RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (NOISE, POWER OUTPUT AND CLIMATE CHANGE GAS SAVINGS), 21 DECEMBER 2007

MAG submitted the following response to some supplementary information from Your Energy Ltd that purports to present more information on noise, power output and potential savings in climate change gases relating to the revision of the 'Moorsyde' application of 13 September 2007:

RE: Moorsyde wind farm planning application, No: 04/B/1107

This letter represents the Moorsyde Action Group’s (MAG) response to the supplementary environmental information submitted by Your Energy Ltd in a letter and accompanying documentation dated 21 November 2007.

Our response comments individually on the following submitted documents:

• Revised noise impact assessment by Hayes McKenzie Partnership

• Revised environmental calculations, including the updated energy assessment by Garrad Hassan and Partners

• Weather conditions data

• Attended noise monitoring data

For more than three years, MAG has, on behalf of the local community most immediately affected by the proposed wind farm, been highlighting the inadequacy of the environmental impact assessment submitted with this planning application.

We are extremely disappointed by the quality of the most recently submitted information. It is inaccurate, misleading and fails to provide any new reliable information either in terms of potential impacts or claimed benefits. These concerns are highlighted in our comments on the individual documents detailed below.

The applicant has been provided with repeated opportunities to rectify the clearly identified inadequacies of their application. The poor quality of this most recent submission, which we note has not even been prepared by Jacobs Babtie, the professional consultants who have been responsible to date for the preparation of environmental information submissions, is yet another sign that the applicant should no longer be allowed to patch the holes in this application with piecemeal addenda. We now ask the Local Authority to take decisive action in relation to the repeated failure of the applicant to provide an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the clearly specified planning standards and guidelines. The Local Authority should insist that the applicant submits a new application complete with an environmental impact assessment which meets the required standards.

In support of this position we would draw your attention to the following comments on the most recently submitted documents:

Revised noise impact assessment, Hayes McKenzie Partnership, 15 November 2007

According to the Hayes McKenzie submission, the two candidate turbines now being specified will have a maximum sound power level of 105 dB and 105.5dB. This is approximately 5dB higher than the candidate turbine originally detailed in the Environmental Statement. This means the proposed new turbines are about 50% louder than the turbine specified in the original Environmental Statement. It is therefore difficult to comprehend how the applicant can claim that the new candidate turbines will have no greater noise impact than the significantly quieter (albeit redundant) turbine that was previously specified.

MAG is aware that an expert assessment of the noise impact information provided to date by the applicant has been commissioned by a local resident and will be submitted to the Borough shortly. Therefore, we are not intending to comment any further on the Hayes McKenzie submission at this stage.

Revised Environmental Benefit calculations

Throughout the history of this application, no hard data to back up the various and wide ranging claims made by the applicant in relation to environmental benefits has ever been provided. This latest submission is no exception. Without such information it is impossible to treat the claimed benefits as anything other than unsubstantiated.

The letter provided by Garrad Hassan to support the claimed benefits, does no such thing. It provides only a cursory explanation of methodology, and is devoid of data or workings to back up its claims.

Against this background, and as a means of clarifying and demonstrating the claimed benefits, the applicant must be required to submit the actual wind data measured at the proposed site. This will allow independent scrutiny, as has happened in relation to wind farm applications in other parts of the country.

In the meantime, and if the applicant continues to resist providing the actual wind data, the following factors should be considered when making a judgement about the validity of these most recent claims:

• The sole wind farm currently operated by the applicant is located at Burton Wold in Northamptonshire. In the environmental impact assessment for that application, the applicant predicted a capacity factor of 25.6%. The actual average capacity factor achieved in the first 11 months of operation was been 18.3%. Even allowing for ‘teething’ problems in the first year of installation, it is significant that the capacity claimed at the application stage was 40% higher than the actual operating capacity.

• The Burton Wold wind farm uses Enercon E70 2.3MW turbines. At 25.6%, the applicant’s predicted capacity factor at Burton Wold was higher than the 23.7% predicted at Moorsyde, using the same turbine. The proposed ‘Moorsyde’ site is therefore less favourable for wind farm development than the Burton Wold site, which was cited in a recent BBC Radio 4 ‘Costing the Earth’ programme as typifying under-performing wind power stations in areas of low wind resource.

• Garrad Hassan states that the Repower MM82 2MW turbine would have to operate in Mode 6, the most noise constrained mode of operation; but they do not disclose that operating in Mode 6 can reduce the output of the turbine to 1.4MW, a 30% reduction in capacity. The fact that these turbines have to be operated so much below their capacity in order to meet noise limits supports MAG’s view that the ‘Moorsyde’ site is wholly inappropriate for wind farm development due to its very close proximity to sensitive receptors.

• Despite the significant reduction in capacity caused by the need to operate in the noise constrained Mode 6, the applicant still claims a 27.8% capacity factor for the MM82 turbine. This is greater than the 25.2% and 27.5% (Ofgem 2006 and 2005 figures) achieved at Crystal Rig, 150 metres higher than the ‘Moorsyde’ site on an exposed moor in the Lammermuir Hills, where the turbines are able to operate in unrestricted mode.

• At the time the original development was announced, in October 2004, the then Chairman of Your Energy Ltd acknowledged in the Press that the wind speeds at ‘Moorsyde’ were “relatively low”. Three years later, without providing any data to support their claim, the applicant now states that wind speeds at the proposed site are “excellent”.

• The Environmental Statement submitted with the original application claimed that the development would offset 78,225 tonnes of CO2 per annum. Now, even with the exaggerated claims about performance, the applicant is only claiming a CO2 offset figure of 14,650 tonnes at best. This is less than 19% of the originally claimed figure.

• The carbon dioxide reduction figure of 430 g CO2 per KWh used by DBERR, Ofgem, DEFRA, the Carbon Trust, and recently upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority, is not, as the applicant states, the displacement for gas generation. The figure is in fact based on the current grid average.

Weather conditions data

The applicant indicates that the submitted Met Office weather data is intended to accompany the attended noise monitoring data recorded in 2004. The attended noise monitoring took place on 27 April 2004 between 10.50 and 19.20.

The weather data details conditions at Boulmer, some 35 miles from the site, at three specific times; 03.00 GMT, 18.00 GMT and 23.00 GMT. The first falls well outside the times of the attended noise monitoring, the second indicates that no data was available; the third was well outside the time of the attended noise monitoring and indicates that no data was available.

The very poor quality of this ‘information’ is another example of the failure to provide environmental information to the standard required by planning guidelines.

Attended Noise Monitoring Data

Without any reliable accompanying weather data, it is impossible to comment on the attended noise data submitted, other than to say that this omission makes the attended noise readings worthless.

The Local Authority has provided the applicant with repeated opportunities to rectify the clearly identified shortcomings of its application. Allowing the applicant to continue submitting inadequate environmental information on a piecemeal basis is unacceptable.

In light of the continued poor quality of the applicant’s submissions, MAG asks the Local Authority to take decisive action and refuse the current application.

If the applicant wishes to pursue wind farm development at this site, it should be required to submit a new application complete with an environmental impact assessment which meets the standards set by planning guidelines.

Yours Sincerely

Mike Maud
For and on behalf of Moorsyde Action Group

21 December, 2007

OBSERVATIONS ON THE 'FERMAC' AND SCOTT WILSON REPORTS

Observations on the Ferguson McIlveen ‘Moorsyde wind farm planning and visual impact appraisal; March 2007’ and Scott Wilson ‘Moorsyde wind farm addendum; August 2007’

[For clarity, it should be noted that Ferguson McIlveen LLP was acquired by Scott Wilson Group plc ('Scott Wilson') in November 2006.]

SUMMARY

The opinions contained in the Ferguson McIlveen ‘Moorsyde wind farm planning and visual impact appraisal; March 2007’ (Fermac) report and Scott Wilson ‘Moorsyde wind farm addendum; August 2007’ (Scott Wilson) report are unsubstantiated and should not be relied upon by planning officers or councillors in determining the ‘Moorsyde’ wind farm planning application.

The Fermac and Scott Wilson reports:

1. do not follow any described methodology;

2. fail to contain any analysis based on the guidance contained in PPS22;

3. rely upon data which is factually inaccurate;

4. contradict other reports prepared by Scott Wilson on the Barmoor and Toft Hill wind farm applications, and

5. reach conclusions and make recommendations which are beyond their remit and completely unsubstantiated.

Additional work needs to be undertaken by the ‘Moorsyde’ applicants to properly assess both the potential visual impact and cumulative impact of their proposed wind farm in order to comply with the guidance contained in PPS22.

PURPOSE OF THE FERMAC AND SCOTT WILSON REPORTS FOR ‘MOORSYDE’ WIND FARM?

The Ferguson McIlveen ‘Moorsyde wind farm planning and visual impact appraisal; March 2007’ (Fermac) report and Scott Wilson ‘Moorsyde wind farm addendum; August 2007’ (Scott Wilson) report were both prepared by the same consultant.

Following a number of changes of personnel and the absence of tender documents or a brief, there is considerable confusion within Berwick Borough Council, and between the Council and the author of these reports, about the purpose of either of them.

The Fermac report is a commentary on Ironside Farrar’s audit report on the ‘Moorsyde’ Wind Farm Environmental Statement. As confirmed by the consultant, his Fermac report is just an ’assessment of an assessment’ and ‘does not purport to constitute a visual impact assessment’. [Letter from Scott Wilson to John Haywood, Berwick Borough Council dated 22 December 2006].

The Scott Wilson report is so vague and lacking in methodology, it does not even specify its remit. There are only ten pages of text, three of which summarise the Ove Arup Landscape Capacity Study for South and West Berwick-upon-Tweed (the Arup report). Six pages summarise the Scott Wilson audit reports for the Barmoor and Toft Hill wind farm Environmental Impact Statements (ESs).

Both reports, therefore, are only commentaries on other reports and contain no original analysis or research of their own.

ABSENCE OF METHODOLOGY OR GUIDANCE BASED ON PPS22

It is clear that the acting Case Officer for Berwick Borough Council has misunderstood the purpose of the Fermac and Scott Wilson reports and has attempted to portray them as the source of assessment of landscape capacity, visual impact and cumulative visual impact for the ‘Moorsyde’ wind farm application.

Unfortunately, neither the Fermac nor Scott Wilson reports contain any analysis of the ‘Moorsyde’ wind farm application in line with recognised guidance contained in PPS22.

For example, in chapter 5, paragraph 24, the Companion Guide to PPS22 lists seven key points which could be used in assessing cumulative landscape or visual effects of wind farm applications:

1. Production of a base plan showing all wind farms which have been constructed, consented or applied for within a specified radius of the proposal under consideration.

2. Production of a plan showing cumulative zones of visual influence (ZVIs) for each wind farm, clearly identifying those areas from which one or more wind farms can be seen.

3. The plans should account for local topography and prevailing meteorological conditions.

4. The cumulative ZVI map should be used to identify appropriate locations for visual impact studies, including simultaneous visibility assessments where two or more schemes can be seen from a fixed view-point without the observer turning their head and repetitive visibility assessments where the observer is able to see two or more schemes if they turn their head.

5. Identification of sequential effects as the observer moves through the landscape.

6. Photomontages of existing and consented turbines should be shown from points identified using the maps of cumulative ZVIs.

7. Assessment of cumulative effects on landscape character or designation, sense of distance, existing focal points in the landscape, skylining and the sense of remoteness or wildness.

The Fermac and Scott Wilson reports fail to address or undertake any of these, and nor does either report provide any alternative methodology for assessing landscape capacity, visual impact or cumulative impact.

The Scott Wilson report also does not address the issues raised in the Arup report’s cumulative impact scenario work which stated in section 6.4.1 that:

“A major issue with all scenarios is the effect on settlement which, though sparse, is fairly evenly spread across the area. Some turbine clusters lie in full view of properties at close range;”

“All scenarios find at least some properties lying directly between clusters and there is potential for cumulative impact. At the level of assessment it has not been possible to determine the full cumulative effects on each.”

“This does not just apply to precisely what can be seen from any given building but also from its curtilage and from the approaches to the settlement.”

“There are a number of listed buildings and structures scattered across the area which are more or less affected by the various scenarios. Again, at the level of assessment it has not been possible to determine the full cumulative impacts on each.”

Table 13 in the Arup report recognises the receptors that have a ’High’ degree of sensitivity and that placing these receptors within a 180 degree field of view of wind farms should be avoided as this has the “most substantial adverse effects”.

The more detailed assessment that the Arup report recommended in order to comply with PPS22 and address the points above, has not been undertaken. In their appointed role as auditor, Scott Wilson have recognised this, stating that;

“We recommend further investigation into the impact of Toft Hill, Barmoor and Moorsyde Wind Farms upon both the open, rolling farmland landscape of the Cheviot Fringe LCA and the related visual impacts.” And; “..we recommend that further inspection and analysis be undertaken to assess the true nature of the interactions on receptors by these two [Toft Hill & Barmoor] wind farms”. [Toft Hill Wind Farm Audit, sections 4.7.4 and 5.2.3]

It is therefore quite clear, that the Fermac and Scott Wilson reports do not provide an independent assessment of the cumulative impact of the three wind farm applications at all.

RELIANCE UPON DATA CONTAINING MATERIAL FACTUAL INACCURACIES AND FAILURE TO NOTICE THEM

There is a significant degree of factual inaccuracy and contradiction between the Scott Wilson reports for ‘Moorsyde’, Barmoor and Toft Hill.

Just two of the more obvious examples of factual inaccuracy are:

1. There is only one map used in any of the 4 reports, (Fermac and 3 Scott Wilson reports): Figure 1, Page 62 of the Scott Wilson Barmoor Wind Farm Audit report.
   This map is incorrect and omits a significant part of the proposed ‘Moorsyde’ wind farm site, including turbines 10 and 12 from the ‘Moorsyde’ application.
   This is a material omission as these 2 turbines are the closest to residential receptors and also among the closest to the proposed Barmoor wind farm.
   The two proposed schemes are, in reality, significantly closer together and the visual impact on receptors and the cumulative impact much greater than the authors of the Fermac and Scott Wilson reports would have realised.

2. Plate 6 in the Scott Wilson Barmoor wind farm audit report appendix is incorrectly marked as showing the extent of the ‘Moorsyde’ wind farm when it actually shows the Barmoor wind farm. This plate also omits the ‘Moorsyde’ wind farm which would also be seen from this viewpoint and whose inclusion in Plate 6 would be required by the guidance contained in the companion guide to PPS22.

   This highlights the failure of the authors of the Fermac and Scott Wilson reports to understand the geography of the area they are reporting on or the application of PPS22 to their assessment. This is not merely an administrative oversight but a serious error when dealing with the potential visual impacts of wind farm applications.

Just these two examples of factual inaccuracy and failure to apply PPS22 should call into question the quality of information on which the Fermac and Scott Wilson reports have been making recommendations.

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE REPORTS

As noted above, there is an almost unbelievable level of contradiction between the Scott Wilson reports, in particular, on key points.

Given the failure of the Fermac and Scott Wilson reports to follow the guidance given in PPS22, and the absence of any alternative methodology, these contradictions and inconsistencies are perhaps less surprising, as each Scott Wilson report is only the unsubstantiated opinion of its author rather than a conclusion drawn from verifiable analysis.

Again, just to give two of the more obvious examples:

1) Section 4.3 of the Scott Wilson report recommends approval of the ‘Moorsyde’ application subject to the removal of 3 turbines, reducing the application to 7 turbines, claiming that this would “accord with the findings” of the Arup report.

However, section 10.1 of the Scott Wilson Barmoor wind farm audit report, concludes that “The remaining cluster of turbines…accords more closely with the Arup anticipation of no more than 6 in a group…”.

So Scott Wilson have stated in their Barmoor report that Arup recommend no more than 6 turbines in a group and therefore have recommended the Barmoor application be reduced to 6 turbines but, in the Moorsyde report Scott Wilson contradict themselves and state that reducing Moorsyde to 7 turbines would accord with the Arup report.

There is no such inconsistency in the approach taken by the NEA Development Board whose response to Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council on the general conformity of the Barmoor and Toft Hill wind farm applications with RPG1 and the draft RSS has advised that, “… it is quite clear that, within the context of the various landscape zones defined through the [Arup] study, there is little scope to develop clusters in any area in excess of six turbines.” (item 13m para. 33 and item 13n para. 38).

The NEA Development Board’s response to the amended ‘Moorsyde’ wind farm application for 7 turbines was equally clear; “…Development at the scale proposed [7 turbines] may be seen as pushing the boundaries of an acceptable upper limit to the number of turbines which may be appropriate in the general location identified as zone 5 in the Arup study.”

“Although the development is proposed in an area specifically identified as being of least constraint for wind farm development through RSS proposed changes policy 42, it is clear, having regard to conclusions reached in the Arup study, that development of the scale proposed has the potential to present conflict with RSS proposed changes policy 41. The council may therefore wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to pursue negotiations with the developer on securing a further limited reduction in the number of turbines.”

2) The Scott Wilson report on Barmoor (section 10) recommends reducing the potential for cumulative impact between the Barmoor and ‘Moorsyde’ sites by proposing to “delete some turbines from each scheme [Barmoor and Moorsyde] at the points where they are geographically closest”.

And yet, in section 4 of the ‘Moorsyde’ report, Scott Wilson contradicts its own findings by recommending, without explanation, that “focus should be on the ‘curtain’ effect of the scheme” rather than on the turbines “at the points where they are geographically closest (i.e. the southern end of the Moorsyde layout and the northern end of the Barmoor configuration).”

Once again, Scott Wilson’s failure to base its opinion on any analysis has resulted in massively contradictory and unexplained recommendations. If an analysis of cumulative impact between ‘Moorsyde’ and Barmoor had been undertaken in accordance with PPS22, Scott Wilson would be in a position to justify its recommendations through the production of ZVI maps and photomontages. These would demonstrate that the impact of the two schemes had been properly analysed, that multiple options to remedy the impact had been explored and they would serve to illustrate why Scott Wilson’s proposed remedy would be the best option.

Unfortunately, none of the required cumulative impact assessment work has been undertaken by either the applicants or Scott Wilson and the Borough Council must ensure it is done before moving to determination.

UNSUBSTANTIATED CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As established earlier, both the Fermac and Scott Wilson reports are actually only commentaries on other reports and contain no original analysis or research of their own.

These reports could, therefore, be used to highlight areas of inadequacy in the assessed reports, the Ironside Farrar report and the Scott Wilson audit reports on the Barmoor and Toft Hill wind farm applications, as this is within their remit.

However, any opinions expressed by the Fermac or Scott Wilson reports on any other subject is beyond their remit and is does not follow any guidance contained in PPS22, nor is it backed by any methodology or verifiable analysis.

Unfortunately, there are significant sections of the reports where unsubstantiated opinions and thoughts could be misinterpreted as recommendations.

One of the most startling unsubstantiated recommendations is the statement in the Fermac report that the area to the south and west of Berwick-upon-Tweed has a landscape capacity for ‘…2-3 medium sized wind farms (up to 15 turbines each)…’.

Fermac did caveat this recommendation later in the paragraph and actually highlighted that this statement was based upon no rigorous analysis or methodology but was merely the author’s own ‘…initial thoughts…’ and that ‘ ..Further assessment will be necessary of the wider landscape context to confirm these initial thoughts.’

However, this was a very loose and irresponsible comment to make and illustrates the poor quality of even the initial judgement. The statement was clearly based upon a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the landscape and contradicts the planning policies that had been reviewed earlier in the Fermac report. This one recommendation on its own undermines the credibility of the whole Fermac report.

The degree of error in the Fermac recommendation is highlighted by the Arup report’s application of a methodology in line with PPS 22 which concluded that the same area only has a landscape capacity for up to 15 turbines with no more than 6 in any one cluster.

The lack of rigour and professional judgement used in the Fermac and Scott Wilson reports is also illustrated by the Fermac report’s comments on the Ironside Farrar report. The Fermac report claimed to agree with the findings of the Ironside Farrar report on several material issues. However, the conclusions that the Fermac report came to were entirely different.

For example, section 3.3 of the Fermac report states that “The findings of the Ironside Farrar audit in relation to the description of Predicted Impacts are also, in our opinion, correct”.

These findings were that; “The Moorsyde wind farm will have significant adverse impacts on the site and surroundings that will be difficult to mitigate. This is made clear in the ES (Environmental Statement), particularly in relation to landscape and visual impacts. Compared with an upland setting, its location in a lowland setting increases the potential for significant impacts on residents and travellers due to greater population density surrounding the site.” (Ironside Farrar, section 8).

Ironside Farrar also noted a conclusion in the Moorsyde ES itself “…that despite the medium to low sensitivity of the site, impacts will be major. For the wider area it is concluded that the directly affected open rolling farmland of LCA 19 will experience a major impact…”.

And yet Fermac contradicts Ironside Farrar, by concluding in section 4.1 that “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.”

Another example of Fermac ignoring Ironside Farrar’s recommendations is demonstrated by the Fermac report comments on the ‘Moorsyde’ photomontages. The Fermac report entirely fails to take into consideration Ironside Farrar's findings in '3. 5 Impact Assessment Conclusions' and '3.8 Summary of Landscape and Visual Assessment Process' and the technical findings in the review of '4.4 Assessment of Objections'.

Ironside Farrar’s findings were that the photomontages were:

• printed too small with incorrect viewing distances to give a realistic impression of the scale of the proposals;

• The photomontage panoramas have too wide a viewing angle;

• Views are sometimes too hazy to assess impacts on distance views, specifically of the Cheviot Hills.

The photomontages are clearly in breach of the SNH referenced guidelines on size, viewing distance and quality. The Fermac report however made recommendations based on these photomontages without ever taking into account the fact that the turbines in many of them are not visible even with viewing aids.

We leave the final word on the Fermac report to its author, who, in a letter to John Hayward at Berwick Borough Council dated 22 December 2006, stated, “had we been made aware as soon as the amended scheme (from 14 to 10 turbines) had been received, the likelihood is that we would have recommended a full re-assessment (visual impact assessment, photomontages, ZVI's etc.) Learning of this change only after we had produced our report has left us in a somewhat invidious position.”

The superficial 'desktop study' nature of the work undertaken by Fermac is revealed by the fact that the authors were entirely unaware of the change to the number of turbines even though it took place before they had finished their study. The wrong number of turbines continued to be presented in the November 2006 'Final Draft' of this report and was not corrected until the Final Report of March 2007 was published.

It is our belief that the Fermac and Scott Wilson reports lack any credibility and their opinions and recommendations can not be defended or relied upon by the Council’s officers or members. We must advise the Council and its officers that any attempt to rely on the Fermac or Scott Wilson reports in determining the ‘Moorsyde’ wind farm application will be met with the strongest challenge.

Moorsyde Action Group
7 December 2007

AMENDMENT OBJECTION, 10 OCTOBER 2007

Objection to Your Energy's September 2007 amendment to the 'Moorsyde' proposal:

Re. Moorsyde Wind Farm - Ref. No. 04/B/1107.

Dear Sir

Moorsyde Action Group (MAG) wishes to register its objection to the new amendment to the application by Moorsyde Wind Farm Ltd for an array of wind turbines between Duddo and Allerdean, as advertised on 13 September 2007. MAG is an unincorporated response group elected at a public meeting in November 2004 to represent the interests of people living in the area of the ‘Moorsyde’ proposal.

We believe that this latest amendment to the application is cursory, fails to meet Ove Arup’s intermediate strategic guidance and does nothing to address the outstanding issues identified by the independent Audit Report on the ‘Moorsyde’ Environmental statement carried out on behalf of Berwick Borough Council by Ironside Farrar LLP.

MAG is of the opinion that the many amendments to this application constitute a different form of development from the application that was originally submitted and may prejudice third parties if a complete re-consultation exercise is not undertaken. Mr Frank Orr, of Dickinson Dees LLP, wrote on our behalf to Mr Liam Henry, Berwick Borough Solicitor, on 12 September to point out that the material differences between the reduced scheme and both the original and subsequent amendments should, applying ‘Wheatcroft’ principles, require the planning authority to insist on the submission of a new planning application.

The applicant has sought to escape the limits on numbers of turbines recommended in the report commissioned by the North East Assembly and Berwick Borough Council from Ove Arup - ‘Wind Farm development and Landscape Capacity Studies: South and West Berwick upon Tweed (May 2007)’ - by attempting to define their latest amendment in terms of overall output capacity rather than the numbers of turbines they have proposed.

The latest amendment to the application only reduces the proposed scheme to 7 turbines rather than the maximum of 6 that the Arup report recommended. There is an obvious inconsistency in comparison with the Barmoor application where Berwick Borough Council have requested that the applicant reduce their scheme to a maximum of 6 turbines in order to comply with Arup’s recommendations.

MAG is particularly concerned at the imprecision of the application because, in another application, this applicant obtained planning permission for low capacity turbines only to use an S.73 ‘Application to Vary’ the planning permission two years later, in order to use larger bladed, higher capacity turbines. MAG will shortly be submitting our observations on Scott Wilson’s ‘Moorsyde Wind Farm Addendum: Issue Report (August 2007) but we consider that neither the applicant, nor the consultants commissioned by Berwick Borough Council, have carried out an adequate visual impact assessment of the application as now submitted.

Critically, this latest amendment to the application does not provide sufficient information for Berwick Borough Council’s Officers and Members to assess the scale of the environmental impacts this development might have or its claimed benefits.

The information that should have been provided to allow such a judgement, that is missing from this amendment and that has not been provided in the original Environmental Statement or any of the subsequent amendments and Addenda, includes the following:

1. The latest amendment fails to supply details of turbine output capacity, what capacity factor the applicant has assumed for the turbines that might be used and what adjustment they have made to power output figures to account for the operating mode that would have to be used in order to protect residents’ amenity from turbine noise.

   The applicant’s projected figures for power production, carbon savings and noise outputs cannot be justified without knowing the figures upon which the calculations are based.

   Nor is it possible to judge the cost/benefit of the scheme without knowing how the claimed outputs and emissions savings figures have been calculated.

2. In the latest amendment, the severe adverse visual impacts of the turbines on key views to the Cheviots remain unchanged. The protection of such views is highlighted in local and regional planning guidance, as well as in the Arup report.

   Although the adverse impacts on the Shoresdean/Shoreswood settlements have been slightly ameliorated, the impacts on the closest settlements at Ancroft Northmoor, Ancroft Southmoor, Felkington, East and West Allerdean and parts of Duddo remain, as does the impact on travellers on the network of roads and footpaths in the area.

   The numbers and proximity of the closest settlements were misrepresented to the Planning Committee in the December 2006 Officer’s Report by the consultant acting as case officer. The applicant has failed to supply photomontages illustrating the visual impacts on what are now the closest settlements at Ancroft Northmoor, Ancroft Southmoor, Felkington, East Allerdean and Duddo. This makes it impossible for Berwick Borough Council’s Officers and Members to assess the level of visual impact this development might have.

   Additionally, the applicant has provided no cumulative visual impact assessment for this application taken with the applications at Barmoor and Toft Hill. There are a significant number of settlements where residents would be able to see two different arrays of wind turbines simultaneously and where they would feel that they were living in a wind farm environment. This is something which visual impact assessment methodologies such as those used by Arup specifically say is unacceptable.

3. The latest scheme would have severe adverse impacts on the setting of Duddo Tower, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, and Duddo Church, a Grade 2 Listed building, contrary to planning policy. The applicant has failed to provide information illustrating the visual impacts on these sites.

4. The modelling of the noise impacts of the original scheme provided by the applicant was judged to be inadequate by the independent Audit of the Environmental Statement carried out by Ironside Farrar. No further information was supplied with the previous amendment and no further information has been supplied with this latest amendment to the scheme.

   The only noise impact assessment for the application is that contained in the original Environmental Statement which is based on data from a turbine that was obsolete at the time of the original application and which was based on the lowest power and noise output of this turbine. This setting was not applied to the claimed output figures which were, therefore, substantially overstated. The setting of planning conditions without a proper examination of the potential worst case environmental impact of an application is contrary to planning guidelines and the courts have upheld this position. It is not acceptable for the Borough to condone the failure of the applicant to provide a noise impact assessment in its application by purely setting planning conditions, particularly when the enforceability of noise conditions has been successfully challenged in the High Court.

Additionally, the latest amendment did not take the opportunity to address those areas identified by the independent Audit Report commissioned by the Borough from consultants Ironside Farrar or other issues identified by statutory consultees and interested parties that have still not been addressed by the applicant in subsequent amendments and addenda to their Environmental Statement and application. Most, if not all, of the missing or incomplete environmental information that the applicant has failed to provide was misrepresented and/or ignored in the December 2006 Officer’s Report to the Planning Committee.

To provide the correct level of information for the environmental impact of the proposal to be assessed by Officers and Members the application would also need to include:

• new bird surveys or a justification of the survey methodology, as requested by Ironside Farrar;

• details of a grid connection and an assessment of its impacts as required by planning guidance andrequested by Ironside Farrar;

• information on the socio-economic impacts of the proposal, especially with regard to thecost/benefits to the local tourist economy and a reasoned reply to objections made byNorthumberland Tourism, the north Northumberland Tourism association and local touristbusinesses;

• a justification of the choice of the ‘Moorsyde’ site, as required by planning guidance;

• evidence of proper consultation with local communities, as required by planning guidance;

• an assessment of groundwater impacts from the grouting of old mine workings in order to stabiliseturbine foundations, as requested by Ironside Farrar; and

• a proper assessment of the potential impacts on public water supplies, including Berwick’s.

In summary, it is MAG’s opinion that this amended application actually reduces the information available regarding the environmental impacts of the ‘Moorsyde’ scheme. The design of the proposal has changed materially from that of the original application and its Environmental Statement.

Even if the original environmental impact assessment (EIA) had been adequate, the changes to the scheme have been of such significance that the EIA performed so far is no longer relevant. In the period since 2003-2004 when the original EIA was commissioned from Jacobs Babtie by ATCO Power, the original developer of the scheme who abandoned the proposal in 2004 after most of the EIA was completed, the application has substantially changed on two occasions and there have been a number of piecemeal additions, subtractions, revisions and amendments to the Environmental Statement (ES) and associated documentation.

Most worrying, as an example of the inadequate information available to decision makers, we are still no closer to having a proper visual impact assessment of the proposal than we were in 2005 when Ironside Farrar listed a number of major criticisms of the visual impact assessment included in the ES by the applicant.

On these grounds, MAG objects to the current amendment to the application and invites Berwick Borough Council to request that the applicant submits an entirely new application and actively consults with local communities prior to and during the submission process. A new application should only be submitted after the applicant has carried out a professionally conducted EIA that addresses the problems identified in the present application. This new application must comply with key principle viii of PPS 22 which states:

Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.

Only once this has been done will the planning authority have sufficient information to consider the potential impacts of a wind power station on this site.




Steering Committee, Moorsyde Action Group
10 October 2007.

ARUP RESPONSE

Observations on 'Wind Farm Development and Landscape Capacity Studies: South and West Berwick upon Tweed (May 2007)' by Ove Arup and Partners Ltd.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

MAG welcomes the Arup report, particularly its conclusion that the landscape to the South and West of Berwick upon Tweed is not suitable for wind farm development on the scale envisaged by the Draft RSS and County Structure Plan (section 7.1).

We are pleased that the importance of the report has been recognised by Berwick Borough Council, and that this has led to the Council requesting the deletion of the South and West Berwick area as having the potential for medium scale wind farm development in the Draft RSS, in order to reflect the report’s findings.

We believe the report’s findings lend significant support to the refusal of the 3 current wind farm applications in the South and West Berwick area, on the grounds that their proposed size means their visual impact is too great, and that there are higher landscape capacity sites available elsewhere in the Borough and County.

The report recommends (section 6.5) that the landscape capacity for possible wind farm development of the South and West Berwick area,

"be seen within the context of a regional and county level appreciation of relative landscape capacity within each of the other 5 medium wind resource areas within Northumberland...",

and states (section 5.5) that, in just 2 other potential ‘W’ areas in Northumberland, there are at least 31 places in which wind farms would cause less visual blight than in the South and West Berwick area.

The report repeatedly highlights the settled nature of the South and West Berwick landscape, (section 4.3, 4.4, 5.5, 6.2, 6.4, 7.1) pointing out that, for visual blight at 2km, there are 21 better zones in which to place turbines at Knowesgate and Harwood and 10 better zones at North Charlton (section 5.5).

The North/South Charlton Arup report concluded (section 7.1) that the North/South Charlton ‘W’ area can accommodate a total of 100MW of wind farm development, which was actually greater than envisaged in the County Structure Plan and Draft RSS, and stated;

"This may be particularly helpful if other wind resource areas identified by the Draft RSS/County Structure Plan are not able to deliver their appropriate contribution, either due to constraints or lack of developer interest."

We would also like to highlight a significant difference in methodology between the Arup report for North/South Charlton and that for the South and West Berwick report. In their North/South Charlton study, Arup specifically excluded settled Open Rolling Farmland (ORF) because,

..it has an even distribution of scattered settlement. Visual amenity and noise considerations make it highly unlikely that wind farm development of any scale would come forward (or be appropriate) in this part of the landscape character area."

However, almost the entire area in the South/West Berwick study is comprised of settled ORF, which, if treated in the same way as in the North/South Charlton study, clearly means that almost all the South and West Berwick area is unsuitable for wind farm development.

There is also a significant difference in methodology between the Arup report for Kiln Pit Hill and the South and West Berwick report. In the Kiln Pit Hill report, Arup applied 2km separation distances to protect the setting of Grade 1 and 2 Listed Buildings. The South and West Berwick study however, fails to apply any degree of separation to protect the setting of the nationally more important Scheduled Ancient Monuments of the Duddo Stones and Duddo Tower, and the Grade 2 listed Duddo Church. Applying the methodology consistently means that any wind farm development within 2km of the Duddo Stones, Duddo Tower and Duddo Church is unsuitable, and would rule out both the ‘Moorsyde’ and Toft Hill applications in their current configurations.

We would question why Arup has used different methodology in the South and West Berwick study area from that used in the reports it has carried out in the other potential ‘W’ areas in Northumberland.

The South and West Berwick report also highlights the unacceptable visual impact of the current ‘Moorsyde’ application, concluding and recommending (section 7.1) that,

"Smaller “clusters” [of turbines] are favoured which … would better sit with the scale of the settled landscape."

Even if a small wind farm was proposed in the area, the report stresses the need to respect the setting of, and views from, nearby settlements (section 4.4) and to follow strict micro-siting guidelines found in Appendix B (section 6.5). We would expect Scott Wilson to re-iterate and emphasise this conclusion in their report and, that the Council will insist these guidelines are adhered to in any planning applications.

CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS

MAG has four critical observations of the Arup report which give grounds for further restricting the development of any wind farms in the South and West Berwick area.

1. Error in the Landscape Sensitivity Worksheet Summary
   The Landscape sensitivity of Zone 5, the area which includes the ‘Moorsyde’ application, has been erroneously marked as ‘Medium’ in Table 2. On the basis of the raw data from the Landscape capacity worksheets in Appendix A, Zone 5’s summary landscape sensitivity should be scored ‘Medium-Medium High’ and therefore, the ‘Largest wind farm type potentially acceptable’ is ‘Small’, (less than 7.5MW). This is significantly smaller than the current ‘Moorsyde’ application for 18-30MW.

   The Landscape Capacity worksheets (Appendix A) recognise the similarities in landscape between the contiguous Zones 5 and 10 which share the same land-mass of gently rising ground towards the West. In fact, Table 2 describes both as having “A gently undulating landscape”.

   On a line by line basis, the worksheets show that Zone 5 is less suitable than Zone 10 for wind farm development and yet Zone 5, coincidentally the zone with a pre-existing application, is deemed suitable for ‘Small-Medium Small’ development while Zone 10 is only deemed suitable for ‘Small’ development.

   Further evidence for the mis-categorisation of Zone 5, is that Zones 3 and 4 are only marginally less suitable for wind farm development than Zone 5, but are given ‘Small’ and ‘Small-None’ suitability for wind farm typologies. Zone 11, on average, scores as well as Zone 5, yet Zone 11 is deemed to be totally unsuitable for any wind farm development.

   Correcting this error requires that Zone 5 be deemed suitable only for ‘Small’ wind farms of less than 7.5MW.

2. Error in Scenario Performance analysis (section 6.4.1) through failure to fully reflect information contained in Table 11
   The analysis of Scenario C has omitted the "possibly unacceptable" effect on a “small number of isolated dwellings” among which Shoresdean is highlighted as experiencing a “severe” impact in Table 11.

   Neither scenario B or D in Tables 10 and 12 have any “severe” potential visual effects, therefore the conclusion (section 6.5) that scenario C performs marginally the best is incorrect.

3. Capacity limits used in the analysis of Cumulative Impact (section 6.3) are higher than the Landscape Analysis (Section 4.3) recommends
   The report recommends (section 4.3.1) that, in the landscape area characterised as Open Rolling Farmland (ORF), which encompasses all three current wind farm applications, medium scale (26-49MW) wind farm development would NOT be appropriate where it interferes with key views of the Cheviots.

   The report highlights the large number of key views of the Cheviots, noting (section 4.3.3) “...The area’s simple undulating form…allows fine views across to the Cheviots from the network of straight roads.”

   The report therefore, sets an upper threshold of 25MW total capacity for potential wind farm developments in Open Rolling Farmland with views of the Cheviots (section 4.3).

   This upper threshold is not applied correctly in the cumulative impact assessment (section 6.3), which includes the areas containing all three current wind farm applications, and which are all characterised as Open Rolling Farmland with views of the Cheviots.

   The cumulative capacity of these three areas should be 25MW, based on the capacity of the landscape category they are situated in, being Open Rolling Farmland with views of the Cheviots. However, a higher total capacity of 30-40MW is incorrectly used.

   This higher total capacity figure is the landscape capacity which the report concludes the whole South and West Berwick study area could support (section 7.1) and is therefore not appropriate for the assessment of cumulative impact of potential wind farm developments in Open Rolling Farmland with views of the Cheviots.

   Even after setting an upper threshold of 25MW for Open Rolling Farmland with views of the Cheviots, the report (section 4.4) guards against massed turbines of unrestricted height, which it defines as greater than 100m, by creating a ‘small-medium-small’ category of up to 6 turbines, highlighting;

   "The nature of the settled, relatively low-lying landscape at Berwick" and that "nine turbines of unrestricted height [greater than 100m] in a single proposal [...] would be too large for this landscape."

   For the avoidance of doubt, it is repeated again in the report’s conclusions (section 7.1) that smaller “clusters” of turbines are favoured.

   In addition, the Draft Final Report (March 2007) made it clear (section 7.1) regarding the 3 current wind farm applications, ‘Moorsyde’, Barmoor and Toft Hill, that;

   " ... all of these 3 applications would need modification to be acceptable in cumulative landscape and visual terms; the current applications are just too extensive when viewed in combination".

4. Failure to observe separation distances used in earlier Landscape Capacity studies
   The scenario analysis used in the Kiln Pit Hill Landscape Capacity study (section 6.2) applies a 2km separation distance from the Grade 2 listed church of St Andrews and the Grade 1 Hopper Mausoleum. In the study findings (section 7.1), Arup state that the; “..report has given significant weight when considering a maximum acceptable level of wind farm development to the Grade 1 Listed Mausoleum, the associated church and their hilltop setting; reflecting the Mausoleum’s status as the highest level of National designation for cultural heritage. However, it is clear from the general thrust of recent government and policy guidance that even this circumstance should not automatically rule out a renewable energy project. Nevertheless, given the demonstrated greater capacity of other wind resource areas in the County/District, the environmental benefits of the suggested level of development at this location needs careful consideration; the area could remain free of wind turbines and the opportunity taken to concentrate development around other proposals in less sensitive landscapes with less problematic setting issues.”

   The same situation exists in the South and West Berwick area because the Duddo Stones and Duddo Tower are accorded an even greater level of heritage protection by their Scheduled Ancient Monument status and Arup have demonstrated that there are other less sensitive landscapes with greater capacity for wind farm development available in the Borough and County.

   The scenario analysis for South and West Berwick (section 6.2) has failed to observe the 2km separation distance from the Duddo Stones, Duddo Tower and the Grade 2 listed Duddo Church. Applying the Arup methodology consistently across the County, would mean parts of Zones 2, 3 and much of Zone 5 would be totally unsuitable for any wind farm development.

   The current ‘Moorsyde’ and Toft Hill applications fall into these Zones and should, therefore, unless the applications are altered, be refused permission due to their visual impact on the Duddo Stones, Duddo Tower, Duddo Church and their settings and the demonstrated greater capacity of other wind resource areas in the Borough and County.

SUMMARY

In summary, MAG welcomes the Arup report and its support of our overall views that:

1. The landscape to the South and West of Berwick does not have the capacity for medium scale wind farm development of the scale envisaged by the Draft RSS;

2. The Borough should refuse the 3 current wind farm applications in the South and West Berwick area as their impact is too great, both individually and therefore cumulatively, on their landscape of Open Rolling Farmland with views of the Cheviots given their proposed size, and the availability of higher landscape capacity sites elsewhere in the Borough/County; and

3. Even if a small wind farm was proposed in the area, it should respect the setting of, and views from, nearby settlements and follow strict micro-siting guidelines.

Specifically, as regards the current ‘Moorsyde’ application for 10 turbines of up to 110m in height, the Arup report supports our view that the application should be refused, as the report concludes that:

1. “The nature of the settled, relatively low-lying landscape at Berwick” means that “… nine turbines of unrestricted height (i.e. greater than 100m) in a single proposal…would be too large for this landscape”;

2. Smaller “clusters” are favoured which…would better sit with the scale of the settled landscape;

3. Correcting the report for its quantitative inconsistencies means that Zone 5 is capable of supporting no more than 7.5MW of generating capacity; and

4. According the Duddo Stones, Duddo Tower and Duddo Church the same degree of protection that listed buildings have been given in other landscape capacity studies in the County, rules out the ‘Moorsyde’ application in its current form.

We hope that the Borough's officers and members will take note of the comments we have made when they are advising on, and determining, the current wind farm applications in the South and West Berwick area. We firmly believe that a refusal to grant planning permission for all 3 current wind farm applications is strongly supported by the Arup report.

ADDENDUM REPORT RESPONSE

Response to Jacobs Babtie's Moorsyde Wind Farm Environmental Statement Addendum Report

(In the following: 'AR' refers to the Addendum Report; 'IF' refers to Ironside Farrar's independent Audit Report; 'ES' refers to the Moorsyde Environmental Statement).

1. THE PROPOSAL

Section 1.4 of the Addendum Report sets out a summary of the proposal. This differs significantly from the original description in the Environmental Statement which set out a specific turbine type, albeit one that was no longer in production, and a total generating capacity of 38.5 MW that gave a capacity factor of 27%.

The revised description of the proposal, far from bringing greater clarity, introduces significant confusion and uncertainty. This is despite the fact that the applicants have been monitoring the wind resource at the site for almost 2 years and must know what turbine capacity it will support.

The description of the proposal in the Addendum Report now gives a total capacity of between 28 and 42 MW and a capacity factor of between 23% and 30%. This group has examined a wide range of wind farm applications across the country and has not come across a single proposal that has been described in such vague and confusing terms in a planning application.

Despite the vagueness of the proposal, the Addendum Report is quite specific in its claimed electricity production figures for the proposal. Meanwhile, the applicants' website (as of May 2006) is offering figures that are at variance with the Addendum Report.

If the applicants are claiming specific outputs and carbon savings, it is our view that they should explain and validate their figures. It is not possible to rely on their figures as presently submitted. If it is a question of commercial confidence, we would suggest that they be asked to submit the baseline data, including their wind data, turbine model and calculations, for scrutiny by an independent expert.

Recently released data from the DTI indicates that wind farms in the North East of England operate at an average capacity of 21%.1 The applicants have acknowledged that, "The fact that Felkington is on a low lying plateau means the wind conditions are relatively low ...".² Yet they are now claiming that they might use a 3 MW turbine on this site. As far as we can see, the only 3MW turbine that the company might use on this site is described by its manufacturers as a "high wind and offshore turbine", which would clearly be unsuitable for the wind conditions on this site.

The main argument for onshore wind power proposals is their capacity to substitute for fossil fuelled electricity production and hence to reduce C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions. The accurately calculated benefits of a proposal must be weighed up against the impacts. The benefits of the Moorsyde proposal are vague, exaggerated and unsubstantiated. It is our view that it is unacceptable to submit a proposal on this basis.

2. ECOLOGY

The requirement for amphibian and bat surveys was clearly set out by the County Council and the Borough in the original scoping responses to the Moorsyde proposal. 3 Whilst we welcome the fact that these surveys have eventually been undertaken, we would make the following observations:

Great crested Newts
According to the applicants, the surveys were undertaken at "a less effective period" (AR 2.2.3). There is no reason why these surveys could not have been undertaken at a more suitable time if the applicants had taken cognisance of the scoping consultations.

Bats
The bat survey was also undertaken at a less favourable time of year: late September and early October rather than the recommended period of May to September (AR 2.3.5). Again, the survey could have been carried out at a more suitable time if the applicants had followed the recommendations of the County Ecologist in the scoping consultations.

The survey states that no bat roosts were identified (AR 2.3.8). Although bat roosts within 500 metres of turbine sites were not identified, there are several known bat roosts on the boundary of the site, close to turbine locations: eg. The Gables, Duddo; North Ancroft and Old Shoreswood.

Birds
Birds and bird surveys are addressed at 5.6, below.

3. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

3.1 Additional Viewpoints and Photomontages

IF 5.3 (3) "Further viewpoints should be illustrated and assessed in detail for a representative assessment"

Whilst we welcome the submission of additional photomontages and wireframes in the Addendum Report Figures, Volume 2, it is to be regretted that the applicants did not choose either to discuss further viewpoint selection with local communities or to recognise representations regarding their original selection of viewpoints. Public consultation and participation in the selection process is recommended in the SNH guidelines referenced by the applicants in the Environmental Statement.

We do not consider that the submission of these additional photomontages answers the issues of viewpoint selection and technical quality that were made in the Audit Report with regard to the original photomontages.

Viewpoints 1a, Beal and 2a, Goswick
MAG welcomes these visualisations. We note that these photomontages do meet SNH guidelines on worst case (i.e. full-face) representations of turbine blade angles.

We would, however, observe that, while the photomontages are of substantially better technical quality than those in the original Environmental Statement, they still fail to meet the SNH technical guidelines discussed below.

Viewpoint 3a, Berrington Lough
It is not clear how this photomontage addresses the reference to, "... it was suggested that an additional photomontage prepared for a location to the southwest of the site would further aid the consideration of likely visual impacts" . Berrington Lough is, as AR 3.1.7 makes clear, "to the southeast of the site".

There is no clear justification for the selection of this viewpoint which is on an unclassified, minor road with no significant receptors. Berrington Lough is not even listed in theapplicants' own Preliminary Assessment of Visual Receptors (ES, Appendix J) unlike important receptors with a clear view over the site such as Allerdean, Shoreswood and Shoresdean at a similar distance. This viewpoint cannot be seen as being representative of views from this distance.

Landforms and vegetation obscure the site from this viewpoint making it less suitable than other available viewpoints at the same distance with clear views over the site.

Unlike the more distant views from Beal and Goswick, this photomontage clearly breaks SNH guidelines by not presenting a worst case view. It further breaks the size and quality guidelines discussed below.

Viewpoint 4a, Duddo Stone Circle
We welcome visual representations from this viewpoint. Unfortunately, this photomontage clearly breaks SNH technical guidelines on quality, the baseline image was taken in bad light at 5.20 pm in November.

Unlike the more distant views from Beal and Goswick, it does not present a worst case view. The closest turbines are all presented side on with insufficient contrast in the sky area. It also breaks the SNH size guidelines.

Viewpoint 5a, Ancroft [unclassified road near Ancroft Northmoor]
The applicants claim that this viewpoint was selected to be "representative of views from properties in this area and from vehicle travellers on the B6354" (AR 3.1.10) It is not. The predominant experience of views of the site for travellers on the B6354 is looking south to the Cheviots or north to Duddo Tower and the settlement ridges to the north. Equally, most settlements in the area have a southerly outlook. This view is to the west and avoids showing the relationship of the site to views of the Cheviot Hills.

Unlike the more distant views from Beal and Goswick, it does not present a worst case view and breaks the SNH technical guidelines on size and quality.

Viewpoint 6a, Ladykirk We welcome the inclusion of this viewpoint that was requested by Scottish Borders Council during pre-scoping consultations.

3.2 Viewpoint Selection

The applicants note that MAG and others consider, "certain views , particularly those from the north and northwest of the site, to be underrepresented". The Addendum Report fails to address this point.

Northumberland County council specifically requested that, "The selected viewpoints should include locations close to the site where views of the development will be prominant in the view of passing motorists". The applicants have still failed to include any viewpoints which relate to the B6354.

The importance of the site in relation to views of the Cheviot Hills is underscored by the Berwick-upon-Tweed Local Plan which emphasises the relationship of the intermediate landscape of this part of the Borough to surrounding landscape features:

The Council will adopt a policy framework which acknowledges the important role the landscape plays in defining areas of open space in scale with the Cheviots, The North Sea and the mixed moorland ridges. In these areas the intention will be to ensure that development proposals will not have a detrimental impact on the long range views important to the character and quality of the Borough landscape.⁴

The Local Plan reflects the concerns expressed in the landscape appraisal work that was carried out by the University of Northumbria which is also embodied in the Regional Renewable Energy Strategy: "In the north of the Borough turbines should be sited so as not to impinge on principle views of the Cheviots." ⁵

The additional viewpoints do not include any that examine the relationship of the site to the Cheviot Hills or the B6354, the main route through the site. Nor do they address the issues identified by the Audit Report in relation to the original 10 photomontages:

A high proportion of the chosen viewpoints have obscured or partial views ... There are no views from the closest receptors (eg. Grievestead, Shoreswood, Felkington, B6354 near Ancroft Northmoor) Objectors claim that open views from the north of the site (eg. Thornton area) are under-represented

And: "Guidance recommends that chosen viewpoints should be of both key locations and representative locations and that limited value is gained from repeated displays of obscured views" (IF 3.3.2)

The applicants claim in paragraph 6.3.84 that the statement in the Audit Report that, "the viewpoints chosen are reasonably representative of those available from the receptor and do not deliberately seek to use foreground detail to reduce or obscure the background", contradicts the later statement that, "a high proportion of the chosen viewpoints have obscured or partial views demonstrating low impacts". It does not.

The first statement was aimed at MAG's attribution of intent in the use of foreground objects. The second statement is a matter of fact: Appendix J of the ES (Preliminary Assessment of Visual Receptors) uses precisely these terms - 'screened', 'obscured', 'partial' and 'oblique' - to describe views obtainable from receptors which were subsequently chosen as viewpoints. No justification for the repeated use of such viewpoints is given in the Addendum Report.

It is noticeable that the applicants have chosen to use more open viewpoints in their supplementary photomontages, even though the choice of viewpoints remains open to criticism.

3.3 Technical quality

IF 5.3 (4) "Photomontages should be printed larger, with correct viewing distances stated, to convey a realistic impression of visual impacts"

The applicants admit that their ES photomontages fail to meet the best practice size criteria that they reference in the ES. The sizing of the page is irrelevant, the SNH guidelines state that: "A full image [our emphasis] size of A4 or even A3 for a single frame picture, giving an image height of approximately 20 cm, is required to give a realistic impression". ⁶

The applicants' additional photomontages are, at 13 cm in height, marginally better in size than the ES ones which were of 8 to 12 cm. They still fall far short of best practice guidelines.

The viewing distances argument at AD 6.3.86 - 6.3.88 is based on a false premise. Viewing distances are not supposed to be predicated on the size of the photomontage. The SNH guidelines clearly state: "A comfortable viewing distance of 30-50 cm should dictate the technical detail of their [photomontages] Production". ⁷ Taken with the SNH size guidelines, this clearly states that photomontage size and detail should be based on the viewing distance, not vice versa.

The viewing distance issue is largely irrelevant to the original photomontages where many are of such poor technical quality that it is impossible to make out many of the turbines that they purport to represent at any viewing distance. This is the case even with the aid of viewing aids and directly contravenes the SNH guidelines which state that:

The quality of photographs and photomontages is very important. Photographic work should be carried out in good weather conditions, offering clear visibility.
The worst case scenario of turbines seen against a strongly contrasting sky (e.g. Bright blue or dark grey) should always be shown. ⁸

3.4 Cumulation

The 60 km baseline for looking at cumulation issues that the applicants question [6.3.90] is clearly set out in the SNH's guidelines that the applicants themselves reference:

The CLVIA [Cumulative Landscape and Visual assessment] should show all those windfarm proposals which are in the 'public domain' which are sited up to 60 km from the proposal under consideration. ⁹

4. CULTURAL HERITAGE

MAG welcomes the Addendum Report's recognition of the importance of visual impacts on cultural heritage sites in the area in any assessment of the Moorsyde Application.

We particularly welcome the recognition of the impact on Duddo Four Stones, a Scheduled Ancient Monument of national importance which has been described as, "... undoubtedly the most complete and dramatically situated" [of Northumbrian stone Circles].¹⁰ Unfortunately, the photomontage that the applicants have submitted from this viewpoint is of particularly poor quality, and clearly breaks SNH guidelines on quality described above.

With reference to Duddo Tower, we also welcome the recognition that, "The turbines will form a new backdrop to views of the tower from the south and west." With a 'substantial' impact significance. Unfortunately, the applicants have not produced any visual representations from the B6354 to the south of Duddo, which would illustrate the visual impact.

We do have some concerns at the very limited nature of this section. The cultural heritage sections of other EIA's that we have seen routinely take into consideration impacts on, for example, National Trust properties and local tourist attractions. It is noticeable that the castles at Etal and Norham are not included and that the selection of sites is limited to Northumberland. We would also have thought that the visual impact on views from the Flodden battlefield at Branxton should have been considered.

5. TECHNICAL REVIEW

5.1 Emissions

IF 5.1 (1) "Confirm that the emissions calculations are based on a currently accepted and representative standard"

The Sustainable Development Commission (a renewables advisory body) and the BWEA (the wind power developers' trade body) are not generally regarded as setting the 'currently accepted and representative standard' for emissions calculations (AR 6.3.5).

The DTI suggest using a grid average figure of 0.43 tonnes CO2 per Mwh,11 as do the Carbon Trust who are the recognised authority in this area, having done baseline research on intermittency and substitution for the DTI.

OFGEM, the industry regulator, also recommends the use of a grid average figure of 0.43kg per kWh (i.e. 0.43 tonnes per MWh) when converting Renewable Obligation Certificates to Emissions Trading Scheme credits. ¹²

DEFRA's Guidelines for the Measurement and Reporting of Emissions by Direct Participants in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (June 2003), again uses an averaged figure of 0.43kg Co2 per kWh (i.e. 0.43 tonnes per Mwh). ¹³

5.2 Site selection

IF 5.1 (2) "Confirm whether or not specific alternatives have been considered, giving outline details of the alternatives and the reason for their rejection in favour of Moorsyde. If no alternatives have been considered explain why Moorsyde has been chosen out of the potentially suitable area of search south west of Berwick-upon-Tweed."

In responding to these points the Addendum Report does not answer the questions directly, although it is clear from this report and the original Environmental Statement that no alternative sites were considered. This point is further validated by para 8.3 of the Ironside Farrar report which states, "In particular there is no indication that specific alternatives were considered".

An explanation for the choice of the Moorsyde site from the broad area identified by the GIS study is given in AR 6.3.12, which states that the site was identified taking account of "ground topography, residential developments, likely grid connections and similar factors". One aspect of this is expanded upon in AR 6.3.13, which states, "a major constraint on wind farm deployment is the effects of noise and visual amenity on residences. It can be seen that the Moorsyde site is not compromised by scattered settlements and farm dwellings found throughout the Region."

This, as an explanation for the selection of this site, entirely lacks credibility. It is worth noting that this section of the Addendum Report has not been completed by Jacobs Babtie Ltd, but by the applicants themselves. One of our main criticisms of the original Environmental Statement was that it sought to significantly understate the level of residential settlement in the areas immediately surrounding the site and the impact on the amenity of these settlements. It is our view that it would be difficult to find a site and a design within the broad area of search, or indeed within the wider sub region of Northumberland, which has a greater impact on the amenity of households.

The Ironside Farrar report suggests in para 8.3 that "the ES should provide further information to demonstrate that this is the best available site and that there are no others in the area in which impacts would be significantly less". The Addendum Report makes no attempt to address this question. The site is entirely surrounded by settlements, will significantly impact on key views of the Cheviots, is located on unstable ground which prevents an accurate layout being presented and poses a potential threat to the main drinking water supply for Berwick. On this basis we would suggest that it would be very hard to identify a site with greater environmental impacts, not only within the limited area of search, but within the wider Northumberland sub region.

5.3 Grid Connection

IF 5.1 (3) "give details and an assessment of impacts for the grid connection."

This section of Addendum Report (6.3.16 - 6.3.17) has been prepared by the applicants rather than their consultants and presents a simple list of possible connection options without any assessment of impacts.

The applicants suggest that Scottish Power has identified three possible connection points. The report indicates that a connection to the Loaning substation near Berwick is the most likely option. This opinion from Scottish Power has never been evidenced by the applicants and contradicts evidence provided to this group that a 33 kV connection to the Loaning substation would be highly unlikely on technical grounds.

This view is supported by the fact that Catamount/Force 9 Energy, who are seeking to develop the Barmoor proposal have included a detailed description of a connection to the Eccles substation north of Coldstream in their environmental assessment. Npower, the developers of the Toft Hill proposal, have also told us that they will connect to the Eccles substation. Both of these proposals would have a lower capacity than the lowest capacity given in the Moorsyde Addendum Report (28 MW).

Paragraph 6.3.17 of the Addendum Report inexplicably states that, "it will not be possible to finalise the grid connection point and the line design until the capacity of the wind farm has been defined through consent." We would suggest that it is up to the applicants to define the capacity of their proposal and to supply a detailed assessment of how this capacity will be connected. The grid connection is an integral part of the application. It is not sufficient for the applicant to imply that the role of the planning authority is downgraded to that of a consultee under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.

5.4 Geology and Hydrology

IF 5.2 (1) "Provide an assessment of groundwater impacts arising from grouting operations"

According to the Environmental Statement, "The available mine abandonment plan indicates most of the site to be underlain by mine Workings...". 14 Any work to stabilise the ground will involve substantial interference with the geology and hydrogeology of the area. The impact of the various solutions on the ground and surfacewater regimes can only be predicted after detailed ground investigation In a consultation response, the Environment Agency, stated:

The site itself lies on a minor aquifer (Scremerston Coal Group); however directly beneath this formation lies a major aquifer (Fell Sandstone). [...] The groundwater in the major aquifer is of excellent quality and provides the source for a public drinking water supply at GR NT 9460 4575 (Bleak Ridge borehole). It can be seen from the draft layout that Turbines 6,7, 8 and 9 are less than 500m from the public supply borehole. It is because of these factors that the groundwater is considered highly sensitive in the area. The Environment Agency will require that the Environmental Impact Assessment to comprehensively address the risks to groundwater. ¹⁵

The ES and the Addendum Report have signally failed to address this issue. The suggestion that Ground Investigation should be conditional upon the Planning Approval should be unacceptable, in the light of the potentially severe impacts of the suggested remedial work on the highly sensitive water resources.

The potential impact of the development on groundwater is simply mentioned without without proposing any specific details or solutions. The addendum also remains silent on the fact that this is not 'ordinary' groundwater, but an important and unusually pure aquifer that is the source of Berwick's water supply.

Ironside Farrar's audit said of the grouting proposal that the ES "does not adequately consider impacts on water resources", and also stated that, "there is no mention, however, of the implications of grouting operations on groundwater. This is a serious omission as grouting can affect groundwater quality." ¹⁶

The applicants assert that the grout does not present a risk to groundwaters when set, but ignore the issue of pollution as the cement and other constituents bleed into the displaced water, as well as possible damage to the aquifer during the drilling and grout pumping process. Nor is the possibility of pollution due to the disturbance of mine waste and contaminated water in old workings during drilling and grouting operations addressed. There is a very real danger of displaced mine water polluting groundwater during grouting operations.

The proposed grouting material would contain cement, pulverised fuel ash and a range of additives, all of which in their unset state can be highly deleterious and which would be undesirable whether in a public water supply or an SAC designated tributary. Whilst the mixture may be more stable after hardening, there is considerable opportunity for contamination during the construction work. PFA has also been shown to leach contaminants which exceed the Water Quality Limits. ¹⁷ There can be no assessment of the quantities of grout, with its comcomitant chemical load, that would be involved in the grouting process and in forming the foundations without a thorough ground investigation. The applicants themselves admit, "... The environmental impacts of the grouting process cannot be quantified until the extent of grouting and specific ground conditions are known ..." (AR 6.3.21).

Pressure grouting in voids and fissures can be a hit or miss affair, sometimes travelling considerable distances without ever achieving its purpose of stabilising the intended location whilst causing other problems. Vague suggestions that permeable barriers and water treatment measures might be used in the event of problems do not adequately address the technical difficulties of such remedial work. The suggestion that turbines might be 'micro-sited' to avoid mine workings also lacks evidence; the applicants at present admit to having no clear idea of the extent of mine workings or how far turbines would have to be moved to avoid them.

Without the essential information from a thorough ground investigation and expert opinion on possible impacts on groundwater, the project is being proposed and considered 'blind'. The impacts of the entire project on the ground and surface water have not been adequately addressed and cannot be left, like so many other issues that are not properly addressed in the Addendum Report, to post-approval monitoring or remedial action after serious damage has been caused.

5.5 Pollution containment and drainage

IF 5.2 (2) "Provision of more detail on pollution containment and drainage arrangements for both groundwater and surface water."

The applicants recognise that the River Tweed has now been adopted as a Special Area of Conservation which extends to protection of its tributaries, one of which transects the western half of the site. The applicants acknowledge in the ES that this watercourse is particularly vulnerable to pollution from surface water run-offs. The applicants entirely fail to address the issue of possible groundwater pollution and displacement runoffs from flooded mine workings, a problem that is widely recognised in the local area.

In the Hydrology section of the ES, they acknowledge that , "Without mitigation and appropriate construction methods, the impact on stream quality could be substantial and may affect water quality of the River Tweed". 18 They further note that it will be necessary to construct two bridges over this stream, "which increases the risk of a contamination incident occurring". ¹⁹

There is no discussion/justification of track routing in terms of environmental impacts and pollution risks. Nor is there any indication of how any pollution incidents affecting this stream will be contained beyond a referral to a reprint of best practice guidelines.

There is no indication of how concrete and grouting mixes are to be delivered, whether by a batching plant on site or by external delivery. If concrete is delivered by lorry, large scale cleaning facilities will be required. We would have expected more site-specific detail on how polluted waste water will be handled on site in response to the Audit Report's concerns rather than just a reprint of best practice guidelines. We would also note that remedial foundation works will add substantially to the CO2 burden of the construction process in the use of cement and in transport and will substantially reduce the claimed carbon benefits of this proposal.

5.6 Bird Surveys

IR 5.2 (4) "Confirm bird survey methodology is appropriate and/or carry out more detailed survey."

The applicants respond, "English Nature has confirmed that they are satisfied that the populations of greylag geese utilising the site are not sufficient to warrant [sic] a significant effect. No additional surveys are therefore required." (AD 2.1.10)

We have not had sight of this letter. The phrase 'utilising the site' suggests that the respondents are referring to birds grazing or roosting on the site, whereas the major concern is with bird movements through the site. This response would anyway be the unsupported opinion of a consultee, not a confirmation of the appropriateness of the bird survey methodology.

The applicants were asked to undertake a wintering bird survey whose parameters were clearly set out by the County Ecologist in the NCC scoping consultation document (ES Appendix D). This stated that: "A wintering bird survey should be undertaken , comprising a number of site visits between early September and late March".

The ES survey consisted of only four visits between mid-November and mid-January (13/14 November, 19/20 December, 16/17 January and 6/7 February). The applicants state that conditions on two of these days (ie. a quarter of the survey) were 'sub-optimal' with rain and wind (ES Appendix I, 2.1.2).

The methodology of the survey was further weakened by a lack of detail on walkover routes and times. The surveyor was based in Manchester and it is important to know when his surveys began and ended because most goose movements occur soon after daybreak and towards dusk, as birds move from roosting grounds to grazing areas and vice versa. Nor is there any detailed description of weather conditions which good practice would require.

The survey managed to miss the fact that, accoding to local residents, several hundred greylag greese were actually grazing and roosting on the site in a field next to the anemometer mast for several weeks during the period of the survey. Extensive logs of bird movements kept by Dr Johnson, a local bird expert, who has a view to the site area from Oxford, to the north east of the site, recorded large flocks of geese moving through the site area before, during and after the survey period.

A resident of Grievestead has kept an impromptu daily log of geese and swans spotted during a daily twenty minute walk on the western edge of the site during the period 1 October to 12 November (day before the ES survey began) in 2005. This recorded over 3,300 geese and 8 swans flying through the 'Moorsyde' site. 20 Observations show that geese fly through the site area in large numbers from September to May, Indeed, flocks are still being seen on a daily basis at the time of writing (3 May 2006). This highlights the total inadequacy of the chosen survey period.

The local representative of the RSPB who was directly concerned in scoping consultations and site visits, initially described the wintering birds survey as "a snapshot, not a survey" and "flawed". ²¹ In a subsequent letter, this officer stated that "the bare minimum" had been done to assess the site for the presence of geese and that, "information contained in future applications needs to be much more Detailed". ²² She further observed that "This [local] information indicates that geese use the area surrounding the site of the proposed wind far more heavily than the information contained in the ES Indicates." 23

The breeding bird surveys were equally cursory, comprising only four visits. The survey missed 12 species that, according to local birders, habitually breed on the the site; this is a 20% under-recording which casts real doubt on the usefulness of the survey. There was a marked under-recording of raptors and owls, species that are particularly vulnerable to turbines. The lack of owls in the records again raises the questions of the times when survey walks were undertaken. As with the winter surveys there are no records of times and weather conditions, contrary to good practice.

The applicants have had both the time and opportunity since they were given the findings of the Audit Report to undertake a properly conducted wintering birds survey that would address the shortcomings identified by the Audit Report and also meet the original baseline criteria set out by the County Ecologist in scoping consultations and the good practice guidelines for bird surveys. . The applicants have not carried out a proper survey nor justified the methodology of the existing bird surveys.

As with many other issues in the Addendum Report, the applicants are offering post-approval monitoring in lieu of properly conducted research into the impacts of their proposal. We cannot see how the application can be approved without properly conducted surveys.

5.7 Noise

IF 5.2(9) "Justification (is) required of use of low noise mode in calculations and / or further assessment of noise levels"

The importance of modelling the likely noise levels and assessing noise impacts from wind farm developments is universally accepted. The Ironside Farrar report concluded that the original noise assessment for the Moorsyde proposal fell short of the requirements of the EIA regulations for 'a description of the likely significant effects of the development'.

In para 6.3.55 of the Addendum Report it is stated that assessment is carried out on the basis that as long as, under worst case propagation conditions, turbine noise does not exceed specified noise limits, then the impact is not significant.

The original noise assessment work carried out as part of the Environmental Statement was clearly flawed as it was based on a redundant turbine and on calculations based on the lowest noise output of the particular machine and certainly not on worst case propagation conditions. the Environmental Statement states:

Noise predictions have been based on sound power levels of a Vestas NEG-Micon NM80 2.75 MW wind turbine. This turbine can be configured to operate with varying levels of trade-off between noise and output power at sensitive wind speeds. This assessment was carried out with the turbine operating in 'Mode 4' which gives the lowest noise output.

The Addendum Report does not provide any revised or additional assessment of noise levels, nor does it justify why the initial modelling was carried out using a turbine operation mode which gives the lowest noise output. It attempts to suggest in para 6.3.59 that the original assessment was based on worst case propagation conditions, a statement that is clearly inaccurate.

As with other areas of concern, we note that the applicants are suggesting addressing the problem after approval of their planning application. The Addendum Report suggests that a planning condition relating to a requirement that noise does not exceed the noise levels required by PPS 22 could be applied. This would seem to be a significant departure from the way in which noise assessment work is normally handled in association with wind farm applications where EIA's are required to produce evidence of impacts rather than vague promises of post-approval remedial action.

The Addendum Report also indicates the potential to use larger and therefore noisier machines. As discussed elsewhere, the applicants are not even in a position to finalise the exact location of turbines due to geological problems (AR 6.3.19). Given the significance of the issue of noise on the amenity of local residents, this failure to provide an appropriate assessment of noise, based on a potential worst case scenario, is totally unacceptable and it would seem to be impossible to determine this application given this significant gap in information.

Local economy

IF 5.2(14) "The section on socio-economics should review impacts on residential property values".

The Addendum Report responded to this in para 6.3.68 by stating, "Residential property values are not a material consideration in the planning process and there is therefore no requirement to assess these in the Environmental Statement".

Whilst we accept that impact on individual property values may not be a material consideration in terms of determining planning applications, the housing market cannot be isolated from an assessment of the broader economic impact on the area.

This, it would seem, is supported by the applicants themselves, who in a submission relating to another of their proposed developments, published in the same month as the Moorsyde Addendum Report, stated:

The presence of wind turbines in cherished environments is a sensitive issue and evaluating the public perceptions of wind farms is important in order to identify the anticipated effects on tourism, local prices of property and housing and the general perceived effect on lifestyle and quality of life. These elements will be addressed in the Environmental Statement using research conducted on similar schemes in representative locations that are comparable to the Isle of Wight. ²⁴

Sustainability Report

The Addendum Report includes a 'Sustainability Report' (Appendix 4). Because this has no relevance to the planning application we have chosen not to comment on it in any detail.

In section 1.5, it does, however, make contentious reference to Regional Policy and targets and in particular to the draft Regional Spatial Strategy. Of particular concern is the fact that the applicants are still trying to interpret the RSS as providing site specific guidance , as demonstrated by para 1.5.8 of the report which states "The specific location of the Moorsyde Wind Farm site is mentioned as a preferred area following the regional assessment".

Having participated in the Examination in Public of the Regional Spatial Strategy, we understand that the following points have been recognised and re-affirmed:

• 'Broad areas of least constraint' for wind development identified in the RSS should be precisely that: broad indicative areas ?of search identified from the landscape study and GIS studies, not areas where there is any presumption of approval for development
• The primacy of the Local Plan and the Local Development Framework in the planning hierarchy.
• The total capacity of the areas of least constraint is intended to be up to the medium capacity ceiling of 20-25 turbines, rather than indicating numbers appropriate to individual projects.
• Re-affirmation of the original description of the area to the South and West of Berwick as having some possible potential for 'small to medium' rather than just medium development.
• A recognition that different areas have different capacities and different constraints
• The importance of the original University of Northumbria landscape study and the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) modelling in informing the local planning process

CONCLUSIONS

In our considered opinion, the Addendum Report embodies very significant failings:

The capacity, output, efficency and claimed carbon savings figures for this proposal are now vaguer than at any time in its history. The claim that it will only be possible to finalise the capacity of the proposal after consent is risible. The applicants have produced differing figures in their project specification brochure, Environmental Statement, Addendum Report and on their company website. It is now impossible to judge the potential output, efficiency or carbon savings of their proposal without accurate and substantiated data.

A firm proposal for grid connection has not been supplied, justified or its impacts examined. The applicants have merely supplied a list of options. Their preferred option lacks any technical justification and goes against the technical opinion that informs other, and smaller, developments in the area. Without any justification, the applicants are claiming that they can only reach a decision after planning permission has been granted.

The original 'best case' noise modelling, based on the lowest output setting of a redundant trubine has not been justified nor have the applicants undertaken any new modelling based on current turbine models. The applicants merely assert that noise levels will not exceed permitted levels and that the planning authority can set threshhold conditions after the proosal has been approved.

The possible consequences from grouting old mine workings in order to build turbine foundations remain unexamined. Contrary to technical evidence from UK research, the applicants deny that grouting can cause any problems to water quality. They admit that the environmental impacts of the process cannot be quantified until a ground investigation has been carried out - after approval.

They have offered no further information on what remedial measures might be undertaken in the event of damage or pollution being caused to the aquifer which supplies Berwick's water.

T

hey are offering similar unsubstantiated assurances with regard to surface water contamination and the admitted risks of pollution to an SAC designated tributary of the River Tweed.

The applicants have produced a small number of additonal photomontages which still fail to meet referenced technical guidelines. They have not produced replacements for their previous photomontages which have been criticised for their repeated use of obscured views and which are of such poor technical quality that they entirely fail to show the turbines that they list. There are still no adequate photomontages which examine the impacts of the site on views from settlements on the ridgelines to the north of the site, or of views to the Cheviots and from the B6354.

The applicants have failed to produce a new wintering bird survey or to justify the methodology of the existing one which entirely fails to meet the scoping criteria or to follow best practice guidelines. The applicants are offering to carry out post-approval monitoring of bird mortality rather than providing adequate evidence of the populations that are at risk.

If the applicants show no inclination to undertake simple, low cost work on such things as noise modelling, bird surveys, grid connection and the production of adequate photomontages when there is the massive incentive of gaining planning consent for a hugely profitable proposal such as this, then we can have little confidence in their vague undertakings to carry out expensive, detailed and long term work on ground investigation, water quality monitoring, bird monitoring, pollution control, remedial work on noise etc. This, please note, when approval has been granted.

We would urge the planning authority to proceed immediately to determination of this application on the basis of the information that the applicants have provided rather than vague and unsubstantiated assurances. On the basis of the information provided, we are of the opinion that this application should be emphatically rejected.

---

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
INITIAL RESPONSE

On 7 March 2005, MAG submitted an eleven page letter to John Hayward, Development Services Manager at Berwick Borough Council setting out our initial response to the Environmental Statement submitted with the planning application.

Our letter stated that:

"Having considered the document in some detail, in our view the information provided is often misleading and lacks objectivity, whilst the failure to follow good practice recommendations and guidelines in many areas results in a highly questionable piece of work. Our overall view is that the Environmental Statement, which in effect represents the Planning Application, is in places of such poor quality, that it would be impossible to make a determination of the application based upon it. We therefore urge Berwick Borough Council to ask the applicants to withdraw the application and to re-submit it only if and when they can demonstrate that they have followed appropriate good practice guidelines and are able to provide all the information required in a transparent and objective way."

And concluded:

"The main areas of concern, in relation to the lack of information or inaccurate information in the Environmental Statement can be summarised as follows:

• An assessment based on a turbine that is no longer manufactured and is unrepresentative of any turbine type that could be used on this site within the constraints of the planning application



• A potentially very significant over statement of the potential output and environmental benefits of the proposed development



• A failure to reveal the wind resource data despite planning permission being granted for a meteorological mast specifically to gather this information



• A failure to meet the requirements of EIA good practice in relation to the site selection process



• A total lack of any meaningful public consultation



• Extremely inaccurate use of photomontages and viewpoints, which seek to deliberately play down the visual impact of this development



• Ignoring planning guidance in relation to the assessment of the impact of grid connections



• An inaccurate portrayal of the local area, its population density and its landscape value



• Failure to ascertain geological conditions on the site, which potentially render this a wholly inappropriate location for this type of development and could lead to major impacts on safety, disturbance and pollution of both the Tweed and the public drinking water supply



• Wholly inadequate bird surveys that do not follow clearly stated good practice and ver