Environmental Statement - Partnerships for Renewables

Environmental Statement - Partnerships for Renewables Environmental Statement - Partnerships for Renewables

from pfr.co.uk More from this publisher

20.05.2014 Views

P HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development Environmental Statement (Volume I - Written Statement) December 2010

P

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Environmental Statement (Volume I - Written Statement)

December 2010

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy

Development

Environmental Statement

Volume 1 – Written Statement

Version: Final December 2010

Prepared By:

Name Jason McGray

Position Consultant

Company TNEI Services Ltd

Reviewed By:

Name

Position

Signature:.....................................

Approved for Public

Release By:

Marcus Beddoe

Head of Planning and

Technical Services

Signature:.....................................

CONFIDENTIALITY (Confidential or not confidential): NOT CONFIDENTIAL

Project Name:

Document Name:

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Environmental Statement

Project Number: 6047

Revision Date Creation / Update Summary

R0 12/10/10 Final Draft TNEI Review

R1 17/11/10 Final Draft Client Review

R2 03/12/10 Final ES Submitted

TNEI Services

Milburn House

Dean Street

Newcastle Upon Tyne

NE1 1LE

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 191 211 1400

Fax: +44 (0) 191 211 1432

Website: www.tnei.co.uk

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Preface

This Environmental Statement (ES) reports the outcome of a formal Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) of the proposed HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development. It has been prepared to

accompany a planning application to Swale Borough Council by PfR (Standford Hill) Ltd to construct

and operate a wind energy development. The proposed development site is located at HMP Standford

Hill which is 2.2 km south of Eastchurch off Brabazon Road (see Figure 1.1). The EIA has been

undertaken by TNEI Services Ltd. Further specialist input came from the following specialist

consultants:

DTA Transportation Limited (Traffic and Transport);

Donaldson Associates Limited (Infrastructure Design);

Hoare Lea (Noise);

MKA Ecology Limited (Ecology and Ornithology);

Oxford Archaeological Associates Limited (Cultural Heritage and Archaeology);

Stephen Foster Associates Limited (Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology); and

Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Ltd (Landscape and Visual Impact).

The ES comprises four separately bound parts:

1. Non-technical summary – summarising the findings of the EIA in non-technical

language

2. Volume 1: Written Statement – reporting the findings of the EIA

3. Volume 2: Figures – the figures to accompany the text

4. Volume 3: Appendices – technical material to support the main text presented in

Volume 1.

Volume 1 has annexes to accompany the text including a Glossary of Terms and References.

Printed copies of the Non-Technical Summary (NTS) and ES (including figures and appendices) may

be obtained from Partnerships for Renewables, 12 Melcombe Place, Station House, London, NW1 6JJ.

The NTS is available free of charge, and a limited number of hard copies of the Environmental

Statement are available for £350.00 per copy. A limited number of CDs containing adobe acrobat files

of the ES are available for £15 per CD. Alternatively, these electronic files can be downloaded from our

website at www.pfr.co.uk/standfordhill.

December 2010 i TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Copies of the ES may be consulted at the following locations during normal opening hours:

Development Control

Swale Borough Council

Swale House

East Street

Sittingbourne

Kent

ME10 3HT

Eastchurch Parish Council Offices

Eastchurch Village Hall

Warden Road

Eastchurch

Sheerness

ME12 4EJ

December 2010 ii TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Contents

Preface .................................................................................................. i

1 Introduction .................................................................................. 2

2 The Environmental Impact Assessment Process ...................... 8

3 Scheme Development and Scoping the EIA ............................. 16

4 Description of the Proposed Development .............................. 32

5 Planning Policy Overview .......................................................... 54

6 Climate Change Mitigation and Other Atmospheric Emissions

..................................................................................................... 64

7 Traffic and Transport ................................................................. 70

8 Noise ........................................................................................... 92

9 Landscape and Visual Effects ................................................. 118

10 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ......................................... 218

11 Ecology and Nature Conservation .......................................... 244

12 Ornithology ............................................................................... 308

13 Ground Conditions and Hydrology ......................................... 366

14 Shadow Flicker ......................................................................... 378

15 Socio-Economics ..................................................................... 386

Annexes

Glossary of Terms………………………………………………………………………………. 394

References and further information…………………………………………………………….404

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 1 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this Environmental Statement (ES)

1.1.1 This Environmental Statement (ES) reports the outcome of a formal Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) of the proposed HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development. It has been

prepared to accompany a planning application by the Partnerships for Renewables

Development Company Limited (PfR) to Swale Borough Council (SBC) to construct and

operate a wind energy development on a site located 2.2 km south of Eastchurch. An EIA is

required to accompany the planning application under European 1 and UK EIA Regulations 2 for

projects of this nature. Schedule 2 (3)(i) of UK regulations specifically describes the need for

EIA where wind energy developments are of a particular scale and/or where they are likely to

result in significant environmental effects. A full description of the EIA process is provided in

section 2 „The EIA process‟.

1.1.2 The ES provides some of the information that will be used by SBC and others to inform the

process of determining the planning application for permission to build and operate the

proposed development.

1.1.3 The ES comprises four parts:

Non-Technical Summary: of the findings of the EIA

Volume 1 Written Statement: detailing how the EIA process has been applied to this

scheme; describing the proposed development and how it has evolved and

reporting the EIA‟s findings on each of the environmental topics identified

through the Scoping process.

Volume 2 Figures: the figures to accompany the text in volume 1.

Volume 3 Appendices: – technical material to support the text presented in Volume 1.

1.1.4 A glossary of terms is included at Annex A.

1.2 Overview of the Proposed Development

1.2.1 Partnerships for Renewables Development Company Ltd (PfR) was established to facilitate

renewable energy projects on land controlled by public sector bodies. In partnership with the

1 The European Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on

the environment

2 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (as amended).

December 2010 2 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

National Offender Management Service (NOMS) it has established the viability of a site at

HMP Standford Hill for a wind energy development.

1.2.2 Following a range of technical and environmental investigations and after extensive

consultation, a scheme has been submitted for planning approval comprising of:

The erection, 25 year operation and subsequent decommissioning of a wind

energy development comprised of the following elements: two wind turbines, each

with a maximum overall height (to vertical blade tip) of up to 121 metres, together

with new access tracks, temporary works, hard standing areas, control and

metering building, cabling and new vehicular access from Brabazon Road.

1.2.3 The proposal briefly comprises the following elements:

2 no. wind turbines each with a generating capacity 2.3 Megawatts (MW)

and a maximum height to vertical blade tip of 121m above the ground (see

Figure 4.4);

Permanent areas of hard standing at each turbine position to be used

during construction as crane platforms and for occasional maintenance

requirements;

1 no. 33kV substation building to enable the electricity generated to be

exported to the local distribution network (see Figure 4.5);

New access tracks that would be reduced in width or removed upon

decommissioning (see Figure 4.2);

Buried underground cables linking the turbines to the substation;

A new priority junction onto Brabazon Road on the eastern site boundary;

and

An area of temporary construction compound hard standing to be used for

construction of the site.

The location of these elements is shown on Figure 1.3.

1.2.4 The final choice of turbines will follow a competitive tendering exercise, but if two 2.3 MW

turbines were constructed they could together generate approximately 10 GWh of renewable

electricity per year. This is equivalent to the amount of electricity used annually by

approximately 2,190 average households and also equates to approximately 88% of the

annual electricity consumption of the Sheppey Prisons Cluster 3 . In addition, a wind energy

development of this scale could displace 4,330 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year.

Additional details and the basis for calculating the household energy and CO 2 emission figures

3 Based on 2009 electricity usage for the Sheppey Prisons Cluster of 11.47 GWh

December 2010 3 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

noted 4 are provided in Chapter 6: Climate Change Mitigation and Other Atmospheric

Emissions.

1.3 The Applicant - PfR (Standford Hill) Ltd

1.3.1 Partnerships for Renewables (PfR) was set up by the Carbon Trust in 2006 to develop,

construct and operate renewable energy projects on public sector land. The public sector can

play a significant part in the effort to increase renewables capacity in the UK as public sector

bodies own around 10% of the land in the UK (over one million hectares) and thousands of

buildings.

1.3.2 Carbon Trust Enterprises remains PfR‟s single largest shareholder with backing from two

major private sector shareholders (HSBC‟s Environmental Infrastructure Fund and OP Trust, a

Canadian public sector pension fund) enabling PfR to offer these benefits to the public sector

without public sector bodies having to divert resources away from frontline services.

1.3.3 The aspiration of the public sector to develop renewable energy has been hampered by a lack

of funds and the desire to avoid diverting financial resources from frontline services towards

the development of potential sites.

1.3.4 PfR works in partnership with public sector bodies throughout the entire development process

and covers all development costs. Focused on a development process tailored to the specific

needs of the public sector, PfR provides a way for public sector bodies to access the economic

and environmental benefits associated with renewable energy and contribute towards the fight

against climate change without diverting public sector resources away from frontline services.

1.3.5 As well as working with NOMS, PfR is currently working with a variety of public sector bodies

across the UK including the Forestry Commission, British Waterways, the Environment

Agency, the University of Reading, the Coal Authority, Oxford City Council, Caerphilly County

Borough Council and Clackmannanshire Council.

1.3.6 Further information about PfR and its public sector partners can be found at www.pfr.co.uk.

1.4 National Offender Management Service (NOMS)

1.4.1 The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is an executive agency of the Ministry of

Justice (MoJ) responsible for the Probation Service and Her Majesty‟s Prison Service (HMPS).

There are currently 137 prisons in England and Wales of which 126 are run by the public

sector through HMPS.

4 The environmental benefit figures are based on: two, 2.3 megawatt turbines with a total installed capacity of 4.6MW, operating

with a 25% capacity factor; average household electricity use of 4,602kWh per annum; and the electricity generated displacing

electricity generated from CCGT / average fuel mix - approximately 430gCO2/kWh‟

December 2010 4 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

1.4.2 NOMS is currently working with PfR to investigate the green electricity generating potential of

its land resources. NOMS is committed to meeting the Government's climate change targets

and mandates for sustainable development. NOMS wants to make a difference on

sustainability by embedding sustainable development into all its operations. NOMS is not only

looking at ways to cut its carbon dioxide emissions but also into the feasibility of generating

renewable energy on its land. As part of this drive, NOMS is working with PfR to develop a

wind energy project at the HMP Standford Hill site on the Isle of Sheppey. Standford Hill

Prison is part of the Sheppey Prisons Cluster.

1.5 The Environmental Impact Assessment Project Team

PfR

1.5.1 PfR has managed the project development including:

Site selection;

Feasibility;

Layout design;

Public consultation;

Consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees; and

Management of specialist third party contractors.

Regeneco

1.5.2 Regeneco has been responsible for overall project management of the proposed development,

including the appointment and management of specialist third party contractors.

TNEI Services Ltd

1.5.3 TNEI Services Ltd (TNEI) has been responsible for the overall project management of the EIA.

This Environmental statement (ES) has been written and co-ordinated by TNEI. The following

technical studies have also been undertaken by TNEI:

Shadow flicker assessment;

Radio-communications assessment; and

Socio-economic assessment.

December 2010 5 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

1.5.4 TNEI is an energy consultancy and part of the Petrofac Group. It provides specialist advice on

planning and environmental issues, specialising in the development of renewable energy

projects.

1.5.5 Specialist input was provided by sub-consultants as follows:

Chapter

Number Chapter Title Author

6 Climate Change

Mitigation and Other

Atmospheric Emissions

TNEI Services Ltd

7 Traffic & Transport David Tucker Associates

8 Noise Hoare Lea Consulting Engineers

9 Landscape & Visual

Effects

Waterman Group plc

10 Archaeology and Cultural

Heritage

11 Ecology and Nature

Conservation

Oxford

Associates Ltd.

MKA Ecology

Archaeological

12 Ornithology MKA Ecology

13 Ground Conditions and

Hydrology

S M Foster Associates Ltd

14 Shadow Flicker TNEI Services Ltd

15 Socio-economics TNEI Services Ltd

1.5.6 In addition the project team has included members from Regeneco and Donaldson Associates

Limited who have provided technical expertise on wind energy development design and have

provided design parameters for the infrastructure associated with the development (road

construction, for example).

December 2010 6 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 7 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

2 The Environmental Impact Assessment Process

2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment

Overview

2.1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a systematic procedure that must be followed for

certain categories of project (see 2.1.4) before they can be given development consent. It aims

to assess a project‟s likely significant environmental effects. This helps to ensure that the

importance of the predicted effects and the scope for reducing them are properly understood

by the relevant determining authority, and other relevant stakeholders, before it makes its

decision.

2.1.2 The information on the development and its environmental effects are presented in an

Environmental Statement (ES). The EIA process that culminates in the submission of the ES

has a number of key characteristics:

It should be systematic, comprising a sequence of tasks defined both by

regulation and by practice;

It should be analytical, requiring the application of specialist skills from the

environmental sciences;

It should be impartial, its objective being to inform decision-making rather

than to promote the project;

It should be consultative, with provision being made for obtaining

information and feedback from interested parties including local authorities,

members of the public and statutory and non-statutory agencies; and

It should be iterative, allowing opportunities for environmental concerns to

be addressed during the planning and design of a project.

2.1.3 Typically, a number of design iterations take place in response to environmental constraints

identified during the EIA process (in effect, incorporating mitigation measures to avoid, reduce

or compensate for identified adverse effects). Further details of such measures in this case are

presented in the corresponding environmental topic chapters. A summary of proposed

measures is included at the end of Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development.

EIA Regulations

2.1.4 Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations lists those developments for which an EIA is mandatory.

Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations lists developments for which the need for an EIA is

determined on a case-by-case basis (i.e. if significant environmental effects are likely), whilst

December 2010 8 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Schedule 3 describes indicative thresholds to be used to determine if a Schedule 2

development is an “EIA development”. Where an EIA is required, environmental information

must be provided by the Applicant in an ES. Schedule 4 specifies the information that must or

may be provided in the ES.

2.1.5 Most wind energy developments fall within Schedule 2 and where the need for EIA is not

certain the developer can apply to the determining authority for a screening opinion.

2.1.6 Given the scale of the proposed wind energy development at HMP Standford Hill, PfR

recognised that an EIA would be needed. PfR also recognises that the EIA process can play

an important role in developing the design of the proposals to minimise adverse environmental

effects and to realise the environmental benefits.

2.1.7 While it has been determined that the proposal has the potential for significant environmental

effects, this does not mean that a significant effect is the ultimate conclusion of the EIA. The

EIA process identifies the potential for adverse effects and then encourages mitigation

measures to be incorporated into the design of the development, or the method of construction

and operation that may reduce or eliminate any negative effects or further enhance positive

effects.

Topics to be Addressed

2.1.8 Schedule 4 of the Regulations specifies that the ES should describe those “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.”.

2.1.9 Establishing which aspects of the environment and associated issues are relevant for a

particular project is captured in an EIA scoping process. For the HMP Standford Hill Wind

Energy Development, this is described in more detail in Chapter 3 Scheme Development and

Scoping the Environmental Impact Assessment of this ES.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Process

2.1.10 Scoping is the process of identifying those aspects of the environment and associated issues

that need to be considered when assessing the potential effects of a particular development

proposal. This recognises that there may be some environmental elements where there will be

no significant issues or likely effects resulting from the development and hence where there is

no need for further investigation to be undertaken.

2.1.11 Scoping is undertaken through consulting organisations and individuals with an interest in and

knowledge of the site, combined with the professional judgement and experience of the EIA

team. It takes account of published guidance, the effects of the kind of development under

consideration and the nature and importance of the environmental resources that could be

affected.

December 2010 9 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Spatial Scope

2.1.12 In its broadest sense, the spatial scope is the area over which changes to the environment

would occur as a consequence of the development. In practice, an EIA should focus on those

areas where these effects are likely to be significant.

2.1.13 The spatial scope varies between environmental topic areas. For example, the effect of a

proposed wind energy development on the landscape resource and visual amenity is generally

assessed within a zone of up to 30km from the site boundary whilst noise effects are assessed

within a much smaller area encompassing properties close to the site.

2.2 Assessment Methodology

2.2.1 Following the identification of the scope of the EIA, individual environmental topics are subject

to survey, investigation and assessment, and individual topic chapters are prepared for the ES.

The assessment methodologies are based on recognised good practice and guidelines specific

to each topic area, and details are provided in the appropriate chapter.

2.2.2 In general terms, the technical studies undertaken for each topic area and chapter includes:

Collection and collation of existing baseline information about the receiving

environment and original surveys to fill any gaps in knowledge or to update

any historic information, along with identification of any relevant trends in,

or evolution of, the baseline;

Consultation with experts and relevant consultees to define the scope of the

assessment and study area and subsequent consultation in response to

emerging study findings;

Consideration of the potential impacts of the development on the baseline,

followed by identification of design changes to seek to avoid or reduce any

predicted adverse impacts;

Engagement with other technical topic specialists and engineers /

designers in a design iteration process seeking to optimise the scheme for

the differing environmental effects and identify any appropriate mitigation

measures;

Assessment of the final scheme design and evaluation of significant effects,

together with an evaluation of any residual significant effects after mitigation

measures have been implemented; and

Compilation of the ES chapter.

2.2.3 In reality, many of the effects are relevant to more than one environmental topic area, and

careful attention has been paid to interrelationships to avoid overlap or duplication between

topic chapters. For example, the assessment of effects on cultural heritage features will be

December 2010 10 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

aided by the assessment in the landscape and visual chapter. Similarly, secondary effects on

ecological resources arising from hydrological change would be considered in the ecology

chapter with a cross-reference to the relevant direct effect in the Ground Conditions and

Hydrology chapter.

2.2.4 The following format has been adopted for the presentation of information within the ES. In

some cases, technical data and analysis has been moved to a Technical Appendix that is

bound separately from the main ES.

Introduction and overview – setting the scene for the topic, the nature of

the receptors to be considered, and how the proposals might cause

change;

Methodology – describing how receptors were identified through a scoping

process, along with the specific methods used for data gathering, predicting

effects and evaluating significance of effects;

Baseline information – describing the current state and circumstances of

the receptors and changes that might in any case be expected in advance

of the development being implemented;

Topic specific design evolution – identifying where there was potential

for a significant effect and how the scheme has been developed or

environmental measures adopted to address that potential;

Predicted significant effects of the scheme – the effects predicted to

arise as a result of implementing the final design of the project;

Mitigation and enhancement measures – identification of non-embedded

„design‟ measures which may be necessary to reduce, control or manage

identified significant effects;

Assessment of residual significant effects – an assessment of any

significant effects remaining after non-embedded mitigation measures have

been employed;

References.

2.3 Defining Significance of Effects

2.3.1 Development proposals affect different environmental elements to differing degrees and not all

of these are of sufficient concern to warrant detailed investigation or assessment within the EIA

process. The EIA Regulations identify those that warrant investigation as those that are “likely

to be significantly affected by the development”.

2.3.2 Conclusions about significance are derived with reference to available information about the

project description and the environmental receptors (or „receiving environment‟), and to

December 2010 11 TNEI Services Ltd

Magnitude of change

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

predictions about the potential changes that the proposed development would cause to the

affected receptors.

2.3.3 In each of the environmental topic chapters, professional judgement is used in combination

with relevant guidance to assess the interaction of the receptor‟s sensitivity (this may be

defined in terms of importance, value, rarity, quality) against the predicted magnitude of

change to identify a level of effect. In general terms, and in order to assist consistent

interpretation of the final results of the EIA, receptor sensitivity, magnitude of change and level

of effect for each environmental topic are categorised as shown in Table 2.1.

2.3.4 The type of categorisation illustrated in Table 2.1 provides a guide only, and may be

moderated by the professional that undertakes the assessment in accordance with judgement

and experience. In particular, the divisions between categories of receptor sensitivity,

magnitude of change, and level of effect should not be interpreted as definitive (and indeed

different definitions for each category may be applied by different professionals), and the lines

that represent the boundaries between categories will in many cases be considered as

„blurred‟. In some cases, the judgement can be guided by quantitative values, whilst in other

cases qualitative descriptions are used. The significance of the effect may also need to be

qualified with respect to the scale over which it may apply (e.g. local, regional, national,

international).

Table 2.1

Establishing the Level of Effect

Sensitivity of receptor

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

NEGLIGIBLE /

NONE

LARGE

VERY

SUBSTANTIAL

SLIGHT /

MODERATE

NO

EFFECT

MEDIUM

SUBSTANTIAL MODERATE SLIGHT

NO

EFFECT

SMALL

MODERATE

SLIGHT

NEGLIGIBLE /

SLIGHT

NO

EFFECT

NEGLIGIBLE /

NONE

NO

EFFECT

2.3.5 Having defined a level of effect, professional judgement in combination with guidance and

standards are then applied to identify which of those levels of effect are then considered to be

„significant‟ effects when discussed in terms of the EIA Regulations.

December 2010 12 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

2.3.6 A definition of how the terms are derived for each topic is set out in the corresponding chapter

along with the relevant explanation and descriptions of receptor sensitivity, magnitude of

change and levels of effect that are considered significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.

Type of Effect

2.3.7 The EIA Regulations (Schedule 4, Part 1) require consideration of a variety of types of effect,

namely direct / indirect, secondary, cumulative, positive / negative, short / medium / long-term,

and permanent / temporary. In this ES, effects are considered in terms of how they arise, their

valency (i.e. whether they are positive or negative) and duration. Each will have a source

originating from the development, a pathway and a receptor.

2.3.8 Most predicted effects will be obviously positive or negative, and will be described as such.

However, in some cases it is appropriate to identify that the interpretation of a change is a

matter of personal opinion, and such effects will be described as „subjective‟.

2.3.9 The temporal scope of environmental effects is stated where known. Effects are typically

described as:

Temporary – these are likely to be related to a particular activity and will

cease when the activity finishes. The terms „short-term‟ and „long-term‟ may

also be used to provide a further indication of how long the effect will be

experienced;

Permanent – this typically means an unrecoverable change.

2.3.10 Effects are generally considered in relation to the following key stages of the development:

Construction – effects may arise from the construction activities

themselves, or from the temporary occupation of land. Effects are often of

limited duration although there is potential for permanent effects. Where

construction activities create permanent change, the effects will obviously

continue into the operational period;

Operation – effects may be permanent, or (as is typical with wind power

developments) they may be temporary, intermittent, or limited to the life of

the development until decommissioning.

Decommissioning - effects may arise from the decommissioning activities

themselves, or from the temporary occupation of land. The effects would

generally be temporary and of limited duration and additional permanent

change (unless associated with restoration) would normally be unlikely.

December 2010 13 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

2.4 Consideration of Alternatives

2.4.1 The EIA Regulations require the ES to include “an outline of the main alternatives studied by

the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for his choice”5.

2.4.2 National planning and energy policy makes it clear that there is no requirement for renewable

energy developments to demonstrate an overall need for new renewable generation or a need

to be located in a specific location. The Energy Review of 2006 and the White Paper of 2007

both contained a Renewables Statement of Need which states: “Renewable energy as a

source of low-carbon, indigenous electricity production is central to reducing emissions and

maintaining the reliability of our energy supplies at a time when indigenous fossil fuels are

declining more rapidly than expected”.

2.4.3 The 2007 Energy White Paper provides further clarification stating at section 5.3.67:

“Recognising the particular difficulties faced by renewables in securing

planning consent, the Government is also:

Underlining that applicants will no longer have to demonstrate either

the overall need for renewable energy or for their particular proposal

to be sited in a particular location”

2.4.4 The 2007 planning policy statement PPS1 Supplement on Planning and Climate Change also

emphasises that point, stating in Paragraph 20 that:

“In particular, planning authorities should:

Not require applicants for energy developments to demonstrate either the

overall need for renewable energy and its distribution, nor question the

energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in

a particular location…”

2.4.5 Planning Policy Statement PPS22 supports the approach that wind turbines should be

developed wherever commercially and environmentally acceptable, i.e. the requirement is only

to demonstrate that this is a suitable site rather than that it is the highest ranked in any form of

sequential testing.

2.4.6 This policy has been reiterated recently (2010) in the National Policy Statements on Energy

Infrastructure EN1 and EN3 (revised drafts). EN-1 at para. 4.4.1-4.4.3 states:

“This NPS does not contain any general policy requirement to consider

alternatives or to establish whether the proposed project represents the best

option.”

5

Circular 02/1999 DETR. Annex C, Part 1 (2)

December 2010 14 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

2.4.7 EN-3 at para. 2.5.34 states:

“As most renewable energy resources can only be developed where the

resource exists and where economically feasible, the IPC should not use a

sequential approach in the consideration of renewable energy projects (for

example, by giving priority to the re-use of previously developed land for

renewable technology developments).”

2.4.8 This has continued into a 2010 Consultation draft PPS1 supplement: Planning for a Low

Carbon Future in a Changing Climate (reviewing and consolidating PPS1 Supplement:

Planning and Climate Change and PPS22: Renewable Energy). At Part 1 para. 17 it states

that:

“The draft PPS ...underlines that, depending on their scale and impact,

renewable and low carbon energy developments should be capable of being

accommodated in most locations.”

2.4.9 At para. LCF14.2 iv it states that LPAs should:

“expect developers of decentralised energy to support the local planning

approach for renewable and low-carbon energy set out in the local

development framework and, if not, provide compelling reasons consistent

with this PPS to justify the departure; but, otherwise, not question the energy

justification for why a proposal for renewable and low carbon energy must be

sited in a particular location;”

2.4.10 The clear policy context is therefore that there is neither a requirement to justify the viability of

a wind energy proposal nor the need for it to be located in a particular location. Nevertheless,

the Scheme Development chapter of this ES does describe the site identification process and

design criteria. In EIA terms, the requirement is only to report on alternatives that have been

considered. The examination of alternatives in this ES is therefore restricted as appropriate to

alternative design solutions that were considered for the site in question in terms of factors

such as site layout / design / turbine height and turbine numbers, and the environmental effects

of the options considered.

December 2010 15 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

3 Scheme Development and Scoping the EIA

3.1 Site Identification

3.1.1 The EIA process started when PfR began investigating the feasibility of locating a wind energy

development on land owned by the NOMS in May 2007. The first step was an initial screening

process that involved a desktop assessment of NOMS land holdings, investigating (with the aid

of a Geographical Information System (GIS)) issues such as the proximity of housing,

environmentally-designated areas and wind speed. The HMP Stanford Hill site was identified

as having good potential to support a wind energy development and was progressed to a more

detailed feasibility study that included a site visit, technical consultations, assessment of grid

connection and access options, energy yield analysis, preliminary noise modelling and a

planning policy review. This feasibility study indicated that the site was potentially technically,

environmentally and financially viable for a wind energy development, but that further

assessment and clarification was needed.

3.2 Design Criteria

3.2.1 The design solution for a site is based on the considered application of the following technical,

economic and environmental criteria across all development phases as more information

becomes available:

Technical Objectives

Siting of turbines at suitable separation distances to allow a balanced layout

and avoid wake effects and interference between turbines, which may lead

to a reduction of energy generation; and

Suitable gradients for turbine foundations, access tracks and control

building.

Environmental Objectives

Minimise impacts to the existing land uses (economic or recreational);

Avoid designated sites, known bat flight paths and activity areas, minimise

impacts on areas of ecological value such as hedgerows and waterways,

and minimise impacts on protected species and birdlife; Avoid designated

sites of archaeological importance and minimise impacts on areas of

undesignated archaeological interest and areas with archaeological

potential;

Minimise indirect impacts on off-site cultural heritage assets;

December 2010 16 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Avoid surface and groundwater resources and minimise indirect effects on

these features;

Avoid increase in flood risk;

Utilise existing access and minimise lengths of new access tracks to reduce

impacts and material requirements;

Protect residential amenity in relation to visual effects, noise and shadow

flicker;

Avoid impinging on aviation safety;

Avoid interference with telecommunication links.

3.2.2 Technical and environmental constraints located in the immediate area of the proposed

development are shown on Figure 1.2.

3.3 Scheme Development

3.3.1 PfR has established a scheme development process that integrates the activities required for

EIA within a structured, holistic, approach to confirming the technical and economic viability of

a particular development proposal.

3.3.2 Following the feasibility study, PfR undertook a broadly sequential three-stage process

designed to investigate and resolve/avoid the key risks to the development of the site and any

potentially significant environmental effects, in a structured manner. The purpose of this

process was to identify any irresolvable issues which would make the site inappropriate for

development. The exact scope and order of task investigation in the different stages was

determined using professional judgement and experience, taking account of the sites unique

combination of technical and environmental factors as well as other seasonal factors.

Development Phase 1 (May 2007 – July 2009)

3.3.3 Having identified the site as having the potential to accommodate a wind turbine development,

further assessment was conducted considering issues such as the availability of a viable grid

connection point and potential environmental constraints including proximity to landscape,

ecological and cultural heritage designations. Initial consultation with statutory and nonstatutory

consultees was conducted which included aviation and radio-communication

stakeholders. A search of proposed and consented wind turbine developments within 30km of

the HMP Standford Hill site was conducted to establish a baseline to be used in considering

any cumulative effects.

3.3.4 Early consultation and desk based assessment identified potential constraints including those

in relation to proximity to the Swale SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI, impacts on aviation interests,

impacts on an existing fixed micro-wave link which crossed the site and medium pressure gas

mains that are located across the site.

December 2010 17 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

3.3.5 Studies were conducted in response to these issues and further consultation was undertaken

with the fixed link operator MLL Telecom Ltd (MLL) and aeronautical stakeholders including the

Civil Aviation Authority and Ministry of Defence. Due to the survey effort required in relation to

ornithological interests, ornithological studies were initiated at this first stage. Discussions were

held with the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) who confirmed that a number of potential

grid connection options existed and provided indicative connection costs.

3.3.6 Having concluded that the site was potentially commercially viable and the opportunity existed

to overcome the identified constraints through careful scheme design, the decision was made

to progress to development phase 2.

Development Phase 2 (August 2009 – July 2010)

3.3.7 During this phase civil engineering works necessary to construct the wind turbines were fully

investigated and costed, to verify further the economic and technical viability of the site.

Consultation continued with key stakeholders including the local community so that feedback

could be incorporated into the design process and any issues could be resolved, where

possible. Detailed assessment of the impact on radio-communication links (discussed in

Section 3.7) was carried out to ensure that turbine siting did not result in disruption to microwave

links in the vicinity of the site.

3.3.8 The investigation of constraints to development and initial assessment of environmental

impacts led to a design freeze where the locations of the turbines and associated infrastructure

were fixed allowing detailed assessments of environmental impacts to be carried out. Following

the design freeze, radio-communication and aviation stakeholders were reconsulted and

informed of the final turbine positions.

3.3.9 Due to the potential scale of the proposed development and need to assess likely

environmental impacts, particularly with regard to the ecological designations in close proximity

to the site, PfR recognised that an EIA should be carried out and a formal request for a

Scoping Opinion was issued to SBC on 15 th January 2010. SBC provided their formal Scoping

Opinion on 12 th February 2010 (Appendix 3.2) which accepted the Scoping Report and

assessment of the key environmental aspects which needed to be assessed within the EIA.

The Scoping Opinion also provided further recommendations of areas to be considered taking

into account consultee responses to the formal Scoping process. Copies of the individual

responses received from statutory and non-statutory consultees that would inform the scope of

the EIA were provided and are included within Appendix 3.3.

3.3.10 A temporary 70m meteorological mast was consented by SBC on 14 th January 2010 and

installed in February 2010 on-site to allow analysis of wind resource to confirm financial

viability, inform final turbine selection and provide data that would be used in conducting an

assessment of noise impacts.

3.3.11 Public consultation was conducted throughout development phase 2. A public exhibition was

held at Eastchurch Village Hall on 26 th November 2009 allowing PfR to introduce the proposed

development to the local community, provide answers to questions and receive feedback. In

addition on 3rd February 2010, 20 th April 2010 and 30 th June 2010 community surgeries were

December 2010 18 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

held at Eastchurch Village Hall to provide local residents with the opportunity to discuss the

proposals, be kept up to date with progress and provide feedback to the project team. A wind

farm visit was organised to allow a range of stakeholders, including residents and local parish

councillors, to experience a wind energy development first Hand. The visit, to Little Cheyne

Court Wind Farm near Rye, was held on the 12 th June 2010 and a similar visit was organised

for a group of local school children on 14 th October 2010.

3.3.12 The environmental assessment carried out throughout this development phase, including

collection of baseline data and ongoing consultation with stakeholders, indicated that potential

constraints could be overcome through further design development or the incorporation of

mitigation measures into the scheme. It was therefore concluded that the site was

economically and technically viable and that the site could progress to development phase 3.

Development phase 3 (August 2010 – November 2010)

3.3.13 Public consultation continued throughout development phase 3 with further community

surgeries held on 24 th August 2010 and 27 th October 2010.

3.3.14 During this phase remaining technical and environmental investigations were carried out. The

search to identify other proposed and consented wind energy developments was updated to

ensure no further as yet unrecognised cumulative effects needed to be considered. The results

of environmental assessment, other technical and economic analyses confirmed that the

proposed development is viable in environmental terms. Therefore development phase 3

resulted in submission of a planning application, this ES and the relevant supporting material to

SBC.

3.4 The Scope of the EIA for the Proposed Development

EIA Screening

3.4.1 The proposed wind energy development is considered to constitute Schedule 2 development

as defined by The Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England

and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI No. 293). The proposed development falls under Part 3(i) of

the Schedule as follows:

„Installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind

farms) [in which] the development involves the installation of more than 2

turbines; or the hub height of any turbine or height of any other structure

exceeds 15 metres‟.

3.4.2 These regulations are supplemented by “Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment”

(published by the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [ODPM], 1999), which states that:

„The likelihood of significant effects will generally depend upon the scale of

the development, and its visual impact, as well as potential noise impacts.

EIA is more likely to be required for commercial developments of five or more

turbines, or more than 5 MW of new generating capacity.‟

December 2010 19 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

3.4.3 In the case of the HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development, given the known sensitivity

of the Special Protection Area (SPA) to the south of the site and the potential for significant

environmental effects, it was recognised that an EIA would be required and the decision was

made to proceed straight to the Scoping stage of the EIA process.

Scope of the EIA

3.4.4 Production of the scoping report was informed by initial desktop studies which commenced in

May 2007. These initial studies identified proximity to the ecological designations which include

the Swale and its surrounding marshes approximately 2km from the site boundary.

Ornithological studies commenced in September 2009 and the results of the initial desk based

and field studies informed the Scoping process.

3.4.5 The proposed EIA scope was formulated by TNEI with support and input from PfR, based on

desk-based and field-based knowledge of the site and prior experience of other wind energy

development EIAs together with feedback from initial consultation with consultees. As

mentioned above, a Scoping Report, setting out the proposed scope, was prepared by TNEI

and submitted to SBC in January 2010 (see Appendix 3.1) together with a request for a

Scoping Opinion. The Scoping Report described a scheme with up to three wind turbines with

a maximum tip height of 125m, each with a maximum generating capacity of 2-3 MW.

3.4.6 The final scheme design consists of two wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 121m and

a maximum generating capacity of 2.3MW per turbine. The location of the two turbine positions

is approximately 2.2km south of Eastchurch and the site boundary located 850m south of

Eastchurch.

3.4.7 The decision to reduce the number of turbines from 3 to 2 was based on the ability to achieve

the desired separation distances from the Swale SPA to the south of the site and to site

turbines at elevations that enabled compliance with Southend Airport‟s consultation response.

This aviation constraint effectively both reduced the turbine‟s blade tip height from 125m to

121m and limited the developable area at the site by excluding the northernmost section.

Throughout the EIA consultations with the relevant statutory and non-statutory consulted were

updated and they were advised of the reduced scale of development.

EIA Scoping Opinion

3.4.8 SBC issued their Scoping Opinion on 15 th February 2010. The responses from the following

consultees were included:

Swale Borough Council;

Environment Agency;

Natural England; and

Civil Aviation Authority.

December 2010 20 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

3.4.9 A response from Island Aviation was also received.

3.4.10 A copy of scoping responses received from consultees and SBC Scoping Opinion letter can be

found at Appendix 3.2.

Agreed Scope of the EIA

3.4.11 The way in which the Scoping Opinion and responses from the above consultees have been

addressed in the ES is set out in Table 3.1 below. The relationship of these issues to the

requirements of the EIA Regulations is also shown. A number of consultees did not respond to

the initial consultation by SBC as part of their Scoping response. However throughout the

assessment process the relevant consultees have been consulted by those conducting the

impact assessment and these are also include in Table 3.1 below.

Consultee

Table 3.1 Consultations Undertaken during the EIA process

Civil Aviation Authority

Ministry of Defence

Key Issue (refer to relevant Appendices

for full responses)

Emphasised need to consult Southend

Airport, Kent International Airport,

Rochester Airport and Eastchurch Airfield

and that details of consultation should be

included within the ES. Also

recommended consultation with the MOD

and National Air Traffic Services (NATS).

No objection to the proposed

development.

How Addressed in

Environmental Statement

Addressed through site

design with turbine height

and locations avoiding

conflict with aviation

interests. Details of

consultation are included

within Chapter 3 Scheme

Development and

Scoping the EIA.

No issue to address.

Discussed within Chapter 3

Scheme Development

and Scoping the EIA.

Southend Airport Concern over impact on radar. Addressed through site

design and discussed

within Chapter 3 Scheme

Development and

Scoping the EIA.

Kent International

Airport

Concern over impact on radar.

Addressed through site

design and discussed

within Chapter 3 Scheme

Development and

Scoping the EIA.

Rochester Airport No response received to consultation. Discussed within Chapter 3

Scheme Development

and Scoping the EIA.

NATS

Need to consider impacts on aviation

radar including Primary Surveillance

Radars (PSRs) operated by NATS En-

Route plc (NERL).

Potential effects on PSRs

considered during feasibility

study and site design,

discussed within Chapter 3

Scheme Development

and Scoping the EIA.

December 2010 21 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Consultee

Eastchurch Airfield

Natural England

Key Issue (refer to relevant Appendices

for full responses)

Concerns over proximity of the turbines to

the airfield in relation to visibility of the

turbines to pilots using the airfield and

turbulence effects.

Proximity to the Swale SSSI, SPA and

Ramsar Site.

Requirement to conduct protected species

surveys and consideration of receptors

identified in the UK and Kent Biodiversity

Action Plans.

Drew attention to Environment Agency

plans at Great Bells Farm.

Requested that Bat activity be recorded at

ground level and at turbine height.

Need for an appropriate assessment to

accompany the planning application.

December 2010 22 TNEI Services Ltd

Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2010 ©

How Addressed in

Environmental Statement

Addressed through site

design and discussed

within the accompanying

Planning Statement.

Proximity to designated

sites considered throughout

the design process.

Extended Phase 1 study

and protected species

studies carried out as part

of the EIA with bat activity

recorded as requested.

Recommended separation

distances adopted during

site design in line with

Natural England guidance.

Environment Agency plans

for Great Bells Farm

considered in the EIA.

Discussed within Chapter

11 Ecology and Nature

Conservation and

Chapter 12 Ornithology.

Appropriate assessment to

be submitted to the LPA

alongside this ES.

RSPB Proximity to the Swale SPA. Proximity considered in the

site design process with

turbine numbers reduced

from 3 no, to 2 no. allowing

increased separation

distance from the SPA. .

Kent Bat Group

English Heritage

Advised potential for presence of

Nathusius‟ pipistrelle and that it be

considered in the assessment.

No response received to formal Scoping

request.

No response received to cultural heritage

scoping document issued by Oxford

Discussed within Chapter

12 Ornithology.

As requested by consultee.

Species considered in

design of survey effort.

Recommended stand off

distances adopted during

site design.

Discussed within Chapter

11 Ecology and Nature

Conservation.

In line with cultural heritage

scoping document issued

by OAA, August 2010.

Discussed within Chapter

10 Archaeology and

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Consultee

Kent County Council

Archaeological Officer

Swale Borough Council

Conservation Officer

Environment Agency

Swale Borough Council

Environmental

Protections Team

Key Issue (refer to relevant Appendices

for full responses)

Archaeological Associates (OAA), August

2010.

Assessment of unknown buried

archaeology at the site.

Inclusion of Shurland Hall Gatehouse and

locally listed garden at Parsonage Farm.

Requirement to conduct a Flood Risk

Assessment as part of the site lies within

Flood Zone 3.

Requirement to include a full assessment

of impacts on biodiversity within the ES.

Requested consideration of plans to

provide compensation for future loss of

SPA habitats at Great Bells Farm.

Agreement of viewpoint locations to be

included within the LVIA.

Accepted the proposed approach but

indicated that baseline measurements at

the prison would be desirable for indicative

purposes.

How Addressed in

Environmental Statement

Cultural Heritage

In line with cultural heritage

scoping document agreed

with the consultee and

issued by OAA, August

2010.

Areas with high potential for

buried archaeology to the

north of the site avoided in

access track design.

Discussed within Chapter

10 Archaeology and

Cultural Heritage

In line with cultural heritage

scoping document agreed

with the consultee and

issued by OAA, August

2010. Discussed within

Chapter 10 Archaeology

and Cultural Heritage

Site design avoided areas

of high flood risk as far as

possible taking into account

other constraints.

FRA conducted as part of

the EIA. Discussed within

Chapter 13 Ground

Conditions and

Hydrology.

Plans for Great Bells Farm

considered in conducting

the EIA. Discussed in

Chapter 12 Ornithology.

Viewpoint locations agreed

with Swale Borough

Council. Discussed in

Chapter 9 Landscape and

Visual Effects.

A monitoring location was

included within the prison

complex and predicted

noise levels at the nearest

cell block facades were

assessed.

Discussed in Chapter 8

Noise.

December 2010 23 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Consultee

Ofcom

MLL Telecom Ltd

The Joint Radio

Company

Southern Water

Services Ltd (Via CSS

Spectrum Services Ltd)

Kent County Council

Highways Department

Key Issue (refer to relevant Appendices

for full responses)

Identified a fixed radio-communication link

within 500m of the proposed development

operated by MLL Telecom.

Raised initial objection based on the 3 no.

turbine layout.

Removed objection following final scheme

design.

Raised no objection to the proposed

development.

Raised no objection to the proposed

development.

That traffic data used in the assessment

was less than 2 years old and the addition

of traffic flows predicted for the Swaleside

Prison Extension was added to base traffic

flows.

How Addressed in

Environmental Statement

Final design avoided

conflict with the identified

link.

Discussed in Chapter 3

Scheme Development

and Scoping the

Environmental Impact

Assessment.

Addressed through site

design.

Discussed in Chapter 3

Scheme Development

and Scoping the

Environmental Impact

Assessment.

Addressed through site

design. Discussed in

Chapter 3 Scheme

Development and

Scoping the

Environmental Impact

Assessment.

Addressed through site

design. Discussed in

Chapter 3 Scheme

Development and

Scoping the

Environmental Impact

Assessment.

Assessment carried out in

line with consultation

response.

Discussed in Chapter 7

Traffic and Transport.

Further Evolution in the Scope

3.4.12 Throughout the EIA process continual consultation with key stakeholders was conducted to

obtain agreement on and refine where necessary the scope and methodology of each

assessment.

3.4.13 As a result of the community consultation exercises carried out by PfR and discussed in

Section 3.7, the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment included viewpoints from the centre

of Eastchurch and the residential properties situated immediately to the north of the Sheppey

Prisons Cluster.

December 2010 24 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

3.5 Summary of Site Design Evolution and Consideration of Alternatives

3.5.1 The main design changes resulting from the consultation and design process are summarised

below with reasons for the change. The final proposed number, size and location of the

turbines, access tracks and other site infrastructure is considered to be the „best environmental

fit‟ in relation to the identified environmental constraints (see proposed layout at Figure 1.3).

1. Initial Design

3.5.2 The initial design was prepared as part of the initial feasibility study in August 2007. The initial

design was for a wind energy development of up to 9MW (3 no. turbines) with two turbines

located in the south western section of the prison complex and one in the north western area. It

was based primarily on technical requirements such as topography and wind resource but also

to an extent on preliminary environmental constraints known at the time. Turbines were

positioned with sufficient downwind and crosswind separation to ensure that they would not

negatively affect the productivity of each other.

3.5.3 Initial layout design avoided existing prison infrastructure within the site boundary. Proximity to

prison buildings was considered in relation to potential noise and shadow flicker impacts. A

separation distance from Brabazon Road of 100m was maintained. A separation distance of

450m from residential properties immediately to the north of the prison complex and existing

and proposed properties with planning approval at Groves Farm to the west of the site was

maintained. In addition a buffer of 350m from prison buildings was maintained.

3.5.4 The application site represents a viable wind resource with the minimum of other constraints

including proximity to residential property.

3.5.5 During the initial design phase as part of the feasibility study, the National Air Traffic Service

(NATS), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were consulted. An

assessment of the potential effects on NATS radar indicated that these would be negligible and

that NATS would be unlikely to object.

3.5.6 The MOD issued a letter of no objection on 21 st June 2007.

3.5.7 In a response to initial consultation on 4 th June 2007, the CAA advised that Southend Airport,

Kent International Airport and Rochester Airport should be consulted. Pre-application

consultation with Southend Airport has been undertaken and site design has taken their

requirements into account. Kent International Airport have also been consulted and their

requirements have informed site design. Rochester Airport have not responded to

consultation. The CAA‟s response to scoping included Eastchurch Airfield and requested an

assessment into the potential turbulence effects of the proposed turbines. As this is not an

Environmental concern an assessment is not included in the Environmental Statement,

however in recognition of this request a statement on turbulence is included in the Planning

Statement.

December 2010 25 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

3.5.8 Initial site design at feasibility included three turbines (including one in the northern most part

of the site). Through discussions with Southend Airport and Eastchurch Airfield this northern

turbine was relocated and an alternative third turbine in the south western section of the site

was considered (see Figure 1 within Appendix 3.1: Scoping Report). To meet the requirements

of aviation interests (as well as reducing potential ornithological effects) this second, three

turbine layout was reduced to two turbines and the tip heights were subsequently reduced and

turbine locations were revised.

3.5.9 Wind turbine developments also have the potential to interfere with radio-communication

transmission within close proximity to the turbine locations. Scheme design has taken into

account advice contained within „Tall Structures and Their Impact on Broadcast and Other

Wireless Services‟, Ofcom (2009). The Office of Communications (Ofcom) was contacted as

the principal consultee for radio-communications. Ofcom is responsible for maintaining a

comprehensive register of fixed links and is also the primary authority in the UK for the

development of new links.

3.5.10 Ofcom was provided with details of an initial three turbine layout so that feedback could be

used in the constraints mapping process prior to finalisation of the turbine layout. A copy of the

Ofcom response, dated May 2009, is included in Appendix 3.4. Ofcom advised that a fixed

micro-wave link operated by MLL Telecom Ltd (MLL) was located within 500 m of the site, so

MLL was contacted by the Applicant. Consultation with MLL identified potential conflict with its

micro-wave link and the initial three turbine scheme design and this response informed the

design process. As a result of this consultation (and other initial work), the final scheme design

incorporated turbine locations that resolved the potential conflict with the MLL link. In addition,

CSS Spectrum Management Services Ltd (CSS) and the Joint Radio Company (JRC), who

manage fixed link radio connections on behalf of electricity and gas utility companies, were

also contacted.

3.5.11 Figure 3.1 shows constraints that have been considered and the separation distances

maintained including the communication links that cross over or near to the site. Exclusion

zones for each of the links have been defined by the Applicant using known information and

the turbines have been located outside of these zones.

2. Draft Final Design

3.5.12 During the design process refinements were made by PfR and TNEI as a consequence of

information arising from the EIA and consultation exercises. The objective was to refine the

initial design layout based on information received through consultation and obtained by the

environmental consultants‟ desk- and field-based research.

3.5.13 Principal outcomes were the avoidance of:

Non-compliance with Government guidance on noise and wind turbines as

set out in ETSU-R-97;

Medium pressure gas mains crossing the site;

December 2010 26 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

The area identified by the Environment Agency as lying within Flood Zone

3, as far as possible, through the adoption of a sequential testing approach;

The area of potential archaeological interest flanking Brabazon Road at the

location of extant airfield buildings;

Identified Bat and bird flight lines and/or areas of high activity;

A fixed radio-communication link operated by MLL Telecom; and

Conflict with aviation interests.

3.5.14 Access tracks have been subject to several design iterations and planned to provide the

required alignment allowing access to the turbine positions by abnormal vehicles carrying

turbine components and to minimise land take and environmental impacts.

3.5.15 Once turbine locations were fixed, the relevant telecoms operators and service providers were

informed of the grid references and again asked for further comments. This included repeating

the consultation request with Ofcom. The Ofcom response received in September 2010

(included in Appendix 3.4) identified only MLL as a link operator to be contacted with regard to

the final proposed turbine locations. MLL provided a consultation response received in

September 2010 confirming that it has no objection to the proposed turbine positions. In

addition Southern Water Services Ltd responded to consultation following confirmation of final

turbine locations confirming that it has no objection to the proposal. JRC was also reconsulted.

At the time of submission its response was awaited. Copies of the updated

consultation responses received are included within Appendix 3.4.

3. Final Design

3.5.16 The finalised layout, which is assessed in this ES, is illustrated in Figure 1.3 and supersedes

all other layout iterations.

3.5.17 The layout seeks to draw a reasonable compromise between the differing technical and

environmental priorities on site and the need to maintain as great a separation distance from

the valued ornithological receptors within the SPA to the south of the site, while remaining

beneath the ceiling set to avoid impacts on aviation interests.

Micro-Siting

3.5.18 Should planning permission be granted for the proposed development, some elements may be

subject to further, minor refinement, known as „micro-siting‟, for a number of reasons such as:

To take into account Statutory and non-Statutory consultee responses

received during the planning application determination process;

December 2010 27 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

To reflect the findings of post-application and post-permission ground

investigations and detailed design; and

To reflect any minor relocation required for geological, ecological or

archaeological reasons.

3.5.19 In permitting a micro-siting allowance it is important to note that no development will be

undertaken that would increase the potential level of effect on sensitive receptors and other

constraints identified in this Environmental Statement. For example, the stand-off distances

identified on Figure 3.1 would be maintained.

3.5.20 Should SBC be minded to grant consent for the development the applicant respectfully

requests a planning condition that, subject to the prior written approval of the LPA, allows the

micro-siting of elements of the scheme within the site edged red, to within 15m of the locations

shown in Figure 1.3 With respect of Turbine 1, due to aviation restrictions, there is no

requirement for micro-siting the turbine in a northerly direction.

„No-Project Alternative’

3.5.21 The „no-project‟ alternative would leave the landholding of HMP Standford Hill in its current

form with the proposed development site continuing to consist of grassland, some of which is

occasionally used to graze livestock.

3.5.22 Without the HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development and other wind turbine

developments, the UK will be less likely to meet its target of producing 15% of electricity from

renewable sources by 2020 and more beyond.

3.6 Other Projects with Possible Cumulative Effects

3.6.1 As part of the initial feasibility study, a search of proposed and consented wind energy

developments within 30km of the site was conducted by TNEI. Each local planning authority

within the area of search was contacted and asked to provide details of any proposals where a

request for a Scoping Opinion or a planning application had been received. These were added

to consented schemes that exist within the area of search. This search was then updated prior

to the submission of the planning application.

3.6.2 The Scoping Report set out the intention to consider cumulative effects within each chapter at

a scale appropriate to each individual topic. Projects have been considered if operational,

consented or in the planning process.

3.6.3 In line with standard practice, projects which have been the subject of full and validated

planning applications have been included in the consideration of potential cumulative effects

with the assumption that they are successful.

3.6.4 Other projects substantially in the public domain either by virtue of a scoping report or indeed a

consultation into a specific national infrastructure project may be included if there is sufficient

December 2010 28 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

information available to the development team. In the case of other wind farm developments,

key information is required about the number, location and size of turbines for a full

assessment of cumulative effects assessment to be carried out.

3.6.5 Individual technical topic chapters describe the methods by which cumulative effects are

assessed as appropriate.

3.6.6 In respect of potential cumulative effects with other schemes, the following developments and

effects have been identified as requiring consideration:

The consented Port of Sheerness Wind Farm at Sheerness – potential

cumulative landscape and visual effects;

The operational Kentish Flats Offshore Wind Farm approximately 15km

from the proposed development off the Kent Coast – potential for

cumulative landscape and visual effects; and

The proposed BP Oil UK Ltd, Isle of Grain Wind Farm approximately 12km

from the proposed development – potential for cumulative landscape and

visual effects.

3.7 Approach to Consultation

3.7.1 PfR and its consultants have undertaken extensive discussions with statutory and nonstatutory

consultees, the local community and the landowner(s) with the accumulated findings

all having an influence over the evolution of the design and the scope of the EIA.

3.7.2 Consultation begins at the earliest stage of development to establish feasibility and progresses

right through to application.

3.7.3 Consultation has been completed through a series of different mechanisms as follows:

Requests for data to statutory and non-statutory organisations to gather

what is currently know about the site;

Scoping request to SBC;

A meeting with key community representatives held on the 23 rd September

2009;

PfR Wind Energy Drop in Surgeries held at Eastchurch Village Hall on a bimonthly

basis throughout 2010;

Email and postal updates to key stakeholders and interested parties to

provide up-to-date information on key issues;

December 2010 29 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Topic specific technical consultations with statutory and non-statutory

consultees (reported in individual technical topic chapters);

Public Exhibition held on 26 th November 2009 at Eastchurch Village Hall;

A dedicated project website (www.pfr.co.uk/standfordhill) providing access

to project information and the opportunity to provide feedback and contact

the project team;

A wind farm visit attended by community representatives and local

residents, conducted on 12th June 2010 to Little Cheyne Court Wind Farm

near Rye allowing the opportunity to experience first hand similar turbines

to those proposed at HMP Standford Hill; and

A wind farm visit for local school children on 14th October 2010 to Little

Cheyne Court Wind Farm.

3.7.4 A further public exhibition is planned following submission of the planning application.

3.7.5 As discussed above consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees, including local

residents has informed the scope of the EIA. Table 3.1 above summarises the consultation

responses and their effect on the scope of assessment. The technical chapters (Chapters 6 to

15) detail the consultation carried out, responses received and their impact on the assessment

and scheme design.

December 2010 30 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 31 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

4 Description of the Proposed Development

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 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,

each with a maximum overall height (to vertical blade tip) of up to 121

metres, together with new access tracks, temporary works, hard standing

areas, control and metering building, cabling and new vehicular access from

Brabazon Road.

4.1.2 It is likely that the point of grid connection will be at the existing Eastchurch Prison substation

which lies west off Church Road approximately 1.1km north of the proposed onsite substation.

Connection from the onsite substation (shown on Figure 4.4) to the grid connection point is

likely to be via underground cabling running alongside the public highway. The likely route is

shown in Figure 4.8. No loss of habitat including hedgerows is anticipated. The grid connection

will be subject to a separate consenting regime following approval of the wind energy

development.

4.2 Scheme Layout and Local Context

4.2.1 The proposal is to construct and operate a wind energy development at HMP Standford Hill,

comprising:

2 no. wind turbines with a blade tip height of up to 121m; and

Associated infrastructure including access tracks, control building and

temporary contractors compound, storage area and laydown areas.

4.2.2 The layout of the scheme and immediate geographical context of the site is shown in Figure

1.3, with the approximate grid references for the centre of the turbine development being

National Grid Reference (NGR) TQ 979 694, OS Grid Reference 597900,169400. Total

operational land take (development footprint) as a result of the development (i.e. the area

occupied by turbine bases, new access tracks and control building) is approximately 0.75

hectares.

December 2010 32 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 4.1 Footprint Area by Component

Component

Area (ha)

Tracks 0.5

Crane Pads 0.23

Control Building and Compound 0.02

Turbine Bases 0.01

TOTAL LAND-TAKE 0.76

Temporary Construction Compounds 0.25

Temporary Laydown Areas 0.22

Table 4.2 Summary of Development Components

Development

Component

Dimensions Volume of

Construction

Material

Required Number

of Heavy Goods

Vehicles/

Abnormal Load

Vehicles

General Plant and

Equipment

Highways Connection

Works

n/a n/a 34

n/a n/a 28

Construction

Compounds

Length 50m x Width

50m x Depth 0.25m

(import and export)

1250m3 126

Access Tracks Length 786m x

Width 5m x Depth

0.6m

2358m3 excavated +

2358m3 imported =

4716m3 total

496

Crane Pads

Length 50m x Width

30m x Depth 0.65m

per turbine

2000m3 250

December 2010 33 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Geogrid Material n/a 80 rolls 4

Control

Foundation

Building

90m2 x Depth 0.5m

imported + 90m2 x

Depth 0.5m

90m3 15

Control Building

Materials/Equipment

n/a n/a 30

Electric Cabling n/a n/a 6

Sand n/a 160m3 20

Turbine

(Concrete)

Bases

480m3 per base x 2

bases

960m3 160

Turbine

(Excavation)

Bases

640m3 per base x 2

bases

1280m3 160

Turbine Bases

(Formwork and

Reinforcing Steel)

40 tonnes of steel

per base plus

formworks and

equipment

n/a 20

Waste from site,

service site welfare

and ancillary deliveries

Delivery and Removal

of Mobile Crane

n/a n/a 123

n/a n/a 10

Turbine Components n/a n/a 14

Base Rings 1 ring per turbine 2

Blade Hubs 1 hub per turbine 2

4.2.3 Detailed descriptions of the site and its surrounds are included in the relevant environmental

topic chapters. The site is an area of grassland located on the Isle of Sheppey within the

curtilage of Sheppey Prisons Cluster. The prison buildings, prominent in the local landscape,

lie to the north of the site and an operational sewage treatment works lies immediately to the

south forming part of the southern boundary. Beyond the prison complex to the north lies the

village of Eastchurch and beyond the sewage treatment works and southern site boundary lies

the Eastchurch Marshes which stretch down to the River Swale. The site and surrounding area

December 2010 34 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

are predominantly flat with the site itself sloping gently from north-east to south-west. Further

from the site the Holiday resort of Leysdown-on-Sea lies approximately 4km to the north-east

and the town of Minster lies approximately 3km to the north-west.

4.2.4 In terms of transport links to the site, the A429 is part of the national strategic highway network

and links the mainland to the Isle of Sheppey. The B2231 is the main east/west distributor and

links to Eastchurch, approximately 2.2km north of the site. Brabazon Road / Church Road

leads directly to the site centre from Eastchurch. To the north of the B2231, the A249 Brielle

Way leads towards Sheerness Port and to the south leads towards Sittingbourne and beyond

to the motorway network (M2).

4.2.5 In terms of the archaeology and cultural heritage, no previously unrecorded features were

noted during a site walkover. Some archaeological potential has been identified, principally for

buried salt-working sites or traces of more ephemeral twentieth century military structures.

4.2.6 There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments or Listed Buildings within the site, nor does any

part of the site lie within a Registered Park or Garden or Registered Battlefield, in whole or in

part. There are no Grade I Listed Buildings within 2 km of the site. One Grade II* and six Grade

II listed buildings are located within 2 km of the site. There are three Scheduled Ancient

Monuments within 5 km of the site. No Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields

or Heritage Costs are located within 10 km of the site. There are no Conservation Areas within

5 km of the site.

4.2.7 In landscape terms, the site is located within the grounds of HMP Standford Hill to the south of

the village of Eastchurch on the Isle of Sheppey. It is bordered by prison buildings to the north

and east and agricultural land to the south and west. The Sheppey Prison Cluster forms a

notable feature within the local landscape – situated on high ground above the Eastchurch

Marshes. The buildings formed part of the former military airfield and include hangers, a former

aircraft factory and various workshops as well as modern purpose built prison accommodation.

The former airfield buildings are in very poor condition, creating a sense of neglect to the site

area. To the south of the Site, the land is open and flat, the Eastchurch Marshes stretching

down to the edge of the River Swale. The marshland extends across the whole of the

southern half of the Isle of Sheppey, creating the opportunity for open views across to

Standford Hill from the southern banks of the River Swale to the south. The small village of

Eastchurch lies to the immediate north of HMP Standford Hill with the holiday resort of

Leysdown on Sea to the north east and the small town of Minster to the north west. Isolated

farm and residential properties are scattered across the countryside to the north, north east,

and north-west of the Site where the higher level farmland sits above the lower lying marshes.

4.2.8 In terms of ecological and ornithological interest near to the site, the proposed development

lies within 1.1 km of The Swale, which holds both international and national designations for its

ornithological interests. The Swale is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar

site and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

December 2010 35 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

4.3 Purpose and Objective

4.3.1 As identified in Chapter 1, the purpose of the scheme is the generation of electricity. The final

choice of turbines will follow a competitive tendering exercise, but if two 2.3MW turbines were

constructed they could together generate approximately 10.07GWh of renewable electricity per

year. This is equivalent to the amount of electricity used annually by approximately 2,203

average households and also equates to approximately 88% of the annual electricity

consumption of Sheppey Prisons Cluster. In addition, a wind energy development of this scale

could displace 4,332 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year. Section 6.5 provides the

basis for calculating the household energy, prison usage and CO 2 emission figures noted.

4.4 Candidate Wind Turbines

4.4.1 The final selection of a turbine type will be subject to a competitive tendering exercise following

the grant of planning permission (a diagram illustrating the structure of a typical wind turbine is

shown as Figure 1.4). The site has been designed to accommodate turbines of up to 3MW

installed generating capacity.

4.4.2 The EIA has been undertaken on the basis of a turbine of the horizontal axis type with a rotor

consisting of three blades, each approximately 41m in length. Figure 1.4 shows a typical wind

turbine of the type to be utilised at the site. The blades are mounted to the wind turbine

nacelle, at a height of approximately 80m, giving a maximum height to vertical blade tip of

121m. Accordingly, the landscape and visual assessment has been based on these

parameters. For the purposes of the noise modelling, the Enercon E82 2.3MW turbine has

been used. The turbine selected following the competitive tender period will be required to be

within the scale parameters noted above and comply with or perform better than the noise

performance characteristics of the turbine on which modelling has been based. Turbine

selection will ensure that the proposed development complies with noise limits set in

appropriately worded planning conditions accompanying any grant of permission.

4.4.3 Each turbine requires its own transformer to change the voltage to one that is appropriate for

transmission around the site. Transformers will typically be internally housed within turbine

nacelle or towers. Turbines will be designed to ensure they are not at risk should incidences of

flooding occur.

4.4.4 For the candidate turbine model, blades will rotate at approximately 6 to 18 revolutions per

minute, generating power for all wind speeds between approximately 4m/s and 34m/s (9-

76mph). At wind speeds greater than 34m/s (76mph) the turbines will shut down for selfprotection.

These very high wind conditions usually prevail only for about one per cent of the

year.

4.4.5 Table 4.3 identifies the expected grid reference of each of the proposed turbines. In

accordance with common practice, these locations are subject to minor change (as set out in

3.7.17 above) pending the results of detailed micro-siting investigations into aspects such as

ground conditions. In completing the technical assessments reported in subsequent chapters

December 2010 36 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

of this ES, account has been taken of the potential for this micro-siting in deriving the reported

assessment.

4.4.6 The desk based archaeological assessment has identified the potential for buried archaeology

within the site either from salt extraction (most likely Medieval or early post-Medieval) or more

recent 20th century military activities. It is anticipated that any such archaeological interest

would be confined to within small areas. The micro-siting allowances (as discussed in 3.5.20)

will enable slight adjustment to turbine locations and other elements so that any buried

archaeology may be avoided.

Table 4.3 Expected Turbine Grid Reference

Turbine no.

Grid ref.

1 597720, 169520

2 597930, 169230

4.4.7 All turbines are controlled by a „supervisory control and data acquisition‟ (SCADA) system,

which will gather data from the turbines and provide the facility to control them from a central

remote location. Communication cables connecting to each turbine will be routed in the

electrical cable trenches.

4.5 Electrical Connection

Off-site Grid Connection

4.5.1 The wind energy development is likely to be connected into the local 33kV distribution system.

Analysis and discussions with the relevant DNO, EDF Energy, indicate that connection can be

made at the Eastchurch Prison substation via approximately 1400m of cabling, connecting the

onsite control building to the substation, which is likely to be undergrounded running alongside

the access track and public highway (see Figure 4.8). The off-site grid connection will be

subject to a separate consenting regime should planning consent be gained for the wind

energy development.

Control Building

4.5.2 The wind energy development will be connected to the local electricity grid through suitable

switchgear to be installed in a small control building on site. The control building compound will

comprise a hard standing with maximum dimensions of 20m x 10m, and a single storey

building approximately 4m high and with a footprint of approximately 15m x 6m which will

house switchgear and metering, protection and control equipment and also welfare facilities.

Figure 4.4 provides an illustration of a control building compound. The proposed location of the

control building and compound is shown in Figure 1.3.

December 2010 37 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Electrical Connections On-Site

4.5.3 Wind turbines produce electricity at 690V which is typically transformed to 33kV (or an

alternative voltage required to allow grid connection) via the turbine transformers located inside

the tower or nacelle, or adjacent to turbine base.

4.5.4 Underground cables will link the turbines to the on-site control building. Detailed construction

and trenching specifications will depend on the ground conditions encountered at the time, but

typically cables will be laid in a trench 1,000mm deep and 400 to 1,200mm wide. To minimise

ground disturbance, cables will be routed alongside the access tracks wherever practicable

and if not, the total footprint of construction activity will be stated. Approximately 500m of cable

trenches will be required on-site to connect the turbines to the on-site control building. Figure

4.5 shows a typical cable trench detail.

4.6 Site Access

Off-Site Highway Access Works and Delivery Route

4.6.1 Due to the abnormal size and loading of wind turbine delivery vehicles, it is necessary to

review the public highways that will provide access to the site to ensure they are suitable, and

to identify any modifications required to facilitate access for delivery vehicles. A preliminary

Abnormal Load Access Review was therefore undertaken to review potential access routes

(included within Appendix 7.1).

4.6.2 The findings of this access study and the results from subsequent swept path analysis 6 led to

the identification of the preferred routes for construction traffic from either:

M2 Junction 5 > A249 > B2231 > Church Road/Brabazon Road > site

entrance; or

Port of Sheerness Garrison Road > A249 > B2231 > Church

Road/Brabazon Road > site entrance.

4.6.3 These routes were deemed to be suitable due to the lack of any over-riding structural

constraints. Additional review confirmed the feasibility of these routes subject to the

undertaking of certain accommodation works within the highway, such as the temporary

removal of traffic calming measures along Brabazon Road. These accommodation works will

be agreed in advance with the highway authority, and their possible effects have been

considered as part of the EIA process. Further details relating to the movement of traffic to and

from the site are reported in Chapter 7: Traffic and Transport.

6 Swept Path Analysis uses computer modelling to simulate the trafficking of abnormal loads at sections of roads where there

may be issues with the existing road geometry. The results give an indication of any remedial works required to accommodate

the delivery vehicles.

December 2010 38 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

On-Site Access

4.6.4 The access point to site will be directly off Brabazon Road as shown in Figure 1.3. Details of

the access junction including the design of visibility splays, signage and other elements will be

agreed with the highways department before submission.

Site Security

4.6.5 In order to ensure that the site would be secure during the operation of the proposed

development the following measures would be incorporated:

All turbines and transformer enclosure doors would be locked;

The wind turbines would be remotely monitored using a System Control

and Data Acquisitions (SCADA) system that would monitor the individual

turbines and would immediately detect any acts of vandalism that would

interfere with the operation of the site;

A wind energy development technician would make regular visits to the site

during normal working hours;

The control building would have metal security doors to prevent

unauthorised access; and

An intruder alarm would be installed in the control/switchgear building and

be connected to the remote control system.

4.7 Civil Engineering Works

Wind Turbine Foundations

4.7.1 The wind turbines are likely to be installed on reinforced concrete foundations, established on

suitable load bearing strata (following excavation) or on pilings depending on ground

conditions. Given the underlying geology identified at the turbine positions as being a

substantial depth of London Clay with an absence of superficial deposit cover, the proposed

type of foundation for the proposed development is reinforced concrete pad foundations.

Concrete foundations typically measure approximately 18m by 18m and reach a depth of

approximately 3m. Table 4.2 above provides indicative material volumes during construction

and indicates that approximately 1280m 3 of material will be excavated with 960m 3 of concrete

poured during the installation of the turbine bases. This will result in approximately 320 HGV

trips. Post-construction, they are usually hidden below the surface by ground restoration. A

working area around the concrete foundations would also be required to allow for the use of

shuttering during concrete pouring and for other construction activities. A typical turbine

foundation is illustrated in Figure 4.1.

December 2010 39 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Construction of Crane Pads

4.7.2 Each wind turbine requires an area of hard standing to be built adjacent to the turbine

foundation (see Figure 4.7). This provides a stable base on which to lay down turbine

components ready for assembly and erection and to site the two cranes necessary to lift the

components into place. The crane hard standing will be left in place following construction in

order to allow for the use of similar plant should major components need replacing during the

operation of the wind energy development. These could also be utilised during

decommissioning at the end of the wind energy development‟s life. The total area of hard

standing at each turbine location, including the turbine foundations and the crane pad, will be

approximately 1,125m 2 (25 x 45m). See Figure 4.7. Approximately a third of this area will be

dressed back with topsoil and landscaped into the surrounding area upon completion of turbine

erection.

4.7.3 Table 4.2 above indicates that approximately 2000m 3 of material will be brought to site during

the installation of both crane pads. This will result in approximately 250 HGV trips.

Site Access and On-Site Tracks

4.7.4 There will be one principal point of access to the site, off Brabazon Road as shown in Figure

1.3. A new junction will be constructed to accommodate general construction traffic (site staff,

plant and construction material deliveries) and turbine deliveries, and traffic management

systems put in place to ensure safe operation.

4.7.5 There are various factors and constraints that have influenced the track layout design including

those below.

Track length is kept to a minimum to reduce environmental impact,

construction time and material quantities;

Gradients are kept to less than 14% to accommodate the requirements of

delivery vehicles and also to allow construction plant to move safely round

the site;

Avoidance of sensitive ecological, archaeological and hydrological features

although the crossing of some minor water courses is likely;

Existing cable, pipe or electricity infrastructure is avoided; and

Use of suitable existing crossing /access points where possible.

4.7.6 Approximately 0.8km (0.5ha) of new access track will be constructed. The completed tracks

will generally be 5m wide, ranging from 350mm to 700mm in depth, assuming a CBR 7 of

7 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) - is an expression of subgrade strength, which is the principal factor in designing the track. In

designing the track the number of standard axles is also considered.

December 2010 40 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

between 1% and 3% (averaging at 1.5%), which is based on site observation. The location of

the site access roads are shown in Figure 1.3 and a typical track cross section is shown in

Figure 4.2.

4.7.7 Table 4.2 above indicates that approximately 2583m 3 of material will be excavated and

replaced with the same amount of fill material to install the access tracks. This will result in

approximately 496 HGV trips.

4.7.8 At bends, the tracks will widen as appropriate depending on bend radius and to a maximum of

approximately 13m. The edges of the tracks will be encouraged to re-vegetate after

construction, while maintaining a suitable width of approximately 5m for maintenance vehicles

throughout the operational period. All new tracks will be unpaved and constructed from

material sourced from off-site quarries.

4.7.9 The access tracks will bear directly onto the underlying strata. Should softer ground be

encountered, it may be necessary to increase the depth of the road locally. In order to reduce

the thickness of the general road construction, and hence reduce the quantity of imported

stone by up to 30%, a geogrid reinforcement layer will be incorporated into the road

construction.

4.7.10 Water crossings have been avoided in the site layout where possible. However, at the ditch

crossing immediately east of Turbine 1, a simple culvert type construction will be employed,

using a cross sectional area that will not impede flow of water (minimum 400 mm culverts

would be used). Design of culverts shall be to at least CIRIA Culvert Design Manual, Report

168.

4.7.11 The need for drainage will be established on site during construction through observation by

construction professionals. Immediately to the south of the site lies the nearest surface water

drainage channel which forms part of the Eastchurch Marshes drainage area. A drain runs

north east to south west between Turbine 1 and Turbine 2 flowing into this watercourse. The

majority of water draining from the site is likely to be via surface runoff to the watercourse to

the south of the site. Standard pollution prevention measures such as the installation of

drainage filters at appropriate locations to filter out sediment will be employed during

construction and decommissioning to prevent migration of sediment or potential contaminants

to surface water or groundwater systems. Further details of hydrological and hydrogeological

impacts are contained within Chapter 13 Ground Conditions and Hydrology.

4.7.12 Service crossings have been avoided wherever possible. Access track installation will require

the crossing of a water main which runs north east to south west in the south of the site and a

buried high voltage electrical cable which runs east to west to the north of Turbine 2. Service

crossings will be designed so as to ensure the continuing integrity of these services and in

consultation with the service providers.

Site Accommodation and Temporary Works

4.7.13 One temporary construction compound approximately 50m x 50m is proposed. The location is

shown on Figure 1.3. The construction compound will accommodate all the required welfare

December 2010 41 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

facilities. Other temporary fenced compound areas may be established on turbine cranage

areas as appropriate for security of plant in remote parts of the site. These will not require any

additional hard standing to that proposed for the cranage areas.

4.7.14 In addition, temporary component laydown areas will be installed at each turbine location

covering an area of 1,100m2 each. These will be reinstated following construction.

Stone and Concrete Requirements and Sourcing

4.7.15 Stone for site tracks, laydown areas, crane hard standings and cable trenches is expected to

be sourced from local quarries. Approximately 6,060m 3 of stone will be required.

4.7.16 In total approximately 740m 3 of concrete will be imported to site from ready mix plants for

construction of the turbine foundations and control building. In the unlikely event that on-site

batching is required, particular attention will be paid to the environmental impacts such as dust,

noise, run-off, and storage areas etc, though this would be dealt with separately with further

consultation with SBC and other statutory consultees as necessary.

4.7.17 As noted above, existing on-site tracks will be upgraded and utilised where possible in order to

minimise the amount of stone that is required to be imported to site.

4.8 Construction of the Wind Energy Development

Timetable of Events and Indicative Programme

4.8.1 The construction period for the wind energy development will last approximately 4 months and

will comprise the following activities:

Upgrading of existing tracks and construction of new access tracks and

passing places, inter-linking the turbine locations and control building;

Construction of new access junction;

Formation of site compound including hard standing and temporary site

office facilities;

Construction of crane hard standing areas;

Construction of culverts under roads to facilitate drainage and maintain

existing hydrology;

Construction of turbine foundations;

Construction of site control building;

Excavation of trenches and cable laying adjacent to site roads;

December 2010 42 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Connection of on-site distribution and signal cables;

Delivery and erection of wind turbines;

Commissioning of site equipment;

Site restoration.

4.8.2 Where possible, operations will be carried out concurrently (thus minimising the overall length

of the construction programme) although they will occur predominantly in the order listed. In

addition, development will be phased such that, at different parts of the site, the civil

engineering works will be continuing whilst wind turbines are being erected. Site restoration will

be programmed and carried out to allow restoration of disturbed areas as early as possible and

in a progressive manner.

4.8.3 An indicative programme for construction activities is shown in Table 4.4. The starting date for

construction activities is largely a function of the date that consent might be granted and

consequently the programme will be influenced by constraints on the timing and duration of

any mitigation measures confirmed in the individual technical chapters or by the planning

decision.

December 2010 43 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 4.4

Likely Construction Programme

December 2010 44 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Construction Works and Delivery Times

4.8.4 For the purposes of the EIA, construction activities have been assumed to take place between

07:00-19:00 hours on week days and 07:00 and 16:00 on Saturdays. Work outside these hours

is not usual, though may be required for delivery of turbine components using abnormal load

vehicles. It may also be necessary to meet specific demands (e.g. during foundation pours,

and some activities are highly weather dependent e.g. low wind speeds for turbine tower

erection). Permission for short term extensions to these hours would be sought from the

planning authority as required.

4.8.5 Quiet on-site working activities such as electrical commissioning have been assumed to extend

outside these times where required.

Working Practices

4.8.6 The project will be constructed in accordance with industry standard techniques and best

practice, and suitably experienced contractors will be appointed to design, construct and

commission the wind energy development. The construction works are expected to be

monitored by an independent Owner's Engineer, who will also liaise with the various

environmental and other advisers who will have input into the project.

4.8.7 A contractors‟ working area will be made available, and the location will be clearly delineated

on site to ensure that no unnecessary disturbance is caused to any sensitive areas.

4.8.8 Particular attention will be given to the storage and use of fuels for the plant on site. Drainage

within the temporary site compound, where construction vehicles will park and where any

diesel fuel will be stored, will be directed to an oil interceptor to prevent pollution if any spillage

occurred. Storage of diesel fuel will be within a bunded area or self-bunded tank in accordance

with the Environmental Agency pollution prevention guidelines.

4.8.9 The foundation concrete will be a high strength structural grade, which is not prone to the

leaching of alkalis.

4.8.10 A water supply will be provided at a suitable location should wheel-washing be necessary for

vehicles going off-site. Dust suppression will also be utilised if necessary.

4.8.11 All work will be undertaken to relevant Health and Safety legislation. The project will be

supervised in accordance with the revised Construction Design and Management Regulations

2007 (CDM). Risk Assessments will be undertaken for each work package prior to activities

taking place.

Dust and Air Quality

4.8.12 In the absence of appropriate mitigation, there would be potential for an increase in dust during

construction. Given the adoption of the environmental measures that are outlined below, it is

December 2010 45 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

not expected that the change in air quality in relation to dust will be significant. Air quality

effects arising from exhaust emissions from construction plant will also be insignificant.

4.8.13 As dust control measures form a well-established and effective measure of construction in

wind energy developments, the assessments undertaken within the ES proceed on the basis

that the dust mitigation measures will be in force rather than predicting and assessing likely

dust levels in the absence of these controls.

4.8.14 The main options for mitigation of dust effects that will be utilised as necessary are:

Adequate dust suppression facilities. These will include water bowsers with

sufficient capacity and range to dampen down all areas that may lead to

dust escape from the site;

Any on-site storage of aggregate or fine materials will be properly enclosed

and screened so that dust escape from the site is avoided. Adequate

sheeting will also be provided for the finer materials that are prone to „wind

whipping‟;

HGVs entering and exiting the site will be fitted with adequate sheeting to

cover totally any load that has the potential to be „wind whipped‟ from the

vehicle;

Wheel wash facilities for vehicles entering and exiting the site. Such

facilities will automatically clean the lower parts of HGVs by removing mud,

clay, etc from the wheels and chassis in one drive-through operation;

Good housekeeping or „clean up‟ arrangements so that the site is kept as

clean as possible, including daily inspections of the working areas and

immediate surrounds to ensure that any dust accumulation or spillages are

cleaned up as soon as possible; and

A site liaison person to investigate and take appropriate action where

complaints or queries about construction issues arise.

Construction and Operational Wastes

4.8.15 Any surplus topsoil material generated by excavation of foundations or from scraping back the

surface under access track routes is expected to be re-used to encourage re-vegetation or reuse

on the working areas. Some subsoil material may not be suitable for disposal in this way

and would be disposed off-site in line with relevant waste disposal regulations, most likely for

re-use as an inert fill material.

4.8.16 Construction waste is expected to be restricted to normal materials such as off cuts of timber,

wire, fibreglass, cleaning cloths, paper and similar materials. These will be sorted and recycled

if possible, or disposed of to an appropriately licensed landfill by the relevant contractor.

December 2010 46 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

4.8.17 Operational waste will generally be restricted to very small volumes of materials associated

with machinery repair and maintenance. It will be disposed of by the maintenance contractors

in line with normal waste disposal practices.

Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)

4.8.18 The potential presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO) has been considered during the design

process. The site is known to have been subjected to bombing during the Second World War.

NOMS have confirmed that, while some pieces of ordnance casing have been found within the

site in the past, there are no known instances of UXO. Prior to commencement of construction

activities, a protocol will be established and adopted regarding identification and treatment of

any UXO discovered during works.

4.9 Site Restoration After Construction

4.9.1 The main site restoration activity will occur at the edges of any working areas, principally

alongside access tracks, crane pads and turbine foundations. Most excavated material will be

disposed of around these locations, being used to dress back working areas to facilitate revegetation.

Existing vegetation will be scraped off and stored separately with the topsoil prior to

re-use as the top layer of any restored areas. This approach will maximise the potential for

natural re-vegetation from the seed bank. Vegetation and soils will be stored in accordance

with best practice. In the majority of cases (alongside tracks), restoration will occur within a few

days of the removal of vegetation, so desiccation will be unlikely.

4.10 Operation of the Wind Energy Development

Site Management

4.10.1 The operation of the wind turbines will be managed by a team of wind energy engineers whose

duties will include compliance with statutory environmental requirements. 2 The owner of the

site will ensure that all practices will be in accordance with documented environmental

procedures, which ensure compliance with applicable environmental legislation and best

practice

4.10.2 Where potential environmental hazards are identified, a site-specific risk assessment is

completed, and control measures implemented to ensure that the risks are minimised as far as

possible. For example, refuelling of contractors‟ plant is an area of potential risk to the

environment. The site owner will therefore ensure that in addition to oil being stored in

accordance with the Prevention of Pollution (Oil Storage) Regulations 2001, contractors will

have working procedures in place that consider the location of refuelling areas in relation to

environmental receptors, that physical protection is provided for areas at risk, and that fuel

deliveries and refuelling activities are monitored to minimise the risk of human error or

equipment failure.

December 2010 47 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

4.10.3 Effective communication underpins the whole system of environmental management, ensuring

that appropriate information passes between the site owner and the consultants and

contractors whom they engage. This ensures that environmental considerations are fully

integrated into the management of the wind energy development throughout construction, the

operation and maintenance of the completed project and ultimately to decommissioning.

Meteorological Effects

4.10.4 Although wind turbines are designed to stop generating at wind speeds over 34m/s, they are

built to withstand very high wind speeds, and are normally certified against structural failure for

wind speeds up to 60m/s (in excess of 120mph).

4.10.5 Lightning generally has no effect on turbines, though as with all structures there is a risk of

damage if hit directly by lightning. Turbines are fitted with a lightning protection system as part

of their design.

4.10.6 Snow does not generally pose problems other than for gaining access to the site. Occasionally

very heavy snow and ice may affect the aerodynamics of the turbine blades resulting in

temporary automatic shutdown. The candidate turbine has an ice detector on the roof of the

nacelle that measures outside temperature and relative air humidity. If pre-set values are

exceeded the blades are stopped by the control system of the turbine. After shutdown due to

icing, the turbine can only be restarted manually following on-site inspection to ensure that the

turbine blades are free of ice, thereby eliminating the potential for „ice-throw‟

General Servicing

4.10.7 Routine maintenance or servicing of turbines is carried out twice a year, with a main service at

12 monthly intervals and a minor service at 6 months. In year 1, there may also be an initial 3-

month service after commissioning. The turbine being serviced is switched off for the duration

of its service.

4.10.8 Teams of two people with a 4x4 vehicle would carry out the servicing. It takes two people (on

average) 1 day to service each turbine.

Extended Services

4.10.9 At regular periods through the project life, oils and components will require general

maintenance, which will increase the service time on site per machine. Gearbox oil changes

are required approximately every 18 months. Changing the oil and worn components will

extend each turbine service by one day. Blade inspections will occur as required (somewhere

between every 2 and 5 years) utilising a „Cherry Picker‟ or similar, but may also be performed

with a 50T crane and a man-basket. It could take up to 2 weeks to inspect both turbines.

4.10.10 Repairs to blades would utilise the same equipment. Blade inspection and repair work is

especially weather-dependent. Light winds and warm, dry conditions are required for blade

December 2010 48 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

repairs. Hence mid-summer (June, July and August) is the most appropriate period for this

work.

Unscheduled Operations

4.10.11 The following factors could have significant effects on the duration of unscheduled operations:

Weather-dependent crane operations;

Availability of spares;

Stage in component life cycle;

Track maintenance.

4.10.12 Frequency of track maintenance depends largely on the volume and nature of the traffic using

the track. Weathering of the track surface may also have a significant effect. Ongoing

maintenance will generally be undertaken in the summer months when the tracks are dry.

However, maintenance can be carried out as required.

Land Management

4.10.13 It is anticipated that land management practices will continue unaffected by the proposed

development.

Predicted Traffic Movements During Operation

4.10.14 Servicing of the operational turbines is typically undertaken by teams of two service engineers

utilising a four wheel drive vehicle. Servicing of each turbine would typically take 1 day and

therefore associated traffic movements would be negligible.

4.11 Decommissioning of the Wind Energy Development

4.11.1 The wind energy development is designed to have an operational life of 25 years. At this time,

the site will be decommissioned and the turbines dismantled and removed. Any alternative to

this action will require a new EIA and planning approval.

4.11.2 The bases will be broken down to below ground level and all cables cut at depth below ground

level and left in the ground. Roads will either be left for use by the landowner or covered with

topsoil. No stone will be removed from the site. The decommissioning works are estimated to

take six months. This approach is considered to be less environmentally damaging than

completely removing foundations and cables. Farming activities can then resume over the

foundations of the turbines.

December 2010 49 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

4.12 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

4.12.1 Numerous measures are proposed within this Environmental Statement both to mitigate

potential environmental effects and enhance environmental features on and near to the site. It

is expected that these measures will be captured within the consent description and any

associated conditions should the application be approved.

4.12.2 A range of measures that specifically relate to construction activities on-site are discussed

above in Section 4.8. These measures, and others relating to construction activities proposed

in later chapters (see, for example, Sections 8.6, 11.6 and 13.6), will be implemented through

the Construction Method Statement. As discussed in Section 7.6, measures that relate to

effects associated with vehicle movements during construction of the development will be

implemented through the Traffic Management Plan.

4.12.3 Other mitigation and enhancement measures are proposed in relation to the topics considered

in each of the chapters that follow. These measures are summarised in Table 4.5, and detailed

in the appropriate chapter.

Table 4.5 Summary of Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

Chapter/Topic

Chapter 7: Traffic and Transport

Chapter 8: Noise

Proposed Mitigation/Enhancement Measure

All proposed mitigation measures will be contained

within the Traffic Management Plan. No

enhancement measures are planned.

Mitigation measures with regard to construction

and decommissioning noise will be included within

the Traffic Management Plan and/or Construction

Management Plan.

In relation to operational noise, final turbine

selection would enable the relevant ETSU-R-97

noise limits to be achieved at the surrounding

properties. The installed turbines will operate in

line with noise limits set out within any conditions

forming part of a planning consent.

Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual Effects

Management of construction/decommissioning

activities to minimise both landscape and visual

effects during these periods.

No mitigation measures have been identified as

part of the operational phase of development.

Chapter 10: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Micro-siting will allow avoidance of unknown buried

archaeological remains. In addition proportionate

recording, assessment, analysis, archiving and

reporting will be conducted.

December 2010 50 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Chapter 11: Ecology and Nature Conservation

Bats

Habitat close to the site will be managed keeping

grass lengths short to reduce foraging

opportunities. Addition of enhanced bat habitat to

the north of the site plus gapping up of existing and

introduction of new hedgerows to provide foraging

habitat away from the turbines. Installation of bat

boxes in woodland north of the site and

enhancement of an existing hibernation site within

a disused bunker.

Reptiles

Prior to construction and outside the hibernation

period, suitable habitat will be stripped under the

supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist.

Provision of species rich grassland habitat to

enhance the area for reptile populations.

Hedgerows

Introduction of new hedgerow and gapping up of

existing low quality hedgerow on site.

Figure 11.5 provides details of proposed mitigation

and enhancement measures.

Chapter 12: Ornithology

General

Should construction activities occur within the

breeding season (March to August inclusive) a

range of checks and measures will be adopted.

Vegetation clearance works will not be undertaken

during this period unless a survey by an

appropriately qualified ornithologist has shown

active nests to be absent immediately prior to the

start of works.

Marsh Harrier

As best practice adoption of a management regime

keeping grass to a short sward to discourage

Marsh Harrier activity throughout the year.

Repeated cuts in the key May-June period so that

foraging would be unproductive for raptors.

A monitoring protocol will be agreed with the RSPB

and Natural England and implemented that will

provide additional data that will allow further

understanding of the interaction between wind

turbines and birds.

December 2010 51 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Chapter 13: Ground Conditions and Hydrology

Construction practices to minimise effects on water

quality and run-off to be included within the

Construction Management Programme.

Design of turbines and infrastructure to ensure risk

of flooding is minimised.

Chapter 14: Shadow Flicker

Supporting Statement (Annex A)

Shadow flicker protocol to investigate and measure

effects to be designed and agreed with NOMS and

approved by SBC prior to operation of the

proposed turbines.

Digital Television signals will be assessed in

advance of the turbines becoming operational.

Problems with television reception as a result of

the proposed development will be investigated and

rectified through such measures as the upgrade of

TV aerials or the installation of cable or satellite

receivers.

December 2010 52 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 53 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

5 Planning Policy Overview

5.1 Introduction and Overview

5.1.1 As stated previously, this ES forms part of a suite of documents that supports the planning

application for the HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development. The authority dealing with

the planning application will use all of this information to make a decision in accordance with

relevant policies in the adopted development plan unless other material considerations

indicate that a different decision should be made.

5.1.2 It is not the intention of this chapter to assess the proposal against relevant national and local

plans and policies, as this is covered in the separate Planning Statement submitted with this

application. However, it is useful to provide an overview of the relevant policies that have

been considered, to ensure that any secondary environmental effects caused through impacts

on site specific or local policies are recognised.

5.2 The National Policy Framework

5.2.1 The Government has published a series of advice notes entitled Planning Policy Guidance

Notes (PPGs) and, more recently, Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) which set out the

approach that the Government expects to be taken on a wide range of planning issues. The

following are relevant to the HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development proposal.

UK Renewable Energy Strategy

5.2.2 This Strategy was produced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in 2009, in

order to set out the role that everyone has to promote renewable energy. This document

explains the strategy for how the ambitious targets relating to renewable energy will be met.

This document illustrates that onshore wind has a significant role to play in ensuring that the

dependence upon non-renewable forms of electricity generation is reduced. The strategy

then discusses the onus placed upon various sectors in order to ensure that renewable

energy electricity generation can continue to increase. This includes requirements upon the

planning system to ensure that expedient decisions are made in an efficient fashion.

PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development

5.2.3 PPS1 sets out the framework of the national guidance and provides the basis for the

Government's approach to sustainability. This advice sets out as one of its key principles the

need for the development plan system to contribute to global sustainability by, amongst other

things, promoting the development of renewable energy resources. The use of renewable

energy is also set out as an environmental issue which policies in development plans need to

assess as part of the mitigation of effects of, and adaptation to, climate change. It appears

December 2010 54 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

again under the section on the prudent use of natural resources. On the integration of

sustainable development, PPS1 stresses the need for the protection of the environment to be

addressed in the context of this prudent use of natural resources. The aim of the

sustainability concept is to help to provide for necessary development in ways which do not

compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

PPS22 - Renewable Energy

5.2.4 PPS22 confirms that the development of renewable energy, alongside improvements in

energy efficiency and the development of combined heat and power technology will make a

vital contribution to the aims of the national energy policy set out in the 2003 White Paper.

Increased development of renewable energy sources is thus seen as essential to the delivery

of the commitments on climate change, and PPS22 goes on to state that positive planning

which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to all four elements of the

Government‟s strategy on sustainable development. A key change of approach in the

planning context is the stress that is laid on promoting and encouraging renewable energy

developments rather than taking a restrictive approach to them. Also stressed is the need to

take into account the much wider benefits that have to be weighed, both environmental and

economic, as opposed to the more local environmental issues. PPS22 requires that a criteria

based policy approach should be used and advises against using any kind of sequential

approach to site selection or the use of buffer zones around designated landscape areas.

The PPS stresses the importance of setting and meeting targets for renewable energy

development on a regional and sub-regional basis and highlights that meeting a target is not

sufficient reason for refusing further permissions for renewable proposals.

5.2.5 On landscape and visual effects, PPS22 acknowledges that all wind proposals are likely to

have significant landscape and visual effects, but points out that the impact of wind turbines

will vary depending on the scale of the development and the type of landscape involved. It

also points out that these impacts may be temporary; as such sites are capable of being

decommissioned. On noise, PPS22 formally advises that the 1997 report by ETSU for the

DTI should be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development. This has been

the case for some time in Scotland (under the advice in PAN45).

5.2.6 PPS22 also has a Companion Guide, which provides practical advice on how to implement

the policies contained within PPS22, and is intended to provide regional and local decision

and policy makers‟ assistance in understanding the complex issues involved in renewable

energy developments. The Companion Guide discusses the various types of benefits

resulting from renewable energy development, and provides examples and case studies to

support the lists. It goes on to discuss issues perceived at a regional and local level and

development control issues. it should be noted that this became somewhat outdated with the

abolition of Regional Plans and, although the High Court Decision of October 2010 has

effectively re-instated the regional plans, the intention of the Government remains to abolish

all RSS. Information is then provided on the types of renewable energy technologies

available, and how these may be appropriately installed within the built environment. In

relation to onshore wind energy, the Companion Guide provides information on all

components of the development and expected outputs.

December 2010 55 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

5.2.7 PPS7, for the first time in key Countryside guidance, makes reference to renewable energy.

Objective four of the five objectives for Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in preparing Local

Development Documents and making planning decisions is to:

(iv) Provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources in

accordance with the policies set out in PPS22.

5.2.8 PPS7 goes on to deal with local landscape designations, and here it indicates that there

should be sufficient protection under criteria-based policies, based on such tools as

landscape character assessment, to avoid the need for rigid local designations that may

unduly restrict acceptable sustainable development and important economic activity in rural

areas. In the present case, the HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development is not located

within any landscape designations (see Section 9.4).

Other Guidance

5.2.9 A series of PPGs and PPS‟ dealing with other specific topics also need to be taken into

account on a project of this type. For example, PPS9 on Biodiversity and Geological

Conservation which provides relevant advice on how issues relating to nature conservation,

flora and fauna should be addressed.

5.2.10 PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation identifies habitat protection as the key to the

conservation of wildlife and setting out the range of designations which have been applied to

sites of different potential importance. However, it also stresses that wildlife interests depend

on the wise use and management of all of the land resources and that nature conservation

interests should be taken into account wherever relevant to the decision-making process.

5.2.11 Other relevant PPS‟ and PPGs dealing with other specific topics that need to be taken into

account on a project of this type include the following:

PPS5 – on Planning and the Historic Environment which provides advice

on how impacts upon the historic environment should be considered and

avoided in the planning system;

PPG8 - on Telecommunications advises on the potential for disturbance to

television and other telecommunications signals, and the need to

investigate possible engineering solutions to such matters;

PPG17 - on Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation and

supporting the advice on Tourism in terms of enhancing the rights of way

network in the countryside;

PPG21 - providing Government advice on Tourism and setting out the

aims and the balances that ought to be achieved. These include

maximising the economic and employment benefits that tourism can bring,

December 2010 56 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

and promoting the geographical and seasonal spread of tourism to include

non-traditional destinations, against the need to safeguard the

environment and the needs of the industry and its customers. This

guidance is currently being reviewed;

PPS23 on Planning and Pollution Control states that the precautionary

principle should be adopted when determining applications that may have

a polluting affect. It also states that the relevant pollution control authority

should be satisfied any releases from a development can be adequately

regulated and that account be taken of existing sources of pollution around

the site so that the cumulative effects do not make the situation

unacceptable;

PPG24 - providing general Government advice on noise, but in practice

the particular characteristics of wind turbines have led to the need for the

definition of more detailed advice on how noise should be measured and

controlled. Indeed, the need for this parallel advice was foreshadowed in

PPG22 which pointed out that the then advice in BS4142:1990 on noise

affecting mixed residential and industrial areas might not be appropriate.

As a result, the Department of Trade and Industry8 set up a Working

Group on Noise from Wind Turbines, and its report in 1997 (ETSU-R-97)

provided a detailed set of methods for the measurement of wind turbine

noise and conditions for controlling it. PPG24 is currently under review,

and will ultimately be replaced by PPS24. The report of the Working

Group (ETSU-R-97) is now recommended for use by PPS22 as noted

above;

PPS25 on Development and Flood Risk sets out Government policy on

development and flood risk. Its aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken

into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate

development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away

from areas of highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally,

necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe, without increasing

flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, reducing flood risk overall. The

current version of PPS25 classifies wind turbine development as essential

infrastructure, which can be permitted in any flood zone subject to

implementation of the Sequential Test and, where necessary, the

Exception Test.

Policy guidance on tourism is contained in Good Practice Guidance on

Planning for Tourism, published by the Department of Communities and

Local Government (DCLG) in July 2006. This sets out the general

principles for planning on tourism, which are to maximise the benefits of

8 The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform now undertakes the functions of the DTI (which no longer

exists).

December 2010 57 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

tourism, identify optimal locations, to integrate development with its

surroundings and to avoid adverse effects from developments. The

guidance also identifies that, in rural areas, tourism can be a key element

of diversification, can help to revitalise market towns and villages, can

support important rural services and facilities and can underwrite

environmental schemes and improvements to the built and natural

environment.

5.3 Development Plan

5.3.1 The Government remains fully committed to the plan-led system, given statutory force by

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

5.3.2 Under the provisions of the Act, development plans provide a framework for rational and

consistent decision-making. They also provide a system which enables the whole Community,

businesses, other organisations and the general public, to fully participate in the shaping of

planning policies and land use for their area.

5.3.3 The „start point‟ for decision makers is to consider the compliance of a proposal against the

Development Plan taken as a whole. Plans often have policies tailored specifically to control

certain kinds of development and such policies should carry more weight and be more

dominant in the minds of decision maker.

5.3.4 Any effect of these proposals on local policy relating to specific environmental topics is

identified in the relevant chapter and considered in detail in the Planning Statement that

accompanies this ES.

Swale Borough Local Plan

5.3.5 The SBC Local Plan was adopted in February 2008. As the Local Development Framework

is currently in production and thus not yet adopted, it is the local plan which provides the

relevant policies against which the proposal should be assessed.

5.3.6 Part 1 of the Local Plan includes a Core Strategy which provides a series of strategic policies

intended to provide the basis for the more detailed policies in the subsequent chapters of the

plan.

5.3.7 Policy SP1 seeks to secure development which accords with the principles of sustainable

development. The policy encourages environmental enhancement and the avoidance of

damage to the natural environment. In addition the policy promotes ways to reduce energy

and water use and an increased use of renewable resources.

5.3.8 Policy SP2 seeks to enhance and protect special features of the visual, aural, ecological,

historical, atmospheric and hydrological environments of the Borough. The policy goes on to

state that developments should avoid adverse environmental impact, but where there remains

an incompatibility between development and environmental protection, and development

December 2010 58 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

needs are judged to be the greater, the Council will require adverse impacts to be minimised

and mitigated.

5.3.9 Policy SP6 states that to meet the needs of those living, working or investing in the Borough,

planning policies and development proposals will ensure that sufficient infrastructure is

available to overcome existing deficiencies and facilitate development. In particular, they will,

amongst other things, permit well planned and coordinated renewable energy schemes.

5.3.10 Within the supporting text to this policy, at paragraph 2.65, the Council recognises that

„demands for energy to be generated from renewable resources will increase in the next few

years. It goes on to state that these developments will be supported but will need to be

carefully planned, located, and co-ordinated to avoid piecemeal provision and environmental

impacts.

5.3.11 Part 2 of the Local Plan sets out the development control policies that the Borough Council

will use when considering development proposals. Development proposals will need to

accord with these policies for them to be acceptable to the Council, unless other material

considerations indicate otherwise.

5.3.12 While the Local plan has many policies in place to control the impacts of development, the

most relevant and therefore dominant policy in place, is Policy U3 ‘Renewable Energy’

which is positively worded and provides support in principle for all renewable energy

proposals. The policy is reproduced below.

„The Borough Council will permit proposals for renewable energy schemes

where they demonstrate environmental, economic and social benefits and

minimise adverse impacts. Before planning permission is granted, the

Borough Council will consider such matters as:

„The contribution to the regional requirements for renewable energy;

The likely decommissioning requirements and the ability to ensure

restoration of the site;

The availability of alternative, potentially more beneficial sites, especially

those involving previously developed land;

Power transmission requirements;

Potential electromagnetic interference;

Noise generation, air emissions and odour; and

The contribution to enhancing landscape and built character and nature

conservation interests.‟

5.3.13 There are other policies within the Local Plan which are considered to be relevant to the

assessment of this proposal, these policies are outlined in Table 5.1 below.

December 2010 59 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 5.1 Relevant Policies Contained within the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Policy Summary Relevant ES Chapter

Policy E1 - General

Development Criteria

This general development control policy

seeks, amongst other things, to ensure

that development does not cause

demonstrable harm to residential amenity

and other sensitive uses or areas and

also seeks to protect and enhance the

natural environment.

Chapters 9 Landscape and

Visual Effects, 11 Ecology

and Nature Conservation, 12

Ornithology, 8 Noise and 14

Shadow Flicker.

Policy E2 – Pollution

Requires that developments minimise and

mitigate pollution impacts, including

impacts upon, amongst other things,

water courses and surface and ground

waters, noise and air pollution.

Chapter 13 Ground

Conditions and Hydrology,

Chapter 8 Noise and Chapter

4 Description of the

Proposed Development.

Policy E4 -

and Drainage

Flooding

Seeks to secure developments in

appropriate locations where impacts on

flooding and drainage are acceptable.

Chapter 13 Ground

Conditions and Hydrology

Policy E6 - The

Countryside

Seeks to protect and, where possible

enhance, the quality, character and

amenity value of the wider countryside

within the borough.

Chapter 9 Landscape and

Visual Effects

Policy E9 - Protecting

the Quality and

Character of the

Borough‟s Landscape

Seeks to protect, and where possible

enhance, the quality, character and

amenity value of the borough‟s wider

landscape. Special protection is afforded

to designated areas as set out in the

policy and within the countryside and rural

settlements criteria are set out requiring

developments to consider landscape

character and quality and minimise

adverse impacts on it.

Chapter 9 Landscape and

Visual Effects

December 2010 60 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Policy E11 – Protecting

and Enhancing the

Borough‟s Biodiversity

and Geological Interests

Policy E13 – The

Coastal Zone and

Undeveloped Coast

Policy E14 –

Development Involving

Listed Buildings

Policy E15 –

Development affecting a

Conservation Area

Policy E16 – Scheduled

Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological sites

Policy E17 – Historic

Parks and Gardens

Seeks to maintain biodiversity and

geological conservation interests within

the borough. The policy sets out

requirements where there is potential for a

development to adversely impact on

biodiversity or geological interests

including the need for site evaluation and

for proposals to include measures to

avoid adverse impacts wherever possible.

Seeks to limit development to within

defined areas or where derelict or

despoiled land would be enhanced.

Where development is required outside of

the built up area, proposals will be

required to protect, conserve and, where

appropriate enhance landscape,

environmental quality and biodiversity.

Seeks to protect Listed Buildings and their

settings.

Seeks to preserve or enhance the special

character of the Borough‟s Conservation

Areas

Seeks to protect Scheduled Ancient

Monuments and archaeological interest

and their settings.

Seeks to protect Historic Parks and

Gardens from adverse effects.

Chapters 11 Ecology and

Nature Conservation, 12

Ornithology and 13 Ground

Conditions and Hydrology

Chapter 9 Landscape and

Visual Effects, Chapter 11

Ecology and Nature

Conservation and Chapter 12

Ornithology

Chapter 10 Archaeology and

Cultural Heritage

Chapter 10 Archaeology and

Cultural Heritage

Chapter 10 Archaeology and

Cultural Heritage

Chapter 10 Archaeology and

Cultural Heritage

Policy RC7 -

Lanes

Rural

Policy RC7 states that development will

not be permitted that would either

physically, or as a result of traffic levels,

significantly harm the character of rural

lanes

Chapter 7 Traffic and

Transport and Chapter 9

Landscape and Visual

Effects

December 2010 61 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Policy T1 – Providing

Safe Access to New

Development

Local Plan Policy T1 states that

developments which generate traffic

volumes in excess of the capacity of the

highway network and/or result in a

decrease in highway safety will not be

permitted. Furthermore, the policy seeks

to secure acceptable access

arrangements to new developments.

Chapter 7 Traffic and

Transport

Policy U1 -

Development

Servicing

Deals with off-site improvements to

utilities required as part of a development.

The Policy places the onus on developers

to undertake improvements or provide a

financial contribution to them.

Chapter 4 Description of the

Proposed Development

Policy U4 - Placing

Services Underground

Seeks to ensure that services, including

electrical cables are placed underground.

Chapter 4 Description of the

Proposed Development

Swale Borough Local Development Framework

5.3.14 Swale Borough Council is in the process of producing a new style Local Development

Framework which will, when adopted replace the currently adopted Local Plan. The plan is in

the early stages of production, with the Council currently preparing the Core Strategy. This

will contain the overarching strategy for future development of the Borough to which all

subsequent planning documents must conform. The Core Strategy will cover the period up to

2026 and will include a vision and strategic objectives, a spatial strategy, core policies,

strategic development sites and a framework for monitoring and implementation

5.3.15 As the plan is still in the early stages of production there are no draft or adopted policies to be

considered.

The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East, The South East Plan

5.3.16 The Kent and Medway Structure Plan ceased to be part of the adopted Development Plan

upon the adoption of the South East Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy) in May 2009. The

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government confirmed on 6 th July 2010 the

revocation of all Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS). However, the High Court has ruled that

revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies was unlawful. The effect of the High Court decision

is to re-establish RSS as part of the development plan. However, it must be noted that the

new Localism Bill, which is expected to begin its passage through Parliament before the end

of 2010, will abolish RSS. The Governments intention to abolish RSS is a material

consideration when determining planning applications.

December 2010 62 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

5.3.17 The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East, The South East Plan, contains a number of

renewable energy policies of relevance to the assessment of this proposal and is discussed in

detail within the Planning Statement that accompanies this ES.

5.4 Conclusions

5.4.1 The proposed development will be assessed against the policies within the Development Plan

with particular regard to the provisions of Policy U3 Renewable Energy. The Development

Plan contains a number of other relevant policies to ensure that potential adverse effects

upon the environment are minimised and appropriately considered in development proposals.

Due regard to the RSS and national planning policy in the form of PPG‟s and PPS‟ will also

be required.

December 2010 63 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

6 Climate Change Mitigation and Other Atmospheric

Emissions

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 An important justification for the development of wind turbines is their production of energy

with minimal associated emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This

chapter considers the effect of the proposed HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

on the mitigation of climate change, and includes calculations of expected energy yield and

associated avoidance of carbon dioxide emissions.

6.2 Policy Background

6.2.1 The EU and UK governments have recently published significant amounts of new policy and

legislation to support the urgent and pressing need to reduce carbon emissions. In brief

these are:

EU Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from

renewable sources, where the UK has committed to sourcing 15% of its

energy from renewable sources by 2020 – an increase in the share of

renewables by almost a factor of seven from about 2.25% in 2008, in

scarcely more than a decade;

The Climate Change Act 2008 introduced a statutory target of reducing

carbon emissions by 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, with an

interim target of 34% by 2020. Government departments will prepare

carbon budgets to indicate how greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced

across the Government estate and in sectors where departments take a

policy lead;

The Low Carbon Transition Plan and the Renewable Energy Strategy

were both published in July 2009 set out how the UK will achieve dramatic

reductions in emissions and meet targets on renewables. This plan

identifies key responsibilities for government departments and agencies in

achieving the plan objectives;

The Renewable Energy Strategy states that 5.5% of electricity currently

generated within the UK is from renewable sources, but that it could be

closer to 30% with two-thirds of that total coming from onshore and

offshore wind developments 9 . This report also contains a diagram,

9 The Renewable Energy Strategy, HM Government, July 2009.

December 2010 64 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

reproduced at Figure 6.1, that illustrates the mix of technologies required

in order to meet the 2020 target stated above. This shows that onshore

wind is a large and critical component of meeting this scenario, which is

based on meeting the UK‟s international obligations.

Figure 6.1 Illustrative Mix of Technologies in Lead Scenario, 2020 (TWh)

6.2.2 These policies are implemented through the planning system in the following ways:

National Policy Statements (consultation drafts) on Energy:

o

EN-1 overarching planning policy for major energy infrastructure;

EN-3 technical annex specific to renewable energy projects

>50MW capacity.

Planning Policy Statements (England):

o

PPS1 Supplement Planning and Climate Change;

PPS22 Renewable Energy;

Consultation draft PPS1 supplement: Planning for a Low Carbon

Future in a Changing Climate (reviewing and consolidating PPS1

Supplement: Planning and Climate Change and PPS22:

Renewable Energy).

December 2010 65 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

6.3 Methodology

6.3.1 There is no specific guidance or policy for evaluating the effects of renewable energy

schemes on climate change and energy generation. Therefore the approach that has been

adopted combines a quantitative evaluation of the operational benefits of the scheme, in

terms of the level of electrical generation anticipated and the reduction in level of emissions of

CO 2 from wind energy compared with that from the typical generation mix, with a qualitative

assessment of the significance of this contribution towards meeting regional targets.

6.3.2 The average household electricity usage is derived by dividing the domestic annual electricity

usage figure provided by the Digest of UK Energy Statistics figure of 122,543,000kwh

(http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/source/electricity/dukes5_1_2.xls) by the

number of households in the UK - 26,625,800

(http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/publications/ecuk/269-ecuk-domestic-2010.xls

(table 3.3). This gives an average household electricity useage figure for the UK of 4,602kWh

per annum (122,543,000kwh/26,625,800 = 4,602)

6.3.3 The conversion of this to a level of CO 2 emissions avoided is made by combining the

expected average annual generation of electricity from the site with a level of emissions

avoidance per kWh. The CO 2 avoidance level used is that endorsed by the Advertising

Standards Authority in September 2008 based on the assumption that the energy generated

by the wind turbines displaces Combined Cycle Gas Turbines and an average mix generation

of 430gCO 2 /kWh.

6.3.4 The level of CO 2 emissions avoided is dependent on the scale of the scheme proposed. The

evaluation of the benefit is presented in terms of the scheme output relative to current

regional renewable energy generation targets and a subjective professional judgement

applied as to whether that constitutes a significant effect.

6.4 Predicted Effects of the Scheme

Renewable Electricity Generation

6.4.1 The average household electricity usage is derived by dividing the domestic annual electricity

usage figure provided by the Digest of UK Energy Statistics figure of 122,543,000kwh

(http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/source/electricity/dukes5_1_2.xls) by the

number of households in the UK - 26,625,800

(http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/publications/ecuk/269-ecuk-domestic-2010.xls

(table 3.3). This gives an average household electricity useage figure for the UK of 4,602kWh

per annum (122,543,000kwh/26,625,800 = 4,602)Taking into account the candidate turbine

for the site, it is expected that the two proposed 2.3MW turbines could generate

approximately 10GWh of renewable energy per year (based on a capacity factor of 25%).

These figures are derived as follows:

December 2010 66 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

4,600 kW (2 x 2.3 MW turbines) x 8,760 hours/year x 0.25 (capacity factor) = 10,074,000

kWh.

6.4.2 Based on the 4,602kWh average UK household consumption figure and the assumption that

the wind energy development annual output is 10,074,000kWh, it is estimated that the yearly

output from the wind energy development will be equivalent to the approximate domestic

needs of 2,190 average households in Britain.

Reductions in Atmospheric Emissions of CO 2

6.4.3 It is widely accepted that electricity produced from wind energy has a positive benefit with

regard to reducing CO 2 emissions. In estimating the actual saving, it is important to consider

the mix of alternative sources of electricity generation, for example coal powered and gas

powered, and there has been much debate about the amount of CO 2 emissions that could

potentially be saved as a result of switching to wind generation. In September 2008, the

Advertising Standards Authority endorsed a figure of 430gCO 2 /kWh, based on the

assumption that the energy generated by the wind turbines displaces Combined Cycle Gas

Turbines and an average mix generation (430gCO 2 /kWh). On this basis, and on the

assumption that the wind energy development annual output is 10,074,000 kWh, a wind

energy development of this scale is expected to avoid approximately 4,332 tonnes of CO 2

emissions per year being emitted to atmosphere. These figures are derived as follows:

10,074,000 kWh (output) x 430gCO 2 /kWh/ 1,000,000 = 4,330 tonnes CO 2

CO2 Payback

6.4.4 In addition to the above, carbon payback calculations are typically now completed for wind

energy developments that are being proposed on afforested land or on areas of peat. It is not

considered necessary to complete a specific carbon payback calculation for the development

of the HMP Standford Hill site as there will be no wholesale change in land use, no reduction

in woodland cover, nor any substantive change in drainage or other vegetation cover as a

result of the development proposal. Thus there is an absence of any substantive change in

carbon balance on site (with the exception of the embedded carbon that would be common

within any form of electricity generation).

Renewable Energy Production on a Regional Basis

6.4.5 The Regional Spatial Strategy renewable energy target for the South East of England was

420 MW („at least‟ 420MW, as implied by PPS22) until the plan was revoked on 06 July 2010.

The High Court ruling of October 2010 has reinstated regional plans as part of the

development plan although it must be noted that the intention of the Government remains to

abolish all RSS. Of this, 170MW was to comprise onshore wind. Therefore, the proposed

4.6MW scheme at Standford Hill has the potential to meet approximately 2.7% of the target of

onshore wind energy generation in the South East of England region.

December 2010 67 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

6.4.6 The amount of renewable energy developments currently installed in the South East of

England region equates to 352.8MW. Onshore wind developments equate to 95MW which is

either installed or under construction. Therefore, ~84% of the overall regional renewable

energy target has been achieved; and ~56% of the onshore target has theoretically been

achieved. The development at HMP Standford Hill equates to ~6% of the target remaining for

onshore wind.

6.5 Predicted Significant Effects of the Scheme

6.5.1 In summary, it can be concluded that the energy generated by the proposed wind energy

development could supply the equivalent energy need of a significant number (approximately

2,203) of homes and would have a substantial positive effect on reducing CO 2 emissions. In

addition, the proposed wind energy development has the potential to meet a sizeable

proportion of the wind energy generation target for the South East of England region (2.7% of

the target). In the 2001 census, the population of the area within Swale Borough was 122,801

and the total number of households was 49,257. Therefore the development could produce

enough electricity to supply approximately 4.5% of the households in the Swale Borough

Council area.

6.5.2 This is considered a positive effect that is significant in terms of the EIA regulations.

6.6 Cumulative Effects

6.6.1 Potential cumulative effects have been considered, however no further cumulative effects

have been identified.

6.7 References

Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES) 2010, DECC (2010),

(http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/publications/dukes/348-dukes-2010-printed.pdf),

accessed 29/9/10.

England‟s Regional Renewable Energy Targets: Progress Report

(http://www.bwea.com/pdf/publications/RRETProgressReport.pdf, last accessed 10/08/10 at 14:46)

December 2010 68 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 69 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

7 Traffic and Transport

7.1 Introduction and Overview

7.1.1 This chapter examines the environmental effects of traffic generated by the proposed

development. The appraisal considers a number of criteria against which impact from

construction traffic estimates are evaluated. This focuses on the presence or otherwise of

sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the construction traffic route. A separate document, an

Abnormal Loads Access Review by Tarmesar Traffic Consultants Ltd (November 2009) is

included in Appendix 7.1 and should be read in conjunction with this chapter.

7.2 Methodology

7.2.1 The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), formerly the Institute of

Environmental Assessment (IEA) has prepared “Guidelines for the Environmental

Assessment of Road Traffic” (IEA 1993) which sets out the following recommended list of

environmental impacts which could be considered as creating potentially significant effects

whenever a new development is likely to give rise to changes in traffic flows:

severance;

driver delay;

pedestrian delay and amenity;

accidents and safety;

hazardous loads; and

fear and intimidation.

7.2.2 The assessment of the environmental impacts of traffic requires a number of stages, namely:

determination of existing and forecast traffic levels and characteristics;

determining the time period for assessment;

determining the year of assessment; and

identifying the geographical boundaries of assessment.

7.2.3 Traffic flows before and after the proposed development are quantified in terms of peak hour

and daily traffic movements. The issue of severance can be pertinent to times associated

with the start and finish times of local schools.

December 2010 70 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

7.2.4 Traffic flow data has been provided for the construction period by the project managers for the

proposals. In terms of assignment of vehicle movements to the network, an option remains for

the abnormal loads as to whether these will arrive via Sheppey Crossing of Sheerness Port

and so the worst case assessment is assumed whereby both routes are used. In reality a

decision on the route to be used would be taken post permission.

7.2.5 In accordance with the IEMA Guidelines, the following rules-of-thumb are applied to delimit

the scale and extent of the assessment:

Rule 1 - Include highway links where traffic flows will increase by more

than 30% (or the number of HGVs will increase by more than 30%).

Rule 2 - Include any other sensitive areas where traffic flows have

increased by 10% or more.

Impact Significance

7.2.6 The significance of an effect is determined by the interaction of two factors:

The magnitude, scale or severity of the impact or change;

The value sensitivity of the environmental resource being affected.

7.2.7 The significance of levels of traffic change vary depending upon the environmental impact

criteria being considered e.g. severance or driver delay. Reference is made to the IEMA

Guidelines on each criterion. Reference is made to the Highways Agency‟s Design Manual

for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Vol II Section 2 Part 5 HA205/08 – Determining Significance

of Environment Effects in terms of definition of measure of magnitude and significance of

effect.

7.2.8 As set out in paragraph 4.5 of the IEMA Guidelines:

“For many effects there are no simple rules or formulae which define

thresholds of significance and there is, therefore, a need for interpretation

and judgement on the part of the assessor, backed up by data or quantified

information wherever possible.”

7.2.9 A series of tables are produced below, describing in turn how the following are defined within

this chapter:

Sensitivity of receptor (Table 7.1);

Magnitude of impact (Table 7.2);

Description of significance categories (Table 7.3); and

Quantified significance of effect (Table 7.4).

December 2010 71 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 7.1 Environmental Value (or Sensitivity) and Typical Descriptors

Value (sensitivity)

High

Medium

Low

Negligible/None

Typical Descriptors

Close proximity to schools, colleges, accident black-spots

Close proximity to congested junctions, hospitals, community centres,

conservation areas

Close proximity to public open space, nature conservation areas,

residential areas with adequate pavements

Receptors of low sensitivity

Table 7.2 Magnitude of Impact and Typical Descriptors

Magnitude of Impact

Typical Criteria Descriptors

Loss of resource and/or quality and integrity of resource; severe

damage to key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).

Large

Medium

Small

Negligible/None

Large scale or major improvement of resource quality; extensive

restoration or enhancement; major improvement of attribute quality

(Beneficial).

Loss of resource, but not adversely affecting the integrity; partial loss

of/damage to key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).

Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, features or elements;

improvement of attribute quality (Beneficial).

Some measureable change in attributes, quality or vulnerability; minor

loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features

or elements (Adverse).

Minor benefit to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristics,

features or elements; some beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced

risk of negative impact occurring (Beneficial).

Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics,

features or elements (Adverse).

Very minor benefit to or positive addition of one or more characteristics,

features or elements (Beneficial).

December 2010 72 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 7.3 Descriptors of the Significance of Effect Categories

Significance

Category

Substantial

Moderate

Slight

No Effect

Typical Descriptors of Effect

These beneficial or adverse effects are considered to be very important

considerations and are likely to be material in the decision making

process

These beneficial or adverse effects may be important but are not likely to

be key decision making factors. The cumulative effects of such factors

may influence decision making if they lead to an increase in the overall

adverse effect on a particular resource or receptor.

Their beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors. They

are unlikely to be critical in the decision making process, but are

important in enhancing the subsequent design of the project.

No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal

bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.

December 2010 73 TNEI Services Ltd

MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT (DEGREE OF

CHANGE)

Large

Medium

Small

None

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 7.4 Arriving at the Significance of Effect Categories

ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE (SENSITIVITY)

High Medium Low

Negligible/

None

Very

Substantial

Slight or

Moderate

No Effect

Substantial Moderate Slight No Effect

Moderate

Slight

Negligible/

Slight

No Effect

No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect

Significant Effect in Terms of EIA Regulations

7.2.10 Impacts assessed as substantial or moderate are considered to be „Significant‟ in terms of the

EIA Regulations. These are shaded in Table 7.4.

7.2.11 Table 7.13, included at the end of this chapter, provides a summary of residual impacts

associated with construction traffic of the proposed development.

Severance

7.2.12 Severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it becomes

separated by a major traffic route. Whilst the IEMA Guidelines refer to the effect of traffic on

severance of 30%, 60% and 90% changes producing “slight”, “moderate” and “substantial”

changes in severance respectively, it is suggested that caution be applied to relying on these

quantums of change. The assessment of severance pays full regard to specific local

conditions, in particular, the location of pedestrian routes to key local facilities and whether

crossing facilities are provided or not.

7.2.13 The significance of effects due to severance has been assessed utilising the percentage

changes set out in the IEMA Guidelines and in line with Table 7.4.

December 2010 74 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Driver Delay

7.2.14 Traffic delays to non-development traffic can typically occur:

at site entrances where there will be additional turning movements; and

on the highways on which construction traffic routes where there may be

additional flow;

7.2.15 Values for delay are based upon an interpretation of the local highway link capacity

expressed in terms of predicted flows compared with the theoretical maximum link flow.

7.2.16 Environmental driver delay impact is not measured in terms of proximity to physical sensitive

receptors, but in terms of the likely extent of congestion. Where road closures are required,

the level of inconvenience is considered a proxy for congestion. The IEMA Guidelines infer

that assessor judgement is required to evaluate the extent of magnitude of impact and hence

when effects are significant. This is then applied in line with Table 7.4.

Pedestrian Delay and Amenity

7.2.17 The development will bring about increases in the number of construction vehicle movements.

In general, increases in traffic levels are likely to lead to greater increases in delay to

pedestrians seeking to cross a given road. The IEMA Guidelines recommend that rather than

rely on thresholds of pedestrian delay the assessor should use judgement to determine

whether pedestrian delay, is a significant effect. In broad terms, a tentative threshold for

judging the significance of changes in pedestrian amenity would be where the traffic flow (or

its HGV component) is doubled. The significance of effects due to pedestrian delay or

amenity has been assessed utilising the percentage changes set out in the IEMA Guidelines

and in line with Table 7.4.

Road Safety

7.2.18 The Personal Injury Accident (PIA) record for the local highway network has been obtained

from KCC for the most recently available 5 year period. The IEMA Guidelines suggest that

reference is made to national statistics in terms of relative likely increase or decrease of

accidents resulting from changes in traffic flow. As such comparison with typical accident

rates along similar sections of highway network is made with reference to DMRB Manual

Volume 13, Section1, Chapter 4. The significance of effects due to highway safety has been

assessed using magnitude of traffic increase and existing accident record data and hence in

line with Table 7.4.

Fear and Intimidation

7.2.19 Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic presents thresholds at which

total traffic flow or HGV flow represents likely levels of fear and intimidation. Narrow footways

December 2010 75 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

and the movement of hazardous loads can heighten people‟s perception of fear and

intimidation. Moderate levels of fear and intimidation are associated with hourly flows of 600

– 1200 vehicles and daily HGV flows of 1000 – 2000.

7.2.20 The significance of effects due to fear and intimidation has been assessed utilising these

threshold levels set out in the IEMA Guidelines and in line with Table 7.4.

7.3 Baseline Information

Sources of Data

Existing Traffic Flows

7.3.1 It was agreed with Kent County Council (KCC) that data was presented for Church

Road/Brabazon Road and for B2331 Lower Road to the west of Norwood Quarry,

Brambledown. KCC required that base data be no more than two years old and that the

Lower Road count should be presented both during the school term and school holiday

periods to allow a review of seasonal impact. Finally, it was requested that committed

development traffic in the form of the HMP Swaleside Extension as set out in a Jacobs

Transport Assessment (TA) (July 2008) be added to base traffic flows. For the strategic

network, data is taken from the Traffic Information Database (TRADS).

7.3.2 As such the following data is relied upon:

Brabazon Road Automated

Traffic Count (ATC) (11-20 July

2009)

- Source KCC

Lower Road ATC (9-18 July

2010)

Lower Road ATC (3-10 August

2010)

- Commissioned by DTA

HMP Swaleside Extension - Source Jacobs TA (July 2008)

Table 5-1

A249 Brielle Way (June &

August 2010)

A249 Sheppey Crossing (May &

August 2010)

- Source TRADS database

7.3.3 Raw data is included in Appendix 7.2.

December 2010 76 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

7.3.4 Background traffic growth is applied to the 2009 observed data. TEMPRO is a modelling tool

designed to allow users to look at the growth in trip ends, using actual and forecast data

supplied by the Department for Transport (DfT). This growth can be illustrated in terms of

geographical area of interest, the modes of transport of interest; the time of day of interest;

and by the base and future years of interest. TEMPRO allows users to look at the growth in a

number of ways and also includes the National Transport Model (NTM) Traffic Growth

Calculation functionality.

7.3.5 The NTM Traffic Growth Calculation is based on the DfT Road Transport Forecasts 2008.

These are the most recent published based on a base year 2003 model to cover the period

up to 2025.

7.3.6 In accordance with current guidance the TEMPRO v5.4 datasets were used. The study area

was defined as Swale which is a subset of the Kent and South East areas respectively.

7.3.7 For the interrogation of the TEMPRO database the growth rates for “car drivers only” were

selected with the trip end type being defined as “origin/destination”. Trip rates were obtained

for the “AM peak 0700-09.59”, the “PM peak 16.00-18.59” and “Average Weekday Period”.

Once the trip rates had been calculated, an adjustment was applied to provide a local growth

rate. An NTM growth calculation for a rural minor road network was weighted to each

TEMPRO growth rate, and the following growth rates derived.

7.3.8 Rates applied to derive a 2010 existing set of flows and to a 2013 base set of flows to

coincide with the anticipated construction period are set out in Table 7.5.

Table 7.5 Background Traffic Growth Rates

AM peak PM peak Average Weekday

2009-2010 1.0045 1.0044 1.0050

2010-2013 1.074 1.073 1.075

Existing Highway Safety

7.3.9 Personal Injury Accident data for the local highway network has been obtained from Kent

County Council. The data was collected for a period of 5 years up to 31/03/2010. Details of

the accident records are included in Appendix 7.2.

Current Conditions

Strategic Highway Network

7.3.10 Vehicular access to the Isle of Sheppey is taken from the A249 which is part of the national

strategic highway network and falls under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency.

December 2010 77 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Connection to the Isle is via the four lane Sheppey crossing road bridge opened in May 2006.

Pedestrians and cyclists use the almost adjacent lifting bridge.

7.3.11 To the north of the B2231, the A249 Brielle Way is a wide single carriageway road leading

towards Sheerness Port. To the south the A249 is dual carriageway connecting south towards

Sittingbourne and beyond to the motorway network (M2).

Local Highway Network

7.3.12 The site is accessed via Brabazon Road which also serves the adjacent HMP Swaleside

buildings. Brabazon Road is a straight 6m wide single carriageway road subject to a 15mph

speed limit. The route is traffic calmed with speed humps and cushions. There are a number

of minor access roads on either side leading to prison buildings and car parks. The site and

the local road network is shown on Figure 7.1.

7.3.13 To the north, Brabazon Road leads into Church Road, which again is a straight 6m wide

single carriageway road. There are a number of minor access roads on either side leading to

privately owned residential properties.

7.3.14 Church Road connects into the wider highway network at a 4-arm roundabout, approximately

800m to the north of the site. The other arms of roundabout comprise the B2231, which is the

main east/west distributor route across the Isle of Sheppey, and Church Road to the north

leading into Eastchurch.

7.3.15 There are two principal routes from Eastchurch to the A249 Sheppey Crossing. The most

direct of these is the B2231 Lower Road. This route has only a limited number of dwellings

and businesses fronting onto it. The alternative route is the B2008. This route is longer and

passes through almost continually built-up areas including the community of Minster.

7.3.16 The Applicant commissioned a route assessment report (Appendix 7.1), which confirms the

B2231 to provide the most suitable road on which to route site related traffic.

7.3.17 The section of the B2231 closest to the site is approximately 8m wide and forms the

Eastchurch Bypass (Rowetts Way). Whilst the immediate B2231 approaches to the

roundabout are subject to a 30mph speed limit, to the west, the link is quickly subject to a

50mph limit.

7.3.18 Moving westwards, the B2231 forms a further roundabout with High Street, before adopting

the characteristics of a generally 6m wide single carriageway over a 6km section before

joining the A249 to the north of the Sheppey Crossing.

7.3.19 The B2231 Lower Road is mainly subject to national speed limit control, although the road is

subject to two sections of 40mph speed limit in the Brambledown area and in the area

between the approaches to Barton Hill Drive and Thistle Hill Way.

December 2010 78 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

7.3.20 The road is predominantly rural in nature, unlit and with thin grass verges but limited kerbing.

Where either residential or occasional business premises front onto B2231, then most of

these areas coincide with short sections of footway of variable width.

7.3.21 There is one traffic signal junction and one roundabout between the High Street and the

A249. There are also 2 central splitter islands on the route, which restrict the running

carriageway in each direction. These are located between Barton Hill Drive and Thistle Hill

Way; and just to the east of Thistle Hill Way. Anti-skid road surfacing is provided on most of

the approaches to junctions on the B2231.

7.3.22 Base traffic data for 2010 is presented for each of the local and strategic roads on which

construction traffic will route before it disperses further onto the wider strategic network.

Tables 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8 set the base traffic levels out for the AM peak, PM peak and Daily (12

hour) weekday hours including development traffic levels predicted for the HMP Swaleside

Extension.

Table 7.6 AM Peak Base Traffic Flows (2010)

Existing AM HMP Swaleside Extension Base AM

Brabazon Road

Northbound

(0800-0900)

Brabazon Road

Southbound

(0800-0900)

Lower Road

Eastbound

School Term

(0700-0800)

Lower Road

Westbound

School Term

(0700-0800)

Lower Road

Eastbound

School Holiday

(0700-0800)

Lower Road

Westbound

School Holiday

(0700-0800)

Total

Vehicles

HGVs

49 10

2-Way

Total

326

Total

Vehicles

HGVs

0 0

2-Way

Total

20

Total

Vehicles

HGVs

49 10

277 21 20 0 297 21

444 21

914

20 0

20

464 21

470 20 0 0 470 20

514 24

820

20 0

20

534 24

306 22 0 0 306 24

2-Way

Total

(HGV %)

346

(9.0%)

934

(4.4%)

840

(5.7%)

December 2010 79 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 7.7 PM Peak Base Traffic Flows (2010)

Brabazon Road

Northbound

(1600-1700)

Brabazon Road

Southbound

(1600-1700)

Lower Road

Eastbound

School Term

(1600-1700)

Lower Road

Westbound

School Term

(1600-1700)

Lower Road

Eastbound

School Holiday

(1600-1700)

Lower Road

Westbound

School Holiday

(1600-1700)

Existing PM HMP Swaleside Extension Base PM

Total

2-Way Total

2-Way Total HGVs

Vehicles HGVs Total Vehicles HGVs Total Vehicles

458 13

499

29 0

29

287 6

41 8 0 0 34 4

410 12

917

0 0

29

410 12

507 18 29 0 536 18

432 12

Figures expressed in vehicles

1062

0 0

29

432 12

630 20 29 0 659 49

2-Way

Total

(HGV %)

528

(1.9%)

946

(3.2%)

1091

(5.6%)

Table 7.8 Daily Base Traffic Flows - Local Highway Network (2010)

(0700-1900)

Brabazon Road

Northbound

Brabazon Road

Southbound

Lower Road

Eastbound

School Term

Lower Road

Westbound

School Term

Lower Road

Eastbound

School Holiday

Lower Road

Westbound

School Holiday

Existing Weekday Daily HMP Swaleside Extension Base Weekday Daily

2-Way Total

2-Way ** Total

HGVs Total Vehicles HGVs Total Vehicles HGVs

Total

Vehicles

1555 102

100 0

1655 102

3133

200

1578 110 100 0 1678 110

4499 197

0

100 0

200

4599 197

4818 211 100 0 4918 211

4857 205

9797

100 0

200

4957 205

4940 244 100 0 5040 244

2-Way

Total

(HGV %)

3333

(6.4%)

9517

(4.3%)

9997

(4.5%)

Figures expressed in vehicles

** The source data gave only peak period movements, so these figures are consultant estimates

December 2010 80 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

7.3.23 The traffic data identifies that the local peak network periods are between 0700-0800 and

1600-1700. The Jacobs TA refers to some seasonal Sunday peaks between April and

August coinciding with the Leysdown car boot fair. Weekend daily flows are broadly

equivalent to the weekday flows.

7.3.24 The traffic flows for Brabazon Road demonstrate particularly exaggerated peak periods during

the hours identified above which coincide with prison shift changes. Peak directional traffic

during these periods represents approximately 25-30% of the total daily traffic flow.

7.3.25 Daily Traffic flows for the strategic highway network, A249 have also been collated and are

summarised in Table 7.9.

Table 7.9 Daily (0700-1900) Base Traffic flows – Strategic Highway Network

Location

A249 Sheppey

Crossing – Southbound

(School Term)

A249 Sheppey Crossing –

Southbound

(School Holiday)

A249 Sheppey Crossing –

Northbound

(School Term)

A249 Sheppey Crossing –

Northbound

(School Holiday)

A249 Brielle Way

(School Term)

A249 Brielle Way

(School Holiday)

Base 12 Hour flow

Total HGV

13442 1234

14003 1154

13179 1152

13813 1279

11150 1474

12059 1396

7.3.26 The traffic data illustrates that traffic volumes on each of the roads assessed, in either

direction, are well within typical capacity for the respective road types. Based upon DMRB

TA46/97 (Vol. 5 Section 1 Part 3) each single carriageway road could carry in the order of

1,300 vehicles each hour in each direction, and two lane dual carriageways around 34,000

vehicles per day per direction.

7.3.27 The Jacobs TA cites an earlier document prepared by the same company in 2007 which

demonstrates that the local highway links and junctions would have spare capacity at least up

until 2017. There are no reasons to conclude that these findings will have changed in the

ensuing period.

7.3.28 Table 7.10 and Figure 7.1 shows a summary of the Personal Injury Accidents which occurred

within the study area.

December 2010 81 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 7.10 Summary of Personal Injury Accidents by Link (5 year period to 31/03/10)

Road

Name

B2231

Between

A249 &

Church

Rd

E4030

Brabazon

Rd &

Church

Road

Slight Serious Fatal Total

%

Driver

Error

%

Rear

End

%

Pedestrian

%

Motor

cycle

%

Cycle

42 6 2 50 28% 40% 4% 6% 6% 6%

1 2 0 3 67% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0%

%

HGV

B2231 Lower Road

7.3.29 In total, 50 personal injury accidents occurred on the B2231 during the last five years on a

section of road just under 7 km long. Of these, 42 were of slight severity, 6 serious and 2

fatal. A significant proportion of accidents were due to driver errors or rear end collisions

which accounted for 68% of all accidents. Each junction along the route is characterised by a

cluster of accidents which reflects a typical pattern of incidence. The first recorded fatal

accident was caused by a motorcyclist who was on the wrong side of the road without reason.

The second involved a failed overtaking manoeuvre, with a vehicle overtaking a line of traffic.

Neither are attributable to the layout or geometry of the highway with driver error responsible

for both.

E4030 Church Road

7.3.30 In total 3 personal injury accidents occurred on Church Road within the last five years; 1 of

which was of a slight severity and 2 of a serious severity. One accident involved a pedestrian.

Accident Summary

7.3.31 Comparison with typical accident rates along a B road similar to B2231 Lower Road is made

with reference to DMRB Manual Volume 13, Section1, Chapter 4. This indicates that based

upon observed traffic volumes, 43 accidents would typically have been expected on this

section of the B2231. Of these 1 would typically be fatal, 7 serious and 35 slight. The

combined fatal/serious accidents (8) are therefore equivalent to that recorded on the B2231,

with accidents in total 16% higher.

7.3.32 The B2231 therefore, displays a typical pattern for fatal/serious accidents, although a worse

than typical overall accident record characterised by increased numbers of slight accidents.

The majority of accidents are attributable to driver error.

December 2010 82 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

7.3.33 A similar DMRB comparison to that undertaken for the B2231 would indicate around 7-8

accidents would typically be expected over the 5 year period on Church Road/Brabazon

Road. Church Road/Brabazon Road displays a better than typical accident record.

Sensitive Receptors

7.3.34 The route from the site to Sheppey Crossing is not heavily populated and as such there are

not a high number of sensitive receptors. There are a number of residential properties along

the route, but these are relatively small in number and only a handful served without adequate

footway provision. There are no schools, hospitals or prominent areas of open space or retail

activity.

7.3.35 Similarly, the route from Sheerness Port to the B2231 Lower Road is not heavily populated

with a significant number of these sensitive receptors. As a route to the Port, it is a strategic

highway and HGVs are already commonplace on the route.

Information Gaps

7.3.36 There are no known information gaps in the preparation of this chapter.

7.4 Predicted Significant Effects of the Scheme

7.4.1 The construction methodology for the turbines is described in detail in Chapter 4. Traffic

estimates have been provided by the scheme project managers. These numbers have been

assessed assuming that all excavated material has to be removed from the site. If the

construction period is extended, the number of daily/monthly vehicle movements would

reduce accordingly.

7.4.2 It is envisaged that the working day will extend from 0800 – 1800 on weekdays and 0800 -

1300 on Saturdays. It is acknowledged however that abnormal loads may well be transferred

outside of these hours.

7.4.3 The construction vehicle movements comprise “normal” construction HGV movements and

“abnormal” load movements for the turbine and crane components.

7.4.4 The specific arrangements of abnormal vehicle movements will be established via a separate

Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to be prepared and agreed post planning with the highway

authorities. For the purposes of this appraisal, the abnormal vehicle movements are added to

both potential routes so that impact is fully considered.

7.4.5 The normal HGV construction movements will all route via A249 Sheppey Crossing. The

summarised construction related vehicle movements are set out below in Table 7.11.

December 2010 83 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 7.11 Estimated Vehicle Numbers Associated with Construction period.

Site Construction Vehicles

Based on all

Excavated Spoil removed from Site

Activity Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4

Normal Loads (HGVs)

Site established and plant

mobilisation

Construct access tracks

Construct crane pads

Excavate turbine base

Construct turbine base

Highway connection works

Control building

Cabling works

Waste from site

Service site welfare and ancillary

deliveries

Demobilise site compound and

restoration

Abnormal Loads (HGVs)

Crane transportation to site

Turbine components to site

80

500

15

2

8

24

200

160

200

28

30

4

8

24

50

8

24

8

24

80

5

12 6

TOTALS

Total HGV

Daily HGV

Daily staff

Daily Total

Flows are one-way movements

629

31

10

654

33

10

99

5

10

118

6

10

41 43 15 16

7.4.6 To summarise therefore, Daily HGVs would peak in Month 2 at an average of 33 normal

construction HGVs per day (equivalent to 66 two-way movements), coinciding with 10 staff

vehicles (20 movements) per day.

7.4.7 In Month 3, this total would reduce significantly, but would include up to 17 abnormal crane or

turbine component movements across the month (34 two-way movements) which will be

considered in detail within the TMP.

7.4.8 As such the impact appraisal set out in this chapter considers both Month 2 and Month 3

operations.

Traffic Assignment

7.4.9 All traffic will route to and from the site along the B2231 Lower Road and Church

Road/Brabazon Road. Further afield, all normal HGV movements will route via the A249

Sheppey Crossing. It is yet to be established whether abnormal loads will route via the A249

December 2010 84 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Brielle Way to Sheerness Port, or via the A249 Sheppey Crossing. Both routes are part of the

strategic highway network, and designed to cater for port-related HGV traffic.

7.4.10 In terms of appraisal therefore, the following impact scenarios are considered:

All normal and abnormal construction traffic via Church Road/Brabazon

Road, B2231 Lower Road and beyond to the A249 Sheppey Crossing.

All abnormal construction traffic via Church Road/Brabazon Road, B2231

Lower Road and A249 Brielle Way to Sheerness Port.

Increase in Traffic Flows

7.4.11 The highest level of vehicular site movements takes place in Month 2. The resulting changes

in traffic flow compared with base daily traffic movements in the anticipated year of

construction (2013) are set out in Table 7.12, with background traffic growth from 2010-13

applied as set out in Table 7.5.

Table 7.12 Change in Vehicle Flows (2013) – Peak Activity (Month 2)

Location

Church Road/ Brabazon

Road

Lower Road

(School Term)

Lower Road

(School Holiday)

A249 Sheppey

Crossing – Southbound

(School Term)

A249 Sheppey Crossing –

Southbound

(School Holiday)

A249 Sheppey Crossing –

Northbound

(School Term)

A249 Sheppey Crossing –

Northbound

(School Holiday)

A249 Brielle Way

(School Term)

A249 Brielle Way

(School Holiday)

Base 12 Hour flow Peak Construction

Generated Flow

Percentage

Change

Total HGV Total HGV Total HGV

3583 228 86 66 2.4% 28.9%

10231 439 86 66 0.8% 15.0%

10747 483 86 66 0.8% 13.7%

14450 1327 43 33 0.3% 2.5%

15053 1241 43 33 0.3% 2.7%

14167 1238 43 33 0.3% 2.7%

14849 1375 43 33 0.3% 2.4%

11986 1585 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

12963 1501 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

7.4.12 During Month 3, the total level of site vehicular movements reduces, but is characterised by a

number of abnormal loads. In terms of abnormal loads across the month, this could

constitute 5 deliveries relating to crane components (10 vehicle movements) and 12 deliveries

December 2010 85 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

relating to turbine components (24 vehicle movements). The means by which access is

achieved is discussed within an Abnormal Loads Access Review included within Appendix

7.1. The specific transportation will depend upon ultimate choice of turbine manufacturer and

will be the subject of post planning permission agreements with the highway authorities

culminating in the production of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP). Both routes, namely via

Sheppey Crossing and Sheerness Port have been investigated with all relevant consultees

and permission granted by each as set out in the schedule in Appendix 7.2.

7.4.13 Traffic generated during the operational phase of the proposals is expected to be far lower

than during the construction phase. Typically, it could be expected that 6-10 vehicles per

month might visit the site (i.e. 12-20 two-way vehicle movements per month). As such at an

average of less than 1 per day, this will have no effect in environmental traffic terms.

7.4.14 Traffic generated during the decommissioning phase is difficult to predict at this stage with

confidence. There is no likelihood that traffic flows would be higher than during the

construction period and this can be controlled by condition in terms of the requirements for a

subsequent traffic appraisal report to support the details of the decommissioning process as it

becomes necessary.

7.4.15 Having established the level of additional traffic on the adjacent highway network in Table

7.12 this section considers the impact of such traffic against the main criteria set out in IEMA

Guidelines.

7.4.16 Overall, the proportional level of traffic change generated by the proposals is modest, and is

also low in absolute terms. The percentage changes of total traffic range between 0.8% and

2.4% on the local network, and significantly lower again on the strategic network.

7.4.17 In IEMA terms, Lower Road is not a specifically sensitive area and hence the increase

between 13.7 % and 15.0% of HGVs during the busiest month (Month 2) is well within the

relevant threshold for further appraisal (30%).

7.4.18 The change in HGV flow on Church Road/Brabazon Road is 28.9%. This is sufficiently close

to the 30% threshold to require further detailed consideration and would be the only section,

in screening terms that would require such consideration. Nonetheless, comment is made

below considering each section of the identified routes with effects assessed in line with Table

7.4.

7.4.19 In highway terms, the level of traffic forecast is low and will be within the physical capacity of

the routes involved. There are sections of carriageway which are likely to require minor works

to accommodate the abnormal loads. This will be dealt with through agreement with the

highway authorities and incorporated in the TMP, and are identified within the Abnormal

Loads Access Review report.

7.4.20 Whilst the impact of HGV flows will not be material in highway capacity terms, it is likely that

the additional traffic will nonetheless be noticeable to local residents on Brabazon

Road/Church Road and Lower Road. The construction period is programmed to last

approximately 4 months and so the impact period is temporary.

December 2010 86 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Driver Delay

7.4.21 The IEMA Guidelines note that driver delay is only likely to be significant when the traffic on

the highway network is at or close to the capacity of the system. Each of the roads considered

within the chapter are well within operational capacity levels and Church Road itself is lightly

trafficked, with short term increases in and around the prison staff shifts. Only on Church

Road does the level of HGV change approach the 30% rule of thumb for appraisal. There will

be no significant effect on driver delay as a result of the proposals during Month 1 or 2. During

Months 3 and 4, the abnormal load movements are likely to require short term road closures

or contraflow measures which are likely to lead to either slow moving vehicles affecting

drivers or short term diversions. This will be agreed as part of the TMP. In this instance,

where road closures are required, the level of inconvenience is a proxy for congestion. Whilst

details of closures are not yet known, these are considered to be low in terms of sensitivity

and small in terms of magnitude as closures will be programmed to minimise impact. As such

the resulting impact is of slight significance, hence not significant in terms of EIA

Regulations.

Severance

7.4.22 The increase in total traffic flows of less than 3% on Church Road and less than 1% on Lower

Road are less than the 30% threshold contained within the IEMA Guidelines and will therefore

result in effects on severance which are negligible and not significant.

Pedestrian Delay

7.4.23 IEMA refer to a threshold for judging the significance of changes in pedestrian delay which

would be where the traffic flow (or its HGV component) is doubled. Given that neither event is

forecast, it is concluded that the proposals will not have a significant effect on pedestrian

delay.

Pedestrian Amenity

7.4.24 Given the site location and the surrounding area, the demand for pedestrian movement is

generally low. A tentative threshold for judging the significance of changes in pedestrian delay

would be where the traffic flow (or its HGV component) is doubled. Given that neither event is

forecast, it is concluded that the proposals will not have a significant effect on pedestrian

delay.

Fear and Intimidation

7.4.25 The IEMA Guidelines identify indicative levels of traffic and HGV flows at which point Fear

and Intimidation is considered to be notable. These levels are not reached either before or

after the construction traffic is added. Neither the hourly total vehicle flow threshold nor the

hourly HGV flow threshold identified in the IEMA Guidelines are triggered by the proposals.

December 2010 87 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

This together with the low sensitivity of the local network combines to conclude that effects

are considered to be negligible and therefore not significant.

7.4.26 It is recognised that larger loads tend to increase the perception of fear and intimidation.

However, abnormal loads would be accompanied by escort vehicles. Notwithstanding the

inherent safety benefits, this is considered beneficial in minimising any intimidation which may

result.

Highway Safety

7.4.27 The review of local highway safety has identified that Church Road has a better accident

record than would typically be expected, whereas Lower Road experiences a worse than

typical record. Only 6% of the accidents on Lower Road involved HGVs, which is

proportionate with the level of traffic. This demonstrates that the route is not a

disproportionately hazardous route for HGVs. Comparisons made with national statistics give

rise to the conclusion that the forecast increase in traffic flows during construction is not

expected to cause a significant increase in the frequency or severity of accidents. Given the

low or negligible sensitivity and low magnitude, it is concluded that the proposals will not

have a significant impact on highway safety.

Hazardous Loads

7.4.28 No hazardous loads are expected. With regard to abnormal loads, the escorted movement of

large items will be managed in consultation with the relevant highway authorities and police.

As a result of the subsequent slow vehicle speeds involved, the impact of abnormal loads as

a result of construction is considered to result in no significant effects.

7.5 Mitigation Measures

7.5.1 This appraisal does not in itself identify the need for any mitigation measures during the

construction period beyond those to be covered by the TMP. This will also be informed by the

Abnormal Loads Access Review prepared and submitted with the application. This document

identifies a series of localised carriageway widening and temporary street furniture removal.

The TMP will cover:

Route Management Strategy;

Localised highway works; and

Local population liaison.

7.5.2 As part of the TMP it is recommended that a protocol be introduced for careful driving of

HGVs past any grouping of residential frontage properties and a protocol for residents to

report bad driving.

December 2010 88 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

7.5.3 Other mitigation measures typically employed include:

Highways reinstating planning condition;

Carriageway cleaning planning condition;

Construction compound parking;

Minimalisation of import and export material where feasible;

Use of appropriate road signage to confirm haul route details;

Restriction on HGV traffic movements at sensitive periods of the day; and

Consideration of appropriately timed road closures to facilitate abnormal

loads.

7.6 Assessment of Residual Significant Effects

7.6.1 The transport impacts of the proposals are confined to the construction period and are

expected to be low in sensitivity and magnitude as well as being short term. The construction

period is identified as approximately 4 months, with Month 2 representing the peak level of

movements and Months 3 and 4 containing the movement of abnormal loads. In overview, no

significant effects have been identified arising from the construction traffic. Mitigation will

come in the form of the proposed TMP, a document that will be monitored, reviewed and

updated as appropriate during the construction period in consultation with the relevant

authorities.

7.6.2 Once the TMP measures are taken into consideration, it is concluded that the only residual

effect relates to driver delay bought about as a result of road closures or contraflows to

transport the abnormal loads during Months 3 and 4. This impact is short term, will be highly

managed and can be programmed to such times of day as to minimise any impacts or

inconvenience. The effects are therefore considered to be slight and not significant.

7.7 References

Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (Institute of

Environmental Management) 1993

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol 11, Section 2, Part 5 HA205/08

Personal Injury Accident data – obtained from Kent County Council

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol 13, Section 1, Chapter 4

HMP Swaleside Extension Transport Assessment prepared by Jacobs consultants

(July 2008)

December 2010 89 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Local Traffic Data obtained from Kent County Council

Traffic Information Database (also known as TRADS) operated by the Highways

Agency

TEMPRO v5.4 datasets

Department for Transport Road Transport Forecasts 2008

December 2010 90 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 91 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

8 Noise

8.1 Introduction and Overview

8.1.1 This chapter presents assessment of the potential construction and operational noise effect of

the HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development on the residents of nearby dwellings. The

assessment considers the wind turbine development‟s construction and its operation and also

the likely effect of its de-commissioning.

8.1.2 Noise and vibration which arises from the construction of a wind turbine development is a

factor which should be taken into account when considering the total effect of a proposed

wind turbine development. However, in assessing the impact of construction noise, it is

accepted that the associated works are of a temporary nature. The main works locations for

construction of the turbines are distant from nearest noise sensitive residences and are

unlikely to cause a significant effect. The construction and use of access tracks may,

however, occur at lesser separation distances. Assessment of the temporary effects of

construction noise is primarily aimed at understanding the need for dedicated management

measures and, if so, the types of measures that are required.

8.1.3 Once constructed and operational, wind turbine developments may emit two types of noise.

Firstly, aerodynamic noise is a more natural sounding „broad band‟ noise, albeit sometimes

with a characteristic modulation, or „swish‟, which is produced by the movement of the rotating

blades through the air. Secondly, mechanical noise may emanate from components within

the nacelle of a wind turbine. This is a less natural sounding noise which is generally

characterised by a tonal character. Traditional sources of mechanical noise comprise

gearboxes or generators. Due to the acknowledged lower acceptability of tonal noise in

otherwise „natural‟ noise settings such as rural areas, modern turbine designs have evolved to

ensure that mechanical noise radiation from wind turbines is negligible. Aerodynamic noise is

usually only perceived when the wind speeds are fairly low, although at very low wind speeds

the blades do not rotate or rotate very slowly and so, at these wind speeds, negligible

aerodynamic noise is generated. In higher winds, aerodynamic noise is generally masked by

the normal sound of wind blowing through trees and around buildings. The level of this natural

„masking‟ noise relative to the level of wind turbine noise determines the subjective audibility

of the wind turbine development. The primary objective of this noise impact assessment is

therefore to establish the relationship between wind turbine noise and the naturally occurring

masking noise at residential dwellings lying around the proposed wind turbine development

and to assess these levels of noise against accepted standards.

8.1.4 An overview of environmental noise impact assessment and a glossary of noise terms are

provided in Appendix 8.1.

December 2010 92 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

8.2 Methodology

General Planning Policy and Advice Relating to Noise

8.2.1 General guidance and policy concerning noise associated with new developments in England

is presented in Planning Policy Guidance PPG24: Planning and Noise i .

8.2.2 The introduction to PPG24 sets out the importance of appropriately considering noise in

planning applications. The ultimate aim of the guidance is to:

„provide advice on how the planning system can be used to minimise the

adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on

development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of

business.‟

8.2.3 This need to balance essential development against potential adverse noise impact is

reiterated in Section 10 of PPG24 where the issue of development control is discussed:

„Much of the development which is necessary for the… improvement of

essential infrastructure will generate noise. The planning system should not

place unjustifiable obstacles in the way of such development. Nevertheless,

local planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an

unacceptable degree of disturbance.‟

8.2.4 Whilst PPG24 presents general considerations relating to planning and noise issues it

contains no specific references to noise from wind turbine developments.

Specific Planning Policy and Advice Relating to Construction Noise

8.2.5 In England and Wales there are two legislative instruments which address the effects of

environmental noise with regard to construction noise and vibration, and nuisance. The

Environmental Protection Act 1990 ii (EPA) and the Control of Pollution Act 1974 iii (CoPA).

The CoPA provides two means of controlling construction noise and vibration. Section 60

provides the Local Authority with the power to impose at any time operating conditions on the

development site. Section 61 allows the developer to negotiate a set of operating procedures

with the Local Authority prior to commencement of site works.

8.2.6 To assess construction noise and vibration, PPG24 refers to BS 5228 iv „Noise control on

construction and open sites‟, Parts 1 to 4, as the appropriate source of guidance. This

standard has been updated since PPG24 was published. The most recent update was

published in January 2009 and consolidates all previous parts of the standard into BS

5228-1:2009 v (BS 5228-1) for airborne noise and BS 5228-2:2009 vi (BS 5228-2) for ground

borne vibration. These updated standards supersede all previous versions, and have

therefore been adopted as the relevant versions upon which to base this assessment.

December 2010 93 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

8.2.7 BS 5228-1 provides guidance on a range of considerations relating to construction noise

including the legislative framework, general control measures, example methods for

estimating construction noise levels and example criteria which may be considered when

assessing effect significance. Similarly, BS 5228-2 provides general guidance on legislation,

prediction, control and assessment criteria for construction vibration.

Specific Planning Policy and Advice Relating to Operational Wind

Development Noise

Turbine

8.2.8 Advice specific to noise emanating from wind energy developments may be found in Planning

Policy Statement PPS22 „Renewable Energy‟ vii .

8.2.9 The relevant paragraph 22 of PPS22 states:

„Renewable technologies may generate small increases in noise levels

(whether from machinery or from associated sources – for example, traffic).

Local planning authorities should ensure that renewable energy

developments have been located and designed in such a way as to

minimise increases in ambient noise levels. Plans may include criteria that

set out the minimum separation distances between different types of

renewable energy projects and existing developments. The 1997 report by

ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry should be used to assess

and rate noise from wind energy development.‟

8.2.10 The basic aim of the ETSU Report, ETSU-R-97 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise from

Wind Farms' viii , is to provide:

„Indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to

wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind

farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens

on wind farm developers or local authorities‟.

8.2.11 The report ETSU-R-97 makes it clear from the outset that any noise restrictions placed on a

wind turbine development must balance the environmental effect of the wind turbine

development against the national and global benefits which would arise through the

development of renewable energy sources, stating:

„The planning system must therefore seek to control the environmental

impacts from a wind farm whilst at the same time recognising the national

and global benefits that would arise through the development of renewable

energy sources and not be so severe that wind farm development is unduly

stifled.‟

8.2.12 The recommendations contained in ETSU-R-97 provide a robust basis for assessing the

noise implications of a wind turbine development. ETSU-R-97 has become the accepted

standard for such developments within the UK and is commended in PPS22 at paragraph 22.

December 2010 94 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

This methodology has therefore been adopted for the present assessment and is described in

greater detail below.

8.2.13 A proposed wind turbine development considered acceptable under the ETSU assessment

method is considered not significant in EIA terms.

8.2.14 The use of the ETSU-R-97 methodology is therefore Government policy and has been

confirmed as such on a number of occasions. The DCLG letter to all of England‟s Local

Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate in November 2006 confirms that the

advice contained within PPS22 (and its Companion Guide), which states that ETSU-R-97

should be used for the assessment and rating of noise from wind farms, remain Government

policy and should continue to be followed. This was reiterated most recently in parliament by

the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, in written response to a query on the

subject, who stated that:

8.2.15 „There is no reason to believe that the protection from noise provided for by the ETSU-R-97

guidance does not remain acceptable, and we have no plans to change this‟

8.2.16 Institute of Acoustics Bulletin Volume 34 no. 2 contains an agreement, jointly authored by a

number of consultants working in the wind turbine sector for developers, local authorities and

third parties, and provides technical recommendations on a range of subjects relating to wind

turbine development noise assessment including wind shear and noise predictions. These

can be regarded as best practice and will be referred to in the relevant sections below.

Methodology for Assessing Construction Noise Effects

8.2.17 Construction works include both moving sources and static sources. The moving sources

normally comprise mobile construction plant and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). The static

sources include construction plant temporarily placed at fixed locations.

8.2.18 The analysis of construction noise effect has been undertaken in accordance with BS 5228 - 1

which provides methods for predicting construction noise levels on the basis of reference data

for the emissions of typical construction plant and activities. These methods include for the

calculation of construction traffic along access tracks and haul routes and also for

construction activities at fixed locations such as the bases of turbines, site compounds or sub

stations.

8.2.19 The BS 5228 calculated levels are then compared with absolute noise limits for temporary

construction activities which are commonly regarded as providing an acceptable level of

protection from the short term noise levels associated with construction activities.

8.2.20 Separate consideration is also given to the possible noise effects of construction related traffic

passing to and from the site along local surrounding roads. In considering potential noise

levels associated with construction traffic movement on public roads, reference is made to the

accepted UK prediction methodology provided by „Calculation of Road Traffic Noise‟ ix

(CRTN).

December 2010 95 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

8.2.21 The nature of works and distances involved in the construction of a wind turbine development

are such that the risk of significant effects relating to ground borne vibration are very low.

Occasional momentary vibration can arise when heavy vehicles pass dwellings at very short

separation distances, but again this is not sufficient to constitute a risk of significant effects in

this instance. Accordingly vibration effects do not warrant detailed assessment and are

therefore not discussed further in this assessment.

Methodology for Assessing Wind Turbine Development Operational Noise Effects

8.2.22 The ETSU-R-97 assessment procedure specifies that noise limits should be set relative to

existing background noise levels at the nearest properties and that these limits should reflect

the variation in both turbine source noise and background noise with wind speed. The wind

speed range which should be considered is between the cut-in speed (the speed at which the

turbines begin to operate) for the turbines and 12 m/s (43.2 km/h), where all wind speeds are

referenced to a 10 metre measurement height.

8.2.23 Separate noise limits apply for the daytime and night-time. Daytime limits are chosen to

protect a property‟s external amenity and night-time limits are chosen to prevent sleep

disturbance indoors. Absolute lower limits, different for daytime and night-time, are applied

where the line of best fit representation of the measured background noise levels equates to

very low levels (

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

project offers relatively low power generating potential, the daytime limit should naturally tend

towards the lower end of the range, unless the number of noise affected properties and the

extent to which those properties would be affected by the higher noise levels is sufficiently low

to justify noise limits tending towards the upper end of the range. Conversely, sites with

relatively large power generating capacity should naturally justify limits towards the upper end

of the range. The appropriate choice of value is considered subsequently in this chapter.

8.2.26 The night-time noise criterion curve is derived from background noise data measured during

the night-time periods (23:00 to 07:00) with no differentiation being made between weekdays

and weekends. The 10 minute L A90,10min noise levels measured over these night-time periods

are again plotted against the concurrent wind speed data and a „best fit‟ correlation is

established. As with the daytime limit, the night-time noise limit is also based on a level

5 dB(A) above the best fit curve over the 0-12 m/s wind speed range. Where the night-time

criterion curve is found to be below 43 dB(A) it is fixed at 43 dB(A). This night time limit in

ETSU-R-97 was set on the basis of World Health Organization (WHO) guidance x for the noise

inside a bedroom and an assumed difference between outdoor and indoor noise levels with

windows open. In the time since ETSU-R-97 was released, the WHO guidelines were revised

to suggest a lower internal noise level, but conversely, a higher assumed difference between

outdoor and indoor noise levels. Notwithstanding the WHO guideline revisions, the

ETSU-R-97 limit remains consistent with current national planning policy guidance with

respect to night-time noise levels. In addition, following revision of the night-time WHO

criteria, ETSU-R-97 has been incorporated into planning guidance for Wales, England and

Scotland and at no point during this process was it felt necessary to revise the guidance

within ETSU-R-97 to reflect the change in the WHO guideline internal levels. The advice

contained within ETSU-R-97 remains a valid reference on which to continue to base the fixed

limit at night.

8.2.27 The exception to the setting of both the daytime and night-time lower limits on the criterion

curves occurs where a property occupier has a financial involvement in the wind turbine

development. Where this is the case then, if the derived criterion curve based on 5 dB(A)

above the measured background noise level falls below 45 dB(A), the lower noise limit at that

property may be set to 45 dB(A) during both the daytime and the night-time periods alike.

8.2.28 ETSU-R-97 also offers an alternative simplified assessment methodology:

„For single turbines or wind farms with very large separation distances

between the turbines and the nearest properties a simplified noise condition

may be suitable. We are of the opinion that, if the noise is limited to an

LA90,10min of 35dB(A) up to wind speeds of 10 m/s at 10 m height, then

this condition alone would offer sufficient protection of amenity, and

background noise surveys would be unnecessary. We feel that, even in

sheltered areas when the wind speed exceeds 10 m/s on the wind farm site,

some additional background noise will be generated which will increase

background levels at the property.‟

8.2.29 To undertake the assessment of noise effects in accordance with the foregoing methodology

the following steps are required:

December 2010 97 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

specify the number and locations of the wind turbines;

identify the locations of the nearest, or most noise sensitive, neighbours;

measure the background noise levels as a function of site wind speed at

the nearest neighbours, or at least at a representative sample of the

nearest neighbours;

determine the daytime and night-time criterion curves from the measured

background noise levels at the nearest neighbours;

specify the type and noise emission characteristics of the wind turbines;

calculate the noise immission levels due to the operation of the wind

turbines as a function of site wind speed at the nearest neighbours; and

compare the calculated wind turbine development noise immission levels

with the derived criterion curves and assess in the light of planning

requirements.

8.2.30 The foregoing steps, as applied to HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development, are set out

subsequently in this assessment.

8.2.31 Note that in the above, and subsequently in this assessment, the term „noise emission‟ relates

to the sound power level actually radiated from each wind turbine, whereas the term „noise

immission‟ relates to the sound pressure level (the perceived noise) at any receptor location

due to the combined operation of all wind turbines on the wind turbine development.

Wind Turbine Emission Data

8.2.32 The exact model of turbine to be used at the site will be the result of a future tendering

process, with a consideration of several factors including any noise limits attached to the

consent. A number of different wind turbine models could be used in practice. Therefore an

indicative turbine model has been assumed for this noise assessment. This operational noise

assessment is based upon the noise specification of the Enercon E-82 E2 2.3MW wind

turbine. Two (2) turbines have been modelled using the layout as indicated on the map at

Appendix 8.2. The candidate turbine is a variable speed, pitch regulated machine with a rotor

diameter of 82 m and a hub height of 78 m. Due to its variable speed operation the sound

power output of the Enercon E-82 E2 turbine varies considerably with wind speed, being

considerably quieter at the lower wind speeds when the blades are rotating more slowly.

8.2.33 Enercon have supplied their noise emission data for the Enercon E-82 E2 turbine which has

been derived from various sound power tests and represents the values that the manufacturer

warrant will not be exceeded in practice. The sound power data has been made available for

10 m height reference wind speeds of 5 to 12 m/s inclusive. In addition to the overall sound

power data, reference has been made to test reports for the unit to derive a representative

sound spectrum for the turbine, based on an energy average of the available information at

December 2010 98 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

each octave band. The overall sound power and spectral data are presented in Table 8.1 and

Table 8.2.

Table 8.1 Enercon E-82 E2 2.3MW Wind Turbine Sound Power Levels for an 80 m hub

height

WIND SPEED AT 10 M HEIGHT (M/S) SOUND POWER LEVEL (DB L AEQ )

5 98.3

6 102.7

7 105.3

8 105.5

9 105.5

10 105.5

11 105.5

12 105.5

Table 8.2 Octave Band Sound Power Spectrum (dB L Aeq ) for the Enercon E-82 E2

2.3MW Operating in Reference Wind Speed Conditions (v10 = 8 m/s)

OCTAVE BAND CENTRE FREQUENCY, HZ

A-WEIGHTED SOUND POWER

LEVEL, DB(A)

63 86.7

125 94.7

250 94.4

500 97.0

1000 98.8

2000 93.9

4000 81.6

8000 73.5

Choice of Wind Turbine Development Operational Noise Propagation Model

8.2.34 The ETSU-R-97 guidance does not prescribe a specific noise propagation model. Whilst there

are several models available, here the ISO 9613-2 model xi has been used to calculate the

noise immission levels at the selected nearest residential neighbours. This model has been

identified as most appropriate for use in predicting far-field noise radiation from wind turbines

in such rural sites.

8.2.35 The model accounts for the attenuation due to geometric spreading, corresponding to the

increasing spreading of sound as it propagates away from the source, as well as additional

effects such as atmospheric absorption and ground effects. The model offers the ability to

account for barrier effects. All attenuation calculations have been made on an octave band

basis and therefore account for the sound frequency characteristics of the turbines. The

ISO 9613-2 algorithm has been chosen as being the most robust prediction method based on

December 2010 99 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

the findings of a joint European Commission research project into wind turbine development

noise propagation over large distances. The title of the research project was „Development of

a wind farm Noise Prediction Model‟.

8.2.36 Whilst it is impossible to specify exact error bands on noise predictions, the ISO 9613-2

model was found to be the best available both in flat and complex terrain. This model, like all

the others, tends to over-estimate the noise at nearby dwellings rather than under-estimate it.

The only exception to this finding was the general tendency for the ISO 9613-2 model to over

predict the excess attenuation due to screening by ground features. With this limitation

applied to the ISO 9613-2 model the over-riding conclusion of the work undertaken as part of

the EC research study was that the ISO 9613-2 model tended to predict noise levels which

would generally occur under downwind propagation conditions. The probability of

non-exceedence of the levels predicted by the ISO 9613-2 model was around 85%. The other

important outcome of the research was to clearly demonstrate that under upwind propagation

conditions between a given receiver and the wind turbine development the noise immission

level at that receiver will be as much as 10 dB(A) to 15 dB(A) lower than the level predicted

using the ISO 9613-2 model.

8.2.37 For the purposes of the present assessment, all noise level predictions have been undertaken

using a receiver height of 4 m above local ground level, mixed ground (g=0.5) and an air

absorption based on a temperature of 10°C and 70% relative humidity. These parameters,

the prediction methodology and type of wind turbine emission data used in this chapter are

consistent with best practice in the field as described in a recent IOA Bulletin article entitled

„Prediction and assessment of wind turbine noise – agreement about relevant factors for

noise assessment from wind energy projects.‟ . There are no screening effects found at the

site and therefore this element was excluded from the model.

Construction Noise Effect Criteria

8.2.38 BS 5228-1 indicates a number of factors are likely to affect the acceptability of construction

noise including site location, existing ambient noise levels, duration of site operations, hours

of work, attitude of the site operator and noise characteristics of the work being undertaken.

8.2.39 BS 5228-1 informative Annex E provides example criteria that may be used to consider the

effect significance of construction noise. The criteria do not represent mandatory limits but

rather a set of example approaches intended to reflect the type of methods commonly applied

to construction noise. The example methods are presented as a range of possible

approaches (both facade and free field noise levels, hourly and daytime averaged noise

levels) according to the ambient noise characteristics of the area in question, the type of

development under consideration, and the expected hours of construction activity. In broad

terms, the example criteria are based on a set of fixed limit values which, if exceeded, will

result in a significant effect unless ambient noise levels (i.e. regularly occurring levels without

construction) are sufficiently high to provide a degree of masking of construction noise.

8.2.40 Based on the range of guidance values set out in BS 5228-1 Annex E, and other reference

criteria provided by the WHO the following effect significance criteria have been derived. The

December 2010 100 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

values have been chosen in recognition of the relatively low ambient noise typically observed

in rural environments. The presented criteria have been normalised to free-field daytime noise

levels occurring over a time period, T, equal to the duration of a working day on site. BS

5228-1 Annex E provides varied definitions for the range of daytime working hours which can

be grouped for equal consideration. The values presented in Table 8.3 have been chosen to

relate to daytime hours from 08:00 to 18:00 on weekdays, and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays.

Table 8.3 Free-field Noise Criteria against which Construction Noise Effects are

Assessed

Significance

Major

Moderate

Minor

Negligible

Condition

Construction noise is greater than 72 dB L Aeq,T for any part of the construction

works or exceeds 67 dB L Aeq,T for more than 4 weeks in any 12 month period.

Construction noise is less than or equal to 67 dB L Aeq,T throughout the

construction period.

Construction noise is generally less than or equal to 60 dB L Aeq,T , with periods

of up to 67 dB L Aeq,T lasting not more than 4 weeks in any 12 month period.

Construction noise is generally less than or equal to 55 dB L Aeq,T , with periods

of up to 60 dB L Aeq,T lasting not more than 4 weeks in any 12 month period.

Operational Noise Effect Criteria

8.2.41 The acceptable limits for wind turbine operational noise are clearly defined in the ETSU-R-97

document and these limits should not be breached. Consequently, the test applied to

operational noise is whether or not the calculated wind turbine development noise immission

levels at nearby noise sensitive properties lie below the noise limits derived in accordance

with ETSU-R-97. Depending on the levels of background noise the satisfaction of the

ETSU-R-97 derived limits can lead to a situation whereby, at some locations under some

wind conditions and for a certain proportion of the time, the wind turbine development noise

may be audible. However, noise levels at the properties in the vicinity of the proposed wind

turbine development will still be within levels considered acceptable under the ETSU

assessment method and therefore considered not significant in EIA terms.

Consultation

8.2.42 Noise modelling based on a preliminary project layout, which was of a similar form to the

layout currently proposed, indicated predicted immission levels of less than 35 dB L A90 at the

nearest existing neighbouring residents. As indicated above, ETSU-R-97 indicates that these

levels are considered acceptable and that background noise level monitoring is not required.

However, the existence of planning permission for a residential dwelling at Groves Farm,

currently unconstructed, was identified. As preliminary predicted levels were above 35 dB L A90

at this location, monitoring was proposed to be undertaken there. In addition, the prison

buildings were considered. Although these would fall outside of the scope of ETSU-R-97, it

was proposed in consultation with HMP to assess noise at the nearest facades with regards

to the sleep disturbance criteria of 43dB L A90 outlined above.

December 2010 101 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

8.2.43 This information was forwarded to the Environmental Protections Team of SBC for comment.

The response accepted the proposed approach but indicated that baseline measurements at

the prison would be desirable for indicative purposes. It was therefore agreed to undertake

monitoring at Elmley Prison as well as Groves Farm.

8.2.44 Security issues impeded successful monitoring at Groves Farm, resulting in the selection of

an alternative location (Great Bells) which was agreed with SBC as being representative of

the background environment at Groves Farm. The agreed noise monitoring locations are

shown on the plan in Appendix 8.2. Further information about the equipment used and

pictures of the locations are presented in Appendix 8.3.

8.3 Baseline Information

8.3.1 HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development will cover an area extending approximately

600 m north to south and 300 m west to east. The proposed development is located in an

area of relatively low population density. The noise environment in the surrounding area is

generally characterised by „natural‟ sources, such as wind disturbed vegetation and birds, as

well as agricultural vehicle movements. Other audible sources of noise include distant

industry located south west of the site, on the southern bank of The Swale. For further detail

refer to Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development of this ES.

Sources of Data

8.3.2 A total of two (2) noise monitoring locations were agreed with the SBC as being

representative of the background noise environment around the proposed development.

Great Bells was selected as being representative of the noise environment for the nearest

noise-sensitive residential location to the proposal. This is because, as stated above, security

issues resulted in two failed survey attempts at an originally selected monitoring location

where the equipment was tampered with; consequently this alternative location was selected

as being representative. The two (2) locations where successful monitoring was undertaken

are shown on the plan in Appendix 8.2 and listed in Table 8.4. Appendix 8.2 also shows the

location of the failed survey at Groves Farm.

Table 8.4 Background Noise Monitoring Locations (approximate Easting /

Northing)

No. Property Easting Northing

1 Elmley Prison Cell Block A 598277 169306

2 Great Bells 598469 168360

December 2010 102 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

8.3.3 The assessment has considered the effect of the wind turbine development at the monitoring

locations noted above as well as other properties located further away from the proposal. The

range of assessment locations are listed in Table 8.3. As indicated above, Groves Farm has

been considered despite the current absence of any residential dwelling, because of an

existing planning consent there. In some instances the results obtained from the two (2)

survey positions have been used to represent the background environment expected to occur

at other nearby assessment locations. The use of the data in this way is justified by the

similarity in the receptor types (i.e. dwellings or alternatively a prison), the relatively flat nature

of the terrain and the dominant influence of „natural‟ sources on background noise levels

throughout the area (particularly at increased wind speeds). This approach is consistent with

the guidance provided by ETSU-R-97. Locations where such representations have been

made, and the source of the representations, are represented in Table 8.3. For dwellings on

Brabazon road, the simplified assessment method of ETSU-R-97 is applicable and baseline

measurements not required.

Table 8.5

Assessment Properties in the Vicinity of the Wind Turbine Development

Property

(* denotes Involved)

Easting Northing Approximate

Distance to

Closest

Turbine (m)

Closest

Turbine

(ID)

Survey

Location

(Table 8.2)

Elmley Prison Cell

Block A

Standford Hill Prison

Cell Block

Swaleside Prison Cell

Block

598277 169306 369 T2 1

598097 170025 634 T1 1

598477 169762 773 T2 1

Brabazon Road 598476 170102 958 T1 n/a

Groves Farm 597472 170161 687 T1 2

Old Hook Farm 596716 170284 1260 T1 2

8.3.4 The background noise monitoring exercise was conducted over a prolonged period of seven

(7) weeks. Successful surveys were conducted between the 8 th and 23 rd of July 2010 at

Elmley Prison Cell Block A and between the 17 th and 26 th August 2010 at Great Bells. The

equipment used for the survey was a Rion NL-32 logging sound level meter. The meter was

enclosed in an environmental case with battery power to enable continuous logging at the

required 10 minute averaging periods. A total ETSU-R-97 analysis period of 15 and 9 days

was obtained for Elmley Prison Cell Block A and Great Bells respectively.

8.3.5 Outdoor windshield systems were used to reduce wind induced noise on the microphones

and provide protection from rain. These windshield systems were supplied by the sound level

meter manufacturer and maintain the required performance of the whole measurement

December 2010 103 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

system when fitted. The environmental enclosures provided an installed microphone height

of approximately 1.2 m to 1.5 m above ground level.

8.3.6 The sound level meters were located on the wind turbine development side of the property in

question, never closer than 3.5 m from the façade of the property or hard reflective surfaces

and as far away as was practical from obvious atypical localised sources of noise such as

running water, trees or boiler flues. Details and photographs of the measurement locations

are presented in Appendix 8.3.

8.3.7 All measurement systems were calibrated on their deployment, when serviced and upon

collection of the equipment. No significant (>0.5 dB(A)) drifts in calibration were found to have

occurred on any of the systems. This equates to a total ETSU-R-97 analysis period of at

least 9 days for each location.

8.3.8 All measurement systems were set to log the L A90,10min and L Aeq,10min noise levels continuously

over the deployment period. The internal clocks on the sound level meters were all

synchronized with Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) by the use of a Global Positioning System

(GPS) receiver. The clock on the met mast from which wind data was subsequently collected

for the analysis of the measured background noise as function of wind speed was also set to

GMT. Details of the equipment used, the calibration dates and calibrations are provided in

Appendix 8.3.

Current Conditions

8.3.9 The ETSU-R-97 method requires correlation of the noise data with wind speed data at a 10 m

height which can either be derived from measured 10 m wind speeds or by calculation from

measurements at other heights, the appropriate choice being determined by practitioner

judgement and the available data sources. Since the first publication of ETSU-R-97, the

change in wind speed with increasing height above ground level (known as wind shear) has

been identified as a potential source of variability when carrying out wind turbine development

noise assessments, and subsequently influences the choice of method used to derive 10 m

height wind speed data.

8.3.10 The effect of wind shear can be addressed by implementing the ETSU-R-97 option of deriving

10 m height reference data from measurements made at taller heights. It is this method that

has been used in the noise assessment for the HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy

Development to account for the potential effect of site specific wind shear by correlating

measured baseline noise data with taller height wind speed data that enables hub height wind

speed estimates to be made. This method is consistent with the provisions of ETSU-R-97 and

a recent article in a UK Institute of Acoustics (IoA) Bulletin xii which provided

recommendations on a range of subjects relating to wind turbine development noise

assessment including wind shear.

8.3.11 Specifically, wind speeds were measured on a 70 m anemometry mast located within the

development site (approximate location 597649 E, 169649 N). The wind shear between the

70 m and 30 m anemometers was determined for each 10 minute period in order to calculate

December 2010 104 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

the 80 m height wind speed (corresponding to hub height), which is then calculated at 10 m

using a standardised roughness length of 0.05 m. This procedure is described in detail in

Appendix 8.1.

8.3.12 Figures D.1 to D.4 reproduced at Appendix 8.4 show the range of wind conditions

experienced during the noise survey period. During the quiet daytime and night-time periods,

wind speeds were typically less than 11 m/s. The wind was observed to be directed from the

south west for the majority of the survey period, consistent with the typical prevailing wind

direction for the UK.

8.3.13 Figures E.1 to E.4 of Appendix 8.5 show the results of the background noise measurements

at each of the locations. The background noise data are presented in terms of L A90,10min

background noise levels plotted as a function of 10 m height wind speed. Two plots are

shown for each location, one for quiet daytime periods and the other for night-time periods,

both derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97.

8.3.14 Data from all survey locations were inspected to identify periods which may have been

influenced by extraneous noise sources, giving rise to atypical and elevated levels. ETSU-R-

97 suggests that any data that may have been affected by rainfall be excluded from the

analysis. A rain gauge was installed at one of the noise monitoring locations during the noise

survey period; data from this gauge were therefore used to exclude those periods where rain

was indicated.

8.3.15 In addition to the effect noise on surrounding vegetation and the sound level meter itself, in

some environments rainfall can result in appreciable changes in background sound levels.

Observations whilst on site indicated traffic noise to be a negligible influence on background

sound levels, and thus the possible effect of increased tyre nose from wet roads is not

considered relevant to this site. In terms of water flow noise, the site is generally flat and there

were no significant water courses in the vicinity of the monitoring locations. The monitoring

locations were also positioned as far as practically possible from any residential drainage

systems to minimise any associated noise influence. Based on the above, rainfall is

considered to have a limited affect on background sound levels. Inspection of the data

generally tends to support this, given the absence of any identifiable clear data trends that are

normally characteristic of a site affected by rain related background sound levels (such as flat

clusters of data on the noise versus wind plot, or sharp increases in noise followed by a

progressive decrease with time). Notwithstanding this, the possibility exists that some of the

measured background noise data at low wind speeds may have been increased by

extraneous or rain related influences. Time-histories of the noise levels at each survey

location were inspected to look for any atypical relationships when compared to the wind

speeds present during that time. Any elevated levels found in this way were excluded. The

trend of the data when plotted against wind speed was also inspected to look for atypical

relationships or outliers within the data-set which were excluded.

8.3.16 Any data removed from the analysis in the ways described above is indicated on the charts as

red circles, as detailed in Appendix 8.5.

December 2010 105 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

8.3.17 Following removal in particular of rain-affected periods, the range of wind speeds considered

in this analysis was effectively restricted to wind speeds of up to 11 m/s. The background

noise is thought likely to generally continue increasing with rising wind speeds, based on

experience of similar environments. Nonetheless, the limits derived in this chapter have been

limited to a constant value from the highest measured wind speeds. Similarly, when the data

trendline appeared to increase at the lowest wind speeds, the limit was kept constant as this

was considered more representative.

8.3.18 Following removal of these data points, the best-fit lines were generated using a polynomial fit

of a maximum of 3 rd order. These lines of fit were then used to derive the noise limits required

by ETSU-R-97 that apply at residential locations during the daytime and night-time periods up

to 12 m/s. The corresponding ETSU-R-97 noise limits are summarised in Tables 8.6 and 8.7.

The noise limits have been set either at the prevailing measured background level plus 5 dB,

or at the relevant fixed lower limit, whichever is the greater.

8.3.19 The ETSU-R-97 fixed part of the limit during the daytime should lie within the range from

35 dB(A) to 40 dB(A). The factors to be used to determine where in this range have been

discussed above. All dwellings were found to be of a relatively exposed character, with

background noise levels clearly increasing with wind speeds. Furthermore, there would be a

relatively small number of properties affected by noise. However, given the relative scale of

the development, and the limited effect this would have on the generating capacity of the site,

it is considered appropriate to set the limit at the lower end of the range.

8.3.20 Background noise levels at Elmley Prison Cell Block A were measured for indicative purposes

following consultation with SBC. Because the surrounding prison receptors fall outside the

scope of the ETSU-R-97 methodology, which only considers the protection of residential

amenity, the adoption of noise limits 5 dB(A) above the derived background levels was not

considered. Rather, a fixed limit of 43 dB(A) is considered for night-time periods. The

adoption of this criteria offers prisons the same level of sleep disturbance protection as

ETSU-R-97 recommends for residential dwellings. Given the external background noise

levels measured during quiet daytime periods and the nature of the premises this is

considered to provide adequate protection.

December 2010 106 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 8.6 Daytime L A90,T Noise Limits Derived from the Baseline Noise Survey

According to ETSU-R-97

Property

Wind Speed at 10 m Height, m/s

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Elmley Prison Cell

Block A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Standford Hill

Prison Cell Block N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Swaleside Prison

Cell Block N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Brabazon Road 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0

Groves Farm 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.6 36.8 38.5 40.8 44.1 44.1 44.1

Old Hook Farm 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.6 36.8 38.5 40.8 44.1 44.1 44.1

Table 8.7 Night-time L A90,T Noise Limits Derived from the Baseline Noise Survey

According to ETSU-R-97

Property

Wind Speed at 10 m Height, m/s

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Elmley Prison Cell

Block A 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0

Standford Hill

Prison Cell Block 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0

Swaleside Prison

Cell Block 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0

Brabazon Road 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0

Groves Farm 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0

Old Hook Farm 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0

Trends and Projected Future Baseline

8.3.21 The baseline background noise environment is not expected to change significantly in the

absence of the proposed development.

December 2010 107 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Information Gaps

8.3.22 No significant information gaps were encountered and the survey undertaken was in line with

the ETSU-R-97 recommendations.

8.4 Topic Specific Design Evolution

8.4.1 A preliminary wind turbine development layout was developed based on a set of constraints

that included a minimum separation distance of 450 m between any turbine and any

residential property. The layout of the proposed turbine development has been iteratively

developed from this initial layout with the aim of achieving an acceptable noise effect on local

residential amenity, whilst maintaining as far as possible the generation capacity of the

development (in addition to other design considerations). Specifically, the process involved

the calculation of noise levels for the original outline scheme configuration and comparing

these against limits derived according to the ETSU-R-97 methodology. When noncompliance

was predicted, advice was provided to the design team and used by the site

designers to adjust the turbine positioning in order to reduce noise effects.

8.5 Predicted Effects of the Scheme

Predicted Construction Noise Levels

8.5.1 The level of construction noise that occurs at the surrounding properties will be highly

dependent on a number of factors such as the final construction programme, equipment types

used for each process, and the operating conditions that prevail during construction. It is not

practically feasible to specify each and every element of the factors that may affect noise

levels, therefore it is necessary to make reasonable allowance for the level of noise emissions

that may be associated with key phases of the construction.

8.5.2 In order to determine representative emission levels for this study, reference has been made

to the scheduled sound power data provided by BS 5228. Based on experience of the types

and number of equipment usually associated with the key phases of constructing a wind

turbine development, the scheduled sound power data has been used to deduce the upper

sound emission level over the course of a working day. In determining the rating applicable to

the working day, it has generally been assumed that the plant will operate for between 75 and

100% of the working day. In many instances, the plant would actually be expected to operate

for a reduced percentage, thus resulting in noise levels lower than predicted in this

assessment.

8.5.3 In order to relate the sound power emissions to predicted noise levels at surrounding

properties, the prediction methodology outlined in BS 5228 has been adopted. The prediction

method accounts for factors including screening and soft ground attenuation. The size of the

site and resulting separation distances to surrounding properties allows the calculations to be

reliably based on positioning all the equipment at a single point within a particular working

December 2010 108 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

area (for example, in the case of turbine erection, it is reasonable to assume all associated

construction plant is positioned at the base of the turbine under consideration). In applying the

BS 5228 methodology, it has been conservatively assumed that there are no screening

effects, and that the ground cover is characterised as 50% hard/soft.

8.5.4 Table 8.8 lists the key construction activities, the associated types of plant normally involved,

the expected worst case sound power level over a working day for each activity, the property

which would be closest to the activity for a portion of construction, and the predicted noise

level at that property. It must be emphasised that these predictions only relate the noise level

occurring during the time when the activity is closest to the referenced property. In many

cases such as access track construction and turbine erection, the separating distances will be

significantly greater for the majority of the construction period and the predictions are

therefore representative of the worst case periods of the construction phase.

Table 8.8 Predicted Construction Noise Levels

Task Name Plant/Equipment Upper

Collective

Sound

Emission

Over

Working Day

L WA,T

Construct

temporary

site

compounds

Construct

site tracks

Construct

Sub-Station

Construct

crane hard

standings

Construct

turbine

foundations

Excavate

and lay site

cables

excavators / dump

trucks / tippers /

rollers/ delivery

trucks

excavators / dump

trucks / tippers /

dozers / vibrating

rollers

excavators /

concrete trucks /

delivery trucks

120

110

excavators / dump

trucks 120

piling rigs /

excavators / tippers

/ concrete trucks /

mobile cranes /

water pumps /

pneumatic

hammers /

compressors /

vibratory pokers

excavators / dump

trucks / tractors &

cable drum trailers /

wacker plates

120

110

Nearest

Receiver

Groves

Farm

Groves

Farm

Groves

Farm

Groves

Farm

Groves

Farm

Groves

Farm

Minimum

Distance

to

Nearest

Receiver

900 49

650 52

850 40

650 52

700 41

Predicted

Upper

Daytime

Noise

Levels L Aeq,T

December 2010 109 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Task Name Plant/Equipment Upper

Collective

Sound

Emission

Over

Working Day

L WA,T

Erect

turbines

cranes / turbine

delivery vehicles /

artics for crane

movement /

generators / torque

guns

120

Nearest

Receiver

Groves

Farm

Minimum

Distance

to

Nearest

Receiver

650 52

Predicted

Upper

Daytime

Noise

Levels L Aeq,T

8.5.5 Comparing the above predicted noise levels to the range of L A90T background noise levels

measured around the site, which generally varied between 22 and 46 dB(A) during quiet

periods of the day, suggests that the noisier construction activities would be audible at various

times throughout the construction phase. However, comparing the level to the effect

significance criteria presented previously indicates that noise generated through construction

activities will be negligible.

8.5.6 In addition to on-site activities, construction traffic passing to on site haul roads will also

represent a potential source of noise effect to surrounding properties. The traffic assessment

for the proposal presented in Chapter 7: Traffic and Transport of this ES has identified that

the highest volume of traffic generated by construction is expected to occur in the second

month of construction, with an average of 88 daily vehicle movements predicted. These

predicted movements include a high proportion of HGVs as well as other lighter vehicles such

as vans.

8.5.7 The most sensitive receiver locations in respect of vehicle movements are properties such as

Groves Farm which are closest to the site access track, at a distance of 650m or more, and

which are relatively isolated. Large vehicles can generate noise levels in the order of LWA

108dB (sound power level) when in motion. However, these types of plant usually pass a

receiver location quite quickly. When stationary the same vehicles will be operating in idle

which significantly lowers the noise output to the environment. Based on the prediction

methodology in BS 5288 and accounting for articulated lorries with a capacity of 23 tonnes

and moving at an estimated 15 miles per hour, the predicted noise level at those dwellings is

of 35 dB L Aeq,T . Comparing this level to the effect significance criteria presented previously

indicates that noise generated by construction traffic at this property will represent a

negligible effect.

8.5.8 In addition to on-site activities, construction traffic passing to and from the site on trafficked

roads will also represent a potential source of noise to surrounding dwellings. The traffic

assessment presented in Chapter 7: Traffic and Transport of this ES presents predicted

future traffic changes that would occur during the construction phase of the proposed

development. Specifically, tables in Chapter 7: Traffic and Transport have been used to

ascertain the following projected traffic flows for scenarios with and without the proposed

December 2010 110 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

development. Based on these projected changes in traffic flow, the methodology set out in

CRTN has been used to determine the associated maximum total change in the average

daytime traffic noise level at any given location due to construction of the proposed

development: see Table 8.9a and b.

Table 8.9a

Projected Traffic Flows

Road Without Development With Development

(maximum during

construction phase)

Annual

Average Daily

Traffic Flow

% Heavy Goods

Vehicles

Annual

Average Daily

Traffic Flow

% Heavy

Goods

Vehicles

Brabazon Rd 3333 6.4 3421 8.2

Table 8.9b

(L A10,18hour )

CRTN Predicted Increase In Daytime Average Traffic Noise Levels

Road

Maximum Change in Traffic Noise Level, dB(A)

Brabazon Rd 0.1

8.5.9 The above table indicates a maximum potential increase of 0.1 dB(A) in the daytime average

noise level during particular phases of the construction program at locations adjoining the

wind turbine development access route. At all other locations the predicted increase is less

than 0.1 dB(A). Given that a 3 dB(A) change is commonly regarded as the smallest subjective

difference in noise level the predicted short term change in traffic noise level is considered

negligible and is not significant.

Predicted Wind Turbine Development Operational Noise Immission Levels

8.5.10 Table 8.10 shows predicted noise immission levels, L p , at each of the selected assessment

locations for each 10 m height wind speed from 5 m/s to 12 m/s inclusive. All wind turbine

development noise immission levels in this chapter are presented in terms of the L A90,T noise

indicator in accordance with the recommendations of the ETSU-R-97 report, obtained by

subtracting 2 dB(A) from the calculated L Aeq,T noise levels based on the warranted turbine

sound power levels.

December 2010 111 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 8.10 Predicted L A90,T Wind Turbine Development Noise Immission Levels at 4 m

Height at Each of the Noise Assessment Locations as a Function of 10 m Height Wind

Speed

Property

Wind Speed at 10 m Height, m/s

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Elmley Prison Cell Block A 35.3 39.7 42.3 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5

Standford Hill Prison Cell Block 30.5 34.9 37.5 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7

Swaleside Prison Cell Block 29.4 33.8 36.4 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6

Brabazon Road 26.9 31.3 33.9 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1

Groves Farm 29.2 33.6 36.2 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4

Old Hook Farm 23.1 27.5 30.1 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3

8.5.11 Figures E.1 to E.4 (Appendix 8.5) show, for each of the two noise monitoring locations, the

prediction for the corresponding assessment location with the highest predicted levels. These

predictions correspond to those already presented in Table 8.10, plotted as a function of 10 m

height wind speed. The calculated noise immission levels are shown overlaid on the daytime

and night-time noise limit criterion curves (where relevant). For Great Bells, these criterion

curves have been derived by calculating best fit regression lines through the measured

background noise data to give the prevailing background noise curve required by ETSU-R-97.

The noise limit is then set either at the prevailing measured background level plus 5 dB or at

the relevant fixed lower limit whichever is the greater. As stated above, a fixed absolute limit

of 43 dBA has been applied during night-time for prison facades.

8.5.12 The ETSU-R-97 noise limits assume that the wind turbine noise contains no audible tones.

Where tones are present a correction is added to the measured or predicted noise level

before comparison with the recommended limits. The audibility of any tones can be assessed

by comparing the narrow band level of such tones with the masking level contained in a band

of frequencies around the tone called the critical band. The ETSU-R-97 recommendations

suggest a tone correction which depends on the amount by which the tone exceeds the

audibility threshold. The turbines to be used for this site will emit noise which contains no

tones that would incur a penalty when assessed by the method specified in ETSU-R-97; this

will be included in the tender and warranty agreements for the site and should be included in

any noise conditions. Therefore no corrections for tones have been included in this

assessment.

8.5.13 Table 8.11 and Table 8.12 respectively show that the predicted wind turbine development

noise immission levels meet the daytime and night-time ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits

under all wind speeds and at all locations.

December 2010 112 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 8.11 Exceedences of the ETSU-R-97 Derived Daytime Criterion Curves by the

Predicted L A90,T Wind Turbine Development Noise Immission Levels at Each Noise

Assessment Location. Exceedences with negative values indicate the immission level

is below the limit.

Exceedances dB L A90 10min

Property 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Elmley Prison Cell Block A n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Standford Hill Prison Cell

Block

Swaleside Prison Cell

Block

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Brabazon Road -8.1 -3.7 -1.1 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9

Groves Farm -5.8 -2.0 -0.7 -2.1 -4.4 -7.7 -7.7 -7.7

Old Hook Farm -11.9 -8.1 -6.7 -8.1 -10.5 -13.8 -13.8 -13.8

Table 8.12 Exceedences of the ETSU-R-97 Derived Night-time Criterion Curves by the

Predicted L A90,T Wind Turbine Development Noise Immission Levels at Each Noise

Assessment Location. Exceedences with negative values indicate the immission level

is below the limit

Exceedances dB L A90 10min

Property 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Elmley Prison Cell Block A -7.7 -3.3 -0.7 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

Standford Hill Prison Cell

Block -12.5 -8.1 -5.5 -5.3 -5.3 -5.3 -5.3 -5.3

Swaleside Prison Cell

Block -13.6 -9.2 -6.6 -6.4 -6.4 -6.4 -6.4 -6.4

Brabazon Road -16.1 -11.7 -9.1 -8.9 -8.9 -8.9 -8.9 -8.9

Groves Farm -13.8 -9.4 -6.8 -6.6 -6.6 -6.6 -6.6 -6.6

Old Hook Farm -19.9 -15.5 -12.9 -12.7 -12.7 -12.7 -12.7 -12.7

Low Frequency Noise and Vibration

8.5.14 Appendix 8.1 includes a detailed discussion of low frequency noise and blade swish. In

summary of the information provided therein and consistently with policy advice including that

December 2010 113 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

of PPS22, the current recommendation is that ETSU-R-97 should continue to be used in its

present form for the assessment and rating of operational noise from wind turbine

developments.

8.6 Mitigation Measures

Construction Noise

8.6.1 To reduce the potential noise effect of construction noise, the following types of mitigation

measures are proposed:

Those activities that may give rise to audible noise at the surrounding

properties and heavy goods vehicle deliveries to the site would be limited

to the hours 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 12:00 on

Saturdays. Turbine deliveries would only take place outside these times

with the prior consent of the LPA and the Police. Those activities that are

unlikely to give rise to noise audible at the site boundary will continue

outside of the stated hours;

All construction activities shall adhere to good practice as set out in

BS 5228;

All equipment will be maintained in good working order and any

associated noise attenuation such as engine casing and exhaust silencers

shall remain fitted at all times;

Where flexibility exists, activities will be separated from residential

neighbours by the maximum possible distances;

A site management regime will be developed to control the movement of

vehicles to and from the proposed development; and

Construction plant capable of generating significant noise and vibration

levels will be operated in a manner to restrict the duration of the higher

magnitude levels.

Operational Noise

8.6.2 The selection of the final turbine to be installed at the site would be made on the basis of

enabling the relevant ETSU-R-97 noise limits to be achieved at the surrounding properties.

8.7 Assessment of Residual Significant Effects

8.7.1 After mitigation, no significant residual effects are anticipated. Operational noise immission

levels are considered acceptable under the ETSU-R-97 assessment method and therefore

December 2010 114 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

considered not significant in EIA terms. Based on construction effect assessment criteria

derived and supported by a range of noise policy and guidance, the overall effect of

construction noise is considered to represent a negligible effect and therefore not

significant in EIA terms. This is summarised in Table 8.13.

Table 8.13 Summary Table of Effects

POTENTIAL

EFFECT

CONSTRUCTION

NOISE

OPERATIONAL

NOISE

EVALUATION OF EFFECT

Noise levels have been predicted using the methodology set out in

BS 5228. Based on effect assessment criteria derived and

supported by a range of noise policy and guidance, the overall

effect of construction noise is considered to represent a negligible

effect.

Noise criteria have been established in accordance with

ETSU-R-97. It has also been shown that these criteria are

achievable with a commercially available turbine suitable for the

site. The basis of the ETSU-R-97 method is to define acceptable

noise limits thought to offer reasonable protection to residents in

areas around wind farm developments. Operational noise

immission levels are acceptable in terms of the guidance

commended by planning policy for the assessment of wind farm

noise, and therefore considered not significant in EIA terms.

8.8 Monitoring

8.8.1 It is proposed that if planning consent is granted for the proposed development, conditions

attached to the planning consent should include the requirement that, in the event of a noise

complaint, noise levels resulting from the operation of the wind turbine development are

measured in order to demonstrate compliance with the conditioned noise limits. Such

monitoring should be done in full accordance with ETSU-R-97 and include penalties for any

tonal characteristics of the noise.

8.9 Cumulative Effects

8.9.1 Other operating, approved and/or proposed wind energy developments identified in the area

are located at distances of more than 5 km from the proposed wind energy development, and

therefore considered to generate negligible cumulative operational noise effects, and were not

considered further.

8.10 References

Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise, HMSO 2001.

Environmental Protection Act, Part III, HMSO, 1990.

December 2010 115 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Control of Pollution Act, Part III, HMSO, 1974.

BS 5228 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites

BS 5228-1:2009 „Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open

sites – Part 1: Noise‟.

BS 5228-2:2009 „Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open

sites – Part 2: Vibration‟.

Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22) Renewable Energy, ODPM 2004.

ETSU-R-97, the Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, Final ETSU-R-97 Report

for the Department of Trade & Industry. UK Noise Working Group, 1997.

Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, HMSO Department of Transport, 1988.

Environmental Health Criteria 12 – Noise. World Health Organisation, 1980.

ISO 9613-2 „Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General

method of calculation‟, International Standards Organisation, ISO 9613-2, 1996.

JOR3-CT95-0091 „Development of a Wind farm Noise Propagation Prediction Model‟, Bass J

H, Bullmore A J, Sloth E, Final Report for EU Contract JOR3-CT95-0051, 1998.

Prediction and assessment of wind turbine noise – agreement about relevant factors for noise

assessment from wind energy projects. D Bowdler, AJ Bullmore, RA Davis, MD Hayes, M

Jiggins, G Leventhall, AR McKenzie. Institute of Acoustics, Acoustics Bulletin, Vol 34, No 2

March/April 2009.

December 2010 116 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 117 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9 Landscape and Visual Effects

9.1 Introduction and Overview

9.1.1 This chapter has been written by Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Ltd (Waterman)

and identifies and evaluates the existing landscape and visual resources within two field

parcels at HM Prison Standford Hill, lsle of Sheppey (hereafter referred to as „the Site‟) and

within the surrounding areas. The chapter considers the likely significant effects of the

proposed development both during the construction/decommissioning phase and during the

operational phase following completion of the wind turbine development at the Site.

9.1.2 The chapter highlights relevant policy and guidance concerning landscape and visual matters,

describes the methodology used to assess the baseline conditions of the Site and its environs

and describes Predicted landscape and visual effects as a result of the proposed

development. The chapter then details any mitigation that may be required in order to avoid,

reduce or offset any likely significant adverse effects arising from the development and

assesses the resulting residual effects.

9.2 Methodology

Scope of Assessment and Definition of Study Area

9.2.1 The Visual Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice Guidance identifies recommended

Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) from the nearest turbine or outer circle of a wind farm. In

this case, with a turbine height of 121m to blade tip, a 35km radius is recommended. Where

proposals are small (5 turbines or less as in this case) it is considered reasonable to measure

the extent of the ZTV from the centre of the Site. However it is noted that the ZTV may be

adjusted up or down depending on the specific environmental conditions and landscape

context of a site in addition to the nature and scale of a development.

9.2.2 In light of the above, the relatively small scale of the scheme in renewable wind energy terms

and taking into consideration the environmental context of the site and its wider surrounds a

preliminary study area of 20km radius from each turbine was used. Initial baseline

assessment established that there was no justification to use a radius any greater than 10km

as a general study area for this assessment, given the landscape and visual context of the

surrounding area. Beyond 10km the intricate character of the Kent Downs landscape is such

that woodland, undulating topography and intervening built elements all combine to limit views

to such a degree that no significant effects were identified.

9.2.3 The following study areas were established and used as part of this assessment:

A general study area of 10.6km radius (on the basis of a 10km distance

from each of the proposed turbine locations);

December 2010 118 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

A detailed study area of 5.6km radius (on the basis of a 5km distance from

each of the proposed turbine locations; and

A cumulative assessment study area of 30km radius from each turbine.

9.2.4 In addition to the above study areas, an assessment of effects on occupants of individual

residential properties within a 3.6km radius (based on a 3km radius from each turbine) has

also been made. (note that the above radii are shown at 3.6km, 5.6km and 10.6km from the

centre of the site within Figures 9.1, 9.2, 9.4 and 9.5 but for simplicity are referred to as 3km,

5km and 10km within the text.) This has been included due to recent Wind Energy Appeals

where Inspectors have paid particular attention to the effects from residential properties, such

as the Enifer Downs Farm Appeal Decision of March 2009 (APP/X2220/A/08/2071880) and

the Sixpenny Wood Appeal Decision of December 2009 (APP/E2001/A/09/2101851) where

the main issue was the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of nearby

residents, with particular reference to visual intrusion and noise.

9.2.5 Several terms including overbearing, overwhelming, overpowering and oppressive have been

used by different Planning Inspectors as a general test of acceptability on the residential

amenity of properties located in proximity to wind turbines but with the same general

meaning. The term overbearing would appear to be the most commonly used term in this

regard and the only one expressly defined by the Planning Inspectorate on their online

glossary of terminology:

“A term used to describe the impact of a development or building on its

surroundings, particularly a neighbouring property, in terms of its scale,

massing and general dominating effect.”

9.2.6 It should be noted that just because a property would experience a significant visual effect, it

does not necessarily follow that there will be an „overbearing‟ effect on the property which

might make a development unacceptable.

9.2.7 Again there are several appeal decisions which clarify this point. In the Burnham-on-Sea

Appeal Decision of January 2008 (APP/V3310/A/06/2031158), the Inspector concluded:

“The fact that the proposed wind turbines would be seen from a number of

dwellings in the surrounding area, and in some cases would be prominent

and would significantly change views of the countryside, is not determinative

in itself.”

9.2.8 Due to the likely extent of visibility, it would be impossible to assess the visual impact on

every individual visual receptor within the general study area of the Development. A series of

representative viewpoints has therefore been selected as a basis for the assessment. These

viewpoints represent different visual receptor types (e.g. observers from residential

properties, footpaths, roads, tourist attractions etc) at different distances and directions from

the proposal. The representative views include one viewpoint which is located over 10km

away from the development to demonstrate the effect at this distance.

December 2010 119 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.2.9 The assessment looks at the visibility of the proposal from the following visual receptors:

Users of public open spaces/outdoor tourist destinations within designated

landscapes;

Users of public open spaces/outdoor tourist destinations outside

designated landscapes;

Public Rights of Way (PROW) users within designated landscapes;

PROW users outside designated landscapes;

Occupants of residential properties

Road users within designated landscapes;

Road users outside designated landscapes;

Rail passengers; and

Occupants of and visitors to Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient

Monuments and Historic Parks and Gardens

Consultation

9.2.10 Swale Borough Council was consulted with regard to the scope of the assessment and was

sent details of the proposed viewpoint locations in August 2010. The council confirmed that

the viewpoint locations were acceptable.

9.2.11 Further written confirmation was sought with regard to the methodology for the cumulative

assessment, the cumulative effects being considered over a radial distance of up to 30km.

Swale Borough Council confirmed that this was an appropriate range.

9.2.12 Feedback from the community surgery carried out was incorporated into the assessment

process and a view from the centre of Eastchurch included as one of the photomontages in

response to comments received.

Assessment Methodology

9.2.13 The assessment methodology for the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) is

based on the following guidance:

“Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment”, Landscape

Institute (LI) and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment

(IEMA) 2002 (GLVIA, Ref. 9.1);

Landscape Character Assessment”, the Countryside Agency and Scottish

Natural Heritage (SNH) 2002 (Ref. 9.2);

December 2010 120 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

“Visual Representation of Windfarms, Good Practice Guidance”, Scottish

Natural Heritage, The Scottish Renewables Forum and the Scottish

Society of Directors of Planning 2006 (Ref 9.3);

“Guidelines on Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and Small Scale

Hydro Electric Schemes” (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2001); (Ref 9.4)

“Assessing the cumulative effect of onshore wind energy” (SNH,

consultation draft, Nov 09); (Ref 9.5) and

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 5

(1994) (Ref 9.6).

9.2.14 The landscape and visual assessment consists of two separate, but inter-linked issues as

follows:

Landscape Effects: The effects of development on the physical and

cultural characteristics of the site and its surroundings and on the

landscape character of the study area; and

Visual Effects: The effects of development on views from visual receptors

and on the amenity value of these views.

9.2.15 The assessment identifies the nature and likely duration of these effects. For the purposes of

this assessment the following definitions are used, as informed by “Guidelines for Landscape

and Visual Impact Assessment” (Ref.9.1)

Direct: Effect is directly attributable to the development and will have a

direct physical effect on the landscape such as the addition or removal of

a landscape element or a direct effect on a view such as the addition or

removal of a visual element.

Indirect: Effect is not a direct result of the development but occurs as a

result of a complex pathway or secondary association (e.g. in the case of

wind farm developments, indirect landscape effects usually arise as a

result of changes in the views available from surrounding landscapes).

Short-term: Effects likely to persist for up to approximately 12 months; and

Long Term: Effects likely to persist beyond approximately 12 months.

9.2.16 The assessment methodology adopted for landscape and visual matters comprises a

combination of desktop and field studies including the following:

An overview of statutory plans and other data regarding relevant

designations and planning polices for the area;

December 2010 121 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

GIS analyses using Ordnance Survey panorama data to create a Zone of

Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) based on a grid of 50m;

An assessment of the landscape character and quality of the Site and

surroundings, together with the sensitivity of the landscape to change.

This includes the classification of the landscape into units of distinct and

recognisable character;

Identification of visual receptors and classifications of sensitivity to

change;

Selection of representative viewpoints;

Identification and assessment of the Predicted landscape and visual

effects of the Development, in terms of their magnitude and sensitivity;

and

The preparation of mitigation proposals with the aim where possible, of

avoiding or reducing significant adverse landscape or visual effects,

determined during the course of the assessment.

Landscape Character Assessment

9.2.17 The landscape character assessment is based on the guidelines detailed above and has

been informed by previous studies, such as the Countryside Agency‟s (now Natural England)

Landscape Character Map of England, Kent County Landscape Character Assessment and

Swale Borough Landscape Character Assessment.

9.2.18 The assessment of landscape character can be broadly broken down into the following

principal stages:

Characterisation: The grouping of landscapes into distinct character areas

based on their characteristics, elements or features;

Assignment of sensitivity: Based on such things as landscape

designations, rarity and the scenic quality of that particular character area;

and

Assessment of effects: Identification of changes to the character as a

result of the development and consideration of its significance to the

integrity of the landscape character.

9.2.19 As noted within best practice guidance, landscape character assessment is both an objective

and subjective process but can be relied on if analysis is robust, factually informed and

justifiable. This landscape character assessment has drawn in particular, from the Swale

Borough Landscape Character Assessment which identifies detailed character areas at the

local scale within the Borough.

December 2010 122 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Assessment

9.2.20 The methodology used for visual assessment follows best practice guidance as detailed

above. Visual effects are those which relate to the change in composition of available views

as a result of the proposed development. The assessment of visual effects has taken the

following principal stages:

Consideration of visual context: A consideration of the composition and

nature of views of the Site and surrounding area;

Selection of representative views: Selection of representative views,

identification of receptors of these views and assignment of their

sensitivity;

Identification of individual residential receptors within 3km;

Assessment of effects: Identification of changes to the composition of

views and consideration of the significance of this change to visual

receptors.

9.2.21 The visual analysis is based on views from external spaces within the public domain and not

from inside buildings or private spaces. However, assessment of likely views from private

dwellings within 3km is made where appropriate. In relation to this, the GLVIA (ref. 9.1) notes

that „when considering views from windows, views from rooms normally occupied during

waking/daylight hours are generally deemed to be more important than those used for

sleeping, from which only occasional views may be obtained.‟

9.2.22 Photographs were taken from selected viewpoints with a digital camera with an equivalent

50mm focal length lens at eye level (1600mm) from the ground. The camera location and

details of each viewpoint were recorded. Three digital cameras were used, all in accordance

with best practice guidelines.

9.2.23 Several terms including overbearing, overwhelming, overpowering and oppressive have been

used by different Planning Inspectors as a general test of acceptability on the residential

amenity of properties located in proximity to wind turbines; all with the same general meaning.

The term overbearing would appear to be the most commonly used term in this regard and

the only one expressly defined by the Planning Inspectorate within their online glossary of

terminology [www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk].

9.2.24 It should be noted that just because a property would experience a significant visual effect, it

does not necessarily follow that there will be an „overbearing‟ effect on the property which

might make a development unacceptable.

Significance of Effects

9.2.25 This assessment will consider both the permanent effects relating to the operational lifetime of

the wind turbines and also the short-term effects associated with the

December 2010 123 TNEI Services Ltd

Magnitude of Change

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

construction/decommissioning of the wind turbines. It will also consider any residual effects

following mitigation.

9.2.26 Effects associated with the grid connection will be subject to a separate application and will

not be covered by this assessment.

9.2.27 The significance of landscape and visual effects are determined by assessing:

The sensitivity of the affected landscape;

The sensitivity of the visual receptor; and

The magnitude of the Predicted change that will occur.

9.2.28 This is illustrated graphically as „significance matrices‟ for both landscape character and

visual effects within Table 9.1 and Table 9.2 below (and reproduced separately in Appendix

9.4). The matrices apply to either beneficial or adverse effects.

Table 9.1 Significance Matrix for Landscape Character

Sensitivity of Landscape Character

International National County High (local) Medium(local) Low (local)

Very Large Substantial Substantial Substantial

Substantial

Moderate

Slight

Large Substantial Substantial

Substantial

Moderate

Slight

Medium

Substantial

Moderate

Slight

Moderate

Slight

Moderate Slight Negligible

Small

Substantial

Moderate

Slight

Moderate

Slight

Moderate Slight Negligible

Negligible

Negligible/

None

No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect

December 2010 124 TNEI Services Ltd

Magnitude of Change

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 9.2: Significance Matrix for Visual Effects

Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

Very High High Medium Low Negligible

Very

Large

Very Substantial

Substantial

Moderate

Substantial

Moderate

Substantial Moderate Slight

Large

Substantial

Moderate

Slight

Medium

Substantial

Moderate

Slight

Moderate

Slight

Moderate Slight Negligible

Moderate

Slight

Small

Moderate

Slight

Negligible

/None

No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect

9.2.29 The assessment process aims to be objective and quantify effects as far as possible.

However, it is recognised that subjective judgement is appropriate, if it is based upon training

and experience, and supported by clear evidence, reasoned argument and informed opinion.

Whilst changes to a view can be factually defined, the evaluation of landscape character and

visual effect does require qualitative judgements to be made. The conclusions of this

assessment therefore combine systematic observation and measurement with informed

professional interpretation. Waterman is an assessor grade member of IEMA and has

experience in assessing the visual effects for various development schemes in a variety of

scenarios.

9.2.30 The assessment of the nature of landscape and visual effects will depend on the degree to

which the proposed development:

Complements, respects and fits into the existing scale, landform and

pattern of landscape context;

Enables enhancement, restoration or retention of the landscape character

and visual amenity;

Affects strategic and important views in addition to the visual context of

receptors; and

Meets policy aspirations for the area.

December 2010 125 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.2.31 Based upon the significance matrices above, the significance of predicted and residual

landscape and visual effects are described as being:

9.2.32 Very Substantial Beneficial: The Development would fit extremely well with the scale,

landform and existing pattern of the landscape, and bring substantial enhancements. The

Development would create a very substantial improvement in views;

9.2.33 Substantial Beneficial: The Development would fit very well with the scale, landform and

existing pattern of the landscape, and bring considerable enhancements. The Development

would create a substantial improvement in views;

9.2.34 Moderate Beneficial: The Development would fit well with the scale, landform and existing

pattern of the landscape, and maintain and/or enhance the existing landscape character. The

Development would create a noticeable but improved change in the views;

9.2.35 Slight Beneficial: The Development would complement the scale, landform and pattern of

the landscape, whilst maintaining the existing character. The Development would result in

minor improvements to the views;

9.2.36 Negligible: The Development would cause very limited changes to the landscape and/or

views, but creates no significant changes;

9.2.37 No Effect: There would be no perceptible effect as a result of the Development on either the

landscape character or the visual amenity of the surrounding environment. The

view/character may change but that change is not a radical departure from the existing

context;

9.2.38 Slight Adverse: The Development would cause minor permanent and/or temporary loss or

alteration to one or more key elements of the landscape. This includes the introduction of

elements which may not be uncharacteristic of the existing landscape. The Development

would cause limited visual intrusion;

9.2.39 Moderate Adverse: The Development would cause considerable permanent loss or

alteration to one or more key elements of the landscape, to include the introduction of

elements that are prominent but may not be substantially uncharacteristic of the landscape.

The Development would be visually intrusive and would adversely affect the landscape;

9.2.40 Substantial Adverse: The Development would cause substantial permanent loss or

alteration to one or more key elements of the landscape, to include the introduction of

elements that are prominent and uncharacteristic of the landscape. The Development would

be visually intrusive and would adversely affect the landscape; and

9.2.41 Very Substantial Adverse: The Development would cause total permanent loss or major

alteration to key elements and features of the landscape, to include the introduction of

elements totally uncharacteristic of the surrounding landscape. The Development would be

very visually intrusive and would disrupt fine and valued views both into and across the area.

December 2010 126 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.2.42 In terms of this assessment substantial and very substantial effects are considered to be

significant. This is in accordance with the definition provided for each level of impact as

defined above and based on professional judgement and interpretation - there is no set

threshold for significance within the EIA regulations. It should not be interpreted that because

an impact is deemed significant it is therefore unacceptable or warrant refusal of the

application.

Cumulative Assessment

9.2.43 As part of this assessment, a cumulative assessment has been undertaken in accordance

with the guidance detailed above. Cumulative landscape and visual effects result from

additional changes to the character and visual amenity of an area in conjunction with other

developments (either associated with it or separate to it).

9.2.44 The cumulative effects of other wind turbines/developments with tall elements within 30km of

the Site which are either operational, under construction/decommissioning or consented will

also be assessed (refer to Table 9.6). While it is acknowledged that wind energy assessments

often consider other schemes up to 70km away, in this case, intervening topography, built

form and vegetation combine such that 30km was considered to be an appropriate distance

within which cumulative effects should be assessed. Best practice guidelines identify three

main types of cumulative visual effect and each of these will be considered in the

assessment:

Simultaneous (or combined) visibility – where two or more sites are visible

from a fixed viewpoint in the same arc of view;

Successive visibility – where two or more sites are visible from a fixed

viewpoint, but the observer is required to turn to see the different sites;

and

Sequential visibility – where two or more sites are not visible at one

location, but would be seen as the observer moves along a linear route.

This is commonly experienced when travelling along a linear route, for

example, a road or public right of way.

9.2.45 In order to inform the cumulative assessment a series of cumulative ZTVs have been

produced (refer to Figures 9.22 to 9.26). Furthermore, three cumulative wireline

photomontages have also been produced to inform the assessment process (refer to Figures

9.28 – 9.30).

Assumptions and Limitations

9.2.46 The visibility of the Site was identified through a review of baseline data and field surveys

carried out in June and September 2010. It is recognised that this represents sub-optimum

conditions for visual assessment due to the presence of deciduous vegetation cover.

However, leaf cover has been taken into account during the assessment process and it is

December 2010 127 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

considered that the assessment still provides a reliable and robust consideration of the likely

effects of the Development on the local landscape context despite this limitation.

9.2.47 Landscape character assessment is unaffected by seasonality.

Visual Mapping

9.2.48 Maps identifying the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for the study area provide an

overview of the Predicted and theoretical visibility of the proposal. A ZTV has been prepared

for the upper blade tip height (121M) which represents the „worst case‟ scenario in terms of

visibility (Figure 9.20).

9.2.49 It must be noted that the ZTV is based on a digital terrain model generated from OS

panorama data on a 50m grid and does not take account of built from or vegetation which can

significantly alter the extent of actual visibility in the field. The actual Zone of Visual Influence

(ZVI) of the wind turbine development will be much smaller than the ZTV, with trees,

hedgerows, buildings and localised topography preventing views of the turbines from many

locations.

9.3 Planning Policy Context

9.3.1 This section outlines relevant landscape and visual related aspects of national, strategic and

local planning policies in relation to the Site. This section should be read in conjunction with

Figure 9.2: Landscape Planning Context which illustrates the location and extents of policies

detailed.

9.3.2 The Site lies within the grounds of HMP Standford Hill to the south of the village of

Eastchurch on the Isle of Sheppey, within the County of Kent and the administrative area of

Swale Borough Council.

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005)

9.3.3 PPS1 (Ref 9.7) provides overarching principles for the delivery of sustainable development for

England. Regional and local planning bodies should ensure that policies and plans contribute

to global sustainability. Planning authorities should promote high quality design for the

lifetime of the development. Design which fails to take the opportunities available for

improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted.

Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (2004)

9.3.4 PPS22 (Ref 9.8) considers renewable energy developments. Renewable energy

developments should be encouraged by planning bodies where the technology is viable and

environmental, economic and social effects can be addressed satisfactorily. Development

December 2010 128 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as

how any environmental and social effects have been minimised through careful consideration

of location, scale, design and other measures. The PPS advocates objective assessment, to

include the cumulative effects of renewable energy developments on the receiving

environment.

9.3.5 Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22 (Ref 9.9) gives advice with

regard to landscape issues and landscape and visual effects, outlining common approaches

to assessment.

Regional Planning Policy

9.3.6 The South East Plan (2009) had been revoked but is again a material consideration following

the November ruling in the High Court. It is generally supportive of renewable energy

developments. Relevant policies are summarised below.

9.3.7 Policy NRM11 – „Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy‟

encourages the growth and decentralisation of renewable energy within the South East.

9.3.8 Policy NRM15 – „Location of Renewable Energy Development‟ states that:

9.3.9 The policy continues:

„Renewable energy development, particularly wind and biomass, should be

located and designed to minimise adverse impacts on landscape, wildlife,

heritage assets and amenity‟.

„The location and design of all renewable energy proposals should be

informed by landscape character assessment where available...Proposals

within or close to the boundaries of designated areas should demonstrate

that development will not undermine the objectives that underpin the

purpose of the designation‟.

9.3.10 The development criteria for renewable energy development are outlined in Policy NRM16.

Local authorities should in principle support the development of renewable energy and

formulate criteria based policies within their planning documents.

9.3.11 Policy C3 addresses Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and states „that high

priority will be given to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty‟ within these

areas and also that planning decisions should have regard to their setting.

9.3.12 Policy C4 „Landscape and Countryside Management‟ and encourages the protection and

enhancement of the region‟s diversity and distinctiveness in relation to landscape. The use of

landscape character assessment is advocated and as is the implementation of mitigation

measures where damage to local landscapes cannot be avoided.

December 2010 129 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.3.13 The landscapes and waterscapes of the Thames corridor is protected under Policy C7. The

maintenance and enhancement of these environments is encouraged.

9.3.14 The South East Plan also identifies specific strategies for sub-areas within the region, the Site

of which falls within that of the Kent Thames Gateway sub-area. Policy KTG7 outlines green

initiatives for this area and encourages the creation and enhancement of landscape, habitats

and heritage as part of an overarching green grid network.

9.3.15 The Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006) has been revoked leaving no extant County

level policy framework applicable for consideration.

Local Planning Policy

Swale Borough Local Plan (February 2008) (Ref 9.10)

9.3.16 Policy SP1 of the adopted local plan provides guiding principles for sustainability within the

Borough. Environmental enhancement and the avoidance of damage to the natural

environment are encouraged. The general principle of sustainability is supported by SP2

which addresses the environment in particular and protects against detrimental harm.

9.3.17 General development criteria are addressed in Policy E1. The Borough expects all

development proposals to, inter alia, protect and enhance the natural environment and

respond positively to the positive characteristics and feature of the site and locality.

Development is expected to be “well sited and of a scale design and appearance, appropriate

to that location”.

9.3.18 The countryside is protected under Policy E6 which states that the quality, character and

visual amenity of the wider countryside of the Borough (i.e. all that beyond the built up area

boundaries) will be protected and where possible enhanced.

9.3.19 Policy E9 „Protecting the Quality and Character of the Borough‟s Landscape‟ seeks to protect

and where possible enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the wider landscape

of the Borough. Particular protection is afforded to designated areas of landscape such as

AONBs, Special Landscape Areas (SLA) (adjacent to the Site) and Areas of High Landscape

Value (AHLV). Further protection is afforded to the general countryside, where the Borough

Council will expect development proposals to:

Be informed by and sympathetic to local landscape character and quality;

Consider the guidelines contained in the Council‟s Landscape Character

Assessment and Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document, so as to

contribute to the restoration, creation, reinforcement and conservation, as

appropriate, of the landscape likely to be affected;

Safeguard or enhance landscape elements that contribute to the

distinctiveness of the locality or Borough;

December 2010 130 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Remove features which detract from the character of the landscape; and

Minimise the adverse effects of development upon landscape character.

9.3.20 The northern boundary of the Kent Downs AONB is located approximately 10km to the south

of the Site. The North Kent Marshes SLA is located immediately adjacent to the southern

boundary of the Site and will form a key consideration as part of the landscape assessment

process. There are three AHLVs within 10km of the Site as follows:

A - Diggs Marshes/Sheppey Court Marshes located between Sheerness,

Queensborough and Halfway Houses;

B - Area of Orchards north of Iwade between Lower Halstow and Newington;

and

C - Tonge Corner – an area of orchards between Sittingbourne and Conyer.

9.3.21 All of the above are illustrated on Figure 9.1 Landscape Designations

9.3.22 Trees and hedges are protected under Policy E10 and removal of any vegetation that makes

an important contribution to amenity will be resisted. The Site does contain hedgerows along

the eastern and southern boundaries and a small section of hedgerow (approximately 40m)

will be required to be removed to allow for access as part of the development proposals. This

policy is therefore relevant to this application.

9.3.23 Part of the Site lies within the coastal zone (Policy E13) with the majority of the Site being

located adjacent to it. The Policy states that “Where the Borough Council is satisfied that

development would require a location outside the built-up area within the Coastal Zone, as

shown on the Proposals Map, proposals will protect, conserve and, where appropriate,

enhance the landscape, environmental quality, biodiversity and recreational opportunities of

the coast, whilst respecting those natural processes such as flooding, erosion and sea level

rise that influence the Zone”.

9.3.24 Policy U3 pertains to renewable energy directly and states that “the Borough Council will

permit proposals where they demonstrate environmental, economic and social benefits and

minimise adverse impacts”. The consideration of the contribution to enhancing the landscape

and built character is specifically noted.

9.3.25 The Isle of Sheppey lies within the Thames Gateway Planning Area (Policy TG1) which forms

an important part of the Government‟s Sustainable Communities Plan. Despite support for

development in this area, Policy TG1 is clear that land that is of importance to agriculture,

landscape, biodiversity or settlement separation, will be protected from unnecessary

development.

9.3.26 Policy RC7 relates to Rural Lanes which are identified on Figure 9.2 and includes Church

Lane which leads down to the Site. The policy notes that development proposals should have

December 2010 131 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

particular regard to their landscape, amenity, nature conservation, and historic or

archaeological importance.

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD)

9.3.27 The Swale Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines (2005) (Ref. 9.11) is adopted

as SPD and provides a detailed study of the character of the Borough. The findings of this

assessment are discussed in further detail within the baseline character assessment of this

chapter.

Other Statutory and Non Statutory Designations

Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)

9.3.28 There are no TPOs on or in the immediate vicinity of the Site as confirmed by telephone

conversation with Swale Borough Council (date: 18.05.10).

Public Rights of Way (PROW) and Public Access Land

9.3.29 There are no PROW across the Site. The nearest PROW is approximately 500m to the south

east. PROW and public access land such as Country Parks within approximately 5km of the

Site are shown on Figure 9.4. This includes footpaths, bridleways, byways and national cycle

routes as shown on Kent County Council‟s Explore Kent Interactive map

(http://extranet7.kent.gov.uk/explorekentgis/map.aspx).

Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments

9.3.30 There are no listed buildings or scheduled monuments within the Site. The closest listed

building is the Grade II listed „Four Hangers‟ which is an unoccupied building on the HMP

Standford Hill site. There are two Scheduled Monuments within 5km of the Site, namely

Shurland House and the Nunnery at Minster Abbey and in addition there are a number of

listed buildings within 5km of the Site. Details of all of these structures are contained within

Chapter 10: Cultural Heritage, where an assessment of any effects on the setting of these

historic assets is made.

9.3.31 Views from receptors at listed properties will be assessed as part of the visual assessment

process where the properties are either occupied by residents or buildings open to the public.

Historic parks and gardens

9.3.32 There are no Historic Parks and Gardens located within 10km of the Site.

December 2010 132 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.4 Baseline conditions

National Character

The Countryside Agency‟s Character Map of England (2005) (Ref 9.12)

9.4.1 The Countryside Agency‟s (now Natural England) Character Map of England identifies broad,

strategic character areas for the whole of England. The Character Map places the Isle of

Sheppey with Character Area 81: Greater Thames Estuary (see Technical Appendix 9.2 for

details). The key characteristics of this character area include:

“Extensive open spaces dominated by the sky within a predominantly flat,

low-lying landscape;

The pervasive presence of water and numerous coastal estuaries;

Strong feelings of remoteness and wilderness;

Hedgerows are absent from the large, rectilinear fields. Generally tree

cover is limited to farmsteads and dwellings on the higher, drier pockets of

ground; and

Contrast and variety within the Estuary is provided by Sheppey, a long,

low island rising from a stretch of very flat marsh along the Swale estuary

in Kent with low, steep, clay cliffs facing towards Essex and across the

Thames estuary”.

9.4.2 The Site and its wider environs demonstrate much of these characteristics, particularly in

relation to extensive open spaces dominated by the sky and in the limited vegetation across

the area.

Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

9.4.3 The Kent Downs AONB, located approximately 9km to the south of the Site, is designated for

the scenic quality of its landscapes. The landscape of the AONB comprises a patchwork of

characters from low weald to chalk downs, stretching from Dover in the southeast to

Sevenoaks in the midwest and covers an area of approximately 879 sq km of the Kent

countryside. Although consisting of a diverse range of characters, the core character of the

designation is considered to be:

Dramatic landform and views from the south facing chalk and greensand

escarpments;

Contrast between dry wooded hidden valleys, steep sided river valleys

and expansive open plateaus;

December 2010 133 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

More intimate dip slope with wooded and dry river valleys containing a

number of ancient woodland blocks;

Legacy of historic settlement including numerous archaeological and

cultural remnants;

Tranquil and remote countryside despite the proximity to large

conurbations and busy transport networks; and

Dramatic white chalk cliffs and foreshore.

Regional character

The Landscape Assessment of Kent (2004) (Ref 9.13)

9.4.4 Produced by Kent County Council, this document provides an assessment of the landscape

at the county level. The Isle of Sheppey is divided into two character areas, The Swale

Marshes in the south and North Sheppey in the north. The Site lies within the „North

Sheppey‟ Character Area but is on the southern boundary of this area and is therefore also

heavily influenced by „The Swale Marshes‟ to the south. (see Technical Appendix 9.3 for

details)

9.4.5 Key characteristics of „The Swale Marshes‟ include:

“Coastal marsh with isolated hilly outcrops;

Remote, wild and isolated;

Flat, creeks and marshland vegetation;

Grazing animals and birds;

Extensive areas of cultivated marsh, few features; and

Intrusive buildings and industry, infilling of creeks and ditches”.

9.4.6 Key Characteristics of „North Sheppey‟ include:

“Island situation, exposed, prominent hills and cliffs above alluvial

marshes;

Scrub on hills. Open, intensively farmed land on lower slopes;

Denuded landscape. Remnant marsh-land creeks and ditches;

Prominent development and industry; and

Caravans and chalets”.

December 2010 134 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.4.7 Generally the Site and its neighbouring environs demonstrate many of these characteristics,

particularly the denuded landscape and intensively farmed higher ground.

9.4.8 The assessment notes that management principles for this landscape should be to restore

and create views, woodland and hedgerows, and the ecological network of the area.

North Kent Marshes Special Landscape Area (SLA)

9.4.9 The North Kent Marshes SLA abuts the Site to the south and is protected as part of local plan

policy. However, it should be noted that there is general movement away from regionally

based landscape designations to a landscape character approach which addresses

landscape character on a less prescriptive basis. Nonetheless the designation‟s intention is to

recognise their strategic landscape importance and scenic significance and the protection,

conservation and enhancement of these attributes will be sought. In relation to the North Kent

Marshes SLA, key characteristics include:

"Saturated, low lying marshland;

Comprising open and exposed rough grassland, mudflats and arable land;

Unique and nationally rare littoral habitats of international interest as

attested by a number of ecological designations; and

Sense of remoteness and wildness despite proximity of urban

development along the Thames estuary."

Local Character

Swale Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) and Guidelines (2005) (Ref 9.11)

9.4.10 This document provides a detailed landscape assessment of the Swale district at the local

level and is adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) as part of the local

development framework. The conclusions reached regarding each of the character areas are

expressed using a matrix that encompasses condition and sensitivity. This analysis gives a

broad indication of each area‟s ability to accommodate a change in management or use

without loss of overall integrity. The combination of condition and sensitivity assessments has

generated appropriate actions for each character area which are presented as a set of

guidelines. The sensitivity of each Character Area is highlighted below as this will form the

basis of the impact assessment of the Development on each Character Area later in the

Chapter. However, it must be noted that the Swale LCA is limited to only three levels of

sensitivity: low, moderate and high. This impact assessment considers sensitivity in more

detail and thus the following categories of sensitivity correspond with the Swale LCA as

follows:

Low – low (local);

Moderate – Moderate (local), High (local); and

December 2010 135 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

High – County and National.

9.4.11 The 42 Landscape Character Areas identified as part of the Swale LCA are illustrated on

Figure 9.3.

9.4.12 The Site is identified within the Character Area No. 7: ‘Central Sheppey Farmlands’. Key

characteristics of this area include:

“Ridge of London Clay rising steeply to the north;

Eroded cliffs of geological significance;

Large scale, open predominantly arable landscape with infrequent isolated

orchards;

Remnant shelter-belts and fragments of over-mature hedgerows;

Poor quality urban fringe developments including holiday parks; and

Distinctive outcrop and Bunnybank, Eastchurch”.

9.4.13 The Site and its immediate environs demonstrate several of these characteristics including

the rising ridge landform, remnant shelter-belt planting and the predominantly arable landuse.

However, the strong presence of the prison site to the north and east and the visual

barrier that this creates between the Site and the majority of LCA7 to the north, together with

the presence of the Leysdown and Eastchurch marshes immediately to the south of the Site

are such that there is not a strong association between the Site and Central Sheppey

Farmlands character area.

9.4.14 The Swale LCA notes the condition of this landscape character area is poor whist its

sensitivity is classified as moderate. The guidelines for the future management of the

landscape are to „restore and create‟ and include the following principles:

“Consider generic guidelines for mixed farmland/arable landscapes (see

pages 101 -104 of the Swale LCA);

Maintain remaining landscape features and look for opportunities to

restore or create a stronger landscape structure (trees, shelter-belts,

hedgerows, ponds, traditional orchards and woodlands) within denuded

areas;

Look for opportunities to integrate and absorb existing and new

development, including harsh edges and road corridors by planting and

screening;

Avoid proposals that would be unduly prominent in highly visible locations,

such as the undeveloped south, east and west facing slopes and limit

ribbon development;

December 2010 136 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Avoid proposals that would be unduly prominent on the undeveloped coast

and those that would obstruct or erode views of the Swale estuary;

Minimise the impacts of external lighting of the prisons on wider

landscape;

Reduce the impact of existing and proposed development around

Rushenden and Neatscourt Marshes by the introduction of features

appropriate to landscape character; and

Use local vernacular and materials and indigenous planting as appropriate

to the location”.

9.4.15 For the purposes of this assessment the sensitivity of LCA7 is considered to be high (local).

9.4.16 To the south, the Site is bordered by Character Area No.4: Leysdown and Eastchurch

Marshes the key characteristics of which include:

"Large open area of alluvial marshland;

Large-scale fields divided by long straight drainage ditches and post and

wire fencing;

Typical features include creeks, ditches, counter and sea walls;

Capel fleet;

Mixed agricultural land use;

Limited settlement along coastline and scattered farmsteads;

Atmospheric and tranquil landscape with large open and often dramatic

skies; and

Remote hamlet of Shellness overlooking a shell and shingle beach."

9.4.17 The Swale LCA notes the condition of this landscape is good and its sensitivity is moderate

with plenty of evidence of modern influence over the landscape. This is mostly limited to land

use and one small unobtrusive settlement. There is high visibility and long and open views

across the area. For the purposes of this assessment, the sensitivity of LCA4 is assessed as

being county level.

9.4.18 To the west of the Site, beyond a band of fields which lie within the Leysdown and Eastchurch

Marshes is Character Area No 1. ‘Elmley Marshes’. Key characteristics of this area include:

"Flat alluvial marshland with sinuous reed filled ditches. Traditional gates

and fences leading into ditches prevent cattle crossing into other fields;

December 2010 137 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Atmospheric and tranquil landscape with large open and often dramatic

skies;

Rough grassland largely used for cattle and sheep grazing;

Important wetland habitats;

Important transport routes A249, railway and link bridges onto island;

Large-scale landscape with little sense of enclosure;

Boats in the Swale; and

Strong sense of place."

9.4.19 The Swale LCA notes that the Elmley Marshes are in good condition and have high sensitivity

due to the distinct marshland character maintained through traditional farming practices.

Landscape features are highly visible due to open views. For the purposes of this assessment

they are considered of county sensitivity.

9.4.20 Within the Elmley Marshes lies a distinct area known as Character Area No 2. ‘Elmley

Island’ which has its own separate characteristics as follows:

"Outcrops of high ground formed of London clay contrasting with the

surrounding flat open alluvial marshland;

Long views across open marsh intermittently interrupted by trees and

scrub growing on the ridge;

3,100 acres Elmley Estate farming practices managed for promotion of

biodiversity;

Historic buildings in various states of repair; and

Numerous man made features found in the landscape, provide strong

evidence of the history of the area".

9.4.21 The Swale LCA notes the condition of Elmley Island is good while its sensitivity in landscape

terms is high again due to the distinct marshland character and long views from all directions.

For the purposes of this assessment it is assessed as county level sensitivity.

9.4.22 Further to the south of the Site, beyond the Leysdown and Eastchurch Marshes lies

Character Area No 3. „Spitend Marshes‟. This area has a mosaic of habitats, of considerable

ornithological, botanical and entomological importance. It is protected as a Site of Special

Scientific Interest, Local Nature Reserve and National Nature Reserve and is a wetland of

international significance under the Ramsar Convention and under the EC Birds Directive. It‟s

key characteristics are:

December 2010 138 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

"Flat open marshland with long views to north and south;

Network of counterwalls, sea walls, fleets and ditches cross the reserve;

Salt and freshwater marsh;

Management practices used to diversify landscape for the promotion of

biodiversity;

Landscape enclosed by irregular pattern of ditches, evident by the straw

coloured vegetation; and

Atmospheric and tranquil landscape with large open and often dramatic

skies."

9.4.23 The Swale LCA states that this landscape is in good condition with high sensitivity due to its

unique and very distinct and tranquil landscape that is highly visible and extremely sensitive.

Its sensitivity as part of this assessment is therefore considered to be of county level.

9.4.24 Adjacent to the „Spitend Marshes‟ lies Character Area No 6. ‘South Sheppey Saltmarshes

and Mudflats’ with key characteristics as:

"Vast, atmospheric and tranquil landscape with large, open and often

dramatic skies, with extensive uninterrupted panoramic views;

Alluvial soils on land, tidal mudflats and marine beaches in estuary;

Sea walls form the only man made element within the landscape;

Unique flora and fauna specially adapted to harsh environmental

conditions;

Vegetation limited to coarse, hummocky groundcover in rusty browns,

green and pink; and

Unsettled with limited pedestrian access."

9.4.25 The Swale LCA notes this landscape is in good condition with high sensitivity. It is an historic

landscape which has remained unchanged despite the drainage of adjacent marshlands. It is

a valuable environment for many especially adapted species and is an unsheltered and highly

visible area. As part of this assessment it is considered of county level sensitivity.

9.4.26 To the south west of the Site, beyond the Leysdown and Eastchurch Marshes lies Character

Area No 5. ‘Isle of Harty’, which is now no longer an island due to land reclamation but

remains difficult to access and relatively isolated from the rest of the Isle of Sheppey. Its

characteristics include:

December 2010 139 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

"Former island and high point formed of London clay contrasting with

surrounding low lying marshland;

Strong history of settlement dating from 4th Century AD;

Medium to large-scale irregular fields;

Limited scattered mature vegetation;

Panoramic views; and

Isolated settlement, a number of buildings and features of historic interest,

including St Thomas‟s Church."

9.4.27 The Swale LCA notes the Isle of Harty landscape is in poor condition but is classified as

having high sensitivity due to its unique and very historic origins and strong sense of place

together with its lack of vegetation and long views. In light of the above, it is classified as

being of county level sensitivity.

9.4.28 To the north of the Site and the Central Sheppey Farmlands lies Character Area 8. ‘Minster

and Warden Farmlands’, a more intimate landscape on higher ground with well established

mature vegetation. The key characteristics of this landscape are described as:

"Highest part of Sheppey rising to 76m at The Mount;

Rolling topography with mixed geology of London clay, Claygate beds,

Bagshot beds and head gravel;

Eroded clay cliffs of geological significance;

Small to medium-scale irregular field pattern;

Remnant poplar windbreaks and fragmented hedgerows;

Narrow enclosed lanes;

Mixed land use comprising of arable production and urban fringe activities

such as horse pasture, playing fields and holiday parks; and

Long views south to mainland and glimpses of the Thames Estuary to the

north. Views of hilltop Minster Abbey."

9.4.29 The Swale LCA notes the Minster and Warden Farmlands landscape is in poor condition but

is classified as having moderate sensitivity as the folding topography and vegetation helps to

disguise some of the less attractive features and protect the more traditional ones. For the

purposes of this assessment the sensitivity of LCA8 is assessed as medium (local).

December 2010 140 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.4.30 To the northwest, beyond the settlement of Minster lies Character Area No 9. ‘Minster

Marshes’ with key characteristics including:

"Low lying alluvial marshland;

Generally flat but gently rises to the south east;

Long uninterrupted views;

Limited tree cover includes scattered mature standard poplars and willows

as well as scattered blocks of scrub;

Small-scale irregular field pattern enclosed by sinuous drainage ditches;

Remnant marsh containing historic elements such as ditches, counterwalls

and medieval salt mounds;

Abbey Rise is an important feature in the local landscape; and

Important function of visually and physically separating Minster, Halfway

and Sheerness."

9.4.31 The Swale LCA notes this landscape is in poor condition with moderate sensitivity. It has

been degraded by the activities it now supports and its proximity to the urban area. Being

open and exposed, it retains many of the traditional marshland qualities but lacks the scale

and remote tranquil atmosphere of the north Kent marshes, many views being contained by

development. As part of this assessment LCA9 is assessed as medium (local) sensitivity.

9.4.32 Also to the northwest lies Character Area No 10. ‘Sheppey Court and Diggs Marshes, an

area of alluvial marshland that is largely flat and has the following key characteristics:

"Flat, alluvial remnant marshland with urban fringe and industrial

development at its margins;

Retention of many typical marshland features including ditches, creeks

and counterwalls;

Limited tree and scrub vegetation; and

Long, open views interrupted by major transportation routes and overhead

cables."

9.4.33 The Swale LCA notes this landscape is in moderate condition and has moderate sensitivity

due to the loss of many traditional marshland features and a weak sense of place. It is

assigned high (local) sensitivity as part of this assessment.

December 2010 141 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.4.34 To the south of the River Swale lies Character Area No 27. ‘Luddenham and Conyer

Marshes’, an extensive flat, open area of unimproved grazing marsh. Its key characteristics

are set out below:

"Flat alluvial marshland with sinuous reed filled ditches. Traditional gates

and fences leading into ditches prevent cattle crossing into other fields;

Large, open and often dramatic skies;

Rough grassland largely used for cattle and sheep grazing;

Important wetland habitats;

Access routes limited to Harty Ferry approach and Conyer;

Boats in the Swale and creek;

Large-scale landscape with little sense of enclosure; and

Strong sense of place, remote and isolated."

9.4.35 The Swale LCA notes these marshes are in good condition and have high sensitivity. Their

distinct character has been maintained through traditional farming practices and the integrity

of the marsh has not been significantly affected by distant views of industry. Landscape

features are highly visible. For the purposes of this assessment, LCA 27 is assessed as being

of county level sensitivity.

9.4.36 Also to the south is Character Area No 26. ‘Teynham Fruit Belt’, with key characteristics as:

“Undulating, intimate landscape composed of small hills and valleys;

Complex geology of the fertile drift deposits, head gravel and London clay;

Small-scale well managed network of orchards and occasional hop fields.

Elsewhere enlarged arable and grazing fields;

Birthplace of commercial fruit growing at Osiers Farm;

Narrow winding lanes enclosed by mature hedgerows and shelterbelts;

Tracks, lanes and historic buildings raised above adjacent areas, which is

indicative of the area‟s susceptibility to flooding;

Mixed traditional historic houses and farms. 20th century residential and

commercial development;

Main transport routes include the railway and A2;

Important local landmark at Tonge Mill and pond”.

December 2010 142 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.4.37 The Swale LCA notes this landscape is in moderate condition with moderate sensitivity. The

rural landscape has retained many traditional agricultural functions. However, modern

farming practices and 19th and 20th century urbanisation have degraded the quality of

localised areas. For the purposes of this assessment, LCA 26 is assessed as high (local)

sensitivity.

9.4.38 In general terms, the visibility of the landscape is relatively limited. However, this varies from

the more open elevated farmlands to the more enclosed areas of fruit production. The higher

ground can be viewed from the marshlands and development in these areas would be

sensitive. Conversely views at the marshland fringes are occasional, but wide and distant.

9.4.39 To the south east lies Character Area No 28. ‘Stone Arable Farmlands’, a rolling arable

landscape with enlarged fields. Its key characteristics include:

“Rolling landscape, gently rising south away from the marshland edge;

Large number of boats at Oare Creek;

Complex geology of London clay, head brickearth, head gravel and the

more fertile Woolwich, Oldhaven and Thanet beds;

A landscape generally enlarged as a result of agricultural intensification.

Also isolated, smaller scale, more traditionally managed landscapes;

Flooded pools and gravel workings at Oare;

Fragmented mature hedgerows along narrow enclosed winding lanes; and

Many traditional buildings dating from 17th and 18th century. Victorian

cottages and 20th century housing”.

9.4.40 The Swale LCA notes this landscape is in moderate condition and has moderate sensitivity.

In places it is very distinct and historic in origin with a strong sense of place. Visibility is

generally enclosed but there are areas of high ground and where the landscape has opened

up through farming practices where the landscape is vulnerable to change. For the purposes

of this assessment LCA 28 is assessed as high (local) sensitivity.

9.4.41 There is a strong visual connection between the Site and the landscape character areas

noted above such that any wind turbine development on the Site may have an influence on

the character of these areas.

Local Landscape Context

9.4.42 The Site is located within the grounds of HM Prison Standford Hill, part of the Sheppey Prison

Cluster, to the south of the village of Eastchurch on the Isle of Sheppey. It is bordered by

prison buildings to the north and east and agricultural land to the south and west. The

Sheppey Prison Cluster forms a notable feature within the local landscape situated on high

December 2010 143 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

ground above the Eastchurch Marshes. The buildings formed part of the former military

airfield and include hangers, a former aircraft factory and various workshops as well as

modern purpose built prison accommodation. The former airfield buildings are in very poor

condition, creating a sense of neglect to the Site area. To the south of the Site, the land is

open and flat, the Eastchurch Marshes stretching down to the edge of the River Swale. The

marshland extends across the whole of the southern half of the Isle of Sheppey, creating the

opportunity for open views across to Standford Hill from the southern banks of the River

Swale to the south. The value of the marshland landscape is recognised through the Special

Landscape Area designation, the extent of which is illustrated on Figure 1. The small village

of Eastchurch lies to the immediate north of The Sheppey Prison Cluster with the holiday

resort of Leysdown on Sea to the north east and the small town of Minster to the north west.

Isolated farm and residential properties are scattered across the countryside to the north,

north east, and northwest of the Site where the higher level farmland sits above the lower

lying marshes.

Landscape Features

9.4.43 The Site consists of three open fields and part of a fourth. The Site is divided into two areas,

separated by a sewage works. The field boundaries are formed by a mix of hedgerows and

post and wire fencing with no particular features of note. Drainage ditches form the southern

boundaries of the two separate Site areas.

Summary of Landscape Context

9.4.44 The Site itself consists of grassland fields which lie within the boundary of HM Prison

Standford Hill. The two turbines will be located on separate fields divided by a sewage works

and with the backdrop of the prison buildings to the north and east. The Sheppey Prison

Cluster consists of a variety of buildings and open spaces including modern prison

accommodation and former airfield hangers (listed) and outbuildings, many of which are now

used as workshops. The former airfield buildings are in very poor condition, creating a sense

of neglect to the site area. The prison buildings, trees and high ground of the topographical

feature of Standford Hill create a visual barrier between the Site and the majority of the

surrounding Central Sheppey Farmlands Character Area such that the Site is more influenced

by the adjacent Leysdown and Eastchurch Marshes (LCA4) to the south.

9.4.45 Flat, open marshland dominates the overall character of the area, the Leysdown and

Eastchurch Marshes giving way to the Elmley Marshes to the west and the Harty and Spitend

Marshes to the east and south. These marshlands are extensive, open landscapes with little

built form and affording wide, open views across the Isle of Sheppey to the mainland of Kent

beyond. In contrast, to the north of the Site the farmlands are more intimate in character with

smaller field parcels, scattered farmsteads and settlements and more undulating topography

with only pockets of high ground where open views across to the mainland are possible. In

terms of landscape management, there is a clear need to maintain the tranquil nature and

wetland habitat of the marshes in the southern half of the Isle of Sheppey and to restore and

recreate improved structure within the farmland landscapes in the north of the island.

December 2010 144 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Context

Visual Envelope (VE)

9.4.46 The ZVI of the Site refers to the actual area from which the Site (whether in whole or part) is

potentially visible. When viewed from a distance, the high ground of Standford Hill with the

buildings of the Sheppey Prison Cluster forms an excellent landmark reference point to

enable the viewer to locate the Site over several kilometres. Throughout the field survey, an

anemometry mast was present on the Site, rising up to 70m. Although the height of the mast

is significantly less than the proposed 121m that the turbines will be, it served as a useful

landmark feature during the field visit, enabling the Site location to be clearly identified from

the surrounding area. The following section examines the visibility of the Site with special

reference to 13 representative views (see Figures 9.7 -9.18) towards the Site from the

surrounding areas and forming the basis for the visual assessment. Photomontages illustrate

the effect of the Development from these representative views.

Views Towards the Site

9.4.47 There are no clear public views of the Site itself owing to its location to the south west of the

Sheppey Prison Cluster where intervening buildings and vegetation obscure views of the

fields and hedgerow/fence line boundaries. This section therefore reviews the visual context

of the Site and identifies those locations where there are open views in the direction of Site

which are likely to have potential views of the Development.

Residential Views within 3km

9.4.48 Residential properties and prison buildings within 3km of the Site are illustrated on Figure 9.5

and listed in Table 9.3 below. It must be noted that the description of views from residential

properties is based on information obtained from visiting publicly accessible roads and

footpaths in the vicinity, from views looking out from HM Prison Standford Hill to these

properties and from aerial photography. The existing views described are interpreted from the

information available and may not be a completely accurate reflection of the visual context of

each property.

Table 9.3 – Views from Residential Properties

Name

Distance

Visual Context

from Site

(approx.)

1a HM Prison Elmley 320m Views from third storey windows

1b HM Prison Swaleside 570m No views from prison due to low lying nature of

building, lack of fenestration and height of prison

wall.

1c HM Prison Standford Hill 290m Open direct and oblique views from prison

windows directly towards the Site

2a Numbers 1-6 Range

Road, and properties on

Orchard Way, Kent View

Drive, St George‟s

910m

Direct views towards the Site from either front or

back windows.

December 2010 145 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Name

Avenue

2b Properties on Church

Road, Brabazon Road

and Range Road

3 Groves Farm (Planning

Permission for Residential

Property)

Distance

from Site

(approx.)

900m

650m

Visual Context

These properties do not face towards the Site.

There may be some oblique views.

Potential future oblique views towards the Site.

Farm boundary vegetation will restrict some views

from ground floor windows.

4 New Rides Farm 1.6km Potential oblique views towards the Site from back

windows.

5 New Rides Bungalow 1.8km Oblique views towards the Site limited by garden

boundary vegetation.

6 Sunrise 2.1km Main windows orientated to east. Potential oblique

views to Site from back of property limited by

boundary vegetation.

7 Old Rides Farm 2.5km Predicted oblique views from farmhouse – may be

restricted by intervening farm buildings and

vegetation.

8 Capel Hill Farm 2.8km Open views from farmhouse towards the Site –

trees on garden boundary may limit views in part.

9 Parsonage Farm

(Grade II Listed)

1.7km Potential oblique views from farmhouse windows –

restricted by garden boundary vegetation.

10 Rowett‟s Farm 1.9km Potential views out from back of house towards the

Site. Restricted by Standford Hill.

11 Properties on Church

Road, Warden Road and

High Street, Eastchurch

including Grade II listed

Rectory and Glebe

Cottage and Grade I listed

Church of All Saints

12 Properties on Lower Road

to north of Rowett‟s Farm

2km

Potential oblique/glimpsed views towards the Site.

Open views from back windows of No's 94-110

High Street, Eastchurch.

Open views from back of properties towards the

Site with some restriction due to garden vegetation

and Standford Hill.

1313 Greenways 2.2km Open views from ground and first floor windows

towards the Site.

1414 Garrett‟s Farm 2.9km House is orientated east/west and views out

towards site therefore appear limited.

1515 Properties on Plough

Road

3km Open views from ground and first floor windows

towards the Site.

16 New properties at

Kingsborough Manor

2.5km Open views from ground and first floor windows

towards the Site.

17 Properties on corner of

Eastchurch Road

(Kingsborough Cottages

and Norwood Cottage)

2.6km

Open views from ground and first floor windows

towards the Site.

18 Norwood Manor 2.4km Views from upper floor windows filtered by trees

within grounds.

December 2010 146 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

18 Norwood Manor 2.4km Views from upper floor windows filtered by trees

within grounds.

19 Newbuildings Cottages 1.6km Potential open views from ground and first floor

windows towards the Site.

20 Bramblefields and Grove 1.4km Potential oblique views from upper floor windows.

Cottage

21 Property on Lower Road

to north of Old Hook Farm

1.9km Open views from ground and first floor windows

towards the Site.

22 New Hook Farm 1.8km 1 property with no view, 2 nd property with open

views from ground and first floor windows towards

site, partly screened by garden boundary

hedgerow.

23 Old Hook Farm 1.3km 2 properties with open views from ground and first

floor windows towards site, partly screened by

barns and outbuildings.

24 Poors Farm 2.4km Oblique views from upper floor windows.

25 Properties at

Brambledown

2.3km Glimpsed views from properties on eastern edge

possible.

26 South Lees 2.9km No views available.

Views from Public Rights of Way within 5km of Site

9.4.49 The locations of PROW within approximately 5km of the Site are shown on Figure 9.4 and

where there are views towards the Site from these PROW, these are described in Table 9.4

below:

Table 9.4– Views from Public Rights of Way

ZS46

ZS42

ZS37, ZS38

ZS36

ZS40

ZS45

ZS27, ZS32

ZS22, ZS23, ZX5,

ZX7, ZX10, ZX9

ZS31, ZS15

ZS13, ZS19,

ZS20, ZS21

ZX12

Saxon Shore Way

Long Distance

Footpath

There are intermittent open views towards the Site from footpath ZS46 as it

crosses Eastchurch Marshes.

There are intermittent open views towards the Site from footpath/bridleway

ZS42 as it crosses the Isle of Harty.

There are intermittent open views towards the Site from footpaths ZS37 and 38

as they cross Leysdown Marshes.

There are intermittent views towards the Site from footpath ZS36 as it skirts

around the edge of Leysdown on Sea.

There are open views towards the Site from footpath ZS40 as it skirts around

the coast.

There are open views towards the Site from footpath ZS45 as it crosses Harty

Marshes.

There are intermittent open views towards the Site from footpaths ZS27 and

Bridleway ZS38.

There are intermittent views towards the Site from footpaths ZS22, ZS23, ZX5,

ZX7, ZX10 and ZX9.

There are open views towards the Site from bridleway ZS31 and byway ZS15.

There are open views towards the Site from footpaths ZS13, ZS19, Zs20 and

bridleway ZS21.

There are intermittent views towards the Site from footpath ZS12.

There are open views towards the Site from the Saxon Shore Way long

distance footpath as it follows the southern bank of the Swale estuary to the

south of the Isle of Sheppey. (See photoviewpoints 10 and 11)

December 2010 147 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Sustrans National

Cycle Route 1

There are intermittent open views towards the Site from the National Cycle

Route 1 particularly from the vicinity of Conyer to the south and from Sheppey

Way as it crosses the Swale and Minster Marshes.

Representative Views from Receptors within 10km of Site

9.4.50 Views from local open spaces are also available. An open view of the Site is available from

Elmley Marshes RSPB Nature Reserve to the south west of the Site (Photomontage 8) and

from Oare Marshes Visitor Centre (Photomontage 11). While the visitors to those areas will

be primarily there to view wildlife they will be very much influenced by the landscape around

them as part of that experience and thus are considered to be a highly sensitive receptor.

9.4.51 There is also a view towards the Site from Leysdown Country Park (Photomontage 2)

although most users of this area will be focussed on the seascape to the east.

9.4.52 The existing temporary anemometry mast on the Site can be clearly viewed from main roads

in the immediate surroundings of the Site. The mast on Site is visible from sections of the

B2231 which connects the A249 in the west of the Isle of Sheppey with Leysdown on Sea in

the east. In particular there are clear views from the B2231 at Bay View (Photomontage 3) to

the west of Leysdown on Sea and along the stretch from Wallend to Scocles Road

(Photomontage 6). There are also views from the A249, especially from the Kingsferry Bridge

where the road is elevated as it crosses the River Swale. In addition, the mast can be clearly

viewed from Sheppey Way which runs parallel to the A249 and crosses the River Swale on a

swing bridge (Photomontage 7). The mast can also be viewed from a short stretch of the

B2008 at the new roundabout which provides access to the new residential development at

Kingsborough Manor.

9.4.53 Views from more minor roads are also available. There are intermittent views of the mast

from Harty Ferry Road between the B2231 and Capel Fleet Raptor viewpoint (Photomontage

9) and from Ferry Road which runs along the western edge of Minster Marshes. There is also

a fleeting view of the mast from the southern stretch of Scocles Road where it meets the

B2231 as well as from Plough Road in the vicinity of Cripps.

9.4.54 In the immediate vicinity of the Site there are potential views from Brabazon Road which runs

into the Standford Hill Prison site and from Church Road to the north. Due to the tree lined

nature of the road, the mast was not apparent during the field visit. However, it is considered

that there would be potential views of the Site in winter.

9.4.55 There are also views towards the Site from the railway line to the south west, particularly

where the line crosses Neatscourt Marshes, Ferry Marshes and Ridham Marshes.

9.4.56 Many of the views from the surrounding area, particularly those in the western part of the Isle

of Sheppey will be seen in the context of existing built form and vertical elements including

the industrial works at Ridham Dock, Paper Mill at Kelmsley and industrial works at

Queensborough. Electricity pylons are another vertical element that feature noticeably in

some views, particularly from Minster Marshes.

December 2010 148 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Representative View from Locations over 10km away from Site

9.4.57 There are also views towards the Site from locations greater than 10km away where the

viewing distance is such that it is considered the turbines would not be clearly discernible.

Photoviewpoint 12 from the beach at Whitstable, illustrates a view of this nature.

Receptors of Change and Sensitivity

9.4.58 Views from Public Rights of Way, National Cycle Route 1 and public access areas including

Elmley Marshes, Oare Marshes and Leysdown Country Park are considered to be of high

sensitivity given the recreational use by the viewer.

9.4.59 Views from trains on the Sheerness Line are considered to be of high sensitivity given that the

line passes through the North Kent Marshes SLA.

9.4.60 Views from residential properties are considered to be of high sensitivity (with views from

upper floor windows being of medium sensitivity where relevant) given the static nature of the

view.

9.4.61 Views from prison properties are considered to be of low sensitivity given the limited

outlook.

9.4.62 Views from main roads are considered to be of low sensitivity given the higher speeds of

vehicles and the transient nature of the view. However, the A249 which crosses the River

Swale over the Isle of Sheppey lies within the North Kent Marshes SLA and is therefore

considered to be of medium sensitivity. Views from the more local roads within the study area

both within and outside of the SLA are considered to be of medium sensitivity given the

slower speeds of the vehicles and the nature of the route. Those that are designated as

„Rural Lanes‟ in the Swale Local Plan (see Figure 9.2) are also considered to be of medium

sensitivity given the nature of the road.

9.4.63 Thirteen viewpoints are illustrated as representative photomontages following a review of the

visibility analysis and the context of the people and places receiving the view. Figure 9.5

shows viewpoint locations. The photomontages are illustrated on Figures 9.7 – 9.19.

9.4.64 The following provides a description of these representative views.

December 2010 149 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 9.5: Description of Photomontage Locations

Photomontage

Location

Description of View

Receptors

Sensitivity

1 View from Church Road lay-by. Selected to

illustrate views of the proposal from road users

on a „Rural Lane within 2km. This is an expansive

view with Standford Hill and views to the Kent

Downs possible. The arable farmland

surrounding Standford Hill is apparent, bounded

by thin tree belts and hedgerows.

2 View from sea wall path opposite cafe in

Leysdown Country and Coastal Park looking

west. Selected to illustrate view from designated

public open space over 5km away to the east.

This is an expansive view with recreational

playing fields prominent in the foreground and the

hills of the Kent Downs visible on the horizon.

3 View from B2231 at Bay View looking south west

towards the Site. Selected to illustrate views from

local roads between 2-5km away. Dwellings at

Bay View are prominent in this view.

4 View from the High Street in Eastchurch at the

crossroads with Church Road looking south west

towards the Site. Selected to illustrate views from

the local residential community of Eastchurch.

Built form is prominent within this view.

5 View from within the Abbey grounds at Minster

looking south east towards the Site. Selected to

illustrate views from the grounds of this

Scheduled Ancient Monument. This is a long

distance, glimpsed view through perimeter

vegetation where the flat and open marsh

landscape is visible in the distance.

6 View from B2213 at the junction with Barton Hill

Drive looking south east towards the Site.

Selected to illustrate views from local roads

between 2-5km away to the west. This is an

expansive view over the Central Sheppey

Farmlands with large farm buildings prominent in

the middle ground.

7 View from Sheppey Way (within North Kent

Marshes SLA) and National Cycle Route No1

looking east across the marshes towards the

Site. Selected to illustrate views available to road

users and cyclists over 5km away but within the

SLA designation to the west. This is an open view

with expansive skies evident.

8 View from Elmley Marshes Nature Reserve

looking north east towards the Site. Selected to

illustrate views by walkers and bird watchers

within 2-5km away to the west. This is an

expansive view across the Sheppey Marshes.

9 View from Capel Fleet Raptor Viewpoint looking

north west towards the Site. Selected to illustrate

views by walkers and birdwatchers within 2-5km

away to the east. This is an open view of across

the Leysdown and Eastchurch Marshes with built

form at Standford Hill notable.

Local Road Users

Walkers

Visitors

Tourists

Park users

Local Road users

Residents on Bay

View Road

Local Road Users

Residents in

Eastchurch

Pedestrians

Church users

Local Road users

Road users

Cyclists

Walkers

Bird Watchers

Walkers

Bird Watchers

Medium

High

Medium

High

Medium

High

Low

Medium

High

10 View from Footpath ZR234, the Saxon Shore Walkers High

December 2010 150 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Photomontage

Location

Description of View

Receptors

Sensitivity

Way long distance footpath north of the village of

Conyer looking north towards the Site. Selected

to illustrate views from PROW within 5km to the

south. The River Swale is prominent in the

foreground with the marsh landscape extending

beyond.

11 View from Footpath ZR317, the Saxon Shore

Way long distance footpath within the Oare

Marshes Nature Reserve looking north west

towards the Site. Selected to illustrate views from

PROW and Nature Reserve over 5km to the

south east. The River Swale is prominent in the

foreground with the marsh landscape extending

beyond.

12 View from the beach at Whitstable looking west

towards the Site. Selected to illustrate an open

view towards the site from over 10km away

where there are likely to be a large number of

viewers. The sea forms the dominant feature of

this view with land visible on the horizon.

13 View from the open space at the back of Range

Road. Selected to illustrate views from the local

community immediately to the north of the site.

Localised yet open view with complex of Sheppey

Prison cluster and private dwellings visible.

Summary of Visual Context

Walkers

Bird Watchers

Walkers

Tourists

Beach Users

Local residents

High

9.4.65 The Development is set within a relatively open landscape that is viewed by a range of

receptors, many of which are likely to have uninterrupted views of the proposed wind turbines.

While there are wide open views across the marshes to the south where there is little built

development, the Sheppey Prison Cluster and industrial and port works to the south and west

include significant vertical elements which are already visible. The more sensitive landscape

areas of Elmley Island and Elmley Marshes lie closer to industrial and port installations at

Ridham Dock and Queensborough are such that there are already significant built elements

on the horizon to detract slightly from the open views. Views from the Harty Marshes and the

Isle of Harty are less affected by existing structures in the landscape.

9.4.66 Standford Hill and the Sheppey Prison Cluster buildings provide a useful visual barrier to the

north, with many views from roads and properties north of the prison heavily restricted by the

intervening landform, buildings and trees.

9.4.67 Beyond the Isle of Sheppey and the Luddenham Marshes to the south, views of the Site are

occasional and glimpsed given the extent of built development at Sittingbourne, Teynham and

Faversham.

December 2010 151 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.4.68 Principal visual receptors of the Site are considered to be:

Walkers on the Saxon Shore Way;

Walkers on local footpaths;

Birdwatchers at Elmley Nature Reserve;

Birdwatchers at Oare Nature Reserve;

Birdwatchers at Capel Fleet;

Local residents to the east, north and west; and

Local Road Users;

9.5 Topic Specific Design Evolution

9.5.1 The turbines are of a standard design and there is little between the different models which

would make any notable difference to a landscape and visual assessment. Colour was

considered and RAL 9018 or a similar off-white colour will be used to minimise visual effect

against the sky.

9.6 Predicted Significance of Effects of Scheme.

Construction and Decommissioning

9.6.1 The construction/decommissioning period for the wind energy development will comprise the

following activities:

Upgrading of existing tracks and construction/decommissioning of new

access tracks and passing places, inter-linking the turbine locations and

control building;

Construction/decommissioning of new access junction;

Formation of site compound including hard standing and temporary site

office facilities;

Construction/decommissioning of crane hard standing areas;

Construction/decommissioning of culverts under roads to facilitate

drainage and maintain existing hydrology;

Construction/decommissioning of turbine foundations;

December 2010 152 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Construction/decommissioning of site control building;

Construction/decommissioning of met mast foundation;

Excavation of trenches and cable laying adjacent to site roads;

Connection of on-site distribution and signal cables;

Delivery and erection of wind turbines;

Delivery and erection of permanent anemometry mast;

Commissioning of site equipment; and

Site restoration.

9.6.2 Effects resulting from construction/decommissioning works would occur throughout this phase

of the Development. It is noted that there are no permanent structures onsite at present,

thereby negating the need for demolition activities. Enabling ground works and

construction/decommissioning works will occur, the principal components of which would

cause an inevitable deterioration to a small proportion of the Site.

9.6.3 This assessment has identified the timescale during which effects would occur, their nature

(i.e. direct and indirect) as well their potential reversibility. The significance of effects has

been identified using the methodology detailed above and the matrices set out in the

methodology section.

9.6.4 Due to the transient nature of construction/decommissioning activities, all effects identified for

the construction/decommissioning phase are short term in nature, lasting for the duration of

the construction/decommissioning phase. All construction/decommissioning phase effects in

relation to landscape and visual aspects are potentially reversible.

9.6.5 The decommissioning phase of the development is likely to be similar in nature to the

construction/decommissioning phase, taking a similar time period to complete and again only

involving high level activities for a very short time period while the wind turbines are

dismantled. To avoid repetition, it is taken that the effects for the decommissioning phase will

be the same as for the construction/decommissioning phase and will not therefore be

repeated as part of this Chapter.

9.6.6 The construction and decommissioning phase effects of the development are described in

Table 9.6 overleaf:

December 2010 153 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 9.6: Predicted Construction/Decommissioning Effects - Landscape Character

Note: All effects described below are temporary in nature. All effects are direct effects unless stated as indirect in the table.

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Kent Downs AONB National Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 10km of

AONB.

None – distance of activities

too great to have any effect

on character of the AONB.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) up to 1km

from site.

County

Construction/

decommissioning

activities close to

boundary of SLA.

Construction/

decommissioning activities

adjacent to SLA will have an

influence on the character of

the SLA.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

Indirect

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Indirect

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) within 1-

2km from site.

County

Construction/

decommissioning

activities close to

boundary of SLA.

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 1-2km from SLA will

have an influence on the

character of the SLA.

Medium

Moderate

Indirect

None

Moderate

Indirect

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) between

2-5km from site.

County

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 2-5km of

boundary of SLA.

High level construction/

decommissioning activities

will have an influence on the

character of the SLA between

2-5km from the site.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

None

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

December 2010 154 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) over 5km

from site.

County

Construction/

decommissioning

activities over 5km from

boundary of SLA and

transportation of turbines

through SLA.

At this distance the wind

turbines will have very little

influence on the character of

the SLA. The transportation

of the turbines on the A249

within the SLA will also have

negligible influence on the

character of the SLA which is

already influenced by HGVs

travelling to and from the Port

of Sheerness and

Queensborough on this same

route.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

Areas of High

Landscape Value

High (Local )

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 5-10km

of AHLV.

None – character of AHLVs is

already influenced by high

level activities at Ridham and

Queensborough.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

Rural Lanes High (Local ) Construction traffic will

travel along Church

Road which leads down

to the site.

Temporary increase in

construction vehicles along

Rural Lane.

Medium Moderate /

Slight

Indirect

None Moderate /

Slight

Indirect

Grassland Fields Low (Local ) Construction/

decommissioning

activities within grassland

fields.

Clearance of grassland. Large Slight None No effect

December 2010 155 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Hedgerows High (Local )

Protected by

Policy E10

Construction/

decommissioning

activities.

Removal of approximately

40m of hedgerow to allow for

access.

Medium

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/

Slight

LCA7:Central

Sheppey Farmlands

High (local)

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within LCA7.

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within LCA7 will be principally

ground level works with

minimal effect on the local

landscape and no change in

relation to the overall quality

of the wider character area.

Very short term, change in

character due to high level

activities which will have an

influence on the character of

LCA7.

Medium

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/

Slight

LCA4:Leysdown and

Eastchurch Marshes

County

Construction/

decommissioning

activities adjacent to

LCA4.

Adjacent construction/

decommissioning activities

will be principally ground level

works with minimal effect on

the local landscape and no

change in relation to the

overall quality of the wider

character area. Very short

term, change in character due

to high level activities which

will have an influence on the

Medium

Moderate

Indirect

None

Moderate/Slight

Indirect

December 2010 156 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

character of LCA7.

LCA1:Elmley

Marshes

County

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 5km of

LCA1.

Very short term, change in

character due to high level

activities which will have a

small influence on the

character of LCA1.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

None.

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

LCA2:Elmley Island County Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 5km of

LCA2.

Very short term, change in

character due to high level

activities which will have a

small influence on the

character of LCA2.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

None

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

LCA3:Spitend

Marshes

County

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 5km of

LCA3.

Very short term, change in

character due to high level

activities which will have a

small influence on the

character of LCA3.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

None

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

LCA5: Isle of Harty County Construction/decommissi

oning activities within

5km of LCA5.

No discernible change in

character as construction/

decommissioning activities

are largely screened from

view.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

December 2010 157 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

LCA6: South

Sheppey

Saltmarshes and

mudflats

County

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 5km of

LCA6.

Very short term, change in

character due to high level

activities which will have a

small influence on the

character of LCA6.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

None

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

LCA8 Minster and

Warden Farmlands

Medium

(Local)

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 5km of

LCA8.

No discernible change in

character as construction/

decommissioning activities

are screened from view

throughout much of this

character area.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

LCA9 Minster

Marshes

Medium

(Local)

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 5km of

LCA9.

No discernible change in

character as construction/

decommissioning activities

are screened from view.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

LCA10 Sheppey

Court and Diggs

Marshes

High (Local)

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 5km of

LCA10.

No discernible change in

character as construction/

decommissioning activities

are screened from view.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

LCA26 Teynham

Fruit Belt

High (Local)

(Part SLA

designation)

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 5km of

LCA26.

No discernible change in

character as construction/

decommissioning activities

are mainly low level and

distant and high level

activities are at such a

distance that they do not

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

December 2010 158 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

have an effect on the overall

character of LCA26.

LCA27 Luddenham

and Conyer Marshes

County

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 5km of

LCA27.

No discernible change in

character as construction/

decommissioning activities

are mainly low level and

distant and high level

activities are at such a

distance that they do not

have an effect on the overall

character of LCA27.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

LCA28 Stone Arable

Farmlands

High (Local)

(Part SLA

designation)

Construction/

decommissioning

activities within 5km of

LCA2.

No discernible change in

character as construction/

decommissioning activities

are mainly low level and

distant and high level

activities are at such a

distance that they do not

have an effect on the overall

character of LCA28.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

December 2010 159 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.7 Construction/Decommissioning Phase Landscape Effects

9.7.1 Construction/decommissioning activities are considered to have no effect on the AONB, as

very distant, glimpsed and very short-term views of high level construction/decommissioning

activities are not sufficient to influence the character of this landscape.

9.7.2 Construction/decommissioning activities within the Site are likely to affect its immediate

environs, chiefly the adjacent North Kent Marshes SLA. Temporary

construction/decommissioning activities adjacent to the SLA in the vicinity of the Development

Site will have an effect on the character of the SLA in this localised area and up to

approximately 5km from the site. The presence of such high level activities in an area where

there are only low level features and activities will introduce new elements into views across

the area and will influence the character of this landscape. The high level activities will

detract from the wide, open skies and sense of remoteness that characterises this marshland

landscape. Effects will be indirect, very short term and of substantial/moderate adverse

significance on the SLA up to 1km from the Site where the influence of the high level works

will be at their greatest. This will reduce to moderate adverse significance between 1-2km

from the Site and to moderate/slight significance between 2-5km from the Site where. Over

5km away, the high level cranes will be visible but not to the extent that they exert any

significant influence on the character of the landscape.

9.7.3 Transportation of turbines through the SLA is considered to be of negligible effect due to the

very short term nature of the activity and the existing presence of HGVs, construction vehicles

and other traffic already using the major routes such as the A249 that pass through the SLA.

9.7.4 Similarly the construction/decommissioning activities will have no effect on any AHLV as its

character is already influenced by high level industrial, port and

construction/decommissioning activities at Ridham and Queensborough.

9.7.5 Church Road is the only rural lane to be directly affected by the

construction/decommissioning phase although it is already frequented by

construction/decommissioning and other large vehicles accessing the prison site. The

temporary increase in construction/decommissioning traffic along Church Road is considered

to have an indirect short-term effect of moderate/slight adverse significance on this

designated Rural Lane.

9.7.6 Construction/decommissioning activities will clearly alter the landscape of the Site itself which

will change from grassland fields to a construction/decommissioning site during the course of

the works. The clearance of this land will give rise to direct permanent effects of slight

adverse significance.

9.7.7 The loss of approximately 40m of hedgerow from the boundary of the site will give rise to

direct permanent effects of moderate/slight adverse significance. The section of hedgerow

that is to be removed forms a part of the existing boundary hedgerow and does not make an

important contribution to amenity in itself. The removal of this section of hedgerow is not

therefore considered to contravene Policy E10.

December 2010 160 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.7.8 There will be direct short-term effects of moderate/slight adverse significance on

Landscape Character Area 7 with the introduction of wind turbine construction/

decommissioning into an area that does not currently contain such high level activities.

9.7.9 There are considered to be indirect short-term effects of moderate adverse significance

on LCA4, given that the activities lie directly adjacent to LCA4 and will therefore exert a wider

influence upon that character area.

9.7.10 LCAs 1, 2, 3 and 6 are located within 5km of the Site and the high level activities will have

indirect short-term moderate/slight adverse effects on the character of these landscapes.

9.7.11 No effects are anticipated for LCAs 5, 8, 9, 10, 26, 27 and 28.

December 2010 161 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 9.7: Predicted Construction/Decommissioning Effects – Visual

Note: All effects described below both direct and temporary in nature.

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Residential Receptors within 3km of Site

HM Prison Standford

Hill

Negligible

Construction/

decommissioning activities

adjacent to HM Prisons.

Views of construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from parts of

prison buildings/areas.

Large Slight None Slight

HM Prison Elmley Negligible Construction/

decommissioning activities

adjacent to HM Prisons.

Views of construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from 3 rd story

windows only.

Large Slight None Slight

HM Prison Swaleside Negligible Construction/

decommissioning activities

adjacent to HM Prisons.

No views likely due to scale of

prison wall.

Negligible/

None

No effect None No effect

Numbers 1-6 Range

Road

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 1km of properties.

Views of very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities

from either back windows and

gardens.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

December 2010 162 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Numbers 11-24

Range Road and

properties on Orchard

Way

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 1km of properties.

Oblique and direct views of

very short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities from either front or

back windows.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Properties on Church

Road, Brabazon

Road, Kent View

Drive, St George‟s

Avenue

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 1km of properties.

Oblique views of very short

term higher level construction/

decommissioning activities

from either front or back

windows. Direct views of

construction traffic from

Church Road and Brabazon

Road.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

December 2010 163 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Groves Farm

(Planning Permission

for Residential

Property)

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 0.5km of property.

Predicted views of very short

term higher level construction/

decommissioning activities.

Garden and farm boundary

trees and shrubs will restrict

views from ground floor

windows as will barns and

farm outbuildings. Views

towards construction site will

be oblique and from back of

house and will be seen in the

context of buildings at HM

Prison Standford Hill. Open

views from the back garden of

the property are predicted

giving rise to very large effects

on the view.

Very Large Substantial Limit presence of cranes

and higher level activity to

necessary works only.

Substantial/

Moderate

New Rides Farm High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2km of property.

Predicted oblique views of

very short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities from back windows.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

New Rides Bungalow High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2km of property.

Predicted oblique views of

very short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities limited by garden

boundary vegetation.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

December 2010 164 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Sunrise High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2km of property.

Old Rides Farm High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of property.

Capel Hill Farm High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of property.

Main windows orientated to

east. Predicted oblique views

of very short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities from back of

property, limited by boundary

vegetation.

Predicted oblique views of

very short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities may be restricted by

intervening farm buildings and

vegetation.

Open views of very short term,

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities

from farmhouse – trees on

garden boundary may limit

views in part.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Parsonage Farm

(Grade II Listed)

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2km of property.

Predicted oblique views of

very short term, higher level

construction/ decommissioning

restricted by garden boundary

vegetation.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

December 2010 165 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Rowett‟s Farm High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2km of property.

Predicted views of very short

term higher level construction/

decommissioning activities

from back of house towards

site. Restricted by Standford

Hill.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Nos 94-110 High

Street, Eastchurch

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2-3km of properties.

Open views of very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities

from back of properties.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Other properties on

High Street

Eastchurch,

properties on Church

Road Eastchurch

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2-3km of properties.

Oblique, glimpsed views of

very short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Other properties in

Eastchurch

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2-3km of properties.

No views due to intervening

landform.

Negligible/

None

No effect None No effect

Properties on Lower

Road to north of

Rowett‟s Farm

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of properties.

Open views of very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities

from back of properties with

some restriction due to garden

vegetation and Standford Hill.

Small Moderate /

Slight

None Moderate /

Slight

December 2010 166 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Properties on Plough

Road

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of properties.

Open views of very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities

from ground and first floor

windows.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Greenways High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of property.

Open views of very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities

from ground and first floor

windows.

Large

Substantial

/Moderate

None

Substantial

/Moderate

Garrett‟s Farm High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of property.

House is orientated east/west

and views out towards site

therefore appear limited.

Negligible

/ None

No effect None No effect

New properties at

Kingsborough Manor

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of properties.

Predicted open and oblique

views of very short term higher

level construction/

decommissioning activities

from ground and first floor

windows of properties on

eastern edge of development.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Properties on corner

of Eastchurch Road

(Kingsborough

Cottages, Norwood

Cottage)

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of properties.

Predicted open views of very

short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities from ground and first

floor windows towards site.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

December 2010 167 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Norwood Manor High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of property.

Predicted views of very short

term higher level construction/

decommissioning activities

from upper floor windows,

filtered by trees within

grounds.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/

Slight

Newbuildings

Cottages

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of properties.

Predicted open views of very

short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities from ground and first

floor windows and from

gardens.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Bramblefields and

Grove Cottage

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of properties.

Predicted oblique views of

very short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities and open views from

gardens.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Property on Lower

Road to north of Old

Hook Farm

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of property.

Predicted open views of very

short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities from ground and first

floor windows.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

New Hook Farm High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of properties.

Two properties – both

orientated north/south. One

with predicted views of very

short term higher level

Medium Moderate None Moderate

December 2010 168 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

construction/decommissioning

activities from ground and first

floor windows.

Old Hook Farm High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of properties.

2 properties with views of very

short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities from ground and first

floor windows, partly screened

by barns, and outbuildings.

Large

Substantial

/Moderate

None

Substantial

/Moderate

Poors Farm High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 3km of property.

Oblique/upper floor views only

due to intervening

outbuildings.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/

Slight

Other Visual Receptors within 5km of Site

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) within

2km of site.

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

close to boundary of SLA

and transportation of

turbines through SLA.

Views of construction/

decommissioning activities will

be highly visible from within

this range.

Very Large Substantial Minimise constructional

effects close to SLA. Limit

presence of cranes and

higher level activity to

necessary works only.

Substantial/

Moderate

December 2010 169 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

PROW within 2km of

wind turbines, ZS46, ,

ZS15

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2km of PROW.

Significant changes to the

views from these PROW will

be limited to the short term

higher level

construction/decommissioning

activities when the

cranes/turbine erection will be

visible. The greatest effect will

be from ZS46 which has more

open views to the site.

Very Large Substantial Limit presence of cranes,

storage and higher level

activity to necessary works

only.

Substantial/

Moderate

Roads within 2km,

Brabazon Road;

Church Road; Range

Road; Orchard Way;

Kent View Drive; St

George‟s Avenue;

B2231 (between

Brambledown and

Rides Farm) ; High

Street, Eastchurch;

Warden Road,

Eastchurch;

Eastchurch Road,

Plough Road, Harty

Ferry Road (north)

Medium

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2km of roads. Use of

Church Road, Brabazon

Road and the B2231 for

construction traffic and

turbine transportation.

Significant changes to the

views from these roads will be

limited to the short term higher

level construction/

decommissioning activities

when the cranes/turbine

erection will be visible.

Large Moderate Moderate

December 2010 170 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) between

2-5km from site.

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

close to boundary of SLA

and transportation of

turbines through SLA.

Views of construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available throughout the

part of the SLA that lies within

the Isle of Sheppey, visual

effect reducing with distance

from the site.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

PROW between 2km

and 5km from wind

turbines ZS42, ZS37,

ZS38, ZS27, ZS32,

ZS22, ZS23, ZS5,

ZS7, ZS10, ZS9,

ZS13, ZS20, ZS21,

ZS31

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2 -5km of PROW.

Glimpsed and intermittent

views of very short term higher

level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from these

PROW.

Large

Substantial

/Moderate

None

Substantial

/Moderate

Roads between 2km

and 5km from Site

B2231 (between

Brambledown and

Cowstead Farm to

the west and between

Rides Farm and

Leysdown on Sea to

the east), Harty Ferry

Road (south )

Medium

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2 -5km of roads. Use

of the B2231 for

construction traffic and

turbine transportation.

Glimpsed and intermittent

views of very short term higher

level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from these roads.

Medium

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/

Slight

December 2010 171 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Shurland House SAM Very High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 2km of SAM

No views of even the very

short term higher level

construction/ decommissioning

activities will be available from

Shurland House SAM.

Negligible

/ None

No effect None No effect

Minster Abbey SAM Very High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 5km of SAM

Views of very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from the Abbey

grounds.

Medium

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Elmley Marshes

RSPB Reserve

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 5km of Reserve

Views of very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from the Reserve.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Saxon Shore Way

Long Distance

Footpath

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 5km of Long

Distance Path.

Views of very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from the footpath.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

December 2010 172 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Other Visual Receptors over 5km from Site

Kent Downs AONB Very High Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 10km of AONB.

High level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be visible from a small number

of particular locations where

there is the combination of

high ground and an open view.

The distance of the view and

the presence of numerous

other structures including

pylons, industrial works and

extensive urban areas are

such that the activities will

have no discernible effect on

the viewer.

Negligible

/ None

No effect None No effect

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) over 5km

from site.

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

close to boundary of SLA

and transportation of

turbines through SLA.

Views of the very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be evident over 5km away.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Areas of High

Landscape Value

(Tonge Corner)

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 5-10km of AHLV.

Views of the very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be evident from the Tonge

Corner AHLV

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Areas of High

Landscape Value

(Orchards east of

Lower Halstow)

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 5-10km of AHLV.

Views of the very short term higher

level construction/

decommissioning activities are

likely to be occasionally visible

from the orchards east of Lower

Halstow AHLV

Small Moderate /

Slight

None Moderate /

Slight

December 2010 173 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Areas of High

Landscape Value

(Diggs Marshes )

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 5-10km of AHLV

Views of the very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities are

unlikely to be visible from the

Diggs Marshes AHLV.

Negligible

/ None

No effect None No effect

Oare Marshes RSPB

Reserve

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 5-10km of Reserve

Views of very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from the Reserve

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Leysdown Country

and Coastal Park

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

over 5km from Country Park.

Views of very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from the Country

Park.

Small Moderate /

Slight

None Moderate /

Slight

National Cycleway

(Route 1)

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

over 5km from Cycle Route.

Views of very short term

higher level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from the Cycle

Route.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

PROW beyond 5km,

ZS36, ZS40, ZS45,

ZS19, ZS12, ZS11,

ZU1, ZU2

High

Construction/

decommissioning activities

over 5km from PROW.

Glimpsed views of very short

term higher level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from these

PROW.

Medium

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/ Slight

December 2010 174 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Roads beyond 5km

from Site

A249,

Medium

Construction/

decommissioning activities

over 5km away from roads.

Use of the A249 for

construction traffic and

turbine transportation.

Distant glimpsed and

intermittent views of very short

term higher level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from these roads.

Small Slight None Slight

Sheerness Railway

Line

Medium

Construction/

decommissioning activities

within 5km-10km of trains.

Glimpsed views of very short

term higher level construction/

decommissioning activities will

be available from passing

trains.

Small Slight None Slight

December 2010 175 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.8 Construction/decommissioning Phase Visual Effects

9.8.1 Visual effects arising from the construction/decommissioning of the wind turbine development

will be principally limited to the very short term higher level erection activities which will be

visible across a considerable distance.

Visual Effects from Residential Properties within 3km of Site

9.8.2 There are a number of residential properties within 3km of the Site which will have views of

the higher level activities. HM Prison Standford Hill and HM Prison Elmley are the only

properties to have views of the lower level activities as well as the high level works giving rise

to short-term effects of slight adverse significance. There will be no effects to visual

amenity at HMP Swaleside.

9.8.3 The majority of residential properties will experience short term effects of moderate

adverse significance. While most properties will experience a change to their views, in most

cases the views are not open and direct but are oblique and interrupted by garden boundary

vegetation, intervening outbuildings and other properties.

9.8.4 The closest property to the Site is Groves Farm where a planning permission exists for a

residential property to be erected. The property will be orientated east/west and as such none

of the windows will look directly at the construction/decommissioning activities to the south

east, should the property be built. However, there will be direct views from the garden at the

back with short–term effects of substantial adverse significance from this property,

should it be built.

9.8.5 Numbers 1-6 Range Road will also have close range views of the

construction/decommissioning activities, although these will be partial/glimpsed views in the

main and from rear windows. The predicted short-term effects from these properties are of

substantial/moderate adverse significance.

9.8.6 Also of substantial /moderate adverse significance are predicted changes to views from

numbers 94-110 High Street, Eastchurch, from Greenways, from Brambledown and Groves

Cottage, from Newbuildings Cottages, from properties at Old Hook Farm and from the

property on Lower Road to the north of Old Hook Farm. These properties all have open views

towards the Site and, being within 2km of the activities, changes to the views will be clearly

evident. It is of note, however, that in most cases the views affected appear to be either from

back windows or outside garden space and not from principal ground floor rooms.

Visual Effects from Other receptors within 5km of Site

9.8.7 Short-term effects of substantial to substantial/moderate adverse significance have been

identified from the North Kent Marshes SLA, given the proximity of the views and the

sensitivity of this landscape. Short-term effects of substantial/moderate adverse significance

December 2010 176 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

have also been anticipated from Elmley Marshes RSPB Reserve to the west of the Site where

there are open views within 5km.

9.8.8 Walkers using footpath ZS46 and ZS15 within 2km of the site will view the high level

construction/decommissioning activities at such close range that short-term effects will be

direct and substantial adverse. However, it must be noted that views are interrupted by field

boundary hedgerows and the intervening prison buildings in the case of ZS46.

9.8.9 Short-term effects of substantial/moderate adverse significance have been identified

from walkers on the Saxon Shore Way long distance footpath to the south of the Site and also

from other PROW between 2-5km of the Site. The largely open nature of the landscape on

the southern half of the Isle of Sheppey itself allows for some uninterrupted views of the

higher level construction/decommissioning activities from footpaths such as ZS46, ZS13, and

ZS37. Similarly the more elevated slopes to the north of the Site allow for longer range views

from footpaths including ZS27 and ZS22.

9.8.10 People viewing the activities from the grounds of Minster abbey will also experience shortshort-term

effects of substantial/moderate adverse significance, the higher level

construction/decommissioning activities being visible through the trees to the south, albeit as

glimpsed views.

9.8.11 High level construction/decommissioning activities will also affect people driving on local

roads within 5km where there are many open views towards the Site. The presence of

hedgerows, trees and built form alongside many of these roads limit views in many places

such that they will be transitory and glimpsed and will result in short-term effects of

moderate to moderate/slight adverse significance. Similar effects are expected due to the

temporary presence of turbine transporters using local roads, particularly the B2231 and

Church Road.

Visual Effects from other Receptors over 5km from Site

9.8.12 No effects are anticipated to the Kent Downs AONB as a result of the distance of this

designation from the Site.

9.8.13 There will also be short-term effects of moderate adverse significance from Oare Marshes

RSPB Reserve and Tonge Corner AGLV as well as from the North Kent Marshes SLA (over

5km from the site) where views of the works will be available. Some views will be in the

context of other aspects to the view such as foreground features and activities. It must also be

noted that a line of Pylons crossing the Elmley Marshes and industrial/commercial works at

Kelmsley, Ridham and Queensborough will feature in many views to distract the eye from the

activities at Standford Hill.

9.8.14 Short-term effects of moderate/slight adverse significance are also anticipated by

viewers in the Leysdown Country and Coastal Park and from people walking on a number of

public rights of way where viewers are over 5km away and the activities become more distant.

December 2010 177 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.8.15 Cyclists using the National Cycle Route No 1 will experience short-term effects of moderate

adverse significance given the opportunity for relatively open views towards the Site where

it crosses the Minster Marshes, albeit that these views are at a distance of over 5km away.

9.8.16 Views from roads over 5km away will be altered very little due to distance, giving rise to

short-term effects of slight adverse significance.

9.8.17 People travelling on the Sheerness Railway Line will also be affected by the activities,

although again views will be glimpsed and transitory and will give rise to short-term effects

slight adverse significance.

Operation Phase

9.8.18 The operational period for the wind energy development is 25 years and will comprise the

following activities:

Operation of 2 wind turbines; and

Maintenance of site control building and turbines.

9.8.19 Effects resulting from the operation of the wind energy development would occur throughout

this phase and are described in Table 9.8.

December 2010 178 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 9.8 Predicted Operational Effects - Landscape Character

Note: All effects described below are permanent in nature. All effects are direct effects unless stated as indirect in the table.

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Kent Downs AONB National 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 10-

20km of AONB.

At this distance the wind

turbines will have no

influence on the character

of the AONB

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) up to 1km

from the site.

County

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings close to

boundary of SLA.

Wind turbines immediately

adjacent to the SLA will

have an indirect influence

on the character of SLA.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

Indirect

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Indirect

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) within 1-

2km from the site.

County

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 1-2km

of boundary of SLA.

Wind turbines will be

visible from and will

therefore have an influence

on the character of the SLA

within 1-2km from the site.

Medium

Moderate

Indirect

None

Moderate

Indirect

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) within 2-

5km from the site.

County

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 2-5km

of boundary of SLA.

Wind turbines will be

visible from and will

therefore have an influence

on the character of the SLA

within 2-5km from the site.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

None

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

December 2010 179 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) over 5km

from the site.

County

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings over 5km

from boundary of SLA.

At this distance the wind

turbines will have very little

influence on the character

of the SLA.

Negligible No effect None No effect

Areas of High

Landscape Value

High (Local )

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5-

10km of AHLV.

None – character of AHLV

is already influenced by

high level structures at

Ridham and

Queensborough.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

Rural Lanes High (Local ) 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 1-5km

of Rural Lanes.

Wind turbines within view

of Rural Lanes will have an

influence on the tranquil

character of these lanes.

Intermittent nature of the

influence reduces the

extent of the effect.

Medium

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

None

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

Grassland Fields Low (Local ) 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within areas

of rough grassland.

Hard standing, buildings

and access roads replace

arable fields.

Large Slight None Slight

Hedgerows High (Local )

Protected by

Policy E10

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings.

Removal of approximately

40m of hedgerow to allow

for access.

Medium

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/Slight

December 2010 180 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

LCA7: Central

Sheppey Farmlands

High (local)

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within LCA7.

Wind turbines introduced

into within LCA7. The

introduction of wind

turbines into a character

area that doesn‟t currently

contain them will have a

direct effect on the

character of that landscape

overall (although it is noted

that wind turbines are

already visible from LCA7).

Medium

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/Slight

LCA4:Leysdown and

Eastchurch Marshes

County

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings adjacent to

LCA4.

Wind turbines adjacent to

boundary of LCA4 will be

visible across much of that

character area and have a

considerable influence on it

(although it is noted that

wind turbines are already

visible from LCA4).

Medium

Moderate

Indirect

None

Moderate

Indirect

LCA1:Elmley

Marshes

County

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5km

of LCA1.

Wind turbines will be

visible at a distance across

much of LCA1 and will

have an influence on the

character of the landscape.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

None

Moderate/Slight

Indirect

December 2010 181 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

LCA2:Elmley Island County 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5km

of LCA2.

Wind turbines will be

visible at a distance across

much of LCA2 and will

have an influence on the

character of the landscape

Small

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

None

Moderate/Slight

Indirect

LCA3:Spitend

Marshes

County

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5km

of LCA3.

Wind turbines will be

visible at a distance across

much of LCA3 and will

have an influence on the

character of the landscape.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

None

Moderate/Slight

Indirect

LCA5: Isle of Harty County 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5km

of LCA5.

No discernible change in

character as wind turbines

are largely screened from

view.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

LCA6: South

Sheppey

Saltmarshes and

mudflats

County

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5km

of LCA8.

Wind turbines will be

visible at a distance

throughout much of LCA6

and will have an influence

on the character of the

landscape.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

Indirect

None

Moderate/Slight

Indirect

LCA8 Minster and

Warden Farmlands

Medium

(Local)

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5km

No discernible change in

character as wind turbines

are only visible from a part

of LCA8 and are at such a

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

December 2010 182 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

of LCA8.

distance that they do not

have an effect on the

overall character of the

area.

LCA9 Minster

Marshes

Medium

(Local)

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5km

of LCA9.

Wind turbines will not be

visible from LCA9.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

LCA10 Sheppey

Court and Diggs

Marshes

High (Local)

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5km

of LCA10.

Wind turbines will not be

visible from LCA10.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

LCA26 Teynham

Fruit Belt

High (Local)

(Part SLA

designation)

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5km

of LCA26.

No discernible change in

character as wind turbines

are at such a distance that

they do not have an effect

on the overall character of

the area.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

LCA27 Luddenham

and Conyer Marshes

County

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5km

of LCA27.

No discernible change in

character as wind turbines

are at such a distance that

they do not have an effect

on the overall character of

the area.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

December 2010 183 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Landscape

Receptors

Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

LCA28 Stone Arable

Farmlands

High (Local)

(Part SLA

designation)

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5km

of LCA28.

No discernible change in

character as wind turbines

are at such a distance that

they do not have an effect

on the overall character of

the area.

Negligible /

None

No effect None No effect

December 2010 184 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Operation Phase Landscape Effects

9.8.20 The wind turbines are considered to have no effect on either the landscape of the AONB

given it is 10km -20km away, or on the AHLV which are also too distant to be influenced.

9.8.21 The operation of the wind turbines within the Site will affect the surrounding landscape over a

considerable distance, given the height and nature of the structures. In particular there will be

indirect, permanent effects of substantial/moderate adverse significance on the North

Kent Marshes SLA, up to 1km from the Site, where the presence of the wind turbines will

have a considerable influence on the landscape character of the SLA, introducing high level

features and movement into the open skies of this marshland landscape. In addition, the

rotation of the turbines will also be audible at times. At this close distance, the turbines will

have a dominating effect on the landscape character of the SLA, although it must be noted

that the prison buildings and former airfield buildings that form the Sheppey Prison Cluster

immediately to the north and east of the turbines combine to also exert a notable „built‟ or

„manmade‟ influence on this relatively tranquil landscape. The effects are reduced to

moderate adverse significance for the SLA within 1-2km of the Site and to moderate/slight

adverse significance within 2-5km of the Site, as the influence of the wind turbines on the

landscape character lowers with distance. Beyond 5km there are no effects, the turbines

being at such a distance that they are not considered to exert any significant influence on the

landscape.

9.8.22 There will be an indirect moderate/slight adverse effect on the designated Rural Lanes,

particularly Church Road and Harty Ferry Road where the presence of the turbines on the

skyline will have an influence on the character by introducing high level built elements into

views and indirectly affecting the visual amenity of the route.

9.8.23 There will be direct slight adverse effects on the grassland fields of the site itself, once the

turbines are operational, given the replacement of grassland with the control building, access

roads and turbines themselves. There will also be a direct moderate/slight effect on the

hedgerows that border the site, due to the loss of approximately 40m of hedgerow to allow for

access.

9.8.24 The operation of the wind turbines will have a permanent indirect moderate adverse effect

on the character of LCA4: Leysdown and Eastchurch Marshes given that the turbines will be

openly visible across most of the character area and will therefore have an influence on it.

Although offshore wind turbines can also be viewed from this LCA, these views are

occasional and at a distance, whereas the Standford Hill turbines will introduce vertical built

elements into middle ground and skyline views of the area, which will have an indirect effect

on the open, expansive landscape of the marshes.

9.8.25 There will be direct effects of moderate/slight adverse significance on Landscape

Character Area 7 with the introduction of wind turbines into an area where they are not

currently present. There are, however, already a number of unusual manmade elements

within LCA7 including the Prison buildings and the former airfield buildings at Standford Hill

which, combined, also form an element of separation between the wind energy Development

December 2010 185 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

and the wider LCA. The influence of the Development on the wider LCA is also reduced by

the topographical and visual separation afforded by Standford Hill itself and the landscape to

the north.

9.8.26 The Development is also considered to give rise to direct effects of moderate to

moderate/slight adverse significance on 4 Landscape Character Areas (LCA1, 2, 3 and 6)

within the study area, given the open, marshland character of all of these areas. While there

are lower level developments visible from within these character areas as well as the existing

offshore wind turbines of the Kentish Flats (at a distance of over 20km), none of the LCAs

currently have views of wind turbines within this 5km visual range. In the case of these 4

marshland character areas, the eye would at times be drawn to the wind turbines detracting

from the atmospheric and relatively peaceful character of the marshes and interrupting the

expansive open skies.

9.8.27 No effects are anticipated to LCAs 5, 8, 9, 10, 26, 27 and 28.

December 2010 186 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 9.9 Predicted Operational Effects – Visual

Note: All visual effects described below are permanent and direct.

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Residential Receptors within 3km of Site

HM Prison Standford

Hill

Negligible

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings adjacent

to HM Prisons.

Views of turbines and lower

level developments will be

available from parts of prison

buildings/areas.

Large Slight None Slight

HM Prison Elmley Negligible 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings adjacent

to HM Prisons.

Views of turbines and lower

level developments will be

available from 3rd story

windows only.

Large Slight None Slight

HM Prison Swaleside Negligible 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings adjacent

to HM Prisons.

No views likely due to scale of

prison wall.

Negligible/

None

No effect None No effect

Numbers 1-6 Range

Road

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

1km of properties.

Views of the wind turbines will

be available from back

windows and gardens.

Intervening buildings and trees

Large

Substantial

/Moderate

None

Substantial

/Moderate

December 2010 187 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

restrict views.

Numbers 11-24

Range Road and

properties on Orchard

Way

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

1km of properties.

Oblique and direct views

towards wind turbines from

either front or back windows,

Intervening buildings and trees

restrict views.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Properties on Church

Road, Brabazon

Road, Kent View

Drive, St George‟s

Avenue

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

1km of properties.

Oblique, glimpsed and heavily

filtered views of the wind

turbines.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

December 2010 188 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Groves Farm

(Planning Permission

for Residential

Property)

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

0.5km of property.

Future Predicted views of wind

turbines. Garden and farm

boundary trees and shrubs will

restrict views from ground floor

windows as will barns and

farm outbuildings. Views

towards wind turbines will be

oblique and from back of

house and seen in the context

of the buildings at HM Prison

Standford Hill. There will

however, be predicted open

views of the overlapping

turbines from the back garden

of the property giving rise to

very large impacts on the view.

Very Large Substantial None Substantial

New Rides Farm High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

2km of property.

Predicted oblique views of

overlapping wind turbines from

back windows.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

New Rides Bungalow High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

2km of property.

Predicted oblique views of

overlapping wind turbines

limited by garden boundary

vegetation.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

December 2010 189 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Sunrise High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

2km of property.

Main windows orientated to

east. Predicted oblique views

of wind turbines from back of

property limited by boundary

vegetation.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Old Rides Farm High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of property.

Predicted oblique views of

overlapping wind turbines may

be restricted by intervening

farm buildings and vegetation.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Capel Hill Farm High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of property.

Open views of overlapping

wind turbines from farmhouse

– trees on garden boundary

may limit views in part.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Parsonage Farm

(Grade II Listed)

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

2km of property.

Predicted oblique views of

wind turbines restricted by

garden boundary vegetation.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Rowett‟s Farm High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

2km of property.

Predicted views of wind

turbines from back of house

towards site. Restricted by

Standford Hill.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

December 2010 190 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Nos 94-110 High

Street, Eastchurch

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 2.

Open views of wind turbines

from back of houses.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Other properties on

High Street

Eastchurch,

properties on Church

Road Eastchurch

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 2.

Predicted oblique/glimpsed

views of wind turbines.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Other properties in

Eastchurch

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 2-

3km of properties.

Predicted oblique/glimpsed

views of wind turbines.

Negligible/

None

No effect None No effect

Properties on Lower

Road to north of

Rowett‟s Farm

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of properties.

Views of tops of wind turbines

with some restriction due to

garden vegetation and

Standford Hill.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Properties on Plough

Road

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of properties.

Open views of wind turbines

from ground and first floor

windows.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

December 2010 191 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Greenways High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of property.

Open views of wind turbines

from ground and first floor

windows.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Garrett‟s Farm High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of property.

House is orientated east/west

and views out towards site

therefore appear limited.

Negligible

/ None

No effect None No effect

New properties at

Kingsborough Manor

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of properties.

Predicted open and oblique

views of wind turbines from

ground and first floor windows.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Properties on corner

of Eastchurch Road

(Kingsborough

Cottages, Norwood

Cottage)

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of properties.

Predicted open views of wind

turbines from ground and first

floor windows towards site.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Norwood Manor High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of property.

Predicted views of wind

turbines from upper floor

windows, filtered by trees

within grounds.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/

Slight

December 2010 192 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Newbuildings

Cottages

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of properties.

Predicted open views of

overlapping wind turbines from

ground and first floor windows

and from gardens.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Bramblefields and

Grove Cottage

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of properties.

Predicted oblique views of

overlapping wind turbines and

open views from gardens.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Property on Lower

Road to north of Old

Hook Farm

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of property.

Predicted open views of wind

turbines from ground and first

floor windows.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

New Hook Farm High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of properties.

Two properties – both

orientated north/south. One

with predicted views of

overlapping wind turbines from

ground and first floor windows.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Old Hook Farm High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of properties.

2 properties with views of

overlapping wind turbines from

ground and first floor windows,

partly screened by barns, and

outbuildings.

Large

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

December 2010 193 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors Sensitivity Proposal Effects Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Effect

Mitigation

Significance of

Residual Effect

Poors Farm High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

3km of property.

Oblique/upper floor views only

due to intervening

outbuildings. Turbines likely to

overlap.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/

Slight

Other Visual Receptors within 5km of Site

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) within

2km of site.

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings close to

boundary of SLA.

The wind turbines will be

highly visible from within this

range.

Very Large Substantial None Substantial

PROW within 2km of

wind turbines, ZS46, ,

ZS15

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

2km of PROW.

Open views of the wind

turbines will be available at a

distance from these PROW. Very Large Substantial None Substantial

December 2010 194 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Roads within 2km,

Brabazon Road;

Church Road; Range

Road; Orchard Way;

Kent View Drive; St

George‟s Avenue;

B2231 (between

Brambledown and

Rides Farm) ; High

Street, Eastchurch;

Warden Road,

Eastchurch;

Eastchurch Road,

Plough Road, Harty

Ferry Road (north)

Medium

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

2km of roads.

Glimpsed and intermittent

views of the wind turbines will

be available from these roads.

Large Moderate None Moderate

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) between

2-5km from site.

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings close to

boundary of SLA.

The wind turbines will be

evident from within this range.

Large

Substantial

/Moderate

None

Substantial

/Moderate

PROW between 2km

and 5km from wind

turbines ZS42, ZS37,

ZS38, ZS27, ZS32,

ZS22, ZS23, ZS5,

ZS7, ZS10, ZS9,

ZS13, ZS20, ZS21,

ZS31

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 2 -

5km of PROW.

Glimpsed and intermittent

views of the wind turbines will

be available at a distance from

these PROW.

Large

Substantial

/Moderate

None

Substantial

/Moderate

Roads between 2km

and 5km from Site

B2231 (between

Brambledown and

Medium

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 2 -

5km of roads.

Glimpsed and intermittent

views of the wind turbines will

be available from these roads.

Medium

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/

Slight

December 2010 195 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Cowstead Farm to

the west and between

Rides Farm and

Leysdown on Sea to

the east), Harty Ferry

Road (south )

Shurland House SAM Very High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

2km of SAM.

None

Negligible

/ None

No effect None No effect

Minster Abbey SAM Very High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

5km of SAM.

Glimpsed views of the wind

turbines will be available from

the Abbey grounds.

Medium

Substantial/

Moderate

None

Substantial/

Moderate

Elmley Marshes

RSPB Reserve

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

5km of Reserve.

Open views of the wind

turbines will be available at a

distance from the reserve.

Large

Substantial

/Moderate

None

Substantial

/Moderate

Saxon Shore Way

Long Distance

Footpath

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control building within 5km

of Long Distance Path.

Open views of the wind

turbines will be available at a

distance from the footpath.

Large

Substantial

/Moderate

None

Substantial

/Moderate

Other Visual Receptors over 5km from the Site

December 2010 196 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Kent Downs AONB Very High 2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

10km of AONB.

Wind turbines will be visible

from a small number of

particular locations where

there is the combination of

high ground and an open view.

The distance of the view will

be such as to have no

discernible effect on the

viewer.

Negligible

/ None

No effect None No effect

North Kent Marshes

Special Landscape

Area (SLA) over 5km

from site.

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings close to

boundary of SLA and

transportation of turbines

through SLA.

Views of the wind turbines will

be available throughout part of

the SLA, visual effect reducing

with distance from the site.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Areas of High

Landscape Value

(Tonge Corner)

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5-

10km of AHLV.

Views of the wind turbines will

be evident from the Tonge

Corner AHLV.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Areas of High

Landscape Value

(Orchards east of

Lower Halstow)

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5-

10km of AHLV.

Views of the wind turbines are

likely to be occasionally visible

from the orchards east of

Lower Halstow AHLV.

Small Moderate /

Slight

None

Moderate/Slight

Areas of High

Landscape Value

(Diggs Marshes )

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within 5-

10km of AHLV.

Views of the wind turbines are

unlikely to be visible from the

Diggs Marshes AHLV.

Negligible

/ None

No effect None No effect

December 2010 197 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Oare Marshes RSPB

Reserve

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

5km of Reserve.

Open views of the wind

turbines will be available at a

distance from the reserve.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

Leysdown Country

and Coastal Park

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings over 5km

from Country Park.

Open views of the wind

turbines will be available at a

distance from the Country

Park.

Small

Moderate/

Slight

None

Moderate/Slight

National Cycleway

(Route 1)

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings over 5km

from Cycle Route.

Occasional views of the wind

turbines will be available at a

distance from the Cycle Route.

Medium Moderate None Moderate

PROW beyond 5km,

ZS36, ZS40, ZS45,

ZS19, ZS12, ZS11,

ZU1, ZU2

High

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

8km of PROW.

Glimpsed views of the wind

turbines will be available at a

distance from these PROW.

Medium Moderate /

Slight

None Moderate /

Slight

Roads beyond 5km

from Site

Medium

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings over 5km

away from road users.

Distant glimpsed and

intermittent views of the wind

turbines will be available from

these roads.

Small Slight None Slight

Sheerness Railway

Line

Medium

2 wind turbines and

associated access and

control buildings within

5km-10km of trains.

Glimpsed views of the wind

turbines will be available from

passing trains.

Small Slight None Slight

December 2010 198 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 9.10: Summary of Visual Effects on Representative Views.

Photomontage

1 - View Location from

Church Road

lay-by looking

south

2 - View from

sea wall path

opposite cafe in

Leysdown

Country and

Coastal Park

looking west

3 - View from

B2231 at Bay

View looking

south west

towards the Site

Existing View

Standford Hill is

prominent in the middle

ground with views to

the Kent Downs

beyond. The arable

farmland surrounding

Standford Hill is

apparent, bounded by

thin tree belts and

hedgerows.

This is an expansive

view with private

dwellings and

scrubland visible.

Recreational playing

fields are prominent in

the foreground. The

hills of the Kent Downs

are visible on the

horizon.

Dwellings of Bay View

are prominent in this

view. Vertical elements,

such as lamp posts and

telegraph poles add

street clutter to the

view.

Predicted View

Upper reaches of

turbines (hub and

blades) will form new

and distinct landmarks

within the view but will

not alter the overall

composition significantly.

Turbines will be visible

and appear as distinct

new landmarks within

the view. However, due

to distance, they will

appear as relatively

small features and will

not alter the overall

composition significantly.

Upper reaches of

turbines will form new

and distinct landmarks

within the view,

increasing the vertical

elements of the

composition. However,

due to distance, this

effect is not significant.

Visual Effects Sensitivity Magnitude of

Change

Introduction of turbines as

notable landmark

features.

Openness of view

maintained.

Introduction of turbines as

small features within the

view.

No significant change

likely.

Introduction of turbines as

noticeable landmark

features in the view.

High

Medium

Small

Medium

Residual Visual

Effects

Direct, long term

moderate adverse

Direct, long term

moderate/slight

adverse

Direct, long term

moderate adverse

December 2010 199 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Photomontage

4 - View Location from

High Street in

Eastchurch at

crossroads with

Church Road

looking south

west towards

the Site.

Existing View

Built form is prominent

within this view with the

facade and roofs of

houses notable. Other

vertical elements

include telegraph poles

and mature trees add

verdancy to the scene.

Predicted View

Turbines will not breach

existing rooflines and will

remain hidden by

existing built form.

Visual Effects Sensitivity Magnitude of

Change

Turbines hidden by built

form.

Residual Visual

Effects

High None No effect

5 - View from

within the

Abbey grounds

at Minster

looking south

east towards

the Site.

6 - View from

B2213 at the

junction with

Barton Hill Drive

looking south

east towards

the Site.

This is a long distance

glimpsed view through

perimeter vegetation of

the Abbey where the

flat marsh landscape is

visible in the distance.

This is an expansive

view over the Central

Sheppey Farmlands

with large farm

buildings and arable

crops prominent in the

middle ground. Small

tree belts are also

visible. The Kent

Downs can be seen on

the horizon.

Turbines will be visible,

overlapping and forming

a new and distinct

vertical landmark in

relatively flat surrounds

and breaking the

horizon. However, owing

to distance, they will not

dominate

the

composition.

Turbines will be fully

visible and will form new

and distinct landmarks

within the view. Turbines

will be seen in

combination with farm

areas in foreground and

be well above existing

skyline set by distant

hills.

Turbines fully visible and

will form notable

landmark features in the

view.

Turbines fully visible and

will form notable

landmark features in the

view.

Turbines seen in

combination with other

industrial installations,

such as Isle of Grain,

power Station along River

Swale.

Very high

Medium

Direct, long term

substantial/moderate

adverse

Direct, long term

moderate/slight

adverse

December 2010 200 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Photomontage

7 - View Location from

Sheppey Way

(within North

Kent Marshes

SLA) and

National Cycle

Route No1

looking east

across the

marshes

towards the Site

Existing View

This is an expansive

view of the Elmley

Marshes, where the

open, saturated

marshland is

prominent. Pylons form

vertical elements to the

composition although a

sense of wildness

remains.

Predicted View

Turbines will be fully

visible and will form new

and distinct landmarks

within the view. Turbines

will break skyline

although are below

existing pylons and will

be seen in context with

other industrial features.

The expanse and

openness of the view will

be unaffected.

Visual Effects Sensitivity Magnitude of

Change

Turbines fully visible and

will form distinct landmark

within view.

Turbines seen in

combination with pylons

in foreground.

High

Medium

Residual Visual

Effects

Direct, long term

moderate adverse

8 - View from

Elmley Marshes

Nature Reserve

looking north

east towards

the Site.

This is an expansive

view across the Elmley

Marshes which

dominate the

foreground. There is a

notable absence of

prominent built form

within the composition.

The horizon is formed

by the Central Sheppey

Farmlands which

creates an attractive

rural backdrop to the

scene.

Turbines will be fully

visible and will form new

and distinct landmarks

within the view. Skyline

will be broken by

turbines which will set

new development height

limit. The expanse and

openness of the view will

be unaffected.

Turbines form prominent

landmark feature within

view.

Increase of built form

within composition.

High

Large

Direct, long term

substantial/moderate

adverse

December 2010 201 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Photomontage

9 - View Location from

Capel Fleet

Raptor

Viewpoint

looking north

west towards

the Site.

10 - View from

Footpath

ZR234, the

Saxon Shore

Way long

distance

footpath north

of the village of

Conyer looking

north towards

the Site.

Existing View

This is an elevated view

across the Leysdown

and Eastchurch

Marshes. Built form at

Standford Hill is notable

although not a

prominent feature of the

composition. The line of

slanted wooden

telegraph poles adds a

minor vertical element.

This is an expansive

view with the River

Swale prominent in the

foreground. The Central

Sheppey Farmlands

form an attractive

backdrop to the scene.

Predicted View

Turbines will be fully

visible and will form new

and distinct landmarks

within the view. Skyline

will be broken by

turbines but will remain

below height of existing

telegraph lines. The

expanse and openness

of the view will remain.

Turbines will be fully

visible and will form new

and distinct landmarks

within the view. Skyline

will be broken by

turbines which will set

new development height

limit. The expanse and

openness of the view

will be unaffected.

Visual Effects Sensitivity Magnitude of

Change

Turbines fully visible and

will form distinct landmark

within view.

Increase of built form

within composition.

Turbines fully visible and

will form distinct landmark

within with view.

Increase of built form

within composition.

High

Medium

Large

Residual Visual

Effects

Direct, long term

substantial/moderate

adverse

Direct, long term

substantial/moderate

adverse

December 2010 202 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Photomontage

11 - Location View from

Footpath

ZR317, the

Saxon Shore

Way long

distance

footpath within

the Oare

Marshes Nature

Reserve looking

north west

towards the

Site.

Existing View

This is an expansive

view towards the Isle of

Sheppey with the River

Swale prominent in the

foreground. The

saturated marshlands

create a sense of

wildness although tall

stacks of industrial

complexes can be seen

on the horizon.

Predicted View

Turbines will be fully

visible and will form new

overlapping and distinct

landmarks within the

view. Skyline will be

broken by turbines

although existing height

of built form set by

existing stacks will

remain. The expanse

and openness of the

view will be unaffected.

Visual Effects Sensitivity Magnitude of

Change

Turbines fully visible and

will form notable

landmarks within view.

Turbines seen in

combination with

industrial installations,

such as Isle of Grain

power station along River

Swale.

Composition relatively

unchanged.

High

Medium

Residual Visual

Effects

Direct, long term

moderate adverse

12 - View from

beach at

Whitstable

looking west

towards the Site

The sea forms the

dominant feature of this

view occupying the

majority of the

composition. The Isle of

Sheppey forms the

horizon in the far

distance.

Turbines will be fully

visible and will form new

and distinct landmarks

within the view. Skyline

will be broken by

turbines creating new

maximum height of built

form. However at this

distance it is unlikely

that the turbines will be

dominant features of the

view. The expanse and

openness of the view

will be unaffected.

Turbines fully visible and

will form very small

features within the view

Overall composition

relatively unchanged.

High Negligible No effect

December 2010 203 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Photomontage

13 - Location View from

open space at

the back of

Range Road

looking south

towards the

site.

Existing View

View from open space

at the back of Range

Road. Selected to

illustrate views from the

local community

immediately to the

north of the site.

Localised yet open view

with prison complex

and private dwellings

visible.

Predicted View

Upper reaches of

turbine including hubs

will be visible although

turbine 1 is screened in

this particular location.

Turbines will be

approximately the same

height as existing built

form where they will

form prominent new

landmarks within the

composition although

are not considered alien

to the existing utilitarian

context.

Visual Effects Sensitivity Magnitude of

Change

Turbines partially visible

and will form prominent

landmark features of the

view.

Composition will be

heavily influence by

turbines in combination

with prison complex.

High

Large

Residual Visual

Effects

Direct, long term

substantial/moderate

adverse

December 2010 204 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Operation Phase Visual Effects

9.8.28 Visual effects arising from the Development will be principally limited to wind turbines

themselves given their scale and height and there will be very limited effects arising

from the associated access roads and control building. The visual effects arising from

the wind turbines are illustrated in a series of 13 photomontages (Figures 9.7-9.19).

These photomontages will be referred to in the text where they relate to a specific

viewpoint.

Residential Receptors within 3km of the Site

9.8.29 There are a number of residential properties within 3km of the Site which will have

views of the Development. HM Prison Standford Hill and HM Prison Elmley are the

only properties to have views of the control building and access roads as well as the

turbines. Within these views the turbines will form dominant features of the view,

adding an apparent vertical and distinct feature to the composition and giving rise to

effects of slight adverse significance. There will be no effects to visual amenity at

HM Prison Swaleside.

9.8.30 The majority of residential properties will experience visual effects of moderate

adverse significance. While most properties will experience a change to their views,

in most cases the views are not open and direct but are oblique and interrupted by

garden boundary vegetation, intervening outbuildings and other properties. The

turbines will form prominent vertical features within these views, creating distinct

landmarks within the composition but, owing to distance from the majority of

residential properties, are not anticipated to be perceived as overbearing. Moreover,

turbines will be seen in the existing context of the prison complex, itself visually

utilitarian in nature.

9.8.31 The closest property to the site is Groves Farm where a planning permission exists

for a residential property to be erected. The property is likely to be orientated

east/west and as such none of the windows will look directly at the wind turbines to

the south east. However, there will be direct views from the garden at the back where

turbines will appear as dominant overlapping features to the backdrop of the prison

complex. Effects of substantial adverse significance from this property are

therefore anticipated, should it be built.

9.8.32 Numbers 1-6 Range Road will also have close range views of the turbines, although

these will be partial/glimpsed views in the main and from rear windows. Within these

views the turbines will form notable landmarks, their blades and hubs visible above

the existing vegetation. However they are not considered to be over dominant

features, being at approximately the same height of existing built form, and will be

seen in association as part of the prison complex. The predicted long-term effects

from these properties are of substantial/moderate adverse significance.

Photomontage 13 (Figure 9.19)) illustrates the type of view likely from the properties

in Range Road, where intervening trees and buildings serve to partially screen views.

December 2010 205 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.8.33 Also of substantial /moderate adverse significance are predicted effects

experienced from Nos 94-110 High Street, Eastchurch, from Greenways, from

Bramblefields and Groves Cottage, from Newbuildings Cottages, from properties at

Old Hook Farm and from the property on Lower Road to the north of Old Hook Farm.

These properties all have open views towards the Site and, being within 2km of the

Development, changes to the views will be clearly evident. Within these views the

turbines will form notable vertical features rising from the flat marshland to the south.

Moreover, from a number of these properties, notably Bramblefields, Old and New

Hook Farm and Newbuildings cottages the turbines will overlap increasing the visual

clutter of views from these locations. It is of note, however, that in most cases the

views affected appear to be either from back windows or outside garden space and

not from principal ground floor rooms.

Other Visual Receptors within 5km of the Site

9.8.34 Visual effects of substantial to substantial/moderate adverse significance have

been identified from the North Kent Marshes SLA, given the proximity of the views

and the sensitivity of this landscape. Turbines within these views will be prominent

and have a notable industrialising effect on views within the immediate vicinity within

the SLA. Effects of substantial/moderate adverse significance have also been

anticipated from Elmley Marshes RSPB Reserve (Photomontage 8, Figure 9.14) to

the west of the Site where there are open views within 5km. Turbines will again form

notable vertical elements breaking the skyline set buy the rural backdrop of the

Sheppey Farmlands.

9.8.35 People viewing the activities from the grounds of Minster Abbey will also experience

visual effects of substantial/moderate adverse significance, the turbines being

visible through the trees to the south, albeit a glimpsed view (see Photomontage 5,

Figure 9.11). Within this view the turbines form notable and distinct landmarks rising

from the flat surrounds of the Sheppey marshes. The turbines will break the skyline

set by the distant hills of the Kent Downs and overlap, creating a small amount of

visual confusion within the view.

9.8.36 Walkers using footpath ZS46 and ZS15 within 2km of the site will view the turbines at

such close range that long-term effects will be substantial adverse. The turbines

will form prominent and distinct vertical landmarks within these views set against the

backdrop of the Sheppey Farmlands. However, it must be noted that views are

interrupted by field boundary hedgerows and the intervening prison buildings in the

case of ZS46.

9.8.37 Visual effects of substantial/moderate adverse significance have been identified

from walkers on the Saxon Shore way long distance footpath to the south of the Site

(see Photomontage 10, Figure 9.16) and also from other PROW between 2-5km of

the Site. Within these views the turbines will be viewed against the rural backdrop of

the Sheppey Farmlands, breaking the horizon set by this ridgeline and introducing

notable industrial features in to a predominantly rural composition.

December 2010 206 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.8.38 The largely open nature of the landscape on the southern half of the Isle of Sheppey

itself allows for some uninterrupted views of both turbines from footpaths such as

ZS46, ZS13, and ZS37. Similarly the more elevated slopes to the north of the Site

allow for longer range views from footpaths including ZS27 and ZS22. Photomontage

9 (Figure 9.15) illustrates the nature of effect from open locations within 5km of the

Site on roads, footpaths and RSPB Reserves to the east of the Site where the

turbines will form distinct new landmarks within the view. Consequently,

substantial/moderate adverse visual effects are anticipated.

9.8.39 The wind turbines will also affect people driving on local roads within 5km where

there are many open views towards the Site (Photomontages1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 Figures

9.7, 9.9, 9.10, 9.12 and 9.13). The presence of hedgerows, trees and built form

alongside many of these roads limit views in many places such that they will be

transitory and glimpsed although the turbines will form distinct vertical landmarks

within views, breaking the horizon set by the distant hills of the Kent Downs. It is likely

that turbine blades will also be frequently overlapping resulting in slight visual

confusion to the composition. As a result, visual effects are anticipated to be of

moderate to moderate/slight adverse significance.

Other Visual Receptors over 5km from the Site

9.8.40 No effects are anticipated to the Kent Downs AONB due to the distance of this

designation from the Site. Although turbines will be visible there are at such a small

scale within the expansive panoramas available so as not to have any discernible

effect.

9.8.41 There will be effects of moderate adverse significance from Oare Marshes RSPB

Reserve (Photomontage 11, Figure 9.17) and Tonge Corner AGLV where views of

the wind turbines will be available. Within these views turbines will appear as notable

vertical features, in combination with other tall elements such as the chimney stack of

the Isle of Grain power station. The turbines will also overlap creating some slight

visual confusion to the scene. Some views will be in the context of other aspects such

as foreground features and activities. It must also be noted that a line of pylons

crossing the Elmley Marshes and industrial/commercial works at Kelmsley, Ridham

and Queensborough will feature in many views to distract the eye from the

Development.

9.8.42 Visual effects of moderate/slight adverse significance are anticipated by viewers

in the Leysdown Country and Coastal Park (Photomontage 2, Figure 9.8), and from

people walking on a number of PROW where viewers are over 5km away and the

turbines become more distant. Within these views the turbines will form distinct

vertical landmarks although will be at a scale in uniformity with the surrounding

landscape context.

9.8.43 Cyclists using the National Cycle Route No 1 will experience visual effects of

moderate adverse significance given the opportunity for relatively open views

towards the Site where the cycle route crosses the Minster Marshes (see

December 2010 207 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Photomontage 7, Figure 9.13). Within these views the turbines will form distinct

landmarks breaking the skyline set by the Sheppey Farmlands to the north. However,

the turbines will be below the height of adjacent pylons also visible in the foreground

of the view. Elsewhere, along the route, views will be largely glimpsed and transitory,

due to intervening buildings, trees and hedgerows in the landscape.

9.8.44 Views from roads over 5km away will be altered very little due to distance, the

turbines appearing as small, albeit distinct features within the view, giving rise to

visual effects of slight adverse significance.

9.8.45 People travelling on the Sheerness Railway Line will also be aware of the turbines,

although again views will be glimpsed and transitory and will give rise to effects of

slight adverse significance

9.8.46 Photomontage 12 (Figure 9.18) illustrates an open view from a public vantage point

over 10km away at Whitstable where the turbines, although visible, are so small and

indistinct that they do not form a notable feature in the view. At this range, viewers

would usually need to be specifically looking for the turbines and have good clear

visibility before they became noticeable. Thus, at this range visual effects are of

negligible adverse significance.

9.9 Mitigation Measures

Construction/decommissioning

9.9.1 Due to the nature of construction/decommissioning it is inevitable that some adverse

effects will occur to the landscape and visual amenity of the Site and its immediate

environs. The significance of these effects can however be limited by implementing

the following strategies:

Phasing of activities to minimise the presence of cranes and

storage within the site area; and

Careful siting of construction machinery, materials and facilities to

avoid unnecessary intrusion into adjacent areas.

Completed Development

9.9.2 No mitigation measures were identified as part of the operational phase of the

development.

December 2010 208 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.10 Assessment of Residual Significant Effects

Residual Construction/decommissioning Phase Landscape Effects

9.10.1 Due to the temporary nature of construction/decommissioning activities no mitigation

measures were proposed and the residual effects will therefore remain the same as

the predicted effects described above.

Residual Construction/decommissioning Phase Visual Effects

9.10.2 With mitigation limiting the presence of high level construction and decommissioning

activities to necessary works only, substantial effects on the North Kent Marshes SLA

and from PROW within 2km will be reduced to short-term substantial/moderate

adverse.

9.10.3 Residual short-term effects from the closest property at Groves Farm (planning

permission for residential property) will be of substantial/moderate significance with

mitigation. Again mitigation will take the form of limiting high level activities to reduce

the effects on views from this property.

Residual Operation Phase Landscape and Visual Effects

9.10.4 Landscape and Visual effects arising from the operation of the development remain

unchanged by mitigation as the design considerations have taken place in advance of

the scheme fix. The residual effects will therefore remain the same as the predicted

effects described above.

Cumulative Effects

9.10.5 Other notable schemes within the area are considered as part of the cumulative

assessment and detailed in Table 9.11 below.

December 2010 209 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 9.11: Details of Cumulative Schemes Assessed (wind farm data from

RenewableUK http://www.bwea.com/)

Scheme

Kentish Flats

Wind Farm*

Location

(NGR)

Development

Stage

Details

TR 150 780 Operational (2005) 30No. turbines

140m above sea

level. Rotor

diameter 90m. Hub

Height 70m

Approximate

Distance from

Site (dist/direc.)

21km NE

Sheerness Wind

Farm TQ 904 742

Consented

(March 2009)

4No. turbines 125m

to blade tip. Rotor

diameter 90m. Hub

height 80m.

8km NW

Isle of Grain

TQ 865 742

Consented

(October 2009)

6No. Turbines

126.5m to blade tip

Rotor diameter 93m

Hub height 80m.

11km NW

Iwade Waste to

Energy Scheme

Facility

TQ 919 681

Consented

(May 2010)

Biomass and waste

to energy facility.

16m stack.

5km SW

*Consultation for the extension of Kentish Flats wind farm by 10 – 17 turbines has occurred although no

formal submission has been submitted to date. This extension has not therefore been assessed.

9.10.6 A cumulative visual assessment has been undertaken to predict the potential effects

arising from the combined presence of the proposed development with other

proposed wind energy developments in the area. Proposals at Sheerness and Isle of

Grain, and an offshore wind energy development known as the Kentish Flats were

assessed using Mapinfo GIS software to establish the combined ZTV of the 4 wind

energy developments. Figures 9.22 – 9.24 illustrate the HMP Standford Hill ZTV

combined with one of each of the other 3 ZTVs on separate sheets. Figure 9.25

shows the Standford Hill ZTV combined with both the Sheerness and Isle of Grain

ZTVs and Figure 9.26 illustrates all 4 ZTVs together. Due to the relative small size of

chimney stack at the Iwade Waste to Energy Facility (16m), this development was

scoped out of the ZTV analysis.

9.10.7 In order to inform the cumulative visual assessment, three cumulative wireframe

photomontages were produced to represent simultaneous, successive and sequential

visual effects across the study areas (refer to Figures 9.28A – 9.30B). The location of

these cumulative photomontages is shown within Figure 9.27.

9.10.8 From the ZTV studies, it is apparent that there is considerable overlap between all of

the ZTVs and if all four were to become operational it is likely that they would all be

visible from at least 50% of both the 5km and 10km study areas. However, it must be

noted that, as illustrated by the Cumulative Wireframes 1-3 (Figures 9.28A-Figure

December 2010 210 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.30B), although the other schemes are theoretically visible from these locations, at

least one or two of the other schemes would be viewed at such a distance that they

would be so small and indistinct as to make no discernible change to the views.

Furthermore, in most views, the wind energy developments would not be viewed

simultaneously, it being necessary to turn through as much as 180 degrees to view all

four wind energy developments successively. Again, this is illustrated by the

Cumulative wireframes 1-3, where the successive nature of the views is illustrated by

the division of the panoramas into either two or three viewing sections (i.e.

Cumulative Wireframes 1A, 1B and 1C).

9.10.9 In landscape terms, although small, there would be a further effect on the character of

the landscapes on the Isle of Sheppey, with wind energy development becoming a

more notable influence. The cumulative effects would have a further adverse effect

on the expansive skies of the marshland landscapes which give a feeling of

remoteness and tranquillity albeit that these landscapes are already affected by

industrial and port development at Ridham, Kelmsley and Queensborough.

9.10.10 Thus, if all four wind energy developments were operational together, there will be

indirect landscape effects of moderate significance on the North Kent Marshes SLA

and onLCA1, 4 and 7 with effects of moderate/slight significance from LCA 2, 3 and

6.

Simultaneous Visual Effects

9.10.11 Owing to the geographical separation of the four wind farms, it is only in distant views

that all four will be seen together owing to the off-shore location of the Kentish Flats

to the far northeast of the site. As illustrated by Cumulative Wireframe 2A, Turbines at

the HMP Standford Hill Site, Sheerness and Isle of Grain are likely to be visible

simultaneously, although the distance from this location to the latter two wind farms is

such that they will appear as small features on the horizon with those turbines of the

HMP Standford Hill Site more notable in the middle ground (Figure 9.29A).

9.10.12 In views from Whitstable (Figure 9.30A and 9.30B) the ridge of the Sheppey

Farmlands will screen views of Sheerness and the Isle of Grain although turbines on

the site will be visible. Views of Kentish Flats will not be possible simultaneously in

combination with the HM Prison Standford Hill Site owing to geographical distance

between the two.

9.10.13 It is unlikely that all four wind farms will be seen simultaneously from within the Isle of

Sheppey owing to the Sheppey Farmlands ridge which screens views northward

toward Kentish Flats. However, within these views, Standford Hill, Sheerness and the

Isle of Grain are likely to be noticeable features of views although will only potentially

be visible simultaneously in views looking northwest from the Harty Marshes

(photomontage 9). In the majority of views from the western Isle of Sheppey,

simultaneous views will not be possible owing to the separation of Isle of Grain and

Sheerness from the site.

December 2010 211 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.10.14 Taking the above into consideration the overall simultaneous cumulative visual

effects are considered to be moderate/slight adverse.

Successive Visual Effects

9.10.15 As with simultaneous views from the Isle of Sheppey, it is only HMP Standford Hill,

Sheerness and Isle of Grain that can be discerned due to the distance of Kentish

Flats from the site and the screening effects of the Sheppey Farmlands ridge. It is

considered, therefore, the most apparent cumulative successive visual effects will

occur in the west of the Isle of Sheppey where HMP Standford Hill, Sheerness and

Isle of Grain can be seen in relative close proximity to each other (Figures 9.28A –

9.28C). Within these views the Isle of Grain and Sheerness turbines will be apparent

to the west (Figure 9.28A) before those of the Site are also notable successively to

the far east of the view (Figure 9.28C).

9.10.16 In views from the south (Figures 9.29A – 9.29B) turbines on the HMPStandford Hill

Site are likely to be notable features within views with turbines at Sheerness and Isle

of Grain viewed simultaneously as small features on the horizon (Figure 9.29A).

Kentish Flats may also be visible successively by turning to the east (Figure 9.29B).

In these instances, turbines of the three other wind farms will appear as small

features within the overall panorama resulting in small incremental changes to the

composition.

9.10.17 In successive views from Whitstable (Figures 9.30A – 9.30B) turbines at Sheerness

and Isle of Grain will be screened meaning that only turbines of the HMP Standford

Hill Site and Kentish Flats would be seen successively. Within these views the

turbines will form small features within the composition.

9.10.18 In light of the above, the successive cumulative visual effects are assessed to be of

slight adverse significance.

Sequential Visual Effects

9.10.19 The most notable sequential effects will occur as one travels onto the Isle of Sheppey

via the A429, particularly over the bridge which provides a strategic elevated location.

It is anticipated that turbines at Sheerness and the Isle of Grain will be visible in

sequence with those of the HMPStandford Hill Site but it is unlikely that the Kentish

Flats will be visible in the distance (Figure9.28A and 9.28C). However, although

turbines will be notable features within this sequence of views they will be seen

amongst the other industrial developments within the area, particularly those large

installations lining the Swale estuary, such as the Isle of Grain Power Station and

associated pylons which already create a prominent vertical element to views at this

location. Wind turbines will become a frequent and distinct feature of views when

approaching the Isle of Sheppey although due the expansive nature of these views

turbines are not anticipated to dominate the overall composition but appear as distinct

landmarks within sequential views.

December 2010 212 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.10.20 Views from local roads are likely to be more intermittent due to the screening effects

of vegetation of the Sheppey Farmlands. Within these views the turbines of the HMP

Standford Hill Site will be prominent when glimpsed through boundary vegetation,

particularly the B2231 which forms the main spine road east to west across the Isle of

Sheppey. The Standford Hill turbines would then be seen sequentially with those at

Sheerness and Isle of Grain (or vice versa) meaning that views of turbines would be a

notable and characteristic feature of sequential views when travelling within the Isle of

Sheppey.

9.10.21 Kentish Flats are not considered to significantly affect sequential views owing to their

distant location out to sea.

9.10.22 Owing to the frequency of which turbines are likely to be seen within sequential views

when traversing within the area, the significance of cumulative sequential visual

effects is concluded to be moderate to slight adverse.

9.11 Assessment of Residual Cumulative Effects

Residual Cumulative Effects

9.11.1 Predicted cumulative Landscape and Visual effects arising from the combined

operation of turbines at HM Prison Standford Hill, Isle of Grain, Sheerness and

Kentish Flats remain unchanged by mitigation. The residual effects will therefore

remain the same as the predicted effects described above. Cumulative Effects are

summarised in 9.12 below:

Table 9.12 Summary of Cumulative Effects

Landscape Receptors

North Kent Marshes SLA

LCAs 1, 4 and 7

LCAs 2, 3 and 6

Visual

Simultaneous views

Successive views

Sequential views

Residual Cumulative Effect

Moderate adverse

Moderate/slight adverse

Slight adverse

Moderate/slight adverse

9.12 Conclusions

9.12.1 The HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development comprises 2 wind turbines and

associated access roads and a control building within the grounds of HM Prison

Standford Hill. The surrounding landscape is predominantly open marshland with

wide, expansive views to the south across the Swale valley. The landscape to the

north is more intimate, with rolling farmland, smaller field parcels and greater

settlement.

December 2010 213 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.12.2 Inevitably there will be some disruption to surrounding areas during the construction

and decommissioning phases, the principal effect being high level turbine

erection/dismantling, the time scale of which will be kept to a minimum.

9.12.3 The operational development will have a moderate to slight effect on the local

landscape character, the wind turbines exerting their influence over a wide area given

their size. There will also be a substantial/moderate to slight visual effect on a variety

of receptors including designated landscapes, walkers and local residents. A

summary of the residual effects is provided below.

Table 9.13 Summary of Residual Effects to Landscape Receptors

Landscape Receptors Temporary Residual

Effects

Construction Phase

North Kent Marshes SLA within 1km Substantial/

Moderate adverse

North Kent North Kent Marshes SLA within Moderate adverse

1-2km of site

North Kent North Kent Marshes SLA within Moderate/slight

Permanent Residual

Effects

Operation Phase

Substantial/

Moderate adverse

Moderate/slight

adverse

2-5km from site

adverse

LCA 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 Moderate/Slight adverse Moderate/Slight

Adverse

LCA4 Moderate adverse Moderate adverse

Rural Lanes Moderate/Slight adverse Moderate/Slight

Adverse

Grassland Fields of Site Slight adverse Slight adverse

Hedgerows Moderate/Slight adverse Moderate/Slight

Adverse

Table 9.14 Summary of Residual Effects to Visual Amenity

Visual Receptors

Temporary Residual Effects

Construction Phase

Permanent Residual Effects

Operation Phase

Residential Receptors within 3km of the site

Standford Hill and

Slight adverse

Elmley Prisons

Grove Farm Substantial/Moderate adverse Substantial adverse

11-6 Range Road, Substantial/Moderate adverse Substantial/Moderate adverse

Newbuildings Cottages,

Bramblefields and Grove

Cottage, 94-110 High Street

Eastchurch, Old Hook Farm,

Property to north of Old Hook

Farm, Greenways

11-24 Range Road, Church Moderate adverse

Moderate adverse

Road, Brabazon Road, Kent

View Drive, St George‟s

Avenue, Kingsborough Manor

properties, Properties at New

Rides, Sunrise, Old Rides

Capel Hill and Parsonage

Farm, High street, Eastchurch

(except 94-110) and Church

Road Eastchurch, New Hook

Farm, Rowett‟s Farm, Plough

Road properties,

Other local private dwellings Substantial/Moderate adverse Substantial/Moderate adverse

December 2010 214 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Visual Receptors

Temporary Residual Effects

Construction Phase

Other Visual Receptors within 3km of the site

North Kent Marshes SLA within Substantial/Moderate adverse

2km of site

Permanent Residual Effects

Operation Phase

Substantial adverse

PROW within 2km of site Substantial/moderate adverse Substantial adverse

Local Roads within 2km Moderate adverse Moderate adverse

Other Visual Receptors within 5km of the site

North Kent Marshes SLA within

2-5km away

Substantial/Moderate adverse Substantial/Moderate adverse

Elmley Marshes Reserve Substantial/Moderate adverse Substantial/Moderate adverse

PROW within 2-5km away Substantial/Moderate adverse Substantial/Moderate adverse

including Saxon Shore Way

Long Distance Footpath

Local Roads within 2-5km away Moderate/Slight adverse Moderate/Slight adverse

Minster Abbey SAM Substantial/Moderate adverse Substantial/Moderate adverse

Shurland House SAM Moderate adverse Moderate adverse

Other Visual Receptors over 5km from the site

North Kent Marshes SLA within

over 5km away

Moderate adverse

Tonge Corner AHLV Moderate adverse Moderate adverse

Orchards east of Lower Moderate/Slight adverse Moderate/Slight adverse

Halstow AHLV

Oare Marshes Reserve Moderate adverse Moderate adverse

Leysdown Country Park Moderate/Slight adverse Moderate/Slight adverse

PROW over 5km Moderate adverse Moderate adverse

National Cycle Route 1 Moderate adverse Moderate adverse

Local Roads over 5km away Slight adverse Slight adverse

Sheerness Railway Slight adverse Slight adverse

December 2010 215 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

9.13 References

Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment

(2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment, Spon Press

Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Landscape Character

Assessment, Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage

Scottish Natural Heritage, The Scottish Renewables Forum and the Scottish Society of

Directors of Planning (2006) Visual Representation of Windfarms, Scottish Natural

Heritage

Scottish Natural Heritage (2001) Guidelines on Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms

and Small Scale Hydro Electric Schemes, Scottish Natural Heritage

Scottish Natural Heritage (2009) Assessing the Cumulative Effect of Onshore Wind

Energy (Consultation Draft), Scottish Natural Heritage

ODPM (2005) Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development,

HMSO

ODPM (2004) Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy, HMSO

ODPM (2004) Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22, HMSO

Swale Borough Council (2008) Swale Borough Local Plan, Swale Borough Council

Swale Borough Council (2005) Swale Landscape Character Assessment and

Guidelines, Swale Borough Council

Countryside Agency (2005) Character Map of England Volume 7: South East and

London, Countryside Agency

Kent County Council (2004) The Landscape Assessment of Kent, Kent County Council

December 2010 216 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 217 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

10 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

10.1 Introduction and Overview

10.1.1 This assessment first considers direct (fabric) effects upon any archaeological material

that might lie within the proposal site. The footprint of development construction, the

stage at which effectively all the risk is concentrated (granted a disciplined approach to

decommissioning), is relatively restricted and there is no known archaeology on the site.

The archaeological potential will nevertheless be assessed and appropriate

contingencies identified.

10.1.2 The assessment then considers indirect (setting) effects on all types of upstanding

cultural heritage features in the vicinity (in the present case, mostly historic buildings).

Visual perception is the principal manner in which setting is experienced and wind

turbines are, by design, of a scale to cast a relatively wide visual influence. The

construction and decommissioning stages are not significantly different from the

operational stage in this context and it is how the turbines will appear when built which

provides the starting point for cultural heritage setting analysis.

10.1.3 In all cases, whether of physical interaction (fabric impacts) or intervisibility (setting

impacts), it is the significance of the likely effect of the proposed development upon the

historic, archaeological, architectural and/or artistic interest which stands to be

assessed.

10.2 Methodology

Policy Requirements

10.2.1 The methodology of cultural heritage assessment should reflect both local and national

policy.

10.2.2 The SBC Local Plan (adopted February 2008) includes Policy E14 (requiring that the

fabric and setting of a Listed Building be preserved) and Policy E16 (requiring that the

fabric and setting of a Scheduled Monument and of any other nationally important

monument or archaeological site should not be adversely affected). Paragraph 3.60 of

the Plan implies that the Borough will seek to protect the setting of non-Registered

gardens appearing in the County local list (as part of the Historic Environment Record),

although there is no actual policy to this effect. Further policies are included in the Plan

covering types of historic asset (e.g. Conservation Areas and Registered Parks &

Gardens) which are not present in the vicinity of the proposed development.

December 2010 218 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

10.2.3 The Kent & Medway Structure Plan was superseded by the Regional Spatial Strategy

(the South East Plan) on 6 May 2009. On 6th July 2010, the Secretary of State

announced the revocation of Regional Strategies. The subsequent High Court ruling of

19 th November 2010 confirmed that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully and

reinstated the RSS as part of the development plan. However the intention of the

Government remains to abolish all RSS and this intention is a material planning

consideration.

10.2.4 Turning to the national level, the Government‟s intentions on the matter of national

importance were set out in the recent Heritage White Paper 10 . The principles are given

as follows:

“1.1.18 The concept of „special interest‟ used in the listing system has

been tested out over many years. It has shown itself to be broad

enough to accommodate changing perceptions of the historic

environment, and sufficiently neutral to avoid subjective value

judgements. In future, all national designation decisions will be made

on the basis of „special architectural, historic or archaeological

interest‟.

1.1.19 While the statutory criteria will remain broad and flexible, we

will make the designation system easier to understand by introducing

detailed, non-statutory selection criteria. These will be based on the

new Principles of Selection that have been issued for listing buildings

under the current system. [...]”

10.2.5 PPS5 has now replaced both PPG15 and PPG16. The PPS extends the special interest

categories to four, and extends the criteria involved from initial designation to all

aspects of subsequent assessment, stating that:

[Introduction] “5. Those parts of the historic environment that have

significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or

artistic interest are called heritage assets. [...]

HE6.1 Local planning authorities should require the applicant to provide

a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the

contribution of their setting to that significance. The level of detail

should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and no

more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the

proposal on the significance of the heritage asset.” [...]

10 DCMS & WAG 2007. Heritage Protection for the 21st Century White Paper, Department for Culture,

Media & Sport and Welsh Assembly Government, March 2007.

December 2010 219 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

10.2.6 PPS5 contains explicit definitions of the four categories of „special interest‟ in its Annex

2: Terminology (pp.13-14).

10.2.7 The „significance‟ approach (entailing both „scalar significance‟ – the question of

„degree‟ – and „substantive significance‟ – the questions of „what‟ and „how‟) is endorsed

in draft Energy Policy 11 :

“4.23.7 The applicant should provide as part of the ES a description of

the significance * of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of

their setting to that significance.” […]

* Its value to people now and in the future because of its heritage

interest” [original footnote 63]

10.2.8 The “qualities” of an asset had already been recognised as material in adopted national

policy 12 :

“11. In sites with nationally recognised designations ([…], Scheduled

Monuments, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Registered Historic

Battlefields and Registered Parks and Gardens) planning permission

for renewable energy projects should only be granted where it can be

demonstrated that the objectives of designation of the area will not be

compromised by the development, and any significant adverse effects

on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly

outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits.”

10.2.9 Similarly, the concept of „special interest‟ is a determinative consideration for the Courts

13 :

“22. […] it is important to bear in mind that SSSIs are only one among

many areas or features that may be designated because of their

special environmental qualities. By way of example, the Secretary of

State lists buildings that are of special architectural or historic interest,

schedules ancient monuments that are of national importance, and

designates areas of archaeological importance that appear to him to

merit treatment as such. Local planning authorities designate as

Conservation Areas those parts of their area that are of special

architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it

is desirable to preserve or enhance. Natural England has power to

11 DECC, 2010. Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) October 2010.

That it appears likely that the incoming Government will modify or cancel the IPC project does not

invalidate the fundamental CH policy statement involved here.

12 ODPM, 2004. Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy.

13 Sullivan LJ in R (on the application of Boggis) and Another v Natural England [2009] EWCA Civ 1061;

[2009] WLR (D) 304.

December 2010 220 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

designate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and, subject

to confirmation by the Secretary of State, National Parks.

23. The common thread running through all of these provisions is that

they “flag up” the special interest of the feature, and impose, or enable

the imposition, of more stringent controls than would otherwise be

imposed by the “normal” planning process over any activities which

might harm it, thereby ensuring that before any plan or project that is

likely to have an adverse impact upon it is authorised, full account will

have been taken of that which is of special interest.” […]

10.2.10 This special interest is the unified reason why the designation of any important historic

environment feature (be it a World Heritage Site, a Scheduled Monument, a Listed

Building, a Conservation Area, a Registered Park or Garden or a Registered Battlefield)

in a future common List (the general objective of the current Heritage Protection

Programme) could be justified. This special interest is the legitimate basis for the

recognition of what is proper to the character and appearance of cultural heritage

features. For less important sites as well as regionally, nationally and internationally

important ones, special interest must be the reason why weight in the planning system

can be justified. In order to judge potential effects, it is necessary to identify the special

interest of cultural heritage features and it will no longer be sufficient to point to the

mere presence of these features in the vicinity or simply to cite a designated status.

Taking the point one step further to underline the relevance to indirect as well as direct

effects, it is necessary to identify the contribution made by setting to the special

interest of the assets.

10.2.11 The matter of direct (fabric) effects is relatively straightforward. However, any wind

energy proposal will have a potential to have relatively widespread indirect (setting)

effects. The concept of the setting of cultural heritage features has long been evolving,

according to professional usage and case precedents as well as to past guidance. This

evolution has recently been curtailed and it is uncertain as to whether, or to what extent,

past experience and usage is still valid (past commentary produced by the present

Assessors is nevertheless listed in the general References to this ES). The current

situation is represented in PPS5, which imposes the following definition (Annex 2:

Terminology):

“SETTING

The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is

not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.

Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to

the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that

significance or may be neutral.”

10.2.12 It is unclear how this definition stands against the continuing statutory duty to have

“special regard to the desirability of preserving the [Listed] building or its setting” at

s.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

December 2010 221 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Nevertheless, the experiential basis of setting may now be taken as firmly established in

national policy.

Assessment Principles

10.2.13 EIA commonly makes use of the concepts of „sensitivity of receptor‟ and „magnitude of

(development-induced) change‟. This approach is set out in Chapter 2 and summarised

in Table 1 of this ES; for the most part, this terminology will be used in the present

chapter. However, there are some peculiarities of the cultural heritage topic which

should be mentioned here. First, the concept of „significance‟ is a central idea in

cultural heritage assessment (see both above and below) and conflicting usage of the

term will almost certainly lead to confusion; accordingly, the term „Planning-significant‟

will be used where necessary to indicate the wider usage. Also, for cultural heritage

purposes, the effect category of “no effect” in Table 1 will be relabelled in this chapter

as „not appreciable‟. Second, whilst the heritage asset itself is the main receptor,

effects upon the public (visitors) are also a proper consideration. Third, it must be

stressed that, whilst the formal „importance‟ of at least some heritage assets may be

clear (for instance, Scheduled Monuments are „nationally important‟ as a matter of

statute), when it comes to setting, it is always necessary to apply an iterative form of

assessment, to identify the contribution made by that element of the setting of an asset

which has potential to be affected (changed) by the development. Finally, one must

consider not just the „magnitude‟ of change likely to be produced by the development

but the significance of any such change (always in respect of the special interest of the

heritage asset). This whole process therefore requires the application of professional

judgment, supported by clear explanation.

10.2.14 The findings of this cultural heritage assessment will be summarised using the

terminology in Table 2.1 (with the necessary adjustment noted above). However, it falls

to the Assessors to comment on the „threshold‟ of effect which will, in our opinion, be a

“significant effect” in terms of the EIA Regulations (what we will call a „Planningsignificant‟

effect to avoid confusion). To achieve this, it is necessary to relate any

statement of effect to the current principal national policy, which (for adverse effects) is

usually framed in terms of the concept of „harm‟.

10.2.15 In Policy HE9.1, PPS5 states that “substantial harm” to any heritage asset should be (at

least) “exceptional”. To gain a feel for what is meant by “substantial harm”, it should be

noted that it is associated with (and therefore cannot be so very far from or less than)

“loss of”, that is, „actual loss of a historic asset or of its setting‟.

10.2.16 PPS5 Policy HE9.4 states that there are such things as harmful impacts which would

cause “less than substantial harm”. In any case, all parts of Policy HE9 tell us that the

level of harm must be assessed and balanced against any beneficial effects. Policy

December 2010 222 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

HE10 confirms that impacts upon setting should be part of the balancing exercise. And,

if there remained any doubt, Policy HE1.3 states:

“Where conflict between climate change objectives and the

conservation of heritage assets is unavoidable, the public benefit of

mitigating the effects of climate change should be weighed against any

harm to the significance of heritage assets in accordance with the

development management principles in this PPS and national planning

policy on climate change.”

10.2.17 Similarly, PPS22 states:

“11. In sites with nationally recognised designations (Sites of Special

Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves, National Parks, Areas of

Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coasts, Scheduled Monuments,

Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Registered Historic Battlefields

and Registered Parks and Gardens) planning permission for renewable

energy projects should only be granted where it can be demonstrated

that the objectives of designation of the area will not be compromised

by the development, and any significant adverse effects on the qualities

for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by the

environmental, social and economic benefits.”

10.2.18 It is important to note that the matter of planning balance is certainly not one for the

present Assessors. Our role is to pass as clear an idea of the significance of likely effect

as possible to the Planning decision makers, so that the above policies may be applied

in due course.

10.2.19 Returning to PPS5, Policy HE11 (first bullet-point) notes that a proposal may “materially

harm” an asset. This must surely refer to materiality in Planning, including “substantial”

and “less than substantial” harm. Here, one may reasonably ask whether there is a

lower threshold to „material harm‟. Accepted professional practice in Environmental

Impact Assessment has long recognised that it is in the public interest that assessors

should recognise and report adverse effects at „negligible/not appreciable‟ and

„minor/slight‟ levels, as well as higher levels of effect. This is indeed the approach

shown in Table 2.1 of this ES. However, a further tabulation may be introduced here,

on the grounds, first, that it is a more „theoretical‟ model (and we will not therefore

become fixated on particulars) and, second, that it is a model suggested by

Government 14 :

14 DCLG June 2006. Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures – a

consultation paper Box on p.40.

December 2010 223 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

EXAMPLE BOX:

Significance

Extreme

Major

Moderate

Minor

Negligible

GENERIC SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Criteria

These effects represent key factors in the decision-making process. They

are generally, but not exclusively associated with sites and features of

national importance and resources/features which are unique and which, if

lost cannot be replaced or relocated.

These effects are likely to be important considerations at a regional or

district scale but, if adverse, are potential concerns to the project,

depending upon the relative importance attached to the issue during the

decision making process.

These 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.

These effects may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be of

importance in the decision making process. Nevertheless, they are of

relevance in the detailed design of the project.

Effects which are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of

variation or within the margin of forecasting error.

10.2.20 The “substantial harm” of PPS5 would certainly arise from “extreme adverse effects” in

the above tabulation; note that this includes “loss” of features of “national importance”.

Moving down the scale, “major adverse effects” are clearly “material harm” but note how

the table uses the phrase “at a regional or district scale”. It is not likely that the DCLG

intended that we understand this to refer only to effects on features intrinsically of „only‟

regional or district importance. It is simply that the tabulation merges the usual

concepts of „importance/sensitivity‟ and „magnitude of the effect‟ (often shown in a twodimensional

matrix form, as in the present ES). There can surely be an effect that is a

„local issue‟ upon some aspect of an asset that is itself of „national importance‟. Indeed,

because it is reasonable to translate the concept of risk into the actual assessment of

significance, there can surely be aspects of nationally important assets which are only

of local significance (importance/sensitivity). These two upper DGLC categories seems

analogous (respectively) to the “very substantial” and “substantial” effects of Table 2.1,

although no such effects have been found during the present assessment and these

higher „weightings‟ have not therefore been tested against professional judgement.

10.2.21 In the DCLG tabulation, the transition between “moderate” and “major”, although not

defining an absolute (sharp) boundary, is clearly the most critical part of the scale for

recognising the beginnings of “material harm” (given adverse effects). In the

terminology of the present ES, we will take this transition to fall between “moderate” and

“substantial” adverse effects upon the cultural heritage. We will nevertheless report all

„appreciable‟ effects.

December 2010 224 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Consultation & Scoping

10.2.22 Following a general reconnaissance of the area and a review of standard cultural

heritage databases, contact was sought at the end of July 2010 with SBC (Mr. Peter

Bell, Conservation Officer) and Kent County Council (Mr. Adam Single, Planning

Archaeologist) to discuss detailed assessment needs.

10.2.23 On the 3rd August 2010, a draft Cultural Heritage “Additional Scoping” document was

circulated, mostly relating to the detailed requirements for setting assessment (these

being the matters least well defined through the overall ES Scoping exercise).

10.2.24 Mr. Single expressed some difficulties with the suggested scoping, primarily, in our

understanding, because it dealt mostly with upstanding building setting issues. He

advised that, on the archaeological side, the assessment should address the potential

suggested by the location of the development proposal, close to the former saltmarshes

and, specifically, in the direction of Great Bells (southeast of the proposal site). The

present Assessors asked Mr. Single for documentation relating to this potential.

10.2.25 Mr. Bell confirmed that potential indirect effects on certain specific assets should be

assessed, including, if possible, Shurland Hall Gatehouse (from the interior of the

building) and the locally listed garden at Parsonage Farm.

10.2.26 Some modifications were made to the scoping document to reflect the consultations

and a definitive text was circulated on the 6th. September 2010. The text is attached to

this ES as Appendix 10.1 (although we have since removed Mr. Single‟s name from the

foot of the document as it subsequently became unclear to us whether or not he

approved of it – see below).

10.2.27 The scoping document was also sent to English Heritage on the 6th. September, with

an invitation for comments if felt necessary; no such comments have been received to

date.

10.2.28 On the 14th September 2010, Mr. Single suggested that additional technical documents

might be used to underpin the assessment. As a general proposition, current

professional literature has indeed been considered but a reference to the suggested

material as a standard in the actual scoping document was rejected by the present

Assessors on the basis of lack of conformity with PPS5. Mr. Single was again

requested to point us at any specific data or primary (research) publication relating to

the Great Bells area which he wished to be taken into account in the archaeological

assessment.

10.2.29 On the 21st September 2010, Mr. Single again stressed the need to look, beyond the

known archaeology, at archaeological potential.

December 2010 225 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

10.2.30 Since there appeared to be nothing further which Mr. Single wished to bring to our

attention, as agreed in the scoping document, the archaeological background was prereleased

to the County and the District (Conservation and Planning sections) on the

24th. September 2010; there have been no comments to date.

10.3 Baseline Information

Sources of Data

10.3.1 Data were obtained from: standard cultural heritage databases (Listed Buildings Online,

MAGIC, Kent County Historic Environment Record); SBC and other local websites;

Bodleian & Sackler Libraries, Oxford; Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton; RAF Museum,

Hendon; National Monuments Record, Swindon; National Archives, Kew; discussion

with cultural heritage consultees/curators; and from field survey.

10.3.2 The background data on designated and significant non-designated assets are set out

in Appendix 10.2.

Current Conditions

10.3.3 All heritage assets falling within the agreed scoping are noted in this baseline section.

Where assessment shows that the proposed development will have no appreciable

effect, negligible/slight or slight effect, the reasoning and finding will be stated

immediately (as part of each relevant asset entry), so that later sections in this chapter

may concentrate upon effects of potentially greater consequence.

Fabric Considerations (Archaeology)

10.3.4 There are no historic buildings or known archaeological sites within the proposed

development site.

10.3.5 The archaeological background for the area is discussed in detail in Appendix 10.4 (a

location plan is there included); the Historic Environment Record entries are included in

Appendix 10.2.

10.3.6 The highest potential for archaeological sites within the proposed development area

comprises features associated with salt-extraction (salterns and ancillary sites),

although the land is still rather high and (where the actual development works are to be

conducted) one would be over 100 m from a creek to supply the necessary salt water.

The most likely date, judging from known examples in the vicinity, would be the

Medieval or early post-Medieval periods, although late prehistoric and even Romano-

British material would not be impossible. The very southeastern corner of the proposal

December 2010 226 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

site (as a whole) and the slightly raised finger of land beyond may be described as

„Bells Peninsula‟ and would certainly seem likely to have been an „attractor‟ for past

human activity, generally surrounded as it is by saltmarsh. However, the actual

development works will not extend this far and it is most unlikely that there will be

widespread deposits of significance to the understanding of ancient environments

associated with any such activity areas as might have functioned on this higher, drier

land.

10.3.7 There is a possibility of twentieth century archaeology (the most likely types being the

remains of WWII dispersal or close defence features) within the proposed development

area. All known features dating from the various know phases of airfield use (see

Appendix 10.3) lie or lay to the north of this area.

10.3.8 There are a number of historic buildings flanking the north-south road (Brabazon Road

leading north to Church Road) through the Prison Service site, the chosen access route

to the proposed development. These buildings remain from the earlier (1920s onwards)

use of the area as Eastchurch Airfield and are described in Appendix 10.3. It is also

probable that this flanking land will retain archaeological traces of the earlier (from

1909) use of the airfield.

Setting Considerations

10.3.9 The distribution of designated heritage assets is mapped in Figures 10.1 and 10.2; the

published statements of significance are included in Appendix 10.2.

Scheduled Monuments

10.3.10 Shurland House (Hall), Eastchurch (SM 29601, NGR 599386 171531). This

monument stands 2.3 km to the northeast of the proposal site. Whilst not neglecting its

Scheduled status, it is convenient to discuss this asset as part of the group which

includes the Listed gatehouse (see below).

10.3.11 Nunnery at Minster Abbey, Queenborough (SM 23026, NGR 595629 173010). This

monument stands 4.0 km to the northwest of the proposal site. Whilst not neglecting its

Scheduled status, it is convenient to discuss this asset as part of the group which

includes the Listed Minster Abbey Church (see below).

10.3.12 Medieval Moated Site at Sayes Court (SM 12866, NGR 602266 166278). This

monument stands 5.1 km to the southeast of the proposal site. The significance of the

site lies in its archaeological and historic interest and its association with the Medieval

Church of St. Thomas, behind trees further to the east. The earthwork is located within

the private grounds (the garden) of Sayes Court Farm and is merely glimpsed from the

public road to its north. The strong shrubs and bushes (and the garden „furniture‟)

December 2010 227 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

make the form rather difficult to appreciate (a clearer idea can be formed from aerial

photographs or satellite imagery). The main farmhouse stands at the roadside near the

northeastern „point‟ (the moat is oval) and there are further large farm buildings on its

western and northwestern sides. The magnitude of change will be negligible and the

effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

Designated Historic Areas

10.3.13 There are no Registered Parks & Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Heritage Coast

zones within 10 km of the proposal site. There are no Conservation Areas within 5 km

of the proposal site.

Listed Buildings within Approximately 2 km

10.3.14 There are no Grade I Listed Buildings within this distance of the proposal site.

10.3.15 Church of All Saints, High Street (north side), Eastchurch (LB II*, No.444609, TQ 98835

71434). This building stands 2.0 km to the northnortheast of the proposal site. The

current church was built in 1431-2 by the monks of Boxley Abbey but incorporating

some Decorated windows from an earlier structure. There is a tower but it is not

particularly prominent in the landscape. The fabric is in good repair and the churchyard

and grave markers are all tidy. The proximal architectural setting of the church is its

yard, with significant inward views (generally towards the northern quadrant) from the

High Street and more westerly views from Warden Road.

10.3.16 The formal L&V Viewpoint 4 (taken from the stone bench inset into the outside of the

southern wall of the churchyard) is representative of the view (southwards down Church

Street) from only the very southeastern corner of the churchyard itself. Retreating down

the same alignment (and noting that the possible view south is very narrow, before

screening buildings interfere on each side), until the east end of the church is also in

sight, produces the view shown in Fig. 10.5; the eastern turbine (appearing just above

the parked white van with red/yellow chevrons in this image) would probably become

fully screened/filtered as the young tree grows. Note that no long view is available

down Church Road from Warden Road. All the south-central parts of the churchyard

(containing the majority of recent graves and the main access to the church between

the lychgate and the southwest porch) are fully screened in the direction of the

proposed development by buildings on the south side of High Street; the northern side

of the churchyard is screened by the church building itself. There would still be no

views of the proposed turbines from further north in the village (e.g. from the Village

Hall), after which the land drops northwards. Visibility is generally tree- and hedgescreened

from the footpath running north on the western side of the church. The

importance of the contribution to significance from the setting element affected (mostly

only from the southeastern corner of the churchyard in any outward line) is low and the

December 2010 228 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

magnitude of change will be medium; the resulting effect upon setting will be slight

adverse.

10.3.17 Aviators‟ Memorial, Church Road (west side), Eastchurch (LBII, No.444219, TQ 98836

71387). This structure stands 2.0 km to the northnortheast of the proposal site. It is

inscribed: “This memorial commemorates the first home of British aviation 1909 near

this spot at Leysdown Eastchurch”. Although not particularly helpful to a non-local

visitor, the reference is to Eastchurch Airfield (cf. Appendix 10.3 and the text below on

the Listed aircraft sheds), which lay straight down (southwards) Church Road, such that

the two assets are strongly associated. The memorial in fact stands at the corner of

Church Road and High Street, with the partly curved structure facing the bisector of the

angle (i.e. to the eastnortheast). There are houses, trees and hedging behind

(southwest of) the memorial but the eastern turbine will appear to the left, above the

chimneys of a more distant house off the west side of Church Road; this view is

illustrated in the formal L&V Viewpoint 4. Whilst there is of course no strictly logical link

between a wind turbine and early (propeller-driven) aviation, it is difficult to find that the

modern feature would be „out of keeping‟. Indeed, it might be argued that the moving

turbine would just catch the eye and that the „resonance‟ of simple form would help

direct the visitor‟s interest in the direction of the former airfield. The contribution to

significance from this setting element is low and the magnitude of change will be small;

the resulting effect upon setting will be negligible/slight, although „complex‟ in its visual

message and not necessarily adverse.

10.3.18 Parsonage Farmhouse, Church Road (west side), Eastchurch (LBII, No.4444220, TQ

98631 70925); garden walls to front of Parsonage Farmhouse, Church Road (west

side), Eastchurch (LB GVII, No. 444421, TQ 98632 70967). These structures stand 1.5

km to the northnortheast of the proposal site. The house (also known at times as “Little

Shurland”), formerly an actual ecclesiastical holding, was rebuilt in the early C17 by

Gabriel Livesey (died 1622), the father of Sir Michael Livesey, “the regicide” (a signatory

of Charles‟s death warrant). The north-south wing (the southerly leg of an ¬-shape) still

stands from this time (very heavily modified), when there was also a moat all around the

house, together with a combined gatehouse and dovecote (presumably on the east

side), none of which (potentially Medieval structures) seems now to survive appreciably

above ground. However, the southern arm of the moat was reported as still water-filled

in the 1930s and some trace may still lie within the southernmost compartment of the

garden (possibly now organised as a rose garden at a slightly lower level but not

recently available for close visiting and not visible on satellite imagery). The main

orientation of the house was „rotated‟ in the C18 so that the then new east-west wing

faces north. The brick garden walls “to the front” (Listed for group value) actually lie

mostly to the north (and on the northeast and northwest side of the northern garden

area) of the site; in the Listing, they are said to be of C17 age but the relationship with

the former moat would then be puzzling. There are a number of C20 outbuildings and

extensions. The current garden, both north and south of the house, is locally listed (in

the County Historic Environment Record). A number of modern buildings used by

December 2010 229 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Island Aviation Limited lie immediately to the northeast and northwest (including the

landing strip). The significance of this group probably lies mostly in the archaeological

aspects (including elements of built structure incorporated into later work), underpinned

by the historical interest, although considerable further study (including detailed site

survey) would be required to clarify what are currently rather confused records.

10.3.19 There is no public access to this site and none of the historic elements are readily

apparent from Church Road (due to screening from both vegetation and recent

buildings); the roofline of the main house, just visible, is probably a recent replacement.

The main (private) view of the current house frontage is southwards, from the access

drive on the north side. The densely planted (including evergreens) southern garden

compartments are in need of a little „trimming‟; there is a tree screen yet further south.

The view towards the proposed turbines from immediately south of the house is shown

in Fig. 10.4 (access kindly authorised by the occupants). The formal L&V Viewpoint 1 is

taken from the lay-by on Church Road southeast of Parsonage Farm and shows the

proposed turbines without the proximal screening protecting the Parsonage Farm

assets. The magnitude of change where the historic assets can actually be

experienced will be negligible and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.20 Nos. 22 and 24 High Street (south side), Eastchurch (LBII, No.444610, TQ 99121

71409). This building stands 2.0 km to the northeast of the proposal site. It is an early

C18 house, facing northwards onto the eastward-dropping road, from where it is in

good, if quite tight, public view. The significance of the building is in its vernacular

architecture. The modern housing behind (to the south and southwest) blocks all lines

of view towards the proposed turbines. The magnitude of change will be negligible and

the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.21 No. 2 Warden Road (west side), Eastchurch (LBII, No.446130, TQ 98869 71460). This

building stands 2.0 km to the northeast of the proposal site. It is a small C18 house,

dubbed “Glebe Cottage 1787” on a plaque. The location is interesting, since the house

was clearly built to look southwards across the churchyard of All Saints (it is the blind

east end of the house which fronts onto Warden Road). The significance of the building

therefore lies in both its neat, vernacular architecture and its association with the

church. Buildings along the southern side of the High Street completely screen the view

in the direction of the proposed development; in particular, the angle is just too wide to

allow views from Glebe Cottage southwards down Church Road. The magnitude of

change will be negligible and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.22 The Rectory, High Street, Eastchurch (LBII, No.446557, TQ 98795 71439). This

building stands 2.0 km to the northeast of the proposal site. It is a Gothic style structure,

dating from c.1835. The architecture is typical of a C19 rectory but it has now been

converted to use as a care home. The building stands back from the northern side of

the High Street, behind a very strong and tall hedge-line. The only narrow public view is

from the gateway southwest of the house. There is built form screening the south side

December 2010 230 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

of the High Street in the direction of the proposed development. The magnitude of

change will be negligible and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.23 Four Hangars, HMP Standford Hill, Eastchurch (LB GVII, No.495536, TQ 97992

69832). These buildings stand almost immediately north of the proposal site, some 400

and 600 m from the two turbine locations. The actual Listed Buildings are early aircraft

hangars, dating from 1912, built by the engineers Harbrows for the Admiralty.

However, these structures are the only designated heritage assets in what is actually

quite a large group of surviving airfield structures of various dates, on a site which also

has important pre-military aviation history (and, potentially, archaeology). Eastchurch

Airfield is discussed in detail in Appendix 10.3; the view across the earliest surviving

buildings directly towards the proposed turbine locations is shown in Fig. 10.3. It is

considered (by the present Assessors) that the group value of the surviving standing

fabric and likely archaeology, together with the historical interest, of the former

Eastchurch Airfield is actually somewhat greater than implied by the Grade II Listing of

the earliest surviving hangars alone. Nevertheless, whilst the close views of key

structures are very important, wider views around the site contribute to the setting only

through their „expansive‟ nature (allowing reading of the former airfield use). The two

proposed turbines will obviously stand high above the historic structures but they will

not interfere with relevant views in any way. As noted above in relation to the

associated aviators‟ memorial in Eastchurch Village, whilst there is of course no strictly

logical link between a wind turbine and early (propeller-driven) aviation, it is difficult to

find that modern features of this type would be „out of keeping‟. Indeed, it might be

argued that the moving turbines would produce a „resonance‟ of simple form, marking

the location over a wide geographical area when the surviving airfield buildings

themselves are not prominent (and, lying within the prison site, not currently accessible

to the public). The contribution to significance from this setting element is low and the

magnitude of change will be medium; the resulting effect upon setting will be slight,

although „complex‟ in its visual message and not necessarily adverse.

Listed Buildings within Approximately 2-5 km

10.3.24 The Abbey Church of St. Mary and St. Sexburga, High Street (north side), Minster-on-

Sea, Sheerness (LB Grade A, No.444803, TQ 95607 72986); the Abbey Gatehouse,

High Street (north side), Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness (LB GVII 15, No.444802, TQ

95565 72999). These buildings stand 4.0 km to the northwest of the proposal site. They

are the above-ground remains of the former Benedictine nunnery, the whole grounds of

which are a Scheduled Monument. A nunnery was founded here in the C7 but it was

15 Listed Buildings Online has the gatehouse as Grade II for Group Value but the MAGIC record of the Scheduled

Monument states that the gatehouse is Listed at Grade I. Since the gatehouse is completely screened at ground level

from views which would include the proposed turbines, this uncertainty is not material; however, as noted in the main

text, there may be occasional public access to the battlements.

December 2010 231 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

burned by the Danes in 855. The general rebuilding, after refounding, was by the

Norman Archbishop Corbeuil between 1123 and 1136. The north half of the church is

the oldest portion of that building, with considerable Saxon remains, but the bulk dates

from the C13, as does the towered gatehouse. The Medieval church was subject to a

rather heavy-handed restoration in the late C19 and there is a large, free-standing

„extension‟ to the north, a not entirely fortunate modern addition (which presumably

occasioned the reported archaeological excavation of burials and building foundations).

Whilst these buildings stand relatively high on the top of a substantial hill, they have

retained remarkably little prominence in the wider landscape, due to subsequent

peripheral building. Thus, the most important setting elements now all lie within the

Abbey grounds themselves. There are only short-range inward views, eastwards (and

significantly uphill) from Union Road, northwards (and very sharply upslope) from the

tight alley leading from High Street, and westwards from just after the point at which

Chequers Road (the B2008) turns sharply southwards to pass the Abbey to the south.

The tall buildings along most of the northern side of High Street are particularly involved

in creating a rather „enclosed‟ feel to the Abbey grounds. This asset group has

considerable importance in terms of architectural, historic and archaeological interest;

furthermore, the site is easily accessible to the public and there is a small museum in

the gatehouse (open 5 days per week in the summer). Visitors are said to be allowed

on occasion to climb to the battlements, from which there are presumably panoramic

views 16. However, the sensitivity of longer ground-level views in the contribution from

setting is very limited.

10.3.25 The only ground-level point within the precinct from which the proposed turbines would

be visible lies southwest of the church, inside and south of the lychgate. The formal

L&V Viewpoint 5 shows the view directly towards the development site; Fig. 10.7 is a

wide-angle shot from the same point, to show the significant separation of the long view

from the actual frontage of the church. Note that the church retains its dominance. In

any panoramic view from the gatehouse battlements, the proposed turbines would

occupy a very narrow angle and would also appear lower, probably not even cutting the

skyline. The importance of the contribution to significance from the setting element

affected (the long view southeastwards towards the marshes, in which there is little

specific cultural heritage interest) is low and the magnitude of change will be small; the

resulting effect upon setting will be negligible/slight adverse.

10.3.26 Church of St. Thomas, Harty Ferry Road (east side), Leysdown (LB Grade B17

No.444228, TR 02312 66278). This building stands 5.1 km to the southeast of the

16 Access was not available at the times of repeated visits during the current survey. Surprisingly, the Assessors have

been able to find just one photograph on the web taken from the battlement vantage point by a member of the public

(Trevor Edwards‟s gallery on www.pbase.com) and this shows only the Abbey church itself.

17 Listed Churches were originally graded using a separate system and not all churches have been re-assessed. Grade

B equates to a II* listing.

December 2010 232 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

proposal site. The church has some Norman fabric, with a north aisle dating from

c.1200; there is only a low bellcote, so that the building is not prominent. There are

excellent views from the churchyard (tidy with some recent burials) to the north, east

and south (across the Swale). This church is clearly of high architectural and historic

importance and the contribution made by its proximal setting (from which there are both

close inward and long outward sightlines) is considerable. However, on the eastern

side, there is good tree, shrub and hedge screening in significant depth (enough to

continue to function in winter), whilst the large square form of Sayes Court Farm and its

attendant modern barns stand to the northwest. It is possible that the proposed

turbines could be glimpsed in the distance from the roadway outside (slightly to the

west) of the church but any such view would be in the context of the farm buildings.

The magnitude of change will be negligible and the effect upon setting will not be

appreciable.

10.3.27 The Ruins of Shurland Hall or Castle, Leysdown Road (east side), Eastchurch (LBII*.

No.445085, TQ 99421 71550); the garden walls of Shurland Hall or Castle, Leysdown

Road, Eastchurch (LBII, No.445086, TQ 99441 71498). These buildings (also known

as “Shurland House”) stand 2.3 km to the northeast of the proposal site. The actual

above-ground remains (Listed) comprise the gatehouse and a number of enclosure

walls; all these and the whole area of the „Shurland complex‟ are also a Scheduled

Monument. This was a Tudor Great House, built by Sir Thomas Cheyney during the

reign of Henry VIII, partly of materials said to have been brought from Chilham Castle

on the mainland of Kent. Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn were entertained here in October

1532, implying that construction was substantially complete by then. A Public Records

Office document 18 of the 1570s shows a „bird‟s eye view‟ of probably the greatest

extent, with gatehouse, main house range, galleries, chapel, service buildings and well,

all ranged around some nine courtyards, crossed by pathways. The main axis was from

the northwest (entrance) to the southeast, with both the gatehouse and main house

ranges oriented at right angles to this axis. The gatehouse has recently been restored

by the Spitalfield Trust and is currently on the market as a residential property;

additional restoration of the „garden‟ walls (that is, the principal courtyard walls,

including the remains of the northwest face of the main house) is in train (note that the

original garden was probably in the large enclosure further south). There was an earlier

(originally C13) Medieval manor house somewhere on the site. This asset group has

very considerable importance in terms of architectural, historic and archaeological

interest; however, there is currently no public access.

10.3.28 The Shurland group of assets will be considered further below.

18 PRO SP 12/75 (Item 47) – Kent, Isle of Sheppey: “The plotte of Sherland howse in Sheppie”. Reproduced at

www.sheppeywebsite.co.uk/index.php?id=64.

December 2010 233 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

10.3.29 Little Murston Farmhouse, Sittingbourne (LBII, No.175804, TQ 93306 65648). This

building stands 5.9 km to the southwest of the proposal site. It is a C18 or earlier

farmhouse, now converted to fully domestic use. The public view (of little more than the

roof) is from the track to the west. The garden boundary is defined by tall fencing (with

a gated entrance) and trees (especially around the northern edge and around the

northeastern corner). It is possible that the proposed turbines may be visible in long

views from the eastern side of the garden, although this area is unlikely to contribute to

the sensitivity of the building. The magnitude of change will be small at most and the

effect upon setting (of low-to-negligible sensitivity) will probably not be appreciable,

certainly no more than negligible/slight adverse.

10.3.30 Tonge Corner Farmhouse, Tonge (LBII, No.176397, TQ 93882 65218). This building

stands 5.9 km to the southwest of the proposal site. The farmhouse dates from the

C16, with C18 brick cladding. The architecture is modest but finer than the normal

„vernacular‟, the modern pillared porch not being discordant. There is no public access

but, from the track to the active farm (itself screened), the southern frontage of the

farmhouse is very well exposed. The overall, wide-angle view has a strong element of

the „picturesque‟ (in the formal C18 English usage of the term), with the house flanked

by structural planting in its well-kept garden on the left, a central division created by tall

trees (especially a fine pine) and then a long open vista on the right, across the Swale

to Sheppey. A C16-18 windmill (Horne Myll, cf. the „Postscript‟ to Appendix 10.4) would

probably have stood in this view. The proposed turbines would be visible in the far

distance but would not be prominent in the „expansive‟ landscape (and, arguably, might

add some interest). It is considered that this wide-angle view (as a contribution to the

setting and thus to the overall significance of the building) is of medium sensitivity

(despite the mere Grade II Listing of the farmhouse), whilst the change that would be

brought about by the turbines would be of small magnitude, resulting in a slight adverse

effect.

10.3.31 Bell Farm Park House and Club, Bell Farm Lane (east side), Minster-on-Sea,

Sheerness (LBII, No.443869, TQ 97408 72718). This building stands 3.2 km to the

north of the proposal site. The south range is reported to be a timber-framed

weatherboarded hall house of the late C15 or early Cl6; the north range is C18. The

building stands in a large private caravan park, with no visibility from the public road

(the building described in the Listing is not even evident on satellite imagery at the map

reference given). In any case, due to the northward-falling topography, there is unlikely

to be any visibility of the proposed development from this general area. The magnitude

of change will be negligible and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.32 Nos. 1-23 The Broadway (north side), Sheerness (LBII, No.443870, TQ 93167 72851).

These c. 1830 buildings stand 5.7 km to the westnorthwest of the proposal site. This

was one of the locations used to check the potential for long distance effects on

Halfway Houses; as expected there will be no visibility of the proposed development.

December 2010 234 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

The magnitude of change will be negligible and the effect upon setting will not be

appreciable.

10.3.33 No. 49 Chapel Street (south side), Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness (LBII, No.443879, TQ

95873 72917). This building stands 3.9 km to the northwest of the proposal site. It is a

C18 house, dubbed “Tams Cottage”. The significance of the building is in its vernacular

architecture (currently in need of repair). Trees behind the building provide very good

screening and, in any case, there is no view from the road over the slight rise downward

into the lowland beyond. The magnitude of change will be negligible and the effect

upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.34 Mill Hill House, Chequers Road (south side), Minster on Sea, Sheerness (LBII,

No.444218, TQ 96117 72812). This building stands 3.6 km to the northwest of the

proposal site. It dates from the C18 and is of interest for its vernacular architecture.

There is a good public view from the road (best looking southsoutheast) but the house

and its flanking buildings are completely self-screening in the direction of the proposed

development. The name is historically significant, there having been a windmill close to

this location in the C16 (see the „Postscript‟ to Appendix 10.4). The magnitude of

change will be negligible and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.35 Danley Farm House, Drove Road (east side), Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness (LBII,

No.444223, TQ 93456 73032). This early C18 building stands 5.6 km to the

westnorthwest of the proposal site. This was one of the locations used to check the

potential for long distance effects on Halfway Houses; as expected there will be no

visibility of the proposed development. The magnitude of change will be negligible and

the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.36 Kings Hill Farmhouse, Elmley, Sheerness (LBII, No.444225, TQ 93868 67909); barn

and adjoining cattle shed immediately north of Kings Hill Farmhouse, Elmley Marshes,

Sheerness (LBII, No. 446560, TQ 93862 67985). These buildings stand 4.3 km to the

westsouthwest of the proposal site. The name derives from the fact that James II was

brought here by Sir Edward Hales on 12 December 1688, when he was trying to escape

from England, before being apprehended on the River Swale. The present house,

however, is of a later date. The north wing has the date 1757 marked on a brick but the

east-west main frontage (facing south) is C19. The house is leased by the RSPB (with

the warden‟s office in the north wing) and there are a number of visitor facilities (toilets,

car park, etc.). The late C18 barn (oriented east-west) has been converted for use as a

reception venue. The stock farm is still in operation (using the buildings on the western

side of the site); it is this use which constitutes the main theme of significance of the

overall group. The setting, which contributes to the significance of the Listed Buildings,

is generally open and expansive and the long approach drive from the northwest allows

appreciation of the surrounding marshes, pastures and stock (cattle and sheep). There

will be relatively narrow views of the proposed turbines from various points of public

access, looking eastwards north and south of each of the core buildings. The wider

December 2010 235 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

view shown in the formal L&V Viewpoint 8 is taken from just outside the farm core, north

of the modern house added north of the Listed barn. A C16-18 windmill (Horne Myll, cf.

the „Postscript‟ to Appendix 10.4) would probably have stood on the left of this view, at a

distance of just over 2 km. The proposed turbines would be visible in the longer

distance but would not be prominent in the „expansive‟ landscape. It is considered that

view eastnortheastwards is of low sensitivity, whilst the change that would be brought

about by the turbines would be of small magnitude, resulting in a negligible/slight

adverse effect.

10.3.37 Park Farmhouse, Harty Ferry Road (east side), Harty, Leysdown (LBII, No.444227, TR

01719 66233). This building stands 4.7 km to the southeast of the proposal site. It is

probably a C16 timber-framed building refaced with painted brick; with few outbuildings,

it is not obvious that this continues to be part of a functional farm. The house is sited

just over a rise, so that its main view outwards is southwards. There is no public

access, the back of the house being visible only at some distance from the road to the

north. It is possible that turbine blade tips might be visible from the house, over the

highest point of the Isle of Harty, although there are quite a lot of shrubs and bushes on

the skyline towards the proposed development. In any case, the magnitude of change

will be negligible and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.38 Ferry House Inn, Harty Ferry Road (west side), Harty, Leysdown (LBII, No.444602, TR

01524 65948). This building stands 4.8 km to the southeast of the proposal site. The

C18 building is well sited for its functions (ancient and modern) and looks southwards

across the Swale. The rising ground at the centre of the Isle of Harty screens all views

in the direction of the proposed development. The magnitude of change will be

negligible and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.39 Paradise Farmhouse, Leysdown Road (south side), Leysdown (LBII, No. 445087, TR

02285 70351). This building stands 4.2 km to the eastnortheast of the proposal site. It

has two parallel ranges, C18 in the west and C19 behind to the east (towards the

farmyard), the whole heavily modified and refurbished. There is a complex

communications mast immediately to the east and a set of caravans and mobile homes

to the southwest. The public view of the building‟s plain architecture is from the

footpath looking towards the eastern quadrant; there is a strong Leyland cypress hedge

on the western side of the footpath, screening all views in the direction of the proposed

development (the formal L&V Viewpoint 3 shows the less screened view from a similar

direction and at slightly less distance). The magnitude of change will be negligible and

the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.40 East End Farmhouse, Oak Lane (west side), Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness (LBII,

No.445683, TQ 96771 73188). This building stands 3.8 km to the northwest of the

proposal site. It is a late C17 or early C18 weatherboarded house, with Leyland

cypresses to screen the surrounding caravan parks. Due to the northward-dropping

December 2010 236 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

topography, there will be no visibility of the proposed development. The magnitude of

change will be negligible and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.41 Illogan, Oak Lane (east side), Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness (LBII, No.445684, TQ 96809

73164). This building stands 3.8 km to the northwest of the proposal site. It is an earlymid

C16 house, with strong mature tree growth in the garden, screening the

surrounding caravan parks. Due to the northward-dropping topography, there will be no

visibility of the proposed development. The magnitude of change will be negligible and

the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.42 Parsonage Farmhouse, Parsonage Chase (south side), Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness

(LBII, No.445685, TQ 93921 72306). This building stands 4.8 km to the westnorthwest

of the proposal site. The back range is reported as early-mid C17, the front range as

C18, with north-south alignment. The only public view into the yard/garden is down the

narrow access drive from the north, from which point the farmhouse is not readily

visible. The building in sight is believed to be Charlotte Cottage (unlisted).

Furthermore, the List description does not fit obviously the satellite imagery of this

location, there being three north-south main roof-ridges and other minor roof details in

the building south of the Cottage. There is no obvious remaining farm usage. In any

case, the garden is bounded by mature trees and hedges and there is a substantial

modern housing development all along the eastern side, such that there should be no

visibility in the direction of the proposed development. The magnitude of change will be

negligible and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.43 Connetts, Plough Road (north side), Eastchurch (LBII, No. 445686, TQ 98756 72549).

This building stands 3.0 km to the north of the proposal site. It dates from the mid-C18.

A number of the surrounding buildings have been converted to holiday cottages,

although the farm still appears functional. The grounds are well-kept and the ponds

contribute to the setting. Due to the good tree-screening, immediately south of the

house, along both sides of the east-west Plough Road and on the „Eastchurch Ridge‟,

visibility of the proposed development is unlikely. The magnitude of change will be

negligible and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.44 Trouts, Plough Road (north east side), Eastchurch (LBII, No.445687, TQ 99189 72384).

This building stands 3.0 km to the northnortheast of the proposal site. There is C18

cladding to an older building. Due to the northward-falling topography, there could be

no visibility of the proposed development. The magnitude of change will be negligible

and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.45 Scocles Court, Scocles Road (west side), Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness (LBII,

No.445785, TQ 95015 71958). This building stands 3.7 km to the northwest of the

proposal site. It is an early C18 house, with some pretentions in its columned porch,

dubbed “Scocles Court Manor”. The building stands in a marked dip, looking

eastwards, whilst the public view is westwards from the road. The garden all around

December 2010 237 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

has large, mature trees, the chestnuts being particularly fine, which screen the house.

There is a strong and high hedge on the eastern side of the road. The magnitude of

change will be negligible and the effect upon setting will not be appreciable.

10.3.46 Warden Manor, Warden Road (south side), Eastchurch (LBII, No.446128, TR 01585

72393); House within grounds of Warden Manor and in same occupancy, Warden

Road (south side), Eastchurch (LBII, No.446129, TR 01619 72410). These buildings

stand 4.5 km to the northeast of the proposal site. The manor dates from the C16 or

early C17, refronted c.1800; the additional house is contemporary. Due to the

northeastward-falling topography, there could be no visibility of the proposed

development. The magnitude of change will be negligible and the effect upon setting

will not be appreciable.

Trends and Projected Future Baseline

10.3.47 Shurland Gatehouse and „garden‟ (the original main courtyard), currently in the hands of

a restoration trust, is on the market as a private residence. A sale would shift the

setting of the site slightly further from the public sphere.

10.3.48 Many of the oldest surviving buildings at the former Eastchurch Airfield (including the

Listed Buildings) are at severe risk because they are no longer weather-proof. Even the

current lack of a comprehensive historical and physical survey threatens the integrity of

the surviving (standing and archaeological) features, since there is little basis for a

proper management plan. Further decay and severance would diminish the

contribution made by setting to the significance for the group.

10.3.49 The cultural heritage consultees and the Council have not signalled any other proposed

developments for which a cumulative assessment is required.

Information Gaps

10.3.50 There are no shortfalls in data which would affect the ability to assess the likely

Planning-significant effects of the proposed development.

Valuation of the Receptors in the Baseline Condition

10.3.51 Whenever the effect of the proposed development upon heritage assets within the

project scoping has been assessed as unlikely to approach Planning-significance, the

cultural heritage significance (special interest) of these assets has nevertheless been

noted above, as a precautionary measure. Those assets which might receive a greater

effect are considered below.

December 2010 238 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Fabric

10.3.52 Archaeological features associated with salt-extraction are far from rare in the region

and, when on higher ground, they are unlikely to provide really novel information, such

that the resulting potential within the proposed construction footprint is assessed as

being of low importance/sensitivity.

10.3.53 Outlying features associated with military airfields are far from rare, either nationally or

regionally, and they are unlikely to provide really novel information. The main interest

would be in capturing the historical details were any such remains to be encountered.

The resulting potential within the proposed construction footprint is assessed as being

of low importance/sensitivity.

10.3.54 The features (extant former airfield buildings and likely archaeological remains) flanking

Brabazon Road and Church Road are assessed as having group value and as being of

medium importance/sensitivity.

Setting

10.3.55 Shurland House (Hall), Eastchurch (SM 29601, NGR 599386 171531); the Ruins of

Shurland Hall or Castle, Leysdown Road (east side), Eastchurch (LBII*. No.445085,

TQ 99421 71550); the garden walls of Shurland Hall or Castle, Leysdown Road,

Eastchurch (LBII, No.445086, TQ 99441 71498). The site is slightly raised and there is

good ground-level visibility, inwards and outwards, in most directions, underpinning the

general contribution to significance made by the setting. The closest public approach

(too far away for much detail to be appreciated) is the footpath to the west and north of

the site. The gatehouse itself has a blind southwestern face, so that no views to the

southwest are possible from the interior. The restored flat leaded roof is accessed

through a turret stairway towards the south western end. Moving around the roof allows

almost panoramic visibility (only one sector being blocked by the mature trees beside

the pond to the westsouthwest), with particularly noteworthy (and historically more

important) views towards the sea to the east, north and northwest. Whilst a Tudor

Great House would not have been a primarily defensive structure, prudence (and an

interest in maritime traffic on the part of Cheyney, the Warden of the Cinque Ports)

would have demanded that the gatehouse roof be used as a look-out. In addition, this

roof is now (as it would always have been) the best place from which to appreciate the

layout of the entire establishment. The overall contribution of setting to the significance

of this asset group is high but only a relatively small proportion of the setting interest

would be relevant in the context of the present development, as noted below.

December 2010 239 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

10.4 Topic Specific Design Evolution

Scheme Layout Response to Potentially Significant Effects

10.4.1 The scheme has been designed in the knowledge of the proximity of heritage assets at

the former Eastchurch Airfield. All known assets have been avoided, using appropriate

stand-off principles.

10.4.2 As a 2-turbine scheme with little opportunity to benefit from screening by topography or

vegetation, there has been no scope to minimise longer-distance setting impacts

through siting.

Construction Specification Response to Potentially Significant Effects

10.4.3 A micro-siting allowance (15m with the exception of in a northerly direction of Turbine 1)

is included in the proposed turbine locations (and thus in attendant infrastructure);

potential archaeological (fabric) impact will be a consideration in the application of this

allowance.

Operational Controls Response to Potentially Significant Effects

10.4.4 No special operation controls are required in respect of the cultural heritage topic.

Decommissioning Specification Response to Potentially Significant Effects

10.4.5 A disciplined approach to decommissioning will be applied, in order to avoid any

unnecessary cultural heritage fabric impact.

Potentially Significant Effects Avoided by Design

10.4.6 The heritage features (extant former airfield buildings and likely archaeological remains)

immediately flanking Brabazon Road and Church Road have been assessed above as

having group value and as being of medium importance/sensitivity. Direct damage to

such features could escalate to a magnitude of change classifiable as large, with

resulting substantial adverse impact. Designed discipline along this access route, at

both the construction and decommissioning stages, should allow all such risk to be

avoided.

December 2010 240 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

10.5 Predicted Significant Effects of the Scheme

Direct Effects (Fabric)

10.5.1 The potential for archaeological features (cf. salt-extraction and outlying C20 military

features) within the proposed construction footprint has been assessed above as being

of low importance/sensitivity. However, were there to be direct intersection by

development works, the magnitude of change could be large (including total destruction,

a short-term irreversible impact). This would create a slight/moderate adverse effect,

not high enough to be Planning-significant but nevertheless undesirable and reasonably

avoidable (see below).

Indirect effects (Setting)

10.5.2 Shurland House (Hall), Eastchurch (SM 29601, NGR 599386 171531); the Ruins of

Shurland Hall or Castle, Leysdown Road (east side), Eastchurch (LBII*.

No.445085, TQ 99421 71550); the garden walls of Shurland Hall or Castle,

Leysdown Road, Eastchurch (LBII, No.445086, TQ 99441 71498). In ground level

views 19 , from both the „garden‟ of the gatehouse and the wider accessible area (such as

the access track past the pond and farm, as well as the public footpath further north), it

is likely that the proposed turbines will be screened by the trees and modern housing at

the eastern end of the Eastchurch „ridge‟; in the worst case, there might be glimpses of

blade tips in winter. It is probable that the proposed turbine blades will appear above

the treetops and housing on the Eastchurch „ridge‟, when seen from the vantage point

at the southwestern end of the gatehouse roof; the current view is illustrated in Fig.

10.6. The contribution to significance from this setting element is medium and the

magnitude of change (probably a little greater in winter) will be small-to-medium; the

resulting effect upon setting will be slight-to-moderate adverse.

10.5.3 Other setting effects have been assessed above as lower than moderate. After due

consideration of the likely overall setting impact on the local cultural heritage resource

(cumulated across all relevant assets), it is considered that the adverse effect level will

not exceed moderate and thus will not reach the threshold of „material harm„ which

would carry Planning-significance. In passing, it may be noted that any setting effect

that may occur will be reversible and, given the antiquity of many of the assets involved,

may be classified as „medium-term‟ temporary.

19 Access was kindly arranged by Tim Whittacker (Spitalfield Trust) and the visit was

accompanied by Mark Smith.

December 2010 241 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Cumulative Effects

10.5.4 No likely cumulative or synergistic adverse effects involving cultural heritage assets

have been identified.

10.6 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

10.6.1 A risk of intersection with archaeological remains has been identified, assessed above

as having the potential to create a slight/moderate adverse effect, if unmitigated. The

first response to this risk is in the micro-siting allowance (noted above). Although the

potential effect is not high enough to weigh significantly in the Planning balance, in

accordance with PPS5 Policy HE12.3, the risk should be further controlled, and

proportionate recording, assessment, analysis, archiving and reporting should be

achieved, through a Scheme of Archaeological Works 20 . Proper implementation of

such a scheme is likely to reduce effects to the „not appreciable‟ level.

10.7 Assessment of Residual Significant Effects

10.7.1 No likely Planning-significant effects involving cultural heritage assets are likely to

remain.

10.8 References

DCLG (2010) Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

English Heritage (2005) Wind Energy and the Historic Environment

Collcutt, S.N. (1999) The Setting of Cultural Heritage Features Journal of Environmental and

Planning Law.

Collcutt, S.N. (July 2008) The Setting of Cultural Heritage Features - Assessment Principles,

Oxford Archaeological Associates Limited.

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (April 2008) draft Heritage Protection Bill

English Heritage (April 2008), Seeing the History in the View: A Method for Assessing Heritage

Significance Within Views

20 It is suggested that such a scheme could be secured by a standard negative Planning condition (cf. DCLG Circular

11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission. Model Condition 55).

December 2010 242 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 243 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11 Ecology and Nature Conservation

11.1 Introduction and Overview

11.1.1 This chapter describes an assessment of the ecology at the proposed HMP Standford

Hill Wind Turbine Development site. The assessment is based on broad ecological

issues; any ornithological issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 12: Ornithology.

11.1.2 The methodologies used to collect baseline data are described, together with the

methodology for assessing any significant impacts that the proposed development may

have. Finally the potential impacts are assessed and their significance is discussed

together with potential mitigating actions.

11.1.3 The proposed wind turbine development at HMP Standford Hill has three distinct stages

which are likely to present different impacts, as follows:

Construction activities, including borrow pit operations and track

establishment;

Operational activities, including turbine function and maintenance

activities; and

Decommissioning activities.

11.1.4 Potential impacts are varied and include habitat loss for all taxonomic groups during the

construction phase and decommissioning phases, disturbance during the construction

and decommissioning phases, collision with turbine blades and barotrauma (Baerwald

et al., 2008) for bats during the operational phase and the displacement of a range of

species during the operational phase. Not all of the potential impacts of the proposed

development are likely to be negative; the development is likely to make a positive

contribution to the UK Government‟s targets for renewable energy sources,

implemented in order to reduce the rate of climate change.

11.2 Legislation and Planning Policies

11.2.1 This assessment has been prepared taking into account the following legislation,

guidance and policies:

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010;

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);

December 2010 244 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006;

Hedgerow Regulations 1997;

Protection of Badgers Act 1992;

Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological

Conservation (PPS9);

Government Circular 06/2005;

The South East Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the

South East of England (2009);

Swale Borough Local Plan (2008);

UK Biodiversity Action Plan 1999 (updated 2007); and

Kent Biodiversity Action Plan (1997).

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

11.2.2 This transposes the EC Habitats Directive 1992 (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the

Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna) and the EC Birds

Directive 1979 (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the protection of wild birds) into UK

law.

11.2.3 Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive list (respectively) habitats and species for

which member states are required to establish and monitor Special Areas of

Conservation (SACs). The EC Birds Directive provides a similar network of sites

(Special Protection Areas (SPAs)) for all rare or vulnerable species listed in Annex I and

all regularly occurring migratory species, with particular focus on wetlands of

international importance. Together with SACs, SPAs form a network of pan-European

protected areas known as „Natura 2000‟ sites.

11.2.4 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations also make it an offence (subject

to exceptions) to deliberately capture, kill, disturb, or trade in the animals listed in

Schedule 2, or pick, collect, cut, uproot, destroy, or trade in the plants listed in Schedule

4.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

11.2.5 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is the principle mechanism for the

legislative protection of wildlife in Great Britain. This legislation is the means by which

December 2010 245 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the

'Bern Convention') and the European Union Directives on the Conservation of Wild

Birds (79/409/EEC) and Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora (92/43/EEC) are

implemented in Great Britain.

11.2.6 Planning authorities are required to consult Natural England before granting planning

permission for the development of land in a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), or

within the consultation area around a SSSI, as defined by Natural England. The

planning authority is also required to consult Natural England if the development is

considered likely to affect a SSSI, even if the application site falls outside the SSSI and

surrounding consultation area.

11.2.7 This Act also has provisions for the protection of species which are listed on Schedules

1, 2, 5 and 8.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

11.2.8 The „NERC‟ Act makes provision in respect of biodiversity, pesticides harmful to wildlife,

protection of birds and invasive non-native species. Section 40 of the act also

introduced a new duty on public bodies to have regard to the purpose of conserving

biodiversity in the exercise of their functions. Species listed on Section 41 of the Act are

included within the Biodiversity Action Plan process.

The Hedgerow Regulations 1997

11.2.9 The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 are intended to protect important countryside hedges

from destruction or damage in England and Wales. The regulations set out a series of

criteria with which to assess hedgerows and their value.

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992

11.2.10 The original legislation protecting badgers was the Badgers Act (1973), this was

consolidated further with the Badgers (Further Protection) Act 1991 and finalised in the

Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This is the current legislation and was introduced to

prevent cruelty to badgers particularly that associated with badger baiting.

11.2.11 Under Section 3 of the Act, a person is guilty of an offence if they interfere with a

badger sett by doing (either intentionally or recklessly) any of the following things:

Damage a sett or any part of it;

Destroy a sett;

Obstruct access to, or any entrance of, a sett;

December 2010 246 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Cause a dog to enter a sett; or

Disturb a badger when it is occupying a sett.

Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9)

11.2.12 PPS9 sets out planning policies on the protection of biodiversity and geological

conservation through the planning system. These policies complement, but do not

replace or override, other national planning policies and should be read in conjunction

with other relevant statements of national planning policy.

11.2.13 PPS9 indicates that planning decisions should:

11.2.14 It further states that:

“…be based upon up-to-date information about the environmental

characteristics of their areas. These characteristics should include the

relevant biodiversity and geological resources of the area. In

reviewing environmental characteristics local authorities should

assess the potential to sustain and enhance those resources”.

“…aim to maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and

geological conservation interests. In taking decisions, local planning

authorities should ensure that appropriate weight is attached to

designated sites of international, national and local importance;

protected species; and to biodiversity and geological interests within

the wider environment”.

“The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to

biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Where granting

planning permission would result in significant harm to those interests,

local planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the

development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites

that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of any such

alternatives, local planning authorities should ensure that, before

planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation measures are put

in place. Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to

biodiversity and geological interests which cannot be prevented or

adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensation measures

should be sought. If that significant harm cannot be prevented,

adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, then planning

permission should be refused”.

December 2010 247 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations

and Their Impact within the Planning System (ODPM Circular 06/2005 [Biodiversity and

Geological Conservation])

11.2.15 This document provides further specific guidance on the interpretation of PPS9. Key

paragraphs include:

Paragraph 99 states that “It is essential that the presence or

otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be

affected by the proposed development, is established before the

planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material

considerations may not have been addressed in making the

decision”‟

11.2.16 Paragraph 116 states that:

“local authorities considering a planning application affecting a

European protected species are required to apply the requirements of

Article 12 (strict protection) and Article 16 (the three tests) of the

Directive before issuing permission”.

Swale Borough Local Plan (2008)

Policy SP2: Environment.

11.2.17 „In order to provide a robust, adaptable and enhanced environment, planning policies

and development proposals will protect and enhance the special features of the visual,

aural, ecological, historical, atmospheric and hydrological environments of the Borough

and promote good design in its widest sense. Development will avoid adverse

environmental impact, but where there remains an incompatibility between development

and environmental protection, and development needs are judged to be the greater, the

Council will require adverse impacts to be minimized and mitigated. Where a planning

decision would result in significant harm to biodiversity interests, which cannot be

prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensation measures will be

sought.‟

Policy E1: General Development Criteria.

11.2.18 „The Borough Council expects all development proposals to…protect and enhance the

natural and built environment…‟

Policy E11: Protecting and Enhancing the Borough‟s Biodiversity and Geological

Interests.

December 2010 248 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.2.19 „The Borough's biodiversity and geological conservation interests will be maintained, or

enhanced, particularly where they have been identified as national and county priorities

in the UK and Kent Biodiversity Action Plans or through protected species legislation.

Developments will be permitted that conserve or enhance the biodiversity of the area

and/or locality. Where proposals would potentially adversely impact upon biodiversity

or geological interests, the Council will:

Ensure that site evaluation is undertaken to establish the nature

conservation and/or geological interest;

Require the acceptable accommodation, and where appropriate,

management and creation, of the interest within development

proposals;

Encourage the incorporation of beneficial features within the design

of development, including the retention and provision of habitat to

form a connected series of green corridors or stepping stones; and

Expect development proposals to include measures to avoid

adverse impacts wherever possible.

11.2.20 Subject to the relative importance of the biodiversity or geological interest, where there

may be significant harmful effects, directly, indirectly or cumulatively, development will

only be permitted when the Council is satisfied that:

There is an overriding need for the development that outweighs the

harmful effect(s);

There is no reasonable alternative site that would result in less or no

harm;

Adequate mitigation measures are in place to minimise the harmful

effect(s); and

Where harmful effects cannot be prevented or mitigated, appropriate

compensation measures will be undertaken by the developer in

accordance with current best practice.‟

Policy E12: Sites Designated for their Importance to Biodiversity or Geological

Conservation.

11.2.21 „Within the areas designated, as shown on the Proposals Map, or any subsequently

designated, the Borough Council will give priority to their protection in accordance with

their relative importance for biodiversity as follows:

December 2010 249 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Within a European Site, a proposed European Site, or a Ramsar

site, development that may affect the site that is: a) not directly

connected with, or necessary to, the management of the site for

nature conservation; b) likely to have significant effects on the site

(individually or in combination with other plans or projects); and c)

where it cannot be ascertained that the proposal would not

adversely affect the integrity of the site, will not be permitted unless

there is no alternative solution, and there are imperative reasons of

overriding public interest for the development. Where the site hosts

a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, development

will not be permitted unless the Borough Council is satisfied that it is

necessary for reasons of human health or public safety or for

beneficial consequences of primary importance for nature

conservation.

Where development may have an adverse effect, directly or

indirectly on the special interest of a Site of Special Scientific

Interest, it will not be permitted unless the reasons for the

development clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the

site, and the national policy to safeguard such sites. In such cases,

conditions and/or planning obligations will be required to mitigate the

harmful aspects of the development and ensure the protection and

enhancement of the sites nature conservation or geological interest.

Development likely to have an adverse effect on a Local Nature

Reserve, Ancient Woodland a Site of Nature Conservation Interest

or a Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site, will not

be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is a

need for the development which outweighs the interest of the site

and that adverse impacts have been adequately mitigated, or where

not possible, compensated for.‟

The South East Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South East of England

(2009)

Policy NRM5: Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity.

„Local planning authorities and other bodies shall avoid a net loss of

biodiversity, and actively pursue opportunities to achieve a net gain

across the region…

…They must give the highest level of protection to sites of

international nature conservation importance (European sites). Plans

or projects implementing policies in this RSS are subject to the

December 2010 250 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Habitats Directive. Where likely significant effect of a plan or project

on European sites can not be excluded, an appropriate assessment in

line with the Habitats Directive and associated regulations will be

required…

…If after completing an appropriate assessment of a plan or project

local planning authorities and other bodies are unable to conclude that

there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of any European sites,

the plan or project will not be approved, irrespective of other policies

in the RSS, unless otherwise in compliance with 6(4) of the Habitats

Directive…

…They shall avoid damage to nationally important sites of special

scientific interest and seek to ensure that damage to county wildlife

sites and locally important wildlife and geological sites is avoided,

including additional areas outside the boundaries of European sites

where these support the species for which that site has been

selected…‟

Policy C7: The River Thames Corridor.

„…local authorities should work together with other agencies to:

Maintain and enhance the landscapes and waterscapes of the River

Thames Corridor, in terms of their scenic and conservation value

and their overall amenity.

Conserve and enhance the nature conservation resources of the

River Thames Corridor through the protection and management of

its diverse plant and animal species, habitats (including wildlife

networks), and geological features...‟

11.2.22 The site falls within the Thames Gateway sub-region within the plan and, as such, is

covered by the following policies.

Policy KTG 1: Core Strategy.

„…as a first priority, make full use of previously developed land before

greenfield sites, except where there are clear planning advantages

from the development of an urban extension that improves the form,

functioning and environment of existing settlements or a new

community…‟

11.2.23 Policy KTG 7: Green Initiatives.

December 2010 251 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.2.24 „…in order to take forward the Thames Gateway Parklands aim of transforming the

environment and image of the Gateway:

11.2.25 The development, management and use of the countryside, urban greenspaces and

areas requiring flood management will be coordinated by the responsible organisations.

Provision should be made for green grid networks, recreation and public access, and

enhancements of landscapes, habitats, heritage and the environment…‟

UK Biodiversity Action Plan 1999 (update 2007)

11.2.26 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) was published in January 1994 in response to

Article 6 of the Biodiversity Convention, to develop national strategies for the

conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of biological resources. It

was preceded by a consultation exercise, culminating in a two day seminar.

11.2.27 The UK BAP included contributions from Government, statutory conservation agencies,

the academic world and the voluntary sector. It committed the then Government and its

agencies to 59 programmes or tasks: to conserve species and habitats; to develop

public awareness and understanding; and to contribute to biodiversity work in the

European and global context.

11.2.28 In 2007, a new updated list of UK BAP Priority Species was published. The full list of

species and habitats are provided on the UK BAP website. Table 11.1, below, presents

a summary of species which are currently included on the Kent BAP, all of which are

also included on the UK BAP.

Kent Biodiversity Action Plan 1997

11.2.29 Developed in 1997, the Kent Biodiversity Action Plan aims to conserve, enhance and

restore biodiversity through partnership and the production of priority habitat and

species plans which are applicable within the county. The Kent BAP is largely based

upon habitats upon the reasoning that enhancement of these should benefit most

species. Where this is considered to be difficult, specific species plans were created.

Table 11.1, below, summarises some of the species currently on the Kent BAP.

Table 11.1

Selected Kent BAP species (all are included on the UK BAP)

Species Species Species

Natterjack Toad

Shepherd‟s-needle

Noctule Bat

Great Crested Newt

Corn Flower

Brown Long-eared Bat

December 2010 252 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Pearl-bordered Fritillary

Ground-pine

Soprano Pipistrelle

Silver-spotted Skipper

Water Vole

Common Lizard

Adonis Blue

Hedgehog

Slow-worm

Heath Fritillary

Brown Hare

Grass Snake

Field Cricket

Otter

Adder

Bats

11.2.30 All European species of bat are listed on Annex IV of the EC Habitats Directive as being

in need of “strict protection”. This is implemented in Britain under The Conservation of

Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. All British bats are included on Schedule 5 of

the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and the whole of Section 9 of The Act applies to

European bat species. In summary, the above legislation collectively prohibits the

following:

Deliberately or recklessly capturing, injuring, taking or killing of a bat.

Deliberately or recklessly harassing a bat.

Intentionally or recklessly disturbing of a bat in its place of rest

(roost), or which is used for protection or rearing young.

Deliberately or recklessly damaging, destroying or obstructing

access to any resting place or breeding area used by bats.

Deliberately or recklessly disturbing a bat in any way which is likely

to significantly affect the local populations of the species, either

through affecting their distribution or abundance, or affect any

individual‟s ability to survive, reproduce or rear young.

Possession or advertisement/sale/exchange of a bat (dead or alive)

or any part of a bat.

11.2.31 In England, licences are issued by Natural England for any actions that may

compromise the protection of a European protected species, including bats, under The

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This includes all

developments, regardless of whether or not they require planning permission.

11.2.32 Bats are also protected by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and selected

species are listed on the UK BAP and the Kent Local BAP.

December 2010 253 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Great Crested Newt

11.2.33 Great crested newts are protected under European and British law, having the same

level of protection as bats (see above). Licenses are issued by Natural England for any

actions that may compromise the protection of this species, under The Conservation of

Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This includes all developments, regardless of

whether or not they require planning permission. The species is also listed on the UK

BAP and Kent Local BAP.

Water Vole

11.2.34 Water voles are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

(as amended). This makes it an offence to:

Intentionally kill, injure of take water voles.

Possess or control the species.

Damage or destroy any place used by water vole for shelter or

protection.

Disturb water vole while they occupy such places of shelter.

Sell, possess or transport water vole for the purpose of sale.

Advertise the buying or selling of water vole.

11.2.35 The species is also protected under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and listed

on the UK BAP and Kent Local BAP.

Reptiles

11.2.36 Common reptiles (grass snake, adder, common lizard and slow-worm) receive partial

protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to:

Intentionally or recklessly kill or injure these species.

Sell, offer or advertise for sale, possess or transport for the purposes

of sale these animals, whether alive or dead, or any part thereof.

11.2.37 In addition, smooth snake and sand lizard are listed on both the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010,

which makes it an offence to:

Intentionally or recklessly kill, injure, capture, disturb or handle these

species

December 2010 254 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy any place used by

these species for shelter, protection, resting or breeding

Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place used for

shelter, protection, resting or breeding by these species

11.2.38 All six species of native reptile are listed on the UK BAP and the Kent Local BAP.

Otter

11.2.39 Otter are protected under European and British law and receive the same level of

protection as bats (see above). The species is listed under Annex II and IV of the

Habitats Directive, which is implemented in Britain under The Conservation of Habitats

and Species Regulations 2010. Otter are also protected under Schedules 5 and 6 of the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and are

listed as a priority species in Appendix II of the Bern Convention.

11.2.40 The species is also listed on the UK BAP and Local Kent BAP.

11.3 Methodology

11.3.1 The assessment method for this ecological assessment is based on guidance issued by

the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM, 2006).

11.3.2 The method involves four key stages:

Baseline Studies;

Identification of Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) and their

sensitivity;

Identification and Characterisation of Potential Impacts; and

Assessment of Impact Significance.

Baseline Studies

11.3.3 Baseline studies are conducted within the identified zone of influence of the proposed

development.

11.3.4 Baseline information about ecological features including sites of importance for nature

conservation, species populations, species assemblages and habitats is obtained from

key sources including:

December 2010 255 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Existing data and information relevant to the site, from published

sources, databases, local recorders; and

Ecological surveys.

Identification of Valued Ecological Receptors

11.3.5 From amongst the sites of known importance for nature conservation, species

populations, species assemblages and habitats present within the zone of influence of

the proposed development, Valued Ecological Receptors are identified. VER are

habitats and species that are valued in some way, and could be affected by the

proposed development.

11.3.6 The value of sites, populations of species, species assemblages and habitats is

evaluated with reference to:

Their importance in terms of „biodiversity conservation‟ value (which

relates to the need to conserve representative areas of different

habitats and the genetic diversity of species populations).

Any social benefits that species and habitats deliver (e.g. relating to

enjoyment of flora and fauna by the public).

Any economic benefits that they provide.

11.3.7 For the purposes of this assessment, sites, species populations, species assemblages

and habitats have been valued using the following scale:

International

National or UK wide

Regional/County

Borough

Parish

Less than Parish

11.3.8 Table 11.2, below, describes these classifications in further detail.

December 2010 256 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 11.2

Description of VER value classifications.

Value of Feature

International

Key Examples

An internationally designated site or candidate site (SPA, pSPA, SAC, cSAC,

pSAC, Ramsar site, Biogenetic Reserve) or an area which meets the

designation criteria for such sites.

Internationally significant and viable areas of a habitat type listed in Annexe

1 of the Habitats Directive, or smaller areas of such habitat, which are

essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.

Any regularly occurring, globally threatened species.

A regularly occurring population of an internationally important species,

which is threatened or rare in the UK, of uncertain conservation status

A regularly occurring, nationally significant population/number of any

internationally important species.

National

A nationally designated site (e.g. SSSI, NNR) or a discrete area which meets

the published selection criteria for national designation (e.g. SSSI selection

guidelines) irrespective of whether or not it has yet been notified.

A viable area of a UK BAP priority habitat or smaller areas of such habitat

which are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.

A regularly occurring significant number/population of a nationally important

species e.g. listed on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

A regularly occurring population of a nationally important species that is

threatened or rare in the county or region.

A feature identified as being of critical importance in the UK BAP.

December 2010 257 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Value of Feature

Regional/County

Key Examples

Viable areas of key habitat identified in the Regional or County BAP or

smaller areas of such a habitat, which are essential to maintain the viability

of the larger whole.

Regional/county significant and viable areas of key habitat identified as

being of regional value in the appropriate English Nature (now Natural

England) Natural Area.

A regularly occurring significant population/number of any important species

important at a regional/county level.

Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species which is

listed in a Regional/County RDB (Waite, 2000) or BAP on account of its

regional rarity or localisation.

Sites of conservation importance that exceed the district selection criteria but

that fall short of SSSI selection guidelines.

Borough/District

Areas of habitat identified in a District/City/Borough BAP or in the relevant

Natural Area profile.

Sites that the designating authority has determined meet the published

ecological selection criteria for designation, including Local Nature Reserves

selected on District/City/Borough ecological criteria.

Sites/features that are scarce within the District/City/Borough or which

appreciably enrich the District/City/Borough habitat resource.

A diverse and/or ecologically valuable hedgerow network.

A population of a species that is listed in a District/City/Borough BAP

because of its rarity in the locality or in the relevant Natural Area profile

because of its regional rarity or localisation.

A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a District/City/Borough

important species during key phases of its life cycle.

December 2010 258 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Value of Feature

Parish

Key Examples

Areas identified in a Local BAP or the relevant natural area profile.

Sites/features which area scarce in the locality or which are considered to

appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the local context, e.g. speciesrich

hedgerows.

Local Nature Reserves selected on Parish/Local ecological criteria.

Significant numbers/population of a locally important species e.g. one which

is listed on the Local BAP.

Any species, populations or habitats of local importance.

Less than parish

Habitats of moderate to low diversity which support a range of locally and

nationally common species, the loss of which can be easily mitigated.

Defining Magnitude of Change

11.3.9 The impacts of the proposed development upon any species or feature are described

within this report using the same generic terminology as described in section 2.2. The

magnitude of change or each potential impact is determined using Table 11.3.

Table 11.3

Criteria for magnitude of change.

Magnitude of Change

Large

Medium

Small

Negligible/None

Assessment Criteria

The proposed development will have effects which would result in a change

in the integrity of a site, or a change in the ability of a species to retain its

current population levels (at a regional or higher level).

The proposed development will have effects which would alter key attributes

of a site but which would not result in a change to a site‟s evaluation, or will

result in changes in the distribution of a species but not affect its population

status at a regional level.

The proposed development will have effects which would neither alter key

attributes of a site nor change its evaluation, or will affect the distribution or

status of a species at a local level.

No impact.

December 2010 259 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Assessing the Sensitivity of Species and Sites

11.3.10 The sensitivity of any species or feature to the proposed works must also be considered

when determining the significance of any impact upon a particular species or habitat.

This is based on the conservation value or importance of that species or habitat, as

outlined in Table 11.4.

Table 11.4 Criteria for Assessing the Sensitivity of Species and Sites

Sensitivity of VER

High

Moderate

Low

Negligible/none

Assessment Criteria

Sites, habitats or species of at least regional importance, as identified through

field survey, desk survey or consultation (see table 5.6 IEEM, 2006) or

features are likely to be significantly affected by the proposals.

Sites or species of borough or county importance, as identified through field

survey, desk survey or consultation (see table 5.6 IEEM, 2006) or features,

although potentially affected, which will not suffer significant effects as a

result of the proposals.

Sites, habitats or species of local or parish importance, as identified through

field survey, desk survey or consultation (see table 5.6 IEEM, 2006) or

features which will not be significantly affected by the proposals.

Features of negligible or no ecological value which will not be affected by the

proposals.

Significance of Impacts

11.3.11 The magnitude of impacts can be used, together with the VER sensitivity, in order to

determine the significance of any effects the proposed development is likely to have. It

should be noted that such impacts may be positive or negative. The matrix below (Table

11.5) is used to determine the significance of impacts upon sites and species.

December 2010 260 TNEI Services Ltd

Magnitude of change

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 11.5

Matrix for Assessing Significance of Impacts.

Sensitivity of receptor

HIGH MODERATE LOW NEGLIGIBLE NONE

LARGE

VERY

SUBSTANTIAL

SLIGHT /

MODERATE

NEGLIGIBLE

NO

EFFECT

MEDIUM SUBSTANTIAL MODERATE SLIGHT NEGLIGIBLE

NO

EFFECT

SMALL MODERATE SLIGHT

NEGLIGIBLE /

SLIGHT

NEGLIGIBLE

NO

EFFECT

NEGLIGIBLE

SLIGHT

NEGLIGIBLE /

SLIGHT

NEGLIGIBLE

NO

EFFECT

NONE

NO

EFFECT

NO

EFFECT

NO

EFFECT

NO

EFFECT

NO

EFFECT

11.3.12 If an effect is thought to be very substantial, substantial or moderate then this is

considered as significant within this EIA and measures should be put in place to

mitigate/compensate for these effects where appropriate. Mitigation/compensation

should also be provided for all negative effects in order to prevent any net loss in

biodiversity and to ensure the proposed development adheres to the policies listed in

Section 11.2.

11.3.13 The impacts of the proposed development are characterised taking into account the

features described in Table 11.6.

December 2010 261 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 11.6

Characterisation of Potential Impacts

Characteristic

Positive or negative

Magnitude

Extent

Duration

Reversibility

Timing and

frequency

Description

Whether the effect will result in net loss or degradation of a VER or

whether it will enhance or improve it

The size or intensity of the effect measured in relevant terms e.g.

number of individuals lost or gained, area of habitat lost or created or

the degree of change to existing conditions (e.g. noise or lighting

levels)

The spatial scope of the effect, for example the physical area affected

or the geographical pattern of the effect

The length of time over which the effect occurs

The extent to which effects are reversible either spontaneously or

through active mitigation

Consideration of the timing of events in relation to ecological change,

some effects may be of greater significance if they take place at

certain times of year (e.g. breeding season). The extent to which an

effect is repeated may also be of importance.

11.3.14 The significance of the potential impacts without any mitigation are described in further

detail in Section 11.6 relating to each phase of the development (constructional,

operational and decommissioning). The significance of any residual impacts taking into

account mitigation are then discussed in Section 11.8.

Data Gathering Methodologies

11.3.15 Data were gathered from a variety of sources including field surveys, all of which were

undertaken by MKA Ecology Ltd. A number of organisations were also consulted with

regard to the scope of necessary works and for existing ecological data. Table 11.7,

below, details the source and date of each dataset.

December 2010 262 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 11.7 Sources and Dates of Datasets

Data Source Date

Scoping and methodology enquiry Natural England 22 October 2009 and 29

January 2010

Scoping and methodology enquiry Environment Agency 28 January 2010

Scoping and methodology enquiry Swale Borough Council 12 February 2010

Scoping and methodology enquiry Kent Bat Group 1 October 2010

Historical protected and notable

species records, designated site data

and Kent Bat Group Records

Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre

(KMBRC)

30 March 2010

Historical reptile and amphibian

records

Kent Reptile and Amphibian Group (KRAG) 06 April 2010

Biodiversity data National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway 20 September 2010

Designated site data Nature on the Map, KMBRC and MAGIC 08 March 2010

Habitats data Phase 1 survey, MKA Ecology Ltd 22 and 23 March 2010

Hedgerows data Hedgerow survey, MKA Ecology Ltd 13 August 2010

General protected species data

Protected species scoping survey, MKA

Ecology Ltd

22 and 23 March 2010

Bat data Bat surveys, MKA Ecology Ltd April 2010 to October

2010

Badger data Badger survey, MKA Ecology Ltd 22 and 23 March 2010

Great Crested Newt data

Great crested newt habitat suitability survey,

MKA Ecology Ltd

22 and 23 March 2010

December 2010 263 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Data Source Date

Reptile data Reptile surveys, MKA Ecology Ltd May to June 2010

11.4 Baseline Information

Statutory and Non-statutory Designated Sites

11.4.1 Details on statutory and non-statutory designated sites were provided by Natural

England and KMBRC. A number of statutory designated sites were identified within 2km

of the proposed development. The extent of these sites is shown in Figure 11.1. No

non-statutory sites were identified within this search area.

The Swale: Special Protected Area (SPA), Ramsar, Site of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI) and National Nature Reserve (NNR)

11.4.2 The Swale is an internationally important site and is designated as an SPA and Ramsar

site. Both these designations specifically relate to the ornithological interest of the site

which are explained in detail in Chapter 12: Ornithology.

11.4.3 The Swale is also designated as a SSSI and is notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife

and Countryside Act 1981. Part of this site, Elmley Nature Reserve, is also a National

Nature Reserve notified under Section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the

Countryside Act 1949, see Figure 11.1. This section is managed by the Royal Society

for the Protection of Birds and Elmley Conservation Trust.

11.4.4 The reasons for notification as a SSSI are as follows:

Largest remaining area of freshwater grazing marsh in Kent which is

representative of the estuarine habitats found on the north Kent

coast.

Important bird communities (see Chapter 12: Ornithology).

Outstanding assemblages of invertebrate and plant communities

associated with the range of habitats present.

Consultation Responses

11.4.5 Table 11.8, below, outlines the consultation responses provided by Natural England,

Environment Agency, Swale Borough Council and Kent Bat Group.

December 2010 264 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 11.8

Consultation Responses

Consultee Date Comments on ecology

Natural England 22/10/2009 Site is immediately adjacent to, or in close proximity to

significant areas of land subject to national, European and

international conservation designations – primarily for

important bird populations.

Draws attention to Environment Agency proposal for Great

Bells Farm.

Bat surveys should be undertaken at ground level and at

turbine height.

Natural England 29/01/2010 Details the requirement under Regulation 48 of the Habitats

Regulations for an Appropriate Assessment to be

undertaken.

„Information for Appropriate Assessment‟ should describe

issues associated with both the construction and

operational phases and their impacts on bird populations.

Environment

Agency

29/01/2010 The Environment Agency has just purchased Great Bells

Farm adjacent to the southern boundary of the site as

compensation for the future loss of freshwater SPA

habitats. The future functionality and quality of this site

should be considered as part of the assessment.

Swale

Council

Borough

15/02./2010 Reiterates Natural England advice on requirement for an

Appropriate Assessment and to fully consider functionality

of Great Bells Farm.

Kent Bat Group 01/10/2010 Approved proposed methodology for bat survey work.

Surveys and assessment should consider the potential for

Nathusius‟ pipistrelle to occur on Sheppey.

December 2010 265 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Data Search Results

11.4.6 A number of organisations were consulted with regard to existing biodiversity data for

the proposed development site and the surrounding area. Table 11.9, below,

summarises the findings of these consultations.

Table 11.9

Summary of the Results of the Data Search

Consultee Date Comments on Ecology

KMBRC 30/03/2010 Search area included 2km radius around proposed

development site boundary.

The Swale, which is located within 2km of the proposed

development, is an internationally important and protected

area with SPA and Ramsar status, as well as nationally

recognised as a SSSI and NNR.

No county or local wildlife sites fall within the search area

A large number of protected species records were identified

by KMBRC as part of the data search.

Bat species records from the Kent Bat Group database

include pipistrelle, common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle,

Daubenton‟s, noctule, Leisler‟s and long-eared bats,

Other key protected species records include water vole.

A large number of other notable species have been

recorded in the search area including Red Data Book and

BAP species such as harvest mouse, brown hare and

scarce emerald damselfly.

December 2010 266 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Consultee Date Comments on Ecology

KRAG 06/04/2010 Search area encompassed a 25km² area surrounding the

central grid reference of the proposed development

(TQ978695).

The only amphibian to be recorded in the search area is

marsh frog. The closest great crested newt record is 3.1km

to the north. The potential for any species of amphibian

(excluding marsh frog) to occur within the search area is

low although this should be interpreted with caution as

survey evidence in the area is limited.

Grass snake, slow-worm and common lizard have all been

recorded within the search area, the closest being a grass

snake record 2km to the north. The potential for any

species of reptile occurring within the search area is low

although this should be interpreted with caution as survey

evidence in the area is limited.

NBN Gateway 20/09/2010 Available records for the 10km² grid square TQ96 were

obtained. Species previously recorded within this search

area include hazel dormouse, hedgehog, red squirrel,

badger, water vole, great crested and palmate newts, slowworm,

grass snake, common lizard, mole cricket, stag

beetle and serotine, pipistrelle, brown long-eared , noctule,

Natterer‟s and Daubenton‟s bats.

Nature on the

Map

08/03/2010 Highlights the presence of the Swale SPA, Ramsar, NNR

and SSSI.

Identified areas of priority BAP habitat within 2km including

coastal grazing marsh, reedbed and mudflats. Some areas

grazing marsh were identified on the southern boundary of

the proposed development site.

MAGIC 08/03/2010 Highlights the presence of the Swale SPA, Ramsar, NNR

and SSSI.

December 2010 267 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Sources of Data and Data Gathering Methodologies

11.4.7 As a result of the consultation the following surveys were undertaken by MKA Ecology

Ltd:

Phase 1 habitat and protected species scoping survey;

Hedgerow survey;

Bat surveys;

Badger survey;

Great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index (HSI); and

Reptile surveys.

11.4.8 Standardised methodologies and good practice guidelines were followed where

available. Further details concerning the methodology for each taxonomic group are

provided below and a detailed description is provided in the Ecology Technical

Appendix.

Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species Scoping Survey

11.4.9 A Phase 1 survey was undertaken on 22 nd and 23 rd March 2010 following the

standardised methodology developed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee

(JNCC, 2007). Habitat types were recorded onto field maps and digitised with a

Geographic Information System (GIS) at a later date. Target notes were used to identify

key areas of interest.

11.4.10 The Phase 1 habitat survey was extended to include a search for evidence of, and an

assessment of habitat suitability for protected and notable species. This survey

encompassed the following species:

All reptile species;

Amphibians;

Mammals, including water vole, otter, all bat species; and

Other species of conservation concern such as brown hare and

hedgehog.

Hedgerows

December 2010 268 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.4.11 Any hedgerow with the potential to be affected by the proposals was surveyed using

methodology based upon DEFRA‟s Hedgerow Survey Handbook (2007). Each

hedgerow was measured against a series of criteria to establish whether it qualified as

„important‟ under The Hedgerow Regulations. The hedgerow assessments were

undertaken on 13th August 2010.

11.4.12 30m sections of each hedgerow were identified according to the guidelines. For

hedgerows under 30m the entire length is surveyed, if it is between 30m and 100m then

the central 30m is surveyed, if it is between 100m and 200m then the central section of

each half is surveyed. Hedgerows of greater than 200m in length are split into three and

the central 30m of each of these sections is surveyed. The average number of

Schedule 3 (woody species) was calculated for each 30m section. Schedule 2

(woodland species) were recorded along the entire length of the hedgerow together with

any hedgerow features. Hedgerow features include the following:

A bank or wall running at least half of the length;

A ditch running at least half of the length;

No more than 10% of the hedgerow is gaps;

At least one standard tree per 50m;

Three Schedule 2 species within 1m of the hedgerow;

High levels of connection with neighbouring ecological features; and

A parallel hedge within 15m.

11.4.13 The average number of woody species and relevant hedgerow features are then

assessed using predefined criteria to establish whether the hedgerow is considered to

be important.

Bat Surveys

11.4.14 The full methodologies employed during the bat surveys at the proposed development

site are described in section 2.3 of the Ecology Technical Appendix.

Habitat Assessment and Review of Existing Information to Establish Scope of Bat

Surveys

11.4.15 A habitat assessment and review of existing information was undertaken to establish

the full scope of survey effort required. This assessment made use of resources such

as Google Earth, the Phase 1 habitat map, bat records from and liaison with the Kent

December 2010 269 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Bat Group. Existing guidance (Natural England, 2009 and Rodrigues et al., 2008) was

used to establish the scope of the survey effort.

11.4.16 The habitat assessment showed potential roosting opportunities within buildings at HMP

Standford Hill Farm to the north of the proposed development site and at the adjacent

sewage treatment works and fishing lake. Historical buildings from World War Two,

including bunkers and pill boxes, present opportunities for winter roosts. A bunker within

HMP Standford Hill has been specifically enhanced for hibernating bats.

11.4.17 The assessment showed habitats within and outside the proposed development area

likely to provide suitable foraging areas and the linear features, such as hedgerows,

were considered likely commuting routes. Areas of open water and drainage ditches are

also present within the survey area.

11.4.18 The existing records showed that six species of bat have been recorded in this area

including common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus

pygmaeus, Daubenton‟s bat Myotis daubentonii, noctule Nyctalus noctula, Leisler‟s bat

Nyctalus leisleri, long-eared bats Plecotus sp. and a number of unidentified bats.

Several roosts were identified within 2km of the site boundary including Leisler‟s bat

and Pipistrellus sp. roosts in Eastchurch, although these records were all over 10 years

old. The Kent Bat Group highlighted the potential presence of Nathusius‟s pipistrelle

Pipistrellus nathusii on the Isle of Sheppey with the recent discover of a grounded bat

approximately 3.5km away. In 2009 White Young Green Environment (White Young

Green Environment, 2009) undertook a daytime survey of several buildings at HMP

Standford Hill and confirmed three possible Pipistrellus sp. roosts.

11.4.19 The required survey effort was derived from the data gathered during the habitat

assessment and from existing information. Natural England (2009) provide criteria to

establish the level of risk posed to bat species by wind turbines according to general

habitat characteristics. Sites can be categorised as high or low risk using the criteria

outlined in Table 11.10 below.

December 2010 270 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 11.10 Criteria to establish risk posed to bats at wind turbine sites

(Natural England, 2009)

Low Risk

High Risk

Site size Small Small or large

Site features Windy, higher altitudes Less windy

Habitat

Roosts on or

bounding the

site

Open, at least 100m from

suitable habitat (such as, but

not restricted to, woodland,

waterbodies or linear

features)

Very few or none

Suitable habitat features

(such as, but not restricted to,

woodland, waterbodies or

linear features) are on or

adjacent to the site

Several. Risk will increase

with significance of roost type

or species, especially high

risk species

11.4.20 The proposed development site is small but several features of the site and surrounding

areas offer suitable habitat for bats. Roosting opportunities are available in the buildings

and bunkers and foraging and commuting habitats are present over the grasslands,

open water ditches and hedgerows. Known roosts have been identified close to the site

in 2009. Using the criteria described by Natural England it was concluded that the

proposed development site at HMP Standford Hill is of medium to high risk.

11.4.21 It was decided that the scope of the survey effort should encompass the following:

Manual transect surveys: to clarify species assemblages, identify

key foraging and commuting areas and relative levels of activity

across the proposed development site and surrounding habitats.

Building roost inspections: to identify buildings used as bat roosts or

with the potential to do so and follow up with surveys to identify the

status and types of roost present.

Hibernation surveys: to establish whether any of the suitable

hibernation sites close to the proposed development site are used

by bats.

Swarming surveys: To establish whether bats are using the potential

hibernation roosts as swarming sites.

December 2010 271 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Bat surveys at height to establish activity close to the sweep of the

blades of the proposed turbines.

Manual Transect Surveys

11.4.22 A suite of transect surveys was undertaken, using methodology described in the best

practice guidelines developed by The Bat Conservation Trust (BCT, 2007). These

surveys were undertaken to establish;

Which bat species are using the site;

Key foraging areas;

Key commuting routes; and

Relative levels of activity across the survey area.

11.4.23 Six transects were established each designed to take in key features of the proposed

development site which were deemed suitable for bats and the areas immediately

surrounding the proposed turbine locations. The transects also incorporated five minute

listening stops at each proposed turbine location to allow more time to assess bat

activity at these points. The location of the transects are shown in Figures 9 to 14 in the

Ecology Technical Appendix.

11.4.24 Bat activity and behaviour at a site will change throughout the annual active period. The

EUROBATS documentation (Rodrigues et al., 2008) outlines six key stages within the

active period. These stages are as follows:

Commuting between post-hibernation roosts: 15 February – 30

March;

Spring migration: 15 March – 15 May;

Activity of local populations: 1 June – 15 July;

Dispersal of colonies, start of autumn migration: 1 – 31 August;

Autumn migration, mating roosts and territories: 1 September – 31

October; and

Commuting between pre-hibernation roosts: 1 November – 15

December.

11.4.25 Impact assessment surveys for bats at proposed wind turbine developments should be

designed to take account of bat activity during migration periods and bat activity of local

populations in summer (Rahmel et al., 2004). Research from Europe has shown that

December 2010 272 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

species likely to occur at HMP Standford Hill, such as noctule and Nathusius‟s

pipistrelle, are know to migrate (Jones et al., 2009) and these periods were included

within the survey. The times were based upon those provided by Rodrigues et al.

(2008) although it is accepted that, as these dates are intended as a guide for

European-wide bat activity, and given that the site is situated in the north of Europe

where the bat activity period is shorter, the earlier and later periods were not included in

the assessment.

11.4.26 A total of six monthly dusk surveys were undertaken at HMP Standford Hill from April

2010 to October 2010. This intensity of survey effort was based upon the predicted bat

activity periods at the site, the risk associated with the site and guidance provided by

Natural England (2009). In addition to these dusk surveys four dawn surveys were

completed in May, July, August and October. The dates and prevailing weather

conditions during these surveys are shown in the Ecology Technical Appendix.

11.4.27 Transects were walked at a steady pace allowing all to be covered between two and

three hours. Noctule bats are at higher risk from collision with turbines (Natural

England, 2009) and were therefore targeted during this survey. This species often

emerges from roosts before sunset (Altringham, 2003) so the manual transect surveys

started approximately 15 minutes before sunset. Surveys took approximately 3 hours.

Dawn surveys began approximately 3 hours before sunrise and finished at sunrise. In

order to avoid temporal bias at particular transects the starting point of each survey was

staggered to ensure that transects were walked at different times in the evening.

11.4.28 Transects were walked by two surveyors with BatBox Duet and Petterson D240X bat

detectors which enable identification of bats in the field and allow high quality

recordings to be made for subsequent analysis. All bat calls were recorded on Edirol

digital recorders and later analyzed using Bat Sound software. The parameters used to

identify calls were taken from Russ (1999). All bat passes were logged and mapped in

the field together with notes on behaviour.

Building Roost Inspection Surveys

11.4.29 Building inspections surveys were undertaken at the proposed development site on the

12 th and 13 th April 2010. The assessment covered all buildings within 500m of the

proposed turbine locations as it is assumed that bats become well dispersed in the

landscape „within a few hundred metres‟ of the roost (Natural England, 2009).

11.4.30 The surveys followed the best practice guidelines (BCT, 2007) and comprised of

inspections to identify the presence of bats, field signs indicating their presence and

structures suitable for roosting bats.

Backtracking Surveys

December 2010 273 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.4.31 Backtracking surveys were undertaken to establish the presence or absence of roosts

within areas where a high density of potential roosting locations had been identified

during the building inspection surveys.

11.4.32 Survey methodology followed that provided in the best practice guidelines (BCT, 2007).

The methodology is based upon four principles:

The earlier a bat is seen at sunset or the later it is seen at sunrise,

then the closer it is likely to be to its roost.

Bats fly away from the roost at sunset and surveyors should move

towards flying bats to locate the roost.

At sunrise bats fly towards their roost and surveyors should move in

the same direction to locate the roost.

At sunrise some species of bat swarm at roost entrances for

between 10 and 90 minutes before entering.

11.4.33 Dawn backtracking surveys were undertaken in July and August 2010 and an additional

dusk backtracking survey was undertaken in August 2010. The dates and prevailing

weather conditions of these surveys are described in the Ecology Technical Appendix.

11.4.34 Four surveyors patrolled areas around buildings which were deemed to have some

potential to support bats roosts. All information concerning bat passes were recorded

and surveyors moved in the opposite directions to bats at dusk and followed bats at

dawn. The time of contact and species were recorded together with the direction of

movement and any information concerning the behaviour of the bat. At the end of each

survey data were pooled in order to inform subsequent surveys. Surveys were carried

out using BatBox Duet detectors and Edirol digital recorders.

Dusk Emergence and Dawn Re-entry Surveys

11.4.35 Where roosting locations or suspected roosting locations were identified during the

backtracking surveys these were followed up with dusk emergence and dawn re-entry

surveys to ascertain the number of bats present and make an assessment of the type of

roost which may be present.

11.4.36 The survey methodology followed the best practice guidelines (BCT, 2007). Dusk

emergence surveys began 15 minutes before sunset and continued for 1.5 hours after

sunset. The dawn re-entry surveys began 1.5 hours before dawn and finished at dawn.

At least two of these surveys were undertaken at each potential roost.

11.4.37 Surveyors were positioned to ensure that all aspects of the building or potential roosting

location could be observed with key access areas and making use of ambient lighting

December 2010 274 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

behind the building to show any bats leaving or re-entering. Any bats were recorded

using BatBox Duet heterodyne and frequency division detectors and Edirol digital

recorders. Calls were later analysed using Bat Sound software. Bat calls were identified

using the parameters set out by Russ (1999). Dates and prevailing weather conditions

for these surveys are shown in the Technical Appendix.

Hibernation Surveys

11.4.38 Hibernation surveys were undertaken at the proposed development site to ascertain the

presence of hibernating bats in features which were considered to be suitable as winter

roosts for bats.

11.4.39 The methodology used to survey these structures was identical to that used during the

building inspection surveys described although the timing and frequency of visits varies.

The core period for occupancy of hibernacula is December to the end of February but

they can be in use anytime between October and March. Disturbance of hibernating

bats should be minimised and therefore only two visits to potential hibernation sites

should be carried out with optimum times being mid-January and mid-February (BCT,

2007). Hibernation surveys were undertaken at the proposed development site on 25

January 2010 and 22 February 2010.

Swarming Surveys

11.4.40 Swarming activity surveys were undertaken at the proposed development site to

establish the presence or absence of swarming areas. Swarming activity is shown by

some species of bat within the UK but its purpose is not fully understood. The process

often occurs close to the entrances of winter roosts during the autumn and is believed

to be for any of the following purposes:

An opportunity for meeting, displaying and mating.

Allows exploration of winter roosts.

Allows young inexperienced individuals to become acquainted with

winter roosts.

Allows the transfer of social information and confirmation of potential

winter roosting sites.

(Altringham, 2003 and Dietz et al., 2009)

11.4.41 Swarming sites are of significant conservation importance and guidance recommends

they are investigated in order to assess the potential impacts of wind turbines on bat

populations (Natural England, 2009). Swarming survey methodology followed that

recommended by BCT (2007). Surveyors were positioned close to the entrance of the

December 2010 275 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

potential winter roost and recorded any bat activity taking place there. The optimum

period for swarming surveys is August to October. Dusk swarming surveys were

undertaken on the site in September and October 2010 starting at dusk and continuing

for three hours.

11.4.42 Any bats were recorded using BatBox Duet heterodyne and frequency division

detectors and Edirol digital recorders. Calls were later analysed using Bat Sound

software. Bat activity was noted and recorded, particularly social calling, together with

prevailing weather conditions during the surveys.

At Height Surveys

11.4.43 At height surveys were undertaken at the proposed development site to make a broad

assessment of bat activity in the airspace which is likely to be affected by the proposed

turbines. There is potential for wind turbines to have a direct impact on bat populations

through collision with turbine blades or barotrauma caused by rapid pressure changes

close to turbine blades (Baerwald et al., 2008, Jones et al., 2009 and Cryan and

Barclay, 2009).

11.4.44 AnaBat SD1 automatic bat recording equipment was placed on the meteorological mast

at a height of 30m and bat activity was monitored throughout the active period.

Continuous monitoring took place from 15 February 2010 to 1 November 2010. This

was deemed sufficient to cover the activity periods described by Rodrigues et al.

(2008).

Badgers

11.4.45 A badger survey was undertaken concurrently with the Phase 1 survey on 22nd and

23rd March 2010. Any evidence indicating the presence of badgers was recorded onto

field maps. Field signs included tracks, latrines, hairs (which can often be caught on

fences) and setts. The area within the red-line boundary was surveyed at HMP

Standford Hill Wind Turbine Development and the surrounding 500m buffer.

Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Assessment

11.4.46 During the Phase 1 survey a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment was completed

for great crested newts. The HSI provides a figure indicating the potential suitability of a

particular waterbody to support great crested newts. The assessment followed the

methodology developed by Oldham et al. (2000). The index is calculated from a variety

of measurements taken during a field assessment including:

Geographic location;

Pond area;

December 2010 276 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Pond permanence;

Water quality;

Pond shading;

Waterfowl;

Fish;

Pond density in the area;

Suitable habitat in surrounding area; and

Macrophyte coverage.

11.4.47 Ponds with an HSI closer to 1 are thought to provide higher quality conditions for great

crested newts. The lowest score recorded by Oldham et al. (2000) for a pond which was

found to contain great crested newts was 0.43 however; this method alone cannot be

used to rule out the potential presence of the species. The National Amphibian and

Reptile Recording Scheme (2010) have developed categories for the HSI scores as

follows; excellent (>0.8), good (0.7 - 0.79), average (0.6 – 0.69), below average (0.5 –

0.59) and poor (below 0.5).

Reptiles

11.4.48 An assessment of suitable reptile habitat was undertaken during the Phase 1 survey on

22 nd and 23 rd March 2010. Numerous areas of potential habitat were identified and a

presence or absence survey was carried out in accordance with best practice guidelines

(Froglife, 1999 and JNCC, 2004) between May and June 2010. Seven visits were made

to the site in suitable weather conditions to search a total of 178 refuges which had

been positioned in areas of potentially suitable habitat.

Baseline Conditions

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

11.4.49 The area covered by the survey comprises two distinct topographical zones. These are

the higher area to the north, where the prison is situated and reclaimed grazing marsh

to the south. The overall survey area covers approximately 240Ha. The full Phase 1

Habitat Survey map is given in Figure 11.3.

11.4.50 The proposed development site is dominated by poor semi-improved grassland with

some small areas of swamp, dry ditches and boundary features such as hedgerows and

wet drainage ditches. The poor semi-improved grassland within the development site is

December 2010 277 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

occasionally grazed or cut for hay. Dominant species include Lolium perenne (perennial

rye-grass) and Agropyron repens (couch-grass). Other species recorded here include

Cirsium arvense (creeping thistle), Urtica dioica (common nettle), Cirsium vulgare

(spear thistle), Dipsacus fullonum (teasel) and Arrhenatherum elatius (false oat-grass).

The dry ditches contained a similar species composition to the poor semi-improved

grassland although species such as Arrhenatherum elatius and Urtica dioica and

Conium maculatum (Hemlock) are more abundant owing to a lack of any management

in these areas. Areas of swamp are dominated by Phragmities australis (common reed).

All of the species are typical for these habitats and considered common and

widespread.

11.4.51 Scattered trees are present throughout the survey area, most of which are semi-mature

and include species such as Quercus robur (pedunculate oak), Acer campestre (field

maple), Populus sp. (poplars) and Salix sp. (willows) and Fraxinus excelsior (ash).

Some young broadleaved plantation woodland is present around HMP Elmley with

species such as Quercus robur, Acer campestre, Fraxinus excelsior and Alnus

glutinosa (alder), none of which showed any dominance.

11.4.52 The dominant habitats to the north, apart from the prison infrastructure, are poor semiimproved

grassland with arable land to the west.

11.4.53 The dominant habitats to the south are semi-improved neutral grassland bordered by

freshwater and brackish drainage ditches. Semi-improved grassland in this area is

grazed or mown for hay. Dominant species include Agropyron repens, Arrhenatherum

elatius and Phleum pratense (timothy grass). Other species include Potentilla anserine

(silverweed), Cirsium arvense, Cirsium vulgare, Erodium cicutarium (Common Stork‟sbill),

Juncus inflexus (hard rush) and Ranunculus repens (creeping buttercup).

11.4.54 The drainage ditches adjacent to the grazing marsh are dominated by species such as

Phragmities australis, Typha latifolia (bulrush) and Bolboschoenus maritimus (sea clubrush)

in brackish areas. These ditches are wet year round with very little flow.

Protected Species Scoping Survey

11.4.55 The protected species scoping survey revealed that further survey effort would be

required for bat species because suitable roosting locations were present within the

buildings present at HMP Standford Hill as well as suitable foraging areas across the

proposed development site and surrounding habitats.

11.4.56 Suitable reptile habitat was identified across the proposed development site and the

surrounding area. Suitable habitat included semi-natural broadleaved woodland, poor

semi-improved grassland, hedgerows, marginal vegetation and scrub.

11.4.57 Although there is potential for Water Vole and Otter to occur within the survey area the

predicted impact of the proposed development on the aquatic habitats that they inhabit

December 2010 278 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

are low or negligible and for this reason they are not considered in further detail

throughout this document. Both otter and water vole are likely to be restricted to the

ditches present on the southern boundary of the proposed development and on the

reclaimed drainage marsh to the south and, as such, are unlikely to be affected. The

proposed works will all take place over 130m from any suitable habitat for these

species.

Hedgerows

11.4.58 Surveys were undertaken for two hedgerows at the site which are likely to be affected

by the proposed development. These hedgerows are shown in Figure 11.4 together

with the proposed access routes for use during the construction process.

11.4.59 Hedgerow 1 running from east to west contained only four schedule 3 species including

Acer campestre, Prunus spinosa (blackthorn), Crataegus monogyna (hawthorn) and

Rosa canina agg. (dog rose). The ground flora contained no schedule 2 species and

was dominated by widespread species such as Dactylis glomerata (cock‟s-foot) and

Hordeum murinum (wall barley). The hedgerow only showed one of the hedgerow

features in that it contained fewer than 10% of gaps.

11.4.60 Hedgerow 2, running from south to north along Brabazon Road, contained a total of

seven Schedule 3 species - Rosa canina, Crataegus monogyna, Acer campestre,

Prunus sp. (cherry), Cornus sanguinea (dogwood), Corylus avellana (hazel) and Ilex

aquifolium (holly). Although seven species were recorded in total, an average of five

species were recorded in each 30m section. The hedgerow showed only one hedgerow

feature in that it had fewer than 10% gaps.

Bats

11.4.61 A full outline of the bat survey results are presented in the Ecology Technical Appendix.

11.4.62 A total of 253 bat passes were recorded during the manual transect surveys. Four

species were identified during the surveys, these were common pipistrelle, soprano

pipistrelle, Nathusius‟ pipistrelle and noctule. It was not possible to identify some bats to

species level therefore some records are listed as Myotis sp. or Pipistrellus sp. The

records of Myotis sp. mean that at least 5 species of bat have been recorded on site, as

none of the four other species identified are within that genus of bats. In addition it was

not possible to identify some species at all because of poor or faint recordings and in

cases such as this the record is registered as unknown.

11.4.63 Figures 9 – 14 in the Ecology Technical Appendix show the distribution of these records

across the proposed development site. Tables and charts showing the results of

individual surveys are also provided in the Ecology Technical Appendix.

December 2010 279 TNEI Services Ltd

Number of bat passes

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.4.64 Chart 11.1 shows the total bat passes at each transect throughout the entire survey

period. This chart shows that the largest proportion of bat passes were recorded around

the central transect. The Prison North transect showed the second greatest number of

bat passes and the remaining transects showed a broadly similar number of passes.

The chart also shows that Pipistrellus spp. are the dominant species recorded at the

site and account for the majority of the bat passes (96%).

Chart 11.1 Total bat passes at transects throughout the entire survey period

120

100

80

60

40

Unknown

Myotis sp.

Noctule

Nathusius's pipistrelle

Soprano pipistrelle

Common pipistrelle

Pipistrellus sp.

20

0

Prison

North

Prison

South

West Central Marsh

West

Marsh

East

11.4.65 Charts 11.2 and 11.3 show the monthly composition of bats recorded during the dusk

and dawn transect surveys respectively. The chart shows significant peaks of activity

during May, August and September dusk surveys and peaks of bat activity during the

May and August dawn surveys. No bats were recorded during the October activity

surveys.

December 2010 280 TNEI Services Ltd

Number of bat passes

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Chart 11.2

Total number of passes for each month during the dusk surveys

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

Unknown

Myotis sp.

Noctule

Nathusius's pipistrelle

Soprano pipistrelle

Common pipistrelle

Pipistrellus sp.

5

0

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

Chart 11.3

Total number of passes for each month during the dawn surveys

60

50

40

30

20

Unknown

Myotis sp.

Noctule

Nathusius's pipistrelle

Soprano pipistrelle

Common pipistrelle

Pipistrellus sp.

10

0

May July August October

11.4.66 During each manual transect survey surveyors listened for five minutes at each

proposed turbine location. No bats were recorded during the listening stops at the

December 2010 281 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

proposed location of Turbine 1. Two Pipistrellus sp. passes and one common pipistrelle

and soprano pipistrelle pass were recorded at the proposed location of Turbine 2.

11.4.67 Key foraging areas for Pipistrellus spp. were recorded around the Central transect,

particularly the northern and eastern boundaries of this field. Other key foraging areas

were identified on the East Marsh transect close to HMP Elmley and also around the

HMP Standford Hill farm buildings.

11.4.68 Noctule bat passes were recorded infrequently on the Central transect and the Marsh

East transect. Likewise Nathusius‟s pipistrelle was also recorded infrequently on the

West Marsh transect and the West transect.

Building Inspection Surveys

11.4.69 Table 11.11 provides a summary of the results of the building surveys. These results

are shown on Figure 15 in the Technical Appendix together with the known roosts

confirmed by White Young Green Environment (2009).

Table 11.11 Summary of Results from the Building Inspection Survey

Bat roost potential

Moderate Potential

Building

5, 9, 10, 11 (southern wing), Pig House, Pulp

Shop, Dairy, Dairy & Cow Shed, Veg Prep,

Farm Fitters, Sow Housing, Unit for 500, Solar

Pig Units, Store, Old Mill.

Additional buildings at sewage treatment

works based on remote assessment and

fishing hut.

Low Potential 4, 6, 7, 15, 17, 11 (northern wing), 17B, 18,

21, 22, 23, 38, 38A, 40, 42, 43, Gym Store,

Changing rooms, Sow House, Veg Store,

Barn, Cart Shed, Stables.

Backtracking Surveys

11.4.70 Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Pipistrellus sp. and a suspected brown longeared

bat were recorded during the backtracking surveys. A confirmed Pipistrellus sp.

roost was identified in the Carpenter‟s Store and one bat was observed entering this

structure on 30 July 2010. A suspected common pipistrelle roost was also identified on

the eastern gable end of the Pulp Shop on the 30 July 2010, see Figure 15 in the

Ecology Technical Appendix.

December 2010 282 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.4.71 On the 12 August 2010 a common pipistrelle was suspected to have entered the

northern edge of the Veg Prep building. During the surveys bats were frequently

recorded flying in and out of open windows and doorways of this structure. High levels

of common pipistrelle activity and a suspected brown long-eared bat entering the Pig

House close to dawn on this date suggested the presence of a further roost here, see

Figure 15 in the Ecology Technical Appendix.

Dusk Emergence and Dawn Re-entry Surveys

11.4.72 Following the backtracking surveys dusk emergence and dawn re-entry surveys were

undertaken at the Pig House, Pulp Shop and Veg Prep. Common pipistrelle, soprano

pipistrelle, Pipistrellus sp., noctule and suspected brown long-eared bats were recorded

during the surveys and the results are summarised in Table 11.12.

Table 11.12

Surveys

Summary of Results from Dusk Emergence and Dawn Re-Entry

Building and survey

dates

Carpenter‟s Store

12 August (dusk) and

13 August (dawn)

Results

Small Pipistrellus sp. roost.

Two Pipistrellus sp. bats were recorded leaving the

building during the dusk survey.

One Pipistrellus sp. bat was recorded entering the

building during the dawn survey.

Pig House

12 August (dusk), 13

August (dawn) and 20

August (dawn)

Small common pipistrelle roost.

One common pipistrelle bat was seen emerging and

re-entering the building during the surveys.

December 2010 283 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Building and survey

dates

Pulp Shop

13 August (dawn) and

20 August (dawn)

Results

Possible small common pipistrelle roost.

Although no bats were recorded entering or leaving

this building during these surveys a bat was

suspected top enter it during the backtracking survey.

Veg Prep

12 August (dusk) and

20 August (dusk)

Small common pipistrelle/Pipistrellus sp. roost.

A common pipistrelle bat and a Pipistrellus sp. bat

were recorded leaving the building on 12 August

although it was not possible to confirm that these

were different bats.

Hibernation Surveys

11.4.73 Hibernation surveys were undertaken on the 25 and 22 of February 2010. No bats were

recorded during these surveys. A total of four bunkers and seven pill boxes were

surveyed on both occasions. The locations of these structures are shown in Figure 2 in

the Ecology Technical Appendix. Full descriptions of these structures are provided in

the Ecology Technical Appendix.

Swarming Surveys

11.4.74 Swarming surveys were undertaken at Bunker 4, shown in Figure 2 in the Ecology

Technical Appendix. Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and a suspected brown

long-eared bat were recorded during the swarming surveys. Significant levels of

foraging activity were recorded during the September survey with multiple bats recorded

continuously throughout the survey. Only five bat passes were recorded during the

October survey.

11.4.75 This area was not considered to be a swarming site and the high levels of activity

shown during the September survey was thought to be foraging bats.

At Height Surveys

December 2010 284 TNEI Services Ltd

Number of bat passes

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.4.76 At least five bat species were identified during the at height surveys between 15

February 2010 and 1 November 2010, these were common pipistrelle, soprano

pipistrelle, Nathusius‟s pipistrelle, noctule and Myotis sp. it was not possible to identify

records of some bats to species level and these were then recorded as either

Pipistrellus sp and Myotis sp.. A total of 232 bat passes were recorded throughout the

entire survey period. Chart 11.4 shows the results of the at height surveys.

Chart 11.4 Total Number of Passes Per Month for Each Species Recorded

During the At Height Survey

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

Myotis sp.

Noctule

Nathusius's pipistrelle

Soprano pipistrelle

Common pipistrelle

Pipistrellus sp.

20

10

0

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

11.4.77 Nathusius‟s pipistrelle was recorded in four months (June two passes, August four

passes, September three passes and October three passes). Noctule was recorded in

six months (May two passes, June two passes, July 11 passes, August nine passes,

September 10 passes and October one pass).

Badgers

11.4.78 The data search of historical recorded undertaken by KMBRC provided no existing

records of badger with 2km of the proposed development site. Some areas of private

land (see Figure 11.2) were not included in the walkover assessment because of

access restrictions but the suitability of the habitats present were assessed.

11.4.79 No evidence to indicate the presence of badger was found within the footprint of the

proposed development or the surrounding 500m buffer zone. Much of the habitat was

deemed to be unsuitable for badger setts because of its flat and open character with

very little cover for this species. The areas to the south and west, beyond the

December 2010 285 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

boundaries of the proposed development site, which could not be surveyed, were

considered to contain poor habitat for badgers for similar reasons.

Great Crested Newt

11.4.80 A total of 35 waterbodies were assessed during the habitat suitability survey for great

crested newts, which were located throughout the proposed development site and

within 500m of the site boundary.

11.4.81 Access restrictions prevented assessment of 11 waterbodies to the west and southwest

of the proposed development site. In addition, 10 of the waterbodies, as shown on

the Ordnance Survey maps did not hold any water and were therefore considered to be

unsuitable for great crested newts. Locations of these waterbodies are shown in Figure

7, provided in the Ecology Technical Appendix. The HSI scores for the remaining 14

waterbodies ranged from 0.28 to 0.79. The results of the HSI assessment are

summarised in Table 3.5.1, provided in the Ecology Technical Appendix.

11.4.82 Two waterbodies (22 and 23) were recorded with „above average‟ HSI scores of 0.79

and 0.60 and these are shown in Figure 7. The remaining waterbodies all have HSI

scores classified as „below average‟ or „poor‟. Many of the waterbodies on the reclaimed

grazing marsh to the south of the site were thought to contain brackish water, having

been found to contain little submerged vegetation and Bolboschoenus maritimus.

Brackish water is not thought to be suitable for breeding great crested newts.

11.4.83 Some suitable terrestrial habitat is present within the proposed development and this

includes the rough grassland, hedgerows and broad-leaved woodland.

Reptiles

11.4.84 Suitable habitat for reptiles was identified across the site and surrounding area,

including areas of broadleaved plantation woodland, scrub, poor-semi-improved

grassland, hedgerows, swamp, marginal vegetation and standing water. Common

lizard, slow-worm, grass snake and adder were recorded during the surveys.

11.4.85 Table 11.13 shows an overview of the results from the reptile surveys including details

of the total number of individuals recorded and the maximum count for each species in

one visit. A breakdown of the results and information about the date, time and weather

conditions during the surveys are provided in the Ecology Technical Appendix. The

results indicate a The results show that there are substantial and widespread records

for common lizard and slow-worm and that grass snake are present but scarce and

restricted in their distribution.

December 2010 286 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 11.13: Summary of reptile survey results

Species

Total count of

individuals

Number of visits

recorded

Maximum count for

one visit

Common lizard 51 7 23

Slow-worm 117 7 50

Grass snake 2 2 1

Adder 1 1 1

11.4.86 Figure 16 in the Ecology Technical Appendix shows the locations of records for

common lizard and indicates a widespread distribution across the proposed

development site and surrounding habitats. The majority of these records correspond to

adults but a number of immature common lizard were also recorded. No common lizard

were recorded in the western sections of the proposed development site. Larger

populations are based in the semi-improved grassland to the north of the site, around

the fishing lake and in the poor semi-improved grassland at the southern end of the

proposed development site.

11.4.87 Figure 17 in the Ecology Technical Appendix shows the locations of records for slowworm

and demonstrates their wide distribution across the site and surrounding habitats,

with records in almost every area included within the survey. Proportionally larger

populations were identified in the poor semi-improved grassland in the southern section

of the proposed development site and concentrated around the HMP Standford Hill

Farm, to the north of the proposed development site. Approximately one third of these

records were immature slow-worms.

11.4.88 Figure 18 in the Ecology Technical Appendix shows the location of records for grass

snake and adder and provides an indication of their limited distribution across the

development site and surrounding area. An immature adder was recorded on one

occasion in an area of semi-improved grassland and scrub in the southern section of

the proposed development site. Immature grass snakes were recorded twice during the

surveys in the habitat surrounding the fishing lake.

Trends and Projected Future Baseline

11.4.89 No significant changes or trends are predicted for habitats and species within the

proposed development site.

11.4.90 As highlighted by Natural England, the Environment Agency and Swale Borough

Council in the consultation process (Table 11.8) Great Bells Farm, directly to the south

December 2010 287 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

of the proposed development site, has been purchased by the Environment Agency.

The farm has been purchased to provide freshwater habitat to compensate for

proposed future loss of similar designated habitats within the North Kent SPA.

11.4.91 The farm is currently dominated by poor quality arable reversion grassland with

drainage ditches. Future management, currently being developed by the RSPB, is likely

to improve these habitats with an overall aim of developing areas of coastal grazing

marsh with areas of open water. The predicted effects of these proposals on

ornithological interest are described in greater detail in Chapter 12: Ornithology.

11.4.92 The development of coastal grazing marsh and areas of open water are likely to have a

positive impact on taxonomic groups other than birds. Although it is difficult to predict

the results of the proposed management, it is likely that there will be an overall

enhancement of biodiversity. Over time, botanical diversity will increase together with

associated invertebrate diversity. The management is likely to improve the areas of

BAP Coastal Grazing Marsh habitat identified in this location and which are currently in

poor condition.

11.4.93 It is thought unlikely that the proposals will increase the likelihood of great crested newt

colonising the area as the brackish waterbodies are unsuitable for this species. It is also

considered to be unlikely that badger will colonise this area owing to the unsuitable

habitat which is open and provides little cover for this species. Increased botanical and

invertebrate diversity may improve conditions for both otter and water vole, although it is

consider unlikely that the proposed development will impact upon these species groups

within Great Bells Farm.

11.4.94 Habitat enhancements at Great Bells Farm may be beneficial for reptiles, with areas of

open water which may suit species such as grass snake. Further foraging opportunities

are likely to become available for other reptile species.

11.4.95 With increased invertebrate diversity it is likely that foraging opportunities for bat

species will increase. This may result in increased numbers of bats foraging over Great

Bells Farm. There is potential that, as bats access foraging opportunities at Great Bells

Farm, increasing levels of commuting bats may pass across the proposed development

site. In addition, with significant new foraging areas nearby existing roosts and roosting

opportunities within HMP Standford Hill may be utilised further. It is thought unlikely that

significant additional roosting opportunities will become available for bat species as part

of the plans for Great Bells Farm.

Information Gaps

11.4.96 Access restriction prevented assessments of areas within the 500m buffer surrounding

the proposed development site, particularly areas to the south-west and west of the

proposed development site. Access was not achievable for the Phase 1 Habitat survey,

December 2010 288 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

badger survey and reptile survey but it was possible to make an effective assessment of

the habitats from neighbouring areas. In the case of reptiles and badgers it is

considered unlikely that, if individuals of these species were present, they would be

affected by the proposed development.

11.4.97 A number of waterbodies are present in these inaccessible areas; it was not possible to

undertake a habitat suitability assessment for great crested newts for these features.

Given the low potential for this species within the area and the large numbers of

brackish waterbodies on the grazing marshes it is thought unlikely that this species is

present in these areas. In addition there are considerable barriers of unsuitable habitat,

such as brackish ditches or large tracts of arable farmland, between these waterbodies

and any of the proposed development works.

11.4.98 The assessment provided within this document only provides a description of baseline

bat activity at the proposed development site. There are some hypotheses and

evidence to suggest that bats may attracted to operational turbine towers for a number

of reasons thereby increasing risk of collision or barotrauma. These include, among

others, potential attraction to high features in the landscape for mating territory

purposes (Cryan, 2008), attraction to high features in the landscape for roosting

purposes (Cryan and Brown, 2007) and higher prey concentrations around the turbines

caused by increased heat levels or other factors such as colour of turbines (Long et al.,

2010). Therefore the baseline surveys that form the basis of this assessment can not

take into account bat behaviour post turbine construction.

11.4.99 The results taken from bat detector recordings are biased towards bats that use louder

echolocation calls. Some species, such as brown long-eared bats, are known to

echolocate quietly on occasions (Swift, 1998). Therefore some species may be under

recorded due to the limited recording range of the equipment. However, it should be

noted that the existing guidelines have assessed long-eared bats as being at low risk

from the impacts of wind turbines (Natural England, 2009).

11.4.100 Some groups of species of bat use echolocation calls of a very similar structure.

These similar calls make identification through call analysis difficult, particularly in

cluttered environments where positive identification is often impossible to achieve. In

cases where the bat cannot be confidently identified to species level it is identified to

genus level such as Myotis sp. or Pipistrellus sp.. PIpistrellus sp. referred to in this

report should be considered as either common pipistrelle or soprano pipistrelle.

11.4.101 Acoustic bat surveys allow representative sampling of bat activity across the site

which facilitates an understanding of species presence and patterns of activity.

However, the measurements of activity can only be used to provide an index of activity

and cannot be used to determine absolute abundance of bats using the site. Therefore,

the number of bat passes encountered cannot be used to determine numbers of

individuals present. The results of the survey can only be taken as an assessment of

December 2010 289 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

the risk of there being high concentrations of bats within the site or around particular

habitat features and provide an indication of how bats are using the available habitats.

11.4.102 The at height survey methodology applied within this assessment does not provide a

complete description of bat activity at turbine height across the site and the site. The

location of the at height equipment is located sufficiently close to the proposed location

of turbine 1, approximately 150m, to allow a good understanding of activity in this area

but it is over 500m from turbine 2. Therefore the data gather during the at height

surveys should be taken as an indication of bat activity at turbine height across the site

and not a definitive account of it.

Valuation of the Receptors in the Baseline Condition

Designated Sites

11.4.103 The Swale SPA/Ramsar/SSSI/NNR is situated within 1.1km of the proposed

development site. Great Bells Farm, which has been purchased as compensatory

freshwater habitat for future losses within the North Kent SPA, is situated directly

adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed development site and within 400m of

the proposed turbine locations. As shown in Table 11.8 Great Bells Farm should be

considered as part of the Swale SPA.

11.4.104 The Swale is an internationally and nationally designated site, primarily for its

ornithological interest as discussed in Chapter 11: Ecology and Nature Conservation

and therefore this feature is considered to be of international value. The habitats within

The Swale or Great Bells Farm will not be affected by the proposed development.

Habitats

11.4.105 The habitats within the proposed development site which will be affected by the

proposed development support a relatively low range of botanical species which are

common and widespread both locally and nationally and of limited conservation value.

Therefore these receptors are considered to be of less than parish value. These

habitats include poor-semi-improved grassland and dry ditch.

11.4.106 Nature on the Map identified an area of coastal grazing marsh adjacent to the southeastern

corner of the site and partially within Great Bells Farm. As discussed above, the

fact that this habitat is recognised as a national BAP habitat does not assign a national

value to the habitat. Instead it should be assessed in the same manor as other habitat

types. The Phase 1 habitat survey identified it as poor semi-improved grassland and it

would therefore be considered to be of less than parish value.

Hedgerows

December 2010 290 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.4.107 Hedgerow 1 contained an average of four woody species and only one hedgerow

feature therefore this hedgerow does not qualify under the Hedgerow Regulations.

Hedgerow 2 contained an average of five woody species and only one hedgerow

feature and therefore does not qualify under the Hedgerow Regulations.

11.4.108 The two hedgerows surveyed are not considered to qualify as „important‟ under the

Hedgerow Regulations, as they were not sufficiently diverse and showed few key

features. The surveyed hedgerows are therefore considered to be of less than parish

value.

Bats

11.4.109 Areas of suitable foraging habitat and linear features for commuting are present at the

proposed development site. There are some limited opportunities for roosting within the

buildings at HMP Standford Hill.

11.4.110 The surveys revealed a low diversity of species including common pipistrelle, soprano

pipistrelle, Nathusius‟s pipistrelle, Myotis sp. and noctule. It is also considered likely that

brown long-eared bat may be present at the site. These species are protected at a

European level and brown long-eared, soprano pipistrelle and noctule are also UK BAP

priority species.

11.4.111 Small non-breeding roosts of pipistrelle species were identified within 500m of the

proposed development site. No hibernation roosts were recorded during the

assessment although some suitable habitat is available.

11.4.112 Bat activity was generally low across the site with some areas showing concentrated

foraging activity. Activity was dominated by relatively common pipistrelle species. Other

rarer species, such as Nathusius‟s pipistrelle, were encountered infrequently.

11.4.113 Given the low numbers of bats recorded during April and October it is thought unlikely

that the proposed development site falls on a major migration route. The at height

survey data also showed no peak during migration periods. Some Nathusius‟s

pipistrelle activity was recorded early and late in the season but given the low frequency

of records and some from August and June there is no evidence to suggest that this

species is regularly migrating across the proposed development site.

11.4.114 Common and soprano pipistrelle bats were the most frequently recorded species at

the proposed development site, however they were not encountered in significant

numbers. Several areas were found where intensive foraging in these species occurred.

The most recent pre-breeding population estimate for these species in England

combined is 1,250,000 and they are considered to be common in most areas (Jones et

al., 2009). However, a decline in these species has been noted nationally and within

Kent (Waite, 2000). Given these species are considered to be a more common species

December 2010 291 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

and the fact that they were not thought to be present in significant numbers they are

considered to be of parish value.

11.4.115 Nathusius‟s pipistrelle was recorded occasionally throughout the surveys in lower

numbers than other pipistrelle species. No population estimate exists for this species

within Britain because until recently it was only considered a vagrant and nursery

colonies have only recently been discovered (Jones et al., 2009 and Dietz et al., 2009).

Although this species is scarce it was not encountered frequently at the proposed

development site and therefore it is considered to be of borough/district value.

11.4.116 Noctule bat was also recorded occasionally throughout the surveys. This species is

considered to be generally uncommon, with an estimated pre-breeding population 45,

000 in England (Jones et al., 2009). It is thought likely that a steep decline in this

species has occurred within Kent (Waite, 2000). Like the Nathusius‟s pipistrelle this

species is uncommon but was not encountered in significant numbers therefore it is

considered to be of borough/district value.

11.4.117 Other bat species such as Myotis sp. and brown long-eared bat were recorded in very

low numbers during the survey work. Brown long-eared bat are thought to be more

common throughout the UK as are many of the Myotis species (Jones et al., 2009).

However, given that these species were recorded in such low numbers they are

considered to be of parish value.

Badgers

11.4.118 Given the absence of any signs indicating the presence of this species and a lack of

suitable habitat it is considered unlikely that they will suffer an impact from the proposed

development. For this reason they are not considered further in this document.

Great Crested Newt

11.4.119 The HSI assessment indicates that the majority of waterbodies within the site and

surrounding areas (with the exception of two at Great Bells Farm) provide sub-optimal

conditions for great crested newts. As the two waterbodies considered to have the

potential to support the species lie over 500m from the proposed works area, if a

population of great crested newt were present in these waterbodies, it is unlikely that

proposed development would impact upon them.

11.4.120 Overall the proposed development is unlikely to impact upon this species for the

following reasons:

The majority of extant waterbodies appear to be brackish;

Many of the waterbodies score a low HSI, indicative of sub-optimal

conditions for the species;

December 2010 292 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Some of the waterbodies shown on the OS maps are now dry; and

Suitable waterbodies are over 500m away from the proposed works

area.

11.4.121 It is considered likely that the waterbodies which could not be surveyed are brackish,

owing to their connection to other brackish waterbodies surveyed and their location, or

significant barriers such as large areas of arable farmland would prevent movement of

great crested newt from these waterbodies to the site.

11.4.122 As the presence of this species is considered highly unlikely and the proposed

development is unlikely to impact upon this species they are not considered further in

this document.

Reptiles

11.4.123 The surveys identified substantial and widespread records of slow-worm and common

lizard and more scarce and restricted records of grass snake and adder within the

proposed development site and the surrounding habitats. All of these species are

included on the UK BAP and Kent BAP as well as being partially protected under the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The significant numbers of common lizard and slowworm

mean that the reptile population at the site is of regional/county value.

Summary of Receptor Valuation

11.4.124 Table 11.14, below, summarises the value of each VER at the HMP Standford Hill

proposed wind turbine development site.

December 2010 293 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 11.14

Values of VERs at the proposed development site

Value of VER VER Sensitivity

International The Swale

SPA/Ramsar/SSSI/NNR

High

National None High

Regional/County Populations of Common

Lizard, Slow-worm, Adder

and Grass Snake

Borough Noctule population

High

Moderate

Nathusius‟s pipistrelle

population

Parish Common pipistrelle

population

Low

Soprano pipistrelle

population

Brown long-eared bat and

Myotis sp. population

Less than parish Habitats within the proposed

development area (poor

semi-improved grassland,

swamp and dry-ditches)

Low

Hedgerows

Coastal Grazing Marsh

identified as BAP habitat

December 2010 294 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.5 Topic Specific Design Evolution

Hedgerows

11.5.1 The proposed track to provide access to the proposed location of the south-eastern

turbine initially passed through hedgerow 1 which, although considered to have a low

ecological value, may have resulted in some habitat loss for birds and bats. An existing

gap is present at the western end of this hedgerow and the track has been re-routed to

pass through this existing gap rather than cause the removal of established sections of

hedgerow.

11.6 Predicted Significant Effects of the Scheme

11.6.1 Without mitigation, the proposals have the potential to have a range of effects upon the

ecological features identified. The following sections identify these effects for the

construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the proposed development.

The significance of these effects is assessed using the methodology described in

Section 11.3. Table 11.16 at the end of this section provides a summary of the

predicted significant effects.

Construction Phase

Designated Sites

11.6.2 The proposed development will not have any effects on the habitats present at The

Swale SPA/Ramsar/SSSI/NNR and Great Bells Farm, which should be considered as

part of the SPA. The habitats and non-ornithological species within these designated

sites will not be affected by the proposals in any way. The existing SPA/Ramsar/SSSI

boundary is approximately 1.2km from the proposed development site boundary. The

proposed location and footprint of works associated with turbine 2 is 200m from Great

Bells Farm. Given this separation distance, and the temporary nature of this phase, the

habitats at Great Bells Farm will not be impacted upon in anyway during the

construction period. The magnitude of change, as a result of construction of the

proposed development, on these features will be none. Therefore the resulting impact

of the proposed development on the designated sites is likely to have no effect.

Habitats

11.6.3 The habitats within the proposed development are all considered to be of less than

parish value and of low sensitivity. The proposed development will result in some loss of

poor semi-improved grassland and dry ditch habitats. The footprints of the proposed

turbines are small and the access tracks and construction compounds will result in

December 2010 295 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

some further loss of these habitats. This is likely to result in a negative change of

medium magnitude for the poor semi-improved grassland and dry ditch habitats within

the proposed development. The resulting impact on these habitats within the proposed

development is likely to be of slight significance.

Hedgerows

11.6.4 Hedgerow 1 will not be affected by the proposed development owing to the design

evolution described in Section 11.6. The magnitude of change on this feature of low

sensitivity will be none. Therefore it is predicted that the impact on this feature have no

effect.

11.6.5 Approximately 40m of hedgerow 2 will be lost to allow construction of an access track.

This feature is considered to be of low sensitivity and, as a result of the proposed

development, a negative change of small magnitude is predicted. As a result the impact

on this feature is likely to be negligible/slight.

Bats

11.6.6 Some foraging habitat for bats will be lost during the construction phase to allow for

access tracks, construction compound and the turbine footprint. Few bats were

recorded at the proposed turbine locations although some foraging areas are

intersected by the access tracks. Alternative foraging habitat is widespread across the

proposed development and surrounding area therefore the impact of this loss is

predicted to be of small magnitude. Therefore it will have an effect of slight

significance for noctule and Nathusius‟s pipistrelle and a negligible/slight effect on

common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared and Myotis sp.

Reptiles

11.6.7 The access track to the proposed location of north-western turbine will pass through two

locations where slow-worms were recorded and one location where common lizards

were recorded. The construction of all the access tracks are likely to result in some loss

of habitat for all reptile species and, in the absence of basic mitigation, there is potential

for development works to cause harm to some individuals of these species. Therefore

there is potential for a negative impact of small magnitude for the reptile populations

with some suitable habitat being affected but the overall populations remaining largely

unaffected. This level of change on this feature is likely to have a negative impact of

moderate significance in the absence of any mitigation.

Operational Phase

Designated Sites

December 2010 296 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.6.8 During the operational phase there will be no change to the The Swale

SPA/Ramsar/SSSI/NNR or the species within it. Therefore the predicted impact on

these features is likely to have no effect.

Habitats

11.6.9 No change is predicted for the habitats during the operational phase and therefore

predicted impacts will have no effect.

Hedgerows

11.6.10 No change is predicted for the hedgerows during the operational phase and therefore

predicted impacts will have no effect.

Bats

11.6.11 There is potential for bats to be killed or injured through collision with moving turbine

blades or barotrauma caused by rapid changes in air pressure near the moving blades.

Depending on the ecology of bat species the risk of collision or barotrauma can vary.

Natural England (2009) have categorised species according to their level of risk and this

is shown in Table 11.15.

Table 11.15

Risk of Collision or Barotrauma Associated with UK Bat Species

Low risk Medium risk High risk

Myotis sp. Common pipistrelle Noctule

Long-eared bats Soprano pipistrelle Nathusius‟s pipistrelle

Horseshoe bats Serotine Leisler‟s

Barbastelle

11.6.12 The existing Natural England guidance (2009) states that the risks posed to bat species

can be reduced by siting turbines at distances that ensure a separation distance in

excess of 50m between the turbine blade tip and the feature which may be suitable for

bat species is achieved. Both of the proposed turbine locations are such that separation

distances in excess of 50m from turbine blade tips to features which are deemed

suitable for bats have been achieved.

11.6.13 The high risk species noctule and Nathusius‟s pipistrelle have both been recorded at

the site infrequently. These species are both considered to be at higher risk from

collision because of a number of ecological features such as their preferred use of open

habitat, fast flight and low frequency, long-range calls. Both species were recorded

December 2010 297 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

during the at height surveys and the manual transect surveys showed them to be

present close to the proposed turbine locations. No roosts were identified for these

species in close proximity to the proposed development site reducing the likelihood of

high levels of activity. Given the numbers of these species are estimated to be low at

the site and the level of perceived risk the magnitude of the impact is predicted to be

medium and therefore of moderate significance for noctule and Nathusius‟s pipistrelle.

This impact is likely to be of greatest significance in July, August and September when

the highest number of calls were recorded during the at height surveys and manual

transect surveys.

11.6.14 The species common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle were recorded at the site more

frequently than the high risk species but not in significant numbers. These species are

both categorised as medium risk from collision and both were recorded during the at

height surveys which also suggests there may be some risk from collision. There is

some risk of collision with these species although the effects on the population are likely

to be low (Natural England, 2009).

11.6.15 The activity of these medium risk species, including common pipistrelle and soprano

pipistrelle, is thought to decline at greater distances from features which may be used

by bats (Natural England, 2009). Both of the proposed turbine locations are situated in

excess of guideline separation distances from any features likely to be used by bats.

Turbine 1 is approximately 100m from a small area of scrub to the south. This proposed

turbine location is also approximately 230m from any areas where high levels of activity

were recorded for these species. Turbine 2 is approximately 80m from the boundary of

the sewage treatment works. This turbine location is approximately 80m from any area

of high activity for these species. Low levels of activity for these species were recorded

during the listening stops at the proposed turbine 2 location and none were recorded at

the proposed turbine 1 location.

11.6.16 Therefore the magnitude of the impact on these species is predicted to be small and

therefore of negligible/slight significance. This impact is likely to be of greatest

significance in July and August when the highest number of calls were recorded during

the at height surveys and manual transect surveys.

11.6.17 The low risk species such as Myotis sp. were recorded rarely at the site and brown

long-eared bat was suspected to be present in low numbers but not confirmed. One

Myotis sp. pass was recorded during the at height surveys. The predicted magnitude of

impact on these species is negligible and therefore the effect will be negligible.

Reptiles

11.6.18 No change is predicted for the reptile populations during the operational phase and

therefore predicted impacts will have no effect.

December 2010 298 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Decommissioning Phase

11.6.19 It is anticipated that the impacts during the decommissioning phase will be similar to

those during the construction phase.

Summary of Predicted Significant Effects

11.6.20 Table 11.16, below provides a summary of significant predicted effects. As stated in

Section 11.3 if an effect is thought to be very substantial, substantial or moderate then

this is considered as significant within this EIA. All other effects are considered to fall

below this threshold.

Table 11.16 Assessment of the Significant Effects of the Proposed

Development Prior to Mitigation

Receptor and

summary of

predicted effect

Importance /

Sensitivity

Magnitude

Change

of

Significance

Reptile populations

– habitat loss

during construction

phase and potential

injury or death

Regional/High

Small

Moderate

Noctule – collision

or barotrauma

during operational

phase

Nathusius‟s

pipistrelle –

collision or

barotrauma during

operational phase

Borough/Moderate

Medium

Moderate

11.7 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

Habitats

11.7.1 Approximately 12,300m² (1.23ha) of poor semi-improved grassland habitat will be lost

as part of the proposed development during the construction phase. In addition

December 2010 299 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

approximately 7m of dry ditch will be lost during the construction phase. This would be a

result of the construction of access tracks, construction compounds and the erection of

the turbines. In order to compensate for this loss the habitat at the construction

compound and laydown zones (approximately 4,700 m², 0.4ha) will be reinstated. The

habitats are considered to be of low ecological value and are easy to recreate.

11.7.2 Approximately 2,600m² (0.26ha) of species rich grassland will be created in connection

with reptile mitigation (see below) to compensate for the loss of these sections of dry

ditch and poor semi-improved grassland and to provide habitat enhancement features

at the site. This area is currently bare earth and situated to the north of the proposed

development site and is shown on Figure 11.5.

Hedgerows

11.7.3 To compensate for the loss of a section of hedgerow 2 sections of native species rich

hedgerow will be planted in the area where habitat enhancements for bats are

proposed, see Figure 11.5. Approximately 320m of new hedgerow or gapping up of

existing hedgerow will be planted which will compensate for loss and provide further

ecological enhancements at the proposed development site. The proposed location for

this hedgerow is shown in Figure 11.5.

Bats

11.7.4 The existence of suitable foraging habitat for bat species below the proposed turbines

increases the risk of potential collision/barotrauma caused by moving turbine blades.

Although no significant levels of foraging were observed in the proposed turbine

locations the habitat around them will be managed to reduce its suitability. The grass

sward will be maintained at a low height to discourage foraging in these areas and this

will be achieved through the mitigation for effect on Marsh Harriers in Chapter 12.

11.7.5 The species rich grassland habitat enhancements to be created will provide high quality

foraging areas for bats away from the proposed turbine locations.

11.7.6 To the north of HMP Standford Hill an area of enhanced bat habitat will be developed

covering approximately 163,000 m² (16.3ha), see Figure 11.5. Additional hedgerows

and filling gaps in existing hedgerows in this area, as discussed above, should provide

further suitable foraging habitat for bat species. In addition these hedgerows will

improve connectivity to the wider landscape to the north away from the proposed

turbine location. The hedgerows will be managed in a low intervention manner to

ensure the habitat is suitable for foraging and commuting bats. At least a 5m strip on

the margins of each field will be managed to provide suitable foraging habitat for bats. A

management plan will be developed to ensure continued suitable management of these

features for bat species.

December 2010 300 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.7.7 15 bat boxes will be erected in the wooded area to the north of HMP Standford Hill, see

Figure 11.5. Suitable boxes will be made available for each species recorded at the

proposed development site including noctule, Pipistrellus sp., brown long-eared bat and

Myotis sp.. Increased roosting opportunities will be created within bunker 4 to enhance

this feature as a winter roost site for bats.

11.7.8 These enhancement features may serve to provide alternative habitat for bat species a

significant distance from the proposed turbine locations reducing the risk of

collision/barotrauma and provide replacement habitat for these species. These

enhancement features will be developed during the construction phase.

Reptiles

11.7.9 In order to prevent injury to those reptile species present within the site during the

construction phase, mitigation measures will be put in place. Habitats within the

proposed works area with the potential to support these species will be stripped and

rendered unsuitable under supervision of a suitably qualified ecology during the active

period (April to October). By carrying out works during this period reptiles will not be

affected during hibernation when they are more vulnerable. This procedure is standard

practice recommended by English Nature (2004), now Natural England. These areas

will then be fenced to ensure that no re-colonisation takes place.

11.7.10 In addition, habitat will be provided and managed for the reptile population in advance

of the operational phase to compensate for loss and to provide further habitat

enhancements. An area of recently stripped soil will be converted to species-rich

grassland and will be managed and maintained specifically for reptiles, together with a

neighbouring area to the east, see Figure 11.5. The overall area which is to be

specifically managed for reptiles is 10,300 m² (1.03ha), 2,600m² of which will be new

species-rich grassland habitat.

11.7.11 A management plan will be developed to enhance these areas botanically and to

facilitate the construction of a reptile hibernation site on the recently stripped section.

These measures will be completed under supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist

during the construction phase.

11.8 Assessment of Residual Significant Effects

11.8.1 Significant residual effects of the proposed development are described in Table 11.13.

Designated Sites

11.8.2 No residual effects are predicted for designated sites.

December 2010 301 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Habitats

11.8.3 Approximately 12,300m² of poor semi-improved habitat and dry ditch will be lost during

the construction phase. Of this approximately 4,700m² will be lost temporarily and

reinstated following construction. Approximately 2,600m² of species rich grassland will

be established on the northern boundary of the proposed development site. This is

likely to result in a positive change of negligible magnitude on these features of low

sensitivity. There will be a negligible residual effect on these habitats at the proposed

development site.

Hedgerows

11.8.4 The replanting of a species-rich mixture of native species around the proposed

replacement habitat and reptile habitat enhancement area will result in a positive

change of small magnitude for this feature of low sensitivity. This will result in a positive

negligible/slight effect.

Bats

11.8.5 With the implementation of mitigation, no significant residual effects are predicted for

noctule and Nathusius‟s pipistrelle bat species because of the potential for collision or

barotrauma with moving turbine blades during the operational phase. To minimise the

potential impacts habitats immediately below the proposed turbine locations will be kept

in a condition to reduce their suitability as foraging habitats.

11.8.6 In addition enhanced habitat will be provided to the north of HMP Standford Hill. This

area with enhanced foraging and winter/summer roosting opportunities is likely to have

a positive effect on local populations of bat species.

11.8.7 Given the reduced quality of the foraging habitat beneath each turbine location it can be

expected that the potential risk of collision with noctule and Nathusius‟s pipistrelle will

be reduced. This coupled with habitat enhancements to the north, which can be

expected to benefit the local populations of these species, is likely to mean a negative

impact of small magnitude on both the noctule and Nathusius‟s pipistrelle. This negative

change of small magnitude will result in a predicted effect of slight significance for

these species.

11.8.8 The reduced suitability of the habitat beneath the turbines and habitat enhancements to

the north are also likely to reduce the predicted effects on the other species at the

proposed development site. With this mitigation and enhancement a negligible

negative change is predicted for Common and Soprano Pipistrelle resulting in a

predicted effect of negligible significance for these species.

December 2010 302 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.8.9 No effect was predicted on brown long-eared bat and Myotis sp.. These species are

likely to benefit from the proposed habitat enhancements to the north of HMP Standford

Hill with a small positive change resulting in a predicted positive effect of

negligible/slight significance.

Reptiles

11.8.10 The proposed mitigation will ensure that no individuals are injured during the

construction phase. The residual effects of this step within the construction phase are

likely to have no effect.

11.8.11 There is likely to be a moderate positive residual effect on the population of common

lizard, slow-worm, adder and grass snake following mitigation as an enhanced habitat

will be available for these species together with additional hibernation opportunities.

Table 11.13

Summary of Residual Significant Effects

Receptor and summary of Type of effect 1 Importance 2 Magnitude of

predicted effect 5 change 3

Residual

Significance 4

Habitats within proposed

development site (poor semiimproved

grassland and dry

ditches) (operational phase)

Positive, long-term

Less than parish

Negligible

Hedgerows

phase)

(operational

Positive, long-term

Less than parish

Small

Negligible/slight

Noctule (operational phase)

Negative, long-term

Borough/district

Small

Slight

Nathusius‟s

(operational phase)

pipistrelle

Negative, long-term

Borough/district

Small

Slight

Common and soprano

pipistrelle (operational phase)

Negative, long-term

Parish

Negligible

Brown long-eared and Myotis

sp. (operational phase)

Positive, long-term

Parish

Small

Negligible/slight

Reptile

populations

(construction phase)

Adverse, short-term

Regional

None

No effect

Reptile

populations

(operational phase)

Positive, long-term

Regional

Small

Moderate

Key/footnotes:

December 2010 303 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Receptor and summary of Type of effect 1 Importance 2 Magnitude of

predicted effect 5 change 3

Residual

Significance 4

1. eg adverse, beneficial,

subjective, temporary,

permanent, long term, short

term, medium term, direct,

indirect,

secondary,

cumulative,

2. Category used

3. Category used

4. Category derived

5. and whether in construction/operation

decommissioning.

11.9 Cumulative Effects

11.9.1 A search was carried out for developments likely to have a cumulative effect with the

proposals within a 10km radius around the proposed development site. Two additional

developments have been identified that have some potential to provide cumulative

effects with the proposed HMP Standford Hill Wind Turbine development. These are the

Port of Sheerness Wind Farm (Peel Energy) and St. Regis Paper Mill Sustainable

Energy (SEP) Plant, Kemsley.

11.9.2 Both of these sites are approximately 10km away and there is unlikely to be any

cumulative effect on more sedentary species such as common pipistrelle and soprano

pipistrelle. More mobile species such as noctule and Nathusius‟s pipistelle did not show

any significant peak of activity during the migration periods suggesting that the small

populations of these species are local and the cumulative effects of these developments

are therefore likely to be insignificant.

11.10 References

Altringham, J. D. (2003): British Bats. HarperCollins: London, England.

Baerwald, E. F., D‟Amours, G. H., Klug, B. J. and Barclay, R. M. R. (2008). Barotrauma

is significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology, 18: R695-R696.

Cathrine, C. and Spray, S. (2009): Bats and Onshore Windfarms: Site-by-Site

Assessment and Post-Construction Monitoring Protocols. In Practice: 64: 14 – 17.

Cryan, P. M. (2008): Mating behaviour as a Possible Cause of Bat Fatalities at Wind

Turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management: 72(3): 845 – 849.

Cryan, P. M. and A. C. Brown (2007): Migration of bats past a remote island offer clues

towards the problem of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Biological Conservation: 139: 1 -

December 2010 304 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

11.

Cryan, P. M. and R. M. R. Barclay (2009): Cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines:

hypothesis and predictions. Journal of Mammalogy: 90 (06): 1330 – 1340.

Dietz, C., O. von Helversen and D. Nill (2009): Bats of Britain, Europe and Northwest

Africa. A and C Black Publishers Ltd: London, England.

English Nature (2004): Reptiles – guidelines for developers. English Nature:

Peterborough, England.

Froglife (1999) Advice Sheet 10: An introduction to planning, conducting and

interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife, Peterborough.

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006), Guidelines for Ecological

Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. IEEM: Winchester.

JNCC (2004) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Reptiles and Amphibians.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

JNCC (2007), Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for environmental

audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee: Peterborough.

Jones, G., R. Cooper-Bohannon, K. Barlow and K. Parsons (2009): Scoping and

Method Development Report: Determining the potential impact of wind turbines on bat

population in Britain. University of Bristol and Bat Conservation Trust: England.

Long, C. V., J. A. Flint and P. A. Lepper (2010): Insect attraction to wind turbines: does

colour play a role? European Journal of Wildlife Research: in press.

Natural England (2009): Bats and onshore wind turbines Interim Guidance, Natural

England Technical Information Note TIN051. Natural England: Peterborough, England.

Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S. & Jeffcote, M. (2000) Evaluating the Suitability

of Habitat or the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal, Vol.

10, pp. 143-155.

Rahmel, U., L. Bach, H. Brinkmann, L. Limpens and A Roschen (2004):

December 2010 305 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Windenergieanlagen und Fledermäuse – Hinweise zur Erfassungsmethodik und zu

planerischen Aspekten. Bremer Beitrage für Naturkunde and Naturschutz: 7: 265 – 271.

Rodrigues, L., L. Bach, M.-J. Dubourg-Savage, J. Goodwin & C. Harbusch (2008):

Guidelines for consideration of bat in wind farm projects. EUROBATS Publication

Series No. 3 (English version). UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat: Bonn, Germany.

Russ, J. (2009): The bats of Britain and Ireland: Echolocation Calls, Sound Analysis and

Species Identification. Alana Ecology: England.

Waite, A (2000). The Kent Red Data Book: A provisional guide to the rare and

threatened flora and fauna of Kent. Kent County Council.

December 2010 306 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 307 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

12 Ornithology

12.1 Introduction and Overview

12.1.1 This chapter presents an assessment of ornithological issues at the proposed HMP

Standford Hill Wind Turbine Development site and complements the wider ecological

assessment presented in Chapter 11. This chapter describes the methodologies used

to collect ornithological data and evaluate the ornithological interest of the proposed

site, a baseline description of the site in relation to birds, the significance of any

potential effects of the development on birds and suggests appropriate mitigation where

relevant.

12.1.2 Ornithological interests may be affected by the following key elements of the proposed

HMP Standford Hill wind turbines and will be addressed in this chapter:

Construction activities, including borrow pit operations and track

establishment;

Operational activities, including turbine function and maintenance

activities; and

Decommissioning activities.

12.1.3 The proposed wind turbine development may have effects on birds in five particular

ways:

Collision: The effects of collision with rotating turbine blades,

overhead wires, guy lines and fencing, i.e. killing or injury of birds

(Drewitt & Langston, 2006; Thelander & Smallwood, 2007);

Habitat Loss: Nesting or feeding areas may be removed or modified

for access tracks, a construction compound or turbine bases and

associated structures (Langston & Pullan, 2003);

Disturbance Effects: The effects of indirect habitat loss through the

displacement of birds as a result of construction and maintenance

activities, or due to the presence of an operating wind turbine close

to nesting or feeding sites or habitual flight routes (Drewitt &

Langston, 2006);

December 2010 308 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Barrier Effects: Birds may avoid flying through or over operational

wind turbines by altering local commuting routes or migration

flyways (Drewitt & Langston, 2006); and

Climate Change Effects: In a wider context, a fifth impact of the

turbines is that their development will make a positive contribution to

the UK Government‟s targets for renewable energy sources,

implemented in order to reduce the rate of climate change. Climate

change is predicted to have a significant negative effect on the

population size, distribution and food availability of many native UK

bird species (Leech, 2007).

12.1.4 This chapter assesses the significance of these potential effects for the various phases

of the development and proposes key mitigation measures where appropriate.

12.1.5 The assessment is based on the information that is available at the time of writing,

which includes collection of baseline data of the use of the proposed development site

by birds during September 2009 to August 2010.

12.2 Methodology

Legislation and Planning Policies

12.2.1 An exhaustive list of general legislation and planning policies relevant to ecological

effects by wind turbine developments is given in Chapter 11. These core documents

are essential in any ornithological assessment but are not repeated here. However,

there are key resources that are of specific interest to ornithological impacts and these

are either detailed for the first time in this ES or expanded upon from Chapter 11 below:

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

12.2.2 This transposes the EC Habitats Directive 1992 (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the

Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna) and the EC Birds

Directive 1979 (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the protection of wild birds) into UK

law.

12.2.3 The EC Birds Directive provides a similar network of sites (SPAs) for all rare or

vulnerable species listed in Annex I and all regularly occurring migratory species, with

particular focus on wetlands of international importance. Together with SACs, SPAs

form a network of pan-European protected areas known as „Natura 2000‟ sites.

December 2010 309 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

12.2.4 Species listed on Annex I relevant to the Isle of Sheppey include Marsh Harrier, Hen

Harrier, Merlin, Peregrine, Avocet, European Golden Plover, Bar-tailed Godwit,

Mediterranean Gull, Common Tern, Short-eared Owl and Common Kingfisher.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

12.2.5 The WCA is the primary UK mechanism for statutory site designation (Sites of Special

Scientific Interest, SSSIs) and the protection of individual bird species listed under

Schedule 1. In addition to protection from killing or taking nests and eggs that all birds

have under the Act, Schedule 1 birds and their young must not be disturbed at the nest.

12.2.6 Key species relevant to the Isle of Sheppey that are listed on Schedule 1 include Marsh

Harrier, Hen Harrier, Merlin, Hobby, Peregrine, Whimbrel, Mediterranean Gull, Barn

Owl, Common Kingfisher, Bearded Tit and Cetti‟s Warbler.

UK Biodiversity Action Plan

12.2.7 The UK BAP is the UK Government‟s response to the Convention on Biological

Diversity (1992). The Convention called for the development and enforcement of

national strategies and associated action plans to identify, conserve and protect existing

biological diversity, and to enhance it wherever possible (Anon, 1998; 1999). Each

county has developed a Local BAP (LBAP) of which Kent is the relevant resource for

the proposed development site.

12.2.8 BAPs are designed to ensure that natural habitats are conserved and re-established

where appropriate, and that measures are implemented to conserve and enhance

habitats and species of local importance. Species and habitats included on the LBAP

are considered within the surveys and subsequent assessments for this site; potentially

relevant bird species included as Priority Species on the UK BAP and Kent LBAP are

shown in the Table 12.1 below.

December 2010 310 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 12.1 Summary of UK BAP Priority Species that Potentially Occur at

Standford Hill (those also in Kent LBAP in bold)

Species Species Species

Skylark

European White-fronted Goose

(Dark-bellied) Brent Goose

Common Linnet

Common Cuckoo

Bewick‟s Swan

Corn Bunting

Yellowhammer

Reed Bunting

Black-tailed Godwit

Yellow Wagtail

House Sparrow

Tree Sparrow

Grey Partridge

Dunnock

Bullfinch

Turtle Dove

Common Starling

Song Thrush

Northern Lapwing

Spotted Flycatcher

Birds of Conservation Concern

12.2.9 The current Birds of Conservation Concern was published in June 2009 (BoCC3) and

was put together by the UK‟s leading bird conservation organisations (RSPB, BTO,

JNCC, WWT and others; Eaton et al. 2009). It reviews the status of all birds that

regularly occur in the UK and updates the previous review in 2002.

12.2.10 A total of 246 species were assessed against a set of objective criteria to place each on

one of three lists – green, amber and red – indicating an increasing level of

conservation concern. Of most relevance to the assessment of birds occurring at the

proposed development site are those species included on the Red List. Red list criteria

are as follows:

IUCN Global Conservation Status – Species that are globally

threatened;

HD – Historical Decline – severe decline in the UK between 1800

and 1995 without a substantial recovery;

BDp – Breeding Population Decline – severe decline in the UK

breeding population size of more than 50%, over 25 years or the

entire period used for assessments since the first BoCC review,

starting in 1969;

WDp – Non-breeding Population Decline – severe decline in the UK

non-breeding population size of more than 50% over 25 years or the

longer term; and

December 2010 311 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

BDr – Breeding Range Decline – severe decline in the UK range of

greater than 50%, as measured by the number of 10km squares

occupied by breeding birds, over 25 years or the longer term.

12.2.11 The species found on the BoCC Red List broadly overlaps with those also found on the

UK BAP Priority Species list. With regards to the ornithological communities potentially

present at Standford Hill, there are no additional species than those included in Table

12.1.

Assessment Methodology

12.2.12 The assessment method for this ornithological assessment is based on guidance issued

by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM, 2006).

12.2.13 The method involves four key stages:

Baseline studies;

Identification of Valued Ornithological Receptors;

Identification and characterisation of potential impacts; and

Assessment of impact significance.

12.2.14 Further guidance on the assessment of effects, particularly pertaining to birds, has been

taken from various publications by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH, 2005; SNH, 2006).

This guidance is specific to wind turbine developments and therefore a combination of

approaches with that given by IEEM is deemed appropriate for an ornithological

assessment of the proposed development.

Baseline Studies

12.2.15 Baseline studies are conducted within the identified zone of influence of the proposed

development. To provide essential context in to the ornithological community present on

or adjacent to Standford Hill, the zone was set at between 500m and 2km around the

proposed development site depending on the target species highlighted in each

particular survey type (Natural England, 2010).

12.2.16 Baseline information about ornithological features including international and national

site designations (e.g. Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Sites of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSIs) etc.), species populations, species assemblages and habitats is

obtained primarily from field surveys, but is also supported by existing data relevant to

the site and from consultations.

Identification of Valued Ornithological Receptors

December 2010 312 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

12.2.17 From amongst the species populations or species assemblages present within the zone

of influence of the proposed development, Valued Ornithological Receptors (VOR) are

identified. VOR are species that are valued in some way and could be significantly

affected by the proposed development.

12.2.18 The value of populations of species, species assemblages and habitats is evaluated

with reference to:

Their importance in terms of „biodiversity conservation‟ value (which

relates to the need to conserve representative areas of different

habitats and the genetic diversity of species populations);

Any social benefits that species and habitats deliver (e.g. relating to

enjoyment of flora and fauna by the public); and

Any economic benefits that they provide.

12.2.19 For the purposes of this assessment, sites, species populations, species assemblages

and habitats have been valued using the following scale:

International

National (i.e. England)

Regional

County

District / Parish

Low (less than Parish)

12.2.20 Table 12.2 presents definitions of the above criteria.

December 2010 313 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 12.2

Definitions of Valued Ornithological Receptor criteria

Value of Feature

Key Examples

International

An internationally designated site or candidate site (SPA, pSPA, SAC, cSAC,

pSAC, Ramsar site, Biogenetic Reserve) or an area which meets the

designation criteria for such sites.

Internationally significant and viable areas of a habitat type listed in Annex 1

of the Habitats Directive, or smaller areas of such habitat, which are essential

to maintain the viability of a larger whole.

Any regularly occurring, globally threatened species.

A regularly occurring population of an internationally important species, which

is threatened or rare in the UK, of uncertain conservation status.

A regularly occurring, nationally significant population/number of any

internationally important species.

National

A nationally designated site (e.g. SSSI, NNR) or a discrete area which meets

the published selection criteria for national designation (e.g. SSSI selection

guidelines) irrespective of whether or not it has yet been notified.

A regularly occurring significant number/population of a nationally important

species e.g. listed on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

A regularly occurring population of a nationally important species that is

threatened or rare in the county or region.

Regional/County

A feature identified as being of critical importance in the UK BAP.

A regularly occurring significant population/number of any important species

important at a regional/county level.

Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species which is

listed in a Regional/County RDB or on account of its regional rarity or

localisation.

Sites of conservation importance that exceed the district selection criteria but

that fall short of SSSI selection guidelines.

December 2010 314 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Value of Feature

Key Examples

District/City/Parish

A population of a species that is listed in a District/City/Borough BAP because

of its rarity in the locality or in the relevant Natural Area profile because of its

regional rarity or localisation.

A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a District/City/Borough

important species during key phases of its life cycle.

Sites/features which area scarce in the locality or which are considered to

appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the local context, e.g. speciesrich

hedgerows.

Significant numbers/population of a locally important species e.g. one which

is listed on the Local BAP.

Any species, populations or habitats of local importance.

Low

Habitats of moderate to low diversity which support a range of locally and

nationally common species, the loss of which can be easily mitigated.

Defining Magnitude of Change

12.2.21 The impacts of the proposed development upon any species or feature are described

within this report using the same generic terminology applied through this EIA. The

magnitude of change of each potential impact is determined using Table 12.3.

Table 12.3

Criteria for Magnitude of Change

Magnitude

of Change

Large

Medium

Small

Negligible

Assessment Criteria

The proposed development will have effects which would result in a change in the

integrity of a site, or a change in the ability of a species to retain its current population

levels (at a regional or higher level).

The proposed development will have effects which would alter key attributes of a site

but which would not result in a change to a site‟s evaluation, or will result in changes

in the distribution of a species but not affect its population status at a regional level.

The proposed development will have effects which would neither alter key attributes

of a site nor change its evaluation, but may affect the distribution or status of a

species at a local level.

The proposed development will have effects which would neither alter key attributes

of a site nor change its evaluation and would not affect the distribution or status of a

December 2010 315 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Magnitude

of Change

Assessment Criteria

species at a local level.

None

No effect

Sensitivity of Species and Sites

12.2.22 The sensitivity of any species or feature to the proposed works must also be considered

when determining the significance of any impact upon a particular species or habitat.

This is based on the conservation value or importance of that species or habitat, as

outlined in Table 12.4.

Table 12.4

Sensitivity of

Feature

High

Medium

Low

Criteria for assessing the sensitivity of sites and species

Assessment Criteria

Sites, habitats or species of at least regional importance (i.e. those of

regional, national or international status), as identified through field survey,

desk survey or consultation (see table 5.6 IEEM Guidelines) or features are

likely to be significantly affected by the proposals.

Sites or species of district or county importance, as identified through field

survey, desk survey or consultation (see table 5.6 IEEM Guidelines) or

features, although potentially affected, which will not suffer significant effects

as a result of the proposals.

Sites, habitats or species of local or parish importance, as identified through

field survey, desk survey or consultation (see table 5.6 IEEM Guidelines) or

features which will not be significantly affected by the proposals.

Negligible/None

Significance of Effects

12.2.23 The magnitude of impacts can be compared against the value and sensitivity of

particular features in order to determine the significance of any effects the proposed

development is likely to have upon such features. It should be noted that such effects

may be positive or negative. The matrix below (Table 12.5 and as detailed in Chapter

2) is used to determine the significance of effects upon sites and species.

December 2010 316 TNEI Services Ltd

Magnitude of change

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 12.5

Matrix for Assessing Significance of Effects

Sensitivity of receptor

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

NEGLIGIBLE /

NONE

LARGE

VERY

SUBSTANTIAL

SLIGHT /

MODERATE

NO EFFECT

MEDIUM SUBSTANTIAL MODERATE SLIGHT NO EFFECT

SMALL

MODERATE

SLIGHT

NEGLIGIBLE /

SLIGHT

NO EFFECT

NEGLIGIBLE SLIGHT SLIGHT NO EFFECT NO EFFECT

NONE NO EFFECT NO EFFECT NO EFFECT NO EFFECT

12.2.24 Those impacts which will have a Moderate – Very Substantial effect upon a feature are

considered to be significant in terms of the EIA assessment, and measures must be put

in place to mitigate/compensate for these effects within the proposals where

appropriate.

12.2.25 Effects that are assessed to be Negligible/Slight are subject to professional judgment as

to whether the effect is indeed Negligible or Slight. Mitigation should be included for

impacts of a lower significance in order to help ensure there is no net loss in biodiversity

as a result of the proposals, in line with the Natural Environment and Rural

Communities Act 2006 (see Chapter 11). The significance of potential effects without

mitigation are discussed in Section 12.5 for each phase of the development

(construction, operational and decommissioning); the significance of the effects with

mitigation for each phase are discussed in Section 12.8.

Consultations and Desk Study

12.2.26 In order to inform the surveys and assessment of the site, consultation data was

requested from a range of local and statutory bodies, in order to obtain further

information regarding the presence and distribution of protected species, habitats and

sites within the area. In terms of ornithology, the following bodies were consulted in

order to obtain such information:

Swale Borough Council;

December 2010 317 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Natural England (Kent Office);

The Environment Agency; and

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (South-east England

Regional Office).

12.2.27 A desk-top search/assessment was also carried out using the following web resources:

The Government‟s Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the

Countryside or „MAGIC‟ website, which provides details of statutory

sites designated for their ecological interest and identifies areas

listed on the Grassland Inventory and National Inventory of

Woodland and Trees;

The National Biodiversity Network (NBN Gateway) website, which

provides distribution maps of collated wildlife data;

Natural England‟s Nature on the Map website which provides details

of nationally and internationally designated sites listed as being of

priority importance on the UK BAP, where data permits;

Kent Biological Records Centre, who hold biological records of

protected and BAP species (including those from Kent Ornithological

Society);

The relevant Ordnance Survey maps, in order to gain an overview of

the types of habitat likely to be present within the site and

surrounding area prior to carrying out the site surveys; and

Google Earth, which provides aerial photographs of varying quality

for different parts of England (and the world), in order to gain further

information regarding the types of habitat likely to be present within

the site and surrounding area prior to carrying out the site surveys.

12.3 Baseline Information

Statutory and Non-Statutory Designated Sites

12.3.1 HMP Standford Hill lies within 1.1 km of The Swale, which holds both international and

national designations for its ornithological interests. Each of these designations is

discussed in turn within this section.

12.3.2 The full extent of each designated site is given in Chapter 11; Figure 11.1.

December 2010 318 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

The Swale Special Protection Area

12.3.3 The Swale Special Protection Area (SPA) is a wetland of international importance,

comprising intertidal mudflats, saltmarshes and extensive grazing marshes. It provides

habitats for important assemblages of wintering waterfowl and also supports notable

breeding bird populations. The Swale Estuary separates the Isle of Sheppey from the

Kent mainland, while to the west it adjoins the Medway Estuary (Stroud et al., 2001).

12.3.4 The Swale qualifies as SPA status under Article 4.2 of the EC Birds Directive as a

wetland of international importance by virtue of regularly supporting over 20,000

waterfowl (cited as supporting >65,000 between 1991 and 1996). The Swale also

qualifies under Article 4.2 by virtue of regularly supporting diverse assemblages of

wintering and breeding migratory waterfowl of lowland wet grassland and other

estuarine habitats.

12.3.5 Under Article 1 of the Directive, the Swale qualifies for the species it supports during the

breeding, wintering and passage periods. These all detailed in Table 12.6 below:

Table 12.6

Bird Species Cited on The Swale SPA Designation

Species SPA Population Criteria EC Birds

Directive

Article

Qualification

type

Avocet 103 pairs representing at least

17.5% of the GB breeding population

Article 4.1

Breeding

Western

Marsh Harrier

24 pairs representing at least 15.0%

of the GB breeding population

Article 4.1

Breeding

Mediterranean

Gull

12 pairs representing at least 120% 21

of the GB breeding population

Article 4.1

Breeding

Avocet

89 individuals representing at least

7.0% of the GB wintering population

Article 4.1

Wintering

Bar-tailed

Godwit

542 individuals representing at least

1.0% of the GB wintering population

Article 4.1

Wintering

European

Golden Plover

2862 individuals representing at least

1.1% of the GB wintering population

Article 4.1

Wintering

21 Figure exceeds 100% due to comparison against outdated population data.

December 2010 319 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Species SPA Population Criteria EC Birds

Directive

Article

Qualification

type

Hen Harrier

23 individuals representing at least

3.1% of the GB wintering population

Article 4.1

Wintering

Ringed Plover 683 individuals representing at least

1.4% of the Europe/North Africa

wintering population

Article 4.2

Passage

Black-tailed

Godwit

1755 individuals representing at least

2.5% of the wintering Iceland

breeding population.

Article 4.2

Wintering

Grey Plover

2021individuals representing at least

1.3% of the wintering Eastern

Atlantic wintering population

Article 4.2

Wintering

Knot

5582 individuals representing at least

1.6% of the North Atlantic population

Article 4.2

Wintering

Northern

Pintail

966 individuals representing at least

1.6% of the wintering north-western

Europe population

Article 4.2

Wintering

Common

Redshank

1640 individuals representing at least

1.1% of the wintering eastern Atlantic

population

Article 4.2

Wintering

Northern

Shoveler

471 individuals representing at least

1.2% of the wintering north-central

Europe population

Article 4.2

Wintering

December 2010 320 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Species SPA Population Criteria EC Birds

Directive

Article

Qualification

type

White-fronted

Goose;

Golden

Plover; Bartailed

Godwit;

Pintail;

Shoveler;

Grey Plover;

Knot; Blacktailed

Godwit;

Redshank;

Avocet;

Cormorant;

Curlew; Brent

Goose;

Shelduck;

Wigeon;

Gadwall; Teal;

Oystercatcher;

Lapwing;

Dunlin; Little

Grebe.

The site regularly supports >20,000

waterfowl (65,390 peak mean 1991/2

– 1995/6).

Article 4.2

Assemblage

The Swale Ramsar Site

12.3.6 The Swale qualifies as a Ramsar site under Criterion 3a by virtue of regularly

supporting over 20,000 waterfowl and under Criterion 3c by supporting, in winter,

internationally important populations of four species of migratory waterfowl; and

nationally important populations of a further thirteen species. These are detailed in

Table 12.7 below.

December 2010 321 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 12.7

Bird Species Cited on The Swale Ramsar Designation

Species Ramsar Population Criteria Ramsar

Criterion

Assemblage The site regularly supports >20,000

waterfowl (65,390 peak mean 1991/2 –

1995/6).

Criterion 3a

Hen Harrier

Great Crested Grebe

White-fronted Goose

23 individuals representing at least 3.1% of

the GB wintering population

300 representing 3% of the GB winter

population

1875 representing 31.2% of the GB winter

population

Criterion 3c

Dark-bellied

Goose

Brent

2850 representing 1.6% of the world

population

Criterion 3c

Shelduck 1650 representing 2.2% of the GB

population

Criterion 3c

Eurasian Wigeon

9500 representing 1.2% of the NW Europe

population

Criterion 3c

Gadwall 74 representing 1.2% of the GB population Criterion 3c

Eurasian Teal 2100 representing 2.1% of the GB

population

Criterion 3c

Northern Pintail

Northern Shoveler

435 representing 1.7% of the GB population Criterion 3c

340 representing 3.7% of the GB population Criterion 3c

Oystercatcher

Avocet

Ringed Plover

3700 representing 1.3% of the GB winter

population

89 individuals representing at least 7.0% of

the GB wintering population

260 individuals representing at least 1.1% of

the GB wintering population

Criterion 3c

December 2010 322 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Species Ramsar Population Criteria Ramsar

Criterion

Grey Plover 1550 individuals representing at least 1.0 %

of the wintering Eastern Atlantic wintering

population

Knot 2650 individuals representing at least 1.2%

of the GB population

Criterion 3c

The Swale Site of Special Scientific Interest

12.3.7 The Swale Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is contiguous with the SPA/Ramsar

site and was notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended). Part of the site is designated as a National Nature Reserve (Elmley NNR;

managed by RSPB and Elmley Conservation Trust).

12.3.8 Cited bird interest of the SSSI includes wintering Wigeon, Teal and Grey Plover in

numbers of international importance and nationally significant numbers of Shoveler,

Knot and Spotted Redshank. Also noted are Schedule 1 species that have bred or

attempted to breed, including Garganey, Black-tailed Godwit and Ruff.

Potential Valued Ornithological Receptors at HMP Standford Hill

12.3.9 From the citations for the Swale European sites and through consultation with Natural

England and RSPB, a list of potential VORs that could occur within the study area was

identified (Table 12.8). Table 12.8 also presents an assessment of population status

criteria by taking the most significant population citation from Tables 12.6 and 12.7.

Table 12.8

Species

Assemblage

Population Status Criteria of Potential VORs at HMP Standford Hill

Assessment population criteria

65,390 individuals

Great Crested Grebe

White-fronted Goose

Dark-bellied Brent Goose

Shelduck

Wigeon

300 individuals

1875 individuals

2850 individuals

1650 individuals

15,296 individuals

December 2010 323 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Species

Gadwall

Eurasian Teal

Pintail

Shoveler

Marsh Harrier

Hen Harrier

Oystercatcher

Avocet

Assessment population criteria

74 individuals

2100 individuals

763 individuals

483 individuals

24 pairs

23 individuals

3700 individuals

24 pairs (breeding)

89 individuals (wintering)

Ringed Plover

Grey Plover

Knot

Dunlin

Redshank

Black-tailed Godwit

Bar-tailed Godwit

Mediterranean Gull

917 individuals

2098 individuals

5582 individuals

13,000 individuals

1640 individuals

1755 individuals

542 individuals

12 pairs

Consultation Responses

12.3.10 This section details responses from all consultees with respect to comments on

ornithological issues. Comments unrelated to birds are not repeated here (see Chapter

11). Also detailed in Table 12.9 are meetings undertaken with consultees

Table 12.9 Comments on Ornithological Issues from Consultation

Responses Received

December 2010 324 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Consultee Date Comments on Ornithology

RSPB 24/09/2009 The site is adjacent to highly valuable habitat

including The Swale SPA/Ramsar site.

Sheppey Island is a key site for wintering

and breeding raptors, with around 30 pairs of

Marsh Harrier known to breed in the Capel

Fleet area. Raptor species present include

Peregrine, Short-eared Owl, Barn Owl,

Merlin, Kestrel, Hen Harrier, Common

Buzzard and Rough-legged Buzzard.

Draws attention to Environment Agency‟s

(EA) plans for adjacent land at Great Bells

Farm to provide freshwater habitat to

compensate for loss of designated SPA

habitat.

Welcomed the commitment to using survey

methodologies based on standard SNH

guidance.

Natural

England (NE)

22/10/2009 Site is immediately adjacent to, or in close

proximity to significant areas of land subject

to national, European and international

conservation designations – primarily for

important bird populations.

Draws attention to EA proposal for Great

Bells Farm.

Recommended nine hours of vantage point

(VP) survey work from each point per month

(an increase from the standard six)

Required full coverage of the site‟s airspace

during the VP survey work.

Natural

England (NE)

29/01/2010 Details the requirement under Regulation 48

of the Habitats Regulations (now Section 61

of the 2010 Regulations) for an Appropriate

Assessment to be undertaken.

„Information for Appropriate Assessment‟

should describe issues associated with both

the construction and operational phases and

their impacts on bird populations.

December 2010 325 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Environment

Agency (EA)

Swale

Borough

Council

NE / RSPB /

EA

29/01/2010 Requests that the future quality and

functionality of this site be considered during

the impact assessment of the wind energy

proposal.

15/02/2010 Scoping Opinion reiterates Natural England

advice on requirement for an Appropriate

Assessment and to fully consider

functionality of Great Bells Farm.

12/07/2010 Meeting held at NE‟s Ashford office. Main

concluding points of meeting:

A 1% of European site citation population is

the level at which point collision risk

becomes an adverse effect.

In terms of collision risk a level of 1% of the

SPA cited populations is the threshold at

which effects are considered significant

Effects on Marsh Harrier population should

be assessed against 24 pairs rather than 48

individuals

Potential for mitigation for Marsh Harriers by

habitat manipulation. Evidence that this

would be effective required.

No breeding species requiring multiple years

survey data (i.e. Short-eared Owl; Hen

Harrier) are present on site. Therefore a

single year of data collection appropriate to

inform an assessment.

Sources of Data

12.3.11 As a consequence of feedback received from the various consultations and review of

potential bird issues, the following surveys were undertaken by experienced surveyors

(see Technical Appendix for experience details):

Breeding bird survey;

Extended survey for breeding species of conservation importance;

Wintering bird survey; and

December 2010 326 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Flightline („Vantage Point‟) survey.

12.3.12 Survey design was also influenced by standard guidelines given by Scottish Natural

Heritage (2005), Natural England (2005; 2010) and other published survey guidance

(Gilbert et al., 1998; Langston & Pullan, 2003; Morrison et al., 2007).

12.3.13 Full details of the methodologies implemented and the extent of the areas surveyed are

given in the Appendix 9.1. A summary of each survey is however, given below.

Breeding Bird Survey

12.3.14 Surveys were undertaken in order to determine the breeding bird community present

within the zone of influence of the proposed development and involved standard

territory (registration) mapping techniques as detailed in Bibby et al. (2000). This

method is also known as a Common Bird Census (CBC) and is based on the

observation that many species during the breeding season are territorial.

12.3.15 Visits were undertaken early in the morning, generally between 05:15 – 10:00. The

whole survey area (taken as the proposed development site plus a 500m buffer zone)

was covered in each visit, using suitable optical equipment (binoculars) to observe bird

behaviour. The route taken was alternated on each visit to ensure that different parts of

the site were visited at different times during each survey.

12.3.16 Surveys were undertaken between April and June 2010, with six survey visits taking

place.

Extended Survey for Breeding Species of Conservation Importance

12.3.17 The Isle of Sheppey provides important breeding habitat for several specifically

protected species, notably large numbers of Marsh Harrier and latterly small numbers of

Short-eared Owl. It was considered important that data be sought on potential nest site

locations of Schedule 1 listed birds in a wider context than covered by the breeding bird

survey. Therefore over an area of 2 km from the site boundary, all suitable habitat was

searched for protected breeding birds on five dates from April to July 2010.

12.3.18 Species particularly targeted were Marsh Harrier and Short-eared Owl, although notes

on all relevant species were taken. Where access was obtained, a route was slowly

walked interspersed with 30 minute vantage point watches to record breeding

behaviour.

Wintering Bird Survey

12.3.19 The surveys were based on the methodology described in SNH (2005) in that an

experienced ornithologist walked a pre-determined route around the survey area (which

was identical to that of the breeding bird survey) so that each part of the site was

December 2010 327 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

approached to at least 30m. SNH guidelines recommend three survey visits, spread

between September 2009 and March 2010. However, due to the potential sensitivity of

the site, survey visits were extended so that a visit was made each month.

12.3.20 Counts of wildfowl and any flocks of waders recorded followed the methodology for the

Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) (Holt et al. 2009).

12.3.21 All survey visits were made in the early morning and took place in good weather

conditions (i.e. absence of high wind and rain). The survey area comprised a 500m

zone surrounding the proposed site and was divided in to four recording zones.

Flightline („Vantage Point‟) Survey

12.3.22 In order to determine usage of the site‟s airspace by flying birds, vantage point (VP)

watches were undertaken using the methodology devised by Mike Madders and

supplied by SNH (2005).

12.3.23 The habitat present within the boundary of the proposed development site varies

dramatically. Within the development site the land consists of narrow arable fields in the

south progressing to the extensive prison infrastructure in the north. The bordering land

is dominated by grazing marsh with an extensive network of reed fringed ditches. To

this end it was concluded that data on bird flightlines should concurrently be collected

for flightlines across the proposed development site to allow direct comparison with

wider data collection of the site plus a 500m buffer zone.

12.3.24 It was determined that two VP locations would be sufficient to allow full coverage of the

site area. One hundred and eight hours of survey effort were made from each VP over a

twelve month period, with 216 hours for the site as a whole. Nine hours of survey were

therefore carried out at each VP in a calendar month (from September 2009 to August

2010).

12.3.25 Once detected, a target bird species was observed until it landed or flew out of sight.

The time of first detection was noted and the flight height was recorded at 15 second

intervals during the period that the bird was in view, in one of three height bands: 100m.

12.3.26 A map of the paths of each of the observed target species‟ flights was compiled using a

Geographical Information System (GIS) and the flight duration and height data collected

in the field were entered into a database and prepared for use in a theoretical collision

risk model (Band et al., 2007).

Current Conditions

Breeding Birds

December 2010 328 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

12.3.27 The full breeding bird survey results are detailed in Appendix 9.1, while a summary of

the most pertinent results is given here.

12.3.28 In total, 72 species of bird were recorded within the survey area and of these 42 were

considered to be breeding. Of the 42 species recorded breeding, 11 met the range of

key conservation status criteria in Section 9.2. These species are detailed in Table

12.10.

Table 12.10

status criteria

Species breeding at HMP Standford Hill meeting conservation

Species

Annex

1

Schedul

e 1

BoCC

Red List

UKBAP

LBAP

Northern Lapwing * *

Barn Owl *

Common Cuckoo * *

Skylark * * *

Yellow Wagtail * *

Dunnock *

Common Starling * *

House Sparrow * *

Common Linnet * * *

Reed Bunting * *

Corn Bunting * * *

12.3.29 One species, Barn Owl, listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

(as amended), was found to be breeding within the study area. No species listed on

Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive were found to be breeding.

12.3.30 Several additional Schedule 1 or Annex 1 species were recorded on or around the site

during the breeding season but did not set up territory within the proposed development

site. The significance of these species (e.g. Marsh Harrier, Hobby, and Whimbrel) is

discussed without exception in the Vantage Point and Extended Breeding Survey

sections.

12.3.31 Nine species (Northern Lapwing, Common Cuckoo, Skylark, Yellow Wagtail, Common

Starling, House Sparrow, Common Linnet, Reed Bunting and Corn Bunting) are

included on the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern (Eaton et al. 2009). These

are species whose breeding population has decreased or whose breeding range has

contracted by 50% or more in the preceding 25 years, or those that have declined

historically and not shown a substantial recent recovery. All of these species are also

included on the Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species List which also includes Reed

December 2010 329 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Bunting. Four species found breeding within the survey area are included in the Kent

LBAP (Skylark, Common Linnet, Reed Bunting and Corn Bunting).

12.3.32 The following accounts describe the distribution and habitat use of the breeding birds of

conservation importance found within the zone of influence. Figures showing the

precise location and extent of all territories are given in Appendix 12.1.

12.3.33 Three territories of Northern Lapwing were considered to be present in the

southernmost extent of grazing marsh within the survey area. Although extensive

display was noted early in the season, no young were observed.

12.3.34 A single breeding pair of Barn Owls was present in one of the abandoned farm/aviation

buildings within the prison complex. The birds were utilising a specifically provided nest

box and were often seen hunting at dawn and dusk in the fields in the south of the

proposed development site. Barn Owls underwent a substantial population decline in

the second half of the twentieth century and this led them to be specifically protected

under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act.

12.3.35 A single singing male Common Cuckoo was seen on two visits (visits 3 and 5) in the

northern half of the prison complex. Whilst breeding was not confirmed, the site does

hold reasonable populations of potential host species such as Dunnock and Reed

Warbler. Cuckoos have shown a recent rapid population decline in the UK, leading them

to be upgraded to the BoCC Red List in 2009 (Eaton et al. 2009).

12.3.36 Skylark were the most abundant of all breeding birds species recorded in the survey. A

total of 38 territories were estimated within the survey area. These territories were far

from evenly spread however; thirty-two territories were restricted to the grazing marsh

area to the south of the HMP (i.e. land north-west of Great Bells Farm). Four territories

were found east of the HMP, with one in the south-west. Only one territory was located

within the proposed development site boundary. Skylarks are still locally abundant in

Kent, although a major decline has taken place since c.1980. They are listed as having

a Kent RDB Status 2 (Waite, 2000).

12.3.37 A single Yellow Wagtail territory was present in the arable land to the south west of the

HMP. Sightings with the proposed development site were occasional and presumably

involved breeding birds with surrounding areas. Yellow Wagtails have undergone a

recent, rapid population decline in the UK (Gilroy et al., 2008) leading them to be

included on the BoCC Red List as well as being a UK BAP Priority Species.

12.3.38 Dunnock were widespread and common in several areas of the proposed development

site, particularly in the scrub areas in the south-east and around the farm buildings in

the centre of the site. A total of 9 territories were considered to be present.

12.3.39 Common Starling were commonly found around the derelict farm/aviation buildings.

Breeding opportunities are widely available in this area and a minimum of 22 pairs were

December 2010 330 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

estimated to be present. Post-breeding flocks of adults and juveniles were observed

around the sewage farm on mid-late summer survey visits. Starlings have undergone a

rapid recent population decline in the UK, although are still abundant residents.

12.3.40 House Sparrows within the survey area utilised similar breeding opportunities to

Starlings, with a minimum of eight pairs considered to be present within the

farm/aviation buildings and also the active prison buildings further north. House

Sparrows remain abundant throughout the UK, but have undergone serious population

decline over the last 15 years.

12.3.41 Four Common Linnet territories were located during the survey; all were recorded

around the derelict/aviation buildings in the centre of the site. This species is known to

frequently nest semi-colonially and this appears to be the case at this site. Linnets are

typical of farmland and scrub and like other species with similar habitat requirements

they have undergone a serious UK wide population decline over the last 25 years.

12.3.42 Reed Bunting records were scattered widely throughout the southern half of the survey

area and three territories were thought to be present. Two territories were found on the

southern boundary of the proposed development site, while the third was along the ditch

network to the south-east of the proposed development site.

12.3.43 Corn Bunting were noted to be widespread over the grazing marsh / arable land to the

east of the survey area. Only one territory however was within the survey boundary –

outside of the proposed development zone along the track to Great Bells Farm. Corn

Buntings are another typical farmland species that has suffered a serious population

decline in the last 25 years.

Extended Survey for Breeding Species of Conservation Importance

12.3.44 The extended survey for breeding birds recorded three species listed on Schedule 1 of

the Wildlife & Countryside Act (Marsh Harrier, Avocet and Barn Owl) breeding within the

2 km search area. The former two species are also listed on Annex 1 of the EC Birds

Directive. Table 12.11 summarises the results of the survey.

Table 12.11 Specifically Protected Bird Species Breeding Within 2km of the

Proposed Development Site

Species

Confirmed

territories

Potential

territories

Minimum

distance from

site boundary

Western Marsh Harrier 3 4 >800m

Avocet 13 - >1.7km

Barn Owl 3 - On site

December 2010 331 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Wintering Birds

12.3.45 The full wintering bird survey results are detailed in Appendix 9.1, while a summary of

the most pertinent results is given here.

12.3.46 In total, 64 species of bird were recorded within the survey area during the wintering

bird survey. Of these species, nineteen met the range of conservation status criteria in

Section 9.2 (including cited status on The Swale SPA). These species are detailed in

9.12.

Table 12.12

Status Criteria

Species Wintering at HMP Standford Hill Meeting Conservation

Species Annex 1 Schedule

1

Western Marsh Harrier * *

BoCC

Red List

UKBAP LBAP SPA

Hen Harrier * * * *

Merlin * *

Northern Lapwing * * *

European Golden Plover * *

Eurasian Curlew *

Redshank *

Green Sandpiper *

Skylark * *

Dunnock *

Fieldfare *

Song Thrush * *

Redwing *

Cetti‟s Warbler *

Common Starling *

House Sparrow *

Common Linnet * * *

Reed Bunting *

Corn Bunting * *

12.3.47 Four species recorded, Marsh Harrier, Hen Harrier, Merlin and Golden Plover, are listed

on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive. Four additional species, Green Sandpiper,

December 2010 332 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Fieldfare, Redwing and Cetti‟s Warbler are listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act.

12.3.48 Seven species (Northern Lapwing, Skylark, Song Thrush, Common Starling, House

Sparrow, Common Linnet and Corn Bunting) are included on the Red List of Birds of

Conservation Concern.

12.3.49 Marsh Harriers were commonly encountered during the surveys (up to eight birds

recorded), although all records came from grazing marsh and arable habitats outside of

the proposed development site.

12.3.50 A single Hen Harrier was seen during the surveys (in November 2009), involving a

female bird flying across the grazing marsh areas outside of the proposed development

site.

12.3.51 A single female Merlin was seen in October 2009, hunting in the grazing marsh to the

south of the proposed development site. No further sightings were made during the

surveys.

12.3.52 Lapwing numbers varied greatly throughout the surveys, with large numbers present in

December 2009 and January 2010 (501 and 188 birds respectively) and being rare or

absent in all other months. Numbers during December and January were primarily

found in the arable / grazing marsh areas outside of the proposed development site.

Golden Plovers however, were very scarce with just three birds present in December

2009 (arable land to the south-west of the site) being the only record.

12.3.53 With regards to other wader species, Curlew were recorded on three occasions

(maximum count of only two birds) with a single bird near the water tower in the

northern end of the proposed development site being the most notable. Redshanks

were only found in February and March when a single bird only was present in the

grazing marsh area in each month. Green Sandpipers were present in four months, with

a maximum count of nine birds in December. Sightings were associated with the

sewage farm in the proposed development site and the ditch network to the south and

east.

12.3.54 Skylarks were ubiquitous over much of the survey area with up to 42 birds being

present. Highest densities occurred in the grazing marsh to the south-east of the

proposed development site, although moderate numbers were also recorded in the

arable land to the south-west and within the fields within the southern end of the site

The two winter thrush species, Fieldfare and Redwing were seen in moderate numbers

and were primarily associated with the scrub habitat in bordering Swaleside Prison.

12.3.55 A single Cetti‟s Warbler was heard singing along a ditch towards Great Bells Farm (i.e.

outside of the proposed development site) in October 2009. This secretive species is

December 2010 333 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

very difficult to detect when not singing and may have been present in additional

months.

12.3.56 Common Starlings were present in large numbers around the sewage farm and in

smaller numbers elsewhere. House Sparrows however were restricted to the urbanised

areas of the proposed development site.

12.3.57 Linnets were surprisingly scarce, with a peak of just nine birds recorded in December

2009. Reed Buntings were similarly scarce with a peak of six birds. Both species were

most often found in the grazing marsh outside of the proposed development site. A

single Corn Bunting was seen towards Great Bells Farm in March 2009. This species

was commonly seen in numbers of up to 25 birds further east from the farm, which lies

c.150m outside of the survey area.

Vantage Point Surveys

12.3.58 This section summarises the results of the Vantage Point Surveys undertaken from

September 2009 to August 2010. For full details refer to Appendix 9.1, which includes

detailed flightline figures for all target species and also gives levels of activity for

„secondary species‟ that were also recorded during the surveys.

12.3.59 Eleven target species (those that receive specific protection by virtue of being cited on

The Swale SPA designation or listed on either Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive or

Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act) were recorded at Standford Hill in the

flight space of the proposed development site. These species were Marsh Harrier, Hen

Harrier, Merlin, Hobby, Peregrine, European Golden Plover, Whimbrel, Green

Sandpiper, Mediterranean Gull and Barn Owl; Northern Lapwing was also included as a

target species due to its status on the BoCC Red List.

12.3.60 Table 12.12 summarises the flight activity for all target species, where it indicates the

total and proportional time spent flying at risk height (i.e. Band B; time spent at height at

which turbine rotors would rotate which for the surveys carried out at Standford Hill was

between 10 and 100m). Table 12.13 additionally indicates the number of individual

flightlines recorded through the survey and also the maximum flock size present (the

latter may be significant for species of wildfowl or waders).

December 2010 334 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 12.13: Flightline Data for All Target Species Within Proposed Development

Site Airspace

Species

Total flight

time at risk

height/ flight

band B (secs)

Percentage

time at risk

height/band

B (10 –

100m)

Percentage

time at

flight band

A (100m)

Number of

flightlines /

Maximum

flock size

No.

Max

Marsh Harrier 930 26 74 0 44 1

Hen Harrier 0 0 100 0 1 1

Merlin 30 22 78 0 5 1

Hobby 30 50 50 0 1 1

Peregrine 60 44 56 0 5 1

European Golden

Plover

30 100 0 0 1 2

Northern Lapwing 21,210 34 66 0 40 330

Whimbrel 30 50 50 0 1 1

Green Sandpiper 75 71 29 0 3 1

Mediterranean Gull 1065 28 72 0 23 25

Barn Owl 0 0 100 0 5 1

12.3.61 Marsh Harriers were the most abundant target raptor species recorded over the wider

survey area, although were notably less abundant in the airspace of the proposed

development site. The majority of flight activity by this species was at height band A

(74%), with the remainder being within risk height (band B).

12.3.62 Marsh Harriers were recorded over the proposed development site in all months with

the exception of January 2010. Activity was generally low (one to four flightlines per

survey) until May and June 2010 when a significant increase was noted. Figure 12.1

below indicates this dramatic shift in activity by presenting the amount of seconds spent

at risk height during each calendar month. Marsh Harriers were deemed to be the

species most sensitive to the proposed development on consultation with Natural

England and RSPB. The species flight behaviour and periodic occurrence is therefore

worthy of more detailed analysis than other target species.

December 2010 335 TNEI Services Ltd

Seconds spent at risk height

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Figure 12.1 Flight activity of Marsh Harriers in Proposed Development Site

Airspace September 2009 – August 2010

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10

May-

10

Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10

12.3.63 Flight activity was restricted to the southern half of the proposed development site, with

very few individuals noted towards the prison itself. Figure 12.2 (Volume 3 of this ES)

presents flightlines during the key period of May – June which shows repeated foraging

forays across the arable fields at the extreme south of the site. Figure 12.3 (Volume 3 of

this ES) shows activity for the months outside of May and June. It should be noted that

the figures also show activity outside of the proposed development site to provide

important context and information as to the wider activity patterns of this species.

12.3.64 It is clear that a high proportion of flightlines follow the network of ditches to the south

and east of the proposed development site. There are also many flights heading

eastwards towards Capel Fleet, which is a key roosting area for the species. Flights

across the proposed development site are sporadic and show no discrete pattern.

During May and June 2010 (Figure 12.3, Volume 3 of this ES) flight activity across the

site became more regular and including several repeated foraging forays across the

same flight path.

12.3.65 It is evident that flightline behaviour is significantly influenced by habitat specifics for

Marsh Harrier (and other key species recorded on site). The habitats present on site

and in the buffer zone are clearly discrete, with arable and industrial land in the former

and grazing marsh in the latter.

December 2010 336 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

12.3.66 Hen Harrier was found to be scarce during winter months of the survey. Just one

flightline was recorded within the proposed development site airspace (in February

2010), compared to nine for the wider survey area. The flight height of the single

flightline was entirely below risk height, which corresponds to the general pattern for the

flightlines recorded outside of the site (74% below risk height).

12.3.67 Merlin were another scarce winter visitor to the site, with just five flightlines recorded in

the proposed development site airspace (in October, December and January) and

seven overall. The majority of flight activity was below risk height (78%).

12.3.68 Hobby were scarce to rare visitors to the site in the spring and summer months. A

single flightline was recorded in the proposed development site airspace (in June), with

four flightlines seen overall (in June, July and September). The single flightline over the

proposed development site showed activity evenly split between band A (below risk

height) and band B (risk height).

12.3.69 Peregrine were regularly recorded during the surveys, with flightlines recorded in seven

months (exceptions being March, June, July, September and December). Peak activity

occurred in October and November when six and ten flightlines respectively were

recorded over the wider survey area. A juvenile female bird was seen throughout the

winter months, although three different individuals were considered to have been seen.

With regards to the restricted area development site only, just five flightlines were

recorded over the twelve months of survey.

12.3.70 Golden Plover were recorded in four months of the survey (October, December,

January and February) in low to moderate numbers. Just a single flightline was

recorded in the proposed development site airspace, with 30 seconds (100% of the total

flight time) spent at risk height.

12.3.71 Lapwing were common to abundant during October to March, becoming scarcer in

spring and summer and absent in August and September. A total of 40 flightlines were

recorded in the proposed development site airspace, which due to the large flock sizes

occasionally present (up to 330 birds) accounted for over 21,000 seconds of risk height

activity. With most species discussed above, the proposed development site is less

significant than the wider survey area; this is not entirely the case with Lapwings with

the southernmost fields of the site being attractive for wintering flocks by providing

grassland habitat with a short sward. Lapwings within the proposed development site

spent two-thirds (66%) of their flight activity below risk height (band A); with the

remainder at risk height (band B).

12.3.72 Green Sandpiper is an uncommon winter and passage visitor to the survey area; this

species was primarily associated with the sewage farm and the ditch network to the

south of the site. Just three flightlines were recorded within the proposed development

site airspace, with 71% of activity being at risk height.

December 2010 337 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

12.3.73 Whimbrel were scarce passage migrants to the survey area and were recorded only

during April, May, June and August. Whimbrels were primarily found on the grazing

marsh areas to the east of the proposed development site, although a single flightline

did occur over the southern half of the site when a single bird was foraging on the prison

football pitch.

12.3.74 Mediterranean Gulls were commonly recorded in April – July but were absent in all

other months. A total of twenty-three flightlines were recorded within the proposed

development site airspace (out of a total of 29 for the wider survey area). Flock size

reached a peak of 25 birds in July 2010, when several juvenile birds were noted to be

present. The fields in the south-east of the proposed development site were significant

for this species, although flightlines were widespread and included several over the

prison complexes themselves. A large proportion of activity was low to ground level

(72%), with the remaining 28% at risk height.

12.3.75 The data in Table 12.13 were subject to a Collision Risk Model (Band et al. 2007) and

Table 12.14 presents a summary of the predicted collision risk for all species identified

as Valued Ornithological Receptors. Full details of the Collision Risk model process are

given in the Technical Appendix.

12.3.76 The number of birds colliding with the rotors each year was calculated, assuming that

all collisions would be fatal. This provides an estimate of the number of fatalities per

year for the wind turbine development, assuming that birds take no avoiding action to

prevent a collision. In order to provide a biologically realistic assessment the results are

also given with an adjustment made on the assumption that birds will take avoiding

action (Band et al., 2007). Collision rates have been calculated for a variety of

avoidance rates.

Table 12.14 Number of Collisions Predicted (Collisions Per Annum) for VER

Species Recorded Within the Proposed Development Site

Species

Avoiding Action

None 95%

96% 97% 98% 99%

Western Marsh

Harrier

95%

6.22 0.31 0.25 0.19 0.12 0.06

Hen Harrier 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Merlin 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hobby 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

Peregrine 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00

December 2010 338 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

European Golden

Plover

0.14 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Northern Lapwing

96.4

5

4.82 3.86 2.89 1.93 0.96

Green Sandpiper 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

Whimbrel 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

Mediterranean

Gull

8.24 0.41 0.33 0.25 0.16 0.08

Barn Owl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12.3.77 An avoidance rate of 95% has historically been taken as a reasonable estimate of bird

species ability to avoid collision with rotors. However, small variations in avoidance

rates result in relatively large changes in predicted collisions. It has also been

suggested that mortality rates should be interpreted with caution, as species-specific

research data carried out in a range of conditions (e.g. weather, topography) has

generally unavailable for the vast majority of species assessed for UK wind farm

applications (Chamberlain et al., 2005; 2006).

12.3.78 Indeed, Scottish Natural Heritage has advised that a 99% avoidance rate is more

applicable to migratory geese and Golden Eagle (Pendlebury, 2006; SNH, 2010a).

While a study of Hen Harrier activity which showed that their low flying behaviour in

combination with the CRM model may lead to an overestimation of collision risk

mortality (Whitfield & Madders, 2005). This has led to recent SNH guidance for Hen

Harriers of using a 99% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010b).

12.3.79 In their most recent guidance (September 2010) SNH present the most recent data

available for a number of species including estimates of avoidance rates and source

information (SNH, 2010c). Most critically it is concluded that a default avoidance rate of

98% should be used in wind turbine development assessments. This therefore updates

the 95% rate recommended in previous guidance. The 98% avoidance rate is therefore

used as the default value in this assessment for all VORs recorded during the vantage

point watches.

Trends and Projected Future Baseline

12.3.80 As detailed in the consultation responses given in Table 12.8, the Environment Agency

has purchased 193 ha of land to the immediate south of the proposed development site,

at Great Bells Farm. This is to provide freshwater habitat to compensate for any future

December 2010 339 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

loss of designated freshwater areas within the north Kent SPAs due to proposed

shoreline management.

12.3.81 Great Bells Farm is currently poor quality arable land, with certain sections lying within

the survey area for wintering and breeding birds for the proposed wind turbine

development. Breeding birds currently consist of a narrow range of species including

Skylark (high density), Meadow Pipit, Lapwing, Reed Warbler and Reed Bunting.

12.3.82 The RSPB are, at the time of writing this ES chapter, compiling a management plan for

the farm. It is expected that the site will be significantly improved to high quality grazing

marsh with some areas of open freshwater. Therefore for the purposes of this

assessment Great Bells Farm will be treated as part of the Swale SPA.

12.3.83 Without firm management plans or likely timescales being available it is problematic in

stating a projected future baseline for this area of land. It is however, expected to

provide similar opportunities to birds to the adjacent Elmley NNR. Therefore, Great Bells

Farm is likely to become more attractive to wintering and breeding waterfowl (wintering:

Wigeon, Teal, Lapwing; breeding: Lapwing, Avocet, Redshank, Common Snipe).

Should any reedbed habitat be developed it may also provide breeding habitat for

Marsh Harrier.

12.3.84 Any assessment of the effects of the proposed development on the future condition of

Great Bells Farm is likely to be subjective at best. It is however, considered in this

chapter for all relevant species.

12.3.85 No changes or trends in the baseline recorded within the boundary of the proposed

development sites are anticipated.

Information Gaps

12.3.86 Access was not permitted to certain areas of the buffer zone surrounding the proposed

development site. This particularly refers to land to the south-west and west of the site.

This had negligible impact on the ornithological survey work (and this assessment)

however. The Vantage Points were able to look over this land and record all relevant

data. The habitat present in this area was also noted to be intensive arable so that it is

unlikely to support significant species of conservation interest. Nevertheless point

counts overlooking this area were initiated for the wintering and breeding bird surveys.

Valuation of the Receptors in the Baseline Condition

Protected Sites

12.3.87 The Swale SPA/Ramsar/SSSI lies within 1.1km of the proposed development site, while

the proposed mitigation land at Great Bells Farm lies immediately to the south (and

December 2010 340 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

c.400m from turbine locations). The potential impacts of the development on habitat

extent and quality are discussed in Chapter 11; while the potential impacts on individual

ornithological qualifying features are given below.

Evaluation of Ornithological Conservation Importance

12.3.88 On the basis of the above surveys and consultations, the nature conservation

importance of species potentially affected by the proposed development was

determined using the criteria set out in section 9.2. This study has identified a number of

species of nature conservation value and assigned the values to them as indicated in

Table 12.14.

12.3.89 There are seven species identified of International importance, four species of National

importance, three species of Regional/County importance and an additional fourteen

species of District/Parish importance. All other species recorded present on site and not

detailed in Table 12.14 are considered to be of less than Parish importance.

Table 12.15 Conservation Value of Bird VORs Recorded

Species Value Qualification as VOR Use of Study Area

Western

Marsh Harrier

International

Qualifying feature of SPA;

Listed on Annex 1

Resident; breeds within

1km

Hen Harrier

International

Qualifying feature of SPA;

Listed on Annex 1

Winter visitor

Merlin International Listed on Annex 1 Winter visitor

Peregrine International Listed on Annex 1

Sporadic visitor; mostly

during winter months

Avocet

International

Qualifying feature of

SPA/Ramsar; Listed on

Annex 1

Not seen on site; breeds

within 2km

European

Golden Plover

International Listed on Annex 1 Winter visitor

Mediterranean

Gull

International

Qualifying feature of SPA;

Listed on Annex 1

Summer visitor

Hobby National Listed on Schedule 1

Summer visitor; not

breeding

Whimbrel National Listed on Schedule 1 Passage migrant

December 2010 341 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Species Value Qualification as VOR Use of Study Area

Barn Owl National Listed on Schedule 1 Resident; breeds on site

Cetti‟s

Warbler

National Listed on Schedule 1

Present during winter;

possible resident

Northern

Lapwing

Regional/

County

BoCC Red List / UK BAP.

Resident- common during

winter; small numbers

breed c.1km from site

Common

Cuckoo

Regional/

County

BoCC Red List / UK BAP

Summer visitor; potentially

breeds

Corn Bunting

Regional/

County

BoCC Red List / UK BAP /

Kent RDB. Locally

significant population

present on Sheppey.

Resident; breeds within

400m of site

Common

Shelduck

District/

Parish

SPA qualifying species for

wintering population

Small numbers breed;

absent in winter

Eurasian

Oystercatcher

District/

Parish

SPA qualifying species for

wintering population

Small numbers breed;

absent in winter

Eurasian

Curlew

District/

Parish

Listed on Kent LBAP;

included in SPA

assemblage

Winter visitor

Redshank

District/

Parish

Listed on Kent LBAP;

included in SPA

assemblage

Mainly winter visitor; does

however breed within 2km

Green

Sandpiper

District/

Parish

Listed on Schedule 1

although for breeding

population only

Passage migrant and winter

visitor

Yellow

Wagtail

District/

Parish

BoCC Red List / UK BAP;

common and widespread in

Kent

Summer visitor; breeds

within 50m of site

Skylark

District/

Parish

BoCC Red List / UK BAP /

Kent RDB; common and

widespread in Kent

Resident

December 2010 342 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Species Value Qualification as VOR Use of Study Area

Dunnock

District/

Parish

BoCC Red List / UK BAP;

Common and widespread

in Kent

Resident; breeds on site

Fieldfare

District/

Parish

Listed on Schedule 1

although for breeding

population only

Winter visitor

Song Thrush

District/

Parish

BoCC Red List / UK BAP /

Kent RDB; common and

widespread in Kent

Resident

Redwing

District/

Parish

Listed on Schedule 1

although for breeding

population only

Winter visitor

Common

Starling

District/

Parish

BoCC Red List / UK BAP;

Common and widespread

in Kent

Resident; breeds on site

House

Sparrow

District/

Parish

BoCC Red List / UK BAP /

Kent RDB; Common and

Widespread in Kent

Resident; breeds on site

Common

Linnet

District/

Parish

BoCC Red List / UK BAP /

Kent RDB; common and

widespread in Kent

Resident; breeds on site

Reed Bunting

District/

Parish

BoCC Red List / UK BAP /

Kent RDB; common and

widespread in Kent

Resident; breeds on site

12.4 Topic Specific Design Evolution

12.4.1 Ornithological survey results were subject to a monthly appraisal as to the likely

implications of the data collected. Particular observations on highly sensitive raptor

species flightpaths became instrumental in informing decisions on the scheme layout,

notably Marsh Harrier. . Marsh Harrier flightlines (see Figures 12.2 and 12.3 in Volume

3 of this ES) typically followed the ditch network to the south of the site, which was in

relative close proximity to a proposed third turbine in the south-east of the site. After due

December 2010 343 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

consideration, it was concluded that it would be appropriate to remove this third turbine

from the scheme‟s proposals.

12.4.2 The original proposal was for three turbines with a blade tip height of 125m. During the

course of the EIA, aviation issues led to the relocation of the northernmost turbine from

the initial design to create a three turbine scheme with all turbines in the southern part

of the site. Further consultation with aviation and ornithological consultees then lead to

removal of the easternmost turbine in the proposal (Chapter 3). This proposed second

location of the third turbine was to be closest to key Marsh Harrier flightlines and as

such the removal of this turbine from the scheme had indirect positive benefits for this

VOR. Further, on consultation with RSPB and Natural England the dimensions of the

turbines became a focal point. It was decided to reduce the blade tip height to 121m;

this allowed the turbines to be set a distance (approximately 180m) further north on the

site and therefore an increased distance from key Marsh Harrier foraging and

commuting areas.

12.4.3 These measures (either indirectly or directly) allow reduction or potentially avoidance of

potentially significant adverse effects on Marsh Harrier.

12.5 Predicted Significant Effects of the Scheme

12.5.1 Potential effects are assessed in relation to species of Regional/County conservation

importance and above. A summary of effects which are considered to be significant in

terms of the EIA Regulations, without the implementation of mitigation measures, is

provided in the table at the end of this section (Table 12.15).

Potential Construction Effects

12.5.2 During the construction phase of the development, the potential impacts of associated

noise and visual disturbance could lead to the temporary displacement or disruption of

breeding and/or foraging birds. The potential effects at a species level is often taken to

be higher during the breeding season (March to August inclusive depending on the

species) when disturbance or displacement may lead to a reduction in the breeding

success of birds that use the site (Leddy et al., 1999). However, when one considers

the limited breeding bird assemblage at the site in the near vicinity of the proposed

turbines and associated infrastructure, it is it is more likely that greater numbers of birds

would be affected during the winter months when more species are present and flock

sizes (i.e. Northern Lapwing) are larger.

12.5.3 The potential effects associated with construction activities are only likely to occur for as

long as the four month construction phase continues. The exception to this would be if

an adverse impact on the breeding or foraging success of a receptor were such that the

local population becomes extinct and replacement does not occur.

December 2010 344 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

12.5.4 Disturbance of birds due to construction activities of this type has not been fully

quantified. However, it is possible to state that larger bird species, those higher up the

food chain, or those that feed in flocks in open environments tend to be more vulnerable

to disturbance effects than small birds that live in structurally complex or closed habitats

such as woodland (Hill et al. 1997).

Marsh Harrier

12.5.5 Marsh Harriers were found to be present on or around the site throughout the year. The

construction area for the two turbines is within 180m of the nearest drainage ditch which

individuals of this species regularly use as a foraging flightpath. Breeding pairs were

found to be at least 800m from the proposed development site boundary however. If the

construction period was to occur in the breeding season, this distance to the nearest

breeding site is seen to be sufficient to prevent significant disturbance. Studies by

Fernandez & Azkona (1993) and summarised in Ruddock & Whitfield (2007) suggest

that a disturbance distance of up to 500m is a more than adequate buffer. Marsh Harrier

most often nest within reedbeds, which are thought to provide some degree of

protection from casual disturbance. The magnitude of potential impacts during the

breeding season is anticipated to be small.

12.5.6 If construction was to occur in the winter months, then a suitable buffer to minimise

disturbance is considered to be significantly less than that proposed for the breeding

season. As construction period is short-term only and with the extensive ditch network

available to this species any impacts would be of a negligible magnitude.

12.5.7 Marsh Harriers are considered to be of high sensitivity with regard to any change in

their status, although the magnitude of impacts during the construction period is

considered to be small during the breeding season and negligible during other periods.

Therefore, this results in an effect of at most, moderate significance for any potential

construction effects during the breeding season only. Outside of the breeding period the

effects are considered to be of a slight significance.

Hen Harrier

12.5.8 Hen Harrier are present on the Isle of Sheppey in winter and passage periods only.

They were found to be scarce during the survey work, with just one sighting being made

during the wintering bird surveys.

12.5.9 If construction did occur during the period in which this species is typically present

(September – March) it is considered that the potential impacts on this species would be

of no identified magnitude. This takes account on the low density of birds present, the

limited level activity across the proposed development site and the extensive alternative

foraging habitat present within the vicinity. Although Hen Harriers are of a high

sensitivity, this therefore results in no effect for any potential construction effects.

December 2010 345 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Merlin

12.5.10 Merlin are present on the Isle of Sheppey in winter and passage periods only. They

were found to be scarce during the survey work, with just one sighting being made

during the wintering bird surveys, with a further small number of records during the

Vantage Point surveys.

12.5.11 If construction did occur during the period in which this species is typically present

(September – March) it is considered that the potential impacts on this species would be

of no identified magnitude. This takes account of the low density of birds present, and

the extensive alternative foraging habitat present within the vicinity. Although Merlin are

of a high sensitivity, this therefore results in no effect for any potential construction

effects.

Peregrine

12.5.12 Peregrine records were sporadic during the surveys, albeit at a low density. The

species does not breed within local proximity of the development site and was most

often encountered during the autumn / winter period. Disturbance caused by

construction activities will be limited and considered to be of no identified magnitude on

this highly mobile and wide ranging species. This therefore results in no effect for any

potential construction effects.

Avocet

12.5.13 Avocets breed extensively on Spitend and Elmley Marshes to the south of the proposed

development site. Approximately 13 pairs were present on territory within the 2km buffer

survey area in 2010 (1.8km to the south of the proposed development site). There is no

habitat suitable for this species in close proximity to the proposed development site and

therefore disturbance effects from construction activities will be of no identified

magnitude. This therefore results in no effect for any potential construction effects.

European Golden Plover

12.5.14 Golden Plovers were present in the survey area during passage and wintering periods

only. Sightings were scarce with just one flightline being seen over the site and very

small numbers present in the 500m buffer zone. It is considered that there is no

identified impact magnitude of the potential effects and therefore no effect is predicted

for any potential construction effects.

Mediterranean Gull

December 2010 346 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

12.5.15 Mediterranean Gulls were commonly seen on site between April and July, with a peak

of 25 birds present in July 2010. Key areas were the fields in the south–east of the

proposed development site and around the prison complexes.

12.5.16 Gull species are not considered to be sensitive to disturbance so the impacts of a

potential summer construction period are considered to be of no identified magnitude.

Despite several juvenile birds being present on site in July 2010, breeding areas are a

considerable distance away on the Medway Estuary. A formerly occupied breeding site

in the Swale does not currently support any pairs of this species (G. Allison pers

comm.). This therefore results in no effect for any potential construction effects.

Hobby

12.5.17 Hobby were found to be occasional visitors to the site in summer and passage periods

and were not found to be breeding either on site or in close proximity. If construction did

occur during the period in which this species is typically present (April – September it is

considered that the potential impacts on this species would be of no identified

magnitude. This takes account on the low density of birds present, and the extensive

alternative foraging habitat present within the near vicinity. Hobby are of high sensitivity

and this therefore results in no effect for any potential construction effects.

Whimbrel

12.5.18 Whimbrel are uncommon passage migrants to the Isle of Sheppey and surrounding

habitat, with just a single bird seen during the surveys within the site boundary. The

effects of a short-term construction period are of no identified magnitude. This therefore

results in no effect for any potential construction effects.

Barn Owl

12.5.19 A single pair of Barn Owl was found to be breeding on site, with an additional two pairs

present within 1.5km of the site boundary. Should construction occur during the

breeding season it is likely to occur on areas used by this species for foraging.

However, construction activities will occur only in daylight hours and therefore outside of

this species‟ key activity cycle. The construction area is also a considerable distance

from the nest site and no direct disturbance to this area is anticipated.

12.5.20 The effects of a short-term construction period are of no identified magnitude. This

therefore results in no effect for any potential construction effects.

Cetti‟s Warbler

12.5.21 A single singing Cetti‟s Warbler was observed during the wintering bird survey along a

drainage ditch to the south-east of the proposed development site. It is considered

possible that this individual was present at other times due to the difficulties confirming

December 2010 347 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

presence when individuals are not singing. No sightings were made within the site itself

however, with suitable habitat being present only to the south of the sewage farm. Any

construction activities would be of no identified magnitude. This therefore results in no

effect for any potential construction effects.

Northern Lapwing

12.5.22 Lapwings were seen throughout the year in varying numbers during the surveys. Up to

three pairs were thought to be breeding c.450m from the site boundary, within the

grazing marsh habitat of Great Bells Farm. During this time the species was generally

absent on the site itself. During winter and passage periods Lapwings were common,

particularly in December and January (where over 500 birds were present on site or in

the arable fields to the south). The southernmost field of the proposed development site

held significant numbers during this period.

12.5.23 Any construction activities during the winter months could cause a minor re-distribution

of Lapwings to the wide habitat available outside of the site boundary. This short-term

disturbance would not have any permanent detrimental effects on the population of

birds present and is considered to be of a small magnitude. Lapwings are of a low

sensitivity and therefore, these results in an impact of slight significance for any

potential construction effects.

Common Cuckoo

12.5.24 A single territorial Common Cuckoo was present in 2010. Construction activities, should

they occur in the breeding season, are outside of suitable habitat for this species (i.e.

where typical host species breed – scrub, reedbeds etc). Any impact is considered be of

no identified magnitude on this species and therefore this results in no effect for any

potential construction effects.

Corn Bunting

12.5.25 A single territorial Corn Bunting was present to the east of the proposed development

site. Although a substantial population of this species occurs on Eastchurch Marshes no

records were made within the site boundary. Therefore any impact is considered be of

no identified magnitude on this species and this results in no effect for any potential

construction effects.

Potential Operational Effects

12.5.26 The operation of turbines and associated human activities for maintenance purposes

has the potential to cause disturbance and displace birds from the wind turbine area.

Although the disturbance effects of operational turbines on nesting and foraging birds

have not been adequately quantified, it is evident that several published studies have

December 2010 348 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

found that birds are affected only minimally (Philips, 1994; Leddy et al. 1998; Devereux

et al. 2008). Breeding birds have not been found to have been displaced at distances

greater than 300m from a turbine (Gill et al. 1996; Percival, 1998). Consequently it is

possible that disturbance and barrier effects during the operational phase will be less

than during the construction phase in certain schemes (SNH, 2000). However, wind

farms or even a scheme of limited turbine numbers, as is the case here, may present a

barrier to the movement of birds, restricting or displacing birds from much larger areas.

The effect that this would have on a population is subtle and difficult to predict with great

certainty.

12.5.27 Displacement effects are likely to be greatest in the initial period of turbine operation,

with possible habituation taking place in the medium and long terms. The limited

scientific literature on breeding birds in open habitats suggests that effects may vary

considerably between species. Published studies, for example, have reported declines

for some species (e.g. Curlew) but not for others (e.g. Skylark and game birds)

(Williams & Young, 1997; Young, 1999; Shepherd, 2002; Devereux et al. 2008).

12.5.28 There is potential for some disruption of foraging and breeding behaviours due to

increased human activity for maintenance purposes particularly at wind farms in remote

areas not normally exposed to human disturbance. However, this would be relatively

infrequent, involve low levels of disturbance and would be restricted to areas of the site

accessible by tracks. Therefore, the overriding disturbance is considered to be from the

operational turbine.

12.5.29 The result of an incidence of a bird colliding with turbine rotors is likely to result in the

death of the bird. In species that occur in low-density populations with low reproductive

rates, such as raptors, the impact of collision mortality on the local population could be

more adverse than in higher density populations with high reproductive rates (e.g.

passerines). The frequency and likelihood of a collision depends on factors such as

aspects of the bird‟s physiology and behaviour as well as the nature of the surrounding

environment.

12.5.30 Collision risk is perceived to be higher in birds that spend a greater proportion of time in

the air, such as raptors, or those that make regular flights between foraging and

roosting grounds, such as geese and swans. Larger birds including geese and swans,

are also less manoeuvrable and more vulnerable to collision. The majority of bird

fatalities at wind farms have occurred on major migration flyways, in reduced visibility or

at night (Crockford, 1992). A close array of turbines across a natural wind funnel has

also been shown to increase bird mortality. For diurnal foraging raptors, the proximity of

structures on which to perch can increase the likelihood of collision with turbines (Orloff

& Flannery, 1996).

December 2010 349 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Marsh Harrier

12.5.31 Marsh Harrier were recorded throughout the surveys in small numbers, although there

was a marked increase in activity during May and June 2010 (see Figure 12.1 earlier in

this chapter). A total of 930 seconds of activity by this species was noted at risk height

during the surveys, which represents 26% of the total activity time. May and June

accounted for 78% of the total time spent at risk height.

12.5.32 The predicted collision risk for this species (at a 98% avoidance rate) is of 0.12 birds

per annum (or one collision every 8.3 years). If one considers the SPA citation for this

species of 24 pairs, the collision risk at the proposed development site represents

0.50% of the SPA population potentially colliding with the turbines per annum.

12.5.33 Marsh Harriers are considered to be of high sensitivity with regard to any change in

their status (this species is cited on the SPA designation for having a high concentration

of breeding pairs), while the magnitude of the impacts on an annualised basis is

considered to be negligible due to the low level of collision risk predicted

12.5.34 Collision risk modelling was undertaken using 12 months of data but during the months

of May and June 78% of the total time at risk height flight was observed when the grass

was long and therefore providing optimum foraging habitat. Despite the negligible

impact on an annualised basis it is considered appropriate, taking a conservative

approach, that that the magnitude of change during the breeding season is classified as

small. Therefore this results in an effect of moderate significance for the breeding

season (April – August).

12.5.35 Activity during the wintering season (and all other months outside of April to August)

was extremely limited over the proposed development site and as such the collision risk

for this period and hence impact magnitude is negligible. This results in an effect of

slight significance during the wintering period.

12.5.36 The mortality rate for Marsh Harrier is substantially below the 1% threshold for

determining adverse effects on the SPA population. Whilst the effects of the operational

wind turbine development on the conservation status of the species are not considered

to be adverse, some low risk of collision remains in the breeding season. In addition,

some very limited re-distribution of foraging flightlines may occur due to the presence of

the turbines.It is therefore deemed appropriate to implement mitigation to further

minimise any risk of collision to this species (Section 12.6).

Hen Harrier

12.5.37 Hen Harrier was a scarcely recorded species during the Vantage Point survey with just

one flightline recorded within the airspace of the proposed development site. The flight

height of the single flightline was entirely below risk height so that no collisions are

December 2010 350 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

predicted for the lifespan of the development. This therefore results in no effect for any

potential operational effects and this species is not considered further in this chapter.

Merlin

12.5.38 Merlin were scarce winter visitors to the site, with just five flightlines recorded in the

proposed development site airspace (in October, December and January) and seven

overall. The majority of flight activity was below risk height (78%), with just 30 seconds

of time spent at risk height. This collision risk model therefore predicts (at a 98%

avoidance rate) a collision rate of 0 birds per annum.

12.5.39 From this negligible collision risk it follows that there is no identified magnitude of the

potential impacts of the proposed development on Merlin. Therefore this results in no

effect for any potential operational effects and this species is not considered further in

this chapter.

Peregrine

12.5.40 Peregrine were regularly recorded during the Vantage Point surveys, with flightlines

recorded in seven months. A small total of 60 seconds was spent at risk height over the

full survey period, which accounted for 44% of the total flight time. This corresponded to

a very low collision risk estimate of 0.01 birds per annum (or one bird every 100 years).

12.5.41 This negligible collision risk suggests that there is no identified magntitude of impacts

on this highly sensitive species. This results in no effect for any potential operational

effects and this species is not considered further in this assessment.

Avocet

12.5.42 Avocets were not recorded on site and do not provide any collision risk for the lifetime of

the development. There is some potential for Avocets to become present closer to the

proposed development once suitable habitat has been created at Great Bells Farm,

although it is still considered that flightlines of this species across the site are extremely

unlikely.

12.5.43 The operational effects of the proposed development are of no identified magnitude and

correspondingly no effect is predicted. Avocets are not considered further in this

assessment.

European Golden Plover

12.5.44 A single flightline was recorded in the proposed development site airspace, with 30

seconds (100% of the total flight time) spent at risk height. This led to the CRM

estimating a very low collision risk of 0 birds per annum at a 98% avoidance rate.

December 2010 351 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

12.5.45 This negligible collision risk lead to the conclusion that there is no identified impact

magnitude for the potential operational effects on Golden Plover. Therefore this results

in no effect for any potential operational effects and this species is not considered

further in this assessment.

Mediterranean Gull

12.5.46 Mediterranean Gulls were commonly recorded in April – July but were absent in all

other months. A total of twenty-three flightlines were recorded within the proposed

development site airspace (out of a total of 29 for the wider survey area). Flock size

reached a peak of 25 birds in July 2010. A large proportion of activity was low to ground

level (72%), with the remaining 28% at risk height. The CRM predicts a low collision risk

for this species, with 0.16 birds likely to collide with turbines per annum (or one bird

every 6.25 years) at a 98% avoidance rate.

12.5.47 This species primarily gathered in the fields in the south-east of the proposed

development site, approximately 400m from the easternmost turbine. Flightlines directly

across the rotor swept airspace were rare throughout.

12.5.48 Mediterranean Gulls are considered to be of medium sensitivity due their regionally

significant but rapidly expanding breeding population population in north Kent. With

regard to any change in their status, the cited population in the Swale SPA is not

currently extant. All pairs of this species have moved to a colony in the Medway Estuary

where they are thriving. The effects of the proposed development (which is over 12km

from the breeding site) are therefore considered to be of a small. Therefore, this results

in an impact of slight significance for any potential operational effects during the

breeding season only (April – August). Mediterranean Gulls were not recorded on site

outside of the breeding period and therefore there would be no effect on this species in

the operational phase from September – March).

Hobby

12.5.49 Hobby were scarce to rare visitors to the site in the spring and summer months. A

single flightline was recorded in the proposed development site airspace (in June). This

results in the CRM predicting a very low collision risk estimate of 0 birds per annum at a

98% avoidance rate.

12.5.50 This negligible collision risk lead to the conclusion that there is no identified impact

magnitude for the potential operational effects on Hobby. Therefore this results in no

effect for any potential operational effects and this species is not considered further in

this assessment.

Whimbrel

December 2010 352 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

12.5.51 A single flightline of Whimbrel was recorded during the Vantage Point surveys, with just

30 seconds spent at risk height. Therefore the CRM predicts a very low collision risk

estimate for this species of 0 birds per annum.

12.5.52 This negligible collision risk lead to the conclusion that there is no identified impact

magnitude for the potential operational effects on Whimbrel. Therefore this results in no

effect for any potential operational effects and this species is not considered further in

this assessment.

Barn Owl

12.5.53 A pair of Barn Owls was found to be breeding on site and several flightlines were

recorded in the Vantage Point surveys. As is typical with this species, all flight activity

was below turbine risk height so that the CRM predicts no collisions for this species.

The turbines may however present some barrier to foraging areas to the breeding pair,

although several flightlines were noted further east towards Great Bells Farm

suggesting that this impact would be minimal.

12.5.54 Barn Owls are considered to be of medium sensitivity with regard to any change in their

status, and the magnitude of the impacts also having the potential to be small.

Therefore, this results in an impact of slight significance for any potential operational

effects in terms of disturbance / barrier to foraging sites.

Cetti‟s Warbler

12.5.55 The operational phase effects of the wind turbines are not considered to be of a

magnitude below negligible on this species, considering the single bird present (which

was found outside of the site boundary). Therefore this results in no effect and this

species is not considered further in this assessment.

Northern Lapwing

12.5.56 Lapwing were common to abundant during October to March, becoming scarcer in

spring and summer and absent in August and September. A total of 40 flightlines were

recorded in the proposed development site airspace which, due to the large flock sizes

occasionally present (up to 330 birds), accounted for over 21,000 seconds of risk height

activity. A large proportion of activity was low to ground level (66%), with the remaining

34% at risk height. Nevertheless the CRM predicts a moderate collision risk for this

species, with 1.93 birds likely to collide with turbines per annum (or one bird every 189

days) at 98% avoidance.

12.5.57 Lapwings were not present within the proposed development site in numbers of

international or national importance (thresholds of 20,000 birds each respectively; Holt

et al., 2009) but were present flocks of local significance only during the mid-winter

period. For this reason Lapwings are considered to be of low sensitivity. The effects of

December 2010 353 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

the operational phase would not have an effect on the regional population of this

species and are hence assigned a medium magnitude. Therefore this results in an

impact of slight significance.

Common Cuckoo

12.5.58 The operational phase of the proposed development is not considered to be of a

magnitude below negligible on this species, considering the single territorial bird

present. Therefore this results in no effect and this species is not considered further in

this assessment.

Corn Bunting

12.5.59 The operational phase of the wind turbines is not considered to be of a magnitude

below negligible on this species, considering the single territorial bird present (which

was found outside of the site boundary). Therefore this results in no effect and this

species is not considered further in this assessment.

Potential Decommissioning Effects

12.5.60 It is anticipated that impacts during the decommissioning phase would be the same or

less than as those during the construction period.

Table 12.15: Assessment of the effects of the proposed development prior to

mitigation

Receptor and summary of

predicted effect

Importance

/

Sensitivity

Magnitude

of change

Significance

Western Marsh Harrier –

disturbance during construction

(breeding season)

Western Marsh Harrier –

disturbance during construction

(non-breeding season)

Marsh Harrier – collision during

operational phase (April –

August)

Marsh Harrier – collision during

operational phase (September–

High Small Moderate

High Negligible Slight

High Small Moderate

High Negligible Slight

December 2010 354 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Receptor and summary of

predicted effect

Importance

/

Sensitivity

Magnitude

of change

Significance

March)

Hen Harrier – disturbance

during construction

Hen Harrier – collision during

operational phase

Merlin – disturbance during

construction

Merlin - collision during

operational phase

Peregrine – disturbance during

construction

Peregrine - collision during

operational phase

Avocet – disturbance during

construction

Avocet – collision during

operational phase

European Golden Plover –

disturbance during construction

European Golden Plover –

collision during operational

phase

Mediterranean Gull –

disturbance during construction

Mediterranean Gull – collision

during operational phase

Hobby – disturbance during

construction

Hobby – collision during

operational phase

High None No effect

Medium None No effect

Medium Small Slight

Medium None No effect

December 2010 355 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Receptor and summary of

predicted effect

Importance

/

Sensitivity

Magnitude

of change

Significance

Whimbrel - disturbance during

construction

Whimbrel - collision during

operational phase

Barn Owl - disturbance during

construction

Barn Owl- barrier effect and

collision during operational

phase

Cetti‟s Warbler - disturbance

during construction

Cetti‟s Warbler - collision during

operational phase

Northern Lapwing - disturbance

during construction

Northern Lapwing - collision

during operational phase

Common Cuckoo - disturbance

during construction

Common Cuckoo - collision

during operational phase

Corn Bunting - disturbance

during construction

Corn Bunting - collision during

operational phase

Medium None No effect

Medium Small Slight

Medium None No effect

Low Small Negligible/Slight

Low Medium Slight

Low None No effect

12.6 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

12.6.1 The following mitigation measures will be implemented in order to help minimise the

impacts of the proposed development upon the protected species present within the site

and surrounding area.

December 2010 356 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Marsh Harrier

12.6.2 There is potential for effects on Marsh Harrier during the operational period of the

development, at a moderate significance. It is clear that Marsh Harriers are most at risk

during a narrow window in the breeding season (May – June; Figures 12.1 and 12.2 in

Volume 3 of this ES), when birds were seen foraging across the site. At all other times,

Harrier activity was rare across the development site and generally followed consistent

flight paths along the ditch network to the south and east (Figure 12.3, Volume 3 of this

ES).

12.6.3 The increased activity during May and June correlated when grass was highest and so

providing increased foraging opportunities, especially for small rodents. Once the grass

was cut to a short sward in mid-July 2010, activity returned to the low level seen prior to

May. This is despite the fact that there were several fledged young on the wing in the

local area increasing the density of Marsh Harriers.

12.6.4 It is therefore considered appropriate to instigate a management practice that keeps

grass to a short sward and discourage Marsh Harrier activity throughout the year. This

practice will involve repeated cuts in the key May-June period so that foraging would be

unproductive for raptors.

12.6.5 The avoidance of construction period during the breeding season would lead to there

being a slight effect on this species during this phase of the development.

General Breeding Birds

12.6.6 Although the breeding bird community in the immediate vicinity of the wind turbines

development is limited in terms of both diversity and raw numbers of birds present,

precautionary measures will be put in place to prevent damage or disturbance should

construction occur during March – August inclusive.

12.6.7 Vegetation clearance works will not be undertaken during this period unless a survey by

an appropriately qualified ornithologist has shown active nests to be absent immediately

prior to the start of works. This includes areas of low/ground vegetation, to ensure

ground nesting species such as Skylark or potentially Yellow Wagtail are not adversely

affected.

12.7 Cumulative Effects

12.7.1 Two additional developments have been identified that have some potential to provide

cumulative effects with the proposed HMP Standford Hill Wind Turbine development.

These are the Port of Sheerness Wind Farm (Peel Energy) and St. Regis Paper Mill

Sustainable Energy (SEP) Plant, Kemsley.

December 2010 357 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

12.7.2 The Port of Sheerness Wind Farm comprises four 125m high turbines at the Lappell

Bank dock wall and planning permission was granted in 2009. The Sheerness wind

farm lies on the Medway / Swale Estuaries approximately 10km west-north-west from

HMP Standford Hill. As the proposed development will have no effect on estuarine

habitat (and the ornithological features associated with it) no cumulative effects are

anticipated. Likewise, Sheerness lies well away from core Marsh Harrier breeding and

wintering areas and no cumulative effects in terms of barrier effects are considered to

be likely.

12.7.3 The St. Regis SEP plant is at sufficient distance (10km south-west from HMP Standford

Hill) and as none of the species highlighted in this assessment (Marsh Harrier,

Mediterranean Gull, Northern Lapwing) are affected by this development, this means

that cumulative effects are very unlikely.

12.8 Assessment of Residual Significant Effects

12.8.1 Table 12.16, below, provides an overview of the potential effects of the proposal

following the implementation of mitigation measures detailed above.

12.8.2 It is considered that the mitigation proposed for Marsh Harrier, will have a distinct affect

on the species‟ activity patterns across the site during the critical months of May and

June. Almost 80% of flight activity occurred during these months and if this is reduced to

background levels recorded in all other months then the potential collision risk is likely to

be significantly reduced to a negligible magnitude. This would therefore result in a

slight significance of impact for the operational period on this species.

December 2010 358 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Table 12.16 Assessment of the Residual Effects of the Proposed Development

Receptor and

Summary of

Predicted

Effects

Type of Effect

Importance

Magnitude

of Change

Residual

Significant

EIA Effects

Western Marsh

Harrier –

disturbance

during

construction

(Breeding

season)

Western Marsh

Harrier –

disturbance

during

construction

(non-breeding

season)

Western Marsh

Harrier –

collision during

operational

phase (April –

August)

Western Marsh

Harrier –

collision during

operational

phase

(September –

March)

Adverse,

temporary,

direct, shortterm

Adverse,

temporary,

direct, shortterm

Adverse,

permanent,

direct, longterm

Adverse,

permanent,

direct, longterm

High Small Moderate

High Negligible Slight

Hen Harrier No effect High None No Effect

Merlin No effect High None No Effect

Peregrine No effect High Negligible Slight

Avocet No effect High Negligible Slight

European

Golden Plover

No effect High None No Effect

December 2010 359 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Receptor and

Summary of

Predicted

Effects

Type of Effect

Importance

Magnitude

of Change

Residual

Significant

EIA Effects

Mediterranean

Gull – collision

during

operational

phase

Adverse,

permanent,

direct, longterm

Medium Small Slight

Whimbrel No effect Medium None No Effect

Barn Owlbarrier

effect

and collision

during

operational

phase

Adverse,

temporary,

direct, medium

term

Medium Small Slight

Cetti‟s Warbler No effect Medium None No Effect

Northern

Lapwing

Adverse,

temporary,

direct, shortterm

Low Small Negligible/

Slight

Northern

Lapwing

Adverse,

permanent,

direct, longterm

Low Medium Slight

Common

Cuckoo

No effect Low None No Effect

Corn Bunting No effect Low None No Effect

Key/footnotes:

1. e.g. adverse, beneficial,

subjective, temporary, permanent,

long term, short term, medium

term, direct, indirect, secondary,

cumulative,

2. Category used

3. Category used

4. Category derived

5. and whether in

construction/operation

decommissioning.

December 2010 360 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Receptor and

Summary of

Predicted

Effects

Type of Effect

Importance

Magnitude

of Change

Residual

Significant

EIA Effects

12.9 Monitoring

12.9.1 On consultation with RSPB and Natural England a monitoring programme will be

implemented to allow further understanding of the interaction of turbines and birds. The

design of the protocol would follow guidance given by SNH (2009) and Natural England

(2010) and will have particular emphasis on the activity of Marsh Harriers during the

construction and operational phases of the development.

12.9.2 Monitoring would take the form of two survey techniques. Repeated Vantage Point

surveys (SNH, 2005) are proposed for the period April – July to assess levels of activity

across the development area. Secondly, carcass searches for collision victims will be

carried out during the same period of April – July. Collision mortality data is seen to be

important to verify the predictions of the collision risk modelling.

12.9.3 Surveys will take place during construction and in the operational years of 1, 3, 5, 10,

15 and 20. The monitoring programme will be developed in conjunction with

consultation with RSPB and Natural England.

12.10 References

Anon. (1981). The Wildlife & Countryside Act. HMSO, London.

Anon. (1998). UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action Plans. English Nature,

Peterborough.

Anon. (1999). UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 3 Action Plans. English Nature,

Peterborough.

Band, W., Madders, M. and Whitfield, D.P. (2007) Developing field and analytical

methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. &

Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus,

Madrid.

Bibby, C.J. Burgess, N.D. Hill, D.A. & Mustoe, S.H. (2000). Bird Census Techniques:

2nd edition. Academic Press, London

Chamberlain, D. Freeman, S, Rehfisch, M, Fox, T. & Desholm, M. (2005). Appraisal of

Scottish Natural Heritage‟s Wind Farm Collision Risk Model and its Application. BTO

Research Report 401. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, Norfolk.

December 2010 361 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Chamberlain, D. E., Rehfisch, M. R., Fox, A. D., Desholm, M., & Anthony, S. J. (2006).

The effect of avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine

collision risk models. Ibis 148: 198-202.

Crockford, N. J. (1992). A review of the possible impacts of windfarms on birds and

other wildlife. JNCC Report No. 27, JNCC, Peterborough.

Devereux, C.L., Denny, M.J.H. & Whittingham, M.J. (2008). Minimal effects of wind

turbines on the distribution of wintering farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:

1689-1694.

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R. H. W. (2006). Assessing the impacts of wind farms on

birds. Ibis 148: 29-42.

Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn, R., Aebischer, N.J.,

Gibbons, D.W., Evans, A., & Gregory, R.D. (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3:

the population status of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British

Birds 102: 296-341.

English Nature. (2005). Guidance on assessing ornithological impacts associated with

windfarm developments on the Humber Estuary SPA, Thorne & Hatfield SPA, Hornsea

Mere SPA and Lower Derwent Valley SPA: survey recommendations. English Nature

Humber to Pennines Team, North & East Yorkshire Team and East Midlands Team.

EU (1979). On the Conservation of Wild Birds. Council Directive 79/409/EEC, Brussels.

Fernandez, C. & Azkona, P. (1993). Human disturbance affects parental care of marsh

harriers and nutritional status of nestlings. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 602-608.

Gilbert, G, Gibbons, D.W. & Evans, J. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB, Sandy.

Gill, J.P., Townsley, M. & Mudge, G.P. (1996). Review of the impacts of windfarms and

other aerial structures upon birds. SNH Review 21: 68

Hill, D.A., Hockin, D., Price, D., Tucker, G., Morris, R. and Treweek, J. (1997) Bird

disturbance: improving the quality of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology

34: 275-288.

Holt, C.A., Austin, G.E., Calbrade, N.A., Mellan, H., Thewlis, R.M., Hall, C., Stroud,

D.A., Wotton, S.R., & Musgrove, A.J. (2009). Waterbirds in the UK 2007/8: The Wetland

Bird Survey. BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC, Thetford.

IEEM. (2006). Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom.

Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

Langston, R. H. W. & Pullan, J. D. (2003). Wind farms: an analysis of the effects of wind

farms on birds and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection

issues. Report on behalf of the Bern Convention. RSPB Birdlife International.

Leddy, K.L., Higgins, K.F and Naugle, D.E. (1999). Effects of wind turbines on upland

nesting birds in conservation reserve program grasslands. Wilson Bull. 111(1): 100-104.

December 2010 362 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Leech, D. (2007). The Effect of Climate Change on Birds. British Trust for Ornithology,

Thetford.

Morrison, M. L. Sinclair, K. C. & Thelander, C. G. (2007). A sampling framework for

conducting studies of the influence of wind energy developments on birds and other

animals. In de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds and Wind Farms: Risk

Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid.

Natural England. (2010). Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds. Natural

England Technical Information Note TIN069. Natural England, Peterborough.

Orloff, S. & Flannery, A. (1996). Avian mortality in Altamont Pass WRA – final report.

California Energy Commission, Sacramento.

Pendlebury, C. (2006). An appraisal of „A review of goose collisions at operating wind

farms and estimation of the goose avoidance rate‟ by Fernley, J., Lowther, S., &

Whitfield, P. BTO Research Report No. 455. BTO Thetford.

Percival, S.M. 1998. Birds and Turbines: managing potential planning issues. Proc. of

the 20th BWEA Conference 1998: pp 345-350.

Phillips, J.F. (1994). The effects of a wind farm on the upland breeding bird communities

of Bryn Tytli, mid-Wales: 1993-4. Unpublished report for National Windpower.

Ruddock, M. & Whitfield, D. P. (2007). A review of disturbance distances in selected

bird species. Natural Research, Banchory.

Shepherd, K.B. (2002). Hare Hill Windfarm, New Cumnock, Ayrshire: Breeding bird

monitoring 2002. Reports to Scottish Power plc, Glasgow.

SNH. (2000). Methodology for Assessing the Effects of Wind Farms on Ornithological

Interests. SNH Guidance Note Series.

SNH.(2005). Survey methods for use in assessment of the impacts of proposed

onshore wind farms on bird communities. SNH Guidance Note Series.

SNH. (2006) Assessing significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on birds

outwith designated areas. SNH Guidance Note Series.

SNH. (2009). Guidance on methods for monitoring bird populations at onshore wind

farms. SNH Guidance Note Series.

SNH. (2010a). Guidance & information specific to bird interests: avoidance factors. SNH

Guidance Note Series.

SNH. (2010b). Use of avoidance rates in the SNH wind farm collision risk model. SNH

Guidance Note Series.

SNH. (2010c). Use of avoidance rates in the SNH wind farm collision risk model

(update). SNH Guidance Note Series.

December 2010 363 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Stroud, D. A., Chambers, D., Cook, S., Buxton, N., Fraser, B., Clement, P., Lewis, P.,

McLean, I., Baker, H., 7 Whitehead, S. (2001) The UK SPA Network: its scope and

content. Volume 3: Site accounts. JNCC, Peterborough.

Thelander, C. G. & Smallwood, K. S. (2007). The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area‟s

effects on birds: a case history. In de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds

and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid.

Waite, A (2000). The Kent Red Data Book: A provisional guide to the rare and

threatened flora and fauna of Kent. Kent County Council.

Whitfield, D. P. & Madders, M. (2005). Flight height in the Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus

and its incorporation in wind turbine collision risk modelling. Natural Research

Information Note 2. Natural Research, Banchory.

Williams, I. and Young, A.J. (1997). Trannon Moor ornithological studies. RSPB report

to: Powys County Council, Powys.

Young, A.J. (1999). Trannon Moor Ornithological Survey. Unpublished report, RSPB

Wales.

December 2010 364 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 365 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

13 Ground Conditions and Hydrology

13.1 Introduction and Overview

13.1.1 This chapter deals with the potential impact of the proposed development on geology,

hydrology and hydrogeology. The proposed development is to be located in an area

where the integrity of superficial geological deposits has a bearing on turbine foundation

construction. Part of the proposed development is to be located in a high risk flood zone

and shallow groundwater flow may need to be controlled during the construction

process.

13.1.2 Whilst local geology is unlikely to be affected by any aspect of the proposed

development, ground stability is a material consideration in the design and

implementation of foundation construction. It is necessary to demonstrate that the

development could continue to operate during flood conditions and that the

development would not increase flood risk in the surrounding area. Shallow

groundwater, if present, may provide a direct pathway for any contaminants associated

with construction of turbine foundations to enter controlled waters.

13.1.3 This assessment includes consideration of local geological conditions in relation to

ground stability and impacts on turbine foundation design. The assessment

incorporates a full PPS25 Development and Flood Risk compliant flood risk assessment

and an evaluation of risks to controlled waters arising from the construction process.

Reference is made to the construction, operation or decommissioning phases of the

proposed development.

13.2 Methodology

13.2.1 The geological, hydrological and hydrogeological assessment has been undertaken

with reference to relevant technical guidance or legislation related particularly to surface

water and groundwater resources. There are no geological designations that cover the

site or surrounding area. Issues related to flood risk are referenced to PPS25

Development and Flood Risk. Potential impacts on groundwater have been assessed in

relation to the Environment Agency Groundwater Protection Policy (GP3) and the

hydrological sensitivity of local surface watercourses.

13.2.2 The main issues covered by this assessment are summarised as follows:

The potential impact of shallow geological formations on ground

stability and turbine foundation design;

December 2010 366 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

The potential impact of the proposed development on flood risk in

the surrounding area and the ability of the development to maintain

operational status during flood conditions; and

The potential impact of the proposed development on water quality

in the local surface water system during the construction and

decommissioning phases.

13.2.3 Information related to each of these issues has been derived from site based

assessment, consultation and collation of relevant environmental data sets related to

local geology, site topography and hydrology, flood zone designation, groundwater

vulnerability and source protection zone review, water abstractions/discharges and

other surface water or groundwater dependent features.

13.2.4 A detailed site hydrological survey was undertaken by S M Foster Associates Ltd in

early September 2010. The survey incorporated visual inspection of ground levels and

ground conditions at both proposed turbine locations, confirmation of the absence of

any groundwater supported features within the site boundary, review of the drainage

regime in the adjacent Eastchurch Marshes and hydrological survey of the main surface

drainage channel at the south western site boundary.

13.2.5 Hydrogeological data obtained through an Envirocheck search demonstrated that the

entire site and surrounding area is designated as „non-aquifer‟ with negligible

vulnerability to contamination. The Envirocheck search incorporates data derived from

multiple agencies including Environment Agency, British Geological Survey, Natural

England, The Coal Authority and The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

13.2.6 In general the methodology used to define receptor importance/value and the potential

magnitude of change is consistent with the approach outlined at Section 2.3. Whilst

issues related to local geology are considered only in relation to potential impact on

development design the primary receptor related to potential hydrological and

hydrogeological effects is the local surface water drainage network with regard to both

water quality and flood risk. The sensitivity of receptors is defined as either high,

medium, low or negligible and the magnitude of any change is defined as either large,

medium, small or negligible. By cross-referencing the magnitude of any changes to the

sensitivity of the receptor the level of effect is established as either very substantial,

substantial, slight/moderate, slight, negligible/slight, negligible or no effect.

13.2.7 When applying this approach to impact assessment consideration has been given to the

way in which receptor sensitivity and magnitude of impact relate to site specific

geological, hydrological and hydrogeological conditions. Geological receptors could be

described as having high sensitivity where development impacts could lead to

significant changes in the structural integrity, stratigraphic definition or conservation

value of geological formations. Most geological systems are relatively resistant to

December 2010 367 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

change and can typically be defined as having negligible to low sensitivity. Large

magnitude changes to geological systems might include operations that affect ground

stability or activities that lead to a loss of geological strata that has high conservation

value.

13.2.8 Hydrological systems are typically defined in terms of water quantity, water quality and

their hydro-ecological status. Sensitive hydrological receptors are those in which small

changes in the physical or chemical character of the receptor could result in a major

impact on the capacity of the receptor to support water resource, land drainage,

ecological or amenity functions at the pre-impact level. Hydrological systems that are

insensitive to change are typically those that have a high impact buffering capacity or

already exhibit low physical or chemical quality in comparison to potential changes.

Large magnitude effects might include loss of water resource, a significant change in

flood risk status or a major deterioration in water quality.

13.2.9 The environmental sensitivity of groundwater systems depends upon hydrogeological

characteristics and water resource value of water bearing strata beneath a site.

Groundwater receptors could be considered to have high sensitivity where changes in

their level, flow or chemical quality could lead to a significant deterioration in their water

resource value or the ecological quality of related groundwater supported features. Due

to the typically slow rate of groundwater movement through water bearing strata,

groundwater systems are frequently highly sensitive to activities that could result in a

change in water quality. Changes in the physical nature of groundwater systems are

more likely to be controllable and potentially reversible. Groundwater systems may have

inherent capacity for natural attenuation of adverse hydrochemical impacts. High

magnitude hydrological impacts might include changes that result in a loss of

groundwater supply or significant deterioration in groundwater quality.

Consultations

13.2.10 In response to initial enquires the Environment Agency provided a scoping response by

letter dated 13 th January 2010. Reference is made in the letter to flood risk and the

need to consider the potential effects of climate change to ensure that the proposed

development will not be at risk of flooding or generate additional flood risk elsewhere.

Reference is also made to the preference for utilising SUDS (Sustainable Drainage

Systems) approaches to control and management of surface water runoff.

13.2.11 The Environment Agency was consulted during August 2010 with regard to flood zone

designation and the availability of detailed flood level information for the „Swale‟ and the

extensive surface water drainage network that extends from the south western site

boundary to the estuary. The Agency has provided detailed hydrological information

which has been used to prepare a PPS25 compliant flood risk assessment as included

at Appendix 13.2 (B).

December 2010 368 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

13.3 Baseline Information

Sources of Data

13.3.1 Baseline geological, hydrological and hydrogeological information has been derived

from published maps, texts and associated data sources, a search of multi-agency

records via Envirocheck, consultation with the Environment Agency and the site survey

undertaken in early September 2010. Primary data sources are summarised as follows:

Geological data

British Geological Survey Geological Sheet XX.N.E(21)SE for Kent;

Envirocheck Geological Report; and

Envirocheck Mining & Ground Stability Report.

Hydrological data

Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Landplan data;

Environment Agency Flood Map;

Envirocheck multi-agency hydrological data search;

Environment Agency scoping response and consultation;

Site hydrological survey; and

Site specific flood data.

Hydrogeological data

Environment Agency Groundwater Vulnerability and Source

Protection Zone maps;

Envirocheck multi-agency hydrological data search; and

Site hydrological survey.

13.3.2 Data requirements related to flood risk assessment are determined by guidance

included in PPS25 Development and Flood Risk. Reference has also been made to the

December 2010 369 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

proposed development design and construction details as defined in earlier sections of

this statement.

Current Conditions

13.3.3 The geology of the Standford Hill area including the proposed development site is

shown on British Geological Survey (BGS) geological sheets XX.N.E (21) SE for Kent.

The geology of the area is shown on the geological maps included with the geological

report included at Appendix 13.3.

13.3.4 The site and surrounding area is underlain by London Clay which extends to a

significant depth beneath the site. Geological maps indicate an absence of superficial

cover above the London Clay at the locations of either Turbine 1 or Turbine 2 or any

other component of the proposed development although this will need to be confirmed

by pre-development site investigation. As shown on geological maps at Appendix 13.1

alluvial deposits are present above the London Clay to the immediate south west of the

site coincident with the surface water drainage network that is present within

Eastchurch Marshes.

13.3.5 The London Clay consists of stiff clay with occasional silt deposits that increase in

frequency towards the top of the formation. Stratigraphic analysis indicates that the

London Clay sequence at Standford Hill is approximately 50 m below the stratigraphic

top of the formation and therefore likely to be dominated by stiff clay. The alluvial

deposits to the south west consist of silty/sandy clay with peat.

13.3.6 Ground stability information for the area is summarised in the Mining and Ground

Stability documentation included with the Envirocheck data at Appendix 13.1. The

proposed development site is identified as having no or low hazard associated with

running sand or ground dissolution. However there is moderate risk of compressible

ground and shrinking or swelling of clay. These are typical characteristics of the London

Clay.

13.3.7 The site survey confirmed that there is a significant change in topography between both

proposed wind turbine locations and the nearest surface water drainage channel to the

immediate south west of the site. This change is likely to reflect the south westerly limit

of the alluvial deposits associated with the watercourse. It is therefore considered likely

that there will be no significant depth of alluvium above the London Clay at either

turbine location but this should be confirmed by pre-development site investigation.

13.3.8 The London Clay is designated as „non-aquifer‟ by the Environment Agency. A copy of

the groundwater vulnerability map is included at Appendix 13.1. The London Clay has

very limited capacity for storage or transmission of groundwater except in locally

distributed permeable sand and silt horizons that more commonly occur at the top of the

formation which is not present on the Isle of Sheppey.

December 2010 370 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

13.3.9 The London Clay typically exhibits low vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivity. As

a consequence there is low potential for percolation of any rainwater that infiltrates the

superficial soils and or alluvial cover. There is therefore potential for perching of

infiltrating rainwater within the overlying soil/alluvium.

13.3.10 There are no springs, issues or other groundwater dependent features at or in the

immediate vicinity of the proposed development area. Any groundwater present in the

alluvial deposits will tend to drain under the influence of topographic gradient to the

local surface water drainage system and in particular the surface water drain at the

south western site boundary. The volume of water draining to the watercourse via

shallow groundwater is likely to be small in comparison to the volume that reaches the

watercourse as a result of surface runoff from the same area.

13.3.11 As a non-aquifer there are no source protection zones or licensed groundwater

abstractions from the London Clay at or in the vicinity of the proposed development

area.

13.3.12 The primary receptor for any impacts on shallow alluvial groundwater, if present,

beneath the site is the surface watercourse at the south western site boundary. This

unnamed watercourse forms the north eastern boundary of the drainage system that

extends across Eastchurch Marshes. The location of the watercourse in relation to the

proposed development area is illustrated on Figure 13.1.

13.3.13 The Eastchurch Marshes drainage area is situated at an elevation close to sea level

and subject to relatively frequent tidal inundation from the Swale, a tidal channel that

forms the southern boundary of the Isle of Sheppey. The area is essentially flat with low

topographic gradient from north east to south west. The surface watercourse adjacent

to the site appears to drain in a south easterly direction in the vicinity of Turbine 1

before connecting with a south westerly flowing drain immediately south west of the

sewage works. To the immediate west of the proposed location of Turbine 2 the drain

flows north westwards to connect with the same south westerly flowing drain. The

system ultimately discharges to the Swale approximately 1.5km south of the proposed

development area. The watercourse is shown on Figure 13.2.

13.3.14 Water levels in the Eastchurch Marshes drainage system are maintained at design

levels by a series of sluices that are distributed at key locations across the area. The

nearest sluice to the proposed development area is located immediately adjacent to the

sewage works between the proposed locations for Turbines 1 and 2.

13.3.15 No water quality data is available for the surface watercourse adjacent to the site or any

of the other drains into which it discharges. It is considered likely that water quality in

these drains will tend to be poor due to the presence of peat deposits across the

marshes and the probable generation of acidic runoff. The watercourse also receives

treated sewage effluent from the adjacent sewage works operated by Southern Water

December 2010 371 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

plc which discharges under the terms of an Environment Agency discharge consent.

The primary consideration with regard to surface water quality in the area is prevailing

water resource legislation (i.e. Water Resources Act 1991 – Part II) intended to prevent

deterioration in water quality as a result of development impacts on controlled waters.

13.3.16 According to the current Environment Agency flood zone map for the area part of the

proposed development area, including the location of Turbine 2, is situated in Flood

Zone 3 and therefore at high risk of fluvial or tidal flooding. The area is subject to tidal

flooding in response to extreme tidal levels in the Swale and/or backing-up the

Eastchurch Marshes drainage network due to tide-locking at drainage outfalls. A

detailed description of the current condition of the site in relation to flooding frequency,

depth and extent is included in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) at Appendix 13.2 and

summarised as follows:

Although the site is partly located in Flood Zone 3 (Turbine 2 only)

the current flood map assumes no benefit from the existing coastal

defences which provide a 1 in 200 year standard of protection and

will continue to do so until at least 2070. The site is therefore only at

risk of tidal flooding up to flood events of 200 years frequency if

there is a breach or overtopping of existing defences.

The proposed location of Turbine 2 was subject to historic flooding in

1953 although on the basis of recent topographic data the depth of

flood water is estimated to be less than 0.1m.

The site is not at risk of flooding from surface water runoff,

groundwater flow or overflow from stormwater sewers.

Existing ground level in the vicinity of Turbine 2 is approximately

4.56mAOD. Environment Agency tidal flood data indicates that,

including the relevant allowance for climate change, the peak 1 in

200 year tidal flood level is 4.955mAOD resulting in a maximum

flood depth of 0.395m.

Trends and Projected Future Baseline

13.3.17 No changes in the geological or hydrogeological characteristics of the proposed

development area or surrounding land are anticipated during the lifetime of the

development.

13.3.18 It is likely that, in response to the effects of climate change, the frequency, magnitude

and extent of both fluvial and tidal flooding will increase in future years, within the

lifetime of the proposed development. Current government guidance regarding

appropriate climate change allowances with respect to flood risk is published in PPS25

December 2010 372 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Development and Flood Risk to be applied to all flood risk assessments. Allowance for

the potential effects of climate change has been included in the flood risk assessment

for the proposed development (Appendix 13.2).

Information Gaps

13.3.19 Current information on the shallow geology at the proposed turbine sites is based on

reference to generic data available for geological mapping. To date there has been no

site specific ground investigation. Similarly, there is no site specific information

regarding the presence or level of any perched groundwater in the alluvial deposits

above the London Clay.

13.3.20 It is understood that prior to turbine installation site investigations will be undertaken to

determine shallow geological and hydrogeological conditions at each turbine location.

An absence of site specific geological information has no bearing on assessment of the

potential impact of the proposed development. It may however, influence detailed

foundation design if clay shrinkage has to be accounted for.

13.3.21 In assessing the potential hydrogeological impact of the proposed development it has

been assumed that shallow groundwater may be present and that hydraulic continuity

with the local surface water could exist. The turbine foundation construction programme

has been designed on the basis that shallow groundwater control could be required,

including measures to prevent migration of any potential contaminants. A lack of site

specific groundwater data does not therefore prevent full assessment of all potential

impacts as described in this chapter.

Valuation of the Receptors in the Baseline Condition

13.3.22 Baseline assessment has led to the identification of both the surface water system and

the groundwater system as potential receptors related to any hydrological or

hydrogeological impacts arising from the proposed development. It has been

demonstrated that the area has low hydrogeological sensitivity with no aquifers, source

protection zones or groundwater abstractions at or within the vicinity of the site. Any

shallow perched groundwater present in the area will have no water resource value

and, within the proposed development area, is unlikely to support any ecological or

nature conservation function. It is therefore concluded that value of any perched

groundwater in the area is negligible.

13.3.23 The surface water receptor at the south western site boundary forms part of the

upstream end of the Eastchurch Marshes drainage network. From a water quality

perspective it is considered likely that baseline water quality is relatively poor due to the

impact of agricultural runoff, sewage effluent and the presence of shallow peat deposits

in the area. The watercourse is subject to flooding in response to high tide levels in The

December 2010 373 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Swale and therefore subject to a wide range of water levels and flow rate variations in

response to changes in flood conditions across Eastchurch Marshes. It is therefore

concluded that the surface water receptors adjacent to the site have low importance

from a water quality viewpoint and moderate importance with regard to flood

management and drainage control.

13.4 Topic Specific Design Evolution

13.4.1 The proposed development has been designed in a manner intended to reduce adverse

hydrological and hydrogeological impacts. Details of design decisions related to surface

water and groundwater resources are summarised in the following sections of this

chapter.

Scheme Design and Layout Response to Potentially Significant Effects

13.4.2 The south western part of the site, including the location of Turbine 2 is designated as

Flood Zone 3 and therefore at high risk of flooding. The site layout has been designed

to avoid encroachment into the high risk flood zone wherever possible. With this in mind

the majority of the proposed development including Turbine 1, the electrical control

building, the construction compound and most of the new access track are located

outside Flood Zone 3. In the context of flood zone designation defined in PPS25

Development and Flood Risk the majority of the proposed development is located in an

area at lowest flood risk and therefore consistent with the sequential approach to

development planning.

13.4.3 The development has been designed to avoid the generation of additional surface water

runoff beyond that currently generated from the site. New access tracks are to be

surfaced with clean granular aggregate to promote surface water infiltration in

accordance with the principles of SUDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) as promoted

by the Environment Agency and the local planning authority. Turbine foundations will

incorporate a concrete pad with or without supporting piles. The concrete pad will be

established approximately 0.5m below existing ground level and reinstated to ground

level with soils/sub-soils. As a consequence there will be no change in the rainfall runoff

characteristics of ground above the foundations and no increase in runoff from the site.

Construction Specification Response to Potentially Significant Effects

13.4.4 The proposed construction compound is to be located outside the flood zone to

minimise risk of flooding of vulnerable equipment during the construction programme.

Turbine foundation construction will require excavation through any alluvium present

and into the top of the underlying London Clay. Throughout this process standard

pollution prevention measures will be implemented to prevent migration of sediment or

December 2010 374 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

any other potential contaminants from the site to the surface water or perched

groundwater systems. The same measures will be applied to decommissioning of the

development at completion of its operational life.

Operational Controls Response to Potentially Significant Effects

13.4.5 Once operational the proposed development will have no significant impact on geology,

hydrology or hydrogeology at the site or surrounding area. Specific operational controls

in respect of geology, hydrology and hydrogeology are considered unnecessary.

13.5 Predicted Significant Effects of the Scheme

13.5.1 This assessment has demonstrated that the proposed development will have no effect

on local geology and that once operational the development will have no effect on local

groundwater resources. During the construction and decommissioning programs

proposed pollution control measures have the capacity to ensure that there is no

adverse impact and therefore negligible effect on local surface water or groundwater

quality. The development is designed such that vulnerable equipment is located outside

the high risk flood zone and that there will be no increase in the volume of rainfall runoff

from the site. The flood risk assessment has demonstrated that the construction of

Turbine 2 in the flood zone will result in a loss of up to 8m 3 of flood storage in Flood

Zone 3. As discussed at Section 8 of the flood risk assessment loss of such a small

volume of storage in a tidal flooding environment will have negligible effect on local

flood risk and, as detailed in the PPS25 Practice Guide section 5.28, would not normally

require replacement with compensatory storage. It is therefore concluded that all

potentially adverse hydrological and hydrogeological impacts would be fully mitigated by

the proposed development design.

13.6 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

13.6.1 The proposed development design and layout, incorporating measures to minimise

runoff generation and prevent migration of potential contaminants, fully mitigates

significant potential geological, hydrological and hydrogeological impacts that could

result from the development. In addition the design of the turbines and infrastructure will

ensure that they are not at risk from flooding. No further mitigation measures are

proposed.

13.7 Assessment of Residual Significant Effects

13.7.3 The only residual effect of the proposed development on local geology, hydrology or

hydrogeology is the loss of flood zone storage that would occur at the location of

December 2010 375 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Turbine 2. The magnitude of any change in storage is negligible and the loss of storage

will have no observable effect on flood risk at the site or the surrounding area. As the

magnitude of change is negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is low it is

concluded that there would be no effect on flood storage. There are therefore no

residual significant effects.

13.7.4 Account has been taken of the potential cumulative effect of multiple loss of small

volumes of flood storage. No evidence has been found of any other activity or

development or any other aspect of the proposed development that would result in

further loss of flood storage within the flood zone. It is therefore concluded that there is

no evidence to indicate potential for any cumulative geological, hydrological or

hydrogeological effects. There will be no residual effects and therefore no significant

effects in terms of this assessment.

13.8 References

DCLG (2010) PPS25: Development and Flood Risk

DCLG (2009) PPS25 Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide Companion

Environment Agency (2010) Groundwater Protection Policy (GP3)

December 2010 376 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 377 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

14 Shadow Flicker

14.1 Introduction and Overview

14.1.1 Under certain combinations of geographical position, times of day and year, wind speed

and wind direction, the sun may pass behind the rotor and cast a shadow over

neighbouring buildings‟ windows. When the blades rotate, and the shadow passes a

window, to a person within that room the shadow appears to flick on and off; this effect

is known as shadow flicker. It occurs only within buildings where the flicker appears

through a window opening and only buildings within 130 degrees either side of north

relative to a turbine can be affected. Shadow flicker occurs only when wind turbines are

operational and therefore only this phase of development has been assessed.

14.1.2 This chapter summarises the findings of the shadow flicker assessment undertaken by

TNEI Services Ltd for the proposed HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development. The

shadow flicker report is included in full in Appendix 14.1.

14.2 Methodology

14.2.1 Information specific to shadow flicker may be found in The Companion Guide to

Planning Policy Statement PPS22 Renewable Energy. The Companion Guide states:

„Although problems caused by shadow flicker are rare, for sites where existing

development may be subject to this problem, applicants for planning permission for

wind turbine installations should provide an analysis to quantify the effect.‟

14.2.2 Within the UK there is no standard for the assessment of shadow flicker and there are

no guidelines on what exposure levels would be acceptable. Therefore, there are no

recognised criteria against which the significance of shadow flicker effects can be

assessed. The Planning Policy Statement 22 Companion Guide states that:

„Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be

affected at these latitudes in the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their

southern side…. Flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor

diameters of a turbine.‟

14.2.3 The shadow flicker assessment has been based on two 82 m rotor diameter and 80 m

hub height wind turbines. As such it represents a worst case scenario with the area

potentially susceptible to shadow flicker a region up to 820 m from each turbine (10 x 82

m) and 130 degrees either site of north. Eight representative buildings satisfied both

criteria and were chosen for analysis. Modelling using specialist software (Windfarm)

December 2010 378 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

was used to predict the likely incidences of shadow flicker at the chosen assessment

location.

14.3 Baseline Information

Sources of Data

14.3.1 The study area was surveyed and buildings susceptible to shadow flicker were

identified. The site is surrounded by the three HM Prisons of Elmley, Swaleside and

Standford Hill. The area to the west and south of the site is rural with scattered

dwellings. A desk based study followed by a site survey identified eight buildings which

were chosen to be representative of the buildings theoretically susceptible to shadow

flicker.

14.3.2 The orientations of the elevation(s) of the buildings which face the wind turbines were

recorded, as well as all windows from which the proposed wind turbines may be viewed.

Dimensions and elevations of the windows were estimated and aspects were measured

using the specialist software WindFarm.

Current Conditions

14.3.3 Figure 14.1 shows the assessment locations in relation to the proposed wind turbine

locations. The area potentially susceptible to shadow flicker is shown in red.

Figure 14.1 Shadow Flicker Assessment Locations

December 2010 379 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

14.3.4 Buildings within the study area are located to the north and east of the proposed

turbines and orientated in a variety of directions. Not all rooms within buildings located

within the study areas have windows affording views of the proposed wind turbines. All

assessed properties have windows with views towards the turbines. While the

assessment did not take into account potential visual obstructions such as the HM

Prison‟s wall or tree cover the existence of these will act to reduce the impact of shadow

flicker at a number of receptors.

Trends and Projected Future Baseline

14.3.5 The consented planning application for an additional building at Groves Farm was

considered. The building in consideration (not built yet) would be located to the north of

the assessed (i.e. existing) Groves Farm building and as shown on Figure 14.1 of

Appendix 14.1.

14.3.6 No other buildings are known to be proposed within the study area and therefore no

further changes to the baseline are anticipated.

Information Gaps

14.3.7 An appropriate sample of eight buildings was assessed as being representative of those

located around the proposed development. Some window dimensions and orientations

have been estimated.

14.3.8 The assessment has been based on worst case with no account of obstructions that will

screen views of the proposed turbines or of weather conditions which would reduce the

incidences of shadow flicker.

Valuation of the Receptors in the Baseline Condition

14.3.9 When considering the impacts of shadow flicker, dwellings are considered to be of high

sensitivity, workplaces are considered to be of medium sensitivity and unoccupied

buildings, such as agricultural storage buildings, are considered to be of low sensitivity.

Whilst closer receptors may be expected to experience higher shadow flicker hours per

year, the importance of each receptor within the study area in this assessment is

considered to be equal.

December 2010 380 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

14.4 Topic Specific Design Evolution

14.4.1 Potential shadow flicker impact was considered at an early stage in the project. Whilst

the turbine layout was designed in order to minimise environmental impacts on the

surrounding amenities, potential shadow flicker effect was not a determinant factor in

designing the proposed turbine layout.

14.5 Predicted Significant Effects of the Scheme

14.5.1 Table 14.1 summarises the occurrence of shadow flicker at the most affected window at

each assessment location.

Table 14.1 Maximum Theoretical Shadow Flicker Occurrence at Each Assessment

Location

Assessment Location

Frequency of

Shadow

Occurrence

(days/year)

Max Hours

Shadow

per Day

Mean Hours of

Shadow per

Day

Total

Theoretical

Hours per

Year

H1 – HM Prison building west

of Elmley Prison‟s wall

H2 – HM Prison building within

Elmley Prison

H3 – HM Prison building

within Swaleside Prison

H4 – HM Prison building within

Standford Hill Prison

H5 – HM Prison building within

Standford Hill Prison

H6 – HM Prison building within

Standford Hill Prison

H7 – HM Prison building within

Standford Hill Prison

189 1.43 0.93 175.4

180 1.14 0.72 130

59 0.58 0.42 25

120 0.68 0.56 66.8

75 1.08 0.89 66.9

95 0.68 0.57 54.1

73 0.67 0.59 43.4

H8 – Groves Farm 0 0 0 0

December 2010 381 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

14.5.2 Under worst case conditions, the maximum theoretical occurrence of shadow flicker

amounts to 175.4 hours per year, experienced at the HM prison building west of Elmley

Prison‟s wall (H1).

14.5.3 The instances of shadow flicker will always be less than that predicted by the model as

these are based on the worst case scenario. The occurrence of shadow flicker is only

possible during the operation of the wind turbines (i.e. when the rotor blades are

turning) and when the sky is clear enough to cast shadows.

14.5.4 It is important to consider the following facts when making an assessment:

climatic conditions dictate that the sun is not always shining.

Regional Met Office data gives actual sunshine hours for the

„England South East & Central South” region to be 36% of total

daylight hours 22 . Cloud cover during other times may obscure the

sun and prevent shadow flicker occurrence. While some shadow

may still be cast under slightly overcast conditions, no shadow at all

would be cast when heavy cloud cover prevails. It is considered that

weather conditions will reduce actual occurrence of shadow flicker

by at least half, compared to calculated levels.

objects such as trees or walls may surround windows and obscure

the view of the turbines and hence prevent shadow flicker.

during operation, the turbine rotors automatically orientate

themselves to face the prevailing wind direction. This means the

turbine rotors will not always be facing the affected window, and in

fact will sometimes be „side-on‟ to the window. Very little of the blade

movement would be visible during such occurrences and therefore

the potential for shadow flicker is reduced.

the turbines will not operate for 100% of daylight hours. During

periods of very low wind speed or very high wind speed or

maintenance shut-downs, the rotors do not turn. During such

periods shadow flicker is not possible. The British Wind Energy

Association (now RenewableUK) estimates that turbines will operate

in the UK between 70 to 85% of the time 23 .

14.5.5 Consideration of the above factors leads to the conclusion that the level of shadow

flicker will be less than the predicted levels.

22 Met Office Data from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/ (Last accessed 09/09/2010)

1592.1 actual sunshine hours per year/4380 daylight hours per year = 36%

23 RenewableUK web-page http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html (Last accessed 09/09/2010)

December 2010 382 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

14.5.6 The possibility that shadow flicker could induce photosensitive epilepsy has also been

considered. It has been demonstrated that the frequency at which shadow flicker would

occur at this site (up to 1.5 Hertz) is significantly less than the frequency at which

photosensitive epilepsy is usually triggered (between 5 and 30 Hertz). While some

people are sensitive at higher frequencies, it is uncommon to have photosensitivity

below 2.5 Hertz and consequently shadow flicker caused by this development is

predicted to have no adverse health effects.

Cumulative Effects

14.5.7 The potential for cumulative shadow flicker occurrence has been investigated. Shadow

flicker is predicted to occur from more than one turbine at some of the prisons buildings.

However, the potential shadow flicker periods from the different turbines would not

overlap and as such there is no predicted cumulative effect.

14.6 Mitigation Measures

14.6.1 Although there are no UK guidelines which quantify what exposure levels would be

acceptable, the theoretical duration of shadow flicker at some of these windows is

relatively high. Therefore, where particular combinations of circumstances arise that

increase the potential for nuisance (particularly where rooms affected are in regular

occupancy and the effect proves to be a frequent occurrence in reality), mitigation may

be required to reduce the level of exposure to acceptable levels.

14.6.2 Shadow flicker effects are not predicted to be experienced at any location beyond the

prison complex due to the orientations and separation distances involved.

14.6.3 Proposed mitigation for this scheme would be through the adoption of a Shadow Flicker

Mitigation Protocol. Such a protocol can be imposed as a planning condition, detailing

that the wind turbines should operate in accordance with a shadow flicker mitigation

scheme, agreed with NOMS and which would be submitted to and approved by the

Local Planning Authority prior to the operation of the proposed wind turbines. BERR's

Onshore Wind Energy Planning Conditions Guidance Note (2007) suggests the

following condition:

'The operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the approved shadow

flicker mitigation protocol unless the Local Planning Authority gives its prior written

consent to any variation.'

14.6.4 The protocol would set out the procedures to investigate and measure shadow flicker

effects leading to the implementation of mitigation measures as required. Effective

forms of mitigation will vary to suit the specific circumstances but may include: window

December 2010 383 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

screening (with shutters, curtains or blinds); planting or constructing screening; or

operational controls.

14.6.5 In the case of operational controls a specific turbine (or both turbines) could be

programmed to shutdown at times when modelling identifies that shadow flicker

effects are possible and the sun is bright enough to cast nuisance shadows.

Shutdown would be triggered where solar sensors fitted to each turbine to

monitor light intensity recognise that light levels are sufficiently high to potentially

cause incidences of shadow flicker and this coincides with a period of potential shadow

flicker occurrence.

14.7 Assessment of Significant Residual Effects

14.7.1 Assessment has identified that potential shadow flicker effects will not occur beyond the

prison complex due to the separation distances involved. At some locations within the

prison complex under some meteorological conditions and for a certain proportion of the

time, there is the potential for shadow flicker to occur. Actual shadow flicker occurrence

will be less than that predicted. Proposed mitigation for this scheme would be a Shadow

Flicker Mitigation Protocol. Adoption of this protocol will result in their being no residual

effects as a result of shadow flicker generated by the proposed wind turbines.

14.8 References

ODPM (2005) Planning for Renewable Energy A Companion Guide to Planning Policy

Statement PPS22 Renewable Energy, HMSO.

National Society for Epilepsy (2007) Information on Epilepsy: Photosensitive Epilepsy

Clarke A.D (1991) A Case of Shadow Flicker/Flashing: Assessment and Solution, Open

University.

Harding, G.F.A., Harding, P. and Wilkins A.J. (2008) Wind turbines, flicker and

photosensitive epilepsy: Characterising the flashing that may precipitate seizures and

optimising guidelines to prevent them. Epilepsia. Volume 49 Issue 6, Pages 1095 –

1098.

BERR (2007) Onshore Wind Energy Planning Conditions Guidance Note, HMSO

December 2010 384 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 385 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

15 Socio-Economics

15.1 Introduction and Overview

15.1.1 This chapter considers socio-economic (including recreation and tourism) effects

Methodology.

15.1.2 Each of the above areas is discussed in turn within this chapter and consideration is

given to any potential effects within the respective sub-section. Any potentially

significant effects are highlighted and appropriate mitigation measures identified. The

significance of any residual effects is also considered.

15.1.3 Published guidance on the methodology for assessment of these effects is not

available. The assessment has therefore been based on a desk-based study, taking

into account relevant legislation and publications where appropriate.

15.1.4 In general, the assessment of effects follows the methodology described in Chapter 2

of this ES and as detailed in Table 1 of Chapter 2. Effects that are described as Very

Substantial, Very Substantial/Substantial or Substantial are considered to be significant

in terms of the EIA Regulations. All other effects are not considered to be significant.

15.2 Baseline Information

Socio-Economic Effects

15.2.1 The proposed HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development would be located in Kent,

within the Local Authority administrative area of SBC. The 2001 Census population

figure for the SBC area is 122,801, with 49,257 households 24 . SBC‟s population

estimate for 2008 shows a population increase in the area to 131,910 25 .

15.2.2 The Office for National Statistics figures for 2004 show that 59,013 people were of

working age and were economically active in the Swale area. Wholesale & retail trade,

repair of motor vehicles, manufacturing and real estate were the main sources of

24 Online document [accessed 6 th October 2010] http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/

25

Online document [accessed 5 th October 2010]:

https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/facts-and-figures/sae-3-2008-wards.pdf

December 2010 386 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

employment in 2004 (totalling approximately 46% of the population in employment) 26 .

Construction, transport storage & communication and health & social work were also

large sources of employment, totalling a further 26% of the population in employment.

15.2.3 The Kent County Council unemployment rate in August 2010 was estimated to be 2.8%

and specifically for SBC, was estimated to be 3.4%, which are both slightly below the

national rate of 3.6% 27 .

15.2.4 The proposed development site is located within HMP Standford Hill. Employment

within the prison would not be affected by the proposal and is not considered further

within this assessment.

Recreation and Tourism

15.2.5 The proposed development site is located within the grounds of HMP Standford Hill to

the south of the village of Eastchurch on the Isle of Sheppey. It is bordered by prison

buildings to the north and east and agricultural land to the south and west. The

Sheppey Prison Cluster is located on high ground above the Eastchurch Marshes. The

buildings formed part of a former military airfield and include hangers, a former aircraft

factory and various workshops, as well as modern purpose built prison accommodation.

15.2.6 To the south of the site, the land is open and flat, with the Eastchurch Marshes

stretching down to the edge of The River Swale. The marshland extends across the

whole of the southern half of the Isle of Sheppey. Much of the area to the south of the

island is used for pastoral farming.

15.2.7 The small village of Eastchurch lies to the immediate north of HMP Standford Hill, with

the holiday resort of Leysdown-on-Sea to the east and the small town of Minster to the

northwest. The largest town on the island is Sheerness which is located in the

northwest corner of the island. Isolated farm and residential properties are scattered to

the north, northeast, and northwest of the site, where the higher level farmland sits

above the lower lying marshes.

15.2.8 The Isle of Sheppey is a popular holiday destination with caravan parks and holiday

homes located along the north coast. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

manages a reserve at Elmley Marshes, a small part of the National Nature Reserve

managed by Elmley Conservation Trust.

26 Online document [accessed 7 th October 2010]: http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/

27

Online document [accessed 5 th October 2010]:

https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/facts-and-figures/Unemployment/un08-2010.pdf

December 2010 387 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

15.2.9 In addition to the villages and towns mentioned above, the coastline, The River Swale

and marshland, specific recreational and tourist attractions on the Isle of Sheppey

include:

Minster – The Isle of Sheppey‟s highest point with views across the

island. Minster Leas beach is a popular windsurfing spot. Minster

Abbey also provides a tourist attraction on Sheppey.

Muswell Manor at Leysdown – important in aviation history with

many pioneering aviators visiting during the early 1900‟s including

Charles Rolls and the Wright brothers. The Manor is now a holiday

park which attracts tourists to the Leysdown area.

15.2.10 There are no Public Rights of Way (PROW) across the proposed development site. The

nearest PROW is approximately 500m to the southeast.

15.3 Topic Specific Design Evolution

Scheme Layout Response to Potentially Significant Effects

15.3.1 No specific changes to the design layout have been incorporated as a result of the

effects described in this chapter, with the exception of recreational and tourism visual

effects. The design of the HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development has evolved

over a number of months to accommodate the findings of the Landscape and Visual

assessment process. Views of the turbines have been greatly reduced by mitigation in

the form of careful consideration of views throughout the design process. The original

proposal for three turbines was reduced to two, to minimise the extent of the visual

influence across the marshes. In addition, the proposed turbines are of a standard

design which has already been developed to reduce visual impact in the landscape.

Typically, wind turbines in the UK are finished in an off-white or grey colour. The final

turbine colour will be selected and agreed with the LPA to minimise landscape and

visual effects.

Construction Specification Response to Potentially Significant Effects

15.3.2 The effects described in this chapter do not require any changes to the construction

specification.

Operational Controls Response to Potentially Significant Effects

Socio Economics

December 2010 388 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

15.3.3 The socio-economics effects described in this chapter do not require any changes to

the operation controls specification at the design stage.

Recreation and Tourism

15.3.4 The recreation and tourism effects described in this chapter do not require any changes

to the operation controls specification at the design stage.

15.4 Predicted Significant Effects of the Scheme

Socio-economics

15.4.1 The construction of the proposed development would result in a small direct positive

economic benefit for local service companies (e.g. cafes, hotels, shops, security,

consultants) during the construction phase. Contractors will be encouraged to utilise

local companies and the principal main contractor will be encouraged to use local

suppliers wherever possible.

15.4.2 During operation, the proposed development would be unmanned and its performance

automatically monitored from a centralised control room which would be off site. A staff

of two maintenance engineers is envisaged, depending on the turbine manufacturer

selected during the tendering process. It is likely that these would be part-time at the

development, also operating and maintaining other wind energy projects in the area.

15.4.3 As a result, effects resulting from the proposed development on socio-economic

conditions are considered to be negligible and not significant.

Recreation and Tourism

15.4.4 The principal impact of the proposed development on tourists and recreational users

would be its visual impact. Views of the wind turbines would be experienced by a range

of recreational receptors within the study area, including walkers, cyclists and those

engaged in other outdoor pursuits such as sailing and those using trains on the

Sheerness Line. These receptors are considered to be of high sensitivity. The principal

visual receptors as assessed in the Landscape and Visual Effects chapter are as

follows:

Walkers on the Saxon Shore Way;

Walkers on local footpaths;

Birdwatchers at Elmley nature Reserve;

December 2010 389 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Birdwatchers at Oare Nature Reserve;

Birdwatchers at Capel Fleet; and

Local Road Users.

15.4.5 Potential visual effects during construction, operation and decommissioning are

discussed in detail in Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual Effects. No Significant visual

effects arising from the construction/decommissioning of the wind turbine development

are predicted.

15.4.6 Visual effects during operation will be principally limited to wind turbines themselves

given their scale and height and there will be very limited effects arising from the

associated access roads and control building. Operational visual effects that are

anticipated to be significant in EIA terms and that relate to recreation and tourism are

summarised below:

Visual effects of substantial adverse significance have been

identified from the North Kent Marshes SLA within 2km of the

proposed development where views of the wind turbines will be

available; and

Visual effects on users of PROW within 2km of the turbines (ZS46

and ZS15).

15.4.7 There is currently little information available regarding the impact of wind turbine

developments on tourism and little research has been conducted regarding the potential

for such developments to affect the attractiveness of an area for tourism or the potential

attractiveness of wind turbine development sites to tourists. As such, it is therefore

necessary to rely on public opinion polls.

15.4.8 A survey on behalf of Friends of the Lake District (part of the Campaign to Protect Rural

England), found that two existing and one proposed wind farm in the Lake District

region neither encouraged nor discouraged visitors from returning to the area. The

survey stated „the vast majority of visitors (75%) said that increases in the number of

turbines in the next few years would not have any effect on them visiting in the future.‟

15.4.9 In Scotland, a Mori poll was undertaken in 2002 regarding wind farms in the Argyll area

and found that 91% of those interviewed said that the presence of wind farms in Argyll

would make no difference to whether they would visit the area in future. The poll

concluded that wind farms „are not seen as having a detrimental effect […] and would

not deter tourists from visiting the area in the future.‟

15.4.10 More recently a report to the Scottish Government investigated the potential number of

tourists in Scotland that would be affected by wind energy developments, the reactions

December 2010 390 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

of those tourists affected and the economic impact of those reactions. The study

involved a large-scale internet survey of attitudes and values of current and potential

tourists as well as conducting direct interviews at tourist spots in the vicinity of

operational or proposed wind farms. In total three quarters of tourists considered wind

energy developments to have either a positive or neutral impact on the landscape. Of

tourists surveyed who had seen a wind farm in the local area, 93 to 99% suggested that

the experience would have no impact on their decision to return to that area or Scotland

as a whole. The report considered whether meeting targets on renewable energy

generation would significantly impact Scotland‟s ability to meet tourism targets and

concluded that „the effects are so small that, providing planning and marketing are

carried out effectively, there is no reason why the two are incompatible‟.

15.4.11 The proposed development is not expected to have a negative impact on tourism and

the economic value of this sector in the area. It is unknown to what extent visitors may

be attracted to the proposed development, however the actual site is not publicly

accessible as it is part of land owned by the Ministry of Justice. However, it is unlikely

that visitors would be attracted to the area specifically to view the wind turbines. People

already in the area may visit the vicinity of the site to inspect the turbines, leading to a

minor increase in traffic, and potentially parking requirements, however, it is not

possible to estimate to what extent these might be.

15.4.12 There are not expected to be any impacts on leisure facilities in the area. With regards

to other recreational activities, for example play areas, no impact is expected, as all are

outside the immediate vicinity and are not dependent on visual amenity.

15.4.13 Overall, with the exception of the significant visual effects predicted, effects on

tourism and recreation as a result of the proposed development are considered to be

negligible and not significant.

15.5 Mitigation Measures

15.5.1 No mitigation measures are required in relation to socio economic effects. Mitigation

measures associated with the visual effects of recreation and tourism are covered in

detail within Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual Effects.

15.5.2 During operation, the landscape surrounding the wind energy development will be

designed to enhance the edge of HMP Standford Hill site. Native grassland species will

be seeded/reinstated in the fields around the turbines and native shrubs/hedgerows will

be planted to soften the built form of the control building and form a natural edge to the

proposed development site.

December 2010 391 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

15.6 Assessment of Residual Effects

15.6.1 No significant residual effects are anticipated for socio economics. Visual effects are

discussed fully within the Landscape and Visual Effects chapter and are summarised in

Tables 9.7 and 9.9. During construction and decommissioning no significant visual

effects are anticipated that would lead to significant socio-economic effects.

15.6.2 During operation of the turbines, the LVIA has identified significant visual effects on:

The North Kent SLA within 2km of the site; and

PROW within 2km of the site (ZS46 and ZS15).

15.6.3 Residual effects for recreation and tourism (limited to visual effects) during operation of

the proposed development will remain unchanged by mitigation. The residual effects will

therefore remain unchanged.

15.7 References

GWEC Statistics 2008:

http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/press_releases/2009/GWEC_Pres

s_Release_-_tables_and_statistics_2008.pdf

Online document [accessed 5 th October 2010]: https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/factsand-figures/Unemployment/un08-2010.pdf

Online document [accessed 6 th October 2010]: http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/

Online document [accessed 5 th October 2010]: https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/factsand-figures/sae-3-2008-wards.pdf

RenewableUK (formerly British Wind Energy Association website) [accessed 1 st July 2010]:

http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/index.asp

“Wind Energy Production in Cold Climates” (ETSU W/11/00452/00/REP)

December 2010 392 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 393 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Annex A

Glossary of Terms

December 2010 394 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Term

Anemometer and the Wind

Vane

AONB

Capacity Factor

CLVIA

Control

Cumulative effects

Cut-in wind speed or startup

wind speed

Cut-out wind speed or

shut-down wind speed

Degree of change

Design Iteration

Explanation

The anemometer and the wind vane are used to measure the speed

and the direction of the wind. The electronic signals from the

anemometer are used by the wind turbine's electronic controller to start

the wind turbine when the wind speed reaches approximately 5 metres

per second (10 knots). The computers stops the wind turbine

automatically if the wind speed exceeds 25 metres per second (50

knots) in order to protect the turbine and its surroundings. The wind

vane signals are used by the wind turbine's electronic controller to turn

the wind turbine against the wind, using the yaw mechanism.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

The amount of energy a turbine generates in a full year divided by the

amount of energy it could produce in a year if it ran at full power

constantly. Turbines in the UK are likely to generate 30% of their full

capacity.

Cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment.

A microprocessor based control of all turbine functions able to

communicate with remote operators.

Additional changes to the landscape or visual amenity caused by the

proposed development in conjunction with other developments

(associated with or separate to it), or actions that occurred in the past,

present or are likely to occur in the foreseeable future. And: The

summation of effects that result from changes caused by a

development in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably

foreseeable actions.

The wind speed at which a wind turbine begins to generate electricity.

The wind speed at which a wind turbine ceases to generate electricity.

A combination of the scale extent and duration of an effect also defined

as „magnitude‟.

Changes to the design of the wind farm layout in response to

continuous feedback about environmental and technical constraints

and opportunities.

EA

EH

EIA

Environment Agency

Government Agency responsible for protection of the environment –

mainly dealing with pollution of air, water and land in England and

Wales. Also manage rivers and coastlines including flood protection,

drainage and water quality.

English Heritage

Government Agency responsible for conservation of cultural heritage

(built and buried) in England.

Environmental Impact Assessment

Assessment of main significant environmental effects of certain

projects conforming to European Directives and UK regulations.

December 2010 395 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

EN

Environmental fit

ES

FRA

English Nature

Government Agency responsible for the protection of Habitats and

Protected Species in England and Wales.

The relationship of a development to identified environmental

opportunities and constraints in its setting.

Environmental Statement

Supporting document to Planning Application providing environmental

information to the planners (in a form suitable for public consumption)

reporting the outcome of the EIA.

Flood Risk Assessment

Gearbox

Generator

GLVIA

Heritage asset

High Speed Shaft

HMP

Hydraulic Brake

Hydrogeology

Hydrology

Indirect effects

JNCC

Kilowatt (kW)

Kilowatt-hour (kWh)

The gearbox transfers power from the low speed shaft to the high

speed shaft making it turn at approximately 50 times faster than the

low speed shaft

The electrical generator is a so-called asynchronous generator. On an

Enercon E82 2.3MW the maximum electricity generated is 2300

kilowatts (kW) or 2.3 Mega Watts (2.3MW).

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second

Edition, published jointly by the Landscape Institute and Institute of

Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002.

A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively

identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in

planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the

historic environment. They include „designated‟ heritage assets (such

as Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings) and assets identified

by the local planning authority during the process of decision-making or

through the plan-making process (including local listing).

The high speed shaft rotates with approximately. 1,500 revolutions per

minute (RPM) and drives the electrical generator

Her Majesty‟s Prison Service

Used to stop and start the rotor dependant on wind conditions

Study of groundwater resources

Study of surface water resources

Not a direct result of the development, but are often produced away

from it or as a result of a complex pathway. Also used by some

practitioners to describe visual effects in respect of effects on setting

issues.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee - statutory adviser to

Government on UK and international nature conservation

One thousand watts of electricity

One thousand watt hours

December 2010 396 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Landscape capacity

Landscape character

Landscape constraints

Landscape designations

Landscape effects

Landscape elements

Landscape features

Landscape fit

Landscape patterns

Landscape quality (or

condition)

Landscape resource

Landscape sensitivity

Landscape value

LCA

Level of Effect

Low Speed Shaft

LVIA

The degree to which a particular landscape character type or area is

able to accommodate change without unacceptable adverse effects on

its character. Capacity is likely to vary according the type and nature of

change being proposed.

A distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs consistently

in a particular type of landscape and how this is perceived by people. It

reflects particular combinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation,

land use and human settlement. It creates the particular sense of place

of different areas of the landscape.

Components of the landscape resource such as views or mature trees

recognised as constraints to development. Often associated with

landscape opportunities.

Areas protected either by law or through planning policies for reason of

their landscape attributes or general amenity e.g. National Parks.

Change in the elements, characteristics, character, and qualities of the

landscape as a result of development.

A component part of the landscape, such as trees, woodland and

ponds.

Prominent eye-catching elements, e.g. Wooded hill tops and church

spires.

The relationship of a development to identified landscape opportunities

and constraints in its setting.

Spatial distributions of landscape elements combining to form patterns,

which may be distinctive, recognisable and describable e.g. hedgerows

and stream patterns.

Based on judgements about the physical state of the landscape, and

about its intactness, from visual, functional, and ecological

perspectives. It also reflects the state of repair of individual features

and elements which make up the character in any one place.

The combination of elements that contribute to landscape context,

character, and value.

The sensitivity of a landscape is defined by consideration of factors

such as value, quality / condition and capacity of the landscape relative

to a particular type of proposed development.

The relative value or importance attached to a landscape or view;

(often as a basis for designation) which expresses national or local

consensus, because of its quality, including perceptual aspects such

as scenic beauty, cultural associations or other conservation issues.

Landscape Character Area – usually defined by a landscape character

assessment, and usually occurs within and/or may contain LCTs and

relates to particular geographical locations.

Determined through the combination of sensitivity of the receptor and

the proposed magnitude of change brought about by the development.

The low speed shaft of the wind turbine connects the rotor hub to the

gearbox. The shaft contains pipes for the hydraulics system to enable

the aerodynamic brakes to operate

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

December 2010 397 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Magnitude

Mechanical Brake

Megawatt (MW)

Mitigation

Nacelle

A combination of the scale, extent and duration of an effect also

defined as „degree of change‟.

A mechanical disc brake which can be applied mechanically to stop the

turbine in emergencies or when being serviced

One Million Watts

Measures including any process, activity, or design to avoid, reduce,

remedy or compensate for adverse environmental impact or effects of

a development.

The body/shell/casing of a wind turbine. The nacelle contains the key

components of the wind turbine, including the gearbox, and the

electrical generator. Service personnel may enter the nacelle from the

tower of the turbine..

PfR

Partnerships for Renewables Development Company Limited

Photomontage

Positive or Negative Types

of Landscape Effect

Positive or Negative Types

of Visual Effect

Power Coefficient

Power curve

PROW

RAMSAR

An illustration of a computer generated perspective model of the

proposed development that has been superimposed or combined onto

a photograph from a recorded location

The landscape and visual effects may be positive, neutral or negative.

In landscape terms – a positive effect would require development to

add to the landscape quality and character of an area. Neutral

landscape effects would include low or negligible changes that may be

considered as part of the „normal‟ landscape processes such as

maintenance or harvesting activities. A negative effect may include the

loss of landscape elements such as mature trees and hedgerows as

part of construction leading to a reduction in the landscape quality and

character of an area.

In visual terms – positive or negative effects are less easy to define or

quantify and require a subjective consideration of a number of factors

affecting the view, which may be positive, neutral or negative. Opinions

as to the visual effects of wind energy developments vary widely,

however it is not the assumption of this assessment that all change,

including substantial levels of change is a negative experience. Rather

this assessment has considered factors such as the visual composition

of the landscape in the view together with the design and composition,

which may or may not be reasonably, accommodated within the scale

and character of the landscape as perceived from the receptor

location.

The ratio of the power extracted by a wind turbine to the power

available in the wind stream.

A chart showing a wind turbine's power output across a range of wind

speeds.

Public Right of Way

Site of Importance (International) to Water Birds

Designated under The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar,

Iran, in 1971 and brought into force in Europe by Directive 79/409/EEC

on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds Directive)

December 2010 398 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Rated Power Output

Capacity

Rated wind speed

Receptor

Red List

Renewables Obligation

(RO)

RenewableUK

Residential Visual Amenity

Residual effects

Rotor

Rotor Blades

Setting (cultural heritage)

SBC

The rated power output is the maximum amount of electricity

generated at a set (rated) wind speed. The Enercon E82 2.3MW has a

rating capacity of 2300kw at wind speeds of 13 metres per second

(m/s) or over. The turbine will „cut in‟ at 2.5m/s and „cut-out‟ at 34m/s.

The lowest wind speed at which the rated output power of a wind

turbine is produced.

Physical landscape resource, special interest or viewer group that will

experience an effect.

Red List - Birds of conservation concern

Birds of conservation concern assesses the status of all the UK's

regularly occurring birds. The status of birds in the UK is regularly

assessed by a partnership of the UK's leading conservation

organisations

The renewables obligation requires licensed electricity suppliers to

supply a certain proportion of their total sales in Great Britain from

electricity generated by renewable sources. The electricity supplier will

need to show evidence of compliance. This can be via Renewables

Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and/or the payment of a buyout price.

Further information about the Renewables Obligation can be found at:

www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_2.2.htm

Trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables

industries

A collective term describing the views and general amenity of a

residential property, relating to the garden area and main drive, views

to and from the house and any garden area and the relationship of the

outdoor garden space to the house.

Potential environmental effects, remaining after mitigation.

The rotor blades and the hub. The Enercon E82 2.3MW has a rotor

diameter of 82m.

The rotor blades capture the wind and transfer its power to the rotor

hub. Again, using the example of a Enercon E82, there are 3 blades of

41 metres in length which are designed much like a wing of an

aeroplane.

The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent

is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.

Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to

the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that

significance or may be neutral.

Swale Borough Council

Scale Indicators

Landscape elements and features of a known or recognisable scale

such as houses, trees and vehicles that may be compared to other

objects where the scale of height is less familiar, to indicate there true

scale.

December 2010 399 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Sense of Place (genius

loci)

Significant Effects

Sluice

SNH

Source protection zone

SPA

SSSI

Stratigraphic

The essential character and spirit of and area: genius loci literally

means „sprit of the place‟.

It is a requirement of the EIA Regulations to determine the likely

significant effects of the development on the environment which should

relate to the level of an effect and the type of effect. Where possible

significant effects should be mitigated. The significance of an effect

gives an indication as to the degree of importance (based on the

magnitude of the effect and the sensitivity of the receptor) that should

be attached to the impact described. Whether or not an effect should

be considered significant is not absolute and requires the application of

professional judgement. Significant – „noteworthy, of considerable

amount or effect or importance, not insignificant or negligible‟. The

Concise Oxford Dictionary. Those levels and types of landscape and

visual effect likely to have a major or important / noteworthy or special

effect of which a decision maker should take particular note.

A board that can be raised or lowered to control drainage water levels

Scottish Natural Heritage – Statutory advisor on conservation in

Scotland.

Area of land around a licensed groundwater abstraction within which

Environment Agency regulatory controls related to development and

land use are applied

Special Protection Area

Designated (European) Site under the „Habitats Directive‟ (92/43/EEC

on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora)

Site of Specific Scientific Interest

Designated (UK) Site for nature conservation under The Wildlife &

Countryside Act 1981 – as amended by the Countryside & Rights of

Way Act 2000)

Relationship between geological strata in location and age

SUDS

Sustainability

Temporary or permanent

effects

The Office of Gas and

Electricity Markets (Ofgem)

Sustainable Drainage System: surface water drainage systems that

seek to minimize the peak volume of surface runoff and hence reduce

flood risk

The principle that the environment should be protected in such a

condition and to such a degree that ensures new development meets

the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs.

Effects may be considered as temporary or permanent, in the case of

wind energy developments, the application is for a 25 year period after

which the assessment assumes that decommissioning will occur and

that the Proposal Site will be restored. For these reasons the

development is referred to as temporary, long term and reversible.

The Regulator for Britain's gas and electricity industries. Further

information about electricity regulation can be found

at:www.ofgem.gov.uk

December 2010 400 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Time Depth

Tower

Tranquillity

Turbine

Type or Nature of Effect

Visual amenity

Visual dominance

Visual effect

Visual sensitivity

Visualisation

Wind Farm

Wireframe or Wireline

Yaw Mechanism

The „imprint‟ of the past on the present day landscape as a result of

long term interaction between human activity and natural processes.

Time depth enhances our appreciation of how landscapes have

changed through time or survived through continuity.

The tower carries the nacelle and the rotor. Generally, it is an

advantage to have a high tower, since wind speeds increase farther

away from the ground. The Enercon E82 turbine could have a tubular

tower of 80 metres (to the hub). Tubular towers are safer for the

personnel that have to maintain the turbines, as they may use an

inside ladder to get to the top of the turbine. A 100m tower would

weigh about 300 tonnes.

A perceptual description applied to landscape that is perceived to be

relatively more natural, peaceful, and quite when compared to other

areas, which may be visually developed of noisy.

A machine for generating rotary mechanical power from the energy of

a moving force (such as water, hot gas, wind, or steam). A Wind

Turbine converts the force of the wind into energy.

Whether an effect is direct or indirect, temporary or permanent, positive

(beneficial), neutral or negative (adverse) or cumulative.

Value of a particular place in terms of what is seen by visual receptors,

taking account of all available views and their total visual experience.

The assembly of components, which provide and attractive setting or

backcloth for activities, to which value is attached in terms of what is

seen.

A visual effect on properties that in relation to wind energy

developments would be subject to excessive shadow flicker, blocking

of views, or reduction of light and visual intrusion.

A subset of landscape effects and concerned wholly with changes in

visual receptors‟ views and visual amenity of visual receptors resulting

from development.

The sensitivity of visual receptors such as residents, to visual change

proposed by development categorised in accordance with the guidance

provided in the GLVIA.

Computer visualisation, photomontage, or other technique to illustrate

the appearance of the development from a known location.

A group of wind turbines, often owned and maintained by one

company. Also known as a wind power plant.

A computer generated line drawing of the DTM (digital terrain model)

and the proposed development from a known location.

The yaw mechanism uses electrical motors to turn the nacelle with the

rotor against the wind. The yaw mechanism is operated by the

electronic controller which senses the wind direction using the wind

vane. Normally, the turbine will yaw only a few degrees at a time, when

the wind changes its direction.

December 2010 401 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

ZVI – Zone of Visual

Influence or ZTV – Zone of

Theoretical Visibility

Area or zone of visual influence or theoretical visibility of the wind

energy within the study area for the visual assessment, generated by a

computerised model of the development and a digital terrain model of

the landscape.

December 2010 402 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

December 2010 403 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Annex B

References and Further Information

December 2010 404 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

References

Energy Policy and Statistics

Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2007) Meeting the Energy Challenge:

Energy White Paper 2007. Cm 7124.

BERR, UK Renewable Energy Strategy, Consultation, June 2008

Department of Trade and Industry (2007) Energy White Paper – Meeting the Energy Challenge.

Department of Trade and Industry (2006) The Energy Challenge: Energy Review Report 2006.

Department of Trade and Industry (2003) Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future – Creating a Low

Carbon Economy.

DECC 2009. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy. Cm 7686.

DECC 2009. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan. National strategy for climate and energy White

Paper.

Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES) 2010, DECC (2010),

England‟s Regional Renewable Energy Targets: Progress Report, NWEA (2009)

EIA

European Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects

on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC and Directive 2003/35/EC

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales)

Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999 No. 293) as amended (the EIA Regulations);ODPM 1999.

Circular 02/99: Environmental impact assessment.

ODPM 2000. Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to procedures.

DCLG 2006. Amended Circular on Environmental Impact Assessment: A Consultation Paper.

DCLG 2006. Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures: A

Consultation Paper.

DoE 1995. Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects that require Environmental

Assessment.

The Environment Agency (EA) 2002. Handbook for Scoping Projects.

December 2010 405 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

National (excluding Scotland) Policy Specific to Wind Energy Developments

ODPM 2004. Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy

ODPM 2004. Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22

DCLG 2010. Consultation on a Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a

Changing Climate.

DECC 2009. Consultation on draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure (EN-1).

DECC 2009. Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

Other Wind Energy Guidance

BERR 2007. Onshore Wind Energy Planning Conditions Guidance Note: A report for the Renewables

Advisory Board and BERR.

Landscape and Visual

Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002) Guidelines for

Landscape and Visual Assessment, Spon Press

Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Landscape Character Assessment,

Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage

Scottish Natural Heritage, The Scottish Renewables Forum and the Scottish Society of Directors of

Planning (2006) Visual Representation of Windfarms, Scottish Natural Heritage

Scottish Natural Heritage (2001) Guidelines on Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and Small Scale

Hydro Electric Schemes, Scottish Natural Heritage

Scottish Natural Heritage (2009) Assessing the Cumulative Effect of Onshore Wind Energy

(Consultation Draft), Scottish Natural Heritage

ODPM (2005) Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, HMSO

ODPM (2004) Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy, HMSO

ODPM (2004) Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22, HMSO

Swale Borough Council (2008) Swale Borough Local Plan, Swale Borough Council

Swale Borough Council (2005) Swale Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines, Swale

Borough Council

Countryside Agency (2005) Character Map of England Volume 7: South East and London, Countryside

Agency

Kent County Council (2004) The Landscape Assessment of Kent, Kent County Council

December 2010 406 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Land use

Highways Agency, 1993, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Part 8

Hydrology and Flooding

DCLG (2010) PPS25: Development and Flood Risk

Planning Policy Statement PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk (DCLG 2006);

DCLG (2009) PPS25 Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide Companion

PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control (November, 2004);

CIRIA Report C532 Control of water pollution from construction sites (2001);

CIRIA Report C502 Environmental good practice on site;

Environment Agency (2001). Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected

by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention. National Groundwater & Contaminated Land

Centre report NC/99/73

Environment Agency (2010) Groundwater Protection Policy (GP3)

EA PPG 1. General Guide to the Prevention of Water Pollution

EA PPG 2. Above Ground Oil Storage Tans

EA PPG 3. Use and Design of Oil Separators in Surface Water Drainage Systems

EA PPG 5. Works In, Near or Liable to Affect Watercourses

EA PPG 6. Working at Construction and Demolition Sites

EA PPG 25. Development and Flood Risk

Historic Environment

DCLG (2010) Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

English Heritage (2005) Wind Energy and the Historic Environment

Collcutt, S.N. (1999) Journal of Environmental and Planning Law.

Collcutt, S.N. (July 2008) The Settings of Cultural Heritage Features Assessment Principles, Oxford

Archaeological Associates

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (April 2008) draft Heritage Protection Bill

English Heritage (2006) Conservation Principles of Sustainable Management of the Historic

Environment: First Stage Consultation

December 2010 407 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

English Heritage (April 2008), Seeing the History in the View: A Method for Assessing Heritage

Significance Within Views

Collcutt, S.N. (1999) The Setting of Cultural Heritage Features Journal of Environmental and Planning

Law.

Ecology – Habitats

Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005)

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 2006. Guidelines for Ecological Impact

Assessment in the United Kingdom.

JNCC (2007), Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for environmental audit. Joint

Nature Conservation Committee: Peterborough.

ODPM (2005b). Biodiversity and Geological conservation - Statutory obligations and their impact within

the planning system. HMSO, London.

UK BAP 2008 UK and Cornwall Biodiversity Action Plans on www.UKBAP.org.uk

Ornithology

Anon. (1981). The Wildlife & Countryside Act. HMSO, London.

Anon. (1998). UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action Plans. English Nature, Peterborough.

Anon. (1999). UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 3 Action Plans. English Nature, Peterborough.

Band, W., Madders, M. and Whitfield, D.P. (2007) Developing field and analytical methods to assess

avian collision risk at wind farms. In de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds and Wind

Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid.

Bibby, C.J. Burgess, N.D. Hill, D.A. & Mustoe, S.H. (2000). Bird Census Techniques: 2nd edition.

Academic Press, London

Chamberlain, D. Freeman, S, Rehfisch, M, Fox, T. & Desholm, M. (2005). Appraisal of Scottish Natural

Heritage‟s Wind Farm Collision Risk Model and its Application. BTO Research Report 401. British Trust

for Ornithology, Thetford, Norfolk.

Chamberlain, D. E., Rehfisch, M. R., Fox, A. D., Desholm, M., & Anthony, S. J. (2006). The effect of

avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision risk models. Ibis 148: 198-

202.

Crockford, N. J. (1992). A review of the possible impacts of windfarms on birds and other wildlife.

JNCC Report No. 27, JNCC, Peterborough.

Devereux, C.L., Denny, M.J.H. & Whittingham, M.J. (2008). Minimal effects of wind turbines on the

distribution of wintering farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1689-1694.

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R. H. W. (2006). Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148: 29-

42.

December 2010 408 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn, R., Aebischer, N.J., Gibbons, D.W.,

Evans, A., & Gregory, R.D. (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in

the UK, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102: 296-341.

English Nature. (2005). Guidance on assessing ornithological impacts associated with windfarm

developments on the Humber Estuary SPA, Thorne & Hatfield SPA, Hornsea Mere SPA and Lower

Derwent Valley SPA: survey recommendations. English Nature Humber to Pennines Team, North &

East Yorkshire Team and East Midlands Team.

EU (1979). On the Conservation of Wild Birds. Council Directive 79/409/EEC, Brussels.

Fernandez, C. & Azkona, P. (1993). Human disturbance affects parental care of marsh harriers and

nutritional status of nestlings. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 602-608.

Gilbert, G, Gibbons, D.W. & Evans, J. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB, Sandy.

Gill, J.P., Townsley, M. & Mudge, G.P. (1996). Review of the impacts of windfarms and other aerial

structures upon birds. SNH Review 21: 68

Hill, D.A., Hockin, D., Price, D., Tucker, G., Morris, R. and Treweek, J. (1997) Bird disturbance:

improving the quality of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 275-288.

Holt, C.A., Austin, G.E., Calbrade, N.A., Mellan, H., Thewlis, R.M., Hall, C., Stroud, D.A., Wotton, S.R.,

& Musgrove, A.J. (2009). Waterbirds in the UK 2007/8: The Wetland Bird Survey.

BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC, Thetford.

IEEM. (2006). Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute for Ecology

and Environmental Management, Winchester.

Langston, R. H. W. & Pullan, J. D. (2003). Wind farms: an analysis of the effects of wind farms on birds

and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Report on behalf of the

Bern Convention. RSPB Birdlife International.

Leddy, K.L., Higgins, K.F and Naugle, D.E. (1999). Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in

conservation reserve program grasslands. Wilson Bull. 111(1): 100-104.

Leech, D. (2007). The Effect of Climate Change on Birds. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford.

Morrison, M. L. Sinclair, K. C. & Thelander, C. G. (2007). A sampling framework for conducting studies

of the influence of wind energy developments on birds and other animals. In de Lucas, M., Janss,

G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid.

Natural England. (2010). Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds. Natural England

Technical Information Note TIN069. Natural England, Peterborough.

Orloff, S. & Flannery, A. (1996). Avian mortality in Altamont Pass WRA – final report. California Energy

Commission, Sacramento.

Pendlebury, C. (2006). An appraisal of „A review of goose collisions at operating wind farms and

estimation of the goose avoidance rate‟ by Fernley, J., Lowther, S., & Whitfield, P. BTO Research

Report No. 455. BTO Thetford.

Percival, S.M. 1998. Birds and Turbines: managing potential planning issues. Proc. of the 20th BWEA

Conference 1998: pp 345-350.

December 2010 409 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Phillips, J.F. (1994). The effects of a wind farm on the upland breeding bird communities of Bryn Tytli,

mid-Wales: 1993-4. Unpublished report for National Windpower.

Ruddock, M. & Whitfield, D. P. (2007). A review of disturbance distances in selected bird species.

Natural Research, Banchory.

Shepherd, K.B. (2002). Hare Hill Windfarm, New Cumnock, Ayrshire: Breeding bird monitoring 2002.

Reports to Scottish Power plc, Glasgow.

SNH. (2000). Methodology for Assessing the Effects of Wind Farms on Ornithological Interests. SNH

Guidance Note Series.

SNH.(2005). Survey methods for use in assessment of the impacts of proposed onshore wind farms on

bird communities. SNH Guidance Note Series.

SNH. (2006) Assessing significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on birds outwith designated

areas. SNH Guidance Note Series.

SNH. (2009). Guidance on methods for monitoring bird populations at onshore wind farms. SNH

Guidance Note Series.

SNH. (2010a). Guidance & information specific to bird interests: avoidance factors. SNH Guidance

Note Series.

SNH. (2010b). Use of avoidance rates in the SNH wind farm collision risk model. SNH Guidance Note

Series.

SNH. (2010c). Use of avoidance rates in the SNH wind farm collision risk model (update). SNH

Guidance Note Series.

Stroud, D. A., Chambers, D., Cook, S., Buxton, N., Fraser, B., Clement, P., Lewis, P., McLean, I.,

Baker, H., 7 Whitehead, S. (2001) The UK SPA Network: its scope and content. Volume 3: Site

accounts. JNCC, Peterborough.

Thelander, C. G. & Smallwood, K. S. (2007). The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area‟s effects on

birds: a case history. In de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds and Wind Farms: Risk

Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid.

Waite, A (2000). The Kent Red Data Book: A provisional guide to the rare and threatened flora and

fauna of Kent. Kent County Council.

Whitfield, D. P. & Madders, M. (2005). Flight height in the Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus and its

incorporation in wind turbine collision risk modelling. Natural Research Information Note 2. Natural

Research, Banchory.

Williams, I. and Young, A.J. (1997). Trannon Moor ornithological studies. RSPB report to: Powys

County Council, Powys.

Young, A.J. (1999). Trannon Moor Ornithological Survey. Unpublished report, RSPB Wales.

Bats

Long, C. V., J. A. Flint and P. A. Lepper (2010): Insect attraction to wind turbines: does colour play a

role? European Journal of Wildlife Research: in press.

December 2010 410 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Natural England (2009): Bats and onshore wind turbines Interim Guidance, Natural England Technical

Information Note TIN051. Natural England: Peterborough, England.

Altringham, J. D. (2003): British Bats. HarperCollins: London, England.

Baerwald, E. F., D‟Amours, G. H., Klug, B. J. and Barclay, R. M. R. (2008). Barotrauma is significant

cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology, 18: R695-R696.

Cathrine, C. and Spray, S. (2009): Bats and Onshore Windfarms: Site-by-Site Assessment and Post-

Construction Monitoring Protocols. In Practice: 64: 14 – 17.

Cryan, P. M. (2008): Mating behaviour as a Possible Cause of Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines. Journal

of Wildlife Management: 72(3): 845 – 849.

Cryan, P. M. and A. C. Brown (2007): Migration of bats past a remote island offer clues towards the

problem of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Biological Conservation: 139: 1 -11.

Cryan, P. M. and R. M. R. Barclay (2009): Cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines: hypothesis and

predictions. Journal of Mammalogy: 90 (06): 1330 – 1340.

Dietz, C., O. von Helversen and D. Nill (2009): Bats of Britain, Europe and Northwest Africa. A and C

Black Publishers Ltd: London, England.

Bat Conservation Trust 2007, Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines

Rodrigues, L., L. Bach, M.-J. Dubourg-Savage, J. Goodwin & C. Harbusch 2008: Guidelines for

consideration of bats in wind farm projects. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 3 (English version).

UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 51 pp.

Russ, J. (2009): The bats of Britain and Ireland: Echolocation Calls, Sound Analysis and Species

Identification. Alana Ecology: England.

English Nature 2004, Bat Mitigation Guidelines

Bat Conservation Trust, 2007. Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines

Reptiles and Amphibians

English Nature (2004): Reptiles – guidelines for developers. English Nature: Peterborough, England.

Froglife (1999) Advice Sheet 10: An introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for

snake and lizard conservation. Froglife, Peterborough.

December 2010 411 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S. & Jeffcote, M. (2000) Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat or the

Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 143-155.

JNCC (2004) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Reptiles and Amphibians. Joint Nature

Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Carbon

Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology Fourth Report, 2004. Energy Payback

Times http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldsctech/126/12620.htm

RenewableUK, emissions reductions calculations. http://www.bwea.com/edu/calcs.html

Noise

DCLG, 1994. PPG24 Planning and Noise

BS 5228 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites

BS5228: Parts 1 & 2: 2009 „Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open

sites‟.

ETSU-R-97, the Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, Final ETSU-R-97 Report for the

Department of Trade & Industry. UK Noise Working Group, 1997.

BERR 2007. Government statement regarding the findings of the Salford University report into

Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise.

Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, HMSO Department of Transport, 1988.

Environmental Health Criteria 12 – Noise. World Health Organisation, 1980.

ISO 9613-2 „Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of

calculation‟, International Standards Organisation, ISO 9613-2, 1996.

JOR3-CT95-0091 „Development of a Wind farm Noise Propagation Prediction Model‟, Bass J H,

Bullmore A J, Sloth E, Final Report for EU Contract JOR3-CT95-0051, 1998.

Prediction and assessment of wind turbine noise – agreement about relevant factors for noise

assessment from wind energy projects. D Bowdler, AJ Bullmore, RA Davis, MD Hayes, M Jiggins, G

Leventhall, AR McKenzie. Institute of Acoustics, Acoustics Bulletin, Vol 34, No 2 March/April 2009.

Traffic

The Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA), 1993. Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment

of Road Traffic.

December 2010 412 TNEI Services Ltd

HMP Standford Hill Wind Energy Development

Soils

DEFRA 2009. Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites

DEFRA 2009. Safeguarding our Soils, A Strategy for England

Shadow Flicker

National Society for Epilepsy (2007) Information on Epilepsy: Photosensitive Epilepsy

Clarke A.D (1991) A Case of Shadow Flicker/Flashing: Assessment and Solution, Open University.

Harding, G.F.A., Harding, P. and Wilkins A.J. (2008) Wind turbines, flicker and photosensitive epilepsy:

Characterising the flashing that may precipitate seizures and optimising guidelines to prevent them.

Epilepsia. Volume 49 Issue 6, Pages 1095 – 1098.

BERR (2007) Onshore Wind Energy Planning Conditions Guidance Note, HMSO

December 2010 413 TNEI Services Ltd

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 Limited is a private limited company Registered in England and Wales, number 06526742 Registered at Station House, 12 Melcombe Place, London, NW1 6JJ

Environmental Statement - Partnerships for Renewables

Environmental Statement - Partnerships for Renewables ... View more Environmental Statement - Partnerships for Renewables

Delete template?

Save as template ?

Environmental Statement - Partnerships for Renewables Environmental Statement - Partnerships for Renewables