Allerdale Borough Council

2/2008/0997

Reference No: 2/2008/0997 Received: 24 December 2008 Proposed Siting of 3 No. 107m high wind turbines together with Development: associated crane pads, access tracks, site compound, ancillary works and meteorological mast and control building, access to public highway (resubmission to 2/2007/0909) Drawing Numbers: Design & Access Statement Planning Statement Volume 4 Enviromental Statement Appendices Volume 1 Non Technical Summary Volume 2 Environmental Statement Volume 3 Landscape & Visual Figures & Visualisations Figure 1.1 Site Location Figure 6.1 Site Layout Figure 6.2 Typical Turbine Section & Elevation Figure 6.3 Typical Permanent Anemometer Mast Figure 6.4 Indicative Cable Route Figure 6.5 Indicative Elevations of the Proposed Control Building Figure 6.6 Cross Section of Typical Onsite Road Figure 6.7 Indicative Layout of Site Compound Figure 6.8 Typical Crane Hardstanding Area Figure 6.9 Indicative Wind Turbine Foundation Figure 6.10 Various Iterations of the Project Design Figure 6.11 Proposed Site Access Revised Viewpoint 4, amendment received 5 November 2009 Residential Receptors Survey, amendment received 5 November 2009 5755-04-N-014 – Site Layout showing Conservation Area Building, amedment received 5 November 2009 Fig 6.8 – Heritage Conservation Planning Designation, amendment received 5 November 2009 Fig 6.7 – Nature Conservation Planning Designations, amendment received 5 November 2009 Fig 6.7 - Hedgerow Mitigation Plan, amendment received 5 November 2009 CLVA Methodology Statement, received 5 November 2009 Location: Warwick Hall Farm Westnewton Applicant: Mr Danny Maher Broadview Energy Developments Ltd

Constraints: Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area

Policies: National Planning Statements (Draft)

EN-1 – National Policy Statement for Energy EN-3 – Energy Infrastructure

National Planning Policies

PPS22 – Renewable Energy (and the Companion Guide)

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (Annex on Climate Change)

PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment

North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021

Policy EM1 – Integrated enhancement and Protection of the Regions Environment

Policy EM17 – Renewable Energy

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 (Saved)

Policy ST4 – Not applicable as the scheme constitutes a ‘small group’.

Policy R44 – Major Development Proposals

Policy E35 – Areas and Features of Nature Conservation Interest other than those of National and International Conservation Importance

Policy E37 – Landscape Character

Policy E38 – Historic Environment

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Policy EN19 – Landscape Protection

Policy EN20 – Protection of AONB’s

Policy EN25 – Protecting the Open Countryside

Policy CO13 – Setting of Conservation Areas

In addition Cumbria County Council has produced an adopted Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which has also been adopted by Allerdale Borough Council, January 2008 (which attached significant weight at the recent allowed appeal decision at Hellrigg, Silloth).

Representations: Hayton & Mealo Parish Council – Recommend refusal. Unsightly in the landscape. The environmental impact would be significant, noisy and would impact on wildlife.

Holme St Cuthbert Parish Council – Recommend refusal. Detrimental to the visual amenity of its surroundings and its holiday destination. Robin Rigg wind farm adequately supplies Cumbria’s required targets. Detrimental impact on visual amenity, property prices, wildlife, tourists and infrastructure, with no local workforce. Unsuitable access corridor to the site, no benefit to local community.

Aspatria Town Council – Recommend refusal. The siting is totally unacceptable. The areas should remain unspoilt, ‘an area of natural beauty’.

Allonby Parish Council – Recommend refusal on grounds of: (a) Detrimental visual impact including AONB, harmful impact on tourist trade in Allonby. (b) Harmful impact of the development on local roads, including horses, traffic, noise and flicker. (c) Health implications arising from noise and flicker. (d) Harmsful impact on wildlife and birds, plus TV reception and property prices. (e) Cumulative impact on Siddick, Bolton Low Houses, Barfleet and future Robbin Rigg. (f) Hazard to low flying aircraft. (g) Question whether the scheme is viable.

Bromfield Parish Council – Recommend refusal on grounds of cumulative impact, proximity to village, negative impact on visual amenity.

Westnewton Parish Council – Have consulted with local residents with grave concerns on the impact of the development on the village and environs of Westnewton. Reference by residents was made to: (a) The height and proximity of the turbines to the settlement would dominate the village and its rural aspect (contrary to Policies EN19 and RE2).

(b) Harmful impact on conservation area and listed building (contrary to Policies CO13 and CO18). (c) Detrimental impact on amenity and outlook of elderly in ‘The Guards’ residential properties. (d) Harmful impact on landscape, including AONB, especially with any cumulative impact with other wind farm proposals: Hellrigg, Tallentire, Fleeter Wood and Prospect. Harmful impact of turbines between the AONB and the National Park, with reference to its being ‘visually significant’. (e) Precedent for additional wind turbine development in the locality. (f) Infrastructure of vertical elements onto the Solway Coast’s ‘open landscape’ and would be incongruous in their design. (g) Additional screening is deciduous, limiting its screening potential. (h) Insufficient evidence on impact on tourist industry. (i) Harmful impact of shadow/reflective light on village homes. (j) Detrimental impact of noise, especially given low background noise levels. (k) Increased traffic to the site, exacerbating existing quarry traffic on the B classified highway. (l) Hazard to low flying aircraft. (m) Harmful impact on wildlife, birds and bats both during construction and post development, e.g. geese, with little reference to some species, owls, woodpeckers and buzzards and local habitats. (n) The turbines would be visible rom the National Park, north-west Solway area and south-west Scotland. (o) No significant effect on carbon dioxide emissions (reduction in UK emissions by 0.002%, average turbine load factor is 24.9%, with only coastal locations achieving 30%, which was 10% in the winter of 2008/09. (p) Inadequate information in community consultation. (q) Note the use of TNEI as the main contractor, who was used in the preparation of PPS22. Overall, consider the proposal would disfigure the village and its environment (including the conservation area). Refer to high masts, (1700) letters received to former proposal demonstrating a high level of opposition. They therefore strongly object to the proposal.

A further response to the applicant’s flicker report disputing PPS22 reference to, ‘flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine’, referring to challenging evidence that it extends beyond this distance (including video/witness evidence on the extent of flicker from the Wharrels Hill Wind Farm, which exceeds 1km). The

response refers to the location of the village to the turbine and the potential of shadow flicker to the detriment of residential amenity. An additional letter also questioned the conclusion of the wind noise report with potential interference, to the recording microphone by background noise from hedge/building.

Cumbria Highways – Advise access is sub-standard but is an improvement on existing and is temporary and therefore raise no objections subject to signage. Need to ensure the southern splay can be secured. No evidence record of accident history has been submitted but given it is temporary, its temporary notice during the construction period does not merit refusal. Recommend highway conditions. Also seek a condition to identify the travel route (including a survey of its condition), which if via the C2002 would create hghway improvements. Also seek a traffic management plan.

Ministry of Defence – No safeguarding objections but seek the turbines be lit in the interests of air safety.

Cumbria Constabulary – No comments.

English Heritage – Subject to the comments of the County Archaeologist, whilst not commenting in detail, raise no objections.

Carlisle Airport – No objections.

Fire Officer – No objections.

United Utilities – No objections (need to protect all existing trunk roads. Main adjacent to the BS301 from damage from heavy vehicles accessing the site over it.

Arquiva – No objections.

Natural England – Conclude the following: Ornithology: Although not designated for any nature conservation, the proposed site remains in proximity to the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SSSSI, Special Protection Area (SPA) and RAMSAR site. Accepts the ES statement that the development will have a negligible impact (one death per annum) on the pink footed goose, i.e. ‘de minimus’ and therefore conclude any ‘likely significant’ effect should not require any no further habitat assessment. Species and Habitat: No significant impact but recommend mitigation actions under conditions if recommended favourably.

Landscape: Local adverse impact on the Solway Coast AONB, with views inland from the Allonby area will form a key element in the landscape, but at 3.5km minimum distance, the distance, scale and impacts would have a limited effect on the AONB designation itself. There are concerns on the potential cumulative impact of the proposal with Tallentire (pending), Parkhead (allowed at appeal), which would make turbines an unavoidable element in views inland to the AONB between Maryport and Silloth which, despite their separation distances, could unacceptably erode the qualities of remoteness and wildness and intrude into the views between the coast and the AONB (highlighting the CROW Act 2000 duty to ‘have regard’ to the ‘purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty. Recommend prior to determination that a strategic cumulative assessment for wind farm developments between the AONB and the National Park is undertaken to supplement the SPD.

Whilst change in character is inevitable where there is capacity for development, it is essential the designated landscape and its settings should be conserved and enhanced.

County Council Planning – Object. Outline national and regional planning policy, whilst promoting targets for renewable energy and their development, it is subject to no unacceptable impact. Consider the scheme is not in accordance with Policy R44 in that it would cause significant adverse effects on the landscape and visual character of the area, both independently and cumulatively with other wind energy schemes. Also contrary to Policy E34 due to detrimental impact on the AONB, and Policy E37 due to its adverse effect on local distinctive features, the character of the built environment, its scale in relation to landscape features and visual intrusion (with significant reference to Westnewton, Aspatria, and Prospect village), and recreational and tourist routes along the coastal edges.

Conservation Area Officer – Refer to viewpoints 5, 6b and 7b. These show that three turbines will be visible from certain parts of the Conservation Area and the turbines or parts of them will be visible (in clear weather) behind buildings, gardens and open spaces.

It is not considered the turbines will be visible in a direct or obtrusive way when travelling along the road in either direction but will be more obvious from properties at the north-western side of the road through the village. From here the turbines will be seen against the buildings. The

village presently has no large or modern features so the proposal will introduce a new element that will place the setting of the village into the modern age.

Whilst recognising it will be a modern feature in its surroundings, it represents a 21st century form of development.

When viewed from closer quarters, however, other modern details (telegraph poles, plastic windows) are evident and therefore the historic environment Is not currently undamaged. The wind turbines, however, will provide another feature which confirms the village is in a late 20th century/early 21st century landscape. The conservation area officer is aware that the proposal is to be assessed by a consultant.

NATS (NERL) – Whilst initially objecting to the proposal, they have explored mitigation measures to the adverse impacts of the development and have agreed a Statement of Common Understanding. This document outlines: ‘the agreed need for technical mitigation, the stage reached as to the design of a mitigation scheme and the key principles which govern the development and agreement of the scheme.

This document will act as a handrail for the development of a detailed primary radar mitigation scheme and sets out the phases of mitigation involving modifications to its safety critical infrastructure.

Consequently NERL withdraw their objection subject to planning conditions agreed with the developer within the Statement of Common Ground (including its associated radar mitigation measures).

They highlight the Council’s obligation under the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosive Storage Areas) Directive 2002, which permits consent being granted subject to compliance with their recommended conditions.

Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) – No representations have been received to date (27 May 2010).

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No representations have been received to date (27 May 2010).

RSPB – No representations have been received to date (27 May 2010).

Crown Castle – No representations have been received to date (27 May 2010).

HM Coastguard – No representations have been received to date (27 May 2010).

Cumbria Tourism – No representations have been received to date (27 May 2010).

Director of Airspace – No representations have been received to date (27 May 2010).

316 letters of support were received.

1,850 letters of objection were received.

Letters of support were on the grounds of:

1. The proposal combats climate change.

2. The proposal is a clean and sustainable source of renewable energy.

3. Proposal ‘looks good’.

4. May become tourist attraction.

5. Helps to protect the environment and conserve national resources.

6. Safer/cleaner/cheaper energy form.

7. Sustainable means of energy.

8. Isolated location of the proposal.

9. Provision of electricity (grid) for 3,400 houses.

10. Contribution to the County target of 284 new by 2015, and the UK’s energy security.

Objection letters were on the following grounds:

1. The turbines would dominate Westnewton village and the northern outskirts of Aspatria.

2. The turbines would be visible from all parts of

Westnewton, destroying its rural aspect.

3. The proposal would result in light/shadow flicker, which would affect houses.

4. The proposal would generate significant noise.

5. Hazards of increased road traffic during construction phase.

6. Significant impact on environment during construction phase.

7. The width and layout of the transport route is unsuitable for the construction/turbine traffic.

8. The proposal would be a hazard to low flying military aircraft.

9. Detrimental impact on air traffic control systems.

10. Proposal harm to birds, bats and wildlife both in construction and operational phases.

11. The proposal would be visible from the Lake District, Solway AONB and Scottish Hills.

12. Harmful impact on landscape which will harm tourism.

13. Precedent for other wind turbines in surrounding area.

14. Impact on TV reception, being located between Westnewton and the transmitter mast.

15. Harmful impact on Westnewton’s Conservation Area.

16. Industrial development in attractive rural area.

17. Detrimental impact on undeveloped coastline of the Solway Coast.

18. The development is based on false global warnings by scientists in the document ‘The Science of Climate’ relating to greenhouse gasses, man-made causes and dillution of climate change.

19. Preferable alternative option of nuclear power.

20. Detrimental visual impact from users of the surrounding footpaths.

21. Locality already adversely affected by Bothel Windfarm.

22. Cumulative impact of wind turbines in West Cumbria (including Robin Rigg).

23. Poor output/cost effectiveness of other windfarms.

24. The three 107m tall turbines are close to residential property would be visually intrusive with no screening.

25. Harmful impact on village life/amenity of residenti in Westnewton.

26. Feasibility study based on simplistic wind figure information.

27. Excessive site area for three turbines (potential for further turbines?)

28. Inaccurate reference to Health and Safety legislation.

29. Inadequate information on the disposal of excavated material (additional 500/600 movements during construction period.

30. Need of Cumbria-wide policy.

Report The application site and its surroundings have been the subject of previous planning applications relating to wind turbine development.

A former application for an anemometer mast at the application site was approved.

A former application (2/2007/0909) for five turbines up to 107m high to blade tip, each with a capacity of 2.5mW, was appealed against on the grounds of non-determination.

Another nearby application for wind turbines at Brownrigg was also appealed against on the grounds of non- determination. Both appeals, however, were withdrawn prior to the date of the inquiry or determination of the schemes by the Council.

The current resubmission application proposes three light grey coloured turbines, up to a height of 107m to blade tip (66-67m to hub height), each with a capacity of 2.3mW (similar in size to those on the Voridian site in Workington).

The three turbines are sited within agricultural fields in a line east-west approximately 800m to the south of Westnewton and 1km north of Aspatria. The site covered is located 3.5km from the boundary of the Solway Coast AONB.

Access to the site is via an existing farm access track from the B5301 highway.

The turbines would be linked by a 4.5m wide track, and a new single storey sub-station (external materials to be confirmed) at the north-eastern corner of the site. The development also incorporates crane pods, site compared ancillary works, plus a 70m tall lattice anemometer mast.

The scheme seeks a 25 year consent (to be followed either by a further application for continued use, or decommissioning of the site, which would include removal of 1m of the foundations.

An Environmental Statement was submitted in support of the application which encompassed a broad evaluation of the scheme incorporating the subjects of landscape and visual, archaeological and cultural heritage, ecology and nature conservation, ornithology, geology, hydrology and hydro- geology, noise, traffic and transport, shadow flicker, aviation and radar telecommunications, tourism and recreation.

By reason of the number of objections and a local representation from Westnewton, letters inviting people to attend and speak at the meeting have not been sent to all the objectors, but just those who have individually written and submitted their own representations rather than those of a standard format objection letter. This is at variance to normal practice.

Officers, in assessing the individual merits of the proposal firstly wish to outline the broader policy background to the development and elaborate on the main key policies.

In the wider context, consideration and indeed weight has to be taken of the views in the current Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS).

In terms of these RSS planning policies there are specific targets for the provision of renewable energy. Regional Spatial Strategy Policy EM1 seeks to identify, protect and enhance environmental assets, and Policy EM1(A) refers to the landscape and the need to protect, maintain and enhance the natural historic and other distinctive features. Policy EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy seeks at least

10% of the electricity supplied in the region to be provided by renewable energy savers by 2010 (rising to at least 15% by 2015 and at least 20% by 2020), but also outlines the necessity to assess impact on amenity and landscape.

It is understood that the target for Cumbria is 210mW by 2010.

This assessment of environmental economic and energy benefits of renewable energy against any adverse effect on landscape character, local amenity and highways is also incorporated in Policy R44 of the saved policies of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.

The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan, under Policy E37, stipulates that development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of the landscape, requiring future proposals to be assessed in terms of relevance, visual intrusion, scale in relation to the landscape and remoteness and tranquillity. Policy E38 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan seeks to safeguard the historic environment.

At a more local level, the saved policies of the Local Plan includes landscape policies (Policy EN19) to safeguard the landscape quality of the Solway Coasts designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the open countryside from inappropriate development that harms its landscape character.

The need to safeguard the setting of conservation areas is applied under Policy CO13.

Overall (as reflected in these policies) the merits of the proposed development relate to whether the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposed renewable energy development outweigh the environmental impact of the proposed turbines. These can be examined in greater detail.

Firstly, the benefits of the proposal can be summarised in relevance to PPS22 on the renewable strategy.

Increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitate the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy.

Positive planning which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to all four elements of the Government’s sustainability development strategy.

1. Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone by contributing to the every needs, ensuring all houses are adequately and affordably heated, and providing new sources of energy in remote areas.

2. Effective protection of the environment by reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, and thereby reducing the potential for the environment to be affected by climate change.

3. Prudent use of national resources by reducing the nation’s reliance on every diminishing supplies of fossil fuels.

4. Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment through the creation of jobs directly related to renewable energy developments, but also in the development of new technologies. In rural areas, renewable energy projects have the potential to play an increasingly important role in the diversification of rural economies.

There is also a Draft PPS1 which is presently at the consultation stage (Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate) which will replace PPS22 and PS1 supplement.

The applicant’s proposed scheme would generate a maximum ‘installed capacity’ of up to 9kW which could meet the needs of 3,500-5,300 households, providing carbon savings of up to 13.5-20,000 tonnes annually. The turbines would be connected to an existing 33kV overhead line 300m to the south-east of the site.

These benefits reflecting national, regional targets for renewable energy have to be compared with the environmental impact of the proposed development.

In order to enable Members an assessment of scale, the following table provides a guide on its size and relationship to other wind turbine sites.

Distance No. of Height of Turbines Turbines Tallentire 6km 15 86m (planning) Wharrels Hill 6km 8 62m Parkhead 7km 4 121m High Pow 11km 3 95m Flimby 13km 3 Oldside & 15km 16 61m Siddick Voridian 16km 2 107m Winscales 17km 7 81m Moor Winscales I 18km 11 71m & II Great Orton 21km 6 69m Lowca 24km 7 54m Fairfield 25km 5 81m Farm

The environmental impact criteria can be assessed under the following physical categories:

1. Landscape Effect/Impact

The impact and effect on landscape character constitutes one of the main issues relating to this type of development and the issues raised with the representations.

The applicant in analysing the surroundings acknowledges the existence and proximity of the following sensitive receptor designations:

(a) Solway Coast Area of Outstanding National Beauty (AONB) (3.4km mast).

(b) National Park (184 km).

(c) Hadrians Wall world Heritage Site (1.8 km west).

(d) Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (4 km north).

(e) Special Protection Areas (SPA) (5.5 km north-west).

Furthermore, the assessment refers to and accounts for the following settlements which are within 4 km of the site: Aspatria, Allerby, Westnewton, Arkleby, Hayton, Plumbland, Blennerhasset, Langrigg, Oughterside, Gilcrux, Prospect.

A wider range of 10 km expands to include: Maryport, Abbeytown, Crosby, Bothel.

In considering the above criteria, therefore, and the respective consultations, the merits of the scheme can be examined in greater detail.

In assessing the impact on landscape, the application has evaluated the scheme using a 30 km radius Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) which outlines where the structure will be visible from to enable assessment on their varying landscape characters (outlined in the County SPD) values (e.g. designations) quality (e.g. condition) and capacity.

Account was made for visual screening, i.e. various parts of the site, with high relation to views from dwellinghouses and medium from road users.

The environmental survey landscape assessment also evaluating magnitude using the parameters of distance, direction, extent and aspect of view, background development and other built development, e.g. vertical elements, pylons. The range of receptors vary from substantial – total loss, major, to moderate, to slight to negligible. However, the applicant highlights that any ‘significant’ impact does not always mean it is adverse or warrant refusal.

The applicant’s Environmental Statement included a landscape assessment, including the respective landscape maps of the Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) (to blade and hub height), plus 23 viewpoints (short, medium and long distances) and cumulative assessment (accounting for other windfarm developments at Wharrels Hill, High Pow Farm, Siddick and Oldside, Voridien, Winscales Moor, Great Orten, Flimby, Fairfield (consented), Tallentire (Pending), Parkhead (appeal allowed), Fleeter Wood (withdrawn), Lanark, Giese and Berrier Hill, Robin Rigg and Pirelli (the last five sites being outside the Borough).

Another fundamental aspect of the proposal (especially in the context of landscape assessment under the ‘Cumbria Wind Energy’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is the site’s landscape classification.

In reference to landscape sensitivity, the County Council’s SPD indicates that the proposal is sited primarily within landscape character sub-type 5b ‘Farmland Ridge and Valley’. This type of landscape has the capacity to accommodate wind turbines schemes of 3-5 turbines, or up to 6-9 turbines in blander areas.

However, this is a strategic assessment and any individual development requires to demonstrate and address the issues of capacity and its associated impact on landscape character.

The site of the turbines is located on the southern side of a low ridge to the south of Westnewton. The site forms part of a range of agricultural fields within a shallow rolling landscape.

There are three lines of electricity pylons travelling in a north-east/south-west direction to the south of the application site, in the intervening landscape from Aspatria which is located on the ridge top to the south- east of the application site.

The site itself is elevated on a ridge 55-60 AOD above Westnewton village, being approximately 20-25m above the height of the village within a shallow shelf valley. Whilst the crest of the ridge and its topography will partially screen the lower sections of the hubs of the turbines, the upper blade sections would be visible from the village streetscene. The applicant’s supporting evidence highlights the modifications to the former withdrawn proposal in omitting two of the turbines, with the remaining three turbines lowered in a line which is further away from the village of Westnewton.

The applicant’s case contests that this would result in a simpler, more sympathetic feature within the wider landscape which minimises any adverse landscape and visual impact.

The assessment undertook an appraisal of its impact within the surrounding landscape. The applicant considers the proposal relates to the character of its surrounding expansive ridges. It also considers that the linear form of the layout reflects the local topography, settlement, road and field patterns. It would also constitute a contrasting element to the stream valleys which dissect the landscape (including Westnewton).

In evaluating this local context, the applicant accepts that from some locations the development would be clearly visible in Westnewton, but that the topography of the ridge, plus buildings and existing landscape features would limit the views. (The applicant, however, does recognise that the scale of the turbine will contrast with features at the lower scale, e.g. buildings.)

The applicant’s assessment examined the impact of the development on the wider landscape, especially considering the sensitivity of the proximity of the site to the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its associated setting.

The applicant accepts that this open coastal plan would experience significant effects (as demonstrated by the ZTV map for the development which demonstrated its potential landscape impact on the northern section of the Borough and its associated coastal plain, but considers significant effects would be limited only and subsequently remains of the view that it would not affect the ability of the AONB designation to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area.

The County Council dispute this evidence as they consider the application is located in an area sensitive to development of this nature by virtue of its proximity to Westnewton (the 3-4km of significant effects), effect on the setting of the AONB (within 5km). They consider the scale of the turbines would be prominent in scale, out of scale within local landscape features, and would dominate Westnewton and its roads and footpaths to the north and west of the village, to the detriment of the tranquil setting of the AONB which is not outweighed by environmental, social and economic benefits of the scheme.

This is reflected in the independent landscape assessment undertaken by a consultant employed by the Council, which provided the following analysis:

(i) The turbines will result in a significant change in the character of the ridge and valley type (Landscape Classification Type 5a) in the immediate vicinity of the site when at 7.7.7.2.1a a significant effect on the landscape character is predicted within 3-4km of the proposed turbines and within that a redefinition of landscape character for a distance of up to 700m. (This latter aspect is accepted by the applicant.)

“The proposed wind farm would not have a significant effect on the landscape character of the AONB when at 7.7.7.3 significant effects are predicted in the vicinity of Allonby.”

Another fundamental planning consideration is the background of the allowed appeal decisions for wind turbine development at Parkhead, Silloth, and its comparison with the current proposal (especially in its context to its proximity and relationship to the AONB).

Although the impact on landscape character is different as it relates to a different land use classification, the Inspector’s comments relating to the impact of the development on the character and setting of the AONB are of significant weight, especially as this former site was only 2km from the boundary of the AONB, i.e. closer to the designation than the current proposal (3.5km).

The Inspector said “I do not collate visibility of the turbine cluster from within the AONB on the presence of the turbines in the views towards the AONB, with an impact on its setting”.

The Inspector also refers to Para 14 of PPS22 which seeks to avoid the imposition of buffer zones around the AONB. In reference to setting the Inspector concludes that this relates to land close to its boundaries (but considered the site too far removed from the boundary to act as such, i.e. does not affect its setting.

The issue of impact on local economy and tourism potential was raised in the objections and indeed constituted a ground of refusal on the turbine application at Parkhead. However, the Inspector’s appeal decision highlighted that the Council had little empirical evidence, and whether research was submitted indicating any impact on tourism and the local economy would be insignificant. However, crucial to the impact on tourism issues relates to whether it has any harmful landscape or visual impact, i.e. only if this environmental harm

occurred would it deter visitors.

Another of the fundamental elements of the proposal, especially given the individual merits of the siting and scale of the scheme, is its physical impact in the context of both its immediate locality and, indeed, by the very nature of the size of the development, its wider visual impact, especially its relationship to any specific designated landscape receptors.

Although there is the potential that some of these details also relate to the temporary construction phase of the development, e.g. access facilities, compound, turbine bases, etc, officers consider these would constitute a temporary phase of the overall development and would in themselves not constitute grounds for refusal, i.e. the merits of the proposal primarily relate to the landscape and visual impact of the turbine structures themselves. (The issues relating to excavated spoil from the temporary construction works may be reserved and mitigated under conditions.)

The landscape character designations are specified in the County council’s SPD. The applicant considers the perceptions of the potential effects on landscape character can be influenced by distance, weather action and the appearance and fit of the project.

Firstly, the impact on the landscape character type of the site itself requires assessment. The site around is sited within the SPD’s sub-type 5a, ‘Ridge and Valley ‘ landscape type.

The SPD advises in terms of this particular landscape type ‘Overall the lowland landscape type is judged to have a moderate capacity to accommodate wind turbine development. Greatest potential occurs in the open flatter areas and broad ridge top where small or, in exceptional circumstances, large turbine groups could relate to the medium to large scale land form without dominating wide views and interactions with regular field patterns. The sense of expanse in these areas would also evoke a sense of purpose and rationality. In the more sheltered and enclosed valleys or undulating fringes turbine development would feel over dominant and conflict with the more irregular land cover problems.

The applicant’s statement accepts that the blade tip ZTV recognises that the visibility of the turbines in this zone would be approximately 15 km, and concludes the proposal would be moderate in sensitivity in this area. The statement advises: In views from relatively close locations (as illustrated in Viewpoint 2) there would be open views of the turbines and the movement of the rotors would be prominent, attracting attention by their contrast with the largely static landscape. The turbines would become a key characteristic of the site and the countryside immediately surrounding.

As the most prominent feature in the surrounding landscape, the turbines would re-define its character as one of the ‘Lowland Ridge and Valley with Wind Turbines’ where the turbines would become the defining element of the landscape character in the vicinity. Although there would be little or physical loss of an alteration of the existing elements which characterise the landscape, the presence of the turbines would affect the character of this landscape substantially.

The extent of the ‘Lowland ridge and Valley with Wind Turbines’ character would be a consequence of the size of the windfarm, and the compact linear arrangement of the three turbines can be considered to redefine the landscape character for a distance of approximately 700 m from the windfarm. This is considered to be of substantial magnitude and in the context of the medium sensitivity of the elevated ridge on which three turbines would be located would be of major/moderate significance.

In terms of the rolling summit ridges, the linear arrangement of the turbines with topography settlement and radius results in a variation of the magnitude of the development from substantial at 700m to slight at 15 km and vary in significance from major/moderate to minor over this distance.

In terms of its smaller scale, the applicant advises its turbines’ impact on the local stream valleys, the proposal would substantially affect the scale of the human elements, buildings, woodland and field boundaries, but these, by virtue of their screening capacity, would reduce the effects of where the development could be perceived and would vary between substantial and slight in magnitude and, given its moderate sensitivity, would be major/moderate to moderate/minor significance.

The assessment also refers to the setting of Westnewton settlement, 0.84 km distance from the site, to 1.2 km to more distant sections. The applicant highlights that the village is segmented from the turbines by the summit of a ridge which will screen some of the lower sections of the views of the turbines.

The assessment refers to the viewpoints of approaching roads and the valley setting of the village. It considers viewpoints from the south and east would be offset at an angle of greater than 90 degrees and therefore would not dominate views from this direction.

From the north the views in a 0.25 km distance along the B5301 represents the maximum extent of views which would affect the setting with the turbines projecting above the buildings and tree cover.

The applicant considers that the proposal will not have a dominating effect on the village, although significant effects on the landscape in and around the settlement have been identified (concluding that the development will have a significant effect on the character of the landscape within 3-4 km of the proposed turbines) it will not have a significant effect on this landscape type beyond these distances and would not have a significant effect on this type as a whole.

It also considers there will be no other direct effects on other landscape character areas, i.e. the ‘direct’ physical works themselves are solely with the Lowland Ridge and Valley designation. Indirect effects would occur where there is visibility of the turbines. The impact on other landscape types can be summarised as follows:

(a) Lowland, Low Farmland 5b (100m from proposed turbines) – moderate sensitivitiy to wind energy development. This designation is located to the north and west of the turbines and occurs at distances between 0.1 – 15 km.

The turbines would be seen as a feature in the undulating lowlands, with a substantial magnitude effect in the immediate vicinity, with major/moderatly significant effects.

(b) Inter-tidal Flats (5-15 km distance from turbines) – not visible in its continuous strip from Workington to Skinburness – closest location Allonby. Magnitude of effect – moderate (slope 4.8 m and would vary from moderate to minor/minor in significant effects.

(c) Coastal Marsh (east of Skinburness – approximately 10-15 km from the site). Reference to background of Anthorn Masts. Magnitude impact slight and moderate (minor significance).

(d) Dunes and Beaches (between Maryport and Silloth – 4.8 – 10 km distance from proposed site). The sensitivity of this landscape is high in the SPD under which the applicant refers to ‘large groups (of turbines) would not intimidate the broader scale of flat open farmland, whilst its more contained undulating terrain, a small group would be more appropriate’. The applicant refers to the backdrop of the Lakeland fells in the views from this area and considers the magnitude would vary from moderate/slight at a distance of 4.8 km to slight at 15 km, with effects of moderate to moderate/minor significance.

(e) Coastal Marshes (Wedholme Flow, north-west of Wigton – 12-15 km from the site) – landscape sensitivity moderate/high, magnitude slight with moderate to moderate/minor significance.

(f) Coastal Plain (located between 1.5 – 15 km from the site). Applicant advises that the SPD states that the broader scale of farmland would not be intimidated by a large group of turbines. Sensitivity of the site is considered medium.

Magnitude of the development varies from substantial (1.5 km) to slight (15 km). The substantial impact would be on the Black Dub and Holme Dub to the north of Westnewton, with the remainder medium to slight effect. The significance would be major/moderate in the Black Dub and Holme Dub valley, and moderate to moderate/minor elsewhere.

(g) Coastal Urban Fringe (Workington to Maryport and Silloth – 10-15 km distance from the site) – landscape sensitivity low, magnitude of effects slight and minor significance.

(h) Rolling Fringe/Upland Livestock Farmland, south- west of application site – 4.5 – 15 km) – moderate to slight significance.

(g) Rugged/Angular Slate High Fell (northern fell section of National Park – 10-15 km distance from site) – sensitivity of landscape high magnitude of effect on the character of the landscape would be slight, with a moderate significance.

The report also addresses the potential landscape impact on the designated landscape scheme.

The report also addresses the potential landscape impact on the designated landscapes

(a) Lake District National Park Potential views of the site are visible from the north-western fringe, including Clint Craggs (6.25 km), Birkby (11.5 km) and Scale Fell/Ling Fell (14 km). Given the existence of the intervening Moota Quarry’s transmission mast and the A595, it is considered the sensitivity to damage at Clint Craggs would be medium but remain high at Birkby, Slate Fell and Ling Fell.

The applicant considers the turbines’ compact linear arrangement would be a minor element in the views from these areas, especially in the panoramic view context of settlements and infrastructures, resulting in slight magnitude of effect and moderate/significant. Overall it concludes the potential effect on the landscape character is minor and effects are not significant.

(b) Solway Coast AONB The sensitivity of this designation is considered to be high/medium given its horizontal emphasis, irregular pattern and qualities of remoteness. The magnitude of the effects on the character would be moderate/slight in the vicinity of Allonby (nearest part to the site). The magnitude elsewhere would be slight/negligible. The significance would be major/moderate in the vicinity of Arkleby, constituting a significant effect, but moderate elsewhere.

The applicant refers to the Solway Landscape Assessment which in the context of the seascapes of the Solway considers that there is the need to extend beyond the boundaries of the AONB to

include adjacent coastal areas which affect its setting. The applicant is of the opinion that “These qualities would not be compromised or disrupted by the windfarm located 3.5 km inland from the AONB boundary.

The applicant considers views of the turbines would have the backdrop of the higher ground of the fells and considers the landscape areas outside the designated area have a lesser influence on the coastal landscape types than those within the boundary.

The applicant considers the effect of the AONB is largely decreased by the relationship between the site’s agricultural lowlands location and the coastal landscapes, and emphasises the backcloth of the views towards the fells.

(c) Landscapes of County Importance

This relates to the following areas – inter-tidal zone between Maryport and Rockcliffe, Wedholme Flow (near Wigton), area adjacent to the National Park.

Impact – major/moderate in inter-tidal zone at Allonby, reducing to slight at Morcambe Bay.

Impact at Wedholme is moderate (i.e. not a significant effect and not materially significant on the land adjoining the National Park.

Officers, in assessing the landscape effect evidence, recognise that the main significant impact on landscape concentrates on its short distance viewpoints and landscape character types (as accepted by the applicant as 3-4 km). This expands as far as the periphery of the AONB. However, given the findings of the allowed appeal decision at Parkhead, Silloth, which involved larger turbines, is closer and more open to the coastal fringe and setting of the AONB, officers consider this aspect would be difficult to sustain, especially given the distance from the AONB. (Although it is acknowledged that this proposed site occupies a more elevated and prominent ridge than that of Parkhead site, its visual impact has to be balanced with the height of the turbines themselves.) The Inspector’s decision dismissed views from within the AONB outskirts to its surroundings, but alternatively focused on the landscape impact of any turbine with the background of the AONB, i.e. westward

views.

Given the closer, and indeed more open visual impact of the turbine development to that of Parkhead (whose decision was received after the consultation responses of the County Council’s on landscape character), it is considered the proposal is insufficient in merit to significantly harm the landscape character of the AONB designated sensitive landscape (as highlighted in the Natural England response despite its closest point at Allonby. This is especially relevant given long distance views from the National Park which diminishes the scale and impact of the turbines in the landscape.

However, the primary concern relates to the shorter distance views, especially given the applicant’s acceptance of a significant effect on 3-4 km.

The County SPD does identify this type of landscape to have the capacity to support this scale of development, however this capacity derives from a strategic assessment and the merits of each included scheme need to demonstrate how it relates to local landscape and capacity.

The applicant considers the proposal, by its very nature will give rise to significant landscape and visual effects but consider the weight attached to ‘significant’ would preclude all windfarm development. Given the evidence in the SPD and that in Policy R44, the applicant considers the details are acceptable.

However officers, in this particular case, agree with the County’s findings that this particular landscape is sensitive to development due to its close proximity to Westnewton. The scheme would introduce a tall, prominent feature and vertical form into the landscape, which would dominate this settlement and would be out of scale with existing landscape features and, indeed, existing man-made features (i.e. existing nearby pylons) exacerbating clutter.

Although the applicant contests this significant effect is not necessarily adverse, its harm is quantified both within the consultation responses of the County and the landscape consultant.

Officers therefore consider the individual merits of the scheme would have a significant harmful and adverse effect on landscape in the locality of the application site

(3-4 km), which is not outweighed by the environmental, social or economic benefits of this renewable energy scheme.

In evaluating the landscape merits of the scheme, the issue of wider cumulative landscape impact also needs to be addressed.

The applicant’s baseline evidence was submitted in 2008 and assessed existing operational, approved, or proposed schemes in 30 km, which accounted for two other windfarm proposal schemes at Tallentire and Fleeter Wood. (The Tallentire scheme remains pending but the later Fleeter Wood scheme has been withdrawn). These were incorporated into the ES Viewpoint.

In terms landscape effect, the applicant considers that in the context of existing/approved windfarms, it would result in a located windfarm landscape which would not enable its distinction between landscape character type, concluding it would result in ‘a significant, but separate landscape effect on the Ridge and Valley landscape’. In reference to the Tallentire site, given the separation distance, it would result in significant but separate effects on the effects of the Ridge and Valley landscape type.

In visual terms, significant visual impact will occur in ‘perhaps 6.1 km’ from the turbines in a realistic viewing range of other turbines which would raise it to a visually significant level (especially in views to the south of the site and its associated highways). Overall the applicant considers the significant cumulative landscape will be localised (especially given the size of the three turbines).

The County, whilst agreeing with the applicant’s assessment of the extent of the visual impact, disputes its actual impact as it is considered that there would be cumulative effects to both landscape character and visual amenity in short, mid and long range views due to the number of other operational and proposed schemes, referring to Wharrels Hill and High Pow, that would be seen in combination (which is not outweighed by the proposed benefits.

The Council’s landscape consultant considers the detailed analysis for each viewpoint is unclear and considers a summery table is essential to establish which viewpoints significant cumulative change may occur to enable their judgement.

The landscape consultant also expressed concern on insufficient evidence on sequential cumulative effects, rather than the environmental survey evidence on fixed viewpoints.

Further to the submission of the application, additional windfarm applications have been submitted at Threapland Lees and at Broughton Lodge. (The appeal at Parkhead was allowed.)

Officers consider the addition of the Threapland Less proposal further complicates the issue of cumulative impact as this would have a significantly greater and larger visual and more prominent impact than that already existing at Wharrels Hill.

On site some turbine developments, e.g. Wharrels Hill are visible on site. The ZTV demonstrates the extent to which others are visible, and this has potentially been demonstrated within the applicant’s viewpoints.

Given the applicant’s acknowledgement of the significant cumulative impact and the objections specified by the County, Members are requested in response to the landscape consultant’s comments whether they consider sufficient evidence has been submitted and, if so, whether they consider the proposal would cumulatively result in visual harm to the landscape character of the site and surroundings (especially given the recent appeal decision at Parkhead within which the Inspector considered the cumulative impact would be juxtaposed with other onshore/offshore windfarms (existing/proposed), plus the existing merits of Anthorn, thus regarding that the character of landscape is shifting towards a distinct change.

Overall, given the siting of the turbines between the Parkhead (Hellrigg) and Wharrels Hill turbines, plus the possible potential impact of the current Tallentire and Threapland Lees proposals, officers considered there would be the potential for a harmful cumulative impact on the surrounding landscape to the detriment of its visual amenity.

The other turbines, including the High Pow, are located outside the County’s 10km zone of significant impact, as verified on the earlier table of turbines). Officers therefore consider this issue also outweighs the renewable energy benefits of this individual scheme.

2. Visual Amenity

In addition to the wider landscape impact, the merits of the proposal also relate to the visual impact on the receptors in the vicinity of the site (primarily in Westnewton), which have been referred to within the local objections and the representations of the Parish Council and County Council.

In evaluating the visual amenity, officers acknowledge that a feature such as that proposed would inevitably be prominent and could not be screened.

It is for Members, however, to assess whether the individual merits of the scheme are in the context of its visual amenity of such significance that they would dominate and harm its surroundings and outweigh the renewable scheme’s environmental, social and economic benefits outlined in the supporting evidence within the application.

The applicant’s supporting evidence on this issue identifies the receptors as residents, highways, railways, walkers and cyclists.

The assessment identifies the following settlements as being within 5 km of the site: Westnewton (900 m), Aspatria (1.5 km), Hayton, Prospect (2.4 km), Allonby (4.7 km), Oughterside, Harriston, Arkeleby, Parsonby, Plumbland, Threapland, Allerby, Langrigg, Gilcrux, Baggrow and Blennerhasset.

The visual impact primarily relates to the settlements in closer proximity to the application site. The statement refers to Westnewton as being open to partial significant effects due to topography, tree cover and intervening structures and that the number of properties significantly affected would be a minority when considering the overall population of the village.

In reference to Aspatria, whilst the ZTV indicated the turbines would be visible to most of the town, given existing physical buildings and tree cover, this significant effect would be confined to those on the northern and western edges of the town.

In reference to Prospect, the statement considers that views from this elevated position would have the backdrop of existing transmission lines, considering these would not be significant.

Allonby – Eastern views of the site would be partially screened by tree cover and existing landscape but would not be significant to most residents in the village, i.e. only limited impact.

It considers Hayton, Oughterside, Harriston and Parsonby would experience no significant effects.

There would be limited/partial views from Plumbland, Arkleby, Allerby, Blennerhasset (moderate impact).

At a wider range of 5-10 km the impact of the development on the additional settlements of Allerby, Mawbray, Bothel, Crosby and Abbeytown, the turbines are considered not likely to generate any significant effects.

Beyond 10 km the settlements of Great Broughton, Wigton (screened by trees) and Silloth the turbines are not expected to generate any significant views.

The assessment in evaluating visual impact from the main transport corridors concludes:

A596 – significant effects on road users within 5 km of the site (primarily between Prospect and Aspatria) but oblique to the direction of travel.

A595 – Views from Moota (not significant), Thursby (20 km), south of Wigton (6 km).

A594 (11 km) Limited views – no significant effect.

Long distance views would be experienced on the A75, B5302 and A5086.

B5300 (5-12 km) travelling south, Silloth to Allonby, and more pronounced from Maryport to Allonby but not considered significant.

B5301 – Open close views, as the route passes within 600 m of the site. Overall significant effects within 4 km of the site, including Aspatria and New Cowper.

Any views from the railway were considered to be limited, with glimpsed views.

The turbines would be visible from the Coastal Way footpath, with significant effects between Dubmill Point and Allerby (5-6 km).

Screening significant effects would be experienced as welcoming in an easterly direction from Allonby to Aspatria on the Smugglers Route. It was considered insignificant views would be viewed from the Cumbrian Way or Hadrian Wall path.

Long views from the footpaths in the National Park, e.g. Binsey, Skiddaw, given their distance (albeit a new element in the landscape) would not cause a significant effect.

In terms of cycle routes, significant effects would be experienced on the Hadrians Wall cycleway near Allonby (within 4-5 km).

In response to concerns on the absence of a detailed residential receptor survey within the original submission, the applicant submitted a revised residential receptor assessment and more detailed analysis to evaluate the visual impact on residential properties within 3 km from the proposed windfarm (affecting approximately 1,565 dwellings).

Its statement advised ‘Dwellings located on high ground to the village of Westnewton and in the western parts of Westnewton would experience more open views of the windfarm with the potential for relatively close range views with significant effects predicted. There is some screening within the centre of the village but significant effects are still predicted. At the eastern end of the village the screening becomes more extensive and no significant effects are predicted. Of the dwellings within the village of Westnewton there is a total of 68 No. (P2 – P28) and of these 28 would obtain open views and significant effects, 28 would obtain partially screened views but still be considered potentially significant, and 12 would be predominantly or fully screened, with no significant effects predicted.’

In Aspatria and Harriston there were approximately 1,123 dwellings surveyed. The significant effects identified from Aspatria would occur predominantly on the northern edge of the town.

The northern section of Harriston would experience significant effects. Of the 1,123 dwellings, 385 (34%) would experience significant effects, with 73 with open views, and 66% of the settlement’s properties not experiencing a significant effect.

Prospect, Hayton and Oughterside were also surveyed. In Prospect 148 dwellinghouses were surveyed, with 75 (51%) experiencing significant effects predominantly on the western side of the village.

No significant adverse effects were experienced from the villages of Oughterside and Hayton, but significant effects may potentially be experienced from numerous scattered dwellings within the 3 km study area.

‘Overall within the 3 km radius study, all 550 (35%) of the 1,565 dwellings would potentially experience significant effects, but of these only 131 (9%) would experience open views of the proposal, with the remaining 26% experiencing partially screened views, and for 25% of residents no significant effects are predicted on their residential amenity.’

‘The survey concludes there is sufficient separation distance between the proposed turbines and local properties. None of the proposed turbines would be sufficiently close and appear to be of such a size as to be visually overbearing, nor would the scale of the development based on number, proximity and relative elevation of turbines in the view and proportion of the view occupied by the development be sufficient for the turbines to dominate views to the extent that they would be overbearing.

The Council’s landscape consultant, in assessing the surveys refers to the lack of assessment on the setting of the village.

The consultant considers the actual evidence is clearer and more transparent than that submitted in the original Environmental Statement, however the residential receptor survey doesn’t suggest limited, but alternatively significant effects on 82% of the properties might be affected, having carefully considered which views might be affected and receptor sensitivity and degree of screening. All six representative viewpoints are predicted to be significant.”

The evidence confirms that there would be a significant effect on the majority of the properties, 56 out of 68 properties in Westnewton village.

The consultant advises that no details are provided to explain the nature and character of the existing visual amenity and its effect on quality of view, as to whether it is adverse, neutral or beneficial. Nor is there any analytical evidence to support the applicant’s statement that the turbines would not be overbearingly dominant or overwhelming.

Officers, in evaluating the impact on visual amenity, attach weight to the independent assessment by the county Council and the Council’s landscape assessment.

As with the effect on landscape, officers are concerned that the development would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the settlements in close proximity to the turbines, namely Westnewton, Aspatria and Prospect. (The visual impact diminishes with distance from the site.)

In response to officer’s concerns on this issue the applicant refers to their receptor survey (September 2009) which stated,

“Of the dwellinghouses in the village of Westnewton there is a total of 68 No. and of these 28 would obtain open views and significant effects, 28 would obtain partially screened views but still considered particularly significant, and 12 would be predominantly screened or fully screened with no significant effects predicted.”

In reference to the 3km study, the applicant’s survey states:

“Overall, within the 3km radius, 550 (35%) of the 1,565 would potentially experience significant effects, but of these 31 (9%) would obtain open views of the proposal, with the remaining 26% experiencing partially screened views, and for 65% of residents no significant effects are predicted on their visual amenity.”

In the context of the proposed turbines, however, the applicant considers that none of the proposed turbines would be sufficiently close to be overbearing or the view and proportion of turbines to result in overwhelming dominant views.

The applicant contests the survey’s absence to significant in terms of the EIA regulations should not necessarily imply they are adverse, unacceptable or should warrant refusal.

The applicant advises the closest properties to the windfarm (excluding the land owners) is 900m, with most between 1-1.3km.

Given these distances, the applicant has referred to other comparative appeal decisions nationwide and PPS22 Companion Guide advise that the ‘outlook from a private interest, not a public one, and the public at large may attach very different value judgements to the visual and other qualities of wind turbines than those who face living closer to them”.

The applicant refers to relevant appeal decisions.

An appeal at Enifer Downs Farm suggested a cut-off distance of 800m where impacts were assessed as being acceptable.

An appeal decision at Heapwell found visual impact at 700m to be acceptable when taller turbines, little screening and spread of turbines across half the available view was acceptable.

Another appeal at Swiveland accepted a property at 670m would not be affected.

The applicant also refers to another appeal at Sixpenny Wood for 10, 125m tall turbines with the main issue relating to visual intrusion/noise, with the Inspector observing that 93 properties would have significant views, with the Inspector advising there was, “no right to a view per se”, and that material harm would incorporate, “due intensiveness or overbearing impact” resulting in a “diminuation of conditions at the relevant property to an unacceptable degree”.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal, attaching little weight to prominance as he considered this did not equate to harm, with a minimum distance of 600m to the nearest dwelling.

In a separate appeal decision at Hempwell the Inspector concluding the views from private properties is a private interest, not a public one (nearest properties 715m, 700m and 750m from the closest turbines.

A further appeal decision submitted by the applicant at Wadlow Farm repeated the same issues of outlook being a private interest, rather than a public one.

At a separate appeal at Swinford for 11 turbines, the nearest is 670m distance attached weight on the number, size, layout and proximity of turbines would have an overwhelming and oppressive visual impact on a dwelling.

The applicant refers to overbearing as:

“A term used to describe the impact of a development or building on surroundings, particularly a neighbouring property, in terms of its scale, massing and general dominating effect.

An inspector’s decision at Burnham on Sea advises that the prominence with significant changes in the countryside is not determinative in itself, which was reinforced by a separate appeal decision at Carland Cross, with the Inspector similarly allocating little weight on the ability to see the turbines as being unacceptable.

The applicant contests it would be difficult to find sites where there would be no visual impact or views from residential properties.

The applicant, in assessing all the evidence, considers there would not be significant harm to residential amenity overall, and refers to the submitted appeal decisions on this issue.

The applicant refers to the distance of the turbines from dwellings, the orientation of the dwellinghouses and the increasing vegetation and landform.

The applicant considers the proposal, “satisfactorily addresses” the environmental, economic and social impacts. Reference is made to an appeal decision at Shooters Bottom Wind Farm, whereby ‘serious harm’ is not the same as ‘significant effect’.

Officers consider each application should be assessed on its individual planning merits and it is difficult to provide assessment of other approved schemes solely on distances as these may be affected by screening, nature of receptor, e.g. landscaping.

This is exemplified by the recent appeal decision at Cumwhinton, Carlisle, whose appeal for turbines was dismissed on the grounds of its proximity (420m and 650m) from two existing properties and their detrimental impact on the residential amenity of their occupants.

However, the applicant’s own survey has quantified the degree of impact on visual effect as ‘significant’ and, albeit there is the distinction to be made between the applicant’s interpretation. of significance or harm, officers consider the extent of visual impact would result in a harmful impact on the residential amenity of these properties identified in Westnewton, the northern periphery of Aspatria, and to a wider extent the northern perimeter of elevated settlement of Prospect.

In view of the scale of residential properties that would experience a significant visual effect,especially those within Westnewton and its sensitive environment, it is considered the proposed would be harmful to the visual amenity of residential properties in the nearby settlements of Westnewton, Prospect and Aspatria.

3. Conservation

Inter-related to the visual impact of the development, especially in its short distance local views is its indirect impact on the setting of Westnewton’s conservation area (located approximately 250m from the application site, barely 650m to the nearest turbine).

National Planning Guidance has recently been updated (2010) under Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’ under which conservation areas are classified as a ‘designated heritage asset’.

The government objectives under PPS5 are to conserve these area, including in a manner appropriate to their significance by ensuring that decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of that significance, i.e. proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset, appropriate and viable use of assets, the contribution of heritage assets to local character and sense of place, and integration with planning policies promoting place shaping, and contribute to our knowledge and understanding of the past.

The site concerned is not situated within the conservation area itself, but is sited in the vicinity of its boundary. Given the nature and scale of the development, however, there is the necessity to evaluate the impact of the development on the setting of the conservation area.

Given PPS5’s recent adoption, it is not included in the applicant’s Environmental Assesment, but includes policies fundamental to the merits of the current proposal.

Policy HE1 in reference to Heritage Assets and Climate Change advises on the opportunities to mitigate and adapt to the effect of climate change and decisions on “where appropriate, the modification of heritage assets so as to reduce carbon emissions and serve sustainable development”.

It also states that where “conflict between climage change objectives and the conservation of heritage assets is unavoidable, the public benefits of mitigating the effects of climate change should be weighed against any harm to the significance of heritage assets”.

Policy HE8 confirms the “effect of an application on the significance of such a heritage asset on its setting is a material consideration in determining the application”.

Policy HE9 states there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of heritage assets and that “… significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting”.

More specifically, Policy HE10 directly refers to setting which outlines “local authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application”.

A more definitive guide relating to wind energy development is stated within English Heritage’s document, ‘Wind Energy and the Historic Environment’. This paper, whilst supporting measures to reduce fuel consumption, increase energy resources, recognises that some renewable technologies have the potential to cause damage to historic sites. It emphasises a sustainable approach is a balance between the benefits it delivers and the environmental costs it incurs.

English Heritage therefore seek:

(a) Acknowledgement of the need for society to invest a wide range of renewable energy technologies.

(b) Recognise potential environmental impact of different technologies, including historic environment.

(c) Keep the balance of environmental benefits and disadvantages of each technology under review.

(d) Seek to limit an mitigate adverse impacts.

The document highlights each proposal should be assessed on a ‘case by case’ basis according to the type of development, its location and landscape setting, with objective analysis and professional judgement.

It refers that wind energy development may have an indirect impact and impact the setting of historic sites.

In specific reference to setting, the document advises that although “change within the setting of historic sites” may be acceptable, in certain circumstances development will be considered inappropriate.

It recommends consideration of visual dominance, scale, inter-visibility, vistas and sight lines, movement, sound or light effects and unaltered settings.

The applicant’s Environmental Statement includes an assessment of the features, buildings, historic age, layout and, indeed, boundaries of the conservation area. It refers to the village being spread out and ‘gappy’ as a result of it being transitory, with buildings coming and going in the past, and evaluating its listed buildings.

The statement, however, advises that “With respect to the Westnewton Conservation Area, a detailed analysis of ‘special interest’ (including matters of character and appearance) has shown that the proposed windfarm will have no detrimental effect on the setting of this cultural asset”.

The applicant’s evidence required independent assessment, especially in the context of the conservation policies.

The Council’s Conservation Area Officer’s response indicates that, albeit the orientation of the east-west of the main street in the village, it would remain visible from the village. However, she attaches weight that the surrounding landscape is 20th century/21st century in character.

Officers consider and accept the distance from the World Heritage Site (Hadrians Wall) Schedule Monument (no objections from English Heritage), (Westnewton Castle) or listed buildings Yew Tree Farm, Westnewton Hall, and its boundary wall, and Westnewton Grange the scheme would have an insignificant effect on these particular historic assets.

To facilitate a more detailed evaluation of the merits of this issue on conservation an appraisal of Westnewton Conservation Area was undertaken in Autumn 2008. The independent conservation area appraisal outlined the details, features and characteristics of this village’s designation.

In order to establish greater evaluation on this individual scheme, the Council has consequently also sought an independent consultant’s assessment of the proposal on the setting of the Conservation Area.

The consultant’s evaluation of the applicant’s submitted evidence, including that within the Environmental Statement concluded the following:

The consultant addresses the impact on the conservation area will be purely on exclusively visual, as sound or wind turbulence, given its distance from the village, will not be a feature.

The consultant acknowledges that the size of the turbines is not easy to judge, and considers the viewpoints (1-7) are small and do not give a very full picture.

The consultant acknowledges the location of Westnewton in the valley floor, and that the road approaches of the turbines, although highly visible, would not be in the same setting of the village in significance as to be detrimental.

The consultant agrees that the setting is not detrimental from Viewpoint 2 (including the scheduled monument), or Viewpoints 6 and 7.

The conservation area consultant considers that only two (Viewpoints 3 and 6) from within the area are barely adequate for a proper assessment. When travelling from east to west would be sited on the horizon at a 30-45 degree angle (i.e. between straight ahead and half left). In this direction at the eastern section of the village its more compact line of buildings would limit views up to the school and almshouses, but beyond this, given the spacing of the properties, the two proposed easterly turbines would be visible.

The applicant considers that Viewpoint 5 demonstrates turbine 1 is almost totally visible in its full height along the street.

They would detract significantly from the character and setting when in motion, and almost certainly when static (with the turbines becoming clearer at the western end of the village).

The consultant also considers that Viewpoint No. 3, albeit screening two turbines being screened by trees, consider that the turbines would in reality be visible through the trees when viewed through the village, especially when in motion

The consultant, however, accepts it would not affect the setting of any listed building.

In reference to the residential survey, the consultant considers that the screening is emphasising impact on living rooms but would not account for residents working out of doors, walking in the village or enjoying their gardens.

The consultant concludes the proposal, based on the submitted evidence, would have a detrimental effect on the character and setting of the conservation area, especially when the turbines are in working order which would ‘draw the eye’.

The consultant therefore disagrees with the Planning Statement’s comments on the impact of the development on the conservation area.

Officers, in evaluating the environmental impact of the development to the economic, social and environmental benefits of the turbine, consider that, given the sensitivity of the site under its formal designation and appraisal as a conservation area, significant weight should be attached to this particular issue, and the potential visual harm that would arise from the proposed development to this sensitive area.

4. Shadow/Flicker

The Council has commissioned an independent consultant to evaluate the details of the applicant’s Environmental Statement evidence relating to noise flicker.

The policy guidance indicates that the extent of shadow flicker should relate to turbine developments more than 10 times the rotor diameter from residential properties.

The assessment advises there is only one property (Warwick Hall) which may experience shadow flicker within a 820m distance.

The consultant’s report concludes the applications Environmental Statement’s assessment is satisfactory as the predicted total losses of impact are lower, with a maximum duration in one day of 20 metres, which is considered an acceptable level, and raises no objections.

Whilst they agree that this level does not warrant including mitigation measures, in the eventuality of it occurring at Warwick Hall then mitigation options could be adopted by the applicant (secured under a planning condition).

Officers consider that sufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate no adverse impact on shadow flicker (subject to a planning condition to safeguard mitigation measures).

Although the 10m rotor perimeter under PPS22 is challenged by the Parish Council, officers consider this specific policy yardstick is specified in the national guidance and should be used as the tool for assessing this subject. In these circumstances, which have been accepted by an independent consultant, it is considered unreasonable to challenge established national planning guidance.

5. Noise

The applicant’s Environmental Statement included a chapter on the subject of noise and evaluated the potential issues relating to noise disturbance.

(Some of the objectors express concern on the statement’s use of ETSU-R-97 : The Assessment and Ratios of Noise from Wind Farms as a means to evaluate the noise evidence. )

The applicant’s evidence included an updated noise evaluation report under the criteria of ETSU-R-97 using a sample of six residential properties closest to the turbines as a sample, with noise monitoring to establish daytime and night-time criterion. Predictions of wind turbine noise have been made.

The applicant’s report concludes the receptors neighbouring the proposed development will meet the quiet day and night-time noise level criteria. (However, as the selection of turbines may affect this criteria and its results, therefore the turbine choice should be assessed under condition to ensure its acceptance with the assessment’s noise level results.

The Council employed a noise consultant to evaluate the applicant’s evidence.

The consultant concluded that turbine noise for the modelled turbine, a noise reduced Vista 80, will meet the ETSU-R-97 noise levels (although background noise data has not been provided to substantiate the derived limits and there is some question whether this noise reduced turbine is representative of what will be installed in practice.

Officers consider the submitted noise evidence is acceptable. The applicant has submitted the outstanding information requested by the consultant but consider the noise issue may be safeguarded under condition. Clarification is awaited on this additional detail.

Similar challenges were made on the methodology of assessing noise in a recent appeal at Cumwhinton, Carlisle. Although the appeal was dismissed, the Inspector agreed that ETSU-R-97 should be used, under Para 22 of PPS22, to assess and rate noise from wind energy development, therefore it constitutes a benchmark for this type of development.

The consultant ‘s findings on the additional evidence, will be reported at the Development Panel).

6. Highways

The Highways Authority has raised no objections to the highway details subject to highway conditions. Officers therefore consider the highway details are acceptable.

7. Ecology

Natural England has confirmed the impact on ornithology and species habitat is not of any greatness. They did express concern on the local adverse impact on the Solway Coast AONB, but did not formally object on this issue.

Although concern is expressed on the potential cumulative impact with the approved turbine scheme at Parkhead and the current windfarm scheme at Tallentire, including the remote environs, they requested an independent status review into ‘conserving and enhancing’ the natural beauty.

Whilst cumulative impact in itself is a separate material planning consideration, officers consider it would be unreasonable to withhold the determination of this application for this survey (which would require the participation of other neighbouring authorities). Members therefore need to specifically address this issue, to evaluate whether there is any concerns on cumulative impact in its landscape context.

8. Tourism/Local Economy

The Inspector on the Parkhead appeal, in evaluating impact on tourism, including the AONB, considered that if there was not a significant impact on the landscape, then the degree on its affect on attracting visitors would be limited. He considered the evidence of Scottish research submitted at the appeal indicated that the small number of people discouraged from visiting was insignificant.

In the absence of any conclusive evidence on this issue, officers consider it would be difficult to sustain at appeal.

Overall, whilst the applications energy benefits are not disputed, it is evident that the environmental impact assessment does indicate that the proposal will generate some significant effects, primarily at the local level in terms of the turbines themselves, but also cumulatively in the context of other wind turbines in the surrounding area.

As stated previously in the report, the ‘significant’ status does not always equate to harm, e.g. the turbines will inevitably, by virtue of their scale, be prominent. It is for Members to assess whether they consider the individual merits of this proposal are adversely harmful to its locality and, indeed, the wider landscape in the Borough.

In officer’s opinion, given the representations and weight given to the submission by the County Council, the landscape assessment and the conservation consultant, the significant environmental impact in this instance outweighs the benefits.

Members therefore need to form a judgement, and balance the economic renewable energy benefits of the scheme against those of the responses.

Officers in summary consider the application should be refused on the grounds listed below.

Recommendation: Refuse

Conditions/ 1. The Local Planning Authority consider the proposed Reasons: development wouldboth individually and cumulatively have a harmful effect on the landscape of the area, to the detriment of its visual amenity, contrary to Policy EM17 of the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021, Polcies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved) and Policies EN19 and EN20 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

2. In the absence of detail to prove the contrary, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal will not have a harmful impact on the visual amenity of its locality, with particular significant impact on residential receptors in the settlements of Westnewton, Aspatria and Prospect, contrary to Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved).

3. The Local Planning Authority consider the proposed development, by nature of its siting, scale and design, would adversely affect the setting of the Westnewton Conservation Area, contrary to Policy CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy EN38 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved).