"8.10. At the Inquiry, NDDC argued that there is no particular need for this development because targets can be met otherwise. Thus, the case was made that, based on the 2002 Oxera Report for the DTI, the 2010 national target for renewable energy could readily be met through the development of a wide range of renewables, while that report's own target for onshore wind energy would be secured if only 19.6% of the capacity in planning went ahead [4.109]. On the other hand, doubts were expressed by DWP about the readiness of technologies other than wind, implying that wind energy would have to make a greater contribution than the 50% assumed by Oxera [2.5]. I address below the likely contributions of those other sectors to Devon's needs [8.22]." "
"Looking to the earlier, 2010 target, it is apparent from the evidence presented by both NDDC and CAWT that there are a significant number of projects at various stages in the planning process [4.109, 6.8]. Given the many unknowns, however, it is unclear at present, as to whether this national target will be met . . . " "8.13. Whether or not the national target is met, however, this would not absolve the South West Region and its local authorities from seeking to meet their own targets established through the development plan process. I note that by 2005 only 3% of that Region's electricity demand was being met from renewable sources [2.13]. Also, such targets provide no 'cut off point'; as PPS22 states at paragraph 3, if they are met they are to be revised upwards, subject to the Region's energy resource potential and the capacity of the environment. 8.14. The message of PPS22 here is reinforced by that of the Consultation on the Supplement to PPS1 on Planning and Climate Change. This refers at paragraph 10 to the need to ensure that the ambition for regional targets fully reflects opportunities in the region and is consistent with the 2010 target and the 2020 aspiration. Although this is not yet an adopted document, I attach significant weight to this aim which appears to me to reflect the direction of Government policy on energy and climate change."
"8.44. My conclusions are as follows: (i) ... (ii) The proposed wind farm with its 66MW rated output would make a significant contribution towards meeting the 151MW target for Devon to 2010; (iii) That Devon target is most unlikely to be met without a contribution that would be made by this project; (iv) The application site lies within an Area of Search defined in the Devon Structure Plan, so, in principle, it is in a suitable location for a wind energy development; (v) The development would serve local electricity demand for most of the time, thereby bringing embedded generation benefits; (vi) It would generate enough electricity to meet the average annual needs of some 30,000 households; equating that to North Devon, that would be equivalent to over 80% of domestic demand, or some 30% of total estimated demand; (vii) It would secure significant savings in CO² emissions, initially of the order of 64,600 tonnes per annum as well as savings in SO² and NOx emissions; (viii) It would provide major opportunities for local contractors, especially during the construction phase, as well as benefits to parts of the local farming community."
"(1) Whether the Inspector and the Secretary of State correctly applied the landscape policy in the Devon Structure Plan so as to come to a lawful conclusion on the issue of landscape. (2) Whether the Inspector and the Secretary of State properly took into account the need for consistency in relation to the findings on landscape in previous appeal decisions by the Secretary of State and an Inspector."
"8.46. I am satisfied that the applicants' approach to if the assessment of landscape and visual impacts has incorporated broadly the stages defined in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) and Scottish National Heritage (SNH), the Countryside Agency's (CA) Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland. Thus, there have been baseline studies of the area to establish its character, its landscape designations and the type and extent of its 'visual receptors', there have been assessments of the landscape and visual impacts of the development, and a view has been reached on the significance of those impacts. 8.47. However, those opposing the development, NDDC in particular, assert that the assessment process has been flawed, in part because the 'receiving landscape' has been considered in compartments rather than as an 'integrated whole' and that, when seen in the latter way, it is more sensitive to change than DWP claim [4.16-4.22, 6.42]. It is also contrary to the approach taken by Natural England [4.22]. I agree that because of the proposed development's considerable scale, and its acknowledged visibility over large parts of North Devon, a holistic approach to landscape impacts must clearly be the right one. DWP claim to have done this [2.73, 2.74]. On more detailed matters, the parties also disagree on the magnitude of change in a number of instances. 8.48. The most up to date local authority analysis of the landscape is that published in 2002 by DCC in The Devon Landscape. This defines Landscape Character Zones, at County level [1.27] and these are given policy status under Policy CO1 of the Devon Structure Plan (DSP). Under this categorisation, the application site falls predominantly within Zone 20 'North Devon Downs', although its southern tip lies within Zone 19 'Taw Torridge Estuary' [1.27]. There is also the North Devon Landscape Assessment (Topic Paper 14) which was prepared for NDDC in 1994 [1.29]. 8.49. For their part, DWP have defined landscape types within their study area (comprising land up to 20km, later extended to 25km from the application site). So far as the area covered by Zone 20 is concerned, DWP recognise 'Plateau Downlands' and 'Incised River Valleys', among other landscape types [1.31]. It seems to me that, in principle, this finer breakdown provides a valid starting point for DWP's baseline assessment. It is a division that is broadly consistent with the description of The Devon Landscape's Zone 20 as 'rounded downland, divided by three significant wooded river valleys' (p.131), and with the categorisation made in Topic Paper 14 which recognises, within a similar area to Zone 20, 'Inland Downs' and 'River Valleys' [2.86, 2.87]. 8.50. Given the scale of this development and the presence of designated areas within the study area, it is vital that any such assessment properly covers the wider picture. Essentially, however, I believe that DWP have done this, in the context of DCC's higher order assessment, and in accordance with the SNH/CA guidelines [2.73]."
"8.59. These particular downs have recognisably the characteristics set out in The Devon Landscape's description of Zone 20. Thus, they are an area of relatively large, rectilinear fields separated by hedgebanks and some fences. The landform has a smooth, open appearance and, given the elevation and the undulating nature of the terrain, there is a high degree of intervisibility between the upper parts of the downs. Indeed, from one vantage point along the unclassified road that crosses Metcombe Down from Hore Down Gate to Prixford, one can see virtually the entire sweep of the application site along its main axis, from its highest point at Metcombe Down, descending gradually to the southernmost down 4km away. There are a few trees aside from the wind-trimmed ones that border Burland Road and punctuate some hedgerows. Overall, I consider the application site to represent a large scale landscape. 8.60. The 'Incised River Valleys' from a recognisably distinct landscape type. The downland in the vicinity of the site is incised by the valleys of the River Caen and Knowl Water and by the tributaries that feed them. In the main, these valleys are steep sided, the tributary ones especially so, and the valley floors are narrow and winding. While, as a generality, it is often difficult to define a clear boundary between one landscape type and another, here the distinction between Downland and Incised River Valley is often quite a clear one. Generally, it is in terms of land use, the open pasture of the downland contrasting with the woodland of the valley sides and, as I saw, often coinciding with an increase in the steepness of the land. 8.61. In terms of the interplay between these two landscape types, the valley floors are, to a considerable extent, concealed from general view by the land form of the downs and by the tree cover on the valley slopes. This gives the valleys a secluded, intimate character. From a number of viewpoints, the wooded upper slopes can be seen in views across the downland landscape, sometimes in the dips between adjacent hills, this woodland signalling the presence of a valley. This can be seen, for example, in Viewpoints 1, 6, 12 and 14, and more generally as one passes through the landscape. However, there are far fewer places where it is possible readily to see a juxtaposition of downland and the entirety of an Incised River Valley including its floor. Viewpoint 18 at Muddiford provides one example, and the view northwards from Marks Hill (close to the location of Turbine 8) of one of the Knowl Water tributaries is another. [Emphasis as in original]"
"Within the immediate surrounding area, DWP's other main landscape type is the Incised River valley. As I have established, the turbines would be seen in many views in conjunction with the valleys and their characteristic wooded slopes. That mixed woodland adds variety and interest to this otherwise open landscape, where the predominant vegetation is grassland. At the same time, there would be relatively little intervisibility between the development and the lower parts of these incised valleys. Because of the land form, most stretches of the valley floor would be unaffected in visual terms; with a few exceptions, the development would 'look across' the valleys rather than intrude into them. [Emphasis as in original]"
"(ii) In respect of the Incised River Valleys, their intrinsic landscape quality is high, while the upper valley slopes and the woodland that cloaks them add significantly to the overall value of the landscape in this area. However, there are relatively few places where there would be intervisibility between turbines and the valley floors."
"• Rounded, open downland, divided by three significant wooded river valleys ... The Zone is crossed in a north-south direction by three fairly substantial valleys. These represent quite deep clefts through the rounded hills, contrasting with the heights not only in their topography but in the fact that they are typically well-wooded, mostly with mixed or broadleaved woodland. The valley floors are quite narrow, sinuous, pastoral with a few hedges. The woodland on the steep valley sides spills over the rims onto the edge of the downland, and the wooded pattern created by these valleys and their woodlands adds a distinctive element to the Zone's landscape. There are few locations on the downs where the shape of the valleys as reflected by their woodlands cannot be seen, this interplay between open downland and wooded valley being characteristic of the Zone . . . The valleys have an atmosphere that is different again . . . Away from the immediate influence of the main roads, and more particularly in the tributary valleys where there are no roads or only steep, winding local roads, the complex shape of the valleys, the wooded environment and the frequent appearance of running water all give rise to a remote, almost secretive character. Occasional unexpected cottages or hamlets heighten rather than dispel this reaction. The character of the valleys and of the downlands, although quite different in detail, are remarkably similar in appeal, their proximity and inter-relationship helping to complement each other. The complex appeal of downland and valley has been well retained throughout the Zone. The nature of the topography has meant that pressures for change have been limited . . . " "
"(21) It seems to me that although these sites are on high exposed ground they are by no means visually isolated from their surroundings. Notwithstanding the analysis of the Pearson Report which suggests that the land occupied in part by these proposals is significantly different in character to the adjoining valleys, a view also held by your landscape witness, I consider that this area of downland forms a visual continuum with those valleys to which it is close and intimately interrelated. Thus the broad sweep of Fullabrook Down descends seamlessly into the coombe and Fullabrook Barton so that it is impossible to say where one ends and the other begins. In the case of Crackaway the site occupies the flanks of a col penetrated by the side valley east of Lower Aylescott and also partly overlooking at the Colam valley north of Bittadon . . . (23) These conclusions on the local landscape, which I consider are supported by the analysis in paragraph 2.2.3 of the District Plan Landscape Assessment, lead me to the view that this prominent rounded downland, which transmutes imperceptibly into the surrounding valleys and coombes, has a particular and most attractive character. Using the network of paths and lanes it is possible to pass from valley to upland and back in very short distances, experiencing a wealth of variety and interest as views open or one enters small unsuspected areas of enclosure. This quality and variety to my mind merits protection for its own sake as does the long ridge occupied by the ragged hedge and track between Burland Cross and Beara Down and which forms the south-easter boundary of Fullabrook and part of that boundary to the Crackaway site. I accept that this area does not enjoy any local or national landscape protection status; nevertheless from what I have seen I consider that it is of high quality."
"In closing, NDDC referred to the materiality of the earlier appeal decisions, those of 1992 and 1994 in respect of land broadly within the northern part of the present application site and that of 2001 concerning land at Hore Down to the north of the present site [1.32]. A number of judgments were cited, the essential message being that, while an Inspector must exercise his or her own judgment, where there is disagreement, there is a need to weigh previous decisions and give reasons for departing from them [4.1-4.10]." "8.105. Clearly this is a very different scheme from those considered in the 1992 and 1994 appeals [1.32]. Not only would it involve significantly taller turbines but the application site would be considerably bigger. Moreover, those turbines would be more widely visible in the landscape, for example, when seen from the Taw Torridge Estuary. By contrast, the smaller machines considered in the two appeals would have been confined to a limited part of Fullabrook Down, and with the 1994 dual appeals to an additional area to the east of Crackaway Barton. The turbines would have been more tightly spaced with very different layouts to that now proposed. I believe that another difference would have been in terms of rotational speed, that cited for the 1992 appeal being a maximum of 48 rpm, whereas the turbines currently proposed would turn at between 8-19 rpm, giving their motion a different character [1.8]. 8.106. This being said, I reach some similar conclusions to those of the earlier Inspectors regarding landscape impact, even though the approach that has been taken to the assessment (GLVIA) follows guidelines that were unavailable at the time of the earlier appeals. Thus, in terms of DSP Policy CO1, I have found significant adverse impacts pertaining to the landscape of the application site and the surrounding area, and in terms of the AONB, I have highlighted the effects upon views from Saunton Down and other elevated sites to the west. I also acknowledge the high landscape quality of the Incised River Valleys [8.71(ii)]. Where I differ is that I do not conclude (as the 1994 Inspector did in his paragraph 29) that such effects would suffice in themselves to make this development unacceptable. Instead, the various impacts that I have identified need to be weighed against the case for and benefits of this scheme and this I do in the final section of these conclusions." " . . . They reinforce my conclusions that the virtual effects of the two wind farms separately and in combination would cause unacceptable harm to this most attractive local landscape."
"However, while I have reached some conclusions similar to those of the earlier Inspectors regarding the scale of impact, for the reasons given above, the nature of that impact would be quite different. Also, I differ from them in that I do not conclude (as the 1994 Inspector did in paragraphs 39, 43 and 44 of his decision) that the visual impact on any individual property or group of properties would be so great, in itself, as to render this development unacceptable. As I concluded in connection with the landscape impacts [8.106], those effects are, in any case, matters that need to be weighed as part of the overall balance. I carry out that exercise in the final part of these conclusions." "
"My conclusions depart from those reached by the Inspectors who conducted the 1992, 1994 and 2001 appeals. However, the circumstances are very different. Above all, there is a radically different policy base driven by the twin priorities of cutting carbon dioxide emissions and maintaining reliable and competitive energy supplies, implemented through the cascade of targets. I have acknowledged under Topic 2 that the landscape and visual impacts of this development would be considerable, and that, in some respects, they would extend beyond those of the earlier proposed developments. For example, in visual impact terms, more dwellings would be affected. At the same time, however, the benefits would be much greater. Also, there is a much greater public awareness now of the issues surrounding climate change and a greater acceptance of the need for action."
"There would be some distant views of the proposed wind farm possible from the elevated western slopes of the Exmoor National Park and from the Exmoor Fringe Landscape Character Zone. In certain lighting conditions, notably with the sun in the east, or behind them at sunset, the turbines would become more noticeable. Overall, however, given the distance of 10 km the magnitude of change and impact would be low. I reach the same conclusion in respect of views from Codden Hill (Viewpoint 34). [Emphasis as original]" "
"8.99. The other effects would be upon the estuary's setting, in terms of views from the southern side of the Taw estuary, in particular from parts of Barnstaple (as well as from Fremington and Yelland), from the Tarka Trail and from the new Barnstaple bridge. From those places (from wherever there is a view), the turbines would appear as a prominent skyline development that would rise above the northern rim. However, they would be a considerable distance behind the rim and in the closest views (from the Tarka Trail) they would be see 'end on' thereby occupying a relatively short section of the horizontal view. 8.100. Overall, given the distances, I do not consider that the effect upon the estuary setting would be adverse. As essentially 'open' structures, I believe that they are objects that this setting would absorb. While they would rise above the downland backdrop, because of that 'openness' I do not consider that these relatively distant structures would be incompatible with the downland slopes that they would rise up behind. Also, from the point of view of many visitors, at least, those using the Tarka Trail as well as the new road bridge, they would be likely to be seen as new interest features in the landscape." "
" . . . which concerns the setting of the estuary is the ring of higher land that surrounds it. So far as its northern side is concerned, this includes the prominent east-west ridge upon which Heanton Punchardon and Ashford are sited. This 'northern rim' forms a backdrop to views across the estuary from its southern side [4.40]."
"The 1997 report by ETSU [the Energy Technology Support Unit] for the Department of Trade and Industry should be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development", thereby fettering his discretion, and if he did not, whether he gave adequate reasons for rejecting the claimant's criticisms of the methodology in the ETSU report. (2) Whether the defendant should have reopened the inquiry, or alternatively given the claimant the opportunity to make written representations in response to a report by the University of Salford "
"The report, 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms' (ETSU-R-97), describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or planning authorities. The report presents the findings of a cross-interest Noise Working Group and makes a series of recommendations that can be regarded as relevant guidance on good practice. This methodology overcomes some of the disadvantages of BS 4142 when assessing the noise effects of wind farms, and should be used by planning authorities when assessing and rating noise from wind energy developments (PPS22, paragraph 22)."
"4.57. The proper approach for considering noise policies is to look not just at the wording of those policies but also at what underlies them. What is their purpose? The principal parties accept that as well as PPS22, it is appropriate to apply PPG24 on noise and NDLP Policy DVS3 which provides a test of harm to amenities. Policies CO12 and ECN15 are also relevant. 4.58. PPS22 indicates that renewable energy development should be 'located and designed in such a way as to minimise increases in ambient noise levels' and that the ETSU report 'should be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development'. However, the PPS is not prescriptive, in the sense that it regards ETSU as the only assessment document to be used, and nor could it properly do so given that policy is not to be regarded or applied as a statute, that is prescriptively, but having regard to its underlying purpose. 4.59. It is submitted that that purpose is to avoid harm to amenity. On that basis there can be no proper objection to using other standards, such as BS 4142 or the WHO sleep disturbance criteria, as a check on ETSU to ensure that the policy test is fulfilled. That is particularly the case where there are either problems with ETSU, or noise levels are close to or over the ETSU limits. Moreover, the starting point must be the application of development plan policy which, in this instance, seeks to avoid that very harm and against which the language of PPS22 has to be read. It is the Council's case here there is an impact on amenity."
"A fatal blow to NDDC's noise case comes from the decisions at Little Cheney Court and Darracott which confirm, among other things, that Government policy is to use ETSU and that there is no choice of method."
"8.158. PPS22 states at paragraph 22 that 'the 1997 report by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry should be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development'. That report is ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. At the Inquiry, NDDC asserted that that does not preclude the use of other standards, such as BS 4142 or the World Health Organisation (WHO) sleep disturbance criteria to ensure that the policy test -- that of avoiding harm to amenity -- is fulfilled. In my view, however, that test is inherent in the ETSU guidance and I find nothing in PPS22 or in its Companion Guide to indicate that other mechanisms should also be used. 8.159. The Companion Guide to PPS22 includes a section on Recommended Good Practice on Controlling Noise from Wind Turbines which is derived from ETSU-R-97. The preamble to this states that the indicative noise levels given have been calculated 'to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or planning authorities'. My approach will be to test the compliance of this development against the Recommended Good Practice." "
"On the question of night time noise, the 43dBLA90 ETSU standard is predicated on the need to avoid sleep disturbance. While NDDC assert that it does not follow the latest World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance regarding noise levels within bedrooms, the ETSU standard meets the 35dB(A) sleep disturbance criterion set out in PPG24 Noise and it is the current Government advice. The night time graphs indicate that the noise sensitive properties would be able to meet a condition based on the ETSU standard, with some limited use of SRS (or SCADA) in a few instances." "8.181. That leaves Option 2 as a viable possibility in power generation terms, one that the applicants state they 'could live with'. However, while it is an option that the Secretary of State might wish to consider, its use would still be a departure from PPS22 and ETSU-R-97. My belief is that the possible basis for such a departure, a significant likelihood of AM [Aerodynamic Modulation] being encountered, is not there and to impose Option 2 would be to unnecessarily curtail power output from this development [Emphasis added]."
"8.173. The second phenomenon was that of aerodynamic modulation (AM). That this can be an issue emerged from a study by the Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd for the DTI which was into the measurement of low frequency noise. Following an examination of complaints in respect of three wind farms, the study concluded that the causes derived not from low frequency noise, but from the audible modulation of aerodynamic noise, especially at night. 8.174. The Hayes McKenzie report noted at pages 64 and 65 that AM was, in some isolated circumstances, occurring in ways not anticipated by ETSU-R-97. It went on to express the belief that the risk of high levels of aerodynamic modulation was greatest for sites where stable atmospheric conditions occur and tall wind turbines were proposed/operating, or where high levels of wind shear existed at a site. Such conditions were most likely to occur at level sites within the UK, on the eastern side of England for example. At the Inquiry, NDDC's noise witness expressed his belief that a complaint concerning a recently commissioned scheme in Lincolnshire was in part AM related [4.60(i)]. Regarding AM generally, DWP suggested that the cause may be high wind shear factors, which are not anticipated at Fullabrook Down [2.201]. 8.175. The report went on to say (although it did not elaborate upon this) that in hillier terrain, site specific topographical effects might also result in such modulation (page 65). No specific evidence was presented to the Inquiry to suggest that AM might be experienced at Fullabrook Down wind farm. However, given that the causes are not fully understood, the possibility that it might occur cannot be absolutely excluded. 8.176. The Government's response to the findings has been twofold. First, it has asserted that the advice in PPS22 and its Companion Guide that ETSU-R-97 should be used for the assessment and rating of noise from wind farms should continue to be followed. Secondly, it has set up an advisory group to provide a peer review and guidance on the matter of AM. Were it to be decided to reflect AM in the ETSU rating advice, further information would be issued. Thus, while it is possible that ETSU-R-97 might be modified in the future, for the present the Government's firm advice is that it should be followed as it stands."
"Having taken the view that more work was required to determine whether or not AM is an issue which may require attention in the context of the assessment and rating advice in ETSU, the Government commissioned Salford University to conduct further work. The objectives of the study were: • To establish the levels and nature of the reported noise complaints received across the UK relating to noise issues from wind farms, both historic and current, and determine whether AM is a significant effect; • To review and understand the level of knowledge/understanding that exists throughout the world on AM, and whether AM can be predicted. The Salford University study has now been published. The study concluded that although AM cannot be fully predicted, the incidence of AM resulting from wind farms in the UK is low. Out of the 133 wind farms in operation at the time of the study, there were four cases where AM appeared to be a factor. Complaints have subsided for three out of these four sites, in one case as a result of remedial treatment in the form of a wind turbine control system. In the remaining case, which is a recent installation, investigations are ongoing. Based on these findings, Government does not consider there to be a compelling case for further work into AM and will not carry out any further research at this time; however it will continue to keep the issue under review. Government continues to support the approach set out in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 22 -- Renewable Energy. This approach is for local planning authorities to 'ensure that renewable energy developments have been located and designed in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise levels', through the use of the 1997 report by ETSU to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments."
"On1st August 2007 the Department announced the outcome of the study by Salford University into a phenomenon known as Aerodynamic Modulation ('AM'). AM is the audible modulation of aerodynamic noise, ie, aerodynamic noise which displays a greater degree of fluctuation than usual. In some isolated circumstances AM was occurring in ways not anticipated by the 1997 report by ETSU to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments ('ETSU-R-97'). The Salford study concluded that although AM cannot be fully predicted, the incidence of AM resulting from wind farms in the UK is low. Out of the 133 wind farms in operation at the time of the study, there were four cases where AM appeared to be a factor. Complaints have subsided for three out of these four sites, in one case as a result of remedial treatment in the form of a wind turbine control system. In the remaining case, which is a recent installation, investigations are ongoing. Based on these findings the Government does not consider there to be a compelling case for further work into AM and will not carry out any further research at this time: however it will continue to keep the issue under review. The Government therefore continues to support the use of ETSU-R-97 as the means to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments. On that basis the Secretary of State does not consider that a re-opened Public Inquiry should be asked to consider this issue."