Agenda Item Committee Date Application Number

A5 15 October 2012 11/00689/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Heysham South Wind Farm Site Erection of 3 Wind turbines with a maximum height of Lancaster Morecambe Bypass 125 metres and associated infrastructure including Heaton With Oxcliffe anemometer mast, access roads, crane pads and Lancashire control building

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Banks Renewables (Heysham South Wind Farm) Ltd Gayle Black

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

28 November 2011 Awaiting resolution from Natural England in relation to biodiversity impacts and Officer workload

Case Officer Mrs Jennifer Rehman

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The proposed application site is located on land immediately to the south of the A683 Heysham link road, approximately 1.2km south east of the coastal town of Heysham. The villages of Middleton and Overton are located circa 0.9km and 1.5km south west and south respectively of the application site. Lancaster City is approximately 5km to the east and Morecambe approximately 2.4km to the north. The Port of Heysham lies 2.5km to the west of the site. The application site covers an area of approximately 107.8ha of Grade 3 agricultural land (mainly arable farming and used for grazing) associated with Hillside Farm and Downside Farm. Dual high voltage power lines and associated pylons run east-west through the centre of the site from Heysham Power Station, across the River Lune through to Stodday with Lancaster. A public right of way also runs through the centre of the site in a north-south direction, linking Heysham Moss to Overton (via footpath nos FP 37, FP 9 and FP 1).

1.2 The immediate area in and around the site is flat predominantly agricultural pasture with hedgerow field boundaries and a network of field drains following boundaries. The application site is relatively flat with an altitude of 5m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The surrounding area also occupies a low- lying position amongst a gently rolling landscape. The eastern edge of Heysham sits on a localised ridge (between 10m-15m AOD) with parts of the newly developed Mossgate descending to the foot of the ridge where the railway line separates the settlement from the open countryside. Land rises marginally to the south west towards Middleton village (10m AOD) but remains relatively flat in the direction of Overton. A series of small hillocks (Byroe Hill, Great Swart Hill, Windmill Hill, Wymber Hill and Colloway Hill) lie to the eastern side of the application site forming a localised ridge neighboring the application site. The small hamlet of Heaton lies on the east side of this ridge.

1.3 Surrounding land uses reflect the open characteristics of the area with several farmsteads, roads linking small settlements, infrastructure related to the distribution of electricity (predominantly pylons and transmission lines) to/from the nearby Heysham Power Station and telecommunications apparatus. Owing to the presence of the power station and the port, essential high profile infrastructure is observable within the immediate location. Transmission line routes run through the site (as noted above) but also to the north on the opposite side of the by-pass with a total of three lines close to the application site. In addition there is the BT Radio Station, which is located on the north side of the by-pass, and includes a 30m high lattice telecommunications mast with associated antennas; transmission dishes and ancillary equipment and security fencing around its perimeter and lies approximately 600m to the north of the closest turbine (turbine 1). The by-pass also contributes to this essential infrastructure and runs through the open countryside between White Lund and Higher Heysham.

1.4 There are a number of different land uses in the immediate vicinity of the application site. These include farmsteads situated mainly to the east of the site (generally along a north-south axis following the line of the localised hillocks described above). The closest farms include Hillside Farm, Downy-Field Farm, Wymber Hill Farm and the cluster of farms to the north of the by-pass (Downlands Farm, North Farm and Moss Side Farm). Residential development is mainly focused around and within the settlements of Middleton, Overton and Heysham with some isolated residential dwellings sporadically located around the network of country roads (mainly to the east), including the hamlet of Heaton. Old Trafford Park caravan site lies to the west of the application site separated by the access road to Lancaster West Business Park where the Waste Transfer Station is situated (south west of the application site).

1.5 The application site and neighbouring land is not protected by any national landscape designation, although owing to the scale of the development it is important to note that the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is located approximately 7km to the east of the site with the Silverdale and Arnside AONB located circa 10km to the north. In addition, the Lake District National Park is situated approximately 18km north of the application site and the Yorkshire Dales National Park some 27km to the north-east. Locally, the Lancaster District Local Plan designates the site and surrounding area as ‘Countryside Area’ (with the exception of the Lancaster West Business Park which is designated as employment land to the south west). The Countryside designation terminates at the railway line to the east which forms the settlement boundary to Heysham.

1.6 Whilst the site does not benefit from any landscape designations, the application site is located in close proximity to areas of significant international ecological importance including the extensive Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA), also designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Ramsar site, and which is located within 2km of the site. Morecambe Bay is also designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Lune Estuary and Heysham Moss are also designated SSSI’s and are located approximately 1.1km eats and 0.8km north respectively from the closets turbine.

1.7 There are also non-statutory sites of ecological importance within close proximity to the site. Land north of the site is designated as Heysham Moss Biological Heritage Site (BHS) and Nature Reserve. This is a site of local importance, predominantly for the quality of its vegetative habitats and species of flora but also for breeding and wintering birds. Middleton Marsh BHS is situated approximately 140m to the west of the site and supports swamp and fen vegetation. There are no significant trees or groups of trees that are subject to Tree Preservation Orders within the site. Nor are there any identified significant archaeological or cultural heritage designations on the site.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 Banks Renewables (Heysham South Wind Farm) Ltd is seeking full planning permission for the installation and operation of 3 no. wind turbines (referred to as the ‘proposed wind farm’ throughout the rest of the report) with an anticipated installed capacity of 6 – 7.5 Megawatts (MW), together with associated infrastructure. The proposed development falls within Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 1999 and as such an Environmental Statement (ES) accompanies the application.

2.2 Whilst the final choice of turbine and manufacturer has not yet been identified, the turbine will be a modern three bladed, horizontal axis machine with a hub height of approximately 80m and a rotor diameter of 90-92.5m, giving a ground to tip height not exceeding 125m. The turbine rotor and nacelle will be mounted on a tapered steel tower (finished in a light grey) supported on reinforced concrete foundations. For the purposes of the EIA the ‘worst case’ impacts of the machines currently under consideration have been used.

2.3 The associated infrastructure includes:

• External transformers measuring approximately 4.5m x 2.5m x 2.0m situated adjacent to each turbine • The erection of an 80m high anemometer mast • Approximately 1.7km of access tracks with a nominal width of 5m linking the turbines to the public road network with passing places • Creation of two new access points to the site • On-site cabling • A site control building which will house the wind farm switchgear, protection equipment, metering and control equipment, communication equipment and any other electrical infrastructure required to operate the wind farm including a substation. This building shall measure approximately 7.6m by 13.8m. • Crane hardstanding pads adjacent to each turbine (approximately 42m x 26m but may vary at each turbine depending on site conditions) • Welfare compound adjacent to turbine 3 (approximately 20m x 20m) • Site compound adjacent to turbine 1 (indicative plans suggest this will measure 80.5m by 51.5m)

2.4 The location and design of the proposed wind farm has been selected following a process of sieve (constraint) mapping. The applicant has carried out extensive preliminary work in respect of the design process. As part of this process the number of turbines have been reduced (from that considered at the scoping stage 3-5 turbines) and the turbines heights reduced from 145m in height to 125m. The constraint mapping exercise undertaken has reinforced similar constraint mapping work undertaken and later used as the evidence base for the Core Strategy, namely the Development of New Renewable Energy and Recycling Industries for Lancaster and Morecambe produced by Quantum Strategy & Technology Ltd. Constraints such as landscape designations, low wind speeds, 500m separation for residential properties, sites of internationally recognised ecological importance (SPAs, SACs, SSSIs, Ramsar) and Registered Parks and Gardens are considered absolute and have been applied by the applicant as part of their sieve mapping process. The work undertaken by the applicant concludes that parts of Heysham fall within an area least constrained (see plan ES01).

2.5 Two new access points are proposed off the A683 with visibility splays of 180m x 4.5m in order to accommodate the national speed limit on the A683 (60mph). The bell-mouth entrances are of sufficient width to accommodate the largest construction vehicles entering and/or leaving the site at the same time. The access point will consist of a permanent carriageway with temporary extensions to either side of the access points to accommodate abnormal loads. The land used to provide the temporary extensions to the access points will be reinstated to its previous condition once the turbines are operational. Approximately 1.7km of on-site tracks are proposed with a nominal width of 5m. The routing of the access tracks has taken account of known ground conditions, site gradients and the condition of hedgerows and field enclosures. The tracks will be constructed in stone with a crushed stone running surface. Typically it will involve the stripping of the topsoil and the laying of roadstone atop a geotextile membrane. These tracks will be retained for the lifetime of the windfarm but will be narrowed in appearance to 3m in width (similar to a farm track) by allowing the margins to partially re-vegetate. The precise details and route of the access track as set out on the plan will require some flexibility (alignment and positioning) and as such the application seeks a 10m micro-siting allowance for this.

2.6 Beyond the junctions, both access tracks extend south towards the proposed turbines. The access point closet to Heysham will serve turbines 1 and 2 together with the site compound, anemometer mast and the control building. The eastern access point serves turbine 3 and the welfare compound. At each turbine there will be a crane pad adjacent to the foundations of the turbine and space provided for turning vehicles whether within the proposed compound areas or by appropriately designed turning heads. Indicative details of the site layout of each turbine have been provided. Each turbine will require a foundation typically measuring 15m x 15m with a depth of 2.5m – 3m, comprising 575 cubic metres (m 3) or (1380 tonnes) of concrete and 40 tonnes of reinforcing steel.

2.7 The wind turbines proposed at Heysham South would typically produce electricity at 690-1000 Volts. This would pass through a transformer at the base of each turbine before reaching the underground collection circuitry. The turbines will be connected to the on-site metering and control building via underground cables, which will be placed in trenches which would generally follow the route of the on-site tracks. The connection to the grid would be via Trimpell to the west of the site or Westgate to the east. If an overhead connection is required, the application indicates this would be mounted on wooden poles of approximately 7 in height. The actual grid connection is subject to a separate application under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.

2.8 A temporary site construction compound would be located adjacent to turbine 1 and a temporary welfare compound situated close to turbine 3. Both would be enclosed by security fencing. The construction compound would house temporary offices, toilets and mess facilities and the welfare compound would provide toilet and mess facilitities only. Both would provide sufficient capacity for parking. Water for mess facilitities and vehicle cleaning would be sourced from an on-site tank, toilets would be the contained-type (no discharge) and a settling pit and concrete washout bay would be provided by the construction compound. Full details of drainage would be controlled by appropriate environmental management plans and construction strategies via planning condition. Fuel and chemical storage would be contained on the temporary construction compound and would be securely bunded or stored in appropriate containers.

2.9 The application also seeks consent for the erection of a meteorological (anemometer) mast. This will be used to monitor the performance of the proposed wind farm. The location is proposed between turbine 1 and turbine 2. This will consist of an 80m high slim lattice tower.

2.10 In order to create the access points at the junction with the Heysham by-pass and create the access tracks 85m of hedgerow will be removed. A further 515m of hedgerow will be removed as part of the proposed mitigation measures for bats. However, approximately 4000m of new hedgerow planting is proposed.

2.11 It is proposed that the windfarm will have an operational life of 25 years (excluding construction and decommissioning). The construction period will be approximately eight months with working taking place between 7am and 7pm Monday – Friday and Saturday 8am – 1pm. However, it is envisaged that there may be some works required outside of these specified hours, particularly in relation to the transportation of the turbines (abnormal loads).

2.12 The permanent land take associated with the development during the operational stage, which comprises the turbine foundation, site access track and crane pad hardstanding, totals to approximately 1.76 hectares. Following decommission after 25 years this land will be reinstated and returned to agricultural use.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has a limited planning history, with the most recent applications listed in the table below.

Application Number Proposal Decision 10/00954/EIO Scoping opinion for new wind farm development on land Decision issued 15 south of Heysham link road (A683). The wind farm would October 2010 comprise 3 – 5 turbines with a maximum blade to tip height of 145m. 10/01011/FUL Erection of an 80 metre high wind monitoring mast for a Approved period of 3 years (expires on the 7 December 2013)

3.2 Another relevant planning application, which is referred to later in the report, is the single wind turbine at Fanny Farm:

Application Number Proposal Decision 11/00073/FUL Erection of a single 2-2.5MW wind turbine, associated Pending Decision access roads, switchgear enclosure and associated Resolved to be infrastructure at Fanny House Farm, Heysham (BT approved by Members Turbine) on the 19 September 2011, subject to completion and signing of legal agreement.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and internal consultees:

Consultee Response National Air Traffic No safeguarding objection Services ( NATS) Ministry of Defence Initial objection withdrawn following correspondence with the developer and (MoD) reassessment of the proposal. In the interests of air safety, if approved, the turbines should be fitted with aviation lighting.

Civil Aviation No detailed comments provided. CAA advises to consult with MoD and NATS and Authority (CAA) other appropriate operators.

Blackpool Airport No safeguarding objection

Police Air Support No objections

National Grid No objection subject to their operational requirements given the proximity of the development to overhead lines. County Landscape Comments that the proposal does not have any significant impacts on the setting and Officer character of Lancashire’s Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. No detailed landscape comments provided.

Natural England Initial objection withdrawn. Natural England no longer objects to the application provided the development is undertaken strictly in accordance with the submitted details. Natural England concludes the development is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which Morecambe Bay SPA and Morecambe Bay Ramsar site have been designated and as such advises that the Local Planning Authority is not required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment. Standing advice was provided in relation to protected species. Further information to be provided in the Comments and Analysis section of this report.

RSPB Objection on the following grounds:
Impact on pink-footed Geese – collision rates unacceptable high, especially when considered in-combination with other plans or projects in the area.
RSPB dispute the avoidance rates used to calculate collision-risk mortality – RSPB state that a 98% avoidance rate should be used in the Appropriate Assessment (AA) and that an AA is required due to the proposals likely significant effects on the Morecambe Bay SPA.
The application should be refused unless adequate mitigation can be provided to reduce the predicted collision risk

County Ecology No comments received Due to the level of involvement from Natural England in relation to European designations, County Ecology chose not to comment on the application. OFCOM No comments received

Lancashire Wildlife No comments received Trust Environment No objection subject to the following conditions: Agency
Water vole survey (post construction)
Buffer zone mitigation alongside watercourses and ponds
Mitigation in the event of micro-siting

Environmental No objection. Conditions requested to the following: Health Service
Noise levels and management of complaints
Hours of construction works
Pile driving

County Highways No objection. Conditions requested in relation to the following:
Detailed design and construction of the access
Passing places
Construction Traffic (Construction Method Statement)

Ramblers No comments received Association

FELLS No comments received

Heaton-with-Oxcliffe No objection Parish Council The Parish Council supports the application and indicates their reasons relate to community benefits.

Middleton Parish No objection Council The Parish Council supports the application commenting that they would prefer to see wind turbines over another nuclear power station. The comments received also indicate that the Chairman of the Parish Council had visited Trafford Park caravan site where there were no objections from residents.

South Lakeland No objection District Council There will only be distant views of the turbines from within South Lakeland. The landscape impacts are likely to be more localised.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Following public consultation and during the course of the application being considered by the Local Planning Authority 28 letters of objection have been received. The main reasons for opposition are summarised as follows:

Wind Energy
Concerns about the actual efficiency and need of wind turbines – commenting that in most cases the are actually only 10% efficient
Without proper wind speed data it is difficult make a meaningful assessment of electricity generation.
No justification for on-shore wind farms in habitable areas
Large scale wind farms away from homes are more effective
The area already provides enough energy with other wind energy schemes in the district and the nuclear power station
Wind turbines only provide the landowner with an income and do not generate permanent jobs for the community, unlike the nuclear power station
The output of the wind farm would not cover the costs of building them
Wind farms would be better located off-shore.
Concerns about the number of wind farm proposals in the Heysham area
Safety of the turbines and blade failure
Heysham appears to be a dumping ground for all new technology in the district with minimal benefit to the environment or society.
The local planning authority should note that a High Court Judge has stated Government's encouragement of renewable energy sources does not have primacy over local conservation policies (case in Norfolk Broads National Park)
Public subsidies support the turbines yet profits go to the company
In the event the company went bankrupt, who would dismantle the turbines at the end of the operational life – Note: the permission runs with the land so ultimately it could be the landowner.

Residential and Visual Impact concerns
Scale and visual impact of the turbines from residential dwellings and associated gardens - the turbines are too close to residential dwellings resulting in an overbearing and dominant impact
Cumulative effects of the development with neighbouring wind turbine/farm proposals
Unacceptable noise impact, particularly during the night, and shadow flick concerns given scale and proximity to dwellings. The area already suffers excessive noise from the bypass and the power station. The development will exacerbate noise levels.
Lack of scientific research and monitoring or noise impact from turbines close to residents properties – partly due to the fact that wind farms tend not be located close to homes. Existing background noises do not compare with the continuous swish/noise of wind turbines, which will vary with wind speeds.
Low frequency noise from wind turbines causes a complex disease known as vibro -acoustic disease. Studies have predicted that up to 30% of people could suffer the negative health effects of low frequency sound
Wales, Scotland and other European countries have required separation distances between wind farms and properties in excess of 1km – the residents of Heysham should have this level of protection. Some residents have referred to the Private Members Bill, which if passed, would require turbines to be sited 2000m from residential properties.
Eyesore on the landscape – disproportionate scale and intrusive structures when viewed in context with the protected coastline and surrounding landscape and villages
The development would result in a significant major change to the landscape and visual amenity afforded to nearby properties – screening would not mitigate the impact due to the scale of development and proximity to dwellings
There are already five wind farms in a 30km radius and a nuclear power station - further wind farms, plus transmissions lines would be detrimental to the landscape and views from residential properties
Turbines are bigger than Blackpool tower and moving (unlike the pylons and transmission lines that are near the site)
Devaluation of homes
Health implications for nearby residents
Violation of Human Rights
The proposal does not comply with local planning policy in relation to landscape protection with the economic benefits not outweighing the environmental concerns.
The village of Middleton already unattractive to new residents because of the power station, the recycle resource centre, lack of services and its isolated location. The addition of three turbines would be detrimental to the village.

Impact on biodiversity
Risk of collision to bats and bird species
Concerns about the impact of the development on pink-footed geese - the site is on the flight path of migrating geese.
Impact on Peregrine population – an estimated one collision every five years is surely too much when population is low
Destroy local habitats
Too close to the designated SSSI

Other concerns
Turbines would be a distraction to drivers
Supporting documentation is of poor quality – 2D drawings would help assist the actual scale of the turbines.
Misleading images provided – photos taken from sites where the turbines can not be seen rather than sites where they will be visible. This approach questions the honesty of the application.
Impact on TV and Radio reception
No benefits to the local community and economic benefits to the area negligible.

In addition, David Morris MP has written to the local planning authority raising strong opposition to the scheme for the reasons set out below:
Scale of turbines so close to residential dwellings
Eyesore to the residents of Overton, Middleton and Heysham
The development would affect bird populations and be detrimental to birdwatchers and tourists who come to the area to view migrating birds
It is an area of natural beauty with an abundance of wildlife, birdlife in particular. The turbines would be a danger to birds and add to an already diminishing number of rare birds in the area
Negative impacts on TV reception
Aeronautical concerns

12 letters in favour of the development have been received. The main reasons for support include:
Excellent plan which will be an advantage to the population as a whole and not just local people
Community benefits (community fund and warm zone)
Economic benefits
Decreased pollution – it is essential we develop such technology to lessen dependence on other more polluting fuels.
Lancashire needs more renewable energy to meet targets
Will contribute to the countryside efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and helping tackle climate change
Cost-effective and environmentally-friendly source of energy
The site location is appropriate given other power lines in the area
The proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the landscape

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Policy

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was introduced on 27 March 2012. The NPPF replaces National Planning Policy Statements and National Planning Policy Guidance Notes. For the benefit of the Committee Members the framework ensures that planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Paragraph 12). The development plan comprises saved policies contained within the Lancaster District Local Plan and policies contained within the Lancaster District Core Strategy and the Regional Spatial Strategy.

The framework seeks to deliver sustainable development. Paragraph 7 states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental; and that these roles are mutually dependent and should be sought simultaneously through the planning system (paragraph 8).

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) . The following paragraphs of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this proposal:

Paragraph 17 sets out 12 core land-use planning principles which should underpin both plan-making and decision taking. The principles which are relevant to this application state that planning should be genuinely plan-led; always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; take account of different roles and character of different areas, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance; support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate; and encouraging the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy).

6.2 Section 10 (Paragraphs 93, 97 and 98) of the framework states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure and indicates that this is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. The framework requires local planning authorities to recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources and in doing so, they should; have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable sources; design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development (whilst ensuring adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily); consider suitable areas for renewable energy sources and support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon development.

Specifically when determining planning applications (paragraph 98) the framework indicates that local planning authorities should:
not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and
approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable (paragraph 98).

6.3 Section 11 of the framework deals with the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. The Framework states that:

the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: protecting and enhancing valued landscapes; recognise the wider benefits of ecosystems; minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible; prevent unacceptable risk from contamination, air, water and noise pollution; and, remediate and mitigate where appropriate (paragraph 109)
great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty (paragraph 115)
conserve and enhance biodiversity. Where significant harm can not be avoided adequate mitigation or compensation should be sought. Where adverse effects on the interested features of a SSSI are identified, planning permission should not normally be permitted. An
exception should only be where the benefits of the development outweigh the impacts on the interested features (paragraph 118)
planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from given rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development and where necessary mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts through the use of appropriate planning conditions (paragraph 123)

6.4 Section 12 of the Framework deals with conservation and enhancing the historic environment. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:
The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets;
Recognising the positive contribution that the conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities; and
The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss caused.

6.5 Whilst PPS 22 (Renewable Energy) has been replaced by the NPPF, the companion guide remains and is therefore a material condition in determining planning applications for renewable energy proposals. PPS22 (Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide) offers practical advice and guidance relating to a range of renewable technologies. With regards to wind turbine development, this guidance expands and covers social and environmental benefits, together with issues such as noise, shadow flicker, landscape and visual impact, access and associated infrastructure, electromagnetic interference, ecology, historic conservation and archaeology.

6.6 Regional Spatial Strategy - adopted September 2008 It is the Government’s clear policy intention to revoke the existing Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), including the RSS for the North West (2008). Abolition of the RSS will be enacted through the Localism Act 2011, nonetheless RSS remains part of the statutory development plan at present.

Policy DP7 (Promote Environmental Quality) seeks to protect environmental quality by, amongst other means, respecting the character and distinctiveness of places and landscapes; maintaining and enhancing the quantity and quality of biodiversity and habitat; the protection and enhancement of the historic environment; and maintaining tranquillity of the open countryside and rural areas.

Policy DP9 (Reduce Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change) – as an urgent regional priority, plans, strategies, proposals, scheme and investment decisions should contribute to reduction ion the Regions carbon dioxide emissions form all sources in line with national targets to reduce emissions to 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. Increasing renewable energy capacity and promoting micro- generation are key measures identified to help reduce carbon emissions.

Policy EM1 (Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Region’s Environmental Assets) - The Region’s environmental assets should be identified, protected, enhanced and managed. Schemes should deliver an integrated approach to conserving and enhancing the landscape, natural environment, historic environment and woodlands, and where proposals affect these assets then mitigation and compensation for loss or damage should be a minimum requirement. Of particular relevance is Policy EM1(A) which states that planning proposals should identify, protect and maintain distinctive features that contribute to landscape character in the Region. This approach recognises the importance of landscape character assessments undertaken by local authorities.

Policy EM17 (Renewable Energy) supports the development of renewable energy schemes. It states that in line with the North West Sustainable Energy Strategy, by 2010 at least 10% (rising to at least 15% by 2015 and at least 20% by 2020) of the electricity supplied in the North West should be provided from renewable energy sources. The following criteria should 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. The criteria includes:

• anticipated effects on local amenity resulting from development, construction and operation of schemes (e.g. air quality, atmospheric emissions, noise, odour, water pollution and disposal of waste) • acceptability of the location/scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape, including cumulative impact • effect on the region’s World Heritage Sites and other national and internationally designated sites or areas, and their settings but avoiding the creation of buffer zones • effect of development on nature conservation features, biodiversity and geodiversity, including sites, habitats and species, and which avoid significant adverse effects on sites of international nature conservation importance by assessment under the Habitats Regulations • potential benefits of development on the local economy and local community • effect on agriculture and other land based industries

Policy EM18 (Decentralised Energy Supply) expects local planning authorise to provide a framework that promotes and encourages renewable and low carbon energy development in order to contribute to the achievement of regional renewable energy targets.

6.7 Lancaster District Local Plan - adopted April 2004 (saved policies) Policy E4 (Countryside Area) – Within the countryside development will only be permitted where it is in scale and keeping with the character and natural beauty of the landscape, is appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscaping, would not result in a significant adverse effect on nature conservation or geological interests, and makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking.

Policy E12 (Nature Conservation) – Proposal must take into full account any impacts upon wildlife, wildlife habitats, protected species and important geological features. Where development is permitted, developers will be required to minimise any adverse impact and/or create and provide for the appropriate management of compensatory wildlife habitats.

Policy E17 (Sites of County Conservation Importance) – states that development likely to damage or destroy a county Biological Heritage Site (BHS) will not be permitted unless the need for development demonstrably outweighs the need to protect the site. Any adverse impacts should be mitigated through appropriate habitat enhancement measures.

Policy E22 (Wind Turbines ) – partly superseded by the Core Strategy, states that proposals for the development of wind turbines will be assessed against their impact on the character of the landscape (including cumulative impact), nature conservation, historical conservation and nearby dwellings.

Policy T27 (Rights of Way) – Development proposals that would adversely affect the route or characteristics of an existing or proposed right of way will only be permitted where a satisfactory diversion can be provided and secured in advance of development.

Policy E35 (Conservation Areas and their Surroundings) states that proposals which would adversely affect important views into and across a conservation area or lead to an unacceptable erosion of its historic form and layout, open spaces and townscape setting will not be permitted.

6.8 Lancaster District Core Strategy (LDCS) - adopted July 2008 Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) seeks to ensure new development proposals are as sustainable as possible, minimise greenhouse gas emissions and are adaptable to the likely effects of climate change. This policy requires development proposals to be integrated with the character of the landscape and where appropriate enhances biodiversity. The use of renewable energy technologies and the efficient use of land (previously developed land) are measures promoted by this policy.

Policy SC3 (Rural Communities) seeks to build healthy sustainable communities by empowering rural communities to develop local vision and identity, identify and need local needs and manage change in the rural economy and landscape. Development should protect, conserve and enhance rural landscapes and the distinctive characteristics of rural settlements.

Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) – proposals should maintain and improve the quality of development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Conserv ation Areas and other rural areas. New development should reflect the positive characteristics of its surroundings including the quality of the landscape.

Policy ER7 (Renewable Energy) seeks to maximise the proportion of energy generated in the District from renewable sources where compatible with other sustainability objectives. This policy states that the Council will promote renewable energy in the District by promoting and encouraging the development of renewable energy resources across the District including (but not limited to) the promotion of South Heysham as a key focus for renewable energy generation including wind and biomass technology). The need for renewable energy must be balanced against impacts on the landscape, local amenity, habitats and species, farming and land based industries and local transport networks.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) – its purpose to improve the District’s environment by:

• protecting and enhancing nature conservation sites and landscapes of national importance, Listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites • minimise the use of land and non-renewable energy • resist development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and properly manage environmental risks such as flooding, • ensuring that development in the city of Lancaster and other historic areas conserves and enhances their sense of place • protect and where possible enhance habitats and the diversity of wildlife species, and conserve and enhance landscape

Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) – ensuring all major development proposals are accompanied by enforceable measures to minimise and mitigate the transport impacts of development.

6.9 Other Guidance/Documents

Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development in Lancashire, February 2005 (Lancashire County Council) - focuses on the appropriate scale of such development for the landscape character area that the site is situated within. It should be noted that single turbines were not considered in the context of this broad strategic study. According to the study, small, medium and possibly large scale wind turbines may be appropriate for the landscape character area 16f Heysham Moss where two of the turbines are sited; and small and possibly medium scale wind turbines may be appropriate for the landscape character 12c Heysham-Overton where one turbine is proposed. The latter character area is identified as having a moderate to high landscape sensitivity to wind energy development and the first as low landscape sensitivity.

Lancaster City Council Corporate Plan 2012-15 . The Council has four key priorities, of these four priorities ‘ Economic Growth’ and the reputation as a ‘ Clean, Green and Safe Place’ are relevant. The Plan states that Lancaster District has exceptional opportunities to development its economy, particular relating to energy, include nuclear and renewable energy and states that the Council is committed to tackling the challenges of climate change.

Development of New Renewable Energy and Recycling Industries for Lancaster and Morecambe , June 2006 (Quantum Strategy & Technology Ltd for the Lancaster & Morecambe Vision Board) is a study undertaken to identify the potential fro the development of renewable energy and recycling industries in Lancaster and Morecambe, and to assess the potential contribution of renewable energy to the District's energy consumption. This study formed part of the evidence base for the Core Strategy, which identified the Heysham Peninsula as having particular potential for wind energy.

Lancaster City Council Renewable Energy Position Statement (2010) confirms that the Council is a signatory to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change. The Statement goes on to state that through the implementation of the adopted Core strategy, Lancaster City Council is seeking to assume a leading role in supporting the development of renewable and low carbon energy and energy efficient technologies in the North West. This Statement is generally supportive of renewable energy proposals, including the identification of specific opportunities at South Heysham, whilst stressing that the Council has a duty to protect nationally designated sites and landscapes as well as considering and addressing local amenity issues. Overall the Council takes a supportive and proactive approach to renewable energy development.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Principle of development

In determining this application regard should be made to local policies contained in both the Lancaster District Local Plan and the Lancaster District Core Strategy. Both documents look favourably on renewable energy schemes and seek to promote and encourage proposals provided that any potential impacts are satisfactorily addressed. This includes an assessment of the scheme’s impact on the character of the landscape, ecological interests, heritage assets, and residential amenity.

In making this assessment national planning policy for renewable energy (the NPPF and PPS22 Companion Guide) clearly states that the wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, is also a material consideration and should be given significant weight in determining proposals. This includes the contribution of the scheme to achieve regional and national targets for renewable energy generation. The proposed development would therefore make an important contribution to these targets and in principle is acceptable.

7.2 Main Issues

The main issues for Members to consider in the determination of this application are:

1. The benefits and contribution that the proposal would make to achieving regional and national targets for renewable energy generation; 2. The effects of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the landscape; 3. The effects of the proposal upon the living conditions of nearby local residents, particularly in terms of visual impact, noise and shadow flicker; 4. The effects of the proposal upon biodiversity and habitat; and, 5. The effects of the proposal on other television and radio interference, aviation and other planning matters.

7.3 Wind Turbine development above a certain size are considered Schedule 2 developments, for which an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required. In accordance with Circular 02/99, a full EIA has been undertaken as the scheme has a generating capacity of over 5MW. The purpose of an EIA is to ensure that the environmental effects of a proposed development are fully considered before an application is determined. The findings of the EIA are provided within the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) in accordance with the Town and County Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The submitted ES has addressed the main issues noted above and will be discussed in more detail throughout this report.

7.4 Renewable Energy Generation The Climate Change Act 2008 was put in place to set legally binding targets for the UK to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. The UK Government has also set a target of 10% electricity to be generated by renewable energy sources by 2010, rising to 15% by 2015 and 20% by 2020. The EU Renewable Energy Directive has also set the UK with a legally binding target of achieving 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. Government later produced the Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) in July 2009 which provides a strategy for how the UK can achieve the EU target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020 in order to meet the wider challenge of climate change. The RES indicates that these targets will be delivered through mechanisms to provide financial support (feed-in tariffs and the Renewables Obligation); drive and clear away barriers; increase investment in emerging technologies; and create new opportunities for individuals, communities and business to harness renewable energy. Of the potential mix of technologies available to contribute towards these targets, wind energy development is identified as one of the most developed and cost-effective renewable electricity technologies. In 2010 the Climate Change Committee (CCC) submitted a report to Government noting that the main findings of the report (relevant to this proposal) are that a) a step change in the pace of efforts to reduce emissions is still required; b) wind power (both on-shore and off-shore) as the proven renewable technology remains the most likely technology to make a significant contribution towards the step change needed; and c) in order to facilitate greater investment in renewable energy delivery, the planning process is required to address significant delays in gaining consents. This report emphasises the role of planning in meeting targets and tackling climate change.

7.5 The above targets are set out in PPS22 Companion Guide, along with regional targets set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The RSS provides a breakdown of renewable energy generation targets for each county by renewable energy type. For example in 2010 Lancashire should have been generating 205.5MW of electricity from onshore wind turbines (including wind farms, clusters and single large turbines) and 239MW from all renewable technologies. The aim was to increase these figures to 249MW and 297.4MW respectively by 2015. However, as of November 2010, the total operating capacity (all renewable technologies) amounted to 137.8MW; a shortfall of 101.16MW relative to the 2010 figure. Further updated figures indicate that the total operating capacity (onshore wind turbines over 1MW with planning permission and operational) in Lancashire amounts to 142.4MW . This is a shortfall of 63.1MW to meet the latest 2010 target (from onshore wind turbines including wind farms, clusters and single large turbines) for the county. In addition to these national and regional drivers, adopted Core Strategy Policy ER7 supports renewable energy development in the whole, commenting that encouraging and establishing the District as a centre of environmental technologies is part of the District’s economic vision. This also links to the Council’s Corporate Plan and the Councils Position Statement on Renewable Energy, which indicates that the Council seeks to encourage and take a proactive role in the delivery of renewable energy technology and tackling the challenges faced by climate change. The Core Strategy and its evidence base identifies South Heysham as an area where renewable energy generation could be promoted and encouraged. It does however indicate that the need for renewable energy must be balanced against landscape impacts, biodiversity and land based industries, such as farming. Partially saved policy E22 of the District Local Plan takes a similar approach.

7.6 The above policies and targets clearly emphasise the growing need for renewable energy installation in both the Region and the UK as a whole. The proposed windfarm would provide a contribution to meeting Lancashire’s renewable energy targets and national targets alike.

7.7 Efficiency of Wind Energy Development The companion guide to PPS22 indicates that the principle of harnessing wind energy by wind turbines is well established and that there is no doubt about the technical viability of wind power. Furthermore, it states that the UK is particularly well placed to utilise wind power. There is a vast range of policy documents produced by Government which endorse the use of renewables and wind technology in particular. These have been fed into national planning policy which clearly states that wind energy development is accepted as a key method for meeting energy demands of the country. Current planning policy highlights the scale and urgency to address climate change. In particular paragraph 98 of the NPPF states:

When determining planning applicaiont, local planning authorities should:
Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and
Approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

7.8 Predicted Efficiency on Site Estimated wind speeds have been sourced from the national wind speed database available from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (known as NOABL). NOABL estimates the annual average wind speed for the application site as 6.9m/s at 45m height. This is around the UK average and well suited to a wind turbine scheme. The application states that the proposed windfarm will offset between 6,780 tonnes and 8475 tonnes of CO2 per annum (depending on the whether the scheme generates 6MW or 7.5MW) and will be the equivalent to generating electricity for approximately 3,355 and 4,194 average households. However, given the length of time the application has been under consideration, actual wind resource data has been provided. This confirms that the wind resource at the site is in the region of 38% capacity (30% is the standard practice) and as such the wind farm is more likely to off set between 8,588 - 10,735 tonnes of CO2 based on 6.0 – 7.5MW machines.

7.9 Although some objectors have questioned the predicted efficiency of the turbine and lack of justification, opposition on the grounds of the efficiency, validity and viability of wind energy technology and development is not a material consideration. Furthermore national policy dictates that applicants for renewable energy development should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy, nor should the energy justification for a proposed development in a particular location be questioned.

7.10 It is abundantly clear in current planning policy and guidance of the scale and urgency to tackle climate change. It is equally clear that the benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight in the determination of planning applications. In this context, the output from the proposal and its overall contribution to meeting regional targets for the production of energy from renewable sources is acceptable and complies with the relevant policies listed in section 6.0 of this report. Notwithstanding this, how these benefits balance against other material considerations should be assessed in accordance with local and national planning policy. The following sections of the report discuss the other main issues as outlined at the head of this section.

7.11 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment The applicant has carried out a thorough Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) as part of the submission and has undertaken this with regard to best practice and relevant legislation, policy and guidance. Computer generated Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) maps and wireframes have been produced within a 30km radius. These are based on bare ground conditions and as such represent the worst case scenario; they exclude any localised screening or intervening structures and therefore fail to take account of anything that lies between the viewpoint and the turbine. ZTV or visibility maps subsequently tend to overestimate the extent of visibility and as such the applicant has also provided a series of visualisations (or photomontages). These help illustrate a more representative view and are common practice when dealing with applications of this type, although it is acknowledged that such visualisations do not provide the perfect view/experience of the development as they can not illustrate the motion of the turning blades, nor the visual context against changing weather condition backdrops.

7.12 Notwithstanding this, a series of photomontages and wireframes from representative viewpoints experienced from various distances and directions have been provided. As standard practice, all selected viewpoints are in areas indicated as having visibility of the turbines to hub height within the ZTV study, with the exception of specific sites requested by the local planning authority. Despite some criticism from objectors, the methodology undertaken as part of the submitted LVIA follows standard practice. Four main visual receptor groups have been considered, these include local residents, workers, the travelling public and visitors.

7.13 In addition, 30km cumulative ZTV maps, wireframes and photomontages have also been produced. This study includes the following wind farms/turbines:

• Caton Moor • Claughton Moor • Dewlay Cheese • Lancaster University • Orchard End • Port of Heysham • BT site Heysham

7.14 The LVIA section of the ES aims to define the existing landscape and baseline conditions, assess their sensitivity to change, describe the nature of the anticipated change, assess the magnitude and significance of the changes through all stages of the development and describe any mitigation measures to be incorporated into the scheme. Firstly, it should be noted that there is a distinction between landscape effects and visual effects. The former is the degree to which the site and the immediate landscape setting can accommodate change with regard to effects on its fabric, character and quality. Visual effects of the proposal relate to how the proposal will change the character of available views and change the amenity of visual receptors. The sensitivity of potential visual receptors will vary depending on the location of viewpoints, receptor activity and the importance of a viewpoint. Parameters of landscape sensitivity equally depend on the landscape value, quality and capacity to accommodate development. The applicants have clearly identified that residents living within view of the proposal would usually be regarded as the highest sensitivity group, although the threshold for significance of the visual effects relies on professional judgement. This is a matter which warrants careful consideration of local circumstances.

7.15 In terms of the assessment undertaken, for clarification purposes landscape sensitivity is described as high, medium and low; and the magnitude of change arising from development equally described as high, medium, low and negligible. Magnitude of change can vary in response to distance; the duration of the effect; the extent of development in the view and the field of view; the background to the development; and other built development visible. The significance of landscape or visual effect is assessed in terms of major (or substantial), major-moderate, moderate, slight or minimal. Significant effects (in terms of EIA) are those that are Major-moderate or Major (substantial). It should also be noted that whilst an effect may be significant, that does not necessarily mean that such an impact would be unacceptable. The following table (taken from the ES) illustrates that process in forming a judgement of significance of effect.

For example, where landscape/visual sensitivity is considered high and the magnitude of change arising from the development is equally described as high (i.e. a total loss or major alteration to key landscape elements/features such that the baseline landscape character will be fundamentally change), the significance of the landscape and visual impact is regarded ‘major’. The ES has not indicated whether the nature of the effect is positive, adverse or neutral in landscape terms on the basis that it can be very subjective. Much depends on attitudes and predispositions of the individual.

7.16 The application site is located in the low lying predominantly flat area of Heysham Moss (local landscape character area 16f) with rising Heysham-Overton (local landscape character are 12c) low coastal Drumlins to the east, west and south of the site. The site lies wholly and central to the national recognised Morecambe Coast and Lune Estuary character area (No.31) which sits adjacent to open sea, and Bowland Fringe and Pendle Hill landscape character area (No.33). The key characteristics, amongst many, of the Morecambe Bay and Lune Estuary include: -

• Broad relatively flat lowlands enclosed by steeply sloping escarpments, opening out dramatically into the undulating landscape of the coastal strip with substantial drumlin features • Predominately sheep and cattle grazing, enclosed by well maintained hedgerows (stone walls at higher elevations) • Range of coastal landscape features towards the mouth of the estuary including extensive salt marshes, reclaimed mosses and marshland, a small area of mossland at Heysham, sand and shingle beaches north of the estuary and sandstone cliffs at Heysham. • Panoramic vistas across the valley and Lancaster from higher ground • Development generally concentrated along the coastal strip where Heysham Power Station and caravan sites dominate the coastal scenery, with the remaining pastoral elements providing important countryside wedges.

7.17 The Lancashire County Council Landscape Character Assessment - ‘A Landscape Strategy for Lancashire’ (2000) - has provided baseline information for the submitted LVIA. This document defines a number of Landscape Character Types (LCTs), which are then sub-divided into Local Landscape Character Areas (LLCAs). The development site is wholly within a single landscape character types and areas. The site lies within the Heysham Moss 16f LLCA. The description of the LLCA is as follows: -

16f Heysham Moss - Located between the built up areas of Lancaster to the east and Heysham to the west only a small part of Heysham Moss is now uncultivated. It is largely a pastoral landscape where fields are drained by straight ditches and divided by post and wire fencing, resulting in an open and expansive landscape. Electricity pylons, associated with the nearby Heysham Power Station, are particularly noticeable as they cross the moss. The A683 between Lancaster and Heysham also crosses the moss, bringing traffic movement into the open landscape. The proximity of the City of Lancaster influences the character of the mossland in the north of the character area where trading estates, residential estates and caravan parks spill out onto the mosslands, obscuring the landscape pattern and eroding the rural nature of the landscape.

7.18 The Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development in Lancashire document focuses on the appropriate scale of such development for the LLCA that the site is situated within. It should be noted that single turbines were not considered in the context of this broad strategic study. According to the study, small, medium and possibly larger scale wind energy development may be appropriate for the landscape character area, 16f - Heysham Moss, which the site is situated within. This area is identified as having a low landscape sensitivity to wind energy development. This is echoed in the Core Strategy with the identification of South Heysham as a potential opportunity area for renewable energy development.

7.19 In terms of landscape and visual effects, the development proposed would have different impacts in response to the construction, operational and decommissioning stages of the development, although it is clear that the operational stage of the wind turbine will give rise to prolonged landscape and visual effects, albeit over a period of only 25 years. Whilst this is the case, temporary effects at the construction and again at the decommissioning stage will occur, including ground excavation, compound and storage areas, vehicle movement, foundation areas and cable runs. The application indicates that the construction and decommissioning stages would take place over a period of approximately 8 months. It is contended neither the construction nor dismantling activities would give rise to significant character or visual effects over and above the effects of the operational site – the main effect will always be the turbines. Following erection of the turbines and anemometer mast all land, other than the access tracks, the turbines, crane pads and control building, would be removed and the land reinstated back to its original agricultural form upon the turbine becoming operational. The proposal therefore maintains a significant proportion of pasture land across the whole site, which would allow the land to be continued to be utilising for agricultural purposes. The reinstatement of the site upon construction can be adequately controlled by an appropriately worded condition.

7.20 The LVIA has assessed in detail both National Character Areas (NCAs) within a 20 KM radius of the site and Local Character Areas (LCA’s) within a 10km radius. The LVIA concludes that the overall effects of the development on the NCA’s would be of negligible magnitude and minimal significance, with the exception of the Morecambe Coast and Lune Estuary NCA which concludes the overall effects on this NCA to be of low-negligible magnitude and light-minimal significance. In relation to the NCA where the turbines are to be sited, it is inevitable that the magnitude of change and the significance of the effect will vary with distance and the effects on this character area would tend to be of high magnitude and major-moderate significance in the immediate vicinity of the wind farm. Owing to the scale of the turbines, the wind farm would be the most dominant characteristic of the landscape. The effects would gradually reduce to negligible with distance and availability of views. As indicated earlier in the report the wind farm is located in Heysham Moss LLCA but a further 12 LLCA lie within the 10km radius. The ZTV maps indicate that the turbine will be visible or partially visible from within most of the LLCAs in the 10km area. The sensitivity, magnitude of change and significance has been assessed in relation to LLCAs where theoretical visibility has been identified. The ZTVs clearly show that the theoretical visibility of the turbine (both hub height and blade tip height) would be widespread within 10km of the proposed turbine to the north and south. Topography to the east of the site limits visibility beyond circa 7km, although the ZTV indicates visibility at high altitudes beyond 10km. Within 5km of the wind farm theoretical visibility is extensive in all directions. In relation to the LLCAs, Heysham Moss LLCA includes the application site, the area to the west extending between the settlements of Morecambe, Heysham, Middleton and Overton and marked by the eastern edge by the drumlins between Heaton and Overton. The area is generally very flat and open divided by field boundaries and drainage ditches. The landscape in this location is heavily influenced by surrounding infrastructure, with high profile and dominant transmission lines running across the site, together with traffic moving along the A683. The northern limits of this LLCA are bound by industrial estates with residential development bordering the western limits of the LLCA. The bypass dissects this LLCA in two with the proposed wind farm located in the south section of this character area. As a consequence, effects of high magnitude and moderate significance will extend across the southern tip of the character area. North of the bypass the effects are reduced to medium magnitude and moderate-slight significance. The overall effects will be high-medium magnitude and moderate significance on the basis that the wind farm will become a key characteristic of the landscape, although the openness and flatness will remain apparent, particularly to the north of the A683. At this point, Members are reminded that the area has been identified by the Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development in Lancashire document, as an area of low sensitivity to wind farm development capable of accommodating wind farms of small, medium and possibly large scale. It could be argued this is a consequence of the open and flat characteristics of the landscape and the presence of existing infrastructure and visual detractors.

7.21 Other than the LLCA where the wind farm is situated, only the adjacent LLCA (Heysham-Overton 12c) has been identified to experience effects of moderate significance. Other LLCAs have been identified to experience effects of moderate-slight significance and minimal significance. In relation to Heysham-Overton LLCA, this landscape is described as a pastoral landscape with rough and wet pasture and flat areas of reclaimed land surrounded by low drumlins which protrude the plain. Farmsteads, villages and settlements of Heysham occupy higher ground on top of the drumlins. This LLCA wraps around Heysham Moss LLCA to the east, south and west and is identified in the Lancaster Wind Energy sensitivity study as an area of moderate-high sensitivity to wind farm development. Turbine 3 is located at the point where Heysham Moss and Heysham-Overton LLCAs abut (close to Great Swart Hill) where the topography begins to rise. The effects on the landscape to the east of the site extending south (between Great Swart Hill and Down-field Farm) will experience effects of moderate-major significance. This effect will reduce across this LLCA further away from the wind farm and where settlements/built form intervene (west of the Middleton and towards Overton), resulting in overall effects on the character area as moderate significance.

7.22 Having identified the effects on the character of the landscape we turn to the visual effects. Visual effects in particular are concerned wholly with the effect of the development on views and the general visual amenity as experienced by people (receptors). Visual effects are assessed in relation to viewpoints, settlements, properties, tourist and recreational destination and transport routes. The assessment of visual effects has been formed from appropriate ZTV studies, photographic assessments, wireframes and photomontages (visuals). For information, one of the ZTV submitted indicates the presence of settlements (assumed average height of 7.5m) and woodlands (assumed average height of 15m). This assists in providing a more realistic indication of potential visibility. It is clear from assessment of the LVIA that the proposed development will be visible from many aspects particularly within a 5km range. The most prominent views will be from neighbouring residential properties (including the adjacent caravan park) and the A683 Heysham link road. The site will also be visible from nearby public rights of way together with the local road network. It is clear from the submitted ZTVs that the wind farm would be widely visible within a 5km radius of the site, with the only screened areas being within neighbouring settlements or where the topography and woodland potentially screen the site to the east (between Lancaster and Conder Green). Between 5km-10km from the site, rising ground and scattered woodlands beings to screen views . Beyond 10km visibility is fairly restricted and mainly occurs to the south of the site, with the exception of parts of Bowland Fells. A series of visualisations have been submitted to help illustrate the likely appearance of the wind farm. It is clear from these that the most significant effects (Moderate-Major) are where landscape sensitivity is high and the magnitude of change substantial. These tend to be localised (up to 2.5km).

7.23 The submitted LVIA has also considered the impact of the development on the settlements of Heysham, Middleton, Heaton, Overton, Morecambe, Lancaster, Aldcliffe, Sunderland Point and Glasson. These settlements and a number of properties within 5km of the proposed turbine are likely to experience some form of visibility of the development, as shown in the submitted ZTV maps and visualisations. It is clear from the LVIA that the most affected settlement is Heysham, specifically the southern part of the town, Mossgate in particular. The visualisations taken from Mossgate Park and Longmeadow Lane demonstrate that the visual effects likely to be experienced from this part of Heysham would be of major-moderate significance, as would some views from Middleton, although most of the houses on Middleton Road would benefit from screening from a localised group of trees. The next closest settlement is Overton. Here there will be clear views of the wind farm, albeit with some views limited by localised tree planting, from residential properties and public rights of way. The visual effects are considered moderate-major significance.

7.24 The potential effects on the quality and setting of the two neighbouring Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) together with the purpose of their designation have also been assessed. In both cases, the LVIA concludes the effects will be minimal significance. In relation to the Silverdale and Arnside AONB, the undulating and heavily wooded nature of the designated landscape limit outward views. The ZTV indicates that the wind farm would only be visible from the sands and western coastal edge of the AONB and some elevated positions from Warton Crag. Additional visualisations illustrate this and demonstrate that the effects on viewpoints are typically of negligible magnitude and therefore minimal significance. In the case of the Forest of Bowland AONB, which is located some 7km to the east, the wind farm would only be visible on the western edge. Again visualisations have been submitted to illustrate the visual impact of the development from this designated landscape. In this case, the turbines would be some considerable distance away on lower ground with the backdrop of Heysham Power Station. Obviously, the backdrop will vary depending on where the wind farm is viewed, however in any case, the special qualities of the Forest of Bowland, are its ‘wild and open spaces of the Bowland Fells, not the coastal views. On this basis, Officers agree with the developer’s conclusion that the effects will be of negligible magnitude and minimal significance. In both cases, the wind farm will appear insignificant in a large landscape.

7.25 The LVIA has also considered the effects on public rights of way. The effects are difficult to judge, as the receptor (the person using the public right of way) may find the effects adverse, while others may view them positively. There is a public right of way which passes through the ce ntre of the site. This public right of way will be retained and protected during all phases of the development, with possible temporary diversions (to be agreed by condition). This route will inevitably experience high magnitude of visual effects throughout its length. The network of surrounding public rights of way will experience significant visual effects and those within close proximity to the site could experience the significant effects of the wind farm for the length of the footpath (such as the footpaths north of the bypass close Mossgate and Heysham moss). Footpaths to the south close to Middleton and Overton, will have significant visual effects but these may not be continuous due to the presence of intervening woodlands, buildings and the topography. There will be long distance views of the wind farm from public rights of ways and bridleways further afield, including the Lancashire Coastal Way from the other side of the River Lune. The wind farm will be seen across the Lune Estuary as a vertical element against the skyline but with the backdrop of the power station and existing infrastructure.

7.26 Cumulative Landscape and Visual Effects The proximity of the proposed turbine to other wind farms/turbines has also been assessed and forms an important part of the ES. Neighbouring wind farm/turbines have been considered including the proposed, operational and consented sites. The cumulative assessment has considered a number of cumulative scenarios and the resultant effects on landscape character, viewpoints and sequential viewpoints.

The following windfarm/turbines have been considered:

BT Heysham – now consented (formal decision not yet issued) Heysham Peel – proposed (in with planning) Lancaster University – consented (under construction) Caton Moor - operational Orchard End – consented Dewley Cheese – operational

The following landscape character areas have been considered as part of the cumulative LVIA on the basis that they are judged to receive greater than low-negligible effects as a result of the proposed wind farm:

Morecambe Coast and Lune Estuary (Area 31 – NLCA) Heysham Moss (16c LLCA) Heysham and Overton (12c LLCA) Lune Marshes (18d LLCA) Carnforth-Galgate-Cockerham (12a LLCA)

The proposed wind farm sits on the other side of the Heysham bypass where the consented BT turbine is located. Given the close proximity of the two sites, these turbines would effectively be seen to form a single wind farm. The peel turbines are also in close proximity but separated by the built development of South Heysham and the power station.

7.27 In respect of Morecambe Coast and Lune Estuary (Area 31), all the sites in Heysham (including the proposed wind farm) and the Lancaster University wind turbine fall within this character area. These are generally all small scale wind farms (less than three turbines) and whilst each site individually may have significant effects locally, in context with the whole landscape character area, the impacts will be less significant, particularly given the medium-low sensitivity of the character area. Cumulative wireframes and viewpoints have been provided as part of this assessment. These illustrate that views of one or more turbines/wind farms will be quite commonplace, however views of all the wind turbines/farms would be relatively rare.

7.28 In the case of Heysham Moss (16f LLCA) the proposed wind farm and the BT turbine are located within the southern tip of this character area and will be seen as a single wind farm. In this case, it is without doubt that the southern part of the character area would experience effects of high magnitude/major-moderate significant from this combination. Peel turbines would be visible from certain viewpoints, but would be seen as a separate wind farm due to the intervening structures and built form. The northern part of this character area would still experience effects of medium magnitude. There are no existing, approved or proposed wind farms which lie within neighbouring LLCAs, however views of the three Heysham wind farms/turbines, which effectively are seen as two small clusters (wind farms) would be visible from these LLCAs. With distance, the magnitude of effect lowers, for example from Overton the Peel turbines and the proposed wind farm and BT are separated by distance and built from in views from the neighbouring LLCA. Further afield in LLCAs 12a and 18d, the visibility of all three turbines becomes relatively infrequent. In the case of Carnforth-Galgate-Cockerham, the proposed wind farm is assessed to have effects of low magnitude. In view of this Officers are of the opinion that the proposed wind farm (with the existing of the BT turbine, which forms part of this cluster) is able to co-exist with other neighbouring wind farm/turbines without transformation of landscape type and coalescence of character. However it is acknowledged that there would be significant cumulative landscape and visual effects arising from the interaction of the three proposed and consented schemes in Heysham (the proposed wind farm, BT and Peel) at a local level.

7.29 In relation to visual effects, there are two types of visual effect, namely effects arising from combined and sequential views. Within 5km of the site significant cumulative effects are predicted to arise on the settlements of Heysham, Lancaster, Morecambe, Overton and Glasson. In the case of Heysham, a number of residential properties (along the eastern edge of Heysham Mossgate) will experience views of the proposed wind farm and the BT wind farm in close proximity, with views of Caton moor in the horizon. From a number of residential properties facing the application site, the wind farm will form a significant feature within the landscape. From elevated positions in Overton, it is possible that most of the wind farms/turbines used in the cumulative assessment could be visible; however the three schemes in Heysham would remain the most dominant mainly due to the proximity of the sites to this settlement and residential dwellings. The visual effects and landscape effects here are viewed in context of a large landscape with intervening landforms and settlements, together with the existing infrastructure which pass through the local area. It is contended that the landscape impact would not be so severe/significant to result in a landscape objection. In the case of Aldcliffe, the proposed wind farm would be the most dominant of the Heysham turbines when viewed from Aldcliffe Marsh. Again, the extent of the landscape and presence of other structures and power lines would minimise the overall visual effects from this location. There will be views of one or more turbines from various viewpoints assessed as part of the ES, however overall the most significant effects will be experienced locally.

7.30 In terms of sequential views, these are most likely to be experienced on along transport corridors, including the M6, the A6, the railway and the national cycle route (nos 6 and 69). Cumulative sequential effects are also expected on the A683 Heysham link road an d nearby public rights of way. Visibility along a number of these routes has been provided to help illustrate the potential impact, however these are based on bare ground scenarios and do not take account of localised features which may obscure views. Along cycle route 6 and 69, it is not until the route approaches Galgate that the proposed wind farm and neighbouring wind farms/turbines could be visible. It is the stretch along the Lune between Ashton Hall and Lancaster which would experience the greatest views of the three schemes in Heysham, but with the application site and BT more noticeable than Peel. There would also be direct views along stretches of the route where the University turbine would be visible. However, in combination, a cyclist using this route is unlikely to get the impression of a landscape dominated by wind farms. Each of the wind farms/turbines assessed (with the exception of BT, which is seen as part of the proposed site in most cases) appear as separate sites with sufficient distance between one another to co-exist without significant effects on the wider landscape. Cyclists/pedestrians using this route would experience occasional viewpoints of the wind farms in the area, although they would not appear overly dominant features. There is even less impact from the M6, where the University turbine and Dewley are most likely to be visible. Heysham South (the proposed site) would make a very limited contribution to effects on the route, being only visible from a few locations and the nearest of just over 5km as the route passes the university turbine.

7.31 The cumulative effects rising from the proposed wind farm on designated landscapes are assessed to be of minimal significant. This is supported by the County Landscape Officer who has indicated that the proposal does not have any significant impacts on the setting and character of Lancashire’s Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and as such has not provided any specific landscape comments associated with the scheme.

7.32 Conclusion - Landscape and Visual Impact

Overall, It is considered that the likely landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development (including the cumulative impacts) do not raise matters of strategic significance and would not unduly impact upon the National Character Areas. However, the development will result in some significant localised landscape and visual impacts. The LLCA’s known as Heysham Moss, Lune Open Coastal Marshes and Heysham-Overton-low Coastal Drumlins are considered to be significantly impacted upon by the development. The windfarm will be viewed from within the majority of the areas which all enjoy a high degree of indivisibility. The proposed wind farm will appear dominant within this landscape. It is also noted that the local landscape has already been extensively modified with the construction of two nuclear power stations, the routes of three transmission lines with associated pylons, industrial complexes, road and rail infrastructure and expanding residential areas.

7.33 However, whether the impact of the development would outweigh the overall benefits of the proposal requires a carefully considered and balanced judgement with regards to national, regional and local planning policy. NPPF and PPS22 companion guides states that renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. It is becoming evident from recent appeal decisions (both allowed and dismissed) and the increase in planning submissions for turbines in this District and others, that proposals for development of this nature in more sensitive, intricate and more densely populated and urbanised locations are becoming more frequent. This presumably is principally due to the larger landscapes being at full or near capacity or that such other landscapes are designated and afforded the greatest level of landscape protection. This in itself means sites outside of designated areas are more likely to become under pressure to develop. The Government is under increasing pressure to support renewable energy schemes and consequently development of this nature in non-designated landscapes will undoubtedly have to be accepted more often. Lancaster Core Strategy policy ER7 (Renewable Energy) reflects localised support for such development identifying Heysham South as a focus for renewable energy generation including wind and biomass technology.

7.34 On balance it is considered that the landscape and visual impacts identified would be outweighed by the long-term environmental benefits of the proposal. Notwithstanding this, a significant factor to be considered is the fact that the turbines have a lifespan of 25 years and after that it is anticipated that the land will be reinstated to its former condition.

7.35 Residential Amenity - Visual Effects Unlike Scotland and Wales, there are no statutory limits (at present) or policy separation distances for wind turbines in relation to dwellings set for England. It is also clear from a number of recent appeal decisions (Gargrave, Sillfield, Carlisle and Eagland Hill) that Inspectors are paying greater regard to the effects of wind turbine development on the living conditions of nearby properties. At present there is no published guidance on the assessment of visual amenity in relation to residential amenity, although it is accepted that a similar approach to LVIA is reasonable.

7.36 The impact of the development on nearby residential properties forms part of the submitted LVIA. The distances reported in the ES are to the nearest 50m to allow for micrositing. In terms of assessing the impact on residential amenity, it goes beyond identifying a visual effect and aims to asses whether the development would be over-bearing and dominant. Safeguarding living conditions and considering the impact of development on residential amenity is a material planning consideration and one which carries significant weight in the determination of the application, particularly given the close proximity of the development to a number of properties. The significance of potential harm to living conditions is important, although it is a matter which needs to be carefully considered and weighed in the balance of pros and cons of the proposal.

7.37 There are a number of properties within 1km of the proposed turbine which will be affected by the development. The dwellings are focussed around Middleton and Heaton and include isolated dwellings/farmsteads and the caravan site to the west, known as Old Trafford Park. Whilst outside the 1km radius, there are a number of properties on the eastern edge of Heysham Moss Gate which will experience views of the wind farm, for example properties on the east and south sides of Fulmar Crescent, Swift Gardens, Longmeadow Lane and The Spinny. These properties are in excess of 1km form the wind farm. Despite objections to the contrary, particularly in relation to the visual impact of the wind farm and associated noise impacts, Officers understand that some of these properties will experience generally open views of the wind farm (together with the BT turbine) from parts of the properties and their garden areas and that these turbines would be dominant features in the landscape. However, on balance, given the separation distances involved and the presence of other intervening structures (despite that fact these existing structures are static and do not move), the overall visual impact would be so overbearing to adversely affect the living conditions of these occupants or the desirability of living in these properties. Visualisations have been provided to demonstrate the visual effects of the development from within residential area of Mossgate, including a cumulative assessment. Turning to the properties within 1km:

Hillside Farm lies 600m to the north. This is a two storey dwelling with its rear elevation facing south. Rooms on both floors would have oblique views of two of the turbines and more dominant views of the northern turbine, although some views will be partially screen by existing farm buildings. Despite the close proximity, the site circumstances and the fact that this is one of the landowners of the site and therefore has an interest in the scheme, it is contended that the residents here would not be adversely affected by the visual effects of the development.

Downy-Field Cottage, Lodge and Farmhouse are approximately 600m to the south of the wind farm. This site is slightly elevated and orientated facing away from the wind farm. The rear of the farmhouse faces the proposed site, although existing farm buildings will detract views of the wind farm, particularly at first and second floor levels. The cottage is slightly smaller (still two-storey) and again the main views are obstructed by the existing farm buildings. The Lodge is on slightly lower ground with a single window facing the site. From this window only the central turbine would be visible. The other two turbines would be screened by existing vegetation and buildings. In this case, all three properties still benefit from unaffected views to the south, east and west and as such, it is contended that overall the views of the turbines would not be over-bearing, nor would these properties be undesirable places to live.

Old Trafford Park comprises 31 static residential caravans accessed off Borans Lane, located between 600-700m to the west. The space and orientation of the caravans within the site (it is a tightly compact site) will severely limit views of the wind farm from within the caravans. However from outside the caravans but still within the site, views of the turbines will be visible, albeit mainly the blades. The wind farm is separated from this site by a substantial belt of trees which help restrict direct views and prevent there being an overbearing impact.

Borans Bungalow and adjacent static caravans are located circa 700m from the proposed wind farm. To the east and south east, the bungalow and one of the five caravans is likely to experience clear views of the two southernmost turbines. Views to the north from this bungalow and the other caravans would be screened by existing planting. However, given the separation between the wind farm and this property (over 500m) and the presence of the existing pylons and transmissions lines, together with the waste treatment plant, it is contended that the visual impact of the wind farm would not result in an unacceptable overbearing impact to warrant a refusal on the grounds of residential amenity.

Mill Hill House is located approximately 750m to the northeast at the crest of the slope west of Heaton. This property occupies an elevated position overlooking the application site and as such will experience direct views of the wind farm. The visual effects would be significant from the west facing elevation at first floor level, with the wind farm forming a dominant feature within the landscape. Windows/rooms at ground floor would be partially obscured by the roadside hedgerow. Whilst this property will experience significant visual effects, Officers are of the view that the wind farm would be seen in context with the clutter of existing infrastructure, including the power lines and power station. Equally, Officers have to consider the fact that this property retains open views to the east. On the whole, whist there will be a dominant visual impact; the property would not become an undesirable place to live. There would be rest bite from the wind farm from other parts of the house.

Heaton Park House is located 800m southeast of the application site. This is a two storey dwelling located on elevated ground. This property is likely to experience views of the two southernmost turbines, more so from first floor level. This view over the site is open, albeit on an oblique angle. It is also likely that from the north there will be views of the northern most turbine. However, at this separation distance (over 500m) the views of the turbines will be seen in context of the existing infrastructure landscape. The property also retains unaffected views in other directions and as such the development would not result in a significant adverse, overbearing impact.

Newfield House is situated 850m southwest of the proposed wind farm. This property appears to comprise an antiques business and a residential dwelling. A newly build bungalow sits adjacent to the main property. In both case, whist the main facades face towards the wind farm, the views would be obscured by a tree belt.

Middleton Road comprises a number of dwellings built-up along the road. There are four bungalows to the west of the site (53-56) which are divorced from the rest of the properties on Middleton Road within the settlement itself. These bungalows are located some 750- 800m from the proposed wind farm and in all cases have views obscured by buildings and vegetation, although there will be partial views of the blade tips. It is contended that the visual effects of the wind farm from these properties would be not be unacceptable. Further along the road there are a number of properties built up on the south side of the road facing the application site. This is between 850-1000m from the wind farm. A dense belt of trees run along the northern part of the road and scr een properties from views of the wind farm. West of the junction with Carr Lane where properties are more elevation, views of the wind farm, especially from first floor windows will be possible. Despite some direct views of the wind farm, these properties are a good distance from the wind farms and again the wind farm is seen in context with the existing infrastructure landscape. It is contended these properties would not experience the development as overbearing.

Cottam Farm and Cottage are located some 900m east of the application site, over the crest of the hill where Heaton is situated. Due to the natural topography the wind farm would not be overbearing and therefore detrimental to residential amenity in this case.

Richmond Farm is also 900m east of the application site. Like Cottam Farm, the natural topography, presence of natural vegetation and the considerable distance of the property to the wind farm, it is contended this property would not experience the development as overbearing.

Wymber Hill Cottage and Farm is approximately 900m southeast of the application site. The farmhouse is likely to experience views of the two southernmost turbines from the west side of the property, albeit on a slightly oblique angle. These turbines will be seen in context with the infrastructure landscape. Rising land to the northern side of the property would partially screen the wind farm, although the blades are likely to be visible over the hillside. In this case, given separation distance and the nature of the views experienced, the development is not considered overbearing from this property. The cottage has the benefit of tree screening and again at a distance of 900m the development is not considered overbearing.

Greenbank Farm is located 950m to the northeast. This property is located a sufficient distance from the wind farm which is obscured by the natural topography and vegetation.

Cluster of properties on the north-eastern edge of Heaton. These properties are located approximately 950m from the application site, situated on the lower edge of the slope. From these properties the topography, coupled with natural and domestic vegetation helps screen the wind farm. 1 & 2 Old Wood House are located high up the slope and therefore will see the northern most turbine, mainly from first floor windows. The wind farm from Friars Wood, Green hedges, Woodhouse farmhouse are all partially obscured by vegetation or existing buildings and as such the development would not be seen as overbearing.

7.38 It is acknowledged that the turbines are not simply large, static vertical structures. They are structures that have moving elements. It is also accepted that the moving element of the turbine will cause viewers (in this case residents) to be visually drawn to these features rather than other features in the landscape, however, a careful balance of all the site specific circumstances experienced at each of the properties or groups of properties has been considered and whilst it could be argued the development causes significant visual effects to a number of close dwellings, the balance of pros and cons must be weighed against each other.

7.39 Residential Amenity - Noise The issue of potential noise disturbance from the operational windfarm is a concern raised by many of the objectors to the scheme. A noise assessment has been incorporated into the EIA as part of the submission documents. This deals with construction noise and operational noise. The latter being more important given the 25 year lifetime of the wind farm, opposed to the temporary nature of construction works. In accordance with PPS22 companion guide, the applicant’s noise assessment has had regard to the methodology and guidance in ETSU-R-97 (The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms). The guidance provides a robust basis for determining noise limits for wind farm developments and states that these limits should not be breached. ETSU-R-97 recommends that wind farm noise for the quiet daytime period should be limited to 5dB (A) above the prevailing background noise level or a fixed minimum level within the range of 35-40dB L LA90 10min, whichever is higher. For night-time periods the recommended limits are 5dB(A) above prevailing background noise levels or a fixed minimum level of 45dB LLA90 10min , whichever is the highest. Whilst the document is ten years old, it remains the de-facto standard for assessing potential noise impacts from wind farms and as such is appropriate in this case. Slightly relaxed limits apply to those properties with a direct financial interest in the scheme.

7.40 The assessment has undertaken background noise measurements from nine locations identified as the nearest noise receptors ranging from between 526m – 1037m from the closets turbine. The assessment has considered operational noise sources (aerodynamic noise and mechanical noise) and infrasound, low frequency noise and vibration. The assessment has also considered the cumulative noise impacts associated with the proposed wind farm and the BT turbine. The assessment concluded that noise levels during the construction period could exceed limiting levels but only during night work and Sunday morning and evenings, but predicted noise levels at the operational phase would be significantly lower than the permitted levels.

7.41 The results of the assessment conclude that all of the tested noise receptors meet the noise criteria of ETSU-R-97, including the two dwellings which are financially involved in the scheme. In relation to the cumulative noise effects, the assessment has also considered the predicted noise levels of the proposed wind farm with the BT wind turbine at each of the nine noise sensitive sites. Again, this concludes that the cumulative noise levels meet ETSU_R-97. On the basis that the proposed wind farm should be able to operate within the recommenced limits (as reported in the ES), the impact of noise derived from the operational wind farm is considered not significant.

7.42 In relation to construction noise, and ultimately noise associated with decommissioning, it is inevitable that there will be some increase in noise and potential disturbance to nearby residents. However it should be noted that this is for a temporary period only (approximately 8 months). Notwithstanding this, the developer has considered the impacts of construction noise within the ES and states that they would undertake appropriate mitigation to minimise impacts on local residents. This would include compliance with BS 5228-1:2009, good site practices and control of working hours. The applicant seeks working hours between 8am – 6pm Monday – Friday and 8am – 1pm on Saturdays with no working on Sundays and Bank Holidays. However, there would be a requirement for some work/site activities to take place outside these hours to minimise impacts on the highway network, for example the delivery of the turbines (abnormal loads). This could be agreed under the construction management plan by condition.

7.43 The full results of the survey were submitted to the Council’s Environmental Health Officer who is in agreement with the findings of the Assessment; in that noise disturbance will not be caused to the occupants of residential properties as a result of the construction and turbine operation, subject to the addition of suitable conditions to control the timing of the construction activities and to address any mitigation should noise be an issue. On this basis, the proposed development would not cause an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in respect of noise.

7.44 Residential Amenity - Shadowflicker Shadow flicker is a particular phenomenon associated with wind turbines. It is the effect of the sun shining behind rotating blades and creating an intermittent shadow inside nearby buildings. The advice given in the companion guide to PPS22 explains that shadow flicker can only occur when sun shines through the turbine blades, thereby casting moving shadows. It only occurs inside buildings and only where the shadows are seen through a narrow window opening creating the effect of light flicking on and off. The guidance also indicates that it will only occur when certain metrological, seasonal and geographical conditions prevail and as such the effect is not constant. For the effects of shadow flicker to occur there would have to be uninterrupted bright sunshine for shadows to be cast. Subsequently, buildings, trees and other topographical features could help reduce the potential effect therefore the results of the assessment of shadowflicker in reality tend to be less than predicted.

7.45 An assessment of potential shadow flicker has been undertaken on the basis of a bare landscape to a distance of 920m (10 times the rotor diameter). In practice intervening buildings and vegetation are likely to reduce the effect. The assessment has identified only four dwellings within the study area (920m including 130 degrees either side of north), although one site relates to Old Trafford caravan park. These are the only properties potentially likely to be affected by shadow flicker. The assessment states that, under the worst case conditions, the maximum occurrence of shadow flicker amounts to 25.9 hours per year (experienced at Old Trafford Park); 13.4 hours per year (Heaton Park House); 14.8 hours per year (Mill Hill House) and 24.1 hours per year (Hillside Farm). These predicted figures do not take account of weather conditions or any intervening structures or vegetation which could prevent shadow flicker. In practice, the potential for exposure to shadow flicker is deemed to be low and not significant. The assessment has also considered the cumulative shadow flicker occurrence and identified only a small area to be potentially affected. This would relate to Hillside Farm, which is financially involved in the scheme. In this case the maximum theoretical occurrence at Hillside Farm is predicted to be 42.2 hours per year. Overall there are no significant predicted cumulative effects from the operation of the proposed wind farm and the consents BT wind turbine.

7.46 There is no UK guidance to quantify what exposure to shadowflicker would be acceptable. At this stage, the applicant has indicated that no mitigation is proposed but it will be kept under review. It is difficult to judge to what extent shadowflicker will cause a nuisance and therefore require mitigation. For example, ten minutes of shadowflicker a few times a year could be a nuisance to one person and not to somebody else. Subsequently, it is your Officers opinion, that a scheme to avoid shadowflicker should be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority and controlled by condition. It is envisaged that this would require the turbine to shut down under controlled conditions when shadowflicker is likely to occur.

7.47 Ecology One of the key aspects of the proposal is the impact the development on the biodiversity of the area having regard to the relevant legislation and policy. There are no statutory or non-statutory designated sites of ecological importance within the application site. However there are various European designated sites in close proximity. These include Morecambe Bay SPA, SAC and RAMSAR. Morecambe Bay is also protected nationally (SSSI) as is the Lune Estuary (SSSI). Given the close proximity of the wind farm to these sites the proposal has the potential to indirectly affect these European designations, protected under the Habitats Regulations. On this basis a thorough assessment of the existing ecological characteristics within a study area of 10km has been undertaken, together with an assessment of potential impacts. The assessment also considered the predicted effects of the proposed wind farm at all stages of its development, namely construction, operation and decommissioning phases. In order to comply with planning policy and other relevant legislation, the development proposal needs to demonstrate that the development has been located and designed in a way that would avoid ecological impacts and that mitigation/compensation measures are sufficient to fully off-set all unavoidable ecological impacts and deliver enhanced quantity and quality of biodiversity and habitat. It should also be demonstrated that habitat connectivity would be maintained and enhanced.

7.48 It is inevitable that through the construction of the development, including site preparation, there will be loss of habitats and disruption to habitats and species. It is important that these impacts are kept to a minimum and where necessary mitigation is provided. The applicants’ commitment of an Environment Management Plan which would deal with a number of potential risks during construction, such as noise, dust, drainage and pollution control. Mitigation is also proposed as part of the scheme to ensure biodiversity and biodiversity connectively in the local area is not compromised and where possible enhanced.

7.49 In relation to the operational stage, the biggest risk relates to low level visual and/or auditory disturbance to wildlife and accidental mortality (blade strike). This was a particular concern to Natural England, who originally objected to the scheme back in October 2011. Natural England considered that the proposal lay close to and many indirectly affect the Morecambe Bay SPA/RAMSAR site. Natural England’s view was that the application contained insufficient information to be satisfied that there would be no significant adverse effect on Pink Footed Geese (one of the interested features of the designation). Their particular concern was the cumulative impact on the wider goose population. The applicant and Natural England have spent some considerable time trying to resolve the concerns raised. After much consideration and communication between both parities, Natural England has now withdrawn their objection and confirms that they agree with the applicant’s assessment that the predicted collision rates, whilst unusually high, when assessed in isolation would not have a likely significant effect on the current pin-footed goose population of Morecambe Bay SPA. Natural England have also confirmed that there is no requirement for the applicant to provide alternative feeding areas as this is not a significant issue in this case (unlike the BT turbine). Natural England have requested post- construction monitoring however whilst this would be helpful for future wind farm proposals, it would not be necessary and as such would not meet the tests of the condition circular.

7.50 The ES also details the effects of the proposal on a variety of species and flora and concludes there are no significant effect on bats through habitat loss or roosts overall. However, the removal of hedgerows will have an effect in the short term (construction phases). The purpose for removing the hedgerows is to ensure that there are no habitats likely to be used by foraging bats within close proximity to the turbine. A buffer is required to discourage bats from flying within the vicinity of the turbines and therefore reducing the risk of collision. A great crested newt pond is located approximately 160m south of turbine 3. Whilst not directly affected by the turbine, there is a moderate adverse impact on great crested newts by reason of access tracks and the removal of hedgerows.

To alleviate the above impacts, in accordance with national and local planning policy in relation to protecting and enhancing biodiversity, the following mitigation measures are proposed:

Post-construction surveys (mammal surveys)
Refuge and hibernating opportunities will be enhanced around the newt pond (log and rubble piles).
New hedgerow planting
Development of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) including measures to reduce spillages and hydrology impact and the potential for harm to terrestrial species.
Development of a Habitats Management Plan detailing construction works schedule

In addition to the above proposed mitigation, the Environment Agency have commented on the proposal and have requested a scheme for the provision and management of a buffer zone alongside all ponds and watercourses, post-construction water-vole survey and in the event of micro- siting mitigation measures to be reviewed and/or put in place to protect watercourses and ponds. These requirements can be included as part of a Habitats Management Plan, The above mitigation measures can be adequately controlled by appropriate worded planning conditions. Based on the assessments undertaken and comments from Natural England and the Environment raising no objections to the proposal, Officers are of the opinion that the impacts on biodiversity are not considered significant and do not outweigh the benefits of the proposal, in compliance with the relevant national and local planning policy.

7.51 Other Considerations - Highways and Access Highway implications associated with wind turbine development are concentrated over three phases; construction; operation/maintenance and; decommissioning.

7.52 The submitted transport chapter within the ES considers all three phases including access. An access survey, which considered options for the transportation of the abnormal loads, has been undertaken by independent transportation consultants. The proposed new access points have been designed to accommodate all traffic associated with the construction and operation of the development, including the transportation of abnormal loads. The indicative design of the access arrangements between the site and the highway are regarded acceptable, with the County Highway engineer raising no objections to the development.

7.53 In relation to traffic movements, it is the construction stages which will have greatest impact on the local highway network which is anticipated to occur over an 8 month period. A significant proportion of the traffic would be the movement of commercial HGVs and abnormal loads. However, for clarity, the following traffic will access the site during this stage of the development:

HGV’s (to deliver stone and concrete)
Flat-bed lorries (to deliver substation and transformer components)
Semi-low extendable trailers (to deliver turbine components – with escort)
Cranes, delivered as mobile units and low-loaders; and
Construction personnel and deliveries, by private car and light vans.

Predicted traffic levels have been calculated (based on worst case scenarios). This suggests that there could be a total of 1586 HGV movements within the 8 moth period and a total of 2420 light vehicle movements over the same period. The maximum traffic impact associated with the development is estimated to be around the fourth month. This level of traffic is expected to have some local environmental impacts, including noise, vibration, disruption and delay, air pollution and dust and dirt. These environmental impacts will be managed and mitigated through an Environmental/Construction Management Plan to be controlled by condition.

7.54 In terms of the delivery of the turbine components, the preferred route is via Heysham Port as this will minimise disruption to the strategic and local highway network. The route would be as follows:

• Delivery to the Port of Heysham • A589 heading east form the port towards Higher Heysham • Turn onto the A683 across the main roundabout in Heysham • Continue along the A683 to the proposed site entrance

It is also envisaged that the delivery of the turbine components will occur outside normal working hours. Again, this would be agreed and controlled by condition (through the Construction Management Plan).

7.55 Operational traffic will in the whole be minimal other than regular servicing and maintenance. This is a consequence of the turbines being remotely controlled. The estimated number of vehicles movements per annum is anticipated to be around 70 movements.

7.56 After the 25 years of the development, it is assumed that the wind farm would be decommissioned and the land reinstated to its former agricultural state. In terms of traffic movements, the number of vehicle movements associated with decommissioning is anticipated to be lower than the construction stages as the foundation bases and service cables would remain on site and land reinstated over.

7.57 The proposal section of this report details that approximately 1.7km of new on-site tracks are required. This would have a nominal width of 5m (reduced to 3m) after the wind farm becomes operational in order to minimise landscape impacts. The precise details of the proposed new tracks would be controlled by condition. It should be noted, that a 10m micrositing allowance is sought for the access tracks in the event that the ground conditions require a slight relocation of the track. In any case, the tracks would be within the red edge of the application. Officers do not believe this causes any undue concern and would not compromise any of the material considerations discussed above (landscape/residential amenity and ecology).

7.58 Finally, the transport assessment has also considered the cumulative effects of both the proposed wind farm and the BT turbine. In the event that the BT turbine is scheduled to be developed at the same time as the proposed wind farm there could be significant impacts to the highway network. To mitigate such impacts, this requires the developer to have an appropriate traffic management plan in place. Details of the transportation of the proposed wind farm would be controlled by condition and as such, such a traffic management plan would be considered by the local planning authority in consultation with the highway authority. This requires the developer to liaise with the BT developers when drafting their Traffic Management Plan.

7.59 In the whole, it is contended that the traffic associated with the development is most likely to cause disruption during the construction and decommissioning stages (to a lesser extent) of the development. This is over a relatively short period of time (8 months) and can be adequately mitigated through appropriate management plans, good working practices and restrictions to working hours. Equally, it should be noted that County Highways have raised no highway safety objections to the proposal provided conditions are imposed (in the event Members support the proposal) in relation to a construction management plan, traffic management and details of access arrangements and passing places. On the whole, the development is considered compliant with the relevant local listed earlier in this report.

7.60 Other considerations - Aviation/TV Interference/Safety

Aviation The principal safeguarding concern of the MOD with respect to the development of wind turbines relates to their potential to create a physical objection to air traffic movements and cause interference to Air traffic Control and Air defence radar installations. With regards to aviation interference, the applicant has submitted a detailed aviation assessment which is considered acceptable with no objections received from the Ministry of Defence, Blackpool Airport and The Police Air Support Unit.

NATS En Route Plc (“NERL”) is responsible for the safe and expeditious movement in the en-route phase of flight for aircraft operating in controlled airspace in the UK. They have undertaken a technical assessment of the proposal and concluded that although the proposed development is likely to impact their electronic infrastructure, NERL has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

On this basis, the proposed development is unlikely to have any significant effect on aviation, provided the turbines are fitted with appropriate aviation lighting and that the developer maintains appropriate communication with the MoD in relation to the start of development, the maximum height of construction equipments and the latitude and longitude of each turbine. This information is vital as it will be plotted on flying charts in the event permission is granted.

7.61 Radio and Microwave Interference Wind turbines like all electrical machines produce electromagnetic radiation, which can cause interference to other electrical devices. PPS22, states that “provided careful attention is paid to siting, wind turbines should not cause any significant problems of electromagnetic interference”. The applicant has undertaken consultations with Ofcom and other individual telecom operator’s prior to submission. Through initial consultations a number of point to point links were identified as having the potential to be affected by the proposed turbines. In addition the site is also crossed by a National grid overhead line. A standoff distance three times the rotor diameter (276m) has been allowed for this grid line. National Grid has not objected to the development but has provided a detailed response in relation to operational requirements during construction. The applicant is aware of these requirements. In the event of micrositing, this standoff distance must be adhered to.

7.62 The submitted ES has assessed the impact of the development on TV receptions. There are two transmitters serving the area; Winder Hill and Lancaster. Both have undergone digital switchover . The Lancaster transmitter is located to the northeast of the proposed wind farm and interference to television reception could occur for viewers located to the southwest whose television aerial beampath (direction) is either through the proposed wind farm or within close proximity to the proposed wind farm. This potential impact zone covers the village of Middleton. In the case of Winter Hill, which is located to the southeast of the proposed wind farm, interference could occur for viewers located northwest. This potential impact zone covers parts of Heysham. The extent of any effect on television interference will only become truly apparent following commissioning of the wind farm. In any case mitigation can resolve any concerns and on this basis, a refusal of planning permission on the grounds of potential interference with TV reception would be unfounded. If unacceptable levels of interference are experienced a number of different mitigation measures are available. These include:

Changing the aerial type to the correct group for reception from the Winter Hill or Lancaster transmitter;
Alignment of the new aerial
Re-tuning of the television set or digital box
In the case that reception can not be received from Winter Hill or Lancaster, the installation of satellite can be provided.

7.63 Mitigation measures should be assessed once the site is constructed and operational in agreement with the applicant and the local planning authority and carried out at the applicant’s expense. This is standard practice and could be addressed by a suitable planning condition.

7.64 Safety With regards to icing, ice throw is a phenomenon that occurs under certain climatic conditions and is the consequence of ice forming on the rotor blades under very cold climatic conditions. When temperatures rise and the ice melts there is the potential for the phenomenon to occur. Due to the generally temperate climate of the UK, it is considered that suitable weather conditions for this to occur will be relatively low. Despite this, the turbine will be fitted with vibration sensors which detect any imbalance such as that caused by icing. In these instances the turbine would automatically shut down and go into safety mode.

7.65 The issue of structural failure and safety could apply to any form of development, although it is an issue often raised in relation to wind turbines, in particular blade failure. PPS 22 companion guide states that ‘experience indicates that properly installed and maintained wind turbines are a safe technology’. Here the local planning authority has to rely on the proposed wind farm being satisfactorily constructed, monitoring and maintained by the applicant and their contractors. The applicant has indicated in the ES that once operational a full time Senior Technician will be appointed to monitor and manage Heysham South wind farm and that there would be regular 6 monthly checks to ensure the wind farm is working efficiently and safely. Notwithstanding this wind farm has been designed to ensure all required stand-off distances are met, such as those required to the highway, public rights of way, other turbines and buildings, this is usually the topple distance plus 10%, as advocated in the companion guide. On this basis, Officers have to assume the development is and will remain safe and that the risks of blade failure would be extremely rare.

7.66 Other Considerations – Heritage/Archaeology Chapter 10 of the ES assesses the impact of the proposed development on cultural heritage and archaeology. The assessment has included ZTVs and visualisations to assist illustrate the impact of the development on nearby heritage assets. The NPPF and PPS5 companion guide confirms central government’s overarching aim which is that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. The companion guide also indicates that conflict between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage assets can occur and advises that in such instances the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change should be weighed against any harm to the significance of heritage assets.

7.67 This assessment concludes that the proposed wind farm, alone or in combination with any other wind turbine/wind farm (cumulative study), does not have a direct impact on any designated Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registers Battlefields, Conservation Areas or other recorded heritage assets. The wind farm proposal is more likely to have indirect impacts, such as the landscape and visual effects of the wind farm on the setting of designated heritage assets. It is contended beyond 5km the impact on setting would not be significant. The assessment has identified 7 Scheduled Monuments, 341 listed buildings (of which 36 are grade I or grade II*, 2 Registered Parks and Gardens and 14 Conservation Areas all within a 5km study area). In relation to the Scheduled Monuments, the assessment concludes that even though they are regarded as high sensitivity, the potential impact on the setting of these identified Monuments in regarded not significant. In most cases the natural topography, built form, extent of views and presence of intervening features, such as power lines or landscaping minimise any likely impacts. The same assessment has been applied to Grade I and II* listed buildings, again the assessment concludes that the wind farm would not have a significant effect on the setting of these designated heritage assets, despite their sensitivity being high.

7.68 In relation to Conservation Areas, Overton and Sunderland Point Conservation Areas are likely to experience minor significant effects. This is a consequence of the proximity of the development to these designated sites. From Overton Conservation Area, the wind farm in some locations will be seen in context with a wider infrastructure landscape, such as existing pylons, transmission line, the power station and the edges of other settlements. From other areas of the conservation area views will be restricted by existing housing development. Overall despite the proximity of the wind farm to this conservation area, the impact on the setting of the conservation area would not so harmful to consider a heritage objection. Similarly, from Sunderland Point, the most prominent views of the wind farm will be to the north where the view will be seen in context with the existing infrastructure landscape. On balance it is considered these minor effects on the setting of the Conservation Areas would not result in unacceptable harm since the development will still enable the conservation area to be appreciated and enjoyed. Furthermore given the degree of separation it is considered that the turbine would not unduly dominate the setting of the conservation areas

7.69 Furthermore, It is also worth noting that the English Heritage document: “Wind Energy and the Historic Environment” acknowledges that climate change is itself likely to be detrimental to the historic environment for reasons which include alterations to our weather system. This document also points to the reversibility of wind energy developments which can further mitigate their impacts. It is also important to note the reversibility feature of wind energy developments in the long-term since they can just as easily be removed from a landscape when decommissioned in the future.

7.70 With regards to archaeology, any direct impacts upon unknown archaeological remains would be subject to an appropriate programme of archaeological work, most likely associated with Meadup House, which was demolished some time ago. This would be controlled by condition as requested by County Archaeology.

7.71 Other considerations - Social/Economic There have been a number of concerns raised regarding the impact of the development on nearby house prices, human rights and the local economy. Concerns have also been aired in connection with the financial gain the applicant and landowners will reap to the detriment of the local environment and local community. It is clear that there will be different benefits at different stages of the development. It is envisaged that between 15-30 people would be employed during the construction stages of development and even if these people are not local (which we cannot guarantee) it is likely that during these periods of construction workers will spend in the district and support the local economy. Any adverse impact would be considered temporary and therefore not significant. Much of this relates to public attitudes and peoples predispositions of wind farms. Some business may view the proposal positively, others may not. It is also thought that the development would contribute positively towards improvements towards the socio-economic profile of the area. There is no reason therefore to believe that wind turbine development will adversely affect the local economy.

7.72 A similar rule of thought is taken in respect of tourism impacts. One visitor visiting the area could view the wind farm as an eyesore and would be detrimental to the enjoyment and recreation they sought to experience whereas another person could view it as something interesting; something which makes a statement that the district is taking its responsibilities to tackle climate change seriously. It may be the case that the public rights of way immediately adjacent to the wind farm would experience major significant visual effects, however it greatly depends on the attitudes of the receptors using these recreation routes to know whether or not the routes are less likely to be used. In fact the routes may become more heavily used because of the presence of the wind farm. In terms of land use, the application site is currently in agricultural use. Other than the land associated with the access tracks, turbines and associated crane pads the remaining land of the application site and the adjoining land will be retained and maintained in agricultural use. All the land associated within the development site will return to agriculture following decommissioning of the site.

7.73 Other considerations - Community Involvement and Benefits It is understood through assessing the ES and considering consultation responses received that the applicant (Banks Renewables) takes community involvement seriously. This is echoed by the company’s own ‘Development with Care’ approach which aims to ensure all projects are developed and progressed with concern for both the local community and the environment around the site. This approach is adopted throughout the life of the windfarm, not just in the design of a proposal and the preparation of submitting a planning application. The applicant has undertaken public consultation events, letter dropped, reported their proposal in the local press and have attended local Parish meetings. In addition, they have carried out a detailed communications strategy and communications plan detailing the consultation exercises to date. It appears from our own statutory consultation exercise that the applicants own consultation prior to the application being made, has resulted in generally positive feedback, particular from the parish councils. Notwithstanding this, there remain some concerns and objections to the proposal from the local community. A summary of these concerns has been reported in section 5.0 of this report.

7.74 It is important to note at this stage, that aside from the direct benefits of the proposal, the application also proposes a community benefits package which involves a community fund and a proposal for Warm Zone. From experience in dealing with other windfarm/wind turbine proposals, the local planning authority have not considered the offer of a ‘community fund’ a material consideration and have advised in the past that this is a separate matter for the local community and the applicant to deal with. This remains Officers opinion in relation to the community fund. The Warm Zone proposal however is slightly different as it relates indirectly to some of the Council’s corporate documents, which are material considerations, in particular, the Corporate Plan. The Health and Wellbeing Priority of the Corporate Plan specifically states that ‘the council will play an important role working with partners to ensure health and wellbeing priories are recognised…..the council intends to take action ….to support measures to keep vulnerable people warm in their homes’. In addition, it is also worth noting that a report to Cabinet (for the 9 October meeting) has been drafted with the purpose to seek approval of Members for amendments to the allocation of the Performance Reward Grant funding previously allocated towards the Warm Homes Scheme. The proposed details (in short) are:

To address the health related impacts associated with cold homes
To agree an alternative delivery method to address the shortfall in existing provisions for vulnerable residents of the Lancaster District.

This report indicates that recent figures produced by Department of Energy and Climate Change (2010) demonstrate that 24% of homes (approximately 14,300 households) in the Lancaster district are in fuel poverty, having to spend more that 10% of their income on fuel bills. Rising fuel prices are the No1 concern for people in Britain today [Which? June 2011] and financial worries have an impact on wellbeing. 48% of people in Morecambe and Heysham, (low incomes wards), said their homes are too costly to heat [LCC Housing Needs Survey 2011]. This report highlights that tackling fuel poverty is a key concern to the council.

7.75 Warm Zone would contribute towards achieve these priorities. Warm Zone (a community interest, not for profit, local partnership) provides social and economic benefits to the wider community by significantly reducing fuel poverty, lowering fuel bills, creating jobs, contributing to energy efficiency targets and helping to reduce the risk of winter related deaths and raise awareness. The applicant would provide a capital injection for the inception costs to set up a Warm Zone scheme in the Lancaster area. Clearly the scheme would provide significant benefits to the wider community and the district as a whole, however, in planning terms it is your officers’ opinion that the inception of Warm Zone would not make the development acceptable or unacceptable. Members are therefore advised that whilst this scheme provides some significant community benefits and would help meet Council priorities, in the planning balance of the proposal this carries limited weight. In the event Members support the proposal, the delivery of Warm Zone is based on the good will of the developer and is a matter for the developer and the local community and stakeholders to address.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 There are no planning obligations to consider as part of this application.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 National and regional planning policies, together with local planning policy seek to promote and encourage proposals of renewable energy development. PPS22 companion guide clearly states that the wider environmental, social and economic benefits of such proposals should be given significant weight in the determination of planning applications. The NPPF also places strong emphasis on tackling climate change and delivering sustainable development that has multiple benefits. The Core Strategy also echoes the importance of tackling climate change and encouraging renewable energy and low carbon development and in doing so identifies Heysham South as a potential area for such development to be focused. However, all other material considerations must be considered and balanced against the benefits of the proposal.

9.2 There is no doubt that the proposal offers significant benefits and would wholly comply with national, regional and local policy with regards to its contribution towards meeting the UK’s government targets. Having regard to the submitted Environmental Statement, planning policy and the consultation responses both statutory, non-statutory and neighbouring representations, the main issues to be weighed against the proposal are:

• Landscape and Visual Impact • Residential Amenity (visual impact, shadow flicker, noise)

All other considerations have been adequately assessed and where necessary appropriate mitigation can be delivered to ensure the development has no significant adverse effects.

9.3 The NPPF clearly state that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should…. approve applications for energy development if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable (unless material considerations indicate otherwise). Policy and guidance also require proposals to demonstrate how environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures. Similarly, national, regional and local policies seek to ensure the District's environmental assets are protected and enhanced and where appropriate mitigated.

9.4 The proposed location and design of the wind farm has gone through an extensive process of constraint mapping, in order to minimise the impact of the development on the environment and the local community. However, by virtue of the wind farm’s edge of settlement location and the scale of the turbines it is inevitable that some impacts will be significant, particularly in relation to visual and residential amenity. These considerations carry considerable weight in the determination of the application and are a concern to Officers and local residents alike. One of the difficulties in undertaking a balancing assessment of the proposal is that the negative effects of the development are site specific, whereas the social, environmental and economic advantages of the scheme tend to be much more general. It is equally difficult to explain that the disadvantages perceived by people who live close by could be outweighed by the wider benefits of the proposal.

9.5 In terms of landscape impact there is no doubt that the proposed turbines will appear as dominant features within this flat open landscape and as a consequence the wind farm would have a significant localised visual impact, contrary to national and local planning policy in respect of protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside area. However, with pressure to preserve and protect designated areas there is inevitably going to be ever increasing pressure to develop in landscapes such as this. The presence of the by-pass, electricity pylons and transmission lines, the power station and the settlement boundary of Heysham already have an significant urbanising/industrial effect on this rural landscape. Furthermore, a significant factor to be considered is the fact that the turbines have a lifespan of 25 years and after that it is likely that the land will be reinstated to its former condition. It is recommended that the short-term adverse effects on this landscape, which is already interrupted with other man-made features, is limited to a relatively small localised area and located outside any special designated landscape, and is therefore outweighed by the long-term environmental benefits of the proposal.

9.6 The impact of the proposal on residential amenity is an important material consideration and must be clearly balanced against the benefits of the proposal. Impacts on residential amenity could include visual effects, noise and shadowflicker. Shadowflicker can be adequately mitigated as noted earlier in the report. With regards to noise, despite serious objections to this issue, the noise assessments and data produced indicate that the development can operate within close proximity to dwellings and keep within the limits set by ETSU-R-97, which remains the current guidance to assess the impact of noise generated by wind turbine developments. Noise can be reasonably controlled by condition to mitigate any potential impacts. With regards to visual impact, there have been a number of relatively recent appeal decisions that have concentrated on residential amenity impacts (visual impact) of wind farms generally within 650m of properties. In most cases the impacts have been regarded unacceptable. There are, however, appeal cases where wind turbines have been approved close to dwellings, such as the Lancaster University turbine, the Dewley Turbine in Garstang and the recent appeal allowed at Eagland Hill. There will clearly be cases where turbines will be accepted in close proximity to residential properties and others that will not, and in the absence of any specific guidance in legislation each case will have to be judged on its own merits. The proposed wind turbines are located, in all cases, over 500m from nearby dwellings (considered standard separation distance for the process of constraint mapping). However, this does not mean the visual impacts will be acceptable or not significant. A number of properties have been assessed and whilst some may have direct views of the wind farm or some/part of the turbines, there are various site specific circumstances which diminish the intimidating and overbearing effects of the development. The site specific circumstances include the natural topography, vegetation screening, intervening buildings, orientation of properties and availability of other views, distance from the wind farm and the character of the existing landscape. Contrary to public opposition to the scheme, whilst there are residential properties in close proximity to the proposed wind farm, all of the properties considered (including the edge of Heysham) are considered to have some views, direct or otherwise, and will experience a different view from some parts of their properties. However, the right to a view is not a material planning consideration. The issue to consider is whether or not the properties affected become undesirable places to live (in the public interest) because the development is overbearing.

9.7 It is clear from the above comments that there are potential adverse affects on landscape and on neighbouring residential amenity; however, the effects on living conditions and the identified localised landscape impacts (within a non-designated site) are not of a magnitude to outweigh the benefits of the proposal and warrant a refusal of planning permission. In conclusion, the proposed development would make a small but very important contribution towards the meeting of statutory targets set by Government to tackle climate change. It is very clear in planning policy that the need for renewable energy must therefore carry considerable weight and as such, after very careful consideration of all the potential impacts and effects, on balance, the benefits of the proposed turbine would outweigh both the landscape and residential amenity concerns. Members are therefore advised that that the proposed development can be supported, subject to appropriate conditions as listed at the end of this report.

Recommendation

That Planning permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. 5 year timescale 2. Development in accordance with the approved plans and submitted Environmental Statement 3. Turbine and associated infrastructure shall be removed from site and land reinstated in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the local planning authority before the expiry of 25 years from the turbine being operational. 4. The wind farm operator shall notify the local planning authority within 1 month of the wind farm being operational 5. If the turbine fails to produce electricity to the gird for a continuous period of 12 months, it and associated infrastructure shall be removed within a period of 6 months and the land reinstated in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the local planning authority 6. Details of the turbine and associated transformers shall be sited within 50m of the positions indicated, in accordance of a scheme for siting to be agreed, provided the micro-siting is not within 3 rotor diameters of the power lines 7. Details of the design and external appearance of the anemometer mast and proposed turbines, including colour and finish to turbine tower and blades. No adverts on the turbine towers or blades. 8 Prior to any site activities, a detailed site plan of the construction compound to be agreed and implemented. The compound to be removed and land reinstated within a prescribed period after the wind farm becomes operations. 9. Details of control building to be submitted including, siting, design and use of materials and any associated enclosures. 10. Precise details of access arrangements, on-site tracks and passing places to be agreed and provided in full. Following operation of the wind farm a scheme for the narrowing and partial re-instatement of the access and tracks to be agreed and implemented. 11. No development shall commence until a Construction and Environment Management Plan has been submitted and agreed (this would include for example, a programme of phasing of construction works, noise and dust control, details of temporary site compounds, wheel washing facilities, drainage, temporary lighting, cable trenches, post-construction restoration of the site) 12. Details of measures to be undertake to protect public rights of way during construction to be agreed and implemented. 13. Construction hours – standard restrictions with ability to work later with prior written agreement of the local planning authority. 14. Details of a Construction Traffic Management Method Statement and its implementation 15. Pre-condition highway survey to be undertaken before delivery of abnormal loads. Following delivery, a post highway condition to be undertaken. Any defects arising from the number/type of abnormal loads would require the developer to reinstate the highway within a prescribed period with the local planning authority. 16. Shadowflicker – scheme for the avoidance of shadowflicker to be agreed and implemented 17. All cabling on the site shall be installed underground, unless otherwise agreed in writing and the precise point of connection to be agreed 18. No piling operations are anticipated but should any driven pile systems be used prior notification in writing to the LPA will be required 19. Pre-construction habitat surveys – any changes to the use of site by mammals to be submitted and where necessary appropriate mitigation to be agreed and implemented. 20. Habitat Management Plan to be submitted, agreed and implemented. 21. Tree protection, none to be removed other than those agreed and protective fencing 22. Archaeology - programme of work to be agreed 23. Aviation lighting – scheme to be agreed 24. Noise condition restricting the turbine to the limits set by ETSU-R-97 – as set out in the tables provided within the Environmental Statement. 25. In the event of any complaint of noise being received, within 28 days of the local planning authority receiving a reasonable complaint, the wind farm operator will appoint a consultant (approved by the local planning authority) to assess noise levels and provide the results of that assessment to the local planning authority. Where the noise limits reported exceed the limits, mitigation will be required to reduce the noise levels to the limits set out in the above condition. 26. The wind turbine shall not be brought into use until a scheme to secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to terrestrial and digital TV caused by the operation of the turbine. 27. Before commencement of development, the wind farm operator should notify the local planning authority of a nominated representative to act as point of contact for local residents with the local planning authority in relation to complaints.

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of T he Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.