Blackstone Edge ES Vol 1 - Text 150 Dpi PDF

Blackstone Edge Wind Farm
Environmental Statement
Volume 1: EIA Assessments
January 2008
Proposed Blackstone
Edge Wind Farm,
Barnsley, South
Yorkshire
Volume 1
Environmental Statement - Final
January 2008
Entec UK Limited
Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice

The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright
owned by Entec ( Entec UK Limited 2008) save to the extent
that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or
is used by Entec under licence. To the extent that we own the
copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our
prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose
indicated in this report.
The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to
you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third
parties without the prior written agreement of Entec. Disclosure of
that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence
or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third
party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any
event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.
Third Party Disclaimer

Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this
disclaimer. The report was prepared by Entec at the instruction of,
and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does
not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to
access it by any means. Entec excludes to the fullest extent
lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage
howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We
do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or
death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter
in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.
Document Revisions
No.
Details
Date
Final
02/10/07
Preface
E.ON UK plc (E.ON) is sourcing an increasing proportion of its electricity supply from
renewable sources, in support of the Government's challenging climate change targets. E.ON
offers the expertise and investment necessary to develop a renewable energy project and
provides benefits to the community including an annual income from the site, educational
materials and energy efficiency advice and products.
The proposed development, called the Blackstone Edge Wind Farm, will comprise of three wind
turbines with rotating blades located in an alignment that corresponds with the prevailing wind
conditions from the south-west. The turbines will have a hub-height of up to 60m and a blade
radius of up to 41m. The turbines will be restricted to a maximum height of 101m from ground
to blade tip. The development is located on cultivated agricultural land. There are no statutory
designations on the site. The Blackstone Edge site lies within upland farmland, within the
Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe, between the moorland of the Peak District and the
settlement/urban fringe areas of Barnsley and Huddersfield and the former coalfield areas to the
north east and south east. Generally the landscape can be described as transitional between the
strong valleys and the pastoral Pennine and High Peak foothills and hill plateaux. The
landscape appears to be remote in character, with scattered farmsteads and hamlets, but towns
are also in close proximity, with long views to the urban areas across the plateaux.
This Environmental Statement and its accompanying Non Technical Summary (included at the
end of the document) has been completed to provide an appraisal of the potential environmental
effects associated with this wind energy development and where necessary the proposed
mitigation measures. The key topics covered in the report are landscape and visual, noise,
ecology, cultural heritage, radar and communications, shadow flicker, socio-economics and
community, public safety and the planning policy context. The report also provides a
background to wind energy in the UK.
E.ON is committed to engaging with the community and all other relevant stakeholders to
develop successful projects. With this in mind a public consultation programme has been
undertaken which has included newsletters and updates to parish councils and local residents, a
public exhibition on 27 and 28 March 2007, the formation of the Blackstone Edge Mailing List,
and a webpage with up-to-date information on the project progress. Other consultees have
included Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, Natural England, English Heritage, the
Environment Agency, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Ministry of Defence,
the Civil Aviation Authority and the operators and regulators of communication links and local
airfields.
The information gathered during the preparation of the Environmental Statement and from the
public exhibition has guided the development design and addresses the local environmental
effects of the proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm.
This Environmental Statement has been prepared for E.ON by Entec UK Ltd, an independent
environmental consultancy. It accompanies the planning application and as such, will allow
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council to fully assess the project.
The Environmental Statement has been placed on deposit at the following addresses and may be
examined by members of the public:h:\projects\ea-210\19000-projects\19569 - blackstone edge\reporting\es\final es\folder for printers\volume 1 - es\es
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
ii
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough

Council
Town Hall
Barnsley
South Yorkshire
S70 2TA
Representations on the Environmental Statement should be made to Keith Pell (Planning

Officer) at the above address.
Copies of the Environmental Statement may also be obtained by writing to E.ON at the
following address:Toby Lee
E.ON,
Westwood Way
Westwood Business Park
Coventry
CV4 8LG
Copies of the Non Technical Summary can be provided Free of Charge, however a discretionary
charge of 148 may be requested for each copy of the full Environmental Statement. Any
requests for further information on the proposed project or information relating to E.ON in
general should be made to Toby Lee at the above address.
Unless otherwise stated, copyright to all diagrams, illustrations and photographs belong solely
to E.ON UK plc and must not be reproduced without written permission. Certain figures are
based upon Ordnance Survey maps, which have been reproduced with the permission of the
Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office.
h:\projects\ea-210\19000-projects\19569 - blackstone edge\reporting\es\final es\folder for printers\volume 1 - es\es

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
iii
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction
1.1
The Proposed Development
1.2
Structure of the Environmental Statement
1.3
The Applicant
Approach to EIA and Project Design
2.1
Introduction
2.2
EIA Methodology
2.3
Application of the EIA process including consultation
2.4
Preparation of Environmental Statement
15
2.5
The Project Team
15
Wind Energy Background
17
3.1
Climate change and finite fuel sources
17
3.2
Renewable energy
17
3.3
Meeting the energy challenge: a White Paper on energy (May

2007)
17
3.4
Climate change targets
18
3.5
Renewable Energy Targets
18
3.6
Renewables obligation
19
3.7
Wind Power
20
3.8
The Global Growth of Wind Power
20
3.9
The Energy Contribution of Wind Power
20
3.10
Technology
21
3.11
The Energy Balance of Wind Turbines
21
3.12
The proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm
22
3.13
References
22
Project Description
23
4.1
Introduction
23
4.2
Specification of wind turbines
23

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
iv
5.
6.
7.
4.3
Site Description
24
4.4
Access from the Public Highway
25
4.5
Site Tracks
25
4.6
The Construction Compound
26
4.7
Turbine Foundations
27
4.8
Climate Monitoring Mast
27
4.9
Site Cable Runs
27
4.10
Grid Connection
27
4.11
Pre Construction Works
28
4.12
Construction Programme and Environmental Management
29
4.13
Construction Traffic
30
4.14
Maintenance and Operation
38
4.15
Decommissioning
39
4.16
References
40
Planning and Renewables Policy Context
41
5.1
Introduction
41
5.2
Planning Policy Guidance and Statements
41
5.3
The Development Plan
42
5.4
Regional Planning Policy
42
5.5
Local Planning Policy
43
5.6
Other Material Considerations
45
Noise
47
6.1
Introduction
47
6.2
Context
47
6.3
Methodology
48
6.4
Description of Baseline Conditions
52
6.5
Mitigation
54
6.6
Assessment of Potential Effects
55
6.7
Summary of Significance Evaluation
62
6.8
References
63
Landscape & Visual Assessment
65
7.1
Introduction
65
7.2
Methodology & General Approach
66

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
8.
9.
7.3
Scope of the Assessment
70
7.4
Planning Policy Context
77
7.5
Project Description & Mitigation, Incorporated in the

Proposed Development
78
7.6
86
7.7
Assessment of Potential Landscape Effects
93
7.8
Assessment of Potential Visual Effects
101
7.9
Cumulative Visual Effects and Assessment
134
7.10
References
139
Ecology
141
8.1
Introduction
141
8.2
Context
141
8.3
Methodology
142
8.4
Description of baseline conditions
147
8.5
Mitigation, offsetting and enhancement measures

incorporated into the proposed development
152
8.6
Assessment of potential effects
152
8.7
Summary of significance evaluation
155
8.8
References
156
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
159
9.1
Introduction
159
9.2
Context
159
9.3
Methodology
161
9.4
167
9.5

171
9.6
172
9.7
190
9.8
References
191
10. Traffic and Transport
193
10.1
Introduction
193
10.2
Context
193
10.3
Methodology
194
10.4
198

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
vi
10.5

201
10.6
202
10.7
206
10.8
References
207
11. Socio-economics
209
11.1
Introduction
209
11.2
Context
209
11.3
Methodology
210
11.4
213
11.5

214
11.6
215
11.7
217
11.8
References
217
12. Hydrology and Hydrogeology
219
12.1
Introduction
219
12.2
Context
219
12.3
Methodology
220
12.4
226
12.5

233
12.6
237
12.7
239
12.8
References
241
13. Shadow Flicker
243
13.1
Introduction
243
13.2
Context
243
13.3
Methodology
243
13.4
245
13.5

248
13.6
248
13.7
249

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
vii
13.8
References
249
14. Infrastructure, Telecommunication, Television,

Aviation, Public Safety
251
14.1
Introduction
251
14.2
Context
251
14.3
Methodology
251
14.4
252
14.5

254
14.6
256
14.7
257
14.8
References
258
15. Summary
259
15.2
259
15.3
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process
259
15.4
General Description of the Existing Environment
260
15.5
Noise and vibration
261
15.6
Landscape and visual
261
15.7
Ecology
264
15.8
Archaeology and cultural heritage
265
15.9
Traffic and transport
265
15.10
Socio-economics
266
15.11
Hydrology and hydrogeology
267
15.12
Shadow Flicker
268
15.13
Telecommunications, Infrastructure, Aviation and Public

Safety
269
15.14
Further Information
269
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 3.1
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
The Blackstone Edge Wind Farm EIA process

Summary of consultation responses
Blackstone Edge Wind Farm EIA project team
South Yorkshire Renewable Energy potential
Traffic Generations
Two-way trips per month
Estimated Maximum Daily Two-way Trips per Construction Month
Predicted maximum credible Percentage Impact (2009)
Noise Monitoring Locations
Summary of Background Noise Levels at Receptors
Repower MM82 Sound Power Levels
One-Third Octave Band Spectra of Repower MM82

final issued.doc
19569
7
10
16
19
35
36
37
38
52
53
57
57
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
viii
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
Table 7.6
Table 7.7
Table 7.8
Table 7.9
Table 7.11
Table 7.12
Table 7.13
Table 8.4
Table 9.1
Table 9.2
Table 9.3
Table 9.4
Table 9.5
Table 9.7
Table 9.8
Table 10.1
Table 10.2
Table 10.3
Table 10.4
Table 10.5
Table 10.6
Table 10.7
Table 11.1
Table 12.1
Table 12.2
Table 12.3
Table 12.4
Table 12.5
Table 12.6
Table 12.7
Table 12.8
Table 12.9
Table 13.1
Table 13.2
Table 13.3
Table 14.1
Table 14.2
Noise Assessment Results - Daytime

Noise Assessment Results - Night-time
Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance
Flow Chart Illustrating the LVIA Process
Key Landscape and Visual Issues
Summary of Viewpoints included in the Visual Assessment
Wind farms Included in the Cumulative Assessment within a 30km Radius
Wind Farms excluded from the Cumulative Assessment
Landscape Design Constraints and Opportunities
Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Summary
Landscape and Visual Design Considerations
Recreational and Tourist Destinations
Summary of Viewpoint Analysis
Visual Assessment of the effect on Receptors within Landscape Character Areas
Visual Assessment of Views from Residential Properties with a Direct Main View of the
Wind Farm
Visual Assessment of Views from Residential Properties with a Potentially Oblique/Partly
Screened View of the Wind Farm
Visual Assessment of Views from Residential Properties with Mostly Screened View of
the Wind Farm
Visual Assessment of Views from Settlements
Visual Assessment of Views from Road Routes
Evaluation of Significance of Visual Effects
Observation effort for Vantage Point bird surveys
Results of breeding bird surveys (cross-reference with Figure 8.4)
Total individual passes of significant or notable non-passerine birds across the study area
during 108 hrs of Vantage Point surveys
Results of bat activity surveys (cross-reference Location with Figure 8.5)
Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policies
Barnsley UDP Policies
Definition of Magnitude Table
Significance Assessment
Features of Cultural Heritage Interest within the Site and 1km Study Area
Assessment of Indirect effects on designated features within 1 km Study Area
Summary of significance of effects
Existing Daily Average Two-way Traffic Flows
Summary of Recorded PIAs (2004-2007)
Predicted daily average two-way traffic flows (2009)
Traffic Capacity of Roads under Assessment
Inherent mitigation table
Mitigation and enhancement measures
Baseline Information Sources
Definitions of Hydrological Policy Importance/Sensitivity
Significance of effects
Average annual rainfall
Compliance of Scout Dyke Stream with water quality objectives (2003-2005)
Private Water Supply Locations
Constraints to development
Shadow Flicker Sensitive Receptors
Windows Used in Shadow Flicker Calculation
Predicted Shadow Flicker events
Consultee responses
Box 4.1
Indicative Construction Programme
Table 7.14
Table 7.15
Table 7.16
Table 7.17
Table 7.19
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3

final issued.doc
19569
58
58
63
67
72
73
76
77
79
84
85
91
102
105
107
110
115
120
123
131
146
148
149
150
160
160
166
167
168
187
190
199
199
200
201
201
203
204
215
221
224
225
226
227
228
231
233
240
246
246
247
252
258
30
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
1.
Introduction
1.1
1.1.1
This Environmental Statement has been prepared on behalf of E.ON UK plc. (the
Applicant) to accompany an application which has been made to Barnsley
Metropolitan Borough Council (the Application) for permission to construct and
operate a wind farm within lands located at Crow Edge, Barnsley, South Yorkshire.
The proposed site location is shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. The installed capacity
of the project would be a maximum of 7 megawatts (MW) depending upon the final
wind turbine selected, though for the purposes of assessment a more conservative
6MW has been assumed (based on three 2MW machines). The Development Site
boundary and wind farm layout is shown in Figure 1.2.
1.1.2
The wind farm proposal is for 3, three-bladed wind turbine generators with a rated
output of approximately 2MW each and associated infrastructure, including:
an anemometry mast;
an operations control building;
underground power cables;
upgraded and new-build access tracks; and
a temporary construction compound.
A detailed project description is provided in Chapter 4.
1.1.3
The project would also involve the construction of a grid connection (see Figure
4.7). The direct and indirect effects of the grid connection are considered in
relevant chapters of this Environmental Statement. The cabling required to connect
the site substation to the local distribution network will be entirely underground
cable therefore this will not require consent under Section 37 of the Electricity Act
1989.
1.1.4
It is proposed that the wind farm would generate electricity over approximately a 24
year period and that within a 25 year period it would be decommissioned. A future
application may be made for further planning permission to extend the duration of
operation at the development site. However for the purposes of this Environmental
Statement it is assumed that decommissioning will occur at the end of the 25 year
lifetime of the wind farm.
1.1.5
Under the terms of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (the EIA Regulations) an
EIA has been carried out to identify and assess the Proposed Developments likely
significant environmental effects and appraise inherent and proposed mitigation
measures. This Environmental Statement contains the findings of this assessment.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
1.2
Structure of the Environmental Statement
1.2.1
The Environmental Statement reports the findings of the EIA assessments and
comprises the following separately bound volumes:
Environmental Statement, Volume 1 (this report): EIA Assessments which
reports the findings of the EIA assessments for all environmental issues;
Environmental Statement, Volume 2: Figures and Visualisations which
presents figures and visualisations that accompany the EIA assessments of
Volume 1;
Environmental Statement, Volume 3: Technical Appendices which contain
technical information to accompany the various assessments of Volume 1; and
Environmental Statement, Non Technical Summary (NTS) which summarises
the key information presented in the Environmental Statement (Volumes 1, 2 and
3) in a non-technical manner.
1.2.2
The Environmental Statement, Volume1: EIA Assessments is structured as follows:

Chapters 1-5 present background information on the project, EIA methodology
and planning policy; and
Chapters 6-14 address all environmental issues and draws on technical
assessments of the potential environmental effects and inherent and proposed
mitigation measures during the proposal design to avoid and/or minimise such
effects.
1.3
The Applicant
1.3.1
The applicant for the proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm is E.ON UK plc, part of
the E.ON Group, the worlds largest investor owned power and gas company, with
nearly 80,000 employees worldwide.
1.3.2
E.ON generates electricity from power plants, including wind farms right across the
country, supplying millions of domestic and business customers with electricity and
gas. Through Central Networks, E.ON owns and maintains the substations, power
lines and cables across central England whilst Energy Services provides customers
with all of the services they need to get connected to energy supplies, to heat their
homes and to understand their energy usage.
1.3.3
E.ON is the only UK generator to have committed to reduce the carbon intensity of
its generation by 10% by 2012, compared with 2005. The companys current
portfolio of operational projects consists of onshore and offshore wind farms, hydropower schemes and biomass-fuelled generation. These include 18 onshore wind
farms, the UKs first offshore wind farm at Blyth, Northumberland, and the UKs
second large scale (60MW) offshore wind farm at Scroby Sands, Norfolk. E.ON
also operates Rheidol Hydro Station, the largest hydro-electric scheme in Wales.
1.3.4
E.ON has recently constructed an 18MW onshore wind farm, Stags Holt in
Cambridgeshire, and the UKs largest dedicated biomass plant at Stevens Croft
(44MW), near Lockerbie. Currently under construction is a 180MW offshore wind

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
3
farm, Robin Rigg located in the Solway Firth The company has also been trialling
the use of co-firing of biomass fuels in its fleet of conventional power stations.
1.3.5
In South Yorkshire, E.ON already operates (as part of a 50/50 joint venture with
Energy Power Resources Limited) the wind farm at Royd Moor which consists of
13 wind turbines.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
2.
Approach to EIA and Project Design
2.1
Introduction
2.1.1
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been carried out on behalf of the
Applicant in order to assist the local planning authority in appraising and
determining the Application.
EIA involves identification, description and
assessment of all the likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed
Development.
2.1.2
This chapter sets out the broad method of approach taken to assess the proposed
Blackstone Edge Wind Farm, this having been in accordance with EIA best practice.
The chapter also describes the evolution of the proposal design with particular
reference to environmental constraints and considerations reflected in the final
design of the proposed development.
2.2
EIA Methodology
Guidance
2.2.1
The preparation and production of this Environmental Statement has been
conducted in accordance with the latest Government Regulations and advice on
good practice comprising:
Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and
Wales) Regulations 1999 (the EIA Regulations);
Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects that require
Environmental Assessment, A Good Practice Guide (Department of the
Environment, 1995); and
Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (Institute of Environmental
Management and Assessment 2004).
Assessment and design approach
2.2.2
In order to minimise any adverse environmental effects, an iterative approach was
taken to the assessment and design of the proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm.
With this type of approach, where potentially adverse effects are identified during
the preliminary assessment process, the design of the proposed development is
modified in order to eliminate, reduce or mitigate these effects as far as is
reasonably practicable or to enhance positive effects wherever practicable. This
approach is considered to be best practice and is preferable to carrying out a one-off
post-design environmental appraisal.
Overriding methodological considerations
2.2.3
While undertaking EIA and preparing ES chapters to present assessments for
specific environmental issues some overriding considerations have been adhered to.
This is reflected in a Glossary of Terms which is provided in Appendix A.
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
6
2.2.4
The term effect or effects has been employed throughout the ES and this equates
to impact or impacts in the context of the EIA regulations. It is considered that
the term effect is relatively value-neutral and may be qualified to specify either
adverse or beneficial outcomes with respect to specific environmental receptors.
2.2.5
All ES chapters, though methodologically specific to the nature and type of issue
being evaluated, adhere to certain generic characteristics. For example a Study
Area (which may or may not be equivalent to the Development Site as defined by
Figure 1.2) is defined as the focus of consideration for each issue-specific EIA as
presented within chapters 6-14 of this Environmental Statement.
2.2.6
The potential effects in context of mitigation inherent in the Proposed

Development is concerned with effects predicted to arise from the Proposed
Development as detailed in Chapter 4, Project Description. These are considered in
respect of the construction, operation and decommissioning phases. A final
evaluation of significance of residual effects i.e. those predicted to arise
assuming all mitigation including mitigation inherent to proposal design and
procedural and construction-related mitigation measures (see below) are applied is
then made.
The EIA Process

2.2.7
Table 2.1 outlines the EIA process. The current stage of the process is shown in
bold.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
7
Table 2.1
The Blackstone Edge Wind Farm EIA process
Site Selection
Project Initiation
Planning Policy Review, Scoping and

Consultation
Identification of Issues
Technical Assessment
Wind Farm Layout Iteration and Design Process
Submission of Planning Application and Environmental Statement
Review of ES by Statutory and other

Consultees
Requirement for Further Information (if any)
Evaluation of ES and Material Considerations

by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Determination
Post Approval Consultation and Monitoring

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
2.3
Application of the EIA process including

consultation
2.3.1
This section describes the work carried out to produce the Blackstone Edge Wind
Farm Environmental Statement including consultation, the technical assessments
carried out and how these have informed the final wind farm layout design and
proposed construction, operation and maintenance procedures and activities.
Site review
2.3.2
The careful review of potential wind farm sites is a crucial aspect of the overall
development process. The applicant uses a phased site development approach
whereby potential wind turbine sites are initially screened through a combination of
site visits and surveys, use of computer-based Geographical Information Systems
(GIS) to identify local/regional/national site designations and constraints, review of
planning policy and through direct consultation with key statutory consultees and
authorities. This screening exercise allows the early identification of key technical,
environmental and planning issues associated with each site which could either rule
it out, or point towards further detailed studies and consultation which need to be
undertaken as part of further phases of work in order to establish whether or not the
site is feasible.
2.3.3
The Blackstone Edge site was originally identified as having potential for a wind
farm in early 2006. This was initiated after E.ON was contacted by the landowner
of the site. Subsequent initial investigations by E.ON considered the feasibility of
the site by applying various site review criteria.
2.3.4
The site was assessed against the following criteria:

land use and context: the existing land use and environmental or planning
designations;
wind resource: the wind resource on the site;
electricity grid: proximity to electricity grid and its likely capacity;
transport infrastructure: proximity to public road infrastructure for construction,
operation & maintenance;
residential amenity: proximity to dwellings and settlements;
landscape and visual capacity: potential effects of wind turbines on landscapes
and visual effects.
2.3.5
On the basis of applying the criteria it was determined that the site showed potential
for a wind farm and warranted further detailed environmental and technical
assessment.
2.3.6
The outcome of E.ONs initial screening and feasibility investigations on the

Blackstone Edge site highlighted that:
Land Use and Context: the site itself and its immediate surroundings had no
statutory planning or environmental designations;

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
9
Wind Resource: there was likely to be a good wind resource potential;
Electrical Connection: there were potential connection options on the Yorkshire
Electricity Distribution (YEDL) electrical grid system proximity to electricity
grid and its likely capacity;
Transport Infrastructure: proximity to public road infrastructure for construction,
operation and maintenance was good;
Residential Amenity: the site was of reasonable distance (at least 600m) from the
nearest residential dwellings; and.
Military and Aviation Constraints: potential effect of wind turbines on military
and aviation function was not likely to present a constraint.
2.3.7
Further details on the above site review process are provided in the Blackstone Edge
Wind Farm Design & Access Statement.
2.3.8
The outcome of the site review process for Blackstone Edge is illustrated in Figure
2.1.
2.3.9
A constraints map was developed and used to determine the most appropriate
location for each of the turbines. This is provided in Figure 2.2.
2.3.10
E.ON continues to develop other proposed wind turbine sites throughout the UK.
Scoping and consultation

2.3.11 Scoping was undertaken through a combination of informal consultation
discussions, formal scoping meetings and a formal scoping opinion request.
2.3.12
A Scoping Report was submitted on 03 November 2006 with a request for a formal
Scoping Opinion from Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council. The aim of this
was to identify key issues of potential concern in a structured manner and to agree
scope of assessment and methodologies to be adopted in an EIA.
2.3.13
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council issued a formal Scoping Opinion on 11

December 2006 (presented in full in Appendix B). A further scoping meeting was
held on 13 March 2007 between the Applicant and a planning officer from Barnsley
Metropolitan Borough Council. The meeting served in particular to discuss the
design evolution of the development and the scope and methodology of the
landscape and visual assessment. Further meetings between E.ON, Entec and
Barnsley MBC on May 15th and June 12th were held to discuss cumulative effects
and the development of the wider area, see Comprehensive development of the
area below.
2.3.14
A wide range of statutory and non-statutory organisations were consulted prior to

and after submission of the Scoping Report in order to gain agreement from all key
parties regarding the proposed EIA methodology and to invite comments on
relevant environmental information. Brief summaries of the responses received are
presented in Table 2.2.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
10
Table 2.2
Consultee
Date (s)
Consulted
Date (s)
Responded
Response
Arqiva
20/12/2005
22/12/2005 (by
email)
Arqiva had no objections to the proposed

development.
BBC
31/01/2006
31/01/2006 (by
email)
The development is likely to have a potential impact

for 227 houses for whom there is no alternative off
air service. An additional 24 homes may also be
affected for whom there may be alternative off air
services.
BT
20/12/2005
21/12/2005
BT raised no objections.
CAA
30/11/2005
21/12/2005 (by
letter)
The CAA had no objections.
Cable & Wireless
20/12/2005
04/01/2006
Cable & Wireless had no objections to the proposed

development.
CSS Spectrum
20/12/2005
11/04/2006
CSS Spectrum raised no objections to the proposal.
English Heritage
20/12/2005
14/06/2006 (by
letter)
English Heritage identified the proposed

developments potential impact on listed buildings at
Upper and Lower Maythorn as a matter of concern.
English Nature (now

Natural England)
20/12/2005
26/01/2006 (by
letter)
English Nature mentioned the Coalfield Heath

Project that aims to restore heathland habitats and
the potential to promote it in association with the
development. English Nature also highlighted their
concern regarding the possible impact on protected
species.
Environment Agency
06/11/2006
11/12/2006
A drainage assessment is suggested to determine

possible flood risk from increased run off during
construction and from road services and other hard
standing.
JRC
20/12/2005
19/01/2006 by
email)
The proposal is unlikely to affect the link, but if the

turbines move more than 200 metres from the initial
layout, JRC will need to be informed.
Barnsley Council
Planning
01/09/2006
01/09/2006
Meeting with John Martin on 01/09/2006.
06/11/2006
11/12/2006 (by
letter)
Additional comments and a request for more

information regarding TV reception, more detail on
light flicker and two further viewpoint locations.
13/03/07
13/03/07
Scoping meeting. Barnsley MBC requested that

earlier decommissioning of Royd Moor is
investigated (i.e. earlier than 2018) and design
issues related to any future proposals, such as the
replacement of Royd Moor, are also considered.
15/05/07
15/05/07
Follow-up meeting to that held on 13/03/07.
Barnsley Council Drainage Officer
06/11/2006
11/12/2006
Identifies that there is a water body on site which has

a significant environmental impact and mitigation
measures should be fully addressed in any formal
application.
Barnsley Council
Landscape Team
06/11/2006
11/12/2006
Highlights some confusion of the terminology used in

Table 1 regarding Scope of Assessment and
Scoped Out.
Ministry of Defence
30/11/2005
30/3/2006 (by
letter)
The MoD had no concerns with the proposal (3

turbines, 122 metres to blade tip) but any changes
would require them to be notified.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
11
Table 2.2 (continued)
Consultee
Date (s)
Consulted
Date (s)
Responded
Response
National Grid Wireless
20/12/2005
21/12/2005 (by
email)
The proposed site falls in an area for which Arqiva

has responsibility.
NATS
30/11/2005
01/05/2007
Pre planning assessment identified a detrimental

effect on the performance of Claxby radar.
A study undertaken by Pager Power Ltd concluded
there is a low risk of NATS/NERL objecting to the
proposal. The Pager Power Study is provided in
Appendix E.
Natural England
06/11/2006
11/12/2006
The EIA should identify impacts on the PRoW

network in the area and consider opportunities for
furthering access. The EIA should also consider
increasing biodiversity and repairing the
fragmentation of heathland in the area.
Ofcom
20/12/2005
31/12/2005 (by
email)
Ofcom responded with a letter identifying a BT link

that may be affected by the proposal.
Orange
20/12/2005
19/01/2006 (by
email)
Orange had no objections.
RSPB
20/12/2005
18/04/2006 (by
email)
As a rule, RSPB do not formally reply unless they

have specific concerns.
T Mobile
20/12/2005
04/01/2006 (by
email)
T Mobile had no objections.
YEDL
20/03/2006
03/02/2007 (by
email)
Estimated works: 1 km extension of existing 11 kV

line to Hazlehead substation.
YEDL
10/04/2007
19/04/2007 (by
email)
Advised it would be best to assume that the cables

will be laid within/along existing roads.
Public consultation
2.3.15 In addition to the consultation process described above, E.ON has also undertaken a
programme of public consultation. The following activities have been carried out to
date and Appendix G provides copies of various information used during the public
consultation exercise, including newsletters and completed public exhibition
comments forms.
Between November 2006 and July 2007 various information and update letters
have been sent to the following parish and town councils within 3km of the
proposal: Dunford, Penistone, Gunthwaite and Ingbirchworth, Holme Valley,
Denby Dale.
The Blackstone Edge webpage has been established in December 2006,
www.eon-uk.com/generation/blackstoneedge.aspx.
An introductory newsletter for local residents was made available in December
2006 at the Wind Mill Caf at Royd Moor Wind Farm.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
12
An update newsletter was distributed in February 2007 to 3173 households1
within 5km of the proposal inviting local people to join the Blackstone Edge
Mailing List, to express their views on the proposal and to share their ideas on
community benefits. To date over 40 people have joined the Mailing List and
have provided useful feedback on the project.
The public exhibition was advertised in March 2007 via: circulation of postcards
to the parish/town councils referred to above and local residents, an advert in a
local newspaper, posters in selected locations and a press release advertising the
public exhibition.
The public exhibition was held at Crow Edge Community Centre on 27th and 28th
March 2007. The exhibition was attended by more than 110 people. Public
attitude towards the proposed development was considered to be favourable
overall. Details of attendees comments can be found in Appendix G.
Update emails and letters have been provided between February and July 2007 to
those people registered on the Blackstone Edge Mailing List.
Identification of issues
2.3.16 In the light of the consultation responses received, the following issues have been
technically assessed in this EIA:
noise and vibration;
landscape and visual;
ecology;
archaeology and cultural heritage;
traffic and transport;
socio-economics;
hydrology, hydrogeology and land quality;
shadow flicker; and
infrastructure, telecommunications, television, aviation and public safety.
Technical assessments
2.3.17 Following the identification of the issues to be addressed in the EIA, technical
assessments were carried out in order firstly, to inform the layout and design of the
wind farm to minimise environmental effects, secondly, to inform the final proposal
design so as to incorporate inherent mitigation and finally to predict and evaluate
the likely significant effects associated with the final proposed development. The
findings of these assessments are presented within Chapters 6-14 of this
Except households of Denby Dale, Shepley and those registered on the mail preference service (Denby Dale and Shepley were
excluded because the development has limited visual influence on these areas).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
13
Environmental Statement. As far as practicable within each assessment chapter, a
systematic approach has been followed, the principal stages of which are:
Context: This provides a pen-picture of each environmental topic as relevant
to the proposed development, including the site context, policy context and
legislative context. The detailed baseline relating to receptors and resources that
could be significantly affected by the proposed development is set out in a later
section.
Methodology: This summarises the proposed scope of the assessment,
methodology for collection of baseline information (this describes the data
gathering and survey work that was undertaken to inform the assessment and any
consultation that was carried out), and assessment and evaluation methodologies
(this sets out the assessment methodology used to assess effects on receptors and
the criteria or standards that have been used to determine the significance of
effects).
Description of baseline conditions: This provides information on existing
environmental conditions relevant to the topic, receptors that might be affected
by the development and any predicted changes in baseline conditions. In some
cases, there may be limitations to the data that are used in the assessment. These
are described in this section.
Mitigation, offsetting and enhancement measures incorporated into the
proposed development: Consideration of potential effects likely to arise from a
wind farm development on site is made in light of inherent mitigation
incorporated within the proposed development both in terms of proposal design
and proposal best practice related to construction, operation or maintenance
activities and procedures. These mitigation and design measures are discussed in
this section.
Assessment of potential effects: The results of the detailed assessment are
described, reflecting any mitigation measures that have been incorporated into
the proposed development. Consideration is also made of potential cumulative
effects of the proposed wind farm together with other existing and consented
wind farms as well as those proposals currently submitted as planning
applications. An appraisal of the effectiveness of inherent mitigation pertinent to
the technical subject in question is then made. For some receptors, there is a
need to consider the effects of different development-related activities and their
associated environmental changes (e.g. the effects on a bird species of habitat
loss, construction noise and operational noise). Each change is characterised, for
example with reference to its duration, extent, magnitude and reversibility, and
confidence in its prediction. Based on this analysis, a conclusion is drawn about
how each change is expected to affect the receptor in question. Information
about the effects of all the environmental changes is then drawn together and a
conclusion reached about the overall effect, the significance of which is then
evaluated using the evaluation criteria that have already been described. A
conclusion is then reached as to whether the effect is significant or not
significant.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
14
Summary of significance evaluation: This section summarises (in tabular form)
information about predicted effects and their significance.
Wind farm layout iteration and design process
2.3.18 The factors described below were used in combination with the constraints plan (see
Figure 2.2) to establish the design of the wind farm.
toppling distance from roads;
oversailing distance from the site boundary;
distances between wind turbines (to minimise the turbulent interaction between
wind turbines (wake effect);
relevant planning policies;
public consultations;
noise constraints; and
landscape and visual constraints and opportunities.
2.3.19
Further information on the design influences is provided in the Blackstone Edge

Wind Farm Design and Access Statement.
2.3.20
Initial technical analysis of the site using the constraints plan and other factors listed
above indicated capacity for 3 turbines. The heights, numbers and locations of the
turbines were then assessed in relation to noise and also in terms of landscape and
visual composition.
2.3.21
Minor changes were made to the initial locations of the wind turbines in order to
improve the separation distances between the turbines, and these were subject to
further noise and landscape & visual assessments.
2.3.22
The final proposed location of the turbines, access tracks and other site
infrastructure, in relation to the identified environmental constraints is shown in
Figure 1.2.
Comprehensive development of the area

2.3.23 The Blackstone Edge Wind Farm is approximately 700m north west of the existing
Royd Moor wind turbines (see Figure 7.40). During meetings held between E.ON,
Entec and Barnsley MBC on 13th March, 15th May and 12th June 2007, Barnsley
MBC requested that consideration be given to the timing of decommissioning Royd
Moor. This request was on the basis that potential adverse cumulative effects of the
proposed scheme with Royd Moor could be reduced by minimising the overlap
between their operational phases. Additionally, Barnsley MBC requested that
consideration be given to any potential plans for the re-powering of Royd Moor and
the implications that this might have on the area if the Blackstone Edge proposal is
consented.
2.3.24
Although outside the remit of the assessment presented in this ES, this section seeks
to provide a summary of the decommissioning issues associated with Royd Moor

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
15
and the design guidelines that are recommended to be adopted if Royd Moor is
replaced.
2.3.25
E.ON operates a 50:50 Joint Venture of the Royd Moor site and at this stage cannot
confirm a decommissioning date, though, in accordance with the planning
permission for Royd Moor, it can be said that the site will be decommissioned at the
latest by 2018. As a maximum therefore, there will be an 8 year overlap between
the proposed Blackstone Edge scheme and the existing Royd Moor wind turbines
(this is based on the assumption that Blackstone Edge will be consented and built by
2010). The potential for cumulative landscape and visual effects was recognised
during the scheme design process and has considered both the Royd Moor site as
well as the now consented but not yet built Hazlehead scheme, in developing what
is considered to be a complementary and acceptable design. The cumulative
landscape and visual effects are considered in detail in chapter 7 of this assessment.
2.3.26
In terms of opportunities for re-powering the turbines at Royd Moor, since the
turbines were built technology has progressed and these advances mean that fewer,
more powerful wind turbines would be preferred. Whilst modern wind turbines are
almost twice the size of the Royd Moor wind turbines they can generate up to five
times more electricity. Additionally, design guidelines have changed and as such it
is considered by E.ON that it would not be possible to locate modern wind turbines
in exactly the same positions as the old ones (modern wind turbines, inter alia,
require greater distances from properties, greater separation between individual
turbines and also greater distances from roads). In summary, E.ON consider that
there is no scope to re-power Royd Moor in its existing scale and layout.
2.3.27
In terms of any potential future proposal for wind turbines in the Royd Moor area, it
is considered by E.ON that any proposals could be effectively coordinated with the
Blackstone Edge and Hazlehead schemes in order to minimise potential adverse
cumulative effects and, to effectively provide a one wind farm design solution.
2.4
2.4.1
This Environmental Statement has been prepared to accompany an Application to

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, for permission to erect and operate the
wind farm at Blackstone Edge, under the terms of the EIA Regulations.
2.4.2
The provision of environmental information through an Environmental Statement

involves the compilation, evaluation, and presentation of all the likely significant
environmental effects of the proposed development. This, together with post
application consultation responses from statutory consultees and the public, assists
the local planning authority in considering and determining an Application for the
proposed development.
2.5
The Project Team
2.5.1
A number of consultancies have carried out the EIA of the proposed development.
The project was managed by Entec UK, who also undertook preparation of ES
chapter figures and collation and production of ES documents. The Applicant coauthored front end chapters. The team of consultants involved in the EIA are listed
in Table 2.3.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
16
Table 2.3
Blackstone Edge Wind Farm EIA project team
Chapter and/or Activity
Consultants
Overall ES Coordination and Project Management
Entec UK Limited
Introduction, Approach to EIA and Project Design, Wind Energy Background and Project
Description
Entec UK Ltd. and E.ON UK plc
Planning and Renewables Policy Context, Landscape and Visual, Noise and Vibration,
Hydrology Hydrogeology and Land Quality, Infrastructure Telecommunication Television
Aviation and Public Safety, Traffic and Transport, Socio-Economics and Shadow Flicker
Chapters
Entec UK Limited
Ecology Chapter
Bureau Veritas HS&E Ltd
Figures and Visualisations
Entec UK Limited and Bureau

Veritas HS&E Ltd
ES Collation, Formatting, Printing, Binding and Delivery
Entec UK Limited

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
17
3.
Wind Energy Background
3.1
Climate change and finite fuel sources
3.1.1
Climate change (global warming) is a recognised phenomenon caused by an

increase in carbon dioxide gas levels in the earths atmosphere.
The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of United Nations
scientists which is studying the effects of global warming, reports current
atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 379 parts-per-million. This is reaching a level
not seen for 55 million years and is continuing to increase at a rate of 3ppm a year.
3.1.2
A large proportion of the increased carbon release is due to the burning of

traditional fuels such as coal and oil (fossil fuels containing carbon). This increase
in the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere in turn affects the way the earth retains
heat and the worlds leading environmental scientists believe this is leading to an
increase in the average temperature of the earth which in turn is causing climate
change. The recently published Stern Report commissioned by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer underlines the increasing urgency with which society views climate
change, even in economic terms.
3.1.3
In addition, concerns currently exist about the long-term viability of using fossil
fuels to generate energy, due to the finite nature of the fuel resource and the growing
need to import fuels from overseas. There are also concerns that too heavy a
reliance on imported fuels could threaten the UKs security of supply even in the
relatively short-term future, due to political instability and terrorism.
3.2
Renewable energy
3.2.1
Renewable energy sources (such as wind, solar, hydro and tidal power) do not rely
on finite sources available from the earths reserves, but instead seek to harness
continually replenished energy provided by the forces of nature. Using renewable
energy to generate electricity does not create or release carbon dioxide or other air
pollutants, and therefore does not contribute to climate change or local air pollution.
Wind power does not deplete reserves of oil, gas or other fuels, and therefore offers
a contribution to a secure, long-term energy supply.
3.3
Meeting the energy challenge: a White Paper on

energy (May 2007)
3.3.1
The Energy White Paper sets out a framework for action to address the challenges
facing the country in relation to climate change, cutting greenhouse gas emissions and
the need to ensure secure energy supplies.
3.3.2
Part of the framework includes an aim to ensure large scale energy investments and
that companies have a wide range of low carbon options available to retain a diverse
energy mix and to ensure security of supply. This is cited as the reason for
strengthening the Governments support for renewable electricity whilst reforms are

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
18
proposed to the planning system to ensure that planning applications are handled in a
more efficient way for both developers and the public.
3.3.3
The White Paper reiterates previous commitments made in the 2003 Energy White
Paper and Planning Policy Statement 22 on Renewable Energy and the importance of
renewable generation and the supporting infrastructure. It is stated that renewable
energy as a source of low carbon, indigenous electricity is central to reducing
emissions and maintaining the reliability of energy supplies when indigenous reserves
of fossil fuels are declining more rapidly than expected.
3.4
Climate change targets
3.4.1
The following international and UK targets have been set for reductions in carbon
dioxide emissions:
The Kyoto Protocol2: an international agreement, resulting in a legally binding
target to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) by
12.5% relative to 1990 levels over the period 2008 to 2012.
The UK Government has set a target to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20%
below 1990 levels by 2010.
In the recent Energy White Paper, the UK Government set a target of a 60%
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 20503.
3.4.2
In order to outline a means to achieve these targets, the UK Government launched

the UK Climate Change Programme in November 2000. This programme aims to
encourage the use of new and more efficient sources of power generation, including
renewable energy, with a target of 10% of all UK electricity being provided from
renewable sources by 2010. The most recent figures show that by 2006 this figure
was around 4% 4, indicating that significant further development in renewable
energy sources is needed to meet this target.
3.5
Renewable Energy Targets
3.5.1
In December 2004 the Government Office for Yorkshire and Humber (GOYH) and
the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly (Y&HA) published a report by AEA
Technology titled Planning for Renewable Energy Targets in Yorkshire and
Humber. The study was undertaken to assist the GOYH and the Y&HA develop
the regional and sub regional renewable energy targets set out in the revised draft
Regional Planning Guidance 12 and to propose how these might be met through the
potential at local authority district level.
3.5.2
The following is adapted from Table 6 of the AEAT report to show the South
Yorkshire renewable potential for 2010 and the regional total.
Kyoto Protocol, Third Conference of the Parties (CoP-3) to the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), Japan, 1997.
UK Government, White Paper: Our energy future creating a low carbon economy, February 2003.
DTI, Meeting the Energy Challenge a white paper on energy, May 2007

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
19
Table 3.1
South Yorkshire Renewable Energy potential
Sub Region
LA
Wind
South Yorkshire
Barnsley
15
Doncaster
10
Rotherham
10
Sheffield
10
Total
45
Regional Total
341
3.5.3
Biomass
14
Co-Firing
100
Hydro
PV
Total
0.42
15.4
0.15
0.49
10.6
0.1
0.51
10.6
0.6
10.6
0.25
47
708
The Yorkshire and Humber Region has these proposed targets reflected in the
emerging Regional Spatial Strategy titled the Yorkshire and Humber Plan (January
2006) that under the provisions of Policy ENV5 sets a target of 708MW of
renewables capacity to be installed in the region by 2010. The sub regional target for
South Yorkshire is also set within the emerging RSS of 47MW also by 2010. In
addition Policy YH2 seeks to help meet the Regions targets to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 and 25 % below 1990 levels by
2015, Measures to achieve this include increasing renewable energy capacity.
The Yorkshire and Humber Plan - Draft Revised RSS Incorporating Secretary of State
Proposed Changes For public Consultation 2007.
3.5.4 The Yorkshire and Humber Assembly published the draft Yorkshire and Humber
Plan for consultation in January 2006. An independent Panel held an Examination in
Public about the draft Plan in September and October 2006, and their report setting
out recommendations to change the draft Plan was published in May 2007. The
Secretary of State has now considered the Panel report and is publishing Proposed
Changes to the draft Plan for further consultation.
3.5.5
As agreed at the Examination in Public the targets set out in the original draft RSS as
detailed in 3.5.3 are acceptable and have not been the subject of any changes as a
result of the scrutiny undertaken to date.
3.6
Renewables obligation
3.6.1
To implement their strategies, the UK Government has placed an obligation on all

licensed electricity suppliers to provide an increasing proportion of their electricity
from renewable sources. The Renewables Obligation places an obligation on all
UK electricity suppliers to provide 6.7% of their electricity from renewables during
the current compliance period, rising to 10.4% by 2010 and 15.4% by 2015.
3.6.2
Under the Renewables Obligation, large-scale hydro and non-biodegradable wastes

are not included in the definition of renewable energy.
3.6.3
The Proposed Development would contribute to the required increase in the

provision of renewable energy by supplying renewable energy to electricity
suppliers and their customers.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
20
3.7
Wind Power
3.7.1
Wind energy is one of the best placed technologies available to meet the UK
renewable targets. The UK is the windiest country in Europe, with over 40% of the
available resource5, and improvements in technology have resulted in the cost of
wind power falling to close to those of conventional sources of electricity.
3.7.2
National planning policy supports an increase in renewable energy developments.

PPS22 acknowledges that much of the new capacity needed by electricity suppliers
to meet the Renewables Obligation would come from wind farms.
3.7.3
Wind energy technology is highly developed and at present is the most mature and
cost effective of all the renewable energy technologies. Wind energy can already
compete with the price of conventionally generated electricity sources. This is set to
become even more apparent as the external, environmental costs of energy
generated from fossil fuel are reflected into the financial costs by the introduction of
legislation such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Over the next
decade, it is hoped that alternative renewable energy sources (such as wave and tidal
power) will also provide a significant proportion of the UKs energy supply.
3.8
The Global Growth of Wind Power
3.8.1
Global wind electricity-generating capacity increased by 24 percent in 2005 to

59,100 megawatts. This represents a twelve fold increase from a decade ago, when
world wind-generating capacity stood at less than 5,000 megawatts. Wind is the
worlds fastest-growing energy source with an average annual growth rate of 29
percent over the last ten years. In contrast, over the same time period, coal use has
grown by 2.5 percent per year, nuclear power by 1.8 percent, natural gas by 2.5
percent, and oil by 1.7 percent6.
3.9
The Energy Contribution of Wind Power
3.9.1
The latest figures published by the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) show
that there are currently 156 wind farm projects with a total of 1902 turbines
producing 2298.545 megawatts of electricity which is enough to power
1,285,229homes.7
3.9.2
In the UK wind environment a wind turbine will commonly produce power for 7085% of the year.8 Over the course of a year, a typical wind farm will generate about
30% of its theoretical maximum, its capacity or load factor, but this rises to
over 40% at windy sites in the north of Scotland. It should be noted that no energy
generator works all the time and more conventional sources such as coal fired or
nuclear plant (both 65-85% of capacity) do not achieve 100% load factors.
www.bwea.com
Earth Policy Institute (www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Wind/2006.htm)
British Wind Energy Association
Wind Power in the UK Sustainable Development Commission, May 2005

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
21
3.9.3
Wind turbines produce power over a wide range of wind speeds. They start at
between 3 and 4 m/s and produce power through to 25 m/s (55 mph/gale force 9)
when they shut down to protect the turbine from damage.
3.10 Technology
3.10.1
As the market for wind energy has grown over the last 10 years, so wind turbine
technology has developed. Turbines have grown both physically and in their
generating capacity. The advantage in using larger wind turbines for electricity
generation has been long known, as acknowledged in PPG22 Planning for
Renewable Energy, Annex on Wind Energy, paragraph 18:
The area swept by the rotor increases with the square of the rotor
diameter, so a machine with a 15 metre diameter rotor will produce only a
quarter of the power of a machine with a 30 metre diameter rotor.
3.10.2
The trend in using larger wind turbines in wind energy projects is particularly
apparent in Northern Europe, where wind speeds are generally lower and larger
machines can more effectively generate at an economically viable cost. Developers
increasingly tend to favour smaller numbers of larger wind turbines in order to
generate a given quantity of wind-sourced electricity.
3.10.3
In the UK context, in September 2000, the 6.5 MW Lambrigg Wind Farm in South
Cumbria was commissioned. This project consists of 5 x 1.3MW wind turbines, and
was the first wind farm in the UK to use wind turbines of greater than 1 MW
capacity. Since then, wind turbines with a capacity in excess of 1 MW have been
installed at a number of locations across the UK. In 2002, a single 2.75 MW turbine
was installed on Orkney, and in 2003-2004, these same turbines were installed at
three wind farms in County Durham (Hare Hill, High Volts and Holmside which are
all E.ON sites). The use of turbines with a capacity in excess of 2 MW is now
becoming an industry norm.
3.10.4
Despite these significant advances in turbine capacity, the height (to blade tip) of a 2
2.75 MW turbine as compared to a 1 MW turbine has only increased by
approximately 33%. It should be noted that turbine manufacturers are now focusing
production on turbines of 2MW capacity or more and it is therefore becoming
increasingly difficult to find and procure turbines of lesser capacity.
3.11 The Energy Balance of Wind Turbines

3.11.1
Wind turbines, in common with all energy generators, are responsible for some
embodied greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the energy used in their
manufacture (including extraction of raw materials), construction, operation and
decommissioning. Most studies suggest that wind turbines achieve an energy
balance, i.e. a turbine generating as much energy as was used in this life cycle,
within three to ten months following installation.9
9 Wind Power in the UK Sustainable Development Commission, May 2005

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
22
3.12 The proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm

3.12.1
The proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm would comprise of the installation and
operation of a cluster of three wind turbines, each with an assumed rating of 2MW.
The output from three such turbines could generate enough energy to power up to
3,355 homes10 . Using an assumption that electricity from wind power would offset
that produced in the UK using the current generation mix, this would see a reduction
in emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) of around 6,780 tonnes11
per year. Such savings in emissions may change depending on the generating mix.
In addition the operation of the scheme would reduce the emissions of the gases
sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which contribute to the production of acid rain.
The outcome of the procurement process may see turbines of slightly larger power
output secured, in which case the benefits described above would increase. Further
details on the benefits of the scheme in relation to climate change and greenhouse
gas emissions are provided in the accompanying Planning Statement.
3.13 References
Department of Trade and Industry, Energy White Paper: Our energy future
creating a low carbon economy, 2003
Department of Trade and Industry, Renewable Energy Advisory Group: Report
to the President of the Board of Trade, 1992
Planning Policy Guidance Note 22: Renewable Energy (PPG22), 1993
British Wind Energy
(www.bwea.com/ref/faq)
Association
Frequently
asked
questions
Earth Policy Institute Global wind power expands in 2006 (www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Wind/2006.htm)
10
Based on 30% load factor and average annual domestic usage of 4.7MWh/year (Digest of UK
Energy Statistics, 2004).
11
Grid electricity converting factor of 430Kg CO2/MWh (DEFRA).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
23
4.
Project Description
4.1
Introduction
4.1.1
This chapter describes the project and outlines the site design and activities
associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind farm.
It includes details of the construction programme and technical information on the
turbines and the associated infrastructure.
4.1.2
Wind turbines are designed to convert the kinetic energy of the wind into electrical
energy. Air passing over the blades of a wind turbine causes them to rotate. This
low speed rotational motion is converted into electrical energy at a voltage of
typically 690V by a generator located inside the nacelle and is then converted to a
higher voltage (typically 11 or 33 kV) by a unit transformer located at the base of
the turbine. Underground cables link the turbine unit transformers to a dedicated
substation on the site where the electricity generated by the wind project is metered,
and if necessary transformed to the same voltage as the electricity grid system to
which the wind project will be connected. The substation control building is
connected to a substation on the national electricity grid, in this case by an
underground cable.
4.1.3
The proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm would comprise of the installation and
operation of a cluster of three wind turbines, each with an assumed rating of 2MW.
Details of how the scheme may lead to reductions in emissions of the greenhouse
gas carbon dioxide (CO2) are provided in Chapter 3 and the accompanying Planning
Statement.
4.1.4
The site is located in South Yorkshire, approximately 15km to the west of Barnsley,
7km south-east of Holmfirth and approximately 1 km to the north east of the village
of Crow Edge as shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2.
4.1.5
The Blackstone Edge site lies within upland farmland, within the Yorkshire
Southern Pennine Fringe, between the moorland of the Peak District and the
settlement/urban fringe areas of Barnsley and Huddersfield and the former coalfield
areas to the north east and south east. Generally the landscape can be described as
transitional between the strong valleys and the pastoral Pennine and High Peak
foothills and hill plateaux. The landscape appears to be remote in character, with
scattered farmsteads and hamlets, but the towns are also in close proximity, with
long views to the urban areas across the plateaux.
4.2
Specification of wind turbines
4.2.1
For the wind farm at Blackstone Edge, three wind turbines are proposed. Potential
environmental effects have been assessed on the basis of the largest size turbine that
might be installed. Specifically the maximum dimensions of the turbines at the site
will be restricted to 101m height from ground to blade tip. Each blade would
measure up to 41m, with a tower giving a hub height of up to 60m. Figure 4.1
shows a typical wind turbine.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
24
4.2.2
The wind turbines would be of a modern, quiet design, incorporating tapered tubular
steel towers and three blades made from fibre-reinforced epoxy attached to a nacelle
housing containing the generator, gearbox and other operating equipment. The
transformer for each turbine, depending on the final selection of wind turbine used,
may either be contained inside the tower base, within the nacelle or in a small
external kiosk at the tower base. External kiosks would typically measure up to 2m
x 3m and 2m in height. An illustration of a kiosk is provided in Figure 4.9. Since
the size of the kiosk is small compared to the larger turbines, the kiosks are not
featured on the photomontages provided as part of this assessment.
4.2.3
The turbine operation would be fully independent and automatic. It is proposed that
the finish of the wind turbines, towers and blades should be of a low-reflective
semi-matt pale grey colour, subject to the agreement of the local planning authority
and other consultees.
4.2.4
The final choice of turbine will depend on a competitive tendering process between
turbine manufacturers. Any alternative turbine will be of a similar design to that
shown in Figure 4.1. The turbines will not exceed the tip height of 101m and will
be required to comply with other operational parameters identified in this document.
Any alternative turbine will also be subject to final approval of Barnsley MBCs
Environmental Health Officer and planning department.
4.2.5
In line with all modern wind turbines the machines would start generating when
wind speeds are in excess of the cut-in wind speed (typically 3 to 4m/s). The
power output would increase with wind speed until the rated power output is
reached (typically 16m/s). In the event of extreme wind speeds in excess of 25m/s,
the turbines would shut down until the wind speed has dropped to a level where it
can safely start operating again.
4.2.6
The assessments presented in this Environmental Statement have been undertaken

based on the 2MW Repower MM82 wind turbine.
4.3
Site Description
4.3.1
The site layout is shown in Figure 1.2. The area where turbines would be sited is
situated on agricultural land that is currently used for grazing. The site has been
designed in accordance with the BWEA Best Practise Guidelines for Wind Energy
Development. The project and associated infrastructure are positioned to take
account of the assessments detailed in the rest of this ES: notably landscape and
visual effects, noise, ecology, archaeology, hydrology and geology and to meet
technical criteria for optimum spacing. Full details of the design evolution process
for the proposed wind farm development are detailed in the Blackstone Edge Wind
Farm Design and Access Statement (Entec UK Ltd., May 2007).
4.3.2
The area taken by the proposed project is small and it is therefore anticipated that
the existing land use would continue, largely unaffected by the presence of the wind
turbines.
4.3.3
Micro-siting flexibility is inherent in what is proposed to allow necessary

adjustments to be made to turbine grid coordinate positions of up to 40m in any
direction (apart from directions that reduce the distance of the nearest turbine to
residential property or encroach on any other defined stand-off requirements such as

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
25
the constraints identified on Figure 2.1). Such micro-siting adjustment would be in
accordance with the results of post-consent geophysical and other detailed site
investigation works and subject to final sanction by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough
Council.
4.4
Access from the Public Highway
4.4.1
The proposed access route for the project is from either Junction 35A or 36 of the
M1 then continuing along the A61, the A616, the A628, Royd Lane and Whitley
Road. Figure 4.2 outlines the proposed access route and Figure 4.8 shows the site
entrance access (where the site adjoins the public highway).
4.4.2
Swept-path assessments have shown that in order to deliver the turbines to the site,
it will be necessary to undertake relatively minor works within the highway and also
possibly within a small area of third party land.
4.4.3
It is proposed that the final details of the site access will be agreed with the local
Highways Department prior to construction.
4.5
Site Tracks
4.5.1
The construction of new on-site tracks would be required for the purposes of
providing access to the wind turbines. Site access track routes are shown in Figure
1.2 and Figure 4.8. The tracks would be typically 4.5 to 5.0m wide with 0.5m
shoulders on each side. Construction of the site tracks would involve the removal of
the vegetation and top soil to a depth of some 100-150mm. This would be stored
adjacent to the track for later, partial reinstatement. Geotextile membranes would
then be laid with crushed stone to an average depth of 200 - 300mm (depending on
specific ground conditions) then hard on top. On bends, it would be necessary to
construct wider areas of track to reflect the minimum bend-radii for the longest
construction loads (the turbine blades).
4.5.2
Appropriate drainage requirements would be incorporated where the site specific

conditions make this necessary. Provision for surface drainage would also be
incorporated within the track structure to maintain existing surface water run-off.
Similarly, running surfaces would be suitably cambered to reduce surface drainage
flows. Figure 4.3 shows typical road construction methods.
4.5.3
The layout of the access tracks has been developed in accordance with the following
criteria, where applicable:
Track length should be kept to a minimum to reduce environmental impact,
construction time, road-stone requirement and disruption to the agricultural land
use.
Tracks are routed to avoid any sensitive ecological, hydrological and
archaeological features and an archaeological watching brief will be in place
during the track and all other hardstanding works.
Tracks are aligned to follow closely the existing field boundaries for the great
majority of its length, minimising the impact on the existing field pattern and
agricultural operations.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
26
It is anticipated that the construction of all site tracks would utilise stone from
local quarries. The nearest quarries are:
- Marshalls Mono Ltd (approx Grid Ref - SE 19251 08942);
- Hillhouse Edge Quarries (approx Grid Ref - SE 13026 06731); and
- Morgan Aggregate Stone Products (approx Grid Ref - SK 25752 95683).
4.5.4
In addition to the site tracks themselves, areas of hardstanding measuring 20m x

40m and four small areas of hardstanding of 2.5m x 2.5m x 0.5m would be required
at each wind turbine position to support the crane (including outriggers) used for the
erection of the wind turbines. The construction of these hardstanding areas will be
similar to the construction of the site tracks, with 100-150 mm of topsoil removed
and stored adjacent to the sites, geotextile material laid down and crushed stone laid
on top to an average depth of 300mm.
4.5.5
Reinstatement of the track verges and the areas of hardstanding would be

undertaken following construction. As there would be a continuing need to use the
site tracks, partial reinstatement using stored topsoil would reduce the track width to
between 3m and 4m with reseeding where appropriate. Similarly, areas of
hardstanding would be covered with original topsoil and re-seeded.
4.5.6
In accordance with best practice any works including foundations for the turbines
and control building will be a minimum of 20m away from any watercourse.
4.6
The Construction Compound
4.6.1
During the construction period a compound would be required. The compound

would be surrounded by a secure fence and would house the following items:
Temporary port-a-cabin(s) to be used for site offices and welfare facilities
including one or two port-a-loo type toilet facilities with provision for sealed
waste and storage to ensure there are no discharges into local water courses;
Parking for cars and construction vehicles;
Low noise generator (included double bunded fuel tank);
Containerised storage for various components and materials required for
construction including tools and small parts; and
Storage of any other components and materials.
4.6.2
The compound would have dimensions of approximately 40m x 40m and will be
located adjacent to the western boundary of the site and to the south west of turbine
1 (see Figure 1.2).
4.6.3
Reinstatement of the construction compound area would be undertaken following

construction by covering the area with original topsoil and re-seeding.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
27
4.7
Turbine Foundations
4.7.1
The wind turbine foundations would require an excavation of approximately 18m by

18m and up to 3m in depth. The foundations would typically have dimensions of up
to 16m x 16m x 1.5m, giving an additional one metre all around the foundations to
allow shuttering access, with the shuttering positioned and supported. The detailed
civil engineering design of the foundation would be carried out after the final
selection of wind turbine and the granting of planning approval, and would also take
account of geotechnical conditions identified in detailed ground investigations
carried out post consent. A typical turbine foundation design and construction is
shown in Figure 4.4.
4.7.2
Following excavation down to a suitable bearing layer, the bottom of the excavation
would be lined with 75mm depth of blinding concrete. A reinforced concrete
foundation would then be constructed, which would incorporate the holding down
ring and bolts for the wind turbine. Each foundation would comprise up to 360
cubic metres of concrete and 32 tonnes of reinforced steel bar. Once the foundation
has been formed the excavation will be back-filled with a 750mm layer of
compacted crushed stone and overlaid with other excavated material.
4.7.3
Prior to the excavation phase the area to be used for the foundations would be
stripped of topsoil and subsoil. The topsoil would be stored separately for later use.
The original excavated area would be reinstated to ground level following the
construction of the foundation, with the removed topsoil replaced and re-seeded. It
is envisaged that the land would then be returned to agricultural use.
4.8
Climate Monitoring Mast
4.8.1
A climate monitoring mast (anemometer) of approximately the same height as the

proposed hub height of the wind turbines will be installed. The mast would be
approximately 60m high and consist of a lattice tower with wind monitoring
equipment attached at various heights; a typical monitoring mast is detailed in
Figure 4.5. The mast would record wind speed and direction and environmental
conditions. The data would be monitored remotely.
4.9
Site Cable Runs
4.9.1
The wind turbines envisaged for use on the site would produce electricity at
approximately 690V. This would be transformed to local grid voltage using a
transformer at each turbine. From the transformer, underground cable runs would
link the turbines to the control building. Cable runs, including communications
cables, would be located in a trench approximately 1m deep and 0.5m wide, routed
alongside access tracks. Excavated material from the trench would be stored
alongside the trench and replaced during back-filling. Topsoil would be stored
separately and fully reinstated over the trench following construction.
4.10 Grid Connection

4.10.1
The project will be connected to the local electricity grid network by Yorkshire
Electricity Distribution (YEDL).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
28
4.10.2
A building will be required at the wind farm site to house the necessary metering
and protection equipment and provision for this is included within this application.
The exact dimensions of the building cannot be known at this early stage of design,
because detailed technical electrical engineering studies will be required to be
undertaken after planning consent is granted. The control building and electrical
substation however will be located alongside the temporary construction compound
in the north west corner of the site, as shown in Figure 1.2. The building would be
of a single storey apex roofed design similar to that shown in Figure 4.6 and have
dimensions no larger than 12m x 8m x 6.5m. The building would make use of local
materials and its style would be agreed with the local planning authority. The
substation grid transformer will contain oil for cooling and insulation purposes. It
will be bunded to 110% capacity to contain oil in the event of a leak.
4.10.3
The control building will contain the switchgear belonging to both the Applicant
and the Distribution Network Operator (YEDL), along with all protection, metering
and SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) panels and equipment. A
basic single office desk with computer monitoring equipment will be provided for
the use of visiting operational staff.
4.10.4
The SCADA system would allow turbine operations to be monitored and controlled
from a central location remote to the Development Site and hence the control
building is not expected to be permanently manned. The system will ensure early
reporting and rectifying of any faults which may occur. The control building will
contain a single WC and hand wash facility (waste taken to a septic tank) for use by
visiting maintenance staff.
4.10.5
The grid connection is expected to be at the Hazlehead substation (see Figure 4.7).
An underground power line will connect the farm to the local distribution grid
network. This will be subject to a separate planning procedure but for the purposes
of this EIA the underground grid connection route has been considered within this
ES and the assessments presented in the chapters that follow. At the time of writing
YEDL have advised to assume that the underground cables will be laid within/along
existing roads and road corridors. The proposed grid connection route is shown in
Figure 4.7.
4.10.6
For the purposes of this environmental impact assessment we have assumed that
plant to be used for laying the underground grid connection cables would include
two excavators, a roller, delivery lorry and small dumper. Based on the underlying
geology of the area, it has been assumed that a rock trencher would not be required.
4.11 Pre Construction Works

4.11.1
Enabling works undertaken in the pre-construction period would include:

Off site access consultation with the appropriate regulatory authorities;
Any necessary land drainage and pipeline crossing consents and approved
modifications; and
Detailed site investigation works in accordance with best practice construction
techniques. For example, site investigations will include geotechnical surveys.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
29
4.12 Construction Programme and Environmental

Management
4.12.1
E.ON was the first UK wind farm developer to be certified to the internationally
recognised environmental management standard, ISO 14001, and as such places a
great emphasis on the proper management of environmental risk during construction
activities.
4.12.2
Depending on the site conditions encountered, potential weather delays and

suppliers, the main construction period would last for approximately six to nine
months, from commencement of construction through to reinstatement at the end of
the construction period.
4.12.3
All construction activities would be undertaken in strict adherence with an

Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which would be developed prior to the
start of construction by the Applicant in consultation with the local planning
authority, Environment Agency, English Nature and other relevant authorities. The
EMP will define the environmental measures and procedures to prevent, minimise
and mitigate adverse impacts and to ensure compliance with applicable
environmental standards during both the construction and operation of the
construction.
4.12.4
Construction would consist of the following phases:

Improvement of the site access;
Construction of a temporary construction compound for off-loading materials
and components and to accommodate site offices and welfare facilities;
Construction of site tracks for access to turbine locations;
Construction of the control building and electrical substation;
Construction of turbine foundations;
Construction of the cable to the grid connection point;
Excavation of cable trenches and the laying of electricity and communication
cables;
The delivery and erection of turbine towers and installation of nacelles and
blades;
Commissioning of the Wind Farm; and
Site reinstatement.
4.12.5
An indicative construction programme is provided in Box 4.1and indicates up to a

nine month construction programme.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
30
Box 4.1
Indicative Construction Programme
Month
Access Track Work

Foundation Work
Control Building
Turbine Erection
Electrical Installation
Testing and Commissioning
Development Site Clearance
Development Site fully commissioned and operational
4.12.6
Measures to prevent contamination of the ground during the construction period

would be implemented and continue throughout the life of the project. To achieve
this, contractors on the site would be limited to the storage of only sufficient diesel
fuel for the plant on site. Storage of any fuel oils would be within a bunded area or
bunded tanks in accordance with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) Regulations,
2005. In addition, the following measures will be taken;
Concrete - the foundation concrete specified would be of high strength structural
grade which is not prone to leaching of alkalis. The concrete delivery lorries
would only be allowed to wash out at a designated point on site after pouring.
Lubricants - proper draining and containment would be employed during routine
servicing to prevent spillage of lubricants or hydraulic fluid.
Coolants - the transformers that will be used in the development are sealed units
containing non-toxic cooling oil. These units are similar to those used elsewhere
in the UK and leakage is negligible.
There will be no long term storage of lubricants or other petrochemical products
on the site.
4.12.7
Throughout the site operation best working practices, incorporated in the

Environmental Management Plan, will be adopted and measures to protect the water
environment will be made in accordance with recommendations set out by the
Environment Agency. All vehicles visiting sites will be equipped with sand trays to
place below any oil/diesel filling activities, and will also be equipped with
emergency oil spillage kits.
4.13 Construction Traffic

4.13.1
Equipment would be delivered to site at the commencement of the relevant

construction phase and would be intended to remain on site until work is finished.
Such equipment would include excavators, dump trucks, rollers etc for road

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
31
construction and cable installation work. Other equipment, such as cranes for
turbine erection would be brought in when required.
4.13.2
The majority of plant and delivery vehicles used during construction would be of
standard dimensions. The exceptions to this will be the vehicles used to deliver
turbine blades and the large crane transportation vehicles. The turbine blades will
require police escort due to their abnormal length. The remainder of the wind
turbine components would be delivered to the site on flatbed articulated trailers.
Typically a crane of 1000 tonne lifting capacity and a mobile crane of 100 tonne
lifting capacity would be required for the erection of the turbines. A typical crane of
1000 tonne lifting capacity would have a travelling weight of 128 tonnes. It would
be delivered on separate trailers and erected on site.
Traffic Generation
4.13.3 This section considers the traffic generations associated with the construction phase
of the wind farm. Estimates of traffic generation associated with the construction
phase of the project have been derived from first-principles, based on assumptions
made with regard to the following activities:
Delivery of road stone for the construction compound;
Delivery and subsequent removal of plant and equipment to site for access track
construction, site compound, etc;
Delivery of geogrid material for the construction of access tracks and
construction compound;
Delivery of road stone for construction of access tracks;
Delivery of road stone for areas of crane operation;
Delivery of transformers and sub-station equipment;
Delivery of cable used to connect the turbines;
Delivery of sand to backfill cable trenches;
Ready-mix concrete delivered to the site for construction of the turbine
foundations;
Formwork and reinforcing steel delivered to the site for construction of the
turbine foundations;
Delivery and removal of mobile cranes used to erect the turbines;
Delivery of the turbine equipment;
Delivery of base rings; and
Delivery of blade hubs.
4.13.4
It is anticipated that the maximum number of staff likely to be on site at any one
time would be approximately 20. These staff could arrive and depart from the site
by various modes of transport from a variety of locations, and therefore trip

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
32
generations are difficult to predict. Furthermore, these trips are unlikely to have a
significant environmental impact relative to the number of HGVs generated from
the site.
Construction Compound
4.13.5 A temporary construction compound area is required to accommodate deliveries of
equipment and machinery at the onset of the works. This area will require a hard
standing footing of approximately 1600m2 (approximately 40m x 40m). Based on a
fill depth of 0.300m, 480m3 of stone will be required (approximately 864 tonnes
based on a density of 1.8t/m3). Assuming an HGV can carry 20 tonnes of stone, an
estimated 44 deliveries of road stone will be required for this activity, resulting in a
total of 88 two-way trips.
General Plant & Equipment Delivery and Removal
4.13.6 A range of equipment is expected to be delivered to site including earth movers,
mechanical excavators, dump-trucks etc. This is expected to be delivered to site
near the onset of the works and is likely to be removed at the end of the activity for
which the equipment relates. The exact equipment complement is unknown, but
around 60 HGV deliveries is considered to be a reasonable estimate, making a total
of 240 two-way trips for delivery and removal (120 for delivery and 120 for
removal).
Access Tracks
4.13.7 Road stone will be imported for the construction of access tracks. It is anticipated
that there will be a requirement for approximately 1.4km of access tracks within the
development. However, for a robust assessment, a figure of approximately 10%
will be added to this length, equating to an assumed working length of 1.54km of
access track. Based on a fill depth of 0.300m and a track width of 5m, there will be
an approximate requirement of 2,310m3 (around 4,158 Tonnes) of stone for this
activity (based on a density of 1.8t/m3). Assuming an HGV can carry 20 tonnes of
stone, it is considered that an estimated 208 deliveries of road stone will be required
for this activity, resulting in a total of 416 two-way trips.
Geogrid
4.13.8 As noted above, a total of 1.54km of access tracks will require construction, using
three layers of 5m wide reinforcing geogrid material. In addition, the construction
compound area of 40m x 40m will also require three layers of geogrid material.
Assuming that the geogrid material is delivered in 50m x 5m rolls, it is anticipated
that 38 rolls of geogrid material will be required. Given that an HGV can carry 10
rolls, 4 deliveries would be required, i.e. 8 two-way trips.
Crane Operation Areas
4.13.9 Stone will be imported for construction of suitable areas to enable crane operations.
Assuming each turbine will require an operational area of 20m x 40m at a depth of
0.300m and a further four small areas of hardstanding of 2.5m x 2.5m x 0.500m, this
equates to a total requirement of 729m3 (approximately 1,313 Tonnes) for all three
turbines. Therefore an estimated 66 deliveries of road stone will be required for this
activity, resulting in a total of 132 two-way trips.
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
33
Control Building and Electrical Substation Foundations
4.13.10 Approximately 150m3 of concrete is required to construct the foundations of the
substation and hardstanding area. Assuming a load capacity of 6m3 per HGV, 25
loads would be required, resulting in 50 two-way trips.
Electrical Substation Delivery
4.13.11 Although the exact sub-station specification and means for delivery is yet to be
confirmed, 10 loads are assumed to be required to deliver the substation, compound
and associated fencing etc. A total of 20 two-way trips are therefore required for
these items.
Cabling
4.13.12 Underground cabling will be installed on-site to connect the turbines with the
substation. Based on the proposed turbine and substation arrangement, a maximum
of 1.54km of track would need to be served by three lines of cabling, therefore
approximately 4.62km of cable is required. Assuming that the cable is delivered in
500m drums and an HGV can carry eight drums, it is estimated that two loads are
required, therefore resulting in four two-way trips.
Sand
4.13.13 Cabling in trenches (1.0m deep and 0.5m wide) will be protected by a maximum of
300mm of soft sand and backfilled with material from excavations on the
development site, where appropriate. Based on a density of 1.6t/m3, this equates to
approximately 240 tonnes of sand per kilometre of trench. Therefore based on
1.54km of access track, a total of 370 tonnes will be required. Assuming an HGV
can carry 20 tonnes per load, this would result in 38 two-way trips.
Turbine Bases
4.13.14 The design of the turbine foundations (16m x 16m x 1.5m) requires up to 384m3 of
concrete per base. Given that three turbines are proposed for the site, a total volume
of approximately 1,152 m3 of concrete would be needed. Assuming a load capacity
of 6m3 per HGV, 192 loads would be required, therefore 384 two-way trips.
Technical constraints may require the concrete for an individual turbine to be
delivered and poured in one day to prevent joints in the mass structure. This creates
a short but disproportionate impact and has therefore been considered separately
from the impact of the other traffic movements.
Formwork & Reinforcing Steel
4.13.15 Formwork and reinforcing steel is required for the concrete bases. Each turbine will
require two deliveries of steel. In addition, a total of four loads of formwork will be
required for all the bases. Based on three turbines, a total of 10 deliveries will
therefore be required, resulting in 20 two-way trips.
Mobile Crane Delivery & Removal
4.13.16 It is assumed that crane parts will be delivered on a maximum of 10 HGVs,
including ballast. A total of 40 two-way trips will therefore be generated for
delivery and removal (20 for delivery and 20 for removal).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
34
Turbine Delivery
4.13.17 Six vehicles are required to deliver the components for each full turbine (assuming
one for nacelle, three for the blade set, and two for the tower). Given that there are
three turbines proposed on the site, a total of 18 loads will be delivered, resulting in
36 two-way trips.
Base Rings
4.13.18 Each turbine base is surmounted with a circular steel support plinth to suit the base
profile of the turbine tower. A maximum of three base rings can be loaded onto an
HGV therefore one load is required, resulting in two two-way trips.
Blade Hubs
4.13.19 Each turbine requires a hub to attach the blades to the nacelle. A maximum of three
hubs can be loaded onto an HGV therefore one load is required, resulting in two
two-way trips.
Traffic Generation Summary
4.13.20 Table 4.1 summarises the predicted traffic generations associated with each relevant
activity during the construction phase.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
35
Table 4.1
Traffic Generations
Activity
Total Loads
Total Trips (Two-way)
Delivery of Road Stone for Construction Compound
44
88
Delivery and Removal of Plant and Equipment
120
240
Delivery of Road Stone for On-site Access Tracks
208
416
Delivery of Geogrid Material
Delivery of Road Stone for Areas of Crane Operation
66
132
Delivery of Concrete for Substation
25
50
Delivery of Sub-station equipment
10
20
Delivery of Cabling
Delivery of Sand
19
38
Delivery of Concrete for Turbine Basis
192
384
Delivery of Formwork and Reinforcing Steel
10
20
Delivery and Removal of Mobile Crane
20
40
Delivery of Turbines
18
36
Delivery of Base Rings
Delivery of Blade Hubs
Total (excluding concrete)
523
1,046
Total (including concrete)
740
1,480
Source: Entec UK Ltd
4.13.21 The construction period of the proposed development will be approximately nine
months, with HGV deliveries to the site being made for the first six months. Table
4.2 below shows the total trips distributed according to the 6-month indicative
construction programme in order to demonstrate the worst case.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
36
Table 4.2
Two-way trips per month
Month
Activity
1
Stone for Compound
60
60
Road Stone for

Access Tracks
208
208
Road Stone for

Crane Areas
132
Culvert Materials
20
4
Substation
Foundations
50
Substation
20
Cabling
Sand
38
Turbine Bases
384
Formwork and
Reinforcing Steel
10
Crane Delivery
10
20
Delivery of Turbines
36
Delivery of
Base Rings
Delivery of
Blade Hubs
Crane Removal
20
Removal of plant
and equipment
Total Trips
88
Delivery of plant and

equipment
Geogrid
120
360
292
194
394
50

final issued.doc
19569
210
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
37
4.13.22 Table 4.3 shows the total daily trips by month for all construction, based on an
average of 4 weeks per month and an average five working days per week12
(rounded down to 22 days per month). It should be noted that figures have been
rounded up to even figures to account for two-way trips being made in a day.
Table 4.3
Month
1
4*
14
10
10
N/A
128 (x 3 days)
N/A
N/A
Excluding concrete deliveries

18
Days involving concrete deliveries only

N/A
N/A
* For a robust assessment, traffic movements (excluding concrete deliveries) during the fourth month have been
calculated based on 19 working days as opposed to 22 working days for other months. This is due to the netting out
of days when concrete deliveries are made, in which case it is likely that no other deliveries are likely to take place
during these days (as detailed below).
4.13.23 Table 4.3 shows that the maximum traffic impact associated with the construction of
the proposed wind farm, excluding the concrete deliveries, is predicted to occur in
the first month of the construction programme. During this month, an average of 18
two-way trips are predicted to be generated on each working day, i.e. 9 in and 9 out.
On average, this equates to two deliveries into the site per hour over a 12 hour
period (Monday to Friday 07:00-19:00).
4.13.24 The movements of concrete lorries are restricted by the pouring method to a total of
3 days, with all deliveries for one turbine base required during the same day. As a
result there will be 3 days during the 6 month programme when 64 deliveries of
concrete (128 total vehicle movements) will occur. It is assumed that deliveries of
other materials will not take place when concrete is being poured.
Percentage Impact
4.13.25 The impact of construction related traffic identified in Table 4.3 has been calculated,
in percentage terms, relative to the background traffic in the construction year of the
development (2009), both with and without concrete deliveries. This exercise has
been conducted for the maximum credible case month in the construction
programme in terms of traffic generation, i.e. month one.
12
Whilst some weekend working may occur, the level of activity on the site is likely to be lower than
during the working week therefore no weekend assessment is included
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
38
Table 4.4 shows the predicted percentage impact at A628 (Manchester Road) and
Royd Lane.
Table 4.4
Count
Site
Location
Total
Flows
Base
HGVs
Construction
HGVs
Percentage
Impact
Total Flow
Percentage
Impact
HGVs
4,831
561
18
+0.4%
+3.2%
820
60
18
+2.2%
+30%
4,831
561
128
+2.6%
+22.8%
820
60
128
+15.6%
+213%
Days with no concrete deliveries

1
A628 (Manchester Road)
Royd Lane
Days of concrete deliveries

1
Royd Lane
Source: Paul Castle Consultancy Ltd
Summary
4.13.26 The above exercises have been conducted for the predicted worst-case month for
traffic generations within the construction programme. That is, month one
excluding concrete deliveries, based on an average of 18 two-way HGV trips per
day (9 in and 9 out). A scenario has also been assessed based on days involving
concrete deliveries, these days are predicted to take place within month four
(inclusive) of the construction programme.
4.13.27 During month one, it is predicted that there will be increases in HGVs during the
assessment period of 3.2% and 30% on the A628 (Manchester Road) and Royd
Lane respectively.
4.13.28 During days involving concrete deliveries (3 days out of the 6 month programme), it
is predicted that there will be increases in HGVs during the assessment period of
22.8% and 213% for the A628 (Manchester Road) and Royd Lane respectively.
4.13.29 It should be noted that the HGV trip generations used for the assessments are based
on the worst-case months during the construction programme. However, as shown
in Tables 4.2 and 4.3, it is expected that during the remainder of the programme,
traffic generations will be much less than this figure (with the exception of days
involving concrete deliveries).
4.13.30 A full traffic and transport assessment, which considers construction generated
traffic, is provided in chapter 10.
4.14 Maintenance and Operation

4.14.1
It is anticipated that the proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm will be operational
in January 2010.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
39
4.14.2
Once operational, the Blackstone Edge Wind Farm would be operated remotely
from a central control room at Rheidol Hydroelectric Power Station in Wales, and
an existing, off-site local maintenance contractors office, which would not be
permanently manned.
4.14.3
The Wind Farm operations will be overseen initially by the turbine manufacturer
and later by suitably qualified local contractors who will visit the Development Site
to carry out regular inspection and maintenance activities. The following turbine
maintenance will be carried out, along with any other maintenance required by
manufacturers specifications:
Initial service;
Routine maintenance and servicing;
Gearbox oil change; and
Blade inspection.
4.14.4
Servicing shall include the performance of tasks such as maintaining bolts to the
required torque, adjustment of blades, inspection of blade tip brakes and inspection
of welds in the tower. In addition oil sampling and testing from the main gearbox
will be required and oil and components replaced at regular intervals. In the event
of any unexpected events onsite, such as failure of a generator or gearbox,
appropriate maintenance works will be carried out immediately.
4.14.5
Ongoing track maintenance will generally be undertaken in the summer months

when tracks are dry. Safe access will be maintained all year round.
4.15 Decommissioning
4.15.1
Following the construction and commissioning of the wind farm it will be

operational and generating electricity for 24 years, after which time it would be
decommissioned. Alternatively, the life of the wind farm could be extended, subject
to the award of a further consent. For the purposes of this ES it is assumed that
decommissioning will occur at the end of the wind farms 24 year lifetime.
4.15.2
Assuming the development site is decommissioned, the wind turbines and

associated infrastructure would be removed in accordance with industry good
practice and/or in compliance with any planning conditions which had been attached
to the planning permission. Current industry good practice involves the complete
removal of turbines, mast, switchgear and other equipment, the removal of the
concrete foundation plinth and crane hard standings to below ground level and the
re-instatement of these areas to their original condition prior to the wind farm being
built. A Decommissioning Plan would be submitted to the appropriate authorities of
the time.
4.15.3
In the same way as in the construction and operation phase inherent mitigation will
be put in place in the decommissioning phase to protect the environment. The
current consensus is that it is not appropriate to completely remove the entire
turbine foundation, nor the roads and the cables between turbines due to the
additional ground disturbance and potential for adverse environmental effects that

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
40
this would involve. In any case, the access tracks are often a feature which
landowners wish to retain following decommissioning.
4.15.4
A more detailed program of mitigation will be specified when the exact nature of
the decommissioning is known, and will take into account any new guidance or
legislation. Mitigation could include designing the access tracks to minimise
disturbance to the environment in the same way as during the construction and
operation phases, following appropriate guidelines for the handling and remediation
of soils and formulating a site Environmental Management Plan in accordance with
appropriate guidance.
4.15.5
The decommissioning process would take approximately two months to complete.

A decommissioning programme would be agreed with the relevant authority prior to
the commencement of decommissioning works.
4.16 References
British Wind Energy Association, 1995, Best Practise Guidelines for Wind Energy
Development.
Entec UK Ltd, 2006, Blackstone Edge Community Power Wind Farm: Access
Study.
The Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations, 2005.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
41
5.
Planning and Renewables Policy

Context
5.1
Introduction
5.1.1
This chapter identifies planning policy and other policy and plans relevant to the
consideration of the planning application and other considerations that are material
to the determination of the application for planning permission.
5.1.2
The planning application for the scheme will be determined under the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990. Section 70(2) of the 1990 Act requires local planning
authorities in determining planning applications to have regard to the development
plan, so far as material to the applications, and to any other material considerations.
Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 requires planning
decisions to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise.
5.1.3
The provisions of Chapter 54A of the 1990 Act, requiring that an application for
planning permission will be decided in accordance with the development plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise, remains the cornerstone of the
2004 Act.
5.1.4
The Development Plan consists of the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and
the Humber (Selective Review of RPG 12), December 2004, Barnsley Council
Unitary Development Plan (UDP), December 2000 and the Barnsley Statement of
Community Involvement (SCI), September 2006.
5.2
Planning Policy Guidance and Statements
5.2.1
The following Planning Policy Guidance and Statements are considered relevant to
this proposal:
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development;
Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas;
Planning Policy Guidance 8 : Telecommunications;
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation;
Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment;
Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning;
Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise; and
Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
42
5.3
The Development Plan
5.3.1
Under Chapter 54A of the Town and Country Act 1990 the proposed development
will be determined against the policies contained within the development plan. The
development plan consists of an RSS, UDP and a SCI. The site is located within the
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council area and the relevant development plan for
the site comprises:
Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber to 2016, based on,
Selective Review of RPG12 (December 2004);
Barnsley Unitary Development Plan (December 2000); and
Barnsley Statement of Community Involvement (September 2006).
5.4
Regional Planning Policy
RSS 12: Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber (Selective Review of
RPG 12)
5.4.1
RSS 12 was published in December 2004 and is based upon a selective review of
Regional Planning Guidance 12 that preceded it. It is based on the draft revised
RPG produced by the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly in June 2003,
representations on that draft and the sustainability appraisal, the report of the Panel
who held a Public Examination in February 2004, and representations made in
response to the Proposed Changes in July - September 2004.
5.4.2
The selective review of RPG12, upon which this version of RSS is based, addressed
the following topics: rural regeneration, coastal communities, culture and tourism,
climate change, renewable energy, flood risk, waste management and transport.
The RSS has statutory status under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004 and therefore forms part of the statutory development plan for the purposes of
determining planning applications.
Renewable Energy
5.4.3
Two policies of particular relevance to this project are Policy R12 Renewable
Energy and Policy S5 Climate Change.
5.4.4
Policy R12 Renewable Energy states that development plans should include
measures which help to secure a target installed renewable energy generation
capacity of 674 MW for Yorkshire and Humber.
5.4.5
Policy S5 Climate Change states that local and regional authorities and agencies
should include policies and proposals in their development plans and strategies to
help reduce the Regions greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% below 1990
levels by 2010 and by at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2015.
5.4.6
Furthermore, Policy S6 on the sustainable use of physical resources states that local
and regional authorities and agencies and others should:
(e) include policies and proposals in development plans to help to achieve
the regional renewable energy capacity targets set out in Policy R12. These

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
43
should ensure that at least 9.4% of electricity consumed in Yorkshire and
the Humber is from renewable sources by 2010 and 22.5% by 2020.
Countryside
5.4.7
Policy N5 relates to agriculture and seeks to divert new development away from
higher quality agricultural land. However, part b) seeks to promote and reinforce
agri-environmental support measures to encourage forms of sustainable land
management that integrate inter alia biodiversity, landscape, and renewable energy
with agricultural objectives.
Ecology
5.4.8
Policy N1 requires Local Planning Authorities to identify areas for important
conservation of biodiversity and to protect these from direct or indirect damage.
Part c) of the policy requires LPAs to seek to mitigate the adverse impacts of
development on biodiversity whilst part d) seeks the enhancement of biodiversity
interest.
Landscape and Visual Amenity
5.4.9
Policy N3 relates to Landscape character and requires the quality, diversity and
local distinctiveness of landscape character to be protected and enhanced. The
policy requires development plans to be informed by Landscape Character
Assessments.
Cultural Heritage
5.4.10 Policy N2 relates to historic and cultural resources and requires LPAs to develop
policies that preserve or enhance the historic environment including areas identified
as being of archaeological or historic importance. Such policies should ensure that
proposed development reflects the need for good design in order to avoid detraction
from the historical environment
5.5
Local Planning Policy
5.5.1
Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gave statutory force to a
plan-led system of development control. This requirement was carried forward in
Section 38(6) of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Applications
for planning permission must therefore be determined in accordance with the
approved development plan unless material planning considerations indicate
otherwise. Conversely, proposed development not in accordance with the relevant
policies in the plan should not be allowed unless material considerations justify the
grant of planning permission.
Barnsley Unitary Development Plan

5.5.2
The Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Unitary Development Plan which was
formally adopted in December 2000. Part 1 of the Barnsley Unitary Development
Plan provides the overall strategy and policies for Barnsley and the justification for
these. Twelve Community Area Volumes together with the explanation and Policy
Justification for the UDP comprises Part II of the Plan. Within Part II of the UDP

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
44
the Blackstone Edge site is included in Volume 13 titled the Western Rural
Community Area.
Renewable Energy
5.5.3
Policy ES12 sets out a range of criteria for which proposals for wind energy
generation will be assessed. The factors to be considered centre around protection
of the local environment and amenity.
5.5.4
Policy ES 12A requires appropriate design of wind generation proposals including

suitable colouring of turbines. Policy ES 12B adds a further requirement to ensure
that sites used for wind energy generation are restored upon cessation of activities.
Quality of Design
5.5.5
Policy BE6 relates to design standards where the Council seek to ensure good
design standards for all types of development. Criteria for good design include
quality of layout, suitability and scale of the development.
Countryside
5.5.6
The site is designated within the Green Belt as is the vast majority of the western
side of the Borough. Policy GS7 broadly reflects the key principles established
within PPG 2 and seeks to ensure that development maintains openness and does
not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
5.5.7
Policy GS9 relates to the visual amenity of the Green Belt and seeks to ensure that
development within the Green Belt does not by reason of its siting, materials or
design result in significant harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
Landscape and Visual Amenity

5.5.8
The site is located within an Area of Borough Landscape Value and as such Policy
GS13 requires conservation and enhancement of the landscape. It states that
development will only be allowed if:
There is no loss of valuable landscape features:
The nature, form and design of the development is sympathetic to the area; and
The overall character and appearance of the area is conserved and wherever
possible enhanced.
5.5.9
Chapter 7 of the Environmental Statement provides an assessment of the landscape

and visual impacts of the proposals.
Ecology
5.5.10 Policy GS15 aims to protect important habitats and species and requires, where
appropriate, proposals to conserve and enhance existing features of nature
conservation. Policy GS18 relates to development that may adversely affect local
nature reserves, a natural heritage site, ancient woodlands or regionally important
geological sites. In summary the policy seeks to protect the conservation interests
of these sites unless there is a demonstrable need for the development.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
45
Cultural Heritage
5.5.11 Policy BE3 relates to nationally important archaeological sites and adopts a
presumption in favour of physical preservation whilst ensuring their settings are not
affected by development. Remains of local importance will be assessed against
other factors including the need for proposed development.
5.5.12
Policy BE4 provides a mechanism to ensure that where physical preservation is not
possible that the remains are appropriately excavated and recorded.
Barnsley Statement of Community Involvement

5.5.13 The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) explains how and when members
of the public get involved in the planning process. It sets out how the Council will
engage with the public when preparing the Local Development Framework (LDF)
and in the consideration of planning applications. Appendix 4 provides guidance to
developers on how they should engage with communities when making applications
for large developments including Schedule 2 Development as defined in the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
5.5.14
Developers are encouraged to talk to the LPA, people who live near the site and
anyone else who might be affected by the development prior to the submission of an
application. Details of the involvement of stakeholders should be included within
the planning application detailing how they have been involved and what has been
said.
5.5.15
The SCI also sets out the community involvement process once an application has
been submitted and provides the framework for involvement of stakeholders
throughout the life of the application.
5.6
Other Material Considerations
UK Renewable Energy
5.6.1
A brief introduction to wind energy and the UK policy setting is included in Chapter
3 of this statement.
5.6.2
The requirements of Planning Policy Statement 22 on Renewable Energy are

outlined above. PPS22 provides details of the Governments energy and renewable
energy policy.
5.6.3
Nationally, the UK Government has set targets to reduce carbon emissions by 20%
by 2010 and 60% by 2050.
5.6.4
Chapter 2 of the Environmental Statement refers to the energy efficiency benefits

which the proposal will bring to the local community.
DTI Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines

5.6.5
In 1996 the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) established a Working Group
on Noise from Wind Turbines (WGNWT). The recommendations of the WGNWT
are presented in the DTI Report ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise
from Wind Farms (1996).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
46
5.6.6
The DTI WGNWT recommendations provide a robust basis for determining suitable
noise limits for wind farm developments and have become a well-respected and
accepted standard for such developments within the UK. Analysis of the proposals
against the ETSU Standard is provided in the Noise Chapter (Chapter 6) of this
report.
Legitimate Public Concern or Support

5.6.7
Representations received from the public that are relevant to the determination of a
planning application are material considerations. The public consultation activities
for the Blackstone Edge Wind Farm are considered in Chapter 2 of the
Environmental Statement.
Summary
5.6.8
This chapter outlines the key national policies relevant to the proposed development
at Blackstone Edge. It has also detailed the key policies from the development plan
at the regional and local level and therefore provides the context against which the
proposed development will be assessed.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
47
6.
Noise
6.1
Introduction
6.1.1
This chapter has been prepared by Neil Parnell of Entec UK Ltd. Neil, an Associate
Member of the Institute of Acoustics, holds a Diploma in Acoustics and Noise
Control, a Certificate of Competence in Environmental Noise Measurement, MRes
Marine Technology and BSc (Hons) Environmental Physical Sciences. The chapter
assesses the effects of construction and operational noise upon residential receptors
surrounding the proposed wind farm.
6.2
Context
Site Context
6.2.1
Noise can have an effect on the environment and on the quality of life enjoyed by
individuals and communities. Noise is often therefore an important consideration in
the determination of planning applications.
6.2.2
Construction noise effects are normally of a temporary nature and comprise both
moving and static sources. Assessment allows the temporary impact of construction
noise to be understood and for suitable mitigation measures to be identified to
minimise any adverse effects. The assessment of construction noise can also
consider the effects of increased traffic levels where appropriate. In the context of
the Blackstone Edge site, the two nearest properties are considered for effects in
relation to direct noise from the construction, New Maythorn Farm and Spicer
House, in addition to properties along the main access route to site for traffic noise.
6.2.3
When operational, wind turbines emit two types of noise mechanical noise and
aerodynamic noise. The main sources of mechanical noise are from internal
components housed within the nacelle, such as the gearbox and generator.
Mechanical noise from a modern wind turbine is negligible as the nacelles are
insulated to reduce noise emissions and the various mechanical components housed
within the nacelle are acoustically isolated to prevent structure borne noise.
Aerodynamic noise occurs from the movement of the blades passing through the air.
At higher wind speeds aerodynamic noise is usually masked by the increasing sound
of wind blowing through trees and around buildings at the receptor location. In the
context of the Blackstone Edge site, the two nearest properties are considered for
effects in relation to noise from the development, New Maythorn Farm and Spicer
House.
Policy Context
National
Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise
Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
48
Regional
6.2.4
No regional policies are relevant to noise.
Local
Policy ES12 Wind Energy Generation B) states that proposals for wind energy
generation will be assessed with regard to the following:
The impact on residential amenity with particular reference to noise, visual

outlook, and shadow flicker and flashing from turbine blades.
Legislative Context
ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Windfarms
6.3
Methodology
Data Gathering
6.3.1
Information regarding noise emissions from a number of proposed turbines was
obtained in order to predict noise levels at receptors. This information also included
noise levels from the existing Royd Moor site and the recently consented Hazlehead
site, taken from the associated planning application for each site.
6.3.2
Traffic data was obtained from chapter 10, Traffic and Transport.
Survey Work
6.3.3
Measurements of background noise levels at two receptors surrounding the site were
taken for a period of around fourteen days and correlated with wind speeds
measured at the site. These measurements are covered in depth in Section 6.4.
Scope of Study
Approach to Scoping
6.3.4
Initial modelling of operational noise emissions from the proposed wind turbines
was undertaken to determine properties at which noise levels would necessitate a
full assessment in accordance with ETSU-R-97.
6.3.5
This information was used to develop the approach to the noise assessment and
consultation was undertaken with the Environmental Health Department of Barnsley
Metropolitan Borough Council to agree the methodology.
Effects Requiring Further Consideration

6.3.6
The following effects have been scoped in:
operational noise;
construction noise (including construction traffic and grid connection);
Effects Not Requiring Further Consideration
6.3.7
The following effects have been scoped out:
operational traffic noise.
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
49
Assessment and Evaluation Methodologies
Overview of Construction and Decommissioning Noise Assessment Procedure
6.3.8
It is anticipated that the overall duration of the construction stage would be
approximately 6 - 9 months, as detailed in Chapter 4. During the construction
period a range of different activities would take place within the site, for example,
there would be delivery of materials to the site, earthmoving within the site and
turbine installation.
6.3.9
Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72 Noise control on building sites provides some guidance
on acceptable levels of construction noise, stating that between 07:00 to 19:00 in
rural, suburban and urban areas away from main road traffic and industrial noise
sources, the noise level should not exceed 70 dB(A) when measured outside the
nearest occupied room. An assessment of construction noise is made following the
methodology laid out in British Standard (BS) 5228 Noise and Vibration Control on
Construction and Open Sites.
6.3.10
It is assumed that decommissioning noise will be generally less or, at worst realistic
case, similar to that experienced during the construction period. It can therefore be
assumed that noise relating to the decommissioning of the windfarm may also be
perceptible at the receptors, but will be limited by restricting working hours and
transport routes.
Overview of Traffic Noise Assessment Procedure

6.3.11 Following guidance presented in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, a noise
assessment is only necessary for a change in traffic flow of greater than 25%. This
equates to a change in noise levels of 1dB, which is noted as being the point at
which adverse effects can occur.
6.3.12
Subject to the above screening criteria, the likely level of noise resulting from traffic
movements can be predicted using the methodology found in the document
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise. This model uses numbers, type of vehicle
movement and speed of vehicles to calculate likely noise generated by traffic.
Where sufficient data is available for the routes to site (generally the main road
network), a comparison will be drawn between levels that would pertain should the
development proceed compared with those that would pertain if they did not.
6.3.13
Given the low levels of traffic expected throughout the operational phase of the
wind farm, this is not considered in the assessment.
Overview of Operational Noise Assessment Procedure

6.3.14 In England, advice specific to noise emanating from wind energy developments can
be found in Planning Policy Statement 22. Paragraph 22 guides the assessment
process as follows:
The 1997 report by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry
should be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development.
6.3.15
Furthermore, Planning for Renewable Energy A Companion Guide to PPS22,

expands the point by presenting a discussion of the broad issues surrounding noise
from wind farms, detailing why the ETSU-R-97 method is accepted over other
possible assessment techniques. Experience has now demonstrated that the

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
50
implementation of these recommendations has enabled the operation of wind farms
without giving rise to noise difficulties. This methodology has therefore been
adopted for the Blackstone Edge Wind Farm assessment.
6.3.16
The advice presented in the document was produced by the Working Group on
Noise from Wind Turbines, a body comprising a number of interested parties
including, amongst others, windfarm operators, environmental health officers,
acoustic consultants and legal experts. The assessment approach was developed to
address the shortcomings of other standards in addressing windfarm noise.
6.3.17
An explanation of noise terminology is provided in the Glossary and Abbreviations

(Appendix A).
Noise limits
6.3.18 The acceptable limits for wind turbine operation noise are defined in ETSU-R-97.
The test for operational noise is therefore whether or not the calculated windfarm
noise levels at receptor properties lie below the noise limits derived in accordance
with ETSU-R-97.
6.3.19
ETSU-R-97 provides a simplified approach if predicted operational noise at

receptors is limited to an LA90,10min of 35dB in wind speeds up to 10ms-1 at 10m height.
Preliminary modelling for the Blackstone Edge Wind Farm indicated that noise was
likely to exceed this threshold at a number of properties surrounding the site.
Hence, the guidance recommends that windfarm noise limits should be set relative
to existing background noise levels, subject to a fixed minimum limit, and that these
limits should reflect the variation in both turbine source noise and background noise
with wind speed. The wind speeds that should be considered range from the cut-in
speed (the wind speed at which the turbine begins to generate power, commonly
around 4ms-1) up to 12ms-1, the point at which wind turbines are usually at 95% of
their rated power and thus no significant increases in noise emission are expected.
Wind speeds are referenced to a 10m measurement height (V10).
6.3.20
The daytime noise limit is derived from background noise data measured during
quiet daytime at residential properties, which comprise:
all evenings from 18:00 - 23:00; plus
Saturday afternoons from 13:00 - 18:00; and
all day Sunday 07:00 - 23:00.
6.3.21
The data is plotted against the concurrent wind speed data measured at the proposed
Blackstone Edge Wind Farm site and a best fit correlation is established.
6.3.22
In low noise environments (i.e. where background noise levels are less than 3035dB(A)), ETSU-R-97 recommends that windfarm noise for quiet daytime periods
should be limited to an absolute fixed level within the range LA90,10min 35-40dB or
5dB(A) above the prevailing background, whichever is the greater. The lower
absolute fixed level selected for Blackstone Edge is 35dB(A), reflecting the
relatively small size of the scheme.
6.3.23
The night-time noise limit is derived from background noise data measured during
the night-time 23:00 to 07:00 every day. As with the daytime data, this is plotted

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
51
against the concurrent wind speed data and a best fit correlation established. For
night time periods the recommended limits are LA90,10min 43dB or 5dB(A) above
prevailing background, whichever the greater.
6.3.24
The ETSU-R-97 noise criteria 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 level of
correction will depend on the amount by which the tone exceeds the audibility
threshold.
Operational Noise Modelling

6.3.25 Whilst there are several noise propagation models available, the model used is that
found in ISO 9613-2. The model takes account of:
geometric divergence (attenuation with distance);
air absorption;
barriers (including buildings or topography);
screening (including vegetation); and
ground absorption and reflection.
6.3.26
The ISO 9613-2 algorithm has been chosen as being the most robust prediction
method, based on the findings of a joint European Commission research project into
windfarm noise propagation over large distances (Bullmore & Sloth, 1998).
According to this research, this model (like all the others considered in the research)
tends to over-estimate noise levels at nearby dwellings, rather than under-estimate
it. The over-riding conclusion of the study was that the ISO 9613-2 algorithm
tended to predict noise levels that would generally occur under down wind
propagation conditions.
6.3.27
The other important outcome of the research was to demonstrate that under upwind
propagation conditions, between a given receiver and the windfarm, the windfarm
noise level at that receiver will be as much as 10dB(A) to 15dB(A) lower than the
level predicted using the ISO 9613-2 algorithm.
6.3.28
Calculations were undertaken using LIMA noise propagation software. For the
purposes of the present assessment, all noise level predictions have been based upon
the following model parameters:
a receiver height of 4.0m above local ground level - to represent the height of a
typical bedroom window;
hard ground (G = 0) - in reality the ground between the turbines and receptors is
almost entirely porous, hence including an element of hard ground in the model
is a conservative assumption since hard ground has virtually no absorptive
properties; and
air absorption based on a temperature of 10C and 70% relative humidity.
6.3.29
ETSU-R-97 states the LA90,10min descriptor should be used for both the background
noise and windfarm noise when setting limits and the LA90,10min is likely to be about

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
52
1.5 to 2.5dB less than the LAeq,10min. The noise model predicts operational noise
levels in terms of LAeq. In this instance it is assumed the LA90,10min is 1.5dB less than
the LAeq,10min presenting the most conservative case.
Cumulative Impacts
6.3.30 The Blackstone Edge Wind Farm is located less than 1km from the operational
Royd Moor wind farm. In addition, planning permission has recently been granted
for the development of a small wind farm known as Hazlehead, approximately
1.7km south west of the site. Schemes further afield are not considered as they
would have negligible noise impact.
6.3.31
As agreed with the Environmental Health Officer of Barnsley MBC, in order to take
account of the cumulative effects of all three schemes operating simultaneously, the
noise modelling described below includes a contribution from all of the schemes.
6.3.32
The existing background noise measurements were undertaken with the Royd Moor
turbines operating, but during site visits the Royd Moor site was not audible at
either New Maythorn or Spicer House. The predicted noise levels associated with
the Hazlehead and Royd Moor schemes were added to the predicted levels from the
proposed Blackstone Edge turbines and the total wind turbine noise from all three
sites assessed against ETSU guidelines.
6.3.33
Noise source data for the Royd Moor turbines was obtained from the wind farm
operators. The equivalent data for the Hazlehead turbines was obtained from the
Environmental Statement submitted in support of the planning application. In
summary, the predicted noise levels below include the contribution of all three
schemes operating simultaneously.
6.4
Off-Site
6.4.1
Background noise monitoring was undertaken at two properties surrounding the
Blackstone Edge Wind Farm site, the locations of which are shown on Figure 6.1
and listed in Table 6.1. The equipment was left in-situ and data collected from 11
December 2006. The equipment was not recovered until 3 January 2007, however
the batteries had expired earlier and no further data was logged after 26 December
2006.
Table 6.1
Noise Monitoring Locations
Northing#
Monitoring Position
420479
405628
Yard to northwest of house
418963
405515
Northeast corner of garden
Receptor
Easting
Spicer House
New Maythorn
Farm
GPS coordinates

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
53
6.4.2
A 10m high meteorological monitoring mast was installed on the site concurrently
to collect simultaneous 10 minute-averaged wind speed, direction and rain data.
Figure 6.2 shows the range of wind speeds and directions which were recorded over
the monitoring period. Where rainfall occurred, the noise and wind speed data has
been excluded from the assessment and is not presented within the figures. During
the survey, wind speeds up to around 14ms-1 were recorded during both quiet
daytime and night-time periods. Winds were generally south-westerly.
6.4.3
The equipment used for the background noise monitoring comprised Rion NL-31
Class 1 integrating logging sound level meters. These were enclosed in an
environmental case with sufficient battery power to enable approximately 10 days
continuous logging at the required 10 minute averaging periods, logging the LA90,
LA50, LA10, LAeq, LAmax, and LAmin. The measurement systems were fitted with
appropriate wind and rain protection for the microphone to maintain Class 1
measurement accuracy. All microphones were located a sufficient distance away
from reflective faades in a location deemed to be representative of background
noise at the property, away from any obvious local sources of noise. Photographs of
the measurement location are provided in Appendix C.
6.4.4
The sound level meters were calibrated on deployment and recovery. The batteries
were changed and the meter calibrated once during the survey. No significant drifts
in calibration were noted at any point.
6.4.5
The upper graphs on Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4 present charts showing the 10 minute
average wind speed plotted against noise levels measured for the same period,
together with a calculated best fit line, for both day and night-time periods at the
two locations. The charts exclude periods of rainfall.
6.4.6
A summary of the measured levels is provided in Table 6.2, together with a

qualitative description of the background noise environment. In general, it was
noted that the ambient noise environment at the receptors was dominated by natural
sources, including the wind blowing through trees, and animals. Distant traffic was
also audible at both locations. The existing Royd Moor Wind Farm was not audible
at either location during the survey visits.
6.4.7
The values of the best-fit background noise curve and subsequent noise limit
derived following the ETSU-R-97 procedure described in Section 6.3 are detailed
later in Table 6.5 and Table 6.6.
Table 6.2
Receptor
Summary of Background Noise Levels at Receptors
Quiet
Daytime
LA90,10min
Night-Time
LA90,10min
Construction
Hours
LAeq,10min
Description of Noise
Environment
Spicer House
21 - 62
19 - 61
27 - 66
Birdsong, wind in trees, distant traffic
New Maythorn
Farm
21 - 63
19 - 64
32 - 74
Wind, livestock, aircraft, wildlife, distant

traffic, agricultural activity

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
54
Predicted Future Baseline
6.4.8
It is reasonable to assume that over time, background noise levels in the vicinity of
the wind farm will increase gradually in line with increased traffic levels.
6.5
Mitigation
6.5.1
Mitigation, offsetting and enhancement proposals are outlined below. No mitigation

measures are identified for operational noise as the site complies with the noise
limits derived. Significant effects associated with construction traffic noise are
forecast to occur for a short period only (three days), therefore no mitigation is
proposed.
Construction and Decommissioning

6.5.2
Construction noise is transient in nature and can generally be controlled by
following standard industry practices, applying best practicable means and using
modern, well-maintained and serviced items of plant.
6.5.3
No specific mitigation is required with regards to construction noise. However,

general guidance for controlling construction noise is given in British Standard
5228. E.ON propose to implement the following mitigation measures concerning
construction noise:
Restricted hours of working (08:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 - 13:00
Saturdays and no audible activities Sundays) to avoid sensitive periods. Any
requirement to work outside of these periods would only occur through prior
agreement with the local planning authority (for example turbine erection
requires low wind speed conditions and may require longer working hours if
conditions are poor at the time).
All construction activities to be undertaken in accordance with good practice as
set out in BS5228:1997.
All employees on the Blackstone Edge Wind Farm construction site will be
advised of quieter methods of operating plant and tools, and to report any
damage to noise control measures as soon as they are identified.
Where practicable, for any particular activity, locally available and suitable
plant, machinery and working practices would be adopted. All equipment will
be maintained in good working order and will be fitted with appropriate noise
controls at all times (e.g. silencers, mufflers and acoustic hoods).
Construction plant capable of generating significant noise and vibration levels
will be operated in a manner to minimise the duration of the higher magnitude
levels.
The site will register with the Considerate Constructors Scheme, a government
endorsed scheme which encourages good practice on construction sites.
Registered sites provide a commitment to comply with a Code of Practice which
details how the construction site should present itself to and interact with the
general public, and includes guidance on managing noise emissions.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
55
6.6
Assessment of Potential Effects
Construction and Decommissioning Noise

6.6.1
Construction noise may arise through the operation of large items of plant on site,
such as heavy goods vehicles, excavators, dumper trucks and cranes. In terms of
plant operations on site, it is likely that the most noise-intensive period of activity
will occur during the laying of turbine foundations, which may require piling of the
bases and filling with concrete over a short period of time.
6.6.2
The nearest receptor to the turbines, New Maythorn Farm, is situated 616m from the
nearest turbine location and a similar distance from any access tracks; distance
attenuation alone over this separation is greater than 55dB. Thus, it is not
anticipated that levels will exceed the AL72 recommended limit of 70dB(A) for
construction site noise, given that the combined sound power level of plant
operating at the turbine location would have to exceed 133dB(A) for this to occur,
which is highly unlikely. Typical combined sound power levels for construction
activities would be more likely to be in the region of 116-120 dB(A). Limited
potential for occasionally significant noise effects may occur when work is closest
to the receptors, though such effects will be short-lived and transient in nature,
given that the access tracks to the turbines lie within the site boundary itself. It is
assumed that decommissioning noise will be less than, or as a worst-case,
comparable with construction noise.
6.6.3
The site is to be connected to the electricity distribution network by underground

cable. It is understood this will be laid alongside the existing road network. Typical
plant for this operation would include two excavators (one carrying the cable drum),
a roller, delivery lorry and small dumper. Using BS5228 methodology, based on
this plant operating 66% of the time, at a distance of 10m from the nearest property,
noise levels of 56dB(A) are predicted. This is significantly below the AL72
criterion of 70dB(A). It should also be noted that the operations would be mobile
and would only be in proximity of a single property for a short period.
Traffic Noise
6.6.4
Traffic noise consists of two main parts:
vehicle engine/exhaust noise; and
tyre noise.
6.6.5
Noise from traffic travelling along a road consists of a contribution from a number
of different sources. The overall traffic noise level is influenced by traffic flow,
speed and composition (% HGVs), road gradient and road surface. The noise
experienced by a nearby receptor is dependent upon the separation distance from the
road and any intervening ground cover and/or screening.
6.6.6
As noted in Chapter 10, the maximum traffic impact associated with the
construction of the wind farm will occur during month four, when 128 two-way
HGV trips per day are forecast for three days during the concrete deliveries. For the
remainder of the scheme, when concrete deliveries are not taking place, a maximum
of 18 daily two-way trips is forecast.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
56
6.6.7
Details of the more typical level of movements and base traffic levels are also given
in Chapter 10 for Royd Lane and the A628, the access route to site. The resulting
changes are as follows:
Non-concrete delivery days - maximum of 18 two-way HGV trips per day - due
to high existing numbers of HGV movements on the A628, this 3.2% change in
traffic results in a less than 1dB change in noise levels. For Royd Lane, lower
existing traffic levels mean that the change in HGV movements is around 30%.
However, this also equates to a change in noise levels of less than 1dB. Hence
traffic noise impacts for non-concrete pouring days are not considered
significant.
Concrete delivery maximum 128 two-way HGV trips per day for three days
for the A628, this is a 23% increase in HGV movements, again resulting in a
change in traffic noise of less than 1dB. For Royd Lane this increase represents
a 213% change in traffic noise levels and subsequent increase in traffic noise
levels of 3.2dB. This level of change will be perceptible at the properties, and is
thus considered a significant effect for the three days of concrete deliveries.
Operational Noise
6.6.8
There is a range of commercially available turbines that would be appropriate to the
Blackstone Edge Wind Farm site. The final selection of turbine will follow a
competitive tendering process and thus the actual model of turbine may differ from
that on which this assessment has been based. However, the final choice of turbine
will be required to comply with the noise criterion levels which have been
established for the site within this noise assessment.
6.6.9
A number of candidate wind turbines satisfying the proposed dimensions for the site
have been assessed for noise compliance, including the Vestas V80, the Nordex N80
and the Repower MM82. It was concluded that all of these machines would satisfy
the noise limits derived in this assessment. In order to maintain simplicity of this
noise assessment and consistency with the rest of the ES, this assessment considers
only the Repower MM82.
6.6.10
The turbine MM82 turbine has a nominal power of 2MW. Noise data for this
turbine has been obtained from the following sources:
sound power levels for integer wind speeds - Sound Power Level of REpower
MM82i; and
one-third octave spectra - Summary of results of then noise emission
measurement, in accordance with IEC 61400-11, of a WTGS of the type
REpower MM82ii.
6.6.11
At a reference wind speed of V10 = 10ms-1 (i.e. wind speed at 10 metres height, as
referred to in ETSU-R-97) the turbine operates with its maximum sound power level
LWA = 105.5dB. The data provide an indication of the variation in sound output
with wind speed over the range 4 to 12ms-1 as detailed in Table 6.3. In order to
take account of any measurement uncertainty and thus present the worst case, the
values have been increased by the 0.7dB uncertainty quoted in the test report
referred to above from which the one-third octave spectra was taken.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
57
Table 6.3
Repower MM82 Sound Power Levels

Wind Speed at 10m Height (V10) ms-1
3
10
Data as provided by
Repower
89.2
93.2
99.6
101.7
102.6
103.8
104.8
105.5
Data used for

#
modelling
89.9
93.9
100.3
102.4
103.3
104.5
105.5
106.2
Sound power levels increased by 0.7dB to account for measurement uncertainty
6.6.12
The sound emitted by wind turbines consists of a number of different frequencies,

some of which are more dominant than others. These frequencies are grouped
together into what are known as octave bands or spectra. Within each spectrum the
highest frequency is twice the lowest frequency and the octave bands are defined by
the centre frequency. The addition of these spectra will give an overall sound power
level for the turbine. The amount of absorption over a given distance depends on
the frequency of the noise - high frequencies are absorbed more readily than low
frequencies.
6.6.13
Third-octave spectra data for the Repower MM82 turbine are detailed in Table 6.4.
These were determined in a wind speed of V10 = 8ms-1. The spectrum is scaled to
the appropriate total sound power level detailed in Table 6.3 by the modelling
software.
Table 6.4
One-Third Octave Band Spectra of Repower MM82
Centre
Frequency
(Hz)
LWA (dB)
Centre
Frequency
(Hz)
LWA (dB)
Centre
Frequency
(Hz)
LWA (dB)
50
77.5
315
95.3
2,000
89.4
63
81.7
400
95.2
2,500
87.2
80
85.8
500
93.4
3,150
84.2
100
89.4
630
92.4
4,000
81.9
125
92.3
800
91.6
5,000
77.2
160
93.8
1,000
90.8
6,300
73.0
200
95.9
1,250
90.5
8,000
66.1
250
95.8
1,600
91.0
10,000
59.4
6.6.14
Noise levels have been predicted for the two closest residential properties to the
wind farm, as shown on Figure 6.1. The predicted noise levels also include a
contribution from the Royd Moor and Hazlehead turbines.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
58
6.6.15
Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 present the following information for each integer wind
speed for both properties for daytime and night-time respectively:
values of the background noise curve, measured as described in Section 6.3;
the noise limits derived from the background noise curve, in accordance with
ETSU-R-97;
the predicted turbine noise levels, based on the above data and including the
contribution of the Royd Moor and Hazlehead turbines; and
the margin by which the turbine noise meets the noise limit.
6.6.16
Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4 present this information graphically. It should be noted
that the predicted turbine noise is equal for both day and night-time; the assessment
is presented separately to take account of the different noise limits which are
applicable.
Table 6.5
Noise Assessment Results - Daytime
Wind Speed V10 (ms-1)
10
Background noise curve
32.6
34.3
36.1
37.8
39.5
41.2
43.0
44.7
ETSU-R-97 derived noise limit
37.6
39.3
41.1
42.8
44.5
46.2
48.0
49.7
Predicted turbine noise*
26.7
31.5
37.7
39.7
40.5
41.6
42.6
43.2
-11.0
-7.9
-3.4
-3.1
-4.0
-4.6
-5.4
-6.5
30.5
32.1
33.8
35.5
37.1
38.8
40.5
42.1
35.5
37.1
38.8
40.5
42.1
43.8
45.5
47.1
25.2
29.4
37.7
39.1
39.8
40.7
41.5
42.1
-10.3
-7.7
-1.1
-1.4
-2.3
-3.1
-3.9
-5.0
New Maythorn
Margin under noise limit
Spicer House
Noise levels are dB LA90,10min

*Includes contribution from Hazlehead and Royd Moor turbines
#
Negative values indicate the predicted turbine noise lies under noise limit
Table 6.6
10
29.5
31.4
33.3
35.2
37.1
39.0
40.8
42.7
New Maythorn

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
59
10
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
44.0
45.8
47.7
26.7
31.5
37.7
39.7
40.5
41.6
42.6
43.2

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
60
10
-16.3
-11.5
-5.3
-3.3
-2.5
-2.3
-3.3
-4.5
27.5
29.3
31.1
32.9
34.6
36.4
38.2
40.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.2
45.0
25.2
29.4
37.7
39.1
39.8
40.7
41.5
42.1
-17.8
-13.6
-5.3
-3.9
-3.2
-2.3
-1.7
-2.9
Spicer House
Noise levels are dB LA90,10min

*Includes contribution from Hazlehead and Royd Moor turbines
#
Negative values indicate the predicted turbine noise lies under noise limit
6.6.17
It can be seen from Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 that the worst-case noise levels
predicted are over 1dB below the ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits at Spicer House
and over 2dB below at New Maythorn.
Other Operational Noise Issues

Tonality
6.6.18 The manufacturers noise reports also provide information on the tonal noise
characteristics of the Repower MM82 wind turbine. A number of tones were
identified during the measurements, the audibility of which were assessed as in
excess of -13dB. Thus, the turbine would incur no tonal penalty under ETSU-R-97.
6.6.19
The manufacturer of the turbine eventually installed at the site would be required to
demonstrate that the turbine noise contains no tonal components which would
require a penalty when assessed in accordance with ETSU-R-97 or, where tonal
components warrant a penalty, the noise limits specified herein are met taking into
account any penalty appropriate.
Wind Shear
6.6.20 The emission levels detailed above are referenced to a wind speed at a height of
10m. In consideration of the fact that the wind speed at hub height will be greater
than that experienced at 10m above ground level the standard practice for measuring
the noise emitted by a wind turbine (BS EN 61400-11:2003) includes a procedure
for determining wind speed at 10m height from the measured level at hub height,
based upon accepted wind shear profiles for particular ground conditions.
6.6.21
Meteorological conditions can lead to a change in the stability of the atmosphere

and associated wind shear profile; hence the wind speed at hub height may differ
from that encountered under test conditions for the same wind speed at 10m above
ground level. This may result in higher or lower noise emissions from the turbine.
However, recent data presented by Botha demonstrates that the extent to which the
stability of the atmosphere can change is influenced by the topography of the site.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
61
Where the surrounding terrain is complex in nature, as at the Blackstone Edge Wind
Farm site, the potential changes will be much less significant than for a site in a flat
area. Consequently, for this site it is not considered necessary to make adjustments
to the noise emissions quoted above to reflect the potential phenomenon of
enhanced wind shear.
Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise
6.6.22 Information published by the British Wind Energy Association presents a review of
a number of sources of information on low frequency noise. Based upon these
sources, it is concluded that levels lie below the threshold of perception even for
those who are particularly sensitive to such noise, even on the actual windfarm site
itself.
6.6.23
More recently, the Department of Trade and Industry commissioned report The
Measurement of Low Frequency Noise at Three UK Wind Farms presents the
results of a number of measurements taken at sites throughout the UK. The study
concluded that modern wind turbines are not sources of infrasound at levels which
could be injurious to health of a windfarm neighbour. Furthermore, the report goes
on to describe how some low frequency noise measurements inside properties near
to a windfarm were above the threshold of audibility. However, at all of the
measurement sites low frequency noise associated with traffic movement along
local roads was greater than that associated with the windfarm.
6.6.24
In the discussion of noise within the technical annex on wind energy, the
Companion Guide to PPS22 goes on to state in paragraph 45:
There is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise from
wind turbines is at a sufficient level to be harmful to human health.
Aerodynamic Modulation
6.6.25 The noise limits derived following the procedure recommended by ETSU-R-97 take
into account the phenomenon of aerodynamic modulation (occasionally termed
amplitude modulation or blade swish) to a certain extent and thus afford receptors
some protection. However, the Department of Trade and Industry study into low
frequency noise referred to above also investigated the phenomenon of aerodynamic
modulation.
6.6.26
It was found that internal noise levels associated with aerodynamic modulation were
above the threshold of audibility at some properties. While measurements indicated
these were not high enough to awake occupiers of a room, they could result in
difficulties returning to sleep once awoken.
6.6.27
Following publication of the report, the Department of Trade and Industry published
a guidance note to advise planning authorities on the issue. It states that concerns
apparently relating to the phenomenon have been expressed at 5 out of 126
windfarms throughout the UK. It is categorically stated that ETSU-R-97 should
continue to be used for the assessment of noise from windfarms.
6.6.28
Given that little is known about the causes or locations where the phenomenon
occurs, that there is currently no method of dealing with the issue, and that it only

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
62
occurs at a small number of UK sites, it is not considered necessary to further
consider the issue for Blackstone Edge Wind Farm.
6.7
6.7.1
Table 6.7 summarises the evaluation of effects.
Construction and Decommissioning Noise

6.7.2
As outlined in Section 6.4, construction noise is not anticipated to exceed the AL72
criteria of 70dB(A) at the nearest receptors to the site, given the high separation
distance and compact nature of the site working areas, including access tracks. It is
accepted that the works may be audible at the nearest receptors, and that limited
potential for occasionally significant noise effects may occur when work is closest
to the receptors, though such effects will be short-lived and transient in nature. It is
assumed that decommissioning noise will be less than, or as a worst-case
comparable with construction noise. Consequently, noise from the construction and
decommissioning of the scheme is assessed as not significant.
Traffic Noise
6.7.3
For the road network assessed in Chapter 10, Traffic and Transport, the greatest
increase in traffic will occur during the three days when concrete deliveries are
taking place. This will result in a change in traffic noise levels of over 3dB on Royd
Lane, which is considered a significant impact. However, this is only the case for
Royd Lane; the wider road network is afforded a level of not significant.
Furthermore, this will only occur for three days during the construction programme,
the maximum credible impact for the remainder of the programme is not significant
for all road sections.
Operational Noise
6.7.4
The assessment has derived noise limits for the windfarm using the methodology
specified in ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms.
These limits are repeated in Table 6.6, together with the predicted noise levels from
the operation of the windfarm at the two properties assessed. The margin by which
the predicted turbine noise lies within the limit are also specified. It can be seen that
the predicted windfarm noise levels lie in excess of 1dB below the limits (as
indicated by negative values in the table).
6.7.5
Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4 demonstrate this point graphically. Consequently, taking
into account these facts and the other issues discussed in Section 6.4, including low
frequency noise, wind shear, tonality and aerodynamic modulation, it is concluded
that the windfarm will have no significant effects in relation to operational noise.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
63
Table 6.8
Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance
Type of effect1
Receptor and summary of predicted effects
Significance
Construction/decommissioning noise on residential

receptors
-ve
NS
Traffic noise on residential receptors for three days of

concrete delivery
-ve
Operational noise on residential receptors
-ve
NS
Key/footnotes:
1.Type of effect
-ve = negative
2.
+ ve = positive
or
N = Neutral
NS
Significant
Not-significant
? = unknown
6.8
References
Department of the Environment (1976) Advisory Leaflet 72, Noise Control on
Building Sites.
British Standard 5228:1997 Noise and Vibration Control on Open Sites. BSI.
Highways Agency (1994) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges - Traffic Noise
and Vibration. Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7.
Department of Transport (1988) Calculation of Road Traffic Noise.
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22, ODPM, 2004.
Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy, ODPM, 2004
The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines (1996) The Assessment and
Rating of Noise from Windfarms. ETSU-R-97
ISO 9613-2 (1996) Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation
outdoors - Part 2: General method of calculation. International Standards
Organisation.
Repower Systems (2005) Sound Power Level of REpower MM82.
WINDTEST (2004) Summary of results of the noise emission measurement, in
accordance with IEC 61400-11, of a WTGS of the type REpower MM82.
BS EN 61400-11:2003 Wind turbine generator systems - Part 11: Acoustic noise
measurement techniques. BSI.
van den Berg, G. P. (2004) Effects on the wind profile at night on wind turbine
sound. Journal of Sound and Vibration. Number 277, pp 955 - 970.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
64
Botha, P. (2005) The Use of 10 m Wind Speed Measurements in the Assessment
of Wind Farm Developments. First International Meeting on Wind Turbine
Noise: Perspectives for Control.
British Wind Energy Association (2005) Low Frequency Noise and Wind
Turbines [online]. URL http://www.bwea.com/pdf/briefings/lfn_summary.pdf
(last accessed 8/3/07)
Hayes Mackenzie Partnership (2006) The Measurement of Low Frequency Noise
at Three UK Wind Farms. Department of Trade and Industry.
DTI (2006) Advice on findings of the Hayes Mackenzie report on noise arising
from wind farm [online]. URL http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file35592.pdf (last
accessed 8/3/07)

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
65
7.
Landscape & Visual Assessment
7.1
Introduction
7.1.1
This chapter has been produced by chartered landscape architects at Entec UK

Limited, The primary author is Clare Horner. Clare is a Member of the Landscape
Institute and holds an MLA in Landscape Architecture.
7.1.2
This chapter assesses the landscape and visual impact of the proposed Blackstone
Edge Wind Farm and associated infrastructure, situated north west of Penistone and
Barnsley, and north of the Peak District National Park.
7.1.3
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) for wind farms forms one of the
key components of the EIA process to comply with the relevant environmental
assessment regulations and local and structure plan policies, for the protection of the
landscape resource.
7.1.4
The main objectives of this assessment have been to determine the potential
landscape and visual effects of the proposed turbines at the Blackstone Edge Wind
Farm on the existing landscape resource, landscape character and visual amenity of
people.
7.1.5
The chapter presents the results of the LVIA of the proposed development as it
would affect the existing landscape resource. The structure of the chapter is
outlined as follows:
Section 7.2 Methodology: This section describes the methodology that has been
followed to complete the assessment. The full methodology can be found in
Appendix D1. It identifies the sequence of data collection and interpretation and
the basis on which particular assessment decisions are made;
Section 7.3 Scope: This section defines the parameters within which the
methodology has been applied to perform the assessment of the Blackstone Edge
Wind Farm including the viewpoints that have been used;
Section 7.4: Planning Policy Context gives a brief overview of the relevant
landscape planning policies gained from the development plans from the local
planning authorities within the study area, and summarised in Appendix D3 and
D4. A complete review of the Planning Policies can be found in Chapter 5;
Section 7.5: Project Description and Mitigation Incorporated in the Proposed
Development: this section provides a brief description of the site, with a full site
description to be found in Chapter 4. The assessment is completed on the basis
of the residual effects of the proposed wind farm i.e. after the effects of these
mitigation measures are taken into account;
Section 7.6: Description of Baseline Conditions: this comprises a description of
the existing landscape resources within the LVIA Study Area;

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
66
Section 7.7 Assessment of Potential Landscape Effects: This section defines the
predicted effects of the proposed development on the inherent landscape
character of the LVIA study area and considers predicted cumulative landscape
effects of the Blackstone Edge Wind Farm with built and proposed wind farm
developments. This includes the evaluation of level and significance of
landscape effects. The predicted effects are evaluated and their significance in
EIA terms assessed;
Section 7.8: Assessment of Potential Visual Effects: This presents the findings
of the viewpoint analysis which considers the effects of the proposed
development (including incorporated mitigation) on the visual amenity of people
(termed receptors). This includes the evaluation of level and significance of
visual effects. The predicted visual effects are evaluated and their significance in
EIA terms assessed for different receptor groups (e.g. residents, tourists, and
those on transport routes);
Section 7.9: Cumulative Visual Effects and Assessment: This considers the
potential effect of the proposed development in combination with other wind
farm developments on the visual amenity of people whether from a single
location as well as sequential views along travel routes; and
Section 7.10: provides a summary of the assessment findings and conclusions.
7.2
Methodology & General Approach
7.2.1
A full landscape and visual impact assessment methodology can be found in

Appendix D1.
7.2.2
The methodology for the LVIA adopts the guidelines set out in the Landscape
Institutes Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second
Edition, published jointly by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental
Management and Assessment, 2002. Further guidance has been obtained from the
following documents:
The Countryside Agency Landscape Character Initiative;
The Countryside Agency Planning Principles for Landscape, Access and
Recreation Moving on from Planning Tomorrows Countryside, June 2005;
Scottish Natural Heritage, 13/04/05 Guidance: Cumulative Effects of Wind
Farms, Version 2;
Scottish Natural Heritage, 22/07/05 Visual Representation of Wind Farms Good Practice Guidance 29. March 2006, Printed March 2007, Horner &
Maclennan and Envision;
Scottish Natural Heritage, 2001, Guidelines on Environmental Impacts of Wind
farms and Small Scale Hydro Electric Schemes; and
Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland
(Countryside Agency and SNH publication), April 2002.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
67
7.2.3
Table 7.1
The LVIA process begins with a study of the existing or baseline landscape
resource. A flow chart illustrating the landscape and visual assessment process has
been provided in Table 7.1. A Glossary of Terms has been provided in Appendix
D2.
Flow Chart Illustrating the LVIA Process
1.1
Existing Landscape
Resource 1.2
1.3
1.4
Landscape Receptor
Visual Receptor
Landscape Character
Views and Visual

Amenity
Landscape Value
Landscape Quality
Development
Landscape Sensitivity
Visual Sensitivity
Magnitude of Change
Magnitude of Change
Likely to lead to landscape and

visual change.
Assessment, Mitigation and Design
Residual Landscape
Effect
Residual Visual Effect
Type of Effect and Significance of Effects
Landscape Assessment
7.2.4
Landscape effects are defined by the Landscape Institute as changes to landscape
elements, characteristics, character, and qualities of the landscape as a result of
development. The potential or predicted landscape effects, occurring during the
construction and operation period, may therefore include, but are not restricted to,
the following:
Changes to landscape elements;
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
68
Changes to landscape quality: and
Changes to landscape character.
7.2.5
Landscape effects are assessed by considering four criteria: type of effect,

probability of effect and most importantly, the sensitivity of the landscape resource
against the proposed magnitude of change. The sensitivity categories and the
magnitude of change descriptions are to be found in Table 1 Appendix D1. The
evaluation of landscape sensitivity and magnitude and the significant effects in
terms of EIA regulations are described in Box 7.1 and repeated in Table 3 of
Appendix D1.
Box 7.1
Evaluation of landscape and visual effects
Magnitude
of Change
Landscapes and Visual Sensitivity

High
Medium
Low
Negligible*
High
Substantial
Moderate / Substantial
Moderate
Slight/ Moderate
Medium
Moderate/Substantial
Moderate
Slight / Moderate
Slight
Low
Moderate
Slight / Moderate
Slight
Negligible
Negligible
Slight
Slight / Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Key:
Significant in terms of the EIA Regulations
Not significant
* Note: The negligible sensitivity column does not apply to this project.
Visual Assessment
7.2.6
Visual effects are a sub set of landscape effects and are defined by the Landscape
Institute as Changes in the character of available views and changes in the visual
amenity of visual receptors resulting from development.
7.2.7
Visual effects are also assessed by considering four criteria: type of effect,
probability of effect and most importantly the sensitivity of the visual receptor and
the proposed magnitude of change. Site visits and a computer model of the
landscape and the proposed development, illustrated by photomontages and
wireframes are used to assist this assessment process.
7.2.8
Other factors affecting visual sensitivity include the visual context and setting of
features within the view such as villages and local landmarks, and landscape value,
quality, and capacity of the area within the view, within which the wind farm would
be positioned. The evaluation of visual sensitivity and magnitude are described
further in Tables 2 and 3 in Appendix D1. Table 3 is repeated above in Box 7.1.
Cumulative Assessment
7.2.9
The cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment (CLVIA) for the proposed
site considers the effects of other existing, consented and proposed wind farms
within a 30km radius of the site.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
69
7.2.10
These assessment findings should not however, be regarded as a substitute for

individual wind farm landscape and visual impact assessments.
7.2.11
Existing wind farm developments already present in the landscape (i.e. the existing
Royd Moor Wind Farm), as well as those approved but not yet built (i.e. the
Hazelhead Wind Farm), have been included in the cumulative assessment. The
single turbines at Ecklands Farm and Longley Farm have been included as part of
the existing baseline landscape and assessed as part of the LVIA. Longley Farm is
considered in the CLVIA assessment. Bullhouse, Ecklands is excluded from
CLVIA on the basis of information received from the local authority that the single
wind turbine, which gained planning permission in 1992, has not been operational
for approximately one year and enforcement action is currently being undertaken to
decommission and remove the turbine. Other wind farms in the planning process at
the scoping stage, or which may have been withdrawn, have also been considered as
part of the baseline in the LVIA although the probability of these schemes coming
into existence is less certain.
7.2.12
The probability of cumulative effects is variable; those effects related to existing

wind farms and those under construction are considered as certain, those
developments with planning consent are considered as likely. Wind farm sites for
which there is a submitted planning application are considered as uncertain and
other wind farms for which no planning application has been made are considered
as uncertain/unknown.
7.2.13
This cumulative assessment considers the cumulative effects of the proposed

turbines at Blackstone Edge Wind Farm with the existing Royd Moor wind farm,
the consented Hazelhead wind farms and the single turbine at Longley Farm.
Consultation
7.2.14 Consultation was undertaken with Statutory Consultees during the LVIA. The
broad methodology and scope of the assessment was discussed with:
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (BMBC);
The Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA);
Council to Protect Rural England (CPRE);

Kirklees Council (KC);
Sheffield City Council; and
High Peak Borough Council.
7.2.15
Consultation included the discussion of the study area, landscape character areas,
viewpoints, and receptors to be included in the visual assessment. Consultation
letters were circulated in February/March 2007, and a meeting to finalise the scope
of the LVIA was held with BMBC on 13 March 2007 in which the LVIA study area
and cumulative sites were finalised. Further to this meeting a number of additional
viewpoints were included within the assessment. Written and verbal consultation
responses from the PDNPA, Natural England and CPRE (March 2007) also
provided additional viewpoints to be considered within the LVIA. There was no

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
70
response from Kirklees Council/Sheffield City Council and the High Peak Borough
Council.
7.2.16
A public exhibition was held during 27/28 March 2007 where additional comments
were received from local residents.
7.2.17
Local planning authorities within the 30km radius cumulative study area were
contacted in March 2007 in order to confirm the status of the known wind farm
applications/approved wind farms in the study area.
7.3
Scope of the Assessment
7.3.1
The LVIA study area was agreed, as 10km radius from the turbines and the
cumulative study area as 30km radius from the turbines, with Barnsley MBC at the
meeting on 13th March 2007 . These study area radii concur with Entec experience.
This study area is illustrated in Figure 7.1.
7.3.2
These criteria are in line with the ES undertaken for the recently approved
Hazelhead Wind Farm, which is located ~1.7km south west of the proposed
Blackstone Edge site, see Figure 7.40.
7.3.3
The scope is further defined for each part of the assessment process as follows:
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) the study area was restricted
to the application site, access routes, and the potential zone of theoretical
visibility (ZTV) from where there may be a view of the wind farm up to 10km
distance from the turbines with potential significant landscape and visual effects;
and
Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment (CLVIA) considered existing
wind farms, proposals that have permission, and those that are currently the
subject of undetermined applications within a 30km radius of the site centre
(Figure 7.40). Other known pre-application wind farm proposals have been
identified as part of the assessment process and considered in outline only, given
the limited available information on these projects.
Visibility Map
7.3.4
Two Visibility Maps have been prepared to assess the visibility of the proposed
development:
to upper blade tip (Figure 7.2); and
to hub height (Figure 7.3).
7.3.5
In addition, cumulative visibility maps, ZTVs, have been prepared to upper blade tip
(for sites with more than one turbine) for Royd Moor wind farm (Figure 7.41) and
Hazelhead wind farm (Figure 7.42) in combination with the proposed site at
Blackstone Edge, and also for Royd Moor and Hazelhead wind farms together
(Figure 7.43), and finally for all three wind farms (Figure 7.44). Cumulative ZTVs
have not been prepared for the single turbines at Bullhouse and Longley Farm.
7.3.6
Visibility of the site is not extensively constrained by woodland or forestry, though

localised tree cover effects do occur. It should be noted however that the theoretical

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
71
area of visibility of the wind farm (ZTV) does not take account of built development
and vegetation, which can significantly reduce the area and extent of actual
visibility in the field and as such provides the limits of the visual assessment study
area.
Mitigation
7.3.7
The landscape design and mitigation process has examined the following aspects of
the wind farm:
turbine location, layout, design and appearance of wind farm;
route and design of proposed access roads and existing site entrance;
land use integration;
location, design and appearance of substation, masts and transformers;
location of temporary construction compound, access points and other
construction activity that may have a landscape or visual effect.
7.3.8
The mitigation identified is described in Section 7.4.
Grid Connection
7.3.9
The grid connection is expected to be at the Hazlehead substation (see Figure 4.7).
An underground power line will connect the wind farm to the local distribution grid
network. The grid connection has been considered within this landscape and visual
assessment. However, it is considered that there are unlikely to be any significant
landscape and visual effects associated with the grid connection as construction
works will be temporary and involve operations that would be mobile and hence
only in a fixed location for a short period. During the operational phase of the
development the cable will be underground and hence no landscape and visual
effects will arise. As such the grid connection works have been scoped-out of this
assessment.
External kiosks
7.3.10 External kiosks may be included at the base of the turbines to house the
transformers. These have been scoped-out of the landscape and visual assessment
since they are small (typically measuring up to 2m x 3m and 2m in height)
compared to the larger turbines.
7.3.11 In determining landscape quality, reference has been made to The Countryside
Agency Landscape Character Assessments13 for the following areas:
Character Area 37 Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe;
Character Area 38 Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire & Yorkshire Coalfield; and
13
Countryside Agency Character Area Study, Countryside Character Volume 3: Yorkshire & The
Humber Regional Landscape Character Assessment www.countrysideagency.org.uk, 2005.
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
72
Character Area 51 Dark Peak.
7.3.12
The proposed site lies within the Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe Landscape
Character Area (refer to Figure 7.4).
7.3.13
Reference has also been made to the Barnsley Borough Landscape Character
Assessment14.
Landscape and Visual Issues Addressed

7.3.14 The landscape and visual issues which have been addressed as part of this
assessment are listed in Table 7.2. These were established based on the experience
and professional judgement of the landscape architect who has completed this
assessment and through consultation with Barnsley MBC and CPRE. Detailed
assessment and identification of sensitive receptors follows in later sections of this
chapter.
Table 7.2
Landscape Issues
Description
Landscape Character
Landscape effects of the proposed development on sensitive landscape character types

identified during the assessment.
Landscape Elements
Direct or physical effects on landscape elements which may include agricultural

pasture/crops and existing road access to the site area.
Local Community
Views from the nearest residential properties at Spicer House/Lower Maythorn

Cottage/Lower Maythorn/Upper Maythorn/Maythorn/Browns Edge Farm. Views from
the local communities particularly Maythorn/Crow Edge/Carlecoates/Millhouse
Green/Ingbirchworth/High Flatts. Views from roads and tourist destinations within the
vicinity of the site, i.e. Ingbirchworth Reservoir and from the National Park to the south
and west.
National Park (NP)
Views from the Peak District National Park.
Area of Borough
Landscape Value (ABLV)
Views from Areas of Borough Landscape Value (ABLV) as well as views from other
areas of landscape character perceived by people (Barnsley MBC)
Area of High Landscape

Value (AHLV)
Area of High Landscape Value (Kirklees Council).
Hilltops
Views from popular hilltops within the study area, for example Tinker Hill and the hill
tops of the northern shoulders of the Peak District National Park. Attention has been
given to the views from local and promoted walking routes, especially Trans Pennine
Trail, Barnsley Boundary Walk, Dearne Way, Kirklees Walk and other locally promoted
routes.
Gardens and Designed

Landscapes/Country Park
These landscapes are well screened by perimeter estate woodland, however the
assessment examines potential visual effects on vistas and views from Cannon Hill
Country Park and its environs.
Recreational and Tourist

Destinations
Views from outdoor tourist destinations; their setting and visitor experience will be
examined as part of the assessment.
14
Barnsley Borough Landscape Character Assessment Final Report, Environmental Consultancy of

University of Sheffield and Land Use Consultants, May 2002
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
73
Landscape Issues
Description
Major Transport and

Tourist Routes
Transport routes including tourist routes. Specific routes considered in the assessment
were the A628/A629/A616/A635.
Cumulative Assessment
The cumulative assessment includes viewpoint analysis within the study area where
simultaneous and/or successive views of more than one wind farm may be achieved,
and sequential cumulative assessment, where more than one wind farm may be viewed
along transport routes (simultaneous or successive).
Viewpoint Selection
7.3.15 Many of the key issues noted above were considered through the viewpoint
assessment in the field and were selected by analysis of the visibility maps and
through consultation. The viewpoints were chosen based on the following criteria
as agreed through consultation with Barnsley MBC, Peak District National Park
Authority, CPRE and Natural England:
Viewpoints should be representative of the likely impacts;
Viewpoints should show a range of different types of views;
Viewpoints should be representative of a range of different receptor groups;
Viewpoints should be representative of a range of distances; and
Viewpoints should be representative of the varying image of the wind farm in the
landscape.
7.3.16
Table 7.3 provides a summary of the illustrated viewpoints agreed through

consultation. A summary of the findings of each viewpoint assessment is provided
in Appendix D5. The location of the viewpoints is illustrated in Figure 7.9. All the
viewpoints included within the LVIA illustrate a potential cumulative situation with
the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm and the consented Hazelhead Wind Farm.
Table 7.3
Viewpoint
Reason for Initial Selection
Distance
to the
nearest
turbine
(m)
1. Whitley Common
Minor road to the west of the site, at junction with public footpath and
557m
bridleway
2. Spicer House Lane
Minor road to the north east of the site, near two residential properties
799m
3. Barnsley Boundary Walk (E)
Recreational route east of the site
1223m

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
74
Viewpoint
Reason for Initial Selection
Distance
to the
nearest
turbine
(m)
4. Crow Edge
Residential properties near site to the south west
1240m
5. Victoria
Residential properties in small settlement near site to the west
1692m
6. Windmill Lane, Low

Common
Local road and residential properties north of the site
1719m
7. Royd Moor Wind Farm

Viewing Point
Dedicated roadside viewpoint for the turbines at Royd Moor
1961m
8. High Flats on A629
Road users & residential properties north east of the site
2303m
9. Trans Pennine Trail at

Hazelhead near A616(T)
(PDNP)
Long distance recreational route and road users south of the site on
2350m
edge of Peak District National Park (this viewpoint is representative of

the closest views within the National Park to the site)
10. Carlecotes
Residential properties near site to the south west
2522m
11. Millhouse Green & B6106
Road users & residential properties on western edge of the settlement

south east of the site
2624m
12. Tinker Hill
Open access recreation land to the west of the site
3595m
13. Barnsley Boundary Walk

(SW)/A628 (T) (PDNP)
Long distance recreational route within the Peak District National Park,
south of the site
4444m
14. A628, roundabout south

west of Hoylandswaine
Road users, first views when approaching the site from the east
5937m
15. Trans Pennine Trail at

A628 (PDNP)
Long distance recreational route within the Peak District National Park
south west
7175m
16. Roydhouse
Road users within an area of high ground north east of the site
7752m
17. Cut Gate (PDNP)
Recreational users of footpath on north facing slopes of the northern

fringe of the Peak District National Park
8091m
18. Ewan Heights (PDNP)
Road users within the Peak District National Park
8171m
19. Holme Viewing Location

(PDNP)
Receptors at a public viewing location and road users within the Peak
District National Park
9853m
Visualisations
7.3.17 In this assessment a photograph of the existing view, a wireframe of the proposed
development (alongside the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm and consented
Hazelhead Wind Farm) and a photomontage have been produced to assist the reader
for Viewpoints 1 11. The remaining viewpoints (they are more distant and a
photomontage is less useful at this range) are illustrated with a photograph of the
existing view and a wireframe of the proposed development at Blackstone Edge
(alongside the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm and consented Hazelhead Wind
Farm). More detail on the methodology used for the production of the
photomontage images is included within Appendix D5.
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
75
Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment
7.3.18 The cumulative landscape and visual assessment study area requires a base plan to
be produced to show all proposals which are in the public domain and are located
within 30km from the wind farm under consideration (refer to Figure 7.40.).
Through consultation with Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council the CLVIA
study area was agreed as a 30km radius. Cumulative ZTVs will be produced for all
existing or consented wind farms with more than one turbine or planning
applications within a 30km radius from the centre point of the current proposal.
7.3.19
The cumulative assessment has considered all known wind farms agreed through
consultation with the following local planning authorities for which sufficient
information was publicly available at the date of this assessment (such as a planning
application, containing details of size, location, and number of turbines):
Leeds City Council;
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council;
Sheffield City Council;
Calderdale Council;
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council;
Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council;
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council;
Kirklees Council; and
High Peak Borough Council.
7.3.20
This situation was confirmed at 22nd March 2007. These assessment findings,
however, are not a substitute for individual wind farm landscape and visual
assessment and are based on an outline assessment of the information available.
Other potential sites may have been confirmed or proposed since the date of this
assessment.
Wind farms included within the landscape and visual assessment

7.3.21 Wind farms included or referred to in this assessment are listed in Table 7.4 and
illustrated on a plan in Figure 7.40.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
76
Table 7.4
Wind farms Included in the Cumulative Assessment within a 30km Radius
Wind farm
Site
Layout Comments and Landscape Character
Details
HH
RD
BT
No
Distance
37
53
13
0.7km
This existing wind farm comprises of two lines of

turbines, situated ~1.8km north west of Penistone
~30
~5km
A single turbine situated north west of the site, in

Kirklees district
Existing Wind farms

Royd Moor
Wind Farm
35
Longley Farm
~1520
(Height details are approximate based on information

supplied verbally by Kirklees Council)
Proposed Wind farms with Planning Consent
Hazelhead
Wind Farm
60
80
100
Key:
1.7km
This consented wind farm comprises of 3 turbines,

situated at an industrial works ~0.8km north east of the
village of Carlecoates.
HH
Hub Height
Rotor Diameter
No.
Number of turbines proposed.
RD
BT
Blade Tip
Distance Distance from the wind farm site centre.
Note 1: This information has been collected from Local Planning Authority and Wind Farm Developer sources and as
such may be subject to change.
Wind farms excluded from the landscape and visual assessment

7.3.22 Wind farms excluded from the assessment include any site over 30km from
Blackstone Edge, those proposals which are currently at scoping stage and the
single turbine at Bullhouse. There are sites where there is limited inter-visibility
within the study area, or where there is no submitted planning/scoping applications
detailing the proposals at the time of the assessment up to 22 March 2007.
7.3.23
The wind farms excluded from this assessment are listed in Table 7.5 below.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
77
Table 7.5
Wind Farms excluded from the Cumulative Assessment
Wind farm
Site
Layout Comments and Landscape
Details
No.
BT
HH
RD
Distance
Denby Dale
100
~7km
Application withdrawn
Crook Hill
12
120
~31km
Scoping stage on the 30km boundary north west of the

proposed site.
Bullhouse,
Ecklands Farm
~35
~3km
A single turbine currently not operational and subject to

enforcement action regarding decommissioning and
removal, situated south east of Blackstone Edge, south
of Thurlstone
Spicer Hill
Up
to
80m
400m
Site at scoping stage and therefore no details of final

site design are available.
Key:
No.
Number of turbines proposed.
HH
Hub Height
RD
Rotor Diameter
7.4
Planning Policy Context
7.4.1
The Local Development Plans contain a number of polices which seek to protect the
landscape resource across the study area, and includes designated landscapes that
are relevant to this assessment. The context of these planning policies should be
interpreted in reference to Chapter 5 of this ES and specific national, regional, and
local policy on renewable energy development.
The landscape planning
designations are illustrated in Figure 7.6.
7.4.2
The LVIA Study area covers administrative areas for a number of local authorities.
The ZTV illustrates those areas which have the potential to be affected by the
proposed wind farm development. These are represented by the following Councils:
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council;
Kirklees Council;
High Peak Borough Council;
Sheffield City Council; and
The Peak District National Park Authority
7.4.3
Those planning policy areas and designated landscapes that are within the visual
envelope, calculated to upper blade tip (and may potentially have views of the
proposed wind farm) have been considered in this assessment and are summarised
in Appendix D3 and D4. Other planning policies and designated landscapes out
with the visual envelope, calculated to upper blade tip, have been excluded from this
assessment.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
78
7.5
Project Description & Mitigation, Incorporated in the

Proposed Development
7.5.1
A full project description is provided in Chapter 4 of this environmental report and

the main points relevant to the LVIA are as follows:
The proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm consists of three proposed wind
turbines located in direct response to the technical, and environmental constraints
of the site area;
The LVIA has been based on a candidate three blade horizontal axis machine
with a rotor diameter of up to 82m, a hub height of up to 60m and a blade tip
height of no more than 101m;
Transformers would be located within turbine towers or at the base of each
turbine tower.
One permanent lattice meteorological mast, 60m high would be required;
The construction compound will be situated adjacent to the proposed access road
and within this compound the control building will be sited in the south west
corner adjacent to the wall adjacent to the public road and the site access road;
Each turbine would be connected via underground cable, using new cable
trenches, to the site substation and control room;
The route and location of the new access tracks were designed in response to
technical requirements and landscape design criteria to reduce landscape and
visual effects; and
Decommissioning would be carried out at the end of the 24 year operational life
of the wind farm, with all the above ground structures removed.
Design Statement
7.5.2
The design/layout of the wind farm has been largely determined by the technical
constraints on the site (refer to the Design and Access Statement). However, the
principal landscape design objectives of the Blackstone Edge Wind Farm remain, as
assessed as within the LVIA, as follows:
Develop the wind farm and associated infrastructure designed to respond to the
local landscape character and provide an acceptable design solution in terms of
scale, layout and visual composition;
The aim of the design process is to achieve a simple, balanced, rational, and
coherent image that may be viewed as an acceptable or positive component of
the visual composition;
Minimise landscape and visual effects on views from local residents and
communities;
Minimise landscape and visual effects from recreational areas/routes and popular
hilltops; and

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
79
Minimise landscape and visual effects from main transport routes.
Design Guidance: Natural England
7.5.3
There has been no specific design guidance or comments from Natural England in
relation to the proposed site layout or height of the proposed turbines during the
scoping process for the LVIA.
Design Guidance: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
7.5.4
The design guidelines used for the Blackstone Edge wind farm have been discussed
with Barnsley MBC during meetings held in March and May 2007. Barnsley MBC
noted their requirement for the design of wind developments in this area to carefully
consider the potential for cumulative effects with the existing wind turbines at Royd
Moor. Chapter 2 (section 2.3) of this ES provides further information in response to
these comments from Barnsley MBC; it sets out further information about the repowering of Royd Moor and the layout of any future proposals for wind turbines in
the vicinity of the Blackstone Edge site. Later sections in this chapter present an
assessment of findings in respect of potential cumulative effects.
Landscape design constraints and opportunities
7.5.5
Analysis of the site area, landscape character, and early wind farm design has led to
the identification of a number of landscape and visual design opportunities and
constraints, which are listed in Table 7.6.
Table 7.6
Item
Design Constraint
Design Opportunity
Yorkshire Southern Pennine

Fringe LCA
Potential visibility from higher ground and

adjacent local landscapes. The receiving
landscape is identified as medium
sensitivity being locally designated as
Area of Borough Landscape Value
(ABLV).
Actual site area in an open, upland

farmland location within a medium large
scale landscape with a demonstrated
capacity to accommodate turbines, with
the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm
located directly east of the Blackstone
Edge Wind Farm site.
Potential visibility from surrounding high

ground within the Upland Farming Area.
The receiving landscape is identified as
medium sensitivity being locally
designated as Area of Borough
Landscape Value (ABLV).
Actual site area in an open, upland

farmland location within a medium large
scale landscape with a demonstrated
capacity to accommodate turbines, with
the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm
located directly east of the Blackstone
Edge Wind Farm site.
(See Figure 7.4)
Ingbirchworth Upland
Farming LLCA
(See Figure 7.5)
Design to retain and enhance existing

hedgerows, mature trees and stone walls
in wind farm site and access road layouts
to conserve and enhance the local
landscape character.
Blackstone Edge Site
Location of turbines to relate to the

environmental constraints plan and
technical criteria.
Open, hill top location reduces possibility
to screen turbine bases, tracks and
ancillary development from some views.
Design to retain and enhance existing

hedgerows, mature trees and stone walls
in wind farm site and access road layouts
to conserve and enhance the local

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
80
Item
Design Constraint
Design Opportunity
Visual Amenity
Views and amenity of local settlements

and communities, local walks and
viewpoints. Particularly important are the
long distance views from the Peak
District National Park to the south and
west.
Design to protect visual amenity and

where visible, aspire to provide a positive
contribution to the landscape in terms of
scale, and simplicity of image or visual
composition.
Wind Farm Design

7.5.6
Initial technical analysis of the site indicated capacity for 3 turbines. The heights
and numbers of the turbines were initially assessed in terms of landscape and visual
composition.
7.5.7
This process considered the medium - large scale landscape and the scale indicators
of the existing turbines at Royd Moor using assessment during site visits, ZTV,
wireframe and photomontage analysis. It was concluded that in this particular site,
the height of the turbines were a crucial design factor and of more importance than
the locations of the turbines.
7.5.8
The landscape and visual assessment has been completed on the agreed turbine
specification of 3-bladed turbines with a maximum height to blade tip of 101m.
These are based on a model which is up to 60m to hub height and 82m rotor
diameter which creates a balanced, slender form. This height is in line with current
turbine manufacturers specifications and is comparable in height to other existing
and approved wind farms within the UK, and the now consented development at
Hazelhead.
7.5.9
The Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind farms and Small Scale
Hydroelectric Schemes published by Scottish Natural Heritage advise on the
following design criteria which would be appropriate to this site location:
Retention of simplicity of image, by relating the layout design to the
underlying landscape character;
Relating scale of wind farm and turbine size to the existing landscape scale and
character aiming to achieve a sensitive, sculptural and simple effect that
appears rational to the landscape setting;
In the case of cumulative effects, a simple image may be retained by all being of
a similar image and relationship in the landscape; and
Further guidance is provided on the design and layout of roads and ancillary
development.
7.5.10
Early wind farm layouts were run on computer software to look at the sizes of
turbines which could be placed comfortably into the landscape, and the positioning
of them. This was to identify the best wind farm fit within the scale and character
of the site, and to ensure that the proposed wind farm would present no

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
81
unacceptable cumulative effects alongside the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm to
the east of the site, and the consented Hazelhead Wind Farm to the south west of the
site. Turbine heights were considered at 125m/115m/100/80m to blade tip. It was
concluded that a turbine of a similar height to the proposed turbines at Hazelhead
Wind Farm presented a best fit visually within the landscape, and the elevated
upland landscape could accommodate the scale of the turbines at ~100m blade tip
without potential adverse scale effects with the neighbouring Royd Moor Wind
Farm at 54m height to blade tip.
Visual context
7.5.11 Viewpoint analysis of the layout design options considered the following factors:
the main axis of view or direction from where most visual receptors would view
the wind farm;
the landscape grain, scale, enclosure and presence of scale indicators15;
apparent extent and depth of the development when viewed from the viewpoints;
overall composition and simplicity of image (avoidance of outlying or
overlapping turbines, gaps);
proportion of background/skyline against which the turbines would be viewed
and consideration of colour selection;
appearance of the wind farm from moving receptors on the road network, and in
particular recreational receptors on the local footpath/bridleway network to the
north and south.
7.5.12
Areas of potential visibility within the study area have been examined from
approximately 45 viewpoints within the Resoft Wind Farm model and the design
developed to reduce visual affects and enhance the composition of what remained
visible from these viewpoints.
Turbine selection
7.5.13 The landscape and visual assessment has been completed on the proposed turbine
specification of 3 bladed turbines with a maximum height to blade tip of 101m.
Turbine colour
7.5.14 From most viewpoints the turbines would be viewed against the background sky.
For these reasons the turbines are proposed to be coloured pale grey with a semimatt finish to reduce their contrast with the background sky. The turbines would be
uniform in colour and would not support company logos or similar. Transformers
would be located within turbine towers or externally in a small kiosk at the base of
each turbine tower. This detail is dependent on procurement and final turbine
selection for construction.
15
Scale indicators are familiar objects in the landscape such as trees and buildings that appear in close
proximity to the wind farm and provide an indication of the true scale and height of the turbines.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
82
Turbine movement
7.5.15 The turbines will introduce movement to the landscape, however, the movement
will be slow and regular with each machine turning at the same speed and in the
same direction. The rotation speed will range 6 to 20rpm. These turbines and those
consented at Hazelhead both have a rotation speed slower than the rotation speed of
the smaller turbines at Royd Moor, indicative of evolution in technology of these
devices.
7.5.16
The final proposed location of the turbines, access tracks and other site
infrastructure, in relation to the identified environmental constraints, is shown in
Figure 2.2.
Associated Infrastructure and Works

7.5.17 The site will include the following construction activities and infrastructure
described more fully in Chapter 4 Project Description of the Environmental Report.
Site Substation, Contractors Compound & Grid Connection
7.5.18 It is proposed that both the sub station and the temporary construction compound
are located to the south west of Turbine 1 running parallel with Whitley Road.
7.5.19
The substation would be closest to the access road, with a temporary construction
hard standing established first to facilitate construction activities. Then the
construction compound would be constructed inside a fenced off construction area
segregated from the temporary construction compound.
7.5.20
Each turbine would be connected via underground cable to a grid connection point
and site control building. The route of the underground electrical cables will follow
the existing and proposed access tracks to limit disturbance to ground vegetation.
Following excavation of the trenches required for the laying of the cables, excavated
materials will, where practicable be replaced and vegetation allowed to re-establish.
7.5.21
The control building would be of a pitched roof design and constructed in a

traditional local style and local materials, to be agreed with Barnsley MBC prior to
commencement of construction.
7.5.22
There would be consultation with Barnsley MBC Highways staff on the road layout
and site access to the compound before plans are finalised.
Soft and Hard Landscape Works

7.5.23 There are no defined hedgerows in the site, but tree lines exist which may formerly
have been hedges. The land within the proposed development area will continue to
be managed for intensive agricultural production with new species-rich hedgerows
planted along the field boundaries within the site that are presently marked by postand-wire fences (see Figure 8.6). Species-rich hedgerows will also be instigated
along appropriate lengths of the new access tracks field boundaries within the site,
once construction has been completed. This will add a total length of about 800m of
new species-rich hedgerows. When the wind farm is decommissioned there is
potential for damage to some sections of species-rich hedgerow, for which
appropriate mitigation or compensation could be developed easily at that point in
time. Reinstatement of existing dilapidated stone walls within the site will take
place.
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
83
Site Tracks within the Site Boundary
7.5.24 Within the site boundary, access tracks will be created to a width of up to 5m with
passing places and increased in width on corners to allow adequate space for
passing vehicles. These features would not be generally visible from the wider area
due to intervening vegetation and the slightly undulating topography of the upland
location.
7.5.25
The new access tracks would relate closely to the local topography and existing
stone wall/hedgerows/field boundaries where possible.
Operation
7.5.26 The operational period of the wind farm will cover a period of 25 years and will
include ongoing site management to ensure the adequate maintenance of site
facilities such as roads, boundaries, gates, and signage. Additional enhancement
works which may benefit the local community could include:
educational awareness programmes with local schools/community groups by
Eon; and
new signage/information boards in close proximity
people/recreational receptors of the details of the scheme.
to
inform local
Decommissioning
7.5.27 Decommissioning will include the removal and restoration of remaining, above
ground structures. The decommissioning process would be similar to that of the
construction process, representing a temporary increase in site activity at the end of
the wind farms life. Where possible, all materials which can be recycled will be
dismantled and recycled appropriately.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
84
Table 7.7
Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Summary
Effect
Incorporated
mitigation/enhancement
measure
Extent to
which effect
mitigated
Monitoring
requirements
(if any)
Means by which
mitigation, or
enhancement
measure may be
secured
Design of site
access roads/entry
points
Existing agricultural tracks/access

points will be used and will closely
relate to existing landscape
patterns and contours
Substantially
None
Planning
conditions/approval of
proposed site access
plan
Temporary Site
Construction
Compound
Fully restored to agricultural use
Substantially
None
Grid Connection
Each turbine would be connected

via underground cable to grid
connection point and to site sub
station to avoid visual clutter within
the surrounding arable landscape
Fully
None
Planning
plan
Site Sub Station
Use of local materials and

designed in a vernacular buildings
style for the Pennine/Peak District
area
Substantially
None
Planning
plan
Turbine selection
101m to blade tip in order for the

Blackstone Edge and the
consented Hazelhead Wind Farm
to be viewed comparably in the
surrounding landscape
Partially
None
Comparison of turbine
dimensions
Turbine colour
Turbines coloured pale grey with a

semi matt finish to reduce contrast
with background sky
Partially dependant on
weather
conditions
None
Construction
Operation
Landscape & Visual Analysis

7.5.28 The wind farm design has been considered in three dimensions and with reference
to known landscape change that may occur over the life of the development. The
proposed technical layout has been examined from site survey observations and
desk-based analysis of plans and the Resoft Wind farm computer model, which
allows the design to be viewed (as wireframes) from numerous locations within the
study area on screen. This has been further backed up by the comparison of printed
wireframes with observations on site, photographs and preliminary photomontages.
7.5.29
The wind farm design has been considered against the landscape and visual criteria,
identified in Table 7.8, which have been drawn from the methodology, references
and Entecs collective landscape experience of assessing wind farm development.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
85
Table 7.8
Design
Consideration
Description
Landscape Capacity
Consideration of the wind farm location and design in terms of the broad landscape character,
taking account of the sensitivity of the landscape and the capacity of the landscape to
accommodate or absorb wind farm development. Leading to a broad statement on the
landscape suitability of the site.
Visual Context
Consideration of the wind farm location and design in terms of the broad visual context,
location of main visual receptors (including whether these are static or mobile) and the
principal axis of directions of view from which the wind farm is most likely to be experienced.
Leading to a broad statement on the visual context and likely characteristics of views of the
wind farm.
Viewpoint by Viewpoint Analysis of the Wind Farm Design

Landscape Fit or
Visual Rationale
Consideration of the visual composition and ideal landscape fit and scale for a wind farm,
should one be visible in this view. The grouping of turbines should aim for a simple and
balanced group, which is well related to the receiving landscape capacity and visual context.
This is closely related to visual rational where the presence of the wind farm development may
be considered rational in terms of its location within a man-modified landscape and
juxtaposition or proximity to electricity users.
For example, development might reasonably be accommodated or nestled or within
surrounding topography or occupy a part of a skyline or landform, such that the scale and
extent is not overwhelming. Alternatively some views may be less able to accommodate wind
farm development due to complexity, scale and sensitivity of the existing landscape.
Visual Rational
This is closely related to Landscape Fit, the presence of the wind farm development may be
considered rational in terms of its location within a man-modified landscape and juxtaposition
or proximity to electricity users.
Extent and depth of

development
Consideration of the extent of the total development, visible within the landscape and whether
or not this is judged to be overwhelming when compared to the scale of the receiving
landscape character. A wind farm may appear extensive from one angle (viewing along the
widest extent of the development) or deep (viewing along the narrowest extent which may
lead to higher levels of overlap).
Pattern of layout
Consideration of the pattern of the layout and how this relates to the existing landscape grain
and patterns within the receiving landscape character and visual composition. For example
lines of turbines, grids, or organic patterns.
Scale and proximity
Consideration of the scale and size of the turbines compared to the scale of other elements
and characteristics of the receiving landscape often referred to as scale indicators. The
apparent proximity or distance of the turbines to the viewer is closely related to the scale of the
development as viewed in the landscape. The proportion of the turbines in terms of blade
length and hub height may also be considered.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
86
Design
Consideration
Description
Composition
Consideration of the overall composition and aesthetic appearance of the wind farm as viewed
from that viewpoint or general direction.
Several key characteristics of wind farm
developments may be visible with either positive or negative effect on the design composition
as follows:
Simplicity of image The design composition should aim for a simple and balanced
image that can be easily comprehended within its landscape setting.
Gaps Unplanned or random gaps within the layout such that the wind farm appears, as
a less coherent or simple group should be avoided.
Overlap Excessive overlap of turbine blades and hubs, often combined with a deep
layout can lead to visual complexity and movement in the landscape and a reduction in
the semi-transparent nature of wind farm development.
Visual permeability Common characteristic of wind farm development. Larger wind

farms however, often combined with a deep layout can lead to reduced transparency,
effectively blocking from view the landscape beyond the wind farm.
Blade tips Appearance of blade-tips without visual reference to hubs and towers,
particularly at closer distances can lead to visual complexity.
Outlier Single turbine(s) appearing separate from the main group, sometimes also
appearing to occupy a different component part of the landscape and increasing the
apparent visual extent of the development.
Juxtaposition Location of development relative to key visual components and

landscape elements, features or landmarks within the view. For example a wind farms
location relative to built development or prominent and characteristic hilltops.
Colour/contrast Consideration of the proportion of background/skyline against which the

turbines would be viewed and consideration of colour selection.
Cumulative Aspects
7.6
Consideration of the existing Royd Moor wind turbines, the consented Hazelhead scheme and
the anticipated change in cumulative aspects over time (i.e. that Royd Moor will be
decommissioned in 2018 at the latest and that the Hazelhead scheme has been consented in
Spring 2007). Hence there will be a maximum 8 year overlap (assuming 2010 operational
start for Blackstone Edge) between Royd Moor, Blackstone Edge and Hazelhead.
Overall Landscape Context

7.6.1
The baseline assessment for the proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm includes the
existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm and the consented turbines at Hazelhead
Wind Farm. The study area for Blackstone Edge Wind Farm is illustrated in Figure
7.7 and includes parts of Sheffield, Barnsley, Kirklees and High Peak Districts.
7.6.2
The study area includes the southern edge of the settlement of Huddersfield and
Holmfirth in the north west, Denby Dale in the north east, Penistone and
Thurlestone centrally within the study area and Stocksbridge to the south east. The
Peak District National Park is located to the south and west within the study area.
7.6.3
The general landscape context of the site location is illustrated in Figure 7.1. At a
regional scale the landscape character of the area is described in the Countryside

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
87
Agency Landscape Character Areas (LCAs), which are illustrated in Figure 7.4, and
at a local scale the Local Landscape Character Areas (LLCAs) of the Barnsley
Metropolitan Borough Council Landscape Character Assessment are illustrated in
Figure 7.5. Sheffield City Council do not have a Landscape Character Area
Assessment covering the study area, Kirklees Council have produced a draft
version, but this has yet to be adopted and was therefore not included in this study.
High Peak Borough Council within their Local Development Framework have
produced an award winning Supplementary Planning Document: Landscape
Character SPD5. Adopted March 2006. This document does not include areas of
the borough within a 10km radius of the study area as these are within the Peak
District National Park.
7.6.4
The Blackstone Edge site lies within upland farmland, within the Yorkshire
Southern Pennine Fringe, between the moorland of the Peak District and the
settlement/urban fringe areas of Barnsley and Huddersfield and the former coalfield
areas to the north east and south east. Generally the landscape can be described as
transitional between the strong valleys and the pastoral Pennine and High Peak
foothills and hill plateaux. The landscape appears to be remote in character, with
scattered farmsteads and hamlets, but the towns are also in close proximity, with
long views to the urban areas across the plateaux. The impact of development is
nearly always evident in the landscape, where the network of roads, railways and
canals is prominent and skylines are often topped with pylon lines and
communications masts16.
General Landscape Grain & Scale

7.6.5
The grain of the landscape is largely dominated by the combination of the Millstone
Grit and Coal Measures which are the two main geological formations within the
Barnsley area. Millstone Grit is found in the far west of district, and the Coal
Measures extend over much of the district to the east. The different weathering of
the seams of the coal measures has resulted in a characteristic stepped landform,
from an elevation of ~200m AOD, with a series of platforms exhibiting scarp and
dip slopes some 300 400m above sea level17.
7.6.6
The River Don flows through the study area, ~ 2km south of the proposed site, with
the upper reaches of the river leading from Winscar Reservoir south west of the site,
easterly towards Thurlestone and Penistone south east of the site and on towards
Thurgoland on the south eastern perimeter of the study area. The river has carved a
broad, open valley within this area. The River Holme leads from Brownhill
Reservoir ~8km west of the site, northwards, through the valley settlement of
Holmfirth and north to Huddersfield.
7.6.7
There are a number of hills/plateau areas within 10km radius of the site from which
panoramic medium long distance views can be obtained:
16
Humber Regional Landscape Character Assessment www.countrysideagency.org.uk, 2005, page 90
17

University of Sheffield and Land Use Consultants, May 2002, page 182
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
88
Howden Moors (~526m AOD)/Pike Low, Upper Common (~478m
AOD)/Margery Hill (~546m AOD) are located to the south of the study area the
hill tops/plateaux within the Peak District National Park;
Britland Edge Hill (~523m AOD) & Withens Moor (~400 450m AOD) are
located in the west of the study area within the Peak District National Park;
Moor Head, near Roydhouse (~264m AOD) north east of the proposed site; and
Open upland farming areas south of Penistone in the south east of the study area.
7.6.8
The landscape scale within the study area varies between medium to large in scale,
further emphasised by the lack of development on the open plateau with panoramic
views, and a small medium landscape within more enclosed river valleys with
scattered settlements centrally within the study area along the River Don, and to the
north on the River Holme, with more enclosed views in low-lying areas.
General Land Use

7.6.9
The landscape of the study area is predominantly rural/rural fringe, but is also
characterised by contrast between the transport routes and former mill towns and
villages within the valley bottoms and sides and the treeless hill plateaux used for
rough grazing.
7.6.10
The agricultural land is used for predominantly pastoral farming, with distinctive
walled enclosures forming linear patterns within the landscape. This is especially
evident in the area around Penistone where the small medium sized rectangular
fields are delineated by dry stone walls. To the west this pattern gives way to unenclosed rough grazing on the high land, and hedgerow field boundaries to the east.
There is also rough grazing on un-improved pasture on scrub and slopes on higher
ground to the west of the study area.
7.6.11
There are scattered farmsteads in the open plateau areas, which tend to be built with
local sandstone (gritstone). There is a network of roads within the landscape linking
the settlements, and whilst there is a feeling of remoteness, the towns/villages are
not too far away.
7.6.12
Mans influence is also evident in the siting of pylons and communications masts on
prominent skylines in the study area. The existing Royd Moor Wind Farm is a
prominent landscape element, visible from a large proportion of the study area.
There are a number of reservoirs within the study area at
Broadstone/Ingbirchworth/Royd Moor/Scout Dike.
7.6.13
Tree cover is sparse within the study area, limited to the slopes of the valley sides to
the south and south east of the site, and more evident in the Settled Wooded
Farmland of the east and north east of the study area. There is scattered woodland
cover on the incised valleys of the streams draining into the River Don south of the
site between Carlecoates and Penistone18.
18

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
89
7.6.14
The nearest settlement to the proposed site is Crow Edge (~1km south west of the
site) with Victoria ~1.5km west, Maythorn ~1.5km north west, Millhouse Green
~2.5km south east and Ingbirchworth ~2km east. Penistone is located ~3.5km south
east of Blackstone Edge and Denby Dale ~3.5km north east. The nearest town is
Holmfirth ~7 km north west of the site, and Barnsley ~15km east.
Landscape Change
7.6.15 The traditional wool and textile industries have declined, however there is continued
pressure for new types of development within the study area, including new
housing, industry and transport routes. This also includes the demands of renewable
energy resources,
The higher land provides opportunities for wind turbines and
communications masts. These, along with pylon lines and other tall
structures, can add to the visual clutter which tends to be characteristic of
much of the [Pennine Fringe] area.19
7.6.16
Modern structures such as pylons are prominent in the open landscape and there is
an increasing demand for installing telecommunications infrastructure and
renewable energy features such as wind turbines.
7.6.17
In addition, some of the more fringe landscapes suffer from degradation of the
land, with the dry stone wall field boundaries falling into disrepair, with farm
buildings becoming unused. This in turn causes a decline in the strength of
character of the landscape20.
The structure of the landscape would be aided by the repair and
maintenance of field walls21
Landscape Character Areas (LCAs)

7.6.18 The landscape within the study area has been classified by the Countryside Agency
Landscape Character Initiative (now known as Natural England), and divided into
distinct Landscape Character Areas (LCAs). The host LCA is the Yorkshire
Southern Pennines Fringe (Character Area 37), and the proposed wind farm would
be entirely contained within this LCA.
Local Landscape Character Areas (LLCAs)
7.6.19 The various Local Landscape Character Areas (LLCAs) within the LVIA Study
Area are documented by the Barnsley Borough Landscape Character Assessment22
19
20

21
22

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
90
which is illustrated in Figure 7.5 and described in Appendix D3 and D4. The site is
located within the Ingbirchworth Upland Farmland LLCA. The text in the tables is
drawn heavily from the original source. For a full description please refer to the
original document.
7.6.20
The site is closely neighboured by:

the West Barnsley Settled Wooded Farmland LLCA to the east;
the Thurlstone and Langsett Unenclosed Moorland LLCA to the west; and
the Upland River Don Valley and Penistone Upland Farmland to the south.
7.6.21
The Wooded Don River Valley LLCA (B2) and the Upper Dearne Lowland River
Floor (C3) lie within the study area, but outwith the ZTV, therefore there are no
predicted views of the turbines from within the LLCAs and as a result they have not
been included within this assessment.
7.6.22
A landscape character assessment process has begun for Kirklees Council which is
currently at a descriptive stage only, with no conclusions drawn as yet to the
sensitivity of the landscape resource see paragraph 7.6.3. Therefore, we have not
referred to this study in this LVIA.
Blackstone Edge Site Area

7.6.23 The proposed wind farm is located at Whitley Common, north of Whitley Road,
~700m north west of the existing turbines at Royd Moor, north of the Upper River
Don Valley.
7.6.24
The site comprises of:

improved/semi-improved grassland used for cattle grazing;
stone walls along road sides and forming field boundaries, with gaps in places;
post and wire fencing;
thinning wind swept hedgerows/ scattered hedgerow trees (Hawthorn sp.) atop
this moorland location.
7.6.25
The landscape character of the surrounding is typified by the improved/semiimproved pasture used for sheep and cattle grazing within an open, moorland
landscape setting with scattered farmsteads/hamlets, linear single lane roads with
stone wall boundaries and intermittent mature hedgerows. The northern hill tops of
the Peak District National Park form the horizon to the south of the site, and the
rolling topography of the Denby Dale area visible to the north east. There are
varying landscape elements within the surrounding landscape which include:
Plastic bags covering rolls of feed/hay;
Old caravans in fields used for horse grazing;
Timber pylons;
More fragmented stone walls and field boundaries to the west; and

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
91
Smaller field units, with preserved stone wall boundaries, to the north east and
east.
7.6.26
The landscape is very much influenced by humans. The traditional landscape

pattern in this area is in decline, with evidence of poorly maintained stone walls and
hedgerows. The existing turbines at Royd Moor are very visible and prominent
landscape features. The nearest clusters of properties are situated at Lower
Maythorn (~750m west) and Upper Maythorn (~1km west), Spicer House (~700m
north east) and Browns Edge Farm (~820m north west), Ingbirchworth ~2.2km
east, Millhouse Green (~2.2km south east), scattered individual properties to the
south, and Crow Edge (~1km south west). There are several country lanes within
proximity of the site, with Whitley Road bounding the site to the south, Browns
Edge Road north west of the site, Spicer House Lane east of the site.
7.6.27
The stone walls bounding geometric pasture fields are characteristic of the local
Recreational/Tourist Destinations
7.6.28 Recreational and tourist destinations in this assessment include those features,
outwith towns and settlement boundaries, which appear as prominent landmarks or
landscape features within the landscape and locations associated with passive
recreation such as walking and cycling.
7.6.29
The intention is to assess those recreational and tourist destinations where there is a
clear relationship between the feature/destination and the landscape.
The
assessment, for example, excludes sports such as quad biking, team sports and
tourist destinations where the main focus of the activity is indoors.
7.6.30
A short list of recreational and tourist destinations that are overlapped by the ZTV,
where people/tourists visiting these locations could potentially view the proposed
site have been selected through desk-based and site survey analysis. The
recreational and tourist destinations, included in this assessment are listed in Table
7.9.
Table 7.9
Recreational and Tourist Destinations
Name
Description
Viewpoint No. if
used
<10km from Blackstone Edge Wind Farm

Local public footpath
network/Locally promoted
walks
Within the vicinity of the Blackstone Edge site, and the existing
Royd Moor Wind Farm, there are a number of public footpath and
bridleways with potential views of the existing and proposed
turbines
Long Distance Footpaths
There are a number of locally and nationally promoted long

final issued.doc
19569
VP 1 / 3
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
92
Name
Description
Viewpoint No. if
used
distance recreational routes within the study area with potential

views of the wind farm and existing views of the Royd Moor Wind
Farm.
-
The Trans Pennine Trail is a nationally promoted route

which runs west east within the study area south of
the site.
The Barnsley Boundary Walk is a locally promoted

route which runs west east within the study area north
and of the site.
In addition, the Kirklees Way and Dearne Way are two locally
promoted routes north of the site.
VP 9 / 15
VP 3 / 13
Open Access Land
Within the Barnsley MBC district there are a number of open

access areas within the vicinity of the site which allow access to
the public.
VP 12
Local Attractions
The Royd Moor Viewpoint Location, located to the south east of

the proposed turbines, is a local heritage imitative comprising of
an enclosed viewing platform with historic local information and
pointers to features in the local landscape.
VP 7
Peak District National Park
The Peak District was Britain's first national park, established in

April 1951. Around 38,000 people live in the Park. The Park is
also used for adventure activities, including climbing, caving,
2
walking and cycling. The National Park covers 1,438 km (555
sq. miles) with over 2,500 km of public rights of way
VP 9 / 13 / 15 / 17 /
18 / 19
National Cycle Route
National Cycle Network Route (off road) follows the Trans

Pennine Trail south of the site. A second on-road cycle route is
located west of the site and passes through Victoria
VP 5 / 9
Historic Parks &

Gardens/Country Parks
There are no listed properties within the English Heritage Register

of Parks and Gardens (March 2004) within the study area.
There is a locally Registered Park & Garden (BMBC) at Cannon
Hall Country Park. This 70 acre landscaped parkland and formal
gardens is located ~8km east of the site, but has not been
included within the assessment due to the screening by its
surrounding woodland which would screen views of the proposed
turbines. The three proposed turbines would not affect the
landscape setting of the parkland.
Overall Visual Context

7.6.31 The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for the proposed Blackstone Edge Wind
Farm is illustrated in Figures 7.2 7.3. These figures have been calculated to allow
for the blade tip height (101m) of each wind turbine and therefore illustrates the
maximum theoretical extent of visibility (50% of the study area to blade tip height),
although no allowance has been made of existing built development and vegetation
which would in practice screen or limit visibility. Potential visibility of the
proposed wind farm at Blackstone Edge would be viewed within the study area
alongside the existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm.
7.6.32
Potential visibility of the wind farm would largely cover the adjacent upland
farmland/grazing areas to the north/east/west of the site up to 2.5km, with more
limited visibility directly south of the site due to the local topography and the south
facing slopes of Upper Whitley Edge and Shiner Hill.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
93
7.6.33
Potential visibility would extend across the elevated positions to the east of the site
within the West Barnsley area, however, the undulating topography and scattered
woodland have the potential to screen any potential medium long distance views
of the site, therefore the potential visibility becomes more fragmented.
7.6.34
To the north and north west, the gradually falling topography, and river valleys,
with isolated higher ground reduces potential visibility of the turbines to those south
facing slopes at Highburton, High Green, Shelly and Roydhouse between ~2.5
10km radius of the site. However, built development in these areas also has the
potential to screen views of the proposed turbines.
7.6.35
There is potential visibility of the proposed turbines alongside the existing Royd
Moor turbines from the Peak District National Park between 5- 10km to the west
and south of the site. To the west potential visibility is largely on higher, east facing
ground at Holme, Twizel Head Moss, and Snailsden. To the south the potential
visibility is more extensive due to the open, moorland landscape of the Peak
District, and extensive on the north facing slopes of Thurlestone Moors, Harden
Moor, Midhope Moor between 2.5 10km of the site. Restricted visibility occurs in
the lower river valley near Stocksbridge and the smaller river tributaries near the
Langsett Moors.
7.6.36
The existing Royd Moor Wind Farm is largely visible within the same 10km study
area (refer to Figure 7.40). It is described in the Barnsley Landscape Character
Assessment23 as
A large wind farm. Its graceful turbines are visible from many miles
around..providing a prominent landmark in this large scale landscape.
7.7
Assessment of Potential Landscape Effects
Introduction
7.7.1
The assessment of landscape effects has included the existing thirteen turbines at
Royd Moor Wind Farm and the three consented turbines at Hazelhead within the
baseline description of the landscape resource.
7.7.2
Landscape effects include the effect on landscape receptors such as landscape

elements and features, as well as the effects upon the general landscape character
and its quality or condition and value. The effects of the proposed turbines may be
negative or positive and may vary in their duration from temporary to permanent.
7.7.3
For the purposes of this assessment construction has been assessed as all of the
ground based activity, including the construction site roads, substation, temporary
construction compound, turbine foundations, presence of turbine constituent parts,
and the gradual erection of turbines on site. For these reasons, the construction
effects will range in magnitude, over the construction period, from zero to the final
level on completion, but would not exceed the operational levels except in the case
of localised temporary development such as the temporary construction compound.
23

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
94
Construction effects are by their nature usually adverse including stages of work in
progress, movement of coloured machinery, excavation and signage, but can also be
features of interest when, for example, the turbines are erected by large cranes.
7.7.4
The operational period considers the assessment of the wind farm including the
turbines and post construction and restoration of the temporary construction
compound, would resume a settled and co-ordinated character.
Predicted Landscape Effects on the Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe LCA

7.7.5
Within the Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe LCA there are variations within the
local characteristics and landscape quality. There are substantial areas of settlement
and prominent transport corridors within the LCA, however, within the LVIA study
area the settlements are villages associated with the former milling industries and
situated within the river valley corridors at Holmfirth/Penistone/Stocksbridge.
These smaller settlements are traditionally constructed out of Millstone Grit/dark
gritstone, re-enforcing the Pennine character of the area. The city of Huddersfield
lies north of the study area. The southern suburbs of city are ~8-10km north of the
site.
7.7.6
The local site area is typical of contrast between the urban development confined to
the valleys and the open surrounding hillsides with pastoral farming and strong
linear patterns of walled enclosures on plateaux within the Pennine Fringe area. The
main transport routes have been confined to the valley bottoms and slopes and form
linear features through the landscape, as does the A628(T) road south of the site,
and the disused railway line which now forms the Trans Pennine Trail. The impact
of the development,
. is nearly always evident in the landscape, where the network of
roads, railways and canals is prominent and skylines are often topped with
pylon lines and communications masts24
7.7.7
The existing Royd Moor Wind Farm and consented Hazelhead turbines and the
proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm are located within the Area of Borough
Landscape Value (ABLV), a local designation by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough
Council.
7.7.8
Considering all these factors, and the presence of the existing turbines, the
landscape has a demonstrated capacity to accommodate wind turbines, therefore the
Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe LCA is of a medium sensitivity to wind farm
development.
Landscape Qualities
7.7.9
Aesthetic characteristics are influenced by the elevated open farmland location, and
the elevated location of the proposed site on the plateau, which together contribute
to the sense of openness. There are a number of wind swept, mature hedgerows
24
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
95
and hawthorn trees grouped along the roadsides and a limited number as field
boundaries alongside the stone walls. The occasional hedgerow trees and stone wall
field boundaries contribute to the quality of the rural fringe local landscape.
7.7.10
This landscape character type is not particularly rare although the ABLV indicates
medium local value. The quality and condition of the landscape is considered to be
low medium as a result of the unmanaged hedgerows, stone wall boundaries in
poor repair, disused and operating quarries, grazing land, and the presence of
communications masts and pylons.
Magnitude of Change
Predicted Landscape Effects on the Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe LCA
7.7.11
During construction the magnitude of effect on the Yorkshire Southern Pennine

Fringe LCA, as a whole, would be zero - low and the effect of the proposed
construction activities would be slight and short term and cumulative considering
the overall LCA. Therefore the predicted landscape effects on the Yorkshire
Southern Pennine Fringe LCA during construction would be slight - moderate,
short term (temporary) and adverse.
7.7.12
During operation, the effects of the proposed new turbines at the Blackstone Edge
Wind Farm on the landscape character will be localised within the regional
landscape character area. In effect, the three proposed new turbines would result in
a negligible magnitude of change on the physical landscape within the LCA, leading
to a slight negligible, long term and temporary effect. However, visually there
would be a greater magnitude of change locally, and this is discussed in Section 7.8
of this report.
7.7.13
During operation the Blackstone Edge Wind Farm would extend the occurrence of
wind farms within the LCA. Whilst there is a predicted cumulative effect with the
existing wind farm site at Royd Moor, and predicted cumulative landscape effect
with the consented turbines at Hazelhead, it is not considered that the new turbines
at Blackstone Edge would register as a new, defining landscape characteristic
element within the wider Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe LCA.
7.7.14
The predicted landscape effects on the Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe LCA
during operation would result in a negligible magnitude of change generally on the
landscape of medium sensitivity, resulting in a slight negligible effect overall.
The effect would be a long term (reversible), and cumulative landscape effect.
Predicted Landscape Effects on the Ingbirchworth Upland Farmland LLCA

7.7.15 The Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe LCA within the Barnsley area is divided in
to Local Landscape Character Areas identified by the Barnsley Borough Landscape
Character Assessment Figure 7.5. These local landscape character areas (LLCAs)
have been used to assess the landscape of the LVIA study area in more detail:
Thurlestone & Langsett Unenclosed Moorland (A1);
Upland Don River Valley (B1);
Wooded Don River Valley (B2);

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
96
Upper Dearne Lowland River Floor (C3);
West Barnsley Settled Wooded Farmland (E1);
Ingbirchworth Upland Farmland (F1); and
Penistone Upland Farmland (F2).
7.7.16
The host LLCA is the Ingbirchworth Upland Farmland (refer to Figure 7.5).
7.7.17 The proposed wind farm is set within a landscape which has the typical
characteristics of the. Ingbirchworth Upland Farmland LLCA.
7.7.18
Scenically, the landscape contains views of a variety of existing

development/settlements and diverse land use, leading in parts to an active scenery
with movement A628(T) and A629 roads, minor roads surrounding the turbines at
Royd Moor, communications masts, pylons, and scattered residential settlements
and farmstead within a predominantly passive grazed agricultural landscape.
7.7.19
The site is located within the locally designated Area of Borough Landscape Value
(ABLV).
7.7.20
Overall, the landscape quality of the localised area is considered to be of a medium

quality (within the ABLV designated area), with a higher capacity to accommodate
change. This would result in a medium sensitivity to wind farm development
overall.
Magnitude of Change
Construction phase
7.7.21 The existing turbines at Royd Moor and consented turbines at Hazelhead are located
on the upland farmland above Millhouse Green/Thurlestone/Crow
Edge/Victoria/Carelcoates/Hazelhead. The new turbine bases, new access tracks,
construction compound and associated infrastructure of the proposed wind farm
would have a limited footprint, physically affecting only a small part of the site area.
7.7.22
Much of the construction works would be visible within the wider landscape due to
the elevated location of the site but ground level activities would be contained from
view by local undulating topography, roadside boundaries and trees in the
surrounding landscape. Access roads have been designed to utilise the existing site
access route. The magnitude of change would range from zero to high as the
construction progressed towards completion.
7.7.23
The predicted landscape effects on the local landscape character at Blackstone Edge
would be moderate and not significant. The type of landscape effect would be short
term and adverse. Construction activity by its nature of disturbance is considered to
be adverse at this scale and relates to the higher magnitude of change.
Operational phase
7.7.24 The scattered hedgerows and hedgerow trees, and gentle undulations in the upland
farmland landscape, provide some containment of the wind farm at ground level,

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
97
although screening effects are limited and the turbines would be large elements
within a relatively open landscape. The magnitude of change, during operation,
within the localised part of the LLCA would be medium.
7.7.25
Overall, the effects on landscape character are not considered to be adverse as the
wind farm would not lead to the loss of landscape character or elements, nor would
it add new features or element to the landscape composition, and it is located within
an area that is already modified by human development. The scale of the wind farm
is such that it would be reasonably accommodated within the wider landscape, such
that it would not adversely alter the overriding rural character of the Ingbirchworth
Upland Farmland LLCA and the local area.
7.7.26
This would result in a moderate, landscape effect, which would not be significant.
The type of effect would be long term (reversible).
Predicted Landscape Effects on Landscape Elements

7.7.27 The proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm will retain as much of the local
hedgerow trees, stone wall field boundaries, and the improved grazing land as
possible. The temporary construction compound and site access roads will be
carefully located in order to minimise effects on existing hedgerows, walls and trees
on site.
7.7.28
Physical loss of grazing land, hedgerow trees /stone walls on the site by construction
of access roads would be minimised, by using existing gaps or field gate access
points, and the existing agricultural land use will be retained throughout the life of
the wind farm. The sensitivity of the landscape elements is low - medium, with
much of the land use of the site being grazing land, which is common land cover
within the LLCA and easy to replicate. The magnitude of effect would be low,
leading to a slight moderate and adverse level of effect on landscape elements
during construction.
7.7.29
During operation, the effects of the development on existing landscape elements

would be fairly static assuming periodic site management to allow for the
maintenance of site access tracks, resulting in a negligible magnitude of change.
Mitigation proposals for the site will include reinstatement of poorly managed
hedgerows/hedgerow trees/stone wall field boundaries, which would bring about a
positive landscape effect on the proposed site. Mitigation and reinstatement works
will gradually re-vegetate the tracks over the initial 2 3 years after construction.
The level of change and the type of effect would be slight - negligible, long term
(reversible), and positive.
Predicted Landscape Effects on the Area of Borough Landscape Value (ABLV)

Overlapping the Site
7.7.30 The proposed site lies within the Barnsley ABLV. The ABLV is a local landscape
designation identified on the basis of landscape quality, and is considered to be of a
medium landscape sensitivity and value overall.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
98
The designated areas of Borough Landscape Value are recognised as
being of higher landscape quality than other countryside areas.25
7.7.31
Policy GS13 in the Barnsley UDP states that development will be permitted
provided that,
There is no loss of valuable landscape features; the nature, form and
design of the development is sympathetic to the area; and the overall
character and appearance of the area is conserved and wherever possible
enhanced.
7.7.32
During construction the magnitude of change would be zero - high and there would
be a temporary, moderate- substantial and adverse effect locally to the site,
reducing to a low magnitude of change across the ABLV as a whole.
7.7.33
During operation, the magnitude of change would be low overall and would not
affect the integrity of the ABLV. There will be no direct effects on landscape
elements within the wider landscape of the ABLV over 2.5km, and local topography
and tree cover within the upland farmland reducing visibility within the wider
landscape over 2.5km.
7.7.34
Therefore, localised effects of the turbines would lead to a low magnitude of

change, within a designated area of medium sensitivity, resulting in slight moderate, long term (reversible) landscape effects within the ABLV as a whole.
Views of the proposed site from within this designated area will be assessed under
visual effects.
Predicted Landscape Effects on the Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV)

7.7.35 The Kirklees AHLV is located to the north, north west and north east of the site. It
is a fragmented area as shown in Figure 7.6. The AHLV is a local landscape
designation identified on the basis of landscape quality, and is considered to be of a
medium landscape sensitivity and value overall.
7.7.36
The landscape character of the AHLV is unlikely to be affected with the exception
of the small area nearest to the site (within 2.5km of Blackstone Edge). However,
the predicted magnitude of change arising from the proposed turbines in this area is
considered to be negligible in landscape terms due to the presence of the existing
turbines at Royd Moor and the consented turbines at Hazelhead. The resulting
landscape effects in this small area are considered to be slight to negligible and not
significant.
7.7.37
The effects on landscape character are not considered to be adverse as the wind farm
would not lead to the loss of landscape character or elements within the AHLV, and
would neither add a new feature or element to the landscape composition. The
AHLV would not be significantly or adversely affected by the proposed wind farm
at Blackstone Edge.
25
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Unitary Development Plan Adopted 2000, Policy GS13

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
99
Predicted Landscape Effects on the Neighbouring Peak District National Park
7.7.38 The Peak District National Park (PDNP) is located ~2.5km south of the proposed
site at its nearest point at Hazelhead. The site lies outwith the PDNP boundary
therefore there are no predicted direct landscape effects on the designated area.
7.7.39
The nationally designated landscape of the PDNP is considered to be of a high

aesthetic quality, high landscape condition and of a high landscape value, with an
overall high landscape sensitivity rating.
7.7.40
The distinct landscape character of the PDNP is unlikely to be affected in terms of

borrowed landscape characteristics26, with the exception of the small area nearest
the site (within 2.5 5km of Blackstone Edge) where there are shared landscape
characteristics between the PDNP and the Ingbirchworth LLCA, which is of a
medium sensitivity. However, the predicted magnitude of change arising from the
proposed turbines in this area is considered to be negligible in landscape terms due
to the presence of the existing turbines at Royd Moor and the consented turbines at
Hazelhead. The resulting landscape effects in this small area are considered to be
slight, and not significant.
7.7.41
would not lead to the loss of landscape character or elements within the PDNP, and
would neither add a new feature or element to the landscape composition, located on
the boundary of the PDNP within an area that is already settled. The Peak District
National Park would not be significantly or adversely affected by the proposed
wind farm at Blackstone Edge.
Predicted Cumulative Landscape Effects on the Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe

LCA
7.7.42 The existing wind farm within the Southern Yorkshire Pennine Fringe LCA is
located at Royd Moor (thirteen turbines) ~0.7km south east of Blackstone Edge. In
additional, there is a three turbine consented wind farm at Hazelhead located
~1.7km south west of Blackstone Edge.
7.7.43
Collectively these developments in addition to Blackstone Edge Wind Farm would

increase the overall coverage of wind farm development within this LCA.
Considering the effects this level of development would amount to a low magnitude
of change and a slight - moderate effect within the LCA overall.
Predicted Cumulative Landscape Effects on the Ingbirchworth Upland Farming LLCA

7.7.44
Collectively these developments in addition to Blackstone Edge Wind Farm would
increase the overall coverage of wind farm development within this LLCA.
Considering the presence of the existing turbines within the LLCA, the predicted
cumulative landscape effects in terms of site area this level of development would
amount to a medium magnitude of change and a moderate effect within the LLCA
overall.
26
Landscape characteristics (elements or patterns) that due to their similarities with adjacent areas of
landscape character may appear as part of either landscape character area, and new development may
appear to physically effect adjacent area of landscape character.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
100
7.7.45
There are potential cumulative landscape effects with Royd Moor Wind Farm and
Hazelhead Wind Farm and the proposed turbines at Blackstone Edge, there is the
potential for a sub-landscape character type/area to emerge - Ingbirchworth Upland
Farming and Wind Farms

7.7.46
Table 7.10 summarises the conclusion of the assessment of predicted landscape

effects of the proposed development on the landscape character of the site and
surrounding area within the 10km radius study area.
Table 7.10
Evaluation of Significant Landscape Effects
Landscape
Receptor
Effect
Sensitivity
Significance
Magnitude
Level of
effect
Level
Type of Effect/Rationale
Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe LCA

Construction
Medium
Zero Low
Slight
Moderate
Not Sig
The effects would be direct,

short term (reversible) and
adverse
Operation
Medium
Negligible
Slight
Negligible
Not Sig

long term (reversible), and
cumulative.
Ingbirchworth Upland Farmland LLCA

Construction
Medium
Zero High
Moderate
Not Sig

adverse
Operation
Medium
Medium
Moderate
Not Sig

cumulative.
Construction
Low
(grassland)/
Medium (walls
& hedgerows)
Low
Slight/Slight Moderate
Not Sig

adverse
Operation
Low
(grassland)/
Medium (walls
& hedgerows)
Negligible
Slight/Slight
Moderate
Not Sig

positive through enhanced
mitigation measures.
Sig

adverse
Landscape Elements
Designated Landscapes Area of Borough Landscape Value

Construction
Medium
Zero High
Moderate Substantial

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
101
Landscape
Receptor
Evaluation of Significant Landscape Effects
Effect
Sensitivity
Operation
Medium
Significance
Magnitude
Level of
effect
Level
Type of Effect/Rationale
Low
Slight
Moderate)
Not Sig
overall/

adverse
Cumulative Landscape Effects on Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe LCA

Operation
Medium
Low
Slight
Moderate
Not Sig

cumulative.
Cumulative Landscape Effects on Ingbirchworth Upland Farmland LLCA

Operation
7.8
Medium
Medium
Moderate
Not Sig

cumulative.
Assessment of Potential Visual Effects
Introduction
7.8.1
Visual effects are recognised by the Landscape Institute as a subset of landscape
effects and are concerned wholly with the effect of the development on views, and
the general visual amenity. A summary of the visual assessment and an evaluation
of significance are provided in Table 7.19.
7.8.2
Opinions as to the visual effects of wind farms vary widely, resulting in subjective
opinions as to whether a wind farm is a positive or adverse feature within the
landscape. However it is not the assumption of this assessment that all change,
including high levels of change is a negative experience. Rather this assessment has
considered factors such as the visual composition of the landscape in the view
together with the wind farm design, which may or may not be reasonably
accommodated within the scale and character of the landscape as perceived from the
receptor location.
Influence of Weather and Aspect

7.8.3
Changing weather patterns and local climatic conditions will influence the visibility
of the wind farm in terms of the extent of view, the colour and contrast of the
turbines and the number of turbines visible and thus the perceived visual effect.
There will be periods of low visibility (fog, low cloud, and bright sunny conditions
that are accompanied by haze of temperature inversions) as well as periods of high
visibility in clear weather. In some instances and from some locations the wind
farm may be back-lit (e.g. appearing darker in colour during sun-set/sun-rise and
periods of pale or white blanket cloud) and in other circumstances may appear to be
up-lit (e.g. during stormy periods that combine dark clouds and bright sunshine).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
102
This assessment is based on a worst case scenario, which would mean a clear day
with good visibility.
Viewpoint Assessment
7.8.4
The purpose of the viewpoint assessment is to assess both the level of visual impact
at particular receptors, and to help guide the assessment of the overall effect on
visual amenity and areas of particular landscape character or designation within the
study area. The assessment is conducted in periods of fine weather and assumes
good visibility and takes account of seasonal leaf cover.
7.8.5
The viewpoint assessment and field surveys indicate that significant visual effects
could potentially occur at distances of up to ~2.5km within the ZTV (refer to Table
7.11 below), due in part to the sensitivity of receptors along recreation routes,
residential properties/settlement pattern, and the open undulating topography of the
lowland agricultural landscape.
7.8.6
A viewpoint analysis was conducted from 19 no. viewpoints identified by analysis

of the visibility maps and agreed through consultation. The location of the
assessment viewpoints is illustrated in Figure 7.9. A summary of the viewpoint
analysis is provided in Table 7.11 below with each viewpoint described and
assessed in detail in Appendix D5. The level of effect in bold text highlights
potential significant visual effect at the viewpoints included within the LVIA, and
indicates that there are potential significant effects within ~2.5km radius of the site.
Each of the views is illustrated with a photograph, a wireframe indicating the
proposed development and two photomontages. These have been produced at both
45 and 90 viewing angles with corresponding viewing distances of 24.4cm and
49.6 cms.. The methodology for the photography and photomontages is explained in
more detail in Appendix D1.
Table 7.11

Assessment
Location
Sensitivity
Magnitude
Comments
Level of
effect
Whitley Common
Medium
High
Moderate
Substantial
Viewpoint is located at 557m distance

within the Yorkshire Southern Pennine
Fringe LCA and Ingbirchworth Upland
Farmland LLCA
Spicer House
Lane
Medium
High
Moderate
Substantial

Farmland LLCA
Barnsley
Boundary Walk (E)
Medium
High
Moderate
Substantial

Farmland LLCA
Crow Edge
Medium
High
Moderate
Substantial

Fringe LCA and Upper Don River Valley
LLCA

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
103

Assessment
Location
Sensitivity
Magnitude
Comments
Level of
effect
Victoria
Medium
High
Moderate
Substantial

Farmland LLCA
Windmill Lane,
Low Common
Medium
High
Moderate
Substantial

Farmland LLCA
Royd Moor Wind

Farm Viewing
Point
Medium
Low
Slight Moderate

Farmland LLCA
High Flats on
A629
Low
Medium
Slight Moderate

Fringe LCA (no LLCA identified within
Kirklees district)
Trans Pennine
Trail at Hazelhead
near A616(T)
(PDNP)
High
Medium
Moderate
Substantial

Fringe LCA and Thurlestone and Langsett
Unenclosed Moorland LLCA and Peak
10
Carlecotes
High
Medium
Moderate
Substantial

Farmland LLCA
11
Millhouse Green &

B6106
Medium
Negligible
Slight Negligible

Farmland LLCA
12
Tinker Hill
High
Low
Moderate

Fringe LCA and Thurlestone and Langsett
Unenclosed Moorland LLCA
13
Barnsley
Boundary Walk
(SW)/A628 (T)
(PDNP)
High
Low
Moderate

within the Dark Peak LCA and Thurlestone
and Langsett Unenclosed Moorland LLCA
and Peak District National Park
14
A628, roundabout
south west of
Hoylandswaine
Medium
Low
Slight Moderate

within the Notts Derbs & Yorks Coalfield
LCA and West Barnsley Settled Wooded
Farmland LLCA
15
Trans Pennine
Trail at A628
(PDNP)
High
Low
Moderate

within the Dark Peak LCA and Thurlestone
and Langsett Unenclosed Moorland LLCA
and Peak District National Park
16
Roydhouse
Medium
Negligible
Slight
Negligible

within the Notts Derbs & Yorks Coalfield
LCA (no LLCA identified within Kirklees
district)

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
104

Assessment
Location
Sensitivity
Magnitude
Comments
Level of
effect
17
Cut Gate (PDNP)
High
Negligible
Slight

within the Dark Peak LCA and Peak
18
Ewan Heights
(PDNP)
High
Negligible
Slight

19
Holme Viewing
Location/Car Park
(PDNP)
High
Negligible
Slight

* Note: the level of effects in bold type are significant visual effects.
Visual Effects during Construction

7.8.7
It is anticipated that the construction period will last up to 9 months. This would
begin with the establishment of a contractors compound and increase incrementally
over the construction period which would include:
site signage and minor road improvements;
movement of construction vehicles travelling to the site;
Movement of construction vehicles within the site and the construction of the
substation, tracks and foundations; and
the most visible effects being associated with the erection of turbines.
7.8.8
In the wider landscape, views of the construction activity would be limited due to
the distance of the receptors from the site. Those receptors within open upland
farmland areas to the north east, north and north west, would have a view of ground
level construction activity where local vegetation and tree cover does not screen
views, with closer views of construction activity within ~2-3km of the site. Visual
receptors viewing the construction activity from particular locations would include
road users, with a low visual sensitivity, and local residents and walkers with a high
visual sensitivity.
7.8.9
It is likely to take between 1 3 days to erect each turbine. The magnitude of visual
change over the course of construction would be variable and would progressively
increase from zero to high with active construction to completion. For these
reasons, the upper limit of visual effects likely to be experienced towards the end of
the construction period has been assessed under the operational effects. With local
receptors being local public footpath users of a medium sensitivity, road users of a
low sensitivity and occupants of residential properties of a high sensitivity, this
would result in a moderate substantial, significant, short term, temporary visual
effect during the construction process within ~2.5km of the site.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
105
Visual Effects during Operation
Visual Effects on Receptors within Landscape Character Areas
7.8.10 The visual effects on views and visual amenity, experienced by people within
different areas of landscape character are assessed in Table 7.12, for example those
people within the landscape for general recreational purposes and travelling within
the landscape. The assessment provides an overview of the general magnitude,
sensitivity, and level of effect, as the assessment does not relate to specific
receptors, such as walkers, which is provided later.
Table 7.12
Visual Assessment of the effect on Receptors within Landscape Character Areas
Local Landscape Character Areas within 10km of Blackstone Edge Wind Farm
Farming (F1)
The site area is located within the Ingbirchworth Upland Farming LLCA, which is part of
the Barnsley MBC Landscape Character Assessment area.
Refer to VPs 1 / 2 / 3 / 5 / 6
/ 7 / 10 / 11
The area would experience effects on character, which have been assessed in Section
7.6.
Considering the whole of the LLCA within the study area the visual effect would not be
significant overall, although there would be variable instances of visual effects from
particular locations and receptors within the wider landscape. The existing wind farm at
Royd Moor is already visible from within the LLCA. Those receptor areas (residential
properties/the local footpath network) have been assessed in more detail later in the
chapter.
The sensitivity of those visual receptors within this landscape range from medium (local
footpath network) and high (scattered residential properties and farmsteads) within a
2.5km radius of the site. Visibility is extensive across the upland farmland area, with
localised screened from scattered hedgerows/hedgerow trees/undulating topography.
The magnitude of change is likely to be medium high and significant effects likely
within 2.5km of the site.
The visual effects would be moderate to moderate - substantial, long term (reversible),
and cumulative with Royd Moor Wind Farm and the consented Hazelhead Wind Farm.
Thurlstone & Langsett

Unenclosed Moorland
(A1)
Refer to VPs 9 / 12 / 13 /
Considering the whole of the LLCA within the study area the visual effect would not be
significant overall, although there would be variable instances of visual effects from
particular locations and receptors within the wider landscape within 2.5 7.5km of the
proposed site. The existing wind farm at Royd Moor is already visible from within the
LLCA.
The sensitivity of those visual receptors (both residential and recreational) within this
LLCA is considered to be high due to the location of the LLCA within the Peak District
National Park boundary. Visibility is extensive across moorland areas of this LLCA,
especially those east and north east facing slopes towards the proposed site. The
magnitude of change is likely to be low, and significant effects unlikely.
The visual effects would be moderate, long term (reversible), and cumulative with Royd
Moor Wind Farm and the consented Hazelhead Wind Farm.
West Barnsley Settled

Wooded Farmland (E1)
footpath network) and high (scattered residential properties and farmsteads) within a 2.5
- 10km radius of the site.
Refer to VP 14
Potential visibility of the proposed turbines at Blackstone Edge is scattered within this
LLCA due to the undulating topography and tree cover of the settled wooded farmland.
The existing wind farm at Royd Moor is already visible from within the LLCA. Where
potential visibility does occur it is limited to those areas on higher, west facing and open
ground east of the A629 road near Upper Denby and Hoylandswaine. The magnitude of
change is likely to be low, and significant effects unlikely for the LLCA overall.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
106
Visual Assessment of the effect on Receptors within Landscape

Character Areas
Local Landscape Character Areas within 10km of Blackstone Edge Wind Farm
The visual effects would be slight moderate to moderate, (reversible), and cumulative
with Royd Moor Wind Farm and the consented Hazelhead Wind Farm.
Penistone Upland
Farmland (F2)
footpath network) and high (scattered residential properties and farmsteads) within a 2.5
- 10km radius of the site.
Potential visibility of the proposed turbines at Blackstone Edge is largely constrained to
the north and north west facing slopes of the upland/moorland fringe areas of the LLCA
where there is the potential for clear views of the turbines across the Upper Don River
Valley. The existing wind farm at Royd Moor is already visible from within the LLCA.
The magnitude of change is likely to be low, and significant effects unlikely for the LLCA
overall.
The visual effects would be slightmoderate to moderate, (reversible), and cumulative
with Royd Moor Wind Farm and the consented Hazelhead Wind Farm.
Upland Don River Valley

(B1)
footpath network) and high (recreational users of the Trans Pennine Trail and scattered
residential properties and farmsteads) within a ~2.5km distance of the site.
The existing wind farm at Royd Moor is already visible from within the LLCA. Potential
visibility of the proposed turbines at Blackstone Edge is restricted within this LLCA due
to the river valley topography, tree cover and built development within the river valley.
Where views are available they are along the Trans Pennine Trail, a former rail line.
The ZTV indicates fragmented visibility of the proposed turbines, and partial visibility of
the turbines/blades on the horizon to the north. The magnitude of change, where
visibility occurs, is likely to be medium or low, with localised significant effects occurring
where there are high sensitive receptors, but with significant visual effects unlikely for
the LLCA overall.
The visual effects would be moderate to moderate substantial, (reversible), and
cumulative with Royd Moor Wind Farm and the consented Hazelhead Wind Farm.
Wooded Don River Valley (B2) - Visibility within this area is likely to lead to low to negligible magnitudes of visual
change and significant visual effects would be unlikely to occur.
Visual Effects on Views from Residential Properties (within 2km of the Proposed
development) During Operation
7.8.11 Local residents will be the main visual receptors most likely to experience views of
the development. The following residential assessment (Tables 7.13 - 7.15 and
Figure 7.39) has been undertaken of those properties within a 2km of the turbine
locations most likely to be affected and provides an indication of the likely level of
visual effects experienced from locations close to the wind farm. Those properties
less likely to experience significant visual effects due to screening and topography
are listed at the end of Table 7.15.
7.8.12
Residential amenity can be defined as a collective term describing the views and
general amenity of a residential property, relating to the garden area and main drive,
views to and from the house and the relationship of the outdoor garden space to the
house. Visual effects may not necessarily be adverse, with consideration in the
residential assessment of the potential for shadow casting, view proximity and the
percentage of the view occupied by the proposed turbines from the residential
property.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
107
7.8.13
The residents of 12 No. properties set within the surrounding upland plateau, out of
approximately 40 No. properties assessed, would experience significant effects on
the views of the wind farm from the properties, local access roads and tracks leading
to these properties as a result of a high magnitude of change. Local residents are
considered to be of a high sensitivity.
7.8.14
This judgement relates to the high sensitivity of properties and the levels of
magnitude of change. It is also subject to limitations of access to the properties,
which have been assessed from the adjacent farm tracks and public road network,
and therefore the assessment has been precautionary in this case. The vast majority
of properties have mature garden vegetation or screening from adjacent
trees/hedgerows, local landform as well as out buildings/farm buildings and stone
walls. Many others are orientated so that the principal views from what would
appear to be the main living rooms would face away from the wind farm. These
views would be unaffected by the proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm. Many
properties have views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm and/or
those consented at Hazelhead.
7.8.15
The visual assessment of the construction activity, considers ground based activity
and excludes turbine construction, which would progressively increase over the
construction period to a level of magnitude equal to that experienced during
operation. Please refer to Figure 7.39 for the numbering and location of each
property.
Table 7.13
Visual Assessment of Views from Residential Properties with a Direct Main View of
the Wind Farm
Properties with a Potentially Direct Main View of the Wind Farm (6 properties)
Property
Description
33 Pottersgate House
& 34 Potters House
There are two 2 storey stone residential properties situated ~1.2km north west of the
wind farm at 329m AOD, and west of Broadstone Reservoir and north of Maythorn.
(2 No. Properties)
The properties are orientated south with a garden area situated to the south and south
east of the properties. A small hedgerow and garden shrubs may filter ground level
views from the properties. The properties are situated within the upland farming
landscape, with limited tree cover, scattered wind blown hedgerow trees. There are
views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor, and proposed views of the blade tips of the
consented Hazelhead Wind Farm on the horizon to the south.
Construction: There are views of the ground level of the turbines and ground level
construction activity would be visible across the slightly undulating upland landscape,
resulting in a medium magnitude of change. Views of the cranes during the construction
of the turbines would be clear for all of the turbines, resulting in a high magnitude of
change for a restricted period of time.
Operation: The new wind farm viewed from this property would be at a close - medium
range at a similar level to the property. The proposed turbines would appear as a small
group in the middle distance extending the presence of turbines as a linear feature on
the horizon further west from Royd Moor Wind Farm. There would be views of the wind
farm when travelling to and from the property. The magnitude of change on the views
from the property facing towards the wind farm would be high alongside the existing
turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm.
The level of effect on the view from the properties facing towards the wind farm would be
substantial and significant due to the limited screening levels and the proximity of the
turbines to the property.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
108
Visual Assessment of Views from Residential Properties with a Direct

Main View of the Wind Farm
Property
Description
31 Heystack Farm
There are an estimated two properties situated ~1.6km north west of the wind farm at
341m AOD, north of Maythorn.
(Estimated 2
properties)
There are two 2 storey residential properties, one white rendered property orientated
south east towards the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm, and the second, a stone house
orientated to the south west, with garden areas to the south. The properties are situated
within the open upland farming landscape, with views south towards Maythorn and low
levels of screening within the open landscape. There are views of the existing turbines
at Royd Moor.
Construction: There are views of the ground level of the turbines and ground level
construction activity would be visible across the slightly undulating upland landscape,
resulting in a medium magnitude of change. Views of the cranes during the construction
of the turbines would be clear for all of the turbines, resulting in a high magnitude of
change for a restricted period of time.
cluster directly in front of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm when viewed from the west.
There would be views of the wind farm when travelling to and from the property. The
magnitude of change on the views from the property facing towards the wind farm would
be high alongside the existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm.
14 Fair View
This two storey Victorian stone residential property situated ~1.6km south west of the
wind farm at 340m AOD, on the eastern boundary of Victoria on the A616 road.
The property is orientated to the north east, with a garden on the north eastern side of
the property, situated within the open upland farming landscape with low levels of
screening within the open landscape. There are views of the existing turbines at Royd
Moor.
Construction: Ground level construction is not likely to be visible from the property.
There is the potential for views of the cranes during construction of the turbines, resulting
in a low high magnitude of change for a restricted period of time.
to the west of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm. There would be views of the wind
from the property facing towards the wind farm would be high alongside the existing

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
109
Visual Assessment of Views from Residential Properties with a Direct

Main View of the Wind Farm
Property
Description
40 New Maythorn Farm
This one storey stone built property is situated ~0.6km west of the wind farm at 329m
AOD, on Calf Hey Lane south of the junction between Lower Maythorne Lane and
Whitley Road.
The property is orientated to the east, situated within the open upland farming landscape
with low levels of screening. There are no views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor,
and the landscape slopes up towards the east where the proposed turbines would be
located.
Construction: Ground level construction would not be visible from the property due to the
base of the turbines being situated behind the landform in the east. There would be
views of the cranes during the construction of the turbines, resulting in a low high
magnitude of change for a restricted period of time.
Operation: The new wind farm would be at a close range when viewed from this
property, and situated at a higher elevation than the property. There would be views of
the wind farm when travelling to and from the property. The magnitude of change on the
views from the property facing towards the wind farm would be high.
The level of effect on the view from the property facing towards the wind farm would be
substantial and significant due to the limited screening levels and close proximity of the

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
110
Table 7.14
Visual Assessment of Views from Residential Properties with a Potentially

Oblique/Partly Screened View of the Wind Farm
Properties with a Potentially Oblique/Partly Screened View of the Wind Farm (10 properties)
These properties are less likely to experience significant visual effects on views and visual amenity and the
properties included in the assessment have been listed below.
Property
Description
12 Lower Wood Royd

Farmhouse
This is a Grade 2 listed residential property situated ~1.5km west of the site at 339m
AOD. It is on the west of a minor road leading north out of Victoria.
The property comprises of a 2 storey stone house, with a larger part of the house,
possibly a bard conversion, to the rear. The front of the house, and access to the
property faces east, towards the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm and the proposed
turbines at Blackstone Edge. There are views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor.
in a low - medium magnitude of change for a restricted period of time.
Operation: The new wind farm viewed from this property would be at a medium range at
a similar level to the property. The proposed turbines would appear as a small cluster
west of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm. There would be views of the wind farm
when travelling to and from the property. The magnitude of change on the views from
the property facing towards the wind farm would be medium alongside the existing
moderate - substantial and significant due to the limited screening levels and the
proximity of the turbines to the property.
13 Set Stones House
This residential property is located ~1.6km west of the site at 331m AOD. It is situated
on a minor road, north of Victoria.
The property comprises of a 2 storey stone house, orientated north east and south west,
with extensive outbuildings to the east and yard to the north east which contains
tractors/caravans/cars, with vegetation filtering views at the boundary between the yard
and the caravans. Ground level views are unlikely from this property due to the level of
screening, however, there is the potential for views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor
from upper floors of the property.
in a low - medium magnitude of change for a restricted period of time.
a slightly elevated location above the property. The proposed turbines would appear as
a small cluster west of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm, with one outlying turbine to
the west. There would be views of the wind farm when travelling to and from the
property. The magnitude of change on the views from the property facing towards the
wind farm would be medium alongside the existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
111
Visual Assessment of Views from Residential Properties with a

Potentially Oblique/Partly Screened View of the Wind Farm
Property
Description
3 Broadstone Lodge
These two (estimated) residential properties are located ~1.3km north east of the site at
273m AOD, and west of Ingbirchworth Reservoir and the settlement of Ingbirchworth.
(Estimated 2
properties)
The cluster of buildings comprise of a two storey stone residential property with entrance
and porch on southern faade, and a second three storey stone property with entrance
also facing south. There are a number of outbuildings situated between the two
properties and to the north. There are open views to the south. The property is situated
within the undulating upland farmland, with open views to the west and east, and the
gently rising in the foreground, directly towards the wind farm to the south west. There
are views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor.
in a low magnitude of change for a restricted period of time.
an elevated location above the property. The proposed turbines would appear as a short
row west of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm, extending the linear formation of
turbines on the horizon. There would be views of the wind farm when travelling to and
from the property. The situation of Browns Edge Farm and Spicer House in the middle
distance may also partially screen views of the turbines on the horizon. The magnitude
of change on the views from the property facing towards the wind farm would be medium
alongside the existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm.
30 Birds Nest Farm
This residential property is located ~1.4km north west of the site at 334m AOD, and north
of Maythorn.
The property is a two storey stone farmhouse adjoining farm buildings located to the
south and south east (single storey). The property is situated in open, undulating
farmland, with oblique and partially restricted views to the south and south east, with the
landform gently rising in the foreground, directly towards the wind farm to the south west.
There are predicted first floor views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor.
a similar elevation to the property. The proposed turbines would appear as a small
cluster directly in front of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm when viewed from the upper
floors of the property. There would be views of the wind farm when travelling to and from
the property. The magnitude of change on the views from the property facing towards
the wind farm would be low alongside the existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm.
moderate and not significant due to the predicted screening levels by the out buildings
south east of the property despite the proximity of the turbines to the property.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
112

Property
Description
32 Pottersgate Farm
This residential property is located ~1.2km north west of the site at 329m AOD, and north
of Maythorn.
The property is a single storey stone house orientated east with attached outbuildings to
the south and south east of the property. An un-maintained garden is situated east of
the property with a number of over grown shrubs. The property is situated within the
open, undulating farmland, with heavily screened views of the turbines. There are
predicted screened views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor.
cluster due west of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm, appearing almost as a single
wind farm from this location. There would be views of the wind farm when travelling to
and from the property. The magnitude of change on the views from the property facing
towards the wind farm would be low alongside the existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind
Farm.
moderate and not significant due to the predicted screening levels by the out buildings
south east of the property despite the proximity of the turbines to the property.
37 Green Lane Head
This residential property is located ~1.9km north west of the site at 297m AOD, and west
of High Flatts.
The property is a two storey stone house orientated south with attached outbuildings to
the south west and west of the property. The property is situated within the open,
undulating farmland. There are views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor and
predicted views of blade tips of the consented Hazelhead turbines on the horizon behind
Blackstone Edge turbines.
Construction: Ground level construction could be visible from the property. There is the
potential for views of the cranes during construction of the turbines, resulting in a low medium magnitude of change for a restricted period of time.
cluster due west of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm. There would be views of the
wind farm when travelling to and from the property. The magnitude of change on the
views from the property facing towards the wind farm would be medium alongside the
existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm.
moderate - substantial and significant.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
113

Property
Description
9 Martins Nest
This residential property is located ~1.2km north west of the site a 337m AOD, and north
of Maythorn.
The property is a two storey stone built farmhouse, with the main entrance orientated to
the north west and a garden area to the south east. There are predicted partially
screened views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor by the garden vegetation.
Construction: Ground level construction could be visible from the property, filtered by the
garden vegetation. There is the potential for views of the cranes during construction of
the turbines, resulting in a low - medium magnitude of change for a restricted period of
time.
cluster directly in front of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm. There would be views of
29 Martins Nest Farm
This residential property is located ~1.3km north west of the site a 335m AOD, and north
of Maythorn.
The property is a modern two storey stone built farmhouse, orientated to the north
south with a garden area and low outbuilding to the south east. There are predicted
partially screened views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor by the garden vegetation
along the southern boundary to the property.
Construction: There is the potential for views of the cranes during construction of the
turbines, resulting in a medium magnitude of change for a restricted period of time.
cluster directly in front of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm. There would be views of

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
114

Property
Description
28 Hepshaw Farm
The farm property includes a Grade 2 listed barn. The property was assessed from a
distance due to restricted access, and appears to be orientated south east, located
~1.9km south west of the site at 351m AOD, south of Victoria.
The property is a two storey stone built farmhouse, there are no obvious garden
features, and the property is enclosed by stone walls, with stone outbuildings to the
south. There are predicted views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor.
Construction: There is the potential for views of the cranes during construction of the
turbines, resulting in a low magnitude of change for a restricted period of time.
cluster west of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm. There would be views of the wind
from the property facing towards the wind farm would be low alongside the existing
moderate and not significant.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
115
Table 7.15
Visual Assessment of Views from Residential Properties with Mostly Screened

View of the Wind Farm
Properties with a Mostly Screened View of the Wind Farm (11 properties)
properties included in the assessment have been listed below. Views are likely to be limited to upper floor windows
in most cases, and include properties with out buildings, working farms, with mature trees or dense hedging, and
main views away from the wind farm.
Property
Description
25 Whitley House
This residential property is located ~1.7km south east of the proposed turbines at
Blackstone Edge and ~300m south east of the existing turbines at Royd Moor, at 300m
AOD.
The property is a two storey stone farmhouse orientated south east, with vegetation and
outbuildings to the rear of the property at a slightly elevated location to the west. The
property is situated within the open, undulating farmland. There are predicted views of
the existing turbines at Royd Moor.
Operation: The outbuildings to the west of the property are likely to screen views of the
proposed turbines.
slight and not significant due to the predicted screening levels by the out buildings south
east of the property despite the proximity of the existing and proposed turbines to the
property.
7 Lower Maythorn
Cottage
These residential properties are both Grade 2 listed buildings.

~0.75km west of the proposed turbines, at 341m AOD.
They are located
8 Lower Maythorn
Lower Maythorn Cottage is a 2 storey stone building, orientated south, with a garden to
the south and a yard to the north (rear of the property). Lower Maythorn is possibly a
converted barn, orientated east.
The properties are situated in open farmland, but located on a south facing slope,
orientated away from the proposed turbines and existing turbines at Royd Moor. There
are limited windows on the eastern elevation of these properties, with possible views
from roof top velux windows.
Operation: The orientation of the properties and lack of windows on the eastern
elevations are likely to screen views of the proposed turbines. There would be views of
views from the property facing towards the wind farm would be negligible alongside the
slight and not significant due to orientation of the buildings despite the proximity of the
turbines to the properties.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
116
Visual Assessment of Views from Residential Properties with Mostly

Property
Description
2 Browns Edge Farm
This residential property is situated east of Spicer Hill Lane, ~0.8km north east of the
proposed turbines, at 296m AOD.
The property is accessed from the west, with a tall leylandii hedge running along the
western boundary with the road, which screens potential views from the house. The
front elevation of the house is orientated to the south east away from the wind farm, with
the drive access to the south west. It is unlikely that there are any views of the existing
turbines at Royd Moor due to the screening of the hedgerow on the perimeter of the
property.
Operation: The orientation of the property and lack of windows on the western elevation
are likely to screen views of the proposed turbines. There would be views of the wind
from the property facing towards the wind farm would be negligible.
slight and not significant due to screening property of the hedgerow despite the proximity
of the turbines to the property.
35 Lower Drake Hill

Farm
These residential properties are situated north east of the junction of Potters Lane and
Windmill Lane, ~1.6km north west of the proposed turbines, at ~344m AOD.
36 Lower Drake Hill
Lower Drake Hill Farm is a two storey stone farmhouse, orientated east. Lower Drake
Hill is also a two storey farmhouse, with larger windows on the eastern elevation. There
are large outbuildings situated to the south and east of Lower Drake Hill Farm, with drive
access to the property from the north. A small beech plantation to the south and east of
the properties provides potential screening of the proposed turbines. Both houses are
situated within the open, undulating upland farmland landscape. There are views of the
existing Royd Moor Wind Farm in the open landscape.
(2 properties)
Operation: The orientation of the properties and the potential screening by the
outbuildings and small beech woodland are likely to screen views of the proposed
turbines. There would be views of the wind farm when travelling to and from the
wind farm would be negligible alongside the existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm.
slight and not significant due to orientation of the buildings despite the proximity of the
turbines to the properties.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
117

Property
Description
4 Spicer House
This residential property is situated west of Spicer Hill Lane, ~0.7km north east of the
proposed turbines, at 302m AOD.
The stone built farmhouse is accessed from the east, and is orientated north east, with a
garden area to the north east. There are a number of outbuildings to the north west and
south west, with a large farm yard to the south west. There is a small area of conifer
trees to the south west of the property. The outbuildings, orientation of the property, the
gentle rise in the land towards the wind farm and potential screening by conifers reduce
the potential for views of the turbines from the property. In addition, views of the existing
turbines at Royd Moor to the south of the property are also likely to be screened.
Operation: The orientation of the property and potential screening of the outbuildings and
trees are likely to screen views of the proposed turbines. There would be views of the
wind farm, on the horizon to the west, when travelling to and from the property. The
be negligible.
38 Un named
Residential Property
This residential property at the end of a private access track, has been assessed from a
distance. The two storey stone property, orientated south east, located ~1.6km north
east of the site at 286m AOD, and west of High Flatts.
The property is situated within the open, undulating farmland. There are views of the
existing turbines at Royd Moor and predicted views of blade tips of the consented
Hazelhead turbines on the horizon behind Blackstone Edge turbines. Small trees and
vegetation are likely to screen views of the proposed turbines.
Operation: The orientation of the property and potential screening of the vegetation are
likely to screen views of the proposed turbines. There would be views of the wind farm,
on the horizon to the south west, when travelling to and from the property. The
be negligible.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
118

Property
Description
5 Upper Maythorn
This residential farm property is located ~0.9km west of the proposed turbines at 350m
AOD.
The property is situated within the open, undulating farmland. There are views of the
existing turbines at Royd Moor but largely screened by extensive farm buildings to the
south west, south and east of the residential building. Potential views of the turbines are
screened by the outbuildings, with possible first floor views from the property.
Construction: Ground level construction is likely to be visible from the first floor of the
property.
Operation: The orientation of the property and potential screening of the outbuildings are
on the horizon to the east, directly in front of Royd Moor, when travelling to and from the
wind farm would be low.
moderate and not significant due to screening property despite the proximity of the
6 Maythorn
This single storey modern stone built house is situated to the west of Upper Maythorn,
orientated south east, located ~1km west of the proposed turbines at 350m AOD.
Views east are screened by the Upper Maythorn property.
Operation: The orientation of the property and potential screening of the vegetation are
on the horizon to the south west, when travelling to and from the property. The
be negligible.
1 Greengate, Horn
Lane
This two storey stone built farmhouse is situated ~1.2km north east of Blackstone Edge,
at 273m AOD.
The property is situated within the open, undulating farmland. There are potential views
of the existing turbines at Royd Moor on the horizon the south and potential views of the
Blackstone Edge turbines on the horizon to the south east. These views are likely to be
oblique and rear views from the property.
Operation: The orientation of the property is likely to screen views of the proposed
turbines. There would be views of the wind farm, on the horizon to the south west, when
travelling to and from the property. The magnitude of change on the views from the
property facing towards the wind farm would be low.
slight moderate and not significant due to orientation of the property.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
119

Property
Description
The remaining properties or groups of properties are judged to have good levels of enclosure likely to screen out or
partially screen out views of the wind farm. Otherwise the views of the wind farm would be screened by landform.
The visual effects on the views and visual amenity of these properties are unlikely to be significant and the
magnitude of change is likely to range from low to negligible, increasing slightly due to changes in vegetation.
The properties are listed as follows:
(15)Sled Brook Farm/(16)Lower Whitley Farm (derelict)/(17)Bents Farm/Moorland View/(27)Savile House/(21)Flash
House Farm/(22)Small Shaw Farm/(18)Middle Cliff/(19)The Lanes/(20)Illions Cottage/(23)Hall Gates/(39)Annat Royd
Farm (Grade 2 listed property)/(11)Property No. 11/(10)Upper Royd Wood.
Sufficient access to assess property (24) Eagles Nest could not be gained, and the property has therefore not been
included in the assessment.
Visual Effects on Views from Settlements

7.8.16 The views from settlements within 3km of the development have been considered,
and visual effects are assessed in detail in Table 7.16 which takes into account the
following parameters:
Settlements that may experience a significant effect on views;
Settlements that may experience a significant effect on setting; and

All settlements have been judged to be of high sensitivity.
7.8.17
The nearest settlements are Crow Edge (~1km) and Victoria (~1.7km). In addition
the following settlements are located within 2-3km radius from the site; Millhouse
Green/Carlecoates/Hazelhead/Birds Edge/High Flatts/Ingbirchworth. The wind
farm would be visible from these settlements on the horizon. There would be no
significant visual effects on the views and visual amenity experienced by the
receptors at the settlements.
7.8.18
The viewpoint assessment indicates that significant visual effects could potentially
occur at distances of up to ~2.5km within the ZTV, due in part to the open
topography and upland hill top location of the turbines.
7.8.19
There would be no significant adverse effects on the character and appearance of

Conservation Area at High Flatts.
7.8.20
Note that all settlements are judged to be of a high sensitivity.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
120
Table 7.16
Settlement
Assessment of Visual Effects on Settlements
Crow Edge
This is a small linear settlement along the A616 road, is situated ~1km south west of the
proposed turbines. The village is predominantly residential properties on the west side of the
road, with the steeply rising topography of Upper Whitley Edge to the east constraining built
development. Residential properties on the south western edge of the village are orientated to
the north east towards the existing turbines at Royd Moor which are visible on the horizon. The
topography of the hillside would provide some screening of the turbines.
Refer to VP 4
Construction: There is potential for views of the cranes during the construction of the turbines,
resulting in a negligible magnitude of change for a restricted period of time.
Operation: Two of the proposed turbines would be visible on the horizon north east of the
settlement. This would result in a medium magnitude of change for those properties with views,
but a negligible magnitude of change for the settlement as a whole.
Properties with views would experience a moderate/substantial and significant level of effect. The
level of effect on the Crow Edge as a whole would be slight and not significant due to the
screening by the steeply rising topography forming the horizon to the north east, the low level of
the settlement and potential screening of vegetation and buildings along the A616 road. This
effect would not be adverse due to the presence of the existing turbines in the landscape.
Victoria
Refer to VP 5
This is a small settlement, situated at the cross roads of the A616 road and a minor road.
Residential properties are situated along the roadside at a slightly lower elevation that the existing
turbines at Royd Moor (~2.6km east) and ~1.7km east of the proposed turbines at Blackstone
Edge.
Operation: The proposed turbines would be visible on the horizon east of the settlement. This
would result in a high magnitude of change for those properties with views, but a medium
magnitude of change for the settlement as a whole.
The level of effect on the overall visual amenity of the village would be moderate - substantial,
and significant due to the proximity of the turbines to Victoria and the slightly elevated position of
the turbines above the village. This effect would not be adverse due to the presence of the
existing turbines in the landscape.
Millhouse
Green
This small settlement which adjoins Penistone to the west and is situated ~3km south east of the
proposed site. The village is predominantly residential properties, but those properties on the
western boundary are orientated south and away from the wind farm.
Refer to VP 11
The minor B6106 road which leads through Millhouse Green to the A616 offers views from the
western edge of the settlement to the existing turbines at Royd Moor, horizon views of the
consented Hazelhead turbines and potential blade tip views of the proposed turbines at
Blackstone Edge.
Operation: The blade tips of two turbines would be visible on the horizon north west of the
settlement. This would result in a negligible magnitude of change for those properties with views,
and a negligible magnitude of change for the settlement as a whole.
The level of effect on the overall visual amenity of Millhouse Green settlement would be slight,
and not significant due to the screening by the rising topography forming the horizon to the north
west, the orientation of the buildings to the south on the western edge of the settlement, the low
level of the settlement and potential screening of vegetation and buildings along the A616 road.
This effect would not be adverse due to the presence of the existing turbines in the landscape.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
121
Table 7.16
Settlement
Carlecoates
This small settlement comprises of a number of semi-detached properties along a minor road
situated ~2.5km south west of the existing wind farm at Royd Moor and the proposed turbines at
Blackstone Edge. The consented Hazelhead Wind Farm is located ~800m north west of the
village. There are three listed buildings within the village, but these are screened by surrounding
tree cover/woodland.
Refer to VP 10
There are potential views of the turbines on the horizon north east of the village directly west of
the existing turbines at Royd Moor.
Operation: Three turbines would be visible on the horizon north east of the settlement. This
would result in a medium magnitude of change for those properties with views resulting in a
moderate substantial visual effect, and a low magnitude of change for the settlement as a
whole.
Properties with views would experience a moderate/substantial and significant level of effect. The
level of effect on the overall visual amenity of Carlecoates settlement would be slight-moderate,
and not significant due to the horizon views of the turbines to the north east, the views of the
existing turbines at Royd Moor and consented turbines at Hazelhead in close proximity to the
settlement. This effect would not be adverse due to the presence of the existing turbines in the
landscape.
Hazelhead
This small cluster of properties, nestled within the Upper River Don Valley are situated at a lower
elevation to the proposed turbines, located ~2.2km north of the settlement. The properties are
located on both sides of the busy A616 road orientated to the road.
There are potential oblique views from the properties on the northern edge of the settlement of
the blade tips of the turbines on the horizon.
Operation: The blade tips of the turbines would be visible on the horizon north of the settlement.
This would result in a negligible magnitude of change for those properties with views.
The level of effect on the overall visual amenity of Hazelhead settlement would be slight, and not
significant due to the horizon views of the turbines to the north, with views of the existing turbines
at Royd Moor to the north east. This effect would not be adverse due to the presence of the
existing turbines in the landscape.
Birds Edge
The ZTV indicates no visibility of the proposed turbines from Birds Edge. A site investigation
confirmed this due to the rolling upland topography and the slightly lower elevation of the
settlement, and therefore this settlement has not been considered further in this LVIA.
High Flatts
This small settlement is situated on the A629 road ~2.3km north east of Blackstone Edge and the
existing Royd Moor Wind Farm. Part of the settlement is designated a Conservation Area. The
properties within the settlement are orientated towards the road and inward, with potential views
of the turbines from the south western and western edge of the settlement only.
Refer to VP 8
There are potential views of the turbines on the horizon to the south west of the village, alongside
the Royd Moor turbines.
Operation: The turbines would be visible on the horizon south west of the settlement. This would
result in a medium magnitude of change for those properties, and a negligible magnitude of
change for the settlement as a whole.
The level of effect on the overall visual amenity of Hazelhead settlement would be slight, and not
significant due to the inward orientation of most of the buildings, however there would be a

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
122
Settlement

moderate substantial, and significant, visual effect on those properties with views of the
proposed turbines on the south and western edge of the settlement. This effect would not be
adverse due to the presence of the existing turbines in the landscape.
Ingbirchworth
This settlement is situated between 2 3km east of the proposed site and the existing Royd Moor
Wind Farm. Many of the properties are orientated towards the A629 road which passes through
the settlement, but there are a number of residential properties on the western side of the
settlement, at varying heights within the undulating topography of the upland farmland.
There are potential views of the turbines on the horizon to the south west of the village, alongside
the Royd Moor turbines.
Operation: The turbines would be visible on the horizon south west of the settlement. This would
result in a medium magnitude of change for those properties with views, and a negligible
magnitude of change for the settlement as a whole.
The level of effect on the overall visual amenity of Ingbirchworth settlement would be slight, and
not significant due to the inward orientation of most of the buildings, however there would be a
moderate substantial, and significant, visual effect on those properties with views of the
proposed turbines on the western edge of the settlement. This effect would not be adverse due
to the presence of the existing turbines in the landscape.
Visual Effects on Views from Road Routes

7.8.21 Viewpoints 4,8,9,13,14,15,and 19 illustrate views on or adjacent to major transport
routes. The A628(T), A629, A616 roads were driven in both directions to assess the
potential effects on receptors on these routes with the assistance of sequential
wireframes calculated to upper blade tip from regular intervals along the route
within the ZTV From these roads there are current views of the existing turbines at
Royd Moor Wind Farm.
7.8.22
Viewpoints 1,2,3,5,6,7,10,11,16 and 18 illustrate views from minor routes. There is

a network of minor roads in the area and sequential views have not been assessed.
7.8.23
The assessment and the assessment conclusions for receptors using routes are
provided in Table 7.17.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
123
Table 7.17
Route.
Extent of Visibility
A629
The A629 road runs from High Green in the north of the study area to Thurgoland in the south east
of the study area for a length of ~19kms, of which ~11km of the roads lies within the ZTV. There
are views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm from this road.
Refer to
Viewpoint 8
Southbound: Potential visibility of the proposed turbines is staggered along this road between High
Green and High Flatts. Generally, roadside properties, or buildings within small settlements screen
views to the south west. After travelling through High Flatts there are open views of the turbines at
Royd Moor and potential views of the turbines at Blackstone Edge on the horizon to the south west
~2.5km distance for ~1km along the road. After which the road drops into the valley towards
Ingbirchworth and the turbines are behind the viewer.
Northbound: The A616 road follows the west facing slopes of the Upper River Don Valley from
Thurgoland for ~3.5km up to the roundabout junction with the A628 road, along which there are
potential elevated views of the proposed turbines to the north west where road side vegetation does
not filter the views. After the roundabout junction the road drops towards Scout Dike and there is
minimal screening west of the road with open views towards the site. At the junction with the B6462
road to Penistone there is an open stretch of road which affords views to the west, which are
reduced by the settlement buildings within Ingbirchworth. Continuing north on the A616 road, and
climbing out of the valley there are potential oblique views of the turbines to the west, after which
the turbines would be behind the viewer on reaching High Flatts.
Road users along this road are considered to be of a medium sensitivity when travelling and
appreciating the landscape within the Area of Borough Landscape Value. Outwith this area in
Barnsley (to the north of Ingbirchworth) road users are of a low sensitivity within an undesignated
landscape. The magnitude of change arising from the proposed turbines from this road varies from
negligible to medium, resulting in a moderate visual effect on road users, which reduces to slightnegligible with increased distance from the turbines. This is a long term (reversible), direct and not
significant visual effect.
A628 (T)
The A628 road runs west to east through the study area for a distance of ~20km, and lies ~3.5km
south of the proposed site at its nearest point, of which ~11km lies within the ZTV. There are views
of the existing turbines at Royd Moor from this road.
Westbound: Visibility occurs from the roundabout at Hoylandswaine with the A629 road. This
elevated location offers clear and open views across the Upper River Don Valley towards the site
and Royd Moor. Potential visibility occurs for ~1.5km until the road drops in elevation into
Penistone. There is no visibility in Penistone due to the built development, and the road bears
south near Ecklands where the turbines are behind the viewer. There are oblique views towards
the turbines on the horizon to the north of the road at Fullshaw Cross for ~1km until the junction
with the A616 road, after which the turbines are behind the viewer.
Refer to VP
15 & VP 13
Eastbound: Initial potential visibility occurs within the unenclosed moorland near Gallows Moss.
The proposed turbines would be visible on the horizon north west of the road alongside the existing
Royd Moor turbines. The turbines would be visible for ~5km when travelling east, until the
roundabout junction with A616 where tree cover screens views north. There are potential oblique
views of the turbines between the roundabout and Ecklands after which built development and the
low lying topography at Penistone screens views and the turbines are behind the viewer.
appreciating the landscape within the Area of Borough Landscape Value. The magnitude of change
arising from the proposed turbines from this road varies from negligible to low, resulting in a slight moderate visual effect on road users, which reduces to slightnegligible with increased distance
from the turbines. This is a long term (reversible), direct and not significant visual effect.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
124
Route.
Extent of Visibility
A616
The A616 road runs from the southern suburbs of Huddersfield in the north west of the study area,
to Stocksbridge in the south east of the study area, over a distance of ~21km, of which ~15km of
the road lies within the ZTV. There are views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm from
this road.
Southbound: from Victoria in the north west, there are likely views of the turbines ~1.5-2km east
and north east of the road within the upland farmland landscape alongside the existing Royd Moor
Wind Farm. This potential visibility would occur for ~2km when travelling southbound, with Birch
woodland filtering views north of the road. Half a kilometre east of Victoria the road orientates south
and the turbines would be behind the viewer.
Northbound: Potential visibility occurs ~4.5km south of the site when the A616 road orientates
north at Langsett Reservoir and the roundabout with the A628. Tree cover filters views at the
Flouch Hotel, then as the road orientates north there are direct views of the site ahead as the road
falls into the Upper Don River Valley. Views are restricted within the valley, and continue to be
limited due to the stepped topography at Crow Edge, where there is the potential for blade tip views.
After which the turbines are behind the viewer.
appreciating the landscape within the Area of Borough Landscape Value. The magnitude of change
arising from the proposed turbines from this road varies from negligible to low, resulting in a slight moderate visual effect on road users, which reduces to slightnegligible with increased distance
from the turbines. This is a long term (reversible), direct and not significant visual effect.
Visual Effects on Views of Visitors to Listed Buildings and Cultural Heritage

7.8.24 Chapter 9, Cultural Heritage, discusses the potential impacts of the proposed wind
farm on scheduled ancient monuments (SAMs) and listed buildings etc within 5km
of the site.
7.8.25
This LVIA section considers the potential significant impacts of the proposed
development on the setting of the SAMs/listed buildings identified within the
Cultural Heritage chapter to a radius of 2.5km of Blackstone Edge Wind Farm, in
line with previous sections of the LVIA report, within which it is predicted that
there may be the potential for substantial, and therefore significant visual effects on
views from the landscape setting of the SAMs/listed buildings within this radius.
7.8.26
The visual effects on the views from those listed buildings which are currently
residential properties are assessed in Tables 7.13 - 7.15. Please refer to Chapter 9,
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, and Figure 9.2 identifying the listed buildings,
for a full assessment of the effects on listed buildings.
7.8.27
There are two other SAMs within the study area, which are roadside crosses,
however the visual effects on views from these features and their settings are not
considered to be significant due to the proposed setting of the feature being confined
to the roadside itself and is therefore not affected, and therefore they have not been
included within this report. A full assessment of SAMs is to be found in Chapter 9,
Archaeology and Listed Buildings.
7.8.28
After a site investigation and discussion with the archaeologist who completed the
Cultural Heritage assessment, it was confirmed that there was the potential for an
effect upon the setting of one feature of cultural heritage importance which is
located within ~2.5km radius of the proposed site; the earthworks of a late pre-

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
125
historic settlement in an open area on Castle Hill, ~550m north of Broadstone Lodge
and ~1.6km north of the Blackstone Edge site (SAM Ref: 31503). There would be
no physical effects on these feature, however an assessment has been undertaken to
examine the indirect visual effects on the setting of the feature.
7.8.29
An assessment of the visual effects, likely to be experienced by people visiting

cultural heritage features may differ from an assessment made by archaeologists
because the focus of the assessment is the visual receptors in these locations and
their ability to enjoy and appreciate landscape features which may be of cultural
heritage value within the landscape.
7.8.30
The assessment of sensitivity follows the methodology for visual assessment and
particular consideration should be given to whether the feature is publicly
accessible, the location, and context of the view (in terms of landscape value,
quality, and capacity), the visitor experience, and the importance or popularity of
the view. When considering the location and context of the view, consideration is
also given to the type of feature (such as a SAM, Historic Parks and Gardens, and
architectural and/or artistic features), its condition, prominence in the landscape, and
its relationship to the surroundings or setting.
7.8.31
There is no definitive definition of the term setting, but the concept is generally
regarded as a combination of the views from and towards a particular feature.
Setting may also be regarded in terms of historical and architectural appreciation,
land use (the site boundary), group setting (visual connection to other features of
cultural heritage), design (feature was designed to be set within such a landscape)
and general landscape setting. In order to have a setting a feature must be
upstanding and recognisable above ground.
7.8.32
The SAM comprises of a series of earthworks, only limited above ground features
are evident. There is no public access to the SAM via public footpaths/bridleways.
7.8.33
The immediate landscape setting of the monument is an open agricultural field. In

the wider sense the setting could be taken to extend over the upland farmland with
its stone wall field boundaries and pasture land. The wider landscape comprises of
the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm, a network of country lanes, bound by
hedgerows and stone walls, linking isolated farm properties and small villages
within the Ingbirchworth Upland Farmland landscape, overhead power lines, and
scattered communications masts.
7.8.34
There are direct views of the existing turbines at Royd Moor on the horizon to the
south of the SAM (~1.6km). The existing turbines occupy a small proportion of the
view from this location, forming a linear feature on the horizon. The consented
turbines of the Hazelhead Wind Farm are also visible to the west of the Blackstone
Edge site.
7.8.35
The proposed turbines of the Blackstone Edge Wind Farm would also be visible
from the same location, visible on the horizon, following the line of the Royd Moor
turbines to the west. The views from the SAM are across the upland farmland
landscape, with its stone wall boundaries and medium sized field units and scattered
hedgerow trees, with wider views to the settlements and Peak District National Park
on the horizon to the south from Castle Hill. The proposed turbines would occupy a

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
126
small proportion of the view from this location, within a landscape which has a
demonstrated capacity to accommodate turbines.
7.8.36
The landscape within which the SAM is located is locally designated as an Area of
Borough Landscape Value (ABLV), and is considered to be of a medium
sensitivity.
7.8.37
The magnitude of change upon the views from the SAM at Castle Hill is considered
to be medium , within a small proportion of the view directly towards the turbines
only as a result of the views of existing turbines at Royd Moor and the consented
turbines at Hazelhead.
7.8.38
There is no public access to the SAM, therefore visual receptors from this location
are likely to be interested parties/archaeologists, therefore visual receptor value is
considered to be low. This would result in a predicted slight moderate and not
significant level of effect to those visual receptors at the SAM.
7.8.39
The appreciation and interpretation of the site and overall setting would not be
adversely affected nor the reason for the designation or protection of this feature.
Visual Effects on Views from Recreational and Tourist Sites

7.8.40 Recreational receptors may experience views of the proposed turbines at a variety of
different recreational and tourist destinations and locations. The assessment of
visual effects for receptors is presented for each of the following types of
destination:
Local public footpath routes/locally promoted walks;
Nationally promoted long distance recreational routes/National Cycle Route; and
Open access land.
7.8.41
The visual effects on recreational and tourist destinations within the study area,
including local footpaths, have been assessed in Table 7.18.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
127
Table 7.18
Visual Assessment of Recreational and Tourist Destinations (Figures 7.1 and 7.6)
Name
Assessment
<10km from Blackstone Edge Wind Farm

Local Footpath/Bridleway
Routes/Locally Promoted
Routes e.g. Barnsley Boundary
Walk
There is a network of public footpaths and bridleways within proximity of the

proposed site, notably the Barnsley Boundary Walk situated north and east of
the site (at ~1.6km distance), a bridlepath/footpath ~500m west of the site, and
a bridlepath/footpath ~1.2km east of the site. The are views of the existing
wind turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm from these receptor locations.
Refer to VP 1 / 3 / 13
In particular receptors of medium sensitivity on the local public
footpath/bridleway network around Blackstone Edge within 2kms of the site
would be visually affected by the development. Visibility from the public
footpaths would be extensive within this 2km radius of the proposed wind farm,
reduced only by the undulating topography and intervening scattered woodland
plantation/tree cover.
The predicted magnitude of change would high due to close proximity of the
routes to the proposed turbines, despite the views of the existing neighbouring
turbines at Royd Moor, within an open, upland farming landscape.
The overall visual effects on recreational receptors using the public
footpath/bridleway network would be moderate substantial, and significant.
This effect is not anticipated to be adverse due to the presence of the existing
turbines at Royd Moor, a new landscape feature is not being introduced.
The Trans Pennine Trail
(National Cycle Route 62)
(Refer to VP 9 / 15)
The Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) is a nationally promoted recreational route

which links the Irish and North Seas and runs through the Pennines, it runs
west east within the study area. The route is for walkers, cyclists and horse
riders.
Of the 331km route approximately 19km lies within the study area. At its
closest point the TPT is situated ~2.2km due south of Blackstone Edge where
is follows the route of a former railway route within the Upper River Don Valley.
A section of ~3km of the TPT lies outwith the ZTV within the study area, to the
south west, parallel with the A628(T) road near Longside Moss. Also, ~9km of
the route lies within the Peak District National Park.
Medium long distance views of the proposed turbines, alongside the existing
turbines at Royd Moor, may be obtained from the north east facing slopes near
Gallows Moss, leading to Dunford Bridge. Once in the river valley, and
following the former rail line potential visibility reduces, with additional potential
screening by vegetation along the route. The turbines would continue to be
visible on the horizon north of the route, but potential views will reduce to blade
tips only on the horizon within ~2.5km. The TPT continues within the broad
open valley, at a slightly elevated location on the former rail line, so predicted
views continue through Ecklands and onto Penistone, where the built
development screens views. East of Penistone potential visibility occurs, but is
likely to be limited within the valley and by surrounding buildings.
Recreational receptors along this route are considered to be of a high
sensitivity.
The predicted magnitude of change would be low at its closest point at ~2.5km
due to the local topography screening the majority of the turbines on the
horizon. This then increases to medium where there are open views within the
broad valley between 2.5 and 5km beyond which the magnitude reduces once
again to low negligible.
The overall visual effects on recreational receptors using the public
footpath/bridleway network would be moderate to slight - moderate and not
significant, with potential moderate substantial visual effects on those
sections of the route between 2.5 5km distance due to the high sensitivity of

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
128
Name
Visual Assessment of Recreational and Tourist Destinations (Figures

7.1 and 7.6)
Assessment
the receptors along the route. This effect is not anticipated to be adverse due
to the presence of the existing turbines at Royd Moor, a new landscape feature
is not being introduced.
Open Access Land

(Refer to VP 12)
There are scattered areas of open access land identified by Barnsley MBC
which are open for public use for recreational activities and are often linked to
public rights of way. Recreational receptors within these areas are considered
to be of a high sensitivity.
The magnitude of change arising from the proposed turbines at Blackstone
Edge, alongside the existing Royd Moor turbines, is considered to be high
within ~2km of the site. This would include a small area north of the site at
Broadstone Reservoir, and an area south of the site at Shiner Hill. Three
further areas at Crow Edge, Shiner Hill and Carr House are likely to have partial
views of the turbines due to the steeply rising topography to the north, resulting
in a low magnitude of change.
There is a predicted low magnitude of change from Tinker Hill Open Access
area ~3.5km to the west of the site.
There is a predicted medium magnitude of change from the open access areas
surrounding Ingbirchworth Reservoir, which due to its lower elevation would
have partial views of the proposed turbines to the west alongside the Royd
Moor turbines on the horizon.
The overall visual effects on recreational receptors using the open access
areas would be moderate to slight - moderate and not significant overall. This
effect is not anticipated to be adverse due to the presence of the existing
turbines at Royd Moor, a new landscape feature is not being introduced.
Local Attractions
(Refer to VP 7)_
The Royd Moor Viewpoint Location is a local heritage initiative located adjacent
to a local road south east of the proposed site. Visitors to the viewpoint are
considered to be of medium sensitivity.
The magnitude of change arising from the proposed turbines is considered to
be low, with the proposed turbines appearing behind the existing turbines at
Royd Moor.
The overall visual effects would be slight/moderate and not significant overall.
This effect is not anticipated to be adverse due to the presence of the existing
turbines at Royd Moor, and a new landscape feature is as such not being
introduced.
Effects on Views from Designated Landscapes

7.8.42 The landscape, within the study area, which has been subject to designation to
afford it special protection within the relevant planning authority development
plans, has been assessed here with reference to the landscape character and quality,
the special components particular to the designation (where these are known) and
the relevant landscape planning policies.
Peak District National Park
7.8.43 The proposed site does not lie within the Peak District National Park (PDNP)
designated area.
7.8.44
The aim of the National Park designation is to conserve and enhance the natural
beauty of the area and to provide enjoyment of the area by the public.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
129
7.8.45
The PDNP Board has defined the Parks valued characteristics as,
The valued characteristics of the Peak National Park include quiet
enjoyment; wildness and remoteness; landscape, wildlife and plants; clean
earth, air and water; its cultural heritage of history, archaeology, customs
and literary associations; and any other features which make up its special
quality.
7.8.46
It is a dynamic and working countryside, along side the farming rural diversification
has led to an increase in the promotion of tourism within the area to maintain
sustainable communities. The PDNP has large areas of open access land on hill
tops used by walkers, with designated short public footpath routes in and around
villages, both are promoted by the PDNP Authority to encourage people to visit and
experience the National Park. The Trans Pennine Trail route passes through the
PDNP also. Country pursuits are popular within the PDNP, with grouse moors and
horse trekking within the hills. The local road network is used for day trips by road.
7.8.47
Potential receptors within this nationally designated landscape, both residential and
recreational, are considered to be of a high sensitivity. At its closest point the
National Park boundary is located ~2.5km south of the proposed site at Hazelhead.
The PDNP extends west and south from this point within the study area (refer to
Figure 7.6 and 7.9).
7.8.48
The ZTV illustrated in Figure 7.9, indicates potential visibility of the proposed
turbines within 2.5 and 5km radius of the site within the PDNP at Thurlestone
Moors (refer to Viewpoint 13). There are views of the existing wind turbines at
Royd Moor (~0.7km distance) and potential views of the consented turbines at
Hazelhead (~1.7km distance) from this area also. Due to the existing views of
turbines, and the large scale landscape within which the turbines are located, the
predicted magnitude of change resulting from the proposed turbines at this location
is considered to be low. This would result in a moderate, and not significant visual
effect on those receptors within the PDNP from this area. The visual effect is not
considered to be adverse due to the presence of existing turbines in the views from
the PDNP and the proposed turbines at Blackstone Edge are not introducing a new
feature in to the landscape. Views from the settlement of Hazelhead and the Trans
Pennine Trail are discusses in previous sections.
7.8.49
The ZTV indicates that views from within the Peak District National Park between
5 10km are largely restricted to the north facing slopes of the northern boundary
of the National Park area and hill top locations. The sensitivity of the routes are
considered to be high and the magnitude of change would be negligible to
recreational receptors. The selection of viewpoints was discussed with the PDNP
and an additional viewpoint accommodated at their request. The overall visual
effects would be slight, long term (reversible), and not significant (refer to
Viewpoints 17 / 18 / 19).
7.8.50
In conclusion, the visual effects, experienced as views of the wind farm would be
slight overall, but with limited areas of moderate effect that would not be
significant. The type of effect would be temporary during construction and long
term (reversible) during operation. Overall, the visual effects are not considered to
be adverse as the wind farm would not add a new feature or element to the
landscape composition, located on the boundary of the PDNP within an area that is

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
130
already settled. In most cases, all turbines of the wind farm would be visible, but
the large scale landscape is such that it would be reasonably accommodated within
the wider landscape, viewed as a feature beyond the open moorland of the PDNP.
Views from within the Peak District National Park would not be significantly or
adversely affected by the proposed wind farm at Blackstone Edge.
Areas of Borough Landscape Value
7.8.51 The Barnsley MBC UDP27 Policy GS13 Area of Borough Landscape Value states,
The designated areas of Borough Landscape Value are recognised as
being of higher landscape quality than other countryside areas. The
principal of protecting and enhancing valuable landscape areas was
established in the former local and structure plans.
In areas designated as being of a Borough Landscape Value on the
proposals map conservation and enhancement of the landscape will be
extremely important consideration. Subject to Policies GS8 & GS9,
development will only be allowed if:
There is no loss of valuable landscape features;
The nature, form and design of the development is sympathetic to the area; and
The overall character and appearance of the area is conserved and wherever
possible enhanced.
The ABLV are also in the Green Belt and development will therefore be
limited to that which is appropriate in such areas in accordance with Policy
GS8.
Because of the special quality of these areas, any development which is
acceptable should conserve the character of the area, and should, wherever
possible, positively enhance the environment through its location, siting,
scale, design, materials and landscaping.
7.8.52
The existing turbines at Royd Moor Wind Farm, the consented turbines at
Hazelhead and proposed turbines at Blackstone Edge are located within the ABLV
(Figure 7.6). During construction the magnitude of change would be zero - high
and there would be a temporary, moderate - substantial and adverse effect within
2.5km of the site. At a further distance the potential magnitude of change would be
low, resulting in a slight moderate and adverse effect.
7.8.53
A study of wireframes from a number of locations around the ABLV revealed that
there would be potentially significant, yet localised, visual effects on views from
within the ABLV , especially within 1.5 2.5km radius of the site during operation.
The magnitude of change, in areas where the local topography and tree cover within
the wider landscape up to 10km would screen views, would be negligible.
7.8.54
Therefore, localised effects of the turbines will vary from high magnitude of change
within a designated area of medium sensitivity with moderate-substantial, therefore
27
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, Unitary Development Plan, Adopted 2000

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
131
significant, long term (reversible) visual effects to a zero - negligible magnitude of
change, within a designated area of medium sensitivity, resulting in slight negligible, long term (reversible) visual effects.
Areas of High Landscape Value
7.8.55 The AHLV to the north in Kirklees Council area is illustrated in Figure 7.6. When
viewed alongside the ZTV to blade tip (see Figure 7.2) it can be seen that only small
areas within the AHLV fall within the ZTV. Of the areas within the ZTV,
woodland Viewpoint 16 is within the AHLV.
7.8.56
The closest area of the AHLV to the proposed site is at Victoria to the west.
Viewpoint 5 is to the east and closer to the site with more limited potential
screening from the buildings of the settlement than the AHLV.
Visual Effects on Views from Historic Parks and Gardens

7.8.57 English Heritage co-ordinate the Historic Parks and Gardens Register within
England and Wales. Receptors within Historic Parks and Gardens are considered to
be of a high sensitivity within a designed landscape open to the public. Within the
study area there are no Registered Parks and Gardens.
7.8.58
There is a locally designated Country Park at Cannon Hall (see Figure 7.6).
However, surrounding woodland vegetation, topography and intervening buildings
are likely to screen views of the proposed turbines for those within the ZTV area,
and therefore this site has not been considered further within this assessment.

7.8.59 Table 7.19 summarises the conclusion of the assessment of predicted visual effects
of the proposed development on the visual receptors within the 10km radius study
area.
7.8.60
A summary of visual effects and an evaluation of their significance is provided in

Table 7.19.
Table 7.19
Location of Visual
Receptor
Significance
Sensitivity
Magnitude
Level of
effect
Level
Rationale
Visual Effects on Visual Receptors within Landscape Character Areas (within 10km) during Operation
Farmland LCA
Medium
(recreational)
High (within
2.5km)
High
(residential)
Medium (2.510km)
Moderate
Substantial
(within
2.5km)
Sig
Visual effects would be long

term (reversible) and
cumulative.
Substantial
(2.5-10km)

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
132
Location of Visual
Receptor
Significance
Sensitivity
Magnitude
Thurlestone and
Langsett Un-enclosed
Moorland
High
Low
Moderate
Not Sig

cumulative.
West Barnsley Settled

Wooded Farmland
Medium
(recreational)
Low
Slight
Moderate
(recreational)
Not Sig

cumulative.
Not Sig

cumulative.
Not Sig

cumulative.
High
(residential)
Level of
effect
Level
Rationale
Moderate
(residential)
Penistone Upland
Farmland
Medium
(recreational)
Low
High
(residential)
Slight
Moderate
(recreational)
Moderate
(residential)
Upland Don River

Valley
Medium
(recreational)
Medium
Low
Moderate to
Slight
Moderate
High
(residential)
Visual Effects on Views from Designated Landscapes (within 2.5km) during Operation
Area of Borough
Landscape Value
Medium
High (within
2.5km) but
Negligible
overall
Moderate
Substantial
(within
2.5km) and
Slight
Negligible
overall
Sig

cumulative.
Visual Effects on Views from Designated Landscapes (within 10km) during Operation
Peak District National
Park
High
Low (2.5
5km)
Moderate
(2.5 5km)
Negligible (5
10km)
Slight (5
10km)
Not Sig

cumulative.
Visual Effects on the Overall Visual Amenity of Local Residents (within 2km) during Operation
Pottersgate House (33)
& Potters Hose (34)
High
High
Substantial
Sig

cumulative.
2 properties at
Heystack Farm (31)
High
High
Substantial
Sig

cumulative.
Fair View (4)
High
High
Substantial
Sig

cumulative.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
133
Location of Visual
Receptor
Significance
Sensitivity
Magnitude
Level of
effect
Level
Rationale
New Maythorn Farm
High
High
Substantial
Sig

term (reversible).
Lower Wood Royd

Farmhouse (12)
High
Medium
Moderate
Substantial
Sig

cumulative.
Set Stones House (13)
High
Medium
Moderate
Substantial
Sig

cumulative.
2 properties at
Broadstone Lodge (3)
High
Medium
Moderate
Substantial
Sig

cumulative.
Green Lane Head (37)
High
Medium
Moderate
Substantial
Sig

cumulative.
Martins Nest (9)
High
Medium
Moderate
Substantial
Sig

cumulative.
Other residential
properties within 2km
High
A further 31 properties may experience views that are not likely to be

significant in terms of the visual effects on the overall visual amenity of these
properties due to a predicted low negligible magnitude of change, although
a particular view from the property may be significantly affected.
Visual Effects on those in Settlements (within 3km) during Operation

Crow Edge
High
Negligible
Slight
Not Sig

cumulative.
Victoria
High
Medium
Moderate
Substantial
Sig

cumulative.
Millhouse Green
High
Negligible
Slight
Not Sig

cumulative.
Carlecoates
High
Low
Moderate
Not Sig

cumulative.
Hazelhead
High
Negligible
Slight
Not Sig

cumulative.
Birds Edge
High
No visibility
High Flatts
High
Negligible
Slight
Not Sig

cumulative.
Ingbirchworth
High
Negligible
Slight
Not Sig


final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
134
Location of Visual
Receptor
Significance
Sensitivity
Magnitude
Level of
effect
Level
Rationale
cumulative.
Visual Effects on those on Routes during Operation
A629
Low and
Medium
within AHLV)
Negligible
Medium
Slight
Moderate &
Moderate
within AHLV
Not Sig

cumulative.
A628(T)
Low and
Medium
within AHLV)
Negligible
Low
Negligible to
Slight Moderate
Not Sig

cumulative.
A616
Low and
Medium
within AHLV)
Negligible
Low
Negligible to
Slight Moderate
Not Sig

cumulative.
Visual Effects on those visiting SAM/Listed Buildings during Operation

Castle Hill (SAM)
Low
Medium
Slightmoderate
Not Sig

cumulative.
Visual Effects on those visiting Recreational and Tourist Sites (<10km) during Operation
Medium
High

cumulative.
Trans Pennine Trail

(NCN Route 62 shared)
High
Low
Medium

cumulative.
Open Access Land
High
High (up to
2km radius)
Local
footpaths/bridleways/
Locally promoted
routes
Low (Tinker
Hill)
Royd Moor Viewpoint

Location
Medium
Low
Substantial
(up to 2km
radius)
Sig (up to Visual effects would be long

2km
cumulative.
radius)
Moderate
(Tinker Hill)
Not Sig
(2-10km
radius)
Slight/Mod
Not Sig

cumulative.
Note: The visual effects on some recreational and tourist destinations have been assessed earlier and there would be
no significant or adverse visual effects.
7.9
Cumulative Visual Effects and Assessment
7.9.1
The cumulative assessment includes existing wind farms (those operating or under
construction), proposals with planning permission, and those that are currently the

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
135
subject of undetermined applications within a 30km radius of the Blackstone Edge
Wind Farm site centre.
7.9.2
The list of wind farm sites to be included in the assessment has been compiled from
known wind farm planning applications and formal requests for scoping opinions
held by Barnsley MBC and the local planning authorities within the cumulative
study area. The list was finalised in March 2007. Wind farms included or referred
to in this assessment are listed in Table 7.4 and illustrated on a plan in Figure 7.40.
Due to the lack of wind farms within this study area, the cumulative visual
assessment has concentrated on the reduced study area of 10km radius.
7.9.3
A series of potential cumulative ZTVs are illustrated in Figures 7.41 7.44,

showing the potential cumulative ZTV for combinations of the known wind farms.
Each ZTV has been calculated to blade tip and based on the turbine dimensions and
available layouts at the time of this assessment. The cumulative ZTVs help to build
up a picture of the potential or theoretical extent of visibility, but do not take into
account of vegetation and built form that would otherwise screen the development
from view. The assessment considers simultaneous visibility where more than one
wind farm from a viewpoint fixed in one direction and/or successive views when the
viewer turns, and sequential visibility of wind farms, viewed from a particular
journey through the landscape.
7.9.4
All the viewpoints included within this LVIA have presented a cumulative
wireframe/photomontage for wind farms of more than one turbine, based on the
available information. These viewpoints are illustrated in Figures 7.10 - 7.38 and
the assessment of each of the viewpoints is contained in Appendix D5.
7.9.5
Two or more wind farms are required for the occurrence of a cumulative visual
effect. This assessment has therefore considered the proposed Blackstone Edge
Wind Farm in addition to other wind farm sites in the landscape in order to test the
landscape capacity of the area and provide conclusions for the CLVIA relevant to
this proposal (see Figures 7.41-7.44 inclusive).
Cumulative ZTV existing wind farms and Blackstone Edge Wind Farm within 10km
7.9.6
Royd Moor is the only existing wind farm within 30km radius of the proposed site
at Blackstone Edge. It is situated ~0.7km east of the site. Blackstone Edge and
Royd Moor ZTVs (as per Figure 7.41) are very similar, being determined largely by
the valley and upland topography of this area. The cumulative ZTV for both sites
illustrates that the proposed turbines at Blackstone Edge will not extend the current
visibility of the existing Royd Moor turbines within much of the 10km study area.
7.9.7
Generally, the cumulative visibility within 10km of Blackstone Edge is likely to be

sequential along the recreational and road routes within the area of the open, upland
farmland landscape and the more visually constrained Upper Don River Valley to
the south.
7.9.8
There are potential significant cumulative visual effects arising from the proposed
turbines at Blackstone Edge and Royd Moor within a 2.5km of Blackstone Edge
only. The proposed turbines at Blackstone Edge are 101m in height, compared to
the existing 53m high Royd Moor turbines, therefore the juxtaposition of both sites
will have a visual scale effect on those nearby visual receptors. Residential
receptors within this area are of a high sensitivity, and for those with a predicted

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
136
high magnitude of change arising from the proposed turbines, (Table 7.13
Residential assessment), this would result in a substantial and significant
cumulative visual effect. Residential receptors within this area are of a high
sensitivity, and for those with a predicted medium magnitude of change arising
from the proposed turbines, this would result in a moderate/substantial and
significant cumulative visual effect. Recreational receptors within this area are of a
medium sensitivity, which would result in a moderate substantial, and significant
visual effect.
7.9.9
There are predicted medium long distance views from the Peak District National
Park to the south and west. The magnitude of change arising from the proposed
turbines at Blackstone Edge reduces with distance from the site. There may be low
magnitude of change from views within the PDNP (high sensitivity of receptors)
within 2.5 5km, which would result in localised area of moderate and not
significant cumulative visual effects Beyond 5km the magnitude of change reduces
to low negligible, and therefore the predicted cumulative visual effect on receptors
within the PDNP would be slight, slight - moderate and not significant.
7.9.10
There is a predicted sequential visibility from the Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) when
the route passes in close proximity to the site boundary (<2.5km) with views to
Royd Moor Wind Farm to the north. Potential visibility along this route varies from
areas of open views within the broad open valley to more enclosed river valley areas
with vegetation along the former rail route screening views to the north.
Recreational receptors along this route are considered to be of a high sensitivity.
Overall, the predicted magnitude of change resulting from the turbines with Royd
Moor Wind Farm along the TPT would be low, which would result in a moderate
and not significant visual effect.
7.9.11
These effects are not considered adverse because the proposed turbines at
Blackstone Edge are not introducing a new landscape element, rather the two sites
will be viewed alongside each other on the horizon from many locations.
Existing single turbines and Blackstone Edge Wind Farm within 10km
7.9.12 There are two single turbines within the 10km radius of the site; Bullhouse at
Ecklands and Longley Farm.
7.9.13
Bullhouse has not been operational for approximately one year and enforcement
action is currently being undertaken to decommission and remove the turbine. It has
therefore been excluded from the CLVIA.
7.9.14
Details of the single turbine at Longley Farm have been archived by Kirklees
Council and the information available is that the turbine will be in operation for
another 10-15 years. It is 15-20m in height (which is assumed to be hub height) and
therefore height to blade tip is gauged from this as approximately 30m. It is located
approximately 5km west of the proposal site. It can be seen on a clear day from
both viewpoint 14 (approximately 6.75 km from the proposed site, Figure 7.33) in a
90 viewing angle, in the distance along the A628 and also from viewpoint 19
(approximately 10 km from the proposed site, Figure 7.38) seen in a 90 viewing
angle. In this view, it is visible against the background of the moors to the south of
Hepworth. In both photomontages/wireframes the Blackstone Edge site will be seen
to the right of the existing Royd Moor site. This single turbine at Longley Farm is

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
137
not visible from other viewpoints, either owing to the viewpoint location and the
angle of view to the proposal site or the localised screening topography. Longley
Farm turbine is contained within and along the valley towards Penistone in contrast
to the relative hilltop setting of Royd Moor, the consented Hazelhead and the
proposed Blackstone Edge sites .
Cumulative ZTV consented wind farms and Blackstone Edge Wind Farm within 10km
7.9.15 There is one consented wind farm within 10km of Blackstone Edge; Hazelhead
Wind Farm, situated ~1.7km south west of Blackstone Edge.
7.9.16
It should be noted that the existing turbines at Royd Moor are approaching the end
of their lifespan and will be decommissioned in 2018 at the latest (refer also to
chapter 2, section 2.3). As such the cumulative effects of the Blackstone Edge wind
farm will change over time. For a maximum of 8 years (assuming operational start
of Blackstone Edge in 2010) cumulative effects will be influenced by the existing
turbines at Royd Moor and the consented Hazelhead Wind Farm. Beyond 2018, or
earlier if Royd Moor is decommissioned at an earlier date, cumulative effects will
be influenced by the consented Hazelhead scheme only. Therefore the cumulative
assessment presented below has considered the existing Royd Moor wind turbines
and the consented Hazelhead scheme, as this is considered to be the worst-case in
respect of cumulative effects and short to medium term when compared with the
predicted operational time of Blackstone edge wind farm. Following the
decommissioning of Royd Moor, cumulative effects will be less significant than
those prior to decommissioning with Blackstone Edge and Hazelhead wind farms
forming a more consistent image
7.9.17
There are potential significant cumulative visual effects arising from the existing
turbines at Royd Moor and the consented Hazelhead turbines. The visual effects on
views by residential receptors of a high sensitivity, at a medium level of magnitude
of change, would result in a moderate- substantial and significant cumulative visual
effect within 2km of the Blackstone Edge site. Recreational receptors within this
area are considered to be of a medium sensitivity, with a medium level of
magnitude of change, would result in a moderate and not significant cumulative
visual effect within 2km of the Blackstone site.
7.9.18
These effects are not considered adverse because the proposed turbines at
Blackstone Edge are not introducing a new landscape element, rather the two sites,
along with the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm will be viewed alongside each other.
7.9.19
The potential cumulative effects associated with the different rotational speeds of
turbines at Blackstone Edge, Hazelhead and Royd Moor have been considered.
Whilst viewers of the developments may be aware of different rotational speeds of
the turbines, which may arise either due to differing wind speed at particular
turbines and/or due to the different size of the Royd Moor turbines compared with
those at the consented Hazelhead site and the proposed Blackstone Edge Wind
Farm, the effect is judged to be of negligible magnitude and therefore not
significant.
Sequential Cumulative Assessment of Road Routes

7.9.20 The main routes for which there would be a potential significant sequential
cumulative visual effect include the A628(T)/A629/A616 roads.
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
138
7.9.21
The A628(T) road runs west to east in the study area, at a distance of ~3.7km at its
nearest point to the wind farm, over a distance of ~6km of the road route within the
study area. Receptors using the road are considered to be of a medium high
sensitivity (high within the Peak District National Park). The magnitude of change
resulting from the proposed turbines at Blackstone Edge, alongside the existing and
consented turbines, would be low. The cumulative effect of Blackstone Edge Wind
Farm on the A628(T) road would be moderate, and not significant visual effect.
7.9.22
There is a predicted medium cumulative magnitude of change on those low

sensitivity receptors using the A629 road for a ~1km section of the route south of
High Flatts, as a result of the proposed Blackstone Edge turbines and the existing
Royd Moor and consented Hazelhead turbines, resulting in a slight - moderate
cumulative visual effect for a short section of the road, there would be a negligible
cumulative visual effect on the A629 road overall.
7.9.23
The A616 road runs north west south east within the study area and is situated
between Royd Moor and Blackstone Edge sites to the north east and Hazelhead to
the south west of the road within 2.5km of Blackstone Edge. Road users in this
locally designated area are considered to be of a medium sensitivity. The
magnitude of change for a ~5km section of the road is predicted to be high, with
direct and oblique views of the three sites near Victoria and Hazelhead. This would
result in moderate substantial and significant cumulative visual effects for a short
section of the overall route, which would reduce to slightmoderate and slight (not
significant) with distance from the site.
7.9.24
There are predicted substantial and significant cumulative visual effects from the
local road network within 2.5km of the site.
7.9.25
Overall, the wind farm would be mostly viewed alongside the existing turbines at
Royd Moor, and the additional proposed turbines would not result in adverse
cumulative visual effects from the road routes within the study area.
Predicted Cumulative Assessment: Conclusions

7.9.26 The two existing sites most relevant to this assessment are the existing Royd Moor
Wind Farm and the consented Hazelhead Wind Farm. There are predicted
significant cumulative visual effects with the proposed turbines at Blackstone Edge
within ~2.5km radius of the site, reducing to not significant beyond 2.5km radius of
the site.
7.9.27
These cumulative effects are not considered adverse because the proposed turbines
at Blackstone Edge are not introducing a new landscape element and careful
attention to design has been paid to the layout of the two sites at Blackstone Edge
and Hazelhead.
7.9.28
Given that Royd Moor will be decommissioned in 2018 at the latest, the cumulative
effects described above will change over time. The cumulative effects that will
arise before the decommissioning of Royd Moor (and that have been considered in
this assessment) are considered to present the worst-case scenario. The cumulative
effects are considered to be less significant after decommissioning of Royd Moor.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
139
7.10 References
Scottish Natural Heritage (2001) Guidelines on Environmental Impacts of Wind farms and
Small Scale Hydro Electric Schemes.
Scottish Natural Heritage Advisory Services Landscape Group (4th Draft May 2004)
Guidance for the Assessment of Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts Arising from Wind
farm Developments.
The Landscape Institute, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002)
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition.
University of Newcastle (2002) Visual Assessment for Wind farms: Best Practice, Report No
F01AA303A.
University of Sheffield and Landuse Consultants (2002) Landscape Character Assessment:
Guidance for England and Scotland (Countryside Agency and SNH publication).
The Countryside Agency (June 2005) Planning Principles for Landscape, Access and
Recreation, Moving on from Planning Tomorrows Countryside
The Countryside Agency February 2005 North East Region Briefing Note Treatment of
Landscape, Access and Recreation Issues in Environmental Impact Assessment (The
Countryside Agency North East Regional Office, in association with Chris Blandford
Associates)
Barnsley MBC, Unitary Development Plan, Adopted 2000
Barnsley MBC, Emerging Core Strategy Policies
Kirklees Council, Unitary Development Plan, Adopted March 1999 (Addendum March 2000)
Sheffield City Council, Unitary Development Plan, Adopted March 1998
High Peak Borough Council, Local Plan. Adopted March 2005
High Peak Borough Council, Local Development Framework Landscape Character SPD5.
Adopted March 2006
Peak District National Park Authority, Structure Plan, Adopted April 1994
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004) Planning Policy Statement 22, Renewable Energy
Scottish Natural Heritage (29 March 2006, Published March 2007) Visual Representation of
Wind Farms - Good Practice Guidance, Horner & Maclennan and Envision

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
140

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
141
8.
Ecology
8.1
Introduction
8.1.1
The chapter has been prepared by Des Callaghan BSc MSc of Bureau Veritas
HS&E Ltd. The aim of this chapter is to provide an assessment of the effects of the
proposed development on nature conservation.
8.2
Context
Site context
8.2.1
The site (see Figure 8.1) is composed of species-poor, improved grassland used for
cattle grazing, with more extensive areas of semi-natural grassland grazed by sheep
in the surrounding landscape. It is not located close to any statutory designated
wildlife site, but there are several non-statutory wildlife sites in the local area
(within 2km of the site boundary).
Policy context
National
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Biodiversity and geological conservation statutory obligations and their impact
within the planning system (ODPM & Defra 2005)
Regional
RSS 12: Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber to 2016
(Selective Review of RPG 12)
- Policy N1.
Draft Regional Spatial Strategy 12: The Yorkshire and Humber Plan
- Policy ENV8.
Local
Barnsley Unitary Development Plan (adopted December 2000)
- Policies GS15, GS16, GS17, GS18, GS20, GS22 and WR13.
Draft Barnsley Local Development Framework (unadopted)
- Policies BIO1, BIO2 and BIO3.
Legislative context
8.2.2 The main pieces of legislation relevant to nature conservation in the present context
are:
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
142
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994
The Hedgerow Regulations 1997
The Protection of Badgers Act 1992
8.3
Methodology
Sites, habitats and species of significance

8.3.1
The assessment has been focused upon sites, habitats and species of significance,
which are considered to be:
Sites: (i) non-statutory designated local wildlife sites; (ii) Local Nature
Reserves; (iii) National Nature Reserves; (iv) Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
(v) Special Protection Areas; (vi) Special Areas of Conservation; (vii) Ramsar
Sites; and (viii) sites that qualify for designation as any of the above but are as
yet undesignated.
Habitats: (i) important hedgerows (under The Hedgerow Regulations 1997); (ii)
habitats listed under Section 74 of The Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000
(which includes the priority UK Biodiversity Action Plan habitats); (iii) habitats
listed as priorities for conservation in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan; (iv)
habitats listed on Annex I of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the
Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; and (v) habitats
within statutory or non-statutory wildlife sites.
Species: (i) badger (under The Protection of Badgers Act 1997); (ii) species
listed in Schedules 2 and 4 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.)
Regulations 1994 (European protected species); (iii) species listed in Schedules
1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); (iv) species
listed under Section 74 of The Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 (which
includes the priority UK Biodiversity Action Plan species); (v) species listed on
Appendix I or II of The Berne Convention on the Conservation of European
Wildlife and Natural Habitats 1979; (vi) species listed on Appendix I or II of The
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1979;
(vii) species listed on Annex I and II of the Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the
conservation of wild birds; (viii) species listed on Annex II of the Council
Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora; (ix) species listed as priorities for conservation in the relevant Local
Biodiversity Action Plan; (x) designated species from statutory or non-statutory
wildlife sites; and (xi) Red Listed Species (i.e. those included in Red Lists of
Red Data Books or Status Reviews).
Data gathering
8.3.2
Existing biological records from the site and a 2km buffer zone were sourced
through email and telephone correspondence with:

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
143
Dave Pearce (Secretary, Barnsley Bird Club (BBC)). BBC provided a good
response and included a list of 164 species recorded from within the search area
during 1993-2004 (with notes on local status of species).
Christina Doar (Biodiversity Coordinator, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough
Council). Response provided information on non-statutory wildlife sites within
the search area, confirmation that otters were active in the area and suggestions
of further people/organisations to contact.
Eric Bennett (Secretary, Barnsley Bat Group). Response provided information
on bat records from the search area, which showed few records and all distant
from the site.
Monica Ward (Barnsley Representative for South Yorkshire Badger Group).
Response confirmed badgers are known from the search area, in particular along
Upper Whitley Edge.
John Newton (South Yorkshire Amphibian & Reptile Group). No reply.
Simon Pickles (North & East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre). Response
confirmed they do not hold any accurate biological records for the search area.
Gordon Bristowe (Secretary, Barnsley Naturalist & Scientific Society).
Response confirmed they do not hold any records for the search area.
Geoffrey Wilmore (Botanical Society of the British Isles Recorder for South
Yorkshire). Response provided comprehensive lists of vascular plants recorded
within 1 x 1km squares across the search area. No species of conservation
concern have been recorded.
Richard Sunter (local herpetological recorder). Response confirmed he held no
records for any amphibians or reptiles within the search area.
Neil Limbert (local ornithologist). Response provided detailed information on
locations of breeding Lapwing and Curlew in fields around the proposed
development site.
8.3.3
Digital boundaries and citations of statutory designated wildlife sites were

downloaded
from
the
websites
of
Natural
England
(NE)
(http://www.naturalengland.org.uk) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee
(JNCC) (http://www.jncc.gov.uk).
Scope of study
Approach to scoping
8.3.4
The scope of the assessment was determined through:
a walk-over survey of the site conducted in June 2006;
professional judgement, experience with other similar windfarm schemes and a
knowledge of effects on wildlife and habitats that can caused by windfarm
developments;
relevant wildlife policy and legislation;
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
144
consideration of existing biological records and designated wildlife sites in the
local area;
best practice guidance, especially SNH (2005); and
consultation with NE (Tim Page) and RSPB (Tim Melling).
8.3.5
NE indicated that they would seek the protection of existing habitats on site
(presumably only those of conservation value), would want to explore opportunities
for heathland restoration and would be concerned about possible effects on
protected species (if present). RSPB explained that they either objected to schemes
or declined to comment, and in this instance chose the latter.
Effects requiring further consideration

8.3.6
It was proposed in the Scoping Report to scope-out possible effects on breeding
Lapwing, Curlew and Skylark, along with possible effects on bats. This was
reconsidered and they were eventually included in the scope. The full scope of the
assessment for nature conservation can be summarised as:
Potential loss or degradation of habitats of significance through construction
activities.
Potential decline in a bird population of significance caused by an increase in
mortality rate through collisions with turbine blades.
Potential decline in a breeding bird population of significance caused by
displacement (and hence indirect habitat loss) through noise and/or visual
disturbance.
Potential decline in a bat population of significance caused by an increase in
mortality rate through collisions with turbine blades.
Potential decline in a bat population of significance caused by displacement (and
hence indirect habitat loss) through noise disturbance.
Effects not requiring further consideration
8.3.7
The following effects have been scoped-out.
Potential degradation or loss of habitat in any statutory or non-statutory wildlife
site through construction or operation of the proposed scheme. Reason: the
proposed scheme will not affect land close to or within any statutory or nonstatutory wildlife site (Figures 8.2 and 8.3).
Potential killing of Great Crested Newts or destruction/degradation of their
breeding ponds or terrestrial habitat through construction activities. Reason: the
site supports suboptimal terrestrial habitat for GCNs (i.e. improved Lolium
perenne grassland) and is distant from the nearest suitable pond for breeding
(located 170m beyond the eastern site boundary) (Figure 8.1). GCNs prefer
terrestrial habitat that has woody vegetation cover and avoid crossing expanses
of open land. The majority of individuals do not move more than 50m from their
breeding ponds and only a very small percentage venture further than 100m

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
145
(Jehle 2000; Jehle & Arntzen 2000; Malmgren 2002; Cresswell & Whitworth
2004).
Potential killing of reptiles through construction activities. Reason: the site
supports poor quality habitat for reptiles (i.e. improved Lolium perenne
grassland) and hence significant numbers are considered absent.
Potential destruction of a bat roost through construction activities. Reason: a bat
roost assessment undertaken in June 2006 found no possible locations for bat
roosts within the site or a 250m buffer.
Potential loss or degradation of otter or water vole habitat through construction
activities. Reason: suitable habitat for otters or water voles is absent from the
site and a 250m buffer.
Potential reduction in the local population of Brown Hares through disturbance
(and hence indirect habitat loss). Reason: disturbance likely to affect Brown
Hares will be very localised and will occur only during the relatively short
construction phase (noise from operational turbines is very unlikely to affect
individuals).
Potential destruction of an active badger sett through construction activities.
Reason: a walk-over survey of he site in June 2006 found no possible locations
for badger setts within the site or a 250m buffer.
Survey work
Phase 1 Habitat Survey
8.3.8
A Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the site and a 250m buffer was undertaken in June
2006, based upon the method described in JNCC (2004). The site was walked,
habitats mapped and ecological features noted. Target Notes were collected to
annotate the map and during the course of the survey attention was paid to
identifying areas that could be used by significant species.
Birds
8.3.9
8.3.10
VP surveys were undertaken for birds following the guidance provided by SNH
(2006). Focus species were all non-passerine birds of significance (see criteria
above) or otherwise notable. Data on passerines was not collected since it is
considered that their agile flight behaviour and relatively high productivity means
they are not potentially prone to significant effects from collision mortality, though
observations of any significant species were noted. During each bird passage,
information recorded included species, number of individuals, minimum and
maximum flight height (estimated from known heights of objects in the landscape)
and flight route (plotted on a map).
A total of 108 hours of observation were made from a VP over-looking the site and
a 250m buffer, spread across a twelve month period (see Table 8.1). Observation
hours were staggered so that the full range of day-light hours was sampled
adequately.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
146
Table 8.1
Observation effort for Vantage Point bird surveys
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Autumn migration
Winter
Spring migration
Breeding
12.00
12.00
12.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
Effort (hrs)
8.3.11
Bats
8.3.12
6.00
6.00
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Effort (hrs)
36.00
66.00
36.00
54.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
6.00
To assess the composition of the breeding bird population and determine the
presence/absence of species of significance, three dawn surveys in suitable weather
conditions were undertaken from mid-April to mid-June 2006/2007 across the site
and a 100m buffer. Individuals apparently holding breeding territories were
identified and counted, and locations of species of significance were mapped.
Nocturnal and crepuscular species were surveyed using the same method but
surveys were undertaken during the bat transect walks described below (i.e. three
visits during Jul-Sep 2006). In addition, observations during the above VP surveys
were used to determine locations of breeding species of significance.
Three bat activity surveys were conducted during Aug-Sep 2006, which began
shortly before sunset and lasted for 3 hours (i.e. across the peak period of bat
activity). Survey were conducted when temperatures were >10C, and avoiding
heavy wind and rain. The surveys included transect walks conducted by a single
person equipped with a frequency division detector, walking routes around the site
to incorporate landscape features that may be important for bats and with a focus on
attempting to locate any possible bat roosts, flight-lines and flight-heights (the latter
recorded as far as possible by naked-eye and spot-lamp). Surveys included the site
and a buffer area of about 30m (the buffer zone was determined by the detectability
distance of bats and land access restrictions).
Assessment and evaluation methodologies

Consultation
8.3.13 No consultation was considered necessary concerning assessment and evaluation
methods.
Assessment of effects
8.3.14 Assessment of ecological effects has been undertaken by assessing changes in
baseline conditions caused by the construction and operation of the proposed
development. This has necessarily been undertaken by using professional
judgement, based upon knowledge gained through experience and available
scientific knowledge (see e.g. References).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
147
Assessment of significance
8.3.15 Attention is focused upon effects on sites, habitats and species of significance (see
above). The significance of effects was necessarily determined through professional
judgement, taking into consideration available guidance (IEEM 2006) and the
significance of the site, habitat or species.
8.4
On-site
Habitats
8.4.1
Grassland (improved). The site is comprised entirely of this habitat (Figure 8.1) and
is used primarily for cattle grazing. It is species-poor and dominated by Perennial
Rye-grass. A number of the fields adjoining the site are also of this grassland type.
8.4.2
Grassland (semi-improved). Grazed mainly by sheep, this habitat comprises rough

pastures of acid grassland typical of the semi-uplands, dominated by grasses such as
Red Fescue, Mat-grass and Common Bent. The habitat does not occur within the
proposed development site but is located within many of the surrounding fields
(Figure 8.1).
8.4.3
Grassland (species-rich). Patches of species-rich grassland have developed along

banks within the disused quarry adjacent to the south-east section of the proposed
development, including species such as Crested Dogs-tail, Sweet Vernal Grass,
Yorkshire Fog, Tufted Hair-grass and Red Fescue. These are not mapped in Figure
8.1 owing to their small area.
8.4.4
Standing water. The is no standing water within the proposed development, only
the remains of a former pond that is now a fry depression near the northern
boundary of the site (Figure 8.1). A poor-quality pond used by livestock and
waterfowl is located 160m from the site boundary, across Whitley Rd in a nearby
field. A pool in better ecological condition has been formed at the base of a quarry
adjacent to the site, located 170m from the boundary of the proposed development
site. This pool is relatively undisturbed and has good water clarity, though growth
of aquatic plants is limited (indicating nutrient-poor conditions).
8.4.5
Tree-lines. Three lengths of defunct hedgerow within the site are now lines of
scattered, mature Hawthorn (labelled tree-lines in Figure 8.1). In addition, a
planted strip of semi-mature trees (commonest species being Sycamore, Beech,
Common Birch, Rowan and Field Maple) is located along the south boundary of the
site adjacent to Whitley Rd.
8.4.6
Woodland copses. There are two small copses of semi-mature broad-leaved trees
located 280m and 360m from the site boundary (Figure 8.1).
8.4.7
Dry-stone walls. Most of the field boundaries within and around the site are
bounded by dry-stone walls (Figure 8.1), the remainder being post-and-wire fencing
and very occasional hedgerows.
8.4.8
The species-rich grassland, quarry pool and woodland copses are considered to be
of significance.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
148
Birds
8.4.9
Table 8.2
Breeding bird species and the number of territories apparently being held during
each survey visit are shown in Table 8.2. Stable territories of significant species are
shown in Figure 8.4, which is supplemented with information on Lapwings and
Curlews provided by a local ornithologist (Neil Limbert).
Results of breeding bird surveys (cross-reference with Figure 8.4)
o
N apparent territories
Species
26/06/06
26/04/07
10/05/07
Blue Tit
Chaffinch
Curlew
Dunnock
Goldfinch
Grey Partridge
Lapwing
Linnet
Meadow Pipit
Pied Wagtail
Reed Bunting
Skylark
Starling
Wheatear
Whitethroat
Willow Warbler
Woodpigeon
Totals
24
28
12
8.4.10
Densities of breeding birds within the site were very low, while the semi-natural
grassland around the site supported moderate densities of bird species typical of
semi-upland agricultural landscapes.
8.4.11
Nocturnal birds surveys recorded a single Barn Owl, which flew eastwards from the
central hawthorn tree-line within the site at a height of 10m on 31st Aug 2006. This
may have been a dispersing individual or could possibly belong to a pair that bred in
the local area.
8.4.12
Results of the Vantage Point survey are shown in Table 8.3. During the 108 hrs of
survey effort passage rate of birds was generally low, with a total of 6,684

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
149
individual passes of significant or notable non-passerine birds recorded, of which
82% were at turbine height. Lapwing and Golden Plover were by far the most
frequent recorded. Curlew, Golden Plover, Grey Partridge, Lapwing, Peregrine
Falcon, Redshank and Short-eared Owl are considered to be of significance.
Table 8.3
Total individual passes of significant or notable non-passerine birds across the

study area during 108 hrs of Vantage Point surveys
Species
Below turbine height
At turbine height
Total
Common Buzzard
Curlew
80
22
102
Golden Plover
27
2022
2049
Grey Heron
Grey Partridge
Greylag Goose
15
15
Kestrel
21
15
36
1071
3384
4455
Oystercatcher
Peregrine Falcon
Redshank
Short-eared Owl
Sparrowhawk
1212
5472
6684
Lapwing
Total
Bats
8.4.13
Results of the bat activity survey are shown in Table 8.4 and Figure 8.5. Bats were
recorded on the first and third visits, but none were recorded during the second visit.
Three common species were found at the site in small numbers (Common and
Soprano Pipistrelles and Noctule). Activity was concentrated along hedgerows and
tree-lines (i.e. where flying insects congregate), and flight heights ranged from 3 to
10 m.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
150
Table 8.4
Results of bat activity surveys (cross-reference Location with Figure 8.5)
Date
Number
of bats
Time
Height
Location
Common Pipistrelle
14/08/06
21:45
5m
Flying SE along hedgeline
Common Pipistrelle
14/08/06
22:28
Unseen
Detected along N boundary
Common Pipistrelle
28/09/06
19:20
7m
13
Flying from hedgeline SW across

field
Common Pipistrelle
28/09/06
19:35
Unseen
14
Briefly detected along N

boundary
Common Pipistrelle
28/09/06
19:40-19:44
3 - 10 m
15
Up and down hedgeline and SW

into fields
Common Pipistrelle
28/09/06
20:41
Unseen
24
Along drystone wall at site

boundary
Common Pipistrelle
28/09/06
21:02
Unseen
25
Briefly detected along hedgeline
Noctule
28/09/06
20:00
Unseen
19
Detected near corner of field
Noctule
28/09/06
20:06
10 m
20
Flew NE along hedgeline and

over site boundary into fields to N
Noctule
28/09/06
20:10
Unseen
21
Detected near corner of field
Species
Notes
Soprano Pipistrelle
14/08/06
21:35
10 m
Flew from tree line separating

fields within site to treeline along
N boundary
Soprano Pipistrelle
14/08/06
21:53
7m
Flying along tree line towards N

boundary
Soprano Pipistrelle
14/08/06
22:32
Unseen
Detected along tree line

separating fields within site
Soprano Pipistrelle
14/08/06
22:35
10 m
Flying up and down within-site

tree line
Soprano Pipistrelle
14/08/06
22:42
Unseen
10

Soprano Pipistrelle
14/08/06
22:44
Unseen
11

Soprano Pipistrelle
14/08/06
22:50
5m
12
Flying up and down within-site

tree line
Soprano Pipistrelle
28/09/06
19:50
8m
16
Flying up and down hedgeline

and into fields to N of site
Soprano Pipistrelle
28/09/06
19:53
Unseen
17
Along line of Hawthorn
Soprano Pipistrelle
28/09/06
19:55-19:57
5m
18
Flying up and down hedgeline
Soprano Pipistrelle
28/09/06
20:18
5m
22
NE along hedgeline then N

across field
Soprano Pipistrelle
28/09/06
20:30-20:38
3-10 m
23
Feeding between trees along

Whitley Road and narrow field
Soprano Pipistrelle
28/09/06
21:12
7m
27
SW along hedgeline then NE

along hedgeline
Unidentified Pipistrelle
14/08/06
21:40
Unseen

boundary

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
151
Results of bat activity surveys (cross-reference Location with Figure

8.5)
Date
Number
of bats
Time
Height
Location
14/08/06
21:43
Unseen

boundary
14/08/06
21:58
Unseen
Briefly detected near N boundary
28/09/06
21:07
Unseen
26
Very brief detection
Species
Notes
See Figure 8.5.
Off-site
8.4.14 A Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the proposed underground grid connection route is
shown in Figure 8.6. The route is alongside existing roads and tracks with adjacent
areas of (predominantly) semi-improved grassland. No statutory or non-statutory
designated wildlife sites are located along the route or within a 100m buffer.
Significant nature conservation features within a 100m buffer of the route are: (i) an
area of species-rich grassland at Upper Wood Royd, located on the north side of
Wood Royd Hill Lane; (ii) a small semi-mature deciduous woodland copse at the
junction between Browns Edge Road and Lower Maythorn Lane; and (iii) two
sections of hedgerow (300m and 85m) located between the Browns Edge
Road/Lower Maythorn Lane junction and Upper Maythorn Farm (Figure 8.6).
Predicted future baseline without the proposed development
8.4.15 The future baseline conditions are not expected to change significantly if the
development were not to proceed, nor is the sensitivity/importance of the species,
habitats and sites.
Information gaps
8.4.16 There are no significant gaps in information regarding the presence and distribution
of sites, habitats and species of significance that may be affected by the proposed
development.
Sensitive receptors
8.4.17 Sensitive receptors are considered to be sites, habitats and species of significance
and which may be affected by the proposed development, including:
Habitats
- Species-rich grassland located at Upper Wood Royd
Species
- Birds: Barn Owl, Curlew, Golden Plover, Grey Partridge, Lapwing, Linnet,
Peregrine Falcon and Skylark
- Bats: Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle and Noctule
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
152
8.5

On-site
8.5.1
Positioning of the turbines, access tracks, control building and associated
infrastructure within the site have not been limited by ecological constraints since
the land is all intensively managed pasture of no significant ecological value.
8.5.2
The land within the proposed development area will continue to be management as
presently (i.e. for intensive agricultural production), thus limiting the potential for
ecological enhancement. However, new species-rich hedgerows will be planted
along the field boundaries within the site that are presently demarcated by post-andwire fences only and along appropriate lengths of the new access tracks, providing a
total length of about 800m of new species-rich hedgerow (see Figure 8.6).
Off-site
8.5.3
A small area of species-rich grassland located at Upper Wood Royd (Figure 8.7)
could be affected by the positioning of the underground grid connection route if this
is laid along the north side of the lane. Routing along the south side of the lane will
be preferred, but if this is not reasonably possible appropriate mitigation (involving
turf stripping and replacement) will be undertaken to ensure no significant damage
to the species-rich sward.
8.5.4
In addition, a total of 5,000 will be donated to the local Coalfield Heathland

Project, which involves English Nature, the Environment Agency, Sheffield
Wildlife Trust, South Yorkshire Forest Partnership and the five local authorities in
Barnsley, Kirklees, Rotherham, Sheffield and Wakefield. The project is restoring
300ha of heaths, creating new heaths on derelict aggregate sites, and improving
access and education. Lowland heathland is a priority habitat for conservation, both
locally and nationally.
8.6
Habitats (off-site)
Species-rich grassland
8.6.1
Mitigation measures will ensure that effects on species-rich grassland located at
Upper Wood Royd from the underground grid connection route will be
insignificant.
Lowland heathland
8.6.2
A 5,000 donation to the Coalfield Heathland Project will ensure a positive effect
on this priority habitat in the local region.
Habitats (on-site)
Species-rich hedgerows
8.6.3
The short-term effect of the proposed development on species-rich hedgerows will
be a significant positive effect, with the creation of about 800m of new hedgerow
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
153
and no damage to existing hedgerows. When the windfarm is decommissioned there
is potential for damage to some sections of species-rich hedgerow, for which
appropriate mitigation or compensation could be developed easily at that point in
time.
Species
Birds
8.6.4
Stewart et al. (2007) undertook a very comprehensive and independent systematic

review of available data to test the hypothesis that windfarms reduce the abundance
of birds in their vicinity. Scientifically robust data was available for fourteen
windfarms (onshore and offshore), located in Europe and North America. A
significant decline in overall bird abundance was evident at only two (14%), both
offshore, located in Holland (18 turbines) and Sweden (220 turbines). In addition,
only waterfowl and waders were significantly affected, with no apparent significant
affect on other groups of birds, such as birds of prey and songbirds. Similarly, a
recent review of research on the displacement of birds of prey at windfarms, which
primarily involved foraging birds, concluded that most studies indicate that
displacement appears to be negligible (Madders & Whitfield 2006).
8.6.5
However, studies of displacement of breeding birds owing to road noise (e.g.

Reijnen et al. 1995, 1997; Rheindt 2003) suggest changes in noise levels caused by
the proposed turbines (see Noise chapter) will cause minor displacement of some
species of significance within and around the present site. Reijnen et al. (1995)
estimated that traffic noise caused a 13% reduction in breeding bird densities
between major roads (60,000 cars per day) and 250m distance away (where traffic
noise was about 45 dB) in woodland habitat. However, species varied greatly in
their response, with some species showing higher densities closer to roads and some
much lower. Rheindt (2003) has suggested subsequently that this may be related to
the frequency of a species calls and songs, with those that have a frequency similar
to the road noise being affected most.
8.6.6
The 45 dB contour of noise from the proposed turbines operating at 8 m/s and
locations of stable territories of significant bird species are shown in Figure 8.4. It
cannot be said with any certainty which species may be affected by the increased
noise in this zone, but some territories will move and a rough estimate based on the
results of Reijnen et al. (1995) is that about one territory will be lost within the 45
dB zone (i.e. 13% of those territories that overlap to some extent with the 45 dB
zone).
8.6.7
The species shown in Figure 8.4 are considered to be of conservation concern (and
hence significant in the present context) because they have undergone significant
declines in the UK in recent decades, other than Curlew (which is considered
significant because it is a designated feature of the nearby Whitley Edge NHS).
Most of these species are not declining presently and all retain large national
population sizes, remaining frequent or common over large parts of the UK
(Gibbons et al. 1993; Baillie et al. 2005; Brown & Grice 2005). Hence, the
predicted minor displacement effect caused by noise from the proposed turbines is
considered insignificant.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
154
8.6.8
Nocturnal bird surveys produced a record of a single Barn Owl. There are no
possible breeding localities for this species within the site or a 250m buffer, and it is
not know whether this individual was a dispersing non-breeder or belonged to a
breeding pair further afield. The species rarely flies >19m (i.e. the lower height of
turbine blades) and hence is not at significant risk from collision mortality, thus the
proposed development will have a neutral effect on this species.
8.6.9
Significant bird species whose size and flight behaviour means they are potentially
prone to collision mortality and which were recorded as passing across the site and a
250m buffer during VP observations include Curlew, Golden Plover, Grey
Partridge, Lapwing, Peregrine Falcon, Redshank and Short-eared Owl. The degree
of mortality caused will be dependent on: (i) the rate at which birds pass at turbine
height (rotor-height passage rate); (ii) the rate at which birds taking action to avoid
rotor blades (avoidance rate); and (iii) the likelihood of a bird being hit when
flying through the rotor blades (collision rate).
8.6.10
The following species can be omitted from further consideration because their rotorheight passage rate is either extremely low or zero: Grey Partridge, Peregrine
Falcon, Redshank and Short-eared Owl.
8.6.11
Passage rates of Curlew, Golden Plover and Lapwing at turbine height were more
frequent, and hence it is necessary to consider likely avoidance and collision rates
for these species. Avoidance rates for birds at windfarms are uncertain
(Chamberlain et al. 2006). However, a major radar study (of waterfowl movements
at a large off-shore windfarm) showed that some bird species often considered
susceptible to collision mortality are highly successful at avoiding the danger zones
of rotating turbine blades (Desholm & Kahlert 2005), while Scottish National
Heritage suggest for geese that a conservative avoidance rate of 95% is used, noting
that 99% may be more realistic (R. McMichael pers. comm. 2007). Avoidance rates
for geese will almost certainly be lower than the more agile Curlew, Golden Plover
and Lapwing, suggesting that >99% of individuals of these species approaching
turbines blades will take avoiding action. Meanwhile, modelling of collision rates
for Pink-footed Geese has estimated that 9.1% of birds flying through turbine blades
will be hit (Callaghan 2007). Hence, collision rates for the smaller Curlew, Golden
Plover and Lapwing would be <9%.
8.6.12
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on current information that >99% of

Curlew, Golden Plover and Lapwing flying towards rotor blades would take
avoiding action and of those that didnt <9% would be hit by a blade. In other
words, <1 fatality would likely result from every 1000 flights towards the windswept area of a turbine blade. Bearing in mind that <20% of the flight passes noted
at turbine height within Table 8.3 would actually be towards the wind-swept area of
turbine blades, it is concluded that detailed modelling of this effect on these species
is not needed since increases in mortality will clearly be very small and are
extremely unlikely to have any significant effect on local population sizes of these
birds.
Bats
8.6.13
Thermal imaging has shown that some bats forage around and in the rotor-swept
zone of the turbine blades, strongly suggesting that displacement by turbines is not a
potential effect (Arnett 2005). Mortality data of bats at windfarms are highly

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
155
variable between sites, but it does seem that windfarms on forested ridges and/or
along the paths of long-distant migratory bats can cause significant problems
(Arnett 2005; Johnson et al. 2004). Collision mortality of local, resident bat
populations, as within the present study area, are unclear, with some studies
showing no significant effect even where large windfarms are close to large bat
breeding populations (e.g. Johnson et al. 2004) and others studies from forested
ridges suggesting an effect (e.g. Arnett 2005).
8.6.14
The three species of bat recorded in the present site are widespread in the UK with
stable or increasing populations; Common Pipistrelle and Soprano Pipistrelle are
especially numerous (Battersby 2005). There are no bat roosts within or close to the
site, and the small number of individuals recorded during activity surveys suggests
significant effects on any bat species from possible collision mortality are extremely
unlikely.
8.7
8.7.1
A summary of the significance evaluation for the nature conservation assessment is

provided in Table 8.5. There are no significant negative effects and an overall
positive effect on nature conservation is predicted, through a 5,000 contribution to
the conservation of lowland heathland in the local area and the planting of about
800m of species-rich hedgerows on-site.
Table 8.5
Type of effect
Significance
Species-rich hedgerows
+ve
Species-rich grassland
NS
+ve
NS
Curlew
N or ve
NS
Golden Plover
N or ve
NS
Grey Partridge
NS
N or ve
NS
Linnet
NS
Peregrine Falcon
NS
Skylark
N or -ve
NS
Common Pipistrelle
N or ve
NS
Soprano Pipistrelle
N or ve
NS
Noctule
N or -ve
NS
Lowland heathland
Barn Owl
Lapwing
Key/footnotes:

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
156
1.Type of effect
-ve = negative
Type of effect
2.
+ve = positive
or
N = Neutral
NS
Significance
Significant
Not-significant
? = unknown
8.8
References
Arnett, E. B. (ed). 2005. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and
West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and
behavioural interactions with wind turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind
Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA.
Baillie, S.R., Marchant, J.H., Crick, H.Q.P., Noble, D.G., Balmer, D.E., Beaven, L.P.,
Coombes, R.H., Downie, I.S., Freeman, S.N., Joys, A.C., Leech, D.I., Raven, M.J., Robinson,
R.A. & Thewlis, R.M. 2005. Breeding Birds in the Wider Countryside: their conservation
status 2004. BTO Research Report No. 385. BTO, Thetford. (http://www.bto.org/birdtrends)
Battersby, J. (ed). 2005. UK mammals: species status and population trends. First report by
the Tracking Mammals Partnership. JNCC/Tracking Mammals Partnership, Peterborough.
Brown, A. & Grice, P. 2005. Birds in England. T & AD Poyser, London.
Callaghan DA. 2007. Impact of the proposed Chiplow Wind Farm on Pink-footed Goose
numbers at The Wash SPA and North Norfolk Coast SPA. Report by Bureau Veritas HS&E
Ltd to E.On UK Ltd.
Chamberlain, D.E., Rehfisch, M.R., Fox, A.D., Desholm, M. & Anthony, S. 2006. The effect
of avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision risk models.
Ibis 148: 198202.
Cresswell, W. & Whitworth, R. 2004. An assessment of the efficiency of capture techniques
and the value of different habitats for great crested newts. English Nature Research Reports
576. English Nature, Peterborough.
Desholm M. & Kahlert J. 2005. Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Biology
Letters 1: 296-298.
Gibbons, D.W., Reid, J.B. & Chapman, R.A. 1993. The new atlas of breeding birds in Britain
and Ireland: 1988-1991. T & AD Poyser, London.
Jehle, R. 2000. The terrestrial summer habitat of radio-tracked great crested newts (Triturus
cristatus) and marbled newts (T. marmoratus). Herpetological Journal 10: 137-142.
Jehle, R. & Arntzen, J.W. 2000. Post-breeding migrations of newts with contrasting
ecological requirements. Journal of Zoology 251: 297-306.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
157
JNCC. 2004. Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Johnson, G.D., Perlik M.K., Erickson, W.I.P. & Strickland, J.D. 2004. Bat activity,
composition, and collision mortality at a large wind plant in Minnesota. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 32: 1278-1288.
Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. 2006. Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm
impacts. Ibis 148: 43-56.
Malmgren, J.C. 2002. How does a newt find its way from a pond? Migration patterns after
breeding and metamorphosis in great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) and smooth newts (T.
vulgaris). Herpetological Journal 12: 29-35.
NWCC (National Wind Coordinating Committee). 2000. National Avian-Wind Power
Planning Meeting IV, Carmel, CA, May 2000: Meeting Summary. NWCC and RESOLVE
Inc. King City, Ontario, Canada: LGL Ltd; Washington, D.C.: RESOLVE, Inc.
Reijnen R., Foppen R. ter Braak, C. & Thissen, J. 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding
bird populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main
roads. Journal of Applied Ecology 32: 187-202.
Reijnen R., Foppen R. & Veenbaas G. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds:
evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors.
Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 567-581.
Rheindt, F.E. 2003. The impact of roads on birds: does song frequency play a role in
determining susceptibility to noise pollution? Journal fr Ornithologie 144: 295-306.
SNH. 2005. Survey methods for use in assessment of the impacts of proposed onshore wind
farms on bird communities. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.
Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S. & Coles, C.F. 2007. Poor evidence-base for assessment of
windfarm impacts on birds. Environmental Conservation 34: 1-11.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
158

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
159
9.
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
9.1
Introduction
9.1.1
This chapter has been prepared by Simon Atkinson MIFA of Entec UK Ltd and
assesses the potential effects on cultural heritage as a result of the construction and
operation of the proposed Blackstone Edge wind farm development.
9.1.2
Assessment has been undertaken of any direct effects on features of cultural heritage
interest as well as any effects on the setting of off-site features. The assessment has
been carried out in accordance with the principles laid down in the Institute of Field
Archaeologists (IFA) Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-Based
Assessments (IFA, 2001).
9.2
Context
Site context
9.2.1
Cultural heritage is represented by a wide range of features, both visible and buried,
that result from past human use of the landscape. These include standing buildings,
many still in use, sub-surface archaeological remains and artefact scatters. It also
includes earthwork monuments as well as landscape features such as field
boundaries and industrial remains.
9.2.2
The site is within the location of a former WWII bombing decoy, and whilst no
visible features of this survive, some potential features have been identified on
aerial photographs. There are a number of designated features in the wider area,
including scheduled monuments and listed buildings. The potential for effects on
the setting of these have been considered in this assessment.
Policy context
National
9.2.3
The following national policies include guidance relevant to the treatment of
cultural heritage in the development of wind energy schemes:
Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 15 Planning and the Historic
Environment;
PPG 16 Archaeology and Planning; and
Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 22: Renewable Energy.
9.2.4
28
In addition, English Heritage has published guidance entitled Wind Energy and the
Historic Environment28.
English Heritage 2006

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
160
Regional
9.2.5
The following policies contained in the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy 12: The
Yorkshire and Humber Plan are potentially relevant to this assessment.
Table 9.1
Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policies
Policy
Text
Policy ENV 9
Cultural Heritage
The Region will safeguard and enhance the historic environment, and ensure that historical
context informs future development and regeneration. All development strategies, plans,
programmes and decisions in the Region will conserve distinctive elements of the historic
environment and enhance local character and distinctiveness in line with the following heritage
priority areas of regional, sub regional and local cultural and historical importance:
Local
9.2.6
Table 9.2
Prehistoric landscapes, especially the Wolds, the Magnesium Limestone Ridge, Vale of
Pickering, and Thornborough Henges Medieval landscapes, especially the Lincolnshire
Coversands, the waterlogged landscapes of the Humber and the relict industrial
landscapes of the North York Moors.
Industrial landscapes, housing areas and civic buildings, especially in West and South
Yorkshire.
Roman military and civil settlements and communications, especially in North Yorkshire)
the historic street patterns, sky lines, views and setting of the City of York.
Maritime archaeological assets, seaside resorts, and the purpose built historic ports,
docks and infrastructure of the East Coast and the Humber.
The following policies contained in the Barnsley UDP are potentially relevant to
this assessment:
Barnsley UDP Policies
Policy
Text
Listed Buildings
The council will have special regard to the desirability of securing the retention, repair,
maintenance and continued use of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.
Development which would adversely affect the special architectural or historic interest
character of listed buildings will not be permitted. Other buildings considered by the council to
be of special architectural or historic interest will be put forward to the department of national
heritage for listing.
Policy BE2
Archaeological Sites
Policy BE3
Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their
settings are affected by proposed development there will be a presumption in favour of their
physical preservation.
Other unscheduled archaeological remains of more local importance may also be worthy of
preservation. Where these features are affected by development proposals, their relative
importance will be weighed against other factors including the need for the proposed
development. On sites of identified or potential archaeological significance, the council may
require an archaeological field evaluation to be submitted as part of a planning application.
Policy BE4
Where the authority decides that the physical preservation of archaeological remains in situ is
not justified, and that development which would destroy the remains should proceed, the
authority will ensure, before granting planning permission, that the developer has made
appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of the remains.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
161
Legislative context
9.2.7
The importance of cultural heritage remains is recognised in legislation as well as
national and local policy. Certain features that are deemed to be of particular
importance are given legal protection through legislation. The Ancient Monuments
and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 provides for a schedule of monuments which
are protected.
9.2.8
Similarly, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
provides for the definition and protection of listed buildings and conservation areas.
9.3
Methodology
9.3.1
Figure 9.1 shows the study area used for the assessment of direct effects, which is
based on a 1km buffer around the site centre. This therefore includes areas where
there will be no direct effect on cultural heritage as a result of the construction of the
wind farm. In order to distinguish this from the wider area assessed for indirect
effects, the latter is consistently referred to as the extended study area, which is
based on a 5km radius from the proposed turbine locations.
9.3.2
Figure 9.2 shows the locations of designated features within the extended study area
for which the potential for effects on setting is assessed in section 9.6.
Approach to scoping
9.3.3
The presence of cultural heritage features is a consideration in determining planning
applications, and early consultation with the local authority is encouraged in
planning guidance (consultations undertaken during this assessment are detailed
later in paragraphs 9.3.22 to 9.3.24). In this case there was reason to believe that
cultural heritage features may be affected by the development proposal and
therefore a desk-based assessment, supplemented by a site visit, has been
undertaken. This has involved the collection of existing information that can assist
in the assessment of the likely or potential effects of the development. A site
walkover has been undertaken in conjunction with the desk-based assessment in
order to visit known features of cultural heritage interest, check and update recorded
data, and assess general ground conditions.
9.3.4
In completing a desk-based assessment of the effects of any development on cultural

heritage it is important to identify the known and potential nature of features that
may be involved. This requires consideration of a number of factors:
Development can affect features of cultural heritage interest not only through
direct impacts (e.g. land take) but also indirect impacts, such as the setting of
monuments; and
Desk-based assessment involves a review of current information only and
there may be further features within the application area that are not yet
known. The potential for this may be assessed from ground conditions,
features within the wider area and a history of land use within the area of
proposed development. A site walkover can assist in this respect.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
162
Direct Effects
9.3.5
Information is required on any features that are known to be or could potentially be
within areas where ground may be directly disturbed as a result of the proposed
development. With a wind turbine development this includes the footprint of the
turbines, access tracks and associated infrastructure, for example crane pads and the
construction compound.
9.3.6
Legislation and policy set out appropriate responses to potential direct effects on
features in accordance with their importance, as set out below.
Sites of National Importance

9.3.7
By legal definition, Scheduled Monuments are considered as being of national
importance. As the process of scheduling is ongoing, there are further features
which are not scheduled but which may also meet the established criteria29 and may
also be of national importance.
9.3.8
All listed buildings are given equal protection by law and are of special architectural
or historic interest, although the buildings are graded in importance, with Grades I
(most important), II*, and II. Buildings listed at Grade I are described by English
Heritage as being of paramount importance to the nation and those listed at II* are
of outstanding interest and therefore these are considered as being of potential
national importance for the purposes of this assessment.
9.3.9
A non-statutory Register of Historic Parks and Gardens is maintained by English

Heritage, and these are graded using the same scale. Therefore, by inference it may
be considered that Grade I and II* historic parks are of national importance.
9.3.10
Under the relevant legislation, specific consent is normally required for works
which directly affect scheduled monuments or listed buildings. PPG16 paragraph 8
states that there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation.
Sites of Regional and Local Importance

9.3.11 Archaeological sites of regional or local importance are those which do not merit
scheduling but which are nevertheless of interest.
9.3.12
Conservation areas are normally designated by local planning authorities and

maintained on regional and district registers, and are therefore considered to be of
local or regional Importance. For the purpose of this assessment, Grade II listed
buildings and Grade II registered historic parks are also considered to be of local or
regional importance.
9.3.13
PPG16 states that where archaeological features of less than national importance
may be affected, planning authorities should weigh importance of the archaeology
against the need for the proposed development. There will be times when the
physical preservation of a monument will not be justified in the case of a proposed
development which would result in the loss of the monument. In such cases it is
important that relevant information on the archaeological resource will have been
29
PPG16 Annex 4

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
163
provided and that appropriate excavation and recording should take place prior to
development.
Non-statutory Registers
9.3.14 Features on non-statutory registers of designated sites, namely the Register of Parks
and Gardens of Special Historic Interest and the Register of Historic Battlefields
(maintained by English Heritage) may be of international, national, regional or local
importance. The Register of Parks and Gardens grades sites on the same scale used
for listed buildings, of Grades I, II* and II.
Indirect Effects
9.3.15 Indirect effects on features of cultural heritage interest can occur as a result of
changes to the setting of a feature, whether permanent or temporary. The setting of
a feature can be considered whether or not it is legally protected, although setting is
most relevant to designated features, such as Scheduled Monuments (PPG 16),
listed buildings (PPG 15, paragraph 3.5; PPG 16) and Conservation Areas (PPG 15).
The setting of non-designated features may also be considered, particularly where
these are identified as being nationally important, for example through scoping
responses and/or designations of particular importance at a local or county level.
Scheduled Monuments
9.3.16 The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 makes no reference to
the protection or even existence of a setting, therefore this is a matter which is
addressed purely in policy. PPG16 paragraph 8 states that:
Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and
their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption
in favour of their physical preservation.
9.3.17
Paragraph 27 further refers to a presumption against proposals which would have a

significant impact on the setting of visible remains, implying the setting which is
being protected is essentially a visual concept. This suggests that for the setting of
an archaeological site to be a material consideration, it has to include visible surface
remains, and the sensitivity of a feature to change will be affected by the degree and
ease of its visibility.
Listed Buildings
9.3.18 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 makes reference
to the setting of listed buildings in s.66(1), in that it includes a requirement to have
special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting in
considering any proposed development which may affect these. There is therefore a
legal requirement to consider possible effects on the setting of listed building,
though this falls short of a legal presumption that they need always be preserved.
9.3.19
PPG15 (paragraph 3.3) emphasises that there should be a general presumption in

favour of the preservation of listed buildings.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
164
Conservation Areas
9.3.20 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
places a general duty in planning functions to pay attention to the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.
Historic Parks and Gardens
9.3.21 As a non-statutory register there are no legal controls, but PPG15 paragraph 2.24
states that local authorities should protect registered parks and gardens in
determining planning application, and that any effect on their setting is a material
consideration.
Scoping and Consultation
9.3.22 English Heritage were consulted at an initial stage in the consideration of the site as
a wind farm location. In response, English Heritage noted that there may be
potential effects on listed buildings at Upper and Lower Maythorn. Potential effects
on the setting of listed buildings at Lower Maythorn have been considered in this
assessment, though it is noted that there are no listed buildings at Upper Maythorn.
9.3.23
A Scoping Report was submitted to Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council on 03

November 2006. This included an understanding of the potential cultural heritage
issues associated with the proposed development and set out the scope of the
assessment proposed to consider these. The scoping response received from the
planning authority did not include any mention of archaeology. However, the South
Yorkshire Archaeology Service, who act as advisors to the planning authority on
archaeological matters were contacted separately.
The South Yorkshire
Archaeology Service advised that a cultural heritage desk-based assessment was
required, and provided a generic brief for the assessment.
9.3.24
This assessment has been carried out in accordance with this generic brief, and with
the Institute of Archaeologists Standards and Guidance for Desk-Based
Assessments (2001).

9.3.25 The following effects have been scoped-in.
Potential effect on features within the site caused by disturbance during
construction of the turbines and associated infrastructure including the grid
connection; and
Potential effects on scheduled monuments and listed buildings following
construction, caused by changes to their settings.
9.3.26 There are no potential cultural heritage effects which have been scoped out of the
assessment.
Data Gathering
9.3.27 For the purpose of this assessment the following sources were consulted:

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
165
Nationally- and County- based registers of known archaeological and historical
sites;
Cartographic and historic documents;
Aerial photographs;
Place and field name evidence; and
Published sources.
9.3.28
Published sources were obtained from the following organisations:

English Heritage -the National Monuments Record;
South Yorkshire Archaeology Service; and
Barnsley Archives.
9.3.29
The assistance of these bodies is gratefully acknowledged.
9.3.30
The South Yorkshire Archaeology Service maintains the Sites and Monuments
Record (SMR), in addition to providing planning advice to the LPA on
archaeological and cultural heritage matters.
Survey Work
9.3.31 A site visit was undertaken on 13 December 2006 by one of Entec's archaeologists.
This was aimed at confirming the presence, condition and extent of previously
recorded features of cultural heritage interest and identifying any other visible
features of cultural heritage interest, in addition to noting the general ground
conditions.
9.3.32
Where appropriate, a written description of visible features of cultural heritage

interest was made and photographs taken. The location and extent of features were
also noted using a hand-held GPS showing an accuracy of ~5m. This is considered
an appropriate level of detail for this study.
9.3.33
In addition to the 1km study area, indirect effects on the settings of designated
features within the extended study area of 5km radius from turbine locations were
also considered as part of this assessment. The assessment of indirect effects has
been undertaken in consultation with the Visual and Landscape Assessment (see
chapter 7).
9.3.34
The assessment was made, in the first instance, with reference to the calculated
Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for the wind farm. It is acknowledged that the
ZTV provides an unrealistic worst case image as bare earth ZTVs are used in the
assessment; no allowance is made for the screening or filtering effect of woodland,
afforestation, settlement, large scale development, tree belts, hedgerows and minor
variations in topography, which may in fact preclude views of the development.
Features outside the ZTV, where no relevant third viewpoint was noted, have been
discounted from the assessment. Further to this features have been discounted from
assessment according to the following criteria:
Where there are no visible remains; and

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
166
Where their setting is sufficiently limited that there is no reasonable expectation
of any effect on their setting, such as listed mileposts.
9.3.35
Features have also been grouped for assessment and discussion where a group of
features share a common setting and views towards the wind turbines, such as in the
following cases:
Where a principal building and associated buildings are listed separately; and
Where a group of listed buildings form an historic settlement core.
9.3.36
Following the elimination of features from consideration for the reasons given
above, site visits were made to the remaining features (or groups thereof) in order to
define the key characteristics of their setting and the potential for effects on this as a
result of the proposed development. Wireframes calculated from the locations of
those features visited were also used in this assessment. Features were visited
where publicly accessible, or from the nearest accessible viewpoint(s). The results
of this assessment are presented in section 9.6 and in particular in Table 9.6.
Significance evaluation methodology

9.3.37 The assessment of significance of any effect is largely a product of the
importance/sensitivity of a feature, as informed by legislation and policy, and the
magnitude of the effect on it, qualified by professional judgement.
9.3.38
Effects on receptors are assigned to one of four classes of magnitude, defined in

Table 9.3, below.
Table 9.3
Magnitude
Definition
High
Total or substantial loss of a feature or complete loss of the characteristics of a features setting.
Medium
Partial loss or alteration of a feature. Substantial change to the key characteristics of a features
setting, or a more total loss which is temporary and/or reversible.
Low
Minor loss to or alteration of a feature. Changes to a setting which does not affect the key
characteristics, or which is short term and reversible.
Negligible
Minor alteration of a feature. Minor and short term, or very minor and reversible changes to its
setting which do not affect the key characteristics.
9.3.39
As noted above, the assessment of magnitude of an effect essentially relies on

professional judgement rather than any scoring of the criteria. With respect to
potential effects on the setting of designated features, the magnitude of an effect
reflects the extent to which the key characteristics of the setting (the immediate
setting) will be altered. This is judged on a range of factors including the degree of
intervisibility (direct views) between the feature and the development, intervisibility
between features where this was intended and the effect on views towards features
or groups of features from tertiary locations.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
167
9.3.40
Magnitude
Table 9.4
Effects are considered to be significant or not significant according to the matrix

below (Table 9.4). For this assessment, only changes of high magnitude may result
in effects of significance, depending on the importance of the feature and the
exercise of professional judgement.
Significance Assessment
High
Not significant
Significant
Significant
Medium
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Low
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Negligible
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Local
Regional
National
Policy Importance
9.4
9.4.1
Features of cultural heritage interest within the site and 1km study area are listed in
Table 9.5 and their locations shown on Figure 9.1. The locations shown in
Figure 9.1 rely primarily on grid references provided by the SMR, not all of which
have been or can be independently verified in the field. While we believe that this
is an accurate depiction of known archaeological features it does not represent a
detailed survey and should not therefore be used in isolation for micro-siting
purposes at the construction stage.
9.4.2
Designated features identified within 5km of the site boundary are listed in
Tables 9.6 and 9.7.
9.4.3
Information given on nationally designated features uses official register numbers.
Existing Situation
Designated Features
9.4.4
There are no scheduled monuments or listed buildings within the site. The nearest
designated feature is the Grade II listed building of Lower Maythorn Farm,
approximately 616m from the nearest turbine location.
9.4.5
The area has been covered by the ongoing South Yorkshire Historic Landscape
Characterisation, and the whole of the site falls within HSY40: Whitley Common
Enclosures, Dunford. This comprises enclosed upland common, also containing
small sandstone quarries. Typically, fields within this character area are medium
sized in the 2-10ha range, with straight regular, well preserved boundaries.
Other Features
9.4.6
There is a single recorded feature within the site boundary, being a bombing decoy
and starfish site operated during WWII. The Starfish Decoys operated with the aim
of attracting German bombers to open areas and away from their actual targets (in
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
168
this case the Leeds metropolitan area). Pools and low concrete structures were built
with open areas to a pattern designed to mimic the industrial areas in their vicinity.
A series of fires were then lit in the early stages of a bombing attack, as a simulation
of the marker bombs which would be dropped. The intention was to confuse the
later waves of bombers and therefore reduce the weight of attacks on the intended
targets.
9.4.7
Therefore the structures of the bombing decoy will have been spread over a wider
area along Whitley Edge and Ingbirchwoth Moor. There are no visible remains of
bomb decoys surviving within the site, though a range of features are visible on
aerial photographs of the 1970s and these may record traces of the former bomb
decoys. In addition, a brick structure a short distance from the site on the corner of
Whitley Road and Browns Edge Road may be a former control building.
9.4.8
The only records relating to prehistoric activity are of finds of flint from broadly
along the southern edge of Whitley Edge.
Table 9.5
Features of Cultural Heritage Interest within the Site and 1km Study Area
SMR No/ref.
Location
Description
Distance
from site
SMR 04727
SE 197 052
Ingbirchworth WWII Bombing Decoy and Starfish for Leeds C16(g) and SF23(m)
Within site
A bombing decoy (type unknown) and permanent Starfish decoy

at Ingbirchworth. The exact location is unknown. It was
designed to simulate the lights of Leeds.
SMR 00567/01
SE 191 049
Miscellaneous nodules and flints of unspecified date found as

surface finds.
0.40km
SMR 01042/01
SE 191 050
Surface finds of Mesolithic flints have been made on Upper

Whitley Edge by E.E. Rayner and are in his possession. Found
by Mr Rayner during the summer of 1962 on moorland at
approximately SE 1905 0493 and SE 1868 0492. His flint
collection consists of untrimmed flakes, flint fragments and
nodules found at varying times and places. He is unable to
particularise those from this site.
0.38km
Entec 1
SE 19020556
Single storey brick hut with concrete slab roof. The eastern half
is bomb protected, with an earth embankment. Appears to date
from WWII and may be a control hut for the bombing decoy or an
observation post. Has more recently been used as a pig sty.
0.30km
Information Sources
Aerial Photographs
9.4.9
A search of aerial photographs was undertaken at the NMR. The search resulted in
vertical photographic coverage of the site dating from 1954 to 1990, all of which
were viewed.
9.4.10
The only features of potential cultural heritage interest noted within the site are the
possible remains of the WWII bombing decoy visible on photo MAL/73014 Frame
6 (3 April 1973). The extent of the visible features is shown on Figure 9.1.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
169
Site Visit
9.4.11 A site visit was undertaken on 13 December 2006 by one of Entec's archaeologists
in which the whole of the proposed site was inspected. The visit was made to assess
the archaeological potential of the site and note general ground conditions.
9.4.12
The site comprises a series of enclosed fields set in a regular pattern and in use as
improved pasture. Fields are enclosed by dry stone walling, some in poor condition,
as well as post and wire fencing. Two dry stream channels cross the site and are
visible as linear depressions.
9.4.13
Apart from the current site boundaries, there are no visible features of potential
cultural heritage interest within the site.
Site History
Prehistoric
9.4.14 The only evidence for occupation within the immediate vicinity of the site
comprises finds of Mesolithic flint from along Whitley Edge. These indicate
Mesolithic activity within this area, though there is no clear indication for any
associated features within the site.
9.4.15
A later Prehistoric settlement site survives some 1.6km to the north of the site and is
now designated as a Scheduled Monument (SM 31503). Fieldwalking in the 1970s
also recovered an assemblage of Neolithic flints in the vicinity of this settlement.
9.4.16
There is therefore evidence of activity and occupation of the wider area over an
extended time within the Prehistoric period. However, there is no available
information to suggest an enhanced potential for associated features of
archaeological interest within the site boundary.
Roman and Medieval

9.4.17 There is no clear evidence for occupation of the immediate area during the Roman
and Medieval periods. Ingbirchworth Moor appears to have comprised open upland
moor during the Medieval period.
Post-Medieval
9.4.18 There is no tithe map for Hepworth parish, or enclosure map which covers the site.
9.4.19
The 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1851 shows the site as an open area within
Whiteley Common, in a detached portion of Hepworth parish. By then, land north
of the site was called The Whams, referring to a small valley or marshy hollow.
9.4.20
A number of small-scale sandstone quarries were in operation at this time, though

none are shown directly within the site.
9.4.21
The OS Edition of 1893 shows the site as an enclosed area with the same field
boundary pattern as exists now. The enclosure of the site therefore appears to date
to the second half of the nineteenth century. No change within the site is notable on
the later OS Editions of 1906 and 1931.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
170
Twentieth Century
9.4.22 During WWII, the site lay on the flight path for Luftwaffe bombers heading for the
Leeds area and therefore it was developed as a Starfish bomb decoy site. At Starfish
sites fires were lit in the early stages of a bombing raid in order to simulate the fires
caused by the initial marker bombs. The intention was to confuse later waves of
bombers, and they proved effective in attracting bombers to attack the decoys, thus
reducing the weight of attacks on the intended targets. The Ingbirchworth site
therefore formed part of the much wider deception plans operated by the UK as
parts of its air defences during WWII.
9.4.23
There is no available contemporary record of the layout of the bomb decoy and no
visible features survive within the site, though a later aerial photograph appears to
show the traces of the ponds and pits in which the fires would have been lit during
the operation of the decoy. In addition a single storey brick hut is located to the
west of the site, on the corner of Whitley Road and Browns Edge Road. This is
partially bomb-protected and so may have been a control room attached to the bomb
decoy or an observation post.
Predicted future baseline

9.4.24 The site comprises improved pasture, and its continued use for this purpose would
not be expected to alter the condition of any features within the site.
Information gaps
9.4.25 An attempt has been made to consult all available documentary sources, although it
is always possible that some sources will not be identifiable, for example they could
be held under obscure references. However, should such sources exist, it is unlikely
that they would hold information that would alter the conclusions reached by this
assessment.
Sensitive Receptors
Within the Site
9.4.26 The only identified features within the site are the potential buried remains of a
WWII bombing decoy. Whilst well-preserved examples of this feature type may be
of greater importance, as there are no surviving visible remains of this within the
site, it is considered to be of local importance only.
Outside the Site
9.4.27 Scheduled monuments are of national importance. As set out in paragraph 9.3.8,
Grade I and II* listed buildings are also considered to be of national importance,
whilst Grade II listed buildings may be of regional or local importance.
9.4.28
The non-designated features within the 1km study area, which are identified in
Table 9.5, are considered to be of local importance.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
171
9.5

9.5.1
Planning guidance (PPG 16) states that there is a presumption in favour of

preserving in situ archaeological sites of national importance. The proposals do not
pose any threat to any such identified sites.
9.5.2
It is appropriate for significant effects on features of archaeological interest of less

than national importance to be mitigated by a programme of archaeological field
investigation and preservation by record, if their destruction is unavoidable.
9.5.3
For the purpose of this assessment mitigation is understood to involve the avoidance
of effects on features of cultural heritage significance. Compensation measures
involve the creation of a record of features whose loss is unavoidable, further details
of which are provided below.
Construction
9.5.4
No specific potential has been identified for construction within the site to encounter
known archaeological remains, as features identified within the site have been
avoided by the site layout.
9.5.5
There is some potential for the presence of sub-surface features of archaeological

interest of local interest only. It is therefore proposed that archaeological
monitoring of topsoil stripping along the routes of access tracks, crane pads, turbine
foundations and the construction compound be undertaken during construction, and
provision made for appropriate recording of features identified. This would enable
the preservation by record of any remains identified in accordance with PPG 16.
9.5.6
The exact scope of archaeological works, before and during construction, will be
agreed with the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service. The archaeological
monitoring would be undertaken according to a Written Schemes of Investigation
(WSIs) and could be secured by a condition on any planning permission. Soil
stripping would be undertaken sufficiently in advance of development to allow
appropriate treatment of any remains encountered.
Operation and decommissioning

9.5.7
All scheduled monuments and listed buildings within the extended study area, upon
which indirect effects were considered, are listed in Tables 9.6 and 9.7. Indirect
effects are considered to be at their greatest during operation, although these could
be considered at the culmination of the construction stage. Although no specific
mitigation of effects on cultural heritage features is proposed, the overriding
mitigating factor of indirect effects on designated features of cultural heritage
interest is that the wind farm will remain a reversible development, such that
indirect effects are essentially temporary, in the event of the decommissioning of the
site.
9.5.8
Operation of the proposed wind farm and its subsequent decommissioning is not
anticipated to have any further direct impacts on cultural heritage, as no further land
take will occur during these stages.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
172
9.6
9.6.1
This section takes into account the mitigation measures described in the previous
section and hence effectively forms an assessment of residual impacts and effects
once mitigation measures have been taken into consideration.
Construction
9.6.2
The permanent land-take associated with intrusive elements of the proposed
development, namely turbine foundations, crane pads, access tracks, and the site
construction compound would be expected to remove any currently unrecorded
features of cultural heritage interest that may be present in those limited areas that
are directly affected. However, no effect on any known cultural heritage features
has currently been identified.
9.6.3
The possible remains of a WWII bombing decoy have been identified on aerial
photographs, though no features are visible on the site. The identified features have
been avoided in the designed scheme layout.
9.6.4
There may be some potential for an effect on hitherto unrecorded remains, although
the scope for such an effect is reduced by the relatively small areas of ground
disturbance that would be entailed by the proposed development. There is no reason
to anticipate the presence of any features of more than local importance and
therefore any effect, taking account of the proposed mitigation would not be
significant.
9.6.5
Additional indirect effects caused during the construction and decommissioning

stages, for example the movement of machinery, will represent a negligible and
temporary increase in the level of indirect effects. Indirect effects are therefore
considered under the operational stage of the wind farm.
Grid Connection
9.6.6
The underground grid connection route would be predominantly along existing
roads and its construction would not be expected to result in any disturbance to
archaeological features. This is because any archaeological features are likely to
have already been disturbed by construction of the existing roads.
Operation
9.6.7
A list of all scheduled monuments and listed buildings upon which the potential for
indirect effects were considered is presented in Tables 9.6 and 9.7, which includes
all features within the extended study area (5km from proposed turbine locations).
Names and descriptions of designated features in Tables 9.6 and 9.7 use official
listing and schedule descriptions. A discussion of the potential effects on each of
the features from which turbines will theoretically be visible is included within
Table 9.6.
9.6.8
Figure 9.2 shows the locations of designated features (or groups thereof) within 5km
of turbines, including those discussed in Table 9.6 overlain on the ZTV (calculated
to blade tip). Where groups of features were considered, such as listed buildings
within settlements, only one building within the group is labelled to avoid crowding
of the figure and allow the labels on the plan to be read.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
173
9.6.9
In the assessment of indirect effects it is noted that the wind farm will be a
temporary development, the indirect effects of which are reversible subject to its
decommissioning. It is also notable that the contemporary landscape of many of the
monuments considered within the vicinity has altered significantly. This is
particularly true of the features which are prehistoric in date, and this may affect an
appreciation of their archaeological significance.
9.6.10
It is not considered that the noise generated by turbines will have a significant
additional effect on the appreciation of the setting of designated features over the
distances involved.
9.6.11
No potential for the movement of the turbines to have a significant additional effect
on the setting of receptors has been identified

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
174
Table 9.6
Ref.
Assessment of indirect effects on designated features within extended (5km) study area
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
Scheduled Monuments
23393
Boundary and
wayside cross
known as
Catshaw Cross
SE20610349
1.85 km to turbine 3
3 turbines
visible
Negligible
The historical association and current physical setting is

defined by its roadside location. The cross comprises a
small stone set against a dry stone wall along the road. The
setting of the cross does not extend beyond this immediate
area and will not be affected by the presence of turbines at
a distance of over 1.8 km.
31503
Late Prehistoric
enclosed
settlement on
Castle Hill, 550m
north of
Broadstone
Lodge
SE20420697
3 turbines
visible
Low
The settlement site is located within a level, upland area

with no clear topographic features which relate to its
location or define its principal setting. Though the area is
known as Castle Hill, the monument is not on a hill top
location as the land continues to rises up to the north. This
area was formerly open upland common, upon which an
enclosure period field pattern was imposed, and the
monument is now within a pasture field marked by dry stone
walling. Broad views are available in all directions, though
the falling topography tends to draw the eye to the south as
the rising land to the north curtails views in this direction to
some extent. To the south east, the Royd Moor windfarm
appears as a single line of 13 turbines along a low ridge.
The proposed turbines would be visible as three additional
turbines along the same ridge as the Royd Moor turbines.
They would therefore effectively broaden the view in which
turbines would be visible by a small margin, without
introducing a new element into views from the monument.
As a low earthwork within an enclosed pasture field, the
monument is not a prominent feature in any approaches.
Therefore other views of the monument are not key to its
setting.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
175
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
27213
Wayside Cross
south of Hartcliff
Road
SE23400205
3 turbines
visible
Negligible
The historical association is defined by its roadside location,

though the cross is now isolated from the road within an
enclosed field. This suggests that either the cross or the
road has been moved at some time. The cross comprises a
small stone set within an enclosed field. The setting of the
cross does not extend beyond this immediate area and will
not be affected by the presence of turbines at a distance of
over 4.7 km.
II
SE1765405070
1.91 km To Turbine 1
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
The farm appears to be largely derelict, with the setting of

the barn largely confined to the farm, with some wider
views.
Listed Buildings
333781
Barn at Hepshaw
Farm, Bedding
Edge Road,
Hepworth
Turbines are likely to be visible to the east, though with

views filtered by a line of trees.
333794
Lower Maythorn
Farmhouse and
barn, Lee Lane,
Hepworth
II
SE1870905598
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
Lower Maythorn Farmhouse is located within a cut into the

hillside on the south side of Lee Lane. Its entrance is on the
western side, away from the proposed wind farm site. The
barn has now been converted to residential use, with its
principal entrance and windows on the eastern side.
Due to the presence of the barn, there are unlikely to be
views of the turbines from the farmhouse, though turbines
may be visible in the background when approaching the
farm along Lee Lane from the east. Turbines may be visible
from the converted barn. Where turbines are visible, they
would appear within the same field of view as the existing
Royd Moor turbines.
333805
Upper Wood
Royd Farmhouse,
Wood Royd Hill
Lane, Hepworth
II
SE1846405696
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
Though the ZTV suggests three turbines will be visible,

Wood Royd Hill will blocks views and result in limited
visibility of turbines.
340628
Lower Wood
Royd Farmhouse,
Wood Royd Hill
II
SE1799305684
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
Though the ZTV suggests three turbines will be visible,

Wood Royd Hill will blocks views and result in limited
visibility of turbines.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
176
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
Lane, Victoria
333782
Barn adjoining
The Green, Brook
Hill Lane,
Carlecotes
II
SE1776503337
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
Located within the historic core of Carlecotes village, which

defines its setting. Views into and out of the village in the
direction of the wind farm are greatly restricted by mature
woodland to the north and east of the village.
333783
Carlecotes Hall,
Brook Hill Lane,
Carlecotes
II
SE1784403354
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
333784
Church of St
Anne, Brook Hill
Lane, Carlecotes
II
SE1784503317
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
333788
Small Shaw
Farmhouse and
barns, Hollin Lane
off Lee Lane,
Hazlehead
II
SE2067004070
2 Turbine
Visible
Low
The farmhouse is situated at the base of the steep SWfacing escarpment which leads to Spicer Hill and Whitley
Common, which defines the extent of the farms principal
setting.
When approaching the farmhouse, there will be intermittent
views of the turbines, as there are currently of the Royd
Moor wind farm. At the farmhouse, a number of the Royd
Moor turbines are visible at the top of the escarpment. Two
of the Blackstone Edge turbines would be partly visible at a
greater distance. These would be beyond the top of the
escarpment and therefore would not intrude in to the
principal setting of the farm, and would result in only a low
level of additional change to the setting of the farmhouse.
333790
Lower Small
Shaw Farmhouse,
Hollin Lane Off
Lee Lane,
Hazlehead
II
SE2068204066
2 Turbine
Visible

final issued.doc
19569
Low
As above
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
177
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
333791
Hazlehead Hall
and cattle shelter,
Lee Lane,
Hazlehead
II
SE2018403166
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
The principal setting of the hall is defined by its farm

curtilage. Within this, the hall sits on the southern edge of a
group of large modern farm buildings.
The turbines would not intrude on the principal setting of the
farm, and views from the farmhouse to the wind farm are
likely to be restricted by the modern farm buildings. The
farmhouse is approached from the north, and the turbines
would be to the rear and not visible.
333799
Barn at Softley
Farm, Whams
Road, Hazlehead
II
SE1864102957
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
The principal setting of the barn is confined to the curtilage

of the farm. Wider views are restricted by belts of trees,
though views toward the site maintain a more open aspect.
Three turbines would be visible, though at a distance of
2.90 km, and would not affect the principal setting of the
barn.
333800
Sheep Shelter
approximately
200 m west of
junction with track
to Ranah Stones
Farm, Whams
Road, Hazlehead
II
SE1930802332
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
The sheep shelter is a small agricultural building with a

limited setting, confined to its immediate surroundings. This
would not be affected by the presence of turbines at a
distance of 2.90 km.
333809
Gunthwaite Gate
Farmhouse, and
barn range, Carr
Lane, Gunthwaite
II
SE2311907006
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
The listed buildings at Gunthwaite Hall form a tightly defined

group, whose principal setting is confined to the curtilage of
the farm. The western side of the farm is heavily wooded,
and a wooded railway embankment is located to the
immediate west.
Views from the farm, and from most of the main
approaches, will be prevented by the woodland and the
wooded railway embankment. There may be some views of
turbines in approaches to the farm along Coach Gate Lane,
though at a distance of over 3.7 km, which will result in at
most a low magnitude of change.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
178
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
333811
Gunthwaite Hall
and summer
house,
Gunthwaite Lane,
Gunthwaite
II
SE2377306488
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
As above
333814
Gunthwaite Hall
Barn
approximately 50
m north of
Gunthwaite Hall,
Gunthwaite Lane,
Gunthwaite
SE2378506567
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
As above
333815
Stable Range
approximately 30
m west of
Gunthwaite Hall
Barn, Gunthwaite
Lane, Gunthwaite
II*
SE2372806558
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
As above
333816
Farmbuildings
adjoining and to
south of
Gunthwaite Hall
Barn, Gunthwaite
Lane, Gunthwaite
II
SE2381806554
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
As above
333817
Barn at Ingfield
Farm and Ings
Cottage,
Ingbirchworth
II*
SE2233405641
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
The listed buildings at Ingbirchworth are located within a

small village setting, in a group located in lower lying land
below the A629 trunk road. The principal setting of the
buildings is confined to the settlement.
There will be some views of turbines from the western side
of the settlement, though at a distance of over 2.50 km.
Turbines will not feature in views along any of the main
approaches to the settlement.
333819
Green Farmhouse
and barn,
II
SE2238905669
3 Turbines
Visible

final issued.doc
19569
Low
As above
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
179
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
Ingbirchworth
333821
Willow
Farmhouse and
barn,
Ingbirchworth
II
SE2192405646
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
As above
333823
Broadfield
Farmhouse and
barn,
Ingbirchworth
II
SE2246405546
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
As above
333825
Grange
Farmhouse,
Penistone Road,
Ingbirchworth
II
SE2239505899
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
As above
333826
Cottage (Now
Store)
Immediately North
East Of Number
24 Penistone
Road,
Ingbirchworth
II
SE2251105847
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
As above
333827
Annat Royd
Farmhouse and
barn, Spicer
House Lane,
Ingbirchworth
II
SE2132304943
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
The farmhouse and barn are located within a farm curtilage,

which defines its principal setting. A belt of trees around the
farmhouse and garden, together with a group of larger
modern farm buildings, greatly restrict views into and out of
this curtilage. The farm is approached along a track from
Spicer House Lane.
The existing tree belt will restrict views between the farm
and wind farm. The farm is approached from the west, from
where the turbines would be to the rear, and therefore not
visible.
333867
Bordhill Lodge,
Langsett
II
SE1832101195
3 Turbines
Visible

final issued.doc
19569
Negligible
Bordhill Lodge is within a heavily wooded setting, and at a

distance of over 4 km to the wind farm no change to its
setting is likely to occur.
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
180
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
334038
Carr Head
Farmhouse, Carr
Head Lane
II
SE2388905387
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
Carr Head Farmhouse is within a farm setting occupying an

open area to the immediate west east of a railway line. It is
approached from the west.
The farm is within an open area and turbines may be visible,
though at a distance of over 4 km this will not notably affect
the setting of the farmhouse. The farm is approached from
the west, and hence the turbines would be to the rear and
not visible.
334039
Cat Hill
Farmhouse and
barn, Cat Hill
Lane
II*
SE2477605226
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
Cat Hill Farmhouse and barn occupy a farm setting which is

enclosed by a belt of trees. This, together with further
intervening tree belts and a distance of almost 5 km would
result in there being no notable change to the setting of the
farm.
334041
Nether Lea
Farmhouse and
adjoining barn to
north, Cat Hill
Lane
II
SE2477905261
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
Nether Lea Farmhouse and barn occupy a farm setting

which is enclosed by a belt of trees. This, together with
further intervening tree belts and a distance of almost 5 km
would result in there being no notable change to the setting
of the farm.
334028
Bank House,
Thurlstone
II
SE2266102910
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
A number of listed buildings are located within Thurlstone,

and their principal settings are confined to the Thurlstone
settlement. The ZTV suggests that there will be some
limited visibility of turbines from parts of Thurlstone. In
particular, views will be restricted by the valley location of
Thurlstone, which limits views out to the higher ground in
which the turbines would be located. However, any such
views, at a distance of over 3.5 km will not affect the
settings of listed buildings within Thurlstone.
334051
Hillside, 4 Hillside
Lane, Thurlstone
II
SE2265402708
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
334052
Cross Royd Head

Farmhouse and
attached barn,
Hornthwaite Hill
Road, Thurlstone
II
SE2300102914
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
181
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
334055
9 Ingbirchworth
Road, Thurlstone
II
SE2328903745
2 Turbine
Visible
Negligible
As above
334086
4 Rock Side,
Thurlstone
II
SE2357103446
1 Turbine
Visible
Negligible
As above
334099
Bank House
Farmhouse, Hill
Side, Thurlstone
II
SE2264902725
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
334104
Redminster
House, Towngate,
Thurlstone
II
SE2338803549
1 Turbine
Visible
Negligible
As above
334106
15, 17, 19, 26 and

28 Towngate,
Thurlstone
II
SE2335403620
2 Turbine
Visible
Negligible
As above
334030
Nether Mill House

and barn,
Barnsley Road
II
SE2455203892
2 Turbine
Visible
Negligible
A number of listed buildings are located within Penistone

and their principal settings are confined to the Penistone
settlement. The ZTV suggests that there will be some
limited visibility of turbines from parts of Penistone, although
its valley location limits views out to the higher ground in
which the turbines would be located. However, any such
views, at a distance of over 4.8 km, will not affect the
settings of listed buildings within Thurlstone.
334032
Nether Mill
Cottage, Barnsley
Road
II
SE2470703974
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
334034
Water Hall, 1 and

2 Barnsley Road
II
SE2444703800
2 Turbine
Visible
Negligible
As above
334103
8 and 10
Thurlstone Road
II
SE2432203652
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
182
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
334094
Coal Drops
immediately west
of bridge under
Penistone
Woodhead
Railway, St
Mary's Street
II
SE2444303399
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
334065
1 and 2
Bullhouse,
summer house
and former stable,
Manchester
Road, Millhouse
II
SE2123102138
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
Bullhouse comprises a small settlement including a group of

listed buildings near to an existing non-operational turbine.
The group of buildings is heavily enclosed by woodland and
this tightly defines the principal setting, as well as restricting
views into and out of it. Bullhouse can be approached from
the north or south along narrow wooded roads.
The restricted views into and out of Bullhouse and along its
approaches would result in there being only minimal change
to the setting of the buildings.
334069
Bullhouse Lodge,
Manchester
Road, Millhouse
II
SE2118902783
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
334088
Royd Farmhouse
and barn, Royd
Lane
II
SE2173303743
2 Turbine
Visible
Low
The farm is located at the base of an escarpment which

leads to the higher ground occupied by the Royd Moor
turbines.
This topography would result in only limited and intermittent
views of the proposed turbines from the farm and from
approaches to it.
334100
Shore Hall
Farmhouse and
barn, Shore Hall
Lane, Millhouse
II
SE2228302788
3 Turbines
Visible

final issued.doc
19569
Negligible
The principal setting of the farmhouse and barn is defined

by the farm curtilage. Limited visibility as a result of trees
surrounding the farm, together with intervening built
development and trees, is such that at a distance of over
3.4 km only minimal change to the setting of the farm would
result.
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
183
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
334109
Far Westhorpe
Farmhouse and
barn, Well House
Lane
II
SE2438804856
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
The farm setting to these buildings retains a relatively open

aspect to the wind farm site, but at a distance of 4.5 km
there would be only a limited magnitude of change.
340303
Hade Edge
Methodist Chapel
and Sunday
school, Dunford
Road, Hade Edge
II
SE1458505388
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
The chapel retains open views to the wind farm site to the
east, but at a distance of approximately 5 km any change to
its setting would be minimal.
340411
Wickleden, Little
Cake, Scholes
II
SE1546606352
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
Views to the wind farm would be restricted by a belt of trees,

and at a distance of over 4 km any change to its setting
would be negligible.
340431
2 and 3 Marsh
Road, Scholes
II
SE1577007285
1 Turbine
Visible
Negligible
There are a number of listed buildings within Scholes, but

due to topography most are outside of the ZTV. There may
be limited visibility from other and in their approaches.
However, the limited visibility and distance of over 4 km
would result in only a negligible magnitude of change.
340500
The Olde House,

Ryecroft Lane,
Scholes
II
SE1525007400
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
340507
Sandygate Farm,
Sandy Gate,
Scholes
II
SE1548207477
1 Turbine
Visible
Negligible
As above
340597
House to north of
group east side of
track, Upper
House Lane,
Scholes
II
SE1535506080
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
184
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
341269
Manor Farm,
Bank Lane, Upper
Denby
II
SE2268007341
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
There are a number of listed buildings within Upper Denby,

and their principal setting is confined to the village itself.
The open aspect of land to the south-west may result in
some views to the wind farm from the western periphery of
the village, but at a distance of over 3.5 km this will not
result in any notable change to the settings of the listed
buildings.
341270
Rock House,
Bank Lane, ,
Upper Denby
II
SE2268907456
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
341292
4-10 Coalpit
Lane, Upper
Denby
II
SE2287407410
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
341268
2 Balk Lane,
Upper
Cumberworth
II
SE2112408859
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
There are a number of listed buildings within Upper

Cumberworth, and their principal setting is confined to the
village itself. The open aspect of land to the south-west
may result in some views to the wind farm from the western
periphery of the village, but at a distance of over 3.5 km this
will not result in any notable change to the settings of the
listed buildings.
341282
31 Carr Hill Road,

Upper
Cumberworth
II
SE2064808718
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
341284
31 Cumberworth
Lane, Upper
Cumberworth
II
SE2110208858
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
341285
Church Of St
Nicholas and
school,
Cumberworth
Lane, Upper
Cumberworth
II
SE2111808823
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
185
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
341298
Lane Side house

to east of group,
Cumberworth
Lane, Upper
Cumberworth
II
SE2146809082
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above
341310
Lane Hackings
Farmhouse, Lane
Hackings Green,
Lower
Cumberworth
II
SE2260609497
2 Turbine
Visible
Negligible
The principal settings of listed buildings within Lower

Cumberworth are confined to the settlement itself. Views to
the wind farm site from Lower Cumberworth, and at a
distance of approximately 5 km there will be no appreciable
effect on setting.
341296
Denby Dale
Wesleyan
Methodist Church,
Cumberworth
Lane, Denby Dale
II
SE2278908622
1 Turbine
Visible
Negligible
The principal settings of listed buildings within Denby Dale

are confined to the settlement itself. Views to the wind farm
site from Denby Dale, over a distance of approximately
4.5 km, will not result in an appreciable effect on setting.
341299
Church of St
John, Denby
Lane, Denby Dale
II
SE2263107160
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above.
341300
Former
Farmhouse and
barn to Tenter
House Farm
immediately west
of the New
Farmhouse, Dry
Hill Lane, Denby
Dale
II
SE2382708040
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
As above.
341313
18 20 and 22
Lower Denby
Lane, Lower
Denby
II
SE2369807768
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
The principal views from these houses are to Lower Denby

Lane, away from the wind farm. There may be some
visibility of turbines from the rear of the properties, though at
a distance of over 4.5 km the magnitude of any change will
be negligible.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
186
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to
nearest turbine
Visibility
Magnitude
Comments
341316
The Crown and

adjoining house,
Park Head Lane,
Birds Edge
II
SE1999508153
3 Turbines
Visible
Negligible
The Crown is situated within the centre of the settlement at

Park Head, which defines its principal setting. There are
only limited views to the wind farm site from The Crown or in
approaches to it, and any change to the buildings setting
would be negligible.
341319
Broomhill,
Penistone Road,
High Flatts
II
SE2115107509
3 Turbines
Visible
Low
The setting of the house is primarily defined by its location

alongside Penistone road, to the east. Due to the open
aspect of land to the south, there may be some views of
turbines to the rear of the building at a distance of over
2.5 km.
341322
Low House and

farmhouse,
Penistone Road,
High Flatts
II
SE2118607396
2 Turbine
Visible
Negligible
The setting of Low House Farmhouse is defined by its farm

curtilage, with surrounding trees resulting in limited view into
and out of the farm. There will be very limited views of
turbines from the farm and approaches to it.
Where separately listed buildings have been grouped together for the purpose of the assessment, the reference number for the principal building only is provided.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
187
9.6.12
There will be no direct views of turbines from listed buildings listed in Table 9.7,
which are within the extended (5km) study area. Following review, it is considered
that there are no third viewpoints or approaches to any of the buildings which could
result in potentially significant effects on the setting of any of these buildings.
Table 9.7
Assessment of Indirect effects on designated features within 1 km Study Area
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to nearest
turbine
Visibility
333785
Dick Royd Farmhouse and

attached barn, Brook Hill
Lane
II
SE1735402993
No Turbines Visible
333786
Barn to Upper Town Head

Farm, Brook Hill Lane,
Dunford
II
SE1646202791
No Turbines Visible
333852
Lower Belle Clive Farmhouse

and outbuilding, Hartcliff
Road, Langsett
II
SE2193001488
No Turbines Visible
333855
Barn, adjoining and to south

of Alderman's Head Cote
Farmhouse, Manchester
Road, Langsett
II
SE2232800854
No Turbines Visible
333859
Wagon and Horses Public

House, Manchester Road,
II
SE2125600456
No Turbines Visible
Langsett
333860
Barn approximately 5 m north

of The Lodge (Y.W.A.),
Manchester Road, Langsett
II
SE2119900424
No Turbines Visible
333861
Langsett House, barn and

house, Manchester Road,
II
SE2113000421
No Turbines Visible
Langsett
334071
Church Of St Saviour and

vicarage, Manchester Road, ,
Thurlstone
II
SE2240003322
No Turbines Visible
334073
44, 46 and 48 Manchester

Road, Thurlstone
II
SE2331403452
No Turbines Visible
334087
Weaver's House at Leapings,

Rock Side, Thurlstone
II
SE2282203183
No Turbines Visible
334090
Carr House, Royd Lane
II
SE2131503986
No Turbines Visible
334091
Royd Moor Farmhouse and

barns, Royd Moor Road
II
SE2218304234
No Turbines Visible
334105
Barn at Redminster Cottage,

Towngate, Thurlstone
II
SE2337503523
No Turbines Visible
334102
1 - 9 Tenter Hill, Thurlstone
II
SE2348503535
No Turbines Visible
340231
5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 Barnside and

barn, Hepworth
II
SE1714605990
No Turbines Visible
340235
Former dwellings and barn

adjoining to right of No 42,
Barracks Fold, Hepworth
II
SE1632406690
No Turbines Visible

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
188
Assessment of Indirect effects on designated features within 1 km Study

Area
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to nearest
turbine
Visibility
340244
Church Of The Holy Trinity,

Butt Lane, Hepworth
II
SE1628406950
No Turbines Visible
340245
21, 23, 25, 31, 39, 41 and 43

Butterly, New Mill
II
SE1660808141
No Turbines Visible
340283
Daisy Lee, Daisy Lee Lane

(Off Penistone Road), Hade
Edge
II
SE1497304407
No Turbines Visible
340312
5, 6 and 9 East Street
II
SE1649107416
No Turbines Visible
1,2, 3,4,5,6 and 7 Hill Street,
II
SE1635707423
No Turbines Visible
340363
Jackson Bridge
340406
Hollingreave, Huddersfield
Road, New Mill
II
SE1636708914
No Turbines Visible
340432
Scholes Methodist Chapel,

Marsh Road, Scholes
II
SE1578807314
No Turbines Visible
340475
43,45, 52,54, 56,58, 60,

72,74, Ivy Cottage, Town
Head Farmhouse and barn,
White House Paris Road,
Scholes
II
SE1573807506
No Turbines Visible
340490
2, 50, Horn Cote, Penistone

Road, New Mill
II
SE1668608636
No Turbines Visible
340502
27 St Georges Road,
Scholes
II
SE1590307740
No Turbines Visible
340503
Croft House Farm Barn, St

Georges Road, Scholes
II
SE1587107740
No Turbines Visible
340508
9,10,11, 12,15 Scholes

Road, Jackson Bridge
II
SE1637607426
No Turbines Visible
340519
1,3,5, 8,10,12,14 Sike Lane,

Totties
II
SE1570908129
No Turbines Visible
340521
Brianfield Farmhouse and

barn, Snowgate Head, New
Mill
II
SE1777408656
No Turbines Visible
340529
Stalley Royd Farmhouse,

Stalley Royd Lane, Jackson
II
SE1664907523
No Turbines Visible
Bridge
340534
26,28 Sude Hill, New Mill
II
SE1650508766
No Turbines Visible
340535
Christ Church, New Mill
II
SE1660608708
No Turbines Visible
340554
31, 33,35,37,39, 54,56, 5967, 69, 71-81 Totties Lane,

Totties
II
SE1570708230
No Turbines Visible
340565
34, 36, 56, 58, 59, 64,65,66,

78,79,80,81, Barn Opposite
No 58, former Co op building
opposite No 59a and
Butchers Arms, Town Gate,
II
SE1629306836
No Turbines Visible

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
189
Ref.

Area
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to nearest
turbine
Visibility
Hepworth
340590
Nos 13/14 and 15 (South

East Part) and adjoining
barns, Upper Gate, Hepworth
II
SE1620806804
No Turbines Visible
340591
Cruck Building to north part

of Carr Farm, Upper Gate,
Hepworth
II
SE1626506771
No Turbines Visible
340592
Barn, south part of Carr

Farm, Upper Gate, Hepworth
II
SE1626606756
No Turbines Visible
340593
28 and 29 Upper Gate,

Hepworth
II
SE1626306792
No Turbines Visible
340613
Moor View Farmhouse,

Upper House Lane,
II
SE1752409406
No Turbines Visible
Barn to northwest of Moor

View Farmhouse, White Ley
Bank, Fulstone
II
SE1752509422
No Turbines Visible
12 White Ley Bank,
II
SE1745809354
No Turbines Visible
Fulstone
340614
340615
Fulstone
340616
West Royd Farmhouse,

White Ley Bank, Fulstone
II
SE1745809380
No Turbines Visible
340617
Denhirst, White Ley Bank,

Scholes
II
SE1576707460
No Turbines Visible
341134
Church Of St Paul, Church

Lane, Shepley
II
SE1916509718
No Turbines Visible
341135
37 Cliffe Road, Shepley
II
SE1908809585
No Turbines Visible
341136
10 and 11 Cliffe Side,

Shepley
II
SE1927709666
No Turbines Visible
341137
Copley House and former

weaving establishment,
Copley Lane, Shepley
II
SE2075809816
No Turbines Visible
341149
Shepley First School, Firth

Street, Shepley
II
SE1942609650
No Turbines Visible
341170
Lane Head House, Lane

Head Road, Shepley
II
SE1940809015
No Turbines Visible
341215
Croft Head Farm, Station

Road, Shepley
II
SE1935809853
No Turbines Visible
341216
The Granary, Station Road,

Shepley
II
SE1932709834
No Turbines Visible
341217
20, 22, 30 and 32 Station

Road, Shepley
II
SE1935509876
No Turbines Visible
341264
Cliffe House, Lane Head

Road
II
SE1921709452
No Turbines Visible

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
190

Area
Ref.
Name
Grade
NGR
Distance to nearest
turbine
Visibility
341272
Denby Dale Railway Viaduct,

Barnsley Road, Denby Dale
II
SE2245308395
No Turbines Visible
341311
Withywood Hall, Low Fold,

Lower Cumberworth
II
SE2237409394
No Turbines Visible
341312
4 and 6 Low Fold, Lower
II
SE2231909359
No Turbines Visible
Cumberworth
341317
Birds Edge Mill, Penistone

Road, Birds Edge
II
SE2019607944
No Turbines Visible
341320
Friends Meeting House,

Penistone Road, High Flatts
II
SE2123207461
No Turbines Visible
341321
Green Hollows, Penistone

Road, High Flatts
II
SE2121907454
No Turbines Visible
341323
Low House Farmhouse,
II
SE2125607461
No Turbines Visible
High Flatts
341328
Braggs Farmhouse, Top

Road, Lower Cumberworth
II
SE2222309364
No Turbines Visible
341331
3 Storey Mill Building at

Hartcliffe Mills immediately
east reservoir, Wakefield
Road, Denby Dale
II
SE2230308336
No Turbines Visible
9.7
9.7.1
A summary of the significance evaluation (as described in section 9.6) for the cultural
heritage assessment is provided in Table 9.8.
Table 9.8
Type of effect
Significance
Not Significant
Potential disturbance to features not previously

identified
-ve
Not Significant
Potential effects on the setting of scheduled

monuments
-ve
Not Significant
Potential effects on the setting of listed buildings
-ve
Not Significant
Potential disturbance to features associated with the

WWII Bombing decoy

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
191
Type of effect
Significance
Key/footnotes:
1.Type of effect
-ve = negative
2.
+ ve = positive
or
N = Neutral
NS
Significant
Not-significant
? = unknown
9.8
References
Written Sources
DOE (1990) Planning Policy Guidance (PPG Note 16): Archaeology and Planning
DOE (1994) Planning Policy Guidance (PPG Note 15): Planning and the Historic Environment
DOE (1997) The Hedgerow Regulations
English Heritage (2006) Wind Energy and the Historic Environment
Field J (1989) English Field Names
IFA (2001) Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk Based Assessments
Mills A D (1998) Oxford Dictionary of English Placenames
Palmer R and Cox C (1993) Uses of Aerial Photography in Archaeological Evaluation, IFA
Technical Paper 12
Scottish Natural Heritage (2001) Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and
Small Scale Hydroelectric Schemes
Cartographic Sources
Ordnance Survey 25 to 1 mile Yorkshire Sheet 273(a)
1st Edition 1851
2nd Edition 1893
1906
1931
Aerial Photographs
RAF/82/1015 Frames 276-278, 7 September 1954
RAF/540/1424 Frames 77-78, 29 September 1954
RAF/543/9 Frames 182-183, 19 June 1957

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
192
RAF/543/1677 Frames 260-261, 3 March 1962

RAF/58/4977 Frame 41, 7 March 1962
RAF/58/4983 Frame 390-392, 13 March 1962
MAL/68025 Frame 2 25 April 19686
MAL/73014 Frames 6-7 3 April 1973
MAL/79043 Frames 42-32 13 November 1979
MAL/75031 Frame 146 7 May 1975
OS/90229 Frames 4-5 1 August 1990
Internet and other sources
www.magic.gov.uk
www.english-heritage.org.uk

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
193
10. Traffic and Transport

10.1 Introduction
10.1.1
This chapter has been prepared by Entec UK Ltd and assesses the potential
environmental effects on traffic and transport users of the local road network as a
result of the construction (including demolition activities) and operation of the
proposed Blackstone Edge wind farm. The assessment has been undertaken by Entec
UK Ltd.
10.1.2
This chapter has been prepared by Bev Coupe who is an Associate Director for Entec
UK Ltd. Bev is a Chartered Town Planner and Transport Planner with over 15 years
experience in Transportation and Development Planning. She has a broad range of
experience including Environmental Impact Assessment, Transport Assessments,
Development Control, Travel Planning, Sustainability Studies, Accessibility Audits
and Traffic Calming.
10.1.3
She has worked on a variety of energy and waste projects such as wind farm sites,
power stations, quarries, landfill and waste-to-energy developments. A range of
transportation advice has been provided for input to Environmental Impact
Assessments, including traffic assessments of construction and operational phases,
abnormal load routings and off-site infrastructure effects.
10.2 Context
Site context
10.2.1 Blackstone Edge wind farm is located approximately 3 km northwest of Millhouse
Green and adjacent to Whitley Road which is an open single carriageway road of rural
character. Whitley Road connects to Royd Lane to the south of the wind farm. The
majority of Royd Lane is open with grass verges however it is fronted by residential
properties for approximately 200 metres in Millhouse Green and joins the A628
(Manchester Road).
Policy context
National
10.2.2 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport
Advice on transportation impacts relating to the proposed development are detailed in
guidance and policies contained within Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport
(PPG13).
Regional
10.2.3 South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan Policy 4.6.26: The strategy on HGV routing
will be to encourage the most appropriate routes for through traffic using the classified
road network, considering A, B and C classified roads in that order.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
194
Local
10.2.4
None identified.
Legislative context
10.2.5 The following guidance documents have been taken into account in this assessment:
Guidance on Transport Assessment-Department for Community and Local
Government and Department for Transport (DCLG & DfT), 2007;
Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments-Institution of Highways and
Transportation (IHT), 1994; and
Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic-Institute of
Environmental Assessment (IEA30), 1993.
10.2.6
The DCLG/DfT draft Guidance on Transport Assessment refers to Circular 02/99 for
details on environmental assessment. Circular 02/99 does not provide specific
guidance on approach of assessment; therefore reference has been made to the earlier
guidance documents.
10.2.7
The IHT document Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments, recommends that
Environmental Statements for large developments should be assessed in accordance
with the IEAs Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic,
referred to as the IEMA Guidelines.
10.3 Methodology
10.3.1
The site will be linked to the highway network by an access track taken from Whitley
Road, at a point approximately 500m south of its junction with Lower Maythorn Lane
and Browns Edge Road.
10.3.2
The study area for this assessment relates to the assumed route used for the
transportation of the turbine components and construction HGVs to the development
site. The main roads assessed are the A628 (Manchester Road) and Royd Lane.
10.3.3
The methodology used in this assessment adheres to that set out in the IEMA
Guidelines and therefore focuses on:
potential effects on local roads and the users of those roads; and
potential effects on land uses and environmental resources fronting those roads,
including the relevant occupiers and users.
10.3.4
The following rules, taken from the IEMA guidelines, have been used as a screening
process to define the scale and extent of this assessment:
Rule 1
Include highway links where traffic flows are predicted to increase by
more than 30% (or where the number of heavy goods vehicles is predicted to
increase by more than 30%); and
30
Now the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
195
Rule 2
Include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows are
predicted to increase by 10% or more.
10.3.5
Sensitivity of a road can be defined by the user groups such as school children and the
elderly. A sensitive area may be adjacent to a school, nursing home, located where
residential properties front the road or where pedestrian activity is high.
10.3.6
It should be noted that increases below 10% are generally considered to be

insignificant given that daily variations in background traffic flow may fluctuate by
this amount. Changes in traffic flows below this level are therefore assumed to result
in no discernible or significant environmental effects.
10.3.7
As there is a school located in the vicinity, the route between the A628 and the site has
been identified as a sensitive area, as school children are considered to be a
vulnerable road user group and due care and consideration needs to be made to school
opening and closing times.
Data gathering
10.3.8 Desk studies using Ordnance Survey plans, aerial photographs and a site visit in July
2006 have been carried out to establish an understanding of the highway network.
10.3.9
Information has been sought from Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council regarding
available traffic data along the proposed route. In this case, no data was available so
traffic survey counts were commissioned and collected by a traffic survey company,
further details of this survey are provided below.
Survey work
10.3.10 Baseline surveys data was obtained from The Paul Castle Consultancy Ltd for a seven
day period at the following locations illustrated in Figure 10.1
A628 (Manchester Road), approximately 50m west of its junction with Royd Lane
(22/03/07 to 28/03/07; and
Royd Lane, approximately 50m north of its junction with the A628 (22/03/07 to
28/03/07).
Scope of study
10.3.11 The scope of the assessment has been determined using the IEMA Guidelines and is
based on the construction traffic generation identified in Chapter 4, section 4.13.
10.3.12 It is anticipated that the transportation of the turbine components to the development
site will be via Junction 35a or 36 of the M1 motorway. This route assumes that
vehicles exit the M1 at either Junction 35a or 36 and take the A61/A616 towards
Stocksbridge. A right turn is then required onto the A628 at the Flouch Roundabout,
before turning left in Millhouse Green onto Royd Lane, which leads onto Whitley
Road. A track running off the Whitley Road leads directly to the proposed wind farm
site. It is proposed to utilise this track to access the wind farm site directly. This track
will require some upgrading works in order to accommodate the construction traffic.
Figure 4.2 shows the assumed routes for construction vehicles.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
196
10.3.13 Aggregate may be brought to the development site from west/east on the A628,
entering the development site from Whitley Road.
10.3.14 It is not considered necessary to assess the effects of the development traffic on the
highway network any further afield than the A628 as effects are likely to be negligible
as development traffic becomes diluted by a higher volume of traffic flows.
10.3.15 The vehicle movements during the operation of the wind farm will be small and will
principally involve only one or two private vehicle/van movements with the
occasional need for HGVs. On this basis the effects are likely to be insignificant and
therefore further assessment is not considered necessary.
10.3.16 For the purposes of this ES it is assumed that the turbines will be dismantled and
removed. On this basis, there may be an impact on the local highway network due to
the movements of HGVs associated with the removal of equipment and materials from
the site. However, only the above ground elements will be removed (with the
exception of the construction compound) therefore resulting in significantly less traffic
movements than during the construction phase. Furthermore, any baseline data
collected for the purposes of the current assessment will no longer be relevant at such
an extended assessment horizon. There is therefore no consideration of possible
decommissioning impacts included as part of this assessment.
Approach to scoping
10.3.17 A Scoping Report was submitted to the Barnsley MBC in November 2006. To date
there have been no responses to the Traffic and Transport section of this report.
10.3.18 The IEMA guidelines recommend that the environmental effects listed in Box 10.1
may be considered to be potentially important when considering traffic from an
individual development.
Box 10.1
Traffic related environmental effects
Noise
Fear and Intimidation
Vibration
Accidents and Safety
Visual Effects
Hazardous Loads
Severance
Air Pollution
Driver Delay
Dust and Dirt
Pedestrian Delay
Ecological Effects
Pedestrian Amenity
Heritage and Conservation
10.3.19 Of these effects, many are considered in chapters elsewhere within the Environmental
Statement (where relevant) due to the specialist skills required; namely noise (chapter
6), visual effects (chapter 7), ecological effects (chapter 8), and heritage and
conservation (chapter 9). The remaining relevant effects (highlighted in bold above in
Box 10.1) are defined and discussed in section 10.6 with recommendations on
significance for each (based on the IEMA guidance where possible).
10.3.20 The following effects have been scoped-in:

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
197
Potential effects on community associated with severance caused by an increase in

traffic levels during construction of the wind farm.
Potential effects on drivers associated with driver delay caused by additional traffic
generated by the wind farm.
Potential effects on pedestrians associated with delays caused by changes in traffic
volume or speed of traffic.
Potential effects on pedestrian amenity caused by the increase in traffic flow,
traffic composition and pavement width/separation from traffic.
Potential effects on pedestrians associated with fear and intimidation caused by
increase in volume of traffic and its HGV composition.
Potential effects on road safety associated with personal injury accidents caused by
increases in road traffic accidents.
10.3.21 The following effects have been scoped-out.
Potential effects on sensitive receptors associated with hazardous loads. Hazardous
loads are not expected during construction; therefore this effect has been scopedout.
Potential effects on additional traffic on the highway network further afield than
the A628. Effects are likely to be negligible as development traffic becomes
diluted by other traffic flows; therefore this effect has been scoped-out.
Potential effects of wind farm decommissioning. Baseline data collected for the
purposes of the current assessment will no longer be relevant at such an extended
assessment horizon; therefore this effect has been scoped-out.
Consultation
10.3.22 No additional consultation has taken place since the scoping stage.
Assessment methodology
10.3.23 Having identified which environmental effects are to be considered, the highway links
which need to be included within the analysis, and the magnitude of the effect (i.e.
level of change), it is necessary to determine whether a given effect is significant.
10.3.24 There are various ways of interpreting whether or not an effect is significant and the
following guidance is given in the IEMA Guidelines for the Environmental
Assessment of Road Traffic:
For many effects there are no simple rules or formulae which define the
thresholds of significance and there is, therefore, a need for interpretation and
judgement on the part of the assessor, backed-up by data or quantified
information wherever possible. Such judgements will include the assessment

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
198
of the numbers of people experiencing a change in environmental impact as

well as the assessment of the damage to various natural resources.
10.3.25 Four criteria have been used in evaluating the significance of the effects of the
proposed wind farm.
the type of effect, i.e. whether it is Positive, Negative, Neutral or Uncertain;
the probability of the effect occurring based on the scale of Certain, Likely or
Unlikely;
the number of receptors e.g. population exposed to each effect, on a scale of High
(e.g. at a regional or higher level), Medium (e.g. at a district level) or Low (e.g.
only local populations); and
the magnitude of the effect in relation to the frequency of the disturbance, using the
scale High, Medium or Low.
10.3.26 Professional judgement is used to assess the findings in relation to each of these
criteria to give an assessment of significance for each effect. The significance level of
effect is considered to be Significant or Not Significant.
10.4 Description of baseline conditions

Existing highway network
10.4.1 Royd Lane is an open two-way single lane carriageway of rural character with soft
grass verges. Residential properties front the first 200m of Royd Lane travelling north
to Whitley Road. Royd Lane provides local links from the A628 to New Royd,
Copperas Close and Royd Avenue. From site observation it is subject to only
relatively low traffic flows and low pedestrian movements.
10.4.2
The A628 is a wide two-way single carriageway and is subject to the national speed
limit of 60mph as it passes through Millhouse Green. It provides a direct link to
Junction 37 of the M1 (approximately 11 km to the east), and is subject to relatively
high traffic flows. It is generally a rural route but does pass through Silkstone,
Hoylandswaine and Thurlstone where a number of properties front the carriageway.
10.4.3
Baseline traffic flows for each of these routes are summarised in Tables 10.1
10.4.4
Inherent mitigation items included in the design of the proposed wind farm are
summarised in Table 10.4.
Existing traffic flows

10.4.5 Existing two-way traffic flows at each traffic count survey site are detailed in Table
10.1 for the time period during which the development site is likely to be open for
construction activities (Monday to Friday 07:00-19:00).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
199
Table 10.1
Survey Site
Existing Daily Average Two-way Traffic Flows
Year
Location
Base Total
Flows
HGVs
2007
4,691
545
Royd Lane
2007
796
58
Personal injury accidents

10.4.6 The recorded PIAs were reviewed in order to determine whether there is a history of
accidents in the vicinity of the site and along the proposed route for construction,
operation and decommissioning traffic.
10.4.7
Statistics of personal injury accidents (PIAs) have been obtained from Barnsley
Metropolitan Borough Council for a section of the A628 between Fulshaw Cross and
Royd Lane in Thurlstone, and for Royd Lane and Whitley Road between the A628
and Lower Maythorn Lane (see Table 10.2). Statistics were obtained for a three year
period between 01 June 2004 and 31 May 2007. The accident assessment area is
shown on Figure 10.1.
Table 10.2
Summary of Recorded PIAs (2004-2007)
Severity of Injury
Year
Vulnerable Road User
Location
Slight
Serious
Fatal
Pedal
Cyclist
Motorcyclist
Pedestrian
2004
A628 between
Fulshaw Cross and
Royd Lane
2005
A628 between
Fulshaw Cross and
Royd Lane
2006
A628 between
Fulshaw Cross and
Royd Lane
2007
A628 between
Fulshaw Cross and
Royd Lane
2004
Royd Lane and

Whitley Road
2005
Royd Lane and

Whitley Road
2006
Royd Lane and

Whitley Road
2007
Royd Lane and

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
200
Severity of Injury
Year
Vulnerable Road User
Location
Slight
Serious
Fatal
Pedal
Cyclist
Motorcyclist
Pedestrian
Whitley Road
TOTAL
Source: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
10.4.8
The accident assessment area relates to the A628 between Fulshaw Cross and Royd
Lane and for Royd Lane and Whitley Road between the A628 and Lower Maythorn
Lane. Along the sections of road considered, eight PIAs were recorded during the
assessment period between 01 June 2004 to 31 May 2007. Of the accidents recorded,
six were classified as slight, and two classified serious. There were no accidents
classified as fatal. Two accidents on the A628 involved motorcyclists in which an
HGV turned across the path of a motorcycle and a car collided with the rear of the
motorcycle. There were no accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians.
10.4.9
HGVs were involved in two accidents in total over the three year period and resulted
in one slight classified injury and one serious classified injury.

10.4.10 Background traffic flows are predicted to increase, even if the development does not
go ahead, and these need to be established in order to make a robust assessment of
effects. The existing traffic counts therefore require a growth factor to be applied,
from the date of count, to adjust the data to the expected values in the year of
assessment. In this case the assessment year is assumed to be 2009, the year during
which the majority of construction activities are likely to take place.
10.4.11 The growth factor used is the central estimate taken from the 1997 National Road
Traffic Forecasts31 (Great Britain); 2.98% growth from 2007 to 2009. Table 10.3
below shows the resultant base traffic flows in 2009:
Table 10.3
Survey Site
Predicted daily average two-way traffic flows (2009)
Location
Royd Lane
Base Total
Flows
HGVs
4,831
561
820
60
31
National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF) consider the effects of congestion and nominal capacity
constraints to generate low, central and high estimates of traffic growth in future years. The central
estimate is considered to be the most likely outcome in most cases.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
201
Information gaps
10.4.12 No information gaps have been identified.
Sensitive Receptors
Receptors
10.4.13 In terms of defining sensitive areas according to the IEMA guidelines, Royd Lane is
considered to be sensitive with respect to land uses due to the proximity of a primary
school.
10.4.14 Another measure of sensitivity is road capacity. An assessment has been undertaken
based on Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow for the routes compared to the
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) TA 79/99, Traffic Capacity of Urban
Roads, as summarised below in Table 10.4.
Table 10.4
Traffic Capacity of Roads under Assessment
Link
Annual Average Daily Traffic

Flow (AADT) 2007
Traffic Capacity of
Urban Roads
Royd Lane: open two-way single lane carriageway of

rural character
949
18,000
A628, Manchester Road: two-way single carriageway
5,759
27,360
10.4.15 This indicates that the construction routes have ample capacity and are not sensitive in
this respect.
10.5 Mitigation, offsetting and enhancement measures

10.5.1
Mitigation measures that have been identified in relation to potential traffic and
transport effects are set out in Table 10.5.
Table 10.5
Inherent mitigation table
Effect
Inherent
mitigation/offsetting
/enhancement
measure
Extent to
which
effects
mitigated*
Monitoring
requirements (if
any)
Mechanism by which
mitigation/offsetting/
enhancement may be
secured
Construction vehicles
could carry mud and
debris onto the
carriageway
Wheel washing facilities

will be installed on the
access road.
Fully
None
Planning condition.
Effect of abnormal
Abnormal load vehicle
Substantially
None
Agreement with local
Construction

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
202
Effect
Inherent
mitigation/offsetting
/enhancement
measure
Extent to
which
effects
mitigated*
Monitoring
requirements (if
any)
Mechanism by which
mitigation/offsetting/
enhancement may be
secured
loads on traffic flow
escorts & possible

timing of deliveries
within quiet periods.
Effect of abnormal
loads on the highway
Accommodation/
Reinstatement works.
Fully
None
Agreement with the

Highway Authority.
Changed traffic flows

on local roads
Specific travel routes

and time periods to and
from the development
site will be defined for
delivery vehicles.
Partially
None
Agree a Traffic
Management Plan with the
County Council.
Possible effects on
Road Safety due to
increased traffic flows
on highway network
Specific travel routes

and time periods to and
from site defined for
delivery vehicles.
Substantially
None
Agree a Traffic
Management Plan with the
County Council.
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
constabulary and
submission of the relevant
applications.
Operation
Decommissioning
*Key to predicted success of mitigation:

Fully -
Impact fully mitigated and no adverse effects predicted
Substantially -
Mitigation would be largely successful at reducing adverse effects. Some effects possible
Partially -
Mitigation would be successful at reducing adverse effects, but some effects likely
10.6 Assessment of potential effects

10.6.1
Details of construction traffic generations are provided in chapter 4.
10.6.2
Table 10.6 shows the total daily trips by month for all construction, based on an
average of 4 weeks per month and an average five working days per week (rounded
down to 22 days per month). It should be noted that figures have been rounded up to
even figures to account for two-way trips being made in a day.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
203
Table 10.6
Month
1
4*
14
10
10
N/A
128 (x 3 days)
N/A
N/A
Excluding concrete deliveries

18
Days involving concrete deliveries only

N/A
N/A
* For a robust assessment, traffic movements (excluding concrete deliveries) during the fourth month have
been calculated based on 19 working days as opposed to 22 working days for other months. This is due
to the netting out of days when concrete deliveries are made, in which case it is likely that no other
deliveries are likely to take place during these days (as detailed below).
10.6.3
Table 10.5 shows that the maximum traffic impact associated with the construction of
the proposed wind farm, excluding the concrete deliveries, is predicted to occur in the
first month of the construction programme. During this month, an average of 18 twoway trips are predicted to be generated on each working day, i.e. 9 in and 9 out. On
average, this equates to two deliveries into the site per hour over a 12 hour period
(Monday to Friday 07:00-19:00).
10.6.4
The movements of concrete lorries are restricted by the pouring method to a total of 3
days, with all deliveries for one turbine base required during the same day. As a result
there will be 3 days during the 6 month programme when 64 deliveries of concrete
(128 total vehicle movements) will occur. It is assumed that deliveries of other
materials will not take place when concrete is being poured.
Percentage impact
10.6.5 The impact of construction related traffic identified in Table 10.6 has been calculated,
in percentage terms, relative to the background traffic in the construction year of the
development (2009), both with and without concrete deliveries. This exercise has
been conducted for the maximum credible case month in the construction
programme in terms of traffic generation, i.e. month one.
10.6.6
Table 10.7 shows the predicted percentage impact at A628 (Manchester Road) and
Royd Lane.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
204
Table 10.7
Count
Site
Location
Total
Flows
Base
HGVs
Construction
HGVs
Percentage
Impact
Total Flow
Percentage
Impact
HGVs
4,831
561
18
+0.4%
+3.2%
820
60
18
+2.2%
+30%
4,831
561
128
+2.6%
+22.8%
820
60
128
+15.6%
+213%
Days with no concrete deliveries

1
Royd Lane
Days of concrete deliveries

1
Royd Lane
Source: Paul Castle Consultancy Ltd
10.6.7
Residual effects on Royd Lane related to the construction phase of the proposed wind
farm are summarised in Table 10.8.
Severance
10.6.8 Severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it
becomes separated by a major traffic artery. It may result from the difficulty of
crossing a heavily trafficked existing road for example, or as a result of a physical
barrier created by the road itself. However, there are no predictive formulae which
give simple relationships between traffic factors and levels of severance.
10.6.9
The IEMA guidelines suggest that only changes in traffic flow of 10% or more are
likely to produce changes in severance. In this case, the threshold is likely to be
exceeded including and excluding concrete delivery. However, two HGVs per hour
(based on 07:00-19:00 working day) is unlikely to result in a severance issue during
deliveries that exclude concrete. This threshold is also likely to be exceeded when
concrete is to be delivered however, this will only occur on three days over a 6 month
construction programme. Due to the temporary nature of the effects, and the relatively
low levels of pedestrian activity during the time period considered, the effect is
considered to be not significant.
Driver delay
10.6.10 Delays to non-development traffic can occur on the network due to additional traffic
generated by a development. The IEMA guidelines note that these additional delays
are only likely to be significant when the traffic on the network in the Study Area is
already at, or close to, the capacity of the system.
10.6.11 Despite the fact that some small localised delays may occur during, for example, the
delivery of abnormal loads, the local highway network has ample capacity and an
additional two HGV per hour will not affect this. Delays may occur when concrete
deliveries are taking place however, concrete is only expected over three days out of
the 6 month construction programme. If required, traffic movements associated with
the development could be managed to avoid conflicting with the peak hours of
background traffic and/or with school opening closing times. The effect is therefore
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
205
considered to be not significant. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to be agreed with

the Local Highway Authority will manage the impact of abnormal load delivery.
Pedestrian delay
10.6.12 Changes in the volume, composition or speed of traffic may affect the ability of
people to cross roads. In general terms, increases in traffic levels are likely to lead to
greater increases in delay. However, given the range of local factors and conditions
which can influence pedestrian delay, IEMA does not recommend that thresholds be
used as a means to establish the significance of pedestrian delay.
10.6.13 Whilst some delay to pedestrians may occur due to increased traffic levels, it is
unlikely that two HGVs per hour would have an impact on pedestrian delay. During
days when concrete delivery is taking place, an additional 11 HGVs per hour are
expected, however this will only occur over three days of the 6 month construction
programme. Therefore the effect is considered to be not significant.
Pedestrian amenity
10.6.14 Pedestrian amenity is broadly defined as the relative pleasantness of a journey, and is
considered to be affected by traffic flow, traffic composition and pavement
width/separation from traffic. The IEMA guidelines note that changes in pedestrian
amenity may be considered to be significant where the traffic is halved or doubled.
10.6.15 An additional two HGVs per hour equating to one HGV every 30 minutes is unlikely
to impact on pedestrian amenity during deliveries that do not involve concrete. During
days when concrete is to be delivered an additional 11 HGVs per hour equating to one
HGV every 3-4 minutes may have an impact on pedestrian amenity, however this will
only occur on three days of the 6 month construction programme. A TMP to be agreed
with the Local Highway Authority may identify periods during the day when HGV
trips should be restricted so as not to conflict with sensitive pedestrian movements, for
example school opening and closing periods. The effect is not considered to be
significant.
Fear and intimidation
10.6.16 The scale of fear and intimidation experienced by pedestrians is dependant on the
volume of traffic, its HGV composition, its proximity to people or the lack of
protection caused by such factors as narrow pavement widths. However, there are no
commonly agreed thresholds by which to determine the significance of the effects.
10.6.17 The predicted increases in traffic are such that any change in level of fear and
intimidation would only be minor. Through the implementation of a TMP, it is
intended that HGV deliveries will be restricted to times outside of peak periods. The
effect of the development upon fear and intimidation is therefore not considered to be
significant.
Accidents and safety
10.6.18 Due to the numerous local causation factors involved in personal injury accidents, the
IEMA guidelines do not recommend the use of thresholds to determine significance.
10.6.19 Given that the changes predicted are temporary in that they relate only to the worstcase months, and less than two additional HGVs per hour are predicted, the potential

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
206
effects related to accidents and safety are not considered to significant. Good practice
measures such as the wheel washing facilities and the Traffic Management Plan will
be implemented, thereby minimising the risk of accidents as a consequence of the
development. The effects are therefore not considered to be significant.
10.7 Summary of significance evaluation

10.7.1
A summary of the significance evaluation for the Traffic and Transport assessment is
provided in Table 10.8 below.
Table 10.8
Summary of Traffic and Transport significance of effects
Type of effect
Significance
Severance - Less than two vehicles per hour over a 18

hour working day (outside of concrete delivery days)
therefore effects not considered to be not significant
- ve
Not Significant
Driver Delay - Local network not at capacity and low

numbers of vehicles per hour predicted to be
generated. Therefore effects not considered to be
significant
- ve
Not Significant
Pedestrian Delay - Low levels of existing traffic volume

and low traffic generation. Traffic Management Plan to
be agreed to avoid school opening/closing times,
therefore effects not considered to be significant
- ve
Not Significant
Pedestrian Amenity - Low levels of existing traffic

volume and low traffic generation. Traffic
Management Plan to be agreed to avoid school
opening/closing times, therefore effects not considered
to be significant
- ve
Not Significant
Fear and Intimidation - Low levels of existing traffic

volume and low traffic generation. Traffic
Management Plan to be agreed to avoid school
opening/closing times, therefore effects not considered
to be significant
- ve
Not Significant
Accidents and Safety Changes predicted are only

temporary and less than two vehicles per hour over a
12 hour working day (outside of concrete delivery) are
predicted. Good practice measures such as wheel
washing facilities and a Traffic Management Plan will
be implemented.
- ve
Not Significant
Key/footnotes:
1.Type of effect
-ve = negative
2.
+ ve = positive
or
N = Neutral
NS
Significant
Not-significant
? = unknown
Proposed monitoring
10.7.2 As the transportation impacts are temporary in that they relate only to the construction
phase of the development, no continued monitoring is generally considered to be
necessary. The exception to this is the monitoring of mud and debris on the

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
207
carriageway in the vicinity of the site access during the construction period. It is
recommended that daily inspections take place to confirm that the mitigation measures
implemented on-site, if any, are indeed effective. Corrective action should be taken
where necessary.
10.8 References
Guidance on Transport Assessment, 2007, Department for Community and Local Government
and Department for Transport (DCLG & DfT).
Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments, 1994, Institution of Highways and Transportation
(IHT).
Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1993, Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of
Road Traffic.
The Highways Agency, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) TA 79/99, Traffic
Capacity of Urban Roads.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
208

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
209
11. Socio-economics
11.1 Introduction
11.1.1
This chapter has been prepared by Alistair Donohew, Senior Consultant at Entec
(member of Institute of Economic Development and of the Institute of Environmental
Management and Assessment) and Louise Tait, Assistant Consultant at Entec UK Ltd.
This chapter assesses the potential economic and social effects that may arise in the
villages surrounding the development as a result of the construction, operation and
decommissioning activities of the proposed Blackstone Edge wind farm.
11.2 Context
Site context
11.2.1 The proposed development site is located approximately 15km to the west of
Barnsley, 7km south-east of Holmfirth and approximately 1km to the north east of the
village of Crow Edge. A proposed development of this nature may potentially give
rise to a range of effects on communities in terms of the effect on the local economy,
the creation of local employment opportunities and effects on local tourism. There
may also be other community and social effects such as local regeneration to consider.
Policy context
11.2.2 The following policies serve to set the context within which this proposed
development has been considered. This list is not meant to be exhaustive but rather
provides the main policy framework within which the assessment has been
undertaken.
National
Planning Policy Statement 1: Creating Sustainable Communities;
Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas;
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; and
Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy.
Regional
Regional Spatial Strategy 12 (RSS 12): Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire
and the Humber (Selective Review of Regional Planning Guidance 12 (RPG 12));
and
Draft Regional Spatial Strategy 12: The Yorkshire and Humber Plan.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
210
Local
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council - Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
(adopted December 2000);
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council - Statement of Community Involvement
(adopted September 2006); and
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council - Draft Local Development Framework
Development Plan Documents.
Legislative context
11.2.3 There is no relevant legislation applicable to this assessment of community effects.
11.3 Methodology
Data gathering
11.3.1 Information has been obtained from the following sources:
The Office for National Statistics, neighbourhood statistics website

(www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk);
Public Attitudes to Wind Farms: A survey of local residents in Scotland, MORI

for the Scottish Executive, 2003;
Tourist Attitudes towards Wind Farms, MORI for the Scottish Renewables Forum
and the British Wind Energy Association, 2002;
Wind Farms: Friends not foes, St Andrews University Press Release 12,
December 2003; and
Renewable Energy Awareness and Attitudes Research: Management Summary.

DTi, May 2006. (http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file29360.pdf).
Scope of study
11.3.2 This chapter will examine the effects of the development associated with the following
issues, which were identified in the Blackstone Edge Wind Farm Scoping Report
(Entec, 2006).
Effects on employment and the economy; and
Effects on tourism and perception of visitors.
Consultation
11.3.3 No comments associated with the socio-economic issues were received in response to
the Scoping report.
Approach to scoping
11.3.4 The scope has been identified based on an understanding of the proposed
development, the site context and professional experience of undertaking assessments
of similar development proposals. The EIA Regulations indicate that the potential

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
211
significant effects on population should be considered and described in an

Environmental Statement. This section describes the potential scope of the effects that
will be included in the assessment.
Type of potential effects
11.3.5 There is a strong relationship between different socio-economic effects, and direct
effects are almost always accompanied by wider indirect effects. For instance, any
increase in the amount of employment in an area may generate expenditure on local
services.
Spatial extent of effects
11.3.6 Socio-economic effects may affect local residents or individuals within the wider
regional labour market. The principal areas of interest with regards the proposed
Blackstone Edge wind farm are the surrounding population centres of, amongst others,
Crow Edge, Millhouse Green, Birds Edge, Thurlstone, Hepworth, Ingbirchworth,
High Flatts and Penistone which will be assessed within the Barnsley MBC and
compared with relevant regional/national statistics. It should be noted that although
the site is located in the Barnsley district it is also close to the boundary of a number
of adjacent districts. However, it is considered that data for Barnsley is likely to be
sufficiently representative of the surrounding area in this instance.
11.3.7 Based on the approach defined above, the following effects have been scoped-in.
Potential effects on the local workforce and job creation caused by construction
activities and operation and maintenance. There is the potential for local workers
to be contracted for construction or maintenance activities. Nonetheless the scale
of potential employment will be highlighted. Effects on local business that may be
directly affected by the proposals will also be considered.
Potential effect on tourism and the perception of visitors caused by the proposed
development. Potential effects may vary from serving as a new attraction to
visitors to the local area or acting as a deterrent if they are perceived as unsightly or
affecting the natural landscape. The impact on tourism may have wider effects on
the local economy and employment.
Potential effects on the landowner, associated with leasing land to developers, have
been scoped-out. There will be an economic benefit to the local landowner through
the income received from the leasing of his land which will contribute to the
raising and diversification of local farm income. This is a positive effect associated
with the development however given the number of beneficiaries (the landowner) it
is not considered significant. However, the effects is still noteworthy even though
it has been scoped-out.
Potential effects on land use caused by landtake have been scoped-out. This is
because the land is not seen to be particularly high quality in terms of the

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
212
Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) developed by MAFF. In accordance with

the Agricultural Land Classification system of England and Wales (MAFF 1988),
the land within the site boundary is Grade 4 (poor quality agricultural land32). In
any case, the total area of land-take associated with the operational development is
relatively small (approximately 0.87ha, which equates to approximately 4% of the
overall site area).
Potential effects on public rights of way (PROWs) caused by the development have
been scoped-out. There are no PROWs that run through or are considered to be
sufficiently close so as to be potentially affected by the development (see Figure
11.1).
Consultation
11.3.9 No consultation has been undertaken in relation to the assessment and evaluation
method used for this assessment.
11.3.10 There is no prescribed methodology or standard guidance for this aspect of an EIA.
The method adopted is therefore one of determining the existing circumstances (the
baseline) through desk-based analysis, drawing on a range of statistical information
and consultations with regional and local representative bodies. The potential effects
of the proposed development on this baseline is then assessed using knowledge gained
from previous wind farm developments and using professional judgement to assess the
nature and implications of any residual effects after mitigation is taken into account.
11.3.11 Four criteria have been used in the evaluation of the significance of predicted effects
of the proposed development:
The type of effect (i.e. positive, negative or unknown)
The probability of the effect occurring based on the scale of certain, likely,
unlikely or uncertain
The policy importance (or sensitivity) for the evaluation. An effect can have a
policy importance (or sensitivity) at more than one level. The levels of
importance used for the socio-economic assessment are:
- National (UK) importance;
- Regional (North East) importance,
- District (Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council) importance; or
32
Grade 4 land = land with severe limitations which significantly restrict the range of crops and/or level
of yields. It is mainly suited to grass with occasional arable crops (e.g. cereals and forage crops) the
yields of which are variable. In moist climates, yields of grass may be moderate to high but there may be
difficulties in utilisation. The grade also includes very droughty arable land (MAFF 1998).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
213
- Local (within 5km of the Development Site) importance.
The magnitude is quantified using a simple scale of high, medium, low or no

effect and is assessed using professional judgement.
Key factors that are taken into consideration when determining significance
include the distribution, duration and spatial extent of effects, thresholds, policy or
contribution to recognised regeneration targets and triangulation (where a number
of perspectives are used to interpret a single set of data).

11.4.1
This section provides a brief overview of the study area (Barnsley MBC) relating to
key social and economic indicators.
Current population
11.4.2 The proposed development site falls within the Barnsley MPC area which is
comprised of approximately 220,000 people according to the 2001 Census. The
working age population (all those who are of working age, 16-74) comprise 72.3% of
the overall population.
Employment and economic development
11.4.3 The economically active portion of the working age population is 60.5%, which is
significantly less than the level in Yorkshire and Humber (65.1%) and Great Britain
(66.8%). Unemployment (measured as the percentage of the working age population
who are either unemployed or seeking employment) is also higher than the regional
and national averages at 3.9% in Barnsley compared to 3.7% in Yorkshire and
Humber and 3.3% nationally respectively (Census 2001).
11.4.4
Considering a breakdown of employment by occupation (Census 2001) a much lower

proportion of Barnsleys workforce, 28.9%, are engaged in managerial, professional or
technical occupations in comparison with 35.4% in Yorkshire and Humber and 40.3%
nationally. Similarly, Barnsleys workforce is made up of proportionately more
workers engaged in elementary occupations than the regional and national areas. The
proportion of the workforce with NVQ (National Vocational Qualification) 4 or above
is much lower than national averages at 11.06% compared to the national figure of
19.9%, demonstrating low skills levels in the local area. Approximately 9% of the
working population are employed within the construction industry in Barnsley. This
compares with approximately 7% employed in the construction industry in Yorkshire
and Humber.
Tourism and recreation

11.4.5 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been carried out as part of
the Environmental Impact Assessment (see chapter 7). This found that the settlement
and field patterns of the area may be particularly sensitive to built development such
as housing or employment as it may disrupt the pattern of the large-scale landscape at
ground level. It is felt that the nature of the wind turbine structures would be more
complementary than the aforementioned development. The site however is not
directly frequented by tourists or locally significant for recreation.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
214
Public consultation
11.4.6 Public consultation to date has consisted of a wide range of activities which are
summarised in chapter 2, section 2.3 and Appendix G.
11.4.7
Consultations were also held with a range of parties including mobile phone operators,
English Heritage, Natural England, the Environment Agency, Barnsley Council, JRC,
National Grid Wireless, MoD and the National Park Authority. These were generally
favourable, and while some concerns and recommendations were made, particularly
regarding potential interference with television and radio reception, there were no
formal objections to the proposed development.

11.4.8 The continued decline in income derived from farming is a generally accepted trend.
This may have a negative affect on the local area due to a decrease in general rural
income and wealth due to the fact that employment levels in agriculture are higher in
the region than nationally, at 1.58% compared with 1.45% respectively. This suggests
that employment generated in the rural area will be important in this context. Tourist
numbers and other economic trends are assumed to remain at present levels.
Information gaps
11.4.9 While there is a lack of specific data relating to tourist activity in the local area, it is
not considered to be sufficiently important in relation to this assessment. No other
significant information gaps relating to socio-economic issues have been identified.
Sensitive receptors
11.4.10 The receptors considered in this chapter are potentially the local and wider economy
and the labour market; current and future residents and regular visitors to the area.

11.5.1
Table 11.1 summarises measures that relate to socio-economic and community issues
that have been taken into consideration as part of the design and evolution of the
proposed wind farm. These measures are not necessarily mitigation but are factors
that have influenced design or will be incorporated into the scheme where possible
and are related to socio-economic and community issues.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
215
Table 11.1
Mitigation and enhancement measures
Effect
Considerations incorporated as part of the design scheme
Construction and Decommissioning

Employment
Use of local labour (where possible) in design, construction and decommissioning phases of the
development. The sourcing of local contractors, materials and labour could potentially generate further
job creation indirectly. Interested parties have been invited to register their interest at E.ON;s
dedicated email for local contractors: OnshoreWindfarmProjects@eon-uk.com
Operational
Employment
Use of local labour (where possible) in design, construction and decommissioning phases of the
development.
Tourism and local visitors
Minimisation of visual impacts has taken place through the scheme design process. However this may
be further mitigated in the future by considering including information or educational facilities, guided
walks etc to attract visitors to the site.
Land take
The scheme has been designed to minimise land take where possible, for example by ensuring that
existing tracks are used where possible. The extent to which this has been mitigated is subject to
limitations of design.
Community
Community engagement, sponsorship of community projects, annual community fund, one off low
carbon fund, educational visits by local schools.
The Applicant is committed to providing a community fund in association with Development throughout
the lifetime of the wind farm amounting to approximately 10,000 per annum and a one off low carbon
fund for energy saving technologies in local homes and public buildings. This is separate and distinct
from the proposed development, nevertheless in so far as it is strongly associated with the proposal
and it relates to community engagement and public attitudes it will be considered within this
assessment in this context.

11.6.1
This section of the assessment outlines the potential effects of the wind farm activities
on socio-economic issues during the construction, operation and decommissioning
stages.
Construction
Employment and economy
11.6.2 The construction of the wind farm may involve some investment in the local area and
may therefore create an opportunity for direct and indirect economic benefits. It is
anticipated that construction will take between 6 and 9 months. Therefore,
opportunities taken to maximise the use of local labour sources could provide a
positive effect on the local economy and employment. As part of the public
consultation programme, E.ON has invited local contractors who might be interested
in becoming involved with the proposed wind farm to register their interest at the
companys dedicated email from local contractors: OnshoreWindfarmProjects@eonuk.com. Increases in local incomes may generate wider benefits for local businesses
through an increase in demand. However given the scale of the proposed development
and associated construction activities this effect is assessed to be positive but not
significant.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
216
Tourism
11.6.3 Due to the scale of the development and general low levels of tourist activity in the
area, the magnitude of the effect on tourism in the local area is considered to be
negligible and therefore not significant.
Operation
11.6.4 Following the completion of the wind farm, the on-going servicing and maintenance
of the site will support a number of jobs to undertake any maintenance activities,
whether they be routine or unexpected requirements. Routine maintenance or
servicing of turbines is carried out twice a year, with a main service at 12 monthly
intervals and a minor service at 6 months. In year 1, there is also an initial service 3
months after commissioning. However given the scale of the development, this effect
is expected to be positive but not significant.
Tourism and recreation
11.6.5 The direct effects on tourism related economic activity cannot be predicted as a result
of the construction or operation of the development. There is a potential for indirect
effects as a result of visual effects which may detract visitors who are attracted to the
landscape, however no evidence has been presented that supports the view that wind
farms have a negative effect on tourism. Indeed, evidence suggests that wind farms
have a neutral to slightly positive effect on tourism. However the ability of wind
farms to act as an attraction in itself is uncertain.
11.6.6
On the basis of the available evidence it is considered that the operation of the
proposed wind turbines will not have a significant direct or indirect effect on tourism
and recreational activity. Whilst visitors to the National Park may note its presence,
there is no substantiated evidence to indicate that this will affect either visitor numbers
or visitor spending within the region.
Community
11.6.7 The wind farm will be fully funded and managed by E.ON. Local communities near
to the Blackstone Edge wind turbines will benefit from an annual income from the
project, educational materials and energy efficiency advice and measures. Further
details of these community measures are provided in the Blackstone Edge Planning
Statement. These community benefit contributions are however not considered as part
of this assessment as it may be considered to be an incentive rather than part of the
proposed development considered as part of the planning application.
Decommissioning
11.6.8 Similar benefits to the local economy are anticipated during the decommissioning
phase as arising during the construction phase, although decommissioning costs would
not be as substantial and therefore the benefits would be similarly less. It is
anticipated that benefits would arise through the use of local workers.
11.6.9
Due to the more general nature of decommissioning as opposed to construction, due to

less specialist technical knowledge required, there is likely to be a greater competitive

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
217
advantage for locally based firms. This is assessed to be a positive effect for the local
economy but is not expected to be significant due to the scale of the proposed
development.
Tourism
11.6.10 Due to the scale of the development, it is not anticipated that there will be any
significant effects on tourism as a result of the decommissioning activities.

11.7.1
A summary of the significance evaluation for the Blackstone Edge wind farm
assessment is provided in Table 11.2.
Table 11.2
Type of effect1
Significance
+ve
NS
NS
+ve
NS
NS
+ve
NS
NS
Construction
Local economy and job creation
Tourism
Operation
Tourism
Decommissioning
Tourism
Key/footnotes:
1.Type of effect
-ve = negative
2.
+ ve = positive
or
N = Neutral
NS
Significant
Not-significant
? = unknown
11.8 References
Entec UK Ltd (November 2006) Blackstone Edge Wind Farm Scoping Report
The
Office
for
National
Statistics,
(www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk)
neighbourhood
statistics
website
MORI for the Scottish Executive (2003) Public Attitudes to Wind Farms: A survey of local
residents in Scotland
MORI for the Scottish Renewables Forum and the British Wind Energy Association (2002)
Tourist Attitudes towards Wind Farms
St Andrews University Press Release 12 (December 2003) Wind Farms: Friends not foes

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
218

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
219
12.
Hydrology and Hydrogeology
12.1 Introduction
12.1.1
This chapter has been prepared by Liz Buchanan (MSci, MSc) and Mark Bollaert
(BSc) of Entec UK Ltd. Liz has almost 5 years experience in wind farm EIAs for
sites throughout the United Kingdom. Inputs to this chapter on land quality have been
provided by John Marsh (MSc, BSc, Chartered Geologist ), who has over fifteen years
post-qualification experience in geology, ground engineering and environmental
matters.
12.1.2
This chapter assesses the potential effects on hydrology, hydrogeology and land
quality as a result of the construction (including demolition activities) and operation of
the proposed Blackstone Edge wind farm development.
12.2 Context
Site context
12.2.1 The proposed site lies within the surface water catchment of a reservoir used for
public water supply and is underlain by a minor aquifer associated with sandstones
layers in the Carboniferous Lower Coal Measures. Historical mining and quarry
operations have taken place in the vicinity of the site and there is an old Category 4
landfill site adjacent to the site boundary.
Policy context
12.2.2 The assessment has been undertaken primarily using a qualitative assessment
approach, which has been based on professional judgement and statutory and general
guidance measures. Relevant policy and general guidance includes the following:
Planning Policy Guidance Note PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk;
Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance Notes (PPG);
- PPG 1 General guide to the prevention of water pollution;
- PPG 2 Above ground oil storage tanks;
- PPG 3 Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems;
- PPG 4 Disposal of sewage where no mains drainage is available;
- PPG 5 Works in, near or liable to affect watercourses;
- PPG 6 Working at construction and demolition sites;
- PPG 8 Safe storage and disposal of used oils; and
- PPG 21 Pollution incident response planning;

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
220
CIRIA Report C502: Environmental Good Practice on Site;

CIRIA Report C532: Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites;
CIRIA Report R168: Culvert Design Manual;
BS6031: 1981 Code of Practice for Earth Works;
Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils (MAFF 2000); and
Local and Regional Land Drainage Byelaws.
Legislative context
12.2.3 In addition to the guidance described above there is a range of environmental
legislation relevant to the life-cycle of any large development. Key legislative drivers
relating to the water environment that have been considered in this assessment include
the following:
Control of Pollution Act 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;
UK Water Quality (Water Supply) Regulations 2000; and
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).
12.3 Methodology
Data gathering
12.3.1 Baseline data has been collected for a study area up to 2km from the site boundaries,
as outlined in Table 12.1 below.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
221
Table 12.1
Baseline Information Sources
Topic
Source of Information
Climate
Rainfall
The National River Flow Archive: www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa
Topography
Elevation, relief
Ordnance Survey Explorer 1:25,000 map sheet 288 (Bradford & Huddersfield)
Surface waters
Water quality
Environment Agency
Groundwater
Groundwater Vulnerability
EA Groundwater Vulnerability Map of South Pennies (Sheet 11)
Hydrogeology
BGS Hydrogeology Map of South Yorkshire
Soils, Agriculture and

Forestry
Soil Survey of England and Wales Soils of England and Wales Map Sheet 1
Northern England
Soil type
Geology
Solid & Drift Geology
BGS Solid & Drift geology of Glossop (Sheet 86)
Ground Conditions & Coal

Mining
South Yorkshire Mining Advisory Service (SYMAS) Report and Plans

(MAL/M3907/1)
Water Resource Use

Private water supplies
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (pending)
Abstractions & Discharges
Environment Agency
Approach to scoping
12.3.2 A Scoping Report was submitted to Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council in
November 2006. The following comments were received that are relevant to the
Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Land Quality assessment.
12.3.3
The Environment Agency have responded as follows:

We consider that the proposals for Hydrology and Hydrogeology are appropriate.
We support the statements that:
A desk study will be undertaken to review whether there are any sensitive
waterbodies which may receive run-off from the site area, including
consideration of any effects on licensed abstractions.
The assessment will be based on the design of mitigation measures, which will
be fed into the method statement of the development covering: the control of
drainage runoff from excavations and access tracks; watercourse crossings
and, the control of concrete pouring.
Concerning Flood Risk the scoping statement states that The site does not lie
within an indicative 100 year floodplain, and given the relatively small impact

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
222
wind farms have on catchment characteristics it is not considered that the

development will impact on runoff rates. Therefore, flooding impacts are
considered to be negligible and will not be considered within the assessment. We
suggest that a drainage assessment should cover possible flood risk from increased
run off during construction and from road surfaces and any other hard standing.
12.3.4
The Drainage & Control Officer of Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (Barnsley
MBC) has responded as follows:
I note that the site is crossed by Blackwater Dyke, an unnamed ordinary
watercourse which is a tributary to Ingbirchworth reservoir. Consequently I
consider that the site does contain a water body which has a significant
environmental impact and the effects and any mitigation measures to be adopted
should be fully addressed in any formal application.
12.3.5
The South Yorkshire Mining Advisory Service (SYMAS) have responded as follows:
Past underground mineworkings have taken place in only the Halifax Hard Coal
Seam during the late 1950s at around 145 m deep. Settlement from these
workings will be long complete and the area should remain stable from the deep
mining subsidence aspect. No shallow mining issues are either recorded or
anticipated in this vicinity.
Geological records indicate the site to be underlain by the Greenmoor Rock
Sandstone of the Lower Coal Measures, which may be fissured both naturally and
mining induced. Suitable ground investigations would be required in order to
ascertain the presence or likelihood of such features together with an assessment of
what impact they would or may have on the turbines foundations.
A geological fault is conjectured some 70m away to the south-west of the proposed
turbine location nearest to Whitley Road, outlined as in Figure 12.1. The relevant
information indicates that this is probably only a small fault, which, if its
conjectured position is correct, should not pose a stability problem to the
development. It would be prudent however for any future site investigations to
consider this or any other potential faulting in the area that may have stability
implications.
The proposed turbine location to the south-east (see Figure 12.1) is in a relatively
close proximity to the recent quarrying operations. Future site investigations, that
would be expected to cover such issues as vertical and lateral bearing capacity of
the shales/clays, should provide information to determine what impact, if any, the
adjacent quarrying operations could have on the proposed structure(s).
Two of the proposed turbine locations are within 250 m of Category 4 (No. 35)
Landfill Site, as detailed in the Borough Landfill Register and outlined as a:
Site which the Waste Disposal Site Licence indicates has been licensed to
accept material that would not be expected to give rise to landfill gas in
substantial quantities. Or a site which has been granted an exemption from
Waste Management Licensing pursuant to the provisions of the waste
Management Licensing Regulations 1994.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
223

12.3.6 Based on the approach to scoping described above and scoping consultation responses,
the following effects have been scoped-in.
Potential adverse effects on surface and groundwater quality during the
construction and demolition phases of the proposed development (including grid
connection). Activities associated with the construction and demolition processes
have the potential to have an adverse effect on surface and groundwater quality.
This will include the accidental spillages of fuels and other chemicals and the
release of sediment entrained runoff from the site. Mitigation measures will be
required to address these potential effects.
Potential adverse effects on land quality from the construction of the wind farm
site. The site is adjacent to a landfill site, there are areas associated with World
War II bomb decoy features within the site boundary and historical mine workings
have been undertaken in the vicinity of the site.
Potential adverse effects on surface water quantity due to development of the site.
Change in the sites drainage regime due to the changes in landuse associated with
the proposed development could lead to an increase in run-off from the site and an
alteration of existing flow pathways. Mitigation measures will be needed to
address these effects.
Potential adverse effects on the water environment during the operational phase of
the proposed development. It is anticipated that effects on the water environment
at the operational phase will be minimal and will be addressed through the drainage
design for the site developed at the construction phase and through the application
of appropriate guidance for the use and storage of fuels, oils and other chemicals
on site.
Potential adverse effects on land quality (associated with underground
mineworkings) from the construction of the wind farm site. The effects of the
proposed development on the former underground mineworkings that have taken
place in the Halifax Hard Coal Seam, or the effect of any ground contamination
such as contaminated mine waters or 'mine gas' (methane) upon the proposed
development have been scoped-out of this assessment on the basis that the seams
that have been mined are at a depth of approximately 145m. This depth is greatly
beyond the plausible foundation depth for the proposed structures or their zone of
influence.
Consultation
12.3.8 Baseline data concerning the water environment has been requested from the
Environment Agency and Barnsley MBC, this information has not yet been received.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
224
12.3.9 The assessment of the effects on the water environment and any potential land quality
issues has been undertaken by the establishment of the baseline environment and the
use of mainly qualitative techniques to assess the potential effects of the proposed
development.
12.3.10 The following four criteria have been used to evaluate the significance of the effects of
the proposed development:
The type of effect, i.e. whether it is positive, negative, neutral or uncertain;
The probability of the effect occurring based on the scale of certain, likely or
unlikely;
The policy importance or sensitivity of the resource under consideration, in a
geographical context: international, national, regional, or local, as defined in Table
12.2; and
The magnitude of the effect in relation to the resource that has been evaluated,
quantified in detail if possible, but if not quantified then magnitude is determined
using the scale high, medium, or low, as defined in Table 12.3.
12.3.11 Professional judgement is used to assess the findings in relation to each of these
criteria to give an assessment of significance for each effect. Effects are considered to
be of major or minor significance, or not significant. The significance rating is
determined by assessing the value of the receptor against the magnitude of effect, as
set out in Table 2.4. A summary of the assessment of residual effects is presented in
Table 12.8.
Table 12.2
Definitions of Hydrological Policy Importance/Sensitivity
Geographical Context
Hydrological Definition
International
Important on a European or global level
National
Important in the UK or Scotland
Regional
Important in the context of northern England
Local
Important within the watersheds to which the site drains

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
225
Table 12.3
Hydrological Definition
Magnitude of effect
High
Medium
Low
Negligible
Site runoff
regime
Change (>50%) in
proportion of site
rainfall immediately
running off,
changing the flood
risk or erosion of
channels
Change (10-50%) in
proportion of site
running off,
changing the flood
risk or erosion of
channels
Small change
(<10%) in
proportion of site
running off, but no
change in flood risk
or channel erosion
No measurable
change in site runoff regime
Surface water
quality
Change in water
quality, changing
river status with
respect to EQS for
more than one
month
Change in water
quality, changing
site status with
respect to shortterm EQS, or for
less than one month
with other EQS
Measurable shortterm change in

water quality but no
change with respect
to EQS
No measurable
change in surface
water quality
Riverine flow
regime
Change in flows
>5% resulting in a
measurable change
in dilution capacity
Change in flows
between 2-5%
resulting in a
measurable change
in dilution capacity
Measurable change
in flow of up to 2%
No measurable
change in riverine
flow regime
Riverine
morphology
Change in erosion
and deposition, with
conservation
interests affected
Some change in
deposition and
erosion regimes
Slight change in
bed morphology
and sedimentation
pattern, minor
erosion
No measurable
change in riverine
morphology
Groundwater
Levels
Change in
groundwater levels
leading to an
identifiable change
in groundwater flow
regime and artesian
flows
Change in
groundwater levels
leading to an
identifiable change
in groundwater flow
regime
Measurable change
in groundwater
levels, but no
appreciable change
in groundwater flow
regime
No measurable
change in
groundwater Levels
Groundwater
Quality
Change in
groundwater quality,
changing site
quality with respect
to DWS for more
than 1% of samples
Change in
groundwater quality,
changing site quality
with respect to DWS
for less than 1% of
samples
Measurable change
in groundwater
quality, but not
changing site status
with respect to
DWS
No measurable
change in
groundwater Quality
Large areas
contaminated above
statutory guidelines
Localised areas
contaminated above
A single area
contaminated above
No measurable
change in Land
Quality
Land Quality

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
226
Table 12.4
Significance of effects
Value of
Receptor
Magnitude of Effect
Negligible
Low
Medium
High
International
Not Significant (NS)
NS
Significant
Significant
National
NS
NS
Significant
Significant
Regional
NS
NS
Significant
Significant
Local
NS
NS
NS
Significant
Less than Local
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS = Not Significant

Topography
12.4.1
The proposed site covers approximately 0.24km2 (23.63ha) and is situated about 5km
west-north-west of Penistone, roughly centred on the national grid reference (NGR)
SE 196053.
12.4.2
The proposed site comprises gently rolling countryside, sloping downwards towards
the north east (see Figure 1.1 and 1.2), with the adjacent Whitley road running along
the sites south western boundary. The elevation on site reaches a maximum of about
355m AOD at the southern corner of the site, and descends to 320m AOD at the
northern corner of the site.
Climate
12.4.3 Data from the Environment Agency included that for a rain gauge 3.2km east of the
site at Ingbirchworth. From 1960 to 2006, the annual rainfall at Ingbirchworth
fluctuated between 507.3mm and 1284.8mm, with an average annual rainfall of
980mm.
12.4.4
The National River Flows Archive contains rainfall data for one rain gauge on the
Scout Dyke Stream, which is approximately 4km south-east of the site. Another two
rain gauges are located at a distance of approximately 8.5km from the site. The
average annual rainfall values for these gauges are presented in Table 12.5.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
227
Table 12.5
Average annual rainfall
Catchment
Distance
from Site
NGR
Period of
Measurement
Altitude (mOD)
of gauge
Average
Rainfall (mm)
Ingbirchworth
Raingage
3.2km east of
the site
SE 213056
1960 - 2006
240.0
980mm
Scout Dyke
Stream @ Scout
Dyke Reservoir
4km east south

east of site
SE 236047
1961 1990
207.0
1046
Holme @ Digley
Reservoir
8.5km west
north west of
site
SK 112069
1961 1990
1540
Little Don @
Underbank
Reservoir
8.5km south
east of site
SK 253992
1961 1990
166.0
1211
12.4.5
The average rainfall suggests that the area has moderately high rainfall compared to
the national average (832mm, Source: Met Office, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology,
Wallingford, UK).
Surface hydrology
12.4.6
The hydrology of the proposed site is presented in Figure 12.2. The site lies within the
catchment of the River Don and surface drainage from the site flows to Ingbirchworth
Reservoir via the Blackwater Dyke stream that flows into the Scout Dyke, which is the
main tributary of the Reservoir approximately 1.5km downstream of the site (NGR SP
208 062).
12.4.7
No water courses lie within the site boundary, however, the Blackwater Dyke Stream
issues just north of the sites northeastern boundary (at National Grid reference SP 198
053) and then flows in a north westerly direction along approximately 300m of the
sites boundary to the site northern most corner. It then turns in a northeasterly
direction and flows towards the Scout Dyke.
12.4.8
Figure 12.2 indicates that there is a small surface water body near the north western
site boundary, this could be an indication of a high near surface water table in this
area.
12.4.9
Since the proposed site is located near the top of a hill, there is little chance of
flooding. This view is reflected in the flood risk map produced by the Environment
Agency, which identifies the site and its surrounding area as being in Flood Zone 1.
This means that the calculated risk of flooding to the site is less than 1 in 1000 years.
Surface Water Quality

12.4.10 The Environment Agency has a network of surface water quality monitoring points in
England and Wales. The points are monitored under the General Quality Assessment
scheme (GQA) for chemical and biological quality and for orthophosphate and nitrate
nutrient levels. Chemical and Biological quality is classified A-F, with A being very
good and F being bad. Nutrients are not classified as "good" or "bad" and instead

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
228
grades 1-6 are used. Grade 1 indicates a very low presence of nutrients and grade 6
indicates a very high presence of nutrients. This is done because rivers across the
country naturally have different levels of nutrients and there are not necessarily
detrimental to the environment.
12.4.11 River quality targets are set by the Environment Agency as a part of their River
Quality Objective scheme. Compliance is measured against these targets.
12.4.12 The closest downstream point to this site where water quality is monitored data is
available on the Environment Agency website and is on the Scout Dyke, just
downstream of Ingbirchworth Reservoir between National Grid Reference SP 210061
and SP 217056. This stretch of the Scout Dyke has been given a GQA Grade 2. The
most recent set of measurements against the standards associated with this grading can
be seen in Table 12.6.
Table 12.6
Compliance of Scout Dyke Stream with water quality objectives (2003-2005)
Test
Compliance
Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/l)
Compliant
Ammonia (mgN/l)
Compliant
Dissolved oxygen (percentage saturation)
Compliant
Un-ionised ammonia (mgN/l)
Compliant
pH acid
Compliant
pH alkali
Compliant
Hardness (mg/l CaCO3)
Dissolved copper (ug/l)
Compliant
Total zinc (ug/l)
Compliant
12.4.13 Further Environment Agency quality data is available for river chemistry, biology,
nitrates and phosphates. The most recent set of GQA data is discussed below:
Chemistry grade is B (Good). This indicates that the waterbody is suitable for
all abstractions, could contain very good salmonid fisheries or cyprinid fisheries
and ecosystems at or close to natural;
Biology grade is C (fairly good). This indicates that the biology is worse than
expected for an unpolluted river;
Nitrates are graded as level 3 which is moderately low; and
Phosphates are grade 5, high. This high phosphate grade is concurrent with the
agricultural land use in the catchment.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
229
Geology
12.4.14 BGS mapping indicates that the site is underlain by the Carboniferous Lower Coal
Measures comprising interbedded sandstone and coal measures, which dip away in a
north easterly direction. The sandstone may contain fissures that have been opened by
past mining activity (South Yorkshire Mining, Report MAL/M3907/1). There are no
mapped drift deposits on the site.
12.4.15 The South Yorkshire Mining Authority Service (SYMAS) have provided information
as part of their scoping response pertaining to mining and quarrying activities in the
area of the site. The information presented in Figures 12.1, 12.3 and 12.4 has been
provided by SYMAS to explain the geology and historical activity on the site. The
information below (paras 12.4.16 to 12.4.20) is taken from the SYMAS information.
12.4.16 SYMAS mapping at the 1:10560 scale indicates that the site in underlain by bands of
sandstone, sandy shale and black shale (See Figure 12.1).
12.4.17 There is one geological fault present on site (see Figure 12.1). No associated
movement\damage is known to have taken place along this line. Past mining does,
however, suggest that there is the potential for movement to occur in the future.
Suitable ground investigations would have to be undertaken to assess the likely impact
on the turbine foundations (South Yorkshire Mining, Report MAL/M3907/1).
12.4.18 There is no shallow mining recorded beneath the site, with the shallowest coal seams
being located at around 50m. A second seam is located at 90m, with both seams being
thin and of a poor quality. Thus the possibility that any unchartered mining has taken
place, is highly unlikely. Any mining at the depths mentioned, would nonetheless not
cause stability problems at the surface (South Yorkshire Mining, Report
MAL/M3907/1).
12.4.19 Deep mining has taken place below the area, in the Halifax Hard Coal Seam. Details
can be seen in Figure 12.3. The workings took place in the late 1950s at a depth of
145m, with a 670mm section of coal indicated as being removed. The abandonment
plan made no reference as to encountering the aforementioned fault during
excavations. All mining movements have long since settled and no mining is set to
take place in the future (South Yorkshire Mining, Report MAL/M3907/1).
12.4.20 There is an area of landfill located just outside of the sites south eastern boundary
(Figure 12.4). This landfill is the result of past quarrying activity, that has since been
infilled.
Ground contamination
12.4.21 Ordnance Survey Maps dating from 1855 to present provide no indication of potential
sources of contamination within the site boundary, as the proposed site has remained
as greenfield over this period. Current potential sources of contamination on site are
likely to be historic uses of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides associated with
farming and plantation works. SYMAS also indicate that the relevant Ordnance
Survey Sheets have been checked and there is no evidence of any former industrial
uses shown as affecting the site.
12.4.22 In chapter 9 (Archaeology) it is noted that there are WWII bomb decoy areas within
the site boundaries, the approximate location of these is indicated in Figure 2.2.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
230
12.4.23 There is an old landfill site immediately adjacent to the sites eastern boundary. This is
classed by Barnsley Metropolitan Council as a Category 4 Landfill that was licensed
to accept material that would not be expected to give rise to landfill gas in substantial
quantities or was exempt from Waste Management Licensing.
Soils and land use
12.4.24 The Soils of England and Wales sheet for this area classifies the majority of the soils
underlying the proposed site as being of the Rivington 1 Association. These are well
drained coarse loamy soils formed over sandstone.
12.4.25 The westernmost portion of the site is underlain by soils of the Wilcocks 1
Association. These soils are slowly permeable seasonally waterlogged, fine loamy
and fine loamy over clayey, upland soils with a peaty surface horizon. These soils are
formed over sandstone, mudstone and shale. The location of the small surface water
body (see paragraph 12.4.8) coincides with the extent of these soils, possibly indicated
an area of poorly drained seasonally water logged soils.
12.4.26 Satellite imagery and OS mapping indicates that the landuse within the site boundaries
is agricultural.
Groundwater
12.4.27 The Groundwater Vulnerability Map for the South Pennines indicates that the
proposed site is predominantly underlain by a Minor Aquifer, associated with the
sandstones layers underlying the site. A Minor Aquifer is regarded as having variable
permeability, and seldom produces large quantities of water for abstraction. They are
however important on a local scale in terms of abstraction, and regulation of baseflow.
12.4.28 The majority of the site is underlain by soils with a high vulnerability class (sub-class
3), the extent of which corresponds with the well drained soils of the Rivington 1
Association. The high vulnerability class is related to a soil with a high leaching
potential. In addition, a sub-class of 3 is given to coarse textured or moderately
shallow soils which readily transmit non-absorbed pollutants and liquid discharges but
which have some ability to attenuate absorbed pollutants because of their clay or
organic matter contents.
12.4.29 An area to the west of the site is overlain by soils of low vulnerability, the extent of
which corresponds with that of the clayey Wilcocks 1 Association soils identified
above. This relates to a low leaching potential, and associated soils in which
pollutants are unlikely to penetrate the soil layer because either, water movement is
largely horizontal, or they have the ability to attenuate diffuse pollutants. The latter is
the most likely in this case given the clayey nature of the Wilcocks Association soils.
12.4.30 The South Yorkshire mining map of the site (Figure 12.1), shows the interbedded
shales and sandstones far more clearly. The Black Shales would be likely to
correspond to those areas overlain by soils with lower vulnerability, while the
sandstone and sandy shales would correspond to areas overlain by soils of a higher
vulnerability. The minor aquifer classification is associated with the sandstone
dominated strata.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
231
Abstractions and discharges

12.4.31 Downstream of the site the Ingbirchworth Reservoir is used for public water supply.
12.4.32 Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council have provided details of four private water
supplies located within a 2km radius of the site boundary. The details of these private
water supplies are provided in Table 12.7.
Table 12.7
Private Water Supply Locations
Location
Status of dwelling
NGR
Supply Source
Spicer House Farm
Unoccupied*
SE 205056**
Spring
Annatt Royd Farm
Occupied
SE 213049
Borehole
Browns Edge Farm
Occupied
SE 204057
Well
Far Royd Moor Farm
Occupied
SE 219049
Borehole
* Based on information provided by Barnsley MBC, although it is understood that Spicer House Farm is occupied at
present.
** Grid reference not held by local authority so has been approximated from property location.
12.4.33 The Environment Agency has records of a number of discharge points close to the site
into adjacent rivers. For the subcatchment within which the Blackstone Edge site is
located, there are three such discharge locations, approximately 1 km away. Of these
three, one is associated with site drainage from a clay quarry, while the other two are
used by local property owners. Ingbirchworth Sewage Treatment Works also
discharges effluent into the Scout Dyke downstream of the site.
Hydrological regime
12.4.34 Surface drainage from the site is in a northerly direction towards the Blackwater Dyke.
The site lies in an area of high rainfall, though the high permeability of the dominant
Rivington 1 Association soils, combined with potential fissures in the underlying
sandstone, would probably result in portions of the site having a much lower runoff
potential compared to those portions that are covered by the lower permeability
Wilcocks 1 Association soils. The Blackwater Dyke flows into the Ingbirchworth
reservoir, via the Scout Dyke. This Reservoir is used for public water supply.
12.4.35 The site is underlain by a minor aquifer associated with the sandstone layers contained
in the underlying Carboniferous Coal Measures, within the site boundaries this aquifer
is overlain by high permeability soils of the Rivington 1 Association. Fissure flow
will dominate groundwater movement within this aquifer. Groundwater levels
beneath the site are unknown.
12.4.36 Hydrological systems are in a state of constant flux. Two main influences on the
hydrology of the proposed site have been identified, namely land use and climate
change.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
232
12.4.37 The nature of the land type and elevations within this site mean that the land use is
unlikely to change substantially during the lifetime of the wind farm.
12.4.38 Climate is likely to be more variable, with predicted future changes in global climate
being superimposed on local climate variability. For this region of England, the latest
climate change predications indicate increases in annual average temperature by up to
1C, and no change to average rainfall by the 2020s depending on the emissions
scenario. These emissions scenarios are based on atmospheric emissions resulting
from different paths of development.
12.4.39 Under the low emissions scenario, rainfall will not change much on an annual average,
however, seasonal differences will be more pronounced with up to a 20% decrease in
winter rainfall, and a 10% increase in summer rainfall, by the 2020s.
Information gaps
12.4.40 Private water supply locations have been received from the local authority, these
locations have not been ground-truthed and as such the supplies may be in a slightly
different location than the information provided indicates.
12.4.41 This section of the assessment details the constraints to the proposed development
from sensitive receptors associated with the hydrology, hydrogeology and land quality
of the site and its immediate environs.
12.4.42 The main hydrological constraints for the proposed development (summarised in
Table 12.8) are the area adjacent to the surface watercourses, and those areas underlain
by the high vulnerability soils and sandstones.
12.4.43 As detailed in Table 12.7 there are four private water supplies within the vicinity of
the proposed development. The supplies at Annatt Royd and Far Royd Moor Farms
are at a sufficient distance from the proposed site that it is not envisaged that the
proposed development poses any risk to their supply. The two sites at Spicer House
Farm and Browns Edge Farm lie closer to the development. Examination of the
locations of these supplies indicates that their surface water catchments do not
encompass any part of the site. It should be noted that these supplies are both
groundwater sources and so their catchments may not follow topography, however it
is considered that the surface water catchment is probably larger than the actual
catchment required to supply these sources. In addition the geology map (Figure 12.1)
indicates that the sandstone layer most likely to be supplying these sources is
separated from the layer on which the turbines are located by lower permeability shale
deposits. In summary, the private water supplies are not considered to present any
additional constraints to development above those required for the general protection
of surface and groundwater quality and quantity.
12.4.44 The main land quality constraints are associated with the old landfill site to the south
of the site and World War II bomb decoy features.
12.4.45 It should be noted that mitigation will be implemented as a matter of course at all
locations, within the proposed site, as the measures described are essential to pollution
prevention and control and reflect current industry best practice.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
233
Table 12.8
Constraint
Rationale
Areas to be avoided
20m buffer zone surrounding all watercourses,
known functioning ditches and other surface water
bodes, with the exception of access route crossings.
Risk of sediment, accidental spillages or concrete pollution entering the

water environment and Ingbirchworth Reservoir.
50m buffer zone surrounding old landfill site to the

south of the site boundary.
Risk of encountering ground contamination.
Avoidance of WW II bomb decoy areas.
Risk of encountering ground contamination.
Areas acceptable with mitigation

Minor Aquifer with High Vulnerability soils.
Risk of polluting groundwater that may be connected to public water supply
Geological faults, coal workings and ground

contamination
Risk, although low, of unstable ground conditions or ground contamination

on which to construct turbines.
Areas of wet ground, where not in the immediate

vicinity of watercourses.
Sensitive element of otherwise low sensitivity hydrological regime.

Damage to the boggy soils may occur, but construction is acceptable if
mitigated.
Minor Aquifer with Low Vulnerability Soils
Sensitive groundwater environment. Low permeability soils help protect

groundwater, though mitigation measures still considered a sensible
precaution.

Construction
Access tracks
12.5.1 The main access to the proposed site will be from the minor road which delineates the
sites south western boundary. The turbines will be accessed via new access tracks
across the proposed site that will be constructed specifically for the proposed
development.
12.5.2
Potential effects from the construction of new tracks include reduced infiltration and
the erosion of exposed ground and track surfaces which could result in silt laden runoff. New tracks constructed on sensitive soils could also damage soil structure and
adversely effect soil hydrology.
12.5.3
The following mitigation measures will be implemented to minimise effects on

hydrology during the construction of new track and where existing tracks are
upgraded:
During the construction of new tracks on sloping ground, drainage will be
controlled by placing excavated soils on the downhill slopes and lateral
drainage ditches on the uphill slopes, and by working only small stretches of
track at any one time;
Temporary drainage routes will be provided whilst upgrading existing tracks,
where necessary;

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
234
Construction of suitable passage on a temporary and permanent basis will be

undertaken to facilitate naturally occurring drainage beneath the tracks;
Silt traps will be used to capture suspended solids generated during
construction, supplemented by settlement ponds and attenuation areas where
necessary;
Sustainable urban drainage measures, such as track-side vegetated swales and
ditches, will be incorporated into the design of track drainage providing
temporary storage for runoff and reducing runoff rates;
Construction will be carried out according to Environment Agency PPG and
CIRIA guidance for site works (C502); and
Maintenance of tracks will take place during dry periods wherever possible.
Electric cable laying (including grid connection)
12.5.4 The electric cable laying on site and the grid connection cabling off-site has the
potential to damage soils and to introduce new drainage pathways that could generate
silty runoff whilst the trenches are open. Indeed, sub-surface flows could be disrupted
even after the trenches have been closed.
12.5.5
To minimise disturbance effects on-site, it is intended that cables will be laid in small
trenches along the side of access tracks as far as possible. In the case of the off-site
grid connection cable the course will follow established roads. The trenches will be
dug during drier periods, in sections and open for only a short period to reduce the
possibility of them acting as alternative drainage channels. Temporary silt traps
and/or clay bunds will be provided in the longer or steeper trench runs, if necessary,
during construction.
12.5.6
Restored soils within the cable trenches will have a slightly different structure to those
already existing on site. If the restoration is not undertaken sympathetically, there is
the potential to create preferential flow pathways throughout the operational phase of
the proposed development.
12.5.7
Once the electric cables have been installed, and the soil profile restored carefully, the
cable runs should return to close to their natural, pre-construction condition.
Consequently no mitigation measures regarding electric cable laying will be required
during the operational phase of the proposed development.
Wind turbine foundations

12.5.8 The turbine foundation will comprise a concrete base of approximately 16m x 16m
and up to 1.5m in depth. The foundation excavation will be slightly larger than the
base dimensions (approximately 18m x 18m and up to 3m in depth), although some of
this area will be dressed back with topsoil and landscaped into the surrounding area
upon completion of turbine erection. The proposed location for Turbine 1 is underlain
by sandstone, whereas the proposed locations for turbines 2 and 3 are underlain by
sandy shales.
12.5.9
The removal of soils for the turbine foundations could lead to the short term drainage
of surrounding soils, particularly if the soils are saturated. Where drainage into these

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
235
excavations does occur, slumping of soils could result in the damage of soil structure
and changes to local soil water hydrology. Furthermore, foundations may coincide in
some locations with the unmapped agricultural drainage pipes on site.
12.5.10 Other potential effects arising from construction are the generation of silt-laden water
from exposed ground and the leaking of concrete residues into the water environment,
including the soil layers. The increased area of hard-standing will also slightly alter
the runoff/recharge characteristics of the developed area. Shallow concrete pad
foundations will be used where possible to minimise excavation works, but the
possibility of deeper foundation excavations cannot yet be entirely discounted. This
raises the possibility of some physical disturbance of the underlying Sandstone and
Shale, resulting in sediment entrainment in fissure flow. Should piling be required
(and this currently seems unlikely), the appropriate Environment Agency best practice
guidance shall be adhered to, namely PPG5, PPG11 and Piling and penetrative
ground improvement methods on land affected by contamination: Guidance on
pollution prevention.
12.5.11 Careful scheme design will also be supplemented by mitigation measures as described
in the Environment Agencys pollution prevention guidance and special requirements,
including the following:
Scheduling construction activities to minimise the area and period of time that
soil will be exposed, particularly during winter periods;
Installation of cut-off drains around the working areas to intercept
uncontaminated surface runoff and divert it around the works;
Minimising the stockpiling of materials and locating essential stockpiles as far
away as possible from the Blackwater Dyke stream and away from the areas
where the sandstone layer is uppermost; and
Revegetation of foundation working areas as soon as possible after construction.
12.5.12 Other generic mitigation measures will include silt traps to service turbine foundation
as necessary, whilst the use of sulphate-resistant concrete will minimise leaching.
Spill response measures will be developed in anticipation of any accidental spillages.
Pumping of groundwater from foundations may also be required and will be treated by
way of a sump and silt trap before discharging to infiltration trenches or into vegetated
ground. The use of deep foundations is to be discouraged.
12.5.13 The suitability of locating turbine foundations in areas of faults will be subject to
geotechnical investigations that will take place prior to construction. These
investigations will seek to confirm the existence and location of faults marked on the
Figure 12.1. This may result in micrositing these turbines away from the fault line, as
described earlier.
12.5.14 Other guidance is applicable to this work. For instance, in accordance with BS6031:
1981 Code of Practice for Earth Works, land disturbance will be kept to a minimum,
and disturbed areas will stabilise as soon as possible after construction. Soil
movement should be undertaken with reference to best practice guidelines available
from DEFRA in the form of the Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils (MAFF
2000).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
236
Crane pads
12.5.15 Each turbine will require a hard standing craneage area of 40m x 20m for construction
and maintenance.
12.5.16 The hard standing area will replace agricultural vegetation and therefore some minor
effects on run off and recharge may occur. The removal of soils for the crane pads
may also lead to short term drainage of surrounding soils. As with turbine
foundations, there is the potential for the generation of silt-laden water from exposed
ground and the leaking of concrete residues into the water environment, including the
soil layers.
12.5.17 Mitigation measures described above for turbine foundations will also be followed
during crane pad construction.
Control Building
12.5.18 It is likely that the control building will occupy 96m2 and will be located on the
sandstone (see Figure 1.2) to the south west of Turbine 1. The control building is
located alongside the proposed construction compound.
12.5.19 The new hardstanding area for the control building will replace existing grassland and
therefore surface water run-off rates will be increased and infiltration will be locally
reduced. It is not anticipated that the run-off will adversely affect flows, due to the
limited land take in comparison to the total catchment of the Blackwater Dyke Stream
and the underlying minor aquifer. Nevertheless, it is recommended that suitable
sustainable drainage measures be incorporated into the design of the substation, such
as silt traps, sulphate-resistant concrete, careful stockpiling and the adoption of spill
response measures. Sustainable urban drainage technology will be employed where
appropriate, and any discharges will be made in compliance with Environment
Agency discharge consent conditions.
Site working practices
12.5.20 As with similar construction operations, there will be heavy plant and machinery on
site, and this will result in the need to store oils and diesel. With such storage, and
during refilling and maintenance operations, there is the potential for accidental
spillages and leaks. Such spillages could then potentially enter the water environment
via surface runoff to streams or infiltration to groundwater.
12.5.21 Therefore, during the tendering process the expected level of environmental control
will be included in the tender documents, so that all contractors allow for mitigation
measures in their costs and method statements. The EAs special requirements for
water pollution prevention from civil engineering contracts contain a definitive list of
clauses for incorporation into civil engineering contractual documents.
12.5.22 The site induction for contractors will include a specific session on good practice to
control water pollution from construction activities. Contractors will be made aware
of their statutory responsibility not to cause or knowingly permit water pollution.
12.5.23 Geotechnical investigations carried out to confirm foundation design will consider
land quality issues and investigate whether unexploded ordnance is present. In the
unlikely event that evidence of ground contamination is encountered during

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
237
construction, procedures will be put in place to store potentially affected excavated

materials on impermeable liners in separate covered stockpiles.
12.5.24 The requirements for mitigating effects of dust and vehicle movements include the use
of dust covers over vehicles and stockpiles, dampening down of areas potentially
producing dust, and the provision of wheel washing facilities. Areas where these
activities occur should also provide sustainable drainage measures for sediment
entrained runoff, such as silt traps.
12.5.25 To mitigate the effects of the storage and use of chemicals and fuel on site, all
chemical storage areas will be within areas of hardstanding. They will be bunded so
that 110% of the stored capacity is provided, and they will be located at least 20m
away from any surface watercourses or drains and not over areas where the sandstone
layer is uppermost. Plant and machinery used during the construction phase will also
be well maintained to minimise the risks of oil leaks or similar occurrences.
Maintenance and refuelling of machinery will be undertaken off-site or within
designated areas of temporary hardstanding. In these designated areas contingency
plans will be implemented to ensure that the risks of spillages is minimised. Placing a
drip tray beneath plant and machinery during refuelling and maintenance will contain
small spillages.
12.5.26 Throughout the construction phase best working practices will be adopted, and
measures to protect the water environment will be taken by adopting
recommendations set out in the EAs PPG Notes.
Decommissioning
12.5.27 For the purposes of this Environmental Statement it is assumed that decommissioning
will occur at the end of the wind farms 25 year lifetime. The potential effects on the
water environment during such decommissioning are similar to those during the
construction phase, although the risks will be lower as many elements of the site will
remain undisturbed, such as turbine bases, access tracks and underground cabling.
12.5.28 Similar mitigation measures to those described for the construction phase are likely to
be required to prevent contamination, such as from silt laden run-off arising from
vehicle movements on site. Any new legislation or guidelines published prior to
decommissioning will be adhered to and incorporated into mitigation design prior to
any decommissioning taking place.

Construction
12.6.1 This section describes the residual effects during construction of the wind farm,
following implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Access tracks
12.6.2 Heavy rainfall events can occur, and therefore, even with mitigation measures in
place, minor volumes of sediment eroded from access tracks may enter Blackwater
Dyke. However, the measures in place will remove the majority of suspended
sediments, and the dilution potential of the watercourses will also be at its greatest

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
238
during these periods, so that the effect on the watercourse and downstream water
bodies is not considered to be significant.
Electric cable laying (including grid connection)
12.6.3 With the various mitigation measures in place, no significant effects on the water
environment will arise.
Wind turbine foundations
12.6.4 The risk of pollution from suspended sediments has been reduced as far as practicable
by the provision of drainage measures and silt traps.
12.6.5
The need for deeper foundations that require some bedrock excavation is to be
discouraged, but cannot yet be precluded though it is considered unlikely. In such an
instance, the possibility of some sediment entrainment in sandstone fissure flow could
occur.
Crane pads
12.6.6 The risk of pollution from suspended sediments has been reduced as far as practicable
by the provision of drainage measures and silt traps. Mitigation is also included for
further risks of pollution. Some minor changes in runoff and recharge may occur
although these will not be significant.
Control Block
12.6.7 Some minor changes in runoff and recharge may occur during construction. However,
the areas involved are very small and mitigation and suitable drainage measures will
minimise these effects, such that the effect from the compound area will not be
significant.
Site working practices
12.6.8 Following mitigation, the effects of site working practices on the hydrology and
hydrogeology are anticipated to be small and negligible. Spill response measures will
intercept and control accidental spillages as best as practicably possible, so that effects
on the water environment will not be significant.
12.6.9
Land quality related effects may arise should ground contamination be encountered
during construction. Ground contamination may be associated with the old landfill
site located immediately to the south of the site boundary and/or with the World War
II bomb decoy features.
12.6.10 The old landfill site is classed by Barnsley Metropolitan Council as a Category 4
Landfill that was licensed to accept material that would not be expected to give rise
to landfill gas in substantial quantities or was exempt from Waste Management
Licensing. Whilst no specific information has been obtained on the contents and
construction of the landfill, the underlying geology and anticipated hydrogeological
regime (see paragraphs 12.4.34-35).would suggest that it is unlikely that landfill
leachate or landfill gas would migrate to the location of the proposed wind turbines
and control building. This is because the proposed location of turbines and the control
building are, at their nearest, more than 175m from the location of the former landfill
site and are therefore unlikely to encounter any waste materials, ground gas or landfill

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
239
leachate. There is a low possibility of encountering near surface contamination from

the WWII bomb decoy areas. However, geotechnical investigations will consider land
quality issues and investigate whether unexploded ordnance is present.
12.6.11 Following mitigation, the effects of site working practices on land quality are not
anticipated to be significant.
Decommissioning
12.6.12 The most likely effects during decommissioning are from spillages and leaks
associated with plant and machinery. Mitigation similar to that implemented during
the construction phase (updated to reflect changes in legislation/guidance) would
ensure that the effects are not significant.
Cumulative effects
12.6.13 There are two wind farms in the vicinity of the proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm
that are relevant to the cumulative assessment for hydrology, hydrogeology and land
quality.
12.6.14 The consented Hazlehead Banks Development is located approximately 1.7km southwest of the Blackstone Edge site. It is in a different surface water catchment to the
proposed Blackstone Edge development, though run-off from the site does eventually
flow into the Don. The second wind farm is at Royd Moor, located approximately
700m to the south east of the Blackstone edge catchment and within the Scout Dyke
catchment. There is potentially an 8 year overlap between these two developments
though construction activities at Blackstone Edge will not overlap with demolition
activities at Royd Moor.
12.6.15 Due to the small size of these sites compared to the catchment as a whole and the fact
that construction and decommissioning activities will not overlap, no adverse
cumulative effect on land quality or the water environment is anticipated.

12.7.1
A summary of the significance evaluation for the hydrology, hydrogeology and land
quality assessment is provided in Table 12.9.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
240
Table 12.9
Type of
effect1
Significance
Blackwater Dyke and downstream surface waterbodies, including Ingbirchworth

Reservoir
Adverse effect on surface water quality from spillages of fuels, oils or

concrete. Appropriate pollution prevention methods will be included in the
construction method statements. Appropriate procedures for the storage of
chemicals and the re-fuelling and maintenance of machinery will be
implemented. Site drainage will not be allowed to directly enter the
Blackwater Dyke.
-ve
NS
Adverse effect on surface water quality from sediment entrained run-off. Site -ve
run-off will not be allowed to directly enter the Blackwater Dyke. Site
drainage will include SUDS techniques.
NS
Adverse effect on surface water quantity due to increase in hardstanding at

the site. Appropriately designed site drainage will encourage the infiltration
of all run-off using infiltration trenches and discharge to vegetated areas.
Hardstanding footprint of proposed development is small.
-ve
NS
Adverse effect on surface water quality arising from ground contamination

should this be encountered during construction. Land quality investigations
will be undertaken prior to commencing the site works. Appropriate control
measures to be put in place during the construction works to handle and
contain contaminated materials (should they be encountered) to prevent
run-off or spreading of contaminants.
-ve
NS
-ve
NS
-ve
NS
-ve
NS
Minor Aquifer in the Sandstone layers of the Lower Coal Measures
Adverse effect on groundwater quality from spillages of fuels, oils or

concrete. Appropriate pollution prevention methods will be included in the
construction method statements. Appropriate procedures for the storage of
chemicals and the re-fuelling and maintenance of machinery will be
implemented and these activities will not take place in areas where the
Sandstone layers are the uppermost strata.
Adverse effect on groundwater quality from the infiltration of sediments

through cracks and fissures. Deep excavations will be kept to a minimum
and broad, rather than deep turbines bases will be used. Run-off will not be
allowed to enter turbine excavations.
Adverse effect on groundwater water quality arising from ground

contamination should this be encountered during construction. Land quality
investigations will be undertaken prior to commencing the site works.
Appropriate control measures to be put in place during the construction
works to handle and contain contaminated materials (should they be
encountered) to prevent run-off or spreading of contaminants.
Structure of soils on site
Adverse effect on soil structure due to slumping of soils around excavations

or compact of soils following site works which would lead to a change in the
run-off recharge characteristics of site. Development is limited in those
areas of the site covered by lower permeability soils. Appropriate guidance
for the storage and handling of soils will be following. Areas of excavation
will be restored and re-vegetated.
Land Quality on site
Adverse effect on land quality as a result of the proposed development. Site

has no evidence of historical industrial use. Geotechnical and land quality
investigations will establish any potential specific mitigation measures
associated with ground contamination (should this be encountered).
Key/footnotes:

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
241
1.Type of effect
-ve = negative
2.
Type of
1
effect
S
+ ve = positive
or
N = Neutral
NS
Significance
Significant
Not-significant
? = unknown
12.8 References
12.8.1
Key references for this chapter can be found in paragraphs 12.2.2 and 12.2.3.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
242

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
243
13. Shadow Flicker

13.1 Introduction
13.1.1
This chapter presents an assessment of the potential shadow flicker effects on local
residential properties as a result of the operation of the proposed Blackstone Edge
Wind Farm.
13.1.2
The chapter has been prepared by Jenny Gascoigne with site assessments undertaken
by Mark Reynolds and Clare Horner, Entec UK Ltd.
13.2 Context
Site context
13.2.1 The site is located in a rural area of South Yorkshire; the nearest settlement is Crow
Edge which lies approximately 1.7km to the south west of the site. The nearest
properties to the Blackstone Edge site are New Maythorn (approximately 640m from
the site), Lower Maythorn (approximately 800m from the site) and Spicer House
(approximately 700m from the site).
Policy context
13.2.2 In 2004, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published Planning for Renewable
Energy, A Companion Guide to PPS22 to provide practical guidance on the
implementation of Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy.
13.2.3
The Companion Guide refers to shadow flicker in relation to wind turbines and states
the following:
Although problems caused by shadow flicker are rare, for sites where
existing development may be subject to this problem, applicants for planning
permission for wind turbine installations should provide an analysis to
quantify the effect.
13.2.4
With respect to the distance over which this effect should be considered, the
companion guide states:
Flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of
a turbine.
13.3 Methodology
13.3.1
Shadow flicker may occur under certain combinations of geographical position and
time of day, when the sun passes behind the rotors of a wind turbine and casts a
shadow over neighbouring properties. As the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and
off, an effect known as shadow flicker. The effect only occurs inside buildings, where
the flicker appears through a window opening.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
244
13.3.2
The purpose of this assessment was to identify whether shadow flicker was likely to
occur at any neighbouring properties, and if so to predict approximate times of day
and year, and duration of these effects.
13.3.3
The assessment includes all properties within ten rotor diameters (820m) of the wind
turbines and within approximately 130 degrees of either side of north from the turbine
positions (see Figure 13.1).
13.3.4
The assessment has been undertaken on a predominantly desk-based basis, with

assumptions made about the location and sizes of windows for individual properties.
These have been confirmed, as far as was reasonably practical, during a site visit,
although it was not possible to gain access to the properties or see whether windows
were present on all facing walls.
13.3.5
The shadow flicker effects have been calculated using ReSoft WindFarm software.
This software calculates times throughout a year when a turbine rotor viewed from the
window of a house is in line with the sun and therefore the potential for shadow flicker
exists, by modelling the location of the wind turbines and residential properties
relative to the suns position. The following factors are taken into account in the
calculation:
Turbine locations, rotor diameter and hub height;
Topography;
Locations of residential properties;
Position, size and orientation of windows on buildings;
Latitude and Longitude of the proposed site (used in calculating the position of
sun);
13.3.6
The software calculates the dates and times when the shadow of a wind turbines rotor
will fall onto a window. The following worst-case assumptions are made throughout
the calculation:
Weather conditions are such that shadows are always cast (i.e. bright/clear/sunny at
all times of day and throughout the year); and
Turbine is facing directly towards receptor at all times, therefore the cast shadow is
its maximum possible size.
Baseline studies
13.3.7 Baseline conditions were established through desk-based examination of Ordnance
Survey mapping at scales of 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 and a site visit.
Scope of study
Approach to scoping
13.3.8 The scope of this assessment is restricted to properties within 10 rotor diameters of the
turbines (820m) in accordance with PPS22 companion guide.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
245

13.3.9 Shadow flicker can be a nuisance to residential amenity where people are sitting
within the rooms affected by the phenomenon. In order to quantify this effect, it is
possible to calculate the number of hours per year that shadow flicker may occur at a
dwelling. The approach and results from such an assessment for Blackstone Edge
Wind Farm are presented in this Chapter.
13.3.10 The flickering effect caused by shadow flicker has been associated with the potential
to induce epileptic seizures, through a condition known as photosensitive epilepsy.
Around one in two hundred people in the UK have epilepsy although only 3-5% of
these suffer from photosensitive epilepsy (National Society for Epilepsy, 2002).
13.3.11 The frequency at which photosensitive epilepsy might be triggered varies from person
to person. Generally, it is between 5 and 30 flashes per second (Hertz). While some
people are sensitive at higher frequencies, it is uncommon to have photosensitivity
below 5 Hertz (National Society for Epilepsy, 2002).
13.3.12 The turbines on the proposed wind farm will operate at around 6 to 20 revolutions per
minute (RPM). Given the turbines will have three blades, the frequency at which a
blade will pass a particular point will be in the order of between 18 and 60 times a
minute which equates to between 0.3 and 1.0 Hertz. This is much less than the 5 - 30
Hertz frequency range generally thought to induce photosensitive epilepsy. Therefore
the issue of photosensitivity epilepsy is not considered further in this assessment.
13.3.13 Whilst the time and duration of shadow flicker events can be predicted accurately, the
level of the effect is difficult to quantify as this will depend on the location of
windows within a property, the use of the rooms affected, the level of shading
surrounding the property and how susceptible the receptor is to light flicker. There is
no UK guidance on a limit for Shadow Flicker.
13.3.14 Evaluation of effects will be based on the frequency, timing and duration of events,
and whether these are considered likely to impact on the amenity of the occupants.

13.4.1
Four properties have been identified within the assessment area, these are identified in
Table 13.1.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
246
Table 13.1
Shadow Flicker Sensitive Receptors
Name
Easting
Northing
Distance/
Direction to
Nearest
Turbine
Description/Use
Lower
Maythorn
418740
405595
816m to the
west of turbine
2
Residential property and

agricultural buildings.
Property sits at a lower
elevation to the proposed site
and orientated on an east to
west axis.
New Maythorn
418913
405463
616m to the
west of turbine
2
New residential property

(single storey) with direct
views towards the proposed
turbines.
Browns Edge
Farm
420430
405748
787m to the
north-east of
turbine 3
Residential property.
Orientated on a north-east to
south-west axis. No windows
in the gable end walls.
Spicer House
420472
405580
715m to the
north-east of
turbine 3
Residential property and

agricultural buildings.
Orientated on a north-west to
south-east axis. Windows
face the road to the front and
are assumed to face the
proposed site to the rear.
13.4.2
Based on the findings of the site assessment, Browns Edge Farm and Lower
Maythorn do not have any windows which would be orientated towards the wind
turbines.
13.4.3
Spicer House is orientated on a north-west to south-east axis. It was not possible to

gain access to the rear of the property (overlooking the proposed site). For the
purpose of this assessment it is assumed that Spicer House has windows which are
orientated directly towards the proposed turbines.
13.4.4
Four windows at the New Maythorn property face the proposed windfarm; these are
all located at ground level. A formal survey was not undertaken, but typical
dimensions have been assumed.
Table 13.2
Name
Facing
Walls
Windows
Direction of
View
Width
(m)
Depth
(m)
New Maythorn
South-east
4 windows
observed
during site visit
135
Spicer House
South-west
Windows are
assumed
given the
orientation of
250

final issued.doc
19569
Height
(m)
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
247
Name
Facing
Walls
Windows
Direction of
View
Width
(m)
Depth
(m)
Height
(m)
the property,
one upstairs
and one down
of equal size.
13.4.5
Shadow flicker effects would occur only during the operation of the proposed wind
farm.
13.4.6
Results of the shadow flicker calculation have been produced as a summary of events
at Spicer House and New Maythorn.
13.4.7
Table 13.3 indicates the days in the year and times of day when potential interference
from shadow flicker is likely to occur. Given the locations and orientations of
properties in the area, shadow flicker events are only anticipated at Spicer House and
New Maythorn.
Table 13.3
Predicted Shadow Flicker events
House
Days per
year
Max
minutes per
day
Mean
minutes per
day
Period
during
which
effects may
occur
Time at
which
effects
occur
Turbine ID
causing
effect
Spicer House
21
29
23
Feb
16:00 16:30
Spicer House
21
29
23
Oct - Nov
15:30 - 16:00
New Maythorn
18
30
25
Jan March
07:20 07:50
New Maythorn
20
32
25
April May
05:40 06:15
New Maythorn
20
32
25
Aug Sept
05:40 06:15
New Maythorn
18
30
25
October
07:00 07:25
13.4.8
Shadow flicker events at Spicer House could occur on a maximum of 42 days of the
year during late afternoons in February and from late September to early November.
A maximum of 16.5hrs of shadow flicker would be experienced over the course of a
year.
13.4.9
Shadow flicker events at New Maythorn could occur on a maximum of 83 days of the
year during early mornings from late January to early March, mid April to mid May,
mid August to mid September and October. No affects are anticipated after 08:00. A
maximum of 33hrs of shadow flicker would be experienced over the course of a year.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
248
13.4.10 The actual occurrence of shadow flicker will be reduced by a number of factors
including cloud cover, shading of the affected windows by buildings and vegetation,
periods when the turbines are not turning and orientation of the hub and rotors. The
calculated values represent a theoretical worst-case scenario and it is unlikely the
situation would occur this way in practice.
Information Gaps
13.4.11 In the absence of more detailed information, two large (2m x 2m) windows have been
assumed at Spicer House orientated towards the proposed Wind Farm.

13.5.1
As the occurrence of shadow flicker will be reduced in practice by a number of

factors, including cloud cover, times when turbines are not turning, orientation of the
hub and rotors, no mitigation in any initial form is proposed, as the calculated values
represent a theoretical worst-case scenario and it is unlikely the situation would occur
this way in practice, if at all. The situation will be kept under review by the Applicant
during operation of the wind farm in case particular instances of shadow flicker arise.
13.5.2
Should shadow flicker present a problem following commissioning of the turbines, a

more detailed assessment can be carried out to predict the exact time of day and
conditions during which the phenomenon could occur. This information would then
be used to inform the detailed design of mitigation measures. There are various
effective mitigation options available to rectify problems. These include, for example,
fitting shutters or curtains to windows and planting or constructing garden screening.
Because the calculations for indicating theoretical shadow flicker incidence provide
very accurate predictions of the potential times of day and dates during the year when
it may occur this information can also be used to control a problematic turbine at
specific times where the sun is deemed bright enough to cast nuisance shadows. A
solar sensor may be fitted on the turbine to monitor the light intensity to facilitate this
function. A planning condition may provide a final form of mitigation to ensure that
the rectification of any shadow flicker problem will be implemented promptly and
effectively.

13.6.1
Worst-case scenario predictions indicate that shadow flicker may occur at New
Maythorn and Spicer House. The maximum duration of any shadow flicker events in
a particular room with a window directly facing the proposed site is 32 minutes in any
day.
13.6.2
The situation will be kept under constant review by the Applicant, and should any
instances of shadow flicker causing an effect on amenity be reported controls would
be implemented to fully mitigate the effects. Thus, there are no residual effects
predicted.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
249

13.7.1
Under worse case and unrealistic conditions, shadow flicker events at New Maythorn
could occur on a maximum of 83 days per year for up to 32 minutes in any day; and at
Spicer House on a maximum of 42 days per year for up to 29 minutes in any day.
13.7.2
Given the short duration of each event, and the limited frequency of events throughout
the year, the effects are judged to be not significant. Should any instances of shadow
flicker causing an effect on amenity be reported, controls would be implemented to
fully mitigate the effects.
13.7.3
A summary of the significance evaluation for the shadow flicker assessment is

provided in Table 13.4.
Table 13.4
Summary of significance of residual effects
Receptor and summary of predicted residual

effects
Type of effect
Significance
New Maythorn
-ve
NS
Spicer House
-ve
NS
Key/footnotes:
1.Type of effect
-ve = negative
2.
+ ve = positive
or
N = Neutral
NS
Significant
Not-significant
? = unknown
13.8 References
Planning Policy Statement 22: Companion Guide.
National Society for Epilepsy (2002) Information on Epilepsy: Photosensitive Epilepsy [online].
http://www.epilepsynse.org.uk (last accessed 15/12/06).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
250

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
251
14. Infrastructure, Telecommunication,

Television, Aviation, Public Safety
14.1 Introduction
14.1.1
This chapter has been prepared by Angela Jones of Entec UK Ltd (AIEMA, MSc
Pollution and Environmental Control), and assesses the potential effects on
infrastructure, telecommunications, aviation and public safety as a result of the
construction (including demolition activities) and operation of the proposed
Blackstone Edge wind farm development.
14.2 Context
Site context
14.2.1 The site is located in a rural area within South Yorkshire, approximately 15km to the
west of Barnsley, 7km south-east of Holmfirth and approximately 1km to the north
east of the village of Crow Edge. The nearest road is Whitley Road that runs parallel
to the sites western boundary.
Policy context
National
14.2.2 PPS 22 Renewable Energy
Regional and local
14.2.3 There are no planning policies at the regional or local level that specifically relate to
this assessment.
Legislative context
14.2.4 There is no legislative context that is relevant to this assessment.
14.3 Methodology
Scope of study
14.3.1 The following effects have been scoped-in.
Potential effect on amenity caused by a change in television reception as a result of
the operational turbines.
Potential effects on people associated with public safety as a result of construction
activities and also during the operational phase of the development.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
252
Potential effects on aviation functioning caused by interference with radar and

other relevant communication links as a result of the operational turbines.
Potential effect on infrastructure caused by direct, physical disruption during the
construction period. There is no infrastructure within the vicinity of the site that
could be affected by the development (see Table 14.1).
Potential effects on the activities of the Huddersfield & District Model Aircraft
Club. The Club operates on an area of land known as the Whams, which is
located about 230m north of the proposed wind turbine no. 2 (see Figure 1.2). The
Huddersfield & District Model Aircraft Club expressed concerns that this wind
turbine will affect their activities. E.ON have considered the possibility of moving
the wind turbine but it was concluded that this was not possible due to
noise/residential amenity constraints. E.ON UK and the Club have identified a
mutually satisfactory solution that will enable the model aircraft flying activities to
co-exist with the existence of the wind turbines. Based on this, the potential effects
of the development on model aircraft flying activity have been scoped-out.
14.3.3 The assessment presented in this chapter is based upon consultation with a number of
organisations known to have an interest in telecommunications, television, aviation,
safety and infrastructure in the area. Consultees for transmission interference were
determined following the process described in the PPS 22 Companion Guide.

14.4.1
Table 14.1 presents a list of all consultees contacted as part of this assessment, and
provides a summary of initial responses.
Table 14.1
Consultee responses
Consultee
Date (s)
Consulted
Date (s)
Responded
Response
Telecommunications and infrastructure

Arqiva
20/12/2005
22/12/2005 (by
email)
Arqiva had no objections to the proposed

development.
BT
20/12/2005
21/12/2005
BT raised no objections.
Cable & Wireless
20/12/2005
04/01/2006
Cable & Wireless had no objections to the proposed

development.
CSS Spectrum
20/12/2005
11/04/2006
CSS Spectrum raised no objections to the proposal.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
253
Consultee responses
Consultee
Date (s)
Consulted
Date (s)
Responded
Response
JRC
20/12/2005
19/01/2006 by
email)
Link coordinates were provided. The proposal is

unlikely to affect any links, but if the turbines move
more than 200 metres from the initial layout, JRC will
need to be informed.
National Grid Wireless
20/12/2005
21/12/2005 (by
email)
The proposed site falls in an area for which Arqiva has

responsibility.
Ofcom
20/12/2005
31/12/2005 (by
email)
Ofcom responded with a letter identifying a BT link

that may be affected by the proposal.
Orange
20/12/2005
19/01/2006 (by
email)
Orange had no objections.
T Mobile
20/12/2005
04/01/2006 (by
email)
T Mobile had no objections.
Civil Aviation Authority

(CAA)
30/11/2005
18/01/2006 (by
letter)
The CAA had no objections.
National Air Traffic

Services (NATS)
30/11/2005
01/05/2007
Pre-planning assessment identified a potential

detrimental effect on the performance of Claxby radar.
Aviation Safety
A study undertaken by Pager Power Ltd concluded

there is a low risk of NATS/NERL objecting to the
proposal. The Pager Power Study is provided in
Appendix E.
Military Aviation Safety
Ministry of Defence
30/11/2005
30/3/2006 (by
letter)
The MoD had no concerns with the proposal (3

turbines, 122 metres to blade tip) but any changes
would require them to be notified.
31/01/2006
31/01/2006 (by
email)
The development is likely to have a potential impact

for 227 houses for which there is no alternative off air
service. An additional 24 homes may also be affected
for whom there may be alternative off air services.
Television
BBC
14.4.2
There are no telecommunications or infrastructure constraints known of in the area.

However, the development may potentially affect the Claxby radar and there are a
number of residential properties for whom television reception may be affected.
14.4.3
Residential properties around the site (see Appendix F for further details) are served
(location dependent) by the following analogue television transmitting stations:
BBC1, BBC2, ITV1 and Channel 4 from the Belmont transmitter (NGR: TF
218836);
BBC1, BBC2, ITV1 and Channel 4 and Five from the Emley Moor transmitter
(NGR: SE 222 128); and

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
254
BBC1, BBC2, ITV1 and Channel 4 from the Millhouse Green transmitter (NGR:
SE 229 028).
14.4.4
The area is also served (location dependent) by Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT)
services from the same transmitting sites at Belmont and Emley Moor.
14.4.5
Approximately 10 - 15% of households in the area surrounding the site (see Appendix
G for details of the area considered) have satellite-receiving equipment in place.
14.4.6
The nearest road to the site is Whitley Road, which runs adjacent to the western
boundary of the site (see Figure 1.2). There are no footpaths or Public Rights of Way
within the immediate surrounds of the site (see Figure 11.1). However, there is a
bridleway to the south east of the site, which runs off Whitley Road in a south east
direction towards The Lanes.

14.4.7 It is anticipated that nationally, air traffic movements will increase over the 25 year
operational period of the wind farm, based on the forecast increase in passenger
numbers over future years (Department for Transport, 2003).
14.4.8
During 2011 the Belmont and Emley Moor transmitting sites are expected to cease
analogue television transmissions and be converted to DTT only, in line with the UK
schedule for Digital Television Switchover.
Information gaps
14.4.9 There are no information gaps relevant to this assessment.

Public safety
14.5.1 A safety buffer has been applied around roads and bridleways that is based on the
topple distance of a wind turbine (the height of the turbine is 101m from base to blade
tip) plus an additional safety margin of 10%. Overall there will be a buffer of 115m
from all roads and bridleways (there are no footpaths or Public Rights of Way within
the immediate surrounds of the site that could be affected by the development and
hence for which a buffer zone is required). No turbines are located within the buffer
area.
14.5.2
During the construction phase of the proposed development, the relevant statutory
requirements would be adhered to. All potentially hazardous areas such as
excavations and electrical installation works would be fenced off and all unattended
machinery would be stored in the site compound or immobilised to prevent
unauthorised use. Appropriate signage would be provided to indicate any hazards,
areas to avoid or that are barred from entry.
14.5.3
After completion of construction works and commissioning of the wind farm, the
wind turbines and access tracks will be accessible to visitors and stock will be able to
graze close up to the turbine tower bases.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
255
14.5.4
Wind farms have a proven track record for safety. A very small number of wind
turbines have been known to lose parts of the rotor assembly through accidental
damage due to lightning or mechanical failure. Such incidents are very rare. As with
any tall structure, wind turbines can be susceptible to lightning strike and appropriate
measures are included in the turbine design to conduct lightning strike down to earth
and minimise the risk of damage to turbines. Occasionally however, lightning can
strike and damage a wind turbine blade. Modern wind turbine blades are
manufactured from a glass-fibre or wood-epoxy composite in a mould, such that the
reinforcement runs predominantly along the length of the blade. This means that
blades will usually stay attached to the turbine if damaged by lightning. In all cases,
the turbine will automatically shut down if damaged by lightning.
14.5.5
In cold weather, ice can build up on blade surfaces when operating. The turbine can
continue to operate with a very thin accumulation of snow or ice, but will shut down
automatically as soon as there is a sufficient build up to cause aerodynamic or physical
imbalance of the rotor assembly. Once the ice has thawed and the turbine re-starts in
circumstances such as this there is a slight possibility that fragments of ice or snow
will be released from the rotor and will drop within close vicinity of the turbine. The
risk to public safety is considered extremely low due to the initial slow rotational
speed of the rotor and because such fragments are sufficiently small and lightweight to
allow the rotor assembly to be back in balance before restarting. Within the final
proposal layout, the nearest turbine is 300m from the bridleway to the south east of the
site, the remaining wind turbines are more than 300m from bridleways and other
public rights of way. The nearest wind turbine to Whitley Road is located at a
distance of 115m.
14.5.6
Turbine control and monitoring systems operate with several levels of redundancy to
protect the plant from damage. In the case of faults arising, including over-speed of
the blades, overpower production, or loss of grid connection, turbines shut down
automatically through braking mechanisms. In addition, turbines are fitted with
vibration sensors so that if, in the unlikely event a blade is damaged, the turbine will
automatically and immediately shut down.
14.5.7
The operation of the proposed wind farm would comply with relevant health and
safety regulations. Appropriate warning signage would be installed concerning
restricted areas such as transformers, switchgear and metering systems and to alert
users of public rights of way to potential increased risks under certain meteorological
and operating conditions. Wind turbines installed at the Development Site would
comply with BS EN 61400-1: 1995 Wind turbine generator systems - safety
requirements.
Television
14.5.8 It is known that wind farms have the potential to adversely affect terrestrial reception
up to a maximum distance of 5km (BBC et al.1999). As there are a significant
number of dwellings within 5km of the development site, this is a matter for further
consideration.
14.5.9
All television signals are transmitted using UHF. There are two main mechanisms
whereby a wind farm could potentially interfere with television reception. These are
shadowing effects and reflection/scattering effects.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
256
14.5.10 Just as a solid object causes a shadow to develop in the visible spectrum, a similar
effect can occur in the UHF spectrum. If an object is placed between a TV transmitter
and a receiver, a shadow zone may develop whereby there is a reduction in signal
strength, which may reduce picture and audio quality. In relation to a wind turbine,
the size of the shadow is dependent on the blade orientation and is greatest when the
axis of the rotor is in line with the direction of the transmitted signal. The signal
strength within a shadow caused by a turbine will vary in a cyclic manner related to
the rotor frequency, though will decrease in overall effect with distance.
14.5.11 When a transmitted television signal is incident upon a static or moving wind turbine,
there is the potential for the signal to be scattered, i.e. reflected. If a receiver then
picks up a scattered signal, a time delay would have occurred between the originally
received signal and the scattered signal (i.e. it would have travelled a longer path).
This can cause a reduction in picture quality through a phenomenon known as
ghosting for analogue receivers. This is less likely to occur with digital receivers,
which are more robust.
14.5.12 When several turbines are sited in close proximity, the interactions of these
interference mechanisms are complex and difficult to predict. There are, however,
several ways that any potential problems can be mitigated.
14.5.13 The BBC et al. (1999) recommend that turbines should be sited at least 500m away
from a viewer. This will help reduce the likelihood and severity of any interference.
Design iteration has ensured that a maximum distance between turbines and
residential dwellings was applied wherever possible.
14.5.14 Impaired viewing quality can be improved by considering each or a combination of
the following mitigation techniques:
replace the receiving aerials for affected households;
re-tune the television receivers at affected households;
provision of digital television for affected households (this could be achieved by
terrestrial, cable or satellite receivers); and
provision of a bespoke self-help solution (this could comprise a new low powered
transmitter, a cable network, a satellite receiver or a combination of these
measures).

Public Safety
14.6.1 The proposed wind farm has been designed to take account of public safety constraints
and as such there are not considered to be any significant effects related to public
safety.
Aviation
14.6.2 The National Air Traffic Services identified a possible effect on the performance of
Claxby radar and as a result of this E.ON UK appointed Pager Power Ltd, a
consultancy that specialises in aviation and communication studies for wind farms, to

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
257
further investigate the potential effect. The study undertaken by Pager Power
considered the likely operational effects of the proposed wind farm, including a
cumulative assessment of operational and consented wind farms, on the provision of
en-route air traffic services from National Air Traffic Services (NATS) En-Route plc
(NERL). An analysis of significant airspace in the vicinity of the site was conducted
and an assessment made of En-Route plcs (NERL) likely concerns. An estimation
was provided regarding the likelihood of a sustained NERL objection. Following the
full technical and operational assessment undertaken by Pager Power they advised that
that there is a low risk of NATS/NERL objecting to a wind farm at this
location. Hence there are not considered to be any significant effects associated
with aviation. Pager Powers study is provided in Appendix E.
Television
14.6.3 A desktop study and field survey has been undertaken by National Grid Wireless in
May 2007 to assess the possible effects on television services in the area around the
proposed wind farm (the National Grid Wireless study is provided in Appendix F).
The results of this study concluded that the existing wind turbines at Royd Moor have
had no reported effects on television reception in the surrounding area and no adverse
findings were identified during the survey. The Blackstone Edge Wind Farm is
considered unlikely to give rise to any new adverse effects, including cumulative
effects with the consented Hazlehead wind farm at Crow Edge. Therefore the
potential effects of the proposed wind farm on television reception in the surrounding
area are not considered to be significant.

14.7.1
A summary of the significance evaluation for the telecommunications, infrastructure,

aviation and public safety assessment is provided in Table 14.2.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
258
Table 14.2
Type of effect1
Significance
Potential effects on people associated with public

safety as a result of construction activities and also
during the operational phase of the development. The
development has been designed to take account of
public safety and as such there are considered to be
no residual significant effects.
-ve
NS
Potential effects on Claxby radar arising from

operation of the proposed wind turbines. A study
provided by Pager Power Limited concludes that the
risk of a sustained objection from NATS/NERL is
considered to be low.
-ve
NS
Potential effect on amenity caused by a change in

television reception as a result of the operational
turbines. Based on a survey undertaken by National
Grid Wireless in May 2007 it is considered unlikely that
the proposal will have any adverse effects on
television reception in the surrounding area.
-ve
NS
Key/footnotes:
1.Type of effect
-ve = negative
2.
+ ve = positive
or
N = Neutral
NS
Significant
Not-significant
? = unknown
14.8 References
BBC, Radiocommunications Agency and Independent Television Commission, ca1999. The
Impact of Large Buildings and Structure(s) on Terrestrial Television Reception.
Department for Transport (2000) Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom [online]. URL:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_503314.hcsp
Planning Policy Statement 22: A Companion Guide.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
259
15. Summary
15.1.1
This summary presents the results of the Environmental Impact Assessment that has
been undertaken to determine how the proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm would
affect the environment. The following sections of this summary describe:
the proposed development;
the EIA process;
the existing environment in and around the site of the proposed Blackstone Edge
Wind Farm development; and
the likely significant effects of the development.
15.2 The Proposed Development

15.2.1
The proposed development is submitted on behalf of E.ON UK plc and is for a

proposed wind farm at Blackstone Edge, Barnsley, South Yorkshire.
15.2.2
The site location and layout is shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. The wind farm will
include 3, three-bladed wind turbines with a rated output of approximately 2MW each.
The turbines will have a hub-height of upto 60m and a blade length of approximately
41m. The turbines will be restricted to a maximum height of 101m from ground to
blade tip.
15.2.3
The proposed access route for the project is off either Junction 35A or 36 of the M1
then continuing along the A61, the A616, the A628, Royd Lane and Whitley Road.
15.2.4
In addition to the wind turbines, associated infrastructure will include:

an anemometry mast;
an operations control building;
underground power cables;
upgraded and new-build access tracks; and
a temporary construction compound.
15.3 The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process

15.3.1
EIA is a process that involves collecting information about the existing environment
likely to be affected by a proposed development. This information gathering and the
subsequent assessment of how the development interacts with the environment focuses
on any effects that are likely to be significant. The assessment of effects is undertaken
in an impartial manner and the findings are presented in a systematic way in the ES,
which will be used by the Local Planning Authority (Barnsley Metropolitan Borough
Council) to inform its decision about whether or not the development should be

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
260
allowed to proceed. This Environmental Statement has been prepared by Entec UK

Ltd, an independent environmental consultancy.
15.3.2
Extensive scoping and consultation (including public consultation) have been

undertaken throughout the development of the site design. A Scoping Report was
submitted on 03 November 2006 with a request for a formal Scoping Opinion from
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
issued a formal Scoping Opinion on 11 December 2006. A wide range of statutory
and non-statutory organisations were consulted prior to and after submission of the
Scoping Report in order to gain agreement from all key parties regarding the proposed
EIA methodology and to invite comments on relevant environmental information.
15.3.3
The potential significant effects identified during the scoping exercise were then
subject to detailed assessment, using methodologies appropriate to the different
environmental topics that need to be considered as part of an EIA. These
methodologies were based on recognised good practice. The environmental topics
considered in the ES are:
Noise;
Landscape and visual;
Ecology;
Archaeology and Cultural heritage;
Traffic and Transport;
Socio-economics;
Hydrogeology and Hydrology;
Shadow Flicker; and
Infrastructure, Telecommunication, Television, Aviation and Public Safety.
15.3.4
The assessments have been undertaken in relation to the baseline environmental

conditions that would be expected at the time of construction and operation, in the
event that the proposed development was not to go ahead. Thus existing baseline
conditions have been extrapolated in order to reflect the planned development
programme. In this case the baseline conditions have been extrapolated for 2009 and
beyond as this is the point at which works are due to begin.
15.3.5
The findings of the assessment are intended to assist Barnsley Metropolitan Borough
Council, those that it consults and other stakeholders, in coming to a view about
whether or not, and how, the proposed development should proceed. This decisionmaking is in itself part of the EIA process.
15.4 General Description of the Existing Environment

15.4.1
The development is located on cultivated, agricultural land. There are no statutory

designations within the site. The Blackstone Edge site lies within upland farmland,
within the Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe, between the moorland of the Peak

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
261
District and the settlement/urban fringe areas of Barnsley and Huddersfield and the
former coalfield areas to the north east and south east. Generally the landscape can be
described as transitional between the strong valleys and the pastoral Pennine and High
Peak foothills and hill plateaux. The landscape appears to be remote in character, with
scattered farmsteads and hamlets, but towns are also in close proximity, with long
views to the urban areas across the plateaux.
15.5 Noise and vibration

15.5.1
Noise can have an effect on the environment and on the quality of life enjoyed by
individuals and communities.
15.5.2
It is anticipated that the overall duration of the construction stage would last up to 6 9 months. The restriction of working hours is proposed to address construction noise,
which may be perceptible at the closest residential properties. However, by using
modern silenced equipment and in combination with the distances between the
properties and the expected construction activities, calculations indicate that it is
unlikely that construction noise would breach guideline limits and this indicates an
acceptable level of construction noise. It is therefore judged not to be significant.
Forecast traffic levels during the construction period are relatively low, and the
associated change in traffic noise along the main routes to site are also not considered
significant.
15.5.3
It is assumed that decommissioning noise will be generally less or similar to that

experienced during the construction period. It can therefore be assumed that noise
relating to the decommissioning of the wind farm may also be perceptible, but will
again be limited by restricting working hours and transport routes.
15.5.4
Careful attention to the number and layout of turbines, taking account of existing
background noise levels that were measured at representative properties, has
established a scheme that achieves compliance with government guidelines. Even
where noise may be discernible under certain conditions, it is judged to be acceptable
and not significant. A number of alternative turbine models exist for the site, however
the manufacturer of the turbine selected for this site will be required to guarantee that
noise emission levels from turbines installed on the site comply with those used in this
assessment. The operator of the wind farm will be required to comply with the noise
levels which have been established by condition attached to the grant of any planning
permission.
15.6 Landscape and visual

Introduction
15.6.1 The methodology for the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) accords
with the guidelines set out in The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment, Second Edition (Landscape Institute and IEMA, 2002). Consultation
was conducted with representatives from Barnsley MBC, the Peak District National
Park Authority, Natural England, CPRE and neighbouring local planning authorities to
discuss and agree the scope of the assessment, choice of assessment viewpoints,
design options and mitigation.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
262
15.6.2
The study area for Blackstone Edge Wind Farm includes parts of a number of local
planning authorities within the agreed 10km radius study area. The Yorkshire
Southern Pennine Fringe (LCA) is representative of approximately one half of the
study area, with the distinctive Dark Peak (PDNP) dominating the horizon to the
south.
15.6.3
Notable designated landscapes within the study area include the Area of Borough
Landscape Value in Barnsley District and the Peak District National Park. Local
recreational and tourist destinations include the Trans Pennine Trail, national and
regional cycle routes and local public footpaths and promoted walks.
Site Design
15.6.4 The proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm consists of a single group of 3 turbines,
located in direct response to the technical, environmental and the landscape and visual
characteristics of the site area. The LVIA has been based on a three blade horizontal
axis machine with a rotor diameter of upto 82m, a hub height of upto 60m and a total
maximum blade tip height of 101m.
15.6.5
The site is located within a medium - large scale landscape, within the Yorkshire
Southern Pennine Fringe LCA which has an identified capacity for wind farm
development, with the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm and the consented Hazelhead
Wind Farm scheme as an accepted wind farm development within the landscape. As a
result, the site area has a low likelihood of significant landscape effects on landscape
character and landscape elements and is broadly homogenous in terms of landscape
character and sensitivity. There is no predicted loss of valuable landscape features, but
there is opportunity to enhance and conserve the existing landscape features of the
site, which are characteristic of the landscape character, through mitigation works.
15.6.6 Landscape effects include the effect on landscape receptors such as landscape
elements and features, as well as the effects upon the general landscape character and
its quality or condition and value. The effects of the wind farm may be positive or
adverse and may vary in their duration from temporary to permanent.
15.6.7
The Blackstone Edge Wind Farm lies within the Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe
LCA. Within this LCA there are variations within local characteristics and landscape
quality. At a local level the site lies within the Ingbirchworth Upland Farming LLCA
which is described as being of medium sensitivity overall being locally designated as
an Area of Borough Landscape Value.
15.6.8
would not lead to the loss of landscape character or elements within the PDNP, and
would neither add a new feature or element to the landscape composition, located on
the boundary of the PDNP within an area that is already settled. The Peak District
National Park would not be significantly or adversely affected by the proposed wind
farm at Blackstone Edge.
15.6.9
In conclusion, the wind farm could be accommodated within the scale and character of
the existing landscape alongside the existing and consented turbines, bringing about an
acceptable evolution or change to the landscape. The associated landscape effects
would not have a significant effect within the LCA overall. The assessment considers

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
263
that the landscape has the capacity to accommodate the construction of the proposed
turbines.
Visual Assessment
15.6.10 A viewpoint analysis is conducted from selected viewpoints where the wind farm
would be visible within the study area. The purpose of this is to assess the level of
visual impact at particular receptors (to help guide the assessment of the overall effect
on visual amenity) on areas of particular landscape character or designation within the
study area.
15.6.11 The results of the viewpoint analysis and field surveys indicate that significant visual
effects could potentially occur in limited locations at distances of up to ~2.5km within
the ZTV. This is due in part to the open upland landscape, local settlement pattern,
scattered tree and hedgerow cover and the undulating topography of the area.
15.6.12 Residential amenity can be defined as a collective term describing the views and
general amenity of a residential property, relating to the garden area and main drive,
views to and from the house and the relationship of the outdoor garden space to the
house. Visual effects may not necessarily be adverse, this is a subjective matter.
Consideration is made in the residential assessment of the potential for shadow
casting, view proximity and the percentage of the view occupied by the proposed
turbines from the residential property. There would be significant visual effects on the
overall views and visual amenity experienced by the nearby receptors in residential
properties and settlements within 2.5km of Blackstone Edge, however these effects are
not predicted to be adverse due to the views of the existing turbines visible within the
landscape.
15.6.13 There would be moderate substantial significant visual effects on views experienced
by road users of the A616 road to the west and south of the site. There would be
significant visual effects on those users of the local footpath and bridleways within
2km of the proposed site. However, with increasing distance from the proposed wind
farm, (up to 10km radius), visual effects on those receptors reduce.
Cumulative Landscape & Visual Assessment
15.6.14 The sites most relevant to this assessment are the consented Hazelhead Wind Farm
located ~1.7km south west of Blackstone Edge and the existing Royd Moor Wind
Farm, ~0.7km south east. The proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm and Royd Moor
Wind Farm are closely related on the horizon within the open, upland farmland
landscape of the South Yorkshire Pennine Fringe LCA and Ingbirchworth Upland
Farmland LLCA.
15.6.15 It is predicted that there would be significant static and sequential cumulative visual
effects with Blackstone Edge Wind Farm and the existing and consented turbines
within ~2.5km radius of the proposed site, which would reduce to not significant with
increased distance from the site.
15.6.16 Generally the cumulative visibility within 10km of Blackstone Edge Wind Farm is
likely to be sequential along the recreational and road routes within the area. There is
a predicted sequential and static cumulative visibility from the Trans Pennine Trail /
A628(T) / A629 / A616 roads and the local public footpath / bridleway network, with
potential significant cumulative visual effects when the route passes in close proximity
final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
264
to the site boundary (<2km). This effect reduces to moderate 2 - 5km from the site
and to low beyond ~5km.
15.6.17 Given that the existing turbines at Royd Moor are approaching the end of their
lifespan and will be decommissioned in 2018 at the latest, the cumulative effects of
the Blackstone Edge wind farm will change over time. Therefore the cumulative
assessment presented in the ES has considered the existing Royd Moor wind turbines
and the consented Hazlehead scheme, as this is considered to be the worst-case in
respect of cumulative effects. Following the decommissioning of Royd Moor,
cumulative effects will be less significant than those prior to decommissioning.
Conclusion
15.6.18 In conclusion, the proposed turbines would be located within the Southern Yorkshire
Pennine Fringe open landscape, which has a demonstrated capacity for wind farm
development.
15.6.19 The wind farm would generally be visible from parts of the open, upland farmland and
neighbouring moorland.
15.6.20 Significant cumulative visual effects would be limited to within ~2.5km of the site.
This would include potential significant visual effects on the locally designated
landscape of the Area of Borough Landscape Value and Peak District National Park
areas within 2.5km of the site due to the medium - high sensitivity of the landscape
and visual receptors within the area. These effects would not be adverse because the
proposed turbines would not be new landscape features and they would be viewed
alongside existing turbines.
15.6.21 The proposed turbines would not change the open, agricultural/moorland character of
the views.
15.6.22 The turbines could be accommodated alongside the existing Royd Moor and
consented Hazelhead Wind Farm within the existing scale and character of the
landscape and would bring about an acceptable change or evolution to the landscape
character and general views.
15.7 Ecology
15.7.1
The site is composed of species-poor, improved grassland used for cattle grazing, with
more extensive areas of semi-natural grassland grazed by sheep in the surrounding
landscape. It is not located close to any statutory designated wildlife site, but there are
several non-statutory wildlife sites in the local area (within 2km of the site boundary).
15.7.2
Densities of breeding birds within the site are very low, while the semi-natural
grassland around the site supports moderate densities of bird species typical of semiupland agricultural landscapes. During 108 hrs of Vantage Point surveys, passage rate
of birds across the site was generally low, with Lapwing and Golden Plover the most
frequent of the significant species recorded at turbine height.
15.7.3
Three common bat species were found at the site in small numbers during three
evening bat activity surveys (Common and Soprano Pipistrelles and Noctule). Bat
activity was concentrated along the few hedgerows and tree-lines (i.e. where flying
insects congregate).

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
265
15.7.4
Future baseline conditions are not expected to change significantly if the development
were not to proceed and there are no significant gaps in information regarding the
present distribution of sites, habitats and species of significance.
15.7.5
There are no significant negative effects predicted from the proposed development on
nature conservation, and in fact an overall positive effect is projected. This arises
from a 5,000 contribution to the conservation of lowland heathland in the local area
and the planting of about 800m of species-rich hedgerows on-site.
15.8 Archaeology and cultural heritage

15.8.1
The assessment of cultural heritage effects has involved a desk-based assessment of

the proposed development site, a site walkover survey and a review of all potential
effects on the setting of designated features.
15.8.2
The desk-based assessment involved a review of all relevant and available sources of
information on the nature and extent of any features of cultural heritage interest within
the site. These included existing records of known features, historic maps and aerial
photographs. In addition, a detailed walkover of the site was undertaken in order to
note the current ground conditions and to identify any previously unrecorded visible
features of cultural heritage interest.
15.8.3
The site comprises a series of improved pasture fields enclosed by dry stone walling
and post and wire fencing. Some of the dry stone walling is in a poor condition. This
area was enclosed from Whiteley Common in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
15.8.4
There is a single recorded feature of archaeological interest within the site, which is
the remains of a WWII bombing decoy. This would have included a series of pits and
other structures in which fires would have been lit during bombing raids. The
intention was to confuse bombers and divert them to the decoy and away from their
intended targets. There are no visible remains of the decoy within the site, but the
extent of possible decoy features has been mapped from aerial photographs, and
avoided in the scheme design.
15.8.5
Effects on the settings of scheduled monuments and listed buildings within 5km of the
site boundary have been considered. Following a detailed review in each case, it is
considered that any effects on the settings of these features will be limited in extent,
and will not detract from an appreciation of their architectural or historic importance.
15.9 Traffic and transport

15.9.1
The main transportation effects will be associated with the movements of commercial
Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) to and from the site during the construction phase of
the development.
15.9.2
Traffic flow data was obtained from The Paul Castle Consultancy Ltd for the A628
(Manchester Road) and Royd Lane. The data then had a growth factor applied to
adjust it to the expected values in the year of assessment, 2009.
15.9.3
Estimates of traffic generation associated with the construction phase of the project
have been derived from first-principles. The maximum traffic effect associated with
the construction of the wind farm is predicted to occur in months one and two of the

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
266
construction programme. During these months, an average of 18 two-way trips are

predicted as a worst case on each working day when concrete deliveries do not take
place, or an average of around two HGV per hour arriving and departing the site. Due
to technical limitations it is preferable to pour individual concrete foundations on a
single day. Some 128 two-way trips will be generated on each of the three days when
concrete delivery will take place.
15.9.4
The effect of construction-related traffic has been calculated, in percentage terms,

relative to the background traffic in the year of assessment (2009) and identified an
increase in HGV traffic on Royd Lane of 30% and the A628 of 3.2%. In overall traffic
terms, this equates to an increase of 2.2% and 0.4% respectively. The percentage
impact exercise shows that the maximum impact on Royd Lane during days when
concrete deliveries occur is 213%, and therefore does warrant a detailed assessment of
effects, according to the threshold test recommended by IEMA. As a result an
assessment of effects was conducted for Royd Lane between the A628 (Manchester
Road) and the site. However, it should be emphasised that this constitutes only three
days out of the 6 month construction programme and it is therefore assumed that
effects related to this construction traffic are not significant.
15.9.5
For the remainder of the construction programme, the assessment has concluded that
an additional 18 HGVs per day / one per hour would not have a significant impact on
the traffic and transport related environmental effects identified: i.e. severance, driver
delay, pedestrian delay, pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation and accidents and
safety.
15.9.6
Any disturbance or road safety concerns caused by construction traffic could be

further limited through the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan, and the
delay to other road users is likely to be minimal.
15.9.7
No continued monitoring is generally considered to be necessary. However, it is

recommended that daily inspections take place to confirm that the mitigation measures
implemented on-site, if any, are indeed effective. Corrective action should be taken
where necessary.
15.10 Socio-economics
15.10.1 The potential socio-economic effects of the proposed wind farm on employment and
the economy and tourism have been assessed as part of the EIA. The socio-economic
baseline conditions in the area have been identified following a detailed examination
of relevant information sources. The main findings from the baseline review are
summarised below:
Barnsley MBC has a population of approximately 220,000 of which 72.3 % are of
working age (16-74).
It has an economically active population of 60.5 % and an unemployment rate of
3.9% which unfavourably compares with the national figures of 66.8 % and 3.9 %
respectively.
Skill levels in the area are lower than the region and nationally, with more people
employed in lower skilled professions such as agriculture and construction.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
267
The Peak District National Park is approximately 2 km away and is an important

tourist destination in the region.
15.10.2 Following assessment of the proposed development against the identified issues, it has
been concluded that there is potential for an overall direct positive impact on the local
economy through potential employment opportunities, increased revenues for local
business and the land owner at all stages of the development. It is anticipated that
there will also be positive indirect impacts from the scheme. However whilst of
significant benefit for the individuals and businesses concerned in a wider context
these are not considered to be significant in EIA terms given the scale of the
development. Additionally, the proposed development is considered unlikely to have
any significant effect on tourism.
15.11 Hydrology and hydrogeology

15.11.1 The proposed site is located within the surface water catchment of Ingbirchworth
Reservoir, which is used for public water supply. The site is underlain by the
Carboniferous Lower Coal Measures, comprising interbedded coal measures, shales
and sandstones. Shales and sandstones are both present at surface within the site
boundary. Where sandstones are present at the surface, soils tend to be loamy and
well drained and where shales are present at the surface, soils tend to be clayey, poorly
drained with peaty surface horizons. The sandstone layers have been classified as a
minor aquifer.
15.11.2 Landuse on the site is agricultural, and there is no evidence from historical mapping
that there has been any industrial use of the site. Quarrying has taken place within the
vicinity of the site and an old quarry which has been used as a Category 4 landfill
(licensed to accept material that would not be expected to give rise to landfill gas in
substantial quantities or was exempt from Waste Management Licensing) lies
adjacent to the sites southern boundary. There are areas associated with World War
II bomb decoy features within the site boundary. Mining has taken place underneath
the site at a depth of 145m below ground surface. The closest coal seam to the surface
is at 50m below ground level and so historical surface mining on the site is very
unlikely. A conjectured fault runs in a north westerly direction through the site, to the
west of the turbine locations.
15.11.3 The underlying geology and anticipated hydrogeological regime would suggest that it
is unlikely that landfill leachate or landfill gas would migrate to the location of the
proposed wind turbines and control building.
15.11.4 Mitigation measures for this site have been developed to protect surface and
groundwater quality, surface water quantity and land quality. Measures include the
use of SUDS techniques in the drainage design for the site, including the
encouragement of infiltration rather that run-off through discharge to vegetated areas
or infiltration trenches as appropriate and the lining of access tracks with vegetated
areas for drainage. Storage, maintenance and re-fuelling operations will not take place
on the areas where the sandstone layer is uppermost and construction method
statements will include measures for pollution prevention and control of spillages and
leaks, in line with Environment Agency and CIRIA guidance.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
268
15.11.5 Geotechnical investigations carried out to confirm foundation design will consider
land quality issues and investigate whether unexploded ordnance is present. In the
unlikely event that evidence of ground contamination is encountered during
construction, procedures will be put in place to store potentially affected excavated
materials on impermeable liners in separate covered stockpiles.
15.11.6 Geotechnical site investigations will also ascertain vertical and lateral bearing
capacities of the solid deposits, in the light of recent and historical quarrying and
mining activities.
15.12 Shadow Flicker

15.12.1 Shadow flicker may occur under certain combinations of geographical position and
time of day, when the sun passes behind the rotors of a wind turbine and casts a
shadow over neighbouring properties. As the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and
off, an effect known as shadow flicker. The effect only occurs inside buildings, where
the flicker appears through a window opening. In accordance with the guidance set
out in Planning Policy Statement 22, Companion Guide, shadow flicker effects have
been assessed at properties within 10 rotor diameters (820m) of the proposed turbines.
15.12.2 Four properties have been identified (New Maythorn Farm, Lower Maythorn, Browns
Edge Farm and Spicer House) within this study area. Lower Maythorn and Browns
Edge Farm are orientated such that they do not have any windows which would face
the proposed turbines. Consequently the assessment was restricted to Spicer House
and New Maythorn Farm.
15.12.3 Under the worse case conditions, whereby there are no obstructions between the
receptor and the wind turbines, the sun always shines brightly enough to cast shadows
and the wind turbines always face directly towards the receptor, shadow flicker events
at Spicer House could occur on a maximum of 42 days of the year during late
afternoons in February and from late September to early November. A maximum total
of 16.5hrs of shadow flicker would be experienced over the course of a year.
15.12.4 Shadow flicker events at New Maythorn could occur on a maximum of 83 days of the
year during early mornings from late January to early March, mid April to mid May,
mid August to mid September and October. No affects are anticipated after 08:00. A
maximum of 33hrs of shadow flicker would be experienced over the course of a year.
15.12.5 The actual occurrence of shadow flicker will be reduced by a number of factors
including cloud cover, shading of the affected windows by buildings and vegetation,
periods when the turbines are not turning and orientation of the hub and rotors. The
calculated values represent a theoretical worst-case scenario and it is unlikely the
situation would occur this way in practice.
15.12.6 Given the above factors and the short duration of each event, and the limited
frequency of events throughout the year, the effects described above are judged to be
not significant. Should any instances of shadow flicker causing an effect on amenity
be reported, controls would be implemented to fully mitigate the effects.

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
269
15.13 Telecommunications, Infrastructure, Aviation and

Public Safety
15.13.1 There are no telecommunications or infrastructure constraints known of in the area.
The nearest road to the site is Whitley Road, which runs adjacent to the western
boundary of the site. There are no footpaths or Public Rights of Way within the
immediate surrounds of the site. However, there is a bridleway to the south east of the
site, which runs off Whitley Road in a south east direction towards The Lanes.
15.13.2 The proposed wind farm has been designed to take account of public safety constraints
and as such there are not considered to be any significant effects related to public
safety.
15.13.3 Consultation with National Air Traffic Services (NATS) identified a possible effect on
the performance of the Claxby radar and as a result of the proposed operational
turbines. An aviation and communication study was undertaken by Pager Power Ltd
(an independent consultancy specialising in aviation and communication studies) to
assess the significance of the effect. The study concluded that the risk of a sustained
objection from NATS is considered to be low. As such there are not considered to be
any significant aviation related effects.
15.13.4 A desktop study and field survey has been undertaken by National Grid Wireless to
assess the possible effects on television services in the area around the proposed wind
farm. The results of this study concluded that the existing wind turbines at Royd
Moor have had no reported effects on television reception in the surrounding area and
no adverse findings were identified during the survey. The Blackstone Edge wind
farm is unlikely to give rise to any new adverse effects, including cumulative effects
with the consented Hazlehead wind farm at Crow Edge. Therefore the potential
effects of the proposed wind farm on television reception in the surrounding area are
not considered to be significant.
15.14 Further Information

15.14.1 The Environmental Statement has been placed on deposit at the following addresses
and may be examined by members of the public:-

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
270
Barnsley
Metropolitan Town Hall
Borough Council
Barnsley
South Yorkshire
S70 2TA
15.14.2
Representations on the Environmental Statement should be made to Keith Pell

(Planning Officer) at the above address.
15.14.3
Copies of the Environmental Statement may also be obtained by writing to E.ON at

the following address:Toby Lee
E.ON,
Westwood Way
Westwood Business Park
Coventry CV4 8LG
15.14.4
Copies of the Non Technical Summary can be provided free of charge, however a
discretionary charge of 148 may be requested for each copy of the full
Environmental Statement. Any requests for further information on the proposed
project or information relating to E.ON in general should be made to Toby Lee at
the above address.
15.14.5
Unless otherwise stated, copyright to all diagrams, illustrations and photographs

belong solely to E.ON UK plc and must not be reproduced without written
permission. Certain figures are based upon Ordnance Survey maps, which have
been reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majestys Stationery
Office

final issued.doc
19569
Entec UK Limited
January 2008
www.eon-uk.com
E.ON UK plc Registered office: Westwood Way, Westwood Business Park, Coventry, CV4 8LG
Registered in England and Wales No. 2366970

Blackstone Edge ES Vol 1 - Text 150 Dpi PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Blackstone Edge ES Vol 1 - Text 150 Dpi PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Blackstone Edge Wind Farm

Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice

Third Party Disclaimer

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough

Representations on the Environmental Statement should be made to Keith Pell (Planning

h:\projects\ea-210\19000-projects\19569 - blackstone edge\reporting\es\final es\folder for printers\volume 1 - es\es

The Proposed Development

Structure of the Environmental Statement

Approach to EIA and Project Design

Application of the EIA process including consultation

Preparation of Environmental Statement

The Project Team

Wind Energy Background

Climate change and finite fuel sources

Meeting the energy challenge: a White Paper on energy (May

Climate change targets

Renewable Energy Targets

The Global Growth of Wind Power

The Energy Contribution of Wind Power

The Energy Balance of Wind Turbines

The proposed Blackstone Edge Wind Farm

Specification of wind turbines

h:\projects\ea-210\19000-projects\19569 - blackstone edge\reporting\es\final es\folder for printers\volume 1 - es\es

Access from the Public Highway

The Construction Compound

Climate Monitoring Mast

Site Cable Runs

Pre Construction Works

Construction Programme and Environmental Management

Maintenance and Operation

Planning and Renewables Policy Context

Planning Policy Guidance and Statements

The Development Plan

Regional Planning Policy

Local Planning Policy

Other Material Considerations

Description of Baseline Conditions

Assessment of Potential Effects

Summary of Significance Evaluation

Landscape & Visual Assessment

Methodology & General Approach

h:\projects\ea-210\19000-projects\19569 - blackstone edge\reporting\es\final es\folder for printers\volume 1 - es\es

Scope of the Assessment

Planning Policy Context

Project Description & Mitigation, Incorporated in the

Description of Baseline Conditions

Assessment of Potential Landscape Effects

Assessment of Potential Visual Effects

Cumulative Visual Effects and Assessment

Description of baseline conditions

Mitigation, offsetting and enhancement measures

Assessment of potential effects

Summary of significance evaluation

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Description of baseline conditions

Mitigation, offsetting and enhancement measures

Assessment of potential effects

Summary of significance evaluation

10. Traffic and Transport

Description of baseline conditions

h:\projects\ea-210\19000-projects\19569 - blackstone edge\reporting\es\final es\folder for printers\volume 1 - es\es

Mitigation, offsetting and enhancement measures