Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document

Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document 2015

Adopted June 2015

Contents

1. Introduction
2. Policy Context
3. Prior to the Submission of a Proposal
4. Guidance on the Assessment of Proposals
5. Post Approval

Appendix A: Glossary

Appendix B: Heritage Assets within Rushcliffe (as of November 2014)

 

1.Introduction

1.1 This Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) concerns potential wind energy development in Rushcliffe Borough and is a material consideration in the determination of relevant planning applications.

1.2 The role of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) is to provide guidance on the application of existing policies within an adopted development plan. The SPD does not form part of the development plan nor is it intended to provide policies beyond those within the development plan. The overall purpose of this SPD is to assist the interpretation and application of those policies within the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy concerned with Renewable Energy, Green Infrastructure, Biodiversity, Design and Enhancing Local Identity and Historic Environment is so far as they relate to wind energy development.

1.3 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) contains detailed guidance on the material considerations that apply when considering planning applications for wind energy development. This SPD builds on the NPPG and provides local detail that will assist all parties when preparing or considering planning applications.

1.4 This guidance is for all persons with an interest in wind energy development within Rushcliffe, including planning officers, elected members, developers and members of the public. The SPD is to assist in the determination of planning applications, provide an overview of current best practice guidance and have a role in the delivery of new wind energy infrastructure where the impacts of development are acceptable in planning terms. It addresses pre-application requirements and decommissioning as well as the construction and operation of wind turbines and any associated infrastructure. It examines how to minimise and mitigate the harmful impacts of turbines of different sizes, whether single or in small or large groupings.

1.5 This supplementary planning document was produced having regard to the planning policies, procedures and guidance in place at the time. This includes the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy (2014), the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), the National Planning Practice Guidance and other regulations in place as at June 2015. Any subsequent changes to these policies and documents where they relate to wind energy developments should be read alongside this SPD. The Borough Council may review the content of this SPD in the future should there be significant alterations to the policy and guidance that underpin it.

2. Policy Context

National Planning Policy and Guidance

2.1 National planning policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012), makes it clear that local authorities must take a positive approach towards renewable and low carbon developments. One of the core principles that underpins the NPPF is that: ‘planning should …support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, …and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy.’ (paragraph 17). Specifically, the Framework states that, in order: ‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, ‘local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources.’ (paragraph 97).

2.2 Paragraph 97 also states that local planning authorities should ‘have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources’ and ‘design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily (including cumulative landscape and visual impacts)’. Furthermore, paragraph 97 states that local planning authorities should also consider identifying suitable areas for renewable sources, support community-led renewable initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy and help identify opportunities where development can draw energy supply from decentralised renewable energy systems.

2.3 Paragraph 98 of the NPPF states that: ’When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should not require ‘applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy’. The fundamental need for renewables is therefore clearly determined and enshrined in Government policy. The NPPF goes on to urge local authorities to ‘recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions’ and to ‘approve planning applications if impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.’ This makes it clear that applicants do not need to justify the use of wind energy turbines or their power output and that small scale schemes should not be refused solely on the basis of their low or modest output.

2.4 Alongside the NPPF is National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN1) that sets out the overarching national policy for energy infrastructure provision and guidance for the assessment of impacts. Taken together with National Policy Statement EN3 ‘Renewable Energy Infrastructure’ this provides the primary basis for decisions by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) on applications for nationally significant renewable energy infrastructure.

2.5 Whilst the Borough Council would not be the determining authority for such proposals EN3 states that the National Policy statements are also ‘likely to be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) (as amended)’ (paragraph 1.2.3). Furthermore the NPPF states in its footnote 17 that these National Policy Statements also set out the approach that local planning authorities should follow in assessing the likely impacts of potential wind energy development when identifying suitable areas, and in determining planning applications for such development.

2.6 Reflecting the emphasis within the National Policy Statements, the NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development and identifies the need to meet and address the challenges presented by climate change. The planning system is seen as having a key role to play in mitigating and adapting to climate change and facilitating the move to a low carbon future. A key aspect of this move will be local planning authorities providing a positive strategy which promotes energy from renewable and low carbon sources. Critically, the NPPF clearly identifies that, in doing so, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources.

2.7 The NPPF (Paragraph 97) requires that Local planning authorities should support community led initiatives for renewable and local carbon energy, including developments outside such areas being taken forward through neighbourhood planning. The practice guidance also acknowledges that community initiatives are likely to play an increasingly important role and should be encouraged as a way of providing positive local benefit from renewable energy development. The practice guide also suggests that Neighbourhood Plans are an opportunity for communities to plan for community led renewable energy developments.

2.8 The Government has recently published a Community Energy Strategy (27 January 2014) which comprises the full report and supplementary document titled Community Energy Strategy: People Powering Change. This document sets out what is considered to be Community energy and acknowledges that this is about many different types of community getting involved in energy issues in many different ways including a group of local people setting up their own solar installation or wind turbine. This document also acknowledges that community involvement in generating electricity, whether fully community –owned projects or part community ownership of larger commercial projects can help achieve the government’s goals of decarbonising the power sector and seeing a 15% share of our energy provided from renewable sources by 2020. (Community Renewable Electricity Generation: Potential Sector Growth to 2020, independent modelling for DECC).

2.9 This new strategy also confirms that community energy goes beyond energy security, climate change and energy bills and also bring wider benefits to communities which are stated as follows:

• Stronger communities. Community energy activity can bring local people together to achieve something for their community and take action on issues that matter to them.
• Skills, education and work experience. Members of the community of all ages can benefit from opportunities to learn new skills through involvement in community energy activity; some schemes have specifically engaged young people in work experience or energy and climate change education activities. Community energy projects can build confidence and skills within the group and more widely.
• Financial benefits for communities. In addition to saving money on energy, community energy can present opportunities to generate income for the community.

2.10 In addition to the above, the Department for Energy and Climate Change publication, Community Benefits from Wind Developments: Best Practice Guidance identifies that there are several types of community benefit that prospective wind turbine developments could offer. These are community benefit funds, benefits in-kind, financial benefits (where there is a direct connection between the intended use of the funds and the development), socio-economic and material benefits. The guidance makes it clear that community benefit funds and benefits in kind are not material considerations when considering planning applications, therefore they should generally not be taken into account when deciding on the outcome for a wind development.

2.11 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) contains a detailed breakdown of the particular planning considerations that are required to be assessed for wind turbine development. One of the roles of this SPD is to expand upon this guidance.

2.12 Part of the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt covers just less than half of the Borough. Land is included in the Green Belt to prevent urban sprawl and protect its ‘openness’; not necessarily because of landscape quality or amenity value. Whilst Green Belt is not a landscape designation, national policy sets a higher test for permitting renewable energy development within it. The NPPF states that ‘when located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources’ (paragraph 91). Where wind energy developments are proposed in the Green Belt, planning applicants will be expected to demonstrate that their scheme meets the test set in the NPPF. Great weight is given to the protection of the Green Belt and the NPPG is very clear that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections or Green Belt.

Local Planning Policy

2.13 Policy 2 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy relates to ‘Climate Change’. In referring to decentralised, renewable and low carbon energy generation, it states that ‘proposals that are appropriate for Rushcliffe will be promoted and encouraged, including biomass power generation, combined heat and power, wind, solar and micro generation systems, where these are compatible with environmental, heritage, landscape and other planning considerations.’

2.14 While this SPD provides further detail on the implementation of Borough wind energy policy, principally that contained in Core Strategy Policy 2, other policies within the Core Strategy may also apply to wind development proposals. These may include Policy 10 (Design and Local Identity), Policy 11, (Historic Environment), Policy 16 ( Green Infrastructure, Landscape, Parks and Open Space and Policy 17 (Biodiversity).

2.15 Following on from the Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy, the Borough Council is currently preparing the Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies and this second half of the Local Plan may include further policies relating to the wind energy development, either relating to the whole of Rushcliffe or to specific areas, if deemed appropriate.

3. Prior to the Submission of a Proposal

Consultation

3.1 The prospective planning applicant for wind energy development should undertake pre-application consultation in accordance with the Acts and Orders identified in National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). In addition, pre-application consultation should be undertaken in accordance with the Borough Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The principles of engagement set out within this document are also considered beneficial to developers in preparing wind energy proposals regardless of type, scale or number. In addition the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 obliges developers bringing forward proposals for more than two wind turbines, or where the hub height of any proposed turbine would exceed 15 metres, to consult members of the local community prior to submitting an application. In these cases, an application should show how the applicant has complied with this requirement, the details of any consultation responses received, and how account has been taken of these. The Borough Council would normally expect consultation to take place with the relevant parish council/ parish meeting, neighbouring parish councils/parish meetings and any parish councils within a radius of 5km of the site together with neighbouring local authorities where appropriate, relevant interest groups which the Borough Council have knowledge of, and properties within an area agreed with the Planning Department (normally within 1km of the site). Given that most parish councils in the Borough only hold monthly meetings at best, a period of at least 40 days should be given to respond.

3.2 Any benefit that the community could expect to gain from the development of a wind energy scheme should be clearly stated as part of the consultation. The Borough Council may request that an applicant consults with the local community even where the criteria set out in the above Order do not apply. The Department of Energy and Climate Change has produced best practice guidance for community engagement for onshore wind developments which may assist all parties with undertaking community engagement.

3.3 Wind turbine developments by their very nature can have an impact over a wide area. Communities some distance away can feel that they will be impacted upon by such development. This impact may be in neighbouring local authorities. We would expect that developers would consult with communities with the potential to be affected, not only in Rushcliffe Borough, but in surrounding areas where it is identified that communities may be affected. As the LPA, Rushcliffe Borough Council will consult with neighbouring Planning Authorities where it is considered appropriate.

3.4 The Borough Council, when informed by a neighbouring planning authority of a wind energy development proposal in that authority area but which will potentially impact on communities in Rushcliffe, will seek to ensure that the proposal is brought to the attention of these communities through their parish councils/ meetings and local Ward Member.

Pre-application advice

3.5 The Council offers a comprehensive pre-application advice service which developers are encouraged to us.

3.6 Whilst the pre application advice does not guarantee planning permission, it may assist applicants in preparing any detailed proposals.

Environmental Impact Assessment Screening and Scoping

3.7 Wind energy proposals above certain size thresholds require Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under EIA Regulations which apply the European Union’s Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC.

3.8 The need for EIA is established through the screening process. Whilst the Borough Council will screen all planning applications as part of their validation process, applicants are encouraged to request a screening opinion prior to submitting a planning application or as part of the pre-application process. Establishing the need for EIA prior to submission of a planning application generally reduces the time taken for its determination.

3.9 The types of proposals requiring EIA under Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 are those developments of more than 2 turbines or where the hub height of a turbine or the total height of any associated structure is of more than 15 metres. An EIA may also be required under Schedule 2 where the area of an industrial installation for the production of electricity (not falling under Schedule 1) exceeds 0.5 hectares.

3.10 An EIA may be considered necessary under some circumstances even when the criteria listed under Schedule 2 do not apply to the proposed development, and each application should be considered on a case by case basis. Where the Landscape Capacity Study identifies concerns regarding cumulative impact, the LPA may require an EIA.

3.11 When it is determined that an EIA is required the LPA will work with applicants through the scoping process to determine its contents.

Planning application requirements

3.12 When submitting a planning application, the Council will expect the following information to be submitted with the application and issues listed below to be addressed as a minimum:

• The specific model of turbine
• Colour of blades, hub and tower/mast
• Annotated dimensions on the elevations of the turbine showing the height to hub and blade tip
• Grid Reference for the base of all turbines
• Access to the site from the public highway needs to be included in the application site
• Details of grid connection and any other structures, plant or engineering works proposes as part of the development.

1. Community consultation statement – to be provided where applicable. The statement should include details of who has been consulted the methods of consultation undertaken, details of any responses that have been received, and how account has been taken of these comments.
2. Visual impact – including landscape and historic character. It is recommended that visual impact assessments should be in accordance with Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (3rd edition), published by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment or any guidance replacing it. It may be requested that photomontages and wireframes are provided. The applicant should demonstrate that the Greater Nottingham Landscape Character Assessment and the Melton and Rushcliffe Landscape Sensitivity Study: Wind Energy Development have been taken into account when formulating their proposals. Cumulative impacts, where appropriate will also require assessment. Pre application discussions will allow the extent of assessment and viewpoints to be agreed.
3. Impacts of heritage assets and their settings. As detailed in (b) above the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) should include viewpoints selected to address assessment of impact upon the historic environment. This may involve having different consultants liaising with each other over selection of viewpoints / receptors. The framework of assessment for impact upon the settings of heritage assets should be in line with the recommended approach in “Historic Environment Good Practice Advice In Planning Note 3” produced by Historic England. Assessment of impacts beyond the purely visual and where a development might impact upon multiple heritage assets, or the inter-relationship of multiple heritage assets will require more in-depth analysis. Where two heritage assets enjoy a contextual inter-relationship a development might have limited impact on either asset considered in isolation whilst having a substantial impact when considering them as a related pair. A “Heritage Statement” should also be provided where a proposed development has a potential impact upon heritage assets or their settings, the statement should consider the significance of the asset, the significance which it derives from its settings and the impact that the proposal would have upon that significance. The document might also suggest mitigation measures where appropriate and where the mitigation measures would not themselves introduce harm to the setting of the heritage asset.
4. Impact on aviation and electromagnetic disturbance
5. Transport and Access
6. Ecology
7. Noise
8. Shadow Cast, Shadow Flicker and Blade Rotation
9. Other amenity issues (see chapter 4)
10. Community Benefits
11. Flood Risk
12. Impacts arising at the construction stage eg temporary compounds and access tracks etc
13. A decommissioning scheme – The Council will apply conditions in order to ensure that decommissioning is carried out in accordance with the scheme, should planning permission be granted.

3.13 Please note that there may be other issues relevant to individual proposals in addition to these depending on the specific  constraints affecting the site e.g. contamination or archaeology.

3.14 The degree of assessment should be proportionate to the scale of the proposal and all the criteria should be addressed even if it is thought there is no impact. It is likely that these assessments will need to be prepared by an appropriately qualified person. See the forms and fees webpage.

Publicity on Planning Applications

3.15 Once an application has been validated by the Local Planning Authority publicity on the application will be undertaken in accordance with requirements as set out in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 Article 13 and the Borough Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). In addition to this where considered appropriate neighbouring Parish Councils/ Meetings and Ward Members will be consulted. If the proposal is likely to impact neighbouring Authorities, consultation with the relevant Local Planning Authority will be undertaken and adjoining Parish Councils will be notified. Bearing in mind the potential impact of such a proposal on the wider area site notices in the vicinity of the site will be posted and Parish Councils are 
provided with a notice to display in their offices/ on notice boards etc. Depending on the nature of the proposal the Borough Council normally exceeds the statutory publicity requirements and would follow that as set out above in the pre application consultation section.

3.16 Planning law prescribes circumstances where consultation must take place between a local planning authority and certain organisations, prior to a decision being made on an application. The organisations in question are under a duty to respond to the local planning authority within a set deadline and must provide a substantive response to the application in question. The NPPG provides a full list of the statutory consultees and a summary of the instances where they need to be consulted. Depending on the nature of the
proposal and any specific constraints affecting the site consultation with non-statutory bodies will be undertaken.

4. Guidance on the Assessment of Proposals

4.1 This section of the SPD provides guidance on how planning applications will be assessed by the Borough Council primarily against Policy 2 of Local Plan Part 1: Rushcliffe Core Strategy, and having regard to the information contained within the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) and relevant National Policy Statements. These considerations are in no particular order.

Small domestic turbines

4.2 Certain types of domestic wind turbines do not require planning permission where they comply with certain criteria. These criteria can be found on the Planning Portal website. You are advised to contact the Planning Department with the relevant details to confirm whether permission is required for your particular proposal.

A. Environmental considerations

Ecology

4.3 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 places a duty on all public authorities in England in the exercise of their functions for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. A key purpose of this duty is to embed consideration of biodiversity as an integral part of decision making which should be seeking to make a significant contribution to the achievement of the commitments made by Government in its Biodiversity 2020 strategy. There is also a statutory obligation concerning protected species.

4.4 The NPPG explains that the potential harmful impacts of wind turbines upon ecology arise primarily from the potential disruption to habitats and species during construction and operation, and the risk of collision of wildlife with the blades and the drop in air pressure around rotating blades causing barotrauma (lung expansion) in bats. Any Ecological Impact Assessment should consider impacts of both the construction stage and operational stage. It should consider not just the impacts of the turbine itself, but also impacts relating to access track construction, establishment of storage compounds and works to allow grid connection, for example.

4.5 The Borough contains a number of designated sites which receive specific protection because of their, national or local importance for nature conservation, as shown in the table below. It is important to preserve and enhance the ecology and biodiversity of the whole Borough however, and consideration should be given to avoid harmful impacts on sites and species throughout the Borough, not only in designated areas.

Level - European

• Designation - None
• Protection - Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 

Level - National

• Designation - 8 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
• Protection - Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Level - County

• Designation - 214 (as at June 2015) locally designated Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), also known as Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC) 
• Protection - Local Plan Part 1, Rushcliffe Core Strategy (Section 3.3.2) and Biodiversity and geological conservation: circular 06/2005

Level - District

• Designation - 8 (as of June 2015) Local Nature Reserves (LNR) 
• Protection - Local Plan Part 1, Rushcliffe Core Strategy (Section 3.3.2) and National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949

4.6 Developers should provide information on potential impacts to designated sites and an assessment of the risk to designated sites.

4.7 There are a number of habitats and species to be found throughout the Borough that are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Habitats Regulations, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, or species-specific legislation. Any proposal for a wind energy scheme which has the potential to affect these species will need to demonstrate that harmful impacts will be mitigated or avoided. Care should also be taken to avoid detrimental effects upon non-designated species. Developers should provide information on potential impacts on habitats and species and carry out an assessment of the risk to habitats and species.
Cumulative impacts should be assessed in relation to other proposed, consented or operational wind energy schemes.

4.8 Applicants should ensure that proposals for wind energy schemes are in line with technical and evidence guidance publications provided by Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations, guidance published by NGOs and academic studies and other appropriate guidance, also where appropriate, desktop studies and detailed protected species surveys, including bird and bat surveys should be carried out to methodology published by them. Natural England offer a discretionary advice service so that they can work with applicants, developers and consultants to take appropriate account of environmental considerations at an early stage in order to improve the quality of planning applications before they are submitted. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as the Bat Conservation Trust and British Trust for Ornithology should also be consulted for advice on specific sites and species.

4.9 All species of bats, their roosts, some bird species and all birds’ nests when they are being built or occupied are protected under UK and EU legislation. As birds and bats are particularly at risk from wind turbines, careful consideration should be given to the potential impact of any development proposal on these species.

4.10 Natural England has introduced Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) which is a GIS tool used by Natural England to make an initial assessment of the potential risks to SSSIs posed by development proposals. The tool defines zones around each SSSI according to the particular sensitivities of the features for which it is notified and specify the types of development that have the potential to have adverse impacts. The SSSI IRZs can be used by Local Planning Authorities and developers to consider whether a proposed
development is likely to affect a SSSI and determine whether they will need to consult Natural England to seek advice on the nature of any potential SSSI impacts and how they might be avoided or mitigated. The GIS dataset of the SSSI IRZs is available to view on MAGIC - nature on the map. Natural England has also produced a number of publications in relation to renewable energy developments as follows:

• NE254 - Making space for renewable energy: assessing on-shore wind energy development
• TIN051 - Bats and onshore wind turbines (Interim guidance)
• TIN059 - Bats and single large wind turbines: Joint Agencies interim guidance
• WF1 - Wind farm development and nature conservation

4.11 The Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre can provide data on rare and protected species and Local Wildlife Sites and a map of currently designated LWS is provided online by Nottingham City Council - Insight Mapping.

4.12 If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequate mitigation, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; in line with paragraph 118 of the NPPF and the relevant protection shown above. Compensatory measures should be implemented at a safe distance from the turbine sweep area. Any opportunities for habitat enhancement will have to be clearly identified as part of a planning application and secured, through the preparation of a habitat management plan tied to a planning condition.

4.13 Where possible and appropriate applications should provide biodiversity enhancement schemes which may include for example the provision of native hedgerows and wildflower habitats.

4.14 There are other sources of information which may provide assistance when assessing proposals and their effects on wildlife:

• Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom.
• Scottish Natural Heritage and the British Wind Energy Association (2005) Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of onshore windfarms on bird populations.
• J. A. Bright, R. H. W. Langston, S. Anthony on behalf of the Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (2009) Mapped and written guidance in relation to birds and onshore wind energy development in England - RSPB Research Report No 35.
• Renewables UK (2011) Small Wind: Planning Guidance – A Good Practice Guide.
• Bat Conservation Trust guidance: Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines 2nd Edition: Surveying for Onshore Wind Farms

Flood Risk

4.15 The National Planning Policy Framework states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. It states that proposals that are located in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided, and where proposals come forward, it should pass both the ‘sequential test’ and the ‘exception test’.

4.16 When assessing all development proposals in areas of flood risk the broad approach of assessing, avoiding, managing and  mitigating flood risk will be followed. Wind turbines are classed as essential infrastructure in flood risk terms. Developments that are essential infrastructure are normally considered to be compatible uses within floodzone 1 and 2. Proposals within floodzone 3 however should pass the both the sequential test and the exception test. Further technical guidance which may assist applicants in addressing development and flood risk can be found within the National Planning Practice Guidance.

B. Heritage considerations

4.17 Rushcliffe Borough contains a large number of designated heritage assets as well as a wealth of non-designated heritage assets, Some of which are detailed in Appendix B. Other sources of information include the Historic Environment Record, and detailed
conservation area appraisals for Rushcliffe.

4.18 Both designated and non-designated heritage assets make a valuable contribution to the Borough’s character and are valued by residents and visitors; and impacts upon them from the development of wind energy schemes are a material consideration in determining planning applications. A heritage asset, as defined by the NPPF, is a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority. The sum of the heritage interests that a heritage asset holds is referred to as its significance’. The NPPF obliges LPAs to recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable
resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance, and states: ‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.’

4.19 In addition there are numerous heritage assets that lie outside the Borough where the impact on their setting will require consideration. For example, development in the low-lying Vale of Belvoir may have an impact on the setting of the Grade I listed Belvoir Castle given the topography of the area.

4.20 Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to, or total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset, the NPPF requires that LPAs should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or the criteria it sets out in paragraph 133 apply. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use, as outlined in paragraph 134 of the NPPF. Where there is an application that affects a non-designated heritage asset, a judgement should be reached having regard to the scale of the harm to or
loss from the asset and its significance.

4.21 Irrespective of the tests in paragraphs 133 and 134 of the NPPF the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that it is desirable to preserve Listed Buildings and their settings (Section 66). Section 72 of the 1990 Act makes a similar statement in relation to conservation areas.

4.22 Any harm, whether substantial or less-than substantial, would fail to achieve this desirable aim of ‘preserving’ the heritage asset or its setting. A LPA must give great weight to the presumption in favour of preserving listed buildings, conservation areas and their settings within the 1990 Act, and where there is any harm, no matter how minor, which is not outweighed by the weight of benefits then planning permission should be refused.

4.23 Wind turbines require a deep foundation as well as other temporary and permanent structures which have the potential to damage any underlying archaeological remains. Structures forming part of wind energy schemes should be appropriately sited to avoid or minimise direct physical impacts.

4.24 Historic England (formally English Heritage) is the lead advisory body for the historic environment and has a statutory role in the planning system. General information on wind energy developments provided by Historic England and within Historic England’s Good Practice Guidance Note 3 The Setting of Heritage Assets. This or any successor guidance should therefore be referred to when assessing any proposed wind turbine development that impacts upon heritage assets and / or their settings. Visual amenity is an important concern when considering how to preserve or enhance heritage assets. English Heritage recommend that the factors listed below should be among those considered when assessing the acceptability of developments within the setting of historic sites in terms of visual amenity:

• Visual dominance. Where an historic feature is the most visually dominant feature in the surrounding landscape, adjacent construction of turbines may be inappropriate.
• Scale. The extent of a wind farm and the number, density and disposition of its turbines will also contribute to its visual impact.
• Intervisibility. Where archaeological or historic landscape features were intended to be seen from other historic sites, construction of wind turbines should respect this intervisibility.
• Vistas and sight-lines. Designed landscapes invariably involve key vistas, prospects, panoramas and sight-lines, or the use of topography to add drama. Location of turbines within key views, which may often extend beyond any designated area, should be avoided.
• Movement, sound or light effects. The movement associated with wind turbines may be a significant issue in certain historic settings. Adequate distance should always be provided between important historic sites and wind turbine developments to avoid the site being overshadowed or affected by noise and shadow flicker effects.
• Unaltered settings. The setting of some historic sites may be little changed from the period when the site was first constructed, used or abandoned. Largely unaltered settings for certain types of sites, particularly more ancient sites, may be rare survivals and especially vulnerable to modern intrusions such as wind turbines.

C. Landscape Considerations

4.25 The NPPG contains a detailed list of considerations of what is required to assess landscape impacts, in particular cumulative impacts. In addition, other studies and assessments can assist in formulating proposals for wind turbine development and assessing landscape impact. These are as follows:

National Character Area Map

4.26 Natural England defines landscape character as ‘a distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements, be it natural (soil, landform) and/or human (for example settlement and development) in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse’. Potential impacts upon landscape character are an important consideration when assessing applications to develop wind energy schemes. The National character area map (Countryside Commission, English Nature and English Heritage) shows that there are two national character areas within Rushcliffe. These are Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire Wolds (NCA 74) and Trent and Belvoir Vales (NCA 48).

Greater Nottingham Landscape Character Assessment

4.27 The Greater Nottingham Landscape Character Assessment (GNLCA) provides a comprehensive assessment across the Greater Nottingham Housing Market Area. It draws together existing assessment work, together with assessing areas not previously covered. For Rushcliffe, the assessment identified five landscape character areas and a number of draft policy zones. The GNLCA identifies characteristic features within each Draft Policy Zone. In addition, it provides an assessment of landscape strength and condition, and promotes a series of landscape actions which will assist in protecting, conserving or enhancing each Draft Policy Zone.

Melton and Rushcliffe Landscape Sensitivity study: Wind Energy Development

4.28 The Melton and Rushcliffe Landscape Sensitivity Study (MRLSS) is important in determining the acceptability of different types of wind turbine development within the Borough. The main aims of the study are to provide:

• An assessment of landscape sensitivity of each Draft Policy Zone to different scales of wind development;
• Maps showing landscape sensitivity to each draft policy zone to different scales of wind development;
• Guidance for the siting and design of potential wind energy proposals in each draft policy zone;
• Enable positive planning for renewable energy and guide the determination of planning applications;
• Encourage good design and high quality planning applications containing clear and relevant information needed to make informed
  decisions.

4.29 The MRLSS methodology identifies six criteria which landscape sensitivity to wind energy can be assessed against in broad terms. These include:

• landform and scale;
• land cover pattern and presence of human scale features;
• skylines;
• perceptual qualities;
• scenic qualities; and
• intervisibility.

4.30 Within the MRLSS, each of the Draft Policy Zones, or groupings of Draft Policy Zones identified in the GNLCA, is assessed against these criteria and guidance is provided on the characteristics and attributes of the Draft Policy Zones and its overall sensitivity, as well as its potential sensitivity to different sizes and numbers of turbines.

4.31 The MRLSS considers a range of different wind turbine sizes to blade tip divided into the classes below:

• Small: up to 25m
• Small-medium: 25m to 50m
• Medium: 51m to 75m
• Large: 76m to 110m
• Very large: 111m to 150m

4.32 Where a turbine is close to the size limit for a class, this should be taken into account when assessing its potential impact.

4.33 The assessments of capacity in the MRLSS are reached by considering the potential landscape impacts of wind turbine development in each draft policy zone. It does not seek to provide a detailed analysis of the landscape characteristics of each Draft Policy Zone – this is the role of the GNLCA. It is intended that the GNLCA and MRLSS be used alongside one another to guide the assessment of landscape impact. Together the two documents provide for a robust and appropriate means of assessing landscape impact and allow for planning applicants to produce detailed assessments.

Cumulative impacts

4.34 Cumulative visual impacts concern the degree to which proposed renewable energy development will become a feature in particular views (or sequences of views), and the impact this has upon the people experiencing those views. Cumulative visual impacts may arise where two or more of the same type of renewable energy development will be visible from the same point, or will be visible shortly after each other along the same journey. Hence, it should not be assumed that, just because no other sites will be visible from the proposed development site, the proposal will not create any cumulative impacts.

4.35 Rushcliffe Borough Council provides a map showing the locations of where different types of renewable energy developments (not available).

D. Other Considerations

Impact on aviation and electromagnetic disturbance

4.36 Wind turbines are a potential threat to air traffic safety because of both the risk of collision and the possibility of interference with radar operation. Developers should engage with aviation stakeholders as early as possible in the planning process. Where a proposed turbine will be designed or sited in a particular way in response to consultation with aviation stakeholders to mitigate harmful impacts, the developers should submit evidence that the scheme would now be acceptable to the relevant stakeholder or stakeholders.

4.37 There are several organisations that may need to be consulted on proposed wind turbine developments where a proposal may have an affect on aviation. These are the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the National Air Traffic Services (NATS), the Ministry of Defence (MoD) through the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), East Midlands Airport, the National Police Air Service (NPAS), Midlands Air Ambulance, Lincolnshire & Nottinghamshire Air Ambulance and the Derbyshire, Leicestershire & Rutland Air Ambulance. In addition to these, a planning applicant should establish whether a proposed wind turbine development has the potential to affect the operations of RAF Syerston, Nottingham City Airport, Langar Airfield and any other aviation interests that may exist within the Borough.

4.38 The erection and operation of wind turbines has the potential to affect electromagnetic transmissions such as radio, television and mobile phone signals. The NPPF obliges local planning authorities to consider whether the construction of new structures could interfere with broadcast and telecommunications structures, and developers should take all steps necessary to ensure that such interference is avoided and/or mitigated. Full consideration should be given to potential impacts on domestic users of telecommunications as well as other specialist operators including all emergency services. Government guidance advises that OFCOM acts as a central point of contact for identifying specific consultees relevant to a site. The Borough Council has been advised by OFCOM that it does not provide consultation comments on specific planning applications. It instead will only provide, following requests by email, specific technical 
information in relation to particular sites. This includes, for example, specific data relating to microwave fixed links managed and assigned by OFCOM within particular band and frequency ranges.

Transport and Access

Highway safety

4.39 The Highways Agency is responsible for roads in the Borough that are part of the strategic road network (i.e. trunk roads) and should be consulted where any proposed development may affect one of these roads. In order to mitigate the risks to the safety of road users arising from structural or mechanical failure of wind turbines, the Highways Agency normally seeks a minimum setback from the highway boundary of either the height of the turbine plus 50 metres or height of the turbine times 1.5, whichever is the lesser distance. In certain circumstances, the Highways Agency may accept a different set- back distance if a site specific assessment indicated that this would be appropriate. For further information, see the Department of Transport’s ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’.

4.40 Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) is the Local Highways Authority for all the adopted roads in the Borough that are not part of the strategic road network. NCC should be consulted where any proposed development may affect one of these roads. With any application, NCC advises that the Council should be satisfied that no turbine will be erected within a minimum setback from the highway boundary of the height of the turbine plus 50 metres or the height of the turbine times 1.5, whichever is the lesser. Planning applicants of potential wind energy schemes should also consider the impact upon highways and traffic flow of construction and decommissioning. Planning applications will need to demonstrate that site access can be achieved without significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts.

Railways

4.41 Network Rail usually request that any new wind turbines near railway lines are separated from the railway boundary by a distance of more than the height of the mast plus the length of the blade plus three metres. Developers should ensure that wind turbulence does not cause problems to the railway and that there is a sufficient fail-safe distance should a turbine collapse in the direction of the railway. These are minimum requirements and meeting them should not be seen to guarantee approval for a proposed wind turbine development in this respect.

Public Rights of Way

4.42 Legislation defines Public Rights of Way as footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic. There is no statutory separation distance between Public Rights of Way and wind turbines, but in order to ensure public safety and prevent significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of users of Public Rights of Way, it is expected that no wind turbine blades will over-sail a Public Right of Way. Consideration should be given to the impacts of the construction and decommissioning phase as well as the operational time of turbines.

4.43 The British Horse Society’s ‘Advice on Wind Turbines and Horses – Guidance for Planners and Developers’ suggests that a  separation distance of three times the overall height should be the target for all routes, including roads, with 200 metres being seen as the minimum, where it is shown in a particular case that this would be acceptable. This should be taken as good practice guidance rather than statutory requirements. The British Horse Society also suggests conditions to be applied if these separation distances cannot be achieved.

Other Amenity Issues

4.44 There is no basis in national or local policy for the imposition of fixed separation distances between residential and wind energy development. The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) outlines that local planning authorities should not rule out acceptable renewable energy developments through inflexible rules on buffer zones or separation distances. Other than when dealing with set-back distances for safety, distance of itself does not necessarily determine whether the impact of a proposal is unacceptable. Other local context factors, including topography, the local environment and nearby land uses also require consideration.

4.45 Consideration in relation to the impact of the turbine on the residential amenity of nearby dwellings will be a consideration and the LVIA and site visits will allow this to be assessed. Orientation of properties, topography, existing screening together with distance and height of the turbine will be matters to be considered on a site by site basis.

Output

4.46 The NPPF makes it clear that planning applicants do not need to justify the need for renewable energy or their power output and that small scale schemes should not be refused solely on the basis of their low or modest output. However, the NPPG states that information on output can be useful in considering the energy contribution to be made by a proposal, particularly when a decision is finely balanced. Site specific wind speed data taken over a period of time is considered most useful to obtain such information utilising anemometers positioned on site. In most cases an application for temporary planning permission for such structures will be required.

Noise

4.47 The method of assessing the impact of noise from a wind farm on nearby residents is described in the report, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’, which is referred to as ETSU-R-97 . This is supplemented by the Institute of Acoustics’ ‘A good practice guide to the application of ETSU-R-97 for the assessment and rating of wind turbine noise’. The Department of Energy and Climate Change endorse this document and confirm that it represents current industry good practice, and therefore noise assessments submitted as part of an application to develop a wind energy scheme should be in line with this guidance or any replacing it. A noise assessment will be required for all large and medium scale developments and may be requested for smaller scale developments
where residential amenity is potentially jeopardised. 

4.48 Where there is the risk of noise from delivery and construction affecting residential amenity, the use of appropriate mitigation measures may be considered as a condition of planning consent. Once the construction phase is over, a well-designed and appropriately sited wind turbine should not have a significant impact upon existing noise-sensitive development.

Shadow Cast, Shadow Flicker and Blade Rotation

4.49 The NPPG states that under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass behind the rotor of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. Shadow flicker occurs under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day when the sun passes behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cause a shadow. Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north relative to the turbines can be affected at these latitudes in the UK. The further an observer is from a turbine the less pronounced the effect will be. Flickers effects have been found to occur only within 10 rotor diameters of a turbine.

4.50 Modern wind turbines can be controlled to avoid problematic shadow flicker affecting specific properties or groups of properties, for specific times of day or specific times of the year. Vegetation can be planted to provide screening. Where the possibility exists of a wind turbine development giving rise to shadow flicker, mitigation can be secured through the use of conditions. Each application should be considered on a case-by-case basis and it is not considered appropriate to set minimum separation distances.

4.51 The rotation of turbine blades can cause flashes of light to be reflected, and this effect can be reduced or eliminated by the use of appropriate blade colours and finishes, such as light grey semi-matt. When siting wind turbines, consideration should be given to shadow cast.

4.52 Blade rotation and movement has the potential to cause distraction for sport and recreation users and may be a material consideration when assessing the planning balance of wind turbine proposals. Paragraph 73 of the NPPF states that access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. The movement of wind turbine blades, potential noise and amplitude, shadowcast (especially a shadow moving across a ground) and shadowflicker has the potential to distract participants in formal sports. Where there is likely to be a potential impact on sport and recreation facilities, consideration of potable impacts and mitigation against these impacts should be provided through the
production of a Sports Impact Assessment.

4.53 Proposals to develop wind turbines can raise concerns about other amenity issues such as vibration and icing. If there is the potential for nearby receptors to experience vibration, development should only proceed where it has been assessed that the impact will be acceptable. Planning applicants should demonstrate that the design of the proposed turbine avoids the danger of ‘icing’, where ice is flung from rotating blades, through the use of technology that stops the operation of the turbine when conditions are potentially icy.

4.54 As with other forms of development, wind turbines will be approved only when negative impacts upon amenity are avoided or mitigated, unless the benefits of the proposed scheme outweigh those impacts.

Community Benefits and Community-led initiatives

4.55 The Department for Energy and Climate Change publication, Community Benefits from Wind Developments: Best Practice Guidance identifies that there are several types of community benefit that prospective wind turbine developments could offer. These are  community benefit funds, benefits in-kind, financial benefits (where there is a direct connection between the intended use of the funds and the development), socio-economic and material benefits. The guidance makes it clear that that community benefit funds and benefits in kind are not material considerations when considering planning applications, therefore they should generally not be taken into account when deciding on the outcome for a wind development.

4.56 The Government has published a Community Energy Strategy (27 January 2014) which comprises the full report and  supplementary document titled Community Energy Strategy: People Powering Change. This document sets out what is considered to be community energy and acknowledges that this is about many different types of community getting involved in energy issues in many different ways including a group of local people setting up their own solar installation or wind turbine. Also, the Government's Planning Practice Guidance sets out that local authorities can establish policies to give weight to renewable energy initiatives "which have clear evidence of local community involvement and leadership". However, the promotion of community energy schemes should be balanced against other material considerations, such as protection of landscapes, heritage and local amenity. 

Grid Connection

4.57 A control building and a substation will need to be connected to the nearest suitable point on the national grid. The District Network Operator (Western Power Distribution) is responsible for establishing the connection between the substation and the grid and this forms part of a separate consenting process.

4.58 Development proposals should provide a broad indication of the route of connection to the grid with details of underground cables connecting the turbines (buried in trenches) to the substation. The nature and extent of that connection should be indicated on the site plan.

4.59 Grid connection should avoid areas of high landscape, ecological or archaeological sensitivity, and not be extensive or visually intrusive. Connection to the grid may cause an accumulation of overhead wiring and if this occurs in sensitive areas, the cumulative impact will need to be assessed.

4.60 The capacity of the local grid network to accept the likely output from a proposed wind farm is critical to the technical feasibility of a development. Western Power Distribution should be contacted to discuss your proposal at an early stage.

Impacts arising at the construction stage eg. temporary compounds and access tracks etc.

4.61 In order to assess the impact of the proposal during construction phase, such features should be shown on the planning application submission and if necessary surveys such as ecology should cover the impact of these works eg. if access requirements require the removal of hedgerows or the culverting of watercourses consideration of the impact on biodiversity is necessary. Depending on the nature of the proposal a construction management plan may be necessary to ensure that the development does not unduly impact on highway safety or residential amenity.

5. Post Approval

Decommissioning

5.1 Planning permission for wind turbines are normally time-limited. In order to give confidence that structures will be removed after their operational life, conditions concerning decommissioning will be applied to planning permission for wind energy schemes. These conditions would normally require the land to be restored to its previous condition, and a decommissioning scheme will be required as part of any application. Depending on the scale of the development it may be appropriate to negotiate and secure the provision of a bond under a Section 106 legal agreement to cover the cost of decommissioning and/ or restoration of the site.

5.2 The decommissioning scheme should begin to be implemented upon the expiration of the planning permission or if it ceases use, and should take account of all equipment, structures and means of access associated with the scheme. Some elements of the development may be left in place under some circumstances, such as if the preservation of access tracks is considered to be beneficial to users of the land or if the removal of underground cabling or the entire turbine foundation would cause greater ecological harm than its retention.

 

Appendix A: Glossary

Glossary

Term	Definition
Barotrauma	Injury caused by a change in air pressure, affecting typically the ear or the lung.
Community Engagement for Onshore Wind Developments (DECC)	Best practice guidance produced by the Department for Energy and Climate Change relating to community engagement for onshore wind developments.
Community Benefits from Wind Developments, Best Practice Guidance (DECC)	Best practice guidance produced by the Department for Energy and Climate Change relating to community benefits from wind developments.
Development Plan Document (DPD)	A document which together with others makes up the ‘Development Plan’ for the Borough. All planning applications must be determined in line with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. Also known as ‘Local Plans’ (See below).
EN-1	The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy.
EN-3	The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)	A procedure to be followed for certain types of project to ensure that decisions are made in full knowledge of any likely significant effects on the environment.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping	The process which determines the content of an EIA.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening	The process which determines the need for an EIA.
ETSU-R-97	This document describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours.
Greater Nottingham Landscape Character Assessment (LCA)	The Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) is and assessment of landscape character that covers the authorities of Ashfield, Broxtowe, Gedling, Nottingham City and Rushcliffe.
Local Development Document (LDD)	Forms part of the Local Development Framework and includes Development Plan Documents (DPD’s)/Local Plans, Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD’s) and the Statement of Community Involvement.
Local Development Framework (LDF)	The collective name for the DPDs and SPDs prepared by the Borough Council, providing the planning framework for the area.
Local Plan	Also referred to as Development Plan Documents (See above). These are the elements of the LDF which have ‘Development Plan’ status. For Rushcliffe this comprises of the Local Plan Part 1 Rushcliffe Core Strategy and will also comprise of Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Polices.
Local Plan Part 1 Rushcliffe Core Strategy (the Core Strategy)	This document sets out the long-term spatial vision for the Borough and the strategic policies and proposals to deliver that vision. The Core Strategy covers the period 2011-2028.
Local planning authority (LPA)	The public authority whose duty it is to carry out specific planning functions for a particular area.
Material considerations	A material consideration is a matter that should be taken into account in deciding a planning application or on an appeal against a planning decision.
Melton and Rushcliffe Landscape Sensitivity Study: Wind Energy Development	Study undertaken to strategically assess landscape sensitivity to different scales of wind turbine development across Melton and Rushcliffe Boroughs. The study also contains guidance for the siting and design of potential wind energy proposals.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)	The NPPF sets out the Government’s policies on various aspects of planning in England. The policies in the NPPF must be reflected in more detailed local planning policy. They are also material considerations in the determination of planning applications.
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)	An organisation that is neither a part of a government nor a conventional for-profit businesses.
Planning Inspectorate	An independent organisation who deal with planning application appeals and the Examination of Development Plan Documents.
Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)	Sets out the standards which the Borough Council intends to achieve in relation to involving the community in the preparation, alteration and continuing review of the LDF and in significant Development Control Decisions, and also how these standards will be achieved.
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)	A document that refers to policy guidance which supplements the policies and proposals in DPDs but cannot introduce new policy.

 

 

Appendix B: Heritage Assets within Rushcliffe (as at June 2015)

Conservation Areas

Best Practise Checklist - Energy

Place	Description
Cropwell Butler Conservation Area	Original designation 19 January 1990. Boundary reviewed 22 February 2007
Aslockton Conservation Area	Designated 15 June 2007
Flintham Conservation Area	Original designation in July 1972. Boundary reviewed 9 December 2008
Hawksworth Conservation Area	Original designation in February 1974. Boundary reviewed 9 February 2010
Car Colston Conservation Area	Original designation in November 1975. Boundary reviewed 9 June 2009
Thoroton Conservation Area	Original designation in February 1974. Boundary reviewed 8 September 2009
Scarrington Conservation Area	Original designation 19 January 1990. Boundary reviewed 12 October 2010
Orston Conservation Area	Original designation in 19 January 1990. Boundary reviewed 18 May 2010
Saxondale Conservation Area	Designated 21 October 1993
Granby Conservation Area	Original designation 19 January 1990. Boundary reviewed 8 September 2009
Langar Conservation Area	Original designation 19 January 1990. Boundary reviewed 19 May 2009
Colston Bassett Conservation Area	Original designation August 1973. Boundary reviewed 10 March 2009
Ruddington Conservation Area	Original designation in April 1971. Boundary reviewed 10 February 2009
Normanton On The Wolds Conservation Area	Original designation in 19 January 1990. Boundary reviewed 8 September 2009
Thrumpton Conservation Area	Original designation in June 1972. Boundary reviewed 19 March 2010
Bradmore Conservation Area	Original designation 6 October 1994. Boundary reviewed 19 May 2009
Wysall Conservation Area	Original designation 19 January 1990. Boundary reviewed 7 Sep 2010
West Leake Conservation Area	Original designation in 19 January 1990. Boundary reviewed 7 Sept 2010
Costock Conservation Area	Original designation in 19 January 1990. Boundary reviewed 8 September 2009
Upper Broughton Conservation Area	Original designation in May 1973. Boundary reviewed in 10 February 2009
Sutton Bonington Conservation Area	Original designation in July 1968. Boundary reviewed 7 December 2010
Keyworth Conservation Area	Original designation 25 March 1999. Boundary reviewed 12 October 2010
East Leake Conservation Area	Original designation in November 1973. Boundary reviewed 18 August 2006
East Bridgford Conservation Area	Original designation in December 1973. Boundary reviewed 24 March 2006
Whatton Conservation Area	Original designation in April 1972. Boundary reviewed 5 June 2007
Edwalton Conservation Area	Designated 15 December 2005
Hickling Conservation Area	Original designation in 19 January 1990. Boundary reviewed 9 September 2008
Bingham Conservation Area	Original designation in May 1970. Boundary reviewed 8 June 2010
Bunny Conservation Area	Original designation in September 1976. Boundary reviewed 19 May 2009

 

All of the Conservation Areas have had townscape appraisals undertaken and details of these are available on the Borough Council’s website.

Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings within Rushcliffe as at June 2015. A full list of listed buildings including Grade II listed buildings, scheduled monuments and registered parks and gardens please search for ‘Rushcliffe’.

Listed Buildings

Grade	Building	Parish	Easting (SK)	Northing (SK)
Grade I	Bunny Hall	Bunny	458411	329569
Grade I	Church of St Peter	Sibthorpe	476378	345403
Grade I	Church of All Saints	Granby	475084	336200
Grade I	Church of All Saints	Cotgrave	464397	335333
Grade I	Church of Holy Trinity	Wysall	460409	327122
Grade I	Church of Holy Trinity	Ratcliffe on Soar	449468	328887
Grade I	Church of Saint Mary	East Leake	455161	326208
Grade I	Church of St Andrew	Langar cum Barnstone	472107	334643
Grade I	Church of St Augustine	Flintham	473866	346099
Grade I	Church of St Edmund	Holme Pierrepont	462601	339223
Grade I	Church of St George	Barton in Fabis	452226	332750
Grade I	Church of St Giles	Cropwell Bishop	468461	335512
Grade I	Church of St James	Normanton on Soar	451855	322895
Grade I	Church of St John of Beverly	Scarrington	473480	341592
Grade I	Church of St John the Baptist	Stanford on Soar	454314	321989
Grade I	Church of St Lawrence	Gotham	453616	330072
Grade I	Church of St Luke	Upper Broughton	468329	326233
Grade I	Church of St Luke	Hickling	469179	329265
Grade I	Church of St Mary	Bingham	470723	339938
Grade I	Church of St Mary	Car Colston	472065	343026
Grade I	Church of St Mary	Orston	476922	341172
Grade I	Church of St Mary & All Saints	Willoughby on the Wolds	463369	325405
Grade I	Church of St Mary the Virgin	Bunny	458267	329586
Grade I	Church of St Mary Magdalene	Keyworth	461374	330827
Grade I	Church of St Mary the Virgin	Plumtree	461493	333088
Grade I	Church of St Peter	East Bridgford	469068	343120
Grade I	Church of St Wilfrid	Screveton	472867	343404
Grade I	Church of St Winifred	Kingston on Soar	450175	327733
Grade I	Church of the Holy Trinity	Tithby	469833	336934
Grade I	Flintham Hall country house & terrace walls	Flintham	473807	346074
Grade I	Holme Pierrepont Hall	Holme Pierrepont	462630	339260
Grade I	Pigeoncote	Sibthorpe	476494	345388
Grade I	St Marys church walls	Bunny	458245	329559
Grade I	Thrumpton Hall & outbuildings	Thrumpton	450701	331233
Grade II*	Church of St Michael	Sutton Bonington	450409	325415
Grade II*	Church of all Saints	Thrumpton	450956	331157
Grade II*	Church of Holy Rood	West Bridgford	459833	334995
Grade II*	Church of St Anne	Sutton Bonington	450732	325037
Grade II*	Church of St Helen	West Leake	452738	326417
Grade II*	Church of St John of Beverley	Whatton	474491	339662
Grade II*	Church of St Luke	Kinoulton	467638	330714
Grade II*	Church of St Margaret	Owthorpe	467222	333433
Grade II*	Church of St Mary	Shelton	478017	344612
Grade II*	Church of St Mary	Hawksworth	475277	343450
Grade II*	Church of St Peter	Shelford	466160	342353
Grade II*	Church of St Peter & Paul	Widmerpool	462857	328194
Grade II*	Langar House	Langar cum Barnstone	472235	334698
Grade II*	Old School	Bunny	458327	329603
Grade II*	Shelford Manor & wall and pier	Shelford	467171	343394
Grade II*	Stanford Hall	Stanford on Soar	455810	323849
Grade II*	Test Match Hotel & Public House	West Bridgford	458878	337165
Grade II*	The Hall	Sutton Bonington	450456	325285
Grade II*	The Manor House	Costock	457371	326396
Grade II*	Wall and Gazebo	Holme Pierrepont	462669	339255
Grade II*	Wiverton Hall	Wiverton	471307	336330

 

Historic Parks and Gardens as at June 2015: There are 4 registered historic parks and gardens within the Borough. These are:

• Flintham Hall - Grade II
• Holme Pierrepont Hall - Grade II
• Kingston Park Pleasure Gardens - Grade II
• Stanford Hall - Grade II

Scheduled Ancient Monuments as at June 2015. There are 26 scheduled ancient monuments in Rushcliffe.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments as at June 2015

Location	Title
Aslockton North of Saucer Farm, Main Street	Cranmer's Mound: motte/prospect mound, moated fishponds, enclosure, hollow way and ridge and furrow
Barton in Fabis Manor Road	Dovecote at Manor Farm
Barton in Fabis South East of A453	Roman villa and Romano-British settlement
Bingham/East Bridgford A46/A6097 junction	Margidunum Roman Station
Bingham Cogley Lane	Site of deserted medieval village at Crow Close
Bingham Moorbridge Road	Bingham henge monument
Car Colston South of Large Green	Minor Romano-British villa, moat and medieval earthworks, including six fishponds
Colston Bassett New Road	Ruins of St Mary's Church
Colston Bassett Hall Lane/Church Gate	Medieval market cross and 19th Century commemorative cross
East Bridgford Trent Lane	Motte and bailey castle adjacent to River Trent
Flintham South of Main Street	Remains of mud walled dovecote, rear of Cottage Farm and The Broadmarsh
Kinoulton North of Kinoulton Lane	Site of St Wilfrid's Church
Kinoulton North of Bridegate Lane	Moat, fishpond, enclosures, hollow way and post mill mound 600m North West of Barland Fields
Kinoulton North side of Hall Lane	Newbold Medieval settlement
Ratcliffe-on-Soar East of Redhill Lock	Roman Site on Red Hill
Shelford Manor Lane	Succession of rectilinear enclosures South West of Shelford Manor
Shelford Stoke Ferry Lane	Civil War gun battery 50m South West of St Peter and St Paul's Church
Sibthorpe Church Lane	Medieval site near St Peter's Church, including fishponds and dovecote
Sibthorpe Baxter Lane	Two moats and five fishponds at Top Green
Upper Broughton Bottom Green	Standing cross on Upper Broughton village green
West Bridgford Trent Bridge	Old Trent Bridge
Whatton Dark Lane	Moat, fishponds, boundary bank, ditch and two leats
Willoughby on the Wolds A46/Back Lane	Saxon Cemetery South West of Broughton Lodge
Wiverton Wiverton Hall	Moat and fishponds
Wiverton Wiverton Hall	Civil War earthworks
Wysall East of Wymeswold Road	Thorpe in the Glebe deserted village