DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
PLANNING COMMITTEE
5th March 2013
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The plans in this report have been submitted for approval under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
All County Council Matters are “Delegated” to the Committee for comment and cannot be moved “Non-Delegated” (Minute No. 244, 20th July, 1992).
All other applications in this report are also “Delegated” but can be moved “Non- Delegated” by a Member of the Committee under the terms adopted for the Scheme of Delegation approved by Council, 16th May, 1994. Any such motion needs to be accepted by a majority of Members of the Committee present (Council, 8th August, 1995). All applications left as delegated will be decided by the Committee and will not be subject to confirmation by Council.
The application plan numbers also refer to files for the purposes of background papers.
Jason Hipkiss
Planning Manager
1 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: AGENT:
2013/0036 DB Consultancy C/O EM EM Architecture Architecture
WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED:
Central Barry Jesson 10/01/2013 01229 876323 STATUTORY DATE: 10/04/2013
LOCATION:
Queens Arms Hotel, Rawlinson Street, Barrow-in-Furness
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of existing public house (including landlords residence) to form 10 x (1 bed) apartments and formation of 5 parking spaces.
SAVED POLICIES OF THE LOCAL PLAN:
POLICY B6
Subdivision of existing properties in residential areas to flats will be permitted provided the following can be met: i) There is no detriment to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, especially with respect to the loss of privacy; ii) Adequate car parking facilities can be produced without placing an unacceptable strain on the on-street parking facilities; iii) The subdivision will not detract from the character of that area; iv) Adequate external and internal amenity space is provided; v) The conversion works retain the character of the building; vi) There is adequate access from the residential units to both the front and rear of the building; and vii) Adequate capacity either exists or can be provided in relation to water supply, foul and surface water sewerage and sewerage treatment.
2 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 POLICY D58
New development within the vicinity of residential areas, schools, hospitals and offices must not generate noise above the existing background levels, as measured in accordance with the positions, times and methods agreed beforehand with the Authority.
POLICY E9
All development should provide for its car parking requirements. However, within the Barrow town centre block (indicated in Proposals map 4 and where A15, B7, C5, C6 & C7 apply) private parking provision will not be required on-site for residential or commercial development. Parking within that area will only be available on-street or within publicly provided off-street areas. This may require the payment of commuted sums towards the cost of publicly provided parking in lieu of on-site parking provision. Development proposals in the Barrow town centre block will further be considered having regard to the level of public transport provision in the area and any improvements to that provision proposed by developers.
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:
The amended layout addresses concerns over privacy whilst the development as a whole secures the re-use of the building in accordance with local and national; policy.
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Development advertised on site and in the local press.
The Occupiers, nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 11Rawlinson St., nos. 7, 8, 9 10 Salthouse Rd, Barrow all informed.
The Occupier, 7 Salthouse Road, Barrow in Furness
“Thank you for your letter dated 17.1.2013 regarding the Queens Arms Hotel, Rawlinson Street.
Being residents for 51 years at Salthouse Road, Barrow in Furness back to back to Queens Arms we are the Listed Building our (houses).
We totally oppose this plan.
Have you ever thought regard all us residents at no. 1 to no. 10 on Salthouse Road and Rawlinson Street so where we live. We will have no privacy. The school has had to put a screen up when they had there improvements to the St Georges school because they could see us and our bathrooms.
Also the parking is dreadful around that area. I know they have planned to have space for cars on the previous land but would this be a FIRE HAZARD if cars are in the yard if there is a fire.
3 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 The previous people that had the Queens as a pub were not allowed to put cars in the yard because of this they were told it was a fire hazard?
This is also a 2 storey building and as you say in your plan that the landlords will be there. Will they be there all the time? Also they will need a fire escape? and have you also thought about loud music that these people sometimes play?
When we had the pub open sometimes it was a living hell. In our houses with the music they played and our walls are 17” thick.
1. Would you like someone looking into your house every day? 2. Playing loud music too
Will you please look into this plan again and think about all us residents around this area”.
The Occupiers, 7 Salthouse Road, Barrow in Furness
“Thank you for your letter regarding the development into flats at the former Queens Arms, Rawlinson Street.
Both myself and my husband and all the residents in Rawlinson Street are opposed to this plan.
I spoke to those arrogant men when they were looking at the Queens prop I saw them as I came out of my house which is back to back to the Queens. The parking was one of the features saying there is nowhere to park cars here.
As it is on your plan, they are going to make 10 spaces in the yard. Now isn’t this a fire hazard because former tenants of the Queens were told they couldn’t park cars in yard owing to fire hazard? Also they will need a fire escape to if they are successful.
Also they said there were not going to have DSS Clients. What a load of rubbish this is a very run down area full of these young girls with babies. Who would like to rent a flat here? Only these lot.
If you allow this plan it will be a living hell. For all of us, where we live in Salthouse Road we will have no privacy in our houses being back to back with the Queens Arms. Have the people born in Barrow in Furness any say about these big fat cats that come into the whole of Cumbria and take over.
Its time we had a say about these matters.
My husband and I are (O.A.P) I’ve lived in this house for (51 years) it was a lovely area then. I have lived in Central Ward all my life I was born in Smeaton Street.
Hope you will look into this matter”.
4 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
The Occupiers, 4 Rawlinson St, Barrow in Furness
“We would like to object to the above application on the grounds that is a gross invasion of our privacy! No 2 Rawlinson street end elevation first floor is approx 6m above ground level and looks directly down on the back of our property looking into our front room bathroom back kitchen and both our back bedrooms. There is no justification in making one bedroom apartments as facing the property is apartments that are empty i.e Rawlinson St and Macadam St also the former public house Dominiks on the same side of us one apartment let the rest are empty who are the prospective tenants to be ? Most of School St are flats as is Storey square and Albert St therefore giving no justification in adding what is not needed in this area.”
St Georges School
“I wish to raise the following concerns regarding the proposed changes to the Queens Arms Hotel, Rawlinson Street into flats. To remain concise I shall list my objections:
The limit of all of the accommodation being one bed flats inhibits the chance for family cohabitation but encourages single women or men - these flats will directly overlook the Early Years teaching areas for our school and look directly into the classrooms of two further year groups. This is a safeguarding issue, with children changing for PE etc. This removes any previous privacy we have enjoyed.
The likelihood of additional noise from these flats during the day is also increased, something we have experienced in the past and which disturbs teaching and learning.
There are already significant parking issues around the area which I have raised on many occasions; residents have very great difficulty in parking, as do we as staff. We are located next to the docks, no parking, Salthouse Road, no parking, Church Street/ School Street/Lumley Street limited to 2 hours, we have no school car park but are at work for up to 10 hours per day; so we are forced to park on Rawlinson Street which in turn upsets our neighbours. This problem will be exacerbated with only 5 spaces for 10 homes. This will also be made more complex when the housing on the old hospital site is occupied and their overflow parking moves to School Street. We currently juggle with the Nursing home staff for the 5 spaces available, our school alone has over 30 staff and daily visitors in excess of 5 or more.
The roads are already terribly busy when used by many as a short cut to avoid traffic controls. We previously had a School Crossing Patrol, but under recent cuts the vacancy was never re filled. No Crossing Patrol outside or behind the school on Rawlinson Street adds to our health and safety concerns, additional cars for the flats would increase the dangers for our children.
The numbers on role in our school have increased by almost 100 pupils in the last 10 years, traffic flow and pedestrian use reflects this, peak times can be very hazardous for our children.
We hope you will consider our concerns when making your decisions”.
5 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
CONSULTATIONS:
United Utilities
“With reference to the above planning application, I have no objection to the proposed development. . A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant's expense and all internal pipework must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.
Should this planning application be approved, the applicant should contact our Service Enquiries on 0845 7462200 regarding connection to the water mains/public sewers.
United Utilities offer a fully supported mapping service at a modest cost for our water mains and sewerage assets. This is a service, which is constantly updated by our Property Searches Team (Tel No: 0870 7510101). It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any assets that may cross the site and any proposed development
Please note, due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction, please contact Sue Lowe [email protected] to discuss the matter further.”
Cumbria Constabulary
“In relation to the above application, I would like to make some observations from a crime prevention and community safety perspective. Criminal activity such as burglary, theft, damage, stealing from vehicles and anti social behaviour have been considered in relation to the proposal.
As such, any element of unwittingly designing in crime within this project will result in calls for service for the police and other services.
The proposal is for a former public house to be converted into 10 one room flats and to demolish outbuildings of the public house to provide car parking. These parking areas are to be situated at the side elevations – adjacent to the Salthouse Road terraced housing back street, and adjacent to a row of terraced houses (alley gated) street on Rawlinson Street.
Boundary
Currently the side and rear elevations are enclosed by high brick walls. Access cannot easily be gained to the rear of the building. Boundary treatment is proposed to be lowered to 900mm brick walls. Low boundary walls introduce access to the vulnerable rear and side aspects of this building and would compromise the security of any vehicles parked here, the rear of the building as well as the grounds to the neighbouring school. Given that there anti climb products on top of the brick walls, and an alley gated back street both close to the building, indicates historical misuse of the area.
6 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 These low walls would also provide an area of concealment or ‘seating’ which encourages anti social behaviour and increase fear of crime. Historically, there were no external boundary walls which facilitated easy access to the rear of the building as it was dark, unobserved and close to a number of escape routes. A low boundary wall will not deter this from happening again, and may create hiding places and increase the vulnerability of tenants. A brick wall with a railing topping (flush with the wall to deter climbing) to a height of 2 metres with a lockable gate would reduce the building vulnerability.
Car Parking
The three-bay proposed parking area will have limited surveillance opportunities from passers-by and tenants. These vehicles will be parked ‘side on’ and will therefore be vulnerable to criminal or anti social activity. It is also located within a back street which is poorly lit. Neither car parking plots are within view of active rooms within the building (active rooms are rooms where there is direct and regular visual connection between the room and the parking such as kitchens and living rooms but not bedroom or bathrooms.) With the removal of the outbuilding on Rawlinson Street (identified as ‘Furness Toy Library’), this space may be more suitable for additional car parking spaces and is overlooked by neighbours.
Sufficient lighting in the parking areas is essential to allow for good surveillance opportunities from the occupiers of these flats as well as for any CCTV installed. Unless car parking can be well lit, be protected by a suitable boundary and have good surveillance opportunities from tenants, CCTV and/or neighbouring properties, car parking on this site will be extremely vulnerable.
Lighting
Externally, the building and car parking areas will require good white lighting to create a safe environment and enhance surveillance opportunities. Lighting standards should be as recommended by BS 5489-1:2003. It should not create shadowing areas which may generate a fear of crime for tenants or residents of adjacent properties. The nearest lighting column to the building is on the opposite side of the road and will not spread across the road sufficiently to light up either parking areas. If lighting levels are not increased for the car parking, it is envisaged that tenants will park their vehicles on Rawlinson Street under street lights where the vehicles can be seen. The areas then become unused for parking but are attractive places for youths to gather and thereby become crime generators and cause misery for ground floor tenants whose windows are nearby.
External security lighting for the building should be electric photocell rather than Passive Infra Red. The latter can cause increased fear of crime or nuisance due to repeated PIR lamp activations causing tenants to disable the light altogether. A constant level of illumination is more effective at controlling the night environment.
CCTV
A system should be installed both internally and externally, and to cover the parking areas. An ‘identification’ standard camera should be installed at the shared main entrance to the building. Additional cameras should be installed in the communal areas to help deter criminal activity and identify offenders. In similar multi occupational units such as this, criminal activity such as burglary, damage, anti social or suspicious behaviour occurs due
7 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 to the lack of capable guardian, such as an on site caretaker or warden. Often there is uncertainty about public or private space, who is a legitimate user of the site, etc and opportunist criminals exploit this. Therefore CCTV can be an active deterrent and used for evidential purposes following such an event, if the system is positioned and managed properly.
Access Control
It should not be permissible for non-authorised users to gain access to the building, the flats or the rear of the site externally.
Due to the number of flats served by a common entrance, the doors must incorporate an access control system with an electronic lock release and entry phone release. Suitable access control at any communal entrances will restrict unauthorised access to the building. I would strongly recommend that this project is considered with ‘Secured By Design’ principles in mind to design out crime throughout the development, to protect the building and occupants.
Other It is unclear from the plans where the ‘general amenity area for residents’ will be or what it consists of. If this area is not access controlled, there are concerns that damage, littering, anti-social behaviour etc. may ensue.
Communal doors should be self-closing and self-locking.
It is important that an effective and realistic level of physical security, commensurate with the risk, is incorporated into the building construction. Secured By Design security standards for communal and flat doorsets - British Standard PAS 24 doors, all windows - BS 7950 with laminated glass for ground floor and accessible windows, communal mail delivery, bin and cycle stores (if appropriate) should be implemented to ensure any vulnerabilities or risk to criminal activity are reduced. Please see www.securedbydesign.com”.
Cumbria Highways
“I can confirm that the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed development.”
OFFICERS REPORT:
The building has been vacant for a number of years since the closure of the public house/accommodation. The proposal is to convert the building to provide 9 no. single bedroom flats.
Location & history
The building is located close to the junction of Rawlinson Street & Salthouse Road, opposite Macadam Street. To the south of the site is are two rows of listed terraces, either side of Rawlinson Street, whilst to the rear is St George’s school. The remaining area is predominantly residential, though further south beyond the listed terraces is the Marina Village Opportunity Area, identified in the Barrow Port Area Action Plan which forms part of
8 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 the current Development Plan. The site is within walking distance of the town centre with a number of bus routes in close proximity.
The public house dates back to 1853 when it first opened and has been subsequently altered and extended. In recent times, prior to its closure in approximately 2008, it was a popular live music venue. However this resulted in noise nuisance and complaints (mentioned in one letter of objection) given the close proximity of the adjacent dwellings. Planning history is limited to an extension to the pub in the 1970’s. No previous conversion has been proposed/considered by the authority.
Proposal
The original submission identified 10 no. single bedroom flats/apartments. This has been reduced to 9 as a result of negotiations to overcome privacy issues raised by the scheme. The reduction in flats has allowed changes to the layout to overcome the privacy issues without unduly compromising the living conditions of the proposed flats. All the flats are to be accessed from a single entrance point from Rawlinson Street. Car parking provision has been made for 5 vehicles in two areas where redundant single storey outbuildings are to be demolished, accessed from Rawlinson Street & the back street behind Salthouse Road. Ordinarily there is no requirement to provide parking for developments close to the town centre (saved policy E9), though such provision will help reduce any burden on existing on-street parking.
The rear yard area includes a communal landscaped area and bin store, with a pathway linking the rear parking spaces to the front of the site on Rawlinson Street.
No significant external changes are proposed, and the windows are to be refurbished or replaced where necessary.
Policy
Saved Policy B6 relates to the subdivision of existing properties in residential areas to flats. Such conversions are supported subject to certain conditions being met (reproduced in full above), including no detriment to residential amenity.
National policy can be found in the National Planning Policy Framework. One of the 12 core planning principles is to “encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value”.
Paragraph 51 states that “Local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings in line with local housing and empty homes strategies.” It goes on to say “They should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings”. It does qualify the last statement by defining commercial as ‘B’ use classes (industrial), whilst public houses are within ‘A’ use classes (retail). However, the sentiment is still applicable when considering the number of pub closures due to the recent economic climate and changes in drinking habits. The retention of a commercial use in this location would therefore be inappropriate as it would have a much greater impact upon the amenity of neighbours.
9 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 It can be considered that both local and national policy is supportive in principal of the re- use of redundant buildings, though the relationship with surrounding buildings and other material considerations (listed in B6) also need to be acceptable.
Issues
A number of issues have been considered through the natural planning process and as a result of correspondence received. These have been summarised below.
Privacy School – the school is located to the rear of the building and has expressed concern over the potential loss of privacy, particularly when children are changing for P.E. However, the distance between the facing rear wall and the school exceeds 21m. In addition, it would not be unreasonable for the school to install relatively cheap blinds in the two affected classrooms to safeguard children’s privacy during the short time spent changing. Furthermore, the previous use including the accommodation would have provided the same level of overlooking. Houses – the layout has been amended to allow for the provision of obscure glazing on the sensitive side elevations by either relocating non-habitable rooms or by ensuring that habitable rooms have additional clear windows on different elevations to provide a satisfactory level of accommodation. This resulted in the reduction to 9 no. flats. Initially clear glazing served habitable rooms which in some cases were as close as 10m to the rear of the Salthouse terraces, rightly prompting concern from neighbours over privacy. In addition to the above, the agents have indicated they are willing to install screening/landscaping to further improve privacy where appropriate. Again, such details can be agreed post decision as they are not considered critical to the decision as they would be supplementary to the improvement already achieved.
Accommodation type Single bedroom accommodation can limit the range/diversity of potential occupants. However, the wider area contains mainly houses, typically 2/3 bed, with some other similar flats. This development adds to the overall mix, if not providing it within the building itself. The applicants have stated they have identified a demand for such flats, rather than the development being purely speculative. Security Cumbria Constabulary has considered the development with regard to security and policing and suggested a number of improvements. These can be required by condition due to time constraints, but include additional railings to safeguard the communal amenity space, security lighting to reduce potential crime for parked cars and CCTV/access control for the safety of occupants. Such details would follow should the application be approved. Noise A comparison between the existing public house use and the proposed flats should result in the proposal being regarded as a more ‘neighbour friendly’ development. The activity in and around the building should be comparable with existing background levels and a definite improvement over the previous pub/ live music activities, in accordance with saved Policy D58.
10 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 Parking The school have expressed concern at the level of parking for staff in the surrounding area. As stated the development will provide 5 spaces. If it is assumed that the occupants of the 9 flats each had a car, 4 would have to be parked on-street. This is not a significant level, and it could be expected that some of these would be parked elsewhere (place of work) during school hours. However, the close proximity to the town centre and access to public transport may appeal to non-car owners. External changes No external changes are proposed with the exception of refurbishing/replacing windows and doors. Taking into account the scale and prominence of the building and the presence of listed buildings to the south, the installation of upvc doors and windows could harm the setting of these houses and detract from the character of the traditional style building. As such, where required, any replacement windows would be required, by condition, to be made from timber in the original sliding sash style. This would preserve the setting of the listed buildings. Conclusion & Summary
Converting a building to another use will always provide more constraints than a new build. However, planning policy recognises the importance of preventing buildings from falling into disrepair and in order to make the most efficient use of land, the re-use of such buildings is encouraged. To overcome the loss of privacy the layout has been reconfigured, reducing the number of flats to 9. Obscure glazing has been proposed in the side elevations to protect privacy, and whilst not ideal the layout allows in all but one room a second clear glazed window in an alternate elevation, providing an outlook. Parking has been incorporated into the scheme with the removal of redundant outbuildings, accessed directly off Rawlinson Street & the short back street to the rear of Salthouse Rd. This provision, coupled with the edge of town centre location should prove sufficient. In considering other potential uses of the site, including the present lawful use as a pub, it is considered that residential redevelopment is the most appropriate use in the context of the site location and building size.
The amended proposal is in accordance with local and national policy and can be regarded as sustainable development due to its previously developed status and location within the urban area. In such cases the NPPF is clear that such development should be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following conditions:
2) The development must be carried out in accordance with the plans (drawing numbers 00:01, 00:02 rev B, 00:03 rev D & 00:04) hereby approved as submitted with the application dated 06.12.12.
Reason
To ensure that the development is carried out only as indicated on the drawings approved by the Planning Authority.
11 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 3) Prior to the beneficial occupation of the flats hereby approved, the windows as annotated on drawing no. 00:03 rev D must be fitted with manufacturers obscure glazing of an obscurity rating of no less than level 4 from the Pilkington glass range (or an equivalent range and rating subject to prior agreement with the Planning Authority) and thereafter permanently retained.
Reason
In order to protect the residential amenities between neighbouring properties from overlooking or perceived overlooking.
4) Prior to the beneficial occupation of the flats hereby approved, details of the proposed boundary screening to the north and west facing elevations shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Authority. The agreed boundary treatment must be erected in accordance with the agreed details before any of the flats are occupied and thereafter permanently retained.
Reason In order to protect the residential amenities between neighbouring properties from overlooking or perceived overlooking.
5) Prior to the beneficial occupation of the flats hereby approved, details of proposed security lighting, building access control including gates and railings to amenity areas and Closed Circuit Television system shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Authority. The agreed security measures must be implemented in accordance with the agreed details before any of the flats are occupied and thereafter permanently retained.
Reason
In order to reduce the potential of crime and to protect the safety of future occupants.
6) Any external lighting shall at all times be directed and shielded so as to minimise light spillage outside of the application site, and shall not shine directly into the windows of adjacent neighbouring properties.
Reason
To minimise light pollution in accordance with Saved policy D63 of the Barrow Local Plan Review 1996-2006, and in order to protect the residential amenities of the area.
7) Any external lighting shall at all times be directed and shielded so as to minimise light spillage outside of the application site, and shall not shine directly onto any adjacent highways.
Reason
To minimise light pollution in accordance with Saved policy D63 of the Barrow Local Plan Review 1996-2006, and in the interests of highway safety.
12 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
8) No windows shall be replaced until a detailed specification including sample sections of joinery work (glazing bars, sills etc.) or working drawings (scale 1:20, 1:10, 1:5, half or full size etc.) fully detailing the new / or replacement windows (cross sections for full glazing bars, sills, heads etc.) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved specification and permanently retained thereafter.
Reason
To ensure that the proposed works can be effected without detriment to the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and historic interest of the building.
9) All external joinery shall be permanently maintained in a gloss paint finish.
Reason
In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the building.
10) The 5 no. parking spaces and access thereto must be reserved for the parking of private motor vehicles and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order, 2008 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) or not, shall be carried out on that area of land in such position as to preclude vehicular access to the development hereby permitted.
Reason
To ensure that proper access and parking provision is made and retained for the use associated with the development hereby permitted.
Reason for Approval
The development hereby approved has been assessed against the Development Plan for the area, specifically the saved policies listed below, and material considerations, including third party representations. The Planning Authority concluded that the development, subject to the conditions imposed, would accord with saved Policies B6 & D58 of the Development Plan and paragraph(s) 51 of the NPPF, and that there were no other material considerations to justify a refusal of permission.
13 of 51
14 of 51 15 of 51 16 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: AGENT:
2012/0619 Kinetica Energy Ltd JDA Architects
WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED:
Dalton South Dalton and Charles Wilton 11/09/2012 Newton Parish Council 01229 876553 STATUTORY DATE: 20/11/2012
LOCATION:
Barrow House Farm, Woodbine Lane, Newton-in-Furness.
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one 'Endurance E-3120' 24.6m (34.2m to blade tip) wind turbine (50kW).
SAVED POLICIES
Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan(JSP)
Policy E37:
Development and land use change should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types and sub types. Proposals will be assessed in relation to: 1. locally distinctive natural or built features, 2. visual intrusion or impact, 3. scale in relation to the landscape and features, 4. the character of the built environment, 5. public access and community value of the landscape, 6. historic patterns and attributes, 7. biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats, and 8. openness, remoteness and tranquillity.
Policy R44
Outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs proposals for renewable energy, including any ancillary infrastructure or buildings will be favourably considered if:
1. there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure, 2. there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications, 3. the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on landscape, environmental, nature conservation, historical and local community interests.
17 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in this plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight.
There are additional requirements in the following cases:
Wind energy development: Measures should be included to secure the satisfactory removal of structures/related infrastructure and remediation of land following cessation of operation of the installation.
Local Plan Review (LPR)
POLICY D1
The Borough’s countryside will be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and natural resources afforded protection. Development will be permitted in the countryside only where there is a demonstrable need that cannot be met elsewhere. Where necessary development is permitted any adverse effect on the rural character of the surroundings should be minimised subject to the development’s operational requirements.
POLICY D45
Proposals for energy generation projects that rely on renewable resources will be approved within the Local Plan area where they meet established best practice criteria and the energy generation and other benefits outweigh the environmental impact, particularly if they help to meet the Authority’s target for the proportion of its energy needs to be generated from renewable sources.
POLICY D46
Development of wind turbines in the Borough will be permitted in the Area of Least Constraint defined on the Proposals Map, subject to details of the number, scale, design and location being acceptable.
POLICY D47
The acceptability of wind energy installations will be judged according to whether the number, location, siting, size and design of proposals can be shown to satisfy the following criteria: a) An Environmental Impact Assessment is undertaken where the proposal is considered by the Authority to be significant in relation to its environmental impact. This must be adequate to assist the Authority to assess whether the energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse effect on;
1. The character and appearance of the landscape, nature conservation, archaeological or geological interests;
2. The amenity of residential properties by reason of visual impact, noise, shadow flicker or reflected light;
18 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 b) The proposal would not unduly dominate the appearance or visual amenities or setting of a settlement or part thereof, or intrude on the enjoyment of publicly accessible spaces within it; c) The proposal would not cause significant damage to a site of international, national or local nature conservation importance; d) Effective measures are available to overcome any significant electromagnetic interference to transmitting or receiving equipment; e) All associated power lines, both on-site and off-site, 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 proposal, when assessed in the context of existing, proposed or permitted wind energy schemes, would not result in a cumulative visual effect which would have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area; and 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 proposed mitigating measures, and of the County-wide Supplementary Planning Guidance “Wind Energy Development in Cumbria”.
POLICY G13
For the quiet enjoyment of recreation activities such as walking, cycling and horse riding the Borough Council will protect the following designated routes from development taking place on; or in the immediate surroundings where an interesting or visually pleasing view would be adversely affected:- The Cistercian Way Haematite Trail Cumbria Coastal Way Public Footpaths Any existing right of way joining the rights of way network.
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Development advertised on site
The Occupiers of The Bungalow, Dendron Road, Newton in Furness Conifers, Cregneish, Sharnelle, Four Winds, Green Acres, Woodbine, Newton in Furness 9 Miller Close, Newton in Furness Halfway House, Newton Road, Newton in Furness
19 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
Juniper, Hill View, 8, Baldwin Croft (28), 38, 39, 61 Newton Cross Road, Newton in Furness Newholme Farm, Newton in Furness Croft Beck House, 2 Croftlands Cottages, Ferndale, Stank Lane, Stank 21 Harrel Lane, 26 Sandalwood Close, Abbey Manor (9) Parkhouse Court, Parkhouse Farm, Barrow in Furness Inshallah, Churchfield, Ireleth, Askam in Furness 7 Garden Lea, 153 Chapel Street, 10 Pennington Close, 2, 13, 15, 25 Scales Close, 29 Stainton Drive, Crooklands House, Crooklands Brow, Dalton in Furness, Dendron House, Dendron, Nr Ulverston Bowstead Gates, Newland, Ulverston 10 Lightburn Avenue, Ulverston all informed.
The Occupier, 2 Scales Close, Dalton.
“I do object.The proliferation of windmills is an offence to the natural beauty of the area. They are a visual offense as well as causing noise pollution. Either singly or in a group they are causing an ever increasing blot on the landscape. It is now impossible to walk in any direction from my home without one or more spoiling my enjoyment of the countryside. This would be right next to a regular walk and would ruin an otherwise relatively unspoiled view, with it's size, structure, movement and sound.
Farmers might claim hard times, but they already enjoy planning allowances made for the use of their land and this should not be one of them.”
The Occupier, 10 Pennington close, Dalton-in-Furness
I write to lodge my objection to the planning application submitted for a wind turbine at Barrow House Farm.Having had first-hand experience of the adverse effects of living in close proximity to a wind farm I feel duty bound to lodge an objection to any such turbine proposed near to residential properties.
After 20 years of living in a quiet and rural environment a wind farm was constructed near to my parent’s home (I refer to the existing Wind Farm at Far Old Park Farm, Ireleth). After witnessing the distress and suffering they endured from the adverse effects of the turbines, and subsequent deterioration to their quality of life, I feel I have no choice but to lodge an objection to prevent others having to endure the same unpleasant and distressing experience. Following a stressful, lengthy and expensive court cased pursued by a group of local residents against the operators of the wind farm the developers agreed to install a Noise Reduction Management System (NRMS) which enabled certain turbines to be closed down during weather conditions that exacerbated noise nuisance to particular residents and go some way to restore their quality of life. I understand this particular wind farm was predicted to operate between 30-40% efficiency but since the installation of the NRMS I believe it now averages at around 14%. I understand the NRMS is not a standard fixture for all wind turbines so I pose the question; if others find themselves in the same situation do they also have to endure a fight through the courts in order to restore the quality of life and enjoyment of their property they have a right to expect? To quote an age old proverb: There is a place for everything and everything in its place! I think this goes someway to demonstrate that wind turbines are not compatible with residential communities and in order to bring them to an acceptable tolerance level their efficiency
20 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 becomes greatly reduced. Under these circumstances it must be without doubt difficult to justify their very existence particularly to us, the tax payer, who I believe indirectly subsidise renewable energy projects; recent national press coverage on the imminent significant price rises to fuel bills by some leading service providers suggest these increases are primarily influenced by the “huge costs involved in subsidising wind farms” – Daily Mail Saturday 13 October 2012.
It is impossible to predict exactly how much effect a wind turbine will have pre construction but I strongly suspect from previous experience that noise nuisance and vibration would be the most obvious factors to adversely affect me should the application proposed by Barrow House Farm be granted.
I understand the planning committee can only make its decision based on the information presented to it at the time of application. Therefore, as a duty to act in the best interests of the environment and the community, particularly those residents who will potentially be directly affected by the turbines, it is my opinion that the committee should be giving due consideration to the following points:
Visual impact Noise Vibration Blade flicker Electrical interference (with TV aerials) Health & Safety Geological suitability Nature Conservation Negative effect on tourism Migration path for birds Environmental impact Possible interference to RAF test flight path Devaluation of house prices Conflict and division within the community Economic viability
I strongly suspect if we looked a little closer the environmentally friendly promotion of wind turbines would be found to be questionable; the end product may well produce electricity by making use of a natural element but just how environmentally friendly are the base materials which go into making these turbines. For instance I understand magnets are a significant component of a wind turbine and I’m sure you are aware the production of these alone hardly constitutes a contribution to the reduction in a carbon footprint.
This area is continuously promoted as the “Energy Coast” but I greatly fear that in order to use this phrase as a viable marketing tool it will prove to be gravely detrimental to both the community and the environment in the longer term.
I write to you not as a NIMBY but through a genuine concern for our community on the whole and out of respect of this beautiful, unspoiled and unique countryside we are privileged to live in and enjoy.
I thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and also in anticipation of you acting in the best interests of our environment and our community.
21 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 The Occupiers, "Cregneish", Woodbine Lane, Newton in Furness
Apart from having the opinion that these schemes are based not on the farmers interest in green renewable energy, but purely on greed and the desire to have free electricity at the inconvenience of everyone in the surrounding area.
We object to the application for the following reasons:
A turbine application was made for a field between Woodbine and Stainton at Bowes Farm, four fields away from this proposed site. it was refused by SLDPB for the reason stated below:-
1) The proposed turbine would be an isolated and prominent vertical structure which would appear incongruous in its surroundings. As a consequence, the turbine will have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape. It is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Sections 10 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies DP7, EM1(A) and EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England, saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan, Policy CS8.2
2. The road from Woodbine to Newton has been closed for over two years when the road collapsed. This was due to a one of the mineshafts that cover the area collapsing beneath the road.
A geological survey was carried out by the County Council. below are the comments of the Engineers who reported on the collapse.
6 OCT 2010 - when asked when the road would be repaired, bearing in mind we do not know the extent of the instability ..... Kevin McGeogh, County Engineer
9 SEPT 2010 - a report from a specialist contractor employed to report on the problem ..... a localised site investigation of the Woodbine undermined area, together with a search of all relevant historic data needs to be carried out to try to determine the extent of the unstable ground ..... Steve Eddy, Engineer, Capita Symonds
15 OCTOBER 2010 An initial survey has been undertaken for the collapse of the U6105. Unfortunately it suggests that the undermining covers a much greater area than expected and suggests further ground investigation MUST be carried out. I believe a similar collapse has occurred in an adjacent field .... Kevin McGeogh
18 APRIL 2011 - when asked about the progress to repairing the road.... with reference to the mining collapse and road closure, I am still unsure of the extent of the instability of the area and the new holes appearing in the adjacent fields are very serious grounds for concern .... Kevin McGeogh
JANUARY 18 2011 when asked again as to the progress on the road .... our investigations so far have led me to believe that this is more than a simple mine shaft collapse as the area is riddled with such undermining..... Kevin McGeogh
Since this time a further collapse has occurred on the road from Long Lane to Newton very close to the area of the proposed turbine installation.
22 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 Furthermore, The location of the turbine is adjacent to a pond.
This pond is not a natural pond, but a collapsed mineshaft that has filled with water!!
These collapsing of mineshafts is a common occurrence throughout the whole area. Therefore from a purely health and safety aspect, nothing should be allowed to be built in the fields surrounding the Woodbine and Newton area without a thorough geological survey being carried out as to the stability of the ground.”
The Occupier, ‘Four Winds’, Woodbine Lane,Newton.
“I am writing to object most strongly to the above application. The proposed wind turbine is totally inappropriate in this rural setting.
Wind turbines are industrial structures and such a large one, in this highly visible and attractive location would be an unacceptable visual intrusion in what has been called the “Cotswolds of Furness.”
The Occupier, ‘Sharnelle’, Woodbine Lane, Newton. “I would like to express my concern about this development. My house is in quite close proximity to the proposed wind turbine. I have concerns about the noise and the cumulative impact on the landscape. This wind turbine would impact on a relatively unspoilt part of the view where the other aspects already have wind turbines at all angles. A further concern which has recently increased is the effect of the building and excavation work necessary in an area which is becoming increasingly unstable. The road between Woodbine and Newton village has been closed for approximately 30 months due to a large hole in the road, the result of past mine works, this is currently being repaired but a further hole has now opened up on the other side of the village and also one on a new farm road very near Barrow House Farm. Any earth movement appears to increase the likelihood of further ground collapse. Many bats and a number of kestrels are seen in the area which may be affected by the proposed wind turbine.” The Occupiers, Newholme Farm, Newton, Barrow. “We wish it to be known that we object to this planning application on the following grounds. Health and safety. This area around Newton and Woodbine including Barrow House Farm is littered with disused mineshafts as is known by the amount of land collapses that have happened in the past and are occurring frequently now. The road at woodbine has been closed for over 2 years due to a collapse, and only 3weeks ago there was another collapse on the road to Newton very near to this application site ,another one at woodbine that is even closer to the proposed site and two more in the direction of Stank. BEFORE this application is put before the planning committee, a FULL independent mine survey should be carried out in the surrounding area at the applicants expense. We run a livery yard within approx 400mtrs of this site and we feel this is a danger to all horse riders as this site is also only approx 50mtrs from a lane that runs between the fields from Newton to Long Lane, this is used by many horse riders, not just from our yard, but also the livery yard that operates from Barrow House Farm and all other riders in this area, as a short cut, as it is a safer option than riding on the road. We feel that should this
23 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 turbine be allowed, the safety of many riders will be compromised and it would be a case of an accident waiting to happen as horses would be afraid of the noise and movement of such a large object. There is also a public footpath running along the bottom of the field where the turbine may be sited and because recently a turbine, which Barrowbc approved, was struck by lightning and left the householders with no electricity for two days, we find this quite worrying.
Green energy? Do any of the applicants for these turbines, including this one, know what the value of their individual carbon footprint is, and by what value their carbon footprint would be reduced by ,in the event of erecting a turbine? Once knowing the results, would this justify erecting a turbine in the open countryside and ruining an excellent agricultural field ? If this turbine were to be approved, is this going to be the thin end of the wedge, as the previous application was for two turbines which was withdrawn the day before the meeting. This has been proven by the recent application for another turbine at Stank Farm. We feel the applicants carbon footprint will have already been significantly reduced by the existing smaller turbines that have already been erected, for which we can find no record of any planning permission ever being sought or granted. These can be seen clearly on the photo montage which accompany this application.
Sighting. This turbine is in a very prominent position with no screening and would be clearly seen from Hawcoat in Barrow, Dalton and will overlook Newton village. It also is directly in front of our dwelling and we feel our quality of life will be compromised as sound carries from that direction. When people are walking on the footpath we can hear their voices quite easily and as the applicant of one turbine has said, theirs sounds like a "Screaming Banshee".
SLDPC are refusing turbine applications for, amongst other reasons, the visual effect they have on the countryside. Please BARROWBC .take a leaf out of SLDPCs' policy and protect our countryside from greedy farmers who are just wanting to jump on the bandwagon with the promise of free electricity. Whether you love or loathe them, these turbines are being applied for, for all the wrong reasons.”
The Occupier, Newhaven, Newton.
“Extremely disappointed not to have been notified/consulted over the application for a wind turbine at Barrow House Farm Woodbine Lane Newton-in-Furness LA13 0NF (B18/2012/0619), hence why this objection is late.
As a resident of Newton aside from the obvious visual and noise impact the application would have not just on my own property but for other residents in the vicinity I am very concerned as to potential vibration effects especially given that the local area is riddled with mine workings, three of which to my knowledge have recently caused road subsidence in adjacent areas.
Surely the potential risk from not just this but from any such an installation in the vicinity of what are effectively unmapped mine workings is a health and safety disaster waiting to happen.
Also given the substantial number of wind turbines already located off the local coast line I fail to see the benefit to the general public of small scale or single wind farms such as this, the only benefit would appear to be financial gain for the applicant.”
24 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 The Occupier, 17 Johnson Street, Newton in Furness “I object to this planning application of the grounds of the noise the wind turbine would make and the disruption on the natural beauty of the landscape.” The Occupier, 57 Boulton Row, Newton “I object to this wind turbine being erected. The land surrounding Woodbine and Newton Village is unstable due to mine workings, more and more old mine shafts are collapsing due to adverse weather conditions and causing problems for villagers and farms in the area, to erect such a turbine would cause further tremors to already unstable land. The proposed site for this turbine is very close to a bridal path which is used regularly and would cause noise problems which could frighten both horses and riders not to mention animals in the surrounding fields, this in turn could cause a serious injury. Also the noise generated day and night from the turbine would reduce the peaceful character of the area and impact on local residents and possibly their well-being.” The Occupier, 43 Newton View, Newton. “I have only made one official objection to Barrow Council in my life (stable building and groundworks) which was totally dismissed, which caused an extreme amount of stress and upset to my family, the details of which should be in your records. So regarding this current objection (wind turbine) I shall have to object in the strongest possible terms. Hopefully this time the council will actually listen and take heed from someone who actually lives in the direct community.” The Occupier, 3 Newton Road, Newton. “I wish to strongly object to this project on the grounds that I have my home only a stones throw from the turbine where we've lived since the late 60s, I have distanced myself away from an existing turbine of the same design and the noise was quite unbearable. I also have a horse sanctuary ( registered charity) with 18 horses under rehabilitation in the adjoining fields to this project whom are very susceptible to any sonic variation that this project will adversely affect . We have been rescuing poorly horses since the 60s and I am aware from another sanctuary who had the same situation and there local authority declined the turbine application on the proximity to there horses, I must ask you to see it in your hearts to think of the effect you will have on these horses whom we have spent so much time and money getting to a settled well being Thank you for your consideration in this matter”
The Occupier, Halfway House, Newton in Furness – dated 24.10.12
“This planning application is in a field with a public footpath running through it. It also is next to a well used lane that horse riders use and if this went ahead it would stop most if not all of this use.
The area is full of mine workings in fact three roads in this area have collapsed due to this. The nose in the surrounding area of Newton will be an unacceptable price to for the many to the gain of the few.”
25 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 The Occupier, Halfway House, Newton Rd, Barrow in Furness – dated 16.10.12 “I wish to object to planning application B18/2012/0619, planning application for a wind turbine at Barrow House Farm, Woodbine Lane, Newton in Furness.
The proposed wind turbine is completely out of keeping with the rural position in which it is to be sited. The area surrounding Barrow House Farm is open countryside with very little in the way of natural screening, e.g., trees, hills etc. The function of the wind turbine means that it needs to be sited in an elevated position which further enhances the detrimental visual impact that it will have on the surrounding landscape. There are many footpaths and bridleways in the vicinity of the proposed location and this wind turbine will spoil, what are at the moment, clear and uninterrupted views of the countryside which in turn will spoil the enjoyment of walkers, cyclist and horse riders. The size and location of the proposed wind turbine will also mean that it will be seen from many miles away and will be visible from a large number of properties.
Given the large number of wind turbines already situated in the Ormond and Walney off- shore wind farms, can this wind turbine be justified in open countryside, spoiling the views and enjoyment of many people. The negative impact that this wind turbine will have on the local area must be balanced against the financial benefit it will bring to one individual.
Should this application be successful consideration also needs to be given to the fact that many more applications for wind turbines may be received in the future. These future applications will be difficult to refuse permission for when a precedent has already been set.” The Occupier, Tranquil, Newton Cross Road, Newton in Furness – dated 17.10.12
“I am possibly one of the closest houses to the proposed Wind Turbine.
I have no objection to the visual impact of the Turbine, but I am VERY concerned with the possible noise pollution.
The potential disruption to my sleep as my bedroom faces the direction of the Turbine.
The proposed Wind Turbine may pass all the relevant planning regarding sound data etc. but that will not be sufficient if it causes people loss of sleep for the rest of their lives.
The only person this development helps is the Farmer, but it affects all the villagers at Newton-in-Furness and the surrounding Villages.
If you pass this Planning application and the sound interferes with residents sleep patterns, then what course of action is left for the villagers to take? I am sure our complaints will fall on deaf ears at the Town Hall if the Planning is approved. But by then I am sure us residents will also have deaf ears once the Turbine is erected!
If you allow this Planning application for the Wind Turbine, it will set a precedent for more to follow in the same area!
Please consider how you would feel if you had a wind Turbine outside your bedroom window!”
26 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 The Occupier, Tranquil, Newton Cross Road, Newton in Furness – dated 18.10.12
“The whole area is undermined. We have had numerous mine workings collapsing in recent years. At a cost to the Furness community. Has a full investigation been undertaken on the proposed site regarding underground mine shafts?”
The Occupier, 8 Newton Cross Road, Newton in Furness “The area of this application is, at the moment, experiencing a lot of subsidence. The problem is all around Newton and Woodbine. As you will be aware, the road not too far from the site of this application has been closed for two years. Therefore I feel that the last thing we need is more vibration in the ground. This is NOT a suitable site for a wind turbine.”
The Occupiers, 38 Newton Cross Rd, Newton in Furness
“We are totally against it for several reasons; one being the noise it would generate, and the underlying effects this would have on health. We also have several holes appearing in fields and roads around the village, some of which have stopped us leaving the village up at Woodbine. We have a new hole formed on Dalton Rd the other end of Newton and single file traffic is now in place. It is thought this could be another mine shaft going under the road and across the field. It is extremely worrying for the residents here as our house prices could be at risk of tumbling by all these mines being made even worse by the Turbine shaking the ground etc.”
The Occupiers, Baldwin Croft, 28 Newton Cross Road, Newton in Furness – dated 20th October 2012
“We are writing to strongly object to the above planning application reference for Wind Turbine(s) to be erected at the location indicated above. The objections are similar to those that we have made previously; our arguments are sound and valid for virtually every such application in the Furness area.
However, the fact that this application is even worse than the original is flabbergasting to say the least!
The main reasons against this specific application are as follows:
1. Noise and other Pollution.
It is a known fact that wind turbines are noisy. You just need to go up to the one's at Marton to experience this. There is also the cumulative effect to consider if many turbines were built in the immediate area surrounding the village of Newton (or any other village for that matter).
Although improvements have been made in recent years as to the noise emitted by wind turbines the effect in close proximity to housing is not unnoticeable. This may be acceptable in remote rural locations where there are no immediate residents, but the village of Newton is very close to this application and to all of the others. In-fact Newton will be surrounded by wind turbines should all of the applications be successful and this cumulative effect should also be taken into consideration.
27 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 There is a huge amount of evidence available to support the case that wind turbines not only cause a significant amount of noise pollution, but also other effects such as electromagnetic interference and shadow flicker. It is therefore not appropriate to allow wind turbines to be built anywhere near residential areas at all, especially when there is plenty of space offshore to locate them.
2. Visual Amenity, Green Space, Countryside and Landscaping.
We (that is the population of Furness in general) live in a lovely rural area, which would be blighted if this turbine was built. But, again, there is the cumulative effect to consider if many were built, which would make the situation even worse. There are in excess of 100 wind-turbines off the Walney Island coast, with many more planned; this is the place for wind turbines, not on every individual farm all over our local countryside. It is therefore not appropriate to allow wind turbines to be built in our local rural areas at all, especially when there is plenty of space offshore to locate them.
This new application is even worse than the original application! The turbine has been moved to a remote field away from the farm, yet it has brought it near to the village and the houses there-in and thus the noise and visual impairment will be more prevalent.
It is also proposed to mount it on its own in an isolated field, therefore there would be significant impact across fields and greenbelt for the installation of an access road to facilitate its erection and subsequent maintenance.
Notwithstanding the above, the proposal also brings the turbine to within 54 meters of a well used bridal way. The clearly contravenes the Planning Policies noted below, but will also render the turbine an eyesore for all of the walkers and equestrians that use it. It may also be dangerous for the horses due to the noise or the flickering light that turbine blades can cause?
3. Mining Subsidence.
The Furness peninsular, and especially the area around Newton (which forms part of the `Dalton and Lindal Mining Area' as described in the `Local Plan'), is littered with mine-shafts and tunnels; many of which are not accurately mapped.
This application has not taken any consideration as to the effect of mining subsidence (which has happened several times in this area, and now four times in the last couple of years or so, with one road in the village being close for in excess of 2 1/2 years, and now the other main road is in danger of collapse!) in the technical reports that have been submitted as part of the application.
In fact none of the technical reports submitted in supporting any of the wind turbine applications have addressed mining subsidence whatsoever (in either their construction or subsequent operation); this a major oversight considering that this is a specific planning consideration in this area.
Wind turbines are known to cause low-level and low-frequency vibrations into the ground, which could have an adverse effect on the already fragile landscape in this area. Again, there is lots of evidence available that suggests that there could be issues here that should be addressed, yet this has been completely ignored by the supporting documents to the application.
28 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
4. Local Nature.
The technical report accompanying this application is grossly insufficient in its mention as to the effect on local nature and wildlife. Although birds are mentioned it states that there will be little or no impact, without sufficient evidence to back this up. However, it is a well-known fact that many birds are killed by wind turbines. Again the cumulative effect must be considered. If hundreds of turbines were built littering our countryside the effect of bird strikes could be enormous.
However, a major shortfall in the technical report (and this does include most of the reports for all of the other wind turbine applications too) is that it makes no or very little mention of bats! We are lucky to have a very good population of bats on the Furness peninsular, and particularly around Newton, Stank and the farms surrounding that area; where all of the applications are being made.
There is growing 'and significant evidence available that wind turbines have a significant impact on bats, but the fact that the technical reports fail to address this adequately is another major oversight. We are sure we do not need to remind you that bats are a highly protected species in the UK, and thus the affect on them should be specifically considered in every application.
5. Breach of the BBC Local Plan and Planning Policies.
However, the worst part of this application (and in-fact all of the other wind turbine applications) is that they completely disregard and breach the Barrow Borough Council (BBC) 'Local Plan' and the 'Planning Policies' in respect of the environment (i.e. Chapter 5, and especially regarding the government Planning Policy Guidance items PPG7, 9 and 24). This is done so on the premise of it being `green energy' and trying to `bulldoze' through planning using scaremongering techniques about global warming.
Ridiculous! We have planning laws and policies for a reason; stick to them!
In fact the council's own policies actively encourage the construction of offshore wind farms rather than individual applications on land. The policy guidance specifically states this in relation to lack of space in this area, noise pollution and maintaining the visual amenity of our local countryside.
The guidance also states that the cumulative effect should be taken into consideration. This (and all of the other wind turbine proposals) systematically fail to meet these policies.
The following clauses and policies from Chapter 5 are specifically relevant to this application, have not been addressed by the application and do not comply with the requirements of the said clauses or policies: a. PART 2 Landscape Conservation, especially clause 5.2.1 where the area where Newton is located is identified as Area 7b - Drumlin Field, and designated as an area of landscape conservation, and thus PLANNING POLICY D2 is not met.
29 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 b. Clause 5.2.2 specifically states the need to protect the landscape from intrusive development and to protect it for its own intrinsic qualities. This development fails to meet this. c. Clause 5.2.5 regarding safeguarding the countryside, and thus PLANNING POLICY Dl is not met. d. PART 3 Nature Conservation, especially PLANNING POLICIES D10, D11, D12 & D13 are not met. e. Clause 5.3.14 designates the `Dalton/Lindal Mining Area' (item j), where Newton is situated, as a wildlife site, yet this application fails to address this adequately. f. Clause 5.3.1 designates the `DaltonlLindal Mining Area' (item e), where Newton is situated, as an area that must be specifically surveyed with regards to wildlife, yet this application fails to address this adequately. g. PART 5 Other Environmental Considerations, especially with regards to Renewable Energy and PLANNING POLICIES D43, D46, D47 and D60 are not met. h. Clause 5.5.7 is not met regarding significant adverse impact. A single wind turbine, such as this one does have an effect in such a small area of the Furness peninsular (as quoted in Clause 5.5.27), but the cumulative effect of many applications makes it much worse and completely disregards the clauses and policies within this section of the local plan, i. Clause 5.5.8 is not met with regards to PPG7 regarding environmental acceptance. j. Clauses 5.5.16 through to 5.5.19 are not met with regards to protecting the country landscapes and nature. k. Clauses 5.5.21 and 5.5.22 are not met with regards to a 400m separation from residential properties and public nuisance (eg: bridal ways or foot paths), etc. l. Guidance statement G9, where Newton is situated, is failed to be met, as it only allows `small domestic wind turbines' to be located in this area, and where a high proliferation of turbines would not be desirable or allowed, because of the effect on the countryside, etc. This and all of the other turbine applications do not meet this criterion at all. m. Clauses 5.5.26 and 5.5.27 fail to be met by this proposal with regards to cumulative effect and offshore installation preferences.
General Objections:
We guess by now, after reading our above objections, that you are thinking that we are just being `NIMBYs'. Well nothing could be further from the truth; we are in fact opposed to every single application for any wind turbine to be erected on land in the UK that is close to residential areas, in our countryside or areas of natural beauty, not just in this area.
We know you need to receive an objection to each and every application separately (and we have done this via this and our other letters), but it is not that simple; the cumulative effect of many applications must also be seriously taken into consideration.
A proliferation of hundreds if not thousands of wind turbines is not the answer to the countries (or the World's) energy needs and is a grossly flawed strategy.
30 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
It is only due to huge Government subsidies (for which we, the general public, are paying due to huge levies on our energy bills) for the 'mad-rush' to install alternative green energy sources around the UK, in order to meet our government targets that this type of installation is being proliferated.
Without the grants and feed-in-tariffs we doubt very much that a wind turbine would be such a feasible or economic option to put up in the first place, and it is obvious that it is the proliferation of wind turbine consultants that are really pushing for these applications. This is borne out by all of the technical reports submitted in support of the applications by such companies.
It is quite clear that all of these single applications, from virtually every farm in the surrounding area, is not being carried out to `save the planet'; it is pure and simple, a way to make money!
We are not against wind turbines per-se, or any other form of green energy for that matter, providing that they are thought through and planned properly in the first place. We have one of the biggest wind farm installations in Europe, if not the world, just off our shoreline. It is not pretty to look at, but at least it is offshore and causes the least impact on the local community, the landscape, nature and the surrounding countryside, which we are lucky to have in the Furness peninsular. Let's please not ruin it for ourselves, our children and beyond by erecting hundreds or thousands more on every farm in the area.
It is offshore wind farms such as the one off Walney which is the way to go; not for every farmer in the country to litter the countryside with them. This is not just a local problem, but a huge national problem, with virtually no guidance or legal framework from the government to prevent this from being exploited; which it clearly is.
We do need to have forms of green energy production, but thousands of wind turbines is not the answer. For example:
• They are actually very inefficient; • Need a great deal of maintenance; • Cannot operate for significant periods, due to bad weather, low/no wind or even too much wind (just look out at Walney, we often see them not turning!); • Do not produce energy in sufficient quantities (for example: to replace a typical base-load power station you would need to build several thousand!!); • They are not as `green' as people are (mis)led to believe (due to the materials used in their construction and the fact that some need diesel generators to de-ice them!!!); • They are heavily subsidised at the expense of other forms of energy generation; and • Are actually the most expensive form of electricity generation we have!
Having said all of that, the use wind turbines is definitely a source of energy that should be used, but we need a balanced source of energy production from several sources, including wind power, nuclear, wave power, geothermal and many others.
We repeat, a proliferation of individual wind turbines all over the countryside is not the answer! An offshore wind farms is, which is run by a responsible power company; not a greedy farmer.
31 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
Once you have passed one (as you have recently done - even though the Planning Committee have completely ignored the council's own Planning Policies in this regard) it will be much more difficult not to pass other applications.
We hope you start to see sense soon and stop this now. Please have the backbone to make a general policy in this area to stop this nonsense now!”
The Occupier, 39 Newton Cross Road, Newton in Furness “I wish to object to this planning application as I feel it is totally out of place in the proposed location. The turbine spoils the look of the whole area as it is visible from all directions and in no conceivable way does it blend in to the environment. Aside from the fact that the whole concept of wind turbines as an efficient energy source is debatable, this is just another quick money making scheme. This week has seen yet another hole appear on a local road, just as the top entrance road is nearing repair due to collapsed mine workings. The whole immediate area is riddled with mine shafts and tunnels. Surely mounting a 34m high turbine will introduce vibrations into the already unstable ground adding to the danger of subsidence. Within a few miles of the site there are hundreds of offshore wind turbines, and several land based ones, which if were ever used to full capacity would negate any need for these eyesores anywhere near to this or any other local village. I cycle regularly around the moors near Marton and Ireleth and I have never seen all of the turbines in use. I dearly hope this and all subsequent applications for local wind turbines are refused.” The Occupier, 55 Newton Cross Roads, Newton in Furness “I understand that land in area of proposed construction like elsewhere in the vicinity is unstable due to previous mining activity and as such there are safety concerns. A turbine of this size will further spoil a landscape already filling up with turbines. If planning for large structures are granted I am concerned that this will create an explosion of developments for primarily economic, not environmental purposes.”
The Occupier, 61 Newton Cross Road, Newton in Furness – dated 18.10.12
“I am objecting to the erection of the above referred Application for one 24.6M tall Wind Turbine (34.2M to blade tip) on the following grounds: a) The noise from the wind turbine will be an issue as if it goes ahead. There will be the underground rumblings that I know occur with these turbines which could be a health hazard to the residents of the nearest houses. (Noise and Disturbance resulting from use) b) Another concern is that the rescue helicopters flying to Furness General Hospital as well as the helicopters carrying the service personnel for the off-shore turbines fly over this area frequently. Surely this is an additional hazard for them to avoid. c) I will be able to see the blades of the turbine from my house and garden, and when the sun comes out, will catch them and cause a visual flicker which can very disturbing even if a person is not looking in that particular direction, like stroboscopic lighting. (Noise and Disturbance resulting from use) My property is 60 metres above sea level approximately
32 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 and I have worked out that I will see about 4.2 metres of the blade from my garden (more from the windows of my house). d) A footpath runs near to the area where the proposed turbine is to go. Surely this is a Health and Safety issue. Recently a local turbine was struck by lightening which adds to the same concern. e) This turbine is planned to be erected in an area where there are disused iron ore mine workings. Is this safe? We have recently had a number of examples of subsidence in this area of which I am sure you are aware.
And finally and most important point, l) I often see bats flying around my garden at dusk on warm summer evenings and on return from the Long Lane cross roads at Dalton at the same time of year at dusk I have also seen them over Newton Road as I have driven towards my house. I know that they are roosting in the "Woodbine" area of this village. I know that the Bat Conservation Trust would like to see monitoring undertaken as part of planning condition for the erection of any onshore turbines as Bats are a protected species. I agree with this. I feel that planning permission should be deferred until a Bat Survey has been done in our area on how this and the other turbine applications in the area are going to affect the species. Has this been done for this application yet? Natural England has also been consulted regarding the bats in the area. Also a Barn Owl has been seen flying in the area of Newton School by villagers. I have recently seen skeins of Pink Footed Geese flying overhead from my property on their migration and Buzzards as well as Sparrow Hawks flying in this area and over Abbotswood. All these protected species will be affected by these turbines and may even be caught accidentally in the "Vortex" created by the rotating blades. (Nature Conservation)
I object to this Wind Turbine Application and wish for an acknowledgement of this letter please,”
The Occupier, Avondale, Woodbine Lane, Newton in Furness
“I would like to register comments regarding the attached planning application.
From the photos submitted with the application it is clear that the turbine will have a significant visual impact on a very large area.
This area would be as wide ranging as Dendron Road, Newton Cross Road, Long Lane, Mill Brow, Newton Road. Newton Village.
It should be noted that the photos submitted are from a low camera height (just over 1 metre) which gives a false impression.
It is hard to believe that the amount of energy produced by a machine of this size justifies such a visual impact on a large area of a rural landscape.
33 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
We already have dense concentrations of turbines offshore which have been pre - planned and arranged over a large area with an overview of the total impact in place. This has worked as well as can be expected. However in the rural areas, where turbines are considered on an individual case basis, there is a danger that we will not know the overall impact on the countryside until the last turbine is in place”.
CONSULTATIONS:
Cable & Wireless – dated 4.10.12
“No objection.”
Cumbria County Council (Transport & Spatial Planning) – dated 4.10.12
“Thank you for the consultation on the above planning application which I received on 3 October 2012. I write to advise you that, under current statutory arrangements, we do not consider the above proposal for a single turbine to be a Category 1 Application. Therefore the County Council will not be responding from a strategic planning perspective.
Notwi thstanding this, it is requested that, in addition to using your current Development Plan policies relating to renewable energy to determine the application, you also consider the potential cumulative impacts of this proposal.
As I am sure you appreciate, proposals for single turbines can have significant impacts on the landscape and visual amenity when the cumulative effects are considered. In order to assist your decision making, it is recommended that you use the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document, the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit and the Cumbria Renewable Energy Capacity and Deployment Study. These documents can be found at:
• http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/planning-environment/renewable-energy/windEnergy.asp • http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/planning- environment/countryside/countryside- landscape/land/LandCharacter.asp • http://www.cumbriacc.gov.uk/planning- environment/renewable- energy/renewableEnergyStudy.asp.
Furthermore, Policies E37 (‘Landscape Character’) and R44 (‘Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’) from the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan are still in place until the abolition of the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy. It is therefore advised that you take these policies into account when determining the application.
34 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
Ofcom – dated 4.10.12
NGR SD 23187 72199
Search Radius 500m at Centre NGR SD 23187 72199 Results. Search includes an additional 500m of requested radius. Links Company Contact Telephone Email Everything Everywhere 0592278/1 Limited Yvonne McCalla [email protected] Cable & Wireless Windfarm 0781833/2 Worldwide PLC Contact 0 [email protected] 0786617/1 Bt Dale Aitkenhead 1912696372 [email protected] 0479632/1 Bt Dale Aitkenhead 1912696372 [email protected] Airwave Solutions 0504553/4 Limited Brian Johnson 0 [email protected] Airwave Solutions 0504554/3 Limited Brian Johnson 0 [email protected]
These details are provided to Ofcom by Fixed Link operators at the time of their licence application and cannot verified by Ofcom for accuracy or currency and Ofcom makes no guarantees for the currency or accuracy of information or that they are error free. As such, Ofcom cannot accept liability for any inaccuracies or omissions in the data provided, or its currency however so arising. The information is provided without any representation or endorsement made and without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of satisfactory quality, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, compatibility, security and accuracy.
Our response to your co-ordination request is only in respect of microwave fixed links managed and assigned by Ofcom within the bands and frequency ranges specified in the table below. The analysis identifies all fixed links with either one link leg in the coordination range or those which intercept with the coordination range. The coordination range is a circle centred on your provided national grid reference. We add an additional 500 metres to the coordination range that you request. Therefore if you have specified 500 metres the coordination range will be 1km.
If you should need further information regarding link deployments and their operation then you will need to contact the fixed link operator(s) identified in the table above directly.
Additional coordination is also necessary with the band managers for the water, electricity and utilities industries which operate in the frequency ranges 457-458 MHz paired with 463-464 MHz band. You should contact both the following:
· Atkins Ltd at [email protected].
· Joint Radio Company (JRC) at [email protected]. Additionally, you can call the JRC Wind Farm Team on 020 7706 5197.
For self-coordinated links operating in the 64-66GHz, 71-76GHz and 81-86GHz bands a list of current links can be found at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/licensing/classes/fixed/
Regarding assessment with respect to TV reception, the BBC has an online tool available on their website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/info/windfarm_tool.shtml . Ofcom do not forward enquiries to the BBC.
35 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
Please note other organisations may require coordination with regard to your request. More information regarding windfarm planning is available on the British Wind Energy Association website www.bwea.com .
Table of assessed fixed links bands and frequency ranges
Band Frequency Range (GHz) (MHz)
1.4/1.5 1350 ‐1375 1450 ‐1452 1492 ‐1530 1.6 1672 – 1690 1.7 1764 – 1900 2 1900 – 2690 4 3600 – 4200 6 5925 – 7110 7.5 7425 – 7900 11 10700 – 11700 13 12750 – 13250 14 14250 – 14620 15 14650 – 15350 18 17300 – 19700 22 22000 – 23600 25 24500 – 26500 28 27500 – 29500 38 37000 – 39500 50 49200 – 50200 55 55780 – 57000
British Telecom – dated 4.10.12
We have studied this wind turbine proposal with respect to EMC and related problems to BT point-to-point microwave radio links.The conclusion is that, the Wind turbine Project indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks.”
Walney Airfield
The proposed structure sits below the Walney Aerodrome Outer Horizontal Surface and therefore does not constitute an issue to the aerodrome.
NERL Safeguarding – dated 5.10.12
“The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
36 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
However, please be aware that this response applies specifically to the above consultation and only reflects the position of NERL (that is responsible for the management of en route air traffic) based on the information supplied at the time of this application. This letter does not provide any indication of the position of any other party, whether they be an airport, airspace user or otherwise. It remains your responsibility to ensure that all the appropriate consultees are properly consulted.
If any changes are proposed to the information supplied to NERL in regard to this application which become the basis of a revised, amended or further application for approval, then as a statutory consultee NERL requires that it be further consulted on any such changes prior to any planning permission or any consent being granted.”
Orange – dated 9.10.12
“There are no Orange m/w links affected by this application.”
Cumbria County Council (Historic Environment Officer )– dated 10.10.12
“I am writing to thank you for consulting me on the above application and to confirm that I have no objections and do not wish to make any comments or recommendations.”
Environment Agency – dated 10.10.12
“I can confirm that on this occasion we have no comments to make.”
Natural England – dated 11.10.12
“Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
From the information provided with this application, it does not appear to fall within the scope of the consultations that Natural England would routinely comment on. The lack of specific comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated sites, landscapes or species. It is for the local authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national or local policies on biodiversity and landscape and other bodies and individuals may be able to help the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fully take account of the environmental value of this site in the decision making process, LPAs should seek the views of their own ecologists when determining the environmental impacts of this development.
We would, in any event, expect the LPA to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following issues when determining this application:
37 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
Protected species If the LPA is aware of, or representations from other parties highlight the possible presence of a protected or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species on the site, the authority should request survey information from the applicant before determining the application. The Government has provided advice1 on BAP and protected species and their consideration in the planning system.
Natural England Standing Advice is available on our website to help local planning authorities better understand the impact of this particular development on protected or BAP species should they be identified as an issue at particular developments. This also sets out when, following receipt of survey information, the authority should undertake further consultation
TIN051 - Bats and onshore wind turbines (Interim guidance) http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35010?category=34022
Local wildlife sites If the proposal site could result in an impact on a Local Site2, Local Nature Reserve (LNR) or priority habitat the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local site before it determines the application, ensuring that it does so in conformity with the wording of paragraph 168 of the National Planning Policy Framework. For further information on Local Sites, your authority should seek views from your ecologist, or the Local Sites designation body in your area.
Biodiversity enhancements This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.
Local Landscape This proposal does not appear to be either located within, or within the setting of, any nationally designated landscape. All proposals however should complement and where possible enhance local distinctiveness and be guided by your Authority’s landscape character assessment where available, and the policies protecting landscape character in your local plan or development framework. Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again. “
Civil Aviation Authority(CAA) – dated 3.10.12
“There is currently a high demand for CAA comment on wind turbine applications which exceeds the capacity of the available resource to respond to requests within the timescales required by Local Planning Authorities. The CAA has no responsibilities for
38 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 safeguarding sites other than its own property, and a consultation by a Council is taken as a request for clarification of procedural matters. Councils are reminded of their obligations to consult in accordance with ODPM/DfT Circular 1/2003 or Scottish Government Circular 2/2003, and in particular to consult with NATS and the Ministry of Defence as well as any aerodromes listed in Annex 3 of the above documents, taking note of appropriate guidance and policy documentation. Should the Council be minded to grant consent to an application despite an objection from one of the bodies listed in the circular, then the requisite notifications should be made. In addition, consultation should be undertaken with any aerodrome particularly if it has lodged an unofficial safeguarding map with the Council, including local emergency service Air Support Units (e.g. Police Helicopter or Air Ambulance).
There is an international civil aviation requirement for all structures of 300 feet (91.4 metres)* or more to be charted on aeronautical charts. Any structure of 150 metres* or more must be lit in accordance with the Air Navigation Order and should be appropriately marked. Smaller structures may also be required to be lit by aviation stakeholders particularly if they fall under Section 47 of the Aviation Act.
Cumulative effects of turbines may lead to unacceptable impacts in certain geographic areas.
The Ministry of Defence will advise on all matters affecting military aviation. Should the Council still have a specific query about a particular aspect of this application the CAA will help in the clarification of aviation matters and regulatory requirements. Site operators remain responsible for providing expert testimony as to any impact on their operations and the lack of a statement of objection or support from the CAA should not be taken to mean that there are no aviation issues, or that a comment from an operator lacks weight.
Guidance relating to the impact of wind turbines upon aviation can be found at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Cap764.pdf. More generic comment relating to the CAA involvement in the planning process is described at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/DAP_GuidanceOnCAAPlanningConsultationRequirements.p df.
Vodafone
“It shows that the nearest Vodafone link is approx 1km away from your proposal which does not pose a threat to the VF ATP microwave network.
Arqiva – dated 12.10.12
Arqiva is responsible for providing the BBC and ITV's transmission network and is responsible for ensuring the integrity of Re-Broadcast Links ,and also protect its microwave networks. We have considered whether this development is likely to have an adverse effect on our operations and have concluded that we have no objection to this application.”
39 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
Dalton with Newton Town Council – dated 16.10.12
“The Town Council have no objections to this application in principle, however, Councillors have serious concerns at the proposed location of this turbine.
The entire area around the village of Newton and Hamlet of Woodbine is prone to mining subsidence and collapses. Four serious collapses in the last two years have resulted in Road closures and disruption to residents. Many of the areas of instability are not mapped and the Town Council would expect that a comprehensive mining survey be undertaken before any development is granted permission.
The close proximity to PROW 602004 and 602005 is a further area of concern particularly as this is a well-used path which accommodates horses and riders.
Properties for some considerable distance will be afforded a full view of the turbine, this includes numerous stable blocks, the visual and audible impact could be considered un- neighbourly at best.
In conclusion the Town Council would recommend a site visit the Planning Committee with consideration being given to refusing this application.”
Cumbria Highways – dated 17.10.12
“I refer to the above consultation received here on 2/10/2012 and would inform you that there are no objections to the proposal from a highway point of view subject to the following condition being included in any notice of planning consent that may be issued:-
Before any development takes place, a plan shall be submitted for the prior approval of the local planning authority detailing the vehicle access, parking and turning facilities required to facilitate the construction works. The access, parking and turning facilities shall be provided before any building work commences on site so that construction traffic can access the site, park and turn clear of the highway. The access, parking and turning facilities shall be removed on completion of the construction works.
Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. To support Local Transport Policies: LD8
Please also note that Cumbria Highways is aware of three separate mine working related collapses in recent years under public highways within Newton. Residents and farmers have also indicated that there have been numerous similar collapses within fields in Newton, though we do not have further details on these instances.
Whilst the proposed turbine is away from the highway and public rights of way, in the interests of public safety I would recommend that you insert into any notice of consent a condition requiring the applicant to undertake a Preliminary Sources (Desk) Study of mining activity at the proposed site of the turbine. In addition, I would also recommend a condition requiring a Ground Investigation in order to verify ground conditions below the turbine a suitable and to ensure the foundations are designed appropriately.”
40 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
Environmental Health - dated 19.10.12
“Standard conditions should apply to this single turbine application.
Condition 1: At any noise sensitive location, noise from the wind turbine(s) shall not exceed the daytime noise level of 35dB LA90,10 Minutes at wind speeds up to 10m/s at 10m reference height. Between the hours of 11:00pm and 7:00am noise from the wind turbines shall not exceed 43dB LA90,10 Minutes at all operating wind speeds.
Assessment of Noise from the wind turbines shall be carried out in accordance with the ETSU-R-97 Guidance - The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms [Note: the noise is measured 3.5m from any reflective surface, other than the ground, at a height of between 1.2 and 1.5m.]
Conditions 2 & 3 (AM1 & AM2 plus Guidance Note 5)
AM1 Within 21 days of a written notification by the Local Planning Authority that a complaint has been made to it about noise emissions from the wind turbines at any dwelling lawfully existing or with planning permission at the date of this permission and that the Local Planning Authority considers that Excess Amplitude Modulation (EAM) as defined in Guidance Note 5 is present in said noise emissions and a reason for the complaint, the wind farm operator shall appoint an independent consultant. The consultant shall implement the procedures outlined in Guidance Note 5.
AM2 If EAM is determined and notified to the wind farm operator by the Local Planning Authority to be present following the receipt by it of the opinion provided for in step (d) of Guidance Note 5 the wind farm operator shall within 21 days of said notification submit a scheme, for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority, providing for the investigation and control of EAM. The Scheme shall be implemented as approved. Guidance Note 5
Excess Amplitude Modulation ("EAM") is the modulation of aerodynamic noise produced at the frequency at which a blade passes a fixed point and occurring in ways not anticipated by "The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms" (ETSU-R-97 at page 12).
The investigation of the complaint shall be undertaken as set out in the steps below: (a) A written noise log shall be requested to be kept by the complainant indicating those times at which EAM is deemed by them to be unreasonably intrusive. The noise log shall be maintained until a period of not less than 5 separate such occurrences of EAM have been recorded. Separate occurrences recorded in any one 24 hour period shall be counted as a single incidence. The noise log shall also set out the location(s) (internal or external to the property) where the EAM most affects the complainant(s). If the complainant refuses to keep a written noise log then (unless the Local Planning Authority takes such action itself) no further action shall be required of the wind farm operator under conditions AM1 and AM2.
(b) Once the requirements of step (a) have been fulfilled and this has been notified by the Local Planning Authority to the wind farm operator the consultant shall, within 7 working days, provide the complainant(s) with a switchable audio recording system. The audio
41 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 recording system shall comprise a measurement system of EN 60651/BS EN 60804 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1 quality, or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements, with the audio recording facility having a minimum 16 bit resolution and 44kHz sample rate recording audio files in uncompressed format.
The complainant shall initiate recordings of not less than 3 separate incidences of EAM. Such recordings shall be undertaken at the worst affected location(s) identified by the complainant in the noise log. Separate occurrences recorded in any one 24 hour period shall be counted as a single incidence.
(c) If: i. the noise log provided for under step (a) fails to identify 5 occurrences of EAM; or ii. the equipment provided under step (b) fails to record 3 occurrences of EAM within a single and contiguous period of 3 months within a total period of 6 months commencing with the date such equipment is provided; then the existence of EAM as a material contributor to the noise complaint shall be excluded and no further action is necessary.
(d) If: i. The noise log provided for under step (a) identifies at least 5 occurrences of EAM; and ii. the equipment provided under step (b) records at least 3 such occurrences of EAM in the period defined in step c(ii); then the consultant shall give his written opinion to the Local Planning Authority as to whether or not the existence of EAM is a material contributor to the noise complaint. (e) When providing his written opinion under step (c) or (d) the consultant shall also provide electronic copies of all recordings made and data obtained using the switchable recording device.”
United Utilities – dated 22.10.12
“With regard to the above planning application, I have no objection to the proposed development.”
Joint Radio Company – dated 19.11.12
“Cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by:-
Electricity North West, National Grid Gas Networks and United Utilities(Water)
JRC analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry and the Water Industry in north-west England. This is to assess their potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies in support of their regulatory operational requirements.
In the case of this proposed wind energy development, JRC does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data you have provided. However, if any details of the wind farm change, particularly the disposition or scale of any turbine(s), it will be necessary to re-evaluate the proposal.
42 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 In making this judgement, JRC has used its best endeavours with the available data, although we recognise that there may be effects which are as yet unknown or inadequately predicted. JRC cannot therefore be held liable if subsequently problems arise that we have not predicted.
It should be noted that this clearance pertains only to the date of its issue. As the use of the spectrum is dynamic, the use of the band is changing on an ongoing basis and consequently, developers are advised to seek re-coordination prior to considering any design changes.”
Ericsson – 21.12.12 “I can confirm MBNL have no microwave link within 200m and no mast within 500m of your proposed wind turbine location and therefore have no objections to your proposal.
Please note, if any of the details of the application, particularly the location or size of the turbines should change, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the proposal. Any changes made to the proposed site location of any turbine, will require a further desktop study to re- confirm the minimum clearance criteria set within the MBNL guidelines.
It should be noted that this clearance pertains only to the date of its issue. As the use of the spectrum is dynamic, the use of the band is changing on an on-going basis and consequently, you are advised to seek re-coordination prior to submitting a planning application, as this will negate the possibility of an objection being raised at that time as a consequence of any links assigned between your enquiry and the finalisation of your project.
OFFICERS REPORT:
BACKGROUND
The 2007 European Union Common Energy Policy includes a binding target of 20% of overall energy to be produced from renewables by 2020 with a reduction in greenhouse gases by up to 30%. The Climate Change Act 2008 set a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 with reductions in CO² emissions of some 26% by 2020 against a 1990 base.
In 2009, EU Directive 2009/28/EC set out a requirement of 20% of overall energy and 35% of electricity is to be produced from renewables. This directive sets out the contribution from each member state with the UK set to produce 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. The 2009 Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) highlighted a need to radically increase the use of renewable electricity and noted that the 15% binding target required a 7-fold increase in the share of renewables in less than a decade.
The global switch to renewable energy regeneration to which the government has committed has resulted in several recent layers of new policy documents. Recent appeal decisions indicate that, unless there are significant environmental and amenity impacts, the likelihood is that any appeal will be allowed.
43 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
Following the 2008 Act, the government has produced a series of National Energy Statements which form a framework upon which national significant schemes (e.g. onshore wind > 50 MW) which would be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). The Statements reiterate the key role renewable electricity production has in meeting the 15% target by 2020. They go on to confirm the government’s view that of all the renewable energy sources, onshore wind is recognised as the most well established and most economically viable source of renewable electricity available for future large scale deployment in the UK.
Human Rights Act
Article 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property), Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence)
NATIONAL POLICY
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
On March 27th, 2012, the NPPF was launched, which immediately replaced the raft of PPS and older PPG documents with a broader policy approach. The Companion Guide to PPS22 however remains in force. The key message in the new document is that sustainable development should be supported unless other material considerations dictate otherwise. Planning authorities are expected to “adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change”, (para 94) in accordance with the Climate Change Act and “design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts” (para 97). When determining applications, Authorities should “recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.” (para 98).
Significantly, the NPPF requires that applications should be determined in accordance with NPS EN-1 and NPS EN-3. The NPSs seek to speed up the transition of the UK to a low carbon economy in order to help realise the UK’s global commitments and to improve the security of supply, by reducing reliance upon international energy sources. There should be a diverse mix of technologies, supply chains, and fuel sources, in order to avoid reliance on one sector. The government is committed to “dramatically” increasing electricity generation from renewable resources. In the short term this will mainly be onshore/offshore wind, with future input from biomass, wave and tidal sources. The process is considered to be urgent as aged fossil fuelled power stations need to be closed due to their excessive carbon generation in breach of government targets.
As part of this transitional process, the NPSs recognise that significant negative impacts associated with new energy projects should be generally capable of being successfully mitigated. In terms of onshore wind, the turbines can be sited to reduce any potential for noise nuisance, shadow flicker, or ecological impacts, but other impacts upon landscape and visual amenity will be harder to mitigate. However, there is considerable weight given to the overriding public interests of diversifying the UK energy production base and reducing the effects of climate change. Accordingly, the general policy inference is that unless there are recognised issues of significant importance, such as residential amenities or environmental assets that cannot be mitigated, then renewable energy schemes should be supported.
44 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion Guide to PPS 22
The NPPF replaced all previous PPG/PPS including PPS 22 – Planning for Renewable Energy. However the companion guide remains as a material planning consideration. In addition to echoing other national policy documents gives some detailed guidance including -
No statutory separation between a wind turbine and a public right of way (PROW). However it advises that a fall over distance is often considered to be an acceptable separation and that a minimum distance is often taken to be that the turbine blades should not over sail a PROW.
Shadow flicker only occurs inside buildings where located within 130 degrees of north of the turbine and then only if sited within 10 rotor diameters of a turbine.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
The development plan comprises the North West of England Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS); Saved policies in the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (JSP) and saved policies in the Barrow Local Plan Review (LPR).
Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)
The Localism Bill recently received its Royal Assent and which allows for the removal of the RSS from the statue book. Until then the RSS remains part of the development plan and as such a material planning consideration.
The RSS seeks the active and efficient use of the region’s natural and manmade resources recognising that spatial planning has a significant role in reducing carbon emissions and promoting the use of renewable energy. As an urgent regional priority, schemes should contribute to reductions in all sources of CO² emissions by increasing renewable energy capacity. Historic, built and natural assets should be protected and enhanced through understanding and respecting the character/distinctiveness of places and landscapes; maintaining and enhancing the tranquillity of open countryside/rural areas, and maintaining and enhancing the quantity/quality of biodiversity and habitats (Policies EM 1, 1(A) & 1(C)).
Policies EM 15 and EM 17 encourage Planning Authorities to produce strategies that seek to promote rather than restrict the use of renewable energy resources. The 2010 Cumbria target for the installed capacity of onshore wind clusters is 210MW rising to some 257MW in 2015. Noise, visual impact, the effect on nature conservation and biodiversity and local economic benefits are matters to be taken into account when assessing schemes but they should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of renewable energy technologies.
45 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
Joint Structure Plan
The majority of the JSP policies were replaced by the RSS though as advised by the County Council above, some polices were saved including polices E37 & R44. R44 states that outside of the National Park and AONBs, renewable energy proposals will be favourably considered provided that there is no significant adverse effect upon matters including landscape character and local amenity.
The policy further requires that in considering applications the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable proposals are to be given significant weight.
E37 requires that development should be compatible with the distinctive landscape characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types and avoid visual intrusion.
Local Plan Review
A number of policies have been saved under the 2004 Act including policy D1 which seeks to protect the countryside from inappropriate development and where there is a locational need for the development, that its impacts should be minimised.
Policy D45 identifies the over arcing stance for renewable energy projects. Best practise must be employed and the benefits of the scheme should outweigh any potentially adverse impacts particularly if the project helps in meeting local targets for renewable energy generation.
Policy D46 refers to an area located east of the gas terminals that was previously identified as being suitable for wind turbines. Subsequent to this allocation the introduction of the Centrica helipad has currently negated this suitability due to aviation safety issues. Policy D47 gives the detailed criteria against which proposals will be judged. Whilst the inference is towards the larger commercial schemes these criteria can be equally applied to smaller generation schemes such as this one.
NON- DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS
Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (not adopted in Barrow)
This SPD was produced by CCC in 2007 and adopted by the District Councils with the exception of Barrow. The document does however cover the Borough and its findings are capable of being a material planning consideration albeit on a reduced basis. The SPD notes this Council’s (BBC) position as follows - BBC is committed to the production of the SPD and will consider adopting it following the development of the Core strategy.
It provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the County outside the national park to accommodate wind turbines. The application site falls within an area defined as Drumlin Field and which is considered to have a low / moderate capacity to accommodate single turbines or small cluster sized developments. This reflects a moderate / high sensitivity overall. It states that turbine development is likely to intimidate the small scale nature of the component hills and ridges and that restricted views created by this relief are vulnerable to visual dominance, an issue likely to be of heightened significance in South Lakeland which has a heavy pattern of small dispersed settlements.
46 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG)
This document was prepared by CCC in association with the District Councils in 2011 and follows earlier work on classifying the Cumbrian landscape out with the National Park. The site is located with the drumlin field landscape character type (7b). It comprises tracts of drumlins which are hills of glacial origin and are described as ‘rounded tops with steep sides; distinct landform grain; hedges and walls form strong boundaries; streams and wet hollows are found in the valleys and dips between the drumlins; farms and development often nestle in intersecting valleys; narrow lanes with tall hedges criss-cross through the drumlins (key characteristics).
With regards to development, the guidance states that infrastructure developments such as large scale wind energy could cut across the grain of the landscape and introduce features that dominate the drumlin characteristics. It advises that the siting of large scale wind energy should be avoided in open and prominent areas where they could dominate the rural character of the area.
Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion Guide to PPS 22 (para 5.15) advises that where carried out, that landscape character assessments should form the basis for the consideration of individual schemes.
Appeal decision APP/M0933/A/12/2180859, Bolton Manor Farm, Little Urswick dated 22/10/13 (SLDC).
Related to a single turbine of the same dimensions as proposed here namely 22.6m hub height/34.2m blade tip located 2.6km from the application site in the adjacent landscape type (Open farmland and pavements). Appeal dismissed. Inspector concluded that a turbine of this relatively large scale would have a moderate adverse impact on a sensitive small scale landscape which was not outweighed by the acknowledged environmental and economic benefits.
LOCATION AND SITE
The application site is located between Dalton and Newton such that the main view points (VP) will be from Newton Road south of Long Lane and extending as far south as the summit before the road drops towards Stank. Perhaps the most notable VP are in the immediate vicinity of Newholme Farm (just south of Half Way House) with the turbine being located due east of this property.
As commented under landscape character, the landscape type is drumlin field which is of glacial origin and forms the eastern flank of the Borough south of Dalton. The turbine would be sited towards the summit of one of the tallest drumlins (94m OD) with the turbine height set at 90m OD.
A PROW (no 602004) runs along the western boundary of the field. The lane is known locally as ‘Dicky Pink’s Lane’. The PROW however departs from the route of the lane to run parallel to it, but within the fields to the east. The PROW therefore runs through the field within which the turbine is proposed. A distance of 85m is shown to separate the lane from the nearest part of the turbine. The actual distance to the definitive route of the PROW will be slightly less.
47 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 A second PROW (602005) runs along the eastern boundary of this same field climbing the drumlin before skirting the summit 170m to the east of the proposed turbine before passing through Barrow House Farm. This connects with a network of PROW in the Woodbine area.
PROPOSAL
Proposed is a single, 50kW turbine with a hub height of 24.6m. A blade diameter of 19.2m would give a maximum height of 34.2m to blade tip. The column is proposed to have a white finish. Further information on the type of turbine is attached at Appendix A (manufacture’s information).
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
The application is accompanied by a planning statement which includes at section 11 a ‘Landscape and Visual assessment’. However, as recognised in the preamble this is not a full assessment (LVIA) in line with the Landscapes Institute’s ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’. Further information has been requested but declined on cost grounds with reference made to the small scale of the project (email dated 30/10/12). It should be noted that the same sized turbine considered by SLDC at Bolton Manor Farm was subject of a full LVIA.
The applicant’s planning statement (S 11) draws on a Defra publication (Magic Map) for identifying landscape character. It identifies this area within a more extensive area characterised as ‘Neutral and acid pastures and woodlands’. However while accessible by the public it was produced for internal government purposes and does not appear particularly relevant to landscape character.
A further reference in assessing landscape character is made to the Cumbria Wind Energy SPD. Reference is made to Map 7 attached to the SPD however the wrong conclusion has been drawn namely that the site falls within the urban area. The actual landscape character type is 7b Drumlin Field as commented above.
The weight which can be attached to the document is therefore limited given that it is not a full LVIA, the failure to correctly identify the landscape type and the lack of reference to the CLCG); the latter being contrary to national policy guidance1.
The document however usefully includes a series of photomontages illustrating the likely visual impact and identifies the main VP to be from the west. Selected photomontages are attached as Appendix B.
In the absence of a proper or accurate visual assessment the correct starting point for an assessment of visual impact is the CLCG. This identifies as follows:
‘The distinctive grain and interlocking appearance of the drumlin forms are sensitive to development that will change their character or appearance.
Avoid prominent hill tops particularly with reference to tall structures such as pylons and large scale wind turbines.
Avoid siting large scale wind energy in open and prominent areas where they could degrade the rural character of the area’.
48 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013
Additionally the SPD provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout Cumbria to accommodate different scales of wind energy development. The drumlin landscape character type is considered to have a low/moderate capacity to accommodate single turbines or small cluster sized developments. This reflects a moderate/high sensitivity overall, rarity and moderately strong historical and geomorphological interests and cultural associations.
1Companion Guide to PPS 22 (para15.5).
The proposed turbine would be located close to the summit of a tall and prominent drumlin and which is sensitive to change for the reasons given by the CLCG and SPD. The development would appear as a prominent, elevated and isolated form of development in views from the south and west. These impacts are represented in photomontages 8-11, 13 and 14. They represent sensitive and important VP being well frequented country lanes in close proximity to the proposed development and which allow the countryside to be enjoyed by many. Other sensitive VP include the network of PROW in close proximity to the proposed turbine. While smaller than the typical size considered by the SPD the inspector in dismissing the SLDC appeal considered that a turbine of the same size was larger than most farm turbines and would be out of scale with the local landscape. These same conclusions apply, by and large to the current proposal.
From the above it can reasonably be concluded that the proposal would conflict with a number of national and local policies including NPPF para 97 which requires the adverse impacts of renewable energy development to be addressed and 109 which seeks to enhance valued landscapes; saved JSP policy E37 which requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics of Cumbria’s landscape types and R44 which seeks to resist energy developments which would have a significant adverse effect on landscape character; saved LPR policy D1 which seeks to safe guard the Borough’s countryside for its own sake, D47 which requires the energy benefits to outweigh any significant landscape harm and G13 which seeks to protect the quiet enjoyment of the PROW network.
Conversely the development benefits from national and local policies which seek to promote and encourage a move to a low carbon economy and which includes NPS EN-1 and 3. The policies also include RSS Policy EM17 which is generally supportive of renewable energy and sets targets for renewable energy for 2010, 2015 and 2020. This reflects national policy which adds to its weight notwithstanding the Government’s stated intention to abolish it. It is further recognised than on shore wind turbines will continue to play a major part in meeting renewable energy targets.
For Cumbria the 2015 target is 257 MW generating capacity from on shore wind. To date 245MW are in place leaving a clear short fall. The target is also expressed as a minimum. The proposed 50kW turbine would produce a small but still meaningful contribution to renewable energy targets.
Having regard to national and local polices which support renewable energy I am satisfied that in the context of this particular case the benefits which would arise from the proposal are outweighed by the adverse visual harm and resulting conflict with national and local policies explained above. To place this decision in context I have provided details of the
49 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE th 5 March 2013 ‘farm’ turbines approved to date at Appendix C. I am also satisfied that the development is unlikely to result in problems of noise, or create shadow flicker or effect micro wave communication links. Neither is it likely to affect or be affected by former mine workings having regard to records held by the Council or, affect aviation safety.
The situation regarding biodiversity is less clear cut. The turbine would be located far enough from the nearest hedgerow to accord with recommendations from Natural England which seek to minimise any risk of harm to bats. However this does not preclude the presence of bird species. The inspector with respect to the SLDC appeal considered that in that case the impacts on birds had not been fully assessed. In the application before you no phase 1/extended phase 1 study has been carried out and references to ecology are of a rather generalised nature. Given the conclusions reached above with respect to visual/landscape harm further information in this regard has not been requested, particularly as requests for other information has been declined on costs grounds. Additional impacts may also arise from the construction phase particularly with regards access requirements for construction vehicles.
This application follows a previous application submitted by the same applicant for two smaller turbines (19.5m to blade tip) in an adjacent field. This application was recommended for refusal based upon noise concerns and proximity to hedgerows but was withdrawn prior to determination. Adverse visual impact was not raised as an issue as the site was appreciably less prominent or isolated, and the scale of development significantly less.
RECOMMENDATION:
That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:
The proposed turbine would appear as an isolated and prominent vertical structure which would appear incongruous in its surroundings. As a consequence, the turbine would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and would therefore conflict with national and local policies which require the benefits of renewable energy to outweigh the harm. The conflict with local policies include saved policies E37 and R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved policies D1, D45, D47 and G13 of The Barrow Borough Council Local Plan Review.
50 of 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE
5th March 2013
INDEX
Page App. No. Address Description
2 2012/0036 Queens Arms Hotel, Conversion of existing public house Rawlinson Street, Barrow (including landlords residence) to form 10 x in Furness. (1 bed) apartments and formation of 5 parking spaces.
17 2012/0619 Barrow House Farm, Erection of one ‘Endurance E-3120’ 24.6m Woodbine Lane, Newton- (34.2m to blade tip) wind turbine (50kW). in-Furness.
51 of 51