Subject: Submitted Planning Applications Status: For Publication
Report to: Pennines Township Committee Date: 14 th February 2013.
Report of: Service Director (Planning and Regulation Services) Author: See individual agenda reports
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To provide recommendations to the Committee on planning applications or related consents submitted to the Council and requiring the consideration and/or determination of the Committee in accordance with the Council’s approved Scheme of Delegation.
1.2 To provide information on any other planning or development related matters which may affect the work of the Committee.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Recommendations in respect of individual planning applications are as detailed in the following papers.
3. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS
3.1 The submitted applications on this agenda are to be determined in accordance with the provisions of relevant legislation, including the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Planning and Compensation Act 1991, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Planning Act 2008, Localism Act 2012 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management) Procedure Order 2010 together with any Circulars and Regulations which support that legislation.
3.2 Planning law requires that applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where relevant, any such material considerations will be referred to in the report.
The Development Plan
3.3 All planning applications referred to in this report have been assessed against the relevant policies and proposals of the development plan for the Borough (currently the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan 2006) and any Supplementary Planning Documents or Guidance adopted by the Council.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
3.4 In addition, in assessing the submitted planning applications, there is a requirement to have regard to relevant national policies as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the policies of which are a material consideration. Where relevant, the provisions of the NPPF and any other relevant national guidance will be referred to in the report.
4. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters. Members and Officers are required to have full regard to the Code in discharging their responsibilities and duties in relation to planning matters on behalf of the Council. The Code seeks to ensure that all decision making is governed by an open and transparent process and represents a standard against which the conduct of Officers and Member sitting on the Committee will be judged.
4.2 A Declaration of Member Interests Register is taken prior to the commencement of the Committee meeting. Advice on whether any Member sitting on the Committee ought to declare any interest on any item on the submitted agenda should be obtained from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services or the Chief Planning Officer.
4.3 The Council’s Standards Committee will monitor the operation of this Code of Conduct.
5. EQUALITIES IMPACTS 5.1 The above Acts require Local Planning Authorities to consider planning applications on their individual merits having regard to the development plan and other material planning considerations.
5.2 The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics which are known as protected characteristics. These protected characteristics are Age, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Marriage or Civil Partnership, Pregnancy and Maternity, Race, Religion or Belief, Sex (Gender), Sexual Orientation, socio-economic status and Carer.
5.3 In applying the Equality Act 2010, the Council is required to consider the effects of its decisions on different groups protected from discrimination, including a duty to make reasonable adjustments. In taking account of all material planning considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, the Service Director (Planning and Regulation Services) has concluded all opportunities to promote equality through the planning process have been taken, or where adjustments cannot be made, these are justified on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal.
5.4 The Rochdale and District Disabled Access Working Group comments on relevant planning applications. Where comments are received, these will be included within the reported to Committee. Consideration is given in designing access when dealing with the planning applications. Where applicable, any issues relating to these matters or other equal opportunity matters will be referred to in individual planning application reports.
6. Human Rights Act 1998 considerations
6.1 The submitted applications need to be considered against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applications (and those third parties, including local residents, who have made representations) have the right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full consideration to their comments.
6.2 Article 8 and Protocol 1 Article 1 confer(s) a right of respect or a person’s home, other land and business assets. In taking account of all material considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan, the Service Director (Planning and Regulation Services) has concluded that some rights conferred by these Articles on the applicant(s)/objectors/residents and other occupiers and owners of nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that that interference is in accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal. He believes that any restriction on these rights posed by approval of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits of approval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
Background Papers
The background papers relevant to the planning applications to be considered on this agenda will include:-
1. The Planning application file and its contents which will include:
i) The planning application form and supporting information, together with scaled drawings/plans and relevant statutory certificates. ii) Letters of response from statutory and other consultees who may have been consulted or commented on the planning application iii) Letters and documents received from interested parties. iv) Notes of telephone conversations, meetings and any information received and of relevance to the submitted proposal
2. For any previous planning application referred to in the agenda report or in the application file, the planning application forms and the decision on that proposal
3. Such other papers (if any) received after the preparation of individual reports on planning applications on this agenda (to be reported verbally at the meeting).
4. Any other guidance or procedural documents adopted by the Council and of relevance to the recommendation and/or determination of any submitted planning applications or related consents
For further information about this report, or if you wish to see any background papers please contact: Sharon Hill, Senior Business Support Officer, in Planning and Regulation Services, Floor 1 Telegraph House, Baillie Street, Rochdale, OL16 1JH. Telephone (01706) 924305 or via the online planning services at: http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/planning
Application Number: 12/56060/FUL Ward: Milnrow And Newhey
Proposal: Erection of 15 metre (17.8 metre to blade tip) high wind turbine
Site Address: Moorfield Kennels Higher White Slack Farm Huddersfield Road Newhey Rochdale
Applicant: Mr Harry Pollitt
Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions
DELEGATION SCHEME
Members have delegated powers to refuse this application if they wish. If, however, the Committee are minded to approve the scheme then the application will be referred to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee for determination as the proposal does not accord with the development plan in force in the area (the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan).
SITE
The application relates to a parcel of open farmland located within an area of Green Belt to the north of Higher White Slack Farm, off Huddersfield Road, Newhey. The farm is accessed via a private driveway which follows a one-way ‘loop’ merging with a single-lane track (MilRupp27, 28 and 29) which branches in a northwesterly direction off Huddersfield Road. The farm comprises a rectangular group of buildings including a detached, two-storey farmhouse with a single storey outrigger to the southeast corner, and a single storey outbuilding to the south forming a boarding kennels (Moorfield Kennels). These buildings front onto a shallow, hardstanding courtyard to the south, though a large, triangular area of wooded amenity space separates this forecourt from the adjacent lane.
The site in question is located to the northeast corner of a parcel of grazing land, a minimum of approximately 61 metres to the north of the farmhouse. The rectangular parcel of land incorporates an area of some 1.14 hectares and follows a general, northeasterly rise in ground level from its southwestern boundary with MilRupp26. The field boundaries are marked by a combination of low dry stone walls, post-and-rail fencing and wire mesh fencing. In addition, linear treelines flank the north and west facing elevations of the farmhouse, and a row of semi- mature trees run alongside the southwestern boundary with the adjacent track.
The site lies on higher land a minimum of approximately 138 metres from MilRupp26, and some 330 metres from the A640 (Huddersfield Road). Ground level falls gradually in a southerly direction towards Huddersfield Road, and in an easterly direction towards Ogden Edge and Edge Gate Farms located a minimum of approximately 227 metres to the southeast. Large expanses of open farmland fall to the north and west of the site. An agricultural barn is located approximately 144 metres to the south of the site, with the closest dwelling to the south (Highland House) situated some 313 metres away. A water treatment works (Wickenhall) lies some 455 metres to the north.
In its wider context, Huddersfield Road runs broadly centrally through a V-shaped valley with rising hillsides running in parallel to the north and south, and provides a link between Newhay (Rochdale) and Denshaw (Oldham). The site is located a minimum of some 295 metres from the administrative boundary with Oldham Council to the southeast.
PROPOSAL
The application seeks permission for the erection a single, 5KW wind turbine to the northeast corner of a parcel of open farmland located to the north of Higher White Slack Farm. The turbine would reach a hub height of 15 metres and would have a triple blade 5.6 metre diameter rotor resulting in a maximum blade tip height of 17.8 metres. The turbine’s mast would be constructed in galvanised steel with a matt grey finish and its blades would be of white fibreglass. The turbine would be mounted on a low (2.5 metre high above ground) tripod drilled to a depth of between 3 and 4 metres to create three separate piles. This foundation avoids the need for a concrete base. The application also includes the installation of subterranean cabling in a 600 mm deep trench. The cabling will run for a maximum length of approximately 100 metres, providing a connection between the turbine and the closest building at Higher White Slack Farm.
The turbine is to provide energy for Higher White Slack Farm, with any surplus power generation to be fed into the National Grid.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY
National Guidance:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF replaces 44 documents including Planning Policy Statements; Planning Policy Guidance; Minerals Policy Statements; Minerals Policy Guidance; Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations; and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The NPPF will be referred to as appropriate in the report.
Unitary Development Plan: G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt – General
G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/2 Countryside Around Towns RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside
G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development
G/BE/9 Conservation of the built heritage BE/10 Development Affecting Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments
G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development
G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/14 Wind Power Developments EM/16 Sustainable Energy Sources
G/NE/1 Nature conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species NE/6 Landscape Protection and Enhancement
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Energy and New Development (SPD) Biodiversity and Development (SPD)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
11/D54538 – Determination of prior approval for the erection of agricultural storage building – Refused.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Head of Highways and Engineering: No objection.
Environmental Health Officer (EHO): The proposed turbine is to achieve the ‘Quiet Revolution HY5-AD5.6 (QR-H5) standard’ noise level. The noise assessment submitted with the application indicates that noise generated by the turbine will not exceed 31 dBA Leq 10 minutes at the boundary of the closest noise sensitive property at wind speeds of 8 m/s or less. A condition should be attached to any permission granted in order to control noise emissions at the level stated in the noise assessment in order to prevent disamenity to surrounding occupiers.
Natural England: No objections. The application site is in close proximity to the South Pennine Moors Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, given the nature and scale of the proposal, there is not likely to be an adverse effect on the SSSI. Therefore, the SSSI should not represent a constraint in determining the application.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU): No objection to the proposal on nature conservation grounds. Comments as follows: o The impact of wind turbines on bats is not fully understood and studies in the UK are still in their infancy. There is a record of common pipistrelle bat roosts less than 1 km away from the proposed turbine. However, given the level of separation between this roost and the site, the roost should not be directly affected by the proposed development. Natural England has developed guidance (TIN051, 2009) which provides information on how best to site turbines. To minimise the risk to bat population their advice is to maintain a 50 metre buffer around any feature (trees, hedges) into which no part of the turbine intrudes. o The Greater Manchester Local Records database identifies Lapwing (a ground nesting bird) close to the site. Ground nesting birds could be present within the field where the wind turbine is to be sited. All birds, with the exception of certain pest species, and their nests are protected under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is therefore recommended that works should not be undertaken in the main bird breeding season (March to July inclusive), unless birds are found to be absent. A condition to this effect should be attached to any permission granted.
Greater Manchester Archaeology Advisory Service (GMAAS): No objections. The development would not threaten any known or suspected sites of archaeological interest. Given these circumstances, there would be no reasonable grounds to impose a condition requiring further archaeological investigations at the site.
Civil Aviation Authority: Councils are reminded of their obligations to consult in accordance with ODPM/DfT Circular 1/2003 or Scottish Government Circular 2/2003, and in particular to consult with NATS and the Ministry of Defence as well as any aerodromes listed in Annex 3 of the above documents, taking note of appropriate guidance and policy documentation.
National Air Traffic Services (NATS): The development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with NATS’ safeguarding criteria for en-route air traffic.
Manchester Airport: No objection.
Ministry of Defence: No response within statutory consultation period.
Rights of Way Officer: No response within statutory consultation period.
British Horse Society: No response within statutory consultation period.
REPRESENTATIONS
Direct Publicity: - The appropriate neighbouring properties were notified of the application by letter. In addition, as the application represents a departure from the Council’s adopted UDP, the development has also been publicised by site notice and in the local press. One letter has been received in objection to the application. The points of objection (followed by officer responses) are summarised as follows:
Comment: The proposed wind turbine would have a visually imposing impact upon the surrounding landscape which would be detrimental to visual amenity and the openness of the Green Belt.
Officer response: The site falls within an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale UDP Proposals Map. Paragraph 91 of 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”.
Therefore, as the turbine comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the main issue in this case is whether there are any material considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm the development would cause to the openness of the Green Belt, thereby justifying it on the basis of very special circumstances.
The development’s impact on the Green Belt (including the case for very special circumstances) and surrounding landscape is assessed in more detail later in the report.
Comment: The turbine would generate excessive levels of noise which would adversely affect surrounding residents and would spoil the tranquillity of the countryside.
Officer response: A noise survey has been submitted in support of the application. This survey provides a quantitative prediction of noise levels that would be generated by the turbine at wind speeds up to 10 m/s. The survey has been assessed by the Council’s EHO and it is considered that, given the separation achieved between the turbine and surrounding residential properties, the development would have no undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers through noise generation.
The development’s impact on the enjoyment of the countryside is assessed in more detail later in the report.
Comment: The proposed turbine would interfere with digital television reception in the area.
Officer response: Chapter 8, paragraph 64 of the companion guide to PPS 22 (which remains extant following the adoption of the NPPF) identifies that “a wind turbine can interfere with electromagnetic transmissions in two ways – by emitting an electromagnetic signal itself, and by interfering with other electromagnetic signals. The nature of the interference depends on the size of the structure relative to the wave-length of the radiation. Provided careful attention is paid to siting, wind turbines should not cause any significant problems of electromagnetic interference, i.e. adverse effects on communication systems which use electromagnetic waves as the transmission medium (e.g. television, radio or microwave links)”. Given the turbine’s modest scale and significant separation with surrounding residential properties, the development should have no undue impact on television reception.
ANALYSIS
Principle of development:
1. The site falls within an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale UDP Proposals Map. The five purposes of including land in the Green Belt are outlined in paragraph 80 of the NPPF as follows: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
2. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF reflects UDP policy D/4 and stipulates that local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt unless the development falls within one of the following categories: buildings for agriculture and forestry; provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
3. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF states that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided that they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. These include: mineral extraction; engineering operations; local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location; the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.
4. The proposed renewable energy project does not fall within any of the categories of appropriate development in the Green Belt as outlined in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF and, therefore, the principle of development is inappropriate. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that: As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
5. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that: When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
6. The proposed wind turbine development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, the principle of development is not acceptable. In accordance with paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF, development which is not acceptable in principle within the Green Belt should only be allowed in very special circumstances. As a result, the main issue in this case is whether there are any material considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm the development would cause to the openness of the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, thereby justifying it on the basis of very special circumstances.
Siting, scale, design, impact on landscape, Green Belt and very special circumstances:
7. Paragraph 91 of 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 [emphasis added].
8. Criterion (b) of UDP policy D/4 states that, in addition to falling within a category of appropriate development in the Green Belt, proposals will only be permitted where they would not prejudice, by reason of their scale, siting or design, the primary purposes and visual amenity of the Green Belt. 9. Paragraph 93 of the NPPF identifies that “planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”
10. Paragraph 97 of the NPPF states that 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. They should: have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources; 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; consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources; and identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers.
11. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF stipulates that, when determining planning applications for renewable energy projects, local planning authorities should: not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
12. UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where there is no unacceptable intrusion in the landscape, having regard to the cumulative impact and intervisibility of such developments whether within Rochdale or in neighbouring local authority areas, in accordance with 10 criteria. Of these, criteria (a), (b), (f), (g) and (i) are relevant to the development’s landscape impact as follows: The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the visual character and quality of the landscape or materially detract from the physical record of the historic and cultural evolution of the landscape. Any proposal in conflict with this criterion will need to demonstrate that other locations are not suitable; The proposal would not have an adverse impact on the setting of historic structures and Conservation Areas or historic landscapes; Any proposal must demonstrate the best use of topography, siting, design and colour to minimise the visual impact of the proposal. Any ancillary structures and access roads should employ sensitive design and use of local materials to respect the character and appearance of its setting; Every effort is made to route power lines underground where they link a wind power development to the national grid, or link individual wind generators to user buildings. All proposals should seek to minimise the length of cable connection in order to reduce the visual impact of such structures when sited above ground; Full consideration of the impact of any proposal including construction, vehicular access, visual and physical impacts and the effect on local residential amenity will be sought by the Council through a detailed statement of the environmental effects, to be submitted preferably at the time of application.
13. UDP policy EM/16 indicates that proposals for the development of sustainable energy installations will be permitted where they have no unacceptable adverse impacts on local amenity or environmental quality and are shown to make an appropriate contribution to local or regional energy needs. In considering proposals in terms of their siting, design and operation, particular attention will be given to the following (criteria (a), (b) and (d)): The effect on the amenity of the surrounding area; The effect on buildings and areas of historic and archaeological importance and their setting and character; The effect on landscape character and quality;
14. Criteria (a) and (c) of UDP policy BE/2 require proposals to demonstrate good design by: Ensuring that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure; Taking opportunities to retain, enhance or create views, landmarks and other townscape features which make a material contribution to the character of the area and reveal such features to public view.
15. UDP Policy BE/10 states that developers must take full account of the presence of known Ancient Monuments and sites of archaeological importance and their settings in proposals. Planning permission will be refused where developers do not sympathetically accommodate such structures or remains, particularly where the proposal has a significant affect on the site itself or its setting.
16. Criterion (a) of UDP policy RE/2 indicates that development proposals which help to sustain or regenerate the economic vitality and environmental quality of the countryside will be permitted where they assist agricultural diversification providing that they “protect or restore landscape character and quality in respect of visual appeal, and cultural and historic features”.
17. Criteria (d) and (h) of UDP Policy RE/4 state that proposals for the diversification of farm enterprises will be permitted where they help to sustain or regenerate the rural economy provided that: The proposal helps to sustain or restore the character of the surrounding countryside by virtue of its design and location and has no detrimental effects on landscape or historic buildings and features; The proposal satisfies the provisions of Green Belt and protected open land policies where appropriate.
18. The manufacturer’s specification submitted with the application estimates that, dependent on wind speeds, the energy output of the turbine would be in the order of 16.82 MWh per year. However, as this figure does not relate to actual wind speed data collected from the site, it cannot be predicated precisely what the turbine’s individual contribution to renewable energy generation would be. Nevertheless, the NPPF (paragraph 98) stipulates that local planning authorities should not require applicants to demonstrate overall need for renewable energy and should recognise that small scale projects are capable of making a valuable contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The need to promote the growth of renewable energy sources is recognised in both national and local planning policy, with the NPPF’s presumption in favour a sustainable development representing an underpinning principle in this regard. Moreover, paragraph 91 of the NPPF identifies that “the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources” are capable of constituting ‘very special circumstances’ to justify renewable energy projects within the Green Belt.
19. Whilst the turbine would make only a small contribution to overall national electricity generation it would, nevertheless, be an important contribution towards renewable energy generation. Therefore, the environmental and economic benefits of the proposal weigh substantially in favour of the development. However, in order to determine the presence of very special circumstances, these benefits must be balanced against the harm the development would cause to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the character of the surrounding landscape.
20. The turbine would have a central hub height of 15 metres and a blade tip height of 17.8 metres, and would occupy an elevated position towards the crest of a hill to the northeast corner of the field. The proposed turbine, by virtue of its height and hilltop location, would be visible from several vantage points surrounding the site – including those from the lane approaching Higher White Slack Farm and from a public footpath which runs to the east (MilFp17). However, given the function and characteristics of wind turbines, there is generally a need for prominent siting and, accordingly, it is inevitable that such developments will form prominent features in their local landscape.
21. The applicant has provided a photomontage showing superimposed images of the turbine from various surrounding viewpoints. From vantage points on the lane to the south/southwest, the turbine would be screened by a combination of the farm buildings and the treeline to the southwestern boundary of the field (which extends to the west side and around the rear of Higher White Slack Farm). Vantage points from the lane to the southeast (viewpoints 1 and 2) would place the turbine in more prominent views – though the feature would be seen alongside the buildings of Higher White Slack Farm and in conjunction with a line of telegraph poles approaching from the east. Views further to the southeast (towards Ogden Edge and Edge Gate Farms) would be restricted by a steep embankment flanking the route of bridle path MilBp15.
22. In its wider context, views of the turbine from footpaths to the east and west (viewpoints 3 and 4) would be limited by topographical changes both along and beyond these rights of way. A steep hillside would form a visual barrier from the footpath to the east, with a steep embankment providing screening alongside the path to the west. Views of the turbine from Huddersfield Road (viewpoints 5 and 6) would be extremely limited due to its separation with the highway and screening provided by intervening treelines. The turbine would be prominently in view across open farmland from the north, though public access to this land is restricted to a single footpath running from north-south to the east of Higher White Slack Farm (MilFp17).
23. The submitted photomontage indicates that, when viewed from surrounding public vantage points, the proposed turbine, by virtue of its siting, scale, height, separation with surrounding highways/footpaths and slender profile, would blend into the surrounding landscape in a manner that would not unacceptably injure the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt. The turbine would be screened by a combination of the existing farm buildings and vegetation and, given its separation with surrounding public vantage points, would not introduce a dominant or visually intrusive addition to the landscape.
24. With the exception of Higher White Slack Farm, the closest neighbouring dwelling (Ogden Edge Farm) is located on lower-lying land some 227 metres to the southeast. Both Ogden Edge and Edge Gate Farms occupy offset positions on a descent into a narrow valley flanking MilBp15. Therefore, views of the turbine from these properties would be limited by virtue of their separation from the site and local changes in topography. Moreover, when viewed from the south, the turbine would be seen in the context of expansive, panoramic views across large areas of open farmland, and would not appear so visually imposing as to introduce unacceptably oppressive features in the outlook of surrounding occupiers.
25. The proposed turbine, by virtue of its siting, scale, height and slender profile, would not detract from the sense of space and openness within the expansive landscape, nor would any long distance views be blocked or significantly obstructed. Therefore, it is not considered that the development would have an unacceptable visual impact on the surrounding landscape or the openness of the Green Belt.
26. In addition to the turbine, the development includes the installation of a base-level tripod and subterranean cabling within a 600 mm deep trench to form a connection to the National Grid. The site would be accessed via a gate from the existing lane approaching Higher White Slack Farm which opens onto the adjacent field, meaning there would be no requirement for a separate, hardstanding access track. The ancillary apparatus associated with the turbine (including the access to the site), would be sufficiently minor in scale (and, in some cases, invisible above ground level), to ensure that it would not harm the openness or visual amenity of the Green Belt.
27. GMAAS have indicated that the development would not threaten any known or suspected sites of archaeological interest. The applicant’s 2000 metre wide search of the buffer zone around the turbine also confirms the absence of any such sites. Given the lack of any nearby sites of archaeological interest, GMASS consider that the development would not have any adverse impact on local archaeology and, furthermore, that there are “no reasonable grounds for imposing an archaeological requirement upon the application [to warrant further investigation].” Therefore, the development is considered to be in compliance with the objectives of UDP policies EM/16 and BE/10 in this respect.
28. The development’s contribution to meeting national targets for renewable energy generation and the consequential effect in tackling the challenge of climate change represents a compelling argument in favour of the proposed wind turbines. This principle is heavily embedded in the NPPF, including its underpinning presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, it is considered that the benefits of the scheme clearly outweigh the harm the development would cause by reason of its inappropriateness, its limited harm to openness and any other harm so as to justify the proposed scheme on the basis of very special circumstances in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and UDP policy D/4.
Impact on surrounding uses:
29. The forth bullet point to paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution.
30. Furthermore, paragraph 123 of the NPPF stipulates that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.
31. Criterion (c) of UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where the proposal creates no unacceptable amenity or noise problems for local residents.
32. In addition, criterion (a) of UDP policy EM/3 states that development should not be permitted where it would lead to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to nearby existing or future occupants of buildings, or users of open space.
33. The surrounding landscape includes a limited number of scattered farmsteads, individual dwellinghouses and hamlets forming clusters of buildings off Huddersfield Road. The closest of these are located to the south (Highland House – some 317 metres away) and southeast (Ogden Edge and Edge Gate Farms – approximately 227 metres away).
34. Paragraph 124 of the NPPF indicates that planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values and national objectives for pollutants (which may include noise). A footnote refers to the national Noise Policy Statement for England (2010) which seeks to promote good health and a good quality of life through the effective management of noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development. Its aims seek to both avoid significant adverse impacts and to mitigate and minimise adverse impacts. The main national policy on control of noise from windfarms was previously set out in Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22), and its Companion Guide continues to provide guidance. PPS 22 confirmed, at paragraph 22, that the ETSU- R-97 report (ETSU) should be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development and this is repeated at paragraph 39 of the Technical Annex to the extant PPS 22 Companion Guide. Therefore, it follows that compliance with ETSU recommended noise limits should avoid noise from giving rise to a significant adverse impact in accordance with the NPPF and Noise Policy Statement for England.
35. ETSU provides that day-time noise limits to protect residential amenity should be set at 5dB(A) above background levels or, in areas with low background ground noise, within a range of 35-40dB(A) according to consideration of three factors: The number of dwellings in the neighbourhood of the wind farm The effect of noise limits on the number of kWh generated The duration and level of exposure
At night-time a higher fixed limit of 43 dB(A) is recommended which is related to people being more likely to be indoors, with greater sound attenuation from the fabric of the dwelling, albeit assuming an open window.
36. The application is accompanied by a noise assessment which draws on a standard methodology for estimating noise levels at various separation distances from turbines of the type proposed. The noise calculations in the assessment express noise generated by the turbine as a decibel level at wind speeds between 3 and 10 m/s (the turbines do not operate below wind speeds of 3 m/s). Noise levels predicted to be experienced by the closest external receptors are indicated as a decibel level.
37. The maximum decibel level predicted (at the boundary of Ogden Edge Farm a minimum of some 228 metres away) is 31 dBA. This data has informed the EHO’s recommended condition that noise generated by the turbine should not exceed 31 dBA Leq 10 minutes at the boundary of the closest noise sensitive property at wind speeds of 8 m/s or less.
38. The applicant has demonstrated that any noise effects from the turbine will be acceptable in terms of ETSU-R-97 which the Government has confirmed remains the appropriate guidance in this respect. A suitable condition can be imposed to ensure compliance with these guidelines and the predicated levels in the noise assessment in accordance with the recommendation of the Council’s EHO. Under the ETSU-R-97 guidelines the development would not generate unacceptable noise and disturbance for occupiers of surrounding dwellings and is therefore in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies EM/3 and EM/14, and the NPPF.
Impact on recreation and the rural economy:
39. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development through “[promoting] the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.”
40. UDP policy RE/2 (b) indicates that development proposals which help to sustain or regenerate the economic vitality and environmental quality of the countryside will be permitted where they assist agricultural diversification providing that they “protect and enhance recreational access to the countryside and strategic trails from surrounding urban areas.
41. UDP policy RE/5 states that development proposals which protect, improve and extend access to the countryside on foot, cycle or horseback will be permitted. Proposals should, wherever possible, improve opportunities for access by maintaining, improving and extending the existing rights of way network.
42. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should aim to identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
43. Criterion (j) of UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where “the proposal would not cause serious harm to the value of the surrounding area for quiet relaxation and recreation”.
44. Local footpaths and bridle paths provide access to the west, south and east of the site and form vantage points that would (to differing extents as described above), be affected by the development. The closest public right of way (MilFp17) runs from north to south a minimum of some 84 metres to the east of the site. This footpath merges with a junction of paths forming a crossroads to the south (MilRupp28; MilBp15 and MilRupp29) which link with Huddersfield Road.
45. The closest bridle path (MilBp15) is located a minimum of approximately 190 metres to the southeast of the site. The British Horse Society suggests an exclusion zone of 200 metres where turbines are to be located near to routes that are used by horses and riders. However, such detailed matters are not addressed within the NPPF and the rigid use of exclusion zones cannot, therefore, be justified. While horses are known to be nervous of sudden movements, the appearance of the turbine and its movement would not be sudden (the feature being visible further along the bridle path on the approach to the site). There is also a lack of evidence that horses have been startled by similar turbines to the extent that accidents have been caused. In this context, it is considered that the turbines’ minimum separation of 190 metres with the neighbouring bridle path would be adequate to ensure that the development would not pose an unacceptable risk to horses and riders which would diminish the enjoyment of the countryside.
46. Whilst the turbine would be visible from surrounding recreational rights of way, the development, by virtue of its siting, height and separation with neighbouring paths would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational routes. Although the development could not be seen to enhance the experience of recreational activities in the countryside, it is not considered that, on balance, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the effects of the turbine would be so harmful as to detract from the enjoyment of the countryside – having particular regard to their impact on quiet relaxation and recreation. Therefore, the development would not be in conflict with the objectives of UDP policies RE/2, RE/5, EM/14 and the requirements of the NPPF.
Highways and access:
47. UDP policy A/9 requires proposals to facilitate safe and convenient access and circulation for vehicle traffic. Relative to the scale, type and location of development, proposals should ensure that: Roads, junctions and access points to/from premises are safe, convenient and suitable for the volume and characteristics of traffic that will be required to use them.
48. Criterion (d) of UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where “the proposal would not result in a health or safety risk, nuisance to the public or adverse impact on highway safety by undue distraction to road users”.
49. The development site would be accessed via a gated opening branching off the existing track approaching Higher White Slack Farm. This track would only be used for one day for the delivery and installation of the turbine. Following the installation, access will be required on a limited basis for routine maintenance. On the assumption that the site would be approached from Huddersfield Road, the Council’s Highways Service have raised no objection to the application. However, in the interests of highway safety, a condition has been recommended requiring the route which construction and transportation vehicles would take during the delivery and installation of the turbine to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
50. The proposed access track would not result in the formation of any permanent hard surface at the site and, except for delivery of a few large components during the construction phase, the proposal would not introduce any significant, ongoing traffic movements to the site. The temporary track across the field would facilitate safe and convenient access for vehicle traffic to and from the site relative to the scale, type and location of the development, and the proposal would have no adverse impact on highway safety. The development is therefore in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies A/9 and EM/14.
Impact on ecology:
51. The site does not fall within or adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Special Area of Conservation. The ‘South Pennine Moors’ SSSI is, however, located some 1.6 kilometres to the northeast and local Sites of Biological Importance (SBIs) are situated to the north (686 metres) and south (348 metres) of the site.
52. UDP policy NE/3 states that in areas not identified as SBIs, LNRs, SSSIs, SPAs or SACs, the effect of land use changes on existing features, species and habitats of ecological value e.g., flora, fauna, wetland, ponds, mill lodges, reservoirs, hedges and trees will be taken into account in assessing proposals. Any development should seek to retain such features and incorporate them into the development. Where this would place an unreasonable constraint on the development, steps to provide compensatory features or habitats of an equivalent nature and value, commensurate with the scale and type of development permitted may be required.
53. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states that, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following (relevant) principles: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.
54. UDP policy NE/4 states that development proposals which would affect a species protected by National or European law or its habitat, will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that: There is no adverse impact on the species concerned; Loss of, or damage to habitats supporting such species is minimal and, where required, adequate alternative habitats are provided to sustain at least the current levels of the population of the species; and Where a proposal affects a European Protected Species, it fulfils the appropriate criteria for development as set out in National and European legislation.
55. UDP policy EM/14 (e) states that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where: The proposal, by virtue of its siting or operation, would not adversely affect areas of ecological value or result in danger to wildlife or loss of important habitats.
56. UDP policy EM/16 indicates that proposals for the development of sustainable energy installations will be permitted where they have no unacceptable adverse impacts on local amenity or environmental quality and are shown to make an appropriate contribution to local or regional energy needs. Criterion (e) of the policy states that particular attention will be given to “[their] effect on nature conservation interest”.
57. The turbine would be sited on a clear area of open, agricultural grassland which is presently used by grazing farm animals. The site is not vegetated and the parcel of land is enclosed by a combination of dry stone walls and timber post and panel fencing. The turbine would be located a minimum of some 348 metres from the closest designated nature conservation site (an area of ‘upland heathland’ at Crompton Moor on the south side of Huddersfield Road).
58. When considered in isolation, the site and its immediately adjoining areas (having particular regard to a lack of vegetation or specific features to encourage biodiversity) have little intrinsic value in terms of enhancing biodiversity. Whilst it is recognised that wind turbines are likely to have wider implications in terms of their impact (including noise), given the proposed turbine’s significant degree of separation with the closest designated nature conservation site to the south (including the fact that the highway of Huddersfield Road intervenes between the two sites), it is not considered that the impact of the development would be so severe as to conclude that it would lead to a diminution in the fundamental nature conservation value of the site or surrounding areas.
59. Neither Natural England nor GMEU have raised any objection to the application on nature conservation grounds. Natural England have, however, referred to their standing advice document ‘TIN051 - Bats and Onshore Wind Farms: Interim Guidance’. The guidance in TIN051 should be applied in a proportionate manner having regard to the area of habitat affected and the likely direct impact on bats. The document indicates that “we [Natural England] are currently unable to say whether populations of bats are likely to be at risk from turbines in the UK because the evidence base is inadequate.” The guidance identifies, however, that “the evidence in Britain is that most bat activity is in close proximity to habitat features. Activity was shown to decline when measured at fixed intervals up to 50 m away from treelines and at varying intervals up to 35 m from treelines. This decline occurred both when bats were commuting and when foraging.” Resultantly, TIN051 advises that there should be a minimum 50 metre stand-off distance between the blade tip of a turbine and the nearest woodland feature (trees/hedges). The proposed turbine would achieve a minimum separation of approximately 51 metres with the closest woodland feature (a treeline meandering to the side/rear of Higher White Slack Farm to the south). Therefore, the development would accord with the advice in TIN051 and, given this compliance, there is no reason to believe that the proposal would have any significant impact on the local bat population. In addition, a condition is recommended by GMEU regarding the timing of works in order to limit the potential for conflict with the local bird population.
60. The proposed development would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies NE/3, NE/4, EM/14, EM/16 and advice contained within the NPPF.
Summary:
61. The application relates to a site to the north of Higher White Slack Farm located in an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, should only be allowed in very special circumstances. The contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development) are considered to constitute very special circumstances which clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. Whilst visible in the surrounding landscape by virtue of its height, the siting and design of the turbine would ensure that the development would not, either individually or cumulatively, introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature which would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the landscape (including the physical record of its historic and cultural evolution). The turbine would achieve a significant degree of separation with surrounding uses, particularly residential, and it has been adequately demonstrated that the development would not have any undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of scale, siting, height, noise generation or any other nuisance. The development would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way and would not detract unacceptably from the quiet relaxation and enjoyment of the countryside. The installation of the turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non- designated sites nearby. Satisfactory arrangements for vehicle access to and from the site would also be made as part of the scheme.
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT subject to the following conditions:-
1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 This permission relates to the following plans:
Drawing no. C1206 - Scale 1:1250 Site Location Plan. Drawing no. C1201 - Scale 1:500 Block Plan. Drawing no. ATC10070-1000 - Tripod Assy HY5
The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved drawings.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the reason for decision as detailed below on this decision notice.
3 No development shall take place until details of the design of the turbine and any ancillary apparatus have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the materials, finish and colour treatment of the turbine and all associated apparatus. The turbine and ancillary apparatus shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the duly approved details, and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In order to minimise the development’s visual impact on the surrounding landscape in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/14, BE/2, D/4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4 The wind turbine and all associated appurtenances hereby approved shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its former agricultural use on or before the expiration of 20 years from the date of this permission in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The restoration scheme shall be submitted not later than 12 months prior to the expiry of the 20 year period and the duly approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and all associated appurtenances.
Reason: The proposed wind turbine has a limited life expectancy and will need to be decommissioned at the end of this period of use. The site falls within the Green Belt and is currently in agricultural use. Following the removal of the turbine, the land should be restored to its previous agricultural use in the interests of the visual amenity, openness and purposes of including land in the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
5 If the turbine hereby permitted fails to produce electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months, the turbine and any associated appurtenances shall be removed from the site within a period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period and the land restored to its former agricultural use in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved restoration scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and any associated appurtenances.
Reason: The wind turbine’s function is to generate renewable energy which would contribute to government targets by transferring a proportion of this energy to the National Grid. The benefits arising from this function are considered to constitute the very special circumstances which justify the turbine’s erection in the Green Belt. If the turbine ceases to fulfil this function it will no longer be fit for purpose and these very special circumstances will not exist. In such an instance, the land should be restored to its former state in the interests of preserving the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy D/4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
6 At the reasonable request of, and following a complaint to, the Local Planning Authority, the operator of the development shall, at their own expense, measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine following the procedures described in "The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97" published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. The level of noise emissions from the turbine shall not exceed 31 dBA (measured as Leq 10 minutes) at wind speeds of 8 metres per second or less at the curtilage of any noise sensitive premises.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to the occupiers of surrounding properties in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
7 No development shall take place until details of a route for use by construction and carriage vehicles (including during the delivery of the wind turbine) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved route shall thereafter be adhered to for the duration of the development unless an alternative has first been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to ensure an appropriate means of access for vehicle traffic associated with the transportation and installation of the turbine in the interests of highway safety in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies A/9 and EM/14.
8 No development shall take place until details of the route and construction methodology for any cabling to be laid above or below ground to, from and between pieces of equipment (taking account of any hedges and trees within the landscape) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cabling shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the duly approved details before the wind turbine is first brought into use.
Reason: In order to preserve the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and to protect areas of surrounding woodland and their habitat value in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14, NE/3 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
9 No development shall take place during the bird nesting season (March to July inclusive) unless a survey (undertaken by a suitably qualified person) to establish whether the site is used by nesting birds has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should the survey reveal the presence of any nesting birds, then no development shall take place within those areas identified as being used for nesting during the period specified above.
Reason: The Greater Manchester Local Records database identifies Lapwing (a ground nesting bird) close to the site. Ground nesting birds could be present within the field where the wind turbine is to be sited. All birds, with the exception of certain pest species, and their nests, are protected under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Therefore, the condition has been imposed in order to prevent any habitat disturbance to nesting birds found to be present at the site in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy NE/4, the National Planning Policy Framework and the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
10 No construction work shall be carried out, and no materials shall be delivered to the site, other than between the hours of 07.30 and 19.00 Monday to Friday and between 07.30 and 14.00 on Saturdays, and no such operations shall take place at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties and to minimise the potential for noise and disturbance at unsocial hours in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason for recommendation:
The application relates to a site to the north of Higher White Slack Farm located in an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, should only be allowed in very special circumstances. The contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development) are considered to constitute very special circumstances which clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. Whilst visible in the surrounding landscape by virtue of its height, the siting and design of the turbine would ensure that the development would not, either individually or cumulatively, introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature which would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the landscape (including the physical record of its historic and cultural evolution). The turbine would achieve a significant degree of separation with surrounding uses, particularly residential, and it has been adequately demonstrated that the development would not have any undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of scale, siting, height, noise generation or any other nuisance. The development would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way and would not detract unacceptably from the quiet relaxation and enjoyment of the countryside. The installation of the turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated sites nearby. Satisfactory arrangements for vehicle access to and from the site would also be made as part of the scheme. The proposed development is therefore in compliance with the provisions of the following relevant policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, its associated Supplementary Planning Guidance or Documents and national planning policy:
G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt - General
G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/2 Countryside Around Towns RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside
G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development - Access for General Traffic
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development
G/BE/9 Conservation of the built heritage BE/10 Development Affecting Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments
G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development
G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/14 Wind Power Developments EM/16 Sustainable Energy Sources
G/NE/1 Nature conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species NE/6 Landscape Protection and Enhancement
Energy and New Development (SPD) Biodiversity and Development (SPD)
National Planning Policy Framework
In summary, the reasons for granting the permission are that Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council considers that the development is in accordance with relevant national and local planning policies and guidance and that there are no material planning considerations that indicate that an alternative decision should be reached. The planning conditions imposed would ensure that any material harm that may result from the development can be reasonably mitigated.
Report Author Matthew Taylor
Application Number: 12/56132/FUL Ward: Wardle And West Littleborough
Proposal: Construction of car park to South-West of Church to provide 10 parking spaces including the demolition of gravestones, covering of graves and part-demolition of original boundary wall.
Site Address: St. Johns Church Halifax Road Rochdale Lancashire OL16 2RQ
Applicant: Mr Alan Simpson - Manchester Diocesan Office
Recommendation: Refusal
DELEGATION SCHEME
Members are entitled to refuse or approve the application on reasonable planning grounds.
SITE
This application relates to the Grade II listed Church of St John the Baptist of Smallbridge on Halifax Road. Built in 1831-3 by notable architect Lewis Vulliamy, the Church of St John the Baptist is a well-designed Gothic church of significant architectural value. Built of ashlar stone, the church is of the traditional plan form, with western entrance, nave and small chancel with east vestry. Two side porches (west elevation) lead to the gallery. On the interior, the building is notable for its rich interior decoration and furnishings. The comparatively restrained external decoration is a well-proportioned composition of lancet-style windows, stylised buttresses and cill moulding.
The churchyard, boundary wall and gravestones all form a valuable part of its designed setting and as such are considered part of the Listed Building under section 1(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act of 1990. The designed churchyard, designed with the church itself is defined by the distinctive boundary wall, which breaks at the northern elevation (Halifax Road) to create the formal approach through the church yard and the western elevation (Vicarage Drive) for direct access to the nave. Enclosed within the boundary wall is the church yard, which has interments dating from the origin of the church to the present day.
The church has fallen into disuse and has been empty since 2010. Since this time, the church has not suffered major vandalism, however a small in the northwest corner of the roof and a partially open window has allowed some water ingress and associated damp issues.
PROPOSAL
The application seeks permission to remove a number of gravestones on the southern part of the site, covering of the area and laying of precast concrete kerbs to define a 10-space car park. To accommodate vehicular access to the proposed carpark, the application seeks permission to demolish a section of the original boundary wall and move the historic stone piers to widen the existing western entrance.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY
National Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. With immediate effect the NPPF replaces 44 documents including Planning Policy Statements; Planning Policy Guidance; Minerals Policy Statements; Minerals Policy Guidance; Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations; and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The NPPF will be referred to as appropriate in the report.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development BE/9 Conservation of the Built Heritage
G/BE/9 Conservation of the Built Heritage BE/12 Demolition of Listed Buildings BE/14 Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings BE/15 New Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic A/10 New Development – Provision of Parking
G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development EM/4 Contaminated Land
G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species
SITE HISTORY
None.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Highways and Engineering – No objections
REPRESENTATIONS
The relevant neighbouring properties were notified of the application by way of letter, the application was advertised in the Rochdale Observer and a site notice was posted at the corner of Vicarage Drive and Halifax Road directly outside the premise.
The Council has received 5 letters of objection and they are summarised below:-
The proposed car park will have a negative effect on the views out from surrounding properties and cause light disturbance at night, with car headlights shining into the bedroom windows of select properties. Surface water from the site would run off into Wheelwright Drive which freezes in winter. The proposal would have an adverse affect on local wildlife and vegetation. The access arrangements from Halifax Road are detrimental to highway safety. Removal of gravestones and covering area highly disrespectful to burial grounds. Removal of gravestones and covering of area in carpark is disrespectful and unnecessary given nearby carparking facilities. The proposed works would have a negative effect on the ambiance of the graveyard. The proposed car park would have a detrimental effect on the setting of the listed building. Vicarage drive is also used for access to Belfry House which is a large detached dwelling. The proposed car park would have a negative impact on the local landscape and unduly affect the privacy of surrounding households. The proposal would have an adverse effect of the ecology of the area.
ANALYSIS
Appearance, design and impact on the listed structure
The Church of St John the Baptist is a Grade II listed building. Section 1(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act of 1990 defines the ‘listed building’ as;
Any object or structure fixed to the building; Any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1 st July 1948.
As the original boundary wall and historic gravestones both satisfy Section 1(5b) above, they are considered part of the Listed Building and deemed a ‘designated heritage asset’ under the National Planning Policy Framework and Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.
As a result, paragraph 132 of the NPPF applies with respect to both the effect on the setting of the main body of the church and the listed gravestones and boundary wall;
“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…Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting…Any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”
Furthermore, Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that, in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:
The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness
Similarly, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council’s Unitary Development Plan Policy G/BE/9 states, “ Priority will be given to the practical conservation and enhancement of those features of the built environment which are the most valuable, in particular…Listed Buildings and their settings…Such buildings…will be protected from adverse development or demolition. Policy BE/14 expands on this, stating that development proposals affecting the character of a Listed Building must not harm the architectural value or historic interest of the host building, its curtilage and the surrounding area. In particular, applications will need to demonstrate that:-
• Account has been taken of the scale and proportions of the host building, and its relationship to other buildings and their setting; • Sympathetic and high quality materials are used; • Internal spaces, features and fixtures are retained; and • Appropriate detailing is employed throughout
Similarly, policy G/BE/15 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan (UDP) states, “Development will not be permitted, where through its siting, scale, design or materials would harm the setting of a listed building ” and Criteria (a), (c) and (d) of Policy BE/2 require development proposals to demonstrate good design by:
• Ensuring they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure; • Taking opportunities to retain, enhance or create views, landmarks and other townscape features which make a material contribution to the character of the area and reveal such features to public view; • Retaining and enhancing the architectural or historic qualities and features of buildings of character.
1. The significance of the Church of St John and its environs lies largely in its illustrativeness as a high quality example of 1830’s church design – including its layout, detailing, fittings, use, churchyard design, boundary walls, materiality and setting. The conservation of all these elements is therefore to be given ‘great weight’ with any harm or loss requiring ‘clear and convincing justification’ (Para 132 NPPF).
2. The proposed removal of a number of the oldest Listed gravestones within the churchyard, the widening (part demolition) of the Listed boundary wall at the principal entrance and the covering of a considerable section of the churchyard would result in substantial material harm to the collective heritage asset, as well as the loss of the close spatial and historic relationship between the Church and its designed setting.
3. In addition, the proposed works would have a substantially negative impact upon the designed setting of the main body of the church. While it is noted that the proposed location of the car park is designed to have the minimum possible impact upon the setting of the church (namely through the avoidance of the views and approach from Halifax Road), the widening of the gateposts, covering of original flagstones on approach, loss of gravestones, partial covering of burial ground and presence of cars within this designed landscape will have a substantially negative effect on the setting of the Church of St John.
4. As a result, the proposed works constitute significant harm to the established significance of the designated heritage asset both in terms of material impact and impact upon its setting. With regard to such ‘substantial harm’, the NPPF states;
“Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities 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”
5. The application states that the Church of St John has been empty since 2010 and feedback from potential buyers indicated that the presence of an on-site car park would facilitate a sale. It also states that agent correspondence with the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) dismissed the usable site on the northern end of Vicarage Drive due to high asking price.
6. While there is some indication that an on-site car park would facilitate a sale, there does not appear to be a buyer who has committed to a purchase principally on the basis of an on-site car park. Thus, there is no guarantee that the proposed harmful works to the significance of this designated heritage assets, would facilitate the sale of the site. In addition to this, proposed uses of the church are unknown, and resultantly there is no indication of how many car parking spaces would be necessary to facilitate a sale. The application states that feedback from Agents suggests the desire to significantly increase the area of the car park. Given the recent interments immediately to the north of the proposed car park, as well as further harm to the heritage asset, extension would not be acceptable.
7. The proposed works seek to achieve benefits to the private sector to increase the marketability of the site. While this poses some benefits to the public in terms potentially preventing the deterioration of the building (which may affect the visual amenity of the surrounding area), this is not definitive and does not constitute a ‘substantial’ public benefit. In addition, consultation responses demonstrate that the proposed development will have a negative impact upon the privacy, safety, visual amenity of the surrounding residences, as well as causing light and noise pollution. The harm caused by the proposed development is therefore not outweighed by the public benefit and is not deemed acceptable under the National Planning Policy Framework.
8. As a result of the established harm upon the significance of the heritage asset and lack of clear and convincing justification for this harm, the proposed works are deemed to contravene Policies G/BE/9, BE/12, BE/14, BE/15 and G/BE/2 of the Rochdale UDP and relevant sections of the NPPF.
Impact on surrounding occupiers
9. Criterion (a) of the Unitary Development Plan Policy BE/2 states that development proposals must demonstrate good design by ensuring that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure
10. The proposed car park would adjoin the boundary with the Belfry which is a large detached dwelling. The building lies in close proximity to the proposed car park location, with 1 st floor bedrooms looking out directly onto the space. The proposed car park by virtue of its close proximity to the shared boundary and the comings and goings from it would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents at Belfry House through loss of privacy and disturbance caused by headlights shining towards the dwelling. As such the proposal is not in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the RMBC Unitary Development Plan.
Impact on traffic access and safety
11. Criterion (a) of the Unitary Development Plan Policy A/9 states that proposals should ensure that roads, junctions and access points to/from premises are safe, convenient and suitable for the volume and characteristics of traffic that will be required to use them
12. Furthermore, of the Unitary Development Plan Policy A/10 states that the criteria for car parking provision are based upon;
• The location of the development and the appropriateness and feasibility of providing parking provision within that location; • Access to other transport modes; and • The availability of other convenient and safe off-street parking
13. It is considered that the increased volume of traffic on the site as a result of the car park would not exacerbate any access and egress problems which may occur at the junction of Vicarage Drave and Halifax Road. The application is considered to provide suitable access arrangements in accordance with the requirements of policies A/9 and A/10.
Summary
14. The application relates to the site of the Grade II listed Church of St John the Baptist which is a designated heritage asset of considerable architectural and historic interest closely linked with its designed church yard and enclosing boundary wall. The proposal involves the widening of the Vicarage Road entrance, removal of original flagstones and gravestones in the south-west corner of the churchyard and covering over of this area for car parking provision. This would result in direct physical harm to the late 19 th century gravestones, the boundary wall and to the setting of the Grade II listed church. While it is acknowledged that there has been difficulty in selling the building, sufficient evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the detrimental works will result in the sale, conversion to use appropriate to the significance of the church and its and long-term conservation, nor would the proposed works provide substantial public benefit. Furthermore the proposed car park by virtue of its close proximity to the shared boundary and the comings and goings from it would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents at Belfry House through loss of privacy and disturbance.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE .
Reason for recommendation:
1 This application relates to the Grade II listed Church of St John the Baptist. Built in 1831-3 by notable architect Lewis Vulliamy, the Church of St John the Baptist is a well- designed Gothic church of significant architectural value. Built of ashlar stone, the church is of the traditional plan form, and it is defined by a distinctive boundary wall. The application seeks permission to form a 10 space car park which would lie to the south of the church building and it would adjoin the boundary with the residential property known as The Belfrey. To create the car park a number of gravestones would have to be removed and it would be necessary to demolish a section of the original boundary wall. The proposed car park and the removal of part of the original boundary wall would lead to substantial harm to the special architectural and historic interest of this Grade II listed building, a designated heritage asset. No clear and convincing justification for the harm to the heritage asset has been provided and there would be no substantial public benefits which would outweigh this harm. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies BE/12, BE/14, BE/15 and BE/2 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan and government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.
1 The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it was therefore not possible to approve the application. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.
2 The proposed car park would adjoin the boundary with a two storey detached dwelling known as Belfry House. Vehicular access to this dwelling is taken from Vicarage Drive and its front elevation would overlook the proposed car park. The proposed car park by virtue of its close proximity to the shared boundary and the comings and goings from it would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents at Belfry House through loss of privacy and disturbance. The development would therefore fail comply with Unitary Development Plan Policy BE/2 (Design Criteria for Development).
Report Author Christina Sinclair
Application Number: 12/56281/LBC Ward: Wardle And West Littleborough
Proposal: Construction of car park to South-West of Church to provide 10 parking spaces including the demolition of gravestones, covering of graves and part-demolition of original boundary wall.
Site Address: St Johns Church Halifax Road Rochdale OL16 2RQ
Applicant: Mr Alan Simpson - Manchester Diocesan Office
Recommendation: Refusal
DELEGATION SCHEME
Members are entitled to refuse or approve the application on reasonable planning grounds.
SITE
This application relates to the Grade II listed Church of St John the Baptist of Smallbridge on Halifax Road. Built in 1831-3 by notable architect Lewis Vulliamy, the Church of St John the Baptist is a well-designed Gothic church of significant architectural value. Built of ashlar stone, the church is of the traditional plan form, with western entrance, nave and small chancel with east vestry. Two side porches (west elevation) lead to the gallery. On the interior, the building is notable for its rich interior decoration and furnishings. The comparatively restrained external decoration is a well-proportioned composition of lancet-style windows, stylised buttresses and cill moulding.
The churchyard, boundary wall and gravestones all form a valuable part of its designed setting and as such are considered part of the Listed Building under section 1(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act of 1990. The designed churchyard, designed with the church itself is defined by the distinctive boundary wall, which breaks at the northern elevation (Halifax Road) to create the formal approach through the church yard and the western elevation (Vicarage Drive) for direct access to the nave. Enclosed within the boundary wall is the church yard, which has interments dating from the origin of the church to the present day.
The church has fallen into disuse and has been empty since 2010. Since this time, the church has not suffered major vandalism, however a small in the northwest corner of the roof and a partially open window has allowed some water ingress and associated damp issues.
PROPOSAL
The application seeks permission to remove a number of gravestones on the southern part of the site, covering of the area and laying of precast concrete kerbs to define a 10-space car park. To accommodate vehicular access to the proposed carpark, the application seeks permission to demolish a section of the original boundary wall and move the historic stone piers to widen the existing western entrance.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY
National Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework
The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. With immediate effect the NPPF replaces 44 documents including Planning Policy Statements; Planning Policy Guidance; Minerals Policy Statements; Minerals Policy Guidance; Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations; and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The NPPF will be referred to as appropriate in the report.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development
G/BE/9 Conservation of the Built Heritage BE/12 Demolition of Listed Buildings BE/14 Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings BE/15 New Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
SITE HISTORY
None.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Highways and Engineering – No objections
REPRESENTATIONS
The relevant neighbouring properties were notified of the application by way of letter, the application was advertised in the Rochdale Observer and a site notice was posted at the corner of Vicarage Drive and Halifax Road directly outside the premise.
The Council has received 5 letters of objection and they are summarised below:-
• The proposed car park will have a negative effect on the views out from surrounding properties and cause light disturbance at night, with car headlights shining into the bedroom windows of select properties. • Surface water from the site would run off into Wheelwright Drive which freezes in winter. • The proposal would have an adverse affect on local wildlife and vegetation. • The access arrangements from Halifax Road are detrimental to highway safety. • Removal of gravestones and covering area highly disrespectful to burial grounds. • Removal of gravestones and covering of area in carpark is disrespectful and unnecessary given nearby carparking facilities. The proposed works would have a negative effect on the ambiance of the graveyard. • The proposed car park would have a detrimental effect on the setting of the listed building. • Vicarage drive is also used for access to Belfry House which is a large detached dwelling. The proposed car park would have a negative impact on the local landscape and unduly affect the privacy of surrounding households. • The proposal would have an adverse effect of the ecology of the area.
ANALYSIS
Appearance, design and impact on the listed structure
1. The Church of St John the Baptist is a Grade II listed building. Section 1(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act of 1990 defines the ‘listed building’ as;
• Any object or structure fixed to the building; • Any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1 st July 1948.
2. As the original boundary wall and historic gravestones both satisfy Section 1(5b) above, they are considered part of the Listed Building and deemed a ‘designated heritage asset’ under the National Planning Policy Framework and Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.
3. As a result, paragraph 132 of the NPPF applies with respect to both the effect on the setting of the main body of the church and the listed gravestones and boundary wall;
“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…Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting…Any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”
4. Furthermore, Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that, in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:
• The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness
5. Similarly, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council’s Unitary Development Plan Policy G/BE/9 states, “ Priority will be given to the practical conservation and enhancement of those features of the built environment which are the most valuable, in particular…Listed Buildings and their settings…Such buildings…will be protected from adverse development or demolition. Policy BE/14 expands on this, stating that development proposals affecting the character of a Listed Building must not harm the architectural value or historic interest of the host building, its curtilage and the surrounding area. In particular, applications will need to demonstrate that:-
• Account has been taken of the scale and proportions of the host building, and its relationship to other buildings and their setting; • Sympathetic and high quality materials are used; • Internal spaces, features and fixtures are retained; and • Appropriate detailing is employed throughout
6. Similarly, policy G/BE/15 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan (UDP) states, “Development will not be permitted, where through its siting, scale, design or materials would harm the setting of a listed building ” and Criteria (a), (c) and (d) of Policy BE/2 require development proposals to demonstrate good design by:
• Ensuring they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure; • Taking opportunities to retain, enhance or create views, landmarks and other townscape features which make a material contribution to the character of the area and reveal such features to public view; • Retaining and enhancing the architectural or historic qualities and features of buildings of character.
7. The significance of the Church of St John and its environs lies largely in its illustrativeness as a high quality example of 1830’s church design – including its layout, detailing, fittings, use, churchyard design, boundary walls, materiality and setting. The conservation of all these elements is therefore to be given ‘great weight’ with any harm or loss requiring ‘clear and convincing justification’ (Para 132 NPPF).
8. The proposed removal of a number of the oldest Listed gravestones within the churchyard, the widening (part demolition) of the Listed boundary wall at the principal entrance and the covering of a considerable section of the churchyard would result in substantial material harm to the collective heritage asset, as well as the loss of the close spatial and historic relationship between the Church and its designed setting.
9. In addition, the proposed works would have a substantially negative impact upon the designed setting of the main body of the church. While it is noted that the proposed location of the car park is designed to have the minimum possible impact upon the setting of the church (namely through the avoidance of the views and approach from Halifax Road), the widening of the gateposts, covering of original flagstones on approach, loss of gravestones, partial covering of burial ground and presence of cars within this designed landscape will have a substantially negative effect on the setting of the Church of St John
10. As a result, the proposed works constitute significant harm to the established significance of the designated heritage asset both in terms of material impact and impact upon its setting. With regard to such ‘substantial harm’, the NPPF states;
“Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities 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”
11. The application states that the Church of St John has been empty since 2010 and feedback from potential buyers indicated that the presence of an on-site car park would facilitate a sale. It also states that agent correspondence with the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) dismissed the usable site on the northern end of Vicarage Drive due to high asking price.
12. While there is some indication that an on-site car park would facilitate a sale, there does not appear to be a buyer who has committed to a purchase principally on the basis of an on-site car park. Thus, there is no guarantee that the proposed harmful works to the significance of this designated heritage assets, would facilitate the sale of the site. In addition to this, proposed uses of the church are unknown, and resultantly there is no indication of how many car parking spaces would be necessary to facilitate a sale. The application states that feedback from Agents suggests the desire to significantly increase the area of the car park. Given the recent interments immediately to the north of the proposed car park, as well as further harm to the heritage asset, extension would not be acceptable.
13. The proposed works seek to achieve benefits to the private sector to increase the marketability of the site. While this poses some benefits to the public in terms potentially preventing the deterioration of the building (which may affect the visual amenity of the surrounding area), this is not definitive and does not constitute a ‘substantial’ public benefit. In addition, consultation responses demonstrate that the proposed development will have a negative impact upon the privacy, safety, visual amenity of the surrounding residences, as well as causing light and noise pollution. The harm caused by the proposed development is therefore not outweighed by the public benefit and is not deemed acceptable under the National Planning Policy Framework.
14. As a result of the established harm upon the significance of the heritage asset and lack of clear and convincing justification for this harm, the proposed works are deemed to contravene Policies G/BE/9, BE/12, BE/14, BE/15 and G/BE/2 of the Rochdale UDP and relevant sections of the NPPF.
Summary
15. The application relates to the site of the Grade II listed Church of St John the Baptist which is a designated heritage asset of considerable architectural and historic interest closely linked with its designed church yard and enclosing boundary wall. The proposal involves the widening of the Vicarage Road entrance, removal of original flagstones and gravestones in the south-west corner of the churchyard and covering over of this area for car parking provision. This would result in direct physical harm to the late 19 th century gravestones, the boundary wall and to the setting of the Grade II listed church. While it is acknowledged that there has been difficulty in selling the building, sufficient evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the detrimental works will result in the sale, conversion to use appropriate to the significance of the church and its and long-term conservation, nor would the proposed works provide substantial public benefit.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE
Reason for recommendation:
1 This application relates to the Grade II listed Church of St John the Baptist. Built in 1831-3 by notable architect Lewis Vulliamy, the Church of St John the Baptist is a well- designed Gothic church of significant architectural value. Built of ashlar stone, the church is of the traditional plan form, and it is defined by a distinctive boundary wall. The application seeks permission to form a 10 space car park which would lie to the south of the church building and it would adjoin the boundary with the residential property known as The Belfrey. To create the car park a number of gravestones would have to be removed and it would be necessary to demolish a section of the original boundary wall. The proposed car park and the removal of part of the original boundary wall would lead to substantial harm to the special architectural and historic interest of this Grade II listed building, a designated heritage asset. No clear and convincing justification for the harm to the heritage asset has been provided and there would be no substantial public benefits which would outweigh this harm. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies BE/12, BE/14, BE/15 and BE/2 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan and government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Report Author Christina Sinclair
Application Number: 12/56282/FUL Ward: Wardle And West Littleborough
Proposal: Installation of new control kiosk, pressure balancing column and additional outfall structure, proposed bank strengthening measures and the formation of new temporary and permanent vehicular access points to Smithy Bridge Road also involving the temporary diversion of the public right of way across the site.
Site Address: Land To West Of Smithy Bridge Road Rochdale
Applicant: United Utilities PLC
Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions
Delegation Scheme
Members have delegated powers to determine this application either way using reasonable planning grounds.
Site
This application relates to an area of land to the western side of Smithy Bridge Road and near to the River Roch. The application site is an open area of grassland that gently and evenly slopes down in level from north to south.
The immediate surrounding area of land is also mainly open grassland, although there are houses and gardens relatively close by along Yea Fold, (to the south), and South View Road, (to the north). Smithy Bridge Road borders the eastern boundary of the site.
A public right of way crosses the site from east to west, (ref: WarPp8). This path, (whose presence is clearly evident from a ‘desire line path across the land), joins Smithy Bridge close to the bus stop on that road. The land is separated from that road by an attractive, natural stone wall of a height of approximately 1m. Where the right of way joins the footway, there is vehicular access gate.
Description of Proposal
The proposal is to upgrade the existing waste water apparatus on this site. It is intended to retro-fit two powered screens on the existing CSO weir and to modify the existing spill pipe chamber to create another outlet. A new spill pipe is to be constructed adjacent to the existing spill pipe. Also proposed are the construction of a new flow diversion chamber, a storage tank with associated pipework, a discharge chamber and an additional outfall.
The only items that would stand above ground level would be:-
• a steel control kiosk, measuring 1m x 7.5m and having a height of 1.95m. The kiosk is to stand, (lengthways), alongside the existing stone boundary wall. Owing to the slight change in ground level between the site and the footway to Smithy Bridge Road, the top of the kiosk would marginally project above the coping of the stone wall by some 8cm; • a pressure-balancing column; this would have a diameter of between 350 and 250mm and a height of 3m above ground level; • an additional outfall structure; this would be almost identical in design, size and appearance to the existing outfall structure on the site. The new outfall would be positioned immediately to the west of the existing outfall and would require a slightly larger area of ‘cut-out’ from the existing northern river bank. The only features would project above ground level would be the top of the concrete/steel retaining wall structures on either side of the spillway and the top of the outfall/grille structure, with its 0.6m high safety rail. • A set of steps are also to be constructed on the southern side of the river bank, to allow future access to that side of the river bank from Yea Fold.
Also proposed as part of the application, is the formation of a new permanent vehicular means of access to the site from Smithy Bridge Road. This is to be positioned some 8m to the south of the bus stop. A short section of access road/turning head is to be constructed behind the stone boundary wall. That is to provide access to service the apparatus on, and beneath, the site in the future. When not in use, this access would be gated. A second temporary vehicular means of access, (for the duration of the construction works taking place on the site), is also to be formed at a point 24m to the north of the bus stop. When the project is completed, the gap in the stone boundary wall would be re-instated.
It will, as part of the proposed works, also be necessary to temporarily divert the public right of way across the site. It was originally intended to divert the path to a new route directly alongside the rear gardens of Nos.2-22 South View Road. However, in the light of both an objection that has been received from a neighbouring resident and also concerns raised by planning officers, (about the need to remove existing tree/bush planting and the possible greater risk to the security of the neighbours’ properties), the necessary temporary diversion route of the path is yet to be determined. In any case, the proposed temporary diversion of the right of way across the site will require authorisation under s.257 of the Town & Country Planning Act, which will be a separate process to this application.
Finally, it is intended to carry out further bank strengthening works along the southern side of the river for a further distance of 10m. That is to comprise the construction of new sheet piling in the bank, with the land being built up behind it and being appropriately landscaped.
It should be noted however, that the only details of the proposed works that require the benefit of planning permission are:-
• the installation of the control kiosk; • the installation of the pressure-balancing valve; • the formation of the temporary and permanent means of vehicular access to the site.
Relevant Planning Policy
National Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework
The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and creates a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision making this means:
• approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted (Para 14).
Although the NPPF supersedes government policy through Planning Policy Statements and guidance notes, the advice given through circulars and official publications remains valid and Government endorsed pending a review of the same.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
Part 1 Policies:-
G/CF/1 Community facilities and public services G/G/1 Greenspace G/RE/1 Countryside and the rural economy G/A/1 Accessibility G/BE/1 Design quality G/EM/1 Environmental protection and pollution control G/NE/1 Nature conservation
Part 2 Policies:-
D/4 Control of development within the greenbelt - General D/10 Protected open space CF/7 Water and waste infrastructure G/8 Greenspace corridors RE/6 Recreational rights of way A/9 New development – access for general traffic BE/2 Design criteria for new development EM/3 Noise and new development EM/7 Development and flood risk NE/3 Biodiversity and development
Relevant Planning History
None relevant to this proposal.
Consultation Responses
Highways & Engineering:-
No objections.
Chief Environmental Health Officer:-
No objections, subject to an appropriate planning condition to control noise levels arising from the use of construction equipment operated by the contractors during the construction period.
Environment Agency:-
No objections, subject to the imposition of a planning condition to secure that the future management of the existing and proposed new landscaping along the river bank is carried out in accordance with best ecological practice.
Representations
The nearest neighbouring properties along South View Road and Yea Fold were notified of the application, the application was advertised in the press as a development likely to affect a right of way and a site notice was posted. Five objections have been received from nearby properties on South View Road and Yea Fold. The objections are summarised below followed by the Officer response:-
• The proposed new culvert would be clearly visible from No.6 Yea Fold and would be an ugly feature, which would detract from local visual amenity. It is therefore suggested that the willow stepping on the southern bank of the river be extended by a further 20 metres or so in a westerly direction along the river bank to achieve a better screening effect.
Officer response:-
There is already an existing outfall structure in this location and this is almost the same design, size and appearance to the additional one now being proposed. It is not considered that the proposed additional outfall structure would have an unacceptable impact upon the visual amenities of this vicinity. The suggestion about carrying out extra landscaping along the bank has been made to the applicants although it is not deemed necessary to grant planning permission.
• The project is likely to take between 12-18 months to complete. During this time there will be high noise levels from the use of the contractor’s heavy machinery. There will also be ugly perimeter security fencing out up around the site. Personnel working on the site may have unauthorised access to the nearest property of No.4 Yea Fold. It is therefore requested that the applicants make some kind of financial compensation to the local residents most affected.
Officer response:-
It would not be possible to secure the payment of any kind of compensation through the planning process.
It is not considered that the implementation of this construction project would have an unacceptable impact upon local residential amenity, subject to appropriate planning conditions being imposed to control the hours of working on the site and the noise levels arising.
• The proposal is likely to give rise to an invasion of privacy of the nearest homes and gardens during the construction period. There is also the possible danger of noise, fumes, excess brightness from the external illumination of the site and other general disturbance.
Officer response:-
There may be some very limited impact upon the privacy of the people using the rear garden of the nearest home, No.4 Yea Fold.
It should be noted however, that the garden to that property has since been enlarged in size, without the benefit of planning permission, closer to the river. The garden is now larger than that originally approved for this property in 1999, (reference: D36283). There was supposed to be an 8m wide access strip left between the boundary fence to No.4 Yea Fold and the top of the river bank. That access strip was a requirement of the Environment Agency, in order to allow for future maintenance of the river bank. The current, (unauthorised), position of the garden fence is now within a metre or so of the top of the river bank. This matter is currently under investigation by the Council’s enforcement team.
It is not considered that there is any justification for refusing this application on noise/disturbance or privacy invasion grounds. The external illumination of the site can be controlled by an appropriate planning condition.
• The site is in the green belt and no special circumstances have been demonstrated for this proposal. It would have a harmful impact on the local landscape and harm the appearance and openness of the vicinity. It might also set a precedent for further development of this area of land in the future.
Officer response:-
The site is not within the Green Belt, rather it is an area of protected open space, subject to UDP policy D/10. However, the effect in land use policy terms is very similar. The proposal is not considered to represent a departure from this policy however, for reasons that will be explained in more detail later in the report.
It is not considered that the appearance of any of the proposed works would have a significant adverse impact upon local visual amenity, especially as only the control kiosk, pressure-balancing column and additional outfall structure would be above ground.
• The proposed additional landscaping works along the southern bank of the river, (near to No.4 Yea Fold), may cause problems for its future maintenance. It is anticipated that a gap of at least 1.5m would be necessary between the trees and the boundary fence to No.4 Yea Fold, in order to allow for the passage and use of the relevant machinery etc.
Officer response:-
The precise details of the proposed landscape planting alongside the river bank have not yet been finalised by the applicants but this can be addressed by an appropriate planning condition.
It should be remembered however, that the rear garden fence to No.4 Yea Fold is not actually in its authorised position, (according to the original planning permission for that house).
Insofar as the point made by the residents of No.4 Yea Fold about future access to maintain the landscaping is concerned, this is a matter between the residents and the Environment Agency/United Utilities.
• The proposed temporary diversion of the public right of way would run very close to the rear of the properties on South View. That would be very intrusive and would threaten the privacy of those properties. United Utilities originally advised the neighbouring residents that the work would take between 6-8 months to complete. The actual planning application now states that the works would take between 12- 18 months and the whole project would therefore have a much greater impact upon the neighbours. As the works will be undertaken throughout the summer, the use of neighbour’s gardens would be especially affected through noise, possible dust and privacy invasion.
Officer response:-
The originally proposed temporary diversion of the public right of way across the site has been amended. The actual route of the temporary path diversion is yet to be agreed and will need to be approved following any grant of planning permission but before any works commence on the site. The need to temporarily divert the right of way is dealt with by one of the recommended planning conditions.
Analysis
Principle
The site lies within an area of protected open land that lies outside the defined urban area but is not within the Green Belt. Nonetheless, UDP policy D/10 requires a very similar approach to the very careful control over built-development or other development that might adversely affect either the openness or the visual qualities of the local area.
In this case, it is considered however, there are sufficient grounds to justify the approval of this proposal. This is because it is a necessary form of development to improve the local public waste water infrastructure up to modern-day standards. It is considered that this significant public benefit greatly outweighs any very minor impact upon the openness of this area of protected open land.
The only above-ground development proposed on the site is the control kiosk, a pressure- balancing column and the additional outfall structure next to the river bank. Each of these pieces of apparatus is considered to be relatively modest in size. The control kiosk would be constructed alongside the stone boundary wall next to the footway of Smithy Bridge Road. It would only marginally project above the top of that wall and it is not considered that it would be especially noticeable from people passing along the road.
The new outfall will be set down into the river bank and will therefore have very little, (if any), impact upon the openness of the area.
Residential Amenity
The nearest homes to the site are on Yea Fold, (approximately 12m away to the south, at the closest point), and on South View, (approximately 200m away to the north from the proposed control kiosk).
It is not considered that the proposed control kiosk, the pressure-balancing column or the small vehicular access road/turning area within the site would have any adverse impact upon the amenities of these neighbouring residents. The new additional outfall, (which does not actually require planning permission), is not considered likely to harm the neighbours’ amenities.
Design and Street Scene
The proposed control kiosk and pressure-balancing column would stand close to the road but these structures are not considered likely to have any significant impact upon the ‘street scene’ of this section of the road. The control kiosk would be largely concealed from the road by the presence of the existing stone wall.
The pressure-balancing column, which would have a diameter of between 250 and 350mm and a height of 3m above ground level, is also not considered likely to have any harmful effect on local visual amenity at this point on Smithy Bridge Road.
Access, Highways and Car Parking
There are no objections to the proposal from the Council’s highway engineers.
The proposed temporary diversion of the public right of way across the site
The proposal will require a temporary diversion of the public right of way across the site. Given that there is a distance of 30m from the edge of the application site to the rear gardens of dwellings on South View Road, there is adequate space to secure an appropriate diversion of the existing Public Right of Way which would not be directly along their rear garden boundaries.
It should be noted that there is currently an area of existing tree and hedgerow planting along a proportion of the neighbours’ rear boundaries here, which would need to be partially ‘grubbed up’ if the diverted Public Right of Way abutted the neighbours gardens. That would have various disadvantages: • The loss of the planting would tend to diminish local visual amenity; • It would remove the current partial screening effect between some of the neighbours’ properties and the application site; and • It might increase the risk to the security of the neighbours’ properties here, (the general public would be encouraged to walk directly alongside the neighbours’ rear boundary fences.
A condition has been recommended to secure an appropriate route for the Public Right of Way which would need to be agreed prior to works commencing on site. Furthermore, the merits of the necessary temporary diversion proposal, (along whatever actual route chosen), will be considered, when the applicants submit their application for a diversion order under s.257 of the Town & Country Planning Act.
Summary
The proposed works are an essential element of water infrastructure improvements, and the above grounds items of equipment would have a very limited impact upon the openness of this area.
Recommendations
GRANT subject to the following conditions:-
1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 This permission relates to the following plans:-
Site location plan, dwng. No.ROCO122/80022001/00/97/1001 Revision C Proposed site layout, dwng. No.ROCO122/80022001/00/97/1002 Revision E Dwng. No. ROCO122/80022001/00/97/1003 Revision B Dwng. No. ROCO122/80022001/00/97/1006 Revision D Dwng. No. ROCO122/80022001/00/97/1008 Revision B Dwng. No. ROCO122/80022001/00/97/1009 Revision A
and the development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.
Reason: For the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan as listed below on this decision notice.
3 No external lighting shall be installed on the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Details of any such lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to its installation. The approved details shall thereafter be fully implemented.
Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity and to prevent nuisance arising in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
4 The working hours for the construction period of the development shall be confined to between 08:00 hours and 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and between 08:00 hours and 12:00 hours on Saturdays, unless the local planning authority first agrees to an alternative in writing.
Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenities of the occupiers of the nearest neighbouring residential properties, in accordance with policy EM/3 - noise and new development, of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.
5 Within 6 months of the commencement of development, a landscaping scheme and management plan for the area of land within the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in conjunction with the Environment Agency. That landscaping scheme/management plan shall include the following elements:
- details of the extent and type of the new and replacement tree and shrub planting along the river bank, including the planting schedule, which should be based on the use of locally native species; - details of the extent of the proposed maintenance regimes and maintenance responsibilities for a period of five years following the date of this permission;
The duly approved planting scheme shall be implemented within 18 months following the date of this decision unless the local planning authority first agrees to an alternative time scale in writing.
Reason: To ensure the protection of wildlife and its supporting habitat along this section of the River Roch and also to secure opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site, in accordance with the advice and guidance of UDP policies NE/3 and NE/4.
6 Noise generated from the operation of the apparatus on the site, (excluding that generated by contractors during the construction period), shall not exceed 40 dBA, expressed as a 15 minute Leq, as measured at the boundary of the curtilage of the noise sensitive properties of Nos.2-24 South View Road and Nos.2,4,6 & 8 Yea Fold.
Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenities of the occupiers of these nearby dwellings, in accordance with policy EM/3 - noise and new development, of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.
7 This permission shall not imply any approval for the precise route of any proposed temporary diverted route of the right of way, (reference: WarPp8), which currently runs across the site.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, in the interests of the visual amenities of the vicinity and in the interests of the general security of neighbouring properties, in accordance with policies BE/2, A/3 and RE/6 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan
Reason for recommendation:
The proposal complies with the development plan and would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. It therefore comprises sustainable development and the Local Planning Authority worked proactively and positively to issue the decision without delay. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.
The proposed development represents the essential upgrade of an existing sewerage disposal infrastructure facility on this site. These are considered to constitute the very special circumstances necessary to allow new development within this Area of Protected Open Land. The proposed limited new above ground apparatus/structures would not have any materially greater impact upon the current openness of the site and is considered to be an appropriate form of development on Protected Open Land. It is considered that the proposal would satisfy each of the relevant policies of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, namely;
Policy D/10 – Protected Open Land Policy CF/7 – Water and waste infrastructure Policy RE/6 – Recreational rights of way Policy A/9 – Access for general traffic Policy BE/2 – Design criteria for new development Policy EM/3 – Noise and new development Policy EM/7 – Development and flood risk Policy EM/8 – Protection of surface and ground water Policy NE/3 – Biodiversity and development Policy NE/4 – Protected species Policy NE/8 – Development affecting trees, woodland and hedgerows
The proposal is not considered likely to have any adverse impacts upon the nearest residential properties and is considered to be acceptable in all other respects. The planning conditions imposed upon the planning permission will mitigate the impacts of the proposal and control the development on the site
Report Author Richard Butler
Application Number: 12/56235/FUL Ward: Littleborough Lakeside
Proposal: Installation of a single micro scale wind turbine (14.97m to hub, 5.6m diameter blades)
Site Address: 1 Near Hey Head Farm Calderbrook Road Littleborough Lancashire OL15 9NS
Applicant: Mr Roy Turner
Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions
Delegation Scheme
Members have delegated powers to refuse this application if they wish. If, however, the Committee are minded to approve the scheme then the application will need to be referred to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee for determination as the proposal does not accord with the development plan, (the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan).
Site
The application relates to land within the ownership of No.1 Near Hey Head Farm, off Calderbrook Road, Littleborough. The site is near to the join of two stone field boundary walls and lies some 100m away, to the north-west, from the dwelling house of No.1 Near Hey Head Farm and also 35m to the north of Hey Head Lane.
The land here slopes up, (to the north-east), towards the top of Blackbrow Hill.
The site is within the open countryside and the Green Belt and comprises agricultural, (grazing) land, with scattered dwellings and farm buildings.
Description of Proposal
The application seeks consent to install a wind turbine on the site to serve the applicant’s nearby dwelling of No.1 Near Hey Head Farm. The turbine would be 14.97m to the hub and would have three blades of a diameter of 5.6m. The overall height to the top of the blade tip would be 17.8m above ground level. The turbine would comprise a tapered, free-standing steel tower, supported by three, (tripod), helical piles, each of a depth of 4m, part of which will be excavated into the ground.
Relevant Planning Policy
National Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework
The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF replaces 44 documents including Planning Policy Statements; Planning Policy Guidance; Minerals Policy Statements; Minerals Policy Guidance; Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations; and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The NPPF will be referred to as appropriate in the report.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt – General
G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/2 Countryside Around Towns RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside
G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development
G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development
G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/14 Wind Power Developments EM/16 Sustainable Energy Sources
G/NE/1 Nature conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species NE/6 Landscape Protection and Enhancement
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Energy and New Development (SPD) Biodiversity and Development (SPD)
The “Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Developments in the South Pennines” produced by Julie Martin Associates, is also relevant.
The draft guidance document “Wind Turbines up to 60m high in the South and West Pennines – Landscape guidance and training, prepared by Julie Martin Associates, is also relevant
Relevant Planning History
None relevant on this site.
It should be noted however, that there currently three other, identical proposals for single wind turbines, (of the same type/height), on other nearby sites. These comprise:-
Application 12-56238 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the north of Hey Head Lane (to serve No.2 Hey Head Farm).
Application 12-56249 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the south of Hey Head Lane, (to serve Far Hey Head Farm).
Application 12-56239 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the south of Hey Head Lane, (to serve No.3 Near Hey Head Farm).
These three other applications are also all for determination on this same Committee agenda.
Consultation Responses
Highways & Engineering:-
No objections
Chief Environmental Health Officer :-
No objections, subject to the imposition of suitable planning condition to control noise levels generated by the operation of the turbine.
Greater Manchester Ecological Unit:-
No objections, subject to the imposition of a suitable condition to ensure that the turbine is not installed during the bird breeding season, (March to July inclusive).
NATS Safeguarding:-
There are no technical radar air traffic control safeguarding objections.
Manchester Airport:-
No objections.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Services :-
The proposal is not considered likely to threaten the known or suspected archaeological heritage in this area.
Representations
The neighbouring properties were notified of the application, a site notice was posted and the application was advertised in the press as a departure from the development plan.
Objections have been received from the occupiers of “Grimes Farm”, off Calderbrook Road, Higher Calderbrook, which is based on the following summarised grounds:-
Visual intrusion and loss of visual amenity; the proposed four turbines in this close vicinity would be too much and two of them would be in direct view of Grimes Farm
Possible noise problems
Analysis
The principle of the development with respect to Green Belt policy
1. The site falls within an area of Green Belt, as defined on the Rochdale UDP Proposals Map. The five purposes of including land in the Green Belt are outlined in paragraph 80 of the NPPF as follows: • to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
2. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF reflects UDP policy D/4 and stipulates that local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt unless the development falls within one of the following categories: • buildings for agriculture and forestry; • provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; • the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; • the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; • limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or • limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
3. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF states that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. These include: • mineral extraction; • engineering operations; • local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location; • the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and • development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.
4. The proposal does not fall within any of the categories of appropriate development in the Green Belt as outlined in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF and, therefore, the principle of development is inappropriate. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that: • As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
5. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that: • When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
6. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, the principle of development is not acceptable. In accordance with paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF, development which is not acceptable in principle within the Green Belt should only be allowed in very special circumstances. As a result, the main issue in this case is whether there are any material considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm the development would cause to the openness of the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, thereby justifying it on the basis of very special circumstances.
However, Government policy attaches significant importance to the need to address climate change and the role that the exploitation of renewable energy technologies can make in that regard. This is reflected by the National Planning Policy Framework, section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.
Siting, scale, design, impact on landscape, Green Belt and very special circumstances:
7. Paragraph 91 of 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 [emphasis added].
8. Criterion (b) of UDP policy D/4 states that, in addition to falling within a category of appropriate development in the Green Belt, proposals will only be permitted where they would not prejudice, by reason of their scale, siting or design, the primary purposes and visual amenity of the Green Belt.
9. Paragraph 93 of the NPPF identifies that “planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”
10. Paragraph 97 of the NPPF states that 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. They should: • have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources; • 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; • consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources; and • identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co- locating potential heat customers and suppliers.
11. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF stipulates that, when determining planning applications for wind turbines or renewable energy projects, local planning authorities should: • not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and • approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
12. UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where there is no unacceptable intrusion in the landscape, having regard to the cumulative impact and intervisibility of such developments whether within Rochdale or in neighbouring local authority areas, in accordance with 10 criteria. Of these, criteria (a), (b), (f), (g) and (i) are relevant to the development’s landscape impact as follows: • The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the visual character and quality of the landscape or materially detract from the physical record of the historic and cultural evolution of the landscape. Any proposal in conflict with this criterion will need to demonstrate that other locations are not suitable; • Any proposal must demonstrate the best use of topography, siting, design and colour to minimise the visual impact of the proposal. Any ancillary structures and access roads should employ sensitive design and use of local materials to respect the character and appearance of its setting; • Full consideration of the impact of any proposal including construction, vehicular access, visual and physical impacts and the effect on local residential amenity will be sought by the Council through a detailed statement of the environmental effects, to be submitted preferably at the time of application.
13. UDP policy EM/16 indicates that proposals for the development of sustainable energy installations will be permitted where they have no unacceptable adverse impacts on local amenity or environmental quality and are shown to make an appropriate contribution to local or regional energy needs. In considering proposals in terms of their siting, design and operation, particular attention will be given to the following (criteria (a), (b) and (d)): • The effect on the amenity of the surrounding area; • The effect on buildings and areas of historic and archaeological importance and their setting and character; • The effect on landscape character and quality;
14. In addition, criteria (a) and (c) of UDP policy BE/2 require proposals to demonstrate good design by: • Ensuring that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure; • Taking opportunities to retain, enhance or create views, landmarks and other townscape features which make a material contribution to the character of the area and reveal such features to public view.
15. This proposal is one of a total of four currently proposed wind turbines in this vicinity. The 15m height of each turbine is comparatively modest and they are classed as ‘very small turbines’. In comparison, turbines between 25m and 60m height are normally classed as ‘small commercial turbines’ and turbines in excess of 60m, (currently up to a height of 130m), are classified as ‘large scale commercial turbines’. Very small turbines, of the height proposed in this case, are up to about twice the height of a normal two-storey dwelling. They are often around the same height as a mature ‘forest tree’ and are a similar height/size to small pylons and communications masts.
16. The relevant advice in the draft guidance document “Wind Turbines up to 60m high in the South and West Pennines – Landscape guidance and training, is ( in summary) as follows:-
Very small turbines may fit best on lower ground and where seen mainly against a backdrop of land. They also may fit best in settled landscapes, near to the buildings they are intended to serve, (so there is a ‘functional relationship); Very small turbines are best suited to landscapes comprising enclosed uplands and moorland fringes; Best sites are well away from larger turbines, ideally avoiding disrupting field patterns and avoiding conflict with horizontal form; Turbines should be of a similar height and design, if set in close proximity to one another. Turbine colour should match the main, (or most important), backdrop. Clustering turbines can have beneficial effects, in reducing their impact on the wider landscape.
17. In the case of these four proposals, the landscape comprises enclosed upland fields on the fringe of higher moorland. The four turbines would be clustered relatively close together, (within an area measuring approximately 0.4 ha), and they would also relate fairly closely to the applicant’s dwelling and the other associated agricultural buildings in this vicinity. The turbines would therefore have a relatively good functional relationship with the buildings here; (i.e. the turbines would not stand out as ‘odd’, individual features, with no relationship with their surrounding landscape). When viewed from certain viewpoints, (most particularly when standing close to the turbines from the south), the turbines would generally be seen against the sky. However, because the land generally rises up in level to the north, (as it reaches up to Crook Hill/Shore Moor), the turbines would normally tend to be viewed against a backdrop of rising land. This would be especially true for more distant views of the turbines from Littleborough and from elsewhere to the south.
18. It must be remembered that Government policy attaches significant importance to the need to address climate change and the role that the exploitation of renewable energy technologies can make in that regard. This has long been reflected by the previous policy guidance and is now reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework, section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Unless there are particularly strong or convincing reasons to the contrary, there is therefore a very strong presumption to allowing wind turbines.
19 In summary, the proposal would represent a sustainable form of renewable energy generation, which would help to contribute towards regional and national targets for renewable energy generation for 2020. This is considered to represent the very special circumstances for allowing this otherwise inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt.
20 As stated above, the proposed four turbines would make a very small, but still important, contribution towards renewable energy generation. Therefore, the environmental and economic benefits of the proposals weigh substantially in favour of the development. However, in order to determine the presence of very special circumstances, these benefits must be weighted against the harm the development would cause to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the character of the surrounding landscape.
Impact on surrounding uses:
21. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF stipulates that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.
22. Criterion (c) of UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where the proposal creates no unacceptable amenity or noise problems for local residents.
23. In addition, criterion (a) of UDP policy EM/3 states that development should not be permitted where it would lead to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to nearby existing or future occupants of buildings, or users of open space.
24. The surrounding landscape is generally open and includes only individual or small clusters of scattered dwellings. In the immediate vicinity of all four proposed turbines, most of the closest dwellings belong to the applicants themselves.
25. The visual impacts of the turbines would vary according to separation distances, the existing buildings, the existing tree cover and the orientation of surrounding properties. It is not considered however, that the installation would appear so visually imposing as to introduce an unacceptably oppressive feature in the outlook of the occupiers of surrounding dwellings, particularly when seen in the expansive setting of the surrounding landscape.
26. There is a need to ensure that the operation of the turbines would each not adversely affect the normal living conditions of the nearest neighbouring residents, particularly those not ‘economically related’ to the turbines. These nearest un-related properties include:-
Grimes Farm Far Hey Head Cottage No.2 Far Hey Head Farm Handle Hey Hey Bottom Farm
The Council’s environmental health team have raised no objections to the proposals on the grounds of any noise pollution however.
Impact on recreation and the rural economy:
27. UDP policy RE/5 states that development proposals which protect, improve and extend access to the countryside on foot, cycle or horseback will be permitted. Proposals should, wherever possible, improve opportunities for access by maintaining, improving and extending the existing rights of way network.
28. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should aim to identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
29. Criterion (j) of UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where “the proposal would not cause serious harm to the value of the surrounding area for quiet relaxation and recreation”.
30. There are a number of public rights of way near to the site and from which all four turbines would be clearly visible, often over quite short intervening distances.
31. The route of the Mary Towneley Loop, (MTL), runs relatively close by to the proposed turbines. The MTL forms part of the Pennine Bridleway, which is a 205 mile-long National Trail for use by walkers, cyclists and horse riders, (running roughly parallel with the Pennine Way, national walking trail). The MLT runs roughly from east to west past the proposed four turbines, but to the north of them, over an intervening distance of between approximately 170 and 240m. The MLT runs along a similar ground level as the sites of the proposed four turbines, but for part of its length it would be screened from the proposed turbines by the peak of Blackbrow Hill, which occupies much of the intervening space. The combination of this intervening distance and the intervening topography means that none of the proposed four turbines would be especially prominent from users of the MLT.
32. The turbines would be still visible of course from the other surrounding recreational rights of way. However, by virtue of their siting, their relatively low height and also their relationship with the nearest buildings and trees, it is not considered that they would be likely to deter the use of any of these nearby recreational routes. Although the turbines are unlikely to enhance the experience of recreational activities in the countryside, it is not considered that, on balance, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the effects of the turbines would be so harmful as to detract from the enjoyment of the countryside – having particular regard to its impact on quiet relaxation and recreation. In these circumstances, it is considered that the development would not be in conflict with the objectives of UDP policies RE/2, RE/5, EM/14 and the requirements of the NPPF.
Impact on ecology:
33. None of the four turbine sites fall within or adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest or Special Area of Conservation.
34. UDP policy EM/14 (e) states that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where: 1. The proposal, by virtue of its siting or operation, would not adversely affect areas of ecological value or result in danger to wildlife or loss of important habitats.
35. UDP policy EM/16 indicates that proposals for the development of sustainable energy installations will be permitted where they have no unacceptable adverse impacts on local amenity or environmental quality and are shown to make an appropriate contribution to local or regional energy needs. Criterion (e) of the policy states that particular attention will be given to “[their] effect on nature conservation interest”.
36. The proposed turbines would each be sited on the edges of open, agricultural fields, which are presently used by grazing farm animals. The foundations of the wind turbines would occupy a modest footprint that would encroach upon only a very small area of land. When considered in isolation, the sites and their immediately adjoining areas, (having particular regard to a lack of specific features to encourage biodiversity), have little value in terms of enhancing biodiversity in the area.
37. The Greater Manchester Ecological Unit (GMEU) has not raised any objection to the application on nature conservation grounds, subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure that the turbine is not installed during the bird breeding season. The proposed development would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies NE/3, NE/4, EM/14, EM/16 and advice contained within the NPPF.
Access to the site:
38. Access to the site to install the turbine and for its subsequent future maintenance etc would be achievable from Calderbrook Road by using the existing means of vehicular to Near Hey Head Farm and then across a relatively short distance across the field to reach the site of the proposed turbine.
The cumulative effects of all four proposals:
39. Because these four proposals are all sited so close to one another, they should all be considered together and be determined at the same time.
40. It is not considered that the approval of all four applications would have an unacceptable cumulative impact upon local visual amenity or the local, or even wider, landscape value. The visual impact of each individual turbine on its own, and taken together with the other three being proposed, would inevitably be fairly significant, when viewed over a short distance. They would be taller structures than the nearest vertical features of the applicants’ homes and associated buildings and the nearest trees.
41. However, when viewed over much longer distances, particularly from the generally lower ground from the south and south-east and south-west, all four turbines would be relatively small features seen against the rising higher ground to the north. The turbines would also be clustered together and would share a close functional relationship with the nearby buildings.
Summary:
43 The application relates to a site near to Far Hey Head Farm, located in an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Development which is inappropriate in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful to openness and should only be allowed in very special circumstances.
44 The contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development) are considered to constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness.
45 Whilst the turbine would be readily visible in the landscape by virtue of its height and its fairly elevated hillside location, it is not considered that the location or design of the turbine would, either individually or cumulatively, (with the other three currently proposed nearby turbines), introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature that would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the surrounding landscape. The proposed turbine would share a satisfactory functional relationship with the nearest buildings. It has also been adequately demonstrated that the development would not have any undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of scale, siting, height, noise generation or any other nuisance.
46 The development would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way and it would not unacceptably detract from the quiet relaxation and enjoyment of the countryside. Moreover, the turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby. Satisfactory arrangements for vehicle access to and from the site would also be made as part of the scheme.
47 In all of these circumstances, it is not considered that there are any sustainable reasons to refuse this application.
Recommendations
GRANT subject to the following conditions:-
1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 This permission relates to the following plans:-
Area plan, scale 1:10000, dwng No.C1261 Site location plan, scale 1:2500, dwng No.C1261 Block plan A3, scale 1:500, dwng No. C1261 Dwng No. ATC10070-1000_
and the development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.
For the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan as listed below on this decision notice.
3 At the reasonable request of, and following a complaint to, the Local Planning Authority, the operator of the development shall, at their own expense, measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine following the procedures described in 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97' published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. The level of noise emissions from the turbine shall not exceed 35 dBA (measured as Leq 15 minutes) at wind speeds of 8 metres per second or less at the curtilage boundary of any noise sensitive premises.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to the occupiers of surrounding properties in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework
4 No development shall take place until details of the route and construction methodology for any cabling to be laid above ground to, from and between pieces of equipment (taking account of any hedges and trees within the landscape) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The above ground cabling shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the duly approved details before the wind turbine hereby approved is first brought into use.
Reason: In order to preserve the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and to protect areas of surrounding woodland and their habitat value in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14, NE/3 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
5 No development shall take place until details of the design of the turbine and any ancillary apparatus have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the materials, finish and colour treatment of the turbine and all associated apparatus. The turbine and ancillary apparatus shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the duly approved details, and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In order to minimise the development’s visual impact on the surrounding landscape in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/14, BE/2, D/4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
6 The wind turbine and all associated appurtenances hereby approved shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its former agricultural use on or before the expiration of 20 years from the date of this permission in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The restoration scheme shall be submitted not later than 12 months prior to the expiry of the 20 year period and the duly approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and all associated appurtenances.
Reason: The proposed wind turbine has a limited life expectancy and will need to be decommissioned at the end of this period of use. The site falls within the Green Belt and is currently in agricultural use. Following the removal of the turbine, the land should be restored to its previous agricultural use in the interests of the visual amenity, openness and purposes of including land in the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
7 If the turbine hereby permitted fails to produce electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months, the turbine and any associated appurtenances shall be removed from the site within a period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period and the land restored to its former agricultural use in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved restoration scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and any associated appurtenances.
Reason: The wind turbine’s function is to generate renewable energy which would contribute to government targets by transferring a proportion of this energy to the National Grid. The benefits arising from this function are considered to constitute the very special circumstances which justify the turbine’s erection in the Green Belt. If the turbine ceases to fulfil this function it will no longer be fit for purpose and these very special circumstances will not exist. In such an instance, the land should be restored to its former state in the interests of preserving the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy D/4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
8 No development shall take place until details of a route for use by construction and carriage vehicles (including during the delivery of the wind turbine) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved route shall thereafter be adhered to for the duration of the development unless an alternative has first been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to ensure an appropriate means of access for vehicle traffic associated with the transportation and installation of the turbine in the interests of highway safety in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies A/9 and EM/14.
9 No construction work shall be carried out, and no materials shall be delivered to the site, other than between the hours of 07.30 and 19.00 Monday to Friday and between 07.30 and 14.00 on Saturdays, and no such operations shall take place at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties and to minimise the potential for noise and disturbance at unsocial hours in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason for recommendation:
The Local Planning Authority worked positively and proactively with the applicant to identify various solutions during the application process to ensure that the proposal comprised sustainable development and would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area and would accord with the development plan. These were incorporated into the scheme and/or have been secured by planning condition. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.
The application relates to a site located in an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Development which is inappropriate in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful to openness and should only be allowed in very special circumstances. The contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this, (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development), are considered to constitute very special circumstances, which clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. Whilst readily visible in the landscape by virtue of its height and its elevated hillside location, the siting and design of the turbine would ensure that the development would not, either individually or cumulatively, introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature which would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the surrounding landscape (including the physical record of its historic and cultural evolution).
The turbine would achieve a satisfactory functional relationship with the nearest buildings and it has been adequately demonstrated that the development would not have any undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of scale, siting, height, noise generation or any other nuisance. The development would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way and would not detract unacceptably from the quiet relaxation and enjoyment of the countryside. Furthermore, the installation of the turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby.
The proposed development is therefore in compliance with the provisions of the following relevant policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, its associated Supplementary Planning Guidance or Documents and national planning policy:
G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt – General
G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/2 Countryside Around Towns RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside
G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development - Access for General Traffic
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development
G/BE/9 Conservation of the Built Heritage BE/10 Development Affecting Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments
G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development
G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/14 Wind Power Developments EM/16 Sustainable Energy Sources
G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species NE/6 Landscape Protection and Enhancement
Energy and New Development (SPD) Biodiversity and Development (SPD)
National Planning Policy Framework
In summary, the reasons for granting the permission are that Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council considers that the development is in accordance with relevant national and local planning policies and guidance and that there are no material planning considerations that indicate that an alternative decision should be reached. The planning conditions imposed would ensure that any material harm that may result from the proposed development.
Report Author Richard Butler
Application Number: 12/56238/FUL Ward: Littleborough Lakeside
Proposal: Installation of a single micro scale wind turbine (14.97m to hub, 5.6m diameter blades)
Site Address: 2 Near Hey Head Farm Calderbrook Road Littleborough Lancashire OL15 9NS
Applicant: Mr David Keogh
Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions
Delegation Scheme
Members have delegated powers to refuse this application if they wish. If, however, the Committee are minded to approve the scheme then the application will need to be referred to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee for determination as the proposal does not accord with the development plan, (the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan).
Site
The application relates to land within the ownership of No.2 Near Hey Head Farm, off Calderbrook Road, Littleborough. The site is immediately adjacent to a stone field boundary wall and lies some 100m away, to the north-east, from the dwelling house of No.2 Near Hey Head Farm and also 80m away to the north, of Hey Head Lane.
The land here slopes up quite steeply towards the top of Blackbrow Hill.
The site is within the open countryside and the Green Belt and comprises agricultural, (grazing) land, with scattered dwellings and farm buildings.
Description of Proposal
The application seeks consent to install a wind turbine on the site to serve the applicant’s nearby dwelling of No.2 Near Hey Head Farm. The turbine is to be 14.97m to the hub and is to have three blades of a diameter of 5.6m. The overall height to top of blade tip would therefore be 17.8m above ground level. The turbine is to comprise a tapered, free-standing steel tower, supported by three, (tripod), helical piles, each of a depth of 4m, part of which will be excavated into the ground.
Relevant Planning Policy
National Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework
The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF replaces 44 documents including Planning Policy Statements; Planning Policy Guidance; Minerals Policy Statements; Minerals Policy Guidance; Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations; and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The NPPF will be referred to as appropriate in the report.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt – General
G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/2 Countryside Around Towns RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside
G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development
G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development
G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/14 Wind Power Developments EM/16 Sustainable Energy Sources
G/NE/1 Nature conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species NE/6 Landscape Protection and Enhancement
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Energy and New Development (SPD) Biodiversity and Development (SPD)
The “Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Developments in the South Pennines” produced by Julie Martin Associates, is also relevant.
The draft guidance document “Wind Turbines up to 60m high in the South and West Pennines – Landscape guidance and training, prepared by Julie Martin Associates, is also relevant
Relevant Planning History
None relevant on this site.
It should be noted however, that there currently three other, identical proposals for single wind turbines, (of the same type/height), on other nearby sites. These comprise:-
Application 12-56239 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the south of Hey Head Lane (to serve No.3 Hey Head Farm).
Application 12-56249 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the south of Hey Head Lane, (to serve Far Hey Head Farm).
Application 12-56235 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the north of Hey Head Lane, (to serve No.1 Near Hey Head Farm).
These three other applications are also all for determination on this same Committee agenda.
Consultation Responses
Highways & Engineering:-
No objections
Chief Environmental Health Officer :-
No objections, subject to the imposition of suitable planning condition to control noise levels generated by the operation of the turbine.
Greater Manchester Ecological Unit:-
No objections, subject to the imposition of a suitable condition to ensure that the turbine is not installed during the bird breeding season, (March to July inclusive).
NATS Safeguarding:-
There are no technical radar air traffic control safeguarding objections.
Manchester Airport:-
No objections.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Services :-
The proposal is not considered likely to threaten the known or suspected archaeological heritage in this area.
Representations
The neighbouring properties were notified of the application, a site notice was posted and the application was advertised in the press as a departure from the development plan.
Objections have been received from the occupiers of “Grimes Farm”, off Calderbrook Road, Higher Calderbrook, which is based on the following summarised grounds:-
Visual intrusion and loss of visual amenity; the proposed four turbines in this close vicinity would be too much and two of them would be in direct view of Grimes Farm
Possible noise problems
Analysis
The principle of the development with respect to Green Belt policy
15. The site falls within an area of Green Belt, as defined on the Rochdale UDP Proposals Map. The five purposes of including land in the Green Belt are outlined in paragraph 80 of the NPPF as follows: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
16. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF reflects UDP policy D/4 and stipulates that local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt unless the development falls within one of the following categories: buildings for agriculture and forestry; provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
17. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF states that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. These include: mineral extraction; engineering operations; local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location; the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.
18. The proposal does not fall within any of the categories of appropriate development in the Green Belt as outlined in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF and, therefore, the principle of development is inappropriate. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that: As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
19. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that: When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
20. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, the principle of development is not acceptable. In accordance with paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF, development which is not acceptable in principle within the Green Belt should only be allowed in very special circumstances. As a result, the main issue in this case is whether there are any material considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm the development would cause to the openness of the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, thereby justifying it on the basis of very special circumstances.
However, Government policy attaches significant importance to the need to address climate change and the role that the exploitation of renewable energy technologies can make in that regard. This is reflected by the National Planning Policy Framework, section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.
Siting, scale, design, impact on landscape, Green Belt and very special circumstances:
21. Paragraph 91 of 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 [emphasis added].
22. Criterion (b) of UDP policy D/4 states that, in addition to falling within a category of appropriate development in the Green Belt, proposals will only be permitted where they would not prejudice, by reason of their scale, siting or design, the primary purposes and visual amenity of the Green Belt.
23. Paragraph 93 of the NPPF identifies that “planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”
24. Paragraph 97 of the NPPF states that 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. They should: have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources; 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; consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources; and identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers.
25. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF stipulates that, when determining planning applications for wind turbines or renewable energy projects, local planning authorities should: 1. not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and 2. approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
26. UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where there is no unacceptable intrusion in the landscape, having regard to the cumulative impact and intervisibility of such developments whether within Rochdale or in neighbouring local authority areas, in accordance with 10 criteria. Of these, criteria (a), (b), (f), (g) and (i) are relevant to the development’s landscape impact as follows: The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the visual character and quality of the landscape or materially detract from the physical record of the historic and cultural evolution of the landscape. Any proposal in conflict with this criterion will need to demonstrate that other locations are not suitable; Any proposal must demonstrate the best use of topography, siting, design and colour to minimise the visual impact of the proposal. Any ancillary structures and access roads should employ sensitive design and use of local materials to respect the character and appearance of its setting; Full consideration of the impact of any proposal including construction, vehicular access, visual and physical impacts and the effect on local residential amenity will be sought by the Council through a detailed statement of the environmental effects, to be submitted preferably at the time of application.
27. UDP policy EM/16 indicates that proposals for the development of sustainable energy installations will be permitted where they have no unacceptable adverse impacts on local amenity or environmental quality and are shown to make an appropriate contribution to local or regional energy needs. In considering proposals in terms of their siting, design and operation, particular attention will be given to the following (criteria (a), (b) and (d)): The effect on the amenity of the surrounding area; The effect on buildings and areas of historic and archaeological importance and their setting and character; The effect on landscape character and quality;
28. In addition, criteria (a) and (c) of UDP policy BE/2 require proposals to demonstrate good design by: Ensuring that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure; Taking opportunities to retain, enhance or create views, landmarks and other townscape features which make a material contribution to the character of the area and reveal such features to public view.
29. This proposal is one of a total of four currently proposed wind turbines in this vicinity. The 15m height of each turbine is comparatively modest and they are classed as ‘very small turbines’. In comparison, turbines between 25m and 60m height are normally classed as ‘small commercial turbines’ and turbines in excess of 60m, (currently up to a height of 130m), are classified as ‘large scale commercial turbines’. Very small turbines, of the height proposed in this case, are up to about twice the height of a normal two-storey dwelling. They are often around the same height as a mature ‘forest tree’ and are a similar height/size to small pylons and communications masts.
30. The relevant advice in the draft guidance document “Wind Turbines up to 60m high in the South and West Pennines – Landscape guidance and training, is ( in summary) as follows:-
Very small turbines may fit best on lower ground and where seen mainly against a backdrop of land. They also may fit best in settled landscapes, near to the buildings they are intended to serve, (so there is a ‘functional relationship); Very small turbines are best suited to landscapes comprising enclosed uplands and moorland fringes; Best sites are well away from larger turbines, ideally avoiding disrupting field patterns and avoiding conflict with horizontal form; Turbines should be of a similar height and design, if set in close proximity to one another. Turbine colour should match the main, (or most important), backdrop. Clustering turbines can have beneficial effects, in reducing their impact on the wider landscape.
31. In the case of these four proposals, the landscape comprises enclosed upland fields on the fringe of higher moorland. The four turbines would be clustered relatively close together, (within an area measuring approximately 0.4 ha), and they would also relate fairly closely to the applicant’s dwellings and the other associated agricultural buildings in this vicinity. The turbines would therefore have a relatively good functional relationship with the buildings here; (i.e. the turbines would not stand out as ‘odd’, individual features, with no relationship with their surrounding landscape). When viewed from certain viewpoints, (most particularly when standing close to the turbines from the south), the turbines would generally be seen against the sky. However, because the land generally rises up in level to the north, (as it reaches up to Crook Hill/Shore Moor etc), the turbines would normally tend to be viewed against a backdrop of rising land. This would be especially true for more distant views of the turbines from Littleborough and from elsewhere to the south.
32. It must be remembered that Government policy attaches significant importance to the need to tackle climate change and the role that the exploitation of renewable energy technologies can make in tackling climate change. This has long been reflected by the previous policy guidance and is now reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework, section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Unless there are particularly strong or convincing reasons to the contrary, there is therefore a very strong presumption to allowing wind turbines.
33. In summary, the proposal would represent a sustainable form of renewable energy generation, which would help to contribute towards regional and national targets for renewable energy generation for 2020. This is considered to represent the very special circumstances for allowing this otherwise inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt.
34. As stated above, the proposed four turbines would make a very small, but still important, contribution towards renewable energy generation. Therefore, the environmental and economic benefits of the proposals weigh substantially in favour of the development. However, in order to determine the presence of very special circumstances, these benefits must be weighted against the harm the development would cause to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the character of the surrounding landscape.
Impact on surrounding uses:
35. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF stipulates that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.
36. Criterion (c) of UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where the proposal creates no unacceptable amenity or noise problems for local residents.
37. In addition, criterion (a) of UDP policy EM/3 states that development should not be permitted where it would lead to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to nearby existing or future occupants of buildings, or users of open space.
38. The surrounding landscape is generally open and includes only individual or small clusters of scattered dwellings. In the immediate vicinity of all four proposed turbines, most of the closest dwellings belong to the applicants themselves.
39. The visual impacts of the turbines would vary according to separation distances, the existing buildings, the existing tree cover and the orientation of surrounding properties. It is not considered however, that the installation would appear so visually imposing as to introduce an unacceptably oppressive feature in the outlook of the occupiers of surrounding dwellings, particularly when seen in the expansive setting of the surrounding landscape.
40. There is a need to ensure that the operation of the turbines would each not adversely affect the normal living conditions of the nearest neighbouring residents, particularly those not ‘economically related’ to the turbines. These nearest un-related properties include:-
Grimes Farm Far Hey Head Cottage No.2 Far Hey Head Farm Handle Hey Hey Bottom Farm
The Council’s environmental health team have raised no objections to the proposals on the grounds of any noise pollution however.
Impact on recreation and the rural economy:
41. UDP policy RE/5 states that development proposals which protect, improve and extend access to the countryside on foot, cycle or horseback will be permitted. Proposals should, wherever possible, improve opportunities for access by maintaining, improving and extending the existing rights of way network.
42. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should aim to identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
43. Criterion (j) of UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where “the proposal would not cause serious harm to the value of the surrounding area for quiet relaxation and recreation”.
44. There are a number of various public rights of way near to the site and from which all four turbines would be clearly visible, often over quite short intervening distances.
45. The route of the Mary Towneley Loop, (MTL), runs relatively close by to the proposed turbines. The MTL forms part of the Pennine Bridleway, which is a 205 mile-long National Trail for use by walkers, cyclists and horse riders, (running roughly parallel with the Pennine Way, national walking trail). The MLT runs roughly from east to west past the proposed four turbines, but to the north of them, over an intervening distance of between approximately 170 and 240m. The MLT runs along a similar ground level as the sites of the proposed four turbines, but for part of its length it would be screened from the proposed turbines by the peak of Blackbrow Hill, which occupies much of the intervening space. The combination of this intervening distance and the intervening topography means that none of the proposed four turbines would be especially prominent from users of the MLT.
46. The turbines would be still visible of course from the other surrounding recreational rights of way. However, by virtue of their siting, their relatively low height and also their relationship with the nearest buildings and trees, it is not considered that they would be likely to deter the use of any of these nearby recreational routes. Although the turbines are unlikely to enhance the experience of recreational activities in the countryside, it is not considered that, on balance, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the effects of the turbines would be so harmful as to detract from the enjoyment of the countryside – having particular regard to its impact on quiet relaxation and recreation. In these circumstances, it is considered that the development would not be in conflict with the objectives of UDP policies RE/2, RE/5, EM/14 and the requirements of the NPPF.
Impact on ecology:
47. None of the four turbine sites fall within or adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest or Special Area of Conservation.
48. UDP policy EM/14 (e) states that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where: The proposal, by virtue of its siting or operation, would not adversely affect areas of ecological value or result in danger to wildlife or loss of important habitats.
49. UDP policy EM/16 indicates that proposals for the development of sustainable energy installations will be permitted where they have no unacceptable adverse impacts on local amenity or environmental quality and are shown to make an appropriate contribution to local or regional energy needs. Criterion (e) of the policy states that particular attention will be given to “[their] effect on nature conservation interest”.
50. The proposed turbines would each be sited on the edges of open, agricultural fields, which are presently used by grazing farm animals. The foundations of the wind turbines would occupy a modest footprint that would encroach upon only a very small area of land. When considered in isolation, the sites and their immediately adjoining areas, (having particular regard to a lack of specific features to encourage biodiversity), have little value in terms of enhancing biodiversity in the area.
51 The Greater Manchester Ecological Unit (GMEU) has not raised any objection to the application on nature conservation grounds, subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure that the turbine is not installed during the bird breeding season.The proposed development would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies NE/3, NE/4, EM/14, EM/16 and advice contained within the NPPF.
Access to the site:
52. Access to the site to install the turbine and for its subsequent future maintenance etc would be achievable from Calderbrook Road by using the existing means of vehicular to Near Hey Head Farm and then across a relatively short distance across the field to reach the site of the proposed turbine.
The cumulative effects of all four proposals:
53. Because these four proposals are all sited so close to one another, they should all be considered together and be determined at the same time.
54. It is not considered that the approval of all four applications would have an unacceptable cumulative impact upon local visual amenity or the local, or even wider, landscape value. The visual impact of each individual turbine on its own, and taken together with the other three being proposed, would inevitably be fairly significant, when viewed over a short distance. They would be taller structures than the nearest vertical features of the applicants’ homes and associated buildings and the nearest trees etc.
55. However, when viewed over much longer distances, particularly from the generally lower ground from the south and south-east and south-west, all four turbines would be relatively small features seen against the rising higher ground to the north. The turbines would also be clustered together and would share a close functional relationship with the nearby buildings.
Summary:
56. The application relates to a site near to Far Hey Head Farm, located in an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Development which is inappropriate in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful to openness and should only be allowed in very special circumstances.
57. The contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development) are considered to constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness.
58 Whilst obviously the turbine would be readily visible in the landscape by virtue of its height and its fairly elevated hillside location, it is not considered that the location or design of the turbine would, either individually or cumulatively, (with the other three currently proposed nearby turbines), introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature that would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the surrounding landscape. The proposed turbine would share a satisfactory functional relationship with the nearest buildings. It has also been adequately demonstrated that the development would not have any undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of scale, siting, height, noise generation or any other nuisance.
59 The development would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way and it would not unacceptably detract from the quiet relaxation and enjoyment of the countryside. Moreover, the turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby. Satisfactory arrangements for vehicle access to and from the site would also be made as part of the scheme.
60 In all of these circumstances, it is not considered that there are any sustainable reasons to refuse this application.
Recommendations
GRANT subject to the following conditions:-
1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 This permission relates to the following plans:-
Area plan, scale 1;10000, dwng No. C1262 Site location plan, scale 1:2500, dwng No.C1262 Block plan, scale 1:500, dwng No.C1262 Dwng No.ATC10070-1000_
and the development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.
For the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan as listed below on this decision notice.
3 At the reasonable request of, and following a complaint to, the Local Planning Authority, the operator of the development shall, at their own expense, measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine following the procedures described in 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97' published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. The level of noise emissions from the turbine shall not exceed 35 dBA (measured as Leq 15 minutes) at wind speeds of 8 metres per second or less at the curtilage boundary of any noise sensitive premises.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to the occupiers of surrounding properties in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4 No development shall take place until details of the route and construction methodology for any cabling to be laid above ground to, from and between pieces of equipment (taking account of any hedges and trees within the landscape) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The above ground cabling shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the duly approved details before the wind turbine hereby approved is first brought into use.
Reason: In order to preserve the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and to protect areas of surrounding woodland and their habitat value in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14, NE/3 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
5 No development shall take place until details of the design of the turbine and any ancillary apparatus have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the materials, finish and colour treatment of the turbine and all associated apparatus. The turbine and ancillary apparatus shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the duly approved details, and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In order to minimise the development’s visual impact on the surrounding landscape in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/14, BE/2, D/4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
6 The wind turbine and all associated appurtenances hereby approved shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its former agricultural use on or before the expiration of 20 years from the date of this permission in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The restoration scheme shall be submitted not later than 12 months prior to the expiry of the 20 year period and the duly approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and all associated appurtenances.
Reason: The proposed wind turbine has a limited life expectancy and will need to be decommissioned at the end of this period of use. The site falls within the Green Belt and is currently in agricultural use. Following the removal of the turbine, the land should be restored to its previous agricultural use in the interests of the visual amenity, openness and purposes of including land in the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
7 No development shall take place until details of a route for use by construction and carriage vehicles (including during the delivery of the wind turbine) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved route shall thereafter be adhered to for the duration of the development unless an alternative has first been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to ensure an appropriate means of access for vehicle traffic associated with the transportation and installation of the turbine in the interests of highway safety in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies A/9 and EM/14.
8 If the turbine hereby permitted fails to produce electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months, the turbine and any associated appurtenances shall be removed from the site within a period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period and the land restored to its former agricultural use in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved restoration scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and any associated appurtenances.
Reason: The wind turbine’s function is to generate renewable energy which would contribute to government targets by transferring a proportion of this energy to the National Grid. The benefits arising from this function are considered to constitute the very special circumstances which justify the turbine’s erection in the Green Belt. If the turbine ceases to fulfil this function it will no longer be fit for purpose and these very special circumstances will not exist. In such an instance, the land should be restored to its former state in the interests of preserving the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy D/4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
9 No construction work shall be carried out, and no materials shall be delivered to the site, other than between the hours of 07.30 and 19.00 Monday to Friday and between 07.30 and 14.00 on Saturdays, and no such operations shall take place at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties and to minimise the potential for noise and disturbance at unsocial hours in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason for recommendation:
The Local Planning Authority worked positively and proactively with the applicant to identify various solutions during the application process to ensure that the proposal comprised sustainable development and would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area and would accord with the development plan. These were incorporated into the scheme and/or have been secured by planning condition. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.
The application relates to a site located in an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Development which is inappropriate in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful to openness and should only be allowed in very special circumstances. The contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this, (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development), are considered to constitute very special circumstances, which clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. Whilst readily visible in the landscape by virtue of its height and its elevated hillside location, the siting and design of the turbine would ensure that the development would not, either individually or cumulatively, introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature which would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the surrounding landscape (including the physical record of its historic and cultural evolution).
The turbine would achieve a satisfactory functional relationship with the nearest buildings and it has been adequately demonstrated that the development would not have any undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of scale, siting, height, noise generation or any other nuisance. The development would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way and would not detract unacceptably from the quiet relaxation and enjoyment of the countryside. Furthermore, the installation of the turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby.
The proposed development is therefore in compliance with the provisions of the following relevant policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, its associated Supplementary Planning Guidance or Documents and national planning policy:
G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt – General
G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/2 Countryside Around Towns RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside
G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development - Access for General Traffic
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development
G/BE/9 Conservation of the Built Heritage BE/10 Development Affecting Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments
G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development
G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/14 Wind Power Developments EM/16 Sustainable Energy Sources
G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species NE/6 Landscape Protection and Enhancement
Energy and New Development (SPD) Biodiversity and Development (SPD)
National Planning Policy Framework
In summary, the reasons for granting the permission are that Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council considers that the development is in accordance with relevant national and local planning policies and guidance and that there are no material planning considerations that indicate that an alternative decision should be reached. The planning conditions imposed would ensure that any material harm that may result from the proposed development.
Report Author Richard Butler
Application Number: 12/56239/FUL Ward: Littleborough Lakeside
Proposal: Installation of a single micro scale wind turbine (14.97m to hub, 5.6m diameter blades)
Site Address: 3 Near Hey Head Farm Calderbrook Road Littleborough OL15 9NS
Applicant: Mrs Jenni Ashworth
Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions
Delegation Scheme
Members have delegated powers to refuse this application if they wish. If, however, the Committee are minded to approve the scheme then the application will need to be referred to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee for determination as the proposal does not accord with the development plan, (the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan).
Site
The application relates to land within the ownership of No.3 Near Hey Head Farm, off Calderbrook Road, Littleborough. The site is immediately adjacent to a stone field boundary wall and lies some 40m away, to the south-east, from the dwelling house of No.3 Near Hey Head Farm and also 45m away, to the south, of Hey Head Lane.
The land here slopes up towards the top of the nearby Blackbrow Hill.
The site is within the open countryside and the Green Belt and comprises agricultural, (grazing) land, with scattered dwellings and farm buildings.
Description of Proposal
The application seeks consent to install a wind turbine on the site to serve the applicant’s nearby dwelling of No.3 Near Hey Head Farm. The turbine is to be 14.97m to the hub and is to have three blades of a diameter of 5.6m. The overall height to top of blade tip would therefore be 17.8m above ground level. The turbine is to comprise a tapered, free-standing steel tower, supported by three, (tripod), helical piles, each of a depth of 4m, part of which will be excavated into the ground.
Relevant Planning Policy
National Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework
The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF replaces 44 documents including Planning Policy Statements; Planning Policy Guidance; Minerals Policy Statements; Minerals Policy Guidance; Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations; and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The NPPF will be referred to as appropriate in the report.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt – General
G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/2 Countryside Around Towns RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside
G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development
G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development
G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/14 Wind Power Developments EM/16 Sustainable Energy Sources
G/NE/1 Nature conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species NE/6 Landscape Protection and Enhancement
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Energy and New Development (SPD) Biodiversity and Development (SPD)
The “Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Developments in the South Pennines” produced by Julie Martin Associates, is also relevant.
The draft guidance document “Wind Turbines up to 60m high in the South and West Pennines – Landscape guidance and training, prepared by Julie Martin Associates, is also relevant
Relevant Planning History
None relevant on this site.
It should be noted however, that there currently three other, identical proposals for single wind turbines, (of the same type/height), on other nearby sites. These comprise:-
Application 12-56238 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the north of Hey Head Lane (to serve No.2 Hey Head Farm).
Application 12-56249 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the south of Hey Head Lane, (to serve Far Hey Head Farm).
Application 12-56235 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the north of Hey Head Lane, (to serve No.1 Near Hey Head Farm).
These three other applications are also all for determination on this same Committee agenda.
Consultation Responses
Highways & Engineering:-
No objections
Chief Environmental Health Officer :-
No objections, subject to the imposition of suitable planning condition to control noise levels generated by the operation of the turbine.
Greater Manchester Ecological Unit:-
No objections, subject to the imposition of a suitable condition to ensure that the turbine is not installed during the bird breeding season, (March to July inclusive).
NATS Safeguarding:-
There are no technical radar air traffic control safeguarding objections.
Manchester Airport:-
No objections.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Services :-
The proposal is not considered likely to threaten the known or suspected archaeological heritage in this area.
Representations
The neighbouring properties were notified of the application, a site notice was posted and the application was advertised in the press as a departure from the development plan.
Objections have been received from the occupiers of “Grimes Farm”, off Calderbrook Road, Higher Calderbrook, which is based on the following summarised grounds:-
1. Visual intrusion and loss of visual amenity; the proposed four turbines in this close vicinity would be too much and two of them would be in direct view of Grimes Farm
2. Possible noise problems
Analysis The principle of the development with respect to Green Belt policy
The site falls within an area of Green Belt, as defined on the Rochdale UDP Proposals Map. The five purposes of including land in the Green Belt are outlined in paragraph 80 of the NPPF as follows: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
1. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF reflects UDP policy D/4 and stipulates that local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt unless the development falls within one of the following categories: buildings for agriculture and forestry; provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
2. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF states that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. These include: mineral extraction; engineering operations; local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location; the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.
3. The proposal does not fall within any of the categories of appropriate development in the Green Belt as outlined in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF and, therefore, the principle of development is inappropriate. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that: As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
4. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that: When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
5. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, the principle of development is not acceptable. In accordance with paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF, development which is not acceptable in principle within the Green Belt should only be allowed in very special circumstances. As a result, the main issue in this case is whether there are any material considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm the development would cause to the openness of the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, thereby justifying it on the basis of very special circumstances.
However, Government policy attaches significant importance to the need to address climate change and the role that the exploitation of renewable energy technologies can make in that regard. This is reflected by the National Planning Policy Framework, section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.
Siting, scale, design, impact on landscape, Green Belt and very special circumstances:
6. Paragraph 91 of 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 [emphasis added].
7. Criterion (b) of UDP policy D/4 states that, in addition to falling within a category of appropriate development in the Green Belt, proposals will only be permitted where they would not prejudice, by reason of their scale, siting or design, the primary purposes and visual amenity of the Green Belt.
8. Paragraph 93 of the NPPF identifies that “planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”
9. Paragraph 97 of the NPPF states that 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. They should: have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources; 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; consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources; and identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers.
10. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF stipulates that, when determining planning applications for wind turbines or renewable energy projects, local planning authorities should: not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
11. UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where there is no unacceptable intrusion in the landscape, having regard to the cumulative impact and intervisibility of such developments whether within Rochdale or in neighbouring local authority areas, in accordance with 10 criteria. Of these, criteria (a), (b), (f), (g) and (i) are relevant to the development’s landscape impact as follows: The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the visual character and quality of the landscape or materially detract from the physical record of the historic and cultural evolution of the landscape. Any proposal in conflict with this criterion will need to demonstrate that other locations are not suitable; Any proposal must demonstrate the best use of topography, siting, design and colour to minimise the visual impact of the proposal. Any ancillary structures and access roads should employ sensitive design and use of local materials to respect the character and appearance of its setting; Full consideration of the impact of any proposal including construction, vehicular access, visual and physical impacts and the effect on local residential amenity will be sought by the Council through a detailed statement of the environmental effects, to be submitted preferably at the time of application.
12. UDP policy EM/16 indicates that proposals for the development of sustainable energy installations will be permitted where they have no unacceptable adverse impacts on local amenity or environmental quality and are shown to make an appropriate contribution to local or regional energy needs. In considering proposals in terms of their siting, design and operation, particular attention will be given to the following (criteria (a), (b) and (d)): The effect on the amenity of the surrounding area; The effect on buildings and areas of historic and archaeological importance and their setting and character; The effect on landscape character and quality;
13. In addition, criteria (a) and (c) of UDP policy BE/2 require proposals to demonstrate good design by: Ensuring that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure; Taking opportunities to retain, enhance or create views, landmarks and other townscape features which make a material contribution to the character of the area and reveal such features to public view.
14. This proposal is one of a total of four currently proposed wind turbines in this vicinity. The 15m height of each turbine is comparatively modest and they are classed as ‘very small turbines’. In comparison, turbines between 25m and 60m height are normally classed as ‘small commercial turbines’ and turbines in excess of 60m, (currently up to a height of 130m), are classified as ‘large scale commercial turbines’. Very small turbines, of the height proposed in this case, are up to about twice the height of a normal two-storey dwelling. They are often around the same height as a mature ‘forest tree’ and are a similar height/size to small pylons and communications masts.
15. The relevant advice in the draft guidance document “Wind Turbines up to 60m high in the South and West Pennines – Landscape guidance and training, is ( in summary) as follows:-
Very small turbines may fit best on lower ground and where seen mainly against a backdrop of land. They also may fit best in settled landscapes, near to the buildings they are intended to serve, (so there is a ‘functional relationship); Very small turbines are best suited to landscapes comprising enclosed uplands and moorland fringes; Best sites are well away from larger turbines, ideally avoiding disrupting field patterns and avoiding conflict with horizontal form; Turbines should be of a similar height and design, if set in close proximity to one another. Turbine colour should match the main, (or most important), backdrop. Clustering turbines can have beneficial effects, in reducing their impact on the wider landscape.
16. In the case of these four proposals, the landscape comprises enclosed upland fields on the fringe of higher moorland. The four turbines would be clustered relatively close together, (within an area measuring approximately 0.4 ha), and they would also relate fairly closely to the applicant’s dwellings and the other associated agricultural buildings in this vicinity. The turbines would therefore have a relatively good functional relationship with the buildings here; (i.e. the turbines would not stand out as ‘odd’, individual features, with no relationship with their surrounding landscape). When viewed from certain viewpoints, (most particularly when standing close to the turbines from the south), the turbines would generally be seen against the sky. However, because the land generally rises up in level to the north, (as it reaches up to Crook Hill/Shore Moor etc), the turbines would normally tend to be viewed against a backdrop of rising land. This would be especially true for more distant views of the turbines from Littleborough and from elsewhere to the south.
17. It must be remembered that Government policy attaches significant importance to the need to address climate change and the role that the exploitation of renewable energy technologies can make in that regard. This has long been reflected by the previous policy guidance and is now reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework, section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Unless there are particularly strong or convincing reasons to the contrary, there is therefore a very strong presumption to allowing wind turbines.
18. In summary, the proposal would represent a sustainable form of renewable energy generation, which would help to contribute towards regional and national targets for renewable energy generation for 2020. This is considered to represent the very special circumstances for allowing this otherwise inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt.
19. As stated above, the proposed four turbines would make a very small, but still important, contribution towards renewable energy generation. Therefore, the environmental and economic benefits of the proposals weigh substantially in favour of the development. However, in order to determine the presence of very special circumstances, these benefits must be weighted against the harm the development would cause to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the character of the surrounding landscape.
Impact on surrounding uses:
20. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF stipulates that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.
21. Criterion (c) of UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where the proposal creates no unacceptable amenity or noise problems for local residents.
22. In addition, criterion (a) of UDP policy EM/3 states that development should not be permitted where it would lead to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to nearby existing or future occupants of buildings, or users of open space.
23. The surrounding landscape is generally open and includes only individual or small clusters of scattered dwellings. In the immediate vicinity of all four proposed turbines, most of the closest dwellings belong to the applicants themselves.
24. The visual impacts of the turbines would vary according to separation distances, the existing buildings, the existing tree cover and the orientation of surrounding properties. It is not considered however, that the installation would appear so visually imposing as to introduce an unacceptably oppressive feature in the outlook of the occupiers of surrounding dwellings, particularly when seen in the expansive setting of the surrounding landscape.
25. There is a need to ensure that the operation of the turbines would each not adversely affect the normal living conditions of the nearest neighbouring residents, particularly those not ‘economically related’ to the turbines. These nearest un-related properties include:-
Grimes Farm Far Hey Head Cottage No.2 Far Hey Head Farm Handle Hey Hey Bottom Farm
The Council’s environmental health team have raised no objections to the proposals on the grounds of any noise pollution however.
Impact on recreation and the rural economy:
26. UDP policy RE/5 states that development proposals which protect, improve and extend access to the countryside on foot, cycle or horseback will be permitted. Proposals should, wherever possible, improve opportunities for access by maintaining, improving and extending the existing rights of way network.
27. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should aim to identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
28. Criterion (j) of UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where “the proposal would not cause serious harm to the value of the surrounding area for quiet relaxation and recreation”.
29. There are a number of various public rights of way near to the site and from which all four turbines would be clearly visible, often over quite short intervening distances.
30. The route of the Mary Towneley Loop, (MTL), runs relatively close by to the proposed turbines. The MTL forms part of the Pennine Bridleway, which is a 205 mile-long National Trail for use by walkers, cyclists and horse riders, (running roughly parallel with the Pennine Way, national walking trail). The MLT runs roughly from east to west past the proposed four turbines, but to the north of them, over an intervening distance of between approximately 170 and 240m. The MLT runs along a similar ground level as the sites of the proposed four turbines, but for part of its length it would be screened from the proposed turbines by the peak of Blackbrow Hill, which occupies much of the intervening space. The combination of this intervening distance and the intervening topography means that none of the proposed four turbines would be especially prominent from users of the MLT.
31. The turbines would be still visible of course from the other surrounding recreational rights of way. However, by virtue of their siting, their relatively low height and also their relationship with the nearest buildings and trees, it is not considered that they would be likely to deter the use of any of these nearby recreational routes. Although the turbines are unlikely to enhance the experience of recreational activities in the countryside, it is not considered that, on balance, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the effects of the turbines would be so harmful as to detract from the enjoyment of the countryside – having particular regard to its impact on quiet relaxation and recreation. In these circumstances, it is considered that the development would not be in conflict with the objectives of UDP policies RE/2, RE/5, EM/14 and the requirements of the NPPF.
Impact on ecology:
32. None of the four turbine sites fall within or adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest or Special Area of Conservation.
33. UDP policy EM/14 (e) states that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where: The proposal, by virtue of its siting or operation, would not adversely affect areas of ecological value or result in danger to wildlife or loss of important habitats.
34. UDP policy EM/16 indicates that proposals for the development of sustainable energy installations will be permitted where they have no unacceptable adverse impacts on local amenity or environmental quality and are shown to make an appropriate contribution to local or regional energy needs. Criterion (e) of the policy states that particular attention will be given to “[their] effect on nature conservation interest”.
35. The proposed turbines would each be sited on the edges of open, agricultural fields, which are presently used by grazing farm animals. The foundations of the wind turbines would occupy a modest footprint that would encroach upon only a very small area of land. When considered in isolation, the sites and their immediately adjoining areas, (having particular regard to a lack of specific features to encourage biodiversity), have little value in terms of enhancing biodiversity in the area.
36. The Greater Manchester Ecological Unit (GMEU) has not raised any objection to the application on nature conservation grounds, subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure that the turbine is not installed during the bird breeding season.The proposed development would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies NE/3, NE/4, EM/14, EM/16 and advice contained within the NPPF.
Access to the site:
37. Access to the site to install the turbine and for its subsequent future maintenance etc would be achievable from Calderbrook Road by using the existing means of vehicular to Near Hey Head Farm and then across a relatively short distance across the field to reach the site of the proposed turbine.
The cumulative effects of all four proposals:
38. Because these four proposals are all sited so close to one another, they should all be considered together and be determined at the same time.
39. It is not considered that the approval of all four applications would have an unacceptable cumulative impact upon local visual amenity or the local, or even wider, landscape value. The visual impact of each individual turbine on its own, and taken together with the other three being proposed, would inevitably be fairly significant, when viewed over a short distance. They would be taller structures than the nearest vertical features of the applicants’ homes and associated buildings and the nearest trees etc.
40. However, when viewed over much longer distances, particularly from the generally lower ground from the south and south-east and south-west, all four turbines would be relatively small features seen against the rising higher ground to the north. The turbines would also be clustered together and would share a close functional relationship with the nearby buildings.
Summary:
41. The application relates to a site near to Far Hey Head Farm, located in an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Development which is inappropriate in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful to openness and should only be allowed in very special circumstances.
42 The contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development) are considered to constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness.
43 Whilst obviously the turbine would be readily visible in the landscape by virtue of its height and its fairly elevated hillside location, it is not considered that the location or design of the turbine would, either individually or cumulatively, (with the other three currently proposed nearby turbines), introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature that would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the surrounding landscape. The proposed turbine would share a satisfactory functional relationship with the nearest buildings. It has also been adequately demonstrated that the development would not have any undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of scale, siting, height, noise generation or any other nuisance.
44 The development would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way and it would not unacceptably detract from the quiet relaxation and enjoyment of the countryside. Moreover, the turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby. Satisfactory arrangements for vehicle access to and from the site would also be made as part of the scheme.
45 In all of these circumstances, it is not considered that there are any sustainable reasons to refuse this application.
Recommendations
GRANT subject to the following conditions:-
1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 This permission relates to the following plans:-
Area plan, scale 1:10000, dwng No.C1267 Site location plan, scale 1:2500, dwng No. C1267 Block plan, scale 1:500, dwng No.C1267 Dwng No.ATC10070-1000_
and the development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.
For the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan as listed below on this decision notice.
3 At the reasonable request of, and following a complaint to, the Local Planning Authority, the operator of the development shall, at their own expense, measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine following the procedures described in 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97' published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. The level of noise emissions from the turbine shall not exceed 35 dBA (measured as Leq 15 minutes) at wind speeds of 8 metres per second or less at the curtilage boundary of any noise sensitive premises.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to the occupiers of surrounding properties in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4 No development shall take place until details of the route and construction methodology for any cabling to be laid above ground to, from and between pieces of equipment (taking account of any hedges and trees within the landscape) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The above ground cabling shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the duly approved details before the wind turbine hereby approved is first brought into use.
Reason: In order to preserve the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and to protect areas of surrounding woodland and their habitat value in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14, NE/3 and the National Planning Policy Framework
5 No development shall take place until details of the design of the turbine and any ancillary apparatus have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the materials, finish and colour treatment of the turbine and all associated apparatus. The turbine and ancillary apparatus shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the duly approved details, and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In order to minimise the development’s visual impact on the surrounding landscape in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/14, BE/2, D/4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
6 The wind turbine and all associated appurtenances hereby approved shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its former agricultural use on or before the expiration of 20 years from the date of this permission in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The restoration scheme shall be submitted not later than 12 months prior to the expiry of the 20 year period and the duly approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and all associated appurtenances.
Reason: The proposed wind turbine has a limited life expectancy and will need to be decommissioned at the end of this period of use. The site falls within the Green Belt and is currently in agricultural use. Following the removal of the turbine, the land should be restored to its previous agricultural use in the interests of the visual amenity, openness and purposes of including land in the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
7 If the turbine hereby permitted fails to produce electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months, the turbine and any associated appurtenances shall be removed from the site within a period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period and the land restored to its former agricultural use in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved restoration scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and any associated appurtenances.
Reason: The wind turbine’s function is to generate renewable energy which would contribute to government targets by transferring a proportion of this energy to the National Grid. The benefits arising from this function are considered to constitute the very special circumstances which justify the turbine’s erection in the Green Belt. If the turbine ceases to fulfil this function it will no longer be fit for purpose and these very special circumstances will not exist. In such an instance, the land should be restored to its former state in the interests of preserving the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy D/4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
8 No development shall take place until details of a route for use by construction and carriage vehicles (including during the delivery of the wind turbine) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved route shall thereafter be adhered to for the duration of the development unless an alternative has first been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to ensure an appropriate means of access for vehicle traffic associated with the transportation and installation of the turbine in the interests of highway safety in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies A/9 and EM/14.
9 No construction work shall be carried out, and no materials shall be delivered to the site, other than between the hours of 07.30 and 19.00 Monday to Friday and between 07.30 and 14.00 on Saturdays, and no such operations shall take place at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties and to minimise the potential for noise and disturbance at unsocial hours in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason for recommendation:
The Local Planning Authority worked positively and proactively with the applicant to identify various solutions during the application process to ensure that the proposal comprised sustainable development and would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area and would accord with the development plan. These were incorporated into the scheme and/or have been secured by planning condition. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.
The application relates to a site located in an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Development which is inappropriate in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful to openness and should only be allowed in very special circumstances. The contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this, (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development), are considered to constitute very special circumstances, which clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. Whilst readily visible in the landscape by virtue of its height and its elevated hillside location, the siting and design of the turbine would ensure that the development would not, either individually or cumulatively, introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature which would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the surrounding landscape (including the physical record of its historic and cultural evolution).
The turbine would achieve a satisfactory functional relationship with the nearest buildings and it has been adequately demonstrated that the development would not have any undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of scale, siting, height, noise generation or any other nuisance. The development would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way and would not detract unacceptably from the quiet relaxation and enjoyment of the countryside. Furthermore, the installation of the turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby.
The proposed development is therefore in compliance with the provisions of the following relevant policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, its associated Supplementary Planning Guidance or Documents and national planning policy:
G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt – General
G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/2 Countryside Around Towns RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside
G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development - Access for General Traffic
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development
G/BE/9 Conservation of the Built Heritage BE/10 Development Affecting Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments
G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development
G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/14 Wind Power Developments EM/16 Sustainable Energy Sources
G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species NE/6 Landscape Protection and Enhancement
Energy and New Development (SPD) Biodiversity and Development (SPD)
National Planning Policy Framework
In summary, the reasons for granting the permission are that Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council considers that the development is in accordance with relevant national and local planning policies and guidance and that there are no material planning considerations that indicate that an alternative decision should be reached. The planning conditions imposed would ensure that any material harm that may result from the proposed development.
Report Author Richard Butler
Application Number: 12/56249/FUL Ward: Littleborough Lakeside
Proposal: Installation of a single micro scale wind turbine (14.97m to hub, 5.6m diameter blades)
Site Address: Far Hey Head Farm Calderbrook Road Littleborough Lancashire OL15 9NS
Applicant: Mrs Pat Greenwood
Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions
Delegation Scheme
Members have delegated powers to refuse this application if they wish. If, however, the Committee are minded to approve the scheme then the application will need to be referred to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee for determination, as the proposal does not accord with the development plan, (the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan).
Site
The application relates to land within the ownership of Far Hey Head Farm, off Calderbrook Road, Littleborough. The site is immediately adjacent to a stone field boundary wall and lies some 102m away, to the south-east, from the dwelling house of No.2 Near Hey Head Farm and also 60m away, to the south, of Hey Head Lane.
The land here slopes up towards the top of the nearby Blackbrow Hill.
The site is within the open countryside and the Green Belt and comprises agricultural, (grazing) land, with scattered dwellings and farm buildings.
Description of Proposal
The application seeks consent to install a wind turbine on the site to serve the applicant’s nearby dwelling of No.3 Near Hey Head Farm. The turbine is to be 14.97m to the hub and is to have three blades of a diameter of 5.6m. The overall height to top of blade tip would therefore be 17.8m above ground level. The turbine is to comprise a tapered, free-standing steel tower, supported by three, (tripod), helical piles, each of a depth of 4m, part of which will be excavated into the ground.
Relevant Planning Policy
National Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework
The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. With immediate effect the NPPF replaces 44 documents including Planning Policy Statements; Planning Policy Guidance; Minerals Policy Statements; Minerals Policy Guidance; Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations; and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The NPPF will be referred to as appropriate in the report.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt – General
G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/2 Countryside Around Towns RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside
G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development
G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development
G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/14 Wind Power Developments EM/16 Sustainable Energy Sources
G/NE/1 Nature conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species NE/6 Landscape Protection and Enhancement
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Energy and New Development (SPD) Biodiversity and Development (SPD)
The “Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Developments in the South Pennines” produced by Julie Martin Associates, is also relevant.
The draft guidance document “Wind Turbines up to 60m high in the South and West Pennines – Landscape guidance and training, prepared by Julie Martin Associates, is also relevant.
Relevant Planning History
None relevant on this site.
It should be noted however, that there currently three other, identical proposals for single wind turbines, (of the same type/height), on other nearby sites. These comprise:-
Application 12-56238 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the north of Hey Head Lane (to serve No.2 Hey Head Farm).
Application 12-56239 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the south of Hey Head Lane, (to serve No.3 Near Hey Head Farm).
Application 12-56235 - installation of a 14.97m high, (to hub) wind turbine on land to the north of Hey Head Lane, (to serve No.1 Near Hey Head Farm).
These three other applications are also all for determination on this same Committee agenda.
Consultation Responses
Highways & Engineering:-
No objections
Chief Environmental Health Officer :-
No objections, subject to the imposition of suitable planning condition to control noise levels generated by the operation of the turbine.
Greater Manchester Ecological Unit:-
No objections, subject to the imposition of a suitable condition to ensure that the turbine is not installed during the bird breeding season, (March to July inclusive).
NATS Safeguarding:-
There are no technical radar air traffic control safeguarding objections.
Manchester Airport:-
No objections.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Services :-
The proposal is not considered likely to threaten the known or suspected archaeological heritage in this area.
Representations
The neighbouring properties were notified of the application, a site notice was posted and the application was advertised in the press as a departure from the development plan.
Objections have been received from the occupiers of “Grimes Farm”, off Calderbrook Road, Higher Calderbrook, which is based on the following summarised grounds:-
Visual intrusion and loss of visual amenity; the proposed four turbines in this close vicinity would be too much and two of them would be in direct view of Grimes Farm
Possible noise problems
The neighbouring properties were notified of the application, a site notice was posted and the application was also advertised in the press as a departure from the development plan.
Analysis
The principle of the development with respect to Green Belt policy
1. The site falls within an area of Green Belt, as defined on the Rochdale UDP Proposals Map. The five purposes of including land in the Green Belt are outlined in paragraph 80 of the NPPF as follows: • to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
2. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF reflects UDP policy D/4 and stipulates that local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt unless the development falls within one of the following categories: • buildings for agriculture and forestry; • provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; • the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; • the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; • limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or • limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
• Paragraph 90 of the NPPF states that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. These include: • mineral extraction; • engineering operations; • local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location; • the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and • development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.
• The proposal does not fall within any of the categories of appropriate development in the Green Belt as outlined in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF and, therefore, the principle of development is inappropriate. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that: • As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
• Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that: • When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
• The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, the principle of development is not acceptable. In accordance with paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF, development which is not acceptable in principle within the Green Belt should only be allowed in very special circumstances. As a result, the main issue in this case is whether there are any material considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm the development would cause to the openness of the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, thereby justifying it on the basis of very special circumstances.
However, Government policy attaches significant importance to the need to address climate change and the role that the exploitation of renewable energy technologies can make in that regard. This is reflected by the National Planning Policy Framework, section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.
Siting, scale, design, impact on landscape, Green Belt and very special circumstances:
• Paragraph 91 of 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 [emphasis added].
• Criterion (b) of UDP policy D/4 states that, in addition to falling within a category of appropriate development in the Green Belt, proposals will only be permitted where they would not prejudice, by reason of their scale, siting or design, the primary purposes and visual amenity of the Green Belt.
• Paragraph 93 of the NPPF identifies that “planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”
• Paragraph 97 of the NPPF states that 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. They should: • have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources; • 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; • consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources; and • identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers.
• Paragraph 98 of the NPPF stipulates that, when determining planning applications for wind turbines or renewable energy projects, local planning authorities should: • not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and • approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
• UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where there is no unacceptable intrusion in the landscape, having regard to the cumulative impact and intervisibility of such developments whether within Rochdale or in neighbouring local authority areas, in accordance with 10 criteria. Of these, criteria (a), (b), (f), (g) and (i) are relevant to the development’s landscape impact as follows: • The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the visual character and quality of the landscape or materially detract from the physical record of the historic and cultural evolution of the landscape. Any proposal in conflict with this criterion will need to demonstrate that other locations are not suitable; • Any proposal must demonstrate the best use of topography, siting, design and colour to minimise the visual impact of the proposal. Any ancillary structures and access roads should employ sensitive design and use of local materials to respect the character and appearance of its setting; • Full consideration of the impact of any proposal including construction, vehicular access, visual and physical impacts and the effect on local residential amenity will be sought by the Council through a detailed statement of the environmental effects, to be submitted preferably at the time of application.
• UDP policy EM/16 indicates that proposals for the development of sustainable energy installations will be permitted where they have no unacceptable adverse impacts on local amenity or environmental quality and are shown to make an appropriate contribution to local or regional energy needs. In considering proposals in terms of their siting, design and operation, particular attention will be given to the following (criteria (a), (b) and (d)): • The effect on the amenity of the surrounding area; • The effect on buildings and areas of historic and archaeological importance and their setting and character; • The effect on landscape character and quality;
• In addition, criteria (a) and (c) of UDP policy BE/2 require proposals to demonstrate good design by: • Ensuring that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure; • Taking opportunities to retain, enhance or create views, landmarks and other townscape features which make a material contribution to the character of the area and reveal such features to public view.
• This proposal is one of a total of four currently proposed wind turbines in this vicinity. The 15m height of each turbine is comparatively modest and they are classed as ‘very small turbines’. In comparison, turbines between 25m and 60m height are normally classed as ‘small commercial turbines’ and turbines in excess of 60m, (currently up to a height of 130m), are classified as ‘large scale commercial turbines’. Very small turbines, of the height proposed in this case, are up to about twice the height of a normal two-storey dwelling. They are often around the same height as a mature ‘forest tree’ and are a similar height/size to small pylons and communications masts.
3. The relevant advice in the draft guidance document “Wind Turbines up to 60m high in the South and West Pennines – Landscape guidance and training, is ( in summary) as follows:-
• Very small turbines may fit best on lower ground and where seen mainly against a backdrop of land. They also may fit best in settled landscapes, near to the buildings they are intended to serve, (so there is a ‘functional relationship); • Very small turbines are best suited to landscapes comprising enclosed uplands and moorland fringes; • Best sites are well away from larger turbines, ideally avoiding disrupting field patterns and avoiding conflict with horizontal form; • Turbines should be of a similar height and design, if set in close proximity to one another. • Turbine colour should match the main, (or most important, backdrop. • Clustering turbines can have beneficial effects, in reducing their impact on the wider landscape.
4. In the case of these four proposals, the landscape comprises enclosed upland fields on the fringe of higher moorland. The four turbines would be clustered relatively close together, (within an area measuring approximately 0.4 ha), and they would also relate fairly closely to the applicant’s dwellings and the other associated agricultural buildings in this vicinity. The turbines would therefore have a relatively good functional relationship with the buildings here; (i.e. the turbines would not stand out as ‘odd’, individual features, with no relationship with their surrounding landscape). When viewed from certain viewpoints, (most particularly when standing close to the turbines from the south), the turbines would generally be seen against the sky. However, because the land generally rises up in level to the north, (as it reaches up to Crook Hill/Shore Moor etc), the turbines would normally tend to be viewed against a backdrop of rising land. This would be especially true for more distant views of the turbines from Littleborough and from elsewhere to the south.
5. It must be remembered that Government policy attaches significant importance to the need to address climate change and the role that the exploitation of renewable energy technologies can make in that regard. This has long been reflected by the previous policy guidance and is now reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework, section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Unless there are particularly strong or convincing reasons to the contrary, there is therefore a very strong presumption to allowing wind turbines.
6 In summary, the proposal would represent a sustainable form of renewable energy generation, which would help to contribute towards regional and national targets for renewable energy generation for 2020. This is considered to represent the very special circumstances for allowing this otherwise inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt.
7 As stated above, the proposed four turbines would make a very small, but still important, contribution towards renewable energy generation. Therefore, the environmental and economic benefits of the proposals weigh substantially in favour of the development. However, in order to determine the presence of very special circumstances, these benefits must be weighted against the harm the development would cause to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the character of the surrounding landscape.
Impact on surrounding uses:
8. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF stipulates that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.
9. Criterion (c) of UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where the proposal creates no unacceptable amenity or noise problems for local residents.
10. In addition, criterion (a) of UDP policy EM/3 states that development should not be permitted where it would lead to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to nearby existing or future occupants of buildings, or users of open space.
11. The surrounding landscape is generally open and includes only individual or small clusters of scattered dwellings. In the immediate vicinity of all four proposed turbines, most of the closest dwellings belong to the applicants themselves.
12. The visual impacts of the turbines would vary according to separation distances, the existing buildings, the existing tree cover and the orientation of surrounding properties. It is not considered however, that the installation would appear so visually imposing as to introduce an unacceptably oppressive feature in the outlook of the occupiers of surrounding dwellings, particularly when seen in the expansive setting of the surrounding landscape.
13. There is a need to ensure that the operation of the turbines would each not adversely affect the normal living conditions of the nearest neighbouring residents, particularly those not ‘economically related’ to the turbines. These nearest un-related properties include:-
Grimes Farm Far Hey Head Cottage No.2 Far Hey Head Farm Handle Hey Hey Bottom Farm
The Council’s environmental health team have raised no objections to the proposals on the grounds of any noise pollution however.
Impact on recreation and the rural economy:
14. UDP policy RE/5 states that development proposals which protect, improve and extend access to the countryside on foot, cycle or horseback will be permitted. Proposals should, wherever possible, improve opportunities for access by maintaining, improving and extending the existing rights of way network.
15. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should aim to identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
16. Criterion (j) of UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where “the proposal would not cause serious harm to the value of the surrounding area for quiet relaxation and recreation”.
17. There are a number of various public rights of way near to the site and from which all four turbines would be clearly visible, often over quite short intervening distances.
18. The route of the Mary Towneley Loop, (MTL), runs relatively close by to the proposed turbines. The MTL forms part of the Pennine Bridleway, which is a 205 mile-long National Trail for use by walkers, cyclists and horse riders, (running roughly parallel with the Pennine Way, national walking trail). The MLT runs roughly from east to west past the proposed four turbines, but to the north of them, over an intervening distance of between approximately 170 and 240m. The MLT runs along a similar ground level as the sites of the proposed four turbines, but for part of its length it would be screened from the proposed turbines by the peak of Blackbrow Hill, which occupies much of the intervening space. The combination of this intervening distance and the intervening topography means that none of the proposed four turbines would be especially prominent from users of the MLT.
19. The turbines would be still visible of course from the other surrounding recreational rights of way. However, by virtue of their siting, their relatively low height and also their relationship with the nearest buildings and trees, it is not considered that they would be likely to deter the use of any of these nearby recreational routes. Although the turbines are unlikely to enhance the experience of recreational activities in the countryside, it is not considered that, on balance, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the effects of the turbines would be so harmful as to detract from the enjoyment of the countryside – having particular regard to its impact on quiet relaxation and recreation. In these circumstances, it is considered that the development would not be in conflict with the objectives of UDP policies RE/2, RE/5, EM/14 and the requirements of the NPPF.
Impact on ecology:
20. None of the four turbine sites fall within or adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest or Special Area of Conservation.
21. UDP policy EM/14 (e) states that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where: 22. The proposal, by virtue of its siting or operation, would not adversely affect areas of ecological value or result in danger to wildlife or loss of important habitats.
23. UDP policy EM/16 indicates that proposals for the development of sustainable energy installations will be permitted where they have no unacceptable adverse impacts on local amenity or environmental quality and are shown to make an appropriate contribution to local or regional energy needs. Criterion (e) of the policy states that particular attention will be given to “[their] effect on nature conservation interest”.
24. The proposed turbines would each be sited on the edges of open, agricultural fields, which are presently used by grazing farm animals. The foundations of the wind turbines would occupy a modest footprint that would encroach upon only a very small area of land. When considered in isolation, the sites and their immediately adjoining areas, (having particular regard to a lack of specific features to encourage biodiversity), have little value in terms of enhancing biodiversity in the area.
25. The Greater Manchester Ecological Unit (GMEU) has not raised any objection to the application on nature conservation grounds, subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure that the turbine is not installed during the bird breeding season. The proposed development would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies NE/3, NE/4, EM/14, EM/16 and advice contained within the NPPF.
Access to the site:
26. Access to the site to install the turbine and for its subsequent future maintenance etc would be achievable from Calderbrook Road by using the existing means of vehicular to Far Near Hey Head Farm and then across a relatively short distance across the field to reach the site of the proposed turbine.
The cumulative effects of all four proposals:
27. Because these four proposals are all sited so close to one another, they should all be considered together and be determined at the same time.
28. It is not considered that the approval of all four applications would have an unacceptable cumulative impact upon local visual amenity or the local, or even wider, landscape value. The visual impact of each individual turbine on its own, and taken together with the other three being proposed, would inevitably be fairly significant, when viewed over a short distance. They would be taller structures than the nearest vertical features of the applicants’ homes and associated buildings and the nearest trees etc.
29 However, when viewed over much longer distances, particularly from the generally lower ground from the south and south-east and south-west, all four turbines would be relatively small features seen against the rising higher ground to the north. The turbines would also be clustered together and would share a close functional relationship with the nearby buildings.
Summary:
30 The application relates to a site near to Far Hey Head Farm, located in an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Development which is inappropriate in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful to openness and should only be allowed in very special circumstances.
31 The contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development) are considered to constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness.
32 Whilst obviously the turbine would be readily visible in the landscape by virtue of its height and its fairly elevated hillside location, it is not considered that the location or design of the turbine would, either individually or cumulatively, (with the other three currently proposed nearby turbines), introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature that would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the surrounding landscape. The proposed turbine would share a satisfactory functional relationship with the nearest buildings. It has also been adequately demonstrated that the development would not have any undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of scale, siting, height, noise generation or any other nuisance.
33 The development would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way and it would not unacceptably detract from the quiet relaxation and enjoyment of the countryside. Moreover, the turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby. Satisfactory arrangements for vehicle access to and from the site would also be made as part of the scheme.
34 In all of these circumstances, it is not considered that there are any sustainable reasons to refuse this application.
Recommendations
GRANT subject to the following conditions:-
1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 This permission relates to the following plans:-
Area plan, scale 1:10000, dwng No.C1270 Site location plan, scale 1:2500, dwng No.C1270 Dwng No. ATC10070-1000_
and the development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.
For the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan as listed below on this decision notice.
3 At the reasonable request of, and following a complaint to, the Local Planning Authority, the operator of the development shall, at their own expense, measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine following the procedures described in 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97' published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. The level of noise emissions from the turbine shall not exceed 35 dBA (measured as Leq 15 minutes) at wind speeds of 8 metres per second or less at the curtilage boundary of any noise sensitive premises.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to the occupiers of surrounding properties in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4 No development shall take place until details of the route and construction methodology for any cabling to be laid above ground to, from and between pieces of equipment (taking account of any hedges and trees within the landscape) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The above ground cabling shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the duly approved details before the wind turbine hereby approved is first brought into use.
Reason: In order to preserve the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and to protect areas of surrounding woodland and their habitat value in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14, NE/3 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
5 No development shall take place until details of the design of the turbine and any ancillary apparatus have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the materials, finish and colour treatment of the turbine and all associated apparatus. The turbine and ancillary apparatus shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the duly approved details, and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In order to minimise the development’s visual impact on the surrounding landscape in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/14, BE/2, D/4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
6 The wind turbine and all associated appurtenances hereby approved shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its former agricultural use on or before the expiration of 20 years from the date of this permission in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The restoration scheme shall be submitted not later than 12 months prior to the expiry of the 20 year period and the duly approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and all associated appurtenances.
Reason: The proposed wind turbine has a limited life expectancy and will need to be decommissioned at the end of this period of use. The site falls within the Green Belt and is currently in agricultural use. Following the removal of the turbine, the land should be restored to its previous agricultural use in the interests of the visual amenity, openness and purposes of including land in the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
7 If the turbine hereby permitted fails to produce electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months, the turbine and any associated appurtenances shall be removed from the site within a period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period and the land restored to its former agricultural use in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved restoration scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and any associated appurtenances.
Reason: The wind turbine’s function is to generate renewable energy which would contribute to government targets by transferring a proportion of this energy to the National Grid. The benefits arising from this function are considered to constitute the very special circumstances which justify the turbine’s erection in the Green Belt. If the turbine ceases to fulfil this function it will no longer be fit for purpose and these very special circumstances will not exist. In such an instance, the land should be restored to its former state in the interests of preserving the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy D/4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
8 No construction work shall be carried out, and no materials shall be delivered to the site, other than between the hours of 07.30 and 19.00 Monday to Friday and between 07.30 and 14.00 on Saturdays, and no such operations shall take place at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties and to minimise the potential for noise and disturbance at unsocial hours in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason for recommendation:
The Local Planning Authority worked positively and proactively with the applicant to identify various solutions during the application process to ensure that the proposal comprised sustainable development and would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area and would accord with the development plan. These were incorporated into the scheme and/or have been secured by planning condition. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.
The application relates to a site located in an area of Green Belt as defined on the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The proposed wind turbine constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Development which is inappropriate in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful to openness and should only be allowed in very special circumstances. The contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this, (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development), are considered to constitute very special circumstances, which clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. Whilst readily visible in the landscape by virtue of its height and its elevated hillside location, the siting and design of the turbine would ensure that the development would not, either individually or cumulatively, introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature which would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the surrounding landscape (including the physical record of its historic and cultural evolution).
The turbine would achieve a satisfactory functional relationship with the nearest buildings and it has been adequately demonstrated that the development would not have any undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of scale, siting, height, noise generation or any other nuisance. The development would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way and would not detract unacceptably from the quiet relaxation and enjoyment of the countryside. Furthermore, the installation of the turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby.
The proposed development is therefore in compliance with the provisions of the following relevant policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, its associated Supplementary Planning Guidance or Documents and national planning policy:
G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt – General
G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/2 Countryside Around Towns RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside
G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development - Access for General Traffic
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development
G/BE/9 Conservation of the Built Heritage BE/10 Development Affecting Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments
G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development
G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/14 Wind Power Developments EM/16 Sustainable Energy Sources
G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species NE/6 Landscape Protection and Enhancement
Energy and New Development (SPD) Biodiversity and Development (SPD)
National Planning Policy Framework
In summary, the reasons for granting the permission are that Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council considers that the development is in accordance with relevant national and local planning policies and guidance and that there are no material planning considerations that indicate that an alternative decision should be reached. The planning conditions imposed would ensure that any material harm that may result from the development can be reasonably mitigated.
Report Author Richard Butler
Application Number: 12/56344/FUL Ward: Milnrow And Newhey
Proposal: Change of use of ground floor flat to nursery accomodation, change of use of existing residential parking area to childrens play area and relocation of residential parking area to north of premises.
Site Address: Channings Child Care Railway Street Newhey Rochdale OL16 3RN
Applicant: Channings Childcare
Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions
DELEGATION SCHEME
This report is brought before Members of the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee for them to determine. The Committee has delegated powers to approve or refuse the application on reasonable planning grounds.
SITE This application relates to Channings Early Years School on Railway Street, close to the junction with Huddersfield Road. The building is a large detached property built up to the footway of Railway Street. The site occupies an area of approximately 595 square metres and the building itself has a footprint of 229 square metres within the site. The building has a pitched roof and the front (south) and west facing side elevations are constructed in stone while the rear (north) and east facing side elevations are brick. The building has been in use as a nursery since 1988 and was extended in 2005 to accommodate 2 self contained residential flats.
On the east side of the site is a hardstanding area which is in use for parking, with two spaces formally marked out for residents of the flats within the site. There is also space for bin storage and a children’s play area to the rear of the building. There is a brick wall which runs along south and east boundaries of this section of the site which measures approximately 500mm in height with several brick pillars along the wall at an approximate height of 1300mm, the areas between these pillars are in filled with wood panels. There are a set of vehicle access metal gates at the south boundary of the site adjoining the footway of Railway Street, with a pedestrian access gate adjacent. The kerbs have been lowered in front of these gates and the footway altered to allow vehicles to access the parking area behind them. The children’s play area is separated from the parking by a 2 metre high green metal fence which also runs along the rear boundary of the site.
To the west of the building within the site is a hardstanding area which provides on site parking for 6 vehicles for use by staff of the nursery. There is no boundary treatment separating this area from the unadopted road from which access is taken. There is, however, a gate in the fencing to the rear of the building which provides vehicular access to the small hardstanding used for bin storage.
At the rear of the site is a large grassed area designated as Recreational Open Space by the Proposals Map of the Councils Unitary Development Plan. To the east of the site is an alleyway providing access to the rear of properties 9 to 27 Railway Street.
Railway Street is predominately residential in character with semi-detached dwellings opposite Channings Early Years School and several blocks of terraced dwellings along the street and 8 detached properties at the eastern end of the street. Huddersfield road is a busy highway with a mix of uses including St Thomas’ C of E Primary School located opposite the junction with Railway Street, close to Channings Early Years School.
PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to change the use of the ground floor flat for use ancillary to the nursery including an office and staff room and also change the use of the existing residential parking area to create a significantly larger play area. The first floor residential flat would remain.
The parking area would be relocated to the rear of the building at the northern boundary of the site. The proposed development would result in the loss of 1 residential parking space; however there would also be the loss of one of the residential units in the building. The proposed parking space at the rear of the building would be accessed via the unadopted road at the west side of the site and through the existing gates. From the parking space the remaining residential flat can be accessed through the proposed children’s play area or via the front of the property off Railway Street as the pedestrian gate would remain in place. This gate would also allow the bins stored behind the steps to the office at the rear of the building to be taken out for collection.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY
National Guidance:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
The DCLG published the National Planning Policy Framework on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF replaces 44 documents including Planning Policy Statements; Planning Policy Guidance; Minerals Policy Statements; Minerals Policy Guidance; Circular 05/2005:Planning Obligations; and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The NPPF will be referred to as appropriate in the report.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP): G/D/1 Defined Urban Area
G/CF/1 Community Facilities and Public Services G/CF/2 General Criteria for the Development of Local Community and Health Facilities
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development BE/8 Landscaping in new Development
G/A/1 Accessibility G/A/3 Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People G/A/10 New Development – Provision of Parking G/A/24 Strategic Highway Network
Appendix C Schedule of Parking Standards
SITE HISTORY 88/D22535 Change of Use of Former Conservative Club to Private Nursery and 'Early Years' School – Granted Subject to Conditions
89/D24622 New Car Park - Refused
93/D30083 Formation of Hipped Roof to Existing Nursery – Granted Subject to Conditions
05/D45861 Change of Use of Part of Nursery to Form Dwelling Including Erection of Single and First Floor Side Extensions. – Granted Subject to Conditions
07/A5638 Non-Illuminated Wall Mounted Sign - Granted Subject to Conditions
08/D50414 Use of Building as Two Self Contained Flats - Granted Subject to Conditions
09/D51987 Alterations to Existing Self Contained Apartment Including New Windows to Side Elevation - Refused
10/D53734 Erection of 2M High Brick Wall/ Paladin Fencing and Gates to Rear, Including Demolition of Existing Wall/ Fencing - Granted Subject to Conditions
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Head of Highways and Engineering: have no objection to the proposed development.
REPRESENTATIONS
Direct Publicity: - The appropriate neighbouring properties were notified of the application by letter. Seven letters of objection were received, a summary of the points raised by the objectors are listed below:
The development would increase use of the unadopted road at the west of the site, resulting in further damage and potholes on this road.
Response: The proposed development is unlikely to result in an increase in the capacity of the nursery or number of staff, but rather improve facilities for existing staff. Although one car parking space would be relocated to take its access from the unadopted road to the west, it is not considered that the increase in use of this road by a single car would have a significant detrimental impact on the quality of the road.
The development would increase congestion and blocking of access to the rear of properties on Huddersfield Road.
Response: There would be a net loss of one on site parking space, but there would also be a loss of one residential unit. Therefore, there should not be any increased traffic movements accessing the site caused by this development and consequently the development would not cause an increase in congestion and blocking of access to properties.
There is currently limited space for refuse collection and other large vehicles and this development would exacerbate this problem.
Response: As mentioned above this development is unlikely to have a significant impact on vehicular movements to and around the site.
Increase in noise levels during the day from the play area.
Response: There is already a smaller play area in use at the rear of the existing parking area. Although the development would result in an increase in size of the play area, and bring it closer to the residential properties of School Mews on Railway Street, the number of children using it would not change. Moreover the proposed play area would still be further from properties of School Mews than the existing play area is from properties on Railway Street. Finally the play area would only be in use during the day when background noise levels are higher.
Play area is too small and not suitable for this use
Response: There is at present only a small fenced play area in use at the back of the site for play. This would be significantly increased as a result of the proposal.
Current parking for residents was never used because they were told they cannot use it between 8am-6pm as it is being used as a play area for the nursery children.
Response: The current parking on site is available for use by residents of the flats in the building. However, the proposal is to remove these spaces and create a new space at the rear of the building.
Current parking layout caused loss of on street parking space on Railway Street because space had to be left in front of vehicle access gates at the south east corner of the site.
Response: The area accessed by these vehicle access gates would no longer be a parking area. Therefore the vehicle access gates and vehicle crossing constructed on the footway would no longer be required. This area on Railway Street would then be available for on street parking again which would increase the on street parking available on Railway Street and should help alleviate congestion problems on the street.
ANALYSIS Design and Visual Amenity 1. Rochdale UDP policy BE/2 (Design Criteria for New Development) requires development proposals to demonstrate good design by: • Appropriate treatment of open spaces between and around buildings, including the provision of landscaping as an integral part of the development layout and • Providing for safe and convenient access and circulation.
2.Criteria (c) of Unitary Development Plan Policy BE/8 (Landscaping in New Development) requires proposals to provide visual enclosure around car parking, storage or plant areas.
3. Criteria (b) of Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Policy CF/2 (General Criteria for the Development of Local Community and Health Facilities) requires that the proposal will have no unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses, particularly residential, by reason of visual appearance.
4. The proposed development would not result in the loss of any open space or landscaping currently afforded by the site, other than a small area along the north boundary of the site at the rear of the building which would be used as a car parking space. When the site was visited this area appeared to serve no practical purpose and was obscured from view at the rear of the building. It is considered that the removal of the two parking spaces on the east side of the site and creation of play area in this space would represent a visual improvement.
5. There is a bin storage area close to the entrance to the existing residential flats, which is proposed to remain in place. The bins in this area are behind a set of 1.5 metre high steps which obscures them from view from the street.
Residential Amenity 6. Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Policy CF/2 (General Criteria for the Development of Local Community and Health Facilities) advises that proposals for improvement to local community facilities will be permitted and supported provided that they have no unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses, particularly residential, by reason of noise or other nuisance.
7. As part of this development the existing children’s play area at the rear of the parking area would increase in size to encompass the existing parking area and bring the play area up to the south boundary at the front of the site. This would bring the play area closer to the properties of School Mews. Although the development would result in an increase in size of the play area, and bring it closer to the residential properties of School Mews on Railway Street, the number of children using it would not change. Moreover the proposed play area would still be further from properties of School Mews than the existing play area is from properties on Railway Street. Furthermore, the play area would only be in use during the day when background noise levels are higher.
Acess and Parking 8. Criteria (b) of Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Policy A/3 (Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People) requires that pedestrian access into development sites is located to provide the most convenient route to nearby facilities and destinations
9. Appendix C of Rochdale Unitary Development Plan states that the maximum required parking provision for developments, such as a crèche or day nursery is 1 parking space for each full time member of staff equivalent.
10. Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Policy A/10 (New Development – Provision of Parking) advises that if the maximum standard for a development cannot be met, an assessment of the proposal can be made on the following criteria: a) The location of the development and the appropriateness and feasibility of providing parking provision within that location; b) Access to other transport modes; c) The availability of other convenient and safe off-street parking; d) The availability of unutilised on-street parking capacity and the ability to accommodate parking without harm to visual amenity or pedestrian / road safety; and e) The willingness of a developer to fund traffic Orders to establish controls on on-street parking or other measures to mitigate the impact, including securing modal shift away from vehicular traffic and other traffic management measures.
11. The proposed parking space at the rear of the property is to be used by the occupier of the residential flat on the east side of the building. In order to access the property from the parking area the resident can walk along the rear of the building and through the play area. There is also an alternative pedestrian route from the Railway Street. This would ensure suitable pedestrian access into the development in accordance with Rochdale Development Plan Policy A/3.
12. The existing site has 2 parking spaces dedicated to residents of the flats and a further 6 spaces for use by employees of the nursery and visitors to the site. This application proposes the loss of one of the residential spaces and the relocation of the remaining space to the rear of the property, it also proposes the conversion of one of the residential flats to an office and staff room for use by the nursery staff. Therefore the loss of one of these spaces should not impact upon the capacity of the site to provide adequate parking for residents and employees at the property. As part of planning application 08/D50414 a condition was placed on the decision notice to limit the use of the two residential flats in the building to be for employees or owners of the nursery. The conversion of one of these flats to use ancillary to the nursery means that only one parking space is now required for residents of the property. Furthermore as the development would not result in an increase in the number of employees of Channings Early Years School the loss of one on site parking space would not add to any congestion problems which exist in the area.
Summary 13. The proposed development at Channings Early Years School on Railway Street, would not result in the loss of any open space and would represent an improvement in terms of visual appearance of the site and quality of service offered by the Early Years School. The increase in size of the children’s play area to the west side of the site would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of properties on Railway Street and School Mews, while the relocation of a residential parking space to the rear of the building would ensure suitable pedestrian access to the site. The loss of one on site parking space would not increase congestion or on street parking in the area because, there would be one less residential dwelling on site and there would not be an increase in number of employees of the Early Years School.
14. The site is well situated for access to public transport including rail, bus and the proposed Metrolink extension. The relocation of the residential parking space would involve the removal of a vehicle access off Railway Street, which would make more on street parking available on Railway Street thus reducing congestion problems on Railway Street. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policies G/CF/2 (General Criteria for the Development of Local Community and Health Facilities), BE/2 (Design Criteria for New Development), BE/8 (Landscaping in new Development), A/3 (Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People), A/10 (New Development – Provision of Parking), and the guidance contained within the national planning policy framework.
RECOMMENDATION
To GRANT subject to the following conditions:-
1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 This permission relates to the following plans:-
- Scale 1:1250 Ordnance Survey site location plan 56344 - Scale 1:100 and 1:1250 Existing Plans & Elevations Channings Nursery Railway Street Newhey - Drawing Number 2012.11.02.001. - Scale 1:100 and 1:1250 Proposed Plans & Elevations Channings Nursery Railway Street Newhey - Drawing Number 2012.11.02.002.
and the development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.
Reason: For the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan as listed below on this decision notice.
3 The footway of Railway Street altered to allow vehicle access to the east section of the site pursuant of planning application 08/D50414 shall be reinstated to its original state. The reinstatement of the footway shall be constructed in full accordance with a scheme which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the children’s play area hereby approved is brought into use.
Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory provision is made for pedestrians using Railway Street and to allow on street parking lessening congestion on Railway Street, in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy A/3 (Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People).
4 The single car parking space accessed from the unadopted road to the west of the site and located to the rear of the nursery shall be laid out as shown on the approved plans prior to the extended nursery first being brought into use and shall be made available for use for occupants of the onsite dwelling only and retained for that use thereafter.
Reason: To ensure appropriate parking provision is retained in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy A/10 (Provision of Parking).
Reason for recommendation:
The proposed change of use of the ground floor flat, change of use of parking area to children’s play area and relocation of residential parking space at Channings Early Years School on Railway Street, would not result in the loss of an open space and would represent an improvement in terms of visual appearance of the site and quality of service offered by the Early Years School. The increase in size of the children’s play area would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of properties on Railway Street and School Mews, while the relocation of a residential parking space to the rear of the building would ensure suitable pedestrian access to the site. The loss of one on site parking space would not increase congestion or on street parking in the area, because there would be one less residential dwelling on site and there is not an increase in number of employees of the Early Years School. The site is well situated for access to public transport including rail, bus and the proposed Metrolink extension. The relocation of the residential parking space would involve the removal of a vehicle access off Railway Street, which would make more on street parking available on Railway Street thus reducing congestion problems on Railway Street. The proposed development is therefore in compliance with the provisions of the following relevant policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan and national planning policy:
Unitary Development Plan (UDP): G/D/1 Defined Urban Area
G/CF/1 Community Facilities and Public Services G/CF/2 General Criteria for the Development of Local Community and Health Facilities
G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development BE/8 Landscaping in new Development
G/A/1 Accessibility G/A/3 Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People G/A/10 New Development - Provision of Parking G/A/24 Strategic Highway Network
Appendix C Schedule of Parking Standards
In summary, the reasons for granting the permission are that Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council considers that the development is in accordance with relevant national and local planning policies and guidance and that there are no material planning considerations that indicate that an alternative decision should be reached. The planning conditions imposed would ensure that any material harm that may result from the development can be reasonably mitigated.
Report Author Joseph Nanson