Agenda Item No 5 TS8-09

Eden District Council

Planning Applications Committee 19 February 2009

Nine Wind Turbines and Associated Works - Land belonging to Howes Farm, Calthwaite and adjacent to Skelton Transmitting Station for Wind Prospect Development Ltd Report of the Director of Technical Services

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 This application is submitted in respect of the construction of a group of 9 turbines and associated works, at Howes Farm, Calthwaite and land to the north of Skelton Transmitting Station.

1.2 The site is about 3km north of Skelton village and adjacent to the minor road C3010 between Skelton and Middlesceugh.

1.3 This application is now the subject of an appeal against none determination. This means that the Council ceases to consider the application but it is obliged to advise the Secretary of State what decision it would have concluded had the application been determined.

2 The Proposed Development

2.1 The development would be located on two separate parcels of land with the largest parcel containing 6 turbines being immediately adjacent to the transmitting station. The smaller parcel, containing 3 turbines is situated across fields some 400m to the northwest.

2.2 The turbine towers would be 70m high with the overall blade tip being 115m. In addition to the turbines the site would require a switchgear building and access roads. The operational life expectancy of the turbines would be 25 years after which the turbines would be removed.

2.3 A number of landscape and visual assessment viewpoint photomontages accompany the application. Viewpoints are taken at a variety of locations around and distances from the site. Views of the turbines obviously vary depending upon local topography and distance.

2.4 The application is also accompanied by an environmental statement which includes non-technical summaries and appendices.

1 3 Responses to Consultations

3.1 Cumbria County Council:

The County Council‟s Development Control and Regulation Committee resolved that an objection be raised to the proposal as it is contrary to Structure Plan policies E37 and R44 and will cause significant harm to the landscape character and visual amenity due to its scale and location. In addition, the Environmental Statement is considered incomplete as a cumulative landscape assessment has not been carried out in relation to the transmitting station and the application for wind energy development at Lamonby.

3.2 County Highways:

No objection subject to operational conditions.

3.3 County Archaeologist:

Agrees with the mitigation strategy proposed by the applicant which can be addressed by a condition in respect of securing a programme of archaeological work.

3.4 Natural England:

No objection to the proposed development in respect of legally protected species.

3.5 NATS (National air traffic control):

Object. The radar safeguarding assessment reveals that the wind farm development is located within an area where there is no terrain shielding from the Primary Radar Service at Great Dunfell. Due to the large dimensions of the wind turbines and the distance from the radar it is anticipated that the reflected power from the wind turbines will be of adequate value to be detected by the radar and consequently generate false plots. A reduction in the radar‟s probability of detection for real targets is also expected.

3.6 Defence Estates:

No objection.

3.7 Environment Agency:

No objection.

3.8 United Utilities:

No objection

2 3.9 BBC:

Indicates concern about the potential for the development to impact on the operation of the world service transmitting station but considers, through its agents, that discussions and agreements with the developer the can render the development acceptable in this respect

3.10 Environmental Health:

The proposed conditions suggested by the applicant will be satisfactory for attachment to any planning consent granted.

3.11 English Heritage:

We consider that the detached group of three turbines will have a significant and deleterious impact on the setting of Scales Hall. (a Grade I listed building) Should the three turbines be removed from the proposal, or re-sited with the main grouping to the south and south-west of Scales Hall, English Heritage would have no objection to the application. Should they remain in the proposed location, however, we recommend that the application should be refused.

3.12 Skelton Parish Council: Oppose the development. The Council would wish to make the following comments:

i) The development would cause a detrimental visual impact on the local area. ii) The development, in conjunction with the existing transmission station would have a cumulative detrimental affect on the area. iii) The development, in conjunction with the proposed development of the wind farm at Lamonby would have a detrimental cumulative affect on the area including visual and environmental issues. iv) If planning permission to grant such a development was passed (particularly if it was thought that the cumulative impact of such developments was not an important consideration) then this would encourage other such applications in the area. v) The Council would suggest that, although this is a separate application it must be considered in conjunction with the Lamonby turbine application due to the proximity of the two sites. vi) The statistics and data provided as to the impact of the development on wild life etc was questionable. In particular the Council would question the statistics produced with regard to the efficiency of wind power and the true impact that developments of this size has on carbon emissions. vii) That the development could have a detrimental affect on the quality of life and health of nearby residents. In particular consideration was given to the effects of noise (both high frequency and low frequency), flicker, the consequences of economic loss etc.

3 viii) Such a development is likely to have an adverse affect on tourism and the local economy. ix) More information is required on the effects of such development on the three SSSIs in the area and in particular the fritillary in the area, the reason why the turbines are clustered apart from each other with an area of land between it (is there any special interest in this area of land). x) The statistics and information provided in relation to bird life and horses in the area is questionable. The area boasts one racing horse racing stables, one stud farm and three livery stables. We would suggest that noise emission, wind turbulence and the added traffic will all have an effect on horses in the area. In addition the statistics produced by Wind Prospects Ltd on bird life in the area are derived from an atlas of 2002 and the accuracy of this information is questioned. For example it is stated that there were no barn owls in the area but many of the Councillors and members of the public who attended the meeting had recently seen barn owls in the Skelton area. These birds are protected species and therefore warrant further study. In contrast local ornithologists would suggest that the number of willow warblers shown on the statistics was higher than they would have expected.

3.13 Hesket Parish Council The following objections have been brought to Hesket Parish Council‟s attention regarding the above wind turbines.

1. The visual impact of the rotating machinery will be seen for many miles. This will spoil the countryside for tourists and local people alike. It will drive away tourists who assist in maintaining the local economy. There is also the deleterious effect of flicker from the rotating blades on people. 2. Environmental effect on wildlife from prior installation is known. Bird losses from the fast moving tips of the turbine blades can be expected.

3.14 Greystoke Parish Council:

No objection

3.15 Castle Sowerby Parish Council:

Objects to the application. The Council‟s objection is primarily based on the damage that will be caused to this locality and the wider North Cumbria area should this application succeed.

Visual Impact. At nearly 400ft high, these nine industrial turbines will be seen from Skiddaw, Blencathra, High Pike, Souter Fell and elsewhere within the National Park. They will also be seen from Penrith. The development will therefore present an unacceptable visual intrusion to the rural areas of this and other nearby parishes. The countryside should not be used for such unwanted industrial purposes.

4 Quality of life for local residents. The proposed development will have a significant and detrimental effect in terms of noise and flicker on the residential properties in Skelton, Lamonby, Ivegill and parts of this parish which are currently located in peaceful, tranquil surroundings. It is understood that the proposed development is near to a listed building.

Economic grounds. An industrial wind farm such as the one proposed will make a miniscule contribution to the country‟s energy requirements, since (in common with other wind developments) it will operate at only 25% of installed capacity. There will be no locally created jobs as a result of this proposal as all the machine parts and specialised labour are likely to be imported. Existing tourist and other local businesses will however suffer.

Tourism. The Cumbrian economy relies on the County‟s scenery. This development presents a real threat to visitor numbers. This part of Cumbria has a crucial role to play in drawing visitors away from the central fells and Lakes towards the fringes of the National Park and the site is therefore unsuitable for a large industrial development such as this.

Proliferation. This is the second turbine development to be proposed around a small rural parish. If this wind farm is permitted the door will be open to many more proposals across the Eden Valley. There are already two turbines located in Castle Sowerby Parish at Stobarts Mill near Hesket Newmarket.

The Skelton Masts. These Merlin Communications developments were imposed on the community without consultation with this Parish Council. Skelton Parish Council did not comment on the application to erect a 1000ft mast. We were told that 13 other masts would be dismantled when the 1000ft mast was erected. This condition was never included in the approval of the plans granted by Eden District Council and the 13 presumably redundant masts have not been dismantled. This latest proposal therefore should not be used as an excuse for adding more blight. Turbines rotating at a height of 400ft will draw the eye towards the Skelton masts emphasising their combined intrusion on the landscape.

Proximity to the proposed site at Lamonby. The already proposed 5 turbine Lamonby wind farm application is just 1500 metres away from the Grise site. This very close proximity must be a major factor in determining both of these applications and they should not therefore be considered separately by Eden District Council.

Environmental considerations. The proposed site is near to three sites of special scientific interest including habitat for birds, barn owls and butterflies. It is understood that the proposed site is near to a listed building and sites of some historical interest. The proposed site is also in proximity to several public footpaths and a bridleway.

In conclusion, in an area which relies so heavily on visitors to its hitherto unspoilt landscape, this scale of industrial development is totally unacceptable, it is unwanted and it should be opposed by the planning committee.

5 My Council therefore registers its objection to this development and any further applications made for this project.

6 3.16 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

If the Council are minded to approve the application conditions should be placed on the consent in respect of ensuring no nesting peregrines within 500m of any turbines during construction work, if nesting is found no work to be undertaken between 1 March to 31 July, timing of all works scheduled to avoid disturbance to breeding birds, habitat enhancement as described in the Environmental Statement to be carried out by the developer.

3.17 Council for National Parks:

In view of the proposal‟s proximity to the Lake District National Park, CNP objects to this application due to the adverse impact that it would have on the setting of the Lake District National Park both in its own right and cumulatively should the development at Lamonby be approved. It is government policy that the potential impact on designated areas of renewable energy projects close to their boundaries will be a material consideration to be taken into account in determining planning applications. It is also policy that National Parks have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. PPS7 and PPS22 are therefore material considerations for the determining of this application.

Additionally we note that various policies in the development plan indicate that development that would cause demonstrable harm to the setting of the National Park will not be permitted.

The Council is required to take the impacts on the setting of the National Park into account through the application of its statutory duty to have regard for National Park purposes, which the government has recently clarified is intended to ensure that National Park purposes are recognised as an essential consideration in reaching decisions that may have an impact on the Parks.

3.18 Campaign for the Protection of Rural England:

Having regard to planning policy and other material considerations it is considered that the proposal, primarily because of the stepping stone effect of cumulative impact, would demonstrably harm the setting of the National Park. Section 62 of the 1995 Environment Act places a general duty on all relevant authorities to have regard to National Park purposes. By conferring this duty on bodies that may operate partly or wholly outside the National Parks, the government is clearly accepting that activities outside the Parks can have a detrimental impact on Park purposes. FLD believes that this application is an example of such an activity. Accordingly special considerations apply in order that the natural beauty of the National Park is conserved and enhanced.

FLD believes that renewable energy technologies must be environmentally acceptable in terms of their location, scale, appearance and sensitivity to local conditions. Whilst this proposal would make some contribution to meeting our sub-regional need for renewable energy, it is considered that the disadvantages in this case outweigh any benefits. As such the application should be refused.

7

3.19 Others

The application has generated approximately 150 letters of objection. A substantive number of these are based upon a standard response letter which in itself generally reflects the various issues raised by the Parish Councils‟ i.e. visual impact, quality of life, economic issues, tourism, proliferation, cumulative impact with transmitting station masts and Lamonby.

Specific comments have been offered by various equestrian enterprises in the area who object on the grounds that

The adjacent road is used for horse exercise, other roads in the area are too busy; The applicants accept that sight , sound and flicker can impact on horses and there will be health and safety issues for both horses, riders and possibly, by the reaction of horses, other road users; The wind farm could curtail the activities of these businesses and lead to a reduction in jobs both in the businesses directly and those servicing the activity.

Other matters raised relate to;

The impact on house values; The inefficiency of wind energy Preference should be given to off-shore wind energy provision or additional nuclear capacity. 4 Planning Assessment

4.1 Central Government remains committed to the important role renewable energy has to play in helping the UK to meet its energy policy goals. The White Paper „The Energy Challenge‟ - July 2006 and Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) outline the challenges in meeting renewable energy aims and objectives and identified indigenous electricity generation as central to reducing emissions and to maintain the reliability of energy supplies at a time when indigenous fossil fuels are declining. The White Paper (Annex D) states: „Renewable projects may not always appear to convey any particular local benefit, but they provide crucial national benefits. Individual renewable projects are part of a growing proportion of low carbon generation that provides benefits shared by all communities both through reduced emissions and more diverse supplies of energy, which helps the reliability of our supplies. This factor is a material consideration to which all participants in the planning system should give significant weight when considering renewable proposals. These wider benefits are not always immediately visible to the specific locality in which the project is sited. However, the benefits to society and the wider economy as a whole are significant and this must be reflected in

8 the weight given to these considerations by decision makers in reaching their decisions‟

4.2 Regional and local policies support the development of renewable energy projects and that guidance is emphatic in respect of the need to support such proposals and to give significant weight to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of renewable energy proposals that do not cause significant harm to the local environment.

4.3 Policy EM17 Renewable Energy of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) requires at least 10% of electricity to be provided through renewable energy by 2010, rising to 15% by 2015 and 20% by 2020. Currently the target for renewable energy production in Cumbria is 237Mw by 2010. Specific targets are set for wind energy developments of 210Mw 0f installed capacity by 2010, rising to 257Mw by 2020.

4.4 There are currently 16 operational schemes in Cumbria, and 4 more with consent. Together these will have an installed capacity of around 95.5Mw, producing enough electricity to meet the needs of around 52,700 households. The scheme would contribute positively towards regional targets for wind energy through an installed capacity of up to 27Mw, which would account for 20% of the outstanding amount needed to meet 2010 targets. Whilst this does not infer that planning permission should be granted simply to meet targets set it is a material consideration. Equally however, the need in principle for such development is accepted in the light of advice and it is not considered appropriate to argue this principle on planning grounds. It cannot be argued that this development would not add significantly to the provision of renewable energy, because in terms of its output it would clearly contribute to the need for such a product.

4.5 The policy sets out criteria for developing such sites but indicates that such criteria should not be used to rule out or place constraints upon the development of all, or specific types, of renewable energy technologies. Amongst these criteria are:

anticipated effects on local amenity resulting from the development, construction and operation of schemes (e.g. air quality, atmospheric emissions, noise, odour, water pollution and disposal of waste). Measures to mitigate these impacts should be employed where possible and necessary to make them acceptable; Acceptability of the location/scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape, including cumulative impact. Stringent requirements for minimising impact on landscape and townscape would not be appropriate if these effectively preclude the supply of certain types of renewable energy, other than in the most exceptional circumstances such as within nationally recognised designations as set out in PPS22 paragraph 11; Effect on the region‟s World Heritage Sites and other national and internationally designated sites or areas, and their settings but avoiding the

9 creation of buffer zones and noting that small scale developments may be permitted in such areas provided there is no significant environmental detriment.

It is against this background that the scheme is to be considered.

4.6 The main thrust of the objections to this proposal is the issue of visual impact and the harm that would be caused to the character of the wider landscape in general, and the Lake District National Park in particular, and the amenity impact on users of that landscape (tourists) and local residents. In respect of the impact on tourism it should be noted that there is no definitive evidence that wind turbine developments have the adverse consequences for this industry that is often argued.

4.7 The issue of the impact of the development on the radar facility at Great Dunfell remains unresolved.

4.8 Wind energy developments, by their very nature are not regarded as generally unacceptable in the open countryside which is the most appropriate location. Such developments are therefore accepted as departures from policies constraining development in the countryside but they remain to be considered against criteria that requires them to be respectful of landscape character and quality and to balance the impact of such development against the benefits of the scheme.

4.9 The site lies to the north of Skelton Transmitting Station and some 3km north of the village of Skelton. Within a 3km radius are the settlements of Lamonby, Ellonby and Hutton End.

4.10 The site is 5.2km from the Lake District National Park Boundary, with Carrock Fell being the nearest high fell.

4.11 The landscape of the area is characterised by predominantly agricultural activity within a topography which is gently undulating. Hedgerows, minor woods, mainly broadleaved but with some mixed conifer, and shelterbelts are a feature of the landscape. The habitation pattern within the locality is generally of small villages, hamlets and individual farms.

4.12 The most notable built feature of the landscape is the transmitting station with its array of some 30 masts. These are generally of a height of some 99m but include also a single mast of 422m in height. The smaller masts are of lattice construction. There is a series of vertically arranged red navigation lights on the larger structure which are visible from a wide area at night.

4.13 The locality does not have any special designations either national or local.

4.14 The applicant indicates that the existing transmission masts provide an engineered structure setting which reduces the impact of the turbines and the turbines are sited to provide a separation distance of at least 750m from the nearest dwelling. The turbines themselves will be of a mid - grey colour, similar to the adjacent masts. This colour tends to reduce the distance over which

10 turbines are noticeable. The access tracks will be designed to resemble farm tracks and similarly the switchgear building will be designed to resemble a typical agricultural building. The permanent anemometer mast will be of lattice construction to reflect the construction of the transmitting station masts.

4.15 The Council has sought an analysis of the visual impact of the proposed scheme from consultants and the following assessment is based on their advice.

4.16 It is considered that whilst the turbines would be visible over a wide area the greatest impact, given the nature of the landscape, is local to the site itself and to areas with elevated views over the site. Sensitive locations for that impact are considered to be dwellings, the local road network, regional and national leisure routes, local footpaths and bridleways. Some 19 locations are identified as key sensitive receptors the sensitivity of which are considered to be medium (1 location) high/medium (4 locations) and high (14 locations). The significance of that impact is considered to be slight adverse (1 location), moderate adverse (11 locations) and substantial adverse (6 locations).

4.17 The terms used above relate to an established standard for visual impact assessments. Thus receptors are defined as;

High sensitivity - residential property, public rights of way and outdoor recreational facilities where landscape quality is important High-medium - minor roads used to travel through the area at lower speeds Medium - A and B roads used to travel through the area at speed, outdoor sporting and recreational facilities , outdoor working environments Medium-low - motorways and trunk roads Low - industrial plants, indoor working environments

4.18 Impact significance is considered as:

Substantial adverse - the proposal would cause a significant deterioration in the existing view Moderate adverse - a noticeable deterioration in the existing view

4.19 In respect of this particular development the most substantial impacts are identified as being on the properties Scales Hall (the listed building referred to by English Heritage), Howes and Hurst Farm all of which would suffer from substantial close range views of the turbines. Howes is the farm on which the site is located and the farm house is the nearest dwelling to any turbine.

4.20 Of the settlements around the area Hutton End, Skelton, Ellonby, Lamonby and Ivegill would suffer a moderate adverse impact. This is concluded because the turbines would be viewed either in an oblique view, or through/against the transmitting station masts. In the case of Lamonby the view of the turbines would be from properties on the north side of the village. Whilst some turbines would be seen in conjunction with the existing masts

11 others would be seen against a currently uninterrupted landscape and the view dominated by engineering structures increased. In the case of Ivegill, because of the topography views from much of the village will be limited but some outlying properties could see the turbines in conjunction with the existing masts.

4.21 The impact on Calthwaite and Unthank from the turbines would, it is considered be slight adverse impact primarily because of either the distance involved (Calthwaite) or the amount of vegetation cover interrupting views (both).

4.22 The impact of the turbines on roads in the area, including the Coast to Coast cycle route, would vary depending on position and roadside vegetation. At times the turbines might be in full view, seen in conjunction with the masts or seen for only limited distances. Similarly from bridleways and footpaths views would vary dependent on location, landform and local vegetation.

4.23 The impact on roads and bridleways would be greater on those used for equestrian purposes, it is argued by the businesses concerned because of the effect on horses and consequently the safety of horse and rider, and possibly other road users.

4.24 The SPD advises that the site impacts on two landscape types both of which are considered to have capacity to accommodate up to a small group (3 -5) turbines, or exceptionally a large group, 6 - 9 turbines. In this instance the development places turbines on two separate parcels of land, although admittedly only separated by a distance of some 400m. Nevertheless whilst the applicant has argued that the adjacent masts reduce the impact of the structures, and the Council‟s consultants agree that the impact, visually and on landscape character, is less in close proximity to these existing features, the three turbines on the separate parcel of land do serve to create a wider zone of visual and landscape character impact caused by the proposed development, and the masts, combined. That is the masts already have an impact on the landscape but a new, greater impact is created when the turbines are factored into that consideration. That impact is not so significant in respect of the 6 turbines adjacent to the masts but is more substantive when the more remote 3 are added in.

4.25 In addition it is this group of 3 masts that English Heritage finds objectionable in respect of their impact on the listed building, Scales Hall. It is also this building on which the Council‟s consultants consider that the turbines would have a substantial adverse impact since they would be viewed at close range where even the limited tree cover would have minimal ability to reduce their impact.

4.26 Scales Hall is a partly fortified late medieval house with associated curtain wall, gatehouse and barn and is Grade 1 listed. This listing defines the building as being of exceptional interest. PPG15 stresses the desirability of preserving both a listed building and its setting, which in this case, has always been agricultural in nature, with trees confined to field boundaries and the banks of the beck. Views of the Hall will therefore have been typically across open land and this is retained to the present with public views from the east and west still

12 placing the Hall in an agricultural landscape of fields. Although the setting has already been compromised by the existing transmitting masts, English Heritage consider the larger group of 6 turbines is unlikely to further compromise that setting, even though accepting that the turbines will be more robust structures and more visible when in motion.

4.27 It is considered that the provision of this group of 3 turbines is unacceptable in the landscape because of they extend the zone of impact of the turbines and the existing masts combined on the local and wider landscape and in addition because of the impact they would have on the setting of the listed building.

4.28 The applicant has indicated that whilst the impact is recognised it is not felt substantive enough to outweigh the wider benefits that the turbines would bring.

4.29 It is difficult to find any common ground with this view. The turbines are situated only some 0.5km from the listed building and the contrast in the human scale and character of that medieval building and its agricultural setting with the sharply defined outline and physical size of the turbines creates a visual conflict between the two which would be difficult, if not impossible, be overcome. The close physical relationship means that the visual impact cannot be diminished since the turbines cannot easily be excluded from views of the listed building and its setting.

4.30 The applicant remains insensitive to this consideration which is contrary to the advice and guidance of English Heritage.

4.31 It is considered that the development as proposed is unacceptable in respect of the three turbines located on the separate parcel of land which: 1. impact unacceptably on the setting of a Grade 1 listed building; 2. extend the zone of influence of significant vertical structures in an area which has a relatively flat typography

4.32 In respect of the larger group of turbines adjacent to the transmitting station, despite the relatively flat typography, the landscape character of the area means that distant views are frequently fragmented and interrupted by tree and woodland cover making the impact of the development less significant. It is considered that the same assessment can be concluded in respect of the impact of the development on the National Park in that from that designated area the development would generally only be in view from either elevated or more remote locations. Viewed from the Park it is not considered that the visual impact of the development would be significant because of the distance from the Park boundary and the expansive views across the landscape in which the site sits.

4.33 It is considered that the greatest impact of the development is within a relatively localised area and to views over the site from elevated ground to the south. In this view the scale of the turbines and the spread of the site away from the influence of the existing masts increases that impact.

13 4.34 On this issue the views of the County Council and the consultants advising this Council both conflict and agree. The County Council takes the view that the site, in combination with the existing masts would increase the prominence of those masts in the landscape and, in addition, they would introduce a moving element, the turbine blades, adjacent to a static feature which would served to draw more attention to the masts. This would have the aforementioned effect of creating a much more visually significant area of man made vertical structures. The consultants agree with this latter point. In addition the County Council argues that the turbines would introduce visual clutter in conflict with the SPD advice that seeks simple images to be provided by turbines. This simplicity of image could not be achieved in this instance because of the close relationship with the masts and the conflict between the different types of structures and the rotating turbine blades. The characteristics of turbine development would conflict with an already prominent group of static masts. In addition the SPD identifies the landscape as having capacity for groups of only 2 -5 turbines although exceptionally larger clusters of 6-9 turbines could be accommodated. However, because of the impact the existing transmitting masts have on the landscape and the additional impact that turbines would create the County Council does not regard the site as exceptional.

4.35 The Council‟s consultants consider that the turbines would have a large adverse effect in the intermediate landscape dropping to moderate adverse with distance. The overall effect on the landscape is considered to be major outside the immediate influence of the transmission masts - the separate group of 3 turbines - whilst the remaining group of 6 is considered to have a moderate influence on the landscape character. However, in respect of the attention drawn to the site by the rotating blades, the consultants agree that the visual impact the rotating blades would have cannot be underestimated.

4.36 In considering this issue whilst it is accepted that the turbine blades necessarily rotate they do so at a slow speed and, of course, they are not permanently rotating. In addition it has already been noted that the views of the site, other than from the elevated land to the south, or from greater distances elsewhere, are localised and fragmented by the disposition of buildings, the local topography and vegetation cover. At increasing distances the influence of the existing masts, perhaps with the exception of the single high mast, especially when illuminated at night, lessens. In effect the impact of the development would be significantly adverse from some locations and minimal from others. In the longer view, the scale of the landscape in which the totality of the scheme, the 6 turbines and the masts, and from the distances it would be viewed would substantially ameliorate the impact on the character of the landscape and the lack of simplicity of view.

5 Conclusion

5.1 It is considered that the scheme in its totality of 9 turbines is unacceptable, because the separation of the two groups of turbines, although relatively small given the physical size of the structures, extends the zone of visual impact on the landscape to an unacceptable degree. In addition the separate group of three turbines would have a significant impact on the character of the setting

14 of the medieval building Scales Hall. This impact cannot be ameliorated by any mitigation measures because of the close physical proximity between the two.

5.2 In respect of the group of 6 turbines it is felt the consideration here is more finely balanced. It is accepted that they would result, as the County Council suggests, in combination with the adjacent masts, in a more substantive feature in the landscape and the rotating blades would conflict with the static nature of the transmitting masts. On the other hand it can reasonably be concluded that views of the development vary greatly and are fragmented throughout the locality by the topography and vegetation characteristics of the area. From a wider perspective it is not considered that the two separate features of the masts and turbines would significantly conflict with each other. It is however accepted that from the slightly more elevated land to the south the impact of the development and the conflict in their character with the transmitting masts would be more significant.

5.3 The scheme, as a whole, conflicts with policy guidance and the guidance of the SPD in respect of its impact on the ability of the landscape to cope with this level of development.

5.4 It is not considered that the scheme would adversely affect the setting and character of the Lake District National Park due to the locally fragmented views against which the two can be viewed and, from more distant locations, the expansive views across the landscape that are obtained.

6 Policy Framework

6.1 The Council has four corporate priorities which are: Affordable Housing Quality Environment Economic Vitality Quality Council Council on 7 February 2008 agreed fifteen strategic actions to achieve these priorities.

6.2 The UK Energy White Paper „Our Energy Future‟ - (creating a low carbon economy) –February 2003 Department of Trade and Industry- „The Energy Challenge‟- July 2006 Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG-13) Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West of England (RSS) – published September 2008 PPS 22- Planning for Renewable Energy PPS 7- Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document July 2007 PPG 15 – Planning and the historic environment

15

6.3 Relevant Eden Local Plan Policies: Eden Local Plan Policy: NE1- Development in the Countryside Eden Local Plan Policy: NE3- Landscapes of County Importance Eden Local Plan Policy: NE8- Agricultural Diversification Eden Local Plan Policy: NR2- Wind Energy Developments Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document- Consultation Draft-August 2006 Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation Paper- November 27 2006 - January 12 2007

7 The Legal Implications

7.1 The application will be determined by the Secretary of State following a public inquiry. The Council will be represented at the inquiry and the Inspector will be advised of the Council‟s “decision”. Evidence is intended to be presented to the inquiry in support of the Council‟s position

8 The Financial Implications

8.1 The Council has agreed an action plan to carry through the Balancing the Budget exercise. A key part of this is the Resource Allocation Categorisation which is designed to ensure that resource allocation reflects the Council‟s priorities. The full categorisation was agreed at Council on 7 February 2008 and the financial implications of any report must be consistent with this.

8.2 If the application is refused and any subsequent appeal is determined at inquiry rather than the written representations procedure the appellant may seek an award of costs against the local authority if it can be demonstrated that the local planning authority has acted unreasonably by refusing the application.

9 Risk Management Implications

9.1 None.

10. Reasons for Decision/Recommendation

10.1 It is considered that the scheme as submitted would have unacceptable landscape impacts generally and significantly detrimental visual impacts on an historic feature locally. These impacts are not outweighed by any benefits that the production of renewable energy from the site would bring.

16 11. Recommendation:

That the Secretary of State be advised that if the Council had determined the scheme it would have offered the following decision:

The proposal would have a significant detrimental effect on the character and quality of the landscape generally and, consequent upon the location of three of the turbines, it would have an unacceptable visual impact, by reason of the introduction of significant vertical elements in close physical proximity, on the character and setting of Scales Hall a Grade I listed building where the relationship between the two cannot be mitigated. The development would be conspicuous in the local landscape, and, in association with the existing transmitting station the two features, in such a close relationship, would cumulatively add significantly to the visual impact of the whole on the landscape. The development is therefore contrary to retained Local Plan Policies NE1, NE3 and NR2, the advice of PPG15, Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document 2007, RSS Policy EM17, retained policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.

S Huddart Director of Technical Services Governance Checks:

Seen by Monitoring Officer ✓

Background Papers:

Contact Officer: Malcolm Johnson Telephone Number: 01768 212446

17