ŠĻą”±į>ž’ ž’’’  ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ģ„Įq` šæR÷bjbjqPqP 40::ļ7’’’’’’¤<<<<444Hšvšvšv8(w<dw¤H¾°2x*x"LxLxLxį†į†į†=°?°?°?°?°?°?°$š±hX“fc°4yˆ³ƒ.į†yˆyˆc°<<LxLxg x°ŪŪŪyˆœ<ÜLx4Lx=°Ūyˆ=°ŪŪ6Ŭą4EÆLxx @ƒŁų`Ēšv„­™Æ¤Ž°0¾°Į­„¾“-Ž’¾“8Eƾ“4EÆTį†0‡"Ū3‡O‡*į†į†į†c°c°æį†į†į†¾°yˆyˆyˆyˆHHHD;ŒCd3HHHŒCHHH<<<<<<’’’’ Application No.04/B/1107Full Planning Application ProposalErection of 10 no. wind turbine generators, anemometry mast, substation and associated infrastructureLocationMoorsyde Wind Farm, Felkington, Berwick-upon-Tweed, TD15 2NRApplicantMoorsyde Wind Farm LtdRecommendationApprove subject to conditions Conditions As Members are being requested to signify that they are minded to approve the application, rather than grant planning permission outright, and given that the archaeological evaluation may require some minor variation of the scheme or additional information, it is not considered that proposed conditions should be set out verbatim at this time. Nonetheless, should Members be favourably minded towards the proposed development, it would be intended to attach planning conditions covering the following matters: That the scheme refers to 10 turbines in the locations shown on the revised drawings received by the LPA on 31 July 2006. Confirmation of turbine types and details and agreement of the colour finishes of the wind turbines (tower, nacelle and blades) with the LPA. That the turbines remain on site for a maximum of 25 years following commencement of energy production. Within 12 months of the expiration of the 25 year period all development above ground to be removed from the site in accordance with the Environmental Statement submitted with the planning application. Any turbine that ceases to be operational for a period exceeding 12 months to be dismantled and removed from the site, unless otherwise agreed with the LPA. Details of type, appearance and routing etc of the grid connection. No generation of electricity to the national grid until a scheme for the remediation of any interference to domestic TV, radio and telephone (mobile and landline) reception has been submitted to and agreed by the LPA. The vehicular accesses to the B6354 to be laid out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the LPA. Any gates erected to open inwards only. Submission and approval of a cross-over scheme over the County road U12 between the eastern and western areas of the site. Submission and approval of a traffic management plan for construction traffic to and from the site. Restriction of times of movement of construction traffic entering and leaving the site and of construction work itself. All loaded vehicles entering and leaving the site to be sheeted. Construction method statement to be submitted for the consideration and approval of the LPA, including provision of a wheel washing facility for vehicles leaving the site. Details and method statement for the reinstatement of all construction areas and access routes. Submission of a management plan for the site over its 25 year operational period. Noise monitoring and mitigation, should a reasonable complaint be received by the LPA. Submission of a monitoring regime to assess the impact of the wind farm on breeding and over-wintering birds within and neighbouring the site. Submission of and agreement to a scheme of mitigation in the event that it becomes apparent that a particular turbine is giving rise to a high level of bird strike mortalities to geese. A scheme of archaeological mitigation to be submitted for the consideration and approval of the LPA. The submission of plans and details of the revised access routes within the site and the cross-over point over the bridleway running through the site, as agreed with the County Countryside Access Officer.  INCLUDETEXT C:\TEMP\OFFREP_1911.DOC \* MERGEFORMAT Recommendation That Members be MINDED TO APPROVE the application subject the applicants carrying out a pre-determination archaeological evaluation, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, of those areas of the site that will be affected by the proposed development and subject to appropriate planning conditions as summarised below and the completion of a S106 agreement in respect of the payment of a community benefit contribution by the developer to the Borough Council: Proposal The proposed scheme comprises the erection of 10 wind turbines (reduced from the 14 originally proposed in July 2006), an anemometry mast, associated electrical infrastructure (underground cabling and substation) and construction of access tracks on land north of Felkington and south of Shoresdean. The wind turbines are proposed as a three-bladed design with a maximum overall height of 110m, comprising a tower height of 65m and rotor radius of 45m. The preferred model is a Vestas V.90 machine with a 3MW generating capacity although, as is common with wind farm developments, the particular model of wind turbine has not been finalised. Whilst precise dimensions may vary the overall height will not exceed 110m. The overall generating capacity of the proposed wind farm, therefore, amounts to 30MW, as compared with the 38.5MW envisaged from the original scheme which comprised 14 2.75MW turbines. In common with the industry norm, the wind farm has been designed with an operational life of 25 years. At the end of this period the site will be either decommissioned and all apparatus removed, or planning permission will be sought to replace the existing equipment. Approximately 7km of access tracks are proposed to be constructed within the site utilising crushed rock that will excavated from “borrow pits” within the site that will then be backfilled. This method is proposed in order to reduce traffic movements to the site during the construction period. The layout of the access tracks has been agreed with the landowners and farmers. The site, which extends over some 600 hectares, lies approximately 11km south west of Berwick-upon-Tweed and 11km east of Coldstream. The B6354 crosses the site. The landscape of the area is characterised by open rolling farmland. Land within the application site boundaries is gently undulating and is mainly in agricultural use (primarily arable fields with some grazed by cattle) with some small areas of woodland. These are no residential properties within the site although they are found neighbouring the site boundaries at Shoreswood, Shoresdean, West Allerdean and Felkington. The planning application is accompanied by a supporting Planning Statement, Technical Summary and an Environmental Statement, which includes photomontages indicating computer generated views of the site with the turbines erected from various vantage points around the site. The Environmental Statement was independently audited by Ironside Farrar, Environmental Consultants, following which an addendum to the Environmental Statement was submitted in March 2006 with additional photomontages being provided. Revised photomontages have been submitted following the reduction in the number of turbines proposed and an independent visual impact appraisal of the proposed development has been undertaken by Ferguson McIlveen (now Scott Wilson), Planning and Environmental Consultants. Background/History There is no planning history to the site that is relevant to the consideration of this application. Material Considerations  The key issues raised by the proposal include:- The principle of a wind farm in this location. The impact of the proposed development on the landscape of the area. The impact of the proposed development upon visual amenity. Nature conservation. Heritage conservation, including archaeological conservation. Tourism Potential TV reception and other electro-magnetic interference. Shadow flicker Noise Impact on public rights of way. National and Local Planning Policy In accordance with S54(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and as reaffirmed by S38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The adopted Development Plan for Berwick-upon-Tweed comprises the Berwick-upon Tweed Local Plan (1999) and the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan (2005), read together with the current Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) in the form of Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1) (2002). The existing RSS will shortly be replaced by the emerging RSS, the Submission Draft (2005) for which has been through the Examination in Public Stage (2006) and the resultant Panel Report published (2006). These two documents constitute material considerations, which should given due weight when considering this application in the regional planning policy context. There are several national planning policy documents (both Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance Notes) that also are material to the determination of this application. Berwick-upon-Tweed Local Plan The following policies set out in the Berwick upon Tweed Local Plan (1999) are relevant to the determination of this application. F1 Places prime importance upon sustaining and enhancing the Borough’s environmental wealth. F4 Refers to the Intermediate Area of Landscape Value [within which the wind farm site is located]. F6 Presumption in favour on the conservation of candidate and designated SPA’s, SAC’s and Ramsar Sites. F7 Presumption in favour of conserving existing and proposed National Nature Reserves and SSSI’s. F9 A generic nature conservation policy that seeks to offer protection to sites and/or habitats that are not covered by formal designations. F10 Presumption against development that would adversely affect any protected species or their habitats. F12 Consideration to be given to the protection of trees or woodland that would be adversely affected by development by making of Tree Preservation Orders. F15 Safeguarding the best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1, 2 or 3a) from development. F19 Requires regard to be had to the desirability of maintaining the setting and visibility of Listed Buildings. F26 Presumption in favour of the physical preservation of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other nationally important archaeological sites and their settings. F27 Archaeological assessments required when the impact of proposed development upon an archaeological site is unclear. F28 States the Council’s preference for the in situ preservation of archaeological features where these would be affected by development. F29 Regard to be had to the avoidance of damaging effects on the appearance, setting or historically important features of historic parks, gardens or battlefields. F31 A generic policy advising that in applying the above policies the Council will be had to the benefits of the proposed development and appropriate weight be given to the Local Plan policies. C28 The principal Local Plan Policy relevant to the consideration of this application, which states: “Within the Intermediate Area of Landscape Value, proposals for the development of wind farms designed to connect into the regional or national electricity supply network will be considered. Particular regard will be given to the following issues: the requirement for an Environmental Statement under any current Regulations; the local wider and cumulative impacts on the landscape; the need to protect features and areas of heritage and nature conservation interest; levels and effects of noise, shadow flicker and electromagnetic interference; the measures that would be taken, both during and after construction, to minimise the impact of the development on adjoining land uses and residential amenity; the local and wider impacts of the development, including safety, employment, tourism, education and levels of pollution. All proposals will be balanced against Policies elsewhere in the Plan. In doing so it will be acknowledged that wind energy can only be harnessed commercially where the annual mean wind speed is sufficiently high.”  Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan The following policies of the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan (2005) are relevant to the determination of this application: L1 Presumption against development that would adversely affect the character and distinctiveness of the Northumberland National Park. L2 Presumption against development that would adversely affect the Northumberland Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. L12 Presumption against developing areas of the best and most versatile agricultural land. N1 Advises that sites designated for their importance for nature at international, national, regional and local level, will be conserved and enhanced in accordance with their status (i.e. a hierarchical approach to the protection of nature conservation sites). Mitigation of the effects of development will be fully considered. N2 Presumption against development that would adversely affect protected species or their habitats. N4 Encouragement for the protection and management of habitats and species identified in the UK and Northumberland Biodiversity Action Plans. HC2 Presumption in favour of the preservation of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, other nationally important archaeological sites, and their settings. HC3 Presumption in favour of the preservation of regionally and locally important archaeological sites. HC4 Archaeological assessments required when the impact of proposed development upon an archaeological site is unclear. HC6 Presumption in favour of the preservation of listed buildings and their settings. HC7 Presumption against developments that would have a detrimental effect on the character and setting of registered historic parks and gardens and battlefields. M4 Support and encouragement of major developments for the generation of electricity from renewable resources, except in the National Park, AONB’s, the Heritage Coast, Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage site and sites of national and international importance for nature conservation. Proposals will be assessed taking account of their implications for the interests listed below and to the effect of any mitigation measures proposed: landscape character and capacity; visual amenity; archaeological and built heritage; nature conservation interest; living conditions nearby, including from noise and other emissions; the local economy; accessibility by road and public transport; the disposal of waste; agriculture and other land based industries; any cumulative impact with other similar development; the economic, social and environmental benefits of the development beyond the local area; and any other material considerations identified in Local Plans and Supplementary Planning Guidance. M5 Identifies the area south and west of Berwick-upon–Tweed as a “Wind Resource Area” with the potential for medium scale wind energy development. Regional Planning Policy The current Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), in the form of Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1) (2002), sets out broad strategic planning policies aimed primarily to inform the preparation of Local Development Plans and Structure Plans. The Minerals, Waste and Energy chapter of RPG1 includes some particularly material sections with reference to renewable energy and wind power generation: Paragraph 6.46 refers to the Government target that 10% of UK electricity be supplied from renewable energy sources by 2010, increasing to 20% by 2020 and which, it is acknowledged, will require a positive strategic approach. Paragraph 6.47 acknowledges wind energy to be the major resource option. Paragraph 6.48 refers to the preparation of a North East Regional Renewable Energy Strategy that will identify Strategic Wind Resource Areas (where wind generation scheme would be encouraged) and inform an early review of RPG1. Paragraph 6.49 acknowledges that much of the region is covered by national landscape designations, which acts as a significant constraint, but notes that significant lowland and coastal locations, which benefit from the favourable wind regimes, are unaffected by such designations and should therefore be considered as potential locations. The North East of England Regional Renewable Energy Strategy was published in 2003. This document identified the area south and west of Berwick-upon-Tweed as being an appropriate location for medium scale wind farm developments. The Submission Draft of the emerging RSS was published in June 2005 and taken through the Examination in Public Stage in Spring 2006, with the resultant Panel Report being published in July 2006. These two documents should, therefore, be considered material. Policy 40 of the Submission Draft indicates that at least 10% (454MW minimum installed capacity) of the region’s electricity should be supplied from renewable resources and that 212MW of this should be generated within Northumberland. Moreover, the aim should be to generate 20% of regional electricity consumption by 2020. Policy 42 indicates that strategies, plans and programmes should provide a positive policy framework to facilitate onshore wind developments within the area south and west of Berwick-upon-Tweed, which is identified to be a broad area of least constraint for wind energy developments. The RSS Panel Report accepted the targets referred to in Policy 40 and confirmed that the area south and west of Berwick-upon-Tweed be accepted as a broad area of least constraint where for wind energy developments should be directed within the Borough. National Planning Policy The following National Planning Policy documents are relevant: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004) PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) PPG16: Archaeology and Planning (1990) PPS22: Renewable Energy (2004). PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004) PPG24: Planning and Noise (1994) The following extracts from these documents are considered to be particularly relevant: PPS1 sets out the Government’s approach to achieving more sustainable forms of development and encourages more prudent use of natural resources and promotes energy generation from renewable resources. Paragraph 22 advises that “Development Plan policies … should seek to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy).” PPS7 sets out the Government’s approach to sustainable development in rural areas. Specific encouragement that renewable energy resources be harnessed is given at paragraph 16 which indicates that “when determining planning applications for development in the countryside, local planning authorities should … provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy resources in accordance with policies set out in PPS22.” PPS9 refers to the Government’s approach to biodiversity and geological conservation, the broad objectives being to promote sustainable development; conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England’s wildlife and geology; and, contribute to rural renewal and urban renaissance. Paragraph 1 is relevant to the determination of planning applications and advises that “the aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests” … although only if “significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, then should planning permission be refused.” PPG15 provides guidance for the protection of historic buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historic environment. The protection of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings and their settings is acknowledged to be an important consideration in the determination of planning applications. Indeed paragraph 2.2.6 states: “plans should protect its most important components and encourage development that is consistent with maintaining its overall character. Indeed, policies to strengthen the rural economy through environmentally sensitive diversification may be among the most important for its conservation.” Paragraph 1.2 acknowledges that this is just one of the many objectives that need to be balanced when considering development proposals, however when it states” the objective of planning processes should be to reconcile the need for economic growth with the need to protect the natural and historic environment”.  PPG16 provides guidance with regards to the management of archaeological remains. PPS22 and its Companion Guide set out the Government’s approach to renewable energy. Of all the PPS’s and PPG’s referred to in this report, this is clearly the key policy document in the consideration of the proposed wind farm. It represents the Government’s most recent guidance on renewable energy and post-dates both the Local Plan and RPG1. PPS22 provides considerable support to the greater harnessing of renewable energy resources, particularly wind energy, indicating that it is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. The key principles of PPS22 are set out in paragraph 1 and include the following: “Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and the environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission. [Officer’s emphasis] Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should not make assumptions about the technical and commercial viability of renewable energy projects. Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any environmental, economic or social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.” Furthermore, paragraph 5.1 of the Companion Guide states: “If Government’s targets are to be met, policy support for renewable energy schemes will need to be backed up by development control decisions.” The need to balance well-established objectives of protecting environmental and historical interests with the need for new renewable energy projects is reflected by guidance throughout PPS22. The following extracts are considered to be particularly noteworthy: Paragraph 5.4 of the Companion Guide states: “Local planning authorities should recognise that the landscape and visual effects will only be one consideration to be taken into account in assessing planning applications, and that these must be considered alongside the wider environmental, economic and social benefits that arise from renewable energy projects.” Paragraph 14 of PPS22 states: “Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should not create “buffer zones” around international or nationally designated areas and apply policies to these zones that prevent development of renewable energy projects.” Paragraph 15 of PPS22 states: “Local landscape and local nature conservation designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for renewable energy developments …” PPS23 provides guidance on the consideration of the quality of land, air and water and the potential impacts arising from development. PPG24 sets out the Government’s approach to development proposals and potential noise impacts. Statutory Consultation responses North East Assembly – Supports the proposed wind farm which “is in general conformity with the positive framework provided for the consideration of renewable energy proposals in RPG1 Policies EN2 and EN3 and the emerging RSS. It is located within an area of least constraint for wind energy development identified in the emerging RSS and the Regional Renewable Energy Strategy (2004). The concerns about potential impact of this proposal on cultural heritage assets nearby could be alleviated and mitigated against through the appropriate planning conditions”. Government Office for the North East – No comments received. Northumberland County Council (Highways) – No objections in principle but suggestion that the crossing point on County road U12 be relocated as that proposed is unsafe due to the vertical and horizontal alignment of the road; note that the site access roads include tight 90 degree bends that will not accommodate construction traffic; and, request for greater detail be provided of the proposed junctions of the access tracks with the B6354. Northumberland County Council (Ecology) – No objections offered but comments provided. Terra-matting suggested for the access tracks rather than crushed stone as there are no proposals to decommission the tracks at the end of the project. The proposal to drain the marshy area adjacent to turbine 3 needs assessment. Further surveys regarding great crested newts, white clawed crayfish and bats are required. A site management plan would help with ecological mitigation. The cumulative impact of this scheme and those proposed at Toft Hill, Barmoor and Middlemoor, all within Berwick Borough, should be assessed.  Northumberland County Council (Archaeology) – The initial response offered no objections but commented that a desk based assessment was required; additional photomontages should be provided from Duddo Tower and the Duddo Four Stone Circle; and further archaeological investigations and evaluation of the site should be undertaken. Following discussions with the applicant’s environmental consultants and consideration of the addendum report to the Environmental Statement the County Archaeologist advised that two main archaeological issues remain to be resolved: An archaeological pre-determination evaluation (trial trenching and bore hole survey) should be undertaken of the areas that will be affected by the proposed development (turbine foundations, borrow pits, sub-station) given that the Environmental Statement itself defines a broad area of “very high potential for buried archaeological remains” within the site boundaries. The County Archaeologist does not consider that such works could be left to be dealt with by planning condition and carried out after planning permission has been granted. Concern that the proposed wind farm will affect the setting of Duddo Stone Circle, which lies 1.8km from the site. With reference to the Assessment of Visual Impact within the Addendum Report, which recognises that Duddo Stone Circle is highly sensitive to visual impact and that the wind turbines will be prominent features within views to the north and east and concludes that the wind farm would have a substantial impact on the setting of the Stone Circle, The County Archaeologist considers that the developers should be required to address the issue of reducing the visual impact on the Stone Circle, possibly through the reduction or relocation of some of the more prominent turbines. Letter dated 6 September 2006 received from the County Archaeologist advising that following the reduction in the number of turbines from 14 to 10 and the relocation of turbine 4 the concerns previously expressed as regard impact upon Duddo Stone Circle may be regarded as having been addressed. The concern regarding the need for archaeological evaluation remains, however. Northumberland County Council (Countryside Access & Recreation) – Initial objection due to impact that the proposed scheme would have on a 380m length of public bridleway, which presently has an ideal surface (free-draining with stone base and well established grass sward) is free from disturbance and forms an important recreational route. The proposed mitigation of providing an adjacent grass strip is considered a poor substitute and raises issues with regards to width and alignment of the right of way, long term maintenance and close proximity of the vehicular access track. Preferred solution is an alternative access route avoiding use of the bridleway other than as a crossing point. Subsequent withdrawal of objection when the proposed access tracks were revised following the reduction of the scheme to 10 turbines such that the bridleway is crossed at a single point rather than a length of the bridleway shared.  Northumberland County Council (Spatial Policy and Initiatives Team) – Recommendation “that planning permission should not be granted unless it has been demonstrated to the reasonable satisfaction of the Borough Council that: having regard to Policy M4 of the Structure Plan, the scale of development proposed and its proximity to nearby dwellings would not result in significant and adverse impacts arising in terms of its effects on landscape character and capacity, visual amenity and living conditions nearby; sufficient information has been provided to allow a full and proper assessment to be made of the impact development may have on designated landscapes, particularly the Northumberland Coast AONB, on matters of nature conservation importance and on matters of archaeological and built heritage importance within the zone of visual influence of the development; and suitable alternative access arrangements can be agreed which do not impact adversely upon the public rights of way network within the application site.” Northumberland National Park Authority – No comments received. Scottish Borders Council – Whilst the Council cannot oppose the proposed development, were the site located within the Scottish Borders the proposal would not be supported, primarily by virtue of the landscape character of the area. Northumberland Coast AONB Partnership – Whilst the site is outside of the AONB, the wind farm will have a visual impact over much of it. The Partnership objects to the proposals unless the following matters are resolved: additional photomontages are requested from other sites within the AONB (Beal or Goswick suggested); it is considered that the impact upon the AONB will be significant, not minor or negligible as suggested in the Environmental Statement, and it is suggested that the number of turbines should be reduced or the layout more broken up and the colour of the turbines carefully considered so as to ensure minimal intrusion into the landscape; and, cumulative impacts of this scheme and other known wind farms need to be considered. Natural England (formerly English Nature) – Reference to pre-application discussions with the applicants and Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council with regards to the scoping study for the Environmental Statement as the site lies within 3km of two Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Lower Tweed and White Adder Catchment SSSI and Till Catchment SSSI. No objections.  Northumberland Wildlife Trust – No objections, comments offered. A cumulative impact assessment should be made of this scheme together with the three nearest wind farms then proposed, now submitted as planning applications: Toft Hill to the west, Barmoor to the south and Middlemoor to the east of North Charlton. Could terra-matting be used for the access tracks rather than crushed stone so that no permanent roads are required? Further information required regarding potential impact on peat deposits. Questioning of the proposed grouting mix to be used in grouting the mine shafts. Suggestion that turbine 3 be moved to avoid the need to drain the marshy area. More information requested regarding great crested newts, bats, otters, crayfish and wintering waterfowl. English Heritage – No objections. Acceptance with the finding of the Environmental Statement that there will be no direct physical impacts on either Duddo Stones or Duddo Tower Scheduled Ancient Monuments but that both will be subject to high visual impact. Recommendation that the County Archaeologist is consulted with regards to potential impacts on known and potential archaeological artefacts within the site. RSPB – No objections, but the following comments offered. 11 of the bird species present on the site are on the Birds of Conservation Concern red list, i.e. they are considered to be of high conservation concern because of rapid or moderate declines in their populations. More information required regarding wintering birds, especially geese. Post–construction monitoring will be required to gauge the impact of the wind farm on bird populations. If it becomes apparent that a particular turbine is giving rise to a high level of bird strike mortalities to geese then appropriate mitigation (such as painting the rotor blades to make them more visible) should be undertaken. British Horse Society – Supports the principle of renewable energy projects but has concerns that the significant number of local horse riders who use the area may suffer safety concerns during the construction phase in particular, unless this can be mitigated. Concern that it is proposed to widen an existing access track that coincides with part of a public bridleway as the proposed surface material is unlikely to be suitable for equestrian use – suggestion that the access track between turbine 8 and turbines 6 and 7 be realigned so that it approached the latter turbines from the east rather than the south as proposed. Council for the Protection of Rural England - No comments received. Ministry of Defence – No objections. Civil Aviation Authority – No objections.  National Air Traffic Service – No objections. Northumbria Tourist Board - No comments received. Health and Safety Executive – No objections but recommends consulting British Gas Transco as the site is within the Consultation Distance of a major hazard pipeline. The Coal Authority – General standing advice only received: the proposed development lies within a coal mining area and in the circumstances applicants should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposals. Northumbrian Water – No objections. Scottish Power - No comments received. British Gas Transco - No comments received. Duddo Parish Council - “Supports the principle of appropriately scaled and sited renewable energy proposals but considers this application to be unacceptable due to its size, location and the height of the turbines sited as proposed so near to various residential settlements, affecting several hundred individuals in a serious manner”. The Parish Council “objects in the strongest possible terms”, citing the following concerns: visual and landscape impact; the site is littered with former mine workings and is unsuitable for such a development; the proposed entry point from the B6354 to the site compound and sub-station is at a dangerous part of the road; contests the natural habitat data submitted by the applicants; potential impact on the public water supply, much of which is derived from within the proposed site boundary; close proximity to residential settlements; visual impact; the cumulative impact that this proposal and that at Toft Hill would be ruinous to residents and property values; impact on valuable fertile agricultural land; harmful to tourism and employment reliant upon it; impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments (Duddo Stones and Duddo Tower) and the natural environment; effects on electrical and telecommunications equipment; no details provided of power line connection between the site and the national grid; dissatisfaction with the Environmental Statement, particularly the photomontages; and, surprise that the MOD has not objected. (Summary of main issues from two letters of objection) Shoreswood Parish Council – Following a public meeting 50 objections were registered from local residents citing the following concerns: size of turbines; development will spoil the area and the countryside; visual impact – spoiling views; noise, shadow flicker; harm to wildlife; wrong location; too close to housing; scheme represents a badly thought out strategy to meet a political objective; impact on tourism; interference with bridle path; and, not in my back yard. Ancroft Parish Council – Objects for the following reasons: loss of good agricultural land; a questioning of the stability of the land due to the old coal workings in the locality; impact on tourism; impact on historical and archaeological sites; harm to wildlife; road safety on the B6354; and, disruption to the life style of local residents due to noise, shadow and flicker.  Representation responses 206 letters of objection, including the submissions from the campaign group “Moorsyde Action Group”, which was established to co-ordinate local opposition to the proposed wind farm have been received in opposition to the proposed wind farm development. The main grounds of objection are summarised below: Visual impact, contention that the open and essentially horizontal nature of the landscape makes it highly sensitive to the proposed development. Landscape impact, contention that the landscape is valuable despite not being designated as it is part of the overall setting for the Northumberland National Park and Northumberland Coast AONB. That insufficient photomontages have been provided and that some significant viewpoints have been omitted. The scale and number of turbines proposed. Dissatisfaction with the Environmental Statement submitted with the application and, in particular, concern that it downplays the impacts that the proposed wind farm will have. Impact on wildlife, particularly impact on birds. Impact on ground water. Impact on the Duddo Stones Circle and Duddo Tower. Impact on the tourism industry. Impact on the public bridleway that passes through the site. Suggestion that the land is unsuitable for a wind farm development as a consequence of the mining history of the area, which leaves the stability of the ground open to question. The wind farm is proposed too close to residential properties neighbouring the site. Shadow flicker. Noise. Interference with TV reception. A questioning of the power output and CO2 savings suggested by the applicants. Impact of the connection to the national grid is ignored. Note that the turbine model originally proposed is no longer manufactured. Concern that consultation with the local community was poor. A petition, organised by the Moorsyde Action Group and containing 756 signatures was also received. The petition states: “We ask the competent authorities to reject this proposal on the following grounds: landscape impact; excessive size; number and density of turbines; proximity to housing; damage to local tourist industry; environmental damage; inadequate consultation with local people and their representatives”.  185 letters of support for the proposed development have been received. The main reasons for support cited are summarised below: There is on-coming crisis in climate change that we must deal with – wind energy is the way to go. That wind turbines look nice, enhance the view rather than detract from it and instill a sense of quiet and serenity. They are not noisy. The wind farm is proposed in a sensible location. “Over 10,500 homes served with clean renewable energy must be a good trade off against the minor perceived disruption to local residents.” “National surveys show that over 80% of the public support wind farms and over time people living near them get used to them and grow to love them.” “As a tourist I would not be deterred from visiting Berwick or surrounding area.” Wind energy is environmentally safe. The reduced scheme of 10 turbines improves the project but still provides clean renewable energy. It is proposed in the right place as the Regional Spatial Strategy also indicates. Many local people and visitors are in support of the proposal but are reluctant to stand up in case of adverse reaction from a small but very vocal NIMBY element. Officer Observations The principle of a wind farm in this location The application site lies within the Intermediate Area of Landscape Value identified in the Local Plan, within which Policy C28 of the Local Plan advises that “wind farms designed to connect into the regional or national electricity supply network will be considered”. Moreover, the site is within that area west of Berwick-upon Tweed which was identified in the North East of England Regional Renewable Energy Strategy (2003) as being an appropriate location for medium scale wind farm developments. More recently, Policy M5 of the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan (2005) identified the area south and west of Berwick-upon–Tweed as a “Wind Resource Area” with the potential for medium scale wind energy development“. This policy stance was reaffirmed at a regional level by Policy 42 of the emerging RSS (2005) which identified the area as a “broad area of least constraint for wind energy developments” with “potential for medium scale development”. This Policy was accepted in the RSS Panel Report.  Clearly, there is significant planning policy background indicating the area within which the application site lies as being a favoured location for wind energy developments. Furthermore, at 10 turbines the proposed wind farm would be regarded as a small/medium scale development. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed wind farm is acceptable in principle with reference to the Local Plan, Structure Plan and Regional Spatial Strategy policies indicated above. The impact of the proposed development on the landscape of the area The proposed wind farm is located entirely within the Intermediate Area of Landscape Value, which carries the lowest landscape designation in the Local Plan and which is less sensitive and more tolerant of accepting change than the wider area. However, due to the size of the turbines there will still be a significant impact upon the landscape given the remote and open characteristics of the locality. Significantly, however, this area has been identified as an appropriate location for medium scale wind farm developments, as indicated above. Indeed, the impact is reduced slightly by the rolling nature of the landform and areas of woodland throughout the area which together offer some screening of the turbines from various viewpoints in the locality. Moreover, as paragraph 5.4 of the Companion Guide to PPS22 states, “local planning authorities should recognise that the landscape and visual effects will only be one consideration to be taken into account in assessing planning applications, and that these must be considered alongside the wider environmental, economic and social benefits that arise from renewable energy projects.” The wider area within which the application site lies contains a number of nationally and regionally important landscapes including the Northumberland National Park, the Northumberland Coast AONB, the Tweed Valley and Kyloe Hills and Glendale Areas of High Landscape Value and the Cheviot foothills. It is considered that the impact of the proposed wind farm upon these more important landscapes is minimal, due to the distances from the site and/or because of the screening of views by vegetation cover and landform. Furthermore, paragraph 14 of PPS22 advises that “local planning authorities should not create “buffer zones” around international or nationally designated areas and apply policies to these zones that prevent development of renewable energy projects.” Paragraph 15 continues in a similar vein, advising that “local landscape designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for renewable energy developments”. Landscape appreciation can be subjective and the changes to the landscape and views may be perceived by some to be detrimental while others would consider the changes to be beneficial as they add to the overall visual experience. Whilst the proposed wind farm development will have an impact on the landscape of the area, taking note of the advice set out above, it is not considered that the refusal of this application on the grounds of adverse impact upon the landscape could be sustained. Indeed, it is considered that the propose development accords with Local Plan Policies F1, F4 and C28 and Structure Plan Policies L1, L2, M4 and M5.  The impact of the proposed development upon visual amenity There is no escaping the fact that the wind turbines proposed are large structures which, as a consequence of their size and number will result in visual impact. However, visual impact is subjective as evidenced in the letters of objection and letters of support. Some people consider the turbines to be “monstrous” while others see them as “beautiful”. The question to be answered is whether or not the visual impact of the development is considered to be reasonable. To assess visual impacts 10 photomontages (viewpoints at Grindon, A698 The Salutation Inn public house, Shoresdean, Berwick-upon-Tweed northern by-pass, Bowsden, Etal, Chirnside, Coldstream East, Holy Island and Gains Law) were provided in the Environmental Statement submitted with the planning application and a further 6 (viewpoints at Beal, Goswick, Berrington Lough, Duddo Stone Circle, Ancroft and Ladykirk) with the Addendum to the Environmental Statement. A further 7 photomontages (viewpoints at Allerdean, West Lodge, Hutton, Fouldon, Capshill, Scfemerston and East of Grievestead) have been submitted in accordance with the suggestion contained within the Ferguson McIlveen visual impact appraisal together with the earlier photomontages revised to indicate the 10 turbines now proposed. It is considered that collectively the 23 photomontages provide representative views from various locations around the site, both close to (e.g. Shoresdean and Duddo Stone Circle) and distant from the site (e.g. Holy Island and Hutton). As might be expected, visual impact has been assessed to vary and be generally greater the nearer the viewpoint is to the site and less the further the viewpoint is from the site. Topography and intervening buildings and woodland further reduce visual impact, this can be particularly significant for viewpoints relatively close to the site. For example, the Grindon viewpoint is approximately 2.1km from turbine 3 and the turbines will be visually prominent from the viewpoint (a bridleway) but there are no views from the windows of residential properties due to screening by farm buildings. Between 1km and 5km from the site there would be major/moderate impact upon the most highly sensitive visual receptors, residential properties with uninterrupted views. However, as already stated topography and intervening buildings and area of woodland will reduce impact. Where visible at distance the turbines would be prominent but not detract from the wider panoramic views. From more distant viewpoints (more than 5km), some of the turbines would be visible from some viewpoints but the impact would be no greater than moderate/minor and in some instances would be negligible. The population of the area (and visual receptors, therefore) is relatively low although being an area of settled low land it is greater than might be expected of a surrounding upland site. However, siting the wind farm in The Cheviots would not be acceptable due to their location within the National Park. There are no residential properties within the site and relatively few in the general area of the site. Notwithstanding residential properties some do neighbour all boundaries to it. The site is also crossed by the B6354 and an unclassified road.  The distance between neighbouring residential properties and the nearest turbine varies between 1km (The Lodge, Felkington and turbine 6) and 1.7km (West Allerdean and turbine 8) with other turbines being an increasing distance further away. Over such distances it is considered that the visual impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents is not unreasonable. Indeed, the reduction in the number of turbines from 14 to 10 has undoubtedly reduced the visual impact of the development upon residents quite considerably, particularly residents of Shoresdean and Shoreswood. Overall, it is considered that the visual impact of the proposed wind farm would not be significantly adverse and unacceptable, therefore, to warrant refusal of the application. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with Local Plan Policies, F1 and C28 and Structure Plan Policy M4. Nature conservation issues Most significantly, Natural England (formerly English Nature) has not objected to the proposed wind farm development. Northumberland Wildlife Trust offered no objections but requested additional survey work regarding the potential presence of great crested newts, bats, otter and crayfish. Concern was also raised as regards potential impact on over-wintering birds within the site. Additional survey work was undertaken and reported in the Addendum to the Environmental Statement: 3 ponds were investigated for the presence of Great Crested Newts, 2 within the site and 1 just outside. No great crested newts were recorded and it was concluded that the 2 ponds within the site were of a low habitat suitability although that outside the site was potentially suitable. The surveys identified 3 species of bats foraging in the study area, mainly in and around three key wooded areas within and neighbouring the site) but no roosts were identified. Overall it was concluded that there is a low level use of the study area by a small local bat population. In that the wind farm development will not affect the wooded areas referred to, it is not considered that the proposed wind farm would adversely affect bats to any significant degree. No evidence of otters or white clawed crayfish was recorded. The RSPB offered no objections but requested more information regarding wintering birds, especially geese, and suggested that post–construction monitoring should be undertaken to gauge the impact of the wind farm on bird populations. It has also been suggested that should it become apparent that a particular turbine is giving rise to a high level of bird strike mortalities to geese then appropriate mitigation (such as painting the rotor blades to make them more visible) should be undertaken. The applicants are sympathetic to these views and the matters can be addressed by appropriate planning conditions.  In light of the above it is considered that the proposed development will not adversely affect nature conservation interests to any significant degree. Accordingly, the proposed development is considered to accord with Local Plan Policies F9, F10 and F12 and Structure Plan Policies N2 and N4. Heritage conservation, including archaeological conservation The applicants have undertaken lengthy discussions and negotiations with the County Archaeologist. Most significantly, the number of turbines has been reduced from 14 to 10, with numbers 1, 2, 5 and 7 being deleted. The County Archaeologist had been concerned that the wind farm would have an unacceptable impact upon the Duddo Stone Circle scheduled ancient monument. With the reduction in the number of turbines, however, and in particular the deletion of turbines 1 and 2 the County Archaeologist is now content that the revised proposals will not significantly affect the setting of Duddo Stone Circle. Similarly, it is not considered that the setting of Duddo Tower will be adversely affected to any significant degree. There remains the issue of undertaking archaeological evaluation works (trial trenching and bore hole survey) of the areas of the site that will be affected by the proposed development (turbine foundations, borrow pits, sub-station) that the County Archaeologist considers should be carried out before a decision of the application is made and not left to be dealt with by planning condition and carried out after planning permission has been granted. The applicants do not object to carrying out the work required of them and have had a specification of works prepared. Their concern is one of risk, that is the risk of carrying out the expensive archaeological works but planning permission being refused for other reasons. To this end that have requested that Members signify that they are “Minded to Approve” the application subject to the works being carried out to the Council’s satisfaction to give them the comfort that the work will not prove abortive. If Members are agreeable, the archaeological evaluation works would be undertaken as soon as they can be arranged. The planning permission would not be issued, however, until such a time as the archaeological works had been undertaken, the findings studied and any required mitigation or recording measures agreed. The proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of historic conservation interests in that it will not have any significant adverse impact upon either Duddo Stone Circle or Duddo Tower and the applicant has agreed to carry out a pre-determination archaeological evaluation. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposals accord with Local Plan Policies F19, F26, F27, F29 and Structure Plan Policies HC2, HC3, HC4 and HC7. Impact on Tourism No response has been received from the Northumbrian Tourist Board. Arguments from some objectors that the wind farm will harm tourism within the Borough have been countered by submissions from some supporters that the wind farm would not stop them visiting the area and some have indicated it would be an attraction. No empirical evidence has been submitted to support either argument.  Accordingly, it can only be concluded that there is no evidence that the proposed wind farm would harm tourism within the Borough or the wider area. Potential TV reception and other electro-magnetic interference This is a concern that it often raised with regards to wind farms and, indeed, there is the potential for wind farm developments to interfere with TV, radio, landline and mobile telephone networks and airport radar systems. Limited impacts have been predicted on TV reception for local residents receiving signals from the Selkirk or Chatton transmitters; on the Orange mobile telecommunications network link that runs to the north of the site; and, on the Scottish Power and Northumbrian Water scanning telemetry radio systems. Any impacts that occur can be readily addressed and an appropriate planning condition can be attached in this regard. Due to the distance of the site from civilian airports and RAF bases no impact on radar systems is predicted. Indeed, no objections have been received from the Civil Aviation Authority, the National Air Traffic Service or the Ministry of Defence. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development will not have any unreasonable impact upon TV, radio, landline and mobile telephone reception or airport radar systems. Shadow flicker Whilst shadow flicker can potentially cause a nuisance to the windows of properties close to the turbines, due to the distances between the turbines and the nearest residential properties, no significant impacts have been predicted and there is no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, it is not considered that any residential properties neighbouring the site would suffer from unreasonable nuisance resultant from shadow flicker. Noise Modern wind turbines and the turbine blades are designed to minimise noise whilst optimising power output. Furthermore, the nacelle at the top of the tower is insulated to minimise noise from the gearbox, generator and other components. Existing background noise levels were measured from three residential locations neighbouring the site. Worst case scenario noise levels were then predicted to provide an indication as to likely changes to existing noise levels in the vicinity of the site and these were then compared against Government guidance on acceptable noise levels. The assessment indicated that the predicted noise levels at the nearest residential properties would be below noise limits during operation. It was also concluded that any temporary construction noise would be unlikely to represent a significant impact. From knowledge of operating wind farms the predicted lack of unreasonable noise impact from the wind farm is not disputed.  Impact on public rights of way. The issue that arose from the proposal to share a 380m length of the public bridleway than runs north-south through the site as part of the access track network to be provided throughout the site has been resolved through negotiations between the applicants and the County Countryside Access Officer. With the scheme reduced to 10 turbines, a revised access track network was devised and the bridleway will now be crossed at a single point only and a verge/buffer zone of 4m minimum provided, as requested by the County Countryside Access Officer. Conclusions/Recommendations This planning application has been considered at length. It has generated significant interest from the general public with 206 letters and a petition containing 756 signatures received opposing the proposed development and 181 letters received supporting the proposals. Duddo and Ancroft Parish Councils also objected to the scheme while Shoreswood Parish Council held a public meeting during which 50 objections were registered from the general public. Comments have been received from various consultees, most of whom offered no objections with others offering constructive comment. In instances where objections were made, for example from the County Archaeologist, these have since been resolved through discussions and negotiations with the applicant. The single issue that remains outstanding is the carrying out of an archaeological evaluation of areas of the site that will be affected by the development prior to planning permission be granted. The applicants are happy to carry out these works but have requested that Members first signify their support for the proposed development. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (including photomontages), which was subsequently audited by Ironside Farrar, Environmental Consultants. The consultants did not advise that the application should be refused but did indicate that additional information should be sought from the applicants. An Addendum to the Environmental Statement (which included additional photomontages), was subsequently submitted and the number of turbines proposed was reduced from 14 to 10. Ferguson McIlveen, Planning and Environmental Consultants were engaged to undertake a visual impact appraisal of the development and concluded: “overall, the Moorsyde Wind Farm proposal is considered to be largely consistent with planning policy, and capable of being accommodated within its receiving environment without significant adverse visual impact such as would warrant refusal”. It was suggested, however, “for the sake of completeness, and to demonstrate a thoroughly robust approach, to include visual assessments (photomontages) from the additional viewpoints identified in this report”. Such additional photomontages were sought from the applicants (who also updated the previously submitted photomontages to refer to the 10 turbine wind farm), from which it has been concluded that the proposed wind farm would not result in significant and adverse impacts arising in terms of its effects on landscape character and capacity, visual amenity and living conditions nearby.  It has also been concluded that the proposed wind farm would not have an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of its effects on nature conservation interests; heritage conservation interests; tourism; TV, radio, telephone (mobile or landline), or radar reception; shadow flicker; noise; and/or public rights of way. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed wind farm development is consistent with the Local and Structure Plan policies referred to elsewhere in this report and with both regional and national planning policy and, therefore, acceptable. RECOMMENDATION: that Members be MINDED TO APPROVE (i.e. Approve in Principal) the application subject the applicants carrying out a pre-determination archaeological evaluation, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, of those areas of the site that will be affected by the proposed development and subject to appropriate planning conditions as summarised at the head of this report and the completion of a S106 agreement in respect of the payment of a community benefit contribution by the developer to the Borough Council. Verbal representations to be heard by committee: C Mills, Strathlea, Thornton, Berwick J Barnard, The Farmhouse, Low Cocklaw, Berwick Lord Vinson, Roddam Home Farm, Alnwick W & H Purves, Norminde, 2 Grindon Rigg Cottages, Duddo F W Dakin, Duddo Farm Estate W G Brownlow, 3 Grievstead Farm, Norham, Berwick-Upon-Tweed C Dakin, Brewers Oak, Shifnal, Shropshire Dr C D G Johnson, Lynfield, Oxford Lane, Scremerston AJH Cox, No address supplied  PAGE  PAGE 1 56AO¦§±ķīł  = > @ K L <=®°±¾åęöčĻ¾¦”¦”¾¦”¾¦”¾¦”¾¦”¾”¾iči¾T¾iT”)jh'wŌh_1½CJOJQJU^JaJ+h'wŌh_1½CJOJQJ^JaJmHnHu(h_1½5CJOJQJ^JaJmHnHu#h'wŌh_1½5CJOJQJ^JaJ.h'wŌh_1½5CJOJQJ^JaJmHnHu h'wŌh_1½CJOJQJ^JaJ1jh_1½5CJOJQJU^JaJmHnHu.jh_1½CJOJQJU^JaJmHnHu 678A§Øööö˜“ööMEkdu$$If–lÖ0”’pŽ ÜnöÖ’’Ö’’Ö’’Ö’’4Ö laögd_1½]kd$$If–lÖF”’O,Ü »Ż°öööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’4Ö laö $IfgdńJ÷÷Q÷żżżØ±īļł  > öö°ööjööEkd3$$If–lÖ0”’pŽ ÜnöÖ’’Ö’’Ö’’Ö’’4Ö laöEkdŌ$$If–lÖ0”’pŽ ÜnöÖ’’Ö’’Ö’’Ö’’4Ö laö $IfgdńJ> ? @ K K L Ę T ‡ $hBå`Ä<~*ŠÜ¹““““ŖŖŖŖŖŖŖŖŖŖŖŖŖŖ & F¤xgd_1½gd_1½Ekd’$$If–lÖ0”’pŽ ÜnöÖ’’Ö’’Ö’’Ö’’4Ö laöÜ3Ć}āÆ°õöĪĻŲŁvwńņ? @ O#P#c#d#Č#É#ā#õõõõõīééééééééééééééééééééégd_1½¤xgd_1½ & F¤xgd_1½öĻŁ’ !P#d#Ē#Č#É#Ź#ā#ć#ä#–%»%S*q*Ÿ*”*ó*ö*P+S+“+·+,,~,,‚, --u-y-..ļįļĻļįļ·ļįļĻļ„ļ–Ļ}ĻļĻļkļįļĻļĻļĻļĻļ}ĻļĻļĻļĻ#h'wŌh_1½>*CJOJQJ^JaJ1jh_1½5CJOJQJU^JaJmHnHuh_1½5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h'wŌh_1½6CJOJQJ^JaJ.jh_1½CJOJQJU^JaJmHnHu#h'wŌh_1½5CJOJQJ^JaJh_1½CJOJQJ^JaJ h'wŌh_1½CJOJQJ^JaJ*ā#ä#$$D$‰$Å$Ś$% %`%o%u%•%–%ŗ%»%$(%(•)–)R*S*q*ó*P+śśśņņņņņņņņņņśśśśśśśśśśśā & F„ „Čū^„ `„Čūgd_1½ & Fgd_1½gd_1½P+“+,~, -u-.v.ē.…/ż/‡0+1ķ1R2K3™3Ņ3'4u45ėėėėėėėėėėėėėÕČ“““““ & F Ęp„„˜ž^„`„˜žgd_1½ ʆ„ ^„ gd_1½ & F ĘŠ†„ „Čū^„ `„Čūgd_1½ & F ĘŠ„ „Čū^„ `„Čūgd_1½.v.z.ē.ė.…/‰/ż/0‡0‹0+1/1ķ1ń1g6h6i6¦6?7A7Å7Ē7A8D8œ8ž8å9ē9I:K:×:Ś:j;m;Ņ;Õ;J<M< <£<B=D=ż?ž? A"A“AĶAüIżIL2LqLuL”L„LÕLŁL MMļŻļŻļŻļŻļŻļŻļŻļÄļ²ļŻļŻļŻļŻļŻļŻļŻļŻļŻļŻļŻļŻļšļŻļ²ļšļ²ļŻļŻļŻļŻ.jh_1½CJOJQJU^JaJmHnHu#h'wŌh_1½>*CJOJQJ^JaJ1jh_1½>*CJOJQJU^JaJmHnHu#h'wŌh_1½5CJOJQJ^JaJ h'wŌh_1½CJOJQJ^JaJ<55g6i6¦6?7Å7A8œ8å9I:×:j;Ņ;J< <B=š>?"?E?c?§?ŗ?ę?ėėęęęÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖĪĪĪĪĪĪĪ & Fgd_1½ & F„ „Čū^„ `„Čūgd_1½gd_1½ & F Ęp„„˜ž^„`„˜žgd_1½ę?ż?+@a@æ@ A³A“AĶAfCHD‘DuEÉFŹF°G±GµH¶HūIüIKKLL2L÷÷÷÷÷ēāāāŚŚŚŚāāāāāāāāāāāā & Fgd_1½gd_1½ & F„ „Čū^„ `„Čūgd_1½ & Fgd_1½2LqL”LÕL M?MfM†M³MŌM,N-NĮOĀOlQmQėSģS§W©WūWüWØZ©Zƒ[™\8]0^śņņņņņņņņśśśśśśśśśśśśśśźźźź & Fgd_1½ & Fgd_1½gd_1½M?MDMfMkM†M‹M³MøM¤N¼NmQnQģSķS§WØWƒ[‚\˜\™\ż^ž^d@dqdvdnhohŁjŚjŪjäqåq_s`swwB}b}#$“€”€$„D„†:†;†<†‡‡’‰ŠōŠõŠ@•A•»–¼–½–Ö–ĪĻsŸtŸļŻļŻļŻļŻļĻļ·ļĻļ·ļ„ļ„ļ·ļŻļĻļĻļ·ĻļĻļĻļ·ļĻļĻļ·ļĻļĻļĻļĻļĻļ·ļĻļ·ļŻļĻļ·#h'wŌh_1½>*CJOJQJ^JaJ.jh_1½CJOJQJU^JaJmHnHuh_1½CJOJQJ^JaJ#h'wŌh_1½5CJOJQJ^JaJ h'wŌh_1½CJOJQJ^JaJA0^1^k^ü^ż^``2`oapaŽavbwb•b5c6c½c¾cddd@dsftf±f²fmhśśńäśśśńśśńśśńśśśśśśśśśśśś „Š„0ż^„Š`„0żgd_1½„Š^„Šgd_1½gd_1½mhnhŁjŪj&lm0oåqęq^s_swwåwypz { {I{J{3|4|#“€•€žƒśśśśśźźśśśśśśŚŚŚśśśśśśśśś & F ĘŠ„h^„hgd_1½ & F ĘŲ „h^„hgd_1½gd_1½žƒŸƒ@…A…č‡é‡^Š_Š£Š¤ŠÉŠŹŠōŠöŠ$‹%‹W‹X‹ž‹’‹óŒōŒ@Amne“f“śśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśgd_1½f“?•@•»–½–Ö–×–˜ ˜›˜]™Č™ó™¤šÖšīš!›A›~›0œ…œ•œœœ¼œ EĶĪśśśśśśśśņņņņņņņņņņņņņņņņņņņś & F gd_1½gd_1½ĪsŸuŸ÷ŸųŸ[ Ń å ”¢”7¢‰¢®¢£c£¤¤¤J¤TØVØ/Ŗ0ŖtŖī®ļ®¬²­²•³śśśśņņņņņņņņņņņśśśśśśśśśśśśś & F gd_1½gd_1½tŸ¤¤J¤TØUØ0ŖtŖį«ā«3µ4µ5µ6µqµ%½*½'Ā(ĀKÄkěĽıÅĖÅŹ ŹkŹuŹKĶLĶuĪ²Ī3×R×EŲWŲXŲÜŁŻŁtŚ³ŚėŽśŽ:ß;ß­ą³ąsäļŻĖļ³ļĖļ„ļŒ³ļĖļ„ļ³ļ„ļ„ļĖļ„ļ„ļ³ļĖļ„ļĖŒļ³ļĖļĖļ„ļĖļ1jh_1½>*CJOJQJU^JaJmHnHuh_1½CJOJQJ^JaJ.jh_1½CJOJQJU^JaJmHnHu#h'wŌh_1½>*CJOJQJ^JaJ#h'wŌh_1½5CJOJQJ^JaJ h'wŌh_1½CJOJQJ^JaJ0•³–³3µ6µqµI·J·X»Y»­½®½ųæłæ'Ā)ĀlÄmİűÅĢÅBĘCʱĒŃȧŹäŹåŹKĶMĶśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśņņņśśś & F gd_1½gd_1½MĶtĪuĪ²Ī‹ŃŒŃŽÖÖDŲEŲWŲÜŁŽŁsŚtŚ³Ś“Ū”Ū<Ż=Ż5Ž6ŽźŽėŽśŽ ą ą¬ą­ą³ąśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśgd_1½³ą÷āųāsäuä•äŗę»ę×ęŲę$ė%ėķķóšõš1ņ2ņ&ó'ó@õAõBõsõtõšõÉõńõ(öEöśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśśgd_1½sätäuä•ä»ę×ęķķķķtļļ š*šóšōšń1ńnņzņ'ó6óGóXótó@õtõ™õšõžö’ö÷÷÷č×Å׳ׄׄׄׄ׍ׄׄ׳׳~׳׳×i×e[jhńJ0JUh wō)jh'wŌh_1½CJOJQJU^JaJh_1½5CJOJQJ^JaJ.jh_1½CJOJQJU^JaJmHnHuh_1½CJOJQJ^JaJ#h'wŌh_1½5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h'wŌh_1½>*CJOJQJ^JaJ h'wŌh_1½CJOJQJ^JaJ.jhŖC‡CJOJQJU^JaJmHnHu!Eöö«öąöżöžö÷÷ ÷ ÷ ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ ÷!÷"÷#÷$÷%÷śśśśśóśēŽÜēŽÜÜÜܜܜܜܜܜ„h]„hgdńJ „ų’„&`#$gdńJ¤xgd_1½gd_1½÷÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷P÷Q÷R÷śšśģÕĀÕ­ÕĀģ©ģ„h wōh_1½)hŖC‡0JCJOJQJ^JaJmHnHu$hlvxhńJ0JCJOJQJ^JaJ-jhlvxhńJ0JCJOJQJU^JaJhńJjhńJ0JU hńJ0J%÷&÷'÷(÷)÷*÷+÷,÷-÷.÷/÷0÷1÷2÷3÷4÷5÷6÷7÷8÷9÷:÷;÷<÷=÷>÷?÷@÷A÷żųżųżųżųżųżųżųżųżųżųżųżųżųżųgd_1½A÷B÷C÷D÷E÷F÷G÷H÷I÷J÷K÷L÷M÷N÷O÷P÷Q÷R÷żųżųżųżųżųżųżųżżųgd_1½21h:p09|°‚. °ĘA!°"°# $ %°°Å°Å Äs$$If–!vh5Ö»5ÖŻ5Ö°#v»#vŻ#v°:V –löö5Ö»5ÖŻ5Ö°4Ö]$$If–!vh5ÖÜ5Ön#vÜ#vn:V –löö5ÖÜ5Ön4Ö]$$If–!vh5ÖÜ5Ön#vÜ#vn:V –löö5ÖÜ5Ön4Ö]$$If–!vh5ÖÜ5Ön#vÜ#vn:V –löö5ÖÜ5Ön4Ö]$$If–!vh5ÖÜ5Ön#vÜ#vn:V –löö5ÖÜ5Ön4Ö†œ8`ń’8 _1½Normal_HmH sH tH DA@ņ’”D Default Paragraph FontRi@ó’³R  Table Normalö4Ö l4Öaö (kō’Į(No List8Z`ņ8 _1½ Plain TextOJQJ4 `4 _1½Footer  Ę9r .)`¢. _1½ Page Number  "$&(*,.0246Rļ’’’’ ’’’’ ’’’’ ’’’’ ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ ’’’’!’’’’"’’’’#’’’’$’’’’  "$&(*,.02469 ’’Rļ0’’’’678A§Ø±īļł >?@KKLĘT‡$hBå`Ä< ~ * Š Ü 3 Ć } ā Æ ° õ ö ĪĻŲŁvwńņ?@OPcdČÉāäD‰ÅŚ `ou•–ŗ»$ % •!–!R"S"q"ó"P#“#$~$ %u%&v&ē&…'ż'‡(+)ķ)R*K+™+Ņ+',u,--g.i.¦.?/Å/A0œ0å1I2×2j3Ņ3J4 4B5š67"7E7c7§7ŗ7ę7ż7+8a8æ8 9³9“9Ķ9f;H<‘<u=É>Ź>°?±?µ@¶@ūAüACCDD2DqD”DÕD E?EfE†E³EŌE,F-FĮGĀGlImIėKģK§O©OūOüOØR©RƒS™T8U0V1VkVüVżVXX2XoYpYŽYvZwZ•Z5[6[½[¾[\\\@\s^t^±^²^m`n`ŁbŪb&de0gåięi^k_kooåoqpr s sIsJs3t4t#w“x•xž{Ÿ{@}A}čé^‚_‚£‚¤‚É‚Ź‚ō‚ö‚$ƒ%ƒWƒXƒžƒ’ƒó„ō„……@…A…m…n…e‹f‹?@»Ž½ŽÖŽ×Ž ›]‘ȑ󑤒֒ī’!“A“~“0”…”•”œ”¼” •E••Ķ•Ī•s—u—÷—ų—[˜Ń˜å˜™¢™7š‰š®š›c›œœœJœT V /¢0¢t¢ī¦ļ¦¬Ŗ­Ŗ•«–«3­6­q­IÆJÆX³Y³­µ®µų·ł·'ŗ)ŗl¼m¼°½±½Ģ½B¾C¾±æŃĄ§ĀäĀåĀKÅMÅtĘuĘ²Ę‹ÉŒÉŽĪĪDŠEŠWŠÜŃŽŃsŅtŅ³Ņ“Ó”Ó<Õ=Õ5Ö6ÖźÖėÖśÖ Ų Ų¬Ų­Ų³Ų÷ŚųŚsÜuܕÜŗŽ»Ž×ŽŲŽ$ć%ćååóčõč1ź2ź&ė'ė@ķAķBķsķtķšķÉķńķ(īEīī«īąīżīžīļļ ļ ļ ļļļļļļļļļļ ļ!ļ"ļ#ļ$ļ%ļ&ļ'ļ(ļ)ļ*ļ+ļ,ļ-ļ.ļ/ļ0ļ1ļ2ļ3ļ4ļ5ļ6ļ7ļ8ļ9ļ:ļ;ļ<ļ=ļ>ļ?ļ@ļAļBļCļDļEļFļGļHļIļJļKļLļMļNļOļPļSļ©0€€ ©0€€ ©0€€ ™0€€ ˜0€€©0€€ ©0€€ ™0€€ ©0€€ ©0€€ ™0€€ ©0€€ ©0€€ ™0€€ ©0€€ ©0€€ ™0€€ ˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0 €€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0€€˜@0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜ 0 €€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜ 0æ8€˜ 0æ8€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0 €€˜ 0 €€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜@0€€1€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€€00˜0€€˜0€€Ų˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜@0€€˜0€€€˜@0€€˜0€€€˜@0€€˜0€€€˜0€€€678A§Ø±īļł >?@KKLĘT‡$hBå`Ä< ~ * Š Ü 3 Ć } ā Æ ° õ ö ĪĻŲŁvwńņ?@OPcdČÉāäD‰ÅŚ `ou•–ŗ»$ % •!–!R"S"q"ó"P#“#$~$ %u%&v&ē&…'ż'‡(+)ķ)R*K+™+Ņ+',u,--g.i.¦.?/Å/A0œ0å1I2×2j3Ņ3J4 4B5š67"7E7c7§7ŗ7ę7ż7+8a8æ8 9³9“9Ķ9f;H<‘<u=É>Ź>°?±?µ@¶@ūAüACCDD2DqD”DÕD E?EfE†E³EŌE,F-FĮGĀGlImIėKģK§O©OūOüOØR©RƒS™T8U0V1VkVüVżVXX2XoYpYŽYvZwZ•Z5[6[½[¾[\\\@\s^t^±^²^m`n`ŁbŪb&de0gęi^k_kooåoqpr s sIsJs3t4t#w“x•xž{Ÿ{@}A}čé^‚_‚£‚¤‚É‚Ź‚ō‚ö‚$ƒ%ƒWƒXƒžƒ’ƒó„ō„……@…A…m…n…e‹f‹?@»Ž½ŽÖŽ×Ž ›]‘ȑ󑤒֒ī’!“A“~“0”…”•”œ”¼” •E••Ķ•Ī•s—u—÷—ų—[˜Ń˜å˜™¢™7š‰š®š›c›œœœJœT V /¢0¢t¢ī¦ļ¦¬Ŗ­Ŗ•«–«3­6­q­IÆJÆX³Y³­µ®µų·ł·'ŗ)ŗl¼m¼°½±½Ģ½B¾C¾±æŃĄ§ĀäĀåĀKÅMÅtĘuĘ²Ę‹ÉŒÉŽĪĪDŠEŠWŠÜŃŽŃsŅtŅ³Ņ“Ó”Ó<Õ=Õ5Ö6ÖźÖėÖśÖ Ų Ų¬Ų­Ų³Ų÷ŚųŚsÜuܕÜŗŽ»Ž×ŽŲŽ$ć%ćååóčõč1ź2ź&ė'ė@ķAķBķsķtķšķÉķńķ(īEīī«īąīżīžīļSļ«0€€ ©0€€ ©0€€ ™0€€ ˜0€€€©0€€ ©0€€ ™0€€ ©0€€ ©0€€ ™0€€ ©0€€ ©0€€ ™0€€ ©0€€ ©0€€ ™0€€ ˜0€€€š0€€€š0€€€˜0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0 €€€š 0 €€€˜ 0 €€€˜ 0 €€€˜ 0 €€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€š0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0 €€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€š 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0 €€€˜ 0 €€€˜ 0 €€€˜ 0 €€€˜ 0 €€€˜ 0€€€˜0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜0€€€š0€€€˜0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0 €€€˜ 0 €€€˜ 0 €€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0€€€š@ 0 €€€š@ 0 €€€š@ 0 €€€š@ 0 €€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@ 0 €€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€šA 0U9€€šA 0U9€€š@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0 €€€š@ 0 €€€š@ 0 €€€š@ 0 €€€š@ 0 €€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0 €€€š@ 0 €€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@ 0€€€š@ 0€€€˜@ 0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€˜@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€š@0€€€ 00 ö.MtŸsä÷R÷|‚…‰“•Ø> Üā#P+5ę?2L0^mhžƒf“Ī•³MĶ³ąEö%÷A÷R÷}€ƒ„†‡ˆŠ‹ŒŽ‘’”–—Q÷~° å žīRļD’•Œ !•!’•€š8š$%@ń’’’€€€÷š š$š¼ š( š šš\¢ š  3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š  3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š  3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š  3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š 3 š€ æ’"ńæ`šš š š\¢ š 3 š€ æ’"ńæ`šš š š\¢ š 3 š€ æ’"ńæ`šš š š\¢ š 3 š€ æ’"ńæ`šš š š\¢ š 3 š€ æ’"ńæ`šš š š\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`š š šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`š š šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`š š šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`š š šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`š š šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š  3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š! 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š" 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š# 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš šš\¢ š$ 3 š€æ’"ńæ`šš ššB šS šæĖ’ ?š< ā~$g.ż7üAmI§OżVŁbo“xō‚»Žs—T 3­4­'ŗKÅWŠÜŃsÜóčRļ$Ć÷’’`ś’’¢'x<t#<ś’’Pū’’ž(h=t"nų’’`ś’’M(x<t!§ų’’Lł’’i'd;t nų’’Lł’’æ(d;tnų’’`ś’’1)x<tnų’’`ś’’£)x<t§ų’’`ś’’i'x<tąų’’`ś’’¢'x<tĆ÷’’…&7Jt5ų’’\ģ’’M(t.t5ų’’`ś’’Ū'x<t§ų’’¬š’’i'Ä2t§ų’’\ģ’’i't.tnų’’üō’’i'7t5ų’’`ś’’¢'x<tü÷’’üō’’ų(7t5ų’’čó’’j)6tąų’’ū’’¢',=t§ų’’„÷’’i'P:t§ų’’„÷’’i'œ9tąų’’\õ’’¢'P:tąų’’8ų’’¢'x<t §ų’’• i'­Mt ßö’’8ų’’i'P:t ąų’’$÷’’¢'Œ=t ąų’’ö’’¢'x<t’’+ø ä$Ż,ø*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PostalCode€h*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City0€http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsV*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/ ,sįėł»Įlv%.3=Œ” ż#$$ $$$v$|$Ī5Ō5‘b˜bb§bžc£c²c·cogtgh hŃjÖjcuju[xdxsx|xy”y¦y°y5|:|E|J|n…s…ę‰ė‰÷‰ü‰f‹p‹AH$,ü’“““ģ•ō•Ŗ˜±˜É§Ī§ƒÆŠÆ²Æ¼ÆćÆźÆģÆšÆņÆūÆżÆ°£°Ŗ°¬°¶°¾°Ć°Ņ°Ł°Ž°ę°D±M±c±j±l±t±v±±Ž±™±ļ±÷±ü²³ ³³Ā“É“ĄøĘø™ŗ£ŗĆŗĢŗQ¼[¼`¼j¼öĒūĒÉÉIÉNÉ1Ļ6ĻGĻLĻŌ Ōéßīßóßśß-ą7ąĖąÕą ćØć!å)å¶å¾å}ķ†ķøķæķÖķÜķčķļķ÷ķżķ’ķī īīīī"ī'ī,ī1ī3ī8īIīQīUī_īfīlīƒīˆī—īžī½īÅīŌīßīļļļSļBJw4ä$ē$Č)Ź)--æ8Ā8*@0@gPlPprxr’zāzŸ{Ą{£|?}¤‚Č‚]‘a‘V“]“~ĄƒĄįĖėĖÓŅŁŅuܔ܋āā„ķØķļļļSļ333333333333333333333@@KK< = ° ° ŹŹāć~$$g.h.i.i.ż7ž7Ķ9Ķ9üAżAmInIķKķK§OØOżVžVo`o`ŁbŚb`k`koo#w#w$w$w“x”xō‚õ‚ö‚ö‚AA»Ž¼Žs—t—u—u—T U V V /¢/¢3­5­6­6­q­q­Y³Y³'ŗ(ŗŃĄŃĄKÅLÅMÅMÅWŠXŠÜŃŻŃtŅtŅ³Ņ³Ņ³Ų³ŲsÜtÜuÜuܕܕÜóčōčõčõčļļļ ļļSļļļļSļ Æ[b!XIl’’’’’’’’’Įoc4ŠŚ’’’’’’’’’}U;nQŠ#’’’’’’’’’eIO$”®•’’’’’’’’’v3WŖŻŅ`’’’’’’’’’¤tNXxĻö›’’’’’’’’’²3_bŅ•“’’’’’’’’’»ļdl©š’’’’’’’’’‡XTr ĪŽ’’’’’’’’’Äq£t®>³’;n}V"ƒ’’’’’’’’’h„Š„˜žĘŠ^„Š`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„ „˜žĘ ^„ `„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„p„˜žĘp^„p`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„@ „˜žĘ@ ^„@ `„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„„˜žĘ^„`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„ą„˜žĘą^„ą`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„°„˜žĘ°^„°`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„€„˜žĘ€^„€`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„P„˜žĘP^„P`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„Š„˜žĘŠ^„Š`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„ „˜žĘ ^„ `„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„p„˜žĘp^„p`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„@ „˜žĘ@ ^„@ `„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„„˜žĘ^„`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„ą„˜žĘą^„ą`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„°„˜žĘ°^„°`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„€„˜žĘ€^„€`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„P„˜žĘP^„P`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§š„Š„˜žĘŠ^„Š`„˜žo()€ „ „˜žĘ ^„ `„˜ž‡hˆH.‚ „p„L’Ęp^„p`„L’‡hˆH.€ „@ „˜žĘ@ ^„@ `„˜ž‡hˆH.€ „„˜žĘ^„`„˜ž‡hˆH.‚ „ą„L’Ęą^„ą`„L’‡hˆH.€ „°„˜žĘ°^„°`„˜ž‡hˆH.€ „€„˜žĘ€^„€`„˜ž‡hˆH.‚ „P„L’ĘP^„P`„L’‡hˆH.h„Š„˜žĘŠ^„Š`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„ „˜žĘ ^„ `„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„p„˜žĘp^„p`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„@ „˜žĘ@ ^„@ `„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„„˜žĘ^„`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„ą„˜žĘą^„ą`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„°„˜žĘ°^„°`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„€„˜žĘ€^„€`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„P„˜žĘP^„P`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„Š„˜žĘŠ^„Š`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„ „˜žĘ ^„ `„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„p„˜žĘp^„p`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„@ „˜žĘ@ ^„@ `„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„„˜žĘ^„`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„ą„˜žĘą^„ą`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„°„˜žĘ°^„°`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„€„˜žĘ€^„€`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„P„˜žĘP^„P`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§š„p„0żĘp^„p`„0żo()€ „Ų „˜žĘŲ ^„Ų `„˜ž‡hˆH.‚ „Ø „L’ĘØ ^„Ø `„L’‡hˆH.€ „x„˜žĘx^„x`„˜ž‡hˆH.€ „H„˜žĘH^„H`„˜ž‡hˆH.‚ „„L’Ę^„`„L’‡hˆH.€ „č„˜žĘč^„č`„˜ž‡hˆH.€ „ø„˜žĘø^„ø`„˜ž‡hˆH.‚ „ˆ„L’Ęˆ^„ˆ`„L’‡hˆH.h„Š„˜žĘŠ^„Š`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„ „˜žĘ ^„ `„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„p„˜žĘp^„p`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„@ „˜žĘ@ ^„@ `„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„„˜žĘ^„`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„ą„˜žĘą^„ą`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„°„˜žĘ°^„°`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„€„˜žĘ€^„€`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„P„˜žĘP^„P`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„Š„˜žĘŠ^„Š`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„ „˜žĘ ^„ `„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„p„˜žĘp^„p`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„@ „˜žĘ@ ^„@ `„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„„˜žĘ^„`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„ą„˜žĘą^„ą`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„°„˜žĘ°^„°`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„€„˜žĘ€^„€`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„P„˜žĘP^„P`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§š„„˜žĘ^„`„˜žo()„Ų „˜žĘŲ ^„Ų `„˜žo(.‚ „Ø „L’ĘØ ^„Ø `„L’‡hˆH.€ „x„˜žĘx^„x`„˜ž‡hˆH.€ „H„˜žĘH^„H`„˜ž‡hˆH.‚ „„L’Ę^„`„L’‡hˆH.€ „č„˜žĘč^„č`„˜ž‡hˆH.€ „ø„˜žĘø^„ø`„˜ž‡hˆH.‚ „ˆ„L’Ęˆ^„ˆ`„L’‡hˆH.#„8„˜žĘ8^„8`„˜ž56CJOJQJaJo(‡hˆH)h„Š„˜žĘŠ^„Š`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„ „˜žĘ ^„ `„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„p„˜žĘp^„p`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„@ „˜žĘ@ ^„@ `„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„„˜žĘ^„`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„ą„˜žĘą^„ą`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§šh„°„˜žĘ°^„°`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH·šh„€„˜žĘ€^„€`„˜žOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„P„˜žĘP^„P`„˜žOJQJo(‡hˆH§š Äq£teIO¤tNX²3_bv3W‡XTr»ļd}U;;n}Æ[b!Įoc4’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ ’’                                              zvė                          Ģ|2± m¬ż                åńJŌ_ŽN+"'7ėp09|ŖC‡˜R2 _1½p*Ä­\Ź7]ģ>Cķ wō678A§Ø±īļł >?° K¼Sļ"¶žžž–  ’@ €< żRļ`@’’Unknown’’’’’’’’’’’’G‡: ’Times New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡: ’Arial?5 ‡z €’Courier New;€Wingdings"qŒšŠhĪ*¬Fß*¬F¬#UĖz±¬#UĖz±Yš 9“‚24‡ī‡ī2ƒqšHX)š’?ä’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’_1½2’’Application NoICT UnitICT Unit8         ž’ą…ŸņłOh«‘+'³Ł0€˜°¼ŠÜčü  < H T`hpxäApplication No ICT Unit Normal.dot ICT Unit1Microsoft Office Word@¦÷_@ §v^Ē@²žÖ`Ē¬#UĖž’ÕĶ՜.“—+,ł®0 hpœ¤¬“ ¼ÄĢŌ Ü ÷ä$Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council±z‡īę Application No Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~€‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜ž’’’š›œžŸ ž’’’¢£¤„¦§Ø©Ŗ«¬­®Æ°±²³“µ¶·ø¹ŗ»¼½¾æĄĮĀĆÄÅĘĒČÉŹĖĢĶĪĻŠŃŅÓŌÕÖ×ŲŁŚŪÜŻŽßąįāćäåęēčéźėģķīļšńņóōõö÷ųłśūž’’’żž’ž’’’   ž’’’ż’’’ż’’’ż’’’ž’’’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’Root Entry’’’’’’’’ ĄF Lźų`Ē€Data ’’’’’’’’’’’’™1Table’’’’”ö“WordDocument’’’’40SummaryInformation(’’’’’’’’’’’’üDocumentSummaryInformation8’’’’’’’’CompObj’’’’’’’’’’’’q’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ ’’’’ ĄFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8ō9²qRoot Entry’’’’’’’’ ĄFPčb•aĒ@Data ’’’’’’’’’’’’™1Table’’’’”ö“WordDocument’’’’40ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ż’’’ż’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ż’’’ž’’’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’° SummaryInformation(’’’’’’’’’’’’üDocumentSummaryInformation8’’’’’’’’CompObj’’’’’’’’’’’’q’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ ’’’’ ĄFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8ō9²qž’ÕĶ՜.“—+,ł®DÕĶ՜.“—+,ł®\ hpœ¤¬“ ¼ÄĢŌ Ü ÷ä$Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council±z‡īę Application No Title4 $€,