Local Members' Interest

Mr P.E.B Atkins

Uttoxeter Rural

PLANNING COMMITTEE: 7 FEBRUARY 2013

MINERAL COUNTY MATTER: East Staffordshire - ES.12/16/524 MW

Date Received: 27 July 2012

Date Revised/Further Details Received: 20 September 2012, 26 September 2012, 16 October 2012, 2 November 2012, 29 November 2012 and 17 December 2012

Aggregate Industries UK Limited for the construction and operation of single 500kw wind turbine with associated transformer housing, cabling to existing sub-station, sub-station container and temporary crane hard-standing/lay-down area at Uttoxeter Quarry, Spath, Uttoxeter

BACKGROUND / INTRODUCTION

Aggregate Industries is aiming to reduce carbon emissions associated with its quarrying operations by 25% and is developing various renewable energy projects around the country. In this case the company is seeking to develop a single wind turbine at Uttoxeter Quarry to operate for a 20 year period (shown on Plan 1). This would take it well beyond the current permitted life of the quarry (mineral extraction is currently permitted to cease on 30 November 2016). Wind turbine proposals are usually determined by Borough/Districts Councils. However, as the proposal is on part of the quarry currently in aftercare and as it is ancillary to the quarry operations, it is considered appropriate for the County Council to determine this application.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

1. The applicant has applied for the erection of a single three blade wind turbine (turbine)

and associated equipment on a restored area of Uttoxeter Quarry. 2. The turbine proposals are summarised below and the locations are shown on Plan 2:

• The construction phase would take 10 weeks and consist of:

o the formation of a 370 metre long, 4 metre wide, access track surfaced with a permeable material (weeks 1- 2);

o concrete foundations and lay down area (measuring 35 metres x 32 metres (3-8

weeks);

o the erection of the turbine (involving 2 large cranes) and installation of a transformer and associated equipment in a shipping type container located

adjacent to the turbine (weeks 8-10). The container would be finished in dark green finish (RAL 6004) or an alternative colour to be agreed;

o the associated cabling linking the transformer to the quarry sub-station would be

buried underground alongside the access track; • The turbine would be 78 metres to the tip of the rotor, 50 metres to the hub, with a

rotor diameter of 56 metres;

• The turbine would have a capacity to generate 500kw of electricity (equivalent to that required to meet the electricity demand from about 280 homes);

• The turbine would have a light grey matt finish or similar, or a colour to be agreed;

• The applicant has indicated that the final selection of the wind turbine model has not

been made, but would meet the indicated parameters.

• The turbine would operate for 20 years 3. The applicant has confirmed that the access track and lay down area would also be

used to provide access and car parking for the recreational afteruses on the restored quarry site (described later).

4. An ice detection system would be installed which would be used to shut down the

turbine if ice on the rotor blades is detected, so as to avoid the potential risk of ice throw. The applicant has stated that a ‘Labkotec LID- 3300IP’ ice detectors or similar would be fitted.

Associated traffic movements

5. The turbine would be delivered to the site via the A50 and follow the Ashbourne Road (A518/B5030) for approximately 450 metres before turning right into the site.

6. The route has been assessed by the applicant and no major works are required to allow

the delivery of the wind turbine. The applicant has indicated that temporary traffic management (traffic would be temporarily held at junctions to allow delivery vehicles to negotiate the roundabouts to the site without meeting oncoming traffic) would be required to allow the delivery of the wind turbine components and such deliveries would be scheduled to avoid periods of peak traffic flow.

7. The applicant has estimated that the following traffic movements would be associated

with the proposal:

Construction phase traffic: • 10 cars/light vans per day for site staff. • 3 movements for delivery of steel reinforcement and anchor cage • 20 HGV movements for aggregate delivery • 25 concrete vehicle movements; • Two mobile cranes (approximately 90tonne tail crane and 300tonne main crane)

requiring 5 HGV movements for cranes and ancillary crane plant;

• The wind turbine would be delivered to site on 8 HGV/abnormal loads. Operational phase traffic: • A light weight van for the maintenance crew; • In the event of major component failure deliveries would be needed for the required

part(s) and a crane to replace the relevant part(s). Community Benefit Scheme

8. The Planning Supporting Statement indicates in paragraph 1.1.27 that subject to obtaining planning consent the Applicant would be willing to discuss the establishment of a community benefit scheme with local representatives to provide local benefits to the neighbouring community as a consequence of the operation of the proposed turbine. The applicant provided additional information concerning the scheme, the applicant proposed to set aside £2,500 per annum for the operation life of the turbine for a fund. This scheme should not form part of the planning determination. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

9. In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations 2011, the County Council conducted a “Screening Opinion” on the proposals which concluded that the proposed development is not EIA development and therefore need not be supported by an Environmental Statement (ref. SCE.127/524 MW dated 30 April 2012). This is discussed later in the report.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

10. Uttoxeter Quarry is approximately 1.5 kilometres north of Uttoxeter town within the River Dove valley, a generally flat agricultural landscape which is predominantly rural with small villages and farmsteads round about (see Plan 1). The proposed wind turbine would be located to the north of the existing quarry on an area of land that was quarried between March to November 2010 and May 2011. The restoration and aftercare requirements (shown on Plan 4) for this land is to bring the land up to the required standard for recreational use (a cricket pitch).

11. The main features of this area are the north and south arms of the River Tean, the

south arm of which runs along the southern boundary of the quarry and the River Dove which runs along the quarry’s eastern boundary. The site is bounded to the south by the A50 Trunk Road and by the B5030 Rocester Road west of the site from which access is gained to the quarry.

12. There are properties that lie adjacent to the site namely Riversmede, alongside the

B5030 immediately to the north of the access (within approximately 340 metres); Spath Farm (within approximately 450 metres); Crakemarsh Hall (within approximately 560 metres) and Spath Cottage (within approximately 510 metres) alongside the B5030.

13. Smaller wind turbines can be seen to the north west of the site (Nothill Farm) and two

turbines on the north east of the (Upper Easton Farm) (see Plan 1):

• The Nothill Farm turbine (ref. P/2011/00612/JI – East Staffs Borough Council) measures 36.4 metres to the hub and 46 metres to the blade tip; and

• The two turbines at Upper Easton Farm (ref. 10/00806/FUL – Derbyshire Dales

District Council) measures 15 metres to the hub and 17 metres to the blade tip. 14. A public footpath (No.39 Uttoxeter Rural) runs through the proposed extension area. A

number of other footpaths run adjacent to the site, including the ‘Staffordshire Way’ which is approximately 1.1 kilometres to the east. The proposals do not seek to divert or alter any of the existing public footpaths.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

15. A number of planning permissions have been granted at the site namely:

• ES.23992/01 dated 5 June 2000 for the winning and working of sand and gravel at Leasows Farm, Uttoxeter;

• ES.05/13/524 M dated 14 November 2005 not to comply with conditions 6 (phasing);

29 (dewatering); and 44 (restoration details) of planning permission ES.23992/01 to change the phasing, method working from wet to dry and to revise the restoration of the site ;

• ES.06/31/524 M dated 22 December 2006 to replace the sand plant; • ES.07/02/524 M dated 19 February 2007 to install an additional office cabin; • ES.05/13/524 M D1 MA dated 19 June 2008 for a minor amendment related to the

permitted phasing referred to in planning permission ES.05/13/524 M; • ES.08/02/524 M dated 31 July 2009 to extend Uttoxeter Quarry to extract approx.

200,000 tonnes of sand and gravel with restoration to a community recreational use (cricket ground facility) using indigenous soils/overburden;

• ES.09/09/524 M dated 29 October 2009 to erect aggregate storage bays, import,

store and stockpile aggregates, building sand and bagged cement and to sell direct from site aggregates, building sand and bagged cement and surplus top soils;

• ES.09/05/524 M dated 23 December 2010 for a consolidating permission referred

to as the 'Dove' extension to Uttoxeter Quarry to extract approximately 3 million tonnes of sand and gravel with restoration to agriculture and water based recreation and nature conservation (the detailed restoration and aftercare scheme required by this permission has not yet been submitted);

• ES.08/02/5524M D2 dated January 2010 for the approved detailed restoration and

management plan and 5 year aftercare scheme (to facilitate the provision of a cricket pitch);

• ES.11/13/524 MW dated 13 December 2011 to vary conditions 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 32, 38,

39 & 42 of permission ES.09/05/524 M to alter the sequence of phased extraction (the detailed restoration and aftercare scheme required by this permission has not yet been submitted;

• ES.11/10/524 MW dated 6 January 2012 to import, stockpile and process waste glass to produce a recycled aggregate.

RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

16. The relevant development plan ‘saved policies’ are as follows:

Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands:

• Policy CC1 - Climate Change; • Policy QE1 - Conserving and Enhancing the Environment; • Policy QE3 - Creating a high quality built environment for all; • Policy QE5 - Protection and enhancement of the Historic Environment; • Policy QE6 - The conservation, enhancement and restoration of the Region’s

landscape; • Policy QE7 - Protecting, managing and enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity and

Nature Conservation Resources; • Policy QE9 - The Water Environment; • Policy EN1 - Energy Generation;

The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan

• Policy D1 - Sustainable Forms of Development; • Policy D2 - Design & Environmental Quality of Development; • Policy D4 - Managing change in rural areas; • Policy D7 - Conserving Energy and Water; • Policy T11 - Management of Traffic; • Policy T13 - Local Roads; • Policy T18A - Transport and Development; • Policy NC1 - Protection of the Countryside: General Considerations; • Policy NC2 - Landscape Protection and Restoration; • Policy NC13 - Protection of Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands; • Policy MW6 - Evaluation of Proposals; • Policy MW7 - Relationship to Conservation and/or Development Initiatives • Policy MW9 - Reclamation.

The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan

• Policy 9 - Restoration and Aftercare; • Policy 10 - Legal Agreement; • Policy 12 - Unacceptable Adverse Impacts; • Policy 21 - Landscape Character & Quality; • Policy 22 - Landscape Creation; • Policy 35 - Ancillary industrial development.

The East Staffordshire Borough Council Local Plan

• Policy BE1 - Design; • Policy T1 - Transport: General Principles for New Development.

17. The other material planning policy considerations are as follows:

• Ministerial Statement - Planning for Growth - March 2011; • National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure

o Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1); o Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

• UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009); • UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (2012);

• Planning for Renewable Energy A Companion Guide to PPS22

• The National Planning Policy Framework (published on 27 March 2012);

o Section 4 – Promoting sustainable transport; o Section 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal

change; o Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment; o Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment; o Section 13 - Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals;

• The Staffordshire Minerals Local Plan (previously referred to as a ‘Core Strategy’ is currently at the Pre- Publication stage. Work on the Strategy is currently on hold as priority is being given to the preparation of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan;

• East Staffordshire Borough Council Local Plan (formerly Core Strategy) Preferred

Options July 2012 (Consultation Document);

o Policy OP1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development; o Policy SP3 - High Quality Design; o Policy SP18 - Climate Change, Water Management & Flooding; o Policy SP19 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation; o Policy SP21 - Locally Significant Landscape, Landscape Character Areas

and Strategic Views.

• East Staffordshire Open Space & Playing Pitch Strategy; • Staffordshire County Council’s ‘Wind Energy in Staffordshire’ - Final Position

Statement (approved by Cabinet on 17 October 2012);

• Government Tourism Policy (March 2011) [Note: The Coalition Government announced in June 2010 its intention to abolish regional strategies as part of the Localism Bill. The Bill received Royal Ascent on 15 November 2011 and is now an Act of Parliament. However, until such time as legislation is changed the RS remains part of the development plan. Also the evidence

base material that has informed the preparation of the review of the Regional Strategy may be a material consideration, depending on the facts of the case.]

FINDINGS OF CONSULTATIONS

Internal 18. Climate Change Team – no comments. The Climate Change Team has highlighted the

need to consider the County Council’s Final Position Statement for large scale wind turbines.

19. Transport Development Control – no objection. 20. The Environmental Advice Team (EAT) has commented as follows:-

• Ecology – there are concerns regarding the scope and timing of bird vantage point surveys and its deficiencies regarding compliance with Natural England guidance (TIN069) due to the very restricted survey period that does not allow assessment of bird use of the site during different seasons. A robust justification of the approach taken has not been provided. Insufficient information has been provided to indicate that the future sailing lake would not support significant bird populations. Evidence from other water bodies in Staffordshire used for sailing (such as Chasewater Reservoir) indicates that these can support significant wintering bird populations. An assessment that considers evidence from other local water bodies used for sailing is recommended.

If the proposals are approved then a pre-commencement condition should be included to require the submission and approval of a lapwing mitigation plan in accordance with s.4.3 & 4.4 of Appendix 2 and a condition requiring the submission and implementation of a bird and bat casualty monitoring plan

• Landscape - the information submitted is incomplete regarding landscape policy

objectives in relation to compliance with Structure Plan Policy NC2. The development should be informed by and sympathetic to landscape character and quality and contribute to the policy objective of Landscape Enhancement. Additionally this area is identified as of highest sensitivity to impacts from development and at risk of rapid deterioration in quality. This is not referred to in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).

The landscape is at a medium scale. The field pattern is irregular and variable in size, with some local areas of smaller scale. The variable heights, density and character of the vegetation pattern combine to create an intimate and varied structural mosaic within a generally flat landform. The area is of highest sensitivity to impacts from development and at risk of rapid deterioration in quality. EAT agree with the landscape assessment that the turbine would appear out of scale with existing skyline features. The turbine would be a prominent feature when viewed from local footpaths and roads. Overall, it is considered that the turbine would give rise to an unacceptable adverse landscape and visual impact.

• Archaeology and Historic Landscape Character - the planning documents have been

updated adequately in line with previous comments. The updated Historic Landscape Character Assessment is acceptable. Archaeological mitigation would

not be appropriate in this instance due to the previously quarried nature of the location.

• Historic Built Environment - the planning documents have been updated adequately

in line with previous comments. The EAT has stated that the ZTV photographs and Cultural Heritage Assessment indicates the wind turbine should have no direct impacts upon heritage assets or their immediate settings, although there will obviously be some impact upon views.

• Forestry - no trees will be directly affected by the proposed turbine and access track.

21. The Staffordshire County Council Noise Engineer has no objection and has

recommended appropriate conditions to control the noise impact. 22. The Planning Regulation Team has no objection and has commented that there is a

large amount of mineral remaining to be worked and it is therefore likely that an application to extend the time to extract the mineral will be made.

23. Mineral Planning Policy Officer has comments are summarised below:

• The existing Minerals Local Plan contains no specific policies for renewable energy developments associated with mineral workings. The most relevant policy is Policy 35 of the Mineral Local Plan, this relates to ancillary industrial development within or in close proximity to mineral sites. Policy 35 of the Mineral Local Plan was not written with wind turbines in mind; however this does provide the most relevant available local policy and could still be applied to such a development.

• The first principle of Policy 35 of the Mineral Local Plan requires any unacceptable

adverse impact that may arise from ancillary industrial development to be outweighed by material planning benefits and the second principle limits the operation and retention of any ancillary industrial development to the life of the permitted reserve.

• The assessment of how the application might accord with the first principle involves

a value judgement that must somehow balance such diverse considerations as local visual impacts and potential contributions to climate change strategies. In relation to the second principle, the current permission for extracting sand and gravel at Uttoxeter Quarry will expire well before the proposed wind turbines reach the end of their working lives. This would require the removal of the turbine at an earlier date.

• Structure Plan Policy MW9 should also be considered; this states that proposals for

mineral development will only be acceptable where provision is made to secure the appropriate rehabilitation of the site. Minerals Local Plan Policy 9 states that planning applications should incorporate provision for site restoration and aftercare in accordance with four principles. Point 3 of this policy indicates that provision should be made for nature conservation, forestry; recreation or amenity after-uses and proposals should also include details for aftercare of the land for a period of up to five years following completion of restoration (or any extended time period).

• It is appropriate to explore whether the afteruse [community recreation facility (a

cricket pitch)] would be affected in any way by the presence of a wind turbine.

24. Staffordshire Public Health - no specific comment and provided literature concerning ‘Health effects and wind turbines’.

25. The Commissioner for Business and Enterprise comments concerning the economic

regeneration and tourism implications are summarised below: Economic Regeneration

• The submission does not address the socio-economic impacts (including tourism) of

the proposal on local residents, the market town of Uttoxeter, local villages and their rural hinterland;

• Aggregate Industries contributes to the local economy (i.e. non-domestic rates,

wages and spending on local goods and employment), however the proposal offers little or no wider economic benefits to the local community and the local area;

• No plans, commitments or permissions are in place to deliver energy supplies to the

proposed infrastructure for the community sports facilities at the quarry or the community benefit scheme. Any schemes to deliver the community sports facilities at the quarry or the community benefit scheme would need to be balanced against the negative impacts that the proposal could have on plans for growth at Uttoxeter and improvement of existing tourist attractions and to the development of new attractions;

• The significant landscape change could easily persuade potential investors not to

invest in the town.

• The combined effect of this proposal and other wind turbines erected in area could be to materially change the quality of the local environment on which the local community depends for its future prosperity; and

• The County Council’s recently published position statement on Wind Energy should

be considered, which indicates wind energy developments should not have a negative impact upon the local economy, particularly upon tourism. Tourism

• The planning application documents contain no information and no assessment of

the impact of this proposal on tourism; • One of the key aims of the Government’s tourism policy document (March 2011) is

to increase the proportion of UK residents who holiday in the UK. Visit England’s strategic framework for Tourism in England 2010-2020 has as its vision to maximise tourism’s contribution to the economy, employment and quality of life in England;

• If prosperity is to increase and the local economy is to grow it will be important to

ensure that the factors that attracted the visitors to this area are not lost or reduced in value. Tourism revenue generated in 2011 in East Staffordshire was £113 million of the £998 million spend in the county

• The site is accessed from B5030 which is a gateway to Alton Towers a major leisure

attraction and to the Peak District National Park, a core tourism asset.

• This proposal combined with the other wind turbines in the area has the potential to

prevent the realisation of the ambition to enhance the atmosphere/ambience of the area.

• The research undertaken has not proven that customer (tourist) perceptions of wind

energy developments will significantly alter over time.

• It is important to ensure that the small number of accommodation providers meeting the need of visitors, are not unduly affected by customer’s perceptions of insensitive and inappropriate development.

External

26. Ministry of Defence – no objection and have requested that the turbine is fitted with

aviation lighting and details be provided for flying charts to ensure that military aircraft avoid this area. The details include the date construction starts and ends; the maximum height of construction equipment; and the latitude and longitude of the turbine. [These matters can be dealt with by planning conditions.]

27. NATS (En Route) (who deal with ‘air traffic control’; formerly National Air Traffic Control

Services) – no objection on safeguarding grounds. 28. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has indicated that there is a high demand for comments

on wind turbine applications which exceeds the capacity of the available resource to respond to requests. The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites other than its own property and NATS and the Ministry of Defence as well as any aerodromes (listed in Annex 3 of ODPM/DfT Circular 1/2003) should be consulted. The CAA additionally encourages planning authorities to undertake relevant consultation with known local aerodromes regardless of status or the existence of any aerodrome/council safeguarding agreement, including local emergency service Air Support Units (e.g. Police Helicopter or Air Ambulance).

29. Tatenhill Aviation Ltd – no response 30. Bond Aviation Services (on behalf of the West Midlands Air Ambulance Service) has no

objection. 31. Open Spaces Society - object to due to the visual intrusion in the landscape and impact

on public footpaths. 32. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) – no objection on ornithological

matters. The RSPB commented that is would be a good idea for the Council to check that Natural England is happy with the way the guidance (TIN069) has been interpreted in this case; this site is unlikely to provide much benefit in terms of numbers of (successful) breeding lapwing pairs, being too small and too enclosed. Mitigation would probably be more ecologically effective applied to helping lapwings at an established population elsewhere in the county.

33. Natural England – the proposal is not likely result in significant impacts on statutory

designated sites, landscapes or species. Natural England has stated it is for the local

authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national or local policies on biodiversity and landscape.

34. Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) – objects to the proposal and has stated

that:

• It is unconvinced that wind power in the form of on-shore wind turbine farms is defensible, although superficially, financially and emotionally attractive;

• The turbine would dominate the area; • Uttoxeter and its crowning church spire would be visually overpowered by the

turbine,

• Every feature of turbines is incompatible with location within a landscape including its verticality, its movement and its character as an incongruous engineering structure;

• Impact on the enjoyment of the area; • Impact on tourism; • Impact on local footpaths and the ‘Staffordshire Way’;

• Impact on Sports provision – distraction of moving blades and noise from rotors; • Shadow flicker, blade shadow and reflection could form a distraction to the users for

sports pitches; • Concern that the risk of bat mortality from turbine blades has not been fully taken

into account, especially as both hedgerows and rivers/lakes are adjacent features; • The presence of the large lake created from flooded quarry workings is highly likely

to attract substantial bird life and fatalities from blade strike are likely to be much more apparent due to the use of the area;

• CPRE has concern that the turbine would become a permanent feature rather than

have life of 20 years’ • Reliance on subsidies at the cost to the general public and electricity consumers;

and; • Inefficient technology - inoperable for between 70% and 80% of the time.

35. British Telecom (BTO Service Delivery -Operations Control TM, Radio Frequency Allocation & Network Protection) – the proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks.

36. Using the BBC wind farm assessment tool (web site) – transmitters are likely to be

affected (Waltham CH5, Waltham, Lichfield CH5 and Sutton Coldfield) and the proposal

would be likely to affect 230 homes where there is no alternative off-air service and up to 1084 homes where there may be an alternative off-air service.

37. Windfarm UK (on behalf of ‘Orange’ mobile telephone network) One ‘Orange’

microwave link is affected by this application. 38. Joint Radio Company (on behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry and the Water

Industry/Western Power Distribution and National Grid Gas Networks) does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided

39. Sport England has stated the following:

• there are current proposals/negotiations being developed to provide some football and cricket club facilities on the site as part of the recreation restoration plan for the quarry which accord with the East Staffordshire Playing Pitch Strategy and the Draft Investment and Delivery Plan;

• The Amended Sports Impact Assessment (and letter dated 26 September 2012)

appears to satisfactorily show that shadow-throw, ice throw, topple and noise should not cause significant negative impact on football or cricket players and spectators if the site is laid out taking into account the distances/angles of wickets etc. as proposed on the latest illustrative layout provided;

• Sport England is not completely satisfied that the impact is acceptable for the cricket

players in a fielding role albeit that the orientation of wickets/sight screens, location of pavilions etc. would satisfactorily minimise the risk for batsman/bowler and spectators). Not enough tested information is available either to the applicant or to Sport England to demonstrate that the impact will, or will not, be significant;

• Potential power supplies should be made available for the sports facilities; • Sports clubs should be provided with adequate security of tenure to enable them to

plan and invest in the site going forward – preferably the land should be transferred to the club at an appropriate point but in the absence of that a minimum lease of 50 years is recommended.

40. Based on the above, Sport England has no objection subject to the inclusion of

conditions to ensure the wind turbine shall be switched off during cricket matches and that the layout, construction and design of cricket and football pitches, cricket nets, access road, car parking and pavilion/changing rooms shall be agreed. Sport England has also indicated that the layout, design and construction should accord with the appropriate Sport England and other relevant National Governing Bodies technical design guidance notes.

41. East Staffordshire Borough Council Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has no

objection to the proposal in relation to noise following the submission of the requested information. The EHO has indicated that it would be necessary to include conditions to limit the noise of the turbine (as calculated by Hayes McKenzie in their noise assessment and further information); at the nearby residential receptors and for procedures to assess the noise levels being generated following receipt of a complaint. The EHO indicated that suitable conditions are available from the Institute of Acoustics.

42. Staffordshire Wildlife Trust (SWT) has indicated that it is supportive of renewable energy, but only where this does not cause significant impacts to wildlife interest, and includes mitigation to offset any predicted harm. In this case, the SWT has submitted a holding objection to the proposals due to insufficient survey data on protected and priority species, insufficient consideration of surrounding habitats of value and proposed changes to habitats over the turbine lifespan, and lack of mitigation for impacts predicted so far, particularly to birds. SWT advised that the following information would be required before determination:

• Information on the proposed use/ restoration of the turbine field, value of

surrounding habitats and the way changes to the quarry over time may affect species populations and behaviour and therefore turbine impacts;

• Bat activity surveys following current guidance;

• Breeding bird survey of areas around the turbine that may be impacted by turbine

construction and operation;

• Further bird vantage point surveys to cover all relevant seasons, informed by reference to existing bird records for the area;

• Checks for badger and otter usage and potential disturbance risks;

• Mitigation and monitoring proposals to off-set predicted impacts to key species;

• SWT also recommended that detailed monitoring and mitigation could be secured

through conditions and for off-site mitigation or contribution through a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

43. West Midland Bird Club has objected and has stated:

• that the proposal would create a negative ‘moderate impact’ on several bird species’ populations;

• has raised concerns over the methodology and outcomes included in the extensive

ecological impact assessment submitted; • the information submitted does not allow for a thorough understanding of the true

use of the area by birds for both breeding and migratory species which are known to use Uttoxeter Quarry and the surrounding area;

• any negative impact on a Lapwing Vanellus vanellus at any level is unacceptable;

• Little-ringed Plover Charadrius dubius has also been recorded at Uttoxeter Quarry in

suitable breeding habitat, yet this species has not been identified in the ecological impact assessment.

44. Environment Agency – no objection subject to a condition to ensure that ground levels

are not raised.

45. Severn Trent Water no objection to the proposal and has advised that there is a public sewer located within the application site. Public sewers have statutory protection and may not be built close to, directly over or be diverted without consent. A condition should be included for drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows.

46. English Heritage – following the submission of additional information – no objection 47. South Derbyshire District Council Environmental Health – no objection. 48. Derbyshire Dales District Council Environmental Health - no response. 49. Health and Safety Executive - no response. 50. National Grid - no response. 51. Atkins Ltd (on behalf of water, electricity and utilities industries) – no response.

VIEWS OF DISTRICT/PARISH COUNCIL 52. Members of the East Staffordshire Borough Council Planning Applications Committee

voted not to support the application for the following reason:

• Whilst the broad support for renewable energy proposals in the National Planning Policy Framework is noted, it is also noted that this is not unconditional, and depends upon other issues including landscape character.

• The proposed turbine is a large structure which is significantly taller than other

features within its landscape setting. The turbine is sited with a flat valley bottom and as such would be visible over a wide area, The landscape within which the proposed turbine is to be situated is designated as being of the highest sensitivity within the Supplementary Planning Documents ‘Planning for Landscape Change’. There are concerns that the proposed turbine would appear unduly prominent within this sensitive landscape context.

• The proposed turbine is in close proximity to several residential properties, notably

Riversmede approximately 350 metres to the west. There are concerns that the proposed turbine could unacceptably affect the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby dwellings through a combination of increased noise and shadow flicker. It is recommended that the County Council seeks specialist advice to verify the methodology and findings of the applicant’s noise assessment.

• There are concerns that the proposed turbine could be incompatible with the

restoration proposals of the quarry, particularly in terms of impact upon wildlife and recreational use of the land. It is recommended that the specialist advice is sought the County Ecologist, Natural England and Sport England before determining the application.

53. Uttoxeter Rural Parish Council has recommended the refusal of the proposal and state

that local residents have been affected by the operation of the quarry (noise, dirt and traffic) for a number of year and ‘should not be subject to yet further blighting of their quality of life’. The proposal would:

• create a danger for birds and bats living and nesting; • impact on restoration proposal, potential habitat creation; • impact on tourism and sports provision; • impact on the ‘Staffordshire Way’; • impact on visual amenity and historic environment (the rural landscape of the River

Dove valley); • impact on tranquillity; • create noise and visual flicker; • breach Human Rights; • create health problems; • impact on house prices; • impact road safety – cause distraction; • rely on subsidises; • not a benefit the local economy; • impact on a helicopter flight path.

54. Uttoxeter Town Council – objects on the following grounds:

• visual appearance; • noise; and, • the health and safety implications.

55. Rocester Parish Council is extremely concerned about the scale and size of the wind

turbine and feels that it is not in keeping with the landscape of the valley and will have an adverse effect on tourism. The B5030 is a major route for visitors to Alton Towers, the Peak District and the JCB World Headquarters.

56. Doveridge Parish Council – object but provided no reasons. 57. South Derbyshire District Council – no objection. 58. Derbyshire Dales District Council – no response.

PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED Site notice: YES Press notice: YES

59. Over 780 ‘individually signed standard letters’ have been received from the Uttoxeter Wind Turbine Action Group (UWTAG) , these raise the following issues:

• Not sustainable as required by National Planning Policy Framework (reference is

made to policies 17; 28; 69; 70; 73; 74; 75; 78; 86; 100; 101; 109; 113; 114; 117; 118; 119; 132 and 143; and relating to plan making 156; 165; 166; 167; 170; 171; 178; 184; 185 and 198);

• Damage to the landscape of the River Dove Valley and surrounding area; • Damage the setting of historic churches; • Birds and bats would be killed and injured; • Residential properties be affected – loss of visual amenity, visual intrusion, noise

and flicker; • Damage to the health of residents; • Proposed sports provision would be affected; • Footpaths would be ruined;

• Proposed restoration of the quarry would be ruined; • Damage to tourism; • Impact on road safety due to flicker and distraction (A50 and B5030).

60. The other representations (130 in total), which included a number of the ‘individually

signed standard letters’ referred to above, are summarised below:

• Landscape impact/visual amenity including the Dove Valley, Uttoxeter and the approach to Uttoxeter;

• Impact on Uttoxeter SBI; • Impact on the character of the area and historic buildings; • No local benefit to local community or area; • Nature conservation (birds, nesting birds, bats) and leisure area required as part of

quarry restoration would not be created; • Noise pollution during construction and operation including status of noise

guidelines; • Light Pollution including ‘flicker’; • Health and safety concerns – blade failure, risk of fires, ice on blades during winter; • Inefficient energy generation, wind unreliable and unpredictable, minimal energy

produced; • Reliant on direct and indirect subsidies from government; • Close to residential properties, impact on living conditions; • Impact on Right of ways/Staffordshire Way; • Impact to local business and tourism; • Danger to users of the sports provision – the cricket and football pitches; • Impact on human rights; • Contrary to National Planning Policy Framework; • Not sustainable development; • Impact on property prices; • Private members bills should be considered; • Road safety; • Damage caused by construction; • Air traffic issues – helicopters/Air Ambulance; • Impact on the reputation of Uttoxeter; • Local landscape policies should not be overridden; • Lincolnshire wind turbine guidance relevant; • No need for wind turbines.

61. Two letters of support have been received, these indicate that sustainable

developments are required and are preferable to coal or nuclear stations; wind turbines are less destructive to the scenery than the alternatives.

62. The UWTAG has submitted a report and appendices which sets out the action group’s

objections to the proposal. The report contains sections relating to Planning Law; Need and viability; Sustainability; the Site; Wind Speeds; Localism; Loss of visual amenity; Noise; Flicker; Historic Environment; Wildlife and Leisure; Tourism; Infrastructure; Consultation Procedure; Employment; Consultation Procedure; Financial Viability of Aggregate Industries Partner; National Planning Policy Framework; Democracy; and a ‘Conclusion’ section - Rejection of the Application.

63. Further submissions were made by the UWTAG relating to noise and the inadequate

guidance; Impact on endangered birds; the County Council’s Wind Energy Position

Statement; Shadow Flicker and shadow data analysis; Response to additional information provided by applicant; Safety; TV reception; Funding/tariffs; High Court cases/legal challenges; road safety, response to applicant, video submission, road safety and cessation of aggregate extraction, historic environment and bird survey.

64. A petition (‘Say No to Uttoxeter Windfarms’) against the proposal has been received

signed by more than 330 people. The petition was asking Aggregate Industries to withdraw the planning application and for Staffordshire County Council and East Borough Staffordshire Borough Council to oppose the application.

65. Mr. Andrew Griffiths, MP, has expressed then following concerns:

• Consideration should be comprehensive, open and transparent; • The proposal should be an Environmental Impact Assessment development; • The operation of the quarry would be prolonged i.e. traffic, noise pollution; • The proposal would have an impact on restoration of the quarry and potential sports

pitch provision; • The wind turbine would have an impact on the landscape and birdlife; • Health and Safety issues; • Located in an unsuitable landscape, the proposal is not commercially viable due to

wind speeds; • There is a lack of community benefit; • Aggregate Industries have not listened to the local residents.

OBSERVATIONS

66. This is an application to construct and operate a single 500kw wind turbine with

associated transformer housing, cabling to existing sub-station, sub-station container and temporary crane hard-standing/lay-down area at Uttoxeter Quarry, Spath, Uttoxeter.

67. Having given careful consideration to the application, supporting information, the

relevant development plan policies and other material considerations, the consultation responses and the representations received referred to above, the key issues are considered to be:

• Renewable Energy Policy; • Staffordshire County Council’s ‘Wind Energy in Staffordshire’ - Final Position

Statement; • Site specific considerations;

• Relationship with the quarry and afteruse; • Landscape and Visual Impact; • Impact on the Historic and Natural Environment; • Local Economy and Benefits.

• Other matters raised in representations including Shadow Flicker; Wind Speed; Need; Public Safety; Public Health; Noise; Highway Safety and Access; Environmental Impact Assessment; Air Traffic; Wireless Reception; Property Prices; Human Rights; and a Private Members Bill.

Renewable Energy Policy

The UK Renewable Energy Strategy

68. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (published by the Department for Energy and

Climate Change in 2009) states that the Government’s goal is to ensure that 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020. The Government also anticipated that 30% of our electricity (about 117 TWh) would be provided by renewables. This figure is up from 5.5 % in 2009 and more than two-thirds of this would be from on and off shore wind.

69. Paragraph 3.6 (1) of the Executive Summary indicates that the planning system must

enable renewable development in appropriate places, at the right time and in a way that gives business the confidence to invest. There is also the need to ensure that ‘we continue to protect our environment and natural heritage and respond to the legitimate concerns of local communities’.

70. Chapter 7 of the Strategy indentifies the Benefits and Impacts associated with

renewable energy. These include climate change benefits and environmental impacts; security of supply, business benefits; impact on jobs; impact on economy; impact on energy prices and bills and impact on energy markets.

The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (2012)

71. In December 2012, the Department for Energy and Climate Change published the UK

Renewable Energy Roadmap. The Roadmap sets out a comprehensive action plan to increase the deployment of renewable energy across the United Kingdom. Paragraph 1.3 of the Roadmap indicates that renewables will have a ‘pivotal role to play in the UK energy mix in the decades beyond. The Roadmap also indicates that the Government is committed ‘to onshore wind as part of a diverse energy mix contributing to our security of supply and carbon reduction targets’. The Government is also seeking to remove barriers to the development of appropriately-sited projects, while giving local communities more influence.

The National Policy Statements (2011)

72. The National Policy Statements (NPS) published in July 2011 sets out national policy for the energy infrastructure. This includes an Overarching NPS (EN-1) and five technology specific NPS for the energy sector.

73. Paragraph 1.2.1 of EN-1 states that the ‘NPS is likely to be a material consideration in

decision making on applications….. Whether, and to what extent, this NPS is a material consideration will be judged on a case by case basis’.

74. Paragraph 2.1.2 of EN-1 indicates that ‘energy is vital to economic prosperity and social

well-being and so it is important to ensure that the UK has secure and affordable energy. Producing the energy the UK requires and getting it to where it is needed necessitates a significant amount of infrastructure, both large and small scale’.

75. One point that is included in paragraph 2.2.4 of EN-1 is that not all aspects of

Government energy and climate change policy will be relevant to planning decisions by local authorities, and the planning system is only one of a number of vehicles that helps to deliver Government energy and climate change policy. This paragraph also states that it is important that the planning system ensures that when determining any applications the views of affected communities should be taken in to account. Paragraph 2.2.27 also states that the Government’s wider objectives for energy infrastructure include contributing to sustainable development and ensuring that our energy infrastructure is safe. Sustainable development is relevant not just in terms of addressing climate change, but because the way energy infrastructure is deployed affects the well-being of society and the economy.

76. EN-3 relates specially to ‘Renewable Energy Infrastructure’. Paragraph 1.1.1 states that

‘Electricity generation from renewable sources of energy is an important element in the Government’s development of a low-carbon economy’. EN-3 also describes the potential impacts specific to onshore wind farms. These include biodiversity and geological conservation; historic environment; landscape and visual impact; noise and vibration; shadow flicker; and, traffic and transport.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

77. Section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) deals with ‘Meeting the

challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. According to the NPPF one of the key roles of the planning system is to support the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.

78. NPPF paragraph 98 indicates that when determining planning applications, local

planning authorities should:

• not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and,

• approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

Conclusion

79. Having regard to the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposal would be

consistent with the Government’s approach to renewable energy or low carbon energy. However, as stated in the UK Renewable Energy Strategy, such development should be carried out in appropriate places and at the right time. The acceptability of the site and the timing of the development are considered below.

Staffordshire County Council’s ‘Wind Energy in Staffordshire’ Final Position Statement

80. In October 2012, the County Council approved a ‘Wind Energy in Staffordshire’ - Final

Position Statement. This ‘policy statement’ represents the County Council’s position in regard to wind energy developments on County land and at sites such as waste and mineral facilities and other sites which may be considered as County matters for the determination of planning applications.

81. The Position Statement indicates that

‘The County Council recognises the value and importance of renewable and low carbon sources to generate some of the energy we need to deliver our ambitious plans for economic growth in Staffordshire.’

‘The County Council supports the government’s objective of achieving sustainable development and the role of the economy, society and the environment in delivering the objective and has built this objective into its Strategic Plan’

‘However, the County Council is very concerned that large scale wind energy proposals would, if approved and implemented, result in the industrialisation and urbanisation of a highly rural county renowned for the quality of its landscapes and its natural environment.’

82. The Position Statement defines large scale wind energy development as:

• Any single turbine with a hub height in excess of 50 metres;

• Any development of more than 2 turbines with hub height in excess of 30 metres;

• Any development of more than 10 turbines regardless of hub height;

• Any development which exports its power to the national electricity grid at 33 kilovolts (kV) rather than to a specific user or the local grid network at 11kV.

83. The Position Statement represents the County Council’s corporate policy with regard to

wind energy development. It is not a formally adopted development plan document so it does not form part of the ‘development plan’. Also, it cannot be regarded as Supplementary Planning Guidance as it was not subject to public consultation. Strictly speaking it does not address this development as the proposal is for a single turbine with a hub height of 50 metres. Nevertheless, but for the sake of one centimetre it would be applicable to this development and a number of the considerations highlighted are relevant, for example the landscape and visual impact; the impact on the natural environment; the effects on the local economy; and the potential benefits. It is reasonable therefore to regard the Position Statement as a material consideration. However, for the reasons explained above, very limited weight can be attached to the Position Statement in reaching a decision on this planning application although a number of the matters referred to therein are considered later. Conclusion

84. The Position Statement is a material consideration but only limited weight should be attached to it in reaching a decision. However a number of the considerations identified in the Position Statement are relevant in this case and are referred to in more detail below.

Site specific considerations

Relationship with the quarry

85. As indicated in the Introduction, the site is in a part of the quarry that has recently been worked and restored as a small extension permitted in 2009 (ref. ES.08/02/524 M dated 31 July 2009). The land is currently undergoing aftercare (shown on Plan 4).

86. The turbine development is considered to be ancillary to the operation of the quarry as it

would generate electricity, when operating, to meet the demand from the quarry via the quarry sub-station. The applicant has estimated that in 2011 the quarry consumed about 3,727 MWh of energy (electricity and gas oil). In theory the turbine could off set about 50% of the energy consumption from the site. Not all of the renewable energy would however be used on site due to potential supply and demand mis-matches e.g. it might be windy on a Sunday or at night when the quarry is not operating. Any surplus electricity would be directed to the National Grid.

87. The Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Mineral Local Plan saved policy 35 refers to

‘ancillary industrial development’ at mineral sites. The policy aims to ensure that any ancillary industrial development:

• is within or in close proximity to mineral sites;

• does not cause an unacceptable adverse impacts;

• requires consideration to be given to any material planning benefits arising from the

proposal that might outweigh those impacts; and,

• is limited to the life of the permitted mineral reserves.

Close proximity to the quarry? 88. The site is on land that has recently been quarried and restored, adjacent to the current

quarry operations. It is reasonable therefore to conclude that it is in close proximity to the quarry site it is intended to serve.

Any unacceptable adverse impacts and any material planning benefits?

89. These two considerations are referred to later in the report

Limited to the life of the permitted mineral reserves?

90. The most recent permission granted in December 2011 (ref. ES.11/13/524 MW) requires mineral extraction to cease no later than 30 November 2016 and the site to be restored no later than 30 November 2018.

91. Aggregate Industries have confirmed on 8 November 2012, that as of 1 January 2013

about 2.5 million tonnes of permitted reserves remain (shown on Plan 3) to be worked and based on the maximum extraction rate (400,000 tonnes per annum), mineral extraction would cease in 6 years 3 months (i.e. by 31 March 2019). However in recent years output from the quarry has been significantly less than the permitted maximum extraction rate and the site is currently mothballed. Between 2008 and 2011 the

average output was 290,935 tonnes. Based on this figure, mineral extraction would cease in 8 years 6 months i.e. in June 2021. Mineral extraction is therefore behind schedule. However, an application to extend the cessation date has not been submitted and it would not be appropriate to prejudge a decision on such an application to extend the cessation date.

92. The applicant has proposed that the electricity would be generated for a period of 20

years (i.e. to 2033). This implies that the turbine would remain for an additional 17 years beyond the current cessation date for mineral extraction.

93. The applicant has acknowledged that there is a desire to offset the energy requirements

for any community recreational facilities near to the site and Sport England support this potential benefit. However there are no firm proposals for the afteruses and no firm commitment to offset their energy requirements at the present time. In any event this would mean that the turbine would become ancillary to those uses rather than the quarry. Conclusion

94. In accordance with Policy 35 therefore, in the current circumstances, knowing that there is permitted minerals still to be worked, it would be reasonable to impose a condition to limit the life of the ancillary development to the cessation of mineral extraction. This would allow for the possibility of an extension of time being approved or not as the case may be. Nevertheless this would not provide a permission for the duration of time that the applicant is seeking i.e. to 2033. Therefore, having regard to the level of investment and the potential unacceptable adverse impacts considered later, this would indicate that this is not the right place or the right time to develop the turbine. .

Landscape and Visual Impact

95. The prominence of a turbine of this scale means that the landscape and visual impact is

clearly an important consideration, not least in a rural setting such as this. 96. Government policy (the UK Renewable Strategy, EN-1, EN-3 and the NPPF); Structure

Plan saved policies D1, D2, NC2, MW6 and MW7; the Structure Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning for Landscape Change’; East Staffordshire Local Plan saved policy BE1; the emerging East Staffordshire Local Plan policy SP21; and the County Council’s Position Statement; all seek to protect and / or enhance the landscape and visual amenity and ensure that development is informed by, or sympathetic to, the character and qualities of its surroundings, its location, scale and design

97. The applicant carried out a landscape assessment which concluded that:

• the effects upon landscape fabric would not be significant;

• the effects upon landscape character would not be significant as the turbine would be located where built development already exerts a clear influence upon character. At a local level, the turbine would exert an influence upon character by virtue of its height, but the underlying key characteristics would not change appreciably;

• the visual effects would be locally significant. Of the fourteen viewpoints provided,

six would experience significant visual effects (all located within 2 kilometre of the

proposed turbine, with clear and unencumbered views). Vegetation cover and buildings would screen views from many locations. The proposed turbine would appear as a minor landscape feature at longer distances with minimal influence upon the composition of existing views;

• the cumulative effects would not be significant due to the small scale and small

number of existing turbines in the surrounding landscape; 98. The County Council’s Environmental Advice Team has commented as follows:

• The landscape is of a medium scale and the field patterns are irregular and variable in size, with some local areas of smaller scale;

• The variable heights, density and character of the vegetation pattern combine to

create an intimate and varied structural mosaic within a generally flat landform;

• There is concern that the proposed wind turbine would be out of scale with the landscape;

• The turbine would be a prominent feature when viewed from local footpaths and

roads; and,

• Overall, the turbine would give rise to an unacceptable adverse landscape and visual impact.

99. As described earlier, East Staffordshire Borough Council, the Campaign to Protect

Rural England, the Open Space Society, Uttoxeter Town Council, Uttoxeter Rural Parish Council, Rocester Parish Council, Mr. Andrew Griffiths MP and the UWTAG have all expressed their concerns about the prominence of the turbine in the Dove Valley, close to Uttoxeter, alongside an important route to Alton Towers, JCB, the Staffordshire Moorlands and when viewed from local footpaths, including the Staffordshire Way.

Conclusion

100. The perception of the landscape and visual impacts of a proposal such as this is

inevitably subjective. However in this case, having regard to the policy considerations and comments received referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that the turbine would be out of scale with the surroundings and in combination with other turbines in the area it would give rise to an unacceptable adverse landscape and visual impact.

Impact on the Historic and Natural Environment

101. With regard to the historic environment, we consulted the County Council’s

Environmental Advice Team (EAT) and English Heritage, and having received additional information from the applicant, no concerns have been identified by the statutory consultees, although local residents and the UWTAG did raise some concerns about the impact on the setting of the local church spires.

102. With regard to the natural environment, the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure

Plan saved policies NC1, MW5, MW6 and MW9; Minerals Local Plan policies 20 and 21; the NPPF (section 11) all seek to ensure that flora and fauna of acknowledged importance are protected, conserved or enhanced. The Companion Guide to PPS22

acknowledges that a common concern has been the risk of bird strike (birds flying through the area swept by the blades and being hit, causing injury or death).

103. The applicant carried out an ecological assessment which indicated the area does

provide higher quality habitat for foraging/commuting bats and overwintering birds. The Planning Supporting Statement concludes that:

• there are no features of nature conservation interest within the development

footprint; during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the turbine;

• there are no predicted impacts on habitats of high conservation value or on protected species;

• there is minimal risk to commuting and foraging bats; and,

• there is a risk of some disturbance to breeding birds during the construction phase.

104. A collision risk assessment submitted with the application concluded as follows that four

bird species produced potentials:

• Cormorants - 0.52 (annual mortality rate) - the projected impacts are small in comparison to their population size and therefore of negligible significance;

• Peregrine - 0.24 - the projected impacts could be of moderate significance;

• Buzzard 0.81 - the projected impacts are not significant other than at a local scale;

• Lapwing - 13.79 - the projected impacts could be of moderate significance at a local

scale locally moderate significance. 105. Due to the potential risks, the applicant has agreed to carry out a programme of post-

construction monitoring in accordance with Natural England guidance. 106. Staffordshire County Council’s EAT raised some concerns about the quality of bird

surveys and the failure to take account of the potential impact on birds that could result from the restoration of the quarry to create a lake which is likely to attract birds (shown on Plan 4). Natural England has no objection to the proposal.

107. As described earlier, East Staffordshire Borough Council, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust;

RSPB, West Midland Bird Club, CPRE, UWTAG, Mr. Andrew Griffiths MP and a number of local residents have all raised similar concerns to those of EAT. The UWTAG also raised concerns about the potential effects on the Uttoxeter Site of Biological Interest (SBI)(designated due to its wet grassland habitats). The County Council’s ecologist and Natural England have no concerns about the effects on the SBI.

Conclusion

108. The proposals have the potential to impact on local bird populations but this could be

monitored. No assessment has been made about the potential impact that would arise following the restoration of the quarry to form a lake (by 2018) which would attract more birds to the area. Overall therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a potential unacceptable adverse impact on wild birds.

Local Economy and Benefits

109. With regard to the local economy and benefits, NPPF (sections 1 and 3); the emerging

East Staffordshire Local Plan policy SP19 and the County Council’s Position Statement; all seek to ensure that the effects of development such as this benefit the local economy, including tourism. However, it is important to note that the NPPF (section 10) advises local planning authorities that they ‘should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy’.

110. The applicant has indicated that the electricity would be ‘transferred’ to the National

Grid; therefore there would be an indirect benefit from the generation of renewable energy.

111. The applicant has offered (subject to the granting of the planning permission) to

establish a community benefit scheme with local representatives. Following further enquiries, the applicant has confirmed that it would be willing to contribute £2,500 per annum into a community fund during the operational life of the turbine. To secure the fund and spending arrangements this matter would have to form part of a Section 106 Legal Agreement. It is relevant to note that the benefit scheme has not been requested and it is considered, having regard to the tests set out in the NPPF, that this offer is not needed to make the proposals acceptable. It should therefore not be regarded as a material consideration to be taken into account in determining this application.

112. The applicant has also pointed out that the proposed access track and crane

hardstanding area could be used to provide access and car parking for the future sport facilities.

113. As described earlier, the County Council’s Commissioner for Business and Enterprise

has commented that the submission does not address the socio-economic impacts (including tourism). Mr. Andrew Griffiths MP, Uttoxeter Rural Parish Council, Rocester Parish Council, the UWTAG and a number of local residents have expressed similar concerns that the proposal would have an impact on local businesses in Uttoxeter (including JCB) and the tourism industry (specifically Alton Tower Theme Park) and the fact that there would be no benefit locally from the turbine.

Conclusion

114. The quarry would continue to contribute to the local economy whether or not the turbine

development went ahead. 115. The applicant is willing to contribute to a community benefit scheme but this should not

be regarded as a material consideration. 116. There are potential benefits to offset the energy demand from the potential community

sporting facilities. However as stated earlier, at the present time there are no firm proposals for the afteruses and no firm commitment to offset their energy requirements.

117. Wind turbines may have a negative impact on local tourism, for example by detracting

from the landscape quality of the area, however your officers are not aware of any evidence to support this claim.

118. Overall therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the turbine would not make a significant contribution to the local economy and the material planning benefits would not outweigh the potential unacceptable adverse impacts.

119. Other matters raised in representations

Shadow Flicker

120. Sport England, the UWTAG and a number of local residents have expressed concern

about the effect of shadow flicker which could have an impact on the amenity of local residents and the future community sporting facilities.

121. Shadow flicker is the term used to describe the flickering effect caused by the rotating

turbine blades periodically casting shadows over neighbouring properties as they turn. 122. The National Policy Statement (EN-3) explains that the effects are dependent on a

number of factors such as the location of buildings relative to the path of the sun and the turbine; the distance from such buildings and the size of the window; the turbine height; the rotor diameter; the wind speed, wind direction, and cloud cover. The potential effect on sports provision is discussed later in the report.

123. The applicant provided an assessment of shadow flicker, based on a worst case

scenario, which concluded that the effects on 3 nearby properties would occur in the early morning (before 7:30); for a limited number of days (between April and September); and, for a maximum duration of 40 minutes.

124. The applicant has concluded that it is highly unlikely that ‘this phenomenon would have

any significant effect on the overall residential amenity of the properties considered’ and conditions could be used to mitigate any impact.

125. The applicant provided a Sports Impact Assessment which concluded that ‘the effects

of the proposed wind turbine upon the recreational amenity of the future sporting facilities and the future participating groups would not be significant in planning terms’. Following the submission of revised information, Sport England have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of conditions to ensure the wind turbine is switched off during cricket matches.

Conclusion

126. Having regard to the considerations referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that

there would be some limited adverse effects from shadow flicker. However it is considered that mitigation measures, secured through appropriate conditions, could be included to reduce these adverse effects.

Wind Speed

127. Mr. Andrew Griffiths, MP, local residents and the UWTAG contend that the low amount

of wind ‘available’ in the area means that the turbine would be inefficient and that no evidence of wind speed has been provided.

128. In response the applicant provided a wind speed estimate from a specialist wind energy

consultant which indicates that the average wind speed would be 6.2 m/s at the 50

metre hub height. The applicant also showed that the turbine would produce electricity for about 80% of the time in a year. Your officers have also verified the wind speeds using the Department of Energy and Climate Change Windspeed Database. This confirmed that the average wind speeds in the area range between 5.8m/s to 6.2 m/s at 45metres (above ground level). These figures were provided for a 1km grid square (Ref. SK0943).

129. Paragraph 2.7.4 of EN-3 and the Companion guide to (paragraph 37) advises that wind

speed is a key consideration for the applicant in identifying a potential site. PPS22 Companion guide (paragraph 38) also points out that technological advances and changes to the electricity markets now mean that wind speed is less critical in the site selection process.

Conclusion

130. Having regard to the considerations referred to above, there is no reason to doubt the

applicant’s contention that the scheme would not have reached this stage if there were doubts about the average wind speeds in the area. Need

131. Local residents and the UWTAG contend that there is no need for wind turbines as they

rely on government subsidies. 132. There are mechanisms to support renewable energy projects such as Renewable

Obligation Certificates (ROCs) which were introduced as an incentive for energy companies to bring forward the most cost-effective renewable electricity. The operators of wind turbines receive ROCs for generating renewable energy and electricity suppliers are incentivised to buy ROCs. The ROCs provide financial support above what operators received from selling the electricity on the wholesale market (paragraph 3.9 of the UK Renewable Energy Strategy).

133. The applicant has indicated that there are no grants or subsides paid to applicants

progressing renewable energy projects and that projects are assessed to ensure economic viability progressing through the development stages prior to construction.

134. As stated earlier, the NPPF makes it clear that local planning authorities ‘should not

require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy’.

Conclusion

135. Whilst there may be government incentives to support renewable energy schemes,

government policy clearly states that there is no requirement for applicants to demonstrate need.

Public Safety

136. Local residents and the UWTAG have expressed concern that the turbine would cause

health and safety problems, for example from ‘ice throw’ and a distraction for users/spectators of the sports facilities.

137. Paragraph 49 of the Companion Guide to PPS22 (Planning for Renewable Energy) indicates that ‘properly designed and maintained wind turbines are a safe technology. Also, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) state on their web site that wind generators would be covered by Health and Safety legislation (i.e. Health and Safety at Work Act – 1974) and operators would have to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their employees and any members of the public who may be affected by their activities.

138. The applicant has explained an ice detection system would be installed on the wind

turbine to shut it down if there is a risk of ice forming on the rotor blades. 139. Sport England has confirmed that they have no objections, subject to conditions to

require that the wind turbine is switched off during cricket matches. Conclusion

140. Having regard to the considerations referred to above, there is no reason to believe that the turbine would result in any unacceptable risk in terms of public safety. Public Health

141. Uttoxeter Rural Parish Council, Uttoxeter Town Council, local residents and the UWTAG

contend that the turbine would have the potential to cause health issues such as ‘wind turbine syndrome’ (e.g. sleep issues, headaches).

142. The applicant has responded to this issue by commenting that there has been no peer-

reviewed scientific evidence to support the claims that wind turbines have a negative impact on human health.

143. Staffordshire Public Health was consulted and made no specific comment, however

literature was provided concerning ‘Health effects and wind turbines; a review of the literature’ (taken from Environmental Health 2011, 10:78). This Canadian guidance concludes that the debate is ongoing and further research on human health is needed.

144. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) website highlights three

studies (independent peer reviewed research) into the impact of noise and other issues on people’s health. The DECC website stated that ‘given the existing evidence, Government’s view is that properly sited wind farms do not have a direct effect on public health’.

Conclusion

145. Having regard to the considerations referred to above, there is no evidence to suggest

that the turbine would result in any unacceptable risk to public health.

Noise 146. East Staffordshire Borough Council, Uttoxeter Rural Parish Council, Uttoxeter Town

Council, local residents and the UWTAG contend that the turbine would have the potential to cause unacceptable noise which would detract from the amenity of local residents.

147. Structure Plan saved policy D2 seeks to ensure that developments do not cause any nuisance from noise and the NPPF indicates that Local Planning Authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that ‘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; and

• identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed

by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason’. 148. Specific guidance concerning the noise impacts associated with wind turbines is set out

in ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97) produced in 1996. This guidance was recommended for use in the Companion Guide to PPS22 (Renewable Energy) and in the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3). The UWTAG contend that this guidance is out of date and ‘not fit for purpose’.

149. The wind turbine noise guidance describes a framework for the measurement of wind

farm noise and gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or planning authorities.

150. In this case, the applicant has provided a noise assessment which predicts day time

and night time levels of 42 dB at Riversmede and 40 dB at Spath Farm. The assessment therefore concludes that the predicted turbine noise levels would not exceed the noise limits set out in ETSU-R-97 under all wind speed and direction conditions.

151. East Staffordshire Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department and the County

Council’s Noise Engineer have confirmed that they have no objections to the proposals, subject to conditions to limit noise and to establish procedures to assess the noise levels in the event of a noise complaint. The County Noise Engineer has also confirmed that ‘ETSU-R-97’ remains the appropriate guidance.

Conclusion

152. Having regard to the considerations referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that

the turbine would not cause an unacceptable adverse noise impact, subject to the imposition of planning conditions to limit noise and to require procedures to assess any noise complaint.

Highway Safety and Access 153. Structure Plan saved policies T11, T18A and T18B and the NPPF (section 4) all seek to

ensure that no demonstrable harm is caused to the transport network and that a suitable access from the adjoining highway is provided.

154. As described earlier, there would be a limited number of HGV and LGV/car movements

during the construction phase. During the operational phase there would be visits by maintenance staff and further HGV movements during the decommissioning phase.

155. Of the HGV movements, 8 would be abnormal loads associated with the delivery of the

turbine itself. The movement of abnormal loads are controlled separately by the relevant Highway Authorities and it is not anticipated that any highway works would be required to bring the turbine equipment onto the site.

156. Access to the site would be via the existing quarry access and along a new access track

(shown on Plan 3). To facilitate access beyond the life of the quarry, it would be necessary to permit the retention of the quarry access. The quarry access is likely to be retained in any event to serve the community sports facilities and the other afteruses following restoration of the quarry, for example to provide public access to the lake.

157. Local residents also contend that the construction and operation of the turbine could

cause a distraction to drivers which could lead to accidents. 158. Paragraph 54 of the Companion Guide to PPS22 (Planning for Renewable Energy)

advises that wind turbines should not be treated any differently from other distractions a driver must face and should not be considered particularly hazardous. Drivers are faced with a number of varied and competing distractions during any normal journey, including advertising hoardings, which are deliberately designed to attract attention. At all times drivers are required to take reasonable care to ensure their own and others’ safety.

159. Transport Development Control has no objection to the proposal.

Conclusion 160. Having regard to the considerations referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that

the turbine proposals would not cause an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of highway safety.

Environmental Impact Assessment

161. Mr. Andrew Griffiths MP contends that the scheme should have been the subject of an

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It was explained earlier that the County Council provided a ‘screening opinion’ in accordance with the relevant regulations and guidance which concluded that the proposals need not be accompanied by an EIA.

Air Traffic

162. JCB, local residents and the UWTAG have raised concerns that the proposed wind

turbine would have an affect on the air traffic and in particular the use of helicopters used by the Midlands Air Ambulance based at Tatenhill Airfield and by JCB to and from their headquarters at Rocester.

163. The Civil Aviation Authority provided guidance concerning the impact of wind turbines

upon aviation (CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind turbines - CAP 764). This document indicates that the development of sites for wind turbines has the potential to cause a variety of negative effects on aviation. These negative effects include physical obstructions; the generation of unwanted returns on Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR); adverse effects on the overall performance of CNS equipment; and turbulence.

164. The Ministry of Defence and NATS have no objection to the proposal. The MOD

requested that the turbine is fitted with aviation lighting and details be provided for flying charts to ensure that military aircraft avoid this area. The Civil Aviation Authority was unable to respond to this specific proposal. However, the CAA recommended that the County Council consult with known local aerodromes regardless of status or the existence of any aerodrome/council safeguarding agreement, including local emergency service Air Support Units (e.g. Police Helicopter or Air Ambulance).

165. Tatenhill Aviation Ltd (the operators of Tatenhill Airfield) have not responded to the

consultation. 166. Bond Aviation Services (on behalf of the West Midlands Air Ambulance Service) has no

objection and has indicated that the turbine is unlikely to impact on their operations.

Conclusion 167. Having regard to the considerations referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that

the turbine proposals would not cause an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of air traffic safety, subject to conditions to require appropriate lighting and notification of the commencement and precise position in order to inform the relevant undertakers in due course.

Wireless Reception

168. Local residents and the UWTAG contend that the turbine would have an impact on wireless / television reception in the local area.

169. As described earlier, data obtained from the online ‘BBC wind farm tool’ indicates that

230 homes may be affected. 170. The applicant has advised that in the ‘unlikely event that interference to domestic

television reception did occur there are a number of mitigation measures possible such as the employment of improved aerials or re-directing aerials’. The applicant has confirmed that it is standard practice in the wind turbine industry to resolve reception problems when the turbine is operational.

171. Guidance produced by OFCOM for developers and Local Planning Authorities (‘Tall

structures and their impact on broadcast and other wireless services’ - August 2009) accepts the need to take into account the effect on wireless services when considering planning applications and that it may be appropriate to impose planning conditions to provide a remedy the disruption if required.

172. In this case, having regard to the relevant tests in the NPPF, it would be reasonable,

necessary and relevant to require the applicant to enter into a Section 106 Legal

Agreement to undertake a television/telecommunications impact study and implement the approved measures to remedy any interference resulting from the turbine.

Conclusion

173. Having regard to the considerations referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that

the turbine proposals would not cause an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of wireless reception, subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement to undertake a study when the turbine is operational and to carry out remedial measures where necessary.

Property Prices

174. Local residents have expressed concerns about the impact of the turbine on property

prices. Members will be well aware that the planning system must concern itself with protecting the ‘public interest’ not protecting ‘private / personal interests’. The effect of proposals of property prices is not therefore a material planning consideration.

Human Rights

175. A local resident has stated that the proposal would contravene Article 8 of the Human

Rights Act. The Article relates to the right to respect for private and family life stating that ‘you have the right to respect for your private and family life, your home and your correspondence. This right can only be restricted in specified circumstances’.

176. As demonstrated in this report, the proposals would have impacts which may affect

individuals in different ways. The report also demonstrates that the effects of the proposals have been carefully considered and it is reasonable to conclude that the potential impacts would not affect the rights under Article 8.

Private Members Bill

177. The UWTAG and local residents have indicated that a Private Members Bill [Wind

turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill HL 2012-13] should be considered. This Private Members Bill seeks to define a minimum distance from wind turbines and residential properties. In this case, if the height of the wind turbine is greater than 50 metres but does not exceed 100 metres, the minimum distance requirement would be 1500 metres.

178. This Private Members Bill has no weight in terms of planning policy terms and has no

bearing on this application. There is currently no defined minimum distance between residential premises and wind turbines. As is the case here, each application must be considered on its own merits.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

179. Overall, as an exercise of judgement, taking the relevant development plan policies as a

whole and having given consideration to application, the supporting information, the additional supporting information subsequently received, the consultation responses, the representations and the other material considerations referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that the material planning objections outweigh the material

planning benefits of the development. Therefore the proposals do not represent sustainable development.

DIRECTOR OF PLACE AND DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S RECOMMENDATION To REFUSE to grant planning permission for the construction and operation of single 500kw wind turbine with associated transformer housing, cabling to existing sub-station, sub-station container and temporary crane hard-standing/lay-down area at Uttoxeter Quarry, Spath, Uttoxeter.

The Reasons for Refusal:-

It is considered that the material planning objections outweigh the material planning benefits associated with the development, specifically in terms of the unacceptable effects on the landscape and visual amenity and the unacceptable timing of this ancillary development relative to the cessation of working of Uttoxeter Quarry and having regard to the approved restoration plan for the quarry which has the potential to give rise to unacceptable effects on bird life. Therefore it is considered that the proposals do not represent sustainable development.

The relevant development plan policies

The Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands

• Policy QE1 - Conserving and Enhancing the Environment; • Policy QE7 - Protecting, managing and enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity and

Nature Conservation Resources The Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan saved policies

• Policy D1 – Sustainable Forms of Development; • Policy D2 – Design & Environmental Quality of Development; • Policy NC1 – Protection of the Countryside: General Considerations; • Policy NC2 – Landscape Protection and Restoration; • Policy MW6 – Evaluation of Proposals; • Policy MW7 – Relationship to Conservation and/or Development Initiatives • Policy MW9 – Reclamation. The Structure Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning for Landscape Change’ The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan: • Policy 12 – Unacceptable Adverse Impacts; • Policy 21 – Landscape Character & Quality; • Policy 35 – Ancillary industrial development. The East Staffordshire Borough Council Local Plan: • Policy BE1 – Design.

The other material considerations The National Planning Policy Framework (published on 27 March 2012); • Section 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; • Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment; The emerging East Staffordshire Borough Council Local Plan (formerly Core Strategy) Preferred Options (July 2012 - Consultation Document) • Policy SP21 - Locally Significant Landscape, Landscape Character Areas and

Strategic Views. The Staffordshire County Council’s ‘Wind Energy in Staffordshire’ - Final Position Statement (approved by Cabinet on 17 October 2012).

Case Officer: David Bray - Tel: (01785) 277273 email: david.bray@staffordshire.gov.uk

A list of background papers for this report is available on request and for public

inspection at the offices of Staffordshire County Council, No. 1 Staffordshire Place, Stafford during normal office hours Monday to Thursday (8.30 am – 5.00 pm);

Friday (8.30 am – 4.30 pm).