Gores Wind Farm. Environmental Statement. Volume 1 - Written Text

Transcription

1 Gores Wind Farm Environmental Statement Volume 1 - Written Text

2 Prepared By West Coast Energy Limited Mynydd Awel Mold Business Park Maes Gwern Mold CH7 1XN

3 VOLUME ONE - WRITTEN TEXT CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Foreword 1.2 The Applicant 1.3 The Environmental Statement 1.4 Consultation 1.5 Structure of the Documents 1.6 The Consultancy Team CHAPTER TWO - SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Strategic Site Selection 2.3 Detailed Site Design 2.4 Project Description 2.5 Construction 2.6 Pollution Prevention and Health & Safety 2.7 Site Reinstatement 2.8 Decommissioning CHAPTER THREE NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Impacts of Global Warming & Climate Change 3.3 Tackling Climate Change - International, European & UK Policy 3.4 Renewable Energy Targets & Progress 3.5 Benefits of Renewable Energy Generation 3.6 Benefits of Gores Wind Farm 3.7 Public Perception, Tourism & Economic Impacts 3.8 Conclusion CHAPTER FOUR - LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL 4.1 Executive Summary 4.2 Introduction 4.3 Preamble 4.4 Methodology 4.5 The Proposed Development 4.6 Baseline Conditions 4.7 Impact Assessment 4.8 Mitigation 4.9 Residual Impacts

4 4.10 Potential Cumulative Effects 4.11 Conclusions CHAPTER FIVE CULTURAL HERITAGE 5.1 Executive Summary 5.2 Introduction 5.3 Methodology 5.4 Baseline Conditions 5.5 Impact Assessment 5.6 Mitigation 5.7 Residual Impacts 5.8 Conclusions References CHAPTER SIX HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 6.1 Executive Summary 6.2 Introduction 6.3 Methodology and Approach 6.4 Baseline Conditions 6.5 Recommended Hydrological Constraints 6.6 Construction Impacts 6.7 Permanent and Operational Impacts 6.8 Decommissioning 6.9 Cumulative Impacts 6.10 Summary References CHAPTER SEVEN ECOLOGY 7.1 Executive Summary 7.2 Introduction 7.3 Legislative and Planning Policy Context 7.4 Methodology 7.5 Baseline Conditions and Evaluation of Ecological Receptors 7.6 Summary of Ecological Evaluation 7.7 Impact Assessment 7.8 Mitigation 7.9 Residual Impacts 7.10 Cumulative Impact Assessment 7.11 Conclusions References CHAPTER EIGHT ORNITHOLOGY 8.1 Executive Summary 8.2 Introduction 8.3 Legislative and Planning Policy Context

5 8.4 Methodology 8.5 Baseline Conditions and Evaluation of Ornithological Receptors 8.6 Impact Assessment 8.7 Mitigation 8.8 Residual Impacts 8.9 Cumulative Impact Assessment CHAPTER NINE NOISE & VIBRATION 9.1 Executive Summary 9.2 Noise and Vibration Impact from Wind Farm Developments 9.3 Noise Planning Guidance 9.4 Baseline Noise Measurements 9.5 Wind Turbine Operational Noise Predictions 9.6 Construction Noise Impact Assessment 9.7 Operational Noise Impact Assessment 9.8 Conclusions CHAPTER TEN - SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Safety of Wind Turbines 10.3 Highway Safety 10.4 Shadow Flicker 10.5 Aviation & Radar 10.6 Electromagnetic Interference 10.7 Conclusion

6 Chapter One Introduction

7 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION GORES WIND FARM 1.1 FOREWORD This Environmental Statement (ES) supports an application to Peterborough City Council by Peterborough Wind Energy Ltd (PWEL) for consent under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for construction of a wind development and associated ancillary development on farmland at Gores Farm, Toneham Farm and Pode Hall Farm. The proposal will be referred to as Gores Wind Farm The proposal site is located approximately 2.5km southwest of the village of Thorney and 6km east of Peterborough (approximate site central NGR , ) (Figure 1.1) PWEL seek consent for the installation of eight wind turbine generators and associated ancillary development. Each wind turbine will be rated between 2MW and 3MW installed capacity, thereby giving a maximum total generating capacity for the site of between 16MW and 24MW. The maximum base to vertical blade tip height of the turbines would be up to 126.5m. As is usual with any wind farm development, some flexibility is required in specifying turbine dimensions. Whilst the planning application is seeking a maximum blade tip height of 126.5m, the hub height (or tower height) and the rotor diameter of the turbines may vary slightly depending which particular manufacturer and particular turbine model is ultimately procured. The actual make, model and capacity of the turbines will not be known until the turbine procurement process commences, should planning consent be granted Ancillary development will be limited to the construction of approximately 4.3km of new access track; upgrading of 1.8km of existing farm tracks; an underground electricity cable network, crane hardstandings adjacent to each turbine, substation, anemometry mast and temporary site compound mast. Figure 1.2 presents details of the site layout. 1.2 THE APPLICANT Peterborough Wind Energy Ltd (PWEL) is a subsidiary of West Coast Energy Ltd (WCE), which is a privately owned wind energy developer. PWEL has been specifically set up to develop Gores Wind Farm. PWEL and WCE are registered in England and Wales, with offices in Scotland West Coast Energy Ltd is the agent managing the application process on behalf of PWEL Established in 1996, across the UK wind energy sector, West Coast Energy has developed a reputation as one of the most successful independent developers and service providers, having successfully managed the completion of planning consent for wind farms and extensions, representing around 670MW of capacity, and has potential sites equating to a further 200MW at various planning and preparatory stages. INTRODUCTION Page 1-1

8 1.3 THE The ES has been prepared in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 ( 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 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 wind development 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. 1.4 CONSULTATION The EIA Regulations provide for obtaining a Scoping Opinion from the planning authority on the information to be provided in the ES. The authority is then obliged to consult other statutory consultation bodies before issuing their opinion WCE requested a scoping opinion from Peterborough City Council in March A scoping opinion was issued by Peterborough City Council dated 25 April 2012, which included responses from internal and external consultees including the Environment Agency, Natural England and English Heritage (Technical Appendix 1.1 of ES Volume 2) WCE and our consultants undertook further written pre-application consultations with the Council between July and November A meeting was held between WCE, their consultants and representatives of Peterborough s planning, landscape, biodiversity and archaeological departments to discuss the proposal in November 2012, where the key issues relevant to the proposal were discussed including the viewpoint INTRODUCTION Page 1-2

9 locations for the visualisations, cumulative impact from other wind farms and pre-application public consultation proposal. The views of Peterborough City 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 documents were sent to the following consultees, by either Peterborough City Council and/or WCE (Table 1.1): Table 1.1: Consultee List Subject Area Company Electro- Magnetic Interference Anglian Water Arqiva BBC Cable & Wireless Everything Everywhere/ Hutchison 3G UK Ltd Joint Radio Company (JRC) OFCOM Orange Utilities Highways Air Safety Environment Government O 2 T-Mobile Vodafone Line Search Highways Agency CAA - Directorate of Airspace Policy Defence Estates / MOD NATs Safeguarding Anglian Water British Geological Society Cambridgeshire Bat Group Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biological Records Centre English Heritage Environment Agency Natural England North Level District Internal Drainage Board (NIDB) Peterborough Bird Club Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB) The Wildlife Trust Fenland District Council INTRODUCTION Page 1-3

10 Subject Area Company Peterborough City Council Archaeology Services Peterborough City Council Environmental Health Officer (EHO) Peterborough City Council Landscape Officer Peterborough City Council Conservation Team Peterborough City Council Minerals and Waste Officer Peterborough City Council Planning Peterborough City Council Transport and Engineering Division Peterborough City Council Wildlife Officer Thorney Parish Council 1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENTS The ES for Gores Wind Farm has been prepared in four volumes and the contents are described below: ES Vol. 1 ES Vol. 2 (this document) - contains the written text of the EIA, including site selection and project description, need, benefits and socio-economic impact, and various technical studies and environmental assessments independently undertaken by experienced consultants; contains the Appendices that support the assessments presented in ES Volume 1; ES Vol. 3 contains the maps and figures that support the assessments presented in Volumes 1 and 2; NTS The Non-Technical Summary (NTS), is an executive summary of the Environmental Statement (Volumes 1, 2 and 3), summarising the proposed development, its potential environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures The ES should also be read in conjunction with the Planning Application documentation (bound separately) which contains the completed application forms, a design and access statement, a detailed planning appraisal, and a pre-application consultation report. 1.6 THE CONSULTANCY TEAM In the preparation of this ES, the following consultants were commissioned to undertake the individual environmental impact assessments, and to provide specialist advice in respect of the project design and mitigation measures: Landscape & Visual Assessment Jeffrey Stevenson Associates; Cultural Heritage Headland Archaeology; Ecology - Atmos Consulting Ltd; INTRODUCTION Page 1-4

11 Ornithology - Atmos Consulting Ltd; Hydrology, Hydrogeology & Geology Atmos Consulting Ltd; Noise - Hayes McKenzie Partnership; Roads Transportation Collett Consulting; On-site Track Design and Entrance Junction Design Atkins Ltd; Project Management, Figures & Visuals, Planning Policy, Environmental Statement Compilation and Authoring - West Coast Energy Ltd; and Professional Viewpoint photography Light Angles Photography - Photography by Ian Stacey Copies of the full ES and application documentation can be purchased for 300 in hard copy and 10 for CD copy or are available to download via the West Coast Energy website ( The Non- Technical Summary is available free of charge, on request. Contact: West Coast Energy Ltd, Mynydd Awel, Mold Business Park, Maes Gwern, Mold, Flintshire, CH7 1XN. Tel: info@westcoastenergy.co.uk. INTRODUCTION Page 1-5

12 Chapter Two Site Selection & Project Description

13 CHAPTER TWO: SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter initially describes the site selection process that was undertaken and which has identified the Gores Wind Farm site to be a suitable and commercially viable location for a wind farm. The chapter then focuses on the siting, design and layout of the development, with a detailed analysis of how the site layout was finalised, and describes the proposal in terms of its various permanent and temporary elements While some engineering-related and technical detail will only be finalised upon award of construction contracts, and may vary according to the specific turbines and contractors used, this would not have a material impact on the EIA. 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. 2.2 STRATEGIC 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 carrying out an EIA and developing the detailed design of the proposed project The selection process to identify a location as suitable for a wind farm involves the use of a sieving exercise to eliminate areas that are unsuitable for any number of reasons and to identify sites that may be appropriate, subject to further assessment. The site evaluation process begins with a desk-based analysis and review of documentary evidence, (including the European Wind Atlas) which give an indication of the longterm mean annual wind speeds within a particular area A broad brush initial GIS-based sieving exercise was undertaken for the Cambridgeshire region, which applied arbitrary constrained/unconstrained filters as follows: 1) Average wind speed deemed to be constrained where the wind speed was below 6.8 metres per second and unconstrained/commercially viable in principle where it was greater than 6.8 metres per second see ES Volume 3 Figure 2.1; 2) Areas of national landscape and ecological designations such as National Parks, AONBs, SSSI s, SPA s, SAC s were then categorised as constrained in principle for commercial scale wind farm development these are presented on ES Volume 3 Figure 2.2; 3) The GIS system was also used to apply a residential standoff buffer zone of 600m around residential properties again for the purpose of eliminating areas which could in principle be deemed to be SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-1

14 constrained to commercial scale wind farm development see ES Volume 3 Figure 2.3; 4) A composite broad-brush constraint map which superimposes these three figures was produced, for the purpose of eliminating the majority of the Cambridgeshire landform, whilst conversely, identifying areas of potential that might merit further consideration this figure is presented on Figure 2.4 of ES Volume This rather coarse, high level sieving exercise has eliminated the vast majority of the Cambridgeshire region (i.e. the areas coloured red on ES Volume 3 Figure 2.4) as being constrained for commercial-scale wind farm development Following this initial desktop sieving exercise, a more refined process is followed to identify potentially suitable areas, by more specifically considering sites against the following criteria: Wind resource; Availability of connection to the local electricity distribution system; Potential impact on any designated areas of regional and local importance, and other landscape, nature conservation, archaeology and cultural heritage considerations; Hydrology, geology and general ground conditions; Potential impact on aviation interests; Available access to and from the site (including turbine deliveries); and Landowner participation i.e. availability of the land Following the above GIS/ further desk-based analysis, a number of site visits are then undertaken to verify information. The Gores Wind Farm site was identified as a potential wind energy site because of the following primary attributes: The mean annual wind speed across the site is commercially viable; The site is not located within any internationally, nationally or locally designated sites for ecology, ornithology, landscape or geology; There is a suitable road access to the site; Existing farm tracks within the site where practical will be used, reducing the amount of new track construction work needed; The development will bring diversity of income into the farming economy, and the landowner s day to day operations of farming can continue unimpeded during the operation of the wind farm; and The proposals would meet all nationally recommended requirements with regard to noise 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. Consultee responses received did not raise any issues which gave reasons to reject the site. The list of consultees involved in the scoping process and pre-application consultation is provided in ES Chapter 1 Introduction. SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-2

15 2.3 DETAILED SITE DESIGN Having identified the Gores Wind Farm site as suitable in principle for a wind energy development, the layout and siting of turbines and associated infrastructure was determined through the EIA process, as reported within the ES. Environmental and technical constraints both within and outside of the development site were identified and mapped. Through a dynamic site design process of iterations and refinement, the potential impacts of the proposal have been minimised. The final design sites the turbines in order to capture the maximum wind energy whilst respecting the environmental and technical constraints Environmental constraints were identified by consultation with relevant bodies and specialist EIA studies for aspects such as landscape / visual, access / transport, archaeology, ecology, ornithology, hydrology / hydrogeology and noise. These included ensuring adequate separation distances between turbines and neighbouring residential properties to ensure that the stringent noise emissions limits are met, and that any potential shadow flicker is minimised 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 positions, choice of turbine engineering specifications, route of site access roads, and location of ancillary structures The phases of iterative design were underpinned by a continuous and dynamic process of site evaluation, environmental appraisal, and consultation with various statutory and non-statutory organisations (Table 1.1, Chapter 1). This process of environmental engineering has enabled the project design to inherently avoid (mitigate) potential environmental effects i.e. embedded mitigation. As a result, mitigation is not just used as an add on measure to ameliorate significant environmental effects, but rather is embedded as part of the design process itself Figure 2.6 in ES Volume 3 illustrates a sequence of previous turbine layout iterations that have been considered for the site. During this design iteration period, the number of turbines has reduced from 10 to the current eight turbine layout which forms the basis of this planning submission. Table 2.1 summarises some of the factors that influenced the design during this period. SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-3

16 Table 2.1: Iterative Design Summary Table Layout Date Turbines Design Comments a (TL01a) July Turbines positioned on Gores and Toneham farmland assuming sufficient spacing for 125m tip height turbines. b (TL01n) May Additional land at Pode Hole added to site boundary to enable up to 10 turbines to be considered on farmland at Gores, Toneham and Pode Hole. Turbines considered up to a maximum of 145m tip height. Constraints updated to take into account the position of cultural heritage features, telecommunications links, watercourses and trees. Design presented for scoping. c (TL01r) July Tip height of turbines decreased to 126.5m to minimise visual impacts. Turbines repositioned on Gores, Toneham and Pode Hole farms including for wider woodland buffer (for bats) and additional watercourse buffers in line with North Level Internal Drainage Board requirements of at least 9m between drains and infrastructure. Design optimised for landscape and visual d August 8 impacts by reducing turbine numbers to eight on 2012 (TL01w) Gores, Toneham and Pode Hole at 126.5m tip height. A number of layouts were tested from a series of design viewpoints. The landscape architect advised in design sessions to remove two turbines to create the most appropriate fit in visual and landscape terms reducing the spread of the wind farm and removing outliers. e (TL01z) Oct Consultation with telecommunication link operators suggested that the links in proximity to the site would not be adversely affected by the location of the wind farm and, therefore, the buffers between turbines and the links could be reduced. In order to capture the maximum amount of wind a larger 50m rotor diameter blade was proposed resulting in a 130m tip height on a 80m hub (allowing a greater number of turbine types to be considered for use at the site). The buffer between turbine 4 and the Scheduled Monument barrow was increased to over 200m due to concerns from English Heritage. With the above constraints the design was amended to improve the spacing between the turbines and further optimise the layout for f (TL01z) Feb landscape and visual effects. After further consultation and review of data within the locality; it was decided to reduce the tip height again to 126.5m to conform to the existing operational and consented application within the area. The layout is the same as (e). A lower hub height may still allow for 50m blade options to be considered for use on the site. SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-4

17 2.3.6 The design inputs have therefore 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 these consultations and assessments are contained in the individual chapters within this ES. 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Layout The layout for the proposed Gores Wind Farm is shown on Figure 1.2 of ES Volume 3. The plan indicates the position of the: Eight turbines and crane hardstandings; Vehicular entrance junction; Routes of the proposed on-site access tracks; Existing farm access tracks to be used; Permanent 60m anemometry mast; Substation control building; and Temporary construction compound area and site office. The location of these project elements has been determined after a careful process of iteration and refinement as described above The total site area of Gores Wind Farm is approximately 140 hectares. However due to the nature of a commercial wind farm, the vast majority of the site area is not occupied. The actual development footprint of the wind farm including turbine bases, crane hardstandings, substation, new and upgraded internal access tracks, met mast, and site access (but excluding temporary features) equates to approximately 4.9ha, which is approximately 3.5% of the current site area (or 2% of the survey area) The wind turbines are 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. Onsite and off-site constraints are determined by consultations and environmental impact assessments undertaken as part of the planning and design process. Wind Turbine Specification The proposal is for eight turbines, each with a maximum height to vertical blade tip of 126.5m. As is usual with any wind farm development, some flexibility is required in specifying turbine dimensions. Whilst the planning application is seeking a maximum blade tip height of 126.5m, the hub height (or tower height) and the rotor diameter of the turbines may vary slightly depending which particular manufacturer and particular turbine model is ultimately procured. It is normal practice with any wind farm planning application for the final turbine dimensions, manufacturer and detailed specification to be approved at the post-consent stage, and if necessary this can be controlled through a planning condition. SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-5

18 2.4.5 Each of the eight wind turbine generators will be identical, of three bladed, horizontal axis design, and with an individual rated capacity of between 2MW and 3MW, giving the wind farm an overall potential generation capacity of between 16MW and 24MW Each 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 either within the base of each tower or externally sited a few metres from the turbine tower, would boost the voltage of each turbine s electricity output from 690 volts to 33,000 volts For the purposes of this ES, a turbine of 126.5m tip height and 80m hub height (i.e. 46m blade length) has been considered for the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Chapter 4) and Cultural Heritage Assessment (Chapter 5). An illustration of this indicative turbine type is presented on Figure 1.3 of ES Volume 3. For the Noise Assessment (Chapter 9) a multi-turbine assessment was undertaken to asses a number of currently available potential turbine options which could be installed on the site. The noisiest model, the Gamesa G97, was selected for further assessment and is the model presented in the ES in order to present the worst-case scenario for the potential noise to be emitted from the proposed wind farm At this stage the specific colour of the proposed turbines 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 exact colour and finish specification will be determined by planning condition in consultation with Peterborough City Council The turbines normally start operating when the wind speed reaches approximately 3 metres per second. When the wind speed sensors of a 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 turbines are designed to withstand wind speeds in excess of 40 metres per second and have a failsafe shut down system that will stop the turbine even in the event of total power loss, or in extreme gale conditions The turbines are 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 turbines are designed to work within a climatic range of minus 20 to plus 40 degrees centigrade and are fitted with safety systems to detect the accumulation of ice. Further details are outlined in Chapter 10. SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-6

19 Micrositing As is common practice with wind turbine development, the applicant is requesting the locations of the turbines, access tracks and other associated development (whilst respecting all known constraints) be micro-sited within the red line planning application fee area as shown on Figure 1.2 in ES Volume 3. This area allows for micro-siting of turbines 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to within a 30m radius of the locations shown; and turbines 3 and 4 (where ground conditions and potential archaeology is less certain at this stage) within a 50m radius of the locations shown. It is requested that the tracks could be micro-sited up to 20m (and 10m in most cases) from the locations shown This micro-siting is prudent to allow for relatively modest repositioning to respect any issues arising at the post-consent stage, when detailed engineering and ground investigation takes place. The micro-siting allowance can be controlled by Peterborough City Council through a suitably worded planning condition. Turbine Foundations & Crane Hardstandings The foundations proposed for the turbines are an inverted T in section consisting of a reinforced central concrete pedestal approximately 4.75m square, together with a reinforced concrete slab approximately 17m square (or potentially a circular foundation of similar diameter depending which turbine manufacturer is selected). 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. Figure 1.5 of Volume 3 contains plans and sections of the typical foundation design 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 involve installing a series of concrete piles per turbine, with each pile being bored or driven until the underlying bedrock is reached. The excavated area required for each turbine base will be approximately 20 metres square/20 metres diameter Hardstanding areas are required at the base of each wind turbine for cranes and other vehicles during erection and maintenance of the wind turbines. The hardstanding areas are formed from crushed stone, each approximately 30m wide by 50m long. Substation & Grid Connection The electrical power produced by the individual turbines will be fed to an on-site substation by underground cables. The location of the substation is shown on Figure 1.2 of ES Volume The substation building will measure approximately 12m wide by 26m long by 5.5m high and will be constructed and finished using materials that are in keeping with the area and in accordance with details to be approved by SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-7

20 planning condition by Peterborough City Council. The building will accommodate all of the equipment necessary for automatic remote control and monitoring of the wind farm, together with the electrical switchgear, fault protection and metering equipment required to connect the wind farm to the electricity distribution network. Details of the wind farm substation are shown on Figure 1.8 of Volume The cables will be laid in trenches, typically around 1m deep and 1m wide. The trenches will also carry earthing and communication cables for the operation of the wind farm. The majority of cabling will be located adjacent to the access tracks. The cables will be laid on a sand bed and backfilled using suitably graded material (see Figure 1.5 of ES Volume 3 for indicative cable trench detail) From the on-site wind farm substation, a connection will be made into the existing grid network. The actual connection location and route is currently unknown, however, it is anticipated that connection could either be made to the 33kV or 132kV network. The grid connection may be required back to the Peterborough Central Substation which would likely be via a combination of underground and overground cabling. An application to UKPN is currently being progressed independent of this planning application. Transport Route & Site Access A route access study was undertaken by Collett Transport to identify a suitable delivery route from a nearby port to the site; and Atkins was commissioned to identify the most appropriate site access junction through consultation and liaison with Peterborough City Council and the Highways Agency The expected abnormal load vehicular access route recommended by Colletts is from the A1 (with delivery of materials from a port to the north e.g. Immingham or Goole both of which readily link to A1) to a site access junction on the A47 at NGR , , to the east of Pode Hole Farm The preferred delivery route as shown on Figure 1.1 of ES Volume 3 would be as follows: Continue South on the A1 to junction with A1139/A605 and exit A1; At roundabout junction with A1139/A605, turn left onto A1139 Fletton Parkway; Exit A1139 at junction 3; At roundabout, turn left onto A1260; At roundabout, turn right onto A47; Exit A47 at junction 20 and turn left onto A15 (to avoid weak bridge over A15); At roundabout, circumnavigate onto A15; Exit A15 to roundabout and turn left onto A47; Continue on A47 through 3 roundabouts; Continue on A47 to proposed site entrance. SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-8

21 The proposed vehicular entrance into the site from the A47 has been discussed and agreed with Peterborough City Council Highway officers and the Highways Agency to be the most appropriate in terms of location and achievement of the required visibility splays and with regard to pedestrian and motorist safety. The entrance junction design would be reduced in scale once the wind farm is constructed, with much of the abnormal load overrun area reseeded Three alternative access junction options into the site were initially considered; although were ruled out due to the following reasons: Access from Whittlesey Road B1040 to Gores Farm to the south-east of the site to reach this point access would be required either through the village of Thorney or via the A605 through Whittlesey. Neither of these routes was considered acceptable or possible due to tight bends and a weak bridge located on the A605. Additionally this entrance would have required upgrades to crossings of the Thorney River and the Thorney Dike as the junction splay is very tight. Access from Toneham Farm and B1040 to the east of the site as above to reach this point access would be required either through the village of Thorney or via the A605 through Whittlesey. Neither of these routes was considered acceptable or possible due to tight bends and a weak bridge located on the A605. Additionally this entrance may have required an upgrade to a substantial crossing of Thorney River and would have required passing in close proximity to residential properties. Access from the B1167 to northeast of the site this was the second most preferable option since access could be gained from the A47, however its location just 350m west of the periphery of the village of Thorney made it less favorable than the chosen point 1km further west. Additionally several new substantial crossings of the Thorney River and drains would have been required Prior to construction, appropriate highways safety measures will be agreed with Peterborough City Council and necessary signage or traffic control measures implemented throughout the construction period. Internal Access Tracks 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 each wind turbine position during the construction period. The proposed routing of the internal access tracks were designed by Atkins to be suitable for these vehicles to navigate through the site. In total, approximately 4.3km of new track will be formed; with upgrades to approximately 1.8km of existing farm tracks. The tracks will be approximately 4.5m wide, with some widening on bends, gradients, junctions and turning places A typical track specification is shown on Figure 1.5 of ES Volume 3. The access track will normally be constructed by first stripping the topsoil to a depth of about 0.3m, and laying a compacted stone base. A geotextile membrane will then be laid to reduce the impact on the soils. The track will SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-9

22 then be built up on the geotextile by laying and compacting an additional 0.4m of crushed stone to give a total thickness of approximately 0.7m The tracks would be suitably cambered to allow rainwater to be shed where gradients are present, lateral drains will intercept flow along the road. Where tracks cross existing field drains, these will be either bridged or culverted to prevent any interference with land drainage. Land Drainage Consent will be required for the crossings from the relevant regulatory body (EA, NIDB or Local Authority). Further details are provided in the Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology Chapter of the ES (Chapter 6) The tracks will be left in place after completion of the wind farm construction, as they will provide access for maintenance, repairs and eventual decommissioning of the wind farm. The presence of the tracks will also be of benefit to the agricultural use of the land by facilitating access at all times of the year. Other Ancillary Works A steel lattice anemometry mast of up to 60m height will be installed to provide wind data for the control and monitoring of the turbines, (see Figure 1.2 of Volume 3 for the location of the permanent anemometry mast and Figure 1.4 for the mast detail). Once constructed, this would replace the existing 60m temporary guyed anemometry mast currently located on-site A secure temporary storage compound measuring approximately 70m by 50m will be required during the construction period. The proposed location of the compound is shown on Figure 1.2 of Volume 3. 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 The main site office will be located here and access to the site controlled from this point. The area will also provide visitor parking facilities. The compound and site office area will be constructed and restored using the same methodologies as for the site access tracks. 2.5 CONSTRUCTION Construction Programme The estimated on-site construction period for the development will be approximately six to nine months 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 SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-10

23 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; Construction of temporary site office area and establishment of a storage area for wind farm components and temporary site facilities; Upgrades to existing tracks and construction of new access tracks to wind turbine locations and to substation control building; Construction of wind turbine foundations and hardstanding areas; Excavation of cable trench and cable laying; Construction of substation control building; Erection of wind turbines; Connection of on-site electrical power and signal cables; Commissioning of the site equipment; and 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; and Electrical and fibre optic 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 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 areas 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 areas will be retained for future maintenance SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-11

24 purposes. The topsoil will be replaced and reseeding undertaken as appropriate. Surplus excavated material will be removed from the site, or used for track maintenance during construction, as appropriate. Surplus topsoil will be used to restore track edges after construction. This progressive reinstatement has found to assist with re-establishment of the local ecology as it minimises the time soil and turf are in storage. Construction Traffic & Transportation There will be three types of traffic during the construction of the proposed wind farm: Exceptional (heavy and/or large) loads that will deliver the turbine components (towers, hubs, blades and nacelle units) 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 It is likely that the majority of material will be sourced from the Pode Hole Quarry directly to the west of the site entrance and therefore construction traffic will be limited to a very short section of the A47. The developer will ensure that the vehicles will be routed as agreed with the Council s Highways Department to minimise disruption and disturbance to local residents. Exceptional Loads It is predicted that 72 exceptional loads will come into the site including the tower sections, blades, components of the turbines (hub, nacelle, transformer/gearbox) and mobile cranes. 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 48m All of the exceptional load vehicles will be escorted to and from the site by the police and/or a pilot car in order to assist with traffic control and control oncoming traffic flow. The local police and Highway Authorities 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. Subject to police and Highway Authority input, the abnormal load vehicles would potentially be made overnight to reduce any disruption to traffic flows. 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 ready- SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-12

25 mixed concrete. For each wind turbine there will be around five lorry loads of steel reinforcing, ducting and foundation bolts. The concrete for the turbine foundations will be delivered from local batching plants in the ready-mixed form, each turbine base requiring approximately 80 lorry loads. The foundation concrete will be high strength structural grade, which is not prone to significant leaching of alkalis. Two concrete pumps per foundation will also be required. The total HGV lorry loads per turbine thus totals 85 and equates to 680 in total for the eight turbines The vast majority of the crushed stone for track construction, crane hardstandings, cabling and temporary works will be imported from local quarries. The number of HGV vehicles associated with this element of the development is estimated to be approximately 1, The construction of the substation will require around 30 lorry loads and the anemometer mast approximately eight There will be approximately 250 deliveries of plant, machinery, electrical equipment and other building materials to the site. Where necessary, construction plant, such as excavators and bulldozers will be transported on low loaders In total, the number of HGV lorry loads associated with the construction of the wind farm will be around 2,540. Apart from the delivery of concrete for the turbine foundations, all the traffic will be spread over the six to nine month estimated construction period. Construction Staff Vehicles There will be approximately 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. Operation & Maintenance Vehicles Following completion of the wind farm development, only site maintenance personnel vehicles will normally be required on the site. Weekly visits to the control building by maintenance personnel in four wheel drive or conventional passenger vehicles will occur following the commissioning phase. Pollution Prevention & Health & 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. SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-13

26 As with any development, there is the potential for threats to the quality of the water environment 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. 2.6 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. 2.7 DECOMMISSIONING On cessation of wind farm operations, all major equipment and structures will be removed from the site. This process will take approximately three months Restoration normally covers the removal of all turbines (rotors, nacelle and tower), removal of the upper section of turbine foundations to a depth of 1m (to permit the continuation of current agricultural practices), and removal of the anemometry mast, 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. All crane hardstandings adjacent to turbines 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 a bond or other security of funding to cover the decommissioning costs. SITE SELECTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-14

27 Chapter Three Need, Benefits & Socio-Economic Impact

28 CHAPTER THREE: NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT GORES WIND FARM 3.1 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 presumption 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) International, European and UK policy on climate change, energy and renewable energy; (ii) The environmental, social and economic impacts and benefits of renewable energy and of the proposed the wind farm; and (iii) Planning policies on renewable energy and conformity with the Development Plan, including any local impacts arising from the development This chapter provides an overview of the implications of climate change; International, European and UK policies and targets on climate change and energy; and the environmental and socio-economic impacts and benefits arising from renewable energy in general and from Gores Wind Farm in particular. Planning policies on renewable energy and conformity with the Development Plan are discussed in the Planning Application document at Chapter 4 Planning Appraisal. 3.2 IMPACTS OF GLOBAL WARMING & 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 1. The principal environmental impact from the burning of fossil fuels is the build-up 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. International Impact Economically, at an international level, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change 2 warns that by doing nothing, global 1 DEFRA, March 2006, Climate Change - the UK Programme Sir Nicholas Stern on behalf of the UK Government, 30 October 2006, Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-1

29 warming will plummet the world into depression, shrinking the economy by 20% and costing 3.68 trillion unless the problem is tackled within a decade. Taking action now would cost 1% of the world s gross domestic product or 184 billion Environmentally, the Review predicts that global warming will threaten the basic elements of life and will result in the following worldwide impacts: Melting glaciers will increase flood risk during the wet season and strongly reduce dry-season water supplies to one-sixth of the world s population. Declining crop yields, especially in Africa, are likely to leave hundreds of millions without the ability to produce or purchase sufficient food. Ocean acidification, a direct result of rising carbon dioxide levels, will have major effects on marine ecosystems, with possible adverse consequences on fish stocks. Rising sea levels will result in tens to hundreds of millions more people flooded each year with a warming of 3 or 4 C. An increase in worldwide deaths from malnutrition and heat stress. The permanent displacement of 200 million people by the mid-century due to rising sea levels, heavier floods, and more intense drought. Ecosystems will be particularly vulnerable to climate change, with one study estimating that around 15 40% of species face extinction with 2 C of warming. 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. 3.3 TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE - INTERNATIONAL, EUROPEAN & UK 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 NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-2

30 having 25% of Europe s wind resource, the UK is in an important position to make a contribution to targets. 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 At the Kyoto Summit in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol established legally binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by industrialised countries. Under the Protocol, the UK Government made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by 12.5% by ; a target which was met ahead of schedule by European Policy European Union Directive 2009/28 3 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 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 This equates to around 30% of electricity from renewable sources, a substantial rise from the previous target of 20% 4. 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 has a number of measures to increase renewables deployment and meet its targets under the EU Directive. These include: Financial incentives to bring forward and support the take-up of renewable energy, including the Renewables Obligation (RO), the introduction in April 2010 of feed in tariffs (FITs) for small scale electricity generation, and the forthcoming Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) tariff scheme (for industry, commercial businesses and the public sector); Identifying and removing the most significant non-financial barriers to renewables deployment, including measures to improve existing grid connection arrangements; and 3 European Parliament and Council, 23 April 2009, Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources 4 DECC, 2009, UK Renewable Energy Strategy NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-3

31 Overcoming supply chain blockages and promoting business opportunities in the renewables sector in the UK. These measures are discussed below The Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation and later the Renewables Obligation are market mechanisms which ensure that electricity suppliers are obliged to source an increasing percentage of their electricity from renewable energy generation. 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 discussed below) These measures were then followed by the Energy White Paper of , the UK Climate Change Programme of and the Energy Review of These set out the Government s energy policy and proposals, with a target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 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 Review proposed a range of measures, the big push for renewables, to promote the growth of renewable electricity to achieve 20% of electricity coming from renewable sources by Annex D sets out the Renewable Statement of Need to be used as a material consideration in determining planning applications Annex D states: Renewable energy as a source of low-carbon, indigenous electricity production is central to reducing emissions and maintaining the reliability of our energy supplies at a time when our indigenous fossil fuels are declining more rapidly than expected. A regulatory environment that enables the development of appropriately sited renewable projects and allows the UK to realise its extensive renewable resources, is vital if we are to make real progress towards our challenging goals. New renewable projects may not always appear to convey any particular local benefit, but they provide crucial national benefits. Individual renewable projects are part of a growing proportion of low-carbon generation that provides benefits shared by all communities both through reduced emissions and more diverse supplies of energy, which helps the reliability of our supplies. This factor is a material consideration to which all participants in the planning system should give significant weight when considering renewable proposals. These wider benefits are not always immediately visible to the specific locality in which the project is sited. However, the benefits to society and the wider economy as a whole are significant and this must be reflected in the weight given to these considerations by decision makers in reaching their decisions The 2007 Energy and Planning White Papers 8 gave a clear steer to planners and local authority decision-makers that they should look 5 DTI, February 2003, Energy White Paper Our Energy Future - creating a low carbon economy 6 DEFRA, March 2006, Climate Change - the UK Programme BERR, July 2006, The Energy Challenge - Energy Review Report 8 BERR, May 2007, Energy White Paper - Meeting the Energy Challenge and DCLG, May 2007, Planning White Paper - Planning for a Sustainable Future NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-4

32 favourably on renewable energy developments. The Energy Review Statement of Need was restated with the clear message that the wider national benefits to society and the economy that renewable energy projects bring are a material consideration to which significant weight should be attached in the decision making process. A specific measure was that applicants do not have to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy or for a particular proposal to be sited in a particular location The Energy Act 2008 was given Royal Assent on 26 th November It implemented the legislative aspects of the Energy white paper 2007 and 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 was the world s first long term legally binding framework to tackle climate change. Key provisions were legally binding targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emission of at least 80% by 2050, and reductions in CO 2 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 Only 3% of energy was produced from renewable sources in The Strategy aims to reduce the UK s emissions of carbon dioxide by over 750 million tonnes between 2009 and It also promotes the security of energy supply, reducing overall fossil fuel demand by around 10% and gas imports by 20 30% against what they would have been in In terms of economic development, the Strategy forecasts that the measures will provide the potential to create up to half a million more jobs in the UK renewable energy sector resulting from around 100 billion of new investment As set out in Table 2.1 of the Strategy, achieving 15% of renewable energy by 2020 would require an increase from nearly 40 TWh of renewable energy in 2008, to just under 240 TWh in To attain the 15% target, more than 30% (about 117 TWh) of electricity will need to be generated from renewables, up from about 6.7% in It expects that the majority (64%) of this electricity 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. Member States must set out the sectoral targets, the technology mix they expect to use, the trajectory they will follow and the measures and reforms they will undertake to overcome the barriers to developing renewable energy. 9 NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-5

33 The UK NREAP sets out measures to meet the UK s 2020 target for renewable energy production. It increases and refines the RES estimates of the amount of renewable energy and electricity production required to achieve the 2020 targets, setting out the percentages of energy and electricity expected to be achieved each year between 2010 and 2020 (Table 3) and the contribution in MW from each RE technology expected to be achieved each year between 2010 and 2020 (Table 10) The NREAP advises that the renewables targets are being reviewed to see if they can be increased and that the Government is to support an increase in the European Union emission reduction target to 30% by The NREAP increases the forecasted proportion of wind in the renewable energy electricity mix to achieve the 2020 target from 64%, as envisaged at the time of the RES, to 73%, equating to 27.8GW (39%/ 14.89GW for onshore and 34%/ 13GW for offshore wind). This is made up of an increase of approximately 1GW each of onshore and offshore wind. The next largest energy source is solid biomass at 8% (3,140MW) The National Infrastructure Plan 10, 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 through a combination of nuclear power stations and offshore and onshore wind turbines It sets out the infrastructure requirements and the economic investment that is needed to attain this commitment. One of the four goals of the Plan is to ensure that the overall programme supports the delivery of reduced UK greenhouse gas emissions and wider environmental objectives The Plan states, it is essential to mitigate climate change and to adapt to its effects. Most infrastructure is carbon intensive and a revolution is needed, particularly in transport and energy, to meet legally binding targets. In 2008, these two sectors accounted for 21 per cent and 35 per cent, respectively, of the UK s greenhouse gas emissions. European legislation to protect the environment and mitigate climate change continues to act as a key driver for infrastructure investment in sectors such as energy, water, waste and transport To attract the required private sector investment in a low-carbon supply of energy, the Government proposes a series of measures, which include to reform the electricity market; to improve existing grid connection arrangements for low-carbon generation, such as nuclear power stations and wind turbines; and to provide for community renewable electricity to benefit from retention of business rates The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap 11 (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. 10 HM Treasury, 25 October 2010, National Infrastructure Plan 11 Department of Energy and Climate Change, July 2011, UK Renewable Energy Roadmap NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-6

34 The Roadmap sets out an action plan to achieve the 2020 target and accelerate the deployment of renewable energy, while reducing costs. It identifies the eight technologies that have the greatest potential to achieve the 2020 target in a cost-effective and sustainable way. DECC intends to update the Roadmap annually It 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 The key actions identified to facilitate the deployment of onshore wind are: Provide long term certainty for investors through electricity market reform and a managed transition from the Renewables Obligation. Reform the planning system to ensure it supports economic growth and gives communities a greater stake in development. Co-fund the development of technical solutions to overcome windfarm interference with aviation radar and broker roll-out plans, including through a new Memorandum of Understanding with industry. Upgrade onshore transmission capacity and ensure that developers secure timely and cost-effective access to the network and put in place a process to monitor delivery The Roadmap considers that onshore wind could contribute up to 13GW by 2020, from an existing installed capacity of 4GW and with 5GW under construction and consented The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update provides an update on the deployment of renewables in the UK between July 2011 and July The period saw a 27% increase in overall renewable electricity generated, with more than 10% of all electricity generated in the UK coming from renewable sources. It reports an installed capacity of 5.3GW for onshore wind, with 1.7GW in construction, and 2.5GW for offshore wind The Update states The Coalition is committed to increasing the deployment of renewable energy across the UK, and we re confident that the UK can deliver 30% of electricity from renewable sources by It concludes that renewable energy has a pivotal role to play in the UK energy mix The draft Energy Bill was announced in a Written Ministerial Statement on 22 nd May The Bill proposes a legislative framework for delivering secure, affordable and low carbon energy, and puts in place measures to attract the 110 billion investment which is needed to replace current generating capacity and upgrade the grid by 2020, and to cope with a rising demand for electricity. This includes provisions for: Contracts for Difference long-term instruments to provide stable and 12 DECC, 27 Dec 2012, UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update 2012 NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-7

35 predictable incentives for companies to invest in low-carbon generation; Investment Instruments long-term instruments to enable early investment in advance of the CfD regime coming into force; Capacity Market to ensure the security of electricity supply; Conflicts of Interest and Contingency Arrangements to ensure the institution which will deliver these schemes is fit for purpose; Renewables Transitional transition arrangements for investments under the renewables obligation scheme, and Emissions Performance Standard to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new fossil fuel power stations At the time of writing, the Bill is currently awaiting its third reading within the House of Commons. Once finished within the House of Commons, the Bill will be considered by the House of Lords before final Royal Assent. No timetable for these further stages is currently available In summary, these International, European and UK Government statutes and policies establish a strategic need for renewable energy provision in the UK to assist in tackling climate change and ensuring security of energy supply. 3.4 RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS & PROGRESS The UK targets under the 2009 EU Directive and UK Renewable Energy Strategy are: 15% of energy from renewable sources by TWh (3% was produced in 2009) 30% of electricity by TWh The RES anticipated that approximately 64% / 26.3GW of the 2020 electricity target will be from wind power, equating to, comprising of: 14GW of onshore wind; 12GW of offshore wind The NREAP anticipates that 73% / 27.8GW of the 2020 electricity target will be provided by wind, equating to, comprising of: 14.89GW of onshore wind; 13GW of offshore wind The UK Roadmap 2011 considers that 31GW of the UK 2020 electricity target could be provided by wind, comprising of: 13GW of onshore wind; 18GW of offshore wind Looking at progress towards the 2020 targets, the proportion of UK energy generated from renewables in 2011 was 3.8% and for electricity was 9.4% 13. The UK Roadmap Update 2012 increased this electricity figure to 13 DECC, July 2012, Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2012 NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-8

36 10% Current UK onshore wind deployment progress is 14 : 5.3GW installed; 1.7GW under construction; 4.1GW consented; 1.9W onshore wind capacity still to be achieved by 2020 to attain the 13GW UK Roadmap target Evidently there is much to be done, and to provide a framework for the necessary step change in delivery rates, the EU Directive requires that every two years each Member country has to submit details of its performance on the targets against indicative levels that have to be met to keep the country on its trajectory to meet the 2020 figure. Thus instead of looking 8 years ahead, there will be benchmark targets along the way all of which are expected to be met. 3.5 BENEFITS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION Renewable energy brings with it many benefits such as boosting economic welfare, offering greater energy independence, security of energy supply, lower energy costs, reduced fuel price risks, improved competitiveness, technology exports and new jobs The benefits renewable energy brings can be grouped into three main areas: (1) the environmental benefits as examined above and further below; (2) security and increased diversity in energy supply; and (3) socioeconomic benefits through business and employment opportunities and financial benefits. Environmental Benefits As already explained earlier in this chapter, the background to 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 The 100GW of wind power installed by the end of 2012 in the EU avoided the emission of million tonnes of CO 2, when compared to emissions produced through coal production. In 2010 avoided fossil fuel costs from wind power production was 5.71 billion. That is estimated to grow to 58 billion by Once it is built, a wind turbine emits no CO 2 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), 14 DECC, December 2012, UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-9

37 over its 20-year life, a wind turbine will produce times more energy than it consumes. Studies in Denmark 16 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 Thus by the time the wind farm 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 farm, 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 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 17. Security & Diversity of Energy Supply A diversity of energy sources ensuring that the UK is not dependent on any one supplier, country or technology is fundamental to managing the risks to the UK s security of energy supply. The ability to ensure electricity supplies from sources that are not open to foreign intervention is one of the key planks of the national energy policy The UK is now a net importer of energy, with energy imports at record levels in 2011, up 3.8% on 2010 levels. In 2011, imports of energy exceeded UK production, the first time this has happened since The UK imported more coal, manufactured fuels, crude oil, electricity and gas than it exported 19. As the UK s fossil fuel reserves decline, the country will become more dependent on fossil fuel imports from international markets According to the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2012, electricity supply by fuel in 2011 was: Gas 41% Coal 29% Nuclear 18% Renewables 9% Other 2% Renewable energy has a major part to play in increasing both the security and diversity of energy supply. It provides an energy source that is not open to interruption by the actions of foreign governments or others, and will ensure that the UK is not dependent on any one supplier, country or 16 S Krohn: The Energy Balance of Modern Wind Turbines, Vindmolleindustrien, 1997 and D Milborrow: Dispelling the Myths of Energy Payback Time, Windstats Vol 11, no 2, Spring RenewableUK (2012). Website BERR, July 2009, UK Renewable Energy Strategy 19 DECC, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2012 NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-10

38 technology A further benefit of renewable energy from sources such as wind is that by feeding electricity into the local electricity network, it is a form of embedded generation. The nature of embedded generation is that high voltage transmission losses associated with more conventional centralised forms of electricity generation (e.g. fossil fuel power stations) can effectively be avoided. Electricity generated by wind turbines will displace units generated further afield by other centralised and large scale methods of generation While it is accepted that the electricity generated by a wind farm will be variable, detractors of wind energy sometimes mistakenly claim that every wind farm in the UK needs equivalent amounts of fossil fuelled backup supplies, to kick in when the wind stops blowing. A common, large pool of backup generation capacity called short term reserve is used to step in when coal, gas and nuclear power stations stop generating at short notice. Whilst the instant loss of a large conventional power station through tripping is a real risk, it is extremely unlikely that the equivalent amount of wind will disappear instantaneously. This is because wind power is a nationwide technology wind farms all over the country are adding power to the grid at once. While wind may drop at some sites, the wind very rarely stops blowing everywhere at once, so wind power does not need to be backed up, megawatt for megawatt In any case, the system never assumes peak capacity of all wind farms at once and operates on an average capacity carried by all of the wind farms. Furthermore, by the time wind power is producing 20% of the UK s electricity, the additional backup required will be less than 10% of the peak level of wind production. Finally, it is worth noting that new storage and distribution technologies, and other options currently in development, will reduce the need for conventionally fuelled backup for wind power even further. Socio-Economic Benefits Renewable energy creates significant economic development opportunities, job creation and social benefits RenewableUK in February 2011 published the most comprehensive ever employment figures for the wind energy industry 21, showing a 91% increase in full-time employment in the sector between 2007/8 and 2009/10. The growth in employment stands in contrast to the overall UK employment level, which has shrunk during the same period by 3.4% The study collected data from 253 companies operating in the wind and marine sectors and counted 10,800 full-time equivalent employees working across all sectors of the renewable industry last year. Of those, 9,200 were working in the large-scale wind sector The majority of jobs (56%) are in the onshore wind sector, followed by 20 Extracted from Managing Variability by Energy Analyst David Milborrow June RenewableUK, 91 per cent growth for UK wind energy employment NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-11

39 29% in offshore wind. Small wind accounted for between 7-8%, while a similar proportion were accounted for in the wave and tidal energy sector The UK Roadmap Updates 2012 records the following in the Jobs and Investment section: Renewable energy is an attractive market for investors, and is already supporting skills and jobs throughout the supply chain. Highlights include: 12.7bn total announced investment between 1 April 2011 and 31 July ,800 total announced jobs between 1 April 2011 and 31 July UK Trade and Investment (2012) 23 has recorded: 71 renewable energy Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) projects into the UK in 2011/12, which generated or safeguarded 2,625 jobs. Renewable energy represented the largest source of inward investment in 2011/12 among advanced engineering and environmental technology sectors. Renewable energy is the joint seventh largest sector in terms of the number of FDI projects to the UK recorded in 2011/ In addition to current industry investment, there is significant potential for renewables industry potential going forward to Sources indicate that the renewables sector (covering electricity, heat and transport) currently supports around 110,000 jobs directly and in immediate supply chains, with another 160,000 jobs supported further along the supply chain. By 2020, the sector could support around 400,000 direct and immediate supply chain jobs and many more further along supply chains In 2011, onshore wind supported more than 8,600 jobs. By 2020, there could be around 11,600 direct and supply chain jobs rising to around 15,500 total jobs if wider quantifiable impacts are taken into account Commenting on the updated Renewable Energy Roadmap, John Hayes, Minister of State for Energy, said: Energy is crucial to our economic wellbeing, bringing in major investment and supporting jobs across the country. I firmly believe that a diverse energy mix is the best way to ensure our energy security. It is extremely encouraging that we have made such positive steps on renewable energy as part of that mix In a recent press release accompanying the Banding Review for the 22 DECC (2012) Renewable Energy Investment and Jobs x 23 The 110,000 and 400,000 are from REA report, Renewable Energy: Made in Britain The wider supply chain job estimate is based on the Low Carbon Environmental Goods and Services 2012 study by K-Matrix, commissioned by BIS. 25 BiGGAR Economics (2012) Onshore Wind: direct & wider economic impacts Report produced for DECC and RenewableUK NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-12

40 Renewables Obligation Edward Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said: Renewable energy will create a multi-billion pound boom for the British economy, driving growth and supporting jobs across the country BENEFITS OF GORES WIND FARM Environmental Benefits 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 likely to be a maximum of 24MW, based on eight 3MW turbines. 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 Assuming eight 3MW turbines are installed, and using a capacity load factor of 26.4% 27, which takes into account the variable nature of wind frequency and speeds, it is calculated that on average approximately 55,500MWh of electricity would be produced annually by Gores Wind Farm Utilising updated figures of average UK household electricity consumption of 4,266 kwh per annum 29 and a 26.4% capacity factor, computer based assessment calculates that the proposed wind turbines could each year supply the average annual domestic needs of approximately 13,000 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 26 DECC, Renewable energy to bring 25bn of investment into uk economy Davey, 27 A 26.4% capacity factor (CF) figure is derived by taking the average CF for onshore wind for the 5 year period of 2007 to 2011, as recorded in the 2012 Digest of UK Energy Statistics Source: DECC renewable.pdf. Actual capacity factor will vary year on year as there will be periods of maximum and minimal generation, depending on wind speeds and wind farm maintenance requirements. Throughout the planning process West Coast Energy will continue to monitor the on-site wind resource. 28 Calculated as follows: 24 (max installed capacity in MW) x x 8760 (number of hours in a year) = 55,503 MWh per year. The figure is presented as an annual amount in recognition of the fact that throughout the year, the figure will vary, as there will be periods of maximum and minimal generation, depending on wind speeds and wind farm maintenance requirements. 29 DECC, 2012: 30 The sum used to estimate the number of homes-powered is: 24MW x CF x 8760 hours x 1000/ 4.27MWh annual consumption. This sum uses the UK average domestic electricity consumption of 4,266kWh per annum and a 26.4% capacity factor. NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-13

41 its expected 25 year operational lifecycle. However, one certainty is that over the course of its 25 year lifetime, every unit (kwh) of electricity generated by Gores Wind Farm 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 farm 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 CO 2 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 generation sources. Nuclear stations generate at a constant rate and are termed base load energy because of their inability to follow load fluctuations. Other sources of base load energy have in recent years been natural gas fired Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) and large scale coal fired plant. The majority of the load following has been carried out by older, smaller but more flexible coal fired generators and it is the output from this flexible plant which is displaced by wind energy Thus, as the UK s electricity generating mix and fuel costs will change over the 25 year expected operational lifetime of the wind farm, it is impractical to precisely quantify the emissions savings over this period of time In recent years, 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 32. 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 savings of CO 2 were still substantial By using this static level of 430g of CO 2 per kwh, Gores Wind Farm would offset almost 600,000 tonnes of CO 2 over 25 years Significant emission savings of NOx and SO2 will also result over the lifetime of the wind farm. Once constructed, wind generation produces no carbon, nitrogen or sulphur emissions It should also be noted that the units of electricity produced by this wind farm will displace units generated further afield by other centralised and large scale methods of generation. Embedded generation reduces the need for long distance transmission of power which produces its own losses in transmission The proposed wind farm will therefore make an important contribution to 31 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (1994). Select Committee Briefing: Environmental Aspects of Wind Generation. Crown press The sum used to estimate total carbon-savings is 24MW x capacity factor x 8760 hours x 430 /1000. The calculation uses the 430g C02/kWh statistic endorsed by DECC for grams of CO2 emitted when generating 1kWh of electricity. Source: DEFRA alysis/fes-appendix.pdf NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-14

42 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. Socio-Economic Benefits Significant sums of money are involved in the construction of a wind farm, typically around 1,200,000 per MW, equating to up to 29 million for the Gores Wind Farm proposal based on eight 3MW turbines. Operating and maintenance costs are typically 12,000-15,000 per MW per year, equating to 288, ,000 for Gores Wind Farm Construction of the wind farm 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, i.e. more than 5 million for Gores Wind Farm. Many of the required skills, expertise and materials will be available within this region of the UK 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. Community Benefits Peterborough Wind Energy Ltd (PWEL) and West Coast Energy Ltd are committed to the principle that communities which host wind farm developments should benefit financially and equitably from the generation of locally produced renewable electricity. This income can then be utilised to fund specific projects and initiatives in the local and wider area which can make a real difference to the social and economic well-being of communities over the operational life of the wind farm It is the policy of West Coast Energy to establish a community benefit fund for all of its wind energy developments in the UK. For Gores Wind Farm it is proposed that the local community would receive the higher of a guaranteed payment of 4,000 for each megawatt of installed generation capacity or 10% of the profits from the wind farm. Based upon an eight turbine development, with an installed capacity of MW, the guaranteed community benefit fund would amount to between 1.6 to 2.4million over the operational life of the wind farm and a greater figure if the profits of the wind farm exceed this amount. The community benefit partnership model does not require any up-front investment from the community and as such it represents a win-win for the local community who can share in the benefits of local renewable electricity generation without any financial risk whatsoever These payments would be paid every year from the date of operation of the wind farm until the end of its operational life, which is estimated to be a period of 25 years. It would then be up to local people to determine how the income from the wind farm should be spent on social, economic and NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-15

43 environmental initiatives and projects that will benefit the wider community The company is therefore currently seeking suitable partners which represent the local community to work with in order to distribute the community benefit fund. A legally binding agreement would then be drawn up between PWEL (the wind farm company) and the partnership body to guarantee the financial benefit for the life of the wind farm. The partnership body would then set up an appropriate legal structure to ensure that the money generated is distributed for the benefit of the wider community around the wind farm site. 3.7 PUBLIC PERCEPTION, TOURISM & ECONOMIC IMPACTS The public perception of wind farms has been assessed in a large number of surveys. These have tended to demonstrate that wind farm development creates 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 some 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 The most recent study is an opinion poll commissioned by RenewableUK in April where two thirds (67%) of people favour the use of wind power in the UK, with 28% of those strongly in favour, compared with one in twelve (8%) who outright oppose. The poll also showed that the majority (57%) of people find the look of wind farms on the landscape acceptable and a fifth (20%) completely acceptable The Ipsos MORI survey also looked at public attitudes to the average UK household contribution to the Government s Renewable Obligation scheme. The results show that more than twice as many, 43% of people, think that the price paid for wind development through their domestic energy bills represents good or very good value for money compared with 19% of those questioned who thought that wind power was poor or very poor value for money. 25% thought that the price paid represents average value The poll also revealed that 59% of those surveyed thought that wind power will reduce the UK s dependence on imported fossil fuels and will help reduce carbon emissions. Just under half (48%) of the respondents think that wind power provides a secure supply of energy to the UK, as well as providing jobs in the wind energy sector and its supply chain. 34 The research was conducted on i:omnibus, Ipsos MORI s online panel omnibus, between Friday 13th April and Tuesday 17th April Questions were asked online of 1,009 adults aged between 16 and 64 across Great Britain. The survey data were weighted by age, gender, region and social grade, working status and main household shopper to be nationally representative of GB adults aged Full data tables are available upon request. NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-16

44 3.7.6 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 fact, experience within the UK shows that wind energy developments can 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. 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, ScottishPower 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 A report published by the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) (now Renewable UK) in May 2006, The Impact of Wind Farms on the Tourist Industry in the UK 36, looked at several surveys and reports investigating wind energy and tourism conducted by reputable poll companies and consultants. Overall, the report found that the results from all these surveys demonstrate that the effect of wind farms on tourism is negligible at worst, with many respondents taking a positive view to wind farms, and saying it would not affect their likelihood of returning to an area The University of St Andrews in December 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 In 2011 VisitScotland commissioned omnibus research to learn more about consumer attitudes to wind farms and their effect on tourism, in order to inform VisitScotland policy 38. The survey, entitled Wind Farm Consumer Research was published in April 2012 and shows: 83% of Scottish respondents and 80% of UK respondents stated their DTI, 29 June 2006, Renewable Energy Information Pack 38 Questions were entered onto an omnibus study with OnePoll, an online market research company. 2,000 interviews were undertaken with a nationally representative UK sample with a further 1,000 interviews conducted with a Scotland representative sample (both samples being asked very similar questions). A screening question was put in to the survey to ensure that the respondents had taken a holiday/short break in the UK in the past 12 months and would intend to do so again in the future. NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-17

45 decision to holiday in the UK would not be affected by the presence of a wind farm. 80% of Scottish respondents and 81% of UK respondents either disagreed with or neither agreed nor disagreed that wind farms spoil the look of the Scottish countryside. 83% of Scottish respondents and 82% of UK respondents either disagreed with or neither agreed nor disagreed, that they would tend to avoid an area of the countryside if there were a wind farm. 46% of Scottish respondents, and 40% of UK respondents, would be interested in visiting a wind farm development if it included a visitor centre In response to the opinion poll, Energy and Tourism Minister Fergus Ewing said These figures prove what we have long known that the vast majority of visitors to Scotland do not see wind farms as a problem. Four in five visitors say their decision to come to Scotland would not be affected by wind farms He goes on to the state that These figures show that those who speak out against the impact of wind turbines on the landscape do not represent the vast majority of Scots, or of potential visitors from within the UK the vast, but too often silent majority, have said that wind farms simply do not affect their decision making The reality is that there will always be members of the public who are opposed to development; there will always be some who are opposed to wind energy development because in their opinion it spoils their part of the countryside; and there will always be interest groups whose aim is to protect the countryside from anything and everything that changes their cherished view of it. However, the important message is that the general public opinion is very supportive of wind energy and it is national policy to support it wherever it can be achieved in an environmentally acceptable way. 39 Scottish Government, Wind farms and tourism research welcomed (2012), NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-18

46 3.8 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 2009/28 40 requires 20% of energy and 35% of electricity to be produced from renewables by Wind energy is set to contribute the most - nearly 35% of all the power coming from renewables The UK s contribution to this European target is to produce 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020, equating to around 30% of electricity from renewable sources The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap 41 (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 Renewable energy brings with it many benefits such as boosting economic welfare, offering greater energy independence, security of energy supply, lower energy costs, reduced fuel price risks, improved competitiveness, technology exports and new jobs Gores Wind Farm would generate clean green electricity to meet the annual domestic electricity consumption equivalent to approximately 13,000 homes and would displace approximately 600,000 tonnes of CO 2 over its 25 year life. The construction of the wind farm would involve significant local investment and expenditure There is thus a clear strategic legislative and policy requirement in the UK 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 Gores Wind Farm is in accordance with Government policy at all levels and will make a meaningful contribution towards achieving UK renewable energy targets. The proposed turbines are a sustainable form of development and will provide significant environmental, economic and social benefits to the local community. 40 European Parliament and Council, 23 April 2009, Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources 41 Department of Energy and Climate Change, July 2011, UK Renewable Energy Roadmap NEED, BENEFITS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT Page 3-19

47 Chapter Four Landscape and Visual

48 CHAPTER FOUR: LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL GORES WIND FARM 4.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Whilst the proposed Gores Wind Farm is acknowledged to give rise to some significant visual and landscape effects, when and where seen, the proposed turbines would be read as consistent with the pattern and trend of the host environment in a large-scale landscape already characterised in the wider context by wind energy development. In unconstrained views, the turbines would appear as a controlled, broadly balanced grouping which would relate well with the wider landscape at the broader scale. Although prominent and dominant when close by, the turbines would not look out of place in an open, exposed and what can feel like a windswept environment. Neither would they overwhelm or over-dominate perceptions gained from nearby residential and publicly accessible locations The proposed wind farm would exert a characterising influence over the landscape to the extent that there would be a conversion from a local landscape without wind farm development to a wind farm landscape in the immediate context of the site - adjudged to be within and perhaps up to 800m or thereabouts from the turbines. Beyond this range, the landscape would be read as one which accommodates the wind farm with a new local landscape sub-type established within a range of perhaps up to c1.5km 2.5km from the turbines Although strongly influenced by it, the wider landscape would not be transformed by the wind farm. Its broader underlying character would not be compromised. As such, it is considered that the landscape at the broader scale is sufficiently robust to be able to accommodate the proposed wind farm without significant effects arising when judged at the scale of the Fens. In this context the landscape would tend to be less, rather than more, sensitive to this form of development In terms of the visual context, potentially significant visual effects would extend up to c4km 5km from the turbines from locations where there would be open and unconstrained views of the turbines and would therefore be relevant to residents and those enjoying recreational activities for whom the visual enjoyment of the landscape within the outdoors environment is a primary focus. In the immediate context, this is particularly relevant to residents, walkers on local footpaths and riders and cyclists on local rights of way and promoted routes as well as main and minor highways in the vicinity. It should be noted however that not all residents and/or recreational participants would be significantly affected since there are many locations within this range that would not offer open views to a high proportion of the proposed wind farm. In other words, if significant effects are to be found, they would be located within that range but not all effects within that range would be significant Concerning potential cumulative visual and landscape effects, these would be essentially where the wind farm would give rise to significant visual and landscape effects in its own right within the assessed context of existing and consented wind energy development. The exception to this would be to the south-east where there is scope for relatively open and unconstrained views to high proportions of the Gores turbines and other LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-1

49 turbines in the landscape such as at Wryde Croft/Nutsgrove and where the combined visual presence might be felt to reach visually significant levels perhaps up to c6km or 6km+ from the nearest Gores turbines for example along parts of the Nene Way As to whether the proposed wind farm should or could be viewed positively or negatively, the assessor s judgement has been arrived at on the extent to which a range of basic design criteria and questions have been met/answered along with a number of considerations which are set out in the Conclusions section. It is the Assessor s opinion that the Gores proposal substantially meets the design criteria and therefore can be considered in a positive light Concerning landscape value, it is reasonable to assume that the value of an affected landscape would have an important bearing on the importance of any changes that take place as a result of proposed development. If all else is equal, the importance of a significant effect would be related both to the quantity of the landscape affected (i.e. the magnitude of the significant effect) and the initial value of that landscape. In other words, a change to a landscape protected at the national level and valued for its landscape and scenic attributes, in general terms is likely to be subject to a more important effect than a change of similar magnitude in another, less valued landscape such as at Gores. This does not preclude a significant effect arising with respect to a local area of interest but it sets it in the context of scale i.e. international, national, regional/county, district, local/community importance. That part of the contemporary landscape within which the wind farm s significant effects would be felt is not highly valued nationally, regionally or at the district level. Whether judged positively or negatively, the proposal would give rise to an important, significant effect in a landscape valued highly at the community level There would be a change in the composition of the landscape through the introduction of the wind farm and with it, a change in the views obtained from roads, tracks, public rights of way and a number of residential and publicly accessible properties including Flag Fen and from parts of the course at the Thorney Golf and Leisure Centre. Whilst a section of the public will consider this adverse, the change would not be incompatible with the context given the attributes and local features of the site and its setting combined with its large-vast scale; openness under mainly overarching skies; its relatively simple, modified and much-managed character which also accommodates utilities, communications infrastructure and other wind turbine development within a context which is open, exposed and has windswept perceptions Whether regarded positively or negatively, such effects would be of longterm rather than permanent duration given their substantial reversibility at the end of the wind farm s working life. The proposal would result in an alteration to the local environment whose attributes could quickly be substantially recovered through rapid decommissioning and site restoration. Whilst influential for their lifetime or for any period that they may be in operation, visual and landscape effects arising from the proposed wind farm, whether regarded as adverse or positive, can be reversed. The landscape would not be destroyed. Rather, the receiving environment would fulfil the role of a landscape on loan whose long-term environmental capital would be conserved. The wind farm would therefore LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-2

50 be an eminently sustainable form of development in terms of the longerterm visual and landscape resource. 4.2 INTRODUCTION Given developer and assessor experience, it was accepted from the outset that the proposed Gores Wind Farm if consented, constructed and operated would give rise to significant visual and landscape effects The purpose of this part of the environmental statement (ES) is to set out the results of the assessment process. The visual and landscape assessment s purpose is: to confirm in the first instance that significant visual and landscape effects would be likely to occur; to identify where significant visual and landscape effects would be likely to occur i.e. their geographical extent; and to estimate their significance and comment upon their importance and acceptability in visual and landscape terms from the standpoint of professionally informed subjectivity. A further purpose is to qualify the potential effects in terms of their valency that is whether or not they should be regarded as positive, neutral or adverse It is recognised that there is a difference between the significance of a visual or landscape effect and its importance A significant visual effect would arise essentially as a result of a change or a series of changes in a view which would likely markedly change the composition of that view. The individual s response to the change will be somewhere within the spectrum ranging from strongly negative through indifference to strongly positive. In this case, the importance of the change will be greatest for those of the highest visual sensitivity essentially residents and those engaged in outdoor recreation (see Technical Appendix 4.1) The fact that a significant landscape effect would arise (i.e. in character terms that a new landscape type, sub-type and therefore character area would arise) means that it would then be possible to distinguish further differences between areas. This is in line with the definition of landscape: A distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse 1 (emphasis added). Clearly, those parts of the landscape in which a significant character effect would arise would be sensitive to the proposed development Establishing (a) that a significant landscape and/or visual effect would occur and (b) where it would occur, does not answer the simple question: does it matter? something which goes beyond simple and visual 1 Swanwick, C., and LUC; Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland; Countryside Agency/SNH; 2002; p8 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-3

51 assessment of effects. In seeking to address this question, the assessor can then move on to determine the importance of the significant landscape and/or visual effect. In essence, there is a two stage process. 4.3 PREAMBLE In order to assist comprehension of the assessment process and the judgements arrived at by the assessor, a more detailed preamble is set out in Technical Appendix This includes a series of statements together with a table of definitions. Other Terms In environmental impact assessment, various terms are used by various parties. Dominant and prominent are two such terms Concerning dominant, the term has been used here in landscape character terms, along with co-dominant, to mean or imply that dominant would be where the turbines would be the determinant of landscape character (that is where the turbines would be the most influential factor in establishing or describing character the wind farm landscape) or where they would (as co-dominant) be jointly influential and a strong contributory characterising factor. In the latter case, the prominence of the turbines in landscape character terms would serve equally well as a term In visual terms, there is also a downward graduation from dominant, through prominent, to apparent to incidental, and then perhaps reaching a presence which would be akin to no change. The following is set out for clarification Clearly the visual effect of wind farm development is dependent on a number of factors. The Scottish Government s PAN 45 (now replaced by Scottish Planning Policy February 2010), cited as contributing to the presence of a wind farm: (a) the distance over which a wind farm may be viewed; (b) whether the turbines can be viewed adjacent to other features; (c) different weather conditions; (d) the character of the development and the landscape; and, (e) nature of the visibility Although now superseded, that document provided what is still a useful general guide to the effect which distance has on the perception of a wind farm in an open landscape which has been extended here in the case of the Gores proposal as follows (the PAN 45 original text is in plain text, the assessor s text is shaded): Up to km Likely to be dominant; Up to 2-2.5kms Likely to be a prominent feature; kms Relatively prominent/clearly apparent; kms Only relatively prominent in clear visibility - seen as part of the wider landscape/clearly apparent becoming incidental; LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-4

52 15-30kms Only seen in very clear visibility - a minor element in the landscape/ incidental becoming akin to no change At the time of publication (2002), turbine sizes under consideration referred to in PAN 45 were up to 110m to tip (Whitelee Wind Farm). The proposed Gores turbines are up to 126.5m to tip hence the PAN 45 figure of 2km has been increased to 2-2.5km and the 5km figures increased to 5-6km. 4.4 METHODOLOGY Methodology The methodology statement is set out in Technical Appendix 4.1. The assessment process followed a standard approach: execution of baseline studies to identify/confirm the type and potential sensitivity of visual receptors likely to be most affected (using a preliminary ZTV diagram and site visits); execution of baseline studies to identify/confirm the landscape resource (fabric/elements; key characteristics and character; quality and value (including valued aspects of the environment) which could be affected by the proposal; provision of a description of the proposal including mitigation measures where possible; identification of potential effects brought about by the proposal s impacts on visual receptors (people) and the landscape resource (fabric/elements, characteristics and character, quality and value as well as valued aspects) through desk study and field work (using maps, plans, publications, photographs, wireline diagrams and photomontages) with, in all cases, effect upon the highest sensitivity of visual receptor being taken into account; estimation of the magnitude of effects, determination of their significance and assessment of their importance paying particular regard to those identified as being significant; in other words, having established whether and where significant landscape effects would arise, it is then possible to determine how important the significant effects would be at the National, Regional, District and community scales - the words important and significant are stressed since, frequently, there has been and there remains confusion in the use of the term significant (see above). identification of further mitigation and/or enhancement measures if practicable bearing in mind that the iterative process of visual and landscape assessment can, at the same time, be applied as an aid to planning and design of a proposal Receptor is a term used to signify the individuals, groups of individuals, elements or collections of elements or patterns that may be made the subject of an impact as a result of the presence of the wind farm. In visual and landscape assessment, the term can cover inanimate elements such as trees, blocks of vegetation, walls, streams and concepts for example landscape character areas and types. When used in connection with visual assessment however, it must be remembered that receptors are LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-5

53 people. When elements such as footpaths, bridleways, properties or parts of the landscape are referred to in visual assessment, they are to be regarded as a form of shorthand for viewers in those areas or on those routes through the landscape. It is to be remembered that a view does not have sensitivity. It is the viewer who is or may be sensitive at those locations Landscape quality is sometimes a contentious matter since it can mean different things to different people. It is still frequently understood in terms of landscape designations (National Parks, AONB, Heritage Coast in England and Wales and lower level designations such as Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and Special Landscape Areas) reflecting what the public tend to understand as grades of landscape quality. Landscape quality however is increasingly being regarded as a measure of the condition of the landscape and so confusion can arise. In order to avoid misunderstanding, the term landscape quality is used in this assessment to make reference to its condition whereas the terms landscape value and valued landscape will be used in the following context Landscape value is frequently (but not always) recognised consensually and then reflected in some form of landscape designation. At the national level there are National Park and AONB designations. Below this level there are various non-statutory designations such as Areas of High Landscape Value, Special Landscape Areas and Areas of Great Landscape Value It is important to acknowledge that the existence of a designation boundary on a map does not necessarily indicate sharp, abrupt changes in landscape character, condition and/or scenic attributes The term value as used in this assessment is used to cover more than just scenic quality. Strength of character, valued features, experience of unity, richness and harmony can all play a part in the judgement as can other attributes. If there is no consensual expression of landscape value for example through landscape planning designations (which are still retained in many areas), for assessment purposes it is necessary to derive an appropriate classification. That set out in Technical Appendix 4.1 has been used in this case generalising from Countryside Agency/Scottish Natural Heritage guidance. This applies a three (extendable to a five) level relative categorisation of High, Medium and Low with High capable of recognising and accommodating exceptional circumstances (Exceptional and High) and low capable of sub-division into Poor and Very Poor landscapes Value can also vary depending on the level of approach. By this it is meant that a landscape can be highly valued nationally (see above). At a more local level e.g. Local Planning Authority, it may be highly valued to a lesser degree (e.g. AGLV); whereas a landscape may go unvalued at a national or Local Planning Authority level but still be highly valued informally by a local community for the amenity or some other service it 2 The term scenic quality will however be used from place to place in a manner which should be self-explanatory. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-6

54 provides. Thus hierarchy of designation is relevant in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (see later) Landscape Character Assessment and Assessment of Effects with respect to Landscape Character It is not the purpose of this assessment of potential landscape and visual effects to carry out a fresh landscape character assessment where, as in this case, it is not necessary. Rather, its purpose is to assess the effects of the proposed development with respect to landscape character. In this process, regard is to be had to existing landscape character studies that have been published by the Countryside Agency (now Natural England) and the relevant local authorities and which have been adjudged here to be suitable for the purposes of this assessment. 3 Significance and the EIA Regulations Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a means of drawing together, in a systematic way, an assessment of a project s likely significant environmental effects. Significant is not defined in the EIA Regulations. However, in order to be clear and for the purpose of interpretation, significant in EIA terms is here defined as being of such effect that, in the assessor s opinion, it should be central in the consenting process is likely to influence its outcome It is accepted from the outset that the proposed wind farm would give rise to significant visual and landscape effects. However, not all visual and landscape effects arising would be significant in EIA terms In this assessment, visual significance is expressed in terms of varying degree for example Low/Moderate, Moderate, Moderate/Major, Major and occasionally between significance levels in order to reflect the spectrum of significance where relevant rather than a simple stepped gradation for example Between Moderate and Moderate/Major. Those effects indicated as being of Moderate/Major or greater significance in the methodology statement matrix presented in Technical Appendix 4.1 are regarded in this part of the assessment as likely to be equivalent to significant impacts when discussed in terms of the appropriate Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. In other words, in visual terms, any potential effect of Medium magnitude (see Table 3 Technical Appendix 4.1 for definition of Medium ) or greater would be considered to give rise to a significant visual effect with respect to a High sensitivity visual receptor (for definitions see Technical Appendix 4.1) It may be thought, superficially, that the matrix (reproduced as Table 4.1 below) appears unbalanced. However, it has to be remembered that the key is not whether there is an equal number of gradations above and below a central point but whether the effect arising is adjudged to be of moderate magnitude or greater with respect to a high sensitivity viewer or a high magnitude effect with respect to a medium sensitivity viewer. 3 In this case, the local landscape has been appraised for consistency with the general descriptions contained within the various landscape character assessments and is regarded as typical. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-7

55 Table 4.1: Visual Effect Significance - Matrix Effect Magnitude Effect Significance High Moderate Moderate/Major Major Medium Low/Moderate Moderate Moderate/Major Low Low Low/Moderate Moderate Negligible Negligible/Low Low Low/Moderate Low Medium High Receptor Sensitivity Turning to landscape character significance, the method that has been tested extensively elsewhere and chosen here is to determine whether or not the proposed development would, having regard to the key landscape characteristics of the host (and adjacent landscape character types if relevant), (a) give rise to a new landscape character/type in its own right where the proposed development would be the defining landscape element which would be determinative in landscape terms (i.e. a wind farm landscape) and/or (b) give rise to a new landscape sub-type in which the proposed development would be a principal contributor in defining character (i.e. a local landscape with wind farm sub-type). Where in the assessor s opinion this would arise, (the occurrence of a and b ) the effect is deemed significant (see the explanatory examples provided in Technical Appendix 4.1) In carrying out the assessment, these assumptions are based upon the previous experience of the assessor that those levels of effect may be equivalent to significant effects (i.e. in visual terms being Moderate/Major or above and, in landscape character terms where a new landscape type and/or sub-type would occur) In this way, the assessment is carried out systematically and transparently. It establishes at what level in the assessor s opinion, significant effects arise in terms of the EIA Regulations. It also permits the reader to follow the approach in a transparent, structured and reasoned manner and determine whether or not she/he agrees with the judgements made Finally, the significant effects arising have to be placed in the context of valued landscapes. It is here that the proposed development is considered in terms of a scale of potentially significant effect set against the value of the landscape. Positive / Negative Response As noted earlier, wind farm development gives rise to a spectrum of response from individuals and organisations who perceive its effects ranging from strongly adverse to strongly positive sometimes referred to as valency Full compliance with the appropriate EIA Regulations requires that the likely significant effects should be described covering type (for example direct, indirect, secondary, cumulative), their temporal nature (short, medium and long-term, permanent, temporary), and positive / negative). LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-8

56 For the purposes of this assessment both the visual and landscape effects are classed as direct (in that they are directly attributable to the proposed development); primary and not secondary (for the same reason); cumulative (see separate assessment later); operationally of long-term duration; very substantially reversible and therefore temporary (though recognising their long-term duration) As to whether they may be regarded as positive, neutral or negative, judgements as to the assessor s consideration of effect in this regard have been given and explained with reasoning in a transparent manner. It is accepted that this aspect of the assessment process is especially subjective and open to recognising that there can be an equally legitimate contrary opinion provided it is founded on accurate information and is genuinely held. 4.5 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed wind farm comprises the principal elements set out in Chapter 2 of the ES. Access to the site would be taken from the A47 to the north. Access to the turbines would then be led south to the construction compound before turning south-west and carrying on to branch to the individual turbines and the anemometry mast and other ancillary development as shown on Figure 1.2. Tracks would be constructed as set out in Chapter 2 of the ES Of greatest relevance to visual and landscape considerations are the eight turbines each of a maximum of 126.5m to rotor tip in the vertical position (see Figure 1.3). The anemometry mast would be a slim, free-standing lattice structure 60m tall located and illustrated as shown on Figure 1.4. The control building would be a relatively plain, simple building positioned as shown on Figure 1.2. It is assessed assuming it would be approximately 26m x 12m x 5.5m high (see Figure 1.8). The external compound would accommodate a small car park for vehicles. There would be no requirement for external plant and equipment. It is assumed that a transformer cabinet (3m x 2m x 3m high) may be required at the foot of each turbine tower The temporary construction compound (approximately 70m x 50m) would be located approximately 350m south of the A47 entrance. It is anticipated that for assessment purposes it would contain offices, messing facilities, toilets, storage areas and a measure of car parking. It is assumed that it would be fenced and, although not permanently illuminated, there would be security lighting Construction stone would be sourced from local quarries In operational terms, of the three principal elements which would give rise to visual and landscape effects: (a) the turbines plus anemometry mast and transformer cabinets if required, (b) the site access/access tracks and (c) the control building and external compound; it is the turbines in their own right, including blade movement, which would give rise to the most noticeable change. As has been the experience locally and elsewhere, the anemometry mast, whilst individually tall and giving rise to its own degree of visual influence in the immediate vicinity would, nonetheless, be subsumed at distance within the greater visual influence arising from the LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-9

57 turbines. A further subsidiary aspect would be the potential need for external transformer cabinets. Whether or not they would actually be necessary is not confirmed at this point and therefore for assessment purposes it is assumed that they would form part of the development. Nevertheless, these elements are very small scale and would be subsumed within the greater visual impression and effect of the turbines Access tracks across farmland are common and are accepted as part of the local scene. In the Gores context, it is assumed for the purposes of this assessment that the tracks would be constructed in the locations described and adopting the method statement principles set out in Chapter 2 of the ES. Access tracks, including the site access from the A47, would comprise approximately 1.8km of upgraded track and 4.3km of new surface Large and medium scale buildings and structures in the countryside are widespread both locally and farther afield. Medium and smaller-scale buildings and plant, when and where seen, can be quickly subsumed as minor, frequently insignificant elements within the wider landscape. In the Gores case, the use of a site reasonably close to existing utility infrastructure together with the undergrounding of the cable linkages between the turbines and from the control building to the grid connection means that the degree of change arising from this part of the proposal, although visible to a very limited degree from close-by, would be akin to no change The proposed development would be located on intensively farmed arable land. The land is generally flat and forms a part of the Peterborough Fens (local) within the Planned Peat Fens at the much greater Regional Fens and, at the same time, sites within the fens at the national Landscape Character level (see Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 which indicate the locations of the proposed turbines) The site and the disposition of turbines, tracks, anemometer masts, the substation and the temporary contractor s compound are shown on Figure 1.2. The turbines would describe an organised almost geometric arrangement The photographs from Viewpoints 1, 4, 5, 6 & 20 show the local context of the proposed wind farm (Figures , , , and ). Layout Evolution Concerning layout alternatives, Figure 2.5 illustrates part of the process that was undertaken in order to secure what the landscape and visual effects assessor considered to be an appropriate preliminary fit in visual and landscape terms bearing in mind other considerations. The layouts were tested from a series of design viewpoints and the iterative process continued until a series of design criteria and questions had been met and answered to an appropriate degree. These are set out in Technical Appendix In simple terms, in order to maintain what is understood to be a commercial viable wind farm, it was initially felt that fewer and taller LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-10

58 turbines (but not the tallest up to 145m to tip were considered initially noting that elsewhere in the UK onshore turbines up to 187m have been considered if not consented en masse) would be more appropriate than greater numbers but smaller turbines in order to secure a locally, less busy appearance and to increase/maintain visual permeability i.e. the ability of the viewer to look through and beyond the wind farm in order to maintain reference to the wider landscape and individual elements in the local context. At scoping, consideration was given to an initial arrangement of up to 10 turbines x 145m to tip (approximately 95m to hub) Preliminary appraisal however including consideration of the character and distinctiveness of the landscape together with the proximity to residential properties and having regard to the scale of the landscape, suggested that a lower turbine height would be more appropriate along with fewer turbines. Further consideration was given to tip heights of 130m, 125m and 110m and further adjustments took place before the final selection was made The final selection brought the height of turbines down from 145m to tip to 130m and then 126.5m and the number of turbines was reduced from 10 to eight Once the visually based eight turbine layout was re-confirmed as being acceptable with respect to other on-site interests (including ecology, noise, drains and existing land use), a further round of testing took place to reconsider and re-confirm what was felt to be the most appropriate turbine height band (see above). The layout was then fixed and detailed assessment continued and completed. Wind Farm Attributes Commercial scale wind energy development has a characterising effect within its host landscape to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the individual circumstances of that which is proposed and the receiving environment. Wind farm character can include the following attributes/descriptors: engineered, large scale, simple in form (turbines), smooth texture, monochrome/muted colour, form comprising individually tall structures with a potentially vertical, clustered or horizontal effect (depending on viewing position and layout). Responses to the same scheme can vary with observers classing wind farm development as beautiful, iconic and spiritually uplifting ranging to damaging, offensive and repugnant with respondents perceiving turbines as potentially rhythmic, unusual, safe, interesting, invigorating, majestic and spiritual on the one hand and degrading, jarring, over-bearing, industrial, clashing and ugly on the other Recognition of the spectrum of response has been borne in mind when considering effect minimisation. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-11

59 Effect Minimisation As is often the case with development involving consideration of different factors, part of the design process involves preliminary assessment in order to build ameliorative measures into the proposal. Thus when the proposal is formally assessed, it should already carry measures necessary for impact avoidance/amelioration. In the case of the proposed wind farm, mitigation has been reflected implicitly in the first instance through considering a site in an area which, in general terms, has attributes more conducive rather than less conducive to accommodating wind farm development in an acceptable manner for example generally large scale; open and exposed; with man-modified perceptions (including those of existing wind energy development) as opposed to more naturalistic perceptions; with very limited perceptions of wildness. (See later at Table 4.6.) Further mitigation followed from the layout planning process allied to selection of turbine numbers and height (see above) In the process of planning and designing the wind farm, regard was also had to a series of design criteria and questions with the aim of meeting them as positively as possible (see Technical Appendix 4.3). In general, and bearing in mind the broad spectrum of response that wind farm development engenders from the strongly positive to the strongly negative, it is considered that if wind farm development is going to be visible, then it should be an aim of the iterative assessment process to evolve a wind farm design so that: for those who are generally positively disposed towards wind farm development, the proposed scheme should meet positive design criteria which can be relevant not just to the image of the development but also attuning the development to the perception of the host landscape s scale and attributes whilst being consistent with meeting other technical, operational and land use requirements; and, for those who are generally adversely disposed to wind farm development, the proposed scheme s design should seek to minimise the effects of those aspects of the scheme considered by that sector of the population to give rise to harm. In design terms this means, amongst other things, that the adverse response that the wind farm may engender within a proportion of the receiving community should be recognised and respected by minimising irritation factors wherever possible e.g. by maintaining a reasonable degree of visual permeability through appropriate turbine spacing thus reducing the potential for blade overlap; through minimising the perception of sore thumb turbines; through securing, as far as is possible, a balanced, controlled impression as opposed to one which appears illogical and unplanned; and through seeking to preclude overwhelming or unacceptably overbearing effects with respect to the visual component of residential amenity Further, mitigation and integration can also be assisted in the following ways: Making a feature or landmark of the development. Response: An appropriately designed wind farm in this location would satisfy this criterion. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-12

60 Avoiding locating unacceptably near historic elements and conservation areas. Response: See Cultural Heritage Chapter 5 of the ES. Considering if it is possible to use existing woodland and other vegetation to screen lower parts. Response: This landscape is essentially flat and the presence of local built form, treescape, shelterbelt and hedgerow has a very distinct screening and filtering effect even in winter having regard not only to visually insulating the lower elements comprising the wind turbines ancillary development (control building, tracks, transformer cabinets if required) but also what would be the turbines or substantial parts of them when considered from various parts of the local and wider landscape. Screening lower parts of the structures by replacing lost hedges on field boundaries. Response: A habitat management and enhancement plan is to be developed which would assist in meeting this objective as well as bringing positive ecological/landscape quality benefits (Chapter 7 of the ES). Avoiding constructing new access tracks and use existing roads and tracks for installation and maintenance access as much as possible. Response: In this case, new tracks will be required as well as the upgrading of existing tracks. Locating away from settlement edges. Response: The principal settlements are Thorney, Eye, eastern Peterborough and Whittlesey with other clusters of properties ranging around the site. The nearest turbines would be located sufficiently distant from these settlements to preclude over-dominant and overwhelming effects (see later) As a result, by taking the above considerations into account, the scheme has been planned to give rise to a controlled, visually coherent and, in wind farm terms, reasonably compact development which is considered to be responsive to the attributes of the local landscape Wind farm appearance is influenced not only by turbine form but also by its colour and the level of reflectance of turbine surfaces. These in turn have a bearing upon turbine visibility and conspicuousness i.e. the degree to which a turbine may stand out from its backdrop. In identifying a suitable colour it is necessary to consider the character and attributes of the landscape that would accommodate the turbines, the character and attributes of the landscape that would be subject to their visual influence, important views in the area, likely weather conditions and whether or not the turbines would be seen mostly against land or sky. The Gores landscape is subject to highly variable weather conditions. Anecdotal evidence indicates that there are clear days and parts of days, with bright sharp conditions although it is thought that cloudier conditions prevail in general with over-arching white/grey skies tending to predominate Notwithstanding visibility may be constrained on many days of the year, it is often on the brightest, sharpest, clearest days that outdoor recreation is best enjoyed and views are best appreciated. Accordingly. The proposal has been assessed assuming such conditions rather than by reducing apparent significance due to average weather conditions. Given turbine location and elevation, views of them from both local and more distant locations will tend to place them against mostly sky depending on location LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-13

61 of viewer. Accordingly, it is considered that the most appropriate response is to deploy an off-white/pale grey colour with a semi-matt surface that minimises surface reflectance. In this way, it is considered that the appearance of the wind farm when viewed from close by would be clear and obvious without being clinically stark, potentially recessive rather than impositional and less rather than more conspicuous when viewed from farther afield in both dull and ordinary light. 4.6 BASELINE CONDITIONS Part One: Visual Context Preliminary Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Analysis Figures 4.5 and 4.6 provide an indication of the extent of the wind farm s theoretical visibility at hub and rotor tip height extending outwards to a distance of 35km. Theoretical is used since the ZTV s illustrated in this assessment are based on a bare earth approach with no allowance made for the screening effect of major and minor landscape elements such as woodland, afforestation, settlement, large scale development, tree belts, hedgerows and minor variations in topography such as embankments and cuttings (see caveats regarding ZTV s within the methodology statement Technical Appendix 4.1). As such, the information presented in the ZTV s offers a maximum theoretical visibility image The ZTV s permit the assessor/reader to identify those areas from which parts of the wind farm may be theoretically visible to a greater or lesser extent (bearing in mind the caveats expressed above). Aligning the ZTV s with an understanding of valued visual and landscape resources facilitates the establishment of a range of representative viewpoints from which to carry out the assessment of the proposal However, it must be remembered that, in the Gores case, the difference between theoretical and actual visibility is highly variable in the local context due to the high degree of apparent visibility unmitigated (within the computer software operation) by the (from place to place) notable presence of trees, shelterbelt, hedgerow and built form which has not be taken into account in the digital terrain model. Even in winter, there is visual cover provided in various parts of the local and wider landscape which would intervene wholly or substantially in theoretical lines of sight as represented on the ZTV s. In summer the effect of this filtering and screening would be greater. An example of this are the visualisations from Viewpoints 2 and 7 (Figures and ) During the scoping stage and prior to the production of preliminary visualisations (wireframes) an exercise was conducted in order to align interrogation of the ZTV s with identified valued visual and landscape resources and, through that, to establish a representative set of viewpoints from which to carry out the initial assessment of effects. Initially, many potential viewpoints were visited (possibly over 70). Approximately 40 potential areas of search for viewpoints were identified following the scoping exercise. These were reduced and liaison took place with the Local Planning Authority and adjoining authorities having previously considered the response of Natural England. The preliminary areas of LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-14

62 search were then re-tested, discussed further with key officers in the local and adjoining planning authorities. They were then refined down to the 23 locations which then formed the final set of agreed representative assessment viewpoints The final set of viewpoints is shown on Figure Those viewpoints at and within 15km of the site have been selected for montage presentation. Those located greater than 15km from the nearest turbine have been illustrated with wireframe visualisations The viewpoints are representative of: a range of distances from the site; a range of directions from the site; a range of high sensitivity viewer activities at or reasonably close to the viewpoint (residential, recreational for example); a range of landscape character areas/types; a range of transitory and fixed viewpoints as well as focussed views and broad panoramas The viewpoints were photographed, visited on a number of occasions and descriptions were made of the key or salient features found both at the viewpoint and also viewing in the direction of the proposed site. The location of the viewpoint in terms of landscape type at the local level was also noted (see Technical Appendix 4.4) Preliminary and draft final wireframe visualisations and ZTV s were taken into the field and considered both in relation to the actual environment as well as that depicted in the photographs. The wireframes were overlain on the photographs and used in the field to assess magnitude of effect both in terms of baseline assessment (with existing and consented schemes) and cumulative assessment (existing, consented and proposed schemes adding the scoped French Farm extension turbines on the understanding that the details supplied could be relied upon and submission is imminent) Finally, the photographs were used in the production of the photomontages. It should be noted that while the photomontages are believed to offer a fair and reasonable impression of the proposed scheme based on Scottish Natural Heritage guidance, they are representative only of the prevailing weather and visibility conditions when the photographs were taken. It is generally the case that photographs tend not to show the degree of detail experienced in the field. The impression of turbines matched simply to depicted weather and visibility conditions may well be photo-realistic but may be prone to a degree of under-representation compared to the naked eye. To counteract this, the image of the turbines along with other visual information has been stepped up in terms of sharpness and contrast to preclude misrepresentation. Receptor Identification Receptor identification has been carried out in the first instance as a deskbased exercise through interrogation of the ZTV s alongside published information concerning valued visual and landscape resources and then followed up with work in the field. It should not be forgotten that LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-15

63 landscape resources (e.g. designated landscapes, historic and designed landscapes) also offer visual and recreational amenity and that routes, locations and areas, where they are referred to in this context, are to be regarded as surrogates for viewers. Visual resources are considered to be primarily those associated with residential and recreational amenity. 4 In this regard, the following have been determined to be relevant to the assessment. Residential Amenity Concerning residential amenity, this section concentrates upon the visual component of residential amenity noting that this is but one component of amenity overall. Further, it should also be noted that visual amenity in its own right seldom relies upon the existence of one particular view in one direction from a property In order to assess the potential effects with respect to the visual component of residential amenity, a selection of individual properties, small clusters/hamlets and settlements has been identified. Generally speaking, it is seldom that a wind farm proposal has been deemed unacceptable with respect to residential amenity beyond 1km from the nearest turbine (in fact seldom beyond 800m). In this case a range of up to c2km or thereabouts has been considered. Although an attempt was made to identify as many as possible of the properties or clusters within the area up to 1km - 2km it is accepted that not every property may have been identified and where for example there may be a terrace of houses or a cluster, what is thought to be the most open has been selected. Accordingly, the resulting list (see Technical Appendix 4.5) is considered to be representative of residential receptors in the local area up to c 2km 4 Potential viewers may range in terms of sensitivity (see Landscape Appendix 1). At each assessment viewpoint, it is those viewers of the highest sensitivity who are considered in order not to under-estimate potential significance. Thus it could be for example that both day to day travellers and recreational road users (day visitors, tourists) use the same route. In this case only the latter would be assessed since the significance for them would be greater. 5 There is a further consideration which also should not be forgotten when dealing with this matter what might be thought of as the split between residential and recreational amenity. In the EIA process, the visual component of residential amenity can be assessed by some landscape professionals as estimated from within frequently lived in rooms in the house or from within houses in a settlement. It is fully accepted here that residents may argue that this ignores the view from their garden ground. Notwithstanding moving up and down the country considering various forms of development and noting that what is striking is that with respect to amenity, there can sometimes be a large measure of discretion as to how garden amenity can be enjoyed with respect to what is proposed, it is difficult therefore to be definitive when garden amenity is considered. In this case, the assessor has sought where thought relevant to consider the potential visual effect from within the house (any part); from within the external amenity space and from the access/egress point onto the local highway as well as the latter in the immediate vicinity. The next step has then been to consider wider recreational amenity and in so doing the reader should not think that this is a entirely separate matter and treated as such only in respect of visitors. Sight of the fact that local residents also enjoy recreational opportunities in the local and wider environment is not lost. Whilst day visitors and holiday makers come and go, residents may live, work and take recreation in the area. Accordingly, residents amenity is considered from both the residential property and the recreational perspective as well as having regard to the fact the local people go about their daily business in the area. In taking the above course, the assessor seeks to ensure that the visual amenity effects are not underrepresented. Thus when referring to recreational amenity, this should not be taken to apply not just to day visitors and/or holiday makers, but also to local residents. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-16

64 from the turbines added to which has been consideration of a number of settlements up to c4km 5km or thereabouts from the turbines Concerning the potential effect on the amenity and character of hamlets and settlements, whilst there may be occupiers of individual properties who will experience visual effects of varying degree, the assessment also seeks to consider the more general effect on the character of, and amenity to be enjoyed within, or walking/riding out from the settlement as a whole (see Technical Appendix 4.5) Local residential receptor locations are identified on Figure 4.7. Recreational Amenity Recreational amenity, in this assessment, is related to the enjoyment of the outdoor environment. This is usually taken to mean recreational activity in which the enjoyment of scenery is a primary motivator for, underpins, or is very strongly complementary to the activity for example walking, riding, cycling, touring, day tripping/picnicking. However, in order to avoid under-representing the significance of effects with respect to others who are perhaps not landscape focussed (for example nature conservationists, golfers, anglers) but for whom the enjoyment of the external environment is an added bonus, the High sensitivity category (see Technical Appendix 4.1) has been extended to all outdoor interests Recreational amenity receptors are listed in Table 4.2 below (see also Figure 4.9). Table 4.2: Recreational Receptors Recreational Receptors Promoted Routes National Cycle Route 12 Local Public Rights of Way Open Access Land A Class Roads and Other Local Roads National Cycle Route 63 National Cycle Route Link 12/63 Hereward Way Nene Way Within 5km None identified A47 Peterborough Guyhirn and Wisbech A16 Spalding Common to Peterborough Ex A1073 Crowland to Eye A605 Peterborough to A141 A141 Wisbech to March A1139 (A47 to A15 junction) B1040 Crowland to Ramsey St Mary s B1167 Lordship End to Thorney B1093 Benwick to Whittlesey LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-17

65 Recreational Receptors Other Attractions / Facilities Designated Landscapes Other Minor Roads Historic Parks and Gardens English Heritage Register See Cultural Heritage Chapter 5 Conservation Areas See Cultural Heritage Chapter Crown Lake Country Park Flag Fen Thorney Golf and Leisure Complex North Norfolk Coast AONB Locally Designated Landscapes It is acknowledged at this point that there are areas classed as valued landscape resources (see above) which provide valued (informal) recreational amenity for example the North Norfolk AONB or the Crown Lake Country Park at Peterborough. Because an element such as this may not be listed traditionally under the visual amenity heading does not mean that the visual amenity it offers has been ignored in this assessment. The same applies for example to historic designed landscapes which may be indicated above as individual attractions but which are also valued landscape resources in their own right (see Cultural Heritage Chapter 5 of the ES). Part Two: Landscape Context Published Resources Concerning published resources, there are nine principal documents which have been considered. They are: Landscape Character Assessment for Peterborough City Council6; Wind Turbine Development in Fenland7; South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment8; Strategic Landscape Capacity Study for South Holland District Council9; The Countryside Agency s Countryside Character Assessment Joint Character Area 46 The Fens10; East of England Landscape Character Typology Landscape East11; East Midlands Regional Landscape Character Assessment12; Current Landscape Character Assessment (Northamptonshire)13; and 6 The Landscape Partnership for Peterborough City Council The Landscape Partnership for Fenland District Council fpcr for South Kesteven John Campion Associates Ltd for South Kesteven District Council Countryside Commission Land Use Consultants for Landscape East LDA for the East Midlands Landscape Partnership 2010 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-18

66 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment14. Supplementary Field Studies Supplementary field studies were carried out over a 12 month period between February 2012 and February They included walking parts of the proposed site; visiting villages surrounding the site; walking sections of promoted routes in the area including the Nene Way/Hereward Way, NCR 12/RCR 21, NCR 63; driving parts of A class roads in the area; walking sections of local rights of way; visiting residential properties in the vicinity of the site; and checking published key landscape characteristics with the experience on the ground. Regional Landscape Character Concerning national/regional character, the site is located in National Landscape Character Area 46 The Fens a character area which is in the order of 100km north-south and 50km east-west (see part of this landscape unit on Figure 4.1) The site is also located within the Planned Peat Fen regional character type part of which is illustrated on Figure 4.2. This, too, is an extensive area extending in this part of the landscape from north of Peterborough to beyond Ely The characterising effects of wind farm development are normally local rather than regional and, in a national/regional landscape of these scales, the effects of the proposed Gores Wind Farm would be similarly local. The key characteristics of the NLCA 46 The Fens are set out below. Large-scale, flat, open landscape with extensive vistas to level horizons and huge skies. A hierarchy of rivers, drains and ditches provide a strong influence throughout the area. Embanked rivers and roddons create local enclosure and elevation. Banks provide good grazing and grassland habitats. Modestly elevated islands within fens provide isolated higher ground for most settlement. A higher proportion of grassland, tree cover and hedgerows are associated with these areas. Settled Fens or Townlands, in arc set back from the Wash, exhibit an ancient medieval and irregular field pattern. Typically smaller-scale with scattered farmsteads and dispersed ribbon settlements along the main arterial routes. Peaty Fens drained in 17th century comprise large rectilinear fields of black soil. A geometric road and drainage pattern with major highlevel drains, washes and associated pumping stations. Roads and rail links often on elevated banks. Area south of Lincolnshire Wolds most recently drained with Wolds providing marked Upland horizon to north. 13 LDA for Northamptonshire County Council undated 14 LUC for Huntingdonshire District Council 2007 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-19

67 Woodland cover sparse. Occasional avenues to roads, elsewhere isolated field trees have marked significance. Shelter belts including poplar, willow and leylandii hedges around farmsteads. Numerous orchards in Wisbech area. Fragments of relic wet fen areas at Wicken, Woodwalton and Holme. Built forms exhibit strong influence ranging from historic cathedrals and churches, like Ely and Boston to large agricultural and industrial structures. Domestic architecture displays combination of elegant Georgian brick houses and bland 20th century bungalows At the regional level (East of England) the site is located in the Planned Peat Fen. The description and objectives for this area are set out in Technical Appendix At the national/regional scale, the key characteristics would be substantially unaffected. Were the proposed wind farm to be consented and constructed, it would be reasonable to assume that it would be consistent with a comment that could be made in the overall description with words to the effect that...wind energy development has given rise to a locally characterising effects in parts of this landscape. This would not however be regionally important. Local Landscape Character The Gores site is located in the Peterborough Fens with the Peterborough Fen Fringe just to the west (see Figure 4.1). To the north lie the South Holland Peaty Fens. To the east and south are Fenland s Fens and mixed in to the south the Whittlesey Island (Figure 4.2) The most relevant are the Peterborough Fens and the Peterborough Fen Fringe. The key characteristics of the Peterborough Fens are as follows: Flat extensive and open landscape with panoramic views and large skies; Rectilinear field pattern reflecting the artificial drainage pattern; Predominantly arable farmland; Isolated farmsteads mainly of Victorian to modern origin; Sparse tree cover generally limited to shelter belts/copses around farmsteads and avenue along drove roads; Road pattern typically rectilinear and raised above the surrounding peat fen; Scattered active and former mineral extraction sites; Settlement on the drained fen mainly of recent origin; and Organic pattern of fields and stronger hedgerows around Thorney Distinctive features are: Pill boxes and other WWII features; Avenues of trees along roads; Catswater Drain; Embanked River Nene; LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-20

68 Duck Decoy; Thorney Abbey and House; Thorney water pumping station tower; Duke of Bedford model village properties; Abbey Fields parkland in Thorney; and Dog in a Doublet sluice Concerning the Peterborough Fen Fringe, key characteristics are: Gently undulating landform slightly higher than adjacent fen; Evidence of former clay extraction, with clay pits now both nature reserves and a landfill site; Isolated farmsteads and residential properties; Large commercial buildings associated with the site of former brickworks; Some medium sized hedgerows containing a variety of species; and Promontory of open historically cultivated land extending to the east up to the line of the Catswater Drain Distinctive features are: Car Dyke Roman Canal; Household waste/landfill site; Dogsthorpe Star Pit SSSI/LNR; Former BOCM Paul building; Eye village core; and Permanent travellers sites. Valued Landscapes No national or local landscape designations have been identified within 20km of the site. This recognises that AGLV s and Prominent Areas were identified in the 1995 Local Plan for South Kesteven but subsequently have been dropped in the 2010 Local Development Framework. This also recognises that those parts of the Huntingdonshire landscape falling within 20km of the turbines did not constitute Areas of Best Landscape in previous Huntingdonshire planning documents. At the national level, the nearest statutory designation is the North Norfolk Coast AONB over 35km distant with the non-statutory Heritage Coast at the Wash over 30km distant Notwithstanding the absence of traditionally recognised high value landscapes at the district level, it is recognised that nearly all landscapes are highly valued by the local community in which they sit. From the responses gained talking informally to a number of local residents, this area is no exception At the same time, the more conventionally recognised aspects of landscape which can underpin value should be noted. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-21

69 The grading of high value (see Technical Appendix 4.1) would therefore be applicable informally to the site and its immediate setting at the local community level rather than the district, regional or national level Landscapes can be valued for many reasons with guidance offering various headings. 15 Table 4.3: Landscape Value Factors Ref Factor Comment 1 perceptual aspects such as scenic quality, tranquillity or wildness There is little sense of high scenic quality in this landscape. It is ordinary (this does not mean unpleasant) rather than special or exceptional. It is peaceful in places at the site and to the east and south but busier to the west and much more so to the north. There is no real sense of the wild. 2 landscape quality It is a high quality example of an intensively farmed landscape. However, this type of landscape tends to be less favoured than what might be regarded as typically farmed English countryside. In other words it is more of an engineered and planned landscape and less naturalistic than many. Those seeking what might be termed chocolate box landscape are more concerned with scenic quality (see above) than landscape quality. 3 rarity/ representativeness 4 special cultural associations 5 the influence and presence of other conservation interests 6 the existence of consensus about importance Landscape Fabric The site and its setting are not rare by any means within the local or wider landscape. See Cultural Heritage Chapter 5. See Ecology Chapter 7. Within the Peterborough Local Plan area, the landscape is undesignated. The same applies in Fenland concerning the landscape immediately across the boundary to the east and in South Holland to the north Concerning landscape fabric, see the Ecology and Cultural Heritage Chapters (ES Chapters 5 and 7) which deal with land cover and surface/subsurface artefacts. In general the site and its setting is dominated by intensive farmed arable cropping with field boundaries sometimes of hedgerow with hedgerow trees but mostly drainage channels. It is a landscape where traditional boundaries have been removed in the past for field enlargement In terms of the site, the most valued elements in the contemporary landscape would be the hedgerows, hedgerow trees and the some of the field boundaries. 15 SNH/Countryside Agency; Landscape Character Assessment Guidance; 2002 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-22

70 Landscape Resources In the wider contemporary landscape, fabric/elements that are valued include individual trees, clumps, and woodland notably that which has a strong deciduous component; vernacular buildings; water courses; traditional boundaries as well as elements that belong perhaps more properly in the broader cultural heritage framework i.e. scheduled monuments (SM s), other archaeological features of note, listed buildings, conservation areas and historic landscapes on English Heritage s Register Landscape character in its own right is a landscape resource. Landscape character, (the distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one area different from another rather than better or worse Swanwick, C. and LUC Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Wales; CA/SNH; 2002, p8) 16 is a landscape resource recognised in policy and advice. It should be noted that landscape character is not an expression of value. Landscape types are of relevance in that they are the building blocks within the landscape and which, in varying ways, can demonstrate greater and lesser capacity to accommodate change of various sorts. Landscape character has been identified and addressed in terms of relevant key characteristics earlier Landscape quality (see earlier) or, more strictly, landscape condition at the site and in the immediate vicinity must be regarded as mixed so far as representation of a farmed landscape with some utilities and communication routes close by with boundaries removed in places and gappy in other places although it is clearly a good example of an intensively farmed arable landscape. Accordingly, the overall judgement concerning the local environmental context is that, as an example of a farmed section of countryside, its condition is considered to be variable though mostly Medium quality Attributes such as tranquillity, remoteness and a sense of the wild are also aspects of the landscape experience which are increasingly valued although their presence in this context is variable but not notable (see Table 4.4) Landscape resources are set out in Table 4.4. Table 4.4: Landscape Receptors Landscape Receptors Landscape Character (Regional) (See Figure 4.2) Landscape Character (Local) (See Figure 4.3) Landscape Fabric on site See Ecology/Nature Conservation section but generally considered to be of Low sensitivity in that it is typical and does not display characteristics of high ecological//nature conservation value. Landscape Quality Medium to High (High in terms of being a high quality intensively farmed arable landscape but more generally Medium in the sense that its integrity is varied and condition variable). 16 Swanwick, C. and LUC; Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Wales ; CA/SNH; 2002,p8 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-23

71 Landscape Receptors Attributes (see Table 4.3 above) Statutorily Designated Landscapes - none within 30km (See Figure 4.4) Non-Statutorily Designated Landscapes - none within 10km (See Figure 4.4) Historic Parks and Gardens See ES Chapter 5 and Figure 5.2 Other Cultural/Archaeological Elements See ES Chapter 5 and Figure 5.2 Natural Factors See ES Chapter 7 and Figure 7.1 Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Capacity Concerning landscape sensitivity, this is a concept about which debate continues to circulate. In this case, this subject is better considered during and after the assessment of the proposal. A judgement concerning sensitivity to this particular proposal is an outcome statement rather than something which can be determined prior to the assessment. See Technical Appendix 4.1 where the reasoning behind this statement is explained. The GLVIA 2 nd edition points out that The sensitivity of the landscape is dependent on both the attributes of the receiving environment and the characteristics and effects of the proposed development and can only be established by carrying out the assessment. (2 nd Edition para 7.43, 4 th bullet emphasis added). In other words, until the host is subject to a stimulus, it is not possible to ascertain what the response would be. In this case the host is the local landscape, the stimulus is the introduction of the wind farm and the response is whether or not and to what extent local landscape character (and that which gives rise to it) would change As the GLVIA points out: Sensitivity is thus not absolute but is likely to vary according to the existing landscape, the nature of the proposed development and type of change being considered. Sensitivity is not, therefore, part of the landscape baseline but is considered during and arises from the assessment of effects (2 nd Edition para 2.28 emphasis added). Hence, as stated above, the judgement concerning sensitivity to this particular proposal is an outcome statement rather than something which can be determined prior to the assessment. It is considered in this assessment that those parts of the landscape where landscape character would change to a wind farm landscape and then a local landscape with wind farm sub-type would be where significant character effects would arise and hence the landscape within that area would be the most sensitive to the proposal Landscape capacity is not necessarily the same as the opposite of landscape sensitivity although in some cases this may appear to be the case. However, as Lovejoy and Coates demonstrated in Lancashire and Cumbria respectively for the local authorities, a generalised approach to the subject can prove helpful in narrowing down the issues which would be most relevant to a specific project in a specific location As part of the field studies, a separate exercise considered a range of attributes that have generally been applied in wind energy studies and which are exemplified in the work of Lovejoy in Lancashire for the County Council and Coates in Cumbria for the County together with a grouping of District Councils. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-24

72 Bringing such considerations together with the landscape at and in the local setting of the proposal, the Assessor s observations have been set out in Table 4.5. Columns 1, 2 and 4 are those of local authority consultants (Lovejoy). The text in the third column is the assessor s. Table 4.5: Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Lower Sensitivity The Gores Site Higher Sensitivity Physical Scale Large Large within a Large- Small Vast scale landscape. Openness Open, exposed Open and exposed. Enclosed, introverted, discrete Landform Smooth, regular, Flat/smooth. Dramatic, rugged, Land cover Complexity and Patterns Built Environment Perceptual Sense of remoteness/ wildness Perception of change flowing Extensive areas of consistent ground cover Simple and/or with sweeping lines, linear features and patterns Contemporary masts, pylons, industrial elements, buildings, infrastructure, settlements Busy evidence of human activity Dynamic or modern landscapes Very large fieldscapes with intensive arable cropping. Broken in places by shelterbelts, avenues and hedgerow. Simple landscape with linear features and patterns in the majority of the local landscape. Contemporary elements visible in the local and wider landscape including pylons, power lines, wind turbines, a power station, highway infrastructure. Canalisation and channelisation of watercourses is obvious. No sense of remoteness or wildness. A modern landscape (managed/planned established on an earlier system of reclamation). Dynamic elements in the form of wind turbines being apparent as well as highway busy infrastructure along the A47. complex Mosaic Complex or irregular patterns Established, traditional settlements, buildings or structures Remote and or peaceful, sense of tranquillity, solitude, emptiness Ancient landscapes, designed landscapes or landscapes with obvious historical continuity LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-25

73 Visual Landscapes that form settings, skylines, backdrops, focal points Views intervisibility Lower Sensitivity Generally a low lying landscape without distinctive landform or horizon Visually contained, limited views within/into/out of area near horizons The Gores Site Low lying without distinctive landform or horizon although wind energy development, brickworks chimneys and pylons/power lines provide reference. Extensive views potentially but frequently limited in this flat landscape by treescape under a huge overarching sky. Higher Sensitivity Areas with strong features, focal points that define the setting or skyline Extensive views within, into/out of area, distant horizons Value Rarity Commonplace Commonplace. Rare Designated scenic quality No specific designation No specific designation. National or regional designation Cultural associations No specific cultural See Cultural Heritage Chapter 5. Strong cultural association Amenity and recreation association Little or no amenity function Little amenity function across the site and in the immediate setting to the north and east. However, the presence of the Hereward Way and the Nene Way to the south-west, south and south-east must be noted along with NCR 63 and 12 as well as more locally promoted routes. Flag Fen is located some 4km 5km to the south-west. Well used for amenity/recreation Based on the Lovejoy model, this landscape that of the Gores site and its setting carries characteristics/attributes which render it less rather than more sensitive and thus more rather than less capable of accommodating wind energy effects without unacceptable harm Turning to the Coates model, many of the attributes are similar but here the following is noted: Openness with Broad Views (as partially evidenced at Gores) represents a lower sensitivity attribute. Flat or very gently undulating topography (e.g. in the Gores area) indicates a higher visual sensitivity. However, this does not take into account the considerable degree of screening/filtering that is then afforded by hedgerow/treescape and, from place to place, built form. Landscape Trajectory The landscape is not a static framework. It is an environment which is subject to change whether diurnal or seasonal or longer-term. Landscape may also be thought of as demonstrating a trajectory of change which, in LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-26

74 time-depth terms, is discussed in the Cultural Heritage Chapter. In contemporary terms it may be reflected in a combination of pressures for change arising from social, commercial and political pressures as well as from environmental factors A particularly important aspect of postulated change in the landscape is occurring as a result of climate change. Climate has a fundamental influence on landscape character. Much of the variety in the landscape comes from differences in climate allied to underlying physical infrastructure (geology, relief) together with vegetation patterns and human intervention. As is understood from published sources, climate change will affect habitats, agricultural patterns, flooding and erosion patterns and vulnerable landscape features Reports published in the East of England and elsewhere in England set out clear statements that attest (a) climate change is occurring and (b) what its effects may be for various interests. The effects alluded to include sea level rise and coastal erosion, changes in the thermal growing season and the down-stream effects which may pose threats to priority biodiversity habitats, changes in agriculture and forestry and flood patterns Topic Paper 9 in the Countryside Agency/SNH series 17 draws attention to the potential effects of climate change on a number of elements including: Habitat and Species Composition Habitat Fragmentation Water Resources Air Quality Soils Agriculture and Forestry Sea Level Rise Recreation and Tourism Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes Weathering Subsidence Flooding In other words, the multi-faceted environment which surrounds us is under substantial threat both in terms of its contemporary composition and appearance as well as its backcloth of cultural heritage and time-depth resources Topic Paper 9 clearly states: Climate influence, along with geology, soils, landform and biota is a key defining variable of the physical character of landscape. (para 30). It is important to recognise that perceptual and aesthetic characteristics of landscape may also be affected by climate 17 Deanwood, R., Adams, K. and Kersey, J.; Climate Change and Natural Forces the Consequences for Landscape Character ; Countryside Agency/Scottish Natural Heritage; LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-27

75 change. For example, characteristic landscapes such as snow-capped mountains in the Scottish highlands may change, whilst increased cloud over and poor air quality may influence visibility into, out of and within landscapes. Changes in landscape character as a result of climate change could prompt shifts in perceptions and preferences for certain landscapes. (para 31) Topic Paper 9 brings to public attention the fact that by tackling climate change, the contemporary and cultural time-depth landscape will be the beneficiary of moves to slow down and better manage the effects of climate change. On any analysis therefore, wind farms, like other examples of renewable projects, offer material landscape benefits in the context of the response to climate change In essence: climate change is occurring; the effects of climate change are already being experienced with respect to many aspects of the environmental upon which much within the landscape depends; this is recognised across a broad range of landscape domains from the coastal areas to the rural uplands; with potential damage to ancient burial sites, historic buildings, parks and gardens because of their sensitivity to climate change; perceptual and aesthetic aspects are likely to be affected by climate change; wind farm development (in its role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change) is, in itself, a mitigation measure to be set against adverse landscape and visual (i.e. perceptual) effects; tackling climate change is a necessary condition for sustainable development; Natural England has recognised that Climate Change represents the most serious long-term threat to the natural environment and that there is an urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts on the natural environment. There is a consequent need to support low carbon energy developments in appropriate locations to reduce the risk to the natural environment from climate change. (Source: Natural England s Policy on Wind Energy, March 2009) A joint statement from the RSPB, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the National Trust states, We recognise the devastating impacts which dangerous climate change would have on the natural environment and landscapes of the UK, and support rapid and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid this. Making such cuts will require significant reductions in energy use and dramatic improvements in energy efficiency, alongside the almost complete decarbonisation of the power sector by Changes within the landscape cannot be predicted with certainty. In other words, it is impossible to be quantitative about potential change but it is reasonable to be qualitative. It is reasonable to assume that some effects LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-28

76 will be direct and relatively immediate as events (flooding, drought, fires) and some will be direct but be more subtle and experienced over a longer time frame (habitat shift/loss, biodiversity change, changes in farming and forestry for example the possibility of less intensive land conversion to more intensive uses in the marginal uplands). Some changes will be indirect for example changes in soil water regimes leading consequentially to erosion/shrinkage and subsequently to damage to important elements in the built environment and the cultural heritage resource or what might be termed the inventory of heritage assets Climate influence is a key variable in defining landscape character and it is of global, 18 national, regional, county, district and local significance. Climate change is a major force for change within the landscape which will potentially affect landscape character, perceptions of valued landscapes and the integrity of landscape elements in the years ahead. It is within this framework that such landscape and visual effects as may be felt to arise from the proposal at Gores should also be understood. Part Three: Landscape Planning Policy Wind farm development and landscape planning interact at various levels from the National to the individual from The National Planning Policy Framework to the decisions made by individual landowners and users of the wider environment It is not the purpose of this part of the assessment to set out the specific detail which arises at each level. Rather, it is deemed more relevant to identify those aspects of landscape planning and visual amenity with which the assessment of effects should be concerned. Regional (so far as it still exists) and local planning policy is addressed in the accompanying Planning Statement. National Level Until relatively recently, relevant government policy was primarily set out in PPS 1, 7 and 22 and its Companion Guide until such time as the National Planning Policy Framework was approved. Although PPS 1, 7 & 22 are no longer extant, the underlying principles were borne in mind throughout design, evolution and the assessment process PPS 22 s Companion Guide has been retained. This contains sections and paragraphs referring to climate change, landscape and visual amenity. The Companion Guide places emphasis on the need to tackle climate change and the causes of global warming whose effects may have serious implications for local, regional and national landscapes. The guide 18 Phillips, A. (ed); Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Landscapes/Seascapes ; IUCN; This document (which regards National Park landscapes as Category V ) was a forerunner of the Durban Action Plan which seeks to ensure the proper management and conservation of protected areas. In the latter it is stated that Climate Change is the overarching threat to the world s biodiversity and is already having an effect on species and habitats, the functioning of landscapes and ecosystems, and the integrity of many protected areas. Phillips, A.; IUCN,; 2004; p3 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-29

77 guided the way that harm (if that is what was considered to arise) should be treated in the decision making-process The Companion Guide stressed at para 2.1 that global climate change is a recognised phenomenon of international significance and that the continuing production of greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide in particular, is contributing to the increasing rate of climate warming which runs counter to the aims of sustainable development. Tackling climate change is a necessary condition for sustainable development The Companion Guide can be interpreted as stressing the very urgent need to take action in an effective manner. The two elements of this urgency and effectiveness imply that, as each day passes, without on-theground delivery of renewable energy generation the worse the problems for landscape, in all its forms, are going to be As stated, the above PPS s have now been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF indicates at paragraphs 6 & 7 that the purpose of planning is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development which is founded on three roles one of which is environmental : contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy Throughout the NPPF runs the presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. (Paragraph 14.) In effect, the deployment of wind turbines as a means of tackling climate change is a vehicle for moving towards a more sustainable society (see earlier as interpreted from PPS 22 s companion guide). At the same time, deploying such development brings a tension in other directions since landscape character and visual amenity will be affected and a proportion of society will inevitably regard this as eroding the sustainability of their way of life essentially through the effect of change with respect to visual amenity. The tension between the two is ultimately a matter for the planning balance Further guidance is provided in paragraph 109: The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: protecting and enhancing valued landscapes Concerning the desire to protect and enhance valued landscapes, paragraphs set out what is an interpretation of what is meant by valued landscapes and how levels of protection should be commensurate with the hierarchy of designation. It is reasonable to conclude that, bearing in mind the planning principles set out in para 17, the Gores environment, however informally highly valued in the local community sense, would not fit within the NPPF classification of a highly valued landscape. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-30

78 Local At the local level, the relevant Peterborough City Council development plan document is the Peterborough Local Development Framework - Peterborough Core Strategy Development Plan Document adopted 23rd February Throughout the document there is reference to landscape character. It is noted in section of the above document that One of the unique characteristics of Peterborough is its situation in the landscape, on the very edge of the Fens. To the east of the City, the fenland landscape is flat and open, with the villages of Eye and Thorney on islands of higher ground and a settlement pattern of dispersed hamlets and farms. The proposed site lies within this area At 3.0.3, concerning local distinctiveness, it states: A place of pioneering and originality with a strong local identity, internationally renowned as the UK's Environment Capital, but whose growth and progress is anchored within the area's rich character and history - reflected in its charming villages, stately homes, historic urban architecture and rich landscapes. What is of greatest note in the vicinity of the site is the planned form of the drained Fens with its own, distinct character (see later). What also renders parts of the wider landscape distinctive is the presence of wind energy development There are relevant objectives set out in the document. With respect to rural character and distinctiveness, Objective 3 states: In the rural areas, to safeguard and enhance local landscapes, archaeology and historic buildings and the historic character and integrity of the villages whilst ensuring that they remain thriving communities through appropriate provision of housing, jobs and services. In the urban fringe, to ensure that development contributes to enhancing its character and appearance and its recreational and/or biodiversity value, provides networks of accessible green infrastructure linking urban areas to the countryside and avoids harm to sites of wildlife importance. Concerning sites of environmental importance, Objective 20 states: "To enhance and protect from inappropriate or harmful development all Peterborough s environmental assets, including the Green Grid, River Nene, Fen Waterways, European Sites of Importance (Orton Pit, Barnack Hills and Holes and Nene Washes), district open spaces, valued local landscapes, strategic views, ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees and other areas of biodiversity value Policy CS11 addresses renewable energy. It cross relates to landscape and amenity in the following manner (with emphasis added). Proposals for development involving the provision of renewable and/or low-carbon technologies... together with ancillary buildings and additional infrastructure, will be supported and encouraged, except where the proposal would have unacceptable impacts which are not outweighed by local and wider environmental, economic, social and other considerations of the development. Permission will only be granted if the developer has satisfactorily addressed the following on an individual case by case basis: use of the most appropriate technology for the site; LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-31

79 the impact of the development on air traffic operations, radar and air navigational installations; measures to mitigate any adverse effects on the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties during the construction, operational lifespan and decommissioning of the equipment/infrastructure; provision for the protection, preservation and/or mitigation for any features of strategic, cultural, agricultural, ecological, historic and/or archaeological importance, including landscape character - where relevant (as described in detail within other policies in the development plan) Commercial-scale renewable energy generation developments will be supported at locations where other policies of the development plan can be satisfied. Developments of this type will be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which will be based on relevant regional and national guidance/best practice and the individual and unique circumstances of the case. When considering such assessments, regard will be given to the wider benefits of providing energy from renewable sources as well as the potential effects at the local scale Open space and green infrastructure is protected by Policy CS19. Policy CS 20 addresses landscape character. New development in and adjoining the countryside should be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining and enhancing the distinctive qualities of the landscape character area and sub area in which it would be situated. There are six landscape character areas (with associated sub-areas), which have been identified in the Peterborough Landscape Character Assessment. Their general extent is shown on Map 2. They are: Nene Valley; Nassaburgh Limestone Plateau; Welland Valley; Peterborough Fens; Peterborough Fen Fringe; and South Peterborough Claylands For each Landscape Character Area and sub area, specific details of which are provided in the Landscape Character Assessment, criteria will need to be satisfied in order for development to be approved. Planning permission will only be granted if the proposed development would: (a) recognise and, where possible, enhance the character and qualities of the local landscape through appropriate design and management ; (b) reflect and enhance local distinctiveness and diversity; (c) make adequate provision as far as is reasonably practicable for the retention of features and habitats of significant landscape, historic, wildlife and geological importance; (d) safeguard and enhance important views within the development layout; (e) protect the landscape settings and separate identities of settlements; and (f) provide appropriate landscape mitigation proportionate in scale and design, and/or suitable off-site enhancements Section of the document states: Outside the City itself, Peterborough is predominantly a rural district; therefore its landscapes are an important part of its character. They have physical, historical, cultural, LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-32

80 visual and aesthetic value, impacting on the day to day life of Peterborough s residents and visitors. The criteria based approach offers a comprehensive, detailed methodology for landscape conservation, enhancement and creation, offering individual guidance for the different landscape character areas and sub areas and protecting Peterborough s landscape in a more efficient and complete manner In addition to character in general, there are elements which contribute to character, which arise as a result of their cultural, social, historic and nature conservation/ecological characteristics which are addressed in the Cultural Heritage and Ecology Chapters (ES Chapters 5 and 7 respectively). In heritage terms, elements which are particularly noteworthy and protected by policy are Scheduled Monuments, important archaeological sites, Conservation Areas, buildings of architectural and historic interest, historic settlements, parks and gardens etc An interpretation of policy would suggest that an otherwise unacceptable landscape effect can be rendered acceptable within the planning balance. Proposals for development involving the provision of renewable and/or low-carbon technologies... together with ancillary buildings and additional infrastructure, will be supported and encouraged, except where the proposal would have unacceptable impacts which are not outweighed by local and wider environmental, economic, social and other considerations of the development The overall thrust of policy and guidance is therefore to seek the retention and enhancement of the countryside from sporadic development which has no prima facie case for locating there. Where there is a prima facie case for a countryside location, as there is in the case of wind farm development, then the matter is more one of balance in which need plus environmental and other benefit are weighed against potential environmental cost and/or effects which may significantly adversely affect features which are of value. Such proposals as may come forward are required to be judged in the light of potential environmental and other effects on the natural and built heritage. Where proposals are acceptable in principle, they will still be required to show a high quality in respect of site planning and design. There is therefore recognition of the need to strike a balance between the protection of the countryside and its constituents and the need to meet legitimate pressures for development in a sustainable manner In addition, consideration should also be given to design matters such that development should where possible respond to the local characteristics of the host site as well as the identity of the surrounding area consistent also with having regard to residential amenity and visual amenity more generally. 4.7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Construction and Decommissioning Impacts The potential effects of the proposed wind farm are disaggregated between visual and landscape effects for each of the three stages of the development: construction, operation and decommissioning. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-33

81 4.7.2 All three have been given careful consideration. However it is the operational stage which is of greatest relevance. Accordingly, the construction and decommissioning stage effects are not included in this part of the ES but are set out separately in Technical Appendix 4.6. Operational Impacts Representative Viewpoints The assessment of effects arising has been carried out in the first instance from the range of agreed representative viewpoints. Thereafter, the judgements have formed the basis for extrapolating the findings and assessing the potential effects of the proposal from a wider range of locations across the landscape A further consideration in forming judgements has been to bear in mind the findings of the SNH sponsored study by the University of Newcastle which is concerned with the visual effects of wind farm development (see below) Concerning the agreed representative viewpoints, the individual assessments have been set out in Technical Appendix 4.4 corresponding to the individual visualisations on Figures to which reference should be made The assessment was carried out assuming that the effects arising would be experienced: in clear weather conditions; with a good level of visibility and backdrop contrast; assuming winter conditions for maximum visibility; and with rotor movement face on to the viewer Based upon the changes arising as experienced at or viewed from the representative viewpoints and as extrapolated into the wider landscape, there would be clear effects arising in terms of both landscape character and visual amenity When taken collectively, the assessments indicate not only measures of significance arising but also permit appreciation of the geographical extent over which significant effects are likely to be felt. At the same time, judgements have been made at each viewpoint as to the scale and appearance of the wind farm. Judgements concerning valency of effect (reflecting the positive-negative spectrum of response) are reported later with accompanying reasoning The potential visual and landscape effects arising as assessed at each viewpoint are set out in summary form in Table Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice ; University of Newcastle for Scottish Natural Heritage; Commissioned Report F01AA303A; 2002 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-34

82 Table 4.6: Schedule Of Viewpoints Summary Of Visual And Landscape Effects VP Ref Location 1 Whittlesey Road 2 South Thorney 3 A47 Laybye 4 B1443 Bukethorn Road 5 Willow Hall Lane 6 A47 The Causeway 7 North-east Eye Distance To Nearest Turbine km Potential Visual Effects Gores Wind Farm in its Own Right Approximate Magnitude Sensitivity Significance Landscape Type/Area 1.4 High High Major Peterborough Fens 2.3 Low High Moderate Peterborough Fens 2.0 Low/Medium High Between Peterborough possibly Moderate and Fens Medium Moderate/Major 2.4 Medium/High High Between Moderate/Major and Major Potential Landscape Effects Gores Wind Farm in its Own Right Peterborough Fens 2.6 Medium High Moderate/Major Peterborough Fens 1.7 High High Major Peterborough Fens 2.8 Low/Medium High Between Moderate and Moderate/Major Peterborough Fens 8 Nene Way 3.4 Medium High Moderate/Major Peterborough Fens/Fens 9 Regional 6.9 Low possibly High Urban Edge / Cycle Low/Medium Peterborough Route 21 Fens Moderate possibly Between Moderate and Moderate/Major Wind Farm Landscape Created at VP Locally Characterising Effect at VP Significant Yes/No Significant Yes/No No Yes Landscape: Yes Visual: Yes No No Landscape: No Visual: No No No Landscape: No Visual: No in summer but possibly Yes in winter No Yes Landscape: Yes Visual: Yes No No Landscape: No Visual: Yes No Yes Landscape: Yes Visual: Yes No No Landscape: No Visual: No No No Landscape: No Visual: Yes No No Landscape: No Visual: No LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-35

83 VP Ref Location 10 French Drove Road Distance To Nearest Turbine km Potential Visual Effects Gores Wind Farm in its Own Right Approximate Magnitude Sensitivity Significance Landscape Type/Area 9.0 Low High Moderate Peterborough Fens 11 A Low or Possibly Low/Medium 12 East of Flood s Ferry 13 Macmillan Way 14 A16 Crowland 15 B1167 Between Parson Drove and Murrow 16 A1122 between Emneth and Outwell 17 A141 / A605 Junction High Moderate or Possibly Between Moderate and Moderate/Major Potential Landscape Effects Gores Wind Farm in its Own Right Peterborough Fens 13.3 Low High Moderate Peterborough Fens Wind Farm Landscape Created at VP Locally Characterising Effect at VP Significant Yes/No Significant Yes/No No No Landscape: No Visual: No No No Landscape: No Visual: No No No Landscape: No Visual: No 19.1 Negligible High Low/Moderate Peaty Fens No No Landscape: No Visual: No 6.6 Low at this High Moderate but Peaty Fens / No No Landscape: No point, Between Peterborough Visual: No Low/Medium Moderate and Fens nearby Moderate/Major 11.6 Negligible but Akin to No Change 23.0 Akin to No Change 12.5 Akin to No Change High High High nearby Low/Moderate but Akin to No Change Akin to No Change Akin to No Change Fens No No Landscape: No Visual: No Fens No No Landscape: No Visual: No Fens No No Landscape: No Visual: No LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-36

84 VP Ref Location 18 Nene Way Kingsland 19 Minor road to the south-east of Thorney 20 B1040 North Side 21 Nene Way north-east of Whittlesey 22 B1095 south-west of Whittlesey 23 B1040 north of Ramsey St Mary s Distance To Nearest Turbine km Potential Visual Effects Gores Wind Farm in its Own Right Approximate Magnitude Sensitivity Significance Landscape Type/Area 7.9 Low/Medium High Between Moderate and Moderate/Major 2.2 High High Major Peterborough Fens 2.4 High High Major Peterborough Fens 4.7 Low/Medium High Between Moderate and Moderate/Major Potential Landscape Effects Gores Wind Farm in its Own Right Wind Farm Landscape Created at VP Locally Characterising Effect at VP Significant Yes/No Significant Yes/No Fens No No Landscape: No Visual: No No Yes Landscape: Yes Visual: Yes No Yes Landscape: Yes Visual: Yes Fens No No Landscape: No Visual: Yes 8.8 Low High Moderate Fen Margin No No Landscape: No Visual: No 12.4 Negligible High Low/Moderate Fens No No Landscape: No Visual: No LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-37

85 Visual Drawing upon the assessment from each of the representative viewpoints (see Technical Appendix 4.4), concerning significant visual effects, these are likely to be found within a radius of up to c4km 5km from the nearest turbines assuming clear visibility from open viewpoints from which a reasonable proportion of the operating (i.e. assuming rotor movement) wind farm would be visible. This is derived from judgements of change being of Medium magnitude or greater for High sensitivity viewers (see Technical Appendix 4.1) for example at Viewpoints 1, 4 and 6. For High sensitivity receptors the significance would therefore be Moderate/Major or greater (i.e. giving rise to significant effects as interpreted in terms of the relevant EIA Regulations). Where the visible proportion of the wind farm would be noticeably less, the magnitude and significance would also be less and reduce below visually significant levels e.g. Viewpoint 9 and 10 or others Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show the ZTV s at Hub and Blade Tip with the 5km, 10km and 15km radii indicated Between the range c4km/5km and c12km/15km or thereabouts, again from open locations from which a reasonable proportion of the wind farm would be visible, the magnitude of change would drop below Medium to Low/Medium for example Viewpoints 9 and 11 (Figures and ) and then from c12km/15km and over, from Low/Medium to Low to Low/Negligible and then Negligible for example Viewpoints 13 and 23 (Figures and ) Beyond c12km/15km or thereabouts, the wind farm is only likely to be perceived in clear visibility conditions and seen as part of the wider landscape composition although the movement of rotors may still be discernible. This matter has been addressed in more general terms in SNH published guidance. We could detect movement with clarity at distances up to 15km in clear conditions or conditions of strong contrast between the rotors and the sky, but only if you are specifically looking for the windfarm. On occasions, movement was not visible at 6km in weak contrast. At a distance of more than about 12km blade movement can become hardly perceptible and we judge that blade movement is perceptible to the casual observer at up to approximately 10km. Movement was more perceptible when backdropped against dark vegetation compared to grey sky Beyond c km or thereabouts, the wind farm is only likely to be seen in very clear visibility conditions and either when the viewer deliberately searches for it when weather conditions are such that it may be highlighted against its surroundings or views are oriented as to face the wind farm direction as a focus. In general we found that the turbines are perceptible at a range of from 15 20km from the windfarm and up to 25km in specific cases and conditions. These distances only apply in clear conditions and if you are specifically looking for the turbines and not 20 Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice ; University of Newcastle for Scottish Natural Heritage; Commissioned Report F01AA303A; 2002; p53 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-38

86 just looking at the landscape. It is likely that the turbines would [not] be perceptible to a casual observer at distances of from 10 15km, unless they were highly sensitive or observant or a resident. Note that [not] has been inserted in order to complete the sense of the passage The distance over which turbine detail is noticeable is about 5-8km. At a distance of more than about 10km it is not possible to identify the taper of the turbine tower or identify nacelle detail. At distances up to approximately 12km turbines are perceived as individual structures that, dependant on layout, may or may not form a group. At a distance of more than about 10km the turbines begin to be perceived as a group forming a windfarm, rather than as individual turbines The above statements were made in relation to developments within the Scottish landscape. What is noticeable about the Fenland landscape is that the combination of flatness or near flatness together with what comes to be intervening treescape/hedgerow/woodland and built form, perception of wind energy development drops away relatively quickly and turbines become far less striking with a much reduced visual presence given low horizons, intervening elements which need not be high and the strength and grandeur of what are frequently perceived to be overarching skies. Landscape Concerning landscape character, whether or not there would be an effect has, in the first instance, been considered with respect to the key characteristics obtaining at the different levels (Regional/Local) and establishing which ones would be affected and to what extent These judgements, allied to the viewpoint visualisations and the findings set out in Technical Appendix 4.4 then permit a broader conclusion to be reached. As explained earlier, significant character effects would be where the wind farm gives rise to a wind farm landscape and/or local landscape with wind farm sub-type in this case up to c800m (wind farm landscape) and from c1.5km - c2.5km or thereabouts concerning what can be termed the Fens with Wind Farm Sub-type and Fen Fringe with Wind Farm sub-type. The modified local landscape character types are indicated on Figures and In landscape character terms many of the viewpoints would lie well outside this range. As such, there will not be any significant direct landscape character effects beyond this range. However, the visual effect of the proposal may nonetheless affect perceptions of the landscape as experienced at the viewpoint and therefore consideration has been given in the analysis in Technical Appendix For the purposes of this assessment, a significant character effect would be where the proposed wind farm would give rise to a wind farm landscape and/or a local landscape with wind farm sub-type (see Technical Appendix 4.1). 21 Ibid; p52 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-39

87 It should be noted however that it is perfectly valid for an observer farther afield to conclude that her/his immediate surroundings are not specifically characterised by the wind farm but this does not preclude a significant visual effect arising when viewing in the direction of the wind farm (see Technical Appendix 4.1 and Example 5 on Diagram 1) Concerning landscape fabric, the removal of a relatively small area of farmland for track and turbine locations and ancillary development would not be significant given the widespread occurrence of intensively farmed countryside and, as a result, its conversion would not be especially noticeable or missed in land use terms and in terms of its wider dominance of landscape character in the broader setting (Negligible magnitude x Low sensitivity not significant) Concerning land use, the removal of a small area of land from the host context would not disrupt existing uses or operations. The wind farm would be additive rather than noticeably subtractive in terms of land uses. Accordingly, existing land uses are not considered to be affected to any marked degree and therefore the perceptions they offer and the contributions they make to local landscape character would continue (effectively neutral in terms of maintaining existing land use) By additive as opposed to subtractive, this can best be explained in the following manner. A wind farm by its peculiar 22 nature, removes very little of the existing landscape fabric. Thus the wind farm is perceived to add elements leaving the broader existing elements, patterns and combinations of patterns largely untouched. The wind farm would be seen to be set within the open farmland with infrastructure such that pre-existing land uses would continue very much as before. The wind farm would be additive and, by implication, easily removed such that the original landscape could be easily recovered. Thus the assessed magnitude of effect should be tempered in the knowledge that, although long-term, the effect would not be of permanent duration The wind farm would arise from planting the turbines into an established landscape which would largely remain as before at the broader scale. At the same time, the peculiar geometry of the wind farm carries with it the characteristic of having a high degree of visual permeability permitting observers to look between and beyond the individual elements and thus maintain linkage and reference with the wider context. As such, openness would be reduced to a degree but not significantly. 22 By peculiar the assessor does not mean odd or strange. Rather, the assessor adopts the meaning which relates to something being a characteristic of and distinctive i.e. peculiar to something. If the observer were contemplating a building then one way to consider the appearance would be to refer to the massing of the elements and the relationship between solid and void - usually hard exterior finishes versus door and window openings. Developments with a high proportion of solid to void tend to be described as heavy, massive, impenetrable whereas those with a higher void to solid ratio are described as light, airy, permeable. A wind farm has a peculiar geometry in the sense that it (normally and certainly in this case) has an unusually low solid/void ratio when read as a single form of development. In the landscape fabric sense, it is peculiar in having a very light footprint and one which permits farming to continue more or less up to or very close to the turbine bases. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-40

88 Concerning landscape character, there would be a significant character effect arising which would give rise to a wind farm landscape within and in the vicinity of the turbines (up to c800m from the turbines) and a locally characterising effect outwards where a local landscape sub-type would theoretically arise (perhaps between c1.5km up to c2.5km or thereabouts see Figure 4.3.1) depending on extent of visibility of the wind farm with respect to pre-existing local landscape types and character and notable boundaries providing separation and contrast The changes would arise directly in the Peterborough Fens and immediately adjacent to the Fen Fringe. The key characteristics and features have been listed earlier. An assessment of the relationship between the proposal and them is set out in Table 4.7 below. Table 4.7: Peterborough Fens and Fen Fringe Assessment Peterborough Fens Key Characteristics Flat extensive and open landscape with panoramic views and large skies Rectilinear field pattern reflecting the artificial drainage pattern Predominantly arable farmland Isolated farmsteads mainly of Victorian to modern origin Sparse tree cover generally limited to shelter belts/copses around farmsteads and avenue along drove roads Road pattern typically rectilinear and raised above the surrounding peat fen Scattered active and former mineral extraction sites Settlement on the drained Assessment These will remain. No change. No change. The pattern will be maintained. Essentially no change in the wider context. No change. No change to existing and future patterns. No change. Comment Although remaining as such, the composition of some of the views will change as a result of the introduction of the turbines. Such change however will introduce elements which are already part of the wider scene. Potential for modest change locally as a result of the habitat management plan. The potential for further change is noted. Operational sites tend to have screening bunds around them which limit local visibility. It may be surmised that future developments will similarly deploy screening bunds which could preclude/reduce views to the proposed Gores Wind Farm. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-41

89 Peterborough Fens Key Characteristics fen mainly of recent origin Organic pattern of fields and stronger hedgerows around Thorney Peterborough Fens Distinctive Features Pill boxes and other WWII features Avenues of trees along roads Catswater Drain Embanked River Nene Duck Decoy Thorney Abbey and House Thorney water pumping station tower Duke of Bedford model village properties Abbey Fields parkland in Thorney Dog in a Doublet sluice Peterborough Fen Fringe Key Characteristics Gently undulating landform slightly higher than adjacent fen Evidence of former clay extraction, with clay pits now both nature reserves and a landfill site Isolated farmsteads and residential properties Large commercial buildings associated with the site of former brickworks Some medium sized hedgerows containing a variety of species Promontory of open historically cultivated land extending to the east up to the line of the Catswater Drain Peterborough Fen Fringe Distinctive Features Car Dyke Roman canal Household waste/landfill site Dogsthorpe Star Pit SSSI/LNR Assessment No change. Unaffected. Unaffected. Unaffected. Unaffected. Unaffected. Unaffected. Unaffected. Potential for visual relationships some of which will involve a significant visual effect. Unaffected. No change. No change. The pattern will be unaltered. No change. No change. No change. Unaffected. Unaffected. Unaffected. Comment See Cultural Heritage Chapter 5 and comment regarding the Abbey Fields parkland below. See Cultural Heritage Chapter 5. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-42

90 Peterborough Fens Key Characteristics Former BOCM Paul building Eye village core Permanent travellers sites Assessment Unaffected. Unaffected. Unaffected. Comment With the wind farm introduced into the landscape, there would be a significant change in local landscape character. Theoretically this would occur in the area between Eye to the west and Thorney/Upper Knarr Fen to the east; and between just to the north of the B1443 in the north to the River Nene in the south. The wind farm landscape within that range would occur roughly between the minor road that runs past the site between the A47 and Flag Fen across the B1040 and then between the A47 and the sand and gravel pit water bodies at Prior s Fen. However, in certain parts of this area there are marked contrasts where prevailing character would be sufficiently strong as to maintain its presence notwithstanding the presence of the wind farm e.g. within the settlement of Thorney and possibly also north of the A47 where there can be a sense of severance arising from the presence of the A47 and substantial treescape. Given this and other factors, the on-the-ground effect would be less in extent than the theoretical extent. Figure 4.3 illustrates the other commercial scale operational and consented turbines. Figure adds Gores (whilst see later adds the relevant proposed schemes) Beyond c1.5km to c2.5km from the turbines, the locally theoretical characterising landscape effects of the wind farm would have diminished to the extent that it would form an element within the wider landscape without being a determinant of type or a principal characteristic of any subtype within the wider landscape. It should be remembered that landscape character at any particular location is determined by more than just appraisal and awareness of elements observed in a single direction or single sector of the compass as viewed from an observation point. Landscape character at any given point is based on the presence of elements and patterns in the full 360 degree environment surrounding the observer and at many locations, wind energy development is a visible element indicating a broader landscape with wind farm development and not a wind farm landscape across a broad area. The addition of Gores within this framework would maintain this impression rather than result in a comprehensive transformation across a wide landscape. Preliminary Conclusion As a result of introducing the proposed wind farm at Gores, significant visual and landscape effects would arise broadly within the geographic limits described above. However, in order to be consistent with a full interpretation of the relevant EIA Regulations, it is necessary to consider whether or not, in the assessor s opinion, the resulting effects would be adverse, neutral or positive i.e. to consider the valency of the effect This is guided through consideration of the potential appearance of the wind farm in the landscape based on key criteria/questions posed by the assessor as set out below. It should be noted however that this is essentially a subjective process informed by professional experience and that contrasting opinions (whether professional or lay) are likely to arise and, provided they are (a) founded on correct information and LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-43

91 understanding of that information and (b) genuinely held, they must be recognised and respected as legitimate counter opinion. o Would the wind farm be a single point focus or a pattern that fits within the pattern of the landscape or would it contrast awkwardly with the line of the landscape? Assessment: the wind farm would offer an image which from most quarters would offer a reasonably regular pattern within an organised landscape. It would however comprise tall, vertical elements which would contrast strongly with the broad horizontal emphasis of the local landscape but would nevertheless be consistent with locally characterising wind energy developments in the local (McCains/Whittlesey) and wider landscape (e.g. Glass Moor, Ranson Moor see Figure 4.3.1). o Would its image be sensitive/dominating; exciting/mundane; sculptural/ utilitarian; simple/confusing; powerful/compromising; erratic/rhythmic; intimidating/familiar? Assessment: the wind farm would be perceived as both (sensitive/dominating) related in an appropriate manner to its context in part but also dominant when seen from close by (e.g. from the public right of way to the south east of Prior s Farm) and prominent farther afield. It would not be mundane. Some would regard it as an exciting, thrilling addition to a mostly pleasant scene. It would be sculptural in some eyes and ugly and clashing in others. It would be simple, powerful (a symbol of benevolent power for some), rhythmic and, in time, would become a familiar part of the local environment although regarded by some initially at least as hostile. o In general terms, a proportion of the population will consider the wind farm in a positive light. Whilst this is also the considered opinion of the assessor, it must be recognised that this is based on professionally informed subjectivity and that there will be a proportion of the local population which will not share this view. For those adversely disposed to the wind farm, they will consider it to be adverse, dominating, utilitarian, disturbing and potentially hostile to the enjoyment of amenity depending upon proximity. Assuming such an opinion is founded on correct information and genuinely held, such an opinion must be regarded as valid and worthy of recognition and respect. o When combined with landscape character would the wind farm have a positive or negative image/symbolism? Assessment: It is recognised that there would be a proportion of the population which would feel adversely disposed to the proposal. However, this assessment s judgement, as assessed from the agreed representative viewpoints and based on the wireline visualisations (and subsequently supplemented by the photomontages), is that the wind farm may be regarded as offering a positive contribution to make to landscape character (and consistent with the locally characterising effects of other operational wind energy developments in Fen landscapes). It would clearly add to the sense of place and establish a further layer of local distinctiveness although there would be a change in local landscape character. If LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-44

92 change per se is to be regarded as adverse, then the effect would be adverse. If character is to be defined as set out in the European Landscape Convention, then the spectrum of perceived response must be recognised and therefore there must be scope to recognise that a proportion of the population will regard the proposal as giving rise to a positive effect. o Is it appropriate/inappropriate in its landscape, cultural and visual context? Assessment: Part of its landscape context however also includes cultural considerations which must deal with the presence of significant heritage and archaeological interests including English Heritage s Register of historic landscapes as well as Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other conservation based elements. These are addressed in the Cultural Heritage chapter. It is considered that the presence of the wind farm would not conflict significantly with the cultural heritage context or compromise its value. The wind farm would largely meet the design criteria referred to earlier and set out in Technical Appendix 4.3. By having regard to the attributes and characteristics of the local landscape together with its scale and trend, it would not permanently remove anything of particular note in terms of its contemporary landscape context and the same may be said of its cultural heritage context. It would therefore not be inappropriate in its landscape and cultural contexts bearing in mind that renewable energy development is a feature of the local and wider countryside In terms of the visual context, given the limits to significant visual effects are considered to be in the range up to c km from the turbines, the on-the-ground experience would be constrained locally within that range. The arc of theoretical visual significance would extend over the landscape from the eastern fringe of Peterborough around to south of Whittlesey across to Coates and up to Lower Knarr Fen and then to Morris Fen north of Thorney and to Nene Terrace at the New South Eau; towards Newborough and then down to the A47 x A1139 roundabout. The on the ground visual influence of the turbines would however be more limited within that range given the presence of built form (e.g. at Thorney, Eye/Eye Green and Whittlesey); small woodland and shelterbelt together with tree avenues and reasonably tall hedgerows flanking roads and public rights of way (even in winter) and more widely across the landscape It is therefore considered that the change arising would be compatible with respect to landscape fabric and land use and largely respectful of and consistent with (if not integrated into) landscape character in the local area (noting that the visual context would be significantly affected to a notably greater degree). The wind farm would add further movement in a part of the landscape which already displays the very clear signs of on-going human intervention and management (power lines and pylons, major highway infrastructure, other wind energy development, canalised and channelled watercourses). This would be felt both by residents and those enjoying the area for its recreational attributes (e.g. mostly walkers, riders, cyclists) as well as those enjoying the area for its cultural (Flag Fen) and ecological attributes and nature conservation interests (bird watching across a wide area) and other recreational interests for example angling LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-45

93 which may be partially landscape dependent for complementary enjoyment It is considered that residents and those going about their daily business in the area would, if exposed to the turbines and notwithstanding an adverse stance, develop a degree of familiarity such that the wind farm s perceived influence could decrease over time For those who would take an adverse attitude to the wind farm, visual effects would be of High or Medium magnitude locally and therefore significant in the local context and this will apply potentially to a proportion of local residents and a proportion of those enjoying the landscape for recreation, ecological or cultural purposes. The proposal may be considered by some to break or disrupt some wide, but certainly not uninterrupted views and to inject further tall, vertical man-made elements into their composition which, for some, will be perceived as amplifying the presence of other visible, man-made features locally and farther afield (for example other wind turbines, power lines and pylons which are notable characteristics of or features within parts of the already modified local and wider landscape Whilst significant local effects would arise, these have to be placed in context. Whilst pleasant in parts but otherwise plain, the landscape at and in the immediate vicinity of the site is not of high scenic quality. This has a bearing on how the significance of the proposal should be judged since it would not conflict with key views or promoted viewpoints It is considered that the wind farm would mostly appear balanced, controlled, visually permeable, well-related to the broad scale and grain of the landscape and, as such, would be capable of introducing a positive image which would add to the landscape experience. When sufficiently distant so as to be capable of being read as a single feature, the wind farm would, when observed from certain directions, demonstrate a horizontal emphasis. Such effects would be of long-term duration (rather than permanent) given their reversibility at the end of the working life of the proposal The proposed Gores Wind Farm would, from most locations and directions, achieve a high degree of openness, substantially avoid perceptions of densely massed turbines, maintain suitable distances between turbines and settlements/dwellings so as to preclude overwhelming or over-dominant visual effects, and would do so within a landscape that is assumed to be highly valued at the local community level but is undesignated at any level Further, in terms of landscape quality (i.e. condition), the habitat management/enhancement proposals which are part and parcel of the overall scheme (see Ecology Chapter 7) will not only bring positive ecology/nature conservation benefits, but they will also strengthen local character in a positive manner and improve the condition of the landscape Whilst this is the opinion of the assessor, for that sector of the population who will view it in an adverse light, the wind farm will be felt to give rise to a significant adverse effect in visual terms which would be interpreted as LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-46

94 eroding such scenic qualities as may be felt to occur and similarly erode such other attributes as may be felt to occur in this area e.g. limited detachedness and limited tranquillity to a degree. These attributes (detachedness - as opposed to remoteness - and tranquillity) are not however especially noteworthy characteristics of the site and its local context and those seeking remoteness, tranquillity, and a combination of naturalness/a sense of the wild/scenic beauty would generally not seek them in this area between Thorney, Whittlesey and Peterborough It is important to appreciate that the Gores landscape is not natural and wild in the sense that it has remained untouched by the hand of humankind. It has been a working landscape over the course of millennia - and remains so today. The presence of the wind farm would add to the interpretation of and extend the legacy of human intervention in this landscape in a positive (assessor s conclusion) and superficially reversible manner The wind farm s existence would occupy a very limited period in terms of the life of this landscape. Twenty five years of such human intervention and management would be minimal in the context of possibly thousands of years of human presence. Once removed, other things being equal, the contemporary landscape would be substantially reclaimed and the subsurface residual pattern of wind farm presence would join the historical and then archaeological layers of the palimpsest of cultural context Further, more detailed visual and landscape effects assessment is set out below. Visual Resources The assessment carried out from the representative viewpoints (Technical Appendix 4.4 and Table 4.6) provides a set of findings concerning the potential extent of likely significant visual (up to c4km 5km) and landscape character (up to c1.5km c2.5km) effects. As such, this forms the basis for extrapolation of the findings and assessing the potential effects of the proposal from a wider range of locations across the landscape relevant to people (visual receptors i.e. viewers) and landscape receptors A series of valued visual/amenity resources has been addressed in Technical Appendix 4.5 and conclusions drawn with respect to the most relevant landscape resources in the area and for which visual effects may be potentially significant not forgetting the visual amenity that landscape resources offer. Residential Amenity A representative number of individual and small clusters of residential properties (see Figure 4.7) and settlements (see Technical Appendix 4.5) were visited and judgements in the main made from publicly accessible locations as well as from the properties themselves where access was permitted. It should be stressed again that not every property was identified and visited the object was to be representative rather than completely definitive. Concerning the potential effect on the amenity and LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-47

95 character of settlements, whilst there are occupiers of individual properties who will experience visual effects of varying degree, the assessment also seeks to consider the more general effect on the character of and the amenity to be enjoyed within and when walking/riding out from the settlement as a whole. Individual Properties and Small Clusters Up to c1km - 2km from the turbines there are several individual properties and small clusters. The listing in Technical Appendix 4.5 indicates what is believed to be as near a representative (though not fully exhaustive) coverage as possible. Property locations are shown on Figure 4.8. Beyond the c2km range, a search was made to identify individual properties from which the visual effect might be said to exert a significant effect on visual amenity when judged in the round (i.e. taking all relevant visual amenity matters into consideration) but specifically placing emphasis on seeking out properties which may be more limited in their viewing opportunities and which might be focussed more specifically on and limited to views in the direction of the proposal. This has relevance to what has been termed the Lavender Test (see below). Within the range between c2km up to c4km 5km there would be a number of individual properties which would offer principal views from the main elevations/principal habitable rooms towards parts of the wind farm and from which a significant visual effect might be experienced but none were felt to be affected to the extent that the Lavender Test would be failed The findings of the individual viewpoint assessments (see Figures and Technical Appendix 4.4) were extrapolated across the landscape and then reapplied in the context of residential amenity and, where appropriate in a number of cases, tested by desk-top wireframe inspection and inspection in the field (see Figures ) at the relevant properties up to c2km from the turbines. It must be borne in mind that these are bare earth wireframes and do not take intervening built form and vegetation/treescape into account. As such, they must be looked at with care. Properties are oriented in various directions. Some which fall within the visual influence of parts of the proposal are oriented away from the site whilst others facing the site possess varying degrees of garden and nearby vegetation which provide screening/filtering of views. Finally, the opinions of occupiers cannot be taken as read and automatically assumed to be negative or positive Bearing in mind perceptions which can vary from the strongly positive to the strongly negative, with respect to those properties from which the occupiers would experience a significant visual effect, it is reasonable to conclude that some will consider the result to be adverse, some will be indifferent and some will regard the change positively. If the pattern of public response in the broader area around the proposal more generally reflects the UK pattern, it seems reasonable to believe that the majority will be positively or indifferently disposed and, post-construction, the proportion is likely to increase compared to the pre-construction proportion However, whilst it may be reasonable to consider that the general pattern of response to wind energy proposals remains positive and frequently LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-48

96 substantially positive - such a finding cannot be, and has not been in this case, applied indiscriminately to residents immediately surrounding the wind farm proposal and it seems reasonable to assume that those who live closest are likely to be the most anti and vociferous within a geographically broader population of whom the majority may well be in favour but who may remain silent. In this connection therefore, it is wiser to assume the adverse stance in all cases when considering the residential amenity position and therefore the assessment is likely to result in a more adverse result than will actually be encountered on the ground. This especially true in this case where the two closest properties (References 1 & 8 Toneham Farm and Gores Farm) are clearly involved in developing the proposed wind farm. Some residents within the 2km have also expressed a mild positive response or indifference For those who may be adversely disposed, it is also reasonable to recall however, that visual amenity is but one component of overall residential amenity (a matter for the planning overview) and, with respect to the visual amenity enjoyed at a property, it is frequently is based on more than one view in one direction. Nevertheless, there is likely to be a proportion who will always consider a proposed change in any view as adverse and therefore giving rise to harm Within up to c 2km from the turbines there are approximately 40 recorded locations covering individual properties, small clusters and parts of settlements. It is assessed that residents at most of them would experience significant visual effects in one direction or another Part of the exercise, perhaps extending beyond the normal limit of the EIA process, was carried out with a view to considering (in the assessor s opinion based on his experience) whether the change arising at any assessed property was such that turbines would be present:... in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden... leading to the conclusion that...there is every likelihood that the property concerned would come to be widely regarded as an unattractive(rather than simple less attractive, but not necessarily uninhabitable) place in which to live. It is not in the public interest to create such living conditions where they did not exist before. The above statements are derived from a decision of Inspector David Lavender (Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/A/09/ Carland Cross which followed on from his earlier decision APP/X2220/A/08/ Land west of Enifer Downs Farm and east of Archers Court Road and Little Pineham Farm, Langdon) and which has been referred to on many occasions as the Lavender Test. Whilst not specifically a test, it nevertheless has been found to be a useful rule of thumb in a number of situations and has since been endorsed by the Secretary of State through the Burnthouse Farm decision (APP/D0515/A/10/ ) The assessment was carried out and extended in this way seeking to identify any properties where it was felt that the visual effect of the scheme would result in the property failing the Lavender Test. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-49

97 Settlements It is acknowledged that significant visual effects would arise and these would be experienced within the range of up to c4km to 5km or thereabouts of the nearest turbines assuming open views to a reasonable proportion of the wind farm. Relevant settlements are also identified in Technical Appendix 4.5 (e.g. Thorney, Eye/Eye Green, the edge of Peterborough, Whittlesey) Concerning the potential effect upon the amenity and character of settlements, whilst there will be occupiers of individual properties who would experience visual effects of varying degree the assessment also considered the more general effect on the settlement as a whole (see Technical Appendix 4.5) It is considered that the overall character of and general amenity to be enjoyed within the identified and assessed settlements would not be significantly affected for each of them judged as a whole. Views to the external environment are not relevant in a number of places. From others, although views of parts of the wind farm may be possible, they have not been identified as significantly affecting the character of and/or amenity to be enjoyed within these areas. Nevertheless, a proportion of the residents on the relevant margins of, and possibly some within, these settlements, would consider that their individual private residential amenity would be significantly adversely affected and this has therefore been acknowledged It is the judgement of this assessment however that the wind farm could add positively to the experience for a number of residents but that, with respect to those adopting the adverse stance (assumed theoretically in this case to be all residents), the extent of harm perceived, would not be such as to transform any individual property into an unpleasant place to live by virtue of the wind farm having an unpleasantly overwhelming or over-bearing visual presence such as to fail the Lavender Test. This is based on the clear recognition that there is a marked difference between unpleasant and less pleasant It is acknowledged and accepted that a number of residents will consider that the effect on the visual component of their private residential amenity will be perceived as rendering it less pleasant and that those so affected are likely to be those living in close proximity to the turbines. Turning to the settlements, none of the settlements would be converted into an unpleasant place in which to live whether in whole or in small part. Recreational Amenity Recreational amenity can be enjoyed in a number of ways focussed in some cases upon site specific activities for example golfing, fishing, nature conservation and, in the local and wider environment, this can include the understanding and enjoyment of heritage interests Technical Appendix 4.5 considers a number of representative recreational locations in the vicinity of the Gores site and farther afield. The scope to experience a significant visual effect again would generally be limited to the area up to c4km 5km from the turbines from locations or stretches of LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-50

98 road, tracks, footpaths and other areas from which open views are available Those who are mostly likely to be affected (though not necessarily always significantly) are walkers on the few (non-promoted) local footpaths/ rights of way within 5km of the turbines (notably on the right of way to the south of the site east of Prior s Farm and south of Thorney); walkers and others on local sections of the promoted longer distance routes such as the Hereward Way and Nene Way; riders and cyclists for example on sections of NCR s 12 and 63 and the 12/63 link; visitors travelling through the area and residents making local journeys as well as others who are simply enjoying the outdoors landscape as part of taking part in other activities for example golfers, anglers or visitors to Flag Fen Recreational road users and cyclists using parts of the ex A1073, A16, A47 and A605 as well as parts of the B1040, B1443 and B1167 and local minor roads would be subject to the significant visual effects of the proposed wind farm albeit within an experience of limited duration for car drivers and passengers with others on country roads affected from place to place depending on location and direction of travel. Those passing by on the Peterborough March railway line will have the opportunity to register the proposed turbines from a distance after leaving March but would not enter the visually significant range until west of Whittlesey by which time the McCains/Whittlesey turbines would make a much greater contribution to wind turbine presence (with other wind energy schemes also appearing in views from time to time depending on direction of travel and position on the coach). As such, the added impression of the Gores turbines whilst visually significant from various locations, would not be an unusual phenomenon The promoted routes in the wider and more local context are illustrated on Figure 4.9 and users are assessed with the findings set out in Technical Appendix It is important to recognise however that when a walker or rider is out and about, she/he is frequently considering her/his surroundings in all the directions which are open to her/him. Clearly a wind farm with its associated blade movement would attract the eye but it is not the case so far as the assessor s observations of people in the countryside that a wind farm is the final resting place of the gaze. The walker/rider will continue to experience a range of views, both near and far, amongst which the Gores Wind Farm will play a part in a context (assuming existing and consented development) which will already carry perceptions of wind turbines, but she/he would not be transfixed in any way by the Gores Wind Farm Nevertheless, it will be the case that the experience of sections of the Hereward Way and the Nene Way as well as sections of NCR 63 and the NCR 12/63 link and roads in the Whittlesey area will be partly conditioned by the presence of the wind turbines at the McCains/Whittlesey sites and Glass Moor and this is likely to be reinforced by Gores in the area between Stanground, Priors Fen, Kingsland and the Turves. In the vicinity of Flag Fen to Eye and the landscape to the north and north-east of the site, the existing presence of turbines is currently much less perceptible but will become more so with the construction and operation of Hundreds Farm, French Farm, Wryde Croft and Nutsgrove (though little affected by LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-51

99 Little Knarr Forge given its small scale) and so the Gores turbines (occupying a more central area) would be more influential in perceptions Walking along the Nene Way, say from west to east past Flag Fen and onwards, the walker can be well within the significant visual effects range of the McCains turbines with those at Glass Moor noticeable to the southeast and those of Stags Holt and Coldham marginally discernible much farther afield along with the turbines at March. The Gores turbines would bring turbine perceptions into another sector of the landscape to the north of the Nene Way which would be visually significant between the Flag Fen Museum area and the section north-east of Coates. At the same time, with the construction of the consented schemes added to the existing baseline, the Gores turbines would bring wind energy perceptions closer to the observer and be individually and cumulatively significant in this baseline context More locally and recognising that no public right of way would pass through the wind farm, there is a PRoW which runs between Priors Farm and Stone Bridge Corner the closest PRoW to the proposed turbines. Notwithstanding the observer would pass within the wind farm landscape for approximately 500m (and therefore the dominant range of the nearest turbines) no observer would have her/his view blocked by any turbine. What is far more likely is that she/he will see turbines interposed in a part of some of the views available whilst, at the same time, permitting the observer to look through and beyond the turbines thus maintaining visual linkage and reference with other parts of the landscape. The same applies with respect to users of other local PRoWs with a lesser effect (though still potentially significant) arising from the proposed turbines There is no doubt that a proportion of the residents, visiting or passing through walking/ cycling/riding/ travelling population will be adversely disposed towards the proposed wind farm and that their feelings will be genuine. It is not considered however that the effect on their journeys (walking, riding, cycling or as passengers in cars or on buses) or visits to any specific localities or attractions including the Flag Fen Museum would be unacceptably compromised by the presence of the Gores proposal when perceived within the wider context of existing and consented schemes Farther afield, views in the direction of the wind farm would be possible from other open sections of rights of way and highways but, with increasing distance, the frequent intervention of treescape and given that none offer key viewpoints, the effect on recreational amenity farther afield is felt to be limited notwithstanding that a significant visual effect may occur when viewing in one particular direction in the range up to c4km 5km from the turbines. As opposed to key viewpoints, some of the rights of way which pass over slightly higher parts of the landscape do offer wider/panoramic views in which the wind turbines, along with other features, would be observable but these lie well beyond the range of a significant visual effect and usually take in other, closer wind energy development for example from south-west of Ramsey or between Warboys and Somersham For horse riders, there are few bridleways and therefore the most relevant routes are those which link to and then follow local minor roads in order to LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-52

100 form circuits. Within the significant visual effects range, these can be found west of Eye Green, south of Eye and to some extent south-west of Whittlesey. Within these areas, the visual effect of the turbines would likely be significant. Given the added potential requirement for riders to exert greater control over their mounts in the vicinity of the turbines, the effect on enjoyment of local amenity may be considered adverse but not necessarily unacceptable. No bridleways however pass close to the turbines and the nearest local/minor roads lie some 780m to the west (A47 to Willow Hall and beyond but noting that sections can be screened by aggregate extraction site bunds and treescape/built form), c700m to the east (B1040) and c2.8km to the south (continuation of the Willow Hall road running east to the B1040) With respect to the passage through the landscape for vehicle drivers and passengers, although passing within or just beyond the range of significant visual effects, for those using the A47 (the nearest turbine being just under 1km from the westbound carriageway), the ex A1073 (Crowland to Eye Green), the A16, A1139 and the A605, actual significant viewing opportunities are constrained in places and, being transient in nature, would be of relatively short duration Although a significant visual effect will arise from place to place along a number of B class and other minor roads in the area (e.g. B1167, B1040, B1443, Willow Hall Lane, the system to the east of the site), the effect would tend to be more fleeting for drivers and their passengers and not significant in terms of the overall amenity to be enjoyed given the potentially screening/filtering effect of vegetation added to which are changes in direction However, for local residents making short local journeys as they go about their day to day business for example from to and from or between Peterborough, Eye Green, Eye, Whittlesey, Thorney or Crowland to Whittlesey and beyond; as well as from individual and small clusters of properties to these locations and others farther afield, the trips may be felt to be characterised in part by the presence of the wind farm (see Technical Appendix 4.5) The most notable area where significant effects would be felt on a day to day basis would be in moving through and back and forwards in the landscape essentially in the environment between Peterborough across in the direction of Guyhirn; and south of Crowland to Whittlesey; and with Eye/Eye Green and Thorney in the centre of this range. Those making such journeys already experience the McCains/Whittlesey turbines from place to place and the existing pattern of experience will be extended to the north and east in particular by the added presence to the baseline of the consented Hundreds Farm, French Farm, Wryde Croft and Nutsgrove turbines. Visual Resources Statutorily and Non-Statutorily Designated Landscapes Concerning statutorily designated landscapes, there would be no direct effect within or very close to the boundary of any statutorily designated LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-53

101 area (designated for landscape reasons see Figure 4.4) or non-statutory landscape valued at the national level e.g. the Wash Heritage Coast. No character effect would arise directly with respect to any such area. Further, with respect to the visual amenity to be enjoyed within these areas, no significant visual effect would arise given the distance between the site and the boundary of the nearest AONB over 35km to the nearest part of the Western Outlier of the Norfolk Coast AONB and over 30km (approximately 33/34km) to the Wash Heritage Coast Concerning non-statutorily designated landscapes, there are none within 20km and therefore no significant effect would arise Otherwise, the landscape at the site and in its local setting cannot be said to be highly valued except informally at the community level (see previously). It is at this level that the significant character effects would be felt where the wind farm landscape (up to 800m from the turbines) and the local landscape with wind farm sub-type (theoretically between c1.5km and 2.5km from the turbines) would be established on the Fens and Fen Fringe landscape types. Landscape Fabric/Elements and Land Use With respect to landscape fabric/elements and land use, the proposed development would remove a small area of arable farmland from production and would add the elements listed earlier: tracks, one anemometry mast, eight turbines, a control building and compound and potentially eight transformer cabinets and an assumed underground grid connection into an existing line to be determined (see Chapter 2 of the ES). In the broader context, vegetation removal would not constitute a significant landscape fabric effect. It would be the addition of new elements (principally the turbines with their associated movement) which would give rise to the most notable effect with respect to visual amenity (see earlier) and landscape character (see previously and below). Landscape Type, Character and Value: Character Landscape Types and National and Regional Levels: The site is located in National Landscape Character Area 46 The Fens (see Figure 4.1). The key landscape characteristics of The Fens were set out earlier As noted, the effects would be localised and have little, if any, bearing in perceptions of the National Character Area (NCA). The NCA would, therefore, remain very substantially as before. As such, at this level, the landscape is deemed robust and capable of accommodating the change without a significant landscape character effect arising and therefore would be less rather than more sensitive to the potential change However, a reasonably small wind farm landscape and local landscape with wind farm sub-type would be established in the environment between Thorney and Whittlesey. It would be a localised occurrence grading out into wider Fens. It is therefore at the more local level of the Local Landscape Character Types that the change would be more noteworthy and relev4ant. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-54

102 Turning to the Regional level, this is addressed in the East of England Regional Landscape Framework (2009). The turbines would be located within the Planned Peat Fen although there may be a small degree of overlap with a sliver of the Lowland Village Farmlands around Thorney (see Figure 4.2) The description of the Planned Peat Fen is included in Technical Appendix Given the scale of the Planned Peat Fen which extends for over 60km from north-west to south-east and, at its widest is perhaps 40km in extent, the presence of the Gores Wind farm would have little characterising influence notwithstanding the existing presence of other wind farm developments both in this type and also in the Lowland Village Farmlands. Across these regional landscape types, there is a noteworthy presence of wind energy developments and therefore they can be classed as landscapes with wind farm development but certainly not a wind farm landscape at this scale. The addition of the Gores Wind Farm would have a locally characterising effect which would be absorbed into the wider character framework at the regional level with the Planned Peat fen remaining a landscape with wind farm development and not being converted into a broad scale wind farm landscape Local Level: Concerning existing local landscape types, it is at this level where the establishment of a new landscape type (the wind farm landscape) and a new sub-type (Fens with Wind Farm and Fen Fringe with Wind Farm) would be found and would be most influential The key characteristics and distinctive features host local landscape types were set out earlier and addressed above. None of the key landscape characteristics would be significantly affected at the scale of the principal host landscape type however, at the scale of the area of Fen and Fen Fringe around the site the presence of the wind farm would add a locally strong characterising effect and, in some regard, the relatively superficial distinction between the Peterborough Fen and the Peterborough Fen Fringe might be made less transparent The effect of introducing the wind farm would add a degree of complexity and distinctiveness to a limited part of the Fen and Fen Fringe landscape. The interpretation of a wind farm being essentially additive in this context rather than subtractive, suggests rather than significantly affecting existing land uses and key landscape characteristics, a new characteristic would be added. Bearing in mind the existing consented position, it is more likely that the list should be extended along the following lines with text recognising that...in the landscape to the east, north and north-west of Thorney, wind turbine development exerts a locally characterising effect over part of the local farmland. The theoretical extents of the wind farm landscape and the probable and possible local landscape with wind farm sub-types are shown on Figures and Bearing in mind the added potential presence of Gores, the key characteristic might then be recast as...in the landscape to the east, north, north-west and southwest of Thorney, wind turbine development exerts a locally characterising effect over part of the local farmland. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-55

103 Landscape Sensitivity and Value Such judgements suggest that given the extent of locally significant landscape character effects i.e. over the local landscape at the site and in its setting would therefore be sensitive to the proposal for the duration of its life. This has to be tempered in the knowledge that the proposed wind farm could be relatively easily decommissioned, removed and the site restored. Other things being equal, today s landscape character could be easily recovered. In other words, whilst susceptible to a significant character effect during the life of the project, the local landscape would be robust over the longer term Concerning landscape value, because: the localised change in character will not interact with (i.e. the significant character effect will not extend into) any statutorily designated landscape; the localised change in character will not interact with (i.e. the significant character effect will not extend into) any locally designated landscape; the localised change in character will not interact with (i.e. the significant character effect will not extend into) any uncommon or rare landscape type; the localised change in character will not interact with (i.e. the significant character effect will not extend into) any landscape considered in the traditional sense to be of high quality; the localised change in character will not interact with (i.e. the significant character effect will not extend into) any landscape of high recreational value; the localised change in character will not interact with (i.e. the significant character effect will not extend into) any landscape of high scenic value; the localised change in character will not interact with (i.e. the significant character effect will not extend into) any landscape of high perceptual value valued for wildness or tranquillity; when experienced on the ground, the significant character effects would be limited to an area of undesignated landscape and while the surroundings (depending on scope to secure a relatively open, unconstrained view to a reasonable proportion of the wind farm) are visually sensitive up to perhaps c4km 5km, in landscape character terms the environment is sensitive much more locally in what is essentially undesignated landscape assumed to be of high value informally at the local community level and in a landscape that by and large has greater rather than lesser capacity to accommodate the kind of changes associated with a development of this type and scale (see also Table 4.5 earlier) Turning to the adjacent landscape types, these are relatively large units of a similar type and heed should be taken of the SNH statement (relevant to cumulative matters but still valid in this case) that: If more than one windfarm is located within the same character type their LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-56

104 design and relationship to the landscape should be similar. If this does not occur then a viewer is likely to question whether one or another of the windfarms is appropriately designed. Conversely, if the windfarms are of a similar and appropriate design and relationship to the landscape, they may seem to reinforce their appropriateness for that landscape. It should be assessed whether the windfarms, cumulatively, would dominate, or seem to dominate, the landscape character area. If so, they would become the key landscape characteristic and the landscape character would change. Where the landscape in question is rare the result would be the loss of a landscape resource. However, if there are other unaffected units of this character type, this may result in only local change. It should be established if windfarms in a particular area would be linked to other elements in the landscape by association. For example, they may always be associated with hill tops, the coast or even particular powerline routes. Where this is the case, the character of other areas of a region may seem unaffected. However, if the windfarms seem associated with a wide range of characteristics, they may seem unpredictable in their location, and thus seem to affect the landscape experience of an entire area. (SNH; Scoping Issues for Windfarm EIA; 4 th Draft; 2006 paras ) Further, with respect to the above paragraphs a commentary is offered: It should be assessed whether the windfarms, cumulatively, would dominate, or seem to dominate, the landscape character area. Comment: in the case of the Gores proposal in its own right, it would not dominate any one local landscape type far less across a range of types. At the same time, taken together in the company of the McCains turbines and those farther afield at Glass Moor, Red Tile, March, Coldham/Stags Holt and even Deeping St Nicholas as well as the consented schemes, the added presence of Gores would not convert a wider landscape with wind energy development into a wind farm landscape. In the broad Fen landscape, wind energy developments have a locally characterising effect at present and this would remain the case. If so, they would become the key landscape characteristic and the landscape character would change. Comment: landscape character would change within a localised part of the environment south-west of Thorney but landscape character would not be transformed across a wide area. Where the landscape in question is rare the result would be the loss of a landscape resource. However, if there are other unaffected units of this character type, this may result in only local change. Comment: The landscape resource is not rare and the effect would be local and, as noted above, confined to an area not highly valued other than informally at the local community level The local, undesignated landscape is thus assessed as being relatively robust during the lifetime of the wind farm. Further, the range of the potentially significant character effect would however be limited in geographical extent with effects being long-term rather than permanent. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-57

105 Reversibility of Effects and Long-Term Sensitivity An important consideration is that the development is such that at the end of its life, the wind farm can be removed and today s landscape (all other things remaining equal) very substantially recovered. By substantially it is understood that all the above ground components of the wind farm other than the access tracks would be removed (the sub-surface cables being de-energised and left in situ) and the ground reinstated. Thus the site, its immediate setting and the landscape units in which it would give rise to locally characterising effects is therefore judged robust in terms of its sensitivity and recuperative potential in the longer-term This accords with the following statements: Landscape sensitivity is a property of a thing that can be described and assessed. It signifies something about the behaviour of a system subjected to pressures or stimuli. One system, when stimulated might be robust and insensitive to pressure, whilst another may be easily perturbed. Landscapes which are highly sensitive are at risk of having their key characteristics fundamentally altered by development, leading to a change to a different landscape character i.e. one with a different set of key characteristics. 23 And Landscape sensitivity: Relates to the stability of character, the degree to which that character is robust enough to continue to be able to recuperate from loss or damage. A landscape with a character of high sensitivity is one that, once lost, would be difficult to restore: a character that, if valued, must be afforded particular care and consideration in order for it to survive Thus landscape would not be lost or destroyed. It would be borrowed put to productive use with long-term landscape capital maintained and, in the diffuse sense, increased through contributing to tackling climate change Those parts of the host landscape types which would be subject to a significant character effect in the local context would therefore be highly sensitive to the potential change but, such change as may occur would not be permanent and it would not be a difficult matter to restore pre-existing character on decommissioning Having identified whether or not a significant character effect would arise (bearing in mind that no highly valued elements in their own right would be removed or lost), it is necessary to go further and consider the importance of that potential change in landscape character terms. There are two points to note. First, it must be remembered that landscape character is: 23 Benson, J., quoted in Swanwick, C., Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity, 2004, p4 24 Bray, C., quoted in Swanwick, C., Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity, 2004, p4 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-58

106 A distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse As such, the small-scale change in character to (a) a Wind Farm Landscape within the Peterborough Fens and Fen Fringe and (b) a small to medium-scale effect from Fens and Fen Fringe to a Wind Farm subtype within the much larger scale Fens where wind energy is already a locally characterising influence would be neither good nor bad, neither positive nor negative. It would result in something different with wind farm development within it - a landscape which could easily be substantially restored As such, the development of a wind farm at this location could provide renewable energy for this generation and still preserve the choice for the succeeding generation to decide whether it wishes to remove the wind farm or continue with renewable energy generation. As such, the proposed wind farm would be an eminently sustainable form of development from the long term landscape (and visual) perspective. Landscape Value and Importance Based on a limited range of personal comments made in the locality allied to assessor experience elsewhere, the local landscape is assumed to be informally highly valued at the local (i.e. community) level although undesignated and unrecognised as highly valued at any higher level in the hierarchy. As such, the value of the landscape of the site and its immediate/local surroundings is adjudged as follows: at the community level High value (Medium scale of change See Technical Appendix 4.1); at the District level - Medium/Low value (Small scale of change); at the Regional level Medium/Low value (Small/Negligible scale of change); and at the National Level Low value (Negligible scale of change) As such, the significant character effect is considered to be of Moderate/Major importance at the community level. At the District level the importance drops markedly to Low/Moderate to Low importance and somewhere between Low and Low/Negligible at the regional level and less at the national level In terms of the Fens and Fen Fringe landscape types assuming Medium value overall, the scale of change would be Small at most (in reality more like Negligible) and therefore of only Low/Moderate importance (more like Low) in a landscape already locally characterised by wind energy and whose trajectory of change will be to a greater degree of locally characterising effect (see cumulative below). 25 Swanwick, C., and LUC; Landscape Character assessment Guidance for England and Scotland; Countryside Agency/SNH; 2002; p8 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-59

107 The assessment of landscape effects with respect to individual qualities/attributes upon which local and wider value may also depend are set out in Table 4.8 below Landscapes may be valued for various reasons recognising for example: perceptual aspects such as scenic quality, tranquillity or remoteness/wildness; landscape quality; rarity/representativeness; special cultural associations; the influence and presence of other conservation interests; and the existence of consensus about importance The site and its local setting (collectively crossing the types and local landscape character area boundaries) is assessed against the criteria in Table 4.8. Table 4.8: Value Criteria Ref Criteria Comment 1 Perceptual aspects such as scenic quality, tranquillity or wildness 2 Landscape quality 3 Rarity/ representativen ess 4 Special cultural associations 5 The influence and presence of other conservation interests Scenic quality, tranquillity, wildness: Assessment: There is not a high degree of scenic quality on this landscape. Wind energy development is already apparent and will become more so as consented schemes are constructed and become operational. Tranquillity is not especially pronounced and the same applies to wildness. It is even less so moving westwards into and across the Fen Fringe. No significant effect would arise in terms of landscapes of high scenic quality, noted tranquillity or wildness. Landscape quality (that is condition) is assessed as Low/Medium to Medium and potentially declining in places. Assessment: No significant effect on existing quality as a result of wind farm operation (Low magnitude x Medium at most quality). However, the habitat management plan would locally bring a positive effect. The site and its immediate setting are not rare. The landscape type in this area is typical and commonplace. Assessment: There would be no significant effect with respect to a rare or highly representative landscape. See Archaeology/Cultural Heritage Chapter. Assessment: See Archaeology/Cultural Heritage Chapter See Ecology/Nature Conservation Chapter. Assessment: See Ecology/Nature Conservation Chapter. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-60

108 Ref Criteria Comment 6 The existence of consensus about importance and other matters. See earlier. Other Landscape Resource Considerations Assessment: The Gores Wind Farm would be of Moderate/Major importance at the community level but of lesser importance at the district, regional and national levels (see earlier) In bringing contemporary landscape considerations together with cultural heritage considerations, the wind farm would add something symbolic reinforcing other existing and emerging perceptions. While constructed of modern materials, the wind farm would nonetheless stand as a symbol of a way forward; the turbines serving as sentinels guarding the remains and memories of the past whilst pointing in the direction of a more sustainable future. As to whether there would be an effect with respect to the significance of cultural heritage assets that is a matter for the Cultural Heritage part of the assessment (Chapter 5 of the ES) With regard to the historic landscape, the presence of the wind farm, whilst locally different to what has gone before, would not therefore be incongruous in a landscape where there has been change (albeit at varying pace) over centuries, possibly millennia, and which may well be of greater presence as a result of 20 th Century development. Whilst modern, the wind farm would not be out of spirit with an open, exposed and windy place where people have derived a living from the harvesting and harnessing of primary resources including wind - and where, at the same time, the modern presence of infrastructure including power lines and pylons, major highway infrastructure, utilities as well as other wind energy development is noteworthy The highly valued physical remains of the past would be left undisturbed. The archaeological experience would be conserved and, through the intermixture of past, present and well-designed future symbolism, the cultural landscape experience would be extended and, depending on point of view, potentially enhanced in this regard. As such, the genius loci would be added to without overwhelming those more deeply involved in seeking to understand the past and its historic and contemporary landscape context Concerning historic designed landscapes, none have been identified whose significance would be unacceptably harmed (noting the Abbey Fields to the north-east see Cultural Heritage) Concerning ecological elements and their role in contributing to landscape quality and the landscape experience through association, it is understood that nothing of high ecological/nature conservation value would be lost or significantly impacted. Conclusion Significant landscape effects would arise as a result of the proposed wind farm. These would relate to various aspects of the landscape resource but would chiefly focus upon local landscape character arising from the LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-61

109 addition of new elements into a landscape the landscape thus affecting perceptions of openness and such tranquillity as may be experienced to varying degrees. Valued elements in the landscape (as opposed to qualities of the landscape) including listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments would not be directly affected (see Cultural Heritage Chapter 5 of the ES). Nationally valued landscapes would not be significantly affected in character terms. It would be at the local/community level that the significant landscape character effect would be strongest As with visual effects, it cannot and should not be assumed that significant equates to adverse. A significant effect with respect to landscape character gives rise to something which is different rather than better or worse. The judgement as to whether the change may be regarded as positive or adverse and whether that, in turn is important, is a separate matter Because of its proposed location, in landscape perception terms, it is considered (for the reasons given earlier) that the presence of the wind farm would not necessarily detract unacceptably from the landscape experience and, for a sector of the population, would add positively to it. It is also accepted that this judgement will not be accepted by a section of the local population who will consider a part of a valued landscape at the community level to be significantly adversely affected. 4.8 MITIGATION Effect Minimisation Given the iterative process combining site planning and design together with preliminary and then detailed identification of impacts and assessment of landscape and visual effects, effect minimisation to the level that environmental concerns have been satisfactorily addressed has already taken place The measures brought to bear are set out earlier in paragraphs RESIDUAL IMPACTS Given the statement made in Section 4.8 above, the residual impacts of the proposed Gores Wind Farm in its baseline context are therefore those which have been set out in Section 4.7 Impact Assessment POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Introduction The proposed Gores Wind Farm has been assessed to this point within the baseline context which comprises the existing operational presence of the McCains, Whittlesey, Glass Moor, Ranson Moor, at and surrounding March and Deeping St Nicholas turbines with others farther afield for example at Anglian Water, Coldham and Stags Holt (Figure 4.12). At the same time, the existing baseline has also assumed the potential prior LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-62

110 presence of consented and under construction turbines at Glass Moor, Burnthouse Farm, Greenvale, Foundry Way, Little Knarr Forge (although the scale of these two latter turbines c18m to tip is virtually irrelevant in this context), Nutsgrove, Wryde Croft, French Farm and Hundreds Farm As such, a large measure of cumulative assessment has already taken place Guidance which has been widely applied in England until relatively recently stated that An assessment of cumulative effects associated with a specific development proposal should be limited to the effects of the proposal in combination with: existing development, either built or under construction; approved development awaiting implementation; and proposals awaiting determination within the planning process and thus for which design information is within the public domain This has been updated and in effect restates the above as follows: As assessment of cumulative impacts associated with a specific development proposal should encompass the effects of the proposal in combination with: existing development, either built or under construction; approved development awaiting implementation; and proposals awaiting determination within the planning process with design information in the public domain. Proposals and design information may be deemed to be in the public domain once an application has been lodged, and the decisionmaking authority has formally registered the application The same document at para 33 emphasises: The key principle for all cumulative impact assessments is to focus on the likely significant effects and in particular those which are likely to influence the outcome of the consenting process. It is this approach allied to a practical understanding of cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment which has been adopted in this section. Guidance suggests that, as an initial start point, all wind energy development which occurs or may occur within a radius of 60km should be mapped depending on the proposal In this case and given the nature of the landscape, a 35km radius has been chosen and Figures 4.12 and show existing, consented and proposed schemes as agreed with the Local Planning Authority (status correct at 31 January 2013) for initial consideration However, after consideration of: 1 the local landscape; 2 the presence of existing and potential presence of consented and proposed schemes; 3 interrogation of the cumulative wireframes at the agreed representative viewpoints; and, 26 SNH Guidance; Cumulative Effect of Windfarms; Version 2 Revised April SNH Guidance; Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments; March 2012; para 26 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-63

111 4 having regard to the SNH guidance which states The key principle for all cumulative impact assessments is to focus on the likely significant effects and in particular those which are likely to influence the outcome of the consenting process it is considered therefore that it is only the schemes within 15km which are potentially relevant for detailed cumulative assessment in this case (other than with respect to the passage through the landscape see below). By way of example, cumulative consideration of potential landscape character effects (see Figure 4.3.1) demonstrates that there is no possibility of the Deeping St Nicholas Wind Farm s effects and those of Gores coalescing and, similarly, those of Coldham/Stags Holt, those turbines north of March and Ranson Moor, whilst locally characterising, would not cause any sense of coalescence with Gores Wind Farm Similarly, after due consideration of the Gores visualisations and the presence of Deeping St Nichols as considered from Viewpoints 13, 14 and 4 and other nearby locations and Gores and Ranson Moor from Viewpoints 18 and 21 as well as from other places between the two, again, it is felt that it is only with respect to those schemes within a range of c10km or thereabouts which would be most relevant and these have already been taken into account in presenting the effects arising in previous sections Even within the range up to 15km, there are only two proposed turbines at Hundred Road March (85m to hub and 125m to tip) which are some 13.7km distant from the nearest Gores turbine (Figure ) It should be noted that the extension turbines presently at scoping stage at French Farm have, unusually, been taken into account since their details are understood to be reliable and it is further understood that a formal submission for planning permission is imminent. Other Forms of Development There is a further consideration however. The assessment of cumulative visual and landscape effects associated with wind farm development is normally considered in the light of other baseline (existing, under construction and consented) wind farm/turbine developments in the first instance and then along with proposed wind farm/turbine developments. However, in some circumstances, it is necessary to consider other forms of development (whether consented or proposed) since, cumulatively and/or in a combined form, they could give rise to changes in land use, landscape character and visual amenity which, in turn, may be significant In this case, two consented and three proposed developments have been taken into account (Figure along with the Gores Wind Farm turbines) and are considered briefly below. They are: Pode Hole Quarry Extension west of Thorney (consented, ref: 03/00515/MMFUL); Sand and Gravel Extraction on land adjacent to Willow Hall Farm east and west of Willow Hall Lane (consented, ref: 12/01008/MMFUL); LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-64

112 Solar Panel Park at America Farm near Flag Fen (proposed, ref: 12/01904/R3FUL; Solar Panel Park at Newborough East of Peterborough Road, Crowland (proposed, ref: 12/01906/R3FUL); and Solar Panel Park at Morris Fen, East and West of Black Drove Thorney (proposed, ref: 12/01905/R3FUL) Individually, they do not give rise to widespread significant landscape and visual effects. Collectively however, there would be a sense of a working landscape established notably between Flag Fen and the A The America Farm Solar Park would be more apparent to the public essentially from the west along part of Oxney Road and close by from the east along part of Willow Hall Lane. At the outset, it is possible that the scheme would give rise to a significant visual effect (and a locally characterising but tightly circumscribed landscape effect). From elsewhere the perception of change would be much reduced as it would be as mitigation proposals establish, develop further and exert an effect The same general principles apply with respect to the Farms at Newborough and Morris Fen proposals. Landscape effects would be significant but tightly circumscribed at and close to the site. Visual effects would be locally significant but only in close proximity and subject in time to a reducing effect as mitigation proposals take effect Concerning the mineral working proposals at Willow Hall Farm, screening bunds of varying height (1.5m 3.0m) would be employed together with planting in order to mitigate potential effects. Bearing in mind the presence of screening bunds and their effect at the moment on the east side of Willow Hall lane, the effect would be to enclose the road user and create an open tunnel effect in places. Clearly there would be a highly localised and tightly circumscribed character effect and, with respect to road users on Willow Hall Lane, which also serves as a section of NCR 12 and Regional Route 21, a significant visual effect would arise as a result of the mitigation measures. The site is also crossed by a public right of way and a permissive cycle route which links to the Sustrans system. It is assumed that the right of way would be diverted Significant visual effects may be experienced by High sensitivity receptors (walkers, cyclists, recreational road users), but only in close proximity to the site. From farther afield, effects would not be significant in visual and landscape terms Turning to the Pode Hole Quarry Extension west of Thorney, this is already underway with screening bunds along part of the east side of Willow Hall Lane (and thereby given a sense of the enclosure that other screening bunds on both the east and west sides farther south would give rise) In this case, the effect is already being felt and forms part of the baseline which limits the visual relationship between users and views to the east from part of the northern section of Willow Hall Lane. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-65

113 Taken collectively, there are and would be highly localised landscape character effects between Flag Fen and Nene Terrace/New South Eau. When read within the context of the existing McCains/Whittlesey turbines; the consented Hundreds Farm and French Farm and the proposed Gores Wind Farm turbines, the existing and proposed mineral extraction sites and the proposed solar parks would have a relatively minor contribution to make to cumulative and combined landscape and visual effects other than in the most local sense pertinent to each scheme As such, they will not be considered further. Cumulative Visual Effects Figures provide a series of cumulative ZTV s (Zones of Theoretical Visibility) with what appears to be overlapping coverage of theoretical visible effect between the proposed Gores and other wind farms. Uncritical interrogation of the ZTV s would suggest that there is a near universal visibility of wind energy development in its entirety across the landscape. The on-the-ground experience however is and would be very different Figures illustrate in wireline overlay form the operational, consented and proposed wind energy developments together with the agreed French Farm turbines (which are currently in scoping with submission understood to be imminent). Each figure comprises four sections with each section comprising a wireline overlain on a panorama covering a ninety degree sector of the compass. Taken together, the four sections provide a full 360 degree coverage at the viewpoint and thereby facilitate securing a more realistic and therefore useful understanding of the extent to which wind energy development conditions or may condition the visual experience at each viewpoint with allowance made where appropriate for winter and summer conditions (see Technical Appendix 4.4) Cumulative visual effects can arise in three reasonably distinct ways. Scottish Natural Heritage s approach is summarised below. Table 4.9: Cumulative Visual Assessment Generic Specific Characteristics COMBINED Occurs where the observer is able to see two or more developments from one viewpoint. SEQUENTIAL Occurs when the observer has to move to another viewpoint to see different In Combination Where several wind farms are or would be within the observer s arc of vision at the same time. In Succession Where the observer has to turn her/his head to see the various wind farms actual and visualised. Frequently Sequential Frequently sequential means the features appear regularly and with short time lapses between, depending on speed of travel and distance between the viewpoints. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-66

114 developments. Sequential effects should be assessed for travel along regularly used routes like major roads or popular paths. Occasionally Sequential Occasionally sequential means long time lapses between appearances would occur because the observer is moving very slowly and / or the there are large distances between the viewpoints.) First, cumulative visual effects can arise through an increase in the perceptions of wind farm development as seen from fixed points from which more than one wind farm would now be seen in different parts of the landscape. This is disaggregated between situations in which the viewer holds her or his head still or moves it (in SNH terms: static in combination and static in succession ) This latter point may be a somewhat unnecessary distinction given the tendency for viewers to look around the landscape, notably where and when panoramas are available The static in combination situation would occur in the Gores case for example from Viewpoints 13 and The static in succession situation would also occur in the Gores case for example from Viewpoint Third, an increase in the incidence of perceptions of different turbines can occur through the recurrence of images and impressions arising from developments which are located at various points in the landscape and which are encountered when moving through it (in SNH terms: static sequential ). This would occur in the Gores case most notably perhaps moving from Ramsey to Thorney and onward or for example between Chatteris to Eye following the A141 and then the A Technical Appendix 4.4 addresses the subject of cumulative visual effect potentially arising at each of the viewpoints based on consideration of the cumulative wireframes and overlays/montages Significant cumulative visual effects would arise in the area where the proposed Gores Wind Farm would be significant in its own right i.e. theoretically up to c4km 5km from the turbines. Because of the near encirclement of the Gores site by existing and consented schemes (Hundreds Farm, French Farm, Wryde Croft, Nutsgrove, Little Knarr Forge (of little relevance in this context), Burnthouse Farm, Glass Moor and McCains/ Whittlesey) on moving outwards from Gores, the observer will move relatively quickly into the significant visual effects range of the encircling schemes In on the ground terms, this implies that the potentially significant cumulative visual effects arising from Gores will occur mainly within those parts of the landscape which would be the subject of a significant visual effect from Gores in its own right i.e. up to c4km 5km from the turbines i.e. in an arc from between EyeGreen and Newborough to Nene Terrace, across Morris Fen to the junction between the B1167 and the A47 thence to and across Lower Knarr Fen, down to north of Coates and Eastrea and LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-67

115 around the north side of Whittlesey, around the west side of Flag Fen and along the eastern edge of Peterborough to the west of Eye Within this part of the landscape, where Gores is seen within the same cone of view as other wind energy development and the combined presence is of Medium or greater magnitude, then a significant cumulative effect would arise of the combined in combination variety (see earlier) Where Gores would be significant in one direction and another scheme s turbines would be present in another (e.g. on parts of the Nene Way, Hereward Way, Flag Fen or Willow Lane for example), the significant cumulative effect would be of the combined in succession type. This would also occur over parts of the landscape between Eye Green across to Morris Fen and south across the Thorney area to Upper Knarr Fen What is noteworthy in this area (as described in paragraph ) is the potential for existing and consented turbines to be of a less than visually significant magnitude (in their own right) and the same be adjudged for Gores (in its own right) but when combined, the incremental step up from the existing to the existing plus Gores scenario could reach a visually significant level. In this case the distance at which a significant combined effect could arise could be greater than the 4km 5km for Gores in its own right. In other words, the cumulative contribution from Gores leading to a significant combined effect could extend perhaps to 6km or 6km+ from the Gores turbines in a south-easterly direction where relatively open and unconstrained views of both Gores and say Wryde Croft/Nutsgrove could be obtained. In other directions beyond c5km from the Gores turbines, this circumstance has not been identified Concerning cumulative sequential effects, the added presence of Gores will be cumulatively significant along a number of routes sometimes extensively, sometimes intermittently because of flanking treescape/vegetation: along parts of the B1443 between the A16 and Thorney and again south of Thorney to Whittlesey; along parts of the B1040 between Nene Terrace and Thorney; along parts of the B1167 between Lordship End and the A47; intermittently along the A47 between Thorney Toll and Eye; questionably (very unlikely) along short sections of the A605 between Kingsland and west of Whittlesey as well as along minor roads between Nene Terrace, Peterborough, Whittlesey and the junction of the A47 with the B1167. Cumulative Landscape Effects Cumulative landscape effects would occur when the presence of additional wind farm development would be sufficient to extend the geographical limits of existing character effects (e.g. when a wind farm is extended) or when the added presence of non-contiguous wind farm development would be sufficient to combine local characterising effects into a more substantial and continuous landscape subtype or to transform/re-define the local landscape character area. This requires specific consideration with respect to the Gores proposal and the operational, consented and proposed schemes within the scope of the assessment. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-68

116 In all the cases indicated (see Table 4.10 below) each (whether constructed/consented or proposed if consented and operating) would give rise to its own range of significant theoretical visual and landscape effects Given their locations and bearing in mind their distance from Gores, it was considered that many which were originally considered are too distant to be relevant in landscape character terms (Coldham, Coldham Extension, Stags Holt, the March turbines etc. They are so distant that even if all were consented and constructed to sit alongside those which are already operational, there would be no possibility that there would be any merging of effect and subsequent perceptions such that the Gores Wind Farm would contribute to turbines being a key characteristic in or between Gores and those baseline (operational and consented) or proposed developments It was considered therefore that the potentially relevant schemes to be brought into full cumulative landscape effects consideration remain Deeping St Nicholas; Hundreds Farm; French Farm; Nutsgrove, Wryde Croft, Little Knarr Forge (at the request of Peterborough City Council), Longhill Road, Foundry Way, Hundred Road, Lower Botany Bay if appealed, Boardinghouse Farm, Greenvale, Ranson Moor, Burnthouse Farm, Glass Moor, McCains and Whittlesey Their details are set out below. This is not to say however that the other wind farms have been discounted in visual terms. Where considered relevant, those located farther afield are included in the cumulative wireframe analysis. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-69

117 Table 4.10: Potential Cumulative Landscape Considerations Scheme Status Approx. Distance Centre to Centre No. WTG S Hub (m) Blade Tip (m) Wind Farm Landscape Range Landscape with Wind Farm Sub- Type Range Deeping St Nicholas Operational 16.0km m 1.2km 2km Glass Moor Operational and Consented 10.5km m 1.2km 2km Longhill Road Operational 15.3km m 2km 2.5km McCains Operational 5.5km m 2km 2.5km Ranson Moor Operational 15.0km m 1.3km 2.2km Whittlesey Operational 6.0km m 1.5km 2.5km Boarding-house Farm Consented 15.3km m 1.3km 2.2km Burnthouse Farm Consented 10.7km m 1.2km 2km Foundry Way Consented 15.3km m 1.3km 2.2km French Farm Consented and Scoping 6.7km 2 (C) and 4 in Scoping m 1.2km 2km Greenvale Consented 12.8km m 1.2km 2km Hundreds Farm Consented 5.5km m 0.6km 1km Little Knarr Forge Consented 7.7km 2 c15 c18 N/A N/A Nutsgrove Consented 8.2km m 1.3km 2.2km Wryde Croft Consented 8.8km m 1.2km 2km Hundred Road Proposed 13.7km m 1.5km 2.5km Lower Botany Bay Refused potential Appeal 13.0km m 1.2km 2km LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-70

118 Figure shows the Gores proposal and the operational and consented turbines with their theoretical wind farm landscapes and landscape subtypes marked Figure shows the Gores proposal and the operational, consented and proposed (plus refused but potential appeal) turbines with their theoretical wind farm landscapes and landscape sub-types marked. The relevant consideration is the potential cumulative effect arising as a result of Gores and Hundreds Farm, French Farm, Wryde Croft, Nutsgrove and McCains/Whittlesey with Glass Moor and Burnthouse Farm of lesser relevance These have been considered previously. The addition of the proposed turbines has no real addition bearing on top of the baseline cumulative considerations The key conclusions are: At the broad scale the Fens landscape will remain a landscape with wind farms and not be converted into a wind farm landscape. At the local scale, there would be no overlapping of significant effects (wind farm landscapes and local landscapes with wind farm subtypes). The addition of wind turbines of the scale proposed would be broadly commensurate with those already deployed and consented. The most relevant landscape effects are those which would arise in terms of the Gores Wind Farm in its own right and which, in a combined sense, would reduce the sense of open space between other existing and consented schemes to the south-west of Thorney As such, the significant cumulative landscape effects arising from the Gores Wind Farm would be essentially as for Gores in its own right i.e. up to c1.5km 2.5km from the turbines. At the same time, the broader Fens landscape would remain a landscape with winds farm development without transformation into a broader wind farm landscape. Importance Having regard to what has been stated about the Gores Wind Farm giving rise to significant cumulative landscape effects, the importance of the effect arising is considered individually and cumulatively to be of Moderate/Major importance at the local community level. At the District level the importance drops markedly to Low/Moderate to Low importance and somewhere between Low and Low/Negligible at the regional level and less at the national level In terms of the Fens and Fen Fringe landscape types assuming Medium value overall, the scale of change would be Small at most (in reality more like Negligible) and therefore of only Low/Moderate importance (more like Low) in a landscape already locally characterised by wind energy and whose trajectory of change will be to a greater degree of locally characterising wind turbine effect as the consented schemes are brought on stream. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-71

119 4.11 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of the visual and landscape section of the ES is, principally, to confirm whether or not significant visual and landscape effects would occur and, if so, to describe their occurrence. Mitigation is dealt with in the section dealing with project description. What remains is the need to provide a professional overview of the potential effects Finally, before moving on to the conclusions proper, despite the need to ground the assessment in observable fact with as much objectivity as possible, the assessment process quickly moves into areas strongly conditioned by varying degrees of subjectivity. Accordingly, what is set out below is the opinion and judgement of the visual and landscape assessor acknowledging that what is stated is based on professionally informed subjectivity When and where seen, the proposed Gores turbines would be read as consistent with the pattern and trend of the host environment in a largescale landscape. In unconstrained views, the turbines would appear as a controlled, broadly balanced grouping which would be inter-related with the wider landscape at the broader scale rather than being read as an unnecessary, engineered imposition upon it. For the reasons given earlier and below, although prominent and dominant when close by, they would not look out of place in an open, exposed and what can feel like a windswept environment, neither would they overwhelm or over-dominate perceptions gained from nearby residential and publicly accessible locations The proposed wind farm would exert a characterising influence over the landscape to the effect that there would be a conversion from a landscape without wind farm development to a wind farm landscape in the immediate context of the site - adjudged to be within and perhaps up to 800m or thereabouts from the turbines. Beyond this range, the landscape would be read as one which accommodates the wind farm with a new local landscape sub-type established within a range of perhaps up to c1.5km 2.5km from the turbines Although strongly influenced by it, the wider landscape would not be transformed by the wind farm. Its broader underlying character would not be compromised. As such, it is considered that the landscape at the broader scale is sufficiently robust to be able to accommodate the proposed wind farm without significant effects arising when judged at the scale of the Regional LCA and also at the level of the relevant regional landscape type/character area illustrated on Figure4.2. In this context the landscape would tend to be less, rather than more, sensitive to this form of development. In terms of the visual context, potentially significant visual effects would extend up to c4km 5km from the turbines from locations where there would be open and unconstrained views of the turbines As to whether the proposed wind farm should or could be viewed positively or negatively, the assessor s judgement has been arrived at on the extent to which a range of basic design criteria and questions have been met/answered (see Technical Appendix 4.3) along with the following considerations: LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-72

120 whether or not the development is adjudged to respect the scale of the landscape; whether or not the development is adjudged to be consistent with the existing pattern and/or grain of the landscape; whether or not the development would lead to a loss of key landscape elements/fabric or represent an addition to the range of landscape elements/fabric; whether or not the development is consistent with the basic elements, their combinations and patterns that give the landscape its character; whether or not the development can be felt to fit within emotive responses that the landscape experience engenders e.g. sense of openness/enclosure; diversity; balance; harmony; movement; security; stimulus and pleasure; whether or not the landscape structure of the site and its setting could accommodate a sympathetic layout; whether or not, when visible, the development would be read as an entity, logically related to the site and its setting, and potentially pleasurable with respect to visual amenity Given (a) the degree to which subjectivity plays its part in both landscape assessment as well as in forming visual responses, combined with (b) the extent to which wind farm development engenders a range of strongly positive to strongly negative reaction from individuals, it would be unusual to encounter universal agreement from all parties. However, it is considered in this assessment that the Gores proposal substantially meets these criteria and therefore can be considered in a positive light (which is the judgement of the assessor) Adopting the criteria set out in Technical Appendix 4.1 potentially significant visual effects within the range up to c4km 5km from the turbines would arise for High sensitivity viewers and would therefore be relevant to an unspecified number (but not low) of residents and those enjoying recreational activities for whom the visual enjoyment of the landscape within the outdoors environment is a primary focus It should be noted however that not all residents and/or recreational participants would be significantly affected since there are many locations within this range that would not offer open views to a high proportion of the proposed wind farm. In other words, if significant effects are to be found, they would be located within that range but not all effects within that range would be significant In the immediate context, this is particularly relevant to residents, walkers on local footpaths and riders and cyclists on local rights of way and promoted routes as well as main and minor highways in the vicinity Finally, concerning potential cumulative visual and landscape effects, these would be essentially where the wind farm would give rise to significant visual and landscape effects in its own right within the assessed context of existing and consented wind energy development. The exception to this would be to the south-east where there is scope for relatively open and unconstrained views to high proportions of the Gores Wind farm and others such as Wryde Croft/Nutsgrove and where the LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-73

121 combined visual presence might be felt to reach visually significant levels perhaps up to c6km or 6km+ from the nearest Gores turbines for example along parts of the Nene Way Whilst the contemporary landscape is assumed to be valued highly at the local level, it is also important to recognise the historic landscape, its time depth and the presence of the wind farm. This assessment, (after due discussion with the cultural heritage assessor) considers that the proposal would be seen as part of a continuum of human endeavour harnessing resources within this landscape, a continuum which extends back through time for millennia and over which time the appearance of the landscape has changed radically. Accordingly, the development of 21 st century wind power would extend the historical and cultural legacy of the area in contemporary landscape terms and would do so without any significant loss of any feel for the area s limited perceived remoteness, true naturalness or wildness and of its cultural-historic context Turning to the matter of landscape value, it is reasonable to assume that the value of an affected landscape would have an important bearing on the importance of any changes that take place as a result of proposed development. If all else is equal, the importance of a significant effect would be related both to the quantity of the landscape affected (i.e. the magnitude of the significant effect) and the initial value of that landscape. In other words, a change to a landscape protected at the national level and valued for its landscape and scenic attributes, in general terms is likely to be subject to a more important effect than a change of similar magnitude in another, less valued landscape such as at Gores. This does not preclude a significant effect arising with respect to a local area of interest but it sets it in the context of scale i.e. international, national, regional/county, district, local/community importance That part of the contemporary landscape within which the wind farm s significant effects would be felt is not highly valued nationally, regionally or at the district level. Whether judged positively or negatively, the proposal would give rise to an important, significant effect in a landscape valued highly at the community level There would be a change in the composition of the landscape through the introduction of the wind farm and with it, a change in the views obtained from roads, tracks, public rights of way and a number of residential and publicly accessible properties including Flag Fen and from parts of the course at the Thorney Golf and Leisure Centre. Whilst a section of the public will consider this adverse, the change would not be incompatible with the context given the attributes and local features of the site and its setting combined with its large-vast scale; openness under mainly overarching skies; its relatively simple, modified and much-managed character which also accommodates utilities, communications infrastructure and other wind turbine development within a context which is open, exposed and has windswept perceptions The development of the wind farm would introduce strong impressions which would give rise to significant visual and landscape effects in the local context. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-74

122 For those adversely disposed to the wind farm, the proposal would be felt to alter the attributes of this part of the wider landscape through the addition of elements which will be regarded as being uncharacteristic with the genius loci. As such, they will consider there to be a significant adverse effect upon local landscape character and local residential and recreational amenity with such landscape value (as is felt locally to occur) and landscape quality being reduced and possibly compromised on the basis that irrespective of its positive qualities, the wind farm should simply not be located in this place Those perceiving the wind farm positively would consider that which is valued in the local and wider landscape would not be materially harmed. For those of a positive disposition, the wind farm will generally appear balanced, controlled, rhythmic, visually permeable, well-related to the broad scale and grain of the landscape and major elements within it, and as such will introduce a positive image which would add to the landscape experience. This is the assessor s opinion in this case Whether regarded positively or negatively, such effects would be of longterm duration given their substantial reversibility at the end of the wind farm s working life The wind farm therefore would, in the assessor s professional opinion, introduce a strong, sculptural quality to this part of the local landscape. As such, it would add to the atmosphere, add to the sense of place and add to local distinctiveness and landscape identity. The scheme would achieve a high degree of openness, would substantially avoid perceptions of densely massed turbines whilst noting that looking along the long axes, there would be scope for blade overlap views. The wind farm would maintain suitable distances between turbines and dwellings so as to preclude overwhelming and over-dominant effects such that any property would necessarily fail the Lavender Test. Notwithstanding it is considered that a number of local residents will judge that their private residential amenity would be significantly adversely affected and their properties rendered less pleasant as places to live The proposal would result in an alteration to the environment whose attributes could quickly be substantially recovered through rapid decommissioning and site restoration. Judgements concerning significant effects must be tempered in that light. Whilst influential for their lifetime or for any period that they may be in operation, visual and landscape effects arising from the proposed wind farm, whether regarded as adverse or positive, can be reversed. The landscape would not be destroyed. Rather, the receiving environment would fulfil the role of a landscape on loan whose long-term environmental capital would be conserved. The wind farm would therefore be an eminently sustainable form of development in terms of the longer-term visual and landscape resource. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Page 4-75

123 Chapter Five Cultural Heritage

124 CHAPTER FIVE: CULTURAL HERITAGE GORES WIND FARM 5.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Headland Archaeology was commissioned to undertake an archaeological and cultural heritage assessment in relation to a proposed Gores Wind Farm to inform the design of the wind farm and the planning process This assessment comprised desk-based research, appraisal of the setting of heritage assets through site visits with the assistance of ZTV, wirelines and photomontages. Non-intrusive and intrusive archaeological investigations were undertaken including geophysical survey, borehole survey and monitoring of groundwork for the met mast Cartographic and bibliographic sources indicate that the proposed development area has been in agricultural use since at least the medieval period, prior to which it was undrained fenland. The area was, however, dry land in the Bronze Age and may have been settled There are two Scheduled Monuments (Ref and ) within the proposed development area. These comprise the buried remains of round barrows of Bronze Age date. They are located in an area of the proposed wind farm where no groundworks are proposed, and thus there will be no direct effects upon them. The surrounding area is also rich in prehistoric remains; there are further Scheduled barrows within 1km of the site boundary and the prehistoric site known as Flag Fen is within 5km. Given the presence of significant prehistoric remains both within and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development area, it is possible that associated subsurface remains survive within the areas of the proposed wind farm where groundworks are anticipated The scheme has been designed to avoid direct impacts to known heritage assets (geophysical survey being the most useful technique as it covered each turbine base and land immediately around it). Potential still remains for currently unrecorded heritage assets to be present within the construction footprint, particularly in the areas that have not yet been subject to geophysical survey (planned for spring 2013). A programme of archaeological investigation and recording is expected to mitigate any impact to such remains A total of 14 Scheduled Monuments, three Grade I and 11 Grade II* listed buildings are within 5km of the turbines. These assets are of the highest sensitivity. There are also four Conservation Areas and 125 Grade II listed buildings (assessed as being of medium sensitivity) within 5km of the turbines Negligible impacts to the significance of designated heritage assets as a result of changes within their setting have been predicted for Toneham Farmhouse, Willow Hall, Priors Farmhouse, Oxney Farmhouse & Barn, Northolme House, St Mary and St Botolph s Church, the Thorney Conservation Area and the Whittlesey Conservation Areas. A slight impact to the significance of the Scheduled Barrows has been predicted as a result of changes within their setting. These effects will persist through the operational life of the wind farm but are not considered to be significant effects. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-1

125 5.1.8 Impacts upon the setting of the above noted monuments are limited to the 25 year operational period of the wind farm, after which time the landscape would be returned to its current state. While it is acknowledged that 25 years is a considerable amount of time for a person, it is an insignificant amount of time in the life of these monuments. As such it is argued that the temporary nature of the proposed wind farm mediates in part the impacts upon the setting of nearby cultural heritage assets. 5.2 INTRODUCTION This chapter of the ES provides an assessment of the cultural heritage assets of the proposed wind farm site and surrounding area, and the potential impact that the development may have on this resource. This includes the potential impacts of the proposed wind farm upon the setting of cultural heritage assets The construction and decommissioning phases of the proposed development have the potential to affect the significance of heritage assets through physical damage to their fabric, but may also lead to their protection and enhancement. The impacts may be direct, for instance where an asset is disturbed during ground-breaking works, or indirect, perhaps when changes in hydrology may lead to waterlogged archaeological deposits becoming desiccated and degraded During its operational phase, the proposed development may affect the significance of cultural heritage assets through changes in their setting. Such impacts will generally be visual but, in some instances, other factors such as noise or traffic activity and historic relationships may also need to be considered (PPS5 Practice Guide, 2010, para 119) The objectives of this assessment are to: Describe the location, nature and extent of any known heritage assets or areas of archaeological potential which may be affected by the proposed development; Provide an assessment of the importance of these assets; Assess the likely scale of any impacts on the heritage resource posed by the development; Outline suitable mitigation measures to avoid, reduce or offset significant adverse effects; and Provide an assessment of any residual effects remaining after mitigation For the purposes of this assessment cultural heritage assets have been defined as: World Heritage Sites; Scheduled Monuments; Listed Buildings; Conservation Areas; Registered Battlefields; Registered Parks and Gardens; and CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-2

126 Undesignated heritage assets that have significance because of their archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic interest (NPPF Annex 2, p.56). Site Description The site covers an area of arable farmland to the southwest of the village of Thorney near Peterborough. Current proposals entail the construction of eight turbines, up to a maximum height of 126.5m to blade tip, with associated access tracks, services and control building. Potential Impacts The development may affect cultural heritage resource in the following ways: Direct physical effects as a result of groundworks and plant movement; Indirect physical effects as a result of changes to drainage; and Direct setting effects resulting from visual intrusion. 5.3 METHODOLOGY Legislation, Policy and Guidance Legislation Legislation regarding Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas is contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act There are no Listed Buildings or Conservation Areas within the proposed development site and therefore potential effects on their significance are limited to change in setting. With respect to setting, Section 66 of the Act states (in part): In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting The setting of Conservation Areas is not protected in statute Legislation relating to archaeological monuments is contained in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act There are no Scheduled Monuments within the proposed development site and therefore potential effects on their significance are limited to change in setting. This act makes no reference to the setting of Scheduled Monuments and therefore has no direct bearing on the issues raised in the present assessment No other types of heritage asset are protected or controlled by statute. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-3

127 National Policy National planning policy for the historic environment is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2012) The NPPF is based on twelve core planning principles; the relevant principle for this assessment is that planning should conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations (NPPF para. 17) The glossary to the NPPF (Annex 2) provides definitions of key terms relevant to this assessment: Heritage asset: A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Setting of a heritage asset: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset s physical presence, but also from its setting Policy of specific relevance to the historic environment is set out in Section 12 of the NPPF In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting (NPPF para. 128) The NPPF then goes on to differentiate between the treatment of designated and non-designated heritage assets concerning the weight that should be given to the conservation of affected assets: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting (NPPF para. 132). The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset (NPPF para. 135). CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-4

128 Local Policy Local planning policy for Peterborough is set out in the Peterborough Core Strategy Development Plan Document which was adopted on 23 February Relevant policies are CS11 Renewable Energy and Policy CS17 Historic Environment. Policy CS11 states: Commercial-scale renewable energy generation developments will be supported at locations where other policies of the development plan can be satisfied. Developments of this type will be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which will be based on relevant regional and national guidance/best practice and the individual and unique circumstances of the case. When considering such assessments, regard will be given to the wider benefits of providing energy from renewable sources as well as the potential effects at the local scale Policy CS17: The Council will protect, conserve and enhance the historic environment throughout Peterborough, through the special protection afforded to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled ancient monuments and through careful control of development that might adversely affect nonscheduled, nationally important archaeological remains; other areas of archaeological potential or importance; historic features and their settings; buildings of local importance; and areas of historic landscape or parkland (including, but not limited to, those on the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest). All new development must respect and enhance the local character and distinctiveness of the area in which it would be situated, particularly in areas of high heritage value. There will be particular emphasis on the following: a presumption against development that would unacceptably detract from critical views of Peterborough Cathedral by virtue of its height, location, bulk or design; the use of Conservation Area Appraisals and associated Management Plans to ensure the preservation and enhancement of the individual character of each of Peterborough s conservation areas; the identification and protection of important archaeological sites and historic environment features and their settings; the identification and protection of (non-listed) Buildings of Local Importance and their settings; and the avoidance of harm to the character and setting of Burghley Park, Milton Park, Thorpe Park, and the grounds and parkland associated with Bainton House, Ufford Hall, Walcot Hall and the Abbey Fields, Thorney. Guidance English Heritage has issued guidance for developers of wind energy projects: Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (2005). This contains advice on evaluating the impact of onshore wind turbine projects (p.7). It also includes a list of factors relevant to the assessment of change within the setting of a heritage asset (p.8) More recently English Heritage has issued detailed guidance on The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011), which is of particular relevance to onshore wind energy projects where change in setting is the principle CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-5

129 means by which heritage assets are affected. This guidance is based on the policies set out in PPS5 (now carried forward into the NPPF) and on principles and guidance already issued by English Heritage in Seeing History in the View - A Method for Assessing Heritage Significance within Views (2011) the Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (2010), Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (2008) and Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (2005). The Assessment Process The cultural heritage assessment has been carried out in the following stages: Desk-based study leading to the identification of heritage assets potentially affected by the development; Definition of baseline conditions, based on results of the desk-based study, visits to assets and onsite investigations; including nonintrusive (gradiometer survey) and intrusive (borehole survey) evaluations; Selection of assets that merit inclusion in assessment, following discussion with consultees; Identification of predicted impacts on heritage assets, informed by baseline information, site visits, Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), wirelines and photomontages; Assessment of the magnitude of identified impacts; Assessment of the sensitivity of cultural heritage assets affected by the development; Assessment of the significance of effects, broadly a product of the asset s sensitivity and the magnitude of the effect; Proposal of appropriate mitigation measures; and Recognition of residual effects. Definition of Significance The starting point for the assessment of impacts on heritage assets is an analysis of what constitutes the significance of an asset. Significance, as defined in NPPF, is the sum of the values we attach to an asset because of its heritage interest. It includes the portion of the values that derive from the setting of the asset. Heritage significance should not be confused with EIA significance; it is unfortunate that the same word has two closely related but different meanings The actual assessment of effects involves consideration of the magnitude of the predicted impacts (positive or adverse) on the heritage significance of the asset and the sensitivity of the asset to arrive at a conclusion regarding the significance of the effects (using significance here in the context of EIA). Impact Magnitude Magnitude of impact is a measure of the degree to which the significance of a heritage asset will be increased or diminished by the proposed development. In determining the magnitude of impact, the asset s heritage CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-6

130 significance is defined. This allows the identification of key features and provides the baseline against which the magnitude of change can be assessed; the magnitude of impact being proportional to the degree of change in the asset s baseline significance The criteria used to assign a value to impact magnitude are set out in Table 5.1. These criteria should be treated as an aid to professional judgement and cannot offer exact descriptions of what will occur in all cases In cases where the only potential impact is on the setting of a heritage asset, only that part of the significance derived from setting can be affected. This portion must be identified and the assessment of magnitude weighted proportionately. Table 5.1: Criteria for Determining the Magnitude of Impacts on the Significance of a Heritage Asset Magnitude impact Major positive of Moderate positive Slight positive Negligible Slight adverse * Moderate adverse * Major adverse ** Criteria Alteration of the asset or change in its setting leads to major increase in the significance of the asset OR the significance of the asset is preserved where it would be lost if the do nothing scenario was played out. Alteration of the asset or change in its setting leads to a considerable increase in the significance of the asset OR the asset is preserved by record, where it would be lost if the do nothing scenario was played out. Alteration of the asset or change in its setting leads to a slight increase in the significance of the asset OR the asset is preserved by record where it would otherwise continue to degrade if the do nothing scenario was played out. Very slight loss or alteration of the asset or change in its setting, not materially affecting the significance of the asset. Alteration of the asset not affecting key elements or change in its setting, leading to a slight reduction the significance of the asset. Loss or alteration of one or more key elements of the asset or change in its setting, leading to a considerable reduction in the significance of the asset. Total loss or major alteration of the asset or change in its setting, leading to the total loss or major reduction in the significance of the asset. * Effects of slight and moderate adverse magnitude constitute harm as used in NPPF. ** Effects of major adverse magnitude constitute substantial harm as used in NPPF. Asset Sensitivity The sensitivity of an asset to impacts on its significance is a measure of its heritage importance and therefore the degree of protection it is afforded in statute or policy. Table 5.2 sets out the criteria for assigning assets to one of three levels of sensitivity Nationally and internationally designated assets are assigned to the highest level of sensitivity. Grade II Listed Buildings and Grade II Registered Parks & Gardens are assigned to an intermediate level, reflecting the lower level of policy protection provided by PPS5 Policy CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-7

131 HE9. Most heritage assets are not formally designated; the sensitivity of undesignated heritage assets is assigned to the appropriate category according to the professional judgment of the assessor. Table 5.2: Criteria for Determining the Sensitivity of Heritage Assets to Impacts on their Significance Sensitivity of the Asset High Medium Low Criteria World Heritage Sites, Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Battlefields, Grade I and II* Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, and undesignated heritage assets of equal importance Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens, Grade II Listed Buildings, heritage assets with regional designations and undesignated assets of equal importance Undesignated heritage assets of lesser importance In cases where the only potential impact is on the setting of a heritage asset, only that part of the significance derived from setting can be affected. This portion must be identified and the assessment of magnitude weighted proportionately. English Heritage has published general guidance on the factors that should be considered when assessing impacts on the setting of heritage assets (Setting of Heritage Assets, 2011). More specific guidance, relevant in this case, for onshore wind energy developments is provided in Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (2005). These factors are listed in Table 5.3 and have been applied where relevant in the present assessment. Table 5.3. Factors to be considered when assessing the magnitude of impacts upon setting (English Heritage, 2005) Factor Visual dominance Scale Intervisibility Vistas and sight-lines Movement, sound or light impacts Unaltered settings Discussion Wind turbines are far greater in vertical scale than most historic features. Where an historic feature (such as a hilltop monument or fortification, a church spire, or a plantation belonging to a designed landscape) is the most visually dominant feature in the surrounding landscape, adjacent construction of turbines may be inappropriate. The extent of a wind farm and the number, density and disposition of its turbines will also contribute to its visual impact. Certain archaeological or historic landscape features were intended to be seen from other historic sites. Construction of wind turbines should respect this intervisibility. Designed landscapes invariably involve key vistas, prospects, panoramas and sight-lines, or the use of topography to add drama. Location of turbines within key views, which may often extend beyond any designated area, should be avoided. The movement associated with wind turbines as well as their scale may be a significant issue in certain historic settings. Adequate distance should always be provided between important historic sites and wind turbine developments to avoid the site being overshadowed or affected by noise and shadow flicker effects. The setting of some historic sites may be little changed from the period when the site was first constructed, used or abandoned. Largely unaltered settings for certain types of sites, particularly more ancient sites, may be rare survivals and especially CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-8

132 Significance of Effects vulnerable to modern intrusions such as wind turbines. This may be a particular issue in certain upland areas The significance of an effect on the significance of a heritage asset is the product of the magnitude of the impact and the sensitivity of the asset. The matrix in Table 5.4 provides a guide to decision-making regarding levels of significance but is not a substitute for professional judgement and interpretation, particularly where the sensitivity or impact magnitude levels are not clear or are borderline between categories. It should be noted that in each case these effects can be either adverse or positive The effects of wind turbines s on the setting of heritage assets are distinctive because the effects are usually temporary, being fully reversed on decommissioning of the development. The mitigating value of full reversibility is recognised in relevant policy and guidance (for example NPS EN-3, para and Wind Energy and the Historic Environment). It is recognised in this present assessment methodology as a factor that can reduce the predicted significance of effects when compared to similar permanent or irreversible effects. Table 5.4: Matrix for Determining the Significance of Effects Magnitude of Impact Sensitivity of Asset Study Areas Major Moderate Slight Negligible High Major Major/ Moderate Moderate Moderate/ Minor Medium Major/ Moderate Moderate/ Minor Moderate Minor Low Moderate Moderate/ Minor Minor Negligible The assessment utilised the following study areas: Inner study area (Figure 5.1), consisting of the land within the site boundary. Within this study area all cultural heritage assets were considered in relation to both direct and indirect effects. The potential for previously unrecorded assets to be affected by the Development was also considered; Middle study area (Figure 5.2), extending 5km from the proposed turbine locations. Within this area all designated assets were considered in relation to potential operational effects upon setting and to inform the potential for previously unrecorded cultural heritage assets within the Inner Study Area. Additionally, non-designated cultural heritage assets recorded in the Peterborough Historic Environment Record (HER) were considered to further inform the assessment of the potential for previously unrecorded cultural heritage assets to exist within the Inner Study Area; and Outer study area: This is based on the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), as defined in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (35km from the site), within which cultural heritage assets identified as being at risk of significant effects upon setting were considered. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-9

133 Data Sources The following sources of information were consulted to obtain information on known heritage assets within the study areas: The National Heritage List for England; maintained by English Heritage; The National Monuments Record (NMR); The Peterborough Historic Environment Record (HER); Historic mapping held by the Cambridgeshire Records Office; and Other readily available published sources These existing records were augmented by additional information obtained through site visits and through non-intrusive and intrusive evaluation techniques A targeted walkover survey of the Inner Study Area was carried out on the 11th January 2012 guided by modern mapping. The intention of this walkover was to assess the presence/absence, character, extent and condition of known assets and to identify any previously unrecorded assets Assets in the middle study area where potential for effects upon setting were identified were visited on 11th and 12th January 2012 in order to gather baseline setting data. Assets were selected following the deskbased study and with reference to the ZTV, which was used to determine whether assets or viewpoints relevant to their setting lay within the ZTV A gradiometer survey of the proposed turbine bases and access tracks was carried out in November A borehole survey was also carried out across the Inner Study Area in November The detailed results of these are included as Appendix 5.3 and 5.2 respectively. Consultation In the course of this assessment English Heritage (EH) (Will Fletcher and Debbie Priddy, Inspectors of Monuments) and Peterborough City Council (PCC) (Rebecca Casa-Hatton, Planning Archaeologist; and Jim Daley, Conservation Officer) were consulted Both EH and PCC provided input to the scope of the intrusive (borehole) and non-intrusive (geophysical) surveys. EH also commented on proposed photomontage locations in relation to designated assets, whilst PCC advised on the inclusion of specific non-designated assets in the baseline assessment and provided additional information on Conservation Areas. 5.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS The Inner Study Area The Inner Study Area (Figure 5.1) comprises land within the application site. The purpose of the Inner Study Area is to identify all previously recorded heritage assets within the application site. This information, CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-10

134 combined with appropriate site surveys and information on archaeological assets in the surroundings, is used to quantify the cultural heritage resource and potential for currently unknown heritage assets within the application site. Desk-based Assessment A desk-based assessment (baseline report) of the Inner Study Area was undertaken by Headland Archaeology in February This collated all existing records of heritage assets in the Inner Study Area, and provided an appraisal of the archaeological potential of the application site There is evidence of human settlement of the fen edges and islands from the Mesolithic onwards, and this is reflected in the large number of finds and known heritage assets of prehistoric date within the Outer Study Area. The best represented period is the Bronze Age, and numerous barrows are known in the area, including three bowl barrows within the Inner Study Area and an additional pair of bowl barrows is located immediately west of the Inner Study Area. This group of funerary monuments is indicative of a cemetery of late Neolithic to Bronze Age date. Part of a Bronze Age wooden trackway formed of split oak planks was excavated in the north of the Inner Study Area as part of the South West Fen Dyke Survey. Environmental evidence from Pode Hole shows that from the first millennium BC the area became too wet for habitation, leading to the development of the peat deposits, and there is no evidence of Iron Age occupation or use of this area During the Roman period the Inner Study Area was on the western edge of the peat fen, which was densely occupied and farmed at this time. This is evidenced by earthworks of house platforms, a drove and ditches of a Roman field system at Pode Hole farm 400m northwest of the inner study area. These earthworks are part of a larger field system identified from cropmarks. In addition, an Iron Age and Roman settlement at Bar Pastures 600m west of the Inner Study Area is recorded from both earthworks and cropmarks A hermitage was founded at Thorney in the 7th century, but was sacked by Danish raiders in the 9th century and Thorney Abbey was re-founded by St Aethelwold in 972 as a Benedictine monastery, and it became the centre of a large fenland estate. The Inner Study Area formed part of the abbey s land holdings, and the monks made attempts at draining the fens. The Inner Study Area may have been used for livestock rearing by this time, although a 15th century engraving shows the abbot of Thorney travelling to Crowland by boat, indicating that the area was still frequently inundated After the dissolution of the monasteries, the landholdings of Thorney Abbey passed to the Earl (later Duke) of Bedford, and the entirety of the Inner Study Area falls within the Bedford Estate at Thorney. The current landscape of the study area is the result of post-medieval drainage of the Fens by Vermuyden, who was brought to England by the Duke of Bedford, although this followed the earlier drainage regimes implemented by the monastic orders and may have reutilised many of the drainage ditches created at this time. Comparison of 18th century estate maps of Thorney with 19th century and current Ordnance Survey mapping shows that a CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-11

135 number of the field boundaries have been altered, both in the 19th and 20th centuries; the earlier field boundary ditches are visible as linear cropmarks on current satellite imagery. 18th century estate documents also record an engine (for pumping water as part of the drainage system) at The Gores, though the map is not to scale and the precise location of this structure cannot be determined. Borehole Survey The proposed development area lies towards the edge of the fens, and geological mapping suggested that fen peat deposits of potential archaeological and/or palaeoenvironmental interest survive on the site. Previous borehole records were examined and indicated that deep fen peat deposits only survive in the south of the site A borehole survey was carried out in November 2012 to investigate the potential peat deposits on the site and to further inform the potential for unknown archaeological remains. The original Headland report is included in Appendix 5.2. A summary of the findings is presented here A total of 28 boreholes were hand augered across the site, focusing on the southern part of the site where previous records suggested that peat deposits were most likely to survive. The survey revealed two phases of peat formation, one of short lived events in the early Holocene caused by the watercourses shifting across the area; the second of early to mid Holocene and again in thin bands. No fen peats were recorded and the deposits are considered to be of no palaeoenvironmental or archaeological interest. The peat is degrading considerably and is unlikely to contain any preserved organic archaeological remains. Geophysical Survey A geophysical survey was also carried out in November 2012 of the proposed turbine bases and access tracks in order to investigate the potential for previously undiscovered archaeological remains. Two of the proposed turbine bases could not be surveyed due to the ground conditions and will be surveyed in the spring as a separate phase of fieldwork. Results available to date are presented in Appendix 5.3. A full report on the completed geophysical survey will be submitted as supplementary information to this ES during spring A summary of the findings to date is presented here The majority of geophysical anomalies identified on the site appear to relate to post-medieval drainage features. Anomalies of apparent archaeological origin have been identified in the area of turbine 7 (including a possible ring-ditch) and further anomalies of possible archaeological origin have been identified in the areas of turbine 6 and turbine 1. Anomalies of apparently natural origin were identified in the areas of turbine 6, turbine 5 and the track to the west of turbine 7. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-12

136 Known Heritage Assets within the Inner Study Area Scheduled Monuments There are two Scheduled Monuments within the Inner Study Area, both are Bronze Age barrows. The monument descriptions describe the barrows as being well preserved, and gradually appearing from beneath the eroding peat deposits. Neither of these monuments are prominent mounds, the tallest being described as rising 0.30m across an area 20m in diameter. No mounds were identified during the site visits in February and November The borehole survey has revealed that any protective peat deposits no longer survive on the site. This lack of surviving peat deposits indicates that the bowl barrows (scheduled in 2004) are not protected beneath peat deposits as previously thought in 2004, and may be extensively truncated. Table 5.5: Scheduled Monuments in the Inner Study Area List No. Site Name NGR of centre Distance (km) from centre to nearest Bowl Barrow 490m west of Gores Farm Bowl Barrow 780m east of Bar Pasture Farm turbine Summary of Archaeological Potential of the Application Area Baseline information on the archaeological resource within the application area is necessarily incomplete as it would require total excavation to obtain a complete record. However, the results of the desk-based assessment, borehole survey and geophysical survey provide the evidence for an assessment of archaeological potential in the application area The Scheduled barrows and possible ring-ditch identified through the geophysical survey are indicative of a late Neolithic or Bronze Age cemetery, and there is potential for further undiscovered remains associated with this to be present within the application area The proposed development area is likely to have been wet in the Iron Age, precluding settlement or activity of this date; however, water levels began to recede (either naturally or through the use of artificial drainage) in the Roman period when the fen edge was densely settled and farmed. The area became inundated once more in the Saxon period, and settlement was confined to gravel islands in the fen (such as at Thorney); medieval settlement continued to focus on these gravel islands, although monastic orders began to drain the surrounding land for farming. There may be evidence of these efforts in the application area (including some of the ditches identified in the geophysical survey), although much of the medieval drainage system was reutilized and remodelled by Vermuyden in the 18th century. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-13

137 The lack of any deep peat deposits and the observed heavy ploughing of the proposed development area indicate that archaeological features are being truncated and damaged. The Outer Study Area The Outer Study Area (Figure 5.2) comprises land within 5km of the proposed wind turbines. The purpose of the Outer Study Area is to detect any heritage asset that is likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development due to change in its setting In general only designated assets have been considered as part of the baseline study in this outer area. This reflects the generally low sensitivity of undesignated assets and therefore a very low probability of significant adverse effects to their significance due to change in setting alone. The exception to this is the undesignated park at Thorney which has been included at the request of the Peterborough City Council Conservation Officer The distribution of the various types of designated asset is illustrated in Figure 5.2 and they are described below. It should be noted that all assets are referred to using their unique List Entry number, replacing the older system of numbering which was different for each asset type. Scheduled Monuments The baseline study identified 14 Scheduled Monuments (Figure 5.2) within the Outer Study Area, eight of which are Bronze Age barrows, whilst three relate to Iron Age or Roman settlement and land use; one is a Roman canal, one is a medieval wayside cross and one (Whittlesey Butter Cross) is a post-medieval market building. After completion of the baseline study in February 2012, English Heritage added the site of Flag Fen to the National Heritage List as a Scheduled Monument. This monument is therefore included in the assessment (Table 5.6) The barrows are indicative of an extensive funerary landscape in the Bronze Age, probably associated with the settlement at Flag Fen. Intervisibility between these assets may have been significant at the time they were constructed, however all of these assets are now either ploughed out or buried beneath peat deposits, and are no longer as visible in the landscape as it is thought they would have been in the Bronze Age. Their significance derives from their physical remains and the contribution that their spatial distribution makes to our understanding of prehistoric settlement patterns and funerary practice. Their present setting in and beneath the arable farmland west of Peterborough contributes little to their significance The remains at Flag Fen are now partially preserved and displayed as part of a museum and visitor centre, with reconstructed roundhouses. The monument has been scheduled as it displays outstanding preservation of timbers in waterlogged deposits and good survival of associated features on the gravel deposits to the east. The post alignment and platform have an association with the Roman fen causeway and the site s association CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-14

138 with field systems and other features to the northeast (around Pode Hole Farm) contributes to the significance of all these assets The Roman field systems at Pode Hole Farm and south of Bedford House are both known from cropmarks, they are part of the wider evidence for the Roman landscape, and their significance derives from the information they contain about settlement patterns and land use at this time. Likewise the section of Car Dyke, a substantial earthwork of a Roman canal, is significant for its contribution to our understanding of Roman technology and communication networks The butter cross in Whittlesey is formed of a square-hipped tiled roof supported on stone pillars (a group of three pillars one square and two round - at each corner and intermediate round pillars on each side), located on the Market Place this structure was built in 1680, and is also a Grade II* listed building. The cross forms a focal point in the conservation area and its setting is the Market Place. The relationship with the surrounding market place contributes to its illustrative and fortuitous aesthetic values but otherwise its value lies entirely in its fabric. Table 5.6: Scheduled Monuments in the Outer Study Area List Name Distance (km) Entry from centre to turbine Section of the Car Dyke between Whitepost 5.40 Road and Fen Bridge Roman field system and trackway with later field 4.58 ditches and drove on Whittlesey Washes, 60m south of Bedford House Bowl barrow 430m north east of Prior's Fen 1.87 Farm St Vincent's Cross Iron Age and Roman settlement at Bar Pastures Bowl barrow 570m north east of Slipe Farm Two bowl barrows 940m south east of Bar 0.28 Pasture Farm Bowl barrow 550m south east of Hill Farm Bowl barrow 880m south west of Singlecote 3.01 Cottage Bowl barrow 225m north east of Prior's Fen 1.91 Farm Whittlesey Butter Cross Roman field system and drove at Pode Hole 0.88 Farm Bowl barrow immediately north east of Bank 2.26 Farm A Bronze Age post alignment and timber 4.17 platform at Flag Fen and associated Bronze Age and later field systems and settlement to either side of the Northey Road Bowl Barrow 730m WSW of Gores Farm 0.48 CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-15

139 Listed Buildings Grade I and II* There are fourteen Grade I or II* Listed Buildings within the Outer Study Area (Figure 5.2 and Table 5.7). Two are gate piers to Thorney Abbey and Abbey House (also listed), whilst three are churches, and one is a barn. Four are large houses, one a farmhouse; a post office is Grade II* listed as is the Whittlesey market cross (which is also a Scheduled Monument ) The group of listed buildings at Thorney Abbey comprises the Grade I listed Thorney Abbey and Abbey House as well as the gatepiers (Grade II* listed) and the attached Duke of Bedford s Stables (Grade II listed). These comprise the 16th century house built by the Earl of Bedford on his acquisition of the Thorney Abbey lands. The value of the assets lies in their fabric and their association with the Church of St Mary and St Botolph (also Grade I listed) on the opposite side of the road and with the remains of the former abbey buildings and parkland visible as earthworks in Abbey Fields to the south west of the house. They also have historical associative value with the wider landscape of the parish, which was owned and drained by the Earl of Bedford, however, the house has no views over this due to mature trees forming the boundary to the south, east and west and high walls to the north The Church of St Mary and St Botolph, Thorney incorporates the ornate double towered west wall of the earlier abbey church. The church is surrounded by mature trees and is only visible in close proximity, from the playing fields to the east and from Abbey House to the west. Its significance derives from its historic fabric and its association with the Duke of Bedford as well as its group value with the other estate buildings in Thorney and the earthwork remains of the earlier abbey The 14th century Oxney Farmhouse was much altered in the 19th century and its barn was added in the 17th century. These two Grade II* listed buildings have value for their historic fabric and are on the site of a medieval monastic cell, the buildings are now a gated community of apartments, the significance of the surviving assets is in their fabric and draws little from their surroundings The Grade II listed garden houses and linking walls attached to the Grade II* listed Northolme House have value for their historic fabric. The group of 16th century buildings is associated with the site of the 13th century Northolme Grange immediately northeast of the house. The house is aligned SSE-NNW with flanking walls to the sides of the garden, and its significance does not draw on its surroundings Wilderness House, Vinpenta House, and Grove House are all examples of large brick built 18th century houses in Whittlesey, whilst the Post Office in Whittlesey was also originally an 18th century house. Northolm House, Eye is an earlier 16th or 17th century house in stone with 18th century alterations and additions. All are listed for their architectural interest, and contribute positively to the Conservation Areas in which they are situated, but their significance does not draw on their wider surroundings. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-16

140 The remaining two buildings are the two parish churches in Whittlesey (St Mary s Grade I and St Andrew s Grade II*). Whittlesey is unusual for having two parish churches, a result of it lying within two medieval manors, St Mary s was held by Thorney Abbey and St Andrew s by the Prior of Ely. St Andrews is the smaller of the two, and the 14th century building with square tower is not a prominent building, being visible only from its immediate surroundings in Whittlesey. St Mary s on the other hand is a highly prominent landmark in the wider area, boasting the tallest spire in Cambridgeshire ( Table 5.7 Listed Buildings (Grades I and II*) in the Outer Study Area List Name Grade Distance (km) to Entry nearest turbine Thorney Abbey and Abbey House I Church of St Mary and St Botolph I Church of St Mary I Wilderness House II* Market Cross II* Vinpenta House II* Post Office II* Church of St Andrew II* Grove House II* Oxney Farmhouse II* Barn to Oxney Farmhouse II* Northolme House II* 3.74 Gatepiers north-northeast of Thorney Abbey and Abbey House II* Gatepiers north-northwest of Thorney Abbey and Abbey House II* Grade II There are 125 Grade II Listed Buildings in the Outer Study Area (Figure 5.2). A full list is provided in Appendix 5.1, but only selected assets are individually referenced in this study The vast majority of the Grade II listed structures are post-medieval vernacular buildings (houses and cottages). Most of these occur within villages, reflecting the nucleated settlement pattern of this part of Cambridgeshire but there are examples of isolated farms. Less frequent types include boundary walls, public houses, a K6 telephone box and public buildings such as a Post Office, a bank and a library. There are also small structures such as a war memorial and a wayside cross All Grade II assets were considered as part of the initial phases of the assessment and some were then selected for further assessment, either on grounds of their proximity to the proposed development or evidence for a wider setting that might be affected by the proposed development. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-17

141 This limited treatment in the assessment reflects the view that, in general, the significance of these assets does not derive from longer-range landscape setting. Therefore they will not experience significant adverse effects and do not merit inclusion in the assessment. The exceptions to this statement are listed in Table The group of Grade II listed buildings that comprise Eyebury Farm are part of a 17 th century farm. They form an attractive group of buildings set within their associated farmland. The turbines will be visible over 3km behind the buildings when viewed from the west. There are no specific designed views of the buildings and it is the general rural character of the surroundings which makes a small contribution to the significance of these assets Toneham Farmhouse is typical of 19th century farmhouses in the study area, being of a large scale that reflects the wealth created by the arable land produced as a result of effective draining of the fens. The building is not prominent in the surrounding area and sits within its own garden with woodland to the north and east and further specimen trees to the south, adjacent to the farmyard which contains 20th century agricultural buildings. This is the closest listed building to the proposed development (situated 900m east of the Inner Study Area and 1.1km from the nearest turbine); however, the building s value lies in its fabric and its aesthetic value as an example of a 19th century fenland farmhouse, but draws little on its surroundings. There is no potential for significant impacts upon Toneham Farmhouse s setting Willow Hall and Priors Farmhouse are both 18th century rendered brick farmhouses, though Willow Hall has later alterations. Willow Hall is oriented NNW-SSE and is surrounded by grounds that include a pond and a walled allotment garden; a stand of trees to the east screens the view in the direction of the turbines. Priors Farmhouse is oriented NNE-SSW within grounds that include ponds, a walled allotment garden and mature trees which screen the view in the direction of the turbines. These buildings have aesthetic value, in their fabric, and associative value with their gardens but their significance draws little on their surroundings. Table 5.8: Listed Buildings (Grade II) Selected for Detailed Assessment List Entry Name Distance (km) to nearest turbine Eyebury Farmhouse Toneham Farmhouse Willow Hall Eyebury Cottages Priors Farmhouse 1.47 Conservation Areas There are three Conservation Areas wholly or partially within the Outer Study Area (Figure 5.2 and Table 5.9). These protect the historic cores of the main settlements in the Outer Study Area, each with a distinct character. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-18

142 Eye is a small village on a linear plan, most of the present buildings are of 19th century date or later, however there has been a settlement here since at least the 16th century. The buildings front onto a main street aligned east-northeast to west-southwest, and the key views are along this street. St Matthew s church at the east end of the high street is a 19th century construction, on the site of an earlier church, and has an unusual gabled roof to the tower. The Conservation Area is bounded by 20th century housing to the south and north which obscures any views of the surrounding farmland Thorney Conservation Area incorporates the Abbey ruins and later church, the Duke of Bedford s stables, as well as the Tank Yard area with its Grade II listed water tower; the main buildings however are the 19th century estate cottages. Key views out of the Conservation Area are along the two roads which cross in the centre, with a north-south and eastwest alignment respectively. There are views of open countryside to the south and southeast from the recreation ground to the east of the parish church, and to the south across the earthworks of the former abbey. The most prominent building is the Tank Yard tower, built for the Duke of Bedford to balance the water supplies to the village Whittlesey Conservation Area is in two parts. The first is focused on the Market Square, this area is characterised by large Georgian buildings fronting the square and smaller Georgian houses on the streets radiating from it and behind. The second is smaller and located to the north of the core of the town. 20th century development abuts both parts of the Conservation Area, restricting views out of the area and obscuring views of the Conservation Area. The roads out of the Conservation Area afford tightly framed long-range views particularly from the Market Square Key buildings in the Conservation Area are the Butter Cross (a Georgian market building) and the two parish churches of St Mary s and St Andrew s. The only prominent building, visible from outside the Conservation Area, is the church of St Mary with its very tall spire. Table 5.9: Conservation Areas in the Outer Study Area Name Distance (km) from centre to nearest turbine Eye 3.37 Thorney 1.88 Whittlesey 4.84 Historic Parks and Gardens There are no Registered Historic Parks and Gardens in the Outer Study Area. However, the Peterborough City Council Conservation Officer requested that the undesignated Abbey Fields at Thorney be included in the assessment (Figure 5.2) Abbey Fields is located in the south-west corner of the village, bordered by a stone wall on its eastern side and the Thorney River to the north and west. It is an extensive area of meadow and grassland currently in private ownership with no public access. It does, however, contribute positively to the Conservation Area as an attractive open space. The rising slopes of this open pasture also demonstrate clearly how Thorney was once an CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-19

143 island ( A mid 17th century walled garden and terrace are also located at Thorney Abbey and Abbey House adjacent to the Abbey Fields. Table 5.10: Parks and Gardens in the Outer Study Area List Distance (km) from centre to nearest Number Site Name turbine N/A Abbey Fields, Thorney 1.97 Relevant Assets Outside the Outer Study Area The boundary of the Outer Study Area (Figure 5.2), 5km from the proposed turbine, has been used as the outer limit for systematic assessment of designated heritage assets. This cut-off reflects recent experience with wind turbines of similar height in lowland England and is a widely adopted study area boundary However, it is also widely recognised that significant effects can occur at greater distances if sensitive heritage assets are present and longdistance views make a substantive contribution to their significance. An area up to 10km from the wind turbine has been checked for specific assets that could fall into this category and therefore merit inclusion in the assessment. Two Conservation Areas were identified within 10km of the turbine which have potential for significant effects; these are the Conservation Areas at Crowland and Coates. The Peterborough City Council Conservation Officer requested that the Registered Park and Garden and Conservation Area at Thorpe Hall also be included in the assessment Crowland Conservation Area includes the town centre, focused on the Scheduled and Grade I listed Holy Trinity Bridge with streets radiating out from the small square on which this stands. The abbey ruins form a second focus to the Conservation Area and the tower of the abbey church is the only prominent building in the town and one of the most prominent in the whole Outer Study Area, being visible across a wide area Coates Conservation Area is focused on two small squares with an attractive view from the southeast side of the square to the northwest in which the Methodist church dominates. Views to the northwest are considered to contribute to the significance of the Conservation Area Thorpe Hall is a Registered Park and Garden and Conservation Area to the west of Peterborough. The focus of the park is the Grade I listed Thorpe Hall, which is now a hospice, but was built in by Peter Mills as a residence for Lord Chief Justice Oliver St John. Key vistas are northsouth and east-west. None of these key vistas are in the direction of the turbines which lie over 9km to the northeast of Thorpe Hall. Although turbines may be seen from some locations within the parkland and potentially from upper floors of the house, they will be seen in at a substantial distance beyond Peterborough. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-20

144 Information Gaps Baseline information on the cultural heritage resource of the application area and its surroundings has been collated from existing records; it is therefore dependant on the quality of existing records. It has proved possible, where necessary, to check these records during site visits and through non-intrusive and intrusive evaluation techniques and to conclude that the overall level of information for individual heritage assets is proportionate to its relevance in the study New information has been collected for this study to address relevant information gaps that were apparent in the existing records. Assets considered to be at risk of significant setting effects were visited to betterunderstand the contribution that setting makes to their significance. Photowirelines were also produced to illustrate the predicted visual change from key assets (Figures ). Borehole survey and Geophysical survey were carried out to understand the archaeological resource of the proposed development area This research is considered to have generated sufficient information to permit an informed assessment of impacts on the setting of the cultural heritage resource. Geophysical survey of the application site will be completed in Spring 2013 and will be submitted as supplementary information. 5.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT This section of the chapter provides an assessment of predicted the impact of the development on the heritage resource. It includes consideration of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the development and identifies impacts on both the fabric and setting of heritage assets A summary of the identified impacts, and the significance of these effects, is presented in Table Types of Effect Potential effects of the proposed development on the cultural heritage resource can be described in three categories: Direct physical effects; Indirect physical effects; and Effects on setting. Direct Physical Effects Direct physical effects describe those development activities that directly cause damage to the fabric of a heritage asset. Typically, these activities are related to construction works; in the present case they could include excavation of foundations for the turbines, creation of access tracks and the excavation of service trenches. It follows that this category of effect will only be experienced within the application site. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-21

145 5.5.5 Further direct physical effects are unlikely to be experienced during the operational life of the wind farm. Similarly, the decommissioning of the wind turbines will not lead to further direct physical effects, assuming that the works are carefully managed and restricted to areas already disturbed during construction. Indirect Physical Effects Indirect physical effects describe those processes, triggered by development activity, that lead to the degradation of heritage assets. A typical example of a process is the lowering of a groundwater table as a result of mineral extraction leading to the drying out of formerly waterlogged archaeological deposits in the area surrounding the extraction site. The result can be total loss of organic materials in these deposits and therefore most of their cultural value The anticipated fen peat deposits were found not to be present on the site, and the peaty soils have been extensively leached and are no longer of any archaeological or palaeoenvironmental interest. As a result no indirect physical effects have been identified that could occur as a result of the proposed development and this category of effect will not be mentioned again in the assessment. Effects on Setting Effects on setting of heritage assets describes how the presence of a development changes the surroundings of a heritage asset in such a way that it affects (positively or negatively) the heritage significance of that asset. Visual effects are most commonly encountered but other environmental factors such as noise, light or air quality can be relevant in some cases. Effects may be encountered at all stages in the life cycle of a development from construction to decommissioning but they are only likely to be considered significant during the prolonged operational life of the development In the case of the proposed development, the height of the wind turbines (maximum 126.5m to blade tip height) results in structures that will be visible from some distance. This visibility will be enhanced by the rotation of the blades when the turbines are operating. The proposed development therefore has the potential to generate significant effects on setting, but only for heritage assets where the wider landscape makes a substantive contribution to their significance Other environmental impacts of the proposed development have been considered as potential causes of effects on setting but have then been discounted. These include night-time illumination (not considered to be a significant issue as the heritage assets in the study area are not generally appreciated in the dark), and increase in noise (not of sufficient magnitude to affect the experience of a visitor to any of the heritage assets in the study area). CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-22

146 Construction Impacts Construction works within the application site have the potential to affect both known heritage assets and other, currently unrecorded archaeological features Two scheduled monuments (Bronze Age barrows) are present within the site boundary. The scheme has been designed to avoid at least a 100m area around these barrows, to avoid direct impacts. A slight risk of accidental damage remains The geophysical survey has identified possible archaeological features that could be impacted by the proposed development. There is potential for further remains to be discovered within the areas not surveyed as part of this EIA. Operational Impacts Selection of Assets for Assessment The assets selected for assessment reflect the combined judgement of the current assessor and consultees in Peterborough Council and English Heritage The assessment of operational impacts on these assets has been assisted by a range of technical aids which predict the degree and nature of visual change that will be experienced. These comprise a mapped ZTV for turbine blade tips (Figure 4.6) and photowirelines from selected viewpoints (Figures ), photomontages from LVIA viewpoints have also been considered where relevant. Assets which the ZTV indicates will not have visibility of the turbine have been excluded from this assessment The low-lying and flat nature of the topography in the study area results in predicted visibility across a very wide area (up to 35km in places). The ZTV is a bare earth model, meaning that in reality the presence of buildings and vegetation will restrict views, and the turbines are not likely to be readily visible at long distances (beyond 10km) Twenty-six viewpoints were selected in consultation with Peterborough City Council and English Heritage, from which photowirelines were produced to illustrate visual change affecting heritage assets. Table 5.11: Cultural Heritage Viewpoints Illustrated in this Assessment Viewpoint reference Viewpoint name Distance from Grid reference nearest visible turbine (km) Thorney (SW part of the conservation area) , Thorney (conservation area alt 1) , Thorney (conservation area alt 2) , Whittlesey - Market Street/ Queen Street , CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-23

147 Viewpoint Viewpoint name Distance from Grid reference reference nearest visible turbine (km) Whittlesey - Market 5 Street/ Broad Street , Whittlesey - Church 6 Street , Flag Fen - visitor centre , Flag Fen - north of site , Whittlesey Washes 9 Roman site , The Car Dyke (west end) , The Car Dyke (middle) , The Car Dyke (east end) , Bar Pastures , Pode Hole , Barrows north of B1443 (SMs & ) , Barrow ( ) north of B , Barrows south of development (SMs & ) , Barrow ( ) south of development , Eastrea (ring ditch and settlement site) , Horsey Hill (civil war fort) , Oxney Grange - 21 buildings , Oxney Grange footpath to the west , Eyebury Farm - buildings , Eyebury Farm - 24 unnamed road to the west , Willow Hall , Priors Farm , Registered Parks and Gardens The Registered Park and Garden at Thorpe Hall was included for its sensitivity to impacts. The key vistas within the park are not in the direction of the turbines and no impacts to the significance of the park are predicted. It has not been considered further. Scheduled Monuments All 14 Scheduled Monuments within the Study Area were included due to their sensitivity to impacts. Two further Scheduled Monuments beyond the Outer Study Area were included at the request of English Heritage. The majority of these assets are now either ploughed out or buried beneath peat deposits. The exceptions are the Car Dyke which survives as an earthwork across the fields; the Whittlesey Butter Cross structure within the town of Whittlesey and St Vincent s Cross. In general the assets are experienced within a broadly arable fenland setting, and the CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-24

148 open nature of views affords some appreciation of the interrelationships of the assets and their surroundings (including other related assets) The setting of the Butter Cross, however, is the urban area of Whittlesey and impacts are considered to affect the Conservation Area more generally, rather than the significance of the butter cross specifically The turbines will be visible within the setting of all of these monuments, however, as the setting makes at most a minor contribution to the significance of the assets the effect on the significance of these assets is predicted to be negligible The group of barrows within the application site and the other barrows in the Inner Study Area are not readily visible in the wider area, as they survive as buried features and very slight earthworks. The wider fenland area makes a minor contribution to the significance of these assets and the turbines will be visible within this setting, the impact to the significance of the assets is considered to be negligible and the effect is predicted to be minor. Listed Buildings All fourteen Grade I and II* Listed Buildings are included in the assessment due to their sensitivity to impacts. Three Grade II Listed Buildings are also included for their proximity to the proposed development The Whittlesey Butter Cross has already been assessed as a Scheduled Monument and is not considered again here A number of the listed buildings are only visible in their immediate surroundings, and there is considered to be no potential for effects. These are: Wilderness House, Whittlesey Vinpetta House, Whittlesey Grove House, Whittlesey Post Office, Whittlesey Church of St Andrew, Whittlesey Farmhouses Toneham Farmhouse, Willow Hall and Priors Farmhouse are typical of 18th and 19th century farmhouses in the study area, being of a large scale that reflects the wealth created by the arable land produced as a result of effective draining of the fens. The Grade II listed buildings are not prominent in the surrounding area and each sits within its own garden adjacent to farmyards containing modern agricultural buildings The rural surroundings make a moderate contribution to the significance of these assets. The turbines will form new structures within this setting but the impact is considered to be negligible, resulting in an effect of minor significance. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-25

149 Oxney Farmhouse and Barn The grade II* listed farmhouse and barn at Oxney are the remains of a medieval monastic site that became a farmstead. The setting is the general rural surroundings and there are no key views of the assets (which have been converted for residential use). The setting makes a minor contribution to the significance of the assets. The turbines will be visible behind the buildings in views from the west, and will form new structures within this fenland view. The impact of this negligible effect to the building is considered to be of minor significance. Northolme House The grade II listed garden houses and attached Grade II* listed Northolme House also have a rural setting. The setting makes a minor contribution to the significance of the assets. The house is aligned SSE-NNW and the turbines will form new structures within views to the east. The impact is considered to be negligible resulting in an effect of minor significance. Assets in Thorney The Grade I listed Thorney Abbey and Abbey House as well as its associated gatepiers (grade II* listed) and the attached Duke of Bedford s Stables (grade II listed) are associated with the Grade I listed Church of St Mary and St Botolph as well as the earthwork remains of the former abbey and its parkland The turbines will be visible at a distance of 2km in views from the immediate surroundings of these assets. However, they will not diminish the ability to appreciate the inter-relationship of these assets. None of these buildings are particularly prominent in views from the wider area, the village being dominated by the grade II listed water tower. The water tower will remain the most prominent landmark in views from the northeast The effects on the assets are considered to be negligible for the following assets: Thorney Abbey and Abbey House Gatepiers Duke of Bedford s Stables Church of St Mary and St Botolph and minor for the water tower. Church of St Mary, Whittlesey The Grade I listed church is a prominent landmark in the surrounding area, being visible across a wide area, particularly from the south. The turbines will be visible over 5km distant behind the church in views from the south, however the church will remain more dominant in these views. The effect is considered to be minor In summary no significant impacts to Listed Buildings are predicted. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-26

150 Conservation Areas Four Conservation Areas have been included in the assessment for their sensitivity to impacts. Three are within 5km of the turbines, whilst the fourth (Coates) lies 6km to the southeast Eye Conservation Area does not have any prominent buildings or important views in the direction of the turbines. There are predicted to be no effects to the significance of this Conservation Area The turbines will be visible in views from the southwest corner of Thorney Conservation Area which look across the earthworks of the former abbey to fenland arable fields beyond. They will also be visible in the distance in views from the northeast in which the tank yard water tower dominates. The significance of the Conservation Area derives mainly from its historic buildings and association with the former abbey and with the Bedford Estate. The general rural character of views out of the Conservation Area makes a moderate contribution to the significance of the area, and the presence of turbines within this view is considered to be an effect of minor magnitude. The tank yard water tower will remain the dominant feature in views from the north-east due to the physical separation of the turbines from the tower. The effect is considered to be negligible. Overall, a minor impact is predicted The turbines will not be visible from the majority of the Whittlesey Conservation Area and the Church of St Mary will remain the dominant feature in views from the south due to the physical separation of the turbines from the church spire. The effect is considered to be negligible The turbines will be visible at a distance of 6km in views from the southeast of the green in Coates Conservation Area where blade tips will be visible above the buildings in views of the Methodist church. The turbines will also be visible at a distance of approximately 6km from the north-western edge of the Conservation Area from which views that contribute to the rural character of the Conservation Area are possible. The presence of new structures within these views is considered to be an effect of minor significance It is concluded that there would be no significant effects on any Conservation Areas. Decommissioning Phase When the wind farm is decommissioned, it is expected that all surface aspects of the site will be removed and reinstated, with the wind turbine foundations ground down to below surface level before the ground is revegetated and reinstated. At present, it is generally accepted that removal of cables and electrical infrastructure is more damaging than leaving them in situ so this is the current preferred option. Site access tracks could remain in situ if required by the landowners or be reinstated All of this work will take place in parts of the site already disturbed during construction. A carefully controlled programme of demolition and CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-27

151 reinstatement should not lead to any further adverse impacts on those heritage assets already affected by the construction works. Cumulative Effects There is potential for heritage assets to experience cumulative effects due to the operation of the proposed turbines in combination with wind farms and single turbines in the vicinity. This potential has been considered within the cultural heritage impact assessment, including the impact of all existing, consented and proposed wind farms within 35km of the proposed development At the request of PCC non-wind farm developments in the vicinity have also been considered for their potential for cumulative effects, these are two mineral extraction sites (Pode Hole and Willow Hall) and three solar energy developments. These types of development have very different potential for significant effects than wind farms (generally relating to the direct and indirect effects to below ground archaeological remains rather than effects to the setting of heritage assets) No cumulative effects to waterlogged archaeological remains as a result of the construction of the wind farm in combination with the adjacent extraction sites are predicted as the development area does not contain peat deposits of archaeological interest. No cumulative effects to the setting of heritage assets are predicted as a result of the proposed wind farm operating in combination with any of these sites, due to the limited nature of predicted impacts as a result of the proposed development alone. Table 5.12: Summary of Predicted Impacts on Heritage Assets Asset Unrecorded archaeological sites within application area Scheduled barrows within application area Thorney Conservation Area Church of St Mary, Whittlesey Nature of impact Possible damage during construction works Accidental damage through plant movements Visual change in setting for duration of operational life of wind turbine Visual change in setting for duration of operational life of wind turbine Visual change in setting for duration of operational life of wind turbine Sensitivity of Asset Low High High Magnitude of impact Up to Moderate Up to Major Slight Significance of effect Up to minor Up to Major Moderate Medium Negligible Minor High Negligible Minor CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-28

152 Asset Whittlesey Conservation Area Toneham Farmhouse Willow Hall Priors Farmhouse Oxney Farmhouse & Barn Northolme House Church of St Mary and St Botolph 5.6 MITIGATION Nature of impact Visual change in setting for duration of operational life of wind turbine Visual change in setting for duration of operational life of wind turbine Visual change in setting for duration of operational life of wind turbine Visual change in setting for duration of operational life of wind turbine Visual change in setting for duration of operational life of wind turbine Visual change in setting for duration of operational life of wind turbine Visual change in setting for duration of operational life of wind turbine Sensitivity of Asset Magnitude of impact Significance of effect Medium Negligible Minor Medium Negligible Minor Medium Negligible Minor Medium Negligible Minor High Negligible Minor High Negligible Minor High Negligible Minor Construction Phase National policy (NPPF) places a priority on sustainable development, including protecting and enhancing the historic environment. Harm (including loss of significance) to the historic environment should be permitted only where it is properly justified. Where adverse impacts are considered to be acceptable, an approved programme of archaeological excavation and recording should be used to offset the loss of archaeological deposits The possible archaeological features within the areas of turbines 1, 5, 6 and 7 will be avoided by micrositing. Further geophysical survey of the areas around turbines 3 and 4 will be carried out in spring 2013 to identify any other archaeological remains which require mitigation. Details of this survey, any identified impacts, proposed mitigation and residual effects will be presented in supplementary information. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-29

153 5.6.3 The Scheduled barrows will be protected through the enforcement of a stand-off from the scheduled areas. This will be fenced in advance of construction work to prevent accidental damage to the monuments. Operational Period No significant adverse effects on the significance of heritage assets have been identified for the operational period of the proposed development. No mitigation measures are therefore proposed. Decommissioning Phase Groundworks during decommissioning have the potential to damage archaeological features in previously undisturbed areas of land. The decommissioning phase should be designed so as to avoid further disturbance of known archaeological features identified in this assessment or encountered during construction works. All site works should be carefully controlled to minimise the potential for accidental damage. A decommissioning management plan would be prepared in advance, in line with relevant legislation, guidance and policy at the time of decommissioning. 5.7 RESIDUAL IMPACTS Construction Phase Successful implementation of an approved programme of archaeological works will fully mitigate the adverse effect of the construction works, either through micro-siting to avoid impacts or through archaeological recording to mitigate impacts. It is concluded that there will be no significant residual effects. Operational Period The effects on the setting of heritage assets will persist for the duration of the operational life and then be fully reversed on decommissioning. However the effects identified are not considered to be significant. No mitigation of these effects will take place. Decommissioning Phase Careful management of the decommissioning process will ensure that there is no accidental adverse impact on the heritage resource of the application site. There will be no adverse impacts and therefore no residual effects. 5.8 CONCLUSIONS The scheme has been designed to avoid direct impacts to known heritage assets. Potential for currently unrecorded heritage assets to be present within the construction footprint remains, particularly in the areas that have not been subject to geophysical survey. A programme of archaeological CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-30

154 investigation and recording is expected to mitigate any impact to such remains Minor impacts to the significance of designated heritage assets as a result of changes within their setting have been predicted for Toneham Farmhouse, Willow Hall, Priors Farmhouse, Oxney Farmhouse & Barn, Northolme House and the Scheduled Barrows. These effects will persist through the operational life of the wind farm but are not considered to be significant effects. CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-31

155 5.9 REFERENCES English Heritage (2005). Wind Energy and the Historic Environment. English Heritage (2008). Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. English Heritage (2011). Setting of Heritage Assets The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979: The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Planning for the Historic Environment Practice Guide (2010) CULTURAL HERITAGE Page 5-32

156 Chapter Six Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology

157 CHAPTER 6: HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY 6.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A baseline description of the local soil, geology and water environments was formed through a desktop study, site walkover and consultation with relevant bodies. Construction, operation and decommissioning activities associated with the proposed wind farm with the potential to impact soil, geology and water receptors were identified. The significance of the potential impacts was evaluated and mitigation measures to reduce or prevent the potential impacts were identified The topography of the site is relatively flat, with elevation ranging between -0.2m AOD and 3.8m AOD. The land use is mostly low lying arable land for the growth of cereals and crops. The soils at the site are comprise a dark brown to grey clay to peaty podzols with occasional fragments of chalk or flint brown earths. The more peaty soils were observed in the southern section of the development area The soils are generally underlain by river terrace sand and gravel deposits in the southeast, tidal flat deposits in the central section and no superficial geology in the northern section. The sands and gravels have the potential to act as aquifers. The river terrace sands and gravels in the southwestern section of the development are within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste (C&P MW) Local Development Framework Safeguarding and Consultation Areas. Two of the turbines are proposed to be located within the Minerals Safeguarding Area however, as recognised by Core Strategy Policy CS22 Climate Change, the generation of renewable energy and mineral extraction are not mutually exclusive or incompatible. The turbines will not inhibit sand and gravel extraction from the land in the future due to the minimal land take involved and, as turbines are not a permanent development, the deposits can be extracted, if required, after the wind farm decommissioning. The requirements of the Minerals Development Plan are therefore satisfied The bedrock geology at the site comprises Jurassic Oxford Clay consisting of a stiff blue to buff clay The Oxford Clay is classified as a nonproductive aquifer or aquitard for groundwater The site is located within the catchment of the River Nene with surface water runoff generally flowing to the northeast towards the River Thorney, in the northern section of the site and generally to the south towards the River Nene in the southern section of the site. The River Thorney flows northward to join the Old Wryde Drain and subsequently the North Internal Drainage Board (NIDB) Drain before joining the River Nene The drainage of the entire site has significant manmade enhancements and modifications in the form of land drains, artificial drainage channels, bunds and pumping to prevent the site from flooding and for irrigation purposes. The majority of the field boundaries comprise of drains under riparian ownership with the main drains being managed the North Level Internal Drainage Board. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-1

158 6.1.7 The majority of development area is within an Environment Agency Flood risk area, however this does not take into account any flood defences in place. The Peterborough City Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (PCC SFRA) shows the south-eastern section of the site to be within a flood zone. The main access track to the development has been designed to be outwith the PCC SFRA flood zone The industry-standard Source-Pathway-Receptor (SPR) model was used for the impact assessment. The main potential impacts identified were chemical contamination, soil compaction, sterilisation, erosion and removal, sediment release, modified drainage patterns, increased surface runoff, ponding, increased groundwater vulnerability and flood risk The receptors were: the soil and geology within and immediately adjacent to the site; flood risk; the future groundwater resource within the drift geology; and the drains in the River Nene catchment for surface water abstractions and being a Shellfish Protected Area With the proposed mitigation measures in place, it is considered that the development will have a minor significance of impact on the soils, geology and water environment of the site, and thus not be significant within EIA terms. The impact on larger watercourses (Thorney River, Old Wryde Drain and River Nene) is also considered to be of minor significance due to their distance from site and the limited size of the site in comparison to the whole catchment area. Potential surface water and groundwater abstraction impacts have minor significance associated with the potential for release of suspended sediments. This potential impact will only be temporary and can be mitigated with a filter at the abstraction point if necessary Proposed mitigation measures include the avoidance by design where possible, use of a Pollution Prevention Plan, drainage and sediment control systems, erosion prevention, the imposition of a minimum standoff between turbines and watercourses, raising floor levels of ancillary buildings and electrical installations at or greater than 2.8mAOD within the PCC SFRA flood zone and turbines having a remote switch off option With the implementation of best practice mitigation, the residual effects of the development on the geology, hydrogeology and hydrology will be minor to negligible and, therefore, not deemed to be significant. 6.2 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed development on the surface water and groundwater environment in terms of both quality and quantity. In addition, it also addresses the potential impact of the development proposals on soil and geology, both on the site and its immediate surroundings The assessment is primarily concerned with the wind turbines and associated infrastructure and up to 1km from the infrastructure. However, where a hydrological connection deems it necessary, the assessment has HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-2

159 considered locations beyond 2km. The assessment also takes account of the potential for cumulative effects with other developments Within this chapter, the planning application fee area shown on Figure 1.2 where all infrastructure is to be located is referred to as the development area ; the main study area is referred to as the site contained by the site boundary and the wider study area including access track option areas is referred to as the study area as shown on Figure This chapter is supported by the following Technical Appendices: Technical Appendix 6.1: Inventory of Water Features; Technical Appendix 6.2: Flood Risk Assessment; Technical Appendix 6.3: Water Abstractions Details; and Technical Appendix 6.4: Discharge Consent Details. 6.3 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH Information Sources The following sources of information presented in Table 6.1 were used in the completion of this chapter. Table 6.1: Data Sources Topic Climate Rainfall Topography Elevation, relief Geology Solid and drift Soil Soil type Groundwater Hydrogeology, aquifer properties, Source Protection Zones and groundwater levels Source of Data and Information CEH National River Gauge Archive Data Environment Agency (EA) rainfall data Weather Underground, wunderground.com local weather stations Ordnance Survey Mapping Google Maps aerial images British Geological Society (BGS) Solid and Drift Edition Mapping (Scale 1:50,000), Sheet E158 Peterborough (1984) Soil Survey of England and Wales 1:250,000 scale Soil Map of England and Wales, Sheet 4 Soils of Eastern England, Lawes Agricultural Trust (1983) Cranfield University's National Soil Resources Institute (NSRI), Soilscapes EA - Consultation and published sources on their website ( groundwater vulnerability maps 1:50,000scale EA groundwater monitoring sites Hydrogeological Map of England and Wales (Scale 1:625,000) (Institute of Geological Sciences, 1977) Lincolnshire. Groundwater Vulnerability Map: Sheet 19. 1:100k (EA) West Norfolk. Groundwater Vulnerability Map: Sheet 13. 1:100k (EA) EA Groundwater Source Protection Zone maps EA Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3) EA - Consultation and published sources on their website ( HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-3

160 Topic Surface Water Surface water features, flood risk, water quality, recreational waters and fisheries Water resources private water supplies, licensed abstractions, impoundment licenses and discharge consents Water Authority Assets Source of Data and Information Peterborough City Council Consultation Cambridgeshire County Council Consultation North Level Internal Drainage Board - Consultation EA - Consultation and published sources on their website ( and Peterborough City Council Consultation Cambridgeshire County Council Consultation North Level Internal Drainage Board - Consultation EA - Consultation and published sources on their website ( ) Anglian Water Consultation Anglian Water Consultation Consultation Before undertaking the assessment, key consultees with specific interest in the water environment were contacted. These included the Environment Agency (EA), Anglian Water, Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC), Peterborough City Council (PCC) and the North Level Internal Drainage Board (NIDB). Table 6.2: Summary of Scoping Responses Relating to Hydrological and Hydrogeological Receptors Consultee Response Comment Environment Agency Hydrological Information request sent 17/04/12, response received 15/05/12 The EA provided the following details within 3km of the centre of the site: Four current licensed abstractions. No deregulated abstractions, but there may be abstractions for domestic use which are not licensed by the EA. Discharge consent permits. Long term average rainfall and monthly total rainfall data from the Dog-in-a-Doublet monitoring station. Water quality raw data for 1 January 2002 to 23 April River levels on the Nene at Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice. Some limited data from the Thorney river from the 1990s indicating species present. Current Flood Map for the area indicating the HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-4

161 Consultee Response Comment area at risk of flooding and shows the extent of the Extreme Flood Outline. Historic Flood Extent Map showing the extent of previous recorded flooding. The defences protecting this site from the River Nene consist of earth embankments. They are in good condition and provide protection against a flood event with a 0.67% chance of occurring in any year (1 in 150). Tidal flood levels from The levels are in metres above Ordnance Datum Newlyn (modn) and are valid for 12 months from the date of issue. The area has extensive land drainage which may pose an additional risk of flooding. Further information should be sought from the NIDB. The site is approximately 2.8km from Nene Washes and you will therefore need to contact Natural England for comments to find out if there would be any impact on habitats in the area. There is no landfill activity within 0.5 km of the site, however there is an active domestic waste landfill approximately 1.3km west of the boundary of the site and a historic site approximately 1.4km. There are no known potentially contaminative historical land uses or Part IIA sites, it is expected that the area is mainly agricultural and greenfield. The EA has no flow data within 3km of the development area. The area lies on glaciofluvial sands and gravels and there are two groundwater abstractions nearby, so during construction/operation, care should be taken to prevent any impacts or derogation of supply. The site lies predominantly within Flood Zone 3 and therefore a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be required that is in line with the scale, nature and location of the proposed development and in accordance with the recently published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and it's technical guidance. The FRA should consider, in particular: Surface water runoff; post development runoff should be equivalent to predevelopment runoff. The size of the proposed impermeable area should be provided within the FRA. We encourage early discussions with the NIDB as the site lies within their administrative boundary. If runoff is to be discharged into an HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-5

162 Consultee Response Comment IDB drain, then confirmation that they are happy with this should be included within the FRA. Anglian Water (AW) Peterboroug h City Council (PCC) Asset information request sent 17/04/12, response received from Anglian Water 19/01/12. Scoping response received 25/04/12, Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services Hydrological information request sent 17/04/12, response received 26/04/12 and 19/06/12, Lynden Leadbeater, Environmental Health Officer Whether the wind farm is to be manned or unmanned the majority of the time Details about the substation and any sensitive electrical equipment proposed. This should be set above the highest predicted flood levels where possible. Confirm whether the turbines would need to remain operational in times of flooding and whether access would be required. Peterborough City Councils' Strategic Flood Risk Assessment should be considered. Anglian Water asset plans are all available through The online Digdat service indicated that there are no know Anglian Water infrastructure with the development area. Additionally, written confirmation was received from Anglian Water to confirm that they have no known assets within the development area. No Anglian Water abstractions are present within 3km of the development. PCC identified the development area to be located within Flood Zone 3 and, therefore, in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework and policy technical guidance the proposal requires a fully compliant flood risk assessment. The flood risk assessment for the development will be required to assess and detail: Different types of flooding, scale, nature and location Surface water drainage Predicted flood levels for sensitive electrical equipment Safe access and egress if the site is to be regularly manned Any flood resistant structures Details of hard standing The EA and NIDB should be contacted for further information and consultation. A letter of acceptance for surface water runoff to drains will be required from the NIDB for the flood risk assessment. No private water supplies recorded within 3km, known private water supplies are all several kilometres away. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-6

163 Consultee Response Comment Natural England RSPB Alan Jones, Minerals Officer, 27/07/12 Scoping Response received 16/04/12, Janet Nuttall, Planning and Conservation Advisor Scoping Response received 16/04/12, Amy Crossley, Conservation PCC hold no discharge consents, rainfall, water quality, flow rates, fish population or flood records. There are no known landfill sites within 250m of the development area. There are two potential part IIA contaminated land areas on the PCC records: Pode Hole sand and gravel quarry and concrete batching plant. Toneham Cottages area formerly used for clay and brick tile manufacture. The key things to address in EIA are: Impacts of temporary sterilisation of resource. What kind of standoff would be required on any turbine bases and access track infrastructure to extract minerals alongside wind development. Include former report on potential for mineral extraction (from Landowner). Include what proportion of the area may be temporarily sterilised. Identify how infrastructure can be sited so as to minimise impacts. Land stability in association with the existing quarried area to the north maintain standoff from existing quarry. Natural England supports the development of renewable energy schemes, including wind farms, where these have appropriate standards for environmental protection, will not damage wildlife and geological features. The site should be located appropriately and comprehensive assessments of environmental impacts, including an assessment of cumulative effects should be undertaken. The proposed wind energy development is situated within 2km of an internationally designated site for nature conservation: the Nene Washes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site for freshwater wetlands, winter and breeding birds. The RSPB are aware that wintering Bewick s and whooper swans feed on Prior s Fen to the south, and roost at the adjacent sand and gravel pits. A range of other waterfowl also use the sand and gravel pits adjacent to the site, as well as breeding Marsh Harrier and HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-7

164 Consultee Response Comment Officer probable over-wintering Bittern. North Level District Internal Drainage Board (NIDB) Overall Approach Paul Sharman Hydrological information request sent 17/04/12, received 18/06/12. Further consultation 25/01/13 The site is located within 2km from the Nene Washes SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar site of international importance for wetland habitats. Provided rainfall data and a plan of the drains managed by NIDB. No objection to the proposed development as long as turbines (including the over sail) are located at least 9m from the NIDB managed drains. No requirement for a topple zone. Access must be permitted to the drains they manage at all times. In principle NIDB have no objections to the proposals, however the section using the existing gravel road (the northern access track) is not the best soil conditions and lengths of this watercourse have been piled in recent years to stabilise slips in the banks. NIDB advice would be to consider constructing the haul road for the construction phase of the project further away from this watercourse, even if the development reverts to the existing track for maintenance purposes. Existing crossings will need strengthening before heavy construction traffic uses them, and all new culvert/crossings will need Land Drainage Consent This section outlines the methodology adopted to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed wind energy development upon the local water environment The assessment has been undertaken primarily using a qualitative assessment based on professional judgement and statutory and general guidance. It assesses potential impacts during the construction and operation of the proposed Gores Wind Farm and outlines mitigation measures to control the predicted effects of the proposal. It incorporates: A review of the relevant legislation, guidelines and policy; Consultation with both statutory consultees and private water supply users; A desk study to identify existing information; Site visits to determine baseline conditions; Constraints on the development associated with the hydrology, hydrogeology, geology and soils, so that the most sensitive areas can be avoided or protected; The prediction of likely impacts on hydrology, hydrogeology and hydro-ecology from the proposal; HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-8

165 The assessment of the likely significance (as described in the EIA regulations) of those impacts having based on the magnitudes of impact and the sensitivities of receiving environments; Identify mitigation measures to avoid, remediate or reduce the identified effects; and, Identify residual effects of the development and their significance after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Potential Effects of Wind Farm Development Potential hydrological/ hydrogeological effects resulting from the construction, operation and decommissioning of wind farms relate to four main factors: Erosion and Sediment Transport Unmanaged erosion/sediment deposition and suspended solids generated from ground disturbance could travel directly by surface runoff or cause modification to stream channel morphology, with resulting smothering of habitats/ impact on both terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna, especially fish. Unacceptable levels of sediment could also affect water abstracted for drinking supply. Potential Polluting Events Affecting Groundwater and Surface Water Quality Oil, fuel, chemical pollution (from accidental spillage, incorrect transport, storage during concrete preparation and refuelling procedures, leaching of concrete from turbine bases and installations etc) could impact both terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna and also on human activities such as water abstracted for drinking supply. Alteration of Natural Drainage Patterns/Runoff Volumes and Rates Any alteration of natural drainage could disturb natural surface and subsurface water flows to either water dependent habitats or to water supply abstraction points, unless properly managed. Tracks and other hardstanding areas could provide new preferential pathways that interfere with the retention of flows within catchments. Inappropriate designed water crossings could result in blockages and flooding, with the potential to exacerbate erosion. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-9

166 Increase in the Magnitude or Frequency of Flood Events The construction of bridges or alteration of flood plains area may result in flood waters extending further or deeper elsewhere and/or increase the frequency of such events. This could result in risk to human life/ health, damage to infrastructure and property, and changes to ecological systems. Guidance and Legislation The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with statutory and general guidance and environmental legislation relating to the water environment including: Statutory and General Guidance National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure (EN-1 and EN-3) (July 2011); Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance Notes (PPG); PPG 1 General guide to the prevention of water pollution; PPG 2 Above ground oil storage tanks; PPG 3 Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems; PPG 4 Disposal of sewage where no mains drainage is available; PPG 5 Works in, near or liable to affect watercourses; PPG 6 Working at construction and demolition sites; PPG 8 Safe storage and disposal of used oils; and PPG 21 Pollution incident response planning. The Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Reports; C532 Control of water pollution from construction sites (2001); C650 Environmental good practice on site (2005); CIRIA Report R168: Culvert Design Manual (1997); and CIRIA Report C689; Culvert Design and Operation Guidelines. BS6031: 2009 Code of Practice for Earth Works; National Planning Policy Framework (2012); Local and Regional Land Drainage Byelaws; DEFRA draft Code of Practice for the sustainable use of soils on construction sites; DEFRA Good practice guide for handling soil (MAFF 2000); DEFRA UK (UKCP09) climate projections (2009); Forestry Commission, Forest and Water Guidelines, Fourth Edition (2003); and SNH Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction (2010). HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-10

167 Legislation EC Dangerous Substances Directive (2006/11/EC); EC Fisheries Directive (78/659/EEC); Land Drainage Act 1991; UK Water Quality (Water Supply) Regulations 2000; Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC); Flood and Water Management Act 2010; Control of Pollution Act 1974; Environmental Protection Act 1990; Environment Act 1995; Groundwater Regulations 1998 (repealed); Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 (as amended); EC Freshwater Fish Directive (2006/44EC); The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009; The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (as amended); Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (amended 2001, 2002, 2003); and Environmental Liability Act Assessment Methods Significance Criteria There are no published guidelines or criteria for assessing and evaluating effects on hydrology, hydrogeology, geology or soil within the context of an EIA. The assessment will be based on a methodology derived from generic EIA regulation guidance, IEMA guidance and the SNH publication A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment. The methodology sets a list of criteria for evaluating the environmental effects, as follows: The type of effect (i.e. whether it is positive, negative, neutral or uncertain); The probability of the effect occurring based on the scale of certain, likely, or unlikely; The policy importance of the resource under consideration in a geographical context (i.e. international, national, regional or local), and the sensitivity of the receptor on a scale of low to high, defined within Table 6.3. The sensitivity of a receptor is its ability to absorb the anticipate impact without perceptible change resulting. The definitions have been determined by the consultant based upon their professional experience of such studies; The magnitude of the effect in relation to the resource that has been evaluated, quantified using the scale high, medium or low, defined within Table 6.4. Magnitude includes timing, scale, size and duration of a potential impact. The definitions in Table 6.4 have been defined HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-11

168 by the consultant based upon their professional experience of such studies. Table 6.3: Definitions of Policy Importance and Sensitivity: Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Geology and Soil Importance and Sensitivity Context International - Very High National - High Regional / district - Medium Local - Low Table 6.4: Impact Magnitude Criteria Water and Soil Definition Important on a European or global level e.g. Habitat Directive Sites. Public water supplies and major aquifer. Important in England e.g. SSSIs. Local water supplies, including private water supplies where there is no alternative to private supplies and used for drinking water. Productive aquifers. Protected aquatic habitats e.g. Atlantic salmon or Freshwater Pearl Mussel. Important in the context of the region / district; e.g. Local Nature Reserves, catchment scale issues. Private water supplies, located within vicinity of mains water supply. Local water supplies used only for agricultural purposes and not drinking water. Secondary or minor aquifers. Important within watersheds to which the site may drain; within the site and immediate vicinity e.g., nonaquifer, minor watercourses. Magnitude of Potential Impacts Definition High Fundamental change to hydrological conditions (including deterioration in water quality) resulting in temporary or permanent consequential changes. Medium Detectable change to hydrological conditions resulting in non-fundamental temporary or permanent consequential changes. Some deterioration in water quality likely to temporarily impact to most sensitive receptor. Low Detectable but minor change to hydrological conditions. Drinking water, Freshwater Fish Directive or Water Framework Directive Standards are not exceeded and level of change is unlikely to affect the most sensitive receptor. Negligible Unquantifiable or unqualifiable change in hydrological conditions (including water quality) Professional judgement is used to assess the findings in relation to each of these criteria to give an assessment of significance for each effect. Effects are concluded to be of major, moderate, minor, or negligible significance before mitigation and taking into account mitigation (residual effects). As a guide, a significance table has been developed based on previous project experience and IEMA guidance whereby the combination of sensitivity and magnitude give the significance of the effect (Table 6.5). HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-12

169 In some circumstances it is not possible to apply a simple sensitivity and magnitude level to an effect as there may be many variables that influence its significance. The assessment concludes with a review of the various impacts to determine if the impacts would be significant in terms of the EIA regulations. Those defined as major or moderate are deemed to be significant, whilst those which are minor or negligible are deemed not significant. Table 6.5: Evaluation of Significance Magnitude Sensitivity International Very High National High Regional Medium Local Low High Major Major Moderate Minor Medium Major Moderate Moderate Minor Low Minor Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 6.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS This section describes the existing baseline conditions at the proposed development and its immediate surroundings. Site Visit A site visit was undertaken on 9 th May Key issues and features were identified, including surface water features, dominant soil types and other land use characteristics likely to influence hydrological processes. Weather conditions during the site walkover were cloudy, overcast with heavy rain An inventory of the surface water features identified within the site boundary is presented within Technical Appendix 6.1. Topography, Land Use and Climate The development occupies an area of low lying arable land used for the growth of cereals and crops, such as sugar beet, potatoes, corn, onion and mustard, with some grassland along field boundaries and drainage ditches. The fields are generally bound by the drainage ditches with some scrub and trees in places. Some of the fields were observed to have been recently ploughed with new seed growth for crops. The low lying area is part of the fens, comprising of former marshland that has been historically drained for agricultural purposes The site is very low lying. Elevations vary between approximately -0.2m and 3.8m above ordnance datum (AOD) or a few metres off sea level. The highest elevations are within the north-western section of the site, between Chicell s Hurst and Barlees Fen. The lowest elevations are the southeastern section of the site. The land to the east of the development HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-13

170 towards Thorney is at slightly higher elevations of approximately 6.0m AOD The site is generally flat with a slight mound running east to west between Chicell s Hurst and Barlees Fen. Slopes within the site boundary are of extremely low gradient and surface water runoff is expected to be low Average annual catchment rainfall for the site, based on the River Nene catchment, is 616mm based on data obtained from the CEH the 1961 to 1990 National River Flow Archive data located at Orton, to the Southwest of Peterborough (NGR ). The FEH CD ROM Standard-period Average Annual Rainfall (SAAR) rainfall values for the sub-catchments of the site range between 575 and 598mm. Rainfall data provided by the NIDB taken at their Thorney Offices recorded the average annual rainfall between 2010 and 2011 as 469mm. The EA provided rainfall data based on data collected from a rainfall gauge at Dog-in-a-Doublet pumping station, the long term average was recorded to be 529mm. These rainfall levels indicate a relatively dry climate compared to the rest of southern England. Soils The distribution of soils over the survey area is generally controlled by the underlying geology, the topography and the drainage regime. The Soil Survey Map of England and Wales (1:250,000 scale) Southeast England Sheet and Soilscapes indicates that the development area is mostly underlain by the Ireton, Shabbington and Downholland 1 Associations. The Ireton Association found throughout the central section of the development area comprises permeable humose coarse and fine loamy soils derived from glaciofluvial drift. The Shabbington Association found in the western section of the site comprises deep fine loamy and fine loamy over sandy soils variably affected by groundwater with some slowly permeable seasonally waterlogged fine loamy over clayey soils. This soil is derived from river terrace drift deposits. The Downholland 1 in the southern and extern sections of the site boundary comprises deep stoneless humose clayey soils, calcareous in places and with some peat soils and deep humose calcareous soils. These soils are derived from marine alluvium and fen peat, and can be at risk of wind erosion. The extreme northeastern section of the development area is underlain by the Oxpasture and Normoor Association. The Oxpasture Association comprises fine loamy over clayey and clayey soils with slowly permeable sub soils and slight seasonal waterlogging derived from drift deposits over Jurassic and Cretaceous clay shale. The Norwood Association comprises deep stoneless clayey soils in places with humose surface horizon in places derived from marine alluvium Soils observed during the site visit generally comprise a dark brown to grey clayey to peaty soil with occasional fragments of chalk or flint. The soils were noted to be quite wet underfoot, but not sufficient to permit standing or pooling water Soils beneath the study area comprise primarily of natural soil deposits and no potentially contaminative historical land uses are known or have HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-14

171 been identified other than agricultural practices within the development area. The nearest known potential made ground is recorded and observed immediately northwest and southeast of the development area. These areas are currently active sand and gravel quarries with adjacent stockpiles and bunds of sandy gravel and loamy materials. The approximate areas of these stockpiles or made ground is presented on Figure The BGS GeoRecords do not record any known significant artificial land within the site boundary. It is, therefore, considered that if there are any areas of made ground they are likely to be isolated and that there is unlikely to be a presence of any significant contamination across the majority of the site. Drift Deposits The drift geology map indicates the majority of study area to be covered by quaternary drift deposits comprising old marine alluvial, estuarine sand and gravel and river terrace deposits The river terrace deposits comprising sand and gravel dominate the western section of the site and include the areas outwith and to the west of the site where sand and gravel extraction is taking place Tidal flat deposits comprising sand, gravel, silt and clay dominate the central and eastern most sections of the site boundary and an area to the north. Approximately 0.3km east of the site boundary around Toneham Farm are the March Gravels or older marine sand and gravels as shown on Figure The northern section of the site shows there to be no drift deposits present Publically available BGS borehole logs available within 1km of the site boundary were viewed to provide further information on the geological setting. The geological conditions generally comprised of 0.4m to 0.8m of dark brown peaty or clayey soils underlain by approximately 2m to 5m of sands and gravels or buff sandy clay Borehole data within the Gores Wind Farm site, Geo-Archaeological Borehole Survey (Headland Archaeology, November 2012) undertaken to identify if there were any palaeo-environmentally significant peat fen deposits within the development area describes the site to be underlain by: Dark brown clays in the northern section of the site; and, Dark brown clayey, peaty podzols in the southern section of the site Only very thin layers of peat were encountered in boreholes at shallow depths. The maximum thickness of peat was 0.27m. At least two phases of peat development were present within the site above and within the River Terrace deposits. There was an absence of any identifiable fen peat below the development area and peats have limited potential for palaeo- HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-15

172 environmental study. The full Gores Wind Farm site, Geo-Archaeological Borehole Survey (Headland Archaeology, November 2012) is presented within Technical Appendix 5.2. Solid Deposits The majority of the site area is underlain by the Jurassic Oxford Clay comprising a stiff blue to buff clay to brownish-grey fissile organic rich silicate mudstone The intrinsic permeability of the Oxford Clay is low so that it forms an aquitard layer or non-aquifer The Oxford Clay is generally dipping gently to the southeast No geological faults are shown on or within the development area. There are two faults to the north of the site boundary: one trending southwest to northeast with a downthrow to the north and another v-shaped fault with the downthrow to the south cut-off by the first fault to form a faulted block Publically available BGS borehole logs available within 1km of the site boundary were viewed to provide further information on the geological setting. The geological conditions generally comprised of 0.4m to 0.8m of dark brown peaty or clayey soils underlain by approximately 2m to 5m of sands and gravels or buff sandy clay beneath which lies the Oxford Clay at approximately 4mbgl to 6mbgl The solid geology is considered to be of low sensitivity. Mining and Quarrying There are several sand and gravel pits immediately adjacent and in close proximity to the site boundary as part of the Pode Hole Quarry operated by Bardon Aggregates Midland Region, Thorney, near Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE6 8QE Land between Pasture House Farm and Pode Hole Quarry was previously used for sand and gravel extraction and has been recently restored (between 2000 and 2004) back to pasture land. The restoration works consisted of the provision of clay seals to prevent the ingress of water from the surrounding gravel layers. This involved the excavation and sorting of various soil stockpiles to provide a three layer system (lower, upper and top soil). Records show that works were constantly interrupted due to the ingress of water from underlying gravel pockets. The works were completed to the full satisfaction of DEFRA who have subsequently used the site as a show-case for quarry restoration schemes Visible evidence of sand and gravel extraction was observed immediately to the north-west and south-west of the development area. This comprised of settlement ponds, stockpiles and excavation pits further away from the development area. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-16

173 There was no visible evidence of mining or quarrying within the development area itself during the site walkover or on review of Ordnance Survey mapping The PCC minerals development records contained the details of two nearby mineral developments: Pode Hole Quarry, Consented, Application ref: 03/00515/MMFUL Willow Hall, Consented 22 nd January 2013, Application ref: 12/01008/MMFUL The site boundaries of these abstraction areas are indicatively shown on Figure Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council have jointly produced a local development framework for the spatial planning of their authority areas in respect of the production and movement of minerals and the management of waste. This framework comprises of two documents: Core Strategy, adopted 19 July 2011: sets out the strategic vision and objectives, and a suite of development control policies to guide mineral and waste development; Site Specific Policies, adopted 22 February 2012: sets out site specific proposals for mineral and waste development and site specific policies These documents are supported by a Proposals Map. The Proposals Map comprises Maps A: Minerals and Transport Zones; B: Waste; and C: Mineral Safeguarding Areas, and Inset Maps Land within the southern section and to the west of the development area overlies land allocated within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste (C&P MW) Local Development Framework as follows: Land allocated under Policy CS26 of the C&P MW Core Strategy DPD for Mineral Safeguarding (known economic sand and gravel deposits); Land allocated through Policy SSP Ml of the C&P MW Site Specific Proposals DPD (Site MlF Pode Hole and Eye/Thorney allocated for sand and gravel extraction); and Land allocated through Policy SSP M9 Mineral Consultation Area of the C&P MW Site Specific Proposals DPD (Site M9R Pode Hole and Eye/Thorney allocated for the protection of existing and allocated mineral sites) The proposed wind turbines and associated infrastructure in relation to these minerals allocations are set out on Figure 10 to the planning application. The wind farm site boundary is adjacent to but outside of the existing sand and gravel workings. Two turbines (turbine 1 and turbine 4) lie within the Mineral Safeguarded Area (MSA) and Minerals Consultation Area (MCA); three turbines (turbine 2, turbine 3 and turbine 8) lie within the Minerals Consultation Area; and three turbines (turbine 5, turbine 6 and turbine 7) are on land outwith any Minerals Development Plan HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-17

174 allocations. It should be noted that geological mapping shows that turbine 2, turbine 3 and turbine 8 are not located on the river terrace sands and gravel mineral resource, but rather are on tidal flat deposits and Oxford Clay, which have low to no sand and gravel resource potential Core Strategy Policy CS26 Mineral Safeguarding Areas seeks the safeguarding of current or future economic deposits of sand and gravel, brick clay, limestone and chalk. The purpose is to make sure that mineral resources are adequately taken into account in all land use planning decisions. They do not automatically preclude all other forms of development taking place, but flag up the presence of economic minerals so that it is considered, and not unknowingly or needlessly sterilised. There is no presumption that the resources identified will be worked The proposed wind farm is not considered to be contrary to the provisions and spirit of the minerals development plan and specifically to Policy CS26. Although two of the proposed turbines lie within a MSA, this policy does not preclude other forms of development taking place within them. The Government s Mineral Policy Statement 1 states that there is no presumption that resources defined in MSAs will be worked. Wind energy development involves a minimal amount of land take, and, as turbines are not a permanent development, the deposits can be extracted, if required, after the wind farm decommissioning. As recognised by Core Strategy Policy CS22 Climate Change, the generation of renewable energy and mineral extraction are not mutually exclusive or incompatible. Wind energy generation at the proposal site will therefore not inhibit sand and gravel extraction from the land either currently or in the future According to the documentation reviewed, a hydrological assessment will be required for any proposed extraction within these MSAs and land stability will be a particularly pertinent issue The safeguarded mineral deposits are of regional importance as a source of sand and gravel in the C&P MW Core Strategy. The sands and gravels are part of the drift geology underlying a section of the wind farm development area. Therefore the sensitivity of the drift geology is considered to be of medium sensitivity for mineral resources within the south-western section of the site where the river terrace sands and gravels are present. Contaminated Land No evidence of significant made ground has been identified within the site boundary Two known active landfills and two known historical landfills are located approximately 1.4km to the west of the site boundary. These landfills are associated with the former Eye Quarry northern extension, located to the east of Tanholt Farm. They are named the Eye Landfill, Tanholt Lane, Eye and are operated by Biffa Waste Services Ltd The landfills are considered to be a sufficient distance from the site boundary as to not affect the wind farm development. Therefore, risks HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-18

175 from contaminated ground or disturbing contaminated ground are considered to be low. Hydrogeology The western section of the site and an area to the east is covered by river terrace sand and gravel superficial deposits and March gravel superficial deposits classified by the EA as a Secondary A aquifer, formerly classified as a minor aquifer. A Secondary A aquifer is defined as permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers The tidal flat superficial deposits within the central section of the site are classified as an unproductive or non-aquifer Beneath the drift deposits and in areas where drift deposits are not present the site is underlain by relatively impermeable Oxford Clay that is classified by the EA to be an unproductive aquifer or non-aquifer The site is not located within an EA Total Catchment Groundwater Protection Zone, which is defined by the EA as the area around a source within which all groundwater recharge is presumed to be discharged at the source. The nearest groundwater protection zone is located to the northwest of Peterborough, over 7km from the site boundary The site is not located within a Groundwater Drinking Water Protected Area at risk. It should be noted that the majority of England and Wales is within a groundwater Drinking Water Protected Area There are no EA groundwater monitoring locations within 1km of the site boundary. The nearest groundwater monitoring location is at Peterborough over 6km to the west of the site boundary In general, the shallow drift geology has the potential to contain localised shallow groundwater in places perched above the impermeable, nonaquifer Oxford Clay bedrock. This may be exploited on a local level for private water supplies, compensatory water supply to rivers and river base flow supply. Overall the shallow groundwater within the permeable river terrace and March gravel deposits is considered to be of medium sensitivity. Groundwater Vulnerability The EA s groundwater vulnerability classification is to evaluate how susceptible groundwater resources are to pollution from various activities. The intrinsic vulnerability of a location depends on a number of factors, including the soil type, presence of drift, the characteristics of the rock and depth of the unsaturated zone Any groundwater present is anticipated to be confined or perched within the shallow river terrace and March gravel drift deposits present in the western and central sections of the development area. Shallow groundwater flow within the permeable drift deposits is likely to be HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-19

176 dominated by intergranular or intrinsic flow. The groundwater flow is likely to have some intermediate to high attenuation The groundwater vulnerability beneath the site generally corresponds with the soil deposits. The extreme eastern section of the site is classified to be a minor aquifer with high groundwater vulnerability. The western section, a centralised section and to the east of the development area, roughly corresponding to the river terrace deposits and March gravel deposits is classified by the EA as a minor aquifer with intermediate vulnerability. Hydrology The site is located within the catchment of the River Nene with surface water runoff generally flowing to the northeast towards the River Thorney, in the northern section of the site and generally to the south towards the River Nene in the southern section of the site. The River Thorney flows northward to join the Old Wyrde Drain and subsequently the NIDB Drain before joining the River Nene The sub-catchment boundary between the surface water runoff directions is roughly along the small rise across the northern section of the site from west to east. This sub-catchment boundary is shown on Figure 6.1. The River Nene Catchment The catchment of the Nene is predominantly a rural, agricultural catchment underlain by impermeable clay. It is a large low lying, calcareous catchment that has been significantly hydromorphologically altered. The surface water in the catchment is a complex system of high level and low level drains managed by a series of flood defences and sluices to control the water levels. The River Nene s tidal extent reaches as far inland and west as the sluice gate system operated by the EA located at the Dog-in-a-Doublet pumping station approximately 1.6km southeast of the development area. The mean gauged daily flow of the River Nene at Orton (NGR ) is 9.298m 3 /s based on data from 1939 to Table 6.6: Hydrological Sub-Catchment Parameters of the River Nene Catchment Parameter Northern Sub- Catchment Southern Catchment BFI Host (Base Flow Index derived by using the HOST classification) FARL (Storage effect of surface water) SPR HOST (Standard Percentage Runoff (%) associated with each HOST soil class) SAAR (mm) (Average annual rainfall in the standard period ) Sourced / calculated from the FEH CD-ROM methodology (1999) Sub- HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-20

177 The area is heavily regulated by the EA and the NIDB manage the water levels in the area. The fens are mainly reliant on pumped drainage to evacuate surplus water from agricultural, industrial and urban properties, discharging to the adjacent main rivers. They also retain water in the summer months for irrigation of crops and the enhancement of the drainage environment, being home to a variety of birds and wildlife. The site boundary falls within the NIDB Dog-in-a-Doublet and Gross Guns Catchment. The Dog-in-a-Doublet pumping stations are situated on the River Nene immediately downstream of the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice, approximately 1.6km southeast of the site boundary and have been maintained to provide 1 in 100 year flood protection in the Dog-in-a- Doublet catchment. The Cross Guns catchment is controlled by the Cross Guns pumping station approximately 7.15km east of the site boundary, constructed in 1977 as part of North Level Major Improvement Scheme. It was designed to evacuate surplus water from an area of 6640 hectares of predominantly agricultural land but also protecting rural properties and the village of Thorney. Drainage Ditches and Field Drains The site boundary contains a series of maintained surface water drains along the majority of the field boundaries and occasionally within fields. The drains comprise some small shallow drainage ditches and some larger, deeper or low level drainage ditches with significantly more water capacity and flow. The smaller drains are managed by the riparian landowners, the larger, deeper drains are managed by the NIDB and rivers are managed by the Environment Agency (EA). These drain systems are used to control the water levels and flooding in the area and maintain water levels for crop growing in the summer months. At the time of survey, the drainage channels ranged from 0.4m in width to greater than 4.0m, with steep grassed bankings that are regularly managed (strimmed and pesticide treated) to prevent scrub growth and blockages These field boundary drains have the potential to act as hydrological barriers intercepting runoff and hydrologically separating the surface waters from individual fields Additional to the low level and high level drains are small field (cast iron or plastic) drains running beneath sections of the site draining into the larger drainage ditches. During the site walkover in the central area of the site, a section of these field drains was being cleared and there was observed to be some discolouration and turbidity in the drain associated with the clearance works and the clayey substrate being removed from the drains The drainage ditches, field drainage pipes and other water features are show on Figure 6.1 and detailed in Technical Appendix 6.2. Watercourse Crossings Occasional footbridges comprising simple wooden plank structures were observed crossing some of the smaller minor drainage ditches. These simple crossings are single span and unlikely to affect the drainage ditch capacity. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-21

178 Several of the drains have existing watercourse crossings for agricultural vehicle access purposes. These mostly comprise of corrugated iron or concrete culverts with material built or banked up on the culverts to raise the access track to be level with ground conditions on either side of the drains. The approximate locations of the existing access crossings are shown on Figure 6.1 and detailed in Technical Appendix The culverts underground and for vehicle crossings have the potential to exacerbate flooding as a result of being narrower than the drainage ditch. The drainage ditches are regularly maintained by strimming and weed killing the banks to limit vegetation growth which would otherwise create the potential for vegetation to form blockages within the culverts Existing watercourse crossings have been considered during the site survey and design process. Several access routes to the site were considered which would require watercourses to be crossed: The current access from Whittlesey Road (A) to Gores Farm to the southeast of the site boundary crosses two watercourses: the Thorney River and the Thorney Dike. The Thorney River crossing was observed to be a single span bridge of concrete construction immediately adjacent to Whittlesey Road (A) as the Thorney River flows parallel to the road. The Thorney River was recorded to have a river channel approximately 3.5m in width at the water surface, 6 to 7m in width at the span of the channel and 1.6m in channel depth. The water depth is estimated to be greater than 1.0m, however, the steep banks to the river prevented this depth from being confirmed during the site visit. Large farm and haulage vehicles currently use the bridge. To the west of this bridge the access track crosses the Thorney Dike before approaching the site boundary. The existing access road and track from Toneham Farm to the east of the development area crosses the Thorney River by a culvert with an earth embankment supporting access track. The previous or historical masonry arched bridge is still present up gradient but no longer used. To the northeast of the site boundary the Thorney River is culverted below the B1167 road. The culvert comprises a concrete structure with metal grill narrower than the channel. Any access track from the northeast would require a significant crossing or the Thorney River and or a NIDB. Approaching the site from the north, the existing farm access track from the A47 to the east of Pode Hole Farm. The access route uses an existing gravel track crossing two small drains and one NIDB drain to approach the northwestern section or highest altitude section of the site. The drain shown in this northwestern section is no longer present, as it has been infilled and therefore does not require a crossing for the proposed access track There was no evidence of fording or other types of watercourse crossing observed. All crossing types observed were culverts, arches and single span crossings. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-22

179 Standing Water No standing water, such as ponds or waterlogged areas, was observed within the site boundary A significant series of large ponds associated with the sand and gravel pits are present approximately 0.5km south of the site boundary at Prior s Fen. The two large ponds (approximately 200m by 200m and 500m by 200m) closest to the site boundary are fenced off and restored to habitats suitable for breeding birds. Sheep were also observed grazing in this area Approximately 2.7km o the north of the site boundary is a series of active ponds or catch pits associated with the Pode Hole sand and gravel quarry A medium sized (approximately 100m by 60m) pond was observed to the a pproximately 0.48km east of site boundary. This pond area is fenced off and restored to relatively natural conditions with landscaping and tree growth surrounding sections of the pond The locations of notable standing water are shown on Figure 6.1 and details presented in Technical Appendix 6.1. Water Quality The EA has introduced water monitoring and classification systems that will provide the data to support the aim of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (WFD): that all water bodies are of good ecological status, or similar objective, by The classification system covers all rivers, lakes, transitional, coastal and groundwater bodies, and is based on a new ecological classification system with five quality classes (High, Good, Moderate, Poor and Bad). It has been devised following EU and UK guidance and is underpinned by a range of biological quality elements, supported by measurements of chemistry, hydrology (changes to levels and flows) and morphology (changes to the shape and function of water bodies). The EA s interactive River Basin Management Plan Interactive Map was consulted to identify the status of the waters within and adjacent to the study area. Consultation was also undertaken with the EA The nearest EA monitored watercourse to the development is Morton s Leam within the Nene catchment approximately 1.6km southeast of the development. Morton s Leam is classified as a water body with overall fail chemical status and moderate ecological status (based on EA data), with the aim to achieve good water quality status by Overall the watercourse is considered to be at risk under the RBMP The River Nene catchment where it is under tidal influence, down gradient of the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice gates is a protected area under the shell fish directive. EA data for the Thorney River at Dog-in-a-Doublet and Stoney Bridge recorded the presence of Roach x common bream hybrid (Rutilus rutilus x Abramis brama), Roach (Rutilus rutilus), Tench (Tinca HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-23

180 tinca), Pike (Esox Lucius), Common bream (Abramis brama), Perch (Perca fluviatilis) and European eels > elvers (Anguilla anguilla) The site is not within an existing EA Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. The European Commission (EC) nitrates directive requires areas of land that drain into waters polluted by nitrates to be designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs). Farmers with land in NVZs have to follow mandatory rules to tackle nitrate loss from agriculture The site is not located within a Surface Water Drinking Water protected area or surface water safeguard zone During the site visits water quality parameters were measured at five locations. These are summarised in Table 6.7 and monitoring locations are shown on Figure 6.1. Table 6.7: Water Quality Measured During Site Visit Sample Location NGR ph Temp (ºC) Cond (µs/cm) TDS (mg/l) Flow Estimate (l/s) WQ Low level large drain down gradient of underground culvert WQ High level small drain in southwestern corner of site WQ Low level large drain in southwestern section of the site WQ Low level large drain in central section of the site WQ Drain adjacent to Thorney River on northwestern section TDS Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) Temp Temperature (Celsius) Cond Conductivity (µs/cm) Flow Est Flow Estimate (l/s) The above water quality parameters indicate that the development area generally has runoff with slightly alkaline ph values and high conductivities consistent with the calcareous soil and geological conditions of the area The majority of the drainage ditches and watercourses within the site were noted to be mildly cloudy with a greenish colouration. One of the small HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-24

181 high level drains where field drainage clearance had been undertaken was noted to be a very cloudy milky colour most likely from the disturbance of calcareous clays during maintenance works The sensitivity of the water quality in the catchment is considered to be low. Flood Risk Surface and groundwater are likely to be controlled by the series of drains within the site and larger managed drains adjacent to the site. Groundwater has the potential to be very shallow within sand and gravel drift deposits Where a development is greater than 1ha in area the planning application for the development requires a flood risk statement and drainage strategy in order to demonstrate that greenfield runoff and flood risk will not be increased by the development The Peterborough Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document (February 2012) focuses on managing flood risk in new developments in Peterborough. Once adopted will form part of the City Council s Local Development Framework (LDF), supplementing higher level flood related policies found in the Peterborough Core Strategy and the Peterborough Planning Policies Development Plan Documents. The Core Strategy policy CS22 - Flood Risk in Development Plan Documents states: No development will be permitted in rapid inundation zones, or areas not defended to an acceptable standard, other than in exceptional circumstances, unless the proposed development is classified as a water compatible use or essential infrastructure In accordance with Table D.2 of PPS25, Wind Turbines are classified as Essential Infrastructure. PPS25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide states that the PPS25 sequential test should not be applied to proposals for new wind turbines. In addition, whilst wind turbines can be considered to fall within essential infrastructure they would be subject to the PPS25 exception test, it is proposed that the second element of the exception test (requiring the development to be on developable previously developed land where possible) should not be applied. Therefore, issues in satisfying the sequential/exception tests for this development are not expected A flood risk assessment has been undertaken for the development (presented within Technical Appendix 6.2). The flood risk assessment demonstrates that the majority of the development area is shown to be within an area of fens classified by the EA being a Flood Zone 2 and 3a (equating to medium to high risk of flooding respectively). Land to the west of the development area and to the northwest around Toneham Farm is not shown to be within an EA flood risk area. The site is located within highly managed catchments that are defended by a series of embankments and flood defences that are not taken into account in the EA flood zone maps. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-25

182 The NIDB manage the Thorney River and the main drains running through the site and consider the risk of flooding to the site as being low as a result of the flood defences The 2005 PCC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) modelling indicated that a 1 in 100 year plus breach flood event would inundate the central and eastern extents of the site to a depth of up to 0.5m from fluvial flooding. Subsequently, the SFRA mapping also suggests the flood risk is lower than that given by the EA flood maps Under the provisions of the NPPF and referred Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22), the sequential test is not required for a renewable energy site, as it is deemed as Essential Infrastructure. The Exception Test would be passed for the following reasons: The installation of wind turbines will produce electricity from a renewable source, therefore providing a wider sustainability benefit; and, The wind turbine will not be permanently manned, and the development will not increase flood risk to people on site or elsewhere Four access route options to the site were considered. The finalised access route is from the A47 Causeway Road to the north of the wind farm. This route was demonstrated to have the lowest flood risk potential according to the 2005 SFRA There will be a marginal increase in runoff due to the increase in impermeable hardstanding (accounting for up to 2.5% of the total site boundary area based on the land take calculations presented in Table 6.9, though the impacts are deemed to be negligible, not causing any adverse effects to surface runoff Flood risk sensitivity is considered to be medium to high as the site is within known flood zones, however, the catchment is heavily managed to reduce flood risk Full details of the flood risk assessment and mitigation are presented in Technical Appendix 6.2. Designated Sites and Water Dependent Habitats There are no hydrological or hydrogeological statutory designations within the site boundary or in close proximity to the site boundary. The site is not located within a Freshwater Fish Protected Area, however, the River Nene approximately 1.6km to the southeast is a shellfish protected area It is unlikely that the man-made drains within the development area are suitable for migratory fish such as salmon and trout as a result of the number of piped culverts acting as potential barriers to migratory fish. Many of the small drains have insufficient water content and unsuitable substrate for migratory fish. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-26

183 The River Nene washes / Whittlesey washes approximately 1.6km southeast of the development area are a designated SSSI, SAC, SPA for being the one of the last remaining washlands used by wildfowl and waders. The site is additionally notable for the diversity of plant and associated animal life within its network of dykes or drains. The southern section of the development area drains in the direction of the River Nene and some flow from the River Nene is directed to the River Thorney which flows through the development area. Water Resources Public Water Supplies Anglian Water and their spatial data providing interface Digdat have been consulted to confirm whether there are any Anglian Water assets within the site boundary or the vicinity of the site boundary. OS mapping, site observations and the provided Digdat asset plan search showed no water assets or infrastructure within the site. Anglian Water also confirmed in writing that they have no known infrastructure within the site boundary area The nearest known Anglian Water infrastructure is located along the public roads and smaller roads linking the mains supply to individual properties Anecdotal information from the Toneham landowner indicated that all properties were on mains supply as they had recently arranged the upgrade of the piping connecting each property. Regulated Licensed Abstractions In England water abstractions greater than 20 m 3 /day requires an abstraction license. Consultation with EA has revealed there to be nine known active regulated water abstraction licenses within 1km of site boundary and a further six abstraction licenses with 3km of the site boundary The majority of these are for the abstraction of surface water from sections or reaches of the drains and dikes in the area for agricultural and irrigation spray purposes. There are two point abstractions of surface water within 1.5km of the site boundary for agricultural purposes and two groundwater abstractions within 1.5km of the site boundary. The groundwater abstractions comprise one borehole near Willow Hall Farm for agricultural purposes operated by J Stevenson (1.25km to the west of the development area) and a large catch pit abstraction at the northern sand and gravel pit for industrial purposes, operated Aggregate Industries UK Limited (0.3km northwest of the development area) The nearest abstractions to the development area are along the western boundary and to the south of the site boundary from an un-named drain and the Thorney Dike (Drain) operated by Northlands Farm and J Stevenson (local farms). HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-27

184 No licensed abstractions were identified for potable water supply within the site or within 3km of the site boundary The locations of the licensed abstractions within 1.5km of the site boundary are presented on Figure 6.1 and details of all the licences within 3km of the site boundary are presented in Appendix 6.3. Licensed Discharge Consents Information obtained from the EA indicated that there are 20 known licensed discharges within 3km of the site boundary; six of which were within 1.5km of the site. These six discharge consents are mostly for the discharge of sewage treatment effluent from private septic tanks associated with Toneham properties with the exception of two discharge consents; one for trade /process effluent operated by Aggregate Industries UK Limited and the second, a consent for agricultural discharge at Pode Hole Farm From the site survey and interviews with the local landowner it is understood that whilst all of the properties within the vicinity of the site boundary have mains water supply, many of the properties are not connected to mains sewers and are, therefore, reliant on soakaway type discharges The licenced discharge consents locations are presented on Figure 6.1 and detailed within Technical Appendix 6.4. Private Water Supplies The presence of mains water supply is shown on plans and infrastructure such as manholes were observed along roads within the populated areas. Anecdotal evidence from the local landowners indicates that properties in the local area are all on mains water supply for drinking water and they were involved in installing the mains water supply piping to the more recent developments near the site Consultation was undertaken with Peterborough City Council. No known private water supplies or de-regulated abstractions have been identified inside the site or within 3km of the site boundary. Water Resources Summary Water abstractions have been identified within 1.5km of the site boundary. The nearest potential water abstraction point to the development is located along an un-named drain reach 0.1km to the west of the nearest wind farm infrastructure. This is for the abstraction of surface water for irrigation purposes registered under JR Fisher and Sons and Northlands, and covers a number of drain reaches over 3.0km in length. Whilst this abstraction has the potential to be hydrologically connected to the development it is located over 0.1km distance away at its nearest point and it not used for a potable supply and therefore is a less sensitive receptor. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-28

185 The nearest groundwater abstraction to the development is located approximately 0.5km from the access track of the development and over 6.3km from the nearest turbine. The abstraction allows for a large abstraction volume for industrial and processing purposes for the sand and gravel quarry at Pode Hole. Between the development infrastructure and the abstraction location is a main NIDB drain and several ponds. According to the geological mapping, the nearest sections of access track and turbines are located on Oxford Clay bedrock without sand and gravel drift deposits and therefore are unlikely to be hydrogeologically connected. The development area is also sufficient distance from this abstraction to have any significant effect Water resources are considered to be of medium sensitivity as they are used for industrial or irrigation purposes rather than potable supply and are located a significant distance from the development area. Watercourse Crossings and Diversions The design of the infrastructure has taken into account the identified water features and avoided them where possible. Seven existing watercourse crossing locations will be used for the development; five for the crossing of small drains under riparian ownership and two larger drains under the jurisdiction of the NIDB. It is likely that these crossings will require some upgrading or replacement to be adapted into suitable crossings for the required vehicle sizes and loads Four access track options were considered for the development: 1. Access from Whittlesey Road B1040 to Gores Farm to the southeast of the site crossing the Thorney River and the Thorney Dike using existing substantial crossings that would require upgrading as the junction splay is very tight. 2. Access from Toneham Farm to the east of the development area using the existing substantial crossing of Thorney River that may require upgrading, has a bend to negotiate and passes close to residential properties. 3. Access from the B1167 to northeast requiring several new substantial crossings of the Thorney River and drains. 4. Approaching the site from the north, the existing farm access track from the A47 to the east of Pode Hole Farm and opposite Middle East Farm Cottage. The access route uses an existing gravel track crossing two small drains and one NIDB drain which would require minor upgrades to support HGVs and potentially some widening The selected access route for the development is option 4. This access route was considered to be the optimal route considering all known constraints, including the hydrological constraints where use of the existing wide gravel access track and existing crossings are considered to be more suitable than developing a new access track and larger watercourse crossing requirements. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-29

186 The locations of the seven existing watercourse crossings that will be used for the development are shown on Figure 6.1 and detailed within Table 6.10 and Technical Appendix 6.1. Site Sensitivity Hydrologically sensitive receptors for this site, as discussed above are considered to be: Flood risk as the majority of the development is within an EA flood risk zone (although this doesn t take into account flood defences) and the southeastern section of the site is within the PCC SFRA medium to high sensitivity receptor; Surface water catchment as a result of the adjacent drains being used for water abstraction for the irrigation and agricultural purposes and the River Nene being a Shellfish Protected Area and abstractions for irrigation medium sensitivity receptor; Groundwater as a result of sections of the site being underlain by a locally important aquifer used by the sand and gravel quarry to the northwest of the site. The groundwater is considered to be a medium sensitivity receptor; and The development has the potential to sterilise areas of sand and gravel deposits forming part of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste safeguarded areas. The drift geology is therefore considered to be medium sensitivity. 6.5 RECOMMENDED HYDROLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS Design Based on the baseline data collected through a desk study, consultations and a site visit, the following hydrological constraints have been incorporated into the iterative design for the development From the design phase, wherever possible, all wind farm infrastructure has been sited with an objective to maintain at least a 50m buffer zone from natural streams and water bodies The requirements of the NIDB for the scheme have been taken into account and include: No development infrastructure is located within 9m of the main river (Thorney River). The development is at least 9m away or clear from all drains and streams under the NIDB s responsibility. This value includes for any oversail into the 9m corridor. Appendix 6.2 (Flood Risk Assessment) shows the NIDB drains within the site area. Access strips will be at least 9m wide on each side and kept clear of any development or structures for maintenance access purposes for those drains within riparian ownership. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-30

187 6.5.4 Where wind farm access necessitates essential stream or drain crossings, proposed infrastructure has been limited within these buffers as far as possible, for example by minimising crossing requirements and using or improving on existing crossings rather than the creation of new crossings During the detailed pre-construction design phase, sections of the track will be surveyed and micro-sited (within the planning application boundary) to optimise the distances from the water bodies, taking into account local ground conditions. If required, the turbines and infrastructure will be micro-sited away from the sensitive receptors and NIDB constraint requirements. Infrastructure will not be micro-sited within the 9m corridor of any NIDB Careful design and recognition of water resource issues has helped ensure that the location of the proposed wind farm infrastructure should not affect any known water abstractions Hydrological and geological constraints that have been applied to development design are summarised below: Drainage ditches and field drainage pipes to be given at least a 9m buffer and 20m buffer where possible; Natural watercourses have been given a 50m buffer as standard best practice; and, Watercourse and drain crossings requirements have been minimised where possible Mitigation and enhancement to further protect the sensitive hydrological and geological features is discussed in the mitigation section. 6.6 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The construction phase of the wind farm development will require the creation of a hardstanding construction compound as well as suitable access tracks to enable transportation and installation of wind turbines. At each turbine location there will be a requirement for hardstanding (concrete) for turbine bases and for crane pads. A substation will also be required to be built on hardstanding, with cables laid underground to connect to individual turbines Full details of the development characteristics are presented within Chapter 2: Site Selection and Project Description. The site layout is presented on Figure A brief summary of the construction stages and methods is set out below. Eight identical turbines, each with a maximum height from the turbine base to the top of the blade tip of 126.5m will be constructed within the planning application boundary. The estimated on-site construction period for the development will be 6 to 9 months and this includes a programme to reinstate the working areas. The construction programme will consist of the following principal operations, listed sequentially, wherever possible. The development will be phased so that certain activities listed below will take place concurrently: HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-31

188 Construction of site entrance; Construction of temporary site office area and establishment of a storage area for wind farm components and temporary site facilities; Upgrades to existing tracks and construction of new access tracks to wind turbine locations; Construction of wind turbine foundations and hardstanding areas; Excavation of cable trench and cable laying; Construction of substation; Erection of wind turbines; Connection of on-site electrical power and signal cables; Commissioning of the site equipment; and Site reinstatement and restoration The tracks will be approximately 4.5m wide, with some widening on bends, gradients, junctions and turning places. A total of approximately 4.3km of new track will be required to service the turbine locations and the use of 1.8km of existing access track Depending on local ground conditions, new access tracks would be constructed by first stripping the topsoil to a depth of approximately 0.3m, and laying a compacted stone base. A geotextile membrane will then be laid to reduce the impact on the soils. The track will then be built up on the geotextile by laying and compacting an additional 0.4m of crushed stone to give a total thickness of approximately 0.7m The tracks would be suitably cambered to allow rainwater to be shed where gradients are present, lateral drains will intercept flow along the road. Where tracks cross existing field drains, these will be either bridged or culverted to prevent any interference with land drainage. Land Drainage Consent will be required for the crossings from the relevant regulatory body (EA, NIDB or Local Authority) The foundations proposed for the turbines are likely to be an inverted T, in section consisting of a reinforced central concrete pedestal with a permanent area of approximately 4.75m square, together with a reinforced concrete slab up to 17m square. Alternatively foundations may need to be piled into suitable strength strata with a reinforced concrete slab platform up 17m square. Actual turbine foundation design and dimensions will be specific to the site conditions as verified during the detailed site construction investigations, undertaken before commencing project installation. Turbines may need to have piled foundation where shallow ground conditions are not suitable founding materials At the site of each wind turbine, hardstanding areas for wind turbine erection and foundations will be created. A crushed stone crane hardstanding area, approximately 30m wide and 50m long will therefore be required adjacent to each turbine base for related construction and crane erection activities A secure temporary storage compound will be required during the construction period. The compound will be approximately 70m by 50m of HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-32

189 crushed stone construction. The compound and laydown areas will be used to site temporary portacabin type structures to be used for site offices and welfare facilities including toilets, 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 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. Areas of the site will be reinstated to approximately their previous grade and condition. Turbine foundations and the verges of tracks will be regraded with topsoil stored adjacent to each excavation, and then reseeded or cultivated as appropriate. The temporary site office area will be cleared of hardcore and re-graded with soil to a natural profile and restored. Predicted Impact This Section provides a summary of the potential risks associated with the proposed development, based on an assessment of activities that will occur during the construction of the eight wind turbines and associated infrastructure, prior to the inclusion of mitigation measures (Table 6.8). An assessment of these risks determines the need for mitigation measures, which are discussed in detail in the Mitigations Section. Residual effects (post-mitigation) are outlined in Predicted Residual Impact Table The potential impacts from the construction of the proposed wind farm development are: Potential risk to surface water from the introduction of sediment into surface water run-off following activities such as access track construction, temporary construction compound construction, turbine excavation and the dewatering of excavations; Impacts on hydrogeology as a result of dewatering of foundation excavations; Potential risks to surface water and groundwater resulting from the use and storage of fuels, oils and other potentially polluting substances; Potential risks to surface water and groundwater resulting from the transportation and pouring of concrete for turbine foundations; Loss and sterilisation of soils due to the construction of access tracks, crane pads and turbine footings; and Slight increase in impermeable areas due to turbine foundations, crane pads and access tracks. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-33

190 Table 6.8: Potential Impacts (Pre-Mitigation) During the Construction and Decommissioning Phase Activity Excavation and construction of buildings, foundations, hardstandings construction compound and access tracks within the site Potential Impact Spillages of concrete during foundation construction could enter the surface water bodies, or groundwater. Generation of turbid runoff which could enter the surface water bodies. Changes in surface water runoff patterns which could result in increased flooding risk Effects to water abstractions disruption to supply Sensitivity of Impact Magnitude of Potential Impact Significance of Potential Impact Comment Medium Medium Minor Mitigation is required to control concrete pouring activities. A mitigation strategy will be introduced which will prevent spills from entering any water body. Concrete will be of high grade to prevent leaching. Medium Medium Minor There will need to be controls on construction activities to ensure any earthworks and hardcore placement do not generate turbid water and affect water quality or ecological conditions. Medium High to Low Minor to Moderate The design has minimised land take where possible. The main access route is located on impermeable Oxford Clay bedrock outwith the PCC Strategic Flood Risk Area (SFRA). Best practice track drainage provisions to be part of the access track design including having suitable crossfall and turbines having an infiltration ditch down gradient to attenuate runoff. Medium Low Minor Wind farm is designed to avoid being within 250m of groundwater abstractions. Risks controlled through careful protection of groundwater and surface water. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-34

191 Activity Potential Impact Sensitivity of Impact Magnitude of Potential Impact Significance of Potential Impact Comment Loss and sterilisation of soils or superficial sands and gravels Medium Low Minor Land take minimised by design. Infrastructure located on Tidal flat drift deposits or Oxford Clay bedrock where possible avoiding the river terrace sands and gravels. Reinstatement of soils and vegetation. Dewatering excavations of Discharge of potentially sediment laden runoff or groundwater into surface water bodies following dewatering or excavation. Medium Medium Minor Mitigation measures will include appropriate drainage ditches and bunding around excavations. Measures will be formalised within a Construction Environmental Method Plan (CEMP) and will be based on EA best practice and EA PPG guidelines. Disruption to groundwater due to dewatering of excavations Medium Low Minor Dewatering will be kept to a minimum period and will be temporary. Any muds and fluids excavated will be contained within a bunded area or tanked to ensure there is no runoff into nearby drains or water bodies. Fluids will percolate back into the surrounding soil or be appropriately disposed of off-site. Any effect on the soil water table would, therefore, be minor and temporary. Traffic movement creation fugitive dust and of Fugitive dust migration. Exposure of construction workers to dust. Low Low Negligible Small development, unlikely that traffic movement will be high. Dampening down of access tracks in dry conditions can be undertaken. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-35

192 Activity Electric cables Site activities such as the storage of fuel and oil, toilet facilities Potential Impact Could act as small drainage channels and lead to turbid water entering surface water. Spillages and leakages of oil, fuel, and other potentially polluting substances e.g. oil spills, could enter the surface water bodies or groundwater. Sensitivity of Impact Magnitude of Potential Impact Significance of Potential Impact Comment Ensure excess water is not used so excess sediment laden runoff is not produced. Medium Low Negligible Gradients on the site are generally relatively small so it is unlikely that cable trenches will act as drainage channels, and, therefore, little turbid water would develop. Cables will be routed along or below the access tracks to avoid additional ground disturbance where possible. Medium Medium Moderate Good site management practices will be adopted to reduce the potential for any spillages or leakages of potentially polluting substances. A mitigation strategy will be introduced which will prevent spills and leakages from entering the drains or water bodies. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-36

193 Mitigation Measures This section outlines the proposed mitigation measures designed to address the potential impacts described in Table 6.8. If appropriate mitigation measures or enhancements are incorporated into the construction phase then the risk of construction activities having the potential to cause pollution of the water environment is minimised During the contractor tendering process for the construction works, environmental specifications and objectives shall be included in the tender documents so that all contractors can allow for mitigation measures in their tender costs. In addition, the use of the construction contract conditions as recommended by EA Special Requirements for Civil Engineering Contracts for the Prevention of Pollution V2 (2006) shall be applied The conditions to prevent pollution will be addressed within a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), to be prepared in consultation with EA and PCC which will be submitted at least one month prior to the commencement of development. This CEMP shall systematically identify the pollution risks associated with each operation, and will include: A drainage management plan (DMP) detailing proposed surface drainage measures to treat and deal with all the surface runoff from the site, to be designed in accordance with SUDS principals; A Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) shall be produced to detail the embedded mitigation measures as identified within this ES and any supplementary statements, to address each of the identified pollution risks; An Accident Management Plan (AMP) to detail emergency contingency and spillage plans; Details of any monitoring proposals including a Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP), to monitor amongst other parameters ph and turbidity, to be implemented by a designated appointed person on-site; A location map of all areas of disturbance with the potential to generate silt-laden run-off, with details of the proposed mitigation at each point as recommended by CIRIA guidance documents; A location map of all potential chemical contamination sources, including all fuel, oil and chemical storage areas, vehicle compounds, refuelling sites, waste depots and on-site sewage systems; Procedures for dealing with water contaminated from cement and the excavations into which the cement is to be poured; and Timing of works, including a programme of works which takes into consideration and avoids working during high rainfall events. Wind Turbines and Crane Pads Construction mitigation and enhancement measures detailed below will ensure risks are minimised during the construction of the wind turbines and crane pads. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-37

194 Turbine foundations will be formed through the pouring of concrete. Without controls on this process, concrete spillages could potentially result in pollutants coming into contact with local groundwater or surface water. Temporary bunds should be placed around pouring operations to contain concrete spillages and a spill response protocol should be developed for use by contractors As detailed in the baseline description, the superficial geology, where present, has the potential to be permeable and, therefore, has the potential to be a locally important aquifer for abstraction and base flow to watercourses The foundation excavation will be undertaken with care, assessing for water ingress and the degree of bedrock fracturing and weathering A protective geotextile liner will be used within the excavation to ensure liquid concrete does not come into contact with underlying strata and groundwater. A geotextile liner together with the use of an appropriate fast setting, non-leachable specification concrete would restrict any potential flow of concrete into the surrounding groundwater. Given the nature of the geology, it is considered that the likelihood of encountering significant quantities of groundwater at shallow depths is low Should shallow groundwater be encountered during construction of the turbine foundations, any dewatering required should be pumped to a small holding sump or designated settlement area to allow removal of suspended sediment. Once the solids have been removed, groundwater should either be discharged direct to surrounding vegetation or a down slope trench allowing infiltration back into the ground. Any discharge should be in agreement with EA and be in accordance with the EA s Regulatory Guidance Series Notes (RGN) and the EA s EPR 7.01 How to comply with your Environmental Permit for water discharge and groundwater (from point source) activity. Any untreated discharge should be directed away from water bodies Any excavation and construction works will attempt to avoid periods of heavy rainfall and will be undertaken and restored within as short a period as possible. Access Tracks Construction of the access tracks and their continued use during the remainder of the construction phase has the potential to generate turbid runoff. Measures described in EA PPG notes, CIRIA guidance and Forest and Water Guidelines will be formalised within a sediment management plan for the site, which the contractors will be required to comply with The access track layout is illustrated on Figure 1.2 and typical track designs are illustrated on Figure 1.5. The layout is designed to use existing tracks where possible and minimise land take Construction will be dependent on substrate and gradient. Tracks will be built up with aggregate above existing ground levels and possess a camber to ensure rapid drainage (to avoid ponding and rutting which HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-38

195 generates turbid water). Drainage will be collected and directed by strip drains to either infiltration drains or to areas of sufficient vegetation to promote the infiltration of the track runoff. Such measures will be based on best practice guidance outlined above and will lead to minimal changes on surface water regime Any silty water generated on site will ideally be settled out as much as possible through drainage mitigation measures (silt traps etc.) and channelled into vegetated areas at least 20m from any water body to allow the settlement of suspended solids. Silt traps, gravel, sand bags, silt fencing and anchored straw bales may be required at the discharge points in order to prevent erosion at the outlet, alleviate flow and aid in flow dispersion across a wider area of vegetation to prevent potential scour and remobilisation of deposited silt Discharge points will be located a sufficient distance from any water body to allow adequate infiltration or settlement of suspended solids to prevent any discharged surface runoff potentially entering the water bodies. Direct discharge of untreated water to water bodies or culverts will not be permitted Particular care will be required on the sections of access track in close proximity to drains. The track should be cambered away from the drains to prevent silt laden runoff flowing towards the tributary Drainage ditches with cross drains may be required where steeper gradients are present, to prevent the track from becoming a preferential pathway for surface water runoff, eroding and allowing the migration potentially laden with sediment towards existing drains or tributaries. Drainage from the track downslope will be managed and minimised through SUDs systems to prevent erosion of the surface soils and sediment laden water reaching existing drains. Flood Risk The crane pads and the track will effectively be semi-permeable structures that do not require deep foundations. The length of the new track has been kept to a minimum taking into account all known constraints The permanent land take of the proposed development infrastructure is presented in Table 6.9. The calculations of land take are based on the layout and dimensions of the wind farm components described in Chapter 2, which have then been used in GIS to calculate the appropriate areas of land take and percentage of sub-catchment For the turbines, the permanent land take has been calculated using a circular footprint around the base of each turbine location, of a diameter of approximately 17m, to include all of the concrete foundation. Land take associated with new access tracks was based on a track 4.5m wide plus a provision for any build up slopes and drainage ditch land take. A permanent buffer of 6m wide (3m either side of the track centre line) has been used for the land take calculations. Other infrastructure features such as areas of hardstanding, site compound and areas of hardstanding required for crane siting, were calculated based on the footprint of each structure as provided in the design layout. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-39

196 For all the infrastructure features associated with the proposed development, the amount of land take / ground disturbance calculated is based on the proposed dimensions of the features, and provides an indicative assessment of the impact of the land take likely to result from the construction of the proposed development. Table 6.9: Area of Land Take Associated with Site Infrastructure Site Infrastructure New access tracks (4.3km) Site Compound (50m x 70m) Crane hard standing (x8; 30m by 50m) Substation/control housing (26m x 12m) Turbines (x8; 17m diameter) Land Take Area (ha) % of survey area (~284ha) % of River Nene catchment (1634km 2 ) Total The construction of new track and the turbine foundations will result in a negligible increase in impermeable area when compared to the whole site or catchment area. The limited extent of development of land within the site and the well-drained nature of the site results in only minor changes from the baseline conditions in terms of surface water runoff Any impermeable surfaces will result in localised increases in surface runoff therefore mitigation measures will be implemented to limit this, including infiltration trenches down gradient as well as source and site control systems. Further information on the flood risk assessment and mitigation is presented within Technical Appendix 6.2. The implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) principles and mitigation measures would manage any potential flood risk increase from the development The site does not represent an increase in current flood risk, however the site is at risk from fluvial flooding from the River Nene breaking its banks. Flood risk sensitivity is considered to be of medium to high sensitivity without mitigation as the catchment is heavily managed to reduce the fluvial flood risk The main access track has been designed not to be within the PPC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) flood zone and finished floor levels and design levels of all ancillary buildings and electrical installations within the development site s flood risk area will be set at 2.8m AOD, which provides 600mm above the maximum flood level, turbines will be able to be shut down remotely. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-40

197 The main access track has been designed not to be within the PPC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) flood zone. The PCC SFRA modelling indicated maximum flood depths of 0.5m may affect the site in a 1 in 100-year flood. The maximum ground level within the flood extents was found to be 1.7m AOD, therefore the maximum flood level is considered to be 2.2m AOD (i.e. 1.7m AOD + 0.5m). Finished floor levels and design levels of all ancillary buildings and electrical installations within the development site s flood risk area should be set at 2.8m AOD, which provides 600mm above the maximum flood level. This is recommended for turbines 3, 5 and 6 within the SFRA flood zone although turbines can be located on existing ground levels if there is no electrical equipment in the base The proposed development will be water compatible and resistant to flooding, all sensitive and electrical components recommended to be situated at the 600mm level above the 0.5m flood depth (as given by the SFRA). Regular maintenance will ensure the quality of the seals and safety of internal/sensitive components Further details of the flood risk assessment and mitigation measures are provided within Technical Appendix 6.2. Watercourse Crossings There are seven drain crossing improvements required for this wind farm development; two crossing of NIDB drains and five crossings of small drains under riparian ownership. An inventory including photographs of proposed water crossings can be found in Appendix 6.1: Features Inventory: Watercourse Crossing Locations 1 to 7. Table 6.10: Drain Crossing Descriptions Map Ref Number Description 1 Potential improvement of existing crossing of a small drain for main access track in northern section of the site. Existing crossing: culvert in brick wall housing, deep man-made drainage ditch, low flow. 2 Potential improvement of existing crossing of a main NlDB drain for main access track in northern section of the site. Existing crossing: corrugated metal 1m diameter culvert from culvert meeting point. Deep man-made drainage ditch with medium flow. 3 Potential improvement of existing small drain crossing for main access tracks in Proposed Crossing Type Similar to existing culvert full moon culvert or halfmoon or box culvert. Similar to existing culvert full moon culvert or halfmoon or box culvert. Piped culvert or half-moon. Location / National Grid Reference HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-41

198 Map Ref Number Description northern section of the site. Existing crossing: narrow culvert into NIDB main drain. Deep man-made drainage ditch with very low to no flow. 4 Potential improvement of existing small drain crossing for main access track in northern section of the site. Existing crossing: narrow culvert into NIDB main drain. Deep man-made drainage ditch with very low to no flow. 5 Potential improvement of existing crossing of a main NlDB drain access track in northeastern section of the site. Existing crossing: corrugated metal 1m diameter culvert Deep man-made drainage ditch, deep water, with medium flow. 6 Potential improvement of existing small drain crossing for main access track in northern section of the site. Existing crossing: narrow culvert into NIDB main drain. Deep man-made drainage ditch with very low to no flow. 7 Potential improvement of existing small drain crossing for main access track in northern section of the site. Existing crossing: narrow culvert into NIDB main drain. Deep man-made drainage ditch with very low to no flow. Proposed Crossing Type Similar to existing culvert full moon culvert or halfmoon or box culvert. Similar to existing culvert full moon culvert or halfmoon or box culvert. Piped culvert or half-moon. Piped culvert or half-moon. GORES WIND FARM Location / National Grid Reference To determine the most appropriate water crossing, basic design criteria will be applied, to ensure the following: there will be no hanging culverts; pipe culverts and box culverts will not be used to cross any watercourses known to contain salmon, trout or eels due to potential for causing a barrier to migration. The site is linked to the drains by a series of existing piped culverts, therefore it is highly unlikely that there will be migratory fish present; where possible, all works associated with crossings will be performed from the riverbank; the width of the watercourse crossing and the infrastructure around the crossing are kept to a minimum; due to the size of the new crossings (up 2.5m wide and up to 1.5m deep water channel) full culverting or half-moon culverting is normally HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-42

199 GORES WIND FARM considered appropriate as they are consistent with the existing crossing of small and main drains within this highly hydrologically managed area. Half-moon culverts would be a preference where possible based on guidance that pipe culverts should not be used where the design flow in the watercourse exceeds 8 m 3 /s (for a 0.5% annual probability flood event), and a box culvert not used where this flow exceeds 15 m 3 /s. However, due to the need to consider weightbearing capacity, alternative designs may be required; and all designs will ensure that the effect on flood risk and the ecological status of the watercourse is minimal The watercourse crossings will comprise of pipe culvert, half-moon culverts or box culverts. Watercourse crossings will be over engineered using a cross-sectional area that will not impede flow of water to allow for high rainfall events. Crossings will be regularly maintained by the site operator to prevent blockages Detailed watercourse crossing design will be specified within the appropriate section of the CEMP and will require authorisation by PCC, EA or NIDB under Land Drainage Act 1991 and Flood and Water Management Act 2010) prior to construction Peterborough City Council is responsible for consenting works that affect the flow of water in an ordinary watercourse or riparian drain (small drain) and the NIDB are responsible for consenting works that effect the Board s managed drains (main drains) (EA Advice Guidance: Ordinary Watercourse Consenting 2010). Access bridges, cable crossings and associated temporary works affecting a watercourse may require consent. The construction contractor will undertake early consultations with PCC and NIDB to ascertain crossing consents where required. Water Supplies Although no water supply abstractions have been identified within the site boundary or in close proximity to infrastructure associated with the proposed development, additional mitigation or enhancement measures will be undertaken in order to protect the abstraction sources as a precautionary measure. Measures will include: The foundation excavations will be undertaken with care, assessing for water ingress and the degree of bedrock weathering; Should shallow groundwater be encountered during excavation the foundation excavations will be sealed with a geotextile membrane prior to concrete pouring to prevent concrete migration into shallow groundwater; Concrete type used will be of an appropriate quick setting and nonleachable specification to prevent concrete migration into the groundwater; Any excavation and construction works will avoid periods of heavy rainfall and will be undertaken and restored within as short a period as possible; Where groundwater is encountered, it is recommended that dewatering should be kept to a minimum to prevent altering the water table by drawdown. Where dewatering is required, the water should HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-43

200 GORES WIND FARM be pumped to a small holding sump or designated infiltration area to allow removal of suspended sediment. Once the solids have been removed, groundwater should either be discharged direct to surrounding vegetation or a small down slope trench allowing infiltration back into the ground. Any discharge should be in agreement with the EA and NIDB. Any untreated discharge should be directed away from water bodies; and An Environmental Management Plan and drainage plan will be submitted to the EA for approval two months prior to any works Mitigation measures to prevent the disturbance of water supply, irrigation or field drain piping should be put in place, including careful excavation to confirm the location of the piping and appropriate plating to distribute heavy loading over supply piping crossings. Soil and Mineral Sterilisation The proportion of land take has been minimised by the design of the wind farm and using existing access tracks. Infrastructure has been designed to be located on the Oxford Clay where no drift deposits are present; and where possible located on Tidal flat drift deposits avoiding the river terrace sands and gravels. The river terrace sands and gravels being the main mineral resource extracted near the site and being the mineral resource identified as being an important resource in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste (C&P MW) Local Development Policy Document (DPD) Framework Turbines 1, 4, 7, the met mast and approximately 1.5km of access track are proposed on river terrace sand and gravel deposits according to the geological mapping available. This equates to approximately 0.73ha of the surface on sands and gravels deposits taken up directly for the development. This wind farm development may require a safety margin of approximately 50m around all wind farm infrastructure where the ground should not be disturbed for mineral extraction activities as these activities may risk undermining the wind farm development structures. Based on this worse-case scenario an area of up to 8.8ha within the sands and gravels may not be suitable for mineral extraction during the construction and operational phases of the wind farm. This equates to a relatively small proportion (approximately 20%) of the sand and gravel reserves by comparison of the surface area available (being 43ha) within the site boundary The exact distances or margins around the wind farm infrastructure required to be un-disturbed for mineral extraction process will be dependent on the site specific ground conditions and will be confirmed following further geotechnical ground investigation prior to construction works It is unfeasible at this stage to make an estimate of the volumes of sand and gravel deposits temporarily sterilised as full details on the depths and distribution of the river terrace sands and gravels across the site boundary area is unknown. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-44

201 Excavation works will be kept to a minimum and all excavations will be reinstated with soils and vegetation as soon as possible to maintain the integrity of the ground conditions Overall, turbines and tracks will only sterilise a small proportion of soils and superficial deposits. The majority of superficial deposits within C&P MWDPD Framework for mineral extraction will be available during the operation of the wind farm and almost all the mineral resources identified within the framework will be available after decommissioning of the wind farm The Gores Wind Farm development does not involve winning and working of minerals or waste management, therefore the safeguarding of minerals will not be significantly affected by the development. Site Activities Good working practices will be adopted throughout the construction works to protect the water environment, ecology and human health. The storage of oil, fuel and other substances will be within the designated construction area. Oil storage containers (e.g. tanks, IBCs, drums and mobile bowsers) greater than 200 litres must comply with the DEFRA Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations (2001) Fuel, oil and chemical storage on site must be secure against theft and vandalism as statistics show that damage from vandalism is a common source of pollution. Site storage of fuels, oils and chemicals will be on an impervious base within a secondary containment system such as a bund. The base and bund walls will be impermeable to the material stored and able to contain at least 110% of the volume stored. All tanks, whilst designed to provide more storage volume than needed, will be fitted with alarms to warn site workers if the volume exceeds a specified level. Machinery should be routinely checked to ensure they are in good working order and spill kits should be on site in case of a spill. The storage area will be at least 150mm above existing ground levels to minimise the risk of localised flooding and will be located at least 10m from a watercourse to minimise the risk of a spill entering the water environment. Appropriate spill kits for the stored materials on-site will be kept close to the storage area. All vehicles will carry spill kits and all staff will be trained on how to use these correctly. Any damaged, leaking or empty drums will be removed from site immediately and disposed of via a registered waste disposal contractor The site facilities will include messing and toilet facilities for the site workers, contained within the construction compound. The design of the foul drainage collection system is expected to be a contained tank (pumped out and disposed of appropriately off site under consent) to ensure no pollution of groundwater or surface water occurs on site Best working practices incorporating measures to protect the water environment, particularly EA PPG recommendations will be adopted throughout the construction phase As part of a site wide CEMP there will be a plan for controlling sediment generation and handling of pollutants close to water bodies. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-45

202 Predicted Residual Impact This assessment describes likely residual effects following incorporation of mitigation measures, i.e. real effects that may potentially occur as a result of the development. The residual effects are summarised in Table Effects on Surface Water Adherence to the recommended mitigation and enhancement measures will ensure that the likely potential impacts will be controlled. Impacts such as the generation of sediment from the construction works will be controlled through the use of good practice. Good practice legislation and guidance notes provide clear guidance on the measures to be adopted when working near to watercourses. Method Statements will also be prepared in response to any license or consent requirements. It is predicted that should any sediment input to surrounding water bodies occur it would be small in volume and would occur over a short period only Whilst good practice measures will be in place, there is inevitably the potential for accidental incidents to occur. Responses to such events will be managed through the CEMP, such that all spills will be contained. Occurrences of this nature are expected to be low in magnitude and infrequent in nature. Overall the residual effect is considered to be not significant where appropriate mitigation as described in the mitigation section is put in place. Effects on Groundwater The baseline description indicates that there is potential for local groundwater within the river terrace sand and gravel deposits in the western section of the site and to the northwest. Excavations into the ground will be undertaken carefully to assess the potential rate of groundwater ingress. Should groundwater ingress be found to be rapid, the infrastructure will be micro-sited within the limits of the agreed planning conditions. Geotextile membranes will be used where required to prevent concrete migration into groundwater and any dewatering required will be kept to a minimal in volume and duration No groundwater abstractions were identified within 0.6km of the wind farm infrastructure or considered to be hydraulically connected to the wind farm infrastructure Measures to control concrete pouring of the turbine base structure and to limit groundwater contact with concrete are likely to significantly restrict the pathway for groundwater impacts Adherence to the recommended mitigation and enhancement measures will ensure that the likely potential impacts will be controlled. Accordingly, any residual effects to groundwater features are considered to be minor or unlikely to be of significance. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-46

203 Table 6.11: Residual Effects during the Construction and Decommissioning Phase Effect Effects on surface water features drainage ditches and water bodies. Effects on groundwater Shallow groundwater Type of Effect Probability of Effect Sensitivity of Effect Magnitude of Effect Significance Ranking Rationale Negative Unlikely Medium Low Minor Risks controlled through sediment management, and treatment of dewatered groundwater if encountered. Negative Unlikely Medium Low Minor Careful management of turbine excavation to contain concrete pouring. Effective management and storage of polluting substances such as fuel and oils. Effects on flood risk Effects to water abstractions disruption to supply or quality Loss and sterilisation of soils or superficial sands and gravels Negative Unlikely Medium Low Minor Main access track designed to avoid the PCC SRFA. The development will be water compatible and resistant to flooding, all sensitive and electrical components will be situated at the 600mm level above the 0.5m flood depth (as given by the SFRA), regular maintenance will ensure the quality of the seals and safety of internal /sensitive components and mitigation to attenuate surface water runoff will be included. Negative Unlikely Medium Low Minor All abstractions >0.1km from development. Large groundwater abstraction >0.6km for development. Risks controlled through careful protection of groundwater and avoidance of potential pathways. Negative Likely Medium Low Minor Land take has been kept to a minimum by using existing tracks and turbine locations have been positioned on the Oxford Clay where possible. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-47

204 6.7 PERMANENT AND OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Predicted Impact This Section provides a summary of the potential risks of the proposed development, based on an assessment of activities that will occur during the operational phase of the eight wind turbines and associated infrastructure, prior to the inclusion of mitigation measures (Table 6.12). An assessment of these risks determines any requirement for mitigation measures The access tracks will be left in place following construction of the wind farm for ongoing maintenance The potential impacts from the operation of the proposed development are summarised below: Potential increase in surface water run-off from the site, particularly along new and upgraded access tracks; Potential for surface water discharges to cause pollution of local watercourses; Potential increase in suspended sediments entering watercourses due to the erosion of access tracks; Potential sterilisation of soils and superficial deposits; and, Potential for the leakage and spillage of polluting substances from the turbine and turbine transformer As shown in Table 6.12 all predicted impacts are considered to be minor. As such no specific mitigation measures are deemed to be required as the impacts are considered to be not significant. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-48

205 Table 6.12: Potential Impacts (Pre-Mitigation) during the Operational Phase Activity Access Tracks Turbine Foundations Potential Impact Changes in surface water runoff patterns which could change supply to water bodies. Generation of turbid runoff which could enter water bodies. Sensitivity Potential of Magnitude of Impact Significance of Potential Impact Comment Medium Low Minor Very few changes in site runoff regime expected. SuDS principles will be used to attenuate runoff. Medium Low Minor Mitigation will be incorporated into the access track design to ensure suspended sediments within runoff are controlled and directed away from watercourses. Flood Risk Medium to high Low Minor to moderate Main access track designed to avoid the PCC SRFA flood zone and mitigation required to attenuate surface water runoff. Loss and sterilisation of soils or superficial sands and gravels Changes in surface water runoff patterns which could change supply to water bodies. Medium Low Minor Access tracks use existing tracks where possible. The development is a temporary scheme. After 25 years the majority of any mineral deposits beneath the site can be available for extraction. Medium Low Minor Very few changes in site runoff regime expected. SuDS principles will be used to attenuate runoff and infiltration trenches installed down gradient of turbines. Flood Risk Medium to high Low Minor to moderate Mitigation will be required for water sensitive or potentially polluting infrastructure, such as raising above flood levels. Loss and sterilisation of soils or superficial sands and gravels Medium Low Minor Turbines have been located on the Oxford Clay rather than sands HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-49

206 Activity Potential Impact Sensitivity Potential of Magnitude of Impact Significance of Potential Impact Comment and gravels where possible. Turbines will only sterilise a small proportion of soils and superficial deposits. The majority of superficial deposits will be available after decommissioning of the wind farm. The proposals do not involve winning and working of minerals or waste management, therefore the safeguarding of minerals will not be affected. Drain Crossings Changes in flow regime of drains. Medium Low Minor Drain crossings will be over engineered to allow for spate flows and regularly maintained to prevent blockages or impediment of flow. Site activities Spillages and leakages of oils, fuels, and other potentially polluting substances which could enter water bodies. Medium Low Minor Best site management practices would be adopted to reduce the potential for any spillages or leakages of potentially polluting substances. Flood Risk Medium to high Low Minor Fuel and chemicals will need to be stored in water tight containers and raised within the SFRA flood zone. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-50

207 Additional Enhancement Although no specific hydrology mitigation is identified as being required during operation of the wind farm, additional best practice enhancement measures, as outlined below, will be put in place following commissioning of the wind turbines to further minimise the risk of potential effects on the water environment and soils. Apart from the operation and upkeep of turbines and access tracks there will be relatively little on-site activity during the operational phase. However, the potential exists for any activity to affect the site hydrology and surrounding water features. This requires a long term strategy for sustainable mitigation that will be on-going. Access Tracks Mitigation measures for access tracks described in the construction of access tracks section will be sufficient to protect local hydrological features during the operational phase. However, routine maintenance should help to further reduce potential for increased suspended sediment levels within drainage ditches. Sediment management will continue to be a focus of the development where required and drainage ditches and grips will be regularly inspected for blockages The main access track is not within the flood risk zone identified within the PCC SFRA. In case of a flood occurring alternative existing farm tracks could be used to exit the operational site (worst case scenario), however essential access to the wind farm site would not be required at all times as the turbines will be able to be switched off remotely during a flood event. Site Activities Routine maintenance of the wind turbines and associated infrastructure will require access by maintenance crews. Such activities may involve the use of oils, greases and other substances with associated potential for accidental spillages. However any spillages are likely to be very small and, given the limited site drainage, risk to downstream watercourses is not considered to be significant Operational practices will incorporate measures to protect the water environment. All vehicles visiting the site will be equipped with sand trays to place below any oil or fuel filling activities and should be equipped with emergency oil spillage kits. Predicted Residual Impact There are unlikely to be any significant residual effects to surface water or groundwater resources during the operational phase. Activities on-site will be few and will be controlled through best site management practices. The risk of accidental spillages reaching any receptors is remote. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-51

208 Table 6.13: Residual Effects during the Operation Phase Effect Effects on surface water features water bodies. Effects on groundwater features abstractions Effects on flood risk Effects on soils- Loss and sterilisation of soils or superficial sands and gravels Type Effect of Probability of Effect Sensitivity of Effect Magnitude of Effect Significance Ranking Rationale Negative Unlikely Medium Low Minor Few activities will be on going. Sediment management will continue to be a focus of the site management. Spillage risks controlled through maintenance and spill kits Negative Unlikely Medium Low Minor No predicted impacts on groundwater are expected during the operation of the site. Negative Unlikely Medium Low Minor Main access track designed to avoid the PCC SRFA. The development will be water compatible and resistant to flooding, all sensitive and electrical components will be situated at the 600mm level above the 0.5m flood depth (as given by the SFRA), regular maintenance will ensure the quality of the seals and safety of internal /sensitive components and mitigation to attenuate surface water runoff will be included. Negative Likely Medium Low Minor Turbines have been located on the Oxford Clay rather than sands and gravels where possible. Turbines will only sterilise a small proportion of soils and superficial deposits. The majority of superficial deposits will, therefore, be available after decommissioning of the wind farm. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-52

209 6.8 DECOMMISSIONING On cessation of wind farm operations, all major equipment and structures will be removed from the Site. This process will take approximately 2 to 4 months. Restoration requirements would normally cover the removal of all turbines (rotors, nacelle and tower), removal of the upper section of turbine foundations to a depth of 1m (to permit the continuation of current agricultural practices), and removal of permanent anemometry mast and foundations to a depth of 1m, followed by reinstatement of all affected areas. Unless requested otherwise by the landowner or where they already exist on site, additional on-site access tracks will be removed and the affected area reinstated. 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 greater than one metre below ground level, would normally be left in place. All crane hardstandings adjacent to turbines will be removed to below ploughing level and then reinstated and the land returned to former use The construction and decommissioning phases of a wind farm development include similar activities, such as earthworks, vehicle movement and reinstatement with similar potential impacts. The potential for impacts during the decommissioning phase are of lesser magnitude and significance than during the construction phase as there will be no concrete pouring and generally fewer earthworks activities. Similar mitigation controls will be implemented to control effects on surface water and groundwater during decommissioning as previously described for the construction phase No significant negative effects are predicted during decommissioning phase. 6.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The nearest operational wind farm (McCains Factory) to the Gores Wind Farm is located approximately 4.6km to the southwest of the site. This existing wind farm comprises three turbines located within the River Nene catchment, but within a separate sub-catchment (Morton s Leam) to the Gores Wind Farm development. The nearest potential wind farm to the site is at Flag Fen which is at scoping stage located over 4.5km from the Gores Wind Farm. Both these wind farms are within separate subcatchments to the Gores Wind Farm development, upstream and up gradient of Gores Wind Farm and are unlikely to be directly hydrologically connected. Furthermore, there are several watercourses and drains that would act to intercept and runoff or shallow groundwater migration between the sites. The wind farm developments would have minimal increases in surface water runoff and flooding as they have small areas of hardstanding and incorporate SuDS type drainage management There are no known proposed, consented, in construction, in scoping or operational wind farms within 4.5km of the Gores Wind Farm development. The effect of the Gores Wind Farm development on the soils and water environment is negligible to minor, therefore, the HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-53

210 cumulative effects on the soil and water environment from other wind farms is considered to be negligible and not significant PCC requested that nearby minerals extractions developments are considered in the cumulative assessment of the Gores Wind Farm. The nearby mineral extraction developments are Pode Hole Quarry Extension (Consented, Application reference: 03/00515/MMFUL) to the north and northwest of the development for the extraction of fluvial sands and gravels from the River Terrace 1 superficial deposits, recorded to be 3 to 6 m thick and underlain by Oxford Clay. The resource is predicted to produce 3.9 million tonnes of saleable sand. The process will continue as existing for the extension by working the deposit dry with excavator and dump truck involving partial dewatering of the void by gravity flow or intermittent pumping. The area for the consented quarry is shown on Figure 6.1 and covers the area approximately 15m or more north and northwest of the wind farm development, separated by a NIDB main drain The second mineral extraction development near Willow Hall Quarry was consented in January 2013 (Application reference: 12/01008/MMFUL). This is for the excavation of fluvial sands and gravels from an area to the west of the proposed development with the access track route running to the west, southwest and south of the site boundary. The nearest location of the proposed Willow Hall Quarry track to the Gores Wind Farm development is approximately 2.2km to the west of the met mast, located on the opposite side of an internal drain There is a potential for minor cumulative effects from the adjacent proposed mineral extractions in the form of dewatering activities of localised shallow groundwater for excavations. However, these are unlikely since only proposed turbines 1 and 4 are located on the river sands and gravel deposits linked to the sands and gravels for the mineral extraction areas. Additionally, the majority of the Pode Hole Quarry is located within a separate sub-catchment to these proposed turbines. Geological mapping shows that the majority of the proposed wind farm infrastructure is not located on the river terrace sands and gravels and within a separate sub-catchment to the Pode Hole Quarry Dewatering for quarry activities will be via gravity flow or intermittent pumping. Any potential dewatering required for the wind farm development will be temporary, kept to a minimum and groundwater will be allowed to infiltrate back into the shallow groundwater through vegetation or infiltration trenches The assessment of the potential effects to surface water and groundwater during the construction and operation phases of the Gores Wind Farm considers the significance to be minor and not significant. Therefore, the cumulative impacts are considered to be insignificant SUMMARY The assessment has identified areas of activity, particularly during the construction phase that have the potential to impact upon the hydrological receptors at the site. Sensitive receptors identified include: HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-54

211 GORES WIND FARM Flood risk as the majority of the development is within an EA flood risk zone (although this doesn t take into account flood defences/mitigation) and the south-eastern section is within the PCC SFRA flood zone medium to high sensitivity receptor; Surface water catchment as a result of the adjacent drains being used for water abstraction for the irrigation and agricultural purposes and the River Nene being a Shellfish Protected Area and abstractions for irrigation medium sensitivity receptor; Groundwater as a result of sections of the site being underlain by a locally important aquifer used by the sand and gravel quarry to the northwest of the site. The groundwater is considered to be a medium sensitivity receptor; and The development has a potential to temporarily sterilise areas sand and gravel deposits forming part of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Safeguarded Areas. The drift geology is therefore considered to be medium sensitivity The potential for the proposed development to affect geological, hydrogeological and hydrological features is mitigated to acceptable levels through both a constraints based approach to the site layout and design (e.g. mitigation by avoidance and using existing tracks), and by adopting best practice mitigation measures. These mitigation measures focus on reducing and controlling runoff from the access track and turbine foundations (to reduce potential for increasing suspended solids within water bodies), preventing/managing spills, leaks or concrete contamination of groundwater and surface water, raising floor levels of ancillary buildings and electrical installations at or greater than 2.8mAOD within the PCC SFRA flood zone and turbines having a remote switch off option With the implementation of best practice mitigation the residual effects of the development on the geology, hydrogeology and hydrology will be minor to negligible and, therefore, not deemed to be significant. HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-55

212 6.11 REFERENCES BGS, Allen, D.J.; Brewerton, L.J.; Coleby, L.M.; Gibbs, B.R.; Lewis, M.A.; MacDonald, A.M.; Wagstaff, S.J.; Williams, A.T.. (1997). The physical properties of major aquifers in England and Wales. British Geological Survey. BGS, Jones, H.K.; Morris, B.L.; Cheney, C.S.; Brewerton, L.J.; Merrin, P.D.; Lewis, M.A.; MacDonald, A.M.; Coleby, L.M.; Talbot, J.C.; Mckenzie, A.A.; Bird, M.J.; Cunningham, J.E.; Robinson, V.. (2000). The physical properties of minor aquifers in England and Wales. British Geological Survey. (WD/00/004, Environment Agency R&D Publication 68) British Geological Society (BGS) Solid and Drift Edition Mapping (Scale 1:50,000), Sheet E158 Peterborough (1984) Centre of Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) National River Gauge Archive Data. Available at: [accessed August 2012] CIRIA (2005). C650 Environmental good practice on site, London: CIRIA CIRIA, (2001). C532 Control of water pollution from construction sites, London: CIRIA Cranfield University National Soil Resources Institute (NSRI), Soilscapes [Accessed August 2012] DEFRA (2000). Good practice guide for handling soil, UK: MAFF 2000 DEFRA (2001). Guidance note for the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations. DEFRA (2009). Code of Practice for the sustainable use of soils on construction sites. UK: The Crown. DEFRA (2009). Private Water Supplies Regulations, UK: Crown DEFRA (2004). Directive 2004/35/EC The Environmental Liability Directive. DEFRA (2009). The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations. DEFRA (2010). The Flood and Water Management Act. DEFRA (2009). Flood Risk Regulations. Environment Agency EPR 7.01 How to comply with your Environmental Permit for water discharge and groundwater (from point source) activity. [Accessed August 2012] HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-56

213 Environment Agency Regulatory Guidance Series Notes (RGN). [Accessed August 2012] Environment Agency What s in My Back Yard. [ accessed August 2012] Environment Agency Identifying Protected Areas [ accessed August 2012] Environment Agency (2010). Advice Note: Ordinary Watercourse Regulation Consenting to the Water and Flood Management Act (2010). [ Accessed August 2012] EC (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC Water Framework Directive (WFD), EU: European Parliament EC (2006). Freshwater Fish Directive (2006/44/EC), EU: European Parliament Forestry Commission (2003), Forest and Water Guidelines, Fourth Edition, Edinburgh: Forestry Commission Google Maps Aerial images. Available at: [accessed August 2012] Headland Archaeology (November 2012) Gores Wind Farm Site, Geo- Archaeological Borehole Survey. HMSO (1974). Control of Pollution Act 1974, London: Stationary Office Her Majesty s HMSO (1990). Environmental Protection Act, London: Her Majesty s Stationary Office HMSO (1994). Waste Management Licensing Regulations, London: Her Majesty s Stationary Office HMSO (1995). Environment Act, London: Her Majesty s Stationary Office HMSO (1998). Groundwater Regulations Council Directive 80/68/EEC, London: Her Majesty s Stationary Office HMSO (2010). The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations. Institute of Geological Sciences (1977). Hydrogeological Map of England and Wales (Scale 1:625,000) Ordnance Survey (2011). Explorer Wisbech and Peterborough North Sheet 235 (1:25,000 scale). HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-57

214 Ordnance Survey (2012). Landranger Peterborough Sheet 142 (1:50,000 scale). Peterborough City Council Pode Hole Quarry, Consented, Application ref: 03/00515/MMFUL MMFUL, accessed November 2012) Peterborough City Council Willow Hall, In Planning, Application ref: 12/01008/MMFUL ML0BU00 accessed November 2012) SNH, Scottish Renewables, SEPA and Forestry Commission Scotland (2010) Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction: UK Soil Survey of England and Wales 1:250,000 scale Soil Map of England and Wales, Lawes Agricultural Trust (1983) HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY Page 6-58

215 Chapter Seven Ecology

216 CHAPTER SEVEN: ECOLOGY GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter provides an assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed Gores Windd Farm development near Peterborough on the t non- avian ecology and nature conservation interests present on and around the site. The ornithology of the site has been documented separately in Chapter 8 of the ES. Desk and field studies were completed too identify the main ecological receptors within the site and local environs. Deskk studies included consultation with the Cambridgeshire Bat Group, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership, Cambridgeshiree and Peterborough Biological Records Centre, Peterborough Bird Club, Peterborough Council Ecologist, the t Environment Agency, Natural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and The Wildlife Trust. T Field surveys were completed within the proposed development area over three survey years. Field surveys included an extended Phase 1 habitat survey. Detailed specialist mammal surveys were undertaken for f bats, otters, water voles and badgers. A great crested newt survey was completed at five ponds outwith the site to the north. The site has no statutory nature conservation designations, with the nearest statutory designated site being the Nenee Washes Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is located approximately 2.1km to the south and south-east of the site. Three non-statutory County Wildlife Sites (CWS) are located within a 2km radius of the site, including the Thorney Dike CWS located along the southern boundary of the survey area. Although not benefitting from any form of designation, the Prior s Fen gravel pits are located directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the survey area. Within the survey area a total of five habitats were recorded, with the majority off the survey area being dominated by agricultural habitats, mostly arable land, with smaller areas of improved grassland. Woodland habitats within the survey area comprisedd small areas of broadleaved plantation woodland. The field boundaries were delineated mainly by drains and ditches, including the Thorneyy Dike which flows along the southern boundary of the survey area, and the Thorney River to the east of the survey area. A UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat is present in the form of the arable field margins. The arable field margin habitatss will be subject to various impacts including habitat loss and fragmentation. It is recommended that a Habitat Management Plan for the site should include measures to enhance the biodiversity value of these habitats post construction and provide remedial and restoration of habitats thatt may be subject to temporary adverse impacts. Broadleaved woodland falls under broad habitats within the UK BAP, on which potential impacts of the proposed wind farm aree not considered to be significant. ECOLOGY Page 7-1

217 At least six species of bat; common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius pipistrelle, noctule, Leisler s bat and a serotine, and undetermined bat species of thee genus Myotis, were recorded across the Gores survey area over the two survey periods. Passes P by common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle bats were by far the most frequently recorded. Evidence of badgers was foundd within the site boundary, including a four entrance sett and three further single entrance setts. No setts were located within 115m of proposed wind farm infrastructure. Extensive evidence of water vole activity, including networks of burrows, b latrines and feeding remains was recordedd within the large ditch delineating the northern Site boundary and within the Thorney Dike. Limited evidence of reptiles was recorded, with a single adult male grass snake recorded within a pond outwith the site to the north, during a great crested newt survey visit. Of the remainingg non-avian protectedd species for which surveys were undertaken, no great crested newts or otters o were recorded during the surveys, and these species are therefore considered to be unaffected by the proposed windd farm. Protected species are not expected to be subject too greater than minor impacts, although reasonable avoidance measures and mitigation will be required to prevent disturbance to the protected species present within the Site. The wind farm has been specifically designed to avoid or minimise the loss of potentially sensitive habitats and to prevent or o reduce effects on protected species. In the case of the ecological receptors identified at the Gores Site, even in the absencee of mitigation, the potential impacts of the development are not likely to be significant in the context off the EIA Regulations (i.e. impacts assessed as being of minorr significance or less as definedd in this chapter). Appropriate mitigation measures have been recommended to prevent or reduce these minor impacts, to be brought together as an Ecological Mitigation Strategy and a Habitat Management Plan. With these mitigation measuress in place, the t residual impacts on the populations of Nyctalus species, common, soprano andd Nathusius pipistrellee bats, serotine bats and water voles are assessed too be of no greater than minor significance. ECOLOGY Page 7-2

218 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 7.2 INTRODUCTION Terms of Reference This chapter of the ESS has been prepared by Atmos Consulting Ltd and presents the results of an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) of the proposed Gores Windd Farm development. The purpose of this EclA is to provide independent advice on the potential effects of the development on the nature conservation interest of the application sitee and its immediate environs. The ornithology of the site has been documented separately in Chapter 8: Ornithologyy of the ES. For the purpose of thiss chapter the site boundary, hereafter referred to as the Site, correspond s to the green boundary presented on Figure 1.2. The Survey Areas noted in this chapter encompass a wider areaa around the site boundary for each of the habitat and a speciess surveys; and are shown on Figures as relevant. This chapter is supported by three Technical Appendices, whichh contain the supporting information on the key features of nature conservation interest on which this assessment is based: Technical Appendix 7.1 Habitat Survey; Technical Appendix 7.2 Protected Species (other than bats); and, Technical Appendix 7.3 Bat Baseline Report. Site Description The Site is located too the south-west of the t village of Thorney and is dominated by cultivated arable land, delineated by a network of drains and ditches. A small area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland is present in the northern part of the Site, with minor areas of broadleaved plantation woodland present within the centre and along a the western and south- within eastern Site boundaries. No further water features were recorded the Site boundary, although ponds and larger water-bodies (Priors Fen gravel pits) and are located within 500m of the boundary to the east, south north-west. Objectives of this Chapter The principal objectives of the EcIA presented in this chapter are; to establish the baseline ecological conditions within the Site and determine its nature conservation value; ; to predict the character and significance of potential impacts arising from the proposed schemee on the ecological e interest within and adjacent to the proposed development; where significantt ecological impacts are identified, to propose mitigation measures in order to minimise the level of any adverse impacts; and to assess the significance of any cumulative and residual impacts. Mitigation and, in accordance with good practice, enhancement measures have been proposed, where appropriate, during the iterative pre- ECOLOGY Page 7-3

219 application design process, in order to avoid or minimise any potential impacts on ecological receptors of value. Any significant residual impacts on ecological receptors are identified LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXTT The EcIA completed in this chapter is considered inn the context of the relevant legislation and policies described below. National Planning Policy and Legislation The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published by the government on 27 th March 2012 and provided neww guidance for local authorities, focusing on helping to produce planning policies p that are clear and easier to understand. The NPPF became effective immediately and replaced existing planning policy guidance, including that relating to Biodiversity, Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9): Biological and Geological Conservation. However, the government circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations O and Their Impact within the Planning System, whichh accompanied PPS9,, remains valid at the time of writing. Section 11 of the NPPF specifies the requirements for conserving and enhancing the natural environment. While a key aimm of the NPPF is to assist plan-makers, it also provides advice for the determination of planning applications, much of which reaffirms the protection p previously afforded by PPS9 to designated sites, priority habitats and species and ancient woodland. The NPPF places a greater emphasis on ecological networks and states that the planning system should provide p net t gains for biodiversity: by minimising impacts on biodiversity andd providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government s commitment to haltt the overall declinee in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecologicall networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures (Paragraph 118). While the implementation of thee NPPF at the local level is yet to be fully determined, the guidance in relation to biodiversity provided p byy Circular 06/05 remains valid and the nature conservation legislation relating to protected species is unchanged ; this is discussed in more m detail below. All public authorities have a requirement to pay due regard to the conservation and enhancement of habitats and species through section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communitiess Act (NERC), which states, Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. To this end, section 42 of the NERC Act provides for the establishment of a list of habitat andd species that are considered to t be of principal importance forr the conservation of biological diversity in England.. This list can be viewed on thee DEFRA website at National legislation for the special protection of selected s species is provided in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as a amended. Under Section 1(1) and 1(2), all British bird species, their nests and eggs ECOLOGY Page 7-4

220 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (excluding some pestt and game species) are protected from intentional killing, injury or damage. Under Sections 1( (4) and 1(5), special penalties are applied to bird species included in Schedule 1 of the Act and protection is extendedd for thesee species to t disturbance to birds whilst building, in or near a nest and disturbance too dependant young. Schedule 5 provides special protection to selected animal species other than birds, through Section 9(4) of the Act, against damage to anyy structure or place which any [wild animal includedd in the schedule] uses for shelter and protection and against disturbance whilst in such places The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 as amended provides protection to badgers and their setts. A number of animals,, known as European protected species (EPS), are provided full f protection through inclusion in Schedule 2 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended. The Regulations (referred to as the Habitats Regulations ) provide protection against deliberate disturbance to those animals wherever they are present, and provides tests against which the e permission for a development that mayy have an effect on a Schedule 2 protected species must be assessed before permission can be given. In addition to species protection, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Habitats Regulations also set out requirements/procedures for the notification, designation and protection of a range of statutory site designations, in order to preserve important national and international nature conservation resources. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are sites of national importance for nature conservation, and can be notified for their ecological interest. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) provides for the protection of SSSIs. The Habitats Regulations make provision for the statutory designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs), which are sites that are recognised as being of international importance to nature conservation. SACs and a SPAs are also known as European sites, as they contribute to the European-wide Natura network of sites. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are designated d in accordance with Regulations 7 and 8, to protect sites supporting examples off natural habitats in Annex 1 too EC Directive 92/43/ EEC on the conservation of natural habitats andd of wild fauna and flora f (the Habitats Directive ) and populations of animal species in Annex 2 to the Directivee (which excludes birds). Annex 1 habitats and Annex 2 species at a site may represent either a primary reason for [its] selection s as a SAC, or being, present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection. 1 Natura 2000 is an EU wide networkk of nature protection areas established under the 1992 Habitats Directive. The aim of the network is to assure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. It is comprised of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) designated by Member States under the Habitats Directive, and also incorporates Special Protection Areas (SPAs) which they designate under the 1979 Birds Directive. ECOLOGY Page 7-5

221 SPAs are classified in accordance with Article 4 of EC Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservatio on of wild birds (the Birds Directive ). For each SAC and SPA, Natural England publishes site-specific conservation objectives that relate to the features for which it has been designated as a European site. Under Regulation 488 (1), if a significant effect on a European site is predicted as a result of a project, either alone or in combination with otherr projects or plans; it is against the conservation objectives that potential implications of development proposals must be assessed by a Competent Authorityy before thee granting of planning consent, permissionn or other authorisation. In the case of the proposed development at Gores Wind Farm, if such an assessment termed an appropriate assessment was considered necessary, the Competent Authority would be the local planning authority, Peterborough City Council. In making an appropriate assessment, the Competentt Authority must take into consideration whether, subject to the impact avoidance and mitigation measuress proposed the scheme will adversely affect the integrity of the European site. The term integrity is defined as the, coherence of the site s ecological structure and function, across its whole area, or the habitats, complex of habitats and/or populations of species for which the site is classified. Local Planning Policy The Coalition Government is currently reforming the planning system to hand greater power to locall authorities and neighbourhoods. The Localism Act 2011 and National Planning Policy FrameworkF k form the first part of a range of reforms which the Government has h committed. At present local councils will continue to produce development plans, but the Localism Act 2011 will havee implications for the way in which future development plans are prepared. Local Plans will need to be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, set the strategic context for development and deal with a range of policies and a sites in detail. Nationally there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and local councils are expectedd to plan positively for the needs of their area. The Peterborough Core Strategy Developmentt Plan Document, adopted in February 2011, replaces many of the policies relating to ecologicall issues contained within the Peterboroughh Local Plan (First Replacement), adopted in July The relevant policy from the Peterborough Core Strategy is Policy CS21 Biodiversity and Geological Conservatio on. This policy states the Council s aim of safeguarding and a enhancement of biodiversity, focussed in particular on protection of a hierarchy of nature conservation designations, and ensuring that damage is minimised and opportunities for net biodiversity y gain achieved where ever e possible. ECOLOGY Page 7-6

222 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT The Peterborough Planning Policies Developmentt Plan Document, adopted in December 2012, replaces further policies relating to ecological issues contained within the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement). The relevant policies from the Peterborough Planning Policies DPDD are: Policy PP16 - Thee Landscaping and Biodiversity Implications of Development For any proposed development with potential p landscaping and/or biodiversity implications, the city council will require the submission of a site survey report withh the planning application, identifying the landscape and biodiversity features of value on and adjoining the site. The layout and design of the t development should be informed by and respond to the results of the survey. Policy PP18 - Ancient, Semi-Natural Woodland and Ancient and Veteran Trees Planning permission will not be granted for f development which would adversely affect an area of ancient, semi-natural woodland or an ancient or veteran tree, unless the need for, and publicc benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweighh the loss. Policy PP19 - Habitatss and Species of Principal Importance Any development that is likely to have an impact on a habitat or species of principal importance for the conservation of nature (listed under S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006) should include measures to maintainn and, where possible, enhancee the statuss of the habitat or species. Planning permission will not be granted for developmend nt that would cause demonstrable harm too such a habitat or species unlesss the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh thee harm. In these circumstances permission will only be granted where the degree of harm has been or will be minimised as far f as reasonably possible commensurate with the development, through the use of avoidance, mitigation and/or compensation measures (either as part of the development or through conditions or a planning obligation). Other Nature Conservation Initiatives Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) are part of the British Government s strategy for the implementation of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, to which it is a signatory. BAPs have beenn developedd for the UK and devolved to local levels (LBAPs), to protect t a numberr of rare species and habitats and reverse the declines of more widespread, but declining, species and habitats. Under the t NERC Act, the English government and public bodies ncluding planning authorities have a duty to have due regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity, so itt is good practice for BAP and LBAP species and habitats to be taken into consideration in the planning of a development scheme. Many UK and local BAP species are also listed on the NERC N s.422 list of species of principal importance (SPIs) In addition to the overall UK BAP, the area affectedd by the proposed ECOLOGY Page 7-7

223 development at the Gores Windd Farm is covered by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local BAP The Cambridgeshiree and Peterborough LBAP is managedd by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership and promotes the conservation of habitats and species in CambridgesC hire and Peterborough. The LBAP outlines the necessary action for thee next 10 years to preserve and enhance biodiversity in farmland, woodland, wetland, grassland and urban areas (cities, towns and villages). Local authorities, Cambridgeshire County Council, Peterborough Cityy Council, English Nature, the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts, the EnvironmenE nt Agency and Anglian Water are all members of the Partnership. The plan consists of 24 individual habitat action plans (HAPs) and 18 species action plans (SAPs). Full details of the plan can be found at /. METHODOLOGY Consultation and Desk Study Throughout the EcIA process, ncluding the Scoping stage, s a consultation and data collection exercise has been undertaken too further inform this chapter. The following organisations and individuals were consulted c through a combination of letters, s, and telephone conversations between 2010 and 2012: Cambridgeshire Bat Group* *; Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership; Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biological Records Centre*; Peterborough Bird Club*; Environment Agency*; Natural England* *; Royal Society forr the Protection of Birds (RSPB)*; and The Wildlife Trust*. Individuals that were kind enough to respond are marked with ann asterisk in the above list. The responses received at Scoping are included in Appendix 1.1 of Volume 2 of thee ES. Information on statutory sitess was obtained fromm the government interactivee GIS website ( In order to gain a general idea of whether there were known records of protected species in the general area, a search was also conducted for records within the TF20 10km Grid Square in which the potential developmentt lies on thee National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway website ( Habitat Surveys An extended Phase I habitat survey, as described in the Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessmen t (IEA, 1995), was undertaken on 16 th April ECOLOGY Page 7-8

224 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 2010, and updated in September 2012 to include additional areas outwith the original survey area and to validate the findings of the previous survey. Phase I habitat surveyy is a standardised method of recording habitat types and characteristic vegetation, as set out in the Handbook for Phase I Habitat Survey - a technique for Environmental Audit (JNCC, 2010). This survey method is extended through the additional recording of specific features indicating thee presence, or likely presence, p off protected species or other species of nature conservation significance Target notes were made to describe characteristic habitats, features of ecological interest, or any other features which require ecologically sensitive design or mitigation. Further details of the Phase 1 habitat surveyy methodology are provided in Technical Appendix Whilst not a full protected species or botanical survey, the extended Phase I method enables a suitably experienced ecologist to obtain sufficient understanding of the ecology of a site s that it iss possible either: to confirm the conservation significance of the site and assess the potential for impacts on habitats/speciess likely to represent a material consideration in planning terms; or to ascertain that t further surveys of some s aspect(s) of the site's ecology will be required before such confirmation can be made. There weree no limitations to the extended Phase I habitat survey as it was undertakenn during thee main biological survey season when most plants were in evidence and could be identified to species s level. Further Specific Protected Species Surveys A summary of the specific protected species surveyss carried out at the Site is detailed in Table 7.1 below. Full methodologies for the individual surveys can be found in the appropriate Technical Appendices. Table 7.1: Ecological Surveys Undertaken at the Gores Wind Farm Site Survey Type Dates Completed Technical Appendix Extended Phase I Habitat Protected Species: Great crested newt Otter Water vole Badger Bats April 2010 September April-June 2011 May 2011 May 2011 May 2011 May-October 2011 May-September 2012 Appendix 7.1 Appendix 7.2 Appendix 7.3 ECOLOGY Page 7-9

225 Ecological Impact Assessmentt Methodology Evaluation of Ecological Receptors Following consultations, desk study and field surveys, criteria are applied to assess the nature conservation value of the ecological receptors, i.e. the sites, habitats, ecosystems, species, populations, communities or assemblages (both on and off-site) that could bee impactedd by the proposed development. As there is rarely comprehensive quantitative data on the wider habitat or species population resource, particularly below the international and national level, the nature n conservation evaluation of receptors necessarily also involves a qualitative component. This requires a suitably trained and experienced ecologist e too make a professional judgement based upon a combination off published sources, consultation responses and knowledge of both the sitee and the wider area. The categories of ecological value used in this chapter are as listed below and described furtherr in Table 7.12: International - sites, habitats and species/populations of significance in a European orr wider global context; National - sites, habitats and species/populations of significance either in the context of Great Britain or in the context of England; Regional - habitats/species/populations of significance in context of East of England; High Local/County - sites, habitats and species/populations of significance in the context of Cambridgeshire; Local - sites, habitats and species/populations of o significance in the context of the City of Peterborough; Less than Local - habitats and species/populations of less than Local significance, butt of some value in the context of the Sitee and its immediate surroundings; and Negligible - little or no intrinsic conservation value. Table 7.2: Criteria for the Evaluation of Nature Conservation Receptors Value Criteria Examples International Nature conservation resource, i.e. site, habitat or populations of species, of international importance. N.B. Includes designated sites, but may also include off-site ecological receptors on which the qualifying population(s) or habitat(s) of designated sites are considered, from the best available evidence, too depend. European sites: s SPAs and SACs S (p)spas and (c)sacs Other International sites: Ramsar wetlands Habitats and populations/ assemblages of speciess (including birds) that represent r thee qualifying interests of internationally designated sites. National Nature conservation or geodiversity conservation resource, i.e. site, habitat or populations of species, of SSSIs (biological and geological) All populations of W&CAA Schedule 8 plants. ECOLOGY Page 7-10

226 Value Criteria Examples national importance. N.B. Includes designated sites, but may also include off-site ecological receptors on which the qualifying population(s) or habitat(s) of designated sites are considered, from the best available evidence, to depend. All viable populations of species listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Threatened in relevant Red Data Books 2. Nationally important population/ assemblage of an EPS, Schedule 1 and/or 5 species. Regional Nature conservation or Sites/populations that meet SSSI geodiversity conservation designation criteria but have not resource, i.e. site, habitat or been designated due to their population of species, of regional having been better examples in importance. the relevant Area Of Search. Includes high quality Regionally important undesignated and designated population/area of a species and sites, e.g. where a Countydesignated site is below SSSI UK BAP priority species and habitat of Principal Importance or standard but still recognised as habitats. being significant in the context of Regionally important population/ the wider region. assemblage of an EPS, Schedule 1 and/or 5 species. Regionally important assemblages of other species. Regionally-designated RIGS. County/High Local Local Nature conservation or geodiversity conservation resource, i.e. site, habitat or species, of importance in the context of old County/Vice- County scale areas. Nature conservation or geodiversity conservation resource, i.e. site, habitat or species, of importance in the context of the local, district or borough Council or Unitary Authority administrative area. Local Nature Reserves. There is a wealth of names for non-statutory designations within this category. County important population/area of a species and habitat of Principal Importance or UK BAP priority species and habitats. County-important population/ assemblage of an EPS, Schedule 1 and/or 5 species. County-important assemblages of other species. County-designated RIGS. There is a wealth of names for non-statutory designations within this category. A breeding population of a species or a viable area of a habitat that is listed in a Local BAP because of its rarity in the locality. A breeding population of a Species of Principal Importance that has been identified by the local authority as being a material consideration in terms of its 2 This is terminology post-1994; but should be interpreted as including equivalent criteria pre ECOLOGY Page 7-11

227 Value Criteria Examples planning process. All breedingg populationss of an EPS, Schedule 1 and/or 5 species that have not been captured in higher categories above. Assemblages of other species that are of importance in thee context of the local authority area.. Locally-designated RIGS. Less than Local Unremarkable habitat/common Other species and habitats which species that t are of some value in are, in the opinion o of thee assessor, the context of the Site, but not of note and for which mitigation more widely. measures could c be recommended as a good practice p measure. Negligible A resource that is of little/no intrinsic nature conservation or geodiversity value. Common, widespread, w modified and/or impoverished habitats. Species of Least Concern that are widespreadd and/or common locally. Impact Magnitude The magnitude of an impact depends upon the naturee and sensitivity of a receptor and the range of potential effects arising fromm the implementation and operation of a proposed development. In assessing the likely magnitude of an effect, it is necessary too have as great an understanding as possible of its timing, intensity, i frequency, duration and reversibility. For the purposess of this assessment, the nature of the effects on specific receptors is described in the Impacts section, and then the magnitude of these effects is summarised ass being in one of the categories no impact ; imperceptible ; low ; medium or high, depending upon the extent of the area or population deemed likely to be affected by the development. Table 7.3 below provides ann indicationn of the terms in which the magnitude of ecological impacts is considered in this chapter. The following definitions have been applied in respect of timescales: immediate short-term - - within approximate ely 12 months; within approximate ely 1 to 5 years; medium-term - within approximate ely 6 to 15 years; long-term - more than 15 years. Table 7.3: Levels of Impact Magnitude Magnitude Description No detectable effects on the ecological resource, even in the No Impact immediate term. Detectable effect but reversible within 12 months. Not Barely perceptible expected to affect the conservation status of the site, habitat or species under consideration. ECOLOGY Page 7-12

228 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Magnitude Low Medium High Description Detectable effects, and may be irreversible, but either of sufficiently small scale (or short duration, if reversible) to have no material effect on the conservation status of the site, habitat or species population. Noticeable effect on the nature conservation status of the site, habitat or species population, but would not threaten the long-term integrity of the system. Replaceable or reversible r given time. Effect on naturee conservation status likely to be detectable in short- and medium-term. Significant effect on the nature conservation status of the site, habitat or species, likely to threaten the long-term l integrity of the ecosystem. Not N replaceable or reversible. Will be detectable in short-medium- and long-term. Impact Significance The determination of impact significance involves the interactionn of both the nature conservation value of the site, habitat, or species population or assemblage concerned, together with thee magnitudes of the various impacts upon it. The more ecologically valuable a site and the greater the magnitude of a given impact, the higher thee significance of that impact is likely to be.. An EcIA is undertakenn in relation to the baseline conditions that would be expected to occur if the proposed development were e not to take place, and therefore may include possible predictions of future changes to baseline conditions, such as environmental trends and other completed or planned development.. Both negative and positive impacts are possible. Table 7.4 shows in general terms the wayy in which the significance of ecological impacts i is considered in this report. It is important to appreciate that this does not represent a rigid framework for assessment - there are gradations between different categories of o site andd impact, and on occasion the significance of a particular impact may not accord precisely with the categories shown below. Impacts identified as minor are considered not to be significant for the purposes of this EcIA. ECOLOGY Page 7-13

229 Table 7.4 Generalised Impact Significance Matrix Nature Conservation Value of Receptor Magnitude of Potential Impact (+ve and -ve) High Medium Low GORES WIND FARM Barely Perceptible International Exceptional Major Moderate Minor National - England Regional East of England County Cambridgeshire Local City of Peterborough Low - lesss than Local Negligible GB & Exceptional Major Moderate Minor Minor / No significant impact No significant impact Major Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor / No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact Minor / No No sign ificant No significant significant impact impact impact No significant No significant No significant impact impact impact 7.5 BASELINE CONDITIONS AND EVALUATION RECEPTORS Designated Sites OF ECOLOGICAL Review of the UK Government web-based interactive map service, Magic ( and data received from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biological Records Centre (CPBRC) confirmedd that the Site does not benefit from any form of statutory nature conservation designation. However, there are three statutory designated sitess within a 2.5km radius of the Site boundary and three non-statutory designated sites within a 2km radius of the Site boundary. The ecological designations within the vicinity of the Site are mapped on Figure 7.1. Statutory Designated Sites Nene Washes Special Protection Area (SPA) The Nenee Washes SPA coverss an area of approximately 1518ha and is located approximately 2.1km to the south and south-east of the Site. Full details of the qualifying speciess are detailed in Technical Appendix 7.1. The SPA is an extensive area of seasonally flooding wet grassland ('washland') lying along the River Nene. Areas of arable cropping provide some winter feeding areas for wildfowl. In summer, it is of importance for breeding waders, as well as spotted crake Porzanaa porzana, whilst in winter the site holds large numbers of waders and wildfowl. w This site is recognised as being of International conservation value. ECOLOGY Page 7-14

230 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Nene Washes Special Area of Conservatio on (SAC) The Nene Washes SAC covers an area of o approximately 88ha and is located 2.1km to the south and south-east of o the Site. The SAC consists of inland water bodies (standing water, running r water - 65% ); bogs, marshes, water fringed vegetation and fens (10%) andd areas of improved grassland (25%).( Thee Annex II species spined loach Cobitis taenia is the primary reason for selection of this site. Moreton s Leam, a large drainage channel running alongg the eastern flank of the Nene Washes, contains the highest recorded density of spined loach inn the UK. There may also be thriving populations in the smaller ditches of the Washes. The site represents spined loach populations in the Nene catchment (JNCC SAC Citation). This site is recognised as being of International conservation value. Nene Washes Site off Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) The Nene Washes SSSI covers an area of 1310ha and is located 2.1km to the south and south-east of the Site. The T site represents one of the country s few remaining areas of washlandd habitat which is essential to the survival nationallyy and internationally of o populations of wildfowl and waders. The site is additionally notable for the diversity of plant and associated animal life within its network of drains. d Thee site is favoured by large numbers of wintering wildfowl and particularly the dabbling ducks wigeon, teal, pintail and Bewick s swan. Wetland birds such as snipe Gallinago gallinago and redshank Tringa totanus regularly breed and during passage periods there is often a large movement of waders and raptors through the area. Many of the ditches hold a rich flora which includes such uncommon species as frogbit Hydrocharis morsus-ranae, water violet Hottonia palustris and flowering rush Butomus umbellatus. This site is recognisedd as being of National conservation value. Non-Statutory Designated Sites County Wildlife Sitess (CWSs) are non-statutory designations used to identify high quality wildlife habitats in a county context. There are three CWSs within a 2km radius of the Site boundary, as detailed below and shown on Figure 7.1. Thorney Dike CWS Thorney Dike CWS iss located along the southern boundary of the survey area, and within the south-east corner of the survey y area for a limited stretch. The CWS covers an area of 1.81ha and qualifies because it contains at least fivee species of submerged, floating and emergent vascular plant per 20m section. This site is recognised r as being off county conservation value. Cat's Water Drain CWS Cat's Water Drain CWS is located 1.5km to the west of the Site. The CWS covers an area of 1.46ha and qualifies because it contains at least five speciess of submerged, floating and emergent vascular plant per 20m ECOLOGY Page 7-15

231 section. This site is recognised as being of county conservation value. Eyebury Road Pits CWS Eyebury Road Pits CWS is located 2km to the west off the Site. The CWS covers an area of 45.67ha and qualifies because it supportss at least 0.05ha of NVC community S20 Grey Club-rush swamp. Additionally it supports at least three species of pondweed Potamogeton species. This site is recognised as being of county conservation value. Prior s Fen Gravel Pits Although not designated as a CWS, the Prior s Fen gravel pits are located directly adjacent to the t southern boundary of the Survey Areaa and are locally known for their bird life, particularly waterfowl in winter. This site is recognised as being of local conservation value Habitats and Flora The habitats present within the Site have been mapped m to classifications (Figure 7.2), with a full Habitat Survey report, target notes and a species list, presented in Appendix 7.1. Phase 1 including A summary of the habitat composition of the Site is detailed in Table 7.5. Table 7.5: Habitats Present at the Gores Wind Farmm Site Description Area (ha) Agricultural habitats Arable land Improved grassland 1.71 Woodlandd Broadleaved woodlandd - plantationn 4.91 Aquatic habitats Ditches and drains (standing and running water) 1.70 Other habitats Track, hard-standing and buildingss 0.07 Total Agricultural Habitats Arable Land % of total area Cultivated arable land formed the dominant habitat type across s the Site. Beans, rape and wheat had been recently planted at the time of survey. Improved Grassland A small area of improved grassland was present towards the north of the Site, adjacent to the proposed access track (see Figure 7.2, TN 47). The habitat is dominated by white clover Trifolium repenss and perennial rye- ECOLOGY Page 7-16

232 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT grass Lolium perenne, with frequent annual meadow-grass Poa annua and occasional broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius, common chickweed Stellaria media and spear thistle Cirsium vulgare The arable and improved grassland habitats have negligible intrinsic botanical value, however whilst these habitats are of limited nature conservation value, they do provide potential foraging areas for mammals, reptiles and amphibians, as well as birds. Such habitatss are unremarkable and generally widespread and common within the local area, as well as the wider areas of England. Therefore these agricultural habitats have been assessed to be of negligible conservation value in the context of the Site. Woodland Broadleaved Woodland Plantation Woodland was limited within the Site, with broad-leaved plantation woodland the only typee of woodland recorded within thee Survey Area. The largest areaa was Woodland 1 (W1), a strip of semi-mature to mature broad leaved plantation present along the west and north-western edges of the Site (TNs 6 and 29).. The woodland wass dominatedd by ash Fraxinus excelsior, with a mainly closed canopy, an occasionallyo y dense scrub layer of hazel Corylus avellana, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and elder Sambucus nigra andd a densee ground flora f dominated by common cleavers Galium aparine, common nettle Urtica dioica and common chickweed. Woodland 2 (W2) was a small stand of semi-mature broadleaved plantation present towards the centre of the Site (TN 12), dominated by early-mature wild cherry Prunus avium, with w occasional hawthorn and hazel. The woodlandd had a mainly open canopy, noo scrub later and a patchy ground flora dominated by common chickweed, common bent Agrostis capillaris andd creeping soft-grass Holcus H mollis. The plantation was surrounded by a 5m high common laurel Prunus laurocerasuss hedge. Woodland 3 (W3, TN3), located towards the north of thee Survey Area, was a small copse of mature broadleaved plantation. The woodland was dominated by sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, with horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum and pedunculate oak Quercus robur also present, and had a partially open canopy, an occasionally dense scrub layer of hawthorn, hazel and elder and a dense ground flora dominated by nettles and ivy Hederaa helix. The areas of broadleaved plantation woodland within the Site had species poor field layers in terms of vascular plants and bryophytes. This habitat is thereforee assessed to be of less than local conservation value in terms of its botanical value, however it is recognised that the broadleaved plantation has the potential to provide shelter for faunal species including mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians and invertebrates. ECOLOGY Page 7-17

233 Aquatic Habitats Ditches and Drains A network of drains delineated field boundaries across the Site. The Thorney Dike (TN19) flows along the southern boundary of thee Site. At time of survey the dike was 8m wide by 4m in depth, with w a wet area of 1m wide by 0.2m in depth, a silt substrate, and soil banks set att 45 and vegetated with rank grasses and tall ruderal species, with Yorkshire fog, common nettle and common cleavers the dominant species. Coww parsley Anthriscuss sylvestris, common chickweed, broad-leaved dock, red deadcreeping nettle Lamium purpureum, white dead-nettle Lamium album, thistle Cirsium arvense, dandelion Taraxacum species and curled dock Rumex crispus were also present. The channel, which contained a slack flow of mainly clear water, was vegetated by blanket weed, w with yellow iris Iris pseudacorus and soft rush Juncus effusus along itss margins A further large drain flows through the centre of the Site at TN10. The drain was 8m wide by 3m in depth, with a wet area off 2.5m widee by 0.3m in depth, a silt substrate, soil banks set at 45 and vegetated with rank grasses and tall ruderal speciess as described above. The channel, which contained a slack flow of murky/silty water, was dominated byy blanket weed, with common reed Phragmites australis along the drain margins in places. Further minor drains were recorded across the Surveyy Area. The ditches, drains and dike within and directly adjacent to the Site are an important feature of the t habitatss present on Site for local wildlife, including mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians and invertebrates. Rivers and Streams are a UK BAP habitat and as such, the Site ss network off drains is therefore assessed to be of local conservation value. Other Habitats Track, Hard-standing and Buildings A large farm building was present within the Survey Area, approximately 400m outside of the Site boundary to the north-east in the vicinity of Toneham Farm (TN23). The modern building was 10m in height, with corrugated metal walls and a pitched corrugated metal roof. Areas of track and hardstanding were associated with the farm buildings. Other than potentially providingg roosting habitat for bats, the buildings within the Survey Area are considered to be of negligible conservation value in relation to this Site. Flora A total of 52 taxa of vascular plants was recorded within the Site (see Appendix 7.1). Since the main survey was carried out in mid-april, with an additional survey carried out inn September, this total is likely to include most of the species present andd is sufficient to providee confidence that the ECOLOGY Page 7-18

234 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT habitats present have been well documente d. It is considered that further species of botanical interest will not have been overlooked No invasive non-nativee species of terrestrial flora were recorded. Given the considered above, thee assemblage of plant species within the Site is to be of less than local conservation value.. Fauna Existing Records Many species recordss were provided by the CPBRC.. Only those which were recorded within 2km of the Site (or 5km 5 in the case of bats) and recorded in the last 100 years are considered in this assessment. Particular attention was paid to establishing whether any European protected species were likely to be present within the Site or in adjacent habitats. Records of species benefitting fromm this highest level of statutory protection provided by the CPBRC included Daubenton's batt Myotis daubentonii and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus within a 5km radius of the site. The NBN Gateway website also included records of a further two Europeann protected species, great crested newt Triturus cristatus, Natterer's bat Myotis nattereri and common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, as having been recorded in thee 10km grid square TF20 within which thee site lies. Records off species benefiting from protection by UK legislation included European water vole Arvicola terrestris and Eurasian E badger Meles meles. Records were also provided for European eel e Anguilla anguilla, a species of principal importance (SPI) and UK BAPP Priority species, as well as opposite-leaved pondweed and spined loach, which aree regarded as being of local nature conservation value in this part p of Peterborough, within a 2km radius of the site. Bats This section provides a brief summary of thee results of f these surveys and an evaluation of thee nature conservationn value forr each of the bat receptors identified. Full details of the bat surveys undertaken are provided in Technical Appendix 7.3 Bat Baseline Report. Habitat and Roost Assessment Bat habitatt and roostt assessment results are displayed on Figure 7.3. Five discrete areas were separately assessed during the habitat and roost assessment survey. These were: Woodland Shelterr Belt; Northern extension area; Northern tree-linedd path (T6); Buildings at Toneham Farm (B1 & B2); and a ECOLOGY Page 7-19

235 Buildings at Gores Farm (B3) and associated woodland Of these only the mature trees present within the shelter belt (T1-5) along the western boundary of the Site and the northern extension e area were included within the Site boundary, with the other collectionss of farm buildings and tree-lined path lying adjacent to the Site, but withinn 500m of the Site boundary. Woodlandd Shelter Belt/ Woodland A thin strip of shelter belt woodland, Woodland 1 (see Figure 7.2) was present along the western edgee of the Site and approximately 100m from the nearest proposed turbine (turbine 4). The woodland edge provided good potential foraging habitat for bats, although the usually dense scrubby under-storey within thee woodlandd was less suitable habitat for foraging bats. The wood contained many mature trees, but due to the plantationn origin of the shelter belt the trees were tall and thin, with most treess lacking features with the potential to support roosting bats. Off the trees within this shelter belt, daytime bat roost assessments were carried out on seven trees considered suitable, and of these, two were assessed as providing moderate bat roost potential, a white poplar and an ash (T1 and T3) and a further three were assessed as providing low bat roostt potential (T2, 4 and 5), consisting of two white poplar and a sycamore. The number and density of features assessed ass being suitable for roosting bats, coupled with the moderate foraging habitat provided by the woodland edge, indicates that this woodland could theoretically support a small population of roosting bats, and certainly be used by higher r numbers of foraging bats from adjacent habitats, including rarer species (e.g. barbastelle) or species at higher risk of impact from wind farms (e.g. Leisler's bat). Therefore this shelter belt woodland wass considered to have low potential for roosting bats Woodlandd 1 has been assessed as being of less than t local potentially supporting small numbers of non-breeding bats of species. Northern Area of the Site value for common The north part of the Site contained a number of semi-mature and mature trees present in areas of screening woodland along field f margins as well as a small copse of broadleaved d plantation woodland, Woodland 2. Woodlandd 2, which was located approximately 445m from thee nearest proposed turbine (turbine 7), provided good foraging habitat h for bats along its edge, although the usually dense scrubby under-storey within the wood means the woodlandd interior was cluttered and less suitable forr foraging bats. Most of the trees presentt within the wood lacked featuress with the potential to support roosting bats, with a limited number of trees assessed to have low bat roost potential A further two trees had daytimee bat roost assessments completed within ECOLOGY Page 7-20

236 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT the extension area, ann ash and an oak (T77 and T8), both of which were assessed as providingg low potential for roosting bats The low number of features assessed as being suitable for roosting bats, coupled with the moderate foraging habitat providedd by the woodland edge, indicates that trees within the extension area potentially support a small population of roosting bats, but will more m likely be used by higher numbers off foraging bats from adjacent habitats. The woodland and trees within the extension area are considered to have low potential for roosting bats and no emergence surveys were recommended. Woodland 2 has been assessed as being of less than local value for most likely supportingg individual roosting bats of rarer/ /rarest species and potentially supporting a maternity roost of common species. Northern Tree-lined Path An avenue of mature oak and wych elm Ulmus glabra starts approximately 170m to the north of the Survey Area along a previously considered access track route (T6). The avenue of trees is located approximately 700m from the nearest proposed turbine ( turbine 7) and provides good potential foraging habitat for bats and a flight-line. Most of the trees observed lacked obvious features with the potential to support roosting bats and were assessed as providing negligiblee or low bat roost potential. The limited number and quality of features assessed a as being suitable for roosting bats suggests that that the line of trees is likely to support, at best, small numbers of roosting bats, although the moderate foraging habitat provided couldd be used by higher numbers n of foraging bats from adjacent habitats. The trees were assessed as having low potential for roosting bats but high potential/suitability for foraging and commuting bats. The avenuee of trees has been assessed as being of less than local value for most likely supporting small numbers of non-breeding bats of common species. Toneham Farm A collection of farm buildings was present inn the vicinityy of Toneham Farm (B1), approximately 400m to the north-east of the Site boundary. The barns were constructed from corrugated metal panels, with pitched corrugated metal roofs and were modern structures in a good state of repair. The barns lacked features with thee potential to support roosting bats and were assessed as providing negligible bat roost potential. A two storey newly built house was also present p (B2). The house was constructed from brickk walls and had a pitched slate roof. The house was in good condition, withh no obvious access points for bats and represented low bat roost potential. None of the buildingss present at Toneham Farm displayed features with the potential to support roosting bats and all were assessed as providing ECOLOGY Page 7-21

237 either negligible or low bat roost t potential Gores Farm and Associated Woodland The buildings at Toneham Farm have been assessed as beingg of less than local value forr at best supporting small numbers of non-breeding bats of common species. A moderate collection of farm buildings was present at a Gores Farm (B3), approximately 400m to the south-east of the Site boundary. An area of woodland and a derelict cottagee were also present further to the east of the farm buildings att time of survey (this cottage hass subsequently been demolished). The barns were constructed from corrugated metal panels, with pitched corrugated metal roofs and were modern in construction and in a good state of repair. A large glass greenhousee was also present. The farm buildings lacked features with the potential to support roosting bats and were assessed as providing negligible bat roost potential. A derelict cottage was present t a short distance away, 7-8 m in height. The house had brick walls covered with cement cladding and a pitched tile covered roof with wooden soffits. The house had not n been lived in for some time and was in i a poor state of repair, with loose slates/tiles on the roof, rotten wooden soffits in places, broken windows and ivyy covered sections. The house was assessed as providing moderate bat roost potential. The house was demolished priorr to the startt of activity surveys. Located within the same vicinity as Gores Farm wass an area of mature broad-leaved semi-natural woodland (W5), containing a number of mature trees with low to moderate bat roost potential. Near the edge of the woodland was a dead tree-trunk displaying rot holes, loose bark and dense ivy (T9). The trunk was assessed as providingg moderate bat roost potential. Dusk and Dawn Emergence andd Return Surveys The woodland adjacent to Gores Farm has been assessed as s being of less than local value for potentially supporting small numberss of non- breeding bats of common species. Two emergence and return surveys were undertaken at mature white poplar and ash trees within thee woodland shelter belt to the west of the Site (see Figure 7.6, Locations 19 and 20) ). The surveys were completed on the 13th July 2011, with single surveyorss present att each location. Although high levels of bat activity were recorded along a the woodland shelter belt, no bats were recorded either emerging from, or returning to, the two trees for which emergence and return surveys were completed. Bat Activity Transectss Full survey methodologies for the activity transects completed in 2011 are detailed in Technical Appendix 7.3. ECOLOGY Page 7-22

238 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Three species; common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrellee and noctule, and one genus of bat; Myotis, were recorded across the Gores Site during the 2011 walked activity transects. Figures 7.44 to 7.8 show the levels of bat activity (in terms of passes per minute) recorded across the Site during each of the monthly transects completed between b May and September Chart 1 compares the overall level of bat activity (in terms t of passes per hour) and species recorded during each of the monthly transects. Although a useful indication of bat activity across the Site, bat activity in terms of passes per minute can bee skewed att individual listening points or along transect sections if single bats are foraging back and forth nearby as this can result in repeat calls being recorded for only a single individual. The greatest levels of activity were recordedd on the transect completed on 10 th August 2011, followed by the May and September transects (see Chart 1 and Figures 7.7, 7.4 and 7.8 respectively). In August, using the criteria set out in Technical Appendix 7.3, very high to high levels of relative bat activity ( andd bat passes/minute respectively) were recordedd along thee woodlandd shelter belt delineating the western Site boundary, with w moderate levels off relative activity ( bat passes/minute) recorded along large ditches/drains to the south of the Survey Area and north-east of the t Site. Levels of relative bat activity were classed as loww ( bat passes/minute) or less than low in all other areas. May showed similar patterns off activity too August, with high levels of relative batt activity recorded along the woodland shelter belt too the west of the Survey Area, with moderate activityy recorded along the ditches and woodland to the north of the Survey Area. In September, high and moderate levels of relativee bat activity were recorded along the woodland shelter belt too the west of the Survey Area. High levels of activity were also recorded along the ditches and woodland to the north of the Survey Area and along the large ditch to the north-east of the Survey Area. The transect survey results indicate that bat b activity was generally low across the Survey Area, with hotspots of bat activity concentrated mainly along the woodland shelter belt to the west of o the Site and along the larger ditches both within thee Site and the wider Survey Area. Passes by noctule, a species classed as at high risk off impacts from wind farms, were recordedd across the Survey Area A duringg the transects, but always at low activity levels, with ten passes recorded inn total. ECOLOGY Page 7-23

239 Static Detector Surveys Full survey methodologies for the static detector surveys completed in 2011 are detailed in Technical Appendix 7.3. At least four species; common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius' pipistrelle, noctule and a Nyctalus species (possibly Leisler's bat) ), and one unidentified bat of the t genus Myotis, were recorded during the static detector surveys completed across the Gores Site in A total of 3153 bat passes were recorded (during a total of 20 nights survey) by the static detectors, with common pipistrelle by far the most frequently recorded species, accounting for f a total of 2,365 calls, or approximately 75% of the bat passes recorded. Soprano pipistrelle and noctule bats were the second and third most frequently recordedd species respectively, with 657 (20.8%) and 72 (2.3%) passes recorded respectively. Figures 7.4 to 7.8 show the levels of bat activity (in terms of passes per hour) recorded across the Site by static Anabat recorders in Table 7.6 presents the total number of passes recorded at each staticc location across all survey nights in In general, moderatee ( bat passes per hour) levels of relative bat activity or below were recorded by the static Anabat recorders in open habitats typical of potential turbine locations, with high ( bat passes per hour) levels of relative bat activity or above only recorded at bat habitat features. Very high ( bat passes per hour) levels of bat activity were only recorded at Location 19 and Locationn 20 (see Figure 7.6), adjacentt to the woodland strip along the western edge of the Survey Area. The bat activity att these locations was heavily h dominated by common pipistrelle. ECOLOGY Page 7-24

240 Table 7.6: Bat Passes Recorded at Static Detector Locations in 2011 Static Detector Location Location Description Open arable field. Number of nights surveyed (N) = 1 Woodland edge and large ditch. N=1 Open arable field. N=1 Large ditch, track and woodland edge. N=1 Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Species Myotis species Noctule Nyctalus species Nathusius pipistrelle Total Small ditch. N= Open arable field. N=1 Open arable field. N=1 Open arable field. N=1 Woodland edge and small ditch. N=1 Open arable field. N=1 Open arable field. N= Small ditch. N= Woodland edge and large ditch. N=1 Large and small ditch. N= Small ditch. N= Open arable field. N=1 Woodland and large ditch. N=1 Open arable field. N=1 Woodland edge. N= ,051 0 ECOLOGY Page 7-25

241 Static Detector Location Location Description Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Species Myotis species Noctule Nyctalus species Nathusius pipistrelle Total 20 Woodland edge. 1,056 N= = Total 2, ,153 Static Detector Surveys Full survey methodologies for the static detector surveys completed in 2012 are detailed in Technical Appendix 7.3. Figures 7..9 to 7.12 present the static detector locations surveyedd in Six species; common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius' N pipistrelle, noctule, Leisler's bat, Nyctalus species (possibly Leisler's bat), serotine, and one unidentified bat of thee genus Myotis, were recorded across the Gores Site by static detectors over the 2012 survey period. A total of 18,239 bat passes were recorded by the static detectors (during a total of 286 nights recording), with common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle by far the most frequently recorded species, accountingg for a totall of 8,616 and 8,390 calls respectively, or approximately 47.2% and 46% of the bat passes recorded respectively. Table 7.7 presents the t total number of passes recorded at each static location across all survey nights in By far the t greatest overall numbers of bat passes recorded were at static detector Location 16, positioned adjacent to the woodland shelter belt alongg the western Survey Area boundary, where 12,295 bat passes were recorded, or 67% of the 18,239 bat passes recorded byy all the static detectors in Calls by soprano pipistrelle and common pipistrelle bats dominated thee passes recorded at Location 16. Figures 7.9 to 7.12 show the monthly levels of bat activity (in terms of passes per hour) recorded across the Site by the static bat recorders in In general, patterns of relative bat activity showw higher levels of bat activity at habitat features withinn the Site than in open habitats indicative of likely turbine locations. This point is illustrated by thee moderatee levels of relative bat activity ( bat passes per hour) or below recorded by the static recorders placed in open habitats indicative of proposed turbine locations (Locations 1-10), and the moderate levels of bat activity or higher recorded by the static recorders placed at habitat t features (Locations 11-20). Very high levels of relative bat activity ( bat passes per hour) were only recorded at static locations at bat habitat features, including Location 11 in May (seee Figure 7.9), Locations 14 and 16 in June (see Figure 7.10) and Location 16 in August (see Figure 7.11). Activity was likely to be especially high at these locations, relativee to other areas of the Site, due to the sheltered conditions created by the woodland in what is otherwise very open and exposed habitat. ECOLOGY Page 7-26

242 Table 7.7: Bat Passess Recordedd at Static Detector D Locations in 2012 Static Detector Location Number of Nights Surveyed Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Nathusius pipistrelle Species Myotis species Noctule Leisler s bat GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Nyctalus species Serotine Total , ,548 6, , Total 286 8,617 8, ,239 Evaluation of Bat Receptors In addition to the evaluation of the application site ass potential roosting and foraging habitat detailed above, the population of each species of bat is also considered to be a receptor with thee level of nature conservation ECOLOGY Page 7-27

243 value assigned to each species reflecting the importance of the population of bats utilising the Site. Each species, or group of species, is considered here with reference to the risk level of each species following the guidance provided by Natural England (NE, 2012) and the Bat Conservation Trust (Hundt, 2012). This guidance assigns a a high risk status to populations of three species: noctule, Leisler s bat and Nathusius pipistrelle, all of which were recorded during the bat surveys completed at Gores. All other species recorded are classed as low risk at the population level, with the exception of serotine and a barbastelle bats which are classed as medium risk. Overall Evaluation of Foraging and Roosting Potential Overall, the roosting potential for bats within the Site boundary iss likely to be associated with a small number of mature treess present within the woodland shelter belt along thee western Site boundary and thee northern extension area. Further areass of limited potential roosting habitat are located within the limited areas of woodland within thee wider Survey Area. While the habitats within the Site boundary are relatively limited in their potential to support important bat roosts, a precautionary approach has been taken to acknowledge the potential roost habitat identified both within and directly adjacent to the Site and the potential for presence of roosts, and thereforee these features are evaluated ass being of less than local ecological value. The extent and suitability of foraging habitat is limited within mostt areas of the Site which is dominated by cultivated arable land. Good batt foraging habitat is present in the t vicinity of the woodland shelter belt (Woodland 1) running along the western Sitee boundary, with further potentiall foraging habitat provided by the larger drains within the Surveyy Area and the other areas of woodland to the north of the Site. Overall, the foragingg potential of the Site is considered to be of local value to reflect the importance of the woodland shelterr belt in what is otherwise a veryy open and exposed habitat. Nyctalus Species Bats (Noctule and Leisler s bat) High Risk Nyctalus species bats are considered as a single receptor as both species (noctule and Leisler s bat) exhibit broadly similar patterns of activity and behaviour and are likely to bee affected by wind farm developments in similar ways. In addition, it is often difficult to differentiate between calls of the species as they often can call at overlapping frequencies; consequently, it is possible that some or all of thee calls attributed to Leisler s bat may actually be noctule echolocating a higher frequency than normally expected. Nyctalus species bats are classed as high risk species for wind energy developments (NE, 2012), with noctule being a widespread but uncommon species throughout much of the UK, including Cambridgeshire, and Leisler s bat also being widespread but rarer than noctule. Nyctalus species bats are adapted to fly at height covering long distances, with long aerodynamic wings, a larger body sizee and strong, loud echolocation calls which travel further and can thereforee provide ECOLOGY Page 7-28

244 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT informationn on features which are located at further distances. Although they are thought to prefer linear features, which provide flight lines by which they can navigate across the wider landscape,, they often exploit open habitats, such ass agricultural land, thuss potentiallyy bringing them into contact with wind turbines Data received from the Cambridgeshire Bat Group confirmed records of noctule within 5km of the Site, although no known k roostt sites. During the 2011 surveys, noctule was recorded at nine of the 20 static locations and at both open habitat and habitat feature locations. Noctule were always recordedd at low frequency, most m commonly less than five passes perr location per night where they were recorded, althoughh a peak of 19 passes over a single night was recorded at Location 20, along the woodland shelter belt to the west of the Site. Noctule passes were recorded at all static locations surveyed in 2012, with the exception of Location 6, an open arable field, but often at relatively low frequency. However a peak of 280 passes was recorded at Location 14, the woodland shelter belt running along thee western edge of the Survey Area, recorded over all of the 15 nights this location was surveyed in June and Augustt 2012, withh 45 passess recorded over o an eight minute period on the 25 th June 2012, suggesting that low numbers of noctule bats forage and commute along this woodland edge. Passes by Nyctalus species bats (possibly Leisler s L bat) were recorded at two of the static detector locations in 2011, with nine passes recorded at Location 20, along thee woodland shelter belt to the west of the Site and a single passs recorded to the north of the Site. Passes by Leisler s bat and Nyctalus species (possiblyy Leisler s bat) were recorded 56 times byy the static detectors in 2012, with 37 passes also recorded at Location 14. Low numbers of passes were also recorded at Locations 1, 2, 3 and 4 in open arable habitats and at Locations 11, 12, 13 and 16 at habitat features. The data from both 2011 and 2012 indicate that both noctule and Leisler s bats are active within the Site, with the patterns of activity suggesting that they are using all areas of the Site at relatively low levels. The activity recorded suggests occasional use by foraging Nyctalus bats and regular commuting along Woodland 1, the shelterr belt of woodland along the western edge of the Site, but the levels of activity a do not indicate that the area is used by more than a small number of o bats. Based on this evidence the Site is considered to be of local value for Nyctalus species bats. Nathusius Pipistrelle Bat High Risk Nathusius' pipistrelle is a smalll species in comparison to many other species of bat occurring in the UK, but is significantly larger than either the common orr soprano pipistrelle. Nathusius pipistrelless have been widely recorded throughout the UK but records aree sparse. This speciess prefers to forage in riparian habitats, both broadleaf and mixed woodland and parkland. Nathusius pipistrelle bats are occasionally recorded in farmland f habitats, but almost always near water. The Nathusius pipistrelle is ECOLOGY Page 7-29

245 classed as a high risk species for wind energy developments (NE, 2012), with individuals of this species assessed to be at high risk of collision, and population threat caused by wind energy developmen nts also assessed as high Nathusius pipistrelle was not recorded during the 2011 surveys; ; however a total of five Nathusius pipistrelle passes were recorded by static detectors during the 2012 surveys, with three records from Location 17, beside a small ditch and woodland edge at the centree of the Survey Area and passes recordedd at Location 7, open habitat in the centre of the Site adjacent to Location 17. The passes were recorded on two separate nights suggesting that single bats occasionally commute through the Site. Due to the extremely low levels of activity recorded by Nathusius pipistrelle bats across the Site, but sparse distribution of this s species, Nathusius pipistrelle are considered to be of local value in the context of the Site. Serotine Bat Medium Risk The serotine is one of the UK s largest and least common species, occurring mainly within southern England and parts of South Wales. Serotine bats prefer unimproved/semi-improved woodland, interlinked by hedgerows. Individuals of this species are assessed to be at medium risk off collision permanent pasture adjacent to mature semi-natural with wind turbines, with population threat caused by windd energy developments also assessed as medium, althoughh serotine are now considered to be relatively low flying species and rarely fly at heights that would bring them into contact with wind turbines (Russ, 2012). Serotine bats were not recorded during the surveys completedd in 2011, however serotine passes were recorded at four of thee open habitat static locations surveyed in 2012 (Locations 3, 5, 8 and 10) and five of the habitat feature locations surveyed (Locations 11, 13, 14, 16 andd 19), but always at low activity levels. A peak of 21 passes was recorded at Location 14, the woodland shelter belt running along the westernn edge of the Survey Area, recorded over six of the 15 nights this location was surveyed in June and August 2012, with 13 passes recorded over a 35 minute period on the 25 th June 2012, suggesting that a single or low numbers of serotinee bats occasionally forage and commute c along this woodland edge. Due to the low levels of activity recorded by serotine bats b acrosss the Site, but the uncommon status of this species, the population of serotine bats using the Site is considered to be of local value. Common and Soprano Pipistrelle Bats Low Risk Common and soprano pipistrellee bats are considered as a singlee receptor because both exhibit broadly similar patterns of activity and behaviour. Individuals of both species are considered to be at medium risk from wind farm developments, but their populations are considered to be low risk as they are by far the most commonn and widespread species in the UK. ECOLOGY Page 7-30

246 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT These pipistrelle species are among the more m flexiblee and opportunistic bat speciess in terms of their habitat requirements, and are adapted to enable them to fly among cluttered habitat, with shorter broader wings, a smaller body size andd faster call speeds which w coverr a larger range r of frequencies, to alloww for increased manoeuvrability (Altringham 2001, Russ 2012). Common and soprano pipistrelle batss also tend to be hawking species, taking insects whilst flying, and can therefore exploit the open habitats which would be less suitable for those bats which use gleaning feeding strategies. Therefore common and soprano pipistrelle bats are able to exploit all habitats present at a the Goress Site, including the open habitats. Common pipistrelle was by far the most frequentlyy recorded species during the 2011 staticc detector surveys, accounting for a total of 2,365 calls, or approximate ely 75% of the bat passes p recorded. Soprano pipistrelle was the second most frequentlyy recorded species, with 657 (20.8%) passes recorded. During the 2012 staticc detector surveys, common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle were again the most frequently recorded species, accounting for a total of 8,616 and 8,390 calls respectively y, or approximately 47.2% and 46% of the bat passess recorded respectively y. Despite the relatively large number of calls identified i ass either common or soprano pipistrelle, thee activity levels were generally g considered to be low within open habitats, with high to very high activity recorded att habitat features, relative to activity within the Site. Althoughh a peak of 5,548 common pipistrelle and 6,561 soprano pipistrelle passes was recorded at Location 16, these passes were recorded over 100 nights and were exceptional relative to activity in other areass of the Site. Overall, the t local population of commonn and soprano pipistrelle species is considered to be an unexceptional population that uses parts of the Survey Area extensively for foraging and commuting, and potentially also for roosting. r Habitats within the Site boundary are relatively limited in their potential to support important batt roosts, but the presence of small transient (non- the breeding) pipistrelle roosts cannot be ruled out. Therefore, populations of common and soprano pipistrelle batss using the Site is evaluated as being of local value. Myotis Bats Low Risk Six Myotis species off bat are known to be resident breeders in the UK, including Alcathoe bat, Bechstein's bat, Brandt's bat, Daubenton's bat, Natterer's bat and whiskered bat. Bats of o the Myotis genus were not identified to species as it is often very difficult to separate the Myotis genus into species, based on their echolocation calls alone. Therefore, all Myotis calls have been classified, and are discussed, d together. Individual Myotis species bats are considered to bee at low risk from wind farm developments, with their populations also considered too be low risk. Myotis species bats were recorded at 11 of the t 20 staticc detector locations in 2011, and most commonly at bat habitat feature f locations. Myotis were generally recorded at low activity levels, usually less than five passes per night, although a peak of 26 passes was recorded at location 13 on a ECOLOGY Page 7-31

247 large ditch to the south-west corner of the Survey Area Calls by Myotis species bats were recorded at nearly all staticc detector locations in 2012, with the exception of Locations 6 and 11.. Myotis species calls were again usuallyy recorded at a relatively low activity levels, although a peak of 155 calls was recorded over ten nights at Location 16, the woodland shelterr belt to thee west of the Site, suggesting Myotis bats were regularly commuting/foraging along this area of woodland at the time. Due to the generally low levels of activity recorded by Myotis species bats across the Site, the population of Myotis species bats using the Site is considered to be of less than local value. Amphibians (including Great Crested Newt) Presence/ /absence level surveys for great crested newt, n in accordance with the guidance published byy Natural England (English Nature, 2001, Great crested newt mitigation guidelines) were carried out between April and June The locationss of the ponds surveyed are displayed on Figure Full methodologie es and results of the great crested newt surveys are presented in Appendix 7.2. Five ponds of varying size weree present outwith the Site S to the north, but within a 500m buffer of the Sitee boundary. The ponds are approximately 530m from the nearest proposed turbine (turbine 8) ) and approximately 180m from the nearest proposed infrastructure, an existing e access track that will be upgradedd (see Figure 7.13). The pondss were assessed as providing potential great crested newt habitat, with broad-leaveb d aquatic vegetation suitable for egg-laying limited but present, large areass of open water suitable for courtship behaviour and good surrounding terrestrial habitat for both foraging and hibernation. No great crested newts were recorded within any of the ponds surveyed during any of the survey visits. Small numbers of smooth newts Lissotriton vulgaris were recorded in Pondss 3 and 5, with the presence of both males and females in both ponds confirming the likely presence of a breeding population. A peak count of six smooth newts was recorded in Pond 5 on the 12th May Both common frog Rana temporaria and common toadd Bufo bufoo tadpoles were recorded within all five ponds, along with adult frogs recorded within the terrestrial habitatt surrounding Ponds 1 and 3 and adult toads within the terrestrial habitat surrounding Pond 3. Given the lack of evidence of great crested newt presence withinn the Site, it is considered to be absent for the purposes of this assessmenta t, and this species is not considered furtherr in this EcIA. The conservation value assigned to the amphibian assemblage present at the Site as part of this assessment is less than local. ECOLOGY Page 7-32

248 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Otter Otters have been recorded from virtually all types of water and waterway in the UK, including rivers and streams of all sizes, and will use smaller watercourses, including dry watercourses, as commuting routes or as foraging habitat. No records for otter were provided p byy the CPBRC within a 2km radius of the Site. In May 2011, an otter survey of the survey area was undertaken to determine the extent and suitability of habitat present and to identify the presence of any signss of otter using the survey area. The findings of this survey are presented in full in Appendix 7.2. Potential habitat suitable to support otter is present within the Site in the form of the network of ditches and larger drains d that delineate the Sites field boundaries, and directly adjacent to thee site with the Thorney River to the east and the Prior s Fen gravel pits too the south. Small fish were observed within the Thorney Dike and withinn the largerr drains in the north of the site, providing potential foraging habitat for otters. The smaller drains within the site and ponds outwith the site to the north may also represent a seasonal foraging resource. Habitat with potential to support holts or couches was common, with all thee drains having banks suitable for holt excavation, although vegetative cover c alongg the ditches was limited and therefore the presence of undiscovered holts is considered unlikely The survey did not identify any evidence of otter presence within the Survey Area. Given the lack of definitive field signs of otter within the Survey Area, the Site is unlikely to provide an important habitat resource r for the species, which is not therefore considered further in this EcIA. However, the t presence of potential habitat within the Site means that there is a potential for this species to colonise the Site and reasonable avoidance measures should be considered in the mitigation section. Water Vole Records received from the CPBRC confirmed the presence of water vole within a 2km radius off the Site. In May 2011, a waterr vole survey of the survey area was undertaken to determinee the extent and suitability of habitat present within the Site and to identifyy the presence of any signs of water vole using the Site. The findings of this survey, ncluding water vole target notes, are presented in full in Appendix 7.2 and are displayed on Figure Evidence of water volee activity was recorded along thee Thorney Dike and along the large drainss in the north of the Site. Water vole burrows were recorded att locations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23 and 24 in Figure Droppings, latrines, feedingg signs and runs were also recorded in the vicinityy of these burrows. No evidence of waterr vole presence was recorded onn the many smaller drains within the Site, although the unusually dry conditions in the period preceding the t survey meant that many of these drains were dry at the time of survey. It is probable that when these smaller drainss contain water they ECOLOGY Page 7-33

249 are colonised by the local waterr vole population, and even whenn dry they may be used by individuals dispersing across the landscape The results of the water vole survey indicate that the Site represents well- on the used water vole habitat, with confirmed water vole populations larger water features in the northh of the Site and southh of the Survey Area, and with potential habitat present throughout the Site. The water vole is fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Water voles are a found throughout the UK but have undergone a significant contraction inn range during recent years due to habitat loss andd increased predationn by escaped north American mink, resulting in localised extinctions. As such, s the water vole population within the Site is considered to have a high local/county conservation value and appropriate mitigation measures may bee required to prevent damage to t water voles or their burrows and a complyy with the relevant legislation. Badgers Badger surveys across the Sitee were undertaken during May 2011 with results presented in full in Appendix 7.2 and displayed on Figure 7.15 (confidential figure). The badger survey confirmedd that the Site itselff is almostt entirely dominatedd by arable land, which represents a foraging resource for badgers, with dense cover (woodland/scrub/ditch banks) common within the Site, thus providing potentiall sites for sett excavation. The badger survey confirmed the presencee of a four entrance e badger sett within a ditch on the western edge of the Site, with entrances on either side of the ditch banks. Badgerr guard hairs were found in the fresh spoil of the settt entrances and fresh latrines were present along the bank tops in the vicinity of the sett. Threee further single entrance badger setts were recorded along the western edgee of the Site. The results of the badger survey indicate that the Site S represents well- in most used badger habitatt and contains evidence of badger activityy areas of the Site, with setts restricted to the western edge of the Site. Although protected under thee Protection of Badgers Act 1992, this protection is affordedd the badger due to persecutionn rather than for its conservation status. Badgerss are common throughout the East of England. As such, the badger population within the Site S is considered to have a less than local conservation value, althoughh it should be noted that badger setts represent a statutory constraint and thus mitigation is recommended to ensure compliance with the relevant legislation. Reptiles Specific surveys forr reptiles were not undertaken at the Site as the ecologicall scoping exercise undertaken in April 2010 concluded that suitable reptile habitat was limited within the Site boundary and no records ECOLOGY Page 7-34

250 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT of reptile species weree held by the CPBRC within w a 2kmm radius of the Site boundary. Potentiallyy suitable habitat for reptiles was checked whenever on-site between 2010 and 2012 for incidental observations of reptiles, not in an attempt to undertake a full reptile survey, but aimed at assisting in determining whether reptiles weree present within w the Site Although the CPBRC did not provide records of any reptiles within a 2km radius of the Site, a search of the NBN Gateway G website did indicate records for the reptile species grass snake Natrix natrix, slow-worm Anguis fragilis and viviparous lizard Zootocaa vivipara within the 10km grid square TF20 within which the Site lies. Potentially suitable reptile habitatt is limited within w the Site to the woodland edge habitat, as well as the extensive ditches and grassy ditch banks. A single adult male grass snake was recorded on 100 th May 2011 within Pond 3, outwith the site to the north, duringg a great crested newt survey visit. Grasss snakes favour aquatic habitatss including ponds, lakes and rivers, but bank-side vegetation to providee cover is important, as are habitat linkages in thee form of ditches, hedges or banks of rough grass and scrub. As such potential habitat for grass g snake is common both within the site and within adjacent habitats, and itt is reasonable to consider this species as likely to be present within the drainage network of the Site. Slow worms spend thee majority of time in deep vegetation or underground in humid, overgrownn areas of rough grassland, g woodland edges, heathland and scrub. Given this, habitat within w the Site is limited to the woodland edge habitat, as well as the extensive grassy drain banks. Although this t species was not observed, its presence cannot be completely ruled out. The viviparous lizard ss preferred habitat is damp heathland, but they are also often found in open woodland and rough grassland. Potentially suitable habitat within the Site is limited to the t woodland edge habitat, as well as the extensive grassy ditch banks. This T speciess was not observed and is considered unlikely to be present. Grass snake receives protection through listing on Schedule 5 of the WCA 1981 (as amended) and slow worm and viviparous lizard receive the same level of protection. The reptile population within w the Site is considered to have a lesss than local conservation value. ECOLOGY Page 7-35

251 SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICALL EVALUATION Table 7.8 summarises the conservation value of the key ecological features and receptors (non-ornithological) that will be b considered in the impact assessment. Table 7.8: Summary of Values of Key Ecological Receptors Ecological Feature or Receptor Nature Conservation value Designated Sites Nene Washes SPA International Nene Washes SAC International Nene Washes SSSI National Thorney Dike CWS County C Cat's Water Drain CWS County C Eyebury Road Pits CWS County C Prior s Fen Gravel Pits Local Habitats and Flora Agricultural habitats Arable Negligible Improved grassland Negligible Woodland Broad-leaved woodlandd - plantationn Less than local Other Aquatic habitats - Ditches and drains Local Track, hard-standing and buildings Negligible N Flora Less than local Fauna Bat roosting habitat within the Site and wider Survey Less than local Area Bat foraging habitat within the Site Local Nyctalus species bats (noctule( and Leisler s bat) Local Nathusius pipistrelle Local Serotine Local Common and soprano pipistrelle bats Local Myotis species bats Less than local Water voles County C Amphibians Less than local Badgers Less than local Reptiles Less than local ECOLOGY Page 7-36

252 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 7.7 IMPACT ASSESSME ENT Nature of Impacts Construction, Operational and Decommissioning Phase The potential impacts affecting habitats and species during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the proposed development are discussed in greater detail in Chapter r 2: Site Selection & Project Description. A brief summary of the construction stages and methods is set out below. Eight identical turbines, each with a maximum height from the turbine base to the top of thee blade tip of 126.5m will be constructed within the Site. The estimated on-site construction period for the development will be 6 to 9 months and this includes a programme to reinstate the working areas. The construction programme will consist of thee following principal operations, listed sequentially, wherever possible. The development will be phased so that certain activities listed beloww will take place concurrently: Construction of site entrance; Construction of temporary site office area and establishment of a storage area for wind farm components and temporary site facilities; Upgrades to existing tracks and construction of new access tracks t to wind turbine locations and to substation control building; Construction of wind turbine foundationss and hard-standing areas; Excavation of cable trench and cable laying; Construction of substation; Erection of wind turbines; Connection of on-site off the site equipment; and Site reinstatementt and restoration. The tracks will be approximately 4.5m wide, w with some widening on electrical power and signal cables; Commissioning bends, gradients, junctions and turning places. A total of approximately 4.3km of new track will be required to servicee the turbinee locations. Depending on local ground conditions, access trackk will normally be constructed by first stripping the topsoil to a depth of about 0.3m, and laying a compacted stone base. A geotextilee membranee will then be laid to reduce the impact onn the soils. The trackk will then be built up on the geotextile by laying and compacting an additional 0.4mm of crushed stone to give a total thickness of approximately 0.7m. The tracks would be suitably cambered too allow rainwater to be shed where gradients are present, lateral drainss will intercept flow along the road. Where tracks cross existing field drains, these will be eitherr bridged or culverted to preventt any interference with land drainage. The foundations proposed for the turbines are an inverted T, in section consisting of a reinforced central concrete pedestal withh a permanent area of 17m in diameter with a sloping batter to a total of approximately 25m diameter. Actual turbine foundation design and a dimensions will be specific ECOLOGY Page 7-37

253 to the site conditions as verified during the detailed site construction investigations, undertaken before commencing projectt installation At the site of each wind turbine, hard-standing areas for wind turbine erection and foundations will bee created. A crushedd stone crane hard- be standing area, approximately 30m wide and 50m long will therefore required adjacent to each turbine base for related construction and crane erection activities. A securee temporary storage compound will be required r during the construction period. The compound will be approximately 70m by 50m of crushed stone construction. The compound and laydown areas will be used to site temporary portacabin type structures to be usedd for site offices and welfare facilities ncluding toilets, with provision p 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. 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. Areas of the Site will be reinstated to approximately their previous grade and condition. Turbine foundations and the verges of tracks will be rethen re- graded with topsoil stored adjacent to each excavation, and seeded or cultivated as appropriate. The temporary site office area will be cleared of hardcore and re-graded with soil to a natural profile and restored. The access tracks will be left in place after construction of the wind farm. On cessation of wind farm operations, all major equipment and structures will be removed from the Site. This process will take approximatea ely two to three months. Restoration requirements would normally cover the removal of all turbines (rotors, nacelle and tower), removal of the upper section of turbine foundations too a depth of 1m (to permit the continuation of current agricultural practices), and removal of anemometry mast and foundations to a depth of 1m, followed by reinstatement of alll affected areas. Unless requested otherwise by the landowner or where they already exist on site, additional on-site access tracks will be removed and the affected area reinstated. The substation control building will also be dismantled, all equipment removed from the Site andd the area reinstated as appropriate. All undergroundd cables, typically located one metre below ground level, would normally be left in place. All crane c hardstandings adjacent to turbines will be removed to below ploughing level and then reinstated and the land returnedd to former use. Generic Impacts Some of the impacts predicted as a result of the proposed wind farm can be considered generic impactss which are typicallyy associated with a development of this nature. A receptor may be affected by eachh of these generic impacts or just one. A summary description of these impacts is presented in Table 7.9. In addition, the presence of these t impacts in the construction and/or the operational phase of the proposed wind turbine is indicated. It should be notedd that the impacts associated a with the ECOLOGY Page 7-38

254 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT operationall phase off the scheme are considered to be permanent, whereas temporary impacts, which are onlyy apparent while the turbine is being installed, arise during the construction phase Where possible it is good practice to providee an estimate of the likelihood of an impact occurring. In this chapter, the following four-point scale has been used where appropriate, as recommended in IEEM s Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK (IEEM, 2006): Certain/near-Certain: probability estimated at 95% chance or higher. Probable: probability estimated above 50% but below 95%. Unlikely: probability estimated above 5% but less than 50%. Extremely Unlikely: probability estimatedd at less than 5%. Table 7.9: Generic Impacts of the Proposed Wind Farm on Habitats and Species Generic Impacts Effects on Habitat Features/Species on Site Direct habitat The proposed wind farm will w loss involve the construction of access tracks, turbine bases, crane hard- a standings, site compound and substation within undeveloped habitats, resulting in direct habitat loss. The maximumm area of this permanent loss is predicted to be b (4.90ha), with some areas at the marginss experiencing temporary loss followed by re-vegetation. Fragmentation Direct habitat loss will result in of habitat habitat fragmentation, due to the areas placement of a barrier access road for example, bisecting habitat areas and potentially creatingg a barrier to the movement of species recorded as a present t and affecting the integrity of the habitat. Damage and The construction of the proposed disturbance to development has the potential to habitats and cause temporary damage and species disturbance to nearby habitats and species for the duration of the works, as a direct result of activities such as vehicle movements and noise. Hydrological damage The construction of the wind farm has thee potential to cause direct hydrological damage, either due to access tracks crossing watercourses or the excavation of the windd turbine bases and other infrastructure within hydrologically sensitive habitats. This may then in turn have an indirect effect on o adjacent habitats and/ /or dependent species. Construction Operational Phase Phase Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No ECOLOGY Page 7-39

255 Generic Impacts Effects on Habitatt Features/Speciess on Site Displacement Both the construction and of species operation of the wind farm have the potential to displace species, but in subtly different ways. During construction, the impacts will be primarily terrestrial, causing habitat loss and deterring species from entering the area. During operation, the surrounding terrestrial habitats will be restored; however the operational wind turbine t may displace avian and other species. Collision risk The moving rotorss of operational wind turbines mayy present a risk of collision to fauna such as bird and bat species flying over the area. Dust During construction, the deposition on excavation works have the sensitive potential to cause additional dust habitats or deposition or sedimentation, sedimentation which may affect sensitive habitats nearbyy (if any), depending in the direction of the prevailing winds and presencee of watercourses/waterbodies. Light pollution The construction of the wind farm of habitats may involve additional lighting used by such as around the site species compound which could alter the behaviour of nocturnal species. Construction Operational Phase Phase Yes No Yes Yess Yess No Yes No Impacts on Key Ecological Receptors The character of the impacts on ecological receptors that have been evaluated as being of nature conservation value in the preceding section of this EcIA are assessed here with reference to the t type off impacts detailed in Table 7.9. The impacts on each receptor are assessed in terms of their magnitude and overall significance using the matrices set out in Table 7.3 and Table 7.4. Impacts on Designated Sites The nearest statutory designated site to the Site iss the Nenee Washes SPA, SAC and SSSI,, located approximately 2.1km to the t south and south- on east of the Site. It is considered certain that there will w be no impact the aquatic habitats or non-avian fauna the Nene Washes SAC and SSSI have been designated for, as the site is not hydraulically connected to the survey area and too far away for impacts from dust deposition. The Nene Washes SPA and SSSI were also designated for their avian populations. Potential impacts on avian receptors are dealt with w in Chapter 8: Ornithology. ECOLOGY Page 7-40

256 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT There are three t non-statutory designated sites and thee Prior s Fen gravel pits within a 2km radius of the Site boundary, with the Thorney Dike CWS located along the southern boundary of the Site S and thee Prior s Fen gravel pits located outwith but directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site. Although a 600m buffer has been allowed between both of these sites and the nearest wind farm infrastructure, there is a minimal risk of impacts on these sites caused by the deposition of dust as a result of construction activities and of run-off from the t Site entering the Thorney Dike. Any such impacts are predicted too be unlikely to occur, and temporary in nature and of a low magnitude impact on receptors assessed as being of f county nature conservation value, in terms of this Site, and would therefore be assessed to bee minor impacts and therefore not significant in terms of this EcIA. Two more non-statutory designated sites are located within a 2km radius of the Site, includingg Cat's Water Drain CWS C 1.5kmm to the west and Eyebury Road Pits CWS located 2km to thee west of the Site. Neither of these sitess is sufficiently close to the proposal to bee influenced by the proposed developmen nt. They are thus certain to experience no impact from the proposed wind farm. Impacts on Habitats and Flora The main impact on the habitats and floraa within thee Site is direct loss during the construction and decommissioning periods. The areas of habitat within the Site to be lost permanently and directly to the proposed development infrastructure are presented in Table and include those areas which are estimated to be temporary loss. Areas of temporary habitat loss include working corridors adjacent to constructionn areas, where the habitat mayy temporarily lose its ecological functionality during the construction period, but which are not considered to be adversely affected on a permanent basis. The calculations of habitat loss are based onn the layoutt and dimensions of the wind farm components described in Chapter 2, which have then been used in a GIS to apply infrastructure buffers to calculate the appropriate areas of each habitat to be lost. For the turbines, the permanent habitat losss has been calculated using a circular footprint around the base of each turbine location, of a diameter of approximately 17m, to include all of the concrete foundation; the temporary habitat loss arising from the adjacent working area was calculated by extending the radius of the circular footprint by 4.5m.. Habitat loss associated with new access tracks was based on a permanent buffer 4.5m wide (2.25m either side of thee track centre line) and a temporary buffer 10m wide. Other infrastructure features such as areas a of hard-standing, site compound and areass of hard-standing required for crane siting, were calculated based on the footprint of each structure as provided in the design layout. For each of these features a temporary working area extending to t 5m beyond each feature was used u to calculate the extent of temporary habitat loss. ECOLOGY Page 7-41

257 For all the infrastructure features associated with w the proposed development, the amount of habitat losss calculated is basedd on the proposed dimensions of the features, and provides an indicative assessment of the impact of the habitatt loss likelyy to result from the construction of the proposed development. Table 7.10: Area of Land Takee Associated with Sitee Infrastructure and Temporary Buffers Site Infrastructure New access tracks (4.3km) Existing access tracks (1.8km) Site Compound (50m x 70m) Crane hardstanding (50m by 30m) Met mast Substation/control housing (26m x 12m) Turbines (x8; 17m diameter) Total Permanent Temporary Area (ha) % of Survey Area (ha) % of Survey area area <0.011 < Table 7.11 summarises the area of habitat loss for each e habitat type for permanent and temporary workss respectively. Table 7.11: Predicted Habitat Loss of Habitat Typess Present Within the Site Habitat Agricultural habitats Arable land Woodland Broadleaved woodland - plantation Aquatic habitats Ditch/drain Other habitats Track, hardstanding and buildings Area in site boundary Permanent Habitatt % of Loss Survey (Ha) Area < <0.01 Temporary Habitat % of Loss Survey (Ha) Area All direct habitat loss will be certain to occur and is considered permanent in terms of the 25-year lifespan of the wind farm. Total losses for temporary and permanent land take is estimated to be 12ha (5.06%) of the total Survey Area. ECOLOGY Page 7-42

258 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Permanentt and temporary habitat loss will result inn a loss off 4.90ha (2.07%) and 7.10ha (3.00%) of the Site respectively. The details of the habitat losss and resulting magnitude of impact are detailed below. Agricultural Habitats Arable Land An area of 4.71ha of arable land will be lost permanently as a result of the proposed developmen nt, with a further 6.51ha lost temporarily. This loss of arable habitat is mainly due to the construction of access tracks, with smaller areas of habitat to be lost through the construction of the crane hard-standings, turbinee foundations, substation and met mast foundations. This loss of arable land is certain to occurr and is anticipated as having only a low magnitude impact on a receptor of o negligible value resulting in no significant impact. Improved Grassland No impacts are anticipated on this habitat as a no habitat loss is expected. As a result, improvedd grassland, a habitat assessed to be of negligible nature conservation value will be subject to no n impact. Woodland Broad-leaved Woodland Plantation A small area (0.06ha) of broad-leaved of the proposed development, with a further plantation woodland will be lost permanently as a result 0.24ha lostt temporarily. This losss of broad-leaved tracks. This loss of broad-leaved plantation woodland habitat is certain to occur andd is anticipated as plantation woodland is due to the construction of access having only a low magnitude impact on a receptor of less than local value resulting in no significant impact. There is a minimal risk of impacts on these habitats caused by the deposition of dust as a result of construction n activities. Any such impacts are predicted to be unlikely to occur, and temporary in nature and of a barely perceptible magnitude impact on a receptor assessed as being of less than local nature conservation value, resulting in no significant impact. Aquatic Habitats Ditch/Drain Approximately 0.12haa of ditch and drain habitat will be culverted or bridged as a result off the proposed development, with a furtherr 0.31ha temporarily disturbed. This loss of open ditch/drain habitat is due to the construction of accesss tracks. This loss of habitat h is certain to occur and is anticipated as having a low magnitude impact on a receptor of local value resulting in a minor significant impact. ECOLOGY Page 7-43

259 There is also a minimal risk off impacts on the ditchh and drainn habitats within the Site caused by the deposition of dust as a result r of construction activities and of run-off from the Site entering the ditches. Any such impacts are predicted to be probable to occur, and temporary in nature and of a low magnitude impactt on receptors assessed as beingg of local nature conservation value, in terms of this Site, and would therefore be assessed to be minor significant impacts in terms off this EcIA. Other Habitats Track, Hard-standing and Buildings A small area (<0.01ha) of hard-standing/track will be lost permanently as a result of the proposed development, with a further 0.04ha lost temporarily. This loss of semi-improved grassland habitat is due too the construction of new access tracks. This loss of hard-standing/trackk is certainn to occur and is anticipated as having a barely perceptible magnitude impact on a receptor of negligiblee value resulting in no significant impact. Flora No net loss in species diversity is anticipated as the majority of the habitats to be lost comprise arable farmland and the total area to be lost is a small proportion off the habitats present within the Site S and in the wider landscape. All the habitats present will retain the majorityy of their coverage. The proposed development is expected to have a barely perceptible impact on a receptor of less than local nature conservation value resulting in no significantt impact. There are no further predicted impacts on habitats during the operational stage of the proposed development. During decommissioning, it is likely that theree will be loss of small areas of re-vegetated habitat when the turbines are removed. Assuming that habitats andd land management regimes remain generally similar to the present time, this is not expected to result in any significant impact. The methods to be used during decommissioning will be designed to avoid or minimise impacts on habitats and would be detailedd in a method statement to be completed and agreed with the relevant authorities prior to thee commencement of decommissioning. Impacts on Fauna Bats Although the impacts of wind turbines on bats in the UK are incompletely understood, guidance has been provided by Natural England E (2009; 2012) and the Bat Conservation Trust (2010; 2012). Potential impactss of wind farms on bats considered here include: direct loss of roosts and/or foraging habitat; indirect effects on roosts and foraging habitats through disturbance and displacement; ECOLOGY Page 7-44

260 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT loss off commutingg routes due to barrier effects and fragmentation of habitats; and direct mortality resulting from collision risk or barotrauma In the absence of a robust evidence base regarding the likely significant effects, it is considered to be best practice to adopt a precautionary approach when assessing the potential impacts of windd farms on bats. Roost Habitat None of the areas of woodland or individual trees assessed as providing low to moderate potential roosting opportunities for batss within the Site will be directly affected byy the proposed development. All buildings providing potentially suitable roosting opportunities outwith o the Site boundary are considered to be sufficiently distant from the turbine locations (in excess of 500m) so as not to be influenced by the proposed development. The nearest proposed turbine to the trees assessed as providing moderate potential for roostingg bats within Woodland 1 is Turbine 4, located approximately 320m too the south-east. than 200m from any of the potential roost Therefore, the developablee area of potential turbines is greater locations, this distancee being the minimum within w whichh additional surveys would potentially be required (BCT, 2012). All of thesee locations identified as potential roost habitat, both within the Site and the wider Survey Area are a sufficient s distance away from proposed wind farm infrastructure so as to be b certain that there will be no direct impacts as a result of the development. However, there is a risk of indirect disturbance onn these potential roostt sites caused by vibration and lighting at night duringg the construction phase of the development and of bats avoiding the area post-constructionn due to the presence of operationall turbines. Any such impacts are predictedd to be unlikely to occur, but could potentially be of a low magnitude impact on a receptor assessed as being of less than local naturee conservation value, resulting in minor/noo significant impact. Foraging Habitat With the exception of short sections of ditch/ /drain habitat and a small area of semi-mature broad-leavethe Site are considered to be off sub-optimal foraging habitat, plantation, thee majority of the habitats to be lost within predominantly composed of open arable habitats, which are common within the local area. The direct loss of these relatively minor areas of habitat is considered to lead to effects of low magnitude on the foraging potential for bats, a receptor assessed ass being of local conservation value, resulting in an impact of minor significance. There is a probable risk of indirect effects on habitatss used by foraging bats within the Site through disturbance during the construction phase of the development, including through artificial lighting at night. Such effects would be temporary in nature, but wouldd be predicted to be of low magnitude on the foraging potential for bats within the Site, a receptor assessed as being of f local conservation value, resulting in an impact of minor significance. ECOLOGY Page 7-45

261 There is an unlikely risk of longer-term indirect effects on habitats used by foraging bats within the Site through disturbance causedd by the presence of operational turbiness resulting in bats avoiding the area. Such effects during the operational stage would be likely to be permanent in nature, in terms of the 25-year lifespan of the scheme, and predicted to be of low magnitude on the foraging potential of the Site for bats, assessed as being of local conservationn value, resulting in an a impact of minor significance. Impacts on Nyctalus Species (noctule and Leisler s L bat) Bat Populations Given the speeds and height at t which Nyctalus species bats fly, and their use of open habitats, they are considered to be at greater risk from wind farm developments than many of the other bat speciess recorded at Gores, and are considered to t be a highh risk species. However, although noctule passes were recorded at all static locations surveyed in 2012,, with the exception of Location 6, an open arable field, passes were often recorded at relatively low activity levels. The exception to this trend was att Location 14, the woodland shelter belt running along the western w edge of the Survey Area, where a peak of 280 passess was recorded over 15 nights, suggestingg that low numbers of noctule bats were regularly r commuting and potentially foraging along this woodland edge at the time of this survey. As Nyctalus species bats are considered to be at high risk and thee number of bats utilising this Site appearss to be significant at times, the likely risk of collision of bats with turbine blades, or being affected by barotrauma, is such that any impacts are considered probable to occur, o but would be considered to have an effect of low magnitude on the local population status of this species, assessedd as being of local conservationn value in the context of this Site, resultingg in an impact of minorr significance. There is also an unlikely risk of longer-term indirectt effects onn habitats used by foraging Nyctalus species bats within the Site through disturbance caused by the presence of operational turbines resulting in batss avoiding the area. Overall this risk is likely to lead to an effect of low magnitude on the local population status of this species, assessed as beingg of local conservation value in the context of this Site, resulting in an impact of minor significance. Impacts on Nathusius Pipistrelle Bat Populations Nathusius pipistrellee is considered a high risk species for wind farm developments but no records were recorded during thee 2011 surveys; with only five Nathusius pipistrelle passes recorded by static detectors during the 2012 surveys, with three records from Location 17, besidee a small ditch and woodland edge at the centre of the Survey Area and passes recorded at Location 7, open habitat in the centre of the Site adjacent to Location 17. The passes were recorded on two separate nights suggestingg that single bats occasionally commute through the Site. ECOLOGY Page 7-46

262 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Therefore although Nathusius pipistrelle bats are considered to be at high risk from wind farm developments, the number of bats utilising this Survey Area is very low. As such the likely risk of collision of bats with turbine blades, or being affected by barotrauma, iss such that any direct impacts are considered extremely unlikely to occur. There is also an unlikely risk of longer-term indirect effects on habitats usedd by foraging and commuting Nathusius pipistrelle bats withinn the Site through disturbance caused by the presence of operational turbines resulting in bats avoiding the area. Overall thiss risk is likely to lead to an effect of low magnitude on the local populationn status of this species, assessed as being of local conservation value in the context of this Site, S resulting in an impact of minor significance. Impacts on Serotine Bat Populations Given the use of a range of habitats by serotine bats, including open habitats, individuals off this species are assessed to bee at mediumm risk of collision with wind turbines, with population threat caused by wind energy developments also assessed as medium. Serotine bats were not recordedd during thee surveys completed in 2011, however serotine passes were recorded at four of the open habitat static locations surveyed inn 2012 (Locations 3, 5, 8 and 10) and five of the habitat feature locations surveyed (Locations 11, 13, 14, 16 and 19), but always at low activityy levels. A peak of 21 passess was recorded at Location 14, the woodland shelter belt running along the western edge of the Survey Area, suggesting thatt a single orr low numbers of serotine bats occasionally forage and commute along this woodland edge. Due to the low activity detected by this species at thee Survey Area, the likely risk of collision of bats with turbine blades, or r being affected by barotrauma, is such that any direct impacts are considered unlikely to occur. There is also an unlikely risk of longer-term indirect effects on habitats used by commuting and foraging serotine bats within the Site through disturbance caused by the presence of operational turbines resulting in bats avoiding the area. Combined, thesee impacts would be considered to have an effect of low magnitude on the local population status of this species, assessed as being of o local conservation value in the contextt of this Site, resulting in an impact of minor significance. Impacts on Common and Soprano Pipistrelle Bats Common and soprano pipistrelle bats were recorded across all the surveyed locations in 2012, both in open habitats and at habitat features, f indicating that t they are ubiquitous across the Site and the surrounding habitats. Common pipistrelle was by far the t most frequently recorded r species during the 2011 static detector surveys, accounting for a total of 2,365 calls, or approximately 75% of the bat passes recorded. Soprano pipistrelle was the second most frequentlyy recorded species, with 657 (20.8%) passes recorded. During the 2012 static detector surveys, common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle were w again the most frequently recorded species, accounting for a total of 8,6166 and 8,390 calls respectively, or approximately 47.2% and 46% of the bat passes recorded r respectively. ECOLOGY Page 7-47

263 Despite the relatively large number of calls identified as a either common or soprano pipistrelle, the activity levels were generally considered c to be low within open habitats and high too very high, relative too activity within other parts of the Site, at some habitat features, particularly the woodland shelter belt along the westernn edge of the Site. Overall, the local population of pipistrelle species is considered to be unexceptional, and the levels of activity and patterns of temporal and spatial distribution are typical of the agricultural landscape present at the Site. Effects on individual bats through collision of bats with turbine blades, or being affected by barotrauma, are considered unlikely due to the limited pipistrelle activity recorded withinn the Site s open habitats. There is also an unlikely risk of longer-term indirect effects on habitats used by commuting and foraging common and soprano pipistrelle bats within the Sitee through disturbance caused by the presence of operational turbines resulting in bats avoiding the area. The combined riskss detailed would w be expected to have an effect of low magnitude on populations of species of local value in the context of the Site, resulting in an impact of minor significance. Impacts on Myotis Species Bats Myotis species bats were recorded at 11 of the 20 static detector locations in 2011, and most commonly at habitat feature locations. A peak of 26 passes was recorded at Location 13 on a large ditch to the south-west corner of the Survey Area. Calls by Myotis species bats were recorded at nearly all static detector locations in 2012, with the exception of Locations 6 and 11. Myotis species calls were usually recorded at relatively low activity levels, but with a peak of 155 calls recordedd over ten nights at Location 16, the woodland shelter belt to the west of the Site, suggesting Myotis bats were regularly commuting and potentiallyy foraging along this area of woodland at the t time of that survey. Myotis species bats are generally considered unlikely to fly at t a height where they would be at risk from collision or barotrauma. Therefore, this risk of direct collision to individual Myotis species bats b is assessed as being extremely unlikely to occur, and of low magnitude on populations of speciess of less than local value in the context of the Site, resulting in no significant impact. There is also an unlikely risk of longer-term indirect effects on habitats used by foragingg Myotis species bats within the Site through disturbance caused by the presence of operational turbines resulting in bats avoiding the area. Water Vole The survey confirmed the presence of water vole within the Site, including extensive evidence of activityy along the ditch/drain delineating the northern Site boundary and within the Thorney Dike. D Although no evidence of water vole presence was recorded along the many smaller ditches/drains which define thee field margins across the Site, the dry conditions at the time of the survey meant that most of thesee ditches contained no water. All ditch habitat within the Site represents s potential water vole habitat and it is expected that during yearss when these smaller ditches contain water the extent of the water vole population p within the ECOLOGY Page 7-48

264 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Site will be greater The proposed accesss track layout involvess seven drain crossings, all of which are at existing culverted drain crossings. The existing crossings may need to t be widened and/or reinforced as a detailed in Chapter 6 of the ES. If water vole burrows weree found to be present in the immediate vicinity of a proposed drain crossing andd where micrositing was not possible then the potential direct impactss arising from the proposed scheme on water voles would be probable to occur and of low magnitude impact on a receptor assessed as a being of f high local/county nature conservation value, in terms of this Site, resulting in a minor significantt impact. Impacts relating to loss of limited areas of water volee habitat in an area such as this, with extensive good habitat both within and outwith the Site, are certain to occur and can be consideredd as a low magnitude impact on a receptor assessed as being of high local/county nature conservation value, inn terms of this Site, resulting in a minor significant impact. There is also a probable risk of indirectt impacts on ditch and drain habitats used by water voles caused by b vibration, runoff and the deposition of dust as a result of construction activities. Although temporary in nature, such impacts are anticipated a as having a low magnitude impact on a receptor of high local/county value resulting in a minor significant impact. Notwithstanding the above minor predicted impacts, the concept of unmitigated impacts too water voles is a theoretical one,, due to their status as a statutory protected species. Water vole mitigation will thus be required in order to ensure compliance with the t relevantt legislation. Badgers The survey confirmedd the presence of a four entrancee badger sett to the west of the Site, with entrances on either side s of a ditch. Further single entrance badger setts were also recorded to the west off the Site. Badger foraging habitat is widespread throughout the Site and in adjacent habitats. As such it is unavoidable that during d the site clearance and construction phase, there will be temporary disturbancee of, or damage to, habitats that are used by the local badger population. However a minimum 115m buffer has beenn allowed between thee wind farmm infrastructure and the nearestt identified badger sett. As such no setts will be affected by the proposed developmen nt. Impacts affecting small areas of badger foraging habitat in an area such as this, with extensive habitat both within and outwith the Site, can be considered as a barely perceptible magnitude impact on a receptor assessed as being of less than local nature conservation value, in terms of this Site,, and wouldd be assessed to be of no significant impact on the badger population in terms of this EcIA. It is assessed that thee operation of the proposed Gores Wind Farm will ECOLOGY Page 7-49

265 have no impact on the local badger population Notwithstanding the unlikely nature of any potential impacts onn badgers and in order to ensure that any potential impacts in respect of thiss species are reduced to a minimum, reasonable avoidancee measuress will be outlined in the mitigation section. Reptiles The survey confirmed the presence of grass snakee within thee Survey Area, with slow worm and viviparous lizard not observed but nott possible to rule out completely. The woodland edgee and ditch/drain habitats, which provide the most suitable habitat for reptiles within the Site, will only be affected by the development to a limited extent, with seven ditch crossings identified, all of which are at existing culverts. The majority m of proposed wind farm infrastructure will largely be in areas of arable habitatt which is unsuitable for reptiles. Impactss affecting small areass of reptile habitat at field margins, with further habitat both within and outwith the Site, can be considered of a barely perceptible magnitude on o the local reptile populations, which (if present) would be a receptor assessed ass being of less than local nature conservation value, resulting in no significant impact. Notwithstanding the unlikely nature of any potential impacts onn reptiles, due to the protection conferredd on thesee species by b the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, reasonable avoidance measures will be outlined in the mitigation section to ensure that all potential impacts in respect of these species are reduced to a reasonable minimum. Amphibians The survey confirmed the presence of common frog, common toad and smooth newt within the ponds outwith the Site to the north. These ponds and surrounding habitat will not be affected by the developmend nt, with a minimum 500m buffer between the ponds and thee nearest proposed turbine and 180m to t the nearest proposed accesss track, which may require upgrading. Limited impacts on the Site s ditch/drain habitats, which may also be used by amphibian species, are also predicted. Impacts affecting small areas of amphibian foraging habitat, but no potential breeding habitat, in an area such as this, withh further habitat both within and outwith the Site, cann be considered as a barely perceptible magnitude impact on a receptor assessed as being of less than local nature conservation value, in terms of this Site, resulting in no significant impact on the amphibian population in terms of this EcIA. Summary of Impact Assessment The impacts predicted as a result of the Table 7.12 below. wind farm are summarised in ECOLOGY Page 7-50

266 Table 7.12 Impact Summary Table Receptor Evaluation Nature of Impact Magnitude Impact Significance Impact Designated Sites Nene Internationa No Impact No Impact No Impact Washes SAC l Nene National No Impact No Impact No Impact Washes SSSI Thorney Dike County Site run-off Low impact Minor CWS and dust significant deposition impact Cat's Water County No Impact No Impact No Impact Drain CWS Eyebury County No Impact No Impact No Impact Road Pits CWS Prior s Fen gravel pits Local Dust deposition Habitats and Flora Agricultural habitats Arable land Negligible Loss of habitat Improved grassland Woodland Broad-leaved woodland - plantation Low impact Minor significant impact Low impact No significant impact Negligible No impact No impact No impact Less local than Loss habitat Dust deposition Aquatic habitats Ditch/drain Local Loss of habitat Other habitats Track, hardstanding and buildings Flora Less than local Fauna Bat roost Local habitat within the Site and wider Survey Area of Site run-off and dust deposition Negligible Loss of habitat Loss habitat of Direct loss of roost habitat Indirect disturbance to roost habitat Low impact Barely perceptible impact Low impact Low impact Barely perceptible Barely perceptible No impact Low impact No significant impact No significant impact Minor significant impact Minor significant impact No significant impact No significant impact No impact Minor/no significant impact ECOLOGY Page 7-51

267 Receptor Evaluation Nature of Impact Bat foraging Local habitat within the Site Nyctalus species bats Nathusius pipistrelle Direct loss of foraging habitat Indirect disturbance to foraging habitat during construction Displacement from foraging habitat during operation Local Collision risk and displacement from foraging habitat during operation Local Collision risk and displacement from foraging habitat during operation Serotine Local Collision risk and displacement Common and soprano pipistrelle bats from foraging habitat during operation Local Collision risk and displacement from foraging habitat during operation Myotis Less than Collision risk species bats local and displacement from foraging habitat during operation Water vole County Direct impacts/loss of water vole burrows Loss of habitat Disturbance during construction Impact Magnitude Low impact Low impact Low impact Low impact Low impact Low impact Low impact Low impact Low impact Low impact Low impact Impact Significance Minor significant impact Minor significant impact Minor significant impact Minor significant impact Minor significant impact Minor significant impact Minor significant impact No significant impact Minor significant impact Minor significant impact Minor significant impact ECOLOGY Page 7-52

268 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Receptor Badgers Reptiles (if present) Amphibians Evaluation Less local Less local Less local than than than Nature of Impact Losss foraging habitat Disturbance during construction and operation Losss of habitat Losss of habitat Impact Magnitude M of Barely perceptible Barely perceptible Barely perceptible Barely perceptible Impact Significance No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact MITIGATION This section discusses the mitigation measures that are recommended throughout the site clearance, construction and operational phases of the proposed wind farm inn order to protect the ecological e habitats and species present. The mitigation described in this chapter represents only those measures that have been agreedd by the developer as being b an accepted and integral componentt of the proposed scheme. In general, the ecological mitigation measures can be considered to provide one of three key functions detailed in the following paragraphs. The remainder of this section provides more detailss on the generic mitigation proposed as well as the specific mitigation measures detailed for each valued ecological receptor. Firstly, in accordancee with the principles of the EIAA Regulations, the mitigation measures have been developed too prevent, reduce or offset any likely significant effects of the developmen nt on the ecological receptors present at the Site. As stated in section above,, impacts assessed as being off moderate significance or greater using thee EcIA methodology adopted in this chapter are considered to t represent likely significant effects in the t contextt of an EIA. Mitigation measures thereforee aim to reduce the significance of thesee effects. However, H the identification of significant residual impacts after mitigation measures have been considered may resultt in the need for further compensatory measures or may require further r consideration by the competent authority in determining the application. Secondly, the t proposed scheme may resultt in potentially adversee effects on species or habitatss that may benefit fromm statutory protection.. In this case, mitigation measures may be required to ensure legal compliance at an appropriate stagee of the proposed development. Such mitigation measures may include, for example, best practice measures to avoid a potential breach of law, and may be required to ensuree that the proposed development is compliant with the national and local planning policy context. Thirdly, mitigation measures can be viewed as ncluding ecological enhancement measures that may provide direct benefits for biodiversity as an integral part of thee proposed development or indirect benefits arising ECOLOGY Page 7-53

269 from other aspects off the scheme. While such measures may not avoid or reduce likely significant effects, enhancement may contribute to the overall offsetting of adverse impacts on ecological receptors. General Mitigation Measures These measures are aimed to prevent, reduce or o offset any likely significant effects of the development on the ecological receptors present at the Site. Generic mitigation measures are proposed that aimm to apply best practice and protect those habitats and species present, while specific mitigation measures are recommended for those impacts assessed to be significant i.e. of minor significance or greater, as summarised in Table It is recommended that t all mitigation measures are incorporated into a site-specific Ecological Mitigation Strategy (EMS) that would be developed to reflect the seasonality of thee ecological receptors present att the Site and the eventual development programme, includingg pre-construction or enabling works, the constructionn phase, and the operational phase. The EMS would include all works required to prevent or o reduce potentially adverse impacts on ecological receptors, as well as a schedulee for any ecologicall monitoring required at the Site. In addition, the EMS would provide the framework for the provision of the Project Ecologist/Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW), and other recommend dations that reflect environmental best practice in the construction of wind w farms 3 (Scottish Renewables et al., 2010). Prior to the commencement of works, a suitably experiencede d Project Ecologist would be commissioned by the developer to carry out a walkover survey of the entire scheme in conjunction with thee Project Manager (or nominated individual) and a representative e of the Contractor(s), with the aim of micro-siting and agreeing, insofar as possible, all elements of the scheme. Concurrently, or shortly thereafter, in the appropriate survey season and under suitable weather conditions, the developer would w commission a suitably experienced Project Ecologist to carry out a final check for the presence of protected species and to advise on final mitigation requirements in a Pre-Construction Ecological Mitigation Strategy report. The Project Ecologistt would be retained for the duration of the scheme. Mitigation requirements will be agreed between the developer, the Project Ecologist, the Contractor (if commissioned at that stage), Peterborough City Council and Natural England prior to the commencement of works, and would be incorporated into the scheme-specific Ecological E Mitigation Strategy ( EMS). Compliance with the measures set out o in the EMS would be made a condition of the Contract between the developer r and the Contractor. One of the requirements of the EMSS would bee for the developer to retain the services of a suitably experienced Ecologist for the duration of the scheme, with thee purpose of providing site supervision and advice as and when required. The Project Ecologist will report directly to 3 Scottish Renewables, SNH, SEPA & Forestry Commission Scotland (2010) Good Practice During Wind Farm Construction. ECOLOGY Page 7-54

270 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT the developer and will be responsible for the assessment of the Contractor s compliance with ecological procedures in the EMS and to liaise with the t Contractor s Site Agent as/when required The EMS would clearly set out the lines of communication between the Project Manager for the developer, the Contractor s Project Manager and the Ecologist(s), and in particular set out the roles andd responsibilities of the various parties to instruct site-based staff in the event that a matter of legislative compliance e arises on-site at a location where it had not previously been unexpectedly, e.g. if during works a protected species is found anticipated to be. Informationn will be provided by the Ecologist on thee Site s ecological sensitivities, what protected species are present within the proposed construction area andd relevant procedures from f the EMS, for inclusion in the Safety, Health and Environment (SHE) site induction provided to all Contractor staff. Good construction site management will be implemented to avoid/minimise generation of litter, dust, noise and vibration. This will be controlled and monitored through the Contractor s Environmental Management Plan. Mitigation of Impacts on Designated Sites The only designated site potentially affected by the proposed development is the Thorney Dike CWS. Although not a designated site, the Prior s Fen gravel pits,, located adjacent to the southern Survey Area boundary, will also potentially be affected. There is a minimal risk of impacts on both of these sitess caused byy the deposition of dust as a result of construction activities, with an additional risk of site runoff enteringg the Thorney Dike CWS. These potential impacts would be temporaryy in nature and as detailed above, good construction site management will be implemented to avoid/minimise generation of dust. Sediment S traps will also be positioned along ditches entering the Thorney Dike from the Site to trap sediment and stop it entering the CWS. Mitigation of Impacts on Habitats and Floraa Management of excavated soil and subsequent restoration of vegetation will be detailed in a Construction Method Statement (CMS). In addition to directly avoiding or minimising the impacts, it is suggested that an appropriate low-key Habitat Managementt Plan (HMP) be implemented during the operational lifetime of the proposed wind farm, in order to aid the recovery or enhance existing habitats. Habitat management in intensively managed farmland such ass that found in this Site usually result in biodiversity gains whilst also reducing the cost to the landowner of hedgerow and ditch management. Mitigation of identified impacts of minor significance or greater on specific habitats is detailed below. ECOLOGY Page 7-55

271 Ditch/Drain habitats Working areas should be clearlyy defined by pegging out the footprint of the scheme prior to the commencem ment of works. The aimm of this is to restrict the footprint of the scheme too a minimum and to reduce the risk of unnecessary loss off or damage to ditch/ /drain habitats adjacent to the working area. As detailed above, good constructionn site management will be implemented to avoid/minimise generationn of dust and a runoff. Suitable control measures will be implemented to prevent excessive sediment entering aquatic habitats. Thiss will be controlled andd monitoredd through the Contractor s Environmental Management Plan. Mitigation of Impacts on Faunaa The outlined mitigation approaches below are targeted on thee species most likely to be affected by the proposed development. In addition to these species a number of other species may be present on an infrequent basis including reptiles. If at any time it is suspected that a protected species may be present in an area to be disturbed then it is recommended that the area(s) be checked by the ECoW for signs of o use prior r to works going ahead. Bats As part of the sensitive scheme design, the turbines have h been located to ensure that a minimum 50m buffer has been maintained between turbine blade tips and habitat features potentially used by commuting and foraging bats. This conforms with the minimum buffer recommended by Natural England (Natural England, TIN051 Bats and onshore wind turbines). Although no bat roosts were identified within the Site, limited potential roost habitat was present within the woodland shelter belt along the western edge of the Site and within the areas of woodland to thee north of the Site, with further potential roost habitat within thee wider Survey Area. Preventative design means that there will be no direct impact on the potential bat roost habitat identified within or adjacent to the Site. As such pre-construction re-surveys will not be required. However, if the wind farm design changes and potential impacts are identified, further survey may be required. Measuress shall be implementei ed to reduce the potential for even non- kept to significant construction impacts to bats, e.g. artificial lighting will be a minimumm and only installed where necessary. Artificial lights will be directed to shine light onto the working areaa only, with lamp column height kept to a minimum to avoid unnecessary light spillage. Enhancement measures for bats and other species are recommended as part of the HMP, which couldd include habitat enhancements such as native hedgerow/scrub habitat creation (planting) in small pockets of land between newly created access tracks and areas of woodland w where thin ECOLOGY Page 7-56

272 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT areas of land may become non-viable for agriculture. A 5m buffer between newly constructed access tracks and woodland edge and ditch/drain habitats would also result in a grassy g stripp of habitat forming along thesee linear features that would maintain and enhance the current foraging potential of the woodland edge and ditch habitats for bats and other species. Water Voles As detailed, a final check for water vole burrows within approximately 50m of working areas will be conducted prior to the t commencement off the site clearance phase, to ensure legal compliance withh the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,, as amended. Working areas should be clearly defined by pegging p outt the footprint of the scheme prior to the commencement of works. The aimm of this is to restrict the footprint of the scheme to a minimumm and to reduce the risk of unnecessary loss of or damage to ditch/drain habitats adjacent to the working area. As detailed above, good construction site management will be implemented to avoid/minimise generation of dust andd runoff. Sediment traps will be installed to prevent excessive sediment s entering downstream habitats. This will bee controlled and monitored through the Contractor s Environmental Management Plan. A 5m buffer betweenn newly constructed access a tracks and ditch/drain habitats would limit potential disturbance on water voles and would maintain and enhancee the current foraging potential p of the ditch habitats. Measures are recommended to enhance the ditch habitats present within the Site as habitat forr water voles. The measures recommended would likely only involve minor alterations to the current management regime, with potential to reduce annual managementt costs. Badgers As detailed, a final check for badger setts within approximately 50m of working areas will bee conductedd prior to the commencement of the site clearance phase, preferably within the winter or springg periods, to ensure legal compliance with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, as amended. All excavations shall be covered and/or provisions made to t allow mammals which have inadvertently fallen into an excavation overr night to escape by themselves. This is especially important for larger species, e.g. badgers or deer, as they can represent a H& &S hazard to any stafff who try to get them out if theyy do accidentally fall in. An earth ramp or scaffolding board or similar would be suitable. Where dense vegetation/scrub has to be clearedd to facilitate the installation of access track and/or turbine bases, if the potential for hidden setts has been indicated during the site walkover, clearance will be undertakenn using a strimmer/hand saws to avoid a disturbing ground prior to ECOLOGY Page 7-57

273 excavation. Any vegetation clearance works where a hidden sett is considered likely will be undertaken under the supervision of the Project Ecologist If a previously undiscovered mammal burrow was confirmed c as a sett following discovery during vegetation clearance thenn works would stop immediately within an appropriate buffer of it. If it was w not possible to retain a small undiscovered settt then mitigation wouldd be agreedd between Natural England and the Project Ecologist employed by the developer. If the sett has been identified to bee within what is considered an appropriate buffer of the proposed access track and rerouting is not possible, then a licence from Natural England would be likely to be equired before works could lawfully proceed. RESIDUAL IMPACTS Subject to the implementation of mitigation measures indicated above, residual impacts on all ecological receptors identified are of minor significance or less. In order too comply with protected species legislation and minimise impacts of minor significance, and as a matterr of good practice, a range of measures to ensure adequate consideration of ecologicall interests on and around the Site, and to explore opportunities to enhance the biodiversity value of the development area through sensitive design, have been set out in this chapter. The naturee and significance of residual impacts i.e. impacts following mitigation, are summariseds d in Table Table 7.13: Residual Impacts on Impacted Receptors Receptor Designated sites Thorney Dike CWS Prior s Fen gravel Minor pits significant impact Habitats Arable land and broad-leaved plantationn woodland Ditch/drain Impact Without Mitigation Minor significant impact No significant impact Minor significant impact Mitigation Measures -Good construction sitee management to avoid/minimise generation of dust - Sediment traps to prevent sediment entering the Thorney Dike - Good construction sitee management to avoid/minimise generation of dust. -Working areas to be clearly defined to restrict scheme footprint -Development of HMP -Vegetation will be removed according to a construction method statement -Working areas to be clearly defined to restrict scheme footprint -Good construction sitee Residual Impact No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact ECOLOGY Page 7-58

274 Receptor Fauna Indirect disturbance to roost habitat within the Site and wider Survey Area Direct and indirect impacts on bat foraging habitat within the Site Nyctalus species bats, common, soprano and Nathusius pipistrelle bats and serotine Impact Without Mitigation Minor/no significant impact Minor significant impact Minor significant impact Mitigation Measures management to avoid/minimise generation of dust and runoff. -Sediment traps to prevent excess sediment reach downstream habitats -50m buffer has been maintained between bladetips and habitat features -Specific Bat Mitigation Strategy to be developed and agreed prior to construction -Pre construction walkover to micro-site access tracks to ensure no impact on trees - Lighting directed only on working areas -HMP to contain recommendations that will benefit bats, e.g. 5m buffer between access tracks and woodland edge/ditch habitats Residual Impact No significant impact No significant impact Minor significant impact Water vole Minor significant impact, but mitigation required for legislative compliance -Pre construction survey to check for burrows within 50m of working areas -Working areas to be clearly defined to restrict scheme footprint -Good construction site management to avoid/minimise generation of dust - Sediment traps to prevent sediment entering the Thorney Dike -5m buffer between access tracks and ditch habitats -HMP to contain ditch management recommendations that will benefit water voles Minor significant impact Badger No significant impact, but mitigation recommended for legislative compliance -Pre construction mammal survey to check within 50m of working areas preferably in spring or autumn - Vegetation clearance by hand strimmer where hidden setts are a potential - Work to stop and No significant impact ECOLOGY Page 7-59

275 Receptor Impact Without Mitigation and to safeguard site staff Mitigation Measures consultation with NE if sett found within an appropriate buffer and works cannot be re-routed - Excavations will be covered/escape ramps provided Residual Impact CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT There may be cumulative impacts of wind farms on flora f and fauna, with the greatest theoretical risk being of significant impacts arising onn species and habitats of national or international importance resultingg from a number of wind farms being present in a relatively small s area. Current guidance suggests that the highest priority for cumulativee impact assessment is for species and habitats that are declining and/ /or not in favourable conservation status and that species and habitats of very high conservation importance or those vulnerable to wind w farms may be targeted for cumulative assessments (SNH, 2005). Chapter 4 (Landscape and Visual) summarises all wind farms known to be operational, consented, or in planning within 35kmm of the proposed development (see Figure 4.12). Three operational wind farms are located within a 10km radius of the Site comprising the three turbines at McCaines and single turbine att Whittleseyy approximately 6km to t the south-west of the Site and the eight turbine Glass Moor Wind Farm approximately 10km to the south of the Site. Seven further wind farm f schemes have been consented withinn a 10km radius of the Site comprising the single turbine Hundreds Farmm scheme approximately 5km to the north-west; the two small turbines at Little Knarr Forge 6.5km to the east; thee seven turbine Nutsgrove Wind Farm approximately 8km to the north-eastto the north; the six turbine Wryde Croftt scheme the two turbine French F Farmm scheme approximately 7km approximately 8km to the north-east; the three turbine Burnthouse Farm scheme approximately 10km to the south-east; and a fivee turbine extension to the Glass Moor Wind Farm approximately 10km to the south of the Site. A three turbine t scheme at Flag Fen approximately 6km to the south-west and a four turbine extension to the French Farmm scheme approximately 7km to the north of the Site are also currently at thee scoping stage. With the exception off the Thorney Dike CWS and water vole, assessed as being of county/high local value, all other ecological receptors identified were of no greater than local ecological importance. No more than minor significant impacts are predicted on any of the ecological e receptors identified. Significant cumulative impacts are not anticipatedd on the species or habitat receptors identified within the Site. Potential cumulative impacts on the ornithological receptors withinn the Site are considered in Chapter 8 of the ES. ECOLOGY Page 7-60

276 GORESS WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT CONCLUSIONS The Gores Wind Farm Site does not benefit from any form of statutory nature conservation designation, and no statutory s designated areas for nature conservation value are close enough to bee affected by the proposed developmen nt. There are three non-statutorn ry designated sites within a 2km radius of f the Site boundary, including the Thorney Dike CWS that lies along the southern boundary of the Survey Area. The Prior's Fen gravel pits are also located adjacent too the southern Survey Area boundary. Impacts of low magnitude resulting from site runoff and dust deposition are predicted on both the Thorney Dike CWS and Prior's Fen gravel pits. Through the implementation of mitigation measures including good construction sitee working practices andd compliance with Regulations to prevent uncontrolled runoff of surface water w and sediment discharge into the local the ditches draining into the Thorney T Dike, residual impacts on both Sites are predicted to be not significant. Desk and field f studiess for the proposed Gores Wind Farm Site identified five habitats within the Survey Area, dominated by agricultural habitats, mainly arable land withh smaller areas of improved grassland, broad-leaved plantation woodland, ditch/drain habitat andd areas of track, hardstanding and buildings. Several of the t speciess and habitats present on o Site andd wider Survey Area are listed within the Habitat Directive, UKBAP or LBAPs. Thesee include the habitats 'arable field margins' and the species noctule bat, common and soprano pipistrellee bats, water vole and grass snake. Bats were present within the Site and although no roosts were confirmed, the potential roosting habitat within the Site boundary and within the wider Survey Area were assessed as being of less than local value. Overall the bat activity recorded at the Site was considered to be moderate, with low levels of activity from species classed as either e 'rare'' or at 'highh risk' of impacts from wind farms and moderate activity from species which are at moderate risk of collision with turbine blades. Minor significant impacts are predicted as a result of indirect disturbance to bat roosts and foraging habitat within the Site and wider Survey Area during both the construction and operational phasee of the development. On the basis of the bat activity recorded, minor significant impacts are predicted on the local populations of Nyctalus species, common and soprano pipistrelle bats, Nathusius' pipistrelle and serotine bats. Outline mitigation measures have been identified with regardss to bats. With these measures m inn place the residual impacts on local bat habitat and populations are assessed to be of no greater than minor significance. Evidence of water vole presencee was recorded both within the Site and the wider Survey Areaa and potential water vole v habitatt is extensive within the Site. Minor significant impacts have been predictedd on water voles as a result of potential direct damage to water vole burrows and disturbance during the construction phase of the development. Outline mitigation measures have been identified with regards to water voles and with these measures in i place thee residual impacts are assessed to be of no greater than minor significance. ECOLOGY Page 7-61

277 Four small badger setts were recorded along the western edge off the Site. No wind farm infrastructure will be located within 115m of any y of these identified setts, as such no impacts are predicted. A single adult male grass snake was recorded withinn habitat outwith the Site to the north. As such, reasonable avoidance measures are recommended during the construction phase of the development to reduce any potential impacts onn reptiles. A small breeding population of amphibians was also identified within the ponds to the north off the Site boundary, with and the t SPI/UKK BAP Priority speciess common toad also confirmed as present. Great crested newts were not recorded during the amphibian surveys and no mitigation in respect of amphibians has been recommended. In summary, some habitats and species of conservation concern were noted on the Site, however following mitigation no impacts of greater than minor significance on any of the ecological receptorss are expected as a result of the proposal. Cumulative impacts, combiningg potential impacts of the Gores proposal and others within a 10km buffer, are not predicted to result in ann increase in the significance of impacts onn any of the ecological receptors identified. ECOLOGY Page 7-62

278 Chapter Eight Ornithology

279 CHAPTER EIGHT: ORNITHOLOGY GORES WIND FARM 8.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter provides an assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed Gores Wind Farm development near Peterborough, on the ornithology and nature conservation interests present. Non-avian ecology has been considered in Chapter 7 of this ES. Desk and field studies were completed to identify the main ornithological receptors within the Site and local environs. Desk studies included consultation with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biological Records Centre (CPBRC) and Peterborough Bird Club. Field surveys were completed within the proposed application area over two survey years. Ornithological surveys included breeding bird surveys, wintering walkover surveys and a full 24 months of Vantage Point (VP) surveys from two separate locations. The majority of the Site was dominated by agricultural habitats, mostly large arable fields, with smaller areas of improved grassland. Woodland was limited within the Site with small areas of broadleaved plantation woodland. The field boundaries were delineated mainly by ditches and larger drains, including the Thorney Dike which flows along the southern boundary of the survey area, and the Thorney River to the east of the Survey Area. The Site holds no statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations, with the nearest statutory designated site being the Nene Washes SPA, SAC, SSSI and Ramsar lying approximately 2.1km to the south and south-east of the Site. Eye Gravel Pit SSSI and Eye Green Local Nature Reserve (LNR) lies 2.5km north-west of the Site, Bassenhally Pit SSSI lies 2.6km to the south east of the Site, Dogsthorpe Star Pit SSSI and LNR cover an area of 35.8ha and is located 4.5km to the west of the Site, Lattersey Field LNR is located 4km to the south of the Site. Three non-statutory Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) are located within a 5km radius of the Site Non designated sites include Thorney Dike County Wildlife Site (CWS), Cat's Water Drain CWS and Eyebury Road Pits CWS. Prior s Fen gravel pits, which is located approximately 800m from the nearest proposed infrastructure does not benefit from any form of designation but is considered to be equivalent in value to a CWS due to its bird species assemblage and the large number of ornithological records obtained from this area. The nearest designated site with ornithological interest is the Nene Washes SPA, located approximately 2.1km from the nearest turbine on the Site. Despite several of the designating species being recorded during the avian surveys, the activity of these species was sufficiently low to enable the conclusion to be made that there would be no adverse effects on the SPA, either in relation to the Conservation Objectives of the SPA or in terms of effects on the qualifying features of the SPA. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-1

280 Several bird species of conservation concern were recorded within the Survey Area including 14 species listed on Annex I of the Habitats Regulations and 23 species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. A total of 20 species currently considered as red-listed species on the Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) list were recorded as well as a further 54 species identified as Amber species. Due to the number of bird species recorded during the surveys, and the numbers of individuals present on and around the Site during the survey period, a relatively large number of ornithological receptor species were identified. Collision Risk Modelling (CRM) was carried out for 12 species: Whooper swan, Bewick s swan, mute swan, shoveler, teal, wigeon, golden plover, lapwing, whimbrel, marsh harrier, hobby and red kite. For two species, golden plover and lapwing, impacts of moderate significance were predicted from the proposed scheme in the absence of appropriate mitigation; these impacts were likely to arise as a result of collision and the displacement of birds from an area around the location of proposed turbines. For several other species impacts were assessed as being of minor significance, including whooper swan, marsh harrier, red kite, and common crane. For these species the impacts were most likely to arise from disturbance and/or displacement of birds from the Site. The breeding bird assemblage from the Site included a variety of relatively common species characteristic of woodland and arable land including several species of conservation concern. A number of Schedule l or Annex I species were found to be breeding within the wider survey area or considered as breeding in areas adjacent to the Site. These include little ringed plover, Garganey and marsh harrier, as well as potential breeders such as hobby and gadwall. The breeding bird assemblage is not expected to be significantly affected as the proposed wind farm turbines and infrastructure are located largely on agricultural land, habitats which are of lower ecological value and which consequently support breeding or foraging birds subject to regular disturbance from agricultural activities. Mitigation measures to avoid, reduce or offset the predicted impacts are proposed and include measures to prevent disturbance during construction and operation of the wind farm. To provide specific mitigation measures to offset the effects of moderate significance on golden plover and lapwing it is proposed that a Wader Mitigation Strategy by incorporated into the Habitat Management Plan detailed in Chapter 7. It is considered that with the provision of this plan, the residual impacts on wintering waders on the Site would be reduced to effects of minor significance or less. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-2

281 8.2 INTRODUCTION Terms of Reference This chapter of the ES has been prepared by Atmos Consulting Ltd (Atmos) and presents the results of an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) of the proposed Gores Wind Farm development, in relation to birds. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide independent advice on the potential effects of the development on the ornithological interest of the application Site and its immediate environs. For the purpose of this chapter the site boundary, hereafter referred to as the Site, corresponds to the green boundary presented on Figure 1.2. The ornithological surveys were undertaken over a wider Survey Area, which extends beyond the Site boundary to include adjacent habitat areas (refer to Figures ). Site Description The Site is located to the south west of the village of Thorney and is dominated by cultivated arable land, delineated by a network of ditches and drains. A small area of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland is present to the very north of the Site, with minor areas of broad-leaved plantation woodland to the south of the Site and along the western and northern Site boundaries. No further water features were recorded within the Site boundary, although ponds and larger water-bodies are shown on the OS map within 500m of the site boundary to the east, south (Priors Fen gravel pits) and north of the Site. Objectives of the Chapter The principal objectives of this EcIA are: to establish the baseline ornithological conditions within the Site and determine its nature conservation value; to predict the character and significance of potential impacts arising from the proposed scheme on the ornithological interest within and adjacent to the proposed development; where likely significant effects on ornithological receptors are identified, to propose mitigation measures in order to minimise the level of any adverse impacts; and to assess the significance of any cumulative and residual impacts. Mitigation and, in accordance with good practice, enhancement measures are proposed, where appropriate, to avoid or minimise any potential impacts on ornithological receptors of value. All mitigation and enhancement measures proposed in this Chapter have been sanctioned by Peterborough Wind Energy Limited at the time of submission. Any significant residual impacts on ornithological receptors are identified. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-3

282 8.3 LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT The EcIA completed in this chapter is considered in the context of the relevant national nature conservation legislation and policies described in Chapter 7. Relevant policy and legislation relating to birds is summarised below. National Planning Policy and Legislation Birds National legislation for the special protection of selected species is provided in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Under Section 1(1) and 1(2), all British bird species, their nests and eggs (excluding some pest and game species) are protected from intentional killing, injury or damage. Under Sections 1(4) and 1(5), special penalties are applied to bird species included in Schedule 1 of the Act and protection is extended for these species to disturbance to birds whilst building, in or near a nest and disturbance to dependant young. In addition to species protection, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Habitats Regulations also set out requirements/procedures for the notification, designation and protection of a range of statutory site designations, in order to preserve important national and international nature conservation resources. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are sites of national importance for nature conservation, and can be notified for their ecological interest. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) provides for the protection of SSSIs. The Habitats Regulations make provision for the statutory designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs), which are sites that are recognised as being of international importance to nature conservation. SACs and SPAs are also known as European sites, as they contribute to the European-wide Natura network of sites. SPAs are classified in accordance with Article 4 of EC Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive ). For each SAC and SPA, Natural England publishes site-specific conservation objectives that relate to the features for which it has been designated as a European site. Under Regulation 48 (1), if a significant effect on a European site is predicted as a result of a project, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans; it is against the conservation objectives that potential implications of development proposals must be assessed by a Competent Authority before the granting of planning consent, permission or other authorisation. In the case of the proposed development at Gores Wind Farm, if such an assessment termed an appropriate assessment was considered necessary, it is 1 Natura 2000 is an EU wide network of nature protection areas established under the 1992 Habitats Directive. The aim of the network is to assure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. It is comprised of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) designated by Member States under the Habitats Directive, and also incorporates Special Protection Areas (SPAs) which they designate under the 1979 Birds Directive. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-4

283 assumed that the Competent Authority would be the local planning authority, Peterborough City Council In making an appropriate assessment the Competent Authority must take into consideration whether, subject to the impact avoidance and mitigation measures proposed the scheme will adversely affect the integrity of the European site. The term integrity is defined as the, coherence of the site s ecological structure and function, across its whole area, or the habitats, complex of habitats and/or populations of species for which the site is classified. Local Planning Policy The Peterborough Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted in February 2011, replaces many of the policies relating to ecological issues contained within the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement), adopted in July The relevant policy from the Peterborough Core Strategy is: Policy CS21 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. This CS policy states the Council s aim of safeguarding and enhancement of biodiversity, focussed in particular on protection of a hierarchy of nature conservation designations, and ensuring that damage is minimised and opportunities for net biodiversity gain achieved where ever possible. The Peterborough Planning Policies Development Plan Document, adopted in December 2012, replaces further policies relating to ecological issues contained within the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement). The relevant policies from the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD are: Policy PP16 - The Landscaping and Biodiversity Implications of Development. For any proposed development with potential landscaping and/or biodiversity implications, the city council will require the submission of a site survey report with the planning application, identifying the landscape and biodiversity features of value on and adjoining the site. The layout and design of the development should be informed by and respond to the results of the survey. Policy PP18 - Ancient, Semi-Natural Woodland and Ancient and Veteran Trees. Planning permission will not be granted for development which would adversely affect an area of ancient, seminatural woodland or an ancient or veteran tree, unless the need for, and public benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. Policy PP19 - Habitats and Species of Principal Importance. Any development that is likely to have an impact on a habitat or species of principal importance for the conservation of nature (listed under S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006) should include measures to maintain and, where possible, enhance the status of the habitat or species. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would cause demonstrable harm to such a habitat or species unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh the harm. In these circumstances permission will only ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-5

284 be granted where the degree of harm has been or will be minimised as far as reasonably possible commensurate with the development, through the use of avoidance, mitigation and/or compensation measures (either as part of the development or through conditions or a planning obligation). Other Nature Conservation Initiatives In addition to the overall UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), the area affected by the proposed development at Gores is covered by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP). The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough LBAP is managed by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership and consists of 24 individual Habitat Action Plans (HAPs) and 18 Species Action Plans (SAPs). These individual Action Plans are covered under the broader topics of: Farmland; Grassland; Wetlands; Woodland; and Cities, Towns and Villages. Full details of the Plans can be found at METHODOLOGY Consultations & Desk study Throughout the EcIA process, including the Scoping stage, a consultation and data collection exercise has been undertaken to further inform this chapter. The following organisations and individuals were consulted through a combination of letters, s, and telephone conversations between 2010 and 2012: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)*; Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biological Records Centre (CPBRC)*; Environment Agency* Natural England*; and Peterborough Bird Club (PBC)* Individuals that were kind enough to respond are marked with an asterisk in the above list. The responses received at Scoping are included in Appendix 1.1 of Volume 2 of the ES. Information on statutory sites was obtained from the government interactive GIS website ( In order to gain a general idea of whether there were known records of protected species in the general area, a search was also conducted for records within the TF20 10km Grid Square in which the potential development lies on the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway website ( ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-6

285 Review of Existing Information Ornithological Surveys Full methodologies of the ornithological surveys carried out at the Gores Site are provided in Technical Appendix 8.1 (Ornithology), with a summary of the specific ornithological surveys completed detailed in Table 8.1. Table 8.1: Summary of Ornithological Surveys carried out at Gores Wind Farm Survey type Date of Comments Vantage Surveys Breeding surveys Point bird Winter walk over surveys survey April March 2012 Year 1: April June 2010 Year 2: April June 2011 Year 1: Sept 2010 March 2011 Year 2; Sept 2011 March 2012 Ecological Impact Assessment Methodology Evaluation of Ecological Receptors 2 years of survey meeting recommended guidance on survey effort (SNH, 2010) and arising from scoping consultations. VP surveys included appropriate survey effort in each month and sufficient hours spread throughout daylight hours, including dusk and dawn surveys. A total of 144 hours of diurnal and 144 hours of dawn/dusk VP watches were completed at each of two VP locations. 2 years of Breeding Bird Survey using a scaled down Common Bird Census methodology as recommended by appropriate guidance for wind farm developments (SNH, 2010). Three survey visits were completed during both the 2010 and 2011 breeding bird survey periods. 2 years of Winter Walkover surveys undertaken monthly exceeded minimum survey effort to focus on overwintering species potentially associated with nearby SPAs. Seven survey visits were completed over the winter period 2010/2011, with six survey visits completed over the winter period 2011/ Following consultations, desk study and field surveys, criteria are applied to assess the nature conservation value of the ecological receptors, i.e. the sites, habitats, ecosystems, species, populations, communities or assemblages (both on and off-site) that could be impacted by the proposed development. As there is rarely comprehensive quantitative data on the wider habitat or species population resource, particularly below the international and national level, the nature conservation evaluation of receptors necessarily also involves a qualitative component. This requires a suitably trained and experienced ecologist to make a professional judgement based upon a combination of published sources, consultation responses and knowledge of both the site and the wider area. The categories of ecological value used in this chapter are as listed below and described further in Table 8.2: ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-7

286 International - sites, habitats and species/populations of significance in a European or wider global context; National - sites, habitats and species/populations of significance either in the context of Great Britain or in the context of England; Regional - habitats/species/populations of significance in context of East of England; High Local/County - sites, habitats and species/populations of significance in the context of Cambridgeshire; Local - sites, habitats and species/populations of significance in the context of the City of Peterborough; Less than Local - habitats and species/populations of less than Local significance, but of some value in the context of the Site and its immediate surroundings; and Negligible - little or no intrinsic conservation value. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-8

287 Table 8.2: Criteria for the Evaluation of Nature Conservation Receptors Value Criteria Examples International Nature conservation resource, i.e. site, habitat or populations of species, of international importance. N.B. Includes designated sites, but may also include off-site ecological receptors on which the qualifying population(s) or habitat(s) of designated sites are considered, from the best available evidence, to depend. National Regional County/High Local Nature conservation or geodiversity conservation resource, i.e. site, habitat or populations of species, of national importance. N.B. Includes designated sites, but may also include off-site ecological receptors on which the qualifying population(s) or habitat(s) of designated sites are considered, from the best available evidence, to depend. Nature conservation or geodiversity conservation resource, i.e. site, habitat or population of species, of regional importance. Includes high quality undesignated and designated sites, e.g. where a County-designated site is below SSSI standard but still recognised as being significant in the context of the wider region. Nature conservation or geodiversity conservation resource, i.e. site, habitat or species, of importance in the context of old County/Vice-County scale areas. European sites: SPAs and SACs (p)spas and (c)sacs Other International sites: Ramsar wetlands Habitats and populations/ assemblages of species (including birds) that represent the qualifying interests of internationally designated sites. SSSIs (biological and geological) All populations of W&CA Schedule 8 plants. All viable populations of species listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Threatened in relevant Red Data Books2. Nationally important population/ assemblage of an EPS, Schedule 1 and/or 5 species. Sites/populations that meet SSSI designation criteria but have not been designated due to their having been better examples in the relevant Area Of Search. Regionally important population/area of a species and habitat of Principal Importance or UK BAP priority species and habitats. Regionally important population/ assemblage of an EPS, Schedule 1 and/or 5 species. Regionally important assemblages of other species. Regionally-designated RIGS. Local Nature Reserves. There is a wealth of names for non-statutory designations within this category. County important population/area of a species and habitat of Principal Importance or UK BAP priority species and habitats. County-important population/ assemblage of an EPS, Schedule 1 and/or 5 species. County-important assemblages of other species. County-designated RIGS. Local Nature conservation or geodiversity conservation There is a wealth of names for non-statutory designations within this category. 2 This is terminology post-1994; but should be interpreted as including equivalent criteria pre ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-9

288 Value Criteria Examples resource, i.e. site, habitat or species, of importance in the context of the local, district or borough Council or Unitary Authority administrative area. A breeding population of a species or a viable area of a habitat that is listed in a Local BAP because of its rarity in the locality. A breeding population of a Species of Principal Importance that has been identified by the local authority as being a material consideration in terms of its planning process. All breeding populations of an EPS, Schedule 1 and/or 5 species that have not been captured in higher categories above. Assemblages of other species that are of importance in the context of the local authority area. Less Local Negligible than Unremarkable habitat/common species that are of some value in the context of the Site, but not more widely. A resource that is of little/no intrinsic nature conservation or geodiversity value. Locally-designated RIGS. Other species and habitats which are, in the opinion of the assessor, of note and for which mitigation measures could be recommended as a good practice measure. Common, widespread, modified and/or impoverished habitats. Species of Least Concern that are widespread and/or common locally. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-10

289 Impact Magnitude The magnitude of an impact depends upon the nature and sensitivity of a receptor and the range of potential effects arising from the implementation and operation of a proposed development. In assessing the likely magnitude of an effect, it is necessary to have as great an understanding as possible of its timing, intensity, frequency, duration and reversibility. For the purposes of this assessment, the nature of the effects on specific receptors is described in the Impacts section, and then the magnitude of these effects is summarised as being in one of the categories no impact ; imperceptible ; low ; medium or high, depending upon the extent of the area or population deemed likely to be affected by the development. Where possible it is good practice to provide an estimate of the likelihood of an impact occurring. In this chapter, the following four-point scale has been used where appropriate, as recommended in IEEM s Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK (IEEM, 2006): Certain/near-Certain: probability estimated at 95% chance or higher. Probable: probability estimated above 50% but below 95%. Unlikely: probability estimated above 5% but less than 50%. Extremely Unlikely: probability estimated at less than 5%. Table 8.3 below provides an indication of the terms in which the magnitude of ecological impacts is considered in this chapter. The following definitions have been applied in respect of timescales: immediate - within approximately 12 months; short-term - within approximately 1 to 5 years; medium-term - within approximately 6 to 15 years; long-term - more than 15 years. Table 8.3: Levels of Impact Magnitude Magnitude No Impact Barely perceptible Low Medium High Description No detectable effects on the ecological resource, even in the immediate term. Detectable effect but reversible within 12 months. Not expected to affect the conservation status of the site, habitat or species under consideration. Detectable effects, and may be irreversible, but either of sufficiently small scale (or short duration, if reversible) to have no material effect on the conservation status of the site, habitat or species population. Noticeable effect on the nature conservation status of the site, habitat or species population, but would not threaten the long-term integrity of the system. Replaceable or reversible given time. Effect on nature conservation status likely to be detectable in short- and medium-term. Significant effect on the nature conservation status of the site, habitat or species, likely to threaten the long-term integrity of the ecosystem. Not replaceable or reversible. Will be detectable in short-medium- and long-term. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-11

290 Impact Significance The determination of impact significance involves the interaction of both the nature conservation value of the site, habitat, or species population or assemblage concerned, together with the magnitudes of the various impacts upon it. The more ecologically valuable a site and the greater the magnitude of a given impact, the higher the significance of that impact is likely to be. An EcIA is undertaken in relation to the baseline conditions that would be expected to occur if the proposed development were not to take place, and therefore may include possible predictions of future changes to baseline conditions, such as environmental trends and other completed or planned development. Both negative and positive impacts are possible. Table 8.4 shows in general terms the way in which the significance of ecological impacts is considered in this report. It is important to appreciate that this does not represent a rigid framework for assessment - there are gradations between different categories of site and impact, and on occasion the significance of a particular impact may not accord precisely with the categories shown below. Impacts identified as minor are considered not to be significant for the purposes of this EcIA. Table 8.4: Generalised Impact Significance Matrix Nature Magnitude of Potential Impact (+ve and -ve) Conservation Value of Barely Receptor High Medium Low Perceptible International Exceptional Major Moderate Minor National - GB & England Exceptional Major Moderate Minor Regional East Major Moderate Minor Minor / No Anglia significant impact County Moderate Moderate Minor No significant Cambridgeshire impact Local Minor Minor Minor No significant Peterborough Low - less than Local Negligible Minor / No significant impact No significant impact Minor / No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact impact No significant impact No significant impact 8.5 BASELINE CONDITIONS AND EVALUATION OF ORNITHOLOGICAL RECEPTORS Designated Sites Statutory Designated Sites Review of the UK government internet site and data received from the CPBRC confirmed that the survey area does not benefit ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-12

291 from any form of statutory nature conservation designation. However, there are six statutory designated sites within a 5km radius of the Site boundary, as detailed below, with ornithological interests highlighted in bold text: Nene Washes Special Protection Area (SPA) The Nene Washes SPA covers an area of approximately 1518 ha and is located approximately 2.1km to the south and south-east of the Site. Full details of the qualifying species are detailed in Technical Appendix 8.1. The SPA is an extensive area of seasonally flooding wet grassland ('washland') lying along the River Nene. Areas of arable cropping provide some winter feeding areas for wildfowl. In summer, it is of importance for breeding waders, as well as spotted crake Porzana porzana, whilst in winter the site holds large numbers of waders and wildfowl. This site is recognised as being of International conservation value. Due to the site s ornithological relevance, Natural England have published Conservation Objectives for the SPA which are the criterias against which potential developments needs to be assessed, as detailed in section 3 above. These conservation objectives include: With regard to the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified ( the Qualifying Features listed below); Avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, and the significant disturbance of the qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore: The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely; The populations of the qualifying features; The distribution of the qualifying features within the site. Qualifying Features: A037 Cygnus columbianus bewickii; Bewick s swan (Non-breeding) A050 Anas penelope; Eurasian wigeon (Non-breeding) A051 Anas strepera; Gadwall (Breeding) A051 Anas strepera; Gadwall (Non-breeding) A052 Anas crecca; Eurasian teal (Non-breeding) A054 Anas acuta; Northern pintail (Non-breeding) A055 Anas querquedula; Garganey (Breeding) A056 Anas clypeata; Northern shoveler (Non-breeding) A056 Anas clypeata; Northern shoveler (Breeding) A156a Limosa limosa limosa; Black-tailed godwit (Breeding) Additional Qualifying Features Identified by the 2001 UK SPA Review: A119 Porzana porzana; Spotted crake (Breeding) A151 Philomachus pugnax; Ruff (Non-breeding) A151 Philomachus pugnax; Ruff (Breeding) Waterbird assemblage ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-13

292 (Source: SPA_tcm pdf ) Nene Washes Special Area of Conservation (SAC) The Nene Washes SAC covers an area of approximately 88ha and is located 2.1km to the south and south-east of the Site. The SAC consists of inland water bodies (standing water, running water - 65%); bogs, marshes, water fringed vegetation and fens (10%) and areas of improved grassland (25%). The Annex II species spined loach Cobitis taenia is the primary reason for selection of this site. Moreton s Leam, a large drainage channel running along the eastern flank of the Nene Washes, contains the highest recorded density of spined loach in the UK. There may also be thriving populations in the smaller ditches of the Washes. The site represents spined loach populations in the Nene catchment (JNCC SAC Citation). This site is recognised as being of International conservation value. Nene Washes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) The Nene Washes SSSI covers an area of 1310ha and is located 2.1km to the south and south-east of the Site. The site represents one of the country s few remaining areas of washland habitat which is essential to the survival nationally and internationally of populations of wildfowl and waders. The site is additionally notable for the diversity of plant and associated animal life within its network of dykes. The site is favoured by large numbers of wintering wildfowl and particularly the dabbling ducks wigeon, teal, pintail and Bewick s swan. Wetland birds such as snipe Gallinago gallinago and redshank Tringa totanus regularly breed and during passage periods there is often a large movement of waders and raptors through the area. Many of the ditches hold a rich flora which includes such uncommon species as frogbit Hydrocharis morsus-ranae, water violet Hottonia palustris and flowering rush Butomus umbellatus. This site is recognised as being of National conservation value. Eye Gravel Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Eye Gravel Pit SSSI and Eye Green Local Nature Reserve (LNR) lies 2.5km to the north west of the Site. The site was an old brick workings and now consists of a large lake fringed in places by reeds and scrub. The site is a geological SSSI. The citation does not mention avian species and the site has not been designated for its ornithological interest. Bassenhally Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Bassenhally Pit SSSI covers an area of 8.9ha and lies 2.6km to the south east of the Site. The site holds a wide range of habitat types which have developed over shallow gravel workings. Of primary interest are the grassland and aquatic habitats and particularly a small marsh where many locally uncommon vascular plants have been recorded. The latter area represents a habitat type rare in Cambridgeshire and one which is nationally scarce. The citation does not mention avian species and the site has not been designated for its ornithological interest. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-14

293 Dogsthorpe Star Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Dogsthorpe Star Pit SSSI and LNR cover an area of 35.8ha and is located 4.5km to the west of the Site. The site consists of a former clay pit with shallow pools which are important for the plants and beetles including brackish and fenland freshwater species. The excavated area now contains a variety of habitats including scrub, grassland, bare clay, sedge, reed-beds, small pools and open water. The slopes of the pit support mainly sparse herb-dominated vegetation and smaller areas of scrub. These different habitats comprise a range of plant communities which support species that are scarce in Cambridgeshire. The citation does not mention avian species and the site has not been designated for its ornithological interest. Lattersey Field LNR Lattersey Field LNR is located 4km to the south of the Site. Originally a clay pit for the brick industry, the reserve is a mix of reed-bed, marsh, open water pools and lakes, grassland, trees and scrub. The citation does not mention avian species and the site has not been designated for its ornithological interest. Non-statutory Designated Sites County Wildlife Sites (CWSs) are non-statutory designations used to identify high quality wildlife habitats in a county context. There are three CWSs within a 2km radius of the Site boundary, as shown on Figure 7.1 and detailed below: Thorney Dike County Wildlife Site (CWS) Thorney Dike CWS is located along the southern boundary of the Survey Area, and within the south east corner of the Survey Area for a limited stretch. The CWS covers an area of 1.81 ha and qualifies because it contains at least five species of submerged, floating and emergent vascular plant per 20m section. The citation does not mention avian species and the site has not been designated for its ornithological interest. Cat s Water Drain County Wildlife Site (CWS) Cat's Water Drain CWS is located 1.5 km to the west of the Site. The CWS covers an area of 1.46 ha and qualifies because it contains at least five species of submerged, floating and emergent vascular plant per 20m section. The citation does not mention avian species and the site has not been designated for its ornithological interest. Eyebury Road Pits County Wildlife Site (CWS) Eyebury Road Pits CWS is located 2km to the west of the Site. The CWS covers an area of 45.67ha and qualifies because it supports at least 0.05ha of NVC community S20 Grey Club-rush swamp. Additionally it supports at least three species of Pondweed (Potamogeton spp.). The citation does not mention avian species and the site has not been ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-15

294 designated for its ornithological interest. Prior s Fen Gravel Pits Although not designated as a CWS, the Prior's Fen gravel pits are located directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the Survey Area and are locally known for their bird life, particularly waterfowl in winter. Ornithological Receptors A full list of all species recorded during ornithological surveys and details of their conservation status, survey methodologies and detailed results can be found in Technical Appendix 8.1. Figure 8.1 presents the ornithological survey area that was covered during the survey period and the VP viewsheds used during the surveys. The following sections present the summary results for all surveys. Desk Study/Existing Records The CPBRC and the Peterborough Bird Club provided records for a number of avian species within a 5km radius of the Site. Those species protected by European (Annex I 3 ) and/or UK legislation (Schedule 1 4 ), or Species of Principal Importance (SPI 5 ), UK BAP species and Red List 6 species are summarised in Annex Table 1of the Data Annex of the Technical Appendix 8.1. Bird records were obtained from the Peterborough Bird Club for the period for a 5km radius from National Grid Reference , which equated to around 15,000 individual records. This covered areas recorded as Prior s Fen GP, Nene Washes, Upper Knarr Fen, Lower Knarr Fen, Bassenhally Moor, Tanholt GP, and Willow Hall Lane. The majority of records focus on the Nene Washes and Prior s Fen GP area; coverage of the areas away from these key areas is less and relies on ad-hoc records with no comprehensive surveys having been completed. Unless specified, the locations refer to broad areas and have been used as a guide; for example, some observer s record Prior s Fen GP and Willow Hall Lane separately whilst other combine these records. However, the coverage was sufficient to provide sufficient background information about the bird use of the general area and to inform the scoping of the bird surveys undertaken at the Site itself. The species summary below is a synthesis of the records provided by PBC focussing on key BAP species or those which are an interest feature on the nearby Nene Washes SSSI/ SPA. 3 i.e. Species listed in Annex I of the EC Birds Directive. 4 i.e. species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. 5 Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. 6 i.e. Globally threatened; historical population decline in UK during ; severe (at least 50%) decline in UK breeding population over last 25 years; or severe (at least 50%) contraction of UK breeding range over last 25 years. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-16

295 Key Species Barn Owl - Probable breeding recorded at Crowtree Farm, in Upper Knarr Fen in 2002; likely to still be present as a breeding species in the area. Bewick s Swan - Flocks of up to 180 birds have been recorded on the arable land surrounding Prior s Fen GP. These birds roost on the nearby Nene Washes SSSI / SPA and fly out to the agricultural land to feed during the day. Corn Bunting - Recorded breeding in the area; singing birds recorded annually from the land surrounding Prior s Fen GP / Willow Hall Lane area (up to 3 singing birds). Wintering flocks noted on Lower Knarr Fen, with a count of 33+ from December Golden Plover / Lapwing - The arable land surrounding Prior s Fen / Knarr Fen / Bassenhally Moor are regularly used by large flocks of both golden plover and lapwing (up to 1500 of each species). As with the Bewick s Swan, these roost on the Nene Washes and fly out to feed on the arable land during the day. Grey Partridge - Recorded from Tanholt GP and Knarr Cross Farm. Large gulls - During the winter, large flocks of mixed gull species congregate during the day on the fields around Willow Hall Lane/ Bassenhally Moor. These loafing flocks comprise herring, lesser black-backed and greater-black backed. Gull roosts are found at Tanholt GP; Eye Green LNR, Dogsthorpe Star Pit and Fletton BP; the main feeding area is at Dogsthorpe Pit landfill site. Birds fly to / from the roost sites at dawn and dusk and between the feeding / loafing areas during the day. Linnet - Wintering flocks of up to recorded at Prior s Fen GP and Lower Knarr Fen, with a peak of 500 near Prior s Fen in October Reed Bunting - Breeding population present on the agricultural land around Prior s Fen GP / Lower Knarr Fen. Rook - A large rookery (155 nests in 2002) present at Tanholt GP). Large flocks of corvids often recorded from agricultural land in the area. Skylark - Singing birds recorded from Prior s Fen GP & Willow Hall area. Stock Dove - Flocks of 10+ occasionally recorded in the Willow Hall Lane area. Likely to breed nearby but no confirmed records. Tree Sparrow - Regularly recorded at Dairy Drove, Lower Knarr Fen (TF322034) in suitable breeding habitat. Turtle Dove - Singing birds recorded from Prior s Fen GP and Tanholt GP areas. Yellow Wagtail - Breeding recorded from the Prior s Fen GP & Bassenhally Moor area. Key Sites: Nene Washes SSSI / SPA / SAC - Main site for wetland birds within the area. Key species from the Nene Washes that may be impacted by any proposals include: Bewick s Swan, Mute Swan, Wigeon, Lapwing, Golden Plover, Short-eared Owl, Marsh Harrier principally species which roost / nest within the SSSI / SPA but which fly out to feed on the surrounding ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-17

296 agricultural land. Given the number of key species that roost on the Nene Washes but feed on the surrounding agricultural land vantage point / flight line surveys are likely to be crucial Prior s Fen GP; A series of gravel pits which hold sizeable numbers of wintering bird e.g. Coot (200 birds); Pintail (240); Pochard (40+), Shoveler (50) many of which also use the Nene Washes. Breeding species have included mute swan, gadwall, little ringed plover, and ringed plover. Vantage Point Surveys Vantage Point (VP) surveys were completed at the Gores Wind Farm Site over a two year survey period, surveying the different viewsheds shown on Figure 8.1. The study period involved VP watches completed from two VP locations (VP 1 and 2 ) between April 2010 and March Survey details are presented in Technical Appendix 8.1. Figures 8.2 to 8.13 present the target species flight lines. Vantage Point Surveys - Year In the period between April 2010 and March primary target species were recorded during VP watches: The largest number of flights was recorded for lapwing with 104 flights and a maximum flock-size of 500 birds, with recordings made throughout the 12 month period. 502,895 seconds at risk height were recorded for lapwing, compared to 202,220 seconds for golden plover, which was the second most commonly-recorded wader, and was primarily recorded overwintering on the Site. Over 1,000 seconds at risk height were recorded for six other species of waterfowl, comprising of; Bewick s swan (1,080 seconds), shoveler (2,070 seconds), teal (3,045 seconds), whimbrel (1,080 seconds), whooper swan (15064 seconds) and wigeon (28,230 seconds). 1,248 seconds at risk height were also recorded for unidentified geese. A flock of 40 pink-footed geese was recorded once at below risk height. Sixty marsh harrier flights totalling 2,124 seconds at risk height were recorded, making it the most common raptor species over the survey period. 960 seconds at risk height was also recorded for red kite; the second most for a raptor species. Seven qualifying species of the Nene Washes were recorded over the Site during the first 12 months of VP watches: Bewick's swan was observed on three occasions, with a maximum flock-size of 20 birds. They were seen in October 2010 and during January and February 2011, spending 90% of the observation time in 'risk' height band B (20m-130m). Black-tailed Godwit were recorded once during July 2010 and remained below risk height for the duration of the observation time. A Pintail duck was recorded once at risk height for 45 seconds. 23 shovelers were recorded on one occasion and spent 86% (395 seconds) of the observed flight time at risk height. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-18

297 Teal were recorded on two occasions, with a maximum of 25 birds at one time, spending 100% of their time (3,045 seconds). Gadwall also spent 100% of their recorded time at risk height, with three flights made, a total of 370 seconds spent at risk height and a maximum of four birds seen at any one time. Wigeon were recorded on four occasions over winter, with a maximum of 80 birds that spent 596 seconds at risk height, which was approximately 86% the recorded observation time A number of raptor and owl species listed on Annex I or Schedule 1 were recorded within the Site during the first 12 months of VP watches: Barn owls were resident on the Site, being recorded on 25 occasions, but spent only 45 seconds (0.8%) of the observation time in height band B. One Goshawk was recorded in the spring of 2011 in height band B for 240 seconds, although was likely only to be passing through the area. One Hen harrier was observed in January below risk height. Hobby was recorded eight times, spending 390 seconds (70%) of this time at risk height. Marsh harriers were present throughout the survey period, and spent 51% of their time at risk height. Merlin were recorded twice, both times being below risk height. Peregrine falcons were recorded during winter on the Site and were recorded at risk height for 105 seconds which was over a third (34%) of the observed flight time. Red kite were observed on seven occasions, all of which were at risk height (810 seconds) Many further species of waterfowl and wader were recorded at the Site during the 12 months of VP watches. Common terns were observed three times in the summer of 2010; curlews were recorded four times during the autumn and winter 2010 and were likely to be passage birds. Mute swans were recorded at risk height for 450 out of a total of 1,047 seconds. A Greenshank was recorded in August below risk height. Little egret spent 495 seconds (79%) of the six observed flights in height band B. Oystercatcher were present on the Site during early spring 2011, spending 230 seconds (77%) of the observed activity at risk height. Redshanks were observed on five occasions, none of which were at risk height. Shelduck were recorded on 14 occasions and spent 405 seconds (44%) of that time a risk height. Snipe were recorded on three occasions, with 75 seconds (nearly 100%) of the observed flights at risk height. Tufted duck were recorded once, spending no time at risk height. Finally, three juvenile common crane were recorded feeding in November 2010, approximately 2km south-east of VP 2 (off-site). A total of 66 secondary species were recorded during the same period. A full species list can be found in Technical Appendix 8.1, Section Vantage Point Surveys Year Most frequently recorded during the second year of VPs were lapwing and golden plover, both of which were recorded in flocks of over 1000 birds. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-19

298 For both of these species the flock sizes and numbers of records were greater than the first year of surveys. A total of 958,681 seconds at risk height were recorded for golden plover in total, with 1,457,176 seconds at risk height totalled for lapwing. A high proportion of these observations were made during the winter months, where the arable land within the survey area provided excellent feeding for waders Other waders recorded were; common crane, little egret, oystercatcher and redshank. Of these, only little egret (35 seconds) and common crane (327 seconds) were recorded at risk height. A maximum of five common cranes were recorded during a two-week period at the end of July During this period a minimum of two adults thought to be a pair was observed feeding on the Site itself and flying over it, spending 327 seconds at risk height. Raptor species observed during these VP s were: barn owl, hobby, marsh harrier, merlin, peregrine, red kite and short-eared owl. Of these, merlin and peregrine were recorded only once each, while the most recordings were for marsh harrier, which was seen on 66 occasions. Over 1,000 seconds at risk height were recorded for marsh harrier, hobby and red kite. Buzzard was classed as a secondary target species during the two years of surveys, meaning that no flights lines were recorded for the species. However, due to the historically low numbers of buzzards in the east of England, with most birds only over-wintering there, flight data was collected for the final nine months of survey effort (from 27/06/2011 to 21/03/2012). During this period just over 40 buzzard flights were recorded during VPs, with almost half occurring at risk height. A total of 6,178 flights seconds were recorded, with 3,525 of these occurring at risk height. One bird was regularly observed, with a maximum of two birds at any one time. Other waterfowl (ducks and geese) included mute swan, shelduck, shoveler, tufted duck, whooper swan and wigeon. Over 1,000 seconds at risk height were recorded for mute swan, shelduck, whooper swan and wigeon (for which the greatest amount of time was recorded 12,360 seconds). In addition to these records, additional flights were only identifiable as ducks and were recorded as unidentified ducks (72,452 seconds at risk height), and were often associated with birds disturbed from the Prior s Fen gravel pits to the south of the Site by the regular passing of vehicles. The unidentified ducks were thought primarily to be a mixture of wigeon and mallard, although other species such as shoveler and pochard were probably present. Another important species to be recorded was common tern, although only three flights were made by a solitary bird, giving a total of seventy seconds at risk height. Secondary species of interest recorded during the second year of VP surveys included; black-headed gull, buzzard, common gull, cormorant, great black-backed gull, grey heron, grey partridge, herring gull, kestrel, lesser black-backed gull, mallard, moorhen and sparrowhawk. Figures have been produced to show the flight lines for the target species for both study periods. Due to the numbers of flights lapwing flight lines are presented separately, records on Figure 8.2 and records on Figure 8.9. Other waders recorded in are ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-20

299 shown on Figures 8.3 and 8.4, while registrations are presented on Figure Raptor flights are presented on Figures 8.6 and 8.12, with separate Figures 8.5 and 8.11 for harrier species in and respectively records of geese are shown on Figure 8.7 for , while ducks are shown on Figure 8.8. All waterfowl records have been amalgamated on Figure Also presented in these figures are ground registrations of birds. Winter Walkover Surveys Year 1 (September March 2011) During the first set of winter walkover surveys 78 species were recorded, including 23 primary target species; barn owl, Bewick s swan, bittern, gadwall, goldeneye, golden plover, great-crested grebe, greenshank, lapwing, little egret, little grebe, marsh harrier, mute swan, peregrine falcon, pink-footed goose, pochard, redshank, shoveler, snipe, teal, tufted duck, whooper swan and wigeon. Fourteen secondary target species were also recorded during the seven surveys; black-headed gull, buzzard, Canada goose, coot, cormorant, great black-backed gull, grey heron, greylag goose, herring gull, kestrel, lesser black-backed gull, mallard, moorhen and sparrowhawk. The species recorded during each winter walkover visit and their individual designations are listed in Table 11 in Technical Appendix 8.1, Section Year 2 (October 2011 March 2012) During the second set of winter walkover surveys 57 species were recorded, including 14 primary target species; gadwall, golden plover, great crested grebe, lapwing, marsh harrier, mute swan, pochard, red kite, redshank, shoveler, teal, tufted duck, whooper swan and wigeon. Thirteen secondary target species were also recorded; black-headed gull, buzzard, common gull, coot, cormorant, great black-backed gull, grey heron, greylag goose, herring gull, kestrel, lesser black-backed gull, mallard and sparrowhawk. All species recorded during each of the six winter walkover surveys and their individual designations visits are listed in Table 12 of Appendix 8.1, Section Breeding Bird Surveys Year 1 (April 2010 June 2010) A total of 69 species were recorded within the survey area during the three modified CBC visits completed in the spring and summer of Of these, 34 species were confirmed as breeding within, or adjacent to the Site, 18 species were classed as probable-breeders and nine species were deemed to be non-breeders. A complete species list is presented in Table 11 of Technical Appendix 8.1, Section Of the 11 primary target species recorded during the three breeding bird surveys in 2010, four were confirmed breeders: barn owl, gadwall, great crested grebe and mute swan. A further four species were probable breeders (garganey, lapwing, oystercatcher and shelduck) and three were classed as non-breeders (hobby, little ringed plover and redshank). It must ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-21

300 be taken into consideration that these classifications are only a guide as some species such as hobby and turtle dove were recorded regularly during VP surveys, but can be hard to observe during breeding bird surveys Of the 13 secondary target species recorded six were confirmed breeders (black-headed gull, greylag goose, herring gull, lesser black-backed gull, mallard and moorhen), six probable breeders (coot, cormorant, great black-backed gull, grey heron, kestrel and sparrowhawk) and one nonbreeder (buzzard). Of the three survey visits carried out on the Gores Wind Farm Site, barn owls were recorded during all three; in April an owl was recorded within the eastern buffer zone near Hill Farm. In May two separate birds were recorded, one of which was carrying food; behaviour indicative of chick rearing. The June survey recorded a single owl approximately 400m outside the south eastern section of the buffer zone. Though no marsh harriers were recorded during the breeding bird surveys, several observations during vantage point surveys were made each month from April to October 2010, as well as during January and March of Therefore despite the lack of breeding bird survey evidence for marsh harrier breeding on Site, their continued presence during vantage point surveys during the breeding season would strongly indicate that there is a breeding presence in the surrounding areas and that those birds range over the Site on a regular basis. Year 2 (April 2011 June 2011) A total of 64 species were recorded during the three modified CBC visits completed in the spring and summer of Of these, 37 species were confirmed to be breeding within the survey area or immediately adjacent to it, with a further 23 species thought to be probable breeders, and four species classed as non-breeders. A complete species list detailing all species recorded during the breeding bird survey and their conservation status is presented in Technical Appendix 8.1, Section A total of 14 primary target species were recorded during the 2011 breeding bird surveys, six of which were confirmed as breeding within or adjacent to the Site (gadwall, great crested grebe, little ringed plover, mute swan, redshank and tufted duck), five were thought to be probable breeders (barn owl, lapwing, little egret, little grebe and pochard) and three non-breeders (greenshank, hobby and red-necked grebe). Thirteen secondary target species were recorded during the surveys, with four confirmed breeders (coot, greylag goose, lesser black-backed gull and mallard) and nine probable breeders (black-headed gull, buzzard, cormorant, great black-backed gull, grey heron, herring gull, kestrel, moorhen and sparrowhawk). In total ten species were recorded during the 2011 breeding bird surveys, but not the 2010 surveys, including six primary target species (greenshank, little egret, little grebe, pochard, red-necked grebe and tufted duck). The other species were yellowhammer jay, sand martin and spotted flycatcher. Seven species were seen in 2010, but not in 2011, including ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-22

301 three primary target species (garganey, oystercatcher and shelduck), one secondary target species (common gull), and three other species (swallow, swift, turtle dove). Evaluation of Ornithological Receptors Based on the results of the surveys, consultation and desktop study and considering the conservation status of the observed species, the following sections present the evaluation of the ornithological receptors. Thirty-five species have been identified as sensitive to wind farms by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH, 2006; Bright et al. 2006). Of these, 15 species were recorded during the surveys undertaken for the Gores Site; Bewick s swan, curlew, hen harrier, golden plover, goshawk, greenshank, greylag goose, marsh harrier, merlin, peregrine falcon, pink-footed goose, red kite, short-eared owl, whimbrel and whooper swan. Greylag goose is found in lowland areas throughout the year in the UK, although in most cases the birds are likely to be feral, as opposed to wild geese. This was considered to be the case at the Gores Wind Farm Site, meaning that flight data for birds seen was not recorded and they were not considered as a receptor for this site. A further list of 31 species has been identified by Natural England as being potentially sensitive to wind farms where nationally (or regionally) important populations are present (NE, TIN069, 2010). This list includes 12 species not on the SNH list, of which six were recorded: bittern, common crane, common tern, grey heron, lapwing and little egret. Impacts on the above species are therefore considered in detail, including an assessment of collision risk where appropriate, following the methodology recommended by SNH (SNH, 2000b). Fourteen Annex I species, nine of which are also Schedule 1 species, were recorded during the surveys at the Gores Site; Bewick s swan, bittern, common crane, common tern, golden plover, hen harrier, kingfisher, little egret, marsh harrier, merlin, peregrine falcon, red kite, short-eared owl and whooper swan. All of these Annex 1 species were considered in detail. In addition to the above, a further 14 Schedule 1 species were recorded: black-tailed godwit, barn owl, bearded tit, brambling, crossbill, fieldfare, garganey, goshawk, green sandpiper, greenshank, hobby, little ringed plover, redwing and whimbrel. The effects on all apart from bearded tit, brambling, crossbill, fieldfare and red wing were considered in detail. The species which were not selected as important ornithological receptors are all, apart from crossbill, only protected during the breeding season, but were only recorded as winter migrants and not recorded during the breeding bird surveys. Crossbills were recorded on a single breeding bird survey and not during any other surveys; this species breeds in coniferous woodland and the record was considered to represent a non-breeding visit to the Site, rather than of a breeding record. The nearby Nene Washes SPA has eight specific qualifying species; Bewick s swan, black-tailed godwit, gadwall, garganey, pintail, shoveler, teal and wigeon. All of these species were included as target species for the VP surveys at the Site, and were considered in detail. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-23

302 Bewick's Swan This species is only found during the winter months in the UK, located primarily in eastern England, around the Severn estuary and in Lancashire. Bewick s swan is a SPA qualifier for the Nene Washes as well as being a species of international conservation value due to their Annex 1 status, and is also listed on Schedule 1, meaning that it has national importance within the UK. The Ouse and Nene Washes have some of the largest concentrations of the species in the UK (JNCC, 2001). The Ouse and Nene Washes populations have remained stable or increased in recent years (Holt et al., 2012), with the birds using the wetlands for roosting and surrounding agricultural fields for foraging. The most recent Wetland Bird Survey undertaken over winter in 2010/11 by the British Trust for Ornithology recorded a peak count of 418 Bewick s Swan at the Nene Washes compared to a peak count of 6,176 birds at the Ouse Washes. At the Nene Washes, the 5-year mean peak count up to the 2010/11 winter was 606 birds. During the two years of surveys, Bewick s Swan was only recorded during the survey period, with no records from Year 2. During VP surveys, the species was observed on just three occasions, with a maximum flock-size of 20 birds recorded in January Bewick s swans were also seen in October 2010 (8 birds) and February 2011 (1 bird). They spent 90% of the observation time in 'risk' height band B (20m- 130m). In addition a flock of 30 Bewick s Swan were recorded during a single Winter Walkover survey in January Despite the Nene Washes supporting the second highest over-wintering population in the UK (peak mean count of 606 birds up to 2010/11), the species was only infrequently recorded within the Survey Area, with only a few records from the 2010/11 period. As the species is large and conspicuous it is unlikely that it has been under recorded and it is therefore unlikely that the Survey Area represents key foraging or roosting habitat for the local population. However, due to the relative importance of the Nene Washes for this species, both as a SPA designating species but also reflecting the importance of The Fens for this species, a precautionary approach has been adopted in evaluating the conservation value of the Site for this species. The birds observed are certain to be part of the Nene Washes SPA population, but due to the relatively low activity recorded are evaluated as being of Local conservation value in the context of the Site. Whooper Swan Only a few pairs of whooper swans breed in the UK, in the north of Scotland, although they are regular over-winter visitors throughout northern England and most of Scotland. East Anglia, along with the Severn estuary, represents the southern-most distribution of whooper swans in the UK. Similarly to Bewick s swan detailed above, the Ouse Washes SPA and Nene Washes SPA are both sites of international importance for Whooper ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-24

303 Swan. While the Ouse Washes supports a far larger population with a 5- year peak mean of 5,316 birds to the 2010/11 season (Holt et al., 2012), the Nene Washes had a peak count of 450 birds recorded in the Wetland Birds Survey of Twenty whooper swan flights were recorded during the first year of surveys, although only two were noted during the second year. A greater number of records was also seen from the winter walkover surveys with regular sightings during Year 1 and only a single record in Year 2, in March The pattern of whooper swan activity in Year 1, , showed a clear preference for the area around Prior s Fen Gravel Pits and in the arable fields between these water bodies and the Nene Washes. This pattern is clearly shown on Figure 8.7 where the majority of the flights indicate movement between Priors Fen and the Nene Washes and ground records of birds were most frequently from fields between the two. Only a single flight and ground record were observed from the Site itself. In both years however, the threshold for CRM to be required was surpassed, mainly due to flocks of over a hundred birds being recorded each year. Whooper swans are both Annex 1 and Schedule 1 listed, meaning they are of international and national conservation importance. Due to the relatively large flocks which were recorded in the Survey Area around Priors Fen, it is considered that the local population would be of High Local/County conservation value. However, the Site itself to the north of Priors Fen is considered to be of less value for whooper swans and is therefore the species is considered to be of Local importance in the context of the Site. Curlew Curlew is the largest European wader and is found on estuaries and coastlines around the entire UK during the winter months. During summer it breeds on suitable moorlands and wetland habitats throughout northern England, Wales and Scotland, and can be resident throughout the year in parts of eastern England. While The Wash is recognised as a site of International Importance for curlew, the species is not listed as a designating feature of the Nene Washes SPA and therefore the population of this species with the Site is not considered to be a part of or contribute to an important population of conservation importance in the wider area. During 2010/11, a total of four curlew flights were recorded (all between August and December during the first year of surveys), with only a single bird seen or heard on each occasion; no curlew were recorded on VPs during Year 2. No curlews were recorded during winter walkover or breeding bird surveys in either year of survey. Although curlew is an English priority and UK BAP species, due to the sparse records during these surveys it is considered to be of Less than Local conservation value in the context of this Site. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-25

304 Hen Harrier Hen harrier is a species which breeds on open heather moorland or in young forestry plantations. Over the winter they move to lowland farmland, heathland, coastal marshes, fenland and river valleys. The nearby Nene Washes SPA is likely to attract overwintering birds, which corresponds with the single hen harrier record in January of the first year of surveys, where a single bird was noted at below risk height. Despite being a species of International conservation importance due to its Annex 1 status and also being listed on Schedule 1, the very limited hen harrier activity at the Site means it is considered to be of Less than Local conservation value in the context of the Site. Golden Plover Golden plover is a wader which breeds only on upland moorlands in the UK, whereas during the winter it forms large flocks in lowland fields. This was reflected by the fact that no golden plover were seen during the spring or summer months at the Site, with records starting in autumn of both years and increasing up to over a thousand birds in fields to the north of the Site, particularly during the second year of surveys. The species is listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive and as such is recognised as being of international conservation importance. Although not a designating feature of the Nene Washes SPA, in recent years, the populations recorded have been of national importance, with a peak count of 1,790 birds in the 2010/11 winter but a 5year mean up to that year of 4,208 birds (Holt et al., 2012). However, populations of this species are difficult to monitor due to their tendency to disperse in flocks of variable size across relatively large areas of agricultural land. The relatively low numbers recorded at Nene Washes in 2010/11 were well below average, following a national trend which reflected exceptionally cold conditions, which forced birds out of northwest Europe (Holt et al., 2012). Although golden plover is not listed as a species that contributes to the overall overwintering bird assemblage of the Nene Washes SPA, it is evident that it currently is an important species that contributes to the conservation importance of the SPA. During VP watches, golden plover were observed frequently within the survey area using fields where proposed turbines are to be located. During the first year of surveys, coinciding with below average records from the Nene Washes SPA noted above, 33 flights were recorded, with between 1 and 200 birds; most flocks were relatively small, indicated by a median flock size of 32.5 (Table 7 in Technical Appendix 8.1). In Year 2 of VP surveys, 47 flights were recorded ranging in size from individual birds to larger flocks with a peak count of 2,200 birds; again the majority of flocks were relatively small with a median of 32.5 birds also recorded. Golden plover were observed on six out of seven winter walkover surveys (all from October onwards) during 2010/11 but only two of the six winter walkover surveys in 2011/12. The pattern of activity recorded during the VP and winter walkover surveys suggest that golden plover regularly use the site during winter; the majority ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-26

305 of flocks were relatively small with flock sizes of less than 100 birds. However occasionally, large flocks may forage in the fields; data from December 2011 recorded relatively large flocks on 5 th and 9 th, when the peak count of 2,200 birds was recorded. It is likely that the birds recorded from the survey area birds that utilise the SPA; while not a designating species, as detailed above the SPA population is considered to contribute to the overall value of the Nene Washes, which is of national importance for the species During both years golden plover was the second most frequently recorded wader at the Site after lapwing, a species which it was regularly seen mixing with. Therefore, the golden plover population recorded at the Site is considered to be a component of the SPA population and the agricultural fields present provide optimal supporting foraging habitat for the SPA population, although it is recognised that there is an abundance of such large arable fields in and around the Nene Washes area. Due to its supporting function to the nationally important population of the Nene Washes, the regular use of the Site by small to medium sized flocks of birds and the occasional use by large flocks, golden plover is evaluated as being of High Local/County conservation value within the context of this Site. It should be noted that occasionally, the Site hosts flocks of golden plover that range over a much larger area of the Fens which would be of Regional value, and which in turn supports the Nationally important population found at the Nene Washes SPA. Collision risk modelling (CRM) was carried out for this species due to the substantial periods of time spent at risk height; during the first year 202,220 seconds were recorded for golden plover at risk height, increasing to 958,681 during the second year. Goshawk Goshawk is predominantly a forest species but they also hunt over open areas. They prefer large coniferous woodlands as breeding habitat. A single goshawk was recorded in the spring of 2011 in height band B for 240 seconds, although the solitary bird was likely only to be passing through the area. Goshawk was not recorded during either the CBC or winter walkover surveys. No CRM calculations were completed as at risk flight activity was too low to provide meaningful predictions. Goshawk is a Schedule 1 species, however due to the lack of breeding activity and limited flight activity recorded over the survey area, the goshawk observed at the Gores Wind Farm Site is considered to be of Less than Local conservation value in the context of the Site. Greenshank This is a wader which breeds only in north-west Scotland within the UK, whereas it is far more widespread during migration periods and found near estuaries throughout large sections of the south and west coastline of the UK. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-27

306 Single birds were recorded on three occasions: a single record of an individual bird below risk height occurred during August 2010, a single bird during the September 2010 winter walkover survey and a single nonbreeding bird on the June 2011 breeding bird survey. These records suggest that the survey area is used infrequently by Greenshank, and therefore the species is considered to be of Less than Local conservation value in the context of this Site. Green Sandpiper This is a winter visitor to the UK, seen between July and March, found in southern and eastern England, as well as south Wales and near the Dee Estuary. They require freshwater habitats, such as marshes, lakes, rivers and gravel pits. Only one record of this species was made during the two years of surveys, with a flight of 20 seconds at below risk height recorded for an individual in September As such, it is considered to be of Negligible conservation value in the context of the Site. Marsh Harrier The largest of the harriers, this species is found near reed-beds, marshes and farmland near wetlands, primarily in eastern and south-east England. Marsh harrier was the most frequently recorded raptor species during both years of surveys, with over 1,000 seconds at risk height recorded during both years. Despite not being recorded during any of the breeding bird surveys it was regularly noted over the Site on VP surveys during the spring and summer of both years of survey. This suggests that breeding was likely, at the very least, close to the Site, with good hunting habitat available within the Site. The Nene Washes is known to support a regular breeding population, with several territories present and the RSPB reserve recognised as a reliable site to spot them. Marsh harriers typically breed in reedbed habitats but can breed successfully in arable farmland, particularly if managed sensitively to ensure that disturbance is limited until young birds have fledged. Marsh harrier is a species of international conservation value due to its Annex 1 status, and is also listed in Schedule 1. Due to the relatively high activity levels for this species and the likelihood of breeding within close proximity to the Site, it is considered to be of High Local/County conservation value within the context of this Site. The nearby breeding population is considered to be of Regional conservation value, and the Site is considered to provide a small proportion of the range of that population. The high levels of flight activity at risk height also meant that CRM was required for this species. Merlin The smallest bird of prey to be found in the UK, the merlin breeds on upland moorlands throughout northern England, Wales and Scotland, but will regularly over-winter in lowland farmland areas throughout the rest of ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-28

307 England A solitary merlin was seen on three occasions throughout the two years of surveys, each time during the winter months. Merlin spent no time at risk height. It is a species of international and national conservation concern due to its Annex 1 and Schedule 1 status respectively, however within the context of this Site it is considered to be of Less than Local conservation value due to its low flight activity and presence during winter months only. Peregrine Falcon Peregrines inhabit open areas and nest in upland and coastal cliffs and quarries. They hunt avian prey within a core area of approximately 2km of their nest site although the maximum range can extend up to 18km from their nests. During the first year of surveys peregrines were seen on six occasions during the winter months, with a maximum of two birds seen and 105 of 305 flights seconds spent at risk height. Only one record was made during the second year of surveys, in late August. Peregrines are listed as both Annex 1 and Schedule 1 birds, meaning they are of international importance as a species. However, due to the limited observed flight time and lack of suitable breeding habitat either within the Site or in adjacent habitats, they are considered to be of Less than Local conservation importance in the context of this site. Pink-footed Goose Pink-footed geese do not breed in the UK, but increasingly large numbers are spending the winter months around some of the UK s coastlines. They are particularly likely to be found near to large estuaries in England and Scotland, moving inland during the daytime to feed on suitable farmland. Only one flock of 40 birds was recorded during the first year of VP surveys, with no records during the second year and no time spent at risk height. Two small flocks were recorded during the winter walkover surveys during This species is considered to be sensitive to the effects of wind farms by the SNH but is not of particular national or international conservation concern. Therefore, pink-footed geese are considered to be of Less than Local conservation importance in the context of this site. Red Kite Due to one of the world s longest running protection programmes red kites are now found in many parts of the UK, whereas in the recent past they were confined to areas of mid Wales. They have a wide-ranging habitat distribution and can be found throughout the year. Seven observations of this species were made during the first year of surveys, with eight made the following year. Sightings occurred during both summer and winter months, with the majority of flights recorded at risk height. The relatively high total amount of time spent at risk height meant that CRM was undertaken for red kite for both years of surveys. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-29

308 While red kites are of both international (Annex 1) and national (Schedule 1) conservation importance they are considered to be continuing to increase in terms of their populations. Therefore as a result of the flight time recorded for the species and spread of records throughout the year, they are considered to be of Local conservation value within the context of this site. Short-eared Owl This species breeds primarily in northern England and Scotland, although some may also breed in eastern England and some parts of Wales. Short-eared owl regularly over-winters near coastal marshes and wetlands throughout the south of England. One bird was observed during January 2012 from the northern VP, probably attracted by the ditches within the Site which provide good foraging habitat. No other records were made and this species spent no time at risk height. This species is of international conservation importance as it appears on Schedule 1 of the European Union Birds Directive. Despite this it is considered to be of Less than Local conservation value within the context of this site due to no evidence of breeding and only one sighting being made. Whimbrel Whimbrels breed only in the north of Scotland within the UK, but may be found during migration in autumn and spring around most of the UK s coastlines. A flock of 12 birds was recorded during July 2010, migrating south for the winter. The flock was recorded for 90 seconds at risk height, meaning that it was included in the CRM for the first year As this is only a passage bird and only one record was made, whimbrel is considered to be of Less than Local conservation value within the context of this Site. Bittern This species is found during the winter in wetlands within large reed-beds throughout the south of the UK when the population is increased by European birds that migrate from the Continent. It was recorded only once during a winter walkover in the first year of surveys, possibly extending its usual range due to the extremely cold weather at that time Although bittern is more likely to be recorded from the Nene Washes to the south, and it is unlikely to breed in the area, the species is listed on both Schedule 1 and Annex 1, as well as being an English priority and UK BAP species. As bittern are extremely timid and can be under recorded during winter, a precautionary approach has been adopted, recognising that the dikes and drains present within the site provide supporting habitat for over wintering bitterns using the wider area; therefore the species is considered to be of Local conservation value within the context of this Site. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-30

309 Common Crane The common crane is an internationally important species due to its Annex 1 status and is a rare bird in the UK. There has been localised breeding recorded in the east of England in recent years, with successful breeding occurring in the Nene Washes for the first time in Although the numbers of common crane successfully breeding are small, they are considered to represent a nationally important breeding population of this rare species During the autumn of 2010 three birds were seen to the south-east of the site (the direction of the Nene Washes SPA), with five birds seen in July 2011 and over three hundred seconds recorded at risk height The Site does not provide suitable breeding habitat for the species itself, but the arable fields present may provide sub-optimal supporting habitat for feeding. Although, given its proximity to the Nene Washes, the activity recorded during the surveys was relatively low, the numbers recorded are considered to be High Local/County conservation value within the context of this Site. Common Tern This species breeds along much of the UK s coastlines, as well as at inland gravel pits and reservoirs. During the surveys it was recorded on three occasions during both years, with a maximum of three birds seen in Some flight time at risk height was recorded for this species, but not enough to merit CRM The common tern is an Annex 1 species and is therefore of international conservation concern. It was not recorded during any of the breeding bird surveys although the area does provide suitable breeding habitat. For this reason, combined with the records of the species during both years of surveys this species is classified as being of Less than Local conservation value within the context of this Site. Grey Heron Grey herons were recorded regularly during the VP, winter walkover and breeding bird surveys and were classified as a probable breeder during both years of survey, due to the presence of a heronry to the south of the Nene Washes. They were not, however, listed as a target species and no flight details were recorded. Grey herons are not considered to be a species of conservation concern as a result of which they are considered to be of Less than Local conservation value. Lapwing Lapwings are found on farmland throughout the UK, particularly in lowland areas of northern England, the Borders and eastern Scotland. In the breeding season this species prefers agricultural habitats including spring sown cereals, root crops, permanent unimproved pasture, meadows and fallow fields. They can also be found on wetlands with short vegetation. In the winter they flock on pasture and ploughed fields. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-31

310 Although not a designating feature of the Nene Washes SPA, lapwing is listed as a species that contributes to overall assemblage of the SPA. During the 2010/11 Wetland Bird Survey, a peak count of 9,354 birds was recorded from the Nene Washes, contributing to a 5-year peak mean of 6,600 birds. This population level meets the threshold for consideration as being of national importance for lapwing During the vantage point surveys lapwings were by far the most frequently recorded wader and overall target species. Over a hundred flights were recorded during each year of surveys for this species, with a maximum flock size of 500 during the first winter of surveys, and 1,200 during the second year. The large flocks were primarily noted in the ploughed fields in the northern area of the Site, visible from VP 1 and shown on Figure 8.2 for and Figure 8.9 for However, in both years, the median flock size recorded was of 25 birds, suggesting that the majority of flocks are relatively small with only occasional visits by large flocks of lapwing. This pattern of behaviour as also observed with golden plover above is characteristic of flocking waders where large flocks may utilise a relatively large area Over 500,000 and 1.4 million seconds at risk height were recorded for lapwing in the first and second years respectively, due to the large flock sizes, meaning that CRM was run for both years The lapwings observed during the surveys are likely to support the population of national importance present at the Nene Washes. However, lapwing is a common species of arable land in the Fens, and that population is likely to range widely over the Fens. The species was regularly recorded at the site with occasional presence of relatively large flocks. The proximity to the Nene Washes, combined with the relatively high activity within the site means it is considered as being of High Local/County conservation value in the context of this Site. Little Egret The little egret has extended its range into Britain from the continent and first appeared in Britain in significant numbers in 1989 and first bred in Dorset in It is now common along the south and east coasts of England, and is expanding its range inland and into Wales. Little egret is present both as a breeding species and as a winter visitor when numbers increase, and is common throughout the year in East Anglia Little egrets were observed during the first year of winter walkovers and the second year of breeding bird surveys, as well as a number of sightings being made throughout the two years of VP surveys. Some time at risk height was recorded during both years, but not enough in either case to warrant CRM for the species As an Annex 1 species the little egret is of international conservation value, which combined with a reasonable volume of flight activity and year-round presence at the Site means they are considered to be of Local conservation value in the context of the Site. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-32

311 Black-tailed Godwit A flock of 20 birds were recorded once during July 2010 and remained below risk height for the duration of the observation time. This was the only record of this species despite black-tailed godwit being a qualifying species for the Nene Washes SPA. As the birds recorded are likely to be connected to the SPA, a precautionary evaluation has concluded that the species if of Local conservation value in the context of this Site. Barn Owl Barn owls were recorded during both years of VPs and breeding bird surveys, and during the first year of winter walkover surveys. They were recorded on 25 occasions during the first year of VPs and 16 occasions during the second year, with considerable flight time accumulated, although this was almost exclusively below risk height meaning that CRM was not considered. Barn owls bred within the Survey Area during both years of survey effort; confirmed by an adult seen carrying prey towards a nest-box in 2010 and young being heard from the same nest box during a bat survey in As confirmed by their status as a Schedule 1 species, barn owls are a nationally important species, which combined with confirmed breeding on the Site and year-round activity means they are considered to be of Local conservation value in the context of this Site. Gadwall This species breeds throughout much of central, eastern and southern England, its preferred habitats being gravel pits, lakes and reservoirs. It can also be found in parts of Wales and Scotland, and during the winter expands its range to south-west England, favouring coastal wetlands as wintering areas Gadwalls were seen in both years during the breeding bird and winter walkover surveys, and were also recorded during the first year of VP surveys, with four birds spending time at risk height. They were confirmed as breeding on the Prior s Fen gravel pits to the south of the Site during both years of survey, although no more than one or two pairs were seen The gadwall is a qualifying species for the Nene Washes SPA, which contains a significant proportion of the UK s breeding gadwall population. Therefore although the species is not of particular conservation concern it is considered to be of High Local/County conservation value in the context of this Site. Garganey Garganey is relatively rare within the UK, only found in the summer with usually no more than 100 breeding pairs. They are primarily found in the east of England, although can be seen in other isolated areas throughout the UK. Their preferred habitat is shallow wetlands, with flooded meadows and fields, and plentiful aquatic vegetation. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-33

312 The only time this species was recorded during the two years of surveys at the Gores Wind Farm Site was during the breeding bird survey in April 2010, which meant for this year they were classified as a probable breeder due to the suitable breeding habitat on Site and the fact that multiple birds were recorded together. It can also be considered that as their favoured habitat is ditches with thick vegetation they are not always easy to observe As a Schedule 1 listed species, garganey are of national conservation importance and a qualifying species for the nearby Nene Washes SPA; which has been estimated to hold up to a third of the UK breeding population (JNCC spread sheet complied from Natura 2000 Standard Data Forms For these reasons it is considered to be of High Local/County conservation value in the context of this Site. Hobby Hobby are found throughout most of England from April to October, with their range extending into southern Wales, and even into the south of Scotland. They are often found near woodland edges, heathlands and gravel pits, where insect prey is plentiful They were recorded during VPs in both years of survey effort at the Site and also on one breeding bird survey in each year. No specific evidence of breeding was recorded during the breeding bird surveys, meaning the birds seen were classified as non-breeders (in the context of the Site). However, hobby is often under-recorded whilst on the nest and clear evidence of breeding was recorded during both years of VP surveys, including sightings of juveniles and mobbing of other bird species (territorial behaviour). While it is not possible to confirm breeding from the site itself, it is likely that hobby breed in the surrounding area and may breed in mature trees close to the Site in future seasons. Eight hobby flights were recorded during the first year of surveys including some time spent at risk height, with 29 records the following year, including 5,421 seconds at risk height which meant that CRM was required and subsequently run for both years of survey Hobby is a nationally important species in terms of conservation in the UK due to its Schedule 1 status, which when added to the conclusion that breeding was taking place at least close to the Site means it is considered to be of Local conservation value in the context of the site. Little Ringed Plover This species is found in suitable habitat, including gravel pits, sewage works and shingle river banks, throughout most of England and sometimes into south Wales. Breeding was confirmed for little ringed plover during the second year of breeding bird surveys (2011), with a bird on a nest recorded just to the west of the Prior s Fen gravel pits to the south of the Site (more than 500m from the Site boundary). This was also the exact location where a year earlier a bird had been heard calling from, with one other bird heard in 2011 just to the north-west of the Site. It is worth noting that during the final winter walkover surveys in 2011/12 the ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-34

313 field in which the nest was originally located was no longer habitable as crops had been replaced by a large rubble heap due to developments in the area As a Schedule 1 listed species, little ringed plover is a species of national conservation importance, which when considered alongside confirmed breeding for the species within close proximity to the Site means it is classified as being of Local conservation value in the context of this Site. Wigeon Wigeon are a scare breeder within the UK, only found during the summer months in parts of central England and northern Scotland. However, they visit in large numbers during the winter and are found almost throughout the UK. Often favouring coastal areas they can be found roosting on most water bodies, including reservoirs and gravel pits; the species is also widespread on inland flooded grassland where the birds feed on grassland and arable winter crops returning to waterbodies to roost Wigeon are a qualifying species of the Nene Washes SPA, where it over winters in nationally important numbers. In 2010/11 the peak count recorded was 20,460 birds, contributing to a 5-year peak mean of 14,161 bird up to 2010/ Wigeon were recorded during VPs and winter walkover surveys during both years at the Site, with over a hundred individuals seen on both years. Relatively few flights at risk height (four and three during the first and second years respectively) were recorded during the VPs; however, due to the relatively large numbers in flocks (up to 180 birds) the flight data met the requirements for CRM to be run Although not a species of particular national conservation importance, wigeon is a qualifying species for the nearby Nene Washes SPA due to the large numbers found there. However, the peak counts recorded during the surveys represented a relatively small proportion with a peak count of 180 birds in Year 1 and 302 in Year 2. Thus while the arable fields present within the Site may provide supporting habitat to the SPA population, it is unlikely to provide an important resource for SPA birds. Therefore, the birds observed within the Site itself are considered to be of Local conservation value in the context of this Site. Teal The relatively small UK breeding population of teal is spread throughout much of the UK, with the exception of the south-west of England. Much larger numbers overwinter here and are found on both coastal and inland wetlands. Teal are a designating a species of the Nene Washes where a peak count of 3,916 was recorded in the 2010/11 Wetland Bird Survey (Holt et al., 2012) contributing to a 5-year peak mean of 3,707 birds Teal was recorded in low numbers during both years of winter walkover surveys, with two flights noted during the first year of VP surveys. However, both of these flights were of flocks of teal (one and twenty-five birds respectively), meaning that over 3,000 seconds was spent at risk ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-35

314 height in total and CRM was required for the species The numbers of Teal recorded during the surveys represent a relatively small proportion of the local SPA population and despite being a qualifying species for the nearby Nene Washes SPA, the species is considered to be of Local conservation value in the context of the Site. Pintail Pintails are a localised species during the summer breeding months, with very few pairs found in the UK. Their numbers, however, increase dramatically from September to March each year where wintering populations occupy sheltered coast and estuaries around the UK, as well as suitable lakes, rivers and marshes inland Only one record of a pintail was made during the surveys at the Site, with an individual spending forty-five seconds at risk height, before landing in the gravel pit to the south of the Site. As this was a one-off record and pintails are not of particular conservation concern in the UK it is considered to be of Less than Local conservation value in the context of the site, despite it being a qualifying species for the Nene Washes SPA due to the large number which winter there. Shoveler Although a widespread species during the winter months, these are primarily migrant birds, with the UK s breeding population found mainly in southern and eastern England, as well more sparsely in northern England and southern Scotland. They can be located in marshes and wetlands, often in large numbers during the winter Shoveler was recorded during both years of winter walkover, primarily on the Prior s Fen gravel pits to the south of the Site. The maximum number of birds recorded on a winter walkover was 14, with a single flock of 23 seen at risk height on a VP in the first winter of surveys. Three flights were recorded during the second year of VPs, with a maximum this time of five birds seen. Despite the relative scarcity of flights both years yielded in excess of 1,000 seconds at risk height for shoveler, meaning that CRM was required for both years Shoveler is a qualifying species for the nearby Nene Washes SPA, which holds both a small breeding population, and a larger over-wintering population. The species is not however, of particular conservation concern within the UK, which coupled with the lack of breeding evidence during the surveys and relatively low numbers during the winter means it is considered to be of Less than Local conservation value in the context of the Site. Summary of Ornithological Evaluation Table 8.5 summarises the conservation value of the key ornithological features and receptors. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-36

315 Table 8.5: Summary of Evaluation of Key Ornithological Receptors Species Activity Ecological Receptor Value Bewick s swan Observed on three occasions Local between October 2010 and February Likely over wintering in the area, but not on the site itself Whooper swan Recorded on VP surveys, on twenty occasions in the first year of surveys and on two High Local/County occasions in the second survey year. In both years flocks of over one hundred birds were recorded. Most activity focused on Priors Fen Gravel Pits and fields towards Nene Washes. Curlew Four flights made by lone birds Less than Local recorded on VP s during winter of Hen harrier A single bird was recorded Less than Local during VP surveys in spring of Golden plover High levels of activity recorded during winter VP and winter walk over surveys for both study periods. High Local/County Goshawk Solitary individual recorded Less than Local during VP survey in spring Greenshank Single recorded flight below risk height in August Less than Local Green sand Single recorded flight below Negligible piper risk height in September Marsh harrier High levels of activity recorded High Local/County during VPs surveys at all times of year throughout the entire survey period. Merlin Low number of flights recorded Less than Local during the winter periods of the study period. Peregrine A maximum of two birds were seen on six occasions during the winter of Only a single record was made during the winter of Less than Local Pink footed One flock of 40 birds were Less than Local goose recorded flying below risk height during VP surveys in the first year. Red kite Seven flight observations Local during the first survey years and eight in the second. Both periods recorded high levels of activity at risk height throughout the year. Short-eared owl One individual recorded during a VP survey in January Less than Local ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-37

316 Species Activity Ecological Receptor Value Whimbrel Twelve birds recorded on a Less than Local single occasion during July 2010 Bittern Recorded only once during winter walkover surveys in Local Common Vantage point surveys High Local/County crane recorded three birds on site in 2010 and five present on Site in Observations at risk height were recorded. Common tern Observed during VP s on three occasions during each survey year, no evidence of breeding. Less than Local Grey heron Recorded throughout the Less than Local entire survey period on all types of surveys. Lapwing High levels of activity during both VP survey periods, and both winter walk over surveys. High Local/County Small numbers recorded during breeding bird surveys. Little egret Recorded throughout the Local entire survey period on all Black godwit Barn owl Gadwall Garganey Hobby Little plover Wigeon tailed ringed types of surveys. One flock of 20 birds recorded on a VP survey below risk height in July Recorded during all survey types throughout the year, indicating a resident breeding population. Observed during winter walk overs and breeding bird surveys in both survey periods. Recording of flight at risk height during vantage point surveys in the first year of study. Small population of probable breeders recorded in April Eight flights recorded during the first year of VP surveys increasing to twenty nine during the second survey year. Evidence of breeding recorded during these surveys. Small numbers recorded during breeding birds surveys in Recorded on both winter walk over and VP surveys during both years of survey. Teal Recorded in low numbers during winter walk overs and VP s for both survey periods. Local Local High Local/County High Local/County Local Local Local Local Pintail One record during VP surveys. Less than Local ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-38

317 Species Activity Ecological Receptor Value Shoveler Recorded roosting on Priors Fen gravel pits during Winter walk over surveys in both years. A single flock of twenty three birds recorded at risk height Three flocks with a maximum of five birds recorded during the winter of Less than Local Breeding bird Assemblage of farmland Local assemblage species including two Annex 1, six Schedule 1, 17 English priority list and UK BAP species, three LBAP species, 14 red list and 29 amber list species. 8.6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Impacts on Key Ecological Receptors The character of the impacts on ecological receptors that have been evaluated as being of nature conservation value in the preceding section of this EcIA are assessed here with reference to the type of impacts detailed in Chapter 7, Ecology. The impacts on each receptor are assessed in terms of their magnitude and overall significance using the matrices set out in Table 8.3 and Table 8.4. The main mitigation, compensation and enhancement proposals are set out in the following section of this Chapter. A detailed discussion of the wider generic impacts in relation to the Site is provided in Chapter 7: Ecology. Such generic impacts include, but are not restricted to: Direct habitat loss; Fragmentation of habitat areas; Damage and disturbance to habitats and species; Displacement of species; Collision risk; Dust deposition on sensitive habitats or sedimentation; and Light pollution of habitats used by species. The following section provides as assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed scheme on the ornithological receptors, including the species evaluated above. As these species may include individuals that are part of the populations associated with designated sites, an assessment of impacts is included once the effects on these species have been discussed. Collision Risk Modelling Collision risk model (CRM) calculations were carried out for those species considered to be of primary interest in the context of this assessment, and which generated sufficient flights at risk height (Table 8.6). Table 8.7 below summarises the results of the collision risk modelling for ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-39

318 these species. Avoidance rates used for each species assessment are as recommended by SNH (2010). Full details of the CRM methodology and worked examples are provided in Technical Appendix 8.1. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-40

319 Table 8.6: At Risk Flight Seconds per Species per VP Study Period 1 and 2 Study period 1 Study period 2 VP number Viewshed area (ha) Total Bewick s swan 1, ,080 Golden plover 52, ,870 63, ,428 1,155,921 Hobby ,526 2,565 4,481 Lapwing 43, ,700 1,043, ,398 1,911,164 Marsh harrier ,129 Mute swan , ,870 Red kite ,323 Shoveler 2, ,055 Teal 3, ,045 Whimbrel 1, ,080 Whooper swan 11,944 3, ,298 Wigeon 8,640 19,200 3, , Figures present the viewshed areas for the two VP s for both study periods and all at risk flight segments that have been included into the model. Avoidance rates have been used as recommended by the latest SNH guidance (2010) document. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-41

320 Table 8.7: Collision Risk Model Results Study period 1 Study period 2 Species Annual risk Years collision per Birds colliding over 25 years Annual risk Years collision per Birds colliding over 25 years Bewick swan Golden plover Hobby Lapwing Marsh harrier Mute swan Red kite Shoveler Teal Whimbrel Whooper swan Wigeon ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-42

321 Impacts on Ornithological Receptors As described previously, ornithological receptors recorded within the survey area have been assessed according to their nature conservation value; this section assesses the potential impacts of the construction and operational periods of the proposed wind development on key species of conservation value. Decommissioning impacts are not considered in detail here, but are likely to be of reduced magnitude and significance relative to construction impacts. For example, the decommissioning phase is predicted to last a period of 2-3 months compared to a construction period of 6-9 months. Potential impacts during construction and decommissioning considered include: direct loss of foraging habitat and/or breeding habitat; and disturbance due to track and turbine base construction as well as turbine erection, heavy machinery, noise and human activity on the Site. Potential impacts of operational wind farms on birds considered here include: indirect loss of foraging or breeding habitat due to displacement or avoidance; impacts on commuting routes due to a barrier effect; indirect adverse impacts on habitat quality; and collision risk. Bewick s Swan This species is classified by SNH as being sensitive to wind farms, and is a designating feature of the Nene Washes SPA. However, during the two years of bird surveys undertaken across the survey area there was only a total of three records of this species, with the only flight recorded being from the Priors Fen Gravel Pits to the south of the Site, heading southeast towards the Nene Washes. As the proposed turbines are all located at least 750m to the north or north-west of these pits, it is extremely unlikely that birds utilising the Priors Fen area would be significantly affected by the proposed construction or operation of the scheme. There is risk of potential displacement of birds from the site itself, but as there no records of this species in this area during the surveys, this is not considered to be likely. Collision risk modelling was run for this species and determined an annual risk value of 0.031, resulting in birds colliding every 25 years. For these reasons the effect of the proposed development is concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-43

322 Whooper Swan Whooper swans are Annex 1 and Schedule 1 species. This species was recorded during both winter study periods often in large flocks of up to 130 birds. However most of the activity was observed to be away from the site itself, usually to the south around Priors fen and often more than 500m away from the site boundary. Only one small flock of six birds was observed feeding within the 500m buffer zone. Flight activity in the winter of was concentrated over and to the south of Priors fen, involving 18 flights, three of which entered the buffer zone, and a further one crossed the site itself at risk height. In the second winter of survey only two flights were recorded one through the buffer zone, over Priors Fen and the other crossed the southern boundary of the site at risk height. Considering the number a size of the observed flocks a CRM was run and returned annual risk values of and for the first and second study periods respectively, which translates to and possible collisions over the life of the proposed development from the flight data for Year 1 and Year 2 respectively. Whooper swans do not breed on the site, and do not appear to use it as a regular feeding area. Therefore habitat loss and displacement effects are considered to be minimal. The design of the proposed scheme has incorporated a constraint buffer from the Prior s Fen gravel pits to prevent displacement of birds utilising the waterbodies and therefore this has ensure that the displacement of whooper swans from the gravel pits or the fields to the south has been minimised. Nevertheless, as whooper swans may occasionally usually fields to the north, a precautionary assessment of impacts has concluded that these would be of low magnitude on a receptor of High Local/County value resulting in an impact of minor significance upon the species in the context of the Site. Curlew Curlew is classified by SNH as a species sensitive to wind farms. However activity within the survey area and site was very low with only four recorded flights and 30 seconds spent at risk height. Therefore it is considered extremely unlikely that there will be any barrier affect or displacement of the species due to avoidance. Also, without any evidence of breeding activity or significant numbers overwintering on the Site it is certain that there will be no loss of breeding or foraging habitat for curlews. The minimal activity recorded meant that CRM was not considered and there would be no significant risk of collision. Therefore, the effect on this species of the proposed development is concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-44

323 Hen Harrier Hen harrier is again listed by SNH as a species which is sensitive to wind farm developments. However with only one bird making one flight during the two years of surveys and no time spent at risk height, hen harriers should not suffer from displacement, barrier effect or loss of breeding and foraging habitat. In addition there is no collision risk for this species, meaning that the effect on this species of the proposed development will be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Golden Plover An Annex 1 species which is classed by SNH as being sensitive to wind farms, golden plover were recorded in high numbers during both winters at this Site, leading to the evaluation that the population recorded within the survey area was of Regional ecological value. As described above, golden plover utilised the site on a regular basis, tending to be present in relatively small to medium sized flocks but occasionally occurring in relatively large flocks, with peak counts exceeding 1,000 birds. It is important to recognise that waders that utilise agricultural fields for foraging in this way may range over a wide area, often centred around core roosting or foraging areas; in this case the Nene Washes undoubtedly represents the core area for golden plover in this local area of the Fens, with birds from there dispersing to forage on winter arable land over a relatively large area. During the construction phase, it is likely that a relatively small area of arable fields will be lost due to the footprint of the scheme, although this direct loss of potential foraging habitat represents only a small proportion of the area within the Site, survey area or wider range used by golden plover. Habitat loss has been minimised through the design of access tracks around the field edges as far as practically possible. During construction, there is a risk that birds would potentially be disturbed by the presence of construction activity. However, as the fields are subject to regular agricultural disturbance it is unlikely that such disturbance would be greater than the background levels and would be temporary in nature. This would be likely to result in a temporary displacement of birds away from the Site, but would not be expected to significantly affect the conservation status of the species. During construction, these potential effects are considered to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of High Local/County value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. During the operation of the proposed wind farm, golden plover utilising the site are likely to be at risk of collision with the wind turbines. Due to the large numbers of birds the time spent at risk height was very high for this species, with CRM required for both years of surveys, with flights at risk height recorded around most areas of the Site, but during the second year in particular showing the highest concentration in the northern section of the Site. The CRM produced an annual risk value of 3.3 in the first year of the study, this increased to 15.6 during the second year. These values are predicted to lead to range in the number of collisions over the 25-year life of the wind farm of between approximately 82 and 390 birds. However, ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-45

324 CRM of birds that tend to occur in flocks may result in predictions that overestimate the potential risk. The CRM calculations tend to use an avoidance rate for each individual bird and thus treat each bird within a flock as a separate individual; in reality, birds in flocks tend to behave in a similar manner and thus the true avoidance rate may be much greater which in turn would result in a reduced rate of collision. Nevertheless, accepting the figures produced by the CRM of between 3 and 16 birds per year, this rate of collision is unlikely to result in a significant reduction in the local population, which currently comprises several thousand birds, and would be unlikely to affect the population reported for the Nene Washes, with a mean peak count of over 4,000 birds for the 5-year period up to 2010/11 (Holt et al., 2012) Flocks of golden plover may be subject to displacement from disturbance. While breeding golden plover have been reported to be displaced by wind turbines at distance of up to 800m (Pearce-Higgins et al., 2012), the evidence of disturbance on overwintering golden plover is unclear, and likely to differ on a site by site basis. Hotker et al. (2006) reviewed studies on displacement on non-breeding birds and showed that in most cases golden plover exhibited significant disturbance effects due to wind farms ranging between 50m and 350m. It is therefore likely that the proposed wind farm will result in localised displacement of golden plover from the turbine development envelope. In combination with the potential risk of collision, the likely effects on the golden plover utilising the Site are considered to be of medium magnitude and therefore, in the absence of mitigation result in an impact of moderate significance on the species. Goshawk Goshawks are considered to be sensitive to wind farm developments by SNH, and are a Schedule 1 listed species. However, in this instance only one bird was recorded in two years of surveying, and there was no significant collision risk for this species. Also, as the solitary bird was considered to be just passing through the area with no suitable habitat to breed or for prolonged foraging there should be no risk of displacement or habitat loss for the species. The potential effects of the proposed developments are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Greenshank A species which appear on SNH s list of species sensitive to wind farms, a single greenshank was recorded on just one occasion during the surveys and with no time at risk height the species was not considered for CRM. As the bird was thought to be an early migrant there is no chance of disturbance or loss of breeding or foraging habitat for this species, as well as no significant collision risk. The potential effects of the proposed developments on greenshanks are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-46

325 Green Sandpiper Green sandpipers are Schedule 1 species, which generally only spend the winter period in the UK. As there is only a single record at the Site in two years of survey, the bird is considered to have just been passing through. Therefore there should be no risk of direct loss of habitat, or displacement. Due to the limited amount of flight time below risk height the risk of collision is extremely low. The potential effects of the proposed developments on greenshanks are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Negligible value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Marsh Harrier Marsh harriers appear on the list of species sensitive to wind farm developments produced by SNH, and is also an Annex 1 and Schedule 1 species. CRM was run for both years for this species, due to over 60 flights recorded during each year of survey yielding sufficient time at risk height. The annual collision risk was calculated at around and in the first and second year of study respectively resulting in collision risk values of and over a 25 year period. These collision risks are relatively low and reflect the data which showed that the majority of the flights were below risk height and/or towards the south of the developable area around the Priors Fen Gravel Pits site. However, as the Site provides foraging habitat for marsh harriers during the breeding season, and is situated close to good breeding habitat it is conceivable that the developments may result in indirect displacement due to avoidance, and possibly even some loss of foraging habitat. The potential effects of the proposed developments are concluded to be of low magnitude on a receptor of High Local/County conservation value of resulting in an effect of minor significance on marsh harriers. Merlin This internationally important raptor was recorded only three times during the entire survey period. The site itself offers poor foraging habitat for this species, the observed individuals likely to birds passing through the site, probably in a direction to or from the Nene Washes and various habitat features surrounding the site. The potential effects of the proposed development on merlin are therefore assessed as being concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Peregrine Peregrines are listed as both Annex 1 and Schedule 1 birds, and are therefore considered to be a species of international conservation importance. Potential impacts on peregrine can be characterised as being associated with the loss of foraging habitat, displacement due to disturbance and the risk of collision. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-47

326 During the first year of surveys peregrines were seen on six occasions during the winter months only, with a maximum of two birds spending 105 of 305 flights seconds at risk height. In the second year of surveys, a single flight was recorded below risk height. For both survey periods, the low flight activity was insufficient to generate meaningful CRM results. Due to the limited flight time and lack of suitable habitat to be lost or displaced from the potential effect of the proposed development on this species is considered to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Pink-footed Goose This species is considered to be at risk from wind farms, but has no international designations due to population increases in recent years. The site was visited by small numbers of geese during the first survey period. Forty birds were observed flying below risk height, and small flocks were recorded as feeding on the fields in September and December The potential effects of the proposed developments are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Red Kite Red kite is listed as both Annex 1 and schedule 1 species, it is therefore of international importance. The species is also considered by SNH to be at risk from wind farms. The Site does not provide suitable breeding habitat for this species, and the most likely potential impacts arising from the proposed development are associated with collision risk and/or the displacement of birds from the area. The time spent at risk height over the Site was considered to be sufficient to provide a meaningful estimate of collision risk; consequently CRM was run for this species. Seven flights in the first year of survey totalled 960 seconds at risk height. The CRM calculated an annual risk value of indicating that one collision could occur every 44 years. In the second year of survey 1,633 seconds of flight were recorded at risk height, producing an annual risk of collision value of 0.034, with a predicted rate of collision as one bird every 29 years. The potential effects of the proposed development are therefore concluded to be of low magnitude on a receptor of Local value, resulting in no significant impact. Short-eared Owl This species is listed as Annex 1 and is considered to be at risk from wind farms. Only one record of one individual was recorded in January The site does not provide suitable breeding habitat and offers only limited foraging habitat in the form of some large ditches. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-48

327 The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Whimbrel Whimbrels are passage migrants in the UK, are listed as a Schedule 1 species and considered to be sensitive to wind farms on one occasion in July 2010, 12 individuals were recorded at risk height for 90 seconds. These birds were on passage to breeding grounds in Scandinavia and are not considered to be at risk of losing breeding or foraging habitat. The CRM produced an extremely low annual risk value of 0.02 birds or collisions over the operational life span of the proposed development. The potential effects of the proposed development are therefore concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Bittern Bittern is a Schedule 1 and Annex 1 species, as well as being an English priority and UK BAP species. It is therefore of the highest national importance. However only one individual was recorded during the two years of surveys, and the species is not considered to be sensitive to wind farms. Due to their favoured habitats being reedbeds, occasionally venturing into vegetated drains and ditches in winter, the species is unlikely to be affected by habitat loss, with the only theoretical potential impacts being associated with collision risk and displacement due to disturbance. The potential effects of the proposed development are therefore concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Common Crane This species is of international importance with Annex 1 status. Three cranes were recorded during the first survey period, and five were recorded flying to the south and east of the Site within the buffer zone. These flights yielded 300 seconds of flight times with were insufficient to run a meaningful estimate of collision risk using the CRM. The site itself does not provide optimal habitat for the species, but is likely to provide supporting habitat to the core areas within the Nene Washes, over 2km to the south. Collision risk is likely to be sufficiently low for this species, and therefore potential impacts may results from birds being displaced from the proposed Site through avoidance. The potential effects of the proposed development are therefore concluded to be of low magnitude on a receptor of High Local/County conservation value resulting in an impact of minor significance. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-49

328 Common Tern The site itself does not provide suitable feeding or breeding habitat for this species. The gravel pits in the immediate vicinity of the site however do. This species was recorded only three times during each survey year, and never as a breeding bird. Therefore the impact of the proposed development is likely to be relatively small. The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Grey Heron The gravel pits and other water bodies surrounding the Site provide ideal habitat for this species. This species is however common, widespread and not of conservation concern, and therefore the impacts of the proposed development on the local and national population will be minimal. The potential effects of the proposed development are likely to be a result of potential collision risk, and due to heron avoiding the area; these effects are concluded to be of low magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Lapwing Lapwings were recorded in relatively large numbers over winter during both survey periods, and were clearly using the site as roosting and foraging habitat. Breeding attempts were also recorded to the south of the site on Priors Fen. While occasional large flocks were recorded, the majority were relatively small but were present on most survey visits. Potential impacts associated with the scheme are likely to include direct impacts associated with potential collision, as well as the displacement of flocks of birds from roosting and foraging areas. As presented on Figures 8.2 and 8.9, lapwing were frequently recorded flying across the site and the CRM outputs generated annual collision risk values of and birds. These are relatively high figures that reflect the activity levels recorded but also are a result of the presence of relatively large flock sizes, as detailed above. While collision is likely to be a risk at the proposed site, it is considered that flocks of birds are more likely to avoid the turbine cluster and select other fields in the area for foraging and roosting. The potential combination of collision risk and/or displacement through disturbance is therefore considered to be of medium magnitude on a receptor of High Local/County conservation value and therefore, in the absence of mitigation, result in an impact of moderate significance upon the species. Little Egret Little egrets are Annex 1 species, individuals were observed throughout the survey period including the breeding season. Displacement effects are ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-50

329 likely to be minimal as the Site itself offers limited foraging opportunities. As most of the flight were made below risk height CRM was not necessary The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Black-tailed Godwit Only one flight of 20 of these birds was recorded during the survey period, and therefore was considered to be passing through the area. The site does not offer suitable breeding habitat, and foraging is extremely limited. Both direct and indirect effects of the proposed development are considered to be minimal. The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Barn Owl Barn Owl is a Schedule 1 species and relatively low flight activity was recorded during VP surveys, despite dawn and dusk surveys being undertaken throughout the year. However, barn owls are known to have bred on the Site in recent years and roost sites were identified at Brownhills Farm. Insufficient flight data were recorded to allow the risk of collision to be modelled and due to the majority of barn owl flights to be low to the ground, impacts relating to collision are considered to be of barely perceptible magnitude. Barn owls are relatively tolerant to disturbance, and it is considered likely that local barn owls would become habituated to the turbine structures following construction. On lowland agricultural sites, creation of grassland habitats close to wind turbines has been implemented to benefit a range of species that included barn owl 7. Therefore, while there is potential for disturbance to barn owls during the construction phase, overall, these are likely to be of barely perceptible magnitude in the context of the local population. In summary the proposed development is likely to be result in barely perceptible impacts on a receptor of Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. However, as the species is a Schedule 1 species that is known to breed on or close to the survey area, there is a risk that construction activities may result in disturbance to breeding barn owl were they to be present at the time of construction. Mitigation measures to prevent such disturbance would need to be incorporated into an Ecological Management Plan, as discussed below. 7 European Commission (2010) EU Guidance on wind energy development in accordance with the EU nature legislation ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-51

330 Gadwall Gadwall are listed as one of the qualifying species for the Nene Washes SPA, the species breeds and is resident throughout the year on the gravel pits surrounding the site. Very few flights were recorded and these were exclusively over Prior s Fen more than 750m form the site boundary. It is considered that the proposed development would be unlikely to any effect on birds or habitat used by the species in the area. The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of High Local/County conservation value resulting in in no significant impact on this species. Garganey The species is of national conservation importance, and listed as a qualifying species for the Nene Washes SPA. The presence of a migratory breeder clearly indicates breeding attempts being made in the vicinity of the Site. The only suitable habitat however is the gravel pits surrounding and more than 500m away from the Site boundary. Flights were limited and were contained over the gravel pits. Therefore it is considered that the proposed development would be unlikely to any effect on birds or habitat used by the species in the area. The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of High Local/County conservation value resulting in in no significant impact on this species. However, as the species is a Schedule 1 species that is known to breed on or close to the survey area, there is a risk that construction activities may result in disturbance to breeding garganey were they to be present at the time of construction. Mitigation measures to prevent such disturbance would need to be incorporated into an Ecological Management Plan, as discussed below. Hobby Hobbies were recorded over the site during both breeding seasons. While the survey area does provide suitable breeding habitat, the site itself has relatively few potential nest sites. While no breeding was confirmed during the breeding bird surveys, the parental behaviour and presence of juveniles observed in late summer suggests that successful breeding did occur in the vicinity of the site. The site and surrounding habitats do provide suitable foraging habitat, shown by the presence of hunting adults flying over the site. The first year of survey recorded eight flights, while 29 were recorded during the second, resulting in almost 4,500 seconds at risk height. The outputs from the CRM provided collision risk estimates of and collisions annually for each survey period or one collision occurring every 111 or 10 years respectively. The main effect of the proposed development is likely to be associated with potential displacement from areas for foraging, but this is unlikely to ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-52

331 affect the conservation status of the local population due to the abundance and widespread nature of potential hunting area, particularly when considering the Nene Washes to the south The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Local conservation value resulting in in no significant impact on this species. However, as the species is a Schedule 1 species that could potentially breed close to the Site in future years, there is a risk that construction activities may result in disturbance to breeding hobby were they to be present at the time of construction. Mitigation measures to prevent such disturbance would need to be incorporated into an Ecological Management Plan, as discussed below. Little Ringed Plover Breeding evidence for this species was recorded in suitable habitat west of Priors Fen (more than 500m from the site boundary) in both survey years. The site itself is unsuitable as foraging and breeding habitat for this species. Therefore effects on this species of the proposed development are likely to be small. The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Local conservation value resulting in in no significant impact on this species. However, as the species is a Schedule 1 species that could potentially breed close to the Site in future years, there is a risk that construction activities may result in disturbance to breeding little ringed plover were they to be present at the time of construction. Mitigation measures to prevent such disturbance would need to be incorporated into an Ecological Management Plan, as discussed below. Wigeon Wigeon is a qualifying species for the Nene Washes SPA, and occur in relatively high numbers in the vicinity of the site. Wigeon do not show habitat preferences for intensively managed arable fields, and are probably attracted to the grassland present in the Nene Washes as well as the gravel pits and other water bodies surrounding the Site. However, CRM was undertaken regarding the flight activity recorded, with six flights of between 13 and 80 birds in the first year of study with 27,840 seconds at risk height; in the second survey period, three flights of 35, 40 and 180 birds in the second year produced 3,360 seconds at risk height. These flight data produced annual collision risk values of and in the first and second year respectively; leading to a predicted number of collisions of and over the life of the wind farm. The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Local conservation value resulting in no significant impact on this species. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-53

332 Teal During the first year of survey two flights of teal were recorded: a singleton, and a flock of 25 birds. These flight data were just sufficient to produce a CRM; which produced an annual risk value of which leads to a prediction of just over one bird collision during the life of the wind farm. Teal is a qualifying species for the Nene Washes SPA and are as such particularly common in the vicinity of the site. The site itself has no habitat suitable for teal and therefore the effects of displacement from the proposed development are likely to be minimal. The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Local conservation value resulting in no significant impact on this species. Pintail Pintail is a qualifying species for the Nene Washes SPA. The presence of only a single bird during the two years of survey is indicative of the low habitat value which the site and its immediate surrounding offer to this species. The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a receptor of Less than Local value, resulting in no significant impact on this species. Shoveler This species is a qualifier for the Nene washes SPA, where they are known to breed. However the species was only recorded in the vicinity of the site during winter, indicating that the water bodies around the site are likely only a spill over area from the washes during the winter influx of migrants. Two flights were recorded in the first survey years made by five and 23 birds, the second year also recorded two flights, of three and five birds. All of which were at risk height, so a CRM was run; indicating an annual collision rate of and respectively. Shoveler was not encountered in large numbers during vantage point surveys and confined their movements to the gravel pits immediately north and south of the site boundary. This is supported by their presence on these water bodies during winter walk overs. Therefore the risks of habitat loss or displacement due to the proposed development are minimal. The potential effects of the proposed development are concluded to be of barely perceptible magnitude and as having a no significant impact upon the species. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-54

333 Impacts on Designated Sites The nearest statutory designated site to the Site is the Nene Washes SPA, SAC and SSSI, located approximately 2.1km to the south and southeast of the Site. In this chapter, the potential effects on the SPA are most relevant which also encompass the ornithological features of the SSSI. Potential Effects on Nene Washes SPA As stated in the Legislation & Planning Policy Section of this Chapter, if a significant effect on a European site is predicted as a result of a project, it is against the conservation objectives that potential implications of development proposals must be assessed by the Competent Authority termed an appropriate assessment. In making an appropriate assessment, the Competent Authority must take into consideration whether, subject to the impact avoidance and mitigation measures proposed the scheme will adversely affect the integrity of the European site. The term integrity is defined as the, coherence of the site s ecological structure and function, across its whole area, or the habitats, complex of habitats and/or populations of species for which the site is classified. It is considered certain that there will be no direct impact upon the Nene Washes arising from direct habitat loss or other effects on the habitats present within the designated site as the designated site is at least 2.1km from the proposed Site at its closest point. Specifically, the proposed scheme will not adversely affect the habitats within the SPA, and therefore will therefore conflict with the overarching objective of avoiding the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features by having no effect on: The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species; and The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely. Furthermore, the impact assessment of the likely effects on the species recorded within the survey area has concluded that there would be no significant effects on the local populations of those species which are qualifying features of the site: Bewick s swan; Wigeon; Gadwall; Teal; Pintail; Garganey; Shoveler; Black-tailed godwit; Spotted crake; and Ruff Of these, all species were recorded by the surveys, with the exception of Spotted crake and Ruff, but were sufficiently localised in their distribution ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-55

334 or in such low numbers as to not be adversely affected by the proposed development The Nene Washes SPA is also designated for its waterbird assemblage, which qualifies for regularly supporting more than 20,000 birds over winter. Of the ornithological receptors identified in this assessment, three species are considered to potentially contribute to the waterbird assemblage Whooper swan are not listed in the list of species in the designation for the Nene Washes SPA but in recent years have been recorded there in sufficient numbers for it to be a site of International Importance (Holt et al., 2012). While recorded relatively frequently during the surveys, the majority of activity was associated with the Prior s Fen area, with birds recorded on the gravel pits or feeding on the fields between the pits and the Nene Washes. A precautionary approach has been adopted, which has resulted in a potential impact of minor significance being predicted Golden plover and lapwing were both regularly recorded during the two years of bird surveys, with frequent flights. Of these, only Lapwing is listed in the designation for the Nene Washes SPA, but both have been recorded in recent years in sufficient numbers for it to be a site of National Importance for the species (Holt et al., 2012). The Vantage Point surveys provided sufficient flights to enable CRM to be undertaken for these species, which has led to impacts of minor significance being predicted for both species. These effects are likely to arise from potential collision risk associated with the proposed turbines or the displacement of birds from the Site. Neither of these minor significant effects is, however, considered to be sufficient to result in an adverse effect on the population of the species contributing to the waterbird assemblage of the SPA, or the distribution of the species within the site. In both cases, the most likely outcome would be for displacement of flocks due to the presence of turbines from the area around the Site itself; due to the extensive availability of alternative roosting and foraging sites closer to the SPA and further afield, this is unlikely to affect the integrity of the SPA Consequently, while bird species that contribute to the waterbird assemblage of the SPA may be affected at the geographical scale of the proposed development, it is unlikely that these minor effects would result in adverse impacts on the assemblage of birds recorded in the SPA. Impacts on Non-Designated Sites There are three non-statutory designated sites and the Prior s Fen gravel pits within a 2km radius of the Site boundary, with the Thorney Dike CWS located along the southern boundary of the Survey Area and the Prior s Fen gravel pits located outwith but directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the Survey Area Throughout the design of the proposed development, the potential ornithological value for the Prior s Fen gravel pits had been given due consideration; this has resulted in a buffer of approximately 750m between the gravel pits and the nearest wind farm infrastructure being incorporated into the site design. This distance is considered sufficient to minimise any potential disturbance that may arise during the operational phase of the ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-56

335 wind farm and which could potentially result in displacement from birds using the gravel pits Consequently, the potential impacts on the Prior s Fen gravel pits are considered to be of barely perceptible magnitude on a site evaluated as being of High Local/County conservation value (although not a CWS itself), resulting in effects of no significance. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-57

336 Summary of Impact Assessment The ornithological impacts predicted as a result of the wind farm are summarised in Table 8.8. Table 8.8: Impact Summary Table Receptor Evaluation Nature of Impact Impact Magnitude Impact Significance Designated Sites Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar Local Interest Site International No impact No impact No impact Prior s Fen High Local/County No impact Barely perceptible Not significant Ornithology Bewick s swan Local Disturbance and collision Displacement from feeding areas Whooper swan High Local/County Disturbance and collision Displacement from feeding areas Barely perceptible Not significant Curlew Less than Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible Not significant Hen harrier Less than Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible Not significant Golden plover High Local/County Loss of habitat and disturbance during construction Displacement and collision during operation Low Medium Minor Moderate Goshawk Less than Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible Not significant Greenshank Less than Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible Not significant Green sandpiper Negligible Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible Not significant Marsh harrier High Local/County Loss of habitat, displacement/disturbance and collision Merlin Less than Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible Not significant Peregrine falcon Less than Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible Not significant Pink-footed goose Less than Local Loss of habitat, disturbance and collision Barely perceptible Not significant Red kite Local Loss of habitat, displacement/disturbance and collision Low Low Minor Minor ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-58

337 Receptor Evaluation Nature of Impact Impact Magnitude Impact Significance Short eared owl Less than Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Whimbrel Less than Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Bittern Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Common crane High Local/County Loss of habitat, disturbance and collision Low Minor Common tern Less than Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Grey heron Less than Local Disturbance and collision Low No significant impact Lapwing High Local/County Loss of habitat, displacement/disturbance and collision Medium Moderate Little egret Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Black-tailed godwit Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Barn owl Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Gadwall High Local/County Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Garganey High Local/County Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Hobby Local Loss of habitat, disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Little ringed plover Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Wigeon Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Teal Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Pintail Less than Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Shoveler Less than Local Disturbance and collision Barely perceptible No significant impact Breeding bird assemblage Local Loss of habitat, disturbance and collision Barely perceptible Not significant ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-59

338 8.7 MITIGATION This section discusses the impact of mitigation measures that are recommended throughout the Site clearance/construction/operation phase of the proposed wind farm and beyond in order to protect the habitats and species present and to minimise loss and disturbance. The mitigation measures proposed here relate to the ornithological impacts and should be considered in association with the impacts proposed in the Ecology chapter, Chapter 7. The mitigation described in this chapter represents only those measures that have been agreed by the developer as being an accepted and integral component of the proposed scheme. In general, the ecological mitigation measures can be considered to provide one of three key functions detailed in the following paragraphs. The remainder of this section provides more details on the generic mitigation proposed as well as the specific mitigation measures detailed for each valued ecological receptor. Firstly, in accordance with the principles of the EIA Regulations, the mitigation measures have been developed to prevent, reduce or offset any likely significant effects of the development on the ecological receptors present at the Site. As stated above, impacts assessed as being of moderate significance or greater using the EcIA methodology adopted in this chapter are considered to represent likely significant effects in the context of an EIA. Mitigation measures therefore aim to reduce the significance of these effects. However, the identification of significant residual impacts after mitigation measures have been considered may result in the need for further compensatory measures or may require further consideration by the competent authority in determining the application. Secondly, the proposed scheme may result in potentially adverse effects on species or habitats that may benefit from statutory protection. For example, with regard to birds, all birds and their nests are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended). In this case, mitigation measures may be required to ensure legal compliance at an appropriate stage of the proposed development. Such mitigation measures may include, for example, best practice measures to avoid a potential breach of law, and may be required to ensure that the proposed development is compliant with the national and local planning policy context. Thirdly, mitigation measures can be viewed as including ecological enhancement measures that may provide direct benefits for biodiversity as an integral part of the proposed development or indirect benefits arising from other aspects of the scheme. While such measures may not avoid or reduce likely significant effects, enhancement may contribute to the overall offsetting of adverse impacts on ecological receptors. General Mitigation Measures This section details the mitigation measures that are recommended for the site clearance/construction/operation phases of the proposed wind farm development. These measures are aimed to prevent, reduce or offset any ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-60

339 likely significant effects of the development and on the ecological receptors present at the Site. Generic mitigation measures are proposed that aim to apply best practice and protect those habitats and species present, while specific mitigation measures, where practically possible, are recommended for those impacts assessed to be significant in the context of the EIA i.e. of moderate significance or greater, as summarised in Table 8.8 above Generic ornithological mitigation measures would be integrated with measures set out in Chapter 7, where more details are provided. Key elements of the generic mitigation strategy which would also provide ornithological mitigation include: a Site-specific Ecological Mitigation Strategy (EMS) reflecting the seasonality of the ecological receptors present at the Site and the eventual development programme, including pre-construction or enabling works, the construction phase, and the operational phase. The EMS would include all works required to prevent or reduce potentially adverse impacts on ecological receptors, as well as a schedule for any ecological monitoring required at the Site. Provision of a Project Ecologist/Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW), and other recommendations that reflect environmental best practice in the construction of wind farms 8 (Scottish Renewables et al., 2010). In the autumn prior to the commencement of works, a suitably experienced avian ecologist would carry out a walkover survey of the entire scheme to identify ornithological constraints that would potentially affect the construction programme, and identify potential solutions. Mitigation of Impacts on Designated Sites The designated sites potentially affected by the proposed development are: the Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC and Ramsar lying approximately 2.1km away from the Site. Eye Gravel Pit SSSI and Eye Green Local Nature Reserve (LNR) lies 2.5km north-west of the Site, Bassenhally Pit SSSI lies 2.6km to the south east of the Site, Dogsthorpe Star Pit SSSI and LNR cover an area of 35.8ha and is located 4.5km to the west of the Site, Lattersey Field LNR is located 4km to the south of the Site. All are located in excess of 1km from the Site boundary and as no significant effects on these sites have been predicted, no mitigation is proposed. Mitigation of Impacts on Non-Designated Sites Non-designated sites include Thorney Dike CWS, Cat's Water Drain CWS and Eyebury Road Pits CWS. Priors Fen, which has no official recognition of the species assemblage to which it plays host but has been included here due to the large number of ornithological records obtained from this area. Thorney Dike CWS and Priors Fen were originally within 500m of the Site 8 Scottish Renewables, SNH, SEPA & Forestry Commission Scotland (2010) Good Practice During Wind Farm Construction. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-61

340 boundary, but due to mitigation at the planning stage the Site boundary was reduced in size to increase its distance from such environmentally important habitats. This mitigation by design has been incorporated into the scheme from an early stage, and represents a key commitment to preventing adverse impacts from occurring at the outset. As a consequence of this sensitive design, it is considered that any potential adverse effects on these non-designated sites will be avoided. Mitigation of Impacts on Ornithology All nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, and therefore all species need to be taken into consideration during any construction activities that may be carried out during the breeding season (March to July inclusive). The results of the breeding bird surveys undertaken in 2010 and 2011 showed the presence of breeding passerines and other farmland bird species, including several species such as Skylark and Yellow Wagtail that breed in arable fields and which are of conservation concern or identified as national or local Biodiversity Action Plan species. While these species are unlikely to be affected by operational phase impacts, there is the potential that individual nest sites and/or breeding territories could be disturbed during the construction phase. Potential impacts on breeding birds and nests can usually be avoided by scheduling all construction work outside the breeding season. However, if the timing of such construction activities is not practically possible, or is constrained by other factors, then mitigation measures can be implemented to prevent or reduce the risk of affecting breeding birds. For example, if construction work is proposed during the breeding season, suitable breeding vegetation such as shrubs and bushes should be cleared before breeding birds occupy their territories or well after young birds have fledged. Disturbance to ground-nesting species would be minimised through the production of Species Protection Plans (SNH 2011), which would be implemented by an appointed Ecological Clerk of Works. Minimising disturbance to nesting birds can be achieved by good construction site practice such as ensuring all construction areas are clearly demarcated, introducing a speed limit on access tracks and ensuring that any human activity is limited to access tracks, all other wind farm infrastructure and their immediate vicinity. Mitigation of Impacts of Moderate Significance Impacts of moderate significance have been predicted on two species, lapwing and golden plover. This prediction is partly precautionary in nature and relates to the presence of regular small flocks of birds of both species and occasionally the presence of large flocks of 500 birds or more. Such flocks may utilise the Site on a sporadic or infrequent basis and are likely to be part of an over wintering population that ranges over a large area of agricultural land in the Fens, and potentially over the East of England. The potential effects of the proposed scheme are likely to arise from a combination of collision risk and/or displacement of flocks from the turbine ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-62

341 envelope and a buffer around the Site. There is little scope for preventing or reducing impacts in a practical manner, and little evidence on the effectiveness of such measures. However, reducing collision risk could be achieved through the provision of bird deterrent measures within the turbine envelope during the winter period, from September to March. Such measures could involve the use of bird-scarers and or raptor kites Any such deterrent measures would serve to displace birds from the Site, and thus be analogous to any avoidance behaviour of the Site exhibited by birds in response to the presence of the proposed turbines. As there is an abundance of agricultural land available for feeding and roosting flocks in the area of the Fens surrounding the Site, there is unlikely to be an adverse effect on the conservation status of the wider local population. While the displacement of overwintering lapwing and golden plover flocks is unlikely to be avoidable or reduced through on site mitigation measures, it is considered that the significance of these impacts could be reduced through measures designed to offset these adverse effects. It is therefore proposed to package such measures in a Wader Mitigation Strategy that would be an integral component of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) proposed in Chapter 7 of this ES. The details of the HMP relating to waders would require agreement between the wind farm developer, any relevant landowners and the local planning authority and secured through an appropriately worded planning condition or obligation. Whilst it is reasonable to conclude that the detailed specifications of the mitigation strategy would be agreed post-consent, these may potentially include; Liaison with local land owners and managers to review local patterns of distribution of waders during winter with the aim of establishing a knowledge base based on past and ongoing surveys associated with an appropriate area around the site; Grassland creation and/or management: to aim to maintain areas of grassland in favourable condition for wintering wader species, including both lapwing and golden plover. Typically, optimal grassland habitat for these species during winter could involve the provision of a short sward of between 5cm and 8cm from October to March; and Management of arable fields surrounding operational wind farm: to aim to increase attractiveness of fields without turbines in preference to those with turbines. The HMP would include a review of current research on habitat preferences relating to lapwing and golden plover and provide recommendations as appropriate that were compatible with current agricultural practices. To achieve these objectives, it would be necessary to reach agreement with appropriate landowners and relevant bodies such as Natural England, RSPB and the Environment Agency. While such a component of the HMP may require the development of management agreements on land outwith the site boundary, and the establishment of a working group involving such bodies, there is potential to deliver multiple benefits which increases the likelihood of it being a potentially successful option. Therefore, while there is uncertainty surrounding the details of any such mitigation strategy, there is sufficient likelihood that the adverse effects arising from the potential displacement of birds from the locations of turbines (and an appropriate displacement distance) would be offset by the increased suitability of areas of grassland and arable fields for wintering waders. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-63

342 Consequently, it is predicted that residual impacts on golden plover and lapwing would both be reduced to being of at most minor significance. 8.8 RESIDUAL IMPACTS In the absence of mitigation, there are no ecological impacts considered to be of greater than moderate significance arising from the construction and operation of the proposed wind farm development. In order to minimise the impacts of moderate and minor significance and as a matter of good practice, a range of measures to ensure adequate consideration of ecological interests on and around the Site, and to explore opportunities to enhance the biodiversity value of the Development Area through sensitive design, have been set out in this chapter. The nature and significance of residual impacts i.e. impacts following mitigation, are summarised in Table 8.9. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-64

343 Table 8.9 Residual Impacts on impacted receptors Receptor Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Golden plover Moderate: Loss of habitat, disturbance and collision Minor Lapwing Marsh harrier Red kite Moderate: Loss of habitat, disturbance and collision Minor: Loss of habitat, disturbance and collision Minor: Loss of habitat, disturbance and collision Whooper swan Minor: Disturbance and collision Best practice Site management during construction Bird deterrence measures Wader Mitigation Strategy to be implemented as art of Habitat Management Plan Best practice Site management during construction Bird deterrence measures Best practice Site management during construction Bird deterrence measures Best practice Site management during construction Bird deterrence measures Minor No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact Common crane Breeding bird assemblage Minor: Loss of habitat, disturbance and collision Loss of habitat, disturbance and collision Best practice Site management during construction Bird deterrence measures Best practice Site management during construction Bird deterrence measures No significant impact No significant impact ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-65

344 8.9 Cumulative Impact Assessment There may be cumulative impacts of wind farms on flora and fauna, with the greatest theoretical risk being of significant impacts arising on species and habitats of national or international importance resulting from a number of wind farms being present in a relatively small area. Current guidance suggests that the highest priority for cumulative impact assessment is for species and habitats that are declining and/or not in favourable conservation status and that species and habitats of very high conservation importance or those vulnerable to wind farms may be targeted for cumulative assessments (SNH, 2005). Chapter 4 (Landscape & Visual) summarises all wind farms known to be operational, consented, or in planning (see Figure 4.12). Two operational wind farms are located within a 10km radius of the Site, including the: three turbines at McCains and one turbine at Whittlesey appearing as one wind farm, approximately 6km south-west of the Site; and eight-turbine Glass Moor Wind Farm approximately 10km to the south of the Site. Seven further wind farm schemes have been consented within a 10km radius of the Site including: single turbine Hundreds Farm scheme approximately 5km to the north-west, two small turbines at Little Knarr Forge 6.5km to the east, seven turbine Nutsgrove Wind Farm approximately 8km to the northeast, two turbine French Farm scheme approximately 7km to the northeast, six turbine Wryde Croft scheme approximately 8km to the north-east, three turbine Burnthouse Farm scheme approximately 10km to the south-east, and a five turbine extension to the Glass Moor Wind Farm approximately 10km to the south of the Site. A three turbine scheme at Flag Fen approximately 6km to the south-west and a four turbine extension to the French Farm scheme approximately 7km to the north-east of the Site are also currently at the scoping stage. Due to the assessment that the wind farm development is expected to have a moderate impact on two bird species using the Site, golden plover and lapwing, cumulative impacts are anticipated. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the birds affected at the proposed Site are part of larger over wintering populations that utilise similar agricultural habitats across the wider region of the Fens. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this regional population is likely to be affected by such impacts as collision risk and displacement form feeding and roosting areas at each of these sites. However, there is little evidence to provide quantitative data that such cumulative effects would result in a significant effect on these larger regional populations. No ecological impact assessment data was available for the other wind farms schemes during the writing of this assessment to enable a quantitative cumulative assessment to be made. ORNITHOLOGY Page 8-66

345 Chapter Nine Noise & Vibration

346 CHAPTER NINE: NOISE AND VIBRATION GORES WIND FARM 9.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Chapter details the noise impact assessment carried out by Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd for the proposed scheme Noise during the construction phase of the proposed scheme has been assessed in accordance with BS 5228: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites The operational noise assessment has been carried out according to the recommendations of ETSU-R-97, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, as referred to in National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), as the methodology by which noise from wind farms should be assessed. Best practice outlined in the Institute of Acoustics (IoA) Acoustics Bulletin Vol 34 no. 2 article Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise has also been followed. The assessment methodology and use of ETSU-R-97 was agreed with Peterborough City Council Measurements of the existing background (baseline) noise levels were undertaken at five locations representative of the nearest residential properties to the site, as agreed with Peterborough City Council Predicted turbine noise levels resulting from the proposed development have been calculated based on use of Gamesa G97 2MW turbines with a hub height of 78m. This turbine was selected for assessment as it was shown to produce the worst-case for predicted noise levels at the nearest residential properties. During turbine procurement, the final turbine type to be selected will therefore be no noisier than the levels presented in this assessment, and will likely be lower. The predicted noise levels have been compared with noise limits derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97, over a range of wind speeds up to 12 m/s The night-time assessment shows that the worst case predicted wind turbine noise levels, at the nearest non-financially involved residential location to the site, are below the night time noise limits under all wind conditions by a margin of at least 0.8 db The daytime assessment shows that the worst case predicted turbine noise levels, at the nearest non-financially involved residential location to the site, are below the daytime noise limits under all wind conditions by a margin of at least 0.9 db There is no reason to indicate that there would be high levels of amplitude modulation at this site, although the causes of this are not, as yet, conclusively defined As the above margins indicate, the noise limits set out in ETSU-R-97 have been shown to be satisfied at all locations and under all conditions; and therefore no significant operational impacts are identified. NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-1

347 9.2 NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT FROM WIND FARM DEVELOPMENTS Construction Noise Noise during the construction phase will arise from the construction of the turbine foundations, the erection of the turbines, the excavation of trenches for cables, and the construction of associated hardstandings, access tracks, construction compound and substation. Noise from vehicles on local roads and access tracks will also result from the delivery of the turbine components and construction materials, notably aggregates, concrete and steel reinforcement. Operational Noise Wind turbines generate noise as they rotate to generate electricity. Noise due to the rotation of the blades mainly occurs above the cut-in wind speed and below the cut-out wind speed. Below the cut-in wind speed there is insufficient strength in the wind to generate efficiently and above the cut-out wind speed the turbine is automatically shut down to prevent damage to the turbine equipment occurring. The cut-in wind speed at turbine hub height is approximately 3 metres per second (m/s) and the cut out wind speed is approximately 24 m/s The principal sources of noise are from the blades rotating in the air (aerodynamic noise) and from internal machinery, e.g. the gearbox & generator. The blades are carefully designed to minimise noise whilst optimising power transfer from the wind. The nacelle at the top of the tower is insulated to minimise noise radiation from the gearbox & generator and other components, which are also isolated from the tower and the blade assembly to prevent structure-borne noise. Vibration A study of low frequency noise and vibration around a modern wind farm was carried out for ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry and reported in ETSU W/13/00392/REP, Low Frequency Noise and Vibrations Measurement at a Modern Wind Farm (1997). This study found that vibration levels from wind turbines, as measured at 100m from the nearest machine, were well below the criteria recommended for human exposure in critical working areas such as precision laboratories. At greater distances from turbines vibration levels will be even lower These findings of ETSU W/13/00392/REP have been confirmed in July 2005 by a study conducted by the Applied and Environmental Geophysics Group of the School of Physical and Geographical Sciences at Keele University. This study, published as Microseismic and Infrasound Monitoring of Low Frequency Noise and Vibrations from Windfarms, showed measured vibration levels of around 10-8 m.s -2 at a distance of 2.4km from the Dun Law Wind Farm site under high wind conditions, orders of magnitude below the human level of perception. In a recent letter to the press, two of the authors of this report stated that to put the level of vibration into context, they are ground vibrations with amplitudes NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-2

348 of about one millionth of a millimetre. There is no possibility of humans sensing the vibration and absolutely no risk to human health. Noise in the Environment Although the noise levels arising from wind turbines are fairly low, wind farms are generally situated in rural environments where there are few other sources of noise. When wind speeds are high this is not a problem since any noise is masked by wind induced noise effects, particularly that of the trees being blown. At lower wind speeds, however, or in particularly sheltered locations, the wind induced background noise may not be sufficient to mask any noise from the turbines. However, under these conditions, the generated noise levels may be so low as to generate very little impact Noise levels are normally expressed in decibels. Noise in the environment is measured using the db(a) scale which includes a correction for the response of the human ear to noises with different frequency content. A change of 3 db(a) is commonly held to be the minimum perceptible under normal conditions and a change of 10 db(a) corresponds roughly to halving or doubling the loudness of sound Table 9.1 shows noise from wind turbines in the general context of noise in the environment. Table 9.1: Examples of Indicative Noise Levels 1 Source/Activity Indicative noise level db (A) Threshold of pain 140 Jet aircraft at 250 m 105 Pneumatic drill at 7 m 95 City traffic 90 Truck at 30 mph at 100 m 65 Busy general office 60 Car at 40 mph at 100 m 55 Wind farm at 350 m Quiet bedroom 20 Rural night-time background Threshold of hearing 0 1 Taken from Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion Guide to PPS22, as referred to in National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy (EN-3) NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-3

349 9.2.9 NOISE PLANNING GUIDANCE National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in March 2012 and revokes the previous noise planning policy document PPG24, Planning and Noise, and the previous renewable energy planning policy document PPS22, Renewable Energy. The section on noise states that planning policies and decisions should aim to: avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; identify and protect areas of tranquility which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value Reference is made in respect of the first bullet point to the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) which seeks to provide further clarity on the concepts of significant adverse impacts and other adverse impacts. It states that planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants. It states in the Glossary that pollution can arise from a range of emissions including noise In respect of renewable energy and low carbon energy development, it is stated in a footnote to Paragraph 97 that, in assessing the likely impacts of potential wind energy development when identifying suitable areas, and in determining planning applications for such development, planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (read with the relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure, including that on aviation impacts). Construction Noise Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) With respect to construction noise, the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states that, For the prediction, assessment and management of construction noise, reference should be made to any relevant British Standards 138 (footnote 138: For example BS5228 ) and other guidance which also give examples of mitigation strategies. Although EN-1 is intended for use in IPC applications, it states, In England and Wales this NPS is likely to be a material consideration in NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-4

350 decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). BS 5228: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites BS 5228: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites was updated in early 2009 and provides example criteria for the assessment of the significance of construction noise effects and a method for the prediction of noise levels from construction activities. Two example methods are provided for assessing significance The first is based on the use of criteria defined in Department of the Environment Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72, Noise Control On Building Sites (DoE 1969) 2 which sets a fixed limit of 70 db(a) in rural suburban and urban areas away from main roads and traffic. Noise levels are generally taken as façade L Aeq values with free-field levels taken to be 3 db lower giving an equivalent noise criterion of 67 db L Aeq The second is based on noise change, with a 5 db increase in overall noise considered to be significant. However, when existing noise levels are low, such as at some locations around this site, and continue for more than one month, minimum criteria are applicable. These are 45, 55 and 65 db L Aeq, for night-time ( ), evening and weekends, and daytime ( ) including Saturdays ( ) respectively It is proposed that construction noise will be assessed against this daytime noise limit of 65 db L Aeq, except where existing noise levels are consistently high, as this is when construction noise will be generated. Operational Noise National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) 1. In respect of Onshore Wind Farm Impacts, the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure states at Paragraph that: The method of assessing the impact of noise from a wind farm on nearby residents is described in the report, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97). This was produced by the Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines Final Report, September 1996 and the report recommends noise limits that seek to protect the amenity of wind farm neighbours. The noise levels recommended by ETSU-R-97 are determined by a combination of absolute noise limits and noise limits relative to the existing background noise levels around the site at different wind speeds. Therefore noise limits will often influence the separation of wind turbines from residential properties. 2. A footnote is included which states Notwithstanding the date of this report, the Government is satisfied on the balance of 2 DoE Department of the Environment Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72, Noise Control on Building Sites, Department of Environment, 1969 NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-5

351 subsequent scientific research that its key conclusions (and in particular the limits it recommends) remain a sound basis for planning decisions. 3. It goes on to state that: The applicant s assessment of noise from the operation of the wind turbines should use ETSU-R-97, taking account of the latest industry good practice. This should include any guidance on best practice that the Government may from time to time publish It should be noted that the Institute of Acoustics is currently formulating a best practice guide to wind turbine noise assessment on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change based on the work of Hayes McKenzie in reviewing current practice 3. ETSU-R-97, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms In 1993 the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) set up the Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines (WGNWT) to provide a methodology for wind farm noise assessments, which would consider all relevant factors pertinent to potential noise impact on surrounding communities. The WGNWT comprised independent experts on wind turbine noise, wind farm developers, DTI personnel and local authority Environmental Health Officers. In September 1996 the Working Group published its findings by way of report ETSU-R-97, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. This document describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and contains suggested noise limits, which were derived with reference to existing standards and guidance relating to noise emission from various sources For day-time hours, ETSU-R-97 states that the noise limits should be db L A90 or 5 db(a) above the prevailing background as measured during quiet day-time periods, whichever is greater. The actual value within the range should depend on the number of dwellings in the vicinity, the effect of the limit on the number of kwh generated, and the duration of the level of exposure For night-time periods the noise limit is 43 db L A90 or 5 db(a) above the prevailing night-time background, whichever is the greater. The 43 db(a) lower limit is based on a sleep disturbance criteria of 35 db(a) with an allowance of 10 db(a) for attenuation through an open window and 2 db(a) subtracted to account for the use of L A90 rather than the L Aeq (see paragraph ) Where the occupier of a property has some financial involvement with the wind farm, the day and night-time lower noise limits are increased to 45 db L A90 and consideration can be given to increasing the permissible margin above background. These limits are applicable up to a wind speed of 12m/s measured at 10m height on the site Quiet day-time periods for the assessment of background noise are defined as evenings from plus Saturday afternoons from Research Contract /492A (Analysis), Analysis of How Noise Impacts are Considered in the Determination of Wind Farm Planning Applications NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-6

352 1800 and Sundays from , which are referred to as the amenity hours. Night-time is defined as The prevailing background noise level is set by calculation of a best fit curve through values of background noise plotted against wind speed as measured during the appropriate time period with background noise measured in terms of L A90,t. The L A90,t is the noise level which is exceeded for 90% of the measurement period t. It is recommended that at least 1 week s worth of measurements are undertaken Where predicted noise levels are low at the nearest residential properties, a simplified noise limit is specified such that noise is restricted to a level of 35 db L A90 for wind speeds up to 10m/s at 10m height. This removes the need for extensive background noise measurements for smaller or more remote schemes It is stated that the L A90,10min noise descriptor should be adopted for both background and wind farm noise levels and that, for the wind farm noise, this is likely to be between 1.5 and 2.5 db less than the L Aeq measured over the same period. The L Aeq,t is the equivalent continuous 'A' weighted sound pressure level occurring over the measurement period t. It is often used as a description of the average noise level. Use of the L A90 descriptor for wind farm noise allows reliable measurements to be made without corruption from relatively loud, transitory noise events from other sources ETSU-R-97 also recommends that a penalty should be added to the predicted noise levels, where any tonal component is present. The level of this penalty is described and is related to the level by which any tonal components exceed audibility Where there is already a wind farm development in the vicinity of a proposed development, ETSU-R-97 states that absolute noise limits and margins above background should relate to the cumulative effect of all wind turbines in the area which contribute to the noise received at the properties in question. IoA Acoustics Bulletin Article, Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise, March/April Institute of Acoustics (IoA) Acoustics Bulletin Vol 34 no. 2 article Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise (2009) contains an agreement, jointly authored by a number of consultants working in the wind turbine sector for developers, local authorities and third parties, on an agreed methodology for addressing issues not covered by ETSU-R- 97. This includes a methodology for dealing with wind shear and an agreed method for noise predictions. These will be referred to in the relevant sections below. Blade Swish (Aerodynamic Modulation) The noise limits suggested in ETSU-R-97 take into account the fact that all wind turbines exhibit the character of noise described as blade swish, to a certain extent. DTI Report W/45/00656/00/00, The Measurement of Low Frequency Noise at Three UK Wind farms (2006), concluded that the common cause of complaints associated with noise at all three wind NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-7

353 farms is not associated with low frequency noise, but is the audible modulation of the aerodynamic noise, especially at night. It suggests that it may be appropriate to re-visit the issue of Aerodynamic Modulation (AM) and the means by which it should be assessed As a result, Salford University carried out a study, jointly commissioned by DEFRA, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (formerly the DTI) and the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG), to investigate AM of wind turbine noise. The results were published by way of report NANR233, Research into aerodynamic modulation of wind turbine noise (2005), which concluded that AM was only considered to be a factor at four, and a possible further eight, of the 133 sites (all the sites in the UK operational at the time of the study) considered. At these four sites, it was considered that conditions associated with AM might occur between about 7 and 15% of the time. In a statement accompanying the published report, the Government stated that it continues to support the approach set out in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 22 Renewable Energy 4. This approach for local planning authorities to ensure that renewable energy developments have been located and designed in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise level, through the use of the 1997 report by ETSU to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments Notwithstanding this clear policy guidance, it is true to say that the precise cause of such a feature in the noise is not clearly understood, and research that has been undertaken shows that there are certain factors which would appear to make high levels of aerodynamic modulation more likely. These include a close separation distance between turbines sited in a line, especially where such a line points towards residential properties; unusual topography, such as turbines situated on an escarpment or sheltered by the landscape; and turbines on towers shorter than would normally be specified for a given rotor diameter. The candidate turbine used in this assessment for the proposed Gores Wind Farm has a 78 metre hub height, which is considered average for a turbine with a 92 metre rotor diameter, and there are no unusual topographical effects here, giving no reasons to suspect higher than usual levels of aerodynamic modulation. Infrasound Infra-sound is defined as noise occurring at frequencies below that at which sound is normally audible, i.e. at less than 20 Hz, due to the significantly reduced sensitivity of the ear at such frequencies. In this frequency range, for sound to be perceptible, it has to be at a very high amplitude and it is generally considered that when such sounds are perceptible, they can cause considerable annoyance Wind turbines have been cited by some as significant producers of infrasound. This has, however, been due to the high levels of such noise, as well as audible low frequency thumping noise, occurring on older downwind turbines of which many were installed in the USA prior to the large scale take up of wind power production in the UK. Downwind turbines are configured with the blades downwind of the tower such that 4 Now superseded by National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3). NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-8

354 the blades pass through the wake left in the wind stream by the tower resulting in a regular audible thump, with infra-sonic components, each time a blade passes the tower. Virtually all larger turbines which have been installed in the UK, however, have been of the upwind design; that is with the blades up wind of the tower, such that this effect is eliminated. The DTI study referred to above concluded that Infrasound noise emissions from wind turbines are significantly below the recognised threshold of perception for acoustic energy within this frequency range. Even assuming that the most sensitive members of the population have a hearing threshold which is 12 db lower than the median hearing threshold, measured infrasound levels are well below this criterion. It goes on to state that, based on information from the World Health Organisation that there is no reliable evidence that infrasounds below the hearing threshold produce physiological or psychological effects it may be concluded that infrasound associated with modern wind turbines is not a source which may be injurious to the health of a wind farm neighbour. Low Frequency Noise Noise from modern wind turbines is essentially broad band in nature in that it contains similar amounts of sound energy in all frequency bands from low to high frequency. As distance from a wind farm site increases the noise level decreases as a result of the spreading out of the sound energy but also due to air absorption, which increases with increasing frequency. This means that although the energy across the whole frequency range is reduced, higher frequencies are reduced more than lower frequencies with the effect that, as distance from the site increases the ratio of low to high frequencies also increases. This effect may be observed with road traffic noise or natural sources such as the sea where higher frequency components are diminished relative to lower frequency components at long distances. The DTI study showed that low frequency noise could be measurable on occasion but was below the low frequency noise criterion published in DEFRA Project Report NANR45, Proposed Criteria for the Assessment of Low Frequency Noise Disturbance (2005). Wind Shear Wind shear, or more specifically vertical wind shear, is the rate at which the wind speed increases with increased height above ground level. It is acknowledged that at many sites, hub height wind speed, and hence the wind speed experienced by the wind turbine, is not correctly predicted from 10m-height wind speed measurements and ground roughness conditions alone. This is a result of higher levels of wind shear between 10m and hub height than assumed by the logarithmic wind shear model (stated in ETSU-R-97 on page 100) with a ground roughness length of 0.05m. Higher levels of wind shear are most common when there is low turbulence in the atmosphere and can be a result of reduced thermal mixing, light winds and flat or smooth terrain. In general these conditions are more common in the early evening or the night-time periods The effect of higher levels of wind shear have been accounted for during a background noise survey by referencing background noise measurements to hub height wind speed, as described in the IoA Acoustics Bulletin article. The hub height wind speeds are then converted NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-9

355 to standardised 10m wind speed assuming standardised conditions (including a ground roughness legth of 0.05 m) as used by turbine manufacturers when specifying turbine sound power levels. The procedure whereby the hub height wind speed is calculated and scaled to standardised 10m-height wind speed is described in more detail at Paragraph below. 9.3 BASELINE NOISE MEASUREMENTS A baseline noise survey was carried out according to the requirements of ETSU-R-97, as the first stage of the operational noise assessment procedure. Instrumentation Baseline noise measurements were made using Larson Davis model LD- 820 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meters fitted with 1/2 microphones, which comply with the type 1 standard in IEC 651-1:1979: Sound Level Meters. The microphones were fitted with a 45mm radius foam ball windshield surrounded by a secondary windshield of 40mm thickness, in line with recommendations in ETSU W/13/00386/REP, Noise Measurements in Windy Conditions (1996), and mounted on tripods at a height of 1.2 metres. Pre and post-calibration was carried out using a Bruel & Kjaer model 4231 acoustic calibrator (s/n ). The highest amount of drift recorded during post-calibration was 0.3 db. This is within normal tolerances, and as such, the measured levels have not been corrected A Pluvimate raingauge fitted with a Driptych Pluvimate logger was used to collect rainfall data over the monitoring period. Measurement Positions Noise measurements were carried out at five locations representative of the nearest dwellings to the preliminary layout of the proposed turbines as indicated on Figure 9.1 in ES Volume 3 and as described in the following Paragraphs and photographs. Figure 9.1 also shows the residential properties closest to the proposed wind farm site, which were not selected for baseline noise measurements, but which are assessed using the limits derived from these measurements. The noise measurement locations and assessment methodology were discussed and agreed with an Environmental Health Officer from Peterborough City Council, who also attended the site installation to agree the micro-siting of the baseline noise monitoring equipment It should be noted that, although baseline monitoring equipment was installed at 31 Stone Bridge Corner, upon collection of the equipment, it was discovered that the monitoring equipment had been stolen the previous night. This was reported to the police, however the equipment was never recovered. Peterborough City Council was notified and agreed to the use of data from the Prior s Farm monitoring location in lieu of and as representative to that from 31 Stonebridge Corner for assessment purposes due to its similar separation distance from the A47. Therefore NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-10

356 the description of this measurement position has not been included within this chapter Due to changes in the turbine layout during the pre-application development of the scheme, some of the monitoring locations selected are no longer representative of the most noise sensitive residential properties (those closest to the site that are not financially involved with the scheme) to the proposed scheme due to increased distances from the final turbine layout in comparison to preliminary layouts. However, the closest residential properties to the final layout are still well represented by the monitoring locations as a group. The closest financially and nonfinancially involved residential properties are also shown on Figure 9.1. Pode Hole Farm (E N303804) Pode Hole Farm is situated to the north of the proposed turbines. The noise monitoring equipment was set up in the garden area near to the hanging bench and out buildings, as sheltered from noise from the A47 as possible, as shown in Photograph 1. Noise sources noted at installation and collection of the equipment consisted of dog barks, birdsong and dominant road traffic noise. Photograph 1 Pode Hole Farm Noise Measurement Position NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-11

357 9.3.8 Data collected at this location has also been used as representative of The Causeway Nearest due to its similarly close proximity to the A47. Toneham House (E N303157) Toneham House is situated to the north east of the proposed turbines. The noise monitoring equipment was set up on the front lawn, by the tennis courts, as shown in Photograph 2. Noise sources noted at installation and collection of the equipment consisted of birdsong, rain and distant road traffic noise. Photograph 2 Toneham House Noise Measurement Position Data collected at this location has also been used as representative of Bar Pasture Farm due to its similar separation distance from the A47 to the north. NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-12

358 Peacock Barn (E N299699) Peacock Barn is situated to the south of the proposed turbines. The noise monitoring equipment was set up in the rear garden, as shown in Photograph 3. Noise sources noted at installation and collection of the equipment consisted of distant road traffic, birdsong, and distant farm machinery. Photograph 3 Peacock Barn Noise Measurement Position NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-13

359 Due to its large separation distance from the A47 and its isolation from minor roads, but closer proximity to the dyke running to the south of the site, data collected at this location is not representative of any of the residential properties closest to the scheme. Prior s Farm (E N301298) Prior s Farm is situated to the south west of the proposed turbines. The noise monitoring equipment was set up in the rear garden, as shown in Photograph 4. Noise sources noted at installation and collection of the equipment consisted of distant road traffic, construction works, birdsong and farm machinery. Photograph 4 Prior s Farm Noise Measurement Position NOISE AND VIBRATION Page 9-14