1

This guidance provides a framework to ensure that applications for wind turbines across the District are dealt with consistently taking into account local and national policy and guidance. It should be emphasised that the guidance does not create any new policy. It lays out the policy considerations that need to be taken into account and provides additional interpretation where necessary. The guidance applies to all applications for turbines regardless of size and / or number. It should be noted that all existing wind turbine applications should be determined by the Planning and Highways Committee. New applications should also be determined by committee unless officers decide they should be refused. The guidance includes:

A review of national policy and guidance considerations, including the significant changes to national planning policy introduced by the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) published on 18 June 2015. The guidance lays out the critical importance of this WMS and explains how it should be considered when determining applications

A review of local policy considerations

Details of consultation that needs to be carried out with local communities before a planning application can be submitted by the applicant and validated by the Council

Green Belt policy interpretation

An analysis of the key areas of constraint and sensitivity with regard to turbines in the District

Details on the status of targets for renewable energy generation at national and local levels

More detailed interpretation of the provisions of adopted Core Strategy policy CS13: Mitigating & Adapting to Climate Change and Efficient Use of Resources with regard to ‘adverse environmental impact’

A discussion around the average energy output that can be expected from different sizes of turbines because this can be an important consideration when considering the acceptability of a proposal

Advice on how to use national guidance to assess cumulative and visual impacts

Advice on which policies to use to assess any possible impact on strategic and key views

A list of further considerations that should be assessed using national guidance including noise, safety, ecology and heritage

1. Introduction 1.1 Wakefield Council has a number of applications and proposals for wind turbines at various scales across the district. The Development Policies Document states that ‘the Council will support proposals which generate energy from renewable sources, but will expect the proposals to be appropriate and suitable for their location’. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says that Local Planning Authorities ‘should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to

2

energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources’ and that they should ‘have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources’. However it should be noted that the WMS of 18 June 2015 has changed the Governments policy position with regard to onshore wind turbines. Turbines can also have negative environmental impacts on a range of planning considerations such as amenity, heritage and ecology amongst others. When determining applications for wind turbines it is these general issues that have to be considered in the planning balance. In particular great weight needs to be given to the latest national policy in the WMS of 18 June 2015. 1.2 Applications for single turbines tend to be primarily for farm or business energy requirements rather than for commercial energy generation. Smaller scale turbines are generally located on farm land close to settlements. They are often seen in a different landscape context to the large commercial turbines which are generally sited on hills and moorland. There are different siting and design issues, for example small turbines are generally viewed in close conjunction with existing built and natural features and may affect greater numbers of people at close range whilst larger turbines can be seen at greater distance but affect fewer people in terms of proximity to settlements. Growing numbers of applications for smaller turbines comprising of single turbines or groups of two or three are being made. There is an increasingly complex pattern of wind energy development with associated landscape and visual impacts, many applications are coming forward in areas with existing turbines and impacts often cross local authority boundaries. 1.3 This guidance has been produced to provide a framework through which relevant applications can be assessed to ensure that they are all being dealt with in a consistent manner and that the main policy issues are taken into account as the application is determined. Each proposal needs to be judged on its own merits taking into account relevant national and local policies and guidance and other material considerations. Any assessment of these considerations should be proportionate bearing in mind the weight that will need to be attributed to the WMS of 18 June 2015 but is necessary to ensure due process. Planning judgement will then need to be used to reach a conclusion on the acceptability of the proposal. Section 2 of the guidance below discusses the critical importance of the WMS of 18 June 2015. Section 3 onwards then discusses the other main considerations that the case officer will need to consider before taking into account the WMS in the planning balance along with other policies and material considerations and reaching a conclusion on a recommendation. 1.4 Some sizes and types of wind turbines on domestic properties are covered by permitted development rights. This means that they do not need planning permission to be installed. The regulations which lay out these permitted development rights can be found in Appendix 3. 2. Significance of the Written Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015 and its Role in

Determining Relevant Planning Applications 2.1 The WMS on Local Planning issued on 18 June 2015 is a material consideration that carries significant weight when determining planning applications for wind turbines. It should be considered as the latest national planning policy with regard to wind turbine planning applications and considered as supplemental to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Where it is considered that there is a contradiction with policy in the NPPF greater weight should be attributed to the WMS. 2.2 Shortly after publication of the WMS the Government also made a number of consequential changes to National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) to support the policy changes in the WMS. As these changes are designed to enhance understanding of the WMS, where necessary, they are discussed in this section.

3

2.3 The WMS lays out different approaches with regard to new applications received on or after 18 June 2015 and for applications that were received before this date and are still to be determined. Applications received on or after 18 June 2015 2.4 The WMS states that applications for 1 or more wind turbines should only be granted where the site is in an area identified as suitable in a local plan. The WMS and NPPG say such areas ‘will need to have been allocated clearly’. It is assumed this means on a policies map associated with an adopted Local Plan. The WMS goes on to say ‘maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient’. The Council does not allocate areas suitable for wind energy development in any of our local plans or associated policies maps. 2.5 The following guidance has been added to NPPG and states that ‘a planning application should not be approved unless the proposed development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan’. 2.6 As a result any application for wind turbines regardless of number or height, anywhere in the District, is likely to have to be recommended for refusal. 2.7 The WMS also contains a second consideration with regards to ensuring that planning impacts identified by affected local communities are fully addressed. However this consideration is only relevant in Local Planning Authorities that have areas allocated as suitable for wind energy development. In Wakefield’s case there will be no need to consider this as any applications are likely to have to be recommended for refusal due to the lack of designated areas. 2.8 It should be noted that when case officers are considering these applications they will still need to apply Local Plan and NPPF policies and take account of other material considerations such as NPPG and come to a conclusion as to if the proposal is in compliance or not with these policies. This document lays out the main policies and planning issues that should be considered. Only then should they move on to set out consideration of the WMS. Case officers may conclude that, when assessed against Local Plan and NPPF policies only, for example, a proposal could be acceptable but will still need to be recommended for refusal based on policy in the WMS. Case officers may also conclude that a proposal is contrary to local and NPPF policies as well as the policy in the WMS. Applications Received Before 18 June 2015 still to be determined 2.9 The WMS states that in this situation if a LPA does not have suitable areas designated in a local plan, which is the situation in Wakefield, they ‘can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing’. 2.10 In practice this means that the case officer will need to be satisfied that:

1. Meaningful community consultation and engagement has occurred, either as part of the compulsory pre-application consultation that the applicant has to carry out for most turbine proposals (see section 7 below) or as part of an additional consultation carried out by the applicant following submission of the application, which has identified any planning impacts that affected local communities have raised

2. The applicant has considered and satisfactorily addressed these planning impacts and therefore the proposal has the backing of affected local communities

4

2.11 If it is considered that point 1 above has not been carried out satisfactorily this may mean that the decision maker cannot recommend the granting of permission, unless further consultation is undertaken by the applicant that satisfies this requirement. At the very least this should comply with the requirements of the Councils adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Any application would be expected to, at the very least, follow the process laid out in chart 3 of the SCI. 2.12 If it is considered that point 1 has been complied with it is then necessary to determine if any planning impacts identified by the local community have been addressed and the proposal ‘therefore has their backing’. NPPG is clear that ‘whether the proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local planning authority’. If it is considered the planning impacts identified by local communities have been addressed it may be appropriate to recommend granting permission if other aspects of local and national policy (such as those considered elsewhere in this practice guidance) that have not been raised as planning impacts by local communities have been satisfied. If it is considered that planning impacts identified by local communities have not been addressed this means that the proposal does not comply with the transitional provision in the WMS. Case officers should ensure that they assess all relevant considerations and policies when determining such applications before considering all these issues in the planning balance. Bearing in mind the weight that needs to be attributed to the WMS as the latest iteration of national planning policy, this could mean that the only available option for the case officer would be to recommend refusal of the application regardless of if it complies with other local and NPPF policies. 3. Local Policy 3.1 A key strategic theme of the Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy is mitigating and adapting to climate change and resource management and this is reiterated through the other documents that make up the Local Development Framework. 3.2 The following Core Strategy Policies are relevant to determining planning applications for wind turbines:

CS10 is concerned with design quality. The parts of this policy relevant to determining wind turbine applications include its provision to ‘protect and enhance’ heritage assets and conservation areas as well as areas of biological and geological diversity and green infrastructure.

CS12 is clear that the general extent of the green belt in Wakefield will remain unchanged and that land will only be removed from the green belt in exceptional circumstances through the plan making process.

CS13 encourages the development of renewable energy sources to achieve indicative targets, where there is no adverse environmental impact on nearby communities. This policy is discussed in more detail in sections 9 and 10 below.

3.3 The following Development Policies are relevant to determining planning applications for wind turbines:

D4: Only relevant to applications which affect sites designated for biological or geological conservation. The policy lays out the issues that need to be considered when determining such applications.

D8: Lays out that an assessment of the impact of development upon landscape character can be required by the Council. With regard to applications for wind turbines the relevant aspects of the policy are that any assessment should consider the extent of unacceptable visual intrusion from the development and if the proposal would introduce incongruous landscape elements.

5

D9: This policy is concerned with design and is clear that development should respect the character of localities in terms of scale, height, setting, skylines, landmarks and views. It also lays out that development should not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring users or residents.

D14: Lays out considerations with regard to access and highway safety.

D17: Lays out considerations if the proposal affects an archaeological site.

D18: Lays out considerations if the proposal affects an historic location including conservation areas.

D27: The supporting text to this policy lays out the planning issues with regard to renewable energy development with a more detailed discussion around wind.

4. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 4.1 The NPPF lays out the government’s national planning policy. It says that ‘Local Planning Authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change’. The NPPF is an important material consideration and carries significant weight in determining planning applications. However, as stated above, the WMS of 15 June 2015 should be considered as the latest national planning policy with regard to wind turbine planning applications and considered as supplemental to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Where it is considered that there is a contradiction with policy in the NPPF greater weight should be attributed to the WMS. 4.2 National policy is clear that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable energy and associated infrastructure. The following paragraphs in the NPPF are of particular importance with regard to determining planning applications:

Paragraph 91: which makes it clear that renewable energy schemes are inappropriate development in the green belt and as a result very special circumstances will have to be demonstrated if proposals are to proceed. Wider environmental benefits such as increased energy production from renewable sources may constitute very special circumstances.

Paragraph 98: Makes it clear that applicants do not need to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy as part of their application. This paragraph also states that applications should be approved if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable.

4.3 The NPPF also contains important policies with regard to development in the green belt. This is discussed in the green belt section below. 5. Written Ministerial Statement of 6 June 2013 5.1 In June 2013 the government published a WMS on Local Planning and On Shore Wind. The provisions of this WMS have largely been superseded by legislative changes with regard to pre-application consultation discussed in section 7 below and the more recent WMS of 18 July 2015 discussed widely in this guidance. However this WMS did highlight planning considerations that Ministers wanted to be given particular attention:

the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities

decisions should take into account the cumulative impact of wind turbines and properly reflect the increasing impact on (a) the landscape and (b) local amenity as the number of turbines in the area increases

6

local topography should be a factor in assessing whether wind turbines have a damaging impact on the landscape (i.e. recognise that the impact on predominantly flat landscapes can be as great or greater than as on hilly or mountainous ones)

great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting

6. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 6.1 In March 2014 the Government published NPPG. This resource includes a section on renewable & low carbon energy which provides guidance on a range of issues relating both to plan making and determining planning applications. This guidance is a material consideration which can be attributed weight in the decision making process when determining planning applications. 6.2 The NPPG provides much more detail about the issues that need to be considered with regard to wind turbine planning applications. In particular the NPPG lays out the main planning considerations when determining an application for wind turbines and provides guidance as to how these should be considered. This document does not repeat verbatim NPPG guidance on these issues but refers to it where relevant. This document should be read alongside NPPG guidance and, where relevant, considered a local interpretation of how the NPPG should be applied in Wakefield District. 6.3 It should be noted that the Government amended NPPG in June 2015 to reflect changes to national planning policy introduced by the WMS of 18 June 2015. The implications of these amendments are discussed in section 2 of this guidance. 7. Pre-application Consultation 7.1 It is now a legal requirement to undertake pre-application consultation with local communities affected by potential wind turbine developments involving more than 2 turbines or any turbine with a hub height exceeding 15 metres. It is essential that any applicant proposing a development that meets these specifications is informed at the earliest opportunity, when they contact the Council about their scheme, that this is a legal requirement to be carried out before any application can be submitted. It should be made clear, again as early as possible, that the Council will require a Consultation Statement to be submitted as part of any planning application. At the very least this should comply with the requirements of the Councils adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Any application would be expected to, at the very least, follow the process laid out in chart 3 of the SCI. However applicants should be encouraged to undertake more detailed consultation at the pre-application stage. Guidance on best practice in community engagement for onshore wind development has recently been published by the government. It should be noted that this document contains advice for developers, local authorities and affected communities themselves about how to carry out and engage with consultation. Any consultation statement submitted must lay out what type of engagement has occurred, demonstrate this is in compliance with the SCI and, if possible, government guidance on community engagement. The statement should also describe issues raised by the community and how these have been addressed and / or mitigated. It should also explain why some issues cannot be addressed or mitigated if this is the case. 7.2 Any application that is submitted for wind turbines (over the threshold laid out above) that does not include a consultation statement that deals with the matters laid out above should not be validated until one is provided by the applicant.

7

8. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) 8.1 It is important to ascertain before an application is submitted if it needs to include an EIA. National Planning Practice Guidance provides detailed advice on when an EIA is required and the process that should be followed in carrying one out. The Council, working with potential applicants, should ascertain as early as possible if an EIA will be required as part of any planning application. 9. Green Belt 9.1 Most land outside urban areas in the district is in the green belt and, as a result, it is likely that most applications for turbines in Wakefield will be on green belt land. 9.2 The NPPF states that the fundamental aim of green belt policy is keeping land permanently open. It goes on to say ‘the essential characteristics of green belts are their openness and their permanence’. Openness is not defined in policy or guidance but an Inspector recently defined it as ‘the absence of built development’ (Appeal Ref: APP/C3430/D/12/2171319). 9.3 As a result paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the green belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances. The NPPF goes on to say that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the green belt and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 9.4 The NPPF is clear at paragraph 91 that renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development in the green belt. As a result such schemes have to demonstrate very special circumstances in order to gain planning permission. The NPPF goes on to say that ‘wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources’ may amount to very special circumstances. However it should be noted that there is no requirement in national green belt policy to consider the contribution that a proposal could make to the achievement of renewable energy targets as ‘very special circumstances’. 9.5 It is for the applicant to lay out what they consider any ‘very special circumstances’ to be. Relevant applications, however, should submit evidence to justify any ‘very special circumstances’. Simply just stating or listing ‘very special circumstances’ in an application without any evidence to support them is unlikely to be acceptable. For example claims may be presented as part of an application that the provision of additional renewable energy to the national grid amounts to very special circumstances. In this case evidence should be supplied in a report that lays out how much energy is likely to be produced by the proposal and how this will contribute to a meaningful reduction in the need for non-renewable energy. Another possible example that may be put forward as a ‘very special circumstance’ is that energy produced by a turbine will aid the viability or diversification of a business. Again evidence should be presented in such a case in the form of a report laying out what the nature of the business is and what issues are affecting its viability or diversification. The evidence should then demonstrate how the proposal would have a positive impact upon the business in terms of its viability. Evidence will need to be robust and capable of being validated. 9.6 Effectively this means that a balancing exercise has to be undertaken weighing any ‘very special circumstances’ an applicant may put forward against any negative impacts by reason of inappropriateness to the openness of the green belt, and any other harm. The starting point must be, however, that due to its green belt location the proposal is harmful and that substantial weight should be given to this.

8

9.7 It should also be noted that the Appeal Court have recently handed down a judgement which clarifies the meaning of the phrase ‘any other harm’ in paragraph 88. The judgement makes it clear that ‘any other harm’ applies to planning considerations other than those relating specifically to the green belt and that these should be weighed in the planning balance when determining if there are any very special circumstances that justify granting planning permission for a proposal. For wind turbine applications this means issues that have harmful impacts that may not, on their own, justify refusing permission need to be considered in the balance with green belt inappropriateness. These could be from a range of planning considerations such as, for example, biodiversity, heritage or transport. This ‘other harm’ could potentially tip the planning balance to such an extent that it is not possible to demonstrate very special circumstances resulting in an application being refused. 10. Landscape Impact & Areas Sensitive to Wind Turbine Development 10.1 This guidance is accompanied by a series of maps which detail various constraints across the district. The following maps can be found in Appendix 1:

Map 1: Main Areas of Sensitivity The buffer around settlements on this map is only relevant when considering commercial turbines with a height to blade tip of 60 metres or more.

Map 2: Key Infrastructure Safeguarding Areas

Map 3: Green Belt & Environmental Constraints 10.2 These maps should be used to identify if a proposal lies in an area likely to have constraints with regard to wind farm proposals. They provide an indication of constraints that should be subject to particular scrutiny following the guidance in this note and the NPPG. It should be noted that the main employment zones and sites (as identified on the Local Development Framework Policies Map 2012) have been excluded from the settlement boundaries and buffers shown on map 1. However some smaller employment zones and sites may still be included within the settlement boundaries and buffers. In all cases turbines may be acceptable in employment zones and sites if it can be demonstrated that any impacts on relevant planning considerations can be shown to be acceptable or capable of mitigation. 10.3 Areas shown on these maps that are not subject to constraints may be the areas in the district more suitable for wind turbine proposals although such applications will need to be assessed on their own merits taking into account local and national policy and guidance. 11. The Status of Targets for Renewable Energy Generation at the National and Local Level 11.1 Targets for the delivery of renewable energy currently exist in statute at the national level and locally in planning policy (although these have now been achieved). Nationally the Climate Change Act (2008) established the world’s first legally-binding national framework to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050. The Act also introduced a target to reduce emissions by at least 34 per cent by 2020. It should be noted that the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to ‘adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change’ in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act. However there is now no requirement to set local targets for renewable energy generation that should be achieved within specified periods in Local Plan policies. Additionally there is no requirement in the NPPF to approve applications solely in order to achieve national targets, such as those set in the Climate Change Act. 11.2 Locally, targets for renewable energy were included in the Core Strategy, as was required by policy at the time this document was prepared. These were devised based on evidence produced as part of studies carried out during the preparation of the now revoked Yorkshire & Humber Regional

9

Spatial Strategy (RSS). It should be noted that national policy at this time (Planning Policy Statement 22 (2004)) was clear that these targets should be considered as minimums to be achieved which should be reviewed on a regular basis and revised upwards if they were met. These targets are included in policy CS13. This gave indicative targets for Wakefield of 11 megawatts by 2010 and 41 megawatts by 2021. Monitoring evidence indicates these targets have now been achieved. However it should be noted that the local targets were indicative and, as stated above, represented a minimum that was to be achieved not a maximum at which delivery of new renewable energy schemes should be prevented from happening. As a result applications should not be refused simply because the targets set in CS13 have been met. 11.3 To conclude, as a result of the above considerations renewable energy targets should not be used either to justify the approval or refusal of wind turbine applications in the district. These decisions should be made taking into account the other relevant considerations laid out in this guidance note. 12 Core Strategy Policy CS13: Mitigating & Adapting to Climate Change & Efficient Use of Resources: Adverse Environmental Impact 12.1 CS13 states that renewable energy generation sources should be encouraged ‘where there is no adverse environmental impact on nearby communities’. All development has some impact. To refuse an application using this policy the impact has to be adverse. The dictionary defines adverse as ‘harmful’. All applications have different considerations and it is for the decision maker to decide, taking development plan policies, national policy and guidance and other material considerations into account if there is an adverse environmental impact on a nearby community that justifies refusing planning permission. If a proposal is located in the Green Belt it may be appropriate to take account of any adverse environmental impacts in the planning balance as ‘other harm’ with regard to national Green Belt policy. 13 Energy Output 13.1 As part of the balancing exercise it is clear that the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources can be an important consideration. However it is difficult to consider this fully without an understanding of how much energy output the wind turbines in a proposal will be able to achieve. NPPG provides guidance as to how this can be assessed and an indication that this consideration can be useful particularly when a decision is ‘finely balanced’. The information below provides an indication of the average power rating different sizes of turbine can produce:

Table 1: Turbine Size 7 Average Power Rating

Turbine Size Average Power Rating

Very small turbine: ≤ 24 metres to blade tip Around 12 kw

Small turbine: 25 – 59 metres to blade tip Around 0.5 mw

Medium commercial turbine: 60 – 89 metres to blade tip Around 1 mw

Large commercial turbine: 90 – 129 metres to blade tip Around 2.5 mw

Very large turbine: ≥ 130 metres to blade tip 3 mw or more Source: Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Developments in the South Pennines (Julie Martin Associates, January 2010)

10

14 Cumulative Landscape & Visual Impacts 14.1 NPPG defines two different types of cumulative impact:

Cumulative landscape impact

Cumulative visual impact 14.2 NPPG is clear that both these types of cumulative impact need to be considered separately and it provides guidance as to how they can be assessed. When determining applications the Council should use the guidance to assess cumulative impact. This will involve working with applicants to ensure robust evidence is produced as part of any application. Applicants may be asked to provide plans showing cumulative zones of visual influence and plans and photomontages showing existing and consented turbines. The Council may need to provide details of similar applications within an agreed radius of any application and discuss the influence of factors such as topography, visibility of proposals, common routes that are likely to be used through a landscape and key viewpoints in a landscape in order to enable applicants to carry out this task adequately. 14.3 Further guidance on the assessment of cumulative impact can also be found in the report ‘Landscape Guidance for Wind Turbines up to 60 Metres High in the South and West Pennines’ (Julie Martin Associates). 15 Strategic & Key Views 15.1 Strategic & key views are an important element of the distinctiveness of a local area. Policy D9 in the Development Policies document states that ‘proposals shall … respect … key views that contribute to the character and local distinctiveness of the area’. As part of the process of determining applications for wind turbines it is important that the potential impacts on strategic and key views are considered. In particular this should be the case if the proposal may affect views of:

Historic Parks and gardens such as, for example, Bretton Hall and the sculpture park and Nostell Priory and its grounds. Policy D9 should be used when considering impacts on these assets.

The skyline of Wakefield City Centre. The Central Wakefield Area Action Plan lays out strategic views that will be protected at policy CW6 and these are also shown on the accompanying Proposals Map. Any proposals likely to affect these strategic views should be assessed using the provisions of this policy.

16 Other Planning Considerations that Relate to Wind Turbines 16.1 NPPG provides detailed guidance on how a range of impacts should be dealt with when determining planning applications. This guidance should be used for relevant applications. The guidance covers the following considerations:

Noise

The safety of: o Buildings o Power Lines o Air Traffic & Safety – It should be noted that parts of the district do lie in the 30

kilometre buffer zones for both Leeds Bradford and Doncaster Robin Hood Airports. For proposals that lie in these zones the Council will need to consult the Civil Aviation Authority. These zones are shown on map 2 in the appendix.

11

It may also be necessary to consider helipads (for example at Pinderfields hospital or the West Yorkshire Police complex at Carr Gate) and airfields.

o Defence Operations o Radar o Strategic Road Network

Electromagnetic transmissions (i.e. TV, radio and mobile phone transmissions)

Ecology and protected species

Heritage

Shadow flicker & reflected light 16.2 In addition to the considerations above for any proposal that affects the potential route of HS2 and the advisory buffer around it HS2 should be contacted for further information. The potential route for HS2 and the advisory buffer is shown on map 2 in appendix 1. 16.3 It is important, when determining planning applications, that all these potential impacts are considered by the Council. 17 Importance of Conditions on Decommissioning Wind Turbines 17.1 Turbines have a limited life. Conditions should be used to ensure that redundant turbines are removed when no longer in use and that the land is restored to an appropriate use. 18 Conclusion 18.1 This guidance sets out the main planning considerations that need to be taken into account when determining applications for wind turbines. It sets out clearly the critical importance, when recommending a decision, of the WMS of 18 June 2015 which sets out national planning policy regarding onshore turbines and is a significant change from the national policy on this issue set out in the NPPF. It is likely to play a determinative role in the planning balance on all relevant applications from now on.

12

Appendix 1– Constraints Maps These can be found in separate documents on the Wind Turbine Practice Guidance webpage.

13

Appendix 2 – Evidence In recent years various studies on have been produced at the regional level with regard to the capacity for wind energy across Yorkshire & the Humber. These provide useful evidence as to the capacity of Wakefield District for these kinds of technology. The Yorkshire and Humber Sub Regional Renewable Energy Capacity Study (SREAT) concluded that there was limited capacity for commercial wind energy in Wakefield District, and identified Biomass and PV technologies as having the greatest potential. There is potential for 15mw to be generated from wind in the district (a large turbine generates around 2mw). Evidence in the SREAT report concluded that ‘The overall potential for Wakefield to generate renewable energy is lower than for the average LA in the region and this is due mainly to limited opportunities for significant wind developments’. The relatively low wind speed and constraints such as urban areas and landscape mean that small to medium scale wind energy would be most appropriate. SREAT forms part of the evidence base for the LDF Core Strategy and Development Policies document. Volume 3 of the study sets out strategic guidance for the location of wind energy in respect of landscape and biodiversity. The findings are: Southern magnesium Limestone Landscape Character Area (Knottingley, Darrington, Wentbridge, Upton)

Wind energy development would be appropriate in the large scale arable farmland, but should relate to large scale woodlands and away from settlements and areas where a stronger enclosure pattern is more evident.

Development should avoid the locally prominent and diverse escarpment and small-scale valleys and parklands, although it could be sited in areas where these features have been modified and their visual significance diminished by the quarrying industry.

A small to medium scale typology should be adopted, to fit with the scale and pattern of the landscape.

Combined sensitivity score medium. Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield Landscape Character Area (remainder of Wakefield District)

Development should relate to this highly modified, often degraded area.

Development should aim to retain separation between settlements; it should avoid locally distinctive landform variations, areas of fragmented woodlands and river valley habitats and the stretches of relatively unspoilt farmland.

Small to medium scale wind energy development would need to be adopted to relate to the overall scale and settlement pattern of the area. Development would be dependent on the proximity of domestic buildings and the scale of natural and modified landforms.

Small to medium scale development should be associated with former mining activities, although turbines may also increase the prominence of these areas.

Care should be taken not to cause visual confusion when locating turbines close to existing vertical structures.

The potential for cumulative impacts should be carefully considered.

Combined sensitivity score low. The Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Capacity in Yorkshire and Humber study (2011) updated the SREAT study. The study adopted the SREAT methodology for assessing landscape sensitivity for the district. An energy opportunity map for Wakefield District was produced which shows areas where

14

there is a practical viable resource for commercial wind energy. The study concludes there is capacity for 79mw of commercial wind energy in the district. It also concludes there is capacity within the urban areas for an additional 10mw (turbines in employment sites for example). This is over five times higher than the estimate from the previous SREAT capacity study. However, it should be noted that a number of constraints that may affect the size of turbines and the scale of commercial wind development have not been considered in the capacity assessment including Green Belt and designations such as Local Nature Reserves and Local Wildlife Sites. The areas of identified practical viable resource are also limited by settlement patterns and topography, so potential sites within these areas may not necessarily be suitable for wind farms. Practically it is unlikely that a high volume of large commercial wind turbines could or would be developed within the district. However significant numbers of small to medium sized commercial turbines can potentially be accommodated. A further study relevant to the siting of wind turbines is the Wakefield District Landscape Character Assessment (2004). This divides the district into six landscape character zones. These are the Limestone Escarpment, Calder Valley, Northern Coalfield, Went River Basin, South East Coalfield, and South West Coalfield. The Limestone Escarpment is within the Southern Magnesium Limestone and the remainder of the district within the Nottingham, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield National landscape character areas. In terms of wind turbine development the SREAT Study identifies the Southern Magnesium Limestone having medium sensitivity, and the Coalfield as low sensitivity to commercial wind energy development. There will be areas within Wakefield District which are more sensitive however, depending on the scale of development and types of wind turbine proposed.

15

Appendix 3 - Permitted Development Rights for Wind Turbine Development Extract from the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 Class H – installation or alteration etc. of wind turbine on domestic premises Permitted Development H. The installation, alteration or replacement of a microgeneration wind turbine on— (a) a detached dwellinghouse; or (b) a detached building situated within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse or a block of flats. Development not permitted H.1 Development is not permitted by Class H unless the wind turbine complies with the MCS Planning Standards or equivalent standards. H.2 Development is not permitted by Class H if— (a) In the case of the installation of a wind turbine the development would result in the presence of more than 1 wind turbine on the same building or within the curtilage; (b) in the case of the installation of a wind turbine, a stand-alone wind turbine is installed within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse or the block of flats; (c) In the case of the installation of a wind turbine, an air source heat pump is installed on the same building or within its curtilage; (d) The highest part of the wind turbine (including blades) would either—

(i) protrude more than 3 metres above the highest part of the roof (excluding the chimney); or (ii) exceed more than 15 metres in height, whichever is the lesser;

(e) The distance between ground level and the lowest part of any blade of the wind turbine would be less than 5 metres; (f) Any part of the wind turbine (including blades) would be positioned so that it would be within 5 metres of any boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse or the block of flats; (g) The swept area of any blade of the wind turbine would exceed 3.8 square metres; (h) The wind turbine would be installed on safeguarded land; (i) The wind turbine would be installed on a site designated as a scheduled monument; (j) The wind turbine would be installed within the curtilage of a building which is a listed building; (k) In the case of land within a conservation area, the wind turbine would be installed on a wall or roof slope of—

(i) the detached dwellinghouse; or (ii) a building within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse or block of flats, which fronts a highway; or (l) the wind turbine would be installed on article 2(3) land other than land within a conservation area.

Conditions H.3 Development is permitted by Class H subject to the following conditions— (a) The blades of the wind turbine is made of non-reflective materials; (b) The wind turbine is, so far as practicable, sited so as to minimise its effect on the external appearance of the building; (c) The wind turbine is, so far as practicable, sited so as to minimise its effect on the amenity of the area; and

16

(d) The wind turbine is removed as soon as reasonably practicable when no longer needed. Class I – installation or alteration etc. of stand-alone wind turbine on domestic premises Permitted Development I. The installation, alteration or replacement of a stand-alone wind turbine for microgeneration within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse or a block of flats. Development not permitted I.1 Development is not permitted by Class I unless the stand-alone wind turbine complies with the MCS Planning Standards or equivalent standards. I.2 Development is not permitted by Class I if— (a) In the case of the installation of a stand-alone wind turbine, the development would result in the presence of more than 1 stand-alone wind turbine within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse or block of flats; (b) In the case of the installation of a stand-alone wind turbine, a wind turbine is installed on the dwellinghouse or on a building within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse or the block of flats; (c) In the case of the installation of a stand-alone wind turbine, an air source heat pump is installed on the dwellinghouse or block of flats or within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse or block of flats; (d) The highest part of the stand-alone wind turbine would exceed 11.1 metres in height; (e) The distance between ground level and the lowest part of any blade of the stand-alone wind turbine would be less than 5 metres; (f) Any part of the stand-alone wind turbine (including blades) would be located in a position which is less than a distance equivalent to the overall height (including blades) of the stand-alone wind turbine plus 10% of its height when measured from any point along the boundary of the curtilage; (g) The swept area of any blade of the stand-alone wind turbine exceeds 3.8 square metres; (h) The stand-alone wind turbine would be installed on safeguarded land; (i) The stand-alone wind turbine would be installed on a site designated as a scheduled monument; (j) The stand-alone wind turbine would be installed within the curtilage of a building which is a listed building; (k) In the case of land within a conservation area, the stand-alone wind turbine would be installed so that it is nearer to any highway which bounds the curtilage than the part of the dwellinghouse or block of flats which is nearest to that highway; or (l) The stand-alone wind turbine would be installed on article 2(3) land other than land within a conservation area. Conditions I.3 Development is permitted by Class I subject to the following conditions - (a) The blades of the stand-alone wind turbine is made of non-reflective materials; (b) The stand-alone wind turbine is, so far as practicable, sited so as to minimise its effect on the amenity of the area; and (c) The stand-alone wind turbine is removed as soon as reasonably practicable when no longer needed.