Agenda Item No: Report No: CD29/14

Eden District Council

Planning Committee 13 March 2014

Appeal Decision Letters

Report of the Head of Planning Services

Attached for Members’ information is a list of Decision Letters received since the last meeting:

Application Applicant Appeal Decision Number(s)

13/0201 JA and ME Mawson Dismissed Land at Sproat Ghyll, Orton, Penrith, CA10 3SA

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The development proposed is the erection of an 80KW wind turbine on a 30m monopole mast.

13/0575 Mr Andy Davidson Dismissed Rynrew Barn, Newton Reigny, Penrith, CA11 OAY

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The development proposed is described as the split of existing five bed property into a new 2 bed property and existing 3 bed property.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 January 2014 by B Hellier BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 19 February 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/A/13/2204259 Land at Sproat Ghyll, Orton, Penrith, CA10 3SA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by JA and ME Mawson against the decision of Eden District Council. • The application Ref 13/0201, dated 7 March 2013, was refused by notice dated 20 June 2013. • The development proposed is the erection of an 80KW wind turbine on a 30m monopole mast.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Main issues

2. I consider the main issues are: • the effect of the wind turbine on landscape character and on the appearance of the surrounding area; • the effect of noise from the operation of the wind turbine on the living conditions of nearby residents; and • whether any harmful visual effect or effect on living conditions is outweighed by other considerations.

Reasons

Planning policy

3. Government policy is to support the development of renewable energy sources, including wind power, to help to ensure that the country has a secure energy supply and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As a result of EU Directive 2009/28/EC, the UK is committed to a legally binding target to achieve 15% of all energy generated from renewable resources by 2020. The 2006 Energy Review has an aspiration of 20% of electricity to be from renewable resources by 2020. The Climate Change Act of 2008 sets a target of at least an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

4. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that an application for renewable energy should normally be approved if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Current national planning guidance (PPG)1 makes it clear

1 Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon technology. DCLG July 2013 (Paragraphs 5 and 15) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/13/2204259

that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. There is a balance to be struck.

5. The relevant development plan policies are Core Strategy1 Policies CS18 and CS20. Policy CS20 supports renewable energy proposals where there are no significant unacceptable effects which cannot be mitigated or which are not outweighed by the national and regional need for renewable energy development or wider environmental, social or economic benefits. Policy CS18 sets out criteria for the design of new development including respect for the form and character of the natural environment and protecting the distinctive rural landscape of the District. It should also not contribute to unacceptable levels of noise.

Landscape

6. The proposal is for an 80KW single two blade wind turbine with a 30 metres monopole mast, a nacelle and two 9 metre blades giving a maximum height from base to blade tip of about 40 metres. The blades would be coloured off white and the remaining structure would have a matt grey finish. It would be situated in an elevated position at a height of 270 metres AOD on agricultural land some 590 metres away from the farmstead at Sproat Ghyll Farm.

7. The site is to the east of the M6 within a broad belt of rolling foothills. About 1 kilometre to the north is the steep limestone escarpment of Crosby Ravensworth Fell. Some five or six kilometres to the south beyond the River Lune are the higher, more rounded Howgill Fells. The land drops away to the west, where the motorway and the West Coast Main Line are out of sight, working their way up to Shap summit. Further to the west the land rises again to the Lake District National Park boundary about 3 kilometres away with High Street and the central Lake District mountains in the distance.

8. A Supplementary Planning Document on wind energy has been adopted by Cumbria County Council and the Cumbrian District Councils2 (SPD). It includes a review of landscape types and their sensitivity to wind energy development. The appeal site lies within the Higher Limestone (moorlands and commons sub- type) landscape character area. It is considered to have an overall moderate/high sensitivity to wind turbines.

9. The landscape has no special designation but in the SPD is identified as being of county importance. Natural England has designated much of the surrounding area as a proposed extension to the Yorkshire Dales National Park and the relevant Orders are currently being considered by the Secretary of State3. The appeal site lies adjacent to, but just outside, the proposed boundary.

10. The surrounding countryside is generally peaceful and sparsely settled farmland. The immediate setting is improved pasture enclosed by a network of dry stone walls, with scattered farmsteads and clumps of trees giving way to more open rough pasture to the north of the appeal site. To the south there is an 18 metre high wind turbine about 500 metres away at Moor House. This is smaller than the appeal proposal and situated on lower land. There is also an

1 Eden Core Strategy Development Plan Document. Adopted March 2010 2 Cumbria Wind Energy: Supplementary Planning Document. June 2007 3 For Environment, Food and Rural Affairs www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/13/2204259

electricity line with wooden poles crossing the site. Although the proposed turbine is classified as small it would nonetheless be considerably higher than any existing features and it would appear out of scale in this setting.

11. Taking account of the size of the turbine the main visual impact would be on near and middle distance views up to a distance of about 2.5 kilometres. To the west, from the Scout Green to Greenholme road and the bridges over the motorway, the engineered terraces of the motorway and moving traffic are conspicuous in the foreground. From the motorway, driving north there would be a long distance view from the Tebay interchange and closer glimpses after passing the motorway services although from here the eye is drawn to the extensive panorama of the Lake District opening up to the left. Driving south the hill slope truncates views to the east. Generally from the west and south west I find that the turbine would have a limited visual impact.

12. On the other hand from the east and the higher land to the north the turbine would be visible as a prominent and intrusive feature. It would be seen in an isolated position on the skyline travelling from Orton out along the Shap road and the minor road to Scout Green. However, its greatest impact would be on users of rights of way. Two bridleways pass close to the site. One follows the line of a Roman road running north to south. Coming down from Crosby Ravensworth Fell there is an impressive vista of the Lune gorge and the encircling fells. For some considerable distance the turbine would be directly in the line of sight. Because of its height and the movement of its blades it would be a disruptive and distracting element in this view.

13. Further to the east there are extensive views of the site from the Appleby road where it cuts through Orton Scar and from the footpaths descending to Orton. The turbine would project uncomfortably against the backcloth of the Lake District mountains although the visual impact from here would be tempered by the increasing separation distance.

14. The surrounding countryside has considerable value as a resource for informal recreation. It is popular both with local people and also with visitors for cycling and walking. The Walney to Wear long distance cycle route uses the Greenholme-Scout Green-Orton road and Orton is also a stopping off place on the well used Coast to Coast long distance path. Several objectors refer also to the use of the bridleways by horse riders.

15. The visual impact assessment for the appellants concludes that overall visual impact would be slight. I consider this underplays the high quality and unspoilt character of the existing landscape and the extent to which it forms the foreground to fine views of nationally recognised upland landscapes. I conclude that the proposed turbine would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, most notably because of its scale and its visual impact on views from public rights of way and roads to the north and east of the site.

Noise

16. The nearest noise sensitive property to the turbine is Moor House about 342 metres away. The PPG advises that a noise assessment should be carried out in accordance with the guidance in ETSU-R-97 which seeks to achieve a level of noise which is reasonable and which would allow the nearest neighbours acceptable living conditions. It indicates that for single turbines with a very

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/13/2204259

large separation distance from the nearest property it may be sufficient to rely on a planning condition setting a noise limit of 35dB(A) LA90,10min without the need for a background noise survey. The appellants have not carried out a noise survey but have submitted noise emission data for the wind turbine provided by the manufacturer and a noise assessment. On the basis of this data and using guidance issued by the Institute of Acoustics1 the assessment concludes that the noise level at Moor House would be 30.7dB LA90 and that a simplified planning condition would be appropriate.

17. The Council points out that the test data was derived in 1999 prior to the adoption of BS EN61400 which is now the internationally recognised standard for the design and testing of wind turbines. However it has not explained why this might have led to noise levels being underestimated. The assessed noise levels would be well below the recommended limit. On the basis of the information before me noise from the operation of the wind turbine would not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.

Other considerations

18. The appellants estimate that the turbine would generate 135,000KWh of electricity each year which is the equivalent of some 70 tonnes of carbon dioxide of generation by fossil fuels. Third party responses have questioned whether an assumed capacity factor of 18% is likely to be achieved and, more generally, whether onshore wind is a cost effective form of renewable energy. Notwithstanding this the small contribution the proposal would make to reducing reliance on greenhouse gases is to be welcomed.

19. There would be an overall economic benefit. The proposal would provide an income for electricity supplied to the grid and a significant reduction in the energy costs for the farm. Additionally supermarkets are now looking for green credentials from their suppliers. There is also considerable support locally for the proposal and particularly its role in sustaining the farm enterprise.

The planning balance

20. The NPPF advises that even small-scale renewable energy schemes provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and I acknowledge the economic and environmental benefits that would arise from the proposal. However in this instance these benefits do not overcome the significant harm the turbine would cause to landscape character and its visual impact on the appearance of the surrounding landscape.

21. I have had regard to the assessment in the SPD that this landscape type has some potential for limited wind turbine development. However this is a generic assessment and each proposal must be considered on its merits. In this case there would be significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Core Strategy Policies C18 and C20 and paragraph 98 of the NPPF.

Conclusion

22. I have found in favour of the appellants in relation to living conditions but I conclude that the harm caused to landscape character and associated with

1 A Good Practice Guide to the application of ETSU-R-97 for the assessment and rating of wind turbine noise. Institute of Acoustics. May 2013 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/13/2204259

visual impact is not outweighed by other considerations and that, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed. Bern Hellier

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 January 2014 by Matthew Birkinshaw BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 11 February 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/A/13/2207181 Rynrew Barn, Newton Reigny, Penrith, CA11 0AY • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Andy Davidson against the decision of Eden District Council. • The application Ref 13/0575, dated 31 July 2013, was refused by notice dated 2 September 2013. • The development proposed is described as the split of existing five bed property into a new 2 bed property and existing 3 bed property.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Main Issue

2. The main issue is whether or not the proposal would lead to a sustainable form of development, having particular regard to its location and the need to travel.

Reasons

3. The appeal property is located within the village of Newton Reigny. Under Eden District Core Strategy Policy CS2 Newton Reigny is not identified in the hierarchy of settlements as either a Key, or Local Service Centre. Consequently, new residential development is restricted to small scale affordable housing meeting an identified need under Policies CS3 and CS9. By subdividing the existing house and creating an additional open-market dwelling the proposal therefore conflicts with Core Strategy Policies CS2, CS3 and CS9.

4. In seeking a departure from these policies the appellant states that the proposal would represent a sustainable form of development supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’). However, services in Newton Reigny are extremely limited. Penrith is approximately 2 miles away and the only public transport link from the village operates once a week. Whilst there are services at the Newton Rigg campus, it is still roughly 1 mile away and the nearest primary school is about 2.2 miles from the village. As a result, I consider that future occupiers would be heavily reliant on the use of a private car to access the majority of local services and facilities in the area.

5. In terms of more sustainable modes of transport, the appellant confirms that there are several public footpaths and the well used ‘C2C’ cycle route in the area. Reference is also made to the 3 mile walking distance used to determine free school transport for children.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/13/2207181

6. However, no specific details of the footpaths or cycle route have been provided, and during my site visit I saw that the majority of roads in and out of the village were unlit, with no dedicated pavements. Combined with the distance to the nearest shop and school, I therefore consider it highly unlikely that walking or cycling would be a realistic, or suitable alternative option to using a car, especially after dark or during bad weather. Instead, the proposal would facilitate the use of, and prioritise, more unsustainable modes of transport.

7. In reaching this view I have taken into account that there is a recreational area, place of worship, public house, a pottery hall and a village hall in Newton Reigny. Residents would therefore be able to access some facilities without having to leave the village. However, without a shop or school it is highly likely that future occupants would still need to frequently leave Newton Reigny in order to meet their day-to-day needs. Given its location and access to public transport, these journeys would require high levels of dependency on the use of a private car. Despite the appellant’s assertions to the contrary, the appeal property is therefore not within a sustainable location, and the proposal would directly increase the need to travel.

8. I also appreciate that the Eden District Core Strategy adopts a blanket approach to all villages outside Local Service Centres in defining sustainable locations. However, the designation of the village has been examined, found to be sound and formally adopted as part of the statutory development plan. Moreover, whilst the Framework does not apportion weight to one type of facility or another, it nonetheless seeks to actively manage growth to make the fullest possible use of sustainable modes of transport. Core Strategy Policy CS1 similarly seeks to minimise travel and encourage the use of sustainable transport modes, which is reflected in the hierarchy of centres and development strategy in Policy CS2. Consequently, despite adoption in 2010, these policies are therefore broadly consistent with the Framework.

9. In conclusion, the proposal would not lead to a sustainable form of development by reason of its location and access to local services, facilities and public transport, which would increase the need to travel by private car. This conflicts with Eden District Core Strategy Policy CS1 which states that development should be located to minimise the need to travel and encourage any necessary journeys to be possible by a variety of sustainable transport modes. Consequently, the proposal would not be the sustainable development as defined by the Framework and I find no reason to justify a departure from Core Strategy Policies CS2, CS3 or CS9. Moreover, by not meeting the essential need for housing in smaller settlements the proposal also conflicts with Core Strategy Policy CS7 which is concerned with housing principles.

Other Matters

10. Although not disputed by the Council, evidence provided by the appellant demonstrates a persistent under-delivery of housing, and no five year housing land supply in the District. I have therefore taken into account paragraphs 14 and 47-49 of the Framework. With this in mind, the proposal would bring about benefits by contributing towards addressing housing need, whilst creating smaller, more affordable accommodation. It would also help support services in other villages in the locality and there would be some social and economic benefits to the wider rural community, as recognised by the Framework.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/13/2207181

11. However, only one new property is proposed. The benefits it would bring about would therefore be limited, especially in terms of contributing towards the Council’s undersupply of housing, addressing housing need and supporting local services, especially in other villages. I therefore consider that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission in this case would, on balance, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. As a result, these factors do not justify allowing the appeal, or overcome the conflict with national and local planning policy.

12. I have also taken into account that the Council provided no response to the appellant’s supporting case and did not contact him following submission of the application. However, whilst I fully appreciate the appellant’s frustrations in this regard, the Council’s approach to determining the planning application is not a matter for me. Instead, I am required to consider the proposal on its specific merits, having due regard to the development plan and other relevant policy and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

13. Comments that Rynrew Barn was originally intended to be subdivided to create three dwellings are also noted. Nonetheless, the appeal proposal would, for the reasons give above, result in an unsustainable form of development contrary to local and national planning policy. Previous intentions for conversion of the barn which have not been carried out therefore do not justify granting planning permission.

14. Finally, whilst schemes allowed in Newton Reigny under the Council’s rural exception policy have been referred to me, no further details have been provided. Consequently, without any information regarding the relevant considerations taken into account, I have not given examples of other schemes elsewhere any significant weight in reaching my decision.

Conclusion

15. For the reasons given above, and having considered all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Matthew Birkinshaw

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3