Poefinal

1

T&HMCF/01

Section 36 Electricity Act 1989 and Section 90 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

PI Ref.: GDBC/003/00025C/1 and GDBC/003/00025C/2

Thorne & Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum

Proof of Evidence

In respect of proposals to develop wind farms at

Tween Bridge, Thorne near Doncaster,

South Yorkshire

and Keadby, North Lincolnshire.

December 2006

2

Thorne & Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum

Proof of Evidence

CONTENTS

1. Summary 3

2. Introduction 4

3. The Forum’s case 5

3.1 Main

3.1.1 Impact upon SAC 6

3.1.2 Impact upon SPA 7

3.1.3 Harrier spp. 14

3.2 Other aspects of concern 19

3.2.1 Landscape 19

3.2.2 Demonstration of need 19

3.2.3 Planning context 20

3.2.4 In combination and cumulative impact 21

3.2.5 Other nature conservation interest 21

4. References 22

Appendix I Abridged Curriculum Vitae of the Executive Committee.

Appendix II Forum’s Constitution.

Appendix III T&HMC Forum leaflet.

Appendix IV English Nature Research Report 704.

3

1 SUMMARY

1.1 T&HMC Forum (hereafter referred to as ‘the Forum’) provide argument

herein which demonstrates the failure of the developers to have taken due and

appropriate account of European legislation (the two EU Directives enacted in UK

law as Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994) which clearly requires

them to provide assurances that the development, both alone or in combination, will

not have a significant impact upon the interest features of a European site.

1.2 The Inspectorate will be aware that the precautionary principle in European

law is now enshrined in Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty. The Environmental

Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC, as amended) makes express reference to the need

to assess the environmental impacts of development projects within the context of the

precautionary principle.

1.3 The Forum is a strong advocate of the precautionary principle underpinned by

the belief that affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio should apply (‘The burden of

proof lies with him who affirms, not with him who denies’). The Forum offer that the

EIAs have not provided a reasoned justification for their conclusions of ‘no adverse

effect’, nor have they demonstrated sufficient regard to the precautionary principle.

The Forum asserts that the developers have failed to provide evidence that would

satisfy the legal requirement that the development would not have a significant impact

upon the interest features of the Natura 2000 site.

1.4 The Forum also believes that the data provided by the developers do not

permit the construction of an adequate carbon budget, from which it would be

possible to assess whether the proposal contributes positively to the UK’s sustainable

energy supply. The engineering specifications of the turbines, especially their

foundations, are insufficiently detailed to determine the mass of concrete required.

And no accurate figures are provided on the direct and indirect impacts on the peat

deposits in the area. Damage to these latter could result in their oxidisation, and the

release of large quantities of carbon dioxide.

4

In view of these arguments, we respectfully request that the Inspector dismiss the

appeal.

Please note that the Forum reserve the right to provide further evidence and or

rebuttal, if and as necessary, as the Inquiry proceeds.

5

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 The Forum’s specialist area is, as defined in our Constitution … The

conservation of Thorne and Hatfield Moors, their biodiversity, and their geological,

palaeoecological, archaeological and historic features, seeking to sustain and where

possible to improve, their environmental quality.

2.2 See also the Forum’s general information leaflet (Appendix III) and Section 3

of the Forum’s Constitution (Appendix II) and reference to the Humberhead Levels.

2.3 By way of qualification of interest as a Rule 6 party please see our Abridged

Curricula Vitae of the Executive Committee, Appendix I.

6

3 THE FORUM’S CASE

3.1 The Forum objects to the proposed developments at Tween Bridge and

Keadby, primarily on the grounds that their proximity to three sites with statutory

nature conservation designations, which poses significant threats to the designated

features of these sites. These are:

Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moor

Site of Special Scientific Interest – designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act

1981 (as Amended).

Special Area of Conservation – registered under the Conservation (Natural Habitats

&c) Regulations 1994.

Hatfield Moor


1981 (as Amended).

Special Area of Conservation – registered under the Conservation (Natural Habitats

&c) Regulations 1994.

These two sites are together classified as The Thorne and Hatfield Moors Special

Protection Area, under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994.

Parts of Hatfield Moors, Thorne Crowle and Goole Moor are declared as the

Humberhead Peatlands National Nature Reserve (various dates and additions).

Humber Estuary


1981 (as Amended)

possible Special Area of Conservation (pSAC) - under the Conservation (Natural

Habitats &c) Regulations 1994

potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) - under the Conservation (Natural Habitats

&c) Regulations 1994

7

The nature conservation features of the above sites, for which they received their

Natura 2000 status are:

• Raised mire habitats on Hatfield Moors, Thorne Crowle and Goole Moors

SSSI and SAC;

• Breeding Nightjar on Thorne and Hatfield Moors SPA;

• Breeding Marsh Harrier and wintering Hen Harrier on the Humber Estuary

pSPA

These features are the primary focus of the Forum’s objection.

Details of the European Directives under which these sites were created as Natura

2000 are available in the Core Documents (X/6), as are the site citations. We believe

that these documents are not contested and are effectively accepted as matters of fact

and as such regarded as common ground.

3.1.1 SAC and the potential impact upon the hydrological integrity of the peat

body forming Thorne Moors.

The Forum believes that there has been insufficient information/data submitted in

respect of the impact upon the hydrological integrity of the peat body.

Thorne and Hatfield Moors are notable as having developed in an area of low

rainfall(510 mm/yr), warm temperature and high evapotranspiration potential, they

are effectively at the margins of viable raised mire development.

This is a view acknowledged and recognised by statutory agencies, authorities and

academics.

"Most mire research has been conducted in areas where there is high precipitation,

where bogs are frequent (Moore, 1997). However, mires also form in areas where

precipitation is low. Thorne and Hatfield Moors are located in a climatically

marginal area for the development of raised mire

8

(Money, 1995). "

Recognising the above and acknowledging that the peat bodies of Hatfield, Thorne,

Crowle and Goole Moors are all surrounded by intensive agriculture, added to which

the major development of Finningley Airport and its associated infrastructure, is in

itself a serious threat in terms of emissions and chemical deposition to the condition

assessment for the SSSI. The cumulative impact of additional industrial

developments close to the sensitive hydrological unit at Thorne Moors places

unacceptable levels of uncertainty to safeguard the SAC integrity.

There is also uncertainty relating to the impact of groundwater abstraction upon the

SAC. A clear relationship between abstraction and the sensitive hydrology of the peat

body has yet to be established. Investigations are currently ongoing and being

undertaken by both statutory agencies, authorities and the water companies to provide

an accurate assessment.

It is therefore crucial that the hydrological integrity of the peat body is not impacted

upon. Structures in excess of 400’ need substantial foundations: it has been estimated

(CD 16) that they will require approximately 376m3 / 902 tons of high CO2 producing

cement as well as metal piles driven into the underlying geology. To date the

developers have not provided any detail of the depth, material etc. which will be

required to stabilise such structures. Without the provision of such data the Forum is

not assured of safeguard to the SAC interest. Further, in the absence of data on

engineering specifications for the foundations, nor on direct and indirect peat losses, it

is impossible to construct a carbon budget for the developments. Water loss from peat

can be either lateral or vertical through the damaged mineral. The depth required for

the piles has not been given, it may be that it will breach the Lake Humber clays:

these provide an almost impermeable lining to the basin within which the raised mires

originally formed. The Quaternary geology of the Humberhead Levels has recently

been summarized by Gaunt et al. (2006), and it is apparent that, in the past, systems

have been entirely supported by freshwater, perched above the membrane provided by

the Lake Humber clays. Any unsealed breach of this, in the present environment of

extensive pumping of groundwater, would lead to water loss and consequent

9

oxidation of the peat. If the peat body is dewatered the peat will oxidise, CO2 will be

released and the carbon sink will be lost as a resource for future generations.

Whilst we would not suggest that there is a direct comparable situation between

Thorne Moors and the Derrybrien bog burst in County Galway, Ireland there are

equally serious issues which the developers and indeed the statutory agencies should

consider.

It should be noted that, as a consequence of failing to consider (in the EIA) fully the

implications of a major development (wind farm) upon the peat body at Derrybrien,

the European Union is prosecuting the Irish Government in the European Court of

Justice.

3.1.2 SPA and the likely significant impact upon the nightjar interest of the

Thorne & Hatfield Moors population.

The Humberhead Peatlands population of nightjar represents c.1.9% of the UK

breeding population (see site citation).

In March 2004, the Forum provided within the document T&HMC Forum, Response

to: Tween Bridge Wind Farm Environmental Statement a model drafted by Brian

Eversham which has subsequently been re-examined and by application of Berry &

Bibby (1981) recalculated by Dr T Melling of the RSPB:

Average fledging of Nightjars is 0.93 young per pair per year, taking into account the

existence of some second broods.

Let us assume that the Thorne population is c. 20 pairs, based on average figures

taken from annual Thorne Moors Bird Reports. (Note that censuses are all based on

counts of churring males. No data appear to be available on the presence and

behaviour of non-breeding males. There is some evidence of additional males feeding

young birds at the nest, which may imply that there are unpaired males in the

territory. Hence, the count of churring males may over-estimate the numbers of pairs

somewhat.)

10

20 pairs producing 0.93 fledglings each = 18.60 young per year

Little information is available on longevity, but the oldest recorded ringed bird was 8

years old. That, coupled with first breeding generally at age of 1 year, suggests that

they are not very long-lived. (For comparison, another seldom-ringed bird, the Twite,

has a maximum age recorded as 6yrs 1 month; this compares with tits with maximum

age (on much bigger samples) of 8-11 yrs, which have 50% survival annual from

maturity, and much larger clutch sizes).

If average lifespan of adults is 4 years (perhaps an over-estimate), 20 pairs (c. 40

birds) need to recruit 10 replacements a year to sustain the population.

So, at present, 10 of the 18.6 fledged birds (53.8%) would need to survive migration

to and from sub-Saharan Africa, and over-wintering, which sounds precarious.

However, most mortality from turbines will be of foraging adults gathering insects to

feed their chicks. This therefore results in loss of reproductive output for the year, and

a loss of breeding adults which needs to be made good. For example:

If 4 birds are killed by turbines in a year, it is likely that 4 pairs will fail to reproduce,

which reduces chick numbers from 18.6 to 14.9 (4 x 0.93 chicks = 3.72 fledglings)

Adult mortality would be 4 birds higher, so the loss to be made up that year would be

14 rather than 10.

So, whereas without turbines, 10 out of 18.6 chicks (53.8%) must survive migrations

and over-wintering, with 4 adult deaths in the year, 14 out of 14.9 (94.0%) need to

survive in order to maintain a constant population.

If 5 adults die, and those pairs do not reproduce, 4.65 chicks are lost, so productivity

falls to 13.95 birds, and the required recruitment is now 10 + 5 = 15 out of 13.95 =

108% must survive migration and wintering.

If 6 adults die, and those pairs do not reproduce, 5.58 chicks are lost, so productivity

11

falls to 13.02 birds, and the required recruitment is now 10 + 6 = 16 out of

13.02 = 123% must survive migration and wintering.

Note that, if all the current and proposed turbine applications were approved, 4

nightjar deaths per year would represent 1 bird per 63 turbines per year (assumes

250 turbines total); 5 deaths represent one bird per 50 turbines.

With this sort of population structure, longevity, and reproductive capacity, loss of

even a handful of birds each year to turbines would be gravely damaging to the

population, and thus to the SPA designation.

There is no real fact base to discount the potential impact of turbines, especially when

a nightjar population will be increasingly crowded into a strip of drier habitat around

the edge of the moors as the centre of the Moors is gradually wetter through EN

management for the SAC interest features. Noise may well be a problem, either by

disrupting the establishment of territories, or by disrupting feeding behaviour in

addition to direct killing of birds which forage off the moors.

The recalculation shows that the risk is far greater than initially presented. If Murison

(2002) were to be used in the same model above, then the risk would be even greater.

Any one of the three models is clear in conclusion, i.e. that the SPA nightjar

population is placed beyond sustainability of retaining a viable breeding population.

In recent years annual surveys have shown an increase in churring males. It is a

recognised fact that whilst accepted methodology, it does not provide an accurate

picture of breeding or success: it is neither an accurate estimate of the number of

mated pairs holding territories, nor of the reproductive success of those pairs . The

Forum offer, that a developer who was sincere in environmental concerns would have

initiated a series of scientific surveys which would over a number of seasons (three

were suggested) establish the breeding success of the Humberhead population, not

merely the presence of churring males early on in the breeding season.

12

The DTI were provided with a project proposal in April 2004 which clearly explained

the need for more than a single breeding season’s data and had the proposal been

implemented it would have given the developers a minimum of two seasons data, not

the few days offered in the ES, then the eight days radar work of 2005, selectively

interpreted in the Supplementary Planning Statement of January 2006.

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Thorne 33 27 32 30 45 35 30 24 29 29

Hatfield 29 29 32 37 29 21

Total 56 61 62 82 64 51

Table showing numbers of churring males over a ten year period.

What the table does illustrate is the fluctuating fortunes of a migratory species. It also

shows the potential a major industrial development could have on an already unstable

population, this in conjunction with the recalculated model is unacceptable.

Palmer (2002) records that the Humberhead population is an anomalous one and

therefore for E-On to offer comparisons with southern heaths is unwise and

unscientific. See also Palmer’s response to E-On’s ES March 2004 and appended in

its whole to the Forum’s Statement of Cases.

Natural England (previously English Nature) report in their Statement of Case that

they have been in discussions with the developers about radar data. Whilst we

understand that a nightjar ‘rule set’ has been proposed we further understand that this

is not conclusive. As this material has not been made available to the Forum we have

been unable to examine it and therefore we may in due course ask for an adjournment

so that we can analyse it and if necessary offer rebuttal.

What we have seen is the Supplemental Planning Statement (January 2006) and we

have noted the conclusions made by the consultants on behalf of the developers.

13

What we are unable to locate is the information obtained through rigorous and

conclusive research required for them to arrive at such conclusions.

For example, Appendix 1 Monitoring European Nightjar.

alludes to the initial aims agreed with English Nature (now Natural England), which

were subsequently revised without a detailed rationale as to the benefit of this reduced

protocol.

Section 2 provides an explanation of the CSL equipment and its capabilities.

Equipment limitations are acknowledged in so far as birds can be blocked by

landscape clutter and more importantly the consultants acknowledge that “The

equipment used by CSL is unable to identify individual bird species based on radar

echo alone”. They then go on to propose that “in conjunction” with observers field

skills the findings are acceptable, without qualifying observer competencies or

experience etc. As the inferences are not supported by conclusive research they are

therefore reduced to unscientific predictions which the Forum assert are not

acceptable for this SPA species.

We note in Volume 1, Section 4 Ecology such admissions as low visibility when the

work was being undertaken, but then CSL add that there were few movements and

heights were low. We offer that such statements are contradictory and unscientific, if

visibility is poor then it is likely that little will be observed especially movements or

height. However, when one examines the amount of ornithological activity shown on

the aerial photographs included in the Appendices it is considerable, particularly

given they only undertook eight evening sessions. More importantly, we further offer

that no valid clarification has been provided which establishes/differentiates the

species logged. Returning to Section 4 and the ‘collision risk calculation’ and the

reason given for concluding a low risk (‘insignificantly small proportion’) was the

low level of activity within the windfarm area throughout the breeding and migration

period and low flight heights. Elsewhere in the report one reads that the radar

detected seven flights between 35 and 125m but they were “considered unlikely” to

be nightjar, again we would require reliable evidence of the identity of the species.

Activity is logged up to 450m from the boundary of the SPA, all below 6m yet later

again they report nightjar flying over 15m birch.

14

Clearly, there are numerous contradictory statements within the consultants’ report.

Selective interpretation has no place in a situation which involves a Natura 2000 site.

Even though there were only eight nights spent gathering data, sufficient data were

gathered to place considerable doubt as to the level of impact which would result if

the proposal were approved.

The proposed turbines are a mere 250m from the SPA boundary, CSL logged flight

activity 450m from the boundary which would bring birds well within range of the

blades given that seven flights were again within blade range.

The consultants also promote the view that nightjars do not fly at any great height.

Whilst this may have an element of fact, it is not a rule. Forum officers have

personally observed nightjars ascend in excess of 40m on areas of Hatfield Moor.

Forum officers are also aware of a local report relating to nightjar hawking insects

around Thorne Colliery security lighting, suggesting that birds will fly high if the prey

species is available and as such could be at risk from collision if feeding within blade

height path.

The Forum do not believe that adequate data was gathered over a sufficient time

period, one season does not provide confidence for the subjective conclusion drawn.

3.1.3 Marsh and Hen Harrier use of the Humberhead Peatlands

Marsh and Hen Harrier are protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act

1981 (General Protection, Schedule 1(1) and Schedule 4). It is also protected in

Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive 1979.

JNCC lists current threats to Marsh Harrier as including the loss and drying out of

wetland habitats. They also detail the UK’s SPA for Marsh Harrier suite as

supporting, on average, 116 females (as males commonly pair with more than one

female, the UK SPA population is expressed as numbers of females). This amounts to

about 74% of the British breeding population, which was 157 females (Stone et. al.

15

1997). This total is contained within 10 sites where they have been listed as a

qualifying species. The Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast are one of these sites and

are estimated to support 7% of the national population (11 females).

It is therefore reasonable to promote the area as an important one for both Marsh and

Hen Harrier.

A number of surveys have been carried out on behalf of both E-On and RES. Both

developers through their consultants conclude there is little Harrier spp activity and

their proposed wind farm development would have no significant impact upon either

species population.

To ensure that Harriers are deterred from utilising the wind farm area it has been

proposed that all set-aside and game cover would be removed. Inference within the

developers reports suggests that English Nature found this acceptable.

The Forum finds it surprising that such changes in agricultural land use would be

supported by the government’s statutory conservation advisor (and now, as Natural

England, the body responsible for grant aid to agriculture). Indeed, in areas adjacent

to SPAs and SACs, the conditions of the government’s Single Payment Scheme,

Entry Level Scheme and Higher Level Schemes of environmental stewardship, would

generally be targeted to encourage farmers to provide habitats which would support

the species for which the Natura 2000 sites were designated. No evidence is presented

on the contents of any Farm Environment Plans in the vicinity of the areas proposed

for the turbines, nor of the longer term plans of local land-owners with regard to

agricultural support schemes. So, it is possible that larger areas of ‘game cover’ and

species-rich field margins would be created in the area in the near future.

Even if all environmentally friendly measures were to be removed from local farming

to accommodate the proposed ‘mitigation’, this would NOT stop Harrier spp. (nor

indeed Nightjar) from coming across over the peat body and woodland fringe of

Thorne Moors and entering the wind farm site and risking death. The Forum are

unable to find case study examples of this kind which prove that such negative

‘mitigation’ (=habitat destruction) is successful, but it is NOT for the objectors to

provide such evidence: the onus of proof lies with the advocates of such measures i.e.

16

the developers. We therefore request that such evidence be provided before any

confidence can be placed on the contradictory advice of either Natural England (the

Rural Development Service are now part of the new organisation) or the advocates of

the scheme.

Further, it should be noted that there has already been a change of land ‘occupier’

within the area of the proposed wind farm. The Walker land holding, which includes

the SSI Whittaker’s Plantation will no longer be intensively farmed but in a manner

which will actively encourage wildlife use. (J P Walker, pers. comm.) Effectively

this change of land use will negate the removal of other holdings game cover etc. as a

mitigation measure. In view of the possibility that areas termed ‘game cover’ will be

providing habitat for other species, particularly invertebrates which may also be liable

to protection, can the developers assure us that the necessary surveys have been

carried out before destruction?

Merely because the proposed game cover habitat loss lies outside the Natura 2000

sites does not mean that it should be ignored. The Planning Inspector in the case of

Dibden Bay SPA (2004) gave weight to habitat loss outside the designated sites. So, if

the removal of set-aside and game cover represents a loss of feeding habitat for

harriers, and if it would occur solely as a consequence of the wind turbine

development, the Inspector’s decision in the case of Dibden Bay SPA is relevant: in

that case, referring to habitat loss outside of the designated site, the Inspector

commented that “No part of this area is within the boundary of any European site.

Nevertheless, it provides a feeding resource for various fish-eating birds which are

part of the assemblage for which the SPA is classified.”-

The data provided herein are easily available to anyone undertaking even a cursory

desk top analysis and are available in the form of annual bird reports collated and

compiled by experienced and competent volunteer observers and printed by English

Nature.

The tables provide details of the number of birds seen in each month of the year over

an arbitrary ten year period. However it should be recognised that the sightings are

likely to reflect the number of days available to and spent in the field by the

17

ornithologists. Where no records are logged for a month, it is just as likely to mean

no observer out on the moor, as no Marsh Harrier presence.

J F M A M J J A S O N D

1994 44 5 3 3 22 9 7 1

1995 3 8 7 15 20 9 3 11 14 1 1

1996 3 3 4 8 2 3 12 17 3

1997 1 10 10 2

1998 4 12 18 15 3 21 21 7

1999 4 9 19 16 11 32 41 2

2000 3 7 22 16 12 14 23 50 7

2001 8 22 8 10 26 20 10 2

2002 4 6 11 2 6 31 33 7

2003 2 3 5 17 3 1 24 25 9 6 4

2004

Numbers of Marsh Harrier records over a ten year period.

(Source: Thorne Moors Annual Bird Reports, EN)

J F M A M J J A S O N D

1994 9 1 2 1 4 14 3

1995 5 4 3 6 6 2

1996 9 5 7 4 4 4

1997 4 1 11 4 2 1 3

1998 6 1 6 6 1 6 2 3

1999 7 1 7 3 8 4 9

2000 9 6 11 2 1 1 6 6

2001 5 1 7 1 2 3 13

2002 1 1 9 2 5 6 5

2003 11 9 5 5 1 4 5 3

2004

Numbers of Hen Harrier records over a ten year period.

18

(Source: Thorne Moors Annual Bird Reports, EN)

Harrier Records

Date Species Sex

21.02.2004 Hen Harrier Male

Flew over pylon north west of Sunset Cottage.

Flying north-south. Height approximately 50m

over wires.

04.04.2004 Marsh Harrier Hunting over eastern side of Thorne Moors.

15.06.2004 Marsh Harrier

Hunting east of Jaques Bank near Barkers

piggery.

01.05.2005 Hunting to west Sunset Cottage.


Hunting over mineral line approximately 1pm.

Flying north to south.

05.06.05 Marsh Harrier Female

Hunting over field to west of Jaques Bank

behind Brown's Farm.


Spotted on Lovers Ground/Marsh Road. Flying

south to north.


Sighted on Jaques Bank next to nissan hut.

Hunting. 2-10m.


Hunting over pea filed east of Jaques Bank 2-

10m.

21.08.05

Common

Buzzard

Spotted over Sunset Cottage flying west to east

(high).


Hunting north of Sunset Cottage. Erratic flight

due to mobbing by Kestrel.


Four Marsh Harriers to north east of Sunset

Cottage over Albone's land. Spit into 3 and 1.


Hunting over M. Ella's field east of Jaques

Bank.


To west of Sunset Cottage. Flew over pylon

wires approximately 50m. Descended to point

19

on moors.


To east of Pilfrey Bridge, Keadby. To east of

pylon line. Height 30-40m (being harassed by

Crow).


Sighted to west of Jacques Bank. Height 20-

25m.


Sighted flying east to west. Height 40m.

Headed to point.


Flying just west of Sunset cottage. Travelling

north to south. Flew through pylon wires.


Spotted east of Groves Farm flying north to

south. Height approximately 40m.


Spotted flying north east to south west over

signal box. Flew over pylon wires.


Sighted flying west to east along canal. Turned

south at Sunset cottage. Height 4-6m.


Hunted over garden and pond (Sunset Cottage).

Flew south to north at approximately 10m.

Late pm.


Flew over garden of Sunset Cottage. North to

south. Height under main power line - 30m

approximately. Harassed by Kestrel.


Seen flying north to south over filed to east of

Sunset Cottage. Flew over pylon wires.

Approximately 40-45m.


Seen in field east of Sunset Cottage flying

south to north. 3.40pm. Height approximately

40m.

Table: Casual observations of harrier activity including the period surveyed by

commercial consultants. (Source: Peter Hart.)

20

3.2 Other aspects of concern to the Forum include:

3.2.1 Landscape impact by virtue of loss of wilderness value.

The Forum recognise that the issue of wilderness value and impact thereon is a

subjective analysis, ideally a quantifiable method would be available.

However in an endeavour to assist the discussion we would cite for example

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council who recently as part of their Local

Development Framework research commissioned ECUS to undertake a

Landscape Character Capacity Study (see Core Document 123: DMBC

Landscape Character Assessment of Doncaster), which showed that Thorne &

Hatfield Moors had zero to low capacity for wind farm developments.

A number of studies undertaken by statutory agencies and authorities have

also established that visitors to Thorne and Hatfield Moors value the unspoilt

wilderness.

3.2.2 Demonstration of need.

Volume 3 of the Supplementary Environmental Information, 4.12 Discusses

need for the development. There is a distinct failure to acknowledge the

importance of peat as a climate change regulator and carbon sink. There has

been no work undertaken to provide assurances that the hydrological integrity

of the surviving surface peat bodies within Hatfield, Thorne, Crowle and

Goole Moors SAC will not be impacted upon. Identification of the extent and

proximity of the peat underlying the agricultural land through which the

foundations of the turbines will make large holes, and the likely potential of

disruption to the wider peat body will cause oxidisation of the peat and the

release of carbon dioxide. It is possible that the carbon dioxide liberated from

peat oxidisation may exceed that ostensibly ‘saved’ by power generation over

the life of the turbines. This would be a direct contradiction to the reputed

purpose of wind turbines i.e. to generate carbon free electricity.

Failure by the developers to provide raw data from survey work undertaken

belatedly. Preferring simply to submit selective and subjective reports

unsubstantiated by the provision of sound science.

21

E-On particularly but also RES have failed to submit wind speed data which

would demonstrate the viability of the sites. The nominal map included in the

initial ES only shows borderline viability.

The developers have failed to include all data in the emission savings claim.

Energy is required to produce cement, a necessary component in the

construction of wind power stations such as this proposed for Tween Bridge

and indeed Keadby.

3.2.3 Planning context.

Much is made by the developers of planning context, however nowhere are we

able to identify discussion nor more importantly evidence which would satisfy

the criteria on the investigation, identification and consideration of alternative

sites. The recent decisions in the matter of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and

Dibden Bay confirms that the requirement for alternative sites, within the UK

and elsewhere in the European Union, needs to be thoroughly explored, before

planning permission can be awarded. Hoskins & Tyldesley (2006) also

acknowledge that no guidance exists which provides assistance in quantifying

impact in terms of internationally important sites. The Forum believe that

there is insufficient evidence presented by the developers of Tween Bridge in

particular that other potential alternative sites have been examined, and that

baseline studies have been undertaken at each alternative site (a standard

requirement of EIA). There has also been a failure to demonstrate need

(‘imperative reasons of over-riding pubic interest’) in the terms defined above

which might make the application eligible for consideration.

The Habitats Directive, Regional Spatial Strategy, Unitary Development Plans

all accept that Natura 2000 sites are afforded European protection and, to

quote the most recent, the RSS reaffirms that developments will only be

allowed “if in the absence of alternatives, there is an over riding public interest

and compensatory measures are provided”. This same quote is even used by

the developers but has not been discussed, explored and, of more importance,

evidenced.

22

3.2.4 The in combination and cumulative impact of the various

applications (see Fig. 3.1 CD 17 P2) which effectively create a ‘ring of steel’

around the Humberhead Peatlands. The Forum offer that it is an inescapable

conclusion that the in combination effects of the two applications being dealt

with by this Inquiry, the proposal for Goole Fields and Twin Rivers,

Finningley Airport and the issue of water abstraction will have a significant

adverse impact upon the Natura 2000 sites. In light of these the precautionary

principle is invoked and it is not for the competent authority to demonstrate

that the project(s) would be harmful to the international sites, but to ascertain

that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site(s). In assessing

whether it can be ascertained, we promote that it is necessary to look beyond

the boundaries of the site(s) as well as within the site(s).

3.2.5 Other nature conservation interest

Although of less weight than SSSI interests and not imposing the same

statutory considerations in respect of European legislation, the following

matters are nevertheless material to the secretary of State’s decision:

• SSIs (ten were identified by UUGEL/E-On on the southern periphery

of Thorne Moor alone).

• UK BAP habitats and species (Lowland Raised Mire, Lowland Heath ,

Curimopsis nigrita, Large Heath, Woodlark to name but five

examples).

• Other species protected by law.

• Red data book and other rare and threatened species.

23

4 REFERENCES

Documents referred to in the Proof of Evidence and their sources.

Birds of the Western Palearctic (referred to in the Forum’s March 2004 submission) is

available as CD 179.

Berry, R. & Bibby, C.J. (1981) A breeding study of Nightjars. Brit. Birds 74: 161-9.

(Cited and appended by Natural England and RSPB.)

Cresswell, B. (1996) Nightjars some aspects of their behaviour and conservation.

British Wildlife Vol. 7: 297 – 304. (Cited by CSL, so assumed to have been

submitted as supportive paper.)

Gaunt, G. D., Buckland, P. C. & Bateman, M. D. (2006). The geological background

to the development and demise of a wetland - the Quaternary history of the

Humberhead Levels. Yorkshire Naturalist' Union Bulletin 45 Suppl.: 6-46.

* Hoskin, R., & Tyldesley, D. 2006. How the scale of effects on internationally

designated conservation sites in Britain has been considered in decision making: A

review of authoritative decisions. English Nature Research Report 704.

Money, R. P. 1995. Re-establishment of a Sphagnum-dominated flora on cut-over

lowland raised bogs; regeneration with special reference to palaeoecological studies.

In: Wheeler, B.D.; Shaw, S.C.; Fojt, W.J. & Robertson, R. A. (eds.) Restoration of

Temperate Wetlands. J.Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 405-422.

* Murison, G. (2002) The impact of human disturbance on the breeding success of

nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus on heathlands in south Dorset, England. English

Nature Research Report 483.

Palmer, P. (2002) Movements of foraging nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus at Hatfield

Moor and some aspects of their ecology. A report to English Nature. (Cited by CSL,

as well as earlier E-On consultants, so assumed to have been submitted as supportive

paper.)

24

* Available as a pdf via www.english-nature.org.uk

Date post:	04-Apr-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	keith-heywood
View:	218 times
Download:	3 times