Non Technical Summary - Partnerships for Renewables

P
PfR (HMP Camp Hill) Limited
Camp Hill Wind Energy Development
Environmental Statement - Non Technical Summary
Camp Hill Prison Wind Energy Development
March 2012
Figure xiii
Viewpoint number: 4. View South-East from Entrance to Thorness Bay Holiday Park
29703-E040.indd holfs
1

P
Non Technical Summary
Context
This Non-Technical Summary (NTS) forms part of the
Environmental Statement (ES) which has been prepared by
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd (AMEC) on behalf
of Partnerships for Renewables (HMP Camp Hill) Limited
(PfR) to accompany a planning application to construct
and operate a wind energy development on land owned
by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) within the grounds of HMP
Isle of Wight (Camp Hill). The ES presents the findings of
an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which aims to
identify potentially significant effects from the proposed
development and where appropriate to propose suitable
mitigation measures to address or minimise any effects
identified. This document is a ‘non-technical’ summary of
the main findings of the ES.
Vestas has had a presence on the Isle of Wight since 1993
and currently employs 220 people there. The company is a
world leading turbine manufacturer having installed 40,000
turbines in 69 countries which equates to 40GW of capacity
installed. The Vestas facility on the Isle of Wight is at the
cutting edge of turbine design; researching, developing
and testing new turbine blades. It also has the ability to
manufacture blades and is an important showcase for
Vestas turbines for its potential customers.
Recognising the important contribution which Vestas makes
to the economy of the Isle of Wight PfR has established a
relationship with them to secure Vestas as the preferred
supplier of turbines to the site. Not only will this support an
important local employer the turbines, once operational,
would present the company with a further local opportunity
to enhance Vestas’ R&D capabilities. The HMP Camp Hill
project is wholeheartedly supported by Vestas and would be
an important flagship development for them sustaining their
continued commitment and investment on the Isle of Wight.
Background
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
which is the principal scientific body advising governments
on climate change, has confirmed the significant influence
on the global climate of increases in atmospheric levels
of carbon dioxide (CO 2) and other greenhouse gases as a
result of human activities. The burning of fossil fuels such
as coal and gas to generate electricity is a major source of
greenhouse gas emissions. A vital part of reducing these
emissions is increasing the proportion of electricity generated
from renewable energy sources such as wind.
The Climate Change Act 2008 sets a legally binding target
of at least an 80% cut in UK greenhouse gas emissions
by 2050. In the shorter term it sets a target reduction in
emissions of at least 34% by 2020. In addition, as part of
EU-wide actions to increase the use of renewable energy,
the UK has a legally-binding commitment to source 15% of
its energy from renewable sources by 2020. These targets
form the basis of the UK Renewable Energy Strategy which
specifically includes the aspiration to generate 30% of the
UK’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
In 2010 just 6.8% of UK electricity came from renewables.
The targets are set in order to combat climate change and
provide the UK with a more secure energy supply by reducing
reliance on imported fossil fuels. As the UK has one of the
windiest climates in Europe a significant proportion of the
electricity required from renewables is expected to come
from onshore wind generation. In order to achieve national
and regional targets for renewable energy generation and
to transform the UK into a low carbon economy a range of
large and small scale renewable energy installations will be
required. As such the proposed two turbine wind energy
development at Camp Hill will contribute to the attainment of
these goals.
Developer and Project Team
PfR was set up by the Carbon Trust in 2006 to develop,
construct and operate renewable energy projects primarily
on public sector land. PfR manages the development of
projects through site selection, assessment of site feasibility,
layout design process, construction and operation.
The EIA has been managed and co-ordinated by AMEC
on behalf of PfR. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure
UK Ltd is one of the UK’s largest environmental and
engineering consultancies and part of a global Environment
& Infrastructure division with 7,000 employees around
the world. This division of the AMEC business delivers
environmental, engineering and related consultancy services
to customers across the public and private sectors. AMEC is
an Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
(IEMA) Registered Assessor (the principle professional body
for EIA in the UK) and is highly experienced in undertaking
EIAs of wind energy developments with approximately
1,250MW of development consented.
Further specialist input came from Hoare Lea who undertook
the noise assessment and The Heritage Collective who
undertook the cultural heritage assessment. All other
chapters were completed by AMEC.
02 1

Camp Hill Wind
Energy Development
Number of Wind Turbines: 2
Maximum Tip Height (combined
height of blade and tower): 125 metres
The Development Proposals
The EIA process started when PfR began investigating the feasibility of
locating a wind energy development on land owned by the MoJ in 2009.
This involved a desk study that included consideration of wind resource,
noise constraints, electrical connection potential, telecommunications,
construction and access issues, environmental designations, landscape
and visual aspects, archaeology and aviation.
The Camp Hill site was identified as having good potential to support
a wind energy development and was therefore progressed to a more
detailed feasibility site visit, technical consultations, an assessment
of grid connection and access options, preliminary noise modelling,
energy yield analysis and a planning policy review. This feasibility
study indicated that, potentially, the development site was technically,
environmentally and financially viable for a wind energy development
but that further assessment and clarification was needed.
Estimated Total Generation Capacity:
between 4 megawatts and 6 megawatts
Estimated Capacity Factor: 25%
Estimated Electricity Generated
Per Annum: between 8.76 gigawatt-hours
and 13.14 gigawatt-hours
Households Equivalent:
between 1,963 and 2,944
Estimated CO 2 Savings:
between 3,767 tonnes and 5,650 tonnes
Please see foot note 1 for an explanation of how these
figures are derived.
PfR believes the development site to be suitable for a maximum of two wind
turbines with a blade-tip height of up to 125m based on the considered
application of technical, economic and environmental criteria. The amount
of electricity which could be generated depends on the final specification
of the turbines but the preferred choice of turbine to be installed is the
Vestas V90 with an ‘installed capacity’ (the maximum amount of electricity
which can be produced at any one time) of either 2MW or 3MW. If the
Vestas machines are not available a number of other turbines with an
‘installed capacity’ of between 2MW and 3MW are potentially suitable in
which case the final choice would follow a competitive tendering exercise
and depend on which models are available in the UK market. The following
figures reflect this range in generation potential with the lower figures
being based on 2MW turbines and the higher figures being based on 3MW
turbines. Hence, two wind turbines with a maximum blade tip height of
125m could generate between 8,760MWh and 13,140MWh of renewable
electricity per year. This is equivalent to the amount of electricity used
annually by approximately 1,963 to 2,944 average households and avoids
between 3,767 and 5,650 tonnes of CO 2 equivalent emissions per year. 1 The
methodology underlying these figures is explained in full in Section 6.3 of
the ES.
Section continues overleaf >
03
1
The Digest of UK Energy Statistics (November 2011) gives 2010 domestic electricity
consumption as 118,681 gigawatt-hours (GWh) (Shown in table as 118.68TWh) (http://
www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/source/electricity/dukes5_1_2.xls) which, when
divided by the number of households in the UK – 26,591,600 (http://www.decc.gov.uk/
assets/decc/statistics/publications/ecuk/269-ecuk-domestic-2010.xls (table 3.3) – gives an
average electricity usage of 4,463 kWh per year per household in the UK (118,681,000,000
÷ 26,591,600 = 4,463). It is expected that two turbines with an installed capacity of
2-3 MW could generate between 8.76 and 13.14 GWh of renewable electricity per year
(based on a capacity factor of 25% – for onshore wind the five year average capacity
factor (2006–2010 is 26.16% (Table 7.4 – http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/
publications/dukes/2309-dukes-2011-chapter-7-renewable-sources.pdf). These figures are
derived as follows in the following example (using a 25% capacity factor): 6,000 kW (2 x 3
MW turbine) × 8,760 hours/year × 0.25 (capacity factor) = 13,140,000 kWh. Based on the
4,463 kWh household figure, and the predicted electricity generation of between 8.76 and
13.14 GWh, it is estimated that the yearly output from the wind turbines will be equivalent to
the approximate domestic electricity needs of between 1,963 and 2,944 average households
in Britain (e.g. 13,140,000 ÷ 4463 = 2944). In September 2008, the Advertising Standards
Authority endorsed a figure of 430 gCO 2 /kWh, based on the assumption that the energy
generated by the wind turbines displaces Combined Cycle Gas Turbines and an average mix
generation (430 gCO 2 /kWh). On this basis, and on the assumption that the wind turbines
annual output is between 8.76 and 13.14 GWh, a wind energy development of this scale
is expected to displace between 3,767 and 5,650 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions per
year. These figures are derived as follows (using an output of 13.14 GWh as an example):
13,140,000 kW (output) × 430 gCO2/kWh ÷ 1,000,000 = 5,650 tonnes CO 2 .

The Development Proposals continued >
The Site Location Plan (Figure 1.1 of the ES) and Proposed
Wind Energy Development Layout (Figure 1.2a of the ES) are
reproduced at the end of this NTS along with a diagram of
a typical wind turbine structure (Figure 4.1 of the ES) which
is a 2MW-3MW machine with a 125m tip height. This is the
maximum overall height (to vertical blade tip) of the turbine
to be installed.
The method of connection to the local distribution network
has yet to be determined. Negotiations are underway
currently between PfR and Scottish and Southern Electric
to determine viable connection options; the anticipated
option for the connection of the wind turbines is 3.5km of
underground cabling within the public highway from the
development site to Newport sub-station.
The development site is located towards the north of the Isle of
Wight on the north-western fringe of Newport centred on grid
reference E 448140 N 91146. The development site comprises
the grounds of HMP Isle of Wight and is therefore bound by a
large perimeter fence to the north and west. Three separate
prisons, Camp Hill, Parkhurst and Albany and their associated
buildings, make up HMP Isle of Wight and lie to the south and
south-east of the development site. To the east of the site is the
residential area of Parkhurst which is located along the A3020
and to south beyond the prison lies the residential area of
Hunny Hill along the A3054. A number of residential properties
are also found beyond Noke Plantation along Noke Common to
the north-east of the site.
Access to the development site at Camp Hill is via the A3020
on to Clissold Road from which the prison is accessed. Access
will be taken via two routes; one from the north and one from
the south. The northern route will be utilised to transfer all
turbine components, site equipment and site structures and
the southern route will be utilised to transfer all aggregate
and ready mix concrete required by the development.
The main body of the development site comprises of
agricultural land predominantly open fields of grassland divided
by hedges and mature trees. It is part of Holme Hill, a small hill,
with the highest point being the northern central part of the site
at around 65m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). It is bounded to
the north and west by Parkhurst Forest which, in part, is a Site
of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Site of Importance
for Nature Conservation (SINC). To the east it is bounded by
an area of forest known as Noke Plantation and to the south
by further agricultural fields which, in turn, bound the prison
buildings. Additionally the woodland to the immediate north
and west of the development site boundary is designated as
ancient woodland.
The planning application is for:
“The erection, 25 year operation and subsequent decommissioning
of a wind energy development comprised of
the following elements: two wind turbines with a maximum
overall height (to vertical blade tip) of up to 125 metres;
together with, offsite highway works, an upgraded junction
off Parkhurst Road, modifications to the existing access track,
new access tracks, hardstanding areas, a control building,
cabling, a temporary construction compound, and other
works and development ancillary to the main development.”
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
EIA is a process that collects information about potential
environmental effects of a proposed development and
evaluates and presents this information in a way that both
assists consultation and enables decision-makers to take
account of these effects when determining whether or not
a project should proceed. If the project does proceed the EIA
also helps identify any mitigation measures or controls over
the construction or operation that might be required. The
content and scope of the EIA was agreed through a scoping
exercise in April 2011 with the Isle of Wight Council.
The EIA has identified the likely effects of the proposed
development on the environment and an assessment has
been made as to whether any of these could be significant.
In general terms establishing whether an identified effect is
significant is determined by the importance of the receptor
(e.g. a particular listed building, ecological designated site
or landscape character area) and the magnitude of change
that will occur as a result of the construction, operation
and de-commissioning of the turbines which, in turn,
establishes the significance of that effect. Chapter 2 of the
ES sets out the EIA methodology employed in more detail.
To avoid or minimise any potential adverse effects identified
a number of mitigation measures have been incorporated into
the design of the proposed development. These measures
are set out in a proposed Environmental Management Plan
(EMP) (Chapter 15 of the ES) to be implemented during the
construction and operation of the wind turbines.
The Environmental Statement (ES) reports the findings
of the EIA which has been prepared in accordance with
The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2011. The ES comprises this NTS
and three volumes: Volume 1 – Written Statement, Volume
2 – Figures and Volume 3 – Appendices.
The assessment of effects has been undertaken in an
impartial manner with the findings presented systematically
in the ES and this will be used by the Isle of Wight Council to
help inform its decision about whether or not the proposed
wind turbines at Camp Hill should be allowed to proceed.
04

Consultation
A vital aspect of the EIA process is consultation both to agree
which environmental topics need most attention (scope
of the EIA and methodologies to be adopted in assessing
likely effects) and to understand public perception of the
development in order to help inform the design process.
Consultation with statutory and non-statutory bodies was
undertaken through a formal scoping exercise with the Isle
of Wight Council in April 2011. In addition, there has been
continued dialogue with relevant statutory and non-statutory
consultees both before and after the Scoping Opinion (setting
out the environmental topics to be considered further)
was received from the Isle of Wight Council. The full list of
consultees is set out in Chapter 3 of the ES and includes:
Natural England; RSPB; Isle of Wight AONB Partnership; the
Isle of Wight Council Archaeologist; the Isle of Wight Council
Highways and Transport Department; and the Isle of Wight
Council Ecologist.
PfR has also undertaken public consultation involving public
exhibitions and community surgeries with local residents
dating back to 2010. PfR has held regular community
surgeries at various stages of the project where PfR staff
have been available to discuss the project in an informal
setting with members of the public. These took place in
February, May and September 2011. In February and March
2012 update presentations were given in public to both
Northwood and Newport parish councils. Public exhibitions
were held in October 2010 and March 2012. A number of
local groups such as the Footprint Trust have also been met
with and kept up to date throughout the project development
process. A separate Statement of Public Consultation has
been produced and forms part of the planning submission.
Environmental Effects
The scoping exercise identified a range of potential
environmental effects. These were subjected to detailed
assessments using methodologies specific to the relevant
environmental topic. Those considered in this ES are listed
as follows:
• Climate change mitigation and other atmospheric
emissions - Chapter 6;
• Transport – Chapter 7;
• Noise – Chapter 8;
• Landscape and visual effects – Chapter 9;
• Cultural heritage– Chapter 10;
• Ecology (including impact on trees)– Chapter 11;
• Ornithology – Chapter 12;
• Hydrology – Chapter 13; and
• Shadow Flicker – Chapter 14.
The following sections provide a brief, non-technical,
summary of the main findings of the EIA split by
environmental topic. These findings are described in detail
within the individual environmental topic chapters of the ES.
The Environmental Statement
The ES, which accompanies the planning application
to the Isle of Wight Council, provides an assessment of
identified significant environmental effects resulting from
the construction, operation and de-commissioning of the
proposed wind turbines at Camp Hill. The following sections
provide a brief, non-technical, summary of the main findings
of the EIA which are described in detail within the individual
chapters of the full ES.
Climate Change – Chapter 6
The assessment of the effects on climate change involved
a calculation of the expected renewable electricity that
would be produced by the wind energy development. As
set out above the assessment calculated that the proposed
wind turbines could annually generate between 8,760MWh
and 13,140MWh of renewable electricity per year. This is
equivalent to the amount of electricity used annually by
approximately 1,963 to 2,944 average households and
avoids between 3,767 and 5,650 tonnes of CO 2 equivalent
emissions per year. The ES concluded that maximising
the renewable energy potential of the development site
would result in a positive effect on climate change although
it was not considered appropriate to assign any level of
significance to this effect.
Traffic and Transport – Chapter 7
Estimates of traffic generation associated with the
construction phase of the proposed Camp Hill Wind Energy
Development have been derived from a first principles
approach based on calculations of vehicle loads of
imported materials.
The most significant impacts will occur during the
construction phase when there would be an increase in the
volume of construction traffic utilising the surrounding road
network to deliver the wind farm components, equipment
and resources necessary for the construction. No impacts
are expected during the operation of the site since the
turbines will be controlled remotely and only occasional
maintenance visits will be required which will most likely be
undertaken in a 4x4 vehicle.
The site will be accessed via two routes; one from the north
and one from the south of the site. The intended routes
broadly comprise:
• Northern Route: Medina Wharf – Arctic Road – A3020 –
Clissold Road - Site
• Southern Route: A3056 – A3020 – Clissold Road - Site
Section continues overleaf >
05

Traffic and Transport – Chapter 7 continued >
The northern route will facilitate the delivery of the turbine
components and general site equipment and, for this
reason; the northern route is the intended abnormal loads
route. It is anticipated that the southern route will be used
for the transfer of aggregate and ready mix concrete to the
development site.
Both routes will use Clissold Road to access the site and,
upon reaching the main prison buildings, vehicles will route
north along an improved access track and then northwest
along a purpose built access track which will provide
access to each of the turbine sites.
The intended abnormal loads route has been subject to
further assessment to identify potential sections of the
route that will require highway widening works in order to
facilitate the transfer of the turbine components. Three such
sections, referred to as ‘pinch points’, have been identified
and the following provides a brief summary of their location
and mitigation works required:
• Pinch Point A: Medina Wharf/Arctic Road junction – minor
widening of the Arctic Road carriageway and relocation of
boundary fencing and associated gate posts (upon exit
from Medina Wharf).
• Pinch Point B: Arctic Road/A3020 junction – reinforcement
of the inside radius and widening of the carriageway into
the verge area opposite the junction. Relocation of
street furniture.
• Pinch Point C: A3020/Clissold Road – localised widening
of Clissold Road and minor footway reinforcement on the
inside radius.
Highway widening works at Pinch Points B and C will be
permanent and subject to detailed design and liaison with
the Isle of Wight Council. The detailed design of highway
widening works at Pinch Point A will be temporary and
subject to continued liaison with the owners of Medina Wharf.
The impact of construction-related traffic on the proposed
access routes has been calculated, in percentage terms,
relative to the forecast background traffic in 2013 as the
opening year of construction.
It is predicted that there will be an increase in total traffic
flows during the assessment period of:
• Survey Site 1 (Northern Route) – A3020 (Newport Road):
Increase in total traffic of 0.02% and increase in HGVs
of 0.02%
• Survey Site 2 (Southern Route) – A3020 (Medina Way):
Increase in total traffic of 0.13% and increase in HGVs
of 0.13%
There will also be two days during the construction
programme when a maximum of 154 HGV movements
per day (77 in and 77 out) for turbine foundation concrete
deliveries will occur. In addition 18 abnormal load deliveries
are required within the 6-month construction programme.
Although both these activities will have a disproportionate
but temporary effect on the highway network neither will
exceed the 10% threshold increase in daily traffic flow.
Increases in daily traffic flow below 10% are not normally
perceived by road users due to the fluctuating nature of
background traffic flow.
Effects on road users and adjacent residential properties
are considered to be not significant and works on the
highway at each of the pinch points will affect road users
and adjacent properties at varying degrees but only for a
relatively short time period. Since there will be some impact
during the construction of the site and during the mitigation
works within the highway it is appropriate to make provision
for some additional management in the form of a Traffic
Management Plan (TMP) to reduce the potential for effects
as far as reasonably possible; this will also ensure any
residual effects on highway safety are reduced. In addition to
the TMP an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) will also
be provided to reduce as far as possible the impacts of all
abnormal load deliveries.
It is considered that the local transport network would be
able to absorb the additional traffic movements associated
with the construction of the wind energy development and,
therefore, that no significant effects would occur.
Noise – Chapter 8
Hoare Lea Acoustics (HLA) was commissioned by PfR to
undertake a noise impact assessment for the construction and
operation of the proposed Camp Hill Wind Energy Development.
Two types of noise are emitted from wind turbines.
Aerodynamic noise is produced by the movement of the
blades through the air often characterised as a ‘swish’ and
mechanical noise can come from the components within the
turbine itself such as gearboxes and mechanisms to vary
the direction of the turbine. Recent progress in reducing the
noise from turbines has been considerable particularly, in
relation to mechanical noise.
The noise assessment established the difference between
wind turbine noise and the naturally occurring noise
level at homes (residential properties) nearest to the
proposed development and measured these against levels
required by planning guidance. Government guidance
for this assessment procedure is called ETSU-R-97, The
Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms and
specifies that noise limits should be set relative to existing
background noise levels and reflect a variation in wind
speeds. In general terms, during the daytime, noise from
Section continues overleaf >
06

Noise – Chapter 8 continued >
wind turbines needs to be no more than 5 decibels above
existing background noise except where back ground noise
levels are exceptionally quiet in which case permissible
noise from turbines is fixed at between 35 decibels and 40
decibels. During the night time noise from turbines needs to
be no more than 43 decibels or 5 decibels above background
whichever is the greatest.
As set out above the preferred model of the wind turbine
for this site is the Vestas V90 (2MW). However, if this is not
available any turbine installed will comply with the noise
limits identified in the assessment.
During operation noise levels from the turbines have been
predicted for those locations around the site most likely to be
affected by noise. Surveys have been performed to establish
existing baseline noise levels at a number of these locations.
Noise limits have been derived from data about the existing
noise environment following the method stipulated in national
planning guidance. Predicted operational noise levels have
been compared to the limit values to demonstrate that
turbines of the type and size which would be installed can
operate within the limits so derived.
Results of the noise modelling demonstrate that, during the
operational phase of the development, noise from the wind
turbines would be below the levels required by Government
guidance (ETSU-R-97) at all residential properties both
during the daytime and at night.
During construction there may be noise that, at times, will
be audible at the closest residential properties. This would
primarily result from routine construction activities, deliveries
and any piling required for the turbine foundations. Noise
levels have been calculated for receiver locations closest to
the areas of work and compared with guideline and baseline
values. Construction noise, by its very nature, tends to be
temporary and highly variable and therefore much less likely
to cause an adverse effect. However, in order to ensure the
protection of residential amenity, working hours and HGV
deliveries would be limited and any turbine deliveries outside
of this time would be agreed with the Isle of Wight Council
and the Police. All construction activities would adhere to
good practice set out in BS 5228. It is concluded that overall
effects relating to noise generated through construction
activities will be minor. The ES states that noise emissions
during de-commissioning are considered to be lower than
during the construction phase. Therefore de-commissioning
will, in the worst case, also have a minor noise effect.
The ES therefore concludes that, overall, there would be no
significant noise effects from the operation of the proposed
wind turbines.
Landscape and Visual – Chapter 9
The Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVIA) chapter
identifies and assesses the potential effects of the proposed
Camp Hill Wind Energy Development and determines the
significance of these effects. Landscape and visual effects
are defined as follows:
• Landscape effects that are changes in the fabric,
character and quality of the landscape. These could
include direct effects upon specific landscape elements
such as the loss of a woodland or hedgerows or effects
on landscape character and landscape designations; and;-
• Visual effects that relate to specific changes in the
character of views and the effects of those changes on
visual receptors e.g. people who use of roads, Public
Rights of Way and recreational facilities as well as residents.
The methodology used within the LVIA takes into
consideration best practice as set out in Guidelines for
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition
(2002) published by The Landscape Institute and Institute
of Environmental Management and Assessment. The LVIA
methodology sets out that only levels of landscape or visual
effects assessed as being of very substantial, substantial
or, in some cases, moderate may be regarded as significant
effects in EIA terms.
Consultation was carried out through the scoping process
with the Isle of Wight Council along with the Isle of Wight
AONB Partnership and Natural England in order to confirm
an initial ten viewpoint locations to be considered within the
LVIA. The scoping response agreed to the inclusion of these
viewpoints and suggested a further nine viewpoints. These
suggestions were incorporated; hence the LVIA includes
visualisations and analysis from nineteen viewpoints
including three on the mainland. For the fifteen closest
viewpoints baseline panoramic photographs, wire line
representations and photomontages have been generated
to be used as a tool to demonstrate how the proposed
turbines may appear. In line with emerging best practice and
experience only wire line representations were produced for
the five most distant viewpoints.
In selecting the study area for the LVIA reference was made
to ‘Visual Representation of Windfarms, Good Practice
Guidance, Scottish Natural Heritage 2006’. However, initial
studies undertaken during the scoping study strongly
indicated that a reduced study area would be more
appropriate given the island location and the small number
of turbines proposed. Hence study areas have been adopted
as below:
• 1km from either of the two proposed turbines for visual
assessment of individual residential properties;
Section continues overleaf >
07

Landscaoe and Visual – Chapter 9 continued >
• 10km from the proposed development for assessment
of effects on local landscape character and the majority
of visual receptors. This is referred to as the detailed study
area and covers nearly all the areas of the Island from
where the proposed turbines would be potentially visible;
• 20km from the proposed development for assessment
of effects on settlements, National Trails and national
landscape designations; and
• 40km from the proposed development for
cumulative effects.
A cumulative scoping exercise was carried out which
identified three wind energy developments and a biomass
CHP plant with a tall chimney stack to be included in the
cumulative assessment.
The development site is not located within any national
or local landscape planning designations and is located
approximately 2.5km from the Isle of Wight Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and approximately 8km
away from the New Forest National Park which is located on
the mainland.
The Isle of Wight Council has undertaken detailed studies
which have characterised the different landscapes of the
Isle of Wight. The proposed turbines are located within the
Northern Woodlands’ landscape character type (LCT) which
extends across Parkhurst Forest and some of its adjacent
fields and the surrounding area is defined as Traditional
Enclosed Pasture Land LCT or Calbourne Farmland
Landscape Character Area (LCA).
The development site is located on the eastern side of the
395ha Parkhurst Forest which comprises of mature, mixed
broadleaf and conifer woodland which extends around the
development site’s western and northern edges. Another
mature woodland, Noke Plantation, forms the development
site’s eastern edge providing it with a strong sense of
enclosure. To the south is a valley containing a number of
unkempt pasture fields which separate it from the HMP
Isle of Wight site including Camp Hill, Albany and Parkhurst
Barracks. Parkhurst Forest contains a number of trails which
are open to public use but there is no public access to the
site itself or in its immediate vicinity. There are moderate
levels of public access approximately 1km from the
proposed development.
In the wider context there are ten long-distance trails mostly
concentrated in the southern part of the island with the
exception of the Isle of Wight Coastal Path which skirts the
whole perimeter. These have been assessed and there will
be no “substantial adverse” or “very substantial adverse”
effects experienced at any of these receptors. The centre
of Newport, the island’s largest town, lies some 2.8km to
the south-east and its northern suburb of Parkhurst extends
along the A3020 approximately 1km to the east. The small
towns of Cowes and East Cowes also lie within 5km.
Otherwise the prevailing settlement pattern in the detailed
study area is of small settlements distributed in a medium
density interspersed with farmsteads and isolated or small
clusters of residential properties. There are also a number
of holiday parks and tourist attractions 1.5km from the
proposed development site and beyond.
In terms of effects on the receptors mentioned above
during the construction and de-commissioning phases both
landscape and visual effects are considered to be temporary
in nature and short term. This results in landscape and
visual effects being not significant although there would
be a limited number of visual receptors likely to sustain
moderate adverse levels of visual effect during the shortlived
period when the turbines are actually being erected by
crane and their rotor blades attached. During construction
and de-commissioning this relatively low level of landscape
and visual effect is mainly due to the low numbers of close
distance visual receptors and the screening of all ground
level construction activities by the surrounding woodlands.
During the 25-year operational period no significant effects
have been identified that would be greater than “moderate
adverse” on any landscape elements, character areas or
types or upon landscape designations. Moderate adverse
landscape effects have been identified for the Northern
Woodlands LCT within which the wind energy development
would be sited and the aforementioned surrounding
Traditional Enclosed Pasture Land LCT and Calbourne
Farmland LCA. In the areas from which the turbines could
potentially be seen, the separation distances from and the
most valued attributes of the AONB and Heritage Coasts are
assessed in detail and it is concluded that landscape effects
would be no more than “slight adverse”. Consequently, no
significant effects were identified for the Isle of Wight AONB,
the Heritage Coast or the New Forest National Park.
In addition to the nineteen agreed visualisation viewpoints
the visual assessment included 118 individual or, more
usually, groups of visual receptors located on the island
and within 10km of the proposed development site. Of
these visual receptors it is concluded that nine individuals
or groups would be likely to sustain “substantial adverse”
visual effects and a further twenty-four individual or groups
would be likely or certain to sustain “moderate adverse”
visual effects. However, no visual receptors would sustain
“very substantial adverse” visual effects. These relatively
low numbers of instances where “moderate” or “substantial”
adverse visual effects would be experienced is due to the
fact that there is, in fact, a relatively small number of visual
receptors located in close proximity to the development site.
Furthermore, screening provided by the high level of tree
cover nearby will help to foreshorten many potential views
for residents in properties such as those at the western
end of Noke Common and Mark’s Corner. The aspect and
Section continues overleaf >
08

Landscaoe and Visual – Chapter 9 continued >
principal views of some properties, such as those on Rooke
Street in Parkhurst, will also limit the level of visual effect. For
many visual receptors with potential medium distance views
the proposed two turbines would be screened by the island’s
distinct landform especially the chalk ridge “spine” that runs
west -east across its centre as well as relatively high levels
of hedgerow, hedgerow tree, copse and plantation woodland
that are characteristic of the two adjacent and extensive
landscape character types and areas.
Those receptors assessed as sustaining “substantial” or
“moderate adverse effects” are generally a proportion
of the residents in properties on the north-western edge
of Newport or properties alongside or just off the A3020
where their main views are likely to be to the north-west,
west or south-west and where nearby screening is limited.
In addition to the above “moderate adverse effects” may
be sustained at sections of some public rights of way at
separation distances of up to 3.5km or, in two instances,
up to 5km. In no instance will public rights of way sustain
“substantial adverse” or “very substantial adverse” effects.
With regard to effects upon residential visual amenity a
combination of separation distance, the screening of ground
level operational elements and the narrowness of the turbine
array formed by only two turbines would ensure that no
residential visual receptors would reasonably have the
sense that their property would be ‘widely regarded as an
unattractive place to live’.
Finally the cumulative landscape and visual assessment
concluded that in only one area, around Bowcombe Down,
would the combination of the Camp Hill Wind Energy
Development with the other developments included in the
assessment result in a higher level of visual effect than would
be experienced in relation to the Camp Hill turbines on their
own or the other developments excluding Camp Hill. There
would be no significant cumulative landscape effects upon any
landscape designations or landscape character types or areas.
Cultural Heritage – Chapter 10
Background historical and archaeological data was compiled
and a site walkover survey undertaken in order to inform
the assessment. The assessment was undertaken in
accordance with current best practice and policy guidance
including Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the
Historic Environment (Department of Communities and Local
Government 2010), the Practice Guide (English Heritage
2010), the Guidance Note on the Setting of Heritage Assets
(2011) and the Local Unitary Development Plan. Consultation
was undertaken with English Heritage and the Isle of Wight
Planning Archaeologist.
Designated heritage assets in the area were visited in
order to assess the possible effect on their setting. Through
experience of production of numerous Environmental
Statements it has been demonstrated that significant effects
rarely occur beyond a distance of 10km and the highest level
effects are generally within 3.5km.
Effects on listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled
monuments and registered historic parks and gardens
within 5km were assessed; for example, the Carisbrooke
Conservation Area, which includes both the parish Church of
St Mary, a grade I listed building and Carisbrooke Castle, a
scheduled monument and a grade I listed building all of which
lie over 3km to the south of the development site. Assessment
of Osborne House registered park and garden at 5km and the
buildings at Parkhurst Prison and St Mary’s Hospital within
1.5km of the development site was also undertaken.
Whilst the wind turbines would form a visible and
recognisable new element within the landscape the
assessment concluded that it would not detract from the
character or significance of the surrounding heritage assets.
However, the proposed development is assessed as having
moderate adverse effect on the setting of the Carisbrooke
Conservation Area together with the parish Church of St Mary
as a result of the appearance of turbines within a specific
number of views towards the church within the settlement.
Moderate effects are also identified on Carisbrooke Castle.
The physical effect on all heritage assets, including buried
archaeological remains and other historic structures within
the footprint of the proposed development, including
associated services, construction compound, electrical cable
connections and on/off site access routes was assessed
through a desk study and site visit.
The desk study comprised the identification of known
designated and non-designated assets within the
development area to assess the potential for effects on buried
archaeological deposits and other historic features. This drew
from the Isle of Wight Council Historic Environment Record,
National Monument Record, historic Ordnance Survey maps
and other available published resources in order to describe
the history and development of the site.
The assessment concluded that the potential for archaeological
deposits to be affected during the construction phase is
low with the exception of potential finds relating to the
development site’s use as a rifle range during the late 19th
and early 20th century in association with Parkhurst Barracks.
Consequently a watching brief (archaeological supervision of
works) would be undertaken during construction.
Ecology – Chapter 11
A desk study and field surveys were undertaken at the
site in 2010 and 2011 including extended phase 1 habitat,
dormouse, red squirrel, reptiles and bat surveys. Detailed bat
survey work included an assessment of potential roost sites,
manual bat detector transect surveys at dusk, dawn re-entry
surveys of trees with roosting potential, static detector surveys
at ground level and static detector surveys at height.
Section continues overleaf >
09

Ecology – Chapter 11 continued >
Given the scheme design, which has evolved to minimise
effects on potential ecological receptors, the proposed
development was deemed unlikely to result in any effects on
species or habitats with the exception of seven bat species.
Further assessment was therefore required to consider effects
on common pipistrelle, noctule, serotine, Leisler’s bat, soprano
pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle and barbastelle.
These species have been recorded foraging and commuting
on site and may potentially roost within adjacent woodland.
Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, serotine and
barbastelle are all species considered to be at medium
risk from collision with wind turbine while noctule, Leisler’s
and Nathusius’ pipistrelle are considered to be at high risk.
The assessment of effects of the scheme took into account
the status of all these species in the UK and the Isle
of Wight as well as the activity levels recorded on site.
Prior to implementation of mitigation measures it was
concluded that slight effects may occur on common
pipistrelle, serotine and Nathusius’ pipistrelle whilst
moderate effects may occur on Leisler’s bat and noctule.
Barbastelle is sufficiently rare that it was considered that
moderate-substantial effects may occur on this species.
Mitigation measures have been proposed which include
vegetation clearance from below the wind turbines to
discourage foraging bats as well as a programme of postdevelopment
monitoring to inform appropriate additional
mitigation if required. As a result of these measures being
implemented it has been concluded that slight negative
residual effects would occur only to noctule, Leisler’s bat
and barbastelle. These effects are not considered likely to
be increased as a result of cumulative effects from other
wind energy developments within 10km.
No significant effects in terms of the EIA regulations are
identified in relation to ecology.
Ornithology – Chapter 12
The assessment methodology was based upon guidance
from the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
(IEEM), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (Survey Methods for
Use in Assessing the Impacts of Onshore Windfarms on Bird
Communities) and Natural England (TIN069: Assessing the
Effects of Onshore Windfarms on Birds). Consultation was
carried out with Natural England, the Isle of Wight Council
and the RSPB concerning the studies required and the
appropriate issues to be addressed in the assessment of
notable bird species.
The site is predominately open farmland bounded to the
south and south-east by the prisons and their associated
infrastructure. Immediately to the north and west of the site
boundary is Parkhurst Forest of which part is designated
as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Site
of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). In order to
determine the ornithological baseline a desk study and a
range of site field surveys were conducted and subsequent
collision modelling undertaken, where considered necessary,
to assess the effects of the wind turbines on bird species. In
general terms, turbines can affect birds in four particular ways;
habitat loss, disturbance, displacement and collision. For each
phase of the development; construction, operation and decommissioning
the ES assessed whether these effects would
be significant on the bird species of conservation importance
recorded on the site.
The desk study included a review of existing statutory sites
of ornithological interest and records of bird species were
received from the Isle of Wight Local Records Centre. A full
year of surveys were undertaken within and around the
site comprising vantage-point watches, territory mapping
surveys, species-specific nightjar and barn owl surveys
and winter walkover surveys. During all surveys (October
2010 – September 2011) a total of 74 bird species were
recorded within the survey area. 22 species were classified
as confirmed or probable breeders within the site boundary
(and 40 species within the wider survey area).
Four species were classified as ‘target species’ (Barn owl,
hobby, nightjar and Mediterranean gull) during 12 months
of surveys; of these barn owl was the only target species
recorded breeding within the site whilst hobby and nightjar
were recorded breeding within the wider survey area. Overall
the ES identified that:
• Barn owls breed within the site and forage extensively
over grassland fields within and around the site;
however, this species is not susceptible to collision
risk and, given the distance between the nest site and
proposed construction areas, disturbance effects are
likely to be negligible and therefore not significant.
• Based on collision risk assessment and European studies
hobby is not considered to be susceptible to collision with
turbine blades; as such, given the limited time this species
spent within either the site or within the flight space of the
proposed turbines, collision risk to this species is considered
not significant. In terms of avoiding disturbance of nesting
birds a 500m construction buffer around the nest site will
be observed between April and July and a 350m buffer
between August and October. As a result the magnitude
of construction disturbance effects on breeding hobby
would be negligible and thus not significant.
• Based on several British studies nightjar is not considered
to be susceptible to collision with turbine blades and, as
such, risk of collision for this species at Camp Hill is
negligible and therefore not significant. In addition, given
the distance from the site and the extent of woodland
cover between territory locations and proposed construction
areas, the magnitude of effects of construction disturbance
on nesting nightjar is therefore considered to be negligible
and, thus, not significant.
Section continues overleaf >
10

Ornithology – Chapter 12 continued >
Mediterranean gull and peregrine falcon were both only
recorded infrequently and, therefore, no significant effects
are predicted for either species. In addition, as the site is of
low value of the site for waders and passerines, no significant
effects are predicted for either group as a result of the scheme.
Given the distance between the site and all statutory
designated sites of ornithological interest (SSSI/SPA/Ramsar)
within 20km and, given the limited activity of qualifying
interest species (both breeding and wintering species) within
and above the site, the proposed development is unlikely to
pose a significant threat to qualifying interest species.
A full list of species recorded can be found in Chapter 12
of the ES.
In line with standard construction practices vegetation
clearance will be undertaken outside of the bird nesting
season and, if required, nest location surveys would be
undertaken prior to beginning work. All procedures would
be agreed with the appropriate consultees and comply with
relevant legislation.
No significant effects in terms of the EIA regulations are
identified in relation to ornithology.
Hydrology – Chapter 13
The hydrology assessment identified the existing surface
and sub-surface water environment and ground conditions
to establish a baseline against which potential effects
were evaluated. Generally the development site has a
water environment with low sensitivity/importance: the
development site is located on Holme Hill and watercourses
on it comprise small field drains which were dry during
the site visit in March 2012. However, some of the small
drains/watercourses flow into the River Medina which is
classified as a Special Area of Conservation and includes
the Dodnor Creek Nature Reserve. The underlying geology
comprises clays, silts and sands of the Solent Group which
generally do not store significant quantities of groundwater.
The hydrological receptors have therefore been classified
as being between negligible and low sensitivity to high
sensitivity depending on where they drain to. Hydrological
constraints were identified and, except for essential
watercourse crossings, the design has avoided development
in buffer zones established around watercourses.
Flood risk has also been considered for the proposed
development. The site is located in a low-risk flood zone and
the footprint of the development means that it is unlikely that
flood risk elsewhere will be increased. Access track surfaces
and crane pads will be constructed using semi-permeable
granular material to allow rainfall to infiltrate so that surface
run-off from the development site will not increase.
Prior to any construction works an Environmental Management
Plan (EMP) will be prepared and agreed. As part of the plan
a detailed ground investigation study will be undertaken; the
study will include both geotechnical and geo-environmental
techniques in order to assess the ground conditions and
to identify the depth and water quality of any shallow
groundwater present. The results of the study will be used to
determine the foundation type for the turbines and any ground
treatments that may be required.
The EMP will detail all appropriate mitigation measures during
construction; these will include dust control measures and
the safe storage of on-site fuels and equipment. The CEMP
will also identify a number of mitigation measures that will be
used during the construction, operation and de-commissioning
phases of the turbine; these measures will include the
appropriate design of hard standing areas, access tracks and
the turbine foundations. These measures are designed to avoid
surface water run-off and to reduce localised interference of
groundwater recharge.
With the CEMP in place it is considered that there will be
no significant effects on the ground conditions or on the
water environment during the construction, operation and
de-commissioning phases of the turbine development.
It is concluded that the proposed wind energy development
will have no significant effects in terms of water quality and
or surface water run-off.
Shadow Flicker – Chapter 14
Shadow flicker can occur within occupied buildings when the
moving shadow from a wind turbine blade repeatedly passes
over a window or opening. The effect is most pronounced
when the blade shadow entirely obscures a narrow window
opening thereby causing a greater reduction in internal light
levels than if the shadow moves across a larger opening. As
detailed in the relevant national planning policy document:
‘Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to
PPS22’ in order for shadow flicker to occur buildings need to
be located within 10 rotor diameters (900m in the case of a
turbine with a rotor diameter of 90m). This was endorsed in
the recent study undertaken on behalf of the Department of
Energy and Climate Change, ‘Update of UK Shadow Flicker
Evidence Base – Final Report’ (2011). Within the 10 rotor
diameter distance for shadow flicker to occur there must be
sufficient sunshine, windows need to be facing the turbines
with no significant intervening structures or vegetation, the
turbines need to be operating and, due to the position of the
sun in the sky, the receptor must be located 130º either side
of north from the turbines. In general terms shadow flicker
normally occurs during the early morning and evening when
the sun is at its lowest elevation in the sky. Only in these
circumstances will there be a potential for shadow flicker to
affect residential amenity.
Concerns are sometimes raised that shadow flicker may
trigger photosensitive epilepsy which can occur as a result of
light flashes at frequencies between 2.5Hz-3Hz. The blades
Section continues overleaf >
11

Shadow Flicker – Chapter 14 continued >
of modern wind turbines such as those proposed at Camp Hill
rotate at a speed of less than 20rpm so, as a turbine has
three blades, in any one minute there will be a maximum of
60 blade shadows equating to a rotational speed of 60rpm.
This equates to 1Hz which is below the 2.5Hz minimum
required to trigger epilepsy. This information is derived from
Government and independent research as detailed in the ES.
The duration of potential shadow flicker has been
accurately modelled in the ES using software which uses
the known position of the sun in the sky for every minute
of the year. Assuming worse-case conditions (sufficient
daylight, correct alignment of the blades and no obstacles
between the window and the turbines) potential shadow
flicker effects were predicted in the ES at some thirtyfive
residential properties/prison accommodation blocks
and, of these, fifteen were assessed in detail since some
properties are located on the same street and adjacent
to each other i.e. a representative sample was analysed
further rather than every property individually. The highest
predicted level of shadow flicker effects for properties was
an average of 49 minutes per day up to 56 days per year.
The maximum predicted occurrence of shadow flicker
throughout the year is 45 hours. This assumes that the
sun is always shining during daylight hours and there is no
screening or obstruction i.e. from trees, hedges, structures,
etc. Realistically however, in the UK, the sun shines for
approximately one third of daylight hours and, if this is
taken into consideration, the likely effect would significantly
reduce to a maximum average of 17 minutes per day on up
to 56 days per year and the maximum predicted occurrence
of shadow flicker throughout the year would be 15 hours
per year.
Further Information
Printed copies of the non-technical summary and ES
(including figures and appendices) may be obtained from
Partnerships for Renewables, Station House, 12 Melcombe
Place, London, NW1 6JJ. The non-technical summary is
available free of charge and a limited number of hard copies
of the Environmental Statement are available for £500 per
copy. A limited number of CDs/DVDs containing PDF files of
the Environmental Statement are available for £15 per CD/
DVD. Alternatively, these electronic files can be downloaded
from http://www.pfr.co.uk/camphill.
Copies of the Environmental Statement may be viewed at
the following location during opening hours:
Isle of Wight Council
Council Offices
Seaclose
Fairlee Road
Newport
Isle of Wight
PO30 2QS
Where shadow flicker effects occur at properties mitigation
measures will be put in place which could include planting,
garden screening or operational controls on the turbines by
way of a programmed shut down.
The shut down system would use a device to measure the
intensity of sunlight occurring at a particular moment and
would use this, together with time and date information
programmed into the device, to determine whether shadow
flicker will occur. If the intensity of sunlight is above that
which is required to cause a shadow flicker effect and
the time of day corresponds with a predicted effect the
automatic programme would shut down the wind turbine
until the time period when shadow flicker may occur has
passed and the turbine would re-start automatically.
If required the available mitigation which is normally
secured via a planning condition would result in no
significant effects resulting from shadow flicker.
12 1

N
Key
Development Site Boundary
Turbine Location
Temporary Construction
Compound (50m x 50m)
Crane Pad (1500m2)
Onsite Control Building
(8m x 8.5m + 1.5m walkway)
Onsite Cable Route and Ducts
Anticipated Route of Underground
Electricity Cable
New Access Tracks
Existing Upgraded Track
New Culvert
Upgrade Existing Culvert
1
2
Existing Junction Upgraded
Note: micrositing clearance of 15 m
0m
360m
Scale 1:6,000 @ A3
Camp Hill Wind Energy Development
Planning Application
Figure 3
Proposed Wind Energy Development
Layout
March 2012
29703-02 E189b rowab
Based upon Ordnance Survey digital data with the permission of the Controller of the Stationery Office Crown Copyright Reserved. Licence No: AL100001776

P
Station House 12 Melcombe Place London NW1 6JJ t: +44 (0)207 170 7000 f: +44 (0)207 170 7020 e: info@pfr.co.uk
www.pfr.co.uk
Partnerships for Renewables Development Company Limited Registered in England and Wales, number 06526742 Registered at 4th Floor, Dorset House, 27-45 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9PY