Item Number

							Item Number
Application Number
                            09/B/0499
Application Type
                            Full Planning
Date received
                            13/11/09
Date Expired
                            07/01/10
Parish/Town Council
                            Ingram




Note: Star indicates site

Site Location: Ingram Mill

Proposal: Erection of small scale wind turbine on free standing tower.

Application or Agent: Mr David Whitehead

1.    Site Description

1.1   The subject site is approximately 440m east of the village of Ingram
      and approximately 70m south of Ingram Mill Cottage, adjacent to a
      hedgerow bordering an area of paddock. Open views exist to the north
      with the landform rising to the south. .

1.2   Surrounding land use is predominantly agricultural with residential use
      to the north east.
1.3   The site is close to the boundary of the Northumberland National Park
      to the west (135m), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and
      Special Area of Conservation to the north (River Breamish 400m), and
      a Site of Nature Conservation Importance to the north (River Breamish
      marginal habitats 95m).

2.    Proposal

2.1   The applicant seeks consent for: “Erection of a small scale wind turbine
      on a free standing tower”.

3.    Policy Considerations

      National Guidance

3.1   Conservation (Natural Habitats & c) Regulations 1994;
      Planning Policy Statement 1 and supplement (PPS 1);
      Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS 7);
      Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS 9);
      Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22);

      Development Plan policies

      Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS):

3.2   Policy 2;
      Policy 11;
      Policy 24;
      Policy 39;

      Berwick upon Tweed Local Plan, 1999:

3.3   Policy F3;
      Policy C27;

      Other Guidance

3.4   Releasing the strength of our communities – A sustainable community
      strategy for Northumberland to 2021;
      Circular 11/95;
      Circular 06/2005;
      Natural England Technical Information Note TIN059;
      Micro renewables and the natural heritage - Scottish Natural Heritage
      (SNH) Guidance Note October 2009;

4.    Consultation Responses

      County Ecology

      Objection regarding impact on bats
      Natural England (NE)

      Objection regarding impact on bats

      Northumberland National Park Authority

      No objection – reference made to NE advice

      Ingram Parish Council

      No objection

5.    Representation responses

5.1   The council conducted standard neighbour notification and site notice
      was erected on 23/11/09. No responses have been received.

6.    Material considerations

6.1   The application has been assessed against national and regional
      planning policy and guidance, development plan policies and other
      material planning considerations, and the advice of statutory
      consultees. The key planning issues raised by the proposal include:-

          The principle of the development;
          The impact of the proposed development on the landscape of the
          area;
          Impact upon residential amenity, including visual disturbance,
          overlooking, loss of privacy, etc;
         Nature conservation impacts

7.    Officer’s Appraisal

      The principle of the development

7.1   PPS 1 sets out the governments overarching planning policies on the
      delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. One
      of the key principals is the requirement for local authorities to address
      the impacts of climate change and ensure a reduction in emissions.
      Para 20, of PPS 1, encourages the mitigation of the effects of climate
      change through, amongst other things, the reduction of greenhouse
      gases and the use of renewable energy. Para 18, of PPS 22,
      acknowledges that small scale renewable energy projects, such as
      wind turbines, can be incorporated into existing development and
      requires local planning authorities to encourage small scale renewable
      energy schemes through policy.

7.2   The adopted local plan acknowledges that the scale and character of
      the local landscape can accommodate the development of suitably
      sited, small scale, renewable energy projects. Policy C27 of the
      adopted local plan provides the policy criteria, by which such projects
      should be assessed in this area; subject to meeting the requirements of
      these criteria this type of project can be supported.

      Landscape Impact

7.3   The structure will stand approximately 12.85m from base to blade tip,
      be of a tubular, mono-pole type construction with free moving blades
      and a non-reflective paint finish. The size of the structure will have a
      localised visual impact; however, it is considered that the visual impact
      will not be significant from long and medium range views and would not
      justify refusal on the grounds landscape impact alone.

      Residential amenity

7.4   The proposed site of the structure is adjacent (approx 6m from), to a
      hedgerow, bordering an area of paddock. The site is approximately
      70m from the nearest residential dwelling (the applicants) and
      approximately 75m from the nearest residential neighbour. This type of
      small scale wind turbine does not have a gearbox, which is accepted
      as the main source of noise for this type of structure, but will generate
      sound from the rotation of the blades.

      Ecology Impact

7.5   There is a very limited amount of available advice, regarding the effects
      of domestic sized wind-turbines on protected species and other
      birds/animals and the guidance notes issued by NE and SNH both
      advise a precautionary approach. Whilst no definitive research
      currently exists, contact has been made with researchers at Stirling
      University who are conducting the first research of this type, in the UK.
      Due to the early stage of this research, definitive advice was not
      available but it was acknowledged that anecdotal information, mainly
      from the United States and mainland Europe, did indicate bat fatalities
      are caused by wind turbines/farms.

7.6   Advice from the County Ecologist identifies that bats are known to use
      hedgerows to navigate and forage along, and suggests the relocation
      of the wind turbine to a site 30-35m from the hedgerow (centre of the
      paddock), to guard against potential adverse impact.           The NE
      consultation response confirms the presence of two bat roosts within
      the vicinity of Ingram Mill. It adds that the wind turbine should be
      moved 50m away from the hedgerow (or any other feature that may
      support bats), or the carrying out of survey work to assess bat activity
      in the area. Para 8 of PPS 9 requires that proposed development
      within, or outside, a SSSI which is likely to have an adverse impact on
      it should not normally be permitted. Para 16 of PPS 9 directs that
      planning authorities should refuse permission where it would harm a
      protected species or their habitats, unless the benefits of the
      development outweigh the harm.

7.7   Advice within TIN059 is not intended to cover micro-turbines and
      acknowledges that small scale wind turbines and large wind turbines
      differ greatly in terms of scale, operational characteristics and
      locational consideration. It does acknowledge that there is anecdotal
      evidence, of bat casualties associated with single turbines as well as
      wind farms.

7.8   SNH advice on this type of development requires a ‘precautionary
      approach’ be adopted to the siting of micro wind turbines and advises
      against siting such structures in a number of locations including “On
      known bat flyways (commonly along watercourses, hedges, woodland
      edges)”. All consultees/agencies note the lack of research on the
      subject.

7.9   Details received from the applicant indicate that bird/bat strike from this
      type of structure is minimal however, it is considered this advice again
      relates to wind farms with no reference provided for micro wind
      turbines. Communication with the applicant has confirmed that he
      would be unwilling to site the structure further that 6m into his paddock,
      due to concerns relating to the operation of farm equipment/vehicles
      and overhead power lines. The applicant is also unwilling to consider
      conditions that would result in the ’shut down’ of the system during
      specific periods, in an attempt to avoid/reduce potential impacts,
      believing it impractical and inefficient to do so.

8     Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1   The principal of a wind turbine in this area would be accepted, subject
      to meeting the requirements of local plan policy C27 and other policy,
      which is considered to include the strict protection afforded to protected
      species. The failure to meet these requirements, in this instance by the
      failure to provide a survey (including any mitigation work which may be
      required), to enable the ecological impact to be fully assessed, does
      not enable support to be afforded to this project.

8.2   The proposal is not considered to have a significant adverse visual
      impact on the local area.

8.3   Due to the siting and design of the proposal it is not considered to have
      an undue adverse impact on residential amenity.

8.4   Current ecology advice requires the submission of a bat survey.
      Without the submission of a survey, assessing the impact of the
      proposal on protected species, it is not considered possible to fully
      assess ecology impacts as a material consideration.
8.5   The applicant has submitted details indicating this project forms part of
      a wider scheme for sponsorship/grant aid from British Gas (Green
      Streets), for the area, which involves a number of renewable energy
      schemes. Without the Ecology Survey it is not considered possible to
      fully assess whether the potential benefit would outweigh any harm
      caused by the proposal.

8.6   Due to the potential, material, adverse impact on nature conservation
      the proposal does not accord with local plan policy C27 or the
      provisions and intentions of PPS 9.


RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE consent subject to the reasons set out
below.

Reasons for Refusal
1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the application does not
   enable a full assessment of the potential impact of the proposal on
   protected species. In accord with ecology advice the proposal is
   considered to have a potential adverse impact on protected species and
   does accord with local plan policy C27.