SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 1 SL/2011/0685

PENNINGTON: STANDISH COTE AND MEAN MOOR, MARTON AND HARLOCK HILL, PENNINGTON, ULVERSTON

PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF FIVE 99.5M HIGH (2.3Mw) WIND TURBINES, INCORPORATING THE REMOVAL OF FIVE EXISTING Website Link: TURBINES ON http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2011/0685 HARLOCK HILL, FORMATION OF E325395 N479542 28/03/2013 ON-SITE ACCESS TRACKS, ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS AND CARRIAGEWAY WIDENING WORKS

MR MATT RUSSELL

SUMMARY: This application seeks permission for the removal of the five existing 53 metre high turbines and replacement with five turbines, which would have a maximum height of 99.5 metres to blade tip. It straddles the administrative boundaries of Barrow Borough Council and South Lakeland District Council. Planning applications detailing the full scheme have been submitted to both authorities. Two of the turbines would be located in South Lakeland and three would be within Barrow Borough. A site visit was undertaken in October last year and this application was deferred from the October Committee Meeting so that the developer could submit further information in support of the application relating to the visual impact from dwelling houses. The report at that time recommended refusal for three reasons: adverse impact on the landscape, adverse impact on living conditions and adverse visual impact on the footpath users of Mean Moor. In addition to the additional information submitted by the applicant, two planning appeal decisions have been drawn to the officer’s attention, GlaxoSmithKline have written stating that they wish to source electricity from the turbines and an independent assessment of the LVIA and the Galpin audit report thereon has been received. The appeal decisions relate to the objective assessment of the impact of wind turbines on living conditions in dwellings, and this has altered conclusions on one of the previous reasons for refusal. All of this material is addressed in the report. Although the proposal will make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation, this does not outweigh the adverse visual impacts of the proposal and the significant impacts on users of the adjacent public footpaths, taken together.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site Description There are currently five wind turbines located on Harlock Hill near Pennington within South Lakeland District. They have a height of 53 metres and were granted consent in 1995. The application site is approximately 10km northeast of Barrow-in-Furness and 4km northwest of Ulverston. The larger part of the site is located at Mean Moor (Barrow) and the smaller at Harlock Hill (South Lakeland). The two sections are separated by Poaka Beck and the northern part of Harlock Reservoir. The land rises at either side of the beck, and is steeper and higher on Mean Moor, rising up to a height of 311 metres on Bank House Moor immediately to the northwest. The site is farmland and is used for grazing purposes. It is comprised predominantly of semi-improved grassland, improved grassland, marshy grassland and acid grassland. Other habitats include scattered scrub, species poor hedgerows, springs and flushes. Kirkby Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is adjacent to the site to the northwest. Two bridleways and a series of footpaths pass within and adjacent to the part of the site within Barrow Borough. Proposal The proposed turbines would have three blades with a maximum height to blade tip of 99.5m, a maximum hub height of 64 metres and a capacity of up to 2.3 MW. The two turbines on Harlock Hill, within South Lakeland, would be located reasonably close to the locations of the two most northerly existing turbines, and would be separated by approximately 280 metres. The three on Mean Moor, in Barrow Borough, would follow a line northwest from the most southerly of the proposed turbines on Harlock Hill and would have a similar spacing. Access to the Harlock Hill section of the application site would utilise the entrance for the existing wind farm, off the C5018. A new access would be created to serve the Mean Moor section of the application site. This will be taken off the C5016 Ulverston Road, approximately 250 metres northwest of Harlock Farm. The turbines would have circular foundations with a diameter of approximately 7 metres at the surface and 17 metres below the surface. The hard standings at the base of the turbines would be approximately 50 x 22 metres during construction, to allow for crane and component delivery vehicles, and 30 x 22 metres post construction to allow for maintenance. The scheme also includes the construction of two temporary construction compounds; two on-site switch rooms; partial re-routing of one bridleway and one footpath (both within Barrow Borough); and installation of underground on-site electrical and communication cabling. The submission states that the final precise positioning of the turbines would be the subject of a detailed design process following consent which would involve further investigations. As such, the applicant is seeking a micro-siting allowance of 50 metres for all elements of the scheme. The proposal would provide a total maximum “installed capacity” of up to 11.5 MW, compared to the current wind farm which has an installed capacity of 2.5 MW. Applicant’s Activities and Ownership The on-site construction would take approximately seven months. The turbines would be operational for 25 years after which the development would be decommissioned, with all major equipment and above ground structures being removed from the site with the concrete foundations remaining. Any plans for repowering would be subject to a new planning application. The turbines on Harlock Hill are currently owned and operated by the Baywind Energy Co-operative Ltd. The two proposed turbines on this part of the site would be retained by this co-operative and the three turbines within Barrow Borough would be owned and operated by the applicant, Infinergy. The two sections of the proposal have been submitted as one scheme due to viability, and they must be considered as such. The submission states that the wind farm could meet the electricity needs of around 6,000 households each year and is expected to offset between 11,000 and 26,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5950255 - Erection of 5 Turbines and Switch Room. Approved 2.6.1995. Implemented. 5960033 - Erection of 30m Anemometer Mast for measuring wind speed and direction (Retrospective). Approved 27.2.1996. Implemented.

CONSULTATIONS: Pennington Parish Council Object because they believe it is not a suitable development for the area. It is unnecessary because the current Harlock Hill wind farm was due to be refurbished regardless of this development. Wind farms are increasingly being installed locally offshore which are more desirable as they do not affect residents’ lives and the Furness Peninsula is already sufficiently populated by wind farms. The Parish Council is not opposed to wind power as a form of meeting the country’s energy needs. Recently the council did not object to two wind turbines being installed on a farm as they were positioned with due consideration to the surrounding area and did not affect local residents and the applicant was the nearest resident to the development. This is not the case with the Furness Wind Farm as those proposing the development will not be affected by it in any way, unlike Pennington Parish residents. There are issues of noise and flicker with their associated guidelines which are open to interpretation and dispute. Reports of illnesses amongst residents close to wind farms, due to the affect of the wind farms, are increasing and gaining credibility. Previously, a proliferation of electricity pylons were erected close to residential areas until it was eventually proved that they could have an adverse affect on health and well-being. It cannot be guaranteed that the health of residents will not be affected. The Furness Peninsula has long been a jewel of the English countryside with spectacular views over Morecambe Bay and the Lakeland Hills but was unknown to many tourists. Pennington Parish Council has applauded Ulverston Town Council’s initiative in installing the Laurel and Hardy Statue recognising the success of the Eric Morecambe statue. This has noticeably increased tourism to the area which also boasts the South Lakes Wildlife Park. As Pennington Parish is on the periphery of these attractions, residents have also responded by investing in accommodation for the increasing number of tourists. This is bringing both much needed income to the area and creating much needed jobs for the area. The Parish Council believes the erection of wind turbines of this height will dominate the landscape for miles around, would affect the ambiance and affect the tourist footfall. The issue of government policy is also of significance. The erection of wind farms has been encouraged however this may change as has happened with solar panels with the financial incentives being cut. In conclusion, Pennington Parish Council vehemently supports the objections of Pennington Parish residents to the Furness Wind Farm development and would implore the council to reject the application.

Askam and Ireleth Parish Council Askam and Ireleth Parish Council cannot support this application for the following reasons: It will impact on nearby homes as a result of shadow flicker. The proposal overlooks the village and there will be loss of privacy during construction and on-going maintenance phases. The Statement gives a Landscape and Visual impact assessment which concludes that the effects are minimal, this is a subjective statement not qualified or agreed. The Furness peninsula is of insufficient size to accommodate structures of this size, and they are too close to the adjacent National Park. The stated aims regarding reversing the impact on decommissioning are flawed, i.e. the concrete rafts would still be left according to their methodology for the existing site and Grid connections would not be removed. The application states that the components will be delivered by road and are described as abnormal loads. The proposed route is via A590, Marton Road, Horrace Road and onto Ulverston Road to the site. This route is totally unfit for purpose. There are currently problems with some blades from Far Old Park wind farm (relatively small in size compared with those proposed). Replacement of these blades necessitating removal and return to and from the Far Old Park Farm site is proving a problem because of the blade size. Such problems for the proposed wind farm will be of a different magnitude again and will cause repeated traffic and neighbour disruption over the years as and when blades will require offsite attention. Given the recent concerns over the access road for the Animal Park and the dangers thereon, major works would be required in altering the A590 and subsequent country ‘B’ roads with enormous damage to the hedgerows, disruption to local communities and impact on the environment. There will be a large increase in traffic during the construction phases, not only with abnormal loads but with general construction traffic. Working hours are disproportionate Monday to Saturday 0700 to 1800 causing unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance. The impact of the construction site buildings and any other temporary buildings, sewage and water impact on the area do not seem to be addressed properly in the Environmental Impact Statement. The size and number of turbines on these 2 adjacent developments severely impacts on local views for people in the surrounding area, and visitors to the southern Lake District National Park, given that they will be visible for 10’s of miles around all points of the compass. The proposal brings the development closer to both Kirkby Moor and Far Old Park Farm wind farms thus creating ribbon development along the spine of the beautiful Furness peninsular. As a consequence, believe that there should be 2 applications and not one blanket one. Landscaping and hedgerows in the area will be severely impacted along with wildlife. On site, in addition to the turbines and new buildings, there will be inter-site tracks which will impact on wild life and flora and fauna, for generations to come. The Ecology Statement directly contradicts the views and opinions of acknowledged experts and authorities in respect of the impact on wildlife. There is proposed access via Harlock Hill with minor realignments; these would need to be looked at as this road is definitely not suitable for abnormal loads, site traffic or construction traffic. The access route at Mean Moor is a new development on a road that is unsuitable for abnormal loads. This will mean that quiet country lanes will become heavy construction roadways. Policy states that 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 demonstrable need that it cannot be met elsewhere. This application falls short in this regard. There is already a need being met on these sites for the Cumbrian renewable energy targets, and there is an on going proliferation of wind turbines off the coast of Barrow and more yet planned for the Duddon Estuary. This proposal with 300 foot structures will certainly change the distinctive character of this area contrary to policy. Concerns regarding damage and disturbance to the peat blanket are a primary consideration and the serious issues raised previously by United Utilities. They do not seem to have been answered in Infinergy’s Environmental Impact Statement. The application states that 2 Turbines will be owned and operated by Baywind Energy Co-operative and will be marketed locally to maximise the benefits locally. The makeup of this company is such that the local shareholders are very much in a minority and as such the economic benefit to residents of the Furness area is limited. The submission says there is a commitment to utilise local contractors, however past experience would suggest otherwise. No commitment is made as to what the possible job impact would be either in the construction phases or in the ongoing operational environment. More transparency would be welcomed in respect of the Bay Wind Community benefit fund. It is suggested that the only ones who will benefit are shareholders and developers. Baywind already have alternative plans should the development not be approved, which will involve re-powering. This would seem to indicate that the existing site could have improved turbines without the need to repower the Harlock site and in addition construct a new wind farm. The Environmental Statement lists the project benefits; however in this list of 7 benefits the only tangible benefit is that this wind farm will contribute 4.7% towards the Cumbria onshore wind target for 2020. However this seems to be taken in isolation as a figure based on a calculation of percentage 245MW and does not take into account how many other developments are contributing to the overall figure. The Parish Council is of the opinion that should permission be granted for these developments, a dangerous precedent would be established. The way would be open for repowering of Far Old Park Farm and Kirkby wind farms, and the construction of multiple single turbine developments currently pending. It would be difficult if not impossible to reject such proposals, and that if approved would lead to ribbon development across the entire Furness peninsula, and consequent industrialisation of a beautiful countryside that we are trying to protect.

Egton with Newland, Mansriggs and Osmotherley Parish Council The Parish Council wish to express their objections to the proposal for the following reasons: 1) The site proposed would be highly visible from the borders of this Parish and be of great detriment to the landscape and for the residents overlooking the site. 2) The main vehicular access for the Furness peninsula (A590) would be impacted by the sight of the turbines and would be detrimental for those driving along this section of the A590. 3) The noise and flicker impact on the health of those overlooking the turbines is of great concern. There is already a noise impact with the current turbines.

Kirkby Ireleth Parish Council The Parish Council has severe reservations relating to this application. The magnitude of the application is such that the various aspects are not easily understood by lay persons, and thus many questions are raised, questions which can perhaps be more easily answered by a Public Inquiry. Of particular concern are the many thousands of tons of hard core and other building materials which will be needed for the turbine bases and road works. The application does not state where these are to be sourced, or what route they are to take to the site. At an earlier liaison meeting the Developer was unable to answer the question. This Parish Council believes they will be sourced from the many quarries to the north of the site, and will be routed via the A595 and other minor roads within this parish, and others close by. The A595 between Grizebeck and Askam with its single vehicle areas is totally unsuited to this level of traffic, as are other minor roads in neighbouring parishes.

Urswick Parish Council Would like to object to the proposed development. The size of the wind turbines means that their visibility will be increased from a greater distance compared to the existing turbines. Noise pollution is also a potential nuisance factor for those living in the vicinity. The Council would therefore recommend refusal of the application.

Ulverston Town Council Refused this application on the grounds of the environmental / visual impact with the new turbines at 326 feet high and potential noise concerns in the locality.

Lake District National Park Authority No objection to the proposed repositioning and the new heights of the existing wind turbines at the site. Whilst it is recognised that the turbines will be slightly more visible from views within the National Park it is not thought to be significant enough to warrant an objection as any views of the proposed development are seen within the context of other turbines in the landscape and the undulating nature of the terrain in the vicinity ensures that undue prominence is not given to the proposed turbines.

Cumbria County Council National planning policy promotes targets for renewable energy and looks to local authorities to support proposals for renewable energy developments which do not have unacceptable impacts. Saved Policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan relates to renewable energy schemes outside national landscape designations and supports favourable consideration if there are no significant adverse effects on landscape character, built heritage, local amenity, highways and a range of other issues. Saved Policy E37 refers to landscape character and E35 refers to nature conservation interests. It is considered that the application is in line with the identified saved Joint Structure Plan policies. The proposed development site is not sited in an area with any designations, and the evidence provided by the applicant has shown that the impacts to any existing habitats and wildlife will be minimal. There is an existing wind farm on part of the site, and it is considered that the increase in turbine height will have a localised impact in relation to its visual amenity and the cumulative landscape effect. The County Council raise no objection to this development, subject to various conditions and contributions being incorporated into any planning permission which may be granted. Before consent for the proposal can be granted the developer must agree to apply to divert any public rights of way that would be affected by the development. Such an application would be made to and processed by the relevant planning authority under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Any temporary closures will also need the consent of the County Council; this may include a request for an alternative route / diversion whilst the temporary closure is in place. At the Development Control and Regulation Committee on the 15th February 2012 Members requested that, should it be considered appropriate, Barrow Borough Council encourage the applicant to work with broadband providers to improve rural broadband access in the vicinity of the development. This would involve using the proposed cabling trenches for the wind turbines to lay the necessary broadband infrastructure. Highways The proposed development is considered broadly acceptable by Cumbria Highways, subject to a number of conditions being attached to any permission which may be granted by the Local Planning Authorities. The proposed accesses must be improved and surfaced with a bound material for the use upon completion of the works and any extraordinary damage to the highway resulting from the development should be made good by the applicant. The applicant must prepare a Traffic Management Plan and this must be approved prior to any construction works commencing on site. The accommodation works within the highway will need separate consent from the Highways Authority, as will the treatment and restoration of verge and boundaries. These works will need to be carried out by an approved contractor.

Highways Agency No objections on the basis that there are no alterations to the existing access / egress arrangements, as stated in the application and therefore will have no impact on the strategic road network.

Cumbria County Council Historic Environment Officer The environmental statement indicates that the site lies in an area of some archaeological potential. There are various known earthwork remains in the vicinity including post medieval quarries, ridge and furrow, and a possible ringwork of unknown date. The occasional prehistoric stray find has also been recovered nearby. The location of the development infrastructure has been designed to avoid the known archaeological remains on the site but agree with the environmental statement that there is some potential for the ground works to disturb currently unknown buried archaeological remains. Therefore agree with the recommended mitigation outlined in the environmental statement that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development. Advise that this programme of work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer and can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent. This written scheme will include the following components: i) An archaeological evaluation to be undertaken in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; ii) An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependant upon the results of the evaluation and will be in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; iii) where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and publication of the results in a suitable journal.

English Heritage The demolition and construction works involved have the potential to impact directly on elements of the historic environment, including designated structures and buried archaeological remains both within the development site and on routes into it. To mitigate and manage the risk of damage to the historic environment, a range of measures is proposed in paragraphs 11.89-11.92 of the Environmental Statement. English Heritage has no objection to the granting of planning permission for the proposed development, providing that the range of measures outlined in paragraphs 11.89-11.92 of the Environmental Statement are adopted. Recommend that any grant of planning permission be conditioned to ensure the adoption of the proposed mitigation and management measures.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer Satisfied with the scope and undertaking of the acoustic assessment which the applicant has submitted to form part of this application. Conditions have been agreed with the applicant if the proposal is recommended for approval.

Environment Agency The proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is imposed requiring a working method statement to cover all ground works. Without such a condition our position would be to object to the proposed development on the grounds of the adverse impact on water pollution. Ask to be consulted on the details of this scheme when it is submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority. Detailed method statements will need to include all aspects outlined in the Environmental Statement to ensure protection to the environment. It is not clear which watercourse crossing method is to be used. This detail should be provided as part of the Flood Defence Consent application along with detailed method statements for this part of the construction. -The applicant must ensure protection of the surface water hydrology and the springs on site. Works should be undertaken in a way to prevent any silty water run-off entering the nearby watercourses. The method statement should include details of the mitigation measures to be put in place to contain and attenuate any silty water from the working areas, including the access tracks and any bridging of watercourses. Surface water run-off to receiving watercourses should be limited to pre-development run-off rates by the use of filter strips, permeable surfaces, soakaways or other Sustainable Drainage Systems in order to reduce flood risk and control surface water as close to the source as practicable.

Natural England Response dated 8/11/11 Designated Sites (including ornithology) The proposed turbines are located between the Duddon Estuary SPA/Ramsar site/SSSI and Morcambe Bay SPA/Ramsar site/SSSI, at distances of 2.3km and 6.5km respectively. Of the species for which these sites are designated, Curlew, Lesser Black-backed Gull, Lapwing and Wigeon were recorded on the site with flight activity occurring within the collision-risk window of the proposed turbines. While the ES includes the total number of seconds that each species was recorded flying through the site, no collision risk modelling has been undertaken on the basis that no target species (Annex 1 and Schedule 1 species) were recorded. Furthermore, the ES concludes that any impacts to such species (and therefore the SPAs) would be negligible because significant numbers (surpassing international or national thresholds) were not recorded during the surveys. Natural England considers that any species associated with the surrounding SPAs should be considered as target species. In addition, do not agree that the impacts can currently be assessed as negligible on the basis that the survey area did not support SPA species in numbers of international or national importance. Impacts on a very small percentage (even 1%) of the population of a given SPA species, either alone or in-combination, could result in a significant effect. Without collision risk modelling there is insufficient information available to conclude that the proposed scheme is unlikely to have a significant effect on the surrounding SPAs. Consequently, the LPA is advised to request further information from the applicant, in the form of collision risk modelling for the relevant SPA species. The proposals are also located directly adjacent to Kirkby Moor SSSI. Provided a 50m buffer is provided and that a Construction Environment Management Plan is developed and implemented as suggested (paragraphs 9.109 and 9.171), then Natural England is satisfied that the proposals will have no significant impact on the special interest features for which the SSSI is designated. Para 9.181 suggests that because no habitats within the SSSI will be affected by the proposals, then it is not necessary to include the extension of the SSSI heathland within the proposed Habitat Management Plan for the site. While Natural England accepts that this would not be required as mitigation, the Local authority is encouraged to explore such opportunities as a biodiversity enhancement. Habitats Paragraphs 8.168-172 identify that during construction small areas of marshy and acidic grassland will be lost to the development, resulting in a minor adverse impact. Mitigation measures subsequently described for these habitats during construction (paras 8.222-225) and operation (para 8.235) relate to the safeguarding of retained habitats not directly impacted. However, following implementation of these measures, the ES concludes that the residual impacts of the development will be negligible (para 8.245). Natural England disagrees with this conclusion. The mitigation measures have no bearing on the minor adverse effects of habitat loss identified, so it is not clear how the residual impacts can be reduced. It is therefore suggested that the unmitigated loss of minor areas of ecologically valuable habitat reinforce the requirement to ensure that ecological enhancements and a Habitat Management Plan are secured for the site. Bats The ES identifies that bat activity surveys following set transect routes have been undertaken during 2007, 2008 and 2010. The ES suggests that these were undertaken in accordance with the BCT Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines. However, while dusk surveys should commence from sunset and last for 2-3 hrs afterwards, it is noted that many of the surveys commenced after sunset (for example on 21 Sept 2010 sunset was at 19:07 yet the survey didn’t commence until 19:51), and lasted for less than an hour. There is therefore a risk that the levels of bat activity recorded at the site are an underestimation and that early-emerging species such as noctule could have been missed. Given the habitats present across the site, the low level of activity recorded during the surveys that were undertaken and the existing presence of turbines on the Harlock Hill part of the site, Natural England accept that the risks to bats resulting from the new turbine scheme remain low. However, given the apparent survey limitations and the fact that some turbines will be sited within 50m of suitable bat features (contrary to current best practice guidance), the local authority is encouraged to secure a programme of post-construction monitoring at the site, both to validate the predictions of the ES and help inform the understanding of the impacts from wind turbines on bats in the UK. Other species Provided the suggested species buffer distances for badger and otter are implemented (see para 8.162), then have no further comment on other protected / BAP species. Landscape The proposed turbines fall within the setting of the Lake District National Park, and Natural England welcomes consideration of views from within the National Park (viewpoints 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18) as part of the Visual Impact Assessment undertaken in support of the application. The wireframes and photomontages produced for these viewpoints show that the proposals will introduce new limited views of turbines from within the National Park which do not occur as a result of the existing Harlock Hill scheme and which would add to the visual impact of other existing turbines in the area (e.g. from viewpoints 8 and 10). As a result of the distances and topography involved, the ES suggests that such impacts would be at most moderate in nature, and therefore not significant. Based on the wireframes and photomontages provided, Natural England is satisfied with this assessment. Natural England is satisfied with the conclusion that the proposals will not have a significant effect on views from within the more distant Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The ES does acknowledge major / moderate (i.e. significant) landscape and visual impacts will occur at the more local level. Such impacts are a material consideration and should be given due consideration by the local authority as part of the determination process. Enhancements The Local Authority should consider opportunities for securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. Currently the application provides no indication that enhancements will be delivered as part of the proposals, except for brief references to a Habitat Management Plan that would be developed post-consent. While the detailed content of such a plan could be agreed post-consent, Natural England suggest that as part of the planning application it would be reasonable to expect a broad outline of the scope of the plan to be provided, particularly given the remaining residual impacts to habitats described above. Response dated 22.12.11 In the original comments on this application, Natural England indicated that, in relation to otters, they were satisfied with the mitigation measures incorporated into the proposals (disturbance buffer zones around potential holts and watercourses, avoidance of construction activities at night) based on the survey information provided by the applicant. However, the additional Confidential Otter Report now provided indicates that otter activity across the Mean and Dalton Moors area north of Harlock Reservoir is greater than indicated by the applicant, and that the proposals, as submitted, will potentially result in disturbance to otters and the destruction of their places of rest or shelter as defined under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In particular, it would appear that the construction of Turbine C will result in the loss of gorse and bramble thickets which have been used as lay up where a family of otters has been raised, as well as impacting on an area of suggested importance for foraging activity. The current scheme design and mitigation measures proposed are not sufficient to ensure the favourable conservation status of otter is maintained and that offences under the above legislation are avoided. Therefore recommend that this new survey report is provided to the applicant and their ecologist, and that the scheme and any avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures are reviewed in light of this information. The scheme should seek to retain all habitat which provides suitable opportunities for otters to rest and shelter and provide sufficient construction buffer distances around known holts and lay up features. Suggest that this would most easily be achieved by the removal of Turbine C, or its re-location to another more suitable area within the site (dependent on ecological and other constraints). Unless these issues are addressed, Natural England's view is that granting permission for this proposal is likely to contravene Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, and therefore planning permission should not be granted. Response dated 13.2.12 The updated survey report suggests that the majority of scrub habitat (that could provide cover for resting otters) has been removed from site as part of standard management of the site, that foraging opportunities are limited, and that no evidence of otters was observed. Meanwhile, potential impacts on features which could be used as otter holts remain as described in the original EIA for site. Given the current lack of suitable habitat or evidence to suggest otter presence, Natural England accepts that the outline mitigation strategy proposed in section 5.2 of the updated report should be sufficient to avoid offences being committed under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). However to ensure the development of a detailed mitigation strategy, recommend that a suitably worded planning condition is attached to any permission granted. Current management practices would appear to be a factor limiting the use of the site by otters, and in addition to measures proposed as part of the mitigation strategy (e.g. construction of artificial holts), suggest that the enhancement and maintenance of suitable otter habitat on site (e.g. providing continual gorse / scrub cover) should form a specific component of a Habitat Management Plan, which should also be secured as part of the proposals. Responses dated 23.03.12 Ornithology The applicant has now provided Natural England with bird collision risk modelling data for the above proposed development. The modelling indicates that at a 98% avoidance rate (which Natural England would accept as being appropriate for the species concerned) the predicted annual collision risks are: Wigeon = 0.04, Lapwing = 0.35, Curlew = 0.02 and Lesser Black-backed Gull = 0.46. These figures provide more robust support for the conclusions in the original ES (that the turbines would have negligible impact on SPA bird species), and Natural England now advises that the proposal, if undertaken in strict accordance with the details submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which the Duddon Estuary SPA / Ramsar site and Morecambe Bay SPA / Ramsar sites have been classified. Otters There are evidently conflicting views on the level of otter activity on site as described by Peak Ecology and Mr McMinn (supported by additional work undertaken by Envirotech), and Natural England is unable to comment further over disputes regarding the verification of field signs or the competencies of the surveyors involved. With regards to the potential indirect effects of disturbance (including the potential natal holt near turbine C at SD248798) and impacts to foraging habitat, Natural England remains satisfied that the measures proposed by the applicant are sufficient to enable the conservation status of the species to be maintained. Any concerns regarding the destruction of otter resting places that occurred a year and a half ago should have been reported to the police at that time. Natural England would not seek to take any further action over this issue as part of the current planning application, although are keen to ensure that future management practices for the site are secured which are favourable for otters. There remains an issue over the current status of suitable habitat on the site. Peak Ecology make a general statement about gorse scrub being largely absent from the site following management works. If these works did occur during 2010, between mid April-Oct (as suggested by Mr McMinn), then the layup site shown beneath gorse during the winter of 2010/11 (at the turbine C location) is presumably still present. Natural England advises that the information submitted to date still leaves uncertainties regarding the suitability of habitats at the Turbine C location to provide places of rest or shelter for otters. The Local Authority needs to be satisfied that such habitats are currently either (a) absent or (b) if present are being retained, before concluding that the otter current mitigation package (outlined in the most recent Peak Ecology report) is acceptable. Bats Comments from a local resident highlight the deficiencies in survey effort undertaken at the site when compared with current best practice publications. These were recognised as part of the original response of 8th November 2012, and therefore consider that the advice provided in that response is still appropriate. Habitat Management Plan Whilst Natural England is broadly satisfied with the submitted Habitat Management Plan as an outline document, this does not appear to take any account of recent discussions regarding the need to incorporate positive habitat management for otters, and in particular the need to provide and maintain areas of gorse scrub for cover. Infinergy Ltd have stated that they are “happy to commit to including otter habitat enhancement measures and monitoring as part of the Habitat Management Plan for the proposed Furness Wind Farm”, and the outline document should be revised accordingly.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust Response dated 7.7.11 Cumbria Wildlife Trust is disappointed that the application has not been accompanied by habitat creation and restoration measures which are required by national, regional and local planning policy. These were requested in the response to the scoping opinion in August 2008. The Trust therefore objects to the application. This management for biodiversity could include enhancement of the site for the population of common lizards referred to in the text, heathland recreation using the adjoining Kirkby Moor as a donor site for seed, and enhancement of species rich or marshy grassland. Heathland recreation would be especially welcome as it would add to the network of heathland in the area and would enhance habitat connectivity and habitat expansion meeting the Network of Natural Habitats goal. Biodiversity enhancement of the site for habitats, and species other than birds (as addressed in Chapter 9) does not appear to have been considered in the application, despite the proximity to Kirkby Moor SSSI making the site potentially suitable for heathland creation and expansion. It is disappointing that the opportunity for habitat (re)creation for habitats and species other than birds has not been explored by the applicant as it is often only through large-scale applications such as this that benefits for nature conservation interests can be provided. On page 9 of Chapter 8, the applicants state that “all comments [from Cumbria Wildlife Trust] have been addressed and incorporated”. This is not actually the case, as biodiversity enhancement of the site is not considered in Chapter 8. Policy EM1 (B) of the RSS which is quoted on page 5 of Chapter 8 also states that projects should be securing “a ‘step change’ increase in the region’s biodiversity resources by contributing to the delivery of national, regional and local biodiversity objectives and targets for maintaining extent, achieving condition, restoring and expanding habitats and species populations.” The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan also indicates that protection and enhancement of the existing natural environment should be ensured. The applicant’s comments on Page 39 of Chapter 9 that: The habitat loss will be of common habitat types and the heathland habitat on the adjacent Kirkby Moors SSSI will not be impacted on in any way. Therefore, it is not considered necessary for the HMP to include the extension of the Kirkby Moors SSSI (see Table 9.2, Cumbria Wildlife Trust comment). Cumbria Wildlife Trust is aware that the Kirkby Moor habitats will not be directly impacted, however, policy drivers indicate that applications should be aiming to add to overall biodiversity, and that a net gain should be aimed for within developments. The application as submitted does not appear to recognise this. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is not mentioned in Chapter 8 (Ecology) of the EIA. Therefore there is no protection and enhancement of habitats for non-bird species ensured. It is recommended that the applicants incorporate habitat creation into the HMP for the site and make it clear that the Plan is applicable for the other protected species found on the site as well as for bird species. Response dated 8/2/12 The Trust is satisfied that the otter report addresses the concerns and withdraws its previous objection subject to the preparation of an HMP as part of a condition.

RSPB No objections, would like to be consulted on the Habitat Management Plan.

Friends of the Lake District (CPRE) The site lies within Landscape Sub-Type 9d ‘Ridges’, as defined by the recently updated Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment. The LCA notes that: These are generally open, large scale landscapes…The open and distinct ridges and heather moorland and wide and expansive uninterrupted views to sea and the Lakeland Fells provide a sense of wildness that are sensitive to changes in land management and significant infrastructure development. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD incorporates 9d into the wider type 9i ‘Intermediate Moorland’, which is judged to have a moderate / high capacity to accommodate turbine development. The ‘striking views in Furness’ are recognised as a key consideration in the appropriate siting of turbines. In regard to the above guidance, FLD have concerns that the turbines would have a net adverse impact upon views out to sea, as viewed from the elevated open access land to the north of the site. It is key to note that Landscape sub-type 9d covers a relatively small area. Given the nature of the development proposed, FLD would also highlight the importance of considering the potential impact upon other key viewpoints and landscape types. The applicant’s zone of visual influence diagram indicates that the turbines will be visible across a wide area. The area within a 15km radius of the site contains some areas of very high quality landscape, including a significant area of the Lake District National Park, and a number of areas which are recognised locally as being particularly high in quality (denoted by the County Landscape designation). FLD highlight the impact upon the key viewpoints identified within the National Park – Hampsfell, Black Combe and Bigland Tarn. Additional areas of importance are Thwaites Fell, to the north east of Black Combe, and Bethecar Moor, to the south of Coniston Water. All of these areas have a high recreational value, due to the existence of established rights of way, trails such as the Cumbria Coastal Way, large areas of open access land, and recognised viewpoints. The relevant landscape guidelines for these individual areas, given by the Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines, all highlight the key contribution which long distance views make towards the character of each, and recommend that these are conserved. FLD are concerned over the net impact the turbines will have upon the long distance views in question. The proposed Furness wind farm will be more widely visible in the National Park than the existing Harlock Hill development. Have particular concerns in regard to the cumulative impact upon Bethecar Moor, highlighted above, from where the Kirkby Moor and proposed Furness developments would both be clearly visible. FLD would highlight CWESPD guidance in this regard (p.66), which states in regard to 9i that: Particular sensitivities in relation to the setting of international and national designations include views from the Furness Fells and trunk road skirting the edge of the Lake District NP (9d). Locally important areas such as Walney Island and Birkrigg Common will also be clearly affected, as will the recognised viewpoint at the Hoad in Ulverston. Whilst the Harlock Hill scheme is already visible from a number of these areas, the proposed increase in turbine height will result in the development becoming much more of a prominent, skyline feature than it is currently. In FLD’s view, the proposed development conflicts with the aforementioned national and local guidance, and should therefore be refused.

National Trust The National Trust’s Energy Policy strongly supports a major increase in renewable energy generation nationally for electricity, heat and power appropriate to the site, and a significant expansion in micro-generation. However, the Trust also believe that the location and design of all energy generation and distribution schemes should take account of the full range of environmental considerations. From the Trust’s perspective the main aspects that it has considered are the implications in terms of landscape / visual impacts in the context of its particular responsibility to care for Sandscale Haws, and Dalton Castle. Sandscale Haws It is not only a National Nature Reserve, but also part of the Duddon Estuary Ramsar site, Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation, and also a Site of Special Scientific Interest. A key aspect of the importance of Sandscale Haws is its cumulative value as an eco-system – some parts of which are very fragile. There are key inter-dependencies with the Duddon Estuary such as the supply of sand, sediments and nutrients which are essential to initiate dune building processes. There are also many species that rely on different habitats within the wider ecosystem such as wading birds which utilise different areas for feeding, nesting and roosting. The reserve is also a popular place for recreation, both on the beach and in the quieter areas of the dunes, with the views to the central Fells of the Lake District being a key, and much valued, characteristic of the property. It is estimated that there are 70 - 80,000 visits there each year. The assessment information indicates that from Sandscale Haws, wind farms at Far Old Park, Kirby Moor, Haverigg, Ormonde off-shore, Barrow offshore, West of Duddon Sands and Olney offshore would all be visible in addition to the current proposal. The proposed Standish Cote turbines would be about 6.4km from Sandscale Haws. Whilst the information shows four turbines being visible from that particular location it is noted that all five turbines are likely to be visible from the majority of the Trust’s land. The Trust believes that the Magnitude of Change would be greater than suggested in the submitted documents. The new turbines will impact on a relatively large section of the view that does not currently have any wind farms or individual turbines upon it and is devoid of other infrastructure with the exception of a tall (but thin) mast / aerial. The proposed turbines would change the landscape character from this viewpoint as it would significantly reduce the horizon on which no wind turbines are visible. There is the resulting potential for the proposed wind farm to dominate the view rather than being a part of the view as they are now. Accordingly a key characteristic of the landscape, in terms of the interruptions to the landform, it experiences at least a partial change. Given the high landscape sensitivity of Sandscale Haws this is a significant effect of a major / moderate scale. Accordingly the overall effect is considered to be “significant”. It is considered that there is a similar under-playing of the Visual Effects, i.e. the Magnitude of Change would be moderate as the proposals would be readily apparent and in substantial measure provide an important new element in the view. Accordingly this equates to major / moderate significance in visual terms, i.e. it is significant. Although these significant landscape and visual effects are reversible they will nonetheless be permanent for the life of the proposed development. In this context it is also notable that the current proposal means that the effects of the existing wind farm development will not be reversed at the end of their working life but rather that the desire is to extend and magnify those effects through this application to replace the existing development. The discussion of the impacts upon “Recreation and Visitor Destinations” (paras 7.107 – 7.116) considers various recreational routes, including the Cumbria Coastal Way, but fails to recognise that Sandscale Haws is a visitor destination in its own right. Dalton Castle The Castle is a 14th Century tower built to assert the authority of the Abbot of Furness Abbey. Situated within a Conservation Area in Dalton town centre the Castle overlooks the town, its approaches and the countryside beyond, being a reminder of the glory days of this small market town. The assessment information indicates that from ground level at Dalton Castle the wind farm at Far Old Park would also be visible in addition to the current proposal. For the other wind farms covered by the cumulative assessment these are more marginal in terms of their visibility, but it would appear that most, if not all, of these would be visible from elevated positions within the Castle. The proposed Standish Cote turbines would be about 6.5km from Dalton Castle. The ZTV information suggests that all five proposed turbines would be visible from ground level at the Castle and consequently the impact upon views would be more noticeable from higher points within the Castle. No separate Viewpoint analysis has been undertaken from Dalton Castle although Viewpoint 6 (“View North from Dalton- in-Furness”) is of some value in gauging the impacts as experienced from the Castle. In this respect the additional height available from within the Castle will increase the extent of visibility and arguably the scale of the impacts. However, it is concluded that, in the context of the definitions and methodology used in the landscape and visual analysis that the effects would not be ‘significant’. Conclusions It is considered that there would be some impacts upon National Trust interests at Dalton Castle but not to a significant extent; however, it is considered that the visual and landscape impacts are under recorded in respect of Sandscale Haws where the Trust considers that they would be both significant and adverse. The proposed development would result in detrimental impacts and these would adversely affect the enjoyment of the many visitors to Sandscale Haws each year, along with that of those using the footpaths across the property. In the context of relevant national and local planning policy it is not considered that the identified adverse impacts at Sandscale Haws, or the more modest impacts at Dalton Castle, are of themselves such as to indicate that in this instance the benefits of the renewable energy that would be produced would be outweighed by those impacts alone. However, they should be taken into account as part of the overall cumulative assessment of the positive and adverse impacts of the proposed development in reaching a decision. In that respect it is noted that the Trust considers that the applicant has given insufficient weight to the adverse impacts at Sandscale Haws.

National Grid No objection on the understanding that all conditions highlighted in the letter from the applicant on 25/01/12 are adhered to.

United Utilities No objection. United Utilities reservoirs are operational and will remain so for the foreseeable future. No peat has been identified at the locations and other mitigation will be in place during construction.

Electricity North West The proposal has no impact on Electricity Distribution System infrastructure or other ENW assets.

Ministry of Defence No objection. In the interests of air safety, the MOD requests that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. All turbines should be fitted with omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute at the highest practicable point.

NATS The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

Civil Aviation Authority 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 safeguarding sites other than its own property, and a consultation by a Council is taken as a request for clarification of procedural matters. 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 and should be appropriately marked.

Walney Aerodrome No objection.

Cable & Wireless No objection. British Telecom The proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks.

Joint Radio Company LTD (JRC) JRC analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel and Power Industry and does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided.

Arqiva (Television Transmission) Arqiva is responsible for providing the BBC and ITV’s transmission network and is responsible for ensuring the integrity of Re-Broadcast Links, and protecting its own microwave networks. No objection.

Ericsson There are no microwave links within 200m and no mast within 500m of the proposal and therefore have no objections.

Orange Have identified 1 Orange m/w link which may be affected by this application. Although the response sent to Barrow Borough council stated that there are no Orange m/w links affected.

Other: The correspondence that has been sent to Barrow Borough Council, with regards to the scheme, has also been summarised in this section given the cross-boundary nature of the proposal. 51 letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns: • Landscape and Visual Impact - The landscape is of an extremely high quality - the wide upland views are a prime feature. It is of County Importance and the landscape character type is described as unusual within the County. The large, moving, wind turbines will seriously depreciate the character of the area and will further erode the natural skyline which is important to the Cumbrian identity. Due to their prominent setting, the turbines will be visible from large distances including many of the Lake District Fells. The landscape cannot absorb 5 larger turbines, buildings and extra roads, however well designed. With a total height of 100m the turbines will be extremely conspicuous, overwhelming, will dominate the landscape to an unacceptable degree and will appear as alien structures. Government targets threaten much of the finest landscape, including this location. The turbines would spoil the appearance of the Pennington area. They would be nearly double the size of the existing turbines and moved further up the hill increasing their visual impact over a much wider area. The considerable width of the development, west to east, will maximise the adverse impacts on the visual amenities of the area. The harm caused by the proposal should not be judged as incremental harm to the existing turbines because that is time limited. • Cumulative impact - There are now enormous wind farms visible across the seascape all around Furness. The threshold for wind energy in this area has become unacceptable. There will be significant cumulative impacts with other operational schemes in the area. • Impact on Tourism - The turbines will discourage visitors from staying in the area, including at the holiday cottages located adjacent to the site at Ewedale Farm. This will lose vital income to the already crumbling economy. People who come to Pennington do so for its outstanding natural beauty, its peacefulness and its ease of travel to other destinations and nearby local amenities. The development would have a significant adverse effect on the use and enjoyment of these natural heritage locations. The proposal will adversely affect efforts to encourage the tourist industry of the area as this is largely based upon the quiet appreciation of the countryside and its views by walkers and others. • Impacts on birds - Birds can be killed by turbines and their habitats destroyed. There are important species that breed close to the site e.g. Buzzards, Kestrel, Skylark, Reed, Bunting and Ravens, which would be at risk of hitting the turbines, or driven off by the fuss and noise. Large turbines are known to have a negative impact on wildlife, especially birds of prey and several species in the area may well be affected including owls and both resident and migrating species. Other large birds such as herons and swans are prone to collision with the turbines. The bird survey submitted is too old and Red Kites are now present in the area. Collision risk is an issue for all species and it is standard practice to undertake collision risk modelling for many species found at the site. The information provided on breeding waders is out of date and misleading. Other birds observed on Mean Moor and Dalton Moor include – Peregrine Falcon, Barn Owl, Tawny Owl, Little Owl, Osprey, Hen Harrier, Red legged Partridge, Snipe, Merlin, Hobby, Sand martins, Swifts and House martins. • Impacts on bats – Bats can be killed by the blades and are susceptible to the pressure differentials caused by wind turbines. The proximity of the proposed site to Harlock reservoir means that bats which use the reservoir for hunting are likely to be affected. There are extensive numbers of bats in the nearby area. Concerned that a thorough independent bat survey hasn’t been conducted in the surrounding area and that the surveys carried out by the applicant were not sufficient to make a full assessment of the impacts. The surveys do not appear to follow interim guidance set out by Natural England. • Impacts on otters - Otters are a protected species and it is a criminal offence to disturb or destroy their habitat. There is evidence of resident female otters using the site and otters spend long periods on the fells foraging for frogs / toads. Turbine C is situated in the middle of prime otter habitat with its gorse bushes, marsh / peat bog, holt, raised dry mounds and tall grasses. The 17 metre base of the turbines and access route will completely destroy this ecosystem. The otters that move between Harlock Reservoir and Rathmoss Beck avoid the Harlock wind farm. The obvious route is through the wind farm but they travel around showing that otters are affected by the noise of the turbines. A report was also submitted by an ecologist on behalf of one of the neighbouring residents. This raises concerns that the ES significantly underestimates the use of the site by this species and that there are potential long term impacts on the favourable conservation status of the species based on the current proposals. It concludes that unless it can be proven that there would be no net negative effect on the species, installation of the turbines would be in breach of the Habitat Regulations 2004. • General ecology – The scale of the development will affect insects, frogs and potentially invertebrates and aquatic species although this has not been assessed. The surveys for amphibians are poor and there is not enough information to assess the impacts on protected species. There is no mention of other mammals which have been observed on Mean Moor and Dalton Moor – Roe deer, hares, stoat and weasel. • Noise - Wind turbines produce penetrating low-frequency noise pollution, day and night, which makes some physically ill. The turbines will bring noise levels close to the edge of maximum permitted levels which will adversely affect the living conditions of local residents to an unacceptable extent. The owners of Horrace Farm have complained to the Council about the level of noise created by the current development on several occasions and are concerned that the level of noise will increase if the larger turbines are erected. When all five turbines are working and there is a prevailing westerly wind the noise is great. The pitch produced becomes increasingly intrusive and unpleasant to be exposed to for a sustained period. Despite the assurances in the ES, experience of noise problems at other wind farms suggests that nearby dwellings may experience problems including discomfort due to aerodynamic and thumping noises that have a greater ability to penetrate the conciseness than steady background noise. When ETSU-R-97 was set up, turbines were smaller and the effect of wind shear on noise was small. The wind shear impacts on higher turbines can be significant. The valley where the turbines are to be located is very quiet and noise is amplified in different ways depending on the wind and water levels of Harlock Reservoir. There would be added noise pollution from HGV’s during construction. • Shadow Flicker – This would increase considerably and is extremely disturbing for residents and passing motorists and walkers. The flickering currently experienced by Horrace Farm and Harlock Farm would exacerbated by larger structures. 25.4 hours of shadow flicker are predicted at Harlock Farm, dependent on time of year and weather conditions. • Living conditions – The development, by reason of its scale, design, close proximity and visual impact, would exert a significant harmful influence on the living conditions currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents contrary to policy. There are 6 dwellings within 800 metres of a turbine and no specific detailed residential amenity survey has been undertaken. The submission states that none of the turbines are closer to the surrounding properties than the existing ones, which is incorrect for Standish Cote Farm and Swallow Cottage. The turbines on Mean Moor will increase the field of view for these properties from approx. 25 degrees to almost 90 degrees. There will be a significant change in scale due to the increase in size. There will be a significant loss of residential amenity at Swallow Cottage. The turbines would be clearly visible from Horace Farm, would dominate the view from the property, significantly affecting the amenity and enjoyment of the home and place of work. At Harlock Farm the five large turbines will be within 650-700 metres, over an arc of 92 degrees compared to the existing situation where they cover an arc of 30 degrees, most at great distances. • Effect of private water supplies – The service road to Mean Moor will be constructed close to a spring providing the only water supply to Harlock Farm and are concerned about the disruption the work will cause. • Light pollution - The substation would need security lighting, causing light pollution. • Safety - Broken blades, and ice blocks flung in winter, are hazardous to locals, visitors, and wildlife and are potentially fatal. • Impact on watercourses - The construction of the wind farm will involve the laying of roadways and large concrete bases over open moorland, which will affect the ecology and watercourses over a huge area, with possible pollution of watercourses which run into the several public water supply reservoirs on and adjacent to the site. Aquatic benthic invertebrate surveys are required to assess siltation under baseline, during construction and post construction regimes. Turbine C is too close to water courses – with 17 metres diameter foundations, the hard standing and 50 metre micro siting allowance, the turbine is too constrained by the watercourse. There will be damage as a result of the excavation proposed. Risks such as decreased run-off attenuation and increased flooding downstream, increased erosion and deposition of fine sediments, creation of barriers to aquatic species, dewatering of mire communities need to be assessed and mitigation defined as part of the planning application. • Impact on Road Infrastructure – The current approach roads to the site are small and rural and prone to bad conditions. Additional traffic and its heavy nature could cause congestion and damage to the road surfaces as well as disruption to local residents. • Public Rights of Way – The turbines would be close to bridleways contrary to British Horse Society recommendations. They will have a damaging effect on the use of the area as a natural recreational resource as people will be deterred from using the footpaths and bridleways in the area. • Lack of benefits - There will be little work for local people. After construction there will be only maintenance jobs, and in view of the likely disproportionate damage to the tourist industry, there will be a net loss of jobs in the area. • Precedent - It will set a precedent for a multitude of similar wind farms and other potential harmful developments throughout the Lake District with other local wind farm sites increasing the size of turbines. • Public consultation – Concerned about the misleading or inaccurate information that has been given to the public. No contact with those closest to the site was made until after the plans for the wind measuring mast were submitted. False promises were made to individual local residents about benefits that would be available. Local residents have not been invited to liaison group meetings for a couple of years leaving them with a feeling of mistrust. • Efficiency / Economics of turbines – Wind turbines are one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity and they are inefficient. The saving in CO 2 must be weighed against the energy used in making, transporting and erecting the turbines as well as site preparation. Many experts now question the suitability of wind farms to provide efficient energy.

309 letters of support have been received which raise the following points:

• The replacement turbines will give a greater energy output, with less CO 2 emissions than fossil fuel generation. It is a clean, renewable energy using a local resource that there is a lot of and presents no dangers short or long term. It will be a very important contributor to renewable and on shore wind targets, with a capacity of up to 11.5 MW, a contribution of 4.9% towards the Cumbria onshore wind target for 2020. • The existing turbines have become an integral part of the scenery in the area and are well accepted. As there will be no increase in the number of turbines there will be very little, if any, change to the landscape character of visual amenity of the area. The site layout achieves good visual balance from key views around the surrounding area. The appearance of the proposed development would be strong, positive and balanced and changes to the surrounding landscape character and visual amenity would not be unacceptably widespread or adverse. • There are no significant ecological impacts arising from the proposals. It has satisfied the requirements of an environmental assessment, all necessary planning guidelines and noise levels are acceptable. • The Cooperative is a tried and tested means of producing local electricity with opportunities for local people to have a voice in decision making. It has been in operation since 1997 and has demonstrated that the cooperative model is effective and draws in the support from individuals. Individuals in the community will have the chance to invest quite cheaply in the project and get a good return. • The existing Trust will administer the community fund with an annual budget of around £35,000 per year, set up to develop and benefit local projects and other community developments. A letter has also been received from The Co-operative who would like to support the application. Through its support of community-scale renewables it has engaged previously with Baywind Energy Co-operative and Energy4All. The project is co- operatively structured which enables democratic ownership by the local community, it will help to connect people with the wider energy and climate change agenda, it will make a meaningful contribution to the region’s 2020 renewable energy capacity target, and the existing Baywind project has been successful and should be recognised through the encouragement of development that maximises its potential.

Representations by GlaxoSmithKline Community Co-operative Baywind Energy and wind energy provider Infinergy are seeking to upgrade an existing, proven wind farm (Harlock Hill) of five 500KW turbines, which have operated since 1997 and reached the end of their useful life. The proposal is to replace the five existing wind turbines with five modern machines, increasing the wind farm’s power generating capacity from 2.5MW to a maximum of 11.5MW. The new project is known as Furness Wind Farm and, if consented, will provide Baywind with two new turbines and Infinergy with three. GlaxoSmithKline is a worldwide operating pharmaceuticals company with a global Environmental Sustainability strategy. For its operation in Ulverston, the following objectives have been set:

• Reduce the site’s CO 2 footprint by 30% by the end of 2014 (from a 2011 baseline). • Reduce hazardous waste by 30% by the end of 2014 (from a 2011 baseline). • Eliminate waste to landfill by the end of 2014 (achieved December 2012). • Reduce water use by 15% by end of 2014 (from a 2011 baseline). Furness Wind Farm presents GSK with an opportunity to explore the possibility of purchasing wind-generated renewable energy in line with the company’s sustainability strategy of becoming carbon neutral. As such, GSK Ulverston approached Infinergy to discuss the possibility of purchasing the electricity generated by the three Infinergy turbines (up to 6.9MW in total) at the Furness Wind Farm. Discussions are ongoing and in the event that planning consent is granted, formal contracts will be put in place.

How will this work? A legally binding Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) would be entered into between Infinergy and GSK to enable the sale of electricity generated by the three Infinergy wind turbines directly to GSK.

How will the electricity be distributed? The electricity generated by the wind turbines would be fed directly into the grid, therefore it will not be necessary to lay a cable connecting the two sites.

How would GSK benefit? 1. Reducing GSK’s carbon footprint GSK Ulverston uses a lot of electricity in its production facilities and has a carbon footprint of around 28,000 tonnes of CO 2 per year. The electricity generated by the three Infinergy wind turbines at the Furness Wind Farm would be offset against their electricity supply, ensuring that the site benefits from the locally sourced renewable power. By purchasing the electricity, GSK Ulverston would be reducing its carbon footprint by about 25%.

2. Keeping GSK Ulverston competitive Purchasing the electricity from the three wind turbines would reduce the cost of electricity for GSK Ulverston. Additionally GSK Ulverston would benefit from stable electricity prices throughout the life of the wind farm (up to 25 years), or initially for the length of the PPA, which is usually a significant number of years, for example 10 - 15. In turn, these factors help to maintain the competitiveness of the company’s production facilities.

3. Capital investment opportunities Other commercial opportunities are also available to GSK, including capital investment which could lead to GSK ownership in the Furness Wind Farm. These options remain under consideration and would only be agreed in the event that planning consent is granted.

Overview The diagram below shows how the arrangement would work:

Electricity Supplier

GSK sells the Electricity supplier credits GSK with the electricity amount of electricity sold

Electricity exported to grid GSK

GSK buys the electricity

Furness Wind Farm (3 Infinergy turbines)

Independent Review of the LVIA, Supplementary Information and Galpin’s Audit Report The owner of Ewedale Farm instructed Woolerton Dodwell Landscape Architects and Environmental Planners to review the Landscape and Visualisation Impact Assessment. The report concludes: • The ES has not been undertaken in a manner which is sufficiently objective, thorough and balanced. Although the LVIA considers the potential effects within a 30km ZTV, it has not given adequate consideration to the range and extent of landscape and visual impacts or their significance within 5 - 6km. • The assessment has not been undertaken in sufficient detail within the local area to reflect and evaluate the likely impacts that will occur. The limited assessment that has been undertaken within 5km- 6km, of the development has resulted in a general under-assessment of the range of impacts and the magnitudes of change that occur and insufficient weight has been given to their significance “in the round”. • The magnitude and significance of a number of landscape changes have not been evaluated accurately. Landscape effects include the significant enlargement of a “wind farm landscape” (up to approximately 950m) and a “landscape with wind farms” (up to 3km) due to a virtual doubling of the height of the turbines and an increase in the area of the footprint and an intensification of the impacts. • The effects on residential amenity have been under-estimated. The effects on residential amenity are severe for receptors living in at least 12 properties within the enlarged “wind farm landscape” in which the turbines are a defining element. This is considered to be wholly unreasonable and unacceptable. • The effects on the amenity of walkers and riders using public rights of way are severe within approximately 1km and significant from well-used public access areas up to 5 - 6km away. • The visual effects on the recreational users of roads are significant within approximately 3km. • The sensitivity of farm workers is considered to be high and the landscape and visual effects of the development are of Major significance. • The successive and sequential cumulative landscape impacts are under- estimated, particularly within 5km due to the enlargement of the wind farm footprint and the intensification of the impacts because of a doubling of the size of the turbines. Overall, in terms of landscape and visual impact, the development is considered to exceed the threshold of acceptability by a considerable margin. The proposals are inappropriate as a consequence of the location, scale and siting of the turbines which have a severe impact on both the landscape character of the area, on residential amenity and the visual amenity of local people and visitors and users of minor roads, public rights of way and open spaces in the area.

Renewables 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 CO 2 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.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March, and replaced the PPS and older PPG documents with a broader policy approach. The key message is that sustainable development should be supported unless other material considerations dictate otherwise. Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change , states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. Planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change in accordance with the Climate Change Act. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. It should also be recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and applicants should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy. The NPPF states that the approach set out in National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) should be followed when determining planning applications in addition to relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure (EN-1). These 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. Section 11 of the NPPF, Conserving and enhancing the natural environment , states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity.

Regional Policy Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside. Policy EMI(A) states that priority should be given to conserving and enhancing areas, sites, features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural environment and historic environment importance. Policy EM17 specifically promotes renewable energy sources and states that significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of renewable energy schemes. It lists wide-ranging criteria which should be taken into account when assessing renewable energy proposals, including the effects on local amenity, visual impact and nature conservation. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies.

Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy 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; and (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to: (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact; (3) scale in relation to the landscape 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.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy L10 states that existing and proposed rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would affect their character. Development which results in the loss of, or disruption to, existing rights of way will only be permitted where a satisfactory diversion can be provided and secured in advance of planning consent. Saved Policy C26 covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.

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

Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit This document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within character sub-type 9d, Ridges, within the broader landscape character type of Intermediate Moorland and Plateau. The key characteristics of this landscape sub-type are distinct ridges; extensive areas of true heathland moorland; improved pasture with distinctive stone walls; and woodland and small belts of trees forming prominent features. The guidance sets out that the open and distinct ridges, heather moorland and wide and expansive uninterrupted views to sea and the Lakeland Fells provide a sense of wildness that are sensitive to changes in land management and significant infrastructure development. It recommends that the impact of development is minimised by careful siting and design and environmental gains sought such as heather and moorland restoration. It also states that the siting of large scale wind energy should be avoided where it could degrade the open and expansive character.

Companion Guide to PPS22: Planning for Renewable Energy The NPPF replaced all the previous PPG and PPS documents. However, this companion guide is not contained within the list of replaced documents and is therefore still a material planning consideration. It states that there is no statutory separation between a wind turbine and a public right of way, however fall over distance is often considered an acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be that the turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a public right of way. Fall over distance is the height of the turbine to the blade tip and 10% is often added to this as a safe separation distance from occupied buildings. In relation to shadow flicker, the guide makes the following statements: • shadow flicker only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening; • only properties within 130 degrees either side of north of the turbines can be affected at UK latitudes; • shadow flicker has been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine position; • less than 5% of photo-sensitive epileptics are sensitive to the lowest frequencies of 2.5-3 Hz; the remainder being sensitive to higher frequencies; and • a fast-moving three-bladed wind turbine will give rise to the highest levels of flicker frequency of well below 2 Hz. The new generation of wind turbines is known to operate at levels below 1 Hz.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The main issues raised by this proposal relate to - • Impacts on landscape and visual amenity. • Users of the nearby public footpaths. • Residential amenity. • Ecology. • Tourism. • Highways. • Historic environment. • Aviation. • Telecommunications. • Power Purchase Agreement with GlaxoSmithKline.

Landscape and Visual Impacts Barrow Borough Council commissioned Galpin Landscape to independently review the applicant’s landscape submission and undertake an independent landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. This has been used to aid both Local Authorities in assessing these issues. Landscape Assessment The sensitivity of landscapes can be defined as the degree to which a particular landscape can accommodate change arising from the development, without detrimental effects on its character. This varies with the pattern and scale of the landscape, visual enclosure / openness of views, and distribution of visual receptors, the scope for mitigation and the value placed on the landscape. The site lies within character sub-type 9d – Ridges as identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit 2011. It is situated within an extensive area of farmland of an upland character, mainly consisting of improved pasture used for sheep and cattle. On Harlock Hill, fields are bounded by both dry stone walls and hedges. On Mean Moor, the enclosures are bounded by poorly maintained walls or fences, it remains open in character without any vertical features other than the TV mast to the south. A number of sykes flow down the valley side from springs close to the proposed turbine locations on Mean Moor. There are open views of part of the site from the south and east, however the local topography partially screens the site from the north and west. This area has been assessed in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document as having low / moderate sensitivity with a landscape capacity of moderate / high to accommodate “up to a large group” which is 6 – 9 turbines and exceptionally up to a medium wind farm (16 to 25 turbines). It states that small to large groups of turbines responding to the shape and scale of individual hills would be appropriate in Furness. However, it is set out in the document that the SPD is intended to provide an indication of the relative capacity of different landscapes and should not be used to determine the acceptability of a proposal. The following table summarises the findings (paras 4.17-4.24) in Galpin Landscape’s report. Landscape characteristic Magnitude of impact Scale and Enclosure Low Complexity and Order Low Manmade Influence Low Skyline Low / moderate Connections with adjacent Low / moderate landscapes Remoteness and Tranquillity The area is very remote and tranquil. The sensitivity is high. In this case the magnitude of impact is moderate / high due to the effect on the remote sense of place.

The landscape character assessment, produced by Galpin Landscape, states that the existing wind turbines, on the site and in the general area, have established this landscape character as a landscape with wind turbines and the additional vertical structures would not have a significant effect on the landscape character type. The report concludes that the impact significance medium to low / medium which is not significant.

Visual Assessment The sensitivity of visual receptors (people) can be affected by the location and context of the viewpoint, the type of landscape, the type of receptor, the activity of the receptors and the importance or popularity of the view and typical numbers of viewers. As part of the application a map showing the Zone of Theoretical Visibility was submitted and identified important viewpoints. Wirelines and photomontages were undertaken from these viewpoints and illustrate the impact of change. The independent assessment has highlighted that there are a lack of viewpoints in the immediate vicinity of the development, the only one of which is viewpoint 1, from the minor road south of Harlock Hill. Galpin Landscape finds the magnitude of impact on Viewpoint 1 to be substantial, therefore resulting in a significant visual impact. The report goes on to state that, “viewpoint 1 is in the vicinity of the proposal and other viewpoints (if they had been included) would have a similar significance of impact” (para 5.16). The other important public viewpoints in the vicinity are the footpaths that cut through the site on Mean Moor. The impact on users of these footpaths is considered separately. However, in relation to visual impact, paragraph 5.18 of Galpin Landscape report states: “There were no viewpoints for public rights of way in the immediate vicinity of the proposal included in the applicant’s submission. Our independent assessment has identified through site study and digital terrain modelling verification, that visual receptors using the public footpath leading to Shooting House Hill (SD 25965 81740) would have a high magnitude of impact. As this is a recreational route the sensitivity of visual receptor would be high resulting in a high significance of impact which is significant.” The applicant’s submission and the Galpin Landscape report state that the other significant impacts would be at Swarthmoor, the Hoad Monument, Birkrigg Common and Askam-in-Furness. In particular, Galpin Landscape report states at paragraph 5.17: “These viewpoints have high visual receptor sensitivities, such as Birkrigg Common and the Hoad Monument as they are important recreational routes and viewpoints - the views are important at these locations. The difference to the viewpoints nearer to the proposal is the separation distances from the proposal to the visual receptor locations. The views will be changed at these locations with the introduction of these wind turbines as can be seen in the photomontages”. The independent report outlines that the proposal would result in further turbines to the west of the existing ones on Harlock Hill forming a wider grouping. In particular the three on Mean Moor would appear prominent in views from the south in comparison to the existing turbines. The report sets out that the overall magnitude of impact to views for visual receptors would be moderate. It goes on to state that: “the visual receptor sensitivities would be moderate to moderate / high in places due to the close proximity to local recreational routes, dwellings and local recreational viewpoints at the Hoad and on Birkrigg Common. Therefore the inclusion of these wind turbines into the landscape would have an adverse visual impact of medium to medium / high significance” (paragraph 5.25 – 5.26). Also of note is the topography of the land where the turbines will be sited. Taken from an Ordnance Survey plan, the turbines on Harlock Hill (D and E) and the closest on Mean Moor (C) would be sited at a similar elevation (approximately 210 metres). The turbines on Mean Moor follow the slope of the land upwards, with turbine B sited at a level approximately 50 metres higher than turbine C, and turbine A, a further 30 metres above B. The existing turbines on Harlock Hill have a height to blade tip of 53 metres and, as such, the base of turbine B would be almost above these, with the base of turbine A in line with the blades of the turbines C, D and E. The existing turbines at Harlock Hill are relatively well contained within the landscape. The proposal does not just relate to the increase in height of these but also to the spread of turbines to the northwest on significantly higher land, although there will be the same number of turbines. The elevation of the land on Mean Moor in particular will result in the turbines appearing prominent at much further distances. The character of the existing wind farm will change from a well contained group to a linear form across a greater distance onto higher land. The Galpin Landscape report concludes that the overall visual impact is significant according to current guidelines, and from key view points where significant impacts would be experienced by visual receptors, such as the Hoad Monument and Birkrigg Common, there would be a change in perception of the wind turbines. The report recommends that the application is approved as the visual impact identified is outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal. However, this is something for the Local Authority to determine and there are other issues that need to be balanced against the benefits of the scheme.

Independent Review of the LVIA, Supplementary Information and Galpin’s Audit Report The owner of Ewedale Farm instructed Woolerton Dodwell Landscape Architects and Environmental Planners to review the Landscape and Visualisation Impact Assessment. The report concludes: • The ES has not been undertaken in a manner which is sufficiently objective, thorough and balanced. Although the LVIA considers the potential effects within a 30km ZTV, it has not given adequate consideration to the range and extent of landscape and visual impacts or their significance within 5 - 6km. • The assessment has not been undertaken in sufficient detail within the local area to reflect and evaluate the likely impacts that will occur. The limited assessment that has been undertaken within 5km - 6km, of the development has resulted in a general under-assessed of the range of impacts and the magnitudes of change that occur and insufficient weight has been given to their significance “in the round”. • The magnitude and significance of a number of landscape changes have not been evaluated accurately. Landscape effects include the significant enlargement of a “wind farm landscape” (up to approximately 950m) and a “landscape with wind farms” (up to 3km) due to a virtual doubling of the height of the turbines and an increase in the area of the footprint and an intensification of the impacts. • The effects on residential amenity have been under-estimated. The effects on residential amenity are severe for receptors living in at least 12 properties within the enlarged “wind farm landscape” in which the turbines are a defining element. This is considered to be wholly unreasonable and unacceptable. • The effects on the amenity of walkers and riders using public rights of way are severe within approximately 1km and significant from well-used public access areas up to 5 - 6km away • The visual effects on the recreational users of roads are significant within approximately 3km • The sensitivity of farm workers is considered to be high and the landscape and visual effects of the development are of Major significance. • The successive and sequential cumulative landscape impacts are underestimated, particularly within 5km due to the enlargement of the wind farm footprint and the intensification of the impacts because of a doubling of the size of the turbines. Overall, in terms of landscape and visual impact, the development is considered to exceed the threshold of acceptability by a considerable margin. The proposals are inappropriate as a consequence of the location, scale and siting of the turbines which have a severe impact on both the landscape character of the area, on residential amenity and the visual amenity of local people and visitors and users of minor roads, public rights of way and open spaces in the area.

Galpin Response to the Review There are professional differences and to this end the current guidance of “industry standards” is the GLVIA. This does not prescribe a set methodology, although our methodology has been proven and tested over a number of years of relevant experience. The main point of the independent assessment was to draw out the salient points of the applicant’s assessment and provide interpretation – therefore the main intention is to assess the assessment. To this end the main emphasis of our work concentrated on checking (by site assessment, checking visualisations and reports) rather than a full assessment. Therefore the limited scope for the independent assessment seems to be an area that WD has focussed on. We were commissioned primarily to provide a review and integrity check of the applicant’s LVIA with our own interpretation as an “independent assessment” (as per paras 4.1, 5.1, 6.1 “a brief discussion”), therefore we were not commissioned for a full LVIA which is how WD has viewed our work. However, with the emergence of a new and revised GLVIA due out next month, hopefully these kinds of differences between fellow Landscape Institute professionals may be avoided. The methodology employed followed GLVIA guidelines including site assessment, analysis, tabulating results and concluding in the summary report. As explained above the “selective” aspects of the submitted LVIA was in order to provide a review of the applicant’s assessment not a stand-alone assessment. As an example of the use of major / moderate / minor - the GLVIA has one typical example of none / negligible / slight / moderate / substantial / severe. There is no flaw in the methodology employed – the GLVIA states that residential views will be dependent on the location and context of the viewpoint which is included in this table. All residents do not have a high sensitivity, this would depend on the direction of view, whether the development could be seen, if near to or far away, etc. The GLVIA does not include this level of detail until the new GLVIA is issued. The methodology employed using the five point scale is a guideline to understand the applicant’s assessment – providing a direct comparison – as they have employed a similar scale. The visual receptors sensitivities and magnitudes of effects are correct in accordance with current guidelines. In order to draw a conclusion whether a development has a significant impact, the overall impact significance balances all the considerations of the assessment. The significant impacts were previously assessed and therefore carried forward for consideration. The cumulative assessment has provided verification, as with the landscape and visual assessments of the applicant’s submitted assessment. The limited scope for assessment included a review of the applicant’s details, check of other wind developments and verification of the significant elements as included in para 6.5 and 6.6. The sequential effects and viewpoints are included here but would not contribute to an overall cumulative impact.

Applicant’s response A Summary of the Key Issues It is noted that there is considerable agreement between Woolerton Dodwell and Stephenson Halliday, in particular regarding: • The ES LVIA which adheres in general terms to current guidance (GLVIA) and covers all the aspects which would be expected in an assessment of a substantial development, located in open countryside. (paragraph 3.1) • The extent of significant landscape effects is agreed to occur within a 3km radius of the site. • The most significant visual impacts would be experienced within a 2km radius of the site given the visually contained nature of the site. • Significant visual effects on the amenity of walkers and riders using public rights of way would be experienced at distances up to a 6km radius of the site. • No issues are raised in respect of the quality and/or technical accuracy of the ES and SEI visualisations. • There is no disagreement regarding the assessment of landscape and visual effects at the 20 no selected viewpoints. • There is agreement regarding the conclusions of the ES CLVIA. (Appendix 7D) The specific issues of concern highlighted by Woolerton Dodwell are focussed on the following narrow range of issues as detailed in the Summary (Section 5): • It is suggested that the ES LVIA has not given adequate consideration of the range and extent of landscape and visual effects within a 5 - 6km radius. Response: The LVIA and SEI (December 2012) has considered in great detail the potential effects on landscape and visual receptors within a 5 - 6km radius and the wider 30km radius study area. The scope of LVIA Viewpoints was agreed with the Council and statutory consultees. • On landscape effects it is agreed that the proposed scheme would lead to an extension of the landscape sub-type Intermediate Plateau with Wind Farm up to 3km. Woolerton Dodwell suggest that the proposed scheme would result in a “wind farm landscape” at distances of 750 - 900m in comparison with 600m as stated in the ES LVIA. Response: It is noted that the threshold of 600 metres defining the extent of the “wind farm landscape” is not predetermined and clearly does not form a sharp line on a plan but is judged on the basis of site specific characteristics and the nature of views towards the proposed scheme. It is not as suggested by Woolerton simply a geometric calculation based entirely on height of the turbines, assuming flat topography, it is strongly influenced by distance from the site and characteristics of the local landscape. • Woolerton Dodwell suggest that the effects on residential amenity have been underestimated and believe that “the effects on residential amenity are severe for receptors living in at least 12 properties within the enlarged ‘wind farm landscape’ in which turbines are a defining element.” Response: In the case of the Furness Wind Farm proposal the distance away from the nearest turbine (in excess of 640 metres), the orientation of the dwellings, the topography and vegetation and layout which maintains a high degree of visual permeability all serve to reduce the potential effects on dwellings. While it is inevitable that the turbines will be viewed from some windows, the extent of the effects is not such that there is a degree of harm that should be considered unacceptable. • It is agreed that significant effects would be experienced from public rights of way and public access areas within a 5 - 6km radius and major effects would be experienced within a 1km radius. Response: In the case of the Furness Wind Farm proposal alternative routes are available which would provide greater separation from the turbines. Overall there is nothing to suggest that the degree of harm alleged in respect of the Furness Wind Farm proposal is any different to that experienced elsewhere and which has been found to be acceptable. • It is agreed that the visual effect on recreational users of roads would be significant within approximately 3km. • It is suggested that successive and sequential cumulative landscape impacts are under-estimated. Response: The ES Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment concludes that the additional cumulative effect of the Furness Wind Farm would be limited and localised given the context of the proposal involving replacement of the existing Harlock Hill turbines and the visually contained nature of the site. Overall it is considered that the area in the vicinity of the Furness Wind Farm proposal has the capacity to accommodate the scale of development proposed and in landscape and visual terms should be considered acceptable. The proposed development would be entirely consistent with the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document and Cumbria County Council has confirmed “no objection” to the proposal.

Landscape Impact Conclusion Whilst there are difference in interpretation between Galpin’s and Woolerton Dodwell the conclusions are the same that the proposal will have a significant adverse impact on visual receptors from both close and distant view points.

Impact on public rights of way Saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that existing and proposed rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would affect their character. Although the part of the site which has the potential to impact on public footpaths is within Barrow Borough, the scheme must be considered as a whole. The Local Plan for Barrow Borough contains a similar policy. A number of signposted and waymarked footpaths cross the site in close proximity to turbines C, D and E. Two bridleways originate from the A595, cross on Bank Moor, and connect to Standish Cote and Harlock. Additional footpaths and bridleways connect Standish Cote and Kirkby Moor cut through the site. The footpath and bridleways on Kirkby Moor connect through to several routes to the north and to the village of Kirkby. The footpaths, looking south provide views over Barrow, Morecambe Bay and towards Lancashire. In views looking north from the footpaths to the south (north of Standish Coat and Bank House Moor) there is a feeling of wilderness and isolation with some views towards the Lake District fells. The footpaths appear to be well used. The character of the landscape is already influenced by wind turbines. The current turbines in a cluster form, while present in the landscape in eastern views from the footpaths, do not have a dominating or imposing impact on these footpaths. In most views they appear to respect the surroundings due to their appropriate size and layout. Some users of the rights of way might feel neutral or find the turbines to be a feature of interest. Nevertheless, they are likely to have a significant impact on the views over Barrow Borough, Morecambe Bay and Lancashire from footpaths on Mean Moor and further afield at Shooting House Hill. They will also have a major impact on the isolated and wilderness character of the footpaths. The layout of the turbines results in the whole east to west panorama being dominated by them. Despite the buffer zones and footpath diversions, the turbines will have a dominating, intimidating and imposing impact on users of the footpaths on Mean Moor such that their wilderness and isolated character and appeal would be completely lost. The scale and movement of the turbines would be particularly disturbing due to the proximity of the footpaths and their varied elevation compared to the turbines.

Impacts on nearby residential properties There are several residential properties, forming an arc around the site, which are in close proximity to the proposed turbines. The ones most likely to be affected are Harlock Farm and Rathmoss to the north, Horrace Farm to the north east, properties at Ewedale Farm to the south, and properties at Standish Cote to the south west. The impacts on other properties further from the site will also be discussed where appropriate. There are three main issues in relation to the proposal that have the potential to impact on the amenities of nearby residential properties; namely the visual impact or dominance of the turbines, noise and shadow flicker.

Visual Impact Carland Cross Wind Turbine Appeal Decision (Cornwall) Part of this decision is a material consideration in the determination of this application. In forming his conclusions, the Inspector stated the following: “Among the total number of properties assessed, 23 were identified as likely to experience high significance of visual effect, which in each case the Council regards as “overwhelmingly adverse”. It would seem from the representations that this is also a widely held opinion among the occupiers concerned. However, those who face the prospect of living close to a wind farm may attach very different value judgements to their visual effect than the wider public, who stand to benefit from the energy produced without seeing turbines from their homes. In effect, the former is primarily a private interest whereas the latter is a public one and, in the case of the former, few householders are able to exercise control over development by others that may do no more than impinge into the outlook from their property. The planning system is designed to protect public rather than private interests, but both interests may coincide where, for example, visual intrusion is of such magnitude as to render a property an unattractive place in which to live. This is because it is not in the public interest to create such living conditions where they did not exist before. Thus, I do not consider that simply being able to see a turbine or turbines from a particular window or part of the garden of a house is sufficient reason to find the visual impact unacceptable (even though a particular occupier might find it objectionable). However, when turbines are present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden, there is every likelihood that the property concerned would come to be widely regarded as an unattractive (rather than simply less attractive, but not necessarily uninhabitable) place in which to live. I make my judgements on whether the visual impact of the turbines would be harmful to living conditions accordingly.” For the purpose of the assessment in this report, the affect on the nearest individual properties will be considered in detail, taking into account the Inspector’s objective test. Harlock Farm This property is located approximately 700 metres north of the nearest proposed turbine. The front elevation faces south east and there is a large garden area in this direction which extends around the south east side of the dwelling to the rear. The north east section of the building at this property consists of an attached annex, which appears to be currently unoccupied. The ground floor windows at the front of the dwelling relate to a sitting room and study with a window serving a kitchen / dining room at the rear. There are also bedroom windows at first floor in the front and side elevations. The existing turbines are seen as a contained group in most views from the garden and habitable rooms at the front of the property. The current occupiers have planted trees that go some way to obscuring the existing development in the spring and summer months, but the three turbines on Mean Moor will increase the arc of vision across which the turbines will be visible from this property. There will be very few places within the dwelling, at both ground and first floor, where the turbines will not be visible. Due to their height, elevation, size and linear spacing they will have an imposing impact on the property that exceeds the existing situation. Having assessed the impacts above it is considered that the turbines are not present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden. It is concluded that there is not an adverse impact on living conditions. Rathmoss This is a detached property approximately 750m north of the nearest turbine. The outlook from living room and bedroom windows are to the south and overlook the existing turbines on Harlock Hill. The replacement turbines on Harlock Hill will be more prevalent in views due to their height and size and it is possible that turbine C will also be visible above Harlock Farm. Again, using the objective test, it is considered that the turbines are not present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden. It is concluded that there is not an adverse impact on living conditions. Rathvale This is a detached farmhouse approximately 1.3km north of the nearest turbine. Its main outlook from habitable rooms and the main garden is south towards the development. The existing 5 turbines can be seen above the topography. There is little screening provided by trees of the Harlock Hill site, however there are limited views towards Mean Moor. Two of the turbines on the Mean Moor site are likely to be obscured from views. While the visible turbines will be larger and prominent in the landscape the change is unlikely to have a direct impact leading to serious harm to living conditions. Horrace Farm This property is located to the northeast of the existing turbines at Harlock Hill and is approximately 600 metres from the nearest proposed turbine. The rear of the dwelling faces south and there is a small garden at this side of the property. Immediately to the west and south west of the dwelling are a collection of farm buildings. In the south west elevation of the dwelling there are two windows at ground floor, which serve a kitchen and a bathroom, and several windows at first floor which serve bedrooms, a landing / corridor and a sitting room which forms part of an annexe used by an elderly relative. From the garden, the turbines are mainly screened by mature trees. At present, two of the turbines are visible through the canopy. However, these are deciduous trees and as such in winter the visual presence of the turbines will be greater. From the kitchen window the turbines are mainly screened by the trees and the agricultural buildings, however this is less so in winter as with the garden area. Although the turbines on Harlock Hill will be reduced from five to two, given their increased height they will have a much more dominant impact on this dwelling. The trees and farm buildings will provide less screening of the larger turbines and the movement of the blades will be much more obvious at this property. However, the farm buildings and orientation of the dwelling mean that the proposed turbines at Mean Moor are unlikely to be visible from the living areas of this property. The window serving the upstairs living area is in the rear wall close to the west elevation. The blades of one of the turbines is clearly visible above the trees. As with the garden and kitchen window, although there will be only two rather than five turbines, their increase in height and blade length will increase the appearance and dominance of the turbines. It is considered that with the increased height and proximity of the turbines, they are still not present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden. It is concluded that there is not an adverse impact on living conditions at this dwelling. Ewedale Farm To the south west of Harlock Hill is a group of properties, some of which are let as holiday accommodation, collectively known as Ewedale Farm. These are approximately 700 metres from the nearest proposed turbine and are located almost immediately to the south of Harlock Reservoir, below the banking which forms its edge. To the west and south west of them is a large area of trees. The increase in height of the turbines at Harlock Hill is likely to make parts of them more visible. However, given where the buildings are situated within the landscape and their relationship to each other, it is unlikely that the turbines will be detrimental to the living conditions at these properties. It is likely that they will be most visible from external areas rather than habitable rooms. Some screening will be provided to the turbines at Mean Moor by the trees and the reservoir banking. Given this and the orientation of the windows, it is unlikely that the turbines will be overly dominant on these properties although they will be visible to a certain extent. Standish Cote Farm and Swallow Cottage The properties at Standish Cote are the closest dwellings within Barrow Borough to the proposal, approximately 800 metres from the nearest turbine. These consist of two semi-detached properties which are located to the south of Mean Moor and the south west of Harlock Hill. Immediately to the north of these is a collection of farm buildings and to the south is a detached dwelling, Standish Cote House, which is under the same ownership as the site of the turbines on Mean Moor. The rear elevations of both Standish Cote Farm and Swallow Cottage face north, with the side wall of Swallow Cottage facing east. Of these two properties, Swallow Cottage is more likely to be affected by the proposal. There are views of the existing turbines from a dining room at ground floor, the rear and side wall of which mainly comprises glazing. There is also a kitchen window in the rear wall of the dwelling which faces towards Mean Moor. On the first floor there is a second sitting room which has a glazed door and another window in the east elevation. The door opens onto a large decking area from which, all the existing turbines are clearly visible. The site of the turbines on Mean Moor will also become more prominent from this location as the change in levels of the land provides less screening from this position than at ground floor. There is also a patio area and garden at the rear which continues around the side of the house to the front. The proposed turbines will occupy a greater arc of vision than at present. The agricultural buildings to the rear will provide some level of screening, mainly when viewed from the rear garden area. However, the land where the turbines are to be sited on Mean Moor is higher than the ground floor level of the dwelling and as such at least some of the turbines are likely to dominate views and outlook north from the dining room and kitchen. The decking area at first floor is likely to be the most severely affected part of this property with clear views of all the turbines. The main outlook of the adjoining property, Standish Cote Farm, is towards the south. As such it is unlikely that the turbines would impact on the living conditions of the dwelling. The property has garden areas at the front and rear. From the rear garden / patio, the turbines at Harlock Hill are partly visible and this will increase with the larger turbines. This area is at a higher level than the garden at Swallow Cottage, and as such the impacts of the proposal on this garden area are likely to be similar to those described for the first floor decking area at Swallow Cottage, particularly in relation to the turbines on Mean Moor. Stewner Park Farm and Quarry Bank Farm These properties are located on the same road as those at Standish Cote, and are approximately 1.4 kilometres to the south west of the nearest turbine. The main outlook from these properties is away from the application site. Given this orientation, and the distance from the site, the proposal is unlikely to be seriously detrimental to the residential amenity of these properties. Shearbanks and Toad Cottage These properties are located to the south of Pennington Reservoir, approximately 1 kilometre to the south east of nearest proposed turbine. The present Harlock Hill wind farm extends closer to these properties than the proposed scheme. Given this, and the orientation of the properties, it is unlikely that the turbines would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers to a significant extent.

Conclusion of visual impact on residential amenity In considering the visual impact of turbines, several factors need to be taken into consideration: the number of turbines, the distance-to-height ratio, the angle of view that they occupy, the orientation of habitable rooms and gardens and screening effects of buildings and trees. Although the number of turbines will remain the same as at present, they will be higher and will extend over a much greater area and therefore occupy a larger view. In particular, the turbines will occupy a much greater arc of vision for the residents at Harlock Farm and Standish Cote. Collectively the impact on the living conditions at Harlock Farm, Standish Cote Farm, Swallow Cottage, Horrace Farm and Rathmoss, will be significant. The 50 metre micro-siting of the turbines, requested by the applicant, could result in their siting closer to residential properties which would be likely to increase their impact.

Noise The applicant’s assessment has been carried out according to the recommendations of ETSU-R-97, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. Baseline noise levels were measured at four locations representative of the nearest residential properties to the site. Predictions of the typical downwind noise levels from the proposed wind farm, and the contribution from Askam Wind Farm, were carried out. These were based on the proposed site layout and using noise data in relation to the Enercon E-70 E4 2.3MW wind turbine. There is potential for noise impacts during construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind farm. During construction the likely cause of noise is as a result of the construction of access tracks and crane hardstanding; excavation of cable trenches and turbine foundations; concreting turbine bases; turbine assembly; and construction traffic. The decommissioning phase will have similar impacts as a result of the dismantling and removal of the turbines and associated vehicle movements. This is also relevant to the decommissioning of the existing Harlock Hill wind farm. During the operation of the turbines, there is the potential for aerodynamic and mechanically generated noise. Conditions relating to the noise generated from the turbines have been agreed with the applicant. They include limits on daytime and night time noise levels at each of the nearest properties at different wind speeds; a duty for the operator to investigate any noise complaints within 21 days with regards to amplitude modulation; and full details of the turbines and their exact positions and if not the same model a full update of the noise assessment.

Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is the effect of the sun shining behind the rotating turbine blades and creating an intermittent shadow. It only occurs inside buildings where there is a narrow window opening and where certain meteorological, seasonal and geographical conditions prevail. The sun must be low in the sky and the wind turbine and property must be in line with the sun. The resultant effect is that moving shadows are cast through a window opening which appear to flick on and off as the blades rotate and can be detrimental to the amenity of residents. It has been shown to only occur within a distance equivalent to ten rotor diameters of a turbine, in this case, 710 metres, and the distance between the turbine and a residential property affects the intensity of the shadows cast by the blades. There are no guidelines within the UK in respect of the level of shadow flicker that is acceptable. The applicant has based the conclusions of the assessment on legislation and guidelines from the Netherlands and Germany. Harlock Farm and Horrace Farm have the most potential for shadow flicker. Mitigation is proposed within the ES and paragraph 16.46 states: “If, during the operational life of the wind farm, it is established that shadow flicker is experienced beyond acceptable levels, Baywind and Infinergy will close down the wind turbines responsible for causing the effects at times when the turbines have been predicted to cause shadow flicker effects”. The difficulty with the mitigation proposed is how it will be determined that the shadow flicker experienced is beyond acceptable levels. The amount of shadow flicker also has the potential to increase if the micro-siting brings the turbines closer to Harlock Farm and Horrace Farm. However it can be mitigated against by installing automatic turbine shut-down timers if necessary. It may be appropriate to require detailed mitigation measures to ensure that nuisance from shadow flicker is avoided. If a system is put in place to stop the turbines when they cause an impact, very little production time should be lost if the effects are minimal as outlined in the report.

Ecology Designated sites (including ornithology) The site is located approximately 2.3 km from the Duddon Estuary and 6.5 km from Morecambe Bay, both of which are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Areas (SPA), and Ramsar Sites. The Duddon Estuary also forms part of the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The proposal has the potential to affect the SPA interest of the European sites. The typical effects of a wind turbine development on birds include collision risk, displacement to feeding / foraging / roosting birds or both. Curlew, Lesser Black-backed Gull, Lapwing and Wigeon were recorded on the site with flight activity occurring within the collision-risk window of the proposed turbines. Natural England did not consider that there was sufficient information to conclude that the scheme was unlikely to have a significant impact on the surrounding SPAs and requested that bird collision risk modelling was undertaken. Following the submission of this, Natural England confirm that the figures provide more robust support for the conclusions reached in the ES which stated that the turbines would have a negligible impact on SPA bird species. They also advise that that the proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which the Duddon Estuary SPA / Ramsar site and Morecambe Bay SPA / Ramsar sites have been classified. Kirkby Moor SSSI is located adjacent to the site. Natural England is satisfied that the proposals will not have a significant impact on the special interest features of the SSSI provided that a 50 metre buffer is provided and that a construction environment management plan is developed and implemented.

Bats Bat activity surveys following set transect routes were undertaken during 2007, 2008 and 2010. Having studied the methodology of the surveys, Natural England noted that there is a risk that the levels of bat activity recorded at the site are an underestimation and that the early emerging species such as noctule could have been missed. However they conclude that, given the habitats present across the site, the low level of activity recorded during the surveys, and the existing presence of the turbines on Harlock Hill, that the risk to bats resulting from the proposed scheme remains low.

Otters and Badgers The initial response from Natural England stated that they had no concerns with regards to the impact on other protected species provided that the suggested buffer distances for badger and otter were implemented. However, concerns were raised by a local resident who submitted a report regarding the impacts on otters in the locality, and a survey was also carried out by an ecologist on behalf of another neighbour. Natural England then raised concerns regarding the potential direct impacts of turbine C on suitable otter resting and foraging habitat. Following the submission of an updated report by Peak Ecology, on behalf of the applicant, Natural England advised that there were still uncertainties regarding the suitability of habitats at turbine C and that the Local Authority needed to be satisfied that such habitats were either absent or if present were being retained. RSK Environment was commissioned by Barrow Borough Council to undertake an independent assessment of any potential impacts on otters in relation to the siting of turbine C. The report states that there is evidence of otters using Harlock Reservoir, however there is no evidence of them using the site and in particular the proposed location of turbine C. This was probably due to the poor quality of habitats in terms of providing shelter to otters. The report goes on to say that the fact that otters are present close to the site justifies the need for the mitigation measures detailed in the Environmental Statement. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the construction of turbine C, in particular, would directly affect the local otter population and there would be no loss of resting sites or places which could support breeding. The report by RSK concludes that there is no reason for the otters, which use the reservoir, to be resting in the location of turbine C at the time of construction and therefore the chances of otters being killed or injured during the works are negligible. Given the results of this independent survey and report, the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the local otter population.

Enhancements A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is referenced in the applicant’s submission, however Natural England suggested that as part of the planning application it would be reasonable to expect a broad outline of the scope of the plan to be provided; as such, a brief HMP was submitted. Natural England confirmed that they were broadly satisfied with this as an outline document, however it did not appear to incorporate positive habitat management for otters, and in particular the need to provide and maintain areas of gorse scrub for cover. The applicant has confirmed that they will commit to including otter habitat enhancement measures and monitoring as part of the HMP.

Tourism Although the proposal will have significant visual impacts on footpaths close to the site and more distance viewpoints, there is no evidence to suggest that this would significantly impact on tourism in general to the area. The impact on the properties to the south, at Ewedale Farm has been considered in this report and it is noted that some of the properties are let as holiday accommodation and planning permission has recently been granted for the siting of three holiday lodges.

Access and Highways The proposed turbine delivery route from the Port of Barrow uses the A590 trunk road to Lindal-in-Furness, then the Marton and Horrace Roads to access the Harlock Hill part of the site, then onto the Ulverston Road to access the Mean Moor part of the site. Access to the Harlock Hill section of the application site will utilise the entrance for the existing wind farm, off minor road C5018. The access will be widened, with off highway modifications proposed on the onsite tracks. A new access will be created to serve the Mean Moor section of the application site. This will be taken off the C5016 Ulverston Road, approximately 250m northwest of Harlock Farm. No objections have been raised by Cumbria Highways subject to inclusion of conditions which require a Traffic Management Plan to be submitted, access and parking requirements to be substantially met before works commence and a scheme to prevent surface water draining onto the highway.

Archaeology and Heritage Impacts Archaeology The environmental statement indicates that the site lies in an area of some archaeological potential. There are various known earthwork remains in the vicinity including post medieval quarries, ridge and furrow, and a possible ringwork of unknown date. The proposal has been designed to avoid the known archaeological remains on the site, however there is some potential for the ground works to disturb currently unknown buried archaeological remains. The Historic Environment Officer at the County Council agreed with the recommended mitigation outlined in the ES that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development. This can be secured through the inclusion of a condition on any planning consent.

Devils Bridge Devil’s Bridge is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and Listed Building within South Lakeland District. It is located next to the C5018 which will be the route taken by vehicles to the Mean Moor part of the site. Given its proximity to the road, there is the potential for permanent and / or irreversible damage from vibrations caused by lorries transporting the turbines and construction materials to the site. English Heritage have been consulted and have raised no objection subject to a range of measures outlined in the applicants Environmental Statement (Paras 11.90 -11.92) being adopted which can be conditioned as part of any planning consent. In the vicinity of Devils Bridge, the bank would need to be cut back and trees removed. This is a particularly sensitive and tranquil area and any works should be limited to the minimum required. Conditions can be used requiring the area to be recorded prior to commencement of the scheme and fully reinstated on completion.

Aviation and Telecommunications No concerns or objections have been raised with regards to any potential impact on aviation as a result of the proposal. However, the MOD has requested that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. No objections have been raised by the telecommunications operators consulted. Orange has stated that there is a microwave link in close proximity to the site. From the map supplied, it appears to be at least 400 metres from the nearest proposed turbine which is further than the distance from the present turbines. As such, it is unlikely that the link will be affected by the proposal.

Power Purchase Agreement This legal agreement between one of the developers and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is not an additional material consideration; it is an example of how the development can contribute to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It is clearly stated in the NPPF “It should also be recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and applicants should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy” and it is not in doubt that the development contributes to this National objective. It is considered that little weight should be given to this specific correspondence; weight has already been accorded through the policy considerations.

Other issues Existing and Proposed foundations and infrastructure Whilst the applicant has said that they will “make good” the land affected by the development, the Environmental Statement (Chapter 12, page 26) states that it is not intended to remove the turbine foundations. This would result in 10 concrete foundation blocks and other infrastructure remaining permanently in the ground. Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan states that “measures should be included to secure the satisfactory removal of structures / related infrastructure and remediation of land following cessation of operation of the installation.”

Community benefit Baywind is a co-operative and presently owns the five wind turbines on Harlock Hill and will own 2 of the 5 proposed turbines. Currently there are 1,280 members each investing between £300 and £20,000. Nearly 300 members live in the LA postcode area. A new share offer is proposed to be launched. An existing community benefit fund receives £2500 which has been used to distribute low energy light bulbs in the local area, promote the installation of solar hot water systems, provide advice on energy efficiency measures in the home and approve grants to local organisations and community buildings to help towards the costs of refurbishment such as double glazing and low energy lighting. The fund is proposed to be increased to approximately £35000 annually and will continue to be administered by an independent Board. It will generally support energy conservation and climate change related projects in the area.

Conclusions The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy, the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and the South Lakeland Local Plan. Some of the relevant policies are essentially “protecting” policies and others are “balancing” policies in which the importance of protecting existing assets must be expressly weighed against the benefits that would result from the proposal. In addition, material considerations that might lead to a decision other than in accordance with the development plan must be assessed. Policies DP7 and EM1(A) of the RSS, Policy E37 of the Structure Plan and Policy CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy are concerned with safeguarding landscape character and protecting the countryside from inappropriate development. Although the independent report that was commissioned by Barrow Borough Council concluded that there would not be a significant impact on landscape character, it did conclude that there would be a significant visual impact as a result of this proposal. This was not just within the immediately vicinity of the proposal but also from more distant important viewpoints. As a result of the significance that the turbines would have in terms of visual impact, the proposal would conflict with the above policies. Saved Policy L10 of the Local Plan seeks to protect public rights of way from development that would adversely affect their character. As a result of the impacts outlined above, the proposal would be contrary to the aims and objectives of this policy. Policy EM 17 of the RSS, saved Policy R44 of the Structure Plan, and saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan require the benefits of the proposal to be balanced against potentially adverse impacts. The general emphasis of these policies is that the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. The NPPF also states that Local Planning Authorities should grant planning permission if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. The proposal will make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation. However, the contribution to achieving regional and national targets for renewable energy generation does not outweigh the adverse visual impacts of the proposal and the significant impacts on users of the adjacent public footpaths taken together.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below: As a consequence of the size, siting and layout of the development, the proposed turbines will have a significant visual impact from viewpoints in close proximity to the site in addition to more distant viewpoints at Swarthmoor, the Hoad Monument, Birkrigg Common and Askam-in-Furness. Birkrigg Common and the Hoad Monument would have high visual receptor sensitivities as they are important recreational routes and viewpoints. The perception of the turbines would be significantly altered as a result of their continuation to the west, the linear pattern that would result and the significant change in the topography across the site. The proposed turbines will have a dominating, intimidating and imposing impact on users of the footpaths on Mean Moor such that their wilderness and isolated character and appeal would be completely lost. The scale and movement of the turbines would be particularly disturbing due to the proximity of the footpaths and their varied elevation compared to the turbines. The development is therefore in conflict with the objectives of Policies DP7 and EM1(A) 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 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy; and saved Policies C26 and L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reasons for refusal, allowing the applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The Local Planning Authority is willing to meet with the applicant to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.