This guidance provides a framework to ensure that applications for wind turbines across the District
are dealt with consistently taking into account local and national policy and guidance.
It should be emphasised that the guidance does not create any new policy. It lays out the policy
considerations that need to be taken into account and provides additional interpretation where
necessary. The guidance applies to all applications for turbines regardless of size and / or number. It
should be noted that all existing wind turbine applications should be determined by the Planning
and Highways Committee. New applications should also be determined by committee unless officers
decide they should be refused.
The guidance includes:











1.
A review of national policy and guidance considerations, including the significant changes to
national planning policy introduced by the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) published
on 18 June 2015. The guidance lays out the critical importance of this WMS and explains
how it should be considered when determining applications
A review of local policy considerations
Details of consultation that needs to be carried out with local communities before a planning
application can be submitted by the applicant and validated by the Council
Green Belt policy interpretation
An analysis of the key areas of constraint and sensitivity with regard to turbines in the
District
Details on the status of targets for renewable energy generation at national and local levels
More detailed interpretation of the provisions of adopted Core Strategy policy CS13:
Mitigating & Adapting to Climate Change and Efficient Use of Resources with regard to
‘adverse environmental impact’
A discussion around the average energy output that can be expected from different sizes of
turbines because this can be an important consideration when considering the acceptability
of a proposal
Advice on how to use national guidance to assess cumulative and visual impacts
Advice on which policies to use to assess any possible impact on strategic and key views
A list of further considerations that should be assessed using national guidance including
noise, safety, ecology and heritage
Introduction
1.1
Wakefield Council has a number of applications and proposals for wind turbines at various
scales across the district. The Development Policies Document states that ‘the Council will support
proposals which generate energy from renewable sources, but will expect the proposals to be
appropriate and suitable for their location’. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says that
Local Planning Authorities ‘should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to
1
energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources’ and that they should ‘have a positive
strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources’. However it should be noted
that the WMS of 18 June 2015 has changed the Governments policy position with regard to onshore
wind turbines. Turbines can also have negative environmental impacts on a range of planning
considerations such as amenity, heritage and ecology amongst others. When determining
applications for wind turbines it is these general issues that have to be considered in the planning
balance. In particular great weight needs to be given to the latest national policy in the WMS of 18
June 2015.
1.2
Applications for single turbines tend to be primarily for farm or business energy
requirements rather than for commercial energy generation. Smaller scale turbines are generally
located on farm land close to settlements. They are often seen in a different landscape context to
the large commercial turbines which are generally sited on hills and moorland. There are different
siting and design issues, for example small turbines are generally viewed in close conjunction with
existing built and natural features and may affect greater numbers of people at close range whilst
larger turbines can be seen at greater distance but affect fewer people in terms of proximity to
settlements. Growing numbers of applications for smaller turbines comprising of single turbines or
groups of two or three are being made. There is an increasingly complex pattern of wind energy
development with associated landscape and visual impacts, many applications are coming forward in
areas with existing turbines and impacts often cross local authority boundaries.
1.3
This guidance has been produced to provide a framework through which relevant
applications can be assessed to ensure that they are all being dealt with in a consistent manner and
that the main policy issues are taken into account as the application is determined. Each proposal
needs to be judged on its own merits taking into account relevant national and local policies and
guidance and other material considerations. Any assessment of these considerations should be
proportionate bearing in mind the weight that will need to be attributed to the WMS of 18 June
2015 but is necessary to ensure due process. Planning judgement will then need to be used to reach
a conclusion on the acceptability of the proposal. Section 2 of the guidance below discusses the
critical importance of the WMS of 18 June 2015. Section 3 onwards then discusses the other main
considerations that the case officer will need to consider before taking into account the WMS in the
planning balance along with other policies and material considerations and reaching a conclusion on
a recommendation.
1.4
Some sizes and types of wind turbines on domestic properties are covered by permitted
development rights. This means that they do not need planning permission to be installed. The
regulations which lay out these permitted development rights can be found in Appendix 3.
2.
Significance of the Written Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015 and its Role in
Determining Relevant Planning Applications
2.1
The WMS on Local Planning issued on 18 June 2015 is a material consideration that carries
significant weight when determining planning applications for wind turbines. It should be considered
as the latest national planning policy with regard to wind turbine planning applications and
considered as supplemental to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Where it is
considered that there is a contradiction with policy in the NPPF greater weight should be attributed
to the WMS.
2.2
Shortly after publication of the WMS the Government also made a number of consequential
changes to National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) to support the policy changes in the WMS.
As these changes are designed to enhance understanding of the WMS, where necessary, they are
discussed in this section.
2
2.3
The WMS lays out different approaches with regard to new applications received on or after
18 June 2015 and for applications that were received before this date and are still to be determined.
Applications received on or after 18 June 2015
2.4
The WMS states that applications for 1 or more wind turbines should only be granted where
the site is in an area identified as suitable in a local plan. The WMS and NPPG say such areas ‘will
need to have been allocated clearly’. It is assumed this means on a policies map associated with an
adopted Local Plan. The WMS goes on to say ‘maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind
turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient’. The Council does not allocate areas suitable for wind
energy development in any of our local plans or associated policies maps.
2.5
The following guidance has been added to NPPG and states that ‘a planning application
should not be approved unless the proposed development site is in an area identified as suitable for
wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan’.
2.6
As a result any application for wind turbines regardless of number or height, anywhere in
the District, is likely to have to be recommended for refusal.
2.7
The WMS also contains a second consideration with regards to ensuring that planning
impacts identified by affected local communities are fully addressed. However this consideration is
only relevant in Local Planning Authorities that have areas allocated as suitable for wind energy
development. In Wakefield’s case there will be no need to consider this as any applications are likely
to have to be recommended for refusal due to the lack of designated areas.
2.8
It should be noted that when case officers are considering these applications they will still
need to apply Local Plan and NPPF policies and take account of other material considerations such as
NPPG and come to a conclusion as to if the proposal is in compliance or not with these policies. This
document lays out the main policies and planning issues that should be considered. Only then
should they move on to set out consideration of the WMS. Case officers may conclude that, when
assessed against Local Plan and NPPF policies only, for example, a proposal could be acceptable but
will still need to be recommended for refusal based on policy in the WMS. Case officers may also
conclude that a proposal is contrary to local and NPPF policies as well as the policy in the WMS.
Applications Received Before 18 June 2015 still to be determined
2.9
The WMS states that in this situation if a LPA does not have suitable areas designated in a
local plan, which is the situation in Wakefield, they ‘can find the proposal acceptable if, following
consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local
communities and therefore has their backing’.
2.10
In practice this means that the case officer will need to be satisfied that:
1. Meaningful community consultation and engagement has occurred, either as part of the
compulsory pre-application consultation that the applicant has to carry out for most turbine
proposals (see section 7 below) or as part of an additional consultation carried out by the
applicant following submission of the application, which has identified any planning impacts
that affected local communities have raised
2. The applicant has considered and satisfactorily addressed these planning impacts and
therefore the proposal has the backing of affected local communities
3
2.11 If it is considered that point 1 above has not been carried out satisfactorily this may mean
that the decision maker cannot recommend the granting of permission, unless further consultation
is undertaken by the applicant that satisfies this requirement. At the very least this should comply
with the requirements of the Councils adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Any
application would be expected to, at the very least, follow the process laid out in chart 3 of the SCI.
2.12 If it is considered that point 1 has been complied with it is then necessary to determine if
any planning impacts identified by the local community have been addressed and the proposal
‘therefore has their backing’. NPPG is clear that ‘whether the proposal has the backing of the
affected local community is a planning judgement for the local planning authority’. If it is considered
the planning impacts identified by local communities have been addressed it may be appropriate to
recommend granting permission if other aspects of local and national policy (such as those
considered elsewhere in this practice guidance) that have not been raised as planning impacts by
local communities have been satisfied. If it is considered that planning impacts identified by local
communities have not been addressed this means that the proposal does not comply with the
transitional provision in the WMS. Case officers should ensure that they assess all relevant
considerations and policies when determining such applications before considering all these issues in
the planning balance. Bearing in mind the weight that needs to be attributed to the WMS as the
latest iteration of national planning policy, this could mean that the only available option for the
case officer would be to recommend refusal of the application regardless of if it complies with other
local and NPPF policies.
3.
Local Policy
3.1
A key strategic theme of the Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy is mitigating
and adapting to climate change and resource management and this is reiterated through the other
documents that make up the Local Development Framework.
3.2
The following Core Strategy Policies are relevant to determining planning applications for
wind turbines:
 CS10 is concerned with design quality. The parts of this policy relevant to determining wind
turbine applications include its provision to ‘protect and enhance’ heritage assets and
conservation areas as well as areas of biological and geological diversity and green
infrastructure.
 CS12 is clear that the general extent of the green belt in Wakefield will remain unchanged
and that land will only be removed from the green belt in exceptional circumstances through
the plan making process.
 CS13 encourages the development of renewable energy sources to achieve indicative
targets, where there is no adverse environmental impact on nearby communities. This policy
is discussed in more detail in sections 9 and 10 below.
3.3
The following Development Policies are relevant to determining planning applications for
wind turbines:
 D4: Only relevant to applications which affect sites designated for biological or geological
conservation. The policy lays out the issues that need to be considered when determining
such applications.
 D8: Lays out that an assessment of the impact of development upon landscape character can
be required by the Council. With regard to applications for wind turbines the relevant
aspects of the policy are that any assessment should consider the extent of unacceptable
visual intrusion from the development and if the proposal would introduce incongruous
landscape elements.
4





4.
D9: This policy is concerned with design and is clear that development should respect the
character of localities in terms of scale, height, setting, skylines, landmarks and views. It also
lays out that development should not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity
of neighbouring users or residents.
D14: Lays out considerations with regard to access and highway safety.
D17: Lays out considerations if the proposal affects an archaeological site.
D18: Lays out considerations if the proposal affects an historic location including
conservation areas.
D27: The supporting text to this policy lays out the planning issues with regard to renewable
energy development with a more detailed discussion around wind.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
4.1
The NPPF lays out the government’s national planning policy. It says that ‘Local Planning
Authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change’. The NPPF is
an important material consideration and carries significant weight in determining planning
applications. However, as stated above, the WMS of 15 June 2015 should be considered as the latest
national planning policy with regard to wind turbine planning applications and considered as
supplemental to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Where it is considered that there is
a contradiction with policy in the NPPF greater weight should be attributed to the WMS.
4.2
National policy is clear that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable
energy and associated infrastructure. The following paragraphs in the NPPF are of particular
importance with regard to determining planning applications:

Paragraph 91: which makes it clear that renewable energy schemes are inappropriate
development in the green belt and as a result very special circumstances will have to be
demonstrated if proposals are to proceed. Wider environmental benefits such as increased
energy production from renewable sources may constitute very special circumstances.

Paragraph 98: Makes it clear that applicants do not need to demonstrate the overall need
for renewable energy as part of their application. This paragraph also states that
applications should be approved if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable.
4.3
The NPPF also contains important policies with regard to development in the green belt. This
is discussed in the green belt section below.
5.
Written Ministerial Statement of 6 June 2013
5.1
In June 2013 the government published a WMS on Local Planning and On Shore Wind. The
provisions of this WMS have largely been superseded by legislative changes with regard to preapplication consultation discussed in section 7 below and the more recent WMS of 18 July 2015
discussed widely in this guidance. However this WMS did highlight planning considerations that
Ministers wanted to be given particular attention:


the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections
and the planning concerns of local communities
decisions should take into account the cumulative impact of wind turbines and properly
reflect the increasing impact on (a) the landscape and (b) local amenity as the number of
turbines in the area increases
5


6.
local topography should be a factor in assessing whether wind turbines have a damaging
impact on the landscape (i.e. recognise that the impact on predominantly flat landscapes
can be as great or greater than as on hilly or mountainous ones)
great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate
to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
6.1
In March 2014 the Government published NPPG. This resource includes a section on
renewable & low carbon energy which provides guidance on a range of issues relating both to plan
making and determining planning applications. This guidance is a material consideration which can
be attributed weight in the decision making process when determining planning applications.
6.2
The NPPG provides much more detail about the issues that need to be considered with
regard to wind turbine planning applications. In particular the NPPG lays out the main planning
considerations when determining an application for wind turbines and provides guidance as to how
these should be considered. This document does not repeat verbatim NPPG guidance on these
issues but refers to it where relevant. This document should be read alongside NPPG guidance and,
where relevant, considered a local interpretation of how the NPPG should be applied in Wakefield
District.
6.3
It should be noted that the Government amended NPPG in June 2015 to reflect changes to
national planning policy introduced by the WMS of 18 June 2015. The implications of these
amendments are discussed in section 2 of this guidance.
7.
Pre-application Consultation
7.1
It is now a legal requirement to undertake pre-application consultation with local
communities affected by potential wind turbine developments involving more than 2 turbines or any
turbine with a hub height exceeding 15 metres. It is essential that any applicant proposing a
development that meets these specifications is informed at the earliest opportunity, when they
contact the Council about their scheme, that this is a legal requirement to be carried out before any
application can be submitted. It should be made clear, again as early as possible, that the Council will
require a Consultation Statement to be submitted as part of any planning application. At the very
least this should comply with the requirements of the Councils adopted Statement of Community
Involvement (SCI). Any application would be expected to, at the very least, follow the process laid
out in chart 3 of the SCI. However applicants should be encouraged to undertake more detailed
consultation at the pre-application stage. Guidance on best practice in community engagement for
onshore wind development has recently been published by the government. It should be noted that
this document contains advice for developers, local authorities and affected communities
themselves about how to carry out and engage with consultation.
Any consultation statement submitted must lay out what type of engagement has occurred,
demonstrate this is in compliance with the SCI and, if possible, government guidance on community
engagement. The statement should also describe issues raised by the community and how these
have been addressed and / or mitigated. It should also explain why some issues cannot be addressed
or mitigated if this is the case.
7.2
Any application that is submitted for wind turbines (over the threshold laid out above) that
does not include a consultation statement that deals with the matters laid out above should not be
validated until one is provided by the applicant.
6
8.
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA)
8.1
It is important to ascertain before an application is submitted if it needs to include an EIA.
National Planning Practice Guidance provides detailed advice on when an EIA is required and the
process that should be followed in carrying one out. The Council, working with potential applicants,
should ascertain as early as possible if an EIA will be required as part of any planning application.
9.
Green Belt
9.1
Most land outside urban areas in the district is in the green belt and, as a result, it is likely
that most applications for turbines in Wakefield will be on green belt land.
9.2
The NPPF states that the fundamental aim of green belt policy is keeping land permanently
open. It goes on to say ‘the essential characteristics of green belts are their openness and their
permanence’. Openness is not defined in policy or guidance but an Inspector recently defined it as
‘the absence of built development’ (Appeal Ref: APP/C3430/D/12/2171319).
9.3
As a result paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition,
harmful to the green belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances. The NPPF goes
on to say that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the green belt and that very special
circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the green belt by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
9.4
The NPPF is clear at paragraph 91 that renewable energy projects will comprise
inappropriate development in the green belt. As a result such schemes have to demonstrate very
special circumstances in order to gain planning permission. The NPPF goes on to say that ‘wider
environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources’
may amount to very special circumstances. However it should be noted that there is no requirement
in national green belt policy to consider the contribution that a proposal could make to the
achievement of renewable energy targets as ‘very special circumstances’.
9.5
It is for the applicant to lay out what they consider any ‘very special circumstances’ to be.
Relevant applications, however, should submit evidence to justify any ‘very special circumstances’.
Simply just stating or listing ‘very special circumstances’ in an application without any evidence to
support them is unlikely to be acceptable. For example claims may be presented as part of an
application that the provision of additional renewable energy to the national grid amounts to very
special circumstances. In this case evidence should be supplied in a report that lays out how much
energy is likely to be produced by the proposal and how this will contribute to a meaningful
reduction in the need for non-renewable energy. Another possible example that may be put forward
as a ‘very special circumstance’ is that energy produced by a turbine will aid the viability or
diversification of a business. Again evidence should be presented in such a case in the form of a
report laying out what the nature of the business is and what issues are affecting its viability or
diversification. The evidence should then demonstrate how the proposal would have a positive
impact upon the business in terms of its viability. Evidence will need to be robust and capable of
being validated.
9.6
Effectively this means that a balancing exercise has to be undertaken weighing any ‘very
special circumstances’ an applicant may put forward against any negative impacts by reason of
inappropriateness to the openness of the green belt, and any other harm. The starting point must
be, however, that due to its green belt location the proposal is harmful and that substantial weight
should be given to this.
7
9.7
It should also be noted that the Appeal Court have recently handed down a judgement
which clarifies the meaning of the phrase ‘any other harm’ in paragraph 88. The judgement makes it
clear that ‘any other harm’ applies to planning considerations other than those relating specifically
to the green belt and that these should be weighed in the planning balance when determining if
there are any very special circumstances that justify granting planning permission for a proposal. For
wind turbine applications this means issues that have harmful impacts that may not, on their own,
justify refusing permission need to be considered in the balance with green belt inappropriateness.
These could be from a range of planning considerations such as, for example, biodiversity, heritage
or transport. This ‘other harm’ could potentially tip the planning balance to such an extent that it is
not possible to demonstrate very special circumstances resulting in an application being refused.
10.
Landscape Impact & Areas Sensitive to Wind Turbine Development
10.1 This guidance is accompanied by a series of maps which detail various constraints across the
district. The following maps can be found in Appendix 1:



Map 1: Main Areas of Sensitivity
The buffer around settlements on this map is only relevant when considering commercial
turbines with a height to blade tip of 60 metres or more.
Map 2: Key Infrastructure Safeguarding Areas
Map 3: Green Belt & Environmental Constraints
10.2 These maps should be used to identify if a proposal lies in an area likely to have constraints
with regard to wind farm proposals. They provide an indication of constraints that should be subject
to particular scrutiny following the guidance in this note and the NPPG. It should be noted that the
main employment zones and sites (as identified on the Local Development Framework Policies Map
2012) have been excluded from the settlement boundaries and buffers shown on map 1. However
some smaller employment zones and sites may still be included within the settlement boundaries
and buffers. In all cases turbines may be acceptable in employment zones and sites if it can be
demonstrated that any impacts on relevant planning considerations can be shown to be acceptable
or capable of mitigation.
10.3 Areas shown on these maps that are not subject to constraints may be the areas in the
district more suitable for wind turbine proposals although such applications will need to be assessed
on their own merits taking into account local and national policy and guidance.
11.
The Status of Targets for Renewable Energy Generation at the National and Local Level
11.1 Targets for the delivery of renewable energy currently exist in statute at the national level
and locally in planning policy (although these have now been achieved). Nationally the Climate
Change Act (2008) established the world’s first legally-binding national framework to reduce the
UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050. The Act also introduced a target to
reduce emissions by at least 34 per cent by 2020. It should be noted that the NPPF requires Local
Planning Authorities to ‘adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change’ in line
with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act. However there is now no requirement
to set local targets for renewable energy generation that should be achieved within specified periods
in Local Plan policies. Additionally there is no requirement in the NPPF to approve applications solely
in order to achieve national targets, such as those set in the Climate Change Act.
11.2 Locally, targets for renewable energy were included in the Core Strategy, as was required by
policy at the time this document was prepared. These were devised based on evidence produced as
part of studies carried out during the preparation of the now revoked Yorkshire & Humber Regional
8
Spatial Strategy (RSS). It should be noted that national policy at this time (Planning Policy Statement
22 (2004)) was clear that these targets should be considered as minimums to be achieved which
should be reviewed on a regular basis and revised upwards if they were met. These targets are
included in policy CS13. This gave indicative targets for Wakefield of 11 megawatts by 2010 and 41
megawatts by 2021. Monitoring evidence indicates these targets have now been achieved. However
it should be noted that the local targets were indicative and, as stated above, represented a
minimum that was to be achieved not a maximum at which delivery of new renewable energy
schemes should be prevented from happening. As a result applications should not be refused simply
because the targets set in CS13 have been met.
11.3 To conclude, as a result of the above considerations renewable energy targets should not be
used either to justify the approval or refusal of wind turbine applications in the district. These
decisions should be made taking into account the other relevant considerations laid out in this
guidance note.
12
Core Strategy Policy CS13: Mitigating & Adapting to Climate Change & Efficient Use of
Resources: Adverse Environmental Impact
12.1 CS13 states that renewable energy generation sources should be encouraged ‘where there is
no adverse environmental impact on nearby communities’. All development has some impact. To
refuse an application using this policy the impact has to be adverse. The dictionary defines adverse
as ‘harmful’. All applications have different considerations and it is for the decision maker to decide,
taking development plan policies, national policy and guidance and other material considerations
into account if there is an adverse environmental impact on a nearby community that justifies
refusing planning permission. If a proposal is located in the Green Belt it may be appropriate to take
account of any adverse environmental impacts in the planning balance as ‘other harm’ with regard
to national Green Belt policy.
13
Energy Output
13.1 As part of the balancing exercise it is clear that the wider environmental benefits associated
with increased production of energy from renewable sources can be an important consideration.
However it is difficult to consider this fully without an understanding of how much energy output the
wind turbines in a proposal will be able to achieve. NPPG provides guidance as to how this can be
assessed and an indication that this consideration can be useful particularly when a decision is ‘finely
balanced’. The information below provides an indication of the average power rating different sizes
of turbine can produce:
Table 1: Turbine Size 7 Average Power Rating
Turbine Size
Average Power Rating
Very small turbine: ≤ 24 metres to blade tip
Around 12 kw
Small turbine: 25 – 59 metres to blade tip
Around 0.5 mw
Medium commercial turbine: 60 – 89 metres to blade tip
Around 1 mw
Large commercial turbine: 90 – 129 metres to blade tip
Around 2.5 mw
Very large turbine: ≥ 130 metres to blade tip
3 mw or more
Source: Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Developments in the South Pennines (Julie Martin Associates, January 2010)
9
14
Cumulative Landscape & Visual Impacts
14.1
NPPG defines two different types of cumulative impact:


Cumulative landscape impact
Cumulative visual impact
14.2 NPPG is clear that both these types of cumulative impact need to be considered separately
and it provides guidance as to how they can be assessed. When determining applications the Council
should use the guidance to assess cumulative impact. This will involve working with applicants to
ensure robust evidence is produced as part of any application. Applicants may be asked to provide
plans showing cumulative zones of visual influence and plans and photomontages showing existing
and consented turbines. The Council may need to provide details of similar applications within an
agreed radius of any application and discuss the influence of factors such as topography, visibility of
proposals, common routes that are likely to be used through a landscape and key viewpoints in a
landscape in order to enable applicants to carry out this task adequately.
14.3 Further guidance on the assessment of cumulative impact can also be found in the report
‘Landscape Guidance for Wind Turbines up to 60 Metres High in the South and West Pennines’ (Julie
Martin Associates).
15
Strategic & Key Views
15.1 Strategic & key views are an important element of the distinctiveness of a local area. Policy
D9 in the Development Policies document states that ‘proposals shall … respect … key views that
contribute to the character and local distinctiveness of the area’. As part of the process of
determining applications for wind turbines it is important that the potential impacts on strategic and
key views are considered. In particular this should be the case if the proposal may affect views of:


16
Historic Parks and gardens such as, for example, Bretton Hall and the sculpture park and
Nostell Priory and its grounds. Policy D9 should be used when considering impacts on these
assets.
The skyline of Wakefield City Centre. The Central Wakefield Area Action Plan lays out
strategic views that will be protected at policy CW6 and these are also shown on the
accompanying Proposals Map. Any proposals likely to affect these strategic views should be
assessed using the provisions of this policy.
Other Planning Considerations that Relate to Wind Turbines
16.1 NPPG provides detailed guidance on how a range of impacts should be dealt with when
determining planning applications. This guidance should be used for relevant applications. The
guidance covers the following considerations:


Noise
The safety of:
o Buildings
o Power Lines
o Air Traffic & Safety – It should be noted that parts of the district do lie in the 30
kilometre buffer zones for both Leeds Bradford and Doncaster Robin Hood Airports.
For proposals that lie in these zones the Council will need to consult the Civil
Aviation Authority. These zones are shown on map 2 in the appendix.
10




It may also be necessary to consider helipads (for example at Pinderfields hospital or
the West Yorkshire Police complex at Carr Gate) and airfields.
o Defence Operations
o Radar
o Strategic Road Network
Electromagnetic transmissions (i.e. TV, radio and mobile phone transmissions)
Ecology and protected species
Heritage
Shadow flicker & reflected light
16.2 In addition to the considerations above for any proposal that affects the potential route of
HS2 and the advisory buffer around it HS2 should be contacted for further information. The
potential route for HS2 and the advisory buffer is shown on map 2 in appendix 1.
16.3 It is important, when determining planning applications, that all these potential impacts are
considered by the Council.
17
Importance of Conditions on Decommissioning Wind Turbines
17.1 Turbines have a limited life. Conditions should be used to ensure that redundant turbines
are removed when no longer in use and that the land is restored to an appropriate use.
18
Conclusion
18.1 This guidance sets out the main planning considerations that need to be taken into account
when determining applications for wind turbines. It sets out clearly the critical importance, when
recommending a decision, of the WMS of 18 June 2015 which sets out national planning policy
regarding onshore turbines and is a significant change from the national policy on this issue set out
in the NPPF. It is likely to play a determinative role in the planning balance on all relevant
applications from now on.
11
Appendix 1– Constraints Maps
These can be found in separate documents on the Wind Turbine Practice Guidance webpage.
12
Appendix 2 – Evidence
In recent years various studies on have been produced at the regional level with regard to the
capacity for wind energy across Yorkshire & the Humber. These provide useful evidence as to the
capacity of Wakefield District for these kinds of technology.
The Yorkshire and Humber Sub Regional Renewable Energy Capacity Study (SREAT) concluded that
there was limited capacity for commercial wind energy in Wakefield District, and identified Biomass
and PV technologies as having the greatest potential. There is potential for 15mw to be generated
from wind in the district (a large turbine generates around 2mw).
Evidence in the SREAT report concluded that ‘The overall potential for Wakefield to generate
renewable energy is lower than for the average LA in the region and this is due mainly to limited
opportunities for significant wind developments’. The relatively low wind speed and constraints such
as urban areas and landscape mean that small to medium scale wind energy would be most
appropriate. SREAT forms part of the evidence base for the LDF Core Strategy and Development
Policies document.
Volume 3 of the study sets out strategic guidance for the location of wind energy in respect of
landscape and biodiversity. The findings are:
Southern magnesium Limestone Landscape Character Area (Knottingley, Darrington, Wentbridge,
Upton)
 Wind energy development would be appropriate in the large scale arable farmland, but
should relate to large scale woodlands and away from settlements and areas where a
stronger enclosure pattern is more evident.
 Development should avoid the locally prominent and diverse escarpment and small-scale
valleys and parklands, although it could be sited in areas where these features have been
modified and their visual significance diminished by the quarrying industry.
 A small to medium scale typology should be adopted, to fit with the scale and pattern of the
landscape.
 Combined sensitivity score medium.
Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield Landscape Character Area (remainder of
Wakefield District)
 Development should relate to this highly modified, often degraded area.
 Development should aim to retain separation between settlements; it should avoid locally
distinctive landform variations, areas of fragmented woodlands and river valley habitats and
the stretches of relatively unspoilt farmland.
 Small to medium scale wind energy development would need to be adopted to relate to the
overall scale and settlement pattern of the area. Development would be dependent on the
proximity of domestic buildings and the scale of natural and modified landforms.
 Small to medium scale development should be associated with former mining activities,
although turbines may also increase the prominence of these areas.
 Care should be taken not to cause visual confusion when locating turbines close to existing
vertical structures.
 The potential for cumulative impacts should be carefully considered.
 Combined sensitivity score low.
The Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Capacity in Yorkshire and Humber study (2011) updated the
SREAT study. The study adopted the SREAT methodology for assessing landscape sensitivity for the
district. An energy opportunity map for Wakefield District was produced which shows areas where
13
there is a practical viable resource for commercial wind energy. The study concludes there is
capacity for 79mw of commercial wind energy in the district. It also concludes there is capacity
within the urban areas for an additional 10mw (turbines in employment sites for example). This is
over five times higher than the estimate from the previous SREAT capacity study. However, it should
be noted that a number of constraints that may affect the size of turbines and the scale of
commercial wind development have not been considered in the capacity assessment including
Green Belt and designations such as Local Nature Reserves and Local Wildlife Sites. The areas of
identified practical viable resource are also limited by settlement patterns and topography, so
potential sites within these areas may not necessarily be suitable for wind farms. Practically it is
unlikely that a high volume of large commercial wind turbines could or would be developed within
the district. However significant numbers of small to medium sized commercial turbines can
potentially be accommodated.
A further study relevant to the siting of wind turbines is the Wakefield District Landscape Character
Assessment (2004). This divides the district into six landscape character zones. These are the
Limestone Escarpment, Calder Valley, Northern Coalfield, Went River Basin, South East Coalfield, and
South West Coalfield. The Limestone Escarpment is within the Southern Magnesium Limestone and
the remainder of the district within the Nottingham, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield National
landscape character areas. In terms of wind turbine development the SREAT Study identifies the
Southern Magnesium Limestone having medium sensitivity, and the Coalfield as low sensitivity to
commercial wind energy development. There will be areas within Wakefield District which are more
sensitive however, depending on the scale of development and types of wind turbine proposed.
14
Appendix 3 - Permitted Development Rights for Wind Turbine Development
Extract from the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order
2015
Class H – installation or alteration etc. of wind turbine on domestic premises
Permitted Development
H. The installation, alteration or replacement of a microgeneration wind turbine on—
(a) a detached dwellinghouse; or
(b) a detached building situated within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse or a block of flats.
Development not permitted
H.1 Development is not permitted by Class H unless the wind turbine complies with the MCS
Planning Standards or equivalent standards.
H.2 Development is not permitted by Class H if—
(a) In the case of the installation of a wind turbine the development would result in the presence of
more than 1 wind turbine on the same building or within the curtilage;
(b) in the case of the installation of a wind turbine, a stand-alone wind turbine is installed within the
curtilage of the dwellinghouse or the block of flats;
(c) In the case of the installation of a wind turbine, an air source heat pump is installed on the same
building or within its curtilage;
(d) The highest part of the wind turbine (including blades) would either—
(i) protrude more than 3 metres above the highest part of the roof (excluding the
chimney); or
(ii) exceed more than 15 metres in height, whichever is the lesser;
(e) The distance between ground level and the lowest part of any blade of the wind turbine would
be less than 5 metres;
(f) Any part of the wind turbine (including blades) would be positioned so that it would be within 5
metres of any boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse or the block of flats;
(g) The swept area of any blade of the wind turbine would exceed 3.8 square metres;
(h) The wind turbine would be installed on safeguarded land;
(i) The wind turbine would be installed on a site designated as a scheduled monument;
(j) The wind turbine would be installed within the curtilage of a building which is a listed building;
(k) In the case of land within a conservation area, the wind turbine would be installed on a wall or
roof slope of—
(i) the detached dwellinghouse; or
(ii) a building within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse or block of flats, which fronts a
highway; or
(l) the wind turbine would be installed on article 2(3) land other than land within a
conservation area.
Conditions
H.3 Development is permitted by Class H subject to the following conditions—
(a) The blades of the wind turbine is made of non-reflective materials;
(b) The wind turbine is, so far as practicable, sited so as to minimise its effect on the external
appearance of the building;
(c) The wind turbine is, so far as practicable, sited so as to minimise its effect on the amenity of the
area; and
15
(d) The wind turbine is removed as soon as reasonably practicable when no longer needed.
Class I – installation or alteration etc. of stand-alone wind turbine on domestic premises
Permitted Development
I. The installation, alteration or replacement of a stand-alone wind turbine for microgeneration
within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse or a block of flats.
Development not permitted
I.1 Development is not permitted by Class I unless the stand-alone wind turbine complies with the
MCS Planning Standards or equivalent standards.
I.2 Development is not permitted by Class I if—
(a) In the case of the installation of a stand-alone wind turbine, the development would result in the
presence of more than 1 stand-alone wind turbine within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse or block
of flats;
(b) In the case of the installation of a stand-alone wind turbine, a wind turbine is installed on the
dwellinghouse or on a building within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse or the block of flats;
(c) In the case of the installation of a stand-alone wind turbine, an air source heat pump is installed
on the dwellinghouse or block of flats or within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse or block of flats;
(d) The highest part of the stand-alone wind turbine would exceed 11.1 metres in height;
(e) The distance between ground level and the lowest part of any blade of the stand-alone wind
turbine would be less than 5 metres;
(f) Any part of the stand-alone wind turbine (including blades) would be located in a position which
is less than a distance equivalent to the overall height (including blades) of the stand-alone wind
turbine plus 10% of its height when measured from any point along the boundary of the curtilage;
(g) The swept area of any blade of the stand-alone wind turbine exceeds 3.8 square metres;
(h) The stand-alone wind turbine would be installed on safeguarded land;
(i) The stand-alone wind turbine would be installed on a site designated as a scheduled monument;
(j) The stand-alone wind turbine would be installed within the curtilage of a building which is a listed
building;
(k) In the case of land within a conservation area, the stand-alone wind turbine would be installed so
that it is nearer to any highway which bounds the curtilage than the part of the dwellinghouse or
block of flats which is nearest to that highway; or
(l) The stand-alone wind turbine would be installed on article 2(3) land other than land within a
conservation area.
Conditions
I.3 Development is permitted by Class I subject to the following conditions (a) The blades of the stand-alone wind turbine is made of non-reflective materials;
(b) The stand-alone wind turbine is, so far as practicable, sited so as to minimise its effect on the
amenity of the area; and
(c) The stand-alone wind turbine is removed as soon as reasonably practicable when no longer
needed.
16