At a meeting of the Development Panel held in Council Chamber - House on Tuesday 29 April 2014 at 1.00 pm

Members

P Bales (Chairman)

J Armstrong P G Kendall C M Armstrong B Miskelly B Bacon R Munby N Cockburn S Standage B Finlay C Tibble J Holliday M G Wood C M Jackson J Wright

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors L Davies, C Garrard, W H Jefferson, G Kemp and J Lister.

Staff Present

C Chambers, T Gear, K Kerrigan, P McKenzie, S Sewell and P Shackley.

595 Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 8 April 2014 were signed as a correct record.

596 Declaration of Interest

None received.

597 Questions

None received.

598 Public participation

The following objectors/applicants addressed the Panel.

J A Keighley and Lesley Bretherton outlined their objections to application 2/2013/0845. The agent Mr T Mackie and applicant Mr D Chester exercised their right of reply.

599 Development Panel - 2.2013.0845. Proposed erection of a single wind turbine 50m to hub and 77m tip. West End Farm, Edderside

The application: Proposed erection of a single wind turbine 50m to hub and 77m tip height above existing ground level and other associated infrastructure, West End Farm, Edderside , .

The Senior Planning Officer recommended refusal.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.

Councillor N Cockburn moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor J Holliday.

Councillor M Wood moved approval, stating the benefits outweighed the harm. This was not seconded, therefore the motion was lost.

A vote was taken, 14 in favour of refusal, 1 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of refusal was carried.

The decision: Refused.

Reasons: 1. The Local Planning Authority considered that the proposed turbine, by virtue of its detached and isolated location (and having regard to the weight of objection from the local parish council representations), would form a visually prominent dominant and incoherent feature which would have an adverse individual landscape and visual amenity impact on the surrounding open countryside including the setting of the AONB contrary to paragraphs 7, 17, 96, 97 109 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN20 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Policy S32 of the Draft Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), the ''Local planning and onshore wind'' Ministerial statement 2013, and the Department for Communities and Local Governments ''Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy'' document 2013.

2. The Local Planning Authority considered the proposal, by virtue of its size, scale and separation distance from the properties Edderside Hall, The Stables, and The Coach House in Edderside would have an overwhelming, overbearing and oppressive impact on the visual amenity of its occupiers, resulting in an unacceptable place to live contrary to Paragraph 14, 17 and 97 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Draft Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).

3. The Local Planning Authority considered that the proposed turbine by virtue of its site, size and design, in association with existing turbines in the surrounding area would have a detrimental combined and sequential cumulative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape including the setting of the Solway Coast AONB contrary to paragraphs 7, 17, 96, 97 109 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN20 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved), and Policy S32 of the Draft Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), the ''Local planning and onshore wind'' Ministerial statement 2013, and the Department for Communities and local governments ''Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy'' document 2013.

Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority had acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues were so fundamental to the proposal that it had not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which had been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval had not been possible.

The meeting closed at 2.00 pm