T&HMCF/01 Section 36 Electricity Act 1989 and Section 90 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 PI Ref.: GDBC/003/00025C/1 and GDBC/003/00025C/2
Thorne & Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum Proof of Evidence
In respect of proposals to develop wind farms at Tween Bridge, Thorne near Doncaster, South Yorkshire and Keadby, North Lincolnshire.
December 2006
1
Thorne & Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum
Proof of Evidence
CONTENTS
1. Summary
3
2. Introduction
4
3. The Forum’s case
5
3.1
3.2
Main 3.1.1
Impact upon SAC
6
3.1.2
Impact upon SPA
7
3.1.3
Harrier spp.
14
Other aspects of concern
19
3.2.1
Landscape
19
3.2.2
Demonstration of need
19
3.2.3
Planning context
20
3.2.4
In combination and cumulative impact
21
3.2.5
Other nature conservation interest
21
4. References
22
Appendix I
Abridged Curriculum Vitae of the Executive Committee.
Appendix II
Forum’s Constitution.
Appendix III
T&HMC Forum leaflet.
Appendix IV
English Nature Research Report 704.
2
1
SUMMARY
1.1
T&HMC Forum (hereafter referred to as ‘the Forum’) provide argument
herein which demonstrates the failure of the developers to have taken due and appropriate account of European legislation (the two EU Directives enacted in UK law as Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994) which clearly requires them to provide assurances that the development, both alone or in combination, will not have a significant impact upon the interest features of a European site.
1.2
The Inspectorate will be aware that the precautionary principle in European
law is now enshrined in Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty. The Environmental Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC, as amended) makes express reference to the need to assess the environmental impacts of development projects within the context of the precautionary principle.
1.3
The Forum is a strong advocate of the precautionary principle underpinned by
the belief that affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio should apply (‘The burden of proof lies with him who affirms, not with him who denies’). The Forum offer that the EIAs have not provided a reasoned justification for their conclusions of ‘no adverse effect’, nor have they demonstrated sufficient regard to the precautionary principle. The Forum asserts that the developers have failed to provide evidence that would satisfy the legal requirement that the development would not have a significant impact upon the interest features of the Natura 2000 site.
1.4
The Forum also believes that the data provided by the developers do not
permit the construction of an adequate carbon budget, from which it would be possible to assess whether the proposal contributes positively to the UK’s sustainable energy supply. The engineering specifications of the turbines, especially their foundations, are insufficiently detailed to determine the mass of concrete required. And no accurate figures are provided on the direct and indirect impacts on the peat deposits in the area. Damage to these latter could result in their oxidisation, and the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide.
3
In view of these arguments, we respectfully request that the Inspector dismiss the appeal.
Please note that the Forum reserve the right to provide further evidence and or rebuttal, if and as necessary, as the Inquiry proceeds.
4
2
INTRODUCTION
2.1
The Forum’s specialist area is, as defined in our Constitution … The
conservation of Thorne and Hatfield Moors, their biodiversity, and their geological, palaeoecological, archaeological and historic features, seeking to sustain and where possible to improve, their environmental quality.
2.2
See also the Forum’s general information leaflet (Appendix III) and Section 3
of the Forum’s Constitution (Appendix II) and reference to the Humberhead Levels.
2.3
By way of qualification of interest as a Rule 6 party please see our Abridged
Curricula Vitae of the Executive Committee, Appendix I.
5
3
THE FORUM’S CASE
3.1
The Forum objects to the proposed developments at Tween Bridge and
Keadby, primarily on the grounds that their proximity to three sites with statutory nature conservation designations, which poses significant threats to the designated features of these sites. These are:
Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest – designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as Amended). Special Area of Conservation – registered under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994.
Hatfield Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest – designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as Amended). Special Area of Conservation – registered under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994.
These two sites are together classified as The Thorne and Hatfield Moors Special Protection Area, under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994.
Parts of Hatfield Moors, Thorne Crowle and Goole Moor are declared as the Humberhead Peatlands National Nature Reserve (various dates and additions).
Humber Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest – designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as Amended) possible Special Area of Conservation (pSAC) - under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) - under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994
6
The nature conservation features of the above sites, for which they received their Natura 2000 status are: •
Raised mire habitats on Hatfield Moors, Thorne Crowle and Goole Moors SSSI and SAC;
•
Breeding Nightjar on Thorne and Hatfield Moors SPA;
•
Breeding Marsh Harrier and wintering Hen Harrier on the Humber Estuary pSPA
These features are the primary focus of the Forum’s objection.
Details of the European Directives under which these sites were created as Natura 2000 are available in the Core Documents (X/6), as are the site citations. We believe that these documents are not contested and are effectively accepted as matters of fact and as such regarded as common ground.
3.1.1
SAC and the potential impact upon the hydrological integrity of the peat
body forming Thorne Moors.
The Forum believes that there has been insufficient information/data submitted in respect of the impact upon the hydrological integrity of the peat body.
Thorne and Hatfield Moors are notable as having developed in an area of low rainfall(510 mm/yr), warm temperature and high evapotranspiration potential, they are effectively at the margins of viable raised mire development.
This is a view acknowledged and recognised by statutory agencies, authorities and academics.
"Most mire research has been conducted in areas where there is high precipitation, where bogs are frequent (Moore, 1997). However, mires also form in areas where precipitation is low. Thorne and Hatfield Moors are located in a climatically marginal area for the development of raised mire
7
(Money, 1995). "
Recognising the above and acknowledging that the peat bodies of Hatfield, Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moors are all surrounded by intensive agriculture, added to which the major development of Finningley Airport and its associated infrastructure, is in itself a serious threat in terms of emissions and chemical deposition to the condition assessment for the SSSI. The cumulative impact of additional industrial developments close to the sensitive hydrological unit at Thorne Moors places unacceptable levels of uncertainty to safeguard the SAC integrity.
There is also uncertainty relating to the impact of groundwater abstraction upon the SAC. A clear relationship between abstraction and the sensitive hydrology of the peat body has yet to be established. Investigations are currently ongoing and being undertaken by both statutory agencies, authorities and the water companies to provide an accurate assessment.
It is therefore crucial that the hydrological integrity of the peat body is not impacted upon. Structures in excess of 400’ need substantial foundations: it has been estimated (CD 16) that they will require approximately 376m3 / 902 tons of high CO2 producing cement as well as metal piles driven into the underlying geology. To date the developers have not provided any detail of the depth, material etc. which will be required to stabilise such structures. Without the provision of such data the Forum is not assured of safeguard to the SAC interest. Further, in the absence of data on engineering specifications for the foundations, nor on direct and indirect peat losses, it is impossible to construct a carbon budget for the developments. Water loss from peat can be either lateral or vertical through the damaged mineral. The depth required for the piles has not been given, it may be that it will breach the Lake Humber clays: these provide an almost impermeable lining to the basin within which the raised mires originally formed. The Quaternary geology of the Humberhead Levels has recently been summarized by Gaunt et al. (2006), and it is apparent that, in the past, systems have been entirely supported by freshwater, perched above the membrane provided by the Lake Humber clays. Any unsealed breach of this, in the present environment of extensive pumping of groundwater, would lead to water loss and consequent
8
oxidation of the peat. If the peat body is dewatered the peat will oxidise, CO2 will be released and the carbon sink will be lost as a resource for future generations.
Whilst we would not suggest that there is a direct comparable situation between Thorne Moors and the Derrybrien bog burst in County Galway, Ireland there are equally serious issues which the developers and indeed the statutory agencies should consider.
It should be noted that, as a consequence of failing to consider (in the EIA) fully the implications of a major development (wind farm) upon the peat body at Derrybrien, the European Union is prosecuting the Irish Government in the European Court of Justice.
3.1.2
SPA and the likely significant impact upon the nightjar interest of the
Thorne & Hatfield Moors population.
The Humberhead Peatlands population of nightjar represents c.1.9% of the UK breeding population (see site citation).
In March 2004, the Forum provided within the document T&HMC Forum, Response to: Tween Bridge Wind Farm Environmental Statement a model drafted by Brian Eversham which has subsequently been re-examined and by application of Berry & Bibby (1981) recalculated by Dr T Melling of the RSPB:
Average fledging of Nightjars is 0.93 young per pair per year, taking into account the existence of some second broods.
Let us assume that the Thorne population is c. 20 pairs, based on average figures taken from annual Thorne Moors Bird Reports. (Note that censuses are all based on counts of churring males. No data appear to be available on the presence and behaviour of non-breeding males. There is some evidence of additional males feeding young birds at the nest, which may imply that there are unpaired males in the territory. Hence, the count of churring males may over-estimate the numbers of pairs somewhat.) 9
20 pairs producing 0.93 fledglings each = 18.60 young per year Little information is available on longevity, but the oldest recorded ringed bird was 8 years old. That, coupled with first breeding generally at age of 1 year, suggests that they are not very long-lived. (For comparison, another seldom-ringed bird, the Twite, has a maximum age recorded as 6yrs 1 month; this compares with tits with maximum age (on much bigger samples) of 8-11 yrs, which have 50% survival annual from maturity, and much larger clutch sizes).
If average lifespan of adults is 4 years (perhaps an over-estimate), 20 pairs (c. 40 birds) need to recruit 10 replacements a year to sustain the population.
So, at present, 10 of the 18.6 fledged birds (53.8%) would need to survive migration to and from sub-Saharan Africa, and over-wintering, which sounds precarious.
However, most mortality from turbines will be of foraging adults gathering insects to feed their chicks. This therefore results in loss of reproductive output for the year, and a loss of breeding adults which needs to be made good. For example:
If 4 birds are killed by turbines in a year, it is likely that 4 pairs will fail to reproduce, which reduces chick numbers from 18.6 to 14.9 (4 x 0.93 chicks = 3.72 fledglings)
Adult mortality would be 4 birds higher, so the loss to be made up that year would be 14 rather than 10.
So, whereas without turbines, 10 out of 18.6 chicks (53.8%) must survive migrations and over-wintering, with 4 adult deaths in the year, 14 out of 14.9 (94.0%) need to survive in order to maintain a constant population.
If 5 adults die, and those pairs do not reproduce, 4.65 chicks are lost, so productivity falls to 13.95 birds, and the required recruitment is now 10 + 5 = 15 out of 13.95 = 108% must survive migration and wintering.
If 6 adults die, and those pairs do not reproduce, 5.58 chicks are lost, so productivity 10
falls to 13.02 birds, and the required recruitment is now 10 + 6 = 16 out of 13.02 = 123% must survive migration and wintering.
Note that, if all the current and proposed turbine applications were approved, 4 nightjar deaths per year would represent 1 bird per 63 turbines per year (assumes 250 turbines total); 5 deaths represent one bird per 50 turbines.
With this sort of population structure, longevity, and reproductive capacity, loss of even a handful of birds each year to turbines would be gravely damaging to the population, and thus to the SPA designation.
There is no real fact base to discount the potential impact of turbines, especially when a nightjar population will be increasingly crowded into a strip of drier habitat around the edge of the moors as the centre of the Moors is gradually wetter through EN management for the SAC interest features. Noise may well be a problem, either by disrupting the establishment of territories, or by disrupting feeding behaviour in addition to direct killing of birds which forage off the moors.
The recalculation shows that the risk is far greater than initially presented. If Murison (2002) were to be used in the same model above, then the risk would be even greater. Any one of the three models is clear in conclusion, i.e. that the SPA nightjar population is placed beyond sustainability of retaining a viable breeding population.
In recent years annual surveys have shown an increase in churring males. It is a recognised fact that whilst accepted methodology, it does not provide an accurate picture of breeding or success: it is neither an accurate estimate of the number of mated pairs holding territories, nor of the reproductive success of those pairs . The Forum offer, that a developer who was sincere in environmental concerns would have initiated a series of scientific surveys which would over a number of seasons (three were suggested) establish the breeding success of the Humberhead population, not merely the presence of churring males early on in the breeding season.
11
The DTI were provided with a project proposal in April 2004 which clearly explained the need for more than a single breeding season’s data and had the proposal been implemented it would have given the developers a minimum of two seasons data, not the few days offered in the ES, then the eight days radar work of 2005, selectively
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
33
27
32
30
45
35
30
24
29
29
Hatfield
29
29
32
37
29
21
Total
56
61
62
82
64
51
Thorne
2004
1994
interpreted in the Supplementary Planning Statement of January 2006.
Table showing numbers of churring males over a ten year period.
What the table does illustrate is the fluctuating fortunes of a migratory species. It also shows the potential a major industrial development could have on an already unstable population, this in conjunction with the recalculated model is unacceptable.
Palmer (2002) records that the Humberhead population is an anomalous one and therefore for E-On to offer comparisons with southern heaths is unwise and unscientific. See also Palmer’s response to E-On’s ES March 2004 and appended in its whole to the Forum’s Statement of Cases.
Natural England (previously English Nature) report in their Statement of Case that they have been in discussions with the developers about radar data. Whilst we understand that a nightjar ‘rule set’ has been proposed we further understand that this is not conclusive. As this material has not been made available to the Forum we have been unable to examine it and therefore we may in due course ask for an adjournment so that we can analyse it and if necessary offer rebuttal.
What we have seen is the Supplemental Planning Statement (January 2006) and we have noted the conclusions made by the consultants on behalf of the developers. 12
What we are unable to locate is the information obtained through rigorous and conclusive research required for them to arrive at such conclusions.
For example, Appendix 1 Monitoring European Nightjar. alludes to the initial aims agreed with English Nature (now Natural England), which were subsequently revised without a detailed rationale as to the benefit of this reduced protocol.
Section 2 provides an explanation of the CSL equipment and its capabilities. Equipment limitations are acknowledged in so far as birds can be blocked by landscape clutter and more importantly the consultants acknowledge that “The equipment used by CSL is unable to identify individual bird species based on radar echo alone”. They then go on to propose that “in conjunction” with observers field skills the findings are acceptable, without qualifying observer competencies or experience etc. As the inferences are not supported by conclusive research they are therefore reduced to unscientific predictions which the Forum assert are not acceptable for this SPA species.
We note in Volume 1, Section 4 Ecology such admissions as low visibility when the work was being undertaken, but then CSL add that there were few movements and heights were low. We offer that such statements are contradictory and unscientific, if visibility is poor then it is likely that little will be observed especially movements or height. However, when one examines the amount of ornithological activity shown on the aerial photographs included in the Appendices it is considerable, particularly given they only undertook eight evening sessions. More importantly, we further offer that no valid clarification has been provided which establishes/differentiates the species logged. Returning to Section 4 and the ‘collision risk calculation’ and the reason given for concluding a low risk (‘insignificantly small proportion’) was the low level of activity within the windfarm area throughout the breeding and migration period and low flight heights. Elsewhere in the report one reads that the radar detected seven flights between 35 and 125m but they were “considered unlikely” to be nightjar, again we would require reliable evidence of the identity of the species. Activity is logged up to 450m from the boundary of the SPA, all below 6m yet later again they report nightjar flying over 15m birch. 13
Clearly, there are numerous contradictory statements within the consultants’ report. Selective interpretation has no place in a situation which involves a Natura 2000 site. Even though there were only eight nights spent gathering data, sufficient data were gathered to place considerable doubt as to the level of impact which would result if the proposal were approved.
The proposed turbines are a mere 250m from the SPA boundary, CSL logged flight activity 450m from the boundary which would bring birds well within range of the blades given that seven flights were again within blade range.
The consultants also promote the view that nightjars do not fly at any great height. Whilst this may have an element of fact, it is not a rule. Forum officers have personally observed nightjars ascend in excess of 40m on areas of Hatfield Moor. Forum officers are also aware of a local report relating to nightjar hawking insects around Thorne Colliery security lighting, suggesting that birds will fly high if the prey species is available and as such could be at risk from collision if feeding within blade height path.
The Forum do not believe that adequate data was gathered over a sufficient time period, one season does not provide confidence for the subjective conclusion drawn.
3.1.3
Marsh and Hen Harrier use of the Humberhead Peatlands
Marsh and Hen Harrier are protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (General Protection, Schedule 1(1) and Schedule 4). It is also protected in Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive 1979.
JNCC lists current threats to Marsh Harrier as including the loss and drying out of wetland habitats. They also detail the UK’s SPA for Marsh Harrier suite as supporting, on average, 116 females (as males commonly pair with more than one female, the UK SPA population is expressed as numbers of females). This amounts to about 74% of the British breeding population, which was 157 females (Stone et. al. 14
1997). This total is contained within 10 sites where they have been listed as a qualifying species. The Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast are one of these sites and are estimated to support 7% of the national population (11 females). It is therefore reasonable to promote the area as an important one for both Marsh and Hen Harrier.
A number of surveys have been carried out on behalf of both E-On and RES. Both developers through their consultants conclude there is little Harrier spp activity and their proposed wind farm development would have no significant impact upon either species population.
To ensure that Harriers are deterred from utilising the wind farm area it has been proposed that all set-aside and game cover would be removed. Inference within the developers reports suggests that English Nature found this acceptable.
The Forum finds it surprising that such changes in agricultural land use would be supported by the government’s statutory conservation advisor (and now, as Natural England, the body responsible for grant aid to agriculture). Indeed, in areas adjacent to SPAs and SACs, the conditions of the government’s Single Payment Scheme, Entry Level Scheme and Higher Level Schemes of environmental stewardship, would generally be targeted to encourage farmers to provide habitats which would support the species for which the Natura 2000 sites were designated. No evidence is presented on the contents of any Farm Environment Plans in the vicinity of the areas proposed for the turbines, nor of the longer term plans of local land-owners with regard to agricultural support schemes. So, it is possible that larger areas of ‘game cover’ and species-rich field margins would be created in the area in the near future.
Even if all environmentally friendly measures were to be removed from local farming to accommodate the proposed ‘mitigation’, this would NOT stop Harrier spp. (nor indeed Nightjar) from coming across over the peat body and woodland fringe of Thorne Moors and entering the wind farm site and risking death. The Forum are unable to find case study examples of this kind which prove that such negative ‘mitigation’ (=habitat destruction) is successful, but it is NOT for the objectors to provide such evidence: the onus of proof lies with the advocates of such measures i.e. 15
the developers. We therefore request that such evidence be provided before any confidence can be placed on the contradictory advice of either Natural England (the Rural Development Service are now part of the new organisation) or the advocates of the scheme.
Further, it should be noted that there has already been a change of land ‘occupier’ within the area of the proposed wind farm. The Walker land holding, which includes the SSI Whittaker’s Plantation will no longer be intensively farmed but in a manner which will actively encourage wildlife use. (J P Walker, pers. comm.) Effectively this change of land use will negate the removal of other holdings game cover etc. as a mitigation measure. In view of the possibility that areas termed ‘game cover’ will be providing habitat for other species, particularly invertebrates which may also be liable to protection, can the developers assure us that the necessary surveys have been carried out before destruction?
Merely because the proposed game cover habitat loss lies outside the Natura 2000 sites does not mean that it should be ignored. The Planning Inspector in the case of Dibden Bay SPA (2004) gave weight to habitat loss outside the designated sites. So, if the removal of set-aside and game cover represents a loss of feeding habitat for harriers, and if it would occur solely as a consequence of the wind turbine development, the Inspector’s decision in the case of Dibden Bay SPA is relevant: in that case, referring to habitat loss outside of the designated site, the Inspector commented that “No part of this area is within the boundary of any European site. Nevertheless, it provides a feeding resource for various fish-eating birds which are part of the assemblage for which the SPA is classified.”-
The data provided herein are easily available to anyone undertaking even a cursory desk top analysis and are available in the form of annual bird reports collated and compiled by experienced and competent volunteer observers and printed by English Nature.
The tables provide details of the number of birds seen in each month of the year over an arbitrary ten year period. However it should be recognised that the sightings are likely to reflect the number of days available to and spent in the field by the 16
ornithologists. Where no records are logged for a month, it is just as likely to mean no observer out on the moor, as no Marsh Harrier presence.
J
F
M
A
1994
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
44
5
3
3
22
9
7
1
1
1995 3
8
7
15
20
9
3
11
14
1
1996
3
3
4
8
2
3
12
17
3
10
10
2
1997
1
1998
4
12
18
15
3
21
21
7
1999
4
9
19
16
11
32
41
2
7
22
16
12
14
23
50
7
8
22
8
10
26
20
10
4
6
11
2
6
31
33
7
3
5
17
3
1
24
25
9
6
4
S
O
N
D
4
14
3
6
2
2000
3
2001 2002 2003
2
2
2004
Numbers of Marsh Harrier records over a ten year period. (Source: Thorne Moors Annual Bird Reports, EN)
J
F
M
A
1994 9
1
1995 5
4
3
6
1996 9
5
7
4
1997 4
1
11
4
1998 6
1
6
6
1999 7
1
7
3
2000 9
6
11
2
2001 5
1
2002 1
1
9
2
2003 11
9
5
5
M
2
7
J
J
A
1
4 2 1
1 1
1
4
1
3
6
2
3
8
4
9
1
6
6
2
3
13
5
6
5
4
5
3
2004
Numbers of Hen Harrier records over a ten year period.
17
(Source: Thorne Moors Annual Bird Reports, EN)
Harrier Records
Date
Species
Sex Flew over pylon north west of Sunset Cottage. Flying north-south. Height approximately 50m
21.02.2004 Hen Harrier 04.04.2004 Marsh Harrier
Male
over wires. Hunting over eastern side of Thorne Moors. Hunting east of Jaques Bank near Barkers
15.06.2004 Marsh Harrier
piggery.
01.05.2005
Hunting to west Sunset Cottage. Hunting over mineral line approximately 1pm.
24.05.2005 Marsh Harrier
Flying north to south. Hunting over field to west of Jaques Bank
05.06.05
Marsh Harrier
Female behind Brown's Farm. Spotted on Lovers Ground/Marsh Road. Flying
06.06.05
Marsh Harrier
Female south to north. Sighted on Jaques Bank next to nissan hut.
25.06.05
Marsh Harrier
Female Hunting. 2-10m. Hunting over pea filed east of Jaques Bank 2-
25.07.05
21.08.05
Marsh Harrier
10m.
Common
Spotted over Sunset Cottage flying west to east
Buzzard
(high). Hunting north of Sunset Cottage. Erratic flight
27.08.2005 Marsh Harrier
due to mobbing by Kestrel. Four Marsh Harriers to north east of Sunset
29.08.2005 Marsh Harrier
Cottage over Albone's land. Spit into 3 and 1. Hunting over M. Ella's field east of Jaques
06.09.2005 Marsh Harrier
Bank. To west of Sunset Cottage. Flew over pylon
01.02.2006 Marsh Harrier
wires approximately 50m. Descended to point
18
on moors. To east of Pilfrey Bridge, Keadby. To east of pylon line. Height 30-40m (being harassed by 02.02.2006 Marsh Harrier
Crow). Sighted to west of Jacques Bank. Height 20-
10.02.2006 Marsh Harrier
25m. Sighted flying east to west. Height 40m.
12.02.2006 Marsh Harrier
Headed to point. Flying just west of Sunset cottage. Travelling
18.02.2006 Marsh Harrier
Female north to south. Flew through pylon wires. Spotted east of Groves Farm flying north to
02.04.2006 Marsh Harrier
south. Height approximately 40m. Spotted flying north east to south west over
10.04.2006 Marsh Harrier
signal box. Flew over pylon wires. Sighted flying west to east along canal. Turned
20.04.2006 Marsh Harrier
south at Sunset cottage. Height 4-6m. Hunted over garden and pond (Sunset Cottage). Flew south to north at approximately 10m.
03.09.2006 Marsh Harrier
Late pm. Flew over garden of Sunset Cottage. North to south. Height under main power line - 30m
04.09.2006 Marsh Harrier
approximately. Harassed by Kestrel. Seen flying north to south over filed to east of Sunset Cottage. Flew over pylon wires.
14.10.2006 Marsh Harrier
Approximately 40-45m. Seen in field east of Sunset Cottage flying south to north. 3.40pm. Height approximately
14.11.2006 Marsh Harrier
40m.
Table: Casual observations of harrier activity including the period surveyed by commercial consultants. (Source: Peter Hart.)
19
3.2
Other aspects of concern to the Forum include:
3.2.1
Landscape impact by virtue of loss of wilderness value.
The Forum recognise that the issue of wilderness value and impact thereon is a subjective analysis, ideally a quantifiable method would be available. However in an endeavour to assist the discussion we would cite for example Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council who recently as part of their Local Development Framework research commissioned ECUS to undertake a Landscape Character Capacity Study (see Core Document 123: DMBC Landscape Character Assessment of Doncaster), which showed that Thorne & Hatfield Moors had zero to low capacity for wind farm developments.
A number of studies undertaken by statutory agencies and authorities have also established that visitors to Thorne and Hatfield Moors value the unspoilt wilderness.
3.2.2
Demonstration of need.
Volume 3 of the Supplementary Environmental Information, 4.12 Discusses need for the development. There is a distinct failure to acknowledge the importance of peat as a climate change regulator and carbon sink. There has been no work undertaken to provide assurances that the hydrological integrity of the surviving surface peat bodies within Hatfield, Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moors SAC will not be impacted upon. Identification of the extent and proximity of the peat underlying the agricultural land through which the foundations of the turbines will make large holes, and the likely potential of disruption to the wider peat body will cause oxidisation of the peat and the release of carbon dioxide. It is possible that the carbon dioxide liberated from peat oxidisation may exceed that ostensibly ‘saved’ by power generation over the life of the turbines. This would be a direct contradiction to the reputed purpose of wind turbines i.e. to generate carbon free electricity.
Failure by the developers to provide raw data from survey work undertaken belatedly. Preferring simply to submit selective and subjective reports unsubstantiated by the provision of sound science. 20
E-On particularly but also RES have failed to submit wind speed data which would demonstrate the viability of the sites. The nominal map included in the initial ES only shows borderline viability.
The developers have failed to include all data in the emission savings claim. Energy is required to produce cement, a necessary component in the construction of wind power stations such as this proposed for Tween Bridge and indeed Keadby.
3.2.3
Planning context.
Much is made by the developers of planning context, however nowhere are we able to identify discussion nor more importantly evidence which would satisfy the criteria on the investigation, identification and consideration of alternative sites. The recent decisions in the matter of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and Dibden Bay confirms that the requirement for alternative sites, within the UK and elsewhere in the European Union, needs to be thoroughly explored, before planning permission can be awarded. Hoskins & Tyldesley (2006) also acknowledge that no guidance exists which provides assistance in quantifying impact in terms of internationally important sites. The Forum believe that there is insufficient evidence presented by the developers of Tween Bridge in particular that other potential alternative sites have been examined, and that baseline studies have been undertaken at each alternative site (a standard requirement of EIA). There has also been a failure to demonstrate need (‘imperative reasons of over-riding pubic interest’) in the terms defined above which might make the application eligible for consideration.
The Habitats Directive, Regional Spatial Strategy, Unitary Development Plans all accept that Natura 2000 sites are afforded European protection and, to quote the most recent, the RSS reaffirms that developments will only be allowed “if in the absence of alternatives, there is an over riding public interest and compensatory measures are provided”. This same quote is even used by the developers but has not been discussed, explored and, of more importance, evidenced. 21
3.2.4
The in combination and cumulative impact of the various
applications (see Fig. 3.1 CD 17 P2) which effectively create a ‘ring of steel’ around the Humberhead Peatlands. The Forum offer that it is an inescapable conclusion that the in combination effects of the two applications being dealt with by this Inquiry, the proposal for Goole Fields and Twin Rivers, Finningley Airport and the issue of water abstraction will have a significant adverse impact upon the Natura 2000 sites. In light of these the precautionary principle is invoked and it is not for the competent authority to demonstrate that the project(s) would be harmful to the international sites, but to ascertain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site(s). In assessing whether it can be ascertained, we promote that it is necessary to look beyond the boundaries of the site(s) as well as within the site(s).
3.2.5
Other nature conservation interest
Although of less weight than SSSI interests and not imposing the same statutory considerations in respect of European legislation, the following matters are nevertheless material to the secretary of State’s decision: •
SSIs (ten were identified by UUGEL/E-On on the southern periphery of Thorne Moor alone).
•
UK BAP habitats and species (Lowland Raised Mire, Lowland Heath , Curimopsis nigrita, Large Heath, Woodlark to name but five examples).
•
Other species protected by law.
•
Red data book and other rare and threatened species.
22
4
REFERENCES
Documents referred to in the Proof of Evidence and their sources.
Birds of the Western Palearctic (referred to in the Forum’s March 2004 submission) is available as CD 179. Berry, R. & Bibby, C.J. (1981) A breeding study of Nightjars. Brit. Birds 74: 161-9. (Cited and appended by Natural England and RSPB.) Cresswell, B. (1996) Nightjars some aspects of their behaviour and conservation. British Wildlife Vol. 7: 297 – 304. (Cited by CSL, so assumed to have been submitted as supportive paper.) Gaunt, G. D., Buckland, P. C. & Bateman, M. D. (2006). The geological background to the development and demise of a wetland - the Quaternary history of the Humberhead Levels. Yorkshire Naturalist' Union Bulletin 45 Suppl.: 6-46.
* Hoskin, R., & Tyldesley, D. 2006. How the scale of effects on internationally designated conservation sites in Britain has been considered in decision making: A review of authoritative decisions. English Nature Research Report 704.
Money, R. P. 1995. Re-establishment of a Sphagnum-dominated flora on cut-over lowland raised bogs; regeneration with special reference to palaeoecological studies. In: Wheeler, B.D.; Shaw, S.C.; Fojt, W.J. & Robertson, R. A. (eds.) Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. J.Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 405-422.
* Murison, G. (2002) The impact of human disturbance on the breeding success of nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus on heathlands in south Dorset, England. English Nature Research Report 483. Palmer, P. (2002) Movements of foraging nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus at Hatfield Moor and some aspects of their ecology. A report to English Nature. (Cited by CSL, as well as earlier E-On consultants, so assumed to have been submitted as supportive paper.)
23
*
Available as a pdf via www.english-nature.org.uk
24