Delegated Case Case Officer Richard Elliott Date for Decision 03 January 2011

Report written December 2011

Planning Application No: 2011/0529

Proposal: Erection of 2 Wind Turbine to Max Height 27m.

At: Land to South of Cronkshaw Fold Farmhouse,

Site and Surrounding Area Cronkshaw Fold Farm House is located in an elevated position to the east of Alden Road, and has farmland to its north, east, south and west The farm also operates an educational centre for schools/children. The application site lies approximately 135m – 195m to the south/south east of the farmhouse in a field that that rises gradually upwards to the south and downwards to the west. It is bounded to the east by a bridleway running on a north/south axis. From the site there are open views to the east of the opposite side of the valley and longer distance views to the north west. Approximately 300 metres away to the north of the site and approximately 130 metres to the east of the bridleway is a single turbine reaching a height of 23 metres to blade tip permitted under planning reference 2010/0494 at Pleasant View Farm. A 23m turbine application was permitted at Trickling Water Barn, approximately 1000m away to the west (ref 2010/0230). Both the existing turbine at Pleasant View and the site to which this application relates can be seen from Alden Road.

The land character type for the area is „Moorland Hills‟ as stated within the Julie Martin Associates (JMA) Study 2010 and given a sensitivity assessment of Moderate – High.

The application site lies within an area of countryside to the west of Helmshore Road.

History No relevant planning history.

Proposal The applicant seeks permission for the erection of 2 wind turbines to a maximum height of 27 metres. The turbines would be sited 55m apart, the turbine nearest to the farmhouse to be 40m from the bridleway, the other to be 8m from the bridleway.

There will be no requirement for any changes to the highway network for access. Access would be via the existing tracks/gates leading form the farmhouse.

The applicant has also submitted information with regards to potential impacts on landscape, neighbours, shadow flicker, public safety.

The applicant wishes to use the wind energy to generate electricity for the farm and the educational centre.

Consultation Responses RBC Forward Planning

The most appropriate landscape character area type listed within the Julie Martin Associates (JMA) Study (2010) (which forms part of the Evidence base for the Core Strategy) is „Moorland Hills‟. The study also places the site within the „West Pennine Moors‟ capacity area. The overall sensitivity assessment for the „Moorland Hills‟ category is „Moderate-High‟ (p58), and the study recognises that “Areas of highest sensitivity are around Grane and Holcombe Moor, where there are important skylines, settings and views, as well as notable cultural heritage and recreational features”. It should be noted that these areas of highest sensitivity include the area around the proposed application site.

The capacity assessment for the „West Pennine Moors‟ states that “This landscape is currently part of a landscape with no wind farms or infrequent wind farms”. The study states that the area is likely to have capacity for one medium wind farm, with turbines of medium or large height. Given the existing permission for the Hyndburn Wind Farm (still awaiting construction), it could be argued that this stated landscape capacity has now been reached, and that further developments may alter the landscape to become a „landscape with occasional wind farms‟ (p86) – crossing a threshold from a landscape strategy of conservation to one of accommodation.

Visual Impact and Cumulative Effects on the Landscape

At a proposed total height of approximately 27m, the two proposed turbines fall into the classification “Small” (25-60m to blade tip) as categorised in the JMA Study (p18), and would be classed as a “Small Group”. Careful consideration should be given to the visual effects of the proposal on the skyline and landscape character when viewed from the surrounding network of Public Rights of Way, properties and the more densely settled areas around Helmshore, Strongstry, and .

The visual impact should be assessed taking into account any nearby trees, properties, structures and overhead power lines and the proposal should be sited appropriately to reduce its impact. Any potential ‘shadow flicker’ effects on nearby properties should be taken into account and avoided by appropriate siting.

When assessing this application, the cumulative visual impact of the turbine against the existing wind turbines on Scout Moor, the permitted turbines on Oswaldtwistle Moor (Hyndburn Wind Farm) and any other nearby turbines should be considered, and a decision taken as to the acceptability in terms of visual amenity of adding more turbines to the landscape in this area (in line with the recommendations of the JMA Study).

The landscape surrounding the application site is characterised by its open, rural nature and long distance views, and is home to a network of Public Rights of Way used amongst other things for recreational purposes. It is important that an assessment of cumulative visual impact on the landscape character is carried out in line with the JMA Study to ensure that development is appropriate and that cumulative visual impact of turbines will not lead to unacceptable damage to landscape character and value.

National, regional and local policy supports the development of wind energy in principle. However, given the sensitivity of the area in question and the presence of existing and permitted wind turbines in the vicinity, there is a possibility that further wind turbines in this location would produce a significant cumulative visual impact – possibly leading to a localised change of landscape character. The application should only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that undue harm to the landscape will be avoided / mitigated / compensated – otherwise there are grounds for refusal under Policies 18, 19 and 20 of the Core Strategy.

RBC (Environmental Health) No objection due to the siting of the turbines over 200 metres away from other residential properties.

LCC (Ecology) The applicant has not considered planning policy, guidance or legislation pertaining to biodiversity. There does not appear to have been any ecological site-based assessment, or desk study/data search to inform the proposals. It is thus not clear whether the construction footprint would potentially impact on any species or habitats of biodiversity value, or whether operation of the turbines could result in impacts on bats or birds (collision and/or displacement). It is thus not clear that the proposals are in accordance with the requirements of PPS9 (or the draft NPPF), ODPM Circular 06/2005, and legislation including Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, NERC Act 2006.

The applicant should be requested to provide further information to demonstrate that biodiversity would not be harmed as a result of these proposals.

LCC (Highways) Object due to proximity of one of the turbines to the bridleway. Although there is no statutory requirement regarding the distance the 20m or so warrants a significant concern. The British Horse Society suggests 200m exclusion zones around bridle paths. The turbine would be approximately 80m away.

Does not have any concerns regarding potential for distraction to the highway and its users being approximately 490m to the east of the site.

Rossendale Ramblers Further to your letter of 14th November re the above, we object to the proposed development because it will adversely affect bridleways 28 and 328a.

Visual intrusion, noise and flicker are the general effects of wind turbines, and in such a pleasant area the enjoyment of walking would be very much reduced.

Neighbour Notification Responses To accord with the General Development Procedure Order 3 site notices were posted on 22/11/11, a press notice was published on 18/11/11 and 17 neighbours have been consulted on 14/11/2011.

Two objections have been received relating to the following issues as summarised below:

Alden valley is a very attractive area with little modern development. The two turbines would be out of proportion with the area concerned There is a real concern regarding noise on all residential properties in the area – press articles provided, and particularly so given the siting in an extremely quiet valley. Proximity to the well used bridleway – likely to cause serious accident due to noise and flicker from blades.

Policy Context National Planning Guidance PPS1 Sustainable Development PPS7 Rural Areas PPS9 Biodiveristy PPS22 Renewable Energy PPG24 Planning and Noise

Development Plan Policies Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West of (2008) DP1-9 Spatial Principles RDF2 Rural Areas EM1 Environmental Assets EM17 Renewable Energy

RBC Core Strategy DPD (2011) AVP4 , , and Policy 1 General Development Locations and Principles Policy 18 Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Landscape Conservation Policy 19 Climate Change and Low and Zero Carbon Sources of Energy Policy 20 Wind Energy Policy 24 Planning Application Requirements

Other Considerations Draft National Planning Policy Framework (2011) LCC Landscape Strategy for (2005) RBC Submitted Core Strategy DPD (2010) Julie Martin Associates Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development in the South Pennines

Analysis The main considerations of the application are: 1) Principle; 2) Visual Amenity; 3) Neighbour Amenity; 4) Highway Safety; & 5) Ecology.

Principle In accordance with Government guidance, RSS policy is supportive of proposals for energy generation from renewable sources.

PPS22 states that small scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally. PPS22 also states that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to the size and number of turbines and the type of landscape involved, and that these impacts may be temporary if conditions are attached to planning permission which requires the future de-commissioning of turbines.

Visual Amenity In accordance with PPS7, all development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness. Planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, enhanced. Paragraph 16 also states that planning authorities should provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources in accordance with the policies set out in PPS22.

As identified in the JMA Wind Energy Study, the overall sensitivity assessment for the ‘Moorland Hills’ category is ‘Moderate-High’ and the areas of highest sensitivity include the area around the proposed application site. It is also stated that further developments may alter the landscape to become a ‘landscape with occasional wind farms’– crossing a threshold from a landscape strategy of conservation to one of accommodation.

The turbines would not be prominent from Helmshore Road, however, they would be prominent from Alden Road and the series of footpaths/bridleways in the area. There are some overhead lines in the area, however, I do not consider there to be a significant amount of other features that would reduce the sense of scale of the turbines. Given the sensitivity of the landscape character type as identified within the JMA and the existence of another similar sized turbine in close proximity to the site I consider that the landscape in this area would be significantly harmed by the siting of two additional turbines. Indeed, given the size and the siting of the two turbines, there would be considerable landscape impact without the existence of the turbine to the south west. The scheme is therefore considered unacceptable in terms of visual amenity.

Neighbour Amenity There has been no objection from Council’s Environmental Health Section given the size and siting of the turbines relative to neighbours, being over 200m away. The scheme is therefore considered acceptable in terms of neighbour amenity.

Highway Safety I am satisfied that the scheme would not have an unduly detrimental effect on users of Helmshore Road and Alden Road given its distance away from them.

The Highway Authority has objected due to the proximity of one of the proposed turbines to the bridleway, which could disturb horses/endanger riders. The applicant has stated that the turbine could be moved slightly however, this would not greatly alter the issue. To my mind, altering the location of the turbine so that it is outside of falling distance from the bridleway would be acceptable, however, this would not be enough to warrant approval of the scheme due to reasons previously identified. The scheme is considered unacceptable in highway safety terms.

Ecology I concur with the views of LCC Ecology that the information submitted is significantly deficient to enable the applicant to conclude that the proposal would not have an impact on biodiversity within the area. It would appear, however, that this could be overcome by providing further studies/investigations on this matter.

Conclusion Notwithstanding the desirability of securing energy generation from renewable sources, taking all of the above into account, in this instance it is considered that the proposed wind turbines would be unduly detrimental to the intrinsic character and appearance of the countryside and the visual amenities of the area by reason of their size, siting and by reason of the cumulative impact resulting from the turbines taking into account the existing turbine at Pleasant View Farm.

RECOMMENDATION

Refusal

Reasons For Refusal

1) The proposed turbines, given their size and siting in relation to the adjacent bridleway, public footpaths, and Alden Road would appear as overly large, prominent and incongruous features that both on their own, and taking into account the exiting turbine in close proximity at Pleasant View Farm, would harm to an unacceptable extent the intrinsic character and appearance of the countryside and the visual amenities of the area, resulting in a move towards a windfarm landscape. The scheme is therefore considered to be contrary to PPS1 / PPS7 / PPS22, Policies RDF2 / EM1 / EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and Policies 1 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 24 of the Council’s Core Strategy DPD (November 2011) and the Julie Martin Associates Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development in the South Pennines (2010).

2) The applicant has not carried out a suitable ecological assessment in support of the application to allow a determination to be made that no significant harm would be caused to ecology and biodiversity within the area. Accordingly the application is considered to be contrary to PPS1/ PPS9 / PPS22, Policies DP1-9 / RDF2 / EM1 / EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy DC1 of the Rossendale Local District Plan.

CASE OFFICER……………………………………………………………………..

PRINCIPAL PLANNING OFFICER...... ………...... …………………………...