominated flora on cut-over
lowland raised bogs; regeneration with special reference to palaeoecological studies.
In: Wheeler, B.D.; Shaw, S.C.; Fojt, W.J. & Robertson, R. A. (eds.) Restoration of
Temperate Wetlands. J.Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 405-422.
* Murison, G. (2002) The impact of human disturbance on the breeding success of
nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus on heathlands in south Dorset, England. English
Nature Research Report 483.
Palmer, P. (2002) Movements of foraging nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus at Hatfield
Moor and some aspects of their ecology. A report to English Nature. (Cited by CSL,
as well as earlier E-On consultants, so assumed to have been submitted as supportive
paper.)
24
* Available as a pdf via www.english-nature.org.uk