John Laing Investments Limited

19th June 2015

Dear Rebecca,

Single Turbine Development at New Albion Wind Farm - Formal Request for Screening Opinion

We are writing on behalf of our client, John Laing Investments Limited (JLIL) in respect of a single turbine development at New Albion Wind Farm to request, under Regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, that the Council provide a formal Screening Opinion as to whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required in connection with proposed development of a single wind turbine extension to the consented New Albion Wind Farm. In accordance with Regulation 5 (2) we include:

A plan sufficient to identify the land;

A brief description of the nature and purpose of the development and its possible effects on the environment; and

Information on the need for an EIA.

In accordance with Regulation 5 (5) we request that the Council adopt a Screening Opinion within three weeks beginning with the date of receipt of this request.

An EIA screening request was made in March 2013 for an eighth turbine to the north east of that proposed in this screening letter. The proposal was referred to the Secretary of State for a screening direction. The Secretary of State (SofS) directed that the proposed development was not ‘EIA development’. The screening request, screening response from KBC and screening direction from the SofS are attached to this letter.

Relevant Legislation

Current EIA law in England is in the form of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

John Laing Investments Limited 1 Kingsway London WC2B 6AN Direct Dial: 07852 472211 Email: c.gould@ply-energy.com

Rebecca Collins Kettering Borough Council Municipal Offices Bowling Green Road Kettering NN15 7QX

Registered Office: 1 Kingsway London WC2B 6AN

John Laing Investments Limited

Registered in England and Wales

No.7802259

John Laing Investments Limited

of 10 2

Screening Criteria

Schedule 1 Development

The projects for which EIA may be required are detailed in Schedules 1 and 2 of the EIA Regulations. Schedule 1 developments require EIA to be undertaken in all cases. The proposed development does not fall within Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations. Therefore, the proposed development is not classified as Schedule 1 development.

Schedule 2 Development

Schedule 2 development is defined in the EIA Regulations as development, other than exempt development, of a description mentioned in column 1 of the table in Schedule 2 where:

a) Any part of that development is to be carried out in a sensitive area; or

b) Any applicable threshold or criterion in the corresponding part of Column 2 of that table is respectively exceeded or met in relation to that development.

The site is not in a sensitive area as defined by the EIA Regulations (Part 1). Therefore, the proposed development does not fall within paragraph (a) above.

With respect to paragraph (b) above, the proposed development falls within Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations as it is ‘a change to or extension of development of a description listed in paragraphs 1 to 12 of column 1 of this table, where that development is already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed where either (i) the development as changed or extended may have significant adverse effects on the environment; or (ii) in relation to development of a description mentioned in column 1 of this table, the threshold and criteria in the corresponding part of column 2 of this table applied to the change or extension are met or exceeded.’

Column 2 of the table includes an ‘installation for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms) and the hub height of any turbine or height of any structure exceeds 15 metres.’

Taking into account the above, it is considered that the proposed development constitutes Schedule 2 development under the EIA Regulations.

John Laing Investments Limited

of 10 3

Screening of Schedule 2 Development

A Schedule 2 development does not require EIA to be undertaken in all cases but must be considered against the criteria provided in Schedule 3 of the Regulations to determine whether significant effects on the environment are likely. Schedule 3 considers the characteristics and location of the development and the characteristics of the potential impact. Further guidance is provided in the National Planning Practice Guidance 2014. It provides guidance on the requirements of The Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011; in particular it provides indicative criteria and thresholds that help to determine whether significant effects are likely for Schedule 2 developments. The indicative criteria and thresholds relevant to the proposed development are:

Commercial developments of five or more turbines, or more than 5 MW of new generating capacity.

Scale of the development, its visual impact, and potential noise impacts.

The proposal in itself is a single turbine; however the total number of wind turbines would rise from seven to eight with this additional turbine.

Information about potential impacts on landscape and visual resources, historic environment, noise, ecology, flood risk, hydrology, hydrogeology, geology and ground conditions, socio-economics, public access and public rights of way, agriculture and soils from the extended eight turbine scheme is provided below.

Characteristics of the Development

The location of the single turbine development is to the north of the consented New Albion turbines. The site is located in Northamptonshire, within the boundaries of Kettering Borough Council and in the Parish of Rushton. Construction of the seven turbine wind farm which was consented in 2010 and shown in the plan below is due to start operation this year.

John Laing Investments Limited

of 10 4

Figure 1: Consented seven turbine wind farm

John Laing Investments Limited

of 10 5

The proposed development would consist of the addition of an eighth wind turbine in the location shown on the plan below. The wind turbine would have the same dimensions as the seven consented turbines. Access to the site would remain as per the consented scheme with the addition of a construction access track from the consented turbine seven to the proposed turbine eight.

Figure 2: Location of proposed eighth turbine (Turbine No.8)

John Laing Investments Limited

of 10 6

Location of the Development

The site is on arable farm land at Towns Close Farm between the villages of Rushton and Pipewell. The arable land is dissected by a series of hedgerows, dry ditches and streams. The site is surrounded by patches of woodland and bounded by farmland, woodland and rural roads. Statutory and non-statutory designations within the surrounding area are shown in the plan below.

Pipewell Wood and New Wood are both a Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Rushton Village is designated a Conservation Area and Pipewell is home to a Monastic site.

Figure 3: Site and surroundings (shows consented seven turbine wind farm only)

John Laing Investments Limited

of 10 7

Characteristics of the potential impact

Potential impacts on the environment from the extended wind farm of eight turbines are set out under topic headings below:

Landscape and visual resources

The environmental statement for the consented wind farm concluded that the proposed development would be apparent in the landscape. As distance increases, the perception of turbines in the landscape would diminish due to the scale and capacity of the wider landscape (i.e. the undulating historically wooded landscape character). Significant effects on landscape resources and visual receptors would be experienced by those within a close range of the wind farm. An eight turbine in the context of the consented wind farm could add visual receptors to close views, particularly those dwellings along Oakley Road to the north of the site.

The Secretary of States Screening Direction from 2013, whilst relating to a different siting, noted that the proposal did not sit within any area covered by national directions. With regard to visual impact the Screening Direction states: ‘Moreover, whilst the proposed development maybe visible within the immediate environment, impacts on the local area on one wind turbine are likely to be localised due to partial screening by areas of woodland’

Historic environment

On the basis of the results of the archaeological evaluation (geophysical and trial trenching) carried out for the consented scheme the archaeological sensitivity of the site is minor and the scheme is therefore unlikely to affect significant below ground remains. Following pre-application consultations with English Heritage carried out for the consented 7 turbine wind farm between June 2008 and March 2009 it was agreed that the only designated historic monument or building whose setting would be significantly affected by the proposals would be the scheduled monastic remains at Pipewell. This impact was consequently addressed through a major redesign, reducing both the height and the number of turbines (from eight to seven). Following the changes, the effects on the setting of the monument were assessed as moderate. This was based on an assessment of a moderate impact (a slight impact on a site of national significance) on a monument of substantial sensitivity.

The location of the turbine which was removed from the design is approximate to that proposed for the additional turbine. Therefore, the potential impact of turbine eight would relate to the setting of the scheduled monastic remains at Pipewell. However the potential impact of the single turbine which is now the subject of this Screening Request needs

John Laing Investments Limited

of 10 8

to be considered in the context of the seven turbine wind farm which has since been permitted and is currently under construction.

Noise

The environmental statement for the consented wind farm concluded that noise from the operation of the consented wind farm would comply with the requirements of The Assessment & Rating of Noise from Wind Farms – The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines at all residential locations and would not be significant.

An updated noise assessment for the single turbine site has been undertaken (enclosed) and concludes that the predicted noise levels of the consented seven turbine wind farm along with the additional eight turbine would meet the noise limits set out within the planning condition for the consented wind farm.

Ecology

Slight adverse effects were predicted for bats and slight adverse effects for breeding and winter birds. These affects are not predicted to be significant beyond a local level. Of the bird species susceptible to collision risk the assessment of significance was made on the basis of the percentage of the population that could be affected by mortality due to collision with turbine blades. For the collision effects to be significant the predicted mortality needs to be greater than 5% of the relevant population (UK, England or County level). Collision risk modelling was undertaken for the consented wind farm environmental statement. All species were calculated as under 2% predicted mortality with one at 2.45%. An additional turbine would not be expected to increase these figures to 5%.

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been carried out (2015) and is enclosed. The habitats located at the proposed location of an additional wind turbine have not changed significantly since a previous Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken in 2008. The area still comprises an arable field bordered by hedgerows and trees but some parts at the eastern end of the arable field have been disturbed to allow construction of a turbine within the existing wind farm.

Previous surveys undertaken to identify protected and notable species on the site are therefore still considered to be relevant. The survey area still provides foraging, commuting and roosting opportunities for bats and foraging and nesting opportunities for birds.

Species previously found to be absent due to a lack of suitable habitat including, great crested newts, reptiles, water voles and dormice are still considered to be absent as habitat suitability has not improved.

John Laing Investments Limited

of 10 9

The survey area continues to provide suitable habitat for badger and new signs of badger activity were identified within the vicinity of the survey area which were not present during previous surveys.

Flood Risk, Hydrology and Water Resources

The proposed site is situated in Flood Zone 1 and at low risk of fluvial flooding. It was concluded in the consented wind farm environmental statement that the development would not have a significant impact on the water resources in the vicinity of the site and that the impact on the local hydrology would be minor. Turbine eight is not expected to change this assessment.

Hydrogeology, Geology and Ground Conditions

The consented wind farm environmental statement concluded there was low risk of contaminated land on the site and that development of a wind farm on this site would not result in significant effects on hydrogeology and geology. Turbine eight is not expected to change this assessment.

Socio-economics and Public Rights of Way

Job creation for the consented wind farm was assessed as beneficial but not significant. The additional turbine would not be any closer to any public rights of way than consented turbines and the increment in job creation would not be significant.

Agriculture and Soils

The loss of the small area of agricultural resource as a result of the consented scheme was assessed as not being significant. An additional turbine would not change this assessment.

Shadow Flicker

Considering the area within which shadow flicker may occur for the consented scheme, the additional turbine would not affect any additional properties.

Conclusion

This letter identifies available information regarding the likely effects associated with the proposed development and has confirmed that the proposed development is not Schedule 1 development.

The proposed development is considered to be Schedule 2 development but is not located within a ‘sensitive area’ as identified in the EIA Regulations. Therefore, EIA is required only if it is considered that there

John Laing Investments Limited

of 10 10

are likely to be significant environmental effects as a result of the proposed development.

The potential impacts of the development have been considered above and no significant environmental impacts (that could not be mitigated through the adoption of established measures) have been identified. It is therefore, considered that the proposed development is not EIA development.

We request a formal screening opinion from Kettering Borough Council under Regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

We look forward to receiving the Council’s formal screening opinion in due course.

Yours sincerely

Chris Gould

Enc.

EIA screening request dated 20th March 2013 EIA screening direction from the SofS dated 26th June 2013 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, RPS (2015) New Albion Wind Farm Extension – Noise Assessment (2015)