SL/2017/0687

PARISH: Kirkby Ireleth Kirkby Moor Windfarm, Kirkby Moor and Lowick High Common

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition no 6 attached to planning permission 5/90/2312 (erection of 15 wind turbines and construction of access ways) to vary the temporary time condition to allow retention of turbines until 31 March 2027, followed by one year to carry out decommissioning works

APPLICANT: Zephyr Investments Ltd

Grid Ref: E: 325250 N: 483500

Gawthwaite Moor

Birk Knotts

Kirkby Moor

Lowick High Common

Kirkby Slate Quarries

Keldray Moor

Spoil Heap

Groffa Crag Scars

Old Crow Brow Quarry (disused)

Lowick High Common

Kirkby Moor Hawkswell Bracken Plot

Kirkby Moor

Cocklakes

Winnow

s g i g R t n ru B

Moor House Breast

Long Moor

Kirkby Moor Kirkby Moor

Gunson Height

Osmotherley Moor

Horse Head "

SL/2017/0687 The material contained in this plot has been reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Kirkby Moor Windfarm Licence No. 100024277 © Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Kirkby Moor and and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Lowick High Common Grizebeck ULVERSTON Scale: Not to scale SUMMARY 1. Planning application made under Section 73 of the Act to vary the end date of planning permission 5/90/2312 from 26 August 2018 to 31 March 2027, with a further year to carry out decommissioning works. The application aims to extend the life of the current permission for a further 8½ years. The main issues arising from the proposal include: • Visual and landscape impact, including cumulative impacts and impacts upon the setting of the Lake District National Park designated as a World Heritage Site. • Residential amenity impacts. • Impacts upon ecology and in particular the Kirkby Moor SSSI. • Impacts upon tourism, recreation and the local economy. • Impacts upon the setting of designated Heritage Assets and archaeological interests. • Impacts upon communication networks, in particular the Ministry of Defence air traffic control radar. • Whether the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been addressed.

RECOMMENDATION 2. That the application to vary conditions to extend the life of the windfarm is granted.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site description 3. The site comprises an upland area of moor directly to the east of Kirkby Slate Quarry, known as Kirkby Moor and Lowick High Common. It is positioned at the southern edge of the Cumbrian Mountains just beyond the southern boundary of the Lake District National Park, with the northern most proposed turbine lying just over 1km to the south of the National Park boundary. 4. The application site is located approximately 5 km to the north-west of Ulverston. The village of Grizebeck lies approximately 2 km to the north-west, Kirkby in Furness lies approximately 2 km to the southwest, and Broughton Beck lies approximately 2 km to the east of the site. 5. The nearest hamlets and villages are located in the low lying land on either side of the moor. To the east of the moor these include Gawthwaite, Broughton Beck and Netherhouses whilst to the west of the moor these include Grizebeck, Chapels, Beck Side and Kirkby in Furness. The nearest residential properties to the site are located at Moor House Farm, Groffa Cragg to the east, Croglin Farm and Cop Cross to the west and Friars Ground and High Ghyll Farm to the south-west, which are within 1km of the existing turbines. 6. The primary highway routes immediately surrounding the Kirkby Moor site are the A5092 which crosses Gawthwaite Moss approximately 1km north of the site, and the A595 which runs along the eastern side of the Duddon Estuary through Kirkby in Furness. 7. Kirkby Slate Quarry extends for approximately 1.5 km along the north-western slopes of Kirkby Moor. The quarry has been granted various permissions to be extended. Access to the existing Kirkby Moor wind farm for operational and maintenance purposes, is via the quarry, whose main access is from the A5902. A secondary access is via a minor road / track, known as the Kirkby Slate Road located to the south of the site and provides access to an existing substation building located to the south of the current turbine group. 8. Much of the application site is designated (28 February 1990) as part of the Kirkby Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for its upland heath habitat, in particular its heather moorland. An area of Access Land designated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act covers the majority of Kirkby Moor and much of the Kirkby Moor site, including the area in which the existing wind farm is sited. There is also a number of Public Rights of Way (PROW) which cross the site. The site boundary extends across two units of Common Land, Kirkby Moor Common and Lowick High Common. 9. A number of designated heritage assets are located within the vicinity of the application site including Kirkby Hall, a Grade I listed building; Ashlack Hall, St Cuthbert’s Church Beckside, and the Sir John Barrow monument which are Grade II * listed buildings, and St John’s Church Netherhouses and St Luke’s Church Lowick Grade II listed buildings. The nearest conservation areas to the proposed development are at Broughton in Furness, 5.5 km to the north-west and Ulverston Conservation area 5.2 km to the south-east. 10. Long Moor Cairn, a Scheduled Monument, is located within the application site. The Cairn is formed of two parts; the monument consists of a Bronze Age tumulus, a mound placed over a cist burial. There is also a ring cairn, a circular enclosure formed by a bank.

Proposal 11. A Section 73 planning application to extend the operational life of Kirkby Moor Wind via variation of Condition 6 of planning permission 5/90/2312. Two elements are proposed that vary the original Condition 6 to two separate conditions: • A revised end date for the cessation of power generation by 31 March 2027 and completion of all decommissioning works by 31 March 2028. This will effect extend the permission for an extra 8 and a half years. • A comprehensive scheme relating to the submission of a detailed Decommissioning Method Statement to be submitted no later than 30 September 2026 or within 6 months of the turbines becoming disused. 12. As the windfarm is pre-existing the normal operational elements of the development relating to construction etc are not listed as forming part of the proposal. It should be noted that Turbine No T2 will be removed as part of the consented extension to Kirkby Moor Quarry. 13. The proposed decommissioning scheme is covered in detail in the application, briefly the following elements are covered: • Establish a temporary decommissioning compound within Kirkby Quarry; • Installation of temporary trackway (where required) and crane pads to allow access by crane and HGV’s; • Removal of wind turbines; • Removal of transformer housing and transformers; • Removal of 700 mm upstand of concrete turbine base; • Capping of any cables left in situ; • Reinstatement of turbine bases (using appropriate sub and top soil); • Removal of temporary trackway and crane pads; • Restoration and planting of area around turbines; • Disposal of turbines and transformers; • Removal of site cabins and temporary decommissioning compound; and • Ongoing aftercare and maintenance of restored areas.

PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION 14. The requirement to carry out pre-application consultation with local communities is as set out in the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) document Community Engagement for Onshore Wind Developments: Best Practice Guidance published in October 2014. The document states that pre-application consultation is applicable to wind farm developments of between 5 MW to 50 MW; in this case Kirkby Moor produces 4.8 MW. Therefore if strictly interpreted there was no requirement to carry out a community pre-application consultation; notwithstanding this point, the applicant considered that it was still appropriate to engage with the local community and other stakeholders. Although more limited than the exercise carried out for the 2014 repowering application, the exercise has still been carried out in accordance with the minimum requirements as defined by Section 61 W of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and the EIA regulations. 15. The applicant’s have undertaken a pre-application consultation exercise with the local community and key stakeholders that is set out in the submitted Consultation Report. The consultation was undertaken by means of: • A newsletter distributed locally and advertising the public exhibition, • A public exhibition held at Grizebeck village hall on 19 July 2017, • Members of the public were also kept informed of the evolving development proposals through the project website.

16. The main issues arising from the public consultation related to landscape impacts, the moor should be returned to its original state, World Heritage Site, turbines do not have a detrimental impact, enhanced decommissioning is positive, community fund should be spent locally, object to community fund as in effect is bribery, how could the community fund be spent, there should be alternatives to onshore wind, encourage use of wind turbine beyond end of current permission. Event location was unsuitable for those living in Kirkby in Furness because of need to travel. 17. Pre -application engagement with SLDC included meetings and formal written pre-application advice. The following points were raised. • The impacts of the development will have to be considered against a baseline of there being no pre-existing windfarm; • National and local planning policies have changed since the original decision; • World Heritage Site status for the Lake District National Park (LDNP) will have implications on assessment of the proposal.

EIA and scoping 18. A formal scoping opinion was sought from the Local Planning Authority and received on 13 September 2016; however under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, Regulation 76 ‘Revocation and transitional provisions’ states that where before the commencement of these regulations … an applicant, appellant or qualifying body, as the case may be, has submitted an environmental statement or requested a scoping opinion, the 2011 Regulations continue to apply. As the 2017 regulations came into force on 16 May 2017, the 2011 Regulations are those against which the application is considered. 19. Kirkby Moor Wind Farm falls within Schedule 2 of Section 3 (i) of the 2011 Regulations as it forms: installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms) and exceeds the threshold of two turbines. In accordance with the 2011 Regulations the EIA process is to be followed based on the advice received in 2016.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT 20. 5902312 – Kirkby Moor Wind Farm (12 x 400 kW turbines) – Sec. of State – Grant – 11 March 1992. 5930654 – Lowick High Common –Anemometer mast – Grant – 1 June 1993 5911120, 5921840 and 5910841 – Sub-station and grid connection works – Grant – 10 September 1992, 28 September 1992 and 10 May 1991. SL/2012/0551, SL/2014/0587 and SL/2016/0158 – Temporary anemometer masts – Grant – 2 October 2012, 5 August 2014 and 28 April 2016.

SL/2014/1220 – Repowering Kirkby Moor Wind Farm (6 x 3 MW turbines) – Refused – 26 November 2015. 5/16/9002 - Extension to quarry – Approved.

CONSULTATIONS Parish Councils: Aldingham 21. Object to the application. Although outwith the parish it is clearly visible from a number of viewpoints within the parish, views from Birkrigg Common towards the fells are spoiled. It is now next to a World Heritage Site and SSSI, as an experiment, it has now come to the end of its useful life. Blawith and Subberthwaite 22. Raise the following points:- • Original planning permission was on experimental basis by government, there is no longer any need on this basis. • Local opinion should be taken into account. • Continued impact on LDNP and World Heritage Site and can be seen from a wide area. Rejecting the application would be an important statement of intent in showing the value of the asset. • Previous re-powering application stated equipment was obsolete and that turbines difficult to maintain; nothing has changed and breakdowns will continue to increase and equipment becomes older; access for maintenance will damage the SSSI. • No coincidence that planning permission expires at the end of the subsidy; using public money to support crumbling equipment without regard to wider environmental impacts. • The proposed changes to the site restoration are neither necessary nor advantageous to the SSSI. It is inconceivable that the site would not be fully de-commissioned. It should be left to Natural England and local people to manage the site along with the neighbouring slate quarry. Broughton Community Plan Steering Group 23. Survey carried out within Duddon parish residents:- • 96% respondents identified landscape as very important 80%, fairly important 15%, • 91% respondents identified wildlife as very important 69%, fairly important 21%, • Shows that parish residents cherish beauty and unique ecology of the area. The visual impact of the turbines plus the negative impact on wildlife means there are concerns over extending the operating life. Especially because of the World Heritage status of the LDNP and its wider setting.

Colton 24. Object to the application:- • Original application was for 25 years and clear that it should return to its SSSI status at the end of the period. • Not only within sight of LDNP, but World Heritage Site. • Previous application for re-powering stated existing turbines no longer fit for purpose. • Off shore wind farms are far more efficient, no need for Kirkby Moor to remain. Duddon 25. Strongly object to the application for the following reasons:- • The windfarm has reached the end of its 25 year permission and the site should be restored to its original status as an SSSI and is on the boundary of the LDNP which is a World Heritage Site. • Turbines inappropriate in this magnificent landscape. • No justification to extend the end date. • Windfarms at sea are more efficient and reliable. • If successful will set a precedent. Kirkby Ireleth 26. Object to the application:- • Windfarm designed to last for 25 years and planning permission only for this time. • Subsequent repair and maintenance work will bring further disruption to an already sensitive area. • Area is a SSSI and retention of the wind turbines would have detrimental effect on the area. It should be protected, the turbines dismantled and the area returned to its original state. • Following the designation of World Heritage Site the turbines are unacceptable. Millom without Parish 27. Object to the application:- • Wind farm designed to last 25 years and conditioned to be decommissioned. • Post decommissioning land has to be restored as is a SSSI. • Ongoing maintenance will disturb SSSI. • Will impact on LDNP and the World Heritage Site. • Duddon Estuary has endured the current visual impact. • Wish to speak at Planning Committee. Pennington 28. Object:- • Original application was an experiment and decision was an overruling by the Sec of State. • Stringent conditions included 25 year timescale. • National interest is now efficient production and use of energy, surely the efficient use of resources apply to the windfarm. Ulverston Town Council 29. No objection. Urswick, Bardsea and Stainton 30. Object to this application as follows:- • Council supports renewable forms of energy. • Windfarm is on inappropriate site and jars in the landscape. • Technology is dated and inefficient. • No local support. • Should be decommissioned as originally proposed. Whicham 31. Object:- • Although the windfarm does not directly impact the community, it is seen as an eyesore across the Duddon Valley. • A huge windfarm that can be seen in the Irish Sea is considered to meet the needs of the country. • Site is a SSSI and should never have the windfarm; the moor should be restored to its original condition. • The repowering application was argued on the basis that the turbines were at end of life , uneconomical and inefficient, what has changed, they should be removed as originally set out and the site made good. Other Parishes 32. It should be noted that a number of Parish Council’s did not respond to the formal consultation letter sent by SLDC.

Lake District National Park (LDNP): 33. No objections – Consider that the viewpoints used are representative and relevant and have assessed the magnitude and significance of likely visual effects on the LDNP and its setting. Material in the assessment has been the decommissioning and site restoration, habitat management and enhancement – it will secure a more satisfactory outcome for the SSSI.

34. Is the harm caused by retaining the turbines for a further 8 years offset by the benefits of a better restoration scheme? The LDNP can only comment on identifiable and direct effects on the National Park in accordance with statutory purposes. Remit is to protect the special qualities and setting of the National Park and the attributes of the components of the Outstanding Universal Values of the World Heritage Site. Other local effects are for the determining authority. 35. In making the assessment the visual effects on views both from the National Park looking out and how it would be perceived, and also views of the National Park from outside. The applicant is seeking to retain the windfarm unchanged for a further temporary period. The windfarm turbines have become established structures in the landscape; what is the harm caused by allowing them to remain for a further 8 years. This needs to be balanced against the contribution to renewable energy and the enhanced restoration. 36. The effects must be substantive and the LDNP does not consider that simply seeing them from a particular location is necessarily harmful. The assessment takes into account a number of criteria, including distance from viewpoint, landscape character, including character flow across boundaries and intervisibility with adjacent landscape character types and numbers and sensitivity of receptors as well as iconic public views within the National Park. Where the landscape character of the land is similar to that within the park boundary then the setting of the National Park is likely to be affected by large scale development outside of the National Park. The setting of the National Park is a material consideration in planning decisions and the windfarm remaining for a further 8 years has some impact on the landscape. 37. In terms of capacity for change, visual sensitivity is high as a result of its strong sense of openness and strong intervisibility with adjacent landscape character types. Overall the Low Fell Landscape Character type is considered to have limited capacity to accommodate new development without compromising key characteristics. In managing landscape change there is a need to retain uncluttered skylines, and key views to and from the area from tall, vertical and large scale development that may erode the undeveloped character of the area. 38. One of the special qualities of the National Park is the tranquillity of the fells, valleys and lakes that give a sense of space and freedom. The relatively open character of the uplands and lack of modern development is especially important. There is a sense of wildness, challenges for some and open views. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment indicates that there would be some effects on landscape character. Removal of the turbines would enhance this experience. However the wind turbines already have a presence in the landscape. The LDNP consider that the retention of the wind turbines for a further 8 years would not be unacceptable in terms of detracting from the enjoyment of the landscape and special qualities of the National Park. That does not mean that they are acceptable long term structures in this sensitive landscape.

39. The assessment of impact on the setting of the World Heritage Site and the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site is brief and restricted to impacts on the Coniston Valley. There is considered to be wider impacts on the Duddon Valley and fells including Black Coombe and Thwaites Fell. The Lake District was designated as a World Heritage Site with the turbines in situ, to retain the wind turbines for a further 8 years is NOT considered to result in unacceptable impacts on the setting and character of the WHS. This does not mean that a permanent or new development on this ridge would be acceptable in the future.

Cumbria County Council: Highways 40. No objection. Lead Local Flood Authority 41. No objection. Historic Environment Officer 42. No objection. Countryside Access 43. Where the quarry extension impinges on the site, the PROW’s affected will require a temporary diversion.

Natural England: 44. No objection – Consider that the proposal will not have significant adverse impacts on the designated site Kirkby Moor SSSI and the protected landscape of the LDNP. Welcomes the Habitat Management Plan and supports the approach of enhanced de-commissioning and the habitat gains proposed for the heather moorland and mire restoration. 45. Natural England agrees with the submitted (Landscape Visual Impact Assessment) Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that there would be significant effects on landscape character during the operational phase, these landscape effects are medium term and non-permanent, provided the development is removed and the restoration plan completed. Natural England recognises that there would be significant impacts on visual amenity, including impacts on views from the LDNP although it is noted that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment determines that significant impacts on visual amenity from within the setting of the LDNP are relatively localised. 46. The restoration plan which will result in the limited restoration of landscape features following removal of the turbine bases. Natural England considers the conclusions of the Landscape And Visual Impact Assessment reasonable.

47. Overall do not consider that the proposed development would compromise the purposes of designation or special qualities of the National Park. Would advise that the proposal is determined in line with relevant National Planning Policy Framework and Development Plan Policies, landscape and visual impacts are minimised as far as possible and landscape advice is obtained from the LDNP landscape advisor.

Historic England: 48. Do not wish to offer any comments unless there are further material changes to the application.

Environment Agency : 49. No objection.

United Utilities: 50. No response.

South Lakeland District Council: Environmental Protection Officer 51. No objection - the applicant has followed recognised guidance and assessment methodologies associated with the type of development. In preparing their assessment of operational noise, the applicant has considered noise emissions from the Windane WD34 400 kW wind turbines currently installed. Background noise levels were taken from a survey carried out in 2013 for a previous application and has already been agreed as representative. The assessment states that manufacturer’s information shows a tonal element at 385Hz at 50m. However, no complaints have been received to date.

Conservation Officer 52. The Conservation Officer has evaluated the application and supporting information and undertook a field evaluation of the development’s impacts on 5 heritage assets within the South Lakeland area that were within a 5km radius of the proposal site. These assets are Kirkby Hall (Listed Grade I); The Church of St Cuthberts Church Beckside (Grade II *); the church of St John the Evangelist, Netherhouses (Grade II ); Angerton Farmhouse and Barn (Grade II ); and the Sir John Barrow Monument on Hoad Hill in Ulverston (Grade II *) Ulverston Conservation Area was also considered and discounted. It is noted that the original scheme gave NO consideration to heritage matters. 53. The physical fabric of all 5 buildings would be unaffected, but there is the potential for the development to impact on their setting. The assessment is made on the basis of the visual effects on views both to and from the heritage assets. The fact that simply being able to see any of the wind turbines from receptor sites would not necessarily mean that a harmful impact would result. 54. The comments made previously in relation to SL/2014/1220 remain relevant. The application would have a more than slightly harmful impact on the combined significance of the heritage assets identified above. But that in all cases that impact would be less than substantial. In applying the statutory tests of the 1990 Act my advice is that the proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the five listed buildings and would have a neutral impact upon the Ulverston Conservation Area. 55. Despite finding the harm to be less than substantial a statutory presumption remains against granting planning permission for such development; however the National Planning Policy Framework and other recent case law clearly advises that such harm can be offset by other material considerations, including any public benefits that might be delivered, providing they are sufficiently powerful enough to outweigh the less than substantial harm as identified. This must be a convincing argument.

Duddon and Furness Mountain Rescue Team (MRT): 56. The windfarm companies have been supportive of the Mountain Rescue Team and have subsidised radio equipment installed on meteorology mast. New equipment will be a major hub for not just the Duddon team but also Coniston and Wasdale MRT’s. Loss of site would have a serious effect on the operation of the MRT.

Friends of the Lake District (CPRE): 57. Object on basis of continuing detrimental impacts on the visual amenity of the locality and on the LDNP that is a World Heritage Site. • Extension of time would extend the detrimental impacts; • Setting of the LDNP is material as set out in Para 17 and 115 of the NPPF; • Given current policy framework unlikely that scheme would be approved if submitted today especially given the World Heritage Site status; • Removal of turbines will have a net landscape benefit; • Retention of turbines would conflict with CS8.2; • Justification for retention is not proven; permission was always to be temporary in order to mitigate adverse impacts of the development; • Precedent is also relevant.

Arqiva - Telecoms: 58. No observations.

Ministry of Defence: 59. No objection – without prejudice to further developments.

NATS: 60. No objection.

Cumbria Tourism: 61. Object; the wind farm dominates the landscape and if not removed will continue to negatively affect visitor experiences to the area. This is heightened by the recent World Heritage Site designation for the LDNP. Could set a precedent for other similar applications for old inefficient windfarms and perpetuate the negative visual impact.

Lake District Area Ramblers: 62. Planning background has changed significantly since original decision. • Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (2011); Cumbria Wind Energy SPD (2006-8) and Cumbria Cumulative Impacts of Vertical Infrastructure Study (2014); • The LDNP is now a designated World Heritage Site; • Windfarm impacts adversely on setting of the LDNP; • Wish to see the windfarm gone as soon as possible.

Open Spaces Society: 63. Object most strongly. • Turbines are a severe intrusion particularly to the LDNP and the World Heritage Site; • Turbines occupy a significant area of common land; • Users of the paths and the common land are inconvenienced and the experience ruined by the turbines that are noisy, banausic and urbanising; • The turbines, bases, access tracks and other paraphernalia must be removed and the land returned to an SSSI.

Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment: 64. Existing turbines have a significant negative landscape and visual impact. To allow them to remain longer would be unacceptable and deleterious to the amenity of local residents and visitors. • Loss of visual amenity for walkers and road users. • No local support. • Policy has changed since 1991 and the turbines today would likely be refused, this is an opportunity to return this area to its pristine state.

The Wainwright Society: 65. Previously objected to the repowering application. The existing windfarm is a serious visual intrusion into the landscape. The windfarm should be dismantled in accordance with the permission. The land after 2018 should be restored back to its former state.

Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery: 66. The scheme is controversial from the outset. • Notable change in Government policy since the original decision. • Planning framework has significantly changed since the original decision. • Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (CWESPD) is relevant. • The CWESPD although made in recognition of the existing windfarm is irrelevant. • LDNP World Heritage status changes the planning framework. • The visual assessment ignores the presence of 300 in considering the cumulative impacts. • It is clear from Government statements that wind farms should not be forced on local communities where there is little support. • In terms of the Written Ministerial Statement it is obvious that there is little support locally. • The applicant may be hoping for a change in future policy.

Neighbours / Others: 67. A total 167 individual letters of representation to the proposal have been received at the time of writing, of which 79 have been received from the local community in the parishes immediate adjacent to the site, 51 from the wider District and 39 from outwith the District. This represents a split of 80% against with 20% in support.

Support 68. A total of 32 individual letters of support for the proposal have been received including a number of pro-forma letters that have been sent by individuals. 14 have been received from the local community in the parishes adjacent to the site, 13 from the wider district area with 7 from outwith the District. Relatively modest in size:- • The Lake District National Park, English Nature and Historic England do not object. • Original planning permission did not rule out time extension. • Proposal goes beyond the original conditions. • Ecological mitigation provided as part of the wind farm proposal will provide a net ecological benefit for the site there is no evidence that they disturb wildlife. • Would improve and restore the SSSI. • Given the state of climate change - why oppose this. • Will always require more power. • The windfarm will still make a contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. Alternative energy generation should be available for the good of the country. • Better than more nuclear. • Windfarm has some disbenefits but is greener and environmentally preferable to alternatives. • If turbines remain in good condition then why not extend time. • Still viable, still temporary, no change. • The wind farm provides local employment. • Gives good work, good wages, pension and health care scheme. • The economy of Cumbria cannot rely on tourism alone. • Mountain Rescue Team has been supported and utilise infrastructure for radio equipment and this is vital to their operation. • Will provide monies available to local community.

Objections 69. A total of 135 individual letters of objection to the proposal have been received at the time of writing, of which 65 have been received from the local community in the parishes adjacent to the site, 38 from the wider District and 32 from outwith the District. Issues raised are:- • Adverse visual impact; the turbines remain visible for miles around, greatly detract from the high amenity value of the surrounding landscape and enjoyment of this area by locals and visitors. It is an ugly scar and impacts on historic sites. • The Lake District National Park now has World Heritage Site status. • The wind farm was an experiment that has run its course. • Would not be acceptable today it was approved contrary to the wishes of locals and was a call in by the Secretary of State, no longer in the National Interest. • The turbines would impact on views from many popular locations from within the National Park which is a World Heritage status and would have a serious detrimental effect on views experienced by visitors in an area heavily dependent on the local tourism economy. • The existing turbines were only meant to be in place for 25 years. They should be removed in accordance with the condition attached to the original consent and the land restored to its natural state. The decommissioning does not require further consent. It is essential that the concrete bases should be completely removed. • There is no justification for retaining the structures on the environment other than for financial gain. The turbines will continue to take subsidies paid for by the consumers and tax payers. • There have been many advances in the production of wind energy and offshore turbines have proved more efficient and have less adverse impacts on local communities and sensitive landscapes. There are better alternatives. • Were told in the re-powering application that the turbines were worn out. • The existing turbines will begin to breakdown more frequently and give further issues in terms of noise, need for access onto the moor by maintenance vehicles. • The proposal would continue to have unacceptable impacts on local residents in terms of noise impacts; the quality of life would be harmed. • There will be a continuing adverse impact on the Kirkby Moor SSSI resulting in the damage / loss of habitat and wildlife especially moorland birds. It will adversely affect the mires and heather moorland . • An increase in flooding in Chapels has occurred.

POLICY ISSUES The Development Plan: 70. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the provisions of the statutory development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises the South Lakeland Local Plan Core Strategy and the saved policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

South Lakeland Core Strategy (CS): 71. Policy CS7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. 72. Policy CS8.2 relates to the protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character. 73. Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings.

74. Policy CS8.6 Historic Environment supports the safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing of historic environment assets, including their characteristic settings and any attributes that contribute to a sense of local distinctiveness. 75. Policy CS8.8 Flood Risk relates to development and flood risk and states that most new development should be located within flood risk zone 1. 76. Policy CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development States that the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated by the existing road network.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan (LP): 77. Saved Policy C26 relates to Wind Energy and states that “The acceptability of wind energy developments will be judged according to whether the number, size and design of proposals can be shown to satisfy the following criteria:- a) The proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on - • The character and appearance of the landscape, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests; • The amenity of residential properties by reason of visual impact, noise, shadow flicker or reflected light. b) The proposal would not have any significant adverse impact on nationally important landscape designation, including their visual amenity and setting. c) The proposal would not cause significant damage to a site of international or national nature conservation importance. d) Effective measures are available to overcome any significant electromagnetic interference to transmitting or receiving equipment. e) The power lines are placed underground or do not appear prominent in the landscape. f) Adequate access for construction traffic is available or could be provided without harm to highway safety, visual amenity or nature conservation interests. g) The cumulative effect of the proposal with existing, permitted or other proposed wind energy schemes should not have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. h) Realistic proposals are in place for the removal of redundant wind turbines and the restoration of the site. In assessing the proposals against the requirements of this policy, full account will be taken of the proposed mitigating measures. Saved Policy C31 relates to cumulative impacts of renewable energy projects . Saved Policy C7 states that development proposals within SSSI will be the subject of special scrutiny. Saved Policy L10 states that existing and proposed rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would affect their character.

Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990: 78. Under section 66 of the Act, the Local Planning Authority has to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building and its setting. Under section 72 of the Act, special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): 79. Within the framework there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and support for the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy if their impacts are (or can be made) acceptable (paragraphs 14, 17, 93, and 98). Consequently, Local Planning Authorities are expected to recognise the responsibility imposed on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources (paragraph 97). 80. Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. It should also be recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. 81. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment , states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity: Para 115; Refers to ‘the need to give ‘great weight’ to the conservation of the landscape and the scenic beauty in National Parks which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty’. Para. 118 States that development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts. 82. Section 12 Conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment. Policy 132 states that “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”. 83. Policy 134 of the NPPF guides that “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1): 84. Whilst primarily intended as the Policy Document for the National Infrastructure Division, Paragraph 1.2.1 states; “….In England and Wales this NPS is likely to be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).” The energy NPSs should speed up the transition to a low carbon economy and thus help to realise UK climate change commitments sooner than continuation under the current planning system. Part 5 of this document sets out generic impacts such as ecology.

National Planning Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3): 85. This document is also a material planning consideration for all Renewable Energy planning applications determined under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Again this document provides policy guidance for the National Infrastructure Division and lists impacts that may need to be considered:- • Whether the proposal has local community backing. • Noise impacts. • Safety issues including proximity to buildings and power lines, air traffic and MOD requirements, radar and strategic road networks. • Interference with electromagnetic transmissions. • Ecological impacts. • Impacts on designated heritage assets. • Shadow flicker and reflected light. • Energy outputs. • Cumulative landscape and visual impacts. • Decommissioning works.

OTHER MATERIAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Plan 2014 – 2019: The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (WESPD): 86. This was adopted in 2007 and provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. 87. The landscape type for this location is intermediate moorland and is judged to have an overall sensitivity of low / moderate with a moderate / high capacity to accommodate turbine development. The capacity statement sets out that small to large groups of turbines responding to the shape and scale of individual hills would be appropriate in Furness. The most notable limiting factor is the potential for turbines to erode a sense of remoteness and wildness and cause visual clutter and confusion with existing turbines and masts. It also states that there is potential for turbines on the open edges of the high plateaus or ridge to be overbearing or intrusive in relation to settlements, visitor routes and prospects from neighbouring landscapes of high sensitivity.

Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit: 88. This document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within character sub-type 9d, Ridges (Furness), within the broader landscape character type of Intermediate Moorland and Plateau. The key characteristics of this landscape sub-type are distinct ridges; extensive areas of true heathland moorland; improved pasture with distinctive stone walls; and woodland and small belts of trees forming prominent features. 89. The guidance sets out that the open and distinct ridges, heather moorland and wide and expansive uninterrupted views to sea and the Lakeland Fells and Duddon Estuary and Morecambe Bay provide drama and reinforce the sense of wildness that are sensitive to changes in land management and significant infrastructure development. It recommends that the impact of development is minimised by careful siting and design and environmental gains sought such as heather and moorland restoration. It also states that the siting of large scale wind energy should be avoided where it could degrade the open and expansive character. 90. The County Council have recently published work, produced in partnership with a number of other planning authorities, which considers the Cumulative Impact of Vertical Infrastructure (CIVI) upon the landscape character and visual amenity of the county. This is designed to be used as evidence base to support the implementation of local planning policy, including the WESPD.

Ministerial Statement 18 June 2015: 91. When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if:- • the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and • following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. 92. In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind energy development will need to have been allocated clearly in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan. Maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient. Whether a proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local planning authority. 93. The Statement includes a transitional provision where a planning application for wind energy development had already been submitted at the date on which the Statement was made, as is the case with this application. 94. In such instances, as is the case with this application, and where the development plan does not identify suitable sites, local planning authorities can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing.

The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949: 95. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as amended by the Environment Act 1949 requires ‘all relevant authorities to take the National Park statutory purposes into account when they make their decisions. If there is a conflict between those purposes; greater weight shall be attached to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage’.

APPLICANT REPRESENTATIONS 96. These are summarised (the full response can be viewed on website) as follows:- The need for increasing renewable energy still remains and this proposal will continue to make a contribution towards meeting that need. Consideration of alternatives Life extension is only considered when; there is an appropriate wind resource, a suitable grid connection, the wind farm is technically capable of continuing generation, agreement with landowners, updated feasibility work derived from information gained during the operation over the past 25 years Do Nothing…. The permission requires the removal of the turbines, but not the ancillary infrastructure such as the concrete turbine bases, the transformers, access tracks, or cable trenches. It is considered that the ‘Do nothing’ option would not provide continuing renewable energy, nor for an enhanced decommissioning and restoration of the site. This option is not being pursued given the continuing national need for renewable energy generation, the proven track record of the windfarm since 1993 and that no decommissioning or restoration scheme is environmentally unacceptable. Do something …. Various options were identified Full removal of the turbine bases and foundations – however this was discounted on the basis that the works would affect areas of the SSSI that have already successfully regenerated. In consultation with Natural England this was not seen as desirable and that the most environmentally sensitive approach would be the removal of the turbine base upstands only with the main part of the base to remain in situ. In terms of the access tracks their full removal would have meant their loss to the landowner, the Commons and the public, who all benefit from them when crossing the moor. Additionally their fencing off during restoration could create difficulties for those exercising grazing rights. In consultation with Natural England this was not seen as desirable and to focus attention on habitat enhancement and restoration elsewhere on the site. Life extension – without habitat management or restoration, this option was discounted on the basis that the site is within a SSSI. As a result of discussions with Natural England the proposed habitat management and restoration proposals were developed. Additional mitigation is also offered beyond the habitat management measures in terms of onsite improvements to aid the interpretation of the surrounding landscape, ecology and cultural heritage plus to enhance the recreational enjoyment of the paths across the site. This takes the form of marker posts and interpretation boards. Regarding the principle of development, it is found that the scheme either positively accords with, or does not conflict with, all relevant development plan policies. The support of Core Strategy Policy CS7.7 is conditional on ensuring the protection of the environment and designated areas, which is demonstrated later in the assessment. The scheme responds to the key issues set out at paragraph 1.35 of the Core Strategy and delivers against the aims of Policy CS1.1. The Cumbria Joint Wind Energy SPD is a material consideration on matters of principle which indicates that the application site falls within a landscape with medium / high capacity for wind farm development. Regarding the landscape and visual effects of the development, it is found with reference to the accompanying Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that the scheme will result in significant localised landscape and visual effects, decreasing to less than significant effects at greater distances. It is concluded that no residential properties or public rights of way will experience unacceptable harm, nor will the scheme unacceptably harm the special qualities of the Lake District National Park. Relevant development plan policies require that development proposals protect the environment (including landscape character) and the special qualities of the National Park. Saved Policy C26 of the 2006 Local Plan is specific to the type of development proposed and therefore dominant - it requires that the benefits of wind energy proposals are shown to outweigh their impacts on the landscape and that any significant adverse impacts on national designations and through cumulative effects are avoided. The scheme is shown to meet the requirements of this key policy. Nonetheless, a degree of tension with development plan landscape policies is considered to remain as a result of the landscape impacts of the development, but not such that the proposal is unacceptable when read against the development plan as a whole. Material considerations relating to landscape and visual impacts include National Policy Statement EN-3 which acknowledges the necessity of significant landscape and visual effects when securing wind energy developments essential to meeting identified need. In relation to ecological effects including effects on ornithology, it is concluded with reference to the accompanying Environmental Statement that with the implementation of the proposed Habitat Management Plan the scheme will result in a net beneficial effect upon the Kirkby Moor SSSI. No unacceptable effects on other habitats or species are anticipated. The scheme is therefore concluded to accord with relevant development plan policies. Material considerations, including the NPPF which encourages positive impacts on biodiversity, indicate in favour of the proposals. Regarding cultural heritage effects it is concluded with reference to the Environmental Statement that the development will result overall in less than substantial harm to affected heritage assets in the terms of the NPPF. Having regard to the identified significance of those assets, the degree of effect anticipated, and the duty set out at Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990, it is concluded that cultural heritage impacts are, on the application of the planning balance, acceptable. The scheme accords with the development in this respect, specifically in relation to saved Policy C26 of the 2006 Local Plan which requires a balance of benefits and harm to be struck. Regarding other material effects of the proposed development including those relating to transport, flood risk and drainage, aviation, telecommunications and tourism, it is concluded that the effects of the proposed development will be acceptable. The scheme is therefore shown to accord with the relevant policies of the development plan. No material considerations are identified which indicate against the scheme in relation to these matters. As would be expected for any application in relation to a wind farm development, the proposals have generated a number of consultation responses and comments from statutory consultees, Parish Councils, other interested groups and individual members of the public. The applicant’s letter seeks to address the relevant planning matters raised by all parties. In doing so, the letter seeks to reiterate what they consider to be the careful and considered approach to the identification and consideration of planning impacts which has informed the approach to the Life Extension project. The applicant’s Planning Statement concluded that the substantial public benefits and contribution of the proposal towards social and wider environmental interests outweighed the identified degree of harm and tension with the development plan. Consideration of this matter included an understanding of the contribution of the wind farm toward meeting the country's renewable energy targets and that without this application this contribution would be lost and add further lag against the achievement of the targets.

With regard to planning impacts and the guidance provided by the Secretary of State, taking this document in conjunction with the other documentation submitted in support of this planning application, Innogy believe that the South Lakeland District Council can properly make a planning judgment that the planning impacts identified by consultees and local communities have been addressed. The conclusions of the Planning Statement remain valid and the proposed development is considered to be suitable for the granting of planning permission. Further details in relation to the key issues identified by consultees are provided below: Online Planning Practice Guidance and Written Ministerial Statement The WMS confirms that whether a proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local planning authority. The applicant’s believe that all planning impacts identified by local communities and individuals – both positive and negative – are fully addressed in the planning application (and subsequent correspondence) and therefore the proposals comply with the relevant requirements of the WMS and the conclusions of the Planning Statement remain valid.

ASSESSMENT 97. The key planning issues raised by this proposal relate to:- a) The original decision. b) Impacts on landscape and visual amenity, including cumulative effects and impacts upon the setting of the Lake District National Park. c) The impact of the development upon residential amenity. d) The ecological impacts of the development, particularly in relation to the SSSI and its restoration. e) The impacts upon tourism, recreation and the local economy. f) Impacts upon the setting of designated Historic Assets and archaeological interests. g) Impacts upon aviation and telecommunications. h) Need, Energy Contribution and the environmental benefits of the development. i) The Written Ministerial Statement and local opinion and whether the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been addressed.

The original decision 98. Kirkby Moor Wind Farm was granted planning permission as the result of a Secretary of State ‘call in’ that went contrary to the advice of the appointed Inspector to refuse. The decision letter set out brief reasons for the decision based on the then current need to follow established national policy to proceed as quickly as possible with renewable energy projects. This was despite national and local policies for protecting the countryside. 99. As part of the decision letter 5 conditions were attached and can be summarised as follows; 1) commencement within 5 years, 2) further details of the turbines (colour & finishes), access tracks and cable runs and the concrete turbine bases, 3) a detailed method statement of the works to carry out the development and the post development restoration of the areas disturbed during the development, 4) details of the construction site compound, 5) defining access route and 6) the removal of the turbines from the site on the expiration of 25 years from the date of the turbines being brought into use. 100. What is notably lacking in the list of conditions is any requirement for the decommissioning and restoration of the site at the end of 25 years or the turbines becoming otherwise no longer required. This is an unusual situation given that in other comparable temporary permissions such as quarries and landfill sites, it was established practice to decommission and restore a site as near as feasible back to its original condition. 101. With regard to Condition 3 (for clarity this is set out in full) No development shall take place until the local planning authority has agreed a detailed method statement specifying the works and necessary safeguards to be employed in preparing and stripping the sites to be worked , including full details of the precise techniques to be applied in restoring those sites, and a management plan covering the proposed five year period of supervised regeneration. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the terms of the method statement. 102. Numerous representations have made comment that this condition covers the restoration of the site and that there was an ‘intent’ of post development restoration works. However it is clear that the condition relates only to the immediate post development restoration of areas affected directly by the construction works. 103. Similarly with Condition 6 relating to the removal of the turbines after 25 years:- The turbines hereby approved shall be removed from the site on the expiration of 25 years from the date of the turbines being first brought into use or within 1 year of the turbines decommissioned or becoming disused for any reason, whichever is the sooner. 104. The majority of the objections that have been received make the comment that this condition relates to not just the turbines but to the turbine bases, cable runs and access tracks and if not explicitly stated it should be taken that the intent was to remove all of the various elements of the windfarm. As with Condition 3 it is an unpalatable fact that the condition can only be read as relating to the removal of the turbines themselves, not the transformers, the concrete turbine bases, the cable runs or the access tracks. 105. It must be noted that within the text of the supporting letter at para 7, that the acknowledged landscape and visual harm of the windfarm was considered to not outweigh the national need for renewable energy production, the minimal ecological impacts that the windfarm would have and other harmful effects. The letter goes on to say that the expected life of the turbines was 25 years, but was caveated by stating ‘ Any case for their continuation or replacement was to be considered at that time in the light of experience gained during their actual working on the site. In saying this, the letter justifies a predicted life of turbines’ . 106. It is clear that this windfarm was an experiment in as much as it was one of the first in the UK and established the pattern for future schemes. In saying it was an experiment, there is some reasoning behind the decision that it appears that the expected life of the turbines was 25 years, but equally could be shorter or longer. 107. Why no end of life de-commissioning and restoration condition was imposed in 1991 is unclear. (It was established best practice for other similar temporary permissions such as minerals and waste sites to have conditions for site restoration following cessation of operations). The Inspector’s report within paragraph 7.28 refers to conditions to be applied in the event of an approval and again in paragraph 7.44 where the reference is made to follow a list of conditions as suggested by the applicant in the appeal documentation. This list did not include any proposed decommissioning condition(s). 108. The original decision taken to grant planning permission despite the opinion of the appointed Inspector carries limited weight in the current assessment. The national and local planning policy framework has significantly shifted in terms of onshore renewables from that in1991. However the underlying planning arguments for the current application remain the same as the original decision. It is widely acknowledged that there is harm and impact on the landscape and visual amenity of the area; but is this outweighed by a contribution to renewable energy production? 109. Where the current application differs is some added value is offered by a relatively short continuation of the windfarm by the proposed restoration of the turbine bases plus the restoration of a degraded area of moorland. Landscape and visual impacts 110. The baseline against which the landscape, visual and cumulative effects of this proposal must be considered is judged to be a site which has no turbines. However the submitted Landscape And Visual Impact Assessment is unusual dealing with a pre-existing situation, so the assessment process is not one of having to visualise what the impacts may be, the accuracy of the information or modelling of the visual impacts. The visual impacts are known, apparent and have existed for 25 years. 111. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and accompanying visualisations have been compiled using up to date guidelines and can be considered as being more rigorous when compared to the information submitted in 1991. They are considered by the Local Planning Authority to meet the Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance and the photomontage material meets best practice guidance established by Scottish Natural Heritage. 112. The acceptability of the Landscape And Visual Impact Assessment Zone of Theoretical Visibility also confirmed by the LDNP in their consultation response. The assessment of the Landscape And Visual Impact Assessment undertaken by Lake District National Park is material and has been taken into account. As this is a S.73 application, it is being considered as in effect a fresh planning permission.

Distance 113. The available guidance on the effects of distance on perception of wind energy developments in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (CWESPD) relates to turbines of a larger size and scale than those currently located on Kirkby Moor. 114. The advice considers that turbines 95 -120 m to blade tip will be visible as follows:- • Dominant as a key focus in close range views up to 2.4 km. • Prominent as a key element in close range views of the landscape between 2 - 4.6 km. • Conspicuous as a noticeable feature in mid to long range views of the wider landscape with blade movement perceptible between 6 - 12 km. • Apparent as a visible feature in long range views of a wide landscape, turbines being perceived as a group rather than individual entities and blade movement. • Only perceptible in clear weather conditions between 12 - 18 km. • Inconspicuous as a minor feature in distant views of a broad landscape only seen in very clear visibility between 18 - 30 km. 115. The above assumes an open landscape. Other factors can affect likely appearance such as weather conditions, season, direction of view and familiarity and expectations of the viewer. Clearly the Kirkby Moor scenario falls below these thresholds; it is considered that the impacts have been considered within the Landscape And Visual Impact Assessment.

Landscape impacts 116. The site lies within character sub-type 9d – Ridges as identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT). This area has a moderate to high landscape value and has been assessed in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (WESPD) as having low / moderate sensitivity. This is largely attributable to the large scale, simple nature of the landscape. The application site is within a landscape character that also flows into and is indistinguishable to the adjacent National Park. The boundary of the Lake District National Park is located approximately 1 km to the north of the nearest turbine. 117. The general landscape type is deemed to have a moderate / high capacity to accommodate “up to a large group” which is 6 - 9 turbines and exceptionally up to a medium wind farm (16 to 25 turbines). However, the WESPD indicates that there are sensitivities relating to other landscape characteristics, which limit this capacity, notably the setting of the National Park and prospects from neighbouring landscapes of high sensitivity. Guidance in the CLCGT highlights the key views towards the sea and Lakeland fells, and sense of wildness which are characteristic of this landscape type, which are sensitive to infrastructure development. 118. In order to assist with the assessment of the potential landscape and visual impacts of the proposal, a series of photographic visualisations and photomontages are submitted from a total of 28 viewpoints surrounding the site. The viewpoints are selected on the basis of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility analysis, field observations and include specific views of recognised importance such as the Sir John Barrow Monument at Hoad Hill, Birkrigg Common and the summit of Coniston Old Man. The closest viewpoints are within 2 km of the site and most are located within 10 km of the site where the impacts potentially range from conspicuous to dominant. 119. For each viewpoint, an assessment of its sensitivity, the magnitude of change and the level of significance of the impact is recorded. The level of impact of the proposed development from 8 of these viewpoints, all but one of which have a high or very high level of sensitivity, is judged to be major and therefore significant. These include views from Grizebeck, Broughton Beck, Harlock, and Kirkby in Furness, Lowick Bridge, Hoad Hill, Woodlands and Great Burney. Three of these viewpoints are within the National Park.

The applicant’s assessment 120. The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concludes that there would be some significant effects on landscape character during the operational phase of the development but that these effects will be relatively localised to the site. The applicant’s assessment states that there would be a significant effect on landscape character across some but not all of the landscape within a distance of up to 5 km from the proposed turbines. The Kirkby Moor site also has a historical and well established association with commercial wind farm development. It contends that the retention of the turbines would not prevent an appreciation of the distant views which can be enjoyed from various locations across Kirkby Moor towards the Lakeland Fells and the estuarine landscapes surrounding the moor. It also states that the turbines would be compatible with the underlying landscape and the character type would be able to accommodate the turbines. The landscape surrounding the site exhibits many examples of human interaction with the land including most notably the Kirkby Slate Quarry which has a strong influence on the perception of the moor.

Officer’s assessment of landscape impacts 121. It is acknowledged that the visibility of the turbines within the landscape varies, due to the undulating topography of the area and as such the turbines are screened from view in certain areas. However, from the many viewpoints where the turbines are visible the effects are significant because of their scale and elevation. The most significant effects upon the local landscape arise when the turbines are seen in views towards the Lake District National Park from the Open Access land on the higher points on Bank House Moor to the south of the site, as illustrated by the viewpoint from the minor road near Harlock, from the lower land to the east around Broughton Beck, and from the Sir John Barrow monument on Hoad Hill to the south-west. From other points closer to the site only the upper parts of the blades will be visible; these impacts have an unpredictable relationship with the landscape. 122. The turbines are also visible from the viewpoints adjacent to the Duddon estuary, a landscape which affords panoramic view with the fells framing the intertidal areas. Whilst the panoramic nature of the views of the site and the scale of these turbines reduce the relative impact of the turbines from some aspects, they still detract in part from the smooth ridgeline that runs from Torver to Bankhouse and they will contribute to the cumulative effects of the existing and consented turbines at the Askham and Furness windfarms. 123. The high lakeland peaks such as Coniston Old Man are highly sensitive to change and they have a view of the development. The turbines are visible from the other peaks and outlying fells closer to the site including Thwaites Fell and Black Combe. Whilst the Landscape And Visual Impact Assessment concludes that the development would have a moderate effect on these viewpoints which is not deemed to be significant, the turbines are clearly visible and more prominent in the landscape from these areas of high sensitivity. 124. The applicant refers to the current impact of the Kirkby Moor Slate Quarry upon the existing landscape. The quarry lends an industrial character to the landscape, but this is focused upon a localised area around the site. From the higher undeveloped parts to the south in particular, the quarry is not seen and the sense of wildness described by the CLCGT, derived from a general lack of development, does remain intact and not significantly affected by the turbines. 125. Kirkby Moor forms part of a range of low fells, stretching from Torver Common in the north, to Bank House Moor in the south. Although the application site is located outside the National Park boundary, there is a strong linkage between landscape type 9d within which the development would be located and the adjacent identified landscape character type, within the National Park. This is a transitional landscape of rolling hills and rugged fells where there is a relative scarcity of built features. There are strong character flows across the boundary, and as such is considered to be equally as sensitive to change. It is considered that the turbines form a prominent skyline feature within this landscape, eroding the undeveloped character of the area, and adversely affecting the setting of the Lake District National Park.

Visual impacts 126. The site is located within an area where there are large expanses of Open Access land, an extensive public footpath, bridleways, trunk and local road network, as well as numerous residential properties, including isolated farms, and hamlets, as well as larger villages and towns. The applicant has assessed the visual effects of the proposed turbines upon predicted receptors, falling into these categories. 127. The settlements of Gawthwaite, Netherhouses, Broughton Beck, Beanthwaite, Grizebeck, Chapels, Kirkby in Furness, Beckside, Soutergate, Lowick Bridge and Lowick Green, which are located within 5 km of the site, have been assessed. Of these, Chapels, Beanthwaite and Lowick Green are said to experience little visibility. 128. In regard to the effect upon recognised recreational trails and routes, significant effects are predicted by the applicant upon some sections of the Cumbria Way and Cumbria Coastal Ways, the Furness Way, National Cycle Network 70 and Regional Cycle Route 37. Public Rights of Way, minor roads and Open Access land within 3 km are predicted to experience significant effects. Beyond this, up to 5 km from the site, visibility of the turbines becomes more intermittent. From where they are visible within this zone however, significant effects are again predicted. Between 5 - 10 km of the site, the applicant concludes that the impacts would not be significant, due to distance. 129. The major roads within 10 km of the site include the A593, A595, A5093, A5092, A590, A5084 and A5087. The applicant’s assessment indicates that there would be intermittent visibility of the turbines upon certain sections of these roads. The siting of the wind turbines set back and on the ‘shoulder’ of the Moorland does mean that the visual impacts are mitigated by intervening landscape features and that full views of the wind turbines and the windfarm are limited. 130. Moderate effects upon the views experienced are predicted along some stretches of road. Although these are not viewed as significant, given that some of these roads lie within, or directly adjacent to the Lake District National Park, recreational users are considered to have a greater focus upon the landscape generally and are more sensitive to changes in the landscape. It is considered that this higher sensitivity would generate a more significant effect than that predicted by the applicant in some areas. 131. With regard to the two Coniston Water viewpoints and for users of boats on the lake, including the Steam Gondola passenger ferry, the introduction of industrial elements and rotating movement associated with the turbines will detract from the ‘Opportunities for quiet enjoyment’, which is one of the identified ‘Special Qualities’ of the National Park. The turbines have introduced change to this iconic view, but these are considered, by virtue of the distance and relative size of the turbines to be very limited. 132. With regard to other viewpoints within the National Park where significant visual effects have been identified, these locations may be less frequented and as such will be viewed by fewer people, nonetheless they are still visual effects and as such weight should be attached to the protection of the scenic beauty of this landscape which is given the highest level of protection.

Cumulative impacts 133. The wind farms of particular relevance to the cumulative assessment of this scheme are Harlock Hill (5 turbines 53.5 m to blade tip), 3.5 km to the south and Far Old Park Farm at Askham (7 turbines 63.5 m to blade tip), 6 km to the south-west. 134. The Harlock Hill site has now been repowered (now known as the ‘Furness’ wind farm, 5 turbines, 99.5 m to blade tip). The applicant has considered the Furness wind farm to form part of the baseline, rather than the existing, smaller, Harlock Hill scheme. 135. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment acknowledges the cumulative effects with the Furness windfarm and also to a lesser extent the Askham site is within the Landscape. The Kirkby Moor site and the Furness site will be perceived simultaneously from 12 of the 28 viewpoints, including those with a high sensitivity such as Birkrigg Common, Coniston Old Man, Sandscale Hawes and great Burney. It is noted that from most of these viewpoints, some but not all of the turbines will be visible at once, and that they will, due to distance be seen as separate developments. From viewpoints on Coniston Old Man and Great Burney the two sites will be seen in combination as one development. 136. It is considered that the proposed turbines will perpetuate the already significant cumulative effects upon the high ground which forms the core of landscape type 9d. This high ground is prominent in views from the adjacent landscape types noted above, and forms part of the setting of the Lake District National Park.

Conclusion 137. The wind farm development is clearly visible from the surrounding area and due to the scale and elevation of the structures results in significant adverse landscape and visual impacts from a number of areas both within and outside the National Park, which cannot be mitigated for. This reflects the original opinions expressed both in the 1991 Inspector’s Report and the Secretary of State’s Decision Letter. 138. Where the landscape character of the land is similar to that within the park boundary then the setting of the National Park is likely to be affected by large scale development outside of the National Park. The setting of the National Park is a material consideration in planning decisions and the windfarm remaining for a further 8 years has some detrimental impact on the landscape. 139. Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan seeks to protect the special qualities of the National Parks, including their setting. There is also a duty under the National Park and Access to the Countryside Act for the Local Planning Authority to take the National Park Purposes into account when making decisions. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF also states that great weight should be given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of National Parks which have the highest level of protection. It is considered that the proposal remains in conflict with these policies through the introduction of adverse impacts to the visual amenity on parts of the Lake District National Park. However the response from the LDNP is of no objection to the continuance of the existing wind farm. 140. These landscape and habitat improvements whilst small in terms of the area involved within the context of the entire SSSI are nonetheless important and will prevent a further degradation of the moorland. 141. On balance, the landscape harm that the windfarm causes is acknowledged, but in the context of a relatively short time extension that is itself limited by the subsidy regime, there are clear public benefits of a more complete restoration of the site and habitat improvement elsewhere within Kirkby Moor. The Lake District was designated as a World Heritage Site with the turbines in situ. The conclusion that can be taken from the response of the LDNP is that to retain the wind turbines for a further 8 years will not result in any greater unacceptable impacts on the setting and character of the WHS than as already exist. However, it is explicit that a permanent or new development on this ridge would not be acceptable in the future.

Impacts

142. The submitted Environmental Statement considers the potential amenity impacts on the nearest residential dwellings including noise, visual impacts and visual effects arising from shadow flicker.

Noise 143. The applicant’s assessment has been carried out according to the recommendations of ETSU-R-97, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. Baseline noise levels were measured at 8 residential properties closest to the site. Using the criteria outlined in the appropriate British Standard for such noise levels (BS5228:Part 1 2009+A1:2014). The noise levels of the existing windfarm from the existing turbines will be below accepted levels both alone and when combined with operation of the Furness Wind Farm and the future de-commissioning of the windfarm. 144. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has confirmed that the predicted noise levels are within acceptable limits based upon current approved guidelines. A number of conditions are recommended to protect neighbouring residents from unacceptable levels of operational noise nuisance, including excessive amplitude modulation, should permission be granted.

Visual impact 145. The applicant’s undertook a Residential Visual Amenity Study in 2014 for the purposes of the re-powering application. This encompassed all properties within 1 km of the application site. This was then used to determine whether the proposed development would have an overbearing, overwhelming or oppressive effect on residential amenity, such that a property would become widely regarded to be an unattractive place in which to live. 146. Of 24 residential properties within the 1 km study area it was considered that no properties would experience a significant visual effect on the view from some part of their house and garden. The study advises that the residents of these properties would not experience such an overbearing or overwhelming effect on their visual amenity that their properties would become unattractive places in which to live.

Shadow flicker 147. Shadow flicker is the effect of the sun shining behind the rotating turbine blades and creating an intermittent shadow. It only occurs inside buildings where there is a narrow window opening and where certain meteorological, seasonal and geographical conditions prevail. The sun must be low in the sky and the wind turbine and property must be in line with the sun. The resultant effect is that moving shadows are cast through a window opening which appear to flick on and off as the blades rotate and can be detrimental to the amenity of residents. It has been shown to only occur within a distance equivalent to ten rotor diameters of a turbine, in this case, 925 metres, and the distance between the turbine and a residential property affects the intensity of the shadows cast by the blades. 148. The zone of influence within which properties could be significantly affected by shadow flicker, covers a distance of 10 rotor diameters from each turbine and lies 130 degrees either side of north (relative to each turbine). In the case of the Kirkby Moor Wind Farm, this zone would extend to 348 m from each turbine. The nearest properties at Moor House Farm, Groffa Cragg and Croglin Farm lie outside this distance and therefore it has been assessed that there would be no significant shadow flicker effects.

Ecology 149. The majority of the site is located within the Kirkby Moor SSSI, recognised for its upland heath habitats, particularly heather moorland and one of only three upland SSSI’s in south Cumbria. The submitted Environmental Statement considers the effects on the ecology associated with the proposed development and includes studies to identify the main ecological species within the site and its surroundings, including protected species surveys for otters, water voles, badgers, bats and great crested newts. It concludes that there would be no significant effects on any protected species or habitats present within the site boundary. 150. The likely ornithological impacts arising from the proposed development have also been considered which concludes there would be no significant effects on birds due to the habitat taken up by the construction of turbine bases, access tracks and infrastructure. It was also found that there would be no significant effects caused by disturbance to breeding birds, wintering birds or through bird collision with the wind turbines or birds being unable to use the areas around the turbines . 151. Policy CS8.4 states that development proposals that would have a direct adverse effect on nationally designated sites should not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less harm, the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided. 152. A Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and a Decommissioning Method Statement (DMS) forms part of the Environmental Statement submission. These measures include the restoration and re-establishment of habitats on the existing turbine bases and on other degraded areas within Kirkby Moor. 153. The original scheme identified at each turbine an area of approximately 15 x 17 metres where habitat was stripped to facilitate the construction of the concrete bases; the stripped material was then reinstated and was managed over a five year period to allow adequate regeneration. 154. As part of the extension of the quarry application 5/16/9002 a Habitat Management Plan was used as the basis for the HMP for the Repowering Scheme and similar principles are now being applied to the Life Extension scheme. 155. The strategy identified by the HMP identifies 3 main areas of restoration and management. • Restoration of heather moorland to the west of the windfarm (Winnow) The Winnow is a 1 ha area of degraded heather moorland, that has been subject to bracken control , but requires management back to heather from grassland that has formed as a result of grazing pressure. It is intended that this will start during the initial period of the Life Extension. 156. • Restoration of hydrological integrity of mires The mires and flushes that occur at Kirkby Moor are botanically the more interesting areas of the moor. To the east of Turbine No T6 the drainage is impaired and overflows across the Old Slate Road and along the road to the north-west. The natural flow of water will be reinstated to re-connect the mires either side of the Old Slate Road. This will be achieved by parts of the Old Slate Road being excavated and drain pipes installed together with the installation of a peat bund to hold water and reduce water loss. 157. • Decommissioning restoration of turbine bases Since the installation of the turbines, the habitats outwith the upstand of each base have successfully regenerated, however some of the areas are overgrazed and that has resulted in the land becoming poached and or with grass becoming established. Existing and new stock proof fencing will be either repaired or provided around each turbine appropriate to the area to be restored following the removal of the turbines. Stock will be excluded for a period of 5 years. The total area to be restored will be 0.25 ha. 158. The Environmental Statement concludes that over the life time of the Extension of Life scheme, the successful implementation of the habitat restoration works detailed in the HMP will result in the ongoing loss of habitat being offset by the restoration of degraded or poor quality habitat within the SSSI at present. The ecological enhancements are likely to result in a beneficial effect of at least moderate significance. 159. Natural England has been fully engaged with the proposals and has confirmed that they are in support of the proposals. The HMP can only be fully implemented on the agreement of third parties including Holker Estates, the Commons graziers and adjacent landowner. 160. Members will note that neither the Cumbria Wildlife Trust nor the RSPB have responded and therefore the advice offered by Natural England on the proposed mitigation measures as set out in the Habitat Management Plan is considered as acceptable. The restoration and enhancement measures relate to existing land within the SSSI for which existing conservation objectives are already identified and perhaps should not be considered as ‘over and above’ those measures necessary for SSSI management. 161. The removal of the upstand of the concrete wind turbine bases has a public benefit as it will allow the site to be fully re-vegetated and therefore the physical presence of the turbines on the moor will be concealed on decommissioning. The current permission only makes allowance for the removal of the wind turbines and not their bases, and in reality the concrete upstands could remain in situ. The area of 0.25ha of regeneration directly associated with the turbine bases is insignificant in comparison to the total area of 780.9 ha of the SSSI; nonetheless if the upstands were to remain and the areas remain unrestored the habitat around the bases would likely become further degraded. The further remediation and restoration of areas of mire and moorland not directly related to the windfarm is a further small but tangible public benefit. 162. It is accepted that this could perhaps come forward as part of the normal management of the land and the SSSI, however the commitment by the applicant to carry out those works to an identified timescale is an improvement on the existing situation of ‘no restoration’ and would be independent of the ongoing draw on funding for the management of the SSSI. It could be seen as relieving the landowner of some responsibilities; however equally it could be viewed as the release of monies to enable other remediation and restoration projects on the moor. 163. The existing tracks will remain in place as these are relatively limited and there has been regrowth of the vegetation. Their retention will facilitate passage across the moor by the commons graziers and others enjoying access and reduce the pressure on other areas that have not been disturbed. Similarly the cables connecting the turbines are intended to remain in situ as the works to fully remove them would have a greater impact than simply cutting them short and burying. 164. The Draft Decommissioning Method Statement (DMS) has been drawn up in accordance with the document Good Practice during Windfarm Construction and has the benefit of the experience of windfarm developments since 1991. The DMS identifies public highway access, the methodology of access for decommissioning across the moor by cranes and HGV’s, the removal of the turbines, the associated transformers and concrete base upstands. The net result is that no built element will remain above ground level. 165. Finally all of the materials arising will be re-used, recycled or disposed of following the Waste Hierarchy. 166. None of the consultees have raised any issues with the decommissioning proposals or details contained within either the HMP or DMS.

Tourism, Recreation and the Local Economy

167. The submitted Environmental Statement considers the effects of the proposed development on the local and wider economy, the local tourism industry and recreational activities in the area surrounding the Kirkby Moor Wind Farm site. 168. The scale of the turbines at 42.2 metres means they are visible as a skyline element when viewed from the two viewpoints adjacent to Coniston and also from boats on Coniston Water itself, which is a popular tourist attraction. The turbines are seen to a limited extent above the woodland and open fell backdrop to the south and it is considered that this would constitute an effect which will detract from the ‘special qualities’ of the National Park in particular the ‘opportunities for quiet enjoyment’. 169. The assessment acknowledges that the benefits to the local economy as a result of the development would not be significant and relates to the continuing employment. 170. With regard to the potential impacts on tourism in the area, the applicant considers that based upon published literature and data available during the operation of the existing windfarm there would be no significant effects on tourism in the area. However, representation has been received that intimates that tourism within the Duddon Valley is separate to and should not be considered as part of Lake District. The applicant has used publicly available information as a baseline for this assessment. The exact reasons for changes in visitor numbers are subject to many social and economic variables and not just those relating to the windfarm. To insist on separate research or surveys would be difficult to justify. However with reference to research carried out by Visit Scotland on the impact of windfarms it is apparent that the issues are complex. 171. Other viewpoints within the National Park at Great Burney, Woodlands, Lowick Bridge and Hawthwaite would be the subject of visual impacts. Whilst these areas are not specifically noted for a concentration of tourism attractions, the introduction of these industrial elements may be perceived to disrupt the peace and tranquillity of receptors in the area of these viewpoints.

Recreational impacts and Public Rights of Way 172. There are numerous recreational cycle and walking routes in the area, both within, and in areas surrounding the site, which contribute to the tourism attraction of the area, and which are likely to be affected by the proposed development. These include the Cumbria Way, Cumbria Coastal Way, Cistercian Way, The Furness Way, Haematite Trail, and Regional Cycle Route 37, National Cycle Route 70. 173. The applicant acknowledges that whilst there would be some significant visual effects upon users of the public rights of way within the site, they contend that the existing routes would continue to be enjoyed by these users, and the turbines would not deter people from using the moor for recreation. The Ramblers Association contend that the turbines would adversely affect the walking environment from public rights of way crossing the moor because of their scale and dominance in the landscape as well as the intrusive noise levels.

Impacts upon the setting of designated Historic Assets and archaeological interests

174. There are 5 identified heritage assets within the South Lakeland area that are located within a 5km radius of the proposal site. These assets are Kirkby Hall (Listed Grade I); The Church of St Cuthberts Church Beckside (Grade II *); the church of St John the Evangelist, Netherhouses (Grade II ); Angerton Farmhouse and Barn (Grade II ); and the Sir John Barrow Monument on Hoad Hill in Ulverston (Grade II *) Ulverston Conservation Area. The physical fabric of all 5 buildings would be unaffected, but there is the potential for the development to impact on their setting. The assessment is made on the basis of the visual effects on views both to and from the heritage assets. The fact that simply being able to see any of the wind turbines from receptor sites would NOT necessarily mean that a harmful impact would result. 175. The potential impacts on heritage assets within the National Park and the World Heritage Site have also been assessed and are outlined in the response received from the LDNP. It is considered that the windfarm would have a more than slightly harmful impact on the combined significance of the heritage assets identified above. But that in all cases both in the South Lakeland area and the National Park that impact is considered less than substantial. 176. Under Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Local Planning Authorities have a duty to give special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of listed buildings and their settings and conservation areas. If any harm will be caused as a result of the proposed development, this should be given considerable importance and weight and creates a presumption against the granting of permission. 178. Overall therefore, the proposed development would have a moderately harmful impact on the combined significance of the heritage assets identified above; but in all cases that impact would be less than substantial. In applying the statutory tests of the 1990 Act the proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the five listed buildings and would have a neutral impact upon the Ulverston Conservation Area. 179. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against public benefits of the proposal, The Planning Practice Guidance defines public benefits as ‘anything that delivers economic, social and environmental progress’ 180. Despite finding the harm to be less than substantial a statutory presumption remains against granting planning permission for such development; However the NPPF and other recent case law clearly advises that such harm can be offset by other material considerations, including any public benefits that might be delivered, providing they are sufficiently powerful enough to outweigh the less than substantial harm as identified. This must be a convincing argument. In this case it is considered that the identified harm to the setting of five designated assets is on balance outweighed by acknowledged environmental public benefits of the proposed development.

Archaeological interests 181. The Historic Environment Officer raises no objections; clearly the archaeological interest is either already recorded or was destroyed during the implementation of the 1991 permission.

Aviation and Telecommunications 182. There are no issues raised regarding impacts on civilian and military air traffic, air traffic control and defence infrastructure. This is presumably on the basis that the impacts of the windfarm are already well understood.

Energy Contribution

183. National policy strongly encourages the use of renewable energy sources to help offset greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing reliance on imported energy supplies. They form part of a mix of energy resources being supported by Government. The Climate Change Act requires a 26% cut in carbon emissions by 2020, rising to 80% by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). The Renewable Energy Strategy, 2009 seeks to deliver European-set targets that will increase renewable energy generation to cover 15% of the UK’s energy needs. To achieve the 10 fold increase, substantial additional renewable electricity production will be required. The Government sees an expansion of wind energy capacity, both on and off shore, as key to meeting these targets. 184. The Renewables Obligation (RO) is one of the main support mechanisms for large-scale renewable electricity projects in the UK. The RO came into effect in 2002 in England. It places an obligation on UK electricity suppliers to source an increasing proportion of the electricity they supply from renewable sources. Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) are certificates issued to operators of accredited renewable generating stations for the eligible renewable electricity they generate. Operators of RO accredited projects can trade ROCs with other parties. ROCs are ultimately used by electricity suppliers to demonstrate that they have met their obligation. Where electricity suppliers do not present a sufficient number of ROCs to meet their annual obligation they must pay an equivalent amount into a buy-out fund. The administration cost of the scheme is recovered from the fund and the rest is distributed back to suppliers in proportion to the number of ROCs they produced in meeting their individual obligation. 185. The Kirkby Moor windfarm is eligible to receive ROCs for the electricity it generates until 31 March 2027. Based on the evidence provided by the applicant, it is not in the windfarm Operator’s interest to run the windfarm inefficiently, in reality reducing the amount of ‘down time’ allows them to receive the maximum number of certificates. 186. A significant level of representation has been received regarding previous references to the longevity of the original turbines made in the re-powering application (SL2014/01220). Understandably there is a tension between those previous statements and the fact that the turbines are now considered to be capable of lasting a further 9 years. The applicant has confirmed that the turbines appear to be in ‘better shape than expected’ and have been well maintained; nonetheless the turbines are certainly in the latter stages of their design life. In acknowledging this the applicant’s have provided an enhanced ‘Inspection, Servicing, Maintenance and Repair Programme’ for the site. 187. There have been a significant number of representations that have referred to the application being driven by the continuing subsidies available. This is not a planning matter; but it has to be accepted that subsidies and incentives are widely used by National Government to act as a ‘carrot and stick’ across a wide range of activities and industries to encourage the take up of new technologies and / or as support. This is part and parcel of the national economy. The use of incentives and subsidies has been successful in bringing forward new renewable energy technologies and their encouraging widespread adoption. That the subsidy for the windfarm will end in 2026 could be viewed as a degree of re-assurance, that the windfarm will be finally decommissioned and removed. 188. The applicant calculates that the existing Kirkby Moor Wind Farm has provided renewable energy over the last 23 years of 12 GWh per year. This is equivalent to providing the average annual electricity needs for 2,700 homes. This is based on an average UK home consumption of approximately 4,400 kWh. 189. It has also been calculated that the current Carbon Dioxide offset over the past 23 years of the windfarm’s operation ranges between 4,700 tonnes (based of gas fired generation) and up to 10,900 tonnes (coal fired generation). In considering this current application the established and known level of performance is relevant and although the exact future performance of the windfarm cannot be guaranteed given changing weather patterns, it is not unreasonable to assume that any future performance will be pro rata similar. 190. In assessing this scheme, this contribution towards energy supply needs to be considered alongside the local impacts of the development, in accord with strategic planning guidance. Given the rapidly changing global energy requirements and the increased move away from fossil fuels, even the small contribution the windfarm will continue to provide is valuable.

Other issues:- Access and Highways 191. The Highways Officer has raised no objections.

Drainage and Flood Risk 192. The County Council as LLFA have not objected to the proposed development.

Support from the affected local community

193. In applying the transitional provisions set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015, it is clear that a substantial number of representations received from the local community, including 13 Parish Councils, do not support the proposed development. The representations received identify a number of potential adverse impacts which are likely to arise from the proposed development including harm to the landscape, visual amenity, residential amenity, ecology and the setting of heritage assets. 194. The WMS establishes that whether a proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a material planning judgement for the local planning authority. There have been a number of appeals and case law that is relevant in how this guidance has been applied. The general approach that appears to have been taken is that that notwithstanding local opinion that the primacy of National and Local Planning Policy remains. It is incumbent on the decision maker to attach appropriate weight to the material considerations. The WMS does not require, and as based on the available appeals and case law evidence it would be incorrect and inappropriate to read it as suggesting that such impacts can only be addressed through, amendments or further assessment following the receipt of representations. 195. Whilst energy production and the security of supply are national issues that directly affect everyone, the location of any generating facility of any size and scale has a local impact. If the WMS is interpreted literally and that every planning concern or issue has to be addressed to the extent that it no longer remains as an issue, then very few if any schemes would be adopted. The WMS does not appear to advocate this approach and leaves the assessment of balance, weight and materiality of each consideration to the decision maker. The issues that have been raised by the local community are common to those that have been raised by the significant consultees the LDNP and English Nature, that neither body has objected carries significant weight. 196. In this instance it is not denied by the applicant that the windfarm has an adverse impact on the landscape, indeed National Policy recognises that by their nature windfarms will have an impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. National Policy also recognises that local communities have a part in contributing to energy generation from renewable and low carbon sources. 197. A measure that the planning impacts have been addressed through the design of the scheme (including with regard to the new Habitat Management Proposals and the Decommissioning Strategy), the detailed assessment and consideration of planning issues in the planning application submission and subsequent information, and with the mitigation of some adverse impacts by means of planning condition.

Financial benefits to Local Authorities from the development In accordance with the requirements introduced by Section 115 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The financial benefits of the proposed development are estimated below. Source Benefit Community Infrastructure Levy Nil Business Rates Nil. New Homes Bonus Nil.

198. It is considered limited weight should be attached to the financial benefits arising from the proposed development. 199. Council Tax is an ongoing annual income, new home bonus for four years (currently). 200. Any financial considerations would add to the overall benefits in delivering the five year housing land supply and identified housing need on this allocated site.

CONCLUSION 201. In relation to determining proposals for renewable and low carbon energy, the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should approve an application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. There are no technical objections raised by consultees to the continuance of the wind turbines until 2027. However it is recognised that this renewable energy development would have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits. Development Plan policies support in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. In this case, significant weight must be attached to the identified harmful impacts of the proposed development in respect of the Lake District National Park and designated heritage assets which are subject to the highest levels of protection. 202. The consultation response of no objection from the Lake District National Park Authority is material. In their response the LDNP clearly state that the windfarm will have a harmful visual impact on the landscape, including the setting of the National Park, but that the application represents a better restoration of the site. In their determination the LDNP considers that the continuing landscape and visual dis-benefits of the turbines remaining in place are outweighed by the potential benefits of the formalised decommissioning, site restoration, habitat management and enhancement proposals. SLDC are the determining authority and the comments from the LDNP of the enhanced decommissioning and restoration could perhaps fall beyond the direct remit of the LDNP; however they are correct in identifying that those public benefits have a wider impact. It is for SLDC to determine if the offer of an enhanced decommissioning and restoration scheme for the SSSI tilts the planning balance in favour of the proposal. 203. The Lake District was designated as a World Heritage Site with the turbines in situ, the acceptance by the LDNP of the retention of the wind turbines for a further 8 years is not considered to result in unacceptable impacts on the setting and character of the WHS. 204. In accepting the temporary impacts of the windfarm the LDNP is explicit in stating that neither a permanent or new development on this ridge would be acceptable in the future. The changes in the funding and subsidy regimes mean also that future extensions and new onshore windfarms will become extremely unlikely. 205. The proposal will continue to make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation, and although it is considered that this does not completely outweigh the harmful landscape, visual and cumulative impacts of the development including the adverse impacts upon the setting of the Lake District National Park; there is sufficient evidence of the public benefit arising out of the continuing production of renewable energy for a discrete period of time, this is further tilted positively by the cumulative public benefit arising from a comprehensive programme for decommissioning the turbines, the restoration of the moorland affected directly by the turbines and the regeneration of nearby moorland and mires within the SSSI. 206. In essence the impacts of the windfarm are known and will remain unchanged until the proposed new end date. If taken individually the public benefits offered by the proposal are minor – if taken cumulatively the public benefits offered by the scheme tilt the planning balance in favour of the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to:- Condition (1) Permission to generate electricity shall expire on 31 March 2027. Each of the turbines and their associated infrastructure (including transformer housings) shall be removed from the site by no later than 31 March 2018 , or within one year of all of the turbines becoming disused for any reason, whichever is the sooner. Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Condition (2) Not later than 30 September 2026, or within 6 months of all of the wind turbines becoming disused, whichever is the sooner, a Decommissioning Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved, unless any subsequent amendments are otherwise agreed in writing, and be completed by 31 March 2028 or within 12 months of all the wind turbines becoming disused; such a scheme shall follow the principles established within the Draft Habitat Management Plan and the Draft Decommissioning Method Statement received 2 August 2017. The scheme shall include, but is not limited to: a) A traffic management plan for vehicular movements required; b) Details of removal of all the wind turbines, the ‘upstand’ component of the wind turbine foundations to a maximum of 700 mm below ground level; c) Details of means of removal, including measures to mitigate and minimise the impacts on flora and fauna; d) The removal of structures, buildings and other associated infrastructure granted consent under this planning permission; e) Earth moving, storage and soil replacement, fencing and safeguarding of existing landscape features; f) Restoration of the area around each turbine base; and g) any temporary diversion during works and subsequent reinstatement of public rights of way, paths and footpaths. Reason To ensure that the decommissioning of the development and restoration of the site are carried out in an appropriate and environmentally acceptable manner.

Condition (3) The rating levels of the noise emission from the wind turbines, (including the application of any tonal penalty) when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes, shall not exceed the values for the relevant integer wind speed set out in Tables 1 and 2 attached to these conditions and: (a) Within three (3) months of the date of this permission the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval a list of proposed qualified acousticians who may undertake compliance measurements in accordance with this condition. Amendments to the list of approved consultants shall only be made with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (b) Within twenty one (21) days from receipt of a written request from the Local Planning Authority and following the receipt of a complaint alleging noise disturbance at a dwelling, the windfarm operator shall, at its own expense, employ a consultant approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to assess the level of noise emission from the windfarm at the complainant’s property in accordance with the procedures described in the attached Guidance Notes. The written request from the Local Planning Authority shall set out at least a date, time and location that the complaint relates to and identify meteorological conditions they consider relevant to the cause of complaint. Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the written request of the Local Planning Authority made under this paragraph (b), the windfarm operator shall provide the information logged in accordance with paragraph (h) to the Local Planning Authority in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e), for the period that the complainant alleges the noise disturbance occurred. (c) Where a dwelling to which a complaint is related is not listed in the tables attached to these conditions, the windfarm operator shall submit in writing to the Local Planning Authority for written approval, proposed noise limits selected from those listed in the tables to be adopted at the complainant’s dwelling for compliance checking purposes. The proposed noise limits are to be those limits selected from the tables specified for a listed location which the qualified acoustician considers as being likely to experience the most similar background noise environment to that experienced at the complainant’s dwelling. The submission of the proposed noise limits to the Local Planning Authority shall include a written justification of the choice of the representative background noise environment provided by the qualified acoustician. The representative background noise environment and proposed noise limits shall be submitted in writing within thirty five (35) days of the initial notification to the windfarm operator of the complaint. These are to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their written approval. The rating level of noise emission resulting from the combined effects of the wind turbines when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes shall not exceed the noise limits approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the complainant’s dwelling. (d) Prior to the commencement of any measurements by the qualified acoustician to be undertaken in accordance with these conditions, the windfarm operator shall submit in writing to the Local Planning Authority for written approval the proposed measurement location identified in accordance with the Guidance Notes where measurements for compliance checking purposes shall be undertaken. Measurements to assess compliance with the noise limits set out in the tables attached to these conditions or approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this condition shall be undertaken at the measurement location approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (e) Prior to the written submission of the qualified acoustician’s assessment of the rating level of noise emission in accordance with paragraph (f), the windfarm operator shall submit in writing to the Local Planning Authority for written approval a proposed assessment protocol setting out the following: i. The range of meteorological and operational conditions (which shall include the range of wind speeds, wind directions, power generation and times of day) to determine the assessment of rating level of noise emission; ii. A reasoned assessment as to whether the noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely to contain a tonal component. The proposed range of conditions shall be those which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance owing to noise, having regard to the written request of the Local Planning Authority and any conditions the authority identify under paragraph (b), and such others as the qualified acoustician considers likely to result in a breach of the noise limits. The assessment of the rating level of noise emission shall be undertaken in accordance with the assessment protocol approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (f) The wind farm operator shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the qualified acoustician’s written assessment of the rating level of noise emission undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within two months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority made under paragraph (b) unless the time limit is extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be provided in the format set out in 1(e) of the Guidance Notes. The instrumentation used to undertake the measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note 1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority with the qualified acoustician’s assessment of the rating level of noise emission. (g) Where a further assessment of the rating level of noise emission from the wind farm is required pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the attached Guidance Notes, the wind farm operator shall submit in writing a copy of the further assessment within twenty one (21) days of submission of the qualified acoustician’s assessment pursuant to paragraph (f) above unless the time limit has been extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (h) The wind farm operator shall continuously log power production, nacelle wind speed, at each wind turbine all in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d) as well as the wind speed measured or calculated at hub height, at a location approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first export date. Rainfall shall be measured during any noise measurement regime at a representative location. These data shall be retained for a period of not less than twenty four (24) months. The wind farm operator shall provide this information in writing in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) to the Local Planning Authority on its request, within fourteen (14) days of receipt in writing of such a request. For the purposes of this condition, a ‘dwelling’ is a building which is lawfully used as a habitation and which exists or had planning permission at the date of this consent. Reason To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and / or working nearby, in accordance with local planning policy.

Table 1 - Between 23:00 and 07:00: Noise level (dB L A90, 10-minute ). Location Wind speed (ms) as standardised to 10m height (Easting, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Northing) Friar’s 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 Ground (324125, 482704) Croglin Farm 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 (324066, 483491) Beanthwaite 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 (324894, 484667) Parkgate 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 (327047, 484325) Groffa Crag 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 (327078, 483714) Moor House 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 (326792, 482695) Rathvale 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.4 46.1 47.9 47.9 47.9 (325683, 481007) Heather 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Cottage (326733, 484662) High Ghyll 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 (324379, 482478)

Table 2 - Between 07:00 and 23:00: Noise level (dB L A90, 10-minute ) Location Wind speed (ms) as standardised to 10m height (Easting, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Northing) Friar’s 35 35 35 35 35 35.2 37.1 39.4 41.9 44.7 47.6 47.6 Ground (324125, 482704) Croglin Farm 35 35 35 35 35 35.4 36.8 38.4 40.4 42.7 45.4 45.4 (324066, 483491) Beanthwaite 35 35 35 35 36 37.6 39.3 41 42.9 44.8 46.7 46.7 (324894, 484667) Parkgate 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36.8 37.6 38.2 38.2 (327047, 484325) Groffa Crag 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36.4 38.7 41.8 45.8 45.8 (327078, 483714) Moor House 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.3 36.8 38.6 40.8 43.4 43.4 (326792, 482695) Rathvale 35 35 35 36.8 38.9 41.3 43.8 46.3 48.8 51.3 53.5 53.5 (325683, 481007) Heather 35 35 35 35 35.3 37.1 38.7 40 41 41.8 42.4 42.4 Cottage (326733, 484662) High Ghyll 35 35 35 35 35 35.2 37.1 39.4 41.9 44.7 47.6 47.6 (324379, 482478)

Note to Tables 1 and 2: The geographical coordinate references are provided for the purpose of identifying the general location of dwellings to which a given set of noise limits applies.

Reason To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and / or working nearby, in accordance with local planning policy.

Condition (4) Decommissioning work shall only take place between the hours of 07:00 – 19:00 hours on Monday to Friday inclusive, 07:00 – 13:00 hours on Saturdays with no construction work on a Sunday, Bank or Public Holiday. Outwith these hours, works at the site shall be limited to emergency works and dust suppression, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed in writing of emergency works within three working days of occurrence. The recommendations to control noise listed in the assessment provided with the application shall be employed. Reason To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and / or working nearby, in accordance with local planning policy.

P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in Statement determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.