kNOll To Wind Farm Statement

KNOLL TO WIND FARM

1.      It is the case for the Group that this development does not accord with the development plan. The plan, read as a whole, must be the starting point for any decision making process. As is commonly the case this plan has polices which pull in different directions. There are those which simply seek to protect the environment, the countryside, biodiversity, social and economic issues, and amenity. Then there are those which promote certain developments subject to criteria designed to protect those same issues.

2.      Policies have to be construed purposively however one cannot distort their meaning by giving a meaning which the words will not bear. If on proper construction the development is contrary to the plan then, unless material considerations indicate otherwise it must be refused.

3.      Among those material considerations is government planning guidance. PPS22 and PPS 7, the most recent and relevant, indicate that renewable energy is to be welcomed but that it must be at sites where environmental, economic and social issues can be satisfactorily addressed and where the exploitation of renewable sources is sensitive.  Further each development must demonstrate how through location, scale, design and other measures environmental  and social impacts have been minimised.

Targets

4.      Although targets are to be set there is no policy support for deploying renewable energy development where those issues cannot be addressed nor is there any suggestion that inappropriate sites should be used if there is a shortfall against target. Mr S agreed that the most weight is to be given to government planning policy promulgated in formal planning guidance.

5.      Nor is there any support for that in less formal government policy. Mr S agreed that you need not concern yourself with early White Papers. Neither that of 2003, 2006 or 2007 indicate that inappropriate sites should be utilised. Indeed the most recent identifies as the first problem with on-shore wind deployment is the lack of suitable sites and the second planning difficulties. As Mr K sensibly points out the two are inextricably linked. Advancing an inappropriate site tends to prevent one obtaining permission.

6.      In this case there are no set targets in the development plan. Only in failing to set targets in MW of installed capacity, but to support and encourage compliance with national targets, does it fall away from government guidance. The unadopted RSS, a material consideration, does set targets for Somerset, as 61-81MW, but they are not disaggregated to district level. There is no dispute that Somerset has not, and well may not, reach its target. That is no reason for siting a windfarm in an inappropriate location or restricting the search to district level. Describing alternative sites which are not practicable in Sedgemoor deflects attention from the appropriate search area: that should be co-extensive with the target area which is the County of Somerset.. Somerset is recognized as having  the greatest diversity of renewable energy resources: that is it is not concerned solely with on-shore wind.

Development plan

7.      The other policies of the development plan accord with government policy. RPG10 seeks to protect (EN1)the distinctiveness of its character areas, to maintain and enhance its biodiversity, marks the importance of the local environment to its economy, (EN3)gives the highest level of protection to historic and archaeological areas, seeks to preserve and enhance historic buildings and their settings, and to take account of landscape patterns. These elements of the plan were ignored by Mr S. It also supports and encourages the deployment of renewable energy generation (RE6).

8.      The RPG requires that plans should specify criteria against which proposals for RE will be assessed, balancing the benefits of developing more sustainable energy generation against environmental impacts, in particular on national and international designated sites. SDCLP has criteria based  policies. It identifies the benefits and the environmental impacts which need to be considered. LBs and SAMs are nationally designated sites.

9.      The SP (STR1) indicates that sustainable development should reflect local distinctiveness. What distinguishes this area is its transitional nature on the boundary of two landscape character areas. The stark contrast of the isolated hill of Brent Knoll rising above the levels, its village set on the boundary, with listed village farm properties partaking of the character of the levels whilst the church (Grade 1) and manor houses, striking up the slope, make their seniority felt, while above them all broods the great hill fort (SAM), a seat of dominance for 2500 years. The fascinating, sinuous, pattern of the rhynnes and their associated rights of way, unlike any other part of the levels has developed over the same period with successive occupiers since the Romans stamping their presence on the surrounding landscape. Policies 9 and 12 require the setting and amenity value of such assets be protected.

10. The SP also seeks to conserve biodiversity assets. Bats are not shown to be conserved by an ES which ignores their presence. There is, I grant you, a paragraph or two on bats: the 2005 survey failed to find any. Inspection of the site notes demonstrates that on only one evening, on September 16^{th 2005}, was an ecologist on site looking. Mr Dalziel maybe an amateur but, like most locals, he is an expert on his home territory. The village is not, as the ES suggests, lit, and he had seen bats. So he investigated. The result of his many hours work demonstrates that bats of several species, some rare, are present in the village, in maternity and other roosts, and do use the site. It appears that blades over sail the hedges where they forage. Policy 4 requires the biodiversity and unique character of the levels and moors be protected. The lack of survey work indicates that this has not been demonstated.

11. The plan also requires that regard be had to distinctive features of the countryside in landscape, cultural heritage and natural conservation terms. It notes that individual features exist which make a notable contribution to quality and character and specifically notes the isolated hills. They merit protection. The associations of Brent Knoll, the hill rather than the village, in literature, art, publication, promotion, and scholarly texts indicate the contribution which it makes to quality and character.

12. The SP (STR6) requires that development outside settlements be strictly controlled and restricted to that which benefits economic activity and maintains or enhances environment.Whilst it is accepted that most wind energy proposals will need to be in the countryside that is not the case for all renewable energy provision: microgeneration; small scale hydro could fit within settlements. The strict control must apply to wind energy which should demonstrate that the environment is at least maintained. No doubt some minor benefit to economic activity will flow from the development, however, as Mr M has pointed out that has to be balanced against the harm which it may do to other sectors of the local economy.

13. The plan sets out that (POLICY 64 RENEWABLE ENERGY) provision should be made, where environmentally acceptable, for the development of renewable energy resources. Renewable energy is not synonymous with onshore wind.  It encompasses all technologies. Environmentally acceptable must be judged against the environmental policies of the plan and the impact on issues identified by them. The SP policy is in absolute accord with PPS 22.

14. Local Plan:- CD 14 – is the most up to date of the development plan documents. If there is any conflict between the policies it is the LP which takes precedence.

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONs

31. The weight to be given to draft development plan policies  increases with degree of approach to adoption.  Weight has to be given to the RSS. However that weight should be reduced by any inconsistency with government policy. PPS 22 requires that (Key Principles 1 (iii)) LPAs should set out the criteria that will be applied in assessing applications for planning permission. RE1 omits to indicate that criteria should be included. PPS22 (Key Principles 1(ii)) says that the potential for exploitation should be subject to environmental safeguards and (Key Principle 1(i) that environmental , economic and social impacts should be addressed satisfactorily. The RSS at RE1 and RE4 makes no mention of those caveats and is, therefore inconsistent with government policy.

32. Policy RE1 – requires that local development documents will include positive policies to enable achievement of targets and disagreggates targets to County level for electricity from renewables (not solely wind). In the supporting text it specifically indicates that mix is not part of targets. It makes no reference to any other planning considerations and therefore such issues must be considered under the other relevant policies. It would not accord with government guidance to simply ignore social, environmental and economic issues.

33. RE4 requires LPAs to take into account the wider environmental , community and economic benefits of proposals to develop new resources. In the explanatory text it indicates that consideration should be given to minimising visual and landscape impact. What is the precise benefit to the wider environment? That cannot be a matter of targets or installed capacity – it has to be the real energy and emission savings which are the measure of the benefit.  When considering the wider economic benefits there has to be deduction for the local losses occasioned – the UK economy is one. Community benefits cannot make acceptable that which is unacceptable on planning grounds. There are no local community benefits associated with this scheme and the entire (local and wider) community would benefit equally from renewable energy provided from an appropriate site.

34. PPS7 identifies that the Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources so it may be enjoyed by all. PPS 7 says that policies and dc decisions should provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources in accordance with policies in PPS 22. To be sensitive in accordance with PPS22 requires sensitivity to environmental, economic and social issues. It must safeguard the environment.

35. ENV 1, ENV2 , ENV4and ENV 5 seek to protect and enhance quality, distinctive character and diversity, conserve habitats and species, preserve and enhance the historic environment. Equal weight should attach to these policies of the RSS which seek to protect interests of acknowledged importance for they are the very aspects which the government in PPS22 tells us should be balanced against the need for renewable energy.

36. The extent of the benefits of this scheme are doubtful. There is no certainty of the production as there has been no wind monitoring on site, the description of the load factor has varied, varying household numbers and average consumption have been given. Mr Trinnick says now that these aspects can safely be ignored since all that matters is installed capacity against target. That is not accepted. Output and emissions savings are the purpose behind government policy and policies should be construed purposively. If no harm was occasioned by the deployment uncertainty, like small output, would be no reason to refuse permission. Here however significant harm is caused and needs to be outweighed by a substantial and certain amount.

37. As Mr Sinclair points out emissions need to be quantified  on the right basis. Although nobody can guess the precise figure for 25 years hence it has to be lower than that derived from old coal fired and, given the change in policy on nuclear, allowance has to be made for that alteration to the current mix.

38. Meeting the Energy Challenge 2007 That White paper identifies a three pronged approach: save energy, develop cleaner energy supplies, secure reliable energy supplies as prices set in competitive markets. It identifies saving energy as the starting point: the production of electricity by renewable means plays no part in that.

39. In supplying cleaner energy three elements are considered: supplies of heat, electricity, and transport fuels. The contribution of low carbon electricity to heat production is regarded as having distant potential as it requires the replacement of existing home heating systems[1]. Neither it nor transport fuels are currently relevant to onshore wind.

40. Meeting the Energy Challenge recognises the need for the deployment of alternative renewable energy technologies. It does so by increasing their support through RO to a higher level than that enjoyed by onshore wind. It recognises the practical constraints that apply to onshore wind[2] of which the foremost is the lack of suitable sites[3]. The second is securing planning permission – as Mr Kendall says a problem inextricably linked to the first.

41. It also recognises that a secure energy supply for the UK cannot be met without the deployment of further non-renewable capacity. In so far as it carries weight the White paper indicates Government recognition that the aims of emissions reduction and security of supply cannot be met by siting onshore wind in unacceptable locations and that acceptable ones are scarce. This is not one of them.

42. Previous decisions of other Inspectors are, in the main, unhelpful, for they are not precedent, and they are concerned with sites in different locations with different sensitivities. How far a setting extends, how far a turbine may be dominant, how close to a particular settlement they can go, depends entirely upon the location of the development and the quality of the asset or interest which may be harmed. Such limited help as they can give is restricted to considering how they looked at the issues. Even then one may agree or disagree with their view. It is this site, these sensitivities, this impact, these production figures which are relevant to a decision on the merits.

43. Mr Trinnick argues that there is an overriding need for this development. That enjoys no policy support: there is simply a national need. He advances his “overriding need” argument on the basis that the nearer we get to 2010 without fulfilling the targets the more urgent it is. I have already dealt with the lack of policy support for that. If you wish to take it into account you should consider it in the context of the accelerating deployment of off-shore windfarms dealt with by Mr Sinclair. Planning policy may split out on-shore, which is within the remit of town and country planning, from off-shore which is not. That does not make the production of offshore farms immaterial to the balancing exercise. If the needs of energy security, greenhouse gas reduction, are to be supplied by offshore within or near the 2010 boundary, and 20% of UK production to flow from it by 2020,[4]then the need for this sites production is not overriding or of increased urgency. It is merely helpful in providing a modest contribution to an onshore policy target.

44. Furthermore the suggested alternatives, which Mr Stewart said weren’t, and then were EIA alternatives, and then weren’t again, because they were all needed, have to be seen in context. Either they are put forward to show that this site is in some way better, which Mr Stewart says is not the case, or they are advanced as Aunt Sallies as Mr Sinclair suggested, or they merely record the history of  finding a site where the landowner would lease it and the WTs could be delivered. What these sites are not is part of a group of desperately needed future sites – of which this is advanced as the one now ready to go – when seen in the context of already approved off-shore windfarms, for by the time they could be brought forward the offshore wind provision would have outgrown the need for sites in sensitive onshore locations. It is accepted that the targets are moving targets, and the more renewable energy the better, but it is clear from Mr Sinclair’s tables, which Mr Trinnick kindly endorsed as accurate, that improved technology and offshore contribution will continue to erode the arguments in favour of sensitive sites.

FACTS and the ES

45. Environmental Statements should be prepared on a realistic basis and without unnecessary elaboration. The developer must compile detailed information about the likely main environmental effects.   It is necessary that the factual data should be accurate if that is to be done and an objective approach be the foundation of any assessments based upon that data.  It must include a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors. Significantly is not defined by either the European Directive or the UK regulations. The ES should provide a clear distinction between matters of fact, judgments and opinions with all sources identified. Assumptions made, degrees of confidence, and areas of uncertainty in the predictions should be clearly stated.

46. The GLVIA[5] is not prescriptive and neither is the SNH[6] guidance as to what term is used to indicate “significant”. It is for each practitioner to define their terms   The DCLG consultation paper on EIA: A guide to good practice and procedures makes it clear that the issue is one of degree as the ES scopes out those effects which are insignificant.  

47. The example box given[7] defines effects as extreme, major, moderate, minor, negligible.  Extreme are “these effects represent key factors in the decision making process…. generally ..associated with sites and features of national importance and resources /features which are unique and which, if lost, cannot be replaced or relocated”.  Major as effects “likely to be important considerations at a regional or district level…” and “ moderate” as “effects, if adverse, while important at a local scale, are not likely to be key decision making issues. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall effects on a particular area or on a particular resource”. Minor effects can be relevant to detailed design. Negligible effects, although described as beneath the levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation etc, are still regarded as not scoped out: it would appear that “insignificant” is a lower effect yet.

48. This ES was flawed. Some of the errors were corrected by the SEI, submitted after the start of the appeal process and therefore not available to the LPA or Knoll at determination stage. Photomontages were audited and corrected: it is the Groups case that, given the disagreement regarding the photo reproduction, even these latter images should not be relied on. The Inspector is advised to reach his own judgement in the field.

49. LBs were listed in the ES but no consideration of the effect on their settings was made until Mr Stewart considered it in his Appendix 18. He did not, even in that analysis, address their relevance to the historic form of the settlement.  I submit that the evidence of Mrs James is to be preferred on the topic of settings: her expertise is more apposite than that of Mr S.

50. At an even later date, day one of the inquiry, Mr S produced new figures for shadow flicker.  The ecologist carried out no bat survey although the ES contained references to bat presence and despite bats of species known to fly at heights sufficient to encounter blades being recorded by SERC in the vicinity. He has continued to counter the direct evidence of Mr Dalziel despite having conducted no research of his own.

51. The household and emissions figures were based on outdated information.

52. Ms Lennard did not comply with GLVIA Guidelines from which she claimed to have taken her methodology. She failed to explain why she had altered the matrix definitions of magnitude between Tables 4 and 5. That alteration combined the highest level and the next high level whilst expanding the lower levels of the matrix. This removed the possibility of her finding a severe impact as one might have expected in the context of Nationally important buildings, monuments, and their settings. If her work was to be replicable, as the GLVIA general principles (GLVIA 2.35) requires, this change should have been explained.

53. She failed to identify the people or groups who could be affected such as residents, visitors, special interest groups, or members of the wider public who values this landscape[8]. As an alternative to interviewing locals she could have sought promotional material but she did not. She failed to define the sensitivity of the receptors identified – she merely indicated who would be affected in Table 6.

54.  She did no research into landscape associations[9]. There were many which would have increased the sensitivity of the landscape. The Group has endeavoured to indicate the promotion of landscape aspects including rights of way; identify the literary, historic and artistic associations of this landscape from the Arthurian Myths and Legends of Mr Page, to the many  artists, historic and contemporary, poets, photographers and famous men, such as Wesley, who have valued this landscape and through whose influence others may come to value it. Lacking in put from an historian Ms Lennard failed to understand the link of the historic landscape patterns to the multi-period hillfort, with each occupation of the fort effecting some change to the drainage system of the levels. Thus she  undervalued landscape baseline. This resulted in some of her assessments of significance of impact being underscored.

55. Her assessment was not objective. She produced less information than was available in the SLCA and selected what she did quote to the benefit of the development (e.g.”low level development” being screened).  She introduced “valency” in the context of landscape impact assessment, introduced intermittent jet and train noise, and the distant M5 noise, as detractors from tranquillity but ignored turbine noise within the landscape and its effect on walkers’ amenity. She produced no peer reviewed support for her, in my view, spurious argument about trees having dominant impact and the inability of people to judge scale when they cannot see the base of an object..

56. She considered that the impact of these WTs, of the largest type currently installed in England to extend only 1.5km both in terms of landscape and visual impact.  She gave no indication of the extent of visual impact on linear receptors, gaining repeated but intermittent views of the development. I ask that you prefer the evidence of Mr Sinclair who has wide experience in assessing windfarm development, both before and after construction, on the distances to which such an impact can be found major and above.

57. Her assessment of the impact on residential amenity was partial and inaccurate. It cannot be doubted that the impact on such places as the Manor, a group of 9 flats, Mr Vohra’s home, 119, and Ball Copse Hall, a place open to the public and providing a tranquil work environment for those with autism, will be severely affected. The Group asks that you rely on your site visits to gain an accurate view of the impact on those and other village locations.

58. The CA guidance that historic landscape characterisation be carried out either before or simultaneously with LCA was ignored. As a result the ancient enclosures of the landscape into which the turbines are proposed to be inserted, the raised trackways, running on embankments created during recurrent historic reclamation works, the archaeological potential of the access route, and the still evident route of the River Siger, were ignored or undervalued. As a result the sensitivity of the site and its environs to such development was underscored.

59. Appreciated from the Knoll top, one of the finest vantage points in Somerset, the prospect is simply astounding. The eye passes over the low level modern development in the levels to the surrounding hills or to the sea. Looking down to the site one sees the palimpsest of man’s interaction with this landscape  nowhere so clearly as the small area of land between Burnham on Sea and Brent Knoll village. Church tower speaks to church tower across the levels. The light house stands proudly above the low roofs of the small coastal town. To insert Wind turbines of this height, with such a massive blade swept area will significantly impair perception of the qualities of this landscape. It seems unimaginable that the same company which built the turbines in the industrial docklands of Avonmouth could contemplate similar development here. In that location, dominated as it is by tall engineered structures, their presence enhances scenic quality and character. Here it does the opposite. I ask that you prefer the assessments of Mrs James and Mr Sinclair to that of Mrs Lennard.

Economy

60. Mr Stewart devotes a significant part of his proof to seeking to prove that the WTs will not have any impact on tourism. Mr Manning points to the minute reduction in visitor numbers which would have to occur to fatally damage profitability of such businesses, which are, according to the SDLP, a major part of the economy of Brent Knoll. Mr S presented no evidence to counter Mr Manning’s analysis of the effect on the economy and social effects of declining house prices, the rise of which has been a major driver of the UK economy over the past years, and which has particular relevance to the demographics of Brent Knoll and Burnham on Sea.

61. If data is inaccurate assessments based upon that data are suspect. If methodology is flawed then results based upon it are likely to be wrong.  If relevant matters are omitted from deliberations and irrelevant ones included then the conclusions reached are suspect. Professional judgements which are not well reasoned or as objective as possible may not be sound. ES are not intended to be special pleading for a development.

62. Local residents may not all be professionally qualified, however, they are experts in the content, qualities and value of their surrounding environment. Their evidence should be preferred to that of professional witnesses who have spent few days on site when it can be shown that those professionals have misunderstood or omitted significant elements from their assessments. I note that Mr Trinnick criticised Mr Sinclair for having spent only 2 days in the area: Ms Lennard spent 3 to prepare the LVIA chapter. Mr Sinclair’s brief was to appraise the work done not to carry it out de novo. It was, in the main, her assessments of significance with which he disagreed having attempted to replicate her work.

Balance.  

63. What goes into the balance?  A nominal minor gain towards Somerset’s policy target.  A genuine, but imprecise, amount of renewable energy with its concomitant emissions savings providing wider benefits.

64. On the other side of the scales: non-compliance with the development plan, non-compliance with PPS 22’s requirements that the environment be safeguarded. Damage to the setting of two Nationally important sites, the Church and the Hillfort. Harm to the character and setting of the village of Brent Knoll: erosion of its sense of place.  Harm to residential amenity from visual intrusion and dominance. Harm to the visual amenity of Burnham on Sea. Failure to safeguard ecological interests. Damage to the recreational amenity and tranquillity of the well used public routes by visual dominance and noise. Likely significant harm to the economy and prosperity of the area. Inevitable harm to the historic character of the landscape.

65. This site is not one where environmental, social, and economic issues can be satisfactorily addressed. I  respectfully ask that you dismiss the appeal.

Home   News & Events   Clubs & Societies   Amenities & Businesses    Walks    History   Parish Council   Useful Links

This site is provided by the Brent Knoll Parish Council. Constructed and maintained by Matthew Warnes. Last updated 05-Jul-2008

All the information is presented in good faith and is believed to be correct but no responsibility can be accepted for any errors or omissions.  Information on local businesses is similarly given in good faith but without acceptance of any liability in regard to any transaction that may be entered into by viewers of this site.