Wheal Jane Wind Turbine - Partnerships for Renewables

PFR (Wheal Jane) Limited 

Wheal Jane Wind Turbine 

Environmental Statement 

Volume 1 – Written Statement 

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 

http://www.pfr.co.uk/whealjane 

Partnership for Renewables is a private limited company | Registered in England and Water, number 06526742 

Registered at 6th Floor, 5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF


Contents 

Volume 1: Written Statement 

1 Introduction 2 

2 The Environmental Impact Assessment process 7 

3 Scheme development and scoping the Environmental Impact 

Assessment 19 

4 Description of the proposed development 28 

5 Planning policy overview 44 

6 Climate change mitigation and other atmospheric emissions 52 

7 Cultural Heritage 56 

8 Ecology 86 

9 Ground Conditions 131 

10 Landscape and Visual 157 

11 Noise 214 

12 Ornithology 232 

13 Traffic and Transport 267 

14 Water Environment 293 

15 Shadow Flicker 318 

16 Socio-economic and Other Community Effects 333 

17 Waste 343 

18 Environmental Management Plan 346 

19 Annex 355 

September 2011 

Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2011 © 

Contents 

Volume 1 Written Statement


Preface 

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

(EIA) of the proposed Wheal Jane wind energy development. It has been prepared to accompany a 

planning application to Cornwall Council by PFR (Wheal Jane) Limited PfR to construct and operate a 

wind energy development at the former mine site at Wheal Jane, near Baldhu in western Cornwall (grid 

reference SW772424) (Wheal Jane, Baldhu, Truro, Cornwall, TR3 6EE) (see Figure1.1). The EIA has 

been undertaken by Atkins. Further specialist input came from Sgurr Energy (noise), and a specialist 

shadow-flicker consultant, Scott Simpson. 

The ES comprises four separately bound parts: 

Non-technical summary – summarising the findings of the EIA in non-technical language; 

Volume 1: Written Statement – reporting the findings of the EIA; 

Volume 2: Figures – the figures to accompany the text; and 

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 and ES (including figures and appendices) may be 

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

The non-technical summary is available free of charge, and a limited number of hard copies of the 

environmental statement are available for £350 per copy. A limited number of CDs containing PDF files 

of the Environmental Statement are available for £15 per CD. Alternatively, these electronic files can 

be downloaded from our website at http://www.pfr.co.uk/whealjane 

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

Council offices, Cornwall Council, Circuit House, Pydar Street, Truro, Cornwall TR1 1DT 

September 2011 1 ES Preface 

Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2011 ©


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 Wheal Jane wind turbine. It has been prepared to 

accompany a planning application by PFR (Wheal Jane) Limited (PfR) to Cornwall Council to 

construct and operate a wind energy development at the Wheal Jane mine site in the Bissoe 

Valley, approximately 2 kilometres north-west of Devoran and Carnon Downs in western 

Cornwall (Wheal Jane, Baldhu, Truro, Cornwall, TR3 6EE: grid reference SW772424, 

E 1772 N 04243) (see Figure 1.1). A Screening Opinion provided by Cornwall County Council 

confirmed that an EIA is required to accompany the planning application under European 1 

and UK EIA Regulations 2 . The proposed development falls within Schedule 2 (3) (i) of UK 

Regulations and was deemed likely to have significant effects on the environment. A full 

description of the EIA process is provided in Chapter 2. 

1.1.2 The Environmental Statement provides some of the information that will be used by Cornwall 

Council and others to inform the process of determining the planning application for 

permission to build and operate the proposed development. 

1.1.3 The Environmental Statement comprises four parts: 

• Non-Technical Summary: of the findings of the EIA; 

• Volume 1: 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; and 

• 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 

Brownfields Investments Ltd and Wheal Jane Limited and Wheal Jane Services Limited, it 

has established the viability of a site at Wheal Jane for a wind turbine. 

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

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

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) Regulations 2011. 

September 2011 2 ES Chapter 1 

Introduction 



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

development comprised of the following elements: one wind turbine with a maximum overall 

height (to vertical blade tip) of up to 122 metres, together with new access track, modification 

to road junction, temporary construction compound, hard standing area, control kiosk and 

cabling, and other works and development ancillary to the main development. 

1.2.4 The proposal briefly comprises the following elements, which are explained in more detail in 

Chapter 4. The site layout is shown in Figure 1.2, and the elements are shown in Figures 4.1 

to 4.7. 

• A wind turbine with a generating capacity of 1.5–2.5 megawatt (MW) and a maximum 

height to vertical blade tip of up to 122 m above the ground; 

• Crane pads at the turbine position to be used during construction as a crane platform 

and for occasional maintenance requirements; 

• A control kiosk enabling the generated electricity to be exported to the local distribution 

network; 

• A new access track that would be reduced in width upon decommissioning; 

• Underground cables linking the turbine to the control kiosk; and 

• Temporary areas of hard standing to be used for construction site and laydown areas. 

1.2.5 It is important to note that the works comprising the electrical connection to the grid are not 

part of this application, and will the subject of a subsequent submission by the District 

Network Operator (DNO), Western Power Distribution. 


Introduction 



1.2.6 The final choice of turbine will depend on which models are available in the UK market. A 

number of turbines with an ‘installed capacity’ of between 1.5 and 2.5MW are potentially 

suitable – ‘installed capacity’ is the maximum amount of electricity which can be produced at 

any one time. The following figures reflect this range in generation potential with the lower 

figures being based on a 1.5MW turbine and the higher figures being based on a 2.5MW 

turbine. Hence, a wind turbine with a maximum blade tip height of 122m and an installed 

capacity of between 1.5 – 2.5MW could generate between 3.28 to 5.47 GWh of renewable 

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

approximately between 713 to 1189 average households and avoids between 1412 to 2354 

tonnes of CO 2 equivalent emissions per year [1] . The methodology underlying these figures is 

explained in full in Section 6.3. 

1.3 The Applicant – Partnerships for Renewables 

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

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

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

sector bodies own approximately 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 (the InfraRed Environmental Infrastructure Fund (formerly 

the HSBC 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 Partnerships for Renewables works primarily 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, Partnerships for 

Renewables 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] [1] The Digest of UK Energy Statistics (2010) gives 2009 domestic electricity consumption as 122,543 gigawatt-hours (GWh) 

(http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/source/electricity/dukes5_1_2.xls) which, when divided by the number of 

households in the UK - 26,625,800 (http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/publications/ecuk/269-ecuk-domestic-2010.xls 

(table 3.3) - gives an average electricity usage of 4,602 kWh per year per household (122,543,000/26,625,800 = 4,602). Taking 

into account the candidate turbine for the site, it is expected that a single turbine with an installed capacity of between 1.5 – 

2.5MW could generate between 3.285 to 5.475 GWh of renewable electricity per year (based on a capacity factor of 25%). 

These figures are derived as follows in the following example (using the 25% capacity factor): 1,500 kW (1 x 1.5 MW turbine) x 

8,760 hours/year x 0.25 (capacity factor) = 3,285,000kWh. Based on the 4,602kWh household figure, and the predicted 

electricity generation of between 3.285 to 5.475 GWh, it is estimated that the yearly output from the wind turbine will be 

equivalent to the approximate domestic electricity needs of between 713 to 1189 average households in Britain 

(3,285,000/4602=713). In September 2008, the Advertising Standards Authority endorsed a figure of 430 gCO 2/kWh, based on 

the assumption that the energy generated by the wind turbines displaces Combined Cycle Gas Turbines and an average mix 

generation (430 gCO 2/kWh). On this basis, and on the assumption that the wind turbines annual output is between 3.285 to 

5.475 GWh, a wind energy development of this scale is expected to displace between 1412 to 2354 tonnes of CO 2 equivalent 

emissions per year. These figures are derived as follows (using an output of 3.285GWh as an example): 3,285,000 kW (output) x 

430gCO 2/kWh/ 1,000,000 = 1,412 tonnes CO 2. 


Introduction 



1.3.4 Partnerships for Renewables is currently working with a variety of public sector bodies across 

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

Agency, the Coal Authority, Caerphilly County Borough Council and Clackmannanshire 

Council. 

1.3.5 Further information about Partnerships for Renewables and its public sector partners can be 

found at www.pfr.co.uk. 

1.3.6 The Environment Agency and Coal Authority brought the site to the attention of PfR due to 

their role in the treatment of mine water on the site. However, the land is owned by 

Brownfields Investments Ltd and the Wheal Jane Ltd. The owners have developed the mining 

and property related businesses on the site whilst working with the local authorities to secure 

an appropriate long term redevelopment and restoration plan for the 69 hectare (170 acre) 

site. 

1.3.7 A Development Framework (Masterplan) for the site combines the expansion of the existing 

cluster of earth science businesses with a number of renewable energy projects and 

extensive land restoration and rehabilitation. This unique post mining project has been 

adopted by Cornwall Council and the first elements of the plan have been delivered including 

the removal of redundant mining structures and the development of the first commercial solar 

PV farm in the South West. 

1.4 The Environmental Impact Assessment project team 

PFR (Wheal Jane) Limited 

1.4.1 PFR (Wheal Jane) Limited has managed the project development including: 

• Site selection; 

• Feasibility; 

• Layout design; 

• Landowner liaison; and 

• Community consultation. 

1.4.2 The original feasibility study for the site was carried out by Entec for PfR. 

Atkins Ltd 

1.4.3 The EIA has been managed by Atkins Ltd, who also coordinated this ES. Atkins is the UK’s 

largest engineering and design consultancy, with the depth and breadth of expertise to 

respond to the most technically challenging and time-critical infrastructure projects and the 

urgent transition to a low carbon economy. The EIA and ES have been undertaken by 

Environmental Impact Assessor Practitioners registered under an accreditation scheme run 

by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), the principal 

professional body for EIA in the UK. 


Introduction 



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

Chapter number Chapter title Author 

11 Noise Sgurr Energy 

15 Shadow flicker Scott Simpson 


Introduction 



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 section 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 public and relevant determining authority before it makes its 

decision. 

2.1.2 The information on the development and its environmental effects are presented in an 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). Some mitigation measures are 

embedded into the scheme design, and these are explained in Section 4. Further mitigation 

measures are presented in the corresponding environmental topic chapters, and a summary 

of these measures is included in the draft Environmental Management Plan (Section 18). 

EIA Regulations 

2.1.4 Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations 3 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 

3 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 


Environmental Impact Assessment Process 



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. A 

screening exercise was carried out which identified the need for an EIA. PfR also recognised 

that the EIA process can play an important role in developing the design of the proposals to 

minimise adverse environmental effects and to maximise environmental benefits. 

2.1.6 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 environmental 

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 

2.1.7 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.” 

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

particular project is captured in an EIA scoping process. For Wheal Jane, this is described in 

more detail in Chapter 3 of this ES. 

The Environmental Impact Assessment scoping process 

2.1.9 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. 

2.1.10 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. 

Spatial scope 

2.1.11 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. 





2.1.12 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 30 km from the site boundary), whilst noise effects 

are assessed within a much smaller area encompassing the worst affected properties close 

to the site. 

Definition of the Baseline 

2.1.13 The environmental assessment process does not merely consider the effects of the proposed 

scheme against the conditions as they are now, but instead makes the assessment against 

what is described as the “Do-minimum” scenario; that is, what could be reasonably expected 

to have occurred over the same timescale if the scheme did not go ahead. 

2.1.14 The Wheal Jane Ltd is progressing proposals to develop the Wheal Jane Masterplan across 

the broader site. These proposals seek to deliver a zero carbon sustainable business park at 

Wheal Jane. The Masterplan aims to develop a sustainable earth science business cluster, 

incorporating a number of renewable energy schemes including in addition to the wind 

turbine, two small-scale hydro-power schemes, ground source geothermal heating, a 

biomass power plant and a photovoltaic solar farm. The site is proposed to be self-sufficient 

in its energy demands, and will be able to export any surplus power to the National Grid. The 

site will also include a number of zero carbon workshops and office buildings. Cornwall 

Council has resolved to adopt the Masterplan, which has been subject to local consultation, 

as non-statutory planning policy, although planning approval for many aspects of the 

development has not yet been obtained. 

2.1.15 As the key elements of the Masterplan are not likely to be implemented prior to turbine 

construction and currently lack planning consent, the implementation of the Masterplan has 

not been included within the definition of the baseline for the EIA. However, as it is 

considered likely that the Masterplan will be developed in future years, the effects of turbine 

development on potential future receptors has been considered within the topic chapters of 

this ES. The effects have been assessed in a qualitative way. Any future applications for 

development of the Masterplan will need to take into account the turbine proposals. 

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; 

• Ongoing consultation with experts and relevant consultees in response to emerging 

study findings; 





• Consideration of the potential effects of the development on the baseline, followed by 

identification of design changes to seek to avoid or reduce any predicted adverse 

effects; 

• Engagement with other technical topic specialists and engineers/designers in a design 

iteration process seeking to optimise the scheme for the differing environmental 

effects; 

• Assessment of the final scheme design and evaluation of the significance of any 

residual effects; 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, visual effects including those affecting cultural heritage features 

are addressed in the landscape and visual chapter, with cross-references in the cultural 

heritage chapter as appropriate. 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 water 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 be expected in advance of the development being 

implemented and during its 25 year operational lifetime; 

• Topic specific design evolution – describing how the scheme has been designed 

considering a particular receptor or effect, for example incorporating planting to provide 

a particular habitat on site or screening for a particular view which forms part of the 

scheme design; 

• Potential significant effects of the scheme prior to mitigation - an assessment of 

the significance of the effects likely to arise as a result of implementing the 

development as set out in Chapter 4 of the ES; 

• Mitigation and enhancement measures – identifying topic specific measures which 

would be implemented in order to avoid, reduce, control, manage or compensate 

potential significant effects. It is expected these measures would be secured via a 

planning condition. These would not include measures required to comply with legal 





requirements, as these are part of the scheme as set out in Chapter 4. Enhancement 

measures would also be identified; 

• Assessment of residual effects – an assessment of the significance of the effects 

likely to arise as a result of implementing the final design of the project after the 

mitigation measures have been employed, considering the 25 year operational lifetime 

of the project. A table summarising the likely significant environmental effects after 

mitigation is presented in this section ; 

• Assessment of effects on potential future receptors - identifying any change in the 

effects on potential receptors should the site be developed according to the Wheal 

Jane Masterplan. As it is possible the development of employment use at the site 

doesn’t materialise this is set out separately from in the assessment of effects on the 

current baseline; 

• Cumulative Effects – identifying potentially significant effects arising from the 

proposed project alongside other major developments in the planning process but not 

yet built, such as other wind developments; and 

• 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 

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 value (importance or 

sensitivity) against the predicted magnitude of change to identify if an effect is significant. 

Best practice EIA typically goes beyond this to identify a level of significance when the 

predicted effect is determined to be significant. In some cases, the judgement can be guided 

by quantitative values, whilst in other cases qualitative descriptions are used. 

2.3.4 In general terms, and in order to assist interpretation of the final results of the EIA, receptor 

value, magnitude of change and significance of effect for each environmental topic are 

described consistently throughout the ES, as shown in Table 2.1. A definition of how the 

terms are derived for each topic is set out in the corresponding chapters. Where this 

approach is inappropriate, the relevant explanation and amended descriptions of receptor 

importance, magnitude of change and significance of effect are provided. 

2.3.5 The approach to assigning significance of effect is derived from a variety of sources including 

industry and professional guidance, codes of practice, advice from statutory consultees and 





other stakeholders, as well as expert judgement of the EIA practitioners employed on the 

Scheme. 

2.3.6 One of three methods to determining the significance of effect is employed depending on the 

assessment topic – matrix (as shown in Table 2.1), criteria (as shown in Table 2.2), and 

descriptor (as explained at paragraph 2.3.10). 

2.3.7 Where sufficient information exists to value a receptor and to understand the magnitude of 

the impact or change, the assessment methodology often uses a matrix to determine 

significance of the effect. In this approach significance of effect in broad terms is determined 

by a combination of the value of the receptor being affected and the magnitude of the impact. 

This is the case for example with ecological and cultural heritage designations which have 

clear relative values (e.g. a site designated at a national level is valued more highly than one 

that is undesignated or designated at a local level). 

2.3.8 Each topic assessment has been carried out using the significance levels and associated 

criteria derived from relevant guidance for that topic. Where possible topic chapters have 

aligned their significance levels to the criteria set out in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 and this is set out 

in the methodology section of each assessment topic chapter. 

2.3.9 In the absence of a recognised assessment methodology general levels of significance using 

criteria defined in DMRB Volume 11 – Environmental Assessment (2009) are frequently 

employed (Table 2.2 is based on significance criteria set out in the DMRB). This is the case 

for example in assessing the significance of effect on the water environment. These levels of 

significance apply to both adverse and beneficial effects. In some instances a further 

category of ‘no effect’ may be used. 

2.3.10 For some topics where it is very difficult to value an asset and/or quantify the magnitude of 

the effect (e.g. socio economics) a simple descriptor - beneficial, neutral or adverse is used to 

describe the significance of the effect. 

2.3.11 In terms of the EIA regulations 4 effects with a significance level of moderate or greater are 

generally of the most importance to the decision maker. 

2.3.12 In practice, comparison between such very different environmental topic areas and the 

associated description of significance of effects should be interpreted cautiously. Any 

categorisation such as this should be used as 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 importance, magnitude of change 

and significance of effect should not be interpreted as definitive, and the lines that represent 

the boundaries between categories should be considered as ‘blurred’. 

4 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 





Table 2.1 

Establishing the significance of effect 

Importance of receptor 

HIGH MEDIUM LOW NEGLIGIBLE 

Magnitude of change/impact 

LARGE 

MEDIUM 

SMALL 

NEGLIGIBLE 

VERY 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

SUBSTANTIAL 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

MODERATE 

MODERATE/ 

SLIGHT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

MODERATE 

MODERATE 

SLIGHT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

MODERATE/ 

SLIGHT 

SLIGHT 

SLIGHT/ NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

Table 2.2 

Generic Significance Criteria 

Significance level 

Very substantial 

Substantial 

Moderate 

Slight 

Not significant 

Criteria 

Only adverse effects are assigned this level of importance as they represent key 

factors in the decision-making process. These effects are generally, but not 

exclusively associated with sites and features of international, national or 

regional importance that are likely to suffer a most damaging effect and loss of 

resource integrity. A major change at a regional or district scale site or feature 

may also enter this category. 

These beneficial or adverse effects are likely to be very important considerations 

at a local or district scale and, if adverse, are potential concerns to the scheme 

and may become material in the decision making process. 

These beneficial or adverse effects while important at a local scale are not likely 

to be key decision making issues. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such 

issues may influence decision making if they lead to an increase in the overall 

adverse effects on a particular area or on a particular resource. 

These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors but are 

unlikely to be of critical importance in the decision making process. Nevertheless 

they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the Scheme and 

consideration of mitigation or compensation measures. 

No effect or an effect which is beneath the level of perception, within normal 

bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error. Such effects are not 

normally considered by the decision maker. 

Type of effect 

2.3.13 The EIA Regulations 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. 





2.3.14 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’. 

2.3.15 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; and 

• Permanent – this typically means an unrecoverable change. 

2.3.16 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; and 

• 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. 

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: 

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





• 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 The planning policy statement PPS22 supports the approach that wind turbine 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 in the 2011 National Policy Statements on Energy 

infrastructure EN-1 and EN-3. EN–1 at para. 4.4.1–4.4.3 states: 

“From a policy perspective this NPS does not contain any general requirement 

to consider alternatives or to establish whether the proposed project represents 

the best option….should not reject an application for development on one site 

simply because fewer adverse impacts would result from developing similar 

infrastructure on another suitable site, and it should have regard as appropriate 

to the possibility that all suitable sites for energy infrastructure of the type 

proposed may be needed for future proposals…” 

2.4.7 EN–3 at para. 2.5.36 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 is also reflected in the 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 (Chapter 3) 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. 

2.5 Micro-siting 

2.5.1 Following submission of the application, elements of the proposed development may be 

subject to further, minor refinement, known as ‘micro-siting’, within the site boundary. Micrositing 

reflects the need to: 

• take into account statutory and non-statutory consultee responses received during the 

planning application determination process; 

• Reflect the findings of post-application and post-consent ground investigations; and 

• Reflect any minor relocation required for ecological or archaeological reasons. 

2.5.2 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 the Figures within Chapter 3 would be maintained. 

2.5.3 Should Cornwall Council be minded to grant consent for the development, the applicant 

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

authority, allows the micro-siting of elements of the scheme within a 20 m radius due east of 

the current turbine location: the turbine will not be moved any further due west due to the 

tailing dam wall. The other ancillary components of the scheme will be subject to a 

micrositing distance of 20 m in common with other, similar planning applications, without 

infringing the buffers used in the constraints mapping process shown on Figure 3.1. 

2.6 Cumulative effects 

2.6.1 According to the Guidelines for Cumulative Effects Assessment prepared for the EC by Hyder 

in 1999, cumulative effects are defined as “impacts that result from incremental changes 

caused by other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project”. 





2.6.2 The Scoping Opinion advises that major developments that should be considered for the 

cumulative effects assessment should be identified within the following categories: 

• Built and operational development; 

• Development under construction; 

• Application(s) permitted but which are not yet implemented; 

• Submitted applications not yet determined, and which, if permitted, would affect the 

proposed development in the scoping request; and 

• Development identified in the adopted and emerging development plan (with 

appropriate weight being given as they move closer to adoption) recognising that much 

information on any relevant proposals will be limited. 

2.6.3 It should be noted that not all of the cumulative developments would necessarily have a 

cumulative effect in respect on any particular assessment topic. Where cumulative effects are 

potentially relevant, each assessment topic chapter has determined which of the 

developments listed should be considered. 

2.7 De-commissioning 

2.7.1 The turbine would have an operational life of approximately 25 years. Decommissioning 

would be carried out in accordance with legislative requirements at that time. However, if 

market conditions at that time indicate that it would be appropriate to extend the life of the 

wind turbine, then decommissioning would be deferred to a later date. The extension of the 

life of the wind turbine beyond 25 years will require a fresh planning application. 

2.7.2 Decommissioning in 2037 or later is not an event that can be accurately assessed at this time 

due to changes in policy, legislation and technology. The assessment of the 

decommissioning phase therefore is limited to how the design of the Scheme and use of 

materials would enable a minimum of disruption to be achieved and the restoration of the site 

to its former use. The predicted effects from the decommissioning phase are likely to be 

similar to those likely during construction and this is the approach taken by the topic chapters. 

2.8 EIA Assumptions 

2.8.1 The following assumptions have been made in undertaking the EIA: 

i. All legislative requirements would be met. 

ii. 

The design, construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind turbine will be in 

accordance with the description given in Chapter 4. 

iii. 

The potential environmental effects of the construction phase will be controlled through 

a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) as referred to in Chapter 4, the draft details of 

which are included in Chapter 16 Environmental Management Plan. A Construction 





Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) 

would be prepared prior to commencement of construction. The details of these three 

documents would be agreed with Cornwall Council prior to construction commencing. 

2.8.2 Where further assumptions have been made for individual topic assessments these will be 

identified within the relevant topic chapters. 

2.9 References 

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. 

Environment Agency, 2002. Handbook for Scoping Projects. 

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. 

IEMA, 2004, Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment. 

ODPM, 1999. Circular 02/99: Environmental impact assessment 

ODPM, 1999. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and 

Wales) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999 No. 293) as amended 

ODPM, 2011. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 

(the EIA Regulations). 

ODPM, 2000. Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to procedures. 





3 Scheme development and scoping the Environmental 

Impact Assessment 

3.1 Site identification 

3.1.1 The EIA process started in May 2009 when PfR began investigating the feasibility of locating 

a wind energy development on the Wheal Jane site. The initial site screening identified the 

site 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 crosses all development phases and is based on the 

considered application of the following technical, economic and environmental criteria across 

all development phases as more information becomes available: 

• Suitable ground for turbine foundations, access tracks and control kiosk; 

• Siting of turbine to take into consideration landscape character and visual effects; 

• Minimise effects on the existing land uses (economic or recreational); 

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

on areas of ecological value such as hedgerows; 

• Avoid designated sites of archaeological importance and minimise effects on areas of 

undesignated archaeological interest and areas with archaeological potential; 

• Avoid surface and groundwater resources and minimise indirect effects on these 

features; 

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

and material requirements; 

• Protect the amenity of residential properties i.e. in terms of noise and visual intrusion 

• Avoid impinging on aviation safety; and 

• Avoid interference with telecommunication links. 


Scheme Development & Scoping the EIA 



3.3 Screening under the EIA Regulations 

3.3.1 The proposed wind turbine at the Wheal Jane site was tested against the Schedules in the 

EIA Regulations. The proposed wind energy development does not fall into any of the 

categories set out in Schedule 1. However, Schedule 2, section 3 (energy industry projects), 

includes ‘installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms)’. 

3.3.2 Investigations showed that the site does not lie within any internationally or nationally 

designated areas (SSSIs, National Parks, AONBs, SAMs etc), though it is adjacent to the 

Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. 

3.3.3 The proposals were tested against the applicable threshold set out in Schedule 2. The 

threshold is set at either ‘the development involves the installation of more than 2 turbine or 

the hub height of any turbine is or the height of any other structure exceeds 15 metres’. In 

this case, one turbine is proposed with a hub height of approximately 80 metres, so the 

project falls within Schedule 2. Schedule 2 projects require EIA if they are likely to have 

significant effects on the environment. 

3.3.4 The formal screening opinion adopted by Cornwall Council in May 2010 is that the 

development proposed is considered to be an EIA Development within the meaning of the 

EIA Regulations. The decision is based on the information known at the time and selection 

criteria for screening schedule 2 development (Schedule 3) and paragraph A11 of circular 

02/99 (Environmental Impact Assessment). 

3.4 Scope of the EIA 

3.4.1 The proposed EIA scope was formulated by Partnerships for Renewables, Atkins consultants 

and specialists inputs, based on desk-based and field-based knowledge of the site and prior 

experience of other wind energy development EIAs. A Scoping Report, setting out the 

proposed scope, was prepared by PfR and submitted to Cornwall Council in March 2010 (see 

Appendix 3.1) together with a request for a Scoping Opinion. 

3.4.2 Following consultation with Cornwall Council, it was agreed that the following should be 

considered further in the assessment. Each of these topics is covered in the following chapter 

of the Environmental Statement: 

• Air and climate – Climate change mitigation and other atmospheric emissions 

Chapter 6; 

• Cultural heritage – Chapter 7; 

• Ecology – Chapter 8; 

• Ground conditions and water environment – Chapter 9; 

• Landscape and visual changes – Chapter 10; 

• Noise – Chapter 11; 





• Ornithology – Chapter 12; 

• Traffic and transport – Chapter 13; 

• Water Environment – Chapter 14; 

• Shadow Flicker – Chapter 15; 

• Community economics and social effects – Chapter 16; and 

• Waste – Chapter 17. 

The scoping opinion 

3.4.3 Cornwall Council issued its Scoping Opinion in July 2010. The responses from the following 

consultees were included: 

• Cornwall Council Highway Authority; 

• Cornwall Council Principal Landscape officer; 

• Cornwall Council Historic Environment Services; 

• Cornwall Council Acoustics Advisor; 

• Cornwall Council Mineral Local Plan Team; 

• Cornwall AONB Unit; 

• Environment Agency; and 

• Natural England. 

3.4.4 A copy of scoping responses received from consultees, and the Cornwall Council scoping 

opinion letter can be found at Appendix 3.1 (tabulated at the end of the document) Appendix 

and 3.2 respectively. 

The agreed scope of the EIA 

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

addressed in the Environmental Statement is set out in Table 3.1 below, along other 

consultees contacted. The relationship of these issues to the requirements of the EIA 

Regulations is also shown. Note that PfR has concluded that aviation, telecommunications 

and electromagnetism matters are technical rather than environmental issues and are 

addressed within the Planning Statement which forms part of the planning application for the 

scheme. 





Table 3.1 

Consultation 

Consultees Consulted During Scoping 

Consultee 

Key Issue 

Topics in the EIA 

Regulations 

How Addressed in 


Cornwall 

Council 

Potential impacts on users of Public Rights of Way 

and other recreational activities in the area 

including nearby areas of open access land should 

be assessed 

Population 

These issues have been 

covered where necessary in 

specific chapters: Chapter 10 

Landscape and Visual, Chapter 

11 Noise, and Chapter 16 

Socio-economic factors. 

Detailed evaluation of the potential impacts on 

protected species and other species of 

conservation importance will be required. 

Natural 

England 

In respect to bats, the current Natural England 

guidance (Technical Note 051 Bats and onshore 

wind turbines and Technical Note 059 Bats and 

single large wind turbines) should be considered. 

Fauna 



Chapters 12 Ornithology and 

Chapter 8 Ecology 

In respect to birds, the current NE guidance 

(Technical Note 069 Assessing the effects of 

onshore wind farms on birds) should be 

considered. 

Natural 

England 

In respect to landscape impacts, the importance of 

thoroughly evaluating impacts on the AONB needs 

to be demonstrated. 

Landscape 



Chapter 10 Landscape and 

Visual 

Natural 

England 

Importance of identifying opportunities for 

enhancement and adding to biodiversity interests, 

in accordance with PPS9 ‘Biodiversity & Geological 

conservation’ and for opportunities to contribute 

towards targets for UK BAP Habitats and/or 

Species. 

Fauna and Flora 

Opportunities for 

enhancements where 

necessary have been covered 

in Chapter 12 Ornithology 

Cornwall 

Council 

Mineral Local 

Plan Team 

The proposed development lies to the south of the 

safeguarding areas for Clemows shaft and Shaft 

No. 2. 

Soil 

This has been noted in the ES 

Cornwall 

Council 

The ES should include a geophysical survey to 

inform the scheme of mitigation 

Architectural and 

archaeological 

heritage, soil, 

water 

Further consultation negated 

the need for a geophysical 

survey 

Environment 

Agency 

Potential impacts on groundwater (both quality and 

resource/flow implications), and its relationship 

with surface water, should be included in the ES. 

Water 

Potential effects on 

groundwater (both quality and 

resource/flow implications), and 

its relationship with surface 

water have been added to the 

scope and included in the ES, 

in Chapter 9 Ground 

Conditions and 14 Water 

Environment. 






Consultee 

Key Issue 


Regulations 



Cornwall 

AONB Unit 

Not in a position to comment as the project is 

assessed as being neither a major nor significant 

application. However, the project will need to take 

into account the national, regional and local 

planning guidance in respect to AONBs. 

Landscape 

This has been noted in the 

statements 

The prediction of wind turbine noise will need to 

use an appropriate noise prediction framework, 

e.g. what is provided in ISO 9613. 

Cornwall 

Council 

Acoustics 

Advisor 

If the project can fully demonstrate that the noise 

levels from the turbine will be less than 35 dB LA90 

at all noise sensitive receptors, then a full noise 

survey and assessment can be argued to not be 

required. 

Meteorological information should be captured 

whilst undertaking noise surveys as well as 

undertaking the surveys under a range of wind 

speeds. 

Population 



Chapter 11 Noise 

The effect of the wind turbine at Wheal Jane 

should considered the cumulative impacs with 

other existing or consented wind farm within the 

area. 

The archaeological desk based assessment of 

monuments and their settings need to be in 

accordance with the appropriate standards. 

Cornwall 

Council 

Historic 

Environmenta 

l Services 

Assessment in respect to heritage assets should 

clearly identify the direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as highlighting the significance of the heritage 

asset. 

Consideration of undesignated sites listed on the 

Historic Environment Register (as well as schedule 

monuments and listed buildings) should be 

considered. The assessment should also consider 

the development of the Outstanding Universal 

Value’ of the Devon and Cornwall World heritage 

site. 

Architectural and 

archaeological 

heritage 



Chapter 9 Cultural Heritage 

Cornwall 

Council 

Principal 

Landscape 

Officer 

Critical assessment, for both day and night time 

periods, in respect to the site layout, impact of the 

turbine, construction plant and activities (including 

lighting) will be required. 

Photomontage illustrations from public advantage 

points and an assessment of visual influence on 

the wider settings will be required. 

The landscape institute and IEMA guidance should 

be followed for the assessment. 

Landscape 

The assessment has 

considered significantly 

affected receptors using the 

ZTV and a combination of 

value of receptor and predicted 

magnitude of change in 

Chapter 7 Cultural Heritage 

and Chapter 10 Landscape and 

Visual. 

The assessment on the scale of the turbine need 

to include the impact on the Landscape Character. 






Consultee 

Key Issue 


Regulations 



Cornwall 

Council 

Policies that form the overall context for a decision 

on the proposal should be described 

All 

An overview of planning policy 

has been provided in the ES, 

the detailed analysis referred to 

here has been provided in the 

Planning Statement 

Cornwall 

Council 

Applicants should demonstrate in the ES that 

alternative options have been considered prior to 

proceeding with the current proposals, which 

should include a consideration of the ‘do nothing’ 

option. 

Consideration of 

alternatives 

The ES describes the site 

selection process and 

alternatives that have been 

considered for the proposals 

(see Section 3) 

Cornwall 

Council 

The ES should evaluate the cumulative impact of 

the proposed development with existing and known 

proposed wind turbine schemes on this LCA and 

neighbouring LCAs, and other major developments 

in the surrounding area. 

Landscape 

PfR has agreed cumulative 

schemes with Cornwall 

Council. 

Other Stakeholders Consulted During the Development Process 

BT, Civil Aviation Authority, Licensed/unlicensed aerodromes, Ministry of Defence, NATS/NERL, Office of Communications 

(Ofcom), Western Power Distribution, JRC, Orange, Network Rail, Arqiva, T-Mobile and Devon and Cornwall police. 

Details of consultation with these bodes is included in the Statement of Community Involvement and Planning Statement. 

3.5 Scheme development 

Site design evolution and consideration of alternatives 

3.5.1 Following the feasibility study described above, PfR undertook a broadly sequential, threestage 

design process to investigate and resolve/avoid the key risks to the development of the 

site, investigate alternative designs solutions, and address 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 and ensure that 

the final design was economically and technically viable. The exact scope and order of task 

investigation in the different stages was determined using professional judgement and 

experience taking account of the site’s unique combination of technical and environmental 

factors. 

3.5.2 The main design changes resulting from the consultation and design process are 

summarised below with reasons for the change. The size and location of the turbine, access 

tracks and other site infrastructure is considered to be the ‘best environmental fit’ in relation 

to the identified environmental constraints and available land (see proposed layout at Figure 

1.2). 

Initial design 

3.5.3 A preliminary layout was prepared during feasibility studies in April 2009. The initial layout of 

a wind energy development based on one 2–3 MW turbine of up to 125 m tip height was 

published for consultation as part of the EIA scoping report in March 2010. This preliminary 

layout is shown on Figure 3.1. 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, mainly identified from desk-based published sources. Access routes were 

considered and evaluated. 

3.5.4 Contact was made with the National Air Traffic Service (NATS), Civil Aviation Authority 

(CAA), Airports and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and OFCOM. At this stage, PfR concluded 

that aviation; telecommunications and electromagnetism matters were technical rather than 

environmental issues and would be addressed in the Planning Statement that forms part of 

the planning application. 

3.5.5 Two overhead power lines also cross near the turbine. The initial design located the 

proposed turbine 65 m from these overhead lines. It was realised that the lines will need to be 

replaced with underground cable, and the applicant is in discussion with the District Network 

Operator regarding this. 

3.5.6 The constraints discussed above are shown on Figure 3.1. 

Final design 

3.5.7 Design refinements were made by PfR and Atkins as a consequence of information arising 

from the EIA and consultation exercises. The objective was to refine the preliminary layout 

based in the light of the information received through consultation, as well as environmental 

information obtained by the environmental consultants’ desk- and field-based research. 

3.5.8 The principal requirements was to position the proposed turbine with regard to available 

information relating to the tailings dam and historical activities at the site. 

3.5.9 If the project is consented the final turbine choice will depend on turbine availability, 

conditions of consent and the measured on site wind speed. However, the turbine is 

expected to have a capacity within the region of 1.5–2.5 MW, and for the purposes of the 

application, the default turbine choice has been presented as having maximum overall tip 

height of 122 m. 

3.5.10 The finalised layout, which is assessed in this ES, is illustrated in Figure 1.2. 

3.5.11 The layout seeks to show the optimal scheme for the site, resolving the differing technical 

and environmental priorities on site. The assessments presented in specialist chapters take 

into account the mitigation incorporated as part of the scheme. 

‘No-project Alternative’ 

3.5.12 The ‘no-project’ alternative would leave the landholding of Wheal Jane in its current form, as 

restored mineral land with ruderal vegetation. 

3.5.13 Without the Wheal Jane wind development, and other wind turbine projects, the SW region 

and the UK as a whole will be less likely meet their targets of producing 20% of their 

electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and more beyond. 





Micro-Siting 

3.5.14 Should Cornwall Council be minded to grant consent for the development, the applicant 

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

authority, allows the micro-siting of elements of the scheme within a 20 m radius due east of 

the current turbine location: the turbine will not be moved any further towards the tailing dam 

wall. The other ancillary components of the scheme will be subject to a micrositing distance 

of 20 m in common with other, similar planning applications, without infringing the buffers 

used in the constraints mapping process shown on Figure 3.1. 

3.5.15 As set out above, following submission of the application, elements of the proposed 

development 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; 

• Reflect the findings of post-application and post-permission ground investigations and 

detailed design; and 

• Reflect any minor relocation required. 

3.5.16 For the reasons above, the planning application accompanying this ES seeks approval to 

enable micro-siting of the wind turbine and other design elements within a 20 m radius of the 

design submitted, in common with other, similar planning applications and in accordance with 

paragraph 2.6.4 NPS EN-3. 

3.6 Other projects with possible cumulative effects 

3.6.1 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. 

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

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

sufficient information available to the development team. In the case of other wind turbine 

developments, key information is required about the number, location and size of the 

turbine(s) if a full assessment of cumulative effects is to be carried out. 

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

assessed as appropriate. Cumulative landscape and visual effects have been included as 

part of the assessment in Chapter 10. 





3.7 Approach to public consultation 

Consultation and community engagement 

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

consultees, the local community and the landowners with the accumulated findings 

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

of consultees into the scoping process was discussed above, and further detail of 

consultation with consultees is set out in the topic chapters of this Environmental Statement. 

This section describes consultation with the local community. 

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

progresses right through to application. 

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

• Two site specific consultation websites. One for the Wheal Jane Masterplan as a 

whole at www.whealjanemasterplan.co.uk and a dedicated website for the turbine 

proposal at www.pfr.co.uk/whealjane 

• Workshops were held with key stakeholders to discuss the Wheal Jane Masterplan 

and share details of the proposed technologies in December 2009 

• In January 2010 a public exhibition was held at Chacewater Village Hall, in conjunction 

with Brownfields Investments Ltd and the Wheal Jane Ltd Ltd, to share plans for the 

Wheal Jane Masterplan (including the wind turbine) with the local community and other 

stakeholders. 

• Community drop-in surgeries were held at Chacewater Village Hall in April, July and 

November 2010, and March 2011. 

• Presentations on the project were given to Kea Parish Council and Chacewater Parish 

Council in March 2011. This was an opportunity to present the details of the project 

and answer questions and gather feedback. 

• A further exhibition to share photo montages and illustrate the results from technical 

and environmental studies was held at Chacewater Village Hall in July 2011. 

3.7.4 Upon submission of the planning application, further public exhibitions will be publicised and 

are likely to be held at Chacewater Village Hall. 

3.7.5 Consultation activities are described in detail in the Statement of Community Involvement, 

submitted as part of the planning application. 





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: one wind turbine with 

a maximum overall height (to vertical blade tip) of up to 122 metres, together 

with new access track, modification to road junction, temporary construction 

compound, hard standing area, control kiosk and cabling, and other works and 

development ancillary to the main development.” 

4.1.2 The turbine is likely to feed electricity into the grid at one of the 33 kV overhead cables that 

cross the site approximately, see section 4.5, and Figure 1.2. The works comprising the grid 

connection are not included in this application; the enabling works will be undertaken by the 

DNO, Western Power Distribution, as a statutory undertaker. 

4.2 Site Context and Description 

4.2.1 Detailed descriptions of the application site and its surrounds are included in the relevant 

environmental topic chapters. The application site is an area of 2.7 ha adjacent to the existing 

tailings dam which forms part of the wider Wheal Jane mine site, as shown in Figure 1.2. The 

Wheal Jane mine site is near Baldhu in the Bissoe Valley, approximately 2.5 km north-west of 

Devoran and Carnon Downs in west Cornwall. It lies near the centre of a triangle joining the 

three principal population centres of west Cornwall at Truro, Redruth and Falmouth. 

4.2.2 The wider Wheal Jane site is a former tin mine, of 68 ha in area. The Planning Statement that 

forms part of the planning application for the scheme details the planning history of the site, 

including the Review of Old Mineral Permissions strategy for the landscaping, restoration and 

beneficial future use of the site. 

4.2.3 Much of the Wheal Jane site is currently in use as an inert landfill site. Plant and heavy good 

vehicles traffic across much of the site during normal working hours. The industrial area at 

the north of the site also has large vehicle movement associated to it, as well as 

manufacturing processes. 

4.2.4 The site is in the process of being remediated and landscaped, and includes extensive areas 

of Environment Agency-monitored lagoons and associated infrastructure for the treatment of 

mine water, which remove contamination before the drainage is released to the local surface 

water courses. 

4.2.5 Patches of mixed broadleaf woodland are present at a number of areas at the site with 

approximately 2–3 ha of mature coniferous plantation. Scrub is present across much of the 

site, largely comprising gorse and bramble, and some small patches of heathland. At the 

centre of the site is a shallow waterbody surrounded by extensive mudflats, fed by surface 


Description of the Proposed Development 



water, contained by a tailings dam. Much of the ruderal and scrub vegetation across the site 

is regularly cleared with excavators (a process required so any potential geological issues 

such as subsidence can be identified). 

4.2.6 The result of all these activities is a site with high background levels of physical, visual, and 

acoustic disturbance. 

4.2.7 The Wheal Jane Ltd controls the site, and in recent years has reviewed the activities on site 

with a view to realising its development potential. The masterplan provides a development 

framework that sets out the shape of future development (Wheal Jane: a Strategy Towards 

its Future, 2009). The site already accommodates various companies associated with mining 

and earth sciences, and the masterplan aims to strengthen and expand this cluster of 

expertise in the context of the site’s heritage of mining tradition. The essential treatment of 

mine water will continue. The masterplan includes the generation of sustainable energy on 

the site to power the vital water treatment process and other business uses. The aim is to 

create a development that is self sufficient in energy terms, through the implemented of a 

suite of renewable energy schemes including geothermal sources, biomass, wind, solar 

photovoltaics and small-scale hydro power. The wind turbine which is the subject of this 

Environmental Statement is a key part of this broader strategy. 

4.2.8 The proposed application site for the turbine is on an area of open scrub land believed to 

consist of Made Ground placed there as part of the ongoing restoration strategy for the 

Wheal Jane site. The land is not currently in productive use. Anecdotal evidence suggests 

that the application site was previously known as ‘Lobbs Yard’ and was used as a scrap yard 

for storing disused mining equipment. It is understood that the machinery was reportedly 

cleared from the area as part of the ongoing restoration works. 

Scheme layout 

4.2.9 The proposal is to construct and operate a wind energy development at the former mine site 

at Wheal Jane, Baldhu, Cornwall, comprising: 

• One large scale wind turbine; and 

• Associated infrastructure including access tracks, control kiosk and temporary 

contractors compound and laydown areas. 

4.2.10 The scheme will require a grid connection comprising underground cabling which will be 

provided by the DNO and is not included in this application. 

4.2.11 The layout of the scheme elements and immediate geographical context of the site is shown 

in Figure 1.2. As set out above, in accordance with common practice, this location may be 

subject to minor change (micro-siting within a 20 m radius due east of the current turbine 

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

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

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

reported assessment, and the application site boundary includes the micro-siting area 

4.2.12 The total operational land take (development footprint) as a result of the development (i.e. the 

area occupied by turbine base, new access track/permanent hardstanding and control kiosk) 





is summarised in Table 4.1 as approximately 0.3 hectares. The oversail area would cover an 

additional 0.4 ha of land not already utilised for the development. During the construction 

phase (some 6 months), additional temporary areas of hardstanding will increase the 

development footprint to 1 ha approximately. The built development takes up a very small 

proportion of the Wheal Jane site. 

Table 4.1 

Development Footprint 

Component 

Area (ha) 

Access roads including minor works at junction 0.192 

Turbine Base 0.025 

Crane pad 0.088 

Control Kiosk 0.003 

Total Operational Land Take 

0.308ha 

Temporary Construction Compound 0.250 

Laydown area 0.088 

Turbine blade oversail area not covered by the 

development components 

Total Footprint 

0.399 

1.045 ha 

4.3 Energy Generation 

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

4.3.2 The final choice of turbine will depend on which models are available in the UK market but, 

as set out in paragraph 1.2.5, if the proposed development was constructed it could generate 

approximately 3.28 - 5.47 GWh of renewable energy per year. This is equivalent to the 

amount of energy used annually by approximately 713 to 1189 average households and 

avoids up to 1412 to 2354 tonnes of CO 2 equivalent emissions per year. The methodology 

underlying these figures is explained in full in Section 6.3. 

4.3.3 The applicant intends that the electricity generated from the wind turbine be used to satisfy 

the local load or demand. 

4.4 Candidate wind turbine 

Wind turbine 

4.4.1 The final choice of turbine will depend on which models are available in the UK market (a 

diagram illustrating the structure of a typical wind turbine is shown as Figure 4.1), but the site 

has been designed to accommodate a turbine of approximately 1.5–2.5 MW. 





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

with a rotor consisting of three blades, each approximately 41.25 m in length – Figure 4.1. 

The blades are mounted to the wind turbine nacelle, at a height of approximately 80m, thus 

giving a maximum height to vertical blade tip of 122 m. (Accordingly, the landscape and 

visual assessment was based on these parameters.) For the purposes of the noise 

modelling, the “GE Energy 1.5xle 1.5 MW” turbine has been used (with an 82.5 m diameter 

rotor and 80 m hub height). 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. 

4.4.3 For the candidate turbine model, blades will rotate at approximately 12 to 22 revolutions per 

minute, generating power for all wind speeds between about 4 m/s and 25 m/s (9–56 mph). 

At wind speeds greater than 25 m/s (56 mph) the turbine will shut down for self-protection. 

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

4.4.4 The expected grid reference of the proposed turbine is E177200 N042430 (obtained by GPS 

readings, accuracy within 10 metres). In accordance with common practice, this location may 

be subject to minor change (micro-siting within a 20 m radius due east of the current turbine 

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

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

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

reported assessment. 

Turbine monitoring and control 

4.4.5 The turbine will be controlled by a ‘supervisory control and data acquisition’ (SCADA) system, 

which will gather data from the turbine and provide the facility to control it from a central 

remote location. A communication cable connecting to the turbine will be routed in the 

electrical cable trench connecting the turbine to the control kiosk. 

4.4.6 During commissioning of the turbine, wind conditions will be monitored by the existing freestanding 

anemometry mast on the site, which has a temporary consent. The mast will be 

taken down shortly after the turbine has been commissioned. 

4.5 Electrical connection 

Off-site grid connection 

4.5.1 The wind energy development will be connected into the local distribution system. Analysis 

and discussions with the local DNO, Western Power Distribution, indicate that the turbine is 

likely to feed electricity into the grid at one of the 33 kV overhead cables that cross the site, 

as shown in Figure 1.2. As set out above, the works comprising the grid connection are not 

included in this application and will be the subject of a subsequent submission by the DNO. 

Control Kiosk 

4.5.2 The wind energy development will be connected through suitable switchgear to be installed in 

a control kiosk on site. The kiosk housing will be approximately 5 m W × 5 m L × 4.5 m H 





which will house switchgear and metering, protection and control equipment. Figure 4.2 

provides an illustration of typical kiosk and its proposed location is shown in Figure 1.2. 

Electrical connections on-site 

4.5.3 Wind turbine produce electricity at 690 V which is typically transformed to 33 kV via the 

turbine transformers located inside the tower or nacelle, or adjacent to turbine base in the 

kiosk, as explained above. 

4.5.4 Underground cabling will link the turbine to the on-site kiosk. Detailed construction and 

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

typically cables are laid in a trench 1000 mm deep and 400–1200 mm 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. Figure 4.3 shows a typical 

cable trench detail. 

4.6 Site access 

Off-site highway access works and HGV 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 for 

abnormally large loads, and to identify any modifications required to facilitate access for 

delivery vehicles. A preliminary access study was therefore undertaken to review potential 

access routes. A more detailed study will be carried out by the turbine supplier should the 

proposed development be granted consent. The turbine delivery vehicles are abnormal 

indivisible loads, so a Special Order is required under the Road Vehicles (Authorisation of 

Special Types) (General) Order 2003. 

4.6.2 The findings of the access study and the results from subsequent swept path analysis6 led to 

the identification of the preferred route for construction traffic from the strategic road network 

to the site via A30 and A390, as shown by Figure 4.4. This route, which minimises 

environmental effects, was deemed to be suitable due to the lack of any over-riding structural 

constraints. Further details relating to the movement of traffic to and from the site are 

reported in the traffic and transport chapter. Details on on-site access are provided below. 

4.6.3 Details on on-site access are provided below. 

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. 





4.7 Civils works 

Wind turbine foundations 

4.7.1 Wind turbine are typically installed on reinforced concrete foundations, established on 

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

conditions. 

4.7.2 The Wheal Jane wind turbine is likely to be installed on piled foundations, established on 

suitable load-bearing strata taking into account any former below-ground mine workings, or 

on reinforced concrete, depending on ground conditions. 

4.7.3 A typical piled foundation is shown in Figure 4.5. The specific turbine foundation design will 

depend on the choice of turbine, the manufacturer’s specifications and the ground conditions. 

Assuming piled reinforced concrete slabs, with 8 piles each of 650 mm in diameter and 30 m 

long, the total volume of material to be excavated for the foundations would be approximately 

1000 m 3 , depending on the final foundation design. 

4.7.4 There may be the need to undertake soil movements on site in order to create a level ground 

surface for the turbine construction, before excavation for the foundation takes place. The 

total volume of material to be levelled for the foundations would be determined following the 

final turbine location (within micro-siting distance), and the results of the ground investigation 

(see Section 9). 

4.7.5 During construction excavated material would be stored on site, thereby reducing vehicle 

movements to and from site. Excavated soil will be handled and stored in accordance with 

DEFRA’s Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils (MAFF, 2000); topsoil will be stockpiled 

separately to any subsoil. A working area around the foundations will be put into place to 

allow for the use of shuttering during concrete pouring and for other construction activities. 

On completion, the excavated soil will be used to backfill and cover the concrete base to the 

original ground level. Surplus excavated material will be used as landscaping on site to 

minimise traffic movements. 

Construction of crane pads 

4.7.6 The wind turbine will require an area of hard standing to be built adjacent to the turbine 

foundation. 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 tower sections, nacelle 

and rotor 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. The area of hard standing could also be utilised 

during decommissioning at the end of the wind energy development’s life. The area of hard 

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

approximately 0.11 ha. Approximately a third of this area will be dressed back with topsoil 

and landscaped into the surrounding area upon completion of turbine erection. A typical 

crane hard standing is illustrated in Figure 4.6. 





Site access and on-site tracks 

4.7.7 There will be one principal point of access to the site, off the Bissoe Road as shown in 

Figure 4.4. The existing junction will be used for general construction traffic (site staff etc) and 

turbine deliveries. 

4.7.8 There are various factors and constraints that have influenced the on-site track layout: 

• 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; 

• Existing cable, pipe or electricity infrastructure is avoided; and 

• Use of suitable existing crossing /access points where possible. 

4.7.9 Approximately 220 m of new access track will be constructed. The completed tracks will 

generally be 5 m wide. Typical track cross sections are shown in Figure 4.7. 

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

of approximately 13 m. Additionally, temporary passing places may be required, measuring 

15 m by 5 m to facilitate traffic movement. The edges of the tracks will be encouraged to revegetate 

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

maintenance vehicles throughout the operational period. All new tracks will be unpaved and 

constructed from material sourced from off-site quarries. 

4.7.11 The design and construction of the new lengths of on-site tracks is based on the following 

criteria: 

• Capable of withstanding 100 t plus loads; 

• Temporary construction (albeit in-situ for up to 25 years); 

• Laid to existing ground levels as much as possible; 

• A minimum of 5 m wide; 

• Appropriate for the stability of the ground on which it rests; and 

• Permeable to minimise need for surface water drainage system. 

4.7.12 Designs for similar wind development access roads (especially if transversing poor loadbearing 

ground conditions) have often utilised significant depths of crushed rock fill (often a 

total construction thickness of 950 mm incorporating 800 mm of capping material and 

150 mm of sub-base). The proposal here is to utilise geo-grid reinforcement technology (eg 

Tensar TriaxTX 160 or equivalent) in conjunction with granular fill. This reduces the loading 





on the underlying sub-formation and is also a more sustainable approach as it reduces the 

quantities of granular material required. 

4.7.13 The design will be based on a “sandwich” of a grid placed on the sub-formation followed by a 

lower layer of compacted granular material, then a second grid and a top layer of compacted 

granular material to be “blinded off” to form a running surface. The total thickness will be 

reduced to approximately 600 mm. 

4.7.14 Water crossings have been avoided in the access road layout. 

4.7.15 The need for drainage will be established on site during construction by observation. Where 

ground conditions are of a permeable nature, swales will be utilised for drainage to allow 

natural filtering of surface water into the ground. Where areas are less free draining, land 

drains or drainage ditches will be installed where the topography and ground conditions 

dictate. Drainage filters will be installed at suitable locations to filter silts out and reduce flow 

rates on steeper section of track. If required, cut off drains will be installed at points to redirect 

surface water to minimise washout of roads and/or construction areas. 

Site accommodation and temporary works 

4.7.16 One temporary construction compound approximately 80 m × 30 m is proposed. The location 

is shown on Figure 1.2. The construction compound will accommodate all the required 

welfare facilities. Another temporary fenced compound area may be established on the 

turbine craneage area though will not require any additional hard standing to that proposed 

for the craneage area. 

Stone and concrete requirements and sourcing 

4.7.17 Aggregate for site tracks, laydown areas, the crane hard standing and foundation are 

expected to be sourced from local quarries. Approximately 3432 m 3 of aggregate sand will be 

required. 

4.7.18 Approximately 414 m 3 of concrete will be imported to site from ready mix plants for 

construction of the turbine foundation and control kiosk. In the unlikely event that on-site 

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

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

further consultation with the local planning authority and statutory consultees as necessary. 

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

to minimise the amount of aggregate 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 - 6 months 

and will comprise the following activities: 

• Construction of off-site highways works to enable access; 





• Formation of site compound including hard standing and temporary site office facilities; 

• Upgrading of existing tracks and construction of new access tracks and passing 

places; 

• Construction of crane hard standing area; 

• Construction of turbine foundation; 

• Construction of control kiosk; 

• Excavation of trenches and cable laying adjacent to site roads; 

• Delivery and erection of the wind turbine; 

• Commissioning of site equipment; and 

• 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. Site 

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

early as possible and in a progressive manner. 

Programme 

4.8.3 An indicative programme for construction activities is shown in Table 4.2. The starting date 

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

subsequently 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. 





Table 4.2 

Likely construction programme 

Off-site access works 

Site compound and site office set up 

Site tracks and new access 

Turbine crane hard standings 

Turbine foundations 

Control kiosk 

Site cabling installation 

Grid connection installation 

Installation of switchgear/metering 

Turbine erection 

Grid connection commissioning 

Turbine & SCADA cabling commissioning 

Performance testing 

Site reinstatement works 

Construction works and delivery times 

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 

MAIN CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 

COMMISSIONING PERIOD 

SITE REINSTATEMENT PERIOD 

4.8.4 For the purposes of this ES, construction activities have been assumed to take place 07:00– 

19:00 hours on week days and 07:00–13:00 on Saturdays. Work outside these hours is not 

usual, though if it was required 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. 

Predicted traffic movements during construction 

4.8.6 The majority of vehicles will be heavy goods vehicles of standard road size. 

4.8.7 Aggregate and materials for the access tracks, hard standings and the foundations will be 

brought to site by HGV-sized vehicles. Aggregate deliveries will typically be in HGVs carrying 

approximately 20 tonnes of materials, equivalent to 35 m 3 of aggregate. A typical concrete 

mixer carries 7 m 3 of concrete, and it will arrive on site as needed and must be used instantly. 

The foundation is typically poured in two stages, with roughly half of the vehicles associated 

with each pour. Table 4.3 includes a summary of HGV movements associated with aggregate 

and concrete deliveries associated with this development. 

4.8.8 There will be a small number of additional HGV movements associated with the delivery of 

plant and components to the construction site, and daily movements of vehicles bringing 

workers to and from the site. 





4.8.9 The cranes and wind turbine component deliveries will form abnormal loads, being wider, 

longer and heavier than standard road vehicles. Table 4.3 includes a summary of abnormal 

loads bringing turbine components and cranes to the site. Chapter 13 provides more detail on 

vehicle movements and abnormal loads. 

Table 4.3 

Vehicle movements associated with turbine construction 

Item Dimensions m3 of material Deliveries 

one-way 

movements 

Access track and 

area of minor works 

1546 m 2 928 m 3 aggregate 

Crane pad and kiosk 920 m 2 528 m 3 aggregate 

102 204 

Construction 

compound 

2,500 m 2 1500 m 3 aggregate 

Foundation 1034 m 3 620 m 3 of aggregate, 18 36 

414 m 3 of concrete 59 118 

Turbine Base (steel 

for cage and 

reinforcing, plus 

piles) 

Approx. 104 

tonnes steel 

- 6 12 

Turbine Components - - 

Large Crane - - 

Support crane - - 

10 abnormal 

loads 

1 abnormal 

load, 5 HGVs 

1 abnormal 

load, 1 HGV 

- 

10 

2 

Staff 

25 staff on site 

per day 

- 

25 per day – 

not HGV 


not HGV 

Total HGV vehicles 191 382 

Working practices 

4.8.10 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 will 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. 

4.8.11 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. 

4.8.12 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 





within the site compound in accordance with the Environmental Agency pollution prevention 

guidelines. 

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

leaching of alkalis. 

4.8.14 A wheel washing station will be provided at a suitable location should this be necessary for 

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

4.8.15 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 

4.8.16 Given the small numbers of vehicles involved and the short time scale, air quality effects 

arising from exhaust emissions from delivery and construction plant will not be significant. 

4.8.17 In the absence of appropriate mitigation, there would be potential for an increase in dust 

locally during construction. Dust control is a well-established and effective practice during the 

construction of wind energy developments, and with the adoption of the measures outlined 

below, it is not expected that the change in air quality in relation to dust will be significant at 

any sensitive receptor. The main mitigation measures that will be utilised as necessary are: 

i. 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 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

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 

v. 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 

vi. 

A site liaison person to investigate and take appropriate action where complaints or 

queries about construction issues arise 





Measures Related to Ecology/Ornithology 

4.8.18 A range of measures are required to minimise the construction effects of the development on 

bats, birds, reptiles and mammals. These include minimise noise generation, avoiding the 

use of artificial light, controls to piling and the staged clearance of vegetation prior to 

construction. The measures are set out in detail in Sections 8.5 and 12.4. 

Construction and operational wastes 

4.8.19 Given the nature of the site, there is likely to be very little surplus topsoil material generated 

by excavation or from scraping back the surface under access track routes. If any is 

generated, it will be re-used on site to encourage re-vegetation around the working areas. 

Subsoil material will be re-used on site where possible (large quantities are already being 

used around the site for landscaping and restoration), and any that is not suitable for disposal 

in this way would be disposed off-site in line with relevant waste disposal regulations and in 

accordance with the Site Waste Management Plan. 

4.8.20 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. 

4.8.21 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 and the Site Waste Management Plan. 

4.8.22 Further detail on waste is provided in Chapter 17. 

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 

Meteorological effects 

4.10.1 Although wind turbine are designed to stop generating at wind speeds over 25 m/s, they are 

built to withstand very high wind speeds, and are normally certified against structural failure 

for wind speeds up to 60 m/s (in excess of 120 mph). 





4.10.2 Lightning generally has no effect on turbine, 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. 

4.10.3 Snow does not generally pose problems other than with access to the site. Occasionally very 

heavy snow and ice may affect the anemometer or aerodynamics of the turbine blades 

resulting in temporary automatic shutdown. The wind turbine will restart automatically after 

accumulations have naturally thawed. Modern turbines have sensitive blade balance controls 

which detect accretion on the blades (e.g. ice) and do not begin operation until it is safe to do 

so. 

General servicing 

4.10.4 Routine maintenance or servicing of turbine 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 is switched off for the duration of its 

service. 

4.10.5 A team of two people with a 4×4 vehicle would carry out the servicing. It is likely to take two 

people (on average) 1 day to service the turbine. 

Extended services 

4.10.6 At regular periods through the project life, oils and components will require general 

maintenance, which will increase the service time on site. Gearbox oil changes are required 

approximately every 18 months. Changing the oil and worn components will extend the 

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. 

4.10.7 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 

repairs. Hence mid-summer (June, July and August) is the most appropriate period for this 

work. 

Unscheduled operations 

4.10.8 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; and 

• Track maintenance. 

4.10.9 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 

4.10.10 It is anticipated that existing site uses, land management and mineral restoration practices 

will continue unaffected by the proposed development. The proposals are fully integrated into 

the wider masterplan proposals for the Wheal Jane site. The access tracks have been sited 

to minimise any effects on continued site management and restoration. 

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 turbine dismantled and removed. Any 

alternative to this action will require a new EIA and planning approval. 

4.11.2 The bases will be broken out to below ground level and all cables cut at depth below ground 

level and left in the ground. The turbine tower, nacelle, blades and kiosk will be removed. 

Roads will be left for use by the landowner. No aggregate 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. 

4.12 Securing environmental management – the environmental management 

plan 

4.12.1 The applicant has identified the environmental management scheme described above as 

being an integral part of the proposals. It is expected that this scheme will be captured within 

the consent description and any associated conditions should the application be approved. 

The following are expected to apply to ensure that the scheme is correctly implemented 

throughout construction and operation. 

Construction 

4.12.2 The contract between the applicant and the company contracted to construct the wind energy 

development will specify the measures to be taken to reduce or mitigate the environmental 

effect of the construction process. These measures will consist of three main types: 

• Conditions to be adhered to under the planning permission; 

• Any requirements of Brownfields Investments Ltd and the Wheal Jane Ltd; and 

• All relevant mitigation measures identified in this ES, including the Site Waste 

Management Plan and Environmental Management Plan (which may be implemented 

via planning conditions). 

4.12.3 A copy of any conditions associated with the planning permission will be incorporated into the 

contract with the company constructing the wind energy development, and the company will 

be required to adhere to these. Selection of the construction contractor will be based partly 





upon the contractor’s record in dealing with environmental issues, and on its provision of 

evidence that it has incorporated all environmental requirements into its method statements, 

and its staffing and budgetary provisions. The developer will retain the services of specialist 

advisers, for example on archaeology and ecology, to be called on as required to advise on 

specific issues, including micro-siting. More detailed information on the role of such specialist 

advisors during construction is provided in the relevant specialist chapters, where 

appropriate. 

Operation 

4.12.4 The site will be managed by a team of wind energy engineers whose duties will include 

compliance with statutory environmental requirements. 

4.12.5 PfR’s wind energy developments will operate in accordance with documented environmental 

procedures, which ensure compliance with applicable environmental legislation and best 

practice. 

4.12.6 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. PfR 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. 

4.12.7 Effective communication underpins the whole system of environmental management, 

ensuring appropriate information passes between PfR staff 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. 

4.12.8 An Environmental Management Plan will be drawn together from the information within the 

topic chapters, and from other sources as the application and design progresses. The initial 

outline for this is included in this Environmental Statement at Chapter 18. 


DEFRA, 2009. Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites. 

DEFRA, 2009. Safeguarding our Soils, A Strategy for England. 





5 Planning policy overview 

5.1 Introduction to planning guidance and context 

5.1.1 This Environmental Statement forms part of a suite of documents that supports the planning 

application for the Wheal Jane wind energy development. The authority dealing with the 

planning application, Cornwall Council 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 This section summarises planning policy as relevant to the Environmental Statement. It is not 

the intention of this chapter to provide a detailed assessment of the proposals against 

relevant national and local plans and policies, as this is covered in the Planning Statement 

which forms part of the planning application for the scheme. 

5.1.3 The main policy drivers for the proposals are addressed in Chapter 6 of this Environmental 

Statement, and in detail in Section 2 of the Planning Statement. At the national level, 

minimum targets are defined in the Climate Change Act 2008 and other Government policy. 

The targets are subject to regular review. There is a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure 

that legally binding targets are met, and this includes greenhouse gas emission reductions of 

at least 80% by 2050, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 26% by 2020, 

against a 1990 baseline. In April 2009, the Government promised to cut greenhouse gases 

by 34% over the next decade with the use of the ‘carbon budget’. 

5.1.4 There is a requirement for local authorities to develop low carbon and renewable energy 

policies in their development plan documents. This comes from PPS 22 Renewable Energy 

(2004) and the PPS 1 supplement Planning & Climate Change (2007). Local planning 

authorities should provide a framework to encourage low carbon and renewable energy in 

development plan documents and can explicitly adopt higher policy standards if that is 

justified with reference to a ‘sound’ evidence base. 

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 Wheal Jane wind energy development proposal and are 

addressed in the planning statement: 

• PPS1 : Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) and its supplement Planning and 

Climate Change (2007); 

• PPS5 : Planning for the Historic Environment (2010); 

• PPS7 : Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004); 


Planning Policy Review 



• PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005); 

• PPG13 Transport (2001); 

• PPG14 : Planning on Unstable Land (1990) 

• PPS22 : Renewable Energy (2004); 

• PPS23 : Planning and Pollution Control (2004); 

• PPG24 Planning and Noise (1994); and 

• PPS25 : Development and Flood Risk (2010). 

5.2.2 Key elements of national policy guidance are briefly reviewed below. 

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) 

5.2.3 PPS1 provides a strategic level of guidance to shape the formulation of regional and local 

planning policy. The guidance states that planning should facilitate and promote sustainable 

development that supports economic, social and environmental objectives to improve 

people’s quality of life. The document identifies six key principles aimed at ensuring that 

“…development plans and decisions taken on planning applications contribute to the delivery 

of sustainable development” (paragraph 13, page 6), with specific reference made to 

promoting the development of renewable energy resources. The document also stresses the 

importance of community involvement in the planning and achievement of sustainable 

development. 

PPS1 Supplement – Planning and Climate Change (2007) 

5.2.4 This supplement to PPS1 recognises that planning has a key role to play in helping to tackle 

climate change and outlines ways in which this may be done. Of particular relevance to the 

proposed development is the potential for planning to help “create an attractive environment 

for innovation and for the private sector to bring forward investment, including in renewable 

and low-carbon technologies and supporting infrastructure” (paragraph 7, page 9). With 

regard to the development of Local Development Documents, paragraph 19 states that 

renewable and low-carbon energy generation should be promoted and encouraged, with 

policies designed to be promotional rather than restrictive. 

PPS22: Renewable Energy (2004) 

5.2.5 PPS22 recognises that “Increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to 

facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and 

renewable energy” (page 6). The document outlines eight key principles that regional 

planning bodies and local planning authorities should adhere to when planning for renewable 

energy, including: 

• “…(iv) The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable 

energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given 





significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning 

permission… 

• …(viii) Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and 

social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been 

minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures” 

(paragraph 1, pages 7 and 8). 

5.2.6 Paragraphs 18 to 25 relate to environmental considerations including the landscape and 

visual and noise effects of renewable energy developments. The document states that “Of all 

renewable technologies, wind turbines are likely to have the greatest visual and landscape 

effects” (paragraph 20, page 13), although local authorities are advised to acknowledge that 

impacts will vary according to turbine size/number and landscape type. Local authorities are 

also advised to note that impacts may be temporary if a planning permission includes 

conditions for the future decommissioning of turbines. In addition, the cumulative impact of 

wind generation projects needs to be considered at the planning application stage. 

The Draft National Planning Policy Framework 

5.2.7 The draft National Planning Policy Framework was published for consultation in July 2011. 

This Framework, when adopted, is intended to replace all the existing PPSs and PPGs, as 

well as a number of Circulars. The National Planning Policy Framework will thus be a key 

policy document. 

5.2.8 The draft Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and 

states that the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does 

everything it can to support sustainable growth (paragraph 13). Paragraph 14 states that “At 

the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, 

which should be seen as golden thread running through ....decision making” (paragraph 14, 

page 4). 

5.2.9 Paragraph 152 supports the delivery of renewable energy. It states that “To help increase the 

use and supply of renewable and low-carbon energy, local planning authorities should 

recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from 

renewable or low-carbon sources. They should (inter alia): have a positive strategy to 

promote energy from renewable and low-carbon sources...; and design their policies to 

maximise renewable and low-carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse 

impacts are addressed satisfactorily” (paragraph 152, page 43). 

5.2.10 The draft Framework goes on to say that “When determining planning applications, local 

planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development and: 

not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable 

or low-carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable 

contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and approve the application if its impacts 

are (or can be made) acceptable” (paragraph 153, page 43). 

Other National Policy Guidance 

5.2.11 The other national policy guidance documents provide advice on environmental protection in 

particular topic areas including: protection of the historic environment; biodiversity and 





geology; noise and vibration; and flood risk. Guidance is also given on issues related to 

transport and development on unstable land. Further detail is set out in Section 3 of the 

Planning Statement and in the topic chapters of this Environmental Statement. 

5.3 Development plan 

5.3.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning 

applications should be determined in accordance with the statutory development plan unless 

material considerations indicate otherwise. This section describes the statutory development 

plan for the proposed development, as well as other regional and local policy which is a 

material consideration. 

5.3.2 At present, the development plan for the application site consists of the saved policies of: 

• Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG 10); 

• The Cornwall Structure Plan (2004); 

• The Carrick Local Plan (1998); and 

• The Cornwall Minerals Local Plan (1998). 

Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10) (2001) 

5.3.3 Although produced almost nine years ago, the Regional Planning Guidance for the South 

West (RPG10 (2001), provides the statutory regional spatial framework for the South West 

for a 15 to 20 year period. The RPG forms part of the development plan. A range of policies 

are particularly relevant to the proposed development and the EIA process: 

• Policy RE6 relates to energy generation and use. It states that local authorities should 

“support and encourage the region to meet the national targets for …a minimum of 11- 

15% of electricity production to be from renewable energy sources by 2010” (Policy RE 

6, page108). The policy goes on to state that local authorities should balance the 

benefits of developing more sustainable forms of energy generation against the 

environmental impacts, in particular on national and international designated sites; 

• Policy VIS 2 sets out the principles for future development. These wide ranging 

principles include the development of suitable previously developed urban land and 

conservation and enhancement of environmental assets; 

• Policy SS 18 for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly includes the requirements for local 

Authorities, developers, infrastructure and transport providers and other agencies to 

work together to achieve the conservation and enhancement of the distinctiveness of 

the natural and historic environment; 

• Policy TRAN 6 relates to the movement of freight. It includes the aim of reducing the 

impact of large vehicles on the environment through traffic management measures and 

freight quality partnerships, whilst maintaining adequate access for delivery of goods; 





• Policy EN 1 relates to landscape and biodiversity, and seeks to protect and enhance 

the region’s internationally and nationally important landscape areas and nature 

conservation sites, maintain and enhance the biodiversity resources of the Region; 

• Policy EN 3 relates to the historic environment. It states that local authorities and other 

agencies in their plans, policies and proposals should, inter alia afford the highest level 

of protection to historic and archaeological areas, sites and monuments of 

international, national and regional importance; 

• Policy RE 1 relates to water resources and quality. It states that local authorities, the 

Environment Agency, water companies and other agencies should seek to, inter alia, 

protect groundwater resources, and protect and enhance river and coastal water 

quality; and 

• Policy RE 2 deals with flood risk and states that local authorities should, inter alia, 

promote the use of sustainable drainage systems for surface water drainage. 

Cornwall Structure Plan (2004) 

5.3.4 The Cornwall Structure Plan was adopted in 2004 and sets out policies to guide development 

for the next 10-15 years. The Structure Plan contains 28 ‘saved’ policies, of which the 

following are particularly relevant to the proposed development and the EIA process: 

• Policy 7 relates to renewable energy resources and states that “Provision should be 

made for renewable energy generation to maximise environmental and economic 

benefits whilst minimising any adverse local impacts. A range of technologies for 

renewable energy production (for heat and electricity) will be encouraged. Schemes for 

electricity generation will contribute to a Cornwall target of about 93 MW of installed 

capacity from renewable resources by 2010. This should be through development that 

increases local benefits, particularly diversification of the rural economy, and minimises 

any adverse effects on the natural or built environment. In respect of land-based wind 

energy, the scale and location of development should respect landscape character and 

distinctiveness and reflect, in particular, county-wide priorities to avoid adverse effects 

on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, significant intrusion into coastal 

landscapes, and the unreasonable proliferation of turbines in the landscape“ (Policy 7, 

page 21); 

• Policy 1 outlines the Structure Plan’s seven key principles for sustainable development 

against which development proposals will be assessed. It includes conserving and 

enhancing the character and distinctiveness of the County as well as its natural and 

historic assets, and ensuring the prudent use of resources; 

• Policy 2 is concerned with the protection and enhancement of the County’s natural and 

built environment, in terms of its quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness. 

The policy states that development should ensure that important elements of the local 

landscape are retained, and should contribute to the regeneration, restoration, 

enhancement or conservation of the area; 

• Policy 3 advocates the prudent use of resources, outlining a number of ways in which 

development can help to contribute. It includes ensuring that development: avoids land 





at risk from flooding; uses sustainable drainage techniques; facilitates energy 

conservation and the use of renewable energy sources; and adopts sustainable 

construction principles. It also refers to the need for development to avoid significant 

air, land, soil or water pollution/contamination, including noise and light pollution; 

• Policy 5 addresses the conservation and management of mineral resources. The need 

to secure high standards of restoration and aftercare is stressed; and 

• Policy 27 states that development and transport should contribute to a more effective, 

more environmentally friendly and safer transport system. 

Carrick District Local Plan (1998) 

5.3.5 The Carrick District Local Plan was adopted in 1998 and includes a range of ‘saved’ policies 

that are particularly relevant to the proposed development and the EIA process: 

• Policy 13B states renewable energy schemes will be permitted provided a range of 

criteria are met, including the avoidance of a range of significant adverse impacts and 

effects related to a range of environmental topics including landscape, ecology, historic 

assets, noise and designated areas. The interpretation of this policy in the light of more 

recent national policy guidance is explained in Section 4 of the Planning Statement; 

• Policy 13C provides further criteria for wind proposals including impacts on residential 

amenity arising from shadow flicker or electromagnetic disturbances; 

• Policy 3A relates to the enhancement/protection of the countryside, refusing 

permission for developments that would have a significant adverse impact with regard 

to biodiversity, beauty, diversity of landscape, character/setting of settlements, wealth 

of natural resources, and nature conservation, agricultural, historic and/or recreational 

value; 

• Policy 3D seeks to protect the character and setting of settlements; 

• Policies 3F, 3H, 3HH and 3J relate to the protection of trees and hedgerows, regionally 

and locally important nature conservation sites, wildlife corridors and local habitats 

respectively; and 

• Policies 4D, 4S and 4T address the setting of listed buildings and protection of 

nationally important archaeology and locally important archaeology. 

Minerals Local Plan (1998) 

5.3.6 The Cornwall Minerals Local Plan was adopted in 1998 and provides the policy context for 

minerals development until 2011. Policy S1 relates to Minerals Consultation Areas and states 

that “Planning permission will not be granted for development which would sterilise important 

mineral deposits, or be incompatible with extraction, associated mineral waste disposal or 

ancillary operations within Minerals Consultation Areas” (Policy S1, page 41). 

5.3.7 Wheal Jane, Baldhu is included within the list of Mineral Consultation Areas identified in 

Policy S1. However, the Inset Map MM10 of Minerals Development Framework Report on 





Preferred Options (2006) identifies two Metalliferous Surface Safeguarding Zones within the 

Wheal Jane site. The proposed location for the wind turbine is outside of these two 

Metalliferous Surface Safeguarding Zones. 

5.4 Other Relevant Planning Policy 

5.4.1 A range of emerging planning policy is also relevant to the proposed development and EIA 

process, and it is a material consideration in the decision-making process. Key documents 

are: 

• Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (Secretary of State’s Proposed 

Changes version, July 2008) - In June 2006, the South West Regional Assembly 

produced a Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South West, which was due 

to supersede RPG10 when adopted. However, policies in the draft RSS should now be 

read in the light of the Government’s current intention to abolish regional strategies. 

Policy RE1 provides renewable electricity targets for the South West region. Policy 

RE4 relates to the development of new resources to meet the renewable electricity 

targets. It states that: “When considering individual applications for development of 

renewable energy facilities, local planning authorities will take into account the wider 

environmental, community and economic benefits of proposals, whatever their scale, 

and should be mindful that schemes should not have a cumulative negative impact. 

Proposals in protected areas should be of an appropriate scale and not compromise 

the objectives of designation” (Policy RE 4). The draft RSS also includes a range of 

policies related to topics such as sustainable development, flood risk and protection of 

the environment which are relevant to the proposed development; 

• Cornwall’s Core Strategy – the consultation on options for this was supported by an 

Energy Issues Paper which set out targets for renewable energy generation and 

emphasises the scope for a large increase in onshore wind turbines; 

• Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Supplementary Planning Document – 

Consultation Draft (2010) – which seeks to help facilitate the deployment of low carbon 

and renewable energy infrastructure throughout the county. It sets targets for 

renewable energy generation, and sets out key planning issues relating to wind 

turbines. These include landscape and visual amenity, nature conservation, 

archaeology and heritage, noise, shadow flicker, safety, communication and 

electromagnetic interference, access and decommissioning. and 

• Wheal Jane Masterplan - the planning application for the wind turbine forms part of the 

evolving wider proposals for the development of a zero carbon sustainable business 

park at the Wheal Jane site. The Masterplan includes a suite of renewable energy 

developments with the aim of developing a scheme which is self sufficient in terms of 

energy. Cornwall Council has resolved to adopt the Wheal Jane Masterplan as 

planning policy to guide development of the site, and the turbine is a key part of the 

Masterplan. 





5.5 Summary 

5.5.1 The promotion of renewable energy is a clear priority which runs through European and 

national legislation, plans, programmes and policy. European and national legislation has set 

legally binding targets for renewable energy and reductions in CO 2 emissions. Energy and 

planning policy seeks to promote renewable energy development, and recognises the 

important role of on-shore wind projects. National policy states that the development of 

renewable energy is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both 

climate change and renewable energy. This legislation and guidance is a significant material 

consideration in the determination of wind energy planning applications. The theme of 

promotion of renewable energy also flows through regional and local policy, as set out in 

relevant development plan documents. 

5.5.2 National and development plan policy also seeks to protect, maintain and enhance the 

natural and historic environment and its assets, as detailed in a wide range of topic-specific 

policies. Key policies are discussed in the topic chapters in this Environmental Statement, 

and the development is assessed against planning policy in detail in the Planning Statement. 





6 Climate change mitigation and other atmospheric 

emissions 

6.1 Introduction and overview 

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 Wheal Jane wind turbine on maximising 

renewable energy potential and the mitigation of climate change. 

6.1.2 A quantitative assessment has been carried out of the expected energy yield and associated 

avoidance of carbon dioxide emissions and is presented in this chapter. However, it is not 

considered appropriate to assign any level of significance in EIA terms and therefore no 

conclusions have been drawn on significant effects or cumulative effects. 

Policy Background 

6.1.3 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 as follows. 

6.1.4 EU Directive 2009/28/EC promotes the use of energy from renewable sources, and includes 

the UK commitment to source 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 – an 

increase in the share of renewables from approximately 2.25% in 2008; 

6.1.5 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; 

6.1.6 The Low Carbon Transition Plan was published in July 2009 to 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; and 

6.1.7 The UK Renewable Energy Strategy, also published in July 2009, states that 5.5% of 

electricity currently generated within the UK is currently from renewable sources, but that it 

could be closer to 30% with two-thirds of that total coming from on- and off-shore wind 

developments 7 . 

6.1.8 The UK Renewable Energy Strategy also contains a diagram (Chart 2 below) 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. 

7 The Renewable Energy Strategy, HM Government, July 2009. 


Climate Change Mitigation and Other Atmospheric Emissions 



6.1.9 A report by Renewables UK (International Comparisons: Turbine Densities and Capacity 

Factors, June 2011) identified that currently the UK has some 2,744 operational turbines, with 

a further 2,235 either with planning permission or under construction. The report further 

shows that an additional 5,021 turbines are required to meet the UK target of 15% of energy 

generation from renewable sources by 2020.) The Committee on Climate Change 

advised the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in September 2010 to "press 

on with efforts to ensure that the share of renewable energy is increased from current low 

levels, and that the 15% target for 2020 should be neither reduced nor increased". 

Chart 2 

Illustrative Mix of Technologies in lead scenario, 2020 (TWh) 

6.2 Methodology 

6.2.1 There is no specific guidance or policy for evaluating the effects of renewable energy 

schemes on climate change and energy generation. The approach that has been adopted is 

a quantitative assessment of the expected energy yield and associated avoidance of carbon 

dioxide emissions, in terms of the reduction in level of emissions of CO 2 from wind energy 

compared with that from the typical generation mix. 

6.2.2 The expected energy yield is calculated based on the rated capacity of the proposed wind 

energy development in kW x 0.25 (the predicted capacity factor, which takes into account the 

intermittent nature of the wind, availability of wind turbine and array losses) x 8760hrs 

(number of hours in a year). 

6.2.3 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 turbine displaces Combined Cycle Gas Turbines and an average mix generation 

of 430 gCO 2 /kWh. It is acknowledged that this may change during the life of the wind turbines 

depending on changes in the UK energy mix. 





6.2.4 The conversion to annual UK homes equivalent is based on average domestic household 

electricity consumption of 4602 kWh. This is based on the Digest of UK Energy Statistics 

(2010) 2009 domestic electricity consumption, (122,543 GWh) 8 , which, when divided by the 

number of households in the UK (26,625,800) 9 , gives an average electricity usage of 

4,602 kWh per year per household. 

6.2.5 In addition to the above, carbon payback calculations are sometimes 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 Wheal Jane site as there will be no wholesale change in land use, limited reduction in 

woodland cover, nor any substantive change in drainage or other vegetation cover as a result 

of the development proposal. 

6.3 Expected Energy Yield and Associated Avoidance of Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions 

Renewable Electricity Generation 

6.3.1 The final choice of turbine will follow a competitive tendering exercise, but if the proposed 

development was constructed it could generate approximately could generate between 3.28 

and 5.47 GWh of renewable electricity per year (based on a capacity factor of 25%). These 

figures are derived as follows: 

1,500 kW [1 × 1.5 MW turbine] × 8,760 hours/year × 0.25 (capacity factor) = 3,285,000 kWh 

2,500 kW [1 × 2.5 MW turbine] × 8,760 hours/year × 0.25 (capacity factor) = 5,475,000 kWh 

6.3.2 Based on the average domestic household electricity consumption of 4,602 kWh and the 

predicted electricity generation, it is estimated that the yearly output from the wind energy 

development will be equivalent to the approximate domestic electricity needs of between 713 

and 1189 average households in Britain. 

Reductions in atmospheric emissions of CO 2 

6.3.3 It is widely accepted that electricity produced from wind energy has a positive benefit with 

regard to reducing CO 2 emissions. In estimating the likely 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 430 gCO 2 /kWh, based on the 

assumption that the energy generated by the wind turbine displaces Combined Cycle Gas 

Turbines and an average mix generation (430 gCO 2 /kWh). On this basis, and on the 

assumption that the proposed wind energy development annual output is 5.5 GWh, a wind 

energy development of this scale is expected to displace 1,412 tonnes of CO 2 emissions per 

year being emitted to atmosphere. These figures are derived as follows: 

8 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/publications/dukes/311-dukes-2010-ch5.pdf 

9 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/publications/ecuk/269-ecuk-domestic-2010.xls (table 3.3) 





3,285,000 kW (output) × 430 gCO 2 /kWh ÷ 1,000,000 = 1,412 tonnes CO 2 

5,475,000 kW (output) × 430 gCO 2 /kWh ÷ 1,000,000 = 2,354 tonnes CO 2 


BERR, 2008. UK Renewable Energy Strategy, Consultation. 

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). 

DECC, 2009. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan. National strategy for climate and energy White 

Paper. 

DECC, 2009. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy. Cm 7686. 

Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007. Meeting the Energy Challenge: 

Energy White Paper 2007. Cm 7124. 

Department of Trade and Industry, 2003. Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future – Creating a Low 

Carbon Economy. 

Department of Trade and Industry, 2006. The Energy Challenge: Energy Review Report. 

Department of Trade and Industry, 2007. Energy White Paper – Meeting the Energy Challenge. 

ODPM, 2004. Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy. 

ODPM, 2004. Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22. 

Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology Fourth Report, 2004. Energy Payback 

Times (www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldsctech/126/12620.htm) 

RenewableUK, emissions reductions calculations. (www.bwea.com/edu/calcs.htm) 





7 Cultural Heritage 


7.1.1 This Chapter assesses the potential effect of the proposed 122 m tall wind turbine at the 

Wheal Jane site, Baldhu, Cornwall, on cultural heritage. It includes the relevant legislation 

and policy, assessment methodology and significance criteria, baseline description, 

identification of potential effects assessment of the construction, operation and 

decommissioning phases of the scheme, mitigation measures, residual effect assessment 

and recommendations. 

7.1.2 Consideration is given to the likely significant effects on heritage assets during the 

construction, operation and decommissioning periods; however the focus of assessment is 

concerned with the long term effects that the presence of the turbine would generate during 

the operational period of the scheme, in particular on the setting of the Cornwall and West 

Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site, which lies near to the application site, and 

other significant heritage assets including Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, 

Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens. 

Legislation and planning policy 

7.1.3 The proposed site lies within the administrative area of Cornwall Council (formerly Carrick 

District Council). 

7.1.4 Reference has been made to the following legislation, planning guidance and related 

documents: 

• Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979); 

• Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990); 

• Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (Department of 

Communities and Local Government 2010) & the associated non-statutory Practice 

Guide (English Heritage 2010); 

• World Heritage Planning Circular 07/09 (Department of Communities and Local 

Government 2009); 

• Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site (WHS) Management 

Plan and Nomination Dossier (2005–2010); and 

• Cornwall Local Development Framework Core Strategy Draft Topic Based Issues 

Paper – Historic Environment (June 2010). 


Cultural Heritage 




Overview 

7.2.1 The following section outlines the approach and methodology to the assessment of cultural 

heritage. The methodology sets out the scope of the assessment and the criteria and 

definitions used for the assessment of sensitivity, magnitude of effect and overall significance 

of effects and are intended to provide a standardised approach to the terminology used in the 

assessment process. 

Scope 

7.2.2 The aim of this assessment is to consider: 

• The physical effect on all heritage assets, including buried archaeological remains and 

other historic structures, within the footprint of the scheme, including associated 

services and on/off site access routes; and 

• The effect on the setting of designated heritage assets (including the Cornwall & West 

Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, 

Scheduled Monuments and Registered Parks and Gardens) within the Zone of 

Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to a distance of 10 km from the site. 

Data sources 

7.2.3 Data on designated heritage assets – Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered 

Parks and Gardens and the World Heritage Site – was obtained from the National 

Monuments Record for a radius of 10 km from the site of the proposed turbine, in keeping 

with English Heritage guidance on Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (2005). 

7.2.4 Data on non-designated heritage assets – including archaeological deposits, structures and 

other historic features – was obtained from the Cornwall Council Historic Environment Record 

for a radius of 1 km from the site of the proposed turbine. 

7.2.5 Data on Conservation Areas was obtained from the Cornwall Council on-line interactive map 

for the 10 km study area. 

7.2.6 Additional sources of information included historic Ordnance Survey maps and other 

available reports and publications. 

Consultation 

7.2.7 Consultation was undertaken with Daniel Ratcliffe (Archaeological Adviser) and Penny Gale 

(Conservation Officer) of the Cornwall Council Historic Environment Service in June 2010. 

This meeting took place prior to the completion of the site survey work which was undertaken 

during the same week. The meeting was used to discuss the potential effect of the proposals 

on World Heritage Site, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, archaeological deposits within 

the footprint of the turbine development area and historic landscape features that may be 

affected by alterations to road verges and junctions to accommodate large vehicles carrying 

abnormal loads during the construction phase. 





7.2.8 During consultation, it was agreed that recent environmental remediation at the Wheal Jane 

site would have severely truncated or removed any archaeological deposits. No further 

evaluation was required beyond the scoping of the ES. 

7.2.9 It was agreed during consultation that the ES should consider the affect on the setting of the 

World Heritage Site. As there is no prescribed Buffer Zone for the World Heritage Site, the 

assessment should consider the effect on the principal sites noted within the WHS 

Management Plan (2006). It was reported that the general approach adopted by Cornwall 

Council for assessing the effect of development on the setting of the World Heritage Site was 

based on the effect on the legibility and understanding of the industrial landscape. This 

reflects the policy set out in PPS5 paragraph 9.5. 

7.2.10 The potential for the effect on heritage assets (including historic ‘hedges’ and hedgerows) 

during alterations to off-site access for the transportation of materials to the site was also 

raised. This discussion has been used to guide the content, scope and approach of this 

heritage assessment. 

7.2.11 English Heritage was also consulted about the proposed development but no comments were 

given. 

Baseline Study 

7.2.12 The assessment aims to examine existing baseline conditions and the potential effects on 

heritage assets during the life of the scheme. In order to establish the degree of effect the 

baseline conditions have initially been considered by detailed desk study and site survey 

work. 

7.2.13 The desk study comprised the identification of known designated and non-designated assets 

within the development area to assess the potential for the effect on buried archaeological 

deposits and other historic features associated with the industrial use of the site. This drew 

from the Cornwall Council Historic Environment Record, National Monument Record, historic 

Ordnance Survey maps and other available published resources in order to describe the 

history and development of the site. This is set out in para 7.3.2 below. 

7.2.14 The desk study also included the identification of designated heritage assets that fall within 

the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to a distance of 10 km from the turbine location. The 

methodology of the ZTV is described in Chapter 10 (Landscape and Visual Assessment). 

This provided an indication of the potential visibility of the hub height (80 m) and blade tip 

height (122 m total), but as noted in the detailed methodology the ZTV does not take into 

account landscape features or elements such as buildings or vegetation. 

7.2.15 Data from the Historic Environment Record and National Monuments Record was overlaid 

onto an Ordnance Survey map showing the extent of the ZTV. This provided an indication of 

the potential for designated heritage assets to be affected by the development. However, as 

the ZTV does not take into account existing ground cover, vegetation and development, this 

was verified by a site survey, undertaken in June 2010. 

7.2.16 The site survey comprised a visit to the development site to identify any known or previously 

unrecorded heritage assets that may be affected by the scheme. None were identified. This 





was followed by a systematic programme of site visits to each of the designated heritage 

assets identified in the desk study as lying within the ZTV. The site visit considered: 

• Views to the heritage assets from the proposed turbine site; 

• Views from the heritage assets towards the turbine site, taking into account the 

potential height of the structure, local landform conditions, the presence of local and 

distant vegetation and presence of existing buildings; and 

• Views from other locations within the study area towards the heritage asset to assess 

the effect of the presence of the turbine on their character and setting. 

7.2.17 Designated heritage assets that lie within the ZTV or may be otherwise affected by the 

development are shown on Figures 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. 

Effect assessment and significance 

7.2.18 In order to make an assessment of the significance of the identified potential effects, the 

value of heritage assets has been determined and the magnitude of the impact evaluated. 

These two factors were then combined to derive the significance of effect. This methodology 

is described below. 

Potential effects 

7.2.19 Potential effects on heritage assets associated with this development can include: 

• The direct effect of construction, which may lead to the disturbance or loss of buried 

archaeological remains and other historic features; or 

• The visual effect on the character and setting of heritage assets. 

7.2.20 In term of PPS5, ‘setting’ is defined as: 

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 

(pg 14). 

7.2.21 Setting is an issue raised within the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World 

Heritage Site Management Plan 2005–10 (Issue 6 – Protecting the visual setting and 

historical context of the Site): 

The setting of the Site includes a physical space in which events could 

adversely affect the visual appreciation or understanding of the Site. However 

this space cannot be defined by the simple fact of visibility into or from the Site. 

The extent of impact on the visual setting has to be determined on a case by 

case basis taking into account wider considerations and applying weight and 

judgement (pg 131). 





7.2.22 Furthermore, Policy 6 of the Management Plan states: 

Developments outside the Site that will adversely affect its ‘outstanding 

universal value’ will be resisted. 

7.2.23 The assessment of effect on the setting of historic assets is therefore based on a diverse 

range of factors including: 

• The nature and sensitivity of the asset being affected; 

• The significance of the asset whose setting is being affected; 

• The contribution of its setting to that significance; 

• The character and form of the current setting of the asset; 

• The historic form of the asset’s setting; 

• Proximity to the development/change; 

• The scale of change to the asset’s setting; and 

• Duration of change. 

Ascribing Heritage Value 

7.2.24 An assessment of the value of heritage assets within the study area has been determined 

using the criteria is set out in Table 7.1. 

Table 7.1 

Heritage 

Value 

High 

Medium 

Ascribing Heritage Value 

Description 

Nationally or internationally important 

heritage assets generally recognised 

through designation as being of 

exceptional interest and value. 

Heritage assets recognised as being of 

special interest. Generally designated. 

Example 

World Heritage Sites, Grade I and II* 

Listed Buildings, Grade I and II* 

Registered Parks and Gardens, 

Scheduled Monuments, and some 

Conservation Areas with particularly 

notable concentrations of heritage 

assets. 

‘Principal Sites’ and other features 

identified within the Gwennap Area of 

the WHS (regardless of other 

designation – features that may 

otherwise be considered medium or low 

value should be considered high). 

These may also be described as 

‘Attributes of Outstanding Universal 

Value’, in other words the physical 

expression of the value of the World 

Heritage Site 

Grade II listed buildings, Grade II 

registered parks and gardens and 

conservation areas. 





Heritage 

Value 

Low 

Minimal 

Description 

Assets that are of interest at a local 

level primarily for the contribution to the 

local historic environment. 

Elements of the historic environment 

that are not of sufficient significance to 

be classed as Heritage Assets. 

Example 

Undesignated heritage assets such as 

locally listed buildings, undesignated 

archaeological sites, undesignated 

historic parks and gardens etc. 

Undesignated assets with very limited 

or no historic interest. 

Magnitude of Change 

7.2.25 Effects on the baseline can be either adverse or beneficial. The magnitude of change has 

been assessed using the following criteria: 

• Large (adverse) – total loss of, or a major alteration to key elements of the baseline or 

setting of an asset i.e. pre-development landscape or view and/or introduction of 

elements considered to be totally uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the 

receiving landscape/character of current setting. Development would form a 

dominant/major and immediately apparent part of the scene. The overall character of 

the scene would be changed. Development would substantially harm the character and 

form of an asset’s setting and would substantially harm its significance and degrade its 

special interest; 

• Medium (adverse) – partial loss of, or alteration to one or more key elements of the 

baseline or setting of an asset i.e. pre-development landscape or view and/or 

introduction of elements that may be prominent but may not necessarily be considered 

to be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving 

landscape or setting of the asset. Development would form a visible and recognisable 

new element within the scene and would be readily noticed by the observer. 

Development would alter the character of an asset’s setting but not substantially harm 

its significance; 

• Small (adverse) – minor loss of or alteration to one key element of the baseline or 

setting of an asset i.e. pre-development landscape or view and/or introduction of 

elements that may not be considered uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of 

the receiving landscape. Development would be a minor component of the wider view 

and scarcely appreciated or missed by the observer. Awareness of the proposals 

would not have a marked effect on the scene or the character of an asset’s setting. 

The development would not affect the setting to a degree sufficient to harm the asset’s 

significance; 

• Negligible (adverse) – very minor loss or alteration to one or more key elements of 

the baseline or setting of an asset i.e. pre-development landscape or view and/or 

introduction of elements that are not uncharacteristic with the surrounding landscape. 

Change would be barely perceivable. Development would be scarcely appreciated 

and, on balance, would have little effect on the scene or setting of an asset; 

• Large (beneficial) – large scale or major improvement/restoration of key elements 

quality; 





• Medium (beneficial) – partial improvement in quality/addition of one or more key 

elements; 

• Small (beneficial) – minor improvement in quality/addition of one key element; and 

• Negligible (beneficial) – very minor improvement in quality of one or more elements. 

Change would be barely perceivable. 

Significance of Effect 

7.2.26 The significance of potential effects is assessed by combining the value of the asset and the 

anticipated magnitude of the change or impact. The table below shows the outcomes of these 

combinations and will be referred to as the significance of the predicted effects for the 

purposes of this assessment. 

Table 7.2 


Value of asset 



LARGE 

MEDIUM 

SMALL 

NEGLIGIBLE 

VERY 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

SUBSTANTIAL 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

MODERATE 

MODERATE/ 

SLIGHT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

MODERATE 

MODERATE 

SLIGHT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

MODERATE/ 

SLIGHT 

SLIGHT 

SLIGHT/NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

Assessing effects in relation to Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic 

Environment (PPS5) 

7.2.27 Under PPS5, development proposals should be assessed in terms of their impact on the 

significance of the asset. Significance can be degraded or enhanced through alteration or 

demolition of assets or development within their setting, but change to a heritage asset must 

be evaluated based on the change to significance, not change to the asset in general. This 

allows for managed change, which is sensitively applied in respect of the individual 

significances of heritage assets. 

7.2.28 Whilst designated and undesignated assets have significance, Policy HE 9 of PPS5 makes it 

clear that there should be a presumption in favour of conserving designated heritage assets, 

and that the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in 

favour of its conservation. This suggests a differentiation between designated and 

undesignated assets and indicates that designated assets are of greater importance than 

their undesignated counterparts. Further, it states that the assets of the highest value are 

Scheduled Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Battlefields, Grade I and II* Listed 

Buildings and Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens and World Heritage Sites. 





7.2.29 In terms of measuring harm to the significance of assets and acceptability of development, 

PPS 5 states the following in Policies HE 9 (paragraph 9.1, 9.2): 

HE9.1 There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of 

designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage 

asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once 

lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, 

environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost 

through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its 

setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and 

convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, 

park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated 

heritage assets of the highest significance, including scheduled monuments,14 

protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I 

and II* registered parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, should be wholly 

exceptional. 

7.2.30 Consideration of the effect on the setting of a heritage asset is considered in Policy HE10 

(paragraph 10.1) 

HE10.1 When considering applications for development that affect the 

setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably 

applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive 

contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering 

applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any 

such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the 

negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the 

benefits that will be needed to justify approval. 

7.2.31 It should be noted that the terminology used in this ES to assess the significance of effect 

(see para 7.2.34; 7.2.35) does not equate with that used in PPS5. The points below are 

intended to avoid confusion between the use of the term ‘substantial’ as applied in the table 

below (para 7.2.36 ‘significance of effects’) and the term ‘substantial harm’ as used in PPS5. 

It should be further noted that PPS5 is concerned with impact (i.e. magnitude of change) not 

significance of effect. 

7.2.32 For the purposes of this Environmental statement, a ‘large adverse’ effect (or magnitude of 

change) on a high value asset would in the terms of PPS5 be considered ‘substantial harm’, 

and be ‘wholly exceptional’. Reference should be made to paragraph 9.2, which states: 

HE9.2 Where the application will lead to substantial harm to or total 

loss of significance local planning authorities should refuse consent unless it 

can be demonstrated that: (i) the substantial harm to or loss of significance is 

necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm 

or loss; or (ii) (a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses 

of the site; and (b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the 

medium term that will enable its conservation; and (c ) conservation through 

grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is not possible; 

and (d) the harm to or loss of the heritage asset is outweighed by the benefits 





of bringing the site back into use. 

7.2.33 A ‘large adverse’ impact on a medium value heritage asset, i.e. a Grade II Listed Building, 

Grade II Registered Park & Garden or Conservation Area, could also be considered 

‘substantial harm’. 

7.2.34 A ‘medium adverse’ impact on a high or medium value asset would then be considered ‘less 

than substantial harm’. Reference should then be made to paragraph HE 9.4, which states: 

HE9.4 Where a proposal has a harmful impact on the significance of a 

designated heritage asset which is less than substantial harm, in all cases local 

planning authorities should:(i) weigh the public benefit of the proposal (for 

example, that it helps to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage asset in 

the interests of its long-term conservation) against the harm; and (ii) recognise 

that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset the greater 

the justification will be needed for any loss. 

7.2.35 In consideration of a wind turbine development, reference to ‘public benefit’ should be made 

to paragraphs HE1.2 and HE1.3: 

HE1.2 Where proposals that are promoted for their contribution to 

mitigating climate change have a potentially negative effect on heritage assets, 

local planning authorities should, prior to determination, and ideally during preapplication 

discussions, help the applicant to identify feasible solutions that 

deliver similar climate change mitigation but with less or no harm to the 

significance of the heritage asset and its setting. 

HE1.3 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. 

7.2.36 Reference should also be made to PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (DCLG 2005) 

and PPS22: Renewable Energy (DCLG 2004). 

7.2.37 Table 7.3 summarises the difference in terminology between the methodology for assessing 

the magnitude of change with that used in PPS5. 





Table 7.3 

Difference in terminology between ES and PPS5 

Environmental Statement – Magnitude of change 

‘Large Adverse’ 

‘Medium Adverse’ 

‘Small Adverse’ 

PPS5 

‘Substantial harm or loss’ 

‘Less than substantial harm’ 

‘Less than substantial harm’ 

7.3 Baseline information 

7.3.1 A gazetteer of heritage assets within the development area and designated heritage assets 

whose settings may be affected by the scheme is set out in Appendix 7.1. All sites are 

referred to in the text by an arbitrary number sequence (A1, A2, etc.), whereby individual 

assets or associated Historic Environment Record/National Monument Record (HER/NMR) 

entries are grouped together. The location of these heritage assets is shown in Figures 7.1, 

7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. 

Heritage assets within the development site 

7.3.2 Records on the Cornwall County Council HER indicate some limited evidence of land use 

pre-dating the development of the Wheal Jane mine from the mid 1700s onwards (A1). Three 

parallel linear ditches are visible as low earthworks on vertical aerial photographs to the west 

of West Wheal Jane. They are of uncertain date or function, but are most likely to be field 

boundaries of medieval or later date. 

7.3.3 The pattern of extant fields in the vicinity of Wheal Jane Farm are considered to be of post 

medieval origin according to the Cornwall Landscape Assessment (CAU,1994). Ditched field 

boundaries which fit into this field system and are therefore considered likely to be of 

contemporary date are visible as cropmarks on vertical aerial photographs taken in 1964. 

7.3.4 Wheal Jane mine is known to have been in operation in 1740. It was reopened for the second 

or third time in 1851, selling 3830 tons of black tin and 740 tons of copper ore between 1847 

and 1895, as well as zinc, iron pyrites, arsenic, gossan, ochre and umber. In 1870 it was 180 

fathoms deep and employed 300 people. Given the complexity of ore formation near granitic 

emplacements, amounts of arsenic, copper, silver and zinc were also worked at some time. 

The National Mapping Programme recorded evidence of mine workings and pits, as indicated 

on the 1887 Ordnance Survey map. No evidence of these features was observed on site and 

it is very likely that they would have been removed by subsequent workings and the remedial 

works undertaken in the 1990s (see below). 

7.3.5 Around 1885, most of the nearby mines became uneconomic. Wheal Jane was able to 

remain economically active for a few years, principally due to its arsenic revenue, but it too 

succumbed around 1895. Wheal Jane and its adjoining mines were re-opened in 1905 and 

operated as Falmouth Consolidated Mines, in an attempt to reduce costs by using electricity 

for pumping. As with other Cornish mines that tried to modernise, the fundamental economic 

drawbacks still existed and, again, caused closure in about 1915. Work recommenced at low 

intensity in the run up to World War II but interest was turning to more modern processing 





techniques to recover more tin from what was already available and the old mine spoil was 

re-worked until 1946. It was re-opened again in 1969 and much development work was done 

underground and in improving the surface processing facilities and ownership eventually 

passed to Rio Tinto Zinc (Cornwall Council Historic Environment Record No 30037, A1). 

7.3.6 Like the remainder of Cornwall's tin mines (Geevor, Pendarves and South Crofty), Wheal 

Jane was affected by the end of the International Tin Agreement in 1985 and the subsequent 

collapse of the world tin price. It never recovered and the pumps were finally switched off in 

1992. However, with the pumps no longer de-watering the mine, groundwater levels rose and 

flooded the former working areas, picking up waste, washing over the exposed rock faces 

and contaminating the groundwater. These eventually overtopped the drainage systems in 

1992/1993 and acid mine drainage rose through the abandoned mine and escaped into the 

surface water systems flowed into the Carnon Valley and eventually into Falmouth Bay, killing 

fish and contaminating wild fowl. In 1994 remedial measures including the construction of 

large settling ponds were in place (Cornwall Council Historic Environment Record No 30037, 

A1). 

7.3.7 The Wheal Jane site has been extensively developed and remains in use for light industrial 

works and office use. There is no evidence of any surviving historic industrial features within 

the site. The remedial work undertaken in the early 1990s is likely to have removed any 

surviving archaeological deposits or historic industrial structures. 

Heritage assets potentially affected by the off-site access route 

7.3.8 Consideration of transportation issues relating to off-site access is set out in Chapter 13. The 

scale of the infrastructure required to construct the turbine will require some adjustment to 

road junctions to accommodate long vehicles. No recorded heritage assets have been 

recorded within the areas that may require alteration. Field observation shows that these field 

boundaries are most likely to be post-medieval in date, relating to the enclosure of the 

landscape in the late 18 th /19 th century to accommodate to growth in mining settlement, rather 

than traditional Cornish ‘hedges’ (i.e. often substantial stone faced earthwork banks topped 

with vegetation, rather than planted hedgerows). 

Heritage assets within the wider 10 km study area 

World Heritage Site 

7.3.9 The application site lies c.300 m east of the boundary of the Cornwall and West Devon 

Mining Landscape World Heritage Site – Area A6: Gwennap Mining District with Devoran, 

Perran and Kennall Vale. This extensive area is centred on the important Consolidated, 

United and Poldice mines near St. Day. The Scorrier mines (including North Downs) and 

Wheal Busy form its northern and eastern boundary, whilst the district extends via the Carnon 

Valley and the mines which flank it to the port of Devoran on the Fal Estuary to the southeast. 

The district was also linked to the north coast at Portreath, from which much of its 

copper ores were shipped. Historically, this was the richest mining district in Cornwall during 

the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and was referred to by contemporary writers as the 

‘richest square mile to be found anywhere on the earth’. Here, more than anywhere else in 

Cornwall, the landscape clearly displays the effects of extensive copper mining. The 

boundary of the WHS area was drawn specifically to exclude the former Wheal Jane site. 





7.3.10 The Gwennap area is largely characterised by undulating farmland, mature woodland, small 

settlements and individual houses, as well as areas containing the remains of former mining 

works, such as the remains of engine houses, chimneys and related structures. A large 

proportion of the current agricultural land in the parish is of post-medieval creation and much 

of it is made of former miners’ smallholdings. The population was dispersed across the parish 

during the earlier 19 th century, and miners were also by and large small-scale farmers as 

well. The area still retains much of this character – small settlements, isolated cottages, 

groups of terraced cottages set in a landscape of small fields, and areas of intensive mine 

workings. The railway from Chacewater to Truro passes through a landscape where almost 

every hedge is planted with oaks of the same variety and age – a strong indication of the 

planned parcellation of open downland by a single landowner. At Poldice and the 

Consolidated Mines, in contrast, hectares of bare mine dumps are returning back to 

heathland. 

7.3.11 The following ‘Principal Sites’ (or ‘Attributes of Outstanding Universal Value’) identified within 

the World Heritage Site Management Plan lie within or close to margins of the Zone of 

Theoretical Visibility (see section 7.3.1 for referencing approach, and also Appendix 7.1): 

• A2 – Bissoe Arsenic Works (not designated), located c.1 km south of the site; 

• A3 – Wheal Clifford (Grade II Listed Building), located c.2 km southeast of the site; 

• A4 – Consolidated Mines (Grade II Listed Building), located c.4 km west-southwest of 

the site; 

• A5 – Policy Valley Mine (includes several Grade II Listed Building), located c.2.5 km 

west of the site; 

• A6 – Killifreth Mine (Grade II Listed Building), located c.5 km northwest of the site; 

• A7 – Wheal Unity (Grade II Listed Building), located c.3.5 km northwest of the site; 

• A8 – Wheal Busy (Scheduled Monument, Grade II Listed Building), located c.3.5 km 

northwest of the site; 

• A9 – Gwennap Pit (Grade II* Listed Building), located c.5.5 km west of the site; 

• A10 – Baldhu Methodist Chapel (Grade II Listed Building), located c.500 m east of the 

site; 

• A11 – Cuvsey Mine (Grade II Listed Building), located c.1.5 km west of the site; 

• A12 – Scorrier House (Grade II Listed Building), located c.5 km northwest of the site; 

• A13 – Pengreep House (Grade I Listed Building), located c.4.5 km southwest of the 

site; 

• A14 – St Day historic settlement (Conservation Area & associated Listed Buildings), 

located c.4 km east-northeast of the site 





• A15 – Gwennap historic settlement (Conservation Area & associated Listed Buildings), 

located c.4 km southwest of the site; 

• A16 – Devoran historic settlement (Conservation Area & associated Listed Buildings), 

located c. 4 km southeast of the site; and 

• A21 – Carclew House and Estate (Grade II* Listed Building and GII Registered Park & 

Garden), located c.7 km south-southeast of the site. 

7.3.12 Old Wheal Jane, Carnon Stream Mine, Penran Foundary and the Kennal Vale Gun Powder 

Works, the historic estates and houses at Tregullow and Burcoose, and the historic 

settlements of Chacewater and Lanner lie outside of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility. This is 

due largely to the undulating nature of the landform and location of many of the settlements 

and features within steep sided valleys. 

7.3.13 Significant features in other areas of the WHS within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility include 

Carn Brea (Camborne and Redruth Mining District – A3), c.7.5 km W of the site, St Agnes 

Beacon (St Agnes Mining District – A7), c. 11 km NE of the site, and the miners’ 

smallholdings at Carnmenellis, c.10 km SW of the site (Wendron Mining District – A4). 

Other Listed Buildings 

7.3.14 Six (6) Grade II* Listed Buildings have been identified within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility 

to a distance of 10 km from the site: 

• A18 – St Michael’s Church, Baldhu (GII* Listed Building), located c.500 m north of the 

site. Also in the WHS; 

• A20 – Wheal Busy Chapel (GII* Listed Building), located c.4 km northwest of the site. 

Also in the WHS; 

• A24 – Saveock Manor Farmhouse (GII* Listed Building), located c.2 km north of the 

site; 

• A26 – Carnon Downs Methodist Church (GII* Listed Building), located c.3.5 km 

southeast of the site; 

• A28 – Carharrack Methodist Church (GII* Listed Building) & other GII buildings, 

located 4 km south-southwest of the site – also in the WHS; and 

• A29 – Killiow House (GII* Listed Building) & other GII Listed Building, located c.3 km 

east of the site. 

7.3.15 Four (4) individual or clusters of Grade II Listed Buildings have been identified within the 

Zone of Theoretical Visibility to a distance of 10 km from the site. This comprises individual or 

small groups of domestic buildings or industrial structures. Most of the historic settlements 

that contain Listed Buildings lie within steep sided valleys that fall without the Zone of 

Theoretical Visibility. Of note are: 





• A19 – Chacewater Church (GII Listed Building), located c.2 km north of the site – 

within the WHS, but not identified as a ‘principal site’; 

• A25 – Post Office Farmhouse (GII Listed Building), located 1.5 km north of the site 

• A27 – Cluster of Listed Buildings at Cromford, nr Gwennap (GII Listed Building), 

located 4.5 km southwest of the site – within the WHS, but not identified as a ‘principal 

site’; 

• A28 – Cluster of Listed Buildings at Carharrack (GII Listed Building), located 4 km 

south-southwest of the site – within the WHS, but not identified as a ‘principal site’; 

Conservation Areas 

7.3.16 Three (3) Conservation Areas have been identified within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility to 

a distance of 10 km from the site (also within the WHS): 

• A14 – St Day – located c. 4 km east-northeast of the site; 

• A15 – Gwennap – located c.4 km southwest of the site; 

• A16 – Devoran – located c.4 km southeast of the site; and 

• The Chacewater Conservation Area (A17) lies outside of the Zone of Theoretical 

Visibility due to its location within a narrow and steep sided valley – c.2.5 km northwest 

of the site. 

Registered Parks and Gardens 

7.3.17 Two Registered Parks and Gardens lie within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility: 

• A21 – Calcrew (GII RPG) – c.7 km south of the site (also WHS); and 

• A22 – Tregothnan (GII* RPG) – c.9 km east of the site. 

Scheduled Monuments 

7.3.18 Ten (10) Scheduled Monuments – all prehistoric earthworks – have been identified within the 

Zone of Theoretical Visibility to a distance of 10 km from the site: 

• A30 – Round barrow 230 m SE of Chapel Farm (SM 32921), c.1 km east of the site); 

• A31 – Round barrow known as Goodern Barrow, 550 m E of St Michael's Church (SM 

32927), c.1 km north of the site; 

• A32 – Round barrow and round, 200 m SW of Carrine (SM 32928), c.1.5 km northwest 

of the site; 

• A33 – Group of barrows c.2 km east of the site (SM 32908; SM 23910; SM CO1050); 

• A34 Round 200 m North West of Penventinnie (SM 29614), c.4 km north of the site; 





• A35 – Hillfort 225 m NE of Bosvisack (SM 29616), c.4.5 km north of the site; 

• A36 – Round 280 m southwest of Trebowland (SM 32945), c.6 km southwest of the 

site; 

• A37 – Three Burrows (SM 29604), c.5 km north-northeast of the site; 

• A38 – Four Burrows (SM 29602), c.6 km north of the site; and 

• A39 – Carn Brea (SM CO79), c.7.5 km west of the site. 

7.4 Topic specific design evolution 

7.4.1 Chapter 10 (Landscape and Visual Change) has set out the design themes and measures 

employed to minimise visual effects, however due to the inherent size and nature of the wind 

turbine, the scope for mitigation for visual effects is limited. 

7.5 Potential significant effects prior to mitigation 

7.5.1 The section below summarises the predicted effects of the scheme on cultural heritage. 

Appendix 7.1 contains a table detailing the likely effect on the setting of designated heritage 

assets in the study area that may be affected by the scheme (see Figures 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 

7.4). 

Effects during construction 

Heritage assets within the scheme area 

7.5.2 The potential for the presence of surviving heritage assets within the application site is nil. 

The extent of development and remedial works undertaken over the last two decades is very 

likely to have removed or substantially truncated any upstanding historic features or belowground 

archaeological deposits. 

Heritage assets affected by alterations to off-site access 

7.5.3 No designated or recorded non-designated heritage assets will be affected by alterations to 

off-site access (see Chapter 13 for an assessment of access and transportation effects). 

However, there remains the possibility that alterations at 3 locations – the staggered junction 

at Chacewater; the crossroads at Baldhu and the access point to the Wheal Jane site – may 

impact on existing field boundaries. Field observation shows that these field boundaries are 

most likely to be post-medieval in date, relating to the enclosure of the landscape in the late 

18 th /19 th century to accommodate to growth in mining settlement, rather than traditional 

Cornish ‘hedges’ (see para. 7.3.8 above). 

Heritage assets within 10 km study area 

7.5.4 At some stage during the construction of the development it is anticipated that the activities 

and under construction buildings would be visible from some of the identified heritage assets. 





These changes mark the start of the operational effects discussed below, as such they are 

assessed as part of the operational effects. 

Effects during operation 

Heritage assets within the scheme area 

7.5.5 There would be no further effect on heritage assets within the scheme area during the 

operation phase. 

Heritage assets affected by alterations to off-site access 

7.5.6 There would be no further effect on heritage assets along the access route during the 

operation phase. 

Heritage assets within 10 km study area 

7.5.7 The key issue to consider is the potential effect on the setting of designated heritage assets 

within the surrounding landscape during the operational phase (see methodology set out in 

paragraphs 7.2.17–7.2.35 above). The desk study (see para 7.2.13) indicated that the 

majority of designated heritage assets that lie within the ZTV fall within approximately 5 km of 

the site. This includes almost all of the Gwennap area of the Cornwall and West Devon 

Mining Landscape WHS (with notable exclusions where the nature of the landfall dictates the 

extent of the ZTV) and it’s associated industrial structures, settlements, houses and designed 

landscapes, and agricultural landscape. A detailed analysis of the effect on the setting of 

designated heritage assets noted above is set out in Appendix 7.1 and summarised below. 

7.5.8 The extent to which the scheme will affect the setting of the WHS and other heritage assets is 

dependent on the nature of the undulating landscape, presence of mature woodland and 

local vegetation and the presence of other non-designated features within the area. The 

character of this part of the WHS is another important factor: there are few if any prominent 

heritage features within the landscape – the iconic engine houses and chimneys that so 

strongly define the character and skyline of other parts of the Cornish landscape and WHS 

are less apparent here. Where they exist they are within relatively low lying areas or 

surrounded by local vegetation or mature woodland. Views to and between the industrial sites 

are few, and it is often only when standing next to or within them is it possible to appreciate 

their scale and function. There are few established points within the area from which to obtain 

a clear view and understanding of the history and development of the landscape. 

7.5.9 Of the principal industrial sites within the WHS, Bissoe Arsenic Works (A2), Wheal Clifford 

(A3), Consolidated Mine (A4), Poldice Valley Mine (A5) and Cuvsey Mine (A11) lie closest to 

the proposed development (between 1–4 km from the site). These assets are of high value. 

Given their location on lower ground below Wheal Jane, they are not prominent in the 

landscape when observed from the development site. The turbine will however be visible 

from Wheal Clifford, Consolidated Mine and Cusvey Mine (see Viewpoint 17 - From disused 

tin mine near Croft Handy (Figures 10.42, 10,43, 10.44). Views from the Bissoe Arsenic 

Works (A2) would be screened by local vegetation (See Viewpoint 16: From road near 

Bissoe (Figures 10.39, 10.40, 10.41). The change may be most strongly felt at Cusvey Mine 

(A11) due to its proximity and position on the hill side opposite the turbine. Due to local 

landform conditions, the turbine would not be visible from within the Poldice Valley (A5). The 





most prominent view of this part of the industrial landscape, including the sites named above, 

is eastwards from the road at Croft Handy (see Viewpoint 2 – From the B3298 at Croft Hand 

(Figures 10.21, 10.22, 10.23).The turbine would form a visible and recognisable new element 

within landscape and would be readily noticed by the observer. However, it would not detract 

to such an extent that it would affect the ability to understand and appreciate the historical 

development and function of the mining landscape. In summary, the effect would be ‘‘not 

significant’ in terms of Bissoe Arsenic Works (A2) and the Polidice Valley (A5), ‘moderate 

adverse’ in relation to Wheal Clifford (A3) and Consolidated Mine (A4) and ‘moderate 

adverse’ in the case of Cusvey Mine (A11). 

7.5.10 Killifreth Mine (A6) and Wheal Unity (A7) are extensively screened by existing local 

vegetation ensuring views towards the turbine would be restricted. The Scheduled Monument 

and Listed Buildings at Wheal Busy (A8) lie are likely not to be affected due to the presence 

of an area of higher ground to the southeast – the turbine would not be visible and the 

character of the asset not affected. Gwennap Pit (A9) – perhaps the most significant social 

historical feature within this part of the WHS – lies just within the ZTV. However, given the 

sunken and inward-looking nature of the feature and the presence of adjacent buildings, it is 

likely that the turbine would not be visible from within the monument. There are no distant 

views across these sites towards the turbine site. The value of these assets is high, but the 

magnitude of change is negligible, and so the effect is not significant. See Viewpoint 8: 

From footpath close to Buller Downs (Figures 10.30, 10.31, 10.33). 

7.5.11 The character of the St Day Conservation Area (A14), defined by narrow streets, small, 

densely packed housing and limited open/public space, means that the proposed 

development would not be visible from within the historic settlement. There are no views 

across the settlement towards the turbine. The value of the assets is high, but the magnitude 

of change is negligible, and so the effect is not significant. The presence of the turbine 

would not affect views towards the tower of the GII Church at St Day (included within A14), a 

distinct landscape feature intended to be seen from the lower ground below St Day. 

7.5.12 The Gwennap Conservation Area (A17) lies only marginally within the ZTV; theoretically, only 

the blade tip would be visible from within the designated area. However, the extent of mature 

woodland and other vegetation around the settlement means that it is likely to be screened 

from the turbine. The value of the asset is high, but providing the existing vegetation remains 

extant, the magnitude of change is negligible, and so the effect is not significant. 

7.5.13 The Devoran Conservation Area (A16) lies some 4.5 km southeast of the site. As most of the 

designated buildings within this historic planned settlement are orientated towards the 

southwest, the turbine would only be visible from the northern boundary of the Conservation 

Area. Views back towards the Conservation Area are principally towards the north, away from 

the turbine site. The sensitivity of the receptor is high, but providing the existing vegetation 

remains extant, the magnitude of change is negligible, and so the effect is not significant. 

7.5.14 The Chacewater Conservation Area (A17) lies within a narrow sided valley and there are no 

views to or from the development site. The value of the asset is high, but the magnitude of 

change is negligible, and so the effect is not significant. Views towards the distinctive tower 

of the Church of St Paul (A19), which was built to be a prominent landmark to be seen from 

roads leading towards the settlement from the southeast and northwest, would not be 

affected. 





7.5.15 The historic settlements of Cromford (A27), near Gwennap and Carharrack (A28) contain a 

number of Listed Buildings (notably the GII* Methodist Chapel at Carharrack). The settlement 

at Cromford (A27) lies within a pocket of lower ground west of Gwennap: whilst theoretically 

the blade tip may be visible from within the settlement, its effect will be reduced by the 

presence of mature woodland and local vegetation to the north and east of the buildings. The 

value of A27 is Medium, but the magnitude of change is negligible, and so the effect is not 

significant. The turbine will be visible from buildings at Carharrack (A28); however, this 

would not affect their immediate setting of the buildings or adversely affect on the character 

of the settlement. The value of A28 is Medium, and the magnitude of change is small, and so 

the effect is slight adverse. 

7.5.16 The proposed development would not have a significant effect on the designated historic 

houses and designed landscapes (Registered Parks & Gardens) identified in the desk study. 

This is due to in part to the extent of existing vegetation surrounding the properties (i.e. 

mature woodland and screen planting) that are characteristic of estate landscapes in 

Cornwall – notably Scorrier House (A12), Pengreep House (A13) and Saveock Manor (A24 – 

not within the WHS). Furthermore, the properties identified are predominately orientated 

towards the south and southeast; principal views from the house and grounds are therefore 

aligned in the opposite direction to the turbine development (i.e. Carclew (A21), Tregothnan 

(A22), Killiow (A29 – not within the WHS)). Only Scorrier House (A12) is orientated 

approximately towards the direction of the turbine but, as mentioned above, the effect will be 

minimised by the extent of existing vegetation, which is unlikely to be removed during the 

lifetime of the turbine. The value of these assets is high, but the magnitude of change is 

considered to be negligible, and so the effect is not significant. 

7.5.17 The most significant impact on designated heritage assets within the 10 km study area would 

be on the two Listed Buildings close to the site; Baldhu Methodist Chapel (A10 – GII Listed 

Building) and St Michael’s Church, Baldhu (A18 – GII* Listed Building). Baldhu Chapel – an 

18 th century Methodist chapel with 19 th century addition – lies c.500 m east of the site. Its 

setting would be dominated by the height and scale of the proposed turbine when viewed 

from the north and east. However, it would not detract to such an extent that it would affect 

the ability to understand and appreciate the historical development and social/religious 

context of the chapel within the context of the historic mining landscape. The impact would 

therefore be medium adverse. The value of A10 is high, with a medium magnitude of change, 

the effect is considered to be substantial adverse. Although the main body of the (recently 

converted) GII* Church of St Michael, Baldhu (A18) would be screened from the ZTV by 

dense vegetation, views towards its spire – a distinct and intentionally designed landscape 

feature visible rising above an area of woodland containing specimen planting – would be 

curtailed by the turbine. The value of A18 is high, with a medium magnitude of change, when 

viewed from the south, and the effect is considered to be moderate adverse. See Viewpoint 

13: Footpath south east of Sparnock Downs (Figures 10.18, 10.19, 10.20) 

7.5.18 A large part of the Gwennap area of the WHS – principally to the north of the site – is 

characterised by post-medieval field enclosure associated with the mining settlements (WHS 

Character Area C5). This is defined by small, regular field patterns with predominately 

planted hedgerow boundaries, and is most evident in the area to the north and east of 

Chacewater and around Penstraze. Whilst this area lies within the ZTV, views across this 

part of the WHS are curtailed by mature trees and high hedgerows. Views towards the 

turbine would only be glimpsed. This means that whilst the turbine would form a visible and 





recognisable new element within the landscape, it would not detract to such an extent that it 

would affect the ability to understand and appreciate the historical development and function 

of the mining landscape. See Viewpoint 13 – From Billy Bray Chapel near Keely Downs 

(Figures 10.33, 10.34, 10.35). 

7.5.19 The four Bronze Age barrows (A30, A31, A32, A33 - together with a number of undesignated 

assets – not within the WHS) identified to the north and east of the site are considered to 

form part of a barrow cemetery along a prominent ridge above the Carnon Valley. Prior to the 

enclosure of the surrounding landscape, these may have been prominent features visible 

from some distance. However, their former context and setting has been curtailed by postmedieval 

field enclosure, and they are mostly screened from the site by hedges and blocks of 

mature woodland planting. Given their proximity to the site, the turbine may remain visible 

when viewing the monuments from the N or E (however, note that access to the monuments 

is limited). The value of the assets is high, and the scale of change would be at worst small, 

resulting in a slight adverse effect. See Viewpoint 1: From footpath near A39 at Carnon 

Downs (Figures 10.12, 10.13, 10.14). The exception is the later Iron Age/Romano-British 

round 200 m SW of Carrine (A32) is entirely surrounded by trees, and so the scale of change 

would be negligible, and thus the effect not significant. See Viewpoint 13: Footpath south 

east of Sparnock Downs (Figures 10.18, 10.19, 10.20). 

7.5.20 The other prehistoric Scheduled Monuments identified within the ZTV (A34, A35, A36, A37, 

A38, A39) lie within 4–7 km of the site. The later prehistoric hill fort and round to the N of the 

site (A34, A35) lie only marginally within the ZTV, and are screened by existing local 

vegetation. Where views towards the turbine site may be possible, the overall effect would be 

reduced by the presence of modern settlement and development at Threemilestone. Whilst 

the turbine would be visible from the round on the higher ground above Lanner c.4.5 km to 

the SW of the site (A36), this would not affect its character or setting. The setting of the 

barrow groups at Three Burrows (A37) and Four Burrows (A38) has arguably already been 

compromised by development at the Three Burrows roundabout and the early wind 

development at Four Burrows. Whilst potentially the blade tip may be visible from the 

Scheduled Monument on Carn Brea (A39), the distance from the site and the expanse of 

views from the hill top means that effect will be negligible. In summary, the value of these 

assets is high, but with a negligible magnitude of change, and so the effect is not significant. 

Summary of effects 

7.5.21 Table 7.4 identifies the assets whose setting which may be moderately or substantially 

adversely affected by the scheme. A more detailed analysis of the scale of change and 

significance of effect on all identified assets is set out in Appendix 7.1. 

Table 7.4 

Substantial 

Summary of sites where Significance of Effect is likely to be Moderate or 

Ref 

Name 

Value of heritage 

asset 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance of 

Effect 

A3 Wheal Clifford High Small Moderate adverse 

A4 Consolidated Mine High Small Moderate adverse 





Ref 

Name 

Value of heritage 

asset 

Magnitude of 

Change 


Effect 

A10 

Baldhu Methodist Church 

And Sunday School 

High 

Medium 

Substantial 

adverse 

A11 Cuvsey Mine High Medium Moderate adverse 

A18 

St Michael’s Church, 

Baldhu 

High Medium Moderate adverse 

Effects during decommissioning 

7.5.22 The decommissioning of the development will remove the turbine from views from and to the 

heritage assets discussed above and reported in Appendix 7.1. This could have a positive 

effect on their setting but the scale of any such effect would need to be assessed in relation 

to the quality and nature of views at the time of decommissioning. 

Summary 

7.5.23 The effect of the scheme on the setting of designated heritage assets in the 10 km study area 

would be limited during the construction and decommissioning stages. However, the turbine 

is likely to have an effect of varying degrees during the operational stage. In general, the 

scheme would have a negligible or small adverse impact on the setting and character of the 

‘principal sites’ identified within the Gwennap area of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining 

Landscape World Heritage Site (Area 6). This is largely due to the undulating nature of the 

landscape, the extent of local vegetation and screening, and the character of the individual 

heritage assets (for example, enclosed settlements with no views out, or houses and 

parkland with views predominately away from the turbine). 

7.5.24 There are, however, a number of exceptions where the proximity to individual heritage assets 

would increase the adversity of the effect, notably on Baldhu Chapel (A10), Cusvey Mine 

(A11),and St Michael’s Church (A18). Notwithstanding, the effect would not be greater than 

‘medium adverse’ which, given their high value, would result in a ‘substantial or moderate 

adverse’ effect. However, this would still be considered ‘less than substantial harm’ under 

PPS5 (see para 7.2.30 above). In reference to Policy 6 of the Cornwall and West Devon 

Mining Landscape WHS Management Plan, the scheme would therefore not ‘adversely affect 

the outstanding universal value’ of the World Heritage Site. 

7.6 Mitigation and enhancement measures 

Construction 

7.6.1 Given the extent of previous disturbance within the development site and very limited 

potential for the presence of previously unrecorded heritage assets and archaeological 

deposits, no mitigation measures are proposed for the construction phase. 





Operation 

7.6.2 No mitigation measures are proposed for the operational phase. Due to the required 

dimensions of turbine it is not possible to minimise the small number of moderate and 

substantial effects identified. 

Decommissioning 

7.6.3 The effects of the decommissioning phase cannot be usefully predicted at this stage, 

therefore no mitigation measures are proposed for the decommissioning phase at this time 

7.7 Assessment of residual effects 

7.7.1 The proposed turbine development at Wheal Jane lies within an area of particular cultural 

heritage significance. This study has considered the potential effect on both heritage assets 

within the footprint of the scheme and on the setting of designated heritage assets up to 

10 km from the site, including the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World 

Heritage Site, the boundary of which lies c.300 m from the site. A more detailed analysis on 

the effect on individual heritage assets is set out in Appendix 7.1. Table 7.6 summarises the 

significant effects remaining after non-embedded mitigation measures have been employed. 

7.7.2 The development will take place within an area known to have been actively (albeit 

periodically) mined since the 17 th century. However, given the extent of environmental 

remediation (notably the construction of the existing tailing dam) and development within the 

existing Wheal Jane site over the last 20 years, the potential for the presence of buried 

archaeological deposits surviving within the footprint of the scheme is nil. No further 

evaluation or mitigation is required. 

7.7.3 Alterations to the access route to accommodate long vehicles during the construction phase 

would not effect any heritage assets. No further evaluation or mitigation is required. 

7.7.4 The effect of the scheme on the setting of designated heritage assets in the 10 km study area 

would be limited during the construction and decommissioning stages. However, the turbine 

is likely to have an effect of varying degrees during the operational stage. In general, the 

scheme would have a negligible or small adverse effect on the setting and character of the 

‘principal sites’ identified within the Gwennap area of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining 

Landscape World Heritage Site (Area 6). This is largely due to the undulating nature of the 

landscape, the extent of local vegetation and screening, and the character of the individual 

heritage assets (for example, enclosed settlements with no views out, or houses and 

parkland with views predominately away from the turbine). 

7.7.5 There are, however, a number of exceptions where the proximity to individual heritage assets 

would increase the adversity of the effect, notably on Baldhu Chapel (A10), Cusvey Mine 

(A11) and St Michael’s Church (A18). Notwithstanding, the effect would not be greater than 

‘medium which, given their high value, would result in a ‘substantial or moderate adverse’ 

effect. However, this would still be considered ‘less than substantial harm’ under PPS5 (see 

para 7.2.30 above). Moderate and slight adverse effects are also identified due to small 

changes in the setting of assets of high or medium sensitivity consisting of Wheal Clifford 

(A3), Consolidated Mine (A4), cluster of Listed Buildings at Carharrack (A28), round barrow 





south east of Chapel Farm (A30), Goodern Barrow (A31) and a group of barrows 2 km east 

of the application site (A33). 

7.7.6 Whilst the turbine would form a visible and recognisable new element within the landscape, it 

would not detract to such an extent that it would affect the ability to understand and 

appreciate the historical development, character and function of the mining landscape and its 

associated settlements and farmsteads. In the wording of PPS5, the effect would result in 

‘less than substantial harm’ (see para 7.2.30 above). In reference to Policy 6 of the Cornwall 

and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS Management Plan, the scheme would therefore not 

‘adversely affect the outstanding universal value’ of the World Heritage Site. 

7.7.7 No mitigation measures are proposed for the operational phase. Due to the required 

dimensions of turbine it is not possible to minimise the small number of moderate and 

substantial effects identified. 

7.8 Assessment of effects on potential future receptors 

7.8.1 The future users of the Wheal Jane site would not change the assessment presented in this 

chapter. 

7.9 Cumulative Effects 

7.9.1 Cumulative effects of wind developments are considered where the presence of other wind 

turbines in a given area in combination with the proposed Wheal Jane turbine may have an 

effect on the setting of heritage assets. As with the assessment of landscape effects, 

cumulative effects can either be directly on the physical fabric of heritage assets, or indirectly 

on their setting and/or character of the landscape. A full assessment of the cumulative effect 

on the landscape is set out in Chapter 10. 

7.9.2 In agreement with the Local Planning Authority, consideration has been given to the 

cumulative effect on heritage assets of other wind turbines within 10 km of the Wheal Jane 

site. 

7.9.3 Cumulative ZTVs have been prepared for each site as well as an overview of all sites. These 

are illustrated on Figures 10.45 to 10.48. 

Table 7.5 

Other wind developments within 10 km 

Site 

Number of 

Turbines 

Height 

to Tip 

(m) 

Status 

Approximate distance 

to proposed Wheal 

Jane Turbine ( km) 

Four Burrows 15 45.5 Operational 5 

Trevissome Park 1 25 Operational 5 

WWF Roskrow 

Barton 

2 75 Operational 8 





Four Burrows 

7.9.4 Four Burrows is an operational wind development comprising 15 turbines at a height of 

45.5 m. Comparatively these are moderate sized turbines but there are a large number of 

them and they are situated in a prominent location on the higher ground that runs centrally 

within the peninsular through the upland areas of the Newland Downs and Redruth, 

Camborne and Gwennap character areas (see Chapter 10). 

7.9.5 Figure 10.46 shows there is considerable overlap between the ZTV for the scheme and the 

operational Four Burrow site suggesting a substantial cumulative effect in terms of ZTV 

coverage. 13 designated heritage assets lie within both the ZTV of the scheme and the Four 

Burrows site (A3, A4, A10, A18, A24, A25, A26, A29, A31, A32, A34, A35, A36). However, 

the effect is largely mitigated by the presence of vegetation not accounted for within the ZTV 

modelling (particularly with the smaller turbine size of 45 m). The cumulative effect on these 

sites is therefore not significant. 

Trevissome Park 

7.9.6 Trevissome is an operational wind development comprising a single 25 m high turbine. Figure 

10.47 shows there is limited overlap between the Trevissome ZTV and the ZTV for the 

scheme; the overlap is largely limited to area close to the Trevissome Park site and to the 

north east of the Wheal Jane site. See Figure 10.49. 

7.9.7 None of the heritage assets identified in this study lie within the ZTV of the Trevissome Park 

wind turbine. The cumulative effect is therefore not significant. 

WWF Roskrow Barton 

7.9.8 WWF Roskrow Barton is an operational wind development comprising two 75 m turbines. 

These relatively large scale turbines are located on a prominent ridgeline to the north west of 

Falmouth. Given their prominent location in the landscape and use of two of the taller 

turbines these form a landscape feature that is recognisable from many coastal and inland 

locations. However, vegetation cover in the area does contribute to screening these from 

certain areas and locations. 

7.9.9 Figure 10.48 shows there is a substantial amount of overlap with the ZTV of the scheme and 

the ZTV for WWF Roskrow Barton. 25 designated heritage assets lie within the ZTV of both 

(A1, A3, A4, A7, A10, A11, A13, A14, A15, A16, A18, A20, A21, A22, A25, A26, A28, A29, 

A31, A32, A33, A35, A36, A37, A38). In the majority of cases the cumulative effect would not 

be significant due to the presence of vegetation, their orientation (in the case of houses and 

designed landscapes) and the distance between the receptors and the turbines. However, 

there would be a cumulative effect on those heritage assets located on higher, more 

prominent ground, and which already may be subject to a moderate or substantial adverse 

effect (A3 – Wheal Clifford, A4 – Consolidated Mine, A10 – Baldhu Methodist Church, A11 – 

Cuvsey Mine). 

Conclusion 

7.9.10 The cumulative wind development sites are dispersed relatively evenly through the 

landscape. This has the effect of maintaining a degree of separation and between sites and 





reducing the potential for combined cumulative effects. Where combined effects do occur, the 

scale of one site compared to the other (i.e. size of turbines seen in one view) is likely to vary 

so that the combined cumulative effects would not be significant. 

7.9.11 Although most of the heritage assets identified within this study fall within either or both the 

ZTV of Four Burrows and WWF Roskrow Barton, the overall cumulative effect of the Wheal 

Barton wind turbine would not further affect the setting, legibility and understanding of the 

individual heritage assets or the wider World Heritage Site. The exception will be at those 

heritage assets where the effect is already considered to be moderate or substantial adverse 

due to their more prominent positions within the landscapes (A3 – Wheal Clifford, A4 – 

Consolidated Mine, A10 – Baldhu Methodist Church, A11 – Cuvsey Mine). 





Table 7.6 


Receptor 

Effect 

Development Phase 

(construction/operation/ 

Decommissioning) 

Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after mitigation 

Nature of effect 

Buried heritage 

assets within the 

scheme area 

Damage Construction Low Negligible Not Significant 

Watching 

Brief 

None 

Negligible 

Indirect visual 

effect on setting 

Cornish ‘hedges’ 

affected by road 

widening 

Damage Construction Medium Small 

Moderate/slight 

adverse 

Watching 

Brief 

None 

Negligible 



A1Wheal Jane 

(former site) 

A2 Bissoe Arsenic 

Works 

Visual effect Operational Low Negligible Not Significant None None Not Significant 

Visual effect Operational High Negligible Not significant None None Not significant 





A3 Wheal Clifford Visual effect Operational High Small 

Moderate 

adverse 

None None Moderate adverse 



A4 Consolidated 

Mine 

Visual effect Operational High Small 

Moderate 

adverse 




A5 Poldice Valley 

Mine 

Visual effect Operational High Negligible Not significant None None Not significant 



A6 Killifreth Mine Visual effect Operational High Negligible Not Significant None None Not Significant 

A7 Wheal Unity Visual effect Operational High Negligible Not Significant None None Not Significant 

A8 Wheal Busy Visual effect Operational High Negligible Not Significant None None Not Significant 











Receptor 

Effect 




Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 



A9 Gwennap Pit Visual effect Operational High Negligible Not Significant None None Not Significant 



A10 Baldhu 

Methodist Church 

And Sunday School 

Visual effect Operational High Medium 

Substantial 

adverse 

None 

None 

Substantial 

adverse 



A11 Cuvsey Mine Visual effect Operational High Medium 

Moderate 

adverse 




A12 Scorrier House Visual effect Operational High Negligible Not Significant None None Not Significant 



A13 Pengreep 

House 

A14 St Day historic 

settlement 

A15 Gwennap 

historic settlement 

A16 Devoran 

historic settlement 

A 17 Chacewater 

Conservation Area 

Visual effect Operational High Negligible Not Significant None None Not Significant 















A18 St Michael’s 

Church, Baldhu 

Visual effect Operational High Medium 

Moderate 

adverse 




A19 Chacewater 

Church 








Receptor 

Effect 




Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 



A20 Wheal Busy 

Chapel 




A21 Calcrew Visual effect Operational High Negligible Not Significant None None Not Significant 

A22 Tregothnan Visual effect Operational High Negligible Not Significant None None Not Significant 





A23 Gunpowder 

works at Kennal 

Vale 

A24 Saveock Manor 

Farmhouse 

A25 Post Office 

Farmhouse 

A26 Carnon Downs 

Methodist Church 

A27 Historic 

settlements of 

Cromford 

A28 Cluster of 

Listed Buildings at 

Carharrack 



Visual effect Operational Medium Negligible Not Significant None None Not Significant 



Visual effect Operational Medium Small Slight adverse None None Slight adverse 













A29 Killiow House Visual effect Operational High Negligible Not Significant None None Not Significant 







Receptor 

Effect 




Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 



A30 Round barrow 

230 m SE of Chapel 

Farm 


known as Goodern 

Barrow, 550 m E of 

St Michael's Church 


and round, 200 m 

SW of Carrine 

A33 Group of 

barrows c.2 km east 

of the site 

A34 Round 200 m 

North West of 

Penventinnie c.4 km 

north of the site 

A35 Hillfort 225 m 

NE of Bosvisack 

c.4.5 km north of the 

site 


southwest of 

Trebowland c.6 km 

southwest of the site 

A37 Three Burrows 

c.5 km 

northnortheast of 

the site 

Visual effect Operational High Small Slight adverse None None Slight adverse 




























Receptor 

Effect 




Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 



A38 Four Burrows c. 

6 km north of the 

site 

A39 Carn Brea 

c.7.5 km west of the 

site 

A33 Group of 

barrows c.2 km east 

of the site 


North West of 

Penventinnie c.4 km 

north of the site 

A35 Hillfort 225 m 

NE of Bosvisack 

c.4.5 km north of the 

site 





















Cornwall County Council (2006), Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS Management Plan 

(2005-2010) and Nomination Dossier. 

Cornwall Council (2010), Cornwall Local Development Framework Core Strategy Draft Topic Based 

Issues Paper - Historic Environment. 

Department of Communities and Local Government (2009), World Heritage Planning Circular 07/09 

Department of Communities and Local Government (2010), Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for 

the Historic Environment. 

English Heritage (2010), ‘PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment – Practice Guide’. London. 





8 Ecology 


8.1.1 This section describes and evaluates the current nature conservation interest of the 

application site, presents the mitigation measures incorporated into the scheme design and 

assesses the predicted residual effects of the proposed development on nature conservation. 

Ornithology is treated separately (in Section 12) and is not considered in this section of the 

assessment. 

8.1.2 Information within this chapter is based on an initial ecological appraisal undertaken in 

August 2009, a desk study and detailed ecological surveys undertaken during 2010; the 

general ecological survey methodology and results are provided within this chapter. More 

detailed descriptions of bat survey work are included in Appendix 8.1. 

8.1.3 Owing to internationally designated sites being present within 20 km of the proposed turbine 

a Habitat Regulations Assessment screening note has been produced and is included in 

Appendix 8.2. 

8.1.4 At an early stage in the assessment, bats were identified as the key potential ecological 

receptor on which effects could occur given the nature of the proposals. There are reports of 

bats being killed by wind turbines through collision and barotrauma (internal haemorrhaging 

caused by changes in air pressure) in Europe and North America (Baerwald et al. 2008). All 

bats native to the UK are legally protected species (see Appendix 8.3 Summary of 

Legislation). Therefore detailed survey and assessment focussed strongly on bat species. 

8.1.5 Information collected for the ecological assessment on bat flight paths and behaviour has 

been used to inform the siting of the turbine to minimise the risk of killing or injuring bats as 

far as possible. 

8.1.6 The potential for negative effects on bats are: 

• Bat roosts – the potential loss of suspected roosts in mine shafts through collapse of 

the shafts or through disturbance of bats within these roosts due to construction 

activities; 

• Bat foraging and commuting habitat – potential fragmentation of commuting routes or 

damage to key foraging habitat as a result of construction and operation; and 

• Bat collision risk – the potential of the operational turbine to cause bat deaths or injury 

through collisions and barotrauma. 


8.2.1 The ecological assessment included the following elements, the methods for which are 

described in more detail below: 


Ecology 



• Review of relevant legislation and policy; 

• Data gathering of existing ecological information from appropriate sources; 

• Determination of the likely Zone of Influence for particular habitats and species to 

define the study area; 

• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey combined with an assessment of the potential for 

legally protected species (for example bats, badger, great crested newt, water vole, 

otter, reptiles); 

• Detailed surveys for bats; 

• Evaluation of the importance of habitats and species within the survey area; 

• Assessment of the significance of potential ecological effects including habitat loss and 

fragmentation, disturbance and the potential for off-site effects; 

• Proposed mitigation measures; and 

• Assessment of the significance of residual effects taking account of proposed 

mitigation measures. 

National Policy, Guidance and Legislation 

8.2.2 Conservation authorities including Natural England (NE) and the Royal Society of the 

Protection of Birds (RSPB) both promote the concept of renewable energy including wind 

power generation providing it is in an appropriate location. 

8.2.3 The draft NE policy statement on wind power generation (2008) states that: 

Climate change represents the most serious long term threat to the natural 

environment and that there is an urgent need to reduce global greenhouse gas 

pollution if we are to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts on the natural 

environment. 

There is a need to support clean energy developments in appropriate locations 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and therefore the long term risk to the 

natural environment 

8.2.4 The RSPB state that to meet current government targets regarding renewable energy 

generation they: 

‘...favour a broad mix of renewables, including solar, wind, and marine power, 

wherever they are used in ways that minimise unnecessary damage to wildlife 

and the natural environment.’ 10 

8.2.5 The site design and the EIA takes account of the following legislation: 

10 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds website www.rspb.org.uk 


Ecology 



• The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010; 

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); 

• The Countryside and Rights of Way 2000; and 

• Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 S.40 (which superseded S.74 of 

the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000). 

8.2.6 Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – 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. 

8.2.7 The extended Phase 1 surveys follow the nationally recognised Guidelines for Baseline 

Ecological Assessment (Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995). The assessment of 

nature conservation and effects on ecological features generally follows Guidelines for 

Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK (Institute of Ecology and Environmental 

Management, 2006) although terminology has been amended in order to correspond to the 

terminology used in the other technical chapters of the ES. 

Regional Policy and Guidance 

Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10) (2001) 

8.2.8 RPG 10 includes Policy EN 1 states that local policies, plans and proposals should, inter alia, 

indicate that protection and where possible enhancement of biodiversity should be planned 

into new development, and encourage the maintenance and enhancement of the biodiversity 

resources of the region. 

Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes 

version, July 2008) 

8.2.9 Policy SD3 states: 

‘The region’s environment and natural resources will be protected and 

enhanced by: 

• Ensuring that development respects landscape and ecological thresholds 

of settlements 

• Positively planning to enhance natural environments through development, 

taking a holistic approach based on landscape or ecosystem scale 

planning 

• Contributing to regional biodiversity targets through the restoration, 

creation, improvement and management of habitats.’ 

8.2.10 Policy ENV1, Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Historic Environment, 

states: 


Ecology 



‘The quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and 

historic environment in the South West will be protected and enhanced, and 

developments which support their positive management will be encouraged. 

Where development and changes in land use are planned which would affect 

these assets, local authorities will first seek to avoid loss of or damage to the 

assets, then mitigate any unavoidable damage, and compensate for loss or 

damage through offsetting actions. Priority will be given to preserving and 

enhancing sites of international or national landscape, nature conservation, 

geological, archaeological or historic importance. Tools such as 

characterisation and surveys will be used to enhance local sites, features and 

distinctiveness through development, including the setting of settlements and 

buildings within the landscape and contributing to the regeneration and 

restoration of the area.’ 

8.2.11 Policy ENV4 Nature Conservation states: 

‘The distinctive habitats and species of the South West will be maintained and 

enhanced in line with national targets and the South West Regional Biodiversity 

Action Plan. Local authorities should use the Nature Map to help map local 

opportunities for biodiversity enhancement in LDDs, taking into account the 

local distribution of habitats and species, and protecting these sites and 

features from harmful development. Priority will be given to meeting targets for 

maintenance, restoration and recreation of priority habitats and species.’ 

Local Policy and Guidance 

8.2.12 Cornwall Structure Plan (2004) Policy 2 states developments must: 

‘Retain important elements of the local landscape, including natural and seminatural 

habitats, hedges, trees, and other natural and historic features that add 

to its distinctiveness; contribute to the regeneration, restoration, enhancement 

or conservation of the area.’ 

8.2.13 Policy 3H of the Carrick District Local Plan protects locally designated nature conservation 

sites, and Policy 3HH relates to the protection of wildlife corridors. Policy 3J relates to the 

protection of locally important habitats and Policy 3K relates to protected species. 

Cornwall Biodiversity Action Plan 

8.2.14 The Cornwall Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (Cornwall Biodiversity Initiative, 1998) was 

checked to see if there were local priority habitats and species which could be present, to 

assess the effects of the proposed development on these and to identify potential for 

ecological enhancements which could help to meet local BAP targets. 

8.2.15 The Cornwall Biodiversity Initiative (CBI) has produced a recent Cornish BAP habitat and 

species list, which contains 43 priority habitats and 360 priority species; action plans have 

been produced for 25 priority species and five broad habitat types. 


Ecology 



Desk Based Assessment Methodology 

8.2.16 The MAGIC (Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside) website 

(www.magic.gov.uk) was accessed in August 2009 and again in February 2011 to identify all 

statutory designated sites of importance for nature conservation within 2 km of the proposed 

turbine location. 

8.2.17 An additional search for statutory sites designated for their bat interest within 30 km of the 

proposed turbine location was carried out (see Appendix 8.1). 

8.2.18 The Environmental Records Centre for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (ERCCIS) was 

contacted in May 2010 for information regarding the presence of any non-statutory sites of 

nature conservation value and all protected species records within 2 km of the propose 

turbine location. Additionally bat records within 5 km of the proposed turbine location were 

requested from ERCCIS and the Cornwall Bat Group (see Appendix 8.1). 

8.2.19 Ordnance Survey plans and aerial photographs of the area surrounding the proposed turbine 

location were interrogated to identify key habitat features up to a distance of 500 m including 

those that could offer potential bat commuting routes into the site, potential bat roost 

locations and water bodies with potential for great crested newts. 

8.2.20 Relevant planning application documents for similar developments (wind farm or turbine) 

within 30 km were reviewed to assist with the assessment of cumulative effects. Cumulative 

effects are discussed in section 8.10. 

Determination of Zone of Influence 

8.2.21 The survey area is within a rural area containing disused mine shafts and water bodies which 

are part of an old tailings dam. Several minerals have been mined within the survey area in 

the past including tin and copper. 

8.2.22 The permanent works area for the proposed development comprises 0.5 ha as shown in 

Table 4.1 including a turbine base, access track, crane pad and control kiosk. 

8.2.23 The proposed development activities were reviewed in order to identify the scale at which 

ecological features could be affected. Due to the potential effects of the scheme on bat 

populations, the effects of the scheme could extend beyond the proposed limit of 

development and its immediate surroundings. 

8.2.24 For the desk top study a radius of 5 km from the proposed turbine location was considered 

appropriate for the gathering exercise of bat data to aid the assessment. In addition to this a 

search radius of 30 km from the proposed turbine location was used to check for international 

statutory sites of nature conservation value that may have been designated for their bat 

interest; a search radius of 20 km was used for nationally important statutory sites of nature 

conservation value that may have been designated for their bat interest. For all other 

ecological information it was considered appropriate to use a search radius of 2 km. 

8.2.25 The zone of influence was reviewed on an on-going basis throughout the assessment as well 

as during design development phases. 


Ecology 



Extended Phase 1 Survey Methodology 

8.2.26 On the 13 th /14 th August 2009, a walkover survey was undertaken following the ‘Extended 

Phase 1 habitat survey’ methodology as set out in Guidelines for Baseline Ecological 

Assessment (Institute of Environmental Assessment 1995). The Extended Phase 1 habitat 

survey provides information on the habitats in the survey area and assesses the potential for 

protected/notable fauna to occur. 

8.2.27 The survey area is generally consistent with the site boundary for the Wheal Jane 

Masterplan. This includes the proposed application site for the wind turbine (turbine, access 

tracks, control kiosk and temporary contractors’ compound and lay down areas). The survey 

area is shown on Figure 8.1 and includes all land within 50 m of the proposed turbine 

location. Plant names follow New Flora of the British Isles (2nd edition, Stace 1997). 

8.2.28 A preliminary assessment was made of the suitability of the habitats present within the survey 

area for a range of legally protected and notable species from direct observation, field signs 

or the potential of the habitat to support these species, in particular: 

• Potential roosting sites for bats in particular mature trees and buildings; 

• Habitats with potential for foraging and commuting bats; 

• Suitable aquatic and terrestrial habitat for great crested newts and other amphibians, 

including an assessment of water bodies identified from viewing Ordnance Survey 

maps for their potential to support breeding populations; 

• Signs of badger activity including badger setts, paths, prints, latrines and evidence of 

foraging such as snuffle holes; and 

• Habitat for other protected/notable species such as reptiles, otters and water vole. 

8.2.29 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was updated on 18 th August 2010 and throughout 

detailed bat surveys in 2010 to check for any change in ecological conditions within the 

survey area. 

8.2.30 Notes were made on the presence of any invasive plant species listed under Schedule 9 Part 

II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), such as giant hogweed and 

Japanese knotweed. As of April 2010 a number of other species were added to this list, these 

additional species were searched for during ongoing survey work post April 2010 including 

the update Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken in August 2010. 

8.2.31 The preferred access route to the site is outside of the application site boundary and beyond 

the survey area described above. Along this preferred route are several pinch points have 

been identified during a swept path analysis (see Chapter 13) that will need minor works in 

order to facilitate vehicle movement; these pinch points are shown on Figure 13.1. These 

minor works may include removal and reinstatement of hedgerows or the construction of a 

new permanent surface over existing road verge. Most of these pinch points (except those 

described below) were not considered to require ecological survey on the basis of a review of 

aerial photographs (i.e. where these would only affect existing pavements or small areas of 


Ecology 



mown amenity grassland in towns and have little or no potential to support habitats or 

species of value). 

8.2.32 On the 22nd September 2010 a walkover survey of pinch points (see Section 13.5) number 2 

(Chacewater Hill), 5 (crossroads at Baldhu) and 6 (entrance to the Wheal Jane Mine site) 

was carried out following the ‘Extended Phase 1’ methodology as described above. This 

survey was particularly targeted due to the localised nature of the predicted disturbance and 

the specific hedgerow and verge habitats which may potentially be affected. Due to the very 

localised and small scale of these areas a Phase 1 Habitat Map has not been produced. 

Detailed Protected Species Survey Methodology 

8.2.33 Appendix 8.1 details the survey methodology, and results of bat work carried out within the 

survey area in 2009 and 2010. The approach taken was precautionary, exceeding beyond 

the Natural England guidance on single turbines (TIN059. The methodology included. 

• Identification of summer roosts within mine shafts; 

• Identification of swarming activity at mine shafts; 

• Manual activity surveys along a walked transect to assess general bat activity within 

the survey area along with digital recordings throughout the surveys; 

• Static recording at ground level in the vicinity of the proposed turbine location; and 

• Analysis of recordings using appropriate software in conjunction with maps annotated 

during the survey visits to confirm species recorded. 

8.2.34 The primary objectives of this work was to determine the use of the survey area throughout 

the year by different bat species, and to determine roost locations and important commuting 

routes (flight paths) and foraging areas for bats. 

8.2.35 Following a review of information collected during the desk study and Extended Phase 1 

Habitat survey no other detailed ecological surveys were considered necessary to inform the 

EIA. 

8.2.36 Ecological surveys are limited by factors, which affect the presence of plants and animals 

such as the time of year, migration patterns and behaviour. The ecological surveys have not 

therefore produced a complete list of plants and animals and the absence of evidence of any 

particular species should not be taken as conclusive proof that the species is not present or 

that it will not be present in the future. Nevertheless, the results of the ecological survey along 

with the desk top study have allowed an evaluation of the likely use of the survey area by 

legally protected species and the requirement for mitigation for these species. This report is 

considered sufficient for its purpose to inform the planning application for erection of a wind 

turbine at Wheal Jane mine at Baldhu. 

8.2.37 The specific limitations relating to the bat surveys and assessment are detailed in Appendix 

8.1. 


Ecology 



Nature Conservation Evaluation Methodology 

8.2.38 A number of criteria have become accepted as a means of assessing the nature 

conservation/ecological value of a defined area of land which are set out in A Nature 

Conservation Review (Ratcliffe, 1977) and include diversity, rarity and naturalness. 

8.2.39 The Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (Institute of Ecology 

and Environmental Management (IEEM), 2006) provides guidance on the evaluation of the 

nature conservation value of the ecological resource or feature within a geographical frame of 

reference that ranges from international value to negligible value. 

8.2.40 These IEEM definitions for the importance of the receptor have been translated into a highmedium-low 

scale to be consistent with other technical Chapters of this ES; as shown in 

Table 8.1. 

8.2.41 The specific methodologies for assessing the importance of bat roosts and bat foraging and 

commuting habitat are given in Appendix 8.1. 

Effect Assessment Methodology 

8.2.42 The assessment of the potential effects and consequential effects of the proposed 

development have taken into account both on-site effects and those that may occur to 

adjacent and more distant ecological features. Effects can be permanent or temporary, direct 

or indirect and can include: 

• Direct loss of wildlife habitats; 

• Fragmentation and isolation of habitats; 

• Disturbance to species from noise, light or other visual stimuli; 

• Changes to key habitat features; and 

• Changes to the local hydrology, water quality and/or air quality. 

8.2.43 The significance of an adverse effect (or a beneficial effect) is the product of the magnitude of 

the effect and the value or sensitivity of the nature conservation receptors. In order to 

characterise the effects on each receptor, the following parameters are taken into account: 

• The magnitude of the effect; 

• The extent of the area over which the effect would occur; 

• The duration of the effect; 

• Whether the effect is reversible and over what timeframe; and 

• The timing and frequency of the effect. 

8.2.44 There is no agreed absolute method for assessing the significance of adverse or beneficial 

effects on nature conservation features. To maintain consistency with the methodology for 


Ecology 



impact assessment used in other technical Chapters of the ES, the ecological impact 

assessment follows the terminology for significance as set out in Table 8.1. The magnitude of 

change is described for ecological features within Table 8.2. 

Table 8.1 




Magnitude of change 

LARGE 

MEDIUM 

SMALL 

VERY 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

SUBSTANTIAL 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

MODERATE 

MODERATE/ 

SLIGHT 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

MODERATE 

MODERATE 

SLIGHT 

MODERATE/ 

SLIGHT 

SLIGHT 

SLIGHT/ NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NEGLIGIBLE 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

Table 8.2 

Magnitude of 

change 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

Negligible 

Establishing the magnitude of change of ecological features 

Effect on conservation status or integrity 

Results in fundamental negative changes to the conservation status or integrity of the 

feature (long term or permanent) which would include loss of the feature 

Results in a material change to the conservation status or integrity of the feature 

which is of medium scale and/or duration 

Results in a negative change to the conservation status or integrity of the feature 

which is of limited scale and/or of short duration/temporary 

No measureable change to the feature. No effect on conservation status or integrity 

8.2.45 Mitigation measures to reduce negative ecological effects have been incorporated into the 

design and construction programme and taken into account in the assessment of effects, so 

that the residual effect assessment reflects the completed scheme. These measures include 

those required to achieve the minimum standard of established practice plus additional 

measures to further reduce the effects of the scheme. The assessment takes into account the 

likely success of the mitigation. 

8.2.46 The assessment also takes into account how the existing conditions might change between 

the surveys that were undertaken in 2010 and the start of construction. For this scheme, the 

proposed start of construction would be within 5 years of planning permission being granted. 

8.2.47 In addition to determining the significance of an effect on any ecological features, this 

assessment also identifies any legal requirements for mitigation measures. 


Ecology 



Consultation 

8.2.48 The scope of the surveys and assessment was determined following an initial Extended 

Phase 1 habitat survey and a reconnaissance bat survey undertaken within the survey area 

in August 2009, together with a consultation exercise. 

8.2.49 The scope of the assessment and survey effort has been discussed with Natural England 

during telephone conversations and email communication. Relevant, paraphrased responses 

to consultations undertaken in 2009 and 2010 are given below. 

Natural England, September 2009 – Beth Tonkin (Natural England) by email to Scott Cafferty 

(Atkins) in response to request for input into scope of works 

‘Natural England would not provide advice with regard to the scope and detail 

of ecological surveys for a proposal of this type where it is not likely to impact 

upon statutory nature conservation designations eg: SAC, SSSI. I would 

suggest that you contact the Cornwall Council ecologist Cathy Turtle to discuss 

the details of your ecological surveys.’ 

Cornwall County, March 2010 – Catherine Turtle (LPA Ecologist) by email to Scott Cafferty in 

Response to request for input into the scope of works 

‘I am unable to provide specific advice re level of survey etc for every planning 

application. I expect you have consulted the appropriate Natural England officer 

and seen the guidance they have produced on their Technical Advice Notes 

TIN 69, TIN059 and TIN051. 

I would expect the current (available advice) to be followed with the appropriate 

level of bat and bird survey subject to the species and national guidelines, such 

as BCT and RSPB. 

Due to the limited knowledge of the effects of wind turbines on some species I 

would advise a precautionary approach and to have looked at key activity 

periods to include spring, summer, autumn and winter. Survey effort will depend 

on species and importance of the area and the size of the project. Mitigation 

could include operation of timing, habitat management, location etc. If the 

scheme seriously impacts on EU protected species we would need to see other 

alternatives considered so that we can ensure we are following our Habitats 

Regs duty (3) (4) as an LPA.’ 

Natural England, August 2010 – Clare Fitzgibbon (Natural England) by email to Scott Cafferty 

in response to a request for information on cSACs and pSPAs 

‘There are no cSAC or pSACs/SPAs proposed within 30k of the site except for 

marine SAC sites that I don’t consider at risk from the proposed turbine. 

The bat surveys appear to be in line with the guidance laid out in TIN051/059, 

although I am not familiar with the site and the extent of the surveys required is 

very dependent on the nature of the site…. [I]f I remember rightly it is close to 

the tailings dam so it will be important to evaluate whether this attracts 


Ecology 



significant numbers of bats. 

It will also be important to determine whether there are any roosts in the local 

area and to identify any important flight paths close to the proposed turbine 

location. You will also need to determine whether any of the mine shafts are 

used as hibernation sites. Are there any existing bat roost records for the site? 

8.2.50 A response was sent to Natural England regarding the points addressed in the above email 

on 24 th August 2010. 

8.2.51 Relevant responses to the initial scoping request in 2010 were as follows: 

Natural England, June 2010 

I can confirm that, in general, the Scoping Report adequately sets out the 

assessments required in order to evaluate the potential impacts of the 

development on biodiversity. 

As identified in the scoping report, a detailed evaluation of the potential impacts 

on protected species and other species of conservation importance will be 

required. In relation to bats, we would like to draw your attention to current 

guidance provided by Natural England, namely Technical Information Note 051 

Bats and onshore wind turbines, and Technical Information Note TIN 059, Bats 

and single large wind turbines, both of which can be downloaded from the 

Natural England website, www.naturalengland.org.uk, for further information. 

Guidance on survey effort, timing and methodology is available in the 

publications ‘Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines’ and ‘Bat mitigation 

guidelines’ (pub. Bat Conservation Trust). In all cases Natural England 

recommends that the guidelines are used as appropriate to the situation. 

We would also like to highlight the importance of identifying opportunities for 

enhancement and adding to biodiversity interests, in accordance with PPS9 

‘Biodiversity & Geological conservation’ and for opportunities to contribute 

towards targets for UK BAP Habitats and/or Species. 

Cornwall Council, June 2010 

The ES should identify the nature, magnitude, and significance of any impacts 

on the ecology and nature conservation value of the site and surrounding area. 

Consideration should be given to any other statutory nature conservation sites 

or species known to be particularly sensitive to development of this type. In 

particular attention is drawn to the technical advice from Natural England 

regarding potential impacts to bats from turbines (Technical Note 051and 

Technical Note TIN 059). 

The assessment should be supported by an appropriate desk based study and 

ecological surveys of the site and its surroundings. A ‘Phase 1’ habitat survey of 

the site and surrounding areas should be conducted, the need for further 

surveys should be placed into the context of the outcomes of the desk study, 

the availability of existing data and the Phase 1 survey. The scope for 


Ecology 



enhancement of biodiversity from the proposals should be identified within the 

mitigation proposals. 

The ES should set out the surveys undertaken and the particular species that 

have been surveyed, as well as justify the approach taken and demonstrate 

that sufficient data has been provided from other sources to be able to 

adequately assess the impacts. All surveys should be carried out by 

appropriate specialists at appropriate times of the year at a sufficient frequency 

and over a sufficient time period as identified by recognised survey 

methodologies. Particular attention should be given to habitats that support any 

protected species identified on the site and in the Cornwall Biodiversity Action 

Plan. 

Cornwall Wildlife Trust, June 2011 

Cornwall Wildlife Trust did not comment on the scoping report. A follow up 

email was sent on 15 th June 2011, to ask whether the trust had any comments 

on the surveys carried out, to which they responded by email on the 20 th June 

2011 that the surveys seemed very thorough. 


8.3.1 This section describes the current state of the ecological receptors within the survey area. 

Table 8.5 at the end of the section summarises the nature conservation importance of these 

receptors. 

Statutory Nature Conservation Designations 

8.3.2 There are no statutory designations within or immediately adjacent to the application site. 

8.3.3 Only one Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) was identified within 2 km of the site; Carrine 

Common SAC approximately 1.6 km east, this SAC was designated for temperate Atlantic 

wet heath habitats with Erica ciliaris and Erica tetralix and is of high (international) 

importance. No SACs designated for their bat interest were identified within 30 km of the site. 

8.3.4 Two Sites of Special Scientific Interest SSSIs designated for nature conservation interest 

were identified within 2 km of the site; these are of high (national) importance: 

• Carrine Common SSSI, approximately 1.6 km to the north-east (with the same 

boundary as Carrine Common SAC) – This SSSI is designated for its habitat mosaic 

ranging from western lowland heath, scrub and herb-rich hay meadows on drier 

slopes, to low-lying areas which support wet heath, willow carr, streamside and mire 

vegetation; and 

• West Cornwall Bryophytes SSSI, approximately 1.8 km to the west – The West 

Cornwall Bryophytes SSSI is an area of formerly mined land with high levels of copper 

within the soil which supports a population of rare and scarce mosses and liverworts. 


Ecology 



8.3.5 Because these designations are based on habitats and flora, and due to the distances 

between these sites and the proposed turbine and the lack of connective habitat between 

them, they are unlikely to be a pathway for any negative effects from the development. These 

designated sites are therefore not considered to be ecological receptors for this development 

and are not considered further. 

8.3.6 The only SSSI designated for its bat interest within the 20 km search radius was Trehane 

Barton SSSI, approximately 11 km to the north-east of site, which supports the largest known 

breeding colony of greater horseshoe bats in Cornwall; shown on Figure 8.2a. 

Non-statutory Nature Conservation Designations 

8.3.7 Sites designated at the County level in Cornwall are County Wildlife Sites (CWS), Cornwall 

Wildlife Trust reserves and Road Verge Inventory Biological Sites. These are considered to 

be of medium (county) importance as they represent habitat types which are of particular 

nature conservation importance within Cornwall. 

8.3.8 Three local non-statutory designated wildlife sites were identified within 2 km; details are 

given in Table 8.3. These are shown on Figure 8.2 b. 

8.3.9 Because these designations are based on habitats and flora, and due to the distances 

between these sites and the proposed turbine and the lack of connective habitat between 

them, they are unlikely to be a pathway for any negative effects from the development. These 

designated sites are therefore not considered to be ecological receptors for this development 

and are not considered further. 

Table 8.3 Non-statutory Nature Conservation Designations within 2 km of the 

application site 

Designated Site 

Name 

Designated 

Site Status 

Reason for designation 

Distance and 

direction from 

site 

Helstone Water 

Wood 

CWS Lowland deciduous woodland 820 m east 

Bissoe Valley Nature 

Reserve 

CWT reserve 

Former mine site with newly planted 

woodland, ponds and regenerating 

heathland 

390 m south 

Road Verge Inventory 

Biological Site BS311 

Biological site 

Designated for a population of Lathyrus 

nissolia (grass vetchling) a plant which 

is rare so far south-west. 

1,150 m west 

Undesignated Habitats 

Habitats within the survey area 

8.3.10 Habitats within the survey area are shown on the Phase 1 Habitat Map – Figure 8.1 and 

comprise predominantly: 

• Sludge paddocks used for polluted mine water treatment. These are shown on the 

Phase 1 Habitat Map as standing water although this is because there is no other 


Ecology 



suitable habitat symbol within the Phase 1 classification system; however the 

paddocks contain largely dry or drying sludge cake together with inert landfill); 

• Mosaic of bare ground and sparse ephemeral vegetation – present all around the 

sludge paddocks created by continuous reworking of the ground around the tailings 

dam; 

• Heath – in small patches at the periphery of the survey area; 

• Woodland – small patches of broad-leaved woodland and coniferous plantation are 

present at the edges of the surveys area; 

• Improved grassland – grazed pasture in the northeast of the survey area; 

• Running water – Clemows Stream formed from the mine outfall along the western 

edge of the survey area; 

• Hard standing and buildings – on old industrial parts of the survey area, particularly 

to the north; and 

• Mine shafts which are remnant of the past mining activities within the survey area. 

There are 12 shafts, three of which have been capped or filled. 

8.3.11 Wheal Jane is a disused copper and tin mine with large areas now used as sludge paddocks 

within a dammed area located in the centre of the survey area. This dammed area covers 

approximately 50% of the survey area and contains a number of tracks and bunds supporting 

tall ruderal non-native species and scrub between the paddocks. The sides of the dam and 

much of the rest of the survey area are also vegetated with ruderals. The sides of the dam 

are regularly managed by scraping with an excavator to avoid dense scrub cover and 

maintain the dam. The sludge paddocks are used to dry out the sludge from mine water 

treatment which is then covered with soil before more sludge is added. The tailings dam 

surrounding the sludge paddocks are active with excavators constantly moving material 

around the site resulting is a mix of bare ground and early successional ephemeral 

vegetation. 

8.3.12 There is very little standing water around the edges of the sludge paddocks, which appear 

heavily polluted and dry out regularly in summer. 

8.3.13 Twelve disused mine shafts occur within the survey area but are fenced off from access. 

These shafts lead to subterranean mine workings, which were allowed to flood after the 

closure of the mine in the early 1990’s. Three of the shafts are capped of filled. Some of the 

remaining shafts are covered by wide gauge metal grilles which are suitable to allow access 

for bats. Mine shafts are commonly used by roosting bats during the hibernation season and 

are occasionally used during other seasons. These shafts were considered suitable to 

support roosting bats (see Appendix 8.1). 

8.3.14 A depression known as ‘The Coffin’ contains a cave (labelled as mine shaft 4 on Figure 8.1) 

within the western cliff face which appeared to lead into the mine and was considered 

suitable to provide access for bats to the mine. The Coffin appears to have formed by a 

collapse of the underground mine workings. 


Ecology 



8.3.15 An outfall from the mine feeds into Clemows Stream along the western side of the survey 

area. This stream varies from 1–3 m wide and has steep cut sides (artificially modified); the 

water depth varies from 30–60 cm deep along its course. The rocky substrate to the stream is 

coloured deep red suggesting a high level of iron (ferrous) deposition and the stream largely 

contains treated mine water effluent. There is also a small unnamed ditch on the eastern 

edge of the survey area which is heavily engineered or artificially modified, has poor water 

quality and periodically dried out (see Chapter 14 Water Environment). Habitat features along 

Clemows Stream, including the woodland edges, make the stream a likely commuting 

corridor and foraging habitat for bats along with other animals into and out of the survey area 

from the surrounding landscape. 

8.3.16 Scattered heath is located to the east and the west of the tailings dam with some heather 

also identified within The Coffin; all of these areas are dominated by common heather, with 

occasional bell heather. The area of scattered heath to the west of Clemows Stream, on the 

western survey area boundary also contains abundant bracken. No nationally rare heathland 

habitats or flora, particularly Dorset Heath (containing Erica ciliraris) or Cornish Heath 

(containing Erica vagrans) were identified within the survey area. 

8.3.17 A semi-mature mixed woodland belt to the south-west of the survey area approximately 

430 m from the proposed turbine location follows the line of Clemows Stream to the south 

past the tailings dam. Broad-leaved semi-mature woodland is located to the north-west of the 

survey area, approximately 400 m from the proposed turbine location. A further block of 

coniferous plantation in the south-east of the survey area is located over 700 m from the 

proposed turbine. No obvious roosting opportunities for bats were noted within these 

woodland blocks. 

8.3.18 The areas of woodland within the survey area are considered to be of low (local) importance 

as they form important parts of the habitat mosaic within the local area but are fairly common 

within the County. The pockets of woodland contain semi-mature and mature trees with 

potential to support nesting birds, small mammals and a range of invertebrates. The 

woodland blocks are well connected to other habitat features in the area including hedgerows 

and pasture land in the surrounding countryside. 

8.3.19 Large areas of the survey area comprised bare ground or hard standing owing to past and 

current industrial uses. In the area immediately surrounding the proposed turbine location 

there is a short/sparse sward best described as ephemeral short perennial with plant species 

such as St. John’s wort, henbane, American willowherb and soft rush. 

8.3.20 Improved grassland areas are located to the north and north east of the survey area and 

appear to be used as pasture or silage fields. 

8.3.21 Scrub and tall ruderal vegetation is emergent in places throughout the survey area, this 

largely includes the non-native and invasive species buddleia and Japanese knotweed. Goat 

willow, gorse, evening primrose, and greater willowherb were also noted. Due to the 

predominance of invasive and non-native plant species within this habitat it is considered to 

be of negligible importance for nature conservation. 


Ecology 



8.3.22 Buildings within the survey area include office blocks, a compound and a water pumping 

station. These were all assessed for their potential to support roosting bats which is 

discussed in Appendix 8.1 and have negligible importance for nature conservation. 

Habitats within the application site 

8.3.23 Within the application site the habitats comprise hard standing (existing access road), short 

ephemeral vegetation and tall ruderal vegetation dominated by Japanese knotweed. 

Habitats within the surrounding countryside 

8.3.24 From observations during surveys and the review of aerial photographs of the site the 

landscape surrounding the Wheal Jane Masterplan area appears to be largely comprised of 

small, irregularly shaped pasture of improved/semi-improved grassland fields with hedgerow 

boundaries. The hedgerows for the most part appear intact and linked to several small blocks 

of woodland to the north, south and east of the survey area providing commuting routes onto 

the survey area for bats. The blocks of woodland together with a number of small holdings 

including farmhouse and barn buildings provide adequate roosting potential for most species 

of bat found in the UK. 

Habitats at pinch points 

8.3.25 At pinch point 2 (see section 13.5) the roadside verges which would be affected were 

unimproved neutral grassland with species including creeping bent, lesser bird’s foot trefoil, 

white clover, red clover, scaly male fern, autumn hawkbit, common vetch, pineapple weed, 

cock’s foot creeping cinquefoil and perennial rye grass. Hedgerows with hedge banks were 

noted around the junction. These will not be affected by the access route. These shrubs were 

considered to have some potential to support native passerine nesting birds. No evidence of 

badgers or other notable species was noted. 

8.3.26 At pinch point 5 (see section 13.5) the road verges were unimproved neutral grassland with 

species including red fescue, creeping bent, soft rush, lesser bird’s foot trefoil, white clover, 

scaly male fern, Yorkshire fog, cock’s foot, common heather, tufted vetch, heath bedstraw 

and woody nightshade. A dense area of scrub to the north of the road comprised western 

gorse, common gorse, bramble, sessile oak blackthorn and willow sp. These shrubs were 

considered to have some potential to support native passerine nesting birds. No evidence of 

other notable species was observed. 

8.3.27 At pinch point 6 (see section 13.5) the road verge is species poor amenity grassland. Species 

present included red fescue, Yorkshire fog, dandelion, white clover, ribwort plantain, common 

sorrel, bramble. No evidence of notable species was recorded. A planted line of shrubs 

includes white beam, holly, blackthorn and western gorse. 

Protected Species 

Bats 

8.3.28 Detailed analysis of the bat survey results can be found in Appendix 8.1. This section 

provides a brief summary. 


Ecology 



Species present within the survey area 

8.3.29 The surveys recorded the following species within the survey area in order of most abundant 

to least abundant: common pipistrelle, greater horseshoe, lesser horseshoe, brown longeared, 

soprano pipistrelle, noctule, and Natterer’s bat. Common pipistrelle was by far the 

most abundant species, with only individuals or small numbers of the other bat species 

recorded. A number of Myotis bats were recorded which could not be identified to species 

level but which, given the geographical location and other observations on site could be 

Natterer’s bats or whiskered bats. 

8.3.30 All bat populations in the UK have undergone significant declines over the last century due to 

habitat loss, fragmentation and roost destruction. However, of the bats recorded, the greater 

and lesser horseshoe bats are the rarest and have a restricted distribution within south west 

England, both species having national populations below 10,000 individuals. These species 

are also classified as Vulnerable (VU A2c) on the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Animals. Natterer’s bat and noctule are rarer bat species (with national populations between 

10,000 and 100,000 individuals but are widespread throughout England. Common pipistrelle, 

soprano pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats are all common (national populations over 

100,000 individuals) and widespread throughout the UK. 

8.3.31 There following bats are listed as priority species within the Cornwall BAP: noctule, soprano 

pipistrelle, brown long-eared, greater horseshoe and lesser horseshoe bat. 

8.3.32 The nature conservation importance of habitat features within the survey area in relation to 

the use of these features by bats is given in Table 8.5. However, in order to consider the 

significance of effect on each individual bat species, according to the methodology given in 

Table 8.1, a nature conservation importance must be ascribed to each species of bat. In 

practice there are limitations on ascribing nature conservation importance to individual 

species outside of the context of the habitats that support them; this is also limited by the 

amount of information available on population sizes at the local level, for instance there are 

estimations on species abundance on a national scale (see Appendix 8.1) but no information 

available on population sizes of individual species within Cornwall. However, nature 

conservation importance of each bat species present within the survey area is given in Table 

8.4 based on information regarding the national populations and the distribution of species. 

See also Appendix 8.1 (Table 4.1) for a summary of the conservation status and estimated 

UK population of each species. 

Table 8.4 

Importance of individual bat species present within the survey area 

Species Importance Reasons for importance 

Common 

pipistrelle 

Greater 

horseshoe 

Low (local) 

Medium 

(regional) 

This species is common and wwidely distributed across the UK 

and Cornwall, and is the most common species in the County. 

One of the rarest bat species in the UK confined to southwest 

England and south Wales. Population in the county is unknown 

but is one of the national strongholds for the species. In Cornwall 

there are four known maternity sites out of a national total of 16 

such sites. Included in the Red Data Book for Cornwall and the 

Isles of Scilly. However, the population using the survey area, in 

terms of numbers, does not meet criteria for designation of site 

of national importance. 


Ecology 



Species Importance Reasons for importance 

Lesser 

horseshoe 

Brown longeared 

Soprano 

pipistrelle 

Noctule 

Natterer’s 

Medium 

(regional) 

Low (local) 

Low (local) 

Medium 

(county) 11 

Medium 

(county) 12 

One of the rarest bat species in the UK, although has a slighter 

wider distribution than greater horseshoe being confined to 

Wales, western England and western Ireland with scattered but 

regular records as far east as Oxfordshire and Warwickshire. 

Population in the county unknown but is one of the national 

strongholds for the species. The population using the survey 

area, in terms of numbers, does not meet criteria for designation 

of site of national importance. 

This species is common and widely distributed across the UK 

and Cornwall, and one of the most common species in the 

County. 

This species is common and widely distributed across the UK 

and Cornwall, and one of the most common species in the 

County. 

This is a rarer bat species although it is relatively widespread in 

much of England, Wales and south-west Scotland. Absent from 

Ireland. Present but population in the county unknown. Few 

roost records known for the county. 

This is a rarer bat species but is found throughout most of the 

British Isles. Population in the county unknown. Found 

throughout Cornwall, although it is generally a poorly known 

species. 

Roosting Habitat 

8.3.33 All buildings and trees within the survey area were found to have negligible potential to 

support roosting bats. 

8.3.34 Roosting activity was recorded in five of the nine shafts available to bats. It is likely that all of 

the nine mine shafts available could be used at some point by bats as night roosts or 

transient summer roosts although bats were only recorded in any number in within The Coffin 

(shafts 3 & 4) which may support a small maternity colony or satellite roost of greater 

horseshoe bats and is used as a swarming site by common pipistrelle, lesser horseshoe, 

greater horseshoe, brown long-eared bats and Myotis sp. 

8.3.35 Shafts 6 and 10 support individual greater horseshoe bats, whilst only a common pipistrelle 

was confirmed roosting in shaft 5. 

8.3.36 The surveys were unable to confirm the presence of hibernating bats. However, the mine 

shafts which are not filled or capped are considered suitable for hibernating greater and 

lesser horseshoe, brown-long eared and Myotis bats. In the absence of survey evidence, it is 

assumed that the nine available mine shafts may be used by these species as a winter 

hibernation roost. 

11 Medium level of importance has been ascribed to noctule and Natterer’s bat on a precautionary basis due to the lack of local 

data supporting evidence that the species are locally abundant. 


Ecology 



Foraging and Commuting Habitat 

8.3.37 During the initial Extended Phase 1 walk-over survey it was noted that overall the scrub and 

tall ruderal vegetation, along with the sludge paddocks, stream, woodland edges and the 

grassland and heathland areas in the north of the survey area provide potential foraging 

habitat for bats. The woodland edges, stream and hedgerows in and around the survey area 

also provide potential commuting routes into and across the survey area with buildings and 

woodlands providing potential roosting sites. 

8.3.38 Many bats prefer to commute along linear structures such as hedgerows or edge features, 

such as woodland edge, rather than across open spaces; there are few linear features within 

the survey area apart from Clemows Stream along the western side of the survey area (mine 

outfall) and woodland edges to the south, west and north west. However, the scrub and tall 

ruderal vegetation that covers large areas of the survey area along with the sludge paddocks 

(tailings dam), stream, woodland edges and the grassland and heathland areas in the north 

of the survey area provide potential foraging habitat for many species of bat and the varied 

topography within the survey area, some of which has been created by reworking earth 

around the tailings dam, has created more sheltered areas in the otherwise open habitat. 

8.3.39 From observations on site and the review of aerial photographs of the survey area the 

surrounding landscape largely comprises small, irregularly shaped pastures of 

improved/semi-improved grassland fields with managed hedgerow boundaries. The 

hedgerows for the most part appear intact and linked to several small blocks of woodland to 

the north and south of the survey area providing commuting routes onto the survey area for 

bats. 

8.3.40 Whilst the transect surveys recorded commuting and foraging activity no clearly defined 

commuting routes were identified and no foraging areas were noted as being used regularly 

or by a large number of bats within the survey area. Foraging activity was recorded at points 

around the tailings dam in 2009 and 2010 with foraging particularly noted around the edges 

of woodland blocks. Commuting activity was noted sporadically in different locations on 

different survey occasions although most commuting activity was, as anticipated, close to 

linear features and edge habitats (hedgerows, woodland edge, and streams). 

8.3.41 No flight paths were identified from any of the identified roosts in the direction of the proposed 

turbine location. Most of the bats recorded leaving roosts within the mine shafts headed in a 

north, north-east or north-west direction over bare ground towards hedgerows and pasture 

fields beyond the boundary of the survey area. 

8.3.42 The closest commuting habitat to the proposed turbine location is Clemows Stream 

approximately 150 m west of the proposed turbine location. 

8.3.43 Given the number of individuals, species and recorded activity within the survey area, as well 

as there being no clearly defined commuting routes or regularly used foraging areas, it is 

unlikely that foraging or commuting habitats within the survey area have more than county 

importance. This evaluation is only due to the presence of the horseshoe bats; an evaluation 

of the habitat within the survey area in the absence of horseshoe bats would result in foraging 

and commuting habitats of local importance. 


Ecology 



Reptiles 

8.3.44 Large areas of the survey area are suitable for common reptile species (adder, common 

lizard and slow worm) including an area of scattered heath and small areas of heath to the 

east and west of the tailings dam and within The Coffin; these areas are suitable for reptile 

basking and foraging. Due to the lack of open water and wetland habitats the survey area has 

limited suitability for grass snakes. Due to their restricted distribution sand lizard and smooth 

snake are not likely to be present (e.g. sand lizard only occurs at one site in Cornwall where 

the species was introduced in 1995). 

8.3.45 Anecdotal and photographic evidence (obtained by Atkins ecologists from workers on the 

Wheal Jane site during surveys in 2010) shows adders using the heathland habitats within 

the survey area. Adder is found throughout Cornwall particular on heath and at coastal sites 

and the County is a national stronghold for this species 12 . 

8.3.46 These reptiles’ species occur throughout Cornwall; although they are in decline throughout 

the UK. Slow worm, grass snake, adder and common lizard are priority species included in 

the Cornwall BAP. 

8.3.47 However, the habitat within the application site has poor suitability for reptiles, predominantly 

comprising hard standing, sparse ephemeral vegetation (on recently reworked ground) and 

tall ruderals. At most this area could be used for foraging and basking but reptiles would be 

disturbed by the current level of continual industrial activity within the Wheal Jane Mine site. 

Badgers 

8.3.48 Four badger latrines were noted to the north west of the Wardell Armstrong building at the 

Wheal Jane mine entrance. No evidence of badgers was recorded within the application site 

and no other evidence of badgers was observed within the survey area; no badgers were 

encountered during the course of the nocturnal bat survey work. 

Invasive Species 

8.3.49 Japanese knotweed was identified in several locations throughout the survey area shown on 

Figure 8.1; including within the application site. Japanese knotweed is a non-native invasive 

plant species which is legally controlled to prevent its spread (see Appendix 8.2). 

Great crested newts and other amphibians 

8.3.50 There are no water bodies within the survey area considered suitable to support breeding 

populations of amphibians. The ephemeral and polluted areas of standing water at the edges 

of the sludge paddocks and Clemows Stream in the western part of the survey area are not 

suitable for amphibians. No other water bodies were identified within the survey boundary or 

within 500 m of the application site. 

8.3.51 The terrestrial habitat within the application site is largely unsuitable for amphibians, and 

much of the terrestrial habitat within the survey area is frequently reworked and bare or 

12 Cornwall’s Biodiversity Initiative (1998), Cornwall’s Biodiversity Volume 2: Action Plans, Cornwall Wildlife Trust, Truro, UK. 


Ecology 



supporting sparse ephemeral vegetation with few areas of potential refuge for amphibians. 

Therefore amphibians are not considered further in this chapter. 

Other notable species 

8.3.52 No suitable habitat for other protected or notable species was identified within the survey 

area. Clemows Stream and the unnamed ditch within the survey area were not considered 

suitable for otters or water voles and no evidence of these species was identified. 

8.3.53 Some of the habitats within the survey area may support assemblages of invertebrates, 

particularly on the patches of heath and the bare ground and short ephemeral vegetation, 

which would usually be good habitat for invertebrates such as solitary burrowing 

hymenoptera. However, there is no heath habitat within the application site and the majority 

of the bare/ephemeral habitats within the survey area are constantly reworked and disturbed, 

reducing the potential for important invertebrate assemblages to be present. The desk top 

study information received did not indicate the presence of any important invertebrate fauna 

and, given the habitat that will be directly affected by the proposed development and the 

small scale of the development footprint, no further investigations were considered 

necessary. 


Ecology 



Table 8.5 

Summary of nature conservation features within the survey area and their importance 

Feature 

Trehane Barton 

SSSI 

Mine shafts 

Heath 

Sludge paddocks 

Mosaic of bare 

ground and sparse 

ephemeral 

vegetation 

Nature conservation 

importance 

High (national) 

Medium (county and 

regional) 

Low (local) 

importance) 

Low (local) 

importance 

Low (local) 

importance 

Reasons for importance 

This site is designated for the presence of a maternity colony of greater horseshoe bats. 

There are 12 shafts, three of which have been capped or filled. These shafts are considered to have importance for nature 

conservation due to their use as bat roosting habitat by lesser and greater horseshoe bats and other bat species (see Appendix 

8.1). 

The Coffin (shafts 3 & 4) is of medium (regional) importance for bats and of high conservation significance due to the presence of 

a maternity colony or satellite roost of greater horseshoe bats. Shafts 6 and 10 support individual greater horseshoe bats and are 

considered to be of medium (county) importance. In terms of summer roosting, shaft 5 is considered to be of only low (local) 

importance as only a common pipistrelle bat was confirmed roosting. However, all available shafts (apart from shafts 2, 11 and 

12 which are capped) have the potential to support hibernating bats, including greater and lesser horseshoe bats; although the 

presence of hibernating bats was unable to be confirmed through survey. The presence of hibernating bat species would make 

all of the available shafts at least of medium (county) importance for nature conservation. 

Lowland heath is both a UK BAP and a Cornwall BAP priority habitat. This habitat type has suffered large declines over the past 

century although Cornwall is a national stronghold for this habitat type, containing the second largest area of heathland within the 

UK after Hampshire. The area of lowland heathland in Cornwall is around 6,750 ha, around 11% of the UK resource. 

Internationally the UK as a whole has 20% of the world’s heathland resource, with Cornwall’s contribution to this being over 2% 

(Cornwall Wildlife Trust, 1998). 

Areas of heath within the survey area are generally scattered and isolated, containing more common heathland plant species. 

The heath within the survey area covers around 2.7 ha, which is approximately 0.04% of the county resource. Therefore, 

although this habitat type is important due to its decline, the heath within the survey area is not considered to be of county 

importance. This habitat is likely to support reptiles along with a diverse invertebrate assemblage. 

Although the sludge paddocks are constantly reworked and contain polluted sediment, they add to the mosaic of habitats present 

within the survey area and the wetter edges supports invertebrate biomass which in turn provides foraging opportunities for bats 

and other species such as reptiles. 

This habitat covers a large proportion of the survey area and although there are no notable species which rely on or are directly 

associated with this habitat; the habitat supports some invertebrates which in turn will provide food for bats. These habitats are 

also part of the mosaic of habitat within the survey area which increases biodiversity, and ‘open mosaic habitats on previously 

developed land’ is a habitat listed within the Cornwall BAP. 


Ecology 



Feature 

Woodland – small 

patches of broadleaved 

woodland 

and coniferous 

plantation 


importance 

Low (local) 

importance 

Reasons for importance 

Native broad-leaved woodland is a UK BAP habitat. However, the woodlands which occur within the survey area are small 

isolated stands of either coniferous plantation or immature broad-leaved woodland with few links to any larger woodland blocks 

and no evidence of management for the benefit of nature conservation. However, woodland is an important habitat used by a 

range of species and its presence within the survey area adds to the mosaic of habitats present. Woodland is also one of the key 

habitat features within the survey area which may be of value to foraging bats, particularly horseshoe bats, pipistrelle bats and 

long-eared bats. 

Horseshoe bats usually hunt within 5 m of woodland edge or hedgerows (Ramsome & Hutson, 2000) and therefore the more 

linear and woodland habitat available the greater the area of foraging habitat available for potential usage by bats. Research has 

highlighted the importance of canopy and vegetation cover area around horseshoe maternity roosts particularly large areas of 

woodland (Billington & Rawlinson, 2006). 

Improved grassland 

and arable 

Running water 

(Clemows Stream) 

Hard standing and 

buildings 

Low (local) 

importance 

Low (local) 

importance 

Negligible importance 

Improved grassland and arable land are included within the Cornwall BAP under the Farmland action plan. Much of the 

biodiversity interest of these habitats is associated with boundary features such as hedgerows and the biodiversity value of these 

habitats generally declines with increasing use of fertiliser, pesticides and management. However, these habitats often support 

fauna such as farmland birds and invertebrates, particularly grazing pastures where cattle manure attracts invertebrates which in 

turn provide food for bats and birds. 

Whilst the water within the stream along the western edge of the survey area appears polluted, it also provides additional 

diversity to the habitats present, offering a drinking and foraging resource for invertebrates (albeit probably a low species 

diversity of invertebrates due to the pollution), bats and other mammals. 

These habitats do not currently support notable species and have no intrinsic value for nature conservation. 


Ecology 



8.4 Trends and projected future baseline 

8.4.1 The survey area has been heavily developed over a long period of time associated with past 

mining operations. It is likely that areas currently being reworked in the short-term around the 

sludge paddocks within the survey area will continue to be worked creating a mosaic of bare 

ground and ephemeral recolonising vegetation and ruderals. 

8.4.2 In the long-term the future baseline of the survey area is likely to change due to the wider 

Wheal Jane Masterplan promoted by the Wheal Jane Ltd and partners. Given the type of 

habitats within the application site (hard standing, sparse ephemeral vegetation and ruderal) 

it is unlikely that this habitat will change significantly between the current baseline and the 

beginning of turbine construction; the only likely change being the eventual spread in area of 

Japanese knotweed within the ruderal habitat if this is not treated/eradicated. 


8.5.1 The main ecological receptors that would be affected by the proposed development are 

considered to be the bat species using the survey area for roosting, commuting and foraging 

activities, particularly the roosts located within the mine shafts confirmed to be used by 

greater horseshoe, lesser horseshoe and common pipistrelle bats and potentially also used 

by brown long-eared and Myotis bats. This section describes the measures that have been 

incorporated into the site design to avoid and minimise effects on these species. 

Working Measures to Minimise Construction Effects 

8.5.2 This section also describes measures that would be incorporated into the methods of working 

to prevent harm to reptiles and other species. These measures are included within the 

Environmental Management Plan in Chapter 18, and are considered to be part of the scheme 

in terms of the subsequent assessment of effects. 

Turbine siting 

8.5.3 The proposed turbine location is a minimum distance of 50 m between the rotor swept area 

and any linear habitats (such as woodland edge or watercourses) used by foraging or 

commuting bats following Natural England Guidance (Natural England Technical Information 

Note TIN059). The proposed turbine location is also more than 200 m from the closest 

woodland (see Figure 8.1). 

8.5.4 No works are scheduled near any confirmed bat roosts. The nearest recorded roost to the 

turbine location are mine shafts 6 and 10 which are both approximately 200 m away (see 

Figure 8.1). The closest mine shaft with potential for roosting bats, but which has not been 

confirmed as support roosting bats, is shaft 7 approximately 45 m west. 

Construction Noise and Vibration Limits 

8.5.5 Noise created during construction activities may cause disturbance to bats using mine shafts 

as roosts. Horseshoe bats, and particularly great horseshoe bats, are sensitive to disturbance 

at their nursery and winter roosts. The method of assessing noise effects from development 


Ecology 



on human receptors is well established and there are best practice standards for such 

assessments. There are no assessment standards for the effects of noise on wildlife. 

Although there is literature concerning the effects of noise on wildlife in general, and 

particularly on birds, the literature on noise disturbance of bats has concentrated on 

interference with echolocation and how this affects hunting and orientation rather than 

disturbance of bats in roosts during the day. A full noise assessment has been carried out 

and is reported in Chapter 11 of this ES, although this assessment deals with noise in relation 

to human receptors. 

8.5.6 The construction works will aim to reduce unnecessary noise to minimise noise effects on 

roosting bats. It is unlikely that any plant will be run unattended outside of working hours; 

however, in the event that, for example, drainage pumps were required, these would be 

located at least 100 m away from the known roost locations and it is likely that a limit on the 

permissible noise levels would be implemented (the latter largely in relation to human 

receptors). All equipment and vehicles would also be switched off when not in use. 

8.5.7 During construction piling is likely to be required in order to install the footing for the turbine; 

the type of piling to be used will be bored piles rather than driven piles to minimise the 

vibration and noise produced (thus minimising potential structural effects on the mine shafts 

and disturbance of bats using the mine shafts). Bored piling produces far lower noise and 

vibration levels than percussive methods such as hydraulic hammer piling. 

8.5.8 Vibration effects reduce significantly with distance. The exact distance at which vibration 

effects are negligible can only be determined when the energy input of the vibration source 

and the ground type between source and receiver are known. However, based on the 

previous experience of Atkins’ acoustic and vibration specialists, perceptible vibration would 

not be expected at distances beyond 100 m from most construction sites; even from the 

highest vibration inducing construction activities (i.e. percussive piling). The most important 

mine shafts for bats within The Coffin are beyond 100 m from the proposed turbine location. 

8.5.9 It is understood that the specific piling method will be informed by ground investigation works 

that would be carried out following planning approval. The selection of piling techniques, and 

the methodology for the ground investigations (such as location of bore holes or trial pits) will 

be established with consideration to the bat interests identified within the survey area such 

that there would be no significant effects on either the structural integrity of the mine shafts or 

disturbance of bats roosting within the shafts. 

8.5.10 HGV movements can generate ground borne and airborne vibration at sensitive receptors 

when passing them. However, given the number and type of construction traffic required for 

the proposed development, the current conditions of the road network and the current vehicle 

use within the Wheal Jane site (heavy plant reworking the sludge paddocks and tailings 

dam); it is unlikely that this would result in any observable effect on bats. 

8.5.11 A site management regime will be developed to control the movement of vehicles to and from 

the proposed wind energy 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, particularly within 100 m of confirmed roosts. 


Ecology 



Timing of Construction Works 

8.5.12 An indicative programme for construction activities is shown in Chapter 4 (Table 4.2). The 

starting date for construction activities is largely a function of the date that consent might be 

granted and subsequently 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. However, where possible piling activities, which could be the most 

disturbing construction activity to bats roosting in the mine shafts, will be programmed when 

roosting bats are likely to be least sensitive to disturbance. Bats are likely to be most 

sensitive disturbance whilst in winter hibernation and summer maternity roosts. Therefore the 

piling would be programmed as far as possible in either March/April or September/October. 

Traffic and Lighting 

8.5.13 Visual disturbance from presence of people, machinery and lighting is unlikely as there will be 

no construction works after sunset or before sunrise, when bats would be active and outside 

of roosts. 

8.5.14 Greater horseshoe bats are sensitive to changes in light and fly at low heights close to the 

ground; therefore any light spillage or additional nocturnal traffic particularly in the vicinity of 

The Coffin could have an adverse effect on these bats. To minimise such effects construction 

traffic will be restricted overnight (between sunset and sunrise) and no artificial lighting will be 

installed as part of the construction or operation of the development. 

Precautionary Methods of Working for Reptiles and Mammals 

8.5.15 Construction activity will be limited to within the application site including the storage of 

surplus materials. 

8.5.16 No works are scheduled on or near any valuable habitats; where possible existing roads will 

be used to access the site with only a small area of new access track required. The area in 

which the turbine is located is tall ruderal and ephemeral vegetation which is of some 

suitability for common reptile species. A Construction Environmental Management Plan 

(CEMP) will include a precautionary method of working in relation to reptile species. The 

precautionary method of working would include the staged clearance of vegetation from the 

works footprint under supervision of an ecologist along with hand-searching of reptiles. This 

would take place for all locations where suitable reptile habitat (such as tall ruderal) would be 

lost plus a buffer zone of 10 m around the works footprint to minimise the risk of reptiles 

straying into the construction area. This method of working, and the presence of people and 

machinery, is likely to encourage reptiles from the working area although any found during 

hand searching would be moved to suitable habitats at the edges of the survey area. 

8.5.17 All excavations will be fenced or covered overnight to prevent harm to, and entrapment of, 

animals that may be moving overnight such as badger. Site staff will check such excavations 

each morning for any trapped animals prior to commencement of work. 

Japanese knotweed 

8.5.18 Areas of Japanese knotweed have been identified within the application site. Japanese 

knotweed is listed on schedule 9 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). 


Ecology 



Stands of Japanese knotweed within the construction area and up to 7 m from the 

construction area would be treated in accordance with the Environment Agency’s knotweed 

code of practice 13 . 

Prevention of Pollution 

8.5.19 Methods for preventing pollution to water courses are discussed in Chapter 14 – Water 

Environment. These will include following best practice the works would adhere to the 

Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines with particular reference to PPG1 

(general guide to the prevention of water pollution), PPG6 (working at construction and 

demolition sites) and PPG21 (pollution incident response planning) 14 . 

Operational Noise and Vibration Limits 

8.5.20 Operational noise limits would be set relative to the background noise levels. Noise from the 

wind development would be limited to 5 dB(A) above background for both day- and night 

time, remembering that the background level of each period may be different (see Chapter 

11). Although these noise levels are set in relation to human receptors, in the absence of 

suitable noise limits in relation to bats, it has been assumed that these noise limits will also 

reduce the risks of operational noise effects on bats. 

8.6 Potential significant effects of the scheme prior to mitigation 

8.6.1 This section takes into account the design of the project as described in the previous section 

and forms an assessment of the significance of effects from the following actions: 

• Creation of access tracks; 

• Crane pad creation; 

• Turbine erection; 

• Construction of the site compound; 

• Increased vehicular movement within the site; 

• Operation of the turbine and associated maintenance; and 

• De-commissioning. 


Designated Sites 

8.6.2 Trehane Barton SSSI approximately 11 km to the north-east of the survey area supports the 

largest known breeding colony of greater horseshoe bats in Cornwall. Greater horseshoe 

13 

Environment Agency, Managing Japanese knotweed on development sites – the knotweed code of practice 

(http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/japnkot_1_a_1463028.pdf) 

14 PPG documents are available on the Netregs website: http://www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/links/107968.aspx 


Ecology 



bats feed within 3 km to 4 km of a roost (Harris & Yalden, 2008) and therefore crucial 

foraging areas for pregnant and lactating females and their offspring, when capable of flying, 

will be within 4 km of the maternity roosts (JNCC, 2010). Greater horseshoe juvenile bats 

initially hunt within a 1 km radius of the maternity roost as they develop their foraging and 

flight skills (Jones & Ramsome, 1995). 

8.6.3 Given the distance between the survey area and the SSSI it is extremely unlikely that adult or 

juvenile greater horseshoe bats from the maternity colony at Trehane Barton SSSI are using 

the habitats within the survey area for foraging. Thus any impacts on the local greater 

horseshoe population in the summer period would have a negligible magnitude of change on 

the SSSI maternity colony and the effect will be not significant. 

8.6.4 Although hibernation sites are generally close to maternity roosts, greater horseshoe bats 

may use hibernation roosts up to 40 km (rarely greater than this) from the maternity colony 

and have been recorded travelling up to 50 km between roosts (Altrincham, 2003). 

8.6.5 There is currently insufficient information to establish whether the greater horseshoe bats 

from Trehane Barton SSSI (or from the two closer non-designated roost sites) use the survey 

area for hibernation. 

Undesignated Habitats 

8.6.6 Construction within the application site will be predominantly on habitats with negligible 

importance for nature conservation (hard standing and stands of non-native Japanese 

knotweed); the loss of these habitats will therefore not result in a significant effect. Some of 

the construction footprint will result in the permanent loss of a mosaic of bare ground and 

ephemeral vegetation (created by constant reworking of soils) which are of low (local) 

importance. Due to the small scale of the proposed works and the abundance of this habitat 

within the survey area, loss of this habitat would result in a negligible magnitude of change 

and the effect would be not significant. 

8.6.7 Minimal, temporary loss of dense scrub and temporary loss of small sections of roadside 

verge around pinch points 2, 5 and 6 will result in a negligible magnitude of change on a 

receptor of low (local) importance and the effect would be not significant. 

Protected species 

8.6.8 The only likely species groups to be affected by construction are bats and reptiles. 

Bats 

8.6.9 The potential effects on bats as a result of construction are: 

• Loss of habitats for foraging and commuting within the footprint of construction; and 

• Disturbance of roosting bats during the day-time from noise as a result of construction 

activities. 

8.6.10 The habitats within the application site (hard-standing, bare ground and short perennial and 

ruderal) are not optimal habitats for bat commuting or foraging. No linear habitat features, 


Ecology 



such as woodland edges or watercourses, would be affected by the proposed development 

and there would be no loss or fragmentation of habitat used as commuting routes or foraging 

areas. Whilst the transect surveys in 2010 recorded both commuting and foraging activity of 

bats within the survey area, no clearly defined commuting routes were identified and no 

foraging areas were noted as being used regularly or by a large number of bats. Therefore 

the permanent loss of habitats within the construction footprint would result in a negligible 

change on foraging and commuting bats and would result in effect that is not significant. 

8.6.11 Although there would be consideration to minimising construction noise levels due to the 

presence of roosting bats close to the working area (see Section 8.5 Topic Specific Design 

Evolution) there may still be some noise disturbance on bats roosting within the mine shafts. 

8.6.12 Some bats can be incredibly tolerant of certain disturbance events during the day. During one 

survey, long-eared bats continued using a barn for roosting up to the last minute prior to 

demolition despite abundant building works (including the use of a 360 digger) occurring in 

the surroundings (Helen Ball, Staffordshire Bat Group Chair, email communication to Atkins 

ecologist, 13/03/06). 

8.6.13 During another survey, a large Daubenton’s bat maternity roost was found within the 

expansion joint of a bridge carrying the M60 motorway. A noctule was also found hibernating 

within the same motorway bridge (in an abutment) during a period of three weeks while grit 

blasting of concrete was taking place on the abutment and scaffolding poles were being cut 

with angle-grinders close by with no apparent affects (observations of Atkins’ ecologists). 

8.6.14 Lesser and greater horseshoe bats are thought to be particularly sensitive to disturbance, 

although a large colony of lesser horseshoe bats and long-eared bats which have been 

monitored by Atkins on behalf of the Highways Agency have been roosting within a concrete 

box viaduct (Wynhol viaduct) carrying the M5 which is subject to continuous low levels of 

noise and vibration from overhead traffic. 

8.6.15 The nearest confirmed roost to the proposed turbine location (shaft 10) is 200 m west – a 

night roost used by greater horseshoe bats. The next nearest roost identified (shaft 6) is 

200 m north east, identified as a night roost for both lesser horseshoe and greater horseshoe 

bats. Shaft 5, 240 m north east of the proposed turbine location was identified as a night 

roost for common pipistrelle bat. The mine shafts within The Coffin (shafts 3 & 4), 

approximately 260 m and 245 m north east of the proposed turbine location, are the most 

important bat roost within the survey area, supporting a maternity or satellite greater 

horseshoe roost and being used as a swarming site. 

8.6.16 At these distances the noise levels experienced by bats as a result of construction traffic 

would be unlikely to cause significantly disturbance and the general noise levels experienced 

above ground are likely to be further reduced by noise attenuation within the actual shafts 

themselves. 

8.6.17 Disturbance can occur along a scale from trivial disturbance which would have no effect on 

individual bats or on a species’ population to large scale disturbances which may cause 

effects on the favourable conservation status of a population. The physiological effects of 

disturbance are almost impossible to quantify, although large scale disturbances may have 

population effects by: 


Ecology 



• Increasing ‘stress’ levels of individual bats and possibly causing flight during the day 

making bats vulnerable to predation. Disturbances may also cause bats to move within 

the roost causing increased energy expenditure and a reduction in fitness, and 

survivability. This can make can bats more vulnerable to disease and infection. 

Decreased fitness of adults through disturbance could make adult bats less able to 

forage and feed young; 

• Causing adult bats to abandon the roost and their young, although this would be 

unusual given the amount of nurturing invested by adult bats to their young. However, 

dependent young need daily feeding and if adult bats were prevented from returning to 

the roost through disturbance this could lead to the death of dependent young after 48 

hours; and 

• Disturbance of a mating roost (thought to be associated with swarming sites) may 

reduce mating success and thus reduce recruitment to the population in the following 

year (i.e. less fertilised females, therefore less young born). Bats only give birth to one 

young per year (very rarely twins) and any reduction in annual recruitment to the 

population may reduce long-term viability of a population. 

8.6.18 For disturbance of bats using the shafts to be considered to constitute significant disturbance, 

noise levels would have to be high, irregular and prolonged. The precautionary measures that 

will be adopted during construction, including the careful programming and methods of piling, 

will ensure that effects are minimised. The noisiest construction activity, piling, would also be 

carried out at a period when bats are least sensitive to disturbance (i.e. not during the main 

maternity or hibernation period) and would be only a small proportion of the construction 

period (thus any effects would be temporary) and would be undertaken as a single block 

period rather than several separate piling events. 

8.6.19 Given that bats use the Wheal Jane site for roosting despite the high levels of current 

commercial/industrial activity that occurs on a regular basis, it is considered likely that the 

additional disturbance caused by construction of the proposed development, taking into 

account the precautionary measures described above, would result in a small magnitude of 

change at most, which for the most importance bat receptor (greater horseshoe bat) would 

result in a slight significance of effect but would not affect the conservation status of the local 

population. 

Reptiles 

8.6.20 Due to the small scale and temporary construction works, and the loss of habitat which is 

sub-optimal for reptiles, would result in a negligible magnitude of change on local reptile 

populations and thus the effect would be not significant. However, there would still be a 

small risk of accidental killing or injury of reptiles during construction, which would result in a 

legal offence (see Appendix 8.2). This risk would be minimised by adopting the precautionary 

working practices detailed in Section 8.5. 

Effects during Operation 

8.6.21 The only anticipated ecological effect of turbine operation (other than potential effect on birds 

which are dealt with in Chapter 12) are the effects on bats through: 


Ecology 



• Disorientation of bats in flight through ultrasound emission by wind turbines (Bach and 

Rahmel, 2004) and potential for interference with social interactions (Rodriguez et al., 

2008); 

• Disturbance to, or severance of, local commuting routes i.e. barrier effects, and 

• Collision with moving turbine blades or barotrauma caused by changes in air pressure 

close to the blades. 

8.6.22 There is no evidence of vibration due to the operation of wind turbine being perceptible to 

ecological species beyond the immediate vicinity of the turbine and therefore vibration effects 

on bats is not considered further. 

8.6.23 No other effects on bats are predicted. Day-time maintenance activities, as described in 

Chapter 4, will make use of established access tracks only and will not require any additional 

land-take. Maintenance would be unlikely to cause any observable effects on the local bat 

population and are not considered further. 

8.6.24 There would be no visible lighting of the turbine and therefore effects from lighting in the 

visible wavelengths are not considered further. 

8.6.25 The candidate turbine has a blade tip of 122 m – for more information on the proposed 

development refer to Chapter 4. 

Ultra-sound Emission 

8.6.26 Any noise emission that affects echo-location could interfere with foraging and noise 

emissions associated with social calls, which could affect social interactions such as mating. 

Territorial male bats expend considerable energy holding mating territories and social calling 

at swarming sites. Any disturbance and interference with social calls may invalidate this 

energy cost and reduce the chances for mating; leading to effects on breeding success of the 

population. 

8.6.27 Studies are ongoing to gather evidence on the effect of ultrasound from turbines on bats; 

however, there is currently no scientific consensus or published guidance on the potential 

effect of ultrasound from turbines. Carlin & Mitchell-Jones (2007) have stated that there is 

currently limited evidence for disorientation of bats through ultrasound emission from turbine 

operation or on interference of social call from audible or infra-sound (noise occurring at 

frequencies below that at which sound is normally audible, i.e. at less than 20 Hz). 

8.6.28 Operating wind developments may emit two types of noise. Aerodynamic noise is a ‘broad 

band’ noise 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. Traditional sources of mechanical noise include gearboxes and 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 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 


Ecology 



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 development. 

8.6.29 Wind turbines have been cited as significant producers of infra-sound. This has, however, 

been due to the high levels of such noise, as well as audible low frequency thumping noise, 

occurring on older ‘downwind’ turbines of which many were installed in the USA prior to the 

large scale take up of wind power production in the UK. Downwind turbines are configured 

with the blades downwind of the tower such that the blades pass through the wake left in the 

wind stream by the tower resulting in a regular audible thump, with infra-sonic components, 

each time a blade passes the tower. All modern turbines, are of the upwind design; that is 

with the blades up wind of the tower, such that this effect is eliminated. 

8.6.30 In the absence of appropriate research this effect cannot be assessed further. However, 

given the modern design of the proposed wind turbine and the reduction or elimination in 

emissions of ultrasound, audible sound and infra-sound, it is likely that there would be no 

significant effects on the local bat population. 

Foraging Habitat, Commuting Routes and Collision Risks 

8.6.31 Studies from the US have indicated that the majority of bat turbine collision fatalities are 

experienced by migratory bats (possibly as migratory bats do not echolocate) in late summer 

and autumn and do not involve resident or foraging populations (Johnson, 2004). On this site, 

none of the species present are considered to be migratory, although no evidence has been 

gathered to show migration of this species through the survey area. There has been little 

research done on migrating bats in the UK, although the main species in the UK thought to 

use long-distance migration routes, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, was not identified either from desk 

stop study within 5 km of the proposed turbine location or from surveys. 

8.6.32 In addition to direct turbine collision, research in Canada (Baerwald et al., 2008) has 

indicated that bats may also be at risk from internal haemorrhaging due to significant 

changes in air pressure around wind turbines (sudden loss of air pressure). It was noted that 

whilst bats may use echo-location to avoid hitting turbine blades that they will not be able to 

detect the sharp pressure changes around the turbine in this way. 

8.6.33 Species are largely at risk of collision due to flight characteristics and favoured habitats. 

Natural England staff (Carlin & Mitchell Jones, 2007) have commented that bats tend to 

prefer woodland and riparian habitats and linear features and avoid arable land, moorland 

and improved grassland. Bat flight heights (where given in the literature) indicate that most 

small bats fly in cluttered habitats (i.e. in woodland or built up areas) and fly within 0–10 m 

height above ground level. Anecdotal records for the flight height of larger bats (e.g. noctule) 

range from 10–70 m+ thus larger bats would be more susceptible to moving rotors passing to 

within 35 m of ground level. 

8.6.34 Research generally concludes that most deaths at wind developments are in highly 

structured landscapes (Brinkmann, 2004). A study by Brinkman et al. (2006) also concluded 

that of 50 bat carcasses found under existing wind turbines during fatality searches in July– 

October 2004 in the county of Freiburg in Germany, most of the dead bats were found 

beneath wind turbines located in or near forests. There were no findings beneath wind 


Ecology 



turbines in open grassland. In this study common pipistrelle was found to be the most 

affected species. 

8.6.35 The habitat within the application site is poor quality for foraging bats (comprising hard 

standing, ephemeral and patches of ruderal vegetation) and no linear habitat features of 

value to commuting bats, such as hedgerows, are present within the application site. 

8.6.36 No obvious linear habitat features such as hedgerows or woodlands lines lie within 50 m of 

the proposed turbine location, the nearest being Clemows Stream approximately 70 m west. 

8.6.37 The majority of bats observed during the surveys were associated with the mine shafts, 

particularly within The Coffin and activity surveys around the site and covering the proposed 

turbine location showed markedly less activity in the open exposed areas of the site where 

the turbine is proposed. 

8.6.38 The proposed turbine location is approximately 45 m south-east of the nearest potential 

roosting location, mine shaft number 7. No bats emerged from or re-entered mine shaft 

number 7 during the summer and autumn surveys and no swarming activity was seen at this 

shaft. It has not been possible to confirm hibernation within the shafts and so it is possible 

that shaft 7 is used by hibernating bats (but these would be less vulnerable to collisions 

during hibernation due to reduced activity). No flight paths were identified between any of the 

identified roosts and the proposed turbine location. 

8.6.39 The large majority of bat activity was centred on two locations within the survey area; The 

Coffin and associated group of mine shafts just over 200 m north west of the proposed 

turbine location, and the area of heathland in the south east of the survey area associated 

with mine shafts 7 to 10 between 45 m and 200 m from the proposed turbine location. The 

latter area also intersects Clemows Stream. Both of these areas are associated with cover 

provided by scrub/heath providing conditions suitable for increased invertebrate biomass (for 

bat foraging) and with the mine shafts providing roosting opportunities. The Coffin is also in a 

topographic low which would provide sheltered conditions and possibly slightly higher 

temperature and humidity than the surrounding land, also of benefit to invertebrates and 

consequentially foraging and roosting bats. The proposed turbine location is directly between 

the two areas of highest bat activity. 

8.6.40 Due to the short distance between these two areas of higher bat activity it is unlikely that bats 

would commute at high level between them and no high level commuting between these 

areas was observed during the surveys. It is also likely that bats using the available mine 

shafts for hibernation would be approaching the mine shafts and leaving the mine shafts at 

low heights and therefore would not be at risk of collision with the turbine blades. Collision 

risk is therefore likely to affect bats commuting over the survey area or commuting into/from 

the survey area for foraging. 

8.6.41 Foraging activity, particularly by common pipistrelle, was noted along Clemows Stream and 

there is evidence that pipistrelles may use the tailings dam around the sludge paddocks as a 

navigational line with scattered foraging activity identified particularly along the south eastern 

edge of the survey area where the southern end of Clemows Stream meets a thin belt of 

woodland along the south, south eastern and south western edge of the survey area. 


Ecology 



8.6.42 Appendix 8.1 (Table 3.2) shows a summary of the bat passes recorded by the static 

recording device placed near to the proposed turbine location between sunset and sunrise on 

various dates during 2010. Actual numbers of bats using the area where the proposed turbine 

is located are not known as the static detector only records bat passes and one bat could be 

recorded on numerous occasions in one night. The activity transects undertaken showed very 

little regular bat activity with the proposed turbine area; with higher levels of activity in the 

vicinity of the turbine only noted during April and May. 

8.6.43 Common pipistrelle was the most regularly recorded bat; peaks of activity by common 

pipistrelle occurred in August 2009 and through April to June 2010. Surveys from July, 

August and October 2010 had a comparative lack of bat activity with a maximum of three 

passes by common pipistrelle on the static recorder which is consistent with the lack of 

activity recorded during transect surveys in September and October 2010. 

8.6.44 Table 8.6 gives an assessment of the effects on individual bat species from operation of the 

turbine. The magnitude of effect on each species takes into account both the numbers noted 

during surveys and the risk to each species from wind turbines, as given in Natural England 

Technical Information Note TIN059, which rates individuals and populations of each species 

as being at low, medium or high risk. 

8.6.45 A report published by Eurobats following the 11th Meeting of the Advisory Committee “Report 

of the Intersessional Working Group on Wind Turbines and Bat Populations” (Rodriguez et 

al., 2008) have found that of the species recorded at within the survey area: common 

pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule, and brown long-eared bats have a record of collisions 

with turbines in Europe. Several of the Myotis species are also known to have records of 

turbine collision. 

8.6.46 Due to the proposed siting of the turbine, high levels of mortality are not anticipated because 

of the low number of bats using the area in which the turbine is proposed, and turbine related 

mortality is only likely to affect noctule and pipistrelle bats. However, the effects that even low 

levels of mortality may have on the local bat populations of noctule and pipistrelle bats are 

difficult to quantify. The magnitude of change to a bat population depends upon the size of 

that population and hence how vulnerable the population would be to loss of individuals over 

time. Low numbers of bat deaths of a small population, particularly of pregnant females or 

females in breeding condition, may result in a large magnitude of change. This could be 

compounded by other factors such as poor weather decreasing foraging success and loss of 

roosts. 

8.6.47 Greater and lesser horseshoe bats are not thought to be at risk of collisions with the turbine 

blades as these species usually fly at very low height (1–5 m) and tend to fly very close to 

dense vegetation such as scrub, hedgerows and woodland along flight paths. 

8.6.48 Due to the uncertainties involved in assessing the effect on local bat populations which have 

high risk of turbine collisions (i.e. common pipistrelle and noctule), even where the actual 

collisions may affect low numbers of individual bats, this ES has used a precautionary 

assessment for pipistrelle and noctules bat such that the turbine may, in the absence of 

mitigation, result in a slight and substantial/moderate effect on these species respectively. 


Ecology 



Table 8.6 

Summary of potential and significance of effects on individual bat species from operation of the turbine the turbine prior to mitigation and enhancement 

Species 

Nature 

conservation 

value 

Foraging 

behaviour 

Flight 

height 15 

Risk of 

Collision 16 

Population 

Threat 16 

NB Also the 

sensitivity of 

the species for 

the EIA 

Predicted effects 

Magnitude of 

effect 

Significance 

of Effect 

The population considered to be most at risk from effects from the proposed turbine on this site is common pipistrelle, due to the frequency of this 

species which was recorded throughout the ecology survey area, the high number of records of this species using habitat close to the proposed turbine 

location and their collision risk. However, research indicates that pipistrelles generally fly at lower altitudes than the turbine swept area (35 m + zone). 

Although common pipistrelle is classified as a medium risk species, it is considered to be low risk in terms of populations likely to be threatened due to 

effects from wind turbines because the species is common and widespread in the UK compared to other bats. 

Common 

pipistrelle 

Low (local) 

Hawker – 

tend to hunt 

close to 

habitat 

features 

High & 

Low 

(5–10 m 

above 

ground) 

Medium 

Low 

It is impossible to quantify the number of individual pipistrelle bats that may come into contact with the operational turbine. Natural England guidance 

(TIN059) states that ‘...populations of soprano or common pipistrelle bats in the UK could be at risk from wind farms, though the risk from an individual 

turbine would be expected to be low unless sited very close to a roost.’ Only one common pipistrelle night roost was identified in shaft 5, which is over 

200 m from the proposed turbine location. 

From the desk study fifty-three records of common pipistrelle either in flight or as casualties were received within 5 km from the proposed turbine, the 

closest record to the proposed turbine locations occurred within the same 1 km grid square as the turbine in 1994 when 30–40 common pipistrelles were 

observed at Gwenna Lane in Perranwell. Six common pipistrelle roosts were identified among the records within the search area; the closest roost record 

is a location in Chacewater approximately 2.1 km to the north-west where droppings were found in 2000. A large pipistrelle roost at which 75 to 100 bats 

were recorded in July 2003 is located at Lambourne farm approximately 4 km from the proposed turbine location. 

Small 

Slight 

Given the nature of the proposals, the records of common pipistrelle bat within the survey area and the siting of the turbine away from confirmed roosts 

and linear habitat features it is unlikely that turbine collisions would result in an observable affect on the conservation status of pipistrelles in the local 

area or the loss of any part of the population although there would be some effect from loss of individuals which is likely to peak in the early summer 

period. 

Soprano 

pipistrelle 

Low (local) 

Hawker 

High & 

Low 

(5–10 m) 

Medium 

Low 

Soprano pipistrelle is listed as being at medium risk of collision from turbines with turbines being a low threat to populations as for the common pipistrelle 

above. 

No roosts of this species were identified within the survey area or within 5 km of the proposed turbine location and there were extremely low numbers of 

this bat recorded. Therefore the likelihood of this species coming into contact with the proposed turbine is low. Given the nature of the proposals, the 

records of common pipistrelle bat within the survey area and the siting of the turbine away from confirmed roosts and linear habitat features it is unlikely 

that turbine collisions would result in an observable affect on the conservation status of pipistrelles in the local area or the loss of any part of the 

population although there would be some effect from loss of individuals. 

Negligible 


Noctule is listed as being at high risk of collision with onshore wind turbines, with turbines being a high threat to populations of noctule. This is due to the 

species’ habitat preferences and flight behaviour. For this scheme, noctule is the species considered to be the most vulnerable from turbine installations. 

Noctule passes were recorded a maximum of five times on any one night on the static detector, in June. On other nights a maximum of two passes were 

recorded in August. No confirmed or potential roosting sites are present within the survey area and no roosts for this species has been identified within 

5 km of the proposed turbine location. 

Noctule 

Medium 

(county) 

Hawker 

High 

(>10 m) 

High 

High 

Noctule is known to fly over 10 m above ground level in open habitats and above woodland, foraging high and circling over woodland and pasture in 

particular and is therefore the most likely bat recorded within the survey area to come into the rotor swept area (35 m +). Of those noctules observed by 

surveyors, the flight height was recorded between 10 m and 15 m above ground height, considerably below the rotor swept area. However, it is 

recognised that the flight of some noctule some bats recorded either could not be seen by the surveyors or could not be ascertained by the static 

recorders. 

Medium 

Substantial/ 

moderate 

Because this species has been recorded within the survey area and so little is known about its population size or roosts within the county or the 

surrounding landscape beyond the Wheal Jane Masterplan area, the effect assessment has implemented a precautionary approach. Therefore, although 

collision mortality of noctules is unlikely to have such a large effect that the local population would be lost, the conservation status of the local population 

may be affected (resulting in a medium magnitude of change). 

15 Indications of High/Low flight heights taken from taken from Rodriguez et al., (2008), specific height ranges for bats taken from Russ (1999) 

16 Natural England (2009) Bats and onshore wind turbines Interim guidance. Technical Information Note TIN051 First edition 11 February 2009 


Ecology 



Species 

Nature 

conservation 

value 

Foraging 

behaviour 

Flight 

height 15 

Risk of 

Collision 16 

Population 

Threat 16 

NB Also the 

sensitivity of 

the species for 

the EIA 

Predicted effects 

Magnitude of 

effect 

Significance 

of Effect 

Natterer’s 

Medium 

(county) 

Various 

Low 

(1–6 m) 

Low 

Low 

All Myotis spp. are assessed as having low risk of collision and low threat to populations. This is due to their flight behaviour and habitat preferences, 

including hugging linear features and these species are considered highly unlikely to be involved in accidental collisions or barotrauma caused by coming 

in close vicinity of the turbine blades. 

Negligible 


Brown longeared 

Low (local) 

Gleaner – 

tend to hunt 

close to 

habitat 

features 

Low Low Low 

This species is a gleaner and tends to fly close to vegetation such as woodland and dense scrub, avoiding open areas. 

It is recognised that there are limitations in detection of this species in the field given their quite echolocation calls and tendency to emerge after dark. 

However given the flight paths of the long-eared bats recorded on site, and the reluctance of the species to fly in open areas mean that they are likely to 

avoid collision with the turbines. 

Negligible 


Greater 

horseshoe 

Medium 

(regional) 

Gleaner – 

tend to hunt 

close to 

habitat 

features 

Low 

(1–5 m) 

Low 

Low 

This species is one of Britain’s rarest bats but it is not considered a high collision risk species due to the low altitude at which they fly. Some findings of 

studies of horseshoe bat have shown they travel quickly from the roost to a foraging area at approximately 1–2 m above grassland, alongside linear 

features such as tall hedgerows and woodland edge (Bontadina, Schofield, Naef-Daenzer 2002). Research by Billington has shown this to only be the 

case in completely open areas, in several studies bats have been recorded and observed flying 2–5 m above ground level (beside vegetation) and in 

some cases several metres up at canopy level (Billington, 2000 & 2001). Within the survey area horseshoe bats were recorded (where visible) flying 

close to the ground and no higher than surveyor head height. 

Greater horseshoes are also listed as being at low risk from turbines due to their habit of hugging habitat features such as hedgerows (none of which are 

present within the survey area). Horseshoe bats usually hunt within 5 m of woodland edge or hedgerows (Ransome & Hutson, 2000) and are associated 

with linear habitat features. Horseshoe bats never fly directly into the open unless there is no alternate route for them to take. (Jones et al. 1995). 

Negligible 


Lesser 

horseshoe 

Medium 

(regional) 

Gleaner – 

tend to hunt 

close to 

habitat 

features 

Low 

(1–5 m) 

Low 

Low 

Lesser horseshoes are listed as being at low risk from turbines due to their low level flight routes and habit of hugging habitat features such as 

hedgerows as for greater horseshoe bats. Their observed flight patterns within the survey area similar to those of greater horseshoe bats (see above). 

Negligible 



Ecology 




8.6.49 The predicted lifespan of the turbine is 25 years. The primary effect from decommissioning 

will be through temporary disturbance to the site from heavy plant and vehicle movement. 

Works during the decommissioning phase would involve activities similar to those used 

during the construction phase; therefore these effects would be similar and no greater than 

those that may occur during the construction of the turbine. 

8.6.50 Prior to decommissioning of the site, the works area would need to be re-surveyed to 

establish ecological baseline and determine whether specific methods of working are 

required with relation to habitats and species. 

8.6.51 Site working practices during decommissioning should be determined prior to 

decommissioning according to the ecological issues on site at the time. These are likely to be 

very similar to the site working practices for construction as detailed above. 

8.6.52 With careful programming and precautionary working practices, decommissioning should be 

possible with no significant effects on habitats or protected species. Any specific mitigation 

measures would be determined according to site conditions at the time, and would be 

designed to minimise the magnitude of change on ecological receptors. 


Habitat Creation and Management 

8.7.1 To reduce the risks of collisions with the proposed turbine on pipistrelle and noctule bats the 

following habitat manipulation and management around the proposed turbine site and within 

the wider Wheal Jane Masterplan area is proposed: 

• Habitats within at least 75 m of the turbine base (which includes the area directly 

underneath the rotor swept area plus a margin of around 25 m), and habitats between 

The Coffin and the larger western area of heath will be kept free of scrub and ruderal 

vegetation to discourage foraging and commuting bats from the area directly around 

the turbine; 

• Creation of a linked network of thick hedgerows, scrub and woodland belt around the 

edges of the Wheal Jane Masterplan area linking the heathland habitat in the western 

part of the survey area through habitats to the south of the sludge paddocks and 

around the eastern edge of the survey area linking into The Coffin and then north away 

from the Masterplan area along the route observed to be taken by greater horseshoe 

and other bats into the surrounding countryside. This would hopefully encourage bats 

to fly and foraging along habitats away from the turbine area; and 

• Long-term management of habitats around the south eastern, south western and north 

eastern edges of the Wheal Jane Masterplan site for the benefit of bats. 

8.7.2 Creation and enhancement of habitat within the Wheal Jane Masterplan area may attract 

more foraging bats to the site, which may increase the risk of turbine collisions. However, if 

September 2011 122ES Chapter 8 


Ecology


the habitat creation and management is carefully planned, in conjunction with the Wheal Jane 

Ltd and partners, the biodiversity benefits for bats, particularly horseshoe bats, and other 

animals would outweigh this risk and could encourage bats to areas of the Masterplan area 

away from the turbine thus reducing the likelihood of pipistrelle collisions. 

8.7.3 Whilst this mitigation is likely to reduce the likelihood of collisions of pipistrelle bats, it is less 

certain that this mitigation would significantly reduce the risk of noctule bats given their 

commuting and foraging preferences in open areas. 

Enhancement measures 

8.7.4 Further habitat enhancement measures are not included as part of the wind turbine 

development. However, the Wheal Jane Ltd is developing the masterplan for the site which 

will include a wide range of enhancement measures which will be of benefit to bats, reptiles 

and invertebrates. 

Post Construction Monitoring 

8.7.5 As there is little information regarding the quantitative risk that wind developments pose to 

UK bats, a post construction monitoring programme will be implemented in order to confirm 

the findings of the impact assessment in relation to bats. 

8.7.6 This detailed monitoring programme will be agreed with Natural England and may include 

use of static detectors, mortality studies, and activity surveys in appropriate conditions and 

timed at an appropriate time of year. An example of a monitoring programme would be: 

• Bat mortality studies during Years 1, 2 and 3 of the operational phase; and, 

• Bat activity survey work in Years 1, 2 and 3 of the operational phase. 

8.7.7 The bat mortality studies would involve a search for bat carcasses within at least a 122 m 

radius (i.e. equal to the maximum potential height of the turbine wing tip) of each turbine 

tower from sunrise (as soon as light conditions are adequate to distinguish dead bats). The 

surveyor would record the position of any carcasses found (GPS coordinates and 

direction/distance to the turbine), its state (i.e. fresh/decayed) recording any wounds and the 

vegetation height where it was found. 

8.7.8 Eurobat (2006) recommends mortality surveys ‘every 2–5 days combined with a detector 

survey the preceding night’. However, bearing in mind that there is only one turbine proposed 

and that this is located in habitat of low foraging value and around 70 m from the nearest 

linear commuting feature for bats, a reduced frequency of monitoring would be proposed 

such as: 

• One visit between 15th February and 31st March (within a lower period of bat activity 

during/following hibernation); 

• Three visits between 1st April and 31st July (within the peak period of bat activity); and 

• Three visits between 1st August and 15 October (within the peak periods of swarming 

activity). 



Ecology


8.7.9 A gap of at least five days would be left between visits. Each visit would only take place after 

suitable weather conditions the prior evening for bats to be active (for example not after 

nights with low temperatures or heavy rain). 

8.7.10 Bat activity survey work would be undertaken immediately preceding the mortality checks in 

year 1, 2 and 3 of operational phase focussing on the area immediately around the turbine 

and around The Coffin and other confirmed roosts. Work would be undertaken at dusk on 

each occasion. 

8.7.11 Any monitoring programme would be agreed with Natural England and the Local Planning 

Authority before being implemented. The results of any monitoring work will be made 

available to Natural England. 


8.8.1 Table 8.7 summarises the significant effects remaining after the proposed mitigation 

measures and enhancement measures have been employed. 

8.8.2 With the mitigation in place as described above, it is considered that the residual risk to 

common pipistrelle could have a negligible magnitude of change resulting in not significant 

effect. 

8.8.3 The mitigation measures proposed may also help to reduce the risk of noctule collisions 

although, given the nature of this species flight tendencies the mitigation proposed would not 

be as effective for noctule bats and there would remain an effect, albeit this could be reduced 

to a small magnitude of change resulting in a slight significance of effect. 

8.8.4 However, if the mitigation measures and the enhancement measures are implemented then 

the Wheal Jane Masterplan area has the potential to deliver some real biodiversity benefits 

which, if this leads to an increase in the local horseshoe bat population could have significant 

positive effects at least at a local level. 



Ecology


Table 8.7 


Receptor 

Effect 


(construction/operation 

/Decommissioning) 

Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

mitigation 

Nature 

of effect 

Trehane Barton SSSI 

Effect on foraging habitat 

Construction and 

decommissioning 

High Negligible Not significant 

Precautionary working 

practices 

N/a Not significant n/a 

Development area 

Effect on potential 

habitat for nature 

conservation 



Low Negligible Not significant 


practices 


Potential habitat at 

traffic pinch points 

Minimal, temporary loss 

of dense scrub 





practices 


Bats 

Loss of habitat within 

construction footprint 





practices 


All bats 

Noise disturbance 

additional to background 

levels 



Low Small Slight 


practices 

N/a 

Slight 

Shortterm, 

negative 

Reptiles Loss of habitat Construction Low Negligible Not significant 


practices 


Common pipistrelles 

bat 

Collision or barotrauma Operation Low Small Slight 

Habitat manipulation 

and management 

Enhancement of 

heathland 

habitat, within the 

wider area 


n/a 

Soprano pipistrelle bat Collision or barotrauma Operation Low Negligible Not significant N/a N/a Not significant n/a 

Noctule bat Collision or barotrauma Operation High Medium 

Substantial/mo 

derate 

Habitat manipulation 

and management 

Enhancement of 

heathland 

habitat, within the 

wider area 

Slight 

Long-term 

negative 

Natterer’s bat Collision or barotrauma Operation Low Negligible Not significant N/a N/a Not significant n/a 

Brown long-eared bat Collision or barotrauma Operation Low Negligible Not significant N/a N/a Not significant n/a 

Greater horseshoe bat Collision or barotrauma Operation Low Negligible Not significant N/a N/a Not significant n/a 

Lesser horseshoe bat Collision or barotrauma Operation Low Negligible Not significant N/a N/a Not significant n/a 


Ecology 




Ecology 




8.9.1 There are no anticipated effects on potential future receptors. 

8.10 Cumulative Effects 

8.10.1 The proposed development would have a negligible effect on all ecological receptors, apart 

from bats and the key potential effect on bats is mortality from turbine collision. Therefore 

potential cumulative effects are only relevant to mortality of bat populations. 

8.10.2 A number of operational, consented, and proposed wind developments have been identified 

within 30 km of the proposed Wheal Jane turbine. The location of these is shown on Figure 

10.8, and details can be found in Table 8.8. 

8.10.3 Although the potential cumulative effect resulting from the presence of schemes within 30 km 

of the turbine has been considered, schemes within 10 km of the Wheal Jane turbine are 

determined most likely to have in combination effects to the bat species identified on site. 

Potential effects from the proposed Wheal Jane turbine would only result in significant effects 

on common pipistrelle and noctule bat. Noctule home ranges generally extend up to 10 km 

(Bat Conservation Trust, 2003), with hunting flights generally within approximately 2.5 km 

(Kronwitter, 1988); however, on occasion they are known to travel further than 10 km (Bat 

Conservation Trust, 2010) and hunting flights can extend up to 26 km from the roost 

(Gebhard & Bogdanowicz, 2004) depending on habitat quality and insect availability. 

Pipistrelle bats tend to stay within a smaller zone, generally within 3 km (Altringham, 2003). 

8.10.4 Information regarding wind development sites within 10 km of the Wheal Jane turbine is 

provided in Table 8.1 together with information (where available) regarding predicted effects 

on bats that were identified during the planning stage at these sites. 

8.10.5 There are currently 18 operational turbines within 10 km of the proposed Wheal Jane turbine 

as listed in Table 8.8 and no turbines which are under consideration or consented but not 

built within 10 km. The proposed Wheal Jane turbine would constitute less than 6% of the 

turbines within 10 km. 

8.10.6 It is considered unlikely that the pipistrelle population at the Wheal Jane turbine site would 

come into contact with these other turbines due to the distances involved, all being over 5 km 

(and therefore further than the usual 3 km home range of this species) and therefore no 

cumulative effects are predicted for this species. Noctule bats however are likely to move 

around within a 10 km radius of the Wheal Jane turbine site and therefore noctule bats at this 

location are also at risk of coming into contact with turbines at the three sites listed above. It 

is therefore possible that there could be an increased risk of noctule bat mortality as a result 

of the in combination affects of these schemes, although as above the Wheal Jane turbine 

would only constitute less than 6% of the turbines within this zone. The Trevissome Park 

scheme is considered to constitute a small risk of causing any bat related issues or deaths 

due to the siting of the turbine and no information is available regarding the risk associated 

with the other sites, therefore a full assessment of cumulative effect from these schemes on 

noctules is not possible. 


Ecology 



Table 8.8 

turbine 

Sites considered for Cumulative Effects within 10 km of Wheal Jane 

Site 

Number of 


Height to 

Tip of 


(m) 

Status 

Approximate 

distance to 

proposed Wheal 

Jane Turbine 

(km) 

Notes regarding predicted 

effects to bat species as a result 

of wind turbine installation 

(where information available on 

Cornwall Council Planning 

Portal) 

Four 

Burrows 

Trevissome 

Park 

Roskrow 

Barton 

15 45.5 Operational 5 



No information available on 

Cornwall Planning Portal 

No bat survey was undertaken as 

it was concluded (In consultation 

with Cornwall Wildlife Trust) that a 

bat survey was not necessary as 

the turbine is located 50 metres 

from the nearest hedgerow. It was 

concluded (based on a habitat 

appraisal) that the proposal had a 

small risk of causing any bat 

related issues or deaths or that 

this would be a migratory route for 

bats. 

No information available on 

Cornwall Planning Portal 

8.10.7 The risk of cumulative effects on bats arising from the Wheal Jane turbine in combination with 

other turbine sites over 10 km is considered to be low. No in-combination affects are 

predicted on pipistrelle bats due to the distances involved and although noctules can on 

occasion travel over 10 km for hunting, where suitable habitat is available closer they are 

unlikely to travel these distances; it is also likely that the number of individual noctules that 

would be moving this distance would be significantly lower than those staying within the 

10 km zone. Of the wind developments within 30 km of the Wheal Jane turbine site, 

information obtained from the Cornwall Council Planning Portal indicates that only two of the 

schemes have identified a risk to bats – Goodygrane Activity centre (13 km from Wheal Jane 

turbine) where the risk was considered low and Higher Denzell Farm (23 km from Wheal 

Jane) where a substantial/moderate adverse effect was predicted to noctule bats prior to 

mitigation, reducing to a not significant adverse effect once mitigation had been implemented. 

8.10.8 Fifty seven wind turbines within eight individual schemes are currently in operation within 

30 km of the proposed Wheal Jane wind turbine. Assuming those under consideration are 

granted planning permission and those consented are built, seventy two turbines will be in 

operation within 30 km of the proposed Wheal Jane wind turbine. The proposed turbine at 

Wheal Jane would constitute 1.4% of the turbines within 30 km if all turbines (proposed, 

consented and operational) were operational. 


Altringham J.D. (2003) British Bats, The New Naturalist Library 

Bach, L. & U. Rahmel, 2004: Überblick zu Auswirkungen von Windkraftanlagen auf Fledermäuse – 

eine Konfliktabschätzung. Bremer Beiträge für Naturkunde und Naturschutz, Band 7: 245–252. 


Ecology 



Baerwald, E.F., D’Amours G. H., Klug, B. J., and Barclay, R. M. R. 2008 Barotrauma is a significant 

cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines Current Biology Vol 18 No. 16 (Department of Biological 

Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada T2N 1N4) 

Bat Conservation Trust (2003) Noctule bats, Species Information Leaflet. Bat Conservation Trust. 

Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys – Good Practise Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, 

London 

Bat Conservation Trust (2010). Species Information leaflet – Noctule. 

Billington, G., (2000). Radio tracking study of greater horseshoe bats at Mells, near Frome, Somerset. 

English Nature Research Report 403: 1–24. 

Billington, G., (2001). Radio tracking study of greater horseshoe bats at Brockley Hall Stables Site of 

Special Scientific Interest, May–August 2001. English Nature Research Report 442: 1–36. 

Billington, G., Rawlinson, M.D. 2006. A Review of horseshoe bat flight lines and foraging areas. CCW 

Science Report No: 755, 23pp, CCW, Bangor. 

Bontadina, F., Schofield, H., Naef-Daenzer B. (2002) Radio-tracking reveals that lesser horseshoe bats 

(Rhinolophus hipposideros) forage in woodland, Journal of Zoology., London, 258, pp 281–290 

Brinkmann, R (2004) How do wind turbines affect hunting and migrating bats in Baden-Wurttemburg? 

Conference Paper of the Baden-Wurrtemburg Academy for Nature and Environmental Conservation, 

Vol 15. ‘Are wind turbines a threat to birds and bats? 

Brinkmann, R, Weisshahn-Schauer, H & Bontadina, F 2006 Survey of possible operational effects of 

wind turbines on bats in the County of Freiburg (South-west Germany). Bremer Beitrage fur 

Naturkunde und Naturschutz 7: 253–263 

Carlin, C. & Mitchell-Jones, T. (2007) Bats and Windfarms in England – Workshop Notes 

(http://www.bats.org.uk/publications_download.php/459/Carlin_and_Mitchell_Jones.pdf) 

Cornwall’s Biodiversity Initiative (1998) Cornwall’s Biodiversity Volume 2: Action Plans, Cornwall 

Wildlife Trust, Truro UK 

Environment Agency, Knotweed Code of Practice http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/japnkot_1_a_1463028.pdf 

Gebhard, J & Bogdanowickz, W (2004): Nyctalus noctula – Grosser Abendsegler. In.F. Krapp (ed): 

Handbuch der Saugetiere Europas 4–11: 607–694; Aula Verlag. 

Harris S and Yalden D (2008) Mammals of the British Isles Handbook, 4th Edition. The Mammal 

Society. 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact 

Assessment in the UK 

Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment 


Ecology 



JNCC (2010) UK Priority Species data collation Rhinolophus ferrumequinum version 2 updated on 

15/12/2010 (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/_speciespages/550.pdf) 

Johnson G (2004) A Review of Bat Impacts at Wind Farms in the US in Proceedings of the Wind 

Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and Resolving Bird and Bat Impacts, Washington, 

DC, May 18–19, 2004. The American Wind Energy Association and and The American Bird 

Conservancy 

Jones, G., Duvergé, P.L., and Ransome, R.D., (1995). Conservation of an endangered species: field 

studies of greater horseshoe bats. Symp. Zool. Soc. London. 67 309 –324 and Ransome, R.D., (1996). 

The management of feeding areas for greater horseshoe bats. English Nature Research Report No. 

174: 1–74. 

Kronwitter, F. (1988) Population Structure, habitat use and activity patters of the noctule bat, Nyctalus 

noctula, revealed by radio-tracking. Myotis 26: 23–85 

Mitchell-Jones A.J (2004) Bat mitigation guidelines, English Nature 

Natural England (2009) Bats and onshore wind turbines Interim guidance. Technical Information Note 

TIN051 First edition 11 February 2009. 

Natural England (2009) Bats and single large wind turbines: Joint Agencies interim guidance. Technical 

Information Note TIN059 

Ransome, R.D., Hutson, A.M., (2000). Action plan for the conservation of the greater horseshoe bat in 

Europe (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Nature and Environment, No 109: 1–54. 

Ratcliffe (1977) A Nature Conservation Review 

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. (Table 2, pp 48–49) 

Russ, J. (1999) The Bats of Britain and Ireland, Echolocation Calls, Sound Analysis, and Species 

Identification, Alana Ecology Ltd 

Stace (1997) New Flora of the British Isles, 2nd edition 


Ecology 



9 Ground Conditions 


9.1.1 This section of the Environmental Statement considers the potential significant effects 

associated with soils and geology. The Government’s good practice guide for environmental 

impact assessment (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006) states that 

the following potential environmental effects should be considered: 

• Physical effects of the development – for example changes in topography, soil 

compaction, soil erosion, ground stability etc. The development does not have 

implications for topography or soil erosion. Therefore only the physical effects of 

ground stability will be considered further 

• Effects on geology as a valuable resource – for example mineral resource sterilisation, 

loss or damage to regionally important geological sites, geological SSSIs etc. The 

proposed development does not affect sites of geological importance and therefore 

these will not be considered further 

• Effects on soils as a valuable resource – e.g. loss or damage to soils with good 

agricultural quality. The development will not result in the loss or damage of 

agricultural soils and therefore this is not considered further in this statement 

• Effects associated with ground contamination that may already exist on site – for 

example introducing/changing pathways and receptors 

• Effects associated with the potential for polluting substances used (during 

construction/operation) to cause new ground contamination issues on site – for 

example introducing/changing the source of contamination 

• Effects associated with re-use of soils and waste soils – re-use of site-sourced 

materials on or off site, disposal of site-sourced materials off-site, importation of 

materials to the site etc. 

9.1.2 The Environmental Statement for the wind energy development therefore considers the 

potential significant environmental effects associated with point i, regarding ground stability 

only, and points iv to vi above; the implications of the presence and treatment of 

contaminated soils. Contaminated land can present an unacceptable risk to human health, for 

example construction workers, members of the public within the environs of the site and 

future site occupiers. It can give rise to pollution of groundwater and surface water courses, 

and can damage ecosystems by causing harm to flora and fauna. Contaminated land can 

also have detrimental effects on property such as effects on the integrity of foundations and 

services. 

9.1.3 The effects of the proposed development on contamination of groundwater and surface water 

courses are discussed in detail in Section 14 Water Environment. 


Ground Conditions 



9.1.4 The scoping response, received in July 2010, obtained from Cornwall Council did not contain 

any comments specific to the Ground Conditions at the site. A requirement for the ES to 

contain detailed assessment of contaminated land was made with respect to hydrogeology 

issues: this is addressed in Section 14 Water Environment. 


Regulatory Background 

9.2.1 The Government’s objectives with respect to contaminated land are set out in DEFRA 

Circular 01/2006 and are as follows: 

• to identify and remove unacceptable risks to human health and the environment; 

• to seek to bring damaged land back into beneficial use; and 

• to seek to ensure that the cost burdens faced by individuals, companies and society as 

a whole are proportionate, manageable and economically sustainable. 

9.2.2 These three objectives underlie the “suitable for use” approach to the assessment and 

remediation of contaminated land. This approach recognises that the risks presented by any 

given level of contamination will vary greatly according to the use of the land and a wide 

range of other factors, such as the sensitivity of the underlying geology and the ecosystems 

that may be in connection with the site. Risks are therefore assessed on a site-by-site basis. 

9.2.3 Appendix 9.1 provides further technical background information regarding the UK approach 

to the assessment of risks from contaminated land. 

Ground Conditions Impact Assessment and Significance Criteria 

9.2.4 The process of ground condition/contaminated land impact assessment is defined in CLR11 

(Defra 2004) as follows: 

• Hazard identification – establishing sources of contamination/ ground instability 

• Hazard assessment – establishing pathways and receptors/targets, establishing 

pollutant linkages 

• Risk estimation – predicting the likelihood of harm/pollution occurring (probability 

assessment) and the degree of harm/pollution (consequence) 

• Risk evaluation – deciding whether the effect is significant and/or unacceptable. 

9.2.5 The hazard identification and assessment stage concludes in the development of the 

Conceptual Site Model (CSM). This is the description of the pollutant linkages formed (or 

potentially formed) when a source of contamination is linked to a receptor via a pathway of 

exposure/migration. 





Risk Assessment 

9.2.6 Atkins has developed definitions of probability and consequence based on the following 

guidance: 

• NHBC and Environment Agency R&D66 (2008) – providing general guidance on the 

development and application of the consequence and probability “matrix approach” to 

contaminated land risk assessment, and broad definitions of consequence. 

• CLR11 – recognising the tiered approach to risk assessment and the use of generic 

and site specific assessment criteria through the application of preliminary and 

quantitative risk assessment. 

• Circular 01/2006 – providing the statutory definitions of significant harm and significant 

possibility of significant harm for human health, ecosystem and property receptors. 

• Environment Agency technical advice on pollution of controlled waters (Environment 

Agency 2002) – providing the Agency’s policy and definitions on significant pollution of 

controlled waters (addressed in Section 14 in this Environmental Statement). 

• The RIDDOR regulations (1995) and the HSE’s workplace exposure limits (2007) – 

defining legal standards and requirements in relation to significant risks for 

construction workers. 

• Highways Agency Standard HD22/08 managing Geotechnical Risk 

9.2.7 The Atkins’ definitions of probability are provided in Appendix 9.2. 

9.2.8 The ground conditions risk, a function of the probability and the consequence, is then defined 

using the risk matrix given in Table 9.1 which is taken from the NHBC and Environment 

Agency’s guide R&D66. 

9.2.9 The descriptions of the classified risks as given in R&D66, are as follows – those descriptions 

in italics are Atkins description of stability risks: 

Table 9.1 

Probability 

Estimation of the Level of Risk by Comparison of Consequence and 

Consequence 

Severe Medium Mild Minor 

High 

likelihood 

Very high risk High risk Moderate risk 

Moderate/Low 

risk 

Probability 

Likely High risk Moderate risk 

Moderate/ 

Low Risk 

Low risk 

Low likelihood Moderate risk Moderate/Low risk Low risk Very low risk 

Unlikely 

Moderate/ 

Low risk 

Low risk Very low risk Very low risk 





Table 9.2 

Risk Descriptions 

Risk 

Very high risk 

Description 

There is a very high probability that severe harm could arise to a designated 

receptor from an identified hazard at the site without remediation action OR 

there is evidence that severe harm to a designated receptor is already 

occurring. Realisation of that risk is likely to present a substantial liability to 

the site owner/or occupier. Investigation is required as a matter of urgency 

and remediation works likely to follow in the short-term. 

Very high probability of significant impact to the structure or critical 

infrastructure which is likely to cause ultimate-limit failure. 

High risk 

Moderate risk 

Harm is likely to arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard at 

the site without remediation action. Realisation of the risk is likely to present a 

substantial liability to the site owner/occupier. Investigation is required as a 

matter of urgency and remediation works likely to follow in the short-term. 

Likely that the serviceability limit of the structure or critical infrastructure will 

be exceeded a number of times or that ultimate-limit failure of the non critical 

infrastructure will occur. 

It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified 

hazard. However, it is either relatively unlikely that any such harm would be 

severe, and if any harm were to occur it is more likely, that the harm would be 

relatively mild. Further investigative work is normally required to clarify the risk 

and to determine the potential liability to site owner/occupier. Some 

remediation works may be required in the longer term. 

Possible that the serviceability limits of the structure or critical infrastructure 

could be exceeded. 

Low risk 

It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from the identified 

hazard, but it is likely at worst, that this harm if realised would normally be 

mild. It is unlikely that the site owner/occupier would face substantial liabilities 

from such a risk. Further investigative work (which is likely to be limited) to 

clarify the risk may be required. Any subsequent remediation works are likely 

to be relatively limited. 

Possible that there may be some limited interruption to normal operation of 

the facility, or increased maintenance liability. 

Very low risk 

No potential risk 

It is a low possibility that harm could arise to a designated receptor, but it is 

likely at worst, that this harm if realised would normally be mild or minor. 

A low probability that minor additional maintenance may be required. 

No potential risk. 

In relation to contamination, there is no potential risk if no pollution linkage 

has been established. 

9.2.10 The approach to the impact assessment in relation to contamination developed by Atkins 

entails undertaking contaminated land risk assessments for each of the following: 

• Baseline Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – the development of the CSM for the 

site based on its current sources, pathways and receptors and an assessment of the 

current contaminated land and ground stability risks. 





• Construction Phase Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – the development of the 

CSM and risk assessment for the construction phase, addressing the potential for new 

sources of contamination to be introduced to the site and the change in pathways and 

receptors. 

• Operational Phase Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – the CSM for the developed 

site, reflecting the operational site conditions including the status of contamination 

sources and the changes in receptors. 

• Decommissioning Phase Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – the CSM for the 

decommissioning of the development site, reflecting the final site conditions including 

the status of contamination sources and receptors and addressing the potential for 

new source of contamination to be introduced during the decommissioning stage. 

9.2.11 The impact assessment is then undertaken by comparing the Baseline with the Construction 

Phase Risk Assessment, the Baseline with the Operational Phase Risk Assessment, and the 

Baseline with the Decommissioning Phase Risk Assessment. The impact assessment 

includes the mitigation measures that will be required to address the potential environmental 

effects. This CSM comparison approach allows the changes in contaminated land status, 

during construction, operation and decommissioning of the site to be identified as either 

positive, neutral or negative effects and consideration of whether they are major, moderate or 

minor. Table 9.3 shows the magnitude of change criteria with respect to ground conditions 

and explanation of these criteria. The way in which the magnitude of change criteria inputs to 

the methodology for defining the impact of effects is set out in Chapter 2 Table 2.1 (repeated 

below for ease of reference). 

Table 2.1 Establishing the significance of effect (repeated from Chapter 2) 




LARGE 

MEDIUM 

SMALL 

NEGLIGIBLE 

VERY 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

SUBSTANTIAL 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

MODERATE 

MODERATE/ 

SLIGHT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

MODERATE 

MODERATE 

SLIGHT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

MODERATE/ 

SLIGHT 

SLIGHT 

SLIGHT/ NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 





Table 9.3 

Magnitude of 

change 

Magnitude of Change Criteria – Ground Conditions 

Definition 

An increase in contamination or stability risk from the existing baseline conditions of 4 

or 5 risk levels in the risk matrix, e.g. land that has a very low contamination risk in the 

baseline becomes a high or very high risk. 

Large adverse 

Land that does not meet the statutory definition of Contaminated Land in the existing 

baseline becomes capable of being determined under Part 2A. 

Ground that is currently considered stable becomes at serious risk of collapse or 

significant instability, and therefore is unsafe. Would not be able to support a 

structure, or collapse would result in structural failure. 


or 3 risk levels in the risk matrix, e.g. land that has a low contamination risk in the 

baseline becomes a moderate or high risk. 

Medium 

adverse 

Land that does not meet the statutory definition of Contaminated Land in the existing 

baseline becomes capable of being determined under Part 2A. 

Ground that is currently considered stable becomes at risk of collapse or, and 

therefore is unsafe or would lead to disruption of operation and the need for remedial 

works.. 

Small adverse 


to 2 risk level in the risk matrix, e.g. land that has a low contamination risk in the 

baseline becomes a moderate/low risk. 

Negligible 

No change in contaminated land or ground stability risks. 

Small 

beneficial 

A reduction in contamination or stability risk from the baseline conditions of 1 to 2 risk 

levels in the risk matrix, e.g. land that has a low/medium contamination risk in the 

baseline becomes a low risk. 

A reduction in contamination or stability risk from the existing baseline conditions of 2 

or 3 risk levels in the risk matrix, e.g. land that has a high contamination risk in the 

baseline becomes a moderate/low or low risk. 

Moderate 

beneficial 

Land that meets the statutory definition of Contaminated Land in the existing baseline 

is no longer capable of being determined under Part 2A. 

Ground which was previously at significant risk of serious instability or collapse is now 

considered to be stable. 

A reduction in contamination or stability risk from the existing baseline conditions of 4 

or 5 risk levels in the risk matrix, e.g. land that has a very high contamination risk in 

the baseline becomes a low or very low risk. 

Large 

beneficial 

Land that meets the statutory definition of Contaminated Land in the existing baseline 

is no longer capable of being determined under Part 2A. 

Ground which was previously at some risk of instability or collapse is now considered 

to be stable. 






Sources of data 

9.3.1 The baseline information used to compile this assessment has been obtained primarily from a 

Geotechnical Feasibility Study (Atkins 2009). This report includes details of a site walkover 

inspection and baseline desk study information sources pertaining to the site, including 

geological maps and memoirs, BGS borehole records, Envirocheck Report and a Mining 

Report obtained from Crofty Consultancy. Information gathered from consultation with; Wheal 

Jane Ltd and Panel Engineer for the dam (Mike Cambridge), was also included within the 

Geotechnical Feasibility Report presented in Appendix 9.3. 

Current conditions 

9.3.2 The site is located within the boundary of the former Wheal Jane Tin Mine. The whole of the 

Wheal Jane site is currently subject to an ongoing restoration and aesthetic improvement 

scheme led by the Environment Agency. The proposed turbine location is adjacent to an 

engineered tailings dam, constructed to form part of the ongoing mine water treatment 

infrastructure at the site. The surrounding land consists of mine water treatment lagoons to 

the south-east and several industrial units to the north occupied by the Wheal Jane Ltd. 

Beyond the Wheal Jane site boundary the surrounding land use is predominantly agricultural. 

The closest residential property is located approximately 400 m west of the proposed turbine 

location. 

9.3.3 The whole of the Wheal Jane site occupies an area of 69 ha. The proposed turbine base and 

associated control building, crane pads and access tracks will only occupy an approximate 

area of 0.5 ha, within the Wheal Jane site. In assessing the effects of the proposed turbine, 

the evaluation of ground condition issues that affect the entire complex have not been 

included. For example, contamination from mining wastes is likely to be widespread at the 

site, however this is only considered where the turbine development might directly affect this. 

9.3.4 The proposed turbine location is adjacent to the northern embankment of the 8–10 m high 

tailings dam, which slopes at approximately 1v:3h (15–20°) to the north-west, forming the 

northern boundary of the tailings lagoon. According to published information, construction of 

the tailings dam commenced in the early 1970s. During the Atkins walkover inspection the 

observed position of the toe of the original dam, did not match that recorded on available 

mapping. Anecdotal evidence suggests that additional fill materials have been placed against 

the downstream face of the dam as part of the ongoing restoration scheme at the Wheal Jane 

site, within the last two to three years. The proposed turbine will be sited on this area of Made 

Ground, referred to in this Environmental Statement as ‘the mound’. 

9.3.5 The BGS 1:50,000 scale solid and drift edition map indicates the proposed site location to be 

underlain by Mylor Slate Formation, which is described in geological memoirs as, interbedded 

slate and siltstone with breccias facies. The map indicates that the unit is dipping between 

18° and 30° in a south south east direction. Howeve r, the lode and associated workings dip at 

approximately 40° to the north north west The BGS m ap indicates that a Permo- 

Carboniferous Igneous intrusion and a mineral vein are present at the surface in the northern 

vicinity of the proposed location. The mineral deposits are shown to comprise Tin, Zinc, 





Copper, Arsenic, Silver and Lead. The Wheal Jane mine mainly exploited the Tin deposits at 

this location. 

9.3.6 The area forming the tailings dam is recognised as a major area of Made Ground according 

to the available geological mapping, reflecting this significant man-made feature. The 

geological maps do not suggest the presence of Made Ground at the proposed turbine 

location. However, given the observed ground conditions and available BGS borehole 

records in the immediate vicinity, it is considered likely that the location will be underlain by 

Made Ground. Adjacent boreholes suggest the presence of up to 6 m thickness of Made 

Ground predominantly comprising mine waste. 

9.3.7 The First Edition OS map dated 1888 shows the proposed turbine location to lie within the 

extents of the Wheal Jane mine, which is already in existence. Several shafts are also shown 

to exist in the vicinity of the proposed turbine location. Published information suggests that 

Tin mining at Wheal Jane has taken place since at least 1847, with potential for workings in 

the area dating back to before 1740. Mining initially ceased in the area in 1885 as the mines 

were deemed unprofitable. Since this time the mine has re-opened and closed several times, 

with the most recent mining at the site beginning in 1980 and closing in 1991. It is understood 

that both surface and deep mining has been undertaken at the site. No definitive information 

has been available to enable the location and extent of surface or sub-surface extraction to 

be mapped. Geotechnical constraints on the turbine location are presented in Figure 9.1. 

Historical plans also indicate the presence of former quarries to the east of the proposed 

turbine location. 

9.3.8 The BGS 1:10,000 scale map and the results of the Mining Report show that there are 

several disused shafts within the immediate vicinity of the proposed turbine location. Three 

shafts are identified within approximately 100 m, with a total of ten known shafts within 

approximately 250 m of the proposed turbine location. Due to the long history of the workings 

of the site, there is a possibility that other, unrecorded shafts also exist. 

9.3.9 The site is underlain by a Secondary (Minor) Aquifer. The site is not located within a Source 

Protection Zone (SPZ). With respect to the proposed development the shallow hydrogeology 

in the Made Ground will be of most importance with respect to stability. No information is 

currently available with respect to the presence of such perched shallow groundwater. It is 

anticipated that groundwater will be present in the Made Ground, albeit in potentially limited 

quantities. 

9.3.10 Information reviewed to date suggests that deep groundwater is primarily controlled by the 

underlying mine workings and associated ongoing mine water abstraction and treatment 

system. 

9.3.11 The Envirocheck report identifies the Wheal Jane tailings dam as a historical landfill 

accepting wastes including liquid sludge. 

9.3.12 Anecdotal evidence suggests that the proposed turbine location was previously known as 

‘Lobbs Yard’ and was used as a scrap yard for storing disused mining equipment. It is 

understood that the machinery was reportedly cleared from the area as part of the ongoing 

restoration works. 

9.3.13 No former ground investigations are known to have been undertaken at the subject site itself. 





9.3.14 The nature of construction of the tailings lagoons and associated dam is currently unknown, 

along with the level of containment provided. The faces of the dam are subject to regular 

inspections to identify any signs of seepage and instability. 

9.3.15 Existing information relating to the chemical composition of the ground materials at the site 

has not been available. However, due to the extensive mineral mining undertaken at the site, 

it is considered that the presence of ground-borne contamination is highly likely. Due to the 

history of the site it is anticipated that mine wastes will be encountered. It is considered that 

materials will have a high acidity and it is likely that elevated concentrations of metals 

(arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead, copper and zinc) and sulphides will be present. Hydrocarbons 

may also be present from former use of this area as a scrapyard. 

Trends and projected future baseline 

9.3.16 The Wheal Jane site is subject to an on-going scheme of restoration and aesthetic 

improvements works, led by the Environment Agency. It is known that earthworks to form the 

mound at the toe of the tailings dam, were undertaken as part of these aesthetic 

improvements. It is understood that no earthworks are currently planned in the vicinity of the 

application site and any future earthworks will need to take account of the turbine proposal. 

Information gaps 

9.3.17 The current proposal is to locate the turbine on the landscaped slope to the north of the 

tailings dam, probably using piled foundations. However this is not yet finalised pending the 

outcome of a detailed ground investigation and further environmental assessment. The 

impact assessment on Ground Conditions undertaken for this ES is based on available 

qualitative information. 

9.3.18 The proposed turbine location is co-incident with the landscaped, downstream face of the 

tailings dam. The wind turbine is proposed to have a hub height of 80 m with a rotor diameter 

of 82.5 m. Construction of such a structure, could potentially affect the dam’s integrity if the 

proposed location was to conflict with the structural fill comprising the dam. Such a scenario 

would require detailed consultation regarding the original construction, existing condition and 

future function of the tailings dam, together with potential mitigation requirements. The 

current proposal is to locate the turbine out with the structural fill footprint therefore for the 

purposes of this assessment; it is assumed that the turbine location would avoid adverse 

interaction with the tailings dam. 

9.3.19 The depths to historic workings and exact location of shafts and adits have not been 

confirmed in the proximity of the proposed turbine location. Further detailed information will 

be obtained and assessed as part of the detailed ground investigation in order to determine 

the effect these may have on the proposed development. For the purposes of this 

assessment it has therefore been assumed that the turbine location would be modified 

locally, and/or suitable mitigation works carried out during construction, if it is demonstrated 

by future GI works that the stability of the turbine could be adversely influenced by the 

presence of voids associated with former workings. 

9.3.20 The absence of ground investigation data means that at this stage it is not possible to confirm 

the most appropriate foundation design solutions to ensure stability of the proposed turbine 

structure, e.g. piling design and type, materials resistant to aggressive ground conditions, 





treatment of shafts/mine workings in the vicinity of the proposed turbine. As outlined in 

Section 4, a number of design assumptions have therefore been made in order to carry out 

the Impact Assessment. 

Valuation of the receptors in the baseline condition 

9.3.21 The baseline receptors considered with regard to Ground Conditions are the proposed 

turbine structure itself, the existing tailings dam structure and human health. The valuation of 

each of these receptors has been made subjectively, taking into account the environmental 

setting of the site and the proposed development. 

9.3.22 The proposed turbine location is currently open ground consisting of Made Ground placed at 

the downstream face of the dam as part of the ongoing restoration/aesthetic improvement 

works. In its current condition, this receptor is considered to be a receptor of Low value. 

9.3.23 The proposed turbine structure will be considered as a receptor of High value as it is integral 

to the proposed scheme. The existing ground conditions have the potential to directly affect 

this structure, potentially leading to its failure. Other infrastructure associated with the wind 

energy development i.e. control building, crane pads, access tracks etc, are considered to be 

receptors of Medium value as they are less integral to the proposed development. 

9.3.24 The existing tailings dam structure is considered to be of high value. Failure of this structure 

would potentially result in uncontrolled release of untreated mine water in to the receiving 

water course of Clemows Stream and subsequently the Fal Estuary. 

9.3.25 The proposed turbine location is currently open ground referred to as the mound, however 

the much larger Wheal Jane site is currently accessed by site operatives and visitors. Such 

receptors are considered to be at greater risk from any contamination present on the larger 

Wheal Jane site, than the proposed turbine development alone. These receptors are 

considered to be of High value. 

9.3.26 Construction workers associated with the turbine development are more likely to come into 

direct contact with contaminated soils. Human health receptors are considered to be of High 

value, however construction workers will only be present at the site for limited periods, 

therefore this receptor is considered to be of Medium value. 

9.3.27 Existing buildings on site have not been considered as potential receptors, as it has been 

assumed that appropriate risk assessments were undertaken for these prior to their 

construction. The existing buildings at the site are not located within close proximity of the 

proposed turbine location and are unlikely to be affected by the proposed wind energy 

development with respect to ground conditions. 


9.4.1 Technical studies and consultation with the Panel Engineer has lead to the identification of 

the currently proposed location for the turbine in order to ensure no potential for any effect 

upon the engineered tailings dam. A ground investigation shall be commissioned to 

investigate the nature of the Made Ground at the location of the turbine and provide an 





indication on the location, and presence of shallow historical workings at the proposed turbine 

location. 

9.4.2 The aim of these works will be to provide information on the depth, nature and presence of 

contamination within the Made Ground. The investigation shall also provide information on 

the groundwater regime, geotechnical properties for foundation design and determine if the 

proposed location will be influenced by the presence of shallow workings, subsequently 

confirming whether any mitigation measures, additional to the piled foundation solution will be 

required. It will not consider any input to the design and construction of any supporting 

infrastructure to the turbine. 

9.5 Potentially significant effects of the scheme prior to mitigation 

9.5.1 In identifying the predicted effects of the proposed wind energy scheme, the key 

environmental effects to consider are the changes that the construction, operation and 

decommissioning of the facility will bring about to the baseline ground conditions status of the 

application site. This section summarises the predicted effects for each stage of the 

development (baseline, construction, operation and decommissioning) through the 

development of Conceptual Site Models (CSMs) based on the current available information. 

The risk of each predicted effect is then evaluated using the methodology outlined in Chapter 

2 (repeated for reference at the end of section 9.2). This evaluation is undertaken to 

demonstrate the effect of the scheme without allowing for the effects of mitigation. The final 

assessment of the proposed scheme is then evaluated by including the effects of proposed 

mitigation. 

Baseline Conceptual Site Model 

9.5.2 The application site is located within the former Wheal Jane Tin Mine site, which has a 

significant legacy of mining activities possibly pre-dating 1740. The proposed turbine location 

is adjacent to a tailings dam, constructed during the early 1970’s and forming part of an 

ongoing mine water treatment system at the site. In recent years some aesthetic landscaping 

works have been undertaken at the proposed turbine location. Anecdotal evidence suggests 

that prior to these landscaping works, the proposed turbine location was previously used as a 

scrapyard for storage of redundant mining machinery. Due to the legacy of mining activity at 

the site, soils are considered to potentially contain contaminants including heavy metals and 

hydrocarbons. In addition, the site is underlain by, or immediately adjacent to, mine workings 

which are likely to exist as open or partially collapsed voids in the ground. Historical mine 

entries (shafts and adits) are also known to exist in the area and may also present a stability 

hazard if not previously treated. In the existing condition, it is possible that collapse of mine 

workings or shafts could result in instability at the ground surface. It is also possible that such 

instability could influence the tailings dam. 

9.5.3 The baseline CSM is summarised in Table 9.4 – Baseline Conceptual Site Model and Risk 

Assessment. 

Construction Conceptual Site Model 

9.5.4 During the construction stage, it is possible that an increased pollution risk will occur due to 

the storage of fuel for plant and machinery on site if not managed properly. These works will 





introduce construction workers as human health receptors, potentially at greater risk of 

coming into contact with any contamination. The construction stage CSM is summarised in 

Table 9.5 – Construction Stage Conceptual Site Model and Risk Assessment. In relation to 

stability risks, the site specific ground investigation, which would be undertaken prior to 

construction, would have identified mitigation necessary in relation to the location of mine 

workings adjacent to, or beneath, the proposed turbine location. It is envisaged that mitigation 

could take the form of localised relocation of the turbine to reduce or remove the influence on 

the foundations, modification to the foundation design, or possible consolidation of the 

workings to remove the risk of collapse. It is not possible to confirm which form(s) of 

mitigation may be required, or would be preferred, until the proposed ground investigation 

has been undertaken. It is also envisaged that known shafts that may influence the proposed 

development would be located and treated as part of the construction process. Works to 

mitigate the risk of shaft collapse are likely to include construction of a reinforced concrete 

cap, and possibly consolidation of the material in the shaft. It is possible that unrecorded 

shafts may exist, and it is assumed that, where such features are encountered during 

construction, they would be treated accordingly. With regard to the stability of the tailings 

dam, it is assumed that the location of the turbine and associated construction works would 

not be detrimental to the stability of the dam. Depending on the nature and location of 

mitigation works required with respect to mining, it is possible that some of the mitigation will 

be beneficial to the stability risks affecting the tailings dam. 

Operational Stage Conceptual Site Model 

9.5.5 On completion of the construction works, the site will be re-developed for industrial use as a 

Wind Energy Facility. The operational stage CSM is based on the site being operated for this 

purpose only. The construction workers will no longer be present, however the site will be 

used occasionally by the employees undertaking maintenance works at the facility, the area 

may be accessed by visitors or site personnel involved with the operation of the larger Wheal 

Jane Mine site. The turbine and a small control kiosk will be constructed on site comprising 

the wind energy facility, therefore building receptors will be considered in the operational 

CSM. Temporary storage of oil during maintenance works, may represent a new potential 

source of contamination. The operational stage CSM is summarised in Table 9.6 – 

Operational Phase Conceptual Site Model and Risk Assessment. With regard to stability, the 

model assumes that the risks to the development will be mitigated through the ground 

investigation and construction process. There is a small residual risk that unrecorded shafts 

could be present and collapse, damaging infrastructure such as access roads. However, this 

is not perceived to be a risk for the turbine itself, as the GI and construction works are likely 

to identify the presence of unrecorded shafts that could influence the turbine location. 

Decommissioning Stage Conceptual Site Model 

9.5.6 The wind turbine will be operational at the site for 25 years, following which the site will be 

decommissioned. The turbine will be dismantled and removed from the site. The majority of 

hard standing and underground cabling will be cut but will remain in-situ. The 

decommissioning will re-introduce the receptor of construction workers to the site and the 

potential contamination sources of oils and fuel for plant, although this will be for a temporary 

time. The operational stage CSM is summarised in Table 9.7 – Decommissioning Phase 

Conceptual Site Model and Risk Assessment. In relation to stability, decommissioning of the 

facility is not anticipated to result in any change to the level of risk. 





Construction Stage 

9.5.7 The ground conditions impact assessment for the construction stage is based on the change 

in the risk between the baseline and the construction stage prior to mitigation. This is 

summarised in Table 9.8. 

9.5.8 Due to the historic mining activities undertaken at the Wheal Jane Site, it is likely that 

contaminants are present in the soils on site, which may cause harm to human health and 

controlled water receptors. The exposure of construction workers to contamination are at 

highest risk. However any such contamination is likely to be widespread across the whole of 

the 68 ha Wheal Jane site. The proposed wind energy development will occupy only 0.5 ha of 

the overall site, hence it is considered that significantly greater risks will be present from soils 

on the wider site area. 

9.5.9 Currently the site is open ground. Construction activities on site will introduce plant and 

machinery to the area, which could lead to disturbance of underground voids resulting in 

potential collapse at the site surface. 

9.5.10 Overall, following mitigation, there are no significant effects associated with the ground 

conditions during the construction phase. 





Table 9.4 

Baseline Conceptual Site Model and Risk Assessment 

Feature/Source Target/Receptor Mechanism/Pathway Probability Consequence Risk Level 

Existing contaminants in 

the soils and 

groundwater at the site. 

Metals, Hydrocarbons 

Human health 

- current site users 

- occupants of adjacent 

commercial buildings 

Inhalation/ingestion of contaminated soils/dust. 

Inhalation of vapours 

Dermal contact with contaminated soils/dust. 

Low likelihood 

Medium 

Moderate/lo 

w risk 

Biodegradable fill 

materials. 

- passers by/visitors on adjacent 

land (on and off site) 

Fire/explosion risk associated with gas. 

Untreated Mine 

Workings and Mine 

Entries 

Open ground ‘the mound’ 

Tailings dam 

Subsurface instability leading to collapse at the 

ground surface. 

Subsurface instability resulting in weakening of 

tailings dam. 

Likely Minor Low risk 


Severe 

Moderate 

risk 

Possible infilled former 

quarries. 

Open ground ‘the mound’ Differential settlement of fill materials. Likely Minor Low risk 

Un-consolidated Made 

Ground (mining wastes 

and fill materials) across 

site surface. 

Open ground ‘the mound’ Differential settlement of materials. Likely Minor Low risk 





Table 9.5 

Construction Phase Conceptual Site Model and Risk Assessment 

Feature/Source Receptor Pathway Probability Consequence Risk Level 


the soils and 


Metals, PAHs, TPH. 

Contaminants that may 

be introduced to the 

site, such as fuels and 

oils for construction 

plant and equipment. 

Human health 


- occupants of adjacent commercial 

buildings 

- passers by/visitors on adjacent 

footpaths (on and off site) 

Human health 

- construction workers 









Likely 

Medium 

Medium 

Moderate/L 

ow risk 

Moderate 

risk 




Entries 

Construction compound/crane pads 

Tailings dam 




tailings dam. 

High Likelihood 


Severe 

Severe 

Very High 

risk 

Moderate 

risk 


quarries. 

Construction compound/crane pads Differential settlement of fill materials. Low likelihood Mild Low risk 




site surface. 

Construction compound/crane pads Differential settlement of materials. High Likelihood Medium High risk 





Table 9.6 

Operational Phase Conceptual Site Model and Risk Assessment 

Target/Source Receptor Pathway Probability Consequence Risk Level 

Human health 




buildings 




Medium 

Moderate/Lo 

w risk 


the soils and 


- passers-by/visitors on adjacent 

footpaths (on and off site) 



Metals, PAHs, TPH 

Human health. 

Temporary maintenance operatives 



Unlikely Medium Low risk 


Turbine structure, crane pads and 

control kiosk, their foundations and 

cables/services on site. 

Direct contact of foundations and services with 

contaminants in soil 

Likely 

Medium 

Moderate 

risk. 



Entries 

Turbine structure & crane pads 

Tailings dam 




tailings dam. 

High likelihood 

Severe 

Very High 

risk 

Low likelihood Severe Moderate risk 


quarries. 


Differential settlement of fill materials. resulting in 

collapse of the structure. 

Likely Severe High risk 




site surface. 


Differential settlement of materials resulting in 

collapse of the structure. 

High Likelihood 

Severe 

Very High 

risk 





Table 9.7 

Decommissioning Conceptual Site Model and Risk Assessment 

Source Receptor Pathway Probability Consequence Risk Level 


the soils and 


Metals, PAHs, TPH 

Contaminants that may 

be introduced to the 

site, such as fuels and 

oils for 

decommissioning plant 

and equipment. 



Entries 


quarries. 




site surface. 

Human health 



buildings 

- passers by on adjacent footpaths 

(on and off site) 

- decommissioning operatives 

Human health 

decommissioning operatives 

Remaining turbine foundations and 

crane pads. 

Remaining redundant 

foundations/crane pads 

Tailings dam 













Direct contact of foundations and services with 

contaminants in soil and contaminated groundwater. 




tailings dam. 


Medium 

Moderate/low 

risk 

Unlikely Medium Low risk 

Likely likelihood Minor Low risk. 

Likely Medium Moderate risk 

Low likelihood Severe Moderate risk 

Differential settlement of fill materials. Low likelihood Mild Low risk 

Differential settlement of materials. Low likelihood Mild Low risk 





Table 9.8 

Mitigation 

Ground Conditions Impact Assessment – Construction Stage Prior to 

Pollutant Linkage 

Baseline (current) 

Risk Assessment 

Construction 

Stage Risk 

Assessment 

Magnitude of 

change 


effect 

Exposure of existing site 

employees /visitors to 

contaminated soils 

Exposure of construction 

workers to contaminated soils. 

Effect of untreated historic mine 

workings on proposed turbine 

location. 


workings on tailings dam. 

Effect of possible infilled former 

quarries on proposed turbine 

location. 

Moderate/Low risk Moderate/Low risk Negligible Not significant 

- Moderate risk Medium Moderate 

Moderate/Low risk Very High risk Medium Substantial 

Moderate risk Moderate risk Negligible Not significant 

Low risk Low risk Negligible Not significant 

Effect of unconsolidated Made 

Ground across the site surface. 

Operational Stage 

Low risk High risk Medium 

Substantial/ 

moderate 

9.5.11 The ground conditions impact assessment for the operational stage is based on the change 

in the risk between the baseline and the operational stage prior to mitigation. This is 

summarised in Table 9.9. 

9.5.12 The wind energy development will be largely unmanned, with the exception of maintenance 

staff that will make occasional visits to the facility. As such, risks to human health from 

contamination would be temporary in nature and as such are considered to remain not 

significant. The wind energy development and crane pads/construction area will be surfaced 

with hardstanding, which may act to reduce infiltration of rainwater, however a greater risk 

from contamination is considered to remain from the surrounding soils of the larger Wheal 

Jane site area. 

9.5.13 The turbine structure will be 80 m in height with a blade diameter of 82.5 m. This is a 

substantial structure which will require considerable foundations, and would be sensitive to 

ground movements from any sub-surface instability if mitigation is not implemented. 

9.5.14 It is considered likely that contaminants potentially present within the soil could give rise to 

aggressive ground conditions which may present a significant risk to concrete foundations 

over the proposed lifetime of the structure. 

9.5.15 Very substantial adverse effects from existing ground conditions have been identified which 

could affect the operation of the facility. Mitigation measures will be required to be 

incorporated into the design of the turbine structure. Mitigation measures are outlined in 

paragraph 9.6 of this chapter. 





Table 9.9 

Mitigation 

Ground Conditions Impact Assessment – Operational Stage Prior to 


Baseline 

(current) Risk 

Assessment 

Operational 

Stage Risk 

Assessment 

Magnitude of 

change 


Effect 



contaminated soils and waters 

Moderate/Low 

risk. 

Moderate/ 

Low risk. 

Negligible 


Exposure of turbine maintenance 

workers. 

Effect of contaminated land on 

turbine structure and foundations. 


workings on proposed turbine 

structure/location. 

Moderate/ 

low risk 

Low risk. Negligible Not significant 

Moderate risk Medium Moderate 

Very High risk Medium Substantial 




quarries on proposed turbine 

structure/ location. 


Ground across the site surface on 

turbine structure. 


Low risk High risk Medium Moderate 

Low risk Very High risk Medium Substantial 


9.5.16 The ground conditions impact assessment for the decommissioning stage is based on the 

change in the ground conditions risks between the baseline and the decommissioning stage 

prior to mitigation. This is summarised in Table 9.10. 

Table 9.10 Ground Conditions Impact Assessment – Decommissioning Stage Prior 

to Mitigation. 


Baseline 


Assessment 


Stage Risk 

Assessment 

Magnitude of 

change 


Effect 



contaminated soils. 

Moderate/ 

Low risk 

Moderate/Low risk Negligible Not significant 

Exposure of decommissioning 

workers to contaminated soils. 

Effect of contaminated land on 

remaining turbine foundations. 


workings on remaining turbine 

foundations. 



- Low risk Small Slight 

- Low risk Small Not significant 

Low risk Moderate risk Small Not significant 







Baseline 


Assessment 


Stage Risk 

Assessment 

Magnitude of 

change 


Effect 


quarries on remaining turbine 

foundations 


Ground across the site surface on 

remaining turbine foundations. 



9.5.17 Decommissioning works will re-introduce construction operatives to the site who are more 

likely to come into contact with contaminated soils. However no major earthworks are 

proposed during this stage, as such any potential effect would be considered to be 

insignificant. 

9.5.18 The main turbine structure will be removed from site, however it is likely concrete foundations 

and crane pads will remain in-situ. As such these structures may be subject to some ongoing 

adverse effect on ground conditions, but this is likely to be of minor significance. 

9.5.19 There is considered to be a slight adverse effect during the decommissioning phase. 


9.6.1 Potential significant effects regarding ground conditions are most likely to result from issues 

of ground stability and the presence of contaminants in the ground. 

9.6.2 To mitigate against the substantial stability risks and the risks posed by potential 

contamination, a detailed targeted ground investigation will be undertaken to quantify the 

ground conditions at the proposed location of the turbine. This investigation will include both 

geotechnical and geo-environmental investigation in order to assess the ground conditions, 

nature and extents of historic mine workings and material properties, with respect to ground 

stability issues and contamination. 

9.6.3 The final choice of foundation design and any ground treatment that may be required will be 

based on the ground conditions encountered during this investigation, the selected turbine 

and the most efficient use of materials. 

9.6.4 The findings of the ground investigation will enable a detailed design of the turbine and 

associated infrastructure to be made. This will identify the necessary foundation design and 

requirements for any additional ground treatments to ensure the likely significant risks 

identified above are addressed. 

9.6.5 Construction workers will be instructed in the requirements for use of appropriate PPE and 

good site practices, to prevent them coming into contact with potentially contaminated soils. 

During construction the following good site practices will be adhered to: 

• Construction workers will wear appropriate PPE following risk assessments. 





• Dust control measures will be put in place. 

• Any on site fuel storage will be stored securely in accordance with the EA guidance 

notes PPG2 and PPG6. 


9.7.1 Professional judgement has been used to assess the significance of these effects after 

mitigation based on the required outputs that the proposed ground investigation will provide. 

Further assessment will be required once the results of the ground investigations are 

available this will inform foundation design and further mitigate the stability risks. 

9.7.2 Table 9.11 summarises the residual significant effects after mitigation. As shown in Table 

9.11, no significant residual effects are predicted. 

Opportunities for further mitigation 

9.7.3 The results of the ground investigation will be used to inform detailed foundation design once 

available and this will further reduce the significance of ground stability effects identified 

above. 

9.8 Assessment of effects to potential future receptors 

9.8.1 Current plans for the future of the Wheal Jane site would not change the assessment 

presented in this chapter.. 


9.9.1 With regard to contaminated land and ground stability there are no short or long term 

cumulative effects associated with the construction and operation of the facility. Any 

proposals for future earthworks in the vicinity of the application site will need to take account 

of the turbine proposals. 

9.10 Conclusions 

9.10.1 The application site is part of the Wheal Jane former tin mine complex which has an 

extensive history of mining activities. The proposed turbine location is directly adjacent to an 

existing tailings dam which forms part of an ongoing mine water treatment system. The 

Wheal Jane complex is subject to an ongoing restoration and aesthetic improvement 

programme. 

9.10.2 A site walkover survey was undertaken by an Atkins engineer in October 2009 as part of a 

desk based geotechnical feasibility study for the proposed turbine scheme. The feasibility 

study has shown that ground conditions in the area have been subject to historic mining 

activities, as such the presence of sub-surface voids and historic mine workings have the 

potential to significantly affect the proposed turbine development. Soils on the site are likely 





to contain a significant quantity of mining wastes which may contain contaminants which 

present a potential risk to construction workers and the turbine structure itself. 

9.10.3 In order to mitigate against the majority of ground stability issues identified in this impact 

assessment a detailed targeted ground investigation will be required. The results of this will 

be taken into account in the next stage of assessment. Best practice will be employed to 

mitigate risks related to construction workers and contaminated soils. 


Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006. Environmental Impact Assessment. A 

Guide to Good Practice and Procedures. A consultation paper. London: DCLG. 

Department of Food and Rural Affairs, 2006. Circular 01/2006. Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 

2A Contaminated Land. London: HMSO. 

Environmental Protection Act 1990. (c. 43). London: HMSO 

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004. Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution 

Control: Annex 2. Development on Land Affected by Contamination. London: HMSO. 

Water Act 2003 (c. 37). London: HMSO. 

Building Control Regulations 1991 (as amended). SI 1991/2768, London: HMSO. 

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004. Approved Document C – Site Preparation and Resistance to 

Contaminates and Moisture. London: HMSO. 

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended). SI 2002/2677, London: 

HMSO 

Department of Food and Rural Affairs and Environment Agency, 2004. Model Procedures for the 

Management of Contaminated Land, Contaminated Land Report 11. Bristol: Environment Agency. 

National House Building Council & Environment Agency, 2008. Guidance on the Safe Development of 

Housing on Land Affected by Contamination. London: NHBC and Environment Agency (R&D66). 

Environment Agency, 2002. Technical Advice to Third Parties on Pollution of Controlled Waters for Part 

IIA of the EPA1990. Version 2. Bristol: Environment Agency. 

The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. SI 1995/3163, 

London: HMSO. 

Health & Safety Executive, 2007. Table 1: List of Approved Workplace Exposure Limits (as 

consolidated with amendments October 2007) [online]. Health & Safety Executive. Available from: 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/table1.pdf [Accessed 05 September 2011]. 

Atkins, Partnership for Renewables, Wheal Jane Turbine, Geotechnical Feasibility Study. October 

2009. 





CL:AIRE. The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice, 2008. 





Table 9.11 


*Key – Nature of Effects 

+ve – Positive, –ve – Negative, D – Direct, I – Indirect, S – Secondary, C – Cumulative, P – Permanent, T – Temporary, ST – Short Term, MT – 

Medium Term, LT – Long Term 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

of change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

mitigation 

Nature 

of 

effect* 

Human 

health 

Human 

health 

Turbine 

location 

Tailings dam 


location 

Site 



contaminated soils 

Exposure of construction 

workers to contaminated 

soils. 

Effect of untreated 

historic mine workings 

on proposed turbine 




on tailings dam. 

Effect of possible infilled 

former quarries on 

proposed turbine 

location. 

Effect of unconsolidated 

Made Ground across the 

site surface. 

Construction Moderate Negligible Not significant. 

Construction Moderate Medium Moderate 

Construction Very High risk Medium Substantial 

Construction Moderate risk Negligible Not significant 

Construction Low risk Negligible Not significant 

Construction High risk. Medium 

Substantial/mo 

derate 

Good site working practices and 

appropriate PPE 



Targeted Ground Investigation 

to determine nature of historic 

mine workings. Appropriate 

foundation design and ground 

treatment carried out prior to 

construction of turbine. 

Turbine to be located out with 

extents of tailings dam. No 

mitigation to historic mine 

workings beneath tailings dam 

proposed. 



mining activity. Appropriate 

ground treatment carried out as 

required. 


to determine nature of Made 

Ground to determine 

requirement for permanent and 

temporary works. 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Neutral 

D, T, 

ST 

–ve D, 

P, LT 

–ve D, 

P, LT 

–ve D, 

P, LT 

–ve, D, 

P, LT 

–ve, D, 

P, LT 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

of change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

mitigation 

Nature 

of 

effect* 

Human 

Health 

Human 

Health 



location 

Tailings dam 


location 

Site 

Human 

health 



contaminated soils and 

waters 

Exposure of turbine 

maintenance workers. 

Effect of contaminated 

land on turbine structure 

and foundations. 



on proposed turbine 




on tailings dam. 



proposed turbine 

structure/ location. 



site surface on turbine 

structure. 



contaminated soils. 

Operation 

Moderate/Low 

risk. 

Negligible 


Operation Low risk. Negligible Not significant 

Operation Moderate risk Medium Moderate 

Operation Very High risk Medium Substantial 

Operation Moderate risk Negligible Not significant 

Operation High risk Medium Moderate 

Operation Very High risk Medium Substantial 


Moderate/Low 

risk 

Negligible 






Evaluation of ground 

investigation data to feed into 

design. 




foundation design and ground 

treatment carried out as 

required. 

Turbine to be located out with 

extents of tailings dam. No 

mitigation to historic mine 

workings beneath tailings dam 

proposed. 





required. 




requirement for ground 

improvement. 



n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Neutral 

D, T, 

ST 

Neutral 

D, T, 

ST 

–ve D, 

P, LT 

–ve D, 

P, LT 

–ve D, 

P, LT 

–ve, D, 

P, LT 

–ve, D, 

P, LT 

Neutral 

D, T, 

ST 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

of change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

mitigation 

Nature 

of 

effect* 

Human 

health 


foundations 


foundations 


foundations 


foundations 

Exposure of 


workers to contaminated 

soils. 

Effect of contaminated 

land on remaining 

turbine foundations. 



on remaining turbine 

foundations. 



remaining turbine 

foundations 



site surface on 

remaining turbine 

foundations. 

Decommissioning Low risk Small Slight 

Decommissioning Low risk Small Not significant 

Decommissioning Low risk Small Not significant 

Decommissioning Low risk Negligible Not significant 

Decommissioning Low risk Negligible Not significant 




to establish ground 

contamination, design of 

foundations as appropriate 





required. 



mining activities. Appropriate 


required 




requirement for ground 

improvement 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

–ve D, 

T, ST 

–ve, D, 

P LT 

–ve, D, 

P LT 

–ve D, 

P, LT 

–ve D, 

P, LT 

*Key – Nature of Effects 

+ve – Positive –ve – Negative D – Direct I – Indirect, S – Secondary, C – Cumulative, P – Permanent, T – Temporary, ST – 

Short Term, MT – Medium Term, LT – Long Term 




Wheal Jane Wind Farm 

10 Landscape and Visual 


10.1.1 The purpose of this landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) is to ascertain the likely 

landscape and visual effects of a proposed wind turbine at the Wheal Jane disused tin mine 

to a maximum height of 122 m. 

10.1.2 The assessment aims to determine the likely significant effects of the scheme on the existing 

landscape resource and visual amenity to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations 17 , 

and to allow consideration of a proposed development against the relevant local planning 

policies. The following landscape and visual receptors have been assessed to establish the 

significance of effect of the Wheal Jane turbine: 

• Landscape character, key features and elements; 

• Designated landscapes; and 

• Views and visual amenity experienced by residents, recreational users (including 

visitors and tourists) and road users. 

10.1.3 Consideration has been given to the likely significant effects on landscape and visual 

receptors during the construction and decommissioning phases, though the focus of 

assessment is concerned with the long term effects that the presence of the turbine would 

generate during the operational phase over 25 years. 


10.2.1 The following section details the methodology and approach to the assessment of landscape 

and visual effects. 

10.2.2 The methodology sets out the criteria and definitions used for the assessment of sensitivity, 

magnitude of impact and overall significance of effects, which have been adopted to provide 

a standardised approach to the terminology used in the assessment process across the EIA. 

Study area 

10.2.3 This spatial scope was refined following the preliminary stages of the desk study that helped 

to identify which areas and receptors would potentially be subject to significant effects. 

10.2.4 The study area was defined at a distance of 35 km radius from the turbine location (as shown 

on Figure 10.1). 

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

the environment, The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 

(as amended). 


Landscape and Visual 



10.2.5 Scoping and consultation with representatives of the local planning authority confirmed that 

the assessment should be targeted to receptors of the highest sensitivity. This enabled 

additional refinement of the spatial scope for detailed assessment of the effects. 

10.2.6 This spatial scope was refined following the preliminary stages of the desk study that helped 

to identify which areas and receptors would potentially be subject to significant effects. 

10.2.7 Temporal and seasonal variations are particularly relevant in the context of landscape and 

visual assessment, as they have the potential to substantially influence the overall visibility 

and appearance of a development, as well as affecting the duration of exposure and extent of 

available views. These aspects are not highlighted separately but are considered as an 

integral part of the assessment process and the conclusions on significance. 

Consultation 

10.2.8 Consultation has been undertaken with the planning case officer and with the landscape 

architect at Cornwall County Council. A meeting was held during the period of the site survey 

work to ascertain comments from the LPA and to progress the initial desktop surveys during 

the remaining site work. At the meeting (held 16/06/2010) the LPA landscape officer 

highlighted the importance of understanding impacts on designated landscapes such as the 

AONB and AGLV; also noted were the Poldice valley trail (near Bissoe) and also some 

specific settlements (for example Grampound Road). 

10.2.9 This process was used to agree the approach to the assessment (including defining the study 

area and spatial scope) and for guidance on the location and selection of proposed 

viewpoints. 

10.2.10 Additional discussion with the LPA refined the approach to cumulative assessment and also 

provided input on the selection of locations for photomontages. 

10.2.11 Scoping and consultation with representatives of the local planning authority confirmed that 

the assessment should be targeted to receptors of the highest sensitivity. This has enabled 

additional refinement of the spatial scope for detailed assessment of effects. The areas are 

specifically defined as follows: 

• A 10 km radius to provide an illustration of district level landscape character and 

effects on visual receptors most affected by the scheme 

• Up to 2 km from the scheme to illustrate local planning designations and national trails; 

• Up to a 35 km radius from the scheme for receptors that are of high sensitivity, in 

particular parts of the area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), common land and 

other key vantage points and; 

• Up to 30 km radius from the scheme for cumulative effects (for 12 schemes at 10 

sites). 

10.2.12 This LVIA addresses the environmental effects on the landscape and visual amenity raised 

by the LPA, as determining authority, and statutory consultees during the pre-application 

consultations. 





Assessment approach 

10.2.13 Landscape character is the distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs 

consistently in a landscape and reflects particular combinations of geology, landform, soils, 

vegetation, land use and human settlement. These elements create a particular and often 

unique sense of place. Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape and 

the subsequent changes in its character, how this is experienced and the degree of mitigation 

required where necessary. 

10.2.14 Visual amenity relates to the composition of available views in terms of what is seen and how 

people respond to them. Visual effects relate to changes in such composition and responses 

as a result of changes to the landscape. 

10.2.15 As a matter of best practice, this assessment has been undertaken based on published 

guidance on landscape and visual assessment. This includes: 

• Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Landscape Character 

Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland; and 

• Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 

(2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2 nd Edition. 

10.2.16 There is also a range of best practice guidance specifically for the assessment of wind 

energy developments. The methodology for the assessment has been developed with 

reference to the following best practice guidance documents, amongst others: 

• Institute of Environmental Management & the Landscape Institute, 2002 The 

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; 2nd Edition. Spon; 

• Natural England, Making space for renewable energy: assessing on-shore wind energy 

development (2010); 

• Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy; 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002. Guidelines on the environmental impacts of windfarms 

and small-scale hydroelectric schemes; 

• Scottish Natural Heritage 2002. Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for 

England & Scotland. Prepared by LUC on behalf of the Countryside Agency and SNH; 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, 2003.Cumulative Effects of Wind Farms, Scottish Natural 

Heritage guidance note; 

• Scottish Natural Heritage 2005. A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment 

(Technical Appendix 1 - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd Edition). 

Prepared by David Tyldesley and Associates on behalf of SNH; 

• Scottish Natural Heritage 2005. Cumulative Effect of Windfarms, Guidance. April 2005 





• Scottish Natural Heritage, 2007. Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Good Practice 

Guidance (dated 2006, published 2007); 

• Scottish Natural Heritage 2009. Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape, 

(December 2009); 

• The Highland Council, 2010. Visualisation Standards for Wind Energy Developments 

(January 2010); and 

• University of Newcastle, 2002. Visual Assessment of Wind Farms – Best Practice, 

Scottish Natural Heritage commissioned report F01AA303A. 

10.2.17 Reference has also been made to a number of additional sources of data and information; 

these are referred to in the relevant sections of the baseline information. 

10.2.18 To provide an appropriate context, the assessment includes a comprehensive description of 

the baseline position for the landscape resource and visual amenity, including reference to 

landscape character studies and a range of visual receptors. 

10.2.19 The assessment has encompassed collection of baseline data through a process of desk 

studies and field surveys on the context and character of the study area, an evaluation of the 

landscape, and an assessment of properties and local views potentially affected by the 

scheme. Consideration has been given to the construction and decommissioning stages of 

the scheme however the assessment focuses on the operational period of the turbine. 

10.2.20 The assessment has also recommended the design of mitigation measures to reduce 

potential adverse effects. Opportunities for mitigation measures for this type of scheme are 

relatively limited and those that are appropriate have been included as an integral part of the 

scheme. Therefore, the separate assessment of residual effects is limited. 

10.2.21 The wider area includes several other existing wind energy developments and there are a 

number of proposals for new wind energy schemes. Therefore an assessment of potential 

cumulative landscape and visual effects is also included. 

10.2.22 The work for the LVIA has encompassed: 

• data collection through familiarisation, desk studies and field survey, including a review 

of existing information included within previous studies and reports; 

• Examination of ordnance survey maps and aerial photographs; 

• Reference to Cornwall Council planning policy documents; 

• Review of local landscape character assessment; 

• Determination of the zone of theoretical visibility using arcgis software based on 50 m 

digital terrain model (DTM) information; 

• Preparation of photomontage visualisations; 

• Landscape impact assessment; 





• Visual impact assessment, providing a detailed assessment of potentially affected 

visual receptors, including properties, settlements and the public rights of way network; 

and 

• Consultation with third parties, including local authorities. 

10.2.23 The assessment of landscape and visual effects has followed a recognised process set out 

below: 

• Identify the baseline landscape resource (e.g. individual landscape elements and 

landscape character) and its value, and also identify visual receptors (people who may 

have views of the development); 

• Describe the nature of the baseline landscape and visual resources, including 

pressures and forces for change; 

• Evaluate the sensitivity of the landscape resource and visual receptors to the type of 

development proposed; 

• Identify potential landscape and visual effects of the project through review of initial 

plans; 

• Develop measures to avoid, reduce and ameliorate adverse effects; 

• Identify scale or magnitude of change proposed; 

• Assess the significance of effects of the project on landscape resources and visual 

receptors, taking into account the measures proposed; and 

• Report the findings of the assessment. 

10.2.24 The appearance of the landscape without the scheme has been compared with that which 

would result if the scheme was constructed, allowing for any changes in the surroundings due 

to other committed developments. 

10.2.25 Heritage assets such as the World Heritage site, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings 

and Registered Parks and Gardens all contribute to the overall landscape character, context 

and setting of the area. These aspects are not included in the scope of the landscape and 

visual assessment but have been considered in Chapter 7 (Cultural Heritage). Although 

separate assessments have been undertaken for these topics there has been an open 

dialogue with the Cultural Heritage expert to ensure a consistent approach between the 

chapters. 

Data sources 

10.2.26 In addition to the general guidance on approach and methodology the following information 

sources have been used for this assessment: 

• Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside website (magic.gov.uk); 





• the Character of England Landscape, Wildlife and Cultural Features Map (2005) 

produced by Natural England with the support of English Heritage (update to the 

Countryside Agency 1996 landscape character map); 

• Cornwall and Isle of Scilly Landscape Character Assessment (2007); 

• An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to On-Shore Wind Energy & Large-Scale 

Photovoltaic Development in Cornwall (Final Report) (Prepared for Cornwall County 

Council by Land Use Consultants) (April 2011), referred to as ‘the Landscape 

Sensitivity Assessment (2011)’; and 

• the Cornwall Council website. 

10.2.27 The Countryside Agency (now part of Natural England) and Scottish Natural Heritage 

produced detailed guidance on the systematic identification and evaluation of landscape 

character in ‘Landscape Character Assessment; Guidance for England and Scotland‘, April 

2002. England has been divided into areas with similar landscape character, which are called 

National Character Areas (NCAs). The Character of England’s Landscape, Wildlife and 

Cultural Features Map produced in 2005 by Natural England with support from English 

Heritage provides a picture of the differences in landscape character at the national scale. 

10.2.28 The assessment also takes into account the Cornwall and Isle of Scilly Landscape Character 

Assessment (2007). This considers landscape character types at a more local level and 

provides an assessment of the character and distinctiveness of Cornwall's landscape, 

describes the county's component landscape character types and landscape character areas, 

and summarises the key characteristics associated with each landscape type. 

Baseline surveys 

10.2.29 The assessment examines existing baseline conditions and the potential landscape and 

visual effects during the life of the scheme. In order to establish the degree of effect the 

baseline conditions have initially been considered by detailed desk study and also field 

survey work. 

Desk study 

10.2.30 The desk study identified potentially sensitive landscape resources (e.g. land-use, landscape 

character and value) by reference to OS maps, aerial photos and existing landscape 

character studies. This stage also enabled the identification of potentially important and 

sensitive visual receptors such as residents in properties, users of rights of way and other 

sensitive viewpoints. 

Field surveys 

10.2.31 Field survey work was carried out in June 2010, and identified specific public rights of way, 

settlements, residential properties, public highways and other public amenity areas that 

contribute to the landscape character of the area or would potentially have views of the 

scheme. 





10.2.32 Photographs were taken during these site visits and these are presented as a series of 

representative viewpoints. These have informed both the landscape and visual assessment. 

10.2.33 Viewpoints were identified to represent views from different receptors based on the 

professional judgement of an experienced landscape architect. The selection of these 

viewpoints took into consideration: 

• The results of the ZTV; 

• Importance attributed to the view and local perceptions relating to views; 

• Type of activity at the viewpoint; 

• Number of receptors experiencing the view; 

• Degree of exposure to the view; 

• Period of exposure to the view; 

• Availability and value of alternative views; and 

• Feedback from consultation with the LPA. 

Views, Visual Receptors and Viewpoints 

Zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) 

10.2.34 Determination of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) is the first stage of identifying 

receptors. 

10.2.35 Based on the study area, a computer generated ZTV was calculated for the scheme through 

computer analysis of landform. 

10.2.36 The ZTV shows an indication of the potential visibility of the hub height (80 m) and blade tip 

height (122m total) and enabled the spatial scope of the assessment to be refined. The ZTV 

is illustrated on Figures 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4. The ZTV shows the area or areas over which 

sight of the proposals could potentially influence people’s perception of their surroundings. 

The essential characteristic of a ZTV is that it shows, by coloured shading overlain on an 

Ordnance Survey background, the areas in the surrounding landscape from which the 

development is potentially visible. 

10.2.37 The study area has been refined to a specific spatial scope based on a combination of the 

outputs of the ZTV, further field surveys and feedback from the consultation process. 

10.2.38 The ZTV only considers landform: it does not take into account landscape features or 

elements such as buildings or vegetation, and so the screening value of these will 

substantially reduce the extent of available views to the scheme. This was taken into account 

when carrying out the field survey investigation. 

10.2.39 The ZTVs are produced using a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) at 50 m resolution which does 

not account for the screening influence of buildings, hedgerows, trees, woodland and other 





landscape elements or features, nor are they intended to convey the nature or significance of 

effects. As the ZTVs do not take into account landscape features or elements such as 

buildings or vegetation, the screening value of these would substantially reduce the extent of 

available views to the scheme. Therefore, the ZTVs illustrate the theoretical zone of visual 

influence (as a worst case scenario) and this was taken into account to inform and guide 

further desk based analysis and field survey. 

10.2.40 Three ZTV diagrams have been prepared for this assessment: 

• using the hub height of the tower to a radius of 35 km (Figure 10.2); 

• Using the tip of the blade at the highest point on the rotation to a radius of 35 km 

(Figure 10.3); and 

• Using a combination of these to a radius of 10 km (Figure 10.4). 

10.2.41 A ZTV created using the height for the tip of a blade is likely to include a wider area than that 

of the hub height ZTV as the taller objects are less likely to be screened from view by 

intervening landform. It can be important to distinguish areas where blades but not the tower 

would be visible, as at greater distances the turbine blades are less substantial structures 

than the towers themselves. In this sense, the interpretation of the ZTV begins to give an 

indication of the potential magnitude of visual effect. 

Viewpoint selection 

10.2.42 The principal criterion for viewpoint selection was that they must be representative of a range 

of views and receptor types likely to experience significant effects. Specific points or locations 

were chosen because they are important existing viewpoints in the landscape, and from 

these the visual effects may be significant. 

10.2.43 A range of viewpoints at different elevations were selected from the defined area of the ZTV, 

ensuring coverage from all compass directions (i.e. 360 degree coverage). Following this, 

each chosen point was explored on the ground to ensure where possible that it actually 

illustrated the most open view of the site area. Equally, allowance was made for any 

foreground detail that distracted from the middle or background of the view, or screening that 

may be characteristic of the viewpoint. 

10.2.44 View types included: 

• Areas of high value; 

• Viewpoints that may have wide panoramic views; 

• Viewpoints at different distances; 

• Viewpoints at different elevations; 

• Viewpoints from different aspects; and 

• Sequential views for instance along roads. 





10.2.45 In addition to consideration of visual impacts, selection of viewpoints also considered if a view 

in the landscape would provide a good illustration of different landscape character types 

rather than specific receptors; 

10.2.46 Certain viewpoints were considered to be a good representation of sensitive receptors and 

others had potentially clear views of the proposed turbine; some of these views were also 

selected as locations for photomontages. These include specific locations requested by the 

LPA as part of the consultation process such as the AONB, AGLV, Probus and Grampound 

Road. 

10.2.47 This approach also reflects the guidance provided in the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment 

(2011) which recognises that ‘the most scenic landscapes in Cornwall are protected by 

AONB status’ (p14, para 3.9) and that the areas of AGLV represent ‘some of the most valued 

landscapes in Cornwall outside of the AONB’ (p 27, para 3.27). 

10.2.48 A series of representative viewpoints have been captured during the site survey work, see 

Figures 10.10 and 10.11. These viewpoints have been utilised during the assessment to 

address visual effects from specific locations but also to provide a record and illustration of a 

location’s landscape character. The locations for representative viewpoints were selected in 

accordance with the following considerations. 

10.2.49 The viewpoints are listed in Table 10.1, and presented in Figures 10.12 to 10.44. Certain 

viewpoints have been taken forward and developed into photomontages in support of the 

assessment. The photomontages of the proposed view together with the existing view are 

presented as panoramic images with a 75 degree field of view in accordance with Scottish 

Natural Heritage guidance. At the request of the LPA the photomontages have also been 

presented as single frame images with a 40 degree field of view in accordance with elements 

of the Visualisation Standards for Wind Energy Developments by the Highland Council 

(2010). 

10.2.50 The assessment of representative viewpoints has been supplemented by Supplementary 

Views in order to capture additional visual receptors and locations. These are presented in 

Appendix 10.2 as a series of images. 





Table 10.1 

Summary of selected viewpoints 

Viewpoint and 

Photomontage 

Approximate 

Distance from 

turbine 

Location 

Justification for selection 

1 3.5 km 

2 4.3 km 

3 2.2 km 

4 3.8 km 

6 2.1 km 

7 9.9 km 

8 7.6 km 

13 1.4 km 

15 1.0 km 

16 1.2 km 

17 2.7 km 

From footpath 

near A39 at 

Carnon Downs 

Entrance to 

Carclew Barton 

Footpath south 

east of Sparnock 

Downs 

From B3298 at 

Croft Handy 

South of 

Threemilestone 

From St Agnes 

beacon 

From footpath 

close to Buller 

Downs 

From Billy Bray 

chapel near 

Keeley Downs 

From road north 

of site near 

Baldhu 

From road near 

Bissoe 

From disused tin 

mine near Croft 

Handy 

To show the view of the scheme from the A39 

To represent Perranarworthal and contribute to 

360 degree coverage 

To show the view of the scheme from the east 

and contribute to 360 degree coverage 

To illustrate the effect of the scheme on 

residential properties to the west. 

To show views from the edge of the 

conurbation to the north 

To show distant views from the National Trust 

land to the north west 

To give an indication of intermediate views 

from the south west 

To illustrate the effect on the Listed Building 

To show views from local roads to the north of 

the site 

To give an indication of views from the Bissoe 

Cycle Trail 

To show effect of scheme on the World 

Heritage Site to the south west 





Table 10.2 

Summary of supplementary views 

Identification 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

K 

L 

M 

N 

Approximate 

Distance from 

turbine 

10.7 km to the NW 

10 km to the NW 

9 km to the W 

7.5 km to the WSW 


8.4 km to the S 

3 km to the SW 


2 km to the NW 

2.2 km to the NE 

0.63 km to the E 

3 km to the ESE 

5 km to the ENE 

11 km to the SE 


South West Coast Path between Cross Coombe and Cligga 

Head, representative of AONB and from a relative high point on 

a National Trail. 

Area of open access land also included in AONB designation; 

high ground with unique setting and long distance views inland 

and across the coast and seascape. 

Public bridleway crossing high ground to south west of Redruth. 

Medium distance receptor from publically accessible location 

close to settlement. 

Publically accessible viewpoint from a medium distance on area 

of high ground. Viewpoint contributes to 360 degree coverage 

of the scheme. 

Public bridleway to summit of Carn Marth, south west of 

Carharrack. Long distance views available to surrounding area, 

panorama partially narrowed by landform and scrub vegetation 

in immediate vicinity. 

Open views from minor road, close to major settlement. 

Viewpoint contributes to 360 degree coverage and would also 

show potential cumulative effects. 

Public right of way in close proximity to the scheme; viewpoint 

is fairly typical and represents nature of views in this area with 

scattered dwellings and small settlement. 

Viewpoint representative of nearby public footpaths and byway 

and includes access land and also shows the intricate changes 

to landform that can occur through the geographical area. 

Viewpoint contributes to 360 degree coverage of the site and is 

taken from a nearby area of high ground included in the ZTV. 

Viewpoint is representative of the small settlement fringes of 

Twelvetrees and Truro and also contributes to 360 degree 

coverage. 

View representing receptors in close proximity to the site; to 

represent nearby rights of way. 

Viewpoint contributes to 360 degree coverage of the site and is 

taken from a nearby area of high ground included in the ZTV. 

View from high ground representing the urban fringe of Truro, 

particularly nearby residential properties that may have views 

from upper storeys of property. 

Medium distance view from sensitive receptors included in the 

AONB designation. 





Identification 

O 

P 

Q 

R 

Approximate 

Distance from 

turbine 

10.5 km to the E 

14 km to the NE 

16.5 km to the - NE 

23 km to the ESE 


Medium distance view from sensitive receptors included within 

the AONB designation. In this geographical area the 

combination of landform and vegetation are complex and the 

viewpoint is useful to investigate accuracy of the ZTV compared 

with actual level of screening. 

Open, panoramic views across a rolling landform with complex 

interactions between shallow valleys; viewpoint included to 

contribute to 360 degree coverage. Viewpoint would also 

demonstrate potential cumulative effects with Four Burrows 

windfarm. 

Medium to long distance viewpoint included to contribute to 360 

degree coverage. 

Open panoramic view from elevated vantage point in an area 

included in the AONB designation; representative of long 

distance views. 

Photomontages 

10.2.51 The photography used in the wind turbine photomontages has been produced in accordance 

with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment (second edition) by the Landscape 

Institute and Visual Representations of Windfarms, Good Practice Guidance, Scottish Natural 

Heritage (2006). At the request of the LPA the photomontages have also been presented as 

single frame images with a 40 degree field of view in accordance with elements of the 

Visualisation Standards for Wind Energy Developments by Highland Council (2010). 

10.2.52 The photomontage locations have been chosen from prominent local viewpoints highlighted 

through desk-based analysis as well as site survey work and in collaboration with Cornwall 

Council. From each tripod location, a GPS reading was taken using a Garmin eTrex Camo 

handheld GPS unit, giving the eastings and northings location of the viewpoint with reference 

to British OS Grid co-ordinates. A compass bearing is then taken as close to the centre of 

each panorama as possible. 

10.2.53 A Canon EOS 5D SLR camera (full frame sensor) was used with a fixed focal length 50 mm 

lens (35 mm film equivalent). Photographs were taken on a levelled tripod, 1.6m above 

ground level. Each single photograph has a horizontal field of view of 40 degrees. 

10.2.54 Panoramas for baseline views were produced digitally by Panorama Factory software - 

individual frames were corrected for barrel distortion and cylindrical projection. These photos 

were then spliced together digitally with a 50% overlap and cropped to give a field of view of 

75 degrees. 

10.2.55 Digital terrain data, the turbine’s location and its geometry were then loaded into Resoft 

windfarm software and a virtual wireframe representation of the turbine was generated. To 

ensure that the location of the turbine is accurately represented, the photographs were 

loaded into the software and the wireframe of the terrain and the turbine were correctly 

matched. Reference locator points were used for each viewpoint to represent features such 





as buildings or other fixed structures that are visible in the photograph. The locator coordinates 

were entered in the software and were used in the matching process. 

10.2.56 Once the photograph, digital terrain wireframe and the turbine were correctly matched, the 

final stage was to render the turbine. This took the 3D wind turbine geometry and created a 

real world representation on the photograph. At this stage, the angle of the rotor and the 

lighting was set to ensure realistic representation. The turbine was then ‘masked out’ where 

features such as vegetation would appear in front and would hide parts of the turbine 

structure. 

10.2.57 A number of photomontages have also been prepared in support of the assessment. The 

details of these are included in the following table. The locations of the photomontages are 

shown on Figure 10.10 and Figure 10.11. The photomontages of the proposed view together 

with the existing view are presented as panoramic images with a 75 degree field of view in 

accordance with Scottish Natural Heritage guidance and also as single frame images with a 

40 degree field of view in accordance with elements of the Visualisation Standards for Wind 

Energy Developments by the Highland Council (2010). 

Impact assessment and significance of effect 

10.2.58 The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment define landscape and visual 

effects as follows: 

“Landscape and visual assessments are separate, although linked, procedures. 

…..Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape, which may 

give rise to changes in its character and how this is experienced. This may in turn 

affect the perceived value ascribed to the landscape….. 

Visual effects relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available views 

as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and 

to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity” 18 

10.2.59 The guidelines go on to explain that both landscape and visual effects are dependent upon 

the sensitivity of the landscape resource or visual receptors and the magnitude of effect. 

Having determined the sensitivity of the receptor and magnitude of impact resulting from the 

proposals, these two parameters are then combined to determine the significance of effect. 

10.2.60 The following sections set out the criteria used to assess sensitivity, magnitude of impact and 

significance of effect. 

Landscape effects 

10.2.61 Effects on landscape can be broadly divided into two key categories including direct impacts 

(i.e. the physical changes to the individual components of the landscape) and, secondly, 

indirect impacts on landscape character (i.e. how direct impacts are viewed and perceived). 

10.2.62 In order to focus on significant effects, the landscape assessment has has extended beyond 

this distance where it was necessary to account for other important areas beyond this radius. 

18 Paragraph 2.13 to 2.15, page 12, GLVIA 





10.2.63 The scale or magnitude of change to the landscape resource is based on consideration of the 

following elements: 

• Nature of effect; 

• Spatial extent of the area subject to introduction or removal or alteration of landscape 

elements; 

• Degree to which the change is compatible with (that is, consistent with, detracts from 

or enhances) the existing landscape character; and 

• Duration of the effect. 

10.2.64 These elements can largely be quantified; more weight is given to effects that are greater in 

scale, longer term and irreversible. 

Visual effects 

10.2.65 The scale or magnitude of change experienced by visual receptors is described by reference 

to the following: 

• Scale of change in relation to loss or addition of features in the view; 

• Changes to the composition, including proportion of view occupied by the 

development; 

• Degree of contrast or integration of features (compatibility) (e.g. Form, scale, mass, 

line, height, colour and texture); 

• Duration and nature of effect (temporary or permanent, intermittent or continuous); 

• Angle of view in relation to main activity/location of receptor; and 

• Distance of viewpoint from proposed development. 

Perception of wind turbines 

10.2.66 A number of factors can influence the way a wind farm is perceived. Weather conditions and 

daylight are very important. The photographs in the report have been taken in times of clear 

visibility to show the worst case scenario where turbines are most visible; this promotes an 

objective approach to the assessment conclusions. For some viewpoints, the angle of view 

towards the turbines could be seen backlit or silhouetted against the sky, potentially causing 

them to appear darker in colour and thus more prominent. Shadow flicker, caused where the 

light from the sun passes through the blades of a moving turbine, can have an effect at 

viewpoints in buildings close to the turbines, because it could draw the viewer’s attention (see 

Chapter 14). 

10.2.67 The Visual Assessment of Wind Farms – Best Practice (University of Newcastle 2002) 

provides guidance about how turbines may be perceived from different distances. Whilst it is 

acknowledged that since 2002 there has been a trend for turbines to increase in height and 

thus be potentially visible over longer distances, it remains true that with increasing distance 





they are generally less prominent, unless sky lining and movement draws the viewer’s 

attention. 

10.2.68 It is obvious that distance would be an important (though not exclusive) control on the 

magnitude of impacts. Table 3 of the University of Newcastle document provides guidance on 

the perceptibility of wind farms at various distances from the viewer. It states that when they 

are up to 2 km away they are likely to be a prominent feature. When between 2 and 5 km 

they are relatively prominent. Between 5 and 15 km away they are only prominent in clear 

visibility and are seen as part of the wider landscape. At 15 to 30 km away they are only seen 

in very clear visibility and are a minor element in the landscape. These distance categories 

have been used on the ZTV drawings and are shown as concentric rings. Magnitude of both 

landscape and visual impacts is influenced by distance. 

Table 10.3 Perception distances derived from Visual Assessment of Wind Farms – 

Best Practice (University of Newcastle, 2002) 19 

Distance from 

viewer to turbine 

Up to 2 km 

Perception 

Likely to be a prominent feature 

2–5 km Relatively prominent 

5–15 km Only prominent in clear visibility – seen as part of the wider landscape 

15–30 km Only seen in very clear visibility – a minor element in the landscape 

10.2.69 Public perception of wind turbines varies, and different individuals may have firmly held and 

contrary views about a particular development. However, it should be recognised that local 

opinions would differ both in favour of the wind farm and also against it. 

10.2.70 As well as the effect of vegetation or buildings, the visibility of the proposal would be 

influenced by atmospheric conditions particularly for long distance views over 15 km. Rain, 

snow, fog, mist and pollution all affect the visibility of the turbines. 

Landscape sensitivity 

10.2.71 Landscape sensitivity has been established based on the following guidance document: An 

Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to On-Shore Wind Energy & Large-Scale 

Photovoltaic Development in Cornwall (Final Report) (Prepared for Cornwall County Council 

by Land Use Consultants) (April 2011) (referred to as the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment 

2011). 

10.2.72 The Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2011) aims to assess and make recommendations 

on the appropriate siting and scale of future development (wind energy and solar 

photovoltaic) within each of the county’s 40 landscape character areas. The Cornwall and 

Isles of Scilly Landscape Character Assessment (2007) forms the spatial framework for the 

Landscape Sensitivity Assessment and uses the defined character descriptions as the 

primary evidence base for the sensitivity assessment. 

19 Source: adapted from Figure 8, PAN 45: Renewable Energy Technologies (revised 2002), Scottish Executive 





10.2.73 Landscape sensitivity is not absolute and varies according to the capacity of the landscape in 

relation to the specific type of development that is proposed. For example a landscape that is 

sensitive to wind energy development may be able to accommodate low level built 

development such as housing or mineral extraction. 

10.2.74 This guidance has been used as the baseline sensitivity of the landscape character areas 

and is summarised in Table 10.16. 

10.2.75 Assessment of magnitude of the landscape impacts has been based on the indicative criteria 

shown in Table 10.5. 

10.2.76 The significance of landscape effect of the proposed scheme has been derived by assessing 

the sensitivity of the landscape against the magnitude of impact (including consideration of 

the effectiveness of the mitigation measures), as shown in Table 10.6. 

10.2.77 Significance of landscape effect is a qualitative measure of the severity of predicted 

landscape effects. Typical descriptive definitions relating to significance of landscape effect 

are defined in Table 10.7 so that a consistent and transparent approach to the assessment 

can be applied. 

10.2.78 As noted in Table 10.3 (above), the character of the landscape will be unaltered by the 

presence of a wind farm after a certain distance generally beyond 2–5km depending on 

topography. 

Table 10.4 Landscape sensitivity levels and definitions 20 

Sensitivity 

Typical criteria 

High 

Medium to High 

Medium 

Low-Medium 

Low 

The key characteristics and qualities of the landscape are highly sensitive to 

change from the type of renewable energy being assessed. 

The key characteristics and qualities of the landscape are sensitive to 

change from the type of renewable energy being assessed. 

Some of the key characteristics and qualities of the landscape are sensitive 

to change from the type of renewable energy being assessed. 

Few of the key characteristics and qualities of the landscape are sensitive 

to change from the type of renewable energy being assessed. 

Key characteristics and qualities of the landscape are robust and are less 

likely to be adversely affected by the type of renewable energy development 

being assessed. 

Note: The Landscape Sensitivity Assessment 2011 refers to “moderate” sensitivity. For consistency within this ES, this has 

been amended to “medium”. 

20 Source: from table 4.5 on page 44 of the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment 2011 





Table 10.5 

Magnitude and Nature of Impact and Typical Descriptors 

Magnitude of impact 

Major adverse 

Moderate adverse 

Minor adverse 

Negligible adverse 

No change 

Negligible beneficial 

Minor beneficial 

Moderate beneficial 

Major beneficial 

Typical Criteria Descriptors 

Total loss or large scale damage to existing character or distinctive features 

and elements, and/or the addition of new but uncharacteristic conspicuous 

features and elements. 

Partial loss or noticeable damage to existing character or distinctive features 

and elements, and/or the addition of new but uncharacteristic noticeable 

features and elements. 

Slight loss or damage to existing character or features and elements, and/or 

the addition of new but uncharacteristic features and elements. 

Barely noticeable loss or damage to existing character or features and 

elements, and/or the addition of new but uncharacteristic features and 

elements. 

No noticeable loss, damage or alteration to character or features or elements. 

Barely noticeable improvement of character by the restoration of existing 

features and elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic features and 

elements, or by the addition of new characteristic elements. 

Slight improvement of character by the restoration of existing features and 

elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic features and elements, or by 

the addition of new characteristic elements. 

Partial or noticeable improvement of character by the restoration of existing 

features and elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic and noticeable 

features and elements, or by the addition of new characteristic features. 

Large scale improvement of character by the restoration of features and 

elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic and conspicuous features 

and elements, or by the addition of new distinctive features. 

Table 10.6 

Significance of Landscape Effects 

Magnitude of Impact 

No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

High Neutral Slight 

Slight/ 

moderate 

Moderate/ 

substantial 

Substantial/ 

very 

substantial 

Sensitivity 

Medium- 

High 

Medium 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Slight 

Neutral/ 

slight 

Slight/ 

moderate 

Slight 

Moderate/ 

substantial 

Moderate 

Substantial 

Moderate/ 

substantial 

Lowmedium 

Neutral 

Neutral/ 

slight 

Neutral/ 

slight 

Slight/ 

moderate 

Moderate 

Low 

Neutral 

Neutral/ 

slight 

Neutral/ 

slight 

Slight 

Slight/ 

moderate 





Table 10.7 

Descriptors for Significance of Landscape Effect 

Significance Category 

Very Substantial 

Adverse 

Substantial Adverse 

Moderate Adverse 

Slight Adverse 

Neutral 

Slight Beneficial 

Moderate Beneficial 

Substantial Beneficial 

Very Substantial 

Beneficial 

Typical Descriptors of Effect 

The project would: 

• Be at complete variance with the character (including quality and value) of 

the landscape. 

• Cause the integrity of characteristic features and elements to be lost. 

• Cause a sense of place to be lost. 


• Be at considerable variance with the character (including quality and value) 

of the landscape. 

• Degrade or diminish the integrity of a range of characteristic features and 

elements. 

• Damage a sense of place. 


• Conflict with the character (including quality and value) of the landscape. 

• Have an adverse impact on characteristic features or elements. 

• Diminish a sense of place 


• Not quite fit the character (including quality and value) of the landscape. 

• Be at variance with characteristic features and elements. 

• Detract from a sense of place. 


• Maintain the character (including quality and value) of the landscape. 

• Blend in with characteristic features and elements. 

• Enable a sense of place to be retained. 


• Complement the character (including quality and value) of the landscape. 

• Maintain or enhance characteristic features and elements. 

• Enable some sense of place to be restored. 


• Improve the character (including quality and value) of the landscape. 

• Enable the restoration of characteristic features and elements partially lost 

or diminished as a result of changes from inappropriate management or 

development. 

• Enable a sense of place to be restored. 


• Enhance the character (including quality and value) of the landscape. 

• Enable the restoration of characteristic features and elements lost as a 

result of changes from inappropriate management or development. 

• Enable a sense of place to be enhanced. 


• Greatly enhance the character (including quality and value) of the 

landscape 

• Create an iconic high quality feature and/or series of elements. 

• Enable a sense of place to be created or greatly enhanced. 

Visual effect assessment 

10.2.79 Visual effects are concerned with evaluating the visual effects of a proposal upon the human 

environment. In dealing with the identification and assessment of visual effects, the GLVIA 

states that: 





“More weight is usually given to effects that are greater in scale and permanent or 

long term. Therefore, a temporary change that is confined to a small area and 

visible only from a few private residential properties may be considered to be of low 

scale or magnitude. In assessing the duration of the effect, consideration should be 

given to the effectiveness of mitigation, particularly where planting is proposed for 

screening purposes. Where the planting may be out of character with its 

surroundings, this may increase the scale of negative (adverse) changes to the 

landscape.” 21 

10.2.80 Changes in visual effect would arise as a result of the loss of existing components, such as 

existing vegetation, long distance and consistent views, or the introduction of new features. 

10.2.81 The assessment of visual effect: 

• evaluates the views in relation to the nature and type of the viewer (for example, public 

views from rights of way and open spaces, or private views from residences); 

• determines the magnitude of change, which includes the appearance or loss of 

elements in views of the scheme; and, 

• considers whether changes in views are judged as beneficial or adverse in relation to 

the baseline. 

Visual sensitivity 

10.2.82 Consideration is also given to the sensitivity of the potential visual receptors. The 

identification of various categories of visual receptor (viewer) and the assumed visual 

sensitivity of each forms part of the visual baseline against which the change in the view 

brought about by the scheme is assessed. 

10.2.83 The sensitivity of each visual receptor is assessed, as defined in Table 10.8. 

21 Paragraph 7.23, page 88, GLVIA 





Table 10.8 

Visual Receptor Sensitivity 

Sensitivity 

Criteria 

Residential properties. 

High 

Users of Public Rights of Way or other recreational trails (e.g. National Trails, 

footpaths, bridleways etc.). 

Users of recreational facilities where the purpose of that recreation is enjoyment of 

the countryside (e.g. Country Parks, National Trust or other access land etc.). 

Outdoor workers 

Moderate 

Users of scenic roads, railways or waterways or users of designated tourist 

routes. 

Schools and other institutional buildings, and their outdoor areas. 

Indoor workers 

Low 

Users of main roads (e.g. trunk roads) or passengers in public transport on main 

arterial routes. 

Users of recreational facilities where the purpose of that recreation is not related 

to the view (e.g. sports facilities). 

10.2.84 The scale of change or magnitude of visual impact would relate to the extent of change upon 

visual amenity as a result of the proposed scheme. Visual impacts have been determined by: 

a) The change in view with respect to loss or addition of features in the view and changes 

in its composition including the proportion of view occupied by the proposed 

scheme. 

b) The degree of contrast and/or change in the landscape with the existing landscape 

elements and characteristics. 

c) The duration and nature of effect. 

d) The angle of view in relation to the main activity of the receptor. 

e) The distance of viewpoint from the proposed development. 

f) The dominance of the feature in the view. 

10.2.85 Definitions of magnitude of visual impact are defined in Table 10.9. 

10.2.86 The significance of visual effect is a measure of the severity of predicted effects from 

identified visual receptors. The significance of visual effect is determined through correlation 

of the sensitivity of the visual receptor (refer to Table 10.8) and the magnitude of impact (refer 

to Table 10.9) and This correlation and resulting significance of visual effect is illustrated in 

Table 10.10. 

10.2.87 Typical descriptors for the assessment of the significance of visual effects are described in 

the criteria shown in Table 10.11 





Table 10.9 

Magnitude 

Major 

Moderate 

Magnitude of Visual Impact and Typical Descriptors 

Criteria 

The project, or a part of it, would become the dominant feature or focal point of the view. 

The project, or a part of it, would form a noticeable feature or element of the view which is 

readily apparent to the receptor. 

Minor 

Negligible 

No change 

The project, or a part of it, would be perceptible but not alter the overall balance of features 

and elements that comprise the existing view. 

Only a very small part of the project would be discernable, or it is at such a distance that it 

would form a barely noticeable feature or element of the view. 

No part of the project, or work or activity associated with it is discernible. 

Table 10.10 

Significance of Visual Effects 

Magnitude of Impact 

No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

High Neutral Slight 

Slight/ 

moderate 

Moderate/ 

substantial 

Substantial/ 

very 

substantial 

Sensitivity 

Medium 

Neutral 

Neutral/ 

slight 

Slight 

Moderate 

Moderate/ 

substantial 

Low 

Neutral 

Neutral/ 

slight 

Neutral/ 

slight 

Slight 

Slight/ 

moderate 





Table 10.11 

Descriptors for Significance of Visual Effects 

Significance Category 

Very Substantial Adverse 

Substantial Adverse 


Slight Adverse 

Neutral 

Slight Beneficial 

Moderate Beneficial 

Substantial Beneficial 

Very Substantial Beneficial 

Typical Descriptors of Effect 

The project would cause the loss of views from a highly sensitive receptor, 

and would constitute a dominant discordant feature in the view. 

The project would cause major deterioration to a view from a highly 

sensitive receptor, and would constitute a major discordant element in the 

view. 

The project would cause obvious deterioration to a view from a moderately 

sensitive receptor, or perceptible damage to a view from a more sensitive 

receptor. 

The project would cause limited deterioration to a view from a receptor of 

medium sensitivity, or cause greater deterioration to a view from a receptor 

of low sensitivity. 

No perceptible change in the view. 

The project would cause limited improvement to a view from a receptor of 

medium sensitivity, or would cause greater improvement to a view from a 

receptor of low sensitivity. 

The project would cause obvious improvement to a view from a moderately 

sensitive receptor, or perceptible improvement to a view from a more 

sensitive receptor. 

The project would lead to a major improvement in a view from a highly 

sensitive receptor. 

The project would create an iconic new feature that would greatly enhance 

the view. 

Significance of effects on landscape and visual receptors 

10.2.88 Significance of effect is an indicator of how well a particular area can accommodate the 

change arising from the proposals. In general, the greater the sensitivity of a receptor or 

resource, and the greater the magnitude of impact, the higher the significant of the effect and 

the less the area can accommodate change. 

10.2.89 Significance categories have been determined from a combination of resource sensitivity and 

magnitude of impact, in accordance with Table 2.1 in Chapter 2. This shows the outcomes of 

these combinations and will be referred to as the significance of the predicted effects for the 

purposes of this assessment. 

10.2.90 The effect can either be beneficial or adverse. 


10.3.1 In order to set out a clear description and context of the landscape character and also the 

type of visual receptors, this section provides a detailed description of the existing features 

and elements of the study area that contribute to the landscape and visual baseline. 





Landscape designations 

10.3.2 There are a number of national and local policies and designations that are relevant to 

landscape and visual matters; these are shown on Figures 10.6 to 10.8. A summary of 

statutory and non-statutory designations relevant to landscape and visual matters is given in 

Table 10.12. 

Table 10.12 

Summary of designations relevant to landscape 

Designation 

Location / Details 

Cornwall AONB (See Figure 10.6): 

Area of Outstanding Natural beauty (AONB) 

An Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is a 

national designation for an area of countryside 

where protection is afforded to protect and manage 

the areas for visitors and local residents. 

Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) 

Defined by local authorities in development plans 

with a view to safeguarding areas of regional or 

local landscape importance from inappropriate 

development 

Relevant under the following saved policies: 

• 2 of the Cornwall Structure Plan (2004) 

• CL9 of Caradon Local Plan 1st Alteration 

(2007) 

• CC3 of Penwith Local Plan (2004) 

• 14 of Restormal Borough Council Local Plan 

(2001) 

The Cornwall AONB consists of 12 separate 

geographical areas. Having initially considered a 

35 km radius, those areas of the AONB that remain 

relevant in the assessment are limited to: 

• St Agnes (c. 10 km NW from the scheme) 

• South Coast Central (Mylor & the Roseland to 

Porthpean) (c. 6 km from the scheme) 

Key areas within 10 km of the scheme (See 

Figure 10.7 which illustrates areas to 5km): 

• St Clement AGLV - NE of Truro, c. 7 km from 

the scheme 

• St Gluvias N of Penryn, c. 4 km from the 

scheme 

• Carnmenellis AGLV (specifically at Carn 

marth) - S of Redruth and Camborne, c.8 km 

from the scheme 

• Portreath AGLV - NE of Portreath, c.10 km 

from the scheme 

Registered Common Land/ Access Land 

Land designated as Open Country and Registered 

Common Land under the Countryside and Rights of 

Way Act 2000 

Various (See Figures 10.7 and 10.8) 

National Trails 

Long distance routes for walking, cycling and horse 

riding through the finest landscapes in England and 

Wales. 

South West Coast Path 





Designation 

Location / Details 

There are a number of footpaths, bridleways and 

byways within the study area (See Figure 10.8) 

Public rights of way 

The assessment focuses on those within 2 km of 

the scheme but with some additional consideration 

of key locations up to 10 km 

Mineral Tramways (locally designated trail route 

based on existing rights of way), coast to coast 

section passes directly to the south west of the 

scheme 

Notes: 

The location and extent of designations relevant to landscape are illustrated on Figure 10.6 to 10.8 

Landscape character 

10.3.3 The following sections set out a summary description of published landscape character 

assessments. These have been reviewed to identify recognised guidance upon the physical, 

historical and cultural, land use and settlement within the area, and identify how the physical 

components of the landscape are perceived. This sets the context for how the introduction of 

a new feature would potentially affect the defined landscape character. This process also 

enables the identification of regional and local character variations and provides a context 

and interpretation of the perception of physical landscape components. 

National Context 

10.3.4 Landscape character at a national/regional level has been considered using Natural 

England’s National Characters Map (2005). The guidance provides an independent view of 

the defining characteristics of each separate landscape character area and contributes to the 

baseline position on landscape and visual amenity. 

10.3.5 The site at Wheal Jane falls within NCA 152 - Cornish Killas, and is adjacent to NCA 154 

Hensbarrow, to the north east, and NCA 155 Carnemellis, to the south west. The character 

descriptions of the NCAs highlight the influences that determine the character of the 

landscape, for example land cover, buildings and settlement. These character descriptions 

form the baseline for the assessment of landscape value. 

10.3.6 The site is located in the central south west section of NCA 152, Cornish Killas. The key 

characteristics of this area are summarised in Table 10.13 





Table 10.13 

Summary of regional character assessment; NCA 152 Cornish Killas 

Key Characteristics of NCA 152 - Cornish Killas 

Undulating slate plateau with little woodland and few hedgerow trees. 

Numerous broadleaved wooded valleys, varying greatly in size. 

Rugged coastal scenery. Exposed and windswept cliffs in the north with limited access to the sea, more 

sheltered and wooded in the south. 

Generally a dispersed settlement pattern of hamlets, farmsteads and small fishing villages. 

Variable field pattern dominated by stone-built Cornish hedges. 

10.3.7 Having defined the landscape features and overall landscape character of the area, the NCA 

then makes a number of recommendations that identify the pressures for change in the 

countryside and also opportunities for the future of the landscape character in this area. 

Those of relevance to the scheme and surrounding area are as follows: 

• Older rural buildings and fishing villages are on sheltered sites and built of local 

materials. Coastal development, fuelled by tourism, has produced sprawling 

settlements augmented by chalet and caravan sites, conspicuous in a largely treeless 

landscape; 

• Modern development tending to mask the traditional pattern and densities of the 

different types of settlement; 

• There are other tourism-related pressures including road improvements; 

• New industrial and commercial development on the town edges, such as at Camborne 

and Redruth can be intrusive; 

• Environmental pressure for wind farms remains high, particularly in the vicinity of the 

AONB; 

• Resources for non-essential agricultural management are often limited. As a result, for 

example, many Cornish hedges are in need of maintenance; and 

• Many of the more remote woodlands are unmanaged and orchards are being lost. 

10.3.8 Two other NCAs would potentially be influenced by the scheme, including Hensbarrow (NCA 

154) to the northeast and Carnemellis (NCA 155) to the south west. These form two small 

pockets of more exposed and open landscape. 

Summary 

10.3.9 Whilst the NCA descriptions provide a useful overview of the broad landscape character and 

an indication of existing pressures on the landscape at a regional scale, landscape character 

has been addressed in more detail by local level assessments. 

10.3.10 Overall the regional character guidance provides a useful and informative context to the 

landscape and visual baseline. It is not anticipated that the nature of the scheme would result 





in effects that would materially alter the character of the landscape character at the national 

scale or context. Furthermore it is considered that character assessment undertaken at a 

local level provides a more accurate, up to date and useful baseline for use in the 

assessment of impacts. Therefore the information on the NCAs is presented as background 

and is not carried through to the main assessment. 

Local landscape character 

Cornwall and Isle of Scilly Landscape Character Assessment (2007) 

10.3.11 In order to address character and potential landscape effects at a more detailed, local level 

the following section makes reference to published landscape character guidance for 

Cornwall, namely the Cornwall and Isle of Scilly Landscape Character Assessment (2007). 

10.3.12 The study identifies 40 Landscape Character Areas within Cornwall and 5 for the Isles of 

Scilly. The boundaries of the landscape character areas within the study area are illustrated 

on Figure 10.5. 

10.3.13 The study includes a detailed description of the character of each defined area and then 

identifies a number of issues and conclusions related to pressures on the landscape, the 

aesthetic and sensory attributes, distinctive features, a vision for the area and overall 

summary of planning and land management guidelines. 

10.3.14 The scheme is located in an area defined by the study as Redruth, Camborne and Gwennap 

(LCA CA11). The area includes Redruth and Camborne and extends east towards Truro (at 

Threemilestone) and towards Feock. 

Table 10.14 

Summary of LCA CA11 - Redruth, Camborne and Gwennap 

LCA CA11 - Redruth, Camborne and Gwennap 

Key characteristics 

- Rolling slate and siltstone landscape with small scale inland but more open on the north 

coast. 

- Post industrial mining landscape with many visible mining relics, including old engine 

houses and revegetating spoil heaps with remnant surviving or developing woodland, heath 

or wetland. 

- Extensive Lowland Heathland with bracken and scrub along coastal strip 

- Pastoral landscape of improved and rough grazing with extensive areas of rough land. 

- Strong field pattern enclosing small-medium scale fields and narrow lanes. 

- Trees, occurring in hedges, valleys, corner of fields and around farm buildings. 

- Valleys which are shallow and narrow, containing small streams. 

- A well populated landscape containing Cornwall's largest built-up area. 

- Many built structures giving the landscape a cluttered appearance. 

Pressure 





LCA CA11 - Redruth, Camborne and Gwennap 

- Development pressure within and on the edges of settlement both small scale, cumulative 

and large scale. 

- Reversion due to lack of management in marginal farming areas. 

- Conflicting land use on despoiled mining land. 

Aesthetic and sensory 

- This is a very special, atmospheric landscape containing pockets which have been left to 

nature after mining activity and which consequently retain a peacefulness and remoteness 

that is lost in other parts of the Landscape Character Area which are more built up. Only a 

glimpse of the landscape character of this area can be gained from the fast roads such as 

the A30, which pass occasional gaunt and dramatic engine houses. Though a confused 

landscape at first impressions, after exploration it reveals a wealth of local detail and much of 

interest. The wide extent of the former mining landscape is a reminder of the area's past 

importance internationally in the development of mining and engineering technology. 

Distinctive features 

- The most distinctive features are the remains of the mining industry including derelict 

engine houses, tips, mining tracks and Methodist chapels. These create a complex, small 

scale landscape. Carn Marth; Gwennap Pit and the railway viaducts are other impressive 

features. 

Visions and objectives 

- This is a very busy landscape with the extensive urban development in the west of the 

Landscape Character Area and the main communications corridor of the county. The eastern 

portion is more pastoral but everywhere there is the legacy of the mining industry making it 

the core of the World Heritage site. 

- The objective must be to conserve and enhance the historic mining heritage of the area 

whilst ensuring that development continues and is well integrated into the landscape. 

Planning and Land Management Guidelines 

- Create a comprehensive development plan for the whole of the urban area as well as the 

villages to accommodate expansion and ensure integration with the landscape. 

- Provide strong design guidelines for development differentiating between those adjacent to 

large urban areas and those adjacent to small settlements. 

- Conserve and manage the historic industrial landscape- particularly in the World Heritage 

sites. 

- Develop a strategy to encourage planting especially within the estates encouraging new 

woodlands as well as small copses and planting on hedgerows and field corners. 

- Integrate new development and existing farm buildings into the landscape with carefully 

designed planting including pine and sycamore. 

10.3.15 The ZTV has been used to identify other landscape character areas that would be potentially 

influenced by the scheme. The ZTV is illustrated on Figures 10.2 to 10.4b. There are a 

number of landscape character areas that are located adjacent to LCA CA11 Redruth, 

Camborne and Gwennap. These include: 





• LCA CA06 - Mounts Bay East; 

• LCA CA10 - Carmenellis; 

• LCA CA12 - St Agnes; 

• LCA CA13 - Fal Ria, Truro and Falmouth; 

• LCA CA14 - Newlyn Downs; 

• LCA CA15 - Newquay and Perranporth Coast; 

• LCA CA16 - Mid-Fal Plateau; 

• LCA CA17 - St Austell or Hensbarrow China Clay Area; 

• LCA CA28 - North Coast & Reskeage Downs; and 

• LCA CA40 - Gerrans, Veryan and Mevagissey Bays. 

10.3.16 Guidance on the perception of wind farms suggests that turbines are unlikely to be perceived 

as prominent features in the landscape from distances between 5 km and 15 km, except 

during clear visibility (refer to Table 10.3). This is due to a number of factors that includes the 

setting of the broader landscape and also the prominence and scale of other landscape 

features. 

10.3.17 In relation to landscape character, it is considered that the scheme would not introduce a 

feature that would influence a material change to landscape character beyond 10 km (this 

excludes the separate assessment of visual effects which does extend beyond this distance). 

Therefore, through consultation with the planning case officer and with the landscape 

architect at Cornwall County Council the scope of this section of this assessment has, in 

general, been limited to those character areas that are within 10 km of the scheme. 

10.3.18 It is important to consider that the boundaries of a defined character type or area are not 

absolute and there will be some degree of transition between adjacent areas. In order to 

account for this, the assessment makes reference to areas outside 10 km of the site that 

have been identified as potentially sensitive character areas or, conversely, where the 

character area is not extensively covered by the ZTV or has only a small proportion of its 

area within 10 km of the scheme. 

10.3.19 Table 10.15 provides a summary justification for inclusion and exclusion of local character 

areas from the scope of this assessment. The following justification should be read in 

conjunction with the ZTV figures.. 

Table 10.15 

Assessment 

Relevant scope of Cornwall & Isle of Scilly Landscape Character 

Landscape Character 

Area 

LCA CA06 - Mounts 

Bay East 

Scope of LVIA 

Excluded 

Justification 

Between 10 km and 20 km distance from turbine. Includes AONB but 

limited or no coverage of area by ZTV. 





Landscape Character 

Area 

LCA CA10 - 

Carmenellis 

LCA CA11 - Redruth, 

Camborne and 

Gwennap 

LCA CA12 - St Agnes 

LCA CA13 - Fal Ria, 

Truro and Falmouth 

LCA CA14 - Newlyn 

Downs 

LCA CA15 - Newquay 

and Perranporth Coast 

LCA CA16 - Mid-Fal 

Plateau 

LCA CA17 - St Austell 

or Hensbarrow China 

Clay Area 

LCA CA28 - North 

Coast & Reskeage 

Downs 

LCA CA40 - Gerrans, 

Veryan and 

Mevagissey Bays 

Scope of LVIA 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Excluded 

Included 

Excluded 

Excluded 

Included 

Justification 

Approximately half of this character area is within 10 km of turbine. 

Coverage of area by ZTV correlates to the area within 10 km. 

Includes high ground and vantage points. 

Turbine site located within this character area. Extensive coverage of 

area by ZTV. 

Turbine site located within this character area. Extensive coverage of 

area by ZTV. 

Majority of character area located outside of 10 km from turbine and 

unlikely to be strongly influenced to affect a material change in 

character. 

Majority of character area lies outside of 10 km from the turbine. The 

area within 10 km from the turbine has some coverage from the ZTV. 

Majority of character area located outside of 10 km from the turbine. 

Also, limited coverage of ZTV both within and outside of 10 km. 

Majority of character area within 10 km of turbine. Coverage of area 

by ZTV is variable and linked strongly to topography. Includes 

extensive areas of AONB. 

Majority of character area located in excess of 20 km from turbine. 

Some coverage of area by ZTV. 

Between 10 km and 20 km distance from turbine. Includes AONB but 

limited or no coverage of area by ZTV. 

Majority of character area lies outside of 10 km from the turbine. The 

area within 10 km from the turbine has some coverage from the ZTV 

but has sharply contrasting topography and strong vegetation 

structure which, when combined, are likely to screen views. Includes 

important coastline areas. 

10.3.20 Landscape character is a dynamic and transitional concept; the published local character 

assessment was competed in 2007 following desk study and field survey work undertaken 

between 2005 and 2007. Some conditions may have changed, although these are unlikely to 

be significant. 

Landscape sensitivity 

10.3.21 The sensitivity of landscapes is not an absolute criterion and must be established in relation 

to the specific development and context of the landscape. As part of the desk study and 

presentation of baseline information, the landscape character guidance has been analysed 

against the defined landscape sensitivity criteria (as discussed in section 10.2). 

10.3.22 Landscape sensitivity to wind energy development has been established by reference to the 

Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2011) prepared by LUC on behalf of Cornwall County 

Council. This assessment provides additional detail on teh descriptions of areas of AONB 





and AGLV. Extracts from the landscape assessment on these designated areas are included 

as Appendix 10.1. 

10.3.23 The Landscape sensitivity notes that the landscape character areas in Cornwall are relatively 

large and encompass a number of types of landscape within them. It goes on to state that: 

“They are also crossed by AONB boundaries which often do not relate to 

landscape character boundaries. As a result there are often areas of higher and 

lower sensitivity within them. The study has identified where there are 

significant variations on the level of sensitivity across a LCA and it is important 

to take note of the content of the individual LCA evaluations which include 

these details. Consideration of natural beauty in AONBs will be prime 

importance in AONBs.” (p 48, para 6.5) 

10.3.24 Table 10.16 summarises the findings of the Landscape Sensitivity Analysis (2011) for each of 

the relevant character areas. 

Table 10.16 

Summary of character sensitivity analysis 

Landscape Character Area Sensitivity Analysis Landscape Strategy 

LCA CA10 – Carmenellis 

(less than 2% in the Cornwall 

AONB) 

LCA CA11 - Redruth, Camborne 

and Gwennap 

(less than 2% in the Cornwall 

AONB) 

LCA CA12 - St Agnes 

(42% in the Cornwall AONB) 

Medium 

(Medium to high in the AONB) 

(the distinctive hill summit of 

Carn Brea would be particularly 

sensitive) 

Medium 

(Medium to high in the AONB) 

(the undeveloped coastal edge 

and its immediate hinterland 

would be particularly sensitive 

while the larger scale plateau to 

the north around the airfield 

would be less sensitive) 

Medium to high 

(the remote and open coastline, 

steep sided naturalistic valleys 

and prominent and distinctive 

beacon would be particularly 

sensitive) 

The landscape strategy is for a 

landscape with occasional single 

turbines or small clusters of turbines, 

comprising turbines up to the smaller 

end of the large size. 

Within the AONB development limited 

to occasional very small scale single 

turbines linked to existing buildings (eg 

farm buildings). 


landscape with occasional single or 

small clusters of turbines, comprising 

turbines up the medium scale (less in 

areas close to small scale historic 

features) and no development on the 

undeveloped coastal edge and its 

immediate hinterland. 


landscape without wind energy 

development (except for occasional 

very small scale single turbines linked 

to existing buildings eg farm buildings, 

or perhaps some small turbines 

associated with larger scale 

development on the edges of St 

Agnes; with no turbines along the 

landscape’s remote and open coastline 

or on the prominent and distinctive 

beacon. 





Landscape Character Area Sensitivity Analysis Landscape Strategy 

LCA CA13 - Fal Ria, Truro and 

Falmouth 


LCA CA14 - Newlyn Downs 

(under 1% in the Cornwall 

AONB) 

LCA CA16 - Mid-Fal Plateau 


LCA CA40 - Gerrans, Veryan 

and Mevagissey Bays 


Medium 

Medium-high within AONB 

(the landscape’s intimate 

wooded creeks, undeveloped 

estuary edges and undeveloped 

coastal edge and its immediate 

hinterland would be particularly 

sensitive) 

Low-medium 

(Medium-high within the 

AONB) 

(areas of lowland heathland and 

the coastal edge and its 

immediate hinterland would be 

particularly sensitive) 

Medium 

(Medium-high within the 

AONB) 

Medium 

Medium-high within the AONB 

(the coast and its immediate 

hinterland is particularly 

sensitive) 


landscape with occasional single 

turbines or small to medium sized 

clusters of turbines, comprising 

turbines that may be up to and 

including medium scale outside the 

AONB with no turbines in the intimate 

wooded creeks, along undeveloped 

estuary edges or on the undeveloped 

coastal edge and its immediate 

hinterland. 

Within the AONB a landscape without 

wind energy development (except for 

occasional very small scale single 

turbines linked to existing buildings eg 



landscape with wind energy 

development with small or medium 

clusters of turbines, comprising 

turbines up to the smaller end of the 

‘large’ category, as well as smaller 

single turbines associated with farm 

buildings and businesses. 







landscape with occasional small 

clusters of turbines, or single turbines, 

comprising turbines up to the lower 

end of the ‘large’ scale (turbine size 

and cluster size should relate to 

landscape scale which varies within 

the LCA). 







landscape with occasional small 

clusters of turbines, or single turbines, 

comprising turbines up to the lower 

end of the ‘large’ scale, and with no 

turbines along the coastal edge or its 

immediate hinterland. Elsewhere within 

the AONB development limited to 


turbines linked to existing buildings (eg 






Visual Baseline 

10.3.25 The ZTV is set out on Figures 10.2 to 10.4b. The ZTV illustrates the potential visibility of the 

proposed turbine over a 35 km radius. Analysis of the ZTV highlights the complex nature of 

topography in this area of Cornwall.. This reflects the complex, interlocking hills, valleys and 

steep sided cloughs and river estuaries. The ZTV is based on a bare earth model; add to this, 

the complexity of wooded cloughs, hedgerows, stands of trees, other vegetation along with 

built development and the visual envelope of the proposed turbine reduces further still. 

10.3.26 The ZTV demonstrates that there would be potential views of the proposed turbine from 

sensitive landscapes (AONB and AGLV) however these are often long distance. The ZTV 

also demonstrates how the high ground to the west of the site (and to the south of Redruth 

and Camborne) restricts the spread of the visual envelope to the west and south. 

10.3.27 Key views selected for inclusion in the assessment are set out in Table 10.1, earlier in this 

assessment; further detail on supplementary views is presented in a series of tables in 

Appendix 10.2. 

10.3.28 Establishing the specific nature of these potential views helps to define and understand the 

context of the site in the surrounding area. It also identifies the context and setting of key 

representative viewpoints and helps to define the distance, angle of view, and potential 

seasonal constraints associated with specific visual receptors. The identification of key 

sensitive receptors and links to representative viewpoints is then carried forward to the 

assessment process. 

10.3.29 Every effort has been made to visit representative sensitive receptors and viewpoints within 

the detailed study area. In addition, photomontages from sensitive representative and specific 

locations have been included. 


10.4.1 Due to the inherent size and nature of wind turbines, the type and degree of mitigation that 

might normally be applied to a scheme is limited. 

10.4.2 Many of the relevant factors that would lead to developing the least disruptive wind energy 

scheme and also to a scheme that has minimal residual environmental effects have been 

considered at the outset of the project, for example the siting of the turbine to ensure it is in a 

location with sufficient wind to make a viable contribution to energy production. 

10.4.3 In terms of the Wheal Jane turbine and potential landscape and visual effects, a number of 

design themes have been developed from the outset of the project and incorporated as 

integral factors in the proposals. Measures employed as part of the scheme include: 

• use of best practice in terms of colour and finish selection, minimising visual intrusion; 

• Considerate selection of construction materials and methods for ancillary features; 

• For access improvements, retention of existing vegetation (including hedgerows / 

hedgebanks (including reinstatement of any vegetation lost to temporary works); and 





• Siting of turbines in positions that do not conflict with the natural topography of the 

wider area. 

10.5 Predicted significant effects of the scheme 

10.5.1 Table 10.17 sets out the potential effects of a typical wind energy development, during its 

predicted life cycle, that were considered to potentially give rise to significant effects. 


10.5.2 For the purpose of this assessment construction effects are not considered in detail as these 

would be completed within a short time span and, as a result, any effects will be temporary 

and transient. 

10.5.3 The nature of the construction works at the footprint of the turbine or in relation to ancillary 

works would be set within the context of the existing former mining site and the wider setting 

of an agricultural landscape. Here disturbance of land is common place within the dynamics 

of the seasonal work. Furthermore the Wheal Jane site area is located in a relatively discreet 

pocket of land that is well screened from the surrounding landscape by the changes in 

topography. There are very few views into the low level area where short term construction 

works would be present. Taller elements would include equipment required to erect the 

turbine however this would be short term and transient; effects would not be significant. 


10.5.4 This section addresses the nature and significance of effects during the operational period of 

the scheme. Effects on landscape character and visual effects are discussed separately. 

Effects on landscape character 

10.5.5 This section considers the potential effects on landscape character at a local level. 

10.5.6 The review of baseline conditions and subsequent analysis of sensitivity of local landscape 

character areas to wind energy development has shown that the scheme would potentially 

influence the character of seven defined character areas (Table 10.16). 

10.5.7 The methodology (see section 10.2) sets out the criteria for determining magnitude of impact 

to the landscape character, these are summarised as follows: 

• The spatial extent of the area subject to introduction or removal or alteration of 

landscape elements; 

• The nature of the change and degree of compatibility with the existing landscape; and 

• The duration of the effect. 

10.5.8 Based on these criteria Table 10.18 sets out the assessment of landscape character effects. 





Table 10.17 

Aspect of the 

development 

Summary of potential for likely significant effects 

Potential change 

Operational phase 

Turbines operational 

Land use change to 

turbine site 

Operational use of access 

roads 

Control kiosk 

Physical attributes: introduction of new large scale structures 

Perceptual aspects: long term adverse effect upon visual amenity and 

naturalness 

Physical attributes/elements: very small loss of elements and no change to 

existing pattern, scale not affected, immediate surrounding land use remains 

Perceptual aspects: effects on naturalness and local views 

Physical attributes/elements: no loss of elements and existing pattern, scale 

not affected. 

Perceptual aspects: potentially very small effect on naturalness 

Physical attributes/elements: very small loss of elements and no change to 

existing pattern, scale not affected, introduction of new incongruous feature 

only locally noticeable and in keeping with existing agricultural buildings 

Perceptual aspects: small effect on naturalness and visual amenity. 

Table 10.18 

Assessment of landscape character effects 

Landscape 

Character 

Area 

Sensitivity 

Analysis 

Analysis 

Magnitude of 

Impact 

Significance 

of effect 

LCA CA10 - 

Carmenellis 

Medium 

(Medium to 

high in the 

AONB) 

Some detracting features located within the area but 

otherwise a highly prominent area with limited 

enclosure and high degree of inter-visibility with the 

wider area. 

A proportion of character area is covered by the ZTV 

however there is substantial variation in landform that 

cuts out many of the complex interlocking valleys. 

Minor 

(Negligible in 

AONB) 

Slight 

Adverse 

(Not 

significant in 

AONB) 

The proposed turbine is located in this character 

area. 

LCA CA11 - 

Redruth, 

Camborne 

and 

Gwennap 

Medium 

(Medium to 

high in the 

AONB) 

Semi-enclosed landscape through landform and 

vegetation cover, heavily influenced by historic and 

recent development; limited inter-visibility within the 

character area and very little to adjacent character 

areas. 

Moderate 

(Negligible in 

AONB) 

Moderate 

Adverse 

(Slight in 

AONB) 

Substantial coverage of the area by the ZTV. 





Landscape 

Character 

Area 

Sensitivity 

Analysis 

Analysis 

Magnitude of 

Impact 

Significance 

of effect 

LCA CA12 - 

St Agnes 

Medium to 

high 

Discreet area with long distance views available to 

adjacent character areas. Landscape contains few 

notable vertical features and the cliffs and plateau 

reinforce a ‘horizontal’ undulating character. There is 

existing pressure on the landscape (including 

tranquillity) from other types of development. 

Negligible 

Slight 

Adverse 

Negligible coverage of the area by the ZTV. 

Complex, interlocking landform truncates some views 

within and out of the area; woodland character also 

affects views. 

Slight 

LCA CA13 - 

Fal Ria, 

Truro and 

Falmouth 

Medium 

Medium-high 

within AONB 

Many detracting feature including major settlements. 

Vertical elements such as wind farms and pylons are 

noted in the area; these provide a context for vertical 

elements but also exist as detracting features. 

Coverage of the area by the ZTV correlates to the 

contrast between elevated hillsides and ridges 

against the complex of interlocking valleys. 

Minor 

Adverse 

Slight/ 

Moderate 

Adverse in 

AONB 

LCA CA14 - 

Newlyn 

Downs 

Low-medium 

(Mediumhigh 

within 

the AONB) 

Inland area, forming a raised and often prominent 

spine along the county. Often open with high degree 

of inter-visibility to surrounding areas, although this is 

changeable due to localised variation in topography. 

Existing wind energy development provides a context 

and contributes to the capacity for new development; 

balanced against this is the identified lack of ‘clutter’ 

which should be maintained. 

Negligible coverage of this character area by the 

ZTV. The duration of effects would be reversible but 

long term 

Negligible 

Neutral/ 

Slight 

Adverse 

Slight 

Adverse in 

AONB 

LCA CA16 - 

Mid-Fal 

Plateau 

Medium 

(Mediumhigh 

within 

the AONB) 

Undulating landscape with variable topography and 

inter-visibility with surrounding areas. Relatively 

elevated position is offset by combined effect of tree 

cover and overall south facing aspect. Limited 

capacity for wind energy development as context of 

vertical features is weak however variable topography 

provides diversity in landform. 

ZTV corresponds to the high ground of the character 

area therefore a larger proportion of the character a 

as a whole. 

Minor 

Slight 

Adverse 

Slight/ 

Moderate 

Adverse in 

AONB 

LCA CA40 - 

Gerrans, 

Veryan and 

Mevagissey 

Bays 

Medium 

Medium-high 

within the 

AONB 

Large character area with extensive area of coastline 

as focus. Elevated position and relatively unspoilt 

area. Some potential for inter-visibility across 

adjacent plateau areas to the higher downs, 

otherwise a proportion of the character area 

comprises incised valleys, limiting views from the 

area. 

Limited spatial coverage by the ZTV of this character 

area. 

Negligible 

Neutral/ 

Slight 

Adverse 

Slight 

Adverse in 

AONB 





10.5.9 The duration of landscape effects would be reversible but long term. Using the criteria set out 

in the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2011) the Wheal Jane turbine is defined as a ‘large 

turbine’ with a cluster size defined as ‘single turbine’. 

10.5.10 In general (and particularly closer to the turbine in LCA 11 Redruth, Camborne and 

Gwennap) the turbine would be a new and prominent landscape feature. However it would 

exist alongside other prominent vertical landscape features such as nearby communications 

masts, electricity transmission towers and even historic chimney stacks, all of which are seen 

at different scales and contexts depending on location and proximity and can exist as isolated 

or grouped features. The landscape strategy is for a landscape with occasional single 

turbines (LCA 11). The effect on landscape character in LCA 11 overall would be moderate 

adverse. The AONB designation in this landscape character area applies to two very small 

areas, but the distance and topography mean that the magnitude of impact would be 

negligible, giving a slight significance of effect on these AONB areas. 

10.5.11 Overall the effect on landscape character in the defined character areas of LCA 13 Fal Ria, 

Truro and Falmouth and CA 16 Mid-Fal Plateau is considered to be slight adverse 

significance. Where AONB designation applies in the character area the significance of 

effect is slightly higher due to the higher level of sensitivity. The strategy for these areas is for 

a landscape with occasional single turbines (LCA 13) and occasional small clusters of 

turbines, or single turbines, comprising turbines up to the lower end of the ‘large’ scale (LCA 

16). 

10.5.12 Although these character areas are not the closest to the scheme, they have a combination 

of higher, elevated ground and less detracting features which is part of their inherent 

characteristics. As the character areas are defined by topography and include areas of 

plateau and higher ground, there is an inevitable increase in the proportion of the character 

area affected by the ZTV, overall increasing the magnitude of effect. 

10.5.13 As the scheme is limited to a single turbine it would be seen as a single landmark feature 

within the landscape. Furthermore, the landscape itself sets a scale and context for the 

turbine with wide panoramas and a semi open landscape that comprises a complex, 

interlocking mosaic of high ground and valleys; woodland blocks and more open fields and 

heaths. In this context, despite its scale, the turbine would not dominate the surrounding 

landscape character. 

Visual effects 

10.5.14 The following section identifies the visual effects that will potentially be generated by the 

scheme. A series of viewpoints and photomontages have been used to provide an overall 

illustration of the assessment process, and these are presented in Figures 10.12 to 10.44, 

with Supplementary Views in Appendix 10.2. 

10.5.15 Tables 10.19 to 10.21 set out the key visual receptors in the area. The assessment of visual 

effects focuses on receptors within a 10 km radius of the scheme and extends beyond this 

distance for more sensitive receptors and for cumulative effects (covered in later sections) as 

agreed in principle with Cornwall Council. 





10.5.16 Identification (and exclusion) of visual receptors using the ZTV has been supplemented by 

additional desk study information and field survey work. In order to undertake a 

comprehensive yet concise assessment, some visual receptors have been grouped by area 

and by type. These include: 

• Rights of way within 2 km (extending beyond 2 km for specific receptors) (Figure 10.8); 

• Settlement and dwellings within 2 km (Figure 10.9); 

• General settlements up to 10 km (extending beyond 10 km for specific receptors); and 

• Designated areas up to 30 km. 

10.5.17 Tables 10.19 to 10.21 are based on the above grouping and set out the assessment of 

significance of potential visual effects, based on the criteria set out in the methodology and 

summarised as follows: 

• Scale of change in relation to the addition of features; 

• Change to the composition, including proportion of the view occupied; 

• Degree of compatibility (e.g. Form, scale, mass, line, height, colour and texture); 

• Duration (temporary or permanent, intermittent or continuous); 

• Angle of view in relation to the main activity/location of receptor; 

• Number of people; and 

• Distance of the viewpoint from the scheme. 

Rights of way within 2 km 

10.5.18 Rights of way have been addressed in small receptor groups, defined broadly by their 

similarity in terms of geographic location and also relationship to the ZTV. The findings are 

set out in Table 10.20. 

10.5.19 It should be noted that there are no National Trails within 2 km of the scheme however the 

Mineral Tramway runs to the west of the Wheal Jane site. 





Table 10.19 

Rights of way within 2 km (extending beyond 2 km for specific receptors) 

Assessment 

Receptor 

Sensitivity 

Analysis 

Magnitude of 

impact 

Significance 

of effect 

Twelveheads/ 

Chacewater/ 

Goon Compass 

valleys 

Ranging from 1.2– 

2 km from 

receptor 

High 

Small network of rights of way located in 

base of valley (includes section of Mineral 

Tramway); areas show no visibility on 

ZTV; possible changes in view crossing 

slopes to high ground; area well 

vegetated which would further screen 

potential views (particularly of ‘blade tip 

only’ views); generally views directed 

along valleys which are not oriented 

towards the scheme. 

No change 

Neutral 

Twelveheads/ 

Bissoe/ Carnon 

Downs valley 

(Ref. 

Photomontage 16) 


2.8 km from 

receptor 

High 

Potential views of hub, seen beyond 

ridgeline of eastern valley side; vegetation 

would provide additional screening 

reducing potential views to the blade tip; 

users attention likely to be focused along 

the valley therefore available views would 

be at acute angles. 

Minor 

Slight adverse 

Kerley Downs and 

Cusveorth 

Coombe plateau 

(Ref. 

Photomontage 13 

and 

supplementary 

View I) 


1.9 km from 

receptor 

High 

Network of rights of way linking villages 

and properties in this area; orientation of 

routes varies greatly; field boundaries and 

other vegetation would reduce available 

views; where open and uninterrupted 

views are available these would be of the 

turbine blades, hub and potentially the 

upper sections of the tower (lower 

sections screened by landform and 

vegetation). 

Moderate 

Moderate/sub 

stantial 

adverse 

Tomperrow to 

Newbridge Valley 

1.9 km from 

receptor 

High 

Simple network of rights of way located in 

base of valley; areas show no visibility on 

ZTV; area well vegetated which would 

further screen potential views (particularly 

of ‘blade tip only’ views). 

No change 

Neutral 

Baldhu and Wheal 

Baddon high 

ground (Ref. 


and 

Supplementary 

View K) 


1 km from 

receptor 

High 

Network of rights of way linking villages 

and properties in this area; orientation of 

routes varies greatly; field boundaries and 

other vegetation would reduce available 

views; where open and uninterrupted 

views are available these would be of the 

turbine blades, hub and potentially the 

upper sections of the tower (lower 

sections screened by landform and 

vegetation). 

Major 

Substantial 

adverse 





Bissoe to Sunny 

Corner Valley 


2.5 km from 

receptor 

High 

Simple network of rights of way located in 

base of valley; areas show no visibility on 

ZTV; area well vegetated which would 

further screen potential views (particularly 

of ‘blade tip only’ views). 

No change 

Neutral 

Wheal Clifford/ 

United Downs 

heritage hillsides 

(Ref. 


and 

Supplementary 

View H) 


2.6 km from 

receptor 

High 

Network of rights of way crossing high 

ground and hillsides; vegetation more 

open in this location with often clear views 

to the east (and towards the turbine); 

likely views of turbine tower, hub and 

blades 

Major 

Substantial 

adverse 

Coldwind Cross 

and Hicks Mill 

hillsides 

1.6 km from 

receptor 

High 

Network of rights of way crossing high 

ground and hillsides; vegetation more 

open in this location with often clear views 

to the east (and towards the turbine); 

likely views of turbine tower, hub and 

blades 

Major 

Substantial 

adverse 

Settlements and properties within 2 km 

10.5.20 There are numerous minor settlements and dwellings within 2 km of the site and these are 

present in a 360 degree area around Wheal Jane with no one bearing being less populated. 

This is partially due to the predominantly agricultural land use and associated farmsteads and 

properties that are scattered throughout the area. 

10.5.21 Given the land use and distribution of properties there is an extensive network of minor roads 

and these cross a highly variable topography; individual hills with wide ranging views, 

intermediate plateaus with broad rolling tops and a complex of shallow and steep valleys. 

Combined with this is a highly variable vegetation structure, with tall characteristic hedgerows 

bordering roads; field boundaries also comprise hedgerows, varying in condition, but 

generally tall and dense. Properties are often surrounded by small copses of trees and high 

hedgerows that add to the sense of a discreet, intimate and relatively small scale landscape. 

10.5.22 Given the complexity of this type of receptor and the proximity of each to the scheme (i.e. 

within 2 km) the significance of effect has been addressed generically and is summarised as 

follows: 

• Properties not covered by the ZTV - the ZTV is likely to be accurate for these receptors 

with no views available; magnitude of effects would be no change and significance of 

effect would be neutral; 

• Properties within the ZTV blade tip only - the ZTV is likely to have overestimated the 

extent of visibility; when vegetation cover and built form is included the blade tip is 

likely to easily be screened, reducing overall visibility; movement of the turbine is likely 





to attract attention however and from such close distances the turbine would be more 

evident; magnitude of effect would range from negligible to moderate and significance 

of effect would therefore range from slight adverse to moderate adverse; and 

• Properties within the ZTV hub height - the ZTV for hub height will pick up the borderline 

receptors for blade tip; where views are available the turbine would form a significant 

feature from this distance; vegetation and aspect of property would create some 

variation in availability of view; overall, where the turbine is visible the magnitude of 

effects would range from Moderate to Major and the significance of effect would range 

from moderate/substantial adverse to substantial adverse. 

Table 10.20 

Settlements up to 10 km (extending beyond 10 km for specific receptors) 

Receptor Sensitivity Analysis 

Magnitude 

of impact 

Significance 

of effect 

Truro and 


(Ref. 


and 

Supplementary 

Viewpoints J 

and M) 

Ranging from 

2.2–5 km from 

receptor 

High 

Limited to western edges of settlements only 

as built form and topography will screen 

further. Vegetation structure tends to screen 

views from road corridors and some 

settlement edges; settlement edge is 

relatively well defined by a vegetated 

boundary (particularly along the A390). Views 

most likely from upper storeys. 

Turbine viewed as single element above 

interim ridgeline; trees and woodland blocks 

provide some vertical context. Potentially a 

feature but from this distance scale would be 

comparable to other elements in view. 

Minor 

Slight/ 

Moderate 

Adverse 

St Just in 

Roseland (Ref. 

Supplementary 

Viewpoint N) 

2.3 km from 

receptor 

High 

Distant receptor; views highly transient from 

roads with roadside vegetation forming a 

strong screen. Views most likely from western 

edge of settlement where other built form 

does not form a screen, however there is 

some screening vegetation along this edge. In 

general settlement located on west facing 

slope with views directed north west to the 

scheme. 

Vegetation in the intermediate landscape 

(notably the complex network of tree belts 

north west of Feock and Penpol will hold 

some screening value. 

Negligible 

Slight 

Adverse 

Falmouth and 

Penryn (Ref. 

Supplementary 

Viewpoint F) 

Ranging from 

7.9–9.4 km from 

receptor 

High 

Although some areas are included in the ZTV, 

in reality the built form of the urban area form 

an effective screen. Beyond the north west 

edges of the urban areas the high ground and 

woodland blocks/tree belts in the vicinity of 

Ponsanooth and Perranarworthal will form a 

partial screen to remaining views and only 

limited views of the blade tip are likely to be 

available. 

No change 

Neutral 

Ponsanooth 

4.8 km from 

receptor 

High 

Located on higher ground and included by 

coverage of the ZTV, potential views of hub 

and blade tip seen above wooded skyline. 

Moderate 

Moderate/ 

Substantial 

Adverse 






Magnitude 

of impact 

Significance 

of effect 

Lanner 

6 km from 

receptor 

High 

The settlement itself is not likely to be subject 

to significant effects due to the landform and 

vegetation cover between the settlement and 

the scheme, however the hillside to the west 

of Lanner, leading up to Buller Downs would 

have greater effects. Where turbine is visible 

it would be seen above the wooded horizon 

created by the block of vegetation to the south 

west of Carrharrack. 

Minor 

Slight 

Adverse 

Redruth and 

Camborne (Ref. 

Supplementary 

Viewpoint D) 

Ranging from 

6.5–12 km from 

receptor 

High 

Redruth and Camborne are excluded from the 

coverage of the ZTV 

No change 

Neutral 

Poldice/ 

Crofthandy 

Ref. 

Photomontage 

4) 

3.5 km from 

receptor 

High 

The majority of Crofthandy is situated on a 

localised high point. Views of the scheme are 

likely to only be available from the eastern 

extents of the settlement (due to screening by 

other urban built form) however as the 

settlement extends west, u slope, there may 

be views above other properties. Vegetation 

cover is strong around the southern edge of 

the settlement (close to the church) but in 

others there is less tree cover. Views of the 

scheme are likely to see the upper most 

sections of the turbine with the main tower 

screened by landform and vegetation. 

Negligible 

Slight 

Adverse 

Chacewater 

2.6 km from 

receptor 

High 

Chacewater is located in a valley and is 

excluded from the coverage of the ZTV. 

No change 

Neutral 

Carharrack 

3.5 km from 

receptor 

High 

Carharrack is located on the lower slopes that 

rise in a westerly direction to form Carn Marth. 

As a result the ZTV shows a change in turbine 

visibility from nil at the eastern edge of the 

settlement, through the blade tip and then 

potentially the hub also. Overall it is likely that 

only the western edge of the settlement would 

experience views (due to screening from 

buildings) however on the higher ground, at 

settlement edge on the east the built form 

thins and may allow additional views. 

Moderate 

Moderate/ 

Substantial 

Adverse 

Mount Hawke 

7.4 km from 

receptor 

High 

This is a small nucleated settlement 

approximately mid way between the A30 and 

the northern coast. The ZTV shows some 

visibility from the countryside south of the 

settlement but the settlement itself is excluded 

from the coverage of the ZTV. 

No change 

Neutral 






Magnitude 

of impact 

Significance 

of effect 

St Agnes (Ref. 


and 

Supplementary 

Viewpoint B) 

9.7 km from 

receptor 

High 

The settlement of St Agnes is excluded from 

the coverage of the ZTV. Visual effects 

related to the AONB are covered elsewhere in 

this report and these address the small area 

of the ZTV that includes the high ground at St 

Agnes Beacon 

No change 

Neutral 

Blackwater/ 

Three Burrows 

5.1 km from 

receptor 

High 

Both are covered by the ZTV showing visibility 

of hub height. These settlements are well 

screened by surrounding vegetation, 

particularly Blackwater due to the roadside 

screening vegetation of the A30. Immediately 

south (south east) of the A30 the field pattern 

and vegetation structure comprises thicker 

linear belts of trees and small blocks of 

woodland which also contribute to the 

screening value from this area. 

Negligible 

Slight 

Adverse 

Carnon Downs 

3.1 km from 

receptor 

High 

Settlement located on interim high ground 

with some more open views to the north west. 

Vegetation structure and larger belts of 

woodland tend to be located through the 

incised valley structures and offer less 

screening on the hills and ridges. Views of the 

scheme would be limited to the north western 

edge of the settlement. Views are likely to be 

hub and blade tip however there may be 

some views available to the tower due to the 

aspect and landform between the receptor 

and scheme. 

Moderate 

Moderate/ 

Substantial 

Adverse 

Perranwell and 

Perranworthal 

(Ref. 

Photomontage 

2) 

3.2 km from 

receptor 

High 

The settlements are located to the south of an 

interim high point that would screen direct 

views of the site. The majority of the 

settlement is excluded from the coverage of 

the ZTV. Where views are available this is 

would be a relatively channelled vista and 

available due to the alignment of inter-locking 

hillsides. In this case vegetation cover is likely 

to easily disrupt these views. Where views are 

available they are likely to be limited to the 

turbine hub and blade tip. 

Minor 

Slight 

Adverse 

Myler Bridge 

7 km from 

receptor 

High 

This settlement is located to the west of the 

Carrick Roads (Fal Estuary). The settlement 

is situated on the steep side slope of the 

valley, south facing towards the tributary 

watercourse that enters the estuary. The 

settlement is excluded from the coverage of 

the ZTV. 

No change 

Neutral 





Table 10.21 

Designated areas up to 30 km 


AONB (coastal) 

at Portreath 

AGLV at 

Porthtowan 


at St Agnes 

(Ref. 


and 

Supplementary 

Viewpoint B) 

AGLV NE of 

Truro 

AONB (inland) 

around St 

Michael 

(Ref. 

Supplementary 

Viewpoint P) 


at Gorran Haven 


at St Mawes 

(Ref. 

Supplementary 

Viewpoint N) 

AONB (coastal 

and inland) 

covering the 

Lizard peninsula 

AGLV S of 

Redruth 

(Ref. 

Supplementary 

Viewpoint D and 

E) 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

Small area of designation affected by blade 

tip ZTV; with vegetation cover and distance 

the turbine is not likely to be visible to the 

casual observer or be seen as a major 

feature. 





feature. 

More elevated positions available to the south 

east of St Agnes with open and panoramic 

view across the landscape; small area of 

designation affected by blade tip ZTV the 

turbine is not likely to be visible to the casual 

observer or be seen as a major feature. 

Medium distance views from high ground; 

views often open across a more complicated 

landscape; exiting features are in frequent 

and turbine would create a new prominent 

feature; strong structure of vegetation cover 

in form of woodland blocks and tall 

hedgerows. 

Medium distance views from high ground; 

views often open across a more complicated 

landscape; complex topography (and valley 

formations) eliminates visibility from many 

locations; exiting features are in frequent and 

turbine would create a new prominent 

feature; strong structure of vegetation cover 

in form of woodland blocks and tall 

hedgerows. 





feature. 





feature. 

Far distance views; views often open across 

a more complicated landscape; complex 

topography (valley formations) and strong 

vegetation structure, along with high ground 

and urban areas located between the scheme 

and the designation reduces visibility from 

many locations. 

Far distance views from high ground; views 

often open across a more complicated 

landscape; complex topography (valley 

formations) and strong vegetation structure in 

valleys with open views from hills, along with 

high ground and urban areas located 

between the scheme and the designation 

reduces visibility from many locations; 

existing detracting features but also heritage 

assets present. 

Magnitude 

of impact 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Moderate 

Moderate 

No change 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Minor 

Significance 

of effect 

Slight 

adverse 

Slight 

adverse 

Slight 

adverse 

Moderate 

adverse 

Moderate 

adverse 

Neutral 

Slight 

adverse 

Slight 

adverse 

Slight 

adverse 






10.5.23 Long term effects upon the character of the area would be generated by the installed wind 

turbine. It should be noted that the proposal for the erection of the turbines includes a finite 

life span (of 25 years). Following this period it is proposed to decommission and remove the 

wind turbine. Therefore the effects upon the landscape character are judged to be reversible. 

10.5.24 Following the decommissioning of the turbine residual effects would be generated by the 

effect of changes in the land management of the site. This would include minor and very 

short term effects generated by reinstatement proposals undertaken as part of the scheme. 

10.5.25 Upon completion of the decommissioning and restoration process residual effects on the 

setting and character would be minimal (with some beneficial effects from ornithology and 

ecological mitigation) and are not considered significant. 


10.6.1 Due to the inherent size and nature of wind turbines, the type and degree of mitigation that 

could be applied to such developments is limited. 

10.6.2 As stated above, many of the relevant factors that would lead to developing the least 

disruptive wind farm scheme and also to a scheme that has minimal residual environmental 

effects have been considered at the outset of the project, for example the siting of the turbine 

to ensure it is in a location with sufficient wind to make a viable contribution to energy 

production. 

10.6.3 In terms of the Wheal Jane turbine and potential landscape and visual effects, a number of 

design themes have been developed from the outset of the project and incorporated as 

integral factors in the proposals. Measures employed as part of the scheme include: 

• Siting of turbines away from the higher ground within the site area; 

• Siting of turbines in positions that do not conflict with the natural topography of the 

wider area, including minimising visual intrusion into the skyline; 

• Use of best practice in terms of colour and finish selection, minimising visual intrusion; 

and 

• Considerate selection of construction materials and methods for ancillary features. 

10.6.4 Additional mitigation measures will include: 

• Limiting the removal of vegetation and any landscape features (such as stone walls or 

hedgebanks) (predominantly relating to access for turbine construction); 

• A programme of reinstatement and enhancements for any such areas that cannot be 

retained, including hard landscape features such as walls, hedgerow and/or tree 

planting and re-seeding of verges with suitable wildflower mixes; 





• Construction operations will be restricted to minimise damage to the quality of the soils 

of the site; 

• Topsoil and subsoil removed during the construction of the scheme will be stored 

separately and used to reinstate the site after completion of construction in accordance 

with best practice to enable agricultural use of the site; and 

• A range of measures related to ecological and ornithological effects including the 

provision of a wader scrape to provide alternative roosting habitat for overwintering 

birds and the creation of a linked network of thick hedgerows, scrub and woodland belt 

around the edges of the wider Wheal Jane site to encourage bats to forage in 

alternative locations. 


10.7.1 The following table provides a summary of the impact assessment and shows the overall 

significance of residual effect. 

10.7.2 Table 10.22 provides a summary of the landscape and visual effects considered significant in 

the context of the EIA. 

10.7.3 In relation to the key significant landscape and visual effects mitigation measures for this type 

of development are relatively limited. Those that are appropriate have been included as an 

integral part of the scheme during the early feasibility stages as well as the ongoing design. 

10.7.4 Following the decommissioning of the turbine, residual effects would be generated by the 

effects of changes in the land management of the site. These would include minor and very 

short term effects generated by reinstatement proposals undertaken as part of the scheme. 

10.7.5 Upon completion of the decommissioning and restoration process, residual effects on the 

setting and character of the area would be minimal and are not considered significant. 

10.7.6 Overall, the mitigation and enhancement measures noted above in Section 10.6 will have 

benefits for landscape elements within the site but they will not alter the predicted 

significance of the effects of the scheme which would remain as noted in Section 10.5. 





10.7.7 The following table provides a summary of the impact assessment and shows the overall significance of residual effect. 

Table 10.22 


Receptor 

Landscape 

(physical) 

Visual receptors 

Landscape 

Character Areas 

LCA CA10 - 

Carmenellis 

LCA CA11 - 

Redruth, Camborne 

and Gwennap 

LCA CA12 - St 

Agnes 

LCA CA13 - Fal 

Ria, Truro and 

Falmouth 

LCA CA14 - Newlyn 

Downs 

LCA CA16 - Mid-Fal 

Plateau 

Effect 

Physical changes 

on site and 

access route 

Changes in the 

available views 

and perception of 

the landscape 

Landscape 

character 

Landscape 

character 

Landscape 

character 

Landscape 

character 

Landscape 

character 

Landscape 

character 

Development 

Phase 

Construction, 

decommission 

Construction, 

decommission 

Operation 

Operation 

Operation 

Operation 

Operation 

Operation 

Sensitivity/ 

importanc 

e of 

receptor 

Ranging from 

low to high 

Ranging from 

low to high 

Medium, 

medium to 

high in 

AONB 

Medium, 

medium to 

high in 

AONB 

Medium to 

High 

Medium, 

medium to 

high in 

AONB 

Low to 

medium, 

medium to 

high in 

AONB 

Medium, 

medium to 

high in 

AONB 

Magnitude 

change 

Generally minor 

Ranging from 

No change to 

Major 

Minor, negligible 

in AONB 

Moderate, 

negligible in 

AONB 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 


Ranging from 

Neutral to 

Substantial 

Adverse 

Slight, slight in 

AONB 

Moderate, slight in 

AONB 

Mitigation 

Environmental 

management 

and 

reinstatement 

Generic and 

integrated into 

scheme 

design 

_ 

_ 

Enhanceme 

nt 

N/a 

N/a 

_ 

_ 

Significance 


Neutral to slight 

adverse 

Ranging from 

Neutral to 

Substantial 

Adverse 

Slight, slight in 

AONB 

Moderate, slight in 

AONB 

Negligible Slight _ _ Slight 

Minor 

Negligible 

Minor 

Slight, 

slight/moderate in 

AONB 

Neutral/slight, 

slight in AONB 

Slight, 


AONB 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

Slight, 


AONB 



Slight, 


AONB 


Direct, short and long 

term, temporary, 

negative 

Direct/in-direct, long 

term, temporary, 

negative 

Direct/Indirect//Long 

term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 





Receptor 

LCA CA40 - 

Gerrans, Veryan 

and Mevagissey 

Bays 

Visual effects - 

Rights of way 

within 2 km 

(extending beyond 

2 km for specific 

receptors) 

Twelveheads/ 

Chacewater/ Goon 

Compass valleys 

Twelveheads/ 

Bissoe/ Carnon 

Downs valley 

Kerley Downs and 

Cusveorth Coombe 

plateau 

Tomperrow to 

Newbridge Valley 

Baldhu and Wheal 

Baddon high 

ground 

Bissoe to Sunny 

Corner Valley 

Wheal Clifford/ 

United Downs 

heritage hillsides 

Coldwind Cross and 

Hicks Mill hillsides 

Settlements up to 

10 km (extending 

beyond 10 km for 

specific receptors) 

Truro and 


Effect 

Landscape 

character 

Development 

Phase 

Operation 

Sensitivity/ 

importanc 

e of 

receptor 

Medium, 

medium to 

high in 

AONB 

Magnitude 

change 

Negligible 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 



Mitigation 

_ 

Enhanceme 

nt 

_ 

Significance 




Visual Operation High No change Neutral _ _ Neutral 

Visual Operation High Minor Slight _ _ Slight 

Visual Operation High Moderate 

Moderate/substanti 

al 

_ 

_ 

Moderate/substant 

ial 


Visual Operation High Major Substantial _ _ Substantial/ 


Visual Operation High Major Substantial _ _ Substantial 

Visual Operation High Major Substantial _ _ Substantial 

Visual Operation High Minor Slight/ Moderate _ _ Slight/ Moderate 

St Just in Roseland Visual Operation High Negligible Slight _ _ Slight 

Falmouth and 

Penryn 




term/Negative 

Direct/Indirect/Long 

term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

importanc 

e of 

receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Ponsanooth Visual Operation High Moderate 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Moderate/ 

Substantial 

Mitigation 

_ 

Enhanceme 

nt 

_ 

Significance 


Moderate/ 

Substantial 

Lanner Visual Operation High Minor Slight _ _ Slight 

Redruth and 

Camborne 


Poldice/ Crofthandy Visual Operation High Negligible Slight _ _ Slight 

Chacewater Visual Operation High No change Neutral _ _ Neutral 

Carharrack Visual Operation High Moderate 

Moderate/ 

Substantial 

_ 

_ 

Moderate/ 

Substantial 

Mount Hawke Visual Operation High No change Neutral _ _ Neutral 

St Agnes Visual Operation High No change Neutral _ _ Neutral 

Blackwater/ Three 

Burrows 

Visual Operation High Negligible Slight _ _ Slight 

Carnon Downs Visual Operation High Moderate 

Perranwell and 

Perranworthal 

Moderate/ 

Substantial 

_ 

_ 

Moderate/ 

Substantial 

Visual Operation High Minor Slight _ _ Slight 

Myler Bridge Visual Operation High No change Neutral _ _ Neutral 

Designated areas 

up to 30 km 

AONB (coastal) at 

Portreath 

AGLV at 

Porthtowan 


St Agnes 




AGLV NE of Truro Visual Operation High Moderate Moderate _ _ Moderate 

AONB (inland) 

around St Michael 


Gorran Haven 


St Mawes 

Visual Operation High Moderate Moderate _ _ Moderate 





term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 


term/Negative 





Receptor 

AONB (coastal and 

inland) covering the 

Lizard peninsula 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

importanc 

e of 

receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhanceme 

nt 

Significance 



AGLV S of Redruth Visual Operation High Minor Slight _ _ Slight 



term/Negative 


term/Negative 






10.8.1 The Wheal Jane site as a whole is intended to be developed as a sustainable business park 

that includes several aspects of sustainable technology. This would convert the former tin 

mine into a restored and developed site, set within a landscaped park. The various aspects of 

the Masterplan are set out in the following sections. 

10.8.2 The Masterplan currently includes two potential schemes for generation of hydroelectric 

power. A small scheme would be located in amongst the existing treatment plant at the mine 

head and would be of similar size to one of the pumps and industrial electric motors currently 

in use there. A larger scheme would be located near the bottom of the dam at the ‘polishing 

pond’. The plant will be installed within an existing, small and largely disused pump building 

next to the pond. 

10.8.3 The Masterplan includes proposals for a ground-source heat pump (GSHP). The system 

would comprise three basic elements including a buried ground loop (using existing mine 

shafts), a heat pump and a distribution system (within buildings such as under-floor heating 

or radiant panels). 

10.8.4 The Masterplan includes a proposal for a biomass energy plant. Typical dimensions for the 

proposed facility are similar to that of standard, small scale, industrial style buildings (approx. 

20×35 m with a building height of 8 m and a chimney stack at 12 m). 

10.8.5 The Masterplan includes proposals to create a flagship sustainable business park. The 

buildings would be developed in an energy efficient and sustainable manner. The likely scale 

of development for the business park is proposed to be in the region of 6000 square metres 

of new business space landscaped in a campus manner with dedicated car parking adjacent. 

The proposals include a new frontage for the existing site entrance building (the Wardell 

Armstrong International building). 

Assessment 

10.8.6 Should the above proposals be implemented at the Wheal Jane site, this would effectively 

facilitate the restoration of the former tin mine and convert it to an active and populated site. 

There would be a significant number of new receptors introduced to the site as a new place 

of work or with a vested interest in visiting the sustainable technology on the site. 

10.8.7 These visual receptors are likely to be of low sensitivity to the effects of the turbine. Views of 

the turbine would be clear and the full scale of the turbine in its immediate setting would be 

appreciable. However, given the context of the proposed turbine as a key component of the 

sustainable business park their perception of the turbine is likely to be positive rather than 

negative. Furthermore, in the process of development of the site, it is likely that the turbine 

would be implemented before other aspects of the Masterplan and therefore the turbine 

would be present to future receptors as an existing feature in the landscape. 






Cumulative wind energy development 

10.9.1 Cumulative effects of wind farms are considered where the presence of other wind farms in a 

given area in combination with the proposed Wheal Jane turbine may have an effect on the 

perception of the landscapes character or on views gained by sensitive receptors. 

10.9.2 As with the assessment of landscape effects, cumulative landscape effects can either be 

directly on the physical fabric of the landscape, or indirectly on the character of the 

landscape. 

10.9.3 Cumulative effects on visual amenity can be experienced either from static viewpoints, where 

two or more developments can be seen from a single location. This can either be combined 

visibility where the developments are visible in a single 75º arc of view or successively where 

the observer needs to turn to experience a wider arc of view; or sequentially, where in the 

process of moving along a route, two or more proposals are visible. 

10.9.4 A comprehensive search was undertaken to identify other wind farms, operational, under 

construction, consented or proposed through various means of consultation. In order to 

maintain a concise assessment that could focus on addressing significant effects it has been 

agreed with the LPA that only wind energy proposals within 30 km of the Wheal Jane scheme 

will be considered as part of this cumulative assessment. 

10.9.5 The relevant operational or consented Windfarms are listed in Table 10.23. In summary there 

are 12 schemes at 10 sites of other existing or proposed wind farms within a 30 km radius of 

the Wheal Jane proposal at the time of this assessment. 

10.9.6 Cumulative ZTVs have been prepared for each site as well as an over view of all sites. These 

are illustrated on Figures 10.45 to 10.55. 

Table 10.23 

Sites considered for cumulative effects 

Site 

Number of 


Height to 

Tip of 


(m) 

Status 

Approximate 

distance to proposed 

Wheal Jane Turbine 

( km) 


Trevissome Park 1 25 Operational 5 

WWF Roskrow Barton 2 75 Operational 8 

Carland Cross 15 47 Operational 14 

Carland Cross 

(Repowering) 

10 100 Consented 14 

Carnebone Farm 1 25 Operational 14 

Treculliacks Farm 1 25 Operational 13 





Site 

Number of 


Height to 

Tip of 


(m) 

Status 

Approximate 

distance to proposed 


( km) 

Goonhilly Downs 14 47 Operational 22 

Goonhilly Downs 

(Repowering) 


Tregeague Farm 1 19.28 Consented 22 

An-hay 1 15 Consented 22 

Bears Down 16 57 Operational 28 

10.9.7 In relation to cumulative effects The Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2011) states that: 

Overview 

“Although most landscapes will be able to accommodate some renewable 

energy development of some scale, most landscapes would become 

progressively more sensitive to development of a large number of turbines or 

solar PV developments. It is not possible to provide a generic limit on numbers 

or distances between turbines or solar developments and each proposal would 

need to consider cumulative impacts on a case by case basis. However, in 

relation to wind energy development, in some larger scale landscapes a smaller 

number of medium or large scale turbines may be more appropriate than 

developing a larger number of small turbines.” 

10.9.8 The overview ZTV (Figure 10.45) provides a broad level indication of the likely cumulative 

effect of the Wheal Jane scheme against other operational and consented wind farms in the 

study area. The figure shows the broad trends of cumulative effects and that they tend to be 

restricted to between 1 and 5 wind farms (shown by the green shading) rather than the higher 

numbers of wind farm from 6 to 10 (as shown by the limited colour range of amber to red). 

10.9.9 The overview ZTV is also useful as it shows how the character of the landscape influences 

the potential impacts of all the majority of wind farms in the area and not just the Wheal Jane 

scheme. There are significant areas, particularly between St Mawes and Malpas (i.e. 

character area Fal Ria, Truro and Falmouth) where the ZTV shows no visibility of any wind 

farms and this highlights the influence of topography on restricting visibility of wind farms from 

certain locations in the study area. As with the individual ZTVs for Wheal Jane it is important 

to note that these cumulative ZTVs do not take in to account the screening value of 

hedgerows, trees and woodlands which would substantially reduce the overall visibility of 

turbines, potentially expanding the areas with no ZTV coverage and strengthening the 

correlation between the highly complex landform and potential for landscape and visual 

effects. 

10.9.10 In landscape terms the character of the area is not likely to be perceived as a wind farm 

landscape. This is due to the comparatively low numbers of wind farms that would be visible 

together from a ‘combined’ perspective. However there may be an increased perception of 

wind energy and its influence over the character from a sequential perspective as receptors 





travelling through the landscape are exposed more consistently to wind farm development 

but to a low number of turbines/sites. 

10.9.11 Many of the operational wind farms are not constructed with the largest available technology 

for turbines. Wheal Jane will essentially be one of the first turbines to be present as a major 

landscape feature in the area; the fact that many of the operational wind farms are below 50 

m (with only Bears Down at 57 m and WWF Roskrow Barton at 75 m) is a significant factor 

that explains why only low numbers of wind farms are cumulatively visible (i.e. increasing 

visibility closer to the identified cumulative sites). This suggests that the relatively smaller 

turbines of other wind farms are present and visible over numerous, smaller but adjacent 

areas and the ZTV of the larger proposed turbine at Wheal Jane then overlaps with these. 

Should more proposals come forward for larger turbine heights be put forward then wind 

energy could become a dominant influence in the landscape. 

10.9.12 Finally on the overview plan, the area worst affected by high numbers of visible wind farms 

cumulatively) is a parcel of land to the east of Wheal Jane (and Truro); this high ground 

around St Michal Penkeville and St Mawes is part of the AONB. The proposals that are 

contributing to the cumulative impacts in this area appear to be generally equidistant and 

include Wheal Jane, WWF Roskrow Barton, Trevissome Park, Four Burrows and Carland 

Cross. The distance between these sites and the area worst affected by the cumulative ZTV 

is generally between 5 km and 10 km. At a broad level the magnitude of cumulative impact 

on this sensitive landscape (and associated visual receptors) are likely to range between 

negligible and moderate but overall this would largely be restricted to combined cumulative 

impacts and not sequential. The variety offered by the varied valleys and hills (rias and 

plateaus created by the complex network of coastal estuaries and inlets) would break up the 

effect and reduce the magnitude of impact. 

Four Burrows 

10.9.13 Four Burrows is an operational wind farm comprising 15 turbines at a height of 45.5 m. 

Comparatively these are moderate sized turbines but there are a large number of them and 

they are situated in a prominent location on the higher ground that runs centrally within the 

peninsular through the upland areas of the Newland Downs and Redruth, Camborne and 

Gwennap character areas (refer to supplementary viewpoints A, B, D, P and R). 

10.9.14 Figure 10.46 shows there is considerable overlap between the ZTV for the scheme and the 

operational Four Burrow site suggesting a substantial cumulative effect in terms of ZTV 

coverage however it is likely that these views would be screened by vegetation cover not 

accounted for (particularly with the smaller turbine size of 45 m). 

10.9.15 Notable areas not affected by the cumulative ZTV includes the area between the scheme, 

Four Burrows and the coast (including the coastal area of AONB). There is also the area 

close to the scheme where Four Burrows does not contribute to cumulative effects 

(particularly west, south and east) and it is this location where the effects of Wheal Jane are 

likely to be of highest significance; cumulative effects of Four Burrows would not compound 

these. 





Trevissome Park 

10.9.16 Trevissome is an operational wind farm comprising a single 25 m high turbine 

10.9.17 Figure 10.47 shows there is limited overlap between the Trevissome ZTV and the ZTV for the 

scheme; the overlap is largely limited to area close to the Trevissome Park site and to the 

north east of the Wheal Jane site. 

10.9.18 Although there is some overlap of the ZTV (and therefore potential cumulative effects in the 

high ground of the AONB), in reality the turbine is only 25 m in height and mature trees and 

vegetation would largely screen this site, reducing the overall ZTV to a much smaller area 

and significant cumulative effects would not occur 

WWF Roskrow Barton 

10.9.19 WWF Roskrow Barton is an operational wind farm comprising two 75 m turbines. These 

relatively large scale turbines are located on a prominent ridgeline to the north west of 

Falmouth. Given their prominent location in the landscape and use of two of the taller 

turbines these form a landscape feature that is recognisable from many coastal and inland 

locations (refer to supplementary viewpoints F, J, K, M and N) however vegetation cover in 

the area does contribute to screening these from certain areas and locations. 

10.9.20 Figure 10.48 shows there is a substantial amount of overlap with the ZTV of the scheme and 

the ZTV for WWF Roskrow Barton. There would largely be combined cumulative effects from 

specific locations on high ground. Sequential cumulative effects would not be significant as 

the turbines would not be visible as receptors pass through the ria valleys. 

Carland Cross 

10.9.21 Carland Cross is an operational wind farm comprising fifteen 47m tall turbines, repowered 

with ten, 100 m turbines. 

10.9.22 Figure 10.49 shows that, as with the WWF Roskrow Barton scheme, there are substantial 

areas of overlap between the Carland Cross ZTV and the ZTV for the scheme. Generally 

these cumulative overlap is between 5 km and 10 km radius from the Wheal Jane site 

(meaning significance of cumulative effects would be reduced due to distance) however there 

are also areas to the north of the Wheal Jane site within 2 km and 5km (refer to 

supplementary viewpoints A, B, P and R). In the locations the Carland Cross scheme would 

compound the identified significant effects of the scheme. However cumulative effects are 

likely to be limited to combined effects and due to the distances between the sites the 

Carland Cross scheme, although visible, would not contribute substantially to a material 

cumulative effect., 

10.9.23 These cumulative effects would include areas of the AONB to the south west and east of the 

scheme. The area of AGLV to the north east of Truro would also be affected. 

10.9.24 There is some considerable distance between the two sites and this suggests that where 

both can be seen one of the wind farms is not likely to be a significant feature, reducing 

significance of combined effects. However sequentially they would contribute to a perception 

of wind farm development in the area. This reduces the impacts on valued areas as receptors 





are more likely to be using recreational routes and footpaths, sequential effects would be 

most significant when travelling along arterial routes and covering the distance between the 

two sites more quickly, these receptors would be less sensitive. 

Carnebone Farm and Treculliacks Farm 

10.9.25 Carnebone Farm and Treculliacks Farm are two separate operational wind farms, each 

comprising a single 25 m turbine. 

10.9.26 As each of the schemes is limited to a single 25 m tall turbine, mature trees and vegetation 

would largely screen this site, reducing the overall ZTV to a much smaller area; the turbines 

would not forma a significant or notable feature in the wider landscape. 

10.9.27 Figures 10.50 and 10.51 show that there is some overlap of the Carnebone Farm ZTV with 

the ZTV for the scheme and this includes some limited areas of the AONB. However there 

would be limited significant impacts and these would only occur in very close proximity to the 

Carnebone Farm scheme. Overall cumulative effects would not be significant. 

10.9.28 There is a greater overlap between the ZTV for the scheme and the ZTV for Treculliacks 

Farm and this highlights how a slight change in location can alter the position in relation to 

surrounding landform, allowing more distant views around or over other areas of intermediate 

or high ground. Although there is a high percentage of overlap in such a complex landscape 

a single turbine at this height is not likely to result in significant cumulative effects; 


10.9.29 Goonhilly Downs is an operational wind farm comprising fourteen 47 m tall turbines, 

repowered with six 107 m turbines. 

10.9.30 Figure 10.52 shows that there is some limited overlap shown on the cumulative ZTVs for 

these sites, particularly around a 5km radius from the Wheal Jane scheme. The cumulative 

effects are more likely to be sequential rather than combined. The most significant area of 

overlap is located between 8 km and 12 km and includes an area of AONB to the east 

10.9.31 There is a substantial distance between the two sites and Goonhilly Downs wind farm is not 

likely form a significant landscape feature when seen in combination with Wheal Jane. There 

would however be sequential effects for receptors/travellers along arterial roads, however the 

significance of this would be reduced due to the journey through the complex landscape 

(landform and vegetation, coastal and inland views) and the perception of the wind farm sites 

is lost when travelling down the Lizard peninsula; 

Tregeague Farm and An-hay 

10.9.32 Tregeague Farm is a consented wind farm comprising a single 19.28 m tall turbine. Nearby is 

the An-Hay site which is a consented wind farm comprising a single 15 m turbine. 

10.9.33 Figures 10.53 and 10.54 shows that the cumulative ZTVs for each of these sites show some 

degree of overlap with the Wheal Jane ZTV however, given the small scale of these turbines 

existing vegetation is likely to form an effective screen to the majority of views and this would 

considerably reduce the significance of cumulative effects with these sites. 





Bears Down 

10.9.34 Bears Down is an operational wind farm comprising sixteen 57 m tall turbines. 

10.9.35 Figure 10.55 shows that the cumulative ZTV for the Bears Down scheme shows only a 

limited area of overlap with the Wheal Jane ZTV however the overlaps tend to occur in 

specific areas where either sensitivity is high (areas of AGLV to the north east and areas of 

AONB to the east of Wheal Jane) or magnitude of impacts from the Wheal Jane is highest 

(for example to the north of the Wheal Jane site, within 5km). 

10.9.36 Overall even with the limited coverage of the cumulative ZTV, this would result in cumulative 

effects. Despite the overlap and recognised sensitivity/impacts these cumulative effects are 

not likely to be significant as Bears Down is located some 30 km to the north east, on the 

very edge of the radius. At this distance combined effects would not be significant as the 

Bears Down turbines would not be a prominent feature in any views where the Wheal Jane 

turbine is; the most significant effects would be sequentially for receptors passing through the 

area on main arterial routes. 

Summary 

10.9.37 Ten additional wind farms have been assessed for cumulative landscape and visual effects 

with the Wheal Jane scheme. Of these two are consented and 8 operational. The height of 

turbines for these other sites varies greatly and includes four sites with turbines of 25 m or 

less. 

10.9.38 Overall the operational and consented schemes are highly variable in their size (number of 

turbines) and scale (height of turbines) with only the Wheal Jane scheme proposing the 

largest turbine of each. The cumulative ZTV’ are useful tools in understanding the broad 

relationships between the sites (and the relationship between wind farms and landform) 

however they do not consider the effect of vegetation cover. The vegetation cover in the area 

would significantly reduce the scale and overlap of the ZTVs. 

10.9.39 In relation to the Wheal Jane site, the cumulative wind farm sites are dispersed relatively 

evenly through the landscape. This has the effect of maintaining a degree of separation and 

between sites and reducing the potential for combined cumulative effects. W Where 

combined effects do occur, the scale of one site compared to the other (i.e. size of turbines 

seen in one view) is likely to vary so that the combined cumulative effects would not be 

significant. 

10.9.40 The most significant cumulative effects would be sequential. Bears Down, Carland Cross, 

Four Burrows and WWF Roskrow Barton likely to have largest cumulative effects as they 

effectively form a spine of wind energy development down the wider peninsular. In landscape 

terms this is not an issue as they would largely only be perceived from arterial transport 

routes and often in connection with the urban areas and associated detracting features (for 

example Four Burrows located on the approach to Redruth). Wheal Jane would contribute to 

these sequential effects as it is relatively remotely located and sense of sequence for 

travellers through the varied landscape would be lost in the complex landform and vegetation. 






A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment (Technical Appendix 1 - Landscape and Visual 

Impact Assessment); 2005 (2nd Edition); Prepared by David Tyldesley and Associates on behalf of 

SNH. 

Cumulative Effect of Windfarms, Guidance, Scottish Natural Heritage (April 2005). 

DEFRA 2009. Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites. 

DEFRA 2009. Safeguarding our Soils. A Strategy for England. 

Guidelines on the Environmental Effects of Windfarms and Small Scale Hydroelectric schemes, 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2000). 

Institute of Environmental Management & the Landscape Institute 2002. The Guidelines for Landscape 

and Visual Impact Assessment; 2nd Edition; Spon. 

Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England & Scotland; 2002; prepared by LUC on 

behalf of the Countryside Agency and SNH. 

PAN 45: Renewable Energy Technologies, Scottish Executive (revised 2002). 

PPS 22: Renewable Energy. DCLG 2004. 

Siting and Designing Windfarms in the landscape, Scottish Natural Heritage (December 2009). 

Visual analysis of wind farms: good practice guidance. Consultation draft. Scottish Natural Heritage. 

(July 2005). 

Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guide (February 2007) Scottish Natural Heritage. 

Visualisation Standards for Wind Energy Developments, the Highland Council (January 2010). 





11 Noise 


11.1.1 This Chapter presents an assessment of the noise and vibration effect of the development on 

nearby noise sensitive receptors (NSRs). The assessment considers noise and vibration 

effects during construction, operation and decommissioning. 

11.1.2 As with all construction sites the construction activities will be a source of noise and vibration. 

Notwithstanding that construction activities are temporary in nature, in some circumstances 

such noise and vibration can cause disturbance or inconvenience to persons living in the 

locality. There are a number of noise sensitive receptors around the application site that need 

to be protected from noise and vibration associated with the construction activities. It is 

therefore necessary at the outset to show that the noise and vibration attributable to the 

construction activities for the proposed wind turbine, and received at these receptors, will be 

managed such that it will not exceed acceptable limits, and that persons living or working in 

the vicinity of the construction, and those working on the site are adequately protected from 

noise and vibration. 

11.1.3 We have assumed typical traffic movements based on experience of previous wind 

development construction activities. The actual programme will be dependent on factors such 

as weather and ground conditions. Contractors, once appointed, will also require some 

flexibility to optimise their own programmes. For the purposes of this assessment the 

programme has been divided into two stages. The first of these stages covers the 

construction of the access track. The second stage, which employs different machinery with 

different noise characteristics, covers the installation of the turbine itself and ancillary 

equipment. 

11.1.4 Several measures are adopted in the methodology to provide a margin of confidence 

between predicted received levels and actual lower levels that will arise in practice. This 

margin will accommodate refinements in the construction programme. Among these 

measures various construction activities that take place consecutively are assumed to be 

concurrent and some significant sources of excess attenuation are ignored. 

11.1.5 Operating wind developments may emit two types of noise. Aerodynamic noise is a ‘broad 

band’ noise 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. Traditional sources of mechanical noise include gearboxes and 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 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 development. The 


Noise 



primary objective of this noise assessment is therefore to establish the relationship between 

wind turbine noise and the naturally occurring masking noise at residential dwellings lying 

around the Proposed Development and to assess these levels of noise against accepted 

standards. 

11.1.6 Wind turbine operational noise is assessed, as a function of wind speed, against existing 

background noise levels at the same wind speed, with fixed lower limits that only affect the 

lowest wind speeds. The operational noise assessment has been carried out in accordance 

with the recommendations of ETSU–R–97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind 

Farms, (the methodology recommended in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 22, Renewable 

Energy and Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22 to assess noise 

from wind turbines). 

11.1.7 Background noise monitoring was undertaken at three locations between 2 nd September and 

30 th September 2010. Noise levels have been predicted for the operational development, 

based on the proposed turbine location and sound power levels for a candidate turbine taken 

from a representative manufacturer’s report. 

11.1.8 There is no evidence of vibration due to the operation of wind turbines being perceptible 

beyond their immediate vicinity. 


Legislation, policy and guidance 

11.2.1 The impact of construction noise has been assessed in accordance with BS 5228 Part 1: 

2009 Code of Practice for Basic Information and Procedures for Noise and Vibration Control. 

11.2.2 An overview of key guidance with respect to noise are outlined below, with more details of 

legislation, policy and guidance specifically for operational noise (ETSU–R–97) set out in 

Paragraphs 11.2.14. 

11.2.3 Noise propagation has been modelled in accordance with International Standard ISO 9613– 

2: 1996 Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound Propagation Outdoors – Part 2: General Method of 

Calculation . this should follow on with some wording similar to below 

11.2.4 ETSU–R–97 makes it clear that any noise restrictions placed on a wind development must 

balance the environmental impact of the wind 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.’ 

11.2.5 The recommendations contained in ETSU–R–97 provide a robust basis for assessing the 

noise implications of a wind tubine. ETSU–R–97 has become the accepted standard for such 

developments within the UK. This was reiterated most recently in Parliament by the Secretary 


Noise 



of State for Energy and Climate Change, in written response to a query on the subject who 

stated that: 

‘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.’ 

11.2.6 Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise (1994) provides advice on how the 

planning system can be used to reduce the adverse impact of noise without placing 

unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative 

burdens of business. PPG 24 does not provide any specific advice as to how to deal with 

noise from wind developments. 

11.2.7 PPS 22, and its companion guide Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to 

PPS 22 recommends the framework set out in the report The Assessment and Rating of 

Noise from Wind Farms (ETSU–R–97) for the measurement of wind turbine noise. It gives 

indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to those living 

near to wind turbines, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind energy development. 

It also states that well-specified and well-designed wind developments should be located so 

that increases in ambient noise levels around noise sensitive receptors are kept to 

acceptable levels in relation to existing background noise. This will normally be achieved 

through good design of the turbines and through allowing sufficient distance between the 

turbines and any existing noise-sensitive development so that noise from the turbines will not 

normally be significant. Noise levels from turbines are generally low, and under most 

operating conditions it is likely that turbine noise would be completely masked by windgenerated 

background noise. 

11.2.8 The effect of operational noise has been assessed in accordance with ETSU–R–97, taking 

cognisance of the most recent best-practice guidelines of Bowdler et al (2009). 

Consultation 

11.2.9 Consultations were carried out as outlined in Table 11.1. 

Table 11.1 

Summary of consultations 

Consultee 

Cornwall Council 

Environmental 

Health Officer 

Response 

Email from Eric Donnelly, SgurrEnergy to M. Hitchens, CDC, 03 June 2010 09:00, 

confirming earlier telephone conversation. It was agreed that the following should 

be used: 

• ETSU criteria; 

• ISO 9613–2 noise propagation model; 

• wind shear to be treated in accordance with Acoustics Bulletin (Bowdler et al 

(2009) 

The number and location of receptors was also agreed. 


Noise 



Construction noise 

11.2.10 Sound power levels of noise sources associated with the construction activities are taken 

from BS 5228. Noise is dominated first by the construction of the access track and 

subsequently by the turbine foundation excavation and piling. The aggregate level of quasistatic 

noise from the machinery involved in the access track construction, taking account of 

duty time, is 115 dB(A). The aggregate level of static noise from the machinery involved in 

the foundation construction, taking account of duty time, is 115 dB(A). 

11.2.11 Noise attributable to temporary construction activities can be greater than operational noise. 

Because of this, more distant possible sensitive receptors, additional to those agreed for 

assessment of operational noise, are sometimes included in construction noise impact 

assessments. In this case, the operational noise impact assessment considered four 

receptors, including the ones closest to both the turbine and the access road. They are 


11.2.12 There are no legal limits on the noise received at nearby noise sensitive receptors, only a 

variety of sources of guidance. Thus it is necessary to agree criteria with local authorities. 

The limiting criteria for construction noise, shown in Table 11.2 , have been taken from 

BS 5228 (2009). Any predicted excesses over these limits will be considered to have 

significant effect. 

11.2.13 The criteria against which the construction noise is to be assessed are absolute rather than 

being based on existing background noise conditions. This is in accordance with the 

recognised guidelines for construction noise and reflects the temporary nature of the 

construction activity. 

Table 11.2 

Construction Noise Level Limits at Noise Sensitive Receptors 

Period Hours L Aeq (Work Period) 

0700–1900 65 

Monday to Friday 

1900–2300 55 

2300–0700 45 

0700–1300 65 

Saturday 

1300–2300 55 

2300–0700 45 

Sunday 

0700–2300 55 

2300–0700 45 

Unattended Plant* 45 

Note: It is unlikely that any plant will be run unattended outside of working hours; however, in the 

event that, for example, drainage pumps, or a generator to supply security lighting were required, it 

would be prudent to impose a limit on the permissible noise. 


Noise 



Operational noise 

11.2.14 The assessment of operational noise impacts was undertaken following the ETSU Guidance. 

This recommends a methodology for measuring prevailing background noise at a wind 

development site and for defining operational noise thresholds which can be used to identify 

significant adverse effects. Details of the ETSU Guidance are set out below. 

11.2.15 The current practice on controlling wind turbine noise imposes noise limits at the nearest 

noise-sensitive properties. Noise limits should be applied to external locations and should 

apply only to those areas frequently used for relaxation or activities for which a quiet 

environment is highly desirable. 

11.2.16 Noise limits set relative to the background noise are more appropriate than fixed limits in the 

majority of cases. Generally, the noise limits should be set relative to the existing background 

noise at the nearest noise-sensitive properties and the limits should reflect the variation in 

both turbine source noise and background noise with wind speed. 

11.2.17 Separate noise limits should apply for day-time and for night-time as during the night the 

protection of external amenity becomes less important and the emphasis should be on 

preventing sleep disturbance. Absolute noise limits and margins above background should 

relate to the cumulative effect of all wind turbines in the area contributing to the noise 

received at the properties in question. 

11.2.18 Noise from the wind development should be limited to 5 dB(A) above background for both 

day- and night time, remembering that the background level of each period may be different. 

11.2.19 The L A90,10min descriptor should be used for both the background noise and the wind 

development noise, and when setting limits it should be borne in mind that the L A90,10min of the 

wind development is likely to be about 1.5–2.5 dB(A) less than the L Aeq measured over the 

same period. The use of the L A90,10min descriptor for wind development noise allows reliable 

measurements to be made without corruption from relatively loud, transitory noise events 

from other sources. 

11.2.20 A fixed limit of 43 dB(A) is recommended for night-time. This is based on a sleep disturbance 

criterion of 35 dB(A) with an allowance of 10 dB(A) for attenuation through an open window 

(free field to internal) and 2 dB(A) subtracted to account for the use of L A90,10min rather than 

L Aeq,10min . 

11.2.21 Both day- and night-time lower fixed limits can be increased to 45 dB(A) to increase the 

permissible margin above background where the occupier of the property has some financial 

interest in the wind development. 

11.2.22 In low noise environments the day-time level of the L A90,10min of the wind development noise 

should be limited to an absolute level within the range of 35–40 dB(A). The actual value 

chosen within this range should depend upon: the number of dwellings in the neighbourhood 

of the wind development, the effect of noise limits on the number of kWh generated, and the 

duration of the level of exposure. 

11.2.23 For single turbines or wind developments with very large separation distances between the 

turbines and the nearest properties, a simplified noise condition may be suitable. If the noise 


Noise 



is limited to a L A90,10min of 35 dB(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. 

11.2.24 In this case, the operational noise impact assessment considered four receptors, covering a 

range of directions from the indicative wind turbine location. The receptors for which the 

operational noise impact has been assessed are listed in Table 11.3. 

Table 11.3 

Noise sensitive receptors 

Receptor Easting Northing Distance from Turbine Location (m) 

A: Riverside Cottage 177025 42786 393 

B: Woodville Farm 177357 42792 390 

C: Lilac Cottage 176735 42145 548 

D: Hill View 176868 42304 357 

Operational noise assessment criteria 

11.2.25 The operational noise criteria, above which noise levels would be considered a significant 

effect, are derived as set out in ETSU–R–97. They have been consistently applied by 

planning authorities to wind energy developments since 1997 and have a high level of 

general acceptance. In assessing impact the day is divided into quiet daytime hours and night 

time hours. 

• Night time: (2300–0700) limit 43 dB(A) L90 (10 minutes) when measured in free field 

conditions outside dwellings or up to 5 dB above background, whichever is the greater; 

and 

• Quiet daytime: (All evenings 1800–2300, Saturdays 1300–1800, Sundays 0700–1800) 

but in rating terms covering all daytime. When background levels do not exceed 

30 dB(A), L90 (10 minutes) absolute level limit of between 35 dB(A) and 40 dB(A) L90 

(10 minutes) the precise level depending on location factors or up to 5 dB above 

background level, whichever is the greater. 

11.2.26 These criteria include an allowance for that character of Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) 

noise generally described as ‘blade swish’. 

Wind turbine emission data 

11.2.27 A-weighted octave band noise levels for a candidate turbine have been used to predict the 

noise levels at sensitive receptors. The sound power level of the candidate machine is 

representative for a 1.5 MW machine. The noise emission curve of the turbine is understood 

to be based on theoretical modelling, rather than a warranted level that the manufacturer is 

prepared to contract not to exceed. These values are tabulated in Table 11.4 and Table 11.5. 


Noise 



Table 11.4 

Candidate turbine sound power level against wind speed, dB(A) 

Wind speed (m/s) 3 4 5 6 7 ≥8 

SWL (dB(A)) 96.0 96.0 99.1 103.0 104.0 104.0 

Table 11.5 

Candidate turbine sound power level in octave bands, dB(A) 

Octave band (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

SWL (dB(A)) 85.1 94.0 97.2 98.6 97.9 94.5 87.3 78.1 

Wind Turbine operational noise propagation model 

11.2.28 The sound propagation over distance, including the effect of atmospheric absorption, was 

calculated using the WindPRO model based on ISO 9613–2. The assumptions used were as 

follows: 

• ground absorption (the attenuation of sound due absorption of sound energy by the 

ground), Ground absorption, A gr assumes hard ground at all points, as recommended 

by Bowdler et al. For source levels that are not guaranteed; and 

• For the purposes of the present assessment, all noise level predictions have been 

undertaken using a receiver height of four metres above local ground level and an air 

absorption based on a temperature of 10°C and 70% r elative humidity. A receiver 

height of four metres will be typical of first floor windows and result in slightly higher 

predicted noise levels than if a 1.2 m to 1.5 m receiver height were chosen in the 

ISO 9613 algorithm. There are no significant screening effects found at the site and 

therefore this element was excluded from the model. This method is consistent with 

the recommendations of an article in a UK Institute of Acoustics Bulletin i which 

provides agreement on the appropriate approach when predicting wind turbine noise 

levels. 

Cumulative effects assessment 

11.2.29 ETSU–R–9 states that noise limits should be set relative to the pre-development background 

noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptor and that other existing wind developments 

should be taken into consideration. However, no other wind developments, planned or 

existing, have been identified in the vicinity of the proposed development, and no cumulative 

effects have been identified. 


Background noise survey 

11.3.1 The operational noise effect of wind developments is assessed by comparison with existing 

background noise. Background noise is usually measured in the external amenity of nearby 


Noise 



noise sensitive receptors. Measurements are made in ten-minute intervals over an extended 

period. Background noise measurements were obtained between 2 September and 

30 September 2010. 

11.3.2 Background noise monitoring was undertaken at three locations, representing sensitive 

receptors in all directions from the development. The monitoring locations were discussed 

with the Cornwall Council Environmental Health Officer (Table 11.1 ) and the final 

locations reflect those discussions. Monitoring equipment was set up at Riverside Cottage to 

the northwest of the Development, Woodville Farm to the northeast, and Lilac Cottage 

representing itself and Hill View to the southwest of the proposed turbine. 

11.3.3 Measurements were made in accordance with best practice set out in ETSU–R–97, i.e. at a 

height of 1.2 m to 1.5 m above ground level and not less than 3.5 m from any reflective 

façade where possible. At Woodville Farm, where this was not possible, the chosen location 

was nevertheless representative of the external amenity of the house. Care was also taken to 

position the microphones as far as reasonably practicable from potentially noisy trees and 

bushes. Rainfall was monitored by a rain gauge and periods of heavy rainfall were excluded 

from the analysis. 

11.3.4 There are no other known wind farms, operational or planned, in close vicinity of the site. 

11.3.5 Ten-minute consecutive noise measurements of L A90 were undertaken throughout the 

measurement period. Noise levels were measured in conjunction with wind speed data in 

order to correlate background noise levels with changes in wind speed. 

11.3.6 Figures 11.1 to 11.3 show the microphone positions in the environment of the background 

noise monitoring receptors. 

Wind speed data 

11.3.7 At the same time as the noise measurements, wind speed measurements were also carried 

out, at heights of 70 m, 50 m and 30 m. For each 10-minute interval, these were extrapolated 

upwards to the 80 m hub height, then referenced back to 10 m using a hypothetical surface 

roughness length of 0.05 m, as recommended by Bowdler et al (2009). As sound power 

levels of WTGs are always referenced to 10 m with a 0.05 m surface roughness, this ensures 

a consistent treatment of wind speeds and noise levels. 


11.3.8 The criteria against which the construction noise is to be assessed are absolute rather than 

being based on existing background noise conditions. This is in accordance with the 

recognised guidelines for construction noise and reflects the temporary nature of the 

construction activity. 

11.3.9 The survey results have been analysed in accordance with the procedures outlined in ETSU– 

R–97 (Ref 9–1). 

11.3.10 The measured L A90 noise levels at 10-minute intervals have been correlated with the wind 

speed measurements at 10 minute intervals (standardised to a height of 10 m) for the period 

of the noise measurement survey. 


Noise 



11.3.11 Any 10-minute interval in which rainfall was logged has then been discarded, as have any 

periods of unusually high noise levels for a given wind speed. The resulting time histories are 

shown in Figure 11.13 to Figure 11.15. 

11.3.12 The measurement results have then been separated into the different time periods for day 

and night-time limits. 

11.3.13 The LA90,10-minute noise levels have been plotted against the corresponding wind speeds 

at the reference height of 10 m. For each period a second order polynomial “best-fit” 

regression curve is fitted to the data. The resultant background noise levels against wind 

speed, at the three measurement locations are shown in Table 11.6 and Table 11.7. 

Table 11.6 

Receptor 

Quiet daytime background noise levels, L90, dB(A) 

Wind speed (m/s) 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

A: Riverside Cottage 33.6 34.3 35.4 36.8 38.6 40.8 43.0 

B: Woodville Farm 33.7 34.7 36.3 38.5 41.3 44.6 48.0 

C: Lilac Cottage 31.1 33.6 36.6 40.2 44.3 49.0 53.7 

Table 11.7 

Receptor 

Night-time background noise levels, L90, dB(A) 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 





11.4.1 The position of the turbine has been chosen to minimise the noise at the nearest noisesensitive 

receptors. 

11.5 Potentially significant effects of the scheme prior to mitigation 


11.5.1 The results of the calculation of received levels of noise at sensitive receptors during Stage 1, 

the construction of the access track, assuming limited attenuation and that some work that 

will be pursued consecutively will be done concurrently, are summarised in Table 11.8 . 


Noise 



Table 11.8 Predicted noise levels received at receptors for Stage 1 activities, 

construction of access track 

Receptor 

SPL dB(A) LEq 

A: Riverside Cottage 64.1 

B: Woodville Farm 54.0 

C: Lilac Cottage 50.3 

D: Hill View 54.1 

11.5.2 Comparing the contents of Table 11.8 with those of Table 11.2 it will be seen that 

the levels of noise, attributable to the activities associated with the construction of the access 

track, and predicted to be received at the nearest sensitive receptors are, during normal 

working hours, below the threshold for significant effect. Indeed, with the exception of 

Riverside Cottage, the levels are 10 dB or more below the threshold. 

11.5.3 For Riverside Cottage, the levels approach the threshold only when the access road is being 

built at the closest point of approach to the receptor. This will be a very short-term 

inconvenience and should be scheduled to minimise the disturbance. 

11.5.4 The results of the calculation of received levels of noise at sensitive receptors during Stage 2, 

the installation of the turbine and ancillary equipment, assuming limited attenuation and that 

some work that will be accomplished in a consecutive fashion will be pursued concurrently, 

are summarised in Table 11.9. 

Table 11.9 Predicted noise levels received at receptors for Stage 2 activities, 

installation of turbine and ancillary equipment 

Receptor 

SPL dB(A) L Eq 

A: Riverside Cottage 53.1 

B: Woodville Farm 53.2 

C: Lilac Cottage 49.3 

D: Hill View 54.1 

11.5.5 Comparison of the contents of Table 11.9 with those of Table 11.2 indicates that the 

level of the noise predicted to be received at the nearest sensitive receptors during Stage 2 of 

the construction is below the proposed criteria levels of Table 11.2 at any time during 

daytime. 

11.5.6 Working hours will be restricted to daytime hours only (07.00–19.00 on weekdays and 07.00– 

16.00 on Saturdays), as set out in Section 4. Work outside these hours is not usual, and short 

term extensions to these hours would be sought if any extensions were required. Quiet onsite 

working activities such as electrical commissioning have been assumed to extend 

outside these hours, where required. 

11.5.7 Considering the ‘worst case’ assumptions adopted in this assessment, the magnitude of the 

predicted margins between received noise level and criteria levels lends a great measure of 


Noise 



comfort that the proposed noise limits will not be exceeded, or even equalled. Furthermore, it 

should be noted that only attenuation due to geometric divergence and air absorption has 

been included. Attenuation in excess of these due to absorption in the various ground covers 

and topographical screening, which will reduce received levels further, has been excluded. 

11.5.8 Currently there is no standard source of guidance providing a methodology by which to 

predict vibration levels attributable to construction activities other than that for percussive 

piling contained in BS 5228 Part 4. When construction activities are within a few tens of 

metres from a sensitive receptor, vibration may just be perceptible. Due to the hundreds of 

metres between the construction activities and the sensitive receptors, perceptible vibrations 

from these activities will not be transmitted to these receptors. In summary, the relative 

significance of the effect of vibration is assessed as being not significant. 


Derivation of Noise Limits for Wind Turbine Noise 

11.5.9 The criteria for operational noise are based on existing background noise, subject to fixed 

lower limits. The results of the background noise survey are set out in Table 11.6 and Table 

11.7. The measurements at Lilac Cottage are taken to represent itself and Hill View to the 

south west of the development. Riverside Cottage and Woodville farm are taken to represent 

themselves and the area to the northwest and northeast of the development. Other receptors 

are significantly further away. 

11.5.10 Based on the ETSU Guidanceeffect criteria are 5 dB above local background noise gradient, 

subject to various lower limits. At levels above impact criteria the noise emissions from the 

Development would be considered a significant effect. 

11.5.11 The noise assessment assumes the sound energy spreads out in all directions from the 

turbine, with some energy being absorbed in the air and some enhancement due to ground 

reflections in the vicinity of both the turbine and receptor. On that basis, the predicted levels 

received at the sensitive receptors, as a function of wind speed, referenced to 10 m above 

ground level, are as shown in Table 11.10 , as well as in Figure 11.7 to Figure 11.14. 

Figure 11.7 to Figure 11.10 compare the prediction (in blue) with the quiet day-time 

background noise (in green) and a criterion (in red) derived from that background. 

Figure 11.11 to Figure 11.14 make a similar comparison, but using the night-time background 

noise. 

11.5.12 The predicted levels are all below the criterion levels. 

11.5.13 One receptor, Lilac Cottage, lies significantly further away from the WTG than the other three 

receptors, and hence is predicted to receive significantly less noise. Accordingly, the 

prediction shows a 4.9 dB margin below the quiet daytime criterion at 6 m/s, rising to 7.4 dB 

at 7 m/s and to 11.6 dB or more at higher wind speeds. At night, with the 43 dB minimum 

criterion, these margins are dramatically increased. The effect of this level of noise, in 

addition to the existing background, is negligible. 

11.5.14 The level of noise at the other three receptors are higher than the level experienced at Lilac 

Cottage, but stay within the night-time and quiet daytime criteria. The smallest margin below 

the quiet daytime criterion is experienced at Riverside Cottage with 0.5 dB at 6 m/s. At night, 


Noise 



this margin increases. At Woodville farm and Hill View the margins below quiet daytime 

criterion are slightly larger than at Riverside Cottage. Given that this level of effect will only 

occur when the wind is in a very narrow range of speeds, the aggregate effect is small. 

11.5.15 The criteria used in the assessment are conservative, assuming that all noise sensitive 

receptors are directly downwind of every turbine, introducing a significant margin into the 

calculations. In terms of the ‘EIA Regulations’, the effect of noise from the turbine is assessed 

as not significant. 

Table 11.10 Predicted wind farm noise immission levels (dB) at 4 m height at each of 

the noise assessment locations as a function of 10 m height wind speed, L 90 , dB(A) 

Receptor 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 




Infrasound 

D: Hill View 33.8 36.9 40.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 

11.5.16 Infra-sound is defined as noise occurring at frequencies below that at which sound is 

normally audible, i.e. at less than 20 Hz, due to the significantly reduced sensitivity of the ear 

at such frequencies. In this frequency range, for sound to be perceptible, it has to be at a very 

high amplitude and it is generally considered that when such sounds are perceptible then 

they can cause considerable annoyance. 

11.5.17 Wind turbines have been cited as significant producers of infra-sound. This has, however, 

been due to the high levels of such noise, as well as audible low frequency thumping noise, 

occurring on older ‘downwind’ turbines of which many were installed in the USA prior to the 

large scale take up of wind power production in the UK. Downwind turbines are configured 

with the blades downwind of the tower such that the blades pass through the wake left in the 

wind stream by the tower resulting in a regular audible thump, with infra-sonic components, 

each time a blade passes the tower. All modern turbines, are of the upwind design; that is 

with the blades up wind of the tower, such that this effect is eliminated. 

11.5.18 Bowdler et al. (2009) concluded “…there is no robust evidence that low frequency noise 

(including ‘infrasound’) or ground-borne vibration from wind farms, generally has adverse 

effects on wind farm neighbours”. 

Low Frequency Noise 

11.5.19 Noise from modern wind turbines is essentially broad band in nature in that it contains similar 

amounts of noise energy in all frequency bands from low to high frequency. As distance from 

a wind development site increases the noise level decreases as a result of the spreading out 

of the sound energy but also due to air absorption which increases with increasing frequency. 

This means that although the energy across the whole frequency range is reduced, higher 


Noise 



frequencies are reduced more than lower frequencies with the effect that as distance from the 

site increases the ratio of low to high frequencies also increases. This effect may be 

observed with road traffic noise or natural sources such as the sea where higher frequency 

components are diminished relative to lower frequency components at long distances. At 

such distances, however, overall noise levels from wind turbines are so low that this effect is 

not significant. 

Vibration Due to Operation 

11.5.20 There is no evidence of vibration due to the operation of wind turbines being perceptible 

beyond the immediate vicinity of the turbines. This, together with the considerable distances 

between the indicative turbine locations and the nearest sensitive receptor, will ensure that 

the effect will be not significant. 

11.5.21 Similarly, any effect as a result of operational traffic will be not significant, due to the small 

numbers of operational vehicles visiting the Development. 


11.5.22 Decommissioning noise will be similar to, or less than, construction noise. 



11.6.1 The predictions are based upon unmitigated conditions for a ‘worst case’ scenario i.e. limited 

attenuation and that some work that will be accomplished in a consecutive fashion will be 

pursued concurrently. It is therefore expected that the levels of noise attributable to the actual 

construction activities, and received at sensitive receptors, will be substantially lower than 

those predicted. 

11.6.2 Those activities that may give rise to audible noise at the surrounding properties including 

heavy goods vehicle deliveries to the site would be limited to the hours 07:00 to 

19:00 monday to Friday and 09:00 to 16:00 on Saturdays. Turbine deliveries would only take 

place outside these times with the prior consent of the Cornwall Council 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 

11.6.3 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. 

11.6.4 Where flexibility exists, activities will be separated from residential neighbours by the 

maximum possible distances. 

11.6.5 A site management regime will be developed to control the movement of vehicles to and from 

the proposed wind energy 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. 


Noise 




11.6.6 No mitigation of operational noise is required. 


11.6.7 Decommissioning activities will be subject to the same constraints and management 

practices as construction activities, and will produce lower levels of noise. 

11.7 Assessment of residual significant effects 

11.7.1 The residual effects of the noise associated with construction, operation and 

decommissioning are summarised below. 


Table 11.11 Maximum excesses over the BS 5228 derived day-time noise limit of the 

predicted L AEq construction noise immission levels (dB) at each noise assessment 

location. Exceedences with negative values indicate the immission level is below the 

limit. 

Receptor 

Excess over limit 

A: Riverside Cottage −0.9* 

B: Woodville Farm −11.0 

C: Lilac Cottage −14.3 

D: Hill View −10.9 

*Peak level over a very short term 


Noise 




Table 11.12 Excesses over the ETSU–R–97 derived day-time criterion curves of the 

predicted L A90 wind farm noise immission levels (dB) at each noise assessment 

location. Excesses with negative values indicate the immission level is below the limit. 

Receptor 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

A: Riverside Cottage −5.7 −3.2 −0.5 −1.0 −2.8 −5.0 −7.2 

B: Woodville Farm −5.7 -3.7 −1.4 −2.6 −5.3 −8.7 −12.1 

C: Lilac Cottage −6.4 −5.8 −4.9 −7.4 −11.6 −16.3 −21.0 

D: Hill View −2.3 −1.7 −0.8 −3.3 −7.5 −12.2 −16.9 

Table 11.13 Excesses over the ETSU–R–97 derived night-time criterion curves of the 

predicted L A90 wind farm noise immission levels (dB) at each noise assessment 

location. Excesses with negative values indicate the immission level is below the limit. 

Receptor 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

A: Riverside Cottage −10.1 −7.0 −3.1 −2.2 −3.8 −8.0 −12.2 

B: Woodville Farm −10.0 −7.0 −3.1 −2.1 −5.0 −8.7 −12.4 

C: Lilac Cottage −13.3 −10.2 −6.3 −8.2 −15.3 −23.6 −31.9 

D: Hill View −9.2 −6.1 −2.2 −4.1 −11.2 −19.5 −27.8 

11.7.2 Figures 11.7–11.14 show the calculated wind development noise immission levels at the four 

noise impact assessment locations and correspond to those already presented in Table 

11.10, plotted as a function of ten metre height wind speed. The calculated noise immission 

levels are shown overlaid on the day-time and night-time noise limit criterion curves. 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 limits have then been set either at the prevailing measured 

background level plus 5 dB or at the relevant fixed lower limit whichever is the greater, and 

correspond to the limits shown in Tables 11.12 and 11.13 

11.7.3 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 


Noise 



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. 

11.7.4 The assessment (shown in tabular form in Table 11.12 & 11.13) shows that the predicted 

wind turbine noise immission levels meet the ETSU–R–97 derived noise limits under all wind 

speeds and at all locations. 

Summary 

11.7.5 All construction and decommissioning work will be carried out in accordance with BS 

5228:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. 

The assessment shows construction noise levels below acceptable criteria. 

11.7.6 The assessment for the operational Development, has been carried out by comparing 

predicted noise levels with noise limits set out in ETSU–R–97, Assessment and Rating of 

Noise from Wind Farms. The assessment shows that the predicted wind turbine noise levels 

at the residential locations assessed meet the day-time and night-time noise limits. 

11.7.7 Ground-borne vibration is very rapidly attenuated over distance. Given the distances between 

sources and sensitive receptors, the effect is predicted as not significant for both construction 

and operation. 


Noise 



Table 11.14 

Summary of significance of effects 

Receptor Effect Development Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

importance of 

receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Significance after mitigation 

Nature of effect (direct, 

indirect, secondary, 

cumulative, short, 

medium, long-term, 

permanent, temporary, 

positive, negative) 

Dwellings 

Noise effect on 

amenity 

Operation 

Noise 

sensitive 

Within 

ETSU–R– 

97 derrived 

limits 

Not 

significant 

Not 

applicable 

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 

developments. Operational noise 

immission levels are acceptable in 

terms of the guidance commended 

by planning policy for the 

assessment of wind turbine noise, 

and therefore considered not 

significant in EIA terms. 

Not applicable 



Best 

practice 

measures, 

see 8.6 

Noise levels during the limited 

construction/decommissioning 

period are not expected to 

represent a significant effect. 

Direct, temporary, negative 


Noise 




11.8.1 The turbine location has been chosen to minimise noise at existing noise sensitive receptors. 

No residential developments in the immediate vicinity of the turbine are known to be planned, 

and any houses built nearer to the turbine than existing houses would be expected to incur 

high levels of noise. Other land uses, such as office buildings, would be subject to less 

stringent noise criteria, and should be built to mitigate the noise to acceptable levels. 


11.9.1 No other wind developments, existing or planned, have been identified in the vicinity of the 

planned development, and hence no cumulative effects have been identified. 


ETSU–R–97 (2007) The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU for the Department 

of Trade and Industry 

Planning Policy Statement 22, Renewable Energy (August 2004) 

Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion Guide to PPS22 (2004) Office of the Deputy Prime 

Minister 

Technical Documentation, Wind Turbine Generator Systems 1.5–77 / 50 Hz and 60 Hz, Noise 

Emission Characteristics, GE Wind, 2010 

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers to Questions, Tuesday 27 July 2010, 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100727/text/100727w0001.htm, 

accessed 26 th July 2011 

Planning Policy Guidance 24, Planning and Noise, September 1994 

D Bowdler, AJ Bullmore, RA Davis, MD Hayes, M Jiggins, G Leventhall, AR McKenzie. (2009) 

Prediction and assessment of wind turbine noise – agreement about relevant factors for noise 

assessment from wind energy projects. Institute of Acoustics, Acoustics Bulletin, Vol 34, No 

2 march/April 2009 

International Standard ISO 9613, Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors. 

British Standard 5228: Parts 1 and 2 (2009) Code of practice for noise and vibration control on 

construction and open sites, BSI. 

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 

1999 (SI 1999 No 293), as amended 


Noise 



12 Ornithology 


12.1.1 This chapter describes and evaluates the current ornithological interest of the Wheal Jane 

site, describes the potential effect of the proposed wind turbine on birds, presents the 

mitigation measures incorporated into the scheme design, and assesses the predicted 

residual effects of the proposed development in respect of birds. 

12.1.2 The proposed wind turbine development at Wheal Jane has the potential to impact on birds 

through a range of factors including: collision mortality, displacement due to disturbance, 

habitat loss or habitat degradation. Wind developments can also impact birds due to their 

barrier effect forcing birds to fly over the turbines, increasing energy demands on the birds. 

12.1.3 Impacts during the operational life of a turbine are the primary concern; however impacts can 

also come through both construction and decommissioning phases. 

12.1.4 The proposed wind turbine is to be installed within the broader Wheal Jane mine site, 

approximately 4 km southwest of Truro, Cornwall. Wheal Jane mine is an active industrial 

and commercial site, with much of the land area being used for mine water treatment, and for 

inert landfill. 

Nomenclature and terminology 

12.1.5 All bird names used within this report follow those listed by the British Ornithologists Union 

which follows Taxonomic recommendations for British birds (Knox et. al. 2002). 


Consultation on survey methodology 

12.2.1 Natural England ecologist Beth Tonkin was contacted on 8 th September 2009, and was asked 

for any comment on the bird survey methodology proposed for the application site and 

surrounding area. As impacts to statutory designated sites were unlikely, Natural England 

declined to comment on specifics of the scope and detail of the survey methodology. 

12.2.2 The Cornwall County Council Ecologist (Cathy Turtle) was contacted on the 19th March 2010 

and asked for comment on the proposed development and survey methodology. No specific 

comments were made, but it was recommended that survey methodology was in line with 

Natural England Technical Information Note TIN069: Assessing the effects of onshore wind 

farms on birds (Natural England, 2010). Survey methodology had already been reviewed and 

updated in relation to this document, issued in January 2010 (see sections 12.2.7, and 

12.2.30). 

12.2.3 The Cornwall County Council planning and regeneration team were contacted, and asked to 

provide comment on the EIA scoping document issued on the 8 th March 2008. They 


Ornithology 



responded on the 15 th June 2010. In relation to potential impacts upon birds, they suggested 

the applicant consult Natural England Technical Information Note TIN069: Assessing the 

effects of onshore wind farms on birds (Natural England, 2010), and Mapped and Written 

Guidance in Relation to Birds and Onshore Wind Energy Development in England (Bright, et. 

al., 2009). 

12.2.4 Since completion of the survey work in August 2010, consultation in relation to proposed 

mitigation of effects and ecological enhancement has been underway with Natural England 

(Claire Fitzgibbon). Initial contact via email was made on the 02/09/2010. Natural England 

gave an initial response to the consultation, but indicated that due to lack of resources, the 

RSPB may be of more assistance as a consulted for the scheme. The RSPB (Paul St. Pierre) 

was initially contacted by phone in September 2010. Consultation with the RSPB was 

subsequently followed up by email in 19/07/2011, and response received on 03/08/2011 from 

Mabel Cheung. 

Guidance 

12.2.5 A number of documents were reviewed when initially designing the ornithological survey and 

assessment methodology for the project, as follows: 

• Survey Methods for use in Assessing the Impacts of Onshore Windfarms on Bird 

Communities (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2005); 

• Assessing Significance of Impacts from Onshore Windfarms on Birds Outwith 

Designated Areas (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2006); 

• Windfarms and Birds: Calculating a Theoretical Collision Risk Assuming no Avoiding 

Action (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2000); and 

• Bird Monitoring Methods (Gilbert et. al. 1998). 

12.2.6 Guidance in relation to birds and wind turbines was issued by Natural England in January 

2010, after bird surveys at the site had commenced. This guidance was reviewed and the 

survey methodology adjusted where possible (see section 12.2.30): 

• Technical Information Note TIN069: Assessing the effects of onshore windfarms on 

birds (Natural England, 2010). 

Desk Study 

12.2.7 Information on statutory designated nature conservation sites within 5 km of the proposed 

turbine location were obtained from the Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the 

Countryside (MAGIC) website. Knowledge of the proximity to designated sites can help build 

a picture of likely bird use of the area. In the absence of published guidance in relation to 

desk study search distances for wind turbine developments a search area of 5 km was used 

as this is the maximum search area required of landfill operations which may have the 


Ornithology 



potential to affect SPAs 22 . Citations of any sites identified were reviewed to establish if birds 

were a qualifying species or a reason for designation for these sites. 

12.2.8 All records of notable bird species within 5 km of the turbine location were requested from the 

Environmental Records Centre for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (ERCCIS). Notable species 

are those which are legally protected, identified in a Red Data book, nationally or locally rare 

or endangered, or are identified as a priority species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 

or the Cornwall BAP. Information on non-statutory designated sites (such as county wildlife 

sites) within 2 km of the turbine location was also requested from ERCCIS. 

12.2.9 An assessment of Ordnance Survey mapping and aerial photography was undertaken to 

identify nearby topographical features such as estuaries, headlands or waterbodies within 

20 km of the site which may be of value to migrating birds. The location of the proposed 

turbine in relation to the wider area can be viewed on Figure 12.1. 

12.2.10 The Cornwall Bird Watching and Preservation Society (CBWPS) produce an annual bird 

report – Birds in Cornwall. The latest available report at the time of writing was 2006. This 

was reviewed for any information of use in the ornithology assessment such as the status of 

bird populations within the county. 

12.2.11 Various scientific papers of relevance to wind developments and the species encountered on 

site have been reviewed and the findings incorporated where appropriate. This involved webbased 

searches as well as a review of relevant books and journal articles. 

Ornithological Scoping Visit 

12.2.12 A scoping survey of the application site and surrounding area was undertaken on the 13 th and 

14 th August 2009. The aim was determine the level of bird activity around the proposed 

turbine location and the surrounding area, and to identify any key bird habitat present on 

which future survey efforts should be focused. 

12.2.13 The first part of the scoping visit involved walk over survey of the application site and 

surrounding area undertaken on the 13 August 2009. All bird species seen or heard were 

mapped along with details regarding their age, sex and behaviour where possible, and an 

appraisal of habitats was undertaken to establish what bird species and communities may be 

present at the site. Potential locations for future Vantage Point (VP) surveys were also 

established. 

12.2.14 On the 14 August 2009, a 2 hr VP survey was undertaken, again with the purpose of 

establishing what bird species may be using the application site and surrounding area and for 

what purpose. The survey area comprised most of a 500 m envelope around the proposed 

turbine location (200–500 m is the recommended vantage point survey envelope for birds 

around proposed wind farms, SNH 2005). All birds seen or heard were recorded as well as 

details regarding their age, sex and behaviour where possible. This survey was undertaken 

from VP 2 (see Figure 12.2). 

22 

Environment Agency Landfill Directive Regulatory Guidance Note 5: Habitats Regulations & the Landfill 

Regulations 


Ornithology 



12.2.15 Survey effort in assessing effects should be focused on species for which there is a 

perceived risk of negative effects from turbine development. Following the scoping site visit 

and a review of desk study data available at the time, a list of ‘Target Species’ was compiled. 

Target species are those that are legally protected or notable that, as a result of their flight 

patterns and/or behaviour, are thought likely to be subject to impact from a wind turbine 

development. 

12.2.16 Scottish Natural Heritage have listed the species that they consider to be at particular risk 

from wind developments 23 , either due to their special conservation concern and utilisation of 

habitats or because they have flight behaviours that increase their likelihood of collision with 

wind turbines (SNH, 2006). When selecting the target species for bird surveys at Wheal Jane, 

particular attention was made to this SNH list. In addition, when choosing target species, 

birds on the following lists were taken into consideration: 

• Annex 1 of the EC Directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC) 24; 

• Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as amended); 

• Red-List and Amber-list of birds of conservation Concern 25 ; 

• Section 41 List. Species of Principal Importance In England (also known as the English 

Biodiversity List). Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006 26 ; 

• Priority birds listed on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan 27 ; and 

• Priority birds listed on the Cornwall Biodiversity Action Plan 28 . 

12.2.17 A list of target species can be found in Appendix 12.1. 

12.2.18 

23 Scottish Natural Heritage. (2006). Assessing Significance of Impacts from Onshore Windfarms on Birds Outwith Designated 

Areas 

24 Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (the 'Birds Directive'). The Directive provides a framework for 

the conservation and management of, and human interactions with, wild birds in Europe. Annex 1 of the Directive lists 

vulnerable species for which Special Protection Areas (SPA) can be designated. In the UK the Directive has been transposed 

into national laws by means of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) as consolidated by The 

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations). 

25 Eaton, M.A., Brown A.F., Noble D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn R.D., Aebischer N.J., Gibbons D.W., Evans A., and Gregory R.D. 

(2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of 

Man. British Birds 102: 296-341. The UK’s leading bird conservation organisations have worked together on the third quantitative 

review of the status of the birds that occur regularly in the UK. Bird species have been 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. The criteria 

used in assessments are intended to ensure that Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) listings reflect each species’ global and 

European status as well as that within the UK, and additionally measure the importance of the UK population in international 

terms. 

26 The Section 41 List is a list of fauna considered by the Secretary of State to be of principal importance for conserving 

biodiversity. The publication of the "England Biodiversity List" satisfies the requirements of Section 41 of the Natural Environment 

and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 for the conservation of biodiversity. The S41 list will be used to guide decision-makers 

such as public bodies, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under section 40 of the Natural 

Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 "to have regard" to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when carrying out 

their normal functions. 

27 The Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) is the UK's initiative to maintain and enhance biodiversity in response to the Convention on 

Biological Diversity signed in 1992. The original BAP list of species and habitats, prepared over 10 years ago, was used to form 

the new list of species and habitats of principal importance. However some of the species have been taken off the new list and 

additional species and habitats have been included. 

28 The Cornwall Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) highlights the UK BAP priority habitats and species that occur in Cornwall. 


Ornithology 



Field Survey 

12.2.19 To help create a comprehensive picture of bird activity at the application site and surrounding 

area and to inform the impact assessment process, a variety of survey methods were 

undertaken. A full account of survey dates, times and weather conditions for all survey types 

can be found in Appendix 12.2. 

12.2.20 Surveys were designed primarily using the guidance documents from Scottish Natural 

Heritage referred to in section 12.2.6. In January 2010 (part way through the survey period), 

additional guidance in relation to birds and wind turbines was issued by Natural England, 

referred to in section 12.2.7. This guidance was incorporated into the survey design where 

appropriate (see section 12.2.30. 

12.2.21 The aim of field surveys for wind turbines is to provide the information necessary to inform a 

thorough impact assessment, and should be tailored for each particular site rather than 

following a preordained approach. Surveys for the proposed turbine at Wheal Jane were 

designed to provide information sufficient to enable an assessment of the potential effects 

upon birds through collision, displacement, or habitat loss/degradation. 

Vantage Point Surveys 

12.2.22 VP surveys were undertaken in order to assess flight heights of target bird species and to 

identify common flight lines used through the application site and surrounding area, to inform 

collision risk modelling. The survey envelope included the area within 500 m of the proposed 

turbine location. Two VPs were identified during the ornithological scoping survey on the 13– 

14 August 2009 (see Figure 12.2 for locations of VPs). VP 1 covered the north of the survey 

envelope, and VP 2 covered the south of the survey envelope. 

12.2.23 All the airspace within the 500 m survey envelope was visible from these VPs, apart from a 

small area over 400 m from the proposed turbine location to the north of VP 1 (see Figure 

12.9). Both VPs had a field of view of approximately 180 degrees. A collapsed mine shaft 

known as ‘The Coffin’ contained a small cliff face, but this was below the surrounding ground 

level and did not interfere with sight lines. 

12.2.24 Surveys were undertaken at least monthly between September 2009 and August 2010, giving 

a full 12 months survey data following Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) survey guidance 

(2005). Thirty-six hours of survey were conducted at each VP during the winter months 

(September–March), and thirty-six hours of survey were conducted at each VP during the 

breeding season (April–August). Seventy-two hours of survey were undertaken at each VP 

over the twelve months and one hundred and forty-four hours surveying in total at the site. 

12.2.25 Each VP survey generally lasted between 2 and 3 hours, although some surveys in October 

and November 2009, and in January 2010 lasted 4 hours. Guidance from SNH (2005) and 

Natural England (2010) recommends that surveys are undertaken in a range of weather 

conditions as birds will alter their behaviour and flight patterns. Surveys were undertaken in a 

range of weather conditions, including periods of low cloud, mist, and rain. 

12.2.26 Some surveys were conducted around dawn and dusk in order to record movements of birds 

between roosting sites and foraging areas. Details of which surveys were undertaken at dawn 

and dusk can be found in Appendix 12.2. Atkins ecologists were also on site around dawn 


Ornithology 



and dusk undertaking bat surveys monthly between April and October 2010, and any notable 

bird sightings were recorded. 

12.2.27 During the surveys, details of all target species seen or heard were recorded. Information 

recorded included: species, sex (where possible), number, flight direction, location, and flight 

height (below/ within/ above turbine height relative to ground height). During the survey, if no 

target species were present within the survey envelope information on secondary species 

was collected, and summarised at ten-minute intervals. Secondary species are those not 

included on the ‘target species’ list, but due to their flight patterns and behaviour were still 

thought to be of some risk from a wind turbine development. Observation of target species 

always took priority over secondary species. 

12.2.28 For all target species the number of individuals, flight path and flight height were recorded 

during the VP work. This allowed estimates to be made of the following: 

• The time each species spent flying over the VP area (total visual envelope for each 

VP); 

• The relative use each species made of different parts of the survey area; and 

• The proportion of time each species spent at different elevations above the ground. In 

September 2009 before proposed turbine heights were disclosed, the height 

categories used were 0–10 m, 10–20 m, 20–100 m, and 100+ m, allowing risk of 

collision with turbines to be established. For surveys from October 2009 onwards, the 

height categories were updated to reflect the dimensions of the turbine provided by the 

client. The height bands changed to 0–35 m (below turbine height), 35–125 m (at 

turbine height), and 125+ m (above turbine height). This allowed a greater level of 

accuracy when identifying flights through the majority of the survey period. 

Wintering Bird Surveys 

12.2.29 Three winter bird surveys were conducted in to assess the bird species and abundance 

Three winter bird surveys were conducted in to assess the bird species and abundance 

within the application site and surrounding area. The winter bird survey method followed the 

Common Bird Census (CBC) methodology (Gilbert et. al.1998), as recommended by SNH 

(2005). Surveys were undertaken on the following dates: 30 September 2009, 16 December 

2009, and 10 February 2010. 

12.2.30 A transect route was established within the broader Wheal Jane site, covering all areas to 

within approximately 50 m where access allowed. The route can be viewed on Figure 12.2. 

The direction in which the transect was walked was varied between visits to optimise 

detection and minimise recording bias. All birds observed were recorded on a map with 

details of their age, sex and behaviour where possible. Information obtained from the surveys 

has been used to build a picture of the general use of the broader Wheal Jane site and its 

surroundings by all bird species. 

12.2.31 Surveys commenced within one hour of sunrise, lasted between two and three hours and 

were undertaken in fair weather conditions (i.e. not in heavy rain, poor visibility or wind 


Ornithology 



greater that Beaufort 4 29 ). Surveys followed the guidelines given by SNH (2005) which 

recommends at least three survey visits during the winter season for lowland/farmland 

species. The 2010 Natural England guidance (TIN069) recommends one or two visits per 

month for non-breeding birds. As this guidance was issued after the winter bird surveys had 

commenced, the methodology was not updated to reflect the additional survey effort (see 

section 12.2.7). It is considered that the surveys undertaken, in conjunction with the VP 

surveys have provided an accurate representation of the bird species regularly present at the 

application site and surround area during the winter months. 

12.2.32 Access was not possible to farmland to the west of the application site. However the common 

farmland habitats of arable, improved pasture and hedgerows in this area do not appear of 

particular value to birds, and are unlikely to contain species not present within areas covered 

by the surveys. Therefore, it is considered that the surveys have provided a realistic 

indication of the overwintering bird assemblage in the vicinity of the proposed turbine. 

Breeding Bird Surveys 

12.2.33 Nine breeding bird surveys were undertaken between March and July 2010 within the 

application boundary, following the Common Bird Census (CBC) technique (Gilbert et. 

al.1998). 

12.2.34 Guidance issued by SNH (2005) recommends three visits during the breeding months to 

build up a picture of the breeding bird assemblage at a site. However guidance issued by 

Natural England (2010) before breeding bird surveys commenced, recommends two visits 

per month during the breeding season. As such, the number of planned survey visits was 

increased to conform with both the SHN methodology, and the more rigorous NE 

methodology. 

12.2.35 Surveys generally commenced within one hour of sunrise and lasted for approximately three 

hours. In line with Gilbert et. al. (1998), two of the breeding surveys were undertaken in the 

evening, and concluded around dusk. 

12.2.36 The direction in which the transect was walked was varied between visits to optimise 

detection and minimise recording bias. All birds observed were recorded on a map with 

details of their age, sex and behaviour where possible. Information obtained from the surveys 

has been used to build a picture of the use of the site and its surroundings by breeding bird 

species. Registrations of birds were judged to be ‘definitely breeding’, ‘probably breeding’, 

‘possible breeding’ or ‘non-breeding’ according to the criteria in Table 12.1. 

12.2.37 Once all data had been collected, survey maps were reviewed and breeding territories of any 

notable species within the application site and surrounding area were identified. 

12.2.38 Access was not possible to farmland to the west of the application site. However the common 

farmland habitats of arable, improved pasture and hedgerows in this area do not appear of 

particular value to birds, and are unlikely to contain species not present within areas covered 

by the surveys. Therefore, it is considered that the surveys have provided a realistic 

indication of the breeding bird assemblage in the vicinity of the proposed turbine. 

29 Beaufort 4 = moderate breeze (11–16 knots) 


Ornithology 



Table 12.1 

Definition of breeding criteria 

Category 

Breeding 

Probable Breeding 

Possible Breeding 

Non-Breeding 

Criteria 

Adults observed at nest 

Nest with eggs 

Unfledged young 

Carrying nest material, food or faecal sac 

Present in one location (within normal territory range) on at least two 

occasions and displaying behaviour indicative of breeding on at least one 

occasion (Behaviour indicative of breeding includes displaying, singing, 

territorial activity, agitated or defensive behaviour, and a pair of adults 

together). 

Present in suitable habitat in the same location (within normal territory range) 

on two or more occasions; or 

Displaying breeding behaviour on one occasion only. 

Present in suitable habitat on one occasion only. 

Present in non-suitable habitat for breeding 

Immature birds 

Overwintering and Breeding Waterfowl 

12.2.39 The wetland habitats in vicinity of the application site did offer potential for roosting 

overwintering waterfowl. Guidance from SNH (2005) states that “where wintering wildfowl are 

found or known to frequent the area, several visits throughout a winter may be necessary to 

determine usage.” Records from the desk study for the 5 km area around the proposed 

turbine included 44 records of mallard, and 30 records of mute swan. These are both 

common species of wildfowl present across much of lowland Britain. Only low numbers of 

other wildfowl species were received (see Appendix 12.4). 

12.2.40 During field surveys (VP, wintering bird surveys and breeding bird surveys) undertaken at the 

site, low numbers (maximum of 5 in May 2010) of mallard were recorded during most 

months. Two shoveler were recorded in April 2010 and two Canada goose in May 2010 were 

the only other waterfowl recorded. 

12.2.41 Due to the low numbers of waterfowl recorded, additional surveys for wintering and migratory 

waterfowls were not considered necessary. Other than low numbers of common species (e.g. 

Mallard), habitats on the application site and surrounding area did not appear suitable for 

breeding waterfowl, and so additional surveys for these species were not considered 

necessary. 

Nest finding for birds of prey 

12.2.42 Guidance from SNH (2005) recommends locating nest sites of raptor species breeding in the 

vicinity of the turbine. The only target bird of prey species recorded at the Wheal Jane site 

was peregrine (see Appendix 12.5). Peregrine was an occasional winter visitor to the Wheal 

Jane site, and it is likely that these birds were ranging from traditional coastal breeding areas 

during winter months, or were winter migrants from elsewhere in the UK or the continent. A 

collapsed mine shaft within the Wheal Jane site known as ‘The Coffin’ contained a small cliff 

face. This was considered suitable for breeding peregrine and was surveyed during the CBC 

surveys detailed above. 


Ornithology 



12.2.43 A check of Ordnance Survey maps did not reveal any suitable nesting habitat for peregrine 

elsewhere within 1 km of the site. 

12.2.44 The Wheal Jane site is located within the natural range of both barn owl and tawny owl, and 

farmland and woodland habitats surrounding the site appear suitable for these species. Barn 

owls like to forage over meadow and rough pasture, and tawny owls prefer woodland habitat 

to forage. The bare ground and scrub habitats which are present across much of the site 

were considered sub optimal for foraging owls. 

12.2.45 Some of the VP surveys were undertaken around dawn and dusk (see section 12.2.25) in 

order to record owl species which may be using the application site and surrounding area. 

12.2.46 In addition, dusk and dawn bat surveys were undertaken by Atkins ecologists monthly 

between April and October 2010. Four surveyors were on site during these surveys, and any 

notable nocturnal bird activity observed during the bat surveys was recorded. 

Limitations to Survey 

12.2.47 Some of the CBC surveys were undertaken in the hours before VP surveys commenced. This 

would have created disturbance which may have affected birds within the survey area, and 

hence the results of the VP surveys. However the survey area largely consists of a working 

industrial and commercial site with vehicular traffic around the site. The centre of the Wheal 

Jane site is used as an inert landfill tip, and waste lorries pass through here throughout the 

working day. An excavator is used to move the inert waste around the centre of the Wheal 

Jane site, and is regularly active throughout the day. Vehicle traffic along the access road 

through the Wheal Jane site comes from workers arriving and leaving commercial businesses 

located within the north of the site. It is not thought that the walked CBC surveys offered a 

significant increase in disturbance in relation to existing background levels. 

12.2.48 Access was not possible to farmland to the west of the application site during the wintering 

bird or breeding bird surveys. However the common farmland habitats of arable, improved 

pasture and hedgerows in this area do not appear of particular value to birds, and are unlikely 

to contain species not present within area within the area covered by the surveys. Therefore, 

it is considered that the surveys have provided a realistic indication of the overwintering bird 

assemblage in the vicinity of the proposed turbine. 

12.2.49 Nest finding for owls was not undertaken in farmland surrounding the proposed turbine. 

However, habitats within the Wheal Jane site were considered to be sub-optimal for foraging 

owls, VP surveys were undertaken at dawn and dusk to record owls potentially using the site. 

In addition, dusk and dawn bat surveys were undertaken by Atkins ecologists monthly 

between April and October 2010. Four surveyors were on site during these surveys, and any 

notable nocturnal bird activity observed during the bat surveys was recorded. It is considered 

that the level of survey was sufficient to establish the level of use of the site by owls. 

12.2.50 Ornithological surveys are affected by a variety of factors which affect the presence of birds 

such as season, weather, climate, migration patterns, food availability, species behaviour and 

the presence of predators. Therefore bird surveys for this site may not have produced a 

complete bird list and the absence of evidence of any particular species should not be taken 

as conclusive proof that the species is not present or that it will not be present in the future. 


Ornithology 



Nevertheless, the results of the bird surveys undertaken between August 2009 and August 

2010, have given an indication of the use of the application site and surrounding area by bird 

species, which has given confidence in the ecological assessment and predictions of 

potential effects from the proposed turbine. 

Assessment 

Nature Conservation Evaluation 


and Environmental Management (IEEM), 2006) evaluates the nature conservation value of 

the ecological resource or feature within a framework that ranges from international value to 

negligible value. However, to maintain internal consistency within this EIA, these IEEM 

definitions have been translated into the high-medium-low scale for the importance of the 

receptor used by other disciplines in their chapters of this EIA. 

12.2.52 The features considered within this chapter are exclusively populations of birds and the 

categories of nature conservation value reflect this. In assigning nature conservation value to 

populations of bird species, it is necessary to consider the species distribution and status 

including a consideration of trends based on available historical records and to make use of 

any relevant published evaluation criteria. 

12.2.53 The categories for nature conservation value used are described in Table 12.2. 

Table 12.2 

Definitions of nature conservation value/importance of receptor 


value in IEEM (2006) 

International 

National 

County 

Site 

Negligible 

Importance of 

Receptor (this 

chapter) 

High 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Negligible 

Definition 

1% of the international population of a species 

present at the site 30 , or the regular occurrence of a 

globally rare species 31 

1% of the national population of a species present at 

the site, or the regular occurrence of a nationally rare 

species (Rare Breeding Birds Panel 32 ) 

1% of the Cornwall population of a species present 

at the site, or regular presence of species that have 

very rare, rare or very scarce status in Cornwall 

(Birds in Cornwall, 2006, CBWPS). 

Less than 1% of the Cornwall population of a 

species, but regular use of the site by a notable 

species or a species with a status as scarce in 

Cornwall. 

The species concerned is widespread in the UK and 

has a status of abundant, very common or common 

within Cornwall 

30 Criteria used in the designation of Special Protection Areas (SPA) by the Joint Nature Conservation Council (JNCC) 

31 IUCN - International Union of Conservation or Nature 

32 www.rbbp.org.uk 


Ornithology 



12.2.54 The status of birds in Cornwall used in Table 12.2 above is taken from Birds in Cornwall 2006 

(CBWPS), and can be viewed in Table 12.3. 

Table 12.3 

Abundance and status of bird species in Cornwall 

Collision Modelling 

Status Non-Breeding Individuals Breeding pairs 

Abundant 50,000 

Very Common 10,001–100,000 5,001–50,000 

Common 1,001–10,000 501–5,000 

Scarce 101–1000 51–500 

Very Scarce 11–100 6–50 

Rare 1–10


avoidance research has been carried out, the SNH (2010) guidance provides more accurate 

avoidance values. 

12.2.59 The final stage of the calculation involves applying an estimate of downtime for the turbines, 

and reducing the predicted collisions accordingly. 

12.2.60 Further details of the Collision Risk Modelling methodology and the results can be found in 


Effect Assessment 

12.2.61 Wind energy developments have the potential to impact upon birds and their habitats (Drewitt 

& Langston, 2006) through: 

• Collision mortality; 

• Displacement due to disturbance; 

• Habitat loss or degradation; and, 

• Barrier effect (increasing energy demands of birds). 

12.2.62 The proposed wind turbine development at Wheal Jane has the potential to effect birds 

through all of the above factors, although the barrier effect in the final bullet point above 

refers mainly to large arrays of turbines and so is not entirely relevant to this project. 

12.2.63 Effects can be positive or negative, permanent or temporary, direct or indirect. The greater 

the level of change, the greater the effect. In order to characterise the effects on each 

feature, the following parameters are taken account of: 

• The magnitude of the impact; 

• The spatial extent over which the impact would occur; 

• The temporal duration of the impact; 

• Whether the impact is reversible and over what time frame; and, 

• The timing and frequency of the impact. 

12.2.64 Mitigation of potential effects from the proposed turbine has been incorporated within the 

impact assessment stage. As such the impact assessment deals with the residual effects 

post-mitigation. All mitigation included has been agreed with the client, and has been 

discussed with statutory and non-statutory consultees. 


and Environmental Management, 2006) suggest that impacts should be determined as 

significant or not in terms of the effects on the integrity of designated sites and ecosystems 

and the conservation status of habitats and species. However, in order to maintain 

consistency with the methodology for impact assessment used throughout this EIA, the 

ecological impact assessment in this chapter follows the categories for the significance of the 


Ornithology 



effects set out in the matrix in Table 12.4 where the significance of an effect is related to the 

magnitude of the change or impact and the importance of the receptor. 

12.2.66 The magnitude of change for each effect has been derived using the following categories that 

have been established for this project using professional judgement. 

• Large – effects >10% of the site population of a species; 

• Medium – effects 5–10% of the site population of a species; 

• Small – effects 1–5% of the site population of a species; 

• Negligible – effects


• Carrick Heaths SSSI – designated for its heathland habitats and is approximately 3 km 

north of the site at its closest point; and 

• West Cornwall Bryophytes SSSI – designated for its rare bryophyte assemblage and is 

located approximately 2 km west of the site. 

12.3.2 No nature conservation sites important at an international or national level and which are 

designated for their bird assemblage were identified within 5 km of the application site. 

12.3.3 Two non-statutory nature conservation sites were identified within 2 km of the application site: 

• Bissoe Valley County Wildlife Site (CWS) – notable for its regenerating heathland, 

ponds, and invertebrates, and is approximately 1 km south of the application site. 

• Helstone Water Wood CWS – this site is approximately 1 km east of the site. 

Notable Species Records 

12.3.4 Approximately 4,500 records of notable birds were provided by ERCCIS within 5 km of the 

application site. This included records of 119 species. Only records for the period 2000–2010 

have been used in this assessment. However, information on one species (Dartford Warbler) 

outside this time period was included because of the rarity of this species. A summary of the 

species records received from ERCCIS can be viewed in Appendix 12.4. As these records 

are from a 5 km area around the site, many of these species may never have been present 

within the application site boundary, although the evaluation of this data does allow an 

assessment of the bird assemblage in the wider area. 

12.3.5 Guidance from both SNH (2006, Table 1a) and Natural England (2010, Appendix 1) gives 

lists of birds thought to be particularly at risk from impacts from wind turbines. Thirteen 

species in the records received are included in these lists): curlew, dunlin, osprey, merlin, 

little egret, hobby, hen harrier, grey heron, peregrine, red kite, sandwich tern, and whimbrel. 

Due to habitats present, it is considered that only curlew, peregrine, little egret and heron will 

breed or overwinter in proximity to Wheal Jane mine for significant periods of time. Curlew 

will overwinter in lowland farmland. Peregrine and little egret are likely to be resident at a low 

density year-round in the wider area. Grey heron are also a resident species, but are likely to 

be present at low densities due to lack of suitable habitat in the application site and 

surrounding area. 

12.3.6 The other species are passage migrants passing through during a short period in spring or 

autumn (osprey, sandwich tern, whimbrel, red kite) or are scarce summer/winter visitors 

present at very low densities (merlin, hobby, hen harrier) 

Site Description 

12.3.7 The ornithological scoping survey undertaken on 13 August 2009 identified a variety of 

habitats at the site with the potential to support birds (see Figure 12.2). Mixed broadleaf 

woodland was present at a number of areas within the perimeter of the site, although this was 

patchy and broken and did not constitute large continuous stands. Approximately 2–3 ha of 

mature coniferous plantation was present within the south of the site. 


Ornithology 



12.3.8 Scrub is present across much of the site, largely comprising gorse and bramble. Some small 

patches of heathland were also present, the largest along the eastern boundary. 

12.3.9 A collapsed mine shaft at the east of the Wheal Jane site known as ‘The Coffin’ contains a 

precipitous rock cliff. Numerous ledges are present offering bird nesting opportunities, and 

information from a local farmer indicates kestrel have successfully nested at this location in 

previous years (Percy Richards pers. comm. 2010). 

12.3.10 A shallow waterbody fed by surface water was present in the centre of the site (see Figure 

12.2). No aquatic, emergent or marginal vegetation appeared to be present within the 

waterbody. This was possibly a result of the high levels of contaminants present in the 

substrate. Although unconfirmed, the previous use of this area as a tailings dam would 

suggest high levels of heavy metal contamination in the substrate 34 . The water body was 

surrounded by extensive mudflats. The presence of shallow water and an adjacent large 

open area indicated it could be of value to roosting gulls and water birds. Indeed, during the 

scoping survey a mixed flock of over 100 gulls (great black-backed, lesser black-backed, 

herring, and black-headed) was present along with 42 curlew roosting at this waterbody. 

Subsequent visits to the site over the 12 month survey period showed that this waterbody is 

ephemeral, and became desiccated in times of little rain reducing its value to roosting birds. 

12.3.11 Much of the Wheal Jane site is currently in use as an inert landfill site. Plant and heavy good 

vehicles traffic across much of the site during normal working hours. The industrial area at 

the north of the site also has large vehicle movement associated to it, as well as 

manufacturing processes. Much of the ruderal and scrub vegetation across the Wheal Jane 

site is regularly cleared with excavators (a process required so any potential geological 

issues such as subsidence can be identified). The result of all these activities is a site with 

high background levels of physical, visual, and acoustic disturbance. 

Survey Results 

12.3.12 A total of 70 bird species were recorded during all surveys carried out between August 2009 

and August 2010. Of these, 10 species were ‘target species’. Thirty-nine birds showed 

evidence of breeding within the Wheal Jane site. 

12.3.13 Appendix 12.5 contains information regarding all species recorded on site (during both CBC 

and VP work). This table also includes information on the legal protection and conservation 

status of each species. 

Target Species 

12.3.14 Over the twelve months of survey, 196 flights of target species (see 12.2.15) were observed 

through the survey area 35 . Target species recorded making flights through the application site 

and surrounding area and the number of flights recorded can be viewed in Table 12.5. 

12.3.15 This table also summarises the total time that each target species spent within the collision 

risk zone (at turbine height). This data is taken from the detailed collision risk analysis in 

Appendix 12.3. This figure is a product of the amount of time the birds were recorded within 

34 

David Wright, Atkins geotechnical engineer, pers. comm. 

35 

Visual envelopes of VP1 and VP2 (see Figure 12.9) 


Ornithology 



the collision risk zone multiplied with the number of birds observed during each flight. The 

collision risk zone is the height band between the lower and upper blade height. 

Table 12.5 

Summary of target species flights recorded during VP surveys. 

Species 

Number of recorded flights 

Bird seconds within collision risk 

zone (time within collision risk zone) 

Lapwing 124 1,066,680 

Curlew 47 9,705 

Snipe 3 480 

Peregrine 13 420 

Whimbrel 2 210 

Golden plover 1 0 

Black-tailed godwit 1 0 

Mallard 2 0 

Shoveler 2 0 

Redshank 1 0 

12.3.16 Lapwing was the most numerous target species recorded within the survey area. An 

overwintering population of lapwing were present at the Wheal Jane site or within 

neighbouring fields from October 2009 to March 2010. The flock increased from around 100 

in October 2009, to a peak of approximately 500 in mid February 2010. Lapwing are present 

in Britain in large numbers during the winter months. The UK breeding population is swollen 

with birds which have bred on the continent and migrate to the UK to take advantage of our 

relatively mild winters. Flight lines of lapwing recorded within the survey envelope during the 

VP surveys can be viewed on Figure 12.3. As numerous flights of lapwing were recorded at 

the site, and they often followed the same flight paths, these have been summarised on 

Figure 12.3 using colour codes. 

12.3.17 During cold winters, numbers of many bird species in the UK will increase as birds which 

would normally overwinter on the continent head west to take advantage of the relatively mild 

temperatures. In the UK, the winter of 2009/2010 was 2°C lower than the average 

(www.metoffice.gov.uk). Fewer lapwing than were observed in 2009/10 this may be present 

during a more normal winter, although no data is available to confirm this proposition. 

12.3.18 Along with other water birds present such as curlew and redshank, lapwing appeared to be 

attracted to the site by the shallow waterbody and surrounding mudflats which they used for 

roosting. Many of the lapwing flights recorded were of birds flying around the waterbody while 

settling to roost, or of the flock (or flocks) commuting between the roost, and adjacent fields 

to the east which they used for foraging. As can be viewed on Figure 12.3, the majority of 

recorded flights were at the east of the survey area. 

12.3.19 Curlew was recorded on most visits during the winter months. Like lapwing, numbers of this 

species increase in lowland farmland during winter as birds from northern Britain and the 


Ornithology 



continent move south. Curlew numbers peaked during the scoping survey undertaken in 

August 2009 with a count of 42 birds. Flights of this species were recorded over much of the 

Wheal Jane site, although the majority were noted flying between the waterbody and fields to 

the east of the site where they would forage. Flight lines of curlew can be viewed on Figure 

12.4. 

12.3.20 Snipe were only observed on three occasions during the winter 2009/10. The highest count 

was a flock of 15 seen flying through the Wheal Jane site on 26 th January 2010. Flight lines of 

snipe can be viewed on Figure 12.5. 

12.3.21 A flock of seven whimbrel were recorded once on 6 th May 2010. This species is a passage 

migrant, passing through the UK in spring and autumn. Flight lines of whimbrel can be viewed 

on Figure 12.6. 

12.3.22 Peregrine were recorded making 13 flights through the Wheal Jane site between October 

2009 and March 2010. A maximum of two birds were observed on 16 th February 2010. None 

were observed at the site between April 2010 and August 2010. This would suggest that 

peregrines are attracted to the site by the flocks of overwintering wading birds roosting at the 

shallow waterbody. Peregrines are predatory birds of prey, and will readily predate species 

such as lapwing. Peregrine were also observed bathing within, and resting adjacent to the 

shallow waterbody. Flight lines of peregrine can be viewed on Figure 12.7. Suitable habitat 

for nesting is present within The Coffin, although there is no historical evidence that they 

have bred there. 

12.3.23 Five golden plover, three redshank and six black-tailed godwit were recorded during single 

visits to the site on 12 January, 29 April and 31 march 2010 respectively. All species were 

recorded briefly flying below collision risk height (0–35 m). Due to the infrequency of 

observation of these species, and the fact that all were recorded below collision risk height, 

no collision analysis or mapping of flight paths has been undertaken. 

12.3.24 Three mallard and two shoveler were recorded at the Wheal Jane site on 15 and 29 April 

2010 respectively. Both species were recorded flying below collision risk height. Due to the 

infrequency of observation of these species, and the fact that they were recorded below 

collision risk height, no collision analysis or mapping of flight paths has been undertaken. 

Secondary Species 

12.3.25 Secondary species are non-target species that may still be local or regional value and that 

may be affected by a wind turbine development. No mapping of flight paths for secondary 

species has been undertaken. 

12.3.26 Gulls were recorded at the Wheal Jane site during every survey. The most numerous species 

recorded were herring gull and black-headed gull, although greater black-back gull and lesser 

black-backed gull were also recorded. Gulls used the shallow waterbody and surrounding 

mud flats to roost, and large flocks were noted throughout the year. Black-headed gulls 

peaked in December 2010 when over 300 birds were observed. Flocks of over 150 herring 

gulls were recorded in October 2009, and in April and May 2010. 

12.3.27 Buzzard, kestrel and sparrowhawk were all recorded at the Wheal Jane site during the 

12 months of survey. Buzzards were noted during almost all surveys at the site with a 


Ornithology 



maximum count of eight in October 2009. Kestrel and sparrowhawk were recorded less 

frequently with only single birds being recorded. All species have been observed hunting at 

the site, and roosting on features such as trees and telegraphs poles. The majority of flights 

were below collision height, although all species have been observed soaring at collision 

height. 

12.3.28 Grey heron was observed flying through the Wheal Jane site in August 2009 and July 2010. 

Carrion crow, rook, jackdaw and raven have all been recorded at the site throughout the year. 

Woodpigeon, feral pigeon, and collared dove have all been recorded. 

Wintering Bird Survey (CBC) 

12.3.29 A flock of four mallard were observed at the Wheal Jane site on the 16 th December 2009. 

These birds were present on one of the settlement lagoons within the tailings dam area of the 

site, adjacent to the shallow waterbody. 

12.3.30 Buzzard were observed hunting rabbits and rats over the site. Kestrel and sparrowhawk were 

both seen on one occasion during the surveys. 

12.3.31 The flock of waders at the shallow waterbody seen during surveys from VP2 were also 

observed during the wintering bird surveys. Lapwing was the most numerous species 

encountered, with 368 present on 10 th February 2010 (although approximately 500 were 

recorded during VP surveys on 16 th February 2010). Curlew was present at the same location 

with the highest count being 28 birds on 16 th December 2009. On 16th December 2009, a 

snipe was disturbed from a wet flush approximately 50 m north east of the proposed turbine 

location and a further flock of eight were seen at the shallow waterbody. 

12.3.32 Redwing and fieldfare were observed in small numbers throughout the winter, the most 

notable sighting of 20 redwings from VP2 on 10 th February 2010. 

12.3.33 Most of the species encountered during the surveys were common passerines (songbird) 

which foraged widely over the Wheal Jane site. Of note was the presence of a flock of over 

100 linnets on 30 September 2009. This species is loosely colonial even during the breeding 

season, and in late summer and autumn often can be found in large flocks before migrating 

south. Skylarks and meadow pipits were also observed during the September survey, often 

heading south overhead indicting these were passage birds heading south. 

12.3.34 A large flock of jackdaw was present at the Wheal Jane site, with numbers peaking at 80 on 

10 th February 2010. These birds often roosted on buildings and structures within the industrial 

estate. 

Breeding Bird Survey (CBC) 

12.3.35 Thirty-nine species showed evidence of breeding at the Wheal Jane site during surveys 

undertaken in 2010. Full details of breeding species can be viewed in Appendix 12.5. The 

approximate locations of breeding territories of notable bird species (see 12.2.8) can be 

viewed on Figure 12.8. 


Ornithology 



12.3.36 Notable breeding species at the Wheal Jane site included: house sparrow, linnet, song thrush 

and skylark. All of which are included on the Red-List of Birds of Conservation Concern 36 . 

House sparrow was observed nesting in a building within the industrial estate approximately 

200 m north of the turbine location. Linnet and song thrush were recorded breeding in scrub 

and trees around the site. Skylark are likely to have bred in grazed pasture at the east of the 

site. 

12.3.37 A pair of raven successfully reared two chicks at a nest within ‘The Coffin’ (collapsed mine 

shaft with cliff face towards the east of Wheal Jane site). The pair began building the nest in 

February 2010 and two chicks were observed on the 15 th April 2010. 

12.3.38 A tawny owl was observed roosting in a cave within ‘The Coffin’ on 20 th May 2010. This is the 

only sighting of this species, although birds have been heard calling from woodland adjacent 

to the Wheal Jane site during bat surveys. It is thought likely that tawny owls breed in the 

local area, but the lack of suitable habitat would suggest they are unlikely to breed at the site. 

Tawny owls are not a notable species, and are not mentioned in guidance from SNH (2006) 

or Natural England (2010) as being of particular risk of impacts from wind turbine. No 

additional surveys were considered necessary for this species. 

12.3.39 House martins and swallows were both confirmed to have bred at the site, mostly around the 

industrial estate at the north of the Wheal Jane site. 

12.3.40 Common species of warbler – blackcap, chiffchaff, whitethroat and willow warbler are all 

thought to have bred within suitable habitat at the Wheal Jane site. 

12.3.41 During a bat survey undertaken on 24 th June 2010, a nightjar was heard ‘reeling’ off-site (the 

distinctive drawn out song of nightjar is often referred to as ‘reeling’). The exact location could 

not be determined, but it appeared to be approximately 1 km west of the site. No other 

observations of nightjar were obtained from the site. Some areas of heathland are present 

within the site, and heathland is the nightjar’s preferred habitat, but these areas are small and 

fragmented and considered sub-optimal for this species. 

Trends 

12.3.42 Being an industrial site, habitats present and the birdlife they support are likely to change 

overtime. Vegetation clearance is regularly undertaken at the site to prevent the 

establishment of dense scrub and woodland which may conceal geological problems such as 

subsidence. 

Collision modelling 

12.3.43 For the purpose of this assessment all target species recorded flying within the VP envelopes 

at collision height have undergone a collision risk assessment. Full details of the process and 

calculations can be found in Appendix 12.3. A summary of the results can be found below in 

Table 12.6. 

36 Birds of Conservation Concern (2009): The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of 

Man 


Ornithology 



12.3.44 Avoidance rates are still unknown for many species. Traditionally a generic avoidance rate of 

95% is applied (Band et al., 2006). However, SNH (2010) have recently produced guidance 

Use of Avoidance Rates in the SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk Model which proposes that a 

default avoidance rate of 98% is more accurate. This means that one bird in 50 will take no 

action to avoid an obstacle (in this case a wind turbine). For some species, where detailed 

collision avoidance research has been carried out, the SNH (2010) guidance lists more 

accurate avoidance values. Collision risk values can be viewed below in Table 12.6. 

12.3.45 A turbine downtime of 10% is included within the calculations (see Appendix 12.3). This 

estimate has been provided by Partnership for Renewables. This is probably a cautious 

figure, for example Band et al. (2006) use an example with a 25% downtime due to 

maintenance and shutdowns at very low and very high wind speeds. 

12.3.46 The most abundant target species recorded within the collision risk zone is lapwing, and it 

follows that lapwing is predicted to be the species with the highest number of collisions per 

year. The collision risk has been calculated for all species using flight data from a 500 m 

radius surrounding the proposed wind turbine. 

12.3.47 Numerous flights of lapwing were recorded at the Wheal Jane site, many of which were within 

the 500 m survey area, but away to the south and east of the proposed turbine location. 

Many flights recorded were 200–500 m from the proposed turbine between a roosting area 

and fields to the east in which the birds foraged, and did not pass near to the proposed 

turbine location (see Figure 12.3). Because of this clumped distribution of flights, it was 

considered that using all lapwing flight data would give a misleading assessment of the 

collision risk. To give a more representative assessment of the collision risk at the proposed 

turbine location, the calculation was rerun using only lapwing flight data from within 200 m of 

the proposed turbine (200–500 m is the recommended VP survey envelope for birds around 

proposed wind farms, SNH 2005). 

12.3.48 All parameters of the wind development within the calculations were updated accordingly. 

Collision analysis for lapwing using all flight data, and only that from within 200 m of the 

turbine have been included below for clarity. 

Table 12.6 

Summary of collision risk for target species 

Species 

Lapwing 

(using all 

flight data) 

Lapwing 

(excluding 

flight data over 

200 m from 

turbine) 

Curlew Snipe Peregrine Whimbrel 

Predicted annual 

collisions using 

98% avoidance 

rate 

135.11 33.93 0.71 0.02 0.03 0.01 

Nature Conservation Evaluation 

12.3.49 The Wheal Jane site is of highest ecological value for birds during the winter months. The 

relative safety of the shallow water body in the centre of the site and the surrounding mud 

flats attracts large flocks of waders and gulls. A range of habitats around the site are suitable 

for breeding and foraging. For the purpose of this evaluation, each target bird species has 


Ornithology 



been treated as an ecological receptor. The importance of each receptor has been evaluated 

using the EIA criteria (see Table 12.2). 

12.3.50 Population estimates of the species below within the UK are taken from Population Estimates 

of the Birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom (Baker et.al. 2006). This presents the 

work of the Avian Population Estimates Panel. 

12.3.51 Estimates of the size of bird species populations within Cornwall have been taken from Birds 

in Cornwall 2006 (Cornwall Bird-watching and Preservation Society, no date). 

Lapwing 

12.3.52 The flock of lapwing regularly present at the Wheal Jane site during the winter months 

peaked at 500 birds in February 2010. The maximum count in January 2010 was 320 

lapwing, and 368 lapwing were noted in March 2010. Lapwing is included on the Red-List of 

Birds of Conservation Concern (see Appendix 12.5) due to a decline in their breeding 

population. However, inclusion of a species in lists of declining species is not itself a sufficient 

criterion for assigning a level of value to the species concerned (IEEM 2006). 

12.3.53 Baker et.al. (2006) estimates the population of overwintering lapwing in Britain to be between 

1.5 and 2 million birds. The population of lapwing at the Wheal Jane site constitutes between 

0.025% and 0.033% of the overwintering UK population. 

12.3.54 Birds of Cornwall 2006 categorises lapwing as a common winter visitor – with between 1,001 

and 10,000 non-breeding individuals. Within this publication is a summary of monthly lapwing 

counts from various sites around the county recorded for the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) 

organised by the British Trust for Ornithology. The largest count of lapwing within the county 

was 6,681 birds during January 2006. Only the primary wetlands within the county will have 

been counted for the WeBS survey. Lapwings will spend much of their time on farmland well 

away from wetlands surveyed as part of the WeBS surveys, and so the figure in Birds of 

Cornwall 2006 is likely to be an underestimate of the entire Cornwall population. The flock of 

500 lapwing recorded at the Wheal Jane site during February 2010 constitutes 7.5% of the 

estimated Cornwall population. 

12.3.55 The population of lapwing overwintering at the Wheal Jane site is therefore considered to be 

of medium importance being more than 1% of the county population and less than 1% of the 

British population. 

Curlew 

12.3.56 The population of curlew at the Wheal Jane site peaked at 42 birds during the scoping survey 

in August 2009. Curlew is included on the Amber-list of Birds of Conservation Concern due to 

its recent breeding population decline (see Appendix 12.5). The British overwintering 

population has been estimated at 147,100 birds (Baker et. al. 2006). Birds of Cornwall 2006 

(Cornwall Bird-watching and Preservation Society, undated) has estimated the maximum 

number of Curlew within Cornwall to be 1,186 in January 2006. 

12.3.57 The maximum count of curlew recorded at the Wheal Jane site is approximately 0.03% of the 

British population and 3.7% of the Cornwall population. The population of curlew at the Wheal 


Ornithology 



Jane site is therefore considered to be to be of medium importance, being more than 1 % of 

the population, and less than 1% of the British population. 

Snipe 

12.3.58 The maximum number of snipe recorded at the Wheal Jane site was 15 in January 2010. 

Snipe is included on the Amber-list of Birds of Conservation Concern due to its recent 

breeding population decline (see Appendix 12.5). The British overwintering population has 

been estimated at >100,000 birds (Baker et. al. 2006). Cornwall Birds 2006 (Cornwall Birdwatching 

and Preservation Society, no date) categorises snipe as a common winter visitor, 

and gives a maximum count of 860 birds in January 2006. Due to their habitat and behaviour 

snipe are often under recorded, and so this is likely to be an underestimate. However this is 

the most accurate figure available for the population in Cornwall and so has been used for 

this assessment. 

12.3.59 The maximum number of snipe recorded at the Wheal Jane site is 0.02% of the British 

population, and 1.7% of the county population. The population of snipe at the Wheal Jane 

site is therefore considered to be to be of medium importance, being more than 1 % of the 

population, and less than 1% of the British population. 

Whimbrel 

12.3.60 The maximum number of whimbrel recorded at the Wheal Jane site was seven in May 2010. 

Whimbrel is included on the Red-List of Birds of Conservation Concern (see Appendix 12.5) 

due to a decline in their breeding population. The maximum estimate of numbers in Britain for 

this species is 3,530 during spring migration (Baker et. al. 2006). The approximate maximum 

monthly total in Cornwall (Cornwall Bird-watching and Preservation Society, no date) is 913 in 

April 2006. 

12.3.61 The maximum number of whimbrel recorded at the Wheal Jane site is 0.2% of the British 

population and 0.7% of the Cornish population. The population of whimbrel at the Wheal 

Jane site is therefore considered to be to be of low importance, being less than 1 % of the 

Cornwall population. 

Peregrine 

12.3.62 A maximum of two birds were observed at the Wheal Jane site during February 2010. The 

maximum number of birds in Britain has been estimated at 1,167 (Baker et. al. 2006). No 

specific figure for the number of overwintering peregrine is available from the Birds of 

Cornwall 2006 (Cornwall Bird-watching and Preservation Society, no date), however this 

species is categorised as very scarce indicating 11–100 non-breeding individuals. The two 

birds recorded at the site constitute approximately 0.2% of the British population, and 

between 18% and 2% of the Cornish population. The population of overwintering peregrine 

can therefore be considered to be of medium importance being more than 1% of the Cornish 

population. 

Gulls 

12.3.63 Although not target species for this scheme, all four species of gull recorded at the Wheal 

Jane site are listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern (see Appendix 12.5). Herring gull is 


Ornithology 



on the red list due to the species’ recent breeding population decline. Greater black-back gull, 

lesser black-backed gull and black-headed gull are all amber listed. 

12.3.64 The gull flock recorded was generally formed from more than one species. The gull species 

within this mixed flock roosted together, and often arrived and departed from the Wheal Jane 

site together. 

12.3.65 Birds in Cornwall 2006 (Cornwall Bird-watching and Preservation Society, undated) estimates 

the maximum number of herring gull within the county as 4,656 in January 2006. The 

maximum estimate of numbers in Britain for this species is 376,775 (Baker et. al. 2006). The 

maximum count at the Wheal Jane site was 171 which is approximately 0.05% of the British 

population and 3.7% of the Cornish population. The population of herring gull can therefore 

be considered to be of medium importance being more than 1% of the Cornish population. 

12.3.66 The maximum number of lesser black-backed gulls in Cornwall (Jan 2006) has been 

estimated at 2098. The maximum estimate of numbers in Britain for this species is 110,101 

(Baker et. al. 2006). The maximum count at the Wheal Jane site was 25 birds in August 2009 

(during the scoping survey). This constitutes approximately 0.02% of the British population 

and 1.2% of the Cornish population and is therefore of medium importance. 

12.3.67 The maximum number of greater black-backed gulls in Cornwall (January 2006) has been 

estimated at 920. The maximum estimate of numbers in Britain for this species is 43,108 

(Baker et. al. 2006). The maximum count at the Wheal Jane site was five birds in June 2010. 

This constitutes approximately 0.01% of the British population, and 0.5% of the Cornish 

population. The population of lesser black-backed gull can therefore be considered to be of 

low importance being less than 1% of the Cornish population. 

12.3.68 The maximum number of black-headed gulls in Cornwall (November 2006) has been 

estimated at 8,281. The maximum estimate of numbers in Britain for this species is 1,682,385 

(Baker et. al. 2006). The maximum count at the site was 300 birds in December 2009. This 

constitutes approximately 0.02% of the British population and 3.6% of the Cornish population. 

The population of black-headed gull can therefore be considered to be of medium importance 

being more than 1% of the Cornish population. 

Raptors 

12.3.69 Buzzard, kestrel and sparrowhawk have all been recorded at the site throughout the survey 

period. The maximum count of buzzard was eight in October 2009. Only a single kestrel and 

sparrowhawk have been recorded at the site. No specific estimates have been given by the 

Cornwall Bird-watching and Preservation Society for the numbers of these species within 

Cornwall. 

12.3.70 Kestrel is classified as a scarce breeding resident, and is also listed on the Amber-list of Birds 

of Conservation Concern (see Appendix 12.5). Being a notable species regularly recorded at 

the site, this species is considered to be of low importance. 

12.3.71 Buzzard and sparrowhawk are classified as common breeding resident species within 

Cornwall (Cornwall Bird-watching and Preservation Society, no date), and the low numbers 

recorded would indicate the site is of negligible importance for this species. 


Ornithology 



Others 

12.3.72 Raven is classified as a scarce breeding resident (Cornwall Bird-watching and Preservation 

Society, no date), although no estimate of population has been given. Suitable breeding 

habitat for raven is present around much of Cornwall’s coastline, and it is considered unlikely 

the pair observed at the site constitute more that 1% of the county population of this species. 

The presence of a breeding pair at the Wheal Jane site in 2010 would suggest this species is 

of low importance. 

12.3.73 The mosaic of bare ground, scrub, trees and buildings around the Wheal Jane site offer 

suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the assemblage of common breeding birds such as 

finches, warblers and tits. This assemblage is typical of this habitat. A number of species 

found at the site such as linnet, song thrush and skylark, are listed on Birds of Conservation 

Concern. However, all are common and widespread species in Britain and their presence 

alone does not indicate ecological value. The assemblage of common breeding birds is 

considered to be of negligible importance. 


Scheme layout 

12.4.1 The key objective at the site is to locate the turbine away from flight paths of target species 

recorded at the Wheal Jane site – in particular lapwing. The main area of lapwing flight paths 

is to the south and east of the current proposed turbine location, and the main wader roosting 

site is approximately 300 m to the southeast. Within the confines of the Wheal Jane site and 

other physical and environmental constraints upon its location, the turbine is considered to be 

positioned in a location with the least potential impacts to birds. 

12.4.2 The general area of the turbine position (to within 50 m) has been known since the start of 

the assessment period. 

12.4.3 All construction will be on industrial/brownfield land, with access routes making use of current 

tracks. There will be no significant loss of trees or scrub that could be mitigated by 

repositioning the turbine. 

Construction controls 

12.4.4 This section considers the controls that are proposed to be implemented to minimise the 

effects of the construction to the scheme. The controls are included in the Environmental 

Management Plan in Chapter 18. The measures set out below are considered to be part of 

the scheme in terms of the subsequent assessment of effects. 

12.4.5 Some localised pruning and scrub clearance may be necessary around the turbine base and 

associated infrastructure. Nesting birds are likely to be present in the vegetation during the 

bird nesting season. The breeding seasons for different birds vary, depending on the species, 

location and on weather conditions. The core breeding season for most birds can be taken to 

run from the beginning of March to the end of August, but breeding often occurs in February 

or September for some species. Work outside this period runs less risk of destroying active 

nests although care is needed at all times to avoid committing an offence since some bird 


Ornithology 



species have been recorded nesting in every month of the year. All birds, their nests and 

eggs are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) against 

damage or destruction. 

12.4.6 All vegetation clearance will be carried out between October and February inclusive (outside 

of the key nesting bird season). If this is not possible, an ecologist will check the vegetation to 

be removed for bird nests a maximum of 24 hours prior to clearance. If occupied nests are 

found then a buffer zone around the nest would be implemented where no clearance would 

be undertaken until the young have fledged. 

Operational controls 

12.4.7 Details of operational controls to mitigate for potentially significant effects upon birds can be 

viewed in section 12.6. 

12.5 Potential significant effects prior to mitigation 

12.5.1 This section details the significance of effect as set out in Table 12.4 and based on the 

magnitude of change and the importance of each ornithological feature identified in section 

12.4, assuming implementation of the control measures outlined in section 12.5. 

Effects During Construction 

12.5.2 Habitats present at the location for the proposed turbine, site compound and crane pad 

currently include; bare ground, scrub, and ruderal 37 vegetation. Approximately 50 m 2 of scrub 

will be permanently lost in this area, which may provide nesting, foraging, and roosting 

opportunity to notable bird species such as linnet and song thrush. Due to its industrial 

nature, scrub habitats present at the Wheal Jane site are in constant flux, with some areas 

becoming overgrown, and others undergoing vegetation clearance. This small impact on the 

local bird assemblage of negligible importance through the loss of scrub, assuming 

vegetation clearance is undertaken at an appropriate time of year, will be not significant. 

12.5.3 Construction activities related to the turbine, site compound, crane pad and associated 

infrastructure will create temporary sound, vibration and visual disturbance. As yet is it 

unknown at what time of year the turbine may be constructed. If during the winter months, 

disturbance could be caused to overwintering flocks of waders and gulls roosting at the 

shallow waterbody approximately 300 m to the south east of the proposed turbine location. 

However plant and heavy vehicle movement across the site is common, including in the 

vicinity of the proposed turbine location and the shallow water body of value to roosting birds. 

In addition, due to the topography, a direct line of sight is not present between the shallow 

waterbody and the area where most construction activities will occur. This negligible impact 

on overwintering waders and gulls of medium to low importance through disturbance will be 

not significant. 

37 Ruderal vegetation is tall plants or weeds that are often the first to colonise bare ground. 


Ornithology 



Effects during Operation 

Collision Risk 

12.5.4 Full details of the Collision Risk Modelling methodology and the results can be found in 


12.5.5 The primary effect is likely to come through the potential collision of overwintering lapwing 

with the turbine blades. Using the 98% avoidance factor (SNH, 2010), there is estimated to 

be approximately 135 lapwing collisions per annum (using a 98% avoidance factor), or the 

more realistic 34 collisions per annum (using a 98% avoidance factor, and only data from 

within 200 m of the turbine) (see section 12.3.44 for rational). This impact is permanent as 

each collision assumed to be fatal. Depending on the two scenarios assessed, this would 

constitute either 27% or 6.8% of the flock of 500 present at the Wheal Jane site (peak 

recorded in February 2010). 

12.5.6 Using the worst case scenario of 135 collisions per annum, the large magnitude of change on 

the overwintering lapwing population of medium importance would result in a substantial 

significance of effect. Due to factors described in paragraph 12.5.6 the probability of this 

impact occurring is considered to be unlikely. Using the alternative prediction of 34 collisions 

per annum, the medium magnitude of change on the overwintering lapwing population of 

medium importance would result in a moderate significance of effect. 

12.5.7 The scenarios of 135 lapwing collisions per annum (using a 98% avoidance factor), or 34 

lapwing collisions per annum (using a 98% avoidance factor and excluding flight path data 

over 200 m from the turbine) is considered to be highly precautionary, and is likely to be an 

overestimate. Some studies have shown that lapwing is not considered at particular risk from 

collision with wind turbines, and are extremely good at avoiding wind turbines day and night 

(Langston & Pullan, 2004). In addition numbers of overwintering lapwing in the UK normally 

peak in late December or January with numbers rapidly declining in late February and March 

(Kirby & Lack, 1993). The peak of 500 lapwing at the Wheal Jane site during mid-February 

2010 is likely to be an anomaly. This may have been caused by the severe cold weather 

during January 2010 causing birds which would normally winter on the continent or eastern 

England to move further west. This would cause the lapwing flock recorded at the site during 

2010 to be larger than average, and hence provide an overestimated collision risk. 

12.5.8 The collision risk analysis has indicated that 0.71 overwintering curlew may collide with the 

turbine per annum (or one bird every 1.4 years). This impact is permanent as each collision 

assumed to be fatal. This is equivalent to 1.7% of the Wheal Jane site population, and 0.06% 

of the Cornwall population. Langston & Pullan (2004) indicate that curlew is not considered at 

particular risk from collision with wind turbines. This negligible magnitude of change of on the 

curlew population of medium importance will be not significant. 

12.5.9 Collision risk values for overwintering peregrine, snipe and whimbrel are extremely low at 

0.03, 0.02, and 0.01 bird strikes per annum, respectively (or one bird every 37, 52 or 71 years 

respectively). These impacts are permanent as each collision assumed to be fatal. This 

negligible magnitude of change on species of medium to low importance will be not 

significant. 


Ornithology 



12.5.10 Five further target species; mallard, shoveler, golden plover, redshank and black-tailed 

godwit were recorded at the Wheal Jane site but not within the collision risk height zone. 

These species were therefore excluded from the collision risk calculations and no effects are 

predicted. 

12.5.11 As they were not target species for this scheme, no flight height data was recorded for gulls 

at the site. Gulls are not included on the lists of species considered at risk from wind turbine 

developments (SNH, 2006 and Natural England, 2010). Some studies have shown that gulls 

have a collision avoidance rate of 99.6% (Painter et. al., 1999). This negligible magnitude of 

change on the gull population of medium to low importance will be not significant. 

12.5.12 Kestrel and raven were both assessed as being important at a site level. These were not 

target species for this scheme. Both species were recorded in low numbers and infrequently 

throughout the surveys. This negligible magnitude of change on the kestrel and raven 

population of low importance will be not significant. 

Disturbance/Displacement 

12.5.13 Some level of noise and visual disturbance to wading birds (lapwing, curlew, snipe, 

whimbrel) roosting at the shallow waterbody is likely to be incurred during the operation of the 

turbine. This potential impact is considered to be permanent as it is associated with the 

operation of the turbine. Waders have been shown to be displaced by wind turbines 

(Percieval, 2003) although these tend to be in coastal or upland locations. The Wheal Jane 

site is an operational industrial site and plant and heavy vehicle movement is regular 

throughout normal working hours. As such the relative disturbance as a result of the wind 

turbine will be lower than in a more natural location such as coastline or upland habitat. 

Hötker et al. (2006) indicates that lapwing can be displaced approximately 135 m by wind 

turbines, with curlew displaced up to 190 m, and snipe 300 m. 

12.5.14 The waterbody at which birds have been observed roosting at the Wheal Jane site is 

approximately 300 m from the proposed turbine location – further than the distances which 

Hocker et.al. (2006) identified disturbance to lapwing and curlew, and at the outer limit of the 

distance at which disturbance has been observed to snipe. This small magnitude of change 

on the wader population of medium to low importance will be slight. 

12.5.15 Raptors such as peregrine, buzzard, sparrowhawk and kestrel could experience permanent 

disturbance from the turbine. Peregrine and sparrowhawk were recorded very infrequently at 

the Wheal Jane site, and therefore significant disturbance or displacement effects are 

considered very unlikely. Buzzard and kestrel both forage over the site, although Hötker et al. 

(2006) indicates these species may only suffer displacement effects from a wind turbine of 

25 m and 0 m respectively. Suitable foraging habitat is present across much of the site (and 

wider area), and so it is considered that displacement from the vicinity of turbine will not pose 

a problem to either of these species. This small magnitude of change on the raptor population 

of medium to negligible importance will be slight. However, the foraging area affected by the 

development will be very limited, and there is extensive alternative foraging habitat in the 

wider area. 


Ornithology 



12.5.16 Recent studies by Devereux et. al. (2008) have shown that wind turbines do not have 

significant disturbance effects upon common farmland birds, such as finches, skylarks, and 

warblers recorded at the site during the wintering bird surveys and breeding bird surveys. 


12.5.17 The predicted lifespan of the turbine is 25 years. The primary impact from decommissioning 

will be through temporary disturbance from heavy plant and vehicle movement. These 

impacts would be similar and no greater than those that may occur during the construction of 

the wind development, see 12.7.4 above. 


Mitigation 

12.6.1 The primary potential significant effect of the proposed turbine during operation will be the 

risk of approximately 135 lapwing collisions per annum (using a 98% avoidance factor), or the 

more realistic 34 collisions per annum (using a 98% avoidance factor, and only data from 

within 200 m of the turbine). This is likely to be an overestimate (for reasons outlined in 

section 12.5.6), but caution still needs to be applied. 

Habitat Creation 

12.6.2 To reduce the potential effects to the lapwing flock at the site, mitigation habitat in the form of 

a wader scrape will be created on farmland within the east of the site (see Figure 12.10). 

Although a similar distance to the proposed turbine as the existing water body, this new 

scrape will be closer to the primary foraging areas of the lapwing flock in the fields to the east 

of the Wheal Jane site, and so will reduce the requirement for lapwing to fly through the site. 

In parallel with the existing water body used by roosting lapwing on site, the scrape will be 

seasonal and is only likely to hold water during winter and time of high rainfall. These 

proposals have been discussed and agreed with Paul St. Pierre from the RSPB during a 

meeting on the 13 th May 2011, and subsequently with Mabel Cheung from the RSPB. 

12.6.3 The scrape will be created on a field slightly sloping to the northwest which is currently 

grazed by sheep and cattle. The scrape will be created by creating a small bund across the 

gradient of the field, this will impound surface water running down the field during wet 

periods. Pooling will be further enhanced by blocking the subterranean field drains to prevent 

water draining away. The field is currently owned by Wheal Jane Ltd., and is farmed by a 

nearby tenant farmer. Both landowner and tenant farmer have been involved in the 

discussions about the potential scrape location. 

12.6.4 Once the scrape is complete, the surrounding grassland will be grazed to maintain a short 

grass sward favoured by lapwing. 


Ornithology 



Enhancement 

Monitoring 

12.6.5 In line with guidance from SNH (2005) and Natural England (2010), a programme of post 

construction monitoring will be undertaken at the site, and at the new wader scrape to the 

east. The minimum recommended monitoring period recommended by Natural England 

(2010) is 3 years. Due to the potential substantial to moderate effects of the scheme on the 

overwintering lapwing population, a monitoring period of 5 years will be undertaken. An 

outline of the monitoring plan is given in Table 12.7. This will allow an assessment of the 

predicted effects of the development, in comparison with the actual observed effects. 

Monitoring will be detailed within the site Environmental Management Plan. 

12.6.6 The monitoring would be programmed for the winter months when lapwing numbers peak, 

both at the site and in Britain. 

12.6.7 The mitigation of potential effects from the proposed turbine through the provision of 

alternative habitat has been agreed with the client, and has been discussed with statutory 

and non-statutory consultees. 

Table 12.7 

Wheal Jane turbine bird monitoring plan 

Survey Description Frequency Duration 

Ground Search 

An area of approximately 100 m 

around the turbine location will be 

searched for bird corpses. Any dead 

birds found will be recorded and 

examined to determine probable 

cause of death. 

Weekly during 

December to 

February inclusive. 

5 years (assumed 

to be 2012–2017) 

Waterbird 

Survey 

All overwintering waterbirds (including 

lapwing) roosting at the shallow 

waterbody and the newly created 

scrape will be counted using WeBS 

methodology. 

Weekly during 

December to 

February inclusive. 


to be 2012–2017) 

Analysis and 

Reporting 

A report will be produced and issued 

to Cornwall Council and Natural 

England 

Annually 


to be 2012–2017) 


12.7.1 The provision of mitigation or alternative roosting habitat closer to the main foraging area of 

the overwintering lapwing flock (to the east of the site) will reduce the necessity for lapwing to 

fly onto the Wheal Jane site, and close to the turbine location. Although the ephemeral water 

body on the site currently used by overwintering lapwing will remain, the provision of 

alternative roosting habitat will reduce the number of lapwing roosting at the existing water 

body. An assessment based on knowledge of the site and experience of lapwing movements 

during winter indicates that the provision of alternative roosting habitat closer to the foraging 

areas could reduce the number of flights in proximity to the turbine, and hence the collision 

risk, by around 50%. 


Ornithology 



12.7.2 The worst case scenario estimate would therefore be reduced from 135 collisions per annum 

to 67.5 collisions per annum. The residual large magnitude of change on the overwintering 

lapwing population of medium importance would result in a moderate significance of effect. 

The alternative estimate of 34 collisions per annum would be reduced to 17 collisions per 

annum. The residual small magnitude of change on the overwintering lapwing population of 

medium importance would result in a slight significance of effect. However it should be noted 

that the actual number of collisions are likely to be lower than predicted by the model which 

takes a precautionary approach. 


12.8.1 Current plans for the future of the Wheal Jane site would not change the assessment 

presented in this chapter. The exception to this would be the potential use of the field in 

which the mitigation habitat is to be created, in the long-term future. 


12.9.1 A number of operational, consented, and proposed wind developments have been identified 

within 30 km of the proposed Wheal Jane turbine. The location of these is shown on Figure 

10.8, and details can be found in Table 12.8. (This list excludes wind developments currently 

with the local authority for scoping or screening). 

Table 12.8 

Sites considered for cumulative effects 

Site 

Number 

of 


Height to Tip 

of Turbines 

(m) 

Status 

Approximate 

distance to 


Jane Turbine (km) 


Trevissome Park 1 Operational 5 

WWF Roskrow 2 75 Operational 8 

Polkanuggo Farm 1 54.7 Under consideration 11 

Truthan Barton 6 125 Under consideration 12 

Goodygrane Activity 

Centre 

1 34.6 Under Consideration 13 

Carland Cross 15 47 Operational 14 

Carland Cross 

(Repowering) 


Carnebone Farm 1 Operational 14 

Treculliacks Farm 1 Operational 13 

Treworgans 1 53.7 Under consideration 15 


Ornithology 



Site 

Number 

of 


Height to Tip 

of Turbines 

(m) 

Status 

Approximate 

distance to 


Jane Turbine (km) 

Garlenick Manor 2 100 Under consideration 15 

Ennis Barton Farm 1 102 Under consideration 17.5 

Goonhilly Downs 14 47 Operational 22 


(Repowering) 


Tregeague Farm 1 19.28 Consented 22 

An-hay 1 15 Consented 22 

Goonhilly Earth 

Station 

2 96 Withdrawn 23 

Bears Down 16 57 Operational 28 

12.9.2 From Table 12.8 it can be seen that sixty five wind turbines are currently in operation within 

30 km of the proposed Wheal Jane wind turbine. Assuming those under consideration are 

granted planning permission, and those consented are built, sixty six turbines will be in 

operation within 30 km of the proposed Wheal Jane wind turbine (Carland Cross and 

Goonhilly Downs repowering involve removing existing turbines and replacing with a smaller 

number of large turbines). The proposed turbine at Wheal Jane would constitute 1.5% of the 

turbines within 30 km. 

12.9.3 Up to 230 lapwing were recorded during surveys undertaken for Carland Cross repowering, 

although the results of collision risk analysis are not known. No lapwing were recorded during 

surveys undertaken in 2001 for the WWW Roskrow project. The Planning Portal website 

(www.planningportal.gov.uk), and the Cornwall County Council (www.cornwall.gov.uk) 

website have been searched for details of ornithological surveys for other wind developments 

(both operational and in planning). No details were available. 

12.9.4 The limited data available in relation to the potential impacts to lapwing from other operational 

and consented wind developments, means that a detailed cumulative impact assessment 

upon lapwings is not possible. 

12.9.5 The bird survey work undertaken at Wheal Jane during 2009 and 2010 would indicate that 

the overwintering lapwing flock at the site is reasonably sedentary, with the flock either 

roosting at the waterbody on site, or feeding in nearby fields during every survey visit 

between December 2009 and February 2010. Although it is possible that the flock could 

travel over large distances if feeding resources were low or if weather conditions were not 

favourable, the results indicate that the flock remained in reasonably close proximity to the 

proposed turbine location throughout the winter months. The closest operational wind 

turbines to Wheal Jane are approximately 5 km away. It is considered that cumulative effects 


Ornithology 



from additional wind turbines collision and disturbance to the overwintering lapwing flock at 

the site are unlikely. 

12.10 Summary 

12.10.1 This chapter has identified those ecological receptors that have potential to be affected 

through the proposed wind turbine, focussing on populations of bird species which are legally 

protected, or which are the focus of national and local biodiversity action plans. 

12.10.2 The methodology comprised a desk study, consultation exercise and 12 months of field 

surveys including a scoping survey, VP surveys, wintering bird surveys, and breeding bird 

surveys. Surveys were designed in line with guidance from Scottish Natural Heritage (2005). 

Guidance in relation to birds and wind turbines was issued by Natural England in January 

2010, after bird surveys at the site had commenced. This guidance was reviewed and the 

survey methodology adjusted where possible. 

12.10.3 The potential effects of the development on bird populations have been assessed in relation 

to the construction, operational and decommission phases of the development. Table 12.9 

presents a summary of the effects. A potential negative effect to overwintering lapwings at 

the Wheal Jane site has been identified. Potential effects on this feature of medium 

importance will be mitigated by the construction of a wader scrape close to favoured foraging 

areas of this species. Residual significance of effects after mitigation have been assessed as 

substantial to moderate, although this is considered to be precautionary as it is based on a 

conservative assessment. The actual effects are likely to be lower than the predicted effects. 

12.10.4 The effects to all other bird species have been assessed as not significant. 

12.10.5 A programme of post construction bird monitoring at the site has been outlined with respect 

to the identified potential effect of the development on lapwing. This has been designed in 

line with recent guidance issued by Natural England (2010). All mitigation listed in this 

chapter has been agreed with Cornwall County Council and the RSPB and will be undertaken 

as outlined. 


Ornithology 



Table 12.9 


Receptor Effect Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation Enhancement Significance 

after 

mitigation 

Nature of 

effect 

Nesting birds 

Possible 

damage/dest 

ruction of 

nests during 

construction 

Construction Negligible Small Slight/Not 

significant 

Vegetation 

clearance 

undertaken outside 

of bird nesting 

season (Feb– 

September inclusive) 

n/a Not Significant Direct, 

short-term, 

permanent, 

negative. 

Overwintering 

lapwing 

population 

Collision risk Operation Medium Medium Moderate Provision of 

alternative roosting 

habitat 

Post-construction 

monitoring 

n/a Slight Direct; 

cumulative; 

long-term; 

permanent; 

negative. 

Other target 

species 

Collision risk Operation Medium/low Negligible Not 

significant 

n/a n/a Not significant n/a 

Wading birds 

Disturbance/ 

displacement 

Operation Medium/low Small Slight Provision of 

alternative roosting 

habitat 

n/a Not significant n/a 

Post-construction 

monitoring 

Raptors 

Disturbance/ 

displacement 

Operation 

Medium– 

negligible 

Small Slight n/a n/a Slight Direct, 

permanent, 

negative 


Ornithology 




Baker, H., Stroud, D.A., Aebischer, N.J., Cranswick, P.A., Gregory, R.D., McSorley, C.A., Noble, D.G., 

Rehfisch, M.M. (2006). Population Estimates of the Birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. 

British Birds 99, January 2006, 25–44. 

Band, W., Madders, M. and Whitfield, D.P. (2006) Developing field and analytical methods to assess 

avian collision risk at wind farms; cited in De Lucas, M., Janss, G. and Ferrer, M. ‘Birds and Wind 

Power’ Barcelona, Spain: Lynx Edicions 

Bright, J. A., Langston, R. H. W., Anthony, S. (2006) RSPB Research Report 35: Mapped and written 

guidance in relation to birds and onshore wind energy development in England. 

Chamberlain, D.E., Rehfisch, M.R., Fox, A.D., Desholm, M. and Anthony, S.J. (2006) The effect of 

avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision risk models’ IBIS 148, 198– 

202 

Cornwall Bird-watching and Preservation Society (2006). Birds in Cornwall 2006. 

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. 

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. (2006). Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. 

Eaton, M.A., Brown A.F., Noble D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn R.D., Aebischer N.J., Gibbons D.W., 

Evans A., and Gregory R.D. (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: The population status of birds in 

the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102: 296–341. 

Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. and Evans, J. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods. The Royal Society for The 

Protection of Birds, Bedfordshire. 

Hötker H., Thomsen K.M., & Jeromin H. (2006). Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable 

energy sources: the example of birds and bats – facts, gaps in knowledge, demands for further 

research, and ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energy exploitation. Michael- 

Otto-Institutim NABU, Bergenhusen 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM). (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact 

Assessment in the United Kingdom. 

Kirby, J.S. & Lack, P.C. (1993). Spatial dynamics of wintering Lapwings and Golden Plovers in Britain 

and Ireland, 1981/82 to 1983/84. BTO. Bird Study 40: 38–50. 

Knox, A.G., Collinson, M., Helbig, A.J., Parkin, D.P. and Sangster, G. (2002). Taxonomic 

recommendations for British birds. Ibis 144 : 707–710 

Lack, P. (1986). Atlas of Wintering Birds in Britain and Ireland. British Trust for Ornithology. 

Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. (2004), Effects of Wind-farms on Birds, RSPB/ Birdlife, Bern 

Convention Reports No. 139 


Ornithology 



Madders, M. (2004) Proposed Wind Farms at Ben Aketil Edinbane, a Quantitative Collision Risk Model 

for Golden Eagle; cited in Chamberlain, D.E., Rehfisch, M.R., Fox, A.D., Desholm, M. and Anthony, 

S.J. (2006) ‘The effect of avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision 

risk models’ IBIS (148), 198–202. 

Natural England. (2010). Making space for wind energy: assessing on-shore wind energy development. 

Natural England. (2010). Technical Information Note TIN069: Assessing the effects of onshore 

windfarms on birds. 

Painter, S., Little, B. and Lawrence, S. (1999) Continuation of Bird Studies at Blyth Harbour Wind Farm 

and the Implications for Offshore Wind Farms; cited in Chamberlain, D.E., Rehfisch, M.R., Fox, A.D., 

Desholm, M. and Anthony, S.J. (2006) ‘The effect of avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made 

by wind turbine collision risk models’ IBIS (148), 198–202. 

Rehfisch, M.M. & Austin, G. (in prep) The effect of change in climate, water quality and area on 

overwintering waterfowl populations. BTO website (www.bto.org) 

Scottish Natural Heritage. (2000). Windfarms and Birds: Calculating a Theoretical Collision Risk 

Assuming no Avoiding Action 

Scottish Natural Heritage. (2005). Survey Methods for use in Assessing the Impacts of Onshore 

Windfarms on Bird Communities 

Scottish Natural Heritage. (2006). Assessing Significance of Impacts from Onshore Windfarms on Birds 

Outwith Designated Areas 

Scottish Natural Heritage. (2010). Use of Avoidance rates in the SNH Wind Form Collision Risk Model. 

Whitfield, D.P. and Madders, M. (2006) Deriving collision avoidance rates for red kites Milvus milvus. 

Natural Research Information Note 3. Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK. 


Ornithology 



13 Traffic and Transport 


13.1.1 This chapter addresses the effects of vehicle movements associated with the proposed 

development of the Wheal Jane wind turbine on the surrounding highway network and 

community. During operation, vehicle generation will be minimal, with management of the 

turbine undertaken remotely and only routine maintenance visits expected. The greatest 

vehicle generation is expected to occur during the construction phase, with some vehicles 

accessing the site being abnormal in size. Decommissioning has been considered, though it 

is difficult to assess effects at this stage, given that it will be 25 years in the future. 

13.1.2 This assessment focuses primarily on the off-site highway works required to gain access to 

the site for abnormal loads, and the effect these works and deliveries would have on 

vulnerable receptors. Due to the abnormal size and weight of vehicles delivering turbine 

components to the site, it has been necessary to review the access route to Wheal Jane to 

ensure it is suitable, and to identify any temporary or permanent modifications needed to 

facilitate access. 

13.1.3 The assessment also considers other traffic related to the construction and operation of the 

wind turbine and considers receptors such as road users (drivers, pedestrians, cyclists) and 

properties and residents. Features of ecological and cultural interest could also be affected, 

and these are identified and assessed in the relevant chapters of this environmental 

statement. 


13.2.1 The method for assessment is based on the Institute of Environmental Assessment guidance 

document Guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic. The purpose of the 

guidance is to provide a systematic framework for the appraisal of road traffic effects arising 

from a wide range of developments. 

13.2.2 The effect of road traffic is dependent on a wide range of factors, the most common being: 

• Volume of traffic, in particular the change in volume; 

• Traffic speeds and driving characteristics, i.e. Acceleration; and 

• Traffic composition. 

13.2.3 The perception of effect will also vary depending on factors such as location, existing traffic 

volumes, time of day and land use adjacent to the road network. For example, an increase in 

daytime heavy vehicle movements, when general traffic volumes are lower, will be more 

noticeable than an increase which occurs during the morning and evening peak hours when 

existing volumes are high. Similarly an increase in HGV movements would be less noticeable 


Traffic and Transport 



to people at work in a noisy factory adjacent to the road, compared with a residential dwelling 

or park. 

Spatial scope 

13.2.4 The guidelines suggest two broad rules to be applied to determine the spatial scope of the 

assessment, which is based on the change in traffic volumes on the road network: 

• highway links where traffic flows (or HGV movements) increase/decrease by more 

than 30 percent 

• if adjacent to a sensitive area, highway links where traffic flows (or HGV movements) 

increase/decrease by more than 10 percent. 

13.2.5 Day to day variation in traffic levels is typically around 10 percent, meaning that an increase 

in traffic levels of less than 10 percent is unlikely to have a discernable environmental effect 

and would not require assessment. 

13.2.6 The Wheal Jane site is currently occupied by a number of businesses and there are ongoing 

remediation and restoration works on the site. Approximately 120 people are employed at the 

site and, given the rural nature of the area, it is likely that the majority of staff will drive to the 

work. Assuming a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 employees per vehicle, the site will generate 

around 80 arrivals and 80 departures per day, not including any trips made during the 

working day, for example at lunchtime. With the ongoing restoration works on site there are 

already heavy vehicle movements to and from the site. 

13.2.7 The access route to the Wheal Jane site, and the site itself, is not considered to be within a 

sensitive area, nor are there any sensitive land uses adjacent to the route. The turbine 

development is unusual when compared to other types of development as the main traffic 

generation occurs during the construction phase, and is therefore temporary. Once 

operational, the traffic generated by the turbine is minimal and will fall far below the 30 

percent threshold for assessment. 

13.2.8 The site will generate abnormal load movements during the construction phase, and highway 

works will be required at some locations along the route to facilitate access. This assessment 

does consider the vehicle generation associated with the site, however the primary focus is 

on the effect of any works required to gain access for abnormal loads. As a result, the spatial 

scope of the assessment is the recommended access route to the site. 

Temporal scope 

13.2.9 The different stages of activity on the site will form the temporal assessment of the scheme. 

Effects will be considered in relation to the following key stages: 

• construction – site preparation and erection of the turbine 

• operation – whilst the turbine is active and generating electricity 

• decommissioning – removal of the turbine and restoration of the site. 





13.2.10 Effects will typically be described as: 

• temporary – if likely to be related to the construction phase only and will cease once 

construction is complete 

• permanent – if occurring during the operational phase, or if effects from construction 

are not reversible. 

Technical scope 

13.2.11 An estimation of the volume of vehicle traffic has been made based on previous studies and 

information from PfR. The volume of vehicles generated by the site is discussed in Chapter 4 

and reproduced in this chapter. 

13.2.12 To appraise the access route, a site visit has been undertaken to review the route and 

identify where highway works may be required to facilitate the movement of abnormal loads. 

In addition, observations were made during the site visit of current road users, cyclists, 

footways and public rights of way, which may be affected by vehicle movements. Where 

highway works may be required, observations have been made as to the land uses adjacent 

to the highway and whether there are any ecological or environmental features. Swept path 

analyses have been utilised to identify the extent of highway works required. 

Consultations 

13.2.13 As a unitary authority, Cornwall Council is both the planning authority and the highway 

authority. Discussions have been held with Cornwall Council regarding the scope of the 

assessment. The Council has requested a thorough assessment of the access route 

including swept path analysis to identify that the route is acceptable to facilitate access to the 

site, for abnormal loads in particular. 

13.2.14 Cornwall Police’s abnormal loads officer (Robert Barkwill) was consulted by telephone on 4 

August 2010 regarding arrangements for moving abnormal loads. From Police experience the 

movement of the blade sections tends to be the most difficult as these vehicles are more 

difficult to manoeuvre. At this stage, the Police did not foresee any issues with access to the 

site and made some general recommendations for transport. It was stated and agreed that 

once the turbine specifications were agreed and a haulage contractor appointed, detailed 

discussions would be undertaken. All of the requirements and recommendations from the 

Police will be adhered to in the moving of abnormal loads. 

Assessment criteria 

13.2.15 Typically, a transport and access chapter for an EIA would use criteria based on the 

percentage change in traffic to determine the magnitude of change, which combined with the 

sensitivity/importance of receptors would determine the significance of the effect. Following 

consultation with Cornwall council and the Police, where such an assessment was stated not 

to be required, this approach is not directly applicable. 

13.2.16 As an alternative approach the potential effects have been identified and assessed using the 

following qualitative criteria: 





• Very substantial: the scheme will affect conditions for all receptors and will 

significantly affect the highway network over a wide area 

• Substantial: the scheme will affect conditions for all receptors and will significantly 

affect the highway network in the local area 

• Moderate: the scheme will affect conditions for some receptors and will effect upon 

the highway network in the local area 

• Slight: the scheme will affect conditions for some receptors but will only affect a very 

small area, and only slightly effect upon the highway network in the local area 

• Not significant: no change in conditions for receptors, nor effects on the highway 

network in the area. 

13.2.17 A site visit and swept path assessments have been undertaken for locations where works are 

required to facilitate access. The effects of these works have been assessed based on these 

criteria. 

Identification of receptors 

13.2.18 Receptors which potentially could be affected by the Wheal Jane proposals were identified 

during site visits and are as follows: 

• road users (vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists) and public rights of way 

• properties adjacent to the access route 

• watercourses adjacent to, or flowing underneath the road network 

• ecological and cultural features adjacent to the access route, including hedgerows and 

verges. 

13.2.19 The vehicle generation associated with the proposed wind turbine is expected to be limited, 

with the main effect on receptors resulting from construction traffic, including abnormal loads. 

Planning policy review 

13.2.20 This section considers briefly the national, regional and local planning policy relating to 

transport and wind development sites. Transport policy generally relates to more urban type 

development with the emphasis placed on fostering linkages between land use planning and 

transport to reduce the need to travel, improve sustainable travel and therefore reduce the 

effect of transport on the natural and built environment. The Wheal Jane turbine is an unusual 

development and therefore falls outside of the more generic spatial planning policy, tending 

to be covered by policies at the local level. 

National planning policy 

13.2.21 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG13) sets out the Government’s national 

transport planning policy. PPG13 is the guiding document for regional and local authorities 

when planning their own strategies. The document is more generalised dealing mainly with 





urban development (offices, retail and residential) than more unusual developments such as 

wind turbines. There are however some principles set out in PPG13 which can be applied to 

the Wheal Jane proposal, namely: 

• prospective developers should hold discussions with the local authority to clarify the 

scope of the assessment required 

• the emphasis is placed on people being able to travel safely whichever mode they 

chose 

• development generating substantial freight movements should be located away from 

congested and residential areas, and adequate access to the trunk road network 

should be provided. 

13.2.22 In seeking a scoping opinion from Cornwall Council and following discussions, the views of 

the planning authority have been sought and the scope of assessment agreed. The location 

of the site is dictated by land availability and conditions required for wind power generation, 

however the Wheal Jane site is away from congested and residential areas, though 

anticipated vehicle generation is not substantial. The access review which has been 

undertaken should conclude that the recommended access route is adequate and that the 

movements associated with the site will not cause significant disruption in the area, nor affect 

road safety. 

13.2.23 Planning Policy Statement 22 and its Companion Guide: Renewable Energy provide 

information to local authorities on how to set policy and criteria for the development of 

renewable energy in their area. The documents state that consideration of transport in regard 

to renewable schemes should be made at a local level due to the specific considerations for 

each individual site. The document states that within Local Development Frameworks policies 

for renewable energy schemes must: 

‘Have specific reference to the impacts on amenity of the area (or particular sub 

areas within it) in relation to the visual intrusion, noise, dust, odour and traffic 

generation’. (Companion Guide to PPS22, Page 45) 

13.2.24 Chapter eight of the Technical Annex to the Companion Guide considers wind power and the 

requirements for wind generation. The document states that road access must be suitable to 

accommodate long, wide and heavy vehicles, and, that any amendments to the existing 

highway layout should be specified in a planning application. The purpose of this chapter is to 

assess the recommended access route and identify where highway works are required, and 

what the effect is likely to be. In accordance with the Technical Annex on-site tracks will be 

constructed to appropriate dimensional requirements and will be retained once construction is 

finished. 

13.2.25 From the port of origin to the junction with the A390, the abnormal load vehicles will travel via 

the strategic road network and the A30. These abnormal loads will be moved in accordance 

with the requirements of the Police and Cornwall Council, and will would likely be escorted by 

Police vehicles. This should ensure minimal disruption to the strategic road network and road 

safety. Vehicles will be moved outside of peak periods. 





13.2.26 To ensure heavy goods vehicles are using the most appropriate route, a Regional Freight 

Map has been devised for the south west. The map shows the A30 as being a national route 

and the A390 as a county route, indicating these are appropriate for movements associated 

with the turbine. 

Local planning policy 

13.2.27 The unitary authority (Cornwall Council) was formed from an amalgamation of the former 

district councils and Cornwall County Council. Cornwall Council is currently preparing a local 

development framework, but until this is complete the adopted local plans from each former 

district council remain current planning policy. The Wheal Jane site falls within the former 

Carrick District. 

13.2.28 Chapter five of the Carrick District Local Plan considers transport policy, which again is not 

directly applicable to the proposed turbine site because it is an unusual development. Policy 

13B of the Local Plan refers specifically to renewable energy, providing a list of criteria which 

must be met for an application to be approved. The fourth criterion refers to access, stating 

that safe and convenient access must be provided during construction and operation of the 

scheme. 



13.3.1 The principal source of data for the assessment was a site visit to review the recommended 

access route to the site. Information on construction and likely vehicle movements has been 

provided by PfR, and the Wheal Jane Ltd has provided information on the baseline activities 

at the wider site. 


13.3.2 The Wheal Jane site is currently occupied by a number of companies offering services in 

mining and minerals, environmental consultancy and mining related manufacturing. Over 120 

people work on the site for seven companies, and the Wheal Jane Ltd has aspirations for 

growth in employment levels on the site, both in these earth industries and in renewable 

energy technologies. 

13.3.3 Given the rural location of the site, it is assumed that all of the staff employed on site will 

drive to work. Assuming an average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 employees per vehicle this 

means the 120 staff would generate 80 arrivals and 80 departures, not including movements 

during the working day, such as people leaving the site for lunch or servicing vehicles. There 

is ongoing restoration works on site which will generate further vehicle movements, including 

heavy vehicle movements. As a result of this activity the daily vehicle movements to and from 

the site are already substantial. 

13.3.4 Access to the site is from a priority controlled T-junction. The area surrounding the site is 

predominantly rural, and roads are typically single carriageway, narrowing in places. The A30 

becomes a single carriageway at Carland Cross, staying as a single carriageway, with 

climbing lanes in places, as far as the A390 junction. The A390 is a single carriageway road 





providing a key connection between the A30 and the city of Truro. Both the A30 and A390 

are subject to a 60 mph speed limit. On the approach to Threemilestone the A390 reduces to 

a 50 mph speed limit. Between the A390 and Chyvelah Road the speed limit reduces to 

30 mph. Immediately after the Chyvelah mini-roundabout, the speed limit increases to 

40 mph, and stays at 40 mph to the Wheal Jane site. 

13.3.5 With the exception of the A390 and Chyvelah Road roundabouts, the remaining junctions 

along the route are priority controlled T-junctions or crossroads. Pedestrian footways along 

the route are minimal and there are no dedicated cycle facilities. 

13.3.6 Being rural in nature, the road network is expected to be quiet, with any congestion limited to 

the area around the A30 and A390. As discussed previously, there is already substantial 

activity at the Wheal Jane site which will generate vehicles on the local road network during 

typical morning and evening peak hours. 

13.3.7 The local access route crosses one watercourse, an unnamed tributary of the Truro River. 

The crossing occurs at the same location as the railway line passing underneath Chacewater 

Hill. Works are not required to the bridge to accommodate abnormal loads therefore there is 

not considered to be an effect on the watercourse, and it is not considered further in this 

environmental statement. 

13.3.8 The predominant land use along the access route between the A30 and Wheal Jane is 

agricultural. There are some scattered residential properties along the route, as well as some 

retail and light industrial uses to the western fringe of Threemilestone. Truro Caravan and 

Camping Park is also located to the west of Threemilestone and is adjacent to the proposed 

access route. 

13.3.9 There are thirteen locations along the access route where public rights of way (footpaths or 

bridleways) either meet or cross the route. The road network is rural in nature and along the 

majority of the access route there are no pedestrian footways. There are no dedicated cycle 

facilities and the route is not an on-road cycle route. Given the rural nature of the area it is 

expected that pedestrian and cycle flows will be minimal. 


13.3.10 At present, the exact turbine model to be erected on site is unknown. This will go to 

competitive tender once the planning application is approved. This assessment has been 

based on a generic turbine height and specification, but with only minimal variation expected 

with the final choice of turbine. Once the turbine specification is agreed, further information on 

the exact component sizes and weights will be available. 

13.3.11 This assessment is based on anticipated component sizes and vehicle types. Swept path 

assessments have been undertaken for what is considered to be a worst case scenario 

based either on the tower transporter or the blade transporter, depending on local conditions 

along the route. 






13.4.1 At the Feasibility Stage a review of potential access routes was undertaken. Of the eight 

routes considered, Route 1 was preferred and has been taken forward as the recommended 

access route, because it minimises the impact of vehicle movements and does not pass 

through residential areas. 

13.4.2 During consultation with Cornwall Council a further potential access route was identified. This 

is via the A39 using Forth Loth (southwestbound), Quenchwater Road (northbound) and 

Pound Lane (westbound) to Baldhu Crossroads. At this point vehicles travel south until 

reaching the site access. This alternative route is considered to be feasible but has not been 

considered further at this stage. This route would pass a greater number of residential 

properties than Route 1. 

13.5 Potentially significant effects of the scheme 

Transport route to the site 

13.5.1 While a specific turbine has not yet been chosen, it is anticipated that it will be manufactured 

in Europe and shipped to the UK. The turbine is likely to be shipped to the nearest port to 

minimise road travel, though ultimately this may be affected by choice of turbine and haulage 

contractor. For the Wheal Jane proposal, a simple desk-based assessment has been 

undertaken to suggest a shortlist of ports where road transport could originate from. This may 

need to be revisited at a later stage when the turbine manufacturer and haulage contractor 

has been agreed. Table 13.1 summarises the potential ports of origin. 

Table 13.1 

Summary of Potential Ports for Shipping of Turbine Components 

Port 

Distance by road 

from the site 

Comments 

Plymouth 61 miles Port located in an urban area meaning abnormal loads 

would have to travel through residential areas. 

Route to A30 from port via the A38 which has sections of 

single carriageway less suitable for movement of 

abnormal loads. 

Avonmouth 

(Bristol) 

169 miles Direct, dual carriageway access onto M5 motorway 

through industrial rather than residential areas. 

Southampton 208 miles Route via the A30 and A303 including travelling through 

some towns and villages, including Salisbury. 

13.5.2 Based on this simple desk study, it has been identified that of the major ports closest to the 

site, Avonmouth Docks presents the likely best option for shipping of the turbine to the UK. 

From the port there is direct, quick access to the motorway network. The port authority has 

experience in handling and moving turbine components. 

13.5.3 Whichever port the turbine is shipped to, vehicles will travel along the A30. Movement of 

abnormal loads is highly regulated, with notifications required to the Police, Highways Agency 

and highway authority, in this case Cornwall Council. Abnormal loads travel slowly, occupy a 





number of lanes and can be difficult to pass leading to congestion forming behind. Typically, 

abnormal loads must travel outside peak periods and once they have left the strategic road 

network they must travel in daylight. All necessary licences and permits will be gained prior to 

transport and all movements will take place in accordance with the recommendations of the 

Police and other parties. Cornwall Police has been consulted with regard to the movement of 

abnormal loads and their recommendations are discussed in section 13.6.1. 

13.5.4 Turbine manufacturers recommend the following road specifications for the movement of 

turbine components: 

• clearance height: 4.40 m to 5.90 m 

• minimum width in a straight line: 5 m 

• maximum longitudinal slope: 8 degrees, 1:7 or 14 percent 

• maximum lateral slope: 1:50 or 2 percent 

• minimum specification (axle load): 15 tonnes 

• inside radius of bend: 35 m 

• inside radius of obstacle free area: 50 m. 

13.5.5 At the feasibility stage, an access study was undertaken to look at the potential access routes 

between the site and the A30. Eight routes were reviewed based on a site visit to identify 

pinch points which would require additional study, swept path analysis, determination of 

suitable mitigation measures, outline civils work to rectify pinch points and a land registry 

search to identify whether third party land would be required. The feasibility study was 

conducted for a vehicle able to transport a turbine with a tip height of 125 m and blade 

diameter of 90 m, therefore was larger than the turbine considered for this assessment. 

13.5.6 Of the eight options reviewed, Route 1 was considered to be the most favourable, partly due 

to the route not passing through the village of Chacewater where there is an 18 tonne weight 

limit imposed and roads are narrow with properties immediately adjacent to the carriageway. 

13.5.7 Route 1, referred to as the recommended route, departs the A30 at the junction with the A390 

travelling along the A390 towards Truro. At the western fringe of Threemilestone the 

A390 meets a roundabout, close to the Park and Ride site, where the route turns south for a 

short distance before meeting a mini-roundabout. After the mini-roundabout the route turns 

west onto Chyvelah Road, passing Threemilestone Retail Park and travelling towards 

Chacewater. The route continues to follow Chyvelah Road until the staggered priority 

crossroads at Chacewater Hill, where the route turns south. At Kerley Hill staggered 

crossroads the route turns east, passes Baldhu and at Baldhu crossroads turns south again 

until reaching the site access. 

13.5.8 The access route is shown on Figure 13.1, which also indicates the locations where works 

are required to facilitate access. These locations are discussed in more detail in section 13.7. 

Once at the Wheal Jane site access will be via the existing junction into the site. 





Bridges 

13.5.9 The preferred access route includes a road bridge crossing over a railway line on 

Chacewater Hill between the villages of Chacewater and Green Bottom, close to Savock 

Farm and Tudor Lodge. Discussions have taken place with Cornwall Council regarding the 

ability of this bridge to accommodate the vehicle loadings associated with abnormal loads 

transporting to and from the site during the construction phase. 

13.5.10 Initial consultations focused upon the 40 tonne weight limit which is in force at this location. 

However further information provided by Cornwall Council indicates that the 40 tonne limit in 

fact relates to a retaining wall located close to the eastern side of the railway bridge between 

the two vehicular access points to Tudor Lodge. Retaining structures are in place on both 

sides of the road at this location, however the limit relates to the retaining wall on the 

southern side of Chacewater Hill which is believed to be weak. This structure is owned and 

maintained by Cornwall Council. The length of the retaining wall at this location is 

approximately 70 metres. 

Visibility 

13.5.11 An assessment of visibility at junctions along the access route has been undertaken for the 

abnormal load vehicles, in accordance with the guidance provided in the Design Manual for 

Roads and Bridges, Table 13.2 summarises the review for each junction. 

Table 13.2 

Junction Visibility 

Junction 

A390 Roundabout (Figure 13.2) 

Chyvelah Road mini-roundabout 

(Figure 13.3) 

Chacewater Hill (Figure 13.4) 

Kerley Hill (Figure 13.5) 

Pound Lane (Figure 13.6) 

Wheal Jane (Figure 13.7) 

Comments 

Required visibility achieved. 

Required visibility not achieved due to a hedgerow. 

Forward visibility achieved, however vehicle will not see 

vehicle approaching on the minor arm. 





Forward visibility crosses the grass verge to the south of the 

access, and vertical alignment of the road may affect visibility. 

13.5.12 There are some locations where the desired visibility cannot be achieved. It should be noted 

that these vehicles will be under escort by the Police, who will be managing the route to hold 

back general traffic as required, whilst the abnormal vehicles travel to the site. Therefore 

visibility is not considered to be an issue as there will be no oncoming traffic and as a 

consequence road safety will not be compromised. This approach to traffic management is 

standard for the delivery of abnormal loads. 

13.5.13 At certain locations along the route vegetation needs to be trimmed or removed to facilitate 

access. This will improve visibility at these locations. 





On-site access tracks 

13.5.14 Once on site, the access route will follow the main drive through the site to the north of the 

tailings dam. Once past the tailings dam the route will turn to the south, running parallel to the 

tailings dam to the location of the turbine. This route avoids all potential constraints. 

13.5.15 Swept path assessments have been undertaken for this access route, and these are 

presented as Figure 13.8. 

13.5.16 The swept path shows the access track is of sufficient width for movement of abnormal loads. 

The route is surfaced with asphalt from the main access junction down to where the route 

turns to the south. 

13.5.17 Where the access route leaves the main asphalt drive there is a change in topography with 

the ground sloping down to the location of the turbine. At this location the access track will 

need to be built up using aggregate material to achieve the appropriate width and gradient for 

the movement of abnormal loads. The turbine manufacturers will be consulted once the 

turbine has been agreed with specific regard to the access tracks and requirements. 

13.5.18 With the exact turbine not yet agreed it is assumed that the specification for on-site access 

tracks will be as follows: 

• minimum width: 4.5 m (widening on bends) 

• maximum gradient: 8 percent 

• maximum camber: 2 percent. 

13.5.19 If necessary, higher gradients can be achieved with an additional vehicle towing or pushing 

the component transporter. Access tracks will be constructed to the appropriate thickness 

which is dependent on individual site conditions. A mix of rock, sand and gravel will be 

mechanically compacted to form the surface. Sharp objects will be removed to avoid damage 

to wheels and all bumps and humps will be removed to prevent grounding of the vehicle. All 

access tracks will be constructed and inspected prior to movements commencing, and will be 

regularly inspected to ensure integrity. Maintenance and repair will be carried out wherever 

necessary. 

Construction 

Abnormal vehicle movements during construction 

13.5.20 Paragraphs 81 to 88 of the Technical Annex to PPS22 Companion Guide discuss the general 

disturbance caused by traffic relating to wind development construction and operation. 

Generally, the degree of disturbance depends on the number of turbine and the length of the 

construction period. For the Wheal Jane site this is a single turbine with a four month 

construction period, therefore disturbance is expected to be minimal. 

13.5.21 Traffic movements are expected to include, but not be limited to the following: 





• vehicle removing spoil from the site (though it is expected that most – if not all – will be 

reused on site); 

• vehicles bringing materials and aggregate to the site for foundations and access 

tracks; 

• vehicles delivering machinery (unless available on site); 

• site staff vehicles; 

• vehicles delivering cables and cabling equipment for connection to the grid; 

• cranes to erect the turbine; and 

• vehicles delivering turbine components. 

13.5.22 The majority of vehicles will be heavy goods vehicles of standard road size. There are 

ongoing remediation and restoration works on site, and it is anticipated that these vehicle 

types will be typical of those already accessing the site. 

13.5.23 The cranes and wind turbine deliveries will form abnormal loads, being wider, longer and 

heavier than standard road vehicles. Previous experience indicates that vehicle movements 

associated with the delivery of wind turbine components are as summarised in Table 13.3. 

Table 13.3 

Turbine components for delivery 

Component Number Typical transporters 

Blades 3 Truck with 1 blade per truck 

Nacelle 1 Semi-low loader 

Hub 1 Semi-low loader 

Steel tower sections 3 Each tower section on one low loader 

Foundation mounting part 1 Semi-low loader 

DTE system 1 Semi-low loader 

Total lorries 10 

13.5.24 The blades and the tower sections will require the largest vehicles, with components being 

40 m and 30 m in length respectively. Though the exact turbine is to be determined it is 

anticipated that the tower transporter will be around 46 m in length and the blade transporter 

around 40 m. 

13.5.25 Abnormal loads will be transported to the site in accordance with police procedures and will 

be escorted from the port of origin to the site. A total of 10 vehicles will be required to deliver 

the turbine components to the site. Once the load has been delivered, the vehicles will be 

retracted to standard road vehicle size before departing the site. 





13.5.26 The erection of a turbine is expected to require two cranes: a main crane and a support 

crane, both of which have additional support vehicles. The main crane is likely to be a 500 

tonne crane with the support crane being a smaller 120 tonne crane. Though actual 

requirements may vary depending on the site conditions and the choice of crane, it is 

anticipated that the large crane will need five support vehicles and the smaller crane, one 

support vehicle. The support vehicles are HGV size, with the cranes themselves being 

classed as abnormal. 

Works required for abnormal load vehicle access 

13.5.27 The access route has been reviewed with regard to the movement of abnormal loads. The 

largest vehicles accessing the site are anticipated to be the tower transporter (approximately 

46 m in length) and the blade transporter (approximately 40 m in length). This assessment 

has identified a number of locations where mitigation works are required to gain access, 

which are referred to as pinch points and which are illustrated on Figure 13.1. 

13.5.28 For each identified pinch point the path of both the blade and tower transporters have been 

reviewed. AutoTrack drawings have been included to show the ‘worst case’ path and identify 

potential issues. Photographs taken during the site visit are also used to illustrate. ‘Oversail’ 

is where the body of the vehicle passes above the verge or feature, but where the wheels 

remain within the carriageway. ‘Overrun’ is where the wheels run outside of the carriageway, 

i.e. across a verge or footway. 

13.5.29 The identified pinch points are as follows: 

• Pinch point 1: A390 roundabout and Chyvelah Road mini-roundabout 

• Pinch point 2: staggered junction at Chacewater Hill 

• Pinch point 3: Kerley Hill low hanging trees 

• Pinch point 4: Kerley Down staggered junction 

• Pinch point 5: Baldhu Crossroads 

• Pinch point 6: Wheal Jane access 

• Weak retaining wall close to the road bridge crossing a railway line on Chacewater Hill. 

Pinch point 1 

13.5.30 Pinch point 1 occurs as the access route turns from the A390, navigating the two 

roundabouts and onto the westbound Chyvelah Road. At this location, the path of the tower 

transporter and blade transporter are similar, and therefore similar works are required to 

facilitate the movement of these vehicles. Figure 13.9 shows the swept path of the blade 

transporter with Figure 13.10 showing the path of the tower transporter. Table 13.4 

summarises the issues at this location. 





Table 13.4 

roundabouts 

Summary of Issues at pinch point 1 – A390 & Chyvelah Road 

Location 

Approach to roundabout 

from A390 

Exit south towards 

Chyvelah Road 

Approach to Chyvelah 

Road mini-roundabout 

Exit west from roundabout 

Identified problem – blade 

transporter 

Vehicle oversails the central 

island 

Vehicle oversails grass verge on 

southwest corner of roundabout 


island 


island 


island 

Vehicle oversails footway on 

southern side of roundabout 

Identified problem – tower 

transporter 

Vehicle oversails the central island 

Vehicle oversails grass verge on 



Vehicle oversails verge on eastern 

side of carriageway 



13.5.31 For both vehicles the path of the wheels remains within the highway boundary, but at various 

locations the body of the vehicle oversails the traffic islands and verges. At some of these 

locations, as highlighted on Figures 13.9 and 13.10, road signs and bollards will need to be 

temporarily removed. Cornwall Council will be responsible for the removal of signs and 

bollards and the necessary procedures will be followed. The site will generate 10 abnormal 

load movements, including delivery of turbine components and cranes, therefore, as a worst 

case, temporary signs and bollards would be in place for a period of two weeks. These signs 

would be agreed with Cornwall Council as part of a traffic management package. 

13.5.32 On the southern side of the Chyvelah Road mini-roundabout, the blade transporter oversails 

the footway. It is anticipated that vehicles will be moved in the early morning or late evening, 

therefore the likelihood of these vehicles conflicting with pedestrians is minimal. Should this 

occur, pedestrians will be held in a safe location until the manoeuvre is completed. 

13.5.33 At the southwest corner of the A390 roundabout and to the east of the link road between the 

two roundabouts, the body of the vehicles will oversail grass verges. The verge in this 

location is amenity grassland, of low ecological value. The verge will need to be mown and 

free of debris for the two-week period over which abnormal load movements are expected. 

Once these movements are complete the verge will require only routine maintenance. 

13.5.34 Where the body of the vehicle oversails the verge or the traffic islands it is anticipated that the 

kerb upstand is not greater than the clearance of the vehicle which is anticipated to be 

350 mm, therefore no works would be required. This will need to be reviewed prior to 

abnormal load movements commencing and if necessary changes to the kerb will be made. 

In both cases the surface level will need to be reduced and kerbs will smaller upstands 

installed. 





13.5.35 To make this manoeuvre, the abnormal load vehicles will need to travel the wrong way 

around each roundabout and will occupy the full width of the carriageway as they turn. This 

will require general traffic to be stopped, which will be organised and managed by the Police 

escorts. There will be some delay caused to general traffic, however abnormal load 

movements will occur in the early morning and late evening when general traffic volumes are 

at their lowest, thus minimising the effect of delays as far as possible. 

13.5.36 The works required at this location to facilitate access are minimal. Road signs and bollards 

will need to be removed and temporary replacements put in place for a period of 2 weeks. 

The body of the vehicle oversails the grass verge in two locations but these are of low 

ecological value and the effect is considered not significant. Verges will need to be kept 

mown and checked for any debris which may damage the vehicle. There may be some delay 

to general traffic which will need to be held back whilst the vehicle manoeuvres, though this 

will be minimised as far as possible by moving components during the early-morning/lateevening. 

In conclusion the effects at this location are temporary, and are considered to be 

slight. 

Pinch point 2 

13.5.37 Pinch point 2 occurs at the staggered crossroads at Chacewater Hill, where the route turns 

south towards Kerley Hill. At this location the movement of the blade transporter is the worst 

case scenario, with the issues summarised in Table 13.5. 

Table 13.5 

Summary of Issues at pinch point 2 – Chacewater Hill 

Location 

Northside of Chyvelah Road 

Identified Problem – Blade Transporter 

Vehicle overruns the verge 

13.5.38 The swept path for the blade transporter is shown on Figure 13.11. Figure 13.12 shows the 

layout of the junction taken looking back towards the minor arm. The site visit identified that 

vehicles already overrun the verge to make the left turn manoeuvre. 

13.5.39 The vehicle will come close to the footway along the north side of the carriageway at this 

location. The components will be transported in the early-morning/late-evening when 

pedestrian movements will be at their lowest, and, given the rural nature of the area it is 

expected that pedestrian flows at this location will be low. Should the vehicle encounter a 

pedestrians at this location, then the Police will hold them in a safe place whilst the vehicle 

manoeuvres. As with the previous pinch point, the vehicle will need to move into the opposing 

lane in order to make the turn. This will require general traffic to be stopped, which will cause 

some delay. Vehicles will be moved outside of busy periods and will be managed by the 

Police, therefore delays will be minimised as far as possible. 

13.5.40 At this location the vehicles will overrun the grass verge to the north of the junction; however 

this is a grass verge of low ecological importance. Works will be required to create a suitable 

surface for the vehicle to pass over. By manoeuvring the vehicle across the verge to the north 

of the junction, it is able to turn without affecting the hedgerows or verges along the minor 

arm. There will be some delay to vehicles and pedestrians during the highway works and 

potentially as the components are transported. Because of the potential for delays to occur 

the effect at this location is considered to be slight. 





Pinch point 3 

13.5.41 Pinch point 3 occurs between Chacewater Hill and Kerley Hill where there are low hanging 

branches over the carriageway, as shown on Figure 13.13. 

13.5.42 Tree surgery would be required to remove low branches to ensure they do not strike the 

vehicle and cause damage. A clearance height of between 4.40 m and 5.90 m is required 

along the length of the access route. The trees would not need to be removed, simply lopped 

and kept trimmed during the course of abnormal load movements. 

13.5.43 The trees which require branches to be removed appear to be young and unsuitable for 

roosting bats, however they may support nesting birds which are protected by law. Removal 

of these branches will need to be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (February to 

August inclusive). If this is not possible, and bearing in mind transport is likely to occur in the 

summer months, the affected trees should be checked by an ecologist no more than 48 hours 

before works commence. If active nests or young are found then vegetation must remain 

undisturbed until the young have fledged. 

13.5.44 The effect on these trees will be minimal, with works carefully managed. The effect will be 

temporary with branches allowed to re-grow once abnormal load movements have ceased, 

therefore the effect is considered not significant. If large vehicles need to gain access for 

maintenance then lopping may need to be repeated, with the same controls in place as for 

the construction period. The route will need to be reviewed prior to turbine deliveries 

commencing to make sure no further tree work is required. 

Pinch point 4 

13.5.45 Pinch point 4 occurs at the staggered junction at Kerley Down. Collett Transport undertook a 

swept path analysis of the blade transporter which it states is the worst case scenario. The 

issues associated with this location are summarised in Table 13.6 and shown in Figure 13.14. 

13.5.46 Figure 13.15 shows the layout of the junction taken looking towards the road the vehicle will 

take to exit the junction. 

Table 13.6 

Summary of issues at pinch point 4 – Kerley Down 

Location 

Approach to junction 

Inside corner of junction 

Exit from junction 

Identified problem – blade transporter 

Vehicle oversails the verge 

Vehicle oversails the verge 

Vehicle oversails central traffic island 

13.5.47 Where the vehicles oversail the traffic island, as shown on Figure 13.15, the bollards will 

need to be removed temporarily. It is assumed that the height of the island is less than the 

clearance of the vehicle and therefore no works are required to the island. 

13.5.48 On the approach to the junction the blade transporter oversails the verge on both sides of the 

carriageway. The verges are, however, higher than a standard kerb and therefore works will 

be required to reduce the height of the verges to prevent grounding and damage to the 





vehicle. This will involve the stripping back of the turf, re-profiling of the verge and 

replacement of the grass, or reseeding with new grass. The grass verge is considered to be 

species poor amenity grassland with low ecological value (see section 8.3). 

13.5.49 At this location works are required to remove bollards and reduce verge heights prior to 

deliveries commencing. Whilst these works are being undertaken there is some potential for 

delays to general traffic, following the potential for delays to be caused during the deliveries 

themselves, as general traffic will need to be held back whilst the abnormal vehicles 

manoeuvre. The verges will be affected considerably by the access works, with long-term 

changes occurring. It is considered that the effect at this location is slight, due to the small 

magnitude of change which is temporary, and the low importance of the receptor. 

Pinch point 5 

13.5.50 Pinch point 5 occurs at the crossroads at Baldhu where the route turns south onto the road to 

Wheal Jane. Collett Transport undertook a swept path analysis of the blade transporter which 

it states is the worst case scenario. The issues associated with this location are summarised 

in Table 13.7 and shown in Figure 13.16, and the location itself is shown in Figure 13.17. 

Table 13.7 

Summary of issues at pinch point 5 – Baldhu Crossroads 

Location 

North side of approach arm 

Southern corner of junction 

Eastern side of exit arm 

Identified problems – blade transporter 

Vehicles overrun verge 

Vehicles oversail grass verge 

Vehicle oversails verge 

13.5.51 The blade transport vehicle will both overrun the verge on the north side of the carriageway 

approaching the junction, shown to the left of Figure 13.16. The grass verge would need to 

be reduced to the same height as the carriageway and surfaced to an appropriate standard. 

13.5.52 Whilst making the right turn the vehicles will oversail the verge on the inside corner of the 

junction, shown to the right of Figure 13.16. The path will come close to, but will not affect the 

telegraph poles, but the vehicle does pass underneath, and so the height of the wires will 

need to be observed to ensure they will not catch on the vehicles. The small speed limit sign 

to the left of the line of telegraph poles will need to be relocated. It is considered likely that 

the verges here and to the eastern side of the exit arm may need work to reduce their height 

to prevent vehicles from grounding. 

13.5.53 As with all other pinch point locations, traffic management will be required to hold back 

general traffic whilst the vehicle manoeuvres. Being rural in nature and a minor road, this is 

not anticipated to cause significant delays to vehicles. 

13.5.54 The verge to the north is overrun by the vehicles and this would require changes to the verge 

to make the ground suitable for the vehicle. The roadside verge in this location is unimproved 

neutral grassland (see section 8.3) of low ecological value. A speed limit sign would need to 

be removed temporarily and there is potential for delay to general traffic whilst highway works 

are undertaken and deliveries occur. Taking into account the small size of the area affected 

and the low ecological value, the effect is considered to be slight. 





Pinch point 6 

13.5.55 Pinch point 6 occurs at the access junction to the site where the vehicles are required to 

make a right turn. The issues associated with this location are summarised in Table 13.8 and 

shown in Figure 13.18. 

Table 13.8 

Summary of issues at pinch point 6 – Entrance to site 

Location 

North side of approach 

Identified problems – tower transporter 

Vehicle overrun verge 

13.5.56 At this location the vehicles will overrun the verge at the side of the road to the north of the 

site access. The roadside verge in this location is unimproved neutral grassland (see section 

8.3) of low ecological value. Bollards and landscape features will need to be removed and the 

area resurfaced to provide a level surface for vehicles to run over. A line of overhead cables 

runs parallel to the road at this point. The path will come close to, but will not affect the 

telegraph poles and telephone lines, but the vehicle does pass underneath, and so the height 

of the wires will need to be observed to ensure they do not catch on the vehicles. The small 

speed limit sign to the left of the line of telegraph poles will need to be relocated. It is 

considered likely that the verges here and to the eastern side of the exit arm may need work 

to reduce their height to prevent vehicles from grounding. 

13.5.57 As with other locations there may be some delay caused to general traffic whilst the above 

highway works are undertaken, and also when deliveries occur. The effect of these delays is 

expected to be not significant. 

Weak retaining wall close to the road bridge crossing a railway line on Chacewater Hill. 

13.5.58 As stated in section 13.5.10 a weak retaining wall is located close to the road bridge crossing 

over a railway line on Chacewater Hill between the villages of Chacewater and Green 

Bottom. The 40 tonne weight limit in this location relates to the retaining wall on the southern 

side of Chacewater Hill which is believed to be weak. This structure is owned and maintained 

by Cornwall Council. The length of the retaining wall at this location is approximately 

70 metres. 

13.5.59 At this location it has been proposed, by Cornwall County council, that the abnormal loads 

travelling in the westbound direction would cross to the northern side of the carriageway (i.e. 

into the opposing direction traffic flow) in order to avoid the weak retaining wall. This would 

take place under police escort as described in section 13.2.25. This would not be required for 

vehicles travelling in an eastbound direction as these vehicles are already travelling on the 

opposite side of the road to the weak retaining wall. 

13.5.60 Background traffic flows on Chacewater Hill at this location are relatively low. During the test 

run undertaken with the police it will be possible to determine whether the carriageway needs 

to be temporarily closed in this location in order to allow the manoeuvre to take place. Given 

the frequency of abnormal loads and length of time required to make the manoeuvre it is 

unlikely that a diversion would be required. 





Summary of effects of works required for abnormal load vehicle access 

13.5.61 Table 13.9 shows a summary of the identified pinch points. 

13.5.62 The locations where there is potential for off-site highway works to affect features of 

ecological have been highlighted above and are evaluated in the ecology chapter. At pinch 

point 1 the effect is temporary with only the body of the vehicle oversailing the verge. At pinch 

point 3 works are required to trees, and effects can be dealt with through careful 

management. At pinch points 2, 5 and 6, works are required to the grass verges, though the 

affected areas are generally small and of low ecological importance, and the overall 

significance is slight. 

13.5.63 The off-site highway works required to facilitate abnormal load access will not impact on any 

residential properties, nor cause any changes in distance between residential properties and 

the carriageway. Therefore it is concluded that these works will not have a significant effect 

on residential properties. 

Table 13.9 

Pinch 

point 

A summary of the pinch points 

Location Identified problems Mitigation 

Approach to roundabout from A390 – 

blade transporter vehicle oversails the 

central island and the grass verge on 


Approach to roundabout from A390 – 

tower transporter Vehicle oversails the 

central island and grass verge on 


Exit south towards Chyvelah Road – 

blade transporter vehicle oversails the 

central island 

1 

A390 roundabout 

and Chyvelah 

Road miniroundabout 

Exit south towards Chyvelah Road – 

tower transporter vehicle oversails the 

central island and verge on eastern side 

of carriageway 

Approach to Chyvelah Road miniroundabout 

– blade transporter vehicle 

oversails the central island 

Temporary removal of 

street furniture, movement 

of vehicles in early 

morning or late evening, 

mowing of grass verge, 

traffic management. 

Approach to Chyvelah Road miniroundabout 

– tower transporter vehicle 

oversails the central island 

Exit west from roundabout – blade 

transporter vehicle oversails the central 

island and footway on southern side of 

roundabout 

Exit west from roundabout – blade 

transporter vehicle oversails the central 

island 





Pinch 

point 

Location Identified problems Mitigation 

2 

Staggered 

junction at 

Chacewater Hill 

Northside of Chyvelah Road – Blade 

transporter vehicle overruns the verge 

Movement of vehicles in 

early morning or late 

evening, mowing of grass 

verge, traffic management. 

3 Kerley Hill Low hanging trees over carriageway 

Tree surgery to remove 

low branches 

4 

Kerley Down 

staggered 

junction 

Approach to junction – blade transporter 

vehicle oversails the verge; Inside 

corner of junction – blade transporter 

vehicle oversails the verge; and Exit 

from junction – blade transporter vehicle 

oversails central traffic island 


street furniture, movement 

of vehicles in early 

morning or late evening, 

works to grass verge to 

prevent grounding, traffic 

management. 

5 

Baldhu 

Crossroads 

North side of approach arm – blade 

transporter vehicle oversails the verge; 

Southern corner of junction – blade 

transporter vehicle oversails the verge; 

and Eastern side of exit arm – blade 

transporter vehicle oversails verge 

Observation of telegraph 

wires, movement of 

vehicles in early morning 

or late evening, works to 

grass verge to prevent 

grounding, traffic 

management. 

6 

Wheal Jane 

access 

North side of approach – tower 

transporter vehicle overrun verge 


street furniture, 

observation of telegraph 

wires, movement of 

vehicles in early morning 

or late evening, works to 

grass verge to prevent 

grounding, traffic 

management. 

Close to the road bridge 

crossing a railway line on 

Chacewater 

Construction: other effects 

Weak retaining wall 

Use of the northern side of 

the carriageway under 

police escort 

Properties and residents along the delivery route 

13.5.64 Properties along the access route will be temporarily affected by an increase in traffic as a 

result of construction activity on site. This effect will be limited to the four month construction 

period and will include 12 abnormal load movements, plus 191 heavy goods vehicles. 

Previous experience indicates that the daily movement of construction vehicles is low, 

especially with piled foundations, as proposed for the Wheal Jane turbine. 

13.5.65 Section 4.8 and Table 4.3 details the approximate number of vehicle movements expected 

for the proposed development, and is reproduced here for ease of reference. 

13.5.66 The site already generates significant traffic flows, including heavy vehicle movements. 

Additional vehicle movements will occur over the four month construction period, and given 

the rural nature of the area, additional vehicles are likely to be noticeable to residents. 

Therefore the effect of these additional vehicles is considered to be slight, but temporary. 





Once operational, traffic volumes are very low and the effect is considered to reduce to not 

significant. 

Replication of Table 4.3 Vehicle movements associated with turbine construction 

Item Dimensions m3 of material Deliveries 

Two-way 

movements 

Access track and 

area of minor 

works 

Crane pad and 

kiosk 

Construction 

compound 



2,500 m 2 1500 m 3 aggregate 

102 204 

Foundation 1034 m 3 620 m 3 of aggregate, 18 36 

414 m 3 of concrete 59 118 

Turbine Base 

(steel for cage 

and reinforcing, 

plus piles) 

Approx. 104 

tonnes steel 

- 6 12 


Components 

- - 

10 abnormal 

loads 

- 

Large Crane - - 

Support crane - - 

1 abnormal 

load, 5 HGVs 

1 abnormal 

load, 1 HGV 

10 

2 

Staff 

25 staff on site 

per day 

- 


not HGV 


not HGV 

Total HGV vehicles 191 382 

Road users 

13.5.67 Abnormal loads are slow moving and typically difficult to pass, therefore following traffic will 

be delayed slightly. These vehicles will be moved in the early-morning/late-evening, under 

escort by the Police. By moving these vehicles at these times the network will be quieter and 

there is potential for more than one vehicle movement per day, thus reducing the timeframe 

over which disruption can occur. Delays will also occur as traffic is held back along narrow 

sections of the access route and at junctions. 

13.5.68 The erection of the turbine is expected to generate 12 abnormal loads which will be one-way 

movements as the vehicles will be retracted on site once the delivery is completed. The 

movement of cranes will generate a further 4 vehicle movements. Considering the following 

factors it is concluded that the movement of abnormal load movement on general traffic 

would be slight: 





• the number of abnormal load movements is low and will occur outside of the busiest 

periods; 

• the roads are minor and unlikely to be heavily trafficked; 

• there is a good network of alternative routes should drivers not wish to wait; and 

• the time period over which disruption may occur is short, at most being a period of two 

weeks. 

13.5.69 The site will generate additional heavy load movements of standard road size vehicles which 

will not be escorted or expected to be confined to a certain time of day. Similar vehicles will 

already be accessing the site due to ongoing remediation works. The number of these 

vehicles generated by the site is expected to be low and will be limited to the four moth 

construction period. The 40 mph speed limit along the route means that these vehicles are 

not expected to be travelling significantly slower than general traffic. Taking all these factors 

into consideration the effect to general traffic is considered to be not significant. Once 

operational, traffic generation will be low and comprise small commercial vehicles, or cars, 

therefore the effect will be reduced further. 

13.5.70 Footways along the access route are limited to the area around Threemilestone. This is 

anticipated to be the busiest part of the route where the increase in traffic generated by the 

site will be less noticeable. Pedestrian flows in the area are not expected to be high, which 

combined with the low vehicle generation, is not considered to have a significant effect. 

13.5.71 The access route is not a cycle route and levels of cycling are anticipated to be low. The 

effect on cyclists is not considered to be significant. 

Public rights of way 

13.5.72 There are a number of locations where the access route meets public rights of way, though 

none of these occur where highway works are needed to facilitate the movement of abnormal 

loads. With regard to the movement of abnormal loads this will be undertaken during the 

early-morning/late-evening when it is unlikely that people will be using these rights of way, 

therefore the effect is considered to be not significant. The vehicles are slow moving and will 

be under escort, therefore should a walker or rider meet one of these vehicles conflict is 

unlikely to arise. 

13.5.73 With regard to the more general construction traffic, these vehicles will be travelling during 

the day, will not be under escort and will be travelling at higher speeds. The volume of 

vehicles is not very high and will be intermittent across the day. A walker/rider meeting one of 

these vehicles is not going to be delayed significantly therefore the effect to public rights of 

way is considered not significant. 

Operation 

13.5.74 During the operational phase of the development, routine maintenance will be carried out at a 

frequency likely to be twice a year using a commercial van or 4x4 vehicle. 





13.5.75 The site already generates approximately 100 vehicle movements per day, which are set to 

increase with the masterplan proposals for the site. The additional movements associated 

with the turbine maintenance are negligible when compared to existing and anticipated future 

traffic movements. It is therefore not considered necessary to assess the environmental 

effects of the traffic generated by the operational phase of the proposed wind turbine. 

13.5.76 The new lengths of site access track created during erection of the turbine will be retained 

and maintained to ensure they are suitable for abnormal load movements should this be 

required to maintain the turbine. Where works are required off site to gain access, this will be 

for the operational period, being reinstated as part of the restoration work when the turbine is 

decommissioned. 


13.5.77 The turbine is anticipated to be operational for a period of 25 years. Decommissioning will 

primarily involve the removal of the turbine and removal of hard standings and (possibly) 

access tracks. The turbine is proposed as part of a large environmentally sustainable 

business park therefore full restoration of the site will not be required. 

13.5.78 The effects during decommissioning will be similar to the effects during construction, as a 

worst case. The exception to this will be the effect of highway works required for access as 

any mitigation measures during construction will still be in place when decommissioning 

starts. 

13.5.79 Given the long operational period, there is the possibility of advances in vehicle technology 

and engineering which will lessen the effect of decommissioning further. 


Movement of abnormal vehicles 

13.6.1 The movement of abnormal vehicles will be managed by the Police and it is anticipated that 

all abnormal loads will be escorted. In line with recommendations from the Police’s abnormal 

loads officer, the following controls will be put in place to minimise the disruption caused by 

abnormal loads. Full agreement on arrangements for moving abnormal loads will need to be 

agreed once the turbine specification, haulage contractor and construction programme have 

all be finalised. The controls likely to be implemented are as follows: 

• a test run will be undertaken prior to abnormal load movements starting: this will be 

undertaken by an unladen vehicle extended to the greatest width and length required 

for the specific turbine components (if difficulty arises the vehicle can be retracted); 

• the Police will escort all abnormal loads to the site and would be in place from a 

location on the A30; and 

• sufficient escort units would be deployed to clear traffic from the route section by 

section, with the Police coordinating traffic management. 





13.6.2 In keeping with the recommendations of the Police, if possible the erection of the turbine will 

take place during the summer months. This allows movements of abnormal loads to occur 

early in the morning or late in the evening due to longer daylight hours and there are likely to 

be better weather conditions. The longer daylight hours means it may be possible to move 

more than one component per day, thus reducing the timeframe over which disruption could 

occur. Moving vehicles early in the morning or late in the evening means that the road 

network will be at its quietest and therefore least delay will be caused to general traffic. 

13.6.3 It should be noted that the test run will not occur until after planning consent is gained due to 

the mitigation works required to gain access. 

13.6.4 Any works needed to grass verges will be followed by the reinstatement of grass/turf. 

Operational controls response to potentially significant effects 

13.6.5 Once operational the vehicle movements associated with the turbine are very minimal. The 

turbine will be managed remotely. 

13.6.6 If during the course of the turbine being operational, maintenance requiring the delivery of 

substantial components and therefore generating abnormal loads will be discussed with the 

planning authority and the same measures, such as a Police escort, will be used as 

necessary. 


13.7.1 It is unavoidable that road access is required for construction vehicles to reach the site. The 

erection of the turbine, and its size, mean that it is also unavoidable that the development will 

generate abnormal load movements as the turbine components are delivered to site. 

13.7.2 Thus while the mitigation and enhancement measures described above do not reduce the 

significance of the identified effects, they are included as measures to manage and control 

the residual effect resulting from HGV deliveries and abnormal loads. Table 13.10 

summarises the effects. 


13.8.1 The development of the Wheal Jane site according to the Masterplan will most likely occur 

during the operational phase of the wind development when traffic generation is minimal, 

therefore no change in effect is predicted. 

13.8.2 Should there be new receptors when the wind turbine is decommissioned, the mitigation 

measures set out in this chapter would minimise effects, and controls are likely to be 

enforced by the relevant authorities in relation to dust, noise and other potential nuisance. 






13.9.1 Any major developments in the area that may arise at the same time as construction of the 

wind turbine could result in a cumulative increase traffic flows on the routes. In this regard, it 

is noted that the increases resulting from the construction of the wind turbine results in only 

small increases to traffic flows resulting in only negligible effects. In addition, given the short 

construction period it is unlikely that the peak construction traffic above would coincide with 

another development and therefore no cumulative effect should be forthcoming. 


Technical data for abnormal load vehicles has been supplied by Collett Transport Limited. 

The Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) 1993. Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment 

of Road Traffic (Guidance Note No. 1). 





Table 13.10 

Summary of Effects 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance after 

mitigation 

Nature of 

effect 

Road users 

along access 

route 

Residential 

properties 

along access 

route 

Roadside 

verges and 

street furniture 

Slow moving 

vehicles, 

traffic 

management 

and road 

works 

Additional 

vehicles 

Vehicle 

overruns 









Abnormal loads will be 

escorted. Traffic 

management works to 

allow the manoeuvre 

of abnormal loads 

have been kept to 

minimum 

Abnormal loads will be 

escorted and will 

arrive during daylight 

hours early 

morning/evening 

None 

None 

Slight 

Slight 

Temporary, 

adverse 

Temporary, 

adverse 

Low Small Slight n/a n/a Slight Long-term 





14 Water Environment 


14.1.1 This chapter contains an assessment of the likely effects of the proposed development on the 

water environment. This encompasses the following elements: 

• surface water hydrology, flood risk and site drainage 

• surface water quality 

• groundwater levels and groundwater quality. 

14.1.2 An assessment of the likely potential hydrological and hydrogeological effects was 

considered necessary because the proposed development is located on the site of a former 

tin mine with historic ground and surface water contamination issues. Polluted groundwater is 

treated on site and groundwater levels are actively managed in order to prevent pollution of 

nearby watercourses. The site is therefore sensitive to operations that could cause an 

increased risk of pollution of the aquifer or surface water bodies or influence existing water 

treatment operations at the site. 

14.1.3 This chapter includes a characterisation of the existing water environment at the site, against 

which any potential effects are evaluated, based on available information. The chapter also 

notes any potential hydrological constraints to the proposed wind turbine development and 

describes and evaluates the potential effects of the proposed wind turbine on the water 

environment. 

14.1.4 This chapter also outlines mitigation measures that are likely to be required during the 

construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed development to protect the 

environment. 


14.2.1 The assessment has been undertaken based on professional judgement and statutory and 

general national and local guidance as listed below: 

Applicable Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG’s) 

• PPG1: General guide to the prevention of pollution; 

• PPG3: Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems; 

• PPG5: Works in, near or liable to affect watercourses; 

• PPG6: Working at construction and demolition sites; 

• PPG8: Storage and disposal of used oils; 


Water Environment 



• PPG21: Pollution incident response planning; 

• PPG23: Maintenance of structures over water; and 

• PPG26: Pollution prevention storage and handling of drums and intermediate bulk 

containers. 

Other Compliance Guidance: 

• CIRIA Report C502 Environmental good practice on site; 

• CIRIA Report C522 Sustainable urban drainage systems design manual for England 

and Wales; 

• CIRIA Report C532 Control of water pollution from construction sites: Guidance for 

consultants and contractors; and 

• CIRIA Report 624: Development and Flood Risk. 

Compliance with Key Environmental Legislation Including: 

• Control of Pollution Act (As Amended) 1974 

• EC Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC) 

• EC Fisheries Directive (78/659/EEC) 

• Environment Protection Act 1990 

• Land Drainage Act 1991 

• Environment Act 1995 

• Groundwater Regulations 1998 

• Water Framework Directive (200/60/EC). 

Compliance with Government Planning Guidance Including: 

• Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23); and 

• Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk (PPS25). 

Local Guidance Including: 

• Drainage Guidance for Cornwall Council (Version 2 – January 2010); and 

• Cornwall Level 1 SFRA – November 2009. 

14.2.2 The methodology of this assessment is based on the collection of a wide range of data and 

information. Consultations and data collection were undertaken using the following sources: 





• PfR Feasibility Report, April 2009 (containing results of a PlanSearch report dated 

September 2008); 

• PfR Geotechnical Feasibility Report, October 2009 (containing Envirocheck survey 

dated September 2009); 

• Guidance from the Environment Agency on their requirements in respect of PPS 25 

following a pre-development enquiry (see flood risk assessment in Appendix 14.1); 

• Data from Environment Agency (request number C/CSC/12367) and use of their 

website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk; 

• Correspondence with United Utilities regarding site operations at Wheal Jane 

(pers.comm. Stan Morcom and Nigel Manner); and 

• Information obtained from relevant papers in Volume 338 of the journal ‘Science of the 

Total Environment’, February 2005. 

14.2.3 In addition to the data collation, a site visit was undertaken on 25 th June 2010. This included 

a site walkover to: 

• Gain an appreciation of the site layout and topography 

• Examine the nature of watercourses and drains present 

• Observe any evidence of surface water run-off. 

14.2.4 Consultation with the Environment Agency and Cornwall Council provided the responses in 

Table 14.1 regarding the issues to be addressed as part of the EIA in relation to the water 

environment. 

14.2.5 Table 14.2 shows the main issues that were considered during the scoping of the Water 

Environment work, following the consultation responses, and the decisions made regarding 

inclusion within the detailed assessment. 

14.2.6 A flood risk assessment has been undertaken for this proposal based on guidance from 

Planning Policy Statement 25. The assessment is included in Appendix 14.1. This indicates 

that the application site is not at risk from flooding. 

14.2.7 Following the data collation and consultations described above, the following vulnerable 

receptors were identified: 

• Watercourses within and in close proximity to the Wheal Jane site (including Clemows 

Stream, unnamed drainage ditch, Baldhu Stream and Carnon River); 

• The minor aquifer underlying the site; and 

• Former mining workings including existing treatment operation of contaminated 

groundwater. 





14.2.8 The general methodology set out in Chapter 2 has been used in order to consider each 

receptor’s importance against the predicted magnitude of change to identify if an effect is 

significant. The specific methodology tailored to the assessment of the Water Environment is 

described below. 

Table 14.1 

Consultee 

Summary of consultation responses 

Summary of Comments 

Cornwall Council 

The ES should provide a detailed assessment of pollution prevention, 

groundwater and contaminated land, flood risk, surface water and foul drainage, 

and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS). In particular the ES should identify 

the potential impact of the proposal on groundwater (in terms of both quality and 

resource/flows) and its relationship with surface water should be included in the 

ES. 

The ES should assess potential impacts on groundwater quality, recharge, flows 

and levels and identify mitigation for any impacts to these interests. 

The impact of the proposed development on former mining operations, including 

potential impacts on the existing treatment operation of contaminated 

groundwater should be considered in the ES. 

Environment 

Agency 

Potential impacts on groundwater (both quality and resource/flow implications) 

and its relationship with surface water, should be included in the ES. lt may be 

the case that the development will not have a large impact on groundwater but it 

must be assessed in order to come to such a decision. 

(Mr Robin Leivers, Planning Liaison Officer, 04/06/2010) 

Table 14.2 

Main issues considered during scoping 

Issue 

Surface water quality 

Surface water hydrology 

Groundwater quality 

Groundwater 

hydrology/recharge 

Groundwater temperature 

Coastal/marine water quality 

Coastal/marine water 

temperature 

Sea level change 

Coastal 

processes/hydrodynamics 

Flood risk 

Scoping Decision 

Surface water quality in the context of water contamination and 

treatment function of the Wheal Jane site, will need to be assessed 

Potential hydrological changes and drainage will need to be assessed 

Groundwater quality in the context of water contamination and treatment 

function of the Wheal Jane site, will need to be assessed 

Groundwater will need to be assessed in the context of water 

contamination and treatment function of the Wheal Jane site 

No assessment required 

No assessment required (the Carnon River flows into the Fal Estuary, 

however effects will be assessed upstream of this point). 

As above 



FRA to be carried out to support the ES. 





14.2.9 A desk study assessment and site visit has been undertaken to establish baseline information 

and conditions on the existing topographical, geological, hydrological and hydrogeological 

conditions at the proposed development. This information has then been used to identify and 

categorise the potential effect of the proposed development upon the receiving environment 

with particular reference to sensitive receptors in the area such as aquifers, any groundwater 

abstraction in the area geology, aquatic habitats, reservoirs, and drainage ditches. Each 

identified receptor has then been assessed to determine its importance to the potential effect 

of the development, from high to negligible. The approach to assessing receptor importance 

is shown in Table 14.3. 

14.2.10 The potential effects for each phase of the development have been considered. The 

magnitude of potential effect and the importance of the receptor have been combined to 

determine the significance of that effect. 

14.2.11 The methodology to identify and classify magnitude of potential effects and their significance 

has been adapted from the following sources: 

• Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000) Environmental Impact 

Assessment: A Guide to Procedures. DETR and The National Assembly for Wales 

ISBN: 9780727729606 

• Mustow and Burgess (2005) “Practical methodology for determining the significance of 

impacts on the water environment”, Journal of Chartered Institution of Water and 

Environmental Management, Volume 19, No. 2 

• EA classification of aquifer types based on their geology. 





Table 14.3 

Approach to assessing receptor importance 

Importance 

Rarity/ Substitutability 

Surface water 

quality – WFD 

standards (rivers) 

Groundwater Ecology/ Recreation/ Conservation Flood risk Abstractions/ Potable Water Geology 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Negligible 

High quality and rarity, 

regional or national scale and 

limited potential for 

substitution/ replacement 

Receptor with a high quality 

and rarity, local scale and 


substitution/ replacement or 

receptor with a medium quality 

and rarity, regional or national 

scale and limited potential for 


Receptor with a medium 

quality and rarity, local scale 

and limited potential for 

substitution/ replacement or 

receptor with a low quality and 

rarity, regional or national 

scale and limited potential for 


Receptor with a low quality 

and rarity, local scale and 


substitution/ replacement. 

Environmental equilibrium is 

stable and resilient to changes 

that are greater than natural 

fluctuations, without detriment 

to its present character 

High ecological status 

Ammonia 0.3 mg/l 

BOD 4 mg/l 

DO 70% saturation 

pH ≥6 to ≤9 

Good ecological 

status 


BOD 5 mg/l 


pH ≥6 to ≤9 

Moderate ecological 

status 


BOD 6.5 mg/l 


pH 4.7 

Poor/Bad ecological 

status 


BOD 9 mg/l 


pH 4.2 

Major aquifer with soils of high, 

intermediate or unclassified 

leaching potential; 

Groundwater aquifer 

vulnerability classed as high; 

WFD – Principal Aquifer 

Minor aquifer with soils of high 

or unclassified leaching 

potential; 


vulnerability classed as 

intermediate 

Major aquifer with soils of low 

leaching potential or minor 

aquifer with soils of 

intermediate leaching 

potential; 


vulnerability classed as low; 

WFD – Secondary Aquifer or 

Significant Drift Aquifer 

Minor aquifer with soils of low 

leaching potential, or non 

aquifer; 


vulnerability not classified; 

WFD – Unproductive Aquifer 

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 

or Special Area of Conservation (SAC); 

Designated salmonid fishery and/or 

salmonid spawning grounds present; 

Watercourse widely used for recreation, 

directly related to watercourse quality 

(e.g. swimming, salmon fishery, etc.) 

within 2 km downstream 

Designated salmonid fishery and/or 

cyprinid fishery; 

Watercourse used for recreation, 

directly related to watercourse quality 

(e.g. swimming, salmon fishery etc.) 

Designated cyprinid fishery, salmonid 

species may be present and catchment 

locally important for fisheries; 

Watercourse not widely used for 

recreation, or recreation use not directly 

related to watercourse quality 

Fish sporadically present or restricted, 

no designated fisheries; 

Not used for recreation; 

Receptor heavily engineered or 

artificially modified and may dry up 

during summer months 

Active floodplain area 

(important in relation to 

flood defence); 

≥1 in 75 chance of 

flooding 

Active floodplain area 

(important in relation to 

flood defence); 

Between ≤1 in 75 and 


flooding 


flooding or less; 

Existing flood defences 

Area does not flood 

Abstractions for public drinking water supply; 

Within Source Protection Zone 1 or 2 of a groundwater 

abstraction point; 

Groundwater abstractions >1000 m 3 /day (within 2 km of 

the site); 

Surface water – large scale industrial agricultural 

abstractions >1000 m 3 /day within 2 km downstream 

Groundwater abstraction for private water supply 

>10 m 3 /day or serves > 50 people; 

Within Source Protection Zone 3 of a groundwater 


Surface water abstractions for private water supply for 

more than 15 people; 

Groundwater abstractions 500–1000 m 3 /day (within 

zone of influence from development); 

Large scale industrial agricultural abstractions 500– 

1000 m 3 /day within 2 km downstream 

Private water supplies present; 

Not within a Source Protection Zone of a groundwater 


Surface water abstraction for private water supply; 

Groundwater abstractions 50–499 m 3 /day; 

Industrial/agricultural abstractions 50–499 m 3 /day 

within 2 km downstream 

No drinking water supplies; 

Not within a Source Protection Zone of a groundwater 


Groundwater abstractions


14.2.12 An outline of the assessment of the magnitude of effects is outlined in Table 14.4, and Table 

14.5 shows how importance and magnitude define the significance of an effect prior to the 

application of mitigation measures. 

14.2.13 Following the application of mitigation measures, the magnitude of change has been reestablished 

and the significance values re-assessed. 

14.2.14 The significance criteria listed in Table 14.5 have then been used to determine the residual 

significance of each identified potential effect. 

Table 14.4 

Magnitude of Change 

Magnitude Criteria Description and example 

Large Results in loss of attribute Fundamental (long term or permanent) changes to the 

geology, hydrology, water quality and hydrogeology. 

• Loss of EC designated salmonid fishery 

• Loss of designated species/habitats 

• Change in water quality status of river reach 

• Compromise employment source 

• Loss of flood storage/increased flood risk 

• Pollution of public or private drinking water source 

Medium 

Small 

Negligible 

Results in effect on 

integrity of attribute or loss 

of part of attribute 

Results in minor effect on 

attribute 

Results in an effect on 

attribute but of insufficient 

magnitude to affect the 

use/integrity 

Material but non-fundamental and short to medium term 

changes to the geology, hydrology, water quality and 

hydrogeology. 

• Loss in productivity of cyprinind and salmonid 

fishery 

• Contribution of a significant proportion of the 

effluent in the receiving water, but insufficient to 

change its water quality status 

• Reduction in the economic value of the feature 

Measurable but non-material and transitory changes to 

the geology, hydrology, water quality and 

hydrogeology. 

• Measurable change in attribute, but of limited size 

and/or proportion 

No perceptible changes to the geology, hydrology, 

water quality or hydrogeology. 

• Discharges to watercourse but no loss in quality, 

fisheries productivity or biodiversity 

• No significant effect on the economic value of the 

receptor 

• No increase in flood risk 

• No pollution of private or public drinking water 

resources 

14.2.15 





Table 14.5 

Significance of effects 



Magnitude of change 

LARGE 

MEDIUM 

SMALL 

VERY 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

SUBSTANTIAL 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

MODERATE 

MODERATE/ 

SLIGHT 

SUBSTANTIAL/ 

MODERATE 

MODERATE 

SLIGHT 

MODERATE/ 

SLIGHT 

SLIGHT 

SLIGHT/ NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NEGLIGIBLE 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 



14.3.1 The data and other sources of information are listed in Table 14.6. The water environment 

features are presented in Figure 14.1. 

Table 14.6 

Sources of baseline information 

Topic 

Geology 

Bedrock and Superficial 

Geology 

Topography 

Elevation, relief 

Source of Information 

British Geological Survey 1:50,000 Scale Solid and Drift Edition Map Sheet 

352 Falmouth 

Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping at 1:50,000 and 1: 25,000 scale 

Environment Agency website www.environment-agency.gov.uk 

Surface Waters 

Water Quality 

Envirocheck report, September 2009 

Environment Agency data request C/CSC/12367 

United Utilities (pers.comm. Stan Morcom and Nigel Manner, August 2010) 

Groundwater 

Aquifer classification 

Groundwater levels and 

regime 

Water Resource Use – 

Abstractions and 

discharges 



United Utilities (pers.comm. Stan Morcom and Nigel Manner, August 2010) 







Topic 

Source of Information 


Flood Risk 

Flood Maps 

Historical Land Use 


Pre-development enquiry correspondence with the Environment Agency 

(June 2010) 


14.3.2 This section describes the existing hydrological and hydrogeological conditions at the 

proposed application site and its immediate surroundings and also describes the treatment of 

minewater at the site. 

Land Cover and Land Use 

14.3.3 The application site is located within the site of the former Wheal Jane Tin Mine. The site and 

surrounding area is part of an ongoing remediation scheme led by the Environment Agency. 

The primary feature of the application site is an engineered tailings dam which forms part of 

the mine water treatment infrastructure. The surrounding land consists of the mine water 

treatment lagoons, the treatment plant operated by United Utilities and several industrial units 

occupied by the Wheal Jane Ltd. There is an access road to the industrial estate, beyond 

which dirt tracks provide access to the toe of the dam. 

14.3.4 Beyond the boundary of the Wheal Jane tin mine the surrounding land use is predominantly 

agricultural with several residential and agricultural buildings in the vicinity of the site. 

Topography 

14.3.5 The elevation of the Wheal Jane site is 60 m to 75 m above ordnance datum (AOD). It is 

surrounded on the north, east and west sides by high rolling hills. To the south the land 

remains undulating but to a lesser degree. 

14.3.6 The proposed turbine location is on the flanks of the 8–10 m high tailings dam, which slopes 

at approximately 1v:3h (15–20°) to the North West, forming the northern boundary of the 

tailings lagoon. The toe of the dam is located within a topographical low point. The land 

immediately at the toe of the embankment is relatively flat lying with the industrial estate and 

mine water treatment works located 3–4 m above this level on a plateau on the side of the 

gently sloping valley. 

Geology 

14.3.7 The geology of the site has been described in Chapter 9 (Ground Conditions) and further 

detail is available in the Geotechnical Feasibility Report (PfR, 2009). In summary, the site is 

underlain by Mylor Slate Formation which dips between 18° and 30° in a south-south-east 

direction. A Permo-Carbonferous Igneous intrusion and a mineral vein are present at the 

surface to the north of the proposed turbine location. The area which comprises the tailings 

dam is an area of Made Ground. It is also considered likely that the proposed turbine location 

will also be underlain by Made Ground, comprising mine waste. 





Hydrogeology 

14.3.8 The Environment Agency website identifies that the proposed site is located on a 

Secondary A Aquifer (note these were formerly classified as minor aquifers). Although such 

secondary aquifers seldom produce large quantities of groundwater for extraction, they are 

important for both local supplies and in the baseflow to rivers. 

14.3.9 The site is underlain by groundwater, the depth of which is controlled by the mine abstraction 

and water treatment system (see section on mine water treatment below). Studies have 

shown that the groundwater catchment underlies more than one surface water catchment. 

Hicks Mill Stream and the Carnon River loose water to the subsurface which is eventually 

pumped out of the mine shaft at Wheal Jane. Water also enters the mine workings through 

surface excavations (gunnises or stopes) which are present across the hillsides of the 

Carnon Valley. The County Adit (which at its peak drained over 40 mines though 38 miles of 

adits) is also linked to the Wheal Jane workings. 

14.3.10 There is also likely to be some shallow groundwater within the soils and made ground at the 

site, albeit potentially in limited quantities. Shallow groundwater will have a fairly short travel 

time from infiltration to discharge to the various drainage ditches and streams on site. 

14.3.11 The site is not located within a Source Protection Zone (SPZ) or a zone of special interest. 

The site is located within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ). 

Minewater treatment 

14.3.12 There is a long history of mining at the Wheal Jane site, with the most recent activity taking 

place between the early 1960s to May 1978 and then from September 1979 to March 1991, 

when all underground workings finally ceased. Wheal Jane is connected underground to an 

extensive network of very old, long-abandoned mines requiring large dewatering volumes 

(approx. 200 l/s by 1990). Whilst it was active, the mine was kept dry by pumping water out 

and discharging to local streams. After closure, pumping ceased and the water level in the 

mine workings gradually rose. Due to high acidity (following exposure to an oxidizing 

environment), other toxic metals were brought into solution. When the water level neared the 

surface in November 1991, limited pumping started from one of the mine shafts, with 

discharge of the water to the Clemows Valley tailings dam (CVTD). An emergency treatment 

system was installed to treat the contaminated water, however operations were temporarily 

suspended in January 1992. Failureof a pile of roof fall debris later that month resulted in the 

uncontrolled release of 25,000 to 50,000 m 3 of metal laden acidic mine water through the 

Nangiles Adit directly into the Carnon River and Fal Estuary(Younger et. al, 2005). This was 

classed as a major pollution incident. Short-term treatment measures continued until a 

treatment plant was commissioned in 2000. 

14.3.13 The Wheal Jane Minewater Treatment Plant is operated and maintained by United Utilities. 

Minewater is pumped from one of the mine shafts (No. 2) in order to keep groundwater levels 

below the level of the Nangiles adit (15.87 mAOD) which provides a direct route for water 

discharge to the Carnon River. United Utilities currently maintain the water level in the shaft 

between 13.5 and 14.5 mAOD (this narrow band having been chosen to stabilise the mineral 

content). 





14.3.14 The pumped minewater is piped to a treatment plant (which also receives flows from the toe 

drain of the tailings dam). The treatment process outputs are sludge and treated effluent. 

Treated effluent is discharged into the Clemows Stream at NGR SW 7705 4260. Excess 

sludge is piped to the settlement lagoon (managed by Carnon Enterprises) and water that is 

released after the sediment has settled out is collected in a lagoon adjacent to the toe drain. 

Water from this lagoon is pumped through pipelines to a storage tank and from there to the 

treatment plant. 

14.3.15 United Utilities continuously monitor the pH, temperature and suspended solids content of the 

treated effluent. In addition, samples are sent to the laboratory for detailed water quality 

analysis twice a week (see section on water quality below). Pumped minewater is typically pH 

3.6 whilst the effluent discharge is typically pH 9. If there is a processing failure and/or there 

is any effluent that exceeds the consented discharge quality, it can be diverted to the tailings 

dam (and hence re-circulated). 

Surface water hydrology 

14.3.16 The main watercourse at the Wheal Jane site is the Clemows Stream which follows the 

western boundary of the tailings dam (Figure 14.1). The river mainly comprises treated 

minewater discharge and is an engineered channel which is concrete lined in parts. 

14.3.17 To the east of the tailings dam, there is a drainage ditch which runs adjacent to the access 

track to the toe of the tailings dam (Figure 14.1). The ditch was dry when observed during the 

site visit (25 June 2010) and its appearance indicated that it flowed infrequently. The ditch is 

unlined at its source (to the north) but concrete lined in the lower reaches where it discharges 

into a lagoon (which also receives water from the toe drain of the tailings dam). Water from 

lagoon is pumped through pipelines to the treatment plant (via a storage tank). 

14.3.18 To the south of the site, the Clemows Stream is known as the Baldhu Stream. This flows into 

the Carnon River, which in turn flows into the Fal Estuary. 

14.3.19 The proposed turbine site is not located within an area at risk from flooding from rivers or sea 

without defences and is not part of a flood water storage area. The site is not within a Critical 

Drainage Area (defined as areas where flood risk from surface water runoff is likely to be 

most significant). There are currently no formal flood defences at the proposed development 

site and therefore failure of defences is not a flood risk issue. Flooding from surface water 

foul and combined sewers has not been reported to be a problem in the study area. 

Surface water quality 

14.3.20 The effluent discharge is monitored regularly by United Utilities prior to discharge to the 

Clemows Stream to ensure that the water quality meets the discharge consent. Recent water 

quality measurements are shown with consented values in Table 14.7. The water quality 

varies throughout the year, partly in relation to the height of the water level in the shaft; the 

water level for the data shown in Table 14.7 is 13.91 m above sea level. 

14.3.21 The water quality of the treated discharge and nearby rivers is also monitored regularly by 

the Environment Agency (locations shown in Figure 14.1). A variety of different parameters 

are measured including pH, temperature, conductivity, suspended solids, inorganics and 

nutrients. 





14.3.22 Classification of surface water quality, using the General Quality Assessment (GQA) 

methods, is taken from a six-point scale (A, B, C, D, E and F) where Grade A is the highest 

quality (Very Good) and Grade F the lowest (Bad). Classification is separated into water 

quality (chemistry) and water quality (biology). The selection of the class is based on surveys 

carried out by the EA. The most recent data available for locations close to the site is 

included in Table 14.8 below. Locations are shown in Figure 14.1. 

Table 14.7 

Measured and consented effluent discharge into Clemows Stream 

Determinand 

Effluent (mg/l) As measured on 

25/07/2011 

Consent (mg/l) 

Iron 1.69 5 

Arsenic


based on: biological quality, general chemical and physico-chemical quality, water quality 

with respect to specific pollutants and hydromorphological quality. There are five classes of 

ecological status (high, good, moderate, poor or bad). The Lower Carnon River (downstream 

of Bissoe Bridge) is classified as ‘bad’ in terms of ecological quality. 

14.3.24 Scientific literature suggests that the Carnon River would be expected to sustain a salmonid 

fishery if it were not for the poor quality of its waters. The Carnon River has been found to be 

devoid of fish throughout its length (before and after the pollution incident in the early 1990s) 

and also lacking in aquatic macrophytes and macroinvertebrates downstream of the Wheal 

Jane site. This is in contrast to similar sized tributaries of the Fal Estuary which are not 

subject to mine water pollution (Younger et. al, 2005). The evidence suggests that the lower 

Carnon River has long been of poor biological quality, largely due to the diffuse inputs from 

mine workings. 

14.3.25 Studies have shown that the tidal waters of Restronguet Creek (downstream from Devoran 

Bridge on the Carnon River) show signs of chronic effects from mining derived metals 

pollution and are also susceptible to further degradation. Elsewhere in the Fal Estuary, it 

appears that much of the sensitive biota are already absent, no evidence of chronic or 

temporary biological effects from mining have been found (Younger et. al, 2005). 

14.3.26 Integrated catchment modelling of the Carnon River and tidal waters has been used to 

estimate loadings from different pollutant sources in the catchment and also to predict the 

water quality implications of various treatment scenarios. This work has shown that without 

treatment, water discharged from Wheal Jane would be the major source of pollution in the 

Carnon River and would result in a deterioration in water quality. It was also shown that 

treating the rare peaks of flow from Wheal Jane (which exceed current treatment capacity) 

would only make limited improvements to water quality. Due to diffuse pollution throughout 

the catchment, water quality objectives could not be met (Younger et. al, 2005). 

Groundwater quality 

14.3.27 The groundwater pumped from the mineshaft has high sulphate concentrations, low 

Dissolved Oxygen, low pH and high metal content (Whitehead et. al) which is why it requires 

treatment. There are no data regarding groundwater quality elsewhere in the Mylor Slate 

Formation (Secondary A Aquifer) in the vicinity of the Wheal Jane site. 

14.3.28 The presence of made ground (likely to comprise mine waste) and previous use of some 

areas for landfill may influence shallow groundwater quality, however there is no information 

regarding the quality of any shallow groundwater at the Wheal Jane site. 

Abstractions and Discharges 

14.3.29 Figure 14.1 shows the location of abstraction licence 15/48/022/G/023 which was issued by 

the Environment Agency in 1995 and authorises the abstraction of water up to 39,744 m 3 /day 

and 9,855,000 m 3 /year from Wheal Jane No. 2 shaft. Although the Environment Agency holds 

the abstraction licence, United Utilities act as their contractor and operate the pumps which 

abstract the water from the shaft. 

14.3.30 Historically there were a number of small domestic and agricultural licences in the area. A 

change in legislation in 2005 meant that all abstractions that had a volume of 20 m 3 /day or 





below, no longer required a licence. Therefore the small licences in the vicinity of Wheal Jane 

were all deregulated as part of a national exercise in line with this change in legislation. 

14.3.31 Figure 14.1 also shows the locations of discharges in the vicinity of Wheal Jane. The 

discharges are all small domestic or agricultural soakaways with the exception of two which 

relate to the minewater treatment process. 

14.3.32 Discharge consent number 301119 authorises United Utilities to discharge up to 

30,240 m 3 /day treated minewater and tailings dam return to the Clemows Stream at 

NGR SW7705 4260. The composition of the consented discharge is given in Table 14.7 

(above). 

14.3.33 Discharge number 15/48/22/P/29 authorises Carnon Enterprises to discharge trade effluent 

from Clemows Valley tailings dam at NGR 774 417, in the event of an emergency. The 

consent requires that the Environment Agency be notified as soon as possible in the event of 

any breakdown which results in a discharge to the Carnon River and that a written report is 

supplied to the Environment Agency after the event. 

Trends and projected future baseline 

14.3.34 The minewater treatment process means that deep groundwater beneath the site is 

maintained at a constant level (between 13.5 and 14.5 mAOD) and the quality of effluent 

discharge to the Clemows Stream is carefully controlled. There are no predicted changes to 

the future baseline conditions in terms of the Water Environment. 


14.3.35 No information is available regarding the depth and quality of any shallow groundwater. To 

account for the current data limitations, a precautionary approach has been considered in the 

assessment of ‘likely significant effects’. 

Valuation of the receptors in the baseline condition 

14.3.36 Table 14.9 summarises the baseline condition importance or value of the receptors. 

Table 14.9 

Importance of Receptors 

Receptor Importance Rationale 

Secondary A Aquifer Low Minor aquifer with soils of intermediate leaching potential 

Former Mine 

Workings and 

Operational 

Treatment Plant 

Clemows Stream 

Medium 

Negligible 

Continued operation of treatment works essential to prevent major 

pollution incidents to Carnon River and the Fal Estuary downstream 

(the WFD ecological quality status of which is ‘moderate’ and which 

is a Special Area of Conservation, SAC). Disruption caused by 

increased volumes of minewater or tailings overflow or interruption to 

treatment work needs to be taken into account. 

Clemows stream largely comprises treated minewater effluent. The 

ditches are heavily engineered or artificially modified. The WFD 

ecological quality status is ‘bad’. 





Receptor Importance Rationale 

Unnamed drainage 

ditch 

Baldhu Stream 

Carnon River 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Water flowing in the drainage ditch is likely to have a lower water 

quality than in the Clemows Stream. The ditches are heavily 

engineered or artificially modified and may often be dry. 

This stretch of river is a continuation of the Clemows Stream. 

Although, chemical water quality is classified as fairly good, the WFD 

ecological quality status is ‘bad’. 

Although, chemical water quality is good, the ecological status in 

terms of biology is poor. The WFD ecological quality status is ‘bad’. 


14.4.1 In considering site design, the most important potential effects of the proposed development 

with respect to ground condition and the water environment are considered to be: 

• Flood risk to the development 

• Flood risk arising from the development 

• The potential for pollution of watercourses caused by construction or decommissioning 

activities. 

14.4.2 These potential effects were identified at an early stage in the design process in order that 

they could be avoided as far as possible when determining the final site layout. 

14.5 Potential significant effects of the scheme 

14.5.1 Reference to the significance matrix in Table 14.5 shows that a receptor needs to be 

assigned an importance of ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’ in order for any change to have 

significance. 

14.5.2 This section presents an assessment of the potential effects for each phase of the 

development (i.e. construction, operation and decommissioning) and makes an assessment 

of any significant potential effects. 


14.5.3 During construction, the following activities could potentially affect the Water Environment: 

• Widening or extension of existing access tracks (approx. 200 m of new on-site tracks 

required comprising a geo-textile overlain by mechanically compacted granular subbase 

and base course layers; upgrade of approx. 300 m existing access tracks 

required); Creation of a 44×20 m crane pad (comprising 500 mm compacted granular 

layers on top of a geotextile); Excavation and construction of foundations for the 

turbine (for the purposes of the assessment it is assumed that piled foundations will be 

used) 





• Construction of a temporary site compound (80×30 m), lay down areas (44mx10m x2) 

and a small kiosk (housing electrical switchgear); and 

• Excavation for underground electrical cabling (approx. 100 m). 

14.5.4 It is considered that the most likely effects on the Water Environment during construction are: 

erosion/sedimentation, compaction of soils and localised flooding, alteration to natural 

surface water and groundwater drainage patterns and pollution of surface waters. These are 

discussed in turn below. 

Erosion and Sedimentation 

14.5.5 Erosion and sedimentation could potentially occur as the result of excavations, stripping of 

top soils and vegetation, stockpiling of topsoil and construction material and overland flow 

during storm events. It is considered likely that such effects would be temporary and 

localised. 

Compaction of Soils and Localised Flooding 

14.5.6 The construction of access tracks, areas of hardstanding, and the movement of construction 

traffic will result in soil compaction. This will reduce the permeability of the soil, potentially 

leading to increased runoff, erosion and localised flooding. As there are already considerable 

vehicle movements across the Wheal Jane site and the majority of access tracks are already 

present, the effect from this source is likely to be small. In general, the increase in 

impermeable areas, specifically areas of hardstanding is likely to increase localised surface 

water runoff. It is likely that mitigation works in the form of SUDS may be required as part of 

the proposals to manage the increase in surface water runoff. 

14.5.7 There are large areas of permeable land adjacent to the proposed turbine which should be 

able to accommodate any increase in surface water runoff from the proposed development. 

Should overland flow occur during an intense storm event, overland flow paths would be 

towards the Clemows Stream (see Flood Risk assessment in Appendix 14.1). It is therefore 

unlikely that flooding will be an issue as a result of the proposed development. 

Changes to Surface Water Drainage Patterns 

14.5.8 No crossing of streams or drainage channels will be required and consequently no new 

culverts will be required. Therefore no interference with existing surface watercourses or 

drainage channels is anticipated. 

Alteration of Groundwater Flow Pathways 

14.5.9 For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that piled foundations will be used for the 

turbine. There is currently little information regarding the depth or quality of shallow 

groundwater, however as the turbine is located on the tailings dam, it is anticipated that 

shallow groundwater flow would be minimal. 





Mobilisation of Contaminants 

14.5.10 Excavation for the turbine foundations, underground cabling, access tracks, crane pad, site 

compound and working area could potentially mobilise contaminants held within existing 

areas of made ground. This could affect the water quality of shallow groundwater and surface 

watercourses. Without a survey to investigate groundwater, it is difficult to assess the nature 

of the material present (this is discussed further in Chapter 9 – Ground Conditions). The 

potential effects in terms of groundwater quality are considered to be limited as the area of 

excavation is small, the material is likely to have been in-situ since the dam construction in 

the 1970s and recharge to shallow groundwater will have occurred throughout this period. It 

is considered likely that the mobilisation of contaminants through surface water runoff would 

be temporary and localised. This risk will be better assessed and necessary mitigation 

measured identified once a GI survey has been undertaken. 

Changes to Ground Conditions Resulting in Surface Water Pollution Incidents 

14.5.11 The implications of turbine construction on ground conditions are considered in detail in 

Chapter 9. The site specific ground investigation, which would be undertaken prior to 

construction, would identify the necessary mitigation in relation to the location of mine 

workings adjacent to, or beneath, the proposed turbine location, to prevent survey water 

pollution incidents resulting from any change in ground conditions. 

Chemical Pollution Including Foul Water 

14.5.12 Potential causes of chemical pollution include the spillage or leakage of chemicals, unset 

cement, fuel or oil during use, disposal or storage on site. These pollutants may adversely 

affect water quality of the receiving soils, watercourses and groundwater. Oils and fuels may 

contain List I substances (Groundwater Regulations 1998) such as mineral oils and 

hydrocarbons. 

14.5.13 During construction there will be a requirement to provide temporary sanitation facilities for 

site workers. Spillage of foul water may occur should the temporary facilities be emptied in an 

unsatisfactory manner. Foul water from sanitation facilities may contain faecal coliforms and 

the List II substance ammonia (Groundwater Regulations 1998). 


14.5.14 During operation, the Water Environment will be subject to less potential effects than during 

construction. No regular substantial works will be expected during the lifetime of the proposed 

turbine, other than maintenance visits. The potential for additional sedimentation is low. Other 

effects that may occur during the operational phase are discussed below. 

Localised Flooding 

14.5.15 Although the control kiosk and crane pad will be permanent throughout the operational life of 

the turbine, they will have little effect on the hydrological characteristics of the application site. 

Their total combined area is small in relation to the overall catchment size and any effects will 

be localised. 





14.5.16 During the operational phase, there is the potential for spillage of oil and fuels from vehicles 

used for accessing and traversing the site, however vehicle use associated with the turbine 

operation will be minimal. Additionally, there is the potential for leakage or spillage from oil 

based electrical equipment within the turbine tower, control kiosk and other infrastructure. 

Regular maintenance of equipment will decrease the likelihood of this and spillages are likely 

to be confined within the infrastructure. 


14.5.17 The potential effects during decommissioning will be very similar, although of a lesser 

magnitude to those detailed above for site construction. If new guidelines or legislation are 

published prior to decommissioning of the scheme then, where appropriate, these will be 

incorporated into decommissioning protocol. 

Summary 

14.5.18 Table 14.10 provides a summary of the importance and magnitude of effects on each of the 

identified receptors before mitigation. 

Table 14.10 

Magnitude of effects before mitigation 

Receptor 

Importance 

Phase of 

operation 

Magnitude 

Significance prior 

to mitigation 

Rationale 

Secondary A 

Aquifer 

Low 

Construction Small Slight 

Operation Negligible Not significant 

Decommissioning Negligible Not significant 

It is possible that chemical 

pollution including the spillage 

or leakage of chemicals or 

foul water could occur during 

all phases but particularly 

during construction. In 

addition, it is possible that 

excavations could mobilise 

contaminants present in any 

mine waste. These 

activitiescould potentially 

cause pollution to the minor 

aquifer present, however such 

occurrences are likely to be 

localised and occur during the 

construction phase only. Due 

to excavation of the mine 

itself, pollution may not 

actually reach the aquifer. 

Former Mine 

Workings 

and 

Operational 

Treatment 

Plant 

Medium 

Construction Large Substantial/moderate 

Operation Negligible Not significant 

Decommissioning Negligible Not significant 

There is a chance that 

construction of the turbine 

foundations could cause a 

collapse of the dam and/or 

mine shafts. If this were to 

happen it could cause failure 

of the existing minewater 

treatment operation and result 

in a major pollution incident. 

Once constructed, it is not 

considered that the turbine will 

have any effect on the mine or 

operation of the treatment 

plant. 





Receptor 

Importance 

Phase of 

operation 

Magnitude 

Significance prior 

to mitigation 

Rationale 

Clemows 

Stream 

Unnamed 

drainage 

ditch 

Baldhu 

Stream 

Carnon River 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Construction Medium Not significant Clemows Stream could 

potentially be polluted by the 

Operation Small Not significant spillage or leakage of 

chemicals or foul water, 

mobilisation of contaminants, 

erosion and sediment 

transport. There could 

potentially be localised effects 

Decommissioning Small Not significant associated with increased 

surface runoff. These effects 

could potentially occur during 

all phases but particularly 

during construction. 

Construction Negligible Not significant The unnamed drainage ditch 

could be polluted in the same 

Operation Negligible Not significant way as the Clemows stream. 

However, as the water in this 

ditch is re-circulated to the 

Decommissioning Negligible Not significant treatment plant, there is 

negligible effect in all phases. 

Construction Large Not significant Baldhu stream could 

potentially be polluted as it is 

Operation Small Not significant a continuation of the Clemows 

stream (i.e. any pollution 

could pass into this stretch of 

river). In addition, if there was 

Decommissioning Small Not significant 

a failure of the tailings dam 

during construction, polluted 

minewater could enter the 

river directly. 

Construction Large Not significant Carnon River could potentially 

be polluted as it receives flow 

Operation Small Not significant from the Baldhu Stream (i.e. 

any pollution could pass into 

this stretch of river). In 

addition, if there was a failure 

of the minewater treatment 

Decommissioning Small Not significant 

plant as a result of 

construction activities, 

polluted minewater could 

enter the river directly via 

mine adits. 


14.6.1 A number of mitigation measures will be implemented during each phase of the development 

which will avoid, remove or reduce potential effects. One most important activities which will 

be undertaken prior to the commencement of any works is the completion of a Ground 

Investigation survey. This will identify the nature of material in areas where excavation is 

proposed. In addition, the Ground Investigation will identify the depth and water quality of any 

shallow groundwater present. This information will allow appropriate mitigation measures to 

be designed where necessary. Specific mitigation measures which have already been 

identified are outlined below. 





Mitigation during construction 

14.6.2 Construction method statements will be produced which will incorporate best working 

practices and measures from the EA’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines. The method 

statements will outline preventative measures and include a detailed incident plan outlining 

actions to be taken in the event of accidental chemical or foul water spills, or localized 

flooding. The plan will include the implementation of emergency planning provision, spill kits 

and staff and contractor training procedures. 

14.6.3 During construction, the Construction Project Manager will ensure that the proposed 

mitigation measures are put in place and carried out in such a manner as to minimise or 

prevent effects on groundwater. On site and during construction, a number of measures are 

available to control pollution of the water environment. 

Chemical Pollution (Oils, Fuels and Lubricants) 

14.6.4 Oil and fuel tanks will be stored within the temporary construction compound in line with the 

EA's Pollution Prevention Guidelines, PPG2 Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks and in 

compliance with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 The 

following measures will be taken to avoid chemical pollution on the site: 

• oils, fuels and lubricants will be stored above ground in storage tanks that have been 

manufactured under a quality assurance system complying with relevant British 

Standards 

• storage tanks and any ancillary equipment will be placed in oil and watertight 

secondary containment such as a bund. The secondary containment system will 

provide storage of at least 110% of the tank’s maximum capacity 

• secondary containment will be secured to avoid unauthorised access and vandalism 

• containers will be clearly labelled with nature of contents and any hazards they could 

pose 

• a dedicated storage area will be created within the temporary construction compound. 

Clear warning signs will be displayed at all access points 

• within the construction compound, a dedicated handling area will be constructed which 

will be isolated from surface water drainage systems, have an impermeable base and 

be bunded and secured 

• where possible, all re-fuelling of vehicles and machinery will be carried out on the 

impermeable area at the lay-down location 

• oils, fuels and lubricants will be stored at least 50 m from any groundwater issues, 

boreholes/mine shafts and drainage ditches 

• where possible, standing machinery will have drip trays placed underneath to prevent 

oil and fuel leaks resulting in pollution 





• an emergency plan will be produced detailing site drainage and a list of contacts in the 

event of a spillage in line with PPG 21 Pollution Incident Response Planning. Spillages 

will be reported to the Site Manager immediately. A spill kit including a stock of 

absorbent materials will be stored on site to deal with spillages, and staff will be trained 

in their appropriate use. 

Foul Water 

14.6.5 Temporary sanitation facilities will be kept within the temporary construction compound 

during the construction phase of the wind turbine. Sewage will be stored in sealed tanks and 

will be emptied at regular intervals by licensed service providers. 

Concrete 

14.6.6 Any concrete required during construction will be transported to the site pre-mixed so there 

will be no batching on site. A designated area will be provided for concrete vehicle washout. 

Any wastewater from the washout will be treated to remove any solids before being recycled 

or discharged to an appropriate designed soakaway or agreed alternative. 

Compaction of Soils and Localised Flooding 

14.6.7 Access tracks are already present on site and will only be widened where necessary to 

enable the turbine vehicle to be turned around. Where extension is required, these will be 

constructed using a geo-textile overlain by mechanically compacted granular sub-base and 

base course layers. All vehicles and machinery will be restricted soley to the access tracks. 

Runoff and Erosion 

14.6.8 Construction activities on site may potentially cause surface water runoff, erosion and 

sedimentation through ground disturbance and soil compaction. This is not considered a 

major issue as the area of working will be relatively small. However, the following good 

practice measures will be taken to control the risk of localised flooding, minimise potential 

leaching of chemicals in the soil and to retain the integrity of the soils on the site: 

• erosion and runoff from extended or modified access tracks will be controlled by use of 

swales to allow natural filtering of surface water into the ground where conditions 

allow. If shallow groundwater is encountered during excavations, erosion and runoff 

will be controlled by pumping water to natural soakaway areas; 

• exposed ground and soil stockpiles will be minimised and silt fences and mats will be 

used to intercept small erosive channels (runnels); 

• construction activities will be scheduled to minimise the area and the time soils would 

be exposed; 

• geotextiles and straw bales can be used to form a type of bund around construction 

activities to prevent runnel formation and provide a filter medium for minor soil erosion; 

• the construction of drainage ditches will be kept to a minimum and the gradient of such 

ditches would be kept as low as possible; 





• site roads will be regularly maintained and accumulating mud removed; 

• the design of areas of hardstanding will ensure that surface water runoff from these 

areas flows though the adjacent ground before flowing towards the drainage channels 

adjacent to the site, thereby slowing down the rate of surface water runoff. 

Flow Patterns on Site 

14.6.9 Flow patterns on site may be affected by the increased surface of hardstanding and soil 

compaction. The following measures will be taken to reduce localised interference of 

groundwater recharge: 

• To minimise disturbance, cables will be laid adjacent to access tracks as far as 

practicable; and. 

• Any drainage ditches will be regularly inspected for blockages. 

Mitigation during operation 

14.6.10 The majority of the effects identified for the operation phases are similar to those associated 

with the construction phase, however the effects are less severe due to the reduced activity 

on site. The majority of the mitigation measures discussed for the construction phases also 

apply to the operational phase of the turbine. The sections below list the additional mitigation 

measures that will remain in place throughout the lifetime of the turbine. 

Flow Patterns on Site (including drainage, runoff, erosion and localised flooding) 

14.6.11 The use of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) will assist in minimising any increase 

in runoff rates or volumes, erosion and localised flooding. The most appropriate base layer of 

the SUDS will be agreed with the EA prior to installation. Regular inspection and 

maintenance of the access tracks will prevent runnels occurring which could lead to 

increased erosion. 

Mitigation during decommissioning 

14.6.12 Mitigation measures for decommissioning activities will be similar to the proposed mitigation 

techniques for construction activities and are therefore not discussed separately here. 


14.7.1 Table 14.11 provides a summary of the importance and magnitude of effects on each of the 

identified receptors after mitigation. 

14.7.2 Table 14.12 shows that after mitigation, the magnitude of all effects is negligible and that no 

significant effects have been identified. 





Table 14.11 

Magnitude of effects after mitigation 

Receptor Importance Phase of operation Magnitude Rationale 

Secondary A Aquifer 

Former Mine Workings and 

Operational Treatment Plant 

Clemows Stream 

Unnamed drainage ditch 

Baldhu Stream 

Carnon River 

Low 

Medium 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Construction Negligible Good operation practices during all phases will reduce the potential for 

Operation 

Negligible 

pollution from spillage or leakage of chemicals or foul water. A GI will be 

completed that will identify the nature of ground conditions in areas due to 

Decommissioning Negligible 

be excavated and any specific mitigation measures required will be applied. 

This will reduce the potential for groundwater pollution. 

Construction 

Operation 


Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Turbine construction will not proceed until a GI has been completed and a 

risk assessment undertaken. The turbine construction will therefore not 

have any effect on the mine workings and treatment plant 

Construction Small Good operation practices during all phases will reduce the potential for 

Operation 

Small 

pollution from spillage or leakage of chemicals or foul water. The use of 

SUDS will assist in minimizing any increase in runoff rates, erosion or 

Decommissioning Small localised flooding. 

Construction 

Operation 


Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

As prior to mitigation, there is negligible effect on the drainage ditch in all 

phases. 

Construction Small Same rationale regarding good operational practices and use of SUDS 

Operation 

Small 

applies as for Clemows stream. In addition, the turbine will not proceeed 

until a GI has been completed and a risk assessment undertaken, therefore 

Decommissioning Small reducing the risk of polluted minewater entering the river directly. 

Construction 

Operation 


Small 

Small 

Small 

Same rationale regarding good operational practices, use of SUDS and GI 

survey applies as for Baldhu Stream. 





Table 14.12 

Summary of significance of effects 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Signi 

after m 


Alteration of Groundwater 

Flow Pathways 

Construction Low Small Slight 

Implementation of 

mitigation identified 

through the Ground 

Investigation 

n/a 

Not si 


Mobilisation of 

Contaminants 





Investigation 

n/a 

Not si 


Chemical Pollution 

Including Foul Water 


Application of the 

relevant Pollution 

Prevention Guidelines 

n/a 

Not si 

Former Mine 

Workings and 

Operational 


Collapse of dam and/or 

mine shafts leading to 

failure of existing 

minewater treatment 

operation and resulting in 

major pollution incident 

Construction Medium Large Substantial/moderate 




Investigation 

n/a 

Not si 




Operation Low Negligible No significance 




n/a 

Not si 




Decommissioning Low Negligible No significance 




n/a 

Not si 






14.8.1 Sensitive hydrological or hydrogeological receptors are not expected to be created as part of 

the development of the Masterplan, therefore no significant effects on such are identified. 

Nevertheless, the design of the other components of the Masterplan would be required to 

comply with statutory guidance for the control of surface water runoff, water quality, flood risk 

and contaminated land. 


14.9.1 Potential cumulative effects may arise from the development or existence of the wind energy 

development alongside other known major developments being proposed and in the planning 

system. There are no known developments in the area that would result in a cumulative effect 

regarding hydrology, hydrogeology and ground conditions. 


ENTEC UK LTD Partnership for Renewables, Feasibility Report, April 2009 

ATKINS LTD Partnership for Renewables, Geotechnical Feasibility Report, October 2009 

Whitehead, P.G., Hall, G., Neal C. and Prior, H. Chemical behaviour of the Wheal Jane bioremediation 

system. Science of the Total Environment 338 (2005) 41–51. 

Younger, P.L., Coulton, R.H. and Froggat, E.C. The contribution of science to risk-based decisionmaking: 

lessons from the development of full-scale treatment measures for acidic mine waters at 

Wheal Jane, UK. Science of the Total Environment 338 (2005) 137–154. 





15 Shadow Flicker 


15.1.1 This chapter addresses shadow flicker. Wind turbines, in common with all structures, cast 

shadows in sunny conditions. The shadows vary in position and length according to the 

direction of the sun and its height in the sky. Whilst rotating, turbine blades cast moving 

shadows. If the moving shadow is cast onto a building, it can appear to flick on and off as the 

blades rotate. If this flicking shadow is viewed through a narrow opening such as a window or 

doorway, an effect known as shadow flicker can occur. 

15.1.2 Experience has shown that shadow flicker has the potential to cause annoyance to 

occupants of affected properties under certain circumstances. A study has therefore been 

undertaken to identify whether shadow flicker is likely to occur at properties in the vicinity of 

the proposed wind turbine. Modelling has been carried out to predict the duration of any 

shadow flicker effects, and the times of day and year when it could cause annoyance. 

15.1.3 The significance of a shadow flicker effect is determined by considering the combination of its 

magnitude (based on duration and intensity during the day and the year), and the 

vulnerability and sensitivity of the receptor and its occupants (occupied residential properties 

are, for example, more sensitive than outbuildings or barns). 

15.1.4 An introduction to shadow flicker is set out in Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion 

Guide to PPS 22 (ODPM, 2004), but there are no statutory or advisory limits in this or other 

UK legislation or policy to determine what levels of shadow flicker are acceptable. 

Photosensitive epilepsy 

15.1.5 Research has been carried out to determine whether shadow flicker from wind turbine can 

cause seizures in photosensitive epilepsy sufferers (e.g. Harding G, Harding P, and Wilkins 

A, (2008): Wind turbine, flicker, and photosensitive epilepsy: Characterizing the flashing that 

may precipitate seizures and optimizing guidelines to prevent them. Epilepsia, 49(6)). 

Sufferers are usually sensitive to flickering light at frequencies from 3 to 60 Hz. For a typical 

3-blade, 45 m rotor diameter turbine, the maximum rotational speed will be less than 20 

revolutions per minute, so the blade passing frequency is 60 rpm, or 1 Hz – well below the 3 

to 60 Hz sensitivity range. 

15.1.6 Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion Guide to PPS 22 notes: 

“Around 0.5% of the population is epileptic and of these around 5% are 

photosensitive. Of photo-sensitive epileptics less than 5% are sensitive to 

lowest frequencies of 2.5–3 Hz, the remainder are sensitive only to higher 

frequencies. The flicker caused by wind turbine is equal to the blade passing 

frequency. A fast-moving three-bladed machine will give rise to the highest 

levels of flicker frequency. These levels are well below 2 Hz. The new 

generation of wind turbine is known to operate at levels below 1 Hz.” 


Shadow Flicker 



15.1.7 Modern, large wind turbine such as that proposed for this site have therefore been found to 

be most unlikely to be an issue with respect to epilepsy, and this is not considered further in 

this Environmental Statement. 

Conditions required for shadow flicker to cause annoyance 

15.1.8 Shadow flicker is not a problem in the open as light is reflected from all directions. The 

possibility of annoyance arises when people in buildings view the moving rotor blade shadow 

through a small window or open door, as the light source is more directional. 

15.1.9 The vulnerability and sensitivity of properties will depend on a number of factors. Selfevidently, 

only occupied property with windows or doors facing towards a turbine can be 

affected, and there will be no or reduced effect where a minor variation in topography, 

vegetation or another obstruction interferes with the theoretical line of sight between the 

turbine and the property (i.e. the shadow from the turbine falls on the obstruction rather than 

the property). Occupiers vary in sensitivity to annoyance depending on how they utilise 

affected rooms, how often they look out through the windows or open doors towards the 

turbine, and the activities that they are involved in. 

15.1.10 Shadow flicker only occurs when certain conditions coincide at particular times of the day and 

year. It can happen when the sun is relatively low in the sky and shines on a building from 

behind the rotor of an operating turbine, casting a moving shadow on it. The occurrence and 

duration of shadow flicker effect thus depends on: 

• The direction of the property in relation to the turbine: in the UK, only properties within 

130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbine, can be affected, as objects 

cannot cast long shadows on their southern side; 

• The height of the turbine and diameter of the rotor; 

• The time of year and time of day (influencing day length and the elevation and position 

of the sun); and 

• Weather conditions (shadows are only cast when the sun is out; shadow flicker can 

only occur when blades are turning, which in turn depends on wind speed; and, the 

wind direction will determine through the yaw mechanism of the turbine whether there 

is a full view of the rotating blades, or if they are seen ‘side-on’, when the shadow 

flicker effect does not occur). 

15.1.11 The intensity of shadow flicker and consequent annoyance is also influenced by the distance 

between the turbine and the property: the further the observer is from the turbine the less 

pronounced the effect will be. At a greater distance, the blades are not seen as covering the 

sun but only partly mask it, weakening the shadow. This effect occurs first with the shadow 

from the thinner blade tip. The shadow of the blade tip at the top of the rotation extends the 

furthest distance, and so a weakening effect is observed with increasing distance from the 

turbine. 





15.1.12 As a result of these factors, experience has shown that shadow flicker effects are insignificant 

at a distance greater than ten rotor diameters from the turbine. Planning for Renewable 

Energy, A Companion Guide to PPS 22 notes that: 

15.1.13 “Flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine. 

Therefore if the turbine has 80 m diameter blades, the potential shadow flicker effect could be 

felt up to 800 m from a turbine.” 


15.2.1 The desktop study has followed a series of steps: 

• The position of the turbine was mapped; 

• Potentially vulnerable properties within ten rotor-diameters of the turbine were 

identified and mapped; 

• A shadow flicker analysis was carried out using software (Winfarm Version 4.1.2.3) by 

inputting astronomical data, orography, the position (latitude and longitude) of the wind 

turbine and the windows, and the size and orientation of the windows at potentially 

affected receptors (it was assumed that each receptor has a window facing directly 

towards each of the turbine and that each window is 2 m by 2 m and situated 3 m 

above ground level): the assessment was carried out for the year 2011 (the results 

vary slightly from year to year but this variation is not significant); 

• The timing and duration of shadow flicker effects were calculated for each windowturbine 

pairing; 

• Results were plotted onto charts to visualise predicted effects; and 

• receptor value/sensitivity and theoretical worst case magnitude of change criteria were 

allocated, and thus the likely significance of effect was predicted. 

15.2.2 The modelling software executes a site-specific simulation of the solar trajectory relative to 

the turbine for a complete year. It provides output for each receptor in one-minute units, 

predicting whether shadow flicker will or will not occur in each unit, and then totals these into 

minutes per day and hours per year for each receptor. The output provides the theoretical 

worst case results for shadow flicker, in that it assumes that: 

• The sun shines throughout daylight hours; 

• The wind direction is constant, such that the rotor is always orientated towards the 

receptor; 

• The wind speed is always within the operating parameters of the turbine, so it is 

constantly operational during daylight hours; 

• There is no down time for maintenance activities; 





• The receptor property is occupied; 

• There are windows or doors facing the turbine; and 

• There is line of sight with no intervening obstructions. 

Approach to assessment of significance of effects 

15.2.3 Only turbine-window pairs that are less than ten rotor-diameters apart are considered. In 

accordance with guidance, any predicted shadow flicker beyond this distance is deemed to 

be of negligible magnitude and therefore not significant. 

15.2.4 Any predicted shadow flicker effect that is less than 30 minutes per day or 30 hours per year 

is deemed to be of negligible magnitude and therefore not significant. 

15.2.5 Where the magnitude is predicted to be greater than negligible, professional judgement is 

used to describe the effect as large, medium or small, taking into account salient factors such 

as duration and distance. Professional judgement is also used to describe the sensitivity of 

the receptor as high, medium, low or negligible, depending on the known characteristics of 

the property, what it is used for, and the likely activities of the occupants. At this stage, as 

there are some unknowns, the highest likely sensitivity is assumed. The sensitivity category 

is moderated as necessary, for instance according to time of day when the effect is predicted 

(e.g. it might be reduced if people are likely to be asleep in a residential property, or if the 

effect at a business property occurs outside normal working hours), and the likely utilisation 

of affected rooms. 


15.3.1 Topographical data was provided by the Ordnance Survey in the form of 1:50,000 scale 

gridded NTF (Landform Panorama) files. The Ordnance Survey data was converted to the 

gridded data format used by the shadow flicker software. The converted data from a variety 

of Ordnance Survey tiles was then combined in order to create a single map which extended 

at least 10 km from the turbine. 

15.3.2 PfR compiled a map showing potential shadow flicker receptors around the wind turbine site 

and indicated whether the receptors were residential or business. The receptor grid 

coordinates were determined from 1:10,000 scale maps. In accordance with guidance in 

PPS22, only receptors within 130 o of North and within 10 turbine diameters of a proposed 

wind turbine position were assessed. The analysis is not based on a particular turbine type 

and the results will not be significantly affected by the eventual choice of turbine, provided 

that the chosen turbine has an 82.5 m diameter rotor on an 80 m high tower. 


15.4.1 For technical reasons, the location of the development has moved, however this does not 

represent any reduction in the potential for effects from shadow flicker. 






15.5.1 A total of 39 receptors lay in positions that could potentially be affected by shadow flicker, as 


15.5.2 In accordance with the guidance in PPS22, only receptors within 130 o of North and within 10 

turbine diameters of the proposed wind turbine position should be assessed. Table 15.2 

shows these receptors. 

15.5.3 The receptors shown in Table 15.2 were carried forward for further analysis. These 

exceptions are Receptors 19 and 20 which were not assessed as further investigation 

revealed that these were minor buildings, e.g. sheds. In addition, Receptor 5 was not 

assessed as it was advised that this building has been removed. 

15.5.4 A number of the receptors are farms or small clusters of houses which could have a number 

of windows. In these cases some care needs to be taken in assessment of the results. There 

could be more than one window susceptible to shadow flicker and the shadow flicker 

assessment is representative of the conditions for the cluster. On the other hand adjacent 

buildings in the cluster may significantly reduce shadow flicker for some buildings in the 

cluster. 

15.5.5 A number of the receptors are likely to have an interest in the wind turbine. For completeness 

analysis has been carried out for all such receptors. It is reasonable to conclude that such 

receptors will have a higher tolerance of shadow flicker than a disinterested party. 

15.5.6 Shadow flicker is only an issue during operation of wind turbine, and there can be no effect 

during construction or decommissioning of the proposed turbine. 

15.5.7 A summary of the results of the shadow flicker assessment is shown in Table 15.3. 

Table 15.1 

Potentially affected receptors 

Receptor Easting Northing Receptor Easting Northing 

1 177118 42726 21 176644 42792 

2 176886 42785 22 176564 42756 

3 176658 43175 23 177122 42792 

4 176564 43028 24 177113 42894 

5 177576 42515 25 177097 43116 

6 177753 42214 26 177240 43180 

7 177783 42574 27 177369 43245 

8 177857 42642 28 177526 43348 

9 177699 41971 29 177592 43259 

10 177887 42420 30 177719 43200 

11 177447 41799 31 177408 42958 

12 177285 41626 32 177394 42776 

13 177226 41667 33 177324 42678 

14 177009 41760 34 177551 42875 

15 176909 42007 35 177980 42934 

16 176748 42091 36 177902 42964 

17 176723 42150 37 178100 43096 

18 176605 42125 38 178159 42751 

19 176866 42588 39 178138 42515 

20 176748 42781 





Table 15.2 

Receptors carried through to assessment 

Receptor 

Bearing 

from turbine 

to receptor 

Bearing 

receptor 

to turbine 

Distance 

between 

turbine and 

receptor (m) 

Within 130 

degrees N? 

Within 10 

turbine 

diameters? 

Assessed? 

1 341 161 314 Yes Yes Yes 

2 317 133 489 Yes Yes Yes 

6 112 292 574 Yes Yes Yes 

7 76 256 580 Yes Yes Yes 

8 71 251 671 Yes Yes Yes 

10 91 271 666 Yes Yes Yes 

16 234 51 54 Yes Yes Yes 

17 241 58 61 Yes Yes Yes 

18 244 61 64 Yes Yes Yes 

No – as minor 

19 294 156 389 Yes Yes 

buildings, e.g. shed 

No – as minor 

buildings, e.g. shed 

20 307 143 590 Yes Yes 

21 302 148 682 Yes Yes Yes 

22 296 154 734 Yes Yes Yes 

23 345 105 376 Yes Yes Yes 

24 347 103 477 Yes Yes Yes 

25 350 100 698 Yes Yes Yes 

26 1 181 751 Yes Yes Yes 

31 19 199 561 Yes Yes Yes 

32 26 206 388 Yes Yes Yes 

33 22 202 269 Yes Yes Yes 

34 36 216 555 Yes Yes Yes 

Table 15.3 

Receptor ID 

Results of shadow flicker assessment 

No of days per year when 

shadow flicker occurs 

(days) 

Mean number of hours of 

shadow flicker per day 

(hours) 

Shadow flicker total 

hours per year 

(hours) 

1 72 0.79 57 

2 84 0.62 52.1 

6 82 0.47 38.2 

7 47 0.47 21.9 

8 43 0.41 17.6 

10 41 0.4 16.5 

16 44 0.39 17.0 

17 84 0.58 48.5 

18 95 0.39 37.0 

21 57 0.41 23.3 

22 44 0.39 17.1 

23 5 0.06 0.3 

24 0 0 0 

25 0 0 0 

26 0 0 0 

31 0 0 0 

32 50 0.55 27.5 

33 100 1.03 102.8 

34 26 0.29 7.5 

15.5.8 The results indicate that seven receptors: 1, 2, 6, 17, 18 32 and 33 all suffer from shadow 

flicker predictions which exceed the 30 minute per day or 30 hours per year generally 

accepted threshold for shadow flicker discussed above. 





15.5.9 Receptors 7, 8, 10, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 34 do not exceed the 30 minute per day or 30 hours 

per year threshold. 

15.5.10 Receptors 24, 25, 26, and 31 do not receive any shadow flicker effects. 

15.5.11 Tables 15.4 to 16.8 show the hours for those days in the year when shadow flicker is a 

potential nuisance for receptors 1, 2, 6,17, 18, 32 and 33 respectively 

Table 15.4 Potential shadow flicker times and dates at receptor 1 


















Table 15.10 Shadow Times for Receptor 33 

15.5.12 For Receptor 1, which represents the cluster of non-residential buildings on the north west 

portion of the disused tin mine, the shadow flicker (Table 15.4) occurs between 10 and 12 

a.m. during the winter. These receptors are part of the Wheal Jane complex, and as such, 

have an interest in the wind energy development. This is considered to be a small change, as 

the potential effect would only be experienced for a short time period during winter. 

15.5.13 For Receptor 2, which appears to be residential, the shadow flicker (Table 15.5) occurs 

between 8 and 10 a.m. during the winter. This is considered to be a small change, as the 

potential effect would only be experienced for a short time period during winter. 

15.5.14 For Receptor 6, which is an office, the shadow flicker (Table 15.6) occurs between 6 and 8 

p.m. in the summer. This is considered to be a small change, as the potential effect would 

only be experienced by those working beyond the normal office working day. 

15.5.15 For Receptor 17, which is residential, the shadow flicker (Table 15.7) occurs between 4 and 6 

a.m. in the summer. This is considered to be a small change, as the potential effect would 

only be experienced early in the morning for a short time period. 

15.5.16 For Receptor 18, which is residential, the shadow flicker (Table 15.8) occurs between 4 and 6 

a.m. in the summer. This is considered to be a small change, as the potential effect would 

only be experienced early in the morning for a short time period. 

15.5.17 For Receptor 32, which is believed to be a farm, the shadow flicker (Table 15.9) occurs 

around 2 p.m. in the winter. This is considered to be a small change, as the potential effect 

would only be experienced for a short time period during winter. 

15.5.18 For Receptor 33, which is believed to be a crusher related to the quarry, the shadow flicker 

(Table 15.10) occurs between 1 and 3 p.m. during the winter. This receptor has an interest in 

the development. This is considered to be a small change, as the potential effect would only 

be experienced for a short time period during winter. 





Analysis of Assessment results 

15.5.19 Receptors 1 and 33 both appear to be related to the tin mine. They are deemed to have low 

importance as the tin mine is no longer used and the buildings are sheds with few windows. 

Thus the predicted effect of Shadow Flicker is predicted to be slight i.e. a receptor of low 

importance experiencing a small change. 

15.5.20 Receptors 2, 17, 18 and 32 are deemed to have medium importance. Receptors 2, 17 and 18 

appear to be domestic residences and receptor 32 appears to be a farm. These receptors will 

use ambient light from windows for various purposes. The value of the receptors is not 

deemed to be low, a category appropriate where windows are not present or have low 

amenity (e.g. barns). The value of the receptors is not deemed to be high, a category 

appropriate where windows were particularly important (e.g. schools). Thus the predicted 

effect of Shadow Flicker at these receptors is predicted to be slight i.e. receptors of medium 

importance experiencing a small change. 

15.5.21 Receptor 6 is an office which is related to the development and the value of the receptor 6 is 

deemed to be medium importance. Thus the predicted effect of Shadow Flicker is predicted 

to be slight i.e. a receptor of medium importance experiencing a small change. 


15.6.1 The Environmental Impact Assessment (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 requires that 

where significant effects are identified, mitigation measures are proposed. As there is 

currently no agreement in the UK as to what degree of shadow flicker constitutes a significant 

effect, it is proposed that any predicted shadow flicker be prevented from occurring at each of 

the identified receptors by use of mitigation. 

15.6.2 The approach that has been taken to the modelling assessment is theoretical and based on 

the worst case situation, in that it assumes that the receptor is occupied, that there are 

windows or doors facing the turbine, that there are no intervening obstructions, that the sun 

shines throughout daylight hours, that the wind blows constantly within the operating 

parameters of the turbine, and that the rotor is always orientated towards the receptor. With 

average weather conditions taken into account, no significant effects are predicted. 

15.6.3 On this basis, the theoretical model prediction suggests a slight significance. 

15.6.4 However, there are a number of factors that will reduce the actual number of hours when 

shadow flicker occurs. Firstly, cloud cover, wind direction and wind speed will all reduce the 

actual incidence of shadow flicker. (For example, in the UK, the sun only shines during 

approximately a third of daylight hours on average). Secondly, the time when shadow flicker 

occurs is in terms of hours of the day, and during the year also have different levels of effect 

depending on the sue of the affected receptor. 

15.6.5 Changes in obstacles between the turbine and the receptors could change the shadow flicker 

effect. For example, growth (particularly of trees) is likely to reduce the effect of shadow 

flicker and removal of vegetation (particularly mature trees) could increase the effect of 

shadow flicker. Changes to fence lines close to receptors could also change the effect of 





shadow flicker. However, the numerical predictions of shadow flicker do not include an 

assessment of the obstacles so that changes in obstacles will not affect the numerical 

predictions provided herein. 

15.6.6 The usage of some of the receptors could change over time, e.g. business premises or farm 

buildings could be converted to residential use. However, the effect of shadow flicker on such 

development could be assessed at the time of development and mitigation measures 

implemented in order to mitigate any shadow flicker nuisance. 

15.6.7 If it is established during commissioning and the early stages of operation that the receptors 

identified have a clear line of sight and experience shadow flicker effects, then further study 

and monitoring can be undertaken with the cooperation of the owners, and mitigation can be 

introduced in the unlikely event of any nuisance. 

15.6.8 The principal method of mitigation available for shadow flicker effects is to close down the 

wind turbine for causing the effects at a particular property at times when the wind turbine 

have been predicted or demonstrated to cause shadow flicker effects. 

15.6.9 A system is available which uses a device to measure the intensity of sunlight occurring at a 

particular moment and uses this, together with time and date information programmed into 

the device to calculate whether shadow flicker will occur. If the intensity of sunlight is above 

that which is required to cause a shadow flicker effect and the time of day corresponds with a 

predicted effect, the automatic programme will shut down that particular wind turbine 

instantaneously, until the timer period when shadow flicker may occur has passed. 


15.7.1 Table 15.9 provides a summary of the significance of the shadow flicker effects of the 

proposed development. 

15.7.2 An assessment of potential shadow flicker effects resulting from the operation of the 

proposed development has been carried out for properties within a distance of 800 m (10 

rotor diameters) from the proposed wind turbine location. 

15.7.3 This assessment has identified potential effects at five receptors. In the unlikely event that 

shadow flicker effects are experienced, the mitigation measures discussed will be considered 

and implemented as necessary through the Environmental Management Plan. Mitigation has 

been identified in the form of a control system which automatically shuts down the wind 

turbine at times when shadow flicker could occur. 

15.7.4 With these mitigation measures in place, there would be no significant effects arising from 

Shadow Flicker. 

15.7.5 A programme of monitoring will ensure the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation and allow 

for it to be adapted to allow for any inaccuracies in the calculation. 






15.8.1 Potential effects on future employees of the Wheal Jane site following the development of the 

Masterplan would be limited to the affected area as shown on Figure 15.1. 

15.8.2 Part of the Wheal Jane Masterplan is the extension and improvements to the site entrance 

office building. As this building currently exists, it has been included as part of the baseline 

assessment and so has been assessed as Receptor 6 in section 15.5. 

15.8.3 It is not considered that other components of the Masterplan would be affected by shadow 

flicker. 


15.9.1 There are no existing or known planned turbines within the relevant distance that could 

combine to create a cumulative effect with the proposed wind turbine. 


Epilepsy Action, 2007. Photo-sensitive Epilepsy: Available from: 

http://www.epilepsy.org.uk/info/photo.html 

ODPM, 2004. Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22, pp. 17. 

Wind energy and spatial planning procedures, Guidelines and Comparison of European Experiences 

(January 2004). Available from: http://www.cler.org, 

Harding G, Harding P, and Wilkins A, 2008. Wind turbine, flicker, and photosensitive epilepsy: 

Characterizing the flashing that may precipitate seizures and optimizing guidelines to prevent them. 

Epilepsia, 49(6) 





Table 15.11 


Recept 

or 

Effect 


Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

mitigation 

Nature of 

effect 

1 Shadow flicker Operation Low Small Slight 

Turn turbine off when it has 

predicted or demonstrated to 

cause shadow flicker effects 

n/a 


During life of 

turbine 

2 Shadow flicker Operation Medium Small Slight 




n/a 



turbine 

3 Shadow flicker Operation Medium Negligible Not significant n/a n/a Not significant 



turbine 


turbine 

5 Shadow flicker Operation 

Not 

significant 

Negligible Not significant n/a n/a Not significant 


turbine 





n/a 



turbine 






turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 





Recept 

or 

Effect 


Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

mitigation 

Nature of 

effect 







17 Shadow flicker Operation Medium Small Slight n/a n/a Not significant 

18 Shadow flicker Operation Medium Small Slight n/a n/a Not significant 






turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 





Recept 

or 

Effect 


Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

mitigation 

Nature of 

effect 


24 Shadow flicker Operation Medium Negligible Not significant n/a Not significant 









turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 





n/a 



turbine 

33 Shadow flicker Operation Low Small Slight 




n/a 



turbine 





Recept 

or 

Effect 


Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

mitigation 

Nature of 

effect 








turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 


turbine 





16 Socio-economic and Other Community Effects 


16.1.1 This chapter addresses social and socio-economic effects on the local community and other 

issues that have not been covered elsewhere in this ES. The scoping stage of the EIA 

identified the relevance of employment opportunities, community benefits, tourism and 

recreation (including possible health and safety implications for the general public) and other 

local socio-economic effects in this regard. 

16.1.2 PfR has also looked at technical issues relating to aviation, telecommunications and 

electromagnetism (including television reception), and addresses these in the Planning 

Statement. This determines that there are no potential adverse effects that cannot be 

satisfactorily dealt with. 

16.1.3 The proposed development offers the possibility of sourcing of labour, goods and services 

during construction and operation. In turn, these could be beneficial to the local economy. 

Further, the applicant intends that the electricity generated from the wind turbine be used to 

satisfy the local load or demand. The benefits of the scheme in terms of the generation of 

electricity are explained in Chapter 6. 

16.1.4 This Chapter explains the method used to assess socio-economic effects, before providing 

baseline information. A qualitative assessment of likely effects is then provided. 


16.2.1 The recreation and tourism assessment addresses the likely significant effects on 

recreational resources (facilities, areas of public access and public rights of way (PRoW)) 

during construction, operation and decommissioning. 

16.2.2 This assessment has been undertaken using baseline information for the area and taking into 

account the consultations, scoping responses, relevant advice/guidance and research 

documents. 

16.2.3 The baseline information focuses on Cornwall. 

16.2.4 The recreation baseline study identifies recreational and tourist facilities, areas of public 

access and PRoW in and near the site of the proposed development. Source material 

includes OS mapping, tourist information and information about tourism/recreation available 

from the local authorities. 

16.2.5 The socio-economic assessments also considers the likely effects of the scheme on the local 

economy during the stages of construction, operation and decommissioning of the turbine. 

16.2.6 The baseline study has been informed by the following sources: 


Socio-economic and other Community Effects 



• 2001 Census http://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011-census/index.html; 

• Office for National Statistics / NOMIS Official Labour Market Statistics 

www.nomisweb.co.uk; and 

• Cornwall County Council at http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/. 

16.2.7 There are no recognised significance criteria for socio-economic effects. For the purposes of 

this assessment, the criteria used are based on the generic approach used throughout this 

ES, and as set out in Chapter 2. Table 16.1 sets out the criteria used. 

Table 16.1 

Significance Criteria for Socio-Economic Assessment 

Significance 

level 

Very substantial 

Substantial 

Moderate 

Slight 


Generic Criteria 

Only adverse effects are assigned this level of 

importance as they represent key factors in the decisionmaking 

process. These effects are generally, but not 

exclusively associated with sites and features of 

international, national or regional importance that are 

likely to suffer a most damaging effect and loss of 

resource integrity. A major change at a regional or 

district scale site or feature may also enter this category. 

These beneficial or adverse effects are likely to be very 

important considerations at a local or district scale and, if 

adverse, are potential concerns to the scheme and may 

become material in the decision making process. 

These beneficial or adverse effects while important at a 

local scale are not likely to be key decision making 

issues. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such 

issues may influence decision making if they lead to an 

increase in the overall adverse effects on a particular 

area or on a particular resource. 

These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as 

local factors but are unlikely to be of critical importance 

in the decision making process. Nevertheless they are of 

relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the 

Scheme and consideration of mitigation or 

compensation measures. 

No effect or an effect which is beneath the level of 

perception, within normal bounds of variation or within 

the margin of forecasting error. Such effects are not 

normally considered by the decision maker. 

Socio-Economic Criteria 

Adverse effects of 

international, national or 

regional importance 

Key effects creating a large 

magnitude of change to 

resources of local/district 

significance 

A medium level of change 

affecting resources of 

local/district significance 

Effects creating a small level 

of change at local/district 

level or affecting resources 

at less than district level 

Local effects creating a 

negligible level of change 


Tourism and Recreation Facilities 

16.3.1 Cornwall is one of the poorest areas in the United Kingdom with a GDP of 62% of the 

national average. After farming and food processing (which put £1 billion into the Cornish 

economy in 2007), the Cornish economy relies heavily on tourism, which contributes 24% of 





Cornwall's GDP and supports about 1 in 5 jobs (Cornwall Council statistics38). Thus any 

adverse effect on tourism or tourism-derived income as a result of the proposals would be of 

concern. 

Local Economy 

16.3.2 The last national census was in 2001, and data from the Office for National Statistics for 2010 

show that the population of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly to be just over 501,000, with a 

trend of net migration inwards each year, largely of retired people. In 2010 some 23,900 were 

registered unemployed (9.1%), higher than the national average. 


16.4.1 The location of the turbine was determined by a wide range of factors, including the need to 

provide appropriate separation distances from bridleways and PRoW. 


Tourism and Recreation Facilities 

16.5.1 This section considers the likely significant effects of the scheme upon tourism and 

recreation facilities. Chapter 10 assessed the visual effects of the scheme on PRoW (see 

Table 10.19) and identified a range of visual effects varying from substantial adverse to 

neutral. The visual effects of the development on PRoW have thus already been considered 

and are not included in this part of the assessment. 

16.5.2 While the immediate area around the Wheal Jane site is not known for significant tourist 

visits, the ZTV (Figures 10.2 to 10.4) shows that the turbine will be visible across a wide area. 

Wind turbine developments evoke various reactions from people, including tourists and 

visitors to an area. According to South West Tourism (2006), 5 million tourists visit Cornwall 

each year, largely from the UK, accounting for approximately a quarter of the county’s GDP. 

Tourism accounts for 21% of employment in Cornwall (some 50,000 jobs), and visitors spend 

around £1.4 billion per annum (more than £1 billion by staying visitors and £0.3 billion by day 

trippers). Given that the economy of Cornwall is so heavily dependent on tourism-derived 

income, it is important to consider any possible effects from the Wheal Jane turbine 

development. 

16.5.3 It is difficult to describe and evaluate the subjective views and perceptions of tourists for the 

purposes of an EIA such as this. Some people believe that modern turbine are intrusive and 

spoil views. For others, wind turbine are symbols of sustainable, low-carbon development, 

and may see the Wheal Jane turbine as an integral part of the development of a new clean 

energy technology park, or part of an evolving heritage for the site and area. The success of 

wind development visitor centres, such as that at Swaffham, which is reported to receive 

some 10,000 visitors per annum, is testament to the interest that people have in renewable 

energy and the new technologies. Closer to Wheal Jane, the UK's first commercial wind 

38 

Available from http://db.cornwall.gov.uk/ltp/marchannex2/chapter_57.html 





development at Delabole north Cornwall, is reported to have received 350,000 visitors in its 

first ten years of operation (RenewableUK39 website). 

16.5.4 Attitudes towards modern wind turbine are also likely to evolve over time as people get 

accustomed to their presence, and with Cornwall being an early pioneer in the development 

of wind turbines, many residents and visitors are already comfortable with their presence. 

16.5.5 There have been several surveys and reports investigating perception and the effects of wind 

energy on tourism. The results vary, but generally demonstrate that the effect of wind 

development on tourism is limited, that many respondents take a positive view, and most say 

that a wind development would not affect their likelihood of returning to an area. 

16.5.6 Research by the University of the West of England (UWE) for a public inquiry into a proposal 

for twenty-two, 110 metre high wind turbine in north Devon showed that the development 

would not have an overall detrimental effect on tourism. It found that wind development s are 

a positive draw for tourists, and that most tourists would not boycott areas of natural beauty 

just because a wind development was positioned nearby (Aitchison, 2007 40 ). The study was 

supplemented by research conducted in Cornwall and Wales. 

16.5.7 The site studied by UWE is at Fullabrook Down, between Barnstaple and Ilfracombe in north 

Devon, where tourism forms a major part of the local economy, so there are clear similarities 

with Cornwall. The vast majority of tourists surveyed (87%) stated that the presence of a wind 

development would neither encourage nor discourage them from visiting. Of the remaining 

13%, slightly more would be encouraged to visit because of the presence of a wind 

development. The majority of respondents thought that the wind development would have no 

overall effect on the quality of their experience. Indeed, slightly more tourists felt that the wind 

development would have a positive effect on their experience than felt it would have a 

negative effect, and the majority of tourists actually thought wind development s could be 

tourist attractions in their own right. 

16.5.8 In 2002, the Scottish Renewables Forum and the British Wind Energy Association (now 

RenewableUK) commissioned independent research by MORI Scotland into public attitudes 

to wind developments in Argyll. Whilst widely separated geographically from Cornwall, this 

area attracts visitors and tourists for many similar reasons, such as wild and valued scenery 

and views, so the results may be considered to offer some insight into possible perceptions of 

visitors to Cornwall. 

16.5.9 At the time of the study, the Argyll region had one of the highest concentrations of operational 

wind developments in the UK. This survey included interviews near some of Argyll's favourite 

beauty spots and rural tourism destinations. When asked whether the presence of wind 

developments in the area had a positive or negative effect, 43% responded that it had a 

positive effect, while a similar proportion felt it made no difference. Less than one in ten (8%) 

felt that it had a negative effect. 

16.5.10 When asked whether the presence of wind developments in Argyll made any difference to the 

likelihood of them visiting the area, the majority, (91%) maintained that it made no difference. 

39 See http://www.bwea.com/onshore/index.html 

40 The article can be seen at: http://info.uwe.ac.uk/news/uwenews/news.aspx?id=977 Last Accessed July 2011 





Twice as many people said they would be more likely to visit again than those who said they 

would be less likely to visit. 

16.5.11 More recent research for the Scottish Government (Glasgow Caledonian University et al, 

2008) in rural parts of Scotland where the landscape was a major reason for tourism found: 

• three-quarters of people felt wind developments had a positive or neutral effect on the 

landscape; 

• 68% of tourists were positive about the statement “A well sited wind development does 

not ruin the landscape” with a further 12% neutral; 

• 48% of visitors were positive about the statement “I like to see wind farms” with a 

further 24% neutral; 

• respondents that had seen a wind development were less negative than those who 

had not; 

• a significant minority (20% to 30%) of tourists preferred landscapes without wind 

developments, but, of these, only a very small group would change their intention to 

revisit Scotland as a result; and 

• extensive wind developments across Scotland would cause an estimated reduction in 

revenue growth of 0.18 per cent of tourist spending by 2015: this predicted effect 

equates to £7.6 million of expenditure against current tourism revenues of £4.2 billion. 

16.5.12 The Sustainable Development Commission report Wind Power in the UK; a guide to the key 

issues surrounding onshore wind power development in the UK (2005) examined all of the 

published public attitude surveys on wind developments carried out in the UK between 1992 

and 2005. Overall, the results indicated that 80% of people in the UK were supportive of the 

development of wind developments. 

16.5.13 So, in terms of predicted effects, there are unlikely to be any significant changes in tourist 

perception of the Wheal Jane site during the construction phase. The context is already very 

industrial and the site is regularly used by large plant such as earth-moving machinery. 

16.5.14 Once operational, the turbine will be set in a local site context of renewable technologies. The 

masterplan for the Wheal Jane site provides a framework to guide the shape of future 

development. The site already accommodates various companies associated with mining and 

earth sciences, and the masterplan aims to strengthen and expand this expertise in the 

context of the site’s heritage of mining tradition and a growing potential for onsite renewable 

energy regeneration. The wind turbine will therefore be an integral part of an evolving, more 

sustainable industrial landscape. 

16.5.15 The review of published UK research from academic, industry and Government sources 

suggests that wind developments do not significantly affect tourism or the tourist economy. 

Scottish Government research suggests a 0.18% decline in tourism revenues as a result of 

hitting their target of building many, large wind developments. Care needs to be taken in 

comparing the situation in Cornwall, but Cornwall has a greater diversity of visitor attractions 

in addition to the landscape, and scenery. This difference, along with the fact that this EIA is 





considering only a single turbine (or a cumulation with a few other, small wind developments 

– see landscape chapter) rather than the large scale development envisaged in the Scottish 

study, means that it is reasonable to assume that similar analysis would therefore produce a 

result of significantly less than 0.18%, which in itself would be considered negligible. 

16.5.16 In terms of the assessment of likely effects, effects on recreation and amenity are considered 

during the operational phase only as those during construction and decommissioning are not 

likely to be significant. 

16.5.17 This assessment has taken into account the findings of the landscape and visual 

assessment, which addressed a number of viewpoints, see Figures 10.11 to 10.44.. There is 

an extensive network of minor roads, public rights of way and a long distance recreational 

route, the South West Coast Path National Trail in the surrounding area. 

16.5.18 Whereas the purpose of a landscape and visual assessment is to assess the effect of a 

proposed development on a landscape in itself, here the purpose is to assess the likely effect 

of a development on the propensity of people to use and enjoy a recreational facility or 

amenity. This is a more subjective matter: in short, some people find wind developments a 

welcome addition to the landscape; others regard them as an unacceptable eyesore. 

16.5.19 The assessment from Chapter 10 is that the turbine would not be prominent in the majority of 

views from recreational routes, although there are significant views for some local public 

rights of way which pass close to the application site. Due to this and the research findings 

set out above relating to the effect of turbines on tourism and recreational amenity, the effect 

on the enjoyment of recreational routes and tourist facilities is judged to be slight. 

Other community issues 

Local economy 

16.5.20 The construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of the turbine may bring 

some minor benefits to the local economy through employment, expenditure and supply 

chain effects, although these are not considered significant in the terms of the EIA. The 

majority of the construction jobs will be in sectors such as road building, cabling, foundation 

installation, turbine erection, construction of control kiosk. While some specialists will need to 

be brought in from further afield, many of the jobs are likely to be suitable for local contract 

labour. All jobs will be temporary for the duration of the four month construction period 

Educational opportunities 

16.5.21 As part of the proposed cluster of renewable technologies at the Wheal Jane site, the 

construction and operation of the turbine will provide an educational opportunity for schools 

and colleges, including, for example, for students following the new renewable energy BSc 

degree offered by the University of Exeter at the Tremough Campus near Falmouth. While 

local educational establishments have access to other wind developments in Cornwall, the 

Wheal Jane cluster would offer a unique variety of renewable technologies at a single site 

and, given the importance of the renewable energy BSc course to this growing industry. 





Health and safety 

16.5.22 Wind turbine are often perceived as giving rise to health and safety concerns for the public. 

During construction, health and safety considerations for employees on the site, visitors and 

the general public will be the responsibility of the contractor, as in all construction projects. 

With standard construction site procedures no significant problems are expected, and there 

should be no effect on the general public as the site is isolated from areas of open access. 

16.5.23 Once operational, the area around the turbine will be managed to ensure safety. As at 

present, it is expected that the Wheal Jane Ltd will control visitors to the site. There is no 

open access, and no public rights of way; the nearest lies to the west of the site, some 200 m 

approximately from the turbine location. Hence, while there have been very rare instances 

where turbine have shed part or all of a blade, there is little potential for any areas with open 

access to be affected (and this is a much less likely event with modern turbine in any case). 

Another health and safety concern can be that ice that has formed on a blade is shed when 

the turbine starts up. Modern turbine such as the model likely to be used at Wheal Jane are 

fitted with sensors to detect icing and the turbine can be shut down, and again, being remote 

form areas of access, the potential for injury is negligible. Additionally, the climate at Wheal 

Jane is such that icing is unlikely to be a frequent event. Historically, there have been some 

instances of lightning strike and consequent fire, so modern turbine are fitted with lightning 

protection measures to ensure harmless conduction to earth without affecting sensitive 

components in the nacelle of the turbine. 

16.5.24 There have been no known cases in Europe where serious injury has resulted from any of 

these phenomena (DTI wind energy factsheet 4, Wind Power: environmental and safety 

issues) and no significant effects are predicted. 


16.6.1 No specific measures are proposed. 


16.7.1 Table 16.1 summarises the effects of the development. The effects can be summarised as 

follows. In economic terms, the proposed development is considered to have a slight 

beneficial effect in the construction stage and also potentially in the decommissioning stage. 

In the operational stage, its effects are likely to be negligible. 

16.7.2 In terms of effects on the propensity of people to use and enjoy tourism and recreation 

facilities including recreational routes, the key effects are in the operational phase of the 

scheme. The effects on tourism facilities, recreational routes and public rights of way are 

assessed as being slight.. 


16.8.1 The future users of the Wheal Jane site would not change the assessment presented in this 

chapter. 






16.9.1 The cumulative effect of the proposed Wheal Jane turbine upon visual amenity is considered 

in Chapter 11 Landscape and Visual, and so is not considered here. 





Table 16.2 


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

change 

Significance 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

mitigation 


Recreational 

users 

Effect on the 

propensity of 

people to use 

and enjoy a 

recreational 

facility or 

amenity 

All phases 

Various 

Small or 

negligible 

Slight adverse N/A N/A Slight adverse 

Indirect, longterm, 

permanent, 

negative 






Defra, 2008. Non-statutory guidance for site waste management plans. Defra 

Scottish Executive, 2000.Public Attitudes towards Wind Farms in Scotland. Scottish Executive 

MORI Scotland, 2002.Tourist attitudes towards wind farms. (Research Study conducted for Scottish 

Renewables Forum & the British Wind Energy Association). 

Sustainable Development Commission. 2005.Wind Power in the UK; a guide to the key issues 

surrounding onshore wind power development in the UK. Sustainable Development Commission 

Aitchison, 2006–7 Devon Wind Power, Expert Witness: Tourism Impacts at Department for Business, 

Innovation and Skills Public Inquiry for Fullabrook Wind Farm, North Devon (2006–2007). See also 

“Wind farms are good for tourism” on the UWE website, 

http://info.uwe.ac.uk/news/UWENews/article.asp?item=977) 

Glasgow Caledonian University, Moffat Centre & Cogent Strategies International, 2008. The economic 

impacts of wind farms on Scottish tourism. A report for the Scottish Government. Available from 

http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/214910/0057316.pdf Last accessed July 2011. 

South West Tourism, 2006. The Value of Tourism in Cornwall 2005.). Available from 

http://tourisminsights.info/STATISTICS/STAT1.HTML Last accessed July 2011 


Waste 



17 Waste 


17.1.1 The construction and operation of wind turbine does not typically generate a large amount of 

waste. The preparation of the site at Wheal Jane will, however, involve some movement of 

materials at the construction site and local area, and given the findings of the ground 

condition assessment (see Chapter 9), and the minor quantities of packaging waste that will 

arise during construction, Cornwall Council has requested that a Site Waste Management 

Plan (SWMP) be produced for the life of the construction project. Whilst the principles can 

also be carried forward to the operational phase in the Environmental Management Plan, no 

significant quantities of waste are predicted post-construction, and this has not been 

considered further in this EIA. 


17.2.1 SWMPs are compulsory in England for all construction projects on one site with an estimated 

cost greater than £300,000. More detailed SWMPs are required for projects with a cost 

greater than £500,000. The Regulations aim to make the construction industry more 

sustainable by ensuring that those involved on a construction site are aware of the waste 

being produced so that it can be reduced. The SWMP involves keeping a log, which also 

makes tracking waste easier and aids compliance with the waste duty of care. 

17.2.2 Depending on the stage of the project, either the developer or the principal contractor will 

have overall responsibility for the SWMP. The developer is responsible for ensuring that the 

plan is prepared before construction work begins, however, it is generally more practical for 

the appointed principal contractor to prepare the plan. The principal contractor must update 

the plan as work progresses and ensure that any sub-contractors and workers on the site are 

aware of the plan and comply with it. 

17.2.3 The SWMP encompasses preparatory work such as site clearance, and engineering and 

construction activities. The installation of related infrastructure and services such as cabling, 

telecommunications and access tracks is also included. 

17.2.4 The SWMP sets out how resources will be managed and any waste controlled at all stages 

on the construction site. It covers: 

• Who will be responsible for resource management; 

• What types of waste will be generated; 

• How the waste will be managed (in the context of the waste hierarchy – i.e. will it be 

reduced, reused or recycled?); 

• Which contractors will be used to ensure the waste is correctly recycled or disposed of 

responsibly and legally; and 


Waste 



• How the quantity of waste generated by the project will be managed. 


17.3.1 Wheal Jane is a brownfield site. Previous uses have entailed very considerable modification 

of the ground through mining and remediation and associated activities, and the site of the 

turbine is itself heavily modified as detailed in chapter 9. The site and surrounding area are 

dominated by made ground, including demolition materials, and mine tailings, including the 

dam created for the minewater remediation process. 


17.4.1 The precise location of the turbine was determined primarily on technical requirements such 

as topography and wind resource, but also to an extent on preliminary environmental 

constraints known at the time, mainly identified from desk-based published sources. 


17.5.1 PfR recognises the particular significance of waste arisings during site preparation and 

construction works at the Wheal Jane site (by virtue of its character), and by starting the 

SWMP during the concept and design stage of the project, design decisions have contributed 

towards preventing and reducing construction waste. For example, consideration has been 

given to how waste materials generated during site preparation and construction can be reused 

on site. 

17.5.2 At this stage, it is anticipated that all of the waste derived from site preparation and 

construction will be beneficially re-used on the Wheal Jane site for landscaping and 

restoration purposes. There will be a very small amount of packaging type waste generated 

during construction, and it is anticipated that this will be beneficially re-used by contractors or 

disposed of in licensed waste facilities locally. Given the insignificant quantities of waste to be 

disposed of off-site, it is anticipated that existing facilities will have sufficient capacity to deal 

with these arisings. The detail of these arrangements will therefore be developed through the 

Site Waste Management Plan as the site preparation and construction methodologies 

become clearer post-consent when contractors are appointed. 


17.6.1 At this planning application stage, before the appointment of contractors and detailing of site 

preparation and construction methods, the SWMP is necessarily brief. As it evolves, beyond 

consent and into the construction phase, the SWMP will be used to record all decisions about 

the project that relate to the waste produced on site. Measures taken to reduce waste will be 

quantified, recorded and evaluated throughout the project, and the plan will be updated as 

waste is disposed of, re-used, recycled, or otherwise recovered. The SWMP is a ‘living’ 

document that describes the current state of progress against the waste management 

forecasts contained in the plan. The draft SWMP is included at Appendix 17.1 of this 

environmental statement. 


Waste 



17.6.2 By complying with pollution prevention guidance from the Environment Agency, notably 

PPG6, and implementing a SWMP, the project will maximise construction sustainability and 

minimise the risk of waste and environmental pollution. 

17.6.3 If waste is removed from the site, the SWMP will show that the requirements of the waste 

management licensing, waste duty of care and waste carrier registration regimes are being 

met. If the construction project is found to produce hazardous waste, the Environment 

Agency will be notified before any waste is removed. 

17.6.4 During construction, the SWMP will be kept at the site office or another appropriate place on 

the construction site, where it is accessible by anyone carrying out a regulatory compliance 

check. After construction, the SWMP will be kept for two years at the principal place of 

business or the site of the project. 


17.7.1 With the mitigation measures in place, there would be no significant effects arising from 

waste. 


17.8.1 There would be no significant effects on potential future receptors arising from waste. 


17.9.1 There are no cumulative effects. 


NetRegs 2011 Site Waste Management Plans. See 

http://www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/businesses/construction/62359.aspx Last Accessed July 2011. 


Waste 



18 Environmental Management Plan 


18.1.1 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. 

18.1.2 An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) has been drawn together from the information 

within the topic chapters, and from other sources as the application and design progresses. 

The EMP measures are the identified mitigation or suggested enhancement measures. 

18.1.3 Table 18.1 summarises the proposed environmental management plan measures identified 

within the ES. 


Environmental Management Plan 



Table 18.1 

Initial outline of the Environmental Management Plan and residual effects of the scheme 

Topic Area 

Receptor 

Significant 

Effects identified 

prior to mitigation 

Proposed EMP measures – if identified (mitigation and enhancement) 

Significance 

of effect after 

mitigation 

(residual) 

Nature of 

effect 

The contract between the applicant and the company contracted to 

construct the wind turbine will specify the measures to be taken to reduce 

or mitigate the environmental effect of the construction process. A copy of 

any conditions associated with the planning permission will be incorporated 

into this contract, and the company will be required to adhere to these. 

Selection of the construction contractor will be based partly upon the 

contractor’s record in dealing with environmental issues; provision of 

evidence that it has incorporated all environmental requirements into its 

method statements; and staffing and budgetary provisions. The applicant 

will retain the services of specialist advisers, to be called on as required to 

advise on specific issues, including micro-siting. 

Dust Control – Dust control is a well-established and effective practice 

during the construction of developments. The main mitigation measures 

that will be utilised as necessary are: 

Chapter 4 Proposed 

Development 

The site 

n/a 

i. 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. 

n/a 

n/a 

ii. 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’. 

iii. 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. 

iv. Wheel wash facilities for vehicles entering and exiting the site. Such 

facilities will automatically clean the lower parts of HGVs by removing mud, 

etc from the wheels and chassis in one drive-through operation. 

v. Good housekeeping or ‘clean up’ arrangements so that the site is kept 





Topic Area 

Receptor 

Significant 




Significance 


mitigation 

(residual) 

Nature of 

effect 

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. 

vi. A site liaison person to investigate and take appropriate action where 

complaints or queries about construction issues arise. 

Site Restoration – 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. 

Where existing vegetation exists this will be scraped off and 

stored separately 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. 

Chapter 6 Climate 

Change Mitigation and 

Other Atmospheric 

Emissions 

N/A 

Only positive 

climate change 

and atmospheric 

emission effects 

have been 

identified, no 

mitigation is 

necessary. 

Not required 


Long term, 

positive 

Chapter 7 Cultural 

Heritage 

Buried heritage 

assets within the 

scheme area and 

Cornish ‘hedges’ 

affected by road 

widening during 

construction 

Damage 

A suitable mitigation strategy involving a watching brief for sites (notably 

Cornish ‘hedges’) affected by road widening should be devised in advance 

of works with the local authority Archaeological 

Negligible 

During 

construction 





Topic Area 

Receptor 

Significant 




Significance 


mitigation 

(residual) 

Nature of 

effect 

Chapter 7 Cultural 

Heritage 

Heritage assets A3, 

A4, A10, A11, A18, 

A28, A30, A31, 

during operation 

Slight/moderate/ 

substantial effect 

None 

Slight/moderat 

e/ substantial 

effect 

During 

operation 








Trehane Barton 

SSSI: Effect on 

foraging habitat 

Development area: 

Effect on potential 

habitat for nature 

conservation 

Potential habitat at 

pinch points 5, 6, 7: 

Minimal, temporary 

loss of dense scrub 

Bats: Loss of habitat 

within construction 

footprint 

All bats: Noise 

disturbance 

additional to 

background levels 

Reptiles: Loss of 

habitat 

Soprano pipistrelles, 

Natterer’s bat, 

Brown long-eared, 

Greater horseshoe, 

No significant 

effects 

Construction would be carried out in accordance with a Construction 

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which would include 

precautionary working practices and measures to avoid adverse ecological 

effects on site. 


Construction activity would be limited to clearly defined working areas. 

Measures would be taken to avoid unnecessary effects, such as vehicle 

Not significant n/a 

use, outside the defined working boundary. Areas and species of 

ecological interest would be notified to the contractors to avoid damage 


The land required for the temporary construction compound would be 

restored to its existing condition and use on completion of the construction 


work 


As a precautionary measure, a suitably qualified ecologist would undertake 

a destructive search of any terrestrial habitat scheduled for removal as part 

of the construction phase in order to ensure that any reptiles present are 

identified and removed. 


Sight 

Construction and decommissioning would take place during day light 

hours. No lighting is proposed. 

Construction noise will be kept to a minimum, with all plant and equipment 


turned off when not in use. 


Method of piling to be designed with reference to identified bat interests. If 

possible, piling to be undertaken March/April or September/October. 



Habitat manipulation and management around the proposed turbine site for 


common pipistrelles and noctules bat to mitigate potential collision or 

Slight 

n/a 

Short-term, 

negative 





Topic Area 

Receptor 

Significant 




Significance 


mitigation 

(residual) 

Nature of 

effect 

Lesser horseshoe 

bat: Collision or 

barotrauma 

barotraumas include the following: Habitats within at least 75 m of the 

turbine base, and the larger western area of heath to be kept free of scrub 

and ruderal vegetation. 



Common 

pipistrelles: Collision 

or barotrauma 

Noctule bat: 

Collision or 

barotrauma 

Slight 

Creation of a linked network of habitat around the edges of the broader 

Wheal Jane site to provide attractive fly and foraging routes for bats. Long 

term management of habitats around the south eastern, south western and 

north eastern edges of the Wheal Jane site for the benefits of bats. 

Negligible n/a 

Substantial/moder 

ate 

Treatment of Japanese Knotweed up to 7m from the construction area in 

accordance with the Environment Agency’s code of practice. 

Slight 

Long-term 

negative 

Chapter 9 Ground 

conditions 

Human health, Site, 

tailings dam, 

Turbine foundations 

and location 


The exact nature and extent of necessary ground treatments and 

foundation design of the turbine will be finalised following a detailed 

targeted ground investigation and environmental investigation of the 

proposed site. The final choice of foundation design and inherent mitigation 

measures will be based on the outcome of that assessment. The results of 

the ground investigation may also identify requirements for additional 

mitigation, not already considered in undertaking this assessment. 


Long term 

Chapter 10 Landscape 

and Visual 

Landscape 

effects(physical) 

during construction 

and 



Environmental management and reinstatement 

Neutral to 

slight adverse 

Direct, short 

and long term, 

temporary, 

negative 


and Visual 

Visual effects during 

construction and 


Ranging from 

Neutral to Large 

Adverse 

Generic and integrated into scheme design 

Ranging from 

Neutral to 

Substantial 

Adverse 

Direct/indirect, 

long term, 

temporary, 

negative 





Topic Area 

Receptor 

Significant 




Significance 


mitigation 

(residual) 

Nature of 

effect 


and Visual 

Landscape effects 

(character) during 

operation 

Ranging from 

Neutral/Slight 

Adverse to Slight/ 


n/a 

Ranging from 

Neutral/Slight 

Adverse to 

Slight/ 

Moderate 

Adverse 

Indirect, long 

term, 

temporary, 

negative 


Noise effect during 

construction, and 



All 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. 


n/a 


Noise effect during, 

operation 

Not significant n/a Not significant n/a 

Chapter 12 

Ornithology 

Overwintering 

lapwing population 

Moderate Provision of alternative roosting habitat and Post-construction monitoring Slight 

Direct; 

cumulative; 

long-term; 

permanent; 

negative. 

Chapter 12 

Ornithology 

Nesting birds 

Not 

significant/slight 

Vegetation clearance undertaken outside of bird nesting season (Feb– 

September inclusive) if possible, or ecologist to check vegetation a 

maximum of 24 hours before clearance with appropriate mitigation if nests 

are found. 

Not Significant 

Direct, shortterm, 

permanent, 

negative. 

Chapter 13 Traffic and 

Transport 

Road users, and 

residential 

properties along 

access route 

Slight 

Road users – To minimise disruption and risk of conflict with other road 

users, abnormal loads will escorted by high visibility vehicles in accordance 

with police procedure during off-peak daylight hours. Traffic management 

will be implemented to further segregate other road users and pedestrians 

for complex manoeuvres by abnormal loads and large vehicles. 

Residential Properties – The effect on residential properties will be kept to 

a minimum as construction traffic will be limited to a 4–6 month period. 

Slight 

Temporary, 

adverse 

Roadside Features – The effect on roadside features and the requirement 





Topic Area 

Receptor 

Significant 




Significance 


mitigation 

(residual) 

Nature of 

effect 

for their removal or relocation will be minimised by working with the chosen 

contractor to select turbine and transporter vehicles that minimise the 

required envelope for manoeuvring. 

Structures – The effect on bridges/retaining walls along the defined route 

will be minimised by working with the chosen contractor to select turbine 

and transporter vehicles that keep their combined weight to a minimum and 

distribute weight effectively. 

Chapter 14 Water 

Environment 


Environment 


Environment 


Environment 


Environment 

Secondary A 

Aquifer 

Secondary A 

Aquifer 

Secondary A 

Aquifer 

Former Mine 

Workings and 

Operational 


Secondary A 

Aquifer 

Slight 

Slight 

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared, 

agreed and implemented by the construction contractor before the 

commencement of works including legal responsibilities, detailed method 

statements, arrangements for monitoring environmental effects, 

arrangements for liaison with statutory authorities and plans in the event of 

an emergency. 



n/a 

n/a 

Slight Any excessive surface water run-off generated during the construction Not significant n/a 

phase will be filtered to remove suspended solids prior to discharge to the 

local watercourses. 

Substantial/moder 

ate 

Areas with prevalent surface water run-off will be identified and drainage 

actively managed, e.g. through bunding and/or temporary drainage. 

Drainage features will allow for the attenuation of water on the landholding 

and the opportunity for filtration and sedimentation prior to the discharge to 

controlled waters. 

Not significance 

Drainage features for areas containing potential contaminants will include 

an interceptor system and/or cut-off feature. Therefore pollution incidents, 

such as releases of petrochemicals, will be contained within the drainage 

features. 


Areas at risk of spillage, such as vehicle maintenance areas, and 

hazardous substance stores (including petrochemicals) will be bunded. 

Bunded areas would have impermeable bases/membrane to limit the 

potential migration of contaminants into groundwater. Where potential 


n/a 





Topic Area 

Receptor 

Significant 




Significance 


mitigation 

(residual) 

Nature of 

effect 

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. PfR 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. 

Movement of vehicles and earthworks will be limited near to the water 

features. 

Concrete for the foundations of the turbine and buildings will be brought to 

site ready-mixed and not batched on site, and constructed amongst a 

reinforced steel framework. 

Dust build up and mud deposits will be avoided and stockpiled material 

covered or stored within a contained area to enable run-off to be treated. 

All plant machinery and vehicles will be maintained in a good condition, 

with wheel washers and dust suppression measures used to prevent the 

migration of pollutants. 

Avoiding or limiting vehicle movement across wetland areas, and the use 

of appropriate vehicles for the ground type to avoid effects to permeability 

and surface water run-off characteristics. 

Excavation activities would be co-ordinated with forecasted dry periods, 

where possible, with excavation works covered during periods of heavy 

rain to minimise the entry and collection of rainwater. 

Excavation depths would be limited, where possible, to help avoid 

interception of the groundwater table. 





Topic Area 

Receptor 

Significant 




Significance 


mitigation 

(residual) 

Nature of 

effect 

During operation a Maintenance Plan would help prevent adverse effect on 

surface water runoff and flood risk and also from a water quality incident. 

Chapter 15 Shadow 

Flicker 

Properties within 10 

rotor diameters 

Slight 

A planning condition can ensure the turbine be shut down at times of 

shadow flicker risk 


n/a 

Chapter 16 Socioeconomic 

and other 

Community Effects 

Effect on the 

propensity of people 

to enjoy and use a 

recreational facility 

Slight No measures proposed Slight 

Indirect, long 

term, 

permanent, 

negative 

A Site Waste Management Plan will be prepared (see draft in Appendix 

17.1), agreed and implemented by the construction contractor before the 

commencement of works including legal responsibilities, detailed method 

statements, arrangements for monitoring environmental effects, 

arrangements for liaison with statutory authorities and plans in the event of 

an emergency. 

Chapter 17 Waste The site n/a 

Any surplus material generated by excavation of foundations or from 

scraping back the surface under the access track route is expected to be 

re-used to encourage re-vegetation or re-use 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. 


n/a 

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. 

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. 





19 Annex 

Glossary of Terms 

Term 

‘A’ weighting 

AGLV 

Ambient noise 

Ambient noise 

Anemometer and 

the wind vane 

Annex 1 

AOD 

AONB 

Description 

The human ear is not equally sensitive over the audible spectrum. It is most sensitive at 

frequencies around 4000Hz. It is much less sensitive at low frequencies. This non linearity is level 

dependent. In order to make the reading of the sound level meter correspond to loudness as 

perceived by normal human hearing frequency weighting is employed. The internationally 

standardised ‘A’ weighting is designed to mimic hearing response at a loudness of 40 Phons. 

Response to noise has been found to correlate well with levels measured using this weighting. 

Area of Great Landscape Value 

Totally encompassing sound in a given situation at a given time. 

Totally encompassing sound in a given situation at a given time. 

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 computer 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. 

Annex 1 of the Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (the 'Birds 

Directive'). The Directive provides a framework for the conservation and management of, and 

human interactions with, wild birds in Europe. Annex 1 of the Directive lists vulnerable species for 

which Special Protection Areas (SPA) can be designated. In the UK the Directive has been 

transposed into national laws by means of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 

1994 (as amended) as consolidated by The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 

2010 (the Habitats Regulations). 

Above Ordnance Datum – height above sea level using the base mark utilised on Ordnance 

Survey maps. 

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 

A designation indicating a nationally important landscape. 

The human ear is not equally sensitive over the audible spectrum. It is most sensitive at 

frequencies around 4000Hz. It is much less sensitive at low frequencies. This non linearity is level 

dependent. In order to make the reading of the sound level meter correspond to loudness as 

perceived by normal human hearing frequency weighting is employed. The internationally 

standardised ‘A’ weighting is designed to mimic hearing response at a loudness of 40 Phons. 

Response to noise has been found to correlate well with levels measured using this weighting. 

A-weighting 

Typical Approximate Noise Levels 

Source 

Sound Pressure Level dB(A) 

Whisper 30 

Library Reading Room 40 

Quiet Office 50 

Normal Conversation at 1 m 60 

Noisy Office 70 

Domestic Vacuum Cleaner at 1 m 80 

Factory Machinery 90 

September 2011 355 Annex 




Term 

Background noise 

level, L A90, T 

BAP 

Barrier Effect 

BoCC 

BOS 

BTO 

Capacity factor 

CBC 

CLVIA 


Analysis 


Height 

Conservation Area 

Control 

Cumulative effects 

Cut-in wind speed 

or start-up wind 

speed 

Cut-out wind 

speed or shutdown 

wind speed 

dB(A) 

Description 

The A-weighted percentile sound pressure level of the residual noise exceeded for 90% of a 

given time interval, T. 

Biodiversity Action Plan – a series of action plans for species and habitats designed to conserve 

and protect existing biological diversity, and to enhance it wherever possible. 

The prevention or deterrence of a bird passing through a site due to the presence of a structure, 

in this case a wind turbine, causing birds to fly around or over the obstruction. 

Birds of Conservation Concern – an assessment of the UK’s birds 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. 

Banbury Ornithological Society – studies the bird life in the twelve 10 km squares surrounding 

Banbury and includes parts of Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire. 

British Trust for Ornithology – a UK charity that carries out research into the lives of birds, chiefly 

by conducting population and breeding surveys, and by bird ringing, all through the activities of a 

large number of volunteers. 

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. 

Common Bird Census – detailed survey technique designed to establish nesting bird territories 

within a survey area. 

Shorthand for cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment. 

Detailed calculations used to establish the theoretical mortality rate of a bird species as a direct 

result of collision with a proposed wind development. Calculations are based on the recorded 

activity of a particular bird species within the survey area over a set period of time. 

The height range at which a bird in flight would be at risk of colliding with a turbine i.e. the height 

range that the turbine blades occupy. 

An area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is 

desirable to protect and enhance. 

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. 

This indicates that the A–weighting has been applied to measurements. See ‘A’ weighting. 





Term 

Decibel or dB 

Degree of change 

DEM 

Demography 

Design Iteration 

Displacement 

EA 

EH 

EIA 

Environmental fit 

Equivalent 

continuous sound 

pressure level, 

L eq,T 

ES 

FRA 

Flood risk 

assessment 

Frequency (sound) 

Gearbox 

Generator 

Geographical 

scale 

Description 

Sound pressure and sound power are expressed on a logarithmic scale simply because of the 

large difference in linear terms between the weakest and strongest audible sounds perceived by 

humans. The word level is added to indicate the use of a scale. The decibel is therefore not a unit 

of measurement. 

A combination of the scale extent and duration of an effect also defined as ‘magnitude’. 

Digital Elevation Model 

The branch of sociology that studies the characteristics of human populations. 

Changes to the design of the wind development layout in response to continuous feedback about 

environmental and technical constraints and opportunities. 

The deterrence of birds from the proposed turbine location or surrounding area as a result of the 

presence of the wind turbine or the process of construction. 

Environment Agency. 

The Government agency responsible for protection of the environment – mainly dealing with 

pollution of air, water and land in England and Wales. Also manages 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. 

Shorthand for environmental impact assessment. 

The assessment of the significant environmental effects of projects, deriving from a European 

Directive and UK Regulations. 

The relationship of a development to identified environmental opportunities and constraints in its 

setting. 

The equivalent continuous steady sound pressure level that gives the same noise exposure as a 

fluctuating noise measured over the same time interval. 

Environmental Statement. 

Supporting document to planning application providing environmental information to the public 

and decision makers, reporting the outcome of the EIA. 

A flood risk assessment is an evaluation of the risk of flooding associated with a development 

proposal. The Environment Agency is consulted on planning applications where flooding may be 

an issue, and may require a flood risk assessment report to accompany a planning application. 

The report considers issues relating to possible flooding effects on the development project itself, 

and also any knock-on effects on existing land uses in the area and downstream. 

The time rate of repetition measured in number of cycles per second, expressed as Hertz 

(abbreviated to Hz). 

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. 

The local, regional and/or national scale at which the landscape matter to policy makers and to 

stakeholders, including residents, businesses, interest groups, and so on 





Term 

GLVIA 

GN 

GQA 

General quality 

assessment 

Ha 

Heritage asset 

HGV 

High speed shaft 

Hydraulic brake 

IEEM 

Indirect effects 

JNCC 

Kilowatt (kW) 

Kilowatt-hour 

(kWh) 

km 

L A90, T 

Landform 

Landscape 

capacity 

Landscape 

character 

Landscape 

character areas 

Landscape 

compatibility 

Description 

Shorthand for the book, Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second 

Edition, published jointly by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management 

and Assessment, 2002. 

Guidance note. 

A methodology for classifying the quality of water bodies such as rivers, used by the Environment 

Agency. 

Hectares 

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. 

Heavy goods vehicle. 

The high speed shaft rotates at approximately. 1,500 revolutions per minute (RPM) and drives 

the electrical generator. 

Used to stop and start the rotor dependant on wind conditions 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management – a professional body that represents and 

supports ecologists and environmental managers in the UK, Ireland and abroad. 

Not a direct result of the development, but are often produced away from it or as a result of a 

complex pathway. 

Joint Nature Conservation Committee – statutory adviser to Government on UK and international 

nature conservation. 

One thousand watts of electricity. 

One thousand watt hours. 

Kilometre. 

See background noise level. 

Combinations of slope and elevation that produce the shape and form of the land 

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. 

These are single, unique areas and are discreet geographical areas of a particular combination of 

landscape types. Each has its own individual character and identity even though it shares similar 

generic characteristics with other similar areas. 

The potential to integrate development with the landscape context and degree of mitigation 

required 





Term 

Landscape 

condition 

Landscape 

constraints 

Landscape 

designations 

Landscape 

element 

Landscape 

elements 

Landscape 

features 

Landscape fit 

Description 

A reflection of the natural state and level of repair or management of the landscape character 

types or individual landscape elements 

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. 

Individual component parts of the landscape e.g. geology, landform, soils vegetation, settlement 

land use 

A component part of the landscape, such as trees, woodland and ponds. 

A prominent, distinctive or eye-catching element 

The relationship of a development to identified landscape opportunities and constraints in its 

setting. 

The importance of the existing landscape identifying what matters and what is important to policy 

makers at all levels and to receptors such as the residents within communities. 

Landscape 

importance 

This is the concept of the inherent importance of the landscape i.e. designation for the sake of 

the landscape and not for forestry or biodiversity purposes. In a policy context the usual basis for 

recognising important landscapes is through the application of a local or national landscape 

designation. 

The existing landscape may be considered to be important by different receptors for many 

different reasons, recognising aspects such as scenic quality, special interests (including nature 

conservation, historical or cultural heritage associations), past and present perceptions of local 

value and consensus of importance, on a national, regional or local level. 

Landscape quality 

(or condition) 

Landscape 

resource 

LCA 

LDF 

L eq,T 

Listed Building 

Low speed shaft 

LVIA 

m 

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. 

Shorthand for landscape character area – usually defined by a landscape character assessment, 

and usually occurs within particular geographical locations. 

Local development framework – a local plan produced by the planning authority (such as 

Daventry District Council) to guide development and planning decisions. 

See equivalent continuous sound pressure level. 

Listed Buildings (Grade I, Grade II*, Grade II) are nationally important and designated buildings 

or structures of historic and/or architectural interest. 

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. 

Metre 





Term 

MAGIC 

Magnitude 

Mechanical brake 

Megawatt (MW) 

Mitigation 

Nacelle 

NBRC 

NCA 

NE 

Orography 

OS 

Overrun 

Oversail 

Passage migrant 

Photomontage 

Power coefficient 

Power curve 

PPG 

PPS 

PRoW 

Ramsar 

Raptor 

Rated power 

output capacity 

Rated wind speed 

Description 

Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside – a web-based interactive map service 

designed to bring together environmental information from across government. 

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 

the adverse environmental 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. 

Northamptonshire Biodiversity Records Centre. 

National Character Area – units of coherent landscape types at the national level (England). 

Natural England. 

The Government agency responsible for the protection of habitats and protected species in 

England. 

The branch of physical geography dealing with landform, hills and mountains. 

Ordnance Survey. 

Where a vehicle’s wheels run over a verge or pavement. 

Where a vehicle’s body or load passes over a verge or pavement, but the wheels do not. 

A bird passing through the site, currently making its way between its breeding and wintering 

grounds. 

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 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. 

Planning Policy Guidance (from the UK Government) – being phased put in favour of PPSs 

Planning Policy Statement (from the UK Government). 

Public Right of Way. Includes footpaths and bridleways. 

A site 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). 

A term used to describe birds of prey. 

The rated power output is the maximum amount of electricity generated at a set (rated) wind 

speed. 

The lowest wind speed at which the rated output power of a wind turbine is produced. 





Term 

Receptor 

Red List 

Registered Park 

and Garden 

Renewables 

Obligation (RO): 

RenewableUK 

Representative 

views 

Residual effects 

Residual noise 

Rotor 

Rotor blades 

Rotor hub 

RSPB 

Scale Indicators 

Schedule 1 

Scheduled 

Monument 

Secondary 

Species 

Sense of place 

Description 

An element of the pre-existing environment that may potentially be affected by the development. 

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 

A nationally important and designated park and/or garden of special historic interest. 

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 

Viewpoints that are representative of different receptors using the professional judgement of an 

experienced landscape architect, taking in consideration importance attributed to the view, local 

perceptions relating to views, receptor function while exposed to the view, number of receptors 

experiencing the view, degree of exposure to the view, period of exposure to the view, and 

availability and value of alternative views. 

Environmental effects remaining after mitigation. 

The noise remaining when a specific noise source is suppressed to such a degree that it does not 

contribute to the ambient noise. 

The rotor blades and the hub. 

The rotor blades capture the wind and transfer its power to the rotor hub. In large, modern 

turbines there are typically 3 blades, which are designed much like a wing of an aeroplane. 

The hub of the rotor is attached to the low speed shaft of the wind turbine. 

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – a UK charity working to secure a healthy environment 

for birds and all wildlife. 

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. 

Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is the 

primary legislation which protects animals, plants, and certain habitats in the UK. It prohibits the 

intentional killing, injuring or taking of any wild bird and the taking, damaging or destroying of the 

nest (whilst being built or in use) or eggs. Schedule 1 birds are afforded additional protection 

against disturbance at the nest or of dependent young. 

A nationally important and designated archaeological site or structure. 

Non-target species potentially sensitive to wind developments due to their flight behaviour. This 

includes all non-target raptors, waders and wildfowl. 

The essential character and spirit of an area 





Term 

Setting 

Shadow flicker 


effect 

Significant 

(cultural heritage) 

Significant effects 

SNH 

Solar trajectory 

Sound 

Sound Level Meter 

(SLM) 

Sound Power 

Sound Power 

Level, LW or SWL 

Sound Pressure 

Description 

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. 

If the moving shadow of a turbine rotor is cast onto a building, it can appear to flick on and off as 

the blades rotate. If this flicking shadow is viewed through a narrow opening such as a window or 

doorway, an effect known as shadow flicker can occur. 

Determined through the combination of value/sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of 

change brought about by the development. 

The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That 

interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. 

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 effect 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. 

Scottish Natural Heritage – a public body of the Scottish government that promotes care for the 

natural heritage, wildlife, habitats, rocks, and landscapes of Scotland. Has published guidance 

that has also been used in England when assessing wind turbines. 

The path that the sun appears to take through the sky. This varies throughout the year in terms of 

elevation above the horizon and where the sun appears to rise and set. The seasons are 

influenced by the fact that the rotation axis of Earth is not always perpendicular to the plain of its 

trajectory around the sun, but it has a variable angle depending on the time of the year. 

The word sound describes everything that the ears can hear; it can be music, spoken words, 

traffic, wind or just noise. The word noise is often used to describe unwanted sound. The 

properties of sound can be given objectively in physical terms. As a result of the psychological 

and physiological differences between individuals, reactions of persons or animals to noise, such 

as being disturbed or annoyed, are subjective and therefore difficult to predict. 

An instrument used to measure sound in an accurate reproducible manner. 

Most sound sources can be conveniently described by giving their rate of production of noise 

energy. This rate is called sound power and has the symbol W (unit Watt). Sound power is 

intrinsic to a sound source, it is independent of influences resulting from interaction with the 

surrounding environmental acoustic features 

Ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the source sound power, W, to a standard 

reference power, Wref, of standardised value, 1 picowatt. In this form the sound power is 

expressed as a level in decibels. 

The increase or decrease in the atmospheric pressure due to the passage of a sound wave. The 

unit of measure in the SI system of units is the Pascal, (Pa). The human ear can detect sound 

pressure over a range from 20 micropascals to 20 Pascals. The sound pressure by itself is not 

characteristic of the sound source. The sound pressure is dependent on the sound power of the 

source, distance from the source and acoustic features in the environment surrounding both 

source and receiver. 





Term 

Sound Pressure 

Level, Lp or SPL 

Source Protection 

Zone 

(SPZ) 

SPA 

Specific noise 

source 

SSSI 

SUDS 

Sustainability 

Target Species 

Temporary or 

permanent effects 

Territory 

The Office of Gas 

and Electricity 

Markets (Ofgem) 

Tower 

TPO 

Tranquillity 


Type or nature of 

effect 

Description 

Ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of the square of the ratio of the effective or root mean 

square of the sound pressure fluctuations, P, and a standard reference pressure, Pref, of 

20 micropascals. In this form the sound pressure is expressed as a level in decibels. 

Source protection zones are defined by the Environment Agency around underground water 

sources such as wells, boreholes and springs used for public drinking water supply. These zones 

indicate the risk of contamination from any activities that might cause pollution in the area. The 

Agency uses the zones prevent pollution in areas which are at a higher risk, including 

consideration of new developments. 

Special Protection Area. 

A site designated for its international importance for certain birds, under the European Birds 

Directive. 

The noise source under investigation. 

Site of Specific Scientific Interest 

A site of national nature conservation value notified under The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 – 

as amended by the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000. 

SUDS, or sustainable drainage systems, are designed to drain surface water in a manner that is 

more sustainable than the traditional routing of drainage water through a pipe to a watercourse. 

Typical measures include permeable surfaces, wetlands, ponds and soakaway swales and 

trenches. 

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. 

Species listed by Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage and/or Birdlife International as being 

particularly sensitive to wind developments. 

Effects may be considered as temporary or permanent. In the case of wind turbine development, 

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 

considered to be temporary, long term and reversible. 

A territory is an area of land defended by a pair of birds against other birds of the same species 

for the purposes of nesting. Territories tend to only be held during the breeding season. 

The Regulator for Britain's gas and electricity industries. 

Further information about electricity regulation can be found at: www.ofgem.gov.uk 

The turbine 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. 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 100 m tower would weigh approximately 300 tonnes. 

Tree Preservation Order. 

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. 





Term 

Visual amenity 

Visual dominance 



Visual sensitivity 

Visualisation 

VP 

Vantage point 

Wader 

Water Framework 

Directive 

(WFD) 

Wildfowl 

Wind farm or 

development 

Wireframe or 

wireline 

Yaw mechanism 

ZVI – Zone of 

Visual Influence 

ZTV – Zone of 

Theoretical 

Visibility 

Description 

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 development would be subject to excessive 

shadow flicker, blocking of views, or reduction of light and visual intrusion. 

Visual receptors are single or groups of elements whose visual amenity would be affected by a 

proposal. The nature of visual receptors varies according to the location, type, activity of viewer 

and the importance of the view. 

A single or group of receptors whose visual amenity would be affected by a proposal; the 

importance of visual receptors varies according to the location, type, activity of viewer and the 

nature of the view 

The sensitivity of visual receptors such as residents, to visual change proposed by development 

categorised in accordance with the guidance provided in the GLVIA. 

Drawing, photomontage, computer simulation or other technique to illustrate the appearance of 

the development from a known location. 

A fixed location, typically from higher ground, allowing a clear view of the survey area, from 

where vantage point bird surveys are carried out of birds in flight in the area. 

Also known as shorebirds, this group of birds frequent shorelines and estuaries. The group 

includes sandpipers, plovers, avocets, phalaropes, coursers and stone curlews. 

The European Water Framework Directive came into force in December 2000 and became part 

of UK law in December 2003. It requires the planning and delivery of a better water environment 

(including lakes, streams, rivers, groundwaters, estuaries and coastal waters), and focuses on 

ecological measures and health. 

A term used to describe the family Anatidae, which includes duck, geese and swans. 

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. 

Area or zone of visual influence or theoretical visibility of the wind development within the study 

area for the visual assessment, generated by a computerised model of the development and a 

digital terrain model of the landscape.

Wheal Jane Wind Turbine - Partnerships for Renewables

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?